Dost Khan
JAMMU: Is it quid pro quo or political mindset taking nosedive in Kashmir when it comes to upholding dignity and esteem of Indian nation? A PDP Member Parliament has vouched for travel documents on humanitarian grounds to chronic secessionist Syed Ali Geelani for visiting ‘ailing daughter’ in Dubai, notwithstanding his reported insistence to leave blank the citizenship column in prescribed application form for issuance of passport. Geelani does not want to travel as Indian citizen. He doesn’t consider himself Indian at all despite enjoying all concessions and even security for the fear of annihilation from Pakistan sponsored terrorists, whom he describes Mujahids. He is openly challenging Indian sovereignty. He misses no opportunity in indulging seditious acts. He has been found recommending (or may be recruiting) visa for terrorists to visit Pakistan through its High Commission in New Delhi. He makes it a point that Kashmir shuts on Indian Republic Day and Independence Day every year. He feels pride in attending Pakistan Day celebrations in rogue country’s High Commission in India capital. He found it convenient to draw the pension as MLA after swearing by Constitution of India. He feels no moral turpitude in accepting Hawala money either for his personal use or for waging war against India through terror regime. With all these negatives, why does PDP feel obliged to bat for his documents on humanitarian grounds inspite of the hardcore hawk’s known anti-India beliefs and posturing?
Tariq Hameed Karra wants India to show empathy to Geelani, who is in denial mode to fulfill the formality which every Indian citizen is required to perform for obtaining Indian Passport. If the MP or anybody else, for that matter, feels obliged to pitch for Geelani, he may perhaps be seeking to invoke sub-para 20 of the Indian Passport Act 1967, pertaining to ‘issue of passports and travel documents to persons who are not citizens of India. The sub-para says, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions relating to issue of a passport or travel document, the Central Government may issue, or cause to be issued, a passport or travel document to a person who is not a citizen of India if that Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so in the public interest”. In such a situation, the Centre will have to treat Geelani as a foreigner and not a subject of India but he is holding a Permanent Resident Certificate of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India. The Parliament Resolution of February 1994 has reiterated and reaffirmed this with a pledge to bet back its part under illegal occupation of Pakistan. If, hypothetically, Government of India will still consider travel documents for Geelani in the public interest that will make the secessionist hawk vulnerable for being a foreigner and staying in India unauthorisedly. In such a case the provisos of the Foreigners (Report to the police) Order, 1971, made under the Foreigners Act 1946 can be invoked against the most vocal India basher on soil of Kashmir. Already, a powerful section of Indian society has been demanding transshipment of anti-nationals beyond the LoC.
Advocating travel documents for Geelani, Karra invokes history and says, “History stands witness that humanism and compassion has prevailed over stated positions in such circumstances, when a father desperately wants to see his ailing daughter thousands of miles away.” One wishes same compassion to have been shown by Kashmiri secessionists, who are in fact over-ground faces of terrorism, towards thousands of mothers whose laps have been emptied from their dear ones in the Valley during the past two decades; for those who have been hounded out and rendered rootless and homeless; for the protectors who laid their lives to protect ordinary Kashmir from marauders; for countless widows and orphans, who have rehabilitated grave yards which these unscrupulous secessionists use as enterprise to further the Pakistani cause.
Those espousing the cause of Geelani, for whatsoever reason-clandestine support in elections or helping gain roots in Kashmir politics-should not forget that United States of America had refused visa to him when he was critically ill in 2007. The US had turned down his visa, sought for undergoing treatment in America, on 27th March 2007, saying that he had consistently failed to renounce violence as a means of achieving political goals in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision was accordingly conveyed to him as a result of which he undervent surgery in Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai.
Geelani apologists must also remember that passport can also be denied as per clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Passport Act 1967 if the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country (which he or she wants to visit) in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India. Can they stand guarantee to Geelani who has been indulging in most seditious acts in India, time and again?