[sacw] SACW Dispatch 9 Sept. 1999

[Harsh Kapoor]

<bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>South
Asia Citizens Web Dispatch

</color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param>September
9, 1999

_____________________________

Contents:

#1.] Praful Bidwai on Indian Elections

#2.] C.T. Kurien on development & democracy in India

#3.] Omar Asghar Khan on how powerful interests in NWFP are attacking
NGOs

#4.] Urgent Appeal from India 

#5.] Fatwa Against A Married Couple in Pakistan

_____________________________

</color><smaller>#1. 

A Gutter-Level Poll Campaign 

Plebiscite on prejudice?

By Praful Bidwai

"Italian opera singer", "cafe crooner", "kaalmukhi" (someone who 

brings ill-luck), "dirty widow", "upri" (interloper), "matric-

pass" (college dropout), "Pope ki cheli", "Monica Lewinsky"... 

The vilest of abuse, the choicest of epithets. It is hard to 

believe that our sensibilities are being so deadened as to make 

this foul personal calumny and disgusting political slander seem 

like "normal" campaigning in an election in a country that claims 

to be a civilised democracy. It is even harder to imagine that 

someone as decent and infectiously polite as Dr Manmohan Singh 

could be so obscenely challenged by his opponent as to be asked 

to remove his turban to prove he is a true Sikh! 

The conclusion is inescapable. This is without doubt our 

dirtiest, most personalised, vilest, election campaign ever. Even 

the Prime Minister, supposedly the BJP's most gentle, moderate, 

"civilised" face, has stooped to the level of agitating the 

"foreign origins" issue after having solemnly promised any number 

of times that he wouldn't do so. Not only did he say (Lucknow, 

August 27) that Ms Sonia Gandhi should not hold high office by 

virtue of her origin. He has also been a passive spectator to 

extraordinarily foul personal attacks on her in meeting after 

meeting. His belated August 30 call for "restraint" and gender-

sensitivity has not redeemed the damage. Nor has the BJP's Sonia-

specific proposal to bar "foreigners" from holding high office or 

candidates from contesting more than one seat. 

BJP leaders like Mr Vajpayee's most trusted minister, Mr Pramod 

Mahajan, have taken their cue from none other than the PM 

himself. Mr Mahajan's outrageous comparison of Ms Gandhi with Ms 

Monica Lewinsky is an unprecedented assault on decency in public 

discourse. It was quickly followed with Mr George Fernandes' 

vituperative remarks on Ms Gandhi on August 28 in Bellary. Mr 

Fernandes reduced her entire "contribution" to India as giving 

birth to her children, two amongst our population of one billion. 

Messrs Mahajan and Fernandes' remarks have rightly excited strong 

all-round condemnation from scholars, political leaders and 

feminists. There is every reason why they must be categorically 

condemned. First, it is utterly insulting to any civilised mind 

that Ms Gandhi, who is a full-fledged Indian citizen, should be 

put in the same category as Ms Lewinsky, or Mr Bill Clinton or 

Tony Blair--merely because she is of foreign origin. It is even 

worse that she should be targeted for vilification in this 

gutter-level campaign at least partly because she happens to be a 

woman, and a White woman at that. It is hard to dissociate the 

strongly sexist innuendoes being deployed in this campaign from 

gender. This is itself part of a larger phenomenon--of women like 

Ms Rabri Devi, Ms Jayalalitha and Ms Gandhi being singled out for 

sharp sexist barbs, the last two even by Mr M. Karunanidhi. 

Appellations like "crooner" and "kaalmukhi" are not used against 

men. It is telling that Mr Fernandes chose to diminish Ms Gandhi 

to a mere bearer of children--a reproductive machine, a passive 

receptacle. He did not do this even to Rajiv Gandhi, no favourite 

of his. Such insults are reserved for women alone. 

However, there is a special "White" angle to the reviling of Ms 

Gandhi. This derives from the widely prevalent middle class 

prejudice that White women typically have "loose morals", that at 

best they are either saints (e.g. Mother Teresa, Annie Besant or 

Meera Behn) or (mostly) sinners (Monica Lewinsky). The latter are 

fair game. Such views are so common that even the chief minister 

of one of our most progressive states, Kerala, poured scorn over 

the outrage caused by the rape of two White women in the state. 

What's all the fuss? he asked. For Whites, rape is common, 

normal, it's like having a cup of tea or coffee. 

The Gandhi-Lewinsky comparison was no aberration or accident. It 

captures a stereotype, the opposite of the Bharatiya Naari, the 

hallowed, artificially constructed "Indian" or Hindu woman of 

pure character and unblemished personality. The White, foreign, 

mleccha woman is seen as sullied, spoiled, immoral, a mere sex 

object. We should feel offended at this not only because the 

president of India's oldest party is being equated with a former 

White House intern, nor even because this insults Indian 

"motherhood", but because the equation implicitly reviles Ms 

Lewinsky (rather than the older, more powerful, more 

"responsible" Mr Clinton) for having had an affair. This amounts 

to revictimising the victim. 

Involved here is the kind of mindset that regards a rape victim 

as guilty--an "impure" woman who "must have done something" to 

bring that outcome about. This mindset is typical of the sangh 

parivar. Indeed, a former president of the BJP's Mahila Morcha, 

Mridula Sinha, is on record as saying that wife-beating has "two 

sides": often the woman herself provokes it. The same attitude 

characterises the parivar's adherence to the Manusmriti, some of 

its leaders' defence of sati (they include former vice-president 

Vijayraje Scindia and Mr J.P. Mathur) and the demand by a number 

of VHP leaders that women be banned from reciting the Vedas or 

performing sacred rituals. 

The sexist prejudice of the sangh parivar's male-supremacist 

ideology has rubbed off even on Mr Fernandes, who now uses the 

same language--(e.g. terming all Congress members as hijras 

(eunuchs). Hijras are here contrasted to real, virile, strong, 

brave, males. All other sexual identities are inferior, low or 

unauthentic. "Respectable" middle class bhadralog people are 

supposed to be too embarrassed to express such views in public. 

The fact that the Mahajans and the Fernandeses no longer feel so 

restrained, and that they use such language in the presence of Mr 

Vajpayee, speaks of the debasement of our political discourse. 

Some of these vile sentiments have a distinctly contrived 

quality. It is hard to believe that Mr Fernandes really thinks 

that Ms Gandhi's claim to being Indian is primarily predicated 

upon her wearing a sari and learning some Hindi, as he actually 

alleged. It is also difficult to believe that the attack on Ms 

Gandhi comes from a personal, as opposed to a political, 

calculation. This makes it even more reprehensible.

At the heart of all this is an attempt to tug at notions of 

national "loyalty" and put people on the defensive. This is of a 

piece with Mr Vajpayee's charge that critics of the Kargil 

operation are "pro-Pakistan". This is grossly unfair. But 

clearly, the NDA's worthies think that all means are justified by 

the end they have set: defeat their secular opponents. Once you 

do this, anything can be rationalised. Indeed, why stop at verbal 

attacks alone? Even violent disruptions of the opponent's poll 

campaigns are permissible. As is politicising Kargil, 

communalising the armed forces, or character assassination. 

Scoring low-level points like the small-town criminal lawyer can 

become a higher priority than grappling with substantive policy 

issues. Programmes can be relegated to the background. What 

matters is icons, gestures and identities, false or real. 

The present election campaign confronts us all with a stark 

choice, a choice imposed by the decision of the BJP-NDA to 

concentrate on issues of identity and "authenticity", to play 

with symbols, not substance. We are not being asked to decide 

which policy course we favour, whose programme we find more 

convincing, whose claim to provide decent governance is more (or 

less) credible. We are not asked to choose candidates for what 

they do, but for who or what they are or claim to be": Indian or 

foreign, Hindu or otherwise, like us or against us. Their trade-

marks are promoted through the clever marketing of images and 

icons. This gives this election a special character. Only in 1984 

were issues of identity--national "unity" and the grave "threat" 

to it highlighted through barbed-wire fences--played up so 

significantly. Their use in this campaign is deliberate and even 

more cynical than in 1984. 

This makes it imperative that we take a stand on prejudice: 

against false patriotism, manufactured nationalism, Kargilised 

identities. We must refuse to set aside relevant issues--food, 

education, right to minimum services. We must reject national 

"security" obsessions and macho symbols of "strength" divorced 

from flesh-and-blood people. This is not just a massive diversion 

of our attention from our needs and priorities. It is an assault 

on our finer democratic sensibilities: we are asked to cater to 

xenophobia, legitimise male supremacism, privilege narrow sub-

identities. It is dangerous to wear Mera-Bharat-Mahan on our 

sleeves, and fool ourselves that our real problems are not 

hunger, deprivation, inequality, corruption or bigotry. 

In this sense, this election is a plebiscite on prejudice. True, 

it is an extremely complicated affair--with regional parties as 

well as national ones offering a range of black, white and 

(largely) grey options. The BJP's opponents are divided. The 

Congress is in no great shape. The Third Force is almost 

finished. No one is presenting dazzling new, fresh, alternatives. 

And yet, the choice is starkly simple. Either we succumb to the 

politics of false identities and vote for the NDA. Or we reaffirm 

our real priorities, re-emphasise our true concerns, and vote for 

secular, pluralist, democratic alternatives. At the end of the 

day, it is an either-or choice. We must make it wisely.--end--

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

#2. 

[http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/05032523.htm]

THE HINDU, Friday, September 03, 1999

On development and democracy 

By C. T. Kurien 

HOW DOES one react when developmental projects become contentious and 

divisive issues? What will be one's position when the very concept of 

development is called into question? Recent events, especially the
latest 

phase of the Narmada Bachao Andolan campaign and debates relating to
it, 

have forced many to reflect on these questions. 

There was, possibly, a stage when the concept of development appeared 

well-defined as an increase in national income, per capita national
income, 

to be more accurate, and the way to achieve it was thought to be
through an 

increase in capital formation by a stepping-up of savings and a
reduction in 

population growth. Though this formulation was widely prevalent in
official 

circles, economists themselves raised questions about it. Can countries

desiring development achieve it on their own or will they have to rely
on 

outside resources? Should the emphasis be on stepping up savings or on

improving investment opportunities? Who should be the major agent
concerned 

with development, the state or private enterprise? Should labour-
abundant 

countries rely on labour-intensive technologies producing consumer
goods or 

on investment goods and capital- intensive technologies? Is an increase
in 

per capita income, which is only an indication of the average, an
adequate 

index of development or should development aim at better distribution
also? 

These and other issues were discussed by economists themselves and have

remained controversial. And, of course, anthropologists, sociologists
and 

philosophers have had their views on what development is or ought to
be. 

Development has thus always been a contested concept. One of the main 

contributions of Prof. Amartya Sen is to divert attention from
development 

as resulting in an increase in goods and services to development as 

enhancing the capabilities and enlarging the freedom of people. 

Indeed, the shift in emphasis from goods to people is one of the most 

radical changes in the approach to development. If the people are to be

considered not only the beneficiaries of development but also those who

define what development is, decide how it should be brought about and
how 

the benefits must be shared, then there is a close connection between 

development and democracy. That democracy is rule for the people may
easily 

be conceded but the claim that it is the rule of and by the people has

implications which may not be readily accepted. 

People will not passively accept what others are doing for them but
would 

want to be actively involved in what is being done. People raise
questions, 

they make noise, they challenge decisions, they mobilise to protect
their 

interests. Democracy as a political order must not merely count people:
it 

must permit them to express their aspirations, anguish and even anger.
When 

it does, it can be highly destabilising. But if it does not, it can no

longer be claimed to be the rule of the people. This is one of the
dilemmas 

of democracy. 

What does this mean for development? First, development means many
things to 

many people. It may be growth for the economists and the new name for
peace 

for the philosophically-oriented. But to vast millions it is a matter
of 

life and livelihood. Those whose lives are adversely affected and whose

livelihood is threatened by what others consider ``development,''
surely 

have a right to protest and organise to protect their interests. After
all, 

those who have money and power and think of development as an
opportunity to 

make more do the same when their interests are affected. They too
protest, 

mobilise, oppose and even threaten. Protests against particular 

developmental projects and questioning concepts of development, even
when 

they appear widely accepted, are very much the democratic rights of
people - 

all people. 

Second, the manner in which and the intensity with which people express

their desires, claims and protests will vary. While at the bottom these
are 

related to the claims and aspirations of individuals, seldom do they 

manifest as such. People come to know that democracy functions not
through 

individuals, but through organised groups. Some search for and find 

readymade groups. Indeed, society is a collection of groups of various

sorts. Others constitute groups of like-minded people, some small and 

shortlived, others emerging as large popular movements. But attempts to

protect individuals are routed through groups. Democracy is not the
rule of 

individuals, but of people. Individuals will become people only when
they 

are with other individuals in some groups, formal or informal. Because

individual interests that appear to have much in common are directed
through 

groups, the expression of these interests takes different forms. For,
groups 

differ in their composition, orientation and style of functioning. Some

groups may wisely anticipate possibilities and be prepared for them.
Others 

may react only when they are in trouble. Yet others may be in a
position to 

manipulate things to their advantage. 

In a democratic milieu, therefore, development never appears as a
single 

defined objective, but as claims and counter-claims of a wide range and

variety of groups. It is not possible to escape from this situation
because 

democracy is the rule of the people. But democracy is not only of the 

people, it is rule by the people. And rule implies ordering,
prioritising, 

selecting, rejecting and many more activities associated with rational

decision-making and civilised behaviour. Democracy must let people be 

people. But if it does not become rule by the people, it will
degenerate 

into mobocracy and worse. This is another democratic dilemma. 

The crucial question, then, is whether democracy can at once be the
rule of 

the people and rule by the people in dealing with development issues. A

positive answer is possible as development is the concern of the people
and 

people are essentially group oriented. This role assigned to groups in
a 

democracy is often not appreciated because individualism has come to be

identified with democracy and groups are considered anthithetical to
it. But 

a group, whether it is as informal and intimate as a family or formal
and 

organised as a trade union, is the locale through which individuals
learn to 

surrender some of their self-interests for the sake of others and
recognise 

the need for authority in inter-personal relationships. These are the
first 

steps towards civilised behaviour and the search for a larger common
good. 

Groups, thus, are sources of an experience of transcendence,
recognition of 

and respect for the other that transforms individuals into persons. It
is 

this experience that provides for the possibility of a collection of 

individuals becoming a rule of, by and for the people. Groups have the

potential to serve as the basis for the democratisation of society and
to be 

supporters of a democratic political order. 

There is another side, though. Groups set boundaries drawing a
distinction 

between those who are inside and those who are not, often treating the

outsiders as hostile strangers. Where this happens to be the
orientation and 

purpose of groups, they will become a threat to a broad-based
democratic 

order. But this is not inevitable. Just as individuals experience 

transcendence within groups and accept larger common purposes, groups
too 

can be made to recognise a larger common good. 

This may not happen naturally. Educating of groups will have to be 

consciously attempted. Contentions and conflicts may still remain.
Attempts 

must be made to reconcile them to the extent possible by constantly 

insisting that lives and livelihoods of all be secured and the search
for 

the larger common good be sustained. This is the role of political
parties 

which are the agents of governance in a democratic polity. That there
can be 

and will be failures on all these fronts must be accepted. But
democracy is 

essentially a learning process and lessons can be learned both from 

successes and failures. The learning process is never smooth. Where 

development is the development of the people and democracy is the rule
of 

people, there is hardly an alternative. 

(The writer is Professor Emeritus, Madras Institute of Development
Studies, 

Chennai.) 

</smaller>----------------------

#3.

<bold><smaller><smaller>The News International

Wednesday, September 8, 1999

Opinion

</smaller></smaller></bold><smaller>In the face of retaliation

<italic>By Omar Asghar Khan

<center>

</center></italic>The North West Frontier Province has, for many years,
been a leader in the field of community development. Starting with the
Daudzai Project in the early '70s, the province has been home to a
number of participatory community development initiatives. These models
of social mobilisation focussing on the empowerment of marginalised men
and women have been extended to other parts of the country. Besides the
role played by social activists from amongst the community, it is the
dedication and commitment of the staff of nongovernmental organisations
and projects that have been key factors in popularising these
initiatives in the province. No less important has been the support
that government officials have given to such programmes. In fact, in
some cases, despite opposition from powerful interest groups, it was
senior government officials who were the movers of such community
development programmes. Since a common objective of these programmes
has been the emancipation of marginalised and deprived sections, it
should come as no surprise that some of these programmes have had to
face retaliation and resistance from powerful interest groups.

The NWFP government has made provisions for the involvement of
communities in a wide range of programmes such as the Social Action
Programme, Community Infra-structure Project, the Sarhad Provincial
Conservation Strategy and the on-going forestry reform process. Besides
these initiatives, there are engagements at the local level between the
government line agencies and community-based organisation and NGOs in
various sectors. There is a need to improve and strengthen these
emerging engagements since it is only if civil society and the
government work together that we will be able to overcome poverty and
deprivation on the one hand and strengthen democratic institutions at
the local level, on the other. Efforts need to be made to make the
institutional arrangements governing such projects pro-poor and far
more transparent so that these programmes are not hijacked by
influentials.

Recent developments in the NWFP are a matter of serious concern to
civil society nongovernmental organisations involved in community
development and advocacy work with a focus on women's empowerment. If
the government does not take notice of these trends, social development
programmes could be adversely affected in the province. Although the
NWFP government has supported women's programmes, there has been a lack
of affirmative and timely action by concerned government departments.
This is not to say that certain officials have not taken timely action
to support development practitioners in their work. These steps,
however, have been more reactive than proactive. The biggest impediment
in creating an enabling environment for disadvantaged groups, in
particular women, to become equal partners in the development process
is the legal system, cultural values and the system of political
representation which discriminate against the vulnerable.

Non-state actors are increasingly hurling threats at NGOs implementing
rural development, human rights and women's rights programmes. In an
attempt to create doubts in the public mind, these attacks are not only
targeted at these organisations but at key individuals in the
organisation. Questions of religious faith and moral values of senior
members of certain public interest organisations have been publicised
in a section of the press. In the conservative milieu of the NWFP, such
publicity is meant to evoke an emotional response from the public.

It is this situation that is making it increasingly difficult for
community activists and staff of NGOs to carry on with regular
developmental programmes in some parts of the NWFP. To illustrate this
point I would like to point towards a few incidents that have occurred
in recent months.

It is now beyond doubt that a forest department official was behind the
campaign against the European Union-government of NWFP-IUCN
Dir-Kohistan project. This official was behind a move to mobilise
certain religious groups in a vilification campaign against the project
and its staff. One of the allegations against the project was so-called
'immorality' being spread by its women's programme. After an
investigation into the matter these allegations were found baseless and
the official, who was found to be involved in this matter, was
suspended.

Another NGO in Dir, Khwendo Kor, has had to face similar retaliation
from certain vested interests who have been accusing it of spreading
western values in the area. They have threatened the NGO staff with
dire consequences if it does not close down its office in Dir.

In Chitral the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme has had to close down
its office temporarily after it was accused by a religious political
party of being involved in the murder of Maulana Obaidullah Chitrali.
In another case in Hazara, the district Khateeb, Mansehra, has been
spearheading a campaign for the last three months against SUNGI
Development Foundation. Similar allegations against its women's
programme are being continuously raised, allegedly with the support of
some 'powerful influentials'. The matter has been raised in the Senate,
since the staff of the organisation have been given death threats.

Encouraged by the inaction of the state, uncivil elements within
society have started calling upon people to rise against human rights
workers. Similar reports have been received from Abbottabad, Battagram,
Mansehra, Dir and Swabi. Similarly, prominent human rights activists
were intimidated by students from madrassahs in Peshawar when
representatives of NGOs had gathered outside the Peshawar Press Club in
April 1999 to demand the arrest of murderers of a women shot in the
offices of an NGO in Lahore. There has been an escalation of such
incidents in the province which is a cause of alarm for all those
concerned with social development.

There are no simple ways of dealing with this situation which has its
roots in cross-border conditions prevailing on both the LoC and the
Durrand Line. The state and western powers who supported militant
groups against the former Soviet Union during the Afghan jihad must
accept responsibility for this situation. The main responsibility in
this regard now rests with the state. So long as militant groups are
free to operate, civil society will find it difficult to play an
effective role in institutionalising democratic institutions. The
government must take steps to create an enabling environment for public
interest, nongovernmental organisations to continue with their work.
Government officials must not be allowed to play a disruptive role, in
pursuance of a personal or political agenda, against women's and
rights-based community development programmes, as was the case in Dir
and in Mansehra.

While there appears to be an increase in hostility towards efforts to
mobilise the deprived and dispossessed, the poor themselves are
increasingly engaging with those who are questioning the work of NGOs
involved in social mobilisation. It is encouraging to see how women
have refused to accept the hegemony of influentials who, in the name of
religion or tradition, are trying to deny them their share in resources
and decision-making. Recently, women's organisations held meetings in
different villages in the Kaghan valley and unanimously passed
resolutions saying that the recent vilification campaign by the
district khateeb against Sungi Development Foundation had nothing to do
with religion. The local men and women in the village meetings
questioned the disruptive tactics employed by the timber mafia who were
opposing the efforts of the locals to check illegal timber harvesting.
Such mobilisation especially of women in response to disruptive
campaigns by local influentials is a recent phenomenon and points
towards the success of years of social mobilisation and people-centred
work in the area.

This is also an indication of the confidence that the local population
has gained. This widespread mobilisation in support of equitable, just
and sustainable development has been an important determinant in
neutralising the vilification campaign of the vested interests in the
northwestern and northeastern areas of the NWFP.

Notwithstanding the retaliation they face from vested interests, public
interest organisations and NGOs continue to evolve as an effective
actor in civil society in the NWFP. Public interest organisations
advocating for a society based on justice, equity and intolerance are
acquiring greater sophistication at various levels. They are reaching
out and engaging with the deprived and dispossessed in a manner that is
catalysing the formation of autonomous people's organisations at the
local level. To strengthen the coherence and ability of the
marginalised in order to have their voices heard in decision-making
processes, public interest organisations are building stronger
alliances amongst themselves and with other civil society
organisations.

At another level, these organisations are learning the art of, and
setting examples in engaging in policy dialogue, catalysing
institutional change and advocating livelihood and human rights. More
recently while coping with issues of power and conflict,
public-interest organisations have been engaging with non-state actors,
religious and secular. It is through these engagements that spaces are
being created for the mobilisation of the deprived and poor including
women.

</smaller>----------------------

#4. 

September 3, 1999

<center><bold>URGENT APPEAL [from India]

</bold></center><smaller>Dear Friends,

You may have read or seen recently in the news about the case of an 11
year old child in Banda, U.P. who was sexually abused by her father for
nearly a year, until her mother took the child away on June 10 and left
for Varanasi.

The mother Ila Pandey, took the help of activists in "Vanangana,"
Mahila Samakhya," "SARC" and "Gudiya" to properly inform the district
authorities and to find shelter in Varanasi. The father, Jagdish
Pandey, who is a sales officer in the State Dairy, has since been
repeatedly threatening the activists and using his connections in the
powerful Brahmin lobby of U.P. to harass his wife and children as well
as the activist organisations.

Alarmed by Pandey's threats and local clout, the wife and activists
lodged an FIR against him. Pandey challenged the FIR in the High Court,
but the High Court eventually rejected the petition and Pandey was
arrested on July 22. His various applications before different courts
were also rejected.

However, on August 5, Pandey moved an application before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate (who had 10 days earlier rejected his bail
application) and orders were passed on the same day for lodging an FIR
against the activists on the charges of kidnapping and theft.
Non-bailable warrants have also been issued against the activists,
while Pandey himself has been released on bail.

Thus the activists and family are being terrorised through the courts,
the police, the local society, and the armed thugs who force their way
into their offices to regularly threaten them. The Brahmin Samaj has
taken an open position that it is unbelievable that Brahmins can
indulge in such sordid acts. The District Magistrate, on the other
hand, has publicly declared (on TV), "Such an ugly, such a hideous
issue this is, which has been brought in public gaze. If this had been
hidden, it would have been much better. If such examples are
publicised, this perversion, this disease will possibly spread more in
society."

At this time, therefore, Ila Pandey, her daughters, and the activists
are facing the anger of several forces. They have upset the Brahmins
who feel Brahmins cannot sexually abuse their children (presumably,
lower castes can). They have challenged the "privacy" of the family and
the rights of men to do what they will with their women and children.
And they have also demonstrated that development organisations and
their constituencies amongst the landless and the labourers and the
women can protest against the anti-social activities of the upper
classes. All this, of course, is not to the liking of the upper class,
upper caste, male-dominated sections of the ruling elite.

We, therefore, appeal to you to mobilise as many people as you can to
write hundreds and thousands of letters to the Chief Minister and Chief
Secretary of U.P. (Bapu Bhavan, Sachivalaya, Lucknow 226001, U.P.,
India) demanding:

1. The FIR against the activists be quashed and they be provided with
police protection.

2. The police investigation be completed immediately.

3. Jagdish Pandey be re-arrested and tried on the charges facing him.

Public pressure of this kind is urgently required to provide some
security to the mother, daughter, and the activists, who have been so
courageous as to bring the issue out into the open. So please write
<underline>IMMEDIATELY.</underline>

Dunu Roy & E. Deenadayalan

The Other Media

K-14, Green Park Extension

New Delhi 110 016, India

</smaller>----------------------

#5.

<smaller><smaller>[From: The News on Sunday, 5 September 1999, 

Political Economy Section]

</smaller></smaller>http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep99-weekly/nos-05-09-99/poleco/pe8.htm

<center><italic><smaller><smaller><smaller>FATWA AGAINST MARRIED
COUPLE: BIGOTS CONTINUE TO FLOUT THE RULE OF LAW AS WELL AS SIMPLE
VIRTUES OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

</smaller></smaller></smaller></italic><smaller><bold>Human bonds?
Legalistic edicts? Or Mullah's whims?

</bold><italic>"When a final fatwa is in place, I will kill my niece
and her husband. No one can prevent me from doing this. They have
committed a sin and they deserve punishment", says Ghazi Soomro

By Nisar Khokhar

</italic></smaller></center><smaller>Seven years after they have been
married, Subhana Soomro and Huzoor Bux of Village Mirzapur Chachar near
Obaoro, district Ghotki, are facing threats to their lives. Last month,
the local clergy and relatives have declared that their marriage was
unIslamic.

Five Muftis and Pirs of different Madersahs gave the Fatwa against the
couple on the ground that as an infant Subhana had been breast-fed by
her husband's sister, Hayat Khatoon. As such, the marriage defied
religious injunctions. Subhana's maternal uncle, Ghazi Soomro,
especially returned from Saudi Arabia eight months ago, only to seek a
Fatwa against the couple.

