Sarabjit embraced Islam, has a Muslim name Sarfaraz: Surjeet

June 29, 2012

Sarabjit_fine

Amritsar, June 29: Freed after a high decibel drama following Pakistan’s alleged flip-flop of first announcing the release of Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh and later clarifying that it was Surjeet Singh who was to be repatriated, Surjeet Singh — who on Thursday crossed over to India from Pakistan after spending more than 30 years in prison — claimed that Sarabjit had “converted to Islam” and was now known as “Sarfaraz” in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail.

Surjeet also claimed that another Indian prisoner on death row in Pakistan, Kirpal Singh, had also “converted to Islam” and had a new name “Mohammed Din”.

Speaking to mediapersons at the information centre of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee after paying obeisance at Golden Temple, Surjeet said: “Sarabjit Singh and Kirpal Singh have converted to Islam. They probably did so in hope of getting mercy. But no mercy was granted to them. Pakistan authorities do not grant mercy to even their own nationals.”

When contacted, Sarabjit’s sister Dalbir Kaur denied that Sarabjit had converted to Islam. “This is not true at all. Sarabjit was a Gursikh, is a Gursikh and will remain a Gursikh. He has kept photos of Sikh gurus in jail and a Sikh religious book. He regularly recites from that book,” she said.

Dalbir added that during her visit to Pakistani jail to meet Sarabjit, she did heard people calling Kirpal Singh by a Muslim name. “But this is not the case with Sarabjit. Had he converted, he would have some Muslim name,” she said. “When I went to meet him in Pakistan, he was either addressed as Sarabjit or Manjit.”

When informed that Surjeet had claimed that Sarabjit had changed his name to “Sarfaraz” after “converting to Islam”, Dalbir insisted: “No way, Sarabjit remains Sarabjit and a Sikh and has not changed his name or converted to Islam.”

Dalbir also took exception to Surjeet’s statement that Sarabjit was hale and hearty in jail. “How can a person lodged in solitary confinement be happy? If this was the case, why will prisoners seek release?” she asked.

Meanwhile, Surjeet claimed that if things fell in place, he would ensure that Sarabjit was back home in three months. “Seven to eight MLAs of Pakistan are my very good friends. Even Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is my good friend. I have had breakfast with Zardari. And I will ensure Sarabjit’s release,” Surjeet said, alleging that the Pakistani media and the ISI were against Sarabjit’s release.

“It has to be done at the presidential level. If ISI comes to know about any effort for Sarabjit’s release, the agency will never allow it to happen,” he added. Saying that his and Sarabjit’s cases were entirely different, Surjeet added: “The case of Sarabjit, who faces charges of terrorism, is entirely different from mine. Neither India nor Pakistan would like to release terrorists.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 29,2020

New Delhi, Feb 29: The father of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma, whose body was pulled out of a drain in northeast Delhi's riot-hit Chand Bagh, complained to police that goons had assembled at the residence of former AAP counselor Tahir Hussain and were throwing petrol bombs from the rooftop.

According to the FIR which was registered on Thursday on the basis of the complaint lodged by Ankit's father Ravinder, the goons were also firing from the rooftop.

On Tuesday, Ankit returned from his office at 5 pm and then went outside to buy groceries. When he did not return, the family started looking for him and later filed a missing report, the FIR stated.

They got to know from their neighbours that a body has been recovered from a drain… later it was found to be that of Anikt, it said, adding the body had multiple stab injuries on the face, head, back, and chest.

The family has alleged in the FIR that it was Hussain and the goons at his residence who killed Ankit. In the FIR, Hussain has been accused of murder, destruction of evidence and abduction.

Soon after the FIR was registered on Thursday, the AAP suspended Tahir Hussain from the primary membership of the party till the police completed its probe.

The death toll in Delhi's communal violence rose to 42 on Friday as the situation showed some signs of returning to normalcy and clouds of smoke cleared to reveal the extent of the damage from the worst riots in the city in over three decades.

A total of 148 FIRs have been registered and 630 people have been either arrested or detained so far in connection with the communal violence, a Delhi Police spokesperson said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 27,2020

Lucknow, May 27: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has taken a U-turn, two days after he declared that permission would be needed if other states employ workers from UP.

The issue sparked a major controversy and an official spokesman has now said that the government would not include this clause of 'prior permission' in the bye-laws of the Migration Commission.

The government spokesman also said it was working on modalities to set up the commission to provide jobs and social security to migrant workers returning to the state. It has named the migration commission as the "Shramik Kalyan Aayog (Workers welfare commission).

About 26 lakh migrants have already returned to the state and an exercise to map their skills is being carried out to help them get jobs.

Yogi Adityanath has discussed the modalities for setting up the commission and told his officers to complete the skill mapping exercise in 15 days.

A senior official of Team 11, said, "The chief minister discussed the modalities for setting up the commission, as well. There will be no provision requiring other states to seek UP government's prior permission for employing our manpower. The commission is being set up to provide jobs and social security to the workers. We will also link the migrants to the government schemes to provide them houses and loans etc."

Yogi Adityanath said a letter should be sent to all state governments to find out about migrant workers wanting to come back to Uttar Pradesh.

Earlier, the chief minister, while speaking at a webinar on Sunday, had said, "The migration commission will work in the interest of migrant workers. If any other state wants UP's manpower, they cannot take them just like that, but will have to seek permission of the UP government. The way our migrant workers were ill-treated in other states, the UP government will take their insurance, social security in its hands now. The state government will stand by them wherever they work, whether in Uttar Pradesh, other states or other countries."

The statement had sparked a row with some political leaders and parties questioning the move.

Former Congress president Rahul Gandhi sharply criticized Adityanath's stand, saying the workers were not the chief minister's personal property.

"It is very unfortunate that the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh views India in such a way. These people are not his personal property. They are not the personal property of Uttar Pradesh. These people are Indian citizens and they have the right to decide what they want to do and they have the right to live the life they want to live," he had said.

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray had also taken on Adityanath and said that if UP insists on "permission" before other states can employ workers from there, "then any migrant entering Maharashtra would need to take permissions from us, from the Maharashtra state, our police force too."

Meanwhile, the government spokesman said, "The chief minister is deeply moved by the condition of migrants. They have been treated badly by other states. So, when the chief minister spoke about the need for seeking UP government's permission, he did so as a guardian for workers. It's only his concern for the migrants that came out as a political statement."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.