On Afzal Guru, there appear to be three narratives. First the Police narrative which became part of the Supreme Court decision - that Afzal was a terrorist who masterminded and/ or helped plan and execute the Parliament attack.
Second the narrative that you apparently hear in the Kashmir valley that Afzal was a martyr to the cause of Azaad Kashmir. This is the separatist movement claiming Afzal Guru's legacy.
The third narrative is that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was subsequently tortured by Indian State agents. He was involved in the Parliament attack saga by one of these people. His confession was forced/ under duress. The Police duped him. His role in the attack conspiracy was minor. He was basically following orders from someone within the Indian State machinery. This narrative suggests that the Parliament attacks were a false flag attack. In this narrative Afzal is not a martyr, but a patsy, a victim, a scapegoat, someone who was used and discarded.
I read about Afzal some years ago. And the false flag narrative was convincing based upon the evidence and facts cited to sustain it. Like P Chidambaram has stated, I honestly have major doubts as to the police narrative, I certainly don't subscribe to the martyr narrative.
On JNU, I am only defending the right of JNU students to free thought and speech. Mere slogan shouting cannot be sedition. Evidence points to the possibility that the 9 February incident was also planned by the BJP-RSS-ABVP in their quest to take over Universities.
Discussion on topics like Afzal Guru or terrorism or the Kashmiris' right to self-determination or opposition to the death penalty or to discuss the Indian State's use of force in Kashmir, or to discuss fascist tendencies in the RSS and BJP mind-set is all allowed under the Constitution.
There is no evidence so far that any criminal activities occurred in JNU on 9 February 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment