SACW | 11 Nov 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  11 November,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[INTERRUPTION NOTICE: There will no SACW posts on 
the 12th and 13th of November]

[1] Rocking the boat on Kashmir (Edit, Daily Times)
[2] Kashmir Issue - Thinking Out Of The Box (M B Naqvi)
[3] A blueprint for Kashmir - Autonomy for both sides (Kuldip Nayar)
[4] India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Getting down to 
serious business (Praful Bidwai)
+ [related recent material]
     Looking Beyond Musharraf's Proposals (Siddharth Varadarajan)
     India And Pakistan's Road To Detente (Ahmed Rashid)
[5] Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers Forcibly Recruit 
Child Soldiers - A report by Human Rights Watch
[6] India: Lie of the State: Zahira Symbolises 
Flaws in Prosecution Process (Anil Dharker)
[7] India:  Zahira is still the victim : Setalvad
[8] India: The twist doesn't change the tale (J Sri Raman)
[9]  Events and Resources :
(i) Taimur Bandey speaking on Breaking communal 
barriers and projecting development: promoting 
communal harmony to further development (New 
Delhi, 14 November)
(ii) Film Screening: Crossing the Lines : 
Kashmir, Pakistan, India by Pervez Hoodbhoy and 
Zia Mian
(New Delhi, 17 November)
(iii) Sansad News Release On Kashmir
(iv) "Passage to China" (Amartya Sen)
(v) Online Petition: Gujarat Genocide Trials: 
Appeal For The Protection of Witnesses


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

[1]

Daily Times,
November 10, 2004  |  Editorial

ROCKING THE BOAT ON KASHMIR

Is Mr Manmohan Singh less forthright and decisive 
as prime minister than he was as finance minister 
of India? Talking to the Financial Times of 
London on Monday November 8 he said that he was 
willing to "look at all options to think about a 
new chapter and a new beginning... So long as 
Pakistan remains committed (to ending 
cross-border terrorism) we are willing to look at 
all possible ways of resolving all outstanding 
issues, including Jammu and Kashmir." However, 
later the same day, speaking at a conference in 
the Netherlands, he asserted that "Jammu and 
Kashmir is an integral part of India and 
therefore this question of deployment of troops 
in our own country is not a subject matter of 
discussion with outside agencies".
As if in lock-step with the other side, the 
Foreign Office in Islamabad shot back that a 
solution to the Kashmir dispute based on making 
the Line of Control the permanent border was 
unacceptable to Pakistan: "All issues relating to 
the Jammu and Kashmir dispute are subject to 
debate and negotiations, but Pakistan does not 
accept any solution based on the LoC. The status 
quo is the problem, not the solution". This 
exchange came in one day and suggests how 
weak-kneed the resolve to break new ground is in 
India. Prime minister Singh has not done this for 
the first time. Indeed he can say that he had 
said it before and that he was not inconsistent!
On the Pakistani side, it must be admitted too, 
President Musharraf has not talked of options 
without a baseline of reservations. Despite his 
more sophisticated approach he wants to make sure 
that the "options" he doesn't like should not be 
left open. That means that his "seven" regions 
approach should not be taken to mean that the LoC 
or any modifications of it would be acceptable to 
him. But this carefully constructed ambivalence 
was punctured last week by the MQM leader Mr 
Altaf Hussain who went to New Delhi and 
recommended that the two countries should agree 
for the time being on the LoC which was already 
"sacrosanct" by reason of the commitments made by 
the two parties in the Simla Agreement. There was 
some vitriolic comment in the vernacular press in 
Pakistan on his "acceptance" of the LoC but the 
common man remained unmoved.
A few months ago President Musharraf's "opening 
up" with India had offended the "jihadi" leaders 
but had been accepted by the common man. Even 
then President Musharraf has been forced to do 
some flip-flopping on his Kashmir diplomacy, 
suggesting there are invisible lobbies which he 
cannot shrug away. In the case of Mr Singh, the 
flip-flopping is quite understandable. In India 
there is an all-parties consensus on Kashmir and 
he is much less of a statesman than Mr Vajpayee 
to cross the line without feeling jittery. The 
BJP - like the PPPP and PMLN in Pakistan over 
Musharraf's "seven" regions option - has already 
expressed itself dissatisfied with Mr Singh's 
Kashmir initiative. While this tendency betrays a 
perfectly understandable psychology on both 
sides, it also exposes the limits of leadership 
on both sides.
If the two sides admit that Kashmir is a dispute 
of long standing made deeply complex by conflict 
and indoctrination, why should they be anxious to 
make their traditional stance on it public while 
the composite dialogue is going on? In some ways, 
the two have told the world that they would keep 
their cool and not break off after parroting 
their old lines on Kashmir; yet time and again 
the leadership on both sides feels compelled to 
undermine the dialogue by drawing red lines 
across their ongoing discussions. This gives the 
impression that they don't much care about the 
window of opportunity in which they can resolve 
their lesser disputes and thus defuse the tension 
that has existed in the past years, especially 
starting 1999. Experts who have analysed such 
negotiations between traditional rival states 
believe that unless normalisation brings 
disarmament of bilateral suspicion the deadlocked 
issues cannot be tackled.
India and Pakistan have been offered many 
"formulas" for the resolution of the Kashmir 
dispute and they have steadily rejected all of 
them because they didn't fit precisely into their 
own fundamentally "rejectionist" plans. They have 
fought wars and remained hamstrung over Kashmir 
while "larger" regional options have emerged to 
improve their economies and fend off negative 
global shocks. That is why it still seems that 
after 56 years, the Kashmir dispute has become 
too complicated to resolve. It has accumulated a 
large and negative body of jurisprudence that 
wont allow them to unwind quickly whether under 
external pressure or convinced from within even 
though they both wish to resolve it in order to 
exercise much larger regional options related to 
their economies. These "larger" options are not 
visible to the populations on both sides but make 
sense to outsiders.
No scenario of solutions based on such past 
jurisprudence seems feasible. Yet many of the 
"formulas" offered from different quarters carry 
a barely concealed message. They are based on 
disputes that were resolved after they were 
overtaken by some other overarching event. Can 
India and Pakistan focus on the larger "regional" 
options - while discussing Kashmir - and let 
normalisation of relations be the "overarching" 
event that eventually yields the final solution 
acceptable to all the parties involved? Whether 
they recognise it or not, both India and Pakistan 
are under attrition. Pakistan has sacrificed its 
internal cohesion at the altar of Kashmir and 
India has damaged its status as a regional power 
by committing atrocities there. Both are mistaken 
if they think that the attrition is on the other 
side. Rocking the boat now will not obliterate 
this reality. *


______


[2]


Deccan Herald
November 11, 2004

KASHMIR ISSUE - THINKING OUT OF THE BOX
Joint control of Kashmir by both India and 
Pakistan is one of the interesting suggestions 
that have been thrown up
By M B Naqvi

President Pervez Musharraf's October 21 plea to 
the Pakistanis to think out of the box has 
largely succeeded; the issue is being discussed 
everywhere and by all who care about these 
things. On Kashmir, there used to be just one 
line that emanated from the government; 57 years 
of intense propaganda at home and abroad has made 
it almost a reflex reaction of most Pakistanis: a 
UN supervised plebiscite which would give only 
two options to the Kashmiris, to join India or 
Pakistan.

Now that is a thing of the past. Ever since 
October 21, discussing the various possible 
solutions to the Kashmir problem, other than the 
UN resolutions, is now occupying attention. It 
can be said that it was Musharraf who killed 
Pakistan's traditional stance on Kashmir, with no 
likelihood of its revival. That option is now 
politically dead. It is necessary to see if any 
other option can be acceptable to India - and as 
a long shot to the Kashmiris. There is however a 
hole in the heart in this proposition.

It is about India's readiness to accept any 
change in the status of Kashmir at all. Until 
recently it was only Pakistan that rejected 
anything less than a radical change in the status 
of Jammu and Kashmir State. India has what it 
wanted or most of it. What incentive is there for 
it to change? The various Indian governments and 
party leaders have made it plain over the years 
that come what may Kashmir's accession to India 
is sacrosanct and will not be allowed to be 
tampered with. Other ideas to a Kashmir solution, 
if they involve substantial change in 
constitutional and realpolitik status of Kashmir, 
can have a chance if there is a cogent reason why 
Indian authorities will countenance it.

There is no evidence that authorities in Pakistan 
have applied their mind to this part of the 
problem. Flexibility and give and take have been 
mentioned. But what will be in it for India to 
compromise its sovereignty and total control over 
Kashmir? Indians cannot be asked merely to give 
and not take anything. The question persists.

Unappealing to India

Musharraf has merely recommended the discussion 
of various possible options or approaches to a 
solution. By a process of elimination most 
analysts have come to the conclusion that he was 
suggesting a division of Kashmir along broad 
outlines by calling for dividing the State into 
seven regions on the basis of geography. 
Musharraf merely has sugarcoated a pill that is 
unappealing to India. He has left ample space for 
other possible solutions. In this connection he 
has mentioned condominium and joint control.

A solution being actually hawked by the Americans 
and which seems to have been adopted by many 
Indian publicists: it is to de-militarise the two 
Kashmirs, both Indian-controlled and 
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. The joint control or 
the condominium comes into play in this scenario. 
But this begs the same question: why would India 
change and accept any condominium or joint 
control scheme to whatever shape or degree being 
suggested. After all India has never countenanced 
such a proposition.

Something has to be done about this hole in the 
heart. The onus for it is mostly on Musharraf and 
other proponents of the idea. Don't forget the 
Indians are quite prepared to live with the 
status quo with all its inconveniences. To make 
it shift, some goodies have to be offered.

Hitherto relations between the two countries have 
been largely hostile, with much ill will. The 
constant cold war between them has left a residue 
that has reduced the normal power and influence 
of both countries. India is certainly a potential 
great power. While Pakistan does not equal it, it 
is not entirely without some importance and 
influence, particularly in the so-called Islamic 
world. If this relationship can be recast into 
one of friendly cooperation, it will unlock many 
doors.

There is also something unique about the India 
and Pakistan relationship. The two cannot be 
wholly indifferent and distinct from each other; 
they can be close friends and also enemies.

There is something of exceptional value that 
Pakistan and India can achieve, apart from the 
creation of more wealth, which alone will be no 
mean achievement. The thousand and one 
commonalities between them, if given free play, 
can create a lot of satisfaction all around.

Cooperation possibilities

Think of the situation when Indian and Pakistani 
diplomacy would cooperate. In the third world 
counsels, a proposition would become acceptable 
to all the third world, if the two cooperate. Let 
us say with Pakistan facilitating India's entry 
into OIC (for whatever it is worth) or supporting 
India's claim to a permanent UN Security Council 
seat, the state of international opinion would be 
radically different. But most of all, the immense 
benefit would accrue to both in the field of arts 
and culture, not to mention scientific and 
technological cooperation.

Above all else, SAARC can be revived, well and 
truly, into something that not merely works but 
achieves exemplary results. After all, South Asia 
has a wonderful resource base. That alone is a 
price that should tempt India. Anyhow other than 
this, there can be nothing more tempting from 
Pakistan's side than political, economic and 
cultural partnership. And again as a long shot, 
Kashmiris can be won over by both Pakistan and 
India jointly and life can be easier all around.

______



[3]

The Tribune,
November 10, 2004

A BLUEPRINT FOR KASHMIR - AUTONOMY FOR BOTH SIDES
by Kuldip Nayar

Whether we like it or not, President General 
Pervez Musharraf has been able to retrieve the 
Kashmir problem from the backburner. Our 
satisfaction is that the military establishment 
he heads has realised that no solution is 
possible through hostilities. This is a 
substantial gain because from the days of the 
Tashkent Agreement in 1966 New Delhi's endeavour 
has been to convince Islamabad to renounce the 
use of arms to end all disputes between the two 
countries.

Now when the talks look like throwing up a 
solution, we should not be seen flinching. The 
international community is watching the progress 
on Kashmir anxiously. We should not be found 
wanting. Moreover, this is an opportunity the two 
countries cannot afford to miss.

General Musharraf has set the ball rolling. He 
first told two Indian journalists that the 
solution of Kashmir lay in identifying the area, 
demilitarising it and giving it a status. 
Subsequently, he gave shape to his proposal by 
specifying seven areas: the plains, including 
Jammu, the foothills up to 7,000 feet, Pir 
Panjal, the valley, the Great Himalayan zone, the 
upper Indus valley and the Northern Areas, the 
Karakoram, parts of which are with China.

For the first time, a Pakistan ruler has proposed 
independence for Kashmir, besides joint control 
or UN mandate. General Musharraf must have done 
the rethinking after talking to the Indian 
journalists, including myself. At that time, when 
he said that the Kashmiris wanted independence, 
he meant that they would "step back" once 
concrete proposals were on the table. This might 
still happen. But independence is an option as of 
now.

New Delhi has not yet reacted to General 
Musharraf's proposals in any significant manner. 
In the past, there have been remarks like "the 
sky is the limit." Still India has been fiercely 
supporting and sustaining the status quo - the 
four corners of our policy on Kashmir.

The Home Ministry has a department on Kashmir 
which does not believe in having any input from 
outside. Politicians in power and bureaucrats in 
the department work out a strategy, not policy, 
as and when the situation demands. A few former 
bureaucrats are thrown in as interlocutors every 
now and then to know the minds of the leaders in 
the valley. The department often gets it wrong.

What General Musharraf has proposed is a 
re-division of Jammu and Kashmir. This is 
something to which none in the government - the 
Opposition or even the experts - has applied his 
mind, at least not methodically or seriously. 
Even if they had, I do not think any government 
in New Delhi can sell to the country a proposal 
which suggests a division on the basis of 
religion and throws out the status quo 
completely. True, a sterile policy is worth 
jettisoning, but when the price demanded is a 
seven-tier state, the suspicion heightens.

I believe that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 
proposed to discuss certain options when he met 
General Musharraf in New York, putting two 
riders: one, no territorial adjustment, and two, 
no division on the basis of religion. General 
Musharraf's proposals eschew the word "religion", 
but the geographical changes he suggests are 
primarily on that basis.

An unsteady secular polity like ours cannot 
accept this. Any division or even a hint of it 
may revive the horrors of Partition. The defeated 
BJP is only looking for a semblance of a chance 
to revive Hindutva which, at present, does not 
arouse any response.

Still General Musharraf's seven-region proposal 
should not be rejected outright. It can be made 
the basis for riveting a setup which may 
ultimately overcome the objections voiced by 
India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Why not merge 
the seven regions into two units so that they are 
viable and, at the same time, can pass the muster 
to be acceptable to the majority?

I have a proposal. Having been associated with 
leaders and people in the state for more than 
four decades, I consider myself competent as well 
as involved enough to suggest a wayout. Once 
youthful Kashmiri leader Yasin Malik advised me 
not to make any proposal on Kashmir so that I 
might one day help the process of negotiations. 
My profession of writing demanded me to react to 
the situation prevailing at a particular time. If 
that rules me out, I cannot help.

The crux of the problem is the valley. The Indian 
Parliament has also asked the government to take 
up "the other Kashmir under Pakistan's 
occupation." So there are two units: Kashmir and 
"Azad Kashmir". They have established their 
identity in the last 55 years - the first is 
Kashmiri-speaking and the second Punjabi-speaking.

My suggestion is that both Kashmirs should be 
given autonomy. The governments in these two 
regions should enjoy all subjects except defence, 
foreign affairs and communications. The three 
subjects were the ones which the Maharaja of 
Jammu and Kashmir gave to New Delhi when he 
signed the Instrument of Accession to integrate 
his state with India. "Azad Kashmir" is directly 
under Islamabad and enjoys only the crumbs of 
power thrown at it. My proposal gives it full 
autonomy like the one in Kashmir on the Indian 
side.

The border between the two Kashmirs should be 
made soft so that the citizens of the two sides 
travel freely, without any passport or papers, in 
both parts. (I hope terrorism will be over by 
that time). The status for these areas is that of 
an autonomous unit. The three subjects - foreign 
affairs, defence and communications - will vest 
in the government in New Delhi as far as Kashmir 
is concerned and Islamabad regarding "Azad 
Kashmir."

Both Kashmirs should be demilitarised, India 
withdrawing its forces from the valley and 
stationing them at the valley's border. Pakistan 
will do a similar thing regarding "Azad Kashmir". 
The UN and major powers should be individually or 
collectively involved to guarantee the 
demilitarisation of the areas if and when a final 
settlement is reached.

The settlement should be final. There will be no 
reopening. Both countries should withdraw their 
complaint from the UN and other international 
bodies. All the 72 confidence-building measures - 
India has increased the number from eight to 72 - 
should be implemented straightaway so that 
people-to-people contact increases and trade gets 
going.

