Can one hope that in a sober sequel to the Sarabjit-Sanaullah case, India and Pakistan will take immediate steps to repatriate prisoners to their respective countriesIJ This is not just a humanitarian but also a legal demand
The great English writer Samuel Johnson had succinctly remarked, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” I had thought that Johnson was unfair to an overwhelming number of ordinary citizens who were in the true sense patriots. I was willing to concede that if he had used the word ‘politics’ instead, I might have gone along with him, especially in view of what Russian communist revolutionary and political theorist Vladimir Ilyich lenin said: “There are no morals in politics there is only expediency. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel”.
And yet, Mahatma Gandhi had robustly advocated the need for honesty in politics, averring that “politics without morality is a sin”. Unfortunately, in recent times an ugly example of ‘politics without morality’ was the manner in which death row prisoner Sarabjit Singh’s brutal assault and subsequent death in Pakistan was used by politicians to score brownie points, ignoring completely the damage it was causing to the already tense India-Pakistan relations.
No doubt the treatment meted out to Sarabjit Singh at the hands of his co-prisoners in lahore’s Kot lakhpat jail, was inhuman and shocking. It was natural to expect that the anger, disappointment and grief at his death would also trigger some protests in India. Unfortunately, vested interests here sought to exploit this tragedy to fuel anti-Pakistan sentiments.
Some news channels, newspapers and politicians went over-the-top claiming ‘treachery’ by Pakistan, even suggesting New Delhi sever all diplomatic relations with Islamabad. There were reckless suggestions that Singh had been beaten at the instance of Pakistani authorities.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described Sarabjit Singh as a ‘brave son of India’, obviously accepting that he was an Indian spy (Pakistan would have rejoiced that India had finally admitted to sending spies to that country).
The Punjab Government, in a chauvinistic display of ‘patriotism’, announced a compensation of Rs 1 crore to his family, and a state funeral — a rare honour reserved normally for soldiers who die in the battlefield — further giving reason to Pakistan to blame India for sending spies.
But what crossed all limits of farce was the Punjab legislature’s unanimous endorsement of a resolution terming Sarabjit Singh as a ‘national martyr’. Such was the mood that the Congress flew Rahul Gandhi specially to attend the funeral in the purported belief that not to do so would be electorally damaging.
Alas! What petty thinking. Sympathy and sorrow at the unfortunate circumstances of Sarabjit’s death are natural. But the worrying thing is that behind this show of grief is the jingoist political symbolism against Pakistan, which is being highlighted as if patriotism in the country has to be judged by the extent of how anti-Pakistan one projects oneself to be. What a shocking sense of maturity.
Ironically, when political parties of all hues were basking in this short-lived limelight, we had the unfortunate incident of Sanaullah, a Pakistani prisoner lodged in Jammu’s Kot Balwal jail, who was seriously injured by an Indian co-prisoner. Though immediately airlifted from Jammu to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh for further treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.
This has effectively exposed the hollow chant of Indian politicians that in lahore jail, Sarabjit could not have been beaten by his fellow inmates on their own, but at the instance of the authorities.
Would Indian politicians attribute the same reason to what has happened at Jammu and blame Indian officials. If not, why the double standardsIJ It is puerile and politically dishonest to ignore the loud condemnation of the Pakistani Government by its Human Rights Commission and other intellectuals on the Sarabjit incident. Rajasthan’s Congress Chief Minister, facing a State election, has carried jingoism to extreme limits by publically forbidding Pakistani pilgrims to visit the Ajmer Sharif shrine, while expressing his inability to maintain law and order in the aftermath of the Sarabjit incident. If this is how he functions then nothing but his resignation would be in order.
Both the Centre and the Punjab Government, by their myopic handling of Sarabjit’s case, have done immeasurable harm to the intelligence agencies of India. The political fall-out of Sarabjit case has prompted many Indian spies who returned to India, after having spent 20 to 25 years in Pakistani jails, to go public and complain how they have been neglected all these years and denied the dues promised to them when they were recruited. One hopes their pleas will now reach the ears of the Union Government.
There are, in both countries, a number of prisoners languishing in jails even after serving their sentences. Can one hope that in a sober sequel to the Sarabjit-Sanaullah case, the two countries will take immediate steps to repatriate these prisoners to their respective countriesIJ This is not just a humanitarian but also a legal demand.
(The writer is a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi)