New Delhi: The shadow of 26/11 attacker Ajmal Kasab loomed over separatist Aasiya Andrabi and her two associates as they were sentenced on Tuesday, with the judge saying that their lack of remorse over the activities promoting secession of Kashmir from India and enmity between groups was similar to that shown by the Lashkar terrorist from Pakistan.
Andrabi, chairperson of banned outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DEM) which worked as an all-women outfit, was handed a life sentence, while her two associates, Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen, were handed jail terms of 30 years each. Sofi is the press secretary of DeM, and Nahida is the outfit’s general secretary.
All three were convicted by a National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Delhi in January, about seven years after their arrest by the agency.
The trio was charged and convicted under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121A (punishment for conspiracy to wage war against the government), 153 (A& B) (promoting enmity between groups based on religions and imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that deal with conspiracy to carry out terrorist attacks, mobilising funds for such acts, etc.
On Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh observed that the concept of Iqamat-e-Deen pursued by Andrabi has no other reference anywhere, except in the writings of two scholars based at Bahawalpur in Pakistan’s Punjab province.
Citing the very writings of the Pakistani scholars, the judge observed that it is a fundamental Quranic concept encompassing the comprehensive implementation of Islam in all aspects of individual and collective life, and the accused have pursued the objective that Kashmir should merge with Pakistan on the basis of religion.
The judge cited writings by Qazi Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Muavia Khan, both from the department of Islamic Studies at the Islamia University of Bahawalpur, to make his point.
On the issue of remorse, the judge drew a reference from the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Kasab, the lone Pakistani terrorist who was caught alive in the 26/11 attack in Mumbai.
“In the case titled as Muhammad Ajmal Muhammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid vs State of Maharashtra, in its decision dated 29.08.2012, the Supreme Court has observed that the saddest and most disturbing part of the case is that the appellant never showed any remorse for the things he did. Similar is the situation in the present matter as well. No remorse has been shown by any of the convict in respect of their acts rather, it is submitted that they are proud of what they were doing and also that they will continue to do the same work,” Judge Singh observed.
Hence, he wrote that any leniency shown to the trio would send a wrong message. “Any leniency to convict has a potential to send a message to others with similar ideas that they can get away with such acts through incarceration for some years and may promote the ideas of causing secession of part of India.”
On its part, the NIA had sought maximum sentences for all the accused, saying that the evil of such provocative speeches should be nipped in the bud by a maximum sentence which would send a strong signal to such individuals. India has suffered a lot from terrorist acts, including recent attacks in Pahalgam, Pulwama, Uri and near the Red Fort, wherein several innocent persons lost their lives, and many others were seriously injured, the NIA argued before the court.
The court also rejected the counsel’s argument that it should consider their education when determining the quantum of sentence. “The fact of convict being educated women aggravates the liability for consequences of their actions rather than mitigate it as from an educated person, it is expected that they have taken an informed decision regarding their actions and have not done anything instinctively.”
The court, however, acquitted all three from the charge under Section 121 (waging war against the government) of the IPC, citing no such activities in the wake of her speeches and illegal acts amounting to waging war against the government.
‘Gun is a must for our struggle’
The NIA had in its charge sheet alleged that Andrabi, under the banner of DeM, held religious seminaries and gatherings in the 1980s, with a declared objective to achieve secession of Kashmir from India. The agency alleged that Aasiya Andrabi and her two associates used social media to spread several inflammatory speeches to inspire more young women to join DeM and support their cause.
The NIA identified Andrabi as a vocal supporter of another terror outfit, Lashkar-e-Jabbar, and alleged that she worked closely with various separatist leaders, particularly Masarat Alam and Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The agency had also linked her to violent protests in the Kashmir Valley in the wake of the encounter of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in 2016.
Among other evidence cited by the judge in the conviction order passed is an interview given by Andrabi to a local newspaper in January 2018. “I think more and more youth will join the militants and our armed struggle will be stronger by the day. Killing and abuses by Indian occupational forces will only increase the militancy. The gun is one of the means of achieving our goal but we must make our political struggle strong too. I believe the Kashmir issue will only be resolved through a referendum. To get a referendum, though, we need carry on with our struggle and gun is a must for that,” Andrabi had told in the interview and the judge reproduced the extract based on NIA’s submission.
The judge cited the interview excerpt and other writings and expressions by Andrabi to reject the arguments that her activities fell under the fundamental right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution of India.
“There is a clear stipulation in Article 19 (2) of Constitution that as far as reasonable restrictions are concerned, the freedom of speech and expression can always be restricted/limited if it adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. To seek secession of part of India from the rest of India is a clear case of sovereignty and integrity of India having been put under threat,” Judge Singh observed in the conviction judgement.
In the present case, the court said that the activities of DeM were related to secession of Kashmir, an integral part of India, from the country on the pretext of the claim of right to self-determination, for which Andrabi had given several speeches and interviews to advocate her claims and further encouraged others to join her.
Judge Singh also observed that at the core of Andrabi and her associates’ activities was the belief that Kashmir, with a population of Muslims of about 90 per cent, should go to Pakistan. This, he said, was running along with their narrative that the partition of the sub-continent was done on the basis of the two-nation theory, which has religion as its basis.
He pointed out that Andrabi and her activities were not making similar points about other areas where Muslims were in a majority. “However, although, accused protects to base her claim of secession of Kashmir from India and merging the same in Pakistan on the basis of religion yet accused are conspicuously quiet on the status of other Muslims in India, including the area where Muslim population may be in majority. The entire focus of the narrative of accused is Kashmir and nothing else,” Judge Singh observed.
“Interestingly, the accused are claiming that they have a right to self-determine on the basis of resolution of UN, however, at the same time, they are claiming that Kashmir is already a part of Pakistan and India has illegal occupation in Kashmir. Therefore, it is clear that the accused do not bear an allegiance to the Constitution and do not believe in Constitution and are also not ready to uphold it and the sovereignty of India as they are seeking secession of an integral part of India.”
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: From Bajwa to ‘Munir Doctrine’ & peace in Kashmir—why India believes Pakistan greenlit Pahalgam