[sacw] SACW #2. (06 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
06 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. Afghanistan: Poor Rights Record of Opposition Commanders (Human=20
Rights Watch)
#2. India: Eyes Wide Shut (Abheek Barman)
#3. India: Much more than air guns (A.G. Noorani)
#4. India: Court Ruling on Foreign Scholars' Participation in=20
Seminars (A.G. Noorani)
#5. India: Report of Rashtriya [National] Secular Munch [Front] (Ram=20
Puniyani & Mazher Hussain)
#6. India: Violence against Christians continues - Method in the Sangh Madn=
ess

________________________

#1.

Afghanistan: Poor Rights Record of Opposition Commanders

(New York, October 6, 2001) - A number of commanders associated with the
emerging coalition of opposition forces in Afghanistan have a record of
serious human rights abuse, Human Rights Watch said in a
backgrounder released today.

"The U.S. and its allies should not cooperate with commanders whose
record of brutality raises questions about their legitimacy inside
Afghanistan," said Sidney Jones, executive director of the Asia division
of Human Rights Watch. "Any country that gives assistance to the Afghan
opposition must take responsibility for how this assistance is used."

Human Rights Watch urged in particular that no cooperation be
extended to Abdul Rashid Dostum, the
head of the Junbish militia; Haji Muhammad Muhaqqiq, a senior commander
of Hizb-i Wahdat; Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, leader of the erstwhile Ittihad-i
Islami; and Abdul Malik Pahlawan, a former senior Junbish commander.

Abuses that were reported from an area controlled by a United Front
faction in late 1999 and early 2000 include summary executions, burning
of houses, and looting, principally targeting ethnic Pashtuns and others
suspected of supporting the Taliban. Children, including those under the
age of fifteen, have been recruited by both the United Front and
Taliban.

The various parties that comprise the United Front also amassed a
deplorable record of attacks on civilians between the fall of the
Najibullah regime in 1992 and the Taliban's capture of Kabul in 1996.

"Not a single Afghan commander has been held accountable for human
rights abuses," said Jones. "The time to break this cycle of impunity is
now, and the United States and its allies will have the leverage to do
it."

The backgrounder is available at
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm

For more information on Afghanistan, please see Afghanistan: Human
Rights Watch Key Documents (HRW Focus Page) at
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/index.htm

_______

#2.

The Times of India
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 05, 2001
LEADER ARTICLE

Eyes Wide Shut
ABHEEK BARMAN

MERICA, angry about September 11, will lash out by attacking=20
Afghanistan. It'll try to gouge the Taliban from power, winkle out=20
Osama bin Laden and put a more responsible regime in place.
If all three goals are accomplished, George W Bush will replace=20
Arnold Schwarzenegger as America's last action hero.
If the battles are spectacular, shares of AOL-Time Warner, which owns=20
CNN, will fly on the exchanges. But what's in it for us?
In New Delhi, the National Democratic Alliance, a coalition stumbling=20
from one crisis to another, has seized on America's tragedy as a=20
chance to score points.
Within 24 hours of the bombing of the World Trade Center, home=20
minister L K Advani told television channels that Pakistan and the=20
Taliban were responsible for the worst terrorist outrages.
Really? Indira Gandhi was shot by her Sikh bodyguards; Rajiv Gandhi=20
was blown to bits by a Tamil from Sri Lanka; and Mohandas Gandhi was=20
killed by a Hindu zealot.
Meanwhile, Jaswant Singh, who holds both the external affairs and=20
defence portfolios, announced that the government would provide=20
turnaround facilities for US military forces.
On September 18, for the first time in India's history, television=20
and camera crews were called into a cabinet meeting to photograph=20
ministers standing silently at attention to mourn those killed in=20
America.
Simultaneously, policemen stopped cars on New Delhi roads and told=20
stranded passengers to shut up. For perspective, remember that=20
India's cabinet did not grieve publicly after more than 10,000 people=20
were killed in Orissa last year, nor after the January 26 earthquake=20
in Gujarat that claimed about 25,000 victims. So, what gives?
For a few days, big players in India's government thought that the=20
attack on America could be turned into a domestic coup. The motives=20
of various players in the BJP, the largest member of the NDA,=20
converged from different directions.
People like Mr Advani -- a hardliner who led a campaign that led to=20
the demolition of a 500-year-old mosque in Uttar Pradesh in 1992,=20
followed by Hindu-Muslim riots and bomb blasts across India -- saw=20
the attack as a chance to turn global opinion against bete noire,=20
Pakistan.
For Jaswant Singh, fresh from botching up the Agra summit between=20
prime minister Vajpayee and Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf,=20
the attack looked like a chance to salvage his reputation, isolating=20
Pakistan and becoming the US' best buddy in South Asia.
Prime minister Vajpayee came on television, telling us very, very=20
slowly that he grieved for the dead in America and that terrorism was=20
bad. Indeed, it is. But does Mr Vajpayee come on television to mourn=20
victims of terror in India's troubled north-eastern states or Kashmir?
I've asked colleagues who watch more television than I do, but hey,=20
nobody remembers pradhan mantriji mourning desi victims of terrorism=20
on prime time.
The BJP's attempts to exploit America's tragedy and marginalise=20
Pakistan have failed. Pakistan's military dictator Pervez Musharraf=20
has wangled concessions and money out of the US to support a strike=20
against the Taliban. If the BJP looks thwarted, it's because it=20
doesn't know history.
History says that from 1980, the Reagan and Bush administrations=20
pumped in material, weapons and about $3 billion to build up the=20
mujahideen with help from Pakistan's Zia-ul Haq to counter the 1979=20
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Though the CIA lost interest from 1990, Pakistan remained a big=20
player in the civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviets=20
fled. Islamabad built up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to fight Uzbek warlord=20
Rashid Dostum and the ragtag army of Ahmed Shah Masood.
When Hekmatyar failed, Pakistan supported the brutish Taliban.=20
Pakistan pulls weight in Afghanistan. The US knows this and is=20
willing to buy Islamabad's support for its strike on Kabul.
India's problem is Kashmir, where a plebiscite promised since 1947 is=20
yet to take place. Political instability, large-scale popular=20
mistrust of the government and military rule have spawned terrorism,=20
turning this northern state into a tinderbox.
Kashmir is also India's only Muslim-majority state, making it the=20
bugbear of the RSS, parent of the ruling BJP. In 1947, Madhav=20
Sadashiv Golwalkar, a founder of the RSS wrote, non-Hindus may stay=20
in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming=20
nothing -- not even citizens' rights.
He admired the Nazis, who conducted a mass extermination of Germany's=20
Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. The RSS,=20
formed in 1925, is driven by the idea of ethnic purification.
These, then, are the disquieting roots of our domestic and foreign=20
policies today. None of this will help India evolve as a mature,=20
liberal democracy, integrated with global capital.
Unsurprisingly, the BJP's ideological kinks have kept India's best=20
minds from joining BJP-led governments. On a visit to Delhi sometime=20
ago, economist Jagdish Bhagwati of the University of Columbia, who=20
prophesied the end of desi socialism and championed economic reforms,=20
was appalled at the quality of economic talent the government trotted=20
out for his inspection. If these guys are economists, I'm a=20
Bharatnatyam dancer, he said.
Bhagwati is no dancer. And the BJP-led NDA can't lead India out of=20
crisis. The regime has failed to push reforms begun by the 1991=20
Congress government of Narasimha Rao. At more than 11 per cent of=20
gross domestic product, the deficit of New Delhi and the states is=20
out of control.
Financial markets have collapsed from poor regulation and lack of=20
reforms. India's largely state-owned financial institutions are=20
teetering at the edge of bankruptcy. Crucial sectors -- power, oil=20
and aviation -- are governed by rules that scare off investors.
Privatisation has failed. Earlier this month, Vajpayee conducted a=20
series of meetings with consultants, policymakers and industry=20
bosses, looking for ways to revive the economy.
Now he seems to have forgotten everything. But don't be surprised:=20
The same industry groups submitted reports with over 500 reform ideas=20
to Mr Vajpayee three years ago. Less than 20 of these ideas have been=20
implemented since then.
Finance minister Yashwant Sinha says that any crisis will be short=20
term; in the long run, we're safe. More than 60 years ago, economist=20
John Maynard Keynes said that the long run didn't really matter,=20
because by then we'd be dead.
People elect governments to look after short term well-being.=20
Frighteningly, India heads into a global crisis, led by a government=20
that has no clue about what to do.

_______

#3.

The Hindustan Times
Saturday, October 6, 2001=20=20

Much more than air guns
A.G. Noorani

If the entire opposition has condemned the government's ban on the=20
Students' Islamic Movement of India - a disapproval shared by Jammu=20
and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and Justice V. R. Krishna=20
Iyer - it is not because any of them is fond of SIMI's bigots. The=20
opposition objected on September 28 on two related grounds:

"The motive is clearly to polarise voters for the ensuing UP=20
elections" and "double standards". Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister=20
Digvijay Singh, who welcomed the ban, censured the Centre for sparing=20
the Bajrang Dal. If fomenting violence and spreading communal hatred=20
are valid grounds for banning SIMI, the Bajrang Dal's role too cannot=20
be overlooked.

Union Home Minister L.K. Advani said on September 23, four days=20
before the ban, that "it is a joke" to call the Bajrang Dal a=20
terrorist organisation. "Sometimes I wonder what this Bajrang Dal=20
camp is. Because when I ask people associated with it, they say they=20
train people in using air guns. If that is supposed to be a terrorist=20
organisation, it is a joke."

On January 25, 2001, in New Delhi, the Bajrang Dal's convener,=20
Surendra Jain, announced that it would recruit about 3 million youths=20
across the country to participate in the campaign for constructing a=20
Ram temple at Ayodhya. A million will be a band of militant cadres=20
armed with the trishul. Some 3 lakh will get "special training". He=20
added that the Dal was not at all worried that its plan to raise a=20
veritable army could lead to Muslim organisations doing the same. Let=20
them do it too, he exclaimed. The Dal was not afraid of a=20
confrontation.

The Bajrang Dal's leader, Vinay Katiyar, revealed its credo on=20
November 30, 1992. "The country is not run by court orders... The=20
judiciary has no authority to pass any orders regarding Ram mandir=8A=20
if there is any sangharsh we are ready for it=8A Kuch bigadne par hi=20
kuch banta hai (only when something is destroyed, is something born)."

The Bajrang Dal was in the forefront of the attack on the Babri=20
masjid on October 30, 1990, and its demolition on December 6, 1992;=20
as indeed were some leaders of the BJP and the VHP. It played a=20
central role in Advani's rath yatra in 1990. Professor Richard H.=20
Davis of Yale, who was in India then, recorded that "Bajrang Dal=20
activists were given initiation prior to participating in the=20
procession, during which they received a trident". At Ujjain, "they=20
presented Advani with weapons and they often welcomed him by applying=20
a ritual mark (tilak) of blood on his forehead."

Advani's partiality for the Dal is understandable, but not excusable.=20
Even as attacks on Christians began, he blithely said at Baroda on=20
August 2, 1998: "There is no law and order problem in Gujarat." He=20
was sharply contradicted on October 8, by Gujarat's DG of police C.P.=20
Singh: "One thing was clear in the pattern of incidents. It was the=20
activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal who were=20
taking the law into their own hands which posed a serious danger to=20
peace in Gujarat."

Eyewitnesses to the brutal killing of the Australian missionary,=20
Graham Stewart Staines, and his two young sons on January 22, 1999,=20
testified that the organised mob that did the gruesome deed shouted=20
the slogans "Bajrang Dal zindabad", "Bajrang bali ki jai" and "Dara=20
Singh zindabad".

Orissa's DG of police, B.B. Panda, told the press on January 24 that=20
over 50 people suspected to be activists of the Bajrang Dal and the=20
VHP were involved in the incident. He said this after arresting 49=20
people. Yet on January 25, Advani gave a clean chit to the Dal and=20
its allies: "I have known these organisations for a long time and=20
they do not have criminal elements." Four days later, a commission of=20
inquiry, headed by Justice D.P. Wadhwa, was set up to probe into the=20
murders.

There was widespread criticism of the Wadhwa report, which was=20
submitted on June 21, for its sweeping exoneration of the Bajrang=20
Dal. "There is no evidence that any authority or organisation was=20
behind the gruesome killings." It came to light, on June 27, that=20
there were other volumes besides annexures and record of evidence by=20
witnesses.

This writer has perused the volumes containing written submissions by=20
the counsel for the commission, Gopal Subramaniam. Justice Wadhwa's=20
report totally ignored the outstandingly able work of a highly=20
respected counsel. Subramaniam listed seven FIRs in which prime=20
suspect Dara Singh (now accused) was "reportedly linked to the=20
Bajrang Dal" and four others in which linkage with the BJP was=20
reported.

He fairly summed up the mass of evidence: "The enquiries reveal the=20
following: ... The Bajrang Dal is the youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu=20
Parishad. Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh is an=20
activist/supporter of the Bajrang Dal. However, there is no=20
documentary evidence to prove that he is a member or office-bearer of=20
Bajrang Dal... Dara Singh had campaigned for the BJP during the last=20
parliamentary elections in 1998... had also been seen in RSS=20
rallies... He held out himself as a Bajrang Dal activist... believed=20
in the strong propagation of Hindutva."

The counsel noted "the chain of events... and the probability of=20
evidence suggesting that he enjoyed such association". He recommended=20
"a further inquiry by the CBI into all aspects of the conspiracy. It=20
appears that even in order to rule out the involvement of any=20
organisation, it is appropriate that a thorough investigation is=20
undertaken by the CBI". Instead, Justice Wadhwa rushed to exonerate=20
the Bajrang Dal.

The VHP was set up by RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar in Mumbai on August=20
30, 1964. The VHP, in turn, set up the Bajrang Dal in May-June 1984,=20
soon after the VHP's call on April 9, 1984, for removal of the=20
mosques at Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura. The Dal was led by Vinay=20
Katiyar, organisational secretary of the RSS' student wing ABVP. Its=20
main purpose, he said, was "to implement the policies of the VHP".

It has acquired a formidable reputation. Professor Paul R. Brass=20
calls it "a fighting 'protection' squad for the other organisations,=20
a somewhat pathetic, but nevertheless dangerous version of the Nazi=20
SA". It has a special place wherever use of violence is required.=20
"Riot specialists are specialists in the conversion of incidents in=20
the relations between communities, in this case between Hindus and=20
Muslims, into occasions for riots. When the time is right for the=20
fomenting of a large-scale disturbance, then students, hooligans,=20
low-caste persons from slums and outlying areas, criminals, and=20
special squads of trained activists such as the members of the=20
Bajrang Dal will be brought in. They are a reserve army, a mixture of=20
lumpen elements and others."

Professor Yogendra K. Malik and V.B. Singh make a similar assessment=20
in their work Hindu Nationalists in India: The Rise of the Bharatiya=20
Janata Party; "Bajrang Dal, the VHP's youth wing, is its fighting=20
arm. Consisting of lumpen elements, it reflects the contemporary=20
political culture of India. In recent years, political parties and=20
politicians in India have become dependent upon muscle power.=20
Gangsters, criminals and hired hands are used frequently to achieve=20
political goals.

"Vandalism displayed by the Ram bhakts (devotees of Ram) and kar=20
sevaks (volunteers) in recent years are the BJP, RSS and VHP versions=20
of the vulgarisation of Indian politics. The Bajrang Dal, more than=20
any other group in India, is able to mobilise all these elements in=20
the cause promoted by the VHP." Quite a reputation for wielders of=20
air guns.

_____

#4.

Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay, India) | September 22, 2001=20

Foreign Scholars' Participation in Seminars:
Supreme Court's Non-Ruling

A.G. Noorani

It is clear that the human resources development minister, Murli=20
Manohar Joshi, is out not only to saffronise education, but=20
systematically undermine the autonomy of universities and create a=20
hostile climate against their interaction with foreign scholars. Last=20
year the UGC was used to send out a circular mentioning that the=20
ministry "is preparing a list of sensitive or strategic=20
organisations, departments and courses for regulating the=20
participation of foreign nationals from the security point of view".=20
It spoke of "screening from the ministry of home affairs or ministry=20
of external affairs" (vide this writer's article 'Foreign Scholars=20
and the Government', EPW, September 23, 2000).

The union home ministry is not exactly a bastion of liberal values.=20
Disclosure in press of its secret memo dated September 1, 2000, in=20
supersession of that of 1986, aroused protest and much criticism in=20
the press (vide this writer's article in The Hindustan Times, April=20
26, 2001).

The memo is in two parts. One concerns conferences organised or=20
sponsored by the central or state government, a public sector unit,=20
the United Nations or a non-governmental organisation (even without=20
the official sponsorship of the government). In these cases, the=20
nodal ministry concerned will be competent to accord approval,=20
without reference to the MHA, "after considering any possible=20
security ramifications".

However, the MHA's prior approval would be required in three cases of=20
which only one is legitimate; namely, if the conference is to be held=20
in restricted areas. Not, so the other two. One is if the subject of=20
the conference is "political, semi-political, communal or religious=20
in nature or is related to (sic) human rights".

The other is if it includes participants from Afghanistan, China,=20
Bangladesh, Pakistan or Sri Lanka, quite regardless of the subject=20
for discussion. In the latter case, clearance would be required from=20
the ministry of external affairs as well and also if the subject "has=20
a bearing on external relations", an expression of the widest import.

So much for the commitment in the SAARC charter to promote "contacts=20
and exchanges" among "the peoples" of member countries. Illiberality=20
apart, the memo is patently unconstitutional as a brazen violation of=20
the citizen's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression=20
guaranteed by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. The state may=20
impose "reasonable restrictions" on the right and only on the grounds=20
mentioned in Article 19(2); to wit, the security of the state, public=20
order, etc.

The Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases that this right=20
includes the right to receive information. A full bench of the Kerala=20
High Court, therefore, struck down an order which said that detainees=20
shall not "receive or purchase Mao literature".

The memo was challenged in the Supreme Court by the People's Union=20
for Civil Liberties (PUCL). On July 12, 2001 a three-judge bench of=20
the court comprising chief justice A S Anand, and justices R C Lahoti=20
and Brijesh Kumar dismissed it; apparently summarily, without issuing=20
a notice to the government of India to show cause why it should not=20
be dismissed.

There is no warrant for the practice introduced by justice J S Verma=20
a few years ago not to report the name of the individual judge who=20
makes comments during the proceedings. The instruction is itself=20
violative of the reporters' and citizens' right to know. 'The bench'=20
speaks through the judgment. Individual comments belong to the judge=20
alone. In no other court in the world is this grotesque innovation=20
followed. PTI abides by it all the same. Its report of the=20
proceedings on July 12 attributes to 'the bench' following remarks:=20
"There were also several instances where, under the cover of=20
international seminars, large amounts of illegal money had flown into=20
the country. When the security of the country was in question, the=20
government can put restrictions on the organisation".

These observations are open to four grave objections. First and=20
foremost, judging by the press report, no such plea was on record=20
before the court or made by counsel for the union. The petition was=20
not admitted. Period. This was itself most unfortunate in a case of=20
such importance which had aroused much disquiet in and outside=20
academia and the press. Secondly, 'the bench' apparently expressed=20
its own impressions which it had simply no right to import into=20
judicial proceedings which must be confined to the record and pleas=20
before the court by both sides. This rule of fundamental importance=20
is too well settled to admit of any doubt or exception. It is, for=20
instance, not open to a judge to decide a case based on his=20
independent research without inviting counsel to make their=20
submissions thereon (Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Fourth=20
Edition, Vol 2, p 1196]. In the present case the bench addressed=20
those remarks to petitioners' counsel. That makes no difference, for=20
counsel do find it awkward to question a judge's own personal=20
impressions. The fact remains that these were a judge's ipse dixit=20
unsupported by even a tittle of evidence.

Thirdly, the observations were of a sweeping character and wholly=20
unwarranted as well as irrelevant. What is the evidence in support of=20
the impression? None. And assuming it to be true, the onus is on the=20
state to ban or penalise the offenders without penalising others for=20
wrongs they had not committed. The remarks were, with respect,=20
unjudicious. "Several instances" imply specificity. That was for the=20
state to allege. Moreover, "the security of the state" is not so=20
fragile as to be affected by a foreign financed seminar. If it issues=20
a plea for overthrow of the government action can follow.

Lastly, on reasoning such as this and practice based on this=20
unfortunate precedent, the citizen who asserts his fundamental right=20
under Article 32 of the Constitution to move the Supreme Court for=20
the enforcement of his other fundamental rights, can be turned away=20
at the very threshold by the court for no reason valid in law. It is=20
a most disturbing procedure which the court adopted on July 12.

As it happens there is a ruling of the US Supreme Court of direct=20
relevance and high persuasive authority which exposes the memo's=20
utter unconstitutionality. It is Kleindienst vs Mandel 408 US 753;=20
33L Ed 2d 683 (1972). The court ruled unanimously that the right=20
personally to interact with others is an integral part of the right=20
to know. The bench split (6:3) only on the state's right to prevent=20
an alien, Belgian scholar Ernest Mandel, from entering the country.=20
The majority ruled it can. But it rejected the government's plea that=20
American scholars who had invited him to a conference had "free=20
access to Mandel's ideas through his books and speeches, and because=20
'technological developments', such as tapes or telephone hook-ups,=20
readily supplant his physical presence.

"This argument overlooks what may be particular qualities inherent in=20
sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning. While=20
alternative means of access to Mandel's ideas might be a relevant=20
factor, were we called upon to balance First Amendment rights against=20
governmental regulatory interests - a balance we find unnecessary=20
here in light of the discussion that follows - we are loath to hold=20
on this record that existence of other alternatives extinguishes=20
altogether any constitutional interest on the part of the appellees=20
(American citizens) in this particular form of access."

Eight American professors in various fields of social sciences joined=20
Mandel in a civil suit against the government. As American citizens,=20
they asserted their right under the First Amendment (guarantee of=20
free speech) to "learn his views and engage him in a free and open=20
academic exchange".

In a powerful dissent even on the refusal of a visa, justice William=20
O Douglas observed that "the availability...of Mandel's books and=20
taped lectures is no substitute for live, face-to-face discussion and=20
debate, just as the availability to us of briefs and exhibits does=20
not supplant the essential place of oral argument in this court's=20
work".

In a letter to Henrik Lorenz, accepting an invitation to lecture at=20
the University of Leiden and to discuss "the radiation problem",=20
Albert Einstein observed that in such matters "people understand one=20
another with difficulty unless talking face to face".

Justice Douglas said: "The progress of knowledge is an international=20
venture. As Mandel's invitation demonstrates, individuals of=20
differing world views have learned the way of cooperation where=20
governments have thus far failed. Nothing is served - least of all=20
our standing in the international community - by Mandel's exclusion.=20
In blocking his admission, the government has departed from the basic=20
traditions of our country, its fearless acceptance of free=20
discussion."

Thus the legal issues raised by the home ministry's memo were=20
substantial enough to warrant admission of the PUCL's petition and a=20
full hearing on its merits. It is yet open to the citizen to move the=20
Supreme Court again and challenge not only the home ministry's=20
infamous circular of September last year but also the HRD ministry's=20
of January 18, 2001 on similar lines to registrars of universities=20
and deemed universities. It is open to the government to lay down its=20
visa policy. It has no right to give orders to universities which are=20
- at least in law - autonomous bodies. The two circulars must be=20
challenged and the Supreme Court invited to do justice.

______

#5.

Date: 30th September

Report
A two day South Zone Convention
Organised By Rashtriya Secular Munch
In collaboration with COVA
On 29th & 30th September 2001.
At Youth Hostel, Secunderabad [ India]

A two day South Zone Convention of Rastriya Secular Munch was held at=20
Youth Hostel, Secunderabad with over 40 representatives from Southern=20
States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala,=20
participating in the proceedings. In addition to Dr. Asghar Ali=20
Engineer and L.S. Hardenia, Mr. Mohit Sen, Dr. Vithal Rajan, Dr.=20
Anand Raj Verma, Prof. Javed Alam, Mr. Jwala Mukhi and other=20
prominent social activists also participated in the convention.

The meeting considered the communal situation in the country and felt=20
that there is a need to preserve and promote secular values in the=20
country. It was felt that the communal forces are becoming stronger=20
due to the polices of BJP led coalition at the Centre. This workshop=20
also expressed its concern about the consequences of Saffornisaiton=20
of education being imposed by the Central Government. It was=20
unanimously decided that this Manch would assist and support the=20
secular activities of different participating groups. The=20
participating members express that they will be undertaking the=20
following activities in their regions.=20

The meeting unanimously passed the following Resolutions:

1. Ban on SIMI:

The present ban on SIMI has been imposed without giving any concrete=20
evidence of its involvement in any subversive activities. Government=20
is free to take suitable legal action against illegal activities of=20
SIMI, if any. There are other organisations like RSS, Shiv Sena, VHP=20
and Bajrang Dal who have also been spreading communal hatred, in=20
addition Bajrang Dal has been giving training in fire arms to many=20
young boys and girls. In this light imposing ban on SIMI is one=20
sided and un-warranted. Meeting demanded that the ban be lifted with=20
immediate effect.=20

2. Resolution on Imam Bukari's Statement:

The meeting observed that Imam Bukari's statement calling Indian=20
Muslims to join the war in support of Taliban is condemnable. Indian=20
Muslims have displayed there utmost loyalty to Indian Nation, times=20
and over again. In all the wars against Pakistan Indian Muslim have=20
stood with Indian Nation like a solid rock. Mr. Bukari's statement is=20
totally misleading and aims to provoke communal hatred, which we=20
oppose unanimously.

3. Resolution against the proposed anti terrorist ordinance:

BJP Government's proposed ordinance against terrorism is a draconian=20
black law, which aims to suppress the rights of people to struggle=20
for their democratic aspirations. The Government's resolve to=20
introduce this despite the opposition from National Human Rights=20
Commission is extremely disturbing. We demand that this ordinance=20
should not be introduced and not be passed in the parliament.

4. Resolution on attack on World Trade Centre:

RSM expressed its deep sorrow on this horrendous attack on WTC by the=20
terrorist. It sent its heart-felt condolences to the families and=20
friends of the victims of this tragedy. The meeting also condemns US=20
attempts to blindly retaliate and attack Afghanistan. This attack on=20
Afghanistan will cause serious misery to thousands of innocent=20
people. We demand that adequate evidence be produce against the=20
guilty and they be punished as per the cannons of International law.=20

5. Demand to Re-constitute National Integration Council:

In the past National Integration Council has played very important=20
role in promoting the values of National Integration and Communal=20
Harmony. Mr. Vajpayee, since coming to power, has not constituted=20
this very important Council, we demand that this Council be=20
immediately constituted and made an effective and powerful forum for=20
National Integration. We also demand that similar bodies be formed=20
at state level also as the one is functioning in Madhya Pradesh.=20

a. A quarterly newsletter in English, Hindi Telugu and Urdu will be=20
brought out to network and co-ordinate the activities of different=20
secular groups all over the country. Subsequently efforts will be=20
made to bring it out in other languages also.=20
b. Workshops, Seminars, Discussions on various aspects of secular ethos
c. Will undertake cultural activities like Film Festivals, Songs,=20
Poetry and Qawali programmes with the message of Communal Harmony.=20
d. The groups will work towards prevention of communal problem in their are=
as.=20
e. The groups will work closely with the human rights groups working=20
for human rights of Dalits, Women, Fisher folk, Advises and workers.
f. The National Vigilance Team will be formed which will monitor the=20
communal situation in the country and undertake Fact-findings of any=20
communal riots occurring anywhere in the country.
g. Training workshops for activists will be undertaken at State Level.
h. State level conventions of secular activists will be held in due=20
course leading to the National Convention for secular confederation.

The meeting ended with a resolve to continue its struggle for secular=20
campaigns all over the country and in this direction to ensure=20
collaboration and support to other groups and individuals who are=20
committed to these values.

Dr. Ram Puniyani=20=20=20=20=20
Dr.Mazher Hussain
Rashtriya Secular Manch COVA

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

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 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.