[jacquesm]

> From having spent 24 years in India in a upper middle class family, I can assure you from anecdotal evidence that I never crossed paths with anyone in a position so powerful to exert such clout.

Well, that's really good for you then. I highly doubt you and our friend have much in common.

> All of this begs the question why and how did your friend come to be involved with such people and why her support structure is so poor as for having you to make a public request for help.

Yes, this strikes to the heart of this case, but frankly it is none of your business. The only thing that matters is that it did.

Much as I regret it things happened exactly as related.

And if you keep rejecting evidence that does not support your hypothesis on how things really are out of hand then you'll never be able to change your point of view.

So the fact that you can not imagine something or that it has not happened to you or is not something you have heard about happening does not preclude such a thing from being real. Merely quite unlikely, and given what I know about this case I highly doubt another one exactly like it will happen, but at the same time the general case of it is probably repeated several times per year with various outcomes depending on the actors.

> Much like in the US, there are jurisdictional rules governing state and federal oversight. Your friend was arrested in the state of Maharashtra and taken to the state of Delhi. Given these facts, you are claiming collusion among multiple state and federal agencies and judiciary, acting out on blatantly false information in an FIR.

Indeed.

And what's even more interesting here is that the police pursued this folly knowing it full well to be false after having been informed of that very fact by a large number of individuals and organizations.

Of course it hurts that in a country that you hold dear there is corruption.

But keep in mind that I have not railed against India or against Indians in general. Only against those particular Indians that have in this case bent the law to suit their purpose, to unjustly pursue one that need their protection and not their persecution.

> In summary, I'm sorry I don't believe your account of corruption and discrimination without basis against your friend.

Your beliefs are of no concern to me, all that matters is that which is real and that which isn't. This is about as real as it gets.

It's not hearsay if you're in the middle of it... and what you have or have not experienced has 0 bearing on what we are experiencing right now.

[throwawayzz11]

Jacques, sorry about the claims made by OP. In India, if you are a white collar worker and live in a city there is little chance you would ever encounter police brutality. Even better if you have the money to pay off the right people. The result is that the generation brought up in such an environment does not even realise that there is a world outside that is very harsh. The OP would have never seen the world outside his shell.

It's a good thing you engaged a lawyer and quickly brought the judiciary into the loop. Not because you'll get instant justice but it will bring everything under scrutiny. The victim's enemies would now be deterred from taking extreme measures.

(A personal experience - We almost became a victim of a police officer trying to take over our hard earned property by hook or crook. It's because of my dad's presence of mind that we came out of it relatively unscathed (we still went through a lot). He engaged a lawyer, escalated it to his superiors and filed a petition with the human rights commission too. All happened so fast that the officer had to stop furthering his plan. It still just bought us enough time to sell the property and get out of it. But at least, the alternatives would have been much worse.)

[jacquesm]

The GGP is lucky in that he has not seen or heard (by choice it appears) anything in or about India that would confirm any of this. I happily forgive him and I hope that he won't have to adjust his view on an incident where he has first hand information, for instance by being the victim.

Your story about the property sounds very believable with what I've seen so far, and I wonder what happened after you sold it, if the buyer got the same treatment that you had or if this was the last of it.

And trickery like that happens everywhere, even in countries that on paper have very little corruption, I've seen a case with quite a few common elements in Canada.

[hjay]

I am in Canada, and I can confirm this. A few years back my family was involved in an ordeal which made our already difficult life so much more difficult and stressful.

In fact, my mother suffered major depression, unable to believe that even in a country like Canada corruption is present. Even to this day she is having troubles getting over it, but life goes on.

I'm glad your friend is safe now. The world really needs more people like you and Daniel.

[irahul]

Your story about the property sounds very believable with what I've seen so far, and I wonder what happened after you sold it, if the buyer got the same treatment that you had or if this was the last of it.

Generally, the way it works is if your property is worth 20, and you can may be get 22 out of it if you try, you sell it to someone for 15 who can handle the trouble.

[intended]

The GGP is bizarrely lucky, I don't know of one person so insulated that they haven't seen the routine and casual abuse of power and flaunting of in this country.

Property battles are among the ugliest and most underhanded types of disputes to get involved in here. Sons using the cops and litigation to kick the mother/parents out of the house levels of ugly.

[maddalab]

> Well, that's really good for you then. I highly doubt you and our friend have much in common.

Correct. You just made my point. For starters better judgement would prevent me from putting myself in a position of compromise as your friend has seemingly done.

> Yes, this strikes to the heart of this case, but frankly it is none of your business. The only thing that matters is that it did. > And if you keep rejecting evidence that does not support your hypothesis on how things really are out of hand then you'll never be able to change your point of view.

There has been no evidence presented either for or against at this time. Just hearsay, primarily your account of events.

> So the fact that you can not imagine something or that it has not happened to you or is not something you have heard about happening does not preclude such a thing from being real.

I clearly stated in my previous comment that there is likely an element of truth in what you say. Your response by not taking the time understand what has said clearly indicates an emotional response. Your judgement is this particular matter is clearly clouded.

> Only against those particular Indians that have in this case bent the law to suit their purpose, to unjustly pursue one that need their protection and not their persecution.

Your credibility as it may be on HN has no standing in a court of law. You are neither a witness nor a defendant. I would very must like to see this particular case go to court and the full extent of truth be revealed. From your responses it is clear that you prefer this not be the case. "Satyamev Jayate" (Truth prevails) is inscribed on India's national emblem. I have far greater faith in the Indian constitution, than your ranting and raving on this forum.

> But keep in mind that I have not railed against India or against Indians in general. >Of course it hurts that in a country that you hold dear there is corruption.

Yes you have. Your claims of police brutality, collusion of state institutions, corruptions and other such are railing against India. I requested you to stop this. I have no interest in your or your friends particular standing/stake in the matter.

[jacquesm]

> For starters better judgement would prevent me from putting myself in a position of compromise as your friend has seemingly done.

You are making a lot of claims here without knowing any of the details of this case. My friend did not have any opportunity at all to change anything about themselves or to exercise 'better judgement' that would have prevented any of this from happening. Their only alternative to being prosecuted would be to give themselves up, and I hope you will agree with me that that is not an option.

> There has been no evidence presented either for or against at this time.

HN is not a court of law, you are not a judge and you have no right to any evidence.

> Just hearsay, primarily your account of events.

You will notice that:

1) 3 long time HN'ers with an impeccable reputation have confirmed this, 4 if we include the subject, but since they've posted anonymously in this thread (and they should) we'll exclude them from the tally.

2) A reputable Delhi lawyer thought the case was serious enough to take it on, on extremely short notice.

3) Two judges agreed with our view of the case.

Those things alone would seem to have enough weight to counter your incessant unbelief. I find it hard to imagine that in light of that you would persist. So if you have no dog in the fight, why would you be so categorically denying something happened if you don't have all the facts?

> I clearly stated in my previous comment that there is likely an element of truth in what you say. Your response by not taking the time understand what has said clearly indicates an emotional response. Your judgement is this particular matter is clearly clouded.

I took out more time than I am obliged to give you as level headed a response as possible.

> Your credibility as it may be on HN has no standing in a court of law.

HN is not a court of law. But in a real court of law not one but two judges agreed with my view of this case. What makes you think you can trump their judgement?

> You are neither a witness nor a defendant.

That did not stop me from contributing to the case. The fact that I did make myself available as a witness (as did Daniel) and helped to arrange for a lawyer shows you that I am more than peripherally involved.

> From your responses it is clear that you prefer this not be the case. "Satyamev Jayate" (Truth prevails) is inscribed on India's national emblem. I have far greater faith in the Indian constitution, than your ranting and raving on this forum.

Well, truth prevails, but light is the best weapon you have in case truth is about not to prevail and there is more to this world than your limited view of it. Arraigning a young person after forcibly moving them from their home without representation and with submarine claims against them is a surefire way to make the truth not prevail. I sincerely hope that you won't ever have your bubble burst because it will likely be a rude awakening. If such should happen feel free to call upon my help, I'm not going to hold your ignorance here against you.

Going to court does not automatically mean that justice will be done. It's a distinct possibility but by no means a certainty.

> Yes you have. Your claims of police brutality, collusion of state institutions, corruptions and other such are railing against India.

Of course it does not rail against India, but that is what you want to hear. You are essentially making a straw-man argument here, and in the process you have revealed something that I had a question about so far: Why is it that within India people are not standing by each other in a situation like this? You have helped me by supplying a partial answer to that question.

They are simply facts.

Facts you do not like, but facts nonetheless.

> I requested you to stop this.

Asking me to stop this is asking me to deny the facts. That would be a very dangerous thing for me to do, and it goes against my nature.

> I have no interest in your or your friends particular standing/stake in the matter.

No, that much is clear. So then maybe you should not engage those familiar with the facts of this case and pretend that you know more about it than we do.

Because I DO have a stake in the matter, my friends' standing is of importance to me and the injustice that is being done to her is as well. What you believe or do not believe is utterly irrelevant.

[anontempaccount]

I think your love of your country is blinding you here. As someone who has lived in India for many years, I can say that such things do happen.

Moreover, it's not exactly a closely-kept secret. If you read the Indian news on a regular basis you will discover such stories from time to time.

It also seems to me that the quality of the government institutions in India varies quite a bit from place to place, not to mention from individual to individual.

I do not think that jacquesm has indicted the whole country, but I can appreciate it may be difficult to take what he has said from a foreigner posting on an international forum. You might consider that in light of the claims he makes he has avoided sweeping generalities that many others would not.

[janardanyri]

These comments are revealing in themselves.

Every system has bad actors. Open identification and criticism of those bad actors marks a robustly free society, not a weak one. Talk of positioning, imprudence, insult, and hushing up... that trips alarm bells.

[w1ntermute]

From your comment history, it looks like you mainly post on HN to defend India. I find it difficult to take someone who has such a narrow agenda seriously.

[dasil003]

Your blind nationalistic pride is terrifying.