4 January 2002
The Times of India
Centre hangs up on Kashmiris
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: It's the political equivalent of using a sledgehammer to swat a fly: In order to ensure the telephone system and the Internet in Jammu and Kashmir are not misused by militants, the Vajpayee government has simply switched off the Internet and effectively banned most Kashmiris from calling long-distance.
Even as the rest of the country literally rang in the New Year by calling friends and relatives around the country, people in J&K woke up to find they had, quite literally, been disconnected.
While militants are still at liberty to communicate through walkie-talkies and satellite phones, a Srinagar housewife cannot go to a PCO to speak to her sister in Kupwara, a pujari in Jammu cannot speak to his son in Texas and correspondents in the state can no longer file news via the Internet or PCO fax.
Under orders from the communications ministry - acting on instructions from the Cabinet Committee on Security - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd suspended all public STD and ISD facilities out of the state, as well as Internet services.
Private subscribers and offices can still call the rest of the country, but the majority of people in J&K who rely on PCOs to communicate with the outside world have been thrown into the telephonic equivalent of solitary confinement.
According to Jammu-based activist and writer Balraj Puri, the Centre's latest move is ''another step in the isolation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir''.
A former intelligence agency official with extensive experience in Kashmir told this correspondent that the ban ''won't stop the bad guys from talking to each other''.
He pointed out that in any case it was never possible to dial Pakistan from the state and that ordinary Kashmiris would be inconvenienced and alienated. ''Beyond a point, such measures are counter-productive''.
Communications minister Pramod Mahajan's statement that the ''temporary'' ban has been imposed because of the ''border situation'' suggests the government wants to ensure spies do not convey details of troop movements using PCOs or e-mail.
But additional troops have also been deployed on the Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat borders. ''Let the government suspend STD facilities from PCOs in these states'', said a Kashmiri journalist who asked not to be identified. ''Or have they decided that everyone in Jammu and Kashmir is anti-national?''
04 January 2002
03 January 2002
Legal processes in way of getting ‘wanted’ from Pak
3 January 2002
The Times of India
Legal processes in way of getting ‘wanted’ from Pak
BY SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: By formally asking Pakistan to hand over 20 terrorist suspects, the Indian government has chosen to go beyond the four demands conveyed to Islamabad on December 14.
In its demarche, India had asked for the arrest of terrorist leaders, a ban on their finances and activities, and the closure of their offices. Now that Pakistan, after some initial hesitation, says it has acted, the extradition demand is a logical next step, say Indian officials. However, unlike the earlier demands which MEA officials had said were ``consistent with Pakistan's obligations under international law'' and also with UN Security Council resolution 1373, the extradition request takes india into uncharted legal territory.
Moreover, say international law experts, the world may be more tolerant of Islamabad's attempt to parry India's latest move since the extradition demand, in some cases, seems to be ``a political rather than a judicial initiative''.
In the past, Pakistan has waived normal extradition procedures to deliver two men, Ramzi Yousef and Mir Amal Kansi wanted by the US for terrorist crimes. But on tuesday, Pakistani foreign minister Abdus Sattar said the 20 suspects would be handed over under the SAARC regional convention on suppression of terrorism only if India meets the necessary ``legal obligations''.
India should initiate a case against each person in its own courts, indict them and then ask for their extradition. At that point, said Sattar, ``Pakistan will consider the request and if the person is genuinely required for the prosecution, (he) will be handed over''.
An international law expert here told The Times of India that Sattar's statements are ``procedurally correct'' and that it was not ``politically feasible'' for the Indian government to do to Pakistan what the US did to the Taliban in regard to the case against bin Laden.
Article VIIIi of the Saarc convention obliges countries to provide ``all evidence at their disposal necessary for the (legal) proceedings'' and though the evidentiary standard need not be high, ``extradition requests have to be accompanied by specific judicial documents'', the expert noted.
As for Jaish chief Masood Azhar, who was freed by the Kandahar hijacking, ``we have not helped our case by failing to prosecute him during the five years he was held under TADA'', the expert said.
Though New Delhi has never formally invoked 1373, the UN resolution asks states to act against terrorists but does not oblige them to hand over suspects to other countries. In an interview with CNN, in fact, Sattar said Azhar had been arrested pursuant to UN resolutions and that prosecutions for terrorism would be initiated only after India provided evidence.
Under international law, extradition presupposes the consent of the `host' government's judicial institutions.
The only exceptions in recent years have involved the US demand that Libya hand over two men wanted for the Lockerbie disaster and Afghanistan deliver Osama. The US was able to get the UN to impose sanctions on both countries. Though Libya was eventually compelled to extradite the men, the US had to compromise by agreeing to have them tried in the Netherlands under Scottish rather than US law.
India could also approach the Security Council but the outcome is uncertain, say lawyers.
The Times of India
Legal processes in way of getting ‘wanted’ from Pak
BY SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: By formally asking Pakistan to hand over 20 terrorist suspects, the Indian government has chosen to go beyond the four demands conveyed to Islamabad on December 14.
In its demarche, India had asked for the arrest of terrorist leaders, a ban on their finances and activities, and the closure of their offices. Now that Pakistan, after some initial hesitation, says it has acted, the extradition demand is a logical next step, say Indian officials. However, unlike the earlier demands which MEA officials had said were ``consistent with Pakistan's obligations under international law'' and also with UN Security Council resolution 1373, the extradition request takes india into uncharted legal territory.
Moreover, say international law experts, the world may be more tolerant of Islamabad's attempt to parry India's latest move since the extradition demand, in some cases, seems to be ``a political rather than a judicial initiative''.
In the past, Pakistan has waived normal extradition procedures to deliver two men, Ramzi Yousef and Mir Amal Kansi wanted by the US for terrorist crimes. But on tuesday, Pakistani foreign minister Abdus Sattar said the 20 suspects would be handed over under the SAARC regional convention on suppression of terrorism only if India meets the necessary ``legal obligations''.
India should initiate a case against each person in its own courts, indict them and then ask for their extradition. At that point, said Sattar, ``Pakistan will consider the request and if the person is genuinely required for the prosecution, (he) will be handed over''.
An international law expert here told The Times of India that Sattar's statements are ``procedurally correct'' and that it was not ``politically feasible'' for the Indian government to do to Pakistan what the US did to the Taliban in regard to the case against bin Laden.
Article VIIIi of the Saarc convention obliges countries to provide ``all evidence at their disposal necessary for the (legal) proceedings'' and though the evidentiary standard need not be high, ``extradition requests have to be accompanied by specific judicial documents'', the expert noted.
As for Jaish chief Masood Azhar, who was freed by the Kandahar hijacking, ``we have not helped our case by failing to prosecute him during the five years he was held under TADA'', the expert said.
Though New Delhi has never formally invoked 1373, the UN resolution asks states to act against terrorists but does not oblige them to hand over suspects to other countries. In an interview with CNN, in fact, Sattar said Azhar had been arrested pursuant to UN resolutions and that prosecutions for terrorism would be initiated only after India provided evidence.
Under international law, extradition presupposes the consent of the `host' government's judicial institutions.
The only exceptions in recent years have involved the US demand that Libya hand over two men wanted for the Lockerbie disaster and Afghanistan deliver Osama. The US was able to get the UN to impose sanctions on both countries. Though Libya was eventually compelled to extradite the men, the US had to compromise by agreeing to have them tried in the Netherlands under Scottish rather than US law.
India could also approach the Security Council but the outcome is uncertain, say lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
