Dr. Mubashir Hasan, founder and the guiding spirit of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy is no more. The subcontinent has lost a great crusader for the rights of the poor and peace between India and Pakistan.   

Since 1990, India has been facing a mass revolt in India Administered Jammu and Kashmir for Aazadi which was spearheaded by local militants, protesting against the massive rigging of 1987 elections of the state legislature and spiralling prices of food and electricity. In order to supress the movement, which was led by local youth, Indian government had saturated the valley with military and paramilitary forces, empowering them to use maximum force against the people. Pakistan government had initially responded by aiding the Kashmiri militants and then facilitating non-Kashmiri Jihadi groups to infiltrate the valley. As violence spiralled, India accused Pakistan of conducting a “proxy war” and Pakistan blamed India of mass killing of Kashmiri Muslims. By 1993, the relations between India and Pakistan had reached its nadir, jingoistic sabre rattling was the language of cross border communication, and diplomatic channels of exchanges atrophied. The spectre of war loomed large on the horizon of India and Pakistan.

It was at this critical juncture that Dr. Mubashir Hasan and a group of his friends took the initiative to come to India to appeal to Indian political leaders, academics and civil society actors to initiate a people to people dialogue for peace. He said, when the governments do not talk to each other, it was necessary for the people to take the initiative to begin a cross border dialogue for peace.  He had argued that we should not let a handful of military-civil bureaucrats and politicians to decide the destiny of a billion plus people of the subcontinent. People needed to intervene immediately to stop this madness from spreading.  

The visit of Dr. Hasan to India in 1994 led to the formation of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD). He was the main spirit behind the initiative. It was a totally unique idea at a time when even exchange of newspapers between the two countries was blocked. It would be completely different from the track-two dialogue forums which were essentially statist and elitist. The proposal was a bold intervention – a joint India-Pakistan forum involving ordinary people. It was characteristic of Dr Hasan who always believed in the power of the people whether as a founder of Pakistan Peoples’ Party and as Finance Minister in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s government.  Indeed when Bhutto was challenged by the Pakistan National Alliance after the election of 1977 Dr. Mubashir Hasan publicly advised him to mobilise the peasantry and the working class in his fight against the right wing parties who had outfitted themselves in religious robes. Bhutto declined his advice.

The Forum was inspired by the same faith in peoples’ power. From 1994 onwards the PIPFPD met regularly, holding massive conventions in both countries, despite attacks by right-wing media on both sides and suspicion of state agencies. In 1994-95, when the situation in Kashmir was extremely volatile, the PIPFPD at its Delhi and Lahore joint conventions, attended by hundreds of Indian and Pakistani civil society actors, adopted a resolution on Kashmir calling on Pakistan to end its material support to the militancy and asking India to withdraw its Army from civilian areas and end the human rights abuses there. PIPFPD called on the two governments to recognise that Kashmir was not merely a territorial dispute between the two states, but concerned the aspirations and lives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the line-of Control. It called for establishing cross-LoC contacts and for involving the people of all regions of J &K to search for a peaceful democratic solution of the dispute.

PIPFPD has all along held that war and attempts to create war hysteria should be outlawed and the process of de-nuclearisation and reversal of the arms race should be started. In 1994 the PIPFPD had pointed out the need for curbing religious intolerance as these tendencies create social strife, undermine democracy and increase the persecution and oppression of disadvantaged sections of society.

Over the past three decades, PIPFPD has held several large conventions in major cities in both countries. Participants included representatives of the human rights movement, workers organisations, peasant movement, women’s movements, environment movement, cultural workers, professionals, academics, scientists and former civil servants and soldiers of India and Pakistan. It brought together persons well known for their commitment to peace, equity and social justice, communal amity, democracy and people’s solidarity in the sub-continent.  PIPFPD played an important role in creating a cross border peace constituency. The steadfast commitment and guidance of such a tall figure as Dr Hasan was crucial in navigating PIPFPD during difficult moments in Pakistan India relations.  

Most recently, after the terrorist attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama in February 2019 and Indian air strikes deep inside Pakistan’s territory, members of PIPFPD from both sides of the border strongly condemned the violation of the Line of Control by India. They called upon the governments of India and Pakistan to initiate meaningful dialogue involving Kashmiri leadership from both sides to resolve the political dispute. The PIPFPD in a statement released from Lahore and New Delhi said, “We note with seriousness and strongly condemn the Indian air strikes and bombing in settled districts of Pakistan beyond the Line of Control. We demand both governments of Indian & Pakistan to show restraint and avoid any war-like situation. We further demand immediate measures from both sides to de-escalate the situation and de-militarize borders by withdrawing troops to the peace time level.”

Mubashir Hasan continued to remain active even after he was confined to bed by severe lung infection and asthma. After Indian government enacted the Citizenship Amendment Act, he issued a joint statement with 14 other South Asian intellectuals which said, “If the New Delhi authorities were seeking security for religious minorities in the three selected countries, they should have engaged in a sustained diplomatic effort. We believe that, with its action, the Government of India has made religious minorities in the three countries more vulnerable than before.”

Dr. Hasan held that the ruling elite of India and Pakistan were “mere clones of their colonial predecessor”, and their main objective was to remain in power by denying the real aspirations of their citizens. A few year ago, Mubashir Hasan writing about the conditions of the working class of Pakistan had written, “The government, the courts, the industrialists,  businessmen, in fact all the employers of poor men and women in Pakistan have established an unjust labour market to ensure the supply of poor men and women at the lowest possible rates.  The blackmailing of the poor people, forcing them to work for the lowest possible wage, or starve,  guarantees that the poor in Pakistan shall remain poor for ever while the rich will become richer.”

The PIPFPD was guided by Mubashir Hasan’s view that the only hope for the subcontinent lay in the awakening of people and assertion of their sovereign rights. As his lifelong friend and comrade I. A. Rehman wrote, “Even during the last days of his life, when he could barely speak, he would ask his friends, when the people will rise to shake off this oppressive system”.

Dr Mubashir Hasan is survived by his wife, Dr Zeenat Hasan and a large number of friends, admirers and disciples in India and Pakistan.

Today, when the two countries have stopped issuing visa, and anyone who talks of peace is being called an enemy agent, Mubashir Hasan’s bold step to visit India in the teeth of opposition and threats, beckons us to follow his lead.  Mubashir Hasan is no more. His spirit and vision remains with us. It is now the task of the peace activists of the subcontinent to fulfil his dream.

The writer is one of the driving forces and founder members of PIPFPD, 1994

The post Mubashir Hasan – Man who yearned for peace through empowerment of people in the Subcontinent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: UNHCR/Paula Bronstein

The presence in Bangladesh of more than 1million Rohingya has raised security concerns in the region and put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. She is also worried about the prospect of the sprawling camps at Cox’s Bazar near the Myanmar border becoming permanent settlements.

Bangladesh government has begun the process of repatriating Rohingya refugees who fled across the border from their homes in Myanmar during last year’s military crackdown. Refugees, Repatriation and Rehabilitation Commissioner Abul Kalam told the AP on Wednesday that 30 refugee families would be handed over Thursday at the Ghumdhum border point near Cox’s Bazar, where refugees have been living in crammed camps.

According to the AP news story, Mr. Abul Kalam claimed that they discussed the situation with the U.N.’s refugee agency, which gave a report after discussion with the refugees who are on the list. Details of the repot were not shared, but Kalam said they were “hopeful” of beginning the repatriation on Thursday. Kalam said that about 2,260 refugees from 485 families would be sent back in an initial group. Myanmar officials said recently that they would receive 150 refugees each day.

I have learnt from my contacts and Rohingya refugees based in Cox’s Bazaar that since November 14, Bangladesh army has surrounded Once Prank Refugee camp and Unchiprang refugee camps in Cox’s Bazaar. They have forcefully taken some Rohingya refugee families to the transit camp. I have learnt that the list approved by Myanmar for repatriation include a number of Rohingya refugee families who are located in Jamtoli, Balukhali and Chakmarkul refugee camp. To escape repatriation more than a 100 heads of families have run away from the camp and are now hiding elsewhere hoping that the their families will not be repatriated in their absence. Bangladesh army and para-military forces have moved into the camps to prevent the heads of families from going into hiding. There are reports that ‘Majhis’, Bangladesh army appointed Rohingya community leaders, have been beaten up by army and security personnel for non-cooperation. It seems that some Hindu Rohingya families have already been taken to the transit camp by Bangladesh authorities. Rohingya refugees have said that they will not go back without rights, justice and UN security.

About 10 days ago, in the Once Prank Refugee camp Dil Mohammad, a 57 year old Rohingya refugee drank poison saying it was better to die than be forced to go back to Myanmar. Fortunately, he survived. On October 14, a Rohingya beef seller, Ziaul Hassan was brutally attacked in the Rakhine village of Nga Ching Pauk under Kyauktaw Township. He received serious cuts on his head. There is news from inside Rakhine state that last week Buddhist mobs were holding protest rallies against resettling Rohingya returnees in Rathidaung and southern Maungdaw region, which the Buddhist Rakhine have taken over since the forced expulsion of the Rohingya last year.

The UN fact-finding mission to Myanmar recently told the UN Security Council that the genocide in Rakhine is “ongoing”. Last week there were demonstrations by Rakhine nationalists against the return of the Rohingya. On November 13, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, on Tuesday urged Bangladesh to halt the plans, warning of further grave violations against the Muslim minority. She has further said, “We are witnessing terror and panic among those Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar who are at imminent risk of being returned to Myanmar against their will.” Non-governmental aid groups have also voiced concerns that the refugees would be sent home against their will, or moved permanently into camps. “The Rohingya have told us that they do eventually want to return to their homes and communities in Myanmar, but they want guarantees that they can enjoy equal rights and citizenship, and they want those responsible for the violence to be brought to justice,” said Evan Schuurman, a Melbourne-based official for Save the Children, the charity.

The presence in Bangladesh of more than 1million Rohingya has raised security concerns in the region and put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. She is also worried about the prospect of the sprawling camps at Cox’s Bazar near the Myanmar border becoming permanent settlements.

While the international community is against repatriation of the Rohingyas to Myanmar without equal citizenship rights and without assurance from Myanmar government for their safety and security, China, the most powerful nation in the region is opposes seeing the conflict internationalized. In the UN Security Council, it is opposing the push to prosecute Myanmar’s military and police officials responsible for the violence. Myanmar and Bangladesh, under pressure from China and other regional powers, signed a bilateral agreement on repatriation in November 2017.

India, the largest country in South Asia is also supporting Myanmar. India has declared all the 40,000 Rohingya refugees living in India as ‘illegal immigrant’ and has threatened to expel them. Indian government claims that the Rohingya Muslims are a potential threat to its national security as these people were vulnerable to the influence of Pakistan’s ISI and other Islamic jihadi groups. In September 2018, India expelled 7 Rohingya refugees and handed them over to Myanmar authorities. Though the Indian government had told the Indian Supreme Court that Myanmar had agreed to accept these persons as its citizens, Myanmar government has given them National Verification Certificate, which identify them as foreigners. They are now confined in concentration camp like situation in their village in Rakhine.
 
Myanmar’s government has said it would give returnees temporary accommodation in border camps and supply them with food, before allowing them to return to their homes. If their homes are no longer standing, they will be provided with newly built accommodation or be housed in the Hla Phoe Khaung transit camp near the border.

Nay San Lwin, a coordinator for the Free Rohingya Coalition said “If the Bangladesh government forces them, the Rohingyas will go into hiding. The repatriation will not happen voluntarily because nobody wants to go back.” He pointed out that there was no guarantee that the Rohingyas won’t be persecuted again, and there was no assurance for their citizenship, for their safety.

“The whole talk of repatriation is the Myanmar government’s way of distracting the world from mass atrocities committed by the army,” said Matthew Smith, founder and chief executive of Fortify Rights, a human rights group. “The reality is that there have been no tangible improvements for Rohingya rights in Myanmar.”
 

The post Bangladesh, Myanmar begin ‘repatriation’ as Rohingya refugees vow not to return without citizenship and UN security appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the past, on the question of application of international laws for protection of refugees, Indian courts in many cases have protected the rights of refugees.

The post Did the SC Slip in Deporting Seven Rohingya Refugees Back to Myanmar? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The UN has not made the terms of the agreement public. It didn’t reportedly hold any consultation with the representative organisations before signing the agreement. On June 27, during a presentation at the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Yanghee Lee, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said, “I note the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recently signed between the Myanmar Government, UNHCR and UNDP in early June to assist the process of repatriation from Bangladesh. It is disconcerting that the MoU remains not publicly available and there has not been transparency about its terms.” There is no provision in the agreement that would oblige Myanmar government to ensure security and dignity of the Rohingyas after they return to Myanmar. There is nothing in the agreement about accountability for the horrific crimes committed against them by Myanmar’s generals and other members of the armed forces.

This is not the first time that the international community has decided to “betray” the Rohingyas. The “Slow Burning Genocide” of the Rohingyas has been going on for decades. But the West that controls the UN was not really concerned. Yes, there was a steady outflow of refugees. But this was limited within the region of South and South East Asia. Unlike the hundreds of thousands of Syrian, Iraqi and Libyan refugees, the Rohingyas were not swarming across the borders of the European countries. Europe was not threatened by the Rohingya influx.

The West had imposed “sanctions” on Myanmar. It was for the lofty ideals of “democracy”. It did not demand an end to the systematic ill-treatment of the Rohingyas and other minority communities of Myanmar. There can be no democracy without all citizens being able to participate equally in the governance of the country. This is the foundation of liberal democracy which the West boasts of having established. Yet, no Western leader had thought of including the restoration of equal rights to citizenship for all people of Myanmar in the agenda for negotiations for lifting the sanctions.

President Macron of France accused Myanmar government of committing genocide against the Rohingyas. Yet, France’s business community, including its oil and gas giant TOTAL, continues to do business in Myanmar. The EU talked about imposing sanctions, but the truth is that even today, there are about 300 EU investors with the combined portfolio of more than USD 6 billion in Myanmar, some in collaboration with private partners and others with various government departments. These companies are working in diverse areas including health care, energy, construction, automotive industries and digital innovation. Two military conglomerates and cronies of the generals have total control over Myanmar’s business interests even after the so-called “democratic reforms”. As we know, these generals are mainly responsible for spreading anti-Muslim hatred and whipping up mass hysteria among the Buddhist majority in the country.

The Myanmar Times on June 28 reported that the “EU is exercising more caution when making investment decisions involving Myanmar. This is due to recent instability at the country’s borders, including the ongoing refugee problems in Rakhine.” Nevertheless, Myanmar remains an important trade partner to the EU, and the latter’s interest to expand into the country remains robust.

The EuroCham-Myanmar, which is funded by the European Union, was formally launched in Yangon in December 2014, when Myanmar army was busy killing Rohingya men, raping their women and putting them in concentration camps. EuroCham-Myanmar promotes the business interests of European companies in Myanmar. Switzerland, Sweden and Norway are equally involved. While the Swiss are selling passenger aircrafts, Sweden’s Volvo is selling cars and commercial vehicles and Germany’s Mercedes Benz and BMW are providing luxury vehicles to Myanmar’s generals and the rich. Norway’s Telenor owns the biggest telecom network in Myanmar. Thanks to the efforts of Norway’s ambassador, Telenor was able to beat the Chinese, Japanese and South Korean companies in securing the contract from Myanmar army. Statsoil, a Norwegian oil exploration giant, has a stake in the natural gas exploration off the coast of Rakhine. In fact, Norway’s gigantic Pension Fund had led the opening of the floodgate of investments in Myanmar after the so-called “democratic reforms”, which have since been proven to be a charade. 

There is also a host of American companies—about 130—doing business in Myanmar. The list includes Caterpillar, Coca-Cola, Ford, Pepsi, KFC and others engaged in diverse areas like oil and gas, insurance and information technology. About two weeks before the Myanmar army began its massacre of Rohingyas in Rakhine, Aung Naing Oo, director general at the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration and secretary of Myanmar Investment Commission, said, “We are in active discussions with Amcham Myanmar [American Chamber of Commerce in Myanmar] to facilitate trade and investment with the United States. We do hope the entry of US insurance companies in the near future, which will lead to millions of dollars surge in our list of FDI [foreign direct investment].” (The Nation, Bangkok, August 08, 2017)

Under the neo-liberal system, where promoting the private interests of the business community has become the primary responsibility of the governments, the lure of the “thirteen pieces of silver” will guide the policies of states. As long as the West continues to control the United Nations, with Russia and China aiding and abetting them, there is little chance that the United Nations will be able to live up to its charter.

In recent months, the human rights situation in Kachin and northern Shan States has worsened. Mass atrocity crimes continue to be reported. Over 120,000 Kachin and Shan civilians have been displaced since 2011. Thousands of people in Kachin State are trapped in conflict zones while access to humanitarian aid remains blocked in many conflict-affected areas. There is no mention in the UNHCR/UNDP/Myanmar agreement of the approximate 120,000 Rohingyas who are still languishing in concentration-camp-like situations inside Myanmar. Whatever may be said about the status of Rohingya refugees in refugee camps in Bangladesh, there is no doubt that they feel safe there. The question is how safe they will be once they are forced to go back under this agreement.

Tapan Bose is a writer and documentary filmmaker. He is a member of the Free Rohingya Coalition and is actively associated with the campaign “Protected return to protected homeland” for the Rohingya people.

First Published on https://www.thedailystar.net
 

The post June Agreement on Rohingya Crisis Misses the central issue of citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Indian government’s claim that the report was “fallacious” and “a selective compilation of largely unverified information” is problematic, as it was the Indian government which had turned down repeated requests of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for unrestricted access to Jammu and Kashmir. Explaining the methodology adopted by the team which worked on the report, the High Commissioner explains, “As OHCHR was denied access to Kashmir, it was not possible to directly verify allegations. OHCHR bases its findings on its methodology, using a “reasonable grounds” standard of proof.

On the issue of the Indian government calling the OHCHR report as a violation of India’s sovereignty and integrity, let us briefly examine the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council and India’s role in the Council which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote and protect human rights around the world. Several member countries of the UN, including India were unhappy with the older UN body, the Human Rights Commission as they felt that the Commission was being manipulated by powerful countries such as the US which prevented the review of their friends and allies such as Israel. The Council was created by the General Assembly in 2006. The Council has 47 members elected by the UN General Assembly for staggered three-year terms on a regional basis. India has been a member of the Council for two terms till 2017. On being re-elected for a second term India’s Ambassador to the Council, Asoke Mukerji emphasised that India’s focus will be to make the UN human rights system more effective and address issues through a constructive approach. The Council set up the process of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under which the human rights record of each of the 193 UN member countries is peer-reviewed every four or five years. Under the UPR process, the recommendations made by the Council members during the review of each country’s record are given to a “troika” of countries drawn through a lot. India has been a member of the Troika in the past.

In September 2017, India’s human rights records were examined under the UPR process. Among the issues raised during the UPR were continued discrimination, stigmatization and violence against Dalits; restrictions on free speech and on the work of human rights defenders; attacks on religious minorities; reports of excessive use of force by security officers, including in Jammu and Kashmir; combatting impunity and ensuring accountability and delays in judicial proceedings. Out of the 250 recommendations that were made, India accepted 152 and took note of the rest. Also, India undertook to fulfill its twenty year old promise that it would ratify the UN Convention Against Torture. India, having been an active member of the UN Human Rights Council, having submitted to the UPR process on three occasions, and as a member of the Troika made recommendations to other countries for improving its human rights situation, it is strange that the government now asserts that the OHCHR report on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a violation of Indian sovereignty and integrity.

President Bush had taken the USA out of the Human Rights Council. President Obama had reintegrated the USA into the Council. President Trump is said to be contemplating pulling the USA out again. I wonder, if India under Prime Minister Modi’s stewardship will be following the path of President Trump.

The OHCHR report is based on information that largely is available in the public domain including what was obtained by Indian citizens through the Right to Information Act. The report has also made use of government documents and statements, questions in the parliament and the government’s response, court orders and police reports. It has relied largely on the Press Trust of India (PTI) for official statements of the government. Additionally, the report writers have also relied on the research and monitoring carried out by local, national and international non – governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights defenders. OHCHR team also conducted a small number of interviews to corroborate information.

