the terrorism case against dr. mohammed haneef has made lots of headlines over the last week or so. but this article by barkha dutt, an indian journalist with ndtv, raises an extremely important point:

---------------

But what if Haneef had been arrested in Bangalore instead of Brisbane? What if a suicide bomber had rammed his explosives-laden car into the airport at Srinagar, instead of Glasgow?

Would we have been as concerned about whether an innocent man had been locked away? Would we have demanded transparency from our judicial process on the grounds that the evidence was sketchy? Or would we have ranted about how India is a soft state and Islam a factory for fundamentalists?

We have branded Australia as racist, but would we have called ourselves communal?

The overwhelming anger at Haneef's arrest would be a lot more reassuring were it not undermined by a distinct double standard.

---------------

the article then goes onto a discussion of two cases india where innocent muslim men were imprisoned on terrorism charges without any evidence. of course, none of this excuses the AFP's incompetence or the australian government's deplorable handling of haneef's visa situation or the gross injustices of the justice system......

but then again, australia was more than happy for the usa government to treat david hicks in much the same manner over a much longer period of time. (thats not just the government but also the majority of the population) so we shouldnt really be surprised i suppose.....though in truth there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest haneef's involvement in terror plots whereas hicks clearly worked with the al-qaida organization and fought against the usa and its allies.

but i veer away from my point. i think, ironically, the indian government is the least hypocritical of all the parties involved in this affair by virtue of not demanding any reprieve for haneef. they know that if haneef had been arrested in bangalore by indian police, there is no way they would consider releasing him just because there was no evidence against him. in other words, they would react in exactly the same manner as the australian government. the principles of justice take a back seat when it comes to terrorism- something that i am sure the majority of indians would agree with......just not in this particular scenario.