[sacw] SACW | 5 Dec. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 5 December 2002

[Ten years ago, on December 6 1992, the Babri Mosque was demolished by
the the peddlers of hate in India. Speak up for peace and secularism=20
join the citizens Groups in different cities of India who are=20
organising events on the 6th of December to raise their voices=20
against Communal politics. ]

__________________________

#1. Holding SAARC to ransom (Praful Bidwai)
#2. 'This 6th of December - India Is Ours' Text of Leaflet by The DU=20
Forum for Democracy
#3. Festival Against Fascism: December 6 2002 cultural events, talks,=20
demo and kit flying in New Delhi ( Aman Ekta Manch)
#4. Ways of Resisting / Kabhi Na Kaho Kabhi Nahin 1992-2002 /=20
Ayodhya-Gujarat (Sahmat / New Delhi events against communalism)
#5. Bombay Citizens Demo on 6th December
#6. The Hate Fund (Angana Chatterji)
#7. Modi's Cyber Chicanery ( P. Radhakrishnan)
#8. A Franchise of Fear (Ramachandra Guha)
#9. RSS Stakes in Gujarat (BHARAT BHUSHAN)
#10. "Living With Hunger": A Public Hearing (DELHI, 10 JANUARY 2003)
#11. IFJ Journalism For Tolerance Prize

__________________________

#1.

The News International (Pakistan)
Thursday December 05, 2002

Holding SAARC to ransom
Praful Bidwai

South Asia is the only major region of the world which is devoid of a=20
trade bloc or a serious, functional, arrangement for social and=20
economic cooperation. One of the main reasons for this is that SAARC=20
(South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) has long been a=20
hostage to the bilateral rivalry between Pakistan and India. SAARC=20
yet again seems poised to suffer a major blow from that hostility.=20
Its planned summit, from January 11 to 13 in Islamabad, may itself be=20
in jeopardy-in a repeat of the immediate post-Kargil situation.

That is the loud and clear signal emanating from the recent=20
statements of Indian leaders following the Kathmandu meeting of SAARC=20
officials' Committee on Economic Cooperation (CEC) and other related=20
events, including Pakistan's stand on the proposed South Asian Free=20
Trade Agreement (SAFTA).

The latest, apex-level, Indian statement comes from none other than=20
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. In Shimla last Sunday, Vajpayee=20
made his participation in the SAARC summit in Islamabad conditional=20
upon Pakistan "completely" ending its support to "cross-border"=20
terrorism. He also rhetorically asked: "What's the use of going for a=20
SAARC meeting when (Pakistan) is not prepared to talk on any issue=20
except Kashmir"?

Vajpayee is plain wrong on SAARC and Kashmir, which is not, and=20
cannot be, an issue before the summit. But even his precondition for=20
attending the Islamabad meeting adds a new twist to New Delhi's=20
position. This position (or rather, positions) has alternated between=20
outright stalling, prevarication and laying down preconditions.

Thus, in October, New Delhi denied that any dates for the summit were=20
communicated to it. In truth, the Foreign Ministers of all the seven=20
SAARC member-states met in New York in September and agreed to=20
confirm the proposed dates by September 23. All the states barring=20
India did so.

Since then, India has linked its participation to "progress" on=20
"economic cooperation"-that is, a review of how far the seven have=20
moved towards creating the agreed SAFTA framework by the end of 2002.=20
India believes Pakistan is dragging its feet on this, and therefore a=20
summit would serve no purpose: "economic cooperation is the heart of=20
SAARC".

This view is open to question. The consensus at the October 26-27 CEC=20
meeting in Kathmandu was that "considerable work" still needs to be=20
done before the SAFTA framework matures. For instance, it had been=20
agreed earlier that an in-depth study must be done on the likely=20
effects of the planned transition to SAFTA. Yet, no consultant has=20
been appointed to undertake it. Some other steps are yet to be taken=20
too.

There is another snag too, for which Islamabad bears responsibility.=20
Under World Trade Organisation rules, Pakistan should have granted=20
"Most Favoured Nation" (MFN) status to India-ie put India on a par=20
with its other trading partners. It has failed to do so. This is=20
because Pakistan's trade and industry chambers say they are=20
apprehensive that Indian goods will flood their market.

Islamabad insists that the MFN issue must be delinked from the SAARC=20
process; MFN pertains to requirements under the WTO, and should be=20
discussed bilaterally. This is reasonable. However, Islamabad also=20
insists that certain provisions in the WTO agreement allow it to=20
delay granting India MFN status-on grounds of the larger=20
national/public interest, etc. It also cites the fact that Bangladesh=20
too, being a "least developed country", wants more time to extend MFN=20
to India. But this has nothing to do with Pakistan's economic status=20
(it's not an LDC). And it sits ill with the insistence on a=20
"bilateral" process to discuss MFN.

Similarly, according to India's Foreign Office, Pakistan when pressed=20
in Kathmandu offered to liberalise trade in 250 items, but 146 of=20
them belong to the already "banned" or "negative" list of imports.=20
Indian officials seized upon this as a sign of Pakistan's=20
"insincerity" and its reluctance to liberalise trade, and then used=20
it as ammunition against the coming summit itself.

Clearly, there is a need to renegotiate the pace of trade=20
liberalisation within SAARC. But for that to happen, the present=20
stasis must end and a summit must take place. India would be=20
ill-advised to torpedo the summit citing "cross-border terrorism". If=20
this was a valid argument, especially after December 13 last,=20
Vajpayee shouldn't have attended the Kathmandu summit in January this=20
year. Nor should he have gone to Lahore in 1999.

Truth to tell, India did not break off diplomatic relations with=20
Pakistan when militancy erupted in Kashmir in 1989. The two states=20
held a series of bilateral discussions and agreed on military=20
confidence-building measures in 1991. Throughout the 1990s, India=20
held talks with different governments in Pakistan. The Agra summit=20
too took place in 2001-without a material change in the=20
"cross-border" situation. It is only after 9/11 when India adopted a=20
macho, US-style, "tough" stance.

The real reason for this is India's reluctance to normalise relations=20
with Pakistan unless there is serious progress on the issue of=20
allowing jehadi militants to cross the border. New Delhi's=20
frustration takes many forms. The ugliest was Lal Krishna Advani's=20
November 30 statement in Bhuj, challenging Pakistan to fight a=20
"fourth war". He said: "I dare Pakistan to fight a direct war with=20
India instead of engaging in a proxy war... Let us fight it out face=20
to face. We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war. Of course,=20
that would be the final war".

Such nuclear threat-mongering is outrageous in itself. It also=20
emulates the sordid example set by the Delhi BJP's minor=20
rabble-rousing leader, Madanlal Khurana, in May 1998, when he=20
challenged Islamabad to war "at a place and time of its choosing".=20
But even less intemperate reactions express the same frustration. The=20
"cross-border" issue must be addressed, along with Kashmir and other=20
disputes, through a sincere bilateral dialogue.

The chances of this happening in the immediate future seem dim. But=20
there is a ray of hope thanks to the formation of a civilian=20
government in Islamabad. Most Indian policy-makers and shapers=20
believe this is a hotchpotch put together by dubious means although=20
it is not a hardline regime and excludes the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal.=20
A section of them also take a positive view of Prime Minister Mir=20
Zafrullah Khan Jamali and especially of Foreign Minister Khurshid=20
Mehmood Kasuri.

They note Kasuri's political background, his past membership of the=20
Tehriq-i-Istiqlal, and his association with Track-II diplomacy. They=20
are impressed by his very first statement on being sworn in,=20
emphasising improved relations with India. Mani Shankar Aiyar, a=20
Congress MP and former diplomat who has served in Pakistan and has=20
known Kasuri from his college days in England, thinks highly of him.=20
He says Kasuri will treat Indian negotiators "in an honest,=20
straightforward way, without resorting to wile or guile".

This is the right time for Jamali and Kasuri to seize the initiative.=20
They should pick up the phone and call their Indian counterparts to=20
tell them they are serious about SAARC, and even more earnest about=20
normalising relations with India. Optimistically, that could make a=20
substantial contribution to breaking the ice. Pessimistically, it may=20
fail. But it's certainly worth a try.

______

#2.

The DU Forum for Democracy, a broad association of students and
teachers, has observed the tenth anniversary of the demolition of the
Babri Masjid with a week-long programme all over the campus. There have
been films, plays, seminars, talks and music programmes in different
colleges, around the themes of fascism, democracy, secularism, and
shared, syncretic traditions. This will culminate on the 5th of December
with a protest march around the campus, followed by a cultural programme
highlighting the democratic and secular traditions of Indian culture.
Given below is the text of the leaflet that will be distributed during
the march.

THIS 6TH OF DECEMBER - INDIA IS OURS
Ten years ago, on December 6 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by
the Sangh Parivar. That act was more than the demolition of a place of
worship. It was a blow to the idea of India as a democracy, a place
where all communities can live together in mutual respect.

The ten years which followed that act of destruction have seen the
terrifying growth of the forces of hatred and divisiveness. Today the
shadow of the Gujarat carnage hangs shamefully over us. In the name of
what happened at Godhra (an incident condemned by all sections of
society), these Hindutvavadis unleashed a massacre of innocent Muslims,
with the full backing of Modi's government. If the action-reaction
explanation that the Moditvavadis offer is to be taken seriously, then
surely Akshardham was the further reaction only to be expected? Truly,
as Gandhi said, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.

But in any case, a serious question mark hangs over Godhra. The CBI
report showed that the fire was started from inside the train, not from
outside. From the list of passengers travelling in that bogey, not one
can be traced. There are clear indications of a pre-planned conspiracy
by the Hindutva terrorists to create an excuse for a massacre that was
planned well in advance. Why are none of these questions answered by the
murderers who lead the VHP today? Is it because the answers would expose
their lies?

December 6th is also the death anniversary of Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Can
we forget that we observe this day in the shadow of Jhajjar? Five Dalit
men were lynched in broad daylight by a mob incited by the local VHP,
supposedly for skinning a live cow. Is it not shameful enough for
Hinduism that work considered to be demeaning is specially reserved for
Dalits? Do we need further, the killing of those who do this work for a
living, and then, the brazen justification of it by the VHP spokesperson
declaring that the life of a cow is more precious than human lives?
Interestingly, Giriraj Kishore who made this declaration, recently
demanded Z security from the government. He clearly thinks his own life
is very precious indeed!

These pseudo Hindus and pseudo nationalists justify their every hateful
act in the name of nationalism. But if we look carefully at the list of
those who have been declared "anti-national" in the last fifty years,
only a handful of uppercaste North Indians escapes that label.

Who have been dubbed anti-national?
* Kashmiri Muslims, the Sikhs of Punjab, the entire Northeast, people of
Tamil Nadu and other southern states protesting against the imposition
of Hindi, and all the minority communities.
* Workers struggling for their basic rights. NBA activists protesting
against big dams and fighting for the rights of the displaced tribals.
The adivasis of Jadugoda who daily inhale radio-active poison produced
by the mining of uranium (necessary for nuclear energy), and demand the
end of mining in their area =96 all these hamper the "development" of the
nation. They too are anti-national.
* Human rights activists. Those who believe in a secular India. Film
makers who try to talk about the inhuman conditions that Hindu widows
live in. Anti-national.
* Women in jeans. Couples celebrating Valentine's Day. Anti-national.
* Communists, Dalit leaders like Ambedkar and Periyar, and all those who
follow them. Anti-national.
* Historians who insist on strict academic standards in the teaching of
history, and condemn the saffron brigade's attempts to teach their
laughable, factually incorrect version in the schools. Anti-national.
Who's left?

But these forces of hatred are already being rejected =96 even by the
largely Hindu public. The Delhi Municipal Corporation elections in the
aftermath of the Gujarat carnage, wiped the BJP out in what used to be
their stronghold. The recent elections in Kashmir showed the collective
rejection of the Sangh parivar agenda.

Come, let us renew our dreams. Let us show our strength. The majority
community is us - those who believe in an India in which every person
can live in peace and dignity.
This December 6th is ours.

DELHI UNIVERSITY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY

______

#3.

AMAN EKTA MANCH
December 6 2002
Hum Andhera Jeet Lenge
Qayam Rakhenge Sajhi Virasat

PLEASE DO COME WITH YOUR OWN BANNERS AND LEAFLETS - LET US MANIFEST=20
THE WIDE RANGE OF PROTEST TO HINDUTVA POLITICS.

Venue: 35 Feroz Shah Marg (JNU City Centre, Mandi House [ New=20
Delhi]). We hope to be all over the Mandi House circle, generally!
Please note change of venue, since we did not get police permission=20
for Lal Qila.

Time: 1 pm to 5 pm - Cultural Programme
5.30 pm March to Feroz Shah Kotla Maidan.

Cultural Programme:
Plays/performances by
IPTA (JNU), Kirorimal College, Jan Natya Manch, Nishant Natya Manch,=20
Hind Naujawan Ekta Sabha, Jugnu, Aman Ekta Manch, Umesh, Inder=20
Saleem, Aqeel Ahmed.

Music: Vidya Rao, Kajol Ghosh (Parcham), Dhruv Sangari, Madan Gopal,=20
Shubhendu, Lady Shri Ram College students, Aman Ekta Manch.

Speakers: Dr Rooprekha Verma (Lucknow University), Dr Tulsi Ram (JNU)

There will be kite-flying and painting for children.

PLEASE JOIN IN LARGE NUMBERS, CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE WIDELY. THIS=20
DECEMBER 6TH IS OURS!

_____

#4.

Please join us
on Thursday, December 5th for the beginning of a
month-long programme marking ten years of
communal mobilisation and the resistance to it:

WAYS OF RESISTING / KABHI NA KAHO KABHI NAHIN
1992-2002 / Ayodhya-Gujarat

Thursday, December 5th, Constitution Club, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi

3 pm, Constitution Club lawns
Street Play by The Players, Kirori Mal College,
Delhi University

Main Sachha Deshbhakt Nahin
3.30 pm, Speaker's Hall

Book Release: Saffronised and Substandard: A
Critique of the New NCERT Textbooks
Symposium: 'The Hindutva Onslaught: Ayodhya to
Gujarat'
Speakers: Irfan Habib, K.N. Panikkar, Ela Gandhi,
Javed Akhtar, Ashok Vajpayee
6.30 pm, Constitution Club lawns

Street Play by The Players, Kirori Mal College,
Delhi University
Khade Hain Lathi Tane
Sahmat, 8 Vitthalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg, New
Delhi 110001
Tel: 371 1276, 335 1424. E mail: sahmat@v...

_____

#5.

Subject: Demo on 6th [in Bombay]

Friends, it was decided to organise demonstration on 6th december
to expose the BJP & RSS Outfits. As u know RSS Outfits will be celebratin=
g
the day as Victory Day ( for the demolition of Babri mosque), we will h=
ave
the day as anti communal & anti fascist day.
On 6th december at 4.30 pm we will assemble
between Lower Parel Station & Kari Road stn. [Bombay]
& distribute hundreds of pamphlets exposing the anti people
character of BJP. On the same day at 6.30 pm, we will assemble
infront of main entrance of Shivaji Park & distribute the
pamphlets. It was also felt to make banners & playcards
to propogate the philosophy of secularism & peace.
[...]
In Solidarity,
Anthony Sami K Sanober Jatin Desai Ram Puniyani
Tushar Jog Vibhuti Patel Pervin Jehangir & others

_____

#6.

http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=3D2&cat1=3D6&cat2=3D42&newsid=3D311=
13
The Asian Age, New Delhi,
December 05, 2002
Op-ed.