While the OHCHR has elaborated on the sources of its data, explained the limitations and detailed the methodology it was obliged to adopt in the face of denial of access to Jammu and Kashmir by the government, the Indian government in turn, has given no reasoned or rational explanation for calling the report fallacious and based on unverified information.

Regarding India’s objection to the OHCHR reference to the “Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir” and “Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltisatan” as separate entities, it is pertinent to point out that multiple reports of the United Nations as well as the official correspondence of the UN Secretary General have used nomenclature such as “Kashmir”, “Jammu and Kashmir”, “State of Jammu and Kashmir”, “Indian administered side of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir”, and “Pakistan Administered Kashmir” – while referring to the territory of the former princely state before 1947. Even as recently as August 2016, the UN Secretary General in a statement condemning the terrorist attack on the Uri military post used the term Indian- Administered Jammu and Kashmir. Indeed, I would argue that I have yet to come across a statement from government of India, objecting to any UN agency’s use of the term, “Indian-Administered Jammu and Kashmir”.

Government of India’s response to the OHCHR report has evoked mainly two kinds of responses. Supporters human rights within India and in other countries have called on India to act on the recommendations of the first-ever report by the United Nations on the human rights situation in Kashmir. Others, including supporters of the ruling BJP and the rightwing Hindu nationalist organisations have vociferously endorsed the Indian government’s rejection of the report.

One interesting comment has come from a well-known former editor, Mr. Sekhar Gupta. Mincing no words, he called the report “idiotic”. It is “idiotic not because of the quality of its research, but for its expectation that it will help the people of Kashmir,” he asserted. According to Mr. Gupta the report was “fatally flawed” and “dead on arrival. Debating its accuracy, fairness, methodology or motives is a waste of time.” An interesting position, that allows you to avoid any discussion on the content of the report. This is exactly what India’s official response has done when it condemned the entire report as “fallacious”. Mr. Gupta has also accused the OHCHR of allowing NGO-type activists take over the world’s premier human rights body and not allow “political oversight”. Clearly, Mr. Gupta believes that the global concern for human rights should be toned down by the political interest of states. Mr. Gupta claims that the report will not only fail to help the Kashmiris, “on the contrary, it will harden India’s approach. It will also encourage Pakistan to shove more Kashmiris and its own expendable youth into a jihad (holy war).”

The OHCHR has no political or military arm. The only way it can enforce its recommendations is through repeated requests and by naming and shaming. In a civilized world, it is expected that a sovereign and an honourable nation state would fulfill the promises that it makes to the comity of nations. India has not fulfilled its promise to ratify the UN convention Against Torture for more than two decades.

Mr. Gupta has argued that the report will not embarrass India as the country will be able to garner enough political support at the Council to block any discussion on the report and the recommendation for an independent investigation. India had been able to do exactly that in 1994 in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) when confronted with Islamabad’s allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir. India was able to rally sufficient support from the members states including from “human rights rogues like China and Iran”. However, Mr. Gupta forgot to mention that the BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was a member of India’s multi-party delegation sent to the UN by the then Prime Minister Narasinha Rao, at that time had said, “For a great nation like us, there was a certain humiliation involved in having to go around begging for votes on a human rights issue. Let us now use this reprieve to clean up our act in Kashmir or there will be a Geneva every few months.”

The attempt to avoid discussions on the content is an attempt to cover up the gross misuse of the coercive state apparatus against protesting civilians during the period 2016-2018. The discussions on the content will bring out issues highlighted by the OHCHR report such as the killings of about 145 persons and a very high number of injuries. The excessive use of pellet-firing guns that have blinded or injured the eyes of civilians, largely the youth. The awarding of Major Litul for using a Kashmiri civilian as a human shield even before the court of enquiry had completed its investigation. And the hard fact that in these last 28 years the India government has not allowed any civilian court to hear complaints of human rights abuse committed by the members of its security forces. Understandably, Indian government would want to avoid any discussion on the content of the report.

Will India be able to block a discussion on the report by the members of the Human Rights Council? Certainly, it will have to make a very serious effort to gather enough support to prevent the council from discussing the High Commissioner’s recommendation for an independent investigation. In this effort India will be joining the ranks of Myanmar which has been accused of committing genocide against the Rohingya. India could also point out that the Council’s guidelines do not require setting up such investigation in countries where avenues exist for recourse to judiciary for settling complaints of misuse of power by the state’s security agencies. India will then face a conundrum of its own making. Under AFSPA, it has granted complete impunity to its security forces.

Even if India is able to stymie an inquiry by the Council with the support of Saudi Arabia, UAE and possibly China, Russia and the USA, its actions will be carefully watched by Geneva. Under these circumstances, it is possible that the Modi government may be forced to change its purely iron fisted approach. And that will be the achievement of this OHCHR report, with all its “flaws”.

Tapan Bose is an independent documentary filmmaker, human rights and peace activist, author and regular contributor leading journals and news magazines in India, Nepal and Pakistan. His award winning documentaries on human rights and democratic issues include An Indian Story (1982) on the blinding of under trial prisoners in Bhagalpur and the nexus between landlord, police and politicians and Beyond Genocide: Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1986). His film ‘Behind the Barricades; Punjab’ (1993) on the state repression in Punjab, as with the earlier cited films, was banned and after a long legal struggle was shown. His latest film is The Expendable People’, (2016) a passionate appeal for justice for the tribal peoples of India, cheated, dispossessed, pauperised and criminalized in their forest homes, made to pay the price for extractive development.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post The OHCHR report on Kashmir: Will India succeed in blocking discussions on the report in Geneva? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Amnesty India

On May 22, 2018, Tirana Hassan, Crisis Response Director at Amnesty International released a briefing note titled, “Myanmar: New evidence reveals Rohingya armed group massacred scores in Rakhine State”. It may be seen HERE.

In the briefing note, Amnesty International stated, “A Rohingya armed group brandishing guns and swords is responsible for at least one, and potentially a second, massacre of up to 99 Hindu women, men, and children as well as additional unlawful killings and abductions of Hindu villagers in August 2017, Amnesty International revealed today after carrying out a detailed investigation inside Myanmar’s Rakhine State.”

From the statement of the Amnesty International it appears that they have gathered enough evidence to implicate the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) in genocidal massacres. Apparently, the evidence against ARSA is more clear and convincing than the evidence against the armed forces of Myanmar and the Buddhist mobs. While releasing the briefing note Tirana Hassan also refuted Myanmar government’s criticism that the international community was being one-sided while at the same time denying access to northern Rakhine State. Tirana Hassan added that, “the full extent of ARSA’s abuses and the Myanmar military’s violations will not be known until independent human rights investigators, including the UN Fact-Finding mission, are given full and unfettered access to Rakhine State.” 
 

Two versions of Massacre at Kha Maung Seik

According to Amnesty International it appears that one of the most prominent alleged massacres of Hindu Rohingyas in Kha Maung Seik (also known as Fakira Bazar) in Maungdaw Township was done by ARSA activists on August 25 and 26. Amnesty International claims that ARSA had abducted the eight Hindu women survivors, forcefully converted them to Islam, compelled them to marry and cohabit with the murderers of their husbands, parents and brothers. Amnesty International also claims that the eight Hindu women told the fabricated the story of Myanmar army and Buddhists killing of some 93 Hindu civilians to cover up their genocidal killing of Hindus, fearing for their own lives and the lives of their children who were also abducted by ARSA. 

Hindus from Myanmar had joined streams of Muslim Rohingyas to seek refuge in Bangladesh after the killing of 86 people from their community in the ethnic violence in the neighbouring Buddhist-majority country. According to a news story in the First Post, a Bangladeshi government official had said that “a total of 414 Hindus from (Myanmar’s) Rakhine state took refuge at a Hindu village in Cox’s Bazar.” However, Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council President Rana Dasgupta, who visited the village, had claimed that the figure of Hindu refugees was 510, mostly women, children and the elderly, who were crammed into a wooden barn. Dasgupta said ordinary Rohingya Muslims escorted them to borders from where these Hindus entered Bangladesh along with thousands others (click HERE).
 

The post Nailing the Lie: On Amnesty’s Report on ‘Hindu’ Rohingyas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

My first meeting with Asma Jahangir was in Vienna in 1993 during the World Conference on Human Rights. She was with the late Justice Dorab Patel, and IA Rahman. At the conference, the official representatives of India and Pakistan had hijacked the discussion on right to self-determination by bringing in the Kashmiri issue and reduced the discussion to an ugly exchange of accusations.
 
It was an obnoxious show of self-aggrandizement, with each side boasting and preening like peacocks. Some of the non-official India and Pakistan delegates to the conference walked out feeling ashamed. Outside the main hall we met, shame faced and angry. Asma was fuming. We sat down at the cafeteria and over a cup of coffee we discussed how to take the discussions on Kashmir out of the narrow confines of national sovereignty and national security.
 
I remember Asma saying that we cannot allow a handful of politicians, bureaucrats and army generals to hold the people of Kashmir hostage to so-called cause of “national security”. Ordinary citizens of India and Pakistan were not allowed to meet. We did not read each other’s newspapers. Those were the days when Indian and Pakistanis meeting and discussing the Kashmir issue would have been seen as an act of treason. We agreed that we must defy the governments and openly discuss the policies of our governments, focus on the democratic aspirations of the people of Kashmir.
 
We agreed to try and create a forum where the ordinary citizens of India and Pakistan, from all walks of life, would meet and examine the positions of the two states with open mind and try and shift the debate away from narrow confines of control over territory, national security. The main thrust should be on the legitimate aspirations of the people of Kashmir on both sides of the divide. That was the beginning of the Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy, which was formalized in September 1994 in Lahore. 
 
Asma always spoke truth to power and defended the weak and the marginalised, women and minorities against injustice. She gained international acclaim for being the voice of conscience in a country where liberal, secular voices have been continuously under threat. She never minced words while defending democracy and human rights, despite threats to her life, both from military dictators and militants. She championed the rights of religious minorities — especially those who were charged under the country’s blasphemy laws — and women and men killed in the name of honour. She faced bitter criticism from the military and right-wing nationalists. Rightwing extremists tried to kill her. The army and sections of the media denigrated her for advocating peace with India, and often accused her of being an Indian agent or a traitor. 
 
Even as a student, she had taken up the legal defence for her father Malik Ghulam Jilani who was jailed by General Yahya Khan in 1971 for protesting the imprisonment of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman. When others remained silent she spoke out against Ziaul Haq’s military rule. This led to her imprisonment in 1983.  Again in 2007 she was kept in house arrest for protesting the removal of the Supreme Court chief justice. During a visit to Dhaka she addressed a meeting of human rights activists and spoke out against Pakistan’s military action in Bangladesh in 1971. 
 
She was a strong advocate of women’s rights. She challenged the Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan and spoke out for women’s freedom and dignity in different forums. She defended persons accused of committing blasphemy.  She was able to secure freedom for a number of poor bonded labourers from their “owners” through pioneering litigation. She also won a landmark court case that allowed women to marry of their own volition. 
 
Asma was co-founder of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and of the first free legal aid centre in Pakistan. She was also co-founder of the Women’s Action Forum, set up to oppose law that reduced a woman’s testimony in court to half that of a man’s. Asma was the first woman leader of Pakistan’s Supreme Court bar association. Asma was an inspiring frontline defender to ensure women’s human rights. She influenced international human rights norms and standards setting as she had served as the UN Special Rapporteur on  extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. At the time of her demise, she held the position of UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Although she was not given permission to pursue her mandate within the country she collected evidence of human rights violations and documented these for her submission to the General Assembly.
 
Asma was fearless and tireless. I remember meeting her in London a day before she was to go into the hospital for bypass surgery. She walked into the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Equal Rights Trust, of which we were both members. I asked should she not be resting as she was clearly not keeping well. She smiled and said, “What are you doing here with an oxygen concentrator next to you”. We both laughed. Asma loved life. She worked hard, partied hard, drank her share of wine and smoked more than her share of cigarettes. 
 
Asma Jahangir’s last ten days before her sudden death were spent arguing a landmark case in the Supreme Court to determine whether politicians can be disqualified from contesting elections for life. Two days before her heart attack, she delivered a fiery speech at a protest in Islamabad, organised by the Pashtun community to demand the arrest of a police officer involved in killing a young aspiring model accused of being a terrorist in a staged police ‘encounter’.
 
It was a chilly night and standing outside the National Press Club, on the ninth day of the protest, coughing, with a bottle of water in hand, she said, “I have been fighting cases for those boys locked up in military internment centres. I know who has occupied their homes. Without the Pashtuns, without Bacha Khan, Pakistan would be a narrow-minded Pakistan.”
 
Rabindranath Tagore believed in eternity of life. Asma is dead. Her spirit and her indomitable courage to stand up for all victims of oppression will continue to inspire many generations. In the words of Tagore, she came out on the chariot of the first gleam of light, and pursued her voyage through the wilderness of worlds, leaving her track on many stars and planets.
 
The author is co-chairperson of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy.
 

The post Asma Jahangir: Leaving her track on many stars and planets appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Afzal Guru, convicted of conspiracy to wage war against India and murder in December 2001, was hanged on February 9, 2013, has re-emerged as a martyr. The Democratic Students Union (DSU) had decided to hold a cultural meeting inside the campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to protest against what they called “the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat” and in solidarity with “the struggle of Kashmiri people for their democratic right to self-determination.” The University having given permission for the event earlier, decided to withdraw it about 20 minutes before the meeting was to be held. This was done apparently, under pressure of the ABVP, the students’ body of the BJP.

What happened next is well known. The police arrested the JNUSU president, Kanhaiya Kumar on charges of “sedition”.  Several others have also been taken into custody and the police are still looking for more students. The prompt police action against ‘anti-national’ students and its deliberate inaction in the case of assault on JNU students, teachers and journalists inside the Patiala House court and the statements by the home minister and other members of the government and ruling party alleging links between JNU students and Pakistani Jihadi organisations, clearly shows that the government believes that the students of the JNU were indulging in activities aimed at destroying the integrity and sovereignty of the country.

Clearly, in this atmosphere of heightened indignation of the self-righteous nationalists, some of whom have said they would not hesitate to kill people who raised anti-national slogans, the JNU students have little chance of escaping being sacrificed at the altar of nationalism.

Let me move away from what is happening and the debate about whether the JNU students should be charged with sedition. Let me get back to the issue of the protest against the execution of Afzal Guru. More critically, why is the execution of Afzal Guru still seen as unjust by so many people of this country, and not just only Kashmiris. The slogan, "Tum kitne Afzal maaroge, har ghar se Afzal niklega!" (How many Afzals can you kill, Afzal will be born in every home) is significant as it shows that in the eyes of several people Afzal become a martyr.

Afzal was convicted by the highest court of the land. His mercy petition filed by his wife, Tabassum was rejected by the President of India. The information about the rejection of the clemency petition was not communicated to Tabassum in time, denying Afzal the opportunity to appeal for a review of his case, a right granted to convicted persons by the judiciary of India. The government executed Afzal without informing his family and his lawyers. The clandestine execution of Afzal violating all procedures and even the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of the land has been seen by many as desperate attempts of ruling parties like the Congress and the BJP to pander to the frenzy of jingoism and appeal for votes.

