SACW | 23 April 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  23 April,  2003

#1. India's Overture Raises Hopes for Peace with Pakistan (Praful Bidwai)
#2. Indo-Pak talks: It is a question of minimum (Husain Haqqani)
#3. Miles from peace mission, village gets cruel reminder  (Muzamil Jaleel)
#4. Love With No Boundaries - Our position on war and anti-war 
movement (Sex workers Forum Kerala)
#5. Hindi Audio-CD and Cassette "Communalism-What is False What is true"
#6. Miffed by Jaswant, Gujarat, Dutch review aid to India (Akshaya Mukul)
#7. Arvind N. Das 'Summer Republic' Undergraduate Fellowship
#8. India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 116

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


#1.


India's Overture Raises Hopes for Peace with Pakistan

Commentary - By Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Apr 22 (IPS) - When Atal Bihari Vajpayee extended the 
''hand of friendship'' to Pakistan last week, he was also doing 
something unusual. He became the first Indian prime minister to 
address a public meeting in the disputed Kashmir Valley since a 
violent separatist movement erupted there in 1989.

The Friday speech offered ''dialogue'' with different currents of 
Kashmiri opinion and was therefore widely welcomed in both Kashmir 
and Pakistan.

By Saturday, however, Vajpayee started hedging on what first appeared 
to be an unconditional offer to Pakistan. He said the talks could not 
be ''one-sided'' and put the onus on Islamabad: it must stop 
supporting ''cross-border'' terrorism and dismantle training camps 
for militants so that the ''right atmosphere'' is created.

Is this a case of ''two steps forward, one step back''? Has Vajpayee 
given with one hand only to take away with the other? Does this show 
hesitance, uncertainty and vacillation on Vajpayee's part? Is the 
offer sincere and well thought out? Or is it being made under 
external goading, especially from the United States?

The answers are unclear and ambiguous. But there is no doubt that the 
tone and tenor, if not the substance, of Vajpayee's pronouncements, 
is a welcome departure from New Delhi's shop-worn position that no 
dialogue with Islamabad is possible.

That is why it has been greeted with some enthusiasm in Kashmir, the 
subject of a dispute of more than 50 years between India and 
Pakistan. Even Islamabad has said it welcomes the change of tone, 
although substantially, ''it is old wine in a new bottle''. Earlier, 
Pakistani officials had said Islamabad would take two steps for each 
forward step New Delhi takes.

There is a likelihood, although not a very high one, that both India 
and Pakistan will make tentative but positive moves in the next weeks 
-- just ahead of the planned visit of U.S. deputy secretary of state 
Richard Armitage early in May.

Both governments are deeply uncomfortable with the global situation 
emerging after the war on Iraq and the threats held out by Washington 
to extend hostilities, especially to Syria and Iran.

New Delhi is apprehensive it will come under heavy pressure to drop 
its precondition (for an end to Pakistan's support to the Kashmir 
militancy) and start talking to Islamabad.

Islamabad, for its part, is worried by the United States' repeated 
recent statements, and a Congressional Research Service report, that 
the cross-border movement of militants into Kashmir has not ended. 
State Department head of policy planning Richard Haass has said the 
United States was ''disappointed and frustrated'' over Pakistan's 
''failure'' to stop it.

In India, there are strong domestic reasons too for making the 
overture now. Jammu and Kashmir, as Indian-controlled Kashmir is 
called, witnessed relatively fair and largely free legislative 
assembly elections six months ago.

The Kashmiri people are exhausted and repelled by the excesses of the 
militants and their increasingly mindless and brutal killings -- like 
that of the 24 Hindus in Nadimarg. Support for the militancy, which 
now mainly draws foreign recruits, has sharply declined.

The Kashmiris' concerns with day-to-day issues of health care, roads, 
schools, are gaining prominence, and they are willing to engage with, 
lobby and pressure, the state government. In the past, they would 
refuse to.

=46rom the Indian government's point of view, this is the right moment 
to make a gesture for peace and dialogue. But the move's long-term 
success will depend on the government's larger policy or game plan 
(assuming it has one), and its willingness to put its anti-Pakistan 
prejudices aside and negotiate in good faith.

This means moving away from the stated position that Kashmir is ''an 
inalienable part of India''. It also means taking the Shimla 
agreement of 1972 seriously, under which all bilateral issues are to 
be resolved through peaceful discussion. So far, New Delhi has cited 
the Shimla accord to oppose a multilateral dialogue -- but never once 
discussed the Kashmir bilaterally with Pakistan.

Islamabad, for its part, will have to drop its insistence that 
Kashmir be discussed with reference to U.N. Security Council 
resolutions going back more than 50 years. More important, it will 
have to stop using armed pressure to coerce India to the negotiating 
table.

India and Pakistan came close to reconciliation twice in the recent 
past, at Lahore in 1999 and at Agra in 2001. But the Lahore summit 
was grossly inadequate in addressing the new dangers to regional 
security after the 1998 nuclear blasts by both countries. It was soon 
overtaken by a seven weeks-long conventional war at Kargil.

At Agra, the two governments' top leaders agreed to a draft which was 
all but signed, but vetoed at the last minute by India's hawkish 
Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani. Vajpayee failed to assert 
himself and allowed the summit to collapse.

On a pessimistic note, hawkish forces could come into play yet again. 
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supports Vajpayee's peace 
gesture. But its first response was to oppose it and harp on 
Pakistan's enmity toward India. Similarly, Indian Foreign Minister 
Yashwant Sinha recently said Pakistan is a fitter case than Iraq for 
a pre-emptive war -- since it both exports terror and has weapons of 
mass destruction.

This year will see four major state assembly elections in which the 
BJP is pitted against the opposition Congress party. Rather than 
embark on a new Kashmir and Pakistan policy, it may find it easier to 
fall back upon its hawkish line, which appeals to its constituency 
among the urban elite.

Besides, incidents of terrorists killing innocent citizens, whether 
or not provoked by Pakistan, can derail any process of reconciliation 
and dialogue.

Vajpayee will have to summon a high level of courage and firmness to 
keep the process on track. In Pakistan, President Gen Pervez 
Musharraf will have to show results in containing and countering 
militancy in order to enhance mutual confidence.

If the two leaders pull off a success, the one billion-plus people 
who face the terrifying prospect of nuclear Armageddon in the world's 
most dangerous region could breathe less uneasily. (END/2003)


______


#2.

The Indian Express
Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Indo-Pak talks: It is a question of minimum
Husain Haqqani

Soon after the talk of another round of talks between India and 
Pakistan surfaced in the media, a senior Pakistani academic in the 
United States wrote to me, ''Supposing the Indians say to us, okay, 
let's talk. What do we intend to say to them that we haven't already 
said and which they haven't brushed aside?''

In many ways this represents the dilemma of India-Pakistan 
negotiations. The absence of dialogue causes tension, spiked now with 
the prospect of nuclear confrontation. But dialogue usually ends with 
both sides sticking to stated positions, with little scope for a 
substantive breakthrough.

Negotiations usually involve reconciling maximum demands - what one 
side says it desires, with its minimal expectation, what it will 
settle for. Most observers agree that India's maximum demand is that 
Pakistan gives up its claim on all of Jammu and Kashmir, and its 
minimal expectation would probably be that Pakistan accept the status 
quo without further violence and a de facto partition of Kashmir 
along the line of Control.

India would like Pakistan to stop ''being a thorn in its side''. An 
Indian negotiating team would try to secure more than the minimum and 
would probably settle for less than the maximum. But in Pakistan's 
case, there has never been much discussion of a ''bottom line'' 
national position on the Kashmir conflict. Pakistanis feel that they 
were cheated at the time of partition, when a contiguous Muslim 
majority state was not allowed to become part of Pakistan. There is a 
desire that a UN-sponsored plebiscite be held in the Jammu and 
Kashmir State that ''sets right that original injustice and paves the 
way for Kashmir's accession to Pakistan''.

But that is a maximum position. Attempts at different times to try 
and define alternatives to that position have all been declared by 
the country's establishment as running contrary to the national 
interest. In the days before a new round of India-Pakistan talks, 
perhaps there is scope for discussion and debate within Pakistan to 
define alternative negotiating positions for a future Pakistani 
negotiating team.

When India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in 1998, some 
experts expressed the hope that there would be no further wars 
between them. Nuclear wars served as a deterrent to war between the 
US and the Soviet Union and it is a widely held view that the 
prospect of nuclear annihilation creates a ''balance of terror'' that 
in turn forces protagonists to talk to each other. India and Pakistan 
possess nuclear weapons but do not have in place any of the other 
elements of deterrence.

They do not have clearly identified ''red lines'' the crossing of 
which would result in a nuclear strike. There are no arms control 
talks, no detailed doctrines and no hotlines to guard against 
triggering accidental nuclear clashes. Given the geographic proximity 
of the two, their reaction time in case of a missile attack is barely 
a few minutes. And neither side can nuke the other without having to 
bear some of the fallout.

Deterrence has already failed in part between India and Pakistan 
since their nuclear tests, the Kargil clash being an example of a 
non-nuclear conflict between them. Relations between the world's 
other nuclear powers have never been characterised by such frequent 
confrontations. Pakistan's military-dominated decision-making process 
has resulted in combinations of short-term military and diplomatic 
moves without a well-thought out end game.

As pointed out by retired Air Marshal Asghar Khan, Pakistan's 
military adventures have been launched in the ''hope that world 
powers would come to our rescue, intervene, bring about a cease fire 
and somehow help us achieve our political objectives. All our past 
wars with India have been fought for no purpose (and) we have 
suffered humiliation as a result.''

Rounds of negotiations have been no different. Pakistan has called 
for talks but has gone into talks without alternative negotiating 
positions. The Indians have ended up digging in their heels, making 
negotiations a zero-sum game as well. A feeling of insecurity against 
a much larger and hostile neighbour was the original source of 
Pakistani apprehensions about its nationhood. The emphasis on seeking 
to ''complete'' Pakistan by acquiring Kashmir, which in the Pakistani 
psyche should have been part of Pakistan in the first place, is 
directly related to this sense of insecurity.

But over the years, structures of conflict have evolved, with the 
Pakistani establishment as the major beneficiary of maintaining 
hostility. The possession of nuclear weapons has given the Pakistani 
elite a sense of invulnerability and has increased its willingness to 
consider options of unconventional warfare. The environment of the 
global war against terrorism restrains Pakistani support for Islamic 
militancy in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

But in the absence of a sustained peace process, and fulfillment of 
mutual commitments such as those made by Musharraf last year about 
curbing militancy, there will always be room for new tactics that 
prolong the conflict and attempt to alter the status quo.

Pakistan's domestic politics has also become a major factor in its 
relations with India and vice versa. The Pakistani establishment does 
not trust the leaders of Pakistan's two major political parties - 
Benazir Bhutto of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif of the 
Pakistan Muslim League. Since the 1999 coup d'etat that brought 
General Musharraf to power, the military has attempted to rewrite 
Pakistan's constitution and restructure its polity - the fourth such 
attempt in Pakistan's relatively short history as an independent 
nation.

The exclusion of Bhutto and Sharif from the political process has 
benefited the Islamist political parties. Their political power makes 
it difficult for politicians and intellectuals to advocate a 
settlement with India. An Islamist leader recently declared publicly 
that ''killing Hindus'' was ''the best approach to the 56-year-old 
dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.''

The rise of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism in India is feeding the 
religious frenzy in Pakistan while the political gains of the 
Pakistani Islamists have empowered India's religious hardliners. The 
clash of these rival religious sentiments is hardly conducive to 
rational discourse aimed at seeking long-term friendship. Still, it 
would be in India's interest to help Pakistan gain sufficient 
confidence as a nation to overcome the need for conflict or regional 
rivalry for nation-building.

The international community, especially the US, could increase 
pressure for restoration of civilian rule in Pakistan, paving the way 
for a constitutionally mandated civilian government to resume the 
Lahore peace process. In Kashmir, India could start a process of 
political inclusion that would help identify credible Kashmiri 
partners in restoring peace. Pakistan would need to back away from 
its deep involvement with the Kashmiri political opposition to pave 
the way for an inclusive political process. Dialogue among Kashmiris 
from both sides of the LoC would also help ease the Kashmir situation.

As things stand, however, there is potential for further Indo-Pak 
conflict. India believes it can maintain the status quo in J-K with 
its superior military force while Pakistan continues to bleed India 
and demand talks without having worked out what it would seek in 
these talks short of demanding the cession of all of Kashmir.

The two sides need to recognise the difference between isolated 
rounds of talks and a peace process aimed at creating lasting peace.

_____


#3.

The Indian Express
Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Miles from peace mission, village gets cruel reminder
Muzamil Jaleel
Khulbagh, Tral, April 22: Even as a piecemeal effort for peace got 
under way in Srinagar today, another village was scarred by violence 
visited on innocent people. It took just one blast to change the 
lives of about a thousand villagers, 17 among them injured. The six 
dead, at least, won't worry anymore.

The blast has hurled this hamlet, about 40 km from the capital, into 
silent mourning. There were no VIPs or government officials around. 
Just people wounded and aggrieved. A woman, who was lucky to escape 
the blast with just a few splinter cuts on her thigh and shoulder 
winced in pain as she tried to walk to the local dispensary. An old 
man leaned against a walnut tree as he watched the village boys wash 
the blood stains on the road.


The end may always be the same but the story needs to be fleshed out 
and told. Not that it would make any difference here. The villagers 
who had assembled this morning, around 8 a.m, near a narrow culvert a 
few metres away from their cattle, waiting for the shepherd, didn't 
know that their pastoral setting would soon be dabbed with red.

''Suddenly, there was a deafening blast. The stone wall on the road 
was blown into pieces. I could see only dust and smoke,'' said 
Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi, who watched it all unfold from the balcony of his 
house nearby.

''It seemed as if there was a rain of shrapnels and pieces of stone 
on the tin roof of our house. I rushed downstairs and ran towards the 
culvert. It was like a flood of blood. There were bodies scattered 
all around.'' Sofi said for almost an hour they were just evacuating 
the injured.

''There were around 15 men, women and children hit by the 
shrapnels,'' he said. Five had died on the spot while the sixth 
victim had been rushed to the hospital where he died.

The villagers say an improvised explosive device had been hidden in 
the stone wall. People talk in whispers about militants who had been 
trying to target the patrol parties from the local security force 
camp crossing the culvert every morning. But no on is looking for 
answers here. The sound of women wailing drifts into the air from a 
small shack. It is here that 35-year-old Aftab Ahmad Mir lived till 
this morning. A labourer, Mir had stepped out, only to be blown to 
bits. A white shroud which would have otherwise covered his body 
became a receptacle of the parts.

At home he had his wife, Raja, waiting for him - she is expecting his 
second child; the elder son, Tauseef, is just four. ''There is 
nothing left. We were preparing for the arrival of a baby and he had 
to take me to the hospital at 10 am. Now death has taken everything 
away,'' she wailed as the village women tried to console her.

Mir had a brother as well, Nazir Ahmad Mir, who went missing five 
years ago. Now there are two widows - Mir's wife and aged mother 
besides his son and the one yet unborn.

On the other end of the village lives Bashir Ahmad Mir. A 28-year-old 
graduate, he was unemployed and had to work as a labourer to feed his 
two younger sisters and mother. And when the villagers were laying 
him down in his grave today, his mother was lying unconscious in the 
verandah of their mud-and-brick house.

And there was this horse too who bled to death over an hour as his 
50-year-old owner, Ghulam Mohammad Khan, who was on his way to the 
village for work, lay motionless in a pool of blood.

The local police station is just a drive of 10 minutes but they took 
more than an hour to come.

''The BSF officer of the local camp came to our rescue. He sent his 
vehicles and men to help pick up the dead and injured,'' said 
Mohammad Abdullah, a village elder. ''There was no doctor or 
paramedic at the Tral hospital. So we had to arrange two vehicles to 
take them to Srinagar.''


______


#4.

LOVE WITH NO BOUNDARIES

In these dark days of war and in the light of  anti-war movement, we, 
the  Sex workers of Kerala, are bringing out our position  on war and 
anti-war  movement. We feel there are some subtle differences  to be 
debated upon for  a better understanding of positions and the quality 
of peace we achieve.

  Antiwar does not just mean anti-imperialism;
It is not by burning effigies and flags that we  defeat imperialism;
Don't burn something that others revere.

  We defeat imperialism not by war or hatred,
But by winning the hearts back of those who support  it.
War and hate are the weapons or language of  imperialism;
We can't wield or defend with it.

  The powerful always wins in the war with forces;
Don't defeat but win them over with non-violence and  love.

  Antiwar means not supporting armies in our own  country;
Antiwar means not supplying human power to form  armies in the nations we li=
ve;
Antiwar means agitating for the reduction of budget  of defense expenditure;
Antiwar means protesting against our own government  when it goes to war;
Antiwar means not feeling proud when our country  explodes a nuclear device;
Antiwar means feeling miserable when they invent a  new weapon;
Antiwar does mean declaring defeat even before the  start of war;
Antiwar does mean declaring that we will never  defend even if attacked.

  Antiwar means being an international citizen;
Antiwar means traveling to other countries and  knowing them;
Antiwar means loving your neighbors as yourself;
Antiwar means recognizing the friend in others;
Antiwar means serving others without discrimination;
Antiwar means love between equals;
Antiwar means being free of communal and racial  hatred;
Antiwar means vowing never to use arms against  anyone;
Antiwar means acts of bravery without arms;
Antiwar means limiting our own privileges;
Antiwar means defending the right of others;
Antiwar means anti-discrimination;
Antiwar means ending all stigmas;
Antiwar also means being antinational.

  Know that you are of the same species;
Know that you are one of human species with a series  of identities;
Know that all identities other than human are  mirages;
Know that being man, woman, transgender or intersex  is incidental;
Know that there are no strangers who oppress, but we  oppress each other;
Know that love is the only medicine to cure the  disease of war;
Know that a smile can bring a smile on the face of a  stranger;
Know that any act of hate is the real enemy because  imperialism thrives on =
it;
No strategy other than love and trust can win the  movement against war.

  Don't suppress but explore and unravel the beauty of  sexuality;
Know the mystery of existence and exult in it.

  Humility does not mean submission;
  Submission in any form is servitude.

  There is none superior or inferior to you;
Know that there are no god men or women;
Spirituality means making others feel equal to you;
Spirituality also means being one with the universe.

  Excellence does not mean superiority;
Life means unlimited possibilities.

  Differences do not mean strangeness;
it is like eyes  and ears, abilities to  bring qualities.
Differences do not mean strangeness but varieties of  solutions.
Differences do not mean strangeness but revelation  of possibilities.
Differences do mean that we all are unique and  special, so precious.

  Don't die for a cause but live for it and let others  live for it.

  Survival of our species remains with survival of  other species;
Survival of the fittest means helping other species  to survive.

  Antiwar means not being anti-women;
Antiwar means not being anti-tribal;
Antiwar means not being anti-black;
Antiwar means not being anti-sexual minorities;
Antiwar means ending discriminatory laws in all  countries.

  Antiwar means not writing inflammatory articles in  newspapers;
Antiwar means not preaching violence from podiums;
Antiwar means not spreading rumors against anyone; 

  Antiwar means ending the culture of violence in  cinemas and dramas;
Antiwar means no visas and passports;
Antiwar also means reducing the number of laws and  jails.

Antiwar means preserving other species;
Antiwar means limiting our own species;
Antiwar means knowing that there is nothing special  being human;
Antiwar means knowing that we, humans are only  complex not apex in evolutio=
n;
  Antiwar means loving the rivers and mountains;
Antiwar means preserving the ecology we live in;
Antiwar means knowing that we belong to earth first;
Antiwar means not owning but sharing the world with  others.

Antiwar also means not being anti to anything, not  even war.


SEXWORKERS FORUM KERALA,
PTPN-E31, PTP NAGAR PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, INDIA-695038, TEL: +91 471 2368142, 2369498
E-mail: swfk@asianetindia.com
www.firmkerala.org


______


#5.

Hindi Audio-CD and Cassette

Sampradayikta-Kya Sach:Kya Jhooth
(Communalism-What is False What is true)

This twin CD-Cassette is a 140 Minute discussion on the various prevalent
myths about minority communities in India. Though myths may sound to be a
minor aspect of communalism, these provide the foundation on which
Communalism rides. This work is an attempt to reach broad sections of
society and deals with the most prevalent misconceptions about minorities.
It is in question answer form and presented in simple language to ensure
broad dissemination of ideas.

The questions addressed are
1.	Temple destructions by Muslim kings
2.	Muslim-Hindu clashes
3.	Forcible conversion
4.	Four Wives-Twenty Children
5.	Freedom Struggle and Communal politics
6.	Partition Tragedy
7.	Kashmir Tangle
8.	Terrorism
9.	What is communal Politics, how do we combat it?
The cost of the set is Rs. 70. Postal Charges Rs.30. For bulk orders
postage can be waived off.
Please send your orders to
EKTA
C/O Ram Puniyani
1102, Bldg. 5, MHADA, Near Rambaug, Powai, Mumbai 400076
(e mail-jhang45@yahoo.com), Ph. 25704061

_____


#6.


The Times of India
APRIL 23, 2003

Miffed by Jaswant, Gujarat, Dutch review aid to India
AKSHAYA MUKUL
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=3D44=
209529

_____


#7.

THE DR. ARVIND N. DAS 'SUMMER REPUBLIC' UNDERGRADUATE FELLOWSHIP


The Dr. Arvind N. Das (AND) Foundation for Critical Social and Cultural
Studies is pleased to announce its 'Summer Republic' Fellowship, and invite
applications to the same.

The 'Summer Republic' Fellowship is meant for currently enrolled Indian
undergraduate students of the Delhi University. The Fellowship, in the uniqu=
e
spirit of its inspiration, Dr. Arvind N. Das, offers a financial award of up
to Rs. 10,000 to a student (or a clearly-specified group thereof) wishing to
undertake an unusual creative, intellectual project in a specific social
science area. Such a project should entail some amount of identification and
academic investigation of a principle, objective, issue or argument perceive=
d
as essential and necessary to the contemporary Indian Republic, played out a=
t
a local level. 

This Fellowship is thus meant to extend support towards projects involving
potential steps such as:

* Identification of an issue significant to the discussion of what constitut=
es
'the Indian Republic' in contemporary times. 

This may include a contextualized discussion of issues such as communalism,
economic liberalization, gender roles, development models for poverty
reduction, the contentious role of 'history' in India, the significance of
sport, the divisions and possibilities raised by language, and so on. The
=46oundation would be extremely interested also in students identifying new,
previously under-researched areas of interest students themselves feel are
vital to study, in a discussion of issues or topics crucial to the entity
that may be called 'modern India'.   

* A 'field trip' to a local place (such as a bazaar, a tea shop, a cyber caf=
e,
a sports ground or a movie theatre) or a location physically removed from th=
e
student's current one (a village, semi-rural or urban area in another state)=
,
added to by research on the chosen location's local history, its economic
standing and its significance within a larger social picture. 

* The Fellowship would then entail the awardee to present findings or
discussion on her/his chosen topic, either through a written paper on the
same, or through slightly more unconventional means of representation, such
as an audio-visual mode. 

The aim of the AND Foundation's 'Summer Republic' Fellowship is to extend a
certain amount of support to Delhi University undergraduate students, so tha=
t
they may follow up research interests of their own choice and desire with
organized financial backing. 

The primary interest of the Fellowship is to encourage a strong element of
fieldwork in the applicants' proposed projects. The point is essentially to
allow younger students some agency to delve into their own ideas of how
dreams, disasters and possibilities of 'the Indian Republic' are played out
at an everyday, local level, to carry out some amount of academic research o=
n
such topics and present discussion matter or findings that are topical and
thought-provoking. 

The AND Foundation will hold a right to independently publish written materi=
al
produced by the support of this Fellowship, as well a right to use
subsequently any other kinds of material produced through the direct support
of the Foundation.

Applications to the AND Foundation's 'Summer Republic' Fellowship may be mad=
e
to the following address:

The Dr. Arvind N. Das Foundation for Critical Social and Cultural Studies,
27, Moulsari Avenue,
DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase III,
Gurgaun, 
Haryana.

Please include the following with an application: a detailed project proposa=
l,
a schedule, a financial plan/estimate, a current CV/resum=E9 with complete
academic qualifications and contact details, a statement of support from a
serving Head of Department at the Delhi University.

Closing Date: *31 May 2003***

Applications will be judged by a panel of AND Foundation Trustees. The
awardee/s will be notified of their decision by **** 


India is Your Republic! 

Be Inventive, Be Intrigued and Be Critical! Be an AND Foundation 

'Summer Republic' Fellow!


_____


#8.

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 116
23 April 2003
(IPARMW) # 116 and the complete IPARMW archive is available at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/messages

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

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.
--