SACW | 6 Sept. 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sat Sep 6 02:42:28 CDT 2003
South Asia Citizens Wire | 6 September, 2003
======================================================================
[1] Pakistan: A strange kind of nationalism (Aqil Shah)
[2] India: State renames 'Women's Studies Center as 'Women's and
Family Studies Center' (Rochona Majumdar)
[3] India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now (Human Rights Watch)
+ HRW Open Letter to India's Deputy Prime Minister to Protect Human
Rights Defenders
[4] India: Gujarta - Riots in Godhra during Ganpati immersions
[5] India: Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award For Journalism - 2003
[6] India: PUBLIC NOTICE - Review of Use of POTA (advertisement in
Sunday Times of India)
--------------
[1.]
Dawn, 05 September 2003
A strange kind of nationalism
By Aqil Shah
For days, Pakistanis watched in a state of suspended disbelief as the
government and cable operators locked horns over the ban on Indian
channels. Even as the two sides wrangled bitterly, their
one-upmanship was couched in calculated appeals to nationalist
sentiments.
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) argued
forcefully that it was acting in the best national interest by
reinforcing a ban on vulgar Indian channels. Cable operators,
initially nonplussed by the contradictory behaviour of a government
ostensibly engaged in a normalization process with its eastern
neighbour, fought back by saying they had always supported the
official ban on Indian channels and were only demanding
"international entertainment channels".
Whether PEMRA's original motivation was financial or ideological is a
moot point. In the tussle that ensued, an otherwise important debate
about the legitimate need for freeing electronic media was once again
drowned in a sea of ideological righteousness. Also sunk were claims
by the government that it was committed to a free flow of
information. Wholly frivolous in itself, the ban has focused renewed
attention on the deeply controversial parameters of our cultural and
social mores.
Moral policing is nothing new in an authoritarian state steeped in
the tradition of intellectual and literary inquisition. But where
does it all end? Through frequent notifications, for instance, PEMRA
has been instructing cable operators to block out this or that
foreign channel because of its 'obscenity'.
Silent on the question of the suffocating state control over Pakistan
Television and Radio, the arbitrary Ordinance (and rules) that govern
its conduct empower PEMRA to simply prohibit broadcasts that are
supposedly against 'the ideology of Pakistan' or 'endanger national
security'.
These euphemisms for draconian censorship practically preclude
independent news and analysis. Programmes against 'good taste or
decency' are also proscribed. Just whose standard of decency, no one
knows. And who is to decide? Appointed PEMRA bureaucrats now acting
as guardians of our social morality.
While the recent cabinet decision to allow more private media
channels is welcome, it is hard not to be cynical. PEMRA can mandate
private broadcasters to telecast programmes in the "public interest".
Unless Pakistan was Alice's Wonderland, could there be a cruder
device to recruit them for state propaganda? Ironically, the
government doesn't really need to commission these channels. Though
better presented and covering a wider array of issues, news bulletins
on private channels rarely go beyond the received wisdom on national
security issues.
Often, they mirror state propaganda on Kashmir. While there is much
to write home about, ideological overloading is also commonplace in
prime time programming with self-proclaimed Islamic jurists evoking
divine authority to settle contentions public issues. Each time,
though, they open a new can of worms that adds to our unresolved
cultural and ideological confusion.
Pakistan is destined to become another Madina, proclaimed retired
General Hameed Gul in unison with a talk show host recently, drowning
out any hope that a reasoned debate on the origins of Pakistan was
possible.
Current affairs experts are mostly right-wing generals, retired
diplomats or pro-military intellectuals. As they generously dismiss
the establishment's foreign and domestic blunders as minor
miscalculations, any potential debate on the urgent need to rethink
or re-evaluate flawed state policies is also conveniently swept under
the carpet.
Mindless anti-India propaganda spewed through scores of officially
sponsored videos is relayed endlessly. Sung by the country's most
popular rock stars, the Pakistan army's souped up bravado is mixed
with state-of-the-art special effects to drive home the bestiality of
the enemy who kills indiscriminately. Even if the excuse is that the
Indians do it too, this hyper nationalism remains at odds with
Islamabad's declared intent of normalizing relations with India.
Equally mystifying are attempts by some military-run entities to make
up for their gross inefficiency through appeals to the people's
patriotic instincts.
My favourite is a dramatic rendition extolling the war-like readiness
of Wapda. With national flags fluttering and a stern, uniformed Gen
Musharraf saluting in the background, the song spins the fiction that
Wapda is about to revolutionize our lives. Who foots the bill for all
this crude propaganda? The Pakistani taxpayer, of course.
According to Antonio Gramsci, the state's hegemony rests not only on
material and coercive power but also on a measure of "consent,
cooperation and collaboration" that comes from cultural and
ideological support of civil society.
In Pakistan, civil society has been manipulated and coerced to
extract this cultural and ideological compliance for reasons of
state. The unsurprising result has been the subservience of all other
priorities of civil life to the narrow national security concerns of
an "Islamic" state pitched against a "Hindu" India.
In adhering to the notions of an ambiguous religious ideology, the
country's civil-military elite has projected Islam as the primary
basis for state legitimacy. In the process, they have played with
religion to accommodate and manipulate the religious lobby. The
mullahs reaction, by and large, has been ever more boldly and
violently to push their demands while refusing in most cases to abide
by the rule of law. Just who is using whom has not always been clear,
however. Compare the MMA's crusade against cable TV in the NWFP and
the state's resort to regulatory mechanisms to curb what it deems
immoral. A right-wing establishment, naturally, sits pretty at the
table with the mullas.
Governments around the world often concern themselves with
manufacturing consent to protect themselves against the enemies of
the state. As the Nazi spin-doctor Joseph Goebels had famously
remarked: a lie told often enough ultimately becomes the truth. In
Pakistan, principal forms of socialisation (history textbooks,
state-run electronic media) are thus infused with an undying sense of
militaristic nationalism.
Despite all that, and more, why is it that over 90 per cent of cable
TV viewers still demand Indian channels? Simple answer: They are not
the dimwits the establishment considers them to be. Pakistanis can
well differentiate between harmful propaganda and harmless
entertainment. There is much that is wrong with Indian TV channels,
and ours for that matter.
But that is no excuse for PEMRA or any other government agency to
resort to tactics of thought control. The unbelievable condescension
with which some PEMRA officials have been publicly speaking for the
"millions of illiterate and impressionable Pakistanis", who are not
yet ready to make "free choices", is an insult to the dignity of the
whole nation.
Informed observers say memories of the aggressive media blitzkrieg by
private Indian channels during the Kargil conflict was still fresh in
Islamabad's corridors of power when the Indians slapped a ban on PTV
in early 2002. Though localized and short-lived, that ban only
provided the pretext for a decision the Pakistani establishment would
have liked to make anyway.
For some, the government's plea of "stabilizing" Pakistani private
channels and continuing the ban on Indian channels, therefore, smacks
of foul play. Don't blame these cynics for casting aspersions on the
government's oft-repeated desire for regional peace. From the way
they conduct themselves in the 21st century, the abiding motto of
Pakistan's ruling elite could well be: Ignorance is strength.
_____
[2.]
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030905&fname=rochona&sid=1&pn=3
outlookindia.com
Web | Sep 05, 2003
OPINION
What's In A Name?
Recently the 'Women's Studies Center' at the University of Pune was
renamed as the 'Women's and Family Studies Center'. So what's the big
deal about it all? A critical look.
ROCHONA MAJUMDAR
In the wake of the textbook controversy that is still roiling
academic circles countrywide, comes another significant intervention
into national academia by the Union minister for Human Resource
Development, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi. Recently Mr. Joshi renamed the
Women's Studies Center at the University of Pune as the "Women's and
Family Studies Center." The renaming of the Pune center, according to
the UGC, which comes under Mr. Joshi's sphere of influence, will be
followed by the same move for the twenty or so centers across the
country.
This latest move by one of more visible faces of the BJP leadership
has evoked strong protests from feminist academics all over the
country. Petitions have been sent to the University Grants Commission
urging for a reversal of the decision and feminist scholars have been
extremely vocal in expressing consternation about the said proposal.
Yet, in a country torn apart by bomb blasts, natural disasters and
terrorist threats, such disquiet over the mere renaming of a handful
of women's studies units may well seem to the ordinary citizen as an
exercise in academic vanity.
Before we write off the significance of this seemingly
inconsequential gesture by the state, let us take a moment's pause
and ask ourselves a few questions. Why, for instance, was it
important for the government to introduce the words 'family studies'
into the nomenclature of the women's studies units? Assuming that no
such decision is made without the back up of a professional thinking
machinery, we may well wonder as to who/what will henceforth be
excluded from the arena of scholarship when the site where this
scholarship is conducted has been renamed through a rather
restrictive qualifier. And finally what are the implications of such
exclusion(s)?
At the risk of being accused of idealistic mind reading or, worse
still, of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist who smells disaster at
small gestures made by the government, let me say that my fear about
actions such as Mr. Joshi's are confirmed as I look back into the
present government's records on gender issues. It is crucial that we
contextualize the renaming of the women's studies units countrywide.
For only then will the regressive implications of Joshi's maneuver
become clear and it will be apparent that what at the outset seemed
insignificant is actually a deed with boundless ideological
potential. But, first a background on what constitutes women's
studies and a brief history of this kind of institution building in
India.
Women's Studies
The 1960s were a tumultuous decade in the history of human rights
that globally inspired a series of social movements. From this period
onward, social scientists and humanists became interested in the role
played by socially marginalized groups in the histories of nation
building and sought to incorporate peoples that had hitherto been
excluded from the realm of social science research into the ambit of
their studies. The legacy of these movements and the awareness they
generated may be found in the "histories from below" written by
historians like E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm who turned the focus
of historical research on industrial workers, urban laborers, and
peasants.
In a similar move there were efforts made in the United States to
understand the historical causes behind the inferior social position
accorded to African Americans in social and political life. And it
was as part of this general awareness and questioning about human
rights that feminists all over the world became vocal in what came to
be known as "second wave" feminism. They queried the reasons behind
women's absence from most histories written about the formation of
nation-states and their subjugation to men in both the private and
public spheres.
In a report published by the Government of India in 1975 entitled
Towards Equality, feminist social scientists laid down the results of
their investigation on the position of women in Indian society. The
report prepared by a committee chaired by Phulrenu Guha was part of a
project undertaken by the ministry of education and social welfare.
It documented in detail the slights and humiliation that are part and
parcel of a woman's everyday existence in this country.
Between the 1970s - 90s a number of research units were established
all over India, which devoted their energies into studying the
condition of Indian women, inquiring into the historical roots of
their subservient position in society and devising programs for
improving the status and condition of women. Collectively, one of the
most significant outcomes of research by women's studies units has
been to demonstrate that not only were women significant actors in
national history, but their roles spanned as widely as men's.
Even recognizing these facts entailed throwing a certain challenge to
male power. Power became an extremely important category in
understanding and eventually ameliorating women's conditions in
various arenas of social life. Since the 1970s, there have been
innumerable studies on the condition of women workers in the jute and
cotton textile industries from the colonial period onward, into the
role played by female labor in the unorganized agricultural sector,
in politics, medicine, the performing arts, the birth control
movement, and sports.
Clearly then, the scope of women's studies spilled over from the
domain of the family into the world at large.
The Family
The family no doubt remained, and still remains, an important unit of
study. Comprehending the dynamic of the family is essential to any
project that seeks to understand not only women but men too. To
imagine otherwise would be both naïve and ahistorical. This awareness
has led to scholarly inquiries into the study and constitution of
"masculinity" and "childhood." Feminist historians, sociologists and
anthropologists have written and debated extensively on why certain
familial norms in this country have endured/ changed and what
implications these have had for the social position of men and women.
The joint family system, polygamy, female feticide, sati, widow
remarriage, child marriage, dowry have been the subject of numerous
historical monographs all of which have focused on the comparative
position of both sexes within the family. But to say that these
studies have been concerned with the family and family alone is
ridiculous. In fact the point behind most of these studies have been
to demonstrate the ways in which larger social forces alter or are
themselves shaped by the family and to point in directions of
progressive social change.
So Why This Move?
Against this background it remains puzzling as to why a man of Mr.
Joshi's perspicacity would resort to renaming "Women's Studies"
centers as "Women's and Family Studies". Especially when feminists
themselves are now questioning the categorizing of their discipline
as "women's" studies and are increasingly resorting to terms such as
"gender" or "queer" studies to designate their disciplinary
affiliation.
Their reason for doing so was adumbrated above - for how can women be
studied in isolation from men? Many have questioned the efficacy of
the label woman arguing that womanhood itself is a variegated entity
where sexual preference, social factors and finally biology play a
part.
Given the complexity of the subject matter of what constitutes the
field of "women's studies" what then are the ramifications of Mr.
Joshi's pronouncement? As the feminist historian Tanika Sarkar
succinctly put it, "it re-embeds women within the family," ignoring
their role in vast web of complex social relations.
Eunuchs and Sex-Workers
Let us close this discussion by considering the impact of such
renaming upon studies that are conducted on two important social
groups in India - eunuchs and sex-workers. In what University
department do we now shift ongoing research on eunuchs in India?
Surely there is no doubt that socially and politically they
constitute an important section of the country's population. And I am
sure it would be irresponsible and unethical to subsume this
important social group under the category "women" for that would be
simplifying the complexities of the gender experiences of this varied
social group.
Second, what do we do with women whose professional identity as sex
workers is at odds with the norm of a family? It is unclear what
vision of family was envisaged in the renaming decision. Unless we
seek to radically redefine the scope of what we mean by family, such
renaming, as the above examples demonstrate, runs the risk of
becoming an exclusionary move.
To take a few examples, we have to acknowledge single mothers/fathers
bringing up children as family, our notion of family cannot remain
heteronormative, nor can marriage be the sole basis of a familial
unit. While such redefining can be undertaken under the aegis of the
numerous women's studies units countrywide, it will require a degree
of autonomy.
One of the preconditions of good research is an atmosphere of
openness and debate. Will the decision to rename be accompanied or
followed by a solid guarantee of such autonomy? Can the renaming be
debated? Will women's studies centers have the right to reject the
new name?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rochona Majumdar is Collegiate Assistant Professor and Harper Fellow,
University of Chicago.
_____
[3.]
http://hrw.org/press/2003/09/india090503.htm
Human Rights Watch
India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now
(New York, Sept. 5, 2003) - The Indian government must protect three
activists harassed and intimidated for their efforts to protect
witnesses to last year's massacres in Gujarat, Human Rights Watch
wrote in a letter to the Indian government today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Indian government must demonstrate that it's on the side of
justice, not those who organized this massacre. These three activists
are trying to stand up to a state government that has done little to
bring about accountability for thousands of victims and now they
themselves are targets."
Brad Adams
Executive Director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Indian government must demonstrate that it's on the
side of justice, not those who organized this massacre," said Brad
Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
"These three activists are trying to stand up to a state government
that has done little to bring about accountability for thousands of
victims and now they themselves are targets."
Teesta Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan and Suhel Tirmizi have
received anonymous telephone calls threatening their lives if they
continue their work. On August 29, Pathan was threatened by a group
of Hindu nationalists as he escorted witnesses to an official inquiry
into the massacres.
The communal violence in Gujarat began on February 27, 2002, over
allegations that a Muslim mob in the town of Godhra had attacked and
set fire to two carriages of a train carrying Hindu activists.
Fifty-eight people were killed.
Over the next three days, a retaliatory killing spree by Hindus left
hundreds dead and tens of thousands homeless in Gujarat. A Human
Rights Watch report on the violence (We Have No Orders to Save You)
concluded that Gujarat state officials were directly involved in the
killings and engaged in a massive cover-up.
A follow-up report by Human Rights Watch (Compounding Injustice: The
Government's Failure to Redress Massacres in Gujarat), published in
July 2003, concluded that the massacre's ringleaders were still at
large. Human Rights Watch has asked the Indian federal government to
take over investigations in cases where the state government has
hampered litigation.
Although the Indian government initially boasted of thousands of
arrests following the attacks, most of those arrested have since been
acquitted, released on bail with no further action taken, or simply
let go. Even when cases have reached trial, Muslim victims faced
biased prosecutors and judges, harassment and intimidation. In one
case, 14 people were set on fire and killed in the Best Bakery in
Vadodara, Gujarat. A Gujarat state court acquitted 21 people accused
of the killings after witnesses withdrew statements they had given to
the police identifying the attackers.
A prime witness in that case, Zahira Sheikh, told India's National
Human Rights Commission she was forced to change her testimony as a
result of threats against her during the trial. Setalvad, Pathan, and
Tirmizi have provided protection and legal assistance to Sheikh and
her family members, including moving them to a secure location in
Mumbai.
On August 20, the three human rights defenders requested police
protection from Gujarat's chief secretary and director general of
police and the police commissioner of Ahmedabad. There has been no
response to date. The defenders also filed an application for
protection before the Supreme Court of India on September 1.
In the letter, addressed to Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, Human
Rights Watch called on the Indian government to:
o Immediately provide proper and adequate protection to Teesta
Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel Tirmizi;
o Ensure a retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat and
provide adequate protection for witnesses in the case;
o Direct federal authorities to take over cases of serious,
large-scale human rights violations where the state government has
hampered investigations, including the Godhra, Naroda Patia, and
Gulbarg Society massacre cases.
______
[RELATED MATERIAL]
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/india090503-ltr.htm
HRW Open Letter, September 05, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advani: Protect Human Rights Defenders
(September 05, 2003)
Dear Deputy Prime Minister Shri L.K. Advani,
We write to express our serious concern about the safety of three
human rights defenders facing escalating intimidation because they
have tried to ensure accountability for the communal violence in
Gujarat. Teesta Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel
Tirmizi have faced increasing verbal and physical threats in response
to their efforts to protect witnesses and preserve evidence about the
massacres that took place in Gujarat in February and March 2002.
As members of the civil-society organization Citizens for Justice and
Peace, the three defenders have helped document and expose the
participation of the police and other government officials during the
anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat. They have also assisted the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its inquiry into the massacres, in
particular the so-called "Best Bakery" case. As you are aware, in
that incident fourteen people were set on fire and killed in a bakery
in Vadodara, Gujarat at the height of the violence.
In the ensuing litigation, a Gujarat state court acquitted twenty-one
people accused of the killings after witnesses withdrew statements
they had given to the police identifying the attackers. A prime
witness in the case, Zahira Sheikh, has detailed how she was forced
to change her testimony as a result of threats against her during the
trial. She spoke before the NHRC on July 11, 2003, accompanied by
Teesta Setalvad. Following Sheikh's testimony, the NHRC filed a
special petition before the Supreme Court asking for a retrial of the
Best Bakery case outside of Gujarat, and for a transfer of nine other
key cases arising from the massacres to venues outside Gujarat.
Setalvad, Pathan, and Tirmizi have provided protection and legal
assistance to Sheikh and her family members, including moving them to
a secure location in Mumbai. In response, they have received a number
of threats by telephone from anonymous callers threatening their
lives if they continue their work. On August 29, Pathan was
surrounded and physically threatened by a group of Hindu nationalist
supporters while he was escorting witnesses of the Gulbarg Society
massacre to a hearing of the Commission of Inquiry into the violence
in Gujarat.
The three human rights defenders requested police protection from the
chief secretary, the director general of police, and the commissioner
of police in Ahmedabad, on August 20. To date, there has been no
response from the Gujarat government. On September 1 the three human
rights defenders filed an application for protection before the
Supreme Court of India.
We call on the Indian government to:
o Immediately provide proper and adequate protection to Teesta
Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel Tirmizi;
o Ensure a retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat and
provide adequate protection for witnesses in the case;
o Direct federal authorities to take over cases of serious,
large-scale human rights violations where the state government has
hampered investigations, including the Godhra, Naroda Patia, and
Gulbarg Society massacre cases.
The increasingly strident tone of those attempting to obstruct the
course of justice in Gujarat requires an immediate and strong
response from the Indian government. We look forward to your
leadership on this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Brad Adams
Executive Director
Asia Division
Human Rights Watch
cc:
Shri Narendra Modi
Chief Minister of Gujarat
Justice A.S. Anand
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
______
[4.]
The Times of India
Riots in Godhra during Ganpati immersions
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2003 06:22:14 PM ]
VADODARA: Communal violence broke out in the sensitive Godhra town on
Friday evening. Heavy stone pelting was reported in the town during
Ganesh immersion processions.
According to sources, trouble was reported in the Neelam Lodge and
Rani Masjid areas of the town. The incident took place at about 5 pm
when processions to immerse Ganesh idols in the Ramsagar pond were
being carried out.
The processions have to pass through a stretch, which is dominated by
the minority population. At this time some participants in the
procession allegedly raised slogans which were instigating in nature.
Stone pelting was reported in the area.
Teargas shells were lobbed as rival groups clashed. Police was on
tenterhooks right since Thursday since most of the immersions were
planned for the following day which was a Friday -- an important
prayer day for muslims.
Curfew was imposed in certain police chowky areas around 6 pm.
______
[5.]
Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award For Journalism - 2003
The Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha in collaboration with Chhattisgarh
Labour Institute has set up the Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award for
Journalism for writings on labour issues & worker's movement.
Com. Shaheed Shankar Guha Niyogi was a fire brand labour leader who
made a unique contribution to the people's struggles by successfully
combining the trade union movement with social reforms. He not only
organized the workers of Chhattisgarh, but also played a positive
role in the movement for the creation of a New Chhattisgarh for a New
India based on socialism, secularism and democracy. He generated an
ideological basis of 'Sangarsh & Nirman' (Struggles &
Reconstruction), which has over the years acted as catalyst & guiding
force for both the industrial workers and peasants in the country.
Unfortunately, he was assassinated on 28th September 1991 by the
industrial mafia.
This award was started a few years back to recognize the contribution
of journalists in upholding the legacy of Shaheed Niyogi. Mr. Anand
Swaroop Verma, a senior human right journalist associated with the
Samkaleen Teesri Duniya, was the first recipient of this award. Due
to financial and organizational constraints, this award could not be
continued. But it is being revived this year on the Shaheed Niyogi
Diwas to be observed on 28th September 2003 in Chhattisgarh.
Journalists, individuals and organizations can nominate journalists
who have been consistently writing on labour issues and worker's
movement. The last day for submitting the nominations along with the
select writings is 20th September 2003 at the following addresses -
Mr. Anand Swaroop Verma Mr. Akshay Sail
Q-63, Chhattisgarh Labour Institute
SECTOR - 12, N-7 Anupam Nagar, Raipur
NOIDA - 201301 Chhattisgarh
e-mail: award2003 at rediffmail.com
If the articles are in a language other than Hindi or English then
either translation or summary of the articles in English or Hindi
must also be submitted. The winners will be announced on 25th
September 2003 and the award will be given on 28th September 2003 in
Chhattisgarh (the exact venue to be announced later). The award
consists of first prize of Rs.25, 000, second prize of Rs. 15,000 and
5 prizes of Rs.5,000 each.
Mr. Kuldeep Nayar, senior journalist & Ex-MP, New Delhi, Mr. Anand
Swaroop Verma, Editor of Samkaleen Teesri Duniya, New Delhi and Ms.
Meena Menon, free lance journalist, Mumbai have kindly consented to
be on the Panel of Judges for this year's Award.
We expect your help and co-operation in our venture to pay tribute to
Shaheed Shankar Guha Niyogi, whose life and works have motivated many
to face the challenges of creating a new society based on justice,
freedom, peace, equality, and human dignity.
______
[6.]
REVIEW OF USE OF POTA
PUBLIC NOTICE
Government of India has constituted a Review Committee under Section
60 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) headed by Mr
Justice Arun B Saharya, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
High Court with Dr M U Rahman, former Secretary to the Government of
India and Shri Arvind S Imandar, former Advisor to the Government of
Uttar Pradesh as its members vide notification No.S.O.404(E) dated
04.04.2003. The terms of reference of the Review Committee are as
under:
i) The Review Committee shall take a comprehensive view of the use of
the said Act in various States and shall be empowered to entertain
complaints or grievances with regard and suggestions for removing
the shortcomings, if any, in the implementation of the said Act, and
ii) The Review Committee shall suggest measures to ensure that the
provisions of the said Act are invoked for combating terrorism only.
In order to examine the enforcement/implementation of POTA, and give
suggestions to the Government for removal of shortcomings, if any,
the Review Committee hereby invites the public at large and such
Organizations as may be interested in the subject, to send
complaints, grievances and suggestions, if any, with material in
support, if available. The same may be sent by post at an early date
latest by 22nd of September, 2003 to the Secretariat of the Review
Committee in Room No. 246, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi or by
E.mail at <mailto:potacommittee at nic.in>potacommittee at nic.in
V P Bhatia
Secretary to the Review Committee
August, 2003
REVIEW COMMITTEE ON POTA
(Constituted under Section 60 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002)
Room No. 246, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi
This advertisement appeared in Sunday Times of India, August 24, 2003, pg.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace
and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an 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.
--
More information about the Sacw
mailing list