Tuesday December 18, 2018
Jun-07-2012 02:24TweetFollow @OregonNews
Precious Life of Asma Should be Protected But Asma Also Should Correct UN Report 2009Hem Raj Jain for Salem-News.com
Asma as Rapporteur submitted UN Report as if she was working for Indian State.
(BANGALURO, India) - Leading media of India and Pakistan has rightly shown concerns about Asma Jahangir’s life and security which is allegedly being threatened by Pakistan State actors (Military and ISI) out of embarrassment regarding their anti- human rights activities which are routinely highlighted by Asma including support of Asma to human rights of the people of Balochistan and this has rightly rallied judicial and human rights community, intelligentsia and social activists of Pakistan and India to demand full-proof security to Asma. But Asma is also to be blamed for her present unenviable situation and should immediately file a ‘Revised Conclusions and Recommendations’ as given below (in relation to her UN report of January 26, 2009 No. A/HRC/10/8/Add.3) if she really wants to see Indian subcontinent a fear-free region where Indians and Pakistanis can lead peaceful life:-
(1)- First and foremost it can easily be seen that Asma prepared and submitted this 2009 UN Report as if she was working for Indian State which is evident from the following. Asma’s conclusions in Paras 59 to 66 of the Report could have been given even by any ordinary journalist of India and it does not require a UN Rapporteur for such superficial generalization of extremely serious communal and sectarian situation of India.
(2)- But what is amazing is that even UN too did not question Asma about her recommendations in Paras 67 to 74 of the Report which has no possibility of any implementation of recommendation by UN for the simple reason that Report has not recommended any measure to be taken by UN so that minorities in India can lead a better life in future. Asma took UN only as an agency which engaged her to take a journalistic tour of India and to submit a report which befits only to some drawing room intellectuals. This non-serious attitude of UN towards the problems of minorities in India deprives UN of any right to now shed crocodile tears on Asma’s safety. Any UN Rapporteur serious about his / her mission would have contacted the right persons in India and would have gathered the following real problems and solutions about serious minority problem of India.
(3)- As far human rights problems in Kashmir, it is beyond the capacity of Asma therefore this need not be discussed here at all, because it is essentially an martial affair concerned with UN and an affair in which States and people of India and Pakistan have contributed immensely in denying the justice to Kashmiris and also in bringing immense miseries to Kashmiris. There cannot be any solution to the problem of human rights violation in Kashmir without Kashmir Solution and which is nothing but 'Unification of Kashmir' (which has same religion and language, the basis of India's partition and the of partition of Punjab and Bengal in 1947) and till this solution is achieved Kashmiris will remain at the mercy of armed forces of India (especially after Hindus have taken out Kashmiri Pundits from the valley). Given the fact that Kashmiri politicians are happy enjoying the pelf and power of office and left with no verve to press for Kashmir solution and given the fact that so called separatists also have missed the track, Asma was not expected to do any thing about human rights in Kashmir where Hindu Majority India is relishing the cries of Muslim Kashmiris (as a historical revenge) . It does not require a genius of political and strategic matter to understand that what would have been India's attitude towards Kashmir if Kashmir had majority Hindu population (as Goa had which was liberated in sixties by India).
(4)- But what made Asma, an advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan, to overlook the fact that the status-qua-ante of Babri Masjid has still not been restored and it has yet not been reconstructed though it was demolished despite court injunction to preserve it and in the presence of the observer of Supreme Court of India in 1992. Because the status-qua-ante of Babri Masjid was not restored it emboldened the communal elements which resulted in 2002 Gujarat massacre in which thousands of innocent Muslims were butchered.
(5)- As far the victims of Gujarat massacre 2002, the entire matter can broadly be divided in following three categories based on the fundamental distinction that in category (1) & (2), no evidence is needed form the victims of these riots and Higher Judiciary of its own should have imparted justice long back, based upon government records only. Whereas evidence is needed from the victims for the category (3) only, where Higher (subordinate) Judiciary is dependent on the evidences from the victims in various cases pending in courts. Here it is needless to say that had Higher Judiciary ensured the sanction for prosecution of said public servants and prosecution of all these criminal (who by their acts of omission and commission respectively, are responsible for these heinous crimes of Category No 1 & 2) then the entire out-come of the category (3) too would have been immensely impacted in the interest of justice.
Category (1)- Events from 28/2/2002 to mainly 3/3/2002, concerning Gujarat Government :- (i)- People in large numbers came on streets all over riot affected Gujarat due to call for State-wise Bandh (illegal, as in view of emotionally charged atmosphere due to Godhra incidence there was no permission from authorities of Gujarat for this State-wise Bandh) given by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and supported by its traditional allies / associates - like BJP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena etc (since the days of Ayodhya Mandir / Masjid dispute related agitations since late 1980s, which culminated in Godhra train bogey fire tragedy of 27/2/2002 too and which was the reason given by VHP & associates for this Bandh). As the fall-out of this Bandh thousands of Bandh observing people under the office bearers of VHP, BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal, Shiv Sena etc. indulged in heinous crimes including crimes of murder, rape, assault, arson, loot, criminal trespass etc.
(ii)- Police of Gujarat (right from SHO of police stations of riot effected areas to their superiors up-to SP, Commissioner, IG, DGP etc including intelligence, under section 36 of CrPC) and the then Home Minister and the then Chief Minister and their Secretaries and Executive Magistrates of areas were under legal obligation to arrest / get arrested these office bearers of VHP, BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal, Shiv Sena etc. not only for carrying out illegal Bandh but, under section 34 and 120-B IPC, also for their complicity in / responsibility of heinous crimes of rioters.
(iii)- But vice-president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (vhp) Acharya Giriraj Kishore could address press during riots [as is reported by entire media including by a prominent national news paper ‘The Times of India’ too as given below]. The office bearers of VHP along with its allies / associates BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal, Shiv Sena etc. could get away with it during these 2002 riots without getting arrested and prosecuted for these heinous crimes :-
“[Violence result of natural outburst: VHP], TNN | Mar 1, 2002, 12.03AM IST, Ahmedabad: vice-president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (vhp) Acharya Giriraj Kishore said that incidents occurred during 'Gujarat bandh' on Thursday was "natural outburst" over Godhra massacre and result of "extreme anguish within people of Gujarat." "but I appeal to vhp workers to maintain peace so that it would help in building Ram temple at Ayodhya," said Acharya while addressing newsmen on Thursday. Commenting on the violent nature of 'Gujarat bandh', he said that instead Hindus exercised tolerance and contained themselves while reacting to Godhra massacre. Acharya was here at Sola civil hospital on Thursday to pay his last respects to the kar sevaks, who died in the tragic train incident at Godhra on Wednesday]”.
(iv)- Higher judiciary did not require any evidence from the victims of Gujarat riots 2002 (A)- for prosecuting at-least these perpetrators (the office bearers of VHP along with its allies / associates BJP, RSS, Bajarang Dal, Shiv Sena etc.) who committed these heinous crimes by their ‘acts of commission’ and (B)- for prosecuting public servants (right from SHO of police stations of riot effected areas to their superiors up-to S.P., Commissioner, IG, DGP etc including intelligence, under section 36 of CrPC) and the then Home Minister and the then Chief Minister and their Secretaries and Executive Magistrates - who by their ‘acts of omission’ allowed these rioters to commit these heinous crimes with impunity.
(v)- By this time Higher Judiciary ought to have ensured the sanction for the prosecution of these public servants (right from SHO of police stations of riot effected areas to their superiors up-to S.P., Commissioner, IG, DGP etc including intelligence) and the then Home Minister and the then Chief Minister and their Secretaries and Executive Magistrates. But Higher Judiciary did not rise to occasion in this matter and Asma surprisingly did not report it
Category (2)- Events from 28/2/2002 to mainly 3/3/2002, concerning Central Government :- (i)- Here it is important to go into provisions of section 130 and 131 of CrPC, which are related to use of armed forces to disperse such assembly / rioters and power of certain armed force officers to disperse this assembly / rioters, respectively. As per section 130 CrPc when such assembly cannot be dispersed by police force, then the Executive Magistrate is to get it dispersed by the armed forces. So when rioters could not be dispersed during 20002 riots by police force then concerned Executive Magistrates were legally expected to call armed forces to disperse the rioters. No body else (including Ministers or Chief Minister) is legally expected to call the armed forces. It is only Executive Magistrate who has to call the army in such scenario and while in office, he is under legal obligation to keep himself informed that from which nearest pace (and not from Delhi) he will get military for this purpose of dispersing such assembly / rioters. The calling of army by Chief Minister or by any other authority and that too from distant Delhi is against section 130 CrPC. The then Central Home Minister was legally expected to move the competent authority for the dismissal of the then government under Article 356 of Constitution and even the Governor of Gujarat who tolerated such a colossal breakdown of rule of law where Executive Magistrates of various districts were not calling Army from nearest places to curb the rioting in Gujarat.
(ii)- But what is more legally objectionable is the act of omission of the then Prime Minister and Defense Ministers and their secretaries in Central Government which caused these heinous crimes of rioters at such large scale. As per section 131 CrPC once military is in the area where rioting is going on then prior permission of / requisitioning by Executive Magistrate is not required. Army officers at site are legally expected to curb the rioting with the use of force, whatever force reasonably required, and by keeping Executive Magistrate informed to the extent possible. In a nutshell, once army is deputed in the rioting area then it is not the State Government but the Central Government (under whom Army is), which is primarily responsible for mobilizing adequate armed forces for effectively curbing the riots. Hence for this acts of omission, the Army officer in rioting areas (and their senior officers in command and control), the then Defense Minister, the then Home Minister and the then Prime Minister and their Secretaries of that time deserve to be prosecuted. The Higher Judiciary ought to have ensured the sanction for these prosecution from competent authority, but Asma surprisingly did not report it.
(6)- One more issue related to Ayodhya dispute Asma failed to report. India has been rightly making noises against Pakistan that the accused of Mumbai blast 1993 (including Dawood Ibrahim) has not been handed over to India. But India, despite Shrikrishna Commission Report, did not prosecute the accused of earlier Mumbai riots (in 1992-93 after Babri Masjid demolition and which allegedly engendered Mumbai Blast), simply because its accused were the prominent Hindu leaders too.
(7)- Regarding conversion, unless majority of Hindus (who form the main productive force of Hindus but are so called Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, Backward Castes, Other Backward Castes etc and therefore has inflicted self-demoralization on themselves and that too in a democracy where people's moral is the crucial factor) change their religion, the Hindu majority India has no future whatsoever. But Hindu India has legislated such absurd laws about conversion that conversion for benefit is also considered a crime. One can understand that conversion under coercion should not be allowed but benefit will always be there in any conversion. If benefit is also considered objectionable then substantial number of Muslims of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have to be brought back to Hinduism. Though Asma argued similarly in favor of right to freedom about conversion in Para 70 of the Report but she did not do any thing which will move UN to ensure that similar massacre of Christian in the name of anti-conversion action by Hindus as happened in Kandhamal Orrisa etc is avoided in future.
(8)- Regarding 1984 anti-Sikh riots Asma (apart from issue of the responsibility of Army, as mentioned above in relation to curbing 2002 Gujarat riots) could have simply asked that why there is a mismatch between the number of injuries and death in hospitals & dispensaries in Delhi during1984 anti Sikh riots and the number of FIR registered in police stations of Delhi despite section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code. Surely Asma must be knowing that in Delhi under the nose of Parliament which legislated CrPC, Delhi Police does not register FIR ,even in cases where MLCs (Medical Leave Certificates) are issued, in utter violation of section 154 CrPC,
(9)- No doubt precious life of such a dedicated human rights activist as Asma should be protected by any and every means. But Asma also should, for the time being, avoid helping Balochs in their human rights matters unless she effectively moves UN to consider ‘Revised Conclusions and Recommendations’ to her UN report of January 26, 2009 No. A/HRC/10/8/Add.3 incorporating the above mentioned points. Otherwise also Balochas are conducting their agitation for Balochistan as 'Neem Hakeem' (half Doctors) as I mentioned in my earlier letter and which naturally increases danger for any one who comes or is perceived to come in support of the Balochs.
Sub:- Precious life of Asma should be protected but Asma also should correct UN Report 2009.
Ref:- (i)- Asma as Rapporteur submitted UN Report as if she was working for Indian State.
(ii)- Had Asma given UN Report 2009 in a legally correct manner it would have changed Indian subcontinent for the better and she too would not have faced such threats from Pak State actors.
(iii)- Asma’s conclusions in Paras 59 to 66 of the Report could have been given even by any ordinary journalist of India.
(iv)- Asma’s recommendations in Paras 67 to 74 of the Report without any possibility of its implementation deprives UN to shed crocodile tears on Asma’s safety
(v)- Judicial & Human Rights community of Pakistan who are rightly concerned about Asma’s safety should consider legally hush-up nature of Asma’s UN Report.
(vi)- Indian media and human rights activists would muster courage only when noise from Pakistan will be heard about gross injustice towards Indian minorities
(vii) Osma’s confusion in Report about Kashmir can be understood because it is a martial & UN matter.
(viii)- Asma’s support to Indian State in Ayodhya dispute (which claimed lives of thousands of innocent Muslims including in Gujarat and has still not seen restoration of status-qua-ante of Babri Masjid) is questionable.
(ix)- Asma has glossed over killings of thousands of Christians on the pretext of conversion not withstanding her support to conversion in Para 70 of the Report
(x)- Asma failed to question registering of FIR equal to number of injuries and death in hospitals & dispensaries at Delhi in 1984 anti Sikh riots.
(xi)- Asma should, for the time being, avoid helping Balochs in their human Rights unless she effectively moves UN to consider ‘Revised Conclusions and Recommendations’ in her 2009 Report.
Presently in India, Hem Raj Jain is the Minnesota, USA-based writer, and author of 'Betrayal of Americanism'.
Articles for June 6, 2012 | Articles for June 7, 2012 | Articles for June 8, 2012