[sacw] sacw dispatch (31 Oct.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
31 October 1999
__________________
#1. Why Democracy Means Little to Pakistan's Poor
#2. US intentions in South Asia
#3. The Danger Is In The Numbers
#4. PUDR Appeal to the President of India & Governor of Tamil Nadu
__________________
#1.
New York Times
October 30, 1999

WHY DEMOCRACY MEANS LITTLE TO PAKISTAN'S POOR

By Celia W. Dugger
SLAMABAD, Pakistan -- An answer to the mystery of why so many ordinary
Pakistanis rejoiced when the military smashed their democracy can be found
right here within the city limits of the nation's capital, in a small,
centuries-old village nestled into the Margalla Hills.

Here, just hours before the armed forces seized power on Oct. 12,
Government bulldozers demolished more than 500 houses and reduced most of
the impoverished village of Saidpur to a dusty pile of rubble where
weeping children wandered in the chaos.

Saidpur was largely destroyed because politicians and their bureaucratic
appointees decided that it was an eyesore and a nuisance on what one
official called "the VVIP route," the road where very, very important
people like Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif roared past in shiny black
Mercedes-Benzes.

And its residents say they now must live with the bitter knowledge that
they were unable to stop the destruction because they had no money or
political pull like the rich and powerful people of Bani Gala, another
village only 15 minutes away. They faced the gnawing power of the
bulldozers for other reasons earlier in the decade but managed to save
most of their grand mansions.

"For the poor there is no democracy," said Nisar Ahmad, whose house and
shop in Saidpur were destroyed and who is now penniless and unemployed.
"For us it has only meant trouble and oppression."

The different fates of Saidpur and Bani Gala, two rural villages on the
city's outskirts, could serve as a metaphor for the failings of Pakistan's
democracy.

In both places the residents were accused by the authorities of
inhabiting their villages illegally, but poor Saidpur was destroyed and
rich Bani Gala was saved.

Ahmad explained the ways of the system: "You bribe people, it works.
You don't bribe them, it doesn't work."

It is that corrosive belief -- that the law cannot touch the high and
mighty, while it is wantonly used to crush the poor and powerless -- that
has done so much to discredit the idea of democracy in Pakistan.

Saidpur was obliterated without even a whisper of notice in the
English-language newspapers read by the elite. Its young men were jailed
for stoning the machines that came to knock down their huts. Its people,
who scrape by on incomes or $40 or $50 a month, are homeless now as the
cold winter rains approach, with no place to go and no one to turn to.

But in Bani Gala stately villas and elegant houses, with rose gardens
and crystal chandeliers, still command sweeping views of Rawal Lake and
the Kurang River seven years after the Government tried to bulldoze them
out of existence, fearful that sewage from the houses was polluting the
water supply of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

A. Q. Khan, the scientist generally known as the father of Pakistan's
atomic bomb, still has his imposing brick house in Bani Gala, with a
fountain on the front lawn, topped by a playful stone fish, though his
chowkidar, or watchman, Tariq Zulfi, said Dr. Khan rarely visits. When a
visitor came knocking, seven servants clustered at the iron gates that
guard the grounds.

In was in 1992, after the bulldozers had destroyed the homes of many
poor villagers in Bani Gala and drew ever closer to some of Bani Gala's
most impressive houses that a retired army colonel rang up the head of the
army's secret service, who called the President, said several residents,
who said he then phoned Prime Minister Sharif, who ordered the
destruction of Bani Gala to halt.

Politics in Pakistan is very much an elite affair, with the military and
political establishments woven together, as they were in Bani Gala.
Sharif was the prot=E9g=E9 of Pakistan's previous dictator, Gen. Mohammad Zi=
a
ul-Haq, and named the new military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, chief of
the army a year ago.

Pakistan has produced only two elected leaders with national appeal in
the last decade of democracy, one Sharif, from a family of businessmen
who became extremely rich industrialists after he entered politics, and
the other Benazir Bhutto, from a wealthy family of feudal landowners. She
was convicted earlier this year of taking kickbacks on a Government
contract.

Many political analysts say that both seem to have viewed their stints
as Prime Minister mainly as a license to enrich themselves, their families
and their cronies.

The impunity with which powerful politicians and bureaucrats have served
their self-interest seems to have sapped the willingness of many other
people, from the top to the bottom of society, to follow the rules. Why,
the people of Saidpur ask, should they leave their village, even though
the authorities say they are there illegally, when the rich get away with
it?

The poor of Pakistan, handicapped by staggering levels of illiteracy and
consumed by the daily tasks of survival, have yet to produce their own
crop of political leaders. In India, by contrast, the most oppressed
sections of society were given preferences in university admissions and
public employment and have produced a small middle class of leaders who
have risen to power.

In fact, one of the most striking differences between India and Pakistan,
carved from the same British empire in 1947, is that so many of the poor
of Pakistan seem to have an ebbing faith in democracy, while surveys have
documented a rising belief in the power of the vote among India's poor.

That faith is all gone in Saidpur ever since the bulldozers and hundreds
of police officers and employees of the Capital Development Authority
arrived on the morning of Oct. 12.

Hazran Bibi, a gaunt 95-year-old, said she hobbled over to the bureaucrat
in charge that day, gripped his chin in her gnarled hand and begged him
to spare the home where she has lived all her life. But she said he told
her: "I can't do anything for you. Prepare to remove your things."

Saidpur is just one of the many "encroachments" that have been "removed"
in the year since the Prime Minister installed a close ally to head the
Capital Development Authority, a man who was quickly removed after the
military toppled Sharif and began installing its own people in the
bureaucracy.

About 6,000 houses in Islamabad have been destroyed and tens of
thousands of mostly poor people displaced in the removal operations,
officials said.

Faiz Muhammad, assistant director of enforcement at the development
authority, said the old villages and towns of mud huts had been
demolished because they had been illegal and unsightly and had posed a
nuisance and "security" problem along what he called the VVIP routes.

People's cows and dogs kept wandering onto the road that connects
Rawalpindi, where the army is headquartered, to the capital, he said.

Once the rubble is cleared, Saidpur will be planted with trees and will
become part of the city's greenbelt, he said. The people there -- or their
relatives -- sold the authority their land about the time that Islamabad
was founded in 1960 and have no legal right to live there, he said.

So the people of Saidpur have been uprooted to make way for trees, but
they have not given up hope that somehow the new regime will be their
salvation. In the two and a half weeks since the coup, no bulldozers have
returned to the village to finish off the job. And the residents have
begun piling up huge mounds of bricks and wood in hopes of rebuilding.

By day children play in the ruins. Little girls in dingy dresses walk on
the craggy, broken walls like dainty gymnasts on the balance beam. Boys
aimlessly toss the chunks of hay, mud and stone that once enclosed their
families.

And the grown-ups nurse their hatred of the former Prime Minister. A
handbill bearing his photograph was tacked to a tree in the village. "Look
at this man," it said in Urdu. "He is the result of betraying his own
people."

As people walked past the poster, they cursed Sharif. "He destroyed us,"
said one. "May God destroy him."

Indeed, to the people of Saidpur, the Prime Minister's overthrow seems
to be divine retribution. "We are happy," said Parveen Bano, 30, a mother
of three. "He brought our houses down and he fell down."
__________________
#2.
Karl F. Inderfurth
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
Remarks at Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Washington, DC
October 6, 1999

ENGAGING SOUTH ASIA

It is an honor and a pleasure to be with you today to help inaugurate the
new South Asia program here at SAIS.

I particularly want to thank Ambassador Shirin Tahir-Kheli for inviting me
to speak. Shirin is a one-person State Department and National Security
Council rolled into one. She has been enormously creative and energetic in
pushing ahead an agenda of political and economic confidence-building
measures in South Asia. She has been tireless in her work on Track II
related activities with India and Pakistan. She has also been a valued
friend and occasional advisor to me-first during my tenure at the U.S.
Mission in New York and now at the South Asia Bureau. Thank you, Shirin,
for trying to keep me out of trouble. I think you have only partially
succeeded.

Shirin asked me to focus my remarks on the future of U.S.-South Asian
relations. But before I take out my astrology chart to look into that
future, I believe we should first ground ourselves in the reality of today.

South Asia and U.S. Policy Today

South Asia is in the news and receiving higher-level U.S. policy attention
than it has for a very long time. Indeed, if one looks in the index of A
World Transformed, the recent book by former President George Bush and Brent
Scowcroft, you will see that India appears only once and Pakistan not at
all. I have no doubt that if George W. Bush writes his memoirs as President,
or Al Gore, or any of those now running for President, South Asia will
figure more prominently! I can tell you it certainly will for President
Clinton and Secretary Albright in their accounts of their years in office.

There are a number of reasons for this increased attention-some decidedly
positive and some unfortunately negative. Let me begin with the negatives.

=46irst, there is the danger of nuclear and missile proliferation. Last
year's nuclear testing by India and Pakistan, which included India's first
tests in 24 years, and the first ever by Pakistan, were of enormous concern
to the United States and the international community. Today there is the
risk of accelerated competition, including missile delivery systems,
affecting regional stability. In many respects, the tests have dominated
our approach, our thinking, and our activities in South Asia for the past 16
months. They are also playing into the current debate over ratifying CTBT,
which I will want to say more about in a moment.

Second, we have seen renewed conflict in Kashmir, specifically the Kargil
crisis. This summer's fighting along the Line of Control was the most
dangerous escalation of Indo-Pakistani violence since 1971. The crisis
between the two nuclear capable states dealt a severe blow to the efforts of
Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif toward reconciliation that they started
at the Lahore Summit last February. We are concerned that if matters drift
and a modicum of trust is not restored, and if the Lahore process is not
resumed, such clashes between India and Pakistan could occur again-and
escalate further. That is why President Clinton has pledged his "personal
interest" in seeing the bilateral efforts of the two countries accelerated
and intensified in the search for resolving their long-standing and
fundamental differences, including Kashmir.

Third, terrorism is on the rise in South Asia. After 20 years of conflict,
Afghanistan now serves as a base and training ground for Usama bin Ladin and
other terrorists who threaten our interests-and those of the states in the
region and the international community world-wide. This week's edition of
India Today has bin Laden on the cover with the headline: "Jehad on India:
How Serious is the Threat?" Recently we imposed economic sanctions through
an Executive order on the Taliban for continuing to provide bin Ladin safe
haven. We are now working at the United Nations to see international
sanctions enacted. But terrorism in South Asia is not confined to the
threat emanating from Afghanistan. In Sri Lanka, the LTTE has recently
stepped up its brutal attacks against civilians in the 16 year-old conflict.
In 1997, Secretary Albright took the step of declaring the Tamil Tigers a
=46oreign Terrorist Organization.

Now, let me turn to some of the more positive reasons for increased U.S.
attention in South Asia. These involve the global issues on which we hope
we can focus more fully as we step into the 21st century. Two stand out:
the economic potential of the region and the extremely solid and encouraging
development of democracy.

As many of you know, the South Asian region is potentially one of world's
largest markets, and commercial opportunities are growing. Liberalization
is improving the investment climate for U.S. business throughout the region.
India is one of the 10 major emerging markets, especially for the high
tech sector; and both Pakistan and Sri Lanka offer considerable
possibilities. We also have major energy interests: Bangladesh gas deposits
and Himalayan hydropower potential could be major energy investment
opportunities for U.S. firms.

Democracy is another positive reason for increased U.S. attention. Today
the ballots are being counted in India's most recent national elections. As
=46oreign Minister Jaswant Singh recently reminded us in his address to the =
UN
General Assembly, the Indian electorate of around 600 million people matches
the combined populations of the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. But India
is not the only country with elections this year. Nepal recently elected a
new government with a ruling majority I might add, and Sri Lanka will be
going to the polls next year. Democracy is taking root in South Asia.

=46or these reasons, and many others, we are seeing an increased focus on th=
e
region. President Clinton is determined to see our relations broadened and
strengthened. In July 1997 he approved a policy of enhanced engagement with
the region. At his July 4th meeting with Prime Minister Sharif at Blair
House this year, he made it clear he intends to travel to South Asia soon.
Indeed he has been trying to do this since his second term began, but events
have intervened. We are hopeful there will be no further unexpected
occurrences between now and early next year so that his proposed visit to
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh can go forward. It will be the first visit
by a U.S. President to the region since President Carter traveled to India
in 1978.

I should also mention there is heightened Congressional interest in South
Asia. This is in part due to the growing size and influence of the South
Asian-American community-well over one and a half million strong.

And finally, it is worth noting-especially in this setting-that the region
is attracting greater attention among policy "elites." Indeed, we have seen
a "proliferation" of academic and research programs on South Asia. We are
confident the SAIS program will make an important contribution in this
regard. This is one type of proliferation that we can support without
reservation.

Looking Into the Future

I have sketched a brief outline of where we are today, but as we look beyond
the immediate, the question is: What would we like to see with regard to our
future with South Asia? What are the possibilities? What are the problem
areas holding us back-and what can we do about them?

CTBT

An immediate challenge we face-heightened by the fact that the Senate is
considering a vote-is ensuring that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), which prohibits all nuclear testing, comes into force. Over the
years, Congress has passed and the Executive branch has implemented a number
of sanctions-including the Glenn and Symington and Pressler
amendments-designed to halt or, at a minimum, inhibit nuclear proliferation.

Now, with the impending CTBT vote, the U.S. Senate has an opportunity to
support an international regime that advances these same non-proliferation
goals in a positive, not punitive fashion. We have an important opportunity
to lead by example. Moreover, failure by the United States to ratify the
CTBT would produce negative consequences, jeopardizing our interests in
South Asia. Since their nuclear tests of a year ago last May, we have made
substantial progress on the nuclear testing aspect of our dialogue with
India and Pakistan. Both countries have adopted moratoria on further
testing. Rejection of the CTBT may cause them to question the wisdom of
their moratoria, if not now, then later. Recently, we have received clear
signals from India's National Security Advisor that India is moving toward
signature of CTBT. We are hopeful that Pakistan would then sign as well.
That forward movement could be stopped dead in its tracks.

We are also concerned that refusal by the U.S. to ratify the test ban treaty
could also encourage those in and beyond South Asia who seek nuclear
capabilities that would, by their very acquisition, impact adversely on
regional security in Asia. We do not want to see an arms race reminiscent
of the Cold War repeated. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is one means to
prevent that. We hope the Senate will agree.

A New Structure for our Relations with South Asia

Against this backdrop of CTBT and our other nonproliferation and security
concerns, we also recognize a broad range of important American interests in
South Asia. We would like to see a greater emphasis on trade and
investment, cooperation on science and technology, the environment, health,
and stabilizing population growth. This recognizes the many priorities we
share and would provide a solid foundation for our bilateral relationships
in the years ahead. Indeed, if you will permit me a moment of optimism, I
believe we have a real opportunity today to build a new structure for our
relations with the countries of South Asia, not only with India and
Pakistan, but also Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives, and Bhutan.
I do not want to diminish the importance of the issues where we diverge, but
focusing exclusively on them is not the way to build a stable and
sustainable foundation for the future.

Let me focus briefly on two areas where United States' interests and those
of South Asia converge.

Prosperity

As we look ahead towards the future, we would like to see a South Asia that
is living up to its economic potential. The region, with the tragic
exception of Afghanistan, is ripe for growth and development.

Bangladesh is a prime example. We have seen a dramatic surge in foreign
investment in Bangladesh, mostly in the energy sector, where U.S. companies
have landed a significant number of contracts and can be partners with the
Government of Bangladesh in moving the country to middle-income status.
Predictions are that Bangladesh could achieve that status by 2020.

Because we see so much potential in Bangladesh, we have formed a
U.S.-Bangladesh Energy Partnership, led on our side by our colleagues at the
Department of Energy. We want to work with Bangladesh as it devotes a
greater priority to the energy sector overall, as it develops a regulatory
framework for gas and power, and as it considers its options on how to best
utilize its gas resources. We believe the Government of Bangladesh's
support for the export of gas reserves, including to the ready-made market
in India, will be key to Bangladesh's ability to achieve that middle-income
status. We are strongly advocating regional energy cooperation as a win-win
proposition.

Let me also note that another measure of this recognition of Bangladesh's
economic potential is the formation last year of the U.S.-Bangladesh
Business Council, under the initial leadership of Ambassador Frank
Wisner-who served with distinction in South Asia and virtually everywhere
else in the world! The Council is taking a leading role in activating the
private sector not only on the energy front, but also on a whole host of
commercial opportunities in Bangladesh.

Good Health

We also want to see a South Asia that is healthy-not only in economic terms,
but in terms of basic human needs. We want to work with the countries of
South Asia-well into the next century-on the important issues of population
growth and family health. Of particular concern is the threat posed by
HIV/AIDS. By 2000, the number of HIV/AIDS cases in India will far surpass
any other country worldwide. The UN estimates that India currently has
approximately 6 million cases. Recognizing the alarming increase in
HIV/AIDS in Africa and India, President Clinton has recently launched a new
global initiative to fight AIDS. USAID and the Center for Disease Control
estimate that we would need $1 billion to address this issue adequately.

Enjoying good health also means living in a healthy environment. Under
intense population pressure, coupled with economic growth, South Asia's
environment is being degraded on a massive scale. Three of the world's 10
most polluted cities are in India-New Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta.

We want to work with the governments of the region and the private sector on
the full range of environmental challenges they face. In fact, Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson will travel to India at the end of the month to
address an industry-sponsored conference on energy and environment. While
Secretary Richardson has a broad agenda for his trip, one important item is
to demonstrate support for the so-called Clean Development Mechanism
initiative, which seeks to create partnerships between industrialized and
developing countries with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion

Let me conclude with a few remarks on our goals in South Asia and our
resources, or lack thereof, to fulfill them.

I would note that our ability to pursue our agenda in South Asia-and around
the globe-depends in large part on adequate funding for our foreign affairs
budget, a point that Secretary Albright makes repeatedly. Yet, after years
of small cuts, this year we are facing a reduction of $2.4 billion-or 12%-to
the President's FY 2000 budget request. That will impact on what we are
trying to do in South Asia.

If the proposed cutbacks are enacted, the Administration will be forced to
reduce our efforts to counter terrorism, prevent conflicts, and fight drugs
- all of which are clearly in the interests of the American people and key
to our agenda for South Asia. Did I mention earlier that Afghanistan has
now become the leading opium producer in the world, surpassing Burma? In
addition, programs we want to pursue-those in support of regional democracy,
HIV/AIDs prevention, and our initiative to address trafficking in women and
children-will be sorely under-funded.

America cannot lead without resources. And what we are asking is not
unreasonable. Today, the full range of international programs costs only
about one penny out of every dollar the Federal government spends.
Moreover, the United States is already dead last among the world's
industrialized countries in the proportion of our wealth that we allocate to
building democracy and aiding development in other countries. Clearly, the
investments we recommend are affordable. The President's budget would
finance foreign policy without detracting from our defense and domestic
needs, while still yielding a surplus. As Secretary Albright has said:
"America cannot be secure if we do not lead; and American cannot lead
without resources."

In pursuing the agenda for South Asia that I have identified, I hope that I
have convinced you that there is great value to be gained not only for the
United States but for the countries of South Asia themselves with our policy
of greater engagement. If I have not done that, I leave it to Shirin and
her colleagues in the new South Asia program to continue to persuade you.
__________________
#3.
Rediff.com
30 October 1999

THE DANGER IS IN THE NUMBERS
by Dilip D'Souza

Reading my newspaper blearily this morning, I ran across one of those bits
of news that always seems to fire up my rudimentary mental arithmetic
skills. This one was headlined "Papal visit will boost conversions." It
reports that the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Math, Puri, the Swami
Nischalananda Saraswati, is worried about the impending visit of the Pope
to India. Why? Because his visit will "be a victory of the forces aiming
to convert India into a Christian nation by the end of 2000 AD."

OK! Time to get those number-processing brain cells into top gear, all
three of them! Now my understanding of India being "a Christian nation" is
that an overwhelming majority of the country would be Christian. But for
the sake of this calculation, let's assume we are talking about just half
the country being Christian. That is, we need 500 million Christians in
India by the end of the year 2000. That date is 430 days away as I write
this. Also as I write this, there are between 20 and 25 million Christians
in India. Let's say 25 million.

So we are looking for that number to rise by 475 million in 430 days. Now
since the Christian population is rising at about 2% a year, natural
increase alone will add about 600,000 Christians to the flock in those 430
days. Thus the rest of that increase-475 million minus 600,000, or 474.4
million-will have to come from other sources. Presumably conversions.

Do the division yourself. You'll find that to take 474.4 million people to
Christ's arms in 430 days, you have to convert 1,103,256 a day. Just under
46,000 an hour. 766 a minute, 13 every single second. (To put this in some
perspective, there is about one baby born in India every second. One.)

I am astonished as I come up with these figures, astonished at how
self-evidently absurd they are. So I am still more astonished, and
distressed, that a major Hindu religious leader actually pronounces that
this ludicrous fantasy is a real prospect. That he uses this as the basis
of the thesis that political leaders and columnists and ordinary folks all
over this land then pick up and repeat without pause: Hinduism is in grave
danger. Thus it must be defended, and that by the likes of the Bajrang Dal
and the Shiv Sena.

Calculations done, let's take this one step at a time.

=46irst, danger. Oh yes, I too read with a growing disgust the stuff that's
in the Southern Baptists' International Missionary Board's prayer book in
the USA, the stuff about how Hindus are "slaves bound by fear and
tradition to false gods", the "darkness in [Hindus'] hearts." This booklet
is the first step in "an aggressive new proselytising campaign."

Now I read this, tapped my forehead and thought "What have these Baptists
been drinking?" Yes, for they don't know and don't want to know the first
thing about Hinduism.

But I also thought, how many of these people are there? Half as many as
the 850 million Hindus in India? A third? A tenth? Well, I learn from an
authoritative source on this very web-zine that Southern Baptists "are NOT
a fringe group." Apparently, there are 15 whole million of these blokes
and blokees in the USA. NOT a fringe group, but less than a fiftieth the
number of Hindus in India. Now let's say you were somehow able to tear
every single one of them, including Bill Clinton, away from their very
comfortable lives in the USA-and perhaps that same source will confirm
that Southern Baptists are among the most wealthy congregations there-to
send on missionary duty to India. Let's say all of them, with their
delightful booklets, do descend here to convert Hindus to the dubious
merits of Baptism, or is it Baptisthood. Let's say each one tackles 50
Hindus.

Even if they succeeded instantly, even if they did so all by force, there
would still be a tidy 100 million Hindus left to convert. That's how
gargantuan the task is before those benighted Southern Baptists. That's
the extent of yet another ludicrous fantasy that's being waved about.

And yet there are those who say they are "fretting" about this. About
what? Can Hinduism, 850 million strong Hinduism, really be in danger from
foolish booklets circulated to 15 million Baptists? Hindus are insulted
and irritated by what's in those booklets, sure. Language as ignorant and
offensive as that makes me sick and irate, and I have no religion at all.
But to pretend the religion itself is under threat? Is this even a
possibility, let alone being credible? To portray it that way is to watch
a child build a mound of sand on a beach and then to scream in panic that
soon, Everest will no longer be the world's tallest mountain.

How seriously can you take the people who try to peddle such a threat?

Apart from the numbers, there's this other aspect too. Can a religion that
has flourished for thousands of years, that has grown to claim one of the
world's largest religious followings-can such a religion, such a massive
institution, truly be threatened by a booklet? By whatever number of
conversions happen every year in India?

But of course, there are indeed lots of people who pronounce that Hinduism
is threatened by all this. Seems to me, then, there's only one possible
conclusion to make about these fretters: they peddle a profoundly weak
vision of this vast and ancient religion. Oh, they claim to be telling
Hindus that they must "push back and fuss", that they must be virile and
strong. But it is really weakness they offer. They seek to convince Hindus
that their beliefs and values are so brittle, so unfounded, that some
missionaries, or all of the USA's Southern Baptists, are about to overrun
it all.

Luckily, I know enough Hindus, and I'm sure you do too, whose conception
of their own religion is considerably stronger and sounder than that. They
don't need to be told to fight off imaginary threats. Their confident
faith is the true vibrancy, the real strength, of the religion.

Which brings me to the second step I mentioned above. Having made the case
that Hinduism is in danger, there are all kinds of groups ready to defend
it. Apparently the sole qualification such a group needs is to announce
that it is defending Hinduism. That done, it can go right ahead with every
other activity it was involved in all along, nefarious or otherwise. All
of which will be overlooked or rationalized because, after all, these guys
are defending Hinduism.

Take the Shiv Sena, among the country's loudest defenders of the faith. On
another bleary morning just days ago, I read that a former MLA of the
party, one Gurunath Desai, was arrested by the Juhu police for "allegedly
demanding Rs 500,000 from a shopkeeper to settle a dispute." This is no
flash-in-the-pan, as almost anyone in Bombay will whisper to you. As Julio
Ribeiro, surely one of the country's most respected policemen, told
Outlook magazine two years ago when the Sena was actually in power in
Maharashtra: "The people belonging to the party in power are themselves
into extortion."

So when did "extortion" qualify as "defending Hinduism"? What was the
honourable Gurunath Desai doing, allegedly lining his pockets or allegedly
defending a religion? (Naturally, "within minutes after he was taken to
the police station, Mr Desai complained of chest pain and was admitted to
Nanavati hospital." No doubt, despite his debilitating chest pain, he is
busy defending the religion in hospital too.)

If Hinduism is indeed in danger, is it defended by people like this? Or is
it desecrated by them?
__________________
#4.
[From: Peoples Union For Democratic Rights, Delhi (India)]
[October 30, 1999]

APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU

We the undersigned appeal to you to prevent the extinguishing of four human
lives. The TADA designated court has issued death warrants for the
execution of Nalini, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan in the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case. We hold that the assassination was a ghastly crime but
the use of death penalty can only add to the number of persons dead. Given
the specific nature of the case and the general reasons for the abolition
of death penalty, we urge you as the highest constitutional authority to be
merciful and commute the present sentence to life imprisonment.
Death penalty is arbitrary and irrevocable. The ever-present possibility of
human error becomes fatal in the case of capital punishment. Death penalty
denies the scope for review and redressal. In the present instance, the
TADA designated court had awarded death penalty to twenty-six persons.
Subsequently, the apex court acquitted nineteen of murder charges, awarded
life imprisonment to three and confirmed death sentence on the remaining
four. In short, the history of this case is a glaring example of human
error.
Death penalty is unjust when people are tried under a law that has been
scrapped. The retrospective use of TADA in the present case is unjust, as
the draconian provisions, which led to its repeal, have been used against
the accused. Ironically the Supreme Court has acquitted each of the 26
accused of TADA charges. Yet they are have been tried by procedures that
are part of a lapsed legislation. In this particular case, convictions have
been based on mainly on the confessions. Each of the accused has sworn in
court that the confessions were obtained through coercion and were not
=EBvoluntary=ED. This by itself creates the doubt of the applicability of
extreme punishment and is sufficient ground for commutation.
Death penalty is legalized state murder. Death penalty is preceded by
lengthy prison sentences. All the four accused have been in solitary
confinement for nearly eight years. As a punishment it is worse than any
murder as it is carried out in a cold and calculating fashion denying the
possibility of reform. Such a punishment demonstrates the inherent cruel
and inhuman forms of our criminal justice system.
Death penalty violates the right to life. Death penalty promotes a culture
of revenge and a culture that lacks the respect for human life. The global
trend is towards the abolition of death penalty on the ground that it is a
cruel and inhuman punishment violative of human rights as well as the
dignity and sanctity of human life.
The calculated and cold-blooded execution of the persons convicted will not
serve any social, constitutional or penological purpose. We appeal to you
to show mercy in present case and commute the sentence of death to life
imprisonment.

Name and Address

Occupation

Signature

__________________________________________
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) since1996.