The danger of Pakistan sponsored terrorism persists

Jaibans Singh

With notoriety comes a celebrity status; A good example of this adage is the international celebrity status that Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the head of the Pakistan based international terrorist organisation Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT), has attained after the US put a $10 Million bounty on his head. The bounty has greatly elevated his stature and placed him in the exalted league of Al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri and Taliban’s Mullah Omar. Suddenly, the professor turned Jihadi has attained centre stage with the media, drawing room gossips, bureaucrats and top leaders of the world. He was the prime topic of discussion during the recently concluded meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. As expected, Manmohan Singh was absolutely forthright in demanding strong action against the maverick terrorist while President Zardari was evasive. It seems that not much has changed so far as Pakistan is concerned despite announcement of the bounty.

The US has taken great pains to explain to India that recognition of Saeed as one amongst the top international terrorists has a lot to do with the LeT sponsored terrorist attack in Mumbai in the year 2008 (26/11). India needs to remind the US that for many decades the Nation cried hoarse over Pakistan’s proclivity to export terror; the US, in turn, chose to ignore this reality as a localised problem between two petulant neighbours. In fact, it continued to support Pakistan and gave the rogue Nation considerable confidence to carry on with its reprehensible activities. The result was that India has fought and continues to fight a lonely battle against Pakistan sponsored terror. Secondly, post 26/11, Indian handed over to enough evidence to Pakistan to implicate Saeed as the mastermind of the attack. Evidence was provided way back in August 2009 with a demand for Saeed’s arrest and questioning. This was followed by submission of another document “Dossiers on Pak Nationals involved in Mumbai Terror Attacks” to Pakistan in February 2010 in which Saeed was prominently mentioned. All through these proceedings India kept the US in the loop, but the latter did not react.

The keen interest that the US is now taking in Saeed has less to do with India and more with some irrefutable evidence of LeT’s links with al Qaeda and Afghanistan Taliban. This evidence has come about from documents seized during the Osama raid at Abbotabad in Pakistan and revelations of David Headley, the Pakistan American who is in US custody for having facilitated 26/11 for the LeT. The evidence has clearly established LeT’s global ambitions and its tie ups with the ISI, al Qaeda, Taliban, Haqqani network and other such organisations which are detrimental to the US engagement in Afghanistan. Add to this the fast deteriorating US-Pakistan relationship and we have in place a large number of reasons for the US to have declared this bounty on Saeed; as a corollary its concern for India slides very much into the background. It is quite evident that despite a supposedly world class intelligence gathering capability and a host of think tanks dedicated to the study of international developments, the US has never really been able to get things right.

So far as India is concerned Saeed can, at best, be viewed as just one link in a long Pakistan based chain which carries out terrorist activity on its soil. Maulana Masood Azhar, the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed, Syed Sallah-ud-Din, chairman of the United Jihad Council and many others are engaged in India centric terrorist activities. All of them, like the LeT, are based in Pakistan; derive support from the ISI; have links with organisations like al Qaeda/Taliban; receive financial support and protection from the Pakistan government and function with a fair degree of freedom. Most of these leaders have the gumption to move around freely; live in highly fortified lavish mansions and spout venom against India and the western civilisation with impunity. Cumulatively, they have a huge organisation comprising of forty plus terrorist training camps deep in Pakistani soil and along the line of control where training is imparted and infiltration carried out. The whole operation is run with massive manpower, well established infrastructure and enormous funding of a scale which simply cannot go unnoticed by the government of Pakistan, yet, the government feigns ignorance.

Even as the sagacity shown by the US in branding Saeed as a terrorist deserving of $ 10 Million on his head is being enthusiastically discussed, the Indian Army has killed five terrorists in a fierce encounter the Kupwara district of Kashmir on April, 05. Earlier, five LeT terrorists were killed in the same area on March, 28. On March, 22, a car bomb explosion in Kashmir left one person killed and 22 injured. Such recurring terrorist incidents bear testimony to the status quo so far as Pakistan’s policy of exporting terror to India is concerned. This policy is not likely to change or suffer a setback by the arrest, prosecution or killing of one Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. The problem is far more deep rooted and Saeed is just one, albeit important, clog the wheel.

India, therefore, may appreciate the US decision as a part of its polite diplomatic engagement with the country but let it be known that this means little unless Saeed is actually put on the dock by Pakistan as part of an overall change in its policy with regard to proliferation of terror on Indian soil. To this extent, the strong message that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has given to President Zardari that containment of terror by Pakistan remains central to normalisation of relations between the two countries is a step in the right direction.

Christof Heyns should not have been invited to India

Jaibans Singh

The media environment is abuzz with the visit of Mr. Christof Heyns, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to India. Heyns’ visit is the first mission to India by an expert mandated by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to monitor and report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. He visited Gujarat, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam and West Bengal and met secretaries of various ministries, police officers, human rights activists and other officials in these states, over only 12 days.

A special rapporteur is a title given to individuals working on behalf of various regional and international organizations on mandates to investigate, monitor and recommend solutions for specified issues. There are rapporteurs of the United Nations, the African Union, the Organisations of American States and such bodies. This particular body has been mandated by the United Nations to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in all circumstances and for whatever reason and submit findings on an annual basis, together with conclusions and recommendations, to the UNHRC and the General Assembly. Mr. Christof Heyns, who belongs to South Africa, has held this post since August, 01, 2010. He is likely to submit this report to the UNHRC only in 2013.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is still a year to go before the report would be tabled, the special rapporteur did not hesitate from meeting the media and giving a brief on his observations. He told reporters in New Delhi that he considered the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act to be a “symbol of excessive state power” that “has no role to play in a democracy”. “During my visit to Kashmir, AFSPA was described to me as ‘hated’ and ‘draconian’. It clearly violates International Law. A number of UN treaty bodies have pronounced it to be in violation of International Law as well,” said Heyns. It is also significant that He has condemned violence perpetrated by what he terms as “rebels” in India thus exhibiting his complete ignorance about the fact that India is facing a challenge of foreign sponsored terrorism and not a rebellion.

What is quite incredulous in such fact finding missions is that some person quite divorced from the history and culture of a particular land and equally ignorant about its state of affairs has the gumption to embark on a whirlwind tour, meet a few people and then wax eloquent on extremely complex issues with resounding authority. Would people like Heyns be allowed to speak on the draconian nature of the US PATRIOT Act which gives sweeping powers to the security establishment, be it the Armed Forces of the country, the Homeland security or the Police; powers like confiscation of property, authority to intercept communication and delay execution of a warrant amongst others? Today in the US, if the State gets an inkling of a person being involved in terrorism, it can act against the person without recourse to the normal process of law as applied in a developed free society. Security laws passed by other European countries like the Britain’s “Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001”, have equally stringent provision much more inhibiting and draconian than the AFSPA, yet, not a word is being said about the same.

Heyns heard the versions of some people who professed to being victims of excess committed by security forces, but he did not meet even one of the thousands of families who have lost their near and dear ones to terrorist atrocity or innocent young girls who have been blatantly victimised by terrorist lust. He seems to have completely ignored the vitiated atmosphere prevalent in India’s neighbourhood where rule of the gun, mostly perpetrated by the State itself, is rampant. Pakistan is literally teeming with mercenaries and militants from across the world poised to enter our sacred soil and blemish it in the name of Jihad. Amidst all this he expects India to stand aside so as to establish its “commitment to human rights”. Heyns is right when he talks of unacceptable levels of deadly violence but he is totally ignorant about the source of this violence and the herculean efforts being me made by a committed security establishment to counter the same.

The Union Home Minister, P Chidambaram, has responded rather meekly to the uncalled for and unseemly comments made by the special rapporteur. He said that the rapporteur had made “some positive statements.’’ On the views of the rapporteur on AFSPA, Chidambaram took a circuitous route to state “Yes, we take note of the view but that’s not a novel view as there are a number of people who have expressed the same view and there are others who have a contrary view which is why the issue remains unresolved”. One wonders whether he was referring to his own cabinet colleague, the Union Defence Minister, when he spoke of the contrary view, a classic case of using a situation to play Intra-party politics.

It is time for India to realise that it no longer requires a mandate from organisations like the United Nations in the conduct of its internal affairs. If a small country like Sri Lanka can ignore this organisation, one wonders as to why India needs to engage with it, especially so, with respect to sensitive security issues. What need do we have, as a strong emerging world power, to exhibit willingness to host such missions. No outsider can ever understand the problems of a country of the size and complexity of India let alone give possible solutions. There was no reason to invite Christof Heyns in the first place; now that a mistake has been committed, the best way out is to learn from it and move on.

