Christians: under siege or political posturing

Christians: under siege or political posturing  

(http://www.sify.com/news/christians-in-india-persecution-or-political-posturing-news-columns-pe4fmhaicfjgj.html)

Major General Mrinal Suman

Before the Lok Sabha polls last year, Father Frazer Mascarenhas, principal of St Xavier's College, published a letter on the college website in which he criticised the Gujarat model of development and cautioned the students, “The prospect of an alliance of corporate capital and communal forces coming to power constitutes a real threat to the future of our secular democracy.” Apparently, he was terming BJP as a threat to secularism. Although most considered the principal’s act to be grossly inappropriate, they were not surprised.  

Hundreds of Christians, led by the church leaders, marched in protest on the roads of Delhi against the alleged vandalisation of churches and a theft in a Christian school. Timing being of essence, the protest was launched when the campaigning for Delhi polls was close to its feverish pitch. Suggesting an anti-minority conspiracy, they blamed the BJP government for their alleged anxiety.

Apparently, the church leaders were cooking-up sensitive issues to defeat BJP as per their pre-determined agenda. They ensured extensive coverage of their protests by the foreign and Indian media, thereby damaging India’s secular image. In a way, it was an anti-national act as channels like BBC are only too eager to shame India. Unwisely, even Obama got carried away with his uncalled for advice, losing considerable goodwill in India.

The pattern was similar to what the Vajpayee government faced. Somehow, BJP governments raise the hackles of the church leaders and they concoct reasons to denigrate it. Whereas all have a right to vote for the party of their choice, playing of divisive politics and fanning of fissiparous tendencies should be avoided.

The Alleged Sense of Insecurity

Most disconcertedly, a letter written by Julio Riberio has caused immense pain to his admirers. Riberio is an iconic figure and is treated with due reverence. Affectionately called a Super Cop, the nation honoured him with the award of Padma Bhushan.

How can a man on whom the nation has bestowed so much of adulation, love and honour feel insecure in his own country? Why does he feel ‘threatened, not wanted, reduced to a stranger in my own country’? Most unfortunately, he goes on to add, “I am not an Indian anymore, at least in the eyes of the proponents of the Hindu Rashtra.” How has he reached such an astonishing conclusion? Which Hindu organisation has conveyed such a message to him?

I had the privilege of meeting Riberio at a seminar at the Nehru Centre at Mumbai a few months ago. We had a long conversation. He is as impressive and alert as ever. I have always been his admirer. I became his devotee that day. Therefore, his letter came as a rude shock. Either Riberio was coerced to write the said letter or it was a case of an emotional outburst (the proverbial human weakness). Whatever be the reason, no one expected a man of his stature to fall prey to the misinformation campaign and pen those lines.

In his letter, Riberio cites four issues that he claims have added to his sense of insecurity. One, ‘Ghar Wapsi’ call of some Hindu organisations. Riberio is not being reasonable in objecting to ‘Ghar Wapsi’? If conversion of Hindus to Christianity is fair and ‘secular’, why should a call to Christians to return to the Hindu-fold be termed ‘communal’ and a threat to the minority community? Either conversions should be totally banned or there should be a level playing field. It cannot be a one way movement. 

Two, Riberio faults the government for declaring Christmas as ‘Good Governance Day’. One fails to understand as to why Christians are opposing it. The most auspicious occasion of Christmas is considered synonymous with goodness in all spheres of life. Good governance is one such sphere. Christians have every reason to be proud of it.

Three, any word uttered against Mother Teresa is considered to be an affront to the Christian community. Mother Teresa belonged to the whole humanity and it is unfair to identify her exclusively with one community. Her righteousness and compassion for the poor were beyond comparison. No criticism can lower the status of such saintly souls. Hindu gods and goddesses are commonly made the butt of crude jokes, especially in films.

The fourth issue raised by Riberio is about the alleged attacks on the churches in Delhi. This needs examination. Two cases of fire were due to short circuiting. In Jasola, a glass pane broken by the kids playing close by was termed as vandalisation of the church by the church leaders. A drunken brawl was the cause of damage to a church in Vikaspuri. Having being caught on CCTV, the miscreants have already confessed their guilt. Similarly, it is unfair to term theft of money from a school as an attack on the Christians. Money is irresistible and thieves do not hesitate to steal, even from temples and other religious places.

As per the Delhi police statistics, crimes against religious places are routine and have been occurring every year. In 2014, the incidents of theft numbered 206 against temples, 30 against gurdwaras, 14 against mosques and 3 against churches. Yet, the church leaders were most vociferous in tarnishing the secular image of the country. Expectedly, the church leaders declined to accept the police findings that there was no communal angle to the incidents. The church leaders knew the truth but wanted to paint BJP in communal terms and generate fear psychosis amongst the minorities, deliberately during the elections.

The heinous crime of the gang rape of a 71-year old nun in Ranaghat town of West Bengal last month shook the conscience of the nation. In addition, a sum of Rs 12 lakh in cash was looted. Sadly, attempts were made to convert such an abominable offence into an anti-Christian plank. All efforts were made to term it as a handiwork of Hindu religious fanatics. A West Bengal Minister blamed ‘religious intolerance in the name of Ghar Wapsi’ for the crime. The world media covered it extensively. Fortunately for the Modi government, the culprits were identified to be Bangladeshi Muslims. Most have been arrested and have confessed to the crime. As expected, having dented India’s reputation, presstitute media chose to ignore the true facts as they emerged. 

Recently, desecration of the St. Mary’s Church on 16 April in Agra evoked wide-spread protests by Christians. In no time, the incident was communalized. Blaming Hindu organisations, the displayed placards read ‘stop atrocities, against Christians’ and ‘we have a right to worship and practise our faith’. Once again, they complained of threat to the minorities.

It must have come as a rude shock (and disappointment) to the protestors when they learnt that a jilted lover, rickshaw-puller Haider Ali was responsible for the offence. On being spurned by a Christian girl, he had committed the crime out of ‘pure frustration’, done under the influence of liquor. He is under arrest and has confessed. Yet, many priests and leaders of the Christian community decline to believe the police version and demand ‘a fair probe’.

In view of the facts that have emerged after the investigation of all church related incidents, one is sure that Riberio must be regretting his gullibility. He got carried away with the falsehood spread by the church leaders. Being a man of character, he must be seeking ways to make amends for having hurt the sentiments of millions of his admirers. For most Indians, he is a national hero and a role model; and will always remain one. 

Et tu Admiral

What has shocked the soldiers most is the statement made by Admiral Sushil Kumar Isaac that ‘fear among Christians could percolate into the armed forces’. It was a most brazen, appalling and detestable comment. It was an act of the worst kind of blasphemy and amounted to injecting the virus of communalism in the armed forces. 

For military leaders, communalism is an anathema. It is a manifestation of selfish nature, unprofessional character and unethical disposition. It poses a grave threat to the cohesion of the services. Needless to say, the Admiral has let the services down with his highly venomous comments. A man with such prejudiced, narrow and communal mindset should have never been selected for the coveted post. Sorry, Admiral, you have proved yourself to be unworthy of the appointment you held. You owe an unconditional apology to the entire soldiering community.

We, in the services, are a cohesive whole and do not ever talk of our different religious affiliations. Our religious identity is confined to our homes. Like all other communities, Christians have done India proud and made supreme sacrifices for its defence. Their commitment to nationalism is beyond reproach. For Christ’s sake, leave the services alone. You have already done enough harm.

Finally

Secularism is an article of faith and a commitment for all Indians. No community needs to feel threatened. The conviction of co-existence is strongly embedded in the Indian psyche. While it is incumbent on the majority community to dispel all misapprehensions of the minorities, leaders of the minorities should shun crying wolf to arouse communal emotions for narrow political gains. In any case, use of religion as a political instrument amounts to its sacrilege.  

History stands testimony that a nation infested with the virus of parochialism has always been an easy prey for subjugation. No one knows this bitter truth better than India, whose centuries-long suffering under foreign rule was the direct fallout of the malaise of parochialism. And, communalism is the worst and most destructive type of parochialism. It has the potential to split the country on communal lines – a dreadful scenario indeed.*****

  

Siachen: 31 years later, the agony continues

(http://www.sify.com/news/siachen-31-years-later-the-agony-continues-news-columns-perfK1ghibbei.html)

Aditi Kumaria Hingu

The Indian Cricket Team had a good run till the semi finals in the Cricket World Cup 2015. When the team reached the semi-finals, the country was euphoric. The media, the common man on the street, everybody was showering love on the cricketers and even when the team lost in the semis, the conversations were positive..."We love our boys..." shouted one headline. "Lost semis, but won hearts..." screamed another.

Somewhere in the entire noise, the fact that this is a team of highly paid professional cricketers was lost. This was not a ragtag team that was quickly assembled before the CWC. These were players who were supported by a battery of professional support staff. 

When this team reached the semis, our country reacted as if the team had achieved a heroic victory for the country. We forgot that these players are among the highest paid sportspersons not only in India, but possibly worldwide. We ignored the fact that the game itself has been tainted by allegations of matchfixing, drugs and dirty deals. 

As a nation of cricket lovers, we are willing to turn a blind eye to all the uncomfortable truths staring us in the eye. "We won't give it back" becomes a war cry. The collective heartbeat of the nation stops when an Indo-Pak match is underway.

All the foibles that mark the game, all the dirty dealings, all the questions raised are forgotten....all is forgiven and forgotten as long as 'our boys in blue' keep winning matches or at the bare minimum, keep defeating Pakistan.

But what about our other set of boys? The 'boys in fatigues'? Doesn't the nation owe them anything? For every match that our pampered cricket team wins, there are scores of border and internal skirmishes that have been avoided or diffused, due to the ceaseless efforts of our Indian Army troops. However neither their strength nor sacrifices have been noticed and appreciated to date.

Most Indians would not even be aware that the month of April 2015 marks the 31st year of the Siachen conflict. The beginnings of the Siachen conflict can be traced back to April 1984 and since then India and Pakistan have fought intermittently. In order to protect its national interests, India has maintained permanent military presence in the region. 

There are estimated to be 3000 Indian troops posted at Siachen- the highest and most hostile battlefield on the Earth. At an altitude ranging from 14000 ft – 22000 ft, and with winter temperatures dropping as low as -50 degree C and snowstorms lasting 3 weeks, the Indian Army has not one, but many enemies to battle – the insurgents , the Pakistan army, the cruel terrain, the never ending harsh winter and last but not the least, the battle with loneliness. 

It is estimated that over the last 31 years, approximately 1000 people have lost their lives due to the Siachen conflict. At least 50 Indian soldiers have lost their lives in just the last three years. 

The region is unpopulated apart from the presence of the Indian and Pakistani armies. The nearest civilian settlement is the small village of Warshi, 10 miles downstream from the Indian base camp. The region is also extremely remote with negligible road connectivity. On the Indian side, the road goes up to the military base camp at Dzingrulma, 72 km from the head of the glacier. 

The terrain is so treacherous that if a soldier dies, his body may never even be found. The body of Havaldar Gaya Prasad from 15 Rajput Battalion serving in Siachen was found after 18 long years – imagine the trauma and plight of the family that does not get closure for nearly two decades. 

An average duration of a soldier's posting at Siachen is 90 days. Thus, during this time, he is physically disconnected from his family. At the Glacier, even technology gets defeated. The technology that helps us bridge chasms of distance and keep loneliness at bay – whether it is email, social networking sites, mobiles, phone apps- none of these are of any use to the lone warrior at the border outposts. 

The simple act of surviving at Siachen means overcoming all mental, physical and spiritual limits. If a soldier's bare hand touches his gun for 15 seconds, he can get extreme frostbite- leading to loss of his entire hand. The oxygen at Siachen is 10% of what it is on the plains. 

Not only that, the human body is not built for enduring beyond 17000 ft and it reacts in many ways – sleep disorders, speech blurring, memory loss are some of the afflictions that can strike anytime. While a cricket match is called off because of the rains, a soldier continues protecting his nation in all kinds of weather and terrain.

When M S Dhoni does not return to India to see his new born daughter, it is front page news. We laud his selflessness because he put cricket before family... the fact that if India wins the CWC under his captaincy, his professional interests will get a boost is not even acknowledged. 

But has anybody spared a thought for the ordinary soldier who does not see his family for many months at a stretch? He does not get millions of rupees, high profile endorsements, love of fellow countrymen, a slew of awards etc. for risking his all at the remotest battlefield in the world. 

Instead this ordinary soldier would live and die an extraordinary life but nobody would know and worse a callous nation would not even care. For most of us, patriotism starts and ends with defeating Pakistan in cricket. And that is the tragedy of our nation.

But in true spirit of the Indian Army, reads the scroll of honor at the Siachen base camp –
"Quartered in snow, silent to remain. When the bugle calls, they shall rise and march again." 

(Aditi Kumaria Hingu is a marketing graduate from IIM Calcutta, currently working in an MNC. She comes from an army background.) 

What does nationalism mean for an NRI

What does nationalism mean for an NRI 

(http://www.sify.com/news/what-does-nationalism-mean-for-an-nri-news-national-oign5qaejdchf.html)

Aditi Kumaria Hingu

"A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?”

                                                                                     British politician, Norman Tebbit (in 1990)

Nationalism is defined as a political ideology or a belief system that enables an individual to identify with, or form an attachment to, one’s nation. At a simplistic level, it is the love that an individual feels for his country and is manifested through various expressions.

However, the relationship between a nation and its citizens changes over time. The evolution of nationalism can be understood by seeing how the concept has evolved in India.

For the generations growing up in the British India, nationalism was equated with freedom from a foreign ruler. Nationalism thrives when a common enemy can be easily identified. The British rule in India was the identified ‘enemy’ and hence anybody who opposed it was a ‘nationalist’. Opposition to British laws, goods and culture was eulogized as an admirable act of nationalism. Movements like wearing of ‘khadi’, burning of English history books and breaking of the salt law united the whole nation in its quest for freedom and were symptomatic of the rising nationalism of its people. 

With Independence, India faced multiple challenges. The task for the leadership was to strengthen India’s sense of nationhood and develop a roadmap for growth. Rapid investment in utilities and industrialization was undertaken as part of India’s desire to be a socialist republic.

With the advent of liberalization, and consequent higher exposure, disposable incomes and aspirations has given birth to a new generation of Indians, ‘the global Indians’. For the global Indian, it is no longer about ‘we Indians’ vs. ‘those foreigners’. Rather it is more about an inclusive ‘us’, one that includes people of different nationalities and ideologies.  This change has been further fuelled by the advent of social media. The socialist India of the 1970s has evolved into a capitalist economy with multi-national corporations becoming a key source of employment and value generation.

While the macro environment changes, there are changes that take place within an individual also. These impact the relationship that they have with their nation. The illustration below shows the changing nature of the bond many Indians have with their motherland.

Most kids grow up believing that India is the best. However, as they grow older, they become aware of other lands and the advantages they offer. They want to explore other avenues which would offer them a higher probability of a better life. Many Indians thus, choose to leave their country of birth and start life anew in a new land.

As they settle down and prosper in their adopted homeland, their links with India become remote. Their visits to their motherland become shorter and infrequent, limited to occasions like weddings.

What does nationalism mean for a Non Resident Indian (NRI)? Ideally, it should be loyalty and allegiance to the adopted land. There are enough and more examples of NRIs contributing immensely to their adopted homelands, A recent example is of the two Indian origin soldiers (Eliyahu Paz and Barak Deghorkar) who sacrificed their lives protecting their adopted land, Israel, in the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

But does this mean that the NRIs have let go of all attachment with India? No. It is not easy to break away from the past totally as emotional bonding stays in one’s sub-conscious forever.

Therefore, the question arises – is it possible to be ‘nationalist’ towards two countries simultaneously? Most social scientists think so. As nationalism means identifying with and forming an attachment with a nation, it should be possible for a person to be a nationalist towards more than one nation. There is no dichotomy at all. Most migrants display similar proclivity. Indians settled in England root for India in an India-Pakistan cricket match while cheering for Britain in a Britain-France Football match. Thus, nationalism morphs into an amoebic and flexible emotion depending upon the variables that are concerned, without any contradictions.

However, problems arise when the variables become complex. A simple example of this confused nationalism is often seen in the game of Cricket. Many Indians were unhappy to see Ravi Bopara playing for England against India in 2013. Similarly, a large number of South African spectators booed Kevin Pietersen for leaving South Africa to play for England. Many branded him as ‘anti-national’ for daring to play against his native land.

Recently, India defeated Britain for the first time in 28 years at the Lords in July 2014. Thousands of British citizens (of Indian origin) spontaneously celebrated the Indian win. Despite consciously forsaking their country of birth, why did they still want India to win? They carried British passports and were law abiding citizens of that country. Can their rooting for India be termed ‘anti-national’ by the British?

No, opine the social psychologists. Cheering for the Indian team is symptomatic of emotional boding with their country of origin. Their loyalty to the adopted country remains uncompromised. Trans-national relocation is akin to migration that commonly happens within a country – people leave their ancestral homes in villages in quest of a better life in the metros. Yet, their affection for the ancestral home stays.  Thus the act of migrating, both inter-country and intra-country, does not result in the obliteration of the past attachments. Nostalgia is a human trait and the umbilical link with the country of birth is weakened, but never severed.

Unlike many other developing countries, India has evolved to a level where its citizens are secure about their identity as ‘Indians’. They know that this identity cannot be taken away from them; hence they are willing to embrace an additional identity, that of an NRI. Nationalism has given way to ‘multi-nationalism’: identifying with and having affection for more than one nation.

As regards multi-nationalism, the European Union makes an interesting case study. National borders have become indistinct. With common currency and a unified travel regime, movement across various countries has become very easy. There are many households where each member has a different country’s passport. One wonders as to what nationalism means to such families. For that matter, do they even relate to such a concept?

On the other hand, there are new nations that have got created in recent times. 30 new nations have got created since 1990. The citizens of these countries display their new-found national identity with pride. The youngest of these countries, South Sudan was born as late as 2013. The concept of nationalism for the citizens of South Sudan would be far more in line with the pristine meaning of the term, rather than the diffused notion that most Europeans would subscribe to.

To sum up, there is no single notion of nationalism that is relevant today. Instead it is a function of the life stage of the nation (citizens of mature, stable nations being more likely to embrace multi-nationalism vs. nations with a young, turbulent birth) and the aspirations of its citizens.

Sri Aurobindo once described a nation as ‘a living entity, full of consciousness.’ If a nation is like a living entity, then nationalism essentially is a relationship between two living entities, viz. the nation and the citizens. It is safe to conclude that like any other relationship between two individuals, the relationship between a nation and its citizens too would not remain static and would evolve over time. 

(Aditi Kumaria Hingu is a marketing graduate from IIM Calcutta, currently working in an MNC. She comes from an army background.)

                                         The legacy of Narendra bhai Modi

(http://www.sify.com/news/the-legacy-of-narendrabhai-modi-imagegallery-features-oldupAgeggegb.html)

Aditi Kumaria Hingu

At the onset, it appears odd that we are talking about the legacy of Narendra Modi when he has not even completed 6 months as the Prime Minister of India. 

After all, the word legacy means, 'something handed down by a predecessor'. 

Then how is it that one can debate Modi's legacy when he has just started out on his prime ministerial tenure? Isn't talking about Modi's legacy extremely premature? 

No, it is not.

Narendra Modi's legacy has gone beyond what he and his government may have done in the few months that they have been at the helm.  

The legacy that he has created (as of now) has been more in terms of the 4 Ps: the power of democracy, the political discourse, the process of governance and the presence of the invisibles, as discussed ahead:

The power of democracy: 
To quote Modi himself (he mentioned this in his interview in Janta ki Adalat), 'it is the power of a democracy that a tea vendor can aspire to work as the prime minister of a country'. 

India is often called a democracy in chaos, a country that works despite its flawed policies, a sleeping giant etc. But not many countries in the world can claim to elect a tea vendor as the Prime Minister of the nation. 

By choosing to elect Narendra Modi, Indians have shown that they do have the ability to rise above birth and caste considerations. 

Democracy is not the domain of the jhola wearing, khadi-clad intellengsia who like to frequent the hallowed corridors of India Habitat Centre. Democracy is as much about the neighborhood dhobi wanting a pucca roof on his head as it is about Shantabai wanting affordable English medium education for her child. 

For a tea vendor to become a PM is a beacon of hope for the dhobi and the maid...the accident of birth is no longer a constraint for achievement.

The political discourse: 

Politics in India had become synonymous with a few dynasties and the political discourse had hitherto been dominated by the Gandhis, Abdullahs, Scindias, Yadavs, and Pawars.  

For the jaded Indian population, there was little to choose from and this was reflected in the voting percentages that were recorded till the 2009 Lok Sabha elections (~ sub 60%). 

Narendra Modi has changed that totally – never before had we seen a 'rank outsider' come to the forefront of the political scenario the way he did. 

Love Narendra Modi or hate him; agree or disagree with him; deify him as the solution to India's problems or vilify him as the symbol of the worst that is India – you just cannot be indifferent to him. 

His interviews, his kurtas, his beliefs – everything has been a subject of intense discussions.  He captured popular imagination the way no politician has been able to do in the not-so recent past. 

This translated into a higher percentage of people coming out to vote in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections (66%), with aspirations of a better life becoming a stronger motivator than caste/creed considerations.

The process of governance: 

Narendra Modi has forever changed the way the Indian population relates with the elected representatives. Indians no longer view the government as the all-mighty, dole handing-out 'Sarkar'. 

Instead, there is recognition of the fact that the elected representatives have to be accountable to the people and work for the larger good. 

By using new age means of communication – like social media and interactive websites – Modi has attempted to make governance a more inclusive process, in which the government is not divorced from the people it governs. 

Instead, nation building is viewed as an all encompassing activity in which everybody has a stake and a responsibility to fulfill.  

While the success of initiatives like 'Make in India' has yet to be seen, the initiative to invite the larger population to participate in nation building has been a positive one. 

Highly encouraging public response to programs like sharing ideas on www.mygov.nic.in or participation in 'Swach Bharat Abhiyan' has demonstrated the people's eagerness to proactively work towards taking the country a few steps forward. 

Presenting the invisibles:

As a community, Indians must be among the most hypocritical in the world. We sleep soundly in our homes, unaware of the harsh realities endured by our soldiers and yet have the impudence to make 'art' films bashing the same armed forces. 

We pray to the goddess and yet practice female foeticide. We ensure our homes are spotlessly clean but litter public places.  

Narendra Modi has single-handedly exposed our duplicitous nature. When during his Independence Day address from the ramparts of the Red Fort, he talks about the lack of toilets for girl-students, he shames us all. 

While exhorting the countrymen to make India clean, he forces them to recognize the contribution of the numerous, faceless sweepers who make our cities live-able. 

When he asks us to question our sons about their activities, he reminds us of our abominably deep-rooted bias for the male child. 

When he spends Diwali at the glacial Siachen heights with the soldiers, he ensures that we spare a thought for the men battling it out in the most inhospitable battlefield of the world where the enemy is not only another army, but also the inhospitable terrain and the sheer loneliness. 

It may be argued that these actions are symbolic; but symbolism, if backed by concrete action, has often proven be a powerful trigger for behavior change.

To sum up, irrespective of how the next five years span out, Narendra Modi has changed the rules of politics and governance in this country for ever. 

He has done this by simply recognizing (and making us recognize) a fundamental fact – ultimately it is we, the citizens, who matter the most in a democracy.

(Aditi Kumaria Hingu is a marketing graduate from IIM Calcutta, currently working in an MNC. She comes from an army background.) 

Dear India, soldiers are human beings too

Dear India, soldiers are human beings too

(http://www.sify.com/news/dear-india-soldiers-are-human-beings-too-news-columns-ommhdTggdijhi.html)

        Aditi Kumaria Hingu

On 5^th December 2014, well trained and heavily equipped militants opened unprovoked fire in the pre-dawn hours at an Army camp in Uri, Baramullah in Kashmir. Eight Army men and three policemen were killed in the skirmish.  The news analysis over the next few days extensively covered the arms cache recovered from the militants, the alleged involvement of Pakistan and the likely impact of this incident on the ongoing polling process. Erudite discussions were held in television studios on whether the PM should continue with his proposed trip to Srinagar or not.  Many numbers were spoken about – 6 Kalashnikov rifles, 55 magazines, 32 unused grenades and 11 casualties.

The word ‘casualty’ is an interesting one…routinely used to describe unexpected loss of life in an incident, it brings with it certain dismissive-ness like a shake of the head to acknowledge that which is sad in nature, but not of importance in our immediate lives. It is in some ways a ‘casual treatment’ to death; casual because the death is not that of our loved ones. Instead it deals with some unknown or abstract figure, usually physically remote and never really thought about.

However, behind the eleven casualties lie eleven families destroyed. Eleven men snatched in the prime of youth, eleven women doomed to live their lives as widows, ageing parents praying for deliverance and young children who will never know the love of a father. Eight year old girls are supposed to play with toys; they are not supposed to light the funeral pyre of their father. Who will deliver justice to the eight year old Sara whose father Lt. Col Sankalp Verma was among those who died on that fateful morning of December 5^th? What was his crime for which he was punished with an untimely, violent and gruesome end?

His ‘crime’ was that unlike many of us who sit in the safety of our homes and debate about ‘Kashmir problem/ naxalite problem/ human rights sins’ , he chose to actively serve his country by being physically present in the line of fire. He chose to join the Indian Army, fully aware that this decision may mean that he has to make the ultimate sacrifice of his life.

And what does an ungrateful nation do? We give him (or rather his posthumous body) his two minutes of fame in media. We tweet about the sad loss of life. We go back to our lives. Nobody even bothers to think again about the dead soldier and his family. Nobody even questions the fact that could this untimely death have been prevented.

Instead, we talk about human rights atrocities by the Armed Forces in areas impacted by insurgency/militancy. We talk about the alleged militants who were killed in encounters by the Armed Forces. Our heart bleeds for ‘suspects’ who die custodial deaths. But where is this compassion when the dead are our own people in uniform? This article does not in any way condone custodial death/ fake encounters or any other abuse of power.  But this article does want to raise a simple question – our sense of justice is enraged when we read that a ‘suspect’ was shot dead by Armed Forces, but why are we not upset when a soldier (and remember, he is not even a ‘suspect’) is killed? Did the solider not deserve a life?

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 -No.43 of 2006) published by National Human Rights Commission clearly states that this is “An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto.” Section 12 of the Act deals with the Functions and Powers of the Commission and it mentions that the functions of the Commission include “review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures”. The Act does not anywhere mention that just because a man joined the Armed Forces, he has signed away his human rights.

If the law of the land does not differentiate between the human rights of a soldier and a civilian, then why do we? Yes, there may have been cases where innocent lives were lost, people were traumatized by excesses that may have been carried out by men in uniform and if so, it is right that the culprits be punished. Being in uniform does not mean abusing the power that comes along.

But it is equally important to realize that our soldiers are also human beings. They too, deserve a life of dignity. Every time a Lt. Col Sankalp Verma is killed – it is a human rights violation. Every time a Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan loses his life while saving 14 hostages in the 2008 Taj Mahal Hotel siege- it is a human rights violation. Every time, a 23 year old Captain Saurabh Kalia and his sepoys are tortured by Pakistan Army before death (defying the Geneva Convention which states that prisoners of war cannot be tortured) – it is a human rights violation. The post mortem of their bodies revealed that they had been burnt with cigarettes, their ear drums pierced with hot rods, eyes punctured, bones and teeth broken, lips and nose cut, private organs cut – all before shooting them dead.

Yet, the Indian public is silent about these outrages. Why? I don’t know the answer. But I wish I knew what it is that would make us realize that we do owe our soldiers some empathy and lots of gratitude.  An Army man does not expect his nation to do anything for him; the sacrifice is always his. But the least the nation can do is to recognize that he too has ‘human rights’ and the right to live is the most basic of them.

(Aditi Kumaria Hingu is a marketing graduate from IIM Calcutta, currently working in an MNC. She comes from an army background.)