From: bharat mata
Surya Prakash, Pioneer, Sept 2008
A bunch of US and Europe-based India-baiters, many of whom are possibly our fellow citizens, have done signal disservice to our Constitution, secular order and territorial integrity by putting their weight behind the arguments of Kashmiri separatists and shooting off a petition full of factual inaccuracies and patent lies to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The signatories to this petition, mostly academics in leading US universities, have called for UN intervention to deal with what they claim is a "humanitarian crisis" in Jammu & Kashmir.
Unfortunately, the UNCHR fell into the trap and criticised India for violation of human rights. The Union Government promptly rebuked it for making statements which were "uncalled for and irresponsible". This ugly episode has been triggered by a petition which has suppressio veri, suggestio falsi as its leitmotif. Though most of the signatories are university teachers, their commitment to truth is so abysmal that it will set you wondering on the quality of education they impart in their classrooms. For example, the whole world is aware that four lakh Kashmiri Pandits were hounded out of their homes in the Kashmir Valley in 1989-90 in the most ruthlessly executed ethnic cleansing operation in recent times in this part of the world. However, the petition makes no reference to this ugly episode but sheds copious tears for some imaginary attack last month on the Muslims in the Jammu region of the State. The Jammu agitation was so disciplined and organised that it would have made Mahatma Gandhi proud. Also, just as Gandhi would have wanted it, this movement was backed by Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, all of whom were upset over the selfish, insular attitude of the Muslims in the Valley. Yet, this petition makes the outrageous claim that there was "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in the Jammu region.
What is even more invidious is that the petitioners say, rather approvingly, that since 1989 "there has been an armed pro-independence struggle in Kashmir, together with other non-violent movements for self-determination" and that Indian counter-insurgency operations "have resulted in grave abuses of human rights" with social, economic, psychological, political, and environmental consequences, "which meet the definition under international law of crimes against humanity".
There are two glaring omissions in the petition, which raise doubts about the intellectual integrity, intentions and affiliations of the signatories. The first of these is their reluctance to acknowledge the ethnic cleaning of Kashmiri Pandits in the Kashmir Valley. The second omission is the deafening silence of the petitioners about the complete absence of even rudimentary human rights in so-called 'Azad Kashmir' and specially in Shia-dominated Gilgit-Baltistan, which is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. If the academics did not have the know-how to ascertain facts, they could have sought the help of primary school children, who would have done a simple Google search and given them tonnes of material on the horrendous human rights record of Pakistan in Gilgit-Baltistan. This material would most certainly include the opinion of Ms Asma Jehangir, the special UN rapporteur on Human Rights, who has said that successive Pakistani Governments have ignored these rights in the case of the Northern Areas and 'Azad Kashmir'. The kids would also have fished out the report of Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne, Member of the European Parliament and Vice-Chairperson of the European Union Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was adopted by the European Parliament in May 2007. This report said that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan "are under direct rule of the military and enjoy no democracy" and are subjected to "frequent incidents of terror and violence perpetrated by armed militant groups".
Many of the signatories to this petition have Indian surnames like Chatterji, Seshadri, Mathur, Bose, Basu, Khan and Nagarajan. If any of them are citizens of India and if the Government stands committed to protecting India's unity and integrity, then the following course of action may be considered: Impounding the passports of all these worthies at the port of entry whenever they return to India; arrest on arrival; and framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Section 2(1)(o) of the Act describes 'unlawful activity' as any action taken by an individual or an association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written...) : (i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or (ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or (iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act further explains that "cessation of a part of the territory of India from the Union includes the assertion of any claim to determine whether such part will remain a part of the territory of India".
It is quite clear from a reading of this law that all citizens of India who have signed this petition which approves of the "armed pro-independence struggle in Kashmir, together with other and non-violent movements for self-determination", fall foul of Section 2.
Further, the claim that the Indian Government's response to the demand for self-determination by the Kashmiris "have resulted in grave abuses of human rights", attracts Section 2(1)(o)(iii) which prohibits Indian citizens from saying or doing anything which causes or is intended to cause "disaffection against India". Indian signatories must therefore be brought to book. As regards the foreigners who have lent their names to this petition, they will have to be blacklisted and denied visa, so long as they do not publicly disavow this petition. Those who drafted this law have truly given it a long arm because Section 5(a) says it applies to "citizens of India outside India" and Section 1(4) says the law applies to offences committed outside India "in the same manner as if such act had been committed in India". So, there can be no dispute about the applicability of this law on many of these signatories, who belong to what may be called the 'Arundhati Brigade'. India's unity, integrity and the basic structure of the Constitution will be in great peril if the state does not firmly shut out these discordant and treacherous voices.
No comments:
Post a Comment