[sacw] sacw dispatch #1 (13 May 00)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web - Dispatch #1
13 May 2000
________________________________
#1. Nation-state, religion & identity
#2. Sri-Lanka: Interview with JVP leader
#3. Report on State of the Journalists in Pakistan, 2000
________________________________

#1.

The Hindu
13 May 2000
Op-Ed.

Opinion | Previous | Next

Nation-state, religion & identity

By Asghar Ali Engineer

THERE HAS been lot of discussion about the nation-state in the 20th
century and yet there is no unanimity of views on this controversial
subject. The concept of nation-state becomes all the more controversial
in a country which lacks religious, cultural and linguistic homogeneity.
The classical nation-state came into existence in Europe on the basis of
a shared linguistic and cultural heritage and future economic vision.
That was not the case in colonised countries in Asia and Africa. The
colonial powers did not establish their empires in religiously and
linguistically homogeneous areas but wherever they could capture power.
These administratively-unified areas became a nation-state when the
colonial masters left.

In India, severe conflict took place over the concept of nation- state
when the colonial power was about to leave. The Muslim League, which
claimed to be the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, rejected
the concept of composite nationalism and advanced the theory of
religious nationalism. In fact, the idea of religious nationalism was
mooted for the first time on the Indian subcontinent. Till then,
nationalism was associated with shared history, culture, language and
ethnicity. And, the theory of religious nationalism was advanced by the
secular elite of the Muslim community and not by its religious
leadership.

The two-nation theory was born more out of political considerations than
religion. It was result of competition for power between the secular
elites of the two communities rather than justified by the theology of
Islam or Hinduism. The Muslim religious leaders opposed the theory and
justified composite nationalism on religious ground. Territory and not
religion forms the basis of nationalism, they argued. The most
articulate theorist among those who rejected religious nationalism was
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani of the Deoband school.

Among Hindus too it was not the religious leadership which justified the
two-nation theory but the `secular' leadership led by Savarkar and
others. Neither the Muslim League nor the Hindu Mahasabha was a
religious party. The leaders of Hindu Mahasabha agreed with Jinnah and
his Muslim League that Hindus and Muslims were two different `nations'.
It is a different thing that the Hindu Mahasabha, unlike the Muslim
League, did not demand partition. It stood for ``Akhand Bharat'' under
Hindu hegemony.

The theory of religious nationalism has been thoroughly discredited.
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was well aware of the problems and he raised
them in his seminal book ``Muttahida Qaumiyyat aur Islam'' (Composite
Nationalism and Islam). There are several Muslim nations today in the
post-colonial world. If Islam was to be the basis of nationalism, there
should have been only one nation. It is territorially impossible, one
can argue, there being no contiguity. Even if this argument is
theoretically accepted, the question arises: why don't countries which
have territorial contiguity - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and several of
the central Asian nations, and several Arab countries - merge into one
nation?

No Muslim country will ever take such an idea seriously. An attempt was
made during Nasser's time to merge Egypt, Syria and Libya and create a
United Arab Republic in the early Seventies. Though all three were
overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab countries the union did not last more
than a couple of years, though even the language( Arabic) was the same.
When the Saudi King objected to Nasser's use of the term `Arab
nationalism', and suggested instead `Islamic Umma', Nasser asked what
was common between an Arab Muslim and an Indonesian Muslim except for
religion? How could they come together politically?

The question of identity is of primary importance in the formation of a
nation. What then is the basis of identity? Identity, most commonly, is
based on a shared sense of history, culture and language. Religion may
or may not be common. Religion alone cannot provide a viable and
cohesive base for common nationalism. In the classical European model
too, though Christianity was a common factor Europe was divided into
different nations on linguistic and cultural basis. Thus in the
formation of a nation a common language, culture and a sense of a shared
history play quite an important role.

In the case of Malaysia, Malay nationalism, apart from Islam, plays an
important role. Malay identity to them is as important as their
religious identity. In fact, it is difficult to make a distinction
between their Malay and Islamic identities. This identity is unique to
them which they cannot share with other Muslims in Malaysia or
elsewhere. There are non-Malay Muslims in Malaysia. They are of Indian
origin but they have a very different sense of identity from the Malay
Muslims.

Malaysia is a pluralist country like India. There are Chinese, non-Malay
Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Malay Muslims constitute the largest
group at 45 per cent. The Chinese are about 37 per cent. The Malay
Muslims, unlike the majority Hindus in India, are socially,
educationally and economically a highly deprived group. It is the
Chinese who are educationally and economically dominant. The Malay
Muslims organised under the banner of Malay Islam and fought for their
rights. They came mostly from rural areas. The revivalist movement
represented the aspirations of these rural Malay Muslims. The revivalist
movement could easily be co-opted by the state by giving concessions to
Malay Muslims. Thus Malaysian Islam has its own unique cultural
characteristics and Malay nationalism does not share a sense of common
cultural and historical heritage with other Muslims in or outside
Malaysia.

Indonesian Islam has again its own unique cultural and historical
characteristics. Hinduism was a dominant force in Indonesia during the
early medieval period and hence there is greater impact of Hinduism on
Indonesian Islam, particularly Javanese Islam. Bhasa Indonesia has
several words of Sanskrit origin and Hindu names such as Sinta (Sita)
and Lakshmi are quite common among the Muslims in Indonesia. Similarly
names such as Ram and Vishnu are common among Muslim men. Indoneisa's
President, Mr. Abdurrahman Wahid, once told me at a seminar in
Jogjakarta that the greatest preacher of Islam in Indonesia was one
Maulana Vishnu. These are unique socio-cultural characteristics of Islam
in different countries and Muslims and non-Muslims in these countries
have a shared sense of culture and history; and it this which imparts
them a common sense of national identity.

All these examples clearly bring out the fact that political unity and
the sense of a common nationhood need not depend on religious unity but
on political, historical and cultural factors. Religious nationalism is
not a viable category as the same religion can be, and often is,
embraced by different racial, ethnic and cultural groups. Religion, it
should be remembered, is a spiritual and moral category whereas
nationalism is a political-cum-territorial category. The two should not
be confused. A composite culture can be a more viable base for
nationalism than religion alone. Religion provides for a common
spiritual experience and shared moral and ethical vision whereas
nationalism provides for shared political concerns, cultural practices
and historical heritage. South Asia had such a common heritage. Its
division was brought about by extraneous factors such as British
imperial policies rather than by differences of religion. A South Asian
confederation is a must for this region to usher in peace and
prosperity.

________

#2.
(Source: sri lanka alert / 12 May 2000 / by SP Udayakumar)

=46rom: dsp@d...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:05:35 +1000

Dear Comrades,

Attached below is an interview with former JVP leader Lionel Bopage. It
might be useful for you in providing background to the current crisis in
Sri Lanka.

Lionel Bopage was a politbureau member of the JVP (Peoples Liberation
=46ront) since 1973, imprisoned by the government in the period 71 -
77, and was elected its General Secretary in 1979. He held this position
until he resigned from the JVP membership in 1984.

The JVP led two unsuccessful insurrections in Sri Lanka in the 1970s and
1980s.

Bopage currently lives in Australia and is a member of the presidium of
the Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka (FPSL website: www.fpsl.org.au).
Currently he is not a member of any particular Sri Lankan political
organisation. He is involved in multicultural and Sri Lankan social and
cultural activities and assist in the settling down process of torture
and trauma survivors arriving in Canberra, Australia.

He advocates social justice and am actively involved in challenging
chauvinistic ideologies prevailing within the Sri Lankan community. He
endeavours to maintain a dialogue on the 'National problem' among the
political parties and groups in Sri Lanka.

This interview was done on May 6, 2000 by Peter Boyle for Green Left
Weekly. This is an unedited version.

Comradely greetings

John Percy
National Secretary
Democratic Socialist Party
Australia
intl@d...
_______________________________________
Interview on Sri Lanka situation with former JVP leader

Question 1. The Sri Lankan government seems to be desperately seeking
foreign intervention following its recent military defeats in the North.
How serious is the crisis it faces? Have there been cracks in the PA?

Sri Lanka is currently facing one of its worst politico-military crises.
The LTTE is poised to capture the entire Jaffna peninsula. Following its
victories at Elephant Pass and Pallai, the LTTE have captured a large
amount of arms.

The government has made a worldwide appeal for arms and other forms of
military assistance; it has imposed the most anti-democratic regulations
on the entire Sri Lankan society. Curtailing freedom of expression had
been there for a long time, but it did not help in fighting against the
LTTE; rather it helped to hide the inefficiencies and defeats from the
people in the south of Sri Lanka. Current censorship and security laws
enforced will not allow any criticism of the President and/or the
government. This is the first time, I believe, such regulations are
enforced in Sri Lanka. I do not believe for a moment that this is going
to help in the war against the LTTE. Rather this will be used against
the entire society, especially in the south, when it is necessary.
=46riends for Peace in Sri Lanka in its last press release alerted that
this sort of situation could arise. Now it is increasingly becoming a
reality.

There are several possible scenarios under the current circumstances.

1. As the Sri Lanka government has successfully gained military
cooperation against the LTTE with Israel, Pakistan, Russia, India and
other countries, it may be able to push back the LTTE further southwards
from the areas recently captured by the LTTE. This will lead to a
long-term involvement of these countries and Sri Lanka may become a
testing ground for latest high technology weapons as happened in the
Vietnam War. Though such a scenario is not favourable towards the LTTE
in the short term, it will run in favour of the LTTE in the long term.
Diversion of non-essential development funds to the war effort, bans on
trade unions and other political organisations to criticise, engagement
in peaceful agitation and opposition, publishing news items that are
against the interests of the president and the government will add to
the discontentment already existing in the south of the country. This
could boil over as happened in Sri Lanka twice before, in 1971, and in
1989. The war will continue as an unwinnable one for all the parties
engaged in the war effort. Politically and economically this will be
disastrous for the ordinary people of Sri Lanka.

2. Another possible scenario is that even with foreign military
assistance, the government and its mercenary groups may not be able to
halt the advances of the LTTE towards recapturing Jaffna. For example,
Israel may encounter logistical problems such as the unknown terrain,
language, supply routes etc. It will be a different situation from the
Middle East. India's military assistance (in the form of medical or
humanitarian assistance) could also fall into the LTTE hands.

3. The continued advancement of the LTTE may end up in two possible
scenarios:
? Government troops and its vigilante and mercenary groups may have to
retreat towards the south of the country. This will lead to a
never-ending war situation. The government may continue its draconian
repressive environment. The LTTE may not have a long-term military
advantage in such a situation, but they may gain some psychological and
political advantage. Government may continue to hold onto power without
holding general elections and this will lead to increasing frustrations
in the south. Even if the elections are held, in the background of the
draconian powers the government has armed itself with it will never be a
fair election. As we had prior to 1994, the war situation will drag on,
the economy will be in tatters; or

? The government may hold parliamentary elections but after creating a
"Putin scenario". The government may do like what the Russian government
did in Chechniya, carpet bomb entire Jaffna, as some generals have
earlier suggested; then make use of it to generate sensational
chauvinist election propaganda and win a majority of votes in the
south? Putin has set a precedent in this regard;

? If government troops cannot be evacuated in time they could fight unto
the death of last soldier or surrender to the LTTE and could become
prisoners of war.. This will be politically disastrous to the government
and will serve the opposition forces better. If the government decides
to continue with the war a disastrous situation could arise. If the
government troops do not wish to fight the LTTE any more and they do not
wish to surrender, there is a remote possibility that they could turn
against the government and join hands with the LTTE; they could march
towards Colombo. Such a scenario is highly unlikely, but cannot be ruled
out. This would not lead to a socialist type of a revolution as happened
in Russia in 1917, but who knows, history can repeat in a different
form.

3. Other possible scenario is if the war becomes a long-term military
conflict with the involvement of international military blocs. There is
a possibility that some may support the LTTE and some may support the
government resulting Sri Lanka becoming a modern day Vietnam. The
internal conflict of Sri Lanka that could have been resolved with the
support of a third party (such as Norway or any other country acceptable
to the warring parties) and by developing appropriate structures to
sharing the sovereignty of the land among the Sri Lankan peoples
themselves, has been made to grow into a complex regional conflict that
may eventually force Sri Lanka into sharing its sovereignty with non-Sri
Lankans. Other countries will not come and engage in war in Sri Lanka
for nothing!

4. Personally I believe in a completely different subjective scenario.
That is, the government and the LTTE should be made to declare a truce
and the government troops that are surrounded by the LTTE made to
evacuate without much further loss of lives on both sides. It is the
young people of both Sinhala and Tamil peoples that are getting killed
in this unjust and senseless war. Then the president could use her
enormous draconian powers (Sri Lankan presidency is the most powerful
executive in the whole world) to bring out a proposition acceptable to
the Tamil people, with the involvement of the UN, and enforce it by
presidential decree. This proposition should be based on the universal
principles of justice and equality, with the acceptance of the right of
Tamil people to self-determination. If the LTTE continues to fight after
such an event the Tamil people themselves will marginalise the LTTE; the
government will not have to engage the LTTE politically or militarily.
The extreme forces which demand the complete annihilation of Tamils or
complete separation and nothing but separation type of solutions is
small in numbers among both peoples. But the government has a paramount
duty to impose a solution that the Tamil people could rely upon. So far
the government has done nothing to convince the Tamil people of its
sincerity. The general opinion among not only Tamils but also among
others who value justice and fairness is that the government has been
playing for time and playing games with the lives of people to get
international aid. I do not believe that this sort of a thing will be a
priority of the current government.

About cracks in the government, so far there is no news. I would not be
surprised if nothing happens. The traditional left parties are very
experienced in this type of games. In 1971 they were in the government
when a similar situation arose in the south of Sri Lanka. Actually this
is a good parallel situation. From the Soviet Union (then communist),
China to the USA and including India, Pakistan and Singapore helped the
government of the day. India secretly committed its troops to fight Sri
Lanka's internal war. The LSSP or the CP has so far not looked at this
in a self-critical manner. And now they are going through a similar
phase. If they leave the government, there is no future for them, they
believe. But we have to wait and see what happens when the Sri Lankan
parliament meets on 10 May.

On the other hand, there are Tamil political parties based in Colombo,
which continue to support the government. It will be interesting to see
their position, in a situation where the government has unleashed its
highest ever repressive force against the Tamils and other
non-government political forces in the south.

So whatever way I look at it, it is a pretty bleak situation for the
people of Sri Lanka.

Q.2. What is the political mood in the South and what was the response
to the April 25 rally against the war and repression?

The general political mood in the south has been for achieving a
negotiated settlement to the war. The current government came to power
on a platform of peace. Even extreme groups in the south will agree on
this point, I believe. During the last presidential elections, for
example, those who advocated a total military approach to the current
conflict got only 3 percent of the total votes cast. Though there have
been slight ups and downs in the level of support for a negotiated
settlement as and when the LTTE or others commit acts of terrorism
against the civilian population, those who support a negotiated
settlement has been in the majority right through. The vociferous
extreme groups have been marginal numerically though they have been
vociferous and influential within the government, the security forces,
and the bureaucracy. I do not believe the mood of the people in the
south for a negotiated settlement has changed.

However, this sort of support does not automatically translate into big
crowds at peace rallies and marches. With regard to the April 25 rally I
understand the event was jointly organised by the NSSP, the JVP and the
MULF. According to a press release by the general secretary of the NSSP
around 3000 people have attended this rally.

Q.3. What options does the Sri Lankan government have if it cannot
reverse the military situation in the North?

As I said before the most appropriate and the wisest step the government
could take is to minimise the loss of lives in the war by making the
LTTE to agree to declare a truce and then de-escalate the war. The
government must accept that Sri Lanka is a home for the Sinhalese and
Tamils and for all those who were born or settled down for good in Sri
Lanka and that they are equals before the supreme law of the country.
The extreme forces in the south thwarted all such attempts in the
fifties when Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact was signed, in the sixties
when Dudley-Chelvanayakam pact was signed. The vociferous extreme groups
ganged together with the politicians of the opposition at the time
destroyed these pacts unilaterally. They made the government expel all
the Tamil MPs who represented in the Parliament the interests of the
Tamil people. Now they say Tamils should come back to the peaceful ways
of Parliament. What a hypocrisy this is? Whatever it is, this government
has gone along the same path as the governments of Bandaranaike and
Dudley. This government could have made history if they wished to, but
it did not do so. The political parties when in opposition have always
pledged to solve the problem of the Tamil people when they come to
power. However, after coming to power they have made the situation worse
than it was before. This has continued during the last fifty years and
this government will also go down in history as another government that
surrendered to extremism.

Q. 4. Has there been any increase of attacks on Tamil civilians in the
South?

There have been marginal increases of attacks on Tamil civilians,
however, so far it has not become a dominant feature as in 1983. I
believe that evacuation or surrender of government troops in Jaffna may
be used by extreme groups to create a situation similar to that of 1983,
creating communal violence against Tamils; they may go further and put
the blame on the left parties or elements on the pretext that they tried
to destabilize the government.

Q. 5. The government recently invoked additional national security laws.
What does this mean for the progressive parties in the south and their
publications?

This will be the death knell of freedom of expression at least for some
time to come. This will also be the death knell for those who advocate
peace and justice for the people. No trade union demands, no criticism
of the president and the government, no criticism of the security
forces. Remember the national parliamentary elections are due in August
this year. The opposition including the left will have a very tough time
in winning back the freedom of expression. Usually it is the
progressives in the south who have been advocating peace and justice for
the people. I would not be surprised if the draconian powers are used in
general, in the immediate future, against the non-traditional left. It
is also one of the objectives of the extreme Sinhala groups; if you look
at the social composition of such groups, many of their leaders have
been anti-socialist extremes, sometimes advocating fascist type of
agendas against the people of Sri Lanka.

Q. 6. Have there been any developments within the Sinhala chauvinist
camp? What has the National Movement Against Terrorism, Sinhala Urumaya
and Sinhala Veera Viddahana, etc., been up to?

Yes, there have been new developments. About fifty small Sinhala groups
in Sri Lanka including extreme chauvinists, have come under one umbrella
called "Sinhala Urumaya Party'-SUP (Sinhala Heritage Party). The extreme
groups in the Sinhala expatriate community have aligned themselves with
this organisation. There is definite evidence that they are doing all
necessary preliminary work to mobilise Sinhala chauvinism in order to
financially support the SUP.

In Sri Lanka these activities will be used against the progressive
forces in the south. Personally, I do not believe this is going to
affect the Sri Lankan left in a great way. Though the extreme groups
have been able to do things using other means, in parliamentary
elections they always have emerged as a weak force and I believe this
will continue to be so in future.

Q. 7. What is the reaction of the JVP leadership to recent developments
in the North?

What I have noticed right a;long is that the JVP engages itself in a
policy of avoidance of the issue, or adopts an opportunistically slight
shifting of policy favourable to Sinhalese chauvinism. They do not take
an anti-Tamil stand. For example in 1971 or in 1989 no Tamils have been
attacked on racial grounds by the JVPers. Their position with regard to
the 'national problem' in Sri Lanka has been unclear as ever. They
recognise the right to cultural self-determination of Tamils but nothing
more. And for that also, Tamils have to wait for the arrival of
socialism. I believe this policy is wrong. To be honest with working
people they should be told the truth that Tamils should have the right
to determine their own socio-political destiny.

Q. 8. The last time Indian assistance was sought in the North the JVP
reacted in what is widely seen as an anti-Tamil campaign in the South.
Has the JVP changed 13 years later?

My answer would be a 'no'. But I dispute the statement that the JVP was
anti-Tamil. I was in Sri Lanka at the time and the JVP took an
anti-Indian stand, which is understandable. The problem was that the JVP
did not recognise the right of self-determination of Tamil people in Sri
Lanka. They believed that the LTTE was a CIA supported organisation or a
RAW supported organisation or a MOSSAD supported organisation; for which
reason the LTTE was demanding a separate state for Tamils. Divide and
Rule is a policy of world imperialism and so the LTTE is an agent of
imperialism trying to divide Sri Lanka. Not only that. The JVP went back
on some of their internationalist policies. For example they withdrew
from supporting the East Timorese struggle; they withdrew supporting the
Eritrean struggle; These reversals were incorrect from my point of
view. When I was the general secretary of the JVP we supported all
progressive forces in the world in their struggle to achieve justice and
equality.

History has shown that the JVP is wrong in their policy change with
regard to right of self-determination. Eritrea and East Timor have
become independent nations. The CIA, RAW and MOSSAD have aligned
themselves against the LTTE. I do not advocate terrorism or separation
of the land of Sri Lanka. I condemn the terrorist acts committed by the
government forces, its vigilante and mercenary groups, and the LTTE. I
still believe that Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers and others as
equals can remain united in the land of Sri Lanka. Tit for Tat violence
does not work. What I say is that as human beings we should be able to
recognise the fact that it is the Tamil people who should decide whether
or not to live together with Sinhalese. Whether to stay together or to
separate is a democratic decision of the Tamil people in the North and
East of Sri Lanka and cannot be forcefully imposed upon them by any
others living outside that land area, whether it be at the gun point of
the government forces or that of the LTTE. The way things are unfolding
the Tamil people are running out of all options left for them other than
the separation; this is because the extreme groups continue to oppose
any sharing of power towards achieving equality and justice among
peoples of Sri Lanka.

I believe that the JVP should recognise this fact. However so far there
is no indication to that effect.
_________

#3.
May 13, 2000

REPORT ON STATE OF THE JOURNALISTS IN PAKISTAN, 2000

A Nationwide Survey

"It is a pity that Pakistani journalists are facing financial problems
that affect their ability to serve the country and its 130 million
people. They must break free from their own economic shackles before
they make any attempt to rid their countrymen of oppression, corruption
and injustice. They need to coordinate with one another before taking on
the forces of oppressors," says a new report on working conditions of
Pakistani journalists from the Journalists Resource Center (JRC), a
Lahore, Pakistan-based organization.

The survey report samples about 4,500 Pakistani journalists. It has been
prepared by Tahir Malik, who is a reporter with daily Nawa-i-Waqt,
Lahore. It reveals that all rural journalists (district correspondents),
except only three in whole of Pakistan, provide coverage to 70 percent
population of the country and work on a voluntary basis. About 66
percent journalists, covering the 30 percent urban population, work
without the umbrella of the Wage Award and proper salary structures.

In gender terms, about 94 percent of the urban journalists are men.
Compared to six percent of the urban women journalists, there are no
women district correspondents. Only 30 percent of the urban journalists
have taken part in a training course or seminar, against 72 percent of
the district correspondents. As many as 30 percent of the urban
journalists have a degree in journalism or mass communication, against
21 percent of the district correspondents.

Though all international journalistic standards emphasize that there can
be no press freedom if journalists exist in conditions of corruption,
poverty, or fear, only about 44 percent of the salaried journalists earn
between 5,000 and 8,000 rupees per month in Pakistan, while 15 percent
earn over 8,000 rupees. 22 percent of them have other sources of income
and 48 percent receive financial assistance from their family members.
As many as 58 percent of them have expressed their willingness to adopt
any other higher paying profession. The ratio for urban journalists who
own houses is 24 percent; 29 percent live in rented houses and 48
percent in their family homes. About 36 percent of the district
correspondents live in their own houses; 58 percent live in family
houses. It's still worse that about 33 percent of all the journalists
are in the profession for the sake of influence and making useful
contacts, while only 14 percent chose the profession for receiving a
monthly income. About 15 percent of the district correspondents receive
financial assistance from their family members.

The survey of Pakistani communicators still ironically reveals that only
3 percent of the urban journalists have facilities of E-Mail, that too
mostly on their own initiative rather than their employers.

Quoting prominent journalist and newspaper historian, Zameer Niazi, the
report further states: "When money becomes almighty, ethics also suffer.
With pain and sorrow I admit that most of our colleagues have been
corrupted."

The report recommends the government, newspaper owners and journalists
should sit together to form a new Wage Award which should be implemented
in letter and spirit. It calls for establishing a service structure
devised for both urban as well as rural journalists; mandatory
recruitment policy; integrating the government advertisements to the
effective implementation of the Wage Award; fixation of a reasonable
minimum salary limit; insurance of health; and sanctioning of soft-term
loans to journalists. It also states that the journalists should
organize themselves and form forums on a self-help basis to ensure
professional training and legal advisory service to newspersons.

These forums, the report adds, should also set up unemployment funds
from their own resources for the financial assistance of voluntary or
low-paid journalists. They should also work together and enforce a
universal code of ethics.

The survey report is the first of its kind quantifiable data on the
working conditions of journalists in Pakistan. It curtails 37 graphic
presentations of the data and also carries messages from prominent
journalists and representatives from the Lahore Press Club, Punjab Union
of Journalists (PUJ) and Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ).
It would be released on 13 May, 2000, tomorrow, that is a national
Press Freedom Day in Pakistan.

Hard Copy: Rs. 25+pp

=46OR MORE INFORMATION JOURNALISTS CAN CONTACT:
Hussain Sajjad, Program Coordinator, Journalists Resource Centre (JRC),
Suite 15, 5th Floor Davis Hytes, Sir Aga Khan Road, Lahore, Pakistan.
Telephone: 92-42-6306998 - Fax: 92-42-6369898 - E-Mail:
jrc@s...

Also visit the Journalists Resource Center Website tomorrow for contents
of the report at http://www.syberwurx.com/jrc

=3D=3D=3D

Report on State of Journalists in Pakistan, 2000

In continuation of its activities, JRC is holding a book launching
ceremony on the Press Freedom Day, May 13, 2000, in collaboration with
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) and Punjab Union of
Journalists (PUJ). The publication "Report on State of Journalists in
Pakistan, 2000" is an independent survey report, authored and compiled
by a young journalist, Tahir Malik, which provides empirical data on the
professional and social status of the media professionals.

Venue: Lahore Press Club, Lahore, Pakistan
Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000
Time: 11:00 a.m.

Kindly grace the occasion with your presence. Your encouragement would
definitely prompt more journalists and writers to contribute further to
media development.

Regards,

MOHAMMAD TANVEER
Executive Director
Journalists Resource Centre (JRC)
Suite 15, 5th Floor, Davis Hytes, Sir Aga Khan Road, Lahore, Pakistan
Phone: 92-42-6306998 - Fax: 92-42-6369898
E-Mail: jrc@s...
Internet: http://www.syberwurx.com/jrc
__________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH (SACW) is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996. Dispatch archive from 1998
can be accessed by joining the ACT list run by SACW.
To subscribe send a message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D