SACW | 3 July, 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  3 July,  2003

#1. How 'liberation' has brought anarchy to Kabul,
and now history is repeated in Baghdad (Robert Fisk)
#2. Trial of the murderers of Gujarat - Online Letter to India's 
Human Rights Commission
#3. Young Indians [and Pakistanis] make peace (Monica Chadha)
#4. Kashmir: Brian Cloughley contests claims by Kuldip Nayar re Siachen
#5. The India-Pakistan odyssey (Imtiaz Ahmad)
#6. [US] Trade Pact With Pakistan Reflects Politics, Not Economics, 
Critics Say (Daniel Altman)
#7. India: A devious Ayodhya solution will fail (Praful Bidwai)
#8. Preserve secular India, stress Indian Muslims in US
#9. In condemnation of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Indian 
Govt.'s efforts to join the bandwagon by possibly committing troops 
Pedestrian Pictures invites you to the screening of 'Hidden wars of 
Desert Storm' (Bangalore, 5 July 2003)
#10. India: Human Rights Panel is a Toothless Tiger (Times of India)
#11. Firaq Gorakhpuri Festival on Urdu literature  (Karachi, 11-13 July 2003=
)
- Message of support to the Organiser of the Festival (I.K. Shukla)
#12. 'I Am Not a Refugee': Rethinking Partition Migration (Md. 
Mahbubar Rahman  and Willem Van Schendel) 

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

#1.

The Independent (UK)
02 July 2003

How 'liberation' has brought anarchy to Kabul,
and now history is repeated in Baghdad
By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent

So security is the problem in Afghanistan, is it? Who would
have believed it? Those freedom-loving Afghans feel no more
liberated than their Iraqi brothers 1,200 miles further
west, it seems.

=46or Fallujah, read Kandahar. For Baghdad, read Kabul. Jack
Straw visits Kandahar and what happens just before this
expert on weapons of mass destruction arrives? Someone tries
to blow up a local mosque, wounding 16 people, four of them
seriously. Turns out the Imam, Mawlavi Abdullah Fayaz, had
condemned the Taliban's interpretation of Islam. Those pesky
Taliban "remnants" - always "remnants", mark you - strike
again. But it's much more serious than this.

Afghanistan was "liberated" by Mr Straw's government and
that of George Bush. And now it's in a state of anarchy.
Then Iraq was "liberated" by Mr Straw's government and that
of George Bush. And now it too is in a state of anarchy and
increasing guerrilla insurrection. What on earth did Mr
Straw learn in Kandahar?

With Abdullah Abdullah, Afghanistan's loquacious Foreign
Minister, he talked about security, reconstruction and - of
course - opium. But according to the United Nations,
Afghanistan is once more the world's top opium exporter. And
narcotics production goes hand-in-hand with lawlessness.

So what does Mr Straw tell his hosts in Afghanistan? "As in
any other country, security must lie in the hands of the
people. At the end, we can do what we can, but it's both
your responsibility and your duty."

Mr Fayaz saw the waistcoat in the mosque - the waistcoat
covering the bomb - just before it exploded. He was head of
the local council of ulema (Muslim scholars) who have
supported the government of Hamid Karzai. So he became a
target.

Yet the one demand almost all Afghans make - that
international troops should be deployed in other cities, not
just in Kabul, and hoover up the millions of rifles and
rocket-propelled grenades - is denied them by the United
States (and, of course, therefore by Britain). Why?
The Americans are keen to confiscate weapons in
Iraq. Why not in Afghanistan as well?

Well, most Afghans have a shrewd idea of the answer. The
Americans know that al-Qa'ida is re-forming in Afghanistan,
that they are doing so around the Taliban and that the
"Allied success" (aka George Bush) and "victory" (aka Tony
Blair) is beginning to look more and more like a disaster.

So the Americans are buying the local tribes to fight the
Taliban, just as they bought the Northern Alliance with
millions of dollars in 2001 to fight the Taliban. And the
tribes don't want to be disarmed and made amenable
to Kabul.

So these tribal warlords have no interest in the kind of
"security" about which Mr Straw was talking. They want
personal power; and as long as the Americans are in
Afghanistan they will have it.

And Mr Straw is indeed very worried about "security". Tell
this, as they say, to the Afghans.

=A9 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

_____


#2.

PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND SIGN AN ONLINE LETTER TO INDIA'S HUMAN 
RIGHTS COMMISSION.

Trial of the murderers of Gujarat. Letter to NHRC re. the Best Bake[r]y Case
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NHRCbbc/petition.html

[Finally, in the last 24 hours or so it seems the NHRC has swung into 
action but we should keep the pressure on and write as many letters 
as possible.]

--
[ Full text of the letter below:]

To:  The National Human Rights Commission of India

[Please join us in sharing concern about a free investigation into 
the Gujarat pogrom followed by a fair trial of the accused. Append 
your name to the below letter. On the 21th of July 2003 we will send 
this the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC). We would 
encourage all to also write and send similar letters which can be 
E-mailed / Faxed and snail mailed to the chair of the NHRC. [E-mail: 
chairnhrc@nic.in / Fax: (91) + 11-23340016.] We also invite you to 
use the telephone [91-11-23340891] and speak to the officials of NHRC 
to press them to move on the Gujarat Bakery Case.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

2 July 2003

The Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Sardar Patel Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 110001

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your Commission recorded the evidence of several persons in 
connection with the violence in Gujarat in 2002. One of these was 
Sheikh Zahira Habibullah of Vadodara, later to become the chief 
witness in the trial of the Best Bakery case. This witness turned 
hostile and denied the testimony which she had given to your 
Commission and to several others and which was widely reported. Like 
her, many other witnesses in the case turned hostile.

In the judgment pronounced in the Best Bakery case last week, all the 
accused were held to be not guilty for want of evidence. Many reports 
in the media have clearly said that the prosecution and investigation 
in this case did not do their duty on account of sectarian 
considerations. It is also widely believed that pressure in some form 
was the reason for the surprising number of prosecution witnesses' 
turning hostile.

Possibly anticipating just such an eventuality, your Commission had 
recommended that several cases, including the Best Bakery case, be 
handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Government of Gujarat did not act on this recommendation.

We urge you to take such action as you see fit to right the wrong 
which apparently has been done. The matter is clearly one of human 
rights and therefore within your jurisdiction: because the violence 
in Gujarat in 2002 was directed against the entire Muslim community 
and because that community continues to be the victim of organised 
and sustained discrimination and may legitimately fear that its human 
rights will be infringed in and through sham trials in the many cases 
which remain to be tried.

Yours truly,

Mukul Dube (New Delhi) and Harsh Kapoor (France)

_____


#3.

BBC News
2 July, 2003, 12:53 GMT 13:53 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3038316.stm

Young Indians [and Pakistanis] make peace
By Monica Chadha
BBC correspondent in Delhi

While official diplomacy between India and Pakistan moves ahead at a 
slow, steady pace, young people from both countries have decided to 
take matters into their hands.

The delegation hope they can bring about some changes

=46ifteen students - seven men and eight women - from all over India 
have travelled to the Pakistani city of Karachi.
They are there to take part in a 12-day workshop with 15 of their 
Pakistani counter-parts.
The workshop involves a series of art related communication exercises 
that include composing music, making films and learning various dance 
forms.
Most of the students are between the ages of 18 and 21.

More interaction

The event has been organised by Youth Initiative for Peace (YIP), a 
year old organisation that has young people from both countries for 
members.
A member of the organisation and one of the organisers of the 
workshop, Shubhangi said members of the group first met in Singapore 
in 2002 where they realised the need for more interactions between 
the youth of the two nations.
"Youth Initiative for Peace was formed to promote sustainable peace 
in the subcontinent and we realised we need to cut through the 
national diplomacy, propaganda spread by our text books and see the 
people across the border for who they really are," said Shubhangi.

  I think the world is going to see some kind of change

Lalita Ramdas
Social activist

"We thought such interactions would help build a bridge between the 
two countries because the new generation comes without any historic 
baggage."
Educationist and social activist Lalita Ramdas is accompanying the 
student group to Karachi and says the remarkable thing about this 
event is the fact that it was organised - true to its name - almost 
entirely on the initiative of the young members.
"I believe that it is going to be through young people meeting with 
each other, giving them the freedom and the autonomy in a way to take 
the decisions that will take us forward out of the morass in which we 
are stuck," said Ms Ramdas.
"I think the world is going to see some kind of change and it will be 
brought about by these young people, the future ambassadors of our 
country."
Surprisingly, the young people travelled to Karachi with hope and 
ideas of changing the present state of affairs between the two 
countries but at the same time, they are realistic about their goals.

'Striving for peace'
Nineteen year-old Sairekha Suresh Kumar says peace is a concept 
everyone believes in and therefore people should work towards it.

Sairekha Suresh Kumar says there is real hope

"We need to strive for peace for the upcoming generations and I think 
somebody has to make a start," she said.
"Maybe it could be us at our level because we are willing to go 
beyond diplomatic relations."
Pavitra Chalam is also one of the delegate members in Karachi and she 
says the sad part is some people think this exercise is a waste of 
time.
"I'm not going to be an idealist and say everything is going to work 
out," said Ms Chalam
"Each of us is here, more out of curiosity and fascination. I think 
it's a small step that will go a long way because if we talk to each 
other, interact on a regular basis, our generation could move on with 
no baggage, misconceptions and pre-conceived notions."
This is not the first student delegation to have gone across the 
border for interaction with the youth of Pakistan.
But the fact that these events happen on a quite regular basis shows 
the level of curiosity and willingness to learn about each other 
amongst the new generation of both nations.
It is a positive step towards improved relations between the two 
estranged neighbours.

o o o

[Web site of Youth initiative for peace which is hosting the 10 day 
Youth without Borders event in Karachi : 
http://www.youth.initiativeforpeace.org/  ]

_____


#4.

The Hindu (India) July 03, 2003

The India-Pakistan odyssey
By Imtiaz Ahmad
Peace is not a one-way street. It has to be achieved through joint efforts.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003070300891000.htm

_____


#5.

[ Posted below is an important response received from Brian Cloughley 
re an article by Kuldip Nayar whose URL was carried in SACW (2 July). 
The full particulars of the Nayar article are: The Indian Express, 
July 01, 2003
"The core issue is not Kashmir, it is mutual suspicion - Circle of 
mistrust" by Kuldip Nayar
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D26742  ]

o o o

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:49 EDT

Kuldip Nayar writes that:

"The Siachen glacier is an example. A settlement to redeploy forces 
of the two countries was worked out more than 15 years ago so that 
the glacier remained free of troops. The agreement was initialed by 
foreign secretaries from both sides.
The untimely disclosure of details by the Pakistan foreign secretary 
made New Delhi so angry that it cancelled the whole thing."

I was in Pakistan at the time (14-17 June 1989) and describe the 
affair in my book on the Pakistan Army.  There was no question of 
premature disclosure of details by anyone, on either side.  It was a 
done deal --- until Mr SK Singh returned to Delhi, when it was 
negated. 

The BBC, VOA and All India Radio (Urdu service) had reported it as a 
success.  What happened after Mr Singh returned home was that the MEA 
in Delhi issued a "clarification" which read :  "The Indian foreign 
secretary had endorsed the Pakistan foreign secretary's observations 
on their talks, whereas the report made out as if he had endorsed the 
Pakistan foreign secretary's remarks on the defence secretaries' 
talks." 

This was obfuscatory rather than illuminating.   I discussed the 
affair at considerable length with five well-known foreign 
journalists in Islamabad at the time and state that there was no 
indication on the Pakistan side, officially or otherwise, at any 
time, of any details of the agreement that had not been covered in 
the public statement agreed by both secretaries. 

I have gone over my extensive notes and press cuttings of the period 
and can find no mention of the Pakistan foreign secretary making any 
"untimely disclosure" or that there was a complaint from Delhi along 
such lines.   Mr Singh stated at Islamabad airport on 17 June that he 
endorsed the Pakistan foreign secretary's remarks on the agreement, 
the text of which was given in a clear joint statement, a copy of 
which I have. 

A sensible agreement had been reached, concerning which the two 
armies were to determine new positions, as announced in the 
communique.  There was no problem whatever with the accord as it 
stood.  Had it been implemented it would have saved the lives of 
hundreds of young soldiers who, because of the intransigence of silly 
bureaucrats and their political masters, have died in avalanches, 
from pneumonia and in totally futile hostilities in the eighteen 
years since Mrs Gandhi sent troops to occupy the area. 

Best wishes,
Brian  


_____


#6.

The New York Times
July 2, 2003

Trade Pact With Pakistan Reflects Politics, Not Economics, Critics Say
By DANIEL ALTMAN

When he took office two years ago, Robert B. Zoellick, the nation's 
top trade official, envisioned a ladder of trade agreements for 
countries interested in doing business with the United States. As a 
country improved its trading rules and showed a willingness to open 
its markets, it would step up to reduced tariffs and more intense 
economic relations.

The Trade and Investment Framework Agreement that was signed last 
month with Pakistan was intended as the bottom rung. Yet it came into 
being largely as a result of political expediency, rather than the 
familiar economic motivation that trade helps both sides. Indeed, in 
the short term Pakistan may realize few tangible benefits, and its 
further progress up the ladder could depend more on politics than on 
economics.

To some analysts, the Bush administration's actions follow a clear 
pattern of putting political back-scratching ahead of economic 
considerations in the trade arena.

"They have done a fairly good job of not giving away freebies without 
getting something in return," said Robert C. Fauver, a former 
economic adviser to the State Department who is now president of 
=46auver Associates, a consulting firm. "They wanted to really see how 
the president helped out in the search for Al Qaeda folks," he said, 
referring to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan.

As a result, said Vinod K. Aggarwal, director of the Berkeley Asia 
Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Center at the University of 
California at Berkeley, politically motivated bilateral trade pacts 
may grab the spotlight away from the traditional focus of the United 
States =97 the global trading system. "Favored countries get better 
treatment," he said, "and it doesn't really depend on your economic 
situation."

The framework agreement came with a promise from President Bush to 
seek $3 billion in aid for Pakistan from Congress. Yet the White 
House did not give away much on the trade front. The deal did not 
offer concessions to Pakistan's textile makers, which account for the 
majority of the country's exports to the United States. In fact, it 
only sets up annual talks that may or may not lead to freer trade.

"It's really a dialogue," said Richard Mills, a spokesman for Mr. 
Zoellick. "Sometimes you can have a TIFA with a country, and it can 
just lapse," he said, using the acronym for the agreement. "It is not 
in itself a demonstrator of further moves."

Two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the United States 
pledged $600 million in economic assistance to Pakistan. The White 
House and Congress lifted trade sanctions that had been imposed in 
response to Pakistan's testing of nuclear weapons and the coup that 
brought its military government to power. But while the European 
Union quickly cut tariffs and raised quotas for Pakistan's textiles =97 
the country's main manufacturing output =97 the United States waited, 
leaving many Pakistanis embittered.

Last February, the United States gave Pakistan a three-year package 
of trade bonuses, including the relaxation of quotas on certain 
textile imports. But many of the breaks affected products that 
Pakistan did not produce in substantial volume. Three weeks ago, 
Pakistan's commerce minister, Humayun Akhtar Khan, said that only 
about $20 million out of $143 million in potential benefits actually 
appeared in the first year.

The new framework agreement will have little effect on the well-being 
of the average Pakistani, said Teresita C. Schaffer, a former United 
States ambassador to Sri Lanka who is director of the South Asia 
program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a 
nonpartisan research group. "The only thing that's going to make this 
agreement worth more than paper is private economic transactions."

Given the minimal scope of the agreement =97 its articles take up just 
over a page =97 why did it take so long to sign? Again, the experts 
said, the answer is in the politics. In addition to monitoring 
Pakistan's cooperation in rounding up members of Al Qaeda, Mr. Fauver 
said, the United States had to gauge how reaching out to Pakistan 
would affect relations with India, Pakistan's neighbor and constant 
adversary in territorial disputes.

Politics at home might also have contributed to the delay, especially 
with respect to trade in textiles. The White House may have viewed 
the negotiation of a more comprehensive deal with Pakistan as an 
unnecessary bother, Ms. Schaffer said. In 2005, quotas for textile 
imports by members of the World Trade Organization, including the 
United States and Pakistan, will disappear. "Giving up important 
political chips to liberalize textile exports gives you one, maybe 
two years of benefits," she said.

A senior United States trade official, who spoke by phone yesterday 
on condition of anonymity, also threw cold water on the idea of a 
substantial trade agreement with Pakistan, including textiles, before 
2005.

"I don't rule it out completely, but I doubt it," the official said. 
"We have a textile industry ourselves that is in some peril, and we 
want to do nothing to put it into further peril. Pakistan is a friend 
of the U.S. So are many other countries that are textile exporters. I 
think it would be very unlikely that we would offer special benefits 
to Pakistan that we would not be prepared to offer other countries."

Yet, even in the Carolinas, where the textile industry is most 
entrenched, political analysts say, President Bush might have little 
to lose by doing Pakistan's economy a big favor.

"His support in North Carolina, and I'm sure it's even more so in 
South Carolina, is so rock solid that he could do anything to 
textiles and it would have no impact on it," said David Lowery, a 
professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at 
Chapel Hill.

Professor Lowery said that the White House also faced little 
formidable opposition from local senators. "You've got a freshman 
Republican senator sitting there, and you've got two Democrats," he 
said. "Bush doesn't need to worry about what any of them are going to 
do."