I know General Musharraf is allergic to the line 
of control (LoC). But there has to be some line 
drawn to demarcate the border. The LoC can be 
straightened as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had 
suggested to the then Pakistan Prime Minister, 
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at Shimla. Islamabad knows 
it well that the international community is in 
favour of the LoC becoming a permanent border, 
with minimum changes.

Since the communications is one of the subjects 
entrusted to the Central government on either 
side, the autonomous areas will not feel that 
they are landlocked. Facilities available in both 
India and Pakistan will be at the disposal of the 
two Kashmirs. With soft borders, they can trade 
between themselves, have a common currency if 
they so desire and receive tourists freely from 
all over the world. Both Kashmirs can transfer 
more subjects to Central governments, "Azad 
Kashmir" to Islamabad and the valley to New 
Delhi. It is up to their state assemblies to do 
so once the settlement is signed, sealed and 
delivered and fresh elections held.


______


[4]

The News International
September 30, 2004

GETTING DOWN TO SERIOUS BUSINESS

Praful Bidwai
When 18 Pakistani journalists from different 
media groups begin their six-day tour of the 
Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday, they 
will not just be witnessing and chronicling 
history - which is what they do professionally. 
They will be making history, or participating in 
its making. They would be free to meet whoever 
they wish. Meetings have already been pencilled 
in with people representing different shades of 
opinion, including separatists in and outside the 
Hurriyat Conference, Chief Minister Mufti 
Mohammed Sayeed, Kashmiri-Pandit refugees, and 
security officials too. Significantly, the team, 
which will tour Srinagar, Jammu, Anantnag and 
Gulmarg, will include two journalists from the 
Pakistani part of Kashmir, besides some eminent 
figures in the media, also published in the 
Indian press.
It is unnecessary to contrast this development 
with the singular bloody-mindedness with which 
India and Pakistan have so far blocked 
journalists from each other’s countries. The 
"quota" of regular correspondents from one 
country stationed in the other’s capital has 
dwindled to just three. The general policy, 
except for special events like conferences or 
Saarc meetings, is to keep the press off limits.
The new openness and transparency is a tribute to 
the perseverance of the South Asian Free Media 
Association, which has long lobbied for it. More 
significantly, it speaks of new levels of mutual 
comfort and self-assurance in both governments. 
Earlier, Pakistan had allowed Indian journalists 
to travel to its part of Kashmir only on rare 
occasions, like the wedding of Amanullah Khan’s 
daughter and the late Abdul Ghani Lone’s son in 
2000. Both governments used to bristle at the 
thought of legitimising any interaction between 
people from the two sides of Kashmir.
The new turn will prove momentous if it is 
followed up with reciprocal moves from Pakistan, 
and more exchange visits, and then transformed 
into policy. But the fact that it comes on top of 
a "historic" meeting between President Pervez 
Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 
New York could make it a catalyst, which might 
accelerate the process of India-Pakistan dialogue 
and detente.
The Singh-Musharraf meeting, which extended to 
almost an hour from the scheduled 15 minutes, was 
a breakthrough broadly comparable to the 
Vajpayee-Nawaz Sharif meeting in Lahore in 1999. 
If that summit began a thaw after years of frozen 
diplomatic relations amidst military hostility, 
the New York meeting allayed fears that the 
dialogue process, which has seen some ups and 
downs, might run into a roadblock. The meeting 
confirmed that both sides are seriously invested 
in dialogue. They will probably sincerely try to 
hammer out solutions to problems. Above all, it 
proved that, contrary to fears, Manmohan Singh 
too now claims ownership of the peace process. He 
has taken keen interest in it.
There is reason to believe that the ebullience 
evident in Singh’s and Musharraf’s comments at 
the press conference, and subsequently, is not 
the result of unwarranted and irrational 
exuberance. Rather, it speaks of genuine mutual 
understanding and no-nonsense yet empathetic 
appreciation of each other’s stated positions, 
preferences and compulsions. This is why hopes 
that the dialogue will move forward at a decent 
clip are not misplaced - despite the cussedness 
of many bureaucrats, soldiers and diplomats who 
remain mired in the hot-cold war mindset that has 
attended India-Pakistan relations for 57 years. 
Now, there is likely to be a direct channel 
between Singh and Musharraf, which can be used to 
iron out last-minute wrinkles and add a dose of 
just that "out-of-the-box" thinking that is 
sometimes needed to cut Gordian knots.
The Singh-Musharraf meeting was preceded by talks 
between India’s National Security Advisor J N 
Dixit and Pakistan’s National Security Secretary 
Tariq Aziz, and "lateral" consultations with the 
United States, which was kept in the picture. 
There was an understanding that Musharraf’s 
United Nations speech would have a conciliatory 
diplomatic content and tone; there would be none 
of the fiery rhetoric that marked his address 
last year. Or else, there would be no one-on-one 
meeting between him and Singh.
During their meeting, the two men apparently 
expressed themselves with candour on their 
respective commitments to resolving bilateral 
problems, and on the constraints within which 
they must work. Singh reportedly told Musharraf 
that he is not desperate for a solution - unlike 
Vajpayee, who was in a hurry to leave a "legacy" 
behind, despite the sangh parivar’s aversion to 
Pakistan - but nevertheless genuinely keen on it. 
Rivalry with Pakistan will remain a drag and a 
source of insecurity for India. Peace is worthy.
Yet, Singh would have to work within the 
constraints imposed by democracy. Musharraf 
apparently raised questions about bringing some 
relief to the "people of Kashmir". He was 
emphatic that he would abide by the commitments 
made in the January 6 joint declaration. Both 
agreed that more deliberations would take place 
between officials, including another meeting in a 
month’s time between Dixit and Aziz, to take the 
dialogue forward through more CBMs.
Going by reports, India and Pakistan have agreed 
soon to open consulates in Karachi and Mumbai, 
and to resolve their differences over the papers 
to be carried by passengers on the proposed 
Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus. In discussions so far, 
India insisted on passports. This was not 
acceptable to Pakistan, which fears that this 
would eventually interfere with its claim to 
Kashmir. Pakistan would prefer some other 
identity papers. Now, a compromise seems likely: 
Passports could be carried, but not stamped. 
Alternatively, a certificate of domicile or 
residence would do.
Meanwhile, talks on proposals for oil and gas 
pipelines from Iran to India via Pakistan, and 
from the Indian Punjab to the Pakistan Punjab, 
are gathering momentum. This is a project which 
would be mutually beneficial. It would be 
mindless to sacrifice it at the altar of 
hostility and suspicion.
Once the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus starts plying, 
it would naturally accelerate the process of 
consultation in the two parts of Kashmir and 
eventually facilitate a solution to a vexed 
problem. It is of the utmost importance that the 
two governments show flexibility, resilience and 
imagination in agreeing and implementing other 
CBMs too.
India should seriously consider Musharraf’s 
reported offer on demilitarising Siachen and his 
assurance that Pakistani troops would not try to 
occupy the heights that Indian troops might 
vacate. The time has come to move forward in long 
strides, while of course verifying compliance 
with agreements.
A final word. The time has also come to 
reconsider the BJP’s commitment to the peace 
process, and rethink Vajpayee’s role as a 
peacemaker nonpareil. The BJP’s reaction to the 
New York meeting was petty and petulant. No less 
a person than former Foreign Minister Yashwant 
Sinha accused Singh of compromising India’s 
interests by failing to obtain a commitment from 
Musharraf on ending "cross-border terrorism". 
Some sangh acolytes even term Musharraf’s offer 
on Siachen "a cunning ploy".
A commentator in the sangh parivar’s house 
journal ("The Pioneer") reminds Indian 
policy-makers of a 1984 Parliamentary resolution 
on Kashmir, warns against peace, and pompously 
says foreign policy "is far too important to be 
made subordinate to the pleasure of exchanging 
Urdu couplets in a New York hotel". The BJP may 
eventually support the peace process - for 
pragmatic reasons. But its heart is not in it.


[Related Material:]

The Hindu - 01 November 2004
LOOKING BEYOND MUSHARRAF'S PROPOSALS
By Siddharth Varadarajan
There are options on Kashmir which lie beyond 
what both India and Pakistan consider 
unacceptable. The challenge is to explore them.
http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/01/stories/2004110103291000.htm

BBC News - 10 November, 2004

INDIA AND PAKISTAN'S ROAD TO DETENTE
By Ahmed Rashid
in Islamabad and Delhi
The upcoming peace talks between India and 
Pakistan in December will be significant for one 
big reason: it will feature the first detailed 
discussion on the composite dialogue on resolving 
the Kashmir issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3995007.stm

______


[5]

Human Rights Watch

SRI LANKA: TAMIL TIGERS FORCIBLY RECRUIT CHILD SOLDIERS

(New York, November 11, 2004) - By abducting 
children or threatening their families, the rebel 
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have recruited 
thousands of child soldiers in Sri Lanka since 
active fighting ended in 2002, Human Rights Watch 
said in a report released today.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or 
Tamil Tigers) use intimidation and threats to 
pressure Tamil families in the north and east of 
Sri Lanka to provide sons and daughters for 
military service. When families refuse, their 
children are sometimes abducted from their homes 
at night or forcibly recruited while walking to 
school. Parents who resist the recruitment of 
their children face retribution from the Tamil 
Tigers, including violence or detention.  

"The ceasefire has brought an end to the 
fighting, but not to the Tamil Tigers' use of 
children as soldiers," said Jo Becker, children's 
rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, 
and a co-author of the report. "Many Tamil 
families who expected a 'peace dividend' now 
expect an unwelcome visit from armed Tamil Tiger 
recruiters."  

The 80-page report, "Living in Fear: Child 
Soldiers and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka," 
includes firsthand testimonies from dozens of 
children from northeastern Sri Lanka who have 
been recruited by the Tamil Tigers since the 
ceasefire came into effect. Children described 
rigorous and sometimes brutal military training, 
including training with heavy weapons, bombs and 
landmines. Children who try to escape are 
typically beaten in front of their entire unit as 
a warning to others.  

The Tamil Tigers have recruited at least 3,516 
children since the start of the February 2002 
ceasefire with the government, according to cases 
documented by the United Nations Children's Fund 
(UNICEF). The agency states that this figure 
represents only a portion of the total number of 
children recruited.

Human Rights Watch also documented targeted 
re-recruitment drives of children released from a 
breakaway LTTE faction earlier this year. In 
March, the LTTE's Eastern commander, Colonel 
Karuna, broke away from the main LTTE forces 
loyal to Vellupillai Prabhakaran, based in the 
northern region known as the Vanni. In April, 
Prabhakaran's forces, known as the Vanni LTTE, 
attacked and defeated Karuna's Eastern forces, 
which quickly disbanded. About 2,000 child 
soldiers fled Karuna's forces or were encouraged 
by their commanders to leave. Some died in the 
fighting.

The Vanni LTTE quickly began an intensive 
campaign to re-recruit Karuna's former forces, 
including children. The Vanni forces have gone 
from house to house, organized village meetings, 
sent children letters and made announcements from 
motorized vehicles to demand that the former 
child soldiers return. They have taken many 
children by force.
"They took away my younger brother the other day. 
He was coming home from the market and he was 
taken away," said Vanji, who was recruited by the 
LTTE in 1997 at age 16. "They didn't release him, 
and they threatened to shoot if I reported his 
abduction. They also told me at the same time 
that I had to re-join."  

International law prohibits the recruitment of 
children under the age of 18 by non-state armed 
groups, and all participation of children in 
active hostilities. The recruitment of children 
under the age of 15 is now considered a war 
crime.  

The LTTE denies recruiting children and claims 
that any children in its forces have joined 
because of poverty, lack of educational 
opportunities, or the loss of their parents and 
lack of alternative care. Although some children 
do join because of socioeconomic factors or 
because they want to fight for an independent 
Tamil state, such "voluntary" recruitment is also 
a violation of international law.  

In June 2003, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan 
government agreed to a formal Action Plan on 
Children Affected by War. Under the Action Plan, 
the Tamil Tigers agreed to end their recruitment 
of children and to release children from their 
forces, either directly to the children's 
families or to new transit centers that were 
constructed specifically for this purpose.  

Since the Action Plan was signed, UNICEF figures 
show that the LTTE has recruited more than twice 
as many children as it has released. A transit 
center opened in October 2003 received a total of 
only 172 children in its first year of operation. 
Although the center has capacity for 100 
children, it has never held more than 49, and for 
a six-week period in mid-2004, was completely 
empty. The other two centers never opened because 
of the low number of children released.

"Time and again, the Tamil Tigers have pledged to 
end their use of child soldiers, but each time 
they've broken those promises," said Becker. 
"It's time for the Tamil Tigers to live up to 
their legal responsibilities and stop recruiting 
children."  

o o o
    
[84 Page Report in PDF]
Living in Fear
Child Soldiers and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka
URL: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/srilanka1104/srilanka1104.pdf


______


[6]

The Times of India
November 11, 2004

LIE OF THE STATE: ZAHIRA SYMBOLISES FLAWS IN PROSECUTION PROCESS

by Anil Dharker

Who, or what, is Zahira Sheikh? Is she victim, 
heroine or mercenary? It's a tangled story, so 
she could be all of these at different times, or 
some of these at the same time... But if her case 
is confusing, it's only because everything that 
happened in Gujarat in February-March 2002 is 
topsy-turvy.

To start with, what we call "the Gujarat riots" 
weren't riots at all. What took place was a 
state-sponsored pogrom against Muslims, planned 
by state-level politicians, executed by mobs led 
by local politicians while the police either 
stood by or participated in the mayhem. The 
indifference of law-enforcing agencies to record 
FIRs, collect evidence or protect witnesses was 
so obvious that the Supreme Court had to take the 
unprecedented step of transferring cases out of 
Gujarat.

If that seemed like a victory for justice, it was 
short-lived because to prosecute a case, you need 
a prosecution. The prosecution, in this case, is 
the state of Gujarat and its various agencies, 
and in many instances, they should really be the 
defendants. Which is why when Zahira changed her 
testimony yet again recently to say that she 
couldn't identify the accused in the Best Bakery 
trial, she did so in the beaming presence of the 
Vadodara collector as well as the Vadodara 
commissio-ner of police, two gentlemen who forgot 
they were part of the prosecution! How do you 
prosecute when the prosecution seems keen to 
sabotage the case? There's only one way: You try 
and bypass official agencies as much as possible.

It was this awareness that guided the actions of 
Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO of 
which I am a part. Immediately after the Gujarat 
violence CJP had FIRs registered and evidence 
recorded. A Citizens' Tribunal was appointed to 
record evidence from affected people. Headed by 
retired Supreme Court Justice Krishna Iyer and 
including other retired high court justices, the 
tribunal collected evidence from over 1,500 
witnesses and victims. The tribunal's report is 
blood-curdling and damning, especially about the 
participation or connivance of officials and 
politicians in what happened.

Unfortunately, this report is not official. Which 
is why the CJP petitioned the Supreme Court as 
early as April 2002 to get a high-level 
investigation into the Gujarat massacres starting 
with Godhra, before the evidence was destroyed. 
Sadly, that plea has become part of the court's 
backlog of cases. Will justice ever prevail in 
any of the cases in Gujarat? While the Best 
Bakery case has got all the attention, CJP has 
been responsible in launching 18 other cases 
dealing with incidents in places like Naroda and 
Sardarpura, once ordinary names which have now 
become associated with horror. Teesta Setalvad, 
CJP's secretary, now needs protection because of 
the many threats on her life, while the CJP's 
hands-on man in Ahmedabad has been under 
protection for over a year.

CJP's funds are low (contrary to what Zahira 
believes) and it continues to function only 
because of emergency infusion of small sums from 
friends and well-wishers.

Most of all, the range of forces out to subvert 
justice is formidable. Zahira stayed in Mumbai 
happily for a year, moving freely, even making 
three unescorted trips to Vadodara. But just 
before she was to testify in court, came her 
volte face, turning her erstwhile friends into 
sudden foes and her erstwhile foes into 
protective friends. Her new "friends" now give 
her "protection" of the kind chief ministers give 
their captive MLAs before the head-count to prove 
their majority.

What compelling reason made her do a complete 
flip-flop, so much so that she has earned the 
wrath of her community and her neighbours in 
Vadodara have burnt her effigy? We don't have to 
be rocket scientists to figure out who are the 
potential beneficiaries of her changed testimony. 
But her advisors have probably miscalculated: How 
much credibility does Zahira have now? And they 
have overlooked the brave workers at the Bakery 
who have already testified, given eye-witness 
accounts of the horrific happenings and 
identified a considerable number of the accused.

Whatever happens, these cases bring up much wider 
questions going beyond what happened in Gujarat. 
We already have the example of the anti-Sikh 
riots of 1984 which killed in excess of 2,000 
people and resulted in not a single conviction in 
20 years! Gujarat was worse because official 
connivance was open and unchecked. If the state 
is the criminal, who will book the state?

You cannot expect NGOs to do the job every time. 
In any case, isn't the delivery of justice an 
essential duty of any government? Even with a 
Congress-led government in Delhi, there has been 
no change in the attitude of either the home or 
the law ministry, no sense of urgency in pursuing 
the cases.

In this vacuum, do we then need an autonomous 
organisation, which is well-funded and 
dynamically led, which can suo moto take up cases 
anywhere in India? It will need to be flexible in 
its approach, taking the initiative when it can, 
cooperating with NGOs when it can't. It will need 
access to an independent investigative agency 
(like a new, improved CBI). And it will need the 
clout to stop state agencies from interfering in 
its cases. Sounds like a lot? It probably is. But 
who will deny that we need something like this?

______


[7]

The Times of India
10 November 2004

ZAHIRA IS STILL THE VICTIM : SETALVAD

Mumbai : "Zahira is not the culprit. She was the 
victim at the start of the trial. She is still 
the victim." activist Teesta Setalvad said here 
on Tuesday.

	She was speaking at a meeting held by 
several organisations from across the state to 
express solidarity with her and her partners in 
the cause. The meeting came in response to the 
doubts cast over Setalvad's credibility after the 
star witness in the Best Bakery case, Zahira 
Sheikh, alleged that Setalvad was pressurising 
her: "We need to see Zahira not as a villain, but 
as a victim" said lawyer Mihir Desai. Speakers 
from social groups, trade union leaders and 
film-makers urged the public to understand the 
circumstances under which the 20-year-old had 
turned hostile.

	Women's rights activist Flavia Agnes said 
it was not a fight between two women, Teesta and 
Zahira, but one of justice versus injustice. 
ìThere are many more players who we need to 
identify in this case. There is a right-wing 
government, a biased police force, an extremely 
slow judicial system, and hostile members of both 
communities,î said Agnes, adding that there was 
no need to judge Zahira, but an urgent need to 
change the entire system of justice delivery.

	Setalvad told the gathering that the 
accounts of her group, Citizens for Justice and 
Peace, were transperent, and were open to 
scrutiny. She was reacting to allegations made 
shortly after Zahira'a statement in Gujarat that 
in functioning of NGOs should be probed. "What 
about probing the two most opaque NGOs in the 
country - the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu 
Parishad?" asked Desai.

	Ram Punyani of the people's group, Ekta, 
suggested that citizens attend the court hearings 
to extend their support and sympathy to the 
witnesses, who is the absence of a proper 
witness-protection scheme were subject to all 
manner of pressures and influences.

	Justice (retd) Hosbet Suresh emphasised 
that the case of the prosecution remained strong, 
and that the retrial and the supreme court's 
order to move the case of Maharashtra had not 
taken place because of Setalvad, but because of 
Zahira's own appeals to the judiciary and to the 
Human Rights Commission, as well as the 
irregularities that were evident in the Gujarat 
court's handling of the case,  in which all the 
accused were acquitted.

	Justice Suresh warned that under section 
145 of the Evidence Act, the judge could confront 
Zahira with her previous statements, and that the 
court could slap contempt of court charges on 
those who had prevented her from deposing in 
Mumbai.

______


[8]

Daily Times
November 11, 2004

THE TWIST DOESN'T CHANGE THE TALE
by J Sri Raman

Nothing illustrated the Indian variant of fascism 
better than the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. And 
nothing illustrates the extra-electoral endurance 
of the phenomenon better than the latest twist in 
one of the many pogrom-related tales.
In September 2003, I wrote in this same column, 
about the Best Bakery case. I was rejoicing then 
about a twist in the tale that illustrated the 
power of popular opinion. Was I rejoicing too 
soon? I still do not think so, despite all the 
smirks and sniggers in the fascist camp.
To refresh the reader's memory, this was one of 
the more gruesome instances of the Gujarat 
carnage. The Best Bakery case, in courts now for 
over two years, is about the burning down of a 
bakery unit of that name - along with 14 persons 
working and trapped inside - in Baroda (or 
Vadodara), a city in Gujarat, in the presence of 
police by most accounts, on March 1, 2002. It has 
been a case of justice delayed and denied ever 
since.
Over a year later, on June 27, 2003, a Gujarat 
court acquitted all 21 accused - for want of 
testimony by witnesses. It was later reported 
that the witnesses, including the wife and 
daughters of the bakery-owner, had gone back on 
their original testimony under "death threats". 
One of the daughters, 19-year-old Zaheera Sheikh, 
electrified the country by what almost everyone 
then saw as a damning exposure of the regime of 
chief minister Narendra Modi.
It was Zaheera who demanded the shifting of the 
case outside Gujarat. Modi had no defence left, 
when the Supreme Court called a perfunctory 
appeal by his government against the acquittals 
"a complete eyewash". Not long after that, in an 
unusual step that the apex court must have found 
unavoidable, it transferred the case to Mumbai. 
Mumbai-based anti-fascist activist Teesta 
Setalvad and her Citizens for Justice and Peace 
(CJP) played a leading role in securing the 
transfer and in the conduct of the case.
The same Zaheera has now denounced the same 
Teesta. The best-known face of the Best Bakery 
case went public, in a media conference under the 
auspices of the Vadodara police, days ago to 
disown her own statements to the Supreme Court, 
swear by her original non-testimony in the 
fast-track court where the case went first - and 
to allege "threats" from Teesta. No guesses are 
needed about who saw a victory in the volte face.
Modi himself has seized the occasion to mount an 
offensive on NGOs as a whole, which have 
certainly given more of a fight than his 
political opponents, especially a pusillanimous 
Congress. His ardent fans in the media have 
followed suit. They have taunted the "seculars" - 
as the scribes with no higher regard for grammar 
than for truth call their targets - for suffering 
such discomfiture for a second time. They are 
supposed to have been embarrassed by the alleged 
disclosure of the terrorist links of Ishrat 
Jahan, a Mumbai-based young girl shot dead along 
with two men by the Modi police in Ahmedabad 
earlier this year.
The so-called disclosure came from the same 
police in the wake of protests against the 
killings in what appeared a fake 'encounter'. The 
Zaheera 'bombshell' has been dropped, too, in a 
media conference called by the Baroda police, not 
exactly an uninvolved party in the Best Bakery 
case. Neither of the claims, thus, exemplifies 
credibility. The Gujarat police, by all accounts, 
served as the main official instrument in the 
Modi pogrom.
The police allegation did not disprove the charge 
of a state-managed 'encounter'. We are still 
waiting for foolproof evidence of Isharat's links 
that was promised then. There is much, much more 
that Zaheera's about-turn does not disprove 
either. It does not counter any of the identical 
complaints about witness manipulation from 
surviving victims of the Gujarat violence in many 
other cases as well. It does not prove much in 
Zaheera's own case - considering that the 
original 'testimony', by which she swears now, 
did not deny the crime but only desisted from 
identifying the criminals.
Even on the extremely absurd and unwarranted 
assumption that her latest statement is the last 
word on the subject, the state-wide carnage 
itself remains a mass crime that the police and 
propagandists cannot conjure out of public 
memory. Footage remains of what has been 
described as the country's most televised 
communal violence, and it will continue to remind 
the people of the reality of Indian fascism.
Apart from the Goebbelsian defenders of the 
Gujarat carnage, no one has rushed to swallow 
Zaheera's retold story. Many, in fact, have 
demanded her trial on perjury charges. The 
anti-fascist movement, which sees her still as a 
victim, has so far distanced itself from the 
demand. Teesta has asked the apex court only for 
an inquiry into the circumstances, under which 
Zaheera retracted her earlier statements. Nor has 
the twist served to tarnish Teesta's image. It is 
just not enough to destroy the reputation of the 
journalist activist who, along with her husband 
Javed Anand, quit her job in 1993 after the 
Mumbai blasts and riots, launched the periodical 
Communalism Combat, and has ever since stood up 
to be counted for the cause.
It may be the smirking and the sniggering 
admirers of Modi who are rejoicing too soon.
The writer is a journalist and peace activist based in Chennai, India


______


[9]  [Events and Resources ]

(i)

   Y4P and Anhad invites you to an interactive 
session with TAIMUR BANDEY on Breaking communal 
barriers and projecting development: promoting 
communal harmony to further development.

November 14, 2004

4:00 PM at 4, Windsor Place

(Opp. Kanishka Hotel), New Delhi

Prof. Taimur Bandey has received his degree in 
International Relations from the University of 
Westminister, as well as a diploma in Economics 
from LSE. He is currently teaching at the Lahore 
School of Economics.

(ii)

Joshi Adhikari Institute & Anhad invite you to a Film show by

Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian

Crossing the Lines : Kashmir, Pakistan, India

Followed by discussion with Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy

Dr.Pervez Hoosbhoy received his bachelor’s 
degrees in electrical engineering and 
mathematics, master’s in solid state physics, and 
Ph.D in nuclear physics, all from the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has 
been a faculty member at the Department of 
Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad since 
1973.

  On November 17, 2004, 5:30 PM at 4, Windsor 
place (Opp. Kanishka Hotel), New Delhi

  Anhad,4 Windsor Place, New Delhi Ph: 23327366-67

o o o

(iii)

SANSAD NEWS RELEASE ON KASHMIR

Following a showing of Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy's 
film, 'Kashmir, Pakistan, India: Crossing the 
Lines of Control' by the South Asian Network for 
Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD) in Vancouver, 
BC, on October 24, the audience participated in a 
discussion and adopted the following resolution 
to be sent to the Governments of India, Pakistan, 
and Canada:

"We deplore the enormous suffering inflicted on 
the people of Kashmir as a result of the conflict 
over the status of the region following the 
partition of the South Asian subcontinent in 
1947. We note with great sadness the loss of 
lives this conflict has produced in Pakistan and 
India and the damage it has caused to the economy 
and polity of both nations. We urge the 
Governments of Pakistan and India to negotiate a 
settlement, recognizing and bringing into 
partnership the various interests in this diverse 
region, in order to establish a peace that is 
just and founded on the principle of mutual 
respect among a diverse people.

We also urge the Government of Canada to maintain 
an awareness of the plight of the people of 
Kashmir, particularly the state of Human Rights 
in Kashmir, in all its transactions with the 
Governments of Pakistan and India, and to 
encourage a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

SOUTH ASIAN NETWORK FOR SECULARISM AND DEMOCRACY
Suite 435, 205-329 North Road, Coquitlam, BC, Canada. V3K 6Z8

o o o

(iv)

The New York Review of Books
Volume 51, Number 19 · December 2, 2004

"Passage to China"
By Amartya Sen
URL: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17608

o o o

(v)

Gujarat Genocide Trials: Appeal For The Protection Of Witnesses

To:  President of the Republic of India, to the 
Prime Minister, to the Minister for Home, and to 
the National Human Rights Commission

URL: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gapw/petition.html


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

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.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at:  bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project :  snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/

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