All India Political Parties Meet
Yin-Hang
Shubhagata Choudhury, reporting for The Statesman from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), inspects why the other half of ‘Indi-Chini, Bhai bhai’ falls short of being the better brother the world deserves.
“Forgiveness is an act of the heart.”
-Old Chinese Proverb
Priceless advice can be found on the back cover of a cheap exercise book these days. Is it mainly because priceless is confused with worthless when it comes to forgiveness?
The mystical, enigmatic, and charismatic land of Cathay is more than kung fu and panda (or both). The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) has seen some of the most radical thinkers, and their teachings are considered as sacrosanct. Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-Tzu are the most prominent names and their preaching of love and compassion are noteworthy, not only in the Chinese culture, but also in Western tattoo shops. So the question is, how does one of the earliest civilisations, which understood the concept of love and peace, manage to record the highest number of death sentences and executions (nearly 5000) in 2009[1]? The count is not just unimaginably high but more than all the other countries put together.
The most recurring argument is that judicial executions are predominantly higher in authoritarian or/and poor countries. Out of the 58 retentive countries that still carry out death sentences, Singapore, Japan, and the United States of America (USA) are the only developed countries, and USA the only Western country[2]. China carries out an alleged 1000 executions per year. This is just a rough estimate as the media-friendly Chinese government refuses to publish an exact figure. So why is the execution rate so high? Granted that due to the high population, the crime rate is going to be high. This is not a question of probability. This is a country with a failed cultural ethos that Hollywood holds so dear.
So what qualifies as a crime to execute thousands? China’s new revised law states that a person can be held accountable for 55 different cases under their new criminal law[3]. From embezzlement to fraud, rape, murder, treason, the list is certainly vast. Does this mean that China has a strict judicial system with no tolerance for evil? Maybe. However, it is, majorly, because of a lacklustre court system and offences which are not considered under capital crimes in other countries. In 2011, a Chinese telecommunication executive was sentenced to death for accepting bribes[4]. There are other instances which highlight China’s inhuman intolerance and severe violation of human rights[5]. In 1983, as a result of a strike- hard campaign, the High Courts of each province were given the power to award death sentences. Non-violent crimes such as faking train tickets were tried for death penalties. There have been reports of mistreatment of the convicts and they have been subjected to diabolical conditions.
Is this one of the dictatorial attributes of a Communist country? Is this wilful negligence of human rights? Or is this just China’s justice to the saying “to repay a tooth with a tooth and to pay back blood with blood”, that majority of the population believes in? Due to limited or no intervention of the outside world, China escapes unscathed. Although the present population does believe in the abolition of judicial executions, the Chinese policy makers still adhere to their rigid conformity. There is absolutely no regard for human life in the eyes of the Chinese government, as they believe in their community more than individual freedom. This makes it hard to acknowledge the severity of their proceedings. Repeated criticism falls on deaf ears as China only listens to their populist view of the government.
So, does this mean there is no hope for China? Yes and no. Although recent polls do acknowledge the rise of human rights in China, the change, ultimately, lies with the government. There has been a rapid progression in Chinese laws and they have proved that they can change their laws or bend it. China does not pressurise itself over the opinion of other countries, but since China aims to be an economic power house, they do tend to please foreign investors by making it easy for them to start their businesses. It looks like Alfred Marshall’s definition of a welfare based economy can finally find China as one of its loyal believers after all.
It’s time to let the noose loose, China.
SOURCES:
1. http://duihua.org/wp/?page_id=136
2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/business/global/china-mobile-executive-sentenced-to-death-over-bribes.html
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/chinas-death-penalty-debate.html?_r=0
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/chinas-death-penalty-debate.html?_r=0
“Forgiveness is an act of the heart.”
-Old Chinese Proverb
Priceless advice can be found on the back cover of a cheap exercise book these days. Is it mainly because priceless is confused with worthless when it comes to forgiveness?
The mystical, enigmatic, and charismatic land of Cathay is more than kung fu and panda (or both). The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) has seen some of the most radical thinkers, and their teachings are considered as sacrosanct. Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-Tzu are the most prominent names and their preaching of love and compassion are noteworthy, not only in the Chinese culture, but also in Western tattoo shops. So the question is, how does one of the earliest civilisations, which understood the concept of love and peace, manage to record the highest number of death sentences and executions (nearly 5000) in 2009[1]? The count is not just unimaginably high but more than all the other countries put together.
The most recurring argument is that judicial executions are predominantly higher in authoritarian or/and poor countries. Out of the 58 retentive countries that still carry out death sentences, Singapore, Japan, and the United States of America (USA) are the only developed countries, and USA the only Western country[2]. China carries out an alleged 1000 executions per year. This is just a rough estimate as the media-friendly Chinese government refuses to publish an exact figure. So why is the execution rate so high? Granted that due to the high population, the crime rate is going to be high. This is not a question of probability. This is a country with a failed cultural ethos that Hollywood holds so dear.
So what qualifies as a crime to execute thousands? China’s new revised law states that a person can be held accountable for 55 different cases under their new criminal law[3]. From embezzlement to fraud, rape, murder, treason, the list is certainly vast. Does this mean that China has a strict judicial system with no tolerance for evil? Maybe. However, it is, majorly, because of a lacklustre court system and offences which are not considered under capital crimes in other countries. In 2011, a Chinese telecommunication executive was sentenced to death for accepting bribes[4]. There are other instances which highlight China’s inhuman intolerance and severe violation of human rights[5]. In 1983, as a result of a strike- hard campaign, the High Courts of each province were given the power to award death sentences. Non-violent crimes such as faking train tickets were tried for death penalties. There have been reports of mistreatment of the convicts and they have been subjected to diabolical conditions.
Is this one of the dictatorial attributes of a Communist country? Is this wilful negligence of human rights? Or is this just China’s justice to the saying “to repay a tooth with a tooth and to pay back blood with blood”, that majority of the population believes in? Due to limited or no intervention of the outside world, China escapes unscathed. Although the present population does believe in the abolition of judicial executions, the Chinese policy makers still adhere to their rigid conformity. There is absolutely no regard for human life in the eyes of the Chinese government, as they believe in their community more than individual freedom. This makes it hard to acknowledge the severity of their proceedings. Repeated criticism falls on deaf ears as China only listens to their populist view of the government.
So, does this mean there is no hope for China? Yes and no. Although recent polls do acknowledge the rise of human rights in China, the change, ultimately, lies with the government. There has been a rapid progression in Chinese laws and they have proved that they can change their laws or bend it. China does not pressurise itself over the opinion of other countries, but since China aims to be an economic power house, they do tend to please foreign investors by making it easy for them to start their businesses. It looks like Alfred Marshall’s definition of a welfare based economy can finally find China as one of its loyal believers after all.
It’s time to let the noose loose, China.
SOURCES:
1. http://duihua.org/wp/?page_id=136
2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/business/global/china-mobile-executive-sentenced-to-death-over-bribes.html
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/chinas-death-penalty-debate.html?_r=0
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/chinas-death-penalty-debate.html?_r=0
To Kill or Not to Kill?
Capital punishment is primitive and barbaric. Sunita Sarkar, of the Reuters, reporting from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), analyses the reasons why capital punishment should be suspended in all countries.
“It is just sad that even after all the horrors of the last 1000 years, we can’t leave behind something as primitive as state -ordered executions”
-Russ Feingold
The Latin word “capitalis” meaning “of the head”, referred to execution by beheading. Crimes that may result in a death penalty (capital punishment) are called capital crimes or capital offences. Even though Amnesty International considers capital punishment to be “the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights”, 60% of the population of the world lives in countries where capital punishment is still legal; countries such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of India (India), the United States of America (USA) and the Republic of Indonesia. Execution of people, to either punish them for criminal offences, or for political reasons to suppress dissent has been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of recorded history. Several historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, crucifixion, impalement, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crushing, stoning etc.
With the emergence of what is called the modern nation state, justice has become increasingly associated with the concept of fundamental legal rights. Justice cannot be achieved by death penalty. Capital punishment interprets society as violent and blood thirsty. If analysed closely, it is realised that there are, basically, only four reasons for handing out punishments – reformation, revenge, protection, and deterrence. If an execution is ordered, there will be no chance of reformation. Revenge can be taken by other alternatives of punishment, not just by death penalty. Moreover, death penalty does not let the criminals know the pain of suffering which may, otherwise, be fulfilled by a life imprisonment without parole. Also, life imprisonment protects the society from criminals without actually killing them. With reference to deterrence, it does not matter how severe the punishment is, because it is never the severity of the punishment, but, the surety of punishment that stops crime.
In the modern era, after the Second World War, there has been a trend to abolish capital punishment either de jure or de facto. The United Nations (UN) moratorium on the death penalty resolution was presented on Italy’s instigation by a partnership of eight co-author member states of the European Council to the General Assembly of the United Nations, calling for general suspensions (and not abolition) of capital punishment throughout the world. Today, capital punishment has been abolished in 102 countries, while 56 still retain it in practice.
The most important thing to remember with regard to capital punishment is that it is irreversible. If the person is proved innocent after the death penalty, no amount of compensation can relive the innocent man’s family of the pain of losing him. University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross,led a team of experts in statistics and law and estimated that at least 4% of people on death row were, likely, innocent. The execution of Colin Ross for the Gun Alley Murder or the execution of Harry Gleeson for the Murder of Moll McCarthy or the execution of Jian Guoqing are just a few examples among many.
In countries like India where the judiciary is not free from corruption, political power, money or muscle power, death penalty for individual crimes cannot be an appropriate punishment, without eliminating these external influences or at least without reducing the impact of these things. In countries with flawed judiciaries, these punishments are, more often than not, used against perpetrators from ethnic or racial minorities or from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. There are a lot of ethical dilemmas regarding whether or not capital punishment should be meted out. Right to life is the most important right for any individual and capital punishment violates it royally and, sometimes, without necessity. Life imprisonment without parole is a better alternative to capital punishment. In this way, the criminal stands a chance of reformation. Life imprisonments and other alternatives are rigorous punishments and deterrents. It is only when a criminal has gone too far beyond reforms, or runs a possibility of being used as a dangerous weapon against society, that he must be killed.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
“It is just sad that even after all the horrors of the last 1000 years, we can’t leave behind something as primitive as state -ordered executions”
-Russ Feingold
The Latin word “capitalis” meaning “of the head”, referred to execution by beheading. Crimes that may result in a death penalty (capital punishment) are called capital crimes or capital offences. Even though Amnesty International considers capital punishment to be “the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights”, 60% of the population of the world lives in countries where capital punishment is still legal; countries such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of India (India), the United States of America (USA) and the Republic of Indonesia. Execution of people, to either punish them for criminal offences, or for political reasons to suppress dissent has been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of recorded history. Several historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, crucifixion, impalement, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crushing, stoning etc.
With the emergence of what is called the modern nation state, justice has become increasingly associated with the concept of fundamental legal rights. Justice cannot be achieved by death penalty. Capital punishment interprets society as violent and blood thirsty. If analysed closely, it is realised that there are, basically, only four reasons for handing out punishments – reformation, revenge, protection, and deterrence. If an execution is ordered, there will be no chance of reformation. Revenge can be taken by other alternatives of punishment, not just by death penalty. Moreover, death penalty does not let the criminals know the pain of suffering which may, otherwise, be fulfilled by a life imprisonment without parole. Also, life imprisonment protects the society from criminals without actually killing them. With reference to deterrence, it does not matter how severe the punishment is, because it is never the severity of the punishment, but, the surety of punishment that stops crime.
In the modern era, after the Second World War, there has been a trend to abolish capital punishment either de jure or de facto. The United Nations (UN) moratorium on the death penalty resolution was presented on Italy’s instigation by a partnership of eight co-author member states of the European Council to the General Assembly of the United Nations, calling for general suspensions (and not abolition) of capital punishment throughout the world. Today, capital punishment has been abolished in 102 countries, while 56 still retain it in practice.
The most important thing to remember with regard to capital punishment is that it is irreversible. If the person is proved innocent after the death penalty, no amount of compensation can relive the innocent man’s family of the pain of losing him. University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross,led a team of experts in statistics and law and estimated that at least 4% of people on death row were, likely, innocent. The execution of Colin Ross for the Gun Alley Murder or the execution of Harry Gleeson for the Murder of Moll McCarthy or the execution of Jian Guoqing are just a few examples among many.
In countries like India where the judiciary is not free from corruption, political power, money or muscle power, death penalty for individual crimes cannot be an appropriate punishment, without eliminating these external influences or at least without reducing the impact of these things. In countries with flawed judiciaries, these punishments are, more often than not, used against perpetrators from ethnic or racial minorities or from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. There are a lot of ethical dilemmas regarding whether or not capital punishment should be meted out. Right to life is the most important right for any individual and capital punishment violates it royally and, sometimes, without necessity. Life imprisonment without parole is a better alternative to capital punishment. In this way, the criminal stands a chance of reformation. Life imprisonments and other alternatives are rigorous punishments and deterrents. It is only when a criminal has gone too far beyond reforms, or runs a possibility of being used as a dangerous weapon against society, that he must be killed.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Kashmir in Crisis
The Himalayan region of Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for over six decades now. Since India's Partition and the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbors have fought three wars over the Muslim-majority territory. Debjyoti Chakraborty, of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), reporting from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), pens down the particular significance of this state in the conflict.
Even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947, Kashmir was very a hotly contested area. Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan. The ruler of the princely state, Hari Singh, chose India (under threat of an alleged invasion from the Western border) and a two-year war erupted. A new war followed in 1965, while in 1999, India fought a short, but bitter, conflict with Pakistani-backed forces. By that time, India and Pakistan had both declared themselves, acquiring nuclear powers.
All political parties in Pakistan consider the resolution of Kashmir a pre-requisite for improved Indo-Pakistan relations and regional stability, while Indian political parties, specifically the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have divergent views on Kashmir. Indian leadership considers Kashmir a symbol of Indian secularism and does not show flexibility in their stance, maintaining that Indian integration depends on Kashmir being retained as part of India. The people of Kashmir have expressed their desire to accede to Pakistan, but India, continuously, creates hurdles in the fulfillment of their desire. Pakistan's government and leadership today seem eager to find a solution to the issue with India. Since 1953, more than 150 sessions of talks have been held, but all in vain. There are massive records of grave human-rights violations in the Indian-held Kashmir, as well as on the other side of the Line of Control (LOC).
Seen in the historical backdrop, there are three phases of the Kashmir struggle. The first phase was from 1947 to 1988 which was the peaceful effort. When the Kashmiris felt that India did not pay heed to their voices, the peaceful struggle turned into a violent uprising. This phase spanned from 1989 to 2001. During this phase, the freedom fighters and the people who supported them suffered heavily at the hands of Indian security forces. The third phase started after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when Kashmiris converted their violent struggle into a peaceful political struggle. This was done in light of the fact that after 9/11, major world powers were significantly influenced by Indian propaganda and started interfering in the Kashmiri freedom struggle with terrorism.
Taking advantage of the international campaign against terrorism, the Indian BJP government, in 2001, had stepped up its efforts to have Pakistan declared a terrorism-sponsoring state. Under the circumstances, it is important to understand the real root of any struggle, including the violent uprising, before labeling those or the organisations involved, as terrorists. India is blatantly violating the right to self-determination, international conventions on human rights, and diplomatic agreements with Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan, it has adopted a comprehensive approach that gives priority to Kashmir more than any other issue between the two nations.
It is an open secret that the people of Pakistan will never forget the sacrifices made by the Pakistanis for the cause of Kashmir. Pakistan should continue to support Kashmiris on all levels, especially on the diplomatic front, and the Pakistani media must highlight the atrocities committed by India in Kashmir. It is felt that the media, often, does not highlight the gravity of the situation as it should and in this particular situation, a certain degree of laxness on the part of the Pakistani media has given India the opportunity to paint a completely different picture to the world community.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947, Kashmir was very a hotly contested area. Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan. The ruler of the princely state, Hari Singh, chose India (under threat of an alleged invasion from the Western border) and a two-year war erupted. A new war followed in 1965, while in 1999, India fought a short, but bitter, conflict with Pakistani-backed forces. By that time, India and Pakistan had both declared themselves, acquiring nuclear powers.
All political parties in Pakistan consider the resolution of Kashmir a pre-requisite for improved Indo-Pakistan relations and regional stability, while Indian political parties, specifically the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have divergent views on Kashmir. Indian leadership considers Kashmir a symbol of Indian secularism and does not show flexibility in their stance, maintaining that Indian integration depends on Kashmir being retained as part of India. The people of Kashmir have expressed their desire to accede to Pakistan, but India, continuously, creates hurdles in the fulfillment of their desire. Pakistan's government and leadership today seem eager to find a solution to the issue with India. Since 1953, more than 150 sessions of talks have been held, but all in vain. There are massive records of grave human-rights violations in the Indian-held Kashmir, as well as on the other side of the Line of Control (LOC).
Seen in the historical backdrop, there are three phases of the Kashmir struggle. The first phase was from 1947 to 1988 which was the peaceful effort. When the Kashmiris felt that India did not pay heed to their voices, the peaceful struggle turned into a violent uprising. This phase spanned from 1989 to 2001. During this phase, the freedom fighters and the people who supported them suffered heavily at the hands of Indian security forces. The third phase started after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when Kashmiris converted their violent struggle into a peaceful political struggle. This was done in light of the fact that after 9/11, major world powers were significantly influenced by Indian propaganda and started interfering in the Kashmiri freedom struggle with terrorism.
Taking advantage of the international campaign against terrorism, the Indian BJP government, in 2001, had stepped up its efforts to have Pakistan declared a terrorism-sponsoring state. Under the circumstances, it is important to understand the real root of any struggle, including the violent uprising, before labeling those or the organisations involved, as terrorists. India is blatantly violating the right to self-determination, international conventions on human rights, and diplomatic agreements with Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan, it has adopted a comprehensive approach that gives priority to Kashmir more than any other issue between the two nations.
It is an open secret that the people of Pakistan will never forget the sacrifices made by the Pakistanis for the cause of Kashmir. Pakistan should continue to support Kashmiris on all levels, especially on the diplomatic front, and the Pakistani media must highlight the atrocities committed by India in Kashmir. It is felt that the media, often, does not highlight the gravity of the situation as it should and in this particular situation, a certain degree of laxness on the part of the Pakistani media has given India the opportunity to paint a completely different picture to the world community.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Panic Room
Shubhagata Choudhury, of The Statesman, reporting from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), was witness to an interesting session gone awry due to a terrifying security breach in the council.
“The room has been compromised; the room has been tapped with wires.” The words echoed like a Bofors fired in the open, as the members of the AIPPM scurried out of the council. The first session of the council saw the right amount of drama and concern, as the council made way to a series of accusations.
The council debated the relevance of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (abbreviated as AFSPA). Mr. Mishra emphasised that the act is of great importance to Jammu and Kashmir and it helps in keeping the infiltrators in check. He went on stating that since this Act is tactically important for the country, the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Council can be ignored, if necessary. Ms. Mamata Banerjee went on to accuse the AFSPA of being a ‘draconian law’. She went on to accuse the army of exploiting the region, as well. Ms. Banerjee, further, added that India got its own independence through non-violence and it was a shame that the country has resorted to armed forces for peacekeeping. She also called it a violation of the Fundamental Law of Freedom.
The session saw a fairly unanimous consensus in support of the AFSPA. Although the level of agreement varied, it was agreed that the AFSPA is important for the welfare of the state in concern and for its peacekeeping. Mr. Babul Supriyo contradicted his Chief Minister by stating that, not only is the law not ‘draconian’, but also relevant. He stated that it was a ‘necessary evil’. Although he expressed that he was not in complete agreement with the army’s way of tackling the Act, he did not hesitate to emphasise on its importance. He advised the council that the Act should be amended and not repealed. Mr. Piyush Goyal went on to agree with the fact that the Act should not be repealed. He also added that the AFSPA acts as an “incentive for the armed personnel to work for fortification in the area”. Mr. Uddhav Thackeray brought up the controversial figure of Burhan Wani and stated that the AFSPA protects the region from such separatists. He stated that since such individuals destroy the sanctity of peace, it helps protect the region and the army in such a tensed political state.
Mr. Arvind Kejriwal brought a fresh aspect to the debate when he stated that the council has been debating in binary, overlooking the grey region. He added that the AFSPA should be removed from regions which have been peaceful for a prolonged period. Mr. Nitin Gadkari raised a few eyebrows when he commented “killing can be ethical and not ethical” and “desperate times call for desperate measures.” He also stated that the police power is not enough and, thus, the AFSPA becomes imperative. He concluded that since ‘extrajudicial killing is not unconstitutional”, it can be deemed as ethical.
The session was, abruptly, cut short when there was a threat that the AIPPM council room was compromised and had tapped wires. The room was promptly evacuated for security reasons. This was not the first time that the issue of Kashmir has hung in balance and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
“The room has been compromised; the room has been tapped with wires.” The words echoed like a Bofors fired in the open, as the members of the AIPPM scurried out of the council. The first session of the council saw the right amount of drama and concern, as the council made way to a series of accusations.
The council debated the relevance of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (abbreviated as AFSPA). Mr. Mishra emphasised that the act is of great importance to Jammu and Kashmir and it helps in keeping the infiltrators in check. He went on stating that since this Act is tactically important for the country, the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Council can be ignored, if necessary. Ms. Mamata Banerjee went on to accuse the AFSPA of being a ‘draconian law’. She went on to accuse the army of exploiting the region, as well. Ms. Banerjee, further, added that India got its own independence through non-violence and it was a shame that the country has resorted to armed forces for peacekeeping. She also called it a violation of the Fundamental Law of Freedom.
The session saw a fairly unanimous consensus in support of the AFSPA. Although the level of agreement varied, it was agreed that the AFSPA is important for the welfare of the state in concern and for its peacekeeping. Mr. Babul Supriyo contradicted his Chief Minister by stating that, not only is the law not ‘draconian’, but also relevant. He stated that it was a ‘necessary evil’. Although he expressed that he was not in complete agreement with the army’s way of tackling the Act, he did not hesitate to emphasise on its importance. He advised the council that the Act should be amended and not repealed. Mr. Piyush Goyal went on to agree with the fact that the Act should not be repealed. He also added that the AFSPA acts as an “incentive for the armed personnel to work for fortification in the area”. Mr. Uddhav Thackeray brought up the controversial figure of Burhan Wani and stated that the AFSPA protects the region from such separatists. He stated that since such individuals destroy the sanctity of peace, it helps protect the region and the army in such a tensed political state.
Mr. Arvind Kejriwal brought a fresh aspect to the debate when he stated that the council has been debating in binary, overlooking the grey region. He added that the AFSPA should be removed from regions which have been peaceful for a prolonged period. Mr. Nitin Gadkari raised a few eyebrows when he commented “killing can be ethical and not ethical” and “desperate times call for desperate measures.” He also stated that the police power is not enough and, thus, the AFSPA becomes imperative. He concluded that since ‘extrajudicial killing is not unconstitutional”, it can be deemed as ethical.
The session was, abruptly, cut short when there was a threat that the AIPPM council room was compromised and had tapped wires. The room was promptly evacuated for security reasons. This was not the first time that the issue of Kashmir has hung in balance and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
The Monetary Misfiring
The reporter of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), Debjyoti Chakraborty, captures a period of discussion in committee.
The pillars of any state rest on the building blocks of Economy, Environment, Education, Employment, and Healthcare. Although each block is important for the stability and growth of a civilisation, “Economy” is the cornerstone on which the prosperity of a state rests.
The discussion in committee brought out several facets of the situation in Kashmir in reference to the economic crisis .The forum of debate was initiated by the delegate representing Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, who stated that the land sale in Kashmir was reducing day by day and no external company or production house would like to negotiate due to the presence of some extremist organisations. He added that the conflict was due to the increasing number of unemployment issues and concluded by accusing the Indian government of not taking any effective measures. Nitin Gadkari elaborated on the Kashmir crisis and concluded that this conflict was the outcome of the political turmoil in that specific region. Rahul Gandhi started off by lambasting the Indian government, saying that it was their largest failure. He added that the region has no enhanced network or communication facilities and that the civilians are not happy. He also actively discouraged the demonetisation policy of the Prime Minister and pointed out that in some parts of Kashmir there are no banking or money transaction facilities and even if there are some banks, they did not have notes in them.
In defence of these words, Mehbooba Mufti was up next; she praised Kashmir calling it a "paradise on Earth". She said that tourism, which was supposed to play the most important role in lifting Kashmir's GDP, had fallen drastically due to this hefty conflict. She mentioned that the killing of Burhan Wani led to multitudinous curfews, and during that period of time, all grocery shops were shut down. Uddhav Thackeray concluded the discussion, saying that some separatist groups are the main hindrance to the development in Kashmir and can only be terminated by a unanimous decision.
These were some of the major opinions presented in the committee during the discussion. While the committee could not discuss effective solutions with feasible implementation, they were able to bring potential threats into prominence.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
The pillars of any state rest on the building blocks of Economy, Environment, Education, Employment, and Healthcare. Although each block is important for the stability and growth of a civilisation, “Economy” is the cornerstone on which the prosperity of a state rests.
The discussion in committee brought out several facets of the situation in Kashmir in reference to the economic crisis .The forum of debate was initiated by the delegate representing Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, who stated that the land sale in Kashmir was reducing day by day and no external company or production house would like to negotiate due to the presence of some extremist organisations. He added that the conflict was due to the increasing number of unemployment issues and concluded by accusing the Indian government of not taking any effective measures. Nitin Gadkari elaborated on the Kashmir crisis and concluded that this conflict was the outcome of the political turmoil in that specific region. Rahul Gandhi started off by lambasting the Indian government, saying that it was their largest failure. He added that the region has no enhanced network or communication facilities and that the civilians are not happy. He also actively discouraged the demonetisation policy of the Prime Minister and pointed out that in some parts of Kashmir there are no banking or money transaction facilities and even if there are some banks, they did not have notes in them.
In defence of these words, Mehbooba Mufti was up next; she praised Kashmir calling it a "paradise on Earth". She said that tourism, which was supposed to play the most important role in lifting Kashmir's GDP, had fallen drastically due to this hefty conflict. She mentioned that the killing of Burhan Wani led to multitudinous curfews, and during that period of time, all grocery shops were shut down. Uddhav Thackeray concluded the discussion, saying that some separatist groups are the main hindrance to the development in Kashmir and can only be terminated by a unanimous decision.
These were some of the major opinions presented in the committee during the discussion. While the committee could not discuss effective solutions with feasible implementation, they were able to bring potential threats into prominence.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
"Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures"
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Acts, 1990, are those acts of the Parliament that provide the Indian Armed Forces with special provisions when acting in a disturbed area. Sunita Sarkar, reporting for the Reuters, from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), presents the proceedings of the day.
While discussing the issue of rationalising and amending the Armed Forces Special Powers Act – a motion proposed by Mr. Shashi Tharoor – Mr. Nitin Gadkari requested everyone to explore the concept of ethics and differentiate between killing and murder. He stressed upon the fact that desperate times call for desperate measures and that while some killings are unethical, some killings are justified, and are ethical. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav reminded committee that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was formed to give military support to the “disturbed areas” and Kashmir is still among the disturbed areas. While certain powers of AFSPA can be taken away, there are many registered and unregistered deaths taking place, and repealing the AFSPA does not make sense.
Mr. Jayant Sinha changed the party’s previous stance and said that he and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were against repealing and amending the AFSPA, as the Supreme Court’s judgment had taken away the immunity from persecution from the army personnel, thus making any amendment redundant. Ms. Mamata Bannerjee was asked to concentrate on Sarada and Narada scams, instead of declaring the AFSPA draconian by Mr Kalraj Mishra.. He asked everyone to concentrate on the problems within everyone’s own parties instead of being illogical about the security of the country, itself. Mr. Jaganmohan Reddy blamed the wrong deeds committed by the Army personnel under immunity from prosecution, for creating militants like Burhan Wani. According to him, the only amendment possible, is to restrict the discretionary powers of the Army personnel.
The Leader of the Youth wing of the Congresss, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, accused the Bharatiya Janata Party and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) governments of violating and misusing the provisions of AFSPA to impose itself upon, and oppress, the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He pointed out that the increased military presence in the region was aggravating, rather than solving the problem. The BJP led government was also accused of oppressing the Kashmiris and forcing civilians to embrace militancy and insurgency.
According to this writer, the motion, itself, is, somewhat, flawed – you cannot defend anything (even if it is wrong) and amend it at the same time. Even after passing of the motion, debate was rather unsatisfactory and superficial. There was no mention of any specific clauses of the acts to be amended and this writer ends the article with the hope that the council will have better discussions and relate to the agenda, putting forward suggestions to improve the situation, instead of engaging in frivolous arguments amongst the parties, in the future.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
While discussing the issue of rationalising and amending the Armed Forces Special Powers Act – a motion proposed by Mr. Shashi Tharoor – Mr. Nitin Gadkari requested everyone to explore the concept of ethics and differentiate between killing and murder. He stressed upon the fact that desperate times call for desperate measures and that while some killings are unethical, some killings are justified, and are ethical. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav reminded committee that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was formed to give military support to the “disturbed areas” and Kashmir is still among the disturbed areas. While certain powers of AFSPA can be taken away, there are many registered and unregistered deaths taking place, and repealing the AFSPA does not make sense.
