Indian police and terror investigation (examples from
Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai ...) made simple. Also,
additionally, something from J&K, as toppings.
Sukla
P.S.: More the police is given a "freehand" - to
operate without any meaningful accountability, more
they will tend to act as "outlaws" themselves. Just
not human rights, particularly of Muslims, would be a
casualty; the investigation itself would be highly
sloppy and ineffective, apart from converting more and
more victims of unjust brutalities into potential
terrorists too keen to be recruited.
And more serious is the failure, more sensational
"arrests" and "encounters" will be staged as a measure
of self-preservation.
The consequences cannot be anything but too grim.
How To `Carve Out A Terrorist' from an Innocent Person
And Say It Works?
Posted by Subhash Gatade on 05 Feb 2008 at 01:40 am |
Tagged as: Government
(Judge: The papers on my table show he is not Mukhtar.
So what is his real name?
Officer: He is actually Aftab Alam Ansari.
Judge: That means you have arrested a wrong person.
How can this horrible blunder take place?
The officer stayed silent.
Judge: If he is neither Mukhtar nor Raju, why did not
you write that in the petition clearly? Have you
written that? Please underline that and show it to me.
As the officer began scanning the petition, he looked
puzzled.
Judge: I'm not going to accept this petition. Please
go and make a fresh one.)
Aftab Alam Ansari, an electrician with a power company
in Kolkatta, is finally free. And the ordeal through
which he had to go through as a `terrorist' is finally
over.Recenly he met with the Chief Minister of Bengal
to apprise him of the whole situation and seek help
for his mother's frailing health.
It is now history how he was arrested from Baranagar
in Kolkatta on 27 th November with Bengal police's
help supposedly for `ferrying the entire cache of
explosives for the November blasts in UP'.
It is now revealed that the Special Task Force of the
UP Police had been set on Aftab's trail by a claim by
two arrested militants - Mohamad Khalid and Tariq
Quazmi - that the mastermind of the court blasts in
the state called himself Aftab as well as Mukhtar,
Raju and Bangladeshi. The duo however, had mentioned
no middle name or surname.
Though Aftab is now free, Ayesha Begum - Aftab's
mother has other worries staring in her eyes. Whether
they would be able to live a normal life and would
ever be able to get out of the 'stigma' attached to
the whole operation and Aftab's brief sojourn in Jail.
It is now clear that Aftab's arrest by the
overenthusistic UP STF was a case of mistaken identity
as he also hailed from Gorakhpur like the ringleader
of the November blast and also shared his nickname
`Mukhtar'.
But now that Aftab, a innocent citizen of this country
is free at last, will it be OK to say that the tragedy
which befell Aftab would be the last one of its kind.
And henceforth no Aftab living on this part of the
earth would ever be traumatised in a similar manner.
Looking at the track record of the Indian police and
the bigotry and sectarianism of the powers that be it
would be dishonesty to make any such grand claim.
In fact the day the news of Aftab's freedom in jail
appeared, one came across the strictures passed by the
Maharashtra high court against the Maharashtra
police's arbitrariness in handling the Khwaja Yunus
case. It is now history how Khwaja Yunus, a Gulf
returned software engineer, was arrested by the police
on December 27, 2002 and booked under the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, in connection with the Ghatkopar
blast. On January 7, 2003 Yunus was found dead amidst
police claims that he had escaped after the vehicle in
which he was being escorted to Aurangabad had met with
an accident. Later it was revealed that Yunus was
tortured to death by some police officers. After
persistent protests by human rights activists about
this custodial death and struggle for justice launched
by Yunus's mother Aasiya Begum, FIR was lodged against
the guilty policemen. Of course the dillydallying on
part of the Maharashtra government continued
unabated.The highcourt 's query was simple `Why were
ten top police officers initially named by CID for
their alleged involvment in the custodial death of
Yunus let off ?'
While Aftab is finally a free man, Mohammad Moarif
Qamar and Irshad Ali, two residents of Delhi seem to
be not so lucky even after languishing in jail for
more than two years. Both of them were victims of
well-planned conspiracy hatched by the Special Cell of
the Delhi Police in collaboration with the
intelligence bureau operatives. CBI found to its
dismay that IB officials colluded with Delhi police
personnel to `plant' RDX on these youths who were
arrested as `Al Badr' terrorists. While Qamar was
abducted from his Bhajanpura residence on Dec 22, 2005
itself ; Irshad Ali had gone missing from his
Sultanpuri home 10 days earlier. Their relatives had
informed the police about their sudden disappearance.
On February 9, 2006 the family members were told that
both had been arrested with 2 Kg RDX and pistols. It
was clear that they were kept in illegal detention by
the special cell all this while. One can just imagine
if the high courts had not intervened in the case and
directed the CBI to look into the matter, the
`terrorist' label on both these youths would have
stuck to them all their lives.
May it be the case of Aftab or for that matter Khwaja
Yunus, or Mohammad Qamar, Irshad Ali - it is becoming
increasingly clear that framing of innocents and
branding them as terrorist is the latest norm among
lawkeepers of the country.Of course anyone familiar
with the Indian situation may easily notice the
continuity in the rampant misuse of various laws of
detention and confinement. Post 9/11 a significant
change has occured in the whole process. It is for
everyone to see that muslims as a community are
increasingly becoming the target of criminalisation
and terrorisation.
To be very frank, in all such cases it is difficult to
differentiate whether the people are ruled by forces
of the `programmatic communalist variety ( like the
BJP or Shiv Sena) or the `pragmatic communalists' like
Congress.
It then becomes impossible to forget Mohammad Afroz ,
who was arrested after 9/11by the Mumbai police and
was charged for planning a terrorist attack . It was
told to the pliant media then that this `dreaded
terrorist' wanted to crash a plane piloted by him on
the British house of Commons and Australia. A special
team from Mumbai police especially went to these
countries but could not bring back any evidence.
Ultimately it took the whole charge as a grand
fabrication. It was a time when Maharashtra was ruled
by a Secular front which comprised of parties like
Congress and NCP.
The `dreaded terrorists' arrested in connection with
the five year old attack on the Raghunath temple in
Jammu also faced similar ordeal.The courts finally
absolved all the accused of any charges and advised
the police to properly use its minds in handling
sensitive cases of such nature.These innocent people
had to languish in jail for such a long period for no
fault of theirs.
It is worth noting that despite many such fiascos the
powers that be never attempt to draw any important
lesson to avoid recurrence of such incidents. On the
contrary, the whole attempt is to `individualise' all
such cases and proceed with the established practice
of stigmatisation and brutalisation of the social and
religious minorities.
It is high time that they are told about the way the
Canadian government handled similar case.
Canadian-Syrian Mahel Arar - a young software engineer
- was seized by CIA operatives during a stopover at
New York in 2002 and was secretly sent to Syria.Lodged
in a grave like cell in Syria, Arar was repeatedly
tortured to extract information which he did not know.
Ultimately his tormentors released him within a span
of year and half without ever being charged with a
crime. Looking back it is clear that Mahel Arar became
a victim of the Islamophobia manufactured by the likes
of Bush-Blair in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Last year Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
sought public apology for the ordeal which Maher went
through and for the role played by Canadian officials
in the whole affair . The Canadian government also
gave him nine million dollars as compensation. Mr
Harper said in full public view of the media "On
behalf of the government of Canada, I wish to
apologize to you, Monia Mazigh (Arar's wife) and your
family for any role Canadian officials may have played
in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in
2002 and 2003."
Is anyone listening ?
………………………………………………..
As we go to the blog :
Kerala gives clean chit to Kashmiri youth
NEW DELHI: Kerala home minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan
here on Friday gave a clean chit to a Kashmiri youth
Altaf Ahmed, who was arrested from a Kashmiri artifact
shop in Idukki district on January 5 on charges of
being member of the militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen
(HM).While media has been agog with stories of the
militant outfit invading southern most state of
Kerala, Balakrishnan also a senior CPI (M) leader,
here said that his government had never charged Altaf
for being a member of Hizbul Mujahideen. ….
