Security guard found guilty of killing 25-year old lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha in August 2012
A Sessions Court in Mumbai on Monday convicted Sajjad Mughal for killing city-based lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha in August 2012. The quantum of punishment will be decided on 3rd July.
Pallavi, who was a legal officer for a film production company, was found murdered in her 16th floor apartment in Himalayan Heights at Wadala, on 9 August 2012. Her partner Avik Sengupta, who reached home in the wee hours, found Pallavi lying in a pool of blood in her nightclothes.
Next day, the police arrested watchman Mughal from near Mumbai Central as he was about to flee the city and also recovered the murder weapon from under a shoe rack on the third floor of the building.
Mughal, a native of Jammu and Kashmir, was employed as a security guard at 'Himalayan Heights' building in suburban Wadala.
According to police, Mughal turned off electricity supply to Pallavi's house and tried to assault her. When she resisted his attempts, he slit her throat. Mughal has been charged with murder, trespassing, robbery and outraging a women's modesty.
Police had earlier claimed Mughal used to ogle the 25-year-old lawyer, who was the daughter of IAS officer Atanu Purkayastha who was the joint secretary in Agriculture Ministry at the Centre when the incident took place.
In the Court, Mughal, however had refuted all the allegations and his lawyer Wahab Khan had argued it was Pallavi's fiancé Avik Sengupta who killed her in their flat.
The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses in the case.
Narendra Modi has a strong mandate, so there is hope that he might get a few things done. But one thing is sure, following China’s example is neither possible nor desirable
According to a recent report, India's newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wants to emulate China in two ways. He wants to welcome foreign investment and build infrastructure. He apparently believes that both of these things would help India transform itself into “a globally competitive manufacturing hub”.
The question is whether Mr Modi can actually emulate China? To answer this question it is necessary to analyze exactly how China was able to achieve such success. The short answer is that China was able to use its financial and institutional systems to transfer wealth from households to investment. By increasing investment, especially in infrastructure, China was able to achieve incredible growth. The by-product was also jobs.
The result is that China built an extensive new infrastructure. The way they were able to transfer wealth into infrastructure investments is interesting. The Chinese, unlike Americans, Indians or Europeans, had very little choice in the places available to invest their money. Until quite recently, they were forced to save at one of the state owned banks. The amount of money the banks could pay on deposits was capped, as was the amount that the banks could charge for loans. This guaranteed large profits for banks and cheap loans for local governments and state owned industries. It also had the effect of imposing a very high financial repression tax on households.
Most people believe that the Chinese save because there is something inherent in their culture. I personally doubt this thesis. I believe that the Chinese save because the country has few safety nets. Anything, from healthcare to schools, require payments. The effect is that the Chinese, unlike the Europeans, cannot depend on the state for much. The only way they can protect themselves is to save.
The combination of the implicit tax and high savings meant that consumption was very low as a percentage of GDP. In contrast, investment was very high, especially by local governments, in infrastructure.
There is one problem with this model. It is unsustainable. Much of China's massive investment spending channelled to local governments and state owned industries has been wasted on projects with negative real returns. The credit growth necessary to continue this investment boom has reached levels almost twice the levels reached in the US, Japan, Korea and the UK before their meltdowns.
So the first question about whether India can follow the Chinese model is why would India want to? The second is whether it is possible? Probably not. India has a far more open economy and a convertible currency. Even China does not have a complete monopoly on its financial system. India never did.
Welcoming foreign investment into India would be an excellent idea. A large part of China’s export growth was built on foreign investment, but not necessarily because the Chinese wanted it. It was safe for the Communist Party to empower foreigners who could be expelled at any time than free local entrepreneurs. Even better, foreign investors brought with them advanced technology, which could be “liberated” and used by local companies. There was no need to consult anyone who might be put out of business by new entrants. The local Communist Party officials made decisions themselves. Generally foreign investors were only required to form partnerships if they wished to exploit local markets.
Allowing foreign investment into India has been a massive challenge. The most recent attempt at allowing foreigners into the retail sector met with formidable resistance. No doubt, allowing foreign investment into infrastructure projects would meet with similar problems.
Indian government officials are not the only power group in town. To allow foreign investors in would require approval from other groups, whose interests would be affected. The Indian government must also abide by the law, which does protect foreign intellectual property.
In the beginning one of the main attractions of China was the cheap labour. Any rules putting limits on how companies exploited that labour were not enforced. Now, Chinese labour has become relatively expensive and fairly restive.
China’s loss of a labour competitive advantage can be exploited by India, but only if it can reform its labour laws. It should follow the US model, which allows companies to dismiss workers without government approval. But the probability of Modi getting this through appears to be rather slim in my view.
This does not mean that Prime Minister Modi cannot do a lot to reform India. A technocrat’s dream reform agenda has been around for years, but goes nowhere. The main impediment has been the coalition governments and powerful states. Mr Modi has a strong mandate, so there is hope that he might get few things done. But one thing is sure, following China’s example is neither possible nor desirable.
(William Gamble is president of Emerging Market Strategies. An international lawyer and economist, he developed his theories beginning with his first-hand experience and business dealings in the Russia starting in 1993. Mr Gamble holds two graduate law degrees. He was educated at Institute D'Etudes Politique, Trinity College, University of Miami School of Law, and University of Virginia Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. He was a member of the bar in three states, over four different federal courts and speaks four languages.)
The charity is fighting ProPublica's public records request for information on how it raised and spent money after the super storm
Just how badly does the American Red Cross want to keep secret how it raised and spent over $300 million after Hurricane Sandy?
The charity has hired a fancy law firm to fight a public request we filed with New York state, arguing that information about its Sandy activities is a "trade secret."
The Red Cross' "trade secret" argument has persuaded the state to redact some material, though it's not clear yet how much since the documents haven't yet been released.
As we've reported, the Red Cross releases few details about how it spends money after big disasters. That makes it difficult to figure out whether donor dollars are well spent.
The Red Cross did give some information about Sandy spending to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who had been investigating the charity. But the Red Cross declined our request to disclose the details.
So we filed a public records request for the information the Red Cross provided to the attorney general's office.
That's where the law firm Gibson Dunn comes in.
An attorney from the firm's New York office appealed to the attorney general to block disclosure of some of the Sandy information, citing the state Freedom of Information Law's trade secret exemption.
The documents include "internal and proprietary methodology and procedures for fundraising, confidential information about its internal operations, and confidential financial information," wrote Gabrielle Levin of Gibson Dunn in a letter to the attorney general's office.
If those details were disclosed, "the American Red Cross would suffer competitive harm because its competitors would be able to mimic the American Red Cross's business model for an increased competitive advantage," Levin wrote.
The letter doesn't specify who the Red Cross' "competitors" are.
The Red Cross is a public charity and occupies a unique place responding to disasters alongside the federal government.
Among the sections of the documents the Red Cross wanted redacted was "a two-line title" at the top of a page, one line of which was "American Red Cross."
The attorney general's office denied that redaction, writing that it "can not find disclosure of this two line title will cause the Red Cross any economic injury."
Asked about the effort to have Sandy materials kept secret, Red Cross spokeswoman Anne Marie Borrego told ProPublica: "We sought to keep confidential a small part of the letter [sent to the AG] that provided proprietary information important to maintaining our ability to raise funds and fulfill our mission."
Doug White, a nonprofit expert who directs the fundraising management program at Columbia University, said that it's possible for nonprofits to have trade interests — the logo of a university, for example — but it's not clear what a "trade secret" would be in the case of the Red Cross. He called the lawyer's letter an apparent "delaying tactic."
Ben Smilowitz of the Disaster Accountability Project, a watchdog group, said,
"Invoking a 'trade secret' exemption is not something you would expect from an organization that purports to be 'transparent and accountable.'"
In agreeing to withhold some details, the attorney general's office found that portions of the documents the charity wanted to redact "describe business strategies, internal operational procedures and decisions, and the internal deliberations and decision-making processes that affect fundraising and the allocation of donations."
The attorney general's office also found "that this information is proprietary and constitutes trade secrets, and that its disclosure would cause the Red Cross economic injury and put the Red Cross at an economic disadvantage."
Another section the Red Cross wanted redacted was a paragraph that noted the charity's "willingness to meet with the [Office of the Attorney General.]" The attorney general's office denied that part of the request
Borrego, the Red Cross spokeswoman, declined to say how much the charity is paying Gibson Dunn but said, "we do not use funds restricted to Superstorm Sandy to cover those expenses."
We'll let you know when we get the documents we asked for — at least the parts that aren't trade secrets.
If you have experience with or information about the American Red Cross, including its operations after Sandy, email [email protected]
Related articles: Read our other coverage about how the Red Cross' post-storm spending on Sandy is a black box.