SACW | 25 Oct. 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sat Oct 25 06:06:22 CDT 2003
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WIRE | 25 October, 2003
Announcements:
a) The South Asia Citizens Web web site
continues to be down, users are invited to use
Google cache till further notice. 'South Asia
Counter Information Project' a back-up, archive
area and sister site of SACW can be accessed at:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/
b) All SACW and associated list members in India
wanting to consult web sites being blocked at
groups.yahoo.com may try to bypass the 'ban'
via:
http://www.proxify.com
http://www.multiproxy.org/multiproxy.htm [a more detailed list is given below]
+++++
[1] Pakistan: 'The Protection and Empowerment of
Women Act 2003': The highlights of the bill ...
(Waqar Gillani)
[2] Mahathir's wrong track (Praful Bidwai)
[3] India Pakistan: The arms race continues (M V Ramana)
[4] India Pakistan:
- Bonhomie, cry for peace mark Indo-Pak writers' meet
- Nirmala [Deshpande] for boosting peace momentum
[5] India: Setting Citizen Above Community (Dipankar Gupta)
[6] India: Letter from Mallika Sarabhai
[7] India's Pioneer of Public Interest Law (Nora Boustany)
--------------
[1]
The Daily Times, October 23, 2003
PPPP supports repealing Hudood Ordinance: Sherry
* Says Benazir backed bill nine months ago, 12 MPs signed bill
* Protection of Women Act 2003 addresses domestic
violence, education, property rights
By Waqar Gillani
LAHORE: Member of National Assembly Sherry Rehman
said the bill she moved for the repeal of the
Hudood Ordinance has been endorsed by the
provincial and central women's committees of the
Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP).
Party leaders Benazir Bhutto and Mukhdoom Amin
Fahim knew about it, she added, hinting that the
party was also preparing a bill against karo kari
for presentation in the Sindh Assembly.
Talking to Daily Times on Wednesday, she said
'The Protection and Empowerment of Women Act
2003' had been moved and signed by her and 11
other women parliamentarians of the PPPP. "They
include Naheed Khan, Rukhsana Bangash, Fozia
Habib, Yasmin Misbahur Rehman, Dr Azra Fazal,
Fahmida Mirza and Ruqqiya Somoro."
She appealed to other female parliamentarians
from all political parties to support this bill
for the sake of women's rights in the country.
"They should support it apart from their
political affiliation for the sake of women's
rights," she said.
She said some opposition elements were trying to
discourage this move by spreading information
that the bill had been moved by an individual and
should be rejected. Ms Rehman said she was head
of the PPPP's central committee of women and had
discussed this bill with her party's female
parliamentarians at the provincial and federal
levels.
"We discussed the bill in our Punjab (North),
Punjab (South) and Sindh women's committee
meetings. Mukhdoom Amin Fahim was told about the
issue and Benazir Bhutto backed the bill nine
months ago," she said.
The party, she said, had been preparing the bill
for the last nine months with the consent of
Benazir Bhutto. She added the Women Parliamentary
Policy Group had also endorsed the bill. She said
the women's protection and empowerment bill was
submitted to the National Assembly on October 10.
The bill includes legislation to promote women's
empowerment and includes the repeal of the Hudood
Ordinance. Discussing cooperation between members
of her party and other parties for the bill, she
said meetings were being arranged and other bills
would be moved in future.
The Protection and Empowerment of Women Act 2003,
moved by Member of National Assembly Sherry
Rehman on the Pakistan People's Party
Parliamentarians (PPPP) platform, includes repeal
of the Hudood Ordinance, the prohibition of
domestic violence and honour killings and the
provision of freedom of choice in marriage, the
right to a basic education and a female
employment quota. The text of the bill, which was
moved to the National Assembly on October 10,
calls for the end of gender discrimination under
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan. Supporters say it is necessary for the
protection, equality and empowerment of woman in
Pakistan.
The bill has been endorsed by the provincial and
central women's committees of the PPPP and is
signed by 12 members of parliament from the PPPP.
The consent of Benazir Bhutto and Makhdoom Amin
Fahim was secured before preparing and moving
this bill, Ms Rehman told Daily Times. The main
points of the bill are:
Education: Compulsory primary education for all
children under ten years of age. It will be the
duty of every parent or guardian to enrol every
child within one month of this act's passage.
District governments will be required to provide
free primary education to every child that
resides in the district and is under the age of
ten.
Each union council (UC) will maintain a register
of children under ten who reside within the
precinct of the UC. At the end of one month after
this act is adopted, the chairman of the UC will
file a return with the district government
containing the names and addresses of the
children under the age of ten, the schools these
children are attending and the names and
addresses of children under the age of ten who
are not attending school.
The district government shall, within a week of
receiving the return, serve a notice to the
parent or guardian of those children who are not
in school, requiring that they enrol the children
in the school specified in the notice. Schools
must not be more than two miles away from the
residence of the child.
Any parent or guardian who fails to comply with
the provisions of this section will be subject to
mandatory imprisonment until the child is
enrolled. Any UC nazim who fails to file a return
and any district nazim who violates these
requirements will be disqualified from election.
Affirmative action: The federal and provincial
governments will ensure the equal participation
of women in life. The state will introduce an
affirmative action plan through administrative
and statutory means. The Federal Public Service
Commission and each Provincial Public Service
Commission will be required to adhere to a
minimum female recruitment goal of one-third
beginning Jan 1, 2005.
Equal pay: Discrimination in pay on the basis of
gender is prohibited. Employees will receive
equal pay for equal work in conformity with the
International Labour Organization Convention. The
chief executive of any private company or
department head of any public or government
organization will be subject to a fine of Rs
100,000 and one year rigorous imprisonment if
they violate this requirement.
Domestic violence/honour killings: The Hudood
Ordinances are repealed. Domestic violence,
including honour killings, will be punished like
personal injuries or culpable homicides under the
Pakistan Penal Code. Anyone subjecting a female
relative to violence or cruelty, either mental or
physical, shall be punished with up to three
years in prison and a fine of Rs 500,000.
Each bench of the high court shall assign one
judge to hear cases under this act. The appointed
judge will enjoy the powers of a magistrate
and/or sessions court judge.
Presumption: The husband of a woman, or in his
absence the eldest male resident of a household,
will be held responsible in all cases of stove
burning and punished for causing grievous harm or
culpable homicide under the Pakistan Penal Code.
The mother of a minor shall be presumed to be the
natural guardian unless the welfare of the minor,
for reasons to be recorded in the guardian and
wards court, dictate otherwise.
Freedom of choice: Every woman shall be entitled
to marry a person of her own choice. It will be
the duty of the Nikah Registrar to explain the
provisions of the Nikahnama to the bride and to
counsel the bride on the right of divorce and
details of mehr. The use of undue influence,
duress or coercion in the marriage of a woman
will be an offence punishable with one year in
prison and a fine.
Women's ward in jails: A separate and independent
enclosure controlled by female police will be
established in every jail by the end of 2003.
Each prison shall appoint an additional inspector
general for the women's ward who shall have the
same powers and duties as the inspector general
of prisons. Arrangements will be made to
accommodate and educate the minor children of all
female prisoners.
Participation of women: At least one-third of the
seats on the Council of Islamic Ideology,
Planning Commission and University Grants
Commission will be reserved for women.
Property rights/inheritance: Inheritance cases of
widows and orphans shall be decided within six
months. No transfer of property belonging to a
woman will be regarded as valid unless she is
physically present before the competent authority
under the Registration Act or the Land Revenue
Code. All property inherited by a woman shall be
registered in her name.
_____
[2]
The News International, October 23, 2003
Mahathir's wrong track
Praful Bidwai
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who
steps down from office this month, probably
wanted to be remembered as a pugnacious leader
who may have ruled his country with an iron hand,
but who boosted its economy during his 22 years
in power, and called a neo-colonial spade a
neo-colonial spade. Mahathir refused to kowtow to
the Big Powers, including the United States, and
to the IMF and the World Bank during the late
1990s' East Asian financial crisis which humbled
many prosperous economies. But after his
Organisation of Islamic Conference address in
Putrajaya last week, Mahathir is likelier to go
down in history as somebody tainted by
anti-Semitism as well as authoritarian
intolerance.
Ironically, his fall coincides with the
construction of "Taipei 101"-a 508 metre-tall
structure in Taiwan, which replaces Kuala
Lumpur's Petronas Towers as the world's tallest
building. Petronas was one of Mahathir's dream
projects, and for him as much a symbol of
Malaysia's progress as the manned space mission
is for China.
It might be considered unfortunate that Mahathir
chose to provoke at his last major appearance in
the global limelight. But this isn't his first
time. Five years ago, he attributed the organised
run on the Malaysian currency, the ringgit, by
international financial speculators like George
Soros (a fact), to a "Jewish conspiracy" (a
complete fiction). The raids had nothing to do
with the Jewish origins of (a minority of) the
currency traders involved. Mahathir was being
paranoid.
What Mahathir said at Putrajaya carries that
paranoia to new, delusory heights. He exhorted
the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to fight the "few
million Jews" who rule the world by "controlling"
the major powers. Mahathir's speech was a mixture
of admiration for the Jews, Muslim
self-denigration, and a call to Muslims "to
change" and match Jewish power: If Muslims want
to recover their dignity, their governments must
"close ranks" and "act in concert ..."
Mahathir painted a lurid picture of global Jewish
dominance to stress one of his favourite themes:
Muslims must embrace modern science and
technology and overcome divisions over religious
dogma that have weakened them. He lamented that
Muslims have abandoned science and mathematics,
in which they had outstanding early achievements.
