FOCUS
FRIGHTENED PIGEONS AND FORSAKEN
COMMUNITY-KASHMIR PANDITS
By Jagmohan
But there is nothing incorrect or incongruous in the 'allegation'. The bus in question was carrying children of the Army Public School, situated in the cantonment area of Srinagar. This school, unlike other schools of the Valley, reopened after winter vacation as scheduled on February 19. So the government notification extending winter vacation in the educational institutions of the Valley beyond March 1 (the usual date of reopening after winter break) did not apply to this school. The annual examinations in the school started towards the end of February and on the fateful day of March 1, it was the second day of examination. The army bus that was bringing children from Barzulla, Hyderpura, Perrbagh and other areas to the school situated on the Badamibagh cantonment, was attacked at Tengpora by a frenzied mob comprising the subversive elements and their supporters. And it was precisely after the mishap that the Army Public School too was closed for an indefinite period like other educational institutions in the Valley. Ms. Mulay can get these facts verified from the parents of the children reading in that school, army personnel or civilians, Hindus or Muslims.
It is very sad that the Committee which made inquiries from persons who deliberately distorted the facts, calls its findings objective and unbiased. To be liberal, outspoken and smart is all right. But one should not fall prey to the machinations of fundamentalists whose sole aim is secession of Kashmir from secular India."
It should be obvious that Ms. Mulay and the Committee really followed Swift's dictum: "When you are doing a fault, be always pert and insolent and behave yourself as if you are the injured person."
Another letter dated April 20 of Thakur Dass of Jammu which appeared in the same newspaper on the same date, was equally revealing. It said:
"Sir, This refers to the letter of Ms. Suhasini Mulay, Executive Secretary, Committee for Initiative on Kashmir (IE, April 19). It is correct that all State government schools in the Valley were closed till March 15 (they will remain closed till May 1, according to a subsequent order) but the Srinagar Army School in question opened on February 20 after the winter vacation. The examinations for various classes started from March 1 and it was on this day that the army bus carrying students of the Army School, mostly wards of the defence personnel, was attacked by some anti-India demonstrators near Tengpora. These are undiluted facts which could be verified from the terrified students or their parents.
If members of the Committee had gone to the Valley, they were under moral obligation to cross-check the facts before casting aspersions on our Army, much less arriving at conclusions which are detrimental to the national interest. If they have any doubts, they are welcome to check the facts from the defence authorities who run this school, or from the Principal of the school, Chaturvedi.
These intellectuals and so-called champions of civil liberties, in their eagerness to run down Jagmohan and the Indian Army, have provided enough material for anti-Indian propaganda in the foreign media. Pakistan made full use of these reports to build up anti-India feelings in Muslim countries.
The people, at least of J&K, would like to know which senior government officer and the officers of the security forces they have met and depend on for their assessment. Propriety demands that the name of such officers be disclosed."
The Committee restricted itself to the local people whom it supposedly interviewed. Who were these nameless people? What were their affiliations? In the opening paras, I pointed out that the Committee relied upon hearsay. But it was not only that; it relied upon the hearsay of the unknown.
The false allegations against the Army and the State Administration for having invented the school bus story, made with such cocky aggressiveness, did immense damage to national honour and the country's international standing. There was not a single correspondent, foreign or local, who met me and did not make adverse observations about it. While the report of the Committee was published in the world media, thanks to the resources and contacts of the PUCL, the letters like those of S.N. Drabu and Thakur Dass, published in some inconspicuous corners of a newspaper, were hardly noticed.
There are many other false observations in the report which call for comments. For want of space, I will give below only a few of them.
On page of its reports, the Committee says:
"When we asked our Muslim interviewees why, in spite of their assurance of protection to their Hindu neighbours, the latter were leaving the Valley, they came out with an explanation which need to be gone into. We were told that the Administration and Jagmohan in particular, had encouraged the migration by advising the Hindus to leave and by arranging government transport for their departure".
Who arranged for the tucks? Which department of the Government was concerned? On which date or dates were these trucks moved? Who were these nameless Muslim interviewees? And what was the basis of their saying that Jagmohan in particular encouraged the migration of Hindus? The Committee's team did not bother about such questions. Nor did it show its face to the Chief Secretary again when he asked about the precise details. It could not, because the allegations were sheer concoctions.
More 
