Tuesday, 12 April 2011

BJP gets its own interlocutors for Kashmir



Former BJP President Rajnath Singh
Not happy with the work of the government-appointed panel of interlocutors on Kashmir, the opposition Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has announced the launch of a parallel four-month-long dialogue mission for restoring peace in Jammu and Kashmir.
Former BJP President Rajnath Singh will lead this team, which will include four other senior BJP leaders: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Shahnawaz Hussain, Maya Singh and JK Jain. They will present the report of the group in the Lok Sabha to pressure the government for taking action on it.
Party spokesperson Hussain, who is also in the committee, said that the members will visit the state from time to time to engage various sections of the society into a dialogue for a credible solution. He said that such a solution cannot come from the government-sponsored dialogue process.
The team will first make two-day visit to Jammu and then travel to Srinagar. It will send invites to both mainstream political parties and separatists, besides talking to people from different walks of life, including lawyers, social activists and educationists.
“We welcome various shades of opinion in Kashmir, including the separatists, for unconditional talks within the ambit of the Indian constitution,” said BJP national general secretary Jagat Prakash Nadda, who is also in-charge of this team.

Ironically, when some members of an all-party delegation that visited the Kashmir valley last September had deviated from the schedule to meet separatist leaders, the BJP had criticised them.
Nadda said that the BJP wants to get feedback from Kashmir and put across the ground realities and genuine aspirations of the people to the entire country. He said that the separatists groups of valley, political parties in coalition government as well as the civil society groups are welcome to be the part of the study group. “We will hear the separatists, the PDP, the National Conference and other groups,” he maintained.
Interestingly, the BJP leader described Jammu and Kashmir issue as a “political problem”, saying that it needs a “political solution”.
Iftikhar Gilani is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com

Monday, 11 April 2011

Heavy-handed Kashmir police take lessons in how not to kill


After 114 unarmed protesters die, securityforces are desperate to improve their image

By Andrew Buncombe in Srinagar
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Police try on new armour during riot training at Sujwan camp, near Jammu, Kashmir
AP
Police try on new armour during riot training at Sujwan camp, near Jammu, Kashmir
On a large parade ground set beneath dry brown hills, the Kashmir police went about their business. On one side, officers dressed in normal clothes and waving banners, imitated a gang of protesters. On the other, their colleagues, kitted out in new riot gear, selected for its menacing look as much as its flexibility, jogged forwards, chanting. Quickly, the kitted-out officers lowered themselves into a kneeling position and as those in the centre raised their shields, the officers on the flanks set off after the "demonstrators", waving their truncheons and hitting out. Afterwards, purple-coloured water was fired from a cannon.
Senior officers say the aim of these training sessions – which The Independent on Sundaywas the first international media outlet invited to attend – was to avoid causing serious harm when police clash with real protesters. In Kashmir, where a decades-long struggle for autonomy and the subsequent security clampdown has led to the deaths of more than 70,000 people, protests by youths demanding "azadi" or freedom are nothing new.
But last summer's demonstrations were met with what many believe was unnecessarily heavy-handed tactics by the police, and at least 114 unarmed civilians were killed. There has been mounting pressure on the authorities to devise a non-lethal strategy.
As a result, more than 3,000 officers are being pushed through a rolling programme of sessions on the use of water cannons, crowd dispersal, and the safe discharge of tear gas shells. There has been expenditure on new equipment for officers previously using crowd-control gear based on British-era designs. "We have tried to give our people knowledge about how to disperse crowds without harming them," said R A Vakil, commander of the Jammu and Kashmir force's 6th Battalion. "We want to reduce deaths."
But on the streets, these efforts have already been met with derision. The training sessions have coincided with a crackdown on Kashmiri youths using draconian laws that have sent scores of people to jail without trial. Anger is mounting.
Among those venting their rage is Showakat Mattoo. Last summer, the death of his 17-year-old nephew, Tufail – killed by a teargas shell that struck him on the head – was the spark that set off months of demonstrations. The boy's family insist he was an innocent passer-by and have demanded the police charge the officer responsible.
"This was on 9 June last year and they have done nothing. They even have an eye-witness," said Mr Mattoo, sitting crouched over a basket containing burning embers at his Srinagar home. "This talk of non-lethal training is just rubbish. It's just eye-wash."
It is not hard to find such anger. In the aftermath of last year's demonstrations, the authorities said they would release the youths who had been detained. Yet reports suggest many hundreds remain in custody. The police admit 110 youths have been held under the Public Safety Act (PSA), a piece of legislation whose origins date from the days of British rule that allows someone to be detained for up to two years without trial on the say-so of a magistrate. A family's only recourse is to appeal to the High Court.
Among the more notorious PSA cases – laughable were it not so serious – is that of Omar Hamid Hanga, an 18-year-old arrested in February and accused of beating a police officer who had fallen to the ground at a demonstration last summer. The piece of evidence cited by the police is a photograph that shows several youths beating the officer. But the face of the boy purported to be Mr Hanga is entirely concealed by a mask.
His family insist the two boys look entirely unalike and that he was not even in the town where the incident happened. Their pleas were ignored. "The authorities are not willing to listen to people," said the teenager's uncle, Abdul Masjid, as his wife sobbed.
Ferdousa Zargar's 19-year-old son, Asif, was also detained under the PSA. 'There was no trial. He was accused of stone throwing," said Mrs Zargar, a widow who lives in Srinagar's old quarter. "I was looking to him to raise our family." Her son is currently being held in a jail in the north of the state. A senior police officer, Abdul Gani Mir, defended the use of the PSA. "There are proper checks and balances," he said.
Amnesty International does not agree. In a report, it said up to 20,000 people had been detained using the PSA in the past two decades. "Kashmir authorities are using PSA detentions as a revolving door to keep people they can't or won't convict through proper legal channels locked up and out of the way," said Amnesty's Sam Zarifi. The chief minister has said the report's recommendations will be "seriously considered".
But it is hard to find anyone in this city who has much good to say about the police or their vow to try to reduce casualties. The protesters' demands for freedom have in recent years started to include demands for justice and accountability. Why are no police or paramilitaries, they ask, ever charged when they commit a crime?
Such polarisation means there is little chance for goodwill unless people see concrete action as well. The federal authorities in Delhi have long dragged their heels over a political solution for the people of the valley. Last year they appointed three "interlocutors" to sound out various factions but undermined the deed by selecting three well-informed but politically powerless individuals. As it is, the interlocutors have also raised concerns about the use of the PSA.
Yasin Malik, a former militant who turned to non-violence nearly two decades ago and who heads the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, one of several groups demanding autonomy, lives near Lal Chowk, the area in Srinagar notorious as a location for protests. Last year, one of his cousins was among those killed. "They need to start a discourse," he said, mockingly. "Instead they are trying to decide whether to beat me with a plastic bar or an iron bar."

France begins ban on niqab and burqa


PARIS As I write this blog, a young woman from the Paris suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois is breaking the law. Even while she is dropping off her three-year-old at nursery she is breaking the law.
For from today the wearing of full-face veils in France is banned. Overnight the woman from the suburb has become a dissenter. She says no law should tell her what she can't wear. She also believes that her faith trumps French law, and therein lies her problem in an avowedly secular French Republic.
Failure to obey the law could lead to a 150-euro (£133, $217) fine and being sent to citizenship classes. A criminal record might follow.

French Muslim women in niqab - file pic
Perhaps, most significantly, anyone found forcing a woman to cover her face risks a 30,000-euro fine.
The burka or niqab is worn by very few in France - perhaps 2,000 women. The Muslim population is estimated at five million. Today - most probably - a few women will be defiant. Protesters against the new law are set to gather close to the flying buttresses of Notre Dame cathedral.
The police have orders to be restrained and respectful. The niqab-wearers, if any show up, will probably today be handed a leaflet. The authorities have printed 400,000 with the message that "the Republic lives with its face uncovered". A few women will see themselves as martyrs for a cause and already have their eye on the European Court of Human Rights. A businessman has offered to pick up any fines.
This law is about putting down a marker. As I have written before, many European leaders now believe that multiculturalism can lead to parallel, segregated communities. A new emphasis is being placed on minority communities integrating into the society they join, rather than just living as they did before. So Western societies are becoming more assertive about the values they uphold and the ones they expect others to respect.
Jean-Francois Cope, the French MP who has taken a lead over the burka ban, argues that seeing someone's face is key to human beings understanding each other. He sees the law as a step against separation.
The Muslim community is divided. It is made up of many voices and many views. Some believe it is important to become part of modern France. Some support the ban. Some don't. Some Muslim women wear headscarves. Many don't. Some believe that the Koran calls for a woman's face to be covered. Others say that such teachings appear in the works of scholars, not the Koran itself. There are Muslim women running companies; there are those discouraged from leaving their houses. Some wear dark headscarves, some are brightly coloured. A few hide their faces, while others are comfortable with heavy eye-liner and bright lipstick.
Ultimately this is an argument between those who believe that living in France demands that you sign up to certain French values and those who say that tolerance should allow you to dress how you want and to respect religious diversity.
The law is likely to be largely symbolic. There will be few prosecutions and it will be difficult to prove that a woman is being forced to wear a niqab because of her husband or family. Over time some women will choose not to wear it. Some shops stocking the niqab already say they will discontinue stocking it.
I suspect that this ban will generate a vibrant debate between Muslims. There are indications it has started already. Some say that the full-face veil is not a religious statement. It is purely cultural. Others say that it belongs to a strand of Islam. Others say that the wearing of headscarves is about asserting identity in a Western Europe that can still be frosty towards outsiders. Within traditional families there are daily arguments about how to live in a society that offers so much choice. Freedom can split families, as it has done with other religions.
What the French authorities want to avoid, at all costs, is a confrontation which could turn a debate about the covering of faces into whether the Muslim community is being singled out for special treatment.
By Gavin Hewitt BBC


The Kashmir You Need To Know


History

Location:
The State of Jammu and Kashmir encompasses a mountainous region in the heart of Asia, with borders touching to both South and Central Asia. Surrounded by Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan.  

Area:   
86,000 square miles, more than three times the size of the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium combined. Bigger than 87 member countries of the United Nations.   

Population: 
Estimated 13 million, including 1.5 million refugees in Pakistan and 0.5 million expatriates in different parts of the world. Larger than 114 sovereign nations 

Background: 
Technically, the area is called The State of Jammu and Kashmir, and has been historically independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and the first half of the 19th century or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th centuries) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th centuries). 


Cause Of Dispute:
In 1846, the British colonial rulers of India sold the territory, including its populace (by a sale deed called the Treaty of Amritsar, in return for a sum of money) to a Hindu warlord who had no roots there. This warlord who bought himself into royalty, styled the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir.  The acts of brutality during his regime have left bitter memories, some of which persist to this present day. Several mosques were closed and occupied by his forces. The slaughtering of a cow was declared a crime punishable by death. Between 1925 and 1947 Maharajah Hari Singh continued this policy of discrimination against the 94 percent Muslim majority. It was nearly 65 years ago, in 1931, that the people of Kashmir made their first organised protest against Maharajah Hari Singh's cruelty. That led to the "Quit Kashmir" campaign against the Maharajah in 1946, and eventually to the Azad Kashmir movement which gained momentum a year later. The first armed encounter between the Maharajah's troops and insurgent forces occurred in August 1947. At this time, Britain was liquidating its empire in the subcontinent. Faced with a insurgency of his people,strengthened by a few hundred civilian volunteers from Pakistan, Maharajah fled to Jammu on 25th October 1947. In Jammu, after he ascertained a commitment of military assistance from the government of India to crush the impending revolution in Kashmir, he signed the "Instrument of Accession" to India. Lord Mountbatten conditionally accepted the "Instrument of Accession" on behalf of the British Crown, and furthermore, outlined the conditions for official acceptance in a letter dated 27th October 1947: "In consistence with their policy that in the case of any (native) state where the issue of accession has been subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the state, it is my government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders the question of state's accession should be settled by a reference to the people." Then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in a speech aired on All­India Radio (2nd November 1947), reaffirmed the Indian Government's commitment to the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future through a plebiscite: "We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharajah has supported it, not only to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict." The Government of India accepted the "Instrument of accession" conditionally, promising the people of the state and the world at large that "accession" would be final only after the wishes of the people of the state were ascertained upon return of normalcy in the state.  .Following this, India moved her forces into Srinagar and a drawn­out fight ensued between Indian forces and the forces of liberation. The forces of Azad Kashmir successfully resisted India's armed intervention and liberated one­third of the State. Realising it could not quell the resistance, India brought the issue to the United Nations Security Council in January 1948. As the rebel forces had undoubtedly been joined by volunteers from Pakistan, India charged Pakistan with having sent "armed raiders" into the state, and demanded that Pakistan be declared an aggressor in Kashmir. Furthermore, India demanded that Pakistan stop aiding freedom fighters, and allowing the transit of tribesmen into the state. After acceptance of these demands, coupled with the assurance that all "raiders" were withdrawn, India would enable a plebiscite to be held under impartial auspices to decide Kashmir's future status. In reply, Pakistan charged India with having manoeuvred the Maharajah's accession through "fraud and violence" and with collusion with a "discredited" ruler in the repression of his people. Pakistan's counter complaint was also coupled with the proposal of a plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations to settle the dispute. The Security Council exhaustively discussed the question from January until April of 1948. It came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to determine responsibility for the fighting and futile to blame either side. Since both parties desired that the question of accession should be decided through an impartial plebiscite, the Council developed proposals based on the common ground between them. These were embodied in the resolution of 21st April 1948, envisaging a cease­fire, the withdrawal of all outside forces from the State, and a plebiscite under the control of an administrator who would be nominated by the Secretary General. For negotiating the details of the plan, the Council constituted a five­member commission known as "United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan" (UNCIP) to implement the resolution. After the cease­fire, India began efforts to drag the issue down, and under various pretexts tried to stop the UN resolution from being implemented. To this day, India pursues the same plan, and the resolution of 1948 has yet to be realised. India and Pakistan were at war over Kashmir from 1947­48 and all early U. N. Security Council Resolutions contained admonishment for both countries demanding an immediate case­fire, which would be followed by a-UN directed Plebiscite. However, disregarding that some fifteen resolutions were passed by the United Nations to this very effect, India and Pakistan again initiated military skirmish in 1965. At this point, another cease­fire agreement was effected after United Nations intervention, followed by an agreement at Tashkent with the good offices of the USSR.In 1971, India and Pakistan once again became locked in war. Efforts to bring the latest conflict to an end resulted in the Simla Agreement and was signed by both India and Pakistan and declared commitment to reach a "final settlement" on the Kashmir issue, but this has yet to happen.

Friday, 8 April 2011

President of Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadees (JAH), Moulana Showkat Ahmad Shah ASSASSINATED


Srinagar, Apr 8: A winding alley leads to this 3-storey house on the corner of Salfia Colony in Lal Bazaar Srinagar. The aura around is gloomy. Pain and anguish is visible.

In the house, chaos is evident everywhere. People are coming in and out. With each incoming female mourner the tone gets shriller and space shrinks. Moulana Showkat’s mother, wife and daughter sit in the foyer of the house. Women around them console and wipe tears on their faces.
Amid these scenes, Moulana’s son, a management graduate, comes out of the house. Shoaib Showkat clad in Pathani suit and black sweater is followed by his fellows. His legs shiver and tremble in the public park and he takes a deep breath followed by a glass of water.
“I want to perform ritual ablution of Abu. Please let me to Maisuma,” Shoaib tells his friends. Maisuma was the place where his father was killed. And his body was placed outside the Masjid where he was going to lead congregational Friday prayers.
Maulana at the time of this attack was accompanied by his nephew, Rizwan, a student of SP School. Rizwan is consoled by everyone. He doesn’t relent and his cries go louder.
“Rizwan is suffering from trauma as he was with Showkat sahib at the time of the gruesome incident. He is a witness to his killing,” said a neighbour outside this house.
Rizwan narrates his ordeal in a room calling Abu Jee every now and then. “Every Friday I take off from school and follow Abu Jee to Masjid at Gaw Kadal. And today I was moving ahead of Abu Jee on stairs when suddenly a huge blast occurred. As I turned back I saw him lying down. Dust was hovering around,” he uttered amid tears flowing out of his eyes.
Moulana is survived by two brothers who are also part of his joint family. “It was Rizwan who rang up home informing this sad blow to the family. Besides someone from local police station told us about the incident,” said their relatives.
Outside, the narrow alley is filled by public. Now more people have joined in. They are discussing with each other Moulana’s gentle nature.
“His was a noble soul in our locality. I saw him leaving the house today morning wearing short coat over Kameez shalwar guarded by security personnel. His house was attacked earlier. He had to erect these tin sheets over this boundary for his security,” said his close neighbour Muhammad Shafi, a retired government employee. His other neighbours echoed Shafi’s views.
“He was helpful to everyone be it any occasion. We knew this family for past more than two decades and his killing is unjust,” they told Greater Kashmir.
In between this all, his brother Reyaz Ahmad announces the burial time and leaves with Shoaib and Rizwan to Maisuma to offer funeral prayers.
(C) GK