| March 26, 2003 | Wednesday | Muharram 22, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Massacre in Kashmir
Ruling on bonded labour
THE American and British forces in Iraq have been facing tougher military resistance than they had anticipated. No major Iraqi city has so far fallen, and the Anglo-American forces are suffering casualties. By the end of the war’s fifth day, even Nasiriya had not fallen, and the British forces had to “withdraw to regroup” — an admission that the advance had not only been checked but that the British contingent had been repulsed. Contrary to earlier speculation, the Iraqi regime or its command and control structure have not collapsed yet. The Pentagon spin doctors must surely be regretting their initial optimism about a quick rout of the ‘poorly equipped and demoralized’ Iraqi forces. The western media had reported then that President Saddam Hussein had been seriously wounded in the first night of aerial assault on Baghdad and was seen being wheeled out of a wrecked building. Some TV channels even claimed that he had either been killed or seriously injured. Nothing of the sort happened, for Saddam Hussein has appeared on television quite a few times since then to speak to his people.
However, despite the brave fight being put up by the Iraqis, no one is in doubt about the ultimate outcome of the war. The disparity in the armed strengths of the two sides and the firepower of the coalition forces and their technological and manpower superiority are so overwhelming that a victory for them is only a matter of time. The only new thing is the stiff resistance that has been delaying their advance. As they approach Baghdad, the coalition forces are bound to suffer more casualties, but the outcome of this unequal war is not at all in doubt.
In 1956, the Anglo-French invasion of the Suez canal was stopped when the Soviet Union threatened to act if the attack was extended to Egypt. America too grimly warned the invaders and thus a greater disaster was averted. Today, there is no such power which could threaten retaliation against America and its war allies, with the result that in utter disregard of all moral and legal considerations Washington will pursue the war till it achieves its aim of effecting regime change in Baghdad. The whole world is against this aggression against the Iraqi people. The most tragic aspect of the altered world scenario is that the United Nations, which represents the hopes and aspirations of the world community, has no option but to watch helplessly the unfolding drama of death and destruction in Iraq from the sidelines. America’s new found arrogance and unilateralism have made it so.
This war is against the fundamental principles of the UN. America bypassed the world body in utter contempt, because it knew the UN was not willing to sanction Washington’s aggression against a country that was settling the issue by peaceful means. In Cairo, the Arab League has condemned the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and called for a halt to it. In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has demanded a meeting of the Security Council to deliberate on the war situation. Let the UN Council meet. If it cannot halt the war, it can at least pass a resolution calling for an end to hostilities. It is obvious that America will not let the UN council meet or pass a peace resolution. But a move to that end will at least put the factors of motivation, spirit and interests behind the unholy war in Iraq in a sharper light.
THE brutal gunning down of 24 Hindu men, women and children near Srinagar on Monday, and that of the Hizbul Mujahideen leader Abdul Majid Dar the previous day, are grim reminders that peace in occupied Kashmir remains brittle and elusive. Both attacks were carried out by unknown assailants, with the state government and the opposition hurling accusations at different quarters. Pakistan has added a strong voice to the condemnation of the killings, calling the massacre of Hindus a “reprehensible act of terrorism”. The spate of violence in recent days gives further credence to the allegations of misrule and inaction by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, whose five-month-old government has reneged on the promise of carrying out reforms as a means to bring peace to the restive Valley. Instead, much like his predecessor, Mufti Sayeed has been busy pandering to the BJP hardliners in New Delhi.
A good number of Kashmiris hoped for peaceful times following the election when a dialogue could be initiated between the popular and official leadership in the troubled state. Not only that this did not happen, but the election pledges made by Mufti Sayeed turned out to be a mere ruse to gain power. The repressive security forces, armed additionally with the draconian provisions of the POTA, have only become more arbitrary and repressive. Thus, in the final analysis, the entire election process stands discredited, and is now seen as another farce enacted by the rulers in New Delhi. The only way to rein in violence and unrest is to initiate a meaningful dialogue, albeit initially at a local level, which, as it progresses, should eventually include all parties that have a stake in occupied Kashmir.
THE ruling by the Lahore High Court last week, ordering a Gujranwala kiln owner to release 63 workers held in bondage there, and the authorities to register a case against the accused, is reassuring. In an earlier ruling, in January 2002, the Sindh High Court, while disposing of 94 similar petitions filed by bonded peasants, had refused to grant relief saying these were disputes between landlords and tenants and should be settled by the mukhtiarkars under the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950. The mukhtiarkars, however, continue to operate under the influence of the landed gentry. Rights groups termed the SHC judgment a major blow to the rights of the landless peasants and other victims of bonded labour. The estimated number of such labourers comprising men, women and children in southern Sindh alone is said to be nearly two million.
A typical bonded labour scenario entails the loaning of cash on compound interest to a needy worker, whose wages are then deducted in repayment of the loan. Rural landlords and kiln owners routinely entrap the poor and needy workers and their families, thus, forcing them to work for free. The labourers are kept in virtual imprisonment — often in chains so as to prevent escape. Compound interest and deductions for food and shelter made out of their meagre earnings ensure that such bonded labourers remain in a lifelong debt, to slog and sweat for their so-called lenders. The Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act of 1992 provides for the kind of relief granted by the Lahore High Court in the case of the kiln workers in question. Hopefully, this ruling will establish a precedent to be followed by the higher courts in the other provinces too — particularly Sindh, where the courts have stopped entertaining similar petitions citing the Sindh High Court ruling of last year as a precedent. Rights groups have since demanded the revamping of the Sindh Tenancy Act, which should be taken up now that a provincial assembly of educated legislators is in place.