- Farooq Ahmed Khan Laghari,
President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Iwam-e-Sadar,
Islamabad, Pakistan
Your Excellency,
We revert to you on a topic on which we last wrote 10 you on 11 July 91. This concerns a plea of clemency on behalf of Sikh hi- jackers: Gajinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Satnam Singh, Tej Inderpal Singh, Dalip Singh and Gurdeep Singh currently detained at the Central Jail, Kothlakhpat, Lahore, Pakistan.
Between 1982-87 Indian planes were hijacked to Pakistan by Sikhs who were protesting against India’s inhumanity towards Sikhs. The hijackings represented the first Stirrings of deep unrest amongst Indian Sikhs. They sought to internationalize the Sikh problem. Successive Indian governments have pursued the politics of alienation of the minorities to win sup- port of the Hindu majority. The politics of divide and mule serve well for a time but they soon re- bound on the rulers, 12 of India’s 25 provinces are, in consequence, in a state of insurrection, Oppression of the minorities inevitably leads to ethnic nationalism. This in tum leads to state terrorism and oppression of the ethnic minorities. This is precisely the fate of the Sikhs, Kashmiri Muslims, Nagas, Assamese, Tamils and other minorities in India, The Indian state has forsaken all norms of civilized behavior to crush ethnic nationalism. Amnesty Inter- national, Asia Watch and other international agencies have per- formed a sterling service in exposing India’s appalling record on human rights.
The paraphernalia of a fascist State are firmly in place in the two northern non-Hindu states of Kashmir and Punjab, Yet such is the power of India in the region that none of India’s neighbors, save your country, is prepared to take up cudgels on behalf of India’s oppressed minorities. It is for this reason that we feel that the Sikh hijackers who have dared to raise a voice of protest against India’s fascism are worthy of sympathy rather than punishment. We are grateful to you for giving them free access to Pakistani courts and a fair trial. The Special Court, Lahore which tried them sentenced them to 25 years” imprisonment each. In this you acted in strict accord with your country’s obligations under international law. As a rule, aircraft possess the nationality of the state in which they are registered (in this case they were all Indian aircraft).That being so, for jurisdiction purposes, India was Competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board its aircrafts. We mention this because if the Sikh hijackers were tried in India, lesser sentences may have been imposed. There is Indian precedent for this. Gurbus Singh, who also hijacked an Indian plane but was sent back to India, was sentenced to just seven years” imprisonment by an Indian court. He was released in 1986. We are not implying, of course, that Pakistani COURS Were Not Competent fo try the hijackers. Indeed, under the Tokyo Convention, the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970 and the I.C.A.0, Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation and the Protocol 1971, the Contracting Parties (of which Pakistan is one) are given the choice of either exercising their national jurisdiction or extraditing the alleged offenders.
We are aware that it was the in- crease in hijacking and militant activities relating to aircraft which prompted these conventions and protocols, We also appreciate that injury and death inflicted on innocent air passengers will not be readily accepted by the international community. We note also that the Conventions require Contracting States to punish “by Severe penalties’ implemented by way of their domestic law. Sentences of life imprisonment, with a recommendation in each case that the offender should serve 25 years which were imposed, are clearly in line with Pakistan’s international obligations. None the- Jess, we would point out that no aggravating factors were present in these cases. No innocent passenger was injured or killed; the safety of the aircraft was not endangered and generally speaking the Sikh hijackers behaved with the utmost civility towards the passengers and the Pakistani authorities. We feel that their purpose in hacking was merely to attract attention to the atrocities against their kith and kin in Indian Punjab. Their crime was entirely political and actuated by the highest motives.
Each of the hijackers has now served 12 years four months. So they are half way there any way. In the United Kingdom lifers are en titled to parole and Lifer Review Boards regularly review their cases. Indeed, a Lifer has Under English law the right to request a review of his sentence. We were wondering, therefore, if similar Provisions exist under Pakistan law. In any case, such Procedures cannot detract from your, prerogative of commuting their sentences. On purely humanitarian grounds may we urge you to exercise your prerogative of mercy in the hi- jackers’ favor. May we comers to your Excellency one of three ways of dispensing mercy – (I) the hijackers could either be released on parole; or (2) they could be released unconditionally and granted political asylum in Pakistan; or (3) they be released in Pakistan and given three months each to find an alternative home/ country for themselves. We are aware that the hijackers have written to you privately. You may think that there are exceptional compassionate circumstances which War- rant sympathy. We trust that you will be merciful.
Harjit Singh, IHRO Chairman,
European Unit
Dilbara Singh Gill, International Chairman, International Human Rights Organization
Article extracted from this publication >> April 22, 1994