Mr. Jayant Sinha changed the party’s previous stance and said that he and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were against repealing and amending the AFSPA, as the Supreme Court’s judgment had taken away the immunity from persecution from the army personnel, thus making any amendment redundant. Ms. Mamata Bannerjee was asked to concentrate on Sarada and Narada scams, instead of declaring the AFSPA draconian by Mr Kalraj Mishra.. He asked everyone to concentrate on the problems within everyone’s own parties instead of being illogical about the security of the country, itself. Mr. Jaganmohan Reddy blamed the wrong deeds committed by the Army personnel under immunity from prosecution, for creating militants like Burhan Wani. According to him, the only amendment possible, is to restrict the discretionary powers of the Army personnel.
The Leader of the Youth wing of the Congresss, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, accused the Bharatiya Janata Party and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) governments of violating and misusing the provisions of AFSPA to impose itself upon, and oppress, the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He pointed out that the increased military presence in the region was aggravating, rather than solving the problem. The BJP led government was also accused of oppressing the Kashmiris and forcing civilians to embrace militancy and insurgency.
According to this writer, the motion, itself, is, somewhat, flawed – you cannot defend anything (even if it is wrong) and amend it at the same time. Even after passing of the motion, debate was rather unsatisfactory and superficial. There was no mention of any specific clauses of the acts to be amended and this writer ends the article with the hope that the council will have better discussions and relate to the agenda, putting forward suggestions to improve the situation, instead of engaging in frivolous arguments amongst the parties, in the future.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Winds of Change
Shubhagata Choudhury, reporting for The Statesman, from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), was engrossed in another interesting session, as the members changed their clichéd debates to talk about changes and CHANGES.
Economic stagnancy was much debated topic in the second session of the AIPPM council.
India is a culturally vibrant and loud country and the AIPPM is the quintessential embodiment. The debate took a turn from the recurrent issues and turned insightful. The council realised that in the heat of all politics and geographical boundaries, they must debate upon humanity’s refined modicum, money.
“Economic development has been neglected”, Mr. Nitin Gadkari pointed out. Mr. Gadkari believed that the neglect of economic development was the single contributor to the rise of militants, as the local discontented youth chose guns to justify their means of income. Mr. Gadkari was also quick to suggest a solution and praised the talents of the Kashmiris. He stated that small cottage industries made handicrafts, which were well received. He added that this can lead to further economic development and, thus, bring stability and peace to the valley.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi, representing the Indian National Congress, stated that there are communication lags and deficiencies in Jammu and Kashmir. He went on to add that 80% of the total population consisted of the youth, and a staggering 48% of them are unemployed. He accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of deterring job creation. He went on to talk about the Udaan Scheme, aimed at job creation, which was discouraged by the BJP. He, then, asserted that the demonetisation policy had stagnated the valley’s development and added to the plethora of existing problems in the valley.
Mrs. Mehbooba Mufti Sayeed, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, stated that after the Burhan Wani incident, the freedom to walk around was prohibited due to a myriad of reasons. She added that this lead to a temporary cessation of economic growth. She deemed BJP’s demonetisation move ‘ill-timed’. Mr. Uddhav Thackeray asserted that economic exploitation was a constraint and this held back economic growth. He also added that youth should focus on their education and not on the politics. He felt that they did not understand the concept of liberalisation. He asked the council to come to a solution, while adding that separatist groups should be banned.
In a rather interesting turn of events, Mr. Ghulam Navi Azad slammed the council for misdirected views. Since the youth cannot go out, there was no chance of an economic growth. He stated that since the demonetisation move is still in its nascent stage, it is too early to call it a success.
While it was evident that the points were rather spread out, it should be taken into account that the council thought of a wide range of permutations for an economically stable Kashmir. Although the council adjourned, it promised a wider range of review of the Kashmir situation for the succeeding sessions.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Economic stagnancy was much debated topic in the second session of the AIPPM council.
India is a culturally vibrant and loud country and the AIPPM is the quintessential embodiment. The debate took a turn from the recurrent issues and turned insightful. The council realised that in the heat of all politics and geographical boundaries, they must debate upon humanity’s refined modicum, money.
“Economic development has been neglected”, Mr. Nitin Gadkari pointed out. Mr. Gadkari believed that the neglect of economic development was the single contributor to the rise of militants, as the local discontented youth chose guns to justify their means of income. Mr. Gadkari was also quick to suggest a solution and praised the talents of the Kashmiris. He stated that small cottage industries made handicrafts, which were well received. He added that this can lead to further economic development and, thus, bring stability and peace to the valley.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi, representing the Indian National Congress, stated that there are communication lags and deficiencies in Jammu and Kashmir. He went on to add that 80% of the total population consisted of the youth, and a staggering 48% of them are unemployed. He accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of deterring job creation. He went on to talk about the Udaan Scheme, aimed at job creation, which was discouraged by the BJP. He, then, asserted that the demonetisation policy had stagnated the valley’s development and added to the plethora of existing problems in the valley.
Mrs. Mehbooba Mufti Sayeed, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, stated that after the Burhan Wani incident, the freedom to walk around was prohibited due to a myriad of reasons. She added that this lead to a temporary cessation of economic growth. She deemed BJP’s demonetisation move ‘ill-timed’. Mr. Uddhav Thackeray asserted that economic exploitation was a constraint and this held back economic growth. He also added that youth should focus on their education and not on the politics. He felt that they did not understand the concept of liberalisation. He asked the council to come to a solution, while adding that separatist groups should be banned.
In a rather interesting turn of events, Mr. Ghulam Navi Azad slammed the council for misdirected views. Since the youth cannot go out, there was no chance of an economic growth. He stated that since the demonetisation move is still in its nascent stage, it is too early to call it a success.
While it was evident that the points were rather spread out, it should be taken into account that the council thought of a wide range of permutations for an economically stable Kashmir. Although the council adjourned, it promised a wider range of review of the Kashmir situation for the succeeding sessions.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
The Valley of Death
Shubhagata Choudhury, reporting for The Statesman from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), witnesses another round of intense debate, as the Valley’s future is discussed.
Does the human purview permit itself to see their own countrymen as traitors? Does the Republic of India believe in its preamble, without making any exceptions? The third session of the AIPPM was a crafted story of diplomatic engagements and its limits with the dwellers of ‘Heaven on Earth.’
Mr. Uddhav Thackeray started with a definitive and long sounded negation. He emphasised that the country should take up arms and not engage in any kind of appeasement. Mr. Thackeray was of a strong opinion that the separatists are just a different brand of terrorists, with vested interests. Mr. Venkaiah Naidu took an abated view and also agreed that there was no point in engaging with the separatists. He said that Kashmiri separatists shout slogans such as “Azadi ka matlab kya: La ilaha ilah Allah”, and there was no point talking to them. He pointed out that even though the separatists of the valley harboured a cry to ignore the elections, the people of the valley still turned up in huge numbers. This showed their faith in the Republic of India, according to him. Mr. Naidu was a firm believer that unless the separatists swear allegiance to the constitution, there would be no peace talks.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of hot-headedness and of impetuous behaviour. He, further, accused the BJP of not reaching out to the people and, thus, leading to an increase of patriotic resentments. He added that this was a direct proof of the Prime Minister’s inefficiency as a diplomatic leader. He went on to say that even after engaging in diplomatic relations with Pakistan, there were still incidents like Pathankot and ‘Surgical Strike’.
Mr. Babul Supriyo stated that the separatists’ interests should be scrutinised. He added that a certain degree of hot-headedness was certainly required in dealing with such a delicate issue. He added that Pakistan should take India seriously and accused certain ‘pseudo- intellectuals’ of inciting hatred amongst the separatists. Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad quoted Mr. Bajpayee and said that Mr. Bajpayee’s ‘Insaaniyat, Kashmiriyat, Jamhooriyat’ meant democracy for the Kashmiris. He added that anti-national sentiments were at an all-time high; and if the present government values Kashmir as an integral part of India, it should hold peace talks with the separatists. He went on to say that since Kashmiris are issued a passport under the Republic of India, they should be treated as Indians and, thus, peace talks were mandatory.
Although the council had contrasting opinions about handling the issue, it was evident that the BJP did not buy into the idea of talking with the separatists. The fact that closed debates were in a loop, did not seem to bother the council. As the council engaged in their usual deadlock of opinions, the Press remains the sole witness of a passively-aggressive debate.
Does the human purview permit itself to see their own countrymen as traitors? Does the Republic of India believe in its preamble, without making any exceptions? The third session of the AIPPM was a crafted story of diplomatic engagements and its limits with the dwellers of ‘Heaven on Earth.’
Mr. Uddhav Thackeray started with a definitive and long sounded negation. He emphasised that the country should take up arms and not engage in any kind of appeasement. Mr. Thackeray was of a strong opinion that the separatists are just a different brand of terrorists, with vested interests. Mr. Venkaiah Naidu took an abated view and also agreed that there was no point in engaging with the separatists. He said that Kashmiri separatists shout slogans such as “Azadi ka matlab kya: La ilaha ilah Allah”, and there was no point talking to them. He pointed out that even though the separatists of the valley harboured a cry to ignore the elections, the people of the valley still turned up in huge numbers. This showed their faith in the Republic of India, according to him. Mr. Naidu was a firm believer that unless the separatists swear allegiance to the constitution, there would be no peace talks.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of hot-headedness and of impetuous behaviour. He, further, accused the BJP of not reaching out to the people and, thus, leading to an increase of patriotic resentments. He added that this was a direct proof of the Prime Minister’s inefficiency as a diplomatic leader. He went on to say that even after engaging in diplomatic relations with Pakistan, there were still incidents like Pathankot and ‘Surgical Strike’.
Mr. Babul Supriyo stated that the separatists’ interests should be scrutinised. He added that a certain degree of hot-headedness was certainly required in dealing with such a delicate issue. He added that Pakistan should take India seriously and accused certain ‘pseudo- intellectuals’ of inciting hatred amongst the separatists. Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad quoted Mr. Bajpayee and said that Mr. Bajpayee’s ‘Insaaniyat, Kashmiriyat, Jamhooriyat’ meant democracy for the Kashmiris. He added that anti-national sentiments were at an all-time high; and if the present government values Kashmir as an integral part of India, it should hold peace talks with the separatists. He went on to say that since Kashmiris are issued a passport under the Republic of India, they should be treated as Indians and, thus, peace talks were mandatory.
Although the council had contrasting opinions about handling the issue, it was evident that the BJP did not buy into the idea of talking with the separatists. The fact that closed debates were in a loop, did not seem to bother the council. As the council engaged in their usual deadlock of opinions, the Press remains the sole witness of a passively-aggressive debate.
Inquilab v2.0
Shubhagata Choudhury, reporting for The Statesman, from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), reasons the creation of Burhan Wani in an insightful commentary and why the Kashmir situation is more than a case study of human rights violation.
“Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face,
And stars fill my dream”
-Led Zeppelin, Kashmir
A small child in a garden is the poetic and romantic version of innocence. The child is oblivious to all forms of inflictions and walks freely. He/she holds his head up high in pride every morning, breathes in fresh air and goes to bed at night with a weary body and an excited soul. Kashmir is not that child. Kashmir is not that metaphorical paradise (anymore).
Burhan Wani. The name is synonymous with pride and valour in Kashmir. It stands for anti-establishment and anarchy for the rest of the country. Burhan Wani is the child of a failed establishment in a fallen regime. He was not the first and he will not be the last if the Kashmir unrest continues. Kashmiris will keep on apotheosizing more Burhan Wanis, if the Republic of India fails in its duties. Burhan Wani was not created in a day or in seven days. Burhan Wani is the culmination of a series of tactical, strategic, and diplomatic errors. One cannot expect to solve an anti-establishment war cry from an armchair, with a deerstalking hat and a pipe. Everybody relishes a villain (but loves a hero). A villain has a purpose and a hero has a villain. No one asked what triggered the rise of this villain, because like every other story, a villain appears as a final product without any origin.
He was 16 years old when the Indian Army hurt more than his friend and him. His adolescent pride was tarnished in a war zone when the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police stopped him. After they were asked to bring cigarettes for the SOGs in Tral, they were beaten up mercilessly. Wani managed to escape and promised himself that he will avenge this[1]. Can a sole incident trigger such an extreme act? This was a deeply indented cut in the then innocent mind. In a situation like Kashmir, Wani thought that ‘Azadi’ was an act of achieving liberalisation more than freedom, itself. Thus, he embarked on a journey to achieve his corrupted view of ‘Moksha’. The people of Kashmir saw this as an act of heroism. One of their own stood up for their inherent rights and this was more appealing than a session of close curtain debate in a government structure. The Hizbul Mujahideen saw a new tool in this fire.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (abbreviated as AFSPA) is a sanctioned tool that the Indian Army uses. The AFSPA receives a lot of criticism because it exploits the limits and jurisdiction of the Act and plays with its loopholes. The Army has been accused of rape, murder, and unspeakable evil, using AFSPA as a legal shield. The Army was not even tried in a civilian court for its atrocities. Recently, the Supreme Court stepped in and blew apart this immunity in a historical judgement[2]. Better late than never. However, this is still too late considering the number of lives that the Army has destroyed in the process. The AFSPA was not the only reason for the creation of such misguided individuals. While religious proclivity does hit a home run for the poor with a lack of resources, Pakistan offered them more than false promises of sovereignty. They offered them money and power (in the form of metallic wands). Although a fair share of these corrupted minds believe in independent sovereignty over Pakistan (or India), they would rather choose Pakistan over India. Is it because they lost faith in the Republic’s ability to sort out an issue for nearly 70 years? Or is it because the Republic’s defenders harass and exploit the very people they are supposed to look after? No one wants to be desecrated in their own backyard. It makes them feel exposed and humiliates their personal individuality.
So what can we expect as a solution? Articles and politicians talk about amending the AFSPA, but no one talks about the clauses which need to be amended. It is just a loop of banal arguments coupled with “Kashmir hamara hain” (Kashmir is ours) from the right wings and “Liberate Kashmir” from the left wings. There are no conclusive solutions which determine the fate of Kashmir. The act of taking baby steps for integrating Kashmir as a part of India is over. As the country frequently ‘wants to know’, what can we expect from the Modi government? Mr. Narendra Modi promised a debate on Article 370 and yet they have done nothing along those lines. Article 370 grants autonomous status to Kashmir, a state which is ironically under AFSPA[3].
While we analyse and contemplate about the situation in Kashmir, another young Burhan Wani is probably lying down with his head on his mother’s lap, seeking comfort in these stressful times. A mother probably lost her son to misguided ideals and to a republican bullet. The night is dark in Kashmir, and full of terrors. Let us mourn for a state in a deep, perpetual loss of freedom.
Let us not limit our word’s worth to the never ending daffodil fields of justice.
SOURCES:
1. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/i-feared-seeing-burhan-dead-never-thought-it-would-be-my-other-son-tral-victims-father/
2. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-blows-apart-militarys-afspa-immunity-shield/articleshow/53126290.cms?prtpage=1
3. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/article-370-issue-omar-abdullah-jammu-and-kashmir-jawaharlal-nehru/1/364053.html
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
“Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face,
And stars fill my dream”
-Led Zeppelin, Kashmir
A small child in a garden is the poetic and romantic version of innocence. The child is oblivious to all forms of inflictions and walks freely. He/she holds his head up high in pride every morning, breathes in fresh air and goes to bed at night with a weary body and an excited soul. Kashmir is not that child. Kashmir is not that metaphorical paradise (anymore).
Burhan Wani. The name is synonymous with pride and valour in Kashmir. It stands for anti-establishment and anarchy for the rest of the country. Burhan Wani is the child of a failed establishment in a fallen regime. He was not the first and he will not be the last if the Kashmir unrest continues. Kashmiris will keep on apotheosizing more Burhan Wanis, if the Republic of India fails in its duties. Burhan Wani was not created in a day or in seven days. Burhan Wani is the culmination of a series of tactical, strategic, and diplomatic errors. One cannot expect to solve an anti-establishment war cry from an armchair, with a deerstalking hat and a pipe. Everybody relishes a villain (but loves a hero). A villain has a purpose and a hero has a villain. No one asked what triggered the rise of this villain, because like every other story, a villain appears as a final product without any origin.
He was 16 years old when the Indian Army hurt more than his friend and him. His adolescent pride was tarnished in a war zone when the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police stopped him. After they were asked to bring cigarettes for the SOGs in Tral, they were beaten up mercilessly. Wani managed to escape and promised himself that he will avenge this[1]. Can a sole incident trigger such an extreme act? This was a deeply indented cut in the then innocent mind. In a situation like Kashmir, Wani thought that ‘Azadi’ was an act of achieving liberalisation more than freedom, itself. Thus, he embarked on a journey to achieve his corrupted view of ‘Moksha’. The people of Kashmir saw this as an act of heroism. One of their own stood up for their inherent rights and this was more appealing than a session of close curtain debate in a government structure. The Hizbul Mujahideen saw a new tool in this fire.
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (abbreviated as AFSPA) is a sanctioned tool that the Indian Army uses. The AFSPA receives a lot of criticism because it exploits the limits and jurisdiction of the Act and plays with its loopholes. The Army has been accused of rape, murder, and unspeakable evil, using AFSPA as a legal shield. The Army was not even tried in a civilian court for its atrocities. Recently, the Supreme Court stepped in and blew apart this immunity in a historical judgement[2]. Better late than never. However, this is still too late considering the number of lives that the Army has destroyed in the process. The AFSPA was not the only reason for the creation of such misguided individuals. While religious proclivity does hit a home run for the poor with a lack of resources, Pakistan offered them more than false promises of sovereignty. They offered them money and power (in the form of metallic wands). Although a fair share of these corrupted minds believe in independent sovereignty over Pakistan (or India), they would rather choose Pakistan over India. Is it because they lost faith in the Republic’s ability to sort out an issue for nearly 70 years? Or is it because the Republic’s defenders harass and exploit the very people they are supposed to look after? No one wants to be desecrated in their own backyard. It makes them feel exposed and humiliates their personal individuality.
So what can we expect as a solution? Articles and politicians talk about amending the AFSPA, but no one talks about the clauses which need to be amended. It is just a loop of banal arguments coupled with “Kashmir hamara hain” (Kashmir is ours) from the right wings and “Liberate Kashmir” from the left wings. There are no conclusive solutions which determine the fate of Kashmir. The act of taking baby steps for integrating Kashmir as a part of India is over. As the country frequently ‘wants to know’, what can we expect from the Modi government? Mr. Narendra Modi promised a debate on Article 370 and yet they have done nothing along those lines. Article 370 grants autonomous status to Kashmir, a state which is ironically under AFSPA[3].
While we analyse and contemplate about the situation in Kashmir, another young Burhan Wani is probably lying down with his head on his mother’s lap, seeking comfort in these stressful times. A mother probably lost her son to misguided ideals and to a republican bullet. The night is dark in Kashmir, and full of terrors. Let us mourn for a state in a deep, perpetual loss of freedom.
Let us not limit our word’s worth to the never ending daffodil fields of justice.
SOURCES:
1. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/i-feared-seeing-burhan-dead-never-thought-it-would-be-my-other-son-tral-victims-father/
2. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-blows-apart-militarys-afspa-immunity-shield/articleshow/53126290.cms?prtpage=1
3. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/article-370-issue-omar-abdullah-jammu-and-kashmir-jawaharlal-nehru/1/364053.html
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
A Lone Voice
The reporter of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), Debjyoti Chakraborty, takes a vital opportunity, during an un-moderated caucus, to poll a frequently asked question.
"Should the death penalty be abolished in India?"
In India, the death penalty is prescribed for murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government, and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is also awarded under some anti-terror laws for those convicted of terrorist activities. The culture of vengeance and violence is prevailing in Indian society and the Indian State continues to be very violent and aggressive.
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned, a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment".
However, various political figures present in the All India Political Parties Meet have painted the opposite picture. Out of 26 delegates in council, only three delegates, namely Yesso Naik, M. Karunanidhi, and Shashi Tharoor have raised their voice against it, while the rest choose to support death penalty.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
"Should the death penalty be abolished in India?"
In India, the death penalty is prescribed for murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government, and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is also awarded under some anti-terror laws for those convicted of terrorist activities. The culture of vengeance and violence is prevailing in Indian society and the Indian State continues to be very violent and aggressive.
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned, a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment".
However, various political figures present in the All India Political Parties Meet have painted the opposite picture. Out of 26 delegates in council, only three delegates, namely Yesso Naik, M. Karunanidhi, and Shashi Tharoor have raised their voice against it, while the rest choose to support death penalty.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Dashing (Hopes) Through The Snow
Shubhagata Choudhury, reporting for The Statesman, from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), tries to realise the importance of Kashmir, the slice of Heaven everybody wants, but does not deserve right now.
‘What about sunrise, what about rain
What about all the things that you said we were to gain?
What about killing fields, is there a time?
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice, all the blood we've shed before
Did you ever stop to notice,
The crying Earth the weeping shores?’
-Earth Song, Michael Jackson.
Tolstoy asked, “How much land does a man need?” Apparently, Kashmir is the answer. Not a single biblical anecdotes talk about such an intense struggle for Heaven (on Earth). While India and Pakistan struggle and vie to assert their dominance, the writer tries to examine why Kashmir is so important.
Seventy years is a long time to decide if a certain part of the house belongs to you or the younger sibling. Sir Radcliffe, the architect of the Radcliffe line, served as a lawyer to the father’s will (or mother, since the Queen might wrongfully accuse the writer of misogyny), and drew the ‘Lakshman Rekha’. Kashmir fell in between and lived in absolute horror in the forthcoming years. It has been landlocked in between and it is close to the Pakistan capital. It also acts as a geographical shield for India and an easy entry passage for both China and Pakistan. Thus, it is important for both the countries and no one wants to leave the pie.
So, why does Kashmir matter so much? There are a few number of reasons, beyond the obvious historical reason (Maharaja Hari Singh pledged allegiance to the Republic of India)[1]. The passage of trade and commerce due to the close proximity of four nations (China, India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) is one of the major reasons. However, the control of the Indus River is probably what interests both the States and they defend their territorial jurisdiction with an evocation of religious sentiments. Although the Maharaja did sign a referendum, Pakistan explains that since the region is a predominantly Muslim area, it belongs to them. In all this exchange of altercation and subtle threats, everybody forgot about the pawns on the chessboard.
India has its fair share of laughable history. The first Prime Minister of India (a Kashmiri pandit) was accused of making matters worse by taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations (UN) after the first Indo-Pak War[2]. The UN intervention complicated things and alliances were formed based on vested interests. Since then, Kashmir became a Tug-O-War. A separate Kashmiri constitution, in 1957, complicates it further[3]. The situation improved slightly with the signing of the Tashkent Declaration in 1965, as both the countries had to withdraw their armed forces to pre-1965[4].
Both the countries cite reasons regarding what they lose, if Kashmir is handed over to their nemesis. However, it looks like no one cares about what Kashmir lost in the last seventy years. Bullets have destroyed houses and homes and the concept of human rights has long left the valley. Politics has destroyed the freedom of the youth. They are either killed or imbibed with dangerous politics. Even if they go out of Kashmir, they are still branded as terrorists and terrorist appeasers. No one listens to their plight and most politician use their situation as fodder for the elections. Promises of handling the Kashmir issue have swayed a number of elections. What did they get in these ‘Unbreakable Vows’? False hope, delusion and an Orwellian society.
Kashmir is too ravaged to develop a Stockholm syndrome for either Pakistan or India. They do not trust these countries and no one can blame them. Kashmir has been treated as Grunwald battlefield and, thus, this feeling of mistrust is not misplaced. Economic development has not stagnated. It simply does not exist. Tourism is one of the most important sources of income for the state and that is under serious threat. What can a state do if the problems stack up like a bunch of cards?
It is beyond a doubt that Kashmir is of primary importance to both the nations. Not only will it increase their boundary, but also their sense of (hollow) pride and (fake) nationalism. It will strengthen the foundation of the political parties and help with their vote bank policy. So, do we forsake the humanitarian aspect of such an intense political war zone? None of the States will back down, and with every scrutinising eye of the media, they definitely cannot. So, we return to square one and, either way, Kashmir suffers.
While we engage in such heated discussions, let us not forget that the Kashmir problem should not be looked upon as a case of utilitarianism. It is about respecting liberty, human rights, and freedom of choice. Let their voices be heard in the valley and not gunshots. Let a mother’s day start with the innocent wail of her child and not the wail of an ambulance. Kashmir has suffered enough. The answer to who the part of the house belongs to should be answered by the one who lives in the room.
SOURCES:
1. http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html
2.Noorani, A. G. (2014),The Kashmir Dispute, 1947-2012, Oxford University Press
3.http://jklegislativeassembly.nic.in/Costitution_of_J&K.pdf
4. http://peacemaker.un.org/india-pakistan-tashkent-declaration66
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
‘What about sunrise, what about rain
What about all the things that you said we were to gain?
What about killing fields, is there a time?
What about all the things
That you said was yours and mine...
Did you ever stop to notice, all the blood we've shed before
Did you ever stop to notice,
The crying Earth the weeping shores?’
-Earth Song, Michael Jackson.
Tolstoy asked, “How much land does a man need?” Apparently, Kashmir is the answer. Not a single biblical anecdotes talk about such an intense struggle for Heaven (on Earth). While India and Pakistan struggle and vie to assert their dominance, the writer tries to examine why Kashmir is so important.
Seventy years is a long time to decide if a certain part of the house belongs to you or the younger sibling. Sir Radcliffe, the architect of the Radcliffe line, served as a lawyer to the father’s will (or mother, since the Queen might wrongfully accuse the writer of misogyny), and drew the ‘Lakshman Rekha’. Kashmir fell in between and lived in absolute horror in the forthcoming years. It has been landlocked in between and it is close to the Pakistan capital. It also acts as a geographical shield for India and an easy entry passage for both China and Pakistan. Thus, it is important for both the countries and no one wants to leave the pie.
So, why does Kashmir matter so much? There are a few number of reasons, beyond the obvious historical reason (Maharaja Hari Singh pledged allegiance to the Republic of India)[1]. The passage of trade and commerce due to the close proximity of four nations (China, India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) is one of the major reasons. However, the control of the Indus River is probably what interests both the States and they defend their territorial jurisdiction with an evocation of religious sentiments. Although the Maharaja did sign a referendum, Pakistan explains that since the region is a predominantly Muslim area, it belongs to them. In all this exchange of altercation and subtle threats, everybody forgot about the pawns on the chessboard.
India has its fair share of laughable history. The first Prime Minister of India (a Kashmiri pandit) was accused of making matters worse by taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations (UN) after the first Indo-Pak War[2]. The UN intervention complicated things and alliances were formed based on vested interests. Since then, Kashmir became a Tug-O-War. A separate Kashmiri constitution, in 1957, complicates it further[3]. The situation improved slightly with the signing of the Tashkent Declaration in 1965, as both the countries had to withdraw their armed forces to pre-1965[4].
Both the countries cite reasons regarding what they lose, if Kashmir is handed over to their nemesis. However, it looks like no one cares about what Kashmir lost in the last seventy years. Bullets have destroyed houses and homes and the concept of human rights has long left the valley. Politics has destroyed the freedom of the youth. They are either killed or imbibed with dangerous politics. Even if they go out of Kashmir, they are still branded as terrorists and terrorist appeasers. No one listens to their plight and most politician use their situation as fodder for the elections. Promises of handling the Kashmir issue have swayed a number of elections. What did they get in these ‘Unbreakable Vows’? False hope, delusion and an Orwellian society.
Kashmir is too ravaged to develop a Stockholm syndrome for either Pakistan or India. They do not trust these countries and no one can blame them. Kashmir has been treated as Grunwald battlefield and, thus, this feeling of mistrust is not misplaced. Economic development has not stagnated. It simply does not exist. Tourism is one of the most important sources of income for the state and that is under serious threat. What can a state do if the problems stack up like a bunch of cards?
It is beyond a doubt that Kashmir is of primary importance to both the nations. Not only will it increase their boundary, but also their sense of (hollow) pride and (fake) nationalism. It will strengthen the foundation of the political parties and help with their vote bank policy. So, do we forsake the humanitarian aspect of such an intense political war zone? None of the States will back down, and with every scrutinising eye of the media, they definitely cannot. So, we return to square one and, either way, Kashmir suffers.
While we engage in such heated discussions, let us not forget that the Kashmir problem should not be looked upon as a case of utilitarianism. It is about respecting liberty, human rights, and freedom of choice. Let their voices be heard in the valley and not gunshots. Let a mother’s day start with the innocent wail of her child and not the wail of an ambulance. Kashmir has suffered enough. The answer to who the part of the house belongs to should be answered by the one who lives in the room.
SOURCES:
1. http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/instrument_of_accession.html
2.Noorani, A. G. (2014),The Kashmir Dispute, 1947-2012, Oxford University Press
3.http://jklegislativeassembly.nic.in/Costitution_of_J&K.pdf
4. http://peacemaker.un.org/india-pakistan-tashkent-declaration66
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Talks Vs. Self Respect
The reporter, Sunita Sarkar, of The Reuters, reporting from the All Indian Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) brings up the topic of discussion of the day.
December 17, 2016.
The parliamentarians wanted to discuss engagement of talks with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Uddhav Thackerey wanted the government to take up arms against the separatists and not try to appease them. He believed that sending representatives for talks would be humiliating for the representatives. The very fact that the separatists never thought of Kashmiriyat and they have been lured by the Pakistanis is why Mr. Thackerey did not believe in engaging in peace talks with the separatists. Mr. Kalraj Mishra said that he believed that all these years the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had been open to talks with the separatists, but at this point of time, it would not be appropriate to engage in talks with the separatists.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu believed that there was no need to talk to the people who want to separate India. He brought up the topic of Yaseen Mallick who had asked the Kashmiris to boycott elections. The fact that the people of Kashmir proved him wrong is a testament to the fact that the Kashmiris wanted to be a part of India. He opined that the Bharatiya Janata Party was tough on terrorism and compassionate towards Kashmiris. The Government was ready to talk to the members of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference only if they consider the Indian Constitution above all. However, he was sorry to see that parliamentarians such as Asad Uddin Owasi, who was not present, allowed their self respect to be battered when they went for talks with the separatists. They would be ready to talk only if the separatists were ready to swear allegiance to the Indian Constitution and the Republic of India.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi spoke about the hot headedness and impetuousness of the parliamentarians while dealing with the separatists. He declared that people could not just go out of here and say that unless the others respect the Constitution, they will not engage in negotiations. Unless the Government thinks about the people who sympathise with the separatists, the Kashmiris will think that the Government does not care and that the Indian State is wrong.
This writer believes that even though the debate was more substantive than the previous day, it was somewhat lacking and it could have been more solutions oriented.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
December 17, 2016.
The parliamentarians wanted to discuss engagement of talks with the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Uddhav Thackerey wanted the government to take up arms against the separatists and not try to appease them. He believed that sending representatives for talks would be humiliating for the representatives. The very fact that the separatists never thought of Kashmiriyat and they have been lured by the Pakistanis is why Mr. Thackerey did not believe in engaging in peace talks with the separatists. Mr. Kalraj Mishra said that he believed that all these years the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had been open to talks with the separatists, but at this point of time, it would not be appropriate to engage in talks with the separatists.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu believed that there was no need to talk to the people who want to separate India. He brought up the topic of Yaseen Mallick who had asked the Kashmiris to boycott elections. The fact that the people of Kashmir proved him wrong is a testament to the fact that the Kashmiris wanted to be a part of India. He opined that the Bharatiya Janata Party was tough on terrorism and compassionate towards Kashmiris. The Government was ready to talk to the members of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference only if they consider the Indian Constitution above all. However, he was sorry to see that parliamentarians such as Asad Uddin Owasi, who was not present, allowed their self respect to be battered when they went for talks with the separatists. They would be ready to talk only if the separatists were ready to swear allegiance to the Indian Constitution and the Republic of India.
Mr. Rahul Gandhi spoke about the hot headedness and impetuousness of the parliamentarians while dealing with the separatists. He declared that people could not just go out of here and say that unless the others respect the Constitution, they will not engage in negotiations. Unless the Government thinks about the people who sympathise with the separatists, the Kashmiris will think that the Government does not care and that the Indian State is wrong.
This writer believes that even though the debate was more substantive than the previous day, it was somewhat lacking and it could have been more solutions oriented.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Reports On Reports!
The reporter from the Reuters, Sunita Sarkar, reporting from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), reporting about a report received!
December 17, 2016
Inside the All India Political Parties Meet, the council received a report that Mr. Aditya Thackerey had visited Kashmir, where he had made some comments to which the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) had taken offence and, in turn, instigated the masses to pelt stones at the Central Reserve Police Forces (CRPF) and the Army personnel present. The CRPF and the Army personnel, employed by the Government, hit back with stone pellets and chili based bombs that had rendered 24 injured and one dead. There had been a curfew imposed by Mr. Manoj Parrikar. Kashmir had imposed mourning period for the death of a Hizbul Mujahidin. Mr. Sashi Tharoor, who wanted to conduct peace talks with the APHC, was denied the permission to conduct negotiations of any sort. Mr. Farooq Abdullah was heard saying that the Indian Government had no stake in the Kashmir Conflict. Pakistan has also taken note of the situation.
Mr. Jayant Sinha expressed his grief over the situation in Kashmir on behalf of his party. He said, that while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) were ready to talk to the APHC, the situation was such, that APHC had been encouraging the people to take up violent methods. It is his opinion that they need to stop the talks and start taking action.
Mr Gulam Nabi Azad thought it very unfortunate, how the Government of India had taken the people of Kashmir for granted. He wanted to remind the people that Kashmir was related to the Republic of India only on the basis of Article 370. He asked the Government of India to call the people living in Kashmir Kashmiris, and not “separatists”. He went on to say that the Government uses the Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) to curb the sovereignty of the people of Kashmir. Mr. Rahul Gandhi suggested that before they discuss anything more, the people inside the council should make provisions that no other human rights violation takes place and the stone pellets or the chilli based guns should be replaced by tear gas or by electroshock guns.
Ms. Mehbooba Mufti wondered why all the parties wanted to have a say in whatever was happening in Kashmir and what should be done in Kashmir. She also declared, angrily, that Aditya Thackerey had come to Kashmir, created trouble by making insensitive comments and had gone back to where he came from with her government having to face the burn of it. She and her party strongly condemned the killing of the innocent Kashimiris and wanted to tell everyone that the BJP-PDP alliance was working very hard to bring back peace in the valley. Mr. Nitin Gadkari, very beautifully, put in that “haste makes waste” and that no solutions or statements should be hastily given. This writer really wonders that even after nearly 60 years of trouble and discontent, how much more time does the Indian Government need to come up with solutions for the problem?
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
December 17, 2016
Inside the All India Political Parties Meet, the council received a report that Mr. Aditya Thackerey had visited Kashmir, where he had made some comments to which the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) had taken offence and, in turn, instigated the masses to pelt stones at the Central Reserve Police Forces (CRPF) and the Army personnel present. The CRPF and the Army personnel, employed by the Government, hit back with stone pellets and chili based bombs that had rendered 24 injured and one dead. There had been a curfew imposed by Mr. Manoj Parrikar. Kashmir had imposed mourning period for the death of a Hizbul Mujahidin. Mr. Sashi Tharoor, who wanted to conduct peace talks with the APHC, was denied the permission to conduct negotiations of any sort. Mr. Farooq Abdullah was heard saying that the Indian Government had no stake in the Kashmir Conflict. Pakistan has also taken note of the situation.
Mr. Jayant Sinha expressed his grief over the situation in Kashmir on behalf of his party. He said, that while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) were ready to talk to the APHC, the situation was such, that APHC had been encouraging the people to take up violent methods. It is his opinion that they need to stop the talks and start taking action.
Mr Gulam Nabi Azad thought it very unfortunate, how the Government of India had taken the people of Kashmir for granted. He wanted to remind the people that Kashmir was related to the Republic of India only on the basis of Article 370. He asked the Government of India to call the people living in Kashmir Kashmiris, and not “separatists”. He went on to say that the Government uses the Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) to curb the sovereignty of the people of Kashmir. Mr. Rahul Gandhi suggested that before they discuss anything more, the people inside the council should make provisions that no other human rights violation takes place and the stone pellets or the chilli based guns should be replaced by tear gas or by electroshock guns.
Ms. Mehbooba Mufti wondered why all the parties wanted to have a say in whatever was happening in Kashmir and what should be done in Kashmir. She also declared, angrily, that Aditya Thackerey had come to Kashmir, created trouble by making insensitive comments and had gone back to where he came from with her government having to face the burn of it. She and her party strongly condemned the killing of the innocent Kashimiris and wanted to tell everyone that the BJP-PDP alliance was working very hard to bring back peace in the valley. Mr. Nitin Gadkari, very beautifully, put in that “haste makes waste” and that no solutions or statements should be hastily given. This writer really wonders that even after nearly 60 years of trouble and discontent, how much more time does the Indian Government need to come up with solutions for the problem?
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Death To The Death Penalty
Sunita Sarkar, reporting from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), examines the necessity of the death penalty in the modern world.
(Image: “What does the law say? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing”!).
Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were the first people to be executed in Independent India, for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, on November 15, 1949, thus beginning the use of capital punishment in the Republic of India. India is one of the 58 countries to retain the legality of death penalty. Death penalty is one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was formulated during the colonial period, in the year 1860. In the present times of the 21st Century, death penalty is executed in India by the “hanging by the neck till death” in all civilian cases. However, according to Section 163 of The Air Force Act, 1950, for the crimes committed under Section 34(a) to (o):
"In awarding a sentence of death, a court-martial shall, in its discretion, direct that the offender shall suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he be dead or shall suffer death by being shot to death".
Rape is a heinous crime and a barbarian act of the highest order. In India, it is on the daily news, be it Mumbai or the capital, New Delhi. In most cases, if the accused is rich or has political connections, the accused is let off too easily. With the increasing frequency in crimes against women, social activists, jurists, and judges are concerned about the failures of law to provide safety to the victims of rape. Death penalty for the rapists is a very popular theme discussed in the Indian Parliament after every high media covered rape in India. As pitiful as it sounds, most Indian parliamentarians use this “opportunity” to lure the vote banks towards themselves. The existing penal provision under Article 376 of the IPC provides that a person accused of rape shall be put under imprisonment for a period of seven years, and sub section (ii) of the same provides that the penalty for custodial rape or rape of a pregnant woman is 10 years. The parliamentarians, instead of making a fuss about death of the accused, must work on the provisions to increase the magnitude of jail term for the ones guilty of such a brutal act.
The former Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, had once said that there is no place for death penalty in the 21st Century. He had said that all the countries must join hands together to stop this cruel and inhumane punishment. The violation of the international human rights due to death penalties is very concerning. There have been five executions since 1995, and a total of 26 executions in India since 1991. While official government statistics claim that there have been only 52 executions since independence, People’s Union for Civil Liberties indicate that the actual number of executions is, in fact, higher.
India is in a dire need to review the laws pertaining to the execution of capital punishment. On August 31, 2015, there had been a report submitted by the Law Commission of India which recommended for the abolition of capital punishment for all crimes except for crimes of waging a war against the country or terror crimes. This reporter believes that abolition of capital punishment is too huge a step to take. The country must first begin with the ratification of the United Nation’s Moratorium on Death Penalty that asks for the suspension (and not abolition) of capital punishment. In India, people also ask for capital punishment against persons accused of rape. This writer does not intend to be misogynist or sexist in any manner, but, the writer feels it to be her duty to remind the people that a death penalty against a person accused or guilty is unnecessary when there can be other solutions, without the violations of human rights. This sort of law may also have serious consequences, where a party may take advantage of the other. For example: a person may falsely accuse the other of rape. By the time it is proved to be a false accusation, the life of the accused will be destroyed, while the person accusing will get away merely with a slap on the wrist.