Yet in terms of monetary political contributions, the textile 
industry is not so far behind the steel producers, which received 
controversial protection from the administration last year. In the 
last electoral cycle, textile companies and workers gave $1.5 million 
to candidates and political parties (63 percent of that to 
Republicans), while the steel industry gave about $2.1 million (64 
percent to Republicans), according to the Center for Responsive 
Politics, a nonprofit research group. A bipartisan group of members 
of Congress also supports the industry through a textile caucus.

Regardless of the political consequences at home, some issues have 
clearly moved off the table, at least with regard to trade. The 
sanctions the United States imposed on Pakistan in the past were 
meant to quell its nuclear ambitions and to ensure the return of a 
democratic, civilian government. Now, movement toward open markets 
may have little do do with those issues, given Pakistan's importance 
as an ally in the war on terror.

"I doubt the administration will want to link it to progress towards 
democracy," Ms. Schaffer said. "I don't think this administration is 
too committed to those policy goals in Pakistan." Even though 
Pakistan has failed to meet its self-imposed goals for 
democratization, she said, American officials "are inclined to let 
themselves be persuaded that what is happening is O.K."

And Professor Aggarwal pointed out that about half of the latest 
package of economic aid would arrive in the form of military 
hardware, which would not stimulate Pakistan's economy. "The approach 
the administration is taking doesn't make a lot of sense," he said. 
The military aid is "essentially propping up someone else who's not 
democratically elected."

_____


#7.

The News International (Pakistan)
July 03, 2003

A devious Ayodhya solution will fail

Praful Bidwai

Just as the archaeological excavation ordered by a court at Ayodhya 
is turning up negative results on the existence of a Hindu temple 
beneath the demolished Babri mosque, the Bharatiya Janata Party has 
floated a new proposal for an out-of-court settlement to the dispute. 
The initiative comes through the Shankaracharya of Kanchi in Tamil 
Nadu. It has slim chances of winning consensual approval unless the 
BJP stops being devious and takes an even-handed approach to the 
issue.

The proposal has not been fully disclosed in its current avatar. But 
broadly, it asks that a Ram temple be built where the Babri mosque 
stood. That means the Muslims, who have a strong title claim to that 
plot, give it up and accept that a mosque may be built close by. In 
turn, Hindu organisations give up their claim to the Kashi and 
Mathura "mosques". Muslims will also be allowed to pray in some 1,000 
historic mosques -- according to some, only 100 monuments -- which 
are currently under care of the Archaeological Survey of India.

Various Muslim organisations say they are open to a compromise 
provided it is honourable and recognises that a grievous wrong was 
committed in razing the Babri mosque in December 1992. But the Vishwa 
Hindu Parishad has already shot down the idea. It now accuses the BJP 
of "betraying" the Hindus and "selling out" to the Muslims. The 
temple issue, which once united different Hindutva streams, now 
divides them.

The Hindutva forces have also suffered a setback on "discovering" a 
temple at Ayodhya which pre-dates the mosque built in 1528 AD. 
Despite numerous extensions, the archaeological excavation at Ayodhya 
has failed to produce evidence that a Hindu temple existed where the 
Babri mosque stood.

The Archaeological Survey -- which reports to a government led by 
Hindutva zealots like L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, who have 
been charged in the Babri demolition case -- has submitted two new 
"status reports" to the Allahabad High Court.

These too show no evidence of a temple pre-existing the mosque. If 
there was such a temple, its structural remains would have been found 
beneath the mosque's floor. The only pre-Babri structures found are 
brick walls and lime (chuna)-plastered floors, characteristic of 
medieval Islamic practices.

According to leading medieval historian Irfan Habib and eminent 
archaeologist Suraj Bhan, "matters have become definitively clear" 
with the ASI's latest reports. Its 55 new trenches cover the entire 
Babri mosque complex and much of the surrounding area, including 
spots right next to the makeshift Ram canopy/temple.

Yet, say these experts and their associates like Supriya Verma, Jaya 
Menon and Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, who closely observed the excavation 
as litigants' nominees: "In trench after trench, no structural 
remains below the mosque's floor level have been found... [Those] 
found in some trenches are all of construction associated with the 
[Babri] mosque."

Much fuss was made earlier about "pillar bases" of a hypothetical 
temple. But only seven were found in just six trenches (out of 
100-plus), without alignment or uniformity of level. They are not 
load-bearing structures or associated with any Hindu architectural 
tradition. They couldn't have been a temple's pillar bases.

The experts quoted say the Devanagari inscription, about which a 
hullabaloo was made in Outlook magazine (June 2), was a 
computer-manipulated image which appears to be "quite modern [The 
letters] read napala du rabh, with no resemblance to the word swaahom 
followed by word Ram, as alleged".

The pervasive presence of animal bones with cut-marks, Muslim glazed 
ware, and finds with "Arabic inscriptions of holy verses", and the 
"absence of even a trace of anything" indicating a temple's remains, 
suggest that the local pre-Babri habitation had a strong Muslim 
component, according to the social scientists.

There is powerful evidence that underneath the Babri lay another 
mosque from the (pre-Mughal) Sultanate period. "The Babri Masjid 
structure was superimposed on a pre-existing mosque which was 
constructed out of stones and plastered over with lime mortar, 
plastering being an art brought in by Muslims", says Professor Suraj 
Bhan.

Also found under the Babri structure was graves. Underlying the Ram 
chabutra was a hauz (water reservoir) with a lime-plastered floor. 
Most of the other "antiquities" were glazed pottery, pestles, bones, 
etc., which point to a temple's non-existence.

The ASI's excavation was excessive: professional archaeologists would 
have dug just four trenches around the Babri structure, in place of 
the 100-plus. In archaeology, more isn't better. The sole evidence of 
a pre-existing temple has to be its structure -- plinth, base, walls, 
etc. This is absent.

Clearly, the VHP's temple claim is not based on facts. Nor does any 
Hindu scriptural authority back it. It's based on invented, 
irrational faith.

Millions of people were thus taken for a ride by Hindutva fanatics on 
the Ayodhya issue -- in the manner of medieval mobs who would hunt 
witches on mere suspicion. The entire Ayodhya movement was driven by 
revenge for "past wrongs". Its divisive politics was designed to 
spread hatred and lynch people.

The VHP, true to type, now says this is a matter of faith. It demands 
a grand temple must be built at the Babri site; a mosque can only be 
built 10 km away. But the Ayodhya Jama Masjid already exists, 1.5 km 
away, as do other mosques.

The VHP rejects the formula of the Kanchi Shankaracharya because he 
is a Shaivite whereas Rama belongs to the Vaishnavite tradition. The 
Shankaracharya is discreetly acting on behalf of the government, as 
he did in March 2002. Yet, the VHP has spurned his "compromise". It's 
bent upon dictating terms: the temple must be built where we demand 
it-the courts, archaeologists, facts can go to hell. It's arrogating 
to itself the right to speak on behalf of 820 million Hindus.

The VHP has no respect for the law of the land, leave alone 
tolerance. However, it couldn't have become the monster it has 
without the BJP's active support, legitimation and collusion.

It's a bit late in the day for Prime Minister Vajpayee to say that 
the temple issue should be "free from party politics". It's the BJP 
which politicised it first. Vajpayee himself declared the Ayodhya 
campaign a "national movement". The various forces involved in the 
Babri demolition are indulging in finger-pointing, while evading 
responsibility for the mosque's demolition.

The time has come to adopt a clean, principled, transparent approach. 
An honourable, equitable compromise on Ayodhya alone can win the 
confidence of the Muslims. If the Hindutva forces remain 
intransigent, the courts must be left to deal with it.

Eighty-five percent of Muslims, according to a survey, don't want to 
gift the Ayodhya land to the Hindus, without an assurance on the 
mosque's rebuilding. An unfair settlement shouldn't be imposed on 
them. When social negotiation breaks down, and political leaders 
fail, the law alone can resolve disputes. Parliament legislation is 
no substitute for judicial determination.

There must be no humiliating, dishonourable, unjust compromise, which 
erases the crime committed against Indian secularism in December 1992.

_____


#8.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5967_296412,001600060001.htm

Preserve secular India, stress Indian Muslims in US
-->
Indo-Asian News Service
Washington, July 2

The first annual meet of a Washington-based advocacy group for Indian 
Muslims gave a call to counter what it said was the growing influence 
of "Hindu extremists" in India.

The Indian Muslim Council (IMC)-USA convention, the first of its 
kind, held in Santa Clara, California, drew a crowd of about 500 
activists, prominent religious and community leaders, political and 
social activists, researchers and NGOs.

The participants presented a detailed analysis of the political and 
economic strategy of Hindu supremacists and declared that its efforts 
to divide India would fail.

They also called upon on the Indian diaspora in the U.S. to do their 
bit to "battle for the soul of India".

The discussions focused on important contemporary issues relating to 
regional instability, human rights, sectarian violence, militant 
nationalism and prospects of boosting social amity in India.

The Godhra riots in Gujarat last year and the alleged official 
compliance in the communal violence were also highlighted at the 
convention, according to an IMC press release.

Praful Bidwai, a prominent journalist and political commentator in 
India, said that attempts to destroy India's secular democracy would 
fail.

He backed his prediction with the fact that an overwhelming majority 
of India's national newspapers lamented the Bharatiya Janata Party's 
electoral victory in Gujarat.

John Prabhudoss, executive director of the Policy Institute for 
Religion & State, a Washington-based think tank, spoke about the need 
for joint efforts to counter the influence of Hindu extremists on 
Capitol Hill and the establishment of a framework of cooperation 
among secular and plural minded groups.

=46ather Cedric Prakash, the director of Prashant, a Jesuit Centre of 
Human Rights, Justice and Peace in Gujarat, forewarned people not to 
develop amnesia about the Gujarat violence.

Shaik Ubaid, president of IMC-USA, reassured Prakash that IMC-USA 
would continue to work to bring all religious and secular groups 
together to promote pluralism in India.

Awards named after great Indian Muslims were presented in various 
categories. The award for "Best in-depth coverage of the Indian 
diaspora" was awarded to Rukmini Callimachi of the Daily Herald of 
Illinois for her series on the Indian diaspora living in suburban 
Chicago.

Earlier in the day Nishrin Hussain, the daughter of Ehsan Jafri, the 
MP who was slain in the Gujarat violence, spoke about how women and 
children were specifically targeted.

The convention evoked a lot of media interest.

A report in the San Jose Mercury News, published from the Bay Area of 
California, quoted some members of Hindu nationalist groups as saying 
that events such as this convention play a divisive role in the 
community and do little to move forward.

Others viewed it differently.

"A convention like this is very important in terms of outreach and in 
terms of sending a message that we are present and we are growing," 
said Angana Chatterji, an anthropology professor at the California 
Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco.

Some media reports also said the Silicon Valley's Indian American 
community has an influence over homeland politics perhaps 
unprecedented for an immigrant group.

_____


#9.

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003

The Government of India is only waiting for Foreign Secretary, Kanwal 
Sibal's return from meetings with the Pentagon to clarify on 
logistical, command and control issues before sending Indian troops 
to Iraq. (The Hindu, 2 July 2003) In an obvious succumb to mounting 
U.S. pressure, the Government is refusing to acknowledge that the 
involvement of the Indian troops, outside a U.N. mandate, would be in 
support of the invasion of Iraq. We don't have to look far to seek 
the reason behind this adamant endorsement of the U.S.=EDs war 
mongering efforts. The next page in the day's newspaper states it all 
too clearly - "India has discussed prospects of increasing annual oil 
imports from Iraq with the U.S. Dept. of Energy" (India seeks more 
Iraqi oil contracts - The Hindu 2 July 2003)

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

In strong condemnation of the U.S. invasion and the Indian Govt.'s 
efforts to join the bandwagon

Pedestrian Pictures
invites you to the screening of

Hidden wars of Desert Storm
(63 mins / Colour / Free-Will Productions - 2000)

On 5 July 2003, Saturday, 5:30 p.m.

At Feroze's Estate Agency
(Cunningham Road, opp. Hotel Chandrika, Bangalore)

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

A two-year investigation, "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" reveals the 
background to the relationship between Baghdad and Washington as well 
as the origins, developments and aftermaths of 1991 Gulf War. 
Produced by Gerard Ungerman and Audrey Brohy, this film bases itself 
on documents never seen before on television and backed by interviews 
of such prominent personalities as Desert Storm Commander, General 
Norman Schwarzkopf, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former 
UN Iraq Program Director Dennis Halliday, former UNSCOM team-leader 
Scott Ritter and many others.

Senior journalist Ammu Joseph (author of Terror, Counter - Terror: 
Women Speak Out) and Prof. Bhanu Das (Peoples=ED Democratic Forum) will 
lead the discussion following the screening.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------
=46or further information contact - 5670 2232, 318 12 691, 98450 66747

_____


#10.

The Times of India
JULY 3, 2003
Editorial

Human Rights Panel is a Toothless Tiger

The National Human Rights Commission is a curious beast which 
sometimes leaps into action, often in pursuit of small and 
insignificant prey, only to lapse into long periods of unseemly 
slumber.
 
Last year, the NHRC won praise inside the country and internationally 
for its timely and forthright intervention in Gujarat. The commission 
criticised the Modi government for its complicity in the anti-Muslim 
violence and called for the most heinous crimes " Godhra, Best 
Bakery, Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society" to be investigated by the 
CBI. As long as Gujarat simmered, the NHRC maintained its interest. 
But when it came to shaming the government for its inaction, the 
commission got cold feet. To be sure, the NHRC now plans to look into 
the Best Bakery acquittals but its expression of interest is too 
little, too late.
 
In large measure, the malaise at the NHRC " its timorousness and 
lethargy " is a product of the general rot affecting all Indian 
institutions. In addition, the commission is hampered by the 
restric-ted nature of its mandate. It can, for example, summon 
witnesses but cannot enforce its demands. It can look at crimes 
committed by the police but not the army. In the case of high-profile 
crimes by the paramilitary forces, the commission ultimately backs 
off, as happened over the Bijbehara massacre in Kashmir by the BSF. 
The case for amending the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) is a 
compelling one, but what law can ensure that the NHRC's members have 
an overriding passion for human rights? Like other sinecures for 
retired judges and bureaucrats, the NHRC has come to be seen as a 
comfortable post- retirement job. Some of its members have even gone 
on to become governors. A better mandate, and a better selection 
procedure, may yet salvage the NHRC. But in the absence of change, 
the commission might as well as pack up its bags and go home.


____


#11.

=46IRAQ GORAKHPURI FESTIVAL IN KARACHI [*]

The noted Pakistani poet Fahmida Riaz (fahmidariaz@hotmail.com) is 
organizing a festival on Firaq Gorakhpuri (Raghupat Sahai), one of 
greatest Urdu poets of the 20th Century India. The festival will be 
held on July 11, 12 and 13 of July 2003, in Karachi. She has extended 
open invitation to all interested in Urdu literature and Indo-Pak 
friendship.

[ *  Source:  International South Asia Forum Bulletin [15] July 1, 2003
Postal address: Box 272, Westmount Stn., QC, Canada H3Z 2T2 (Tel. 514 346-94=
77)
(e-mail; insaf@insaf.net or visit our website http://www.insaf.net) ]

o o o

[ Message to Fahmida Riaz supporting the ]

Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:13:48 +0000

My compliments on this very timely literary initiative launched by you.

The process of celebrating and seeking out our commonalties must be 
continuous and concerted so that people- to- people camaraderie 
ushers in detente between our two nations. The conspiracy of 
"leaders" to keep us apart must be defeated, since we, the people of 
the subcontinent, have  had enough of war and violence, militarism 
and poverty. The scale and volume of tragedy in human terms, let 
alone economic and political, have been colossal. We must halt it. 
And, you have heralded this noble undertaking by planning the Firaq 
=46estival.

I will close with Faiz:
Ishq ka sirre-nihaan jaantapaa hai jis se/ Aaj iqraar karen aur 
tapish mit jaaye
Harfe-haq dil men khataktaa hai jo kaante ki tarah/Aaj izhaar karen 
aur khalish mit jaaye.

Let there be many such events on both sides of the border and let us 
find out freely and fully who we really are and what we really live 
by.

Sincerely,
I.K.Shukla


_____


#12.

[An Article that might of interest  to SACW readers]

o o o

Modern Asian Studies (2003), 37:551-584
[Copyright =A9 2003 Cambridge University Press
ISSN: 0026-749X]

'I Am Not a Refugee': Rethinking Partition Migration

Md. Mahbubar Rahman  (a1) and Willem Van Schendel  (a2)
a1 Department of History, Rajshahi University, Bangladesh
a2 International Institute of Social History/University of Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands

Abstract

In the wake of Partition-the break-up of British India in 
1947-millions of people moved across the new borders between Pakistan 
and India. Although much has been written about these 'Partition 
refugees,' a comprehensive picture remains elusive. This paper 
advocates a rethinking of the study of cross-border migration in 
South Asia. It argues especially for looking at categories of 
cross-border migrants that have so far been ignored, and for 
employing a more comparative approach. In the first section, we look 
at conventions that have shaped the literature on Partition refugees. 
The second section explores some patterns of post-Partition migration 
to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and the third uses oral evidence 
from cross-border migrants to present a number of case studies. The 
concluding section underlines that these cases demonstrate the need 
for re-examining historiographical conventions regarding Partition 
migration; it also makes a plea for linking South Asia's partition to 
broader debates about partition as a political 'solution' to ethnic 
strife.



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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service 
run since 1998 by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex).
The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net

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