Aijaz Zaka Syed

THEY say fact is stranger than fiction. Things in real life are sometimes so weird that they defy the absurdity of reel world. The more you read of the tragedy of Dr. Khalil Chishty the more implausible it seems. How could an ailing old man suffer for two decades for a crime he did not commit? And why long after the courts, governments and everyone else had concluded that Chishty was innocent and deserved to be set free at once, he is still languishing in his twilight years in a dark prison cell in India? No one seems to have an answer.

The story reads like the plot of an improbable Bollywood flick. Just as that Shahrukh Khan-starrer India-Pakistan love saga, Veer-Zaara, had seemed where our hero is condemned to spend half of his life in a dark prison when he goes to find his love across the border in Lahore. I had found the movie insufferable. How could you lock away someone for years and decades without a trial and without due process, I had wondered. How can the entire system be so inept and corrupt? But then that’s what more or less has happened in Chishty’s case. Implicated in a murder case just because he happened to be around when an argument between his hosts and neighbours turned into a nasty physical encounter, leading to the accidental killing of one of the attackers, the Pakistani scientist has spent 20 years hanging in a tortuous limbo.

A Ph.D., from Edinburgh University, he had an illustrious career working in the UK, Iran, Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia from where he retired in the late 1980s as the director of public health at Jeddah International Airport. He went to India, looking for love, the love of his old mother in Ajmer, the city of saint Moinuddin Chishti. And he hasn’t been able to leave since. Incidentally, Chishty was born and went to school in Ajmer. He went to college in Karachi where his elder brother was studying engineering. At the time of Partition, the brothers ended up on Pakistani side while his parents and younger brother Jameel Chishty remained in Ajmer. He, however, visited his parents often, whenever possible or fickle India-Pakistan relations permitted.

When Chishty arrived in Ajmer in 1992, little did he realize he could never return and perhaps meet his painful end in a prison cell away from his family. Which now looks like a distinct possibility considering he is 81 and is seriously ill as he counts his last days on a prison hospital bed and his wife and children watch in utter despair. He cannot move. He has a fractured, deformed hip and has already suffered two heart attacks and a brain stroke, not to mention other physical and psychological ailments that make his twilight years an endless nightmare for him and for his family scattered all over the globe.

It was a case of being present at the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he was released on bail 20 days after the arrest, he spent the next 19 years waiting for freedom as the case dragged through India’s notoriously dawdling legal system.

With his passport impounded and no hope in sight, he lived on his brother’s farm outside Ajmer, totally cut off from everyone and under virtual house arrest, eventually turning into a physical and mental wreck. After 19 years of legal ping-pong, justice finally arrived last year — life sentence for a crime that is yet to be identified.

No wonder this absurd case has rankled and outraged just about everyone. However, all efforts and passionate appeals for clemency by his long suffering family, rights groups and many independent voices have so far failed to move the power that be. His children have been running from pillar to post, beating their heads against the callous, apathetic walls of officialdom. Their pain hasn’t been able to transcend the toxicity of India-Pakistan equation. Last year, Supreme Court judge, Justice Markandey Katju, had gone out of his way to appeal to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Chishty’s behalf. The good and ever prudent prime minister is of course yet to act. Ironically, a similar appeal by the noble judge, who now heads the Press Council, to President Zardari led to the prompt release of Gopal Das who had spent years on the other side of the border. Finally when the Rajasthan government was persuaded to recommend clemency for Chishty, Governor Shivraj Patil returned the appeal, raising profound questions about the legal and diplomatic implications of the case. Although all his concerns have been addressed, the governor refuses to budge. Clearly, the Congress Party, in power in Rajasthan and Delhi is terrified of being seen as being “soft” on Pakistan or favoring a Pakistani national, even when it is the right thing to do.

When will the governments and politicians stop looking at everything from the distorted prism of India-Pakistan relations? Tragedy is, it is not just the plight of one individual. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Chishties on both sides of the border, who have just disappeared down the legal black hole. Forgotten and forsaken by their countries, some of them have spent half their lives in jail for the cardinal sin of accidentally straying on the wrong side of the border.

Some of them have been there even longer than Chishty, including some prisoners of war captured during the 1971 war. Many of them haven’t been released even after completing their sentence! Last month an angry Supreme Court slammed the government for keeping Pakistani prisoners in jail even after completing their sentence, terming it an “infraction of the human rights of the worst order.”

Observing that “liberty is precious” and justice must prevail over bureaucratic procedures, the court warned the “bureaucrats who sleep over the files and go into slumber.” Things are probably little different on the other side of the border. When will this change? When will India and Pakistan stop treating people as pawns on their diplomatic chessboard? And how long and how much more this 81-year old has to suffer before the governments conclude that enough is enough? Doesn’t he deserve to spend the last few days of his life in peace at his home with his loved ones?

“Every day we fear for the worst. How long can a frail old man survive without any hope on the prison hospital bed?” asks Amna Chishty, Chishty’s Canada-based daughter, in a mail to me. “I appeal to all of you to please help me bring my father back so he could spend the rest of his days with dignity, surrounded by people who care for him.” Doesn’t he deserve that, Manmohan Singh, in the name of humanity, if not as someone who was born and brought up in this country? Let Chishty go home, prime minister. God knows he has suffered enough. And for God’s sake let thousands of other Chishties rotting away in jails on both sides of the border go home too. They have suffered enough too. Let them go home. In the name of humanity and in the name of all that the people of India and Pakistan once shared. Please!—AN

Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal

THE narrative and counter narrative about Ex-Adiala Eleven is turning rather mysterious. They certainly were not the members of a squad that had won some sports world cup for Pakistan They were hardened terrorists playing ‘catch me if you can’ with our judicial system.’ They were involved in high profile terrorist act like attacks on General Headquarters (GHQ), Hamza Camp, Minhas air base etc. They were undergoing a court martial under the Army Act on the charges of attacking the military establishments.

Bringing even ordinary criminals to justice is an uphill task in our country; systems and structures are inclined to support the criminal. Under these circumstances, convicting and sentencing an indicted terrorist is an almost impossible task. Contributory reasons are many; some of these are lack of appropriately equipped forensic laboratories, unsatisfactory protection for prosecution witnesses and judges and the prevalent corrupt culture in our investigating agencies. Prosecution often fails to make a worthwhile case against the accused.

Even under these circumstances, extra-judicial killing is not an option nor would any sane person support that. Supreme Court has done a commendable job by taking notice of the four deaths. Hence, for the time being, it is not logical to presume that the four criminals did not die of natural causes. Hopefully, a judicial probe would ascertain the facts. Probably, the four dead bodies would be exhumed for forensic focused autopsies. Therefore, frenzy of extra judicial killing is premature and uncalled for.

Though charges of extrajudicial killings levelled by the heirs of dead terrorists while they were undergoing a trial appear grave on the face of it, a deeper scrutiny indicates that those who want to make the process of trial controversial to save the remaining terrorists from punishment have fabricated the story.

Investigating agencies have already informed the Supreme Court that four out of 11 prisoners who disappeared from Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, and later apprehended from tribal area had died in custody, but of natural causes. Keeping in view the history of these prisoners, it would be a grave security risk to produce them before the court in line with any specified schedule. Moreover, four other prisoners are in a critical health condition and are under treatment in the LRH; travelling may aggravate their illness. As an alternative, the court may consider appointing its representative to visit the places of internment to ascertain the personal safety of the prisoners.

Supreme Court is hearing a petition by Rohaifa, the mother of three out of the eleven accused. She has pleaded that her sons, Abdus Saboor, Syed Abdul Basit and Syed Abdul Majid and the eight other people had been kept in illegal confinement by intelligence agencies. Her son Saboor, aged 29, was one of the four who died in custody. She has requested the court to determine whether the deceased and surviving detainees, including her sons, who are civilian, were subject to the Army Act. Though the question of applicability of the Army Act in this specific case would be adjudged by the court, Army & Air Force Acts and the Naval Ordinance do have provisions whereby civilians can by tired by a court martial, if they commit an offence against these forces.

Mothers narrative is bound to be emotional, her stance is: “If they are subject to the Army Act then the court should declare that their arrest and detention and the proceedings of trial have not been done in a lawful manner and, therefore, they should be set free in the interest of justice.” She has petitioned the court for provision of ‘due process of law’ to her three sons Syed Abdus Saboor, Syed Abdul Basit and Syed Abdul Majid. However, keeping in view the gravity of the offenses, undue swaying towards a typical mother’s narrative, whose one son has died and other two are on the edge, would not be in the interest of public safety. Sanity demands that let the process of law take its due course.

If the four prisoners were murdered, then this is a grave issue. The matter is of public importance. This raises apprehension about the remaining detainees as well. It must be found out how the four youngsters died. However, until then speculative narratives should not mislead the public.

Speculation also has it that the custodians of the dead prisoners left their bodies on the roadside after the LRH refused to accept them one after the other. If true, this represents a sad state of affairs. However, the document issued by the LHR does not corroborate this stance.

Alternative narrative has it that during 2007-08, these terrorists had attacked GHQ, Hamza Camp and Mihas air Base. Eleven suspects were apprehended after establishing their involvement. During the process of apprehension, lethal weapons, mines and explosives were recovered from their possession. They were acquitted by ATC Rawalpindi. Later, they were interned under section 16 of the MPO. However, Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore HC declared their detention illegal and ordered their release.

On the day of release from jail, the accomplices of these terrorist (under the guise of intelligence agencies) took them to the safe heavens in FATA. To cover up this, families of these people submitted a writ petition to the SC of Pakistan declaring them as missing persons. Under direction of the SC, intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies apprehended 20 suspects including these eleven. During their stay in FATA, these prisoners fell ill. They were treated in CMH and LRH Peshawar. Despite best medi-care, four of them died on different dates in the LRH Peshawar. Hospital officials handed over their bodies to the families with full respect according to Islamic rites. Each family’s permission was sought for autopsy, all four families declined.

While the case is subjudice at the highest level, and the true narrative would emerge in due course, media ethics demand that speculative trial of the Army and the ISI on this issue must be put on hold. The campaign against these national institutions, which have rendered tremendous services in eradicating the menace of terrorism, neither is in the national interests nor is supportive to the maintenance of high morale of those who put their life in line to protect the public safety.

Mark A. Heller

AN escalation of inter-communal violence has tested the resolve of South Sudan, the world’s newest country, and that of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, UNMISS.

Extensive patrols by UNMISS over the past three weeks have not found the “trail of corpses” stretching “miles into the bush,” as alleged in some press reports. Parallels drawn to the genocide in Rwanda have been misleading with regard to the unfolding events and do not apply to the UN’s response.

Unfortunately, we have confirmed dozens of civilians killed in Pibor County. No matter the numbers, this is a human tragedy and a heavy emotional burden for all of us who have responsibility to maintain peace. The UN Security Council placed the highest priority on protection of civilians when it established UNMISS on July 8. And even when information is fragmented and difficult to piece together, truthful accounts of events are important.

In late December, UNMISS air patrols detected a column of nearly 8,000 armed Lou Nuer youths trekking toward Pibor County, the remote heartland of South Sudan’s Murle ethnic community in Jonglei State. Their stated aim was to take reprisals for Murle attacks on Lou Nuer communities in August that left up to 600 dead and hundreds injured. Lou Nuer and Murle hostilities date back decades, arising from competition for scarce resources and the decades-long civil war.

To address the immediate threat, the mission warned the South Sudan government of the impending attack and moved about half of its 2,100 combat-ready personnel to the population centres in the state.

The mission also gave early warning to tens of thousands of local residents. As a result, many were able to move away from towns and villages ahead of the Lou Nuer’s advance. The presence of an UNMISS battalion alongside units of South Sudan’s army (SPLA), established a defensive perimeter around much of the town of Pibor, largely shielding its population from the Lou Nuer raiders.

The peacekeepers were vastly outnumbered by the Lou Nuer marauders. Still, the SPLA and the effective positioning of the U.N. peacekeepers helped halt them from overrunning Pibor.

The Security Council commended these actions by UNMISS. Not every civilian was saved, but a much greater loss of life was averted. Prior to the crisis, the mission had worked closely with the government in trying to prevent anticipated clashes and protecting civilians through military deterrence and active political engagement. But all violent attacks could not be prevented.

Sadly, the chain of retaliatory violence continues unbroken, the latest target being the Dinka village of Duk Padiet, attacked on January 16. The mission and the government are continuing their efforts to secure a cessation of hostilities, facilitate durable reconciliation and address the root causes of the conflict.

There are two larger lessons to be learned from the ongoing Jonglei crisis. First, there is a need for effective government action to strengthen security presence in potential flashpoints, get the peace process off the ground, bring to justice those responsible for the attacks and establish programmes that address the grievances of the communities.

Second, the United Nations and its members need to act with greater urgency in deploying the full strength of UNMISS troops to South Sudan so that the mission can exercise its mandate to the full in support of the government’s protection efforts.

The UN Security Council authorised a military personnel strength of 7,000, but only about 5,100 soldiers are in the country at present. Less than half of these are available for immediate deployment to the field.

UNMISS must be provided with resources and capabilities that match its mandate. Members of the Security Council expressed concern about the shortage of aircraft hampering UNMISS operations as the violence in Jonglei spiralled out of control. This lack of air assets impacts all.

The government of South Sudan has the political will to protect its citizens, but it is constrained by weak capacity in terms of rule of law, security infrastructure and assets. UNMISS, on the other hand, has a limited number of troops acting in a country where Jonglei alone is the size of Bangladesh. The difficulties of protecting civilians in this situation cannot be underestimated.

Despite these challenges, neither the UN mission nor the government were standing idly by during the latest crisis. Decisive action was taken to protect civilians. It is in this spirit that the mission will continue to exercise its mandate.