Politicisation and motivated presentation of the Pathribal case

Jaibans Singh

“This again calls into question the entire debate of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the way in which it is implemented or the way it is used,” said Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir while referring to the Pathribal operation case, which is presently being heard in the country’s Supreme Court. National Conference President Farooq Abdullah, during whose tenure as Chief Minister this incident took place, states his position as follows “.”Yes, it was a fake encounter… All those who are responsible for having killed innocent people must be charge sheeted, whether they are in the Army or they are civilians …..”

It is quite obvious that an attempt is being made to fire the gun from the shoulder of the Supreme Court for political reasons with complete disregard to the fact that the case being sub-judice cannot be commented upon by involved parties. One wonders whether this is being done to influence the proceedings of the Court or to gain political mileage.

“It was a fake encounter with a motive…it can’t be termed as discharge of duty by the army and these army officials should not be protected by AFSPA,” says senior advocate Ashok Bhan while appearing for the CBI. First and foremost, one wonders at the motive of the CBI in appointing a Kashmiri Pundit as their senior counsel in the case. The country offers many others who have the requisite talent, expertise and legal reputation for this job, why than has this particular counsel been chosen? Is it because some lobbies in Kashmir which wish to remain outside the ambit of the proceedings can influence a resident of the State towards being more considerate to their requirements? Why is the learned counsel so insistent in naming only Indian Army personnel as perpetrators of the purported crime when irrefutable evidence has established that the joint operation was undertaken by the Army after receipt of specific information from the Police; a Police party accompanied the Army patrol and pointed out the house where the terrorists were hiding after which the attack was launched and the terrorists killed. The JK Police was quite forthcoming in taking the credit till such time that reports of civilians having been abducted and killed came up. It then staged the proverbial disappearing act and left the Army to face the flak. Why is a sustained effort being made to put this evidence under the carpet? Secondly, how is it that the fudging of the DNA samples is not being referred to by the CBI in its case at all? Once again, there is enough evidence to substantiate that it was the ineptitude of the Farooq government which led to the initial fudging of the DNA samples of those killed in the encounter. Not much is known about the report of the second sample that was taken after a protracted public outcry. The Army had no means of influencing the fudging of DNA samples, therefore, it can be logically deduced that the attempt was made by such local lobbies who wanted to hide certain facts.

As a matter of fact, one wonders as to why the CBI had to approach the Court at all for taking sanction to prosecute those who it believes were involved in a “fake encounter”? All parties in the case are government servants, some working for the centre, others for the State. Surely, the matter could and should have been resolved departmentally. The CBI merely had to place its findings before the government which had appointed it to conduct the investigations and then left the course of action to the higher authorities within the government. Where was the reason for it to get proactive and go out knocking the doors of the judiciary?

During the hearing on March, 26, 2012, the Centre told the Supreme Court that it needs four months to decide on sanction for producing the army officials charged. The Centre has also committed that it would pass appropriate and judicious order on sanction for prosecution of eight army personnel involved in the case. One can only hope that the “appropriateness and judiciousness” will include taking a holistic view of the entire episode as also the evidence which is in the public domain.

During the April, 02, 2012, hearing of the same case the Supreme Court has directed the Centre to lay out facts about the number of times a sanction for prosecution has been given in cases where immunity to Army under Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), had been “misused”. The Army has been expeditious in dispensing punishment, under the Army Act, to all those who have been found to be guilty of human rights violations while serving under protection of the AFSPA. During the last two decades —– numbers of Army personnel have been prosecuted and punished for various human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. Interestingly, not many such cases of punishment to Police personnel are available in the public domain. When any such incident involving the Police takes place, the person is suspended and an enquiry is instituted. Beyond that the notoriety of the Jammu and Kashmir government in putting enquiries under the carpet invariably takes over and nothing is heard of the case ever again.

No one can question the probity of the country’s apex Court in ensuring that justice is dispensed in all cases that come under its purview. It is politicisation of the Pathribal case and its motivated presentation to the apex Court which is giving a reason for concern. Let the law take its course, but the facts laid out before the Court need to be absolutely correct, especially so, when a government body has been entrusted with the responsibility to present them.

Human rights: The evolution and perspective in India

Jaibans Singh

Modern human rights laws establish the rights of the individual in relation to the State, These rights evolved as Europe and America developed into vibrant democracies. With time, they were given a legal status by a large number of countries. Some important documents that signify evolution of the concept of human rights are the English Bill of Rights of 1688, the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, the US Bill of Rights of 1789, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1791. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s, Nation states initiated a process of universal human rights through organisations like the League of Nations and United Nations. In special conferences such as The Hague Conference of 1899 and 1907, nations created laws governing the conduct of wars and handling of prisoners.

It was the shadow of World War II (1939–45) which gave a distinct boost to the concept of human rights. The United Nations (UN), created in 1945, took the lead in this effort and international treaties establishing human rights standards became the order of the day. The objectives of the worldwide “Charter of Human Rights”, created by the UN, call for equal rights and self-determination for all peoples, as well as a, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, is also an important human rights document. This Charter has 30 Article designed to lay a common standard for all nations to promote respect for rights and freedoms. The Charter declares all human beings as born free and equal in dignity and rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language and religion. Other important issues addressed by the Charter include equality in origin, property, birth or other status; right to life, liberty and security; equality and equal protection by law. Covenants have been instituted against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and arbitrary interference with an individual’s privacy, family and home.

To develop the UN Charter into an international code of human rights law, the international community created a number of multilateral human rights treaties. The two most significant of these are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both put into effect in 1976. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with these two covenants and an accord called the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) constitute a body of law that is called the International Bill of Human Rights.

The “Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, includes protection for the right to life, except after conviction for serious crime; freedom from torture and other cruel and inhumane punishment; freedom from slavery and prohibition from slave trade; freedom of movement and choice of residence. Legal standards, include equality before the law, fair hearings, presumption of innocence till proved guilty, a prompt and fair trial, the right to counsel, and the right to review by a higher court; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights protects additional rights to work, just wages and safe working conditions, social security, a decent standard of living, freedom from hunger, universal basic education and to an enjoyment of the cultural life and scientific progress of the country.

The Indian Constitution, being a product of the period when these rights were gaining universal acceptance, has given due credence to most of the covenants instituted as human rights. Today, the Indian people enjoy maximum rights as perceived and conceived by humanity in terms of personal freedom, liberty, dignity, state protection et al. All the peoples of India enjoy in full measure the basic parameters of human right as enshrined in our constitution. They are essentially free in spirit, free to worship their Gods; free to guide their own destiny; free to express their thoughts and views; free to choose their government; free to indulge in lawful work anywhere in their country. They are provided with basic amenities like health, education, security, infrastructure, law and order etc by the State.

Human rights, as perceived by the international community, have a very wide mandate which provide for personal security and a dignified life, much beyond common acts of criminality which constitute a localized law and order problem. Under the circumstances, it is unfortunate that, in a liberal country like India, covenants of human rights have become a tool in the hands of some disruptive forces to further their blinkered agendas especially so in areas which are ridden by faulty ideologies of separatism and insurgency as in parts of Jammu and Kashmir, some North-East States and areas affected by Left Wing Extremism. Common criminal acts like murder, rape etc, which come under the purview of the justice machinery established on the basis of human rights covenants, are proclaimed to be human rights violations by themselves. This is done to psychologically attack such security forces which are involved in quelling the separatist and insurgent fires.

Nobody in the world denies the responsibility of the State to maintain a security threshold in order to ensure enjoyment of human rights by its citizens. In India, this very security threshold is being attacked and weakened by raising the bogey of human rights violations. There is an urgent need to expose and counter this propagandist menace. The essence of human rights and the perseverance with which they are being followed India needs to be understood in the right perspective and at the same time the evil designs of disruptive forces need to be exposed.

