The undying legacy of Paul Taylor

By Abira Pathak & Shreya Das

Paul Taylor is probably the last living stalwart of the American concept of modern dance. The octogenarian still refuses to accept his age as an impediment and continues to be as vibrant and prolific as ever. Paul Taylor established ‘Taylor 2’ in 1993 to ensure that his works would showcase to audiences all over the world, irrespective of economic or technical confines. Mr. Taylor retrospected on the origins of the Paul Taylor Dance Company (PTDC) of 1954 for the structure of his new company. The six new professionals were envisioned to be endowed with a particular panache for his style. His world renowned dance troupe, Paul Taylor Dance Company (PTDC) is scheduled to perform in the City of Joy after 13 long years. PTDC comprising Latra Wilson, Justin Kahan, John Eirich, Nic  Ceynowa, Christina Lynch Markham, Madelyn Ho, Manuel Sanchez and Ruth Andrien addreses the media during a press meet.

In the first decade of the new millennium, he had censored American imperialism, ridiculed feminism and looked death square in the face. And yet, while his work has largely been renegade, since the very start of his career Mr. Taylor has also made some of the most purely romantic, most astonishingly athletic, and downright funniest dances ever put on stage. If, as Balanchine said, there are no mothers-in-law in ballet, there certainly are dysfunctional families, ex-lovers, fallen preachers, rapists, angels and insects in Taylor dance. In the 1950s, when his work was so cutting-edge that it could send confused audience members flocking to the exits, Martha Graham dubbed Mr. Taylor the “naughty boy” of dance. In the ’60s he shocked the cognoscenti by setting his trailblazing movement to music composed 200 years earlier, and inflamed the establishment by lampooning America’s most treasured icons. In the ’70s he put incest center stage and revealed the beast lurking just below humans’ sophisticated veneer. In the ’80s he looked unflinchingly at marital rape and intimacy among men at war. In the ’90s he warned against religious zealotry and blind conformity to authority. Alana Allende, one of the performers of PTDC 2 on current visit said at a press meet, “I compose a whole story when I’m performing. But, I see a dysfunctional family in the whole group as well.” Corroborating her view, Christina Lynch Markham said, “we actually donot look at each other while performing. It is like an emotional rollercoaster. We start on a very happy note, hopping and kipping like when we were young, but later there is a lot of yearning, a desire to be loved and touched.”

Speaking about their art form, they said, “Everybody here is trained in ballet. Even though it is very dynamic, it needs a lot of body technique. So when dancing, I know how to do the body math. Though it’s a scary feeling… but you have this ‘muscle memory of your body. The body reacts to particular music which is a natural response to the rhythm and the choreography. In ‘Taylor dance’, he very much engages the back to impart a viscous quality to the movement, focusing on the posture, as well. Hence, there is walking, running, skipping, tumbling, hopping….tripping can be a dance movement too. He was never trained in music but he has this uncanny sense of musicality.  In every dance, he tries to create something new, constantly striving to improve. Building trust in a partner comes overtime. We are great friends, on and off stage. We have a great emotional camaraderie. That is what about group ballet. This makes the dancing special.” Allena stressed that “the music has a great role. It is sad, touching and soulful. Another good thing about our choreography is that we are never told how to feel or do… You have the freedom to do your thing. It’s a true inspiration of gestures. There should be complete commitment to the movement…having the correct proportion of exertion and exhaustion.” Ruth reiterated, “Its motion. Not emotion. If you have the correct gesture, the emotion comes gushing in.”

For the entire write up follow the link : http://www.thescape.in/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1910

Media power and women: In quest of identities

by Abir Chattopadhyay

As in India the notions of both ‘media’ and ‘feminist’ stance (that often further be reduced to somewhere women, female etc.) after having been spelt in millions of moments are still being articulated as one of the most churned out issues that transform the existing social surface a lot. Both categories evoked much debate since their birth as a ‘category’ in the Indian subcontinent. As other two supra-social categories like ‘power’ and ‘subordination’ being often binarily installed respectively over media and feminism always remained under the supreme hold of colonization, such articulations, at most, missed the widest exposure in Indian perspective compared to other European modernities. Colonization in its fullest categorical extent, here, had therefore formulated the media operation in native categories and also established control over the dimensions of socio-cultural movements that included women movements on various subcultural issues of that time. As said earlier, the two above supra-social categories ‘power and subordination’, were often signified in a quite reductionist terms and exposure so far available to the native population because the urban privileged natives largely declined to recognize any revolutionary Indian mass uprising, women education, free media etc except some iconic figures of nineteenth century. It had culminated in the first war of Indian independence where urban Bengal intelligentsia quite deliberately missed the articulation of various truly revolutionary struggles of the common Indian mass ever since Sanyashi movement. Bengal intelligentsia in those days behaved always quite reactionary until the sudden rise of middle class as an inventory leadership of social struggle in the post ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ era and that pronounced an indubitable rise of Indian bourgeoisie in all movements later. But as commonly perceived, the growth of media and women movement got a new momentum where many important events occurred that certainly ensured the growth of these two categories etc., Indian subcontinent nevertheless saw some stray events, though very important, mostly in media and literary works in all subsequent episodes of freedom struggle.

The prime symbolic events of British Indian modernity like media, women movements including women education movement, literacy movement, anti-superstition movement, western education movement were developed quite logocentrically on the debris of long-ignored class and ethnic movements like Sanyashi movement, Wahabi movement, Chuad movement, Santhal movement etc. The logocentric approaches of Indian history however have drawn out an anomalous continuity of such stray movements creating high elite social format that successfully christened and led a general stream of liberal constellation of movements that included movements on the basis of era i.e. Sepoy Mutiny era, Bengal Partition movement era, non-cooperation movement era, civil disobedience era etc. The last three decades of freedom struggle were thus by and large signified by three unfinished movements of Gandhi. Indian mainstream history thus in the pre-independence period hardly recognized class uprisings such as workers’ strike, violent uproars, peasant uprising, consolidation of women on ‘class’ identity basis beyond mere symbolic structural iconicity of a period, an era, an individual, idealistic nomenclature of a time-frame etc. So the dominant structural identity of a pervasive ‘identity politics’ always ruled the colonial era where public spheres also were brutally reduced by its own history.

Media and women issues therefore have had hardly any option but to be developed by some iconic efforts often collaborated jointly by foreign initiatives. Here also some noble icons like James Silk Buckingham, Norman Bethune, Charles Metcalfe, and David Hare who really gave required patronage to Indian media precisely newspapers and women issues in particular. The above statement for any reason does not undermine the historic efforts of Raja Rammohan Roy, Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, Iswar Chandra Gupta, Harish Mukherjee, Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, Rev. Krishnamohan Banerjee, Kristo Das Pal, Dwarakanath Vidyabhusan, Gnanadanandini Debi, Akshay Kumar Dutta and many others who worked as individual categories beyond their contemporarities. But we are talking about the dialectical gap between these two categories being ruthlessly abridged by the dominant colonial structure which had thrown out the third revolutionary category: the ‘class uprising’ which the Indian history witnessed in Indigo revolutionary struggle. So quite resultantly in post indigo movement the dialectical gap was neither mitigated nor widened because the dominant abridging factor was surprisingly shared by both imperialist colony and Indian bourgeoisie alongside. British Indian League, British Indian Association, Indian Association and finally Indian National Congress were primarily established to spread a general liberal view toward both colonial settlements and the common mass.

Readers may be suspicious about my root-point of contention as because this type of articulation often appears to have an elite middle-class orientation, I am also imbibed by or with, that often symbolizes and exerts power in making of every such category in their literary and journalistic works. But I don’t have also any elitist hiccup with some extremely (elitist) critical notions; where ‘Rammohan, often fatuously argued, could have tried to organize rural forces’ like statements work in the name of obsessed class-ruled analysis. This extremely critical notion, I strongly believe would merge into liberal functionalist approaches further that denounce any form of individuality both in ‘social’ and ‘cultural’. I don’t however need to rewrite or reprove the history of colonial India. My stance would first critically deal with only the mainstream historiography created for the two above categories within a strict and dominant nationalist frame, which treated ‘women’ as a ‘stagnant’ category that covers an easily ‘determinable’ social space by virtue of its mere physical existence and media as only an organ of Indian bourgeoisie in the colonial period and secondly the gradual mutation/dissolution of these two sign-categories with the time. Redears however may find Urvashi Butalia’s argument interesting here in this context that will also help them understanding the basic theoretical jolt: During the 18 years that India had a woman as Prime Minister the country also saw increasing incidents of violence and discrimination against women. This is no different from any other time: a casual visitor to any Indian city – for example Mumbai – will see hundreds of women, young and old, working in all kinds of professions: doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, scientists... and yet newspapers in India are full of stories of violent incidents against women, of rape, sexual harassment, sometimes even murder. But to have a woman in the highest office of the State and to simultaneously have extreme violence against women are merely the two ends of the scale. As always, a more complex reality lies in between.

Howsoever from colonial era there were myriad of efforts from the native end overruling the colonial and imperialist repressions, many of that could have been transformed into a revolutionary struggle. But the so called dominant liberal view of organizing a symbolic movement got always a major recognition in the history of urban symbolic reform movements compared to the ‘swadeshi’ violent incidents and organized class struggle. For mainstream media also, it was a concomitant pathway throughout the colonial period to go along with the growth of elite Indian bourgeoisie and all symbolic movements led by them.

So to say something about the tradition of colonial history of this subcontinent, major recognition was quite naturally attributed to the symbolic and unequal development of Indian bourgeoisie mostly ‘banias’, second generation landlords migrated from earlier rural settlements, and their peti-bourgeois accompanists, educated elite social-class along with the foreigners’ settlements. Therefore confronting a severe oppositional binarity notions of class and other socio-cultural identities like peasantry, women, media, and other working class nowhere achieved even a subsistent recognition as an independent category both in the history, so far written by non-Marxist historians, and in reality too. Both media and women remained predominantly the same isomorphic category until the age of the unforgettable novel ‘Gora’ (where Rabindranath rediscovered the dialectics of subcultural identities of Indian social modernity like, history of peasantry, subaltern religious groups, elite religious identities, natural fragmentations in human identities, and finally caveat of the supreme category; mother or woman or country far beyond even dominant ‘Bharatmata’ or Mother India’) that not only to be developed but also to be equally subordinated as well. From ‘widow’ rituals to matrimonial advertisements of today’s newspapers the tradition is however still persistent in the Indian nationalist frame beyond any age boundary.

As I am concerned with only the social development of these two categories it is needless to say that Indian leadership from its colonial identities to the contemporary age is still finding out the developmental quotients partly through the colonial spill or foreign conceptual assistance and partly through some occasional way-outs whichever is available at any point of time. Theory of both categories is still being instilled after that given path. From socio-religious orthodoxy to the contemporary liberal postmodern feminism both development and fragmentation were largely carried out either by the dominant pockets or groups of an operating society or by the governance itself. This is a typical Indian ‘leadership’ outfit that once being associated with any dominant structure always merges into its dominant identity. Left politics however right from its foundation in Indian socio-political scenario recognized women and media as independent organizational categories having its own archaeology to organize their selves.

For the entire write up follow the link:  http://www.thescape.in/newsdetail.asp?newsid=917

The Incomplete Mystery of Arushi Murder Case: A Retrospective Insight

by Arunima Dasgupta

How was Arushi murdered?

May 16, 2008(Mon), Aarushi Talwar, 14-year-old daughter of a dentist couple Mr. Rajesh Talwar and Mrs. Nupur Talwar was found dead with her throat slit in the bedroom of her parent’s home at Jalvayu Vihar in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Hemraj, the family’s male servant, a 45-yr-old Nepalese national was suspected to be the murderer as he was found missing from the home. Hemraj was declared as the prime suspect. Noida police announced a reward for information which could track down to Hemraj's capture and arrest. A police party was sent to his hometown in Nepal, in hopes of catching him there.

