I have come across professional mourners among Chinese in East Asia. Chinese hire them to mourn their dead. Mention of the word Nauha-gar in Galib’s poetry is an indication of their presence in Mughal India. I have never heard of professional revilers except in Bihar, where I was told by a friend that his grandfather had hired one for hurling abuses upon his rival feudal Lord (Jagirdar). Farooq Abdullah seems to have assumed the same role for India as he spoils most of his time in criticizing and issuing threats to Pakistan.
He did the same while addressing an army sponsored human rights seminar in Jammu. He did not deal with the Kashmir situation where deprivation of life and liberty has become order of the day; where privacy and modesty is often encroached and victims seldom report it as such a reporting besides tarnishing image of their family brings little relief to them. Kashmiris have started regarding the humiliation and torture to which they are subjected daily as an essential consequence of their association with India. During the Governor rule at least they were able to condemn the human rights abuses publicly. Now they often face retaliation from the state or its sponsored outfits for any such expression. Dr Abdullah did express few words about custodial torture of a Sikh boy but did not utter a single word about the plight of scores of Kashmiri boys who get killed daily in real or fake encounters. Maybe he was sacred of being branded as Pakistani like Dilip Kumar for such an utterance. Human rights situation in Kashmir has deteriorated to the extent that it is only the custodial killing, which invokes some attention while other violations go unnoticed and unreported. Custodial killing provides an avenue of mass contact to otherwise defunct political leaders by way of participation in funeral ceremonies. They line up to condemn it whereas other violations seldom attract their attention. The confinement of condemnation and reporting of custodial deaths has led ordinary Kashmiri to believe that the privilege of being protected from custodial killing is the only human right to which they are entitled.
Even these condemnations of custodial deaths seldom invoke the intervention of the chief minister as by doing so, he will simply defy the raison detere of his government. His government was not established to give a sense of participation to Kashmiris in Indian democracy but to provide a cover to defacto military rule in Kashmir. Had it not been so, the chief minister would not have within months of his appointment assigned two corps commanders of Indian Army the job of his advisorship in the matters of security and law and order. He was a bit reluctant at first. This reluctance evaporated once he was infused with a sense of insecurity through some explosions near the graveyard of his father. The position of these advisors in the state government is similar to those of British Residents in the former princely states of India. They are the defacto rulers where as the dejure ruler is there for ceremonial purpose only. Whatever breathing space was left for the Farooq government by these advisors has further been reduced by the Governor ( Saxena ) who happens to be a former Chief of an Intelligence Agency.
Farooq Abdullah does not mind slashing of his powers as he is more crazy for money than for power. That is why he is keen for economic package, from the center rather than any political package. Power for him is simply a tool for securing more and more wealth. He has accepted power to satisfy his lust for wealth. Being out of power for a long time, his depleting coffers were unable to sustain his lavish life style.
No doubt Farooq government after its establishment created a Human Rights Commission. The Commission however has neither competence nor sufficient human resources for accomplishment of the job it has been assigned. Besides these impediments, it lacks jurisdiction over security forces who often are accused for most of the human rights abuses in the state. Thus apart from serving the propaganda campaign of the government, this Commission has no role to play.
Constitution of India provides that foreign affairs are exclusive domain of the central government. International treaties restrain the state from using waters of its rivers beyond a certain limit without permission of Pakistan. In this situation one wonders why Farooq Abdullah loses sight of these legal limits to his power and instead of attending to woes of his people meddles with the affairs beyond his jurisdiction. Is it ignorance or deliberate assumption of role of a show boy to confuse the world about real situation in Kashmir? Keeping in view his long association with politics the first assumption seems to be unlikely. He seems to be part of the Indian game plan of misleading the world to cover up the widespread complaints of human rights violations against its various agencies. Afterall democracy in the west is perceived to be a way of securing human rights. Farooq Government at least serves the purpose of portraying a rosy picture of the human rights situation in Kashmir and it is probably the sole reason for restoration of a “civilian” government in Kashmir. India no doubt is the largest democracy of the world but the impact of this democracy was never felt beyond river Ravi which forms the natural boundary between Kashmir and India. In Kashmir it has always been subjected to use and abuse for every trivial purpose except for infusing sense of participation among Kashmiris. This time its use is to shield the rampant abuse of human rights.
He did the same while addressing an army sponsored human rights seminar in Jammu. He did not deal with the Kashmir situation where deprivation of life and liberty has become order of the day; where privacy and modesty is often encroached and victims seldom report it as such a reporting besides tarnishing image of their family brings little relief to them. Kashmiris have started regarding the humiliation and torture to which they are subjected daily as an essential consequence of their association with India. During the Governor rule at least they were able to condemn the human rights abuses publicly. Now they often face retaliation from the state or its sponsored outfits for any such expression. Dr Abdullah did express few words about custodial torture of a Sikh boy but did not utter a single word about the plight of scores of Kashmiri boys who get killed daily in real or fake encounters. Maybe he was sacred of being branded as Pakistani like Dilip Kumar for such an utterance. Human rights situation in Kashmir has deteriorated to the extent that it is only the custodial killing, which invokes some attention while other violations go unnoticed and unreported. Custodial killing provides an avenue of mass contact to otherwise defunct political leaders by way of participation in funeral ceremonies. They line up to condemn it whereas other violations seldom attract their attention. The confinement of condemnation and reporting of custodial deaths has led ordinary Kashmiri to believe that the privilege of being protected from custodial killing is the only human right to which they are entitled.
Even these condemnations of custodial deaths seldom invoke the intervention of the chief minister as by doing so, he will simply defy the raison detere of his government. His government was not established to give a sense of participation to Kashmiris in Indian democracy but to provide a cover to defacto military rule in Kashmir. Had it not been so, the chief minister would not have within months of his appointment assigned two corps commanders of Indian Army the job of his advisorship in the matters of security and law and order. He was a bit reluctant at first. This reluctance evaporated once he was infused with a sense of insecurity through some explosions near the graveyard of his father. The position of these advisors in the state government is similar to those of British Residents in the former princely states of India. They are the defacto rulers where as the dejure ruler is there for ceremonial purpose only. Whatever breathing space was left for the Farooq government by these advisors has further been reduced by the Governor ( Saxena ) who happens to be a former Chief of an Intelligence Agency.
Farooq Abdullah does not mind slashing of his powers as he is more crazy for money than for power. That is why he is keen for economic package, from the center rather than any political package. Power for him is simply a tool for securing more and more wealth. He has accepted power to satisfy his lust for wealth. Being out of power for a long time, his depleting coffers were unable to sustain his lavish life style.
No doubt Farooq government after its establishment created a Human Rights Commission. The Commission however has neither competence nor sufficient human resources for accomplishment of the job it has been assigned. Besides these impediments, it lacks jurisdiction over security forces who often are accused for most of the human rights abuses in the state. Thus apart from serving the propaganda campaign of the government, this Commission has no role to play.
Constitution of India provides that foreign affairs are exclusive domain of the central government. International treaties restrain the state from using waters of its rivers beyond a certain limit without permission of Pakistan. In this situation one wonders why Farooq Abdullah loses sight of these legal limits to his power and instead of attending to woes of his people meddles with the affairs beyond his jurisdiction. Is it ignorance or deliberate assumption of role of a show boy to confuse the world about real situation in Kashmir? Keeping in view his long association with politics the first assumption seems to be unlikely. He seems to be part of the Indian game plan of misleading the world to cover up the widespread complaints of human rights violations against its various agencies. Afterall democracy in the west is perceived to be a way of securing human rights. Farooq Government at least serves the purpose of portraying a rosy picture of the human rights situation in Kashmir and it is probably the sole reason for restoration of a “civilian” government in Kashmir. India no doubt is the largest democracy of the world but the impact of this democracy was never felt beyond river Ravi which forms the natural boundary between Kashmir and India. In Kashmir it has always been subjected to use and abuse for every trivial purpose except for infusing sense of participation among Kashmiris. This time its use is to shield the rampant abuse of human rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment