[sacw] SACW | 21 April 03

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Mon, 21 Apr 2003 03:26:35 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire  |  21 April,  2003

#1. Padlocks and posturing (Brian Cloughley)
#2. Give chance to Mr Vajpayee (Imtiaz Alam)
#3. Kashmir's fabled forests vanish
#4. War on Iraq: what next? (Iftikhar H. Malik)
#5. Placating the Reactionaries?: Iraq After the War (Harold A. Gould)
#6. India: An update from ANHAD

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

#1.

The Nation, April 20, 2003

Padlocks and posturing
Brian Cloughley

Bower-birds are notorious for collecting objects that are of no 
particular use to them, but they pick them up and decorate their 
environs with them because they like unusual things, and why 
shouldn't they? I am a bower bird, and my study is full of things I 
consider fascinating but which many people would regard as dust traps 
(a view subscribed to by Control, I might add). One collection is of 
old brass padlocks, many with dates and names on them; and it is one 
of these that brought me to write this piece, because it is inscribed 
in shaky but deep capital lettering:
KARTARSINGH
SARDARSINGH
JHELUM
This is hardly earth-shattering, one might imagine, but when one 
thinks about it, the history of the Sub-continent for the past 
fifty-five years is bound up with that inscription. I have the 
padlock beside me as I write, and wonder, as I often do, just who 
were the Singhs of Jhelum? Merchants? Farmers? Retired soldiers of 
the Raj? And what happened to them in 1947? Were they stabbed to 
death, or hanged by their turbans, or did they manage to escape 
across the newly-delineated border to Sikh Punjab? Perhaps they 
managed to flee eastwards by train, only to be hacked to bits on 
board - just as so many Muslims were murdered coming the other way. 
It is all very well for people to say that the atrocities happened 
over half-a-century ago and that passage of time should have eroded 
horrible memories, but the plain fact is that they haven't 
disappeared. Far from it, because India and Pakistan still consider 
themselves enemies. The years since the period in which the Singhs 
lived in peace in Jhelum (when there were Sikhs and Hindus in Quetta, 
for example; and Jews in Karachi) and the present day, in which one 
cannot even fly directly from one country to the other (how absurd), 
are dotted and defiled by wars and atrocities. There can be no 
question of instant harmony and it would na_ve to imagine this happy 
state could be attained. But this does not mean that efforts toward a 
modus vivendi cannot be made. They should be made, and that right 
soon, because the world has changed enormously in the last two years. 
Those nations which do not prepare themselves to resist the growth of 
US imperialism are destined to be treated as pliant nonentities whose 
rights in international affairs will be overridden or dismissed 
contemptuously by Washington, so long as Bush is in power.
It is no longer possible to seek international justice in any case 
involving America or an American citizen, as the International 
Criminal Court is not recognised by the Bush administration. Justice, 
or what passes for justice, will be meted out by America or by 
countries approved by Bush, and nobody else. If Bush America decides 
that a binding international agreement is unsatisfactory it will be 
abrogated unilaterally. There is no question, now, of compromise or 
negotiation with interested parties. Bush ignores findings of the 
World Trade Organisation, and regards the Geneva Convention as a 
vehicle for expostulation when convenient (showing pictures of US 
prisoners on television) and an out-dated piece of liberal trivia 
when inconvenient (as in US treatment of the non-persons in its 
Guantanamo Gulag). So countries wishing to retain self-respect and a 
modicum of independence should sharpen up and decide what their 
posture is going to be: autonomous nation or dormant doormat.
So far as India and Pakistan are concerned the message is that if you 
don't set your regional house in order there is likely to be movement 
by America to take action about it. It is of course a wider message, 
and countries in the fatuously-titled 'Axis of Evil' and beyond can 
expect even more robust treatment - if they are weak, militarily and 
politically. Bush will never dare take on a country that can fight 
back, so India and Pakistan will be spared the Shock and Awe 
liberation option. But there could be unpleasant means of bringing 
pressure on both countries to reach agreement about their 
differences, and, given the proclivity of modern-day Washington for 
meddling in other countries' business in the most aggressive and 
insolent fashion, it is to be hoped that the Sub-continent can avoid 
the vulgar attentions of such as Rumsfeld, whose grotesque antics 
have ceased to be even mildly amusing. The question for India and 
Pakistan, as ever, is: What do we do next about Kashmir? In an 
interview with Reuters last week I said "People have become 
accustomed to living with [the threat of war over Kashmir], and one 
of these days it is actually going to happen". This is a terrifying 
prospect.
Both countries are anxious to instruct the other about what should be 
done, and the result is deepening intransigence. The refrain "You 
cannot clap with only one hand" has been run to death by both sides, 
but, alas, other deaths have occurred and, apart from making 
propaganda out of tragedy, no practical suggestions have been made 
following the massacre at Nandimarg in Indian-administered Kashmir 
last month. (The world at large barely heard of this brutal, 
senseless, wicked killing of 24 defenceless civilians by terrorists, 
because the equally vile slaughter of very many more defenceless 
civilians was taking place in Iraq.) Mr Advani said "this is an act 
of our neighbour, and violence in the state is continuing only 
because of them", which was a singularly unhelpful observation. 
Nobody could seriously propose that Mr Advani should embrace 
Islamabad following a filthy act of mass murder that was carried out 
most probably by a Pakistan-oriented terrorist organisation. But 
cannot he see that such rhetoric plays into the hands of the wild men 
on both sides? President Musharraf was quick to condemn the massacre, 
as well he might, because the very fact it took place - apart from 
being an atrocity only the lowest and most disgusting beasts could 
carry out and support - produced yet more problems for Pakistan. 
Musharraf has pointed out that incidents like this work mightily 
against any moves towards talks between India and Pakistan, and 
indeed he is right. But what can he do about it?
His best move would be to request the help of the United Nations 
Security Council. No: not to again seek a plebiscite as provided for 
by UNSC resolutions, for such a tactic would only intensify New 
Delhi's resistance to movement towards a Kashmir solution. In fact 
Islamabad should realise that if a plebiscite were held it is 
unlikely the inhabitants of Indian-administered Kashmir would vote 
for accession to Pakistan. They have had their fill of terrorism 
supposedly in the name of Islam and have experienced quite enough 
brutality from what they regard as an army of occupation. Valley 
Kashmiris were never anything but practical about religion (during my 
fourteen months in Srinagar I bought alcohol openly - and even on a 
visit two years ago could have a Scotch or three in a hotel), and 
they look with genuine and justified apprehension at possible 
imposition of a strict regime such as demanded by extremists and 
terrorist groups, few of which have a genuine Valley Kashmiri on 
board. A pox on both Islamabad and Delhi say the gentle artisans and 
peaceable lake and country-folk of the Valley and outlying areas. The 
Jammu region and probably Ladakh would vote for accession to India, 
but the plurality would be for independence. If that came about there 
would be even more disaster, for the loonies would fight amongst 
themselves.
Pakistan should choose the pragmatic approach and take advantage of 
the fact that responsible members of the Security Council, determined 
to neutralize American arrogance, can help India and Pakistan move 
forward to a Kashmir solution. To demonstrate good faith (and 
common-sense) Islamabad should accept the inevitable and declare, as 
a major concession, that it is willing to sacrifice its former 
insistence on the plebiscite resolutions in the cause of movement 
towards rapprochement. The price of such a significant offer of 
compromise should be made clear beforehand. It should be suggested 
(not 'demanded') that the UNSC should decide on adjustment of the 
Line of Control to reflect reality. An independent Commission would 
then realign the LOC. This could not possibly reflect what should 
have been decided in 1947 - the obvious solution of having an Indian 
State of Jammu, divided from a Pakistani State of Kashmir by the 
southern Panjal Range - but could adjust territorial anomalies, 
notably in the Siachen region. The mutual condition would be that 
India and Pakistan would accept the neutrally-decided Line as their 
international border and agree to UN involvement to a degree to be 
determined by the Council. 
To even begin an approach to UN discussions there would have to be 
agreement between Islamabad and Delhi to conduct preliminary talks 
without posturing for domestic political advantage. This is the 
likely sticking point, but given international guarantees that Indian 
and Pakistani territorial integrity will not be sacrificed, it should 
be attractive for both sides to come to the table. The Simla Accord, 
after all, adjures both parties to arrange "a final settlement of 
Jammu and Kashmir". The descendants of Sardar Singh and Kartar Singh 
may never see Jhelum, and perhaps it is too much to hope that India 
and Pakistan could become true partners; but the door to peaceful 
coexistence should not remain closed and padlocked.

_____


#2.

The News International
April 21, 2003
Give chance to Mr Vajpayee
Imtiaz Alam
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2003-daily/21-04-2003/oped/o2.htm

_____


#3.

Terra Daily
http://www.terradaily.com/2003/030413043256.hk012h53.html

TERRA.WIRE
Kashmir's fabled forests vanish
MUZAFARRABAD, Pakistani-controlled Kashmir (AFP) Apr 13, 2003
On an autumn morning last year Kashmiris in Lamnian, 60 kilometers 
(37 miles) south of the Pakistani-controlled zone's capital, watched 
in horror as an ambulance skidded off the road and plunged into a 
field.
Horror turned to bemusement when the rear doors of the crashed 
ambulance, driven by a Pakistani soldier, swung open to reveal planks 
of sawn timber.
"We were surprised to see this in an ambulance, which is supposed to 
carry people wounded by shelling," said one of the villagers.
Kashmir is barely clinging on to some the world's most glorious 
forests, and soldiers, villagers, officials, and timber merchants are 
blamed for their depletion.
Cedar, pine, fir, and spruce trees once shrouded all Kashmir's peaks. 
Maple, walnut, ash, oak and willow trees blanketed its velvet valleys 
and alpine meadows, home to rare pheasants, black bears, ibex, musk 
deer, striped hyaena, lynx, and snow leopards.
But since 1947, when Pakistan was created for South Asia's Muslims, 
forest cover in Azad (free) Jammu Kashmir, the 13,300 square 
kilometer north-west strip of the region under Pakistani control, has 
diminished by two-thirds. Most of its slopes are bare.
"It's embarrassing. When we were divided in 1947, we had 42 percent 
of Azad Kashmir under forest. Today it's 13 percent," AJK President 
Sardar Anwar Khan, a retired major-general, told AFP.
"It's an environmental disaster."
=46orests are vanishing "at an alarming rate," Farooq A. Niazi, head of 
the Jammu Kashmir Human Rights Movement, told AFP.
Disappearing with the forests is Kashmir's exotic wildlife. "There's 
not much left," Khan said.
They are also victims of incessant shelling along the heavily 
militarised 767 kilometer (476 mile) Line of Control (LoC) splitting 
the Himalayan region between Pakistan and India.
"Cross-border bombardment is damaging the forests and wildlife beyond 
imagination," Niazi said.
Pakistan and India, both claiming Kashmir in full, have fought two 
wars over it.
Last year 60,000 shells landed on the Pakistani side, killing 96 
people and wounding 383, according to Pakistan's military.
"Shelling kills the living tissues of trees," AJK's chief forests 
conservationist Sardar Farooq said.
The 1999 fighting over Kargil in northern Kashmir took its toll on the fauna=
=2E
"More than 100 wild deer, found only in the Indian-held side, were 
nowhere to be seen after Kargil. The number of snow leopards shrunk 
from 80 to 20," he said.
"Migratory birds, which would come to Kashmir from Siberia, have 
changed their routes.
Pakistani and Indian soldiers alike are involved in illegal logging, 
rights groups and government officials say.
"Pakistan army personnel cut trees to use as fuel. They smuggle sawn 
wood. So do Indian army men on the other side," Niazi said.
=46orestry officials checking vehicles for smuggled timber, especially 
"precious" cedar and walnut wood, are not allowed to check army 
trucks, an AJK official said.
"Army vehicles dont permit forestry officials to search them on the 
pretext of transporting weapons," the official told AFP, requesting 
anonymity.
Military spokesman Major General Rashid Qureshi denied any felling by soldie=
rs.
"I don't know of any incident where a soldier has cut trees or tried 
to smuggle. By and large it's the civilian population which cuts 
trees for fuel.
The army prevents this from happening," he told AFP.
President Khan blames "timber mafia" and compliant authorities.
"There is lots of connivance by local forestry officials," he said.
Some 25 percent of AJK's forest are zoned commercial, providing up to 
60 percent of its revenue and 2,800 jobs. They too have shrunk, by 
one third, since 1947.
Institutionally the army is doing its bit for reforestation, planting 
more than 30,000 saplings in 2002, according to conservationists WWF 
Pakistan.
AJK villagers, angry at the depletion of their forests, have tried to 
prevent illegal felling, Niazi said.
"But they cannot forbid the army."
=46rustration was inclining many towards independence rather than rule 
by either Pakistan or India, Niazi said.
"People in Kashmir feel that if the two countries have to fight, they 
should fight at Wagah," the official crossing on the 
internationally-recognised border.
"At Wagah they trade with each other, while we Kashmiris have been 
left to face their bullets."

All rights reserved. =A9 2002 Agence France-Presse.


_____


#4.

DAWN, 19 April 2003
War on Iraq: what next?

By Dr Iftikhar H. Malik

The fall of Saddam Hussein, though quite expected and long overdue, 
has been an unnerving event for all those who stood against this 
unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq by the Anglo-American 
coalition. Unlike the general expectations, neither the Iraqi 
generals defected nor did the Iraqi masses appear on the streets 
carrying bouquets for their liberators.

However, it is true that the high-sounding Takriti rulers have melted 
away without putting up a due fight. The war of 'liberation' has 
already deteriorated into mire of squabbles and reawakened polarities 
varying from regional to sectarian and personalist loyalties. One 
more third world country goes down the tube on the back of hopes of 
reconstruction and democracy, thanks to its self-motivated leaders 
and callous invaders. The Anglo-American rationale for war - the 
weapons of mass destruction - remains never-to-be-found and the UN 
characterised as Western Jimadaarni by Arundhati Roy, turns further 
peripheral.

Like Afghanistan, Saddam's power structure crumbled before the North 
Atlantic powers without offering worthwhile resistance - even too 
soon for an otherwise estimated time span. Muslims, pacifists and 
other anti-hegemony alliances, who had tried their best to forestall 
the invasion through numerous rallies, vigils and marches, thought 
that the proponents of pre-emptive unilateralism would face some 
modicum of formidable resistance disallowing the neo-conservatives 
from achieving their goals so easily.

Most of all, the Arabs and Muslims, are, once again crest fallen 
thanks to a dictatorial regime that only prided in building ugly 
statues and vulgar murals of its dictator without establishing 
anything worthwile. It is not the ordinary Iraqis whose bravery or 
perseverance is in question, it is their undemocratic rulers, who 
have failed the nation and there is nothing unique about it. In 1971, 
Pakistan lost its major wing thanks to a similar junta when in the 
wake of sheer brutalisation, our generals failed to protect their 
country. They succeeded only in one thing: keeping our people in the 
dark through misinformation while brutalising our other half in the 
East in our name.

The fall of Saddam Hussein may still augur well for Iraq but the way 
it has been achieved from above, leaves a bitter taste. The 
Baathists, like the Taliban, fell prey to their own exaggerated whims 
and unreal expectations. They crumbled like a pack of cards and no 
one seems to have any tears for them, but at what cost?

Like Afghans, millions of Iraqis have suffered the most horrendous 
bombing, massive killings and an unjustifiable decimation of ecology, 
infrastructure and heritage. The inhuman crimes committed by the 
Taliban and Baathist hotheads have been only superseded by the 
latter-day Mongols, promising liberation and reconstruction to these 
God-forsaken lands of harmless and patient peoples.

It was on 8 March 1917, on the eve British invasion of the Ottoman 
provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, when General Stanley Maude 
announced: "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as 
conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." Listening to moralist 
pronouncements from Blair+Bush Duo, it appears as if the world has 
not changed at all. The civilising traditions of the Conquistadors, 
Colonials and Christian missionaries still reign supreme!

While the Anglo-American troops were in a hurry to capture the oil 
wells and even the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, they allowed the looters 
to their maximum to play havoc with the collections in the World's 
seventh largest museum. The next day as helplessly witnessed by 
Robert Fisk, the ink from the charred rare Ottoman, Arab and Islamic 
documents and manuscripts mingled with the muddy waters of Tigris. 
References to Helagu Khan's burning of libraries in Baghdad in 1258 
were not lost on anyone. There are a few important lessons to be 
drawn from this great tragedy.

=46irstly, dictatorship, how benevolent it may be, is no guarantee for 
a country's survival and security. Time and again, we have seen 
dictatorships oppressing their people and then dissolving like 
quicksand. In the process, they destroy the socio-economic and moral 
fabrics of their societies. The best security for a nation is not 
through a few individuals monopolising power at the top and coercing 
everyone else; instead, it is through institution building. 
Similarly, it cannot be ascertained on the back of borrowed money and 
fledgling economy. All the way from the Soviet Union to Iraq, 
dictatorships, vetoing people's participation, have caused the 
edifices fall so rapidly leaving million mutinies in their wake.

Secondly, it is not sheer military power or a centralizing 
authoritarianism that can guarantee a country's internal stability 
and cohesion. Without durable political systems, consensual 
constitutionalism and egalitarian economic edifices, countries and 
regimes fall like withered leaves in autumn. Mere rhetoric and 
outdated weaponry without corresponding institutions rooted among 
people is just a charade.

It is no wonder that the democracies have been rarely attacked and 
when confronted with such eventualities, their people put up 
formidable defence since they share collective stakes. Unlike the 
Middle Eastern and third world tin-pot dictatorships, democracies 
always come back victorious. Democracy, despite its several 
weaknesses, cherishes pluralism, nourishes free debate, tolerates 
criticism, creates participatory institutions and undoubtedly 
delivers in every sense of the word. India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and 
Bangladesh are the best examples in our part of the world and even 
Turkey with its parliamentary democracy has been able to stand up for 
its interests. On the contrary, in our case, a vital though 
unavoidable decision was made by one individual at the dead of the 
night in September 2001.

Thirdly, the fall of Iraq has evaporated the myth that plain 
emotionalism based on a dismissive attitude towards science and 
technology (modernity) is certainly a dangerous terrain. Like our 
clerics of the ilk of Mullah Soofi of Malakand, Saddam and his 
coterie lived in fools' paradise feeling secure in their own 
propaganda. The great Persian poet, Saadi, had lamented the fall of 
Abbasid Caliph Mustasim in 1258, but he also mourned the useless 
rhetoric that had become the order of the day in a decadent court at 
Baghdad. For years, Shia and Sunni multitudes led by the Caliph and 
Ibn Ulqami had been engaged on defining a true Muslim. Let us see, 
how far Zalmay Khalizad, the Afghan-American fixer, and General Jay 
Garner succeed in rebuilding a new Iraq!

=46ourthly, there is a genuine concern that the United States led by " 
the iron triangle" of Jewish donors, Christian Right and 
Neo-Conservatives (as identified by Jonathan Friedland in The 
Guardian) will expand their campaign to Syria, Iran and such other 
countries. An easy victory plan for new American century and the 
wargames partly meant for reelection could spawn these ventures which 
appear cost effective after Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, they may have to prudently wait until the presidential 
elections next year though the saber rattling will go on. In the same 
vein, we will be too romantic to expect the unfolding of the 
mysterious road map for peace in Palestine. Bush and his followers 
are not foolhardy to give away their victory owing to a disgruntled 
Jewry. Syria is being pinned down for obvious reason; simply to win 
over American Jews from the Democratic Party.

=46ifthly, to several of the pundits in Washington, Pakistan with its 
nuclear weapons and rising anti-Americanism is "a powder keg waiting 
to explode" (as observed by Dr. Schmidt on the CNN on 15 April). The 
recent daily bombastic announcements by Yashwant Sinha and George 
=46ernandes are not empty statements but are rather meant to test 
waters given the Anglo-American dictum of preemptive strikes. Where 
Pakistan's nuclear capability has failed to secure a credible 
deterrence, its constitutional chaos, a manipulated political system 
and a deadlocked economy present it as a plum case for its 
adversaries.

Pakistan's full-fledged democracy, restoration of 1973 constitution 
in toto and meaningful efforts to engage India on all fronts are the 
only guarantee against any regional or extra regional security 
threat. Nobody is asking Pakistan to surrender its sovereignty or 
Muslim credentials, but its stalemated policies, internal chaos, 
army's extra professionalism and a continued confrontation with an 
increasingly powerful neighbour are steadily pushing it towards undue 
risks and uncharted courses. Pakistan, not out of a fear complex, but 
certainly for an overdue reformism, needs to move forward, 
unencumbered by any form of authoritarianism and unrealistic regional 
ventures.

>Finally, though the events in Iraq may further encourage Israeli 
>irredentism and could marginalise already disempowered Muslim and 
>Arab voices, yet any form of cynicism or rejectionism, though 
>expected, must be guarded against. One needs to remember those 
>millions of people across the world demonstrating for peace and a 
>better Western Asia.

Britain witnessed the largest peace march in its history when two 
million people converged on London on 15 February. More than 70% 
Italians, French, Germans, Scandinavians and Spaniards are against 
war and so are the sizable communities in North America and 
Australia. Even the demonstrators in Cairo, despite the official 
wrath, were chanting 'Hyde Park', 'Hyde Park', reverberating this new 
global humanism from below.

In our moments of despair we must not forget these majorities who, 
despite their class, colour and creed variations, have refused to be 
silent and stand for a better, plural and egalitarian world, away 
from racism, imperialism and unilateralism.


_____


#5.

Counterpunch.org
April 17, 2003

Placating the Reactionaries?: Iraq After the War

by HAROLD A. GOULD

As the military phase of the campaign against Saddam Hussain's Iraq 
approaches its denouement, the experts are now turning their 
attention to what comes next. The steps by which this next phase has 
at last become inevitable have proved to be far less sanguine than 
was originally anticipated. Much has been said and written about the 
miscalculations that beset the original scenario. The Pentagonists, 
who trumped the proponents of a more massive and prudent preparation 
for Mr Bush's war, and who failed to adequately factor the power of 
anti-colonialism and strident Islamism into their strategic 
calculations, appear to have carried the day despite themselves, but 
at a greater cost in lives, treasure and social chaos than anybody 
wanted or anticipated. The latter, in fact, i.e, social chaos, may 
turn out to be the greatest cost of all.

Because of the considerable disparity between words and deeds, the 
search is on for scapegoats. There are reputations to be protected 
and egos to be saved. The outcome of this struggle will have a major 
bearing on which factions will become the designated arbiters of the 
shape that Iraqi society and politics will take once the guns are 
finally silent. Everybody, of course, is paying lip-service to 
democracy. It has become practically a cliche that it is the Iraqi 
people who must be allowed to choose their own post-Saddam political 
path. There is a closet war underway between the State Department, 
the CIA and the Pantagonists over whose scenario for achieving these 
worthy ends will prevail. Right now, the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney 
team appears to have the upper hand, since nothing succeeds like 
apparent success. The trouble with all of the proposed scenarios, 
however, is that none appear to be overly cognizant of the fact that 
democracy is a system of government that by definition cannot be 
imposed from above. It must be grown from below. Proof of this is 
provided by the case of Pakistan. Over the past half century, with 
the US acting as facilitator, four Pakistani military dictators 
assured their people and their US sponsors that popular government 
can be imposed from the top. The result is there for all to see. 
General/aka-President Pervez Musharraf and his military predecessors 
have ruled, and rule today, Pakistan from their residences in the 
army cantonments, not from the parliament building..

In the case of Iraq, achieving the open polity in a place where 
democracy has never really been tried, where for thirty years what 
potentiality for accommodational politics existed was ruthlessly 
crushed by one of this century's most vicious dictators, where 
inter-ethnic racism has been an unremitting fact of life, will try 
the patience of the gods. These facts alone will inevitably tempt 
Iraq's conquerors, good intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, 
to incline toward political shortcuts, especially since the American 
President is already on record as regarding "nation-building" (i.e, 
slow, patient, and expensive socio-political reform) as a repugnant 
enterprise with which no self-respecting neo-con should soil his 
hands. The fruits of that repugnance have already been demonstrated 
in the shameful neglect of Afghanistan's reconstruction since the 
Taliban blight was excised.

One must then add the sorry record which American diplomacy has rung 
up all the way back to the Cold War where the underlying challenge 
repeatedly was promoting the very nation-building processes that Mr 
Bush finds so unpalatable. Other than NATO, the tendency over and 
over was and continues to be to opt for the easy way out and either 
tolerate, encourage or subsidize military-dominated governments in 
the name of "efficiency" and realpolitik. When the Democracy Movement 
erupted in China in the 1980s, the US not only stood passively by 
while hundreds of youthful idealists were slaughtered, but ultimately 
put their implicit seal of approval on the perpetrators by doing 
business with them in the aftermath. It was called "constructive 
engagement", whose rationale was (and continues to be) trying to 
leverage a country away from dictatorship and political repression by 
whetting the leadership's appetite for the riches of the free market. 
The cost was (and continues to be) a regime that makes a mockery of 
human rights, knowing that it can get away with it as long as it 
plays ball with the mughals who run the global economy.

We have already alluded to Pakistan. Instead of employing America's 
very considerable power and influence to encourage and promote 
democratic forces in that country from Independence onward, one US 
administration after another instead chose to placate the reactionary 
military and other extra-parliamentary groups there who had nothing 
but contempt for the open society, and did their utmost to subdue and 
repress every attempt by those who desired to grow democracy to do 
so. The excuse was and is always the same: One must be "realistic."

If the Bush administration proves to be sincere about doing what is 
necessary to facilitate Iraq's transition from the totalitarian 
society it has been to the democratic society everybody says they 
want it to become then there is available a model for undertaking 
that transition. It is India.

Why India, and not Bulgaria or Romania or Latvia? Because India is a 
country which has successfully accomplished what Iraq would have to 
accomplish. And India has done it in a comparable 
socio-cultural-historical environment. Let us briefly recall how 
politically India got from there to here.

At Partition, India inherited one of the most pluralistic social 
worlds on earth. It was Europe with a central government, compelled 
to accommodate and assimilate into an encompassing polity populations 
as ethnically diverse and demographically formidable as the French, 
the Germans, the Italians, the English, the Czechs, the Poles, the 
Scandinavians, etc. They created the Indian nation from these diverse 
cultural-linguistic building blocks by proceeding on the premise that 
India must be a secular state which (a) acknowledges the sanctity of 
diversity, (b) embodies diversity in a federal constitution that 
assures equal rights under the law, (c) adopts the universal adult 
franchise, (d) regularly holds fully free elections, and (e) governs 
by political consensuses that are fashioned in one central 
parliamentary body and numerous provincial parliamentary bodies, each 
of which coterminates with one of the country's major 
sub-nationalities.

Although not identical, especially in scale, striking parallels 
abound between the Iraqi and the Indian cases. An imaginative and 
dedicated "transitional government" should be able to fashion a 
governmental system for Iraq that follows the Indian model. Iraq can 
be constructed as a loose confederation of sub-nationalities owing 
allegiance to a central system that is secular, democratic and 
politically flexible. Ethnically coherent provincial structures 
certainly can be fashioned that confer a culturally reassuring 
measure of local sovereignty on each, not unlike India's federality 
and, for that matter, not unlike the USA's.

Indian specialists could be recruited to participate in Iraq's 
constitution-building process. They could provide guidance and 
insights into how through nearly a century of dialogue and 
confrontation between Indian political groups and the British 
colonial regime a process of constitutional development took place 
which reflected the accommodations and consensuses needed to enable a 
highly pluralized, fellow Asian society of continental proportions to 
create a political structure able to keep the military out of 
politics and establish a federalized political arena where diverse 
identities and interests could work out their differences and govern 
their country in a parliamentary fashion rather than on the 
battlefield and in the torture chamber.

Yes, the task of accomplishing this will be daunting in the extreme. 
But by no means impossible. Especially if the United States decides 
to get serious about nation-building and is willing to spend the 
time, the money and the expertise, in concert with the international 
community. The greatest danger lies in that ominous record of past 
failures that haunts American international statecraft. If it loses 
patience and walks away, as it has repeatedly done in Afghanistan. If 
it lapses into its past proclivity to take the easy way out and makes 
backing military dictators the political short-cut of choice, as it 
has done in Pakistan, and elsewhere. Then it will not be long before 
victory on the battlefield will have been all for nought.

Harold A. Gould is a Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian 
Studies at the University of Virginia. He can be reached at: 
gould@counterpunch.org.

_____


#5.
                                     ANHAD
                                    4, Windsor Place,
                        e-mail: 
<http://lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=3D1&msg=3DMSG105=
0573332.171&start=3D262489&len=3D31779&src=3D&type=3Dx&to=3Danhadinfo%40yaho=
o%2eco%2ein&cc=3D&bcc=3D&subject=3D&body=3D&curmbox=3DF000000001&a=3Db5e4742=
1e25b13e834056678fe48da9a>anhadinfo@yahoo.co.in
                                       April 17, 2003

Dear Friends,                    

                 We had announced the formation of Anhad on March 20, 
2003. In case the first letter/ e-mail did not reach you we are 
enclosing it again.

We also wish to inform you about our immediate action plan and seek 
your support in our endeavours. This is the plan mainly for Gujarat 
but Anhad plans to organize similar activities in other states 
beginning Rajasthan ( April),  Andhra Pradesh ( April) , MP and 
Chattisgarh and Kashmir in near future.

  1.       Between April 20-31, 2003 , Anhad held consultations with 
representatives of over 300 groups/ ngos/ grass root movements and 
concerned citizens in Ahmedabad, Sanand, Himmatnagar, Surendranagar, 
Bharuch, Surat, Palanpur, Baroda, Godhra and Bhavnagar. The need to 
intellectually equip the grass root activist against the onslaught of 
the hate propaganda was expressed by majority of the people.

  2.       On April 10, 2003 over 50 people, mainly intellectuals, 
activists and concerned citizens met in Ahmedabad  for a day long 
brain storming session to discuss the content and the design of the 
workshops.

  3.       Based on the need felt by the people as well as a very 
positive response from most of the districts , where meetings were 
held Anhad in collaboration with local organization has decided to 
organize 5 day residential training camps in 10 districts of Gujarat. 
Each camp would have 150-200 participants depending on the local 
demand. The camps would begin from May 15, 2003.

  4.        The proposed dates for the workshops are: Ahmedabad (May 
15-19, 2003), Palanpur ( May 16-20, 2003), Himmat Nagar ( May 17-21, 
2003), Surendranagar ( May 18-22, 2003), Bhavnagar ( May 19-23, 
2003), Baroda ( May 20-24, 2003), Godhra ( May 21-25, 2003), Bharuch 
( May 22-26, 2003), Surat ( May 23-27, 2003), Rajkot ( dates to be 
finalized).

          It is also proposed that a group of 15 people from each 
workshop would be identified , who would then be trained in theatre, 
music for another 15 days. By the end of June 10 such cultural 
troupes would be ready to travel from village to village performing 
and forming youth clubs.

  2. People=92s Festival in Ahmedabad: The first phase of the training 
camps would be over by June end. It is proposed that On July 1st,2003 
a major people=92s festival should be organized in Ahmedabad. July 1st 
is the death anniversary of Rajab Ali and Vasant, two young boys who 
wanted to intervene and stop the riots and were killed while trying 
to save the people.

  3. Summer camps for children in Gujarat Villages :  Anhad in 
association with Navsarjan plans to organize summer camps for the 
village children in Gujarat. In the first stage we will go to 50 
villages identified by Navsarjan. The camps will be organized from 
June 1-30, 2003.

  Anhad would mobilize  100 young students (2 per village), who would 
like to spend a month in  a village , live with a family in the 
village and play, draw, sing, dance with the children. They can end 
up doing much more : building a cultural corner with local resources 
and the help of the villagers, mobilizing more friends to come later 
and take up some projects in the village, get involved in future 
Anhad, Navsarjan activities.

  We are working on different ideas to intervene in the urban 
population specially students and women and would soon announce the 
more activities .

  For the above work we urgently need:

  1.        Resource material (books, pamphlets, posters, audio, video 
cassettes) related to the following issues: materials on our plural 
cultural
tradition, inter-community relations, secular social and cultural
practices, songs which highlights our sense togetherness.

2.        Your generous contributions : cheques/ drafts to be sent to 
Anhad, 4, Windsor Place, New Delhi-110001.  I have committed almost 
24 hrs and 365 days for the next three years to this work. I am 
assuming that friends will take the responsibility of raising the 
required resources for the work to continue.  We do not take foreign 
funds.

3.        25 Volunteers: who are ready to spend about 15 days in Gujarat.

4.        Resource persons: we are in the process of approaching them 
individually, but do get back to us if you want to contribute as a 
resource person.

  We are also looking for colours/ paints/ crayons/ paper/ books for 
children/ snake and ladders/ ludos/ carom boards/ chess =96please use 
your imagination. We need to make 50 sets- one for each village. 
Paper and colours will have to be of course in plenty.

  Those students who want to volunteer should come to the Anhad Office 
from Monday-Saturday 9.30am-6pm and register themselves.

  Yours sincerely

Shabnam Hashmi

  PS :  Anhad  Gujarat Office would start functioning full time from 
May 1, 2003. Address: Anhad, c/o Prashant , Near Kamdhenu Hall, 
Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad . e-mail 
<http://lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=3D1&msg=3DMSG105=
0573332.171&start=3D262489&len=3D31779&src=3D&type=3Dx&to=3Danhadgujarat%40y=
ahoo%2eco%2ein&cc=3D&bcc=3D&subject=3D&body=3D&curmbox=3DF000000001&a=3Db5e4=
7421e25b13e834056678fe48da9a>anhadgujarat@yahoo.co.in

  My dates in Delhi are : approximately April 19- 29, 2003

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

ANHAD

The urgency to intervene in defense of democracy, secularism and 
justice has never been more pressing than in the conditions 
prevailing in the country today. There is a recognizable change in 
the general tenure of public discourse; unlike in the past, it is 
informed more by the communal than by secular ethos. The prejudices 
against the minorities are widely shared as a result of motivated and 
sustained propaganda. Those who claim to be secular are forced on the 
back foot; some of them have increasingly become compromising or even 
silent. In the face of social mobilization attempted by communal 
organizations by invoking religious symbols and sentiments the civil 
society has come under a siege. Nevertheless, it is evident from the 
large number of secular democratic initiatives by political parties, 
voluntary organizations and individuals that the society is seized of 
the need for sustained and constructive action for strengthening 
secularism and democracy and for realising justice and peace. Their 
number and strength are not inconsequential. Yet, the communal 
appears to be poised to conquer. It is therefore necessary to 
energize the secular forces by a conscious regrouping and 
co-operation. ANHAD is intended to be a modest attempt in this 
direction.

  ANHAD is neither a structured organization nor a movement capable of 
large-scale popular mobilisation. It would, however, try to combine 
the elements of both by collaborating with existing organizations and 
movements and by undertaking local level activities, by instituting 
small secular communities. The former would enable ANHAD to develop 
creative co-operation with people=92s organizations and social 
movements working in different areas of social, cultural and 
political concerns, the latter would open up for secular mobilisation 
the space hitherto uncolonised by communalism. There will be no 
formal membership; all are welcome to participate on a voluntary 
basis. The activities of ANHAD would be overseen by a working group 
and would be advised by a national committee of eminent citizens.

  Like any other voluntary organisation the work of ANHAD would also 
evolve with experience. Yet, some areas have been identified for 
initial involvement. They are cultural action, social mobilisation, 
defense of civil liberties and work in the diaspora. The cultural 
action is conceived as intervention in daily life practices through 
popular and folk culture, syncretic and tolerance systems of faith 
and the building of communities invested in pluralism, while 
challenging hatred, obscurantism and superstition.

The social mobilisation would be attempted both through demonstrative 
actions like jathas and constructive work organized around youth and 
women=92s clubs. The defense of civil liberties would include legal 
action for defending the rights of minorities, dalits, tribals and 
women. The work with the diaspora, particularly creating secular 
consciousness among them, assumes great importance in the light of 
the sustained communal propaganda among them. In short ANHAD would 
like to undertake grass root level activities, with the support and 
collaboration of the existing organizations wherever possible and if 
not, by initiating work on its own through volunteers. The emphasis 
is on constructive and continuous activity, which would create and 
sustain secular and democratic consciousness.

  ANHAD would like to bring at least a major part of the country under 
its umbrella, which would obviously take quite some time to achieve. 
Therefore it would begin its activities in four states: Gujarat, 
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgardh. During the course of the 
year Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka and 
Kashmir would be added. In all these states the endeavour would be to 
create a fraternity of secular activists who would through their 
interaction with the local people bring into being small secular 
communities for ensuring peace and social understanding. Each 
locality would have its own peculiarities in cultural practices and 
social relations, which would be given particular attention while 
organizing the activities of ANHAD.

  ANHAD means without limits. We envisage it as an inclusive 
institution in which every one who stands for democracy, secularism, 
justice and peace can participate.

  Become a friend of Anhad, a volunteer worker, a financial 
contributor, a resource person. There are a hundred ways of being a 
part of Anhad, it is for you to decide your role in this effort. Just 
remember one thing-now is the time to act, tomorrow may be too late.

KN Panikkar   Shubha Mudgal     Harsh Mander   Shabnam Hashmi



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

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

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
--