The NIA Court in Hyderabad has acquitted all the five persons accused in 2007-Makka Masjid blast case. The judge said he had carefully examined documents, material evidence placed on record and declared none of the allegations could be proved against any of the accused, “hence, all five accused stand acquitted”. Without casting any aspersion on the court verdict, a very pertinent question should not elude common minds. Then who planted the bomb and who killed the people. At least eight people had died and 58 others injured when the bomb blast was triggered during Friday prayers. It can’t be that the people will die and nobody would be responsible. As rightly put by senior Muslim leader AssaduddinOwaisi that the NIA bungled the case by not pursuing it in the court with all the evidence required to get the accused convicted. The NIA’s lackadaisical approach towards the case could be understood by the fact that 10 people were made accused in the case by NIA but only five persons—head of VanvasiKalyan Ashram Swami Aseemanand, RSS vibaghpracharakDevendra Gupta, RSS karyakartaLokesh Sharma, member of Hindu VicharManch, BharathMohanlalRateshwar and RajendarChowdary, a farmer went under trial. Other accused, SandeepDange, RamchandraKalsangara and AmitChouhan are on the run while key accused Sunil Joshi was murdered. The chargesheet is yet to be filed by NIA against one accused, Tejaram, who is out on bail. The NIA had nabbed RajendharChowdary, a 35-yearold farmer, and TejramParmar, a 31-year-old mason, for allegedly planting bombs at the historic mosque on May 18, 2007. Later, the NIA did not even include Parmar’s name in the chargesheet and Rajendhar was acquitted. Even more importantly SwamyAseemanand had confessed before the Tis Hazari court in New Delhi in 2010, stating that he was involved in the execution of bombing at Mecca Masjid. In his confessional statement, Aseemanand had even named one Muslim youth Abdul Kaleem as the reason for his atonement. During his stay in Chanchalguda jail in Hyderabad in connection with the case, he got in touch with Kaleem, who had been jailed and tortured in the past in the same case. “His innocence changed my mind and prompted me to confess my crime,” he reportedly said in the statement. Soon after the blast, the Hyderabad police arrested 90 Muslim youth from different parts of the old city of Hyderabad, suspecting their involvement in the incident. The Central Bureau of Investigation did a parallel probe into the role of the suspected Muslim youth. The police filed charge-sheet against 21 Muslim youth, but failed to produce any evidence about their involvement. As a result, all of them got acquitted in January 2009. It was in fact Maharashtra state’s Anti Terror Squad (ATS) chief HemantKarkare who discovered the Hindu terrorists’ link with the Makka Masjid blast. HemantKarkare was killed during 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Former home minister Susheel Kumar Shinde is on record to have admitted rise of Hindu terrorism in India. Shinde said in no uncertain terms that RSS and BJP were promoting Hindu terrorism in India. However, with BJP’s rise to power in 2014, the policy towards Hindu terrorists drastically changed and investigating agencies were asked to go slow. RohiniSalian, Special Public Prosecutor in the case related to the Malegaon 2008 blasts said that since the BJP government came to power she had been under pressure from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to go “soft” in the case. It is anybody’s guess that protecting terrorists or sympathizing with them, more so, at government level shall have disastrous consequences for the country. It would not only encourage them to re-take to their nefarious activities but would also attract other unscrupulous elements to such activities. India is a secular democracy and tolerance is the mainstay of it. If extremist elements are let free to have their way, it would affect the whole edifice of the country. BJP-led government at the centre must understand the dangers impending in such moves. The secular sections in the country should come forward and take the lead to frustrate the designs of putting India on extremist course.
A familiar but unhappy trend is again affecting the relations between India and Pakistan, and the leadership of both the countries appears to be more interested in domestic posturing than genuinely seeking to engage with each other. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Indian prisoner in Pakistan, Kulbhushan Jadhav, is being used as a ruse to show each other down by Islamabad and New Delhi.
The ICJ, on Wednesday, granted some relief to Jadhav by suspending his death sentence and asking Pakistan to review the case and grant government of India consular access to the accused. Jadhav is facing death penalty in Pakistan. A former officer of Indian Navy, he was arrested by Pakistan in troubled Balochistan in 2016 on accusations of “spying and terrorism”. A fake passport under an assumed Muslim name was recovered from him. Jadhav was sentenced to death by Pakistan’s military court in 2017. India rejected Pakistan’s accusations against Jadhav and moved to ICJ for his release. India said that Jadhav’s sentencing followed a “farcical trial”. New Delhi acknowledged that Jadhav was an Indian national, but said he had been kidnapped by Pakistani agents from Iran, where he had gone on a business trip after retiring from the Indian Navy. Pakistan, which has constantly accused India of supporting Baloch separatists, saw Jadhav’s capture as proof of India’s involvement in the unrest. Government of India also took exception to Islamabad’s not informing the Indian High Commission within stipulated time of Jadhav’s arrest.
Pakistan took three weeks to inform India of taking Jadhav into custody. India’s high commission in Islamabad had made requests to meet Jadhav but was eventually denied by Pakistan. In May 2017, India approached the ICJ, which restrained Pakistan from executing Jadhav till the adjudication of the case. While the ICJ put brakes on the death sentence of Jadhav and asked Pakistan to give him consular access, it, however, did not entertain Indian requests as well. India had requested to annul the military court verdict, retrial in a civilian court and release and safe passage of Jadhav.
The verdict has been claimed as victory by both the countries. No less than the Prime Ministers of the two countries gave public statements on the verdict. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as “huge win” for India and said “truth and justice has prevailed”. Pakistan PM Imran Khan, for his part, tweeted: “Appreciate ICJ’s decision not to acquit, release & return Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav to India. He is guilty of crimes against the people of Pakistan. Pakistan shall proceed further as per law.”
The media and other state officials of both the countries also made much of how the two claimed victory. The United Nations’ principal judicial organ has given a ruling that favours neither side. It is the worst kind of immaturity that is being displayed on both the sides. Wisdom has it that, both, Islamabad and New Delhi should understand the gravity of the situation and instead of indulging in showdown against each other, they must engage diplomatically to resolve the problems affecting the bilateral relations. It is quite a sad commentary on the wisdom of Indian and Pakistani governments that they are following the street sentiment while formulating their relations. They must rise above the street mentality and move forward with maturity. Apart from Jadhav’s, the two neighbours have a host of other issues that have been marring their relations. They cannot live permanently with those problems. Those have to be addressed sooner or later. It would be in the best interests of the two countries to resort to a comprehensive dialogue process to resolve all the issues affecting their relations.
The Universal Declaration of Independence
About fourteen hundred years ago, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gave to humanity a document, containing universal truths including those mentioned in The Declaration of Independence.This also was a declaration of independence, based on permanent values, but it was for the entire human race. It was a declaration of universal human rights and freedoms, of universal peace and security, of universal trust, of a universal code of ethics, of universal human dignity, of universal freedom of thought and expression. In short, it was a declaration of the universal brotherhood of humankind. This document is called the Qur’an. Can it serve as the constitution for entire humanity? Can it save humanity from the destruction that seems to be its destiny? It boldly proclaims that it can.Under our Prophet’s leadership the world was transformed, as people were given freedom to develop their human potential. Even today, historians and philosophers marvel at how the most backward and barbarous people became the most advanced, most civilized in such a short time. Yet, sadly enough, today, instead of being astonished, we are perplexed at how the succeeding Muslim generations came to lose that glory. They lost independent thought by self-concentrated individuals.
Over and over again, AllamaIqbal emphasizes the importance of independent thought. For example, he says:The only course open to us is to approach modern knowledge with a respectful but independent attitude and to appreciate the teachings of Islam in the light of that knowledge, even though we may be led to differ from those who have gone before us( page 78). …The teaching of the Quran that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems (Page 134). …False reverence to past history and its artificial resurrection constitute no remedies for a people’s decay. ‘The verdict of history’, as a modern writer has happily put it, ‘is that worn-out ideas have never risen to power among a people who have worn them out.’ The only effective power, therefore, that counteracts the forces of decay in a people is the rearing of self-concentrated individuals. (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Page 120).
AllamaIqbal goes on to explain the meaning of “self-concentrated individuals.” Individuals must have freedom of thought to be able to develop the self. In a well-known couplet, he compares the “self” or “khudi” to unique pearl, urging individuals to focus on the development of “self” through freedom of thought, and not to destroy it by blind following:
“Taqlid se naakaaraanakarapnikhudiko
[Do not destroy your self by blind following. Protect it because it is a unique pearl.]
