SACW | 9 March 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire   | 9 March,  2005
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Pakistan and India: Does nothing change? (M.B. Naqvi)
[2]  Imagined Homeland: South Asia as 
Civilisation as against Nation State (Ashis Nandy)
[3]  Doctors for peace :
  - "Awareness needed to eliminate nuclear weapons"
  - Pakistani doctors to adopt Indian village near Wagah border (Vibha Sharma)
[4]  US  - India:
  -  Press Release: CAG Fashions First Victory on Modi's US Tour
  - Related Action Alert: Modi's Tour to the US
[5] India: Take the jungle to the law - Make the 
review of Army's special powers an exercise in 
deliberative democracy (Sanjib Baruah)
[6]  Announcements:
--   SAHMAT--75th Anniversary of Dandi (New Delhi, 12 March 2005)


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

[1]

[March 8, 2005 | Karachi]

DOES NOTHING CHANGE?

M.B. Naqvi

The unending cold war between Pakistan and India 
continues to be alive and kicking. Take two 
recent developments in Pakistan: PM Shaukat Aziz 
has, reviewing a naval parade in Karachi, said 
that Pakistan would not let any power, meaning 
India, to dominate the Indian Ocean; Pakistan 
will preserve a minimum credible deterrent, also 
meant for Navy's morale. But India will read it 
differently. The second is the escalation of 
disputes over water. Pakistan has now threatened 
to take the Kishan Ganga dispute to the World 
Bank if India does not accept its view.

Indian policy is in sharp contrast. In a recent 
meeting with Messrs Shyam Saran and Natwar Singh 
in Delhi, I had the impression that they 
controvert Pakistan's apprehensions that 
bilateral dialogue is going nowhere. Both 
asserted that India is not running away from 
Kashmir or any other disputes; it is intent on 
resolving all disputes. And India is out to 
befriend all neighbours, particularly Pakistan. 
But its stature and interests should be respected 
- said with a touch of arrogance and hubris.

It has to be noted that this cold war can get out 
of hand and the parties may revert to square one. 
It must be admitted that water disputes are a 
serious business. This region is overpopulated. 
Water is increasingly going to be scarce. All 
downstream countries or areas always complain 
against upstream powers, groups or provinces. 
This trouble takes place both inside a state and 
among states. India has a taste of it in both 
contexts; it has had a long dispute over Ganga 
waters with Bangladesh though a satisfactory 
agreement was negotiated by IK Gujral with the 
help of Jyoti Basu.

A comprehensive agreement is needed over Indus 
waters too. Pakistan faces the problem internally 
and internationally: Sindh, Balochistan and 
Frontier are dead set against another dam in 
Punjab, the Kalabagh Dam. The Central and Punjab 
administrations are determined to build the 
Kalabagh Dam because of future requirements of 
power. But the Sindhis say the intent is to 
withdraw more water from Indus in Punjab, leaving 
Sindh drier.

The matter should be thoroughly and 
satisfactorily investigated. It would be best if 
India and Pakistan jointly approach UNESCO and 
the World Bank to form an international 
commission of eminent scientists of all 
disciplines, ranging from ecology, hydrology, 
soils, agronomists, hydel power production and so 
forth. It should draw up a comprehensive plan for 
each major Valley in the South Asia in which the 
states should be invited to cooperate and ensure 
equitable distribution of water for maximum 
agricultural and power production as well as to 
protect environment. This should be an advisory 
commission. But the regional powers should come 
together and should voluntarily agree to 
region-wide river training programmes aiming at 
optimal use of existing water supplies without 
abridging historical users' rights - unless 
alternative technology can be suggested to 
minimize the use of water. But it is a long shot 
and there appears to be few buyers for the idea.

There is a glaring trust deficit between Pakistan 
and India. Guided by security experts and 
assisted by vested interests Pakistani hardliners 
want to keep distrust of India alive. The Indian 
Ocean is today dominated by the major ally of 
both India and Pakistan. Pakistan, or India for 
that matter, does not seem to be worried about 
American domination of Indian Ocean, though what 
it may do in Asian waters does not inspire 
confidence in self respecting Asians. The problem 
is not Pakistan's alone; but India's hardline 
security experts operate more insidiously. That 
is what keeps the cold war alive. It seems no 
lessons have been learnt from the experiences of 
2002 Confrontation.

The lesson to be underlined is that, arguing from 
facts alone, India with all its advantages did 
not in the end invade Pakistan, although its 
threat to do so was credible for Pakistanis and 
foreigners alike. The kind of mobilization it was 
could only be convincing. The intent could only 
be to fight. In the end Pakistan gave what was 
demanded: the promise not to permit infiltration 
of militants or Jihadis into Indian-controlled 
Kashmir. It has fulfilled that promise. That 
creates opportunities for both.

Instead of wasting energies on the cold war which 
entails a non-stop and escalating arms race in 
all fields: conventional armaments, atomic 
weapons and missiles. National security wallahs, 
goaded by vested interests, keep the cold war 
alive because they distrust all other powers. 
Wars, cold or hot, financially and politically 
benefit the hardliners and enrich vested 
interests. Arms races suck resources from social 
sectors and devote them to purchasing or 
manufacturing instruments of death and 
destruction. Some elements do benefit. But they 
are too few in comparison with those who go 
without their necessities. Do the people of both 
countries content to leave things as they are?

Why cannot these two major countries of South 
Asia work for a grassroots level rapprochement, 
from bottom up, that puts an end to cold wars and 
arms races first and goes on to shift priorities 
from acquiring the engines of death and 
destruction? A more prosperous and freer life for 
the common men who are today outside the 
mainstream is needed. Taking South Asia as a 
whole, the number of people who are outside the 
mainstream might add up to 700 million souls. But 
out of the rest half of them have to struggle to 
make the two ends meet. It is only the top 25 per 
cent in each South Asian country who are doing 
well; the rest are braving hardship and penury, 
in varying degrees. Indian and Pakistani states 
can cut the Gordian knot by a conscious policy of 
partnership between the states and friendship 
among the peoples of all South Asia.

______


[2]

The Times of India - March 09, 2005

IMAGINED HOMELAND: SOUTH ASIA AS CIVILISATION AS AGAINST NATION STATE

Ashis Nandy

South Asia is the only region in the world where 
most states define themselves not by what they 
are, but by what they are not.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal try despe-rately 
not to be India; Bangladesh has taken up the more 
onerous responsibility of avoiding being both 
India and Pakistan. I once used to think India 
was different. But the Indian politicians have 
now begun to say, at the drop of a hat, that 
India is not Pakistan.

The region looks like a clutch of rather 
reluctant states, most of which fear that 
positive self-definition will not take them far. 
Historians and legal scholars underwrite the 
reluctance. Ayesha Jalal and H M Seervai have 
argued that the shortsighted leaders of the 
Indian National Congress 'forced' Mohammed Ali 
Jinnah to reluctantly seek an independent 
Pakistan. While many bemoan the bias against 
Indians and the Hindus in Pakistani school texts, 
none notices that these texts are overloaded with 
the history of what is now India, at the expense 
of the history of what is now Pakistan.

Obviously, the idea of South Asia is partly 
artificial and so are its nation states. That 
does not make the states fragile, but it makes 
them behave as if they were fragile. Perhaps they 
are fragile to the extent that they believe they 
are so and seek to remove the fragility by being 
hardboiled national-security states. The idea of 
South Asia is actually a response to successful 
regional groupings like South East Asia and 
European Union. It has little to do with the 
self-image and ambitions of its constituent 
states, most of which are modelled on pre-World 
War I European states, which the builders of 
South Asian states idealised during their 
formative years.

Poorly grounded in the everyday lives and moral 
frames of ordinary citizens, South Asian states 
perpetually fear that they might not survive the 
carelessness of their citizens and the demonic 
conspiracy of neighbours. The more scholars, 
artists and NGOs talk of the common heritage of 
the region, the more the states nervously eye 
them as dangerous, naive romantics subverting 
national identities.

The idea of South Asia emerged in the 1970s and 
gained acceptance in the 1980s because the 
region's mediaeval name, Hindustan or Al Hind, 
and its ancient names, Bharatvarsha and 
Jambudveep - even their geographical counterpart, 
the Indian peninsula or subcontinent - had become 
tainted by their association with a brand new 
nation state called India. Since India's 
relationship with most of its neighbours was less 
than brotherly, these neighbours disliked names 
that seemingly endorsed Indian pre-eminence. They 
tried to imagine a new entity called South Asia.

The effort has not succeeded, given that it is 
eventually an emotionally empty, territorial 
idea. Its status is akin to that of Uttar Pradesh 
and Madhya Pradesh, two states that have, even 
after 50 years, failed to take off as viable 
cultural entities. When you talk of Biharis, 
Tamilians and Bengalis, you cannot in the same 
breath talk of Uttarpradeshis and 
Madhyapradeshis. The term 'South Asia' remains a 
compromise, a neutral terrain. It has frozen a 
cultural region geographically - exiling 
countries like Afghanistan, which have played a 
crucial role in the region from epic times.

It has allowed the Indian state to hijack the 
right to the Indic civilisation, forcing other 
states in the region to seek new bases for their 
political cultures and disown crucial aspects of 
their cultural selves.

And it has made important civilisational strains 
look subservient to the needs of nation states. 
Many speak as if Islam was the responsibility of 
Pakistan, Hinduism that of India, and Buddhism of 
Sri Lanka, as if these faiths could not even take 
care of themselves.

Painful though it may be to admit, the idea of 
South Asia actually stands for India in its 
older, broader sense, not for India the nation 
state. This other India and its inhabitants - 
known for centuries as Hindustanis or Hindis - 
have subversive potentialities. For they 
represent a civilisation, whereas the aim of the 
Indian nation state is nothing less than to 
retool the civilisation to fit the needs of a 
modern political economy and to engineer the 
cussed Indians into proper citizens of a proper 
state.

That is also the official vision of much of South 
Asia. Hence the fear of anything that might push 
the region towards a people's SAARC - free 
exchange of news, books, ideas, literature, art, 
and, above all, free circulation of free-thinking 
human beings. Many refer to the size and the 
hegemonic ambitions of India as the reason for 
this fear. I doubt it. The relations among the 
other SAARC countries are no less frigid.

However, some kind of a South Asia is emerging 
through the exchange of low-brow cultural 
artefacts, defying its bureaucratic states, 
strident security experts and jingoistic 
politicians. All cultures have high and low 
components; when high cultures cannot cross 
national boundaries, low cultures do.

The most important role in this emerging South 
Asia is being played by Bombay cinema. It has 
been an aggressive, if unwitting, challenger of 
the national borders. The TV soap operas, too, 
have made their contribution. The smugglers, not 
to be left behind, have established, over the 
last 50 years, a free-trade zone. And to spite 
the official, and officious, South Asia, they 
operate on the basis of cross-national trust, a 
poor man's version of post-nationalist awareness. 
The security community in South Asia has reasons 
to be nervous

________


[3]

The Hindu - March 07, 2005

"Awareness needed to eliminate nuclear weapons"

By Our Special Correspondent

HYDERABAD, MARCH 6. Speakers at the seventh 
national conference of the Indian Doctors for 
Peace and Development (IDPD) today called for 
elimination of nuclear weapons. Inaugurating the 
conference, the president of the International 
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War 
(IPPNW), Ron McCoy, called for creating an 
awareness on the nature of nuclear weapons. He 
said nuclear weapons were tools of "total 
annihilation'' and threatened civilisation and 
environment.

Gunnar Westberg, co-president, hoped that India 
would play a leading role in world peace and 
elimination of nuclear weapons. He said friends 
of India were greatly disappointed following the 
1998 nuclear explosion.

Mahesh Maskey, vice-president, South Asia, who is 
from Nepal, said people of his country wanted 
peace. The essence of armed conflict lay in the 
struggle of forces that wanted to keep the feudal 
State and those who sought its restructuring 
towards a Democratic Republic. This question 
could be addressed by letting the people draft a 
new constitution through election of a 
constituent assembly.


o o o

The Tribune - March 9, 2005

Pak docs to adopt village near Wagah
Vibha Sharma
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 8
A group of physicians of the Pakistani descent is 
working on a project to adopt a village near the 
Wagah border in India and provide it with all 
basic amenities and facilities.

Chairman of Association of Pakistani Physicians 
of North America(APPNA) Hussain Malik told The 
Tribune that APPNA was planning to adopt 
Khurmnian village near Amritsar in collaboration 
with the Escorts group, which has a heart 
institute in Amritsar, and provide it with water 
purification system and other facilities, 
including sewage and sanitation system.

The APPNA delegation, he said, was in India to 
build bridges of friendship through collaboration 
in the field of medicine.

During its three-day stay in Delhi, members of 
the delegation will participate in an 
international medical conference with eminent 
Indian doctors to work out strategies of 
cooperation between the two countries.

"Adopting the village near the Wagah border is 
the focal point of to take medical diplomacy 
forward," said Dr Malik.

The association, with an initial budget of Rs 10 
to 12 lakh, will improve the conditions of the 
village by providing a water purification system 
and spruce up the sewage and sanitation 
conditions in the village.

The APPNA will also improve the condition of the 
local school there and open a primary 
health centre.

Dr Malik said the association was running similar 
projects in Pakistan in Murree, Mardan, Sahiwal 
and Badine.


______


[4]

For Immediate Release	Press Advisory				March 9, 2005


For more information contact:

Dr. Shaik Ubaid			Dr. Ashwini Rao
(516) 567-0783			(917) 279-4923

CHRIS MATTHEWS NOT TO APPEAR AT AAHOA CONVENTION: FIRST VICTORY FOR
THE COALITION AGAINST GENOCIDE

The Coalition against Genocide (CAG) is pleased to announce that Chris
Matthews, host of Hardball on MSNBC, will not appear at the Asian
American Hotel Owners Association Convention (AAHOA), as scheduled.
This announcement comes in the wake of a concerted campaign by CAG,
seeking the withdrawal of Mr. Matthews from the AAHOA convention. CAG
calls on sponsors of events such as American Express and Madison
Square Garden to follow the example set by Mr. Chris Matthews.

AAHOA has scheduled its annual convention from March 24-26 in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida. The chief guest of the program is Mr. Narendra
Modi, chief minister of Gujarat and the main architect of the  Gujarat
pogrom of 2002 in which 2000 muslims were killed, including women who
were sexually assaulted and raped. Mr. Chris Matthews was also
scheduled to speak at the convention alongside Mr. Modi. In a letter
dated February 26th, 2005 (letter enclosed), CAG sought to impress on
Mr. Matthews that his participation in the convention would legitimize
a  politician who can be held accountable for the Gujarat pogram under
the guidelines of the international convention on genocide.

CAG's letter to Mr. Matthews was followed by numerous calls, emails
and faxes from human rights activists, professors, students and other
concerned community members to Mr. Matthews' office. The coalition's
action alert on this issue is also enclosed.

Mr. Modi, as chief minister of the state of Gujarat, has been
implicated by human rights organizations for his complicity in and
sponsorship of the systematic and violent pogrom against Muslims. A
number of the reports from human rights organizations and a special
dossier on Mr. Modi is available on the coalition website
(http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/reports.php).

While the mass violence against Muslims stopped in mid-2002, the Modi
government has continued to threaten and victimize Christians, Dalits,
Adivasis (tribals) and secular Hindus who have raised their voice in
search of justice for the victims of the Gujarat pogrom, even as it
prevented victims from gaining legal and social justice. The
continuous efforts of thousands of secular activists in India and
abroad, attempting to bring the perpetrators to trial in courts of
law, had resulted in exposing Mr. Modi's role in the violence and his
undying faith in the sectarian and violent ideology of Hindutva. This
visit to the United States is seen as an attempt to rehabilitate the
severely tarnished image of Mr. Modi.

A spokesperson for CAG confirmed with Mr. Matthews' office late this
evening, that he was not attending the AAHOA convention, due to
"scheduling conflicts". Prof.  Usha Zacharias said that "Mr. Matthews'
withdrawal is the first victory for the coalition" and appealed to
Indian Americans, "to boycott Mr. Modi's entire US trip and his
attempt to stir up and secure funding for hate politics from indian
americans." CAG urges Chris Matthews to take this opportunity to
report on the growing influence and fundraising activities in US of
groups who financially and ideologically support the persecution of
minorities in India

CAG has launched its campaign on multiple fronts, including a protest
at Madison Square Garden in New York City on March 20th, where Mr.
Modi is scheduled to appear and at the convention center in Ft.
Lauderdale on March 24th. The coalition is confident that AAHOA will
be isolated in the community for its shameful decision to sponsor a
person who has committed crimes against humanity.

-- end --

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to Chris Mathew (sent Feb 26 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 26, 2005

Mr. Chris Matthews
MSNBC, One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Matthews,

We at the Coalition Against Genocide (CAG), are writing to request
that you cancel your participation in the 2005 Asian American Hotel
Owner's Association's (AAHOA) Annual Convention and Trade Show, to be
held at the Greater Fort Lauderdale/Broward County Convention Center
in Florida on March 24-26, 2005, unless the AAHOA disinvites its chief
guest, Mr. Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat
in India. Mr. Modi is directly implicated in the massacre of more than
2,000 people and is a member of a violent and bigoted Hindu
nationalist organization called the Rashtriya Swatamsevak Sangh (RSS ’Äì
National Volunteers Corps) that was inspired by Nazi Germany and the
Italian fascist party.   Addressing the AAHOA convention along with
Mr. Modi will associate your name with a figure and a political party
that are the face of religious persecution against Christians and
Muslims in India, while giving them legitimacy.  We at CAG
respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision to appear at the
AAHOA convention alongside Mr. Modi.

CAG is a U.S.-based coalition of fourteen bodies including grassroots
organizations, human rights advocacy groups and community based NGOs.
Our membership is broad based and our members come from diverse
religious, ethnic and political backgrounds. We are determined to
disallow any kind of legitimation of Mr. Modi in the United States and
are demanding justice for the victims of the Gujarat genocide.

In Gujarat, between February 28 and March 30, 2002, under Narendra
Modi's leadership, more than 2,000 people, mostly minority Muslims,
were killed, aided and abetted by the state. The systematically
executed pogrom, also left more than 200,000 people homeless and
internally displaced. Today, three years after the event, the victims
of the violence still await justice and reparations. Mr. Modi, not
only failed to take preventative measures against those who were
planning the violence with his knowledge, but undertook a series of
actions which either tacitly or explicitly condoned the genocidal
violence, which included torture of children and mass rapes of women.

Numerous inquiries and commissions, such as the Indian National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC), have condemned the role of the Government of
Gujarat headed by Mr. Modi in providing leadership and material
support in the politically motivated attacks on minorities in Gujarat
in 2002.
\
The European Union, and every major Indian and international human
rights organization: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
Commonwealth Initiative for Human Rights, Citizen's Initiative,
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People's Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR), have condemned the Gujarat violence, and
pointed to the complicity of the Government of Gujarat in the
execution of the event.

In the US, the State department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor released a report on International Religious Freedom in
2002, pointing to the culpability of the Government of Gujarat in the
violence, its violations of human rights and religious freedoms, and
the targeting of other minority groups, such as Christians, following
the event. Coverage in the Indian and international press, including
in the New York Times (July 27, 2002), Washington Post (June 03,
2002), Boston Globe (July 07, 2002), reported the failure of the state
machinery in Gujarat. There has been non-partisan support in the
United States for human rights in Gujarat. Former President Clinton
condemned the events in Gujarat, and Congressman Pitts (R-PA)
addressed the United States House of Representatives on June 18, 2002,
condemning the premeditated brutality in Gujarat and acknowledging
insufficient action on the part of the United States. Mr. Joseph R.
Pitts also conveyed that Hindu extremist groups receive some of their
funds from charities in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Research undertaken by two independent groups, Campaign To Stop
Funding Hate and Awaaz, South Asia Watch Limited, have demonstrated as
well that Hindu nationalist organizations supporting Mr. Modi in
Gujarat are linked to corresponding organizations in the United
States, that undertake fund raising to sustain the work of Hindu
fundamentalism in India.

Three years later, the Government of Gujarat continues to harass and
discriminate against its Christian and Muslim minority populations,
tribal peoples and other marginalized groups, as well as progressive
activists and intellectuals, with new policies and prejudiced
application of existing laws. Under Mr. Modi's leadership, more than
2,000 of 4,000 cases filed by the victims of the violence were never
investigated or dismissed, leading the Supreme Court of India to
rebuke both the Gujarat judiciary and the Government of Gujarat for
its handling of the cases, and transferring several cases out of the
state for trial. There are currently two suits filed against Mr. Modi
for crimes against humanity and genocide. For these reasons, Mr. Modi
is in violation of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998,
and other international laws, and should not be honored, legitimized
or otherwise felicitated by any institution or individual of public
standing.

The Coalition Against Genocide first wrote to AAHOA asking that they
disinvite their chief guest. AAHOA, however, has issued a public
statement affirming their invitation to Mr. Modi.

In light of these facts, we strongly urge you to cancel your
participation at the AAHOA convention. The invitation to Mr. Modi is
part of an effort by his supporters in the US to rehabilitate his
image. We understand that your office may have been entirely unaware
of the invitation to Mr. Modi when you were approached by AAHOA. We
sincerely hope that you will not be an unwitting party to their plans.
At a time when the international community has questioned the
commitment of the United States to human rights, it is imperative that
government and government affiliated institutions, businesses and the
media, and residents and citizens of the United States act
affirmatively to demonstrate support for human rights advocacy.

Enclosed, please find a brief appendix that documents some of the
relevant information pertaining to Mr. Modi and his political party's
involvement with violence against Christians and Muslims in India.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us
if you would like further information.


Yours Sincerely,
Mr. George Abraham, Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India
Dr.. Angana Chatterji, Anthropology, California Institute of Integral Studies
Ms. Sapna Gupta, South Asian Progressive Action Collective
Dr. Ashwini Rao, Campaign to Stop Funding Hate
Dr. Shaik Ubaid, Indian Muslim Council
[...].

______

[Related Action Alert: Modi's Tour to the US]


Dear Friends:

As you may know, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, 
India, has been invited to the United States as 
part of the Asian American Hotel Owners 
Association, many of whom associate with Gujarat 
as their point of origin.  The AAHOA are looking 
for ways that they might help their "home state" 
of Gujarat by meeting with its CM and learning of 
potential opportunities.  Modi, however, is 
widely understood to have have been instrumental 
in the 2002 pogrom that took place in his state; 
he and his government have come under harsh 
criticism from Amnesty International, the Indian 
National Human Rights Commission, the United 
States' State Department, and the Supreme Court 
of India .   The most important thing that the 
AAHOA can do to assist Gujarat is to distance 
themselves and "their state" from this criminal 
and his corrupt regime.

A number of South Asia-related faculty have 
organized a petition to call on the AAHOA to 
dis-invite Modi, and the newly formed Coalition 
Against Genocide is mobilizing to protest against 
him.  These campaigns could really use your help! 
If relevant, please sign the petitions below, or 
feel free to contact members of the Coalition 
Against Genocide for media coverage.  If you know 
of colleagues or friends who might be interested 
in this information, please pass it on to them.

Thanks very much.

Your sincerely,


Manu Bhagavan

***********************************

Petition links:

http://www.petitiononline.com/dccsa5/petition.html

http://www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org/petition/modi.protest.php

News Coverage

http://www.hindustantimes.com/2005/Mar/03/181_1264269,00050001.htm

http://www.depauw.edu/ath/news.asp?id=15450

http://www.indiawest.com/cgi-bin/news/viewNews.cgi?article=1109894465&Department=News


Action Alert: Request Hardball's Chris Matthews 
to withdraw from AAHOA convention honoring 
Narendra Modi


March 01, 2005

Narendra Modi, the architect of the 2002 Gujarat 
pogrom has been invited by his supporters to be 
honored at the convention of the Asian American 
Hotel Owners association in Fort Lauderdale, 
Florida. His arrival coincides with the third 
anniversary of the Gujarat massacres in which 
more than 2000 Muslims were brutally killed, 
hundreds of women and girls were raped and 
sexually mutilated and over 150,000 were 
ethnically cleansed. The surviving victims 
continue to be persecuted in Gujarat.

  The Coalition Against Genocide (CAG - 
www.coalitionagainstgenocide.org), is campaigning 
against Narendra Modi's felicitation in US. 
Narendra Modi's crimes are being whitewashed by 
honoring him in a convention attended and 
supported by US lawmakers and celebrities. A 
major step in the campaign against Narendra Modi 
involves reminding the attendees of the 
aforementioned convention that he is an accused 
in heinous crimes against humanity.

  Chris Matthews of MSNBC Hardball program is 
scheduled to give a keynote address at the 
convention. He has been asked by the Coalition 
Against Genocide to withdraw from the AAHOA 
convention unless Narendra Modi's invitation is 
canceled. We have already sent a dossier on 
Narendra Modi and the fascist Hindutva movement 
to Mr. Matthews.

  Please contact Chris Matthews and politely 
request him to withdraw from the AAHOA 
convention. Also ask him to report on the funding 
of ethnic cleansing in India by the extremist 
groups, based in US, which are supporting 
Narendra Modi.


ACTIONS REQUESTED

  Call or write to Chris Matthews at MSNBC Hardball.

Call: (202) 824-6702 and ask for staff member Tina Urbanski
Call: (202) 783-2615 and ask for staff member Christina Jamison

Fax: (201)583 5453

Email:

Chris Matthews - Chris.matthews at msnbc.com

Hardball Staff -
christina.jamison at msnbc.com;
cpendy at msnbc.com

Dominic Bellone, Hardball Producer and Editor of 
Hardball Newsletter - DBellone at MSNBC.com

David Shuster -
DShuster at MSNBC.com

Blog:
Hardblogger at MSNBC.com

Send copies of correspondence to info at coalitionagainstgenocide.org

Please copy and distribute this alert. The 
petition can be downloaded from 
http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/

TALKING POINTS

  Narendra Modi is the Chief Executive of the 
Gujarat State Government that was complicit in 
the massacres and rapes of thousands of people as 
documented by Amnesty International and the 
Indian National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). 
The Supreme Court of India has rebuked him  for 
his actions during the pogroms.

The 2002 Gujarat pogroms specifically targeted 
women and children and used sexual mutilation as 
an ethnic cleansing tool.

Narendra Modi's Government is still persecuting 
religious and ethnic minorities in Gujarat and 
was criticized by the US State Department of 
International Religious Freedom report.

State that we understand Mr. Matthews has been 
misled by AAHOA. He should withdraw from the 
convention so as not to stand in support of 
massacres and persecution of minorities and for 
the sake of his reputation and credibility.

Suggest that he invite the American family 
members of the victims of the Gujarat pogroms and 
the representatives of the Coalition Against 
Genocide and do an in-depth show on the pogroms.

  Request him to expose the insidious way the 
Hindutva forces are gaining influence in the US 
and point out that Narendra Modi is a member of 
one such violent and bigoted Hindu nationalist 
organization called the Rashtriya Swayamsevak 
Sangh (RSS: National Volunteers Corps) that was 
inspired by Nazi Germany and the Italian fascist 
party.


______


[5]


The Indian Express - May 09, 2005

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=66071

Take the jungle to the law

Make the review of Army's special powers an exercise in deliberative democracy

Sanjib Baruah

When the five-member panel reviewing the Armed 
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), headed by 
Justice B P Jeevan Reddy, visited Manipur, the 
majority of Apunba Lup-the coalition of 
organisations campaigning against the law-called 
for a boycott of its hearings. Leaders of the 
campaign described the panel as a ploy to buy 
time so that the energy of the popular campaign 
against the law would dissipate.
Yet the Reddy panel could have a positive 
influence on our North-east policy: its 
deliberations could promote the legitimacy of our 
institutions and policies in the region. By 
seriously engaging the pros and the cons of the 
AFSPA, the panel can try to persuade citizens 
about the need for the law. But it cannot do so 
unless it takes on the profound dilemmas that the 
AFSPA presents to our democracy. It is the 
absence of engagement with these dilemmas that 
angers many Northeasterners. Such an exercise, of 
course, would have to be open-ended: it might 
lead to recommending a policy shift that 
government insiders might oppose.

The signs on how the Reddy panel is going about 
its task are mixed. On the one hand chairman 
Reddy has promised that the panel ''will try to 
do the right thing'' keeping ''the interest of 
society and people's democratic and human 
rights'' in mind. On the other hand statements to 
the press by Reddy and his colleagues suggest 
that they are hoping to find a focal point for 
defining public interest among the views 
expressed by various interested parties such as 
the Army, the bureaucracy and civil society 
groups. The panel appears to be less inclined to 
freshly deliberate on the need for this 
extraordinary piece of coercive legislation.
Panel members have told the press of their 
surprise about the misconceptions about the AFSPA 
among citizens. In Tripura the panel found that 
people spoke to them about cases involving the 
Tripura State Rifles and not the Indian Army. 
Members of the panel have said that they have 
encountered three sets of views on the AFSPA: 
first, that the Act should be repealed and the 
Army should return to the barracks; second that 
the Army should stay but the AFSPA itself be 
replaced with another legislation more sensitive 
to human rights concerns; and third, that the 
Army should stay, with some modification of the 
AFSPA. Apparently the political leadership of the 
northeastern states prefers that the AFSPA remain 
in force because they find the armed forces to be 
more effective than the state police. Panel 
members have not divulged the views of the Assam 
Rifles, but these are not hard to guess. The 
Assam Rifles defends the AFSPA and rejects 
accusations of human rights violations.
Views expressed by so-called civil society 
circles are also unlikely to be uniform. 
Manipur's hill districts, where the AFSPA has 
been in force for much longer, were relatively 
quiet during the unrest in the Imphal Valley. 
According to some news reports, Naga villagers in 
Senapati district-with what at best can be called 
the active encouragement of the Assam 
Rifles-demonstrated in favour of the AFSPA with 
placards such as 'Assam Rifles, Friend of the 
Hill People', and 'Save our Souls, Assam Rifles, 
Protect our Lives'.
Why should not the Reddy panel simply side with 
sectors that support continuation of the AFSPA in 
some form? Because the issues that are being 
raised about the AFSPA are of a higher order than 
those that permit policy-making by canvassing the 
views of interested parties. Especially since the 
costs of the AFSPA are borne only by those living 
in particular areas where the AFSPA is enforced, 
canvassing views would be a rather unfortunate 
basis for making policy. Furthermore, the 
legitimacy crisis of democratic institutions in 
Manipur-as highlighted by last year's protests-is 
real. While deliberative democracies should try 
to persuade citizens about the rationale of all 
laws, they have to try especially hard when it 
comes to laws that take away liberties that are 
foundational to democracy. That task is urgent in 
North-east India where the credibility of 
democratic institutions today is in short supply.
The Reddy panel can serve a useful function by 
addressing the question of whether the AFSPA 
meets the test of what Michael Ignatieff calls a 
''lesser evil'' that democracies may sometimes 
have to choose. In the life of a democracy, 
Ignatieff writes, there may be times when 
''rights may have to bow to security''. But there 
have to be extremely good reasons and there must 
be clear, specific and transparent limitations on 
the abridgment of rights. Even if the defence of 
democracy may sometimes require actions that 
depart from democracy's commitments to dignity, 
the use of coercion has to be always morally 
problematic.
Ignatieff proposes a few rigorous tests that laws 
proposing coercive measures must pass before they 
are accepted. The dignity test would preclude 
cruel and unusual punishment, torture, 
extra-judicial execution etc. The conservative 
test would ensure that a departure from due 
process standards is indeed necessary. The 
effectiveness test would ask if the coercive 
measures would make citizens more or less secure. 
The last resort test would ensure that new 
coercive measures are adopted only after less 
coercive measures are tried and have failed. Such 
measures would also have to pass the test of open 
adversarial review by legislative and judicial 
bodies. He also proposes a test on whether the 
measures meet the international obligations of 
government. The Reddy panel could put the AFSPA 
to these tests.
Even after society chooses the path of the lesser 
evil, after extremely careful deliberation to 
ensure that the use of coercion meets these 
exacting standards, it cannot stick to that path 
indefinitely. When for instance one hears 
arguments for ''destroying a village in order to 
save it'', says Ignatieff, it may be a sign that 
there is a slippage from the lesser to the 
greater evil. When that happens society has no 
choice but to admit mistakes and reverse course. 
The Reddy panel might consider whether such a 
moment has not already arrived in the North-east.
Sanjib Baruah is Visiting Professor, Centre for 
Policy Research, New Delhi. He is the author of 
Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of 
Northeast India

______


[6]  [Announcements]

SAHMAT-12 March-75th Anniversary of Dandi March-4.00 pm,Constitution Club

SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001
Telephone- 23711276/ 23351424
e-mail-sahmat at vsnl.com


5.3.2005

JOIN US

12 March
75th Anniversary of Dandi March
1930-2005

Symposium :         Prof. Bipan Chandra

Prof.Prabhat Patnaik

Book Release :          Dhundhle Padchinh
                           by Madhukar Upadhyaya

Poster Release :           Dandi March
                            Design :Parthiv Shah

Exhibition

4.00 pm Speakerís Hall, Constitution Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001


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

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.