Altaf's relatives said he was working in Kerala for
past eight years. His father Abdul Rahman Khan said
authorities even did not allow them to visit him in
jail. Over 300 Kashmiri businessmen mostly handicraft
dealers have set up their shops near the picturesque
Kovalam beech near the state capital
Thiruvananthapuram
(Kashmir Times 2 nd Feb 2008)
II.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/india0906/5.htm
E. Chattisinghpora massacre and ensuing killings
On March 20, 2000, on the eve of a visit by then U.S.
President Bill Clinton to India, armed men in Indian
army uniforms entered the village of Chattisinghpora
in Anantnag district at night. The villagers, most of
them Sikhs, were told that it was a routine
investigation and identity check. Male residents were
asked to come out of their homes with their
identification cards. Once they were lined up outside,
however, the gunmen opened fire, killing thirty-six
and injuring several others. It was the first time in
more than a decade of violence in Jammu and Kashmir
that the Sikh community had come under attack.
The killings shocked many Kashmiris. India immediately
blamed Pakistan and the Islamist groups based there.
Others claimed that the killings were in fact carried
out by Indian troops.202 Generally, Kashmiris were
willing to wait for a credible inquiry.203
In August 2000, the government said that it had
evidence that the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba was
behind the killings.204 In response to a notice from
the National Human Rights Commission, the director
general of police of Jammu and Kashmir, Gurbachan
Jagat, said a case had been registered and
investigations were in progress. The commission said
that according to information received from the
government of India:
Of the twenty accused persons identified in connection
with the killing of 35 Sikhs, 6 were killed in
subsequent encounters; 2 were further detained under
the Public Safety Act and 12 were absconding. A charge
sheet has been filed in the case on 13 November 2000.
The report stated three Pakistani nationals belonging
to Lashkar-e-Toiba had confessed their involvement in
the killings.205
This was a partial representation of the facts. After
the murders of the Sikhs, the government ordered an
inquiry and combing operation to locate those
responsible. On March 25, 2000, the security forces
claimed that five militants responsible for the
massacre had been killed in an armed encounter at
Pathirabal. The encounter was later found to have been
fabricated; the dead men were ordinary villagers. On
April 3, 2000, security forces opened fire on a
demonstration in Brakpora to protest the killing of
the five villagers, this time killing eight civilians.
Pathirabal killings
On March 25, 2000, five days after the Chattisinghpora
massacre, Farooq Khan, senior superintendent of police
in Anantnag, claimed that security forces had killed
the militants responsible for the killings in an
operation in Pathirabal, Panchalthan. Describing the
joint operations by the police led by Khan and the
army's 7th Rashtriya Rifles led by Col. Ajay Saxena,
Khan told journalists that assault rifles, grenades,
and two wireless sets had been recovered from the
militants who all belonged to the Abu Maaz unit of a
foreign militant group.206 They had been hiding inside
a hut that later caught fire. Director General of
Police Jagat said a member of the Hizb-ul-Mujahedin
had provided information about the militant hideout.
All of the militants were "probably foreigners," he
said, adding: "It is certain that they were the
killers."207 The daily update for March 25, 2000, on
an army website claims: "5 foreign terrorists
(Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba group)
killed. These terrorists were involved in the massacre
of 36 innocent Sikhs on the night of 20 March."208
The army handed over the bodies to the police and
filed a police report.209 The bodies were badly
mutilated, with three completely charred and another
that had been decapitated. All of them were buried by
the police. 210
Meanwhile, a number of villagers had been abducted on
March 24, 2000, from three different places in the
area, and missing person complaints had been lodged at
the local police station. After hearing about the
killing of so-called militants, villagers went to the
site of the killings, where they found some items of
clothing belonging to two of the five missing men.211
Local residents of the area insisted that those killed
were not militants but the abducted men who had then
been murdered in a fake encounter, and the bodies
burned to prevent identification.212 An army
spokesman, however, said: "Genuine terrorists have
been killed. Do not give much credence to these
reports about a fake encounter. People are twisting
facts."213
Refusing to believe the official version, the
villagers held several protests. On April 1, 2000, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered Deputy
Superintendent of Police Sheikh Abdul Rahman to
investigate the matter to ascertain whether the dead
men were civilians or armed gunmen. An inquiry was
also launched into the disappearance of the five
villagers. At the same time, the district magistrate
ordered that the bodies be exhumed for identification.
