Face to face with the Indian Muslims

RE: Iconoclast (#109)

I think namecalling like ``idiot`` does no good to you or anyone else on this forum and no need to get obsessed with Omer. I hope next time you can do a better job.

regards, javed

Re: Omar

In reply 30, you said

Dear mr. omar.

Hats off to your uprightness. Now the answers to 3 questions by you.

a) 50,000 killed in kashmir. 27,000 of those have been killed by the blood sucking holy warriors of allah. Never mind the dirty pig hindu/sikh soldiers of the hindu government in Delhi.

b) Babri masjid was a forgotten inconsequential masjid in a forgotten town in the middle of nowhere. Did you hear of Ayodhya ever other than in the ramayana, which you would have never heard of given your faithful and rational islam. There is no way i can argue with you about the rationality of the conflict. But there was a running conflict for 75 years. And local muslims had agreed to give it to hindus. How long were the temples in Lahore in conflict before they were demolished.

c) 2000 muslims were killed in bombay you say. Do you know how many hindus were killed in Hyderabad city in connected riots. Or don`t they matter.

Aapka gulam

one dirty inconsequential devious hindu.

Dear Mr Omar Mirza,

How could you pass your exams? You are so incoherent and inconsistent. You couldn`t even read three simple questions. You hope to become a lawyer!! Your schools and university must be derecognised for tolerating you.

Pakistan & muslims don`t need any enemies when they have you as their defender.

Regards

Re: Omar and other Pakistanis

Omar, the basic problem is that muslims in the subcontinent have never understood the structure of hindu society. Hindus are completely fragmented along caste, region and class lines. Hindus have to be tolerant and secular in order to establish a civil society, whether they like it or not. The BJP has realized this painfully. Just look at the political sqabbling going on in New Delhi. This is the way things were before the muslims and the british came along, except that there was no combined army to defend the subcontinent. As a result, any two-bit invader could walk in, exploit the divisions and establish his imperial rule. Earlier invaders had dissolved into hindu society but the muslims and the british refused to do so.

The phenomenon of the Congress party and Mahatma Gandhi was an exception to the rule but muslims interpreted it as if hindus had figured out how to be united. The demand for partition came from this misperception. After independence, the Congress party has virtually disintegrated and hindus are slowly reverting back to their traditional divisive nature. If muslims had played their cards smartly, they could have easily reestablished their rule over the entire subcontinent. Given their population, all they had to do was to form a partnership with a small section of the hindus such as the backward castes and get power at the center. The present demographics show that muslims are nearly 45% of the entire population of the subcontinent. If Sonia Gandhi can be so close to power in New Delhi, how difficult would it have been for elite, aristrocratic muslims backed by a large community ? If there had been civil war, muslims would have won because of their presence in the armed forces and possible help from other muslim nations. Historians have suggested that Sardar Patel had envisioned this possibility which is why he prevailed on the Congress party to accept partition.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happenned if the british had never come to India. It is unlikely that the Mughals or muslim aristrocracy could have continued with autocratic rule forever. It is also quite unlikely that the Mughals and the muslim aristrocracy would have divided their own empire and moved from Delhi to Lahore. The most likely outcome would have been some sort of compromise between muslims and non-muslims. It should be noted that during 800 years of muslim rule, there was not one incident of hindus uniting and presenting a common front. In fact in 1857, hindus sided with muslims against the british to preserve Mughal rule. You may contrast this with the mideast where muslims and christians fought their crusades for centuries.

You are wrong to think that muslims in India are somehow being targeted for discrimination. If that were the case, they would be up in arms as you see in Karachi. The reality is that hindus are too divided to collectively discriminate against muslims. Muslims in India are beginning to understand the social structure and they realize that they are a powerful section of the population that can easily work within the cacophony of hindu divisiveness and get their share of the pie. They are entering the national mainstream in record numbers, they are developing their strength via education and they are flaunting this strength at the ballot as all the parties try to woo their support.

Human Rights Watch May 1996, Excerpt on pattern of Institutional state behavior in Kashmir, and the sanctity of Muslim Kashmiris lives

Since 1993, the Indian government has embarked on a campaign to improve an international image tarnished by the appalling human rights record of its police and security forces. Some of the steps the government has taken have been significant, particularly its decision to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide its humanitarian services in Kashmir. However, many other measures that should have been taken were not: The vast majority of security personnel responsible for abuses are never punished or are subjected only to mild disciplinary measures; nothing has been done to curb the most egregious of abuses - summary executions and torture-or punish those responsible; and instead of ensuring that its troops abide by the rule of law, India has sponsored irregular militias that operate completely outside the law to carry out its counterinsurgency operations. Compounding the tragedy in Kashmir, many of India`s trading partners, eager to embrace one of Asia`s greatest ``emerging markets`` or concerned more with South Asian security relations than with human rights, have muffled earlier criticisms that had earlier served to force India to acknowledge the need for reform.

There is no question that the security threat posed by the militants in Kashmir is genuine. Indeed, as the election neared, a number of militants groups demonstrated that they were prepared to go to any lengths to enforce their will through violent attacks on candidates, campaign workers and other civilians. Their indiscriminate use of landmines and other explosive devices reveals a deep callousness toward civilian life. These actions have contributed to the erosion of civil life and security in Kashmir, and no militant group has shown any interest in ending abuses by its forces, even though their behavior has lost them much support among civilians in Kashmir.

However, the Indian government`s counterinsurgency campaign has only exacerbated the situation. As was the case in Punjab, there is little to distinguish between the abusive tactics of the security forces and their agents and the militants they have come to Kashmir to fight. If this strategy continues, and there is no effort to disarm the militias who are responsible for much of the violence now claiming Kashmir, the May 1996 elections will be worse than meaningless. They will herald the beginning of a period of lawlessness in Kashmir that India may not be able to control.

As a new government takes power in New Delhi, the international community should seize the moment to test the government`s promise of transparency by pressing India to disarm all irregular militias, fully investigate all reports of abuse and punish those responsible, and provide for full access to Kashmir for the specialized U. N. human rights bodies-the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Summary and Arbitrary Execution and the Working Groups on Disappearances and Arbitrary Detention-and for international human rights organizations. Arms sales and other forms of military cooperation to both India and Pakistan should be suspended until both countries end their support for abusive forces-including state forces, militias, and militant groups-operating in Kashmir.

Secular, Tolerant India`s other and true face

This is the work `institutional` of state forces

Killings

Since 1989, an estimated 50,000 Kashmiris have been killed by the Indian forces stationed in Kashmir. The Indian Forces have been given a free hand to kill any person they choose.

Torture & Custodial Deaths Victims in custody are treated as bodies of flesh and bones. The punishment starts at the time of arrest; abusive language is used and rifle-butts are struck on their legs. In the interrogation centres they are tortured by some methods only unique to the Indian army. Rape and Molestation of Women. An estimated one million women have either been bereaved, tortured or humiliated and beaten up or killed; many hundreds have been subjected to barbaric sexual assaults. Sexual harassment is used as a weapon to subvert people into submission.

This is a documentary testimony of horror in Indian Occupied Kashmir; of atrocities perpetrated on a people wanting to end foreign military occupation of their homeland. Since the beginning of the recent uprising in January 1990, the Kashmiris have been demanding and end to 48 years of Indian forced rule. What is depicted here is only part of the reality of Indian atrocities since no journalists, human rights and humanitarian organisations, or tourists were allowed to enter Occupied Kashmir until very recently. The real story will be told only when Indian occupation forces have left Kashmir.

The extent of torture, killings and rapes perpetrated on Kashmiri people by Indian forces are already creating a new record of atrocities. Gouging of eyes, cutting off of men`s genitals, use of ever new methods of torture and endless curfews would shame Hitler`s SS death squads. The Indian occupation army`s deviltry such as gang-rapes, burning of entire villages and crops, destruction of economic life of whole communities and genocide of the Kashmiri people in defiance of international human rights laws, are everyday affairs.

This database represents only a minute proportion of the Indian atrocities in Kashmir as the majority go undocumented.

GOYAL SPECIAL

PTV televised news on April 26 condemning atrocities being committed by Indian forces on Kashmiri Muslims observing Muharram procession. Indian forces baton charged the mourners with full force to disperse them. During the process they arrested many Kashmiris and put them in the jail.

I take note of the Irony that while it has been 7 years since the demolition of Barbri Masjid in `Secular` India, it has not been rebuilt despite a number of promises by the Indian govt to do so.

Quite the contrary, work on Ram Madir continues unabated. It is now suggested that Babri Masjid be rebuilt elsewhere.

Whereas, in the aftermath of the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 and widespread anti-Muslim riots in India, which resulted in over 2,000 Indian Muslim, `endangered and nationally protected tigers` dead, there were indeed anti-Hindu riots in Islamic/Fundamentalist/Intolerant Pakistan. While few Hindu lives were lost, approx 30 small Hindu temples were damaged and destroyed. These however were promptly repaired and rebuilt with the intolerant, bigotted Pakistani govt`s funding.

If Indian Secularists don`t like TRUTH. They should CHOKE on it. But they continue ... to unabashedly take the `Nazar` off/utarnaa of Indian Secularism.

Omar Mirza

JAI HIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trans: (Burn Baby Burn)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Scoreboard of the match in progress

The debate thus far can be characterized/summarized as the following;

A list of allegations about India by me and analysis expanding into a theory

A proposed theory of incremental cultural genocide, discrimination and oppression

Facts supporting thereto conveniently disregarded of course by my critics.

Statements repeatedly that I am not propagating ONE TRUTH of any kind, because frankly I have learned that there are usually 2 sides to any coin. Therefore I have restricted myself repeatedly by stating that I attack only the hypocrisy of those who propagate their biased one sided TRUTH in utter disregard of reality and indisputable facts, or even the POSSIBILITY of another truth. It is this POSSIBILITY ALONE that I have set forth, yet they continue to deny the existence of even the POSSIBILITY of more than ONE Truth. So, who is the ideologue? Me? Or them that walk with blindfolds in the night? Then despite my repeated preemptive statements that accusing me of bigotry would not get them off the hook as far as my arguments go, they have found themselves doing precisely that in a futile attempt to discredit my arguments by attacking me as a bigot. Pathetic. And this, despite the fact that I have clearly told RR that he has the potential to become one of my favorite idolaters! How could I more clearly reaffirm my belief in the eternal brotherhood of man?

RR seems particularly asfixiated with the notion that all facts I have brought forth mitigating against a Mythical Secular Tolerant India, are ‘ahistorical.’ Even to the extent of denying the relevance of events just a few weeks old, or ignoring them, which present evidence (just evidence I say) even of the lack of the free exercise of religion in India, and thus belie the claims of its SECULARITY. This qualifies as institutional discrimination, especial attention N. As the sum of what the author of this article relates, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, NO ONE FACT, BUT THE SUM TOTAL of them, leave one irresistable conclusion about a community in decline. Everything naturally must be viewed from the naturally ‘objective’ prism of an abstract, Mythical Secular Tolerant India and thus explained away as an ‘abberation’ removed in both time and place from Indian realities. This is the sum of RRs logic. Now they are reduced to stating that I ‘hate’ India, therefore, everything I state should naturally be taken with a grain of saffron. Basically they are saying that a Jew has no right to formulate an objective opinion about Nazi German history or Germany today. By the way Icon, I clearly told you that womyn is a Saint, I’m not. I’m usually not one to turn the other cheek. I prefer dishing it out, right back. And I can take it coming back.

Goyal’s questions were succintly answered and parried earlier, aye, if the fool could only read! But not quite the way he was hoping.:) What does he think he is? A trial lawyer? :)

Narain has chosen a nice tack, the common law method of reasoning, entirely predictable btw N, but well used. In fact, my personal belief in a level playing field or a fair shake, is actually worthless standing alone. Whether I speak of India or America. But the author has not expressed belief, he has told the tale of an entire journey thru India. After India breaks up historians will look back at this an important prediction, and emperical evidence in explaining why India fell apart, when its history gets written.

Furthermore, the 2 ‘Indian Muslims’ as has become clear from their various posts are not in an of themselves representative in a substantial manner of the class of Muslims.at large in India, given their social status, views on religion, and closely admitted familial ties to Hinduism. These are not the norm. They are not in any way, ‘the chosen voice of Indian Muslims at large.’ Therefore the representative character of their views comes into question. My views articulated here on the other hand represent the sentiments of 9 out of 10 Pakistanis. And even then, I have refrained from stating anything more than characterizing them as ‘ONE POSSIBILITY, ’ recognizing I might be accused of bias, and lack of objectivity.

R.Rs comment, on the logical impossibility of Secular Indians ever recognizing the validity of the 2 nation theory has probative value in analysing Secular Indian thought. He states, ‘It would mean WAR now.’ He’s quite right of course. It would tear apart not only the ideal of a multiethnic, multiclass stratified and multireligious India, but India itself. The process is already in motion. All the explosive ingredients are there. India, is a PRISON of nations (and classes), much like the former Federal Replublic of Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union. Before Indians point to Pakistan, I might point out that the situation with Bangladesh was different, we were 1000 miles apart, seperated by a hostile India between us. Bengali nationalism once it caught hold like a common cold, was unstoppable. It developed into Asthma and severe flu. It was incurable. India should apply that lesson to its 20 or so odd Bangla type situations building up within itz borders, and remember that what goesc around comes around, particularly nationalist viruses. This is why they must clutch on desperately at Kashmir, no matter what. They know losing it, means the disintegration of India itself. Therefore the stalemate drags on. Sindhi, Balauch, Pathan nationalism is a nationalism bereft of SUBSTANCE, of legitimate greviences. This I recognize is my subjective opinion. Therefore it poses no threat. A strong boot is enough to deal with it. Most importantly, the masses are not disenchanted, and activists working against the integrity of the country, unlike India. It is hardly any wonder that India opposes NATO strikes on Yugoslavia designed to end the humanitarian nightmare Serbs have created in Kosovo, which follows the wars instigated in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia by them , much as India interveaned in conflicts around it over history. We too have seen Bangladesh ripped apart from West Pakistan. Tribalism is the future. United India has none but civil strife and unending violence, a direct result of its policy of suppressing various groups desires and leaving them frustrated across the country. While this might be applicable to Pakistan, Islam provides a stronger ideological imperative then Secularism in India vis-a vis geographically contingious Pakistan today. Islam is inherently an expansive ideology that knows no borders, it is the ideology of conquest, Indian Secularism is without the ritual and spiritual glue that binds and holds Pakistan together. We can justify executing nationalists as traitors to both Country and G-D, India cannot. Ahmadis and Shias are not in a position to demand a separate homeland. Weak Indian coalition govts cannot begin to address these types of problems in India. Strong governments will eventually come about thru either constitutional changes or voter disenchantment in India. Whether these govts to follow in the future will be either Secular or dhoti-oriented is an open question. Dhoti-oriented govts can only serve as a catalyst for the break up of India and accelerate various independent revolutions from below. As both a historian and political scientist my job is to anlayse why this is either so, or not. I only point to the telling road signs along the road that India has chosen, nothing more. But as the mere POSSIBILITY of this awful truth confronts Indian intellecutals, they rapidly lose their patience. That too, is telling. If EVERYTHING I said was w/o any basis, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all. There is something definitely rotten over there in India. Indian Cows are coming home, their chickens are all now coming to roost. Welcome to the new Mellinium. Chaos and anarchy is the future of India. I don`t insist on this as gospel truth, i only regard it as one very plausible outcome of unfolding events. History will prove me right or wrong. Either way, Indians will play out the game.

OMAR MIRZA

RE: Omar and Islam in America.

``..I honestly believe that the American system is not in general prejudiced against minorities[Abner Louima,and Rodney KIng may well disagree with me]``

Well, there you have summarized my position on Indian secularism too. I firmly believe that there is no institutionalized prejudice against the minorities, though individuals may have their own perspectives. A few muslims may disagree with me (as quite a few blacks would with you), but the fact that you base your perception of reality on a few personal opinions and totally discount the views of others (while taking an objective view in the case of america) points to your initial anti-india bias.

``Muslims will find America to be a safer place than India when it comes to wondering whether they

will be the next victims of religiously motivated violence. ``

Of course they would, but simply because of the fact that america is a much safer place per se. I find america a much safer place than India, and I`m Hindu!

``State Assemblymen now court their votes outside mosques, the mayor of N.Y too finds himself standing outside a mosque before prayers have ended courting votes. ``

You could as well have been talking about India. Look at Mulayam Singh, look at the TDPs dilemma that it cannot join the BJP for fear of losing the muslim vote, even though this means power at the centre. And if that is not enough, let me inform you about the regular Roza-iftar parties that are organized by everyone from the president down to the local party bosses. You could argue that the muslims are deceived by politicians of all hues, but you cannot argue that they are powerless. And that is the stength of democracy and secularism.

``I stress I have no problems with Secularism, just Indian secularism, because it is not quite what it purports itself to be.``

Why? Other than your biases, what objective proof have you given of institutionalized suppression of the Indian muslims?

``faithful defenders of India...who paint an overly rosy picture as I said earlier, and are prepared to gloss over Truth itself in the process.``

I agree with you. India is pretty lawless sometimes, and things are not often what they should be.

Narain

It seems that Mr Omar Mirza won`t shutup. So here are my questions again.



Mr. Omar1974,

Before making final rebuttal/comments, kindly answers my questions. You love to write, so write whatever you can. But kindly don t digress from these points. We know all about your views on Jinnah, TNT, conditions of muslims in India and other topics in this world.

Kindly restrict yourself to enlightening us on following simple questions

1. Give us benefits of your superior intellect on whose Islam is right, Shias or Sunnis?

2. Are Ahmediyas Muslim?

3. Bangladesh are predominantly muslim. Why do you call them bengalis and not muslims? Another location on same site is full of your insights on Bengali gaddars !!

re: Omar

Now a person like Omar is also very familiar to us secular Indians. We see them all the time. Lets get past their myopic view of so called REALITY. And focus on the damage they do. This article makes some allegations which I tried to refute earlier. I am not sure what it means to Omar though. He takes his view of Islam and his view of Hinduism (his 2 polarities) and casts it on us secular Indians. He does this to whip up paranoia. This happened in 1947. Two extreme views of the Ummah bigot and the reciprocative Hindutva based (ideologially at least) Hindu `bigot` are used to polarize all other views. He strings together random unrelated incidents leaving out relevant details in the middle, but in the process `painting` a picture of his `reality`. He takes a simple reference made by the author ``Instead, the Hindu fundamentalism of BJP has achieved a stronghold.`` of which he has no proof or idea of what exactly is going on or for that matter referring to. Does he know the present state of the BJP in India ? Once his views on SECULAR EDUCATION are clear (education is unity of purpose good for all citizens) he takes that to ultimately shove Urdu down everybody`s throats. DO YOU REALIZE THAT A LOT OF US BELIEVE THAT HINDI AND URDU HAD A FIGHT AND DRAGGED EVERYBODY ELSE IN (oooh !! deep thought head hurts now). If he wants to debate on Indian politics, or Hinduism, or Islam in India, or the secularism of India, the constitution of India, or the Civil laws then he needs to categorise them properly. Currently, his views are being called extremist simply because they are crossing many different independant areas (a lot of which his view is a mere 2 feet because of the the now foggy green glasses) and all that is coming through are his CONSISTENT biases. In short his unrelated, often contradicting, cut-n-paste from different `Islam Khatre Mein Hain` publications are not really explaining what he is trying to say. All I get to know is what he HATES !
More on secularism and tigers later. this is taking a lot of time, but please bear with me.....

Why is it so hard to believe that in a pluralistic society people will come up with world views which reconcile and accomodate everything around them ?
Why is so hard to believe that with seculrism institutionalized for the last 50 years, some of us (for numbers please go follow the electorate ballot) Hindus, Muslims, and every other `type` of Indian alike BELIEVE in secularism. Where our politics, our personal religions, our education, our state all comes in different buckets.
I speak from personal experience and do not in any way claim that this is the majority opinion or otherwise. We have grown up in a pluralistic society where symbols of every religion and its followers are always in your face, on your TV, in your media, your national holidays, in your homes, at work. We have had people-to-people contact across religions all our lives as neighbours, school mates, team mates, city mates, country mates. We have shared `unity of purpose`. SOme of us have friends, family, relatives that cross religions and see everyday.
Omar talks of a world with multiple polarities, yet he denies every but the existence of 2 polarities (the Ummah vs the rest). Why can`t a Muslim who has grown up in a secular environment have a secular world view which actually is more representative of the different polarities ? Earlier I mentioned a friend of mine who is somewhat of an Ummah bigot to highlight a particular world view. But there are numerous Muslims friends & relatives who are not. LIkewise for HIndus, you will find all types. When he starts describing `his` Indian, `his` Hindu, `his` secularism, he again denies the existence of the various polarities.
HOnestly how many of you have had similar prejudices against entire groups of people and were rather pleasantly surprised when you actually made people-to-people contact, that afterall each and every one of us is an individual. THis may have come after stepping into the pluralistic and secular US. BUt in India a lot of us live with a pluralistic REALITY everyday. I share a little anecdote with you, please don`t take this as Indo-Pak mud slinging. I was in a cab the other day with desi bhraa. We had a very interesting conversation. He mentioned that all his life we had grown up with stories of bloody tussles with Hindus, but when he came to the US and was helped by Hindus, he wondered why he had all these prejudices about these people who he did not even know. He then said that he thought it was because he had never really met or known a Hindu or for that matter, Jew, all his life. He had no reason to believe anything but the `fables` he had heard. He had no way to prove or disprove it. I find this to be really true. I grew up with one version of Muslims handed down to me by my parents from their personal, rather bitter experiences, yet everyday I had other Muslims to interact with in school. Looking back over the years I can clearly see how we came up with a secular world view which we even passed on to our parents, to a great extent.

Secular Indians ideologically reject the 2 Nation theory. This is simply because in their world view multiple religions do co-exist. And in fact, any kind of division based on religion, be it in school, at work, at social functions, political representation directly threatens all of them. No, this has nothing to do with Pakistan. This is not a re-unification theory. This has nothing to do with the existing `foreign policy` with Pakistan. For us to accept the 2 Nation theory means we go into a civil war NOW. We may argue about it with Pakistanis but that is simply academic. But vis-a-vis Indians, we have debated this at length all through out growing up and it forms the cornerstone of our `unity of purpose` the foundation of our (Indian HIndus and Muslims) shared space. Just like accepting the 2 Nation theory forms the `unity of your purpose`. Now we don`t need to confront each over this do we.
A crazy circular loop which could be infinte unless we ctrl

Focus on Human Rights

India: Millions Face Abuse

Press Releases

State, Central Authorities In India “Criminally Negligent”

April 23, 1999

Violence Against ``Untouchables`` Growing, Says Report

April 14 1999

Inquiry Needed Into Calcutta Institute Censorship

April 9, 1999

Enron Defense Of Human Rights Abuse Rejected

January 28, 1999

Rights Group Urges Action on Massacre in Bihar, India

January 26, 1999

U.S. Corporation Complicit in Abuses in India

January 25, 1999

HRW Letter: Killings of Dalits in Andhra Pradesh

July 28, 1998

HRW Disappointed At India`s Position On International Court

June 16, 1998

Today more than one-sixth of India`s population, some 160 million people, live a precarious existence, shunned by much of society because of their rank as ``untouchables`` or Dalits-literally meaning ``broken`` people-at the bottom of India`s caste system. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land, forced to work in degrading conditions, and routinely abused at the hands of the police and of higher-caste groups that enjoy the state`s protection. Despite the fact that ``untouchability`` was abolished under India`s constitution in 1950, the practice of ``untouchability`` remains very much a part of rural India.

India`s government has done little to address long-standing human rights concerns, including violence against the country`s ``untouchables,`` or Dalits. Dalits are discriminated against, denied access to land, forced to work in degrading conditions, and routinely abused and even killed at the hands of police and high-caste groups.

Other marginalized groups in India are also under threat. Religious intolerance has been promoted by leaders with close ties to the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Assaults on church workers, nuns and priests, and arson attacks on churches and other property have increased sharply in Gujarat, and there have been violent incidents in other states, including Orissa.

In Maharashtra state, the U.S. energy conglomerate Enron has been complicit in serious human rights abuses. Enron owns 50 percent of the Dabhol Power Corporation -- the largest single foreign investment in India whose new power plant is largest private power project in the world. Security forces hired by the project have routinely beaten and harassed people demonstrating peacefully against the power plant. Dabhol has indirectly benefited from other repressive government actions aimed at quelling opposition to the plant.

The government has also failed to address ongoing concerns about abuses by its forces in Kashmir. Despite government claims that ``normalcy`` has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops in the state continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances, rape and torture. Militant groups in the state have also killed civilians. A 1998 government offensive in Doda and the border districts has revived patterns of abuse by Indian forces that had abated in the Kashmir valley, where the conflict has been centered since it began in earnest in 1990.

Children are often the victims of abuse in India. Though illegal, bonded child labor is endemic throughout India. Street children in India are routinely detained illegally, beaten and tortured and sometimes killed by police. India`s failure to implement its own laws has contributed to these abuses.

Indian Democracy and Secularism at work in Kashmir

PTV televised news on April 26 condemning atrocities being committed by Indian forces on Kashmiri Muslims observing Muharram procession. Indian forces baton charged the mourners with full force to disperse them. During the process they arrested many Kashmiris and put them in the jail.