[sacw] SACW #1 | 17-18 Feb. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 17-18 February 2002

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

#1. Kashmir (Ardeshir Cowasjee)
#2. Kashmir: Is the Hurriyat decision to form an EC justified?=20
(Gautam Navlakha)
#3. Fishermen of India & Pakistan often face arrest on charges of=20
violation of sea boundaries
#4. India: Ayodhya Offensive (Sukumar Muralidharan)
#5. India: Advani and Ayodhya (Praveen Swami)
#6. India: A task force and unfinished tasks (Dionne Bunsha)
#7. 2nd Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival (Dec. 2002)
#8. Asian Film Festival in Dallas looking for some enteries from India/Paki=
stan

________________________

#1.

Dawn 17 February 2002

Kashmir
By Ardeshir Cowasjee

How many times do we all find ourselves at a gathering addressed by a=20
retired or serving member of our armed forces who boasts that one=20
Pakistani soldier can take on four Indian soldiers only to be=20
interrupted by a hawk in the audience with a correction - no, one of=20
ours can take on not four, but five of theirs?
How many times do the history textbooks used in our schools reiterate=20
that Pakistan has fought gloriously and won two wars against India?=20
Our schoolchildren are never taught that we have fought only to=20
suffer.
Today, could the Pakistan army march into Kashmir and conquer the=20
disputed territory which most Pakistanis claim to be theirs and=20
impose our will? The answer, of course, is no. Could we name any=20
world power which would support us in a war against India? The=20
answer, once again, is no. Can we hope that the moral, diplomatic and=20
political support (which we are told is the sole aid we afford to the=20
people of Indian occupied Kashmir) will help them in any way to gain=20
their freedom? No. We have been on the same tack for half a century,=20
getting nowhere, so surely the time has come to change course.=20
Kashmir is in the blood of every Pakistani, we are told. But should=20
it be Kashmir in our blood or Pakistan in our blood?
Now, in the world of today Kashmir is not the only conflict area. Let=20
us take one area of conflict in the Far East, the 'Northern=20
Territories' of the Pacific, consisting principally of four of the=20
Kurile islands located off the north-east coast of the Nemuro=20
Penninsula of Hokkaido, Japan - Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashiri and=20
Etorofu. Russia occupies them, Japan claims them.
The Kuriles have been the subject of claims and counter-claims,=20
conflict and treaties since the mid-19th century. Japan and Russia=20
first established diplomatic relations in 1855 and national=20
boundaries between the two were drawn. According to the Shimoda=20
Treaty, the Kurile Islands were to belong to Russia and the island of=20
Sakhalin was to be a mixed settlement divided between the two=20
countries.
Niggling problems arose as regards Sakhalin and it was decided to=20
make a clear cut division, Russia calling for a division at the 48th=20
parallel and Japan at the 50th parallel, but neither side could come=20
to terms. In 1875 another treaty was concluded by which Russia agreed=20
that Japan would hand over title to the Sakhalin island to Russia and=20
in return Russia would hand over to Japan the Kurile islands.
In 1904, Japan and Russia went to war over Manchuria and other=20
regional interests. Contrary to world expectations, Japan was able to=20
wage active and persistent operations, as a result of which Russian=20
troops sustained a humiliating defeat. The Japanese government,=20
realizing that the continuation of the war with Russia would be=20
beyond their military and financial potentialities, secretly but=20
officially asked the US to take the initiative for the reconciliation=20
of the two sides.
Fearful of further Japanese expansion, US President Theodore=20
Roosevelt at once agreed to be a mediator. He considered that the=20
best solution for the United States would be a condition of mutual=20
balance between Japanese and Russian forces and not for one side to=20
win. So, in 1905 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a peace treaty was=20
signed, according to which all previous agreements and treaties were=20
to be annulled and the southern half of Sakhalin island was ceded by=20
Russia to Japan. Thanks to his contribution as a mediator during the=20
conclusion of the peace agreement, Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel=20
Peace Prize in 1906.
>From the mid-1920s, southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles assumed extreme=20
strategic importance for Japan. They built numerous military bases on=20
the islands, and on November 26, 1941, it was from Kasatka Bay on=20
Iturup island from where an aircraft carrier formation set sail to=20
attack Pearl Harbour.
At the Yalta conference of 1945, Josef Stalin asked that at the end=20
of the war the Kuriles and southern Sakhalin be returned to Russia.=20
US President Franklin Roosevelt felt there would be no difficulty in=20
this happening provided the USSR entered the war against Japan. This=20
it did. Three days after the Japanese surrendered, the Soviets landed=20
on the Kuriles, occupied them and by 1946 they were declared the=20
property of the Soviet state. Japan was not a participant at Yalta -=20
it was still waging war - and it attaches no relevance to the=20
agreement made there. Russia holds that the agreement reached at=20
Yalta is legally binding.
In the mid-1950s, the Soviet Union agreed to hand over two of the=20
islands to Japan, an agreement on which it reneged later when Japan=20
signed a mutual cooperation and security agreement with the United=20
States giving them the right to use their forces in any region of the=20
Far East from Japanese territory. In the 1960s Japan started=20
persistently demanding not only two islands but four. No final=20
decision between the two countries was arrived at and the question=20
remained unresolved with the Soviets still in possession of the=20
islands. However, in 1969, all school maps in Japan mark the Kurils=20
as Japanese territory, and since 1971 each February 7 is celebrated=20
in Japan as the 'Day of the Northern Territories'.
The situation always has been and remains highly complicated. Each=20
side and its supporters air their own diverse views. But since 1945,=20
Japan and Russia, though not having officially signed a peace treaty,=20
have not gone to war, or threatened war. Today's position, as=20
described by the Japanese government, is that the two countries are=20
talking.
In October 1993, President Boris Yeltsin visited Japan, drank saki,=20
his hosts drank vodka, and they talked. At the end of 1994 the first=20
deputy prime minister of Russia went to Japan and the two sides=20
talked again. In April 1996, on the occasion of the Moscow Nuclear=20
Safety Summit, Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and Yeltsin=20
again talked.
In 1997, a Japan-Russia summit was held on the occasion of the Denver=20
Summit and the Russians and Japanese talked, and agreed to continue=20
talking, which they consistently have done. In March 2001, Japanese=20
Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori visited Irkutsk and he and Russian=20
President Vladimir Putin talked and agreed that a peace treaty should=20
be concluded to resolve the issue of the four islands. Based on=20
results so far achieved, the two countries continue to engage in=20
vigorous negotiations to find a solution acceptable to both.
Are we, Pakistan, now finally on the right tack? On the second day of=20
his visit to Washington last week, President General Pervez Musharraf=20
reiterated his determination to turn Pakistan into a "dynamic,=20
liberal, progressive, peaceful and genuinely democratic Muslim=20
country." Well done! If we do manage to be 'turned', this should=20
solve all our problems, including one main irritant - the issue of=20
Kashmir.
As for democracy, in 1997 the then democratic prime minister of=20
Pakistan, Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif, took it upon himself to order=20
that the Supreme Court be stormed by his democratic militants. The=20
laws of this land and its courts were unable to convict him for his=20
act. Yesterday morning we read how Chaudhry Shujaat, erstwhile=20
democratic stalwart of Nawaz Sharif and his interior minister,=20
stormed the parliament building and disrupted the working of the=20
Public Accounts Committee - and this is the democrat who, it is said,=20
is one of the main contenders to be selected as prime minister after=20
the elections of October, 2002. Does he not warrant disqualification=20
from even standing in the coming elections? To have democracy, the=20
people of this country, all of them, must have respect for law and=20
order and law and order will have to be imposed.

______

#2.

The Times of India FEBRUARY 17, 2002

Is the Hurriyat decision to form an EC justified?
IN BLACK AND WHITE / GAUTAM NAVLAKHA

[ SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2002 12:16:28 AM ]
It is legitimate for an aggrieved people to assert themselves to=20
promote their case. The three-stage election in Indian and=20
Pakistan-held Kashmir, as announced by the All-Party Hurriyat=20
Committee, does precisely this.
It'll settle the issue of who represents the Kashmiri people and=20
bring politics back in command in Kashmir by sidelining the gun.
Those who comprise the Election Commission formed by the APHC are=20
from Pakistan and India. They do not represent the establishment.=20
This ought to generate confidence in the viability of the project.
In fact, it sends the message that there are three parties to the=20
conflict. Just as representation is an issue in Indian-held Kashmir,=20
it is in the Pakistan-held territory too.
The APHC brings a variety of political persuasions under one umbrella=20
on the issue of self-determination. However, their representative=20
character has been doubted. The Indian government wanted them to=20
contest assembly elections to "establish'' this.
Elections have been one of the earliest issues around which=20
estrangement with India grew. The very first election in 1951 saw=20
nomination papers of opposition parties cancelled and National=20
Conference members winning uncontested.
In 1987, the mandate was rigged through (mis)counting of votes, while=20
from 1996 onwards, soldiers began forcing people to vote. All these=20
polls were upheld by the Election Commission.
The Indian Election Commission has a mandate to hold elections to=20
form a government either at the Centre or the state. But advocacy of=20
assembly elections is meant to suggest that the problem in Kashmir is=20
merely of disaffection caused by misgovernance. This is ridiculous=20
when accession itself is being questioned.
The Indian government insists that right from 1988, the Kashmir issue=20
has been fuelled by "cross-border terrorism''. Policy-makers argue=20
that if this terrorism ends, the Kashmiri movement would collapse.
But if terrorism poses a grave threat, then the elimination of those=20
known for favouring dialogue makes no sense. Dialogue will=20
politically defeat terrorism. Instead, Kashmiris were deluged with=20
security forces - 5,00,000 troops to fight 3,000 militants - armed=20
with draconian laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and=20
the Public Safety Act, not to mention POTO. Is this meant to defeat=20
cross-border terrorism? No, it's meant to subjugate a people.
Governments tend to deny their role in causing and perpetuating the=20
alienation of people. The rebellion by the Kashmiris in 1988 was a=20
product of their experience of living under Indian dispensation. It=20
was a logical consequence of forcing Kashmir to become an "integral=20
part'' of India.
Before dismissing the Hurriyat initiative, people must realise the=20
importance of political mobilisation. People's desire for dialogue=20
has often been read as a sign of weakness.
Their sullen anger has often spilled out on the streets during=20
funeral processions or against crackdowns and custodial killings.=20
This initiative offers engagement in a mass action programme.
It is capable of forcing the pace of political development by=20
enabling the people to decide who their representatives are. So why=20
oppose a democratic manifestation?
(The writer is a human rights activist)

______

#3.

From: Labour Notes South Asia Mailing List
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:43:33 +0100
Subject: [LNSA] Fishermen of India & Pakistan often face arrest on charges =
of
violation of sea boundaries

The News on Sunday
17 February 2002

maritime law
Bordering our waters

By Zulfiqar Shah

Hundreds of poor fishermen from India and Pakistan are often arrested
on charges of violation of sea boundaries, and are kept in jails for
years

"You cannot imagine the pain and agony I went through when my husband
was imprisoned in India," says Mai Khatoo, wife of a Pakistani
fishermen caught by Indian sea guards while fishing in the sea near
Sari creek, who has recently been released after serving several
years in Indian prison. "Besides, worrying about his safety, I had to
work day and night to feed five children as he was the only bread
earner."
Khatoo revealed her story of suffering in a seminar titled "Permanent
Solution to Fishermen Prisoners", organised by the Pakistan
Fisherfolk Forum in Karachi on February 8, 2002. Khatoo says that
each day without her husband was equal to a century.

"Life was miserable without him. My kids used to ask questions about
his whereabouts, but I had no answer because even I was not sure
whether he is alive or dead," she added.

"They did not give us food for two days until we were finally put in
jail," Majeed Golani, a fishermen from Ibrahim Hyderi, a small
village on Karachi coast, gives the account of his own experience.
Golani was one of a dozen fishermen arrested by Indian forces a few
years back. "We were mentally and physically tortured. They treated
us like prisoners of war." He insists that they did not cross the
border, but that they were arrested from Pakistani waters. "I asked
them why are you arresting us from our own waters? They said that
Pakistan's maritime security force has arrested their fishermen from
their waters so they are arresting us," he added. "We go for
livelihood and they arrest us, it is injustice."

These are not the only instances when poor fishermen fell victim to
sea border security forces of India and Pakistan. Hundreds of poor
fishermen from both sides of the border are often arrested on charges
of violation of sea boundaries, and are kept in jails for years.

Unfortunately, the arrested fishermen had to serve in jails for years
as contrary to international laws both Pakistan and India are
practicing exchange of fishermen prisoners. Such a practice is only
applicable to prisoners of war. Pakistani fishermen confess that
sometimes they cross the border mistakenly but mostly they are
arrested from their own waters. Similar are the views of fishermen on
other side of the border.

Ironically, there is no proper demarcation of a sea boundary between
the two countries, and fishermen are the worst victims of such
negligence of both the governments. "Fishermen should not be made the
victims of the enmities and boundary disputes between the two
countries," said Muhammad Ali Shah, president Pakistan Fisherfolk
Forum. "There are no borders for fishermen, they are sons of the
sea," he added. Shah is of the view that fish workers using
small-scale vessels apprehended in territorial waters for illegal
fishing or boarder crossing should not be prosecuted under laws,
which apply to illegal immigrants or infiltrators.

Old people associated to fishing industry say that like other issues
this is also a long-standing issue between the two neighbouring
countries. "This practice is not new, they used to arrest our boats
and fishermen in 1960s," says Haji, Bhota, 70, associated to
Fishermen Cooperative Society for the last thirty years. "What I know
is that fishermen are the suppressed class of the society. Their
sufferings are long and painful." Bhota informs that in the past,
government even requested renowned poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz to visit
India and play a role for the release of Pakistani fishermen.

But since the establishment of Maritime Security Agency in 1984,
Pakistan has also started arresting Indian fishermen. Now instead of
any diplomatic channels, the release of fishermen is conditional to
exchange.

Surprisingly, the fishermen arrested on either side of the border
have had to serve sentences for unlimited periods as their release
only comes in effect when the other country succeeds in arresting the
fishermen of its neighbour some time just for the sake of exchange.
"Nowhere in the world such a practice is in place," added Muhammad
Ali Shah. "This is the tragedy of this region where fishermen are
treated like prisoners of war," he added. Shah says that everywhere
in the world fishermen are warned of any violation, and even in
extreme action only their catch is seized instead of physical arrest
or prosecution. "It is only between India and Pakistan where
fishermen are arrested, prosecuted, sentenced to jail and finally
exchanged like prisoners of war," Shah added.

Pakistani fishermen say that like them Indian fishermen are very poor
and are also the victims of growing tension and disputes between the
two countries. According to Haji Bhota in 1997, 18 fishermen were
released from both countries after serving ten years in jails. "Such
a long sentence is great injustice merely on violation of sea
boundary that's also not clear," he regretted.

Interestingly, when a Pakistani delegation reached India for the
release of eight boats and fishermen last year and the negotiations
were in progress to find a solution to the issue, the Maritime
Security Agency arrested a number of Indian fishermen sabotaging the
effort. "It was embarrassing," said a member of the delegation. "
They (India) said on one hand you have came for the release of your
fishermen, while on the other hand our fishermen are being arrested
in your country."

A conference on 'Coastal Communities and the Indian Ocean's Future'
was held in Madras, India in October last year, which included the
issue of fishermen prisoners in its vision statement, urging the
states to evolve a necessary mechanism for the release and
repatriation of arrested fishermen on priority basis. This complex
problem needs specific solutions which can protect the human rights
of fish workers, says the statement adding that "fish workers should
not be made victims of maritime boundary disputes between states.
States need to have working arrangements which provide fish workers
access to resources in such fishing grounds for life and livelihood."

On other hand, security agencies maintain that it is not practically
possible to escape fishermen from the borders. "We have recently
arrested 16 Indian boats from as near as 40 kilometers from Karachi,"
said an official of a security agency responsible for guarding the
sea borders.

In most cases, agencies arrest the fishermen on suspicion of spying.
They are often interrogated in that context after arrest and are
subjected to torture. Indian fishermen are asked about their
relations with RAW, while Pakistanis are investigated for their
association with ISI. "We have nothing to do with agencies, we just
work for our livelihood," said Shah "It is ridiculous if they take
action on such s suspicion."

He says that fishermen are the most hard working community, who earn
their livelihood after staying several days in the sea, fighting with
rough weathers and worst conditions. "India and Pakistan must commit
not to arrest each other's fishermen," he suggested. "We urge both
the countries to accommodate the interest of fishing communities
along with their security and national concerns."

Experts say that even in case of crossing the borders, fishermen are
not guilty because there is no proper demarcation of sea borders
between the two countries. "It is a criminal negligence of both the
countries," said Karamat Ali, director Pakistan Institute of Labor
Education and Research (PILER). "There should be demarcation
according to UN Sea Conventions," he added. Karamat says that
agencies on both sides of the border don't want a proper demarcation
as they are using it for different purposes. He says that according
to international sea laws, the maximum punishment for fishermen on
violation is seizing their fish-catch. But in this case, they end up
serving ten years in prison. He regretted that the Government of
Pakistan did not reciprocate the Indian government's good will
gesture when it announced in August last year that it would not
arrest Pakistani fishermen.

Presently, there are only five Pakistani fishermen in Indian jails,
while the number of Indian fishermen in Pakistani jails is 94.
Majority of them was arrested recently along with 16 fishing boats.
Local fishermen say that the government should release them
unconditionally as this will carry a good message to the Indian
government, which would reciprocate in future in case of their arrest
of Pakistani fishermen.

"This issue needs a permanent solution," added Muhammad Ali Shah. "We
have taken the issue at international level but it needs more
pressure on both countries from people who believe in human rights.
Human rights organisations must raise their voice and find a
permanent solution." Shah informs that fishermen are not released
even after completing their sentence. They have to wait till another
country's arrest for exchange. He says that after 1982 the issue has
become more complicated.

In Karamat's views, the issue of fishermen prisoners must not be
associated with Kashmir as each issue between the two countries is
being linked to the Kashmir issue. "Musharraf should announce that
the government would not arrest Indian fishermen."

--
To join the Labour Notes South Asia Mailing List, send a blank=20
message to: lnsa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

______

#4.

Frontline
Volume 19 - Issue 04, Feb. 16 - Mar. 1, 2002
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1904/19040040.htm

AYODHYA OFFENSIVE

As the renewed Hindutva build-up towards a temple in Ayodhya=20
escalates, the distant echoes from a period of lawlessness that the=20
Bharatiya Janata Party was deeply implicated in, begin once again to=20
resound across the political landscape.

SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN
Full Text at: http://www.flonnet.com/fl1904/19040040.htm

______

#5.

Frontline
Volume 19 - Issue 04, Feb. 16 - Mar. 1, 2002
COVER STORY

Advani and Ayodhya

An estranged daughter-in-law makes some charges before the Liberhan=20
Commission of Inquiry and then backs off.

PRAVEEN SWAMI

THOSE who tuned in late might be forgiven for believing that Union=20
Home Minister L.K. Advani had nothing to do with the tragic events of=20
December 6, 1992 at Ayodhya.

At his repeated appearances before the Justice M.S. Liberhan=20
Commission of Inquiry, Advani has protested against the slightest=20
suggestion that he had anything to do with the demolition of the=20
Babri Masjid. He insisted that the act was the work of "a few hundred=20
people" who did not heed appeals made by leaders to come down from=20
the domes. During his last deposition on December 28, he denied=20
having made a speech from the Ram Katha Kunj to the mob that was=20
about to bring down the Masjid, and then protested furiously when=20
confronted with an Uttar Pradesh Police intelligence report that=20
recorded the opposite. The Home Minister even suggested that the=20
document, produced by officials of a Bharatiya Janata Party=20
government, might be a fabrication. A day earlier, he had described=20
the demolition of the Masjid as a "big setback" to the BJP, and=20
denied ever having asked during his fateful rath yatra from Varanasi=20
to Ayodhya for kar seva to be carried out with "shovels and bricks."

ANU PUSHKARNA
Justice M.S. Liberhan.

Now, someone present at the start of the rath yatra has taken issue=20
with these claims. And she is not just anyone - she is L.K. Advani's=20
estranged daughter-in-law.

Gauri Advani says she witnessed a meeting between L.K. Advani and top=20
Bajrang Dal leader Vinay Katiyar just before the rath yatra began,=20
where Advani issued express orders to bring down the Babri Masjid.=20
"Iska kaam kar do," she alleges Advani told Katiyar, "kya Babri=20
Masjid ka kalank nahin mit sakta" (Can't the stain that is the Babri=20
Masjid be erased, finish it off)? Katiyar, she records, said he was=20
just waiting for permission to do so: "Hum to aapke aadesh ka=20
intezaar kar rahe hain, aur agar aap bole to Masjid ka namo-nishaan=20
mita dein" (We have just been waiting for your orders, and if you=20
permit us, we will remove its every trace). "To intezaar kis baat ki"=20
(Why should we wait?), Gauri Advani claims her father-in-law replied.=20
"Gulami ke nishaan kab tak rahenge? Masjid ko dhwasth ker kar ke=20
dikhao. Sahi samay aa gaya" (Until when will we tolerate signs of=20
slavery? Bring down the Masjid. The time has come).

These extraordinary allegations were hand-delivered to the Liberhan=20
Commission by Gauri Advani's sister on January 7, in a signed=20
nine-page document. The London-based solicitor, who is currently=20
contesting divorce proceedings initiated by L.K. Advani's son Jayant=20
Advani, asked for permission to appear before the Commission, where=20
she offered to make an even more detailed statement on oath, giving=20
evidence on aspects not contained in the statement. Gauri said she=20
had accompanied Advani and his wife Kamala Advani by the North-East=20
Express to Varanasi on November 30, 1992, and was then present during=20
his conversation with Katiyar which took place just before the rath=20
yatra began the next morning. She characterised L.K. Advani's own=20
statements before the Commission as a "bundle of lies," and said she=20
had "relevant and material information" which would help discover the=20
whole truth about the conspiracy to bring down the Babri Masjid.

Then, just as suddenly, she made a volte-face. Four days after her=20
statement was delivered in New Delhi, she faxed from London a letter=20
to the Commission saying that she did not wish to press her=20
application, and requesting that she be permitted to withdraw it.

No one knows just what Justice M.S. Liberhan intends to do with Gauri=20
Advani's statement, which he presumably studied before the Union Home=20
Minister's recent deposition. Gauri, significantly, has only sought=20
in the January 11 fax message to withdraw her application to depose=20
before the Commission. She has made no effort to recant her=20
allegations.

Interestingly, the Commissions of Inquiry Rules of 1972 make no=20
reference to such withdrawal of statements. Clause 2(b) of the rules=20
provide for any person to "furnish to the Commission a statement=20
relating to such matters as may be specified in the notification."=20
After considering such statements, which the rules make clear need=20
not be in the form of affidavits, the Commission may consider whether=20
it is "necessary to record evidence." Justice Liberhan, then, will=20
have to apply his mind to whether Gauri Advani has new evidence to=20
offer - which at first glance seems a very uncomplicated question.

But it is not: the Advani family and their daughter-in-law are=20
embroiled in litigation which, to put it mildly, has been=20
acrimonious. Such a situation is not, of course, all that unusual=20
these days, but it gives rise to questions about Gauri's motives and=20
credibility. Jayant and Gauri Advani met while she was working as the=20
BJP leader's special assistant, handling issues related to his New=20
Delhi constituency. According to Gauri, she had "deep faith in the=20
ideology" L.K. Advani propagated and took whatever he told her as=20
"gospel truth." Her father, New Delhi-based journalist Pran=20
Sabharwal, and L.K. Advani were long-time acquaintances. Jayant and=20
Gauri were married on October 12, 1991, soon after L.K. Advani's=20
first rath yatra, and just before Gauri Advani had completed two=20
years on Advani's staff. But the relationship did not last, and Gauri=20
Advani soon moved to London, where she is now a solicitor.

BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT
L.K. Advani along with wife Kamala, son Jayant (standing),=20
daughter-in-law Gauri (right) and daughter Pratibha campaigning in=20
Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

In July 2001, Jayant Advani finally sought a divorce. He alleged that=20
Gauri had deserted him seven years earlier but was not agreeing to a=20
divorce as she was interested in promoting her professional and=20
commercial interests by introducing herself as the Indian Home=20
Minister's daughter-in-law. Gauri Advani has not given her take on=20
these allegations, but she filed a counter-suit demanding the return=20
of wedding presents and jewellery claimed to be valued at Rs.3=20
crores. Again, such moves during divorce proceedings are not unusual,=20
but the subsequent events certainly were. In October 2001, Gauri went=20
public with the allegation that Hardip Singh Puri, India's Deputy=20
High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, threatened her with harm=20
unless she agreed to a divorce by mutual consent. The threat, Gauri=20
claimed, was first made in the diplomat's offices, and then over=20
lunch at a restaurant.

Shortly after that meeting, Gauri moved the Delhi High Court,=20
demanding that the police register a First Information Report against=20
Puri. The incensed Indian diplomat returned the compliment with a=20
libel suit against Gauri in a London court. He said he knew her as a=20
longstanding family friend and had advised her in "avuncular=20
fashion," when she mentioned her marital problems, to part company=20
with her husband in an amicable manner. He strongly denied there had=20
been any threat.

On October 4, a Division Bench comprising Justices Usha Mehra and=20
C.K. Mahajan directed the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi, its Police=20
Commissioner, and the Tilak Marg Police Station, which had allegedly=20
refused to register an FIR, to file their replies. Subsequently the=20
court ordered that a statement be recorded as a precursor to further=20
action. Whether that statement has been recorded or not, Gauri=20
Advani's family members will not say. Delhi Police officials=20
contacted by Frontline also declined to discuss the matter.

Nor was Pran Sabharwal willing to provide any information or insight=20
relating his daughter Gauri Advani's contrary communications to the=20
Liberhan Commission. L.K. Advani's office responded in similar vein.=20
The Minister's personal secretary, Deepak Chopra, flatly said "the=20
subject is not valid." Pressed further, he remarked that this=20
correspondent was not "reading between the lines." "The matter stands=20
absolutely closed," Chopra concluded. He agreed, however, to receive=20
a fax asking for an interview with the Minister, in which Frontline=20
made clear it sought a response to the allegations about Advani's=20
role in Ayodhya, not to any personal allegations. Till the time of=20
going to press, there was no response.

The subject might not be valid for Chopra, but it is valid for=20
determining who was responsible for the December 1992 outrage at=20
Ayodhya. The question remains: is personal grudge the reason for=20
Gauri Advani's application? Her written statement to the Commission=20
is, indeed, full of bitter recrimination directed at the L.K. Advani=20
household. She complains of being forbidden to engage in Hindu=20
"rites, rituals and ceremonies." She asserts that L.K. Advani and his=20
family members are "basically followers of Sikh religion" and that=20
her father-in-law confided in her that he had "no faith in Hinduism".=20
This particular assertion seems dubious since many Sindhi Hindus, as=20
well as other Hindu sects, privilege Guru Nanak in their religious=20
practices. In her first statement before the Liberhan Commission, she=20
contrasts what she claims to be Advani's private religious beliefs=20
with his public actions seeking to "play with the sentiments of the=20
general Hindu masses to enable the BJP to come to power at the=20
Centre."

Whether solicitor Gauri Advani will press her claims to whatever end,=20
or let them sink without a trace remains to be seen.

Copyright =A9 2002, Frontline.

_____

#6.

Frontline
Volume 19 - Issue 04, Feb. 16 - Mar. 1, 2002

A task force and unfinished tasks
The Maharashtra government appears set to wind up the Special Task=20
Force that it constituted to act on the Srikrishna Commission Report=20
on the 1992-93 riots in Mumbai.

DIONNE BUNSHA
in Mumbai
WHO says the Mumbai Police are not doing their bit to retain the=20
city's secular fabric? They went all out to celebrate 'Communal=20
Harmony Week' in January, organising seminars, meetings and even a=20
pop concert, mobilising the support of film stars, singers,=20
socialites and politicians. But the high-profile public relations=20
exercise could hardly hide the pain and anger of the victims of the=20
communal riots of December 1992 and January 1993. They have a=20
different story to tell. [...] .
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1904/19040460.htm

______

#7.

Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival

Himal Association will be holding the second edition of the festival=20
from 5-8 December 2002. We hope you will join us in this biennial=20
venture to celebrate
mountain life, cultures, people, sport, and environment.

We are, at present, soliciting films for our festival. Please be a=20
part of our endeavour by sending in mountain films you have produced=20
over the past four years and in spreading the word about us.

For further information, please check our website=20
http://www.himalassociation.org/kimff

We look forward to your kind cooperation.

Sincerely,

Ramyata Limbu
Festival Director

15 February, 2002.

_____

#8.

There is an Asian Film Festival being held in Dallas on 3/28-31, 2002=20
and they are looking for some enteries from India/Pakistan. Please=20
see <http://www.AFFD.org>http://www.AFFD.org for requirements and=20
contact them directly if interested in participating.

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

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

--=20