The
Strange Cases Of
Mohammed Haneef And Iftikhar Gilani
By Jawed Naqvi
31 July, 2007
Countercurrents.org
In
a TV interview last week India's National Security Adviser MK Narayanan
claimed that Al Qaeda posed a really serious threat to the country.
And, he stressed, since Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is an integral
part of Al Qaeda the threat was that much more immediate and palpable.
Mr Narayanan's claim sounds convincing because Lashkar fingerprint does
appear to be writ on a spate of bombings that have killed civilians
in different parts of India. The question is what is to be done.
There are an estimated140
million Muslims in India. Three of them happen to be running for the
vice-president's job. The widely watched contest is due next month.
But here we confront an old problem. Do the candidates who are shored
up by the entire gamut of mainstream parties, from the rightwing Hindu
to the leftwing and the Congress, command any credibility among India's
variegated and heterogeneous Muslims? Their parties most certainly do
not. So what if all three candidates have a lot to commend themselves
to seek the country's second highest constitutional post.
The liberal-conservative
dichotomy, represented by possibly all the three vice-presidential candidates
and the Muslim masses, has grown and not waned since independence. Consequently
the country's largest minority group has come to constitute one of the
most depressed segments of its social pyramid. The rise of Hindutva
politics has threatened to further alienate them from the national mainstream.
Which understandably makes
at least a few of them vulnerable to zealotry and to religious extremism.
The statistics is stacked against Mr Narayanan. Just half a per cent
of extremists out of 140 million can present an enormous challenge.
The task for Mr Narayanan is thus truly forbidding. How is anyone to
divine the acute and often chronic alienation that lurks somewhere in
the deep recesses of the community's psyche for it to be addressed?
And yet it would be hugely tragic for all if this aloofness is not identified
and checked with care, chances for which have historically looked remote.
This, Mr Narayanan, is where Lashkar and Al Qaeda need to be defeated.
And yet, the way forward
is surely to isolate the problem and not to circumscribe the community.
In fact, sincerest assurances of security and equal economic opportunities
to these aggrieved Indians should be a priority, the objective being
to rescue 140 million innocent people from the clutches of wily mullahs
who have entrenched themselves as middlemen for crucial Muslim votes
– and from the vitriol of the Hindutva hordes. The Indian government's
efforts in this regard were recently laudable in the case of Mohammed
Haneef, the doctor who was, it seems, wrongly arrested, harassed and
hounded by Australia's anti-terror sleuths. The relentless support to
secure Dr Haneef 's freedom came from the entire Indian establishment
– the government and the media included – and was instrumental
in winning his eventual release.
For Mr Narayanan though there
is little to rejoice in this rare bit of good news for India's secular
credentials. It just so happens that the track record of this country
in delivering justice for people in Dr Haneef's situation is considerably
worse than Australia's could ever be. I spoke to Iftikhar Gilani about
the Haneef episode and asked him to compare that example with his own
incarceration that lasted seven scorching months in Delhi's notorious
Tihar Jail. Iftikhar was accused of espionage simply because he had
stored an old published report on India's troop strength in Jammu and
Kashmir. "Patriotic" inmates, who included convicted rapists
and murderers, made him wear a shirt with which he had cleaned human
excreta in the prison's toilets. These convicts then sought to teach
him patriotic anthems like Vande Mataram and Saare Jahaan Se Achha Hindustan
Hamara (India is better than any other place in the world). None of
these abuses were hurled at Haneef in Australia. Moreover, the doctor's
charge sheet was ready within five days of his arrest. In India a terror
suspect is often held for six months without charge. And this is precisely
what happened with Iftikhar Gilani. He lived through hell for seven
months and was then as mysteriously freed as he was picked up from his
home in Delhi on a boiling June afternoon in 2002. Unlike the care given
to Haneef's wife by the Indian media, Iftikhar's family and children
were shunned by his neighbours. Even the media, which tends to take
its cue from official stance, let him down badly. A woman journalist
who falsely reported in her newspaper a confession Iftikhar never made
is today a star reporter in a premier TV news channel.
One way to celebrate India's
secular democracy would be to publish details in a white paper on Iftikhar
Gilani's case. Such a move could also ease Mr Narayanan's task of winning
hearts and minds dramatically. Why was he arrested and, equally importantly,
why was he released? There was simply no trial. No charges were ever
brought against Gilani. Mr Narayanan may also wish to search the precincts
of other Indian prisons, big and small, and declare the truth about
the countless men and women who are rotting there because they have
been simply forgotten there, without any hope for justice. If we have
any leg to stand on then we can mock Australia and also perhaps begin
to address the massive challenge of terrorism India and neighbouringcountries
face.
A few suggestions in this
regard have come, Mr Narayanan may be happy to note, from two of India's
leading newspapers. So things are changing for the better even if the
change is somewhat slow.
The Times of India exulted
in Haneef's victory and even advocated a lesson or two for India. "It
is heartening that lawyers, the press and civil rights groups in Australia
kept up pressure on the authorities to either come up with concrete
evidence of his complicity or let him go. The ordeal has clearly been
unfortunate for Haneef and his family, but it must be acknowledged that
he is also the beneficiary of a criminal justice system that works and,
in the last instance, has been fair. When the Australian authorities
realised they had made an error of judgment, they acted upon it. Which
is not something investigating agencies in India always do. Police here
have the dubious record of detaining suspects without charge for much
longer than the 90-day limit. And once charged, the period becomes elastic.
The police keep them locked up without trial as the excruciatingly slow
wheels of justice grind on."
Mr Narayanan could glean
another advice from the Times editorial.
"Fake encounters and
custodial deaths are par for the course in theIndian police's scheme
of things. Forget any admission of lapse, if itemerges that mistakes
were made, they will go to great lengths to cover up stained tracks."
In a separate comment on
the trial and conviction of the 1993 Mumbai blasts – mostly Muslim
– accused, the Times noted the tardy judicial process. But it
also asked a question that should be of interest to Mr Narayanan. People
under trial in the blasts case have reportedly asked the anti-terror
court judges why there has been very little action on the justice Srikrishna
report, the Times said. Justice Srikrishna was appointed by the government
to investigate the communal riots in Mumbai after the demolition of
Babri masjid in December 1992. He held several police officials and
Shiv Sena leaders responsible for facilitating and actively taking part
in the riots. Successive governments, including Congress-led ones, have
failed to act on Srikrishna's findings. "Many people have cited
this inaction on the part of the government as evidence of discrimination
against Muslims, especially now that guilty verdicts are being handed
out in the blasts trials, the Times said.
For the Indian Express, the
Indian government's summoning of the Australian high commissioner was
"unfortunate, unnecessary and immature". Haneef is free, the
paper said, "not because he is brown, Muslim, an immigrant, Indian.
He is free because it was deemed that the charges against him would
not hold in a court of law. As for the do's, in a country like India
where thousands of undertrials languish in prison without charges even
being framed, Haneef is proof of the importance of speedy justice."
[email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.