The bodies were finally exhumed on April 6-7, 2000.
Although badly burnt, relatives identified the bodies.
However, the identification was not conclusive. 214 It
was decided that DNA tests would be conducted to
settle the issue. Meanwhile, all five bodies were
handed over to the relatives for reburial pending a
final identification from the forensics
laboratories.215
Forensic samples were collected by Dr. Balbir Kaur and
a team of forensic experts from a government medical
college under the supervision of police officer Rahman
and sent to the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and
Diagnostics in Hyderabad and to the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory in Kolkatta. On February 26, 2001,
the Hyderabad laboratory wrote to the police, saying
that some of the samples were spurious because in one
case samples supposed to be from a female relative
were actually from a male, and in another case samples
from an alleged female were in fact composed of the
blood of two different men.216 Fresh samples were
gathered and sent by Dr. Kaur.217
Meanwhile, information about the spurious samples was
leaked to the press.218 On March 14, 2002, the
National Human Rights Commission issued a notice to
the government of Jammu and Kashmir about reports of
tampering with the DNA testing, and called for an "up
to date report of the action taken in this matter,"
stating that:
In view of these media reports, which have not come as
a surprise to the Commission because of the
reservations it has had on the performance of the
concerned public servants reported earlier to the
Commission not being found very satisfactory, the
Commission requires the Government of J & K to submit
a comprehensive up to date report of the action taken
in this matter together with that in contemplation to
correctly identify the five deceased as well as the
follow up action."219
Farooq Abdullah, then chief minister of Jammu and
Kashmir, had already made a statement on March 8,
2002, in the state assembly, admitting that officials
had tampered with the DNA samples. On March 15, he
also ordered an inquiry headed by retired High Court
Judge G. A. Kuchai, and promised that all those found
responsible for tampering with evidence would be
prosecuted and punished.220 Dr. Kaur and five others
were suspended, pending the Kuchai Commission
report.221
On July 16, 2002, Chief Minister Abdullah released a
final report from the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory in Kolkatta stating: "It has been clearly
established that the deceased were not foreign
terrorists as claimed by the forces who led the
operations, but they were innocent civilians." 222
The chief minister recommended an investigation by the
Central Bureau of Investigation into the entire
Pathirabal operation, "in view of the gravity of the
offence as well as the attempt made by certain
officials to destroy evidence."223
The commission under G.A. Kuchai submitted its report
on December 12, 2002, but it was not made public.224
According to press reports, the inquiry found that
Senior Superintendent of Police Farooq Khan may have
organized the manipulation of DNA samples, noting that
he "might have managed behind the scene that blood
samples collected turn fake by indirect methods."225
The Kuchai Commisison also questioned the conduct of
Deputy Superintendent of Police Abdul Rahman, who had
been responsible for organizing the collection of DNA
samples from relatives of the killed men. The donors
were not properly identified by the paramedical staff
escorted by Rahman. The conduct of the police, the
paramedical staff and the doctors, the commission
found, "gave enough opportunity to fudge the
material."226
In March 2003, a newly elected state government led by
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed set up a three-member
ministerial committee to consider the findings of the
Kuchai Commission. The committee found that "only
those persons related to the killings [of the five
civilians] would be interested in the destruction or
falsification of evidence." 227 Based on the committee
recommendations, disciplinary action was ordered
against Deputy Superintendent Rahman for subverting
