[sacw] SACW #2 (14 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

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

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

#1. India and Pakistan - Missing an opportunity ( Praful Bidwai)
#2. War as Failure of Imagination (Gautam Navlakha)
#3. India: Public Discussion on Peace (Bombay, 16 October)
#4. Bangladesh: End attacks on minorities - Instead of excuses,=20
government should act immediately

________________________

#1.

Frontline (India) | Volume 18 - Issue 21, Oct. 13 - 26, 2001

MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY
INDIA AND PAKISTAN ARE ADVANCING THEIR NARROW, PAROCHIAL AGENDAS IN A=20
MYOPIC MANNER, WHILE SUPPLICATING TO THE U.S; THEY COULD BOTH END UP=20
HURTING THEMSELVES.

by Praful Bidwai

AS the United States gets ready to launch a "new kind of war" against=20
"terrorism" in South Asia's immediate periphery, the region's two=20
biggest powers begin a new phase of mutual rivalry. America's war is=20
likely to be a prolonged, complex operation, involving high=20
technology as well as low-level covert operations, manipulation of=20
the Taliban's rivals (for instance, the Northern Alliance) and its=20
close friends (such as Pakistan). India-Pakistan hostility will also=20
be played out on many planes: over Kashmir and nuclear weapons,=20
through despicable courting of Washington, and Machiavellian=20
manoeuvres to influence power balances in Afghanistan. It promises to=20
be no less dirty, and no less menacing to South Asia's peoples.

Today, a decade after the Cold War ended, once-Non-Aligned India and=20
former U.S. ally Pakistan are clashing, although they are on the same=20
side - with the U.S. Nothing could be more ironical. Nothing could be=20
more dangerous for the future of this region. To start with, it=20
should be plain that the possibility of a thaw in the half=20
century-long India-Pakistan 'hot-cold war' opened (admittedly=20
shakily) by the Agra Summit is now dead. This happened well before=20
the October 1 bomb attack in Srinagar. Its demise can be traced to=20
New Delhi's and Islamabad's unseemly moves after September 11 to=20
establish an intimate "strategic partnership" with the U.S.

Jaswant Singh, to the Indian people's abiding collective=20
embarrassment, offered unsolicited, unlimited military cooperation to=20
the U.S., including the use of airbases. General Pervez Musharraf=20
too, soon offered to be America's critical ally - provided India and=20
Israel are kept out of that alliance. Musharraf's September 19=20
televised address to his nation and Atal Behari Vajpayee's riposte=20
declaring that neither he nor Jaswant Singh would visit Pakistan "in=20
the foreseeable future", only formalised the beginning of a new war=20
of words. Since then, the two establishments have been abusing and=20
parodying each other's intentions and plans.

Behind these moves lie incompetent and naive miscalculations, devious=20
designs, but above all, an attitude of servility towards the U.S.=20
India's foreign policy and security establishments have misunderstood=20
the fundamental causative factors in the September 11 attack, which=20
are rooted in extreme discontent and popular anger with U.S. policies=20
towards political Islam (especially the question of Palestine, but=20
also Iraq and other countries), as well as the appalling injustices=20
of today's world order.

MANNY CENETA/ AFP
External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, with U.S. Secretary of State=20
Colin Powell outside the State Department in Washington on October 2.

Going by all available evidence, there exists today a unique overlap=20
between militant political Islam and popular anti-U.S. sentiment in=20
West, Southwest and South Asia. The key link is U.S. support for=20
Israel's terrible policy of repressing the Palestinians, and its=20
brazen breach of the Oslo peace agreements. India's policy-makers=20
have also profoundly misunderstood U.S. motives, which go beyond=20
fighting "terrorism", itself ill-defined. Pakistan's rulers have been=20
less naive, but cynical in looking for temporary gains. They have=20
shrewdly cashed in on Pakistan's obvious locational and logistical=20
advantages, and its leverage over the Taliban. But they seriously=20
underestimate the huge risks involved in collaborating with the U.S.=20
to fight monsters of their own creation. These risks are both=20
external and internal.

NOTHING exemplifies India's miscalculation better than Jaswant=20
Singh's shocking conduct. He remains undeterred by widespread=20
domestic criticism, including from within the ruling National=20
Democratic Alliance, and the entire Opposition, of his offer of=20
"cooperation" weeks before evidence had been presented of Osama bin=20
Laden's culpability for September 11. Unconcerned about democratic=20
decency, he went to the U.S., Britain and Germany to beg the West,=20
especially Washington, to support India's plea for criticising=20
Pakistan and banning Kashmiri militant groups. This meant granting to=20
the U.S. a role as the global hegemon and ultimate arbiter of Kashmir=20
- in violation of India's position opposing external mediation in=20
this "bilateral issue," and its support for a plural world order.

Jaswant Singh was, expectedly, more than satisfied with his "full=20
round" of discussions with U.S. officials, especially George W. Bush,=20
although all he could extract by way of public support was a=20
statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell, which condemned the=20
Srinagar bombing as a "terrible terrorist act," but carefully avoided=20
mentioning Pakistan. The State Department briefing only said: "We=20
have continued to maintain a policy on Kashmir that looks to=20
everybody with influence to reduce the violence and to try to see the=20
situation there is resolved peacefully." Defence Secretary Donald=20
Rumsfeld too ducked specific questions about Pakistan harbouring=20
terrorists. He merely said: "We've had discussions about a number of=20
countries and the issue of terrorism..." As of now, a full-scale U.S.=20
ban on Kashmiri "terrorists" seems unlikely. Its utility seems even=20
more doubtful.

Equally breathtakingly, Jaswant Singh also said that the U.S. had=20
"shared ... with India and me" evidence linking bin Laden to the=20
September 11 carnage. This was declared by an adoring section of the=20
media as proof that India has now "joined the select club of=20
nations," including those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,=20
that has "been shown [this] convincing evidence". He went on to say,=20
with characteristic pompous flourish, that in any case the real=20
evidence is "the evidence we have been living with all these years" -=20
in Kashmir. This echoed the observation by other Indian Ministers=20
that it is the U.S. that has now joined India's struggle against=20
terrorism, not the other way round.

Jaswant Singh alone is not guilty of serious miscalculation. Vajpayee=20
too stands indicted. His October 2 letter to Bush is an eloquent mix=20
of obsequiousness towards the U.S. and hawkishness towards Pakistan:=20
"Pakistan must understand that there is a limit to the patience of=20
the people of India..." He chose extremely unfortunate words such as=20
"our supreme national interest," used in declarations of war or of=20
solemn intent to withdraw from multilateral treaties in exceptional=20
circumstances that threaten the very existence of a state. This was=20
fully consistent with the exuberant reception by senior BJP=20
Ministers, including L.K. Advani, to Bush's September 21 address to=20
Congress, in which he imperiously told the world: you are either with=20
us or with the terrorists. (Jaswant Singh called it "brilliant".)

At work here is the calculated dismantling of the entire rationale of=20
non-alignment and the edifice of an independent foreign policy, and=20
subjugation of India's national vision to U.S. war plans, driven as=20
much by revenge and a desire to draw blood as by wanting to bring the=20
guilty of September 11 to justice. It is hard not to detect the=20
despicable communal slant in official policy that goes with this. The=20
most explicit manifestation of this is the proscription of the=20
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). The government banned SIMI=20
just when it should have bent over backwards to defend pluralist=20
secularism, now under attack from prejudices that equate Islam with a=20
distorted notion of jehad and with terrorism itself.

THE official case against SIMI is full of holes. A major charge is=20
that SIMI works "for an international Islamic order." Now, this may=20
not appeal to many, just as the RSS-VHP's (Rashtriya Swayamsevak=20
Sangh-Vishwa Hindu Parishad) Hindu supremacism does not. But holding=20
such beliefs is not a crime. SIMI is also charged with being "in=20
touch with militant outfits". But the Home Ministry has been "in=20
touch" with the secessionist National Socialist Council of Nagalim=20
(NSCN) and the Hizbul Mujahideen. The only substantial charges=20
pertain to specific activities: for instance, SIMI's alleged=20
collusion with the Hizbul Mujahideen in bomb explosions since=20
February. These charges do warrant action under various laws. But=20
they do not justify an outright ban unless it is proved that SIMI's=20
entire structure is terrorist and threatens India's security.

This has never been established. On the one hand, the government=20
accuses SIMI of having published pro-Al Qaeda pamphlets after=20
September 11. On the other, Home Secretary Kamal Pandey asserts that=20
there is no connection between its post-September activities and the=20
crackdown. Regarding bin Laden as a hero of "the global struggle=20
against America" is detestable. But it is not a crime. The SIMI=20
charge-sheet is based mostly on unproved suspicions and surmises.=20
None of these has stood legal scrutiny for 20 years.

The official double standards are appalling. Deputy Home Minister=20
I.D. Swamy admitted in a Star-TV programme ('Reality Bites') that the=20
Bajrang Dal and the VHP are guilty of hate crimes, but must be=20
exonerated because they "glorify our ancient past". SIMI is not a=20
secular or democratic organisation. It is probably fundamentalist.=20
But it is not terrorist. Tarring Islamic groups with the terrorist=20
brush, while letting off Hindu communalists, reeks of communal bias.

SIMI's hounding comes at a time when anti-Islam prejudices are=20
growing the world over. This juncture demands a strong defence of=20
secularism. If the government really wants to punish the spreading of=20
communal prejudice, it should also target the VHP, the RSS and the=20
Bajrang Dal, with their record of the Babri Masjid demolition, Graham=20
Staines' killing, attacks on Christians, hounding of M.F. Husain and=20
Deepa Mehta... Instead, the government is alienating the Muslim=20
community.

Pakistan too has been playing dangerous games. It wants to retain its=20
influence over the Afghanistan regime, by hook or by crook. It=20
stiffly opposes the Taliban's exclusion from a future ruling=20
coalition in Afghanistan. (Hence the sharp exchange with India on the=20
issue of "broad-based" coalition and Musharraf's demand to "lay off".=20
Hence also the change in Washington's line on a "regime change".) The=20
Guardian's Jonathan Steele reports that Pakistan has plans to=20
assassinate Mullah Omar and replace him with a more pliant leader.=20
Other reports suggest that the U.S. will rely heavily on joint covert=20
operations with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.

The U.S. is far from Simon-pure in all this. It has done all manner=20
of shady deals with the Taliban. After the August 1998 bombing of its=20
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, it tried to get the Taliban to=20
surrender bin Laden. Earlier, it came close to recognising their=20
regime in return for favours to an American oil company, Unocal, then=20
in fierce competition with the Argentinian firm Bridas over a=20
proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. A galaxy of American=20
officials, both serving and retired, were involved in this New Great=20
Game over oil and gas in Central Asia, including Henry Kissinger,=20
Alexander Haig, Robin Raphael and Richard Armitage (currently Deputy=20
Secretary of State). (See chapters 12 and 13 of Ahmed Rashid's=20
excellent Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia,=20
I.B. Tauris; London and New York.)

Devious manoeuvres might give Pakistan some temporary advantages in=20
its northwestern hinterland. But things could easily get out of hand.=20
Any significant weakening of the Islamabad regime or a rise in=20
domestic fundamentalist militancy could make Pakistan vulnerable to=20
pressure for "neutralising" its nuclear weapons capability. This=20
could further deepen its internal crisis. Once it is done with its=20
own parochial agenda, the U.S. could as easily drop Pakistan as an=20
ally as it recruited it, leaving behind an all-but-collapsing state.=20
Prolonged U.S. presence in the region could cramp Islamabad's freedom=20
of action and invite extreme resentment. Even within the cynical=20
calculus of Machiavellian realpolitik, Pakistan is AOS (all options=20
stink) land. All of South Asia could soon become that.

A truly non-aligned India, acting on solid political principles,=20
could have played a crucial role in averting this. As a country with=20
the world's second highest population of Muslims, India could have=20
set a marvellous example by building a pluralist-secular political=20
consensus in favour of bringing terrorists to justice without=20
unleashing vengeance and mindless violence. India could have=20
contributed significantly to the construction of an international=20
bloc which counsels restraint and sobriety and makes the U.S.=20
accountable to the global community through the United Nations and=20
other multilateral instruments. A secular India committed to a just=20
and equitable world order could have urged long-term solutions to the=20
many festering problems that underlie the growth of terrorism.

Regrettably, India under the present regime is not such a state. The=20
role it could have played (but did not) now falls upon the global=20
peace movement and progressive political and civil society=20
organisations. These alone can provide the intellectual and moral=20
leadership the world sorely needs if it is not to become a much worse=20
place under the coming war than it already is. South Asia's own peace=20
movement has a pivotal role here. This must not be underestimated.=20
But to play this, it must set its sights high.

Copyrights =A9 2001, Frontline.

______

#2.
Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay, India) October 6, 2001

WAR AS FAILURE OF IMAGINATION
Gautam Navlakha

September 11 horrified everyone but there is no consensus beyond=20
this. What is terrorism? What caused this? What real injustices=20
prevail in our world that are being exploited by fascist political=20
ideologies? Can terrorism be fought militarily? All these questions=20
threaten to be eclipsed by hype of war against terrorism. There is=20
apprehension that revenge and advantage at the cost of others are the=20
overriding concern guiding the US administration in planning its=20
military campaign against Taliban-Al Qaeda, which they themselves=20
promoted. Instead the quest should have been to bring the=20
perpetrators of this crime to justice before an international court=20
accompanied by withdrawl of sanctions against Iraq, and a US-led=20
world compelling Israel to roll back its occupation of Palestine in=20
accordance with UN resolutions of 1948 and 1967. It would have been=20
possible for pressure to be applied on Russia to stop its murderous=20
attacks in Chechnya and India to move towards a political dialogue=20
with those in Jammu and Kashmir who question accession to India. This=20
would have removed the long festering wounds and starved the hate=20
groups of nutrition. Indeed it would have galvanised people across=20
the world to struggle for a democratic society with a vigour never=20
seen before. Such opportunities for phenomenal advancement of freedom=20
and dignity of life are rare in history.
It is true that the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships have been=20
coerced into declaring a ceasefire and Pakistan and India to play=20
down their hostility. But all this was motivated by the need to avoid=20
distractions right now, and are therefore tenuous. Ariel Sharon's=20
government is inclined to scuttle dialogue apprehensive that at this=20
juncture it would mean an Israeli pull-out or dismantling of its=20
obtrusive military presence, because the US and its NATO allies have=20
to show to the Arabs, Muslims and the world that they are concerned=20
about the Palestinians. While some diplomatic movement is noticeable=20
on the Palestinian issue, there is silence over Iraq, punctuated by=20
hawkish noises that Iraq too may become the target of US wrath. The=20
purported difference of opinion within the US administration on this=20
issue is meant to ward off pressure to roll back the sanctions=20
against Iraq. While the US administration says that Russian support=20
for US military action in Afghanistan will not mean endorsing their=20
military campaign in Chechnya, this is unlikely to go beyond periodic=20
statements. One area where the US and NATO will set their sights is=20
Kashmir. Contrary to the rubbishing of 'tehreek i azaadi' and the=20
demand for self-determination, this conflict places Kashmir squarely=20
on the international agenda. The fact that Pakistan will be a=20
frontline state in the US-NATO war cannot but help this case even=20
more. In other words, the impact of the ensuing war will be uneven=20
and the relatively easier aspects will be addressed before the US and=20
NATO show any degree of seriousness towards the Palestinian demand=20
for statehood and/or ending the humanitarian crisis caused by them in=20
Iraq. However, for the present all diplomatic exercises will either=20
be a sideshow or a holding operation while the war against terrorism=20
is played out. Admittedly, this is only the beginning of an unfolding=20
scenario and there is much that cannot be predicted. But insofar as a=20
military operation is imminent in this sensitive envinronment which=20
has immense commercial and military value, it is possible to go=20
beyond the appearance of things.

Military Build-Up
The massive build-up carries on. The US and British forces have=20
deployed more than 50,000 troops, some in the central Asian republics=20
of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, reinforced their existing military=20
presence in the Gulf states, Indian Ocean, the Diego Garcia=20
archipelago and have asked for as yet unclear help from Pakistan.=20
Whether or not aerial bombing will be used the reliance on commandos=20
is unavoidable. It is true that most countries in the region, barring=20
Pakistan which has been arm-twisted to offer its support to US, will=20
be happy to be rid of the Taliban and Al Queda from their midst. But=20
the best scenarios can go wrong. With winter round the corner if the=20
commandos fail to find the persons they are looking for what happens?=20
If US forces succeed who will ensure the survival of a new regime in=20
Kabul? Having reached central Asia and Afghanistan which borders on=20
China, Iran and the oil and natural gas resources of central Asia,=20
will the US be willing to pull out? After all US forces went to Saudi=20
Arabia ostensibly for a short haul (six months they assured the=20
Saudis) and continue to be present there. So what gurantee is there=20
that they will roll back their military presence having been provided=20
an opportunity to influence commerical and strategic developments in=20
this vast region? The likelihood of this becomes even greater now=20
that US-NATO diplomats are raising the issue of 'post-Taliban=20
Afghanistan' and diverse pulls and pressures of interested parties=20
such as Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, US and Europe may undermine=20
the new dispensation. Verbal duels have begun and Russia, Pakistan=20
and the Northern Alliance are making their opinions known. Such=20
divergent interests provide a ready excuse for the US-NATO combine to=20
remain in the region, if not in Afghanistan itself, to emerge as the=20
'neutral' guarantor.

While the military presence threatens to be long term, the nature and=20
extent of this would be determined by the duration of the military=20
combat. All governments begin their counter-terrorism operation with=20
the declaration that it would be short and swift. But all military=20
operations acquire their own momentum. There is much that the world=20
can learn from the Indian experience, i e, of the failure of a=20
military response in fighting terrorism. Much of what passes for=20
terrorism in India and elsewhere is an attempt to demonise those=20
political opponents who rebel against oppression or exploitation and=20
to attribute the basest motives to them. Starting with fighting Naga=20
'hostiles' in 1948 to the anti-Naxal operations since 1966, and the=20
insurgency in Kashmir since 1989-90, the Indian government was=20
confident that military suppression would soon stamp out these=20
'anti-national' elements from India's body politic. In this ignoble=20
exercise the political formations that have ruled this country do not=20
differ much from one another. This does not mean there is no=20
terrorism; fascist terror groups of the 'Hindutva' and the jehadi=20
kind are present; although the emergence of hate groups among Muslims=20
is directly a result of the demolition of Babri masjid and the=20
anti-Muslim carnage that followed. One place where military=20
suppression appeared 'successful' was the fight against fascist=20
Khalistani terrorism (which was cultivated by the then Congress=20
government as a counter against the popular agitation led by the=20
Akali Dal) which lasted for over a decade and is still exacting a=20
price from the people of Punjab. Elsewhere military campaigns have=20
bogged down, with more and more troops fighting fewer and fewer=20
militants, because lack of political initiative combined with=20
repression keeps popular support alive. Against this background, in=20
an already emotively surcharged atmosphere, where anger against the=20
US-NATO is palpable, a military campaign can fuel resentment and=20
provide fresh recruits to the hate groups.

It is true that the devastation caused over last 23 years in=20
Afghanistan (1 million dead, 5 million refugees, 2 million displaced,=20
half a million disabled, etc) leave not much to be bombed any more.=20
Also the terrain that can prove hospitable for the terrorist groups=20
is inhospitable for the people, thereby reducing the chances of=20
civilian casualties. Moreover, the US and NATO have an overwhelming=20
military superiority and the sense of revenge is a strong motive for=20
the US troops. But what happens if despite the best human=20
intelligence they are unable to 'hunt' the terrorists, and their=20
endurance put to test in craggy mountains of Hindukush that too in=20
the winter? Or the military campaign worsens the humanitarian crisis=20
as is being feared by the UNHCR? Or if they get bogged down in the=20
laborious task of propping a new dispensation for Afghanistan? Will=20
the disquiet felt by many US allies and the countries in the region=20
such as China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan, at the emerging contours of=20
US-NATO policies for the region result in fracturing the fragile=20
'coalition'? What will be the impact of US-NATO casualties on their=20
population? Will the US-NATO move to the next phase of their 'long=20
war' against terrorism which will mean military operations against=20
Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Sudan? Validity of these questions can be a=20
matter of argument but it would be a miscalculation not to factor=20
them in any strategic assessment.

Lesson for India
One message driven home to the Indian policy-makers, by the US=20
administration, is that India plays a marginal role in their central=20
or west Asian calculations. To believe otherwise was their mistake.=20
To offer 'unambiguous and unconditional' support without being asked=20
was bad enough, what is making the Indian ruling circles look=20
ridiculous is their ill-disguised pique at being left out of the=20
global coalition, a situation which they share with Israel.=20
Significantly, the unconditional offer was made to the US by the=20
cabinet committee on security which has only BJP ministers, before=20
the full cabinet met, the coalition allies had been consulted,=20
opposition parties sounded and public taken into confidence. This is=20
reminiscent of the decision taken in 1998 to explode nuclear devices.

The Indian government would be seriously challenged over Kashmir as a=20
result of the changed international equation, as well as tested on=20
its response to Pakistan. Undeniably there is terror in Kashmir.=20
There is the terror let loose by the Indian security forces and there=20
is terror of the jehadis who have until now enjoyed the patronage of=20
the Pakistani military. But not many are ready to believe that it is=20
simply a question of terrorism. Most acknowledge that the main issue=20
concerns the alienation and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. In=20
the interval between the military campaign and when pressure mounts=20
for an international intervention much is possible. The likelihood of=20
division between the jehadists and the Pakistani military regime=20
cannot be ruled out. Already the Indian security forces are reporting=20
a decline in militant actions from more than 40 a week to 10. The=20
alleged training camps are reportedly deserted and persons dispersed.=20
Also the main focus of Pakistani attention is the trouble brewing on=20
its frontier with Afghanistan. Instead of changing tack there is=20
nothing to suggest that this is even under consideration. The way in=20
which the Indian authorities ensured the success of the hartal called=20
by the jehadists and embarrassed the Hurriyet Conference (by simply=20
withdrawing all public transport buses and reducing the number of=20
forces from the streets) shows that it is not the jehadists they=20
resent; it is the political leadership they abhor since they speak a=20
language that the Indian policy-makers are uncomfortable with -=20
democracy and democratic rights for all.

As for responding to Pakistan, the government is still recovering=20
from self-inflicted humiliation. It is upset with the US for its lack=20
of response to its offer of unconditional support, fear that the=20
Indo-US equation will change to its detriment, and is smarting at=20
being unable to take advantage of Pakistan's predicament. Let alone=20
take account of the implications of the US-NATO presence in this=20
region which would be detrimental to the interests of the people of=20
this subcontinent, it is unable to even perceive the need to isolate=20
the jehadi groups in Pakistan. Notwithstanding the culpability of the=20
Pakistani military in the making of Taliban and its progenies, the=20
fact is that conflicting self-interest has driven a wedge between the=20
two. The strategic depth that Pakistan enjoyed is threatened. If=20
diplomacy is the art of creating possibilities then here was an=20
opportunity for deepening the wedge between the Taliban/jehadis and=20
the Pakistani military, rather than aggravate tensions and provide=20
ammunition to the jehadis through intemperate speeches and=20
statements. In the changed circumstances the jehadis once patronised=20
by the regime can wreck vengeance on the people in the name of=20
retribution and test the capacity of the military regime to deal with=20
a tribal and jehadi backlash. Millions of Indians have relatives and=20
friends in Pakistan. It is as normal for them to feel concerned about=20
their safety and welfare as most Indians felt after September 11 for=20
their friends and relatives in the US and continue to feel concerned=20
when south Asians become prey to jingoists. There is nothing that=20
shows that this understanding figures in policy-making. Instead the=20
view, shared by even those who accuse NDA government of a 'sell-out'=20
to the US, is that Pakistan remains a country inimical to India.

Biggest Challenge
But by far the biggest challenge, something this government is=20
ill-equipped to handle, is the surge in anti-Muslim sentiments.=20
Ironically, the reports of how Muslims are being targeted in North=20
America, Europe, Australia, etc, and that in its sweep even=20
non-Muslim Asians are coming under attacks should have had a salutary=20
impact on the BJP-led NDA government. But ideological hates are=20
difficult to shake off. The manner in which Muslim organisations were=20
being targeted has been noted earlier. This threatens to now get out=20
of hand. The decision to ban Students Islamic Movement in India=20
(SIMI) is designed to focus attention on the Muslimness of terrorism=20
and, therefore, promotes suspicion about Muslims. There is enough=20
proof to suggest that banning any organisation, whatever be its=20
ideology, apart from being wrong has never worked. But if banning was=20
necessary then truth demanded that all fascist groups be proscribed.=20
A week before the terror attack in the US, at the 36th Conference of=20
the Director General of Police organised by the Intelligence Bureau,=20
terrorism was a major focus of discussions. The euphemism now used -=20
proxy war or cross-border terrorism - shows how only one kind of=20
terrorism was considered. So much so that the director general of=20
police of Rajasthan, a Congress-ruled state, opined that whereas SIMI=20
engages in subversive activities at the behest of another country the=20
Bajrang Dal (BD) was not indulging in anti-national activities or=20
receiving active support from a foreign country to challenge the=20
integrity of the country. So home grown terrorism of the BD variety=20
against the Indian people is not a threat. Indeed the union home=20
minister found it to be a "joke" to charaterise the Bajrang Dal, the=20
largest private militia in the country, as a terrorist organisation.=20
But for those who live under the terror of Bajrang Dal-VHP and an=20
indifferent administration it is hardly a joke. When the security=20
forces remain innocent of the demands of justice and are fed=20
convoluted notions of what constitutes terrorism it is certain=20
Muslims will be brought into the dragnet of the security forces;=20
something like the racial profiling that has made Arabs and south=20
Asians vulnerable in US. Such definitions become ominous against the=20
demand to further empower the security forces, despite ample evidence=20
of misuse of authority and atrocities committed by government forces.=20
In his key-note speech at the police conference the home minister=20
spoke of how fundamental rights are suspended in an open war while=20
they remain intact in a proxy war. The fact that right to life stands=20
suspended when Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in operation and=20
civil liberties get circumscribed when security forces are empowered=20
escaped attention. Nor was there any discussion on what lies behind=20
the increasing attacks on the minorities, or how injustices cause=20
insurgency and rebellion.

