Search This Blog

Tuesday 3 December 2013

GREAT EDITOR’S ADVOCACY FOR ISLAMISTS

TEJPAL, MULLAH ZAEEF AND SIMI
GREAT EDITOR’S ADVOCACY FOR ISLAMISTS
-Ram Kumar Ohri, IPS (Retd.)

Yesteryears Great Editor has a colourful personae and mysterious past. Historically the secularist chatterati always had a short memory and somewhat purblind vision.  It is surprising how the Indian media and charmed glitterati of the 2013 THINK festival could not decode the mystery of Tejpal’s invite to Mullah Abdul Saeed of Taliban to Goa for being counted among the galaxy of global intellectuals. According to the Raisina Hill buzz, the Great Editor worked overtime to get the clearance of intelligence agencies for the necessary visa for ensuring presence of the great Mullah of Taliban at THINK-2013. No one knows whether the city grapevine of Tarun Tejpal’s intimate proximity to Mullah Zaeef is a town gossip or ground reality.

Mullah Zaeef is a notorious misogynist believing in stoning of women, as prescribed in shariah. Tarun Tejpal is a twice-sworn secularist. What is the connection between the two fundamentalists, one a hard boiled Islamist and the other a self-annointed secularist? This question has often bothered me and some of my friends.  A friend of mine is convinced that thereby hangs a shadowy tale.

In August  2008 the so-called  Great Editor had carried out  a sustained campaign, bordering on secular morbidity, in defence of the  banned jihadi terrorist outfit, SIMI  (Students  Islamic Movement  of  India) which had  by then  already  morphed into the  notorious  kaffir-killer outfit, the Indian Mujahedeen. Being a well informed journalist Tejpal could not be ignorant of the fact that barely a few months ago in November, 2007, a menacing e-mail had been circulated to media by the radical outfit, Indian Mujahideen in proclaiming, and “The war of civilization between the Muslims and the infidels has begun in Indian territory.”

Surely the Great Editor could not be unaware of the following important facts about SIMI published from time to time in newspapers and journals and readily available in public domain:

i)                   The outfit was commissioned in Aligarh Muslim University on April 28, 1977, in Aligarh University and named the Students Islamic. Its avowed goal is to establish Muslim rule in India.
ii)                Before it was banned, the logo of SIMI flaunted a very intimidatory logo depicting a copy of the Quran spread   across the globe and two AK-47s placed astride the holy book for waging jihad against infidels.

iii)              That the single-minded goal of SIMI is to transform India into Dar-ul-Islam either by concerting everyone to Islam, and if necessary by waging Islam’s holy war for achieving its cherished goal.

iv)              SIMI does not believe in the concept of nation State, nor does it subscribe to secularism. It wants to establish an Islamic caliphate across India cast in the mould of Nizam-e-Mustafa.

Every Indian journalist knows that the most frequently flaunted slogan of SIMI has been, “Allah is our Lord, the Qur’an is our constitution, Muhammad is our leader, Jihad is our way and Shahada is our desire”.   In addition, SIMI has always praised  the Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is an outstanding example of a true Mujahid, who has undertaken Jihad  on behalf of  the 'Ummah'.

According to Yoginder Sikand, a well known scholar of Islam, SIMI considers ‘Nationalism’ as a false idol devised by the non-Muslim enemies of the faith. All non-Muslims are branded by SIMI as 'kafirs', and no distinction is made among them. Because of the Quranic belief that the enemies of Allah are likely to offer stiff resistance to Islam, SIMI has been openly preaching that violent Jihad needs to be waged against kaffirs of India (read the Hindus).

Despite all these facts known to even a ‘cub -journalist’  Tarun Tejpal   had the cheek to launch a vigorous campaign to defend SIMI in August, 2008, by publishing as  many as seventeen articles vociferously defending the radical outfit  in his liberal-left magazine, Tehelka. To quote Tejpal, a three month long investigation by Tehelka’s Editor-at-Large, Ajit Sahi, had revealed “a chilling and systematic witch-hunt against innocent Muslims”.

The following pearls of wisdom incorporated by the renowned secularist in his article titled ‘The Thin Red Line’, revealed his unwavering commitment to the cause of jihadis operating under the umbrella of SIMI and Indian Mujahideen: “The Indian state must tread carefully. The individual tragedies point to a wider psychosis. For the last many years – abetted by global trends – the state’s actions seem to be deepening a prejudice against Muslims.”

In his highly labored brief for SIMI the Great Editor pontificated that “not just the policing and the intelligence agencies that are to blame - even the judicial process is often complicit in the miscarriage of justice”.