proper evidence gathering. Strong displeasure was
conveyed to Dr. Balbir Kaur, who had headed the team
of forensic experts for the government medical college
that collected the samples, blaming them for "lack of
proficiency and diligence."228
Senior Superintendent of Police Farooq Khan, a federal
government employee and therefore beyond the
jurisdiction of the state government, was suspended
for his actions in Pathirabal. Assistant Sub
Inspector Bashir Ahmad, who belonged to the Jammu and
Kashmir state police, was dismissed from service.229
Khan, who had earlier received the President's Police
Medal for Gallantry, denied any involvement in the
case.230 He contested his suspension and was
reinstated.231
However, many Kashmiris believe that Farooq Khan knows
what happened, even if he did not take part in the
faked armed encounter, and has therefore obstructed
justice. They base their opinion on an earlier report
of a commission headed by Justice S. R. Pandian set up
to inquire into the Barakpora incident described below
232 which said that the security forces had
deliberately obliterated evidence of the Pathirabal
operation
by completely charring three of the five bodies… and
leaving one of the remaining with missing of the
entire upper portion of the body over and above the
chest including the head—all with a malafide intention
of getting rid of even the last traces of physical
identity and finally burying all the dead bodies in
various places within a radius of 2 to 2 ½ km and far
away from the scene of the alleged encounter.233
During inquiries by Justice Pandian, Senior
Superintendent Farooq Khan said that the police could
not be held responsible for the events at
Pathirabal.234 The operation in which the five
villagers were killed, he said, was conducted by the
army.235 On questioning, he clarified that although
the operation at Pathirabal had been conducted jointly
by the police and the army, police representatives had
"accompanied the Army, but [had] not necessarily
[taken part] in the actual shoot out."236 He said
that although representatives of the police had been
with the commandant of the unit, "Army operations are
always led by their officers." 237
Khan, who had made the statement to the media claiming
that five militants responsible for the
Chattisinghpora massacre had been killed, told the
inquiry commission that his statement was based on the
briefing he had received from the army.238 It is true
that when there are joint operations by the police and
the army, it is usually the army that is in command.
Assistant Sub Inspector Bashir Ahmad had told the
commission that he had received a telephone call from
a shopkeeper informing him of the presence of foreign
militants in the neighborhood. Ahmad claimed that he
was part of an operation led by the 7th Rashtriya
Rifles and had fired twenty to twenty-five rounds of
ammunition. Eventually, the firing stopped and he
found charred bodies on the ground.239 The state
government decided to prosecute Ahmad for his role in
the Pathirabal killings, in addition to terminating
his services.240
In September 2005, the Central Bureau of
Investigation, which had been asked to take over the
investigation in February 2003, exonerated Senior
Superintendent of Police Farooq Khan.241
While there have been investigations, albeit
unsatisfactory, into the role of police in the events
surrounding the Pathirabal killings, what had largely
been ignored was that the army's Rashtriya Rifles had
also been involved in the operation and, according to
Superintendent Khan, had actually led it. As described
above, an army spokesman had insisted that "genuine
terrorists have been killed." The daily update for
that day on the official website managed by the 15th
Corps headquarters in Srinagar still claims that "5 AK
rifles, 12 magazines with 44 grenade launcher
attachments, 4 timer devices and 2 radio sets
recovered."242 Yet this information has been found to
be false by government inquiry commissions.
A major development in the case occurred on May 11,
2006, when the Central Bureau of Investigation
completed its investigations and filed murder charges
against five army officers, Brig. Ajay Saxena, Lt.
Col. Brajendra Pratap Singh, Maj. Saurabh Sinha, Maj.
