Frontier Rugs: Review of The Carpet Wars by Christopher Kremmer

September 30, 2002
Outlook

REVIEW

Frontier Rugs

Through the magical metaphor of carpets, Kremmer does a fine job of chronicling the decline of a once-fabled region.

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

THE CARPET WARS: A JOURNEY ACROSS THE ISLAMIC HEARTLANDS by Christopher Kremmer Harper Collins Pages: 448; Rs 595

Let me put my cards on the table and begin by confessing to a tinge of jealousy. With the exception of Balkh and Tajikistan, I have reported from all the ‘exotic’ places Christopher Kremmer has written about: Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Peshawar, Kashmir, Iran and Iraq. But when I look at my notebooks full of barely legible, now obscure political details with a shelf-life of a few newspaper stories, I can only marvel at the meticulous manner in which Kremmer documented every waking moment he spent on assignment.

Loosely woven around the Australian-born author’s passion for carpets, the book is actually an immensely readable account of the contemporary political history of South-Central Asia. In between, readers get more than a glimpse of the practical difficulties journalists encounter, in unfamiliar places dealing with unhelpful officials. At the Jordan-Iraq border at Trebil—a crossing I made in March ’98 with almost the same disastrous consequences—Kremmer describes the manner in which officials wanted to administer an aids test with "a gargantuan syringe of uncertain provenance". Fortunately for him, he was allowed to pay a ‘fine’ in order to avoid the jab.

The area covered in the book, from Iraq in the west to Tajikistan and Kashmir in the north and east defies a unifying geographical or political label but has seen more than its fair share of turbulence in the past decade. Everywhere he went, Kremmer found the time to indulge his passion for carpets. While the civil war in Afghanistan is the core around which the book is built, his account of a visit to Iraq soon after a US bombing in December 1998 makes for compelling reading.

Buried within Kremmer’s Iraq narrative is the fascinating, and hitherto unpublished, testimony of Eric Fournier, a senior French diplomat posted to India after spending a year as political advisor to Richard Butler, chief of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). Tasked with inspecting and destroying Iraqi stocks of proscribed weapons, UNSCOM had become a tool for US policy, and Butler—a mediocre but ambitious Australian diplomat—was a more than willing accomplice. Simply put, Butler used unscom repeatedly to trigger a crisis with Iraq so the US would have an excuse to continue attacking it. So provocative was UNSCOM in their dealings with the Iraqis that UN humanitarian officials posted in Baghdad told me they used to refer to the weapons inspectors as "unscum".

With the US preparing once again to bomb Iraq, Fournier’s account is strikingly relevant: "Why did the bombings occur in December 1998? Well, because Richard Butler reported that the Iraqis had not cooperated with inspections, even though more than three hundred had taken place in a few weeks and only a handful had been a problem. Three out of three hundred did not go perfectly smoothly...the report, drafted like that, was a good excuse for some members of the Security Council to take action".

Fournier also told Kremmer that Butler at one point sounded positive about closing the disarmament issue. But then Richard received a call from the state department who weren’t happy with a positive outcome in Iraq.

Thanks to politics and foreign interference, cities like Baghdad, Kabul, and Herat have fallen upon miserable times, their residents pauperised, their famed merchants close to bankruptcy. Through the magical metaphor of carpets, Kremmer does a fine job of chronicling the decline of a once-fabled region.

Say No to Bush: The World Must Stand by Iraq

The Times of India, September 12, 2002
URL: http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=21892022


Say No to Bush

The World Must Stand by Iraq

By Siddharth Varadarajan

Here’s a simple quiz to mark the anniversary of 9/11. (a) Who is threatening to use aeroplanes to attack civilians and civilian installations like water treatment plants and power stations? (b) Who is refusing to rule out using nuclear weapons in his ‘holy war’? (c) Who is using television for a messianic propaganda campaign justifying this plan-ned terrorism? (d) Who is saying his fatwas count for more than international law? The correct answer to all these questions is not Osama bin Laden but George W Bush and the US administration.

One year after terrorists killed more than 3,000 innocent people in New York and Washington, the world is waiting nervously not for another murderous strike by Al-Qaida but for the bombs the US plans to drop on the equally innocent people of Iraq.

Regardless of the scripted dissension within, the Bush administration’s drive to open the Iraqi front in what is wrongly called the ‘War on Terrorism’ has crossed the point of no return. Massive US-UK air attacks have already taken place at al-Nukhaib, al-Baghdadi and the ‘H-3’ air defences in western Iraq. The war is already on.

And if you don’t believe the nukes threat, consider the August 27 interview given by the ranking US official on ‘arms control’, John Bolton, to Fuji-TV. Question: Is it possible that nuclear weapons will be used against Iraq? Bolton: Since there’s no decision on the use of military force, there’s no decision on exactly how it would be carried out.’’ Washington says the ‘crisis’ has been provoked by Saddam Hussein’s failure to allow UN inspectors to certify Iraq has rid itself of all proscribed weapons. ‘News’ is leaked to scare the world into believing Iraq has nuclear arms. At the same time, Mr Bush openly talks about ‘regime change’ as if it were the God-given right of the US to decide how the Iraqi people are to be governed.

Even on the weapons issue, the dishonesty of the US stand is self-evident. UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 687 mandates Iraqi disarmament, and for more than six years the UN Special Commission (Unscom) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited suspected weapons sites in Iraq to ensure compliance. On April 13, 1998, the IAEA certified that
Iraq had compiled a ‘‘full, final and complete’’ account of its previous nuclear projects and that there was no evidence of any prohibited activity. In December 1998, Unscom volun-tarily pulled out of Iraq on the eve of the US attack codenamed ‘Operation Desert Fox’. In its last month of inspections, according to Unscom head Richard Butler, the commission carried out as many as 427 inspections and reported Iraqi non- cooperation in only five of these. The truth is the US has never been interested in an objective, UN-run disarmament programme for Iraq. Washington deliberately pushed the limits of Iraqi tolerance by using Unscom inspections for espionage. Rolf Ekeus, a former head of Unscom, told Swedish Radio in July 2002 that at times, intrusive inspections were deliberately used by the US to create a crisis that could possibly form the basis for military action. Scott Ritter — a US marine who was part of Unscom and later admitted the CIA used him to spy against Iraq — has written that Iraq no longer has chemical and biological weapons programmes. ‘‘In all of their inspections, the (Unscom) monitors could find no meaningful evidence of Iraqi circumvention of its commitment not to reconstitute its biological weapons program’’, he wrote in Arms Control Today in June 2000.

Eleven years after Iraq was evicted from Kuwait, the country is subject to the tightest regime of economic sanctions ever imposed on any country. Despite the so-called ‘smart sanctions’ introduced by UNSC resolution 1409 in May this year, Iraq’s capacity to provide clean drinking water, electricity and sanitation is hampered by US objections to machinery imports. If food imports and the public distribution system are disrupted by a full-scale US attack, there will be a massive food shortage in Iraq.

Every UN resolution mandating Iraqi compliance with disarmament also explicitly states that Iraq’s sovereignty has to be respected. The US flouted these resolutions to establish illegal ‘no-fly zones’ over Iraqi airspace and has bombed the country hundreds of times in the past dec-ade. In March this year, Iraq submitted a list of 19 questions to UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. Among these were (i) Can the UN guarantee the elimination of the two no-fly zones? (ii) How do you explain the stance of a permanent member of the Security Council which openly calls for the invasion of Iraq? Baghdad has yet to receive an answer.

The world has a right to demand that Iraq comply with its disarmament obligations but it must not legitimise US contempt for international law. Iraq has said it will allow UN weapons inspectors back provided they do not indulge in espionage and work according to a time-bound plan, and also provided there is synchronicity between the degree of Iraqi compliance and the phased elimination of sanctions. This is a reasonable proposal. The US, for its own domestic economic and political reasons, wants to press-gang the world into war. The UN must not allow its mandate of ensuring peace and security to be subverted by Washington. Under no circumstances must it be pushed into providing a ‘multilateral’ cover for US aggression.

Sv and Cigar

Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, on how 9/11 made his job tougher

20 June 2002
The Times of India

No Place for the Displaced

Interview with Ruud Rubbers, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

As United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers has a mandate to ensure that the world’s refugees are treated fairly and steps taken for their speedy and secure rehabilitation. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he says he is concerned about the growing intolerance towards refugees in the West:

Though this doesn’t fall under your mandate, are you aware of the terrible condition in which internally displaced persons (IDPs) — victims of communal violence — are living in camps in Gujarat?

I am aware of the situation, and of course we have to ponder over our role as the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Our policy is to protect and assist refugees. As far as IDPs are concerned, we come in only at the request of a government. It is the responsibility of the government itself to assist people when they are in trouble.

But judging from media reports and your own information, do you feel the situation in which they are living is adequate?

I prefer not to comment on that, not because I have a particular criticism or a particular positive observation but because I have no mandate. This is a difficult internal problem, but is in no way related to refugees. We have not, as far as I know, seen these people wanting to flee India. If that were to happen, then they become refugees, and we might get interested.

When internal conflicts cause as much humanitarian disaster as external conflicts, do you feel it is time the UNHCR began to take a more active interest in the situation of IDPs?

Our mandate is for refugees. Where we are available for IDPs is when the causes of internal displacement are the same as for refugees, or the resettlement needs are the same. However, to respect the sovereignty of nations — and to make it absolutely clear that they have their own responsibility — we always insist on a green light from the government concerned.

For example, today, in Afghanistan you have many IDPs and chairman Karzai has asked us to take care of them as well as those refugees who are coming back. In Columbia, we are taking care of IDPs but that’s the other way around — because they are IDPs but if we do not mobilise support for them, they will start to become refugees.

How do you feel India stands in terms of its own domestic protection for refugees?

India has a good record with refugees but the time has come to go for a refugee law. In a democracy, you need act-based law, non-discriminatory rules. And there is an additional reason. Sometimes, there is the risk that one starts to think that amongst refugees there are people leaning towards crime, terrorism. It is good to have a law which clarifies that if there is reasonable suspicion that some people are connected to crime, they are excluded from protection given to refugees. Even if they come from a country where there is persecution or violence, you cannot say everybody is a refugee. The 1951 Convention on Refugees has such an exclusion and the Indian law could include this provision.

Another reason is that if India feels in the future that there is a population imbalance in one region and goes in for a more restrictive policy on economic migrants, it must not exclude genuine refugees. But how do you distinguish refugees from economic migrants? You need a refugee law. Then you have a definition written into law.

After 9/11, is there growing intolerance in the West towards refugees?

Yes, it’s been a lot of work for us to explain country by country that a good refugee law based on the 1951 Convention excludes criminals and terrorists. The UNHCR is not there to tell governments to accept as many people as possible; we say, organise it well, screen people. This is one element. But the problem didn’t start with 9/11. Globalisation has had a sort of rebound effect. Countries started to say, ‘We have our own identity, we need to exclude foreigners, people of other religions’. Now, 9/11 gives a rationalisation, as it were, as if what happened is a consequence of all the terrorists who had managed to come in. But none of those terrorists came to the US as a refugee.

Are you worried that US military plans such as their desire to attack Iraq will produce more refugees?

Iraqi refugees are primarily a product of the internal situation there, the nature of the regime. But the refugee problem will increase in relation to American military action. We have an interest in the regime changing to the extent it does not produce refugees — and in the international community finding solutions to master the Iraqi problem without military intervention, which would produce new flows of refugees.

Do you think it is time to look more openly at the concept of economic refugees?

Has the time come to broaden the concept of asylum? No. Should we be more realistic about immigration, more open? Yes. But it is still useful to distinguish between the two. Managed immigration is good. I will say that there are good reasons to accept migrants, especially in greying countries. But refugees are victims of violence and persecution. They have to be treated as a different category.

Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India

11 June 2002
The Times of India

Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: As part of a plan to de-escalate tension between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control, Washington is considering a proposal for the ambit of Indo-US military cooperation to be expanded to allow US special forces to operate in Jammu and Kashmir.

According to sources, officials in both countries have been seriously evaluating this proposal, which is likely to be raised formally — along with other suggestions — when US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets Indian leaders here on Wednesday morning.

If at all this radical proposal goes through, any American military deployment is likely to be fairly modest and will officially be described by both India and the US as part of the continuing war against al-Qaeda. There will be no reference to the LoC or to the need to verify on the ground the extent of Pakistani compliance with General Musharraf’s assurances on ending cross-border infiltration.

However, the aim of the deployment would indeed be to monitor the LoC. As far as the Pakistani side of the LoC is concerned, the US is reported to be considering air-borne monitors tasked explicitly with observing cross-border movement.

The US proposal to India comes in the wake of Prime Minister Vajpayee rejecting the idea of "international monitors" for the LoC and Pakistan reacting coolly to the Indian proposal for joint Indo-Pak patrolling.

While both sides are evaluating the legal implications of US forces operating alongside the Indian military such as rules of engagement, immunity and sovereignty issues, officials in Washington and Delhi have concluded that it is only the war on al-Qaeda that can provide a politically safe rationale for the Vajpayee government to allow American troops in, given India’s traditional aversion to outside mediation in Kashmir.

It is possible that recent official Indian claims of al-Qaeda being active in the Valley and of "Arab-looking terrorists" being shot dead by the security forces in J&K are part of the government’s efforts to prepare the ground for "joint Indo-US military action".

In the days and weeks to come, say the sources, India could very well declare, "al-Qaeda and all the other bad guys are operating here and we invite the US to help us deal with them". A section of Indian officials has already started speaking of the possibility of the Kaluchak massacre and some other recent incidents in Jammu & Kashmir as being the handiwork of al-Qaeda.

Musharraf dares India to go to war

27 May 2002
The Times of India

News Analysis

Musharraf dares India to go to war

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: With one eye fixed firmly on his domestic constituency and
the other on the international community, General Musharraf delivered a
hard-hitting speech that granted no fresh concessions on the terrorism
issue and essentially dared the Vajpayee government to go to war.

Logic and common-sense, however, suggest India should not be in any
hurry to accept the ``challenge''.

Given the fact that public opinion in Pakistan had not rallied behind
the General despite the imminent danger of an attack by India,
Musharraf's tone and tenor were along expected lines.

Anything that even smacked of bending before India's diktat would have
been the kiss of death for him.Last month's referendum which he tried
again Monday night to present as free and fair fatally exposed his lack
of support.

What he did, therefore, in his televised address was to try and rally
support for himself in the name of defending Pakistan. It was the
desperate verbal equivalent of the missile tests he conducted last week.

As Prime Minister Vajpayee has found out nothing unites a nation behind
its leader so much as the threat of war. And Musharraf appears to have
taken a conscious decision to up the ante.

Since Vajpayee has repeatedly been saying verbal assurances are not
enough, a promise of fresh action against terrorists crossing the Line
of Control would not have cut any ice with New Delhi.

In the event, any concessions Musharraf plans on making would have to be
implemented on the ground for India to be satisfied. And implemented
quietly, for the Pakistani public to not cry treason.

It is possible that the United States -- which has willy-nilly emerged as
a mediator in South Asia is already aware of this fact and has
communicated the same to India. Or it could be that the General wants to
enlarge the scope of US mediation with his uncompromising stance.

Hard as it may seem, the Vajpayee government will have to take the
General's provocative posturing in its stride.

Musharraf's strategy seems to be aimed at collapsing the vast space
which exists between diplomacy and war.

In the game of chicken New Delhi initiated following Kaluchak, the
General has decided to put his foot on the accelerator in the hope that
the international community will step in to pull both countries back
from the brink of what is bound to be a catastrophic consequences.

Manohar Joshi not new to controversy

10 May 2002
The Times of India

Joshi not new to controversy

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: If Shiv Sena leader and Union industries minister Manohar
Joshi is elected Speaker of the Lok Sabha, it will be for the first
time that a politician indicted by a commission of inquiry for
fuelling communal violence on innocent citizens and accused by a high
court of being party to an illegal land deal makes it to the coveted
post.

It will also be the first time that a Speaker will be ‘‘remote
controlled'' by another politician.

When Joshi was chief minister of Maharashtra, Shiv Sena supremo Bal
Thackeray frequently boasted of his powers to ‘‘remote control'' his
nominee. On Wednesday, Joshi acknowledged that even as Speaker he
would be subject to Thackeray's manipulation.

Colourless but controversial, Joshi rose to national prominence during
the Bombay riots of 1993 when he was widely seen as instigating
attacks by Shiv Sena supporters on innocent Muslims.

As chief minister of Maharashtra, he dropped all criminal charges
against Thackeray and tried his best to scuttle the Srikrishna
Commission of inquiry into the riots but was unsuccessful.

His apprehensions were well-founded since the Commission did not mince
words in indicting him for his role: ‘‘The attitude of the Shiv Sena
as reflected in a Time interview given by Thackeray and its doctrine
of ‘retaliation' as expounded by (Madhukar) Sarpotdar and (Manohar)
Joshi... were responsible for the Sainiks vigilantism. Because some
criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the
Shiv Sainiks ‘retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other
corners of the city''.

When the report came out, Joshi, as chief minister, rejected its
findings and consigned it to the administrative equivalent of the
dustbin. Srikrishna's findings, he told the assembly, were ‘‘biased,
anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim''.

Shortly thereafter, Joshi was to have another brush with Justice
Srikrishna, but this time, he was unable to raise the ‘‘anti-Hindu''
canard.

In March 1999, the Bombay High Court criticised Joshi for abusing his
powers as chief minister of Maharashtra in order to sell a plot of
land in Pune originally earmarked for a school. The beneficiary was an
outfit controlled by his builder son-in-law, Girish Vyas.

The court said Joshi had ‘‘pressurised officials'' to clear the
illegal deal and rejected his protestations of innocence.

‘‘We do not expect a chief minister to file an affidavit like a
pettifogging official to mislead the court'', a Bench consisting of
Justices Parkar and Srikrishna stated sternly. Stung by their ruling,
Joshi quit his seat in the legislative assembly.

A month earlier, he had already been stripped of his chief
ministership by Thackeray thanks to infighting within the Sena.

As Speaker, Joshi will frequently be called upon to rule on
accusations that MPs have used unparliamentary language.

However, in his deposition before the Srikrishna Commission, he
defended the use of the offensive term ‘landya' to describe Muslims in
the Sena mouthpiece Saamna, even though he acknowledged the word was
likely to cause hurt.

BSF record: Guilty are seldom punished

22 April 2002
The Times of India

BSF record: Guilty are seldom punished

Siddharth Varadarajan and Manoj Joshi

New Delhi: If the people of Kashmir are not reassured by Union Home Minister L. K. Advani’s promise to punish the Border Security Force men accused of gang-raping a 17-year-old girl in Hullar village near Anantnag on Thursday, there’s a reason: Bijbehara.

Nine years after the BSF’s 74 Battalion opened fire on a large crowd of unarmed protesters in this small Kashmiri town, killing 37 persons, not a single jawan or officer has been punished. The massacre took place on October 22, 1993.

After strong strictures passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 13 BSF men were charged with murder. But the subsequent General Security Force Court (GSFC) trial led to their acquittal. When the NHRC sought to examine the transcripts of the trials in order to satisfy itself that the BSF had made a genuine attempt to secure convictions, the Vajpayee government refused. The NHRC then moved the Supreme Court in an attempt to secure justice for the victims. And that is where the matter stands.

In the early 1990s, the BSF was charged with the execution of innocents and torture. But in not a single case have the persons concerned been convicted. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs - which oversees the BSF - is responsible for this state of affairs. The largely police leadership of the ministry has convinced its political bosses that harsh action against erring personnel could affect the morale of the forces.

That this goes against the grain of the proclaimed official strategy of winning back the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris is ignored. Even when the BSF has been forced to act, the sentences have been too lenient to act as a deterrent.

In May 1990, a newly-married woman Mubina Gani was taken off a bus by BSF men on the Anantnag-Korenag road along with her maid. Both were raped. The case created a furore and the BSF’s attempts to hush it up failed. As a result of a court martial, two constables were sentenced to just five year’s imprisonment and dismissed from service, while two head constables punished with forfeiture of seniority and reduction in rank.

While the BSF shares the court-martial procedure with the army, it does not quite work that way. The army tends to take a tougher stand against soldiers charged with molestation and rape. Trials usually take place with exemplary speed and sentences can be harsh, up to 10 years imprisonment and cashiering from service - which is what happened to two army officers convicted of raping a Canadian nurse.

The BSF, on the other hand, goes out of its way to subvert the procedure and most personnel get away because of shoddy investigation and trial procedures. however, even the army has been reluctant to act in cases of custodial deaths (‘encounter’ killings) and ‘excessive force’ and mass killings (such as Bijbehara).

BSF record: Guilty are seldom punished

21 April 2002
The Times of India

BSF record: Guilty are seldom punished

Siddharth Varadarajan & Manoj Joshi
Times News Netwok

New Delhi: If the people of Kashmir are not reassured by union home minister L K Advani’s promise to punish the Border Security Force men accused of gang-raping a 17-year-old girl in Kullar village near Anantnag on Thursday, there’s a reason: Bijbehara.

Nine years after the BSF’s 74 battalion opened fire on a large crowd of unarmed protesters in this small Kashmiri town, killing 37 persons, not a single jawan or officer has been punished. The massacre took place on October 22, 1993.

After strong strictures passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 13 BSF men were charged with murder. But the subsequent General Security Force Court (GSFC) trial led to their acquittal. When the NHRC sought to examine the transcripts of the trials in order to satisfy itself that the BSF had made a genuine attempt to secure convictions, the Vajpayee government refused. The NHRC then moved the Supreme Court in an attempt to secure justice for the victims. And that is where the matter stands.

In the early 1990s, the BSF was charged with the execution of innocents and torture. But in not a single case have the persons concerned been convicted. The Union ministry of home affairs - which oversees the BSF - is responsible for this state of affairs. The largely police leadership of the ministry has convinced its political bosses that harsh action against erring personnel could affect the morale of the forces.

That this goes against the grain of the proclaimed official strategy of winning back the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris is ignored. Even when the BSF has been forced to act, the sentences have been too lenient to act as a deterrent.

In Mmay 1990, a newly-married woman was taken off a bus by BSF men on the Anantnag-Korenag road along with her maid. Both were raped. The case created a furore and the BSF’s attempts to hush it up failed. As a result of a court martial, two constables were sentenced to just five year’s imprisonment and dismissed from service, while two head constables punished with forfeiture of seniority and reduction in rank.

While the BSF shares the court-martial procedure with the army, it does not quite work that way. The army tends to take a tougher stand against soldiers charged with molestation and rape. Trials usually take place with exemplary speed and sentences can be harsh, up to 10 years imprisonment and cashiering from service - which is what happened to two army officers convicted of raping a Canadian nurse.

The BSF, on the other hand, goes out of its way to subvert the procedure and most personnel get away because of shoddy investigation and trial procedures. However, even the army has been relcutant to act in cases of custodial deaths (‘encounter’ killings) and ‘excessive force’ and mass killings (such as Bijbehara).

Why the U.K.'s report on Modi's riots worries Delhi

20 April 2002
The Times of India

Why UK’s report worries Delhi

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: The Vajpayee government is worried a scathing report on the Gujarat riots prepared by the British High Commission here might form the basis for British courts to indict chief minister Narendra Modi for ‘complicity’ in the killing of three British Muslims near Ahmedabad in early March — and possibly even genocide.

‘‘we presume the British government will fight any such move, just as it opposed the idea of extraditing Pinochet,’’ said an official, referring to the year-long legal battle by human rights activists to have the former Chilean dictator sent to Spain to face trial. ‘‘But if the victims’ family members move the courts in Britain, there is no telling what might happen’’.

British law allows for jurisdiction when crimes are committed against citizens overseas. and since a similar provision was explicitly introduced into the Indian statute book via the new Prevention of Terrorism Act, India would be hard put to invoke national sovereignty if a British court were to make an extradition request.

The Times of India has learned that at least two human rights organisations and several Indian lawyers in the UK are ‘‘actively examining’’ the possibility of moving the British courts against Modi and senior Gujarat officials for their alleged ‘‘role’’ in the killing. ‘‘Based on all that has emerged’’ said one London-based Indian lawyer, ‘‘a strong case can be made out on the complicity of the State’s leadership.’’ She said reports of senior Gujarat ministers taking over Police Control Rooms and preventing officers from saving lives ‘‘will help establish the chain of command right to the top’’.

What apparently has the Vajpayee government worried is that the British High Commission report also seems to support the charge that the riots were planned and that the police connived with the killers. Any British court which takes up the case is likely to subpoena the report and use it to put pressure on the Blair government. For the moment, the Blair government is handling the case gingerly. Its main concern seems to be securing adequate monetary compensation for its murdered citizens.

I salute you Geetaben, from the bottom of my heart

18 April 2002
The Times of India

The Mask is Off

A Tale of Two Hindus

By Siddharth Varadarajan

Two weeks ago, the resident editor of The Times of India in Ahmedabad sent our office in Delhi a photograph so shocking it made my stomach churn. Shocking not just for what it depicted but because, to paraphrase Barthes, "one was looking at it from inside our freedom." This was my India. This is my India.

On a hot and dusty patch of asphalt lies the naked body of a woman, Geetaben, her clothes stripped off and thrown carelessly near her. One piece of her underclothing lies a foot away from her body, the other is clutched desperately in her left hand. Her left arm is bloodied, as is her torso, which appears to have deep gashes. Her left thigh is covered in blood and she is wearing a small anklet. Her plastic chappals sit sadly alongside her lifeless body and in the middle of the photo frame is a gnarled, red, hate-filled remnant of a brick, perhaps the one her assailants used to deliver their final blow.

Geetaben was killed in Ahmedabad on March 25, in broad daylight, near a bus stop close to her home. She was a Hindu who in the eyes of the Hindu separatists currently ruling Gujarat had committed the cardinal sin of falling in love with a Muslim man. When the Sangh Parivar mobs came for him, she stood her ground long enough for him to flee. But the killers seemed more interested in her. She was dragged out, stripped naked and killed. No lethal dose of Zyklon-B delivered surreptitiously in a darkened, secluded chamber. Geetaben's murder was never meant to be a furtive, secret affair. The holocaust that Chief Minister Narendra Modi's administration presided over was engineered in the knowledge that the Indian state never punishes murderers with political connections. Delhi 1984, Bombay 1993, Gujarat 2002. Neither Congress, Third Front or BJP believes in Nurembergs.

In these troubled times, when heroes are scarce and villains abound, Geetaben deserves to be worshipped. She is Gujarat's Jhansi ki Rani, its La Passionaria. I salute you, Geetaben, from the bottom of my heart for your one brief moment of defiance. For, even in death, with your helpless, innocent body bloodied and your clothes ripped apart, you showed more courage, humanity and dignity and more fidelity to the Hindu religion than Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has done in the past month. When the day of reckoning comes, no one will dare ask you where you were when Gujarat was burning. But when Yama waves a dossier at Mr Vajpayee and asks him how many lives he saved, what will he answer, I wonder. Will he hang his head in shame as he did at Shah-e-Alam camp in Ahmedabad? Or will he lecture the Hindu God of Death about Godhra and jehadi Muslims, and claim, as he did Wednesday, that if only Parliament had condemned the Sabarmati Express carnage, the genocide which followed would never have happened.

When I heard what Mr Vajpayee said at the BJP rally in Goa last week, I experienced the same contaminating, stomach-churning sensation of being present at a crime scene that I felt when I saw the photograph of Geetaben. Though the PM now insists he was misquoted, whichever way his words are parsed, what he told his party faithful at Goa was bone-chilling. "Wherever Muslims are," he said, painting a broad brush to describe not just the followers of Islam around the world but the one-fifth of India's citizens who happen to be Muslim, "they do not want to live with others peacefully."

At the best of times, such a statement would be unforgivable. But when you consider that he was talking about the killing of as many as 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat - and to an audience which believed this genocide was justified - one can only react in horror. Already, the Sangh is enforcing an economic boycott of Muslims. There is not a single Muslim business left in Gujarat. Photocopying stalls near Gujarati courts turn Muslim lawyers away. Men with beards are not served in restaurants and shops in the state. Muslim mothers pray their children won't call them ammi on the street. Instead of speaking out against this, Mr Vajpayee actually had the gall to say Muslims do not wish to live in peace.

For tens of millions of Indians, including those who might have flirted with the BJP, Mr Vajpayee's remarks have served as a wake-up call. At the Shah-e-Alam camp, he said the riots had shamed India. But what he said at Goa has shamed India even more.

For all his fulminations against jehad, Mr Vajpayee's ideology is equally jehadi. His party does not believe in people living in peace, in ensuring that the citizens of India - whether Hindu, Muslim or other - have the wherewithal to live as human beings. The BJP does not respect the rights of citizens or of the nation as a whole. Instead, a bogus, hollow ideology of 'Hindutva' has been erected to cover up their utter contempt for the rights of the people of India.

If historians use the phrase 'Muslim separatism' to define the struggle to carve out a Muslim nation from India in the last century, the project of the RSS-BJP could well be called 'Hindu' separatism. Separatism or secessionism is not just about the desire to create physical distance; it is as much about striving to distance oneself from the political, cultural and philosophical mores of the country. The BJP's separatist project poses as 'Hindu,' but it aims to secede from the philosophical and cultural foundations of India, including Hinduism, and from the political principles that Indians have evolved over the past 200 years of struggle for their rights.

The aim of this project is to establish a state where all Indians, including Hindus, will be devoid of rights except those which will be bestowed upon them as a privilege. Today, Mr Vajpayee tells Muslim, Christian and Sikh Indians at Goa that "we (i.e., the BJP) have allowed you freedom of worship." Tomorrow, Hindu Indians will be told what they are "allowed" to do. Those that transgress - like Geetaben, or Medha Patkar, journalists and others - will be dealt with. Gujarat has thrown a challenge to the country. The writing is on the wall. Either we stand up to defend the rights of all citizens; or we will all go down eventually.

Dateline Gilgit: Chinese operators, missing women and tourists

30 March 2002
The Times of India

Inside Northern Areas IV
CHINESE OPERATORS, MISSING WOMEN AND TOURISTS

Siddharth Varadarajan
Times of India News Service

GILGIT: During and after the Kargil war, the Pakistani government clung to the myth that the men who intruded into India were 'mujahideen' and not soldiers. The deaths of Northern Light Infantry (NLI) soldiers from the Skardu region were not acknowledged at the time and led to much bitterness here. Three years on, however, the Pakistani army appears to have owned the sacrifices of its men. "Three hundred of our boys died at Kargil", said one shopkeeper, "but they have all since been honoured for their bravery". A monument to the Pakistani dead has been built in the middle of town. Rather than anger, the feeling of ordinary people in Skardu is one of pride and even hubris. "Nawaz Sharif should never have agreed to withdraw our forces", said one young man. "We would certainly have liberated the whole of Kashmir".

***

The current military stand-off between India and Pakistan is taking its toll on tourism in the entire Gilgit-Baltistan region. Home to several 8,000-metre high peaks such as K-2, Nanga Parbat and Gasherbrum I and II, the area is second only to Nepal in popularity with international mountaineering expeditions. This year, however, according to hoteliers in Skardu, thanks to the border build-up and the Afghanistan situation, the numbers are down dramatically. "We have been informed by the authorities in Islamabad that only 30 mountaineering expeditions have expressed interest and 16 have bought their licenses."

Last year, some 86 expeditions passed through. The tourism ministry has reduced its 'peak royalty' by 50 per cent but despite that, mountaineers aren't biting.

***

Although China is just a five hour drive up the Karakoram Highway, Gilgit is surprisingly devoid of things Chinese. The one exception is the town's telephone exchange. Made in China, the exchange comes complete with telephone manners that reflect, shall we say, the authoritarian streak of its country of origin.

In India, dialling a wrong number prompts the operator to say, 'This telephone number does not exist'. In Pakistan, the operator says, 'The number you desire is not correct'.

But in Gilgit, the same indiscretion leads to an automated operator barking out in Chinese-accented English, "The callee has no right to receive this call".

***

Not even in Kabul at the height of Taliban rule were women so invisible as they are in Skardu. Though they were not allowed to work, women could at least go shopping provided they were burqa clad. In Skardu, however, local women simply do not venture out on the streets. The men here are so fiercely conservative, said a local official, "that they would rather do the women's work of buying vegetables than let their wives be seen shopping". "But what about clothes?" I asked a salesman sitting in front of huge bales of feminine-looking fabric. "What is the problem? The husbands buy whatever cloth they like and give it to their wives," he said. But he added that some men have started taking a few samples home first so that their wife can choose.

Tibetan script makes a comeback in Pakistan

March 28, 2002
The Times of India

INSIDE THE NORTHERN AREAS - III

Tibetan script makes a comeback in Pak

By Siddharth Varadarajan

SKARDU: In what must be one of the most improbable attempts at linguistic revival anywhere in the world, the Tibetan script is slowly making a comeback in this corner of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir -fighting not just the cursive dominance of Urdu but also the suspicions of mullahs and officials who feel both Islam and Pakistan might be undermined.

The Baltistan region - centred around Skardu - is home to some 300,000 people whose mother tongue is Balti, a language of the Tibetan-Ladakhi family. "We are the only people in this region tohave had our own script since the 6th century AD," says Syed Abbas Kazmi of the Baltistan Cultural Foundation (BCF), "but due to the "narrow-mindedness of the mullah class people were told to stop using Tibetan".
The result is that over the years, the linguistic and literary development of Balti has suffered. "Persian alphabets were not suitable. Many Balti words could not be written and hence our language became like a stray animal, our prose and poetry withered," says Kazmi, a scholar who has written a monograph on the Balti version of the old Tibetan Epic of King Gesar.
Together with the Aga Khan Cultural Services Pakistan and the London-based Tibet Foundation, Kazmi has been working since 1999 to reintroduce the Tibetan script.

The BCF has published an elementary textbook and helps shops in Skardu put up signboards in Tibetan. These signs are the first thing an outsider notices when he comes in to town. "We are getting a very good response", says Kazmi. "Of course, there is a big pressure group of mullahs who feel this is 'unIslamic'. And then there are some who feel this will encourage a feeling of separatism from Pakistan. But our aim is purely cultural. Eventually, we want to promote cultural tourism in Baltistan." Apart from the script, the BCF is working to revive Balti festivals, music and dance and renovate historic buildings.

When the BCF began its advocacy of Tibetan, anonymous leaflets were pasted on the doors of some masjids. "I was accused of trying to revive what the prophets had buried", says Kazmi. "What I do now is that before I start a new project, I first go to the mullahs and explain to them, educate them."

In Skardu, the BCF is respected and indulged, even if many are skeptical about the practicality of its main project. "You can't undo hundreds of years of history," one bookseller said, adding, however, that the Tibetan school primer was selling well. Though Kazmi is aware of the political implications of what he is doing, he insists Islamabad has nothing to fear.

"We are for Baltistan but this does not mean we are against Pakistan. Even if we don't have constitutional rights, Pakistan has given us many economic benefits - telephones, roads, schools. But they have not loved us as much as we have loved them." The 1988 killing of Shias in Gilgit still rankles people here, he says. "And Pakistan is certainly not helping to find a solution to the Kashmir problem."

Nisar Memon, Pakistan's information minister, on why his country continues to ban Indian channels

27 March 2002
The Times of India

Infoetainment channel

Interview with Nisar A. Memon, Information minister of Pakistan

Two days before the recently held meeting of Saarc information ministers in Islamabad, Nisar A Memon was appointed Pakistan’s minister for information and media development. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he defended his government’s media policies, including the ban on Indian channels. and though he appreciated the fact that India’s I&B minister, Sushma Swaraj, came to Pakistan, he regretted she did not have a bilateral meeting with him:

How do you rate the interview Sushma Swaraj gave to PTV?

I have great respect for her. She replied to the questions very clearly. It was a good interview. Given that she has been in politics for more than 25 years, nothing less was expected of her! At the same time, I think the interview has given her a chance to have a better understanding of what the Pakistani people outside of the government think. There will be a better appreciation by her of the common man’s view over here, that they want the issue of Kashmir to be redressed, they want better relations, they want to move forward. I hope this interview will help her to bring this perception to the Indian government.

When you come to Delhi in 2003 for the next Saarc information ministers’ meeting, do you expect to be given similar time for a live interview on Doordarshan?

Obviously I will not ask to be interviewed but if I am asked, I will not want to deny that request. After all, it is my job as information minister. (Incidentally), I would have liked Sushma Swaraj to call on me as information minister, as some of the other Saarc ministers did. And I should say that I am rather disappointed that she did not. If she had asked for such a meeting, I would have been delighted.

Why has the Pakistani government banned the transmission of Indian television channels?

I think Pakistan finds it rather difficult to see that a cultural onslaught can take place. In any case, from what I gather, India should review the appearance of some of the commentators. They are full of satire. When journalists get involved emotionally with their government’s policies, they hurt the interests of their own country. They should be emotional about their country by all means but not their government. So this ban has been imposed because there was so much of negative barrage. Pakistan felt that if you can close your airspace, we can do things too. It takes two to tango. I feel that (during the Saarc meeting in Islamabad) we lost a bit of an opportunity. Swaraj should have focused on improving bilateral relations, tackling some of these bilateral issues, on the sidelines. It would have helped the two countries. In any case, you have also banned PTV in india.

Well, it was banned during Kargil, and now, only in Gujarat, by the state government. And the Indian media has criticised these things.

But PTV was covering the riots there like anyone else. I have great respect for India as a secular state but I am disappointed it has failed to protect its minorities. But I want to say that the more Indian propaganda tries to paint Pakistan black, the worse it will be for India. Such things will only fuel religious extremism. Muslims will react negatively to such portrayals and Hindu extremists will get further encouragement.

Isn’t it ironic that you are talking of Saarc-level cooperation on information and media when the channels of one country are not allowed to be shown in another?

Isn’t it ironic that we had a Saarc meeting and because of the overflight ban everyone had to take such a long route?

People in Pakistan have criticised the ban on Indian channels, saying that doesn’t the government think they are mature enough to make up their minds about what is right and wrong...

But there are also many people here who say why are we even allowing Indian journalists to come to Pakistan at a time like this? I want to keep the channels of communication open. But can you imagine, the correspondent of the Associated Press of Pakistan in Delhi — his visa has not been renewed. I raised the matter with Sushma Swaraj but she said it was the foreign ministry’s affair. Here, I am working to get more visas. Let us see what Sushmaji does.

How long will the ban on Indian channels continue?

The ban was imposed before I became minister. I have not reviewed the ban yet, to see whether we still need it, and if so, for how long.

The dismissal of Shaheen Sehbai as Editor of The News and the Sindh government’s decision to shut down two newspapers, Kainat and Janbaz, have brought the issue of freedom of the press in Pakistan under focus. Recently, you were yourself quoted as saying there is vulgarity on PTV, that people are misusing the freedom given to them. Don’t you think such things undermine a free media?

The media in Pakistan is very free and it will remain free. We have no intention to curb freedom. We are evolving a code of conduct in consultation with the newspapers themselves. As far as my own remarks are concerned, I did not say there was vulgarity. What I said was that there are some programmes which could affect the sensitivities of the people. Not everyone in pakistan is liberal or conservative. We want moderation. Nothing else was intended.

As far as Kainat and Janbaz are concerned, they published some very wrong personal information about the President. The Sindh government acted against them. We took it up. I spoke to the President himself and he did not want any particular action taken. Then I spoke with the Sindh government and said that if they have tendered an apology, we should move on, It would not be fair to create an environment where people feel freedom is being threatened. Now, you will be happy to know, the ban has been lifted.

There are reports that the proposed Press Council and Newspaper Registration ordinances have run into trouble in the cabinet with some ministers saying these laws are ‘‘toothless’’, that the government won’t be able to control the press.

In any discussion, all kinds of views will be there. The media should focus on decisions. The Pakistan government is determined to implement press laws in consultation with representative bodies. President Musharraf also wants to ensure there should be no power in the hands of officials which can be used to coerce the press. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority is supposed to create the basis for an independent electronic media here.

But critics feel that because the ordinance says ‘‘PEMRA will be bound to follow policy directives issued by the government’’, this will rob the authority of its independent character.

Private channels can start as soon as they come forward.

The media is open everywhere, so why not in Pakistan?

I have not had a chance to study the PEMRA ordinance so i cannot comment on the specific criticism.

Why Pakistan can't let the Northern Areas go

March, 26 2002
The Times of India

INSIDE THE NORTHERN AREAS - II

Why Pak can’t let Northern Areas go

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BALTIT, Hunza: To understand the political significance of the Northern Areas, all one needs do is look at a map.

The road from Islamabad to Beijing runs, quite literally, through this forgotten corner of Jammu and Kashmir. Built at great economic and human cost by Pakistan, the Karakoram Highway traverses the lush valley of the Hunza river. Almond and peach blossoms line the road and the icy Rakaposhi massif stands guard over the highway as travellers snake their way up to China through Khunjerab Pass some 4800 metres above sea-level.

At the root of Pakistan’s opposition to self-rule for people here is its fear that it might lose the Northern Areas (NAs), and hence the country’s border with China, if a future referendum grants Kashmiris the option of independence. That is why it does not want to consider the NAs an administrative part of Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) or grant it the same ‘independent’ status.

As for making the NAs a province of Pakistan, Islamabad’s argument is that this would then complicate the region’s participation in any future referendum on J&K’s final status. But the real reason is legal. ‘‘Pakistan cannot incorporate us,’’ a member of the NAs legislative council told this correspondent, ‘‘and still insist to the world that J&K is disputed territory.’’ The end result is that Gilgil-Baltistan’s peculiar status as a ‘‘territory...included in Pakistan, whether by accession or otherwise’’ looks set to continue.

If the lack of constitutional space has had an adverse impact on development, some see economic benefits as well. In the village of Ganesh, a group of men said they were better off than other Pakistanis because they didn’t have to pay tax. Nevertheless, the feeling of many Hunzakuts is that their region is suffering because they don’t have a political voice. To a visitor from outside, it does seem as if Pakistan has poured in a great deal of money — building roads and infrastructure. But the popular perception here is that not enough has been done.

In tiny Altit village just off the KKH highway, a young potato farmer complained that Hunza’s waters ‘‘go all the way to Punjab but we get no electricity’’. For the man on the street, the acute shortage of electricity in the NAs is a particularly sore point. ‘‘When the nationalists raise these issues,’’ says one Gilgit shopkeeper who described himself as pro-Pakistani, ‘‘they definitely strike a chord’’.

Most nationalists here say they are the ‘‘fourth party’’ to the Kashmir dispute — apart from India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. ‘‘We believe in the fourth option,’’ says Nawaz Khan Naji of the Baltistan National Front. ‘‘An independent state including Gilgit-Baltistan, Kargil and Ladakh.’’

Amanullah Khan, the author of Gilgit-Baltistan A Disputed Territory or A Fossil of Intrigues?, accuses Pakistan of fostering ‘‘sectarian divisions’’ in order to detract attention from the region’s problems. ‘‘The correct political solution of the Gilgit-Baltistan issue is the right of freedom and independence recognised in UN Charter and demanded by the nationalist Raja Shah Rais in 1947.’’ Rais was the first president of the 12- day ‘Islamic Republic of Gilgit’ set up in November 1947 after the region revolted against Maharaja Hari Singh.

Gilgit leaders deny they're Indian agents

March, 25 2002
The Times of India

INSIDE THE NORTHERN AREAS - I

Gilgit leaders deny they’re Indian agents

By Siddharth Varadarajan

GILGIT: Being a nationalist in this region is to lay yourself open to the charge of being an Indian agent. Despite this, there is no shortage of groups speaking of self-determination for Gilgit-Baltistan. ‘‘Ten years ago’’, said a local journalist, ‘‘nobody here wanted to hear the name ‘Kashmir’, everybody was for merger with Pakistan. Today, the mood has changed to one of self-determination rather than merger’’.

Among the most prominent nationalist groups are the Balawaristan National Front of Nawaz Khan Naji, the Karakoram National Movement of Chaudhry Mohammed Iqbal, the Gharib Avaam Quami Movement of Inayatullah Shumali, the MQP of Maj Shah, the Gilgit- Baltistan Thinkers Forum of Col Wajahat Hassan Khan and the Baltistan Students Federation, which uses the old Tibetan-Buddhist symbol of auspiciousness, the swastika, on its flag.Together with the regional wings of Pakistan-based parties like the Muslim League, PPP and even Jamaat-e-Islami, these groups have established the Gilgit-Baltistan National Alliance (GBNA) around the minimum slogan of self-rule.

Some GBNA constituents favour the Northern Areas becoming Pakistan’s fifth province, others want merger with AJK, while the nationalists stress self-determination. ‘‘Gilgit-Baltistan is a nation and it should be given national rights,’’ Naji told The Times of India. ‘‘Our people should have the right to choose whether they want to be with Pakistan, India, independent or whatever.’’ If Pakistan were ‘‘unilaterally to incorporate Gilgit-Baltistan as a province’’, says Naji, his party would fight this tooth and nail.

‘‘Neither I nor my descendants will ever accept India,’’ says Maj Shah, ‘‘so if Pakistan won’t accept us, we have no option but independence’’.All the nationalists this correspondent spoke to say the Pakistani authorities routinely accuse them of being R&AW agents. Several have been charged with sedition. ‘‘My argument is very simple,’’ says Maj Shah, who has been fighting a sedition case for several years. ‘‘When you are not prepared to consider me a part of Pakistan, against whom am I being seditious?’’

Despite such arguments, legal harassment continues. Two years ago, the authorities banned the weekly K-2, at the time the only independent newspaper in the region, because it carried a news report about the nationalists observing Pakistan’s independence day of August 14, 2000, as yaum-e-siyah or ‘black day’’. Though the ban was lifted last year, the paper has to tread carefully. Naqqara editor Ali Mardan says that though the strength of the nationalists remains untested, their influence has grown tremendously in the past decade. ‘‘I remember Naji’s first rally 12 years ago,’’ he says. ‘‘There were just 35 people and half of them were speakers.’’ But in the rally Naji held in the centre of Gilgit on November 1 last year, ‘‘there were more than 2,000 people despite the pouring rain’’.

Naji, an intense, welcoming man in his 40s, is self-deprecatory when asked about popular support. ‘‘All I can say is that when Nawaz Sharif was arrested by the military, no one protested. Here, at least 200 people were prepared to court arrest when I was jailed.’’If Pakistan is in control, he notes, obviously people will not speak against Pakistan. ‘‘But if the peoples’ views are ascertained through some independent agency such as the UN, who is to say what they would choose?’’

Slowly, Pak’s new Kashmir policy takes shape

23 March 2002
The Times of India

Slowly, Pak’s new Kashmir policy takes shape

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Islamabad: While it is impossible to gauge the extent to which Pakistan is still backing militant operations in Kashmir, there is no doubt that it has acted to snap the presence groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed had built at the grassroots level throughout the country. The mujahideen collection boxes that were a fixture in shops have vanished. Offices and propaganda stalls have been shut down, even in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.

Soon after the Dec. 13 Parliament attack, LeT spokesman Yahya Mujahid said any ban would make no difference to his organisation. Today, his leader is in jail and he is out only because he has repositioned himself as the spokesman of the ‘Jamaat-ud-Dawa Pakistan’. Even so, he is constantly on the move, changing his mobile number virtually every week. He appealed to this correspondent that he not be linked in any way to the LeT. "Please", he said, "you must understand I no longer have any connection with Lashkar."

It is as if Pakistan has finally decided to clean up the way it is projecting the Lashmir issue to the world. The United Jihad Council has been sidelined and its chief, Syed Salahuddin, has been asked to remain in Muzaffarabad, away from the press. A ‘National Kashmir Committee’ under the chairmanship of Sardar Abdul Qayoom has been set up. "What is happening is that the salience of Kashmir as a political problem is coming to the fore", said Nasim Zehra, journalist and member of the committee.

Pakistani officials say Islamabad wants to "call India’s bluff that Kashmir is all about terrorism". The involvement of Kashmir-linked militants in the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl has further convinced the Musharraf regime that its Kashmir policy has what one official described as "a major image problem". While acknowledging New Delhi has been "quite successful" in convincing the international community that the main problem in Kashmir is cross-border terrorism, officials say Pakistan is not averse to the tap of militancy being turned off so that India is "forced to confront the political dispute which exists".

The Kashmir Committee, said Sardar Qayoom, will provide political direction to the "Kashmir struggle". "Today, we have six to eight thousand mujahideen but they should be under political command. That is where the Sikh movement failed". One of the initiatives his committee would work on was a ceasefire, he said, "but not as an end in itself. If we request militants to stop fighting, they would like to have a substitute".

On the ground, it does appear as if Pakistan has begun implementing its ‘put politics in command’ strategy, a fact Prime Minister Vajpayee acknowledged when he told Parliament the changes in Pakistan were having "a good effect".

Lt Gen. Moin-ud-din Haider (retd.), Pakistan's Interior minister, on the Daniel Pearl case

22 March 2002
The Times of India

Inside Islamabad

Interview with Pakistan's interior minister

Pakistan’s interior minister, Lt Gen Moin-ud-din Haider (retd), is the musharraf regime’s point man in its battle against extremism. soon after the government banned extremist groups in january, his brother was killed by militants. in an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan in Islamabad, Haider says Pakistan has done enough to address india’s concerns and that the current military stand-off is making his task of dealing with extremists more difficult:

Looking back at all that has happened in the past six months, from 9/11 to the murder of Daniel Pearl, do you now regret allowing extremists like Omar Sheikh and Masood Azhar to slip back into Pakistan so easily after the Kandahar hijacking?

I think so. We should have kept track of them. Subsequently, we did restrict their activities even before September 11 or January 12. Many of their pronouncements and speeches were of no help to Pakistan. But now we have moved against such people. We have made arrests, banned these groups, frozen their accounts, shut down their offices. We have taken many steps for our own reasons but these also address many of your concerns as well. If we are trying to control extremism in Pakistan, this is for the good of Pakistan. I want to say that this effort of ours has been dampened by the unilateral action of India such as its border deployment. This has diverted our attention. Our army and paramilitary forces went back to the border. We were using them to curb extremists.

Soon after Pearl was kidnapped, Pakistan accused India of involvement. What happened?

Well, there were many gaps in the story about why Pearl went to Karachi. His wife and a colleague, Isra Nomani, an Indian-born US national, also came. Now, Nomani told me Pearl had come to do a story on Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. I said Reid is already in US custody, what is left in the story? They said he wanted to see Pir Gilani, who belongs to Lahore, and had come to Karachi to approach Gilani through fixers. I was very surprised because I had never heard of this Gilani before and in any case, it turns out he was accessible to everyone. If he was in Lahore and accessible, why go to Karachi? Then, if you are going to interview or meet someone, you go to an office or home, not dangerous places. So this aspect also puzzled me. If Pearl’s aim was to do the Reid story, why should they rent a house — with a cook and all other expenses — instead of just staying in a hotel like all the other journalists? This was another puzzling factor.

But what is the Indian connection in all this?

Omar Sheikh was in an Indian jail for five years. I have never said there is a link with the Indian government. I know others said things. The fact is some telephone records suggest calls were made to India (by Isra Nomani).

So are you saying Omar Sheikh is an Indian agent?

I cannot figure a reason for Omar — who was in an Indian jail for five years — to have done this. It embarrasses Pakistan, it tarnishes us. Some newspapers are saying (he is an agent) but there is no official view on this. I think the levelling of such accusations will be counterproductive.

Will Pakistan extradite Omar Sheikh to the US?

The US knows that investigations in the Pearl case are still continuing. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has joined in. They appreciate our massive effort to apprehend the culprits. If there is evidence, the trial can be here. If we have all the evidence, the US will not mind.

Does the FBI have access to Omar Sheikh? Have they been interrogating him without the presence of Pakistani officers?

They have access but I am not sure if it is without the presence of our officers. The FBI has been helping us mainly in technical matters like tracing e-mails.

You have said the US extradition request for Omar Sheikh cannot be compared with the Indian request for Masood Azhar and 19 others. What is the difference?

First of all, the US has given us the indictment of Omar Sheikh. When we wanted the US to extradite our former naval chief, we had to give them a 70-page legal document. On India’s list of 20, we have said there are many things to sit and talk about. We are afraid the wish list just keeps growing.

Can you give us a status report on the 20? Has there been any attempt to track them down?

I am not able to give such a report at this time. But we have given our opinion that this is not a very big matter. Let us sit and discuss it. We have taken many, many, many measures. But we feel India’s wish list will never end. They want this stalemate to continue. The goalposts keep changing. People here feel enough is enough.

Pakistan’s Extradition Act says requests from foreign governments for fugitives will be referred to a magistrate. Instead, your government has summarily rejected India’s request. Why are you not following the judicial procedures specified in your own law?

Well, that is why we have asked india for evidence. Only then can there be a judicial procedure. Then we have to find the persons and present them before a magistrate.

But Masood Azhar is already in custody.

If you give us evidence, we can proceed. But he was with you for five years and you never proceeded against him. You let him go.

Is there a double standard here? In the case of Mir Aimal Kansi and Ramzi Youssef, Pakistan simply handed them over to the US.

There was a big hue and cry in Pakistan at that time. Now we are following judicial procedures more strictly. People resented that action. this time, we are going to follow the due process of law.

Your war on extremism is in its early days and already there have been sectarian killings. Do you think you will be able to control these elements?

We are taking adequate steps but when you take strong decisions, a backlash will be there. This is a journey that will take us some time.

Do you feel the Pakistani government was too lenient to extremists in the past, that you allowed them to grow in stature and influence?

Over the years, successive governments failed to take action against extremists. But we have taken a stand for a modern state. Anyone who threatens the government — to march to islamabad, to impose some form of islamic state — the process of law will move against them. This country came into being because of islam, but not for a theocratic state. wW will not allow people to challenge the writ of the government. There is a plan. We have been trying to put the genie in the bottle for some time.

Dateline Islamabad: Was Daniel Pearl on to something?

From the May 2002 issue of World Press Review (VOL. 49, No. 5)

Skeletons Rattle in Pakistan's Closet

Was Pearl Onto Something?

Siddharth Varadarajan, The Times of India, New Delhi, India, March 11, 2002

Daniel Pearl in an undated photo (AFP)

Islamabad: What did Gen. Pervez Musharraf mean when he said that Daniel Pearl—the Wall Street Journal correspondent who was kidnapped and killed by extremists in Pakistan—had been overly intrusive in areas he shouldn’t have been? The remark was vintage Musharraf, delivered off-the-cuff during an impromptu press conference here Thursday. “Unfortunately,” he said, “(Pearl) got over-involved.” But what exactly had Pearl got himself “over-involved” in?

Though he was said to be working on a story about the Pakistani linkages of Richard Reid—the shoe bomber who was overpowered by passengers on a U.S.-bound flight in December—many local journalists feel Pearl had stumbled across information that might have embarrassed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. “We can only presume he came close to finding out the roots of some people with the ISI,” said a senior columnist for [Karachi’s] Urdu Daily Jang. “There were 3,000 Western journalists who worked in or passed through Pakistan during the U.S. war on Afghanistan,” said one editor of a daily newspaper. “Why was he the one picked up? It is possible he had come across some information about a few of the persons on India’s list of 20 terrorists. Persons such as [Indian crime lord who is in hiding in Pakistan] Dawood Ibrahim, for example.” He pointed out that the first time an exposé on Dawood’s Karachi links was published in the Pakistani magazine The Herald, the ISI picked up and interrogated two journalists, Ghulam Hasnain and Amir Ahmed Khan, to find out the source of their story.

Though Pakistani analysts doubt that Pearl’s kidnapping had official sanction, they say the investigation will likely proceed “cautiously.” “I am not saying there will be a cover-up,” said one senior journalist. “But Pakistan’s past policies (regarding the extremist groups) have left a large number of skeletons. Once you begin investigating, you will start opening all kinds of doors.”

Even though they had nothing to do with Pearl’s kidnapping, many people within the ruling establishment would not like matters to be probed very deeply, he said. One noted Pakistani commentator told The Times of India that the manner in which Omar Sheikh, the prime suspect in the Pearl kidnapping, came into police custody itself spoke of these linkages. “He wasn’t arrested. Rather, he turned himself in to the one man he trusted enormously, Punjab Home Secretary Brig. Ijaz Shah, who is a retired ISI man.”

And what was Omar’s connection with Ijaz Shah? “Please re-read the diary Omar Sheikh wrote when he was in prison in India. It is full of adulatory references to the man who inspired him. And that man’s name was Shah Sahab.”

Islamabad meet begins with detour

8 March 2002
The Times of India

Islamabad meet begins with detour

By SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Islamabad: India's ban on overflights by Pakistani aircraft took centrestage at the inaugural session of the Saarc information ministers’ meeting here Thursday with both General Pervez Musharraf and Bangladeshi information minister Abdul Moin Khan asking New Delhi to reverse its policy.

‘‘If India’s honourable information minister has the authority, I am prepared to end our ban on overflights, here and now,” Musharraf said. Information and broadcasting minister Sushma Swaraj, who herself arrived in Islamabad early Thursday morning via Dubai taking nearly 20 hours for a journey which should have taken two, sat through these calls impassively. At the end of the meeting — which concluded with an impromptu Musharraf news conference held in response to demands from Indian journalists — the Pakistani president offered her the floor.

‘‘Begum sahiba, if you’d like to say a few words (so that) you don’t say I have overstepped.” Swaraj replied: ‘‘You are the president (of Pakistan). I am only the minister of information and broadcasting. I have no authority to respond, either positively or negatively.”

The flight issue was first raised by the Bangladeshi minister, who told the inaugural session of the inconvenience he underwent in getting to Islamabad from Dhaka because of the ban. Gently chiding India, he requested Swaraj to work for the resumption of overflights. When he took the podium, Musharraf broke away from his prepared text to apologise to the Saarc delegates for the circuitous route they had to take. ‘‘I apologise for the long trip... I myself suffered for 14 hours to get to Kathmandu. All I can say is that this is not my doing.”

Musharraf said that the Saarc format was too restrictive and that it ‘‘needs to be expanded to include regional solutions to bilateral disputes.’’ Asked about the Indo-Pakistan border stand-off, he said, ‘‘Immediately, through mutual understanding, we need to de-escalate. We are open to any dialogue. We are prepared to pull back (our troops from the border) tomorrow if there is reciprocity.’’

Upset at what they saw as Musharraf’s attempt to upstage the Saarc summit by raising bilateral and ‘‘contentious issues’’, the Indian delegation later fielded Swaraj at a news conference for Indian journalists. ‘‘The flight ban, troop pullback — these are bilateral, contentious issues. These should not have been discussed,’’ she said. Asked whether she thought Musharraf’s ‘‘behaviour’’ had been ‘‘appropriate’’, she replied: ‘‘It is his country and he can behave as he likes in his own country. I have no right to make any observation.’’

Though she met Musharraf over a cup of tea with the other Saarc ministers, Swaraj was at pains to emphasise there had been no ‘bilateral’. ‘There was no meeting. It was a joint call-on. No one-to-one. All of us were there exchanging pleasantries.’’

Musharraf struck one further note of dissonance in his response to a question on Daniel Pearl. Asked whether there were any lessons to be learnt from the journalist’s murder, he said, ‘‘He came from Mumbai and he was over-intrusive in areas he shouldn’t have been. Mediapersons should know there are dangers if you get involved in such areas.’’

Saarc trips over media visas

7 March 2002
The Times of India

Saarc trips over media visas

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Islamabad: Restrictions on journalists and the question of the ‘‘free flow of information featured prominently on the opening day of the Saarc information ministers’ meet here, with the tall statements of South Asian governments contrasting sharply with their actual policies on the ground.

Claiming that he was all for journalists from Saarc countries having easy access to the entire region, General Musharraf pleaded that he was ‘‘unaware’’ of the fact that Indian journalists had been denied visas to Pakistan ever since September 11. Sidestepping the recent controversy over the ouster of The News editor Shaheen Sehbai for carrying a damaging news story on the British-born terrorist Omar Sheikh, Musharraf grandly told the inaugural session that the media in Pakistan was absolutely free. ‘‘I hope that this is right,’’ he asked rhetorically, pointing to the large contingent of Pakistani journalists present. No one demurred.

‘‘I appreciate criticism of myself,’’ the general said, adding, without a trace of irony, ‘‘as long as it is correct.’’

At a press conference later in the evening, information and broadcasting minister Sushma Swaraj took an equally unhelpful line on the issue of journalist visas. Saying the issue of journalists’ visas was a bilateral matter, Swaraj said that as in the case of the flight ban, the Indian government could not frame its policies on the basis of what is convenient or inconvenient for some. ‘‘You cannot see things in isolation,’’ she said. ‘‘We cannot treat journalists separately. Like the flight ban, this issue can only be resolved when the situation on the ground (regarding India’s demands on Pakistan) improves.’’

Earlier in the day, Bangladeshi information minister Abdul Moin Khan made an impassioned plea for South Asian governments to commit themselves to the free flow of information and objectivity in reporting.

Carnage in Gujarat: Telling Silence, Mr Vajpayee

6 March 2002
The Times of India

Carnage in Gujarat
Telling Silence, Mr Vajpayee

By Siddharth Varadarajan

Prime Minister Vajpayee's attempt to blame the people of Gujarat – and their supposed lack of “harmony” – for the mass killings in their state is a disingenuous maneuver aimed at absolving himself, his party colleagues and the state machinery they control, of any responsibility for the crimes.

Instead of using national television to tell the people of Gujarat that the genocidal mobs would be put down with a firm hand – and that policemen failing to protect the life and liberty of all would be punished – Mr Vajpayee delivered a sermon on the need for religious tolerance.

Considering that it took him two whole days and over 300 deaths to come up with such tepid fare, he might at least have used his poetic skills to compensate for the lack of political will. Who knows, if the poet Amrita Pritam could have delivered her 'Waris Shah' on television in 1947, she might have shamed a killer or two into dropping his weapon. Sadly, our Prime Minister could not even do that much. Though he has described the violence as a “blot on the nation”, there was little passion or feeling in what he said, no words of succor for the victims, no anger or opprobrium for the killers. If Vajpayee the statesman failed the nation, Vajpayee the poet fared no better.

Like Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984 and Narasimha Rao in January 1993, Mr Vajpayee will go down in history as a prime minister who preached the virtues of tolerance even as his cohorts turned a blind eye to the massacre of innocent citizens. Had he gone on television to denounce those using the Godhra incident to justify attacks on Muslims – including chief minister Narendra Modi, who said, “Har kriya ki pratikriya hoti hi hai (Every act produces a reaction)” – he would have alienated a handful of fanatics but earned the gratitude of the entire nation in return.

One Arab and one Sikh were murdered in the US following the terrorist massacre of over 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the public outcry forced president Bush to state that anyone attacking Muslims and other minorities would be severely dealt with. In India there was mush self-righteous anger when a Sikh in the US was 'mistakenly' killed for being an Arab. In Gujarat, however, more than 450 Muslims have been hunted down and murdered after Godhra – that too by elements inspired by his own partymen with complicity of the state government and police – yet Mr Vajpayee could not bring himself to say as the leader of India, that he would not allow anyone to attack Muslim citizens, as Bush did in the US context.

There have been communal massacres before but never has such an attempt been made to destroy not just a minority community but its economic foundations as well, Already, more than 450 Muslims have been killed. Tens of crores of rupees worth of property has been torched, and when the ashes settle, it may well be that no Gujarati Muslim business – from the smallest tea stall to large hotels and film studios – will have survived. Muslims from all walks of life have been targeted and even prominent members of the state and ruling apparatus – sitting high court judges, senior police officers and politicians – have not been spared. The fact that the BJP government in Gujarat devalued Muslims lives in Gujarat is well known, but by offering one lakh rupees per riot victim as compared to two lakhs rupees for the Godhra victims, Narendra Modi has arithmetically quantified his bias.

Ever since the hijacking of IC-814, the prime minister has become something of an expert in the fine art of capitulating to blackmail. Today, his government is indulging in 'negotiations' on the Ayodhya issue with a group that is responsible for the pogroms of Gujarat and openly flaunts its contempt for the law. Press reports are piling up by the day that the mobs were led and orchestrated by local leaders of the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Whether the ban on the Islamic group SIMI was justified or not, there was certainly no incriminating evidence against it of the kind that is publicly accumulating against the VHP. If suspicion and intent were grounds to ban SIMI, why is the Union government unwilling to move against a group that is a walking advertisement for mass violence?

Asked by a citizen's delegation last week why his government could not ban the VHP when General Musharraf had managed to ban several religious extremist groups in Pakistan, Mr Vajpayee is said to have replied, “(Musharraf) is a dictator and can ban anyone. We are a democracy”. This appeal to 'democracy' has an uncomfortable resonance with the controversial remark Mr Vajpayee made last month during the final phase of campaigning for the Uttar Pradesh elections. Speaking at a rally in Allahabad, he urged Muslims to vote for his party but added that BJP was going to win even without their votes. Though Mr Vajpayee subsequently went out of his way to stress that he did not mean to say the BJP wasn't interested in Muslims votes, the import of his message to Indian Muslims couldn't have been clearer. You are either with us or you are against us. It could have been interpreted as a velvet-gloved threat, which the Bajrang Dal and VHP in Gujarat have come good on.

Even at this late stage, Mr Vajpayee can work to retrieve the situation. First, he must use his party channels to dismiss Narendra Modi as chief minister and replace him with a man who will arrest those leaders, political activists and police official who through their action, inaction and incendiary speeches have led to so much carnage. Second, the law of the land must be made to apply to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and all other organisations, which are involved. Far from giving the VHP respectability, the Centre should state unequivocally that there is no question of giving in to blackmail over Ayodhya, now or in the future.

Finally, the prime minister must realise that what has happened in Gujarat is not abstract, amorphous Muslim citizens with tacit backing of the state administration. Godhra was a terrible crime but the government at least did not help the murderers; what happened afterwards, however, suggests official complicity. Unless the guilty are punished, the Central government will have relinquished its moral right to hold office.

'Newton' Modi has a lot to answer for

3 March 2002
The Times of India

'Newton' Modi has a lot to answer

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: Fish rots from the top, and if the ugly events unfolding in Gujarat over the past four days are any indication, the same holds true for governance too.

Even after four days of senseless violence, Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi is yet to reassure the five crore people of his state that he is the guardian of their lives and property. The past four days have made it clear that the dividing line between the government, the police, the BJP and other fronts of the Sangh Parivar like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal have got totally blurred in Gujarat.

Asked about the violence, Modi quoted Newton's third law - "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - to virtually justify what is happening.

In the case of the lynching of former Congress MP Ehsan Jaffrey, he was quick to point out that it was Jaffrey who had first fired at the mob. He forgot to say what a citizen is expected to do when a menacing mob, which has already slaughtered many, approaches him and the police has deliberately not responded to his pleas.

When the attack on the train took place on February 27 and the VHP called for a bandh, Gujarat BJP president Rajendrasinh Rana was quick to announce the state BJP's support for the strike, giving clear signals to the administration that it need not take a hard line against those who enforce the bandh. By noon on Thursday, shops owned by Muslims were broken open in Ahmedabad, Rajkot and other cities even as the police looked the other way. At many places, the police mingled with the vandals and pleas for help went completely unheeded.

While Vadodara police imposed curfew early in the morning, the police commissioner of Ahmedabad took time in following suit. It is easy to blame the police commissioner, but there are clear indications that his hands were tied by the minister of state for home, Gordhan Zadaphia, who has risen from the ranks of the VHP. Zadaphia is a supporter of the international general secretary of the VHP, Pravin Togadia, at whose insistence the home portfolio was given to him when Modi became chief minister.

It was only when the situation had gone sufficiently out of hand that the police tried to intervene. But by that time, it was too late and the mobs had swelled to enormous proportions. The sparse police presence looked like a drop in this ocean of violence. And what did the chief minister have to say about what was happening? He said, "The five crore people of Gujarat have shown remarkable restraint under grave provocation."Hhe went on to blast the Godhra killing of kar sevaks while brushing aside the equally brutal retaliation that was taking place against Muslims.

If the Central government was speaking about not allowing VHP activists into Ayodhya, Modi said that police protection should be given to them en route. If the people of Gujarat were expecting a reassuring face, what they got was a Sangh pracharak on television who has perhaps forgotten he is now chief minister. Incidentally, Modi has yet to see mobs because he has not visited the worst-affected areas. If only he had the courage shown by George Fernandes, who carried on his tour of the riot-hit areas despite being mobbed and stoned.

Gujarat: Method behind the Centre's laxity?

March 2, 2002
The Times of India

Method behind Centre's laxity?

MANOJ JOSHI & SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: Was there a method in the casual manner in which the Centre responded to the communal tragedy in Gujarat? The Vajpayee government received news of the Godhra carnage early on February 27. Available Central paramilitaries in Gujarat were put on alert. The PM also cancelled his Australia visit.

If all this was an indication of how seriously the Centre was viewing the unfolding situation, what followed was inexplicable.

Early on the 28th, reports poured in of mobs targeting Muslims throughout Gujarat as the police stood by. Neither Vajpayee, nor Union Home Minister L K Advani - whose political base is Ahmedabad-Gandhinagar - saw fit to instruct their party colleague, Narendra Modi, to crack down.

Later that day, Vajpayee met RSS leaders to discuss not what VHP activists were doing in Gujarat but the Ayodhya issue; and finally, after some 70 people had been killed, the Cabinet Committee of Security met and decided only to place the Army on alert.

In the two-day stasis that gripped the Union government, defence minister George Fernandes' single-handed sweep through strife-torn Gujarat on Friday stood out. By all accounts, it was his presence that compelled the Gujarat police to initiate action against the mobs beginning Friday.

In some places, Fernandes waded amid hostile crowds and appealed to them to keep the peace. It's not clear why the defence minister felt compelled to do the home minister's job in the latter's constituency.

The events in Gujarat are a macabre replay of the November 1984 massacre of the Sikhs. Then, as now, terrible "revenge" is being visited on innocents for the heinous act of some members of their community.

Then, as now, the delay in the response appears deliberate: To allow hoodlums to ''punish'' the community. Rajiv's infamous remark about the earth shaking when a big tree falls, has been echoed by Modi: "The people of Gujarat have observed restraint in the wake of grave provocation".

In 1984, the civilian authorities refused to call in the Army till thousands of Sikhs were killed. In Gujarat, the Union government claims ''there were no Army columns in or around Ahmedabad'' for immediate deployment.

Considering that the state bordering Pakistan has a especially heavy deployment of the Army, this excuse does not quite wash

BJP fiddles while Gujarat burns

1 March 2002
The Times of India

BJP fiddles while Gujarat burns

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: The wave of murders and arson attacks against Muslims and their businesses in Gujarat is a slap on the face of Prime Minister Vajpayee, whose grossly understated appeal for calm after Wednesday’s dastardly attack on train passengers in Godhra has clearly not been heeded by the Gujarat government.

While the official inquiry will establish the extent to which the attack on the Sabarmati Express was premeditated, there can be no doubt about the planned nature of the violence directed against Gujarat’s Muslims on Thursday. Property worth crores was burned down by well-organised gangs, which went about their business in the knowledge that the police would do nothing.

It was perhaps in anticipation of such a development that Vajpayee cancelled his visit to Australia. Intimately familiar with Gujarat CM Narendra Modi’s reputation as a hardliner within the Hindutva parivar, the PM knew he could not be counted upon to act as an efficient — let alone even-handed — administrator at a time like this. Indeed, alarming signs were visible soon after Wednesday’s carnage, when the pronouncements of senior Gujarat ministers suggested restraint was the last thing on their minds.

Tragically, Vajpayee has overestimated his capacity to enforce peace through verbal appeals and physical presence alone. He has failed to realise that he does not have the moral clout of Mahatma Gandhi — and that only the exercise of the political and administrative powers he possesses can ensure that Gujarat does not burn.

When the VHP gave a call for a Gujarat-wide bandh, both Vajpayee and Union Home Minister L K Advani should have realised the incendiary implications.

Two years ago — in August 2000 — when the VHP gave a similar call after the killing of pilgrims in Pahalgam in Kashmir, Sangh Parivar activists torched Muslim property worth crores in Ahmedabad, Surat, Sabarkantha, Palanpur and Rajkot. In Surat alone, Muslim powerloom owners lost property worth Rs 10 crore.

Unlike the August 2000 vhp bandh, the Gujarat government this time did not formally endorse the extremist outfit’s call. But the manner in which the state administration has facilitated — through omission and, possibly, commission — the anti-Muslim violence of the VHP and Bajrang Dal activists makes the Modi administration equally culpable.

The physical targeting of Muslims and their businesses by the Sangh Parivar is likely to have disastrous consequences for the country. With the VHP and kindred groups like the Shiv Sena anxious to milk the situation, violence can spread to other parts of the country. At a time when Muslim Indians are already feeling alienated and victimised, the carnage in Gujarat will drive them to the wall.