An unholy alliance
It is hardly surprising: A deal was struck between the leadership of India and Britain to break the backbone of the freedom fighters in Kashmir, Punjab, Assam and other parts of India. The governments of both countries signed an extradition treaty and an agreement to confiscate the property of the freedom fighters and their sympathizers. Under the treaty’s provisions, freedom fighters will be extradited for an alleged crime carrying a sentence of 12 months or more in either country. The treaty is retroactive. No prima facie case against the freedom fighters will be required in the British magistrate court. The treaty bars freedom fighters from arguing that their alleged offenses are of a political nature.
To dry up the freedom fighters’ financial’ arteries, their assets would be confiscated under the Anglo-Indian Agreement’s provisions. Their sympathizers would also feel the heat of this repressive agreement—their assets, too, could be confiscated and they would be unable to move their money. Religious institutions and Organizations would be unable to help the freedom fighters or their families. Individuals’ and organizations’ funds and assets will be forfeited in both countries.
For a long time, India was casting about to find brothers in arms to curb the freedom fighters’ aspirations. The results at all disappointing. The first deal was cut with the Canadian leadership. Britain’ is the second country. Home Minister Chavan was busy laying the groundwork to forge ant freedom fighter treaties with the French and Germans, as well. ‘The Anglo-Indian treaty is a most crooked deal between the two colonial powers. By this agreement British imperialism has revisited occupied Jammu and Kashmir; it was British leadership that sold the Kashmiri nation for $30,000 in 1846 to a Hindu millionaire. It is a deal between the parent colonial power and its heir, India. Britain has again bargained the future of Kashmiris and other freedom fighters for mean economic gains. With this deal two colonial powers have joined hands to stymie the people’s movement for freedom. The saddest part of this deal is that is in the name of benign principles—to end terrorism the deal also demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the British leadership. It is a confession of failure on the part of the Indian leadership, which was unable to stand against the tidal wave of freedom fighters and needs the help of foreign powers. The treaty is an unholy alliance of 1992. The Indian government’s euphoria can be gauged from the coverage in the Indian newspapers. The Times of India wrote in an editorial note under the headline “A treaty with teeth,” ~¢ extradition treaty which the Home Minister Mr. $.B. Chavan and the British Home Secretary Mr. Kenneth Clarke signed in London on Thursday deserves to be welcomed—as an apparent success story of Delhi’s sustained diplomacy on a subject that seems to have aroused considerable political passion in the United Kingdom.” Commenting on the “companion document” accords on confiscation of the freedom fighters’ assets and funds, it wrote these “are of momentous value to India’s national interest.” The Statesman of India flashed out the treaty in banner headlines; “India & U.K. sign treaty on extradition of terrorists.” Following the impact of the treaty its headlines were “Indio British pact … Militants in U.K. on the defensive.”
Since the treaty was signed, the Indian leadership has not stopped salivating. There are obvious reasons to celebrate. It is a clear sign of improved bilateral relations between the two countries, the treaty heralds a new era of bilateral cooperation. It is a first treaty between Britain and another Commonwealth country. The British have not entered into such a treaty with any other Commonwealth country.
It is similar to the Anglo-American extradition treaty of 1985. This treaty put India on a par with Western Europe and the United States, because India is the only non-European country that could get such a deal from the conservative government of Great Britain. The recent treaty brings the arrangements with India into line with the 1978 Suppression of Terrorism Act. For India it carries more weight than the mere declaration of SARRC countries.
The treaty’s second dimension is that it serves India’s interests at the expense of Britain. The freedom fighters will be executed in India. Sympathizers in Britain will be harassed and punished. It is at the expense of Great Britain, because it will discredit the British leadership in the eyes of the freedom fighters. It will put British interests and British people in India and elsewhere at risk, since they will become a legitimate target of freedom fighters. It will bring the war not to the doorstep of Britain but into Great Britain itself, to isolate the British leadership from India, the freedom fighters will strike in Great Britain to bring the British people’s pressure to bear on the British leadership. Extradition of a freedom fighter will raise a hell of a protest in Great Britain and all over the world. Extradition means to hand over a victim of terror to a butcher; an occupation is the worst type of terrorism. It is worthy of note that the freedom fighters enjoy a large reservoir of support in the European countries and in the USA. Signing the treaty was not a free ride for the Conservative government. Opposition to the treaty cut across party lines. The ant Indian lobby in Parliament and ant extradition groups claimed 130 MPs (Tory and Labor) on their side, A signature campaign was launched to muster the support of as many members of Parliament as possible. The Kashmiris and Sikhs in their respective constituencies were engaged in a relentless campaign to block the passage of the treaty in Parliament.
The freedom fighters’ concern over the treaty signing was understandable. They formed organizations against the treaty. They were trying to grip the treaty’s legal and political implications. They legitimately think the British have been misled by the Indian lobby about the true nature of the freedom. Movements all over India. The British leadership chose to go: along the lines suggested by the Indian government to opportunities in India. The is not the first time Britain has traded people for meat. Foreign investors cannot invest in an anarchical situation plaguing India, from the occupied state of Jammu and Kashmir to Assam. Instead of show mg concern for the grievances of the freedom fighters, the British have given India a license to add new chapters in oppression. India was able to sell the argument that a heavy hand is necessary to end the freedom movements in different parts of India. Jafar Syed, M.A., and LL.B. Editor’s Note: This treaty became law, March 1993.
Article extracted from this publication >> March 12, 1993
