[sacw] sacw dispatch (5 Oct.99)

[act@egroups.com]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
5 October 1999
----------------------------------
#1. Islamist violence 'barrier to progress' [In Pakistan]
#2. The Wadhwa Commission [on murder of Australian Missionary in India]
----------------------------------
#1.
South China Morning Post
Tuesday, October 5, 1999
SOUTH ASIA TODAY

Islamist violence 'barrier to progress'
By TASGOLA KARLA BRUNER in Islamabad

Sectarian violence is destroying the seeds of national
development and will intensify if the Government passes Islamic law,
continues to back Muslim militancy and ignores the problem, a human rights
expert said.

Director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, I. A. Rehman, said
that in addition to attacking peace and stability, sectarian violence
exacts its toll on the country's economic potential.

"There can be no industrial growth. People do not feel secure. The brainy
people will run from the country," he said. "Who will come to Pakistan if
life is not secure in mosques or in the street?"

Mr Rehman spoke at the weekend in light of last week's wave of killings of
Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims that left at least 25 dead, after some six months
of relative calm.

The killings were carried out by gunmen firing from motorcycles and cars.
The fact that so many had been killed at around the same time and in
different parts of the country led many to believe that the acts were part
of a co-ordinated campaign.

A dip in the Karachi Stock Exchange was blamed on the killing of eight
Shi'ite Muslims as they knelt for Friday prayers at a mosque in that city.

Analysts say this is just a hint of the widespread fear that investors have
about Pakistan.

"It doesn't do the image of the country any good, along with a whole host
of things that are happening. Violence drives off investment. It ends up
being the last straw for a lot of people. They start looking elsewhere to
put their money," said Shahrukh Rafi Khan, an economist and executive
director of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI).

The SDPI is a public-interest think-tank in Islamabad funded in part by the
Canadian International Development Agency.

While most (about 134 million out of 140 million) Pakistanis are Sunni
Muslims, they normally live in peace with the country's 15 per cent Shi'ite
Muslim population.

Several extremist groups, however, have emerged in recent years and they
routinely clash with rival sects. The differences between Sunnis and
Shi'ites date to the 7th century death of Islam's prophet Mohammed, when
his followers differed over his rightful heir.

Shi'ites accepted his grandson as the new head of the religion, while the
Sunnis followed his disciples or caliphs.

Tehrik-e-Jafria Pakistan (TJP), a Shi'ite extremist group, on Friday blamed
Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), or Guardians of the Friends of the Prophet,
a militant Sunni group, for the bloodshed. The SSP denied any involvement.

SSP put the blame on extremist Shi'ite groups, including TJP, for killing
Sunni leaders in Pakistan with the help of Iran, a charge Iran denies.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Friday chaired a special three-hour meeting
in Islamabad with top administrators of Pakistan's four provinces to
discuss ways to stop the bloodshed. The next day he ordered law enforcement
agencies in Pakistan's four provinces to launch a crackdown on Muslim
militants belonging to both sects. Pakistani police say they detained about
500 suspected militants.

But Mr Rehman says the Government is only addressing the symptoms, not the
cause, of sectarian violence. He blames the violence on Islamabad's "policy
of appeasement of the fanatic fringe" of Muslim militant groups.

----------------------------------
#2.
The Hindu
Tuesday, October 05, 1999
Op-Ed.

The Wadhwa Commission
By RAJEEV DHAVAN

THESE ARE the worst of times. Seven years after the destruction of the
Babri Masjid in 1992, matters have only gotten worse. Incidents against the
minority communities continue flaring up into communal violence. The
Srikrishna Commission report on the Mumbai riots indicted politicians and
the Government. It was churlishly rejected for telling the truth. Then,
came unprovoked violence against Christians in Gujarat. Two citizens'
reports - ``Violence in Gujarat'' and ``And, Then They Came For The
Christians'' - have been ignored. In Orissa, on January 23, 1999, the
Australian missionary Staines and his two children were burnt to death. The
Wadhwa Commission was appointed to examine who was behind the crime. On
August 31, 1999, another Christian priest, Arul Das, was murdered in yet
another communal incident in Orissa. On September 23, 1999, a nun was
attacked in Bihar. An innocent community lives in fear. But of whom?

India must ask, and answer, a crucially important question: is it a
communal nation? Or, is its communal violence politically contrived? Indian
governance has evolved a `formula' to respond to communal violence: heavy
policing, followed by a Commission of Inquiry, followed by forgetfulness.
This formula follows an unbroken pattern as we transit from Mallegaon
(1967) to Ranchi- Hatia (1967), Gorakhpur (1967-69), Gujarat (1969),
Bhiwandi (1970), Tellicherry (1971), Shahadara (1973), Jamshedpur (1979),
Meerut (1982), Delhi (1985), Mumbai (1992-93) and now Orissa. These are
only a few. This formula has not taken us too further. With notable
exceptions, the inquiries have ducked the issue. Some have distorted the
truth. Some have protected the politicians who appointed the Commission in
question.

For a nation to confront its communalism is not easy. America has taken
many years to come to terms with its racism. This is no less true of
England. What made Mr. Justice Mcpherson's ``Report on the Stephen Lawrence
Inquiry'' historic and significant was its emotional and confessional
capacity to tell the English people that they were behaving - both
unwittingly and otherwise - in a manner that was indefensibly racist to
create a situation so that the `black' minorities in England felt the
threat of intimidation, violence and discrimination. The Wadhwa Commission
wrote a chapter on the Lawrence Report but ignored its millennial
importance. There is a time for people to confront the truth. There is also
a time for people to remind themselves of what they owe to one another.
There is little escape from this moral confrontation.

The Wadhwa Commission was not appointed just to go into the ``facts and
circumstances relating to the killing'' of Staines. That is an
investigative task for the police or the magistracy - one which Mr. Justice
Verma correctly declined to conduct in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
The second and more crucial reference to the Wadhwa Commission was into
``the role, if any, played by an authority, organisation or individual in -
or in connection with - the aforesaid killings.'' This is the crucial
question that India has to ask itself and which Mr. Justice Wadhwa was
called upon to answer. Is this incidence one of casual excesses on the part
of individuals or is it contrived by the concerted forces of social and
political communalism - and, perforce, the friends and allies of the BJP?
The fact that Mr. Vajpayee and the BJP tried to turn round and accuse
Christians of forced and unpalatable conversions is a self-indictment. Even
the death of innocents was converted into a playground for communal,
electoral politics.

There are two ways of looking at Mr. Justice Wadhwa's report. The first is
to examine the conduct of the judge and the second is to examine the report
on its merits. There is need to deplore personal attacks on Mr. Justice
Wadhwa in the context of the report, the conduct of the inquiry and the
timing of the report. He is a distinguished judge with considerable
experience. It was he who wrote the report in the `Kiran Bedi' Commission
on the lathicharge against lawyers which indicted the police for
highhandedness in dealing with the free speech of protest. Whether we agree
with him or not, there are several judgments in which Mr. Justice Wadhwa
has boldly disagreed with his colleagues. His judicial practice has been
not to keep matters pending. The fact that he tried to complete the report
inside of the vacation to return to his court work is commendable and not
suspicious.

There is little point ``nit-picking'' issues whether others assisted in
writing parts of the report. Mr. Justice Sarkaria did not write the report
which bears his name. Those who chair commissions are responsible for their
reports. Mr. Justice Wadhwa is fully responsible for his. His graciousness
in acknowledging all the help he received is hardly a failing.

The report has been critically received. The crucial question is whether
the killing of Staines was a random act by a merciless individual or
whether it was socially and politically contrived. Mr. Justice Wadhwa
concluded that ``Dara Singh and his clout and no authority, organisation or
any other person played any role in or in connection with the killings.
There is no evidence that any authority or organisation was behind the
gruesome killings''. This conclusion arouses critical disbelief. There are
many questions; what was this clout? Is it really true that there was no
evidence connecting Dara Singh with other communal forces?

Far from there being ``no evidence'', there are innumerable pointers. The
report records a letter of November 21, 1998 from the Mayurbhanj police
which speaks of his involvement in RSS and other camps in Patna and
elsewhere. Further confidential letters from officials in Mayurbhanj of
December 14-15, 1998 and January 3, 1999 confirm his support for the
Bajrang Dal. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) admitted that there was
no documentary proof of his membership of the Dal but Dara Singh was an
active supporter. Indeed, such things are rarely documented. This was
affirmed by the Additional DIG (Intelligence) in his deposition before the
Commission and the redoubtable Mr. Karthikeyan in his report to the Human
Rights Commission, as well as the investigation of the Minorities
Commission.

The Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, Mr. Lalit Das, and his successor,
Mr. A. K. Ray, affirm Dara Singh's involvement in the Dal's activities.
This finds support from the Orissa Director- General of Police, Mr. Panda,
and other officers. A BJP worker affirmed that Dara Singh campaigned for
the party. The Commission's counsel, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, took the
tentative view that Dara Singh's communal involvements could not be ruled
out and required at least a thorough examination. Against this there is
Dara Singh's denial. But Dara Singh also denied his involvement in the
murder. Why should the Commission disbelieve him on the `murder' and
believe him on his links with the Bajrang Dal and the BJP? Mr. Justice
Wadhwa was asked to inquire into nexus not technical legal conspiracy.

After all this, the judge recorded that there was ``no evidence'' on this
question. The truth is known but lies hidden. Are we a tolerant people? Is
greedy communal politics making us intolerant? Mr. Justice Wadhwa's report
eludes rather than concludes this question. Do we know the answer?

================================================
South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex