Guardian Co UK

The hanging of Afzal Guru is a stain on India’s democracy

Arundhati Roy

11 February 2013

  Spring announced itself in Delhi on Saturday. The sun was out, and the law took its course. Just before breakfast, the government of India secretly hanged Afzal Guru, prime accused in the attack on parliament in December 2001, and interred his body in Delhi’s Tihar jail where he had been in solitary confinement for 12 years. Guru’s wife and son were not informed. “The authorities intimated the family through speed post and registered post,” the home secretary told the press, “the director general of the Jammu and Kashmir [J&K] police has been told to check whether they got it or not”. No big deal, they’re only the family of yet another Kashmiri terrorist.

In a moment of rare unity the Indian nation, or at least its major political parties – Congress, the Bharatiya Janata party and the Communist party of India (Marxist) – came together as one (barring a few squabbles about “delay” and “timing”) to celebrate the triumph of the rule of law. Live broadcasts from TV studios, with their usual cocktail of papal passion and a delicate grip on facts, crowed about the “victory of democracy”. Rightwing Hindu nationalists distributed sweets to celebrate the hanging, and beat up Kashmiris (paying special attention to the girls) who had gathered in Delhi to protest. Even though Guru was dead and gone, the commentators in the studios and the thugs on the streets seemed, like cowards who hunt in packs, to need each other to keep their courage up. Perhaps because, deep inside, themselves they knew they had colluded in doing something terribly wrong.

What are the facts? On 13 December 2001 five armed men drove through the gates of the Indian parliament in a car fitted out with a bomb. When challenged they jumped out of the car and opened fire, killing eight security personnel and a gardener. In the firefight that followed, all five attackers were killed. In one of the many versions of the confessions he was forced to make in police custody, Guru identified the men as Mohammed, Rana, Raja, Hamza and Haider. That’s all we know about them. They don’t even have second names. LK Advani, then home minister in the BJP government, said they “looked like Pakistanis”. (He should know what Pakistanis look like right? Being a Sindhi himself.) Based only on Guru’s custodial confession (which the supreme court subsequently set aside, citing “lapses” and “violations of procedural safeguards”) the government recalled its ambassador from Pakistan and mobilised half a million soldiers on the Pakistan border. There was talk of nuclear war. Foreign embassies issued travel advisories and evacuated their staff from Delhi. The standoff lasted months and cost India thousands of crores – millions of pounds.

Within 24 hours, the Delhi Police Special Cell (notorious for its fake “encounter” killings, where suspected terrorists are targeted in extrajudicial attacks) claimed it had cracked the case. On 15 December it arrested the “mastermind”, Professor SAR Geelani, in Delhi, and Showkat Guru and his cousin Afzal Guru in Srinagar, Kashmir. Subsequently, they arrested Afsan Guru, Showkat’s wife. The Indian media enthusiastically disseminated the police version. These were some of the headlines: “Delhi university lecturer was terror plan hub”, “Varsity don guided fidayeen”, “Don lectured on terror in free time.” Zee TV, a national network, broadcast a “docudrama” called December 13, a recreation that claimed to be the “truth based on the police charge sheet”. (If the police version is the truth, why have courts?) The then prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Advani publicly applauded the film. The supreme court refused to postpone the screening, saying that the media would not influence judges. It was broadcast only a few days before the fast-track court sentenced Geelani and Afzal and Showkat Guru to death. Subsequently the high court acquitted Geelani and Afsan Guru. The supreme court upheld the acquittal. But in its 5 August 2005 judgment it gave Afzal Guru three life sentences and a double death sentence.

The BJP called for an immediate execution. One of its election slogans was “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai”, which means (in stirring rhyme), “Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still alive”. In order to blunt the murmurs that had begun to surface, a fresh media campaign began. Chandan Mitra, now a BJP MP, then editor of the Pioneer newspaper, wrote: “Afzal Guru was one of the terrorists who stormed parliament house on 13 December 2001. He was the first to open fire on security personnel, apparently killing three of the six who died.” Even the police charge sheet did not accuse Afzal of that. The supreme court judgment acknowledged the evidence was circumstantial: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.” But then, shockingly, it went on to say: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

Who crafted our collective conscience on the parliament attack case? Could it have been the facts we gleaned in the papers? The films we saw on TV? Before celebrating the rule of law, let’s take a look at what happened.

The people who are celebrating the victory of the rule of law argue that the very fact that the Indian courts acquitted Geelani and convicted Afzal proves that the trial was free and fair. Was it?

The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy. The US government was gloating prematurely over its “victory” in Afghanistan. In the state of Gujarat, the massacre of Muslims by Hindu goon squads, helped along by the police and the state government machinery that had begun in late February, was still going on sporadically. The air was charged with communal hatred. And in the parliament attack case the law was taking its own course. At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid – in the high court and supreme court you can only argue points of law, you cannot introduce new evidence – Afzal Guru, locked in a high-security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Guru’s defence, and he did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do anything about the situation.

Even so, from the word go the case fell apart. A few examples out of many: The two most incriminating pieces of evidence against Guru were a cellphone and a laptop confiscated at the time of arrest. They were not sealed, as evidence is required to be. During the trial it emerged that the hard disk of the laptop had been accessed after the arrest. It only contained the fake home ministry passes and the fake identity cards that the “terrorists” used to access parliament – and a Zee TV video clip of parliament house. So according to the police, Guru had deleted all the information except the most incriminating bits. The police witness said he sold the crucial sim card that connected all the accused in the case to one another to Guru on 4 December 2001. But the prosecution’s own call records showed the sim was actually operational from 6 November 2001.

How did the police get to Afzal? They said that Geelani led them to him. But the court records show that the message to arrest Afzal went out before they picked up Geelani. The high court called this a “material contradiction” but left it at that.

The arrest memos were signed by Bismillah, Geelani’s brother, in Delhi. The seizure memos were signed by two men from the J&K police, one of them an old tormentor from Afzal’s past as a surrendered “militant”.

 It goes on and on, this pile up of lies and fabricated evidence. The courts note them, but for their pains the police get no more than a gentle rap on their knuckles. Nothing more.

 Anyone who was really interested in solving the mystery of the parliament attack would have followed the dense trail of evidence on offer. No one did, thereby ensuring the real authors of the conspiracy will remain unidentified and uninvestigated.

The real story and the tragedy of what happened to Guru is too immense to be contained in a courtroom. The real story would lead us to the Kashmir valley, that potential nuclear flashpoint, and the most densely militarised zone in the world, where half a million Indian soldiers (one to every four civilians) and a maze of army camps and torture chambers that would put Abu Ghraib in the shade are bringing secularism and democracy to the Kashmiri people. Since 1990, when the struggle for self-determination became militant, 68,000 people have died, 10,000 have disappeared, and at least 100,000 have been tortured.

 What sets Guru’s killing apart is that, unlike those tens of thousands who died in prison cells, his life and death were played out in the blinding light of day in which all the institutions of Indian democracy played their part in putting him to death.

 Now he has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/hanging-afzal-guru-india-democracy/print

Print this Report

By Waheed Hamid  

Few days back I wrote an Article, “Indians Challenge Intolerance” published in a English News paper and at number of websites. The main theme was to remind the readers of the bias in Indian investigation system and prove my point through historical facts. Only those facts were listed which were accepted by India’s own writers, political leaders and officials at a later stage. It concluded ,” The dangers are not only for India and its democracy but the entire region has started feeling the heat. The Indian extremists now challenge their own sports and cultural stars on basis of religion and caste. The world is a global village and all who can make a difference must act to save humanity and give peace a chance.

To Read Complete :    http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/206182/

The Times of India under heading “Afzal Guru’s hanging: Political parties say justice done” reports that  “Why this sort of delay inspite of overpowering desire of the people of the country that those who are accused of such a heinous offence ought to be given the capital punishment as affirmed by the highest court of the land. This question would remain important and an answer would have to be found out,” BJP chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad told reporters.

Few others say

Rediff : A curfew was imposed on Monday across Kashmir in the wake of the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru in Tihar Jail.

BBC: Allahabad police say India has stepped up security and announced a curfew in Indian-administered Kashmir, where news of the execution was expected to spark unrest. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-21392156

 Pakistan’s Official Response

Press Release- 11 Feb 13

 Office of the Spokesman

Afzal Guru’s execution

 In response to a media question regarding the recent hanging of Afzal Guru, the spokesman said that he would not want to go into details of the trial process. The same was being discussed and debated by the media and the Human Rights organizations. However, we reaffirm our solidarity with the People of Jammu and Kashmir and express our serious concern on the high handed measures taken by India in the wake of Afzal Guru’s execution to suppress the aspirations of Kashmiris by arrests and detention of Hurriyat leaders, curfew, news blackout  and other coercive means. We call for the lifting of repressive measures and immediate release of Hurriyat leaders.

But media forgot to give the actual story or intentionally missed what  Arundhati Roy wrote about  Mohammad Afzal Guru and the parliament attack  in The Guardian,  on Friday 15 December 2006

  By Arundhati Roy

Five years ago this week, on December 13 2001, the Indian parliament was in its winter session. The government was under attack for yet another corruption scandal. At 11.30 in the morning, five armed men in a white Ambassador car fitted out with an improvised explosive device drove through the gates of Parliament House. When they were challenged, they jumped out of the car and opened fire. In the gun battle that followed, all the attackers were killed. Eight security personnel and a gardener were killed too. The dead terrorists, the police said, had enough explosives to blow up the parliament building, and enough ammunition to take on a whole battalion of soldiers. Unlike most terrorists, these five left behind a thick trail of evidence – weapons, mobile phones, phone numbers, ID cards, photographs, packets of dried fruit and even a love letter.

Not surprisingly, prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee seized the opportunity to compare the assault to the September 11 attacks in the US only three months previously.

On December 14 2001, the day after the attack on parliament, the Special Cell (anti-terrorist squad) of the Delhi police claimed it had tracked down several people suspected of being involved in the conspiracy. The next day, it announced that it had “cracked the case”: the attack, the police said, was a joint operation carried out by two Pakistan-based terrorist groups, Lashkar- e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Three Kashmiri men, Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani, Shaukat Hussain Guru and Mohammad Afzal, and Shaukat’s wife, Afsan Guru, were arrested.

In the tense days that followed, parliament was adjourned. The Indian government declared that Pakistan – America’s closest ally in the “war on terror” – was a terrorist state. On December 21, India recalled its high commissioner from Pakistan, suspended air, rail and bus communications and banned air traffic with Pakistan. It put into motion a massive mobilisation of its war machinery, and moved more than half a million troops to the Pakistan border. Foreign embassies evacuated their staff and citizens, and tourists travelling to India were issued cautionary travel advisories. The world watched with bated breath as the subcontinent was taken to the brink of nuclear war. All this cost India an estimated pounds 1.1bn of public money. About 800 soldiers died in the panicky process of mobilisation alone.

The police charge sheet was filed in a special fast-track trial court designated for cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Some three years later, the trial court sentenced Geelani, Shaukat and Afzal to death. Afsan Guru was sentenced to five years of “rigorous imprisonment”. On appeal, the high court subsequently acquitted Geelani and Afsan, but upheld Shaukat’s and Afzal’s death sentence. Eventually, the supreme court upheld the acquittals and reduced Shaukat’s punishment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, it not just confirmed, but enhanced Mohammad Afzal’s sentence. He was given three life sentences and a double death sentence.

In its judgment on August 5 2005, the supreme court admitted that the evidence against Afzal was only circumstantial, and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group or organisation. But it went on to endorse what can only be described as lynch law. “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation,” it said, “and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

Spelling out the reasons for giving Afzal the death penalty, the judgment went on: “The appellant, who is a surrendered militant and who was bent upon repeating the acts of treason against the nation, is a menace to the society and his life should become extinct.” This implies a dangerous ignorance of what it means to be a “surrendered militant” in Kashmir today.

So, should Afzal’s life be extinguished? His story is fascinating because it is inextricably entwined with the story of the Kashmir Valley. It is a story that stretches far beyond the confines of courtrooms and the limited imagination of people who live in the secure heart of a self-declared “superpower”. Afzal’s story has its origins in a war zone whose laws are beyond the pale of the fine arguments and delicate sensibilities of normal jurisprudence.

For all these reasons it is critical that we consider carefully the strange, sad and utterly sinister story of the December 13 attack. It tells us a great deal about the way the world’s largest “democracy” really works. It connects the biggest things to the smallest. It traces the pathways that connect what happens in the shadowy grottoes of our police stations to what goes on in the snowy streets of Paradise Valley, and from there to the malign furies that bring nations to the brink of nuclear war. It raises specific questions that deserve specific, and not ideological or rhetorical, answers. What hangs in the balance is far more than the fate of one man.

For the most part, the December 13 attack was an astonishingly incompetent “terrorist” strike. But consummate competence appeared to be the hallmark of everything that followed: the gathering of evidence, the speed of the investigation by the Special Cell, the arrest and charging of the accused and the three-and-a-half-year-long judicial process that began with the fast-track trial court.

The operative phrase in all of this is “appeared to be”. If you follow the story carefully, you will encounter two sets of masks. First, the mask of consummate competence (accused arrested, “case cracked” in two days flat), and then, when things began to come undone, the benign mask of shambling incompetence (shoddy evidence, procedural flaws, material contradictions). But underneath all of this – as several lawyers, academics and journalists who have studied the case in detail have shown – is something more sinister, more worrying. Over the past few years the worries have grown into a mountain of misgivings, impossible to ignore.

The doubts set in as early as the day after the parliament attack, when the police arrested Geelani, a young lecturer at Delhi University. His outraged colleagues and friends, certain that he had been framed, contacted the well-known lawyer Nandita Haksar and asked her to take on his case. This marked the beginning of a campaign for the fair trial of Geelani. It flew in the face of mass hysteria and corrosive propaganda that was enthusiastically disseminated by the mass media. But despite this, the campaign was successful, and Geelani was eventually acquitted, along with Afsan Guru.

Geelani’s acquittal blew a gaping hole in the prosecution’s version of the parliament attack. The linchpin of its conspiracy theory suddenly tuned out to be innocent. But in some odd way, in the public mind, the acquittal of two of the accused only confirmed the guilt of the other two. There was bloodlust that had to be satiated. When the government announced that Afzal, Accused No 1 in the case, would be hanged on October 20 2006, it seemed that most people welcomed the news not just with approval, but with morbid excitement. But then, once again, the questions resurfaced.

To see through the prosecution’s case against Geelani was relatively easy. He was plucked out of thin air and transplanted into the centre of the “conspiracy” as its kingpin. Afzal was different. He had been extruded through the sewage system of the hell that Kashmir has become. He surfaced through a manhole, covered in shit (and when he emerged, policemen in the Special Cell pissed on him. Literally.) The first thing they made him do was a “media confession” in which he implicated himself completely in the attack. The speed with which this happened made many of us believe that he was indeed guilty as charged. It was only much later that the circumstances under which this “confession” was made were revealed, and even the supreme court was to set it aside, saying that the police had violated legal safeguards.

From the very beginning there was nothing pristine or simple about Afzal’s case. His story gives us a glimpse into what life is really like in the Kashmir Valley. It is only in the Noddy Book version we read about in our newspapers that security forces battle militants and innocent Kashmiris are caught in the crossfire. In the adult version, Kashmir is a valley awash with militants, renegades, security forces, double-crossers, informers, spooks, blackmailers, blackmailees, extortionists, spies, both Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies, human rights activists, NGOs and unimaginable amounts of unaccounted-for money and weapons. There are not always clear lines that demarcate the boundaries between all these things and people; it is not easy to tell who is working for whom.

Truth, in Kashmir, is probably more dangerous than anything else. The deeper you dig, the worse it gets. At the bottom of the pit are the Special Operations Group and Special Task Force (STF), the most ruthless, indisciplined and dreaded elements of the Indian security apparatus in Kashmir, which play a central role in the Afzal story. Unlike the more formal forces, they operate in a twilight zone where policemen, surrendered militants, renegades and common criminals do business. They prey upon the local population, particularly in rural Kashmir. Their primary victims are the thousands of young Kashmiri men who rose up in revolt in the anarchic uprising of the early 1990s and have since surrendered and are trying to live normal lives.

In 1989, when Afzal crossed the border to be trained as a militant, he was only 20. He returned with no training, disillusioned with his experience. He put down his gun and enrolled himself in Delhi University. In 1993, without ever having been a practising militant, he voluntarily surrendered to the Border Security Force. Illogically enough, it was at this point that his nightmares began. His surrender was treated as a crime and his life became hell. Afzal’s story has enraged Kashmiris because what has happened to him could have happened, is happening and has happened to thousands of young Kashmiri men and their families. The only difference is that their stories are played out in the dingy bowels of interrogation centres, army camps and police stations where they have been burned, beaten, electrocuted, blackmailed and killed, their bodies thrown out of the backs of trucks for passers-by to find. Whereas Afzal’s story is being performed like a piece of medieval theatre on the national stage, in the clear light of day, with the legal sanction of a “fair trial”, the hollow benefits of a “free press” and the all pomp and ceremony of a so-called democracy.

In documents submitted to the court, Afzal describes how, in the months before the attack on parliament, he was tortured in the camps of the STF – with electrodes on his genitals and chillies and petrol in his anus. He talks of how he was a constant victim of extortion. He mentions the name of Deputy Superintendent of Police Devinder Singh, who said he needed him to do a “small job” for him in Delhi. (Singh has subsequently admitted on record to having tortured Afzal in exactly the ways Afzal has described.) Afzal has also said that from the time he was arrested up to the time he was charged (a few months), his younger brother Hilal was held in illegal confinement in a police camp in Kashmir. As ransom.

Even today, Afzal does not claim complete innocence. It is the nature of his involvement that is being contested. For instance, was he coerced, tortured and blackmailed into playing even the peripheral part he played? In a gross violation of his constitutional rights, from the time he was arrested and right through the crucial phase of the trial when the real work of building up a case is done, Afzal did not have a lawyer. He had nobody to put out his version of the story, or help him or anyone else sift through the tangle of lies and fabrications and propaganda put out by the police. Various individuals worked it out for themselves. Today, five years later, a group of lawyers, academics, journalists and writers has published a reader (December 13th: The Strange Case of the Parliament Attack, published by Penguin India). It is this body of work that has fractured what, only recently, appeared to be a national consensus interwoven with mass hysteria.

Through the fissures, those who have come under scrutiny – shadowy individuals, counter-intelligence and security agencies, political parties – are beginning to surface. They wave flags, hurl abuse, issue hot denials and cover their tracks with more and more untruths. Thus they reveal themselves.

The essays in the Penguin book raise questions about how Afzal, who never had proper legal representation, can be sentenced to death without having had an opportunity to be heard, without a fair trial. They raise questions about fabricated arrest memos, falsified seizure and recovery memos, procedural flaws, vital evidence that has been tampered with, false telephone records, false testimonies, legal lacunae, material contradictions in the testimonies of police and prosecution witnesses, and the outright lies that were presented in court and published in newspapers. They show how there is hardly a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

And then there are even more disturbing questions that have been raised, which range beyond the fate of Afzal. Some of these are critical for a country that is claiming to be a responsible nuclear power. Here are 13 questions for December 13:

Question 1: For months before the attack on parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that parliament could be attacked. On December 12 2001, the then prime minister, AB Vajpayee, warned of an imminent attack. On December 13 it happened. Given that there was an “improved security drill”, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Question 2: Within days of the attack, the Special Cell of the Delhi police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. They said the attack was led by a man called “Mohammad” who was also involved in the hijacking of flight IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, “I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.” If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Question 4: Why was parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Question 5: A few days after December 13, the government declared that it had “incontrovertible evidence” of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s “confession”, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the supreme court), what was the “incontrovertible evidence”?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation, it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. The police have not managed to show how they connected Geelani to the attack. And how did the police reach Afzal? The Special Cell says Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the December 13 attack?

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Question 10: Is it plausible that organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to “Mohammed” and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Question 12: On December 19 2001, six days after the parliament attack, police commissioner SM Shangari identified one of the attackers who was killed as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000 and immediately handed over to the Jammu and Kashmir police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If police commissioner Shangari was right, how did Yasin, a man in the custody of the Jammu and Kashmir police, end up participating in the parliament attack? If he was wrong, where is Yasin now?

Question 13: Why is it that we still do not know who the five “terrorists” killed in the parliament attack are?

These questions, examined cumulatively, point to something far more serious than incompetence. The words that come to mind are complicity, collusion, involvement. There is no need for us to feign shock or shrink from thinking these thoughts and saying them out loud. Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies such as this to further their own ends. (Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany in 1933; or Operation Gladio, in which European intelligence agencies created acts of terrorism, especially in Italy, in order to discredit militant groups such as the Red Brigades.)

The official response to all of these questions has been dead silence. As things stand, Afzal’s execution has been postponed while the president considers his clemency petition. Meanwhile, the Bhartiya Janata party (now in the opposition) announced that it would turn “Hang Afzal” into a national campaign. But it does not seem to have taken off. Now other avenues are being explored. The main strategy seems to be to create confusion and polarise the debate on communal lines. In the business of spreading confusion, the media, particularly television journalists, can be counted on to be perfect collaborators. On discussions, chat shows and “special reports”, we have television anchors playing around with crucial facts, like young children in a sandpit. Torturers, estranged brothers, senior police officers and politicians are emerging from the woodwork and talking. The more they talk, the more interesting it all becomes.

One character who is rapidly emerging from the shadowy periphery and wading on to centre-stage is deputy superintendent Devinder Singh. He was showcased on the national news (CNN-IBN), in what was presented as a “sting” operation with a hidden camera. It all seemed a bit unnecessary, however, because Singh has been talking a lot these days. He has done recorded interviews, on the phone as well as face to face, saying exactly the same shocking things. Weeks before the sting operation, in a recorded interview with Parvaiz Bukhari, a freelance journalist, he said, “I did interrogate and torture him [Afzal] at my camp for several days. And we never recorded his arrest in the books anywhere. His description of torture at my camp is true. That was the procedure those days and we did pour petrol in his ass and gave him electric shocks. But I could not break him. He did not reveal anything to me despite our hardest possible interrogation … He looked like a ‘bhondu’ [fool] those days, what you call a ‘chootya’ [idiot] type. And I had a reputation for torture, interrogation and breaking suspects. If anybody came out of my interrogation clean, nobody would ever touch him again. He would be considered clean for good by the whole department.”

This is not an empty boast. Singh has a formidable reputation for torture in the Kashmir Valley. On TV, his boasting spiralled into policy-making. “Torture is the only deterrent for terrorism,” he said. “I do it for the nation.” He did not bother to explain why or how the “bhondu” that he tortured and subsequently released allegedly went on to become the diabolical mastermind of the parliament attack. Singh then said that Afzal was a Jaish militant. If this is true, why was the evidence not placed before the courts? And why on earth was Afzal released? Why was he not watched? There is a definite attempt to try to dismiss this as incompetence. But given everything we know now, it would take all of Singh’s delicate professional skills to make some of us believe that.

The official version of the story of the parliament attack is very quickly coming apart at the seams. Even the supreme court judgment, with all its flaws of logic and leaps of faith, does not accuse Afzal of being the mastermind of the attack. So who was the mastermind? If Afzal is hanged, we may never know. But LK Advani, the leader of the opposition, wants him hanged at once. Even a day’s delay, he says, is against the national interest. Why? What is the hurry? The man is locked up in a high-security cell on death row. He is not allowed out of his cell for even five minutes a day. What harm can he do? Talk? Write, perhaps? Surely, even in Advani’s own narrow interpretation of the term, it is in the national interest not to hang Afzal? At least not until there is an inquiry that reveals what the real story is and who actually attacked parliament?

A genuine inquiry would have to mean far more than just a political witch-hunt. It would have to look into the part played by intelligence, counter-insurgency and security agencies as well. Offences such as the fabrication of evidence and the blatant violation of procedural norms have already become established in the courts, but they look very much like just the tip of the iceberg. We now have a police officer admitting – boasting – on record that he was involved in the illegal detention and torture of a fellow citizen. Is all of this acceptable to the people, the government and the courts of India?

Given the track record of Indian governments (past and present, right, left and centre) it is naive – perhaps utopian is a better word – to hope that today’s politicians will ever have the courage to institute an inquiry that will, once and for all, uncover the real story. A maintenance dose of pusillanimity is probably encrypted in all governments. But hope has little to do with reason.

(C) Arundhati Roy 2006

Print this Report

Foreign Minister Khar leads Pakistan delegation to the 12^thIslamic Summit in Cairo

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar led Pakistan delegation to the 12^th Islamic Summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Cairo on 6-7 February 2013. The Summit brought together leaders of Islamic countries to discuss political, economic and socio-cultural issues of significance to the Muslim World including the Palestine issue, situations in Syria and Mali, and Islamophobia.

Pakistan as a founder member of the OIC participated actively in the Summit and preparatory Ministerial and senior officials meetings. Pakistan was elected as Vice-Chair of the Summit.

In her statement to the Summit, the Foreign Minister underscored the need to address daunting challenges faced by the Muslim World through unity, solidarity, and a spirit of Islamic brotherhood. She briefed the participating leaders on the deepening of democratic process in Pakistan that has led to strengthening of democratic institutions, flow of resources to provinces and local governments, and enactment of legislations on protecting fundamental freedoms, women, children and minorities’ rights.

The Foreign Minister stressed that the need to find a just and peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. She affirmed thatPakistan remained committed to the composite dialogue process with India to resolve all outstanding issues. The Secretary General OIC as well as Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Malaysia also extended their support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their statements.

Reiterating Pakistan’s support to the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process, the Foreign Minister said that Pakistan was extending all possible assistance to intra-Afghan reconciliation process. Condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations she stated that terrorism could not be defeated by law enforcement and military operations only and there was a need to adopt a compressive approach.

The Foreign Minister expressed concern on the continuing trend of Islamophobia and emphasized the need for developing a unified strategy for preventing religious hatred and defamation of religions on the pretext of freedom of expression. Underscoring the need to increase intra-OIC trade and economic cooperation, the Foreign Minister presented various proposals for the advancement of science and technology under the patronage of the OIC Standing Committee on Science and Technology (COMSTECH). The President of Pakistan is the Chairman of COMSTECH, which is exploring the possibility of convening an OIC Summit on science and technology.

The OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir also met on the sidelines of the Summit. The meeting was co-chaired by the Foreign Minister and Secretary General OIC, and was attended by high officials from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Niger, who reiterated their continued support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, and the True Representatives of the People of Jammu and Kashmir also participated in the meeting. They presented to the Summit a Memorandum on the Kashmir cause.

The Summit adopted joint Communiqué, which besides addressing issues of interest and concern to the Muslim Ummah, reaffirmed its principle support to the People of Jammu and Kashmir for the realization of their legitimate right to self determination. It also called upon India to allow the OIC fact-finding mission, the international human rights groups and humanitarian organizations to visit Jammu and Kashmir. The Final Communiqué urged India to undertake independent investigation into the discovery of mass graves and ensure free and fair trial of those responsible of those heinous crimes. In addition, the Communiqué expressed deep concern on the recent ceasefire violations along the Line of Control and welcomed Pakistan’s proposal to hold investigation through United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UMMOGIP).

On Afghanistan the Final Communiqué affirmed support to the people of Afghanistan, and appreciated Pakistan’s efforts in hosting a large number of Afghan refugees.

The Summit expressed satisfaction on the progress made in establishing new OIC organs including the Independent Permanent Commission of Human Rights (IPCHR) and the OIC Women Development Organization (WDO). Pakistan is already a signatory to the Statute of WDO.

On the sidelines of the Summit, the Foreign Minister held a number of bilateral meetings including with the Foreign Ministers of Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and U.A.E. She exchanged views on regional and international developments and on the issues of interest to Muslim Ummah.

Print this Report

By

Waheed Hamid

The democratic India is visibly struggling and fighting against its few intolerant extremists as it moves to more  understanding of human values and truth.  The uncultured ideology of having no ethics in war and enmity was rationalized and the civilization seem progressing  with expansion of space for Human Rights , ethics , rule of law and morality. Over the thaw on LOC violations and tension in Indo – Pak relations in recent past Indian known writer Karan Thapar  wrote a thought provoking article in Hindustan Times. He questioned  the Indian voices claiming beheading and mutilation of an Indian soldier on the LoC by Pakistan which Pakistan has denied. He reminds that in past during a skirmish at Karnah, “Indian Special Forces responded by attacking a Pakistani forward post, killing several soldiers, and by the account of one military official which The Hindu could not corroborate independently, beheaded two.” What makes this claim credible is that it’s reported by military sources who not only ought to know but would not denigrate the reputation of Indian soldiers. He gives another evidence from an eye-witnesses Barkha Dutt who wrote  ‘Confessions of a War Reporter’, published in June 2001 by Himal, a well-known Nepalese magazine, Barkha Dutt recounted how she witnessed a decapitated Pakistani soldier’s head at Kargil.

Indian Interior Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde , has put serious blames on Hindu Extremist Organizations supporting Pakistani claims. He confessed that “We have reports that training camps of BJP and RSS are promoting Hindu terrorism. Hindu extremist organizations recruit Armed People. We are closely watching it.” At the AICC session in Jaipur, Shinde had accused BJP and RSS of conducting terror training camps and promoting “Hindu terrorism”.  Mani Shankar completely agreed to Interior minister and said,“ its good that interior minister himself told this as it is not something hidden, everybody knew it but no one had the courage to speak.” Unfortunately the extremists in India have high jacked the majority view.   Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch said that “It is extremely rare for the security forces in Kashmir to turn over one of their own to the civilian justice system,”. Over the past two decades, the conflict in Kashmir has left over 47,000 people dead by the official count.

Indian Civil rights groups have been arguing for long that the investigations into bomb blasts and terror attacks have degenerated into communal witch-hunts. Bomb blasts are followed predictably by mass arrests of Muslim youth, raids in Muslim-dominated localities, detentions, arrests and torture; media trials, charge sheets and prosecution based on custodial confessions and little real evidence. It has been assumed, and accepted widely, that no further proof of guilt need be offered than the fact that the accused belonged to a particular community. Leads which pointed to the hands of groups affiliated to Sangh  organizations and their complicity in planning and executing acts of terror were ignored, never seriously pursued. The agencies, showing their abject bias, instead chose to pursue the beaten track of investigating Islamic terrorist organizations such—despite clear evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

Historically remembering  18 Feb 2007  when  at least 68 people mostly Pakistani were killed in a series of explosions and a fire on Pakistan-bound train in the northern Indian state of Haryana, near Panipat, about 80km (50 miles) north of Delhi. Initial investigation blamed  LeT and JeM , even a Pakistani national Azmat Ali was arrested. Later it was found by the investigating  Police that the  right-wing Hindu activists and an Indian army officer Colonel Prohit had a significant  role. The confessions of Swami Aseemanand further confirms hindutva redical’s role in terrorism. In Mecca Masjid Blast on May 18, 2007 ,14 people died and as a natural reaction initially around 80 Muslims were detained for questioning and 25 were arrested. The investigation followed the script till the CBI found evidence that mobile phone-detonated explosives packed in metal tubes were similar to the Ajmer blasts. The bombs are believed to have contained a deadly mix of RDX and TNT, in proportions often used by the Indian army. Professor in biomedical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Mr Ram Puniyani   wrote about Col Purohit last year in Countercurrents.org that in the wake of the various acts of terror and Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur’s motor cycle being traced, it became clear that the investigating agencies are acting on the wrong thesis that ‘all terrorists are Muslims’. A Pandora’s box opened and the link of ex-ABVP activist, Pragya Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey, retired Major Upadhayay, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and Swami Aseemanand came to surface.  Role of two organizations inspired by the ideology of ‘Hindu nation’, Abhinav Bharat and Santana Sanstha also came to light. Recently, Indian leader Vijay Singh told that BJP demanded concessions for Prohit and others involved in Samjhota Express blasts. He said, “We want to ask Lal Krishan Advani  that he took delegation for following Prohit’s case to Dr Manmohan Singh, Sushmaa Suraj was also part of this delegation, they went to follow terrorists they should be answerable and sorry for it“.

The time of progress through concealing own follies and using harassment through extremism is no more practical in today’s media world where open source information has gained more importance when compared with old intelligence tools.  Extremism is not only a visible problem in India but unfortunately all indicators show its growing due to lack of  international support for the ones who tend to raise their voice against this menace. The dangers are not only  for India and its democracy but the entire region has started feeling the heat. The Indian extremists now challenge their own sports and cultural stars on basis of religion and caste. The world is a global village  and all who can make a difference must act to save humanity and give PEACE a chance .

Print this Report

Statement by H.E. Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar

Foreign Minister of Pakistan,

at the Meeting of OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir (Cairo, 5 February 2013)

meets with the Foreign Ministers of Iran and Turkey on 6th

Secretary General, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu,

Excellencies

Distinguished participants

Excellencies,

I am honoured to address this meeting of the OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir on a day when Pakistanis all over the world observe solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This is the third meeting of the Contact Group in less than six months – an expression of importance that OIC and members states attach to the protracted issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

On behalf of the Government of Pakistan and on my own behalf I convey my sincere gratitude to Your Excellencies for being here with us. I also thank the OIC member states who have extended unequivocal and unconditional support to a cause which has remained on the agenda of OIC since its formation. I deeply appreciate the efforts made by Your Excellency in your capacity as the OIC Secretary General to project the Jammu and Kashmir issue at the international level. The OIC Secretariat also deserves special commendation. I also take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Government of Egypt for the excellent arrangements made for the 12th OIC Summit in this historical city of Cairo.

Excellencies

The OIC has consistently supported the Kashmir cause and has always expressed Ummah’s concern over the absence of   progress on Kashmir dispute. OIC message has been clear: Implement the UN Security Council Resolutions which affirm Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. The support of the OIC member states to the Kashmir cause is highly valued by the Kashmiris and the people of Pakistan.

Excellencies,

It is unfortunate that since 1948 Kashmiris’ right to self determination has been denied. This right is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and is in full accord with international law. President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, during his  address at the 67^th session of the UNGA reaffirmed that Pakistan will continue to support the right of people of Jammu and Kashmir  to peacefully determine their destiny in accordance with the UN Security Council’s  resolutions.

We appreciate the consistent support of the OIC member states in impressing upon the Government of India and the international community to fulfill its promise to the Kashmiri people as enshrined in the UN resolutions.

Excellencies,

The struggle for self determination has cost Kashmiris dearly in terms of human, economic and social losses. But this has not weakened the resolve of the Kashmiri people.

Sadly, human rights violations of the people of Kashmir continue unabated with impunity.  The fundamental rights of the people of Kashmir have been trampled through invoking the Armed Forces Special Power which has been termed as ‘draconian’ and ‘hated’ and “a violation of International Law” by Mr. Christof Heyns, UN Special Rapporteur. Instruments of human rights violations, including rape, fake encounters, custodial killings and arrests are being used by the security forces in IoK. Despite the signals that sometime emanate from India that the security forces presence in Kashmir would be reduced, the number of the Indian occupied forces has not gone down.

The discovery of mass graves is a matter of concern not only to Kashmiri but to the whole international community. The demand to conduct an impartial inquiry into the mass graves and forensic identification of dead bodies has received muted response from the Indian authorities. Pakistan shares the concern of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and international human rights organizations over the persistent violations of the human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan reiterates it demand and calls upon the Government of India to exercise restraint, stop killing of innocent Kashmiris and ensure those responsible for such crimes are brought to justice. India must also take steps for early release of political prisoners and repeal the draconian laws.  Some international organizations have reported about human rights violations in IoK.OIC can help in compiling a report on human right situation in Indian occupied Kashmir for the information of OIC member states.

Excellencies,

Pakistan has entered into dialogue with India in good faith to amicably resolve the Kashmir dispute. We are earnestly implementing the Cross-LoC confidence building measures (CBMs) to bring relief to the divided families and reduce the sufferings of the Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC.  These CBMs have contributed towards the creation of a congenial environment between the two countries to address the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

During discussions with my Indian counterpart, we have repeatedly emphasized the need to address the Kashmir dispute in the larger interest of bringing peace and stability to South Asia and ameliorating the sufferings of the Kashmiri people.

During the recent violations of the LoC, there have been negative and hostile statements emanating fromthe Indian leadership. I am pleased to state that despite these provocations, Pakistan has chosen to exercise restraints to keep Pak- India peace process on track. We are ready to work with United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to carry out an independent inquiry into the ceasefire violations.  We would also welcome an OIC fact finding mission to investigate the recent incidents of ceasefire violations along the LoC.

Pakistan is convinced that the key to enduring peace and security in South Asia lies in resolving the longstanding dispute of Kashmir. We are committed to finding a just and peaceful resolution of the dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. To this end we believe that the Kashmiris should be associated with the dialogue process. We hope that the Government of India would reciprocate Pakistan’s principled approach and initiate appropriate steps measures for an early resolution of Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

Excellencies,

The resolution of Jammu and Kashmir would usher in era of peace in South Asia home to nearly 22% of the world population.

We appreciate the support extended to the Kashmir cause by the OIC member states expressed through OIC resolutions. We  reiterate our request to implement these resolutions as well as the recommendations contained in the report of OIC Secretary General’s Special Representative for Jammu and Kashmir, particularly: i)Islamic Universities may be requested to provide scholarship to Kashmir students; ii.)Kashmiri youth may be extended training in the OIC Statistical, Economic, and Social & Research Training Centre in Ankara.

I would once again convey my profound gratitude to the Secretary General of OIC and the governments of Niger, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, for their constant support for the Kashmir cause. I am also grateful to all of you Excellencies, for your participation in the meeting.

Allah bless you all.

Press Release

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister meets with the Foreign Ministers of Iran and Turkey

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar met with the Foreign Minister of Iran Mr. Ali Akber Salehi on the side lines of the 12th OIC Summit in Cairo. Foreign Minister Khar said that Pakistan enjoyed deep rooted brotherly bilateral relations with Iran and noted that the cooperation between the two countries was on a positive trajectory. She, however, emphasised on taking effective steps to particularly increase bilateral trade. She informed the Iranian Foreign Minister that Pakistan attached great importance to the early completion of Iran Pakistan Gas Pipeline project.

Foreign Minister Khar also held a detailed meeting with her Turkish counterpart Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu. Both the leaders expressed satisfaction over the excellent relations between the two countries and underlined the importance of translating these relations into broad-based and multifaceted cooperation in every field. They also discussed the situation in Syria and Afghanistan and agreed to continue working closely for the peace and stability of these countries.

Islamabad

06 February 2013

Print this Report

Press Release

OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir meets in Djibouti

Addressing the OIC Contact Group meeting on Jammu and Kashmir on the sidelines of the 39^th Session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Djibouti, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar called upon the international community to come forward to redeem its promise to the people of Kashmir.  She said the ordeal of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was still going on despite the promise to them by the international community to support them in the exercise of their right to self determination. She thanked the OIC Group for constantly supporting the Kashmir cause adding that it was a constant source of encouragement for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Referring to a recent statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the discovery of unmarked mass graves in Kashmir, the Foreign Minister hoped that the international community would take note of this systematic human rights’ violation of the Kashmiri people.

Foreign Minister Khar said that Pakistan was committed to finding a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue in accordance with the UN resolutions and wishes of the Kashmiri people. She also said that Pakistan was convinced that key to enduring peace in South Asia lied in resolving the Kashmir issue and that in this regard Pakistan had embarked on a dialogue process with India to amicably resolve the issue.

The meeting was also attended by other members of the group that is Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Niger. They made statements and reiterated their continued support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. A statement was also made by the True Representative of the Kashmiri people Ghulam Mohammad Safi, who also presented a Memorandum to the Secretary General containing proposals for peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue.

Earlier, Foreign Minister Khar held separate meetings with the Foreign Ministers of Djibouti, Turkey, and Yemen, Secretary General OIC and Advisor to the Palestinian President on International Relations. They discussed bilateral relations as well as issues of mutual interests including the situation in Syria and Palestine.

Print this Report

By Hamid Waheed

Indian Army Flag March in Assam riots- 25 July

  A report of 10 pages “The Arrest of Abu Jundal: Assessment and Recommendations” by Vivek Chadha, published by IDSA New Dehli (Institute of defense studies and Analysis), on 20 Jul, 2012 has been analysed in the Indo-Pak terrorism environment. The main discussion points have been pitched against the historical facts produced by some of the prominent writers and officials in their write ups. Collective reading of both view points, expose the depth and intent of such studies by IDSA. The IDSA report highlights that arrest of Abu Jundal again proves to the world community that it is not merely groups like LeT that need to be dealt with expeditiously, but also Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorist groups which it regards as ‘strategic assets’ and the terror infrastructure that has taken roots in its territory. The report recommended that Pakistan’s growing international isolation clearly indicates the increasing pressure upon it to act against terrorist groups which it considers as ‘strategic assets’. At the same time, Pakistan’s internal political, economic and security situation has also become weakened. India must exploit Pakistan’s current position to coax it into taking verifiable action against the terrorist infrastructure within its territory. But at the same time, sustained efforts need to be made to reach out to and strengthen moderate sections within Pakistan aimed at increasingly marginalizing the radical voices within its society.   The report has following main  points.

• Pakistani state agencies were directly involved in the planning and execution of the attack, however, details likely to be made available as a result of Abu Jundal’s interrogation could provide irrefutable evidence in this regard
• Pakistan has been receiving support and aid from Saudi Arabia despite being increasingly isolated in the Western world.
• The city of Mumbai was held hostage by the ruthless action of the 10 perpetrators and their masters in Pakistan who were directing them.
• The 26/11 attack indicated that the LeT, operating from Pakistani soil, could not have achieved this dubious distinction, unless it had received state backing.
• Abu Jundal has revealed that 12 LeT terrorists were trained at camps in Muridke and Thakot in Pakistan, of whom finally 10 were selected for the attack.He has also said that the terrorists “were in constant touch with LeT figurehead Hafiz Saeed and Lakhvi, both of whom used to meet them along with the Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.”

Contrary to above Pakistan’s interior minister had strong reservations on Indian investigation system which he termed as un professional and non cooperative with Pakistan. But let us see his statement in back drop of historical events and write ups. Indian writers like Arunduta Roy,  officials like former Maharashtra IG police SM Mushrif  along with human rights organisations keep raising their voices whenever they can under coercive environment of Hindu extremist elements. Today Sikhs, Christian, Muslims and Dalits (the untouchable humans) are victim of state policies and inequality in India. Historically, the exclusion of 65 million Dalits from the Indian society has been on religious and cultural grounds. Most recently  the state of Assam (see map here) witnessed brutal mob violence, which virtually cut it off from the rest of India. According to police, at least 45 people have been killed, homes burnt, butchered bodies recovered, railway lines blocked in protest, and at least 150,000 people have fled their homes in fear. Historically remembering  18 Feb 2007  when  at least 68 people mostly Pakistani were killed in a series of explosions and a fire on Pakistan-bound train in the northern Indian state of Haryana, near Panipat, about 80km (50 miles) north of Delhi. Initial investigation blamed  LeT and JeM , even a Pakistani national Azmat Ali was arrested. Later it was found by the investigating  Police that the  right-wing Hindu activists and an Indian army officer Colonel Prohit had a significant role. The confessions of Swami Aseemanand further confirms hindutva redical’s role in terrorism.

In Mecca Masjid Blast on May 18, 2007 ,14 people died and as a natural reaction initially around 80 Muslims were detained for questioning and 25 were arrested. The investigation followed the script till the CBI found evidence that mobile phone-detonated explosives packed in metal tubes were similar to the Ajmer blasts. The bombs are believed to have contained a deadly mix of RDX and TNT, in proportions often used by the Indian army. CBI director Ashwani Kumar told the media that an activist named Sunil Joshi “played a key role in orchestrating the Ajmer blast and a set of mobile SIM cards that had been used in activation of the bomb-triggers in the Mecca Masjid blast was used again in the Ajmer blast”.  National Investigating Agency (NIA) filed a case in a court accusing 11 Hindus and members of the ultra-right-wing Sanathan Sanstha, of masterminding and executing the October 2009 Margao blast. Initial suspicion and interrogation of suspected Muslim men, some believed to be members of “sleeper cells of jehadi groups” turned out to be an allegation.  Such incidents do give a  glimpse of investigation handling in India however, the larger story can be summarized in what a human right activist and Mumbai advocate Mihir said,”  It is believed that CBI is seeking directions from the  home ministry to see the Ajmer, Mecca Masjid, Malegaon and other blasts in conjunction after there has been no conclusive evidence of the involvement of Islamic groups”.

Ram Puniyani ,  a professor in biomedical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay wrote about Col Purohit on 22nd July in Countercurrents.org that in the wake of the various acts of terror and Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur’s motor cycle being traced, it became clear that the investigating agencies are acting on the wrong thesis that ‘all terrorists are Muslims’. A Pandora’s box opened and the link of ex-ABVP activist, Pragya Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey, retired Major Upadhayay, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and Swami Aseemanand came to surface, Role of two organizations inspired by the ideology of ‘Hindu nation’, Abhinav Bharat and Santana Sanstha also came to light. The investigations led by Hemant Karkare, by the Rajasthan ATS and National Investigation Agency (NIA) made it clear that there is a deeper nexus of elements like Purohit &Co., those who have been part of terror groups or have been supporting them in various ways. The confessions of Swami Aseemanand, named many more activists belonging to RSS combine, who are currently  in jails and are facing investigations for acts of terror. The blame game thus continues effecting lives of common Indians and Pakistanis who vote and select their leadership to improve their living environment and life standard but so called research institutes like IDSA keep polluting mind of leadership and force them to act against their mandate. Leaving aside politicians they keep labeling  Army Chief  Kiyani as  INDIA focused despite his offer on Siachen solution.   Thus irritants like Kashmir, Siachen and Sir creek remain on low burner and the miseries of people on both sides keep enhancing.

Print this Report

 Pakistan is not very fortunate to have many think tanks and analysts who keep record of previous incidents. The interested groups take full advantage of this shortfall and mould history to suite their requirement. The Perceptors group of intellectuals have been thoughtful to collect details on surjeet- Sarbjeet Singh and asked the mediapoint to publish this exclusive effort . The case of Kashmir Singh and Dr Chishti are also discussed to refresh the memory. However Pakistan president spokes person said that it is not Sarabjit but Surjeet they are talking about.

Surjeet Singh (left) who is being released from Pakistani jail after 30 years. At right is Sarabjit Singh. File photos

 Surjeet Singh

Several hours after the reports that an Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh was being released after President Zardari granted him pardon, the presidential spokesman late Tuesday night clarified that authorities had taken steps for the release of another Indian prisoner named Surjeet Singh jailed in Pakistan for thirty years.

“I think there is some confusion. First, it is not a case of pardon. More importantly, it is not Sarabjit. It is Surjeet Singh, son of Sucha Singh. His death sentence was commuted in 1989 by President (Ghulam) Ishaq (Khan) on the advice of (then premier) Benazir Bhutto,” presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said.

On May 23, a special meeting was held at the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, where it was decided that Indian prisoner Surjeet Singh would be repatriated by the end of this month.

“I will be at Wagah border to say goodbye to him. Thanks to God Almighty for his blessings,” writes Sheikh.

Surjeet Singh (different from another Indian prisoner, Sarabjit Singh whose case Sheikh has also taken up) was arrested in 1982 on charges of spying. A military court convicted him and awarded the death sentence. Later, during Benazir Bhutto’s regime, then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. Despite having completed 25 years in September, 2004, Surjeet Singh was not released.

After meeting his daughter and son in Amritsar last year advocate Awais Sheikh filed a writ petition on Surjeet Singh’s behalf in the Lahore High Court, stating that he had been languishing in prison even after completing his jail term and requesting the court to direct the secretary of foreign affairs and superintendent of Central Jail Lahore to include his name in the list of foreigner prisoners who had completed their jail term and were being repatriated. “There is no law to keep a prisoner in jail after completion of his sentence,” observed Chief Justice Lahore High Court Manzoor Ahmad Malik.

In response to the Ministry of Interior dragging its feet he threatened to decide the case exparte if the Ministry did not submit its report within a stipulated time. On May 8, the Punjab home department finally informed the Court that Surjeet Singh had been given civil internee status and would be sent back to India within three months.

A home department letter to this effect, sent earlier to the superintendent of Central Jail Lahore, was presented to Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik. The superintendent of Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, had submitted a report at the previous hearing stating that although Surjeet Singh’s jail term had expired, his fate could only be decided after directions from the General Headquarters (GHQ) Rawalpindi and the presidency.

(Read more here)

Sarabjit Singh

Sarabjit Singh, also known as Jaljit Singh, is an Indian citizen and convicted terrorist jailed in Pakistan. He was convicted for his involvement in 1990 serial bomb blasts in Lahore and Multan that killed 14 people. He claims that he is just a poor farmer and victim of mistaken identity, who strayed into Pakistan from his village located on the border.

He was given death sentence, but his hanging was repeatedly postponed. He is imprisoned in the Kot Lakhpat jail. On 26th June 2012, Finally Pakistan President ordered the release after the petition was filed on 28th May earlier this year. [2] Sarabjit Singh has already completed his life imprisonment by spending 22 years in prison and he will be released immediately.

Prosecution Case

On August 24, 2005 Pakistan High Commissioner Aziz Ahmed Khan said that ‘The alleged Indian agent Manjit Singh confessed his involvement in bomb blasts in Pakistan whose all evidences were presented in court.

According to the record, he was arrested red handed during crossing the border in August 1990 near the Kasur. Nine days later, he was produced before a magistrate , a man wanted for acts of terrorism in Pakistan. Before the magistrate, Manjit confessed to his crime. Also Pakistan says he was working for the Indian intelligence agency RAW when he was arrested in Lahore.Later on he denied it all during trial . He maintained that his name was Sarabjit Singh and that he had often crossed the Kasur border, smuggling alcohol.But his family was saying he didn’t cross the border.

Death sentence

He was awarded the death penalty by the Anti-Terrorist Court in 1991, based on evidence,eye witnessed and the original confession he had made before a magistrate. His sentence was upheld by the High Court and later by the Supreme Court. He was likely to be hanged on May 2008. The Supreme Court rejected his mercy petition in March 2006 and upheld the death sentence. President Pervez Musharraf had rejected his mercy petition on March 3. He had filed a fresh clemency which was his fifth one which was finally approved by the President.

Arguments from India

Later on he denied it all during trial. He maintained that his name was Sarabjit Singh and that he had often crossed the Kasur border, smuggling alcohol . Manjit Singh’s relatives claim he is a simple farmer who was arrested after he strayed across the Pakistani border from his northern frontier hometown of Bhikiwind in Punjab state while drunk in 1990. His wife Sukh Prit Kaur, a resident of Bhikhiwind village of district Tarantaran, claimed he left to plough his fields near Wagah Border on August 28, 1990, but never returned. She said the family launched a search but could not find any clue to his whereabouts for nine months and finally they received a letter from Manjit informing them that he was caught by Pakistani border forces when he mistakenly crossed the border under the influence of liquor. External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh took up Manjit Singh’s case with Pakistan High Commissioner Aziz Ahmed Khan and urged him to convey Delhi’s hope that Islamabad would treat the matter as a humanitarian issue.

Visit of his family to Pakistan

Later on the Government of Pakistan granted a seven-day visa to Manjit’s family to visit Lahore.

“We are hopeful that the government of Pakistan will release Manjit Singh after reviewing his death sentence and our visit to Pakistan will not prove futile”, Manjit’s wife Sukh Prit Kaur, who was accompanied by his two daughters Swapan Deep and Poonam Kaur, a sister and a paternal uncle, expressed hope at Gurdwara Dera Sahib after her arrival at the city via Wagah on Wednesday.

Student protests

In April 2008, a group of Pakistani students organized a march, seeking withdrawal of all official moves to pardon Sarabjit. They also demanded a boycott of western products and culture and promotion of Islamic teachings.

Key witness retracts statement

Shaukat Salim, a key witness in the case against Sarabjit, was caught on tape retracting his statement on April 26, 2008. Salim’s father and other relatives were killed in the attack, and he says that Sarabjit was the one who planted the bomb. But, earlier, he had said that he made the statements implicating Sarabjit under pressure from the Pakistani police. Meanwhile, Sarabjit’s lawyer Abdul Rana Hamid told Indian News Channel CNN-IBN that Salim’s statements have no value as they were never recorded in court.

Comments from media on release of Sarbjeet Singh

Geo (Capital Talk Topic: Sarbjeet Singh) Dr. Chishti was not imprisoned on charge of terrorism but Sarbjeet Singh is terrorist and killer of 19 Pakistani  and he is released under CBMs. Do you expect that India will ever release Ajmal Kasab? (Khawaja Saad Rafique)

Geo (Capital Talk Topic: Sarbjeet Singh) if you are releasing a convicted terrorist it means that you are not respecting Pakistani laws. His release will harm Pakistani system. (Maria Sultan)

Geo (Capital Talk Topic: Sarbjeet Singh) Without getting pardon from the heirs of deceased in terrorist attack, president cannot over rule the right of heirs and pardon Surbjeet Singh. Presidency is hurdle in capital punishment of many convicted. (Ansar Abbasi)

Kashmir Singh

Kashmir Singh (born 1941), who was an Indian spy, spent 35 years of his life in Pakistani prisons before he was released with the Presidential pardon by Pervez Musharraf.

Early life

In his early life, he was in he Indian Army from 1962-1966. After working in the Punjab Police for a while, he took up spying on a contractual basis at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. Thereafter, he entered Pakistan in the guise of Ibrahim, a Muslim name. Using this name, he checked into hotels and got identity cards during his task.

Arrest

In 1973, he was arrested on the 22nd Milestone on the Peshawar-Rawalpindi road by Pakistani intelligence officers. Upon arrest, he was accused of espionage and smuggling but it could not be proved by the authorities. At the time of his arrest, his family included his wife, Paramjit Kaur, and three children under the age of 10.

Subsequently in the same year, he was sentenced to death by a Pakistan Army court. This verdict was upheld by a civil court in between 1976 and 1977 and a mercy petition followed this, but to no avail. After being sentenced to an indefinite jail term, he said that he “was tortured third degree for the first few months by the authorities” as they pressurized him to confess of being an Indian spy. Singh was lodged in seven different jails in Pakistan and was “kept in solitary confinement and remained chained for 17 long years.”

Singh’s entire family but for Paramjit, his wife had lost hope for his return. In 1986, when the Pakistan government released a few Indian prisoners, who were accused of spying, from the Lahore jail, the family knew that he was alive, but on a death sentence.

Release

In 2008, the caretaker Human rights minister, Ansar Burney spotted him while visiting the Lahore jail. Burney said that Singh became mentally disabled after his years in jail. He immediately put up his case with the Government of Pakistan that sought Singh’s release. He further added that he had “fought his case on humanitarian grounds as he [Singh] had spent 35 years in jail.”

On seeing this, President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf accepted this mercy petition and ordered for release and repatriation of Singh to India.

On March 4, 2008, he was released by Pakistan and entered India through the Wagah border amidst celebrations.

Times of India Report

But this gesture was returned by India by brutally Killing of a Pakistani prisoner in Indian jail.

Extracts: ”Having seen off Kashmir Singh at Wagah Border last week amid joy and laughter, Pakistanis assembled again yesterday at the same point to receive the body of an innocent Pakistani cricket-lover amid tears and grief.”

Another comment : Though Burney claimed to have started a new era of relations with the archrival by releasing a their spy in such a dramatic fashion, the other side responded within no time.
In return, they dispatched the tormented and tortured dead body of Khalid Mehmood, who was caught by Indian agencies shortly after he reached there to watch a cricket match.

Conclusion: Above quoted history apart if the decision to pardon has been institutionalized through government and not individuals and has the required input from Gen Kiyani and his agencies, Pakistanis and the world may accept it as another gesture of its contribution towards peace in the region.

Print this Report

By Hamid Waheed

          The American democratic  culture has always been a symbol of justice and protector of human rights. The society moved  from slavery  to freedom and statue of liberty stood as source of strength of upcoming proud American Generation. The democratic system  traditionally rely on the separation of powers and judicial review to protect liberty and impose legal restrictions on government officials including intelligence agencies. But in the post-9/11 period, restraint of government was some how relegated to few who want to take away the  rights and liberty of the society.  The ones who have made American culture a hostage to fear of Terrorism. The effects of this are unfortunately being felt by the entire world in general and south Asia, the zone of War On Terror in particular.  After 9/11,  the human rights were often compromised in their commitments to principles of liberty, equality, dignity, fair process, and the rule of law. The group of few tarnished the American image of value system. With each step of victory in this direction the super power and its partners keep loosing the battle of hearts and minds . A decade later, the most daunting legacy of September 11th is that Americans have  gradually abandoned the notion that morally-based values such as human rights should define their identity and guide their behavior. As the time passes old issues like Abu Ghauraib  are complimented by new which signals an ascending graph of planned  deteriorating human rights situation in society.

 On 25 Jun Jimmy Carter American Ex- president wrote that , “THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights. Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues. He suggests that at a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends. This is what Pakistani parliament and its Army Chief Kayani has been saying all along. The CIA and American army’s confused and at times conflicting strategies have mixed good with bad and friends with foes.   ”Today it is estimated as many as 27 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery, what we sometimes call trafficking in persons,” Clinton said at the unveiling of the report at the State Department as the US unveiled its annual report into human trafficking in mid of Jun.”Those victims of modern slavery are women and men, girls and boys, and their stories remind us of the kind of inhumane treatment we are capable of as human beings,” said Clinton. On India, the report states that the country is a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labour and sex trafficking.

A decade after 9/11 leaves unbelievable stories of American heros like Dr Shakil Afridi, who worked with the C.I.A. to collect DNA samples of Osama under the guise of a bogus vaccination. He gave fake vaccination against Polio, by actually taking DNA samples in the hope of locating Bin Laden.  To get to this old dysfunctional Osama the CIA never realized the cost of life of about 200,000 children in FATA area of Pakistan who are now at risk of Polio to live throughout their life as handicapped individuals. Such silent killers remind of sufferings of generations born in Japan in 1940 and 50s. The  drone strikes have been a sore point with the public and Pakistani politicians, who describe them as violations of sovereignty that produce unacceptable civilian casualties but the Americans term this the most effective tool to get Al-Quida leadership hiding in remote areas of Pak- Afghan border. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Dr Navi Pillay said in a press conference in Islamabad that ”Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law,” Dr Pillay told. ”Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command and beyond” .

It surprises the community when a credible international news paper in month of Jun reports that A former Indian army officer  Avtar Singh lived in the U.S.A illegally for at least five years before he killed his wife, two children this month. Mr Singh had been arrested by U.S. investigators for unlawful presence in July 2007 but they decided not to deport him but to use him. Police also discovered that he was being sought in India on a murder charge In Kashmir, where more than 68,000 people, mostly civilian, have been killed  under a controversial state Law. The American did jail Ghulam Nabi Fai who was just a lobbiest for freedom struggle in Kashmir  but  kept nurturing Avtar Singh a killer a human right abuser. The space for invoking human rights on moral grounds alone has virtually disappeared. The War Against Terror continues. It waxes and wanes. Innocents die. Livelihood   is lost. Bin Laden is found and killed  but the Americans themselves and world community keeps  loosing freedom and human values. Who will stop this degrading trend  still remains unanswered. The World views Americans as unjust and coercive nation as it remains hijacked by few who certainly do not represent the nation which draws inspiration from STATUE OF LIBERTY..

Print this Report

An exclusive view and photographs of an officer who performed duties in Siachen in 1990 on posts as high as 21000 feet are placed for viewers of media point.

Gayari Sector being displayed on media is a battalion head quarters at about 13000 feet. The company headquarters are usually at a much higher place and the individual posts of platoon and section level are usually as high as 19000 to 21000 feet above see level.

Click on Next/Back arrows to view all the photographs.

Toilet

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 15

The igloo seen behind is a toilet. This facility was available up to company headquarter but upper post does not have this luxury.

Print this Report