Amit Saxena and Subedar Idrees Khan, before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate in Srinagar. Interestingly, the
CBI took the position that filing these charges was
not a violation of Section 197(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (see Section III above), since these
cases involved murder and could not be attributed to
actions taken in the course of performing official
duty. The CBI concluded that:
The army unit 7 Rashtriya Rifles (RR) which was then
stationed in Anantnag came under tremendous
psychological pressure and in order to show quick
results these five Army personnel and their under
command, whose identity could not be established,
entered into a criminal conspiracy to pick up some
innocent persons and stage manage an encounter to
create and impression that the militants responsible
for [the Chattisinghpora] killings had been
neutralized. 243
The CBI also said that the "accused showed fake
recovery of arms and ammunition from the five deceased
after obtaining signatures of two local civilians on
blank papers and subsequently filling in details on a
typewriter."244
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after reading the
charges, said on May 11, 2006 that the "accused
persons were subject to military law," and directed
the army to decide whether it wished to exercise the
option of a court martial.245 This is an inexplicable
decision that undermines the principle of equality
before the law and further entrenches the military as
being above the law.
In Jammu and Kashmir, there are fears that the army
will take charge of this case and process it through a
court martial. Given the army's poor record in holding
its soldiers accountable, and considering that the
army had taken no internal disciplinary action until
the charges were filed, it is unlikely that a military
court can be trusted to deliver justice. Indeed, a
CBI officer told the Indian Express that the army had
not cooperated with the investigations, and that
"[w]henever the CBI asked for files or documents,
there was no response. It was exasperating."246
According to the Indian Express , Brig. Amit Saxena,
one of the accused, has written a letter of protest to
the director general of military operations saying
that he and the other officers were being singled out
for "harassment, ignominy, humiliation, agony and
financial strain." 247 The army, in its response to
the charges, filed a petition since the operation took
place in an area notified as "disturbed," the officers
were eligible for protections provided by the Armed
Forces Special Powers (Jammu and Kashmir) Act. The
army sought to quash the charges on the grounds that
the CBI did not have prior permission from the federal
government to file them. In its petition, the army
claimed: "The incident in question occurred during the
military operation conducted officially, with the full
concurrence and knowledge of superior authorities. The
said acts of encounter cannot be viewed as individual
acts of the alleged accused persons because there was
no motive or ill-will on their part and the entire
military operation was launched in good faith to
apprehend the terrorists involved in the
Chittisinghpora massacre."248
In its response, the CBI responded that since this was
not a genuine encounter, "The acts of the accused do
not come under the purview of discharge of official
duties as provided by the act."249
There was no decision from the court at the time of
writing. Despite the seriousness of the charges
against the five men, they have not been taken into
custody.
The CBI's investigation and charges could be an
important precedent, or simply a case in which
political considerations carried more sway than legal
ones. If the five accused were in fact responsible for
the killings, are successfully prosecuted, and no
other responsible senior officer or official is
protected from prosecution, this case could prove to
be a watershed in Jammu and Kashmir. But the decision
of the magistrate to allow the army to handle the case
through a court martial and the refusal of the army to
cooperate with the CBI investigation indicate that
this might be yet another missed opportunity to show
Kashmiris that justice is possible for human rights
violations and the law will be applied equally to all.
Most independent investigations by human rights groups
have concluded that the Sikh villagers at
Chattisinghpora were killed by militants. 250
------------------------------------
*****************************************
Sign the Petition : Release the Arrested University Teachers Immediately : An Appeal to the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/university_teachers_arrest.htm
*****************************************
Daily Star publishes an interview with Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/news/daily_star/daily_star_MM.pdf
*****************************************
MM site is blocked in Islamic countries such as UAE. Members of those theocratic states, kindly use any proxy (such as http://proxy.org/) to access mukto-mona.
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates 5th Anniversary
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/5_yrs_anniv/index.htm
*****************************************
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Earth Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Earth_day2006/index.htm
*****************************************
Kansat Uprising : A Special Page from Mukto-Mona
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/kansat2006/members/
*****************************************
MM Project : Grand assembly of local freedom fighters at Raumari
http://www.mukto-mona.com/project/Roumari/freedom_fighters_union300306.htm
*****************************************
German Bangla Radio Interviews Mukto-Mona Members:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/german_radio/
Mukto-Mona Celebrates Darwin Day:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/index.htm
*****************************************
Some FAQ's about Mukto-Mona:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/faq_mm.htm
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:mukto-mona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:mukto-mona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: