 |
||
|
||
|
||
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! cried the naughty shepherd to get attention from the village folk, who ran each time to his cries and fell victims to his pranks. When the wolf really came, the shepherd cried again "Wolf! Wolf!" but his cries had lost credibility and no one came to the rescue.
In the Akshardham Temple attack 30 people were killed and nearly 100 injured, two of the injured belonged to the minority community and were identified as Anwar Mir and Abdul Mir. There was no cry by the human rights' commission! One wonder why? A brave Muslim policeman even lost his life fighting the terrorists. Did the victims of the Akshardham attack both Hindus and Muslims not have human rights? Or was it because crying for their human rights would not make headline news?
In December 2002, the Central government complied and published a comprehensive report on cross-border terrorism perpetuated by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence through various terrorist outfits in Jammu and Kashmir. A 186-page report, published under the official seal of the Government of India and titled Pakistan's Involvement in Terrorism Against India, enumerated the terrorist activities of Pakistan, in India and other countries. Did the people killed and injured by the terrorists not have human rights? Why did the commissions of human rights not approach the Supreme Court for cancellation of article 370 that gives special status to Kashmir? Prohibiting Indians from buying land in Kashmir, isn't it our human rights' violation? What about the quarter of a million Kashmiri Pundits who have suffered ethnic cleansing at the hands of Pakistani mercenaries. Do they not have human rights? What about the Kashmiri muslims who have been forced by the terrorists at the barrel of a gun to send their sons to the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Do they not have human rights?
Verappan the menace of the the Satyamangalam forests, has killed numerous government officials, beheaded brave police officers, even caused the death of an ex-minister. Why is it that the Human Rights' Commissions not take steps to ask the state governments to prevent the menace of Verappan? Did the victims of Verappan not have human rights?
The trial of Salim Ali Sheikh, Ali Moosa, Farooq Abdul Gani, Anwar Sheikh, and Shakeel Braiach on charges of a conspiracy to assassinate the Deputy Prime Minister of India Shri L.K. Advani, did not invoke even a glance from the Human Rights' Commission. The Additional Sessions Judge D. V. Marathe, acquitted the above, along with Dawood Ibrahim, and Chotta Shakeel, and pulled up the police for shoddy investigation, similar to what the Vadodara judge had done in the Best Bakery trial. So why ask for re-trial here, and not against the henchmen of Dawood Ibrahim? Does L.K. Advani not have human rights?
The senior Congress leader H.K.L. Bhagat was in 2000 acquitted in the murder case of Ram Singh in an East Delhi Colony, the Additional Sessions Judge Manju Goel stated that the entire prosecution story was based on the sole testimony of the victim's widow Darshan Kaur, but her statement was 'full of contradictions and, therefore, could not be relied upon' as evidence. Aren't the statements of Zaheera and her family too contain contradictions, and varying postulations? Is it not a matter of fact the Sardar Ram Singh was dead? He was burnt alive in Trilokpuri a day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, which the celebrated author Khushwant Singh has called a pogrom against the Sikh community while deposing before he Nanavati Commission. Did Ram Singh not have human rights? Sikhs were even asked by the police to surrender their kirpans! What is not an infringement of their fundamental rights to practice their religion?
What about the murder of model Jessica Lal at the Tamarind Court run by socialite Bina Ramani in April 29, 1999? Manu Sharma, a son of a former Union minister Vinod Sharma is the prime accused in the case for having shot dead Jessica at point blank range in the head for a petty reason that the model chose not to serve him drinks! About 6 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. Members of Jessica's family were shocked when they heard the witnesses depose before the court and retract their earlier statements given to the police. Jessica's father Ajit Lal even appealed to those who attended the party that fateful night to come forward and give evidence without fear. He stated, "I cannot believe what happened in court. We have lost Shona (Jessica). We now want justice." Will the human rights commission listen to the plea of Ajit Lal? What is the Human rights' commission going in this regard? Why is it not petitioning the Supreme Court to look into this matter? Did Jessica Lal not have human rights?
What about the human rights of the citizens who are trapped due to mis-governance in Bihar, or the parents whose children are being kidnapped day in and day out? What is the human rights' commission doing about it? What about the human rights of Mr. Oja, the Director General of Police of Bihar, who fears that the notorious Sahabuddin, RJD MP from Siwan, would get him killed?
Why does the Human rights' commission
not act with equality? Justice cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner.
Justice has to have universal application. But the matter is not really
about justice, is it? The inherent desire of some people to act against
a particular political ideology, and their frustration when the ideology
is accepted by the common mass, is the reason why certain institutions
become over zealous in certain cases, while maintain a deafening silence
in other similar circumstances. The desire to see a particular ideology
rule India, overcomes the democratic truth, that it is the people of India
that elect its representatives. Certain ideologies may postulate a controlled
version of liberal democracy, whereas others may postulate appeasement
of a certain section of society. The ultimate choice lies with the people
of India, and not any institution that is but to assist the democratic
Indian fabric. Institutions need to be bounded not just by self-restraining
ethics, but also ensure that their sharp teeth not get blunt by biting
into issues for which different forums exist.
|
||
|
||
|
||