May 17, 2008(Tues), a post-mortem was carried out on Aarushi's body. A retired Noida police officer along with a relative of the Talwars, visited the Talwars' home to express his sympathy. The Noida police officer detected blood strains on the stairs directing towards the terrace of the apartment. After tracking the blood strain, he found the dead body of Talwar’s domestic help Hemraj on the terrace who was found missing. A messy investigation was carried out, the police arrested Dr. Rajesh Talwar, the father of Arushi, on May 23, 2008, accusing him with having committed the double murder. His wife, Dr. Nupur Talwar, blamed the Noida police of framing Mr. Talwar in a false note, and requested Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

CBI Arguements

The Central Bureau of Investigation took over the double murder case of Aarushi and Hemraj on June 1, 2008. They formed a team of 25-members in an attempt to simplify the case. Almost immediately after the CBI took over the case, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati gave transfer orders to senior police officers who were part of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). Earlier they had been in charge of the investigation, including the Noida Senior Superintendent of Police, Satish Ganesh, and Meerut Inspector General, Gurdarshan Singh. Also, the delegation of CBI officer Arun Kumar, formerly a member of the Uttar Pradesh Police, who was in charge of the investigation also ended in July, 2008.

The unsettled investigation of Arushi Talwar’s murder spread concern nationwide. The Central Bureau of Investigation officials announced a closure of the issue on Dec 29, 2010, Wednesday. While closing the account they highlighted proper confirmation against Arushi’s father Mr. Rajesh Talwar.

CBI reported at the time of closing the file "Rajesh and Nupur (Aarushi's mother) had earlier stated that they used to lock Aarushi's bedroom at night. The door of Aarushi's bedroom had a lock which could be opened from the inside without a key, but once shut, it could not be opened from the outside without a key."

 "Aarushi's parents could not explain whether they had closed the door at night and why they could not find the keys in the morning," added by the report.

The CBI stated that there was enough contingent proves against Arushi’s father Mr. Rajesh Talwar.

It also reported that the three male servants working in Talwar’s residence were proved innocent. They adjoined that the servants wouldn’t have the fortitude to gather in the Talwar’s house when they were present inside.

Though earlier the three men were suspected by the agency and put into jail. Former CBI joint director Mr. Arun Kumar who was then heading the investigation accused those three men of committing the murders after trying to sexually assault Arushi. He claimed that Hemraj invited the other two for drinks at that night.

Mr. kumar left CBI last year and the investigation was continued by CBI Director Ashwini Kumar along with his new team headed by joint director Javed Ahmed. They gave a clear receipt to the servants. Present CBI Director A. P. Singh had been administrating the investigation since April, called on the closure of the file.

Talwar’s statements

Arushi Talwar, daughter of a dentist couple Mr. Rajesh Talwar and Mrs. Nupur Talwar. Father Dr. Rajesh Talwar was temporarily arrested by the police as it was reported that Mr. Talwar was having an affair with another dentist found out by Arushi. While it was reported by her father that Arushi was objected to her close relationship with the male servant.

Along with him three other men were arrested during the investigation, but they were freed due to lack of proof. They were Krishna, Dr Talwar's assistant in his dental practice; Raj Kumar, a servant of a family friend; and Vijay Mandal, a servant of the Talwar family's neighbours.

Mr. Rajesh Talwar and Mrs. Nupur Talwar, reported that they were blameless.  "I'm completely devastated and shocked. I don't know what to do," Dr Talwar told Indian media, "I have not got justice for my daughter." They also told the Indian media that they would not give up. Aarushi's mother added "We are broken parents today."

The investigation by India’s federal detective agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was under process for two and a half years. But ultimately on Dec 29, Wednesday, they declared a closure of the case at a court in Ghaziabad near Delhi.

"The agency has filed a final report in the court for closure of the case on grounds of insufficient evidence," a CBI spokesperson said.

Arushi’s mobile phone was located after one year and three months approximately, but its memory had been deleted. Till now no murder weapon is found.

The local police managed to collect 26 fingerprints from the crime spot but 24 of them were reported to be spoiled due to faults in the investigation techniques. Detectives were also unable to yield any proof from a bloody handprint, a bottle of alcohol which was collected half drunk and also a shoe print found at the crime scene. Police were also condemned for some of their words expressed during the investigation.

Dr Talwar discarded the accusation while several women's and children's groups described the police claims as in bad taste.

Reports submitted by the CBI

June 1: CBI takes over the investigation

June 13: Krishna, domestic help of Talwar’s house was arrested

June 20: lie detection test of Rajesh Talwar, father of Arushi was conducted at CFSL, Delhi

June 25: Second lie detection test conducted on Nupur Talwar, mother of Arushi. First lie detection test conducted on her proved to be full of loopholes.

June 26: CBI announces the case to be a “blind case”. On the same date, Rajesh Talwar refused bail by the special magistrate in Ghaziabad.

July 3: Supreme Court rejects a PIL case which could defy the administration of nacro-analysis test on the accused in the case

July 12: Rajesh Talwar was bailed from Dasna Jail in Ghaziabad

Jan 5, 2010: CBI moves court to conduct nacro test on Arushi’s parents

Dec 29: CBI submits a closure report on the case. They give a clean chit to the servants and points out Arushi’s parents

Jan 25, 2011: Rajesh Talwar was attacked in the Ghaziabad court premise

Feb 9: Court takes cognizance of CBI reports. Also orders prosecution of Arushi’s parents with murder and destruction of evidence.

CBI Closure report

Magistrate Preeti Singh, in a 21 page order said: 'On the basis of evidences received from witnesses and available circumstantial evidences in the case diary, it was expected that the investigation officer could have filed a charge sheet against Dr. Rajesh and Dr. Nupur Talwar. In such cases, where the crime was committed within a house direct evidence is not expected.'

She also added, ‘Here it is also important to mention that CBI is the county's leading investigation agency in which the country's public has tremendous faith. In a case when any other investigation agency fails to investigate, then the CBI is assigned the job. In such cases it is expected from CBI by keeping up its high esteemed values to investigate and present such report before the court which is judicious on the basis of available evidences, but here in this CBI did not act accordingly, which is very much discouraging.’

In conclusion, the CBI special magistrate mentioned that 'the closure report submitted by the investigation officer is not logical if it fails to submit charge sheet in absence of evidence, while the indications from the sequence of events and available evidences on record are indicating towards Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar to make them culprit prima facie.'

Recent court verdict

A special CBI Court today accused Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the murder of their daughter Arushi. The court had earlier rejected the CBI’S closure report in the over two-year old double murder case. The CBI’s closure report in the Arushi murder case is converted into a charge sheet. A designated court in Ghaziabad on Wednesday called on Arushi’s parents as accused in their daughter’s murder.

Reviewing the charge sheet, Special Judicial Magistrate Preeti Singh ordered parents of Arushi to appear before the court on February 28. As the court rejected the CBI’s closure plan, Mr. Talwar and his wife was charged with felony under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offender), along with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Opposing the petition against the closure report, counsel for the CBI said on Tuesday that though the findings pointed to the involvement of the parents in the murders, the agency had expressed its helplessness in prosecuting them on the grounds of “crucial and substantial” breaks in the chain of circumstances and insufficient evidence.

According to the CBI, the findings went against Aarushi's parents as there was hardly any possibility of the involvement of an outsider in the crime; the scene of crime was intensely dressed up; and no evidence was found against the three servants previously arrested in the case.

The report said the surgical cuts on the necks of the victims were done by professionally trained experts. “The entire data on Aarushi's mobile phone were deleted. A normal criminal would have had no need to do so,” it said. Dr. Talwar tried to mislead the Noida police by sending them in search of Hemraj, it alleged.

Rise of West Asia: Libya fights for Equality

by Madhurima Bhattacherjee

As we have seen, that the backbone of the civilians have become enough hardened to withstand the whip of the leader after four decades. But Tunisia and Egypt have set an example rather a warning bell to all the bully perpetrators who have made the civilian life utterly miserable. The common people are no more prepared to endure the hegemony. Now it’s the turn of Libya and its head Muammar al-Gaddafi. After Asmaa Mahfouz, it was Jamal al-Hajji, a writer, political commentator and accountant who took the leading role through the internet in late January for shaping the Libyan anti- government movement. Gaddafi, who had supposedly predicted the outrage of the angry mob, had met with political activists, journalists, and media persons in early February and had warned them that they would be "held responsible" if they participated "in any way in disturbing the peace or creating chaos in Libya"

Fight for Democracy and Crisis

In the evening of 15th February, around 200 people embarked on demonstrating in front of the police headquarters in Benghazi, the second largest city of the Country subsequently after the arrest of human rights activist Fethi Tarbel. Later, as many others joined the campaign, it summed up to around 500-600. But the crusading effort of the police ruptured the protest causing as many as 40 injuries among the campaigners. In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protesters demanded "the end of the regime" and set ablaze the police and security buildings. In Az Zintan, the picketers set up tents in the town centre.

On the 16th of February, the gripe sustained in Benghazi as hundreds of protesters assembled at Maydan al-Shajara and security services tried to dissolve the crowd using water cannon. Thereafter, the police left and the protesters closed Jamal Abdel Naser Street. There was an estimated crowd of more than 1,500 people attempting to storm the internal security building in Al Bayda. The protesters set fire to two cars and scorched the headquarters of the traffic police. In the resultant clashes with police six people died and three were injured. In Al-Quba, over 400 protesters with set fire to the police station.  Darnah and Az Zintan also recorded protests, but without injuries. Alongside, pro-government rallies of several dozens of partisans and Tripolitanian people also took place.

17th February was "Day of Rage" for the Libyans. The National Conference for the Libyan Opposition confirmed that "all" groups opposed to Gaddafi both within Libya and in exile planned the protests in memory of the demonstrations in Benghazi on 17 February, 2006 that were initially against the Muhammad cartoons of Jyllands-Posten , but which turned into protests against Gaddafi. In Benghazi, the government released 30 prisoners from jail, armed them and paid them to fight against protesters. Several demonstrators were killed by snipers and gunfire from helicopters. Approximately, 14 people were killed that day. In Ajdabiya and Darnah at least ten and six protesters were killed by police, respectively. Protests also took place across Tripoli and Zentan, where a number of government buildings including a police station were put on fire.

18th Feb recorded the assembly of thousands of anti-government protesters in front of the Benghazi courthouse. Thousands of demonstrators had poured out onto the streets in Benghazi and other eastern cities. Police and army personnel later reportedly withdrew from the city after being overwhelmed by protesters. Some army personnel also joined the protesters after which they took control of the local radio station. In Al Bayda, reports indicated that the local police force and riot control units joined the protesters. Unconfirmed eyewitness reports suggested that two officers who were accused of shooting protesters were hanged by protesters.  The govt. of Libya initially restricted access to the Internet in the country for quite a few hours, but later imposed a further comprehensive and persistent shutdown in the system. In reaction to the mass killing in the Libyan protests, Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International for the Middle East and North Africa said on Friday, "This alarming rise in the death toll, and the reported nature of the victims' injuries, strongly suggests that security forces are permitted use lethal force against unarmed protesters calling for political change." He added, "The Libyan authorities must immediately rein in their security forces. Those responsible for unlawful killings and excessive force -- both the direct perpetrators and those who gave the orders -- must be identified and brought to justice.”

By the early hours of the fifth day, dissenters in Benghazi managed to seize the airport. Meanwhile, the opponents had warned civilians of carnage by the government unless the international community applied pressure. Witnesses in Libya reported helicopters firing into crowds of anti-government protesters. The army departed from the Al Bayda. Artillery, helicopter gunship and antiaircraft missile launchers were used to kill protesters. Protests were also reported in Misurata. According to the New York-based group Human Rights Watch, the number of people killed in Libya, in the three days of protests mounted to 84 whereas opposition groups later put the number of dead at over 120.  The security forces of Benghazi were in their resided in the barracks while the city witnessed a state of civil mutiny.

Protests mounted on February 20, indicating expansion of the unrest from the Eastern half of the country into Gaddafi's center of power. Hospitals confirmed that they have run out of provisions and doctors estimated the death-toll in Benghazi to be between 200 and 300. After the people of Benghazi thrashed the police and captured several key military barracks local military brigades joined the protesters. By this time, protesters in Benghazi numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Reports also came forward of pro-Gaddafi militia by the Elfedeel Bu Omar compound "being butchered by angry mobs." Further military units were reported to have defected in order to protect protesters. Several senior Muslim clerics and tribal leaders from around Libya called for an end to the bloodshed by the regime, and for the government to step down. A large spontaneous protest occurred in Tripoli by night where the protesters quickly overran police. One tribal leader threatened to block oil exports.

The United States Department of State, through the American Embassy, issued a travel caution to US citizens due to the persistent unrest in the country. The European Union called on the government to cease the use of force and to answer the protesters' complaints. Clashes escalated in Tripoli during night time, with protesters trying to take over Green Square. Witnesses reported snipers firing into the crowds, and Gaddafi supporters driving around the square shooting and running demonstrators over. Protesters burned a police and security forces' station and the General People's Congress' building.

Saif al-Islam, son of Muammar Al-Gaddafi called for a "general assembly" on the 21st to talk about their grievances. In Benghazi, demonstrators captured the streets, and looted weapons from the main security headquarters. They hoisted the flag of the country's old monarchy from above the chief courthouse instead of the Libyan flag. Air Force warplanes and attack helicopters launched air strikes on protesters, reportedly targeting a funeral procession and a group of protesters trying to reach an army base. As in the reports, the People's Hall in Tripoli, which serves as the meeting place for the General People's Congress, had been set on fire. It also stated that the state television building was smashed up by activists and that minimum one Tripoli police station was smoldered. Navy warships were reported to have instigated bombardment of residential areas resulting in numerous casualties. Banks and other government buildings were looted all through the day as the city's death toll rose to at least 61.

Some people reported that they were provoked to spin for the pro-Gaddafi rallies outside Libya. Some rumors splattered that Gaddafi had fled either to the town of Sebha or to Venezuela. British Foreign Secretary William Hague also said that he had received information about the same thing but Venezuelan govt. officials denied reports that Muammar Gaddafi had left Libya and was on a plane bound for Caracas.

Gaddafi gave a glimpse on state television in which he praised the rain that kept him from addressing the youth in Green Square. He also said that "I am in Tripoli and not in Venezuela. Do not believe the channels belonging to stray dogs."

Gunfire was also reported through the 21-22 February night. Loyalist soldiers were reported to have continued some bombarding to keep soldiers away from the protests. Fighter jets were reported to have targeted army ammunition depots in order to prevent troops from joining the protesters.

The former British Foreign Minister David Owen said that a "military intervention" via a no-fly zone was immediately necessary. Though the Austrian Army reported the closure of airspace around Tripoli, but later apologized for the supposedly wrong statement. The Austrian Defense Ministry spokesman Michael Huber said: "One of our sources said that initially that it (airspace) was closed, but then another later confirmed otherwise. Our plane was able to leave."

Eyewitness reported that thousands of African armed forces were flown into Tripoli to settle the uprising.  In a second "speech" within 24 hours, Gaddafi blamed foreign media for the unrest and says that Libyans want "people with beards" in power, stating that "we deserve Libya". He rejected stepping back but argued that he would "die as martyr". Gaddafi announces transformation but states that they will be put into place after Libya is vacated "street by street" and security is re-established by police and army.

International Reaction

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a statement said that bombs against civilians "if confirmed, would constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law and would be condemned by the secretary-general in the strongest terms." He later issued another statement saying he was "outraged."

US President Barack Obama said that he was "deeply concerned" by the violence. Later, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated that "Now is the time to stop this unacceptable bloodshed."  Senators Jon Kyl and Mark Kirk said that "we urge the president to speak out clearly in support of the Libyan people."

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni cleric of Egypt and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, issued a ‘fatwa’ on 21 February for the assassination of Gaddafi saying that "whoever in the Libyan army is able to shoot a bullet at Mr. Gaddafi should do so."