|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Forum
Persecution of Baha’is:IRAN AND THE RULE OF LAW, by Bani Duggal,31 July 2006 |
|
|
EVENTS AND ISSUES
New Delhi, 31 July 2006
Persecution of
Baha’is
IRAN AND THE RULE OF LAW
By Bani Duggal
(Iran’s largest religious minority, the three-lakh strong Baha’is
community has been facing a systematic and religious persecution by the Iranian
Government since 1979, when the Islamic Republic was established, says the
author, who is the Representative of the Baha’is International Community to the
United Nations.)
Respect for human rights is a clear indication of a nation’s
commitment to the rule of law, to humanitarian principles and to honesty in its
public affairs. And there is no better measure of Iran’s
genuine commitment to human rights than the way it treats its largest religious
minority, the 300,000-member Baha’is community of Iran, who are by their religious
principles committed to non-violence and non-involvement in politics.
Unfortunately, since 1979, when the Islamic Republic of Iran
was established, Baha’is have faced a systematic and ongoing religious
persecution at the hands of the Iranian Government.
In the early 1980s, until international pressure caused Iran to pull back from the brink,
some 200 Baha’is were killed, hundreds were imprisoned, and thousands were
deprived of their livelihood, access
to education, and virtually all civil rights.
Today, there are deeply disturbing signs that the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran is gearing up for a new round of persecution
against this innocent community.
Most worrisome is the news of the discovery by United
Nations officials of a secret letter from the Iranian military’s high command
to various Government agencies calling for them “to identify persons who adhere
to the Baha’is faith and monitor their activities”.
Sent on 29 October 2005 to the Ministry of Information, the
Revolutionary guard and the police force, the letter states that Iran’s Supreme leader,
Ayatollah Khamenei, had ordered that such information be collected “in a highly
confidential manner”.
Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or
belief, told the world about the letter’s existence in a statement on 20 March
2006, saying that “such monitoring constitutes an impermissible
and unacceptable interference with the rights of members of religious
minorities”.
Jahangir also expressed
concern that the information gained as a result of such monitoring will be used
as a basis for the increased persecution of, and discrimination against,
members of the Baha’is faith.
Anyone familiar with some of the last century’s most
egregious episodes of human rights violations can easily read between the lines
of such a letter.
The identification and monitoring of minority groups are
rarely undertaken with good intentions, especially when it involves the state
military, police and other authorities.
Other recent trends and events in Iran likewise contribute to a great
sense of urgency when Baha’is look to the near future. First, there is the
re-emergence of the Hojjatieh Society.
Founded in 1953 as a specifically anti-Baha’is organization by a
charismatic Shiite Muslim cleric, the Hojjatieh Society has today reemerged in
Iran as an influential if secretive faction that has been linked in news
articles and Web blogs with the current Iranian administration.
Second, Iran’s
Government-controlled news media has begun a propaganda campaign against the
Baha’is. Kayhan, the official Tehran
daily newspaper, has carried more than 30 articles about the Baha’is and their
religion in recent months, all defamatory in ways that are meant to create
provocation.
Radio, television and internet programmes have joined in as
well with broadcasts condemning the Baha’is and their beliefs. We all know what hateful propaganda can lead
to. Again, recent history offers too many examples of its horrific
consequences.
The ghastly deeds that grew out of similar circumstances in
the past should not now be allowed to happen. Not again. Not ever. ---INFA
|
|
Among Gobal Issues…:Terror Hijacks G8 Summit,by Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra, 21 July 2005 |
|
|
EVENTS AND ISSUES
New Delhi, 21 July 2005
Among Gobal Issues…
Terror
Hijacks G8 Summit
By Dr. Chintamani
Mahapatra
School of International Studies, JNU
Months of preparations went into holding the G8 Summit at St. Petersburg in Russia,
but it appeared that terrorism and violence hijacked this important gathering
of one of the most powerful groups of influential countries. The participants
were aghast by the horrendous terrorist strike in Mumbai that killed more than
two hundred innocent lives, injured more than five hundred and frightened
millions others who often travel by train to make both the ends meet.
The statement issued
by the G8 members and the observers condemned this ghastly act of timidity. It
said; "We are outraged by the barbaric terrorist acts, carried out on 11
July 2006 in Mumbai and other parts of India. We stand in solidarity with
the Government and the people of India
and express our deepest condolences
to the victims and their families….We are united with India in our
resolve to intensify efforts to fight terrorism which constitutes a threat to
each of our country, as well as to international peace and security."
Yet another incident that occupied the debate and
deliberations at the St. Petersburg Summit was the kidnapping of four Israeli
soldiers and Tel Aviv’s strong retribution against Hamas and Hezbollah leading
to massive bombardment of Lebanon.
Neither the G8 nor the international community has been able to take a definite
stand on the Middle East violence, as international terrorism is striking back
in Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan and in several other places as well. Israel, which
is often criticized for its heavy-handed approach in dealing with Palestinian issue, is undoubtedly facing enormous terrorist
challenges.
The international community is not united in its view on the
victory of Hamas in the Palestinian election recently. Yet another angle is the
alleged Iranian involvement in giving persistent help to Hamas and Hezbollah
and a suspicion that Tehran is raising the
temperature in the Middle East by enhanced
encouragement to militant elements to divert the attention on its nuclear
weapon ambitions.
The G8 resolution on this issue
is significantly balanced. It said: “The immediate crisis results from efforts
by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations
of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace.
In Gaza,
elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and
abducted an Israeli soldier.
In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line,
attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli
soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal
in 2005, and undermining the democratically elected government of Prime
Minister Fuad Siniora. These extremist elements and those that support
them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East
into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately
halt their attacks.”
And then it went on to say that “it is also critical that Israel, while
exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and
humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to
exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians
and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would
destabilize the Lebanese government.”
Nonetheless, the
G8 underscored the rise in the extremism and terrorism and were less critical of Israeli retribution. It was clearly
reflected in the order of its resolution, which called for: Return of the
Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of
Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early
withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
and release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.
While nations continue to differ on the definition of
terrorism and the best means to tackle this menace, the G8 declared: “We, the
Leaders of the G8, meeting in St. Petersburg, categorically denounce terrorist
attacks worldwide and condemn in the strongest terms those who perpetrate these
atrocities and bring untold suffering and death to citizens. We express our deepest sympathy with all victims of these
attacks. If terrorism and violent extremism are permitted to exist
anywhere, they diminish our societies everywhere. Today we pledge that we
will not rest until the terrible blight of terrorism has been removed from our
daily lives.”
The G8, which recognizes the role of the UN in tackling the
terrorist menace the world over, reiterated its commitment to work closely with
the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and expressed its desire to expand cooperation between other
countries and the Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG) it has created
The G8 Summit already had the issue
of energy security high on its agenda. Russia’s
self-perception as an energy superpower, its use of energy to pressurize its neighbours and the rising oil prices
would have dominated the debate and discussions.
But terrorist violence, sectarian conflict and Israel’s
war against Lebanon
in the heart of the world’s hydrocarbon resources altered the focus and
concerns were expressed over the
danger to the energy infrastructure.
The G8 thus recognized the urgency of enhancing “cooperation
with regard to counter terrorist and other criminal attacks on critical energy
infrastructure facilities” and announced “a plan of action to secure global
critical energy infrastructure, including defining and ranking vulnerabilities
of critical energy infrastructure sites, assessing emerging and potential risks of terrorist
attacks, and developing best practices for effective security across all energy sectors within our countries.”
Significantly, the issue
of nuclear terrorism was also seriously debated. In the past, scholars and
officials differed on this issue.
Some argued that nuclear weapons are too complicated and difficult for the
terrorist groups to manufacture. Others emphasized that terrorist groups may
not be able to build nuclear bombs, but they can certainly acquire one. The
Abdul Qadeer Khan-run nuclear black market certainly has frightened and woken
up the world leaders to nuclear terrorism.
In sharp contrast, India got kudos for its new
commitment to non-proliferation. The G8 statement on non-proliferation said:
“We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with India. We note the commitments India has made, and encourage India to take
further steps towards integration into the mainstream of strengthening the
non-proliferation regime, so as to facilitate a more forthcoming approach
towards nuclear cooperation to address
its energy requirements, in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global
non-proliferation regime.”
The G8 did carry out debate and discussion
on a host of global issues, but
terrorism and violence dominated the summit.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Air Pollution Problem:Disastrous Impact On Environment, by Dhurjati Mukherjee, 17 July 2006 |
|
|
EVENTS AND ISSUES
New Delhi, 17 July 2006
Air Pollution Problem
Disastrous Impact On Environment
By
Dhurjati Mukherjee
The human impact on the environment has indeed been
disastrous. And with Western-induced
strategy of development and consumerist approach to life and living in
countries like India,
environmental problems have accentuated since the 1990s.
At the present juncture, Indians are very much exposed to
dangerous levels of highly toxic gases, including carcinogenic organic
compounds and sulphur and sulphur fumes, through the air they breathe. The
levels of air borne suspended particulate matter recorded in the large metro
cities, especially Delhi and also Kolkata and
Mumbai, far exceeded air quality standards adopted by India and many
other developing countries. Two independent analyses estimated that urban air
pollution in the country could be responsible for about 40,000 premature deaths
annually (Brandon & Homman 1995, WHO 2002), primarily due to human exposure
to elevated levels of particulate matter.
This being the situation the Community Environment
Monitoring (CEM) report titled ‘Smokescreen Ambient Air Quality in India’
(released in June 2006), has found that the country is “pathetically behind in
terms of infrastructure to safeguard its environment or health of people from
air pollution”. India’s
air pollution monitoring is primitive and the world’s fourth largest economy
has no standards for most of the toxic and commonly found air pollutants, the
CEM’s Shweta Narayan pointed out. In fact, the report revealed that the air in
the country is unfit to breathe.
The study observed that compared to 1997, carbon monoxide
levels are down 32 per cent and sulphur dioxide levels 39 per cent. While the
change has been remarkable, it has lulled regulators into complacency. The air
has never been monitored for toxic gases and has therefore never been regulated
for the same, the report pointed out with special reference to Delhi.
In another more comprehensive study conducted by the World
Bank (June 2006), progress and
challenges of air quality management between 1993 and 2002 of five cities in
the country have been analyzed. It found that despite efforts to curb air
pollution, respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM), the main pollutant
of public health concern, has been the highest and significantly above the
national standards in Delhi
and Kolkata, specially in winter.
Delhi continues to have the highest
levels, notwithstanding the implementation of the most extensive programme of
air quality management. Moreover ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
have exhibited an increase in recent years although still at relatively low
levels.
However, the achievement has been that between the years
1993 and 2002, the RSPM declined which might have led to nearly 13,000 fewer
cases of premature deaths and much greater reductions in the number of cases of
respiratory illness (in all the five
cities) on an annual basis by 2002 compared to the early 1990s. The levels of
sulphur dioxide (SO2) also declined during the same period. However
SPM levels remained steady, implying against a backdrop of falling RSPM levels
increasing concentrations coarse particulate matter, which is indeed
surprising.
It is generally agreed that all cities will gain substantial
health benefits from fallen RSPM reductions to or even below the current
national annual standard of 60 ug/m3 for residential areas, which
may be achievable in Chennai and Hyderabad
in the medium term. However, bringing the RSPM levels down to this standard is
clearly a long-term target for Delhi
and Kolkata, according to the World Bank study.
The potential benefits would still be very high; it may save
as many as 10,000 lives every year in these two cities alone. It may be
mentioned here that a significant number of people, specially in Kolkata live
in the pavements and their exposure to air pollution continues to be very
dangerous.
The nature and magnitude of emission
of emission vary between cities.
While in Mumbai there has been reduction in RSPM and SO2 levels in
industrial areas, in Delhi
and Kolkata the mixed land-use pattern challenges the current practice of
having different National Ambient Air Quality Standards within a city. However cleaner fuels (like the introduction
of CHG in Delhi)
and improved technology along with stronger and better enforcement of
regulations is obviously the solution.
The need for immediate improvement in air quality in these
five cities can hardly be emphasized and lot of debate and discussion has been generated on this issue in recent years. Recently as per directives of
the Supreme Court draft action plans have been submitted by a number of cities.
Given that as per the Air (Prevention and Control) Act 1981 section 19 (1), State
Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) have the right to declare air pollution
control areas within its jurisdiction, the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) is of the view that many more cities should take up the action planning
exercise in order to meet air quality standards as notified under the Act.
The increase in cardiovascular and other diseases, including
asthma, bronchitis and even lung cancer, has been on the rise and this needs to
be checked. As is well known, the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen cause
breathing problems while carbon monoxide hampers oxygen transfer in the body.
In the lungs, oxygen gets attached to the haemoglobin present in the blood.
When carbon monoxide is inhaled, it combines with
haemoglobin to form carboxyhaemoglobin. As a result, less
haemoglobin is available for transporting oxygen. This causes headaches and, in
extreme cases, death. Controlling the air quality is thus imperative at this
stage and the SPCBs and the CPCB should join hands to ensure that air quality
is closely monitored and necessary
standards maintained, as far as possible.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
US And India:NOTHING GAY ABOUT IT!, Saumyajit Ray,19 June 2006 |
|
|
EVENTS AND ISSUES
New Delhi, 19 June 2006
US And India
NOTHING GAY ABOUT
IT!
By Saumyajit Ray
If President George W. Bush’s foreign policy initiatives
---- in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran ---- are the result of his neo-conservative
political convictions, his recent utterances against homosexuality and gay
marriages have placed beyond doubt his ideological leanings in matters of
domestic policy. He had called himself a “compassionate
conservative” while campaigning for President in 2000; six years later, he
continues to be a conservative, with compassion
for everything that Republicans hold dear to their hearts.
It is not the first time that President Bush has voiced his
opposition to homosexuality and gay marriages. During Campaign 2004, he came
out strongly against “civil unions”—the quasi-legal term for gay marriages—and
declared that marriage, as we knew it, was a time-tested institution,
sanctioned by faith, that solemnized the union between man and woman.
In other words, there can be no marriage between man and man
or between woman and woman. The term marriage should not be used to describe
same-sex relationships. In practical terms, neither can same-sex relationship
be accorded the status of marriage, nor can people in such relationships be
given the privileges and facilities associated
with marriage.
On the contrary, the Democratic Presidential candidate in
2004, John F. Kerry, the senior Senator from Massachusetts,
opposed any ban on gay marriages. Despite the fact that the Roman Catholic
Church — the single largest Christian denomination in the United States to
which Kerry belonged — is theologically opposed to same-sex relationships.
However, Kerry’s stand on gay marriages was in perfect tune with his party’s
politically correct Left-liberal ideological orientation.
His refusal to support a ban on gay marriages ruffled the
feathers of his native constituency of Irish Roman Catholics. Hispanics — also
devout Roman Catholics who, with African Americans, make up the Democratic
Party’s voter support base — also shifted loyalty to the Spanish-speaking
conservative President. In fact, President Bush had improved his Latino voter
support from 35% in 2000 to 45% in 2004.
The overwhelmingly Protestant Christian Coalition, a
Republican grassroots organization
dating back to the Reagan days ( it was known as Moral Majority then) not only
controls a big chunk of Republican votes but also decides the Grand Old Party’s
policies on social issues. No
Republican candidate — incumbent or challenger — can afford to rub it the wrong
way.
It would be imprudent to think that President Bush, a devout
born-again Christian himself, would disagree with the Christian Coalition on
such issues as homosexuality and gay
marriages. Accordingly, the President has re-affirmed his support to a
Christian Coalition-led group for their proposed amendment to the federal
Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between man and woman and seeking
to ban gay “marriages”. He has also declared that the Government would
“recognize and protect” marriage as it “promotes the welfare of children and
the stability of society”.
Christian churches all over America — Protestant and Roman
Catholic — are bitterly opposed to both same-sex relationships and any move to
legalize them. President Bush’s support to the proposed amendment not only
echoes the church’s voice in Government but reflects his own religious
convictions as well. It would be wrong then to say that he acted keeping in
mind only his Party’s prospects in the mid-term elections in November this
year.
True, the Republicans can ill-afford to lose the Congress (which they had recaptured from the Democratic
Party in 1994 and controlled since) but they cannot be expected to be so
politically naïve as to depend solely on the Christian coalition to shore up
their political fortunes, an unpopular Partyman in the White House
notwithstanding.
In India,
on the other hand, if latest newspaper and magazine columns are to be believed,
homosexuals and lesbians—people with “alternate sexuality”—are beginning to
come out of the closet. In fact, some of them are carrying their sexuality on
their sleeves, neither ashamed nor apologetic about it. There is no move as yet
to demand legalization of gay marriages, but certainly a long-standing demand,
supported by the politically correct English language media, for legalization
of homosexuality persists.
Gay activists and sympathizers point to the continued
existence of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which not only describes
homosexual activity as “unnatural” but makes it a cognizable and non-bailable
offense attracting punitive action, and call for its immediate abrogation.
According to them, this law is a legacy of British rule in the sub-continent
and even though no such law existed in Britain any longer, the Indian
Parliament has made no attempt to repeal it.
Indeed, India
was ruled by conservative British Protestants who were (and still are) known to
take the Holy Bible literally. In the matter of same-sex relationships too,
they have always faithfully stuck to the Biblical command: “Do not lie with a
man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)
Undoubtedly, then, that Protestants in the 19th
century Britain and those in present-day America would respond similarly to the
issue of same-sex relationships.
Roman Catholics, in India as
in America,
go a step further: they oppose abortion and divorce too, apart from condemning
same-sex relationships in the strongest terms.
Indian gay activists also point to the “existence” of
same-sex relationships in ancient India, saying that the literature
of those times is replete with references to homosexual activity in society.
But the fact remains that homosexuality is strictly forbidden by the Laws of
Manu, that ancient code of personal and collective conduct sacred to Hindus.
There is no denying that public morality in India, at least in sexual and
conjugal matters, is informed and governed by such scriptural stipulations. In
Islam, too, homosexuality is condemned as despicable and unnatural, anti-God
and anti-social.
In such a situation, the Protestant-written Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code has perfectly served the purpose of Indians (both Hindus
and Muslims) who look at “alternate sexuality” as an example of embarrassing fringe behavior. If the politically correct
media in both India and the United States encourages behavior that is largely
perceived as deviant, then it is natural to expect both the Church and the state
(whose duty it is to control and eliminate social deviance) to intervene. ----
INFA
(Copyright India News and Features Alliance)
|
|
Bhai-Bhai Syndrome:HUMAN FACE OF INDO-PAK TIES, by Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba,5 June 2006 |
|
|
EVENTS AND ISSUES
New Delhi, 5 June 2006
Bhai-Bhai Syndrome
HUMAN FACE OF
INDO-PAK TIES
By Dr. Syed Ali
Mujtaba
India and Pakistan have formed many peaks and
valleys in its love and hate relationship in a span of about six decades. At times, frenzied emotions have been whipped
up to such a level that political parties in India
have made open pronouncements to wipe out Pakistan from the face of the
earth. However, when the political
temperature cooled, the same parties talked about an ever-lasting friendship
with Pakistan.
At the moment, there is much talk about the evolving
India-Pakistan relationship that is moving from eyeball-to-eyeball
confrontation in 2002 to the bhai-bhai syndrome. However, little is being written or said
about the human face of this relationship that is also emerging in its wake due
to people-to-people contact between the two countries.
Recently, two powerful narratives have come to limelight due
to the new thaw in the India-Pak relationship that could melt any one’s
heart. The fact that these human
relation stories are surfacing even 60 years after creation of Pakistan following India’s partition in 1947 suggests
that there exists a human bond that is much deeper than the geographical boundaries
that divide the two nations.
Two Sikh brothers Joginder Singh and Kesar Singh who fled to
India during the turbulent days of partition were re-united with their Muslim
sister Rabia living on the other side of the divide. They had to wait for six long decades for
this to happen.
Their story goes something like this: Joginder, 76 and
Kesar, 72, left behind two sisters in Pakistan in the wake of the
partition. They adopted Islam and became Rabia and Razia and settled down in
Mirpur town on the Pakistan
side of Kashmir. Despite raising their own families, the
desire to meet their siblings remained alive on both sides of the border. The brothers had first received the
information about their sisters, way back in 1953, but due to tensions between India and Pakistan they could never establish
contact with them.
However, when a Muslim resident of the Mirpur area recently
visited India
to see his Hindu mother, the desire among the Sikh brothers to meet their sisters
once again grew. They made fresh attempts
to locate their sisters through this Muslim visitor and came to know that Razia
had died a few years ago but Rabia was alive.
The brothers finally decided to cross
the border and fulfil the long-cherished desire to see their sister before they
breathe their last. It was an emotional
moment for the divided families to reunite.
Thanks to the peace process
that such a reunion could materialize.
The brother and sister story is not an isolated event. There is yet another case which is more
gripping than this. It is a story of a
77-year-old Indian woman who has two homelands, two husbands and two religions
and who finally got united with her family after decades of separation, thanks
again to the India-Pakistan peace process.
Harbans Kaur and husband Banna Singh belong to a Kashmiri
Sikh family living in the village of Pataika, 16 km north-east of Muzaffarabad
in occupied-Kashmir. After partition,
Banna went to India
alone to find work and a place to live before he could call his wife over. He left behind his wife with her father.
But around this time, both countries stopped issuing visas and Banna could not come back and
Harbans could not join him in India. Soon after, her father died and Harbans was
left all alone. The lady assuming that she would never be able to see her
husband again, married a Muslim called Hadayatullah and adopted Islam. They had
two children – son Manzoor and daughter, Zeenat.
In 1953, Pakistan
and India
signed an agreement for the return of relatives left behind in each other’s
country. Banna filed a claim for his
wife, and Harbans was forced to leave for India to be with her husband
without her two children.
The poor ties between the two countries prevented Harbans
from visiting her children in Pakistan. Her son and daughter grew up with their
father and she did not hear anything about them. Meanwhile, Harbans who is converted to
Sikhism gave birth to another son and daughter, Dalbeer and Manmohan.
For many years, the members of the divided family did not
know each other’s whereabouts or even if they were alive. The Pakistani children did not forget their
mother. In 2000, when a Sikh from Mumbai
visited, Muzaffarabad to meet his Muslim sister, Zeenat, now 53, and her
brother Manzoor, 48, sought his help in locating their mother. To their surprise the gentleman found their
mother living in Ahmedabad and provided her telephone number. They spoke to her on phone, wrote letters and
exchanged pictures and became desperate to meet each other.
The daughter invited her mother to Muzaffarabad where she
was born and brought up. But India
and Pakistan were then on
the brink of a war following a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in 2001,
and it was impossible for Harbans to
visit Pakistan. The mother and children remained separated
for another 30 months until the resumed Lahore-Delhi bus service in 2003 could
finally unite them.
After more than 40 years, Harbans crossed
back into Pakistan,
accompanied by her Sikh son, Dalbeer Singh, and her daughter-in-law. She was greeted at the Wagah border crossing by her Muslim children Zeenat and Manzoor,
along with grandchildren and other family members. Later her Sikh daughter Manmohan also joined
them along with her husband and their daughter. But one person with whom she could
not reunite was her Muslim husband who died some years after she left for India. Her Sikh husband was also dead.
These are the happy sides of the emerging peace process developing between India
and Pakistan,
thanks to the renewed people-to-people contact between the two countries. However, there are many families not so
fortunate enough to see such reunion.
The hostile India-Pakistan relations had kept them away from seeing each
other’s relatives and in the process
many have passed away. Some could
know the welfare of their relatives living across
the border only through a common relative living in a third country, but were
unable to attend the wedding or funeral at their homes.
However, things are changing for the better now. The second generation of the divided families
now wants the borders to be softened enough so that they could freely crisscross
to meet their loved ones. They want India and Pakistan to de-link their political
differences from people-to-people contact.
The people in both the countries desire to have a peaceful and neighbourly
relationship with each other. The
general perception is the bridges of peace and friendship between the people
would help the Governments of both the countries to iron out their political
differences in a more amicable manner.
The new thaw in India-Pakistan relationship has been a boon
for the divided families of the two countries. There is no count as to how many
of them live on the other side of the border. The migration from India to Pakistan has taken place from all
over the country. The majority of the
separated families however live in the Indo-Gangetic plains where there is the
largest concentration of Muslim population in India. There would hardly be a family living in this
region that may not have a relative in Pakistan. They hope and pray that the juggernaut of
peace and friendship between India and Pakistan keeps moving on till a lasting
peace is established in the sub-Continent.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 Next > End >>
| Results 5347 - 5355 of 5987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|