The thrust of his address was that social and
economic modernisation alone can help Muslims
defend themselves. In doing this, he demonised
the Jews: "The Europeans killed six million Jews
out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the
world by proxy. They get others to fight and die
for them."
It is possible to read some reflective sentiments
in Mahathir's speech. Thus, he said the Jewish
community had survived "2,000 years of pogroms"
by "thinking", not by "hitting back". But this
was more in the nature of exhorting the Islamic
ummah to be more cerebral in its responses - or
to be as cunning and manipulative as the Jews:
that's the way to the top.
Mahathir is totally, comprehensively wrong, and
on many counts. The least important of them is
his false contention that Jews rule the world or
control its major powers. In the first place, it
is ludicrous to speak of a homogenous global
"Jewish community" which has common economic or
political interests. Such a community doesn't
quite exist even in Israel, where there are sharp
social divisions on virtually every issue,
including on how Israel defines its nationhood
vis-a-vis the Palestinian problem, the "Road
Map", settlements, and direction and pace of the
peace process.
True, the US has a powerful Zionist lobby, but
that cannot be equated with "the Jews". Zionism
is not a religious or ethnic description, nor
does it connote a people's centuries-long shared
experience. It is a political doctrine.
It is plainly absurd to speak of the Jews being
"in power" in the US: it's hard to think of any
high-profile powerful Jews within the Bush
Cabinet and among the President's closest
advisers, barring Richard Perle and Paul
Wolfowitz. Israel is a vital ally of Washington,
crucial to its Middle East plans. But that has
less to do with ethno-religious identities than
politics and strategic matters. It's useful to
recall that the US was pretty lukewarm towards
Israel until 1967.
Two of Mahathir's propositions are particularly
obnoxious. First, although he is concerned to
buttress his call to Muslims to embrace
modernity, he singles out the Jews. This is
outrageously racist. Nothing can justify it in
the slightest - not even grudging admiration
because the Jews "invented socialism, communism,
human rights and democracy so that persecuting
them would appear to be wrong ..."
There is nothing uniquely virtuous or successful,
nor anything so wicked, about "Jewishness", and
nothing so pitiable about the ummah. Such
divisions contain little analytical value:
Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America
contain the world's worst examples of state
failure and social collapse. But Sub-Saharan
Africa is more Christian than Islamic. And Latin
America is predominantly Christian (with remnants
of old American-Indian faiths).
Second, Mahathir considers Muslims and Jews as
historic adversaries locked in mortal combat.
This too is a warped version of the "Clash of
Civilisations", the intellectual garbage
rationalising US hegemony after the Cold War,
disguised as "theory". This can only legitimise
the racist Far Right, especially in the Global
North, which Mahathir rightly accuses of imperial
arrogance.
Once you follow this "civilisational" logic, you
have few arguments against the likes of US army
Lt-Gen William G "Jerry" Boykin, who is a
dangerous born-again Christian fundamentalist.
Boykin has visions, about his God being "bigger"
and more "real" than the Muslims'!
Regrettably, while Mahathir's comments drew flak
from many Western capitals, they were applauded
by many of the presidents, kings, sheikhs and
emirs present in Putrajaya. These include leaders
of key US allies, including President Hamid
Karzai of Afghanistan. Many of them found the
address a good analysis of the Muslim world's
problems. Asked whether he thought the speech was
anti-Semitic, Karzai responded: "No, I don't
think so ... Dr Mahathir spoke of the inhibitions
within the Islamic world and that those
inhibitions must go away, and I entirely agree
with that ..."
At work here is not just an acknowledgement of
the problems confronting people living in the
OIC's 57 member-countries, both historically and
after the two-year-old "war on terrorism"; but a
process of constructing a whole new identity.
This has been called the "Threatening Other", a
characteristic of ethno-religious nationalism in
many countries. This nationalist doctrine holds
that political communities and nations are
constituted primarily by virtue of religious or
ethnic identities.
Sociologists and anthropologists have tried to
understand this "threatening" identity as
combining a sense of inferiority and the urge for
competition with the "superior" by emulating him.
Interaction between tradition and modernity
produces "disorientation". This leads
ethno-religious nationalists to reinterpret their
religion and tradition by imitating the
"superior" "alien" model - in order to preserve
the core of their tradition, and at the same time
to give it contemporary new meanings.
This is precisely what Hindu and later Muslim
communalists did in pre-Partition India. Zionism
too is a form of ethno-religious nationalism. The
perils and catastrophic effects of such identity
traps should be obvious, not just in this
subcontinent, but, more brutally, in
Israel-Palestine.
____
[3]
The Daily Times, October 23, 2003
The arms race continues
M V Ramana
For a little while earlier this year there seemed to be a small but real
chance for progress on peace in South Asia. But events since then have
dashed those hopes. Indian and Pakistani leaders have returned to their
business-as-usual state of trading insults and furthering an arms race.
Some features of the arms race are noteworthy. First is that leaders in
both countries claim not to be involved in any such arms race. Every
military acquisition is purportedly only for defensive purposes. An
instance is Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's recent statement that, "We
are not in any arms race with anybody. Whatever steps India has been
taking [are] for self defence." Such claims are particularly common as
far as nuclear weapons are concerned, with their attendant mythology of
deterrence.
A second feature is describing everything connected with the nuclear and
missile programmes as part of developing the country's technological or
scientific strength and not being directed against any other country.
For example, according to the official announcement, the recent tests of
the Shaheen and the Ghaznavi were dictated only by the pace of the
missile development programme and its technical needs; Information
Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed claimed that they were "not against any
country or part of any arms race in the region."
Both these features go well with the widespread but mistaken assumption
that one's own country is always the victim, bears no ill will towards,
and does no harm to, other countries.
Finally, each round of arms acquisitions purports to establish a
definitive equaliser or unbeatable advantage for the acquiring country.
But each acquisition carries with it the seeds of the failure of that
claim. The most audacious of these claims and the most spectacular of
these failures has been the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which were
supposed to bring stability and peace to the region, decrease
expenditure on conventional weapons, and put an end to arms racing. None
of that has happened; the only result has been that the lives of
millions of common people in both countries are now at risk.
The arms race has occurred both in the nuclear and non-nuclear
dimensions. On the non-nuclear front, India has been escalating the pace
of its hi-tech military acquisitions. As it is, its military expenditure
has been increasing by leaps and bounds. According to the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute, India's military expenditure has
gone up from about $ 9.4 billion in 1998 to $12.9 billion in 2002, with
an increase of over $1 billion just in 2002 (all numbers in constant
2000 US dollars). During the same period Pakistan's military budget went
up from $2.8 billion to about $3.2 billion. As a fraction of their
respective Gross Domestic Products, these numbers are around 2.2-2.5 per
cent in the case of India but 4.5-5 per cent in the case of Pakistan.
Among the recent and prominent acquisitions has been India's contract
with Israel for the Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS),
valued at over $1 billion. After some initial reluctance, the US appears
to have assented to the sale. In the typical fashion of arms racers,
Pakistan's Chief of Air Staff has vowed to counter this acquisition,
promising 'good news' by June 30, 2004.
Another promise comes from Pakistan's defence secretary, Lt-Gen (Retd)
Hamid Nawaz, who has stated that the US has agreed to the sale of
American military equipment to Pakistan, including a counter to the
Phalcon, in order 'to restore the conventional arms balance in South
Asia'. This includes help to 'refurbish' its existing F-16s and possibly
more F-16s from Belgium. Undoubtedly, the arrival of F-16s in Pakistan
is likely to elicit some obscenely expensive military purchase by India.
Hand in hand with all these military acquisitions, both countries have
continued developing all the accoutrements of a useable nuclear arsenal.
Over the last month Pakistan tested two of its nuclear capable missiles.
While Pakistani Army spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan has claimed
that these tests 'will have no impact on the situation in the region',
the unfortunate reality is that it brings the region closer to nuclear
deployment, increasing the risk of nuclear war.
On the Indian side, the army is establishing two missile battalions, to
be armed with the 700 km range Agni-I and the 2000 km range Agni-II
nuclear capable missiles respectively. Pakistan's nuclear capable Ghauri
and Shaheen missiles were handed over to the military earlier this year.
There have also been recent meetings of the organisations involved in
the command and control of nuclear weapons. India's Nuclear Command
Authority (NCA) met in September and took undisclosed decisions 'on
further development and management of the programme'. The official
statement went on to claim that these 'decisions will consolidate
India's nuclear deterrence.'
What is ironical is that this came at the same time as the announcement
that the NCA has decided to build two bunkers to protect the cabinet
(though not the common citizens of the country) in the event of a
nuclear strike, thus demonstrating that in their heart of hearts, these
planners do not fully believe in nuclear deterrence. If nuclear
deterrence were to hold, there should be no nuclear strike, making
protection unnecessary.
For its part, the Pakistani government also held a meeting of its
National Command Authority in September, where it reportedly decided to
make 'qualitative upgrades' in its nuclear programme. The Authority also
expressed 'complete satisfaction' with the operational readiness of
Pakistan's nuclear forces and the pace of developments.
All of this should be cause for great concern. For the common person,
arms races and the expenditure of scarce resources on weapons brings no
benefits, only the diversion of money from real needs like health and
education.
The nature of arms races is such that it is not possible to meaningfully
apportion blame between the parties involved. The only sensible policy
is to put pressure on both to unilaterally cease the procurement,
development and deployment of these agents of death and destruction.
____
[4]
The Times of India, October 24, 2003-10-20
Bonhomie, cry for peace mark Indo-Pak writers' meet
ANI [ MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 09:18:35 PM ]
ISLAMABAD: Bonhomie and fervent appeals for
restoration of peace and people-to-people
contact marked the first day of a three-day
seminar that is being attended by a cross section
of writers from India and Pakistan.
Sunday evening's Qalam-aur-Aman (Pen and
Peace) seminar was marked by participants
hugging and embracing each other, and
exchanging friendly gestures, according to the
Daily Times.
The inaugural session of the seminar was
presided over by Zohra Nigah, Dr. Ajit Core and
Fozia Saeed, while Mushtaq Ahmed Yousfi
delivered the opening address and Kishwar
Naheed administrated the session.
Speakers criticized both governments for their
mutual conflicts and for not setting up peace in
the region. Dr. Kore claimed that people of the
subcontinent were suffering from hardships, as
their governments were not in favour of peace
and were instead following the agendas of the
superpowers.
"If any young man kills two or three soldiers in
Israel , Bosnia , or any other occupied
state to liberate his homeland, the Americans
and their allies declare him a terrorist. When
America bombs the people of Iraq , they
declare it the clash of civilizations
despite the fact that USA has no civilization,"
she said.
Mushtaq Ahmed Yousafi said the seminar was a
vital step for peace in the region and it was
being held at a time when war clouds still
shadowed both countries. He said the UN
and other international organizations could
not do anything for peace and now the people
of India and Pakistan would have to struggle
alone.
Professor Sayda Hamid said she felt at home and
was pleased to be in Pakistan . "I am a Kashmiri
and 90 per cent of my people live in Pakistan
occupied Kashmir . And we can't meet each other
at weddings, deaths and other occasions of
happiness and grief."
"We know that the fate of the people of this
region is decided somewhere else. But despite
that we came here to force our governments to
make peace," she added.
Jeelani Bano said her first book was published
in Pakistan and she hoped her last would also
be published there.
"Politicians and governments have had many
differences since partition and they fought
some wars but the people and writers of the two
countries never had any differences and they have
always been friendly. I hope they will pave the
way for peace as books, poems, songs and films
of both countries are popular in the whole
region," she said.
Taran Gujral, born in Gujar Khan, a native city
of Islamabad , and now residing in India ,
described the pain that she felt during the
Partition in 1947.
Noted Assamese writer Indira Goswami said she and
her delegation were excited to visit Pakistan on
a peace mission and they would convey the
message of love from the Pakistani people to
Indians.
The session ended with Javed Niazi and Babar
Niazi singing 'Heer', the historic love poem
of the subcontinent, while Dr. Core and Ms.
Bano presented gifts to Mushtaq Yousafi and
Zohra Nigah.
The second session will be held on Monday.
o o o
DAWN, 24 October 2003
Nirmala for boosting peace momentum
By Our Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Oct 23: Nirmala Deshpande, an eminent
peace activist from India, has termed the Indian
government's 12 proposals for normalization of
relations with Pakistan victory of the peace
movement waged by the peoples of the two
countries.
"Whenever we, the aspirants of peace, glimpse
light, no matter how feeble, we must seize on it
as the beacon towards our goal. The latest Indian
move should, similarly, stimulate us to consider
how we can utilize it for accelerating our
progress towards peace," she said while speaking
at a meeting of the Citizens Peace Committee here
on Thursday.
Ms Deshpande, who is visiting Pakistan as member
of an Indian parliamentarians delegation, said
most of these initiatives were those which had
been broached by a six-member delegation of six
Pakistani parliamentarians during their meeting
with Birjesh Misra, principal secretary to the
prime minister of India.
But, the proposal to start a ferry service
between Karachi and Mumbai was in addition to the
demands made by Pakistani parliamentarians, one
of whom, Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed, MNA from Kasur,
was also present in the meeting. Later, Haq Nawaz
Kaira also joined him.
Urging the peace activists to maintain the
pressure on their respective governments, Ms
Deshpande said tens of millions of people across
the world had held rallies to condemn the
aggression against Iraq. This had impelled the
New York Times to say that the world no longer
had a single super power after emergence of the
World Public Opinion as the second super power.
"We must strengthen this super power by our
relentless struggle," she said.Where the peace
movement failed was lack of strategy. For this
reason, the peace activists could not prevent
destruction of Babri Mosque in spite of the
abhorrence of ordinary people, belonging to
various religions, for such actions.
But, the wind had changed its direction and
tables had been turned on the fundamentalists
whom "we consider fascists", thanks to the peace
movement, the peace activist said.
"We have come a long way from the moment when we
held a protest demonstration at India Gate
against the deployment of Indian army along the
border." Peace was, however, a long and difficult
road and it was necessary to persist in sustained
efforts at the people's level, she said.
Speaking on the occasion, Chaudhry Manzoor,
welcoming the 12-point Indian peace proposal,
expressed the hopes that the government of
Pakistan would adopt a responsible stance and
respond positively to this goodwill gesture.
Referring to the proposal to allow elderly people
to walk across Wagah border, he said his
colleagues found it particularly painful that
while Europeans and Americans could freely move
from one side to the other, the peoples of the
two countries were denied such freedom.
He said he and his parliamentary colleagues
received the warmest response from the people at
the grassroots level. Whatever had been achieved
now was basically the victory of the ordinary
peoples of Pakistan and India who wanted peace
and were not interested in the tit-for-tat firing
of missiles by their governments.
The common denominators of sentiment on both
sides was that there should be more exchanges of
delegations. In addition to the parliamentarians,
other groups such as those of lawyers,
journalists, trade unionists, peasants etc.,
should visit each other's country to put
effective pressure in favour of peace.
Various members of audience, however, expressed
their skepticism on the possibility of peace.
While the ordinary people needed peace to solve
their basic problems, the ruling elite on both
sides could not afford peace, while they knew
they could not fight a war.
A former banker, by way of illustration of how
they thrived on a state of war, recalled that
former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had
declared removal of all restrictions on trade
with India and yet prohibited the banks from
opening any L.C.
_____
[5]
The Times of India, October 24, 2003
Setting Citizen Above Community
Dipankar Gupta
Earlier this month, the white male who killed an
American Sikh of Indian origin post-9/11 was
given the maximum sentence by the American courts.
That this violent, criminal act occurred in the
wake of the terrorist strike of September 11 on
the World Trade Center did not, in any way,
mitigate the seriousness of the crime in the eyes
of the law. Neither the state, nor the judiciary
explained away the killing of the Sikh in terms
of action and reaction.
Surcharged emotions post-9/11 did not in any way
mitigate the seriousness of the crime. All of
this happened notwith- standing Bushism and
Bushspeak. In India, on the other hand, the state
can never get cracking to actually punish those
who are guilty of hate crimes. Somehow, community
passions once aroused by a criminal act can
condone the worst forms of collective brutality.
The Best Bakery case is the most recent example
of this.
Though America and India are both democratic
states with a federal structure and a written
constitution, the meaning of citizenship is not
quite the same in both countries. While American
policing round the world is worthy of
condemnation, the way they protect their citizens
from community and religious hatred is certainly
worth emulating. There are many in the BJP who
admire America for its aggressive policies
worldwide, but they are unprepared to draw any
lessons from how America treats its own citizens.
Not just hate murders, American law comes down
heavily even when there is a perceived threat
against a community.
In fact, as late as 2003, as pointed out in a
recent seminar, the American supreme court
sentenced members of the Ku Klux Klan for
cross-burning as this traditionally symbolised
white supremacy in the US. And yet, in India, we
pay no attention to the trishul dikshas that are
being carried out by the VHP. What the trishul is
to the aggressive VHP, cross-burning is for the
KKK. In both cases, they are meant to arouse fear
in minority communities. More than anything else,
this clearly demonstrates the contrasting ways
citizenship is viewed in both these countries.
The community, whether majority or minority, can
expect no favours from the state in America. This
is the substance of the first amendment to the
American constitution. Ironically, the first
amendment to our Constitution privileges the
community over individuals, especially in the
case of caste.
As N J Demerath argues in his brilliant work,
Crossing the Gods, in so-called religious
politics there is hardly any religion, but there
is a lot of politics. This politics is fanned by
people who do not know the fundaments of their
respective religions, nor have any time for them.
Neither the white supremacists of the KKK, nor
the Hindu rioters in Gujarat or Ayodhya care much
for religion. It is community hatred that they
espouse, and, therefore, it is all- important
that the citizen should stand above the community
in matters of law without the slightest
prevarication.
If the citizen is in the centre, then many of the
dilemmas we face in putting secularism to work
become less intractable. For example, what is the
point of arguing, as we do now, that conversion
should not take place by inducement, coercion,
bribes, etc? There are straightforward laws
already against false inducement, coercion,
bribes, threats and so forth, and there is just
no point in linking that to religious conversion.
Not just that, there are a number of formalities
that have to be fulfilled in case a person
declares a change of faith to demonstrate that
fraudulent measures have not been employed. And
yet, no such restrictions apply when it comes to
the various shuddhi ceremonies that VHP activists
routinely conduct, especially among the tribal
people of India.
The first amendment to the American constitution
not only said that the state would not be a party
to any religious establishment, but also allowed
for the free exercise of religion. This is how
citizens are respected, and yet commu- nities are
kept at bay. A citizen should have the right to
practise any religion, perhaps no religion at
all. How can the state legislate on how
conversions take place? Moreover, as Hinduism is
not a proselytising religion, the stateâ¤(tm)s
involvement in enacting laws that sets
restrictions on conversion, actually makes it a
partisan of the majority community. Too often, as
a reaction to the majoritarianism of the current
Indian government, there is a tendency on the
part of secularists to talk in terms of minority
rights. Most often they do not realise that they
too are arguing within the broad parameter that
sets the community above the citizen.
The first point is that individuals have rights
and states have policies. Rather than minority
rights which give precedence to virtuosos and
elite spokespeople within communities, the state
should have a policy that makes persecution of
minorities punishable in the extreme. The danger
of emphasising minority rights is precisely the
leverage it gives communitarian leaders on both
sides, but it is the citizen who suffers. As Prof
Demerath also points out, hotheads in rival
communities need each other, and often, even
admire each other. This is why any concession to
communities is always at the expense of
citizenship. No matter which way one looks at it,
it is always the minorities who suffer.
_____
[6]
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:08 -0700
>From: Hari Sharma <sharma at sfu.ca>
>Subject: a letter from Mallika Sarabhai
>
>Dear friends:
>
>This letter from Mallika Sarabhai came to my
>screen just a few minutes ago. I share this with
>you.
>
>hari sharma
>INSAF/SANSAD
>*******************
>LETTER FROM MALLIKA SARABHAI...
>
>My dear friends,
>
>Over the last 20 months many of you have been
>aware of my stand against the anti muslim pogrom
>that happened in Gujarat. With many of you I
>have had personal conversations, and many of you
>know that I have had to go underground and that
>I and Darpana [The 60 year old performing arts
>institute in Ahmedabad, begun by Mrinalini
>Sarabhai, Mallika's mother.] have been harassed
>and threatened continuously, amongst other
>things to try and cow me down into withdrawing
>my public interest litigation about this in the
>supreme court and to stop me talking at a
>variety of fora about the continuing boycott of
>the muslims, the continuing lack of justice and
>other issues.
>
>Those of you who are in India or who log onto
>Indian news portals are already aware of their
>latest move, i.e. to frame a criminal case
>against me of fraud and intention to cheat,
>through a young woman who was a short term
>student of darpana’s. I will not go into the
>case in detail just now - she is accusing
>me/Darpana of having promised her a united
>states visa and thereby a false dance tour ruse
>to illegally immigrate to the states; she also
>claims that when the visa was rejected I
>intimidated her and refused to return the money
>taken for tickets, visas and other charges.
>Without going into this further I want you to
>know only that there is not an iota of truth in
>it, that all monies for the cancelled dance
>tour, as per the contract with the students,
>were returned, as were their passports, and that
>this is a huge and apparently successful attempt
>to defame me and the institution and family,
>nationally, through the media. It is also a huge
>attempt at intimidation.
>
>Under the Indian criminal law, once a first
>information report or fir is accepted by the
>
>police, the police, if they so wish, can arrest
>you and throw you into jail till they produce
>you before a magistrate. Guilty till proved
>innocent. Given the high visibility of my name
>and the issue, my lawyers have asked me to apply
>for anticipatory bail, which I have, in the
>sessions court. There are tremendous pressures
>being brought on to the judiciary, for obvious
>reasons.
>
>My detractors have planned this well. The court
>is on vacation and works only two hours a day.
>The backlog in the court is big so my bail
>hearing has taken 48 hours to be heard instead
>of 24. It will be heard in the next hour. If the
>sessions court rejects it, the courts are shut
>for four days for diwali, so the earliest we can
>apply in the high court is on Tuesday.
>
>Meanwhile I have to be unavailable for arrest.
>Non-euphemistically, that means in hiding and on
>the run. Yet again.
>
>I veer between despair and anger. Between
>wanting to be a martyr for truth if that is what
>my larger purpose in life is, and wanting to
>throw up my hands and say ‘neither the country
>nor its people for whom I have spent 25 years
>working deserve me’.
>
>This is a democratic country and they are doing
>this to one of the most known faces and voices.
>What of the millions of others?
>
>I am trying to keep sane and sensible. All my
>colleagues at Darpana have been and continue to
>be wonderful and out in the open. And my brother
>and my daughter who are there in ahmedabad. And
>as happened before, the many idealistic
>‘friends’, well-wishers and intellectual seekers
>of truth in Gujarat have deafened me by their
>silence.
>
>Where there is smoke there is fire, I hear them
>saying. But isn’t that a saying that is no
>longer valid? When dalits in a village get their
>eyes gouged out for daring to look at their
>betters, which is the smoke and which the fire?
>When young women get acid thrown at them because
>they refuse advances from men, which is the
>smoke and which the fire? When law courts say
>that rape could not have happened because the
>men are respectable and the woman but a tribal
>where is the smoke and where the fire? People in
>glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, I hear them
>saying. But is it inconceivable that some of us
>live in glass houses because we want to be
>transparent, because we want to make our lives
>open books?
>
>I don’t know if I will be able to write again or
>when. Nor what today holds. But I wanted you all
>to know that if I go down it shall be fighting
>for what I believe is true and right.
>
Mallika Sarabhai
______
[7]
Washington Post
October 24, 2003; Page A22 | Diplomatic Dispatches
India's Pioneer of Public Interest Law
By Nora Boustany
Colin Gonsalves's father, an engineer from the
southern Indian state of Kerela, shelled out his
savings to put his son through a five-year
program at the prestigious Indian Institute of
Technology.
Gonsalves began working as a civil engineer, but
little did his parents know that he was also well
on his way to becoming a lawyer.
Gonsalves was drawn to the law through union work
and concerns over labor issues and exploitation.
In 1979, he started studying law at night school,
reading and studying in the union office and on
the train to and from Bombay.
One day Gonsalves was arrested while trying to
stop the demolition of a Bombay slum. After a
couple of similar incidents, he felt he had to
tell his father about switching professions. "He
was very proud when he saw me win a case," he
recalled.
"I am glad I managed to shift," said Gonsalves,
founder of the India Center for Human Rights and
Law, which has built 12 litigation centers in
India since 1983. He has represented children in
danger, villagers on the brink of starvation and
prisoners rotting in jails without due process.
Before he graduated from law school, the head of
his union asked him to file a case on behalf of
5,000 workers locked out of their jobs. "It took
me three years to get my law degree, but it did
not take me three years to go to court," he said
with a chuckle during an interview here Monday.
"No one had checked me out. A nasty employer's
lawyer outed me: 'He is not a lawyer, he is
impersonating one.' Luckily, I had written myself
in as a representative in the papers filed in the
court."
The judge in the case asked him to approach the
bench. He admitted he was an aspiring lawyer
trying to make a difference. "All right. Finish
this case," she snapped tersely, calling him into
her chambers. "Get your degree quickly," she
urged sympathetically.
Since then, Gonsalves has pioneered public
interest law in India by setting up a network of
500 lawyers around the country and is one of its
most prominent human rights litigators.
"He is considered a fighter, and it is important
to know that his is a controversial subject. He
goes up against big forces and interests, like
big estate owners. He is a champion of the
exploited," said Venkatesh Raghavendra, who has
known Gonsalves for four years and is director of
South Asia for Ashoka, an organization that
identifies "social entrepreneurs" in various
fields whose work initiates wide reform or
significant change.
Ashoka, which operates in 45 countries, selected
Gonsalves in 1999 as one of its fellows, paying
him a stipend for three years so he could focus
on setting up a strategy, build an organization
around it and bring his ideas to fruition.
"Colin is credited in large part for putting the
whole file of public interest law in the
forefront. That is how he has changed the
system," said Carol Grodzins, a managing director
for Ashoka.
In response to a petition filed by the Human
Rights Law Network, which was founded by
Gonsalves, the Supreme Court in New Delhi
directed unions and state governments to
implement several food security schemes.
"Article 21 of India's Constitution enshrines the
right to life, which can be broadly interpreted
as the right to food, work and fair wages.
Children in school get lunch now," Gonsalves
explained.
"Even if only one-fourth of the order is
implemented, it translates into millions all over
India, hopefully 10 million. The case began in
2001, and it is not over," he added, explaining
that privatization and the withdrawal of
subsidies have left large segments of Indian
society unable to afford food or health care. "We
have 3,000 to 5,000 people dying of starvation
every year."
Disability laws, women's rights, domestic
violence, child labor and sexual harassment
issues have all been revisited by his growing
army of public interest lawyers, who act as a
front line or the eyes and ears for the India
Center for Human Rights and Law.
"They serve as the mouthpiece of Colin's
organization and make villagers aware they have
human rights," Raghavendra said. "Exploiters take
advantage of the ignorance of these people. They
tell the exploiters: Look, we know what you are
doing. We have resolved a lot of these situations
like this."
But when such pressure fails, violations are
reported to Gonsalves's litigation centers, which
process them and file complaints.
"Very few in India are doing public interest law,
so we have grown as a firm, and 70 percent of our
cases are public interest," Gonsalves said.
"There is very little money, and we depend on
grants from inside and outside India."
Gonsalves was honored this week by the
International Senior Lawyers Project, based in
New York and Washington. The group, in
collaboration with Ashoka and Piper Rudnick LLP,
a law firm, is dedicated to assisting
international lawyers.
(c) 2003 The Washington Post Company
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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). [Please
note the SACW web site has gone down, you will
have to for the time being search google cache
for materials]
The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net
South Asia Counter Information Project a sister
initiative provides a partial back -up and
archive for SACW. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/
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