In those days of booming bomb blasts  Tejpal published under the heading, ‘the SIMI fictions’  the following pro-Islamist essays  packed with caustic diatribes against the police and the  government:

1.     The Thin Red Line, written by Tarun Tejpal himself.
2.     The Kafka Project, by Ajit Sahi.
3.     Inside The Whale: State vs Shahid Badr Falahi, by Ajit Sahi.
4.     The Good Doctor’s Complications, by Ajit Sahi.
5.     They just want Muslim boys to be always in Jail, by Ajit Sahi. 
6.     A Doubtful Crime: And years of Unfair Punishment, by Ajit Sahi.
7.     The Cry of The Beloved Country, by Ajit Sahi.
8.     The Hunt of Our Past Lives, by Ajit Sahi.
9.     SIMI Here, SIMI There, SIMI Everywhere, by Ajit Sahi.
10.            The History Appraiser Caught with His Books, by Ajit Sahi.
11.            A Man of God, Not a Man of Terror, by Ajit Sahi.
12.            Dissent or Don’t.  You Are Damned Either Way, by Ajit Sahi.
13.            The Left Hand Doesn’t Know. Or Doesn’t It?, by Ajit Sahi.
14.            The Case of Absconding Lawyer, by Ajit Sahi.
15.            A Judge Stirs a Hornet’s Nest, by Ajit Sahi.
16.            The Supreme Court’s stay is a murder of justice, by Ajit Sahi.
17.            Terror Has Two Faces, by Ajit Sahi.  

Even a cursory reading of the above mentioned seventeen articles reveals how dear have been the Islamist Jihadis to the bleeding heart liberal, Tarun Tejpal. The following narrative of the advocacy for SIMI lays bare the secret story of invitation to Mullah Zaeef and his fast-tracked visa for joining the jamboree of high profile intellectuals during Think-2013 event.

The wonder of wonders, however, was that Great Editor went ballistics to defend SIMI barely a few weeks after the Indian Mujahedeen had killed and incapacitated scores of innocents in serial bomb blasts in Bangalore, Jaipur and Ahmedabad in July, 2008. Another highly provocative and intimidator e-mail captioned, The Rise of Jihad in the land of Hind was circulated on July 26, 2008, by the Indian Mujahedeen shortly before the serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad. In addition to hurling filthy abuses on Hindu Gods and Goddesses, the said e-mail threatened specifically to avenge the alleged atrocities committed against SIMI, the mysterious darling of the Great Editor.

In the circumstances, it is difficult to guess what motivated Tejpal to mount a three months long expensive campaign to defend SIMI has remained an unraveled mystery. Was it done free, or was it caused by the virus called “Paid News” afflicting several secular scribes across India?  No wonder, in the year 2008 there were hush-hush rumors in Lutyen’s garden city guessing the source of money spent by Tehelka in defending SIMI at a time when jihadi bomb blasts all around were causing death and destruction. 

Prima facie the Great Editor of yesteryears was more bothered about the civil rights of the bombers of SIMI and Indian Mujahedeen than the lives of innocent Indian citizens who were being incessantly slaughtered by the two radical Islamic outfits. No intelligence agency, however, dare question Tarun Tejpal because of his high- profile political connections, including the rumor about his easy access to 10 Janpath!    

After reading the difficult-to-put-down tome, The Seige, authored by Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott Clarke, I see a message in the boast of ISI’s Major Iqbal that they have a double agent code-named Honey Bee and a number of Chuhe (i.e., the mice) operating in India.  As a result of Major Iqbal’s revelation several questions have cropped up in my inquisitive mind. I am listing below some of my serious concerns:

i)                   Who is the Honey Bee on whom our intelligence agencies like Intelligence Bureau and RAW cannot lay hands?

ii)                Who all could be Major Iqbal’s Chuhe, or mice, nibbling at the tattered fabric of India’s unity and integrity?

iii)              How that is our Intelligence Bureau cannot identify and locate the Honey Bee and the ISI’s Chuhe? 

iv)              Is there any resemblance between David Headley’s pre-26/11 recee of Mumbai and the recent visit and reccee of Mullah Zaeef to Goa?

v)                Whom all did Mullah Zaeef meet during his hurried trip to Goa? The Talibani Mullah is a very combative and and complex strategeist.

vi)              Is our tourist-paradise city of Goa, vulnerably located on Konkan coast, slated to be targeted next time the way Mumbai was targeted in November, 2008?  Goa could even face the butchery and vandalism in the manner and on a scale showcased by the Al Shabab’s commandos at Westcoast Mall in Nairobi on September 27, 2013?


Being a retired police officer I often feel concerned about the next jihadi strike across my motherland.  Perhaps time has come to view with extra caution the visit of Talibani Mullah Zaeef to Goa on the pretext of joining the Think-2013 glitterati and his close association with Tejpal.

BIGOTRY CODIFIED: PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETTED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011

The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 is a gory, ghastly and grizzly piece of an illiberal legislation which mocks constitutionalism and justice. It banishes Hindus from the system, deprives them the benefit of law and puts them out altogether of its protection. This infliction of outlawry on Hindus is called “respect to equality before law and equal protection of laws” and upholding of “secular democracy”. Sanctioning social stratification the Bill divides the country into ethnic enclaves. Creating a dystopian society the Bill contemplates a repressive regime for Hindus where they will not be citizens but ciphers, be referred to by numbers not names and be forced to be as uniform as possible. The message is clear: get ready to be purged under a reign of terror.

Under the Bill Hindus (a “religious majority” in most states of India) cannot ever suffer from “communal and targeted violence” as the Bill defines the expression only to include acts against a religious minority under Section 3 (c), can be freely subjected to “hostile environment” as threats, boycotts and humiliation are actionable under Section 3 (f) only if committed against religious minorities, have no remedy even as an “internally displaced person” as Section 3 (g) confines the provision only to members of a religious minority who are forced to leave their home or residence and cannot ever be a “victim” of physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm as only a person belonging to a religious minority can be deemed to be victimized under Section 3 (k) of the Bill! The Bill, incidentally, does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir where the Hindus are a religious minority and from where they have been “displaced” – euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

Hindus will be denied protection even from hate speech as under Section 8 of the Bill speech can degenerate into “Hate Propaganda” only when its object is the religious minority which, alone, is considered deserving of being protected against “Sexual Assault” under Section 7 of the Bill; a Hindu cannot even complain of rape, affront or sexual indignity where an offence of communal violence is committed.

“Organized Communal and Targeted Violence” has been defined under Section 9 to exclude associations of religious minorities undertaking communal and targeted violence against Hindus; such associations of religious minorities, so the Bill presumes, cannot ever commit the offence of organized communal and targeted violence against Hindus.

Incidentally “organized communal and targeted violence”, “hate propaganda” and “sexual assault” have been legally defined by the Bill for the first time and made punishable under Chapter VIII there being no other statute defining or dealing with these offences. These offences, therefore, are wrongs which only a religious minority can seek redressal against with no similar remedy available to the religious majority. Law, thus, is separate and unequal for the Hindus and the Hindus find themselves in a situation even worse than American blacks under segregation!

In fact the Bill has provision about “presumption as to offences” under Section 72 and “organized communal and targeted violence” punishable under Section 113 with rigorous imprisonment for life (which punishment is reserved only for the religious majority) can also be presumed under Section 72(2) of the Bill; an accused (who can only be a member of the religious majority) can thus be condemned for life on a mere presumption.

Even compensation, restitution and rehabilitation under Chapter VII of the Bill (comprising of Sections 87 to 110) is confined only to the religious minority and the “duty”, under Section 89, of the Government to protect “life, liberty and property” is owed by it only to a member of the religious and linguistic minority. Life, therefore, has meaning, liberty has substance and property has value only if it belongs to the religious minority; they are otherwise bereft of worth should the claimant be a Hindu.

“Personhood” itself is recognized only in members of a religious minority as Section 95 of the Bill stipulates that they alone are the “persons” who can be injured by organized communal and targeted violence to be entitled to be registered as being so injured. The criteria, as are generally understood, for being recognized as a “person” are that he (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. The Bill, thus, denies these attributes exist in the members of the majority community. The outrage in the name of such an obnoxiously malignant Bill could not have been dared had the dignity of personhood been conceded to a Hindu.

The “guarantee” to ensure “access to justice” under Section 110 of the Bill is, thus, limited by the Bill only to a member of religious and linguistic minority; this access is denied to the members of the majority community. And in assessing compensation under Sections 99 to 101 of the Bill provision is made for “moral injury” only in the context of religious minorities as if principles of morality can be invoked only if the aggrieved is a member of the religious minority.

The Bill promotes a negative stereotype about Hindus. Although the expression is not used (and is coupled with “linguistic” minority the occasions of which minority being involved being few and far-between) the intent behind the Bill is yet obvious. Allport dealt with such behavior while coining the term “antilocution” – verbal remarks against a community which are not directly addressed at the target and create an environment where discrimination is acceptable. This is the first stage in the scales of prejudice the verbal remarks aggravating first to avoidance of the community, then discrimination and physical attack against it and eventually leading to its extermination. The Bill, thus, creates an environment of hostility towards Hindus and promotes the demeaning of them under the garb of “secular democracy” preliminary to their subsequent avoidance, attack upon them and their eventual extermination. Rendered alien in their own country, Hindus will thus be made hostage to a system devised to devour them.

The Bill serves as a polarizing propaganda dividing the population between “us and them” denying the very humanity of the excluded group (read Hindus) and combines this separation with hatred towards the latter while simultaneously denying that any wrong is being committed giving discrimination itself the cloak of law. And it does this in the name of “equal protection of laws” and “upholding secular democracy” as if debasing, degrading and disparaging Hindus is the only way of upholding secular democracy and ensuring equal protection. The Bill, therefore, is manifestly arbitrary, is contrary to the principle of constitutionalism, its restrictive definitions and artificial classification revealing it as illogical, unfair and unjust piece of legislation.

This separation of persons on the basis of religion has no objective or reasonable justification as victim of a wrong cannot denied redress merely because of his religious orientation and, similarly, a criminal act will not become less so because the religious belief of its perpetrator. Under the Bill a Hindu in most states of India even if injured abused or intimidated or forced to leave his residence because of his being a Hindu cannot ever be recognized as a victim nor be permitted to allege any physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm nor also be statutorily entitled to compensation, restitution or rehabilitation and the Government is under no obligation to guarantee him protection, prevent recurrence of violence or ensure for him access to justice. A Hindu, the Bill presumes, cannot ever be “vulnerable” to communal violence nor be subject to “an unfair or unjust investigation” into the same.

Incidentally a member of a religious minority can complain under Section 67 to the National Authority about “biased” nature of investigation and further investigation or re-investigation can then be ordered under Section 68. “Public Order” is in the exclusive domain of the State. Provisions like the ones contained in the Bill make an intrusion into a forbidden territory encroaching even upon the reserve of States violating the distribution of authority under the federal structure in an unrestrained enthusiasm for pandering to religious minorities.

The National Authority, in fact, cannot merely call for any information not only from the Central Government but even the State Government under Section 30 and recommend “initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action” under Section 34 and can further demand “action taken” within one month or “such further time as the National Authority may allow” there-under. This is apart from the duty not only of the Central Government but “the State Government and public servant at all levels” to take appropriate action “on all advisories and recommendations” issued by the National Authority and re-investigate where a victim is aggrieved “about any procedure of investigation including lack of impartiality and fairness.” The Authority therefore will police even the State Government. In fact Section 69 of the Bill obligates the State Government (which has no discretion but is under a duty to so do under the Bill) to “order an inquiry” into “discharge of public functions by public servants” concerning organized communal and targeted violence, the Bill thus interfering even with state public services.

The method of investigation itself is sought to be controlled through Sections 62 to 66 of the Bill which even specifies the rank of the police officer, in Section 60, who has to conduct investigation. These provisions cannot be saved by Entry 2 of List III because they are ex-facie discriminatory changing criminal procedure according to the religion of the complainant. Similarly while Special Public Prosecutors are contemplated under Section 76 of the Bill even these prosecutors can be changed merely on “information received from a victim or informant”, the State Government is being denied any choice or discretion in the matter being bound to comply under the Bill to the wishes of the victim.

The utter asymmetry of the entire mechanism is apparent from Section 83 of the Bill which states that a member of religious minority “should be treated with fairness, respect and dignity” – a right even otherwise implicit in the judicial process of India thus suggesting in a sinister fashion that express mention as a statutory right under the Bill is necessary as “fairness” is generally denied to religious minorities and the mandate of law is followed more in breach where the minorities are concerned. This is re-enforced by section 84 which makes elaborate provision for protection of “victims, informants and witnesses” all of whom can only be religious minorities.

It is thus assumed by the Bill that the system prevalent in India is biased in favour of the Hindus and special protection is necessary only for religious minorities. The utter absurdity of this position becomes apparent in the provisions dealing with the Authority for Communal Harmony Justice and Reparation created by the Bill (Chapter IV for Central Authority and Chapter V for States) to exercise the power and perform the functions assigned under the Bill; this Authority is composed of a mere seven individuals which number, so the Bill contemplates, would be able to control an entire polity of bigoted Hindus running into several crores - most of whom (so the Bill will make us believe) are volitionally disposed towards criminality and are intent upon communalizing law - and not only effectively prosecute and punish all of them unaffected by the prevalent and immanent institutional bias in their favour but have access to and use their resources (generated through taxation) to compensate the persecuted religious minorities and provide them relief and rehabilitation. If the system is so crooked and the religious majority so unprincipled, perfidious and unscrupulous to require an extraordinary piece of legislation like this Bill how can it be presumed that a body of just seven people with its secretarial staff (composed again suborned and tainted Hindus) will be able to effectively function and “implement” its provisions for the benefit of the religious minority?

This Authority, moreover, has seven members under Sections 20 and 42 of the Bill. The majority of its seven members have to belong to the religious or linguistic minority under Section 20(3) and 42(3). Its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson must also belong to the said minority the Bill presuming that a member of the religious majority (read Hindus) cannot be trusted with such responsibility. The religious orientation of members of religious majority is deemed by the Bill to disincline them from being right or fair and render them incapable of ensuring communal harmony. This approach is akin to racial profiling and entails denial of dignity to the religious majority, stigmatizing the community as a whole and without any individualized suspicion against any of its members excluding him from consideration altogether.

Bigotry and intolerance stands codified in the Bill. This sectarian and dogmatic Authority can, paradoxically, undertake any function “it may consider necessary for prevention of communal and targeted violence” and towards that end “monitor and review performance of duties by public servants” in Sections 30 and 52 of the Bill.

The Authority, therefore, has been given absolute power to hold any official to account on standards which it will subjectively decide and claim the right to interfere on perceived harm to a religious minority and likely impact of any action. This committee or junta of political elite is allowed by the Bill to monopolize power and penetrate the deepest reaches of the political system and impose the authoritarian regime of a chauvinistic ideology on members of the Hindu community.

The very basis of the Bill is therefore flawed. Thus under the Bill a public servant who inflicts cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on a person belonging to the majority community is not guilty of “torture” as Section 12 limits it to a person “inflicting pain and suffering” on a person belonging to a religious minority alone, nor can he be ever guilty of “dereliction of duty” under Section 13 as omission or abuse of authority is actionable only if it impacts a person belonging to a religious minority. Incidentally, under the sections aforementioned, a religious minority can allege torture for any kind of “pain or suffering” (which expression is not defined in the Bill) and can hold any public servant to account even for an act “likely to lead” to communal and targeted violence. Innocent acts can thus be criminalized on the mere feeling of a victim!

And as if this was not enough a mutation is made by the Bill in concepts and this miscegenation is shameless presented as law. Thus “Command Responsibility” has been introduced under Sections 14 and 15 of the Bill for the exclusive benefit of a religious minority. It is significant to note that this is a doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity during armed conflict. It was applied in World War II prosecutions in Nuremberg and Tokyo and again by the International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rawanda. International Criminal Law extends the doctrine to armed groups operating under sophisticated command structures aside from military forces in conflicts where militarized forces are either attacking the army of a recognized state or fighting with each other. In its applying “Command Responsibility” to communal and targeted violence the Bill is truly unique extending the doctrine to a situation to which it has never been applied.

The Bill is like the notorious “Jim Crow Laws” which sanctioned racial segregation in the United States of America between 1876 and 1965. These laws systematized advantages to white Americans and subjected the black Americans to inferior treatment. The laws institutionalized racism and sanctioned discrimination in policing and criminal justice. And the laws were justified as being necessary for the protection of the blacks themselves as allowing them in places where the whites frequent would mean "constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion", which might lead to "a morbid race consciousness". The Bill puts the Hindus in the same position of disability as Jim Crow Laws put the blacks denying them the same rights and subjecting them to greater disabilities and paradoxically suggesting, much in the same manner as the white supremacists that the Bill is necessary for them as otherwise they will be lead to “a morbid sense of Hindu consciousness”. The only difference is that the Bill is the first instance of such a discriminatory law being drafted to the detriment not of any helpless minority but of the majority community.

Leading criminal law philosophers have argued that conduct should only be criminalized when it is fair to do so. In particular, such theorists assert that objective reasons are needed to demonstrate that it is fair to criminalize conduct in any given case. Having criminal remedies in place is seen as a "last resort" since such actions often infringe personal liberties. Far from transforming behavior into crime on any objective considerations the Bill allows prejudice to criminalize an act.

Judenhass or Jew Hatred is a well documented phenomenon. Helen Fein defines it as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews." Helen Fein could well have been talking of Ant-Hinduism! His definition of anti-semitism can well apply to negative perception and religious intolerance to Hindus. Anti-Hindu bigotry, of which this Bill is an example, is no less vicious though yet not as well documented. The Bill is enacted in the tradition of Indophobes who berated Hindus as blasphemers and denigrated them as demonic. It would do Christian missionaries like Francis Xavier and Muslim clerics like Ziauddin Barrani proud. While the Jews got their Israel the Bill is symbolic of Hindus losing their Bharat!

AMAN LEKHI
SENIOR ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA