[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 23 Aug. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
23 August 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

#1. Brief Taste of Peace Leaves Kashmiris Wishing for More (Pamela Constabl=
e)
#2. Preparing for peace in Kashmir (Harish Khare)
#3. Now redeem the promise (Mushirul Hasan)
#4. Wanted: Indian statesman ( Ninan Koshy)
#5. Canada: India Wants To Censor Art Show It Says Attacks Policies: Curato=
r
#6. India: Insaf International Press Release / Memo to Indian President
_____________________

#1.

The Washington Post
Sunday, August 20, 2000; Page A16

BRIEF TASTE OF PEACE LEAVES KASHMIRIS WISHING FOR MORE

Abdul Ahad Bhat, 65, stands in a graveyard he built for his son and ten
other relatives killed for their participation in the Kashmiri Hizbul
Mujaheddin guerrillas. (Pamela Constable - The Washington Post)

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 20, 2000; Page A16

LAR, India =96=96 For two brief weeks this summer, a miraculous change came
over tense and war-weary Kashmir.

Families strolled along rural roads after dark. Police joked with
civilians. Hunted men emerged from the forest. Villages slept soundly until
sunrise. In one town, army troops and rebel fighters put down their rifles
and played cricket.

"For a little while, the shadow of fear fell away from our hearts and
people were happy," said Abdul Gaffar Bhat, 40, a government worker in this
lush, rice-growing area of central Kashmir. "The long strife has affected
every facet of our lives, and suddenly there was a chance to be normal. It
meant everything to the common man."

On July 24, after 11 years of fighting, the largest separatist guerrilla
group in Kashmir, Hizb ul-Mujaheddin, declared a unilateral truce. India's
government responded quickly, ordering a cease-fire among police and troops
and sending officials to hold talks with Hizb ul-Mujaheddin commanders.

Fifteen days later, the truce collapsed under pressure from hard-liners in
both India and Pakistan, which backs Hizb ul-Mujaheddin, known here as
Hizbul. But the Kashmiris' joyful celebration of their moment of calm has
made it clear to India, Pakistan and political leaders in Kashmir that
there is a popular constituency for peace.

Hizb ul-Mujaheddin spokesmen in Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital, said
last week they want to make a new attempt at a truce-and-talks proposal,
even though their Pakistan-based leaders have rejected that idea. It was
Hizb ul-Mujaheddin officials in Pakistan who undermined the first truce by
insisting that Pakistan be included in three-way negotiations with the
guerrillas and India.

"We need to launch a peace offensive. The talks have been delayed but not
derailed," said Fazal Haq Qureshi, a veteran politician who was Hizb
ul-Mujaheddin's chief negotiator during the cease-fire. "We still want
tripartite talks that include Pakistan, but if India agrees in principle
that Pakistan will be involved in the final resolution, we won't hesitate a
second to come forward with a comprehensive cease-fire."

Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has said he is open to any
initiative that might lead to peace, but he faces enormous pressure from
right-wing Hindu groups to rebuff further overtures and crack down harder
than ever on the Muslim guerrillas. The rebels have been fighting Indian
forces in Kashmir since 1989 with the support of Pakistan. Both countries
claim the disputed border region in the Himalayas, and they have fought two
wars over it.

"The prime minister cannot afford to talk to Pakistan if he wants to keep
his chair," Farooq Abdullah, chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir State,
said in an interview. Hizb ul-Mujaheddin "must give up the idea of
tripartite talks or India will never agree." He said the cease-fire was "a
good idea," but that it ended too soon to know "what Hizbul really had in
their bag. . . . It all looked rather childish to me."

In Kashmir, the failed truce has led to a barrage of recriminations among
government officials, separatist political groups and guerrilla leaders. A
bitter dispute has emerged between Hizb ul-Mujaheddin and the All Parties
Hurriyet Conference, an umbrella group of separatist parties that greeted
the cease-fire with suspicion as a possible Indian plot. However, on
Friday, the Hurriyet Conference suddenly announced its own negotiation
proposal, apparently trying to climb on the cease-fire bandwagon.

Also, signs suggest a split between Hizb ul-Mujaheddin and two other
insurgent groups, Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Muhammad. Unlike Hizb
ul-Mujaheddin, these groups are offshoots of Islamic fundamentalist
organizations in Pakistan that believe in waging a "holy war" against
India. They opposed the cease-fire, interpreting it as a sign of weakened
will, and launched a series of attacks after it was declared.

Hizb ul-Mujaheddin is larger, older and more locally based, and it has
between 700 and 1,500 fighters in the field, most of them Kashmiris. Since
1989, thousands of Kashmiri families have lost sons to its armed crusade
for political independence. Now, it has won renewed public popularity with
its bold gesture for peace.

"Hizbul's people have sacrificed a lot, but they were starting to lose
their image as freedom fighters" because of the increasing Islamic and
"foreign" image of their fellow insurgents, said Tahir Mohideen, who edits
a weekly Srinagar newspaper in Urdu, a language most Muslim Kashmiris
speak. "Today, the people are craving for peace" and Hizbul has regained
"tremendous popular support," he said. "If local elections were held today,
Hizbul would win them hands down."

In the towns and villages of the Kashmir Valley last week--including Hizb
ul-Mujaheddin strongholds crawling with freshly deployed government
troops--dozens of people described the recent cease-fire as if recalling a
brief, glowing dream. They told of soldiers passing by without searching a
single car or questioning a single young man. They spoke of staying out at
night like adolescents freed from a parental curfew. Most of all, they
spoke of what they had not felt for the first time in years: fear.

"The sense of psychosis was gone, and everyone sighed with relief," said
Abdul Aijaz Ahmed, 22, a shopkeeper in the town of Ganderbal, 20 miles
north of Srinagar. "The security forces changed their behavior. They, too,
were happy."

A police officer in the town said the truce enabled his men to concentrate
on their "real mission, serving the public and going after crime." Sabzar
Ahmed, a 20-year-old counterinsurgency policeman carrying a rifle and
poking into alleys for suspicious objects, broke into an eager grin when
asked how he had felt during the cease-fire. "Everything was 100 percent
different," he said. "We were told not to open fire on anyone unless we
were attacked, and we were happy. We want this gun culture to end in
Kashmir," he added. "However a solution is reached, it is the very best
thing that could happen."

In Lar, a nearby village where many families have contributed and lost
their young men to Hizb ul-Mujaheddin's violent crusade, residents said
they felt relieved to be free of military harassment, but insisted their
sacrifices have been too great to welcome any peace initiative that makes
too many concessions to India.

Abdul Ahad Bhat, a Muslim in his sixties who grows apples and pears, said
his son and 10 cousins and nephews had joined Hizb ul-Mujaheddin since 1989
and been killed. Bhat has buried them in a small graveyard he cleared among
his fruit trees, where he prays every day.

"There is my son, Farooq, there is Abdul Majid, there is Tariq Iqbal," he
said, pointing to stones in the weedy plot, engraved with the dates and
locations of their deaths. "During the cease-fire the army came to me and
asked if I needed any jobs for my sons," Bhat said. "I am proud of those
who were martyred. Their blood was shed for a dream, and I cannot accept
any peace unless that dream succeeds."

His wife, Jana, said she had felt "some relief" during the truce, but not
enough to lessen the pain of so many deaths. "We still have something
blazing inside, a wound that does not heal," she said. "Let there be a
solution, but it must be one that gives some value to my tears."

=A9 2000 The Washington Post Company

______

#2.

The Hindu
23 August 2000
Op-Ed.

PREPARING FOR PEACE IN KASHMIR

By Harish Khare

ABOUT THREE years ago the nephew of a member of Parliament was kidnapped
in north Bihar. The Hon'ble parliamentarian received a call in Delhi
from the distraught family members back home in Patna; the message was:
``please, do something; get our boy back''. After advising his family
members to keep their cool, the MP got in touch with a senior political
functionary, who was known to be the turf leader of north Bihar in the
matters of kidnapping. He remonstrated - in vain - with the turf leader
asking how such a depredation could be visited upon a fellow- member of
the political class; the only concession that could be made in this case
was a discount on the ransom price.

The point of the story? The extraordinary clarity of the victim and the
perpetrator about the rules and the etiquette in a conflict situation. A
similar clarity has allowed the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
to set in motion a process of negotiation in the matter of the
kidnapping of the matinee idol, Mr. Rajkumar, by the sandalwood
smuggler, Veerappan. What is more, neither State Government has allowed
the righteousness of lawful authority to come in the way of dealing with
an outlaw on terms of equality. The elaborate negotiations, through the
mechanism of an authorised emissary, to secure the release of Mr.
Rajkumar are an instance of the kind of skills and attitudes that need
to be brought into play in any conflict situation.

Contrast this with the aborted dialogue between the Centre and the
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. Neither of the protagonists had any experience of
the art of shaking hands, leave alone carrying on a dialogue. It is
possible to suggest that there was shoddy ground- work before the much-
publicised meeting of August 3 between the Union Home Secretary, Mr.
Kamal Pande, and the Hizb ``commanders''. There was a definite lack of
communication between the two sides on such basic matters as the time;
the team from Delhi was waiting from 10 a.m. at the official guest-house
in Srinagar, while the ``commanders'' showed up only after 1.30 p.m. Nor
was there any agreement whether the ``meeting'' was to be publicised or
not; no one sure whose decision it was to allow the cameras in the
conference room, constraining the ``commanders'' to put on improvised
masks.

The litany of mis-steps is long and depressing. But there is only one
over-riding lesson: when an opportunity for peace presented itself, no
one was prepared with the mechanism of talking and securing peace. For
more than a decade now, we in India (as also in Pakistan, and Jammu and
Kashmir) have been so overwhelmed with the rhetoric of discontent, the
discourse of conflict, and the instrumentalities of violence that no one
seems to have devoted any thought, what to talk of resources, for the
day when peace could break out.

This unpreparedness for peace is not surprising. After all there is a
surfeit of conflict-managers, strategists, generals and colonels,
self-styled mujahideen, autonomy-seekers, azadi- wallahs, human rights
``workers'', and other amiable busy-bodies who have become comfortably
familiar with violence, guns, deaths, hartals, massacres, IEDs, etc. In
India, Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir - as also in distant capitals -
careers and fortunes have been made out of the decade-long bloodshed. A
gargantuan ``killing'' industry has flourished. It is entirely natural
that these forces and habits should be so inimical to the chemistry of a
peace process.

Yet, it is absolutely imperative that the task of acquiring the tools
and agents of peace-making is addressed. Honourable ``peace'',
``agreements'' or ``accords'' cannot be arrived at surreptitiously; the
so- called ``agencies'' can only facilitate the beginning of a dialogue,
but any lasting solution has to be anchored in the popular urges of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir. Nonetheless, the very idea of dialogue is
incomprehensible, even if desirable, to all those myriad groups and
individuals who over the years have taken recourse only to the idiom of
the gun. Consequently, the balance of initiatives remains tilted in
favour of the conflict-maker, rather than the peace-seeker. All the more
the reason that professional attention and organisational resources are
directed at the mechanics of seeing a dialogue through. The art is to
move events carefully and shape them towards achievable and desirable
goals; it means ensuring, for example, that the lines of communications
remains open, that the peace process does not get derailed by
perpetrators of tendentious violence/event/massacre, or by even that
eager-beaver journalist out to ``break the story'' or by an ill-informed
Opposition party.

In other words, there has to be a recognition that an altogether
different set of skills and attitudes are required for securing peace,
especially when the commitment to dialogue is obviously unequal. The
plea is not to hand over the shop to a bunch of pacifists or disciplined
practitioners of non-violence; the Kashmiris have discovered to their
cost that the Indian state has the requisite coercive capacity to take
care of all those who wish to challenge its might. If anything, by now,
the average Kashmiri must be reasonably disabused of the notion that
Pakistan has the inclination or the means to intervene militarily on
behalf of the ``freedom-fighters.'' Peace cannot be brought about - nor
has it ever been - by turning the other cheek.

Rather, the argument is that if India wants to build on the popular urge
in Jammu and Kashmir to escape the interminable bloodshed, then we too
have to make an effort to learn the art of speaking the language of
reconciliation and forgiveness through credible emissaries and
facilitators. The culture of militarism has seeped in so deeply in our
dominant thought process that others find it a bit hard to accept at
face value our protestations of honourable intentions. We have grown so
comfortable with a spurious notion of deshbhakti that we have convinced
ourselves that our ``peaceful'' intentions should be obvious to one and
all involved in the Kashmir dispute.

The onus nonetheless is on us to find the credible arguments and
advocates who can convey to the groups in the Kashmir Valley and to the
elites in Pakistan the sincerity of our quest for peace, and, what is
more, to convey that this quest is not something being shoved down our
diplomatic throat by Washington. We have to send a convincing message
that the Rashtriya Rifles hotheads do not exercise a veto over the peace
process.

It would be unrealistic to assume that ``peace'' can be secured
overnight in a conflict-zone that has wallowed in violence for over a
decade. The dialogue, since aborted, with the Hizb was a conceptual
breakthrough, and it is a challenge to our collective political
imagination to sustain the ``peace is possible'' idea. Here perhaps the
Vajpayee Government needs to watch against both the antediluvian and the
modern voices in its own Sangh Parivar backyard which have all these
years developed a fashionable contempt for the idea of compromise and
reconciliation as a liberals' hobby-horse. The basic task before the
Vajpayee administration is to neither reward the most intransigent
elements nor to penalise moderation - at home, in the Kashmir Valley, or
even in Pakistan.

Above all, the quest for peace in Kashmir has to be a moral enterprise.
The overwhelming reality is that the gun has failed, though it keeps
sputtering. The geo-strategists and conflict- tacticians are suffering
from intellectual fatigue. If the morally defensible proposition is that
``peace'' is in the self- interest of all - India, Pakistan, and the
Kashmiris - then we have to take the initiative to move away from the
entrapments of militarism and to start developing a constituency for
peace.

______

#3.

Indian Express
23 August 2000
Op-Ed.

NOW REDEEM THE PROMISE

by Mushirul Hasan

As I settled down in the early hours of the morning to watch the Prime
Minister perform from the ramparts of the Red Fort, I began reflecting
on that momentous day when India awakened to life and freedom. Never
mind, I said to myself, whether the mission of scores of freedom
fighters was fulfilled or not at the stroke of the midnight hour. The
important thing was the lowering of the Union Jack; the redeeming
feature was that it wasn't to flutter again at the Red Fort, where it
was hoisted in 1857, or anywhere else in the country. Now, it was the
turn of the tricolour flag to be raised high into the sky. The jhanda,
declared India's Prime Minister on August 16, symbolised freedom and
democracy not only for India but also for the world at large.

The Red Fort had been the site of the INA trials in 1945. Scores of
legal luminaries walked in and out of its Rumi Darwaza to defend the
freedom fighters. They included Tej Bahadur Sapru, Bhulabhai Desai, K.N.
Katju, Asaf Ali, Bakshi Tek Chand and, last but not least, Jawaharlal
Nehru, who made his final appearance as an advocate. Now, on August 16,
the curtain was drawn on this phase of India's history.

The crowds surged towards the Fort to win back what was theirs, to
celebrate, once and for all, the dawn of a new era. They burst into
excited cheers as they heard a voice choked with emotion. Young boys and
girls in their school uniform chanted in unison: "Chacha Nehru
Zindabad"! "Chacha Nehru Zindabad". The sounds of crackers were heard as
far as Okhla, where a similar ceremony was underway at the Jamia Millia
Islamia School. The faces of students and teachers lit up when their
Vice-Chancellor, Zakir Husain, held out the prospect of a brighter
future for the poverty-stricken institution.

As one watched Atal Bihari Vajpayee being escorted to the podium, I was
reminded of how the flag, the anthem and the national emblem are the
three symbols through which an independent country proclaims its
identity and sovereignty, and as such they command instantaneous respect
and loyalty. The petroleum minister, who first made an indiscreet remark
on the ceremony before tendering his unqualified apology, should have
known that the three symbols reflect the entire background, thought, and
culture of a nation. Nehru had reflected in The Discovery of India that
some kind of dream of unity had occupied the mind of India since the
dawn of civilization. At that moment -- a moment that comes but rarely
in history -- liberation from colonial rule was the first tangible step
towards the realisation of that dream.

Any momentous occasion, whether it is the Republic Day Parade or the
celebration of Independence, must prompt people to think about who they
want to be, what values they want to actualise, what their legacy will
be. This has been the message of our thoughtful and energetic President
K.R. Narayanan. No wonder, on the eve of the Golden Jubilee of the
Republic, he called for an ``honest self-analysis and self-questioning
about where we, as a people and a society, are headed?'' Drawing
attention to the sullen resentment among the masses against their
condition, he cautioned that these voices of resentment should not go
unheard. ``The unabashed, vulgar indulgence in conspicuous consumption
by the nouveau riche has left the underclass seething in frustration...
Our three-way fast lane of liberalisation, privatisation and
globalisation must provide safe pedestrian crossings for the unempowered
India also.'' The President talked of the raw deal given to women --
"our greatest national shame" -- and the indifferencetowards the Dalits.
Last fortnight, the President spoke yet again of the "dark clouds of
prejudice and callous unconcern" over the problem of rape and atrocities
against women and suggested rewriting of laws which would deter such
crimes. In a tone that bears the imprint of his strong personality, the
President observed that democratically elected governments should assert
their authority over the daredevil heroes of crime and banditry. One
wonders if the chief ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are
listening! I suspect not. Vajpayee's first speech in this millennium (as
Prime Minister) from the nation's most hallowed pulpit can be
interpreted as his personal manifesto for the forthcoming talks with the
American establishment. If so, his statesman-like tone would have sent
out signals of moderation and reasonableness abroad. While the PM may
have enhanced his personal stature and bolstered his liberal image in
Washington, the Sangh Parivar, already feeling rudderless and
demoralised by the decliningfortunes of the BJP in UP, would be fuming
and fretting over his references to India's liberal culture, his plea
for religious tolerance, and his criticism of creating "imaginary
enemies." Besides, the parivar's grandiose plans of building a Ram
temple in Ayodhya may well have been grounded after the PM's
observations. This calls for celebration.

Yes Mr. Prime Minister, borders cannot be redrawn either in the name of
religion or on the strength of the sword. Your criticism of the
two-nation theory is also well taken. I am sure you have heard of Saadat
Hasan Manto who eloquently and poignantly captured these themes in his
story "Toba Tek Singh." But please convey your strong sentiments to the
American establishment as well. Let them know that the state of Israel
must choose the path of compromise and accommodation and not ride
roughshod over the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. Let
the American President, who brokered the Camp David summit, know that
our philosophy militates against coercion and the misuse of religion to
serve territorial ambitions. This, Mr. Prime Minister, will vindicate
our own stand on Kashmir.You are right in underlining the need for
reconciliation: healing the wounds by the larger canons of "insaniyat"
(humanity) is a noble thought.

But, Sir, consider translating this idea into practice. I venture to
suggest, first of all, that pigheadedness and a false national pride
should not stand in the way of engaging Pakistan on the Kashmir
imbroglio. If reconciliation is the hallmark of your strategy, why not
talk to our chief adversary and expose the hollowness of its stand on
Kashmir? Second, the beleaguered people of Kashmir expect tangible
material prosperity and not empty promises. Militancy is, in large part,
the consequence of underdevelopment and thrives on exploiting popular
discontent. You cannot, therefore, create a haven of peace unless you
remove the causes of disaffection in the wounded valley. The ball is in
your court at 7, Race Course Road. Let us know what you think when you
return to the Red Fort next year.

Copyright =A9 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

______

#4.

Asia Times
August 23, 2000=20

Wanted: Indian statesman

By Ninan Koshy*

An opportunity for peace in Kashmir was lost in the first week of August
when a cease-fire offer by the Kashmiri militant group Hizbul Mujahideen
was revoked. The Indian government had initially accepted the offer and
one round of talks to determine the path to peace had already been held.
India has blamed Pakistan for the collapse of talks. But the true reason
for their collapse lies in New Delhi not Islamabad or in the hearts of
the Islamic rebels in Kashmir.

The difference between a statesman and a politician is that the former
seizes opportunities of peace and builds on them to make lasting peace,
whereas the latter takes them just to make some immediate gains. At the
end of July when Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee agreed to
talks on the basis of "humanity", he appeared to rise to the stature of
a statesman. But within four days, he was speaking like any other
politician demanding that the Indian constitution be used as a framework
for peace talks.

The Kashmir problem is today above all a problem of human values or
rather a loss of them. The tragedy of Kashmir is little known outside.
What is still in circulation are picture post cards of the tourist
paradise. In the last eleven years more than 70,000 people have been
killed in the "Internal War". There are more than 15,000 war widows and
thousands of orphans. While some 30,000 persons are in detention, mostly
illegally, there are a few thousand who have 'disappeared'. The whole
social fabric of Kashmir has been rent apart.

Even a casual visitor to Kashmir will soon find that there is not a
civilian government worth its name functioning there. The whole place
looks like being under an occupying army. There is probably not a single
family in the Kashmir Valley which does not have a wound or a scar from
the war. Judicial orders are ignored with impunity by the security
forces, who are covered by the Armed Forces Special Act and other
similar laws.

It was in response to this environment that in the 1980s a section of
Kashmiri youth began a movement for democratic rights and social
justice. It received widespread support. The movement was suppressed
ruthlessly by India security forces. In its place came several militant
movements. The Islamic identity of the Kashmiris, the latent anti-Muslim
bias of the Indian establishment and Pakistan's machinations gave a
religious and communal orientation to the movements. Thus the struggle
that began as a secular democratic movement for self-determination came
by a combination of factors to be characterized as a "religious war". If
the Sufi Islam of Kashmir, which evolved in the Valley over centuries
with some of the finest traditions of culture and human values, was made
to appear with the face of a militant Islam, the full responsibility for
this should be shared between India and Pakistan.

The competitive and militarized nationalisms on either side of the line
of control gave international dimensions to the Kashmiris' struggle for
self-determination. In Pakistan the religious right took the Kashmir
issue "to liberate Muslim brothers and sisters from foreign occupation".
In India an obsession with territorial integrity made Kashmir a security
problem. It should be recalled that both in India and in Pakistan the
last decade was a period of heightened religious nationalism.
The recent cease-fire offer was revoked because of the government of
India's insistence that the talks will be held only within the framework
of the Indian constitution. A government which is a prisoner of the
constitution will not be able to solve the Kashmir problem, so wrote
Kuldip Nayar, a highly respected journalist and Indian member of
parliament. The government is talking about the sanctity of the
constitution which has been amended eighty times and is now under review
by a commission appointed by the government with no authorization from
parliament.

The Indian leadership pretends to be unaware of recent trends around the
world, of re-fashioning, re-working or even working around constitutions
to accommodate minority rights, fundamental freedoms and to recognize
nationalist and ethnic identities and for devolution of power. It was
found possible to reconcile the demands for the devolution of power to
Scotland and Wales with British constitutional principles. The Israeli
government which has always maintained that Jerusalem is its eternal
capital and the matter is "non-negotiable" is now willing to share the
sovereignty of East Jerusalem with the Palestinians. The government of
India should realize that there can be several practical proposals
envisaged around the constitution to deal with the Kashmir problem. Its
unwillingness to explore them, as was shown when it rejected the
autonomy demand of the Kashmir legislature, only prolongs the agony of
the Kashmiri people.

India has refusal to include Pakistan in the talks also led to the
cease-fire's collapse. It insists that dialogue can be resumed provided
Pakistan restores "mutual trust and confidence through concrete and
tangible action including cessation of cross-border terrorism in Jammu
and Kashmir and hostile propaganda against India". Occasionally
arguments are also heard about the need for a tough positioning against
the military regime in Islamabad. This may come as a joke to Kashmiris
who have known only military rule for the past eleven years. The
contentious matters should themselves be part of the agenda for talks,
rather than be presented as preconditions. One thing is clear: there can
be no settlement of the Kashmir issue without the participation of
Pakistan in negotiations.

There could be several modalities for such participation. It may be true
that tripartite talks - India, Kashmiri groups and Pakistan - may be
premature. But there can be parallel talks and simultaneous talks, even
in a third country. It appears India's Ministry of External Affairs has
lost its primers on negotiations and mediations. During the period of
the cease-fire was it not possible to communicate to Pakistan on a
confidential basis that it could be included in the talks at a later
stage? It is strange that diplomacy on such sensitive matters is carried
on through public debate only.

India has always maintained that it does not need any third party
mediation. In New Delhi's lexicon mediation means intervention. But it
does not want to admit that it has already opened several windows for
intervention by the United States on the Kashmir issue. The first window
was opened by the nuclear explosions that India conducted in May 1998.
With Pakistan following suit, the United States found there was an open
invitation for intervention. With the Kargil conflict another window for
intervention was given to the United States. While India recently
celebrated recently the anniversary of the 'Kargil victory', it was
conveniently forgotten that it was under pressure from the United States
that Pakistan withdrew its forces to the line of control.
The recent developments including the cease-fire offer by Hizbul
Mujahideen follow a flurry of diplomatic activities beginning with
President Clinton's visit to the region. It may be worth recalling that
the Oslo Peace Accords were negotiated secretly between Israel and the
Palestinians, with the mediation of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry,
while the Madrid peace process initiated by the United States and Russia
was officially still going on. There may be a small nation or a great
personality that can mediate or at least keep the channels of
communication, always open, between India and Pakistan. India should not
rule out such a possibility.

Watching the Korean summit and its follow-up was a thrilling spectacle,
as the leaders of the divided parts of Korea seized an opportunity for
peace placing human values above politics. The World Council of Churches
was the first international organization which fostered people to people
contacts between North and South Koreas. It took the bold initiative in
the mid-eighties, after making contacts with several governments
including those in the North and the South, emphasizing the human issues
involved.

The Indian government should recognize that the Kashmir issue is now
primarily that of avoiding further destruction of human values. It
should make it clear that it is ready and willing to enter into talks
with all shades of opinion in Kashmir and with Pakistan without
pre-conditions. It should seize the next opportunity for peace and hold
on to it. Otherwise the situation can become very dangerous, especially
in the context of the looming nuclear arms race in the sub-continent.

*Ninan Koshy is a former Director, International Affairs, World Council
of Churches, and Visiting Fellow, Harvard Law School.

______

#5.

[Forwarded by Ram Rehman]

Author: Christian Clark
Date: 8/22/00 10:23 AM

INDIA WANTS TO CENSOR ART SHOW IT SAYS ATTACKS POLICIES: CURATOR

By Sharlene Azam
Toronto Star Staff Reporter
The Indian government wants to shut down an art exhibit in Toronto because =
it
says it is ``a vicious attack'' on its policies.
Curators of the exhibit titled Dust On The Road, on display until Sept. 4, =
at
Harbourfront's York Quay Gallery, say the Indian High Commission's interfer=
ence
is a serious attack against freedom of expression in another country - Cana=
da.
Many of the works in the exhibition by both Canadian and Indian artists are
openly political, the curators acknowledge. These include paintings,
posters and
photographs depicting the rising tide of religious fundamentalism in India.
``The High Commissioner wants to censor the exhibit because it is work by
artists who are in support of secularism, social justice and human rights,'=
'
says curator Jamelie Hassan.
The exhibit was to tour major centres across the country after its Toronto
showing, but that is now in doubt.
Funding for the exhibition was provided by the Shastri Indo-Canadian Instit=
ute,
a bilateral research institution supported both by the Indian government an=
d
Canadian government agencies.
Although the institute has not withdrawn its funding, it asked that its nam=
e be
removed from any association with the exhibit. In protest, the organizers h=
ave
returned the institute's $5,000 contribution.
Shastri executive director Lavinia Mohr acknowledges she was pressured by t=
he
Indian government.
``We took this action because we're in the process of reviewing our
agreement of
understanding with the Indian Government and that will determine our
funding for
the next five years,'' she said.
The Shastri institute receives $400,000 in core funding from the Indian
government and more than $1 million dollars in project funding from the Can=
dian
International Development Agency (CIDA), the Department of Foreign Affairs =
and
International Trade, and also from member donations.
Officials at CIDA and at foreign affairs could not be reached for comment.
Indian High Commissioner, Rajnikant Verma, would not agree to an interview.

______

#6.

Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:21:35 +0530
>From Dr. Vanita Gupta (Insaf International)

INSAAF International
A Demand For Justice

Press Release
Bhatinda 22.8.00

Today participation of thousands of people from all walks of life, caste,
creeds and religions in 'Sadbhavana March and Rally' organized by Insaaf
International is a clear message to the fundamentalist and fascist elements
in the country that they will not succeed in their nefarious designs to
divide and victimize minorities in India. There is an urgent need to
mobilize and organize hundreds and thousands of people for similar protests
to exhibit firm determination to fight against forces of disintegration,
disunity, and fascist elements. For a couple of years such anti people
forces are bent upon eliminating people belonging to religious minorities
through violent methods.

In 1996 there were seven cases of anti-Christian violence, 24 in 1997 and
120 in 1998. In last six months the number of attacks on Christian
institutions and individuals is alarming. There have been several acts of
burning of religious literature, attacks on missionary institutions,
priests and nuns. Four bomb blasts targeting churches took place in various
parts of the country in a day. These are certainly not `isolated criminal
incidents' as the government has tried to project, but a thought out plan
against the minority community.

Insaaf International feels that the majority of the political parties have
ignored the interests of the minorities, violation of the constitutional
rights and to counter the threat to the unity and integrity of the Nation,
probably due to the fear of loosing their vote banks in the majority
community. Except issuing political statements at random to this end, no
effective measures have been taken by them at National level. At this time
of crisis it was the duty of those well established political and social
organizations which owe their allegiance to secularism, democracy, national
integration and non- violence to take the lead in mobilizing the people of
country to face the challenge of nefarious elements. Today Insaaf
International, a young organisation with its limited resources has made a
good start towards this aim.

Insaaf International strongly protests against the total failure of the
central and state governments in taking effective administrative steps to
curb the violence against minorities for political considerations. Instead
the government has adopted misleading methods and policies to cover-up the
communal violence as law and order problem.

It is a matter of National shame that cold-blooded murderers of the two
innocent children and their father Mr. Graham Steins are being promoted as
heroes. The guilty of this ghastly crime were welcomed profusely not only
by the leaders of some allies of the ruling party but also by the
ministers. Insaaf International expresses apprehension that the time is not
far off when one of

those murders will join already increasing number of their likes in
legislative bodies in our country.

The anti-social elements committing rapes of women including nuns,
missionary women, kill children, burn places of religious worship and
literature can never be true religious people as no religion teaches
violence, hatred and path of crime.

We appeal to all social, religious, secular, democratic and political
organizations to rise up to the occasion and defeat the sinister designs of
some fundamentalist and fascist groups to destabilize the nation on the
basis of caste creed and religion. At this time of crisis we all should
forget our petty differences and come together cutting across the religious
and political alliances to save our country from these traitorous elements.

We demand form the government to shed its political narrow interests and
fulfil their duties towards nation and people, which are entrusted, to them
by the constitution. The stringent punishments be given to anyone indulging
in violence against minorities and put an end to this religious Apartheid
in the country.

We have submitted a memorandum to President of India with copies to Prime
Minister and Home Minister through Deputy Commissioner Bhatinda, Punjab.
The memorandum is endorsed by many National, International organizations
and prominent persons including from Haiti, England, USA, Sweden, Saudi
Arabia, France, Netherlands, Pakistan, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic,
Malta, Switzerland, Hong Kong and South Africa.

-----

INSAAF International
A Demand For Justice

Memorandum:
Presented to the President of India on 22.8.2000 through Deputy
Commissioner, Bhatinda, Punjab, India
Copy to: -
Sh. A.B.Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India
Sh. L.K.Advani, Home Minister of India

Honorable Sh. K. R Narayanan
President of India
New Delhi

Sir,

Integrity, secularity and unity of India never faced a greater threat than
it does today. It is a very dangerous and critical situation.

India is a secular country. For centuries different communities and
religions have co existed in harmony. It gave all religions the fundamental
right of freedom to profess, practice and propagate their faith without
resorting to violence against each other. Today this fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected by the Rule of Law, stands
systematically violated. The concept of secularism is one facet of the
right to equality woven as the central thread in the fabric depicting the
pattern of the scheme in our constitution. Now a serious challenge to the
existence of this fabric has been created by a handful of fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist violence has acquired sharp and worrying dimensions. It
poses a serious threat to harmony, integration and secularity of our
country, which have been strong pillars of its strength and unity.

Beginning from Babri Masjid demolition to present escalation of violence
against Christians, cold-blooded murders and bomb blasts in places of
religion, the minorities are facing a serious threat to their peaceful
living and freedom to religion from fundamentalist forces

On this day, 15.7.00 we condemn all violence on the name of religion. We
appeal to your Excellency to take such immediate steps as to curb the
sinister activities and plans of fascist elements. Stringent punishment be
given to those responsible for murder and terror on the name of religion
and holy war, propagating hate among different communities and committing
atrocities on minorities. Government must act now. It must check those who
seek to divide communities and threaten to wage war on minorities.

Long live secular India

Dr. Vineeta Gupta
General Secretary, Insaaf International=0BPhone 91-164-215400, Fax
91-164-214500 Website: http://www.geocities.com/insaafin

______________________________
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)
since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be accessed
by joining the ACT list run by SACW. To subscribe send
a blank message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=
IIIII
[Disclaimer : Opinions carried in the dispatches
are not representative of views of SACW compilers]