Arresting Arnab: On Maharashtra Police actionPolice should have avoided an arrest that could be seen as politically motivated
Claims by almost all Union Ministers that Mr. Goswami’s arrest bespeaks an attempt to throttle the media, however, have no substance, as it is obviously a case unrelated to his work as a television anchor. At the same time, the manner in which a matter can be reopened and the accused arrested might have a chilling effect on other journalists with better credentials than Mr. Goswami. There is no love lost between him and the police in Maharashtra, possibly due to the impression that he himself has given about where his loyalties lie. It is conceivable that his arrest may be an unsavoury extension of the continuing acrimony between the Shiv Sena and the BJP. He already has pending FIRs against him for allegedly making inflammatory remarks on air. He is an outspoken critic of the Maharashtra government. Besides running down the police in connection with the Sushant Singh Rajput death probe, he has been taunting the Mumbai Police Commissioner ever since his channels came under investigation for allegedly fixing TRPs. In this backdrop, the onus was on the State and the police to avoid the impression of resorting to vendetta. Mr. Goswami, as part of his nightly fulminations against assorted enemies of the state, is known to demand the arrest of anyone he denounces — including many who may be innocent — and has been accused of hate-mongering in the name of journalism. However, he should not be held to his own low standards. If pre-trial arrests are not necessary, they should be avoided, especially if they could be seen as politically motivated.
Formally--औपचारिक रूप से
- high-handed (adjective) – arrogant, domineering, overbearing, heavy-handed; undemocratic, oppressive, authoritarian.
- vendetta (noun) – prolonged feud/bitterness; revenge, vengeance.प्रतिशोध
- competent (adjective) – suitable, fit, appropriate. (a court is competent if it has been given jurisdiction, by statute or constitution, to hear particular types of lawsuits).सक्षम,पर्याप्त
- influence (noun) – control, sway, hold/power.
- unlawfully (adverb) – illegitimately.अवैध
- abet (verb) – to encourage/help someone to do something wrong/illegal.बढ़ावा,उकसाना,incited
- cause (noun) – reason, motive, purpose.
- afresh (adverb) – anew, over again, once more.नए सिरे से,दुबारा
- given (preposition) – considering, taking into account, bearing in mind.
- incriminating (adjective) – blaming, accusing, implicating, involving someone in a crime.दोष लगाना,बरामद
- substance (noun) – significant subject, important matter/content, valid message.
- allegation (noun) – charge, accusation, indictment.
- evade (verb) – avoid, dodge, elude.बचना
- trial (noun) – court case, lawsuit, hearing, inquiry.
- thoroughly (adverb) – in detail, completely, minutely, meticulously.बिलकुल
- charge sheet (noun) – an official document on which a police officer enters details of the charge against a person.
- conduct (noun) – behaviour.
- drive (verb) – force, compel, prompt.
- testimony (noun) – evidence, proof, attestation/witness.गवाही
- seek (verb) – ask for, request, petition for, appeal for.
- conviction (noun) – pronouncement of guilt, sentence, judgement.दोषसिद्धि
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) (noun) – The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The draft was passed into law on 6 October 1860. The Code came into operation on 1 January 1862. The Indian Penal Code of 1860, sub-divided into 23 chapters, comprises 511 sections. IPC deals with crimes and punishments.
- sound (adjective) – valid, reasonable, reliable, solid, convincing.
- incite (verb) – prompt, induce, impel, influence.
- take one’s own life (phrase) – kill oneself.
- bespeak (verb) – indicate, signify, denote/point to.
- throttle (verb) – suppress, inhibit, stifle, control/restrict.कुचलना, गला घोंटना,
- anchor (noun) – reporter, presenter, newsreader.
- chilling (adjective) – frightening, terrifying, disturbing/horrifying.
- credentials (noun) – identities, qualities; experience, history, past.साख
- there’s no love lost between (phrase) – there is reciprocal hostility between two (people).
- lie (verb) – be present, exist.
- conceivable (adjective) – imaginable, understandable, possible, believable.बोधगम्य
- unsavoury (adjective) – disreputable, unpleasant, disagreeable.
- acrimony (noun) – bitterness, hostility, resentment.कटुता
- first information report (FIR) (noun) – a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence.
- allegedly (adverb) – apparently, ostensibly, purportedly, reportedly.
- inflammatory (adjective) – provocative, provoking, agitating, fomenting.भड़काऊ
- on (the) air (phrase) – broadcast something on radio or television.
- outspoken (adjective) – forthright, straightforward, direct/candid; vociferous.
- critic (noun) – censurer, attacker, fault-finder.
- besides (preposition/linking adverb) – in addition to, as well, also.
- run down (phrasal verb) – criticize someone or something unfairly.
- taunt (verb) – insult, make fun of, ridicule; provoke, goad.
- come under (phrasal verb) – be subjected to.
- Television Rating Point (TRP) (noun) – the tool to judge which programmes are watched the most and to index the viewers’ choices. It helps to calculate which channel and the programme are viewed most or it indicates the popularity of a TV channel or a programme.
- backdrop (noun) – situation, scenario, context.
- onus (noun) – responsibility, duty; burden, liability, obligation.कर्तव्य
- resort to (verb) – use, utilize, turn to, have recourse to.
- nightly (adverb) – happening every night.
- fulmination (noun) – protest, objection, complaint.
- assorted (adjective) – various, different.
- denounce (verb) – condemn, criticize, attack, censure.इलज़ाम लगा देना,की निंदा की
- hate-mongering (noun) – an act of spreading public hate intentionally on a particular topic/problem.नफरत
- hold (verb) – detain, confine, hold in custody.
Vienna’s woes: On Islamist terror attackWhile stopping terror, authorities should build on values of pluralism and secularism
The attack in Vienna that killed four people on Monday night underscores the transnational threat European countries face from Islamist terrorists. The assault follows the beheading of a schoolteacher in a Paris suburb and a knife attack in Nice that took three lives. In Vienna, the suspected gunman, Kujtim Fejzulai, 20, a dual citizen of Austria and North Macedonia and of Albanian origin, opened fire near a synagogue before being shot dead by the police. He had a previous terrorism conviction. In April last year, he was sentenced to 22 months after he tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State. He was released in December because of his age. The immediate question the Austrian authorities face would be about the failure in preventing the attack. How did a terrorism convict slip off the security radar and launch an attack in the capital city at a time when Europe was on high alert following the terror assaults in France? Austria will also have to plug the security loopholes as several countries in the continent, including France and the U.K., have raised the threat levels. The larger challenge is how to address the issue of radicalisation among youth and counter attempts to disrupt the social cohesion of the continent.
Austria’s conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, known for his fiery anti-immigrant politics, sent the right message when he called for unity in the fight against terrorism. He said the fight is not between Christians and Muslims or Austrians and immigrants, but between “civilisation and barbarity”. Mr. Kurz, who had teamed up with the Islamophobic far-right Freedom Party in 2017 to form the government for the first time, is now in power with the Green Party and has more political leeway to build a stronger national response to terrorism. Jihadists use violence to create social discord. While they unleash violence on the public in the name of Islam, the rising Islamophobic, nationalist parties in Europe seize on such incidents to bolster their fortunes. France’s Marine Le Pen, with an eye on the 2022 presidential election, has called for a ban on immigrants from some Muslim countries and declared “a war” to “evict Islamism by force from our country”. In Austria, the Freedom Party would take cues from her National Rally party. This is a two-front attack on the democratic and secular values Europe stands for — and that is what the terrorists want. Leaders of France, Austria and other terror-hit countries should not allow the jihadists to have their way. They should clamp down on terror networks, isolate and punish the jihadists, counter the ideology of political Islamists and build on the values of pluralism, secularism, democracy and equality, and step up deradicalisation efforts with help from communities. This is a fight they cannot afford to lose.
The attack in Vienna that killed four people on Monday night underscores the transnational threat European countries face from Islamist terrorists. The assault follows the beheading of a schoolteacher in a Paris suburb and a knife attack in Nice that took three lives. In Vienna, the suspected gunman, Kujtim Fejzulai, 20, a dual citizen of Austria and North Macedonia and of Albanian origin, opened fire near a synagogue before being shot dead by the police. He had a previous terrorism conviction. In April last year, he was sentenced to 22 months after he tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State. He was released in December because of his age. The immediate question the Austrian authorities face would be about the failure in preventing the attack. How did a terrorism convict slip off the security radar and launch an attack in the capital city at a time when Europe was on high alert following the terror assaults in France? Austria will also have to plug the security loopholes as several countries in the continent, including France and the U.K., have raised the threat levels. The larger challenge is how to address the issue of radicalisation among youth and counter attempts to disrupt the social cohesion of the continent.
Austria’s conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, known for his fiery anti-immigrant politics, sent the right message when he called for unity in the fight against terrorism. He said the fight is not between Christians and Muslims or Austrians and immigrants, but between “civilisation and barbarity”. Mr. Kurz, who had teamed up with the Islamophobic far-right Freedom Party in 2017 to form the government for the first time, is now in power with the Green Party and has more political leeway to build a stronger national response to terrorism. Jihadists use violence to create social discord. While they unleash violence on the public in the name of Islam, the rising Islamophobic, nationalist parties in Europe seize on such incidents to bolster their fortunes. France’s Marine Le Pen, with an eye on the 2022 presidential election, has called for a ban on immigrants from some Muslim countries and declared “a war” to “evict Islamism by force from our country”. In Austria, the Freedom Party would take cues from her National Rally party. This is a two-front attack on the democratic and secular values Europe stands for — and that is what the terrorists want. Leaders of France, Austria and other terror-hit countries should not allow the jihadists to have their way. They should clamp down on terror networks, isolate and punish the jihadists, counter the ideology of political Islamists and build on the values of pluralism, secularism, democracy and equality, and step up deradicalisation efforts with help from communities. This is a fight they cannot afford to lose.
إرسال تعليق