Kunal Shrivatsa
JAMMU, Feb 19: Jammu region may not be a preferred tourist destination for the foreigners who otherwise give preference to the locales of Kashmir Valley in their itineraries whenever they visit the state. However, the number of foreign nationals languishing in different jails of the state is higher in Jammu province as compared to the Kashmir region.
In reply to a question tabled by PDP MLA Dr Shafi Ahmad Wani in the State Legislative Assembly, the government informed that as many as 140 prisoners of foreign origins are lodged in different jails of the state.
Out of the 140 detenues, the number of foreigners lodged in different jails of Jammu region is 98, in Kashmir province the number of such prisoners is 33 while as many as 9 foreigners have been lodged in Leh.
The reply further said that the number of jail inmates of foreign origin serving their term in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu is 22 while 54 foreign nationals are languishing in District Jail, Jammu.
As many as 6 foreigners are lodged in District Jail, Kathua, their number in District Jails of Poonch and Rajouri is 4 each while the number of foreign detenues in District Jail, Hiranagar is 8.
The details of the foreigners lodged in different jails of Kashmir province further revealed that 29 such detainees are languishing in Central Jail, Srinagar while two of them have been lodged. Even as the government tried its best to convince the House through its response, the reply did not divulge the details regarding nature of crime committed and the conviction awarded to the foreign prisoners as sought in the question.
While responding to the query on the names of the persons of J&K imprisoned in different jails of the country, the government informed that no person of J&K involved in any criminal case(s) in J&K is incarcerated in jails outside the state.
The Government reply was not only vague but it also contained a grave mistake since it mentioned "140 prisoners of foreign origins are lodged in different jails of the state as on February 22, 2014" but it forgot that the question to which it was responding had been tabled on February 19, 2014.
Isn't it amazing that date mentioned in the reply has not yet a bit far but the response was made public which in a way reflects the 'efficiency' of the officials who prepare the government responses for different set of questions during the Assembly sessions. |
