Afzal Guru, Sarabjit Singh And Now Sanaullah: The Vicious Cycle Of “Justice”?

Three people have succumbed to the injuries of inhumanity intertwined with extreme nationalism. All three have been linked together to serve “justice”. But have they really served “justice”?

I will begin with the case of Sarabjit Singh. After about 20 years, Sarabjit Singh, an Indian prisoner was attacked by fellow inmates in the Lahore jail. As he struggled for 6 days in the hospital, there was an exchange of dialog between the Indian and Pakistan Government. The Indian Government had requested the Pakistan Government to act on “humanitarian grounds” and release him (the prisoner). The Pakistan Government was claimed to have “positively considered it”. However, this positive dialogs could not materialise as Sarabjit could not survive. And now, his death has once again started the vicious circle. Sarabjit has become a national hero in India. Pakistan Government has “again” “betrayed” us and once again, India has proved to be “weak”, “powerless” and “submissive”. “We” have again “lost”.

This is the story that is known on the Indian side of the border. The story on the other side of the border is that Sarabjit Singh, an accused who had pleaded “guilty” in the Karachi bomb blast had been attacked by fellow inmates. He was an Indian “spy” who had been given the death sentence by the Supreme court. The Pakistan Government, however, did everything that they could to save him after the attack in the jail. But he could not be saved. Based on the comments in Pakistani newspapers, the popular reaction has been that “justice” has been served. People argued that “He” who had killed mercilessly was also bound to have a similar fate. They pray for the families of the 14 people who had died.

A third story presented by Sarabjit’s kin and advocate Awais Sheikh was that he was not guilty. He was a farmer who had crossed the border in a drunk state. But was falsely implicated in the Karachi bomb blast that had occurred three days before he had crossed the border. He was mistaken to be “Manjit Singh”, the accused in the bomb blast. He was “innocent”. Sarabjit Singh was under trial.

These are the three versions of the same story and now we should attempt to search the “truth”. But is there any? If yes, “who” will establish it? But more importantly, is it important now to establish it? A man has lost his life. A man who was under trial has been killed to serve “justice”, as people of Pakistan believed or was made to believe. And now after his death, people of his home country has claimed him and declared him a “martyr”.

To me, his story is an appeal as was the story of Afzal Guru. Besides the link that has been drawn by people surrounding “justice”, if we look closely, there are several other similarities in the cases of Sarabjit and Afzal Guru. Both were considered to be “national terrorist”. For both, there were mercy pleas. While in the case of Sarabjit, the Indian Government had claimed to have appealed to the Pakistan Government, for Afzal Guru, there were public debates. However, in both the cases, the appeal proved ineffective because they were based on humanitarian grounds, rather than the claim and the evidence to prove that they were perhaps innocent and were falsely implicated. This is surprising as one of the biggest evidence in both the cases were also the “vague” court verdicts. For Sarabjit, the court declared that “whether Sarabjit Singh or Manjit Singh, the name does not matter” and for Afzal, it was even more vague that even though there was no strong evidence, he should be hanged “to satisfy the collective conscience”. Both were cases that involved (as constructed) popular sentiments. Both were deprived of a fair and unbiased trial.

However, it is true that Sarabjit was definitely luckier than Afzal who was never declared a “martyr”. The people of India are still unaware that to “satisfy” their “collective conscience”, an innocent person was hanged to death.

But what is more painful for me is that both of them were perhaps the victims of nationalist politics. With Afzal Guru, democracy was also hanged to death. Afzal was not given a chance to present his petition in the world’s largest democracy. In the case of Sarabjit, yet again, a person who may/may not be innocent (he was still under trial) was seen as more an Indian rather than as an accused. This is true not only for Pakistan but also for the Indian Government who kept “pleading” that for “20 years, an Indian has been away from his home country. He should be sent back”. What kind of a petition is that? If he had really committed the horrendous crime which I feel that the Indian Government did buy or if he was really a spy, does he have the right to evade punishment just because he is an Indian? A criminal is a criminal, whether he is an Indian or Pakistani. Since it is unclear whether the attack on Sarabjit was planned by the Government, it is unethical to raise questions to them but it is valid to ask them about the security of prisoners, especially the ones whose trial is ongoing. Based on the statement of Awais Sheikh, his advocate, this attack was predictable as there were tensions in Pakistan after the death of Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru. Why didn’t the Pakistan Government took the appropriate measures to ensure his safety?

Sarabjit Singh had succumbed to the injuries of inhumanity and extreme nationalism. Why was he killed? Because he was an accused in a bomb blast or because he was an Indian prisoner whose life had become a source of political and nationalist tension in Pakistan? What had killed him?

Another sad reality is that his death has also re-awakened nationalist sentiments in India. The people of India, the Government and the media has suddenly reclaimed Sarabjit. They have made him a “martyr” not of injustice and inhumanity but of their war against Pakistan. His death has become another opportunity, a “fresh breach”, as some media have claimed, in the Indo-Pak relations. The people of India are outraged at this “inhumanity” of Pakistan Government and the competition to prove who is more “inhuman” has begun. The competition has already claimed another life, that of Sanaullah Ranjay, a Pakistani prisoner in the Jammu jail. While some have condemned it, there are others who take it as a “mere reaction” and justify it by arguing that now “justice” has been served.

But now that Afzal Guru, Sarabjit Singh and Sanaullah have died, has our “collective conscience” been satisfied? Has justice been served? Have we “responded” satisfactorily to the inhumanity caused? With them, the human has died.

STATEMENT BY AAGHAZ-E-DOSTI OVER DEATH OF SARABJIT SINGH

Source: http://aaghazedosti.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/statement-by-aaghaz-e-dosti-over-death-of-sarabjit-singh/

We pray for Sarabjit’s soul. It is an unfortunate reality. However, we condemn the revival of jingoistic sentiments. It is disturbing that a loss of life has become another opportunity to revive jingoism. 

Sarabjit’s case had been there for two decades but the Indian Government had never took any major step for his release and now after his death, the Prime Minister declared him as “the brave son of the nation”. The Indian Government had asked for a mercy petition for Sarabjit but according to his relatives and his advocate, he was innocent. It was a case of “mistaken identity”. The media was also aware of this but they chose to remain silent. And now they have made short documentaries on the “martyr” and are provoking the people of India. Why were they silent? How does these documentaries suddenly erupt, in a matter of a few hours? We also condemn the response from the opposition leaders. Why were they silent earlier?

It is also unacceptable that the Pakistan Government had neglected the security of an Indian prisoner whose trial was still ongoing. There are several unanswered questions like how were the Pakistani prisoners able to attack Sarabjit when the barracks for Pakistani and Indian soldiers were separate? How were weapons allowed in the jail? We request the Pakistani Government to ensure a  fair and speedy investigation. We also request them to tighten the security of other prisoners in the jail.

We condemn the jingoistic response from both sides. We think that both the Governments had failed. We do not know the “truth” and we do not want to engage in the “if they would have” debate. There have been lapses on both sides. But what we must realise is that above all this politics, a life has been lost…a life that was possibly “innocent”. This is not a moment to politicise his death and shamefully regard it as “another knot” in the Indo-Pak relations.

The general response among the people of Pakistan is that “justice” has been done as they considered him to be a “terrorist”. To them, we say, his trial was still ongoing. And even if he was “guilty”, this was still an unfortunate incident. The judiciary had the sole right to punish him. The people of India, in contrast, are taking it as an “attack” by Pakistan. Suddenly, Sarabjit has become their brother. They are mocking at the Indian Government and debating if India is “weak” and have against started challenging peace initiatives. To them, we say, Sarabjit was a human being who has died as a victim of nationalist politics on both sides. Unless and until, it is proved that the state had a role in his killing, it is unethical to point fingers at them. Instead of asking for a “War”, ask for “JUSTICE”.

RIP Sarabjit Singh

Aaghaz-e-Dosti is an initiative of Mission Bhartiyam to strengthen Indo-Pak friendship. Aaghaz-e-Dosti can be reached ataaghazedosti@gmail.com and can be visited at www.aaghazedosti.wordpress.com

The Border Clash and Jingoism: We don’t Have to Pacify Ourselves But Realise

It was a happy day for some of us who had gone to kotla stadium on the last match of the T20 series between India and Pakistan with our face painted in flag colours of both countries, displaying poster and distributing pamphlets with messages of peace and friendship to the cricket fans of both countries. We were moved by the appreciation that we got, especially from people from Pakistan. Some of them had themselves came to us, introduced and asked for the pamphlet. Our event, under the initiative of Aaghaz-e-Dosti, turned out to be a huge success even on social networking sites and was picked up by some major news portals.

It was deeply satisfying and paid off our labour as we thought that we have started on our journey to move for a better future together. But two or three days later, the media reported the border clash but initially, I had not imagined how it would change things overnight. The social networking sites became another battlefield. Status messages and comment thread, the “shared photo culture” developed by Facebook pages and new pages devoted to questioning peace initiatives, digging old graves, debating if India is a “soft” state or if India always stabs Pakistan(by the Pakistan side) and poems dedicated to soldiers and the army.

It was and is all over – on the news channels ofcourse, endless news debates but almost all debating if we should continue the ties or not, on Facebook posts, in Facebook pages and ofcourse in the tea-time discussions. Following the clash, there have also been innumerable articles challenging and finding the loopholes in all the claims starting from the report of beheading to the role of a third party to manipulate the politics in its own favour.

But the question no longer is about who started it and did it involve beheading or not because the damage has already been done. What has sadly come out of this is the notion that it’s only “we” who want peace and that “they” have always stabbed “us”. This notion exists on both sides of the border.

And this notion is enough to persist another decade of hatred and suspicion. People on both sides have sided with the army that have otherwise, accounted for human rights’ violations and with the politicians whom we refuse to accept as our representatives. They refuse to see any “anti-nation” sentiment. And once again, the “nation” as an identity has become important surpassing the individual and the individual opinion and desire. The peace activists or anyone with a voice of dissent are once again seen as not only “anti-nation” but as passive, ideal and those who have not seen the “reality”. This article is not to pacify anyone or to convince. It is only to bring out some “realities” which cannot be challenged.

This is based on my own personal observations and on the articles that I have come across. If I talk about the articles, I have read many articles which have brought out the loopholes in the theories put forward by both the countries. There have been questioning of the hazy and inconsistent reporting by the army on both sides, loopholes in the reports and questions for media to have covered issues which have shown India or Pakistan only in a bad light. This brings us to one fact that the truth is partial. None of us can claim to know the truth. There is a need to establish a neutral news source accepted by both countries.

For those who feel that peace is only the desire of one side is mistaken. To begin with, if this was true, Aman ki Asha would not have received equal appreciation on the other side of the border. Coming to my personal observations, I have been following the posts and tweets of people of across the border (Pakistan) and have some interesting revelations. It is true that some of them, like some of us, have tagged peace initiatives as bogus and indulge in a sort-of “godification” of army generals and soldiers. But it is also true that many have also condemned this incident. I have some friends there and there has been no change in the nature of our interaction. I also came across a facebook post today by someone asking if peace should be continued with India? I found the very status very interesting as the same question is posed by most of us as in this status, there is an assumption that “we” are peaceful. Most of the comments favoured yes. There was a comment that said that we should, if they also do the same. Those who said no had also added reasons stating how India has often stabbed back or because they do not want peace. It was essential to give this “private” post as it reveals some facts and demands an action.

We and here I mean the people or anyone who likes to have an opinion should be critical of our own Government, media and army. On both sides, we need to accept that there are people who do not want peace, for their own motives. But more importantly, we need to accept that humanity is beyond boundaries. On both sides, there are humans and human lives. Those who want war or can even think of it should imagine what it is like to live in the bordered state. Or even ask an average soldier if he wants war. A soldier has seen a war and knows what it involves. But he takes part because he has to. A famous Bollywood movie, Heroes, puts it beautifully, “hum hamara kaam kar rahe hai aur wo wahan apna” (We are doing our work and they are doing theirs).Their duty is to defend their respective motherlands and they do that. And no-one thinks about them because if they did, they wouldn’t have asked for more hatred. War is not the solution to anyone, never has it been and will never be. It is true that “we” must not sit back if the “other” retaliates but we must do that in a constructive way because the fire will not just burn them.

We need to realise that there are people on both sides, there are “wounds” to be healed on both sides, sufferings, impartial truth and misunderstandings on both sides. People on both sides have their own challenges to meet. To an average Indian and Pakistani, earning their daily bread is much more important than demanding war. We have to realise… not to pacify ourselves but to realise. 

published at Countercurrents http://www.countercurrents.org/mittal210113.htm

Rising Kashmir Newspaper http://www.risingkashmir.in/news/loc-clashes-and-subsequent-jingoism-40438.aspx Print edition 23rd January 20113

The samosa http://www.thesamosa.co.uk/2013/01/23/the-border-clash-and-jingoism-we-dont-have-to-pacify-ourselves-but-realise/

Visa for trust and friendship

Can you imagine the situation where we can meet a stranger who looks very different from us, speaks a different language and has different beliefs and values easily but can’t meet our own brother? Or when we are allowed to travel thousands of kilometers without much hassle but to travel mere 50 kms, we have to give a thousand reasons, documents of all kinds and wait endlessly but without any assurance of success?

Such is the relationship between India and Pakistan. Even after 65 years of the fateful parting of ways, India and Pakistan has failed to establish a normal relationship.  Even after several efforts by the civil society in both countries, the states refuse to surrender their ego and help in establishing in trust. However, people in both countries have acted much more mature and have moved on. They are ready for a strong bond of friendship and brotherhood. Many Pakistanis cross the border for medical treatments. Similarly, traders and business men have also increasingly moved beyond the borders. Education has also emerged to be a reason forcrossing over to India. Music has been one of the strongest agents for the change in indo-pak relations.

But, a little problem in the states’ relations and the next thing you know, the singer has been sent back or has been barred from coming to India. There have also been reports where the singer blames the organizers in the host country for not helping in the visa, leading to major tussles.  The most severely affected people are those who come to India for medical treatments and what about those who have relatives here? People, especially, in the border areas, have relatives in Pakistan and vice versa. Can we imagine their pain of not being able to see their relatives for years? I have read stories where siblings got separated during the partition. Thevisa problem is more severe for Kashmir. A Pakistani is not allowed to visit Kashmir. What about the Pakistanis who have relatives in Kashmir? Why can’t he visit them?

India has also appealed to Pakistanis in the field of education. Many students apply but they are also denied visa. Reasons include frequent visits to India, involvement with an NGO in Pakistan etc.  

There are also other restrictions concerning the visa. The processing time is too long. A Pakistani can not only visit Kashmir but has to apply the visa for a specific city. Multiple visits are also a problem.

It is not to say that security should not be considered, but we need to know who to target. Once in India, the Pakistani is, anyways, closely watched by the intelligence groups. The rule of applying for a particular city should be lifted. The person should be instead asked to report where he is going and for what, to the authorities. The authorities must monitor that. Those who have relatives or are here for education or medical treatment should also be debarred from the un-necessary hassle. Regarding the security, the reality is that the demons that conspire against India to unleash hell do not face much problem in getting the visas but the people with good intentions face all the hell in the world.

The Governments have recently announced that reforms will be introduced in the visa policy and it will become friendlier. We hope that it happens as without meeting each other, how can we think of friendship? How can we trust each other if we don’t get to interact? The misunderstandings exist because we don’t know each other, we have not seen each other, and we have not visited each other’s country? If we have friends in Pakistan, can we ever think of doing any harm to that country? The misunderstandings and suspicion exists because we think we are different. But are we, who speak the same language, look just the same, hold same values and beliefs and the same desire to visit each other’s country, really different?

also posted at: 

Rising Kashmir http://www.risingkashmir.in/news/visa-for-trust-and-friendship-31485.aspx

Counter Currents http://www.countercurrents.org/mittal090812.htm

The Samosa http://www.thesamosa.co.uk/2012/08/16/india-and-pakistan-visa-for-trust-and-friendship/