Editor,
It is heartening that Prime Minister Narendra Modi played a crucial role in averting a potential nuclear crisis during the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022. According to US intelligence assessments, Russia planned a “shock-and-awe” barrage of missile and air strikes on the Ukrainian capital, modelled to some degree on the shock-and-awe campaign that had prefaced the US invasion of Iraq, nearly nineteen years earlier. As tensions escalated, the United States began preparing rigorously for a potential nuclear strike by Russia against Kyiv, which would have been the first nuclear attack since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nearly eighty years ago. Our Prime Minister’s diplomatic outreach, along with efforts from other global leaders, contributed significantly to defuse the crisis.
Over decades, the US had built the most comprehensive and capable intelligence-gathering apparatus in history, but its products required reading with a critical eye. The Biden administration was particularly concerned that Russia might use tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons. To discourage such an attack, the US sought the help of non-allies, including India, emphasizing the gravity of the situation. PM Modi’s resolute stance and public statements demonstrated the international community’s concern and highlighted the potential cost of such an action. During this period, Prime Minister Modi condemned civilian killings and called for peaceful resolution to the conflict. His intervention, alongside that of other countries, helped prevent a catastrophic nuclear disaster. The collective diplomatic endeavours played a pivotal role in ensuring that the crisis did not escalate into a devastating nuclear war. Ultimately, the world witnessed the importance of diplomatic efforts and cooperation in averting a potentially catastrophic event. Therefore, preparedness and sober assessment is the way forward to avoid conflict. Never negotiate for peace; establish it.
Yours etc.,
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Unacceptable act of Inderlok Delhi police officer
Editor,
Delhi police sub inspector of Inderlok police station Manoj Kumar Tomar who was seen kicking people offering Friday namaz on a road in North Delhi’s Inderlok area has been suspended with immediate effect. The enquiry into the incident has been initiated so that the environment is not vitiated due to the unacceptable act of the police officer. Protests by local residents started, followed by condemnation from political leaders and widespread outrage on social media after the video of the incident went viral where Tomar was seen stepping on the prayer mat used by the devotees and shouting at the men to leave the area .
Those who prayed on the road had to do so because the mosque next to the road was filled to capacity. To avoid missing the congregation prayers, the men ended up performing namaz on the road. In another video in circulation, the cop was also seen shoving the men who tried to talk to him. By late evening the officer was suspended which was an appropriate step keeping in view the situation prevailing in the area.
In recent times the country is witnessing a growing trend of intolerance not just amongst people of different religious identities, but also of different political ideologies. Similar incidents were seen in Haryana and Uttarakhand. The poison of hatred and divide has seeped into campuses, housing societies and the worst outrage is witnessed online, where people are trolled for the food they eat, the clothes they wear, or the stand they take on particular issues. The Issue of Manipur is before us and there is severe tension among the different communities on the basis of religion and sects. Over 9 months have passed with no permanent peace visible.
On February 20 last, a video of a Sikh Indian Police Service (IPS) officer posted in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district went viral on social media, when the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly reportedly labelled the police officer a ‘Khalistani’ during the party’s protest against the Sandeshkhali incident.and today there is rally to show the solidarity with the victims and court had also intervened in the matter but still there is no solution.
Those in governance must exercise caution while fulfilling their duties keeping in mind the future of the country. Short term individual or organisational benefits cannot be at the cost of the future of the nation. As Leo Tolstoy said, “If you want to destroy a country, make its citizens fight among themselves in the name of religion. The country will perish on its own.” The crux is to remain vigilant to keep the democratic set up strong. Nothing should be done which downgrades the foundation of democracy in the country.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email
Arrest and jail as punishment
Editor,
Former Delhi University Professor G. N. Saibaba was acquitted by the Bombay High Court on March 5 after he endured eight and a half years of imprisonment. The 58-year old academic and poet became ninety per cent disabled after he had permanent post-polio paralysis at an early age. After his release, he said, “I am not able to understand because I still feel that I am there in the notorious anda cell (a high-security egg-shaped barrack for dangerous convicts)…. I am not able to adjust to the surroundings. I only looked at the walls, closed walls, for all the seven-eight years.” The prosecution against G. N. Saibaba failed but it robbed him of more than eight years of his life.
I remember a Bengali movie ‘Sabar Uparey’ (Beyond All). In that film, actor Chabbi Biswas played the character of Prasanta Chatterjee who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the charge of murdering a woman. Uttam Kumar played the character of his son, Shankar. He reopened the case after twelve years and successfully pleaded in favour of his father to make him free of the false charge and also brought to light whodunit. But the film reached the climax after Prasanta was acquitted by the judge. Prasanta burst into tears in the courtroom saying, “Give me my twelve years back!”
The recent report of Saibaba’s media conference after his release is no less moving. As per the report, he and his wife A. S. Vasantha struggled to contain their emotions as he recounted his hunger strikes for medicines, his physical immobility and the pain of being denied to see his mother before her death.
Academic G. S. Saibaba who was arrested on May 9, 2014 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 said, “My mother passed away while I was in prison. She carried me to school as I was disabled but she wanted me to get a good education. When she died, I was not allowed to see her. I was denied parole and even permission to attend the funeral. Post-funeral performing rites, I was denied.”
A few days ago, the apex court had refused to interfere with the arrest of NewsClick founder and editor Prabir Purkayastha and the HR head of NewsClick Amit Chakraborty on the grounds that the offences which were alleged, fall within the ambit of the UAPA.
Umar Khalid was also arrested under the UAPA on September 14, 2020. His bail plea has repeatedly been adjourned and he has still been waiting for justice. Earlier Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Parkinson’s disease patient was arrested under the UAPA. He had to wait in jail for a month to get a straw to drink liquid and died in jail while waiting for justice.
The data that out of 8371 persons arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act between 2015 and 2020, only 2.8 per cent were convicted, raises serious questions about whether this law should be pursued in an independent democratic country. Moreover, our judiciary is overburdened with court cases. As a result, more often than not justice is delayed. Given the cases under the UAPA need extreme caution and attention, justice is further delayed in such cases.
A democracy cannot survive without dissent and free speech. It needs to be reviewed whether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act tends to erase lines of demarcation between political dissent and criminal activity and whether it poses a challenge to dissent and democracy. It is imperative to draw clear lines of demarcation between dissent and unlawful activities.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata