[sacw] SACW (26 July 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire
26 July 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

[1.] Pakistan - India: Hopes and fears after Agra
[2.] [Pakistan India summit in Agra] A worthy initiative...
[3.] Sri Lanka: Peace Support Group calls for peace and reconciliation
[4.] Sri Lanka: CRM calls for responsible action
[5.] India: Phoolan Devi Shot Dead
[6.]
[7.] India: Supreme Courts asks six states to end starvation amidst plenty

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

#1.

The News International
25 July 2001

Hopes and fears after Agra

M.B. Naqvi

The author is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist

Agra Summit, after all is said and done, did collapse. There is no 
tangible gain. The Indo-Pakistan deadlock is complete. Personal 
chemistries between Pakistan President and Indian PM are said to have 
ineffably harmonised there. That may provide a basis of some progress 
in future. May be. But there is no certainty. Hope however lingers.

But too much cannot be made of the ability of President Musharraf's 
media skills and his transparent sincerity. His appeals to the Indian 
people over the heads of India's ruling establishment are perhaps 
helpful. But how far do they take the train that has become tagged on 
to Gen. Pervez Musharraf's person, Kashmiris and all the 140 million 
Pakistanis. In actual international dealings these factors get 
discounted where realpolitik rules. Pakistan cannot talk to India 
from any position of strength.

That is basic. It failed to win all its four wars; the Kargil's 
spectacular beginning had had to end in an unceremonious evacuation 
and that too with American aid. President of Pakistan reiterated, 
correctly, that there is no military solution to the Kashmir 
imbroglio. What are the implications of Kashmir having no military 
solution?

The fact of the matter is that, apart from not having won a single 
war, possession of rival nuclear deterrent puts paid to any hope of 
military force being any use in any situation in solving the Kashmir 
problem insofar as Pakistan's determination to help liberate the 
people of Kashmir is concerned. If this objective is to be achieved, 
the means will have to be mainly political and diplomatic for 
achieving that end.

Nuclear bombs have frozen dead the Indo Pakistan dispute on Kashmir. 
Any real progress towards a Kashmir solution will have to be worked 
out with the willing cooperation of Indian government after the 
Indian public opinion enables it to do so. That will have to be a 
long and sustained effort. In the process of converting the Indian 
public opinion to the extent of accommodating Pakistanis and 
Kashmiris true wishes, Pakistan's rulers may have to do a lot of 
things that Indian people may want.

President Musharraf's unscripted initiatives at Agra and since need 
to be seen as an initial exercise in the effort to influencing the 
Indian public opinion with a view to creating a pro-Pakistan lobby in 
India --- a legitimate and necessary objective. Does Islamabad 
understand all its implications? One oblique word about the supposed 
guarantee of Pakistan's security, viz. the nuclear deterrent, in 
addition to its deadening impact on Kashmir dispute, needs to have 
its other aspects focused on: so long a single Pakistani bomb exists 
--- and there actually must be many --- Indians will always fear and 
mistrust Islamabad's rulers.

Similarly a single Indian bomb, so long as it is there, Pakistanis 
will have ample reason to mistrust and fear Indian security 
establishment. After all, these evil weapons have no defence 
whatsoever. These offensive weapons kill and burn all there exists 
in, on or at the target zone and far more areas around --- to 
wherever the radioactive fallout will be taken by winds and water. It 
will kill even the earth in the target zone and all the flora and 
fauna over a wider area. Even future generations will be attacked by 
their use. Who can trust an adversary government that possesses such 
weapons?

These are inherently mistrust creating and destabilising factors. We 
should take good care lest they become permanent. If that happens, 
there might then be no solution to any problem. Insofar as India's 
intransigence on Kashmir is concerned, who can forget that they are 
in possession of a large chunk of Kashmir. They mean to retain it. 
They have successfully defended it for over half a century.

Having fought many wars, mere words, uttered no matter with what 
sincerity and effectiveness, can scarcely induce the Indian security 
establishment to relinquish its stranglehold on Kashmir. It has to be 
compelled -- by the Indian people themselves. Until that happens, 
South Block will continue to stall and stymie, taking shelter behind 
India's constitution embodying Kashmir as a part of India.

It will simply not negotiate on Kashmir. Pakistanis should devise a 
suitable PR strategy and the policy to force South Block into 
democratic reasonableness. The present kind of Jehad in Kashmir is 
misconceived. It is playing on an adversary's pitch and according to 
his rules and assumptions. Whoever has more fire power and trained 
manpower will actually win. Who is actually suffering: ordinary 
Kashmiris. Who is mainly dying? Mostly young Kashmiri boys --- Muslim 
ones. India admits to 30, 000 deaths. Kashmiris outside India put the 
figure at 70,000 to 80,000.

As of now the struggle is utterly unequal --- largely because the gun 
has become the arbiter. In a certain sense, the Pakistanis and 
Indians mean to fight on to the last Kashmiri Muslim young man. This 
is unfair to the Kashmiris. Let us recognise that the Indian 
political class has one billion people to recruit from. It has more 
resources than Pakistan. It can buy or make whatever equipment may be 
required. It can go on indefinitely to suffer the kind of casualties 
Indian security forces are taking. But the supply of Muslim Kashmiri 
youth is more restricted; it can run out. Kashmiris, when they began 
in 1989 with a non-violent protest, it conferred on them on a high 
moral ground.

The guns in their and other hands have made them vulnerable to being 
dubbed as terrorists. They are losing world's sympathy. Look at the 
record. How many violent liberation movements have produced peaceful 
and progressive states in recent decades? Algeria, Vietnam, Palestine 
and many African states yield ambiguous answers. Vietnam's victory 
was more a definitive defeat of American wills to kill more --- not 
because of Vietnamese of undoubtedly heroic fight. American will to 
go on murdering was sapped by nonviolent protests in the US campuses 
and on Europe's roads.

Algerians made truly heroic sacrifices. But could anyone visualise. 
Algeria's independence without a de Gaulle? Palestinian PLO, so long 
as it pursued violent struggle, achieved nothing. Once it resorted to 
Intifada, it got at least pittance.

Violence has endangered that pittance today is a different case; 
Israel's true nature --- a fascist state with a racial philosophy 
quite akin to herrenfolk, its democracy (and earlier socialism) for 
Israelis notwithstanding --- will take some more time to be widely 
realised. Only Intifada will force the Israelis' hand into some 
concession-making while international opinion and pressure might make 
Israel a true democracy for all, with crucial Palestinian concerns 
being met in substantial measure. In most other areas of civil wars 
in Africa only anarchy has incrementally won.

All this has relevance for Kashmir. Taking up the gun in Kashmir --- 
under the euphoria created by nuclear capability --- was a mistake. 
Nonviolent protest is far more effective. Violent means are an 
invitation to a ruthless government to employ far greater violence 
and kill so many that the whole society is brutalised and chances of 
progress vanish.

Let the Kashmiris, the actual Kashmiris, revert to nonviolent 
protests and demand freedom --- from the Indians who are denying it 
in various forms. Pakistan has little role. It can only do what it 
claims: giving political, moral and diplomatic support and no gun 
running. In the end, the matter has to be resolved by the Kashmiris 
and Indians primarily between themselves.

There is no reason for Pakistan to remain fixed on 'Kashmir or 
nothing' while India goes on saying 'anything but Kashmir'. Let's get 
out of that sterility. Let's be truly flexible. Normalise ties fully 
with India. Be civilised neighbours, trading and cooperating, while 
differing on Kashmir NMD and possibly many other issues. Create a 
pro-Pakistan lobby in India openly.

Let India try to do the same here. Let us both be democracies and 
truly civilised by treating our own and India's citizens with 
courtesy and sympathy. Let us both progress economically, politically 
and socially through regional cooperation. Pakistan's unremitting 
efforts to recruit UN, American or any other mediation are 
misconceived too; the propaganda points thus gained do not amount to 
much in real life. Indians are unlikely to agree to any mediation. 
Nor western good offices will necessarily be to the advantage of 
Pakistan.

For, most of them will ultimately advise Islamabad to accept the LOC 
as the definitive border with India. If that is what might come of 
it, Pakistan might as well do it without the pother of international 
mediation. At any rate, the failure at Agra might have increased the 
American role in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan have to count 
the cost of developments that may ensue. Finally Pakistan economy's 
current state and its prospects demand a basic change in the national 
budgeting. This is definitive. It cannot go on bearing the burden of 
both the expected levels of debt servicing and security outlays in 
the coming years. Economic expertise of western bankers cannot make 
fewer resources much ampler by pursuing the policies they are being 
told to pursue. A basic change is overdue. That cannot come without a 
revolutionary change in Pakistan's India policy. Will there by any?

______

2.

"Frontline", August 3, 2001
Comment

A worthy initiative

By Praful Bidwai

A major diplomatic initiative does not "fail" merely because it does 
not result in a joint Declaration. The Agra Summit must not be judged 
harshly or hastily and declared a failure just because the draft 
Declaration foundered on commas and full-stops. However one analyses 
the fine print of all the disparate statements by India and Pakistan 
about Agra, there can be little doubt that the two nations attempted 
something new there. The very fact that they advanced the hand of 
friendship to each other is noteworthy. This could well herald a new 
era in South Asia's tangled history and put on the agenda what has so 
far been almost unthinkable: peace, tranquillity and cooperation 
between India and Pakistan as they proceed to resolve outstanding 
disputes.

The Agra Summit was not Lahore-II, nor a repetition of any of the 
earlier attempts at an India-Pakistan rapprochement. It took place in 
qualitatively different circumstances and has a unique significance. 
The Lahore meeting between Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif 
happened amidst tight police rule and the arrest of thousands of 
Sharif's opponents, especially from the religious parties. Division 
within the Pakistani political class was palpable as Vajpayee and 
Sharif embraced each other. This didn't hold true of Agra. This 
Summit evoked little active or street-level domestic opposition, 
despite the reservations of the Pakistan People's Party and Muslim 
League.

More important, the Agra Summit attempted something far more 
ambitious than Lahore: rather than mere confidence-building measures 
(CBMs), it sought to address some of the root-causes of the mutual 
hostility, suspicion and mistrust that mark India-Pakistan relations 
and even their domestic politics.

Indian and Pakistani leaders came to Agra with their own conflicting 
priorities. Indian leaders wanted to get a series of agreements in 
place on nuclear restraint, conventional CBMs, trade liberalisation, 
economic cooperation, people-to-people contacts, etc. Very 
importantly, they also wanted to get Pakistan to withdraw its support 
to "cross-border terrorism" in Kashmir--should Kashmir at all be 
given central place in the talks. For Pakistan, the top priority was 
to get India to accept the centrality or primacy of the Kashmir 
"dispute", or as Musharraf diluted it in the morning of July 16, "the 
Kashmir issue".

In the event, the two sides agreed to accord Kashmir exceptional 
status as the central or main issue at stake between them. They could 
not agree on language and on a consensual formulation on ending 
"cross-border terrorism" as a means of and one step towards resolving 
the Kashmir problem. They nevertheless agreed to resume their 
dialogue, with summits every year between the two heads of 
government, and foreign minister-level meetings every six months.

At the end of the day, the effort to produce a joint statement failed 
because diplomats from the two sides could not unshackle themselves 
from old stereotypes and stated positions. But they could try 
again--and succeed. At any rate, it would be puerile to blame 
Musharraf's breakfast meeting with editors for the impasse that 
ensued in the afternoon of July 16. Unconventional as it was, the 
General's initiative did not represent a hardened stance, but just 
the opposite. He strained to indicate flexibility and a willingness 
to enter into a "partnership" with India and turn this historic 
"event" into "historic gains". Terms like "partnership" and "fruitful 
cooperation", and tributes to "people-to-people contacts" and "the 
high road to peace and prosperity," do not come easily to Indian and 
Pakistan leaders. "Partnership", until now, was reserved for others, 
especially the US. The fact that they are being used now is 
reflective of a change of climate.

This climate offers India and Pakistan a historic opportunity to 
unshackle themselves from one of the main fetters upon their 
potential development as healthy, pluralistic, open and democratic 
societies. The fetter is the mutual hostility that has attended 
their relations right since their birth. Hostility has been a major 
input not just into their military preparations, but into the way 
they define their nationhood, the way their leaders envisage their 
future, the way their political systems decide on what is the 
"acceptable" level of force to be used against their own people, as 
well as their adversary, and the privations they are willing to 
inflict on their own people by undermining their social, economic and 
civil and political rights.

The constant stoking of hostility has caused a major drain on 
resources away from the minimum needs of the people. It has also been 
an important aggravating factor in the growth of communal and 
sectarian politics. Above all, it has provided grist to the mills of 
intolerance. It has helped "externalise" the true causes of their 
internal problems.

For Hindutva in India, rivalry with Pakistan provides repeated 
validation of the Two-Nation Theory and of the communal proposition 
that Muslims and Hindus have altogether different "psyches"; 
intransigent, "fanatical", "violence-prone" Muslims can never live in 
harmony with "peaceful and tolerant" Hindus. Contrariwise, for 
Pakistan's Islamicist jehadis, India-Pakistan hostility provides both 
cause and proof of irreconcilable differences: the "incompatibility" 
of pluralism and Nizam-e-Mustafa, or the peaceful coexistence of the 
pious and the kafir.

The failure of the Agra Summit to produce a joint Declaration is a 
temporary setback to the cause of combating the "hostility-forever" 
mindset so favoured by communalists. Representatives of the communal 
Right can barely hide their glee. (Some privately congratulate Sushma 
Swaraj for distorting the content of the talks). And yet, they are 
profoundly mistaken to underrate the three factors that made the Agra 
Summit possible and influenced its far-from-trivial gains.

These are, first, the substantial growth of a popular constituency 
for peace in India and Pakistan; second, the support that Vajpayee 
received from the secular forces on inviting Musharraf; and finally, 
changes in the balance between the Pragmatists and the Cynics in 
India's foreign policy establishment. The peace constituency has 
grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade in both India and 
Pakistan. This is reflected in the multiplication of people-to-people 
initiatives-in magnitude, scope, numbers and reach. There are at 
least 20 such NGOs, including the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament 
and Peace (India) and Pakistan Peace Coalition, the Pakistan-India 
People's Forum for Peace and Democracy, South Asians for Human 
Rights, Association of the Peoples of South Asia, Hind-Pakistani 
Dosti, Women's Initiative for Peace in South Asia, even Soldiers for 
Peace. Along with growing people-to-people interaction, there have 
been seminars, workshops, and mutual visits among students, 
journalists, trade unionists, social scientists and human rights 
activists. These have increasingly broken down the barriers of 
prejudice. All these groups hold that peace is possible and 
desirable, indeed imperative.

Among the most significant of these was the July 12-13 Pakistan-India 
People's Solidarity Conference held in New Delhi, sponsored or 
endorsed by more than 200 organisations. The Conference was the 
culmination of a long process of dialogue and deliberation on a range 
of issues. It demanded a negotiated settlement to the Kashmir 
problem, involving the people of all regions of Jammu and Kashmir. It 
declared that the only sensible way of reducing the nuclear danger in 
South Asia is to ensure that nuclear weapons are never deployed. It 
adopted a simple, yet far-reaching, Declaration which drew out and 
developed the logic of India-Pakistan rapprochement and peace.

There is simply no doubt that the Vajpayee and Musharraf governments 
have had to take this peace constituency into account and pay some 
heed to it. It is significant that Jaswant Singh, while criticising 
Pakistan's initial response to India's unilateral relaxation of visa 
restrictions, underscored the centrality of "the people": how can the 
"people's" concerns be "peripheral", as Pakistan termed the step?

Vajpayee received flak from the hawks in the foreign policy and 
defence establishments, and from within the sangh parivar and the 
Shiv Sena for inviting Musharraf. The NDA's boycott of the July 14 
tea party is related to this. Prominent among his critics have been 
diehard Pakistan-baiters such as Sanghi intellectuals and former 
ambassadors to Islamabad (who carry a baggage of prejudice from their 
bitter personal experience). It is no accident that certain 
individuals close to the Advani camp like K..R. Malkani, for 
instance, were openly dismissive of the Musharraf visit and doomed 
the Summit to failure.

The Vajpayee initiative received strong support from leaders of the 
secular parties of the Left and the Centre, who refused to boycott 
the July 14 tea party and who saw the Agra Summit in broad-minded 
terms as a worthy cause precisely because of its potential to defuse 
India-Pakistan hostility and strengthen the sentiment for 
reconciliation and peace. Vajpayee specifically urged them to support 
him and help isolate the "grumblers from the Right" in his own 
parivar. He also interacted with a section of liberal intelligentsia, 
which reinforced his Summit initiative

Vajpayee himself seems to have been influenced by a desire to leave a 
positive "legacy". Deeply impressed at the enduring popularity of the 
Lahore bus, he probably wants to be remembered for contributing to a 
resolution of India-Pakistan tensions and the Kashmir issue rather 
than for his Hindutva. The overwhelming support he received from 
secular politicians, the intelligentsia, and much of the media has 
certainly helped him.

This is related to the third factor. This is the ascendancy of the 
Pragmatists over the Cynics--the two broad tendencies that divide the 
policy-making and -shaping elite in New Delhi. The Cynics, who regard 
Pakistan as irredeemably recalcitrant and hostile, and prefer a 
hardline approach, have had to yield ground to the Pragmatists. In 
recent weeks, their "pro-active policy" in Kashmir has run out of 
steam. The Cynics wanted the government to take a tough stand on 
Kashmir, which they believe could be "sold" to the Bush 
administration, which is more favourably disposed towards India than 
Pakistan. The Cynics believed nothing could and would come out of 
Agra.

The Pragmatists thought differently: India can't indefinitely sustain 
hostility with Pakistan. This is dangerous, especially in today's 
nuclearised situation, which certainly greatly worries the world. 
Pakistan's internal problems, compounded by the Afghan imbroglio, may 
be worse than India's. But India can't be indifferent to them, leave 
alone rejoice in them. A destabilised or "failing" Pakistan is not in 
India's interest. Besides, argued the Pragmatists, India-Pakistan 
rivalry is a hurdle to South Asian cooperation. So India had much to 
gain from Agra. Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. India made a 
big mistake by targeting Musharraf for too long, and insisting on an 
end to "cross-border terrorism" as a precondition for talks, say the 
Pragmatists. It was OK to do so six months after Kargil. But a 
correction has been in order. Agra provides that, and more.

Admittedly, the line of demarcation between the Cynics and the 
Pragmatists has not always been clear. Many cross it for reasons of 
expediency. But in recent months, the Pragmatists have gained over 
the Cynics. That too has helped Vajpayee. Equally, a large number of 
people stand outside the Cynic-Pragmatist divide. They are fed up 
with the hostility with Pakistan and its accompanying rhetoric; they 
want a break so they can return to the real priorities of food 
security, shelter, healthcare, education, employment...

The forces that made the Agra Summit possible in the first place and 
which strengthened the drive for India-Pakistan reconciliation are 
deeply rooted in this society. They are not about to disintegrate. 
They must strongly push for a resumption of the Vajpayee-Musharraf 
dialogue. There is a whole rich agenda to be addressed. It would be 
positively dangerous to postpone some parts of it. What we need now 
is a popular campaign and grassroots mobilisation for India-Pakistan 
peace.-end-

________

3.

Peace Support Group calls for peace and reconciliation

The President's decision to prorogue Parliament in the face of a 'No
Confidence Motion' against the government and a petition signed by a majority
of the members of parliament calling for an early debate on the Motion, is
clearly a subversion of the basic principles and practices of parliamentary
democracy. The integrity of the parliamentary process is called into question
when Parliament is prorogued for expedient and partisan reasons, a group
styling itself the Peace Support Group has said.
Furthermore the decision to hold a non-binding referendum during this period
is a cynical attempt to divert attention from the blatantly anti-democratic
act of prorogation by executive fiat. In addition, the wording of the
question to be placed at the referendum - "Is a new constitution as a matter
of national importance and necessity needed for the country?" - shows a
measure of contempt for the public's understanding of the issues relating to
constitution making. The objective of the referendum needs to be clarified.
There is confusion as to whether it is purely consultative or the first step
towards the adoption of a new Constitution through extra-Constitutional
means.
The Constitution is a social contract among all the groups and communities
living in a society. It should be an agreed text based on a broad
consultative process as well as a multi-party consensus. In the absence of
this, to even attempt to frame constitutional issues in a year/no format at a
referendum, is to question the very legitimacy of the process of
Constitution-making.
Accordingly, we urge the immediate rescinding of the Presidential orders
proroguing parliament and calling for a referendum. We also recommend the
setting up of a 2 year Interim Government of Peace and Reconciliation in the
spirit of partnership and power sharing, committed to advancing the peace
process and democratic reform. This government should comprise the incumbent
President, a Prime Minister who commands the confidence of Parliament and
representatives of political parties who agree on a minimum programme of
peace and democratic reform.
Our proposal is not to be confused with proposals from sections of civil
society and the polity that favour the setting-up of a 'National Government'
with the objective of excluding minority parties and prosecuting the war. We
totally reject this. What we favour, instead, is the formation of an Interim
Government of Peace and Reconciliation to implement a Minimum Programme which
includes the following elements:
1. Re-activation of the peace process.
2. Constitutional reforms including the abolition of the Executive
presidency, establishment of five Independent Commissions, electoral reforms,
substantial Devolution of powers and a commitment to enhance the protection
of human rights.
3. The strengthening of the existing Bribery Commission and Human Rights
Commission.
We appeal to all political parties to rise above partisan interests and
address the current crisis. We call on members of civil society to defend and
promote democracy and peace at this critical juncture in our history.

The statement has been signed by: Sunila Abeysekere, Radhika Coomaraswamy,
Sunanda Deshapriya, Rohan Edirisinha, Ketheshwaran Loganathan, Paikiasothy
Saravanamuttu, Jeevan Thiagarajah and Joe William.

Sunday Observer
July 22 2001

________

4.

CRM calls for responsible action

Prorogation of Parliament, when a no-confidence motion is pending, though
apparently permitted by the Constitution, is not in the spirit of democracy.
The discretion to prorogue Parliament should only be used for good reason
that is clearly in the national interest, the Civil Rights Movement has said
in a statement.
The referendum is a costly diversion which appears meaningless due to the way
it is phrased, which is as follows:
"Is a new constitution as a matter of national importance and necessity
needed for the country?"
The people are being asked whether they want a new Constitution, without it
being specified what this Constitution would be.
Since all major political parties have stated publicly that there should be a
new Constitution, they should as a matter of urgency communicate this
formally to the President, together with a commitment to actively engage in a
constructive process of formulating a constitution which could command the
necessary majority.
The Referendum should then be cancelled.
This would enable attention to be concentrated on the pressing problems that
face the country, by far the most urgent of which is the armed conflict that
daily causes untold misery to thousands. The people have a right to expect
their representatives to act responsibility in the national interest.

Sunday Observer
July 22 2001

________

5.

[25 July 2001]

PHOOLAN DEVI SHOT DEAD
I.K.Shukla

This woman MP from Mirzapur, U.P., was liquidated in broad daylight 
in New Delhi, the capital of BJP's Bharat, July 25 afternoon. Another 
feather in the cap of Bharat Mahaan. Old glory restored once more.

As previously in the Vatican Vajpayee had assured the Pope that 
Christians were safe and happy in Bharat, there was neither any 
violence nor any discrimination against them, so in Durban, Aug.31, 
some minister or minion of Bharat Sarkar will assure the World 
Conference on Xenophobia and Racism that there is no caste-based 
discrimination in India, just as there is no female infanticide, no 
bride burning, no violence against women, no forced female traffic. 
As for violence against Dalits, Bharat neither allows it nor has ever 
heard of it. Such canards belong to history. And only unpatriotic 
people resurrect them from time to time for foreign propaganda.

That she was murdered in New Delhi proves quite a few major things: 
Even if an MP, if you are a Dalit, you are not safe. So, never try 
being an MP. The parliament is for the upper caste elites -
affluent, propertied classes, urban or rural. If you are a Dalit 
woman, know your place. Otherwise, you will be cut down. So nothing 
could save Phoolan Devi because she was a Dalit, a woman, and had the 
gumption to sit as an equal among the lawmakers of the land.

Prior to this Capital mayhem just three days ago a Dalit woman was 
gang raped in Haryana by six upper caste youth. None of the rapists 
apprehended, jailed, nor ever to be hanged. Dalit women in Tamilnadu 
have been burnt alive for the crime of wearing a blouse. In Bihar 
and U.P. the crimes against Dalits are a daily occurrence. Not that 
other states lag much far behind in perpetrating atrocities on Dalits 
and their women. But since BJP-NDA says all this is untrue and 
random, and hence no reflection of anarchy or bias, those demurring 
with it are anti-national.

Phoolan Devi had to be made an example of. She was a fighting icon 
against caste oppression and male savagery in a society which is 
abysmaly steeped in hierarchical and inhumane prejudices, in violence 
and immorality, in iniquity and degradation, in manifold corruption, 
and myriad crimes of monumental proportions. This society refuses to 
loosen its grips on the slaves (Dalits) whose labor and honor it 
exploits as a matter of right by tradition. Therefore any attempt on 
the part of Dalits to emancipate themselves is crushed bloodily and 
brutally. Whether it be demands for fair wages, or water from a 
village well or pond, or admission to temples or schools, or jobs in 
the private or public sector, Dalits must consent to be denied their 
rights in perpetuity. Or, face liquidation, their divinely sanctioned 
deserts, their anciently ordained destiny. No conversion for them to 
escape heaps of humiliations and deprivations. They are born to be 
exploited, "enjoyed", or execeuted by the upper caste.

Unless this communal fascist gang, the Hindu Taliban, now in the 
saddle, is kicked out right away India cannot breathe free and easy. 
It harbors and fosters criminals, many of them ministers. It is 
soaked in scams and scandals galore. It has piled a record of crimes 
in two years that other governments would take centuries to match. It 
would keep India illiterate, intimidated, and terrorized- without 
memory, without morals, without civility and dignity, without 
culture, justice and freedom. The HTaliban savages must be liquidated 
before they liquidate India. 

________

6.

PRESS COMMUNIQUE ON MURDER OF PHOOLAN DEVI

The murder of Phoolan Devi in broad day light as she was returning from
the Indian parliament of which she was a member shows ultimate savagery
of the Indian caste system, which tolerates people of the deprived
castes only when they are submissive and not when they stand up as equal
to caste Hindus.

Phoolan Devi had received death threats and requested for a "Z" level
high security, which was refused by the Home Ministry. She has been
killed in the wake of the forthcoming elections in Uttar Pradesh, the
most populous of Indian states. Phoolan Devi was a member of Samajwadi
Party which is expected to pose real threat to ruling Hindu nationalist
Bhartiya Janata party led by the present Prime Minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee.

Phoolan Devi was the subject of the well-known movie "Bandit Queen". Yet
Phoolan Devi was neither a bandit not a queen. She was a daughter of
the wretched of India who had fought against upper caste tyranny against
"Dalits", an Indian word for the oppressed.

This cowardly murder of Phoolan Devi underscores the correctness of the
demand of all Dalit organizations of India and other democratic sections
of the society to take up the issue of caste system at the forthcoming
UN conference on racism in South Africa. This also exposes the hypocrisy
of the Indian government which is doing its best to prevent inclusion of
caste system in the conference.

Phoolan Devi had accepted the invitation of CERAS to vist Canada on a
lecture tour and we were looking forward to her visit after the
elections in Uttar Pradesh.

CERAS, Centre d'etudes et de ressources sur l'Asie du Sud (South Asia
Research and Resource Center) condemns this cowardly murder of Phoolan
Devi in the strongest possible terms and conveys its sympathy to her
husband and to the leaders and members of the Samajwadi Party.

Daya Varma
President,
CERAS (Quebec, Canada)
Phone: (514) 398-3632

________

7.

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1670104917

SC ASKS SIX STATES TO END STARVATION AMIDST PLENTY

OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

THE TIMES OF INDIA NEWS SERVICE

EW DELHI: Shocked at the increasing number of starvation deaths 
despite overflowing Food Corporation of India (FCI) godowns across 
the country, the Supreme Court on Monday asked six drought-prone 
states to reopen closed public distribution shops withina week.
The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has alleged starvation 
deaths in Orissa, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and 
Himachal Pradesh.

While the apex court was concerned at the plight of starving people, 
attorney general Soli Sorabjee termed it as a ``horrendous state of 
affairs'' and said there was something ``radically wrong with the 
system''.

The court said the government priority, in compliance with the Famine 
Code, should be to provide food to the aged, infirm, disabled, 
destitute, and pregnant and lactating women who are in danger of 
starvation.

A Bench comprising Justice B N Kirpal and Justice K G Balakrishnan 
said that it was ``a situation of plenty wherein the officialdom in 
the country created the scarcity of food''. The Bench further 
observed: ``There is plenty of food, but distribution of it among the 
poor is absent.''

``Devise a scheme where no person goes hungry when the granaries are 
full and lots being wasted due to non-availability of storage 
space,'' the Bench told the government.

Sorabjee said to devise such a scheme would require a coordinated 
effort between the states and the Centre and sought two weeks' time. 
The court granted his plea and posted the matter for further hearing 
on August 20. The court also sought affidavits from the six states, 
the Centre and the FCI detailing their response to meet the 
unprecedented situation of ``scarcity among plenty''.

PUCL counsel Colin Gonsalves and Aparna Bhat said it was ``tragic 
that over 50 million tonnes of foodgrain, as against the required 
buffer stock of 17 million tonnes, were lying in various godowns of 
FCI across the country but the non-enforcement of the Famine Code had 
resulted in starvation deaths.''

PUCL raised three questions relating to the right to food. ``Does the 
right to life mean that people who are starving and who are too poor 
to buy food grains ought to be given food grain free of cost by the 
state from the surplus stock lying with the state, particularly when 
it is reported that a large part of it is lying unused and rotting?'' 
it asked.

``Does not the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution 
include the right to food?

``Does not the right of food, which has been upheld by the apex 
court, imply that the state has a duty to provide food, especially in 
situations of drought, to people who are drought-affected and are not 
in a position to purchase food?'' PUCL asked.

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

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.

[ All interested and concerned by the dangers of Nuclearisation of South
Asia are invited to join South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List. => send a
blank e-mail message to : <saan-subscribe@l...> ]
--