[sacw] sacw dispatch (16 Oct.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
16 October 1999

#1. Pakistan army pledges interim regime
#2. SAFHR Statement on Military Coup d'etat in Pakistan
#3. CPJ letter to Pakistan's CEO
#4.[BJP] Stifling Dissent and Debate in India
#5.[Indian] Foreign Service: Disgraceful Legacy
______________________________
#1.
[Excerpts from:]
BBC News Online: World: South Asia
=46riday, October 15, 1999 Published at 21:02 GMT 22:02 UK

PAKISTAN ARMY PLEDGES INTERIM REGIME

Pakistan's new military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, has promised to
set up an interim government of technocrats following his seizure of power
on Tuesday.

His spokesman, Brigadier Rashid Qureshi, told the BBC that it would govern
until new elections and the restoration of democracy.
[. . .]
'Stability and credibility'
In a statement, the general said they had discussed "the establishment of
an efficient and impartial interim set-up which would ensure stability,
credibility, transparency and accountability in running the affairs of
state".
Gen Musharraf said they had also talked about the reasons for the state of
emergency and that he would address the nation on the subject, "once all
details were finalised".
The American ambassador to Pakistan, William Milam, who met Gen Musharraf
for two hours on Friday, failed to win assurances of a return to democracy.
"He didn't give an indication of what his intentions were or his time
line," said White House spokesman, Joe Lockhart.
Brigadier Qureshi said elections would be held, but he could not give a
date. He said he thought Gen Musharraf would make his plans clear in a
television address, planned for Saturday. He said that Gen Musharraf would
not have difficulty surrendering power, as former Pakistani military
leaders had. He added that Nawaz Sharif's government had not been
democratic. "We need a government of the people," he said. "Not a
government of the few and for the few."

Abuses
Gen Musharraf assumed the position of chief executive after the declaration
of a state of emergency. He has also suspended the constitution and
dissolved parliament. In Berlin, the National Assembly speaker, Bukhsh
Ilahi Soomro, has pledged to return to his homeland and fight for
democracy.
"I am proud to be the custodian of our parliament, and I am happy to fight
for the independence of our parliament," he said.
Some commentators say Gen Musharraf wants corruption exposed before
politicians try to seek office in early elections and is planning to
appoint a panel to investigate alleged abuses by Mr Sharif and other
officials.
[...]
________________________________________________
#2.
[15 October / SAFHR Statement on Military Coup d'etat in Pakistan]

PAKISTAN ARMY TAKES OVER POLITICAL POWER, SUSPENDS CONSTITUTION
AND DECLARES EMERGENCY THROUGHOUT PAKISTAN.

South Asia Forum for Human Rights is distressed by the recent developments
in Pakistan.
On October 12, 1999, Pakistan army ousted the civilian government headed by
Prime Miniter Nawaz Sharif. General Pervaiz Musharraf, who was earlier
removed from his post by Prime Minister. After two days of chilling
uncertainty, Gen. Musharraf has assumed the title of Chief Executive.
Although the use of expressions such as martial law and martial law
administrator has been avoided Pakistan has come again under military rule.
It has been claimed that the army was forced to take this step to save the
country from 'turmoil and uncertainty'. In 1977, Pakistan's Chief of Army,
General Ziaul Haq had also usurped political power in the name of saving the
nation from turmoil and uncertainty through a military coup. Pakistan=92s
citizens had to wage a long and a protracted struggled against the
autocratic rule of General Ziaul Haq for restoration of democracy.

Pakistan's democracy like the democratic polities of most third world
countries was not perfect. The ruling elite of Pakistan, a combination of
big landowning classes, business tycoons, bureaucracy and the military had
established an unholy alliance with undemocratic power brokers whom the
people of Pakistan had rejected in every election. Unfortunately, certain
Western powers pursuing their own narrow national interests had empowered
these undemocratic forces in Pakistan.

The government led by Mr. Nawaz Sharif had shown little respect for
democratic norms. Instead of strengthening the institutions of democracy -
parliament, judiciary, political parties and units of local self government
it undermined their role, thereby eroding the very basis of democracy. The
Prime Minister used his position as the leader of the majority party to rule
the country according to his whims and wishes. Corruption was rampant. Human
rights of ordinary people were trampled upon every day while political
power was wielded by 'behind the scene' persons who were not accountable to
any one.

The army take-over in Pakistan is a matter of serious concern for all
democratic people of Pakistan and elsewhere. Those in Pakistan who have been
on the frontline of struggle for democracy, human rights, justice and peace
are likely to come under threat. Pakistan=92s army is an integral part of
Pakistan's ruling elite. Sections of the army are known to be rather close
to the fundamentalist forces. Whatever little social and political space was
available for democratic action may be squeezed out. There is every reason
to fear for the safety of the democratic forces and human rights activists
in Pakistan.

