 |
Thursday,
May 8, 2003, Chandigarh, India  
|
Banning cow slaughter Voice of Kashmir Attack on Sikdar |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India-Pakistan peace move
Our new house
Living with trauma of being kidnapped
Guns don’t sell in Kashmir
|
Banning cow slaughter Earlier this year, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh annoyed the BJP no end by becoming a champion of the cows. He wrote to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee seeking a total ban on cow slaughter, while some of his supporters even went to the extent of spreading dark rumours that Mr Vajpayee took beef. This was adding insult to injury. Mr Digvijay Singh was not only appropriating an issue which the BJP considered its monopoly, but his partymen were even making an accusation which was the ultimate insult for a staunch Hindu. The wily move was used to kick off a poll campaign, but it was dangerous from the word go. Even some of Mr Digvijay Singh’s party men were jittery about it. Their fears have come true. The BJP has hit back in style. The Union Cabinet on Tuesday approved the enactment of Central legislation to prohibit cow slaughter. The Congress will now be forced to take a categorical stand on the issue, which will not be politically expedient for it. The measure falls within the jurisdiction of the states, and under Article 252 of the Constitution, any two states can empower the Centre to enact such a law. Cow slaughter is already banned in 23 states, but according to Cabinet spokesperson Sushma Swaraj, there are different laws and penalties. These are seen to be “not stringent enough” and prone to be “misused”. Since the laws allowed the slaughter of old cows, healthy milch cows were slaughtered in their place, according to Mrs Swaraj. Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep do not have a ban on cow slaughter. As the Central legislation is not binding on states, it is unlikely that it will encourage any new state to impose a ban. But what is more important is that the cow issue has sprung back to life. Since the proposed amendment is going to take nearly a year to become a law, it may be used to yield electoral results not only during the Assembly elections this year, but also during the general election next year. The Congress cannot even accuse BJP of raking up an issue which had been lying dormant since a Constitutional Bill lapsed in the 1980s. Now that is has been resurrected, it is not likely to go back into hibernation in a hurry. The alarming thing is that it is such an emotional and sensitive subject that it can erupt into a confrontation. That is the last thing the country wants at this stage — or at any stage for that matter. |
| Voice of Kashmir With a few exceptions, the political players in Jammu and Kashmir have reacted on encouraging lines to the efforts for initiating a peace process between India and Pakistan. The most significant statements have come from the All-Party Hurriyat Conference leaders. Except for Syed Ali Shah
Geelani, a former Hurriyat chief, most of its leaders have welcomed the hand of friendship offered by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee with positive voices coming from Pakistan. Mr
Geelani, known for his pro-Pakistan views, has expressed doubts over the intentions of both India and Pakistan, saying that any attempt to relegate the Kashmir question to a “secondary position is not going to serve any purpose”. This is contrary to what Hurriyat chairman Abdul Ghani Bhat and senior leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said immediately after the peace move was set in motion by Mr Vajpayee from Srinagar. Their reaction was positive though a measured
one. The Hurriyat may have to reinvent itself to maintain its relevance in the changing atmosphere, with Pakistan showing a conciliatory attitude. If the moves from Delhi and Islamabad lead to a purposeful dialogue the Hurriyat hardliners may be sidelined in the long-term interests of the conglomerate. Since the new development in the subcontinent is in tune with Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s policy of handling the Kashmir problem with “boli” and not “goli”, there is obvious uneasiness in the Opposition ranks. Hence the attempts to topple the state government. This is, perhaps, the best way to prevent Mr Sayeed’s People’s Democratic Party from making political capital out of the evolving situation. This is the impression that can be gathered from former Chief Minister and National Conference leader Farooq Abdullah’s statement that Panthers Party supremo Bhim Singh approached him for forming an alternative ministry with the help of the NC. Though Mr Singh has denied having made any such proposal, the
purpose of Dr Abdullah has been served to a considerable extent. His statement has widened the rift between Mr Sayeed and Mr Singh. This is not all. The PDP and the Congress have been indulging in the dirty game of increasing their strength in the Assembly by wooing Independents and even certain ministers to their side. The Congress particularly is getting more keen on joining hands with Dr Abdullah’s NC with a view to denying the PDP an opportunity to further strengthen its base in the Valley. This is, however, not the time for petty politicking. Any attempt at political destabilisation in Jammu and Kashmir under the circumstances will not be in the interest of the country. Which political party in the state will get the maximum benefit from the emerging climate should not be a matter of concern today. We should do all that we can so that India is not a loser. |
| Attack on Sikdar West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadev Bhattacharjee has only himself to blame for the dastardly attack on Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Union Minister Tapan Sikdar by CPM goons on Monday. Mr Sikdar was campaigning for the party’s candidates contesting the May 11 panchayat elections when his car was damaged by CPM activists in a village in 24
Parganas. The incident reflects the nervousness in the Left Front ranks over the launching of the informal mahajot comprising the Congress, the Trinamool Congress and the BJP for the crucial panchayat poll. Of course, the Left Front’s description of the alliance as a “shameless move to establish control over power” hides its own discomfiture. The fact of the matter is that after the retirement of Mr Jyoti Basu from electoral politics, his successor has not been able to keep the flock together. The
RSP, in spite of being a part of the Left Front, was put on the backfoot because of Mr Bhattacharjee’s apparent lack of control over the CPM leadership. It has fielded candidates in 13 blocks against the RSP candidates. Trinamool leader Mamta Banerjee, on the other hand, has been successful in reviving the mahajot concept for avoiding the splitting of the Opposition votes. She had tried to forge an alliance of non-Left Front parties during the assembly elections two years ago. The experiment failed because Mr A. B. A. Ghani Khan Chowdhury had fielded a Congress candidate for the Englishbazar seat, that was reserved for the Trinamool candidate under the terms of alliance. Last time the experiment failed because of
Malda. This time the flag of Opposition unity has been raised by Malda. The show of solidarity has unnerved the Left Front in general and Mr Bhattacharjee in particular. Even otherwise the CPM cadres are not known for their respect for the rule of law and non-violent campaigning. Veteran CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee has condemned the attack on Mr
Sikdar. The Left Front has launched a massive damage-control exercise for containing the fallout of the ugly episode on the May 11 panchayat poll. The Chief Minister has personally apologised to Mr
Sikdar, and those involved in the incident have been arrested. Mr Jyoti Basu too has thrown his weight behind the effort to contain the effects of the damage. The main thrust of his campaign speeches is peaceful conduct of the election. He has firmly told the cadres to use polite language even in constituencies that had voted for the BJP in the last elections. It is hoped that the expression of concern by Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani and the initiatives of the Left Front leaders would have the desired effect and that polling in the panchayat elections on Sunday will be generally peaceful. |
India-Pakistan peace move When terrorists, quite evidently from the Lashkar-e-Toiba, massacred innocent Hindus in Nadimarg on March 23, they sought to shatter the credibility of the newly elected Government in Jammu and Kashmir and establish that they could undermine efforts to restore peace and normalcy in the state. Lashkar leader Hafeez Saeed proudly announced that killing Hindus was a legitimate action for people devoted to jehad. Having achieved so little by its attempts at “coercive diplomacy” by withdrawing its forces deployed on the border after the December 3 terrorist attack on Parliament House, New Delhi came under severe pressure to respond to the terrorist outrage by strikes across the Line of Control. Not surprisingly, Pakistan condemned the terrorist outrage, denied involvement and demanded that accusations against it should be backed with evidence. This was entirely predictable, as “denial diplomacy” is its standard stock in trade. Whether the accusations pertain to its missile and nuclear links with North Korea, its ties with the Taliban and Hekmetayar’s Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan, or its love and support for its jehadis let loose in J&K, Islamabad gets into the denial mode, proclaims its innocence and demands “proof”. Recognition of the dangers arising from the Nadimarg massacre was evident when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair met at Camp David at the height of the Iraq war on March 27. Rather than outright condemnation of the massacre, the State Department had earlier urged India to resume “dialogue” with Pakistan. This response is believed to have been drafted by Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca, who is widely regarded in New Delhi as anti-Indian, like her predecessor Robin Raphael. Sensing the outrage in New Delhi at this insensitive reaction and the possibility of retaliatory strikes, Mr Colin Powell and his counterpart Jack Straw were directed by their bosses to set out measures to de-escalate tensions. The Powell-Straw Statement of March 27 condemned the Nadimarg massacre, urged respect for the LoC, called on Pakistan to end infiltration across it and urged it to do its utmost to discourage acts of violence by militants in J&K. The two countries were not asked to resume “dialogue” but to resolve differences through peaceful means and “engagement”, including by moves within SAARC. The statement also reflected Anglo-American willingness to “facilitate”, this process. What the United States seeks today is not to “mediate,” but “facilitate,” on India-Pakistan relations. Despite denials in New Delhi and Islamabad, there is little doubt that subsequent developments leading to Prime Minister Vajpayee’s speeches in Srinagar and in Parliament, holding out the olive branch to Islamabad, were substantially influenced by Washington’s calls for “engagement” between India and Pakistan. It is a pity than rather than taking measures like sending a new envoy to Pakistan, restoring people-to-people links earlier and appearing pro-active on such issues, India was seen as responding only when the international community grew concerned at the possibility of the situation spinning out of control. But this has been somewhat redressed by the positive international perception that Mr Vajpayee has the courage to swim against the tide, when it comes to holding out the olive branch to Pakistan. Mr Vajpayee told Parliament in New Delhi that while one must learn from history, one should not become immobilised by history. He was responding to those who urged caution, given what the nation had experienced after the Lahore and Agra summits. While the Lahore summit certainly taught us that eternal vigilance is the price for security, the Agra
summit did teach us a number of lessons that we should not forget. Firstly, the summit established that wishful thinking was no substitute for hard and realistic assessments. Secondly, summit diplomacy is doomed to failure unless there is meticulous preparation and one has a clear idea of what is to be achieved. Thirdly, gestures of goodwill and forbearance are often regarded as manifestations of weakness by military dictators, who after all, have no compunctions in bullying their own people. Finally, negotiations of joint declarations should be left to officials with experience, who are careful about the long-term implications of what they are doing and not undertaken by ministers having no past experience of such negotiations. Mr P.N. Haksar negotiated the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration was concluded under the directions of Mr Brajesh Misra. Mercifully, no Joint Declaration was concluded at Agra, given the inept manner in which negotiations were conducted there. It is obvious that the United States is going to take keen interest in how India proceeds with its “engagement” of Pakistan, even as it seeks to become a “facilitator” in this process. General Musharraf is scheduled to visit Washington in June. He is having problems with the Bush Administration arising from attacks on American forces in Afghanistan by elements of the Taliban and the Hizb-e-Islami operating from Pakistan, quite obviously after receiving substantial assistance on Pakistani soil. He will doubtless ensure that a few Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are arrested before he leaves for Washington, where his hosts will then shower him with fulsome praise. President Bush cannot, after all, now tell the American people that a country that he has described as a “staunch ally in the war against terrorism” is double crossing him. At the same time, the infiltration across the Line of Control will be regulated to keep the pot boiling, without letting the water boil over. New Delhi should, therefore, accept that there has been a change of direction in Islamabad only if there are visible signs that General Musharraf has acted to irrevocably end cross-border terrorism and also to end the vituperative propaganda against India through the state-controlled media and ISI-funded news agencies. Islamabad is preparing to receive Mr Vajpayee for the postponed SAARC summit. Its strategy will be to show some cosmetic progress in negotiations for establishing a South Asian Free Trade Area. But the question that should be asked is whether New Delhi would accept such cosmetics as a substitute for the agreement by SAARC members in Kathmandu that a Draft Free Trade Agreement would be finalised in the year 2002. It is Pakistan that has deliberately stalled progress on this. Assuming Mr Vajpayee goes to Islamabad for the SAARC summit without cross-border terrorism having ended, how will he fulfil his pledge in Parliament, that he will not hold talks unless cross-border terrorism ends and the infrastructure of terrorism is dismantled? Finally, Mr Kasuri and others would like us to commence talks from where they were left over in Agra. Are we prepared to move ahead on a dialogue framework that omits all mention of the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration and attaches the highest priority to talks on Jammu and Kashmir, while relegating other issues to the periphery? Are we going to accept the Pakistani thesis that Kashmir is the “core issue” that divides us? If this is indeed the case, the question that arises is: why is it that Pakistan never once raised the Kashmir issue in any negotiations with us between 1972 and 1988? For us, terrorism and not Kashmir is and should remain the core issue. There can and should be no compromise on this. And Washington should be left in no doubt on this score. |
Our new house Our campus houses are as old as our independence. In 40 years that we spent moving from one house to the other—from barracks to bungalows—being the first tenants in a house was out of the question. At least one generation had lived in those barracks and bungalows that came our way as we gained seniority to live in the residential area fronting the Shivalik range of the Himalayas. That was our luck. And this luck or lucklessness seemed a familiar pattern as we moved to our sanctuary after retirement. Four tenants had left their signatures on the walls to remind us that those who build houses want others to live in. Once or twice we did try to move in but the distance between our kitchen and classroom would have affected the quality of our lectures. I would have forgotten the essence of “courtly love” while my wife would have lost her way sailing to Byzantium. But we have no regrets. In our sunset years we have been experiencing the thrill of living in a brand new house, after lighting incense sticks and cracking coconuts. It first happened in the city of bangles, now called a bustling high-tech metropolis, where our son and his wife were posted. First they lived in the company guest house and then decided to occupy a spacious flat on Banjara Hills. They wanted us around for those initial ceremonies in which both and the young and the old participate. Living in an unlived house can be both exciting and exasperating especially when plumbers and electricians are not around. Anyway, after six months they joined another company and moved to the city of gardens. They rented a three-bedroom apartment in Richmond town which the owner told me later he had got built for his own use after retirement. Again, it was a new house with a lovely balcony from where we could whisper to the gorgeous crotons in the compound. Our children were not at all keen to live only in a new house but it just happened that way. After a year in that airconditioned city they have meandered now to the commercial capital of the land. The company had shortlisted some houses which they closely examined, keeping in mind the distance to the workplace. they liked one but the owner who had moved out to a remote corner of the country asked them to identify themselves. His preference was for blue blood— which neither our son nor his wife could locate. All the same, he seemed compassionate enough to come down and meet the party. At once he signed the lease papers but said that some woodwork had yet to be completed in the bedrooms. Currently the carpenter is shaping the stuff that the young couple wants to be in place. It appears very soon we’ll get the call to rush to Chembur to crack a few coconuts and light some in-cense sticks. The other day the young man called to say that we should keep our bags ready. “Relax papa,” he said, “both you and mummy can have a long walk in Diamond Park which is just three kilometres from the condo.” |
Living with trauma of being kidnapped Political kidnappings were resorted to primarily either to have a fellow terrorist released or secure major bargains. But such kidnappings created more intractable problems as these involved the government in the negotiations as was the case of Liviu Radu, who was kidnapped on October 9, 1991. He was at that time the Charge d’ Affairs of the Romani Embassy in New Delhi. He was kidnapped to secure the release of two Khalistani terrorists involved in a murderous assault on J.R.F. Riberio, a former DGP of the Punjab Police and India’s then Ambassador in Romania. In that attack on August 10, 1991, one terrorist was killed and two were arrested by the Romanian Police. In another important political kidnapping a grandson of a Congress MP was kidnapped from Ludhiana in 1990 by members of the Khalistan Libration Force to have a prominent terrorist released from the U.P. police custody. This terrorist later on became the chief of the Khalistan Liberation Force after the death of Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala. A total of 24 cases of kidnapping took place in which 22 victims were involved in the four police districts of the Majha region of Punjab. Nine of them were from Majitha, six from Batala, five from Tarn Taran and two from Amritsar. *** The average age of the victims was above 37 years. In terms of their marital status 20 were married and only two were unmarried. The youngest victim (aged 2) was a daughter of a poor farmer, Mangal Singh, of Dakoha village in Batala police district. She along with her mother (20 years) and father (23 years) was kidnapped by members of the Bhindranwala Tigers Force of Khalistan (BTFK). The leader of the group was Khazan Singh Sattowali of a nearby village in Majitha police district. The reason of this kidnapping was that her maternal uncle (mother’s bother) was an activist of the BTFK group who later deserted it with one AK-47 assault rifle. The kidnappers demanded Rs 1 lakh for their release which the latter could not manage because of his poor economic position. As a result the whole family had to suffer horrible consequences. Both her parents remained chained for days and were beaten up regularly. Her mother was gangraped many times before she was eliminated. Her remains could not be found and the family could not apply for any assistance from the state government. Two days after the kidnapping, the child was handed over to a woman of a nearby house who happened to be a relative of the victim. The reason was that she kept crying and the terrorists were fed up with her. The family was kept in a house in Jamalpur village in Majitha police district. The eldest victim, aged about 60, was in the first batch of postgraduates (economics) of Khalsa College, Amritsar. He completed his studies in 1952 and chose to settle in his village Jeobala in Tarn Taran police district rather than taking up a government job. He belonged to a Zaildar (landlord) family and was the only son of his parents. He was not only a respectable personality in the area but also a social worker. He set up a school, which is quite popular. According to him, BTKF chief Gurbachan Singh Manochahal and his brothers got their primary education from his school as the native village of Manochahal is adjacent to his village. The kidnappers demanded Rs 5 lakh for his release and ultimately the matter was settled by paying Rs. 1.5 lakh. He was kidnapped by a group of the Khalistan Liebration Force.
*** The victims were kept in deras, farmhouses, tubewell rooms, sugarcane fields and specially constructed underground rooms, particularly in the mand area. Even when they were kept in village houses, the host family members were warned against talking to the victims. Though the majority of the kidnappings (20) were for ransom, only in 11 cases the money was actually paid to the captors. One brick-kiln owner in Batala police district was kidnapped twice and both times he had to pay Rs 5 lakh and Rs 4 lakh respectively.
*** Ransom paid to the captors ranged between Rs 45,000 and Rs 50 lakh. In one case the victim was a rice miller in Tarn Taran police district and he was kidnapped by the BTFK (M). The initial demand for ransom was Rs 50 million which was brought down to Rs 5-6 million through negotiations. It was reported that the father of Manochahal himself bargained in this case. Another victim was a CPI activist of Sohal village in Tarn Taran police district. He was kidnapped by a group of the Khalistan Commando Force (Panjwar). He remained in their custody for two days and the captors demanded Rs 2.50 lakh, which was later on brought down to Rs 50,000. The terrorists returned him Rs 5,000 because one of the terrorist leaders belonged to the village of the victim. In two cases money was given in instalments. *** Though there were a dozen terrorist organisations operating in Punjab, in this study only seven were covered. The largest number of kidnappings were carried out by the BTFK (8) followed by the KLF (5). Their leaders included Gurbachan Singh Manochahal, Parmjit Singh Panjwar and Wassan Singh Zaffarwal. The second-rung leaders of the area included Dharam Singh Khastiwal, Jugraj Singh, alias Toofan Singh Toofan and Ravinder Pal Singh Bhola.
*** A kidnapping caused both physical and psychological stress on the victims even, regardless of the period of their captivity. The majority of the victims of prolonged captivity experienced a deep psychological and physical shock. One of the victims developed a heart problem. The brother of another victim died of shock and his wife became paralytic. His business got ruined because of the payment of a huge ransom to the captors. All victims reported that these incidents had destroyed their will to live, shattered their faith in living beings and the experiences still haunted them.
*** A majority of the militants were identified by the victims as vagabond or riff-raff and they had become terrorists for other reasons than the achievement of Khalistan. The average age of the terrorists was 21-24 years. Though in a few cases the victims were highly qualified and articulate, most of the captors were either illiterate or school dropouts. So instead of any argument, the militants used to snub them with the crude power of weapons. In majority of the cases the victims did not see them reciting Gurbani and observe other religious practices during their stay with them. A large number among them were clean-shaven or with a trimmed beard. In some cases the leader of the group used to be very abusive towards his cadre. They found criminal mentality in the behaviour of the captors. In the words of a few, they were an organised gang of looters, thugs and rapists. Some of them were addicted The common experience of all the victims was that the behaviour of the leader towards the victims changed frequently with the progress on their demands. They used to feel very powerful with the gun and just gave orders. In one case the terrorists ordered an unwilling host family member that their clothes should be washed by their newly married daughter-in-law. The family had to obey the orders. The victims noticed that most of the terrorists were ignorant of their surroundings. Their only source of information was T.V., radio and Ajit, a Punjabi newspaper published from Jalandhar. These excerpts are from a study undertaken by the writer, who is a Reader in the Department of Political Science, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar) |
Guns don’t sell in Kashmir H.S. Anand, a warm, friendly man with laughing eyes and a bright blue turban, lives by the gun in Kashmir. But business has never been worse. From a hole-in-the-wall shop, Anand carries on the family business of selling finely crafted hunting guns in Jammu, the winter capital of one of the world’s most dangerous and militarised areas. “It’s a meagre living,” the 30-year-old father of one young son says uncomplainingly. “Business is bad.” His plight is tinged with irony in a land awash with guns in the hands of Islamic separatists and Indian troops. Ordinary Kashmiris are banned from owning semi-automatics such as AK-47s and because of the rebellion find it
almost impossible to get even a shotgun licence to go hunting, which itself has been banned for several years. Anand’s slide from prosperity to barely eking out a living echoes the lot of many businesses in Jammu and Kashmir. Although most Kashmiris enjoy better living standards than many poorer states and food is plentiful in the fertile Himalayan region’s bazaars, the insurgency has strangled the vital tourism industry and wiped out almost all industry except handicrafts. Anand sells locally made shotguns and handguns. Before the militancy, the shotguns, with their finely carved butts of local walnut and polished brass fittings, were big sellers in the thickly forested state where hunting was a passion for many. These days, it is increasingly hard to get official permission for a 60 rupee ($1.30) gun licence and fewer and fewer people can afford the 9,000 rupees for a single-barrel 12-bore or the 13,000-14,000 rupees for a double barrel. So, Anand relies on selling ammunition and making repairs, working 11 hours a day, six days a week. “Guns don’t sell. It’s only the ammunition,” he says. “Before the militancy, we sold 28 to 30 guns a month. Now we hardly sell two or three.” Most customers now are retired soldiers or policemen looking for weapons in their new jobs as bank guards or security officers. They have the connections for a licence and the money for the gun. Self protection and security have replaced hunting — banned since the mid-1990s — as the main reason for buying. “Business sometimes starts picking up. But as soon as that happens, something bad happens and business goes bad again,” he says. His Singh Gun House on bustling Residency Road was set up by his father Singh Sahib in 1962 and is one of Jammu’s oldest. Like many Kashmiris, Anand’s hopes have been buoyed by the election six months ago of a new state government offering a healing touch and a new positive tone in relations between India and Pakistan,, which India accuses of fomenting the rebellion. If peace comes, he hopes to sell more guns again. But the optimism is tempered by a history of three wars and more than half a century of never-ending tensions between the nuclear neighbours over Kashmir. “We hope things will change,” he says. “The world survives on hope. But sometimes I see the future as hopeless because of this militancy.”
Reuters |
Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. — Mark 10:42-43 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnes’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:10 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 123 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Kidnapping as a weapon was used extensively by various terrorist groups during the days of terrorism in Punjab. A large number of people were kidnapped both in rural and urban areas. A majority of them got released only by paying ransom to terrorists. As the state forces returned to the barracks after sunset, kidnappings for ransom, extortion, murder and bargaining became common. The victims, left to fend for themselves, often preferred to pay the ransom to informing the police.