The editorial in Organiser comments on the death sentence given to “Kulbhushan Jadhav, a Bharatiya”, by the Field General Court Martial under the Pakistan Army Act. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj has already said that it “would be considered as a ‘premeditated murder’ and Pakistan should be ready to face the consequences”. It terms Jadhav’s “arrest and subsequent trial” “fishy and farcical”, which “raises many questions about the intention of Pakistan”. India sought consular access to him 13 times, only to be denied by the Pakistani authorities, who “are still not disclosing the whereabouts of a Bharatiya citizen”. Pointing out that “Pakistan has a long history of flouting laws,” it asks: The real question is why Pakistan is playing this card now and how to deal with it.
“The only option to deal with such a troublesome neighbour is to come with a bigger surprise,” it says, noting that the “Modi government is known for aggressive and innovative approach in all spheres of governance, especially in foreign policy”. “The Kulbhushan issue has provided an opportunity to go for another surgery to sort out the unjust neighbour and bring it to the path of justice,” it concludes.
The Left and Ayodhya
The cover story of Organiser has an interview with former Archeological Survey of India official K.K. Mohammed, who was a member of the excavation team to Ayodhya in 1978. Mohammed, who has “renovated more than 300 temples as a part of his professional life”, “argues with the support of evidence that the disputed structure (in Ayodhya) had been erected on the debris of a temple”. He “reveals that when the majority of Muslims were willing to hand over the disputed land to Hindus”, “the Leftists and Leftist-affiliated historians… sabotaged the peaceful transfer of the land”. Noting that “Ayodhya has no connection with the Islamic faith”, he says that “Muslims must hand over Ayodhya to Hindus”. “India still remains secular only because Hindus are a majority here,” he says, underlining that “if Muslims were the majority, it would not have become a secular state. Muslims must understand this fact”.
He lists “vital archaeological evidence” that establish the presence of a temple at the site and slams “Leftist historians in JNU”, who opposed “the historical facts and findings”. If there were no Leftist interventions, the Ayodhya issue would have been settled a long ago, he says, adding that “Leftist historians gave empty promises to Muslims”.
The ‘Sunni NATO’
An article in Panchjanya comments on the irony of the Islamic Military Alliance To Fight Terrorism, formed on the lines of NATO. “Its leader would be Saudi Arabia, which is considered the biggest source of terrorism in the world,” it says. Pakistan’s former Army Chief Raheel Sharif, “who is considered highly unreliable on the matter of terrorism”, is in charge of the “military operations” of this alliance. “The objective of this alliance of Islamic countries is to ensure cooperation, military training and weapon exchange among these countries,” it says.
The article argues that many terrorist organisations in the world have been beneficiaries of Saudi Arabia’s largesse — Saudi Arabia also funds the spread of Wahabi Islam. Major terrorist outfits like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, LeT, etc., follow Wahabi Islam, and have links to “Saudi money”. Underlining the role of Pakistan in nourishing terrorism, the article asks how can such a country fight terrorism?
The increasing proximity of Pakistan with Saudi Arabia, as reflected in this alliance, is considered a “major blow to Indian foreign policy”. This “Muslim NATO” seems like a “Sunni NATO”, the article argues, while claiming that even Shia groups in Pakistan are opposing it.