Afzal was too poor to be able to afford a lawyer, and had asked for legal aid from the state and the court. The Supreme Court has held in 1956 that the every accused has an inalienable right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice, and such representation and defence must be ‘effective’  (Hansraj and Ors vs State, AIR, 1956, p. 641). Afzal never got a lawyer of his choice. The court appointed lawyers, Seema Gulati and then Niraj Bansal.

In anthropological theory, “sacrifice” is ritualised violence concerned with marking and safeguarding social boundaries. The sacrifice is also of course a scapegoat. It is the ideal cultural spectacle for the disposal of bodies which threatens the edifice of the community itself. In modern times the community has been substituted by the “nation state”

At the very beginning of the trail, Seema Gulati conceded that the prosecution had prima facie evidence to frame charges. She admitted all the crucial documents and recovered items presented by the prosecution without demanding any formal proof.  Later, all these were used as the basis for Afzal’s conviction. After Gulati’s departure midway through the trial, the court appointed Niraj Bansal, Gulati’s junior as Afzal’s lawyer.

Afzal’s repeated plea to the court that he did not have confidence in Bansal was ignored. It is evident that Niraj Bansal made virtually no effort to oppose the prosecution’s case either on question of facts or law. The importance of the right to effective counsel was underlined by the Supreme Court when it said “judicial justice with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence leans upon professional expertise; and a failure of equal justice under the law is on the cards where such supportive skill is absent for one side” (Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978, SC 1548, para 3).

The manner in which the court-appointed lawyers had defended Afzal, leaves little doubt it was a case of failure of equal justice. As Afzal had said, “I am Afzal for Kashmiris, and I am Afzal for Indians as well, but the two groups have an entirely conflicting perception of my being”. He was a Kashmiri Muslim in Delhi, liable at any point of time to be confronted, attacked, tortured and imprisoned.

Death penalty has little to do with guilt or deterrence.  Prosecution of conspiracy cases which involve allegations of attempts to overthrow the government by waging war against the state is essentially a political trial. Justice in such political trials is not always guided by criminal procedure or substantive law, it is often influenced by majoritarian political considerations dressed in the garb of “democratic values”.

The Supreme Court of India while ruling in Afzal Guru’s case confirmed this when it decided that a life had to be sacrificed to satisfy the “collective conscience of the people”. After the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament the nation needed a sacrifice for safeguarding itself against its enemies, particularly after the Operation Parakram, India’s first attempt at using military coercion against Pakistan, achieved only limited success.

Afzal Guru embodied the perfect enemy. And the media, the military, the intelligence establishment and the politicians – all were agreed. He was a Kashmiri Muslim, a self-confessed failed militant, who had refused to become an informer for the security agencies. A lonely figure who was trying to make a living out of small business and feed his family – a virtual nobody. The court dispensed with its own rules and convicted him on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

In anthropological theory, “sacrifice” is ritualised violence concerned with marking and safeguarding social boundaries. The sacrifice is also of course a scapegoat. It is the ideal cultural spectacle for the disposal of bodies which threatens the edifice of the community itself. In modern times the community has been substituted by the “nation state”. As if in recognition of the importance of rites of sacrifice, the Supreme Court in 2006 had declared that Afzal Guru was to be executed on the day of the Hindu festival of Diwali, when the Hindus in north India celebrate the triumph of Ram over Ravana by burning his effigies.

Annoyed by the appeals that were filed against the execution order and its stay, Swapan Dasgupta, an ideologue of the Hindu nationalists, wrote, “this is the time of the year when India celebrates the triumph of good over evil… it is ironic that this should be the time when the country was confronted with disagreeable demand aimed at puncturing our sense of Dharma”.

All popular struggles for freedom have a deep moral core. In these movements there is a strong tradition of self-sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Through his execution, Afzal Guru, the failed freedom fighter has returned as a martyr. We are witnessing the unfolding of the story of his martyrdom. It is the martyrdom of Afzal that has given birth to the slogan, "Tum kitne Afzal maaroge, har ghar se Afzal niklega!"

Execution of the evil is necessary to uphold Dharma. Already a line has been drawn between the people who are for upholding the Dharma and those who are against the Dharma. The death penalty has become the quintessential expression of the power of the nation and destruction of its enemy. In this scheme of things, the judicial system and the media have taken on the role of identifying the terrorists, who threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The Indian state sees the movement in Kashmir as Pakistan’s proxy war. It refuses to accept that there is popular support for the movement for self-determination in Kashmir. Yet it has tied down nearly half a million members of its armed forces in crushing the movement in the valley for more than two and a half decades.

All popular struggles for freedom have a deep moral core. In these movements there is a strong tradition of self-sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Through his execution, Afzal Guru, the failed freedom fighter has returned as a martyr. We are witnessing the unfolding of the story of his martyrdom. It is the martyrdom of Afzal that has given birth to the slogan, "Tum kitne Afzal maaroge, har ghar se Afzal niklega!" (How many Afzals can you kill, Afzal will be born in every home).

(The writer is a documentary filmmaker and a human rights defender)
 

The post Afzal Guru’s execution has made him a martyr appeared first on SabrangIndia.