The Hate Fund
By Angana Chatterji

Majoritarian communalism and religious intolerance holds captive=20
human rights in South Asia. Shared commitments to democracy and civil=20
liberties do not yet connect us as nations. It is, instead,=20
repressive forces of religious nationalism and cultural intolerance=20
that incapacitate nation building in the region. In Pakistan,=20
draconian blasphemy laws persecute minorities and appease Islamic=20
fundamentalists. In Sri Lanka, inequities of religion and ethnicity=20
haunt Sinhalese, Tamil Hindus and Muslims. In Bangladesh, enduring=20
conflicts brutalize minority Hindus and Christians. In India, the=20
fascistic ascent of Hindutva ravages society.

Tolerance and inclusion is the sine qua non of Indian democracy.=20
Hindu extremists contend that national commitments to secular=20
religious tolerance have been a tactic for undermining the =8Ctruth=B9 of=20
India as a pure, glorious and exclusively Hindu tradition and=20
culture. This =8Ctruth=B9 demands an unquestioning commitment to India as=20
a Hindu nation. The Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, movement uses the=20
vehicle of the state to cement Hindu religious majoritarianism into=20
the foundation of a national culture. Such enterprise rewards the=20
dominant community and is intolerant of minority groups and faiths.=20
Hindutva understands itself as =8Csecular=B9, in that it is not based on=20
faith, but the conversion of faith into culture. It declares=20
tolerance for minority faiths to be =8Cpseudo-secularism=B9. It=20
undermines the cultural and religious profusion that is central to=20
conceiving the nation, and asserting the separation of religion and=20
state.

The contradictions between Hinduism and Hindutva must be emphasized.=20
Hinduism is an ancient religion. Hindutva is the utilization of=20
Hinduism to foment a supremacist movement. Hindutva, like other=20
extremist movements, uses terror to dominate. Non and dissenting=20
Hindus are perceived as threats to the unity of the nation. Hindutva=20
is supported by organizations that fund raise abroad. The India=20
Development Relief Fund (IDRF) is one such registered charity in the=20
Untied States that sustains the Sangh Parivar, the network of=20
Hindutva organizations. IDRF was established in 1989, ostensibly to=20
fundraise for organizations in India that assist in development and=20
tribal well-being. IDRF has emphatically maintained that it has no=20
connections with the Sangh Parivar. A scrutiny of financial records,=20
and the profile, actions and associations of the organization=20
disclose instead IDRF=B9s intimate connections to the Parivar. The=20
Parivar uses religion as a nationalistic weapon to empower the=20
Hindutva movement. IDRF, through its relationship with the Sangh,=20
fortifies the hatred and violence that divides India.

The use of force is not restricted to Hindu extremists. The Indian=20
State is vigilant in policing and repressing oppositional activities,=20
especially those of minority communities. The Government of India=20
introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, a security law that=20
empowers the state to torture and detain political opponents, revoke=20
civil liberties, and suppress actions it deems threatening to the=20
nation. Yet the national government tolerated the Sangh Parivar=B9s=20
crimes in Gujarat this year. The Citizens Tribunal on Gujarat has=20
held the Sangh Parivar co-responsible for the orchestrated=20
post-Godhra massacre of Muslims. It must be incumbent on IDRF to=20
prove that it is not in support of such depravity. In a climate where=20
Hindutva is sanctioned and vindicated by an increasing army of=20
henchmen and the state, it is imperative that citizens speak out=20
against the collaboration between government and Parivar=20
organizations in the promulgation of terror. Citizens initiatives=20
must demand accountability of international groups that finance the=20
apparatus of Hindutva.

It is deceptive for IDRF to claim on its website that it raises money=20
to "serve economically and socially disadvantaged people irrespective=20
of caste, sect, region or religion," and utilize such funds in a=20
sectarian manner. IDRF has raised about 5.5 million dollars during=20
the past decade. Nearly 69 percent of IDRF=B9s funds go to=20
organizations in adivasi (tribal) and rural areas. A large segment is=20
allocated for educational projects of Hinduization, the=20
disintegration of adivasi (and other non Hindu) cultures through=20
their incorporation into Hindutva. Sewa Bharti, an associate of the=20
Sangh, funded by IDRF, organized a Hindu Sangam in Madhya Pradesh in=20
January 2002. The Citizens Tribunal has charged that such efforts=20
facilitated the mobilization of adivasis against other minorities in=20
Gujarat. Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad and Vivekananda Kendra, funded by=20
IDRF, were both held complicit in the communalization of adivasis.=20
The sporadic participation of Hinduized adivasi and Dalit communities=20
in the brutalization of Muslims was a sad and unexpected distinction=20
of the recent violence in Gujarat. Divide and conquer, effectively=20
realized. IDRF has been conspicuously silent about Gujarat, Godhra=20
and after, and did not raise funds in support of the victims.

Development is critical to India=B9s empowerment. It cannot be=20
undertaken by organizations that promote hate. IDRF allocates 80=20
percent of its funds to Sangh Parivar organizations and those=20
affiliated or controlled by them. Of the 67 IDRF affiliate=20
organizations, 52 are associated with the Sangh. Secular freedoms=20
confirm the right to proselytize, but do not permit the use of=20
religion or culture to cultivate hate. IDRF does not directly=20
orchestrate campaigns of violence. IDRF=B9s funding to Sangh=20
organizations aids the spread of the ideology and practice of=20
Hindutva. Such activity produces the very conditions for social=20
violence that are detrimental to India=B9s national interest.

The practice of conscience, not of genocide, must determine who=20
belongs to a nation. India is made most vulnerable by the Hindutva=20
movement=B9s xenophobic commitments to tear apart the promises of=20
history. In Gujarat, a fetus of an unborn Muslim, carved from a=20
pregnant woman=B9s stomach, was tossed in the air. Triumphant=20
annihilation, reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Tomorrow as a day of=20
justice and peace is made impossible. The state of the nation demands=20
sustained interventions in dissent of religious extremism. It is=20
irrelevant to claim innocence. Until we prevent rape, horror, and=20
unnecessary death in the name of nation building, history will find=20
us complicit. Amidst the complex desires that fuel India=B9s becoming,=20
habitual contempt for minorities must not power our future. Nor must=20
we allow religion to be held captive to violent nationalist agendas.

______

#7.

[2 December 2002]

Modi's Cyber Chicanery
By P. Radhakrishnan *

That despite an upright, upfront, no-nonsense Chief Election=20
Commissioner, backed by a well-oiled election machinery, determined=20
to ensure that the December 12 Assembly elections in Gujarat are held=20
free and fair, the Election Commission is still no match to the BJP=20
buccaneers is stating the obvious.

For, if the Commission's directive was not to make the Godhra=20
incident an election issue, the BJP is doing precisely that as the=20
main poll issue, and projecting it more aggressively through the=20
Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

On his part, while repeatedly referring to Godhra, Gujarat's=20
caretaker Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, has dared the Congress (I)=20
to do so, and asked insidiously "is the Congress =91scared' to talk=20
about Godhra because it is involved in the carnage".

On its part, the VHP is already busy, among other things,=20
distributing (a) "one lakh T-Shirts" emblazoned with the slogan "we=20
will not allow our area to be converted into Godhra"; and (b)=20
thousands of cassets of the speeches of the VHP international general=20
secretary Pravin Togadia, and of yet another communally vitriolic and=20
virulent character, Acharya Dharmendra denouncing the Godhra carnage=20
and calling upon the Hindus to "protect their interests".

That the "post-Godhra" genocide of Muslims hardly figures in the=20
BJP's election campaign was expected. What was probably not expected=20
was a CD, with "A Government of Gujarat Presentation" printed on=20
top, alongside Modi as its icon. The CD was distributed free even=20
in far flung places like Chennai.

If the T-Shirts convey only what is printed on them, the CD goes well=20
beyond as yet another totem pole of the rise of Hindutva. The=20
high-tech input that has gone into its making with enough witches'=20
brew for the BJP's election campaign is Hindutva's pride and nation's=20
shame.

The CD's subtitle, "2 Minutes to the Truth", is in the genre of=20
Winston Churchill's "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".=20
For, while the browsing of the CD took not just two, but 90=20
minutes, it is dense with half-truths, untruths and contradictory=20
assertions peddled as The Truth, laced with Modi's hype and hoopla=20
through highfaluting commentary and make-believe visuals of a great=20
Gujarat under his governance.

Four catchy phrases - Determined, Progressive, Modern, and Resilient=20
- move back and forth as the CD's backdrop. Focussing on Modi in many=20
poses, moods, avatars and so on - as for instance, Modi hobnobbing=20
with A.B. Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, offering=20
namaskar to an aggrieved old woman in a public gallery, administering=20
polio drops to a child, bowing before an aged, pushing a wheel-chair=20
of a physically handicapped - Modi's spin-doctor has captured in the=20
CD Modi's many histrionics so well that after seeing it one might=20
wonder if he really is the man of Gujarat, who every discerning=20
Indian would love to see subjected to a Nuremberg type Trial.

The term FACT [throughout in capital letters], probably a misnomer=20
for the blatant lies conjured up as The Truth, appears at least 25=20
times in the introduction itself. Each FACT is followed by Gujarat's=20
purported achievements along with an over-dose of statistics.

However, knowing Modi for what he is, this introductory on Modi is=20
reminiscent of Jane Wagner observation that "The ability to delude=20
yourself may be an important survival tool". In Modi's case this is a=20
lethal combination of what Benjamin Disraeli characterised as three=20
kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In what follows in the CD after the introduction two issues under the=20
title "Crisis Management", are of utmost importance to the present=20
elections.

The first, "From Tears to Smiles: A 500 day saga of rebuilding=20
change", is about the Bhuj earthquake. Much is made of the Modi=20
government's efforts, with elaborate visuals and extensive text;=20
while the seamy side of this "rebuilding change" which denied succour=20
to the suffering minority victims through deliberate discrimination -=20
the seemingly inconvenient side - is swept under the carpet.

The second, "Trial by Fire", on the Godhra incident and the riots=20
after it is cyber chicanery at its worst. The burning train which=20
the CD shows has a make-believe effect on the viewers, buttressed by=20
the following text: "Godhra, 27/2/2002, 7 43 am: Over a 1000 strong=20
mob rioters without conscience, men without souls descended upon=20
Sabarmati Express at Godhra Station, the first train ever to be=20
attacked in such a ghastly manner since partition".

It is important to compare this text with the observations in the=20
report on Gujarat carnage, "Crime Against Humanity", prepared by a=20
panel of retired Supreme Court Judges. Going by the panel members,=20
the Godhra incident itself was spontaneous; the coach in which people=20
were burnt alive did not come from outside. It was caused from=20
within, but who set it on fire is still a mystery.

While the CD's treatment of the Godhra incident is in elaborate=20
visual mode, that of the riots after it is in difficult-to-decipher=20
audio-mode. Besides, the CD uses many tacks of prevarication and=20
hedging to justify the genocide: communal riots in Gujarat date back=20
to 1410 AD, during 1969, 1985, and 1992 Gujarat witnessed a great=20
deal of communal violence; more than the riots themselves rumour=20
mongering, "factual misreporting", and half-truths cause most damage=20
and trauma, rumour writes faster than truth erases, a rumour without=20
a leg to stand on will get around some other way, and so go these=20
tacks in which the media gets much of the battering. This again is=20
followed by lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Predictably, it is the observations of the panel of judges, which=20
throw light on the post-Godhra riots. As the panel members would=20
have, Modi has been principally responsible for the deliberate,=20
state-facilitated, assisted violence "post-Godhra"; the pattern of=20
violence after Godhra was planned six months ahead, fits the=20
definition of genocide; the carnage of violence at Godhra was=20
"spontaneous", but the violence across Gujarat was "allowed to=20
happen", because, as the Godhra District Collector said in his=20
deposition, "Mr. Modi decided to shift the bodies of all those burnt=20
beyond recognition to Ahmedabad for mass burial"; thus, the problem=20
which could have been contained at Godhra was taken to the rest of=20
Gujarat.

With Modi's mentor, and the Prime Minister in waiting of the fast=20
evolving Hindu Rashtra, the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, in=20
his election campaign lavishing all praise on Modi as the "most=20
popular, competent, and successful" Chief Minister, and given the=20
political arithmetic now at work in Gujarat, one can only hope and=20
wait with trepidation what Modi would do in his next political=20
avatar. Given this scenario, Justice P.B. Sawant's salient statement=20
that in the absence of any law in the country against genocide, it=20
would be difficult to have Modi prosecuted in any international court=20
can at best be a wishful thinking. That India is a democracy without=20
such a law is again a national shame.

* Dr. P. RADHAKRISHNAN
Professor,
Madras Institute of Development Studies
79, 2nd Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar
Chennai 600020 [India]

______

#8.

The Telegraph
Thursday, December 05, 2002

A FRANCHISE OF FEAR
- The Gujarat election campaign has been poisonous from the start
Ramachandra Guha
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1021205/asp/opinion/story_1444711.asp

_____

#9.

The Telegraph
Thursday, December 05, 2002

RSS STAKES IN GUJARAT

TWENTY-TWENTY BHARAT BHUSHAN

Grand experiment
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have=20
virtually hijacked the Gujarat election from the Bharatiya Janata=20
Party. The RSS workers are out in full strength and the VHP is=20
running its own election campaign parallel to that of the BJP.

The stakes are high for the RSS in Gujarat. It is the last big state=20
that the BJP is defending. Since 1998, when the BJP came into power,=20
24 state elections have been held. It has lost power in the nine=20
states it ruled either on its own or with allies; lost legislative=20
strength in five others it did not rule and failed to win even a=20
single seat in six other states. Goa was the last election that the=20
BJP won but there too it did not get an absolute majority.

As of now, the BJP is in power in just four states =8B Himachal=20
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa. In all of them the party=20
is ruling through coalition arrangements made before or after=20
elections.

In Gujarat, significantly, the BJP is going to polls without a=20
pre-electoral arrangement with any other political party. This=20
election then is going to test the capacity of the BJP to go it alone=20
and win. If the BJP now loses Gujarat after ruling it for ten years,=20
it would have virtually no independent presence in state governments=20
outside Delhi.

However, Gujarat is also important because Hindutva has been made an=20
election issue there. Disappointed with the performance of the=20
BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government at New Delhi, the=20
sangh parivar (the RSS family of organizations) wants to show that=20
Hindutva can be a major election plank.

The RSS and its sister organizations have been so successful in=20
communalizing the situation in Gujarat, that the Congress is=20
apologetic about its secularism. [...]
{FULL TEXT AT:=20
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1021205/asp/opinion/story_1448619.asp }

______

#10.

"LIVING WITH HUNGER": A PUBLIC HEARING
(DELHI, 10 JANUARY 2003)

GUIDELINES FOR PARTICIPANTS

Dear friends,

As you know, a public hearing on hunger and starvation will be held
in Delhi on 10 January, 2003. We are writing to you as one of the
organisations who have expressed interest in presenting first-hand
testimonies of extreme hunger at the public hearing.

We propose to divide the hearing in two parts. During the first part,
we shall focus on a small number (perhaps four to six) of well-
documented cases of starvation or extreme hunger in different parts
of the country. We are thinking, for instance, of recent starvation
deaths in Baran (Rajasthan), Kashipur (Orissa), Palamau (Jharkhand),
Nandurbar (Maharashtra), etc. The second part will have a more open
format, and will provide space for further testimonies from anywhere
in the country. In this second part, an effort will be made to give
all interested participants a chance to speak. But of course it is
impossible to guarantee that this will be the case.

We are concerned that the "case studies" presented in the first part
should be well-prepared, and that the presentations should respect
the dignity of the witnesses. Some of the issues arising in these
preparations are discussed below. We shall be grateful if you give
these matters some thought and let us know whether you feel able to
make the required preparations.

The case studies to be presented in the first part of the programme
will be chosen after we receive responses to this appeal. IF YOU WISH
TO ARRANGE A PRESENTATION IN THE FIRST PART OF THE HEARING, PLEASE
CONTACT US BY THE END OF NOVEMBER.

1. FOCUS OF THE HEARING

The hearing is not just about "starvation deaths". Starvation deaths
and related events can be seen as the extreme manifestation of a much
larger problem of day-to-day hunger on a massive scale. These stories
can help to focus the public's attention and stir the nation's
conscience, but ultimately our concern is with the larger problem of
chronic hunger.

The title "Living with Hunger" attempts to convey this concern. The
testimonies are expected to focus not only on extreme events but also
on how people cope with hunger on a daily basis and on the different
ways in which hunger blights their lives. The hearing is also an
opportunity to highlight the failures of the state in this regard, as
well as the responsibilities of civil society.

We are concerned about the credibility of the testimonies presented
at the hearing. Sometimes, stories of starvation deaths are used for
political purposes, or hyped by the media, or distorted by the
witnesses themselves for their reasons. Also, debates about
starvation deaths sometimes degenerate into pointless technical
controversies about the precise nature of these deaths. We are hoping
to avoid these pitfalls and to concentrate on informative and well-
documented cases of extreme hunger.

2. FINANCES

The public hearing on 10 January is convened by the "support group"
of the Right to Food Campaign. Our resources being very limited, we
are unable to reimburse the participants for their expenses. We shall
arrange basic accommodation free of charge (perhaps in a hall), and
we can also arrange bookings in cheap hostels (e.g. the Gandhi Peace
Foundation) for those who wish to have separate accommodation at
their own expenses. For the rest, we expect the participating groups
to be as self-sufficient as possible. Of course, we shall do our best
to minimise the hurdles and facilitate your stay.

3. SOME ETHICAL ISSUES

We are keen to protect the dignity of the participants, and to ensure
that they are not mobilised under false pretences. We request you to
take all measures you may feel are required for this purpose. We
also invite you to share your ideas with us on the subject.

Here are some steps that we consider essential:

* Please brief the participants clearly about the purpose of the
meeting and their role in it. It should be made clear that they are
coming for a common purpose and not for personal gain.
* Please ensure that the participants are well informed and that they
do not have false expectations of the hearing.
* The participants should understand that they may not get much time
to speak, since we expect a large number of participants.
* Please avoid inviting participants whose health would be at risk if
they travel.
* Last but not least, we expect organisations that are bringing
participants from deprived communities to ensure that there is follow-
up action after the hearing.

Please note that the groups contributing to the first part of the
programme are expect to provide some assurances that these principles
are being followed.

MATERIALS TO BRING

We encourage you to bring plenty of supporting material, e.g.
placards, posters, pamphlets, photographs, research reports and
related items. An exhibition space will be available at the venue of
the hearing. The exhibition will include a counter displaying
the "survival foods" that are consumed in different parts of the
country, such as roots, tubers, mango kernels and wild grasses. You
are welcome to contribute to this display. We shall also arrange
counters for the display or sale of publications, artefacts, etc.

NEXT STEP

If you and/or your organisation are planning to participate in the
public hearing on 10 January, please send us a line at
righ2food@y... This is especially important if you wish to
contribute to the first part of the hearing. We hope to hear from you
as soon as possible.

Jean Dreze, Colin Gonsalvez, Harsh Mander Kavita Srivastava and Vivek
S.

_____

#11.

IFJ Journalism For Tolerance Prize

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) Journalism for=20
Tolerance Prize aims to promote tolerance and understanding and=20
combat racism and discrimination. Awarded to journalists in five=20
regions of the world, including South Asia, the Prize is open to all=20
journalists employed by local media in the region. The Prize is being=20
launched at a time when cultural, religious and ethnic differences=20
are increasingly contributing to instability and unrest in many=20
regions of the world. The IFJ Journalism for Tolerance Prize,=20
supported by the European Union, has three categories: one each for=20
entries from print/on-line, radio and television. There will be a=20
total prize pool of =803,000 (about Rs 150,000) for the South Asia=20
winners.

PLEASE NOTE:
=B7 Entry forms are available from the IFJ, journalists=92=20
organisations in South Asia or <http://www.ifj.org/>online at=20
<http://www.ifj.org/>www.ifj.org.
=B7 Entry is free and will close on 31 JANUARY 2003
=B7 Three separate categories: television, radio and print/on-line
=B7 Entries must have been published/broadcast between 1=20
JANUARY 2002 and 31 DECEMBER 2002
For more information about the prize visit:=20
<http://www.ifj.org/>www.ifj.org or contact:

Laxmi Murthy
South Asia Prize Coordinator (New Delhi)
Tel: 0120-4430644
Fax: 0120-4430871
<mailto:ifjsouthasia@h...>ifjsouthasia@h...

Send Entries to:
IFJ Journalism for Tolerance Prize,
C/o India News and Feature Alliance (INFA),
Jeevan Deep, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001, India.

WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR A BETTER=20
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD OF DEVELOPMENT

IFJ Journalism For Tolerance Prize
For Excellence in Journalism Combating Racism and Discrimination
Categories for Print/On-line, Radio and Television
Entries Close 31 January 2003

Promoting tolerance, combating racism and discrimination and=20
contributing to an understanding of cultural, religious and ethnic=20
differences.

The IFJ Journalism for Tolerance Prize is about promoting tolerance,=20
combating racism and discrimination and contributing to an=20
understanding of cultural, religious and ethnic differences.
The Prize is an annual competition among journalists from all sectors=20
of media with a simple objective: to promote better understanding=20
among journalists from all communities of the importance of tolerance=20
and defence of human rights, particularly when it comes to reporting=20
on minorities. The Prize rewards individuals and their work,=20
promoting benchmarks on how to tackle discrimination in whatever form=20
it comes - whether on the basis of language, religion or belief, or=20
ethnic origin. The Prize promotes editorial independence, high=20
standards of professionalism and journalists' ethics, and diversity=20
in media. The Prize targets a number of key regions where coverage of=20
minority affairs is often fraught with difficulties and tension. The=20
Journalism for Tolerance Prize, which is supported by the European=20
Union, is driven by values of journalism and is organised by=20
journalists themselves.

The Prize
The Journalism for Tolerance Prize is awarded in five regions: Latin=20
America, Central and Western Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa,=20
South Asia and South East Asia

In each region, there are three categories of the Prize awarded for=20
outstanding reporting on actions to combat racism and discrimination:
=B7 Print/on-line
=B7 Radio
=B7 Television

Each Prize carries an award of about Rs 50,000. Each winner will also=20
receive a certificate of recognition. The winners will also be=20
invited to attend a prize giving ceremony and forum in their region=20
in March 2003.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)

The IFJ is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation that promotes=20
co-ordinated international action to defend press freedom and social=20
justice through the development of strong, free and independent trade=20
unions of journalists. The IFJ works closely with the United Nations,=20
particularly Unesco, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, WIPO=20
and the ILO, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the=20
European Union, the Council for Europe and with a range of=20
international trade union and freedom of expression organisations.
The IFJ mandate covers both professional and industrial interests of=20
journalists.
The IFJ administers other prizes including the=20
<file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/CONTENT.IE5/lorenzo/inpr.h=
tml>Lorenzo=20
Natali Prize for Journalism.

_____

#12.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=3Dns99993140
Fresh evidence on Bhopal disaster
19:00 04 December 02
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

The company that built and owned the Bhopal chemical plant in India cut
crucial corners in its design, documents just released in the US suggest.

The accident at Union Carbide's pesticide plant in Bhopal in 1984 killed
8000 people immediately and injured at least 150,000. It remains the worst
industrial disaster on record, and the victims are still dying. The
company paid $470 million compensation to a trust in 1989. The survivors
say they received around $500 each and claim the clean-up efforts were
inadequate.

Dow Chemical, which took over Union Carbide, still insists that Carbide's
Indian subsidiary was wholly responsible for the design and running of the
plant. "Union Carbide maintained a very "hands-off" relationship with
Union Carbide India on virtually all matters," John Musser, who inherited
the Bhopal brief at Dow, told New Scientist this week.

But in the latest of a series of legal actions, Bhopal survivors launched
a class action in New York state in 1999. In November the court forced the
company to release internal documents - and some contradict its claims.

Limited trial run

Under a policy of forcing foreign companies to invest, the Indian
government had asked Carbide to make insecticides such as Sevin in India
instead of importing them. It also insisted that the company raise at
least a quarter of the investment from local shareholders.

But a 1972 memo says that if Carbide issued enough shares to raise the $28
million estimated cost, the company's stake in its Indian subsidiary would
drop below 53 per cent. To prevent this it would have to "reduce the
amount of investment... to $20.6 million", with the cuts "mainly on the
Sevin project".

This meant using what another memo admitted were unproven technologies,
mostly on systems not directly involved in the accident. However, the
Sevin production system involved in the accident had had "only a limited
trial run", the memo states.

New Scientist's investigation of the accident, and subsequent studies by
the company and trade unions, showed that a faulty valve let nearly a
tonne of water being used to clean pipes pour into a tank holding 40
tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC), an intermediate in the production of
Sevin. The resulting runaway reaction produced a cloud of toxic gas.

"Act of sabotage"

Musser still echoes Carbide's claims at the time, saying the accident was
an "act of sabotage" - someone deliberately putting water in the tank.
Regardless of how the water got into the MIC, the runaway reaction should
have been contained. It was not, largely because Bhopal had far more
limited emergency equipment than Carbide's US plant.

Crucially, Bhopal had no "knock-down" tank where the mass of chemicals
that boiled out of the MIC tank might have settled. Then only gases would
have escaped, which could have been burnt off by flare towers or by
filtered out by a "scrubber".

But the Bhopal plant had only one flare, shut for repairs on the night of
the accident. The US plant had a back-up. Bhopal's sole scrubber was
overwhelmed by the mass of liquids and gases that boiled up it at a rate
over 100 times what it was designed for.

Suspect analysis
So who was responsible for this design? Carbide's 1972 memo specified that
the US headquarters would either perform all design work for the plant, or
approve designs done elsewhere.

Also unlike the US plant, Bhopal's waste was poured into open lagoons to
evaporate. Recent analyses of groundwater, soil and people near the plant
have found high levels of heavy metals such as mercury and toxic
organochlorine chemicals.

Earlier analyses by Indian agencies concluded there was no local
contamination. Yet company memos from 1989, 1990 and 1995 show that
Carbide's officials knew by 1989 that the Indian analyses were suspect and
that there might be contamination, says Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal
Group for Information and Action. When questioned by New Scientist, Musser
did not confirm or deny that there was contamination but instead quoted
the Indian analyses.

Campaigners hope the fresh evidence will persuade the Indian government to
join the US lawsuit. Only then can the company be tried for negligence.

Debora MacKenzie

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (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