Have you ever heard of a country where a government prohibited some of its citizens from unfurling the national flag of that country at a public place on the occasion of a national festival? So far it happens only in India.
If there are two groups of citizens, one who want to hoist the flag and another that threatens to disrupt peace and tranquility if this is done, who should face criminal action? Ideally speaking, any government established by law would protect the right of its citizens to hoist the national flag, as it is a symbol of the sovereignty of any country. Anybody challenging this right or opposing hoisting of the flag should face the music at the hands of law enforcing agencies, but the Omar Abdullah government of Jammu and Kashmir acted abnormally on the issue of hoisting the Indian Tricolor (Tiranga) at Lal Chowk in Srinagar last year on India’s Republic Day, January 26.
The Jammu and Kashmir governments prevented the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s youth wing BJYM leaders from reaching Lal Chowk to ensure that the Tiranga was not hoisted at this site. BJP’s national leaders, including leaders of opposition in both houses of Parliament, Smt. Sushma Swaraj (Lok Sabha) and Arun Jaitely (Rajya Sabha), were not allowed to move towards Srinagar. They were arrested in Jammu in order to forcibly escort them out of the state of Jammu-Kashmir. The matter went to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The apex human rights watchdog of the country having judicial powers has now hurled a volley of questions at the Jammu-Kashmir government for its strange conduct in this matter.
A full bench of the NHRC, headed by former Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan, has observed that the action of the state government in blocking the hoisting of the national flag was a violation of an order of the Supreme Court of India. In this order, the Supreme Court of India had ruled that hoisting the Tiranga was a fundamental right of every Indian citizen. The NHRC bench said that arrests or preventing anybody wishing to hoist the flag is tantamount to taking away his or her fundamental right. The Omar government has been served a notice returnable within two months, explaining why it acted in violation of the constitution of India.
It may be recalled that the Omar led NC-Congress government arrested and escorted Swaraj, Jaitely, and several other BJP leaders out of Jammu and Kashmir under pressure from the pro-Pakistan separatists. For these anti-India elements, Lal Chowk has been a favorite spot for burning the Indian Tricolor and flying the Pakistani flag amid anti-India sloganeering for the past several years. The opposition party, definitely with this symbolic political point in mind, wanted to take the issue to the younger generation of India by hoisting the Tiranga there. For them, it was more of an emotive nationalistic issue.
Now, after being pulled up by the NHRC on legal and not emotional grounds, team Omar would have to toil hard to prepare a defense of its indefensible conduct. After two months, If they came to the NHRC telling that it was not possible to provide security to the Tiranga brigade of the BJP in the wake of threats from terrorist groups, Omar’s claims about normalcy returning in the valley and surrounding districts would be washed away. It is on the basis of these false claims of weakening anti-India elements in the state that Omar has been demanding withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act from the state.
Political symbolism of Lal Chowk
Last year’s Tiranga blocking was not the first act of its kind on the part of any government of Jammu Kashmir. Almost two decades ago, the then BJP Chief Murali Manohar Joshi faced similar opposition from the then National Conference Government headed by Omar’s father Farooq Abdullah. Joshi was at last allowed to reach Lal Chowk and do the symbolic hoisting and was hurriedly whisked away after a rocket fired by the separatists had blasted a few meters away from the BJP leader. Historically, it was at this place that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru made one of his most criticized (also most often exploited by separatists against India) public statements to the effect that the fate of the people of Kashmir will be decided by the Kashmiris themselves. While Nehru’s statement lost its relevance and context due to Pakistan’s illegal occupation of a large part of Jammu and Kashmir, the separatists have been over the years using this spot for insulting India, its flag, and its people by burning the Tricolor. Strangely enough, the successive state governments failed to act strongly against these elements and in gross violation of the constitutional provisions, the nationalist forces have been on their radars. It is probably for the first time that an apex Indian statutory body has questioned the weakness of a state government on this issue.
Communal vibes of the grand old man
Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a pro-Pakistani separatist leader of the Kashmir valley, remains in the news always for the wrong reasons. This week, he is being discussed for things that are quite usual for him, but grossly anti-national from India’s point of view.
Geelani heads the All Party Hurriyat Conference (G). He is a Pakistani to the core of his heart. One can find several videos on Youtube and facebook in which he can be seen and heard publicly shouting: Hum hain Pakistani, Pakistan Hamara hai. He says this, despite the fact that he holds an Indian passport, and in 2003, Geelani said on oath through an affidavit sworn before a sub-divisional magistrate in Delhi that he was a senior citizen. This he did to get a concession in airfare. This is his politics of convenience.
This week, Geelani was heard calling Indian Muslims names in the name of Islam. In his widely discussed statement, the anti-India sectarian leader said that Indian Muslims should look at Kashmir not as Hindustanis but as Muslims. He went on to say that if the Indian Muslims did not realize this mistake of theirs at the earliest, how they would face Allah on the day of justice. Experts opine that these utterances of the old man were an outcome of his frustration born out of the fact that the majority of Indian Muslims do not subscribe to his communal and anti-national views.
At the same time, others are questioning Geelani’s own Muslim credentials. If he is really a true and God-fearing Muslim, how he could have maintained an eccentric silence over the recent merciless killings of Shia residents of Gigit-Baltistan. These killings allegedly have the hands of the Pakistani Army’s infamous intelligence wing, the ISI. Either Geelani has fallen short of words or he does not consider those innocent slain Shia Muslims as sons of Allah. He appeals to Indian Muslims to become anti-nationals, showing them a fear of the almighty Allah, but he himself becomes “a senior citizen of India” just for the sake of a concessional ticket. For such a petty benefit, his own fear of God disappears.
NIA court begins trail of Geelani’s aide
In another recent development that indirectly throws light on the real character of S.A. Geelani, one of his known closest aides, Ghulam Mohamad Bhat, is now facing trial in a Delhi court. He is among four persons that India’s premier investigation agency, the NIA, has charged with receiving millions of dollars from Pakistan through Hawala. The trial started with the recording of the statement of an NIA official in the court in the third week of April. As was the case of Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, the source of these funds has also been Pakistan.
While Fai used the Pakistani terror-dollars to infuse anti-India sentiments among US policy makers, in this case, the money was reportedly for directly funding the valley-based terror groups. The US justice system punished the Pakistani agent Fai very quickly and he faces two years in jail for his crimes. All eyes would now be on the special NIA court in Delhi, where these accused face more serious charges. It goes without saying that the efficiency and efficacy of the judicial system of the oldest democracy on the globe would be compared with that of the largest democracy.
Dr. Poonam V. Singh
Dr. Poonam V. Singh obtained her doctoral degree in Hindi Literature from the Hindi Department of Panjab University Chandigarh. Born in Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh, she was brought up and educated in the City Beautiful. She started her journalistic career as sub-editor with Hindi Daily Divya Himachal. Later she also worked as a correspondent of The Times of India and a regional news channel Dinbhar at Rohtak in Haryana. Married to senior journalist and media educator Virender Singh Chauhan, she now writes for India’s premier news agency the Press Trust of India from Sirsa in Haryana. Apart from this she writes on Jammu and Kashmir affairs in various Hindi dailies.