English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Hashimpura, Srebrenica And Rohingyas in Rakhine: Similar And So Different

Published

on

Hashimpura, Srebrenica And Rohingyas in Rakhine: Similar And So Different

By Saeed Naqvi

 

Incidents, similar in their chilling monstrosity, came to mind when I saw photographs of a row of Rohingya Muslim young men, on their knees, their hands tied behind their back. Gun wielding military police, lurking within the frame, eventually mowed them down.

 

This is the face of the horror the world will remember. In a state of funk, Myanmar’s commander-in-chief, General Min Aung Hlaing has admitted mass graves in one village: Inn Din 50 km north of the Rakhine state capital, Sittwe. Journalists have scoured many other mass graves.

 

The other gruesome episode etched on my mind is Srebrenica in Bosnia (1995). Hashimpura in Meerut (1987), of course, is our very own tragedy, still lingering. In each one of these macabre events, Muslim youth had their hands tied behind their backs and shot by the local army.

 

In the latest massacre of the Rohingya in August 2017, the local Buddhist clergy and army turned upon the Muslims. The number killed exceeds 6,700 according to the NGO Doctors without Borders.

 

In Srebrenica, the orthodox Christian troops of the Bosnian-Serbian army, murdered 7,000 Muslim youth and expelled 20,000 civilians from the area.

 

In Hashimpura, forty two young men were lined up along a nearby irrigation canal and shot by soldiers of the Provincial Armed Constabulary. These soldiers were Hindus. Can their denomination be spelt out? Apparently not, given the manner in which Asaduddin Owaisi of the Ittehadul Muslimeen has been shouted down for having dared to mention Muslims as “martyrs” because in the latest outrage it is mostly them who have been killed by terrorists.

 

Hashimpura, Srebrenica And Rohingyas in Rakhine: Similar And So DifferentOwaisi was making a simple point. Patriotism of Indian Muslims is regularly challenged on prime time television which places them on the wrong side of the secular line. But five out of seven killed in the Sunjwan army camp happened to be Muslims. Why is this detail missing from reports? Such stories would go some distance in bridging communal divide. No, said the anchors almost in chorus, “Owaisi is communalizing the army”. Pray, how? “By reporting that five of the seven killed in the camp were Muslims”? Muslims must never upstage Hindu soldiers in the martyrdom stakes?

 

Given this attitude, the killers of the 42 Muslims in Hashimpura must be seen only as instruments of the “secular” state. That 19 PAC personnel, under the platoon commander, Surinder Pal Singh, rounded up Muslims in the Hashimpura neighborhood of Meerut, should be blandly reported without mentioning religious identities. Religious identity must only be mentioned if terrorists turn out to be Muslims which is what they are when police shoots them down. The number of youth taken away is still unclear, but the police narrative suggests 42, mostly weavers and daily wage earners, who were taken in a truck to the upper Ganga canal in Murad Nagar, near Ghaziabad.

 

The men were blind folded, and shot. Their bodies were dumped in the canal. This was not the only such operation following a series of communal clashes in Meerut that year since March.

 

On May 24, 2007, 20 years after the massacre, 36 members of victim’s families filed applications under the Right to Information Act at the office of the Director General of Police in Lucknow. The inquiry revealed that all the accused remained in service. In their Annual Confidential Reports there was not even a hint of their involvement in the Hashimpura massacre. The secular state was protecting its own.

 

The case has dragged on, zig zagged without any evidence of the establishment really searching for justice. News is expected from the High Court on February 20. Reporters recall the Minister of State for Home, P. Chidambaram, outside his North Block office actually scream at officials. “Crush them” he shouted. He was very hands-on during the Meerut riots and the aftermath. Subramaniam Swamy actually named Chidambaram as an accomplice but the allegation, coming from Swamy, became prima facie suspect. In the fullness of time, the PAC men involved in the case, including Surinder Pal Singh, have all departed to their maker, one by one.

 

I have given the fairly common place details of the tragic saga of Muslims in the Hashimpura case simply to establish the contrast with massacres in Srebrenica and Rakhine in Myanmar. Orthodox Christians in one instance and Buddhists in the other brazenly targeted Muslims and for which they have been or are being punished. But in India the secular edifice would be weakened if the religious identity of police or army men who kill Muslims is mentioned. And the case will be dragged on eternally.

 

Senior journalist Saeed Naqvi compares the tragedies in Rakhine in Myanmar, Hashimpura in UP and Serbernica in Bosnia killing Muslims for different reasons.In Serbia-Bosnia, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia concluded that what happened in Srebrenica was “genocide”. It pinned the blame on senior officers in the Bosnian Serbian Army.

 

Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN, resigned last week from a Myanmar Advisory Board on the Rohingya crisis. He called it a pro government “cheerleading squad”. Richardson has been a friend of the country’s civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. This did not prevent him from expressing his anger at what he said was a whitewash in which she was complicit. “She has developed the arrogance of power”, he said.

 

For the horrors of Srebrenica senior commander Ratko Mladic and a host of his accomplices, have been awarded long sentences at the International Court of Justice. In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi and her military accomplices are inching towards global opprobrium and eventual justice.

 

Why then are the perpetrators of Hashimpura, the oldest of the three massacres, still scot-free?

 

Supposing Owaisi were to lift the scab from another raw wound and say “wheels of justice, even when the complainants are Muslims, move faster in non Muslim theocratic states than in pretentious secular ones”. Would he be shouted down again?

 

Most Indians shy away from a glaring reality. Eruptions in former Yugoslavia and Myanmar took place when Muslims were in bad odour globally after the wars in the Arab world.

 

Communal clashes in India, particularly police versus people, have been endemic since the Partition of 1947. And the world does not take much notice because it is a routine “internal affair” of a sovereign state.

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said India is free to purchase oil from any country, dismissing claims that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian crude under a US trade deal.

Published

on

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said that India is free to purchase crude oil from any country, responding to claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a recent trade deal with Washington.

The Kremlin said Russia is not India’s only energy supplier and noted that India has long sourced crude oil from multiple countries. It added that there is nothing new in India’s efforts to diversify its oil imports.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that energy experts are well aware that India purchases oil and petroleum products from various global suppliers. He added that Moscow does not see any change in India’s approach to sourcing crude.

No official word from India on halting imports

A day earlier, Peskov said Russia has not received any official statement from India regarding the cessation of Russian oil purchases. Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed the view, saying the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries remains mutually beneficial.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons contributes to stability in the global energy market and that Moscow remains ready to continue close cooperation with New Delhi in the energy sector.

Russian media also noted that, unlike the US president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not made any public statement indicating an agreement to stop Russian oil imports.

India’s oil imports from Russia

India has continued to import Russian crude even after the US imposed tariffs on Indian goods. According to global trade data provider Kpler, India has been importing around 1.5 million barrels of Russian crude per day, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil and accounting for more than one-third of India’s total crude imports.

India buys about 88 per cent of its crude oil needs from overseas, with roughly one-third sourced from Russia. At its peak, imports from Russia crossed 2 million barrels per day, before falling to around 1.3 million barrels per day in December. The volume is expected to remain broadly stable in the near term.

However, imports declined further to about 1.1 million barrels per day in the first three weeks of January following higher tariffs imposed by the US, including levies linked to purchases of Russian energy.

Complete switch unlikely, experts say

Energy experts believe Indian refiners cannot fully replace Russian crude with American oil. Igor Yushkov of the National Energy Security Fund said US shale oil is lighter in grade, while Russian Urals crude is heavier and contains more sulphur.

He explained that replacing Russian oil would require blending different grades, increasing costs for refiners. He added that the US is unlikely to be able to supply the volume currently exported by Russia to India.

Yushkov also recalled that when Russia redirected its oil exports from Western markets to India in 2022, it reduced production by about one million barrels per day, contributing to a sharp rise in global oil prices and record fuel prices in the US.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Moscow says no word from India on stopping Russian oil purchases

Russia says it has received no confirmation from India on stopping Russian oil purchases, despite Donald Trump’s claim that the move was part of a new India-US trade deal.

Published

on

Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin on Tuesday said it has not received any official communication from India regarding a halt in Russian oil purchases, following claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi had agreed to stop buying Russian crude as part of a trade agreement with Washington.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow had not heard any confirmation from Indian authorities on the matter.

“So far, we haven’t heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter,” Peskov said, responding to Trump’s remarks linking reduced US tariffs on Indian goods to an alleged commitment by India to end Russian oil imports.

Russia stresses importance of ties with India

Peskov said Russia respects bilateral relations between India and the United States but underlined the strategic importance of ties between Moscow and New Delhi.

“We respect bilateral US-Indian relations,” he said, adding that Russia places equal importance on its strategic partnership with India.
“This is the most important thing for us, and we intend to further develop our bilateral relations with Delhi.”

What Trump claimed

Trump announced the India-US trade deal on Monday, stating that tariffs on Indian goods had been reduced from 50 per cent to 18 per cent. He claimed the reduction was linked to India agreeing to stop purchasing Russian oil.

According to Trump, India would instead buy more oil from the United States and potentially from Venezuela. He also suggested that the move would help bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

“He agreed to stop buying Russian oil and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela,” Trump said, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India’s reliance on Russian crude

India has emerged as one of the largest buyers of Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine conflict. It currently imports around 1.5 million barrels of Russian oil per day, accounting for more than one-third of its total oil imports, according to global trade data.

India is the second-largest purchaser of Russian crude globally. Even after earlier US tariff measures on Indian goods, New Delhi continued its Russian oil imports, citing energy security concerns.

The Indian government has consistently maintained that securing affordable energy supplies is critical, given the country’s heavy dependence on oil imports.

Shift in energy ties after Ukraine war

Historically, India’s relationship with Russia was centred more on defence cooperation than energy trade, with Russia supplying a majority of India’s military equipment while contributing only a small share of its oil imports.

After the invasion of Ukraine, India significantly increased purchases of discounted Russian oil. The move helped India boost energy supplies while providing Russia with much-needed revenue amid Western sanctions.

As recently as December 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a visit to New Delhi that Moscow was ready to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to India despite pressure from the United States.

Earlier US push for Indian energy imports

Trump had earlier said, following a meeting with Prime Minister Modi in February last year, that India would begin buying more American oil and natural gas. However, those discussions did not lead to a major shift in India’s energy sourcing.

Subsequent US tariff measures also failed to significantly alter India’s stance on Russian oil imports.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com