Address AFSPA with a patient, mature, step by step approach

Jaibans Singh

A firm stand has been taken by the centre while addressing the proposal mooted by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah regarding revocation of the Act from some districts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Omar may have a point in his contention; however, the response of the central leadership indicates an overriding opinion that a sensitive decision of this nature cannot be taken in a hurry and that too due to political compulsions. For a change, the stand taken by the government has found support from the Bhartiya Janata Party. Shri Lal Krishan Advani, during his recent rally in Jammu as part of his nationwide “Jan Chetna Yatra”,  dwelt extensively on the issue of revocation of AFSPA, despite the mandate of the Yatra being creation of awareness on corruption. He was strong in his view that revocation of the Act cannot be done without the consent of the Army. "Government of India should say with determination that whatever we will do in Jammu and Kashmir as far as this Act is concerned, we will not do anything without the consent of Army," Advani said while addressing a rally at Dusshera Ground in Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on November, 16. He based his premise on the fact that the Army has been solely responsible in maintaining the integrity of J&K with the Indian Union.

It is evident that the country’s leadership is not ready to play politics with sensitive security issues;  it is also evident that a firm ground has to be prepared for revocation of AFSPA from the State of J&K. There are a number of questions that need to be answered and issues that need to be addressed before the revocation is considered.

First and foremost, the Parliament enacted the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990 which came into effect on July, 05, 1990.  Initially the Government had declared areas falling within 20 km of the line of control in districts of Rajouri and Poonch and Districts of Anantnag, Baramulla, Budgam, Kupwara, Pulwama and Srinagar as disturbed.  Subsequently, in August, 2001 AFSPA was extended to Districts of Jammu, Kathua, Udhampur, Poonch, Rajouri and Doda. At that stage insurgency was on the wane and National Conference was in power in the state. The extension was made to facilitate the Army in conducting anti terrorist operations across the State. The result was the downfall of terrorism.

The question is - what change in the environment is motivating the very same National Conference to opt for a revocation of the Act now? Has terrorism gone down? Has infiltration gone down? Has Pakistan changed its posture vis-à-vis Kashmir? Have separatist’s accepted Kashmir as an integral part of India?

The next important issue is the organisation that would be put in place to take on the internal security responsibilities presently being performed by the Army under protection of the AFSPA. Is the State police now capable of taking on these responsibilities? Has the modernization of the Police force been completed? Has recruitment to enhance the strength to desired levels been carried out? Has specialist training to meet the operational environment been imparted to the Police force?

Further, Omar says that AFSPA must go since an environment of peace and stability now prevails in the State. If this be the case then why is the state government not removing restrictive laws like the Disturbed Area Act and the Public Safety Act, that are within its jurisdiction to revoke? Why are all political prisoners not being freed? Why does the Chief Minister and most of the J&K Cabinet move with unprecedented security?

There is a perception being given that the groundswell of opinion is for revocation of the Act. However, the indicators on ground portray a different picture. Are all members of the coalition government in agreement to this proposal? Are other major political parties like the BJP and the Panthers Party in favour of this proposal? Have there been any agitations by the common people against the Army and this Act? Have there been any representations against the Act and the Army from various segments of society?

Finally, we come to the matter of the “draconian’ nature of the act and its misuse by the Army. What parameters are guiding this perception?  With the advent of terrorism many nations, including developed countries, have modified their laws and made them more stringent to meet this menace. Sweeping powers, which would not stand scrutiny of Human Rights principles have been given to the Police and Homeland Security since they are considered to be the need of the hour. These powers are more stringent that the provisions of AFSPA.

As regards the aspect of misuse, how can it be legislated that the organisation which replaces the Army will not misuse the powers which will be vested upon it by law?  Despite invocation of the AFSPA, the Army has punished 104 of its personnel for HR violations. How many persons of the JK Police have been indicted for HR violations and punished in the same period?  Has the Army ever refused to cooperate in any case of alleged HR violations that have come to light?  Have not Army personnel been made available for Police for interrogation in cases of alleged crimes?

It is apparent that there are more questions than answers with regard to the sensitive issue of security in J&K. This calls for a patient, mature, step by step approach wherein the leadership of the state, the leadership in the centre and the Army are on board for a common cause which centres around the safety and security of the people. The parameters have been established, now it is up to the stakeholders to walk the talk.

Omar’s spat with the Army is in bad taste

Jaibans Singh

There are some very serious questions that need to be debated in view of the ugly turn that the matter of revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (afspa) in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has taken. There is no denying that issues of national security should come up for debate. Such debates may be carried out in the public domain by experts in the field who are in a position to provide an intellectual foundation to the government for the decision making process. However, such debates cannot be carried out by the functionaries of the government who are responsible for implementation of the national security policy. The deliberations are made public only when a national consensus on a grave issue of national security becomes imperative and this is done at the highest level.

In view of the foregoing, is the spat, which media reports suggest, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has had with senior Army commanders posted in J&K over partial revocation of the afspa, commensurate with the norms that guide deliberation on defence and security aspects by government agencies? Is it proper to bring into the public domain, through an ill informed and ravenous media, sensitive issues that deal with national security? Is it proper to project the Army of a democratic nation as a power hungry force bent upon subjugating its own people under so-called draconian laws?

Omar Abdullah is the Chief Minister of a sensitive border State of the country and also chairman of a unified command of security forces involved in tackling terrorism and insurgency in his State. It is very strange that he deemed it fit to discuss his agenda points for a crucial meeting of the unified command with the media before chairing the said meeting. Once the meeting came to an end he found time to tweet in a social media site, twitter, "Who the hell is leaking the proceedings of Unified command meeting to the media." For good measure he crisply added that he would not be commenting on the subject. My dear sir, you had made your point very clear before chairing the meeting, so why act coy later?  Also, is it not part of your duties to find out as to who is leaking sensitive information about the proceeding which is, undoubtedly, a matter of grave concern? Is it prudent for you to declare the ineptness of your government to the whole world instead of taking serious steps to plug the loopholes?

What has been told to the media and what has been projected post the meeting is high on rhetoric and low on substance. The discussions between Omar and the Army commanders who form part of the unified command are not of much consequence insofar as the status of afspa is concerned. If Omar is serious about revoking the afspa, he has to first withdraw the Disturbed Area Act through a special session of the State Legislative Assembly followed by assent of the Governor of the State. In case he manages to do so, afspa would be automatically withdrawn. The existing political alignment in the State makes this prospect highly unlikely; Omar’s coalition partner, the Congress, will not play ball; the BJP, Panthers Party and other small groups will openly oppose the move, so how will the motion be passed? This apart, further action towards revocation of the Act will take place at the level of the central government where the matter will be deliberated by the Cabinet Committee of Security and discussed with major national parties etc.

At a conservative estimate, even with all stake holders being on board, the matter cannot be resolved in less than a year. One wonders as to how Omar is confidently suggesting that the necessary revocation will happen in “a few days time,” and how he is projecting the army, especially so, his colleagues in the unified command as the biggest road blocks in the revocation of the law.

The role of the army in this entire episode is not as villainous as it is being made out to be. This apart, Omar harbours a fallacious perception that the army has a special interest in his state. The army is a much revered national institution; it has vast responsibilities which extend across the country and involve multifarious activities. It has to respond to the buildup of military capabilities in the immediate neighbourhood and beyond, it has to address issues of nuclear security, modernization, defence acquisition, training, cooperation with foreign armies, readiness for different types of warfare from conventional to asymmetric to nuclear and a host of other issues. J&K forms a small, albeit important part of its overall responsibility.

The army receives its orders from the central government and it is the central government that has directed its commanders to become a part of the unified command. In concert with these directions, senior commanders of the Army brief Omar in his capacity of being the chairman of the established authority.  During the recently held meeting the senior officers of the army simply gave to him their viewpoint on the basis of the situation on ground. This does not imply a “feet dug in approach” as is being projected. Whenever, the government at the centre directs the Army to modify its posture in J&K, it will do so without any debate or delay. In order to push his line of thought, Omar simply has to leave the army alone and convince his own people and the government of India.

In the meantime, it would be appropriate for the Chief Minister to show some respect to the soldiers who are making huge sacrifices in the cause of the nation in his home state. His ongoing spat with the Army is in bad taste.

Security should remain the primary concern in J&K

Jaibans Singh

Jaibans Singh

The political crisis that has enveloped Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), could not have come at a more inopportune time. Even as abuses, flying fans and murder charges dominate the political landscape of the Valley; the security forces are involved in a grim battle to counter yet another resolute attempt by Pakistan to up the ante of terrorism in Kashmir. In the melee of barbs and counter barbs, the killing of one Abdul Rehman, a Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) terrorist of Pakistani origin in District Pulwama of the Kashmir Valley on October, 03, has been sidelined. Abdul Rehman was working towards reactivating militancy in Kashmir at the behest of his masters across the border.

This is but one small incident amongst many which point towards Pakistan’s grand design to increase infiltration and escalate violence in J&K, especially the Kashmir Valley. A well planned infiltration bid was detected only a few days back on September, 30 at the Shamsbari forests of Kupwara in North Kashmir. This was an extension of a previous bid made by terrorists at the Awathkul forest area of Kralipora, Kupwara, on September, 26, which led to the martyrdom of one young Army officer, Lieutenant Sushil Khajuria, an Army soldier and two JK Police personnel. Operations were resumed on September, 30, when it became evident that the group was larger than appreciated earlier, and as a result, more terrorists fell into the dragnet. A total of six terrorists were eliminated by the security forces over six long arduous days and considerable loss of valuable life.

In an earlier encounter on, August, 20, 12 terrorists were killed in North Kashmir. A young Army Officer, Lieutenant Navdeep Singh, lost his life and two army soldiers were injured in the day long gun battle in the Gurez sector of Bandipora district astride the Kishanganga River. This particular incident was the eighth reported attempt toward infiltration in the preceding month.

In yet another very interesting development on September, 30, Army personnel arrested a LeT terrorist, Nasir Ahmed, resident of Karachi, Pakistan. He was presented before the media in Srinagar along with arms and ammunition recovered from his possession. From his statement it emerged that he was a drug addict who had been “sold” by his brother to the LeT. He had been trained in Manshera in Pakistan by personnel of the Pakistani Army and ISI and then moved to Kel Military Garrison in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) opposite the Macchil sector in Kashmir where the intensive training carried on. Thereafter, seven members of the group were selected for infiltration. A final briefing was given by members of the ISI before the launch. Predictably, the group was intercepted by the Indian Army and Nasir Ahmed surrendered on being surrounded.

The modus operandi narrated by the surrendered foreign terrorist corroborates yet another input regarding protests by residents of Neelum Valley in POK against a perceptible influx of suspicious looking persons in the region. These persons were dressed in traditional Pakistani Shalwar-Kameez; they sported long beards and spoke in Punjabi. The local administration attempted to brush aside the matter by passing off these people as tourists; the locals, however, were not convinced. They were sure that these were trained terrorists gathering in the area for infiltration into J&K. The people were afraid that this sudden increase in infiltration activity would lead to a break in the cease fire that had held since 2003 and invite retaliation from the Indian Army in the form of artillery fire. They were naturally terrified at the prospect of a revisit of the terrible pre-ceasefire days when artillery fire wrought havoc in their lives. So strong was the level of concern that traders resorted to shutdowns, women protested openly and called for help from local NGO’s while hundreds of school children held a protest march.

There are also indications of turmoil amongst the terrorist leadership because of the surrender policy recently declared by the Governments of India and J&K, whereby, misguided Kashmiri youth who are stranded in POK will be facilitated to return to the fold of their families through a laid down procedure. There are reports of Unite Jihad Council chief, Syed Salahuddin, touring various Mohajir (migrant) camps to boost the sagging morale of his disenchanted cadre and extol them to reject the initiative. It is reliably reported that his efforts have had negligible impact and a large number of the persons have applied for surrender.

Pakistan continues to be in a state of denial so far as her involvement with terror is concerned. This denial does not amount to much in the face of the aforementioned irrefutable evidence of its terror activities directed against India, especially J&K. Let alone India, by now, even the US is quite exasperated with the inability of the Pakistani government to deliver on its promise to contain terror activities on its soil. China also is not very happy with the support that is emanating from Pakistan for Muslim insurgents of the Chinese Xingjian Province. Despite this cup full of woes Pakistan is, quite amazingly, increasing attempts towards export of terror infrastructure in J&K.

It is evident that Pakistan has no intention of relenting in its policy of exporting terror to India, regardless of its own tenuous condition. India’s response has to be in concert with this reality. The government and the people of J&K need to shed their political differences for the moment and concentrate on the huge security threat that is looming on the region. The Nation also needs to stand steadfast behind the security forces who are putting relentless pressure to offset this diabolical design of inimical forces. While countering the security challenge it is also important to build a common global platform to counter Pakistan’s recalcitrant behavior.

Azad Kashmir: Neither Azad nor Kashmiri

Jaibans Singh

Jaibans Singh

With the swearing in of Sardar Mohammad Yaqub Khan as President of the so-called “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” (AJK), which is more aptly termed as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has, in accordance with tradition, established its stranglehold on the region. Historically, it is always the ruling party, or a Pakistan Army sponsored party when the country is under military rule, which forms a government in POK. Recently, in a sham which passed off as elections, the PPP, predictably, established a majority in the legislative assembly and installed its senior member, Choudhary Abdul Majeed, as the Prime Minister. Sardar Muhammad Yaqub Khan, an erstwhile member of the All Party Hurriyat Conference, joined the PPP a little before the assembly elections and has been rewarded for his defection by being appointed the President of AJK alias POK. Thus the stranglehold is once again complete.

The newly appointed President has not taken too long to establish his intention to toe the PPP line despite being in an apolitical appointment. In his address after taking oath, he roundly condemned the arrest Ghulam Nabi Fai despite it having been established that Fai was involved in underhand lobbying sponsored by the ISI . He further said that his top priority would be the Kashmir issue as his ancestors had “liberated the territory of Azad Kashmir” and their mission has to be completed, so much for reconciliation.

A different version to the entire ballgame has been presented by Altaf Hussain, the exiled leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), whose ”Mohajir” party members are being selectively targeted in the ongoing violence in Karachi. In a telephone conversation with Sardar Atique Ahmad Khan, an ex-Prime Minister of POK, the MQM chief said, “Everyone in Pakistan is aware of the fraud in the recent Azad Kashmir elections.” “The current government is authoritarian and not a democratic government,” he added.

In POK, every action of the civilians is scrutinised by the hawk-eyed army and the ISI. This is because the entire administration is in the hands of the Pakistani army. The army runs the schools, the water department, the power stations, and the transport. Mohammed Mumtaz Khan, a senior leader from Rawalakote has gone on record to state: ‘Pakistani army is using POK as a training camp for terrorists, as for development, the area lags behind Jammu & Kashmir by ages, where development had moved at almost the same pace as that of other cities in India.’ In POK, no freedom is granted to the media, in fact there is no media at all. Whatever public opinion is there gets squashed immediately. There is no way you can go out and hold a protest march since an action of this nature invites retaliation with firing by troops

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRPC) has opined that people in POK have suffered gross violations of their rights, from being continuously ‘watched and monitored’ by Pakistan’s ISI to denial of basic fundamental rights including access to judiciary and fair trial. As per HRPC ‘People feel that their and political rights have been infringed under the guise of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, which prohibits activities that are prejudicial to public safety”.

The residents of POK lack a constitutional status in Pakistan even more so than the Mohajirs, the Balochis, the Pashtuns and the Sindhis who are now in open revolt against the government seen to be Punjabi (Army) dominant. Presently, there is no semblance of a Nation state in the geographic area which passes off as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In this turmoil the biggest victim are the people of POK and Northern Areas who are undergoing rampant colonisation. The recently held elections and the installation of the puppet government has laid the framework of continued exploitation in the long run.

Deep beneath the layer of deceit and blatant opportunism that has enveloped POK since the last six plus decades there is a very palpable disgust for Pakistan. Many in POK, including its large Diaspora in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world, find India’s handling of its part of Kashmir more commendable. There is a growing awareness that while India has respected Kashmir’s age-old practice of not allowing outsiders to settle down in the valley, Pakistan has allowed over 28,000 Afghan families to settle down and fleece the local populace in the name of Jihad. With regard to socio-economic parameters everyone is aware that Kashmiri’s in the valley are better educated and better skilled due to the better education facilities that are available to them. On the political front, India has held fair elections in the Valley right down to the Panchayat level while the Pakistani government not only indulges of gross manipulation of elections, it also has the gumption of dismissing installed governments at will.

Azad Kashmir is neither inhabited largely by Kashmiris nor is it Azad. There are voices of protest coming up; those actively involved in this crusade to obtain justice are Shabir Choudhry’s Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Abdul Hamid Khan’s Balawaristan National Front, All Party National Alliance, Karakoram National Movement, Karakoram Students Organization and Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization and many others. These political organisations have, time and again, reiterated their demand for empowering the people of POK and Northern Areas to decide their future both political and economic outside the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The time has arrived for the world, led by India, to intervene in this highly oppressed region and pressurise the government of Pakistan to pay cognisance to the just demands of the people.