Military coup d'etat in Pakistan soon after the Kargil war and
nuclearisation of India and Pakistan also poses a serious threat to the
fragile political stability of South Asia. India, the traditional rival and
a nuclear weapon state, is already reported to have put its armed forces
along the border with Pakistan on high alert. Considering the fact that the
two countries have just come out of a ten-week war in which both had
threatened to use all their weapons and that in this war Pakistan's army had
suffered a set-back, this response of India has the potential of further
aggravating the situation. India did not heed to Mr. Nawaz Sharif's call for
resumption of peace talks. It is important that India shows utmost restraint
at this stage.

South Asia Forum for Human Rights calls on Pakistan army to immediately
begin the process of restoring democracy in Pakistan. We call on all
democratic peoples of the world to extend their active support to the people
of Pakistan in their struggle for democracy, human rights, justice and
peace. We also call on the Indian government to show utmost restraint and
initiate concrete steps towards resolving their decades old conflicts with
Pakistan, particularly the Kashmir dispute which has been the main cause
of tension in the region of South Asia.

Issued by:
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
GPO Box. 12855
Kathmandu
Nepal
_______________________
#3.
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA
Phone: (212) 465-1004 Fax: (212) 465-9568
Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: info@c...

October 15, 1999

His Excellency Gen. Pervez Musharraf
Chief Executive, Islamic Republic of Pakistan
General Headquarters, Pakistani Army
Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Your Excellency:

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is dismayed by today's emergency
proclamation announcing that Pakistan's constitution has been suspended. CPJ=
is
concerned that in the absence of constitutional protections guaranteeing civ=
il
liberties, including freedom of speech and of the press, the right of
journalists to report freely on the momentous political developments at
hand may
be sharply curtailed.

As an organization of journalists dedicated to the defense of press freedom
around the world, CPJ urges Your Excellency to act quickly to reinstate the
constitution and return the country to a civilian-led government that will
abide
by democratic norms. We also respectfully ask you to provide public assuranc=
es
that, during this interim period, your administration will not use its
formidable powers to control the press, as Pakistan's previous military regi=
mes
have done.

We thank you for your attention to these important matters, and await your
response.

Sincerely,
Ann K. Cooper
Executive Director

cc: American Society of Newspaper Editors
Amnesty International
Article 19 (United Kingdom)
Artikel 19 (The Netherlands)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Congressional Committee to Support Writers and Journalists
Freedom House
Human Rights Watch
Index on Censorship
International Association of Broadcasting
International Federation of Journalists
International Federation of Newspaper Publishers
International Journalism Institute
International PEN
International Press Institute
National Association of Black Journalists
National Press Club
Newspaper Association of America
The Newspaper Guild
North American Broadcasters Association
Norwegian Forum for Freedom of Expression
Reporters Sans Fronti=E8res
Society of Professional Journalists
Overseas Press Club
World Press Freedom Committee
__________________________
#4.
=46rontline
Volume 16 - Issue 22, Oct. 23 - Nov. 5, 1999

STIFLING DISSENT AND DEBATE:
Under attack from NGOs for its communal orientation, the BJP seeks to
browbeat them and also impose indirect forms of censorship.

By Praful Bidwai

EVERY political party has a distinct, characteristic, style which is as
important as the substance of what it stands for. Any reasonable
description of the Bharatiya Janata Party's style must prominently mention
crudeness, brazenness and a certain kind o f daring to do what many would
think is unthinkable: the Babri Masjid demolition, the nuclear tests, the
wanton attacks on Christians, the telecom scam, the Kargil fiasco, the
gutter-level electioneering.... This pattern has been on display in two
action s of the BJP-led "caretaker" government. The first is its attempt to
restrict and censor scholarly and activist debate. The second is the BJP's
vicious attack on a number of civil society organisations (CSOs), which
joined or endorsed the Communalism Com bat campaign exposing Hindutva
(Frontline, October 8, 1999).
Rather than counter the allegations that were levelled as part of the
campaign with facts, the BJP first maligned the signatories, accusing them
of (what else?) having taken "foreign money", and then stooped even lower
by activating the state machinery a nd getting it to issue notices under
the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to the CSOs concerned.
Both the actions display a paranoid, venal, mindset, a mortal fear of
criticism, and contempt for elementary norms of democratic functioning.
TO take the second issue first, BJP spokesperson M. Venkaiah Naidu and
general secretary Narendra Modi on September 25 launched a vitriolic attack
on Communalism Combat and associated CSOs, accusing them of being
"anti-national and anti-BJP". Venkaiah Na idu alleged that they were
campaigning for the Congress(I) and the Left. Asked how this could make
them anti-national, he said they had also criticised the Pokhran-II tests
"and this is anti-Indian".... "Naidu clarified that [his] objection was to
forei gn funds being used for political propaganda. If they were using
their own money they had every right to do whatever they saw fit, but the
=46CRA prohibited use of foreign funds for political activity''(The Hindu,
September 26). Among the organisati ons were some of our best known and
most respected women's groups, such as Forum against Oppression of Women,
Ankur, Women's Centre, National Alliance of Women's Organisations,
Awaaz-e-Niswan, Asmita, Kali for Women, Nirantar, and Shakti Shalini.
Meanwhile, Narendra Modi in Lucknow urged the government to inquire into
the matter of the funds received by 13 non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) from foreign sources and prosecute them for violating FCRA. He
claimed that the NGOs had used the funds for propaganda "which amounted to
interference in the country's electoral process by foreign money power and
constituted a serious threat to its sovereignty". He cited sections of the
=46CRA which prohibit political donations.
Exactly two days later, with exceptional alacrity, the Foreigners Division
of the Home Ministry issued identical notices to the 13 organisations, to
Communalism Combat (CC), the Indian Social Institute (ISI), and Voluntary
Action Network India (VANI). Th e notices cited Section 5(1) of the FCRA
which stipulates that no organisation of a political nature, not being a
political party, shall accept any foreign contribution except with the
prior permission of the Central Government. The letter said: "It has come
to the notice of the Central Government that, in the run up to the ongoing
general elections, your association has been associated with the release of
certain advertisements in the press and with certain documents the contents
of which are in the na ture of comments of a political nature", and then
demanded that the CSO concerned show cause why it should not be required
"to obtain prior permission of the Central Government before accepting any
foreign contribution; and notified as an organisation of a political
nature.... under Section 5(1) of the Act."
There could be no clearer circumstantial evidence of collusion between the
BJP and the Home Ministry, or rather its misuse by the former. The official
letter parrots the BJP functionaries' precise argument and illogic. It too
wrongly characterises as "po litics" and "comments of a political nature"
the factual charges made in the Communsalism Combat-led advertisements
about the BJP's callous, discriminatory, attitudes towards women, its
endorsement of sati and dowry and its assault on the minorit ies. The
charges were primarily based on quotes from BJP leaders' own past
statements.
It can be convincingly argued that the Communalism Combat campaign was a
strong defence of the constitutional values of democracy, secularism,
pluralism and equality. The right to life and to non-discrimination is a
fundamental right of all citizens. The campaign was fully consistent with
the fundamental duties of the citizen under Article 51(a), including the
duty to promote social and religious harmony and renounce practices
derogatory to women.
Such rights cannot be abridged, leave alone violated, by recourse to
technical provision of some enactment like the FCRA. There is nothing
improper at all about CSOs or NGOs issuing advertisements on broad social
issues on which certain political parties have taken a retrograde stand.
That is perfectly in order. It is either presumptuous of the Ministry to
hold, as does the BJP, that the CSOs concerned were in breach of the FCRA
insofar as the advertisements were funded with foreign money, or else, that
their content was "political".
Yet, this charge cannot possibly apply to CSOs such as the Indian Social
Institute, VANI and the Centre for Women's Development Studies, which were
not even signatories to the advertisements released by Communalism Combat,
but some of which endorsed the "People's Agenda for the General Elections
1999". Now the People's Agenda too is a critique of the governance under
the BJP-led coalition and an appeal to defend cultural plurality and
progressive values on the basis of a broad secular-democratic agenda.
Although the show-cause notice only speaks of "certain documents", it does
not specify which. Nor does Sanjay Datta, director in the Foreigners'
Branch, who has signed all the show-cause notices which are identical to
the point of faithfully mis-spelling "contrinbution" and "poilitical". If
it is the People's Agenda that the Ministry has in mind, it will be hard
put to defend its description as "political" without distorting the meaning
of the word and obliterating the distinction between the political and the
social.
The CSOs and institutes concerned, including the ISI and P3 women's
groups, and Communalism Combat itself, have refuted the Government's
tendentious charge-sheet fairly convincingly, denying that foreign funding
had a role in the campaign, and showing wh y their defence of women's and
minority rights does not constitute "political" activity.
The more fundamental point is this. The BJP and, at its behest, the
government, are trying to use the FCRA to browbeat progressive CSOs. They
are not only making a false connection between the secular commitment of
these organisations and the fact that t hey have clearances under the FCRA
to receive contributions. Worse, there is a suggestion that secularism in
this country is intimately linked to foreign sources!
The FCRA's rationale could never have been to create an instrument with
which to harass social activists. It is the Home Ministry's responsibility
to issue FCRA clearances in each individual case. It usually takes a couple
of years to scrutinise the appl ication and applicant, inquire into its
antecedents and so on. It has no business to turn around suddenly and hound
the CSOs just because they have done something the ruling party does not
like. However, according to Combat editor Teesta Setalvad, it has recently
cancelled FCRA clearances of more than a dozen CSOs.
BEHIND this harassment of CSOs is the deep-seated prejudice that "foreign
money" is evil, and that it is causing political and social havoc through
religious conversion, especially to Christianity, through the spread of
"subversive" ideas. This is danger ously wrong. Foreign contributions to
Church-based organisations in India only account for a small fraction of
the total. For instance, according to John Dayal, of the United Christian
=46orum, Church-based groups accounted for a mere 4 per cent of Europea n
Union contributions received last year. It is reasonable to assume that a
lot more money goes to non-Christian, especially Hindutva-oriented,
organisations.
This money is poorly, inadequately, audited. According to scholar Amrita
Basu of Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts, the VHP-USA, the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad in the United States, remitted about $1.25 billion between
1977 and 1993 to India. That is wh at its records show in the U.S. However,
much of this money - which works out to a huge Rs. 5,300 crores - was
probably transferred clandestinely. At best only a tiny proportion surfaces
in the accounts of the VHP, the BJP and affiliated organisations in India.
Their books would be an auditor's delight - or nightmare - as taxman Vishwa
Bandhu Gupta has repeatedly discovered. The VHP in India cannot account for
a huge proportion of its income. Its books are one vast mess. But there is
an attempt to dress them up and remove officials who ask awkward questions.
By contrast, genuine CSOs/NGOs are subjected to relatively rigorous audit
on the basis of institutionalised transfers. The funds they receive are not
easily-divertible donations, but typically earmarked for specific projects.
They have to be accountable to the government, to donors, and to their own
members on how they spend their money.
The Sangh Parivar, with all its shady but strong foreign connections, is
accountable to no one. The Vajpayee government has turned a blind eye to
the Sangh organisations' foreign funding. In the process, it has immensely
strengthened the super-hawkish f orces within the Hindutva camp, which feel
encouraged to continue to attack the religious minorities and human rights
and secular activists.
It is significant that some of India's most radical and committed CSOs
have been victimised in the second wave of notices sent out by the Home
Ministry. Many of them, like the ISI, the CWDS, Kali, FAOW, Women's Centre,
and Communalism Combat, are the gre atest allies of progressive forces
fighting for justice and human dignity. They have a superb record of
supporting worthy causes. Earlier, many Christian organisations were
targeted. According to Dayal, this was a signal to Parivar fanatics that
Church-b ased groups are fair game.
FCRA notices are only one method of harassment. Others include police
interrogation and virtual stalking of some CSOs in order to dig out
information about their contacts and links with other groups. For instance,
in recent weeks, Women's Centre and Aksh ara in Mumbai have had numerous
instances of queries about and interference in their work by all kinds of
unidentified agencies and individuals. At least two women's CSOs in Delhi
too have been similarly harassed. Similarly, a Dutch private aid organisat
ion has also had persistent inquiries about the "Christian groups" it might
fund, as if this were illegal, shady or improper.
This Hindutva campaign against "foreign" funds would have sounded a little
less biased and outrageous had the BJP, its cohorts, and its government,
had consistent standards. As it happens, they do not. The Vajpayee
government could not even countenance n ot being dependent of World Bank
and IMF subventions. In the 1990s, the bulk of India's economic policies
tended to be written by forces and agencies that represent foreign, indeed
big, multinational capital. Attracting foreign capital - the most concent
rated expansion of "foreign" funds - is part of the core agenda of India's
policy-makers. Indeed, many of India's social programmes have become
heavily dependent on foreign aid - for example, those relating to primary
education, literacy, drinking water supply and reafforestation.
It is thus thoroughly duplicitous and hypocritical for those who have
willingly surrendered economic sovereignty to foreign capital and become
dependent on international finance, to be ranting about minuscule amounts
of audited, largely project-specific, institutionalised and non-profit
oriented fund flows to CSOs. This shows more than a paranoid fear of things
foreign. It is a cynical device to try to isolate progressive CSOs in a
vindictive manner.
THE same logic has been at work in imposing and tightening totally
unreasonable restrictions on who can be invited by institutions, including
universities and CSOs, to conferences and seminars. This is essentially a
form of censorship and physical curfew on independent scholars. Since the
middle of this year, the Home Ministry has been issuing instructions that
any voluntary organisation/NGO planning to hold an international
meeting/seminar must first get clearance from the Ministry of External
Affairs (MEA), from the nodal Ministry dealing with the issue, and finally
itself. Only then will the names of the participants be forwarded to the
Indian embassies in the countries concerned. It is only after following
this process that the participants can get their visas.
Strangely, the MEA has no basis on which to screen any application for
such clearance. Nor are there written guidelines. When VANI took up the
issue with the MEA, it was told by Under Secretary Manmohan Singh that "the
instructions regarding foreigners a ttending seminars etc. are formulated
by the Ministry of Home Affairs" and that the MEA "merely complies" with
them.
Demanding prior approval is a method typical of the crafty, devious,
bureaucrat: delay clearances until they become infructuous and thus
victimise the CSO whose face you do not like or who is independent-minded.
This is exactly what happened to a number of prospective participants in at
least three recent civil society conferences. Indian embassies refused to
grant them visas and they were told that "all conferences to do with the
voluntary sector and which appear to be government/politically sensitive
have to get clearance for participants from abroad."
Similar restrictive conditions are increasingly being applied to
universities organising seminars, and to teachers who might be invited to
conferences abroad. This is dangerous. Such restrictions are an assault on
academic freedom, on genuine debate and critical inquiry. They must be
stoutly resisted.
What the BJP regime is doing is turning India into an even more
authoritarian replica of Pakistan, where too university professors must get
a no-objection certificate from various authorities before they can go
abroad. Indeed, they cannot board an aircra ft without the NOC. This
shameful form of high-handedness and anti-democratic regulation is
calculated to stifle dissent and intimidate secular scholars and activists
in an Emergency-type operation. The government must be forced to retrace
its steps.
_________________________
#5.

Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay)
October 2, 1999
EPW Editorial

=46OREIGN SERVICE: DISGRACEFUL LEGACY

A TEENAGE, illiterate, tribal girl from Bihar is taken to Paris by one of
our diplomats working in the Indian embassy there. While French medical
experts who examined the girl, after she ran away from the Indian
diplomat's house and was rescued by a French anti-slavery NGO, place her
age at 17, her passport shows her age as 19. She ran away from her employer
alleging that not only was she overworked and underpaid, but also that she
was badly treated. According to the French medical report she was found to
have been "recently sexually mutilated".

Ever since this story of the girl made the headlines in the French media,
the Indian embassy in Paris has been busy not only denying the allegations
but also going a step further and blaming the girl for shirking work and
for having run away from her employer's house to escape deportation. It is
also reported that pressure is being brought to bear upon the girl's family
in Bihar through influential persons not only to get the unfortunate girl
repatriated to India at the earliest but also to make it appear that she is
of unstable mind and 'doubtful character'.

The whole episode reflects poorly on the practice of the Indian foreign
office, inherited from the colonial times, of allowing diplomats to take
live-in domestic servants with them when they are posted abroad. This
outdated practice ought to have been discarded right at the outset. What is
unforgivable is that even women are allowed to be taken abroad as live-in
domestic servants of Indian diplomats. In this particular case, an
illiterate tribal girl whose age appears to have been deliberately
overstated in her passport was taken to Paris and then treated so badly
that she was driven to run away from the employer's house and attempt to
commit suicide.

Not that similar stories have not surfaced from time to time in the past.
But every time the attempt on the part of the Indian foreign office has
been to somehow put a gloss on things in a manner that the episode is
forgotten at the earliest and no action is taken either to get at the root
of the incident or to put a stop to this disgraceful practice of Indian
diplomats being allowed to keep live-in domestic servants, including women,
when they are posted abroad.

Stories of maltreatment of Indian women migrating to the Gulf and other
parts of the world and taking up jobs as domestic servants are not
uncommon. It is estimated that the number of women from India working
overseas in domestic jobs could be quite large and may exceed one lakh.
=46rom time to time, several of our women workers abroad have had to seek th=
e
protection of Indian diplomatic offices. It is also not uncommon to come
across stories of indifference shown by our diplomats towards such
complainants. The episode in Paris clearly brings out what could possibly
lie behind such indifference.

If our diplomats themselves are used to treating their own live-in maids so
badly, how can one expect them to have any sympathy for the victims of
similar maltreatment by others? What is called for immediately is that the
practice of allowing live-in women domestic servants to our Indian
diplomats posted abroad is stopped.

___________________________________________________
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) since 1996.