It is this understanding of terrorism that informs legislations which=20
impact our lives. There was renewed plea for a comprehensive=20
anti-terrorist law that would legitimise lower standard of proof for=20
what are considered 'terrorist crimes', allow confessions given to a=20
designated police officer as evidence, and enable preventive=20
detention of just about anyone at the whim and fancy of the executive=20
and the police. The anti-terrorist ordinance being readied will put=20
the rule of law on its head, the law on federal crime will usurp the=20
powers of the states over law and order, and curb the civil liberties=20
of the people in the name of security. All this will end up creating=20
fertile ground for people to take law into their own hands. This is=20
happening against the backgound of shoddy working of the police,=20
their illiteracy where people's rights, rule of law, gathering of=20
evidence, and legal procedures are concerned. According to the=20
National Crimes Record Bureau, in 1999 the conviction rate in India=20
was a mere 6 per cent of the cases that are taken up for trial which=20
itself was only 16 per cent of the total number of cases registered.=20
In Delhi the infamous transistor bomb case has been carrying on since=20
May 1984 and the accused remain in judicial custody. Reportedly,=20
there are many cases that have been continuing for years on end and=20
in most of them either the evidence is deficient, investigation is=20
questionable, or the prosecution theory improbable (The Times of=20
India, September 23 and Indian Express, September 24). Thus the=20
lawlessness of the police and terrorism is bound to become a tool for=20
wrecking vengeance on the minorities and the disprivileged. Instead=20
of solving a problem, it becomes the problem itself. Thus the choice=20
is not between terrorism and the rule of law but between two forms of=20
terrorism and unless the terror of the government forces is addressed=20
it is impossible to fight any other form of terror. Significantly, in=20
US, the Congressional judicial committee distanced itself from the=20
demand of the US administration to legalise wire-tapping,=20
carte-blanche for detaining 'suspects' for questioning, use of=20
wire-tapped conversation as evidence of crime, etc, arguing that=20
curbs on civil liberties will be a triumph for terrorism. In Britain=20
new laws being proposed have invited criticism with several members=20
of parliament wondering why new laws are needed when earlier this=20
year a terrorism act and legislation on electronic surveillance were=20
introduced. In contrast, in India, a muted response has greeted the=20
various proposals to curb people's rights.

In short, the impact of the US-NATO military campaign against=20
terrorism will impinge on the daily lives of all of us. A new=20
orthodoxy has emerged which argues that there has to be a trade-off=20
between security and freedom and that there is no other way for=20
societies to fight terrorism than by placing curbs on civil=20
liberties. Under the plea of globalised terror most governments are=20
busy inventing and re-inventing policies to wrest greater control for=20
the executive to monitor the public and private life of their=20
citizens. The voices that speak for reason and push for justice and=20
resolution of conflicts are being heard, but as threat of war=20
increase they face the threat of marginalisation. When the disaster=20
happened on September 11 there was a flicker of hope that the=20
horrific crime would make the managers of news sensitive to the=20
issues of justice and injustice. There is yet hope that unlike the=20
anti-Iraq war where people were conspicuous by their absence and the=20
image of hi-tech war toys dominated the visual and print media, this=20
time it would be difficult to jettison the people. The image of=20
ravaged Afghanistan and its once proud people reduced to destitution=20
by war unleashed by first one and then the other superpower has not=20
vanished. In the US, the Voice of America refused to submit to the=20
diktat of the government to not broadcast an interview with the=20
'ameer' of Taliban, Mullah Omar. And public pressure has compelled=20
the US-NATO to lift the ban on food supplies by the World Food=20
Programme which was daily feeding 3.3 million Afghans. Sanitised=20
pictures and absence of critical reporting from the theatre of war,=20
where media act as force-multiplier for their governments, may yet=20
condemn all of us to ignorance. But it is difficult to believe that=20
the world will cease to be confronted by voices of reason or the fury=20
of the dispossessed and the disprivileged. What form this will take=20
remains to be seen. But what is certain is that worldwide protests=20
may become the nucleus for a coalition of anti-war movements, its=20
appeal cutting across race, religion and nationalism.

______

#3.

Peace

With the excuse of eradicating world terrorism, subtle American=20
terrorism is strengthening. The entire world is now plunged in the=20
shadows of yet another unwanted world war. What kind of role should=20
India play in world politics? What kind of effect will it have on=20
India? The change in the attitude towards the Muslims will have what=20
kind of impact on the society.
We are organising public meeting on above topic on 16th October 2001.=20
Looking forward for your participation.
Venue : Masalewala Hall, 74, H. A. Walji Marg, 2nd floor, above=20
Development Credit Bank, Dongri, Mumbai 400009
Timing : 6.00pm To 9.00pm
Chairperson : Just. R. A. Jahangirdar
Speakers : Sajid Rashid (Editor; Mahanagar)
Farida Lambe (Vice-Principal of Nirmala Niketan)
Ram Punyani (Prof. From IIT)
Advocate Mihir Desai (Hon director ICHRL)
For more information contact Chetna on 3716690
Chetna Birje Praful Shinde Hasina Khan Shakeel Ahmed
(ICHRL) (Sampark) (AEN) (NBA)

India Centre for Human Rights and Law, 4th floor, CVOD Jain School,=20
84 Samuel Street, Dongri, Bombay 400 009, India | Tel: 3759657/=20
3716690 / Fax: 3790699, Email:=20
<mailto:huright@v...>huright@v...

______

#4.

The Daily Star (Bangladesh)
Volume 3 Number 754 Sun. October 14, 2001
Editorial
End attacks on minorities - Instead of excuses, government should act=20
immediately

Violent attacks on the minorities has become a matter of great=20
concern. It has almost reached an alarming state now. These attacks,=20
which began before the elections have continued unabated. Reaching=20
beyond the national media, it's now being reported by the regional=20
and international media with great concern. Yet the national=20
authorities here are barely paying attention, except for giving=20
directives and statements.
One could argue that because a full-fledged government wasn't in=20
place between the voting and the swearing-in, the situation wasn't=20
brought under control. But the government is fully in office now and=20
stopping this attacks should have been its priority.
Strangely enough, the remarks made by the home minister to the BBC=20
radio that the minority bashing is part conspiracy, part rumours and=20
part facts is a disdainful display of failing to recognise reality.=20
It's obvious that the present government isn't keen to take=20
responsibility for a very sensitive situation unfolding during its=20
own period of rule. They should act at once instead of providing bad=20
excuses.
The national media including this paper has been reporting everyday=20
on the situation but the response by the powers that be has been=20
lukewarm at best. To still hang on to a conspiracy theory is a forced=20
attempt to dilute the obvious fact and is unacceptable to all. The=20
reaction of the home minister seems to say that the crisis is not=20
being taken seriously. And yet nothing could be more serious.
It doesn't matter who is doing it and why but the government of the=20
day is always responsible for ending what may easily go out of hand.=20
There is a feeling within ruling circles that this could be cooked up=20
by the other party to embarrass the rulers but that hardly excuses=20
the lack of action by the party in power. Our view is that such=20
elements could, at the maximum be, 25-30 per cent. The rest 70 per=20
cent is partisan self-seekers. They must be hit hard immediately.=20
Whoever is responsible must be brought to book and providing safety=20
to all is what matters. If the AL is behind the attacks they should=20
be exposed but please do it. Don't just talk about it. But if the=20
truth is otherwise then have the courage to face it, and fight it.

What is happening is also a slur on democracy, the voters and=20
Bangladesh as a whole. The BNP must realise more quickly than it=20
thinks necessary that public feelings are apt to swing quickly=20
against ruling governments when such things happen. And attacking=20
minorities is the safest route to lose popularity and create the=20
ground for a political counter-attack.
The attacks are condemned, the statement of the home minister is=20
rejected and the lack of actions to protect the minorities is=20
protested in the severest language possible. Not excuses but action.

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
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.

--=20