SACW | 7 Feb 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire   | 7 Feb.,  2005
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Globalization and Pakistan's Dilemma of Development (Hassan N. Gardezi)
[2] Pakistan: Basant: down with the spoilsports  (Edit, Daily Times)
[3] As Citizens of Bangladesh, We Demand Security. . . Online Petition
[4] India: The Godhra Train Fire Enquiry
(i) Accidental Fire, Planned Carnage - The truth about Godhra (Praful Bidwai)
(ii) Godhra Train Burning Incident and Banerjee Report (Asghar Ali Engineer)
(iii) Banerjee Committee: Elusive Truth (edit, EPW)
[5] India: Tribal Families Dumped in Open Sans 
Land, Houses at Javda (Narmada Bachao Andolan)
[6] Upcoming event: Public Debate on Kashmir (The Hague, 19 February 2005)


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

[1]

GLOBALIZATION AND PAKISTAN'S DILEMMA OF DEVELOPMENT
by Hassan N. Gardezi [sacw.net, 6 February, 2005]

URL: www.sacw.net/pakistan/Gardezi06022005.html

______


[2]

Daily Times
February 6, 2005
Editorial #2:

BASANT: DOWN WITH THE SPOILSPORTS
Basant is again upon us and so is the controversy 
about whether it is Islamic or un-Islamic to 
celebrate basant. But the fact is that basant is 
nothing more than a spring festival, it is 
traditionally celebrated in this part of the 
world and people enjoy flying kites and getting 
together and generally having a good time. What's 
wrong with that?
It's good to see Lahore gearing up for the 
festival and enticing people from other parts of 
the country to join them in the celebrations. The 
festival is also good for the local economy. 
Everyone has actually begun to look forward to it 
as a special Lahore offering and we see no reason 
why we should allow some spoilsports to throw a 
spanner in the works. The only cognisable offence 
is people acting irresponsibly and doing things 
that can endanger other people and their lives. 
Any other form of entertainment must be kosher 
and we are happy that the government has taken an 
enlightened view of this activity and has 
actually encouraged it. More power to the basant 
wallahs, we say, and down with the spoilsports! *


______


[3]

Online Petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/GrenadeA/petition.html

AS CITIZENS OF BANGLADESH, WE DEMAND SECURITY...


To:  The Government of Bangladesh

On 27 January 2005, a grenade attack on a public 
meeting in Habiganj killed six persons, including 
Shah A M S Kibria, MP, former Finance Minister 
and injured nearly a hundred others. During the 
past five years, between March 1999 to January 
2005, 21 separate incidents of bomb and grenade 
attacks have killed over 140 persons and injured 
many others. These attacks have targeted 
political meetings, cultural spaces such as 
theatre or song performances (Jatras and Baul 
singing) or cinemas and circuses, and religious 
places of worship (Ahmadiya mosques, churches, 
mazars). They have targeted both political or 
cultural activists, and common people.

Information available from official and 
non-official news sources reveals that after such 
attacks, investigations have remained 
inconclusive, evidence has been destroyed, 
enquiry commission reports, where produced, have 
not been made public and perpetrators have not 
been caught. In only one case has the accused 
been charge-sheeted. So far no trials have been 
held.

We grieve for each life that has been lost, for 
each life that has been maimed or injured. At the 
same time, we condemn the terror attacks in the 
strongest possible language and urge the 
government to:

- hold an independent, impartial and transparent 
investigation into each bomb blast and grenade 
attack (free of government interference);

- provide medical care for those injured in such 
attacks and compensation for the families of 
those killed or injured;

- prosecute and punish those responsible for such 
attacks under due process of law;

- take urgent steps to improve the law and order 
situation in accordance with respect for 
fundamental rights, including to life and liberty;

- take measures to ensure the independence and 
integrity of public institutions;

- restore a democratic environment conducive to 
freedom of participation in political and 
cultural activities (jatra, baul singing), for 
women's sports events (wrestling, swimming, 
football), etc and to freedom of expression.

Sincerely,



______


[4] [Three comments on the recent enquiry into the Godhra Train Fire ...]

(i)

Praful Bidwai  Column
January 31, 2005

ACCIDENTAL FIRE, PLANNED CARNAGE
THE TRUTH ABOUT GODHRA

By Praful Bidwai

There was always something morally and 
politically repugnant about Mr Narendra Milosevic 
Modi's claim that the killing of 2,000 Muslims in 
Gujarat after the Godhra train fire was a 
"natural reaction"--much like Newton's Third Law 
of Motion. This was a diabolical defence of the 
indefensible--a systematic, planned, 
well-orchestrated carnage, during which mobs of 
Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party 
supporters indulged in arson, loot, rape and 
killing even as the police watched, or at times, 
participated. The justification? Fiftynine 
karsevaks were roasted alive at Godhra in an 
Islamic-extremist "conspiracy".

Reason tells us that no amount of devilish 
conspiracy at Godhra can possibly justify the 
planned pogrom of innocents all over Gujarat. 
Worse, the Gujarat government was deeply involved 
in its planning and execution--a fact amply 
established by media reports, the Concerned 
Citizens' Tribunal chaired by Justice V.R. 
Krishna Iyer, the International Initiative for 
Justice in Gujarat, etc. Gujarat witnessed total 
subversion of the Constitution and destruction of 
the idea of democratic citizenship. It descended 
into barbarism.

That's why millions were shocked when Prime 
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee justified the 
pogrom in Goa on April 12. He chided Muslims for 
their "separateness" and asked: "But who lit the 
fire?" The BJP cynically exploited Godhra in its 
state election campaign. "Action," the image of 
the burning coach, eclipsed the far ghastlier 
"reaction".

Several accounts have emerged of what happened in 
Godhra--including depositions by S-6 survivors 
before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, police 
versions of the "conspiracy", for which they have 
named 131 accused, and many independent 
reconstructions of events. Most of these suggest 
that the fire was accidental, not caused 
deliberately. Now, the Interim Report of the 
High-Powered Committee headed by former Supreme 
Court judge U.C. Banerjee doubly confirms this. 
Its principal findings are corroborated by an 
independent expert inquiry by four engineers 
under the aegis of the Delhi-based Hazards Centre.

The findings show there was no premeditated 
attempt to set Coach S-6 on fire; the fire began 
20-30 minutes after the generation of highly 
toxic smoke, itself probably caused by the 
burning of latex foam on the seats; the ignition 
probably originated under a bench due to a 
half-burnt matchstick or cigarette, or a kerosene 
stove.  

The 156-page Banerjee report and the Hazards 
Centre study blow a huge hole through the 
fanciful theories woven by the BJP and the Modi 
government. They tear up the last figleaf in the 
BJP's defence and shows it's incapable of 
shedding its hatred of Muslims. The BJP has tried 
to discredit Mr Banerjee's report by politically 
linking him with Railway Minister Laloo Prasad, 
and claiming that its timing was determined by 
the elections in Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana. 
But the same Mr Banerjee had refused Mr Prasad's 
bail application in the fodder case in the 
Supreme Court! As for the timing, the Railway 
Board, a professional-run body, itself requested 
an Interim Report.

These issues are diversionary. It's of central 
importance that the public knows the truth about 
Independent India's worst state-sponsored 
communal pogrom. The Banerjee Report will 
naturally figure in campaigns in the 
election-bound states. It's absurd to ban a 
reference to it. The Election Commission would 
exceed its jurisdiction if it did so. The two 
processes, of inquiry into communal crimes, and 
holding elections (which are, increasingly, 
staggered), must run in parallel. One should not 
be subordinated to the other.

While dismissing the "petrol theory" and the 
"miscreant activity story", the Banerjee 
Committee notes that the Sabarmati Express was 
pelted with stones by mobs enraged by 
altercations with trishul-bearing militant 
karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. Under the 
circumstances, it's extremely unlikely that an 
outsider could have got into the train, either 
through the door of Coach S-6 or by breaking into 
the vestibule joining it with S-7. There were 140 
people aboard the coach with 72 berths, dominated 
by VHP karsevaks. Its doors had been locked from 
the inside.

The survivors' depositions provide no evidence of 
intrusion, or of flames rising from a pool of 
petrol from the floor. The damage marks on Coach 
S-6 point to a fire at the upper level, not the 
floor. This pattern also holds with the victims, 
who typically sustained burn injuries above the 
waist, not below. This is incompatible with the 
theory of a floor-level conflagration beginning 
with an inflammable liquid. Preceding the fire 
was highly poisonous "thick, black smoke" 
emanating from the rear of Coach S-6, which smelt 
like "burning rubber". The Banerjee report quotes 
the testimonies of 14 key survivors-eyewitnesses, 
including Hari Prasad Joshi (berths 42-43), D.N. 
Dwivedi (sitting on the floor), Jamuna Prasad 
(berth 25), L.P. Choresia (berth 72) and others 
to show that they didn't see anyone lighting a 
fire.

Besides testimonies, there's strong evidence from 
the Hazards Centre report that the fire occurred 
accidentally. This report is a systematic 
analysis of the pattern of damage to Coach S-6, 
the type of fire and its likely causation, 
depositions of 41 surviving passengers to the 
police, a critique of 27 post-mortem reports, and 
correlation of injuries to 56 passengers with the 
spread of the smoke and fire. The emphasis is on 
a scientific analysis of the physical processes 
of causation of the fire.

The report is authored by four engineers. Two of 
them are professors at IIT-Delhi--one with 
expertise in injuries, and the other in 
thermodynamics and fluidisation. The other two 
members are a Railway engineer with expertise in 
coaching, and the coordinator of Hazards Centre, 
who has a background in safety engineering. The 
experts methodically compared S-6 with six other 
damaged railway coaches, including one burnt in 
Delhi in 2003, with similar damage patterns.

The report reasons that had the fire started on 
the S-6 floor near the toilet, "inflammable 
plywood and foam in three tiers of seats would 
not be available for the fire to burn Š If the 
fire was started by an inflammable fluid on the 
floor, the flames would have been noticed right 
away Š precluding the possibility of a 
long-smouldering source". How, then, did the fire 
start? In all probability, it started slowly, 
when combustible material placed below the lower 
berth, including clothing and plastic goods, 
caught fire. This ignited the plywood base of the 
seat and then the latex foam, and then spread to 
the rexine (vinyl) seat cover, the sun-mica 
partitions and linoleum flooring.

It is these synthetic materials that pose the 
greatest hazard. On combustion, they produce 
hydrogen cyanide, free isocyanates and carbon 
monoxide, along with dense smoke. 
Chlorine-containing plastics generate dioxin, the 
most poisonous substance known to science. In all 
probability, the gases proved far more lethal 
than the fire.

The probable location of the initial combustion 
was a berth between Cabins 8 & 9. The combustion 
process produced high-temperature smoke which 
spread along the ceiling and eventually resulted 
in a flash-over. People scrambled and ran to 
escape the dense and toxic fumes and radiative 
heat. Many were asphyxiated and died. Some 
escaped through the windows on the yard side and 
a few through the door next to Berth 72.

The Banerjee Report strongly indicts the Railways 
for being over one hour and 15 minutes too late 
in despatching a fire engine, and that with too 
little water. It holds them guilty of not 
ordering an inquiry as required under the safety 
rules, of not photographing critical evidence, 
and of running Coach S-7 and allowing the 
disposal of its burnt vestibule as scrap.

The two reports' principal findings are further 
confirmed by a Survey of Indian study, which 
suggests that it's fanciful to imagine that a 
crowd could have moved easily to Cabin A, near 
where which Coach S-6 was parked at the time. The 
topography was "inhospitable to a large assembly 
of people given the depth of (an intervening 27 
metre-long) nallah and also the proliferation of 
closely packed thorny trees like Keekar. A person 
pelting stones would have to be standing either 
deep down the nallah which has about one metre of 
water, or beyond it, behind 'A' Cabin, which is 
57 metres away Š"

Mr Banerjee's final report will hopefully factor 
in the Hazards Centre findings and produce yet 
more clinching evidence that the fire was 
accidental, and it was wrong to attribute it to a 
conspiracy. The Gujarat police have a disgraceful 
record on Godhra. They have arrested 104 persons 
on various charges of "conspiracy" and 
"terrorism", mainly under POTA, but they have at 
least three versions of the crime, spread over 10 
different chargesheets. This makes nonsense of 
the police case: the versions are mutually 
contradictory.

The conclusion is inescapable: no conspiracy 
occurred. There was no mob at Godhra waiting for 
the train which was running five hours late. The 
Modi government concocted theories to justify the 
ensuing pogrom. This terrible injustice must be 
redeemed--through several steps, including the 
release of POTA detainees and institution of a 
credible inquiry that will establish who was 
guilty for the butchery of 2,000 and rape of over 
10,000 women. Without justice, there will be no 
redemption; no lessons will be learnt.--end--

o o o o o

(ii)

Secular Perspective
Feb. 1-15, 2004

GODHRA TRAIN BURNING INCIDENT AND BANERJEE REPORT

by Asghar Ali Engineer

The Sangh Parivar is understandably upset at the U.C.Banerjee
inquiry committee Report on the Godhra train burning incident. The
subsequent Gujarat carnage was justified by the Sangh Parivar solely
on the basis of this incident describing it as a conspiracy by Muslims
of Godhra with involvement of ISI of Pakistan. Even the BJP Prime
Minister Shri A.B.Vajpayee justified the Gujarat carnage saying that
the Muslims of India did not 'condemn it enough' and hence this
carnage took place. Mr. L.K.Advani had similarly justified the Bombay
riots of 1992-93 saying that "Hindus were anguished" by burning of
few Hindus at Jogeshwari. Subsequently the Supreme Court
discharged all the accused in the Jogeshwari incident. But the Sangh
Parivar took the law into its own hand and perpetrated communal
violence in Mumbai in 1992-93. 

In case of Godhra too, before the truth was out, within 24 hours
communal carnage started in other parts of Gujarat in which more
than two thousand citizens were butchered or burnt alive most
brutally. Without any preliminary inquiry, Narendra Modi and his
cohorts drew definite conclusions and, before any one could know
what had happened, started the butchery. Narendra Modi propounded
theory of action and reaction referring to Newton's theory. 

Now that Banerjee Committee, appointed by Lalu Prasad Yadav as
Railway Minister, has come to conclusion that the fire probably started
by cooking from inside, the Sangh Parivar is denouncing it as a
'political act' as if their theory of conspiracy was established beyond
any ken of doubt. More than hundred persons (135 persons) were
accused of pre-planned terrorist attack by one community. Ten
charge sheets have already been filed. 

The conspiracy theory has several loopholes. How did the
conspirators know that there were Karsevaks on Sabarmati Express?
The train was also running more than four hours late. And as for
Karsevaks being on the train, inquiries show that even RAW, L.B. and
Railway Police did not know anything about it. In fact Karsevaks were
scheduled to return a day earlier but were delayed by a day. How
could the conspirators know that Karsevaks were on the train that
day? They could not know more than government intelligence
agencies. Even if they did, delay of more than four hours could have
upset their plans. In such matters even minutes matter, let alone
hours. 

Even pulling the chain, cross examination in the court clearly brings
out, was not the handiwork of Muslims, the chain was pulled by
Karsevaks themselves as some Karsevaks chasing the vendors on
Godhra railway platform were left out when the train moved. They
pulled the chain twice. The conspiracy theory maintains that the
accused had pulled the chain, stopped the train to carry petrol or
inflammable liquid into S-6, and set fire. The forensic report also
clearly states that no traces of hydrocarbon were found on the floor of
S-6 compartment. That clearly means no petrol was spread on the
floor of S-6 to set fire to it.  However, Modi maintained that Muslims
had used 140 litres of petrol. He never said what was his source of
information. With so much petrol, the whole compartment would have
exploded and charred completely. 

The Dy. SP, Railway also said in his statement that he did not see
petrol or any other liquid being carried by anyone inside the
compartment. The survivors had superficial injuries on upper part of
their bodies. Had petrol been thrown on the floor and set to fire, they
would have had injuries on lower parts of the body. Also, no Karsevak
has admitted petrol being smuggled in and poured out on the floor 

Haribhai Joshi, an income tax officer from Ahmedabad, who was
travelling in S-6 with his wife, said he saw only smoke and no fire. His
wife died and he crawled out of the compartment. Though he crawled
on the floor he had no burn injuries. If petrol had been thrown on the
floor to set fire, Mr. Joshi could not have crawled on the floor. His wife
was sitting near the window and did not come out in time and died of
asphyxiation. In fact all those who died do not seem to have died of
burns but of asphyxiation. 

The post-mortem reports the less said the better. Unfortunately much
has not come out in the press about it. Mr. Mukul Sinha, the defence
lawyer rolled out startling information in a talk recently. His information
was based on cross-examination and examination of relevant
documents. There are several flaws in the report. Post mortem was
done before the inquest report. Inquest was done at 6.45 P.M.
whereas post mortem began at 4.30 P.M. Post mortem is always
followed by inquest. 

What is more important is to note that post mortem was done at
railway station itself and one doctor has signed it on 14th March
though it was done on 27th February.  This doctor was perhaps very
honest and put the date when he signed the report. Mr. Mukul Sinha
concluded that perhaps post mortem was never done as there were
no signs of severe burns on the bodies of the deceased.  Also very
few bodies actually had been identified. Most others could not be
identified at all. 

The then Railway Minister Mr. Nitish Kumar obliged the BJP led
Government by not holding any inquiry as long as NDA was in power.
Actually inquiry should have been immediately held following the
incident. It was Lalu Yadav of the UPA Government who ordered
inquiry headed by U.C.Banerjee, a retired Supreme Court Judge.
Justice Banerjee has concluded that the fire was result of cooking
inside the compartment as some traces of grains were found inside. It
is incidental spark which fell on rubber fittings causing dense smoke
which later at a higher temperature turned into fire. 

It has been testified by witnesses that smoke was noticed before fire.
Also, looking at the  other aspect of the matter the train stopped
hardly for five minutes after pulling of chain and it was physically
impossible to carry out such in operation in such a short time. To carry
several cans of petrol (about 60 litres as estimated by forensic
experts) inside S-6 through the vestibule cutting its canvas is almost
impossible. [The claim is that?] In fact they entered through S-7 and
the rubber cover of that S-7 vestibule was not cut.  That evidence was
also sought to be destroyed. S-7 was not preserved as an evidence
and was used for 7 days after the incident. In fact if the culprits had
entered through S-7 cutting its canvas, how could it be used for seven
days before it was grounded?

Also, the terrain was such as to make such an operation impossible.
There was a deep drain between the Signal Faliah and the track and
thick shrubs asking it impossible for the miscreants to cross it and
enter the train. The Karsevaks were also carrying trishuls and how
could they allow without resistance outsiders to enter the
compartment with petrol to set fire to the compartment. 

All these factors have to be taken into account if the conspiracy theory
is to be substantiated. It is unfortunate that Justice Nanavati inquiring
into Gujarat communal carnage and Godhra incident has hurriedly
debunked Justice Banerjee report without having any concrete
evidence to support conspiracy theory. It is not becoming of a Judge
inquiring into these incidents to dismiss other judge's inquiry report.
He should have waited for completion of his own inquiry before
making such statement. Remember he had given a statement
absolving the police from its role in Gujarat riots before he started the
inquiry. It was only after public hue and cry that he took back his
statement. 

This clearly shows that Narendra Modi has appointed a Judge with
careful consideration to obtain the result he wants. For Sangh Parivar
minorities are always to be blamed and for this there is no need for
any judicial inquiry. It is a forgone conclusion for them that Muslims
are violent and any violent incident should be blamed on them. That
also gives them opportunity to seek revenge and kill them ruthlessly.
Even the person of the stature of the Prime Minister also could not
refrain from making provocative statement like who set fire to the train
in Goa in 2002. When he said this and that Muslims did not condemn
the Godhra incident enough he clearly took it for granted that Muslims
from Signal Faliah were real culprits and had hatched the conspiracy
to set S-6 ablaze. It is highly regretted that the Prime Minister of the
country could become so blatantly partisan for his party totally
forgetting his constitutional duties. 

Of course Banerjee Committee's report is still not final as many police
officials avoided appearing before it perhaps to conceal the real truth.
It is being said that Government is thinking of giving it the status of a
commission under the Inquiry Commission's Act so that justice
Banerjee could summon the police officials and other witnesses. If
that happens it would be possible to know the truth, which was sought
to be suppressed so far by those who were waiting for an opportunity
to fan fires of communal violence. It is highly necessary that truth be
known, not for seeking revenge but to avoid such incidents in future
and keeping the communal zealots under check. 

As for the charge that Lalu Prasad Yadav is using it for election
purposes let those who are making this charge against him [not]
forget that Narnedra Modi had exploited the Godhra incident blatantly
for his election campaign in December 2002 and he had not hesitated
to carry dead bodies of unfortunate victims of Godhra incident in
procession in Ahmedabad to ignite communal fires. Now the Chief
Election Commissioner is objecting to such use of the Banerjee
Committee Report but why the Election Commission allowed
Narendra Modi to exploit the Godhra incident for is election purposes?
It is for the Election Commission to clarify this issue. Of course ideally
no one should exploit such issues for electoral purposes. But then
who will throw the first stone?


o o o o o

(3)

EPW Editorial
January 29, 2005

BANERJEE COMMITTEE: ELUSIVE TRUTH

The truth, it has been said, will emerge if 
sufficient efforts are expended in its search. 
Yet, despite the efforts and the time invested, 
the 'truth' about Godhra that emerges at every 
turn is one that has many versions, is 
contentious and remains as difficult to unravel 
as ever.

The events that followed Godhra when 59 
passengers, mainly kar sevaks, burnt to death 
when a coach of the Sabarmati Express caught fire 
on February 27, 2002, saw some of the worst 
violence in post-independence India. The communal 
riots claimed more than 2,000 lives in Gujarat, 
most of them Muslims. Since then, any criticism 
of the Narendra Modi BJP-led government's 
inability to prevent the total breakdown of law 
and order has been deflected by invoking Godhra, 
as BJP leaders insisted it was the conspiracy 
hatched and enacted at Godhra that sparked off 
the 'shameful' riots. The Modi government's zeal 
in bringing the Godhra conspirators to book, even 
as riot cases in several other grievous instances 
floundered, saw more than a 100 people arrested 
under POTA, 76 of whom were subsequently 
charge-sheeted.

The Nanavati-Shah Commission set up by the Modi 
government to inquire into the 'setting on fire 
of some of the coaches of the Sabarmati Express 
train', is now into its third year of 
investigations, but it has never been able to 
free itself of charges of 'political 
association'. Neither has the U C Banerjee 
Committee, set up last September by Lalu Prasad 
Yadav, the railway minister in the UPA 
government, to probe the fire in coach S6 of the 
Sabarmati Express. In its interim report 
submitted recently, a fortnight before elections 
in three crucial states including Bihar begin, 
the Banerjee Committee believes the fire was 
'accidental'. The report draws on the evidence of 
forensic experts and engineers to conclude that 
"at this stage... a preponderance of evidence 
(suggests) that the fire in coach S6 originated 
in the coach itself without any external input"; 
the report, in fact, indicates that the fire may 
have started due to cooking inside the train. It 
also records its disbelief that the trishul-armed 
kar sevaks, who formed 90 per cent of the coach's 
total occupants, allowed themselves to get burnt. 
The report also chastises then railway minister, 
Nitish Kumar, and the railways for not conducting 
the mandatory inquiry by the commissioner of rail 
safety.

The interim report does dispense with the 
'conspiracy' theory (and there are several) but 
the Banerjee Committee leaves other issues 
unanswered. The agonising question as to how the 
fire started remains in search of an explanation. 
Moreover, neither police charge-sheets nor the 
present interim report have yet been able to 
establish any link between the 'huge' crowds that 
amassed outside cabin A at Godhra station and the 
actual incidence of fire. All that has emerged is 
a mass of theories, contradictory and conflicting 
but with little clinching evidence.

The final report of the Banerjee Committee is 
still awaited, the Nanavati Commission report is 
due in December and investigations by the Gujarat 
police remain ongoing, yet truth remains elusive. 
But Godhra remains an emotive issue; the BJP's 
fears that it will be used for political gains in 
Bihar are valid, while the Election Commission 
has 'reprimanded' Lalu Yadav for using it to his 
own advantage in Bihar, i e, consolidating the 
Muslim votes. Godhra needs closure, not just for 
its victims and survivors but to also ensure that 
the state and its institutions, which rather than 
ensuring security chose to indulge in the 
politics of cynical manipulation, are brought to 
book. There is also a case to be made for US 
style commission inquiries that are conducted in 
public. It is necessary that pettifogging over 
the report, its findings and its immediate 
utility, does not obfuscate the wider issue of 
the state's role in the riots that followed, of 
the many instances that reveal collusion between 
state authorities and rioters, and of the final 
need to ensure justice. The Banerjee Committee's 
interim report does expose the mishandling of the 
inquiry by the railways and it does suggest that 
there is enough evidence to question the 
allegation that coach S6 was set on fire by the 
residents of Godhra. But a clear resolution of 
Gujarat, vital for the Indian state to retain its 
'secular' credentials, is something this interim 
report was not equipped to do, nor should the 
brouhaha that it has generated be mistaken for 
its having done so.

_______


[5]

Outlook Magazine | Feb 14, 2005

REVIEW
Hymn And History
Were the Aryans the original inhabitants of India 
from where they migrated to different parts of 
the world? Habib's own convictions remain as 
puissant as ever.
D.N. JHA


THE VEDIC AGE
by Irfan Habib and Vijay Kumar Thakur
Tulika Books
Rs 95; Pages: 100

	To get Irfan Habib to release a 
collection of papers by the Indian Council of 
Historical Research is hardly unusual. But when 
the collection consists of historians arguing 
that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of 
India from where they migrated to different parts 
of the world-the saffron view of India's past 
that Habib has consistently exposed as 
"absurd"-one wonders how they got Habib up there 
for the launch.
However, reading this book, it's clear that 
Habib's own convictions remain as puissant as 
ever.

Beginning with an overview of the Vedic corpus, 
Habib speaks of the migration of the Aryan 
communities from the localities to the west of 
the Indus where the horse and the chariot played 
a central role. He touches upon different aspects 
of early Aryan life and, despite "disappointingly 
meagre" data from the Rigveda (1500-1000 BC), 
portrays them as dominantly agricultural. But had 
agriculture been so important, the Rigveda would 
not reveal such "an essentially town-less 
environment". We are rightly told that the Aryan 
society consisted of tribes: thirty of them being 
mentioned in the Rigveda, each headed by a rajan, 
though the statement that he lived in 
"many-pillared palaces" and was "linked to a 
definite territory" implies an unacceptable 
possibility of the Aryans establishing 
territorial states in the very early phase of 
their expansion.

Habib recognises the patriarchal nature of the 
family and the establishment of the institution 
of marriage, but ignores the Rigvedic evidence of 
brother-sister incest. The deities of the Aryans 
were predominantly male and their religion was 
aniconic. Sacrifice occupied a central place in 
their religious life and tended to become 
increasingly elaborate during the later Vedic 
period. But it needs to be stressed that the 
beginnings of heresy in religious tradition is 
already in evidence. The later Vedic texts 
(1000-600 BC) indicate the shifting of the Aryan 
territorial horizons towards the east into the 
Gangetic valley and their references to kings and 
territorial states in the region begin to 
multiply, implying the colonisation of land and 
the emergence of stable settlements. The use of 
fire for extending the area of Aryan settlements 
is attested by the famous story of Videgha 
Mathava who helped the fire-god (Agni) cross the 
river Sadanira leading to the Aryanisation of the 
land of Videha. The iron axe could also have 
accelerated the process of forest clearance and 
the dispersal of agriculture. A separate section 
on the coming of iron in India adds to the book's 
merit.

The Rigvedic social stratification seems to have 
given way to the fourfold social division of the 
caste system, though the evidence of 
untouchability, Habib should have emphasised, is 
tenuous and became a visible feature of society 
only in subsequent times. However, he rightly 
punctures the tall claims often made by 
indigenists and chauvinists about the progress of 
science in the Vedic period. The Vedic Aryans did 
not even have full knowledge of calendar, and 
going by the later evidence of Varahamihira, the 
Vedic Brahmins did not practise astrology. 
Knowledge of medicine, similarly, was limited. 
So, despite the claims of Hindutva forces, the 
Vedas cannot be considered the source of all 
knowledge. The Vedic people didn't even have a 
script; their history is reconstructed mainly on 
the basis of orally transmitted texts coupled 
with archaeology.

Enriched by extracts from primary texts, Habib 
can clearly handle a wide variety of sources. Far 
from being a narrow specialist in medieval 
history, he works on a very wide canvas of time. 
In fact, those of us who've seen him present 
research papers on ancient Indian historical 
geography at the IHC may be puzzled to find a 
coauthor on the cover. Did he really need that?

________


[5]


NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN
B-13, Shivam Flats, Ellora Park, Baroda-390007 * 58, Gandhi Marg, Badwani, M.P.
(Ph. 07290-222464 ; 0265-2282232. Email: 
baroda at narmada.org ; badwani at narmada.org)

Press Note/ February 2, 2005

Tribal Families Dumped in Open Sans Land, Houses at Javda

Still Maharashtra Govt. Claims 'Resettlement Complete'

All the claims about just rehabilitation of the 
Sardar Sarovar affected families in the Narmada 
valley were once again exposed when the Nandurbar 
district administration dumped eleven tribal 
families displaced from Bharad village under open 
sky without even the sheds in the resettlement 
site of Javda, in Maharashtra. These families 
were affected when the dam height went upto 80 
meters in 1994 and are yet to be provided 
cultivable land, houseplots and resettlement 
village, despite the series of protests and 
subsequent assurances by the concerned Ministers, 
resolutions by the state Cabinet.

The families are there in open facing the extreme 
cold and vagaries of Nature, along with their 
children, clothes, foodgrains, utensils, cots and 
other material. We demand that the state 
government should immediately act to provide land 
and houses and take strict action against the 
guilty officials.

Even after the repeated Supreme Court directions, 
protest darns and fasts s in Nashik, Mumbai, 
Shashada and the formal cabinet decisions and GRs 
by the state government, the Nandurbar district 
authorities have been delaying the just 
rehabilitation process - i.e. the purchasing of 
cultivable land and building the resettlement 
village - for some inexplicable reasons. In 2004, 
the people resorted to Land-Right Satyagraha in 
April-May and in the monsoon of 2004 the people 
resorted to dharna in Shahada. Subsequently the 
affected families and officials jointly surveyed 
the land and had selected the Javda land. 
However, the Nandurbar officials did not purchase 
the land, despite the fact that many farmers were 
ready to sell their land and despite repeated 
demands by the affected people- perhaps due to 
the coruption and delaying tactics. Only in 
October 2004, after the Bharad and other villages 
on the banks of Narmada were again submerged in 
the monsoon of 2004, the land was purchased. But 
despite the two full agricultural seasons have 
gone, there is still no sign of transferring that 
land to the families or preparing resettlement 
village, complete with the houses and amenities. 
The Nandurbar administration did not build even 
the temporary sheds in the Javda land, and now 
dumped 11 families from Bharad, to fend for 
themselves.

The Narmada Control Authority had claimed on its 
website that all the resettlement in the SSP was 
complete. It had to pull out the announcement 
after the NBA had exposed the false claims. 
However, the Maharashtra administration claims 
that it had 'completed the resettlement of all 
Maharashtra oustees'. But about 2500 families in 
Maharashtra are in still the original villages on 
the Narmada banks in the submergence zone and 
remain to be resettled with cultivable land, 
houses and resettlement village with all 
amenities, as per the stipulations of the Narmada 
Water Dispute Tribunal and the Supreme Court 
directions. Even hundreds of the 'resettled' 
families from 1994-2000, in the resettlement 
sites in Maharashtra, remain without land and 
houseplots.

This is the state of the resettlement and all the 
state governments are bent on trampling upon the 
rights of the affected people to raise the height 
of the dam further than the present 110.64 
meters. The people and the organiation - Narmada 
Bachao Andolan - would resist firmly any attempt 
to destroy life, violate the rights and law by 
the dam-builders and their cohorts.

Noorji Padvi
Geetanjali
Yogini Khanaolkar
Philip Mattew

_______


[6]

Public Debate on Kashmir
Organised by IKV and Stichting Agni

19-02-2005; 15:00
Theater Concordia, Hogezand 42, The Hague
www.theater-concordia.nl

Starting in the afternoon at 15.00 with debate 
and film screening for the official session
which is at 18.00 to be followed by an informal session
and a nice surinamese dinner prepared by Stichting AGNI.

Informative materials will be available,
under which a special, recently printed newspaper 
on Kashmir in Dutch language.   Speakers from 
Kashmir:

Ms. Anuradha Bhasin (daughter of Mr. Ved Bhasin) 
from Jammu, executive editor of Kashmir Times 
(invited by IKV)
Mr. Khurram Parvez from Srinagar, executive 
coordinator of the J&K Coalition for Civil 
Society (invited by IKV)
Ms. Asma Bhasir Dhar from Srinagar, coordinator 
of the KWIPD Kashmir Womens' Initiative for Peace 
and Disarmement (invited by IKV)
Mr. Aswhani Kumar Churngoo from Jammu, 
representing the PKM Panun Kashmir Movement 
(invited by St. AGNI)
Mr. Sital on behalf of st. AGNI and Ms Marjan 
Lucas on behalf of IKV will introduce the debate.


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

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.