Caught In Between

re # 494

But I hope they and you don`t ignore this:

``10. Conclusions and recommendations to the Government of Pakistan

The patterns, methods, causes and consequences of abuses of minority rights described in this report are rooted in religious discrimination and fostered by an atmosphere of intolerance which has perceptibly grown over the last year. In order to be effective, therefore, any measures to combat such abuse have to address its causes. Abuses of religious minorities, whether by bringing false charges leading to long periods of arbitrary detention, threats and the use of violence by Islamists which the state ignores or condones, and the denial of legal redress by the criminal justice system to victims of abuse are fundamental violations of the right to freedom of religion and to a life free from discrimination.``

The rest of Amnesty International 2001 report on Pakistan is available at:

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/ASA330082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES PAKISTAN

RE: rsridhar

``Pakistanis are not the enemy. Only, the ideology that encourages jehadi mentality, and spreads anti-Indian propoganda are the enemies.``

Dude, what are you talking about? The ideology is practiced by ylh, rat sarwari, and General Urstruly of the army of bugs infesting his sofa in Detroit...and they are supposed to be the educated face of Pakistan. (Pakistanis better thank their god for hamidm and SameerJB.)

Reply Hobbyty # 462

Hobbyty

Yes we have come a long way! (I hope you don`t smoke!) I’m glad that we feel free to totally disagree with each other without getting ugly about it. :-)

“...I agree that Taliban does have an ethnic element to it and that this has can can be exploited by those against the Taliban.”

My point is not the exploitation of this element by outsiders.

Rather, any polity which is includes an exclusivist ethnic element is discriminatory by nature. That seems to be an inherent, and larger, problem for the Taliban vis a vis non-pashto speaking Afghanistanis.

Re: the Taliban’s religious focus, this also seems to be an inherent problem vis a vis their relationship with non-Sunni Afghanistanis (Hindus, Sikhs and lots and lots of Shias – a problem which seems to be spilling over into Pakistan.)

“A free vote in Kashmir is now 54 years over due. Is this not true? is it also not true that Indian policy has been to reject such a vote?”

It has been.

Pakistan’s policy has been to undermine any potential vote by limiting it to Indian Occupied Kashmir and by limiting it to a choice between India and Pakistan. Is this not true?

(A) Is the Pakistani Government willing to allow a vote in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir?

(B) Has the Pakistani Government not altered the demographic nature of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir by allowing free immigration from Pakistan? Should not a vote be limited to the original inhabitants of the area still resident there, and their dependents? (If India had allowed free migration to Kashmir from the rest of India it might not still be a Muslim majority state. How would you feel about that? What would the difference be between India’s actions and Pakistan’s actions in that case?)

“The problem all along is the Indian refusal to acknowledge that it is disputed territory.”

Does Pakistan acknowledge that Pakistani Occupied Kashmir is disputed territory? Yes or no?

“If Pakistan is a State in which the military has disproportionate influence in society it is primarily because India has threatened the existence of Pakistan from day one.”

Please explain:

(1) How India has threatened the existence of Pakistan in the past. Was it just India in 1971?

(2) How India threatens the existence of Pakistan today.

(3) Whether Pakistanis have ANY responsibility for the shape of their society and polity today, or is it ALL India’s fault? If India has such an influence on neighbouring countries why is Pakistan one of only two countries next to India with a Military Government? (The other is Myanmar.) In fact if India is so militaristic, why have we NEVER had a military Government since Independence?

“You and I have come a long way with each other, and I hope you will take this in a constructive spirit: the responsibility of the screw up in Kashmir is overwhelmingly, Indian.”

Yaar, yeh constructive hai tho destructive mujhe math dikahana. In fact in the same spirit, I hope you don’t take offence, but Musharraf is clearly morally responsible for the deaths in NYC due to the attack on the WTC. OK?

“The unidimensional nature of Pakistani policy towards India is a reflection of the attitude India has taken to the existence of Pakistan.”

I am not convinced – your position lacks arguments. It seems to imply that India’s attitude to Pakistan is also unidimensional, and it isn’t.

“In the present context, will Indian army be withdrawn to allow organizing for elections?”

Will the Pakistani Army be withdrawn from Pakistani Occupied Kashmir for the elections?

What about Pakistani migrants?

“If the option of seeking union with Pakistan is ruled out how can we know what the Kashmiri want?”

If the option of Independence is ruled out, how can we know what Kashmiris in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir want? As I said before, Pro-Independence politicians are 100% free to operate in Indian Occupied Kashmir, as are politicians who advocate Kashmir going to Pakistan. Pro-Independence politicians, and those who advocate Kashmir going to India, are not free to operate in Pakistani Occupied Kashmir. Why not? How does this contribute to finding out what the original inhabitants of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir want?

“On the other hand, if India is committed to a negotiated settlement, Indian security concerns and Indian economic interests can be safe guarded…These can then form the foundation of larger relations between Pakistan and India. Whereas a vote under Indian constitution or UN rubric may bring about further polarization.”

So do you think that Kashmiris should vote about their future or should their future be negotiated between India and Pakistan?

“We would be taking a ostrich like position if we did not acknowledge that such an opportunity is real. My call to ``thinking`` Indians is a call away from arrogance, to a return to reality. Imagine if a miniscule minority of the total number become radicalized?”

Don’t understand this question properly. Are you talking about Kashmiris or Indian Muslims or both?

“This business in Afghanistan has all the potential of becoming percieved as a war against Islam”

Hobbyty, only if Muslims perceive it as such, and that is in the hands of ordinary Muslims like you and me. I don’t see it that way. Do you?

“ The Pakistani president reminded the Indian that his Air Force is ready, not to defend Pakistan, but for a ``do or die`` mission (read neutralize Indian nuclear capablity or die). Just think about it, it`s a real window in to the Pakistani Psyche, into the fear that exists.”

Yaar, please think logically. If India dropped a bomb on Pakistan the consequences (ecological, economic, political) would be dreadful – there is NO benefit to India from doing that.

I recognise that this fear exists in the Pakistani Psyche, but truly I think it is there because Pakistan, for cohesion, has needed an enemy. I think it’s time for the country to decide what it’s FOR, not just continue to be defined in negative terms re: what it is AGAINST.

“Has history of Pakistani military action not shown that when threatened, they are committed to taking the initiative?”

India does not threaten Pakistan. It may, however, threaten Pakistan’s world view and reason for existence just by being what it is – a secular democracy where people of different religions can live as equals in the eyes of the law. (And consequently, more and more, socially and politically. We are not there yet – see Babri Masjid – but we are on the way – see how Babri Masjid has been dealt with.) It seems unreasonable to ask India to derail what is best about the country just so that Pakistan feels more comfortable or less of a failure.

Re: Nasah’s question – yes, I’ll be there.

Be well,

Zafar

The Indians will most likely ignore this.



HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi -110 029, India.

Tel: 6191120, 6192717, 6192706. Fax: 6191120. E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com



HRF/5/99

Embargoed for 13 August 1999

The Staines Killings: Religious Intolerance and Government Inaction

In the early hours of 22 January 1999, Graham Staines and his two young sons Timothy and Philip were burned alive inside their jeep at Manoharpur village in the Indian State of Orissa. According to police, Staines and his sons had no way of escaping death when a mob of 30 people descended upon the village, poured petrol on the station wagon and set it alight. The mob was reportedly chanting slogans of the Bajrang Dal, a militant Hindu fundamentalist organisation that had been terrorising Christian and Muslim minorities in the area for months.

Following the Staines killings, the Government of India established a Judicial Commission of Inquiry chaired by Supreme Court Justice D.P. Wadhwa. On 5 August 1999, the Government published the Commission`s report, the contents of which indicate a continuation of the status quo. The report ignores the systematic nature of attacks on religious minorities and evades the question of governmental responsibility in encouraging such offences. The report`s failings are especially troubling in light of the upcoming national elections. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) promises religious toleration and respect for minority rights but its practices while in power have promoted a different agenda. The Staines Commission report does nothing to alter, and perhaps even perpetuates, this situation.

Contrary to the Commission`s report, the Staines killings can best be understood by taking into account the wider context: growing Hindu fundamentalism and systematic attacks on religious minorities. Immediately following the Staines murders, Hindu fundamentalist organisations sought to justify the killings by alleging that Graham Staines had been converting Adivasis (tribals) in the local district to Christianity--a charge that has been used to excuse a plethora of crimes against Christians in the past year. As public opinion, both national and international, expressed its outrage, the Government of India condemned the killings and declared them an aberration in a ``land of toleration.`` Yet in 1998, more Christians were attacked in communal incidents than in all fifty-one years since Independence. On 24 February 1999, Home Minister L K Advani admitted to the Rajya Sabha, the Indian Upper House, that a total of 116 attacks against Christians had occurred in 1998 (Press Trust of Ind ia, New Delhi, 24 February 1999). While the Government has attempted to portray the attacks as sporadic, the calculated and systematic nature of the campaign reveals a more organised agenda.

Behind these attacks are various Hindu fundamentalist organisations, which are collectively known as the Sangh Parivar (the Hindu Fundamentalist Family of Organisations). In simple terms, Sangh Parivar ideology holds that to be Indian is to be Hindu. While Hindu fundamentalism has been a feature of Indian politics since the 1930s, in recent years its ideology has moved from the fringe of political and social discourse into the mainstream. Since the BJP formed the national government in March 1998, Hindu fundamentalist organisations—such as the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—along with militant organisations—such as Bajrang Dal—have been empowered in Indian public life. With the likely election of another BJP-led coalition in the September 1999 elections, the ascent of grassroots Hindu fundamentalism seems destined to continue. While the BJP is the most moderate organ of the Sangh Parivar, its rule has provided encouragement and legitimacy to fundamentalist ideology. The BJP has found itself incapable of taking decisive action against those members of its ideological fraternity that are inciting and perpetrating violence against Christians.

Hindu fundamentalists do not have a monopoly on religious intolerance in India, nor are such hate crimes new. In 1984, following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, over 4,000 Sikhs were systematically murdered, as the Congress (I) Party Government turned a blind eye; the resulting Mishra Commission was toothless. Eight years later, in Hindu revivalist fervour, the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was destroyed leading to rioting and the murder of hundreds of Muslims.

While little has been done by any Indian Government to ease communal tensions, the BJP Government has tacitly condoned the attacks by granting impunity to offenders and by encouraging public support for the cause of religious militants. This complicity was clearly evident in the Prime Minister`s call for a debate on conversions as a response to the anti-Christian violence—even though, with no evidence of forced conversions, the Prime Minister on 3 February 1999 recoiled from the debate. The short-lived conversion debate provided the Sangh Parivar a platform for its anti-Christian invectives. It also diverted attention from the Government`s inaction and the impunity with which Hindu militants perpetrate their crimes. Following the Staines murders, Home Minister L. K. Advani defended Hindu fundamentalists organisations such as Bajrang Dal stating that he ``know[s] these organisations and there are no criminals.`` Not only did this statement reveal the Home Minister`s apologist positi on towards fundamentalist militancy—as well as disregard the pending court cases implicating Bajrang Dal in serious human rights abuses against Muslims in 1992—but it also undermined the possibility of a thorough and independent investigation into the crime.

The BJP Government has officially condemned the Staines killings--although not those members of the Sangh Parivar who publicly excused and justified the killings--and established a Judicial Commission of Inquiry. The Commission`s terms of reference were very narrow, however, providing only for an investigation into the Staines killings and the charges of conversions in the region. They did not extend to Sangh Parivar activity and the related communal violence in the region that had precipitated the attack on the Staines family.

On 21 June 1999, the Commission presented its report to the Government of India, which released the report several weeks later. The report blamed the killings on a single individual, Dara Singh, who remains at large (although journalists have been able to interview him). The report claims that Dara Singh manipulated ``disgruntled elements`` into carrying out the murders pursuant to his personal agenda against Christians. The Commission found that no organisation had been involved in the crime, thereby absolving the Sangh Parivar of any responsibility. However, in vindicating the Sangh Parivar the Commission disregarded the fact that Bajrang Dal is not an organisation with strong central leadership nor does it maintain membership registers, and thus it may defy the Commission`s assumptions about organisational behaviour or organisational involvement in the crime. Furthermore, if, as it was widely thought, Dara Singh was involved in the Bajrang Dal, there would be no record of his membership. Finally, the Commission did not review the crime`s place in the context of ri sing anti-minority sentiment in the district, courtesy of the Bajrang Dal.

These anti-minority sentiments were, however, indirectly recognised by the Commission. In examining allegations of conversions, the Commission found that as a preacher Graham Staines was not indulging in conversions and was doing a ``good job.`` It noted that Staines did not realise there was an ``undercurrent`` against him. The Commission`s terms of reference did not allow it to investigate the cause or wider consequence of this undercurrent. It is well known, however, that in the months leading up to the Staines murders, Bajrang Dal activists had been rousing anti-Christian feeling and violence by alleging the conversion of Adivasis. Muslims in the region had also been targeted in the organisation`s communal activities. These factors were not examined by the Commission, because its mandate extended to the role of conversions, not the role of communalism, in relation to the crime.

Importantly, India has comprehensive legislation to deal with crimes based on religion and incitement to violence against religious minorities. The Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provide model safeguards for religious freedom. Moreover, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, binding it to the protection of minorities. Yet there is insufficient political will within the Government of India to silence those who incite violence against minorities or to ensure the prosecution of perpetrators.

The half-hearted response of the Government of India to the Staines murders has revealed a Government torn between its ideological affiliations and good governance. The Wadhwa Commission report is simply another sign of a Government eager to be perceived as doing something, while in reality limiting the effectiveness of meaningful investigations and efforts at obtaining accountability. In its failure to protect the rights of Christians, the authorities have compromised the human rights of all minorities. In order to secure the confidence of minorities and civil society, the Government of India must begin vigorously pursuing and prosecuting those who incite and engage in these crimes. Until the Government takes such action, the killing of Graham, Philip and Timothy Staines will remain not an aberration, but a brutal symptom of the diminution of space for minorities in India.

Re: Syed Ahmed 479

The Ali brothers may have done a lot for progress and prosperity, kindly list their work. I really do not believe that a person`s personal shortcomings should come between their greatness, like Allama Iqbal`s drinking habit etc

The Ali brothers have however crossed that line. They did that by becoming a law unto themselves as the title suggests: Maulana. Also these people abused the alliance with Gandhi to further their own aims of pan-islamism. No mater how glorious the ideal, these people attempted it with vicious means. Along the way they forgot a lot of things, abused Gandhi verbally. Abused the very same person they once issued a fatwa to have the Muslim world follow him. Called Gandhi ``lower than a fallen woman.`` Do you not see a pattern of bigotry here?

If you do not expect me to, I will not apologize. Because I very well see and hear it and I cannot and will not EDIT-UNDO. These people were opportunists. And that is a fact. And That is all I wish to point out.

I respect the fact that you and I both wish Pakistan well in our own ways. I may be prejudiced because I do not have any respect for the Ali Brothers or their work, but I simply will not unsee or unhear what I have realized to be a bunch of crap... and that too the kind that infiltrated into my country... It is utterly unforgivable.

PS: I am not racist! I dislike the people in India who fail to be honest about the actions their Government takes and its dire consequences for other parties. Standing up against the people who have no problems with their self-serving foreign policy is not being racist. But then again, you have every right to see me as that.

Regards,

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

Reply Subroto # 458

“I return to this discussion after many days only to find myself metamorphosed into a cockroach - which brings me to think - that the hate of an educated individual is more powerful than that of an illiterate…Maybe I should crawl back to my own gutter and reflect upon the fact that us cockroaches will be the only ones around when the rest of you have nuked each other and there are no borders left to fight about.”

The future’s bright (neon green), it’s Utterly Gutterly Delicious!

Re:Reply #: 459

Brad Cruise

Looks like i touched a raw nerve. O.K. So, Taliban will exist but will be castrated so it will be ineffective. What is it in Taliban anyway that makes you sympathise with them?

Sridhar

Re:Reply #: 457

Zafar,

India also will have to change the way it looks at Pakistan. Pakistanis are not the enemy. Only, the ideology that encourages jehadi mentality, and spreads anti-Indian propoganda are the enemies. Once these ideological enemies disappear, we can be friends. My fear is that USA may actually encourage the military dictatorship in Pak if Mushy proves to be useful to them and carries out all orders to USA`s satisfaction. USA has been known to prop up dictatorships if it suits them. If that happens, Pak Army may continue its policy of jehad in Kashmir as before and Uncle Sam will look the other way. Worse still, US may pressurise India to solve the issue at Pak`s advantage. There is no way of predicting what all this may lead to.

Sridhar

re akash 443

``Afterall, if anything like God exists he must be too busy minding the business of universe to be obsessed about what some members of a specie called homo-sapiens living on a tiny planet are eating or drinking :-)``

I couldn`t agree more. Can you believe that so many people actually think that the good Lord is more worried about what they eat/drink than how they treat others? If that kind of thinking isn`t borderline blasphemy, I don`t know what is.

Narain

I suppose we will not agree about Kashmir being disputed, too bad. Time and events, some out of our control will, may come in to play and decide matters (for the time being).

``On what basis can one conclude that the army is as powerful in Pakistan as it has been because of the perceived threat from india? A closer look may reveal that the army has certainly used this perception to its advantage, but its ascendancy has been due to the weakness of the civil society in Pakistan.``

May I recommend you consider reading “The State of Martial Rule: The Origns of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defence” by Ayesha Jalal. Yes she is a Pakistani scholar, don’t over look the scholar part. You will find her research and the case she makes, convincing. Or maybe not, I can only point you towards more study, what you decide is up to you.

Yes, Pakistan armed forces have done a good job in convincing Pakistanis of the Indian “Threat”, someday, Indians too will understand and acknowledge the role they played in this convincing of the Pakistani public.

About why Pakistan armed forces would not back down even as they understand and have a healthy respect for the fighting prowess of the Indian armed forces – Pakistan armed forces and Pakistan public have sacrificed much to ensure that Pakistani armed forces engender respect amongst those who have fought them. You just don’t undersatnd the psyche of the Pakistani or it’s armed forces. They have always been the under dog, and they train to fight from that position.

“Intelligence agencies have not targetted political personalities till now, and it is unclear why they would want to do so now. Many Hurriyet leaders have a (Indian) police detail for their security. India would like political activity to get started in Kashmir, whether it is pro or anti India, not destablize it by killing political opponents. After all, shooting arguments is better than shooting guns.”

Is that why custodial killings take place with regularity in captive Kashmir? Is that why Amnesty International, and other humanitarian organizations are kept out of Captive Kashmir? Is that why international News media are kept out of captive Kashmir?

5. ``If the option of seeking union with Pakistan is ruled out how can we know what the Kashmiri want?`` Sahib if you are so interested in finding out the will of the Kashmiris, why don`t you start with your own part of Kashmir? Apparently candidates there have to first sign allegiance to Pakistan before they can contest. Nothing like this applies in India.”

Right!! But there is not a freedom struggle in Azad Kashmir, No 700,000 occupation army. No custodial Killings. No extra-judicial killings - Narain – this kind of obfuscation that is not constructive.

``And why can`t we find out what the Kashmiris want? Can`t the Kashmiris representatives speak? Let them spell out their political platforms, and then we can judge the popularity of their views by the way the Kashmiri public votes. Isn`t that how democracy is supposed to work?``

Captive Kashmiri have been speaking for the last 54 years, sometimes with violence, when will Indians hear? Has India ever instituted democracy and free elections in Captive Kashmir?



“hobbyty, it may be hard, but I think that it is time that Pakistan realized its position, and reined in its ambitions. I hope that India does everything to make this process easier for it, but I don`t think that handing over Kashmir to Pakistan is ever going to be an option.”

Yes, perhaps. Nowhere had I mentioned handing over Kashmir, think about a negotiated settlement.

sarwari # 474

``I can assure you that what I may feel for you or any other Indian is exactly what I feel for my own relatives who call themselves Indian, some I share a roof with.``

haai haai, iska tau khoon safaid ho gaya hai:)))

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re sarwari #474.

{{Hi, I hope you didn`t take it to heart that I called you a cockroach. I meant the entire India; it wasn`t personal. On the other hand, I have read quiet a few personal insults that Indian`s have floated rather boldly on this board on my person, that are shameful by any standards.}}

This argument sounds familiar. Where is Latif Chappu when you need him?! Maybe we can hear from his spokesman Ibn.Ibn.Ibn.Ibn.Ibn ...

The Friday Times

A treat to see such Indians.

Opportunity knocks

Sir,

I have read with interest your editorial, “Time to change tack” (TFT Sept 14-20). I agree completely with you. Your bold, unvarnished and true analysis and suggestions are examples for other newspapers to follow. I wish there were some papers like yours in India also. I salute your courage against monumental odds. There was a saying during the days of the Emergency in India, “We only asked the press to bend. But they crawled.” I am glad to see that you are not even bending.

Coming back to the current situation. This offers Pakistan a chance to correct its blunders committed earlier. The Talibanisation of Pakistan is most heart-wrenching for me. I wish to see Pakistan a modern, democratic, vibrant, progressive country competing with the rest of the world in equal terms. I hate to see Pakistan held captive to the forces of reaction. I know many families from Pakistan. They are just as hardworking, as dedicated to their families and just as intelligent as anybody else in the world. But the shortsighted decisions taken by earlier governments have made Pakistan one of the greatest and saddest stories in modern history. Now is the opportunity to undo that. Use this opportunity to rid Pakistani society of the ills started by General Zia ul-Haq.

K. Ravindranath,

New York.

``I called you a cockroach. I meant the entire India; it wasn`t personal``

Proud to be a cockroach!!!

Banjaara #424
`` The official recognition has been at state level in UP and Bihar only.Started by Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP more for garnering muslim votes than the love of the language,followed by Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar for more or less the same reasons.``

Banjaara, Urdu is a official language of Delhi and West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh and the official language of Jammu and Kashmir as well. I am not sure about Karnataka.

I suspect though earlier Hindi was the bully on the block, now its the market for English.

Re official promotion of Urdu, here is an excerpt from the Ninth Plan
http://www.nic.in/ninthplan/vol2/v2c3-3.htm
``...3.3.94 The National Council for Promotion of Urdu (formerly known as Bureau for Promotion of Urdu) assisted 48 voluntary organisations and academic institutions for running of Calligraphy Training Centres and for undertaking various activities for promotion of Urdu language. Academic literature was also prepared and made available to Urdu speaking people of the country. During 1993-94, the Scheme of Modernisation of Madarsas was introduced to provide assistance to madarsas to introduce science, mathematics, social science, Hindi and English as part of their curriculum...``

Apart from which I think I saw somewhere Urdu as a subject is offered in `fifty six universities`?

Here is what President KR Narayan said about Urdu newspapers in 1999

``...To-day Urdu journalism occupies the third largest position in India after Hindi and English. Urdu papers are brought out in 15 States and 2 union territories of India. With a total of 2670 publications it is the third largest numerical group after Hindi and English. It occupies the second position at all-India level for dailies - there are 495 Urdu dailies. With these impressive figures the Urdu Press can become a powerful media in the next millennium. During the last two decades Urdu press showed a phenomenal increase according to official statistics. The rate of growth is higher than that of the Indian dailies in all languages put together... ``
http://alfa.nic.in/rb/urdu.htm
http://mib.nic.in/rni/press.html