The first phase of his "plan" was accomplished by Sadar Mudaras of
Jamia Ghousia Rizvia Sukkur, Mufti Mohammad Ibrahim ul Qadri, Mufti
Ghulam Qadir of Darul Fate Theri, Khairpur, Pir Aijaz Hussain of Dargah
Sui Sharif, Faqir Abdul Majeed Saeedi Rizvi of Darul uloom Jamia Ghous
Azam Rahim Yar Khan and Pir of Bharchoundi Sharif Mian Abdul Haque
alias Mian Mithu Ex-M.N.A. "When a final fatwa is in place I will kill
my niece and her husband. No one can prevent me from doing this. They
have committed a sin and deserve punishment", says Ghazi Soomro.

Soomro says he has spent a sum of 10 Lac rupees on the case and he
would not return to Saudi Arabia without having his way. Ghazi Soomro
claims he had held meetings with the Speaker of the National Assembly
Mr. Illahi Bux Soomro who deputed Ex-Commissioner Sukkur as Inquiry
Officer. With the transfer of the Commissioner, official inquiry was
pushed in the cold storage. However, it is said that Mr. Ghazi Soomro
is trying to get even with the married couple's parents who are his old
rivals. Both families have disputes over matrimonial matters and they
have dragged each other to sardars and pirs for last many years.

The last decision was made by Pir Aijaz Hussain of Sui Sharif who fined
forth thousands on couple's parents. "We duely paid 40 thousands of
fine to Pir Aijaz but money was not transferred to victim Ghazi side."
Says Sain Dino Soomro brother of Huzoor Bux after two months they
inquired of money, which was in hands of pir Aijaz who said money was
given to Ghazi Soomro but Ghazi was not admitting. We complained to
Police in last, which brought the wrath of Ghazi Soomro who have
created drama of breast feeding". concludes Sain Dino Soomro.

The couple Subhana and Huzoor Bux have two children namely Bakhtawar
and Allah Jivayo. Two murder attempts were made on Huzoor Bux and his
brother Saian Dino, which injured them. After threats and murder
attempts couple have left their ancestral village Mirzapur and have
taken refuge in village Khanpur Mahar of the same district Ghotki.
Local influential feudal Mr. Zabardast Khan Mahar announced to protect
the couple on any cost, because couple have come for refuge to his
home.

Two months ago Jirga was also held to resolve this complicated mater
which was presided over by Sardar Rahim Bux Bozdar MPA. It was ruled in
the Jirga by Ulemas, if breast feeder woman Hayat Khatoon, real mother
of Subhana and other four women are presented as witnesses then
marriage could be declared un-islamic. Ghazi Soomro have failed to
present the witness women. "If they were honest they should have
presented the witnesses on other day but two months have past. How they
are now declaring the

marriage of Subhana un-Islamic. They would not be permitted to do so.
If any one is crazy let him try to attack on Subhana and her husband
they are now under my protection", says Zabardast Khan Mahar.

Suhana, with her husband and children is living under looming sword of
stoning to death. She is harassed. When she talks her eyes turns wet.
"Uncle Ghazi wants to sell me, he has sold all his daughters in the
name of marriage and now he wants to do the same with me." She says in
between sobbing. I was not breast fed by Hayat Khatoon it is a drama
created by uncle Ghazi.

He should fear God before alleging us. If that was the case, where was
he seven years ago and why his all relatives were present in our
marriage," Subhana questions. Her husband Huzoor Bux is now confined to
the house, where he is protected. He pleads that if there is any door
of Justice opened, please came forward and help us. Our lives are under
threat, insecure. We have not committed any sin. We are victims of
vicious tribal circle and are punished for the satisfaction of an
arrogant ego. Ghazi Soomro, who has taken law in his hands.

Controversy created by Ghazi Soomro over the Seven years old marriage
is observed with concern in Sindh. Where people questions which system
exists in our country. Ironically after months of controversy and
declaration of Fatwas against married couples, Administration is still
silent over the episode. Administration does not brother to involve
itself. Said, a local lawyer from Sukkur, "It seems Ghotki is a tribal
area governed by tribal chiefs."

Private decision making in Jirga courts is going parallel with
judiciary in Sindh. People are amazed to observe that many matters like
of Subhana's marriage are left over to those Jirga courts who decide
the destiny of accused by any Fatwa.

</smaller></fontfamily>