SACW #2 | 30 March 2005 | India and US Visa denial to Modi

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire #2  | 30 March,  2005
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Text of citizens statement re the Indian 
Prime minister's comments in the Rajya Sabha 
following refusal of US Visa to Narendra Modi
[2]  Last refuge of the scoundrel (Praful Bidwai)
[3]  Visa Denial Hurt National Pride? (Harsh Mander)
[4] The Psychopath as Megalomaniac (Mukul Dube)
[5] L'affaire Modi (Edit., The Hindu)
[6] Modi Episode Will Serve To Redeem NRI Image (Rajiv Desai)
[7] Modi and a Metamorphosis: From a Fascist 
Massacre to a Fake Martyrdom (J. Sri Raman)
[8] Spineless Sri Sri's Art of Living with Modi


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

[1]

sacw.net - March 24, 2005

TEXT OF CITIZENS STATEMENT RE THE INDIAN PRIME 
MINISTER'S COMMENTS IN THE RAJYA SABHA FOLLOWING 
REFUSAL OF US VISA TO NARENDRA MODI

We express our shock and anger at the stand taken 
by the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in the 
Rajya Sabha on the issue of refusal of visa to 
Mr. Narendra Modi by the USA. He has said that it 
is not proper for any agency to form its opinion 
on the role of Sh. Modi in the 2002 Gujarat 
genocide based on mere allegations. Sh. Singh 
needs to be reminded that it was the NHRC which 
had castigated Mr. Modi and his state government 
for having aided and abetted the act of genocide 
of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, and it was the 
SUPreme Court of India that had opined that the 
Modi government cannot be relied UPon to bring 
about justice to the victims of the carnage. More 
than 50 national and international agencies of 
high credibility with their painstaking 
investigation had held Mr. Modi directly 
responsible for the act of genocide. The Prime 
Minister needs to come clean on this issue. Does 
he hold a considered opinion that the 
observations made by the NHRC and the Supreme 
Court of India are to be treated with contempt as 
shown by him in his Rajya Sabha speech?

Mr. Modi's policies of hatred should not be 
legitimised even by association. Mr. Modi is no 
ordinary elected leader. He has become infamous 
for his active abetment in the most brutal 
massacre since India became free, of a segment of 
the citizens of his state. His notoriety has 
deepened in the past 3 years because he remains 
completely unrepentant for these crimes, 
including the mass slaughter and rape of hundreds 
of innocent women and children, and instead has 
openly fought elections from a platform of hate. 
He has deliberately subverted the process of 
justice, that have attracted unprecedented 
structure from the Supreme Court of India.

We continue - to harbour grave disquiet about the 
militaristic and chauvinistic policies of the 
current US government itself, most notably in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. George Bush and his cohorts 
cannot be the arbiters of human rights.

We commend the untiring efforts of NRIs and human 
rights activists in the US and in India who 
mobilized public opinion and pressurized the US 
administration which led to the denial of Modi's 
visa. For those who claim that the international 
community has no role to play in the Gujarat 
carnage since it is a matter internal to the 
Indian nation, we would like to remind them that 
by the same logic, the entire world should have 
remained a mute spectator as millions of Jews 
were imprisoned and executed in concentration 
camps by the Nazi government. For those who claim 
that any insult to any elected official is an 
insult to the entire nation, we would like to 
remind them that Hitler, who is reviled even 
today, was also an elected official. There is 
nothing more insulting to the Indian nation than 
the pogroms that took place in Gujarat, and the 
fact that their main architect, Sh Narendra Modi, 
still continues to enjoy the powers and 
privileges of the Chief Minister in that state, 
while the Prime Minister of the country rushes to 
his defence.

It is a matter of great shame that even 10 months 
after having assumed power the UPA government has 
done nothing to ensure justice to the victims of 
Gujarat genocide. It has taken no steps to 
instill a sense of security and confidence among 
the displaced, raped, and maimed minorities of 
Gujarat who have been left to fend for 
themselves. No financial and legal aid has been 
arranged by the Central government for them and 
it is treating the whole Gujarat genocide as a 
routine state matter.

The statement by Dr. Manmohan Singh adds insult 
to the injury suffered by the Genocide victims of 
Gujarat, and is an affront to those NRIs and 
human rights activists in the US whose unflagging 
pressure on the US administration resulted in the 
denial of Mr. Modi's visa. That Dr. Singh should 
feel compelled to come out openly to speak for an 
organizer of mass murder who feels no remorse for 
his role shows that Dr. Singh has lost all sense 
of propriety. The statement also shows that the 
government wants to remain neutral on the 
question of communalism.

We, as people who are committed to secularism and 
human rights in India, feel betrayed and would 
like to take this opportunity to express our 
sense of despair that the political formation 
which is in power at the centre lacks any sense 
of moral responsibility and moral courage.

On behalf of the dead and living victims of 
Gujarat genocide and on behalf of the sections of 
civil society which have worked for the defeat of 
the communal forces we demand an apology from Dr. 
Manmohan Singh for having humiliated the wronged 
citizens of India by issuing a highly insensitive 
and irresponsible statement defending Mr. 
Narendra Modi.
March 21, 2005Released by
Shabnam Hashmi - ANHAD, Delhi <anhad_delhi at yahoo.co.in>>

On behalf of:

1. Aamir Khan- Actor, Mumbai
2. Aditya-Ceo, Ekgaon Technologies
3. Admiral Ramu Ramdas- Member, National Integration Council
4. Adv. Aradhana Bhargava- Mahatama Gandhi Sansthan, Madhya Pradesh
5. Adv. Rajendra K. Sail-Pucl, Chattisgarh
6. Agnesh Murmu-Gram Sabha Seva Sansthan,Jharkhand
7. Ajeet Caur, Writer, Delhi
8. Ajit Kumar-Arise, Aurangabad
9. Akshay Sail -Rcdrc, Raipur
10. Alladi Sitaram-Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute
11. Allwyn D' Silva- Documentation Research And Training Centre,Mumbai
12. Amal Charles -,Step, Secundrabad
13. Amar Farooqui- Reader, History Dept, Delhi University, Delhi
14. Amar Jyoti- Activist, Chennai
15. Amita & BCF Team
16. Amrit Gangar-Film Critic, Curator,Mumbai
17. Amrita Chhachhi, Delhi
18. Anand Kumar- Ncdhr
19. Anand Patwardhan-Film Maker, Mumbai
20. Anant Krishna-Researcher, Hyderabad
21. Aneesh Pradhan-Musician, Mumbai
22. Angana Chatterji-Professor of Anthropology, San Francisco, USA
23. Anil Chaudhary-Indian Social Action Forum, Delhi
24. Anjum Rajabali-Script Writer, Mumbai
25. Anu Chenoy- Academician,JNU
26. Anup Sanda- National Alliance of People's Movements, Sultanpur, UP
27. Anurag Chaturvedi-Journalist, Mumbai
28. Anwar Ahmad
29. Apoorvanand- Reader, Delhi University
30. Aradhana Seth- Vienna. Austria.
31. Arjun Dev- Historian, Delhi
32. Arpana Caur- Painter, Delhi
33. Arundhati Dhuru - National Alliance of People's Movements, Lucknow, UP
34. Arvind Krishnaswamy- Insaaniyat, Mumbai
35. Arvind Kumar- National Alliance of People's Movements, Mau , UP
36. Ashis Nandy-CSDS, Delhi
37. Ashish Garg- Regional Coordinator-India, World Links, New Delhi
38. Ashok Kumar Dalai-Maitree Samaj, Orissa
39. Ashok Vajpeyi, Writer, Delhi
40. B.Mahesh
41. Bhashwati- Activist, Hyderabad
42. Bishakha Datta-Documentary Filmmaker And Writer, Mumbai
43. Cedric Prakash - Director, Prashant(Centre 
For Human Rights Justice And Peace, Gujarat
44. Chandita Mukherjee-Film Maker, Mumbai
45. Chitra Singh- Animal Rights Activist, Bhopal
46. Chitranjan Singh-PUCL, Allahabad
47. Colin Gonsalves-Human Rights Law Network
48. Damini Tiwari- Student, Mumbai
49. Dayamani Barla -Freelance Journalist, Jharkhand
50. Deepak Singh-Managing Director - Iram, 
Executive Member - I-Congo (Indian Confederation 
Of NGOs)
51. Digant Oza- Senior Journalist, Ahmedabad
52. Dilip Kumar- Veteran Film Actor, Mumbai
53. Dilip Simeon-Academician, Delhi University
54. Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan- Editor, The Milli Gazette Newspaper, New Delhi
55. Dr. Amar Jesani- Medico Friend Circle, Forum 
For Medical Ethics Society, Mumbai
56. Dr. Seema Parveen-Institute of Social Sciences, Lucknow
57. Dr. Umakant-Ncdhr
58. Dr. Virendra Vidrohi -MMSVS, Rajasthan
59. Dr.Saroop Dhruv -,Darshan , Ahmedabad
60. Farah Naqvi- Independant Writer And Activist, Delhi
61. Farida Khan
62. Firozkhan Pathan-Dallas, Taxes, USA
63. Francis Parmar, Principal, St Xaviers College, Ahmedabad
64. Gauhar Raza-Documentary Film Maker, Poet, Delhi
65. Gorakshnath Dhanwate-Prerna Krida Mandal, Maharashtra
66. Govind Singh Mahra-Uttarakhand Van Panchayat,Sarpanch Sangathan,Uttranchal
67. Harsh Kapoor-South Asia Citizens Web, France
68. Harsh Mander-Writer, Social Activist, Delhi
69. Hema B.Rajashekhar
70. Hemant Tiwari, Uttranchal
71. Henri Tiphange, People's Watch, Chennai
72. Hiren Gandhi,Theatre, Samvedan Cultural Programme, Ahmedabad
73. Hyder Khan, Chairman, Supporters Of Human 
Rights In India (SHRI), Minneapolis
74. I.M.Bhana
75. Imtiazuddin- Exec Dir, Coalition For A 
Secular And Democratic India, Chicago
76. Indira Arjun Dev-Acaedemician, Delhi
77. Irfan Ahmed ,Lok Manch, Aurangabad
78. Irfan Habib-Historian, Delhi
79. Jaba Menon- One Worldnet, Delhi
80. Janette Sunita- Tarshi, Delhi
81. Jaswinder Singh Mand, Journalist, Nawa Zamana, Jallandhar
82. Javed Akhtar-Lyricist, Mumbai
83. Jawed Naqvi-Journalist, Delhi
84. Jaya Sharma
85. Juli Queen Mary Selvakumar,-Arise, Tamil Nadu
86. Jyoti Bose, Principal, Springdales School, Delhi
87. K. L. Moyo -Save The River Movement, Nagaland
88. K.N.Sasi -Vaikom, Kerela
89. Kabir Vajpeyi-
90. Kalamani-
91. Kalyani Upendranath Baske-Nagpur Diocesan Dev. Assn. (Ndda), Maharashtra
92. Kamal Mitra Chenoy- Professor, JNU
93. Kandala Singh- Youth For Peace
94. Karthik Bezawada,Principal, Crictv Llc
95. Karuppan-
96. Khalid Azam-Coalition Against Genocide, USA
97. Kiran Shaeen- Head Communication, New Delhi
98. KN Panikkar-Academician, Trivendrum
99. Lahrc, Surat
100. Lalit Babar- Dalit Activist, Mumbai
101. Lalita Ramdas-Activist, Maharashtra
102. Laxmaiah of CDS
103. M. J. Jose-Dawn Trust . Kerela
104. M.Mandal-Activist, Hyderabad
105. Mahesh - National Alliance Of People's Movements, Lucknow
106. Mahesh Bhatt, Producer & Director
107. Manas Jena- Development Initiative, Orissa
108. Manasa Patnam-Youth Forpeace
109. Manjula Sen-Freelance Journalist, Mumbai
110. Manoj Kumar- Belgium
111. Mansi Sharma-Anhad
112. Marry E.John-Women's Studies Programme, JNU
113. Martin J Shah- Prog Officer, Rupcha, Delhi
114. Martin Macwan- Navsarjan, Gujarat
115. Meera Velayudhan-Utthan
116. Mitu Pati-Suprabat, Orissa
117. Molana Hanif -,Mewat Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Rajasthan
118. Mouttoucannou , PUCL, Kerela
119. Moyna Manku-Youth For Peace, Hyderabad
120. Mrinalini Tiwari, Student, Mumbai
121. Mukul Dube, Free Lance Writer, Delhi
122. Mukundan C. Menon,Secretary General,(CHRO)
123. N.D.Pancholi- The Amiya & B.G.Rao Foundation, New Delhi
124. Nafisa Ali, Actress, Activist, Delhi
125. Nandita Das-Actress, Delhi
126. Nandlal Master- National Alliance Of People's Movements, Varanasi
127. Nanjundaiah,Nisarga Foundation, Mysore
128. Nasirriddin Haider Khan,
129. Naveen Siromoni,Creative Director,Karpediem Design Pvt Ltd
130. Neha Patel, TARSHI, Delhi
131. Osama Manzar- Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation
132. P. Joseph Victor Raj,Holistic Approach For 
People'S Empowerment,Hope, Pondicherry
133. Paul Divakar, NCDHR, Hyderabad
134. PD John- Policy Institute, Washington DC
135. Prabha,-Tarshi, Delhi
136. Praful Bidwai, Senior Journalist, Delhi
137. Pramila Loomba- Vice President, NFIW, Delhi
138. Prashant Bhushan-Advocate Supreme Court, Delhi
139. Praveen Mote,Samatha, Hyderabad
140. Priti Verma- Human Rights Law Network
141. Prof. Dipankar Home,Dept. of Physics, Bose Institute, Kolkata
142. Ra Ravishankar, University of Illinois
143. Ra Ravishankar, University of Illinois, USA/St1:Country-Region>
144. Raghu Tiwari ,Aman
145. Rahul Ram, Singer
146. Rajim Tandi,Mukti - Niketan, Chattisgarh
147. Ram Kumar-
148. Ram Punyani, Ekta, Mumbai
149. Ramesh Ali Beasant , Ambedkar Lohia Vichar Manch , Cuttack
150. Reuban Raj-Center For Education & Social Services, Madurai
151. Rish Raj Singh, Entrepreneur, Bhopal
152. Ruchira Gupta, Executive Director,Apne Aap Women Worldwide
153. Ruth Manorma- Dalit Activists, Tamil Nadu
154. S Faizi, Environmentalist, Thiruvananthapuram
Dr. Henry Thiagaraj, Managing Trustee, Dalit 
Liberation Education Trust & Founder Of Human 
Rights Education Movement
155. S K Thorat- International Institute of Dalit Studies
156. S. Sreekant, Deed - Development Through Education, Karnataka
157. Saeed Patel, NRI-SAHI
158. Sahir Raza-Youth For Peace
159. Sameer Singh, Media Planner
160. Sandeep Pandey- National Alliance of People's Movements, Lucknow, UP
161. Sangram Keshari Mallik,Manav Adhikar, Orissa
162. Sanjay Singh- National Alliance of People's Movements, Sutanpur, UP
163. Sarup Dhruv -Theatre, Darshan, Ahmedabad
Utkarsh Kumar Sinha-Ccrs (Centre For Contemporary Research & Studies), Lucknow
164. Sarup Dhruv, Darshan, Ahmedabad
165. Sehba Farooqui- Gen-Sec, National Federation Of Indian Women (NFIW), Delhi
166. Shabnam Hashmi -Social Activist, Member, 
National Integration Council,Delhi
167. Shalini Gera-Activist, USA
168. Shamanthaka David,Cord, Karnataka
169. Sharda, Deed, Karnataka
170. Sheba George, SAHR WARU
171. Shekhar,Samvad, Jharkhand
172. Shiamala Baby ,Forum For Women's Rights & Development (Forword), Chennai
173. Shibi Peter,Youth Institute For Leadership Training, CSI Youth, Kerela
174. Shivali, University of Illinois,USA
175. Shoba Ramachandran, Books For Change, Bangalore
176. Shubha Mudgal, Musician, Delhi
177. Snehaprabha Mallick,Sc - St Village Welfare Dev. Yojana, Orissa
178. Sofia Khan, Advocate, Ahmedabad
179. Sohail Hashmi, Documentary Filmmaker
180. Sonia Jabber, Film Maker, Delhi
181. SP Udayakumar, South Asian Community Centre 
For Education And Research, Nagercoil
182. Stalin K., Filmmaker.
183. Subhendu Bhadra- Promise of India
184. Sujata Tiwari, Anticounterfieting, Mumbai
185. Suma Josson, Mumbai
186. Sunil Deshmukh36 Northwind Drstamford, Connecticut, USA 06903
187. Sunil Kumar Singh , Lok Manch, Aurangabad
188. Suresh Wasnik,Peace - Peoples Education 
Association For Community And Environment, 
Karnataka
189. Swami Agnivesh
190. T.Jayaraman, Scientist, TIFR
191. Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka, Delhi
192. Than Singh
193. Thomas Pallithanam
194. Tk Ramachandran-Kerala
195. U. Radha Priyadarshini, Sabala, Kurnool
196. Uma Ashish Nandi
197. Vijay Pratap Singh , Social Activist, Delhi
198. Vimal Thorat, Ncdhr, Delhi
199. Vinay Kumar Dalit Bahujan Samaj
200. Vincent Manoharan, NCDHR, Hyderabad
201. Vishwanath, Judav, Jharkhand
202. Wilfred,INSAAF, Ahmedabad
203. Yunus Khimani, Professor, National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad
204. Zubair Patel, Gujarati Muslim Association of America

______

[2]


Khaleej Times - 27 March 2005

LAST REFUGE OF THE SCOUNDREL
by Praful Bidwai

PUBLIC memory is notoriously short. But 
politicians' memory can be shorter. In the 
mid-1960s, India's Congress party joined hands 
with the Left to make a simple yet persuasive 
demand: withdraw Brigadier-General Paul Tibbetts 
from the United States embassy in New Delhi. 
Tibbetts was the pilot who had dropped the 
nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. He never 
expressed remorse for this act of mass 
destruction. He was soon removed as military 
attaché.


Nobody then thought that issues of diplomatic 
protocol, "courtesy" and "sovereign" rights of 
states come prior to the moral-political 
imperative of preventing, protesting and 
punishing grave crimes against humanity, such as 
the nuclear bombing of Japan.

By contrast, the US denial of a visa to Narendra 
Modi has caused a great outpouring of crude 
nationalistic anger in India. Washington has been 
accused of 'discourtesy' and 'interference' in 
India's affairs. Some secularists who rightly 
hold Modi responsible for India's worst 
state-sponsored pogrom of a religious minority 
sided with the Bharatiya Janata Party on this.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself intervened 
in the debate and accused Washington of being 
discourteous and making "a subjective judgment" 
to question "a constitutional authority." India 
officially asked Washington to reconsider its 
decision. Even sections of the Left have been 
ambivalent on the issue.

In reality, there is no room for ambivalence. The 
visa denial should be welcomed by all 
secularists. The cause involved justice for the 
victims of a crime against humanity transcending 
protocol, diplomatic courtesies, and even 
national boundaries. Anything that denies 
respectability to communal criminals should be 
welcomed. This rationale remains valid even if 
one takes a critical view of the US's hegemonic 
and largely negative global role.

Contrary to claims, Washington's denial of visa 
to Modi does not constitute interference in 
India's affairs. All states reserve the right to 
grant/deny visas. India routinely rejects 
thousands of visa applications. So does the US. 
In the past, the US barred members of Communist 
parties or related organisations. New Delhi never 
took up the cudgels on their behalf. Doing so in 
the Modi case presumes that a fundamental right 
or principle is violated. Yet, a visa is not a 
right. Modi wasn't invited to talk to a learned 
society, but to address the Asian American Hotel 
Owners' Association.

Washington's judgment was no more 'subjective' 
than that of India's own Supreme Court and 
National Human Rights Commission, on which the 
State Department based its own view. As its 
spokesperson put it, "it was the Indians who 
investigated the riots and determined that state 
institutions failed to prevent violence and 
religious persecution." It's equally futile to 
harp on Modi's status as a 'constitutionally 
elected' Chief Minister while protesting US 
'discourtesy'. When he instigated the violence 
that led to the killing of 2,000 citizens and 
rape of thousands, Modi was grotesquely violating 
the Constitution, not upholding it. As for 
courtesy, well, it's to argue that those guilty 
of heinous crimes should be given it!

It's absurd to claim that the US is prejudiced 
against the BJP or thinks India is a 'pushover'. 
In 2002, the US reacted to Gujarat without a 
sense of outrage. Unlike the European Union, it 
didn't issue a protest demarche to India. Modi 
also gloated over similarities between President 
Bush and himself! Washington has since clarified 
that its visa decision is no reflection on the 
BJP or India.

Of course, this doesn't argue that the US doesn't 
adopt double standards. It does, when it coddles 
regimes which routinely commit 'severe violations 
of religious freedom' - the clause under which it 
refused a visa to Modi.

Its present decision is explained less by its own 
realpolitik calculations than by focused lobbying 
by secular Indian-American groups, 38 of whom 
recently got together to form the Coalition 
against Genocide, which focused on Modi's visit 
(www. coalitionagainstgenocide.org). Earlier, 
some of these NRI group had produced an excellent 
document, "Foreign Exchange of Hatred", detailing 
how RSS fronts diverted funds for charity to 
organisations involved in the Gujarat violence.

CAG ably lobbied Congressmen and State Department 
officials, some of whom had visited Gujarat. It 
relied on two reports of the US Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, which 
recommended that India be designated a "Country 
of Particular Concern". The commission in turn 
based itself on reports of the NHRC, the 
Concerned Citizens' Tribunal headed by V R 
Krishna Iyer, Amnesty International, People's 
Union for Civil Liberties, etc. It also heard 
Indian experts.

Its assessment of Modi's role in the pogrom 
replicates the conclusion drawn by at least 20 
independent inquiries by Indian jurists and 
scholars.

Modi committed a crime against humanity. Indeed, 
the Gujarat carnage was genocidal. It fits the 
definition of the UN Convention against Genocide: 
"any of the following acts committed with intent 
to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, 
ethnical, racial or religious group, such as: (a) 
killing [its] members; (b) causing serious bodily 
or mental harm to [them]; (c) deliberately 
inflicting on [them] conditions of life 
calculated to bring about its physical 
destruction in whole or in part"

Preventing and punishing genocide is everybody's 
concern. Under the Convention, it is a duty.

The rebuff delivered to Modi is well deserved, 
and indeed long overdue. One can only hope he 
meets with similar treatment from the rest of the 
world. People like Modi are a liability in all 
countries just like Slobodan Milosevic and 
Pinochet, who today stand indicted or face trial 
on grave charges. So should Modi.

The visa episode highlights two things: one, the 
crying need to bring the guilty of Gujarat to 
book through systematic, earnest prosecution; and 
second, the danger of adopting chauvinist and 
jingoist stands in the name of 'national 
sovereignty'. In reality, it's not states, but 
people who are sovereign.

"Sovereignty" cannot be a justification for 
butchering people. As has been said before, 
patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. 
That refuge becomes all the more repulsive when 
used to shield perpetrators of crimes against 
humanity, which are an issue of universal concern.

  Praful Bidwai is a senior Indian journalist and eminent commentator


______

[3]

The Times of India
28 March, 2005

VISA DENIAL HURT NATIONAL PRIDE?
by Harsh Mander

The denial of a diplomatic visa to Narendra Modi, 
and subsequent protest by the Indian government, 
has resulted in a deep divide in Indian 
middleclass opinion. It is not a simple fissure 
between those who believe in secular democracy 
and those who oppose it.

There are many who are stoutly secular, who still 
oppose what they see as an affront to national 
pride and a democratically-elected office.

However, Modi is no ordinary elected leader. He 
has become infamous for his role in the most 
brutal massacre since India became free, 
including the mass slaughter and rape of hundreds 
of women and children. In the past three years, 
he has remained completely unrepentant, and has 
deliberately subverted the process of justice, 
attracting unprecedented strictures from the 
Supreme Court.

Modi's politics of hatred should not be 
legitimised even by association, by the 
international community. I welcome the US 
government's decision, even as I harbour grave 
disquiet about the militaristic and chauvinistic 
policies and human rights abuses of the current 
US government itself, most notably in Afghanistan 
and Iraq.

Nehru once refused a request by Mussolini to meet 
him, because he was a fascist.

This was widely admired as a principled stand 
based on democratic and humanist traditions, and 
never an affront to the people of Italy. 
Similarly, most nations refused diplomatic 
relations with the apartheid regime of South 
Africa, which was an act not of insult but of 
solidarity of the international community with 
large sections of the South African people. 
Because of his record, Modi qualifies for the 
same isolation and its victimised minorities for 
the same solidarity of the national and 
international community. This is no affront to 
the people of Gujarat and India.

The alacrity with which the UPA government sprang 
to Modi's defence contrasts painfully with its 
prevarication to secure justice for those who not 
only survived the massacre, but continue to live 
with fear and grapple with economic boycott, and 
are threatened or bribed if they pursue legal 
justice. The PM's statement in the Rajya Sabha 
that the charges against Modi are based on 
unproved allegations is appalling because Modi 
stands repeatedly indicted not just by more than 
50 independent citizens' reports by organisations 
and people of the highest credibility, but also 
by the Supreme Court and the NHRC.

In the recent elections in Jharkhand, Modi, 
fielded as a star campaigner by the BJP, 
thundered, "To accomplish what I did in Gujarat 
requires a broad chest of 46 inches." His words 
struck terror anew in the hearts of minorities in 
remote villages. Is he the pride, or the shame, 
of India?


Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited.

______

[4]


Indian Express, 23 March 2005

THE PSYCHOPATH AS MEGALOMANIAC

Mukul Dube

Narendra Modi's reaction to the denial and withdrawal of U.S.
visas was predictable - and, like all that he says, it was arrant
nonsense. Ever Pavlovian, he spouted the "five crore Gujaratis"
line, whose utter irrelevance even within Gujarat he cannot see. When
he called the action of the U.S.A. a "threat to [the] sovereignty
... of the country", he evidently forgot that the U.S.A. too is a
sovereign State which has the absolute right to permit or deny entry
to its territories.

The statements of others of the BJP have been just as absurd.
Yashwant Sinha objected to "the application of a U.S. domestic law
to the visit of a high political personality". Which law would Mr.
Sinha have the U.S.A. apply to persons who request visas to visit it?
The Hindu Marriage Act, perhaps? When he was Minister for External
Affairs, did he apply Pakistani laws to prominent Pakistanis who
wished to visit India?

Another former Minister for External Affairs, Jaswant Singh, objected
that the U.S.A. had invoked a new religious freedom statute for the
first time in relation to India. Would Mr. Singh have liked the
U.S.A. to invoke that statute in relation to two dozen other countries
before considering, perhaps after a decade, Modi's application for
a visa? When he said that the action of the U.S.A. was
"international interference" in Indian affairs, presumably he
was pointing to the contrast with the NDA government's dignified
silence when Iraq requested the U.S.A. for assistance in the
destruction of its weapons of mass destruction, because by itself it
was incapable of dealing with that which did not exist. Or did Mr.
Singh mean that the Bush administration was trying to coerce the
Indian judiciary?

The Hindu Right, not excluding those of the species who have been
ministers, diplomats and air force officers, always argues in the
manner typical of *chavanni* lawyers across the land. The real issue
is either not spoken of at all, or else it is buried under so much
irrelevant garbage that it can be reached only after an endless
cleaning of the stable floor. Horse scents, this is called.

The Congress, quite simply, is play-acting. As a party it has
castigated Modi since March 2002 for having made mince-meat of the
Constitution. Now the government which it leads must criticise the
U.S.A. for having acted against him because he was elected under that
same Constitution. We all know that its noises and appeals will have
no effect, that they are only for public consumption. But could the
public not have been shown a little shame or embarrassment as well?

I suggest that the real insult was the one which Modi flung at all
Indians by describing the action of the U.S.A. as "an insult to
the Constitution of India and its people," both of whom he has been
kicking about and trampling upon. What he meant was, "I am
India".

______

[5]

The Hindu  - March 30, 2005

Opinion - Editorials
L'AFFAIRE MODI

IT IS NOW becoming clear that the one act of the 
Bush administration that secular, democratic, and 
progressive India can agree with, and indeed 
applaud with some necessary qualifications, is 
the revocation of Narendra Modi's existing 
tourist/business visa - in conjunction with 
finding him ineligible for a diplomatic visa 
given the nature of his planned visit to the 
United States. It is important to realise that 
this determination was the outcome of a spirited 
and sustained campaign by democrats and human 
rights activists. It was significant also because 
it set in motion a chain of unexpected political 
developments presaging Mr. Modi's downfall.

He had struck a warm, celebratory note over the 
re-election of George Bush through discovering "a 
lot of similarity" between his presidential 
campaign speeches and his own communally virulent 
gaurav yatra campaign ahead of the 2002 Gujarat 
Assembly elections. Both triumphs, Mr. Modi had 
reflected in self-congratulatory vein, could be 
explained in terms of taking up "the issue of 
terrorism," Mr. Bush "warn[ing] off America's 
enemies... [and] I... Gujarat's enemies." He had 
challenged "political pundits" to analyse the 
shared experience. But after the visa denial and 
revocation, Mr. Modi, ever the demagogue, 
screamed: "an insult to the Constitution of India 
and its people... a threat to [the] sovereignty 
and democratic