Nitish Kumar’s Pakistan Tour Clouded By A Misguided Decision

Not so long ago, the High Court had made adverse comments that it would have been better if Naushad Ahmed, Chairman of the Bihar Minorities Commission, not been included in the delegation to Pakistan. Along with other charges, Naushad Ahmed has against him allegations of selling a plot of the District Council in the name of a Cooperative Society. But Nitish Kumar didn’t have the guts to exclude Naushad Ahmed, against whom the High Court has passed strictures, from the delegation to Pakistan. This attitude of the Government has annoyed the Opposition and if Naushad Ahmed does not resign, then the Opposition might create pandemonium.
Nitish Kumar, who became emotional after the warm welcome at Karachi Airport, said “I have come here with a programme of love.” Nitish Kumar visited many places in Pakistan and made an impact. It is obvious that due to this tour the status and reputation of Nitish Kumar has increased, but it has also raised some questions against him. Why did he include a tainted person in the delegation which visited Pakistan ? Perhaps he was trying to make the relationship with Pakistan stronger. It is being heatedly discussed in Bihar that even after the adverse comments of the High Court on the inclusion of Naushad Ahmed in the delegation to Pakistan, Nitish Kumar persisted in taking him along. Even though his name had already been included in the delegation, after the Court has made adverse comments and also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 against him, it would have been better to drop Naushad from the team, but Nitish Kumar didn’t do so. Naushad Ahmed had against him allegations of selling a plot of the District Council in the name of a Cooperative Society. At the time of this sale, he was the President of the Cooperative Society. This land was sold to Afsar Imam at Rs. 55,000 in 1990. When Afsar Imam came to know that the land sold to him belongs to the District Council, he asked Naushad to return the money.
When Naushad didn’t return the money, then Imam complained about this forgery to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jehanabad. The Court ordered the police to investigate this matter. The police lodged a FIR and urged closure of the matter after investigation. The Court found in the police report that on the basis of the evidence which was attached, the case cannot be closed against Naushad. The Court called all the suspects to determine the basis for the allegations. Naushad Ahmed knocked at the door of the High Court against this order, which was rejected by the High Court on 2 November, 2010. Naushad Ahmed again appealed in the High Court by claiming that he had never appealed in the High Court against the verdict given by the Trial Court on 16 March, 2007. In the context of the appeal by Naushad Ahmed, the High Court issued a notice against Afsar Imam and barred the case in the Trial Court. At the time of hearing, advocates Ramakant Sharma and Muhammad Nadeem said in favour of Naushad that he has been implicated in false cases, so he should be acquitted. But Dinu Kumar, counsel of Afsar Imam drew the attention of the Court to its order on 2 November 2010 and appealed to the Court that by presenting a false affidavit in the Court, Naushad Ahmed is trying to misguide the High Court. So criminal proceedings should be started against him. Dinu Kumar said in the court that by issuing a false affidavit, Naushad Ahmed has also prevented the case from progressing in the Trial Court. That is why this case is still pending.
After seeing the earlier order in this case, Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kumar said that when the appeal of Naushad Ahmed was already rejected by the High Court, how did he get a stay order by showing a false affidavit? On 5 November 2012, the High Court rejected the plea of Naushad Ahmed and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 for re-appealing an insignificant case in the High Court. The High Court clearly stated in its order that this was a strange effort made by Naushad Ahmed for cheating the Court : the petitioner has re-appealed the case with an intention to misguide the Court. The High Court ordered the Trial Court to form charges against Naushad Ahmed and execute the case within 8 months by keeping two trial dates in a week. Significantly, this decision came on 5 November 2012, and on 8 November 2012 when Chief Minister Nitish Kumar was going to Pakistan, Naushad Ahmed was present in the delegation. Former Member of the Legislative Council (MLC), P.K Sinha says that Nitish Kumar’s Government no longer deems it necessary to obey the orders of the High Court. The image of Bihar has deteriorated due to the visit of Naushad Ahmed, despite the verdict given by the Court, to Pakistan. Sinha also said that the Court had imposed a fine and also ordered the Trial Court to continue hearings of this case. When such people were included in the delegation, then who is running the Government can be easily assumed. Sinha also alleged that the Government is dominated by such tainted strongmen. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Legislator, Samrat Chaudhary was very hurt at a tainted person being included in the delegation to Pakistan. He said that the person who should have resigned after the verdict of the court was honourably taken to Pakistan. He said – ironically — that this can only be possible under the ‘good governance’ of this Government. Samrat Chaudhary also said that the Government always talks about good governance, but blacklists the poor people, students and helpless people and takes people like Naushad Ahmed to Pakistan. He has appealed to the Government that Naushad Ahmed should be immediately asked to resign. He also said that if this doesn’t happen then they will vociferously raise this issue in suitable fora. Advocate Dinu Kumar said that a case is pending against Naushad Ahmed in the Court — how can he remain the Chairman of the Bihar Minorities Commission ? At present, the Opposition is very worked up about this and if the Government doesn’t act, the consequences can be serious.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *