Is this hypocrisy or nationalism? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Is this hypocrisy or nationalism? Dr Shabir Choudhry

London          31 October 2015

Where India is wrong, oppose and condemn; but where Pakistan is wrong, be courageous to criticise that as well.

The former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is forcibly occupied by India, Pakistan and China, claim Kashmiri nationalists. Is it not strange that despite this claim their struggle seems to be against India only; and there is tons of evidence to support this?

No matter how much you like or dislike Narendra Modi, the fact is that he is an elected Prime Minister of India. We have a right to oppose his policies and hold demonstrations against him, but we don’t have a right to use foul language against him and hurt sentiments of millions of Indian people. Remember we need support of civil society of India and Pakistan to win our case against their governments.

Prime Minister Modi is visiting Britain on 12 November 2015; and Kashmiri nationalists living here appear to be more eager than Pakistanis or pro Pakistan Kashmiris to hold demonstrations against him.

One Kashmiri nationalist leader urged me to support these demonstrations and hold a TV debate on this. I asked him why we should do that. He said because India occupies Kashmir.

I said Pakistan also occupies Kashmir. When Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited Britain a few weeks ago, did you organise a demonstration against him? Apart from that, Army Chief of Pakistan also visited Britain recently, did you or any other nationalist party organise any demonstration against him?

He was not ready for this response, so he had no logical reply to this. I further said: Kashmir watchers and the international community are not fool. We claim to be against occupation of all three countries, and working for united and independent Jammu and Kashmir; but our actions do not support this contention.

When Pakistani Prime Minister visits Britain we remain quiet; and when the Pakistani Army Chief visits Britain we also remain quiet. There is news that even some Kashmiris desperately tried to meet these officials or their subordinates.

Furthermore, when the Chinese President visited Britain a few weeks ago, we also remained quiet. There was no demonstration of any kind. No one expressed any interest to organise any demonstration or a picket; or even issue a statement against him.

This behaviour of Kashmiri nationalists clearly demonstrate that their struggle, in practise, is not against all occupiers. Despite this obvious contradiction and a big flaw in their policy, Kashmiri nationalists expect the world community to support their cause. Which cause, one may ask? Either they are fooling themselves or they wrongly think they are fooling the world community.

No matter what we Kashmiri nationalists think of ourselves; many Kashmir watchers think we are a confused lot, and are only wasting our time. How can we get support of other countries when our struggle lacks credentials of a genuine nationalist struggle? How can they support us when our struggle is perceived as an extension of GHQ of Pakistan and aimed at targeting India only?

Kashmiri stalwarts of Pakistani establishment are very active in organising demonstrations against India in some cities of the world. All this is done in name of the Kashmiri struggle. New and attractive slogans are used to attract people and to camouflage their real intentions. It is debatable if these efforts will help or support the genuine Kashmiri struggle for independence.

This is the same policy which was formulated by the Pakistani establishment in September 1947; and successfully sold to the people of Jammu and Kashmir with different labels. When they realise that some people are becoming suspicious of their policy, they either change the label on the bottle or defame those people with some silly allegations.

Some Kashmiri nationalists eventually understood the game plan of Pakistani establishment, and formulated a policy that those who are occupied by Pakistan, they should struggle against the Pakistani occupation; and those who are occupied by India, they should struggle against the Indian occupation.

These nationalists understood that policy of liberating Jammu and Kashmir under India was formulated by the Pakistani establishment, and its aim was to keep India bleeding; and give this impression that only the Indian side of Kashmir was disputed. Furthermore, a man chained in one room cannot help his brother chained in another room; hence both have to struggle against their captors.

However, it is sad to note that some people with this thinking are also at the forefront of organising demonstrations against India, knowing full well that the stalwarts of the Pakistani establishment are working on a script prepared by the Pakistani establishment.

To conclude, this policy of Pakistani establishment can promote some people and reward some others; but it will never help us to liberate Jammu and Kashmir. Furthermore, it will help to send a wrong signal to the world community, confuse people of Jammu and Kashmir and keep them divided.

Thinking people can decide if they want to promote the cause of the Pakistani establishment; or support the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists rejected intolerance in India

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists rejected intolerance in India

Padma-winning scientists protest 'a rash of bigoted acts'

I am proud of the Patriotic Indians, and good Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Dalits and others who are standing up and protesting against the freedoms that are being usurped. If we don't save the nation now, it will be difficult to redeem it.
God bless India and Indians, and only God can change the heart of our Prime Minister to prevent the nation from going down the tube. All he needs to do is speak up and say, I am the Prime Minister and no one dares mess my nation, every Indian has the right to speak, read, write, eat, drink, wear or believe what ever he or she has come to believe, and no one will mess with them.

Really, that is all it takes, people are losing hope in the Prime Minister and it is time for him to speak up.

Mike Ghouse

http://MikeGhouseforIndia.blogspot.com 

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists issue a joint statement against 'intolerance and rejection of reason' by 'important functionaries of the government'.

Scroll Staff  · Yesterday · 07:45 pmhttp://scroll.in/article/765415/full-text-eminent-scientists-protest-a-rash-of-bigoted-acts-attacks-on-minorities-and-dalits

Over 100 eminent and distinguished scientists, many of them recipients of Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri awards, have issued a joint statement expressing their deep concern with the "climate of intolerance, and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country".

"It is the same climate of intolerance, and rejection of reason that has led to the lynching in Dadri of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and the assassinations of Prof Kalburgi, Dr Narendra Dabholkar and Shri Govind Pansare," the scientists said in their statement, taking the government to task for a "rash of bigoted acts, attacks on minorities and Dalits, which show no signs of abating."

Invoking Article 51 A (h) of the the Indian Constitution, the scientists pointed out that it demands, as a part of the fundamental duties of the citizens, that we "...develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform."

"Unfortunately," they went on to add,  "What we are witnessing instead is the active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government."

This statement follows another group of over 130 scientists who had urged President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday to take “suitable action” to stop incidents of “intolerance, polarisation and [the spreading] of communal hatred” from “taking our country, which has a rich heritage and cultural diversity, backwards.”

Earlier, artists and sociologists had expressed their support of over 35 writers across the country, representing several linguistic groups, who returned their Sahitya Akademi awards or resigned from their positions at the country's top literary body to protest what they perceived as the rising tide of intolerance and the shrinking space for free expression.

The avalanche of these protests was triggered off by Hindi writer Uday Prakash who was the first to return his award to Sahitya Akademi, which was soon followed by noted writer Nayantara Sahgal and former Lalit Kala Akademi chairman Ashok Vajpeyi.

"The writers have shown the way with their protests," the statement by scientists said. "We scientists now join our voices to theirs, to assert that the Indian people will not accept such attacks on reason, science and our plural culture. We reject the destructive narrow view of India that seeks to dictate what people will wear, think, eat and who they will love."

The full text of the statement is given below.

The scientific community is deeply concerned with the climate of intolerance, and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country.

It is the same climate of intolerance, and rejection of reason that has led to the lynching in Dadri of Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and the assassinations of Prof Kalburgi, Dr Narendra Dabholkar and Shri Govind Pansare. All three fought against superstition and obscurantism to build a scientific temper in our society. Prof Kalburgi was a renowned scholar and an authority on the Vachana literature associated with the 12th-century reformer Basava, who opposed institutionalised religion, caste and gender discrimination. Similarly, Dr Dabholkar and Shri Pansare promoted scientific temper through their fight against superstition and blind faith.

The Indian Constitution in Article 51 A (h) demands, as a part of the fundamental duties of the citizens, that we '...develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform'. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing instead is the active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government.

The Indian civilisation is a truly plural one. We have always had many practices and communities that have allowed space for each other; we celebrate the festivals and anniversaries of all faiths. This unity and peace has now been disturbed by a rash of bigoted acts, attacks on minorities and Dalits, which show no signs of abating.

The writers have shown the way with their protests. We scientists now join our voices to theirs, to assert that the Indian people will not accept such attacks on reason, science and our plural culture. We reject the destructive narrow view of India that seeks to dictate what people will wear, think, eat and who they will love.

We appeal to all other sections of society to raise their voice against the assault on reason and scientific temper we are witnessing in India today.

The views expressed in the statement are individual and do not reflect views of the institution a signatory is affiliated to.

Dr Alladi Sitaram Visiting Professor, Chennai Mathematical Institute; Professor Emeritus, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Ashoke Sen, Padma Bhushan, Fellow of Royal Society (FRS), Distinguished Professor, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad

Dr Ashok Jain, Former Director, National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi

Dr A Gopalakrishnan, Former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Government of India

Dr D Balasubramanian, Padma Shri Research Director, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, & former Director Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad

Dr Madabusi Raghunathan, Padma Bhushan, Fellow of Royal Society (FRS), Professor, National Centre for Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr PM Bhargava, Padma Bhushan, Former Director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad (one of the original signatories to the 1981 Scientific Temper Statement)

Dr P Balaram, Padma Bhushan, Former Director, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
Dr Satyajit Mayor, Foreign Associate, US National Science Academy, Director, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru
Dr Spenta Wadia, Emeritus Professor and Founding Director, International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr AP Balachandran, Joel Dorman Steele Professor of Physics (Emeritus), Physics Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.

Dr Abhishek Dhar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Alak K Ray, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Alok Laddha, Chennai Mathematics Institute, Bangalore

Dr Amit Sengupta, National Convenor, Peoples Health Movement

Dr Anna George, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Arnab Bhattacharya, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Arvind, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali

Dr Ashvin Vishvanath, University of California-Berkeley, USA

Dr Avinash Dhar, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr B Ravindran, Institute for Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar

Dr BLS Prakasa Rao, CR Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Hyderabad

Dr B Ananthanarayan, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr B Rajeev, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore

Dr B Ekbal, Former Vice Chancellor, Kerala University

Dr B Sury, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Chandrasekhar Khare, Fellow of Royal Society, Professor of Mathematics, University of California-Los Angeles, USA, and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Mr D Raghunandan, Director, Centre of Technology and Development, New Delhi

Dr DP Sen Gupta, Visiting Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru
Dr Debashis Ghoshal, School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Dr Dhruv Raina, Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Dr Dilip Ahuja, Profesor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr Dinesh Abrol, Institute of Studies in Industrial. Development, New Delhi

Dr Dipendra Prasad, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Firoza Sutaria, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Gadadhar Misra, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Gautam Mandal, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Hema Murthy, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai

Dr Joseph Samuel, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Justin David, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Kapil Paranjape, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali

Dr LS Shashidhara, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune

Dr Leena ChandranWadia, Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai

Dr MG Narasimhan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr MRN Murthy, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr MVN Murthy, Professor Emeritus, The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
Dr Madan Rao, Raman Research Institute and NCBS-TIFR, Bengaluru
Dr Mangal C Mahato, Department of Physics, North East Hill University, Shillong

Dr Nilmani Mathur, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr P Ajith, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Pallab Basu, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Partha P Majumder, National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani

Dr Parthib Basu, Department of Zoology, Calcutta University, Kolkata

Mr Prabir Purkayastha, Chairperson, Knowledge Commons, New Delhi

Dr Prajit K Basu, Centre for Neural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Hyderabad
Dr Prajval Shastri, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Pramathanath Sastry, Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai

Dr Pravabati Chinganbam, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Probal Choudhuri, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata

Dr Purushottam Kulkarni, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr R Ramanujam, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai

Dr R Shankar, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai

Dr Rahul Roy, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi

Dr Rajat Tandon, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Hyderabad

Dr Rajesh Gopakumar, Director, International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Rama Govindarajan, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad

Dr Ranjini Bandyopadhyay, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Ravinder Banyal, Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru

Dr Riddhi Shah, School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Dr Ronnie Sebastian, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune

Dr Rukmini Dey, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr S Chakrabarti, Department of Chemistry, Calcutta University, Kolkata

Dr S Ranganathan, National Institute of Advanced Studies Bengaluru

Dr Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Formerly Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru; and President All India Peoples Science Network

Dr Sachindeo Vaidya, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Samriddhi Sankar Ray, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Sandeep Krishna, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Sanjib Sabhapandit, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Santanu Datta, Chief Scientific Officer, BUGWORKS Inc., Bengaluru

Dr Satyajit Rath, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Saumen Datta, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Shamsher Singh, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sharada Srinivasan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

Dr Shiraz Naval Minwalla, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Dr Shrikrishna, G Dani Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Dr Shyamala Mani, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Siva Athreya, Indian Statistical Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sorab N Dalal, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and
Education in Cancer, Navi Mumbai

Dr Sriram Ramaswamy, Director, TIFR Centre for Interdisciplinary Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Hyderabad

Dr Subhro Bhattacharjee, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Begaluru
Dr Sumati Surya, Raman Research Institute, Bengaluru

Dr Sumathi Rao, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad.

Dr Sunil Mukhi, Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research, Pune

Dr Suresh Govindarajan, Dept of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai.
Dr Suvrat Raju, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru
Dr T Jayaraman, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai

Dr TR Govindarajan, Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai

Ms Tejal Kanitkar, Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Dr Tiju Thomas, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai

Dr Todadri Senthil, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA

Dr Vani VC, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Dr Venkatesh Athreya, Adjunct Professor, Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; formerly President All India Peoples Science Network

Dr Vidita Vaidya, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
Dr Vijay Kumar, Krisnamurthy, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru

Dr Vineeta Bal, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

Dr Vishal Vasan, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Dr Vivek Borkar, Institute Chair Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Interview of Lt General Moin Uddin Haider, October 2015

Interview of Lt General Moin Uddin Haider, October 2015

There has been a decline in terrorist attacks since Operation Zarb-e-Azb began in June 2014. However, terrorists still manage to pull off a major strike every now and then, the Badaber attack being the latest example. What does it signify?

It signifies that the cancer of terrorism has spread far and wide over the last 30-35 years. FATA has been identified as an epicentre of terrorism. Militants have been defeated in Swat. And after South Waziristan, an operation is underway in North Waziristan. Terrorists are on the run. Their operational areas and sanctuaries – used for training, manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and planning terrorist activities – have been taken away from them. They have melted into the cities and areas near the Pak-Afghan border. However, their sleeper cells continue to exist, and they can still play havoc. It will take time to fully eradicate them. The key [to this problem] is the army’s presence in FATA and continued pressure on militants, including operations against them in the cities.

While one aspect of this fight is being taken care of by the army, the challenge of defeating the extremist mindset is there. Extremists claim that they are fighting for a noble cause and exploiting the sacred name of Islam. But their aim is to destabilise Pakistan and for personal gains, which must be exposed. To defeat the extremist mindset, we need to reform the education system, improve governance and ensure quick and cheap justice. If people are disillusioned, they become easy prey to extremist ideologies.

Which areas need urgent attention in the war on terror?

Firstly, internally displaced persons IDPs call for our urgent attention. They need to be made stakeholders in the peace process. There’s a need to reconstruct their destroyed homes and infrastructure.

Secondly, the mistakes of the Swat operation should not be repeated. The provincial administration, the police and the judges failed to fill the vacuum after the military ousted the militants from Swat. This should not be repeated in FATA. The government must deploy the best human resources there and move fast to integrate FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Thirdly, we need to restore the sanctity of the Pak-Afghan border, which was destroyed after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Before the Soviet invasion, there was a system of passes, but for the last 30-35 years there have hardly been any checks. The Afghan side does not agree to fencing the border because they believe it will make the Durand Line permanent. No Afghan government has recognised the Durand Line as an international border. But such measures must be taken. How can you defeat terrorism without border surveillance and control? Even the Badaber attackers sneaked into Pakistan from Afghanistan.

How do you view the military strategy?

The army is learning from experience, and from its shortcomings and mistakes. It has improved since the South Waziristan days, when the casualty rate was high. But now all battalions sent to the tribal areas are trained in mountain and guerrilla warfare. As a result, the casualty rate is down and they are proving to be more effective.

Intelligence gathering is another challenge. If you are not forewarned, you can not be forearmed. Therefore, informers need to be infiltrated into terror groups. Sometimes intelligence is timely, at other times not. But occasionally despite information, the 24/7 security is relaxed. We still need to learn lessons from incidents like Badaber.

Certain quarters allege that the army operation is not across the board. For instance, Indians accuse Pakistan of not targeting groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT).

In my experience the LeT does not break any Pakistani law. It’s a Kashmir-centric group, which is occasionally accused of carrying on activities beyond the disputed territory – that is inside India. It is a serious matter as it can bring two nuclear-armed countries to war. But for us the question is, why open another front when the group is not threatening us?

After the UN Security Council resolutions in 2002, the LeT transformed itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawaa (JUD), which focuses on social work. But the Mumbai attack created complications. We do not think Hafiz Saeed was involved in the attack. However, sooner or later, Pakistan needs to ban all private armies. But right now, the focus should be only on those challenging the writ of the state and attacking our armed forces.

Is there a fear of an extremist mindset prevailing within certain sections of the armed forces? 

Such people can exist at various levels. For example, Javed Nasir, who was appointed as ISI chief by Nawaz Sharif, had an extremist mindset. We hear that he sent militants even to a friendly country. But during the Musharraf era, such elements were removed. However, even before Musharraf, the army as an institution kept an eye on such elements.  It’s not possible for anyone to deviate from the army’s stated policy. Several officials were court-martialled for extremist tendencies. The army always takes action against such elements, regardless of sect or school of thought.

How do you view the role of the civilian side in this war?

After [the formulation of the] National Action Plan, coordination among the law enforcement agencies has improved.  The provincial counter-terrorism departments are functioning. However, the central secretariat has not been established yet, because of lack of resources, but that isn’t the only issue. Politicians give the impression that the operation is only the army’s concern and not their responsibility. They are interested mostly in money-making ventures. They are least bothered about reforms in the police force, which suffers on account of political interference and corruption. There is nepotism even in its recruitment. In Sindh, many policemen have been arrested for their involvement in crime and extortion. A list of 3,400 policemen involved in crime has been made public.

Also, no one is willing to take ideological ownership of the war against extremism. The problem of a multi-tier education system, which is dividing society, is not on the radar of the political parties and neither are judicial reforms on their agenda.

As a consequence of the high fees of lawyers and a slow judicial process, cases keep dragging on. Also, politicians do not want local bodies – a must for solving the day-to-day problems of citizens and providing them basic amenities.

Many term Musharraf’s decision to join the US-led war on terror an unwise one. Why?

At that time, there was a military government in place and one man could take a decision. However, even if there was a democratic government, a similar decision would have been taken as the United States was in a rage. It had pulled out a sword to salvage its honour after the 9/11 attacks. “Are you with us or with terrorism?” was the kind of question being asked. It was a difficult situation. Americans had no problem dropping bombs this or that side of the Durand Line. For them it was an emotional time, but it also served the objectives of the neo-cons – that of bringing boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not just Musharraf, any other leader would have made a similar decision.

Are you hopeful that Pakistan will prevail in this war?  

Frankly speaking, a few years ago it seemed that the militants could knock and enter any door. We were on the defensive. But now the initiative is with the armed forces. And it is the militants who are on the run. They can still resort to a fleeting attack as they did on Badaber, but we are on the right course. The focus of this operation now is also on corruption money, which is being used in terrorism. Whether the politicians like it or not, the crackdown on corruption enjoys overwhelming public support.

This interview was originally published in Newsline’s October 2015 issue.

http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2015/10/cover-story-interview-lt-genl-moinuddinhaider/

PAKISTAN - Gang rapes and videos that circulate

PAKISTAN - Gang rapes and videos that circulate

  October 20, 2015

Rape is not merely an offence against the body; it is soul shattering. In a so-called Islamic state like Pakistan, rape is a punishable crime, with a zero conviction rate. The true intentions of the State and its people are exposed in a land where a rape occurs every two hours and a gang rape every eighth hour. The unavailability of justice is why we see victims attempting public self-immolation. No implementation of the law has resulted in rampant rape and further led to an indescribable social chaos, where the new normal is horrific.

In recent years, in gang rapes, the rapists have been filming the act, and have later been threatening the victim with dissemination of the video if he or she dares to report the crime. As there is no specific law to force websites to take down videos, and there is a lack of political will, victims are usually silenced, bowing to the demands of the rapists.

According to the Federal Investigation Agency that handles cyber crime offences, about 12 to 15 cases of private videos of a sexual nature are being uploaded a month by blackmailing gangs and the numbers appear to be increasing.

Such videos can go viral within minutes and get thousands of hits instantly. Gang rape victims, such as the Kasoor gang rape victims, find themselves isolated and hapless; they are treated like outcasts despite being victims of the worst form of abuse. The Kasoor rapes came to light following a land dispute. Though the gang has been actively indulging in blackmailing and extortion from victims and their family.

In jurisdictions with a more humane criminal justice system and sensitive society, the victim is protected. However, naming and shaming is practiced exclusively for the victim by the media in Pakistan; the offenders are the ones that usually get immunity and anonymity. Media ethics for reporting sex crimes is unknown in the nascent electronic media in Pakistan.

Mukhtara Mai became the face of Pakistan when she was gang raped at the orders of a panchayat; sadly her ordeal only began after the gang rape. The apathy of the Judiciary in her case and the poor prosecution, coupled with patriarchal mindset of the society, defeated justice and her perpetrators went scot-free.

Recently BBC News reported the case of a teenage girl from rural Punjab who was subjected to gang rape and then the rapist had posted video of the crime on social media. The video showed her being raped by four men, one by one, while she pleaded for mercy. It spread rapidly through the towns and villages of Punjab. The video was circulated freely while Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) did nothing to take down the video. This is the same PTA that had blocked YouTube in Pakistan for the past two years.

A case was recently reported to Tehrik-e-Niswan, an NGO working for women victims of domestic abuse and rape in Pakistan. A girl has reported being gang raped by three men. The girl is a resident of Mohallah Chananpura, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha, Punjab. She was tricked by local women named Safia Bibi (who is the wife of Muhammad Aslam) and Bakh Bhari to visit their house for the recitation of Quran. The girl was given a cold drink laced with sedative. She fell unconscious. Three men raped her and filmed the crime. The victim is now being threatened to remain silent or her video will be circulated. The girl reports that the two women are banking on the video by blackmailing the girls of her locality. Many girls fear telling their parents about the incident.

Sadly the incidents of gang rape are skyrocketing in Pakistan. The victims fear for their dignity and family would rather not approach the concerned authorities. Many a times, the police are hand in glove with the perpetrators. And now, amidst a new wave of rape viral videos, it is next to impossible for the victim to complain, let alone seek justice. The victim’s image is so tarnished by the time the rape comes to light that her own loved one often refuse to believe that the victim was innocent.

Rape and sexual violence is a sad reality for women and children in Pakistan. The number of women in Pakistan, who are molested by teachers when young, sexually harassed co-workers at work, and abused by husbands at home, is too large. Thousands of women suffer the same fate each day, yet they dare not speak up, because the society will label them as “loose” or amorous women. A plethora of women centric laws has done little to protect women from sexual abuse because despite the change in law the society has itself not changed. It is time the Pakistani politicians and the society look within and weed out the factions that are abusing our daughters and sisters.

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-170-2015

J and K High Court saves Article 370 but the battle is far from over

CATCH TEAM@catchnews

|14 October 2015

On 9 October, a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that Article 370 has assumed place of permanence in the Constitution of India and that the feature is "beyond amendment, repeal or abrogation". This should have put an end to the debate surrounding Article 370. But those demanding its repeal haven't given up.

What the order says

The Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was formed to draft the Constitution of the state determine "the sphere of the Union's jurisdiction over the state".

It had the power to recommend to the President that Article 370 must cease to apply or that it must continue with modifications.

But since the Constituent Assembly made no such recommendation before it was dissolved on 25 January, 1957, Article 370 became a permanent provision of the Constitution, even though it was supposed to be a "temporary provision"

Many see the RSS-backed petition against Article 35A is as a threat to J&K's Muslim identity

The Constituent Assembly which began its work on 31 October, 1951 decided that laws passed by the Parliament of India can be applied to J&K only after consultation with the state government.

J&K, unlike other states, has its own Constitution. It maps out the extent of its executive and legislative powers and its relationship with the Union of India.

The Division Bench headed by Justice Hasnain Masoodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal further observed: "Jammu and Kashmir while acceding to Dominion of India, retained limited sovereignty and did not merge like other princely states that signed the Instrument of Accession".

Soon after the order, the Union ministry of home affairs sought a report from the J&K government in addition to a copy of the High Court order.

Unless there is a legal challenge, the High Court order has pre-empted the ongoing attempts to repeal or dilute Article 370.

The petition against Article 35A

One such attempt is a petition against Article 35A filed in the Supreme Court by an RSS-linked think tank called J&K Study Group.

Article 35A which was extended to the state through a 1954 Presidential Order gives protection to the state subject laws in J&K. Under these laws, outsiders are not allowed to acquire property in the state.

The petition terms this provision as "unconstitutional" since it was added by a Presidential Order and not through Parliament.

For RSS-affiliated groups, the primary bone of contention is Article 35A and not Article 370.

Many of them believe that the only way to resolve Kashmir issue is through a sweeping demographic change in the state.

"Article 35A enables the state Assembly of J&K to define 'permanent residents' and give them special privileges. The ambit of permanent residents was deliberately kept narrow to exclude several communities...This distinction was arbitrary and archaic," said Aniruddha Rajput, counsel for the petitioner.

However, many lawyers point out that the Supreme Court has consistently dismissed petitions questioning Article 370 and its provisions.

According to Zafar Shah "A successful challenge to Article 35A will have far-reaching political and legal consequences. Politically it will be seen as an assault on the Muslim identity of J&K. And legally, if Article 35A goes, so will all the Presidential orders from 1954 to 1975 that diluted J&K's special status ".

Political impact

The order on Article 370 and the petition against Article 35A have charged the political atmosphere in the state.

On 11 October, Kashmir Centre for Social and Development Studies held a roundtable conference that was attended by senior lawyers. The group called for a "people's movement" to defend Article 35A.

"If Article 35 A goes, permanent residents will no longer have protection on matters like employment and acquisition of property," said Zafar Shah, a noted Kashmiri lawyer.

According to a lawyer, J&K governments in the past have made far-reaching changes to Article 370

There is broad agreement among lawyers on the validity of the High Court order on Article 370.

According to advocate Syed Riyaz Khawar: "In my opinion even if the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist, the Legislative Assembly got vested with its powers. So if the Assembly recommends abrogation of Article 370 with a two-thirds majority, it should be legally valid."

Constituent Assembly versus Legislative Assembly

According to Khawar, J&K governments in the past have made far-reaching changes to Article 370. For instance, the GM Sadiq government got an amendment passed in the Assembly, changing the nomenclature of the head of state from Sadar-i-Riyasat (President) to Governor and for the head of government from Prime Minister to Chief Minister.

Under Sadiq, the provisions of Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution became applicable to J&K. This gave the Centre the right to impose President's Rule in J&K.

Mian Qayoom, the president of High Court Bar Association, disagrees. "It is written in Article 370 itself that only a Constituent Assembly can recommend its abrogation. There is no mention of a Legislative Assembly. Since the Constituent Assembly has been dissolved, Article 370 has become permanent"

High Court judgements - A significant development

High Court judgements - A significant development

The two rulings read and looked at together in their totality make it clear that JK State constitutionally has a position of its own,

In a significant development last week JK State High Court adjudicated on Article 370. Though the judgement is 370 specific, it could affect judicial verdicts on a wide range of articles applicable to JK State, including the all important Article 35 A. Divisional bench of State High Court, including Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal ruled on several articles affecting article 370. The judgment is wide ranging, we may, however, focus on a part of it that could affect Article 35 A. The said article is facing the onslaught of Sangh Parivar, a unit of which has made an appeal to Supreme Court praying for ruling on Article 35 A. It is pleaded in the petition that Article 35 A has not passed through a parliamentary process, hence its application may not be constitutionally valid. The judgment of State High Court on Article 370 and earlier on ‘Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act’ could have a bearing on how the honourable courts view Article 35 A.

Justices Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal ruled that,  'President under Article 370 (1) is conferred with power to extend any provision of the Constitution to the State with such “exceptions and modifications” as he may deem fit subject to consultation or concurrence with the State Government'. The stress is on President having such a power in consultation or concurrence with the State Government. The judicial verdict bypasses a parliamentary process, while as in the plea to Supreme Court vis-à-vis Article 35 A, the stress is on the parliamentary process. The divisional bench of JK State High Court on powers of President in consultation with JK State government further ruled that,  “And such power would include one to amend or alter the provision to be applied, delete or omit part of it, or make additions to the provisions proposed to be applied to the State. Such power would extend even in case of provisions of the Constitution already applied,”. The power thus is restricted to the President in consultation and concurrence of JK Government. The plea in Supreme Court praying for a parliamentary process may not hold, given the significant High Court verdict. 

            The High Court verdict further ruled on Article 368 Clause (2) that concerns the parliamentary process in amendment of constitutional provisions, ''In the circumstances'' the court held, ''additions made to the existing Constitutional provisions through various Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) orders on their application to the State like Proviso to Clause (2) Article 368, fall within four corners of Article 370(1)''. While adjudicating on Clause (2) Article 368, honourable High Court has ruled that in their application to the State like Proviso to Clause (2) Article 368, fall within four corners of Article 370(1). We may first look at what does Clause (2) Article 368 hold, it says, 'Any amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill'. This falls within the parliamentary process, while as Clause (1) Article 370 remains limited to Presidential order with the consultation and concurrence of JK State Government. 

We may now look at the JK High Court ruling on ‘Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act’ enacted by Parliament in 2002 on which another division bench including Justice Muzafar Hussain Attar and Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey provided the ruling, earlier in this year. Honourable Court ruled that 'SARFAESI) Act’ cannot be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir owing to its own constitutional position. The landmark judgment followed barely days after Jammu Kashmir Study Center (JKSC) close to RSS proposed to take call on Article 35 (A) pleading that it was incorporated through a Presidential Order on May, the 14th 1954 bypassing Parliament. High Court judgment cites Constitution of India and holds, ‘’Article 35 (A) which has been applied to State of J&K, clarifies the already existing constitutional and legal position and does not extend something new to state’’. Thus it clearly implies that the relationship stands already defined as per provisions of Article 370. Article 35 (A) re-enforces it. Honourable High Court further holds, ‘’the provision clears the constitutional relationship between the people of rest of country with people of J&K. The citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir have their own constitution and their sovereign character which cannot be challenged, altered or abridged’’. 

The two rulings read and looked at together in their totality make it clear that JK State constitutionally has a position of its own, which cannot be 'challenged, altered or abridged' as per the JK High Court verdict. The judgment on Article 370 is causing political ripples. It is reported that Home Ministry in Delhi has asked for a copy of the ruling, which adjudicated on sovereignty, which exists in case of JK State albeit in a limited manner. This makes the judgment a significant development.

Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/story/199108.html