The writer would like to implore Indians and the citizens of the nations that have death penalty, both the common man and the legislators, to rationally think the issue over. History has proved to us, time and again, that capital punishment has never been a deterrent of crime. As humans with humanity living in a civilized society, we must avoid killing other people as much as we can, and look for solutions and punishments that would be turn out to be the deterrents of crime.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
(Image: “What does the law say? You will not kill. How does it say it? By killing”!).
Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were the first people to be executed in Independent India, for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, on November 15, 1949, thus beginning the use of capital punishment in the Republic of India. India is one of the 58 countries to retain the legality of death penalty. Death penalty is one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was formulated during the colonial period, in the year 1860. In the present times of the 21st Century, death penalty is executed in India by the “hanging by the neck till death” in all civilian cases. However, according to Section 163 of The Air Force Act, 1950, for the crimes committed under Section 34(a) to (o):
"In awarding a sentence of death, a court-martial shall, in its discretion, direct that the offender shall suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he be dead or shall suffer death by being shot to death".
Rape is a heinous crime and a barbarian act of the highest order. In India, it is on the daily news, be it Mumbai or the capital, New Delhi. In most cases, if the accused is rich or has political connections, the accused is let off too easily. With the increasing frequency in crimes against women, social activists, jurists, and judges are concerned about the failures of law to provide safety to the victims of rape. Death penalty for the rapists is a very popular theme discussed in the Indian Parliament after every high media covered rape in India. As pitiful as it sounds, most Indian parliamentarians use this “opportunity” to lure the vote banks towards themselves. The existing penal provision under Article 376 of the IPC provides that a person accused of rape shall be put under imprisonment for a period of seven years, and sub section (ii) of the same provides that the penalty for custodial rape or rape of a pregnant woman is 10 years. The parliamentarians, instead of making a fuss about death of the accused, must work on the provisions to increase the magnitude of jail term for the ones guilty of such a brutal act.
The former Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, had once said that there is no place for death penalty in the 21st Century. He had said that all the countries must join hands together to stop this cruel and inhumane punishment. The violation of the international human rights due to death penalties is very concerning. There have been five executions since 1995, and a total of 26 executions in India since 1991. While official government statistics claim that there have been only 52 executions since independence, People’s Union for Civil Liberties indicate that the actual number of executions is, in fact, higher.
India is in a dire need to review the laws pertaining to the execution of capital punishment. On August 31, 2015, there had been a report submitted by the Law Commission of India which recommended for the abolition of capital punishment for all crimes except for crimes of waging a war against the country or terror crimes. This reporter believes that abolition of capital punishment is too huge a step to take. The country must first begin with the ratification of the United Nation’s Moratorium on Death Penalty that asks for the suspension (and not abolition) of capital punishment. In India, people also ask for capital punishment against persons accused of rape. This writer does not intend to be misogynist or sexist in any manner, but, the writer feels it to be her duty to remind the people that a death penalty against a person accused or guilty is unnecessary when there can be other solutions, without the violations of human rights. This sort of law may also have serious consequences, where a party may take advantage of the other. For example: a person may falsely accuse the other of rape. By the time it is proved to be a false accusation, the life of the accused will be destroyed, while the person accusing will get away merely with a slap on the wrist.
The writer would like to implore Indians and the citizens of the nations that have death penalty, both the common man and the legislators, to rationally think the issue over. History has proved to us, time and again, that capital punishment has never been a deterrent of crime. As humans with humanity living in a civilized society, we must avoid killing other people as much as we can, and look for solutions and punishments that would be turn out to be the deterrents of crime.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Is Article 360 Discriminatory Or Strengthening Separatism?
Sunita Sarkar, reporting for the Reuters, from the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM), gives her opinion about Article 370 of Part XXI of the Constitution of India.
Article 370, even though a section of Part XXI of the Constitution of the Republic of India (Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions), seems to be here to stay, since the State Constituent Assembly dissolved itself before putting up suggestions to abrogate it. The religious oppression of Kashmiri Hindus (or the Kashmiri Pandits) and forced conversions of religion had already decreased the number of Hindus in staggering numbers. While, after 1947, the rest of the country enjoyed the fruits of secularism and religious equality, Kashmir was slowly turning into a mini-Afghanistan, with Islamic fundamentalism on rise. Every possible means was employed by the National Conference to keep Hindus out from society. Sadly, Article 370 made one of the most perfect tools. Hindus were removed from the economic organisations of the State, because the constitutional protection of India for minorities was not applicable due to Article 370.
The original accession of Jammu and Kashmir was on three matters: defense, foreign affairs, and communication. All the princely states were invited to send representatives for the formation of India’s Constitution for the whole of India. The princely states were also encouraged to set up their constituent assemblies.
If we talk about whether Article 370 has strengthened separatist tendencies, this writer would say no. Article 370 was about empowering the vulnerable people of Jammu and Kashmir, to give them a sense of belonging. Article 370 is synonymous with decentralisation and devolution. They make sure that there is enough representation and participation from Jammu and Kashmir in the making of the policies of the nation.
Under Article 370, through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order 1954, there was a provision that empowers the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define the “permanent residents” of the state. The Presidential order superseded an earlier order issued in 1950, which had provided a framework division of the powers between Jammu and Kashmir and the Centre under Article 370. The Jammu and Kashmir Study Centre says that the Article 35A is unconstitutional because it was added by the Presidential order without the approval of the Parliament. It is Article 35A and not Article 370 that barred citizens from across the country from settling in Jammu and Kashmir. According to this writer, there is no denying the impact this has had on the escalation of the conflict which would, undoubtedly, have unfolded in a very different manner, had appropriate legislation been implemented.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Article 370, even though a section of Part XXI of the Constitution of the Republic of India (Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions), seems to be here to stay, since the State Constituent Assembly dissolved itself before putting up suggestions to abrogate it. The religious oppression of Kashmiri Hindus (or the Kashmiri Pandits) and forced conversions of religion had already decreased the number of Hindus in staggering numbers. While, after 1947, the rest of the country enjoyed the fruits of secularism and religious equality, Kashmir was slowly turning into a mini-Afghanistan, with Islamic fundamentalism on rise. Every possible means was employed by the National Conference to keep Hindus out from society. Sadly, Article 370 made one of the most perfect tools. Hindus were removed from the economic organisations of the State, because the constitutional protection of India for minorities was not applicable due to Article 370.
The original accession of Jammu and Kashmir was on three matters: defense, foreign affairs, and communication. All the princely states were invited to send representatives for the formation of India’s Constitution for the whole of India. The princely states were also encouraged to set up their constituent assemblies.
If we talk about whether Article 370 has strengthened separatist tendencies, this writer would say no. Article 370 was about empowering the vulnerable people of Jammu and Kashmir, to give them a sense of belonging. Article 370 is synonymous with decentralisation and devolution. They make sure that there is enough representation and participation from Jammu and Kashmir in the making of the policies of the nation.
Under Article 370, through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order 1954, there was a provision that empowers the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to define the “permanent residents” of the state. The Presidential order superseded an earlier order issued in 1950, which had provided a framework division of the powers between Jammu and Kashmir and the Centre under Article 370. The Jammu and Kashmir Study Centre says that the Article 35A is unconstitutional because it was added by the Presidential order without the approval of the Parliament. It is Article 35A and not Article 370 that barred citizens from across the country from settling in Jammu and Kashmir. According to this writer, there is no denying the impact this has had on the escalation of the conflict which would, undoubtedly, have unfolded in a very different manner, had appropriate legislation been implemented.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Discriminatory Or Not?
There are people who consider Article 370 of Part XXI of the Constitution of India, discriminatory. Sunita Sarkar, reporter of the Reuters, asked the people discussing the present scenario and the future of Kashmir in the All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) whether they found it discriminatory, as well.
Maulana Hazrat Mohini, the great thinker and poet, had asked the Constituent Assembly on the October 17, 1949, “Why the discrimination, please?”
However, it was relieving to find that the people representing the council, today, do not think so, especially because there was a margin of 7.68 per cent. Article 370 was provided to give space to the government of the people of a very vulnerable State so that they did not feel insecure about their identity, and keep up the principles of “Humanity, Kashmiri, and Democracy” (Translated from Urdu).
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
Maulana Hazrat Mohini, the great thinker and poet, had asked the Constituent Assembly on the October 17, 1949, “Why the discrimination, please?”
However, it was relieving to find that the people representing the council, today, do not think so, especially because there was a margin of 7.68 per cent. Article 370 was provided to give space to the government of the people of a very vulnerable State so that they did not feel insecure about their identity, and keep up the principles of “Humanity, Kashmiri, and Democracy” (Translated from Urdu).
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).
A Council Commotion
(Order comes from chaos. That is perhaps the best way to describe the chaotic press conference on the final day of the AIPPM).
Debjyoti Chakraborty, Shubhagata Choudhury, and Sunita Sarkar, representing the International Press (IP), asked questions that needed answering, in an exclusive Press Conference.
The conference started with an obvious observation; the absence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emphasised that Mr. Modi is concerned about the Kashmir issue, the National Congress accused the Prime Minister of neglecting the issue. Mr. Jayanta Sinha said that that BJP considers Kashmir as an integral part of the country and measures are being taken to find the best possible solutions.
The Press emphasised on the ideological differences of the council and had questions for certain members. Provocative accusations were made by members against each other. Nitin Gadkari was asked to explain his stand, “Killings can be ethical”, and stood by this point. On the issue of Kashmir, the Press asked if the compensation fee of five lakhs was justified.
There was a rally of questions and answers in an entertaining session. While some stands were clarified, the council left the Press with a sense of confused ambiguity. The International Press can only hope that the council does not treat the Kashmir issue and the Kashmiris in the same way.
(Edited by Rohini Mitra).