[sacw] SACW | 28 Jan. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 28 January 2003

#1. Asian Nations Must Adhere to Ban or Face More Mine Victims (Int'l=20
Campaign to Ban Landmines)
#2. A new India policy, please (M.B. Naqvi)
#3. Pakistan: Freedom of expression under attack in frontier (IRIN News)
#4. In Dhaka, Delhi on the mind (Kuldip Nayar)
#5. India: Press Release (All India Democratic Women's Association)
#6. India's Lumpen Capitalism - Business kowtows to Moditva (Praful Bidwai)
#7. India: A twist in destiny? (Kuldip Nayar)

__________________________

#1.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines - www.icbl.org

Asian Nations Must Adhere to Ban or Face More Mine Victims
Author/Origin: ICBL

(27-Jan-2003) (Colombo, Sri Lanka) At the opening of an Asia-wide=20
meeting on landmines, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines=20
(ICBL), 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate, called on Asian governments to=20
adhere to the rapidly emerging international norm against the=20
antipersonnel mine or else face the consequences of more mine victims=20
for years to come.

Without urgent action, civilians keep paying the price for landmine=20
use. A Cambodian landmine survivor with his family. Pic: John Rodsted
"Globally, antipersonnel mine use has diminished greatly. But in=20
recent years more mines have been used in the Asia region than=20
anywhere else in the world," said Liz Bernstein, ICBL Coordinator.=20
"This continued mine use is resulting in even more mine casualties=20
and creating a lethal legacy that will last for decades unless urgent=20
measures are taken immediately."

End mine use now!
India and Pakistan laid large numbers of antipersonnel mines along=20
their common 1,800-mile border beginning in December 2001, in one of=20
the largest mine-laying operations anywhere in the world in many=20
years. In Myanmar (Burma), both government and rebel groups continue=20
to use mines extensively. Mine use by rebels has been on the rise in=20
Nepal, where there are also strong indications of use by government=20
forces. Armed non-state actors in the Philippines, India, and=20
Pakistan also used mines in 2002. In 2001 and 2002, warring factions=20
(Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Northern Alliance) in Afghanistan used=20
antipersonnel mines, but the United States did not. This heavily=20
mine-affected country joined the Mine Ban Treaty on 11 September 2002.

In Sri Lanka, both government troops and LTTE forces have used mines=20
extensively in the past, but there have been no reports of new use of=20
antipersonnel mines since cease-fires in December 2001.

Stop mine production!
"We call on the governments of the Asia-Pacific region that have not=20
yet joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty to do so without delay," said=20
Bernstein. "At the very least, users and producers of this=20
indiscriminate weapon should cease and desist these activities=20
immediately. They threaten to undercut the rapidly emerging=20
international norm against the antipersonnel mine."

Nineteen states remain outside the Mine Ban Treaty from the region,=20
including eight of the fourteen mine producers left in the world:=20
China, India, North Korea, South Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore,=20
and Vietnam. China has the world's largest stockpile of antipersonnel=20
mines (110 million), Pakistan the fourth largest (6 million), India=20
the fifth largest (4-5 million), and South Korea has 2 million in=20
stock. The non-States Parties also include some of the most highly=20
mine-affected countries, such as Laos, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Other=20
non-signatories from the region are Bhutan, Mongolia, Nepal, and the=20
island states of East Timor, FS Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea,=20
Tonga and Tuvalu.

By contrast, sixteen Mine Ban Treaty States Parties are from=20
Asia-Pacific including Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia,=20
Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand and the=20
island states of Fiji, Kiribati, Maldives, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, and=20
the Solomon Islands. Another five countries have signed but not yet=20
ratified the treaty: Brunei, Cook Islands, Indonesia, Marshall=20
Islands, and Vanuatu. Globally, 146 countries have joined the treaty,=20
of which 131 have ratified.

Good progress amongst States Parties
"We're pleased with the progress made by States Parties in the=20
region to implement the Mine Ban Treaty," said Ven. Madampagama=20
Assaji Thero of the Inter-Religious Peace Foundation, an ICBL member.=20
"We're thrilled that this month Japan is scheduled to complete=20
destruction of its one million stockpiled mines and that this=20
September Thailand will host the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to=20
the Mine Ban Treaty in Bangkok."

The annual global gathering of States Parties will take place from=20
15-19 September 2003. The ICBL has issued an "Asia Appeal" calling on=20
its members, friends and pro-ban governments to work together to=20
encourage hold-out states of the region to join in the mine=20
prohibition. The Appeal specifically targets India, Indonesia,=20
Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

"Last month, we presented a petition in Oslo during the 'peace talks'=20
that contains more than 1.1 million signatures from Sri Lankan=20
citizens calling on the government to accede to the ban treaty and=20
calling on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to stop using=20
antipersonnel landmines," said Assaji Thero. "We hope they will=20
respond positively to our call so that no more lives are lost to this=20
weapon."

In Sri Lanka, data collected from various sources indicates more than=20
300 new mine casualties occurred in 2001. According to Landmine=20
Monitor new mine casualties were recorded in 13 of the 16=20
mine-affected counties in the Asia-Pacific region during 2001:=20
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, India, South=20
Korea, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand=20
and Vietnam. In Afghanistan, the ICRC reported 1,368 mine casualties,=20
up from 1,114 casualties in 2000. Cambodia was the only country in=20
the region to report a significant decrease in 2001, 813 casualties=20
were recorded compared to 847 in the year 2000.

ICBL representatives from twenty countries of the region are in=20
Colombo for their annual regional meeting to discuss preparations for=20
the ICBL's fifth annual report, Landmine Monitor Report 2003, and to=20
develop strategies to address treaty universalization and=20
implementation concerns throughout the region. On 30 January, the=20
group will undertake a fieldtrip to a mine-affected region in the=20
north of the country.

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact:

Ven Assaji thero, tel. +94 (1) 440387; mobile +94 (777) 984-756
Saliya Edirisinghe, tel +94 (1) 575987; mobile +94 (777) 451-580
Mary Wareham, HRW/Landmine Monitor, tel. +94 (1) 573-598/9, tel. +1=20
(202) 352-2968 or 1 (202) 352-7950 (mobiles)
Email media@i...

Link(s) to more information:

Take action! ICBL's Action alert on India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sri Lank=
a
http://www.icbl.org/news/2002/250.php
Find out more! Sri Lankan signature campaign
http://www.icbl.org/news/2002/267.php

_____

#2.

[27 Jan. 2003]

A new India policy, please

By M.B. Naqvi

India has fired the biggest gun it has acquired: Ambassador Nancy Powell
has told Pakistan at a public function that it should honour its commitment
to stop "cross border terrorism" --- implying it is not implementing=20
its promise.
American Ambassador's open criticism of the host country, unusual as it was=
,
needs to be taken seriously. It is America's policy and it drastically dive=
rges
from host country's. It is pointless to rail against Ms Powell; she is only
asking to live up to promises made.

She has clarified the situation: there is now virtually no country that
supports Pakistan's long running Kashmir policy, while all important=20
governments
more or less echo India's stance that Pakistan 'should do more', i.e.=20
stop facilitating
Jihadis from crossing the LOC into Indian-controlled Kashmir. It is time to
ponder the India and Kashmir policies.

The immediate background is dismal. Pakistan has felt obliged to declare
four Indian diplomats and officials serving in Islamabad HC=20
undesirable persons,
spies in fact. This was obviously in retaliation of what the Indian governm=
ent
had done a few days earlier: expel four Pakistani diplomats and=20
officials working
in Delhi on the same spying charge. This tit for tat is a frequent occurren=
ce
between these two neighbours. Such charges are always short on credibility.
The way Indian intelligence agencies watch over Pakistani HC=20
employees --- indeed
every visiting Pakistani --- should make it impossible for them to=20
spy. Similarly,
the many Pakistani spook services keep all the Indians under such=20
obvious surveillance
that any intelligence gathering by them is simply out of the question. Ther=
e
is something juvenile about such numerous tit-for-tat expulsions.

Cognisable today is the deplorably low level of relationship between
the two governments in which they are unable to observe even normal courtes=
ies,
let alone good neighbourly conduct. Doubtless the issues between them=20
are serious,
particularly over Kashmir, and thanks to Pakistan's adoption of=20
Jihadist methods
the relationship did reach a nadir after Dec 13, 2001 suicide attack on Ind=
ian
Parliament: the Indians mobilised for war, deploying the armed forces in wa=
r
positions and cut off all communication links between the two countries. Th=
is
extraordinary situation lasted improbably for almost a year and the Indians
are still refusing to engage in any dialogue with Islamabad. India demonstr=
ates
ill will toward common Pakistanis by refusing to restore the=20
communication links
or issuing visas normally. Pakistanis unthinkingly follow suit whether or n=
ot
any of their policy objectives are served thereby. Simple hatred=20
based on stereotypes
appears to have taken hold even on policy-making levels in both countries.

There is a minor, though lighter, side to it. While the governments
wrestle over larger issues and threaten in fact a nuclear war, the spooks o=
f
India and Pakistan are waging a war of their own. Diplomats and clerks of t=
he
two HCs are the worst sufferers, though visitors of one country in the othe=
r
are watched constantly more professionally in India and more brashly here. =
In
the environment created by their superiors not behaving in a civilised mann=
er,
intelligence outfits prove their patriotism by harassing the other country'=
s
citizens. Unless the governments improve their behaviour, lower level=20
bureaucracies,
out to make points, will not.

Pakistan and India have fought almost four wars and a final one was
on the cards last year and may be it is still likely. At least the=20
Indian authorities
continue to say that scores with Pakistan remain to be settled.=20
Pakistan's reflex
reaction to Indian threats is =91we will nuke them'. Pat comes the=20
reply: we shall
wipe out all of Pakistan by massively retaliating in kind. It is=20
doubtful whether
these would-be nuclear warriors realise the implications of their=20
macho bragging.
There is no cause on earth for which nuclear strikes can be made: Islamabad
that claims readiness to be the first to cross the threshold will be vapori=
sing
not only the Indian soldiers and politicians in the target area but countle=
ss
children, women, old men, dogs, cats, goats, cattle, monkeys and all living
things including the mother earth itself --- all of them and future generat=
ions
of all living creatures will be born diseased. Enmity between adults can, w=
hen
anger mounts, lead to brawls: they would kill each other's soldiers and som=
e
bystanders too. But systematic destruction of all living beings=20
without distinction
goes beyond reason.

One makes two simple points to Authority in Pakistan. There are no targets
in India which Pakistan can nuke without killing harmless Muslims, Christia=
ns,
Sikhs, and even many Hindus who disagree with Narendra Modi and L.K. Advani=
,
not to mention the apolitical multitude. Can we Pakistanis be so senseless =
as
to kill indiscriminately? How many Mosques, Mausoleums of Muslim=20
Saints, Gurdwaras,
other relics of history will not be wiped out? Similarly the Indian rulers =
can
be angry, very angry with Gen. Musharraf and others of the kind. A conventi=
onal
war, with known rules, can be understandable, though not advisable. But how
can they plan the devastation of all of Pakistan, including the=20
killing of toddlers,
old men, young girl students and mothers. What have the flora and=20
fauna of Pakistan
done to deserve elimination?

The second is that the present Kashmir policy has not worked. In trying
to promote a Kashmir solution, Pakistanis now encounter a conundrum. It tak=
es
the shape of a possible deadly barter: Islamabad takes out one or two India=
n
cities in a first strike and buys in return the possible destruction of all
its major urban-industrial centres. None of this is however acceptable to w=
e,
the people. The question arises: how can Pakistan's near total=20
destruction promote
Kashmir's Azadi, the desired denouement? If it cannot, Islamabad must then =
find
new Kashmir and India policies.

Tedious argumentation about the necessity of having nuclear weapons
for national security is pointless. Nuclear weapons are an evil. They have =
no
place in South Asia. They must go. Neither side should have them, whatever =
the
reasoning advanced by the two Bomb lobbies. The task is to get rid of=20
them jointly
if possible, unilaterally if necessary. Instead of helping Pakistan's secur=
ity,
the Bomb's security is now the problem. So long as India relies on=20
nuclear weapons
for staying secure, nobody in Pakistan can or should feel secure. Similarly
as long as Pakistan relies on the Bomb for its security, no Indian can trus=
t
Pakistan for any meaningful relationship. Even for day-to-day=20
normalcy in relationship,
some understanding on the nukes is necessary.

Looked at more closely, India and Pakistan need to agree at two levels.
Indian government has to realise that the reasons for which it did=20
not translate
its intent of making war into action will continue to operate for some more
time in some fashion. Pakistanis would be insane to start a war. If so, the
two governments have to enter into talks for as normal ties as Homo=20
Southasianacus
can be capable of on the basis of mutual freeze on inducting and=20
deploying nuclear
weapons. For the longer-term relationship, Islamabad and New Delhi=20
have to engage
in a profounder dialogue over the Bomb for doing away with it altogether. T=
he
former is a short-term necessity while the latter is vital for stable peace=
.

The likelihood is that New Delhi would refuse to get back to the normality
of even 2001 and not negotiate on the Bomb --- not in near future. Why does
India adopt such a strange policy of preferring today's no links at all bet=
ween
two intimate neighbours may have to do with the present BJP-run government'=
s
politics. It would seem that, apart from its ideological compulsions, it wa=
nts
to win this year's State, and next year's national, elections on the plank =
of
Muslims and Pakistan being evil and a threat to India. This is how they won
in Gujarat last year and many hope to do better in coming months. Whatever =
its
precise reasons, New Delhi appears to be saying a firm no to dialogue=20
with Pakistan.

In which case Pakistan, instead of imitating BJP government, should
go ahead and adopt a positive and proactive policy of normality and engagem=
ent
despite the Indian attitude. Let it force a policy of peace on India. Let i=
t
allow all communication links to be restored; make Pakistani visa as easy t=
o
obtain as possible; welcome Indian visitors; make trade with India free and
implement SAPTA and SAFTA from its own side. Leave India to react the way i=
t
would. If Islamabad does not replicate Indian stand-offish policies, the wo=
rld
will meaningfully see. If India does not talk or take reciprocal action, wa=
it
for Indian public opinion to force New Delhi to mend its way. Pakistan shou=
ld
try to create a pro-Pakistan and pro-peace lobby in India. Only, Pakistan n=
eed
not put any conditions on better relations and it should begin=20
befriending those
Indians that want peace and free cultural exchanges.

______

#3.

IRIN News
(UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)
Monday 27 January 2003

PAKISTAN: Freedom of expression under attack in frontier

ISLAMABAD, 27 Jan 2003 (IRIN) - Human rights groups have expressed=20
concern over diminishing freedom of expression following the beating=20
of a singer by police over the weekend in the North West Frontier=20
Province (NWFP) of Pakistan.

The assault follows the murder of a local political writer last week=20
in the same region, which is ruled by the fundamentalist Islamist=20
coalition of Muttahida Majlis-e Amal or United Council of Action=20
(UCA).
"This is the failure of the government to fulfil its responsibility,=20
which is to protect and promote the freedom of its citizens,"=20
Afrasiab Khattak, chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan=20
(HRCP), told IRIN from the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta on=20
Monday.

Following an overwhelming provincial victory in last year's=20
elections, the UCA formed its government in NWFP, and one of its=20
first steps was to remove the massive advertising billboards from=20
local cinemas. Some showed images of women the UCA deemed obscene and=20
un-Islamic.

Now the provincial government has taken another step in the same=20
direction. Recently the police launched an operation on what is known=20
as the musicians' street in the provincial capital, Peshawar. On the=20
night of 24 January, they raided a wedding party in a local hotel,=20
beating up singer Gulzar Alam and smashing his harmonium.

"We were not doing anything illegal, I was singing," Alam told IRIN=20
from Peshawar. He added that he was beaten, then taken to the police=20
station, and even tested for drinking alcohol, which is strictly=20
prohibited in the conservative Islamic country. "Singing is my only=20
source of living. What will I do if they ban music?" Alam asked.

In another incident, political writer Fazale Wahab Wahab was shot=20
dead by unidentified individuals inside a shop in Mingora town, some=20
150 km north of Peshawar, on 21 January. The shopkeeper and his=20
assistant were killed in the crossfire. Local observers believe that=20
Wahab was killed because he had written several controversial books=20
criticising the politics of the local religious leadership.
According to Khattak, his writings were not blasphemous, but an=20
analysis of the clergy's role in politics. Over the past decade=20
Mingora and the surrounding Malakand region have experienced sporadic=20
violence due to the rise of the Tehrike-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi=20
(TNSM), which called for the imposition of Islamic Shari'ah law there.

In the mid-1990s many people died in a violent protests orchestrated=20
by the TNSM. In 2001 The group organised thousands of volunteers to=20
fight alongside the Taliban after US-led military action began in=20
neighbouring Afghanistan, with many of them still languishing in=20
Afghan prisons. Pakistani President Gen Pervez Musharraf banned the=20
group in January last year.

Khattak called on the provincial and federal governments to=20
immediately halt campaigns that affected people's freedoms and=20
rights. "It is the duty of the state to protect people and their=20
rights," he said. Critics of the NWFP government say officials are=20
trying, in the absence of any meaningful policies, to garner=20
popularity by appealing to deeply held religious convictions.
[...].
[ENDS]

_____

#4.

The Indian Express
Tuesday, January 28, 2003

In Dhaka, Delhi on the mind
Kuldip Nayar
At Dhaka no one takes Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani's assertion=20
that there are 20 million Bangladeshis in India seriously. It is=20
considered part of the BJP's political propaganda to heighten Hindu=20
suspicions against the Indian Muslim in order to garner votes. There=20
is, however, a feeling that secularism in India has eroded over the=20
last few years. More disconcerting is the growing conviction that the=20
doings of the ruling BJP are justifying Mohammad Ali Jinnah's=20
two-nation theory.

Since the Gujarat carnage, the belief in Bangladesh is that it is=20
only a question of time before India became a Hindu state for all=20
practical purposes. The Hindu population in Bangladesh, which=20
constitute roughly 12 per cent of some 150 million people, feels=20
tense and blames the rulers at New Delhi for spoiling the communal=20
harmony, which was limping back to near normalcy after the demolition=20
of the Babri masjid. Still there is no doubting the fear of Muslim=20
fanatics, who have the support of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a partner in=20
the Khaleda Zia government.

I was in Dhaka a few days ago when the Border Security Force forcibly=20
sent some 75 persons to Bangladesh through the Sharsha border. One=20
leading Bangladeshi newspaper captioned the story: 'Indian Muslim=20
nationals pushed in'. The comment of an average person there was no=20
different. It is not that anyone denies the presence of illegal=20
entrants from Bangladesh in India, but it is the figure of 20 million=20
that is being challenged.

'This is not our problem,' said Foreign Minister Morshed Khan. 'West=20
Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadev, and people like Jyoti Basu, should=20
be worried that Bengali-speaking people are being ousted from India=20
just because they happen to be Muslims.'

Many academicians, journalists and businessmen I met more or less=20
made the same point. They reiterate that the purpose of these=20
measures is basically political. They also ask why a person having a=20
ration card and a vote in India should be thrown out. Many felt that=20
NGOs should help these people go to court.

Nonetheless, it is generally conceded that it is limited=20
opportunities in Bangladesh that is forcing the unemployed to cross=20
the border. 'They do not go to India to see the Taj Mahal,' said a=20
top businessman. 'They are looking for economic opportunities. They=20
will go wherever they can find them.'
[...].
{ FULL TEXT AT :=20
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D17354 }

_____

#5.

The All India Democratic Women's Association
New Delhi

PRESS RELEASE

27 Jan. 2003

The All India Democratic Women's Association strongly objects to and=20
condemns the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's call at a=20
Gandhinagar farmers rally to give irrigation pump sets in a=20
daughter's dowry. According to press reports " Modi proposed that=20
farmers give drip dry irrigation sets as dowry to their daughters."=20
Does Mr. Mody not know that there is a Dowry Prohibition Act in this=20
country? By promoting the illegal practice of dowry he has violated=20
the law. Gujarat is notorious for the shocking figures of declining=20
sex ratios of girl children in the population. In the last decade the=20
Gujarat sex ratio has declined drastically from 934 girl children in=20
the age group 0-5 years in the years 1991 to 921 in 2001, a drop of=20
13 points one of the highest declines in the country. It has been=20
shown that at least one of the reasons for female feticide is the=20
growing practice of dowry. But Mr. Mody far from showing any concern=20
for the serious implications of the declining sex ratio, actually=20
promotes one of its causes. As Chief Minister Mr. Mody is duty bound=20
to uphold the constitutional guarantees for gender equality whatever=20
his personal retrograde views may be.

He should make a public apology and withdraw his remarks.

A copy of this statement is also being sent to the BJP President Mr.=20
Venkiah Naidu. He should publicly state whether his party shares Mr.=20
Mody's views on dowry and if not whether he as the President of the=20
party running the Gujarat Government, should ensure that Mody=20
apologises.

Brinda Karat

General Secretary

______

#6.

India's Lumpen Capitalism
Business kowtows to Moditva

By Praful Bidwai

During the Emergency, it was famously said, Indian businessmen were=20
so eager to ingratiate themselves with Indira Gandhi's undemocratic=20
regime that when asked to bend, they crawled. More than a=20
quarter-century on, and after over a decade of economic=20
globalisation, one would expect the captains of Indian industry to=20
have politically matured somewhat. The post-1991 neoliberal policy=20
was to have freed them from dependence on political parties and the=20
government of the day. It would be only logical to expect them to=20
distance themselves from, if not criticise, the politicians=20
responsible for yet another vicious assault on Indian=20
democracy--namely, the pogrom in Gujarat in which 2,000 innocent=20
citizens were butchered.

Such expectations stand rudely belied. No more than three leaders of=20
business and industry--HDFC's Deepak Parekh, Thermax's Anu Agha and=20
Airfreight's Cyrus Guzder--spoke out between last March and June on=20
the Gujarat carnage and Mr Narendra Modi's role in it, and on the=20
need to heal wounds. Remarkably, all three are Gujarati speakers, but=20
none lives in Gujarat. No Gujarat-based businessmen gathered the=20
courage to publicly support them. Some helped the victims with food=20
and clothing, but did not want to be identified. Not a single third-=20
or fourth-generation business family publicly participated in relief=20
activities--baring Ms Mallika Sarabhai's. None of the authors of=20
Gujarat's recent business "success stories" thought the carnage=20
merited their attention.

That was shameful enough. But what happened in Mumbai on January 18=20
quite takes the cake. The Confederation of Indian Industry organised=20
a huge felicitation for Mr Modi, entitled "Gujarat Unlimited"! This=20
was more than just the usual interaction between a Chief Minister and=20
businessmen (who waited a good 90 minutes for Mr Modi's arrival). It=20
was an occasion to kowtow to and glorify Mr Modi and lavish praise on=20
him for his "dynamism" and "vision"--without even a remote hint that=20
anything went wrong in Godhra or in its aftermath. CII=20
director-general Tarun Das, considered a "liberal", converted the=20
regional event into a national one and celebrated "the love affair"=20
between Gujarat and business. Then, leader after industry leader=20
extolled Mr Modi's virtues. Mr Jamshyd Godrej--presumably no Hindutva=20
fanatic himself--concluded with fulsome compliments for Mr Modi.

That is when Jairus Banaji, an Oxford university-based historian and=20
activist of a Mumbai coalition, "Insaaniyat", intervened. He was=20
among a group of 14 activists of "Insaanyat" and Forum against the=20
Oppression of Women, who had managed to enter the Oberoi Hotel's=20
"Rooftop" to confront Mr Modi. The others were all found out and=20
expelled. Mr Banaji did not heckle Mr Modi, but heard his entire=20
45-minute-long speech and patiently waited his turn to ask a simple=20
question: "How can you talk of a better economy when there is no=20
justice for the thousands of innocent citizens who were killed in=20
cold blood? =8A You have blood on your hands, Mr Modi".

Mr Banaji spoke for millions of Indian citizens who too are asking=20
similar questions: What is the worth of Mr Modi's promise of a=20
modern, "forward-looking" Gujarat, in which profit-lines get fatter,=20
but citizens are burned to death? How can anyone talk about=20
"progress" and "development" in "Gujarat Unlimited" without a=20
reference to the worst state-sponsored carnage in Independent India's=20
history? Why didn't even one of the business barons present at the=20
CII event feel emboldened to ask questions about the rule of law in=20
Gujarat?

The list of business tycoons present reads like a Who's Who of Indian=20
industry: A.M. Naik of Larsen & Toubro, Narottam Sekhsaria, the=20
cement baron, Prashant Ruia of Essar, P.P. Vora of IDBI, Chintan=20
Parikh of Ashima group, Pradip Madhavji of Thomas Cook, Nimesh=20
Kampani of JM Morgan Stanley, Maitreya Doshi of Premier Automobiles.=20
Not to be left out were "India Today's" Aroon Purie and Prabhu=20
Chawla. Some, like Mr Naik, gratuitously and cravenly apologised for=20
Mr Modi, by saying that the butchery of thousands of Gujaratis was=20
only "a storm in a teacup".

The CII event was even more regrettable than the presence of a galaxy=20
of businessmen at Mr Modi's ostentatious swearing-in in Ahmedabad,=20
including Mr Anil Ambani and Mr Shashi Ruia (Essar). The=20
businessmen's presence at that ceremony might be considered an=20
expression of their personal closeness to India's Milosevic. But the=20
Mumbai event was an institutional initiative taken at the CII's=20
behest to express business solidarity with Mr Modi --despite the=20
carnage and the ghastly election campaign. The essence of the=20
"interaction"--with Mr Kampani reading out demands for privatising=20
profitable fertiliser companies, and Mr Modi promising businessmen=20
high profits--was collusive.

What makes this egregious is that the CII is supposed to represent=20
India's most "modern", "globalised", "extrovert" and technologically=20
"savvy" companies, many of them allied to multinationals. Unlike the=20
"protectionist" FICCI or Assocham, it advocates "free" competition=20
and liberalised entry for foreign capital. The CII is also the chosen=20
instrument of the United States' Agency for International Development=20
and conservative Western NGOs to promote "democracy" in India. In the=20
recent past, the US has used industry groups to advocate its own=20
version of "democracy plus free markets" in the Third World.

By legitimising and applauding one of the worst butchers of Indian=20
citizens, the CII has now shown what kind of "contribution" it makes=20
to "democratisation". The "modernist", "progressive" pretensions of=20
globalising capital have never sounded more hollow. Big Business has=20
no particular attachment to democracy; indeed, it doesn't seem to=20
care much about elementary justice and even the rule of law--so long=20
as its own narrow demands (e.g. for subsidies and privatisation) are=20
met and the government maintains some minimal infrastructure.

Big Business is taking a desperately myopic view of things. Surely,=20
in the long run, capitalism needs the rule of law, Constitutional=20
rights, and inclusive democracy. Without these preconditions, it=20
cannot hope to acquire the bare essentials of social legitimacy.=20
People like Mr Modi will totally undermine that legitimacy--just as=20
Hitler ad Mussolini did. In Germany and Italy, industrialists allied=20
themselves with extreme-Right forces--because these alone could crush=20
the Left, which threatened the bourgeois order. But once the Left was=20
vanquished, the fascists turned on businessmen too. Even rich Jews=20
who had financed them weren't spared. War, destruction, economic=20
collapse and mass misery followed.

It won't do for the CII to argue that it's not legitimising Mr Modi,=20
the Politician; it is only dealing with or "engaging" Mr Modi, the=20
Chief Minister. It was as Gujarat's Chief Minister that Mr Modi=20
sponsored, planned and organised the pogrom. The CII is extending its=20
support to him--unsolicited, on its own. This is part of a larger=20
malady. Indian business has never taken a universalist, socially=20
responsible, view of its role, nor shown much commitment to liberal=20
values, except perhaps during the early 1940s, when it drafted the=20
Bombay Plan. It is usually self-obsessed and driven by short-term=20
interests. The past decade's liberalisation hasn't encouraged=20
business to reform and modernise itself. It hasn't invested=20
significantly in technology, or built a strong, indigenous, base for=20
itself. Rather, it has imported technology packages and became a=20
passive partner of MNCs. Business's social and political clout has=20
increased greatly since the 1980s, not its social responsiveness or=20
commitment to democracy.

There is a seamy, sleazy side to Indian business: its "crony=20
capitalist" character, wide prevalence of tax evasion and money=20
laundering, and use of rapacious labour practices, including=20
sweatshops, child labour, and casual, insecure employment. Indian=20
business's ethical standards are among the world's abysmal--as scam=20
after recent scam shows. The latest, and biggest, scandal is the=20
robbery of Rs 110,000 crores of bank loans by well-known houses like=20
Mafatlal, JK, Usha-Ispat, Mardia, Modern Group, Mesco and=20
Parasrampuria. Among the defaulters is Mr A.C. Muthiah, FICCI=20
president, no less!

Even Finance Minister Jaswant Singh says these "non-performing=20
assets" are "loot". They represent an astounding 15 percent of the=20
banking sector's total assets. It is imperative to recover this=20
money. But there is vociferous, rabid opposition from business=20
lobbies to any new law on recovery. This was voiced at a meeting of=20
the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council by a magnate who is=20
himself a big defaulter! Commented Business Standard: "That=20
businessmen would find it in them to make such partisan and=20
self-serving pitches in even the highest councils shows how=20
unconcealed and unabashed the lobbying has become."

What we have in India is a semi-criminalised lumpen capitalitism=20
which is largely risk-averse and without much genuine=20
entrepreneurship. It continues to be highly dependent on "contacts"=20
and influence within the government--witness the ongoing telecom=20
chaos, the scramble for India's super-profitable public oil=20
companies, and demand for high tariffs in a range of goods, including=20
two-wheelers. Associated with this lumpen, footloose capitalism is a=20
lumpen bourgeoisie lacking a strong commitment to developing the home=20
market on a mass scale. This is not a forward-looking class or an=20
agency for progressive, democratic change. It is a bulwark of=20
undeserved privilege and deep conservatism. The business elite must=20
reform itself if it wants to be part of a democratising, liberal=20
process of change.-end--

______

#7.

The Hindu, Sunday, Jan 26, 2003
Magazine

A twist in destiny?

In the first year of Independence, what was striking was a fervour=20
and willingness to build India: a strange mixture of exuberance,=20
over-confidence and over-expectation that was bound to change - and=20
which did - into disillusionment ... Making out a case for preserving=20
the fundamental values of democracy, KULDIP NAYAR looks at how=20
subsequent years of misrule have destroyed once-cherished attitudes=20
and institutions.

IT was heavenly to be young when India won freedom. Although cut into=20
two, there was so much frenzy over Independence that people would=20
have torn even the moon from the sky if the leaders had asked for it.=20
There was sadness because millions of men, women and children had=20
been uprooted, and more than one million killed during Partition. But=20
the opportunity to build the newly won country was so overpowering=20
that nothing really mattered.

By the time the Republic was formed on January 26, 1950, and the=20
country adopted the Constitution, the shape of future India was=20
pretty clear. In fact, the long freedom struggle had chalked out the=20
path. The ethos of the struggle became the ethos of tomorrow's India.

Hailing from different regions, religions and castes, rich and poor,=20
landlords and tenants, industrialists and traders, all of them had=20
contributed to push out the British. They provided the ethos.=20
Therefore, the policy and programmes adopted had to reflect the=20
plurality of the struggle and the distributive justice for the=20
teeming millions who had made sacrifices. Mahatma Gandhi, who led the=20
struggle himself, said that political freedom would have no meaning=20
if there was no economic freedom.

And to douse the fires of communalism in the wake of Pakistan's=20
birth, he said that Hindus and Muslims were his two eyes.

Egalitarianism and secular democracy came to be the two pillars on=20
which the structure of the Indian Republic was to rest. It was clear=20
that the policy in view was participatory, having a meaning for all,=20
even among the lowliest in the economic, religious or caste fields.=20
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who piloted the Constitution, saw to it that the=20
country accepted the concept which fitted into the ideals of freedom=20
fighters as well as the needs of multi-religious and multi-cultural=20
India. He reiterated the basic principle: "One man, one vote". But,=20
at the same time, he emphasised that such a right should become "one=20
man, one value" so that the country would become a real, democratic,=20
secular entity.

In the first years of Independence there was an over-emphasis on the=20
past glory but also a fervour - and willingness - to build India. At=20
the same time there was a na=EFve belief that the problem of=20
underdevelopment and poverty would find an easy, if not an automatic,=20
solution with the dawn of Independence. It was a strange mixture of=20
exuberance, over-confidence and over-expectation. Left untapped,=20
enthusiasm was bound to change into disillusionment and this is what=20
happened.

Mahatma Gandhi was quite right in suggesting soon after Independence=20
the disbanding of the Congress. He did not want it to go to people=20
saying that it had won them independence. All, according to him, had=20
participated in the national struggle and no party should try to=20
appropriate credit to garner gains. The Congress did not accept his=20
advice.

Had the same pre-independence spirit of sacrifice and selflessness=20
that had distinguished the Congress Party persisted, India would have=20
probably found missionaries to lead the country to prosperity. But=20
the spirit of dedication rapidly evaporated after the last British=20
solider left. The Congress Party members were now a new set of=20
masters who wanted to be rewarded for the sufferings they had=20
undergone in the struggle for freedom. Almost overnight the party=20
became a squabbling crowd of Gandhi-capped self-seekers, jostling one=20
another for power and riches.

For many, the newly acquired power was a licence to make money. As=20
days went by, corruption in the Congress ranks became common. The=20
central and state ministers began to live beyond their means and,=20
increasingly, there were allegations of how a minister or his close=20
relations had amassed wealth by playing havoc with the administration.

Still, we did not start badly. Mahatma Gandhi's assassination gave us=20
respite from communal riots. Jawaharlal Nehru established the=20
institutions and gave strength to the concept of an independent=20
Judiciary, free press and fair voting. Democracy took roots. Religion=20
ceased to have a role in state affairs and the military remained=20
ideally apolitical. Planning and self-sufficiency came to be our two=20
goal posts.

In spite of all this, we felt handicapped in fostering democratic values.

How could we do so when money began to play a dominant role in=20
elections? Practically every candidate, including Nehru, had to spend=20
more than what was legally allowed. Religious and caste=20
considerations too came to be weighed in the elections of candidates=20
by political parties and the pattern of polling.

Dr. Zakir Husain, Vice-President in the 1950s, criticised the=20
practice publicly. He said let Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a top freedom=20
fighter, contest from a purely Hindu constituency to test the=20
people's faith in secularism. Neither the Congress nor other=20
political parties heeded his advice.

The Congress was the only viable party and it bragged that it could=20
get even a lamp post elected. So, the quality of candidates started=20
going down. Anyone who could catch the eye of political parties by=20
hook or by crook was given the ticket and in most cases, he or she=20
became the law maker in the State Assembly or Parliament. Those who=20
were near the throne came to enjoy power. They sprouted at all levels=20
and made a lot of money through wrong deals or contracts. The other=20
political parties, which came to power in the states, came on the=20
anti-Congress wave. But they turned out to be no better. People began=20
to blame the system. When Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency=20
(1975-77), she tried to close the system.

This was the time when it became clear that the bureaucracy was so=20
malleable that even a threat of transfer of demotion made it act in=20
an illegal manner. We found that ethical considerations inherent in=20
public behaviour had become generally dim and, in many cases, beyond=20
the mental grasp of many of the government servants. Desire for=20
self-preservation was the sole motivation for their official action=20
and behaviour. Anxiety to survive at any cost formed the keynote of=20
approach to the problems that came before many of them. And money had=20
come to play a big part. Ninety per cent of civil servants in the=20
States and at the centre were of doubtful integrity. They have joined=20
since political masters and mafia men to mulct the state. How could=20
the system work?

Meanwhile, both political and economic processes had brought sections=20
of the peripheral and deprived social strata into the active=20
political community. The population had grown beyond the elites and=20
upper classes which inherited the Raj. There was a wider circle of=20
politically conscious and economically powerful castes and classes=20
which acquired a stake in the system. Certain middle peasant castes=20
had dramatically improved their position, asserting equality of=20
status and privilege with the upper castes and mounting considerable=20
pressure for redefining rural-urban relations. At the same time, they=20
were unwilling to extend the same rights to the lower castes in both=20
rural and urban areas.

The broad lower tier of the social pyramid consisting of the poor and=20
under-privileged and exploited sections of the population, was no=20
longer willing to accept a submissive role. They were, in turn,=20
asserting their rights in relation to the dominant structures of=20
hegemony and control; they too wanted to participate in the decisions=20
that affected their lives.

Accommodation was no longer possible within the old structure which=20
was narrowly cocooned in privilege. Millions continued to remain=20
outside the system which became ever more distant and alien and=20
ceased to be meaningful for them. No surprise then that the processes=20
of change and transformation should cause turbulence and turmoil, and=20
that once-cherished attitudes and concepts and institutions should be=20
questioned.

That this challenge to established forms should occur at a time when=20
the elites themselves, in their scramble for power and resources and=20
unmindful of larger considerations, feel incapacitated and bewildered=20
at the pressures building from below is not surprising. For, it is a=20
challenge that is a direct result of a non-performing and=20
non-responding apparatus, a direct consequence of the failure of the=20
system to respond to the new demands that were inherent in the=20
democratic process.

Sensing that the discontent against the system because of=20
deteriorating economic conditions is increasing - globalisation has=20
only aggravated the situation - some political parties have inducted=20
religion and caste into the country's body politics. Whether the=20
Mandal Commission, giving reservations to the backward, has done=20
anything good is not yet clear. But the introduction of religion has=20
played havoc. By razing the Babri masjid to the ground first and then=20
doing "ethnic cleansing" in Gujarat, fanatic Hindus have brought the=20
genie of Hindutva out of the bottle. It would be tough to make it go=20
back into the bottle. But that eventuality would arise if those who=20
allowed the genie to move about wanted to control it.

At present, the country is in the grip of communalism which may=20
encourage divisions on the basis of caste and religion.

If the country is to preserve the fundamental values of a democratic=20
society, every person - whether a public functionary or private=20
citizen - must display a degree of vigilance and willingness to=20
sacrifice. Without the awareness of what is right and a desire to act=20
according to what is right, there may be no realisation of what is=20
wrong.

Kuldip Nayar is a veteran journalist, writer and human rights=20
activist. He is also former Indian High Commissioner to the U.K. and=20
now a Rajya Sabha MP.