This can be elucidated by an example. While every tree is subjected to restrictions by nature, these restrictions are imposed to optimize the growth and development of a tree’s latent potential. The same principle can be applied to human society. And the application of this principle is what our Prophet (PBUH) accomplished in Medina. He implemented, in Medina, a socio-economic and political infrastructure within the boundaries of the Qur’anic principles. The Quran constitutionally protected the human rights and freedom of all people. Everyone was equal, including the Prophet (PBUH), before the law. Within these Qur’anic limits, human beings enjoyed full freedom of thought, which, in turn, gave human beings the opportunity to realize and nourish their God-given latent potential. Hence, the glory of Islam in its early years!
The system that can guarantee equal rights and freedoms for all human beings irrespective of race, color, language, ethnicity, etc. must be based on permanent values. Since human thinkers and philosophers, searching for permanent values, are limited by time and space, it becomes obvious they cannot find these except through trial and error. On the other hand, if we are able to structure our society based on the permanent values contained in the Quran, then humanity will not only be assured dignity and equality, but it will also be set free to realize its God-given potential, as it did 1400 years ago in the glorious days of early Islam. The challenge for us is to show the world that the Quran is the only book that contains the complete set of Permanent Values.
Handle with care
Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik has said the migrant Kashmiri Pandits would be settled in separate townships of their choice and setting up such habitations is a “not a matter of choice but out of necessity”. In an interview with an English national daily, he said that the government has identified the places. “We are working on those places. There are several that are there, In Pulwama and in other places. We won’t just settle them anywhere but in nice places of their choice.We will give it to them for free.” He said, “I am just trying to provide them (Pandits) an alternate accommodation so that they have a home, a school and security.
Separate township is not a matter of choice but out of necessity. We have to give them a nice place to stay, of their choice.” Bringing migrant Kashmiri Pandits back to the valley is a welcome step. It would not only help restore Kashmir’s heterogeneous culture but would also help mitigate the problems of Pandits. The migrant Pandits not only suffered at economic front through their migration but their social fabric also got weakened. Successive government’s at the centre and state, since, 1996, devised and discussed various plans to bring migrant Pandits back to the valley. Huge financial packages, in terms of relief and repairing and reconstruction of their houses, were announced to lure Pandits back to the valley. However, it did little work, though, the situation on ground and security environment has substantially improved.
A keen study reveals that growing employment opportunities and financial security in outside states comes in the way of many migrant Pandits, more particularly younger ones, in returning to the valley. Many members of the older generation, who had the yearning for returning to their homes, have either passed away or have compromised with the growing new situations. That has made the issue (return of Pandits) merely a political slogan. The demands for separate homeland by a miniscule section of Kashmiri Pandits represented by Panun Kashmir has added all the more political colour to the issue. Bringing Pandits back to the valley is a dream project of BJP-led government at the centre. But the way the issue is being played up and debated raises more questions than answering the one. For the politics being associated with the issue by vested interests, the return of Pandits is likely to assume serious proportions, which needs to be handled with extra care.
Setting up of separate cities and townships for Pandits is not something that could bring the required results. It would rather defeat the very purpose of bringing Pandits back. It would deepen the societal wedge between them and majority community than bringing them together. The government appears to be ignoring this fallout. According to official data, 24202 families migrated out of the valley after the armed conflict broke out. Presently a total number of 38,119 families comprising 1, 42,042 Kashmiri migrants stand registered with the Revenue and Relief Ministry. But the media reports suggest figures quite exaggerated. This makes the whole issue doubtful. The state and central government are already working on a project for granting state subject status to non-state residents, more particularly West Pakistan refugees settled in Jammu. That is most unlikely proposition to be acceptable to the people of the state. Many sections view the move as changing the demographic character of the state.
Last time the government made similar attempts that ultimately culminated in six-moth long public unrest. The state government is again treading the same path.
Government, both, at the centre and state, need to understand the intricacies and sensitivity involved in the issue. Instead of dividing people on communal lines, the effort should be made to unite them culturally and socially. That could be done only if majority community in the valley would be taken into confidence, and Pandits settled among and alongside their Muslim neighbours. Rehabilitating them in separate colonies would only destroy further the social fabric and peace in the valley.