There are moments when the mind is teased by passing thoughts and prepares to respond. William Wordsworth, Iqbal and now Aayan Hirshi Ali have all resorted to this. In her criticism of Islam Ali dramatizes her thesis in the form of an imaginary conversation between the owl and the ostrich, the former sees everything in stark nakedness and the latter hides from facing harsh reality thinking that it would pass away. However a better form of dialogue is what Tariq Ramadan refers in his interview on BBC today Sunday December 30, 2007 as the Islamic tradition of having knowledge and respect while dealing with your interlocutor.
Much vaunted concept of radical Islam buoys up in discussion these days like the one carried in a national daily on December 28 and 29, 2007. As it prizes the mind, from the recess comes the argument that the teaching and practical life of the prophet does not justify the epithet. Clubbing Islam with any other religion is also not correct. So the binary justification that the “twain meet” is unnecessary, some followers of Islam, but not Islam itself, are radical, but they are few although vocal. Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak derived a different interpretation from their holy book is their individual personal choice and cannot be ascribed to all the people practicing Hinduism. Moreover, talking of India today, culprits of heinous crimes cannot be punished either by the rules of Gita or Mahabharta or the sharia. We have a constitution and our own penal laws which are different from theological injunctions like the biblical and Judaic an eye for an eye or taking a thorn out by another thorn or an iron needle, for that matter. The laws of India must be viewed equably in dealing with people irrespective of their religion.
However, the politicizing of judiciary and the criminalizing of politics is a complex reality of contemporary India and a cause of concern. No one group can appropriate the laws or amend and modify or apply them in order to settle score for the past or present deeds of “the other”. That is what the Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan was referring when he came down heavily against the “communalisation and politicisation “ of anti terrorist laws when he addressed the conference in New Delhi organized by the Intelligence Bureau on December 22, 2007. “The fact that several states have suggested that they will enact new laws similar to Pota raises serious human rights concern.” The intention behind framing or enforcing such laws is not so much to punish the guilty but to trample the human rights of all the members of the group from which some criminals come and who happen to be in minority. If this naked truth is unpleasant it is there behind the back of the mind of those who are calling for ever stricter laws to deal with terror. They also do not fight shy of the fact that terror of one hue poses as much threat to our nation as the terror of another hue. Given their penchant for “kantakenaiva kantakam” death would have come much earlier to Dr Haneef because he would be deemed deceitful even before the trial gets under way, nay, why trial at all? To this kind of propensity of mind the Vanzaras and Vazes are ever available zealously waiting to carry out what they view as deshbhakti, patriotism. Khwaja Yunus has to wear the cross, let him wear. What does it matter?
“Complex” reality of present India is different from India 1857 On the day of Bakrid August 1, 1857 the commissioner of Amritsar was in Delhi on a special duty. To suppress the ‘mutiny’ the British waited for the Sikh regiment to arrive before they started slaughtering the Bengali Muslim soldiers who were kept in prison there. They had hanged so many of the rebel soldiers that they were tired of dispatching them quickly. They moved them to the open fields and locked them because of which many died out of fear and asphyxiation. Then the slaughter began and the commission boasted as the Muslims were slaughtering animals in the city his men were doing the same to the Muslims. This is also taking out a thorn with another. But in the civilized perspective of today that was as reprehensible any other. But then the leap from then to today covers more civilizing processes the world has gone through and hence no justification for discriminating between the saintly criminal and the other who is deceitful. A criminal is a criminal.
People of different religions have been facing hardship of getting livelihood and administrative justice down the centuries and it is difficult to place a tectonic shift at a particular time. Past 200 years in India saw British rule for most of the time, only in the last 60 years we have had our own laws modeled on the British. Only in 1892-93 one thousand people were killed in disturbances. If the British tried to vitiate the harmonious co existence of the people for their end they did not gain much. However, the stupor in the Indian mosaic society of different communities was such that Swami Vivekanand was dismayed by the ugliness and sickness of Indian society as a whole. He wanted to take the ball and kick it and play and be healthy and clean. Vedantic mind of Hindus was store house of wisdom and strong physique of Muslims because of the dietary habit of the Muslims. The great Swami was not narrow minded but a large soul who saw bright future for our country if the two important groups along with other groups could unite for the motherland and make it healthy. That is what he meant when he wrote it in a letter.
Calling Judaism, Christianity and Islam as exclusivist just because each says that what it preaches is the only truth need not be taken to mean that it says every other religion is false. Respect other religions as you respect your own is a dictate of Islam and practiced by no other than the prophet himself. The noun ‘vice’ used as countable with ‘a’ means ‘a particular kind of evil’. We must be more discerning in using it. Religion has come to mankind to fight evil.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Death Comes to the Daughter of the East, Benazir
Benazir Bhutto’s life was tragic all through in the Greek sense. She was the eldest child of her father. Zulfikarali Bhutto had to go through a humiliating death row wait with world leaders pleading for commuting the sentence and the inevitable merciless execution of the flamboyant sybarite former president. Benazir had two brothers. One of them died in Paris in mysterious situation after having spousal difficulties. Another was shot dead by Pakistani police right at the front of his house. But her end at the hands of the suicide assassin was part of destiny.
The word assassin comes from Arabic hashshashin which is plural for hashshash meaning one who is addicted to hashish, or an Ismaeli sectarian who used to intoxicate himself with hashish or hemp when preparing to dispatch some king or public man. Sectarian strife of yesterday is secularized into today’s political schism. The sectarian could be Baitulla Mehsood or any foot soldier.
Only two months ago there was another suicide attack on her. On October 19, 136 people lost their lives but Bhutto escaped although she was the target. That did not sway her from her determination to fight the polls scheduled for January 9. In November she expressed her determination:"I am not afraid. I am ready to die for my country." With grim resolve she got busy with her campaign and had no time to wait for death. Therefore, in the words of the American poet Emily Dickinson, death called upon her and waited for her. Together they rode, through mammoth rallies, like the one in Rawalpindi, to eternity.
She continued her crusade against terror but died a victim of it. She was better educated than many of the leaders of Pakistan and had been mellowed by the liberalism of the west.
Her death extinguishes the popular aspiration for democracy, at least for the present. It also puts the January 9, 2008 election in a limbo. What her rivals did not achieve she had achieved: distinction of being a popular leader in all the four provinces as was her meteoric father.
Nawaz Sharif, though her rival was allied to her in the war on terror, rushed to the hospital where Benazir Bhutto was taken after attack and remarked: "I myself feel threatened... Are things in control now? Had things been in control, would this have happened? "We both were struggling for the same cause, and we had signed the charter of democracy. I assure you that I will fight your war from now. It is tragic not only for [her party] but also for my party."
Let alone Pakistan’s traditional enemy, some even in the US believe that the military government supports terrorism. The lead article in TIME ends with a wry irony. “There will be many tense days ahead for the Musharraf government as it deals with this political crisis. And that's good news for terrorism.” A woebegone People’s Party member told BBC that Bhutto had feared that there were people in Punjab who were hell bent on killing her. She had named some from there in the military establishment whom she believed to have been behind the earlier attempt on her life. She was not targeted in any other of the three provinces. As if according to the design she would have her tryst with destiny in Punjab only.
Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the assassination. Why Al Qaeda? It is strange that President Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto have a common enemy in that terrorist outfit. Bhutto and Musharraf’s enemy is Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda’s enemy is the United States. Does it follow the syllogism that your enemy’s enemy is your friend? Or else why should Osama be still at large, that too in the tribal unwieldy belt of Pakistan? And if he has a surrogate in Baitulla Mehsood brother of Abdulla Mehsood in Wazirastan, then the fact is twice removed from the original. (Pakistani army along with US marines had killed Abdulla.)
The word assassin comes from Arabic hashshashin which is plural for hashshash meaning one who is addicted to hashish, or an Ismaeli sectarian who used to intoxicate himself with hashish or hemp when preparing to dispatch some king or public man. Sectarian strife of yesterday is secularized into today’s political schism. The sectarian could be Baitulla Mehsood or any foot soldier.
Only two months ago there was another suicide attack on her. On October 19, 136 people lost their lives but Bhutto escaped although she was the target. That did not sway her from her determination to fight the polls scheduled for January 9. In November she expressed her determination:"I am not afraid. I am ready to die for my country." With grim resolve she got busy with her campaign and had no time to wait for death. Therefore, in the words of the American poet Emily Dickinson, death called upon her and waited for her. Together they rode, through mammoth rallies, like the one in Rawalpindi, to eternity.
She continued her crusade against terror but died a victim of it. She was better educated than many of the leaders of Pakistan and had been mellowed by the liberalism of the west.
Her death extinguishes the popular aspiration for democracy, at least for the present. It also puts the January 9, 2008 election in a limbo. What her rivals did not achieve she had achieved: distinction of being a popular leader in all the four provinces as was her meteoric father.
Nawaz Sharif, though her rival was allied to her in the war on terror, rushed to the hospital where Benazir Bhutto was taken after attack and remarked: "I myself feel threatened... Are things in control now? Had things been in control, would this have happened? "We both were struggling for the same cause, and we had signed the charter of democracy. I assure you that I will fight your war from now. It is tragic not only for [her party] but also for my party."
Let alone Pakistan’s traditional enemy, some even in the US believe that the military government supports terrorism. The lead article in TIME ends with a wry irony. “There will be many tense days ahead for the Musharraf government as it deals with this political crisis. And that's good news for terrorism.” A woebegone People’s Party member told BBC that Bhutto had feared that there were people in Punjab who were hell bent on killing her. She had named some from there in the military establishment whom she believed to have been behind the earlier attempt on her life. She was not targeted in any other of the three provinces. As if according to the design she would have her tryst with destiny in Punjab only.
Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the assassination. Why Al Qaeda? It is strange that President Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto have a common enemy in that terrorist outfit. Bhutto and Musharraf’s enemy is Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda’s enemy is the United States. Does it follow the syllogism that your enemy’s enemy is your friend? Or else why should Osama be still at large, that too in the tribal unwieldy belt of Pakistan? And if he has a surrogate in Baitulla Mehsood brother of Abdulla Mehsood in Wazirastan, then the fact is twice removed from the original. (Pakistani army along with US marines had killed Abdulla.)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Rebuking Narendra Modi
Ever growing need for commonalty is threatened by ever increasing communalism in the country. Commonalty is the concern for humankind on the basis of their wants and situation in life as well as their problems and aspirations. Communalism is dividing the humankind on the basis of religion and pitting one group against the other in considering with a bias wants, situation in life as well as problems and aspirations of the people.
There will be two different perspectives when the matter of dealing with justice the question of the Muslims in the country, especially their development and their massacre and subsequent plight in Gujarat since 2002. The National Development Council that met in Delhi on Wednesday December 19, 2007 to approve the 11th five year plan document witnessed the clash between commonalty and communalism.
It is universally acknowledged within the country that Muslims are more backward than any other group of our population. The Sachar Commission report makes a sobering realization of the present day tangent truth. Everyone knows but most do not want to do anything in this regard. A burgeoning economy like ours can afford to march further in the near foreseeable future. But in the long run this would increase and enlarge ghettoization to such an extent that there would be enclaves like Nagorna Karabekh and Kosovo, if they are not already there.
The Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh while addressing the audience which included the chief ministers of states took a commonalty approach when he said "The goal of this plan is to invest in our people to enable them to become active participants in economic growth processes. The plan does not attempt to divide people on the basis of caste, creed or gender or religion..The plan does pay special attention on the needs of these marginalized groups and targets them in a precise manner.
"Inclusiveness does mean better targeting and it is not at the cost of other groups. You will all agree that if we hope to have a prosperous, equitable, just India, we must cover all groups and ensure that no one is left”.
Finance Minister Chidambram had gendered the previous budget because there was need for targeting improvement of women and empowering them. Their needs were felt to be real. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What is crucial in today’s context is that leaving out minorities including Muslims far behind does not serve the nation as such. The 11th Plan that stipulates earmarking 15 per cent of targets and outlays under various schemes for minorities is a step in the path of bridging the gaps and avoiding pockets of stagnant pools in the backwater settlement.
But that is what exactly two chief ministers from Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh opposed.
Have the Muslims ceased to be part of the social fabric of India? When? Modi has a different sense of society; perhaps his spin doctors are telling that he represents the the middle class and they feel like him. This self delusory strategy worked in the relief camps when Modi closed down the camps from where the victims had nowhere to go as their commercial establishments, jobs and works were totally destroyed along with their houses, lock stock and barrel. The ration and medicine in the camps were too scanty to go around and then this expulsion! Modi dubbed the camps as the breeding grounds of “we five and our twenty five”. What he could not provide to his own population worst affected by his state sponsored pogroms he is niggardly about for the rest of the country where similar groups exist. As he lectured the audience for which the PM rebuked him. "The New 15 Point Programme that focuses on earmarking certain outlays of various developmental schemes and programmes of the government of India amongst the eligible beneficiaries, based on their minority status, should be reviewed in the interest of maintaining the social fabric of the nation. Such discrimination, amongst the eligible beneficiaries, for flow of funds based on minority status, will not help the cause if taking the people of India together on the path of development,"
This is a clear and most flagrant attempt to carry the laboratory experiment result from Gujarat to the whole country. In other words, the minorities, in particular Muslims, do not deserve any uplift or entitlement. As he managed the pogroms and then the closure of the relief camps and the divisive and unjust relief given to the relatives of the dead, and the boycott they face and their virtual disenfranchisement, and then the fake encounters in the name of patriotism, Modi thinks that he would carry the day with him all the time and everywhere. But there is a catch. Even when he wins the election he would be liable to prosecution.
Since July 2002 the International Criminal Court has not only come into existence but has been quite active. It will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There are 18 judges and a prosecutor elected by the ratifying countries. This is a great step forward in the protection of human rights and international justice. Now individuals have a right in international law that would safeguard their right against torture, right to life and dignity.
Every ratifying member country of course should try anyone of its nationals (within its own jurisdiction) who is accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, like rape, massacre or war crimes. If such a country does not do this, any victim of such a crime is entitled to go to ICC and seek prosecution of the perpetrator of crimes against humanity or war crimes and genocide. This is recognized as the principle of complementarity. Crimes committed before July 1, 2002 do not come under the purview of ICC. This is known as the principle of non-retroactivity. The rule of complementarity is a breath of fresh air in the fetid atmosphere of oppression and suppression that is commonly found in countries like Rawanda and former Yugoslavia. This would deter countries where national courts conduct sham trial or fail to investigate such crimes at all.
Moreover, what about the continued torture of a people as a result of the action which took place before July 1, 20002. Thousands of riot affected people in Ahmedabad and elsewhere in Gujarat were forced out of the relief camps and this has continued even after July 1, are they not entitled to international justice as their right to life and right to dignity and right to equality are denied. All this despite promises of rehabilitation! Out in the monsoon rains with no shelter and sans succour! In one such a case a man who lost his house received just Rs 70 as compensation. A girl took the government cheque from the hands of her father and tore it because her house had cost several lakh and the government had sanctioned a meagre two thousand rupees. Their denial of human rights constitutes crimes against humanity and it is continuing though the carnage happened several months ago. The pogroms affected are from the minority Muslim community which has very few doctors to treat its wounded and burnt and even fewer lawyers to plead their cases in courts. And all this on account of the boycott of the majority community’s guilds of doctors and lawyers. If Modi and Advani, after the latter really becomes the next PM, have their own way, then the only hope for the victims of Gujarat would be ICC. For Modi and Advani it would be to build global landmarks like the Akshardham Temple in Delhi and the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.
There will be two different perspectives when the matter of dealing with justice the question of the Muslims in the country, especially their development and their massacre and subsequent plight in Gujarat since 2002. The National Development Council that met in Delhi on Wednesday December 19, 2007 to approve the 11th five year plan document witnessed the clash between commonalty and communalism.
It is universally acknowledged within the country that Muslims are more backward than any other group of our population. The Sachar Commission report makes a sobering realization of the present day tangent truth. Everyone knows but most do not want to do anything in this regard. A burgeoning economy like ours can afford to march further in the near foreseeable future. But in the long run this would increase and enlarge ghettoization to such an extent that there would be enclaves like Nagorna Karabekh and Kosovo, if they are not already there.
The Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh while addressing the audience which included the chief ministers of states took a commonalty approach when he said "The goal of this plan is to invest in our people to enable them to become active participants in economic growth processes. The plan does not attempt to divide people on the basis of caste, creed or gender or religion..The plan does pay special attention on the needs of these marginalized groups and targets them in a precise manner.
"Inclusiveness does mean better targeting and it is not at the cost of other groups. You will all agree that if we hope to have a prosperous, equitable, just India, we must cover all groups and ensure that no one is left”.
Finance Minister Chidambram had gendered the previous budget because there was need for targeting improvement of women and empowering them. Their needs were felt to be real. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What is crucial in today’s context is that leaving out minorities including Muslims far behind does not serve the nation as such. The 11th Plan that stipulates earmarking 15 per cent of targets and outlays under various schemes for minorities is a step in the path of bridging the gaps and avoiding pockets of stagnant pools in the backwater settlement.
But that is what exactly two chief ministers from Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh opposed.
Have the Muslims ceased to be part of the social fabric of India? When? Modi has a different sense of society; perhaps his spin doctors are telling that he represents the the middle class and they feel like him. This self delusory strategy worked in the relief camps when Modi closed down the camps from where the victims had nowhere to go as their commercial establishments, jobs and works were totally destroyed along with their houses, lock stock and barrel. The ration and medicine in the camps were too scanty to go around and then this expulsion! Modi dubbed the camps as the breeding grounds of “we five and our twenty five”. What he could not provide to his own population worst affected by his state sponsored pogroms he is niggardly about for the rest of the country where similar groups exist. As he lectured the audience for which the PM rebuked him. "The New 15 Point Programme that focuses on earmarking certain outlays of various developmental schemes and programmes of the government of India amongst the eligible beneficiaries, based on their minority status, should be reviewed in the interest of maintaining the social fabric of the nation. Such discrimination, amongst the eligible beneficiaries, for flow of funds based on minority status, will not help the cause if taking the people of India together on the path of development,"
This is a clear and most flagrant attempt to carry the laboratory experiment result from Gujarat to the whole country. In other words, the minorities, in particular Muslims, do not deserve any uplift or entitlement. As he managed the pogroms and then the closure of the relief camps and the divisive and unjust relief given to the relatives of the dead, and the boycott they face and their virtual disenfranchisement, and then the fake encounters in the name of patriotism, Modi thinks that he would carry the day with him all the time and everywhere. But there is a catch. Even when he wins the election he would be liable to prosecution.
Since July 2002 the International Criminal Court has not only come into existence but has been quite active. It will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There are 18 judges and a prosecutor elected by the ratifying countries. This is a great step forward in the protection of human rights and international justice. Now individuals have a right in international law that would safeguard their right against torture, right to life and dignity.
Every ratifying member country of course should try anyone of its nationals (within its own jurisdiction) who is accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, like rape, massacre or war crimes. If such a country does not do this, any victim of such a crime is entitled to go to ICC and seek prosecution of the perpetrator of crimes against humanity or war crimes and genocide. This is recognized as the principle of complementarity. Crimes committed before July 1, 2002 do not come under the purview of ICC. This is known as the principle of non-retroactivity. The rule of complementarity is a breath of fresh air in the fetid atmosphere of oppression and suppression that is commonly found in countries like Rawanda and former Yugoslavia. This would deter countries where national courts conduct sham trial or fail to investigate such crimes at all.
Moreover, what about the continued torture of a people as a result of the action which took place before July 1, 20002. Thousands of riot affected people in Ahmedabad and elsewhere in Gujarat were forced out of the relief camps and this has continued even after July 1, are they not entitled to international justice as their right to life and right to dignity and right to equality are denied. All this despite promises of rehabilitation! Out in the monsoon rains with no shelter and sans succour! In one such a case a man who lost his house received just Rs 70 as compensation. A girl took the government cheque from the hands of her father and tore it because her house had cost several lakh and the government had sanctioned a meagre two thousand rupees. Their denial of human rights constitutes crimes against humanity and it is continuing though the carnage happened several months ago. The pogroms affected are from the minority Muslim community which has very few doctors to treat its wounded and burnt and even fewer lawyers to plead their cases in courts. And all this on account of the boycott of the majority community’s guilds of doctors and lawyers. If Modi and Advani, after the latter really becomes the next PM, have their own way, then the only hope for the victims of Gujarat would be ICC. For Modi and Advani it would be to build global landmarks like the Akshardham Temple in Delhi and the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Looking at Gujarat Beyond 2007
The situation in Gujarat has become so volatile and fluid that there is a need to take stock of the situation. One must not overlook the fact that there are more important things involved there than meets the eye in the flux of things. As much of the focus is not on development but the chief minister’s headstrong views on Sohrabuddin in particular and by implication Muslims in general there is need for strategic depth in understanding.
First of all we must address juristic scope of culpability of Narendra Modi in the crimes against humanity, for that is what he brought about to happen subsequent to the events of February 27, 2002. The collector of Godhra had described the burning incident of Sabarmati express as accident. This was the stand taken by the administration until Modi changed it at 7 pm and made it into an attack on Hindus by Muslims. In the meeting at his residence that night he also ordered the police and the administration in the presence of the DGP and the police commissioner of Ahemdabad “Hinduon ka gussa uttarne do teen din tak.” (Let the Hindus vent their ire for three days).” This was despite the fact that the collector had opposed carrying the dead bodies to Ahemdabad and displaying them. Such an act would incite mob violence against Muslims was crystal clear. He visited worst areas affected by massacres of Muslims during the three days he had asked for the Hindus to vent their anger and applauded them for the crimes against the Muslims including rape, murder and arson. He harboured murderers and rapists by using the position and power of his office so that they escape the law of the land he was sworn to keep. He misused the judiciary to shield the murderers.
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says that genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (A)Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’ (C) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.(D) Imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group.
In the light of the above convention Modi is clearly responsible for the genocide of the Muslims. He was equally heinous in closing down the relief camps. It was another step in genocide. The refugees had the bleakest prospect of survival before them.
The systematic boycott of the Muslims. Who brought about this collateral calamity for the whole community? Was it not a link in the overall strategy of punishing the Muslims and making their survival impossible after the horrendous crimes of rape, murder, loot and arson?
The prevention of Muslim survivors from returning to their houses, farms, shops, and other commercial establishments and jobs, or whatever little was still left. is genocidal. They are reduced to grim scenario of extinction en mass.
Subversion, systematic and premeditated, of the judiciary process by misusing official position involves the CM in genocidal juggernaut of the state machinery.
These are “a group of crimes that the international community of nations has declared to be criminal offences against the whole human race because they shock the conscience of all humankind and are an affront to humanity…The international criminal norms known as ‘crimes against humanity’ create international responsibility of individuals under international law for certain horrendous acts of violence against human beings.”
These issues remain to be addressed and redressed irrespective of who wins the election 2007. This must not be partisan matter, left to either of the two main parties contesting there. Non governmental organizations, human rights chapters, civil liberty groups must mount fresh and concerted efforts to get full justice to the victims of the genocide as well as any other victim of crime that may be different.
Determining the quantum of criminal acts must begin with the use of international law as crime against humanity is violation of international law. First of all who is a perpetrator? “A person or state who commits human rights violation. The term is sometimes used to describe one who causes such violation to occur through others.” Thus Modi asking his police and administrators to let the Hindus vent their anger for three days constitutes him as a perpetrator.
Modi is fully accountable for what happened in 2002. It was his constitutional duty to protect the lives of all the people. He not only caused the mass murder of Muslims but he asked his police and officers to let it happen and then subverted the judicial system to protect the murderers, rapists, arsonists and looters. Accountability is basic human rights law and implies that nobody is above law or immune from it. An example of the legal procedure is the trial of Lieutenant William Calley of the US army for the My Lai genocide in the Viet Nam, of Slobodan Milosevic in the massacre of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.
But of course, there is also the urgency of what to make of what he said on December 4, 2007: “They want me to answer why I killed Sohrabuddin?. Sohrabuddin was a notorious criminal who had links with Pakistan and from whose farm house AK 47s were recovered. So what should I have done with him? Pooja? Or should I have called up Sonia Behen before he was killed? I am thumping my chest and declaring that Sohrabuddin ‘s encounter had taken place on the dharti of Gujarat. If I have done something wrong, hang me.”
People committing crimes against humanity can be tried internationally, not necessarily in the country where they have committed them. Modi taunted “Why not a court in Pakistan?” In the famous case Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights had transferred it to the US because of the long death row ordeal there.
First of all we must address juristic scope of culpability of Narendra Modi in the crimes against humanity, for that is what he brought about to happen subsequent to the events of February 27, 2002. The collector of Godhra had described the burning incident of Sabarmati express as accident. This was the stand taken by the administration until Modi changed it at 7 pm and made it into an attack on Hindus by Muslims. In the meeting at his residence that night he also ordered the police and the administration in the presence of the DGP and the police commissioner of Ahemdabad “Hinduon ka gussa uttarne do teen din tak.” (Let the Hindus vent their ire for three days).” This was despite the fact that the collector had opposed carrying the dead bodies to Ahemdabad and displaying them. Such an act would incite mob violence against Muslims was crystal clear. He visited worst areas affected by massacres of Muslims during the three days he had asked for the Hindus to vent their anger and applauded them for the crimes against the Muslims including rape, murder and arson. He harboured murderers and rapists by using the position and power of his office so that they escape the law of the land he was sworn to keep. He misused the judiciary to shield the murderers.
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says that genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (A)Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’ (C) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.(D) Imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group.
In the light of the above convention Modi is clearly responsible for the genocide of the Muslims. He was equally heinous in closing down the relief camps. It was another step in genocide. The refugees had the bleakest prospect of survival before them.
The systematic boycott of the Muslims. Who brought about this collateral calamity for the whole community? Was it not a link in the overall strategy of punishing the Muslims and making their survival impossible after the horrendous crimes of rape, murder, loot and arson?
The prevention of Muslim survivors from returning to their houses, farms, shops, and other commercial establishments and jobs, or whatever little was still left. is genocidal. They are reduced to grim scenario of extinction en mass.
Subversion, systematic and premeditated, of the judiciary process by misusing official position involves the CM in genocidal juggernaut of the state machinery.
These are “a group of crimes that the international community of nations has declared to be criminal offences against the whole human race because they shock the conscience of all humankind and are an affront to humanity…The international criminal norms known as ‘crimes against humanity’ create international responsibility of individuals under international law for certain horrendous acts of violence against human beings.”
These issues remain to be addressed and redressed irrespective of who wins the election 2007. This must not be partisan matter, left to either of the two main parties contesting there. Non governmental organizations, human rights chapters, civil liberty groups must mount fresh and concerted efforts to get full justice to the victims of the genocide as well as any other victim of crime that may be different.
Determining the quantum of criminal acts must begin with the use of international law as crime against humanity is violation of international law. First of all who is a perpetrator? “A person or state who commits human rights violation. The term is sometimes used to describe one who causes such violation to occur through others.” Thus Modi asking his police and administrators to let the Hindus vent their anger for three days constitutes him as a perpetrator.
Modi is fully accountable for what happened in 2002. It was his constitutional duty to protect the lives of all the people. He not only caused the mass murder of Muslims but he asked his police and officers to let it happen and then subverted the judicial system to protect the murderers, rapists, arsonists and looters. Accountability is basic human rights law and implies that nobody is above law or immune from it. An example of the legal procedure is the trial of Lieutenant William Calley of the US army for the My Lai genocide in the Viet Nam, of Slobodan Milosevic in the massacre of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.
But of course, there is also the urgency of what to make of what he said on December 4, 2007: “They want me to answer why I killed Sohrabuddin?. Sohrabuddin was a notorious criminal who had links with Pakistan and from whose farm house AK 47s were recovered. So what should I have done with him? Pooja? Or should I have called up Sonia Behen before he was killed? I am thumping my chest and declaring that Sohrabuddin ‘s encounter had taken place on the dharti of Gujarat. If I have done something wrong, hang me.”
People committing crimes against humanity can be tried internationally, not necessarily in the country where they have committed them. Modi taunted “Why not a court in Pakistan?” In the famous case Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights had transferred it to the US because of the long death row ordeal there.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Narendra Modi and the Murder of Sohrabuddin
The election campaign of Chief Minister of Gujarat at Mangrol reached a climax that might prove a temporary respite from the ultimate eventuality in his drama of politics. A huge shock had come after the exposure of the sting operation. Temporarily it seemed to have passed away. But who knows whether it has. He stirred the emotion by his insidious reference to the fake encounter death of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kauser. He was at his communal best when he vowed to shield Taslima Nasrin and within the same week justified the fake encounter murders. About Sohrabuddin he remarked “he got what he deserved.” He asked his people in Mangrol, south Gujarat, on December 4, 2007: What would the people do to the man who dealt in smuggling guns. They thundered: “kill him". "Then if I have done anything wrong, let the government of Sonia Gandhi hang me," he said. There is a more accurate version of the Tuesday meeting of Mangrol:
Modi asked, "What should have been done to a man from whom a large number of AK-47 rifles were recovered, who was on the search list of police from four states, who attacked the police, who had relations with Pakistan and was eyeing to enter Gujarat?"
The crowd replied "mari nakho, mari nakho (kill him)" to which the Chief Minister responded, "Does my Government need to take permission of Soniaben for this?"
Modi has thrown down his gauntlet not only to Congress but to the judiciary of our nation, as well as the Election Commission.
This is playing with fire. But the premium is very high. For example there is the case of Haresh Bhatt who was the Bajrang Dal rashtriya sah sanyojak in 2002 and is now the BJP MLA from Godhra. He has said that bombs were made at his factory and that even rocket launchers were made there and then they were distributed throughout Ahmedabad during the pogroms of 2002. During curfew in the city arms including guns and swords were brought in from Punjab, Bihar, UP and MP for the obvious reason of murdering Muslims during the pogroms. They were distributed under the nose of the police in the curfew times. How Haresh Bhatt and his men distributed the weapons to the murderous crowds he narrates proudly:
Bhatt: I have my own gun factory… I used to make firecrackers… We made all the bombs there… Diesel bombs, pipe bombs, we made them there… and we used to distribute them from there as well… We ordered two truckloads of swords from Punjab… right here, in a village called Dhariya, we readied everything there… and then we distributed the samaan [arms]… At that time, the only thing was that the samaan was needed…TEHELKA: Where did you get the arms from?
Bhatt:We got many country-made pistols… from MP, from UP… we got pistols from everywhere and I distributed them from here… I am talking about this for the first time…nobody knew this secret.TEHELKA: I know that Hindus do not keep weapons, apart perhaps from kitchen knives…
Bhatt:We distributed so many weapons that people were shocked to see how many there were… We would make them here and then test them... We made a completelauncher inside a pipe, right here in the factory... It was a launcher from the side and had piping over that… chaar ki pipe lagaate the… after closing the entire hole we filled thatwith shrapnel and nails... and beneath that placed a 595 bomb… We’d set it off… it would go through a wall nine inches thick…• • •
Bhatt and his cohorts also smuggled weapons as Modi hinted that Sohrabuddin did:
TEHELKA: Hareshbhai, you were saying that you got arms from Kanpur, but there was curfew…
Bhatt: Why couldn’t they have been brought?… Anything can be brought.TEHELKA: I was thinking that if curfew…
Bhatt: I got them from MP… I got them from Bihar.TEHELKA: But how, when curfew was in force?
Bhatt: Things come, everything can come.TEHELKA: If it came from other states, it had to cross borders…
Bhatt: That’s it… they would smuggle [emphasis added] it… and it wasn’t just one trip that came for me… there were scores of them.
Another person who told similar ghoulish premeditated plans of carrying out the genocide is Dhawal Jayanti Patel, the VHP Sabarkantha zila sanyojak:
Patel: Lots of bombs… lots of desi bombs were made and sent…
TEHELKA: A thousand? Two thousand?Patel: They were useful in the galis, in face-to-face encounters… Juhapura… Kalupur
The vibhag pramukh of VHP Anil Patel has corroborated what Haresh Bhatt and Dhawal Jayanti Patel have said.
Now the ball is in the courts of the Election Commission and the judicial courts. Given Modi’s justification of the murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauser and his tacit involvement in it [or else why should he wish to be hanged] and the asseveration of Haresh Bhatt, Anil Patel and Dhawal Jayanti Patel of their evil deeds; they [the courts and the Commission}have to define what is smuggling, can any individual or organization take the laws in their hands to mete out punishment for smuggling, who have smuggled arms; their party affiliation and should the election in Gujarat go ahead as if nothing has happened.
What I had written in newspaper columns on May 6, 2007has relevance here:
“The proverbial iceberg tip in the Sohrabbudin and Kauser bi Sheikh, and Tulsiram Prajapati murder in Gujarat will become quite ominous to our national life in the days to come. What with state elections due there and elsewhere. To the truly national minded it sends a chill of apprehension down the spinal cord. From all accounts including the ones that the Rajasthan government has purportedly collected to save its Inspector Dinesh, Sohrabuddin and Prjapati were as much criminal as many others, including BJP MP from Dahod, Gujarat, Babubhai Katara [accused in smuggling people into the US and Europe], and his son Bhavesh who is accused of killing Muslims in the post Godhra carnage and the last election. ..
.
“Sohrabbudin and Prajapati were taken out of the Hyderbad Sangli bus. Kauser climbed down the bus in protest, the cops told her to go back into the bus. When she didn’t they took away her as well. The fiery burial that police inspector DG Vanjhara gave to Kauser is most macabre and the disposal of the ash most saturnine. A glimpse of the state sponsorship of pogroms is also here. Traffic was stopped for arresting and carrying dead body of Kauser, crane was used to haul out of mud the car carrying the dead body. Anti Terrorist Squad purchased 400 kg wood to burn the body. Ala Modi, everything was done for a noble cause: patriotism. Precisely this justification has the potential to polarize the country again. Mark the gathering and shouting of slogans of the burly members of the Vanjhara community in the court of the metropolitan magistrate on May 2, but mark more how the Chief Minister, as a true Machiavellian, is reportedly instructing his cadres to exploit the murders in the coming polls.”
Modi asked, "What should have been done to a man from whom a large number of AK-47 rifles were recovered, who was on the search list of police from four states, who attacked the police, who had relations with Pakistan and was eyeing to enter Gujarat?"
The crowd replied "mari nakho, mari nakho (kill him)" to which the Chief Minister responded, "Does my Government need to take permission of Soniaben for this?"
Modi has thrown down his gauntlet not only to Congress but to the judiciary of our nation, as well as the Election Commission.
This is playing with fire. But the premium is very high. For example there is the case of Haresh Bhatt who was the Bajrang Dal rashtriya sah sanyojak in 2002 and is now the BJP MLA from Godhra. He has said that bombs were made at his factory and that even rocket launchers were made there and then they were distributed throughout Ahmedabad during the pogroms of 2002. During curfew in the city arms including guns and swords were brought in from Punjab, Bihar, UP and MP for the obvious reason of murdering Muslims during the pogroms. They were distributed under the nose of the police in the curfew times. How Haresh Bhatt and his men distributed the weapons to the murderous crowds he narrates proudly:
Bhatt: I have my own gun factory… I used to make firecrackers… We made all the bombs there… Diesel bombs, pipe bombs, we made them there… and we used to distribute them from there as well… We ordered two truckloads of swords from Punjab… right here, in a village called Dhariya, we readied everything there… and then we distributed the samaan [arms]… At that time, the only thing was that the samaan was needed…TEHELKA: Where did you get the arms from?
Bhatt:We got many country-made pistols… from MP, from UP… we got pistols from everywhere and I distributed them from here… I am talking about this for the first time…nobody knew this secret.TEHELKA: I know that Hindus do not keep weapons, apart perhaps from kitchen knives…
Bhatt:We distributed so many weapons that people were shocked to see how many there were… We would make them here and then test them... We made a completelauncher inside a pipe, right here in the factory... It was a launcher from the side and had piping over that… chaar ki pipe lagaate the… after closing the entire hole we filled thatwith shrapnel and nails... and beneath that placed a 595 bomb… We’d set it off… it would go through a wall nine inches thick…• • •
Bhatt and his cohorts also smuggled weapons as Modi hinted that Sohrabuddin did:
TEHELKA: Hareshbhai, you were saying that you got arms from Kanpur, but there was curfew…
Bhatt: Why couldn’t they have been brought?… Anything can be brought.TEHELKA: I was thinking that if curfew…
Bhatt: I got them from MP… I got them from Bihar.TEHELKA: But how, when curfew was in force?
Bhatt: Things come, everything can come.TEHELKA: If it came from other states, it had to cross borders…
Bhatt: That’s it… they would smuggle [emphasis added] it… and it wasn’t just one trip that came for me… there were scores of them.
Another person who told similar ghoulish premeditated plans of carrying out the genocide is Dhawal Jayanti Patel, the VHP Sabarkantha zila sanyojak:
Patel: Lots of bombs… lots of desi bombs were made and sent…
TEHELKA: A thousand? Two thousand?Patel: They were useful in the galis, in face-to-face encounters… Juhapura… Kalupur
The vibhag pramukh of VHP Anil Patel has corroborated what Haresh Bhatt and Dhawal Jayanti Patel have said.
Now the ball is in the courts of the Election Commission and the judicial courts. Given Modi’s justification of the murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauser and his tacit involvement in it [or else why should he wish to be hanged] and the asseveration of Haresh Bhatt, Anil Patel and Dhawal Jayanti Patel of their evil deeds; they [the courts and the Commission}have to define what is smuggling, can any individual or organization take the laws in their hands to mete out punishment for smuggling, who have smuggled arms; their party affiliation and should the election in Gujarat go ahead as if nothing has happened.
What I had written in newspaper columns on May 6, 2007has relevance here:
“The proverbial iceberg tip in the Sohrabbudin and Kauser bi Sheikh, and Tulsiram Prajapati murder in Gujarat will become quite ominous to our national life in the days to come. What with state elections due there and elsewhere. To the truly national minded it sends a chill of apprehension down the spinal cord. From all accounts including the ones that the Rajasthan government has purportedly collected to save its Inspector Dinesh, Sohrabuddin and Prjapati were as much criminal as many others, including BJP MP from Dahod, Gujarat, Babubhai Katara [accused in smuggling people into the US and Europe], and his son Bhavesh who is accused of killing Muslims in the post Godhra carnage and the last election. ..
.
“Sohrabbudin and Prajapati were taken out of the Hyderbad Sangli bus. Kauser climbed down the bus in protest, the cops told her to go back into the bus. When she didn’t they took away her as well. The fiery burial that police inspector DG Vanjhara gave to Kauser is most macabre and the disposal of the ash most saturnine. A glimpse of the state sponsorship of pogroms is also here. Traffic was stopped for arresting and carrying dead body of Kauser, crane was used to haul out of mud the car carrying the dead body. Anti Terrorist Squad purchased 400 kg wood to burn the body. Ala Modi, everything was done for a noble cause: patriotism. Precisely this justification has the potential to polarize the country again. Mark the gathering and shouting of slogans of the burly members of the Vanjhara community in the court of the metropolitan magistrate on May 2, but mark more how the Chief Minister, as a true Machiavellian, is reportedly instructing his cadres to exploit the murders in the coming polls.”
Monday, December 3, 2007
Islam and its Volatile Critics:Taslima Nasrin's hunkering down with time for asylum
There is a tendency to view Islam as a whole in terms of some untoward practices ascribed to it. This way the whole body of faith and traditions shrinks to a mere questionable aspect. The most notorious is vaunting of the purdah in Islam. That Islam gives equality to women, that they have share in the property of parents as well as their spouses, that they have choice of suckling milk or not doing it and asking the husband to make provision for it are swept under the carpet by the broom of the so called religious bias against woman. This skewed perception of dubbing Islam by ascribing an attribute has turned it into synecdoche-Islam.
Among the most vehement critics of Islam are the women who ride on the crest of the wave of discontent fermented within the fold. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Taslima Nasrin make headlines often for what is not so characteristically the soul of Islam. They are piqued by the variant and at times deviant practices rather than the core values of the faith. Manji’s contention is that the trouble with Islam today is literalism. Muslims take Islamic injunction as literal truth. She is upset that the mosque where she went as a child had a divine who did not allow her questioning spirit to probe while the Christians did. This was the fault of the individual working in the mosque and not of religion. In the same way her father would often beat her mother. This harsh treatment was not justifiable as her mother according to her could not be at fault. Her father would also treat their family servant in Uganda harshly though the flunkey was a native Muslim. The traditions of the prophet show that he treated even slaves with human dignity and awarded them freedom for their good deeds. Manji also thanks god that there is the West. She means to say that if the West were not there she as well as others like her who confronts Islam would be lost. She has overlooked one important fact. The US is also the home of Muslims who follow their religion in letter and spirit despite their different racial and cultural backgrounds. Their tenacity of faith is purely because of devotion and not fanaticism. They are content with the edicts and practices of Islam and are truly religious minded. Her criticism of Islam falls flat in view of the self content US Muslims.
The Somali born Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote the script for a film called Submission. The producer Van Goth was killed for making the film. A semi nude woman is shown wearing a transparent dress with verses from the Quran. There are lash marks on her skin. This in itself is indecent. One may not revere one’s own religion in private life but what if those who revere it see such depiction. Her latest argument is that Muslim immigrants to Holland and other European countries indulge in crime as they lend themselves to be exploited. Hence, multiculturalism is wrong if such immigrants are allowed and pampered. But this then militates against the European principle of secularism. The Dutch tolerated her as long as she was not a threat in election where votes of immigrants matter. Now that she is with the conservative think tank in Washington she has the sobering realization of the owl as against the deliberate shunning of reality of the ostrich.
Taslima Nasrin’s bumpy ride through the turbulent time has reached a milestone. She now realizes swimming against the tide is sapping her energy against the options available to her. “Things had taken such a turn that my security and safety have come under great risk in any part of the world. Islamic fundamentalists would not have allowed me to rest in peace anywhere in the world. My intention is never to hurt anybody’s feelings and if my writings hurt the sentiments of others, it’s better to withdraw such portions. I am withdrawing some lines from the book [Dwikhandita].” This way she could come to confront reality, ala Salman Rushdie. But it does not mean recanting. It also does not touch upon what otherwise she has been speaking out in magazines and newspapers.
In a magazine article she was shocking and cruel when she remarked about the origin of the veiling. “Prophet Mohammed’s wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, ‘Oh, friends of the Prophet or holy men never go to your friend’s house without an invitation. And if you do go, don’t go and ask anything of their wives.’ It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being.” Her insidious write “Let’s Burn the Burqa” carries the innuendo for which Rushdie also faced music. Her exhorting Muslims to burn burqa and disobey the Quran may be music to some people’s ears but what would the pious believers think.
Her flight to Rajasthan was feasible because she adopted what she wanted to burn. She and her relative wore burqa to escape Kolkata. One of the problems with religion today is that it is cross fertilized with the local politics. Nasrin went to a BJP ruled state and sang their tune by saying that MF Hussein was better off while hell was let loose around her. “Nothing happens to MF Hussein who has done so many things, while everybody is after my life.” She also did so many things. She slept over the rape of Sabina and her two daughters from Nandigram. One of the daughters is still missing. Will she write for this parzania?
Among the most vehement critics of Islam are the women who ride on the crest of the wave of discontent fermented within the fold. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Taslima Nasrin make headlines often for what is not so characteristically the soul of Islam. They are piqued by the variant and at times deviant practices rather than the core values of the faith. Manji’s contention is that the trouble with Islam today is literalism. Muslims take Islamic injunction as literal truth. She is upset that the mosque where she went as a child had a divine who did not allow her questioning spirit to probe while the Christians did. This was the fault of the individual working in the mosque and not of religion. In the same way her father would often beat her mother. This harsh treatment was not justifiable as her mother according to her could not be at fault. Her father would also treat their family servant in Uganda harshly though the flunkey was a native Muslim. The traditions of the prophet show that he treated even slaves with human dignity and awarded them freedom for their good deeds. Manji also thanks god that there is the West. She means to say that if the West were not there she as well as others like her who confronts Islam would be lost. She has overlooked one important fact. The US is also the home of Muslims who follow their religion in letter and spirit despite their different racial and cultural backgrounds. Their tenacity of faith is purely because of devotion and not fanaticism. They are content with the edicts and practices of Islam and are truly religious minded. Her criticism of Islam falls flat in view of the self content US Muslims.
The Somali born Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote the script for a film called Submission. The producer Van Goth was killed for making the film. A semi nude woman is shown wearing a transparent dress with verses from the Quran. There are lash marks on her skin. This in itself is indecent. One may not revere one’s own religion in private life but what if those who revere it see such depiction. Her latest argument is that Muslim immigrants to Holland and other European countries indulge in crime as they lend themselves to be exploited. Hence, multiculturalism is wrong if such immigrants are allowed and pampered. But this then militates against the European principle of secularism. The Dutch tolerated her as long as she was not a threat in election where votes of immigrants matter. Now that she is with the conservative think tank in Washington she has the sobering realization of the owl as against the deliberate shunning of reality of the ostrich.
Taslima Nasrin’s bumpy ride through the turbulent time has reached a milestone. She now realizes swimming against the tide is sapping her energy against the options available to her. “Things had taken such a turn that my security and safety have come under great risk in any part of the world. Islamic fundamentalists would not have allowed me to rest in peace anywhere in the world. My intention is never to hurt anybody’s feelings and if my writings hurt the sentiments of others, it’s better to withdraw such portions. I am withdrawing some lines from the book [Dwikhandita].” This way she could come to confront reality, ala Salman Rushdie. But it does not mean recanting. It also does not touch upon what otherwise she has been speaking out in magazines and newspapers.
In a magazine article she was shocking and cruel when she remarked about the origin of the veiling. “Prophet Mohammed’s wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, ‘Oh, friends of the Prophet or holy men never go to your friend’s house without an invitation. And if you do go, don’t go and ask anything of their wives.’ It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being.” Her insidious write “Let’s Burn the Burqa” carries the innuendo for which Rushdie also faced music. Her exhorting Muslims to burn burqa and disobey the Quran may be music to some people’s ears but what would the pious believers think.
Her flight to Rajasthan was feasible because she adopted what she wanted to burn. She and her relative wore burqa to escape Kolkata. One of the problems with religion today is that it is cross fertilized with the local politics. Nasrin went to a BJP ruled state and sang their tune by saying that MF Hussein was better off while hell was let loose around her. “Nothing happens to MF Hussein who has done so many things, while everybody is after my life.” She also did so many things. She slept over the rape of Sabina and her two daughters from Nandigram. One of the daughters is still missing. Will she write for this parzania?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
