Indeed, the death of Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh following a murderous assault by some Pakistani inmates in a Pakistani jail is condemnable. Equally condemnable is the brutal attack on Pakistani prisoner Sanaullah Haq in a jail in Jammu and Kashmir. Sanaullah at the time of writing this piece was stated to be in a “deep coma.” The attack on Sanaullah was apparently carried out to avenge the death of Sarabjit.
These two incidents call for serious deliberations on whether they could have been avoided. Equally pertinent is the question whether excessive media coverage has been given to both cases and if so, why?
Sarabjit, held in a Pakistani prison, allegedly convicted of spying and terrorism, was condemned and sentenced to death in 1991. His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. It is to be noted that Sarabjit had been behind bars in Pakistan for more than two decades. There is a view that Sarabjit was attacked in revenge for Afzal Guru’s execution in India this year on Feb. 9 for his involvement in attacks on Indian Parliament in December 2001. This implies that Guru’s execution prompted Pakistani prisoners to murder Sarabjit, as a reaction to which Indian prisoners attacked Pakistani prisoner Sanaullah. The time factor indicates a possible link between Sanaullah being attacked in a reaction. The alacrity, with which Sanaullah was attacked, within less than a week of Sarabjit’s murder, stands out. Sarabjit was murdered after more than two months had passed since Guru’s execution. If Pakistani prisoners had actually reacted against Guru’s execution, they may not have waited for several weeks.
Prisons are not courts of law, but are premises where alleged and actual criminals accused of violating rules of law are imprisoned. This raises questions as what exactly prompted Sarabjit’s murderers and Sanaullah’s attackers to take “law” into their own hands. Convicts, already charged with violating and breaking law, cannot be trusted to respect the same, because of which they are kept in prisons. Did the prisoners try and play a “major role,” in their perception, by attacking a fellow prisoner only because he happened to be from another country, with which relations are tense more often than not? It is possible.
Against the backdrop of Indo-Pak ties, it is surprising that till Sarabjit’s murder and murderous attack on Sanaullah, the authorities in both countries did not pay much attention to ensure separation of prisoners from both countries. Steps are now being taken in India as well as in Pakistan to separate prisoners from the two countries in jails. This policy should have been there from the very beginning, given the strained Indo-Pak ties. The arrests of both Sarabjit and Sanaullah are also reflection of the diplomatic tension between India and Pakistan.
Irrespective of the ups and downs in Indo-Pak relations, prisoners do not have the right to take any action against prisoners from the other country. Strict action needs to be taken against prisoners from both sides who indulged in violence. There are more than 500 Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails and around 270 Pakistani prisoners in Indian jails. Jail authorities on both sides are reportedly concerned about similar incidents being repeated.
Suspension or any other official action against authorities in charge of the jail cells, where Sarabjit and Sanaullah were attacked is only a small step toward preventing repetition of such incidents. Segregation of prisoners from both nations must be made compulsory.
It is hoped that action taken against erring officials and prisoners is also given substantial media coverage. The role played by the media over Sarabjit’s murder and the attack on Sanaullah bears its own significance. There is a view that the media went overboard in giving excessive coverage to these cases. Let us accept the fact that whenever any issue reflecting Indo-Pak tension assumes “news” value, it doesn’t take long for it to hit headlines. Sarabjit’s murder falls in the same category. When such “news” receives excessive coverage, it acquires greater political and social importance for politicians. The world has witnessed the manner in which Indian leaders across party lines went overboard in paying homage to Sarabjit and condemning the incident.
The timing of Sarabjit’s murder and the attack on Sanaullah has also been linked with the ensuing elections in both the countries. Sarabjit’s murder took place as Pakistan faced the election season. The Indian media gave it excessive coverage, creating a political opportunity for leaders and parties to exploit this issue ahead of parliamentary polls. And this raises question, whether prisoners in both cases were reduced to mere political pawns? This question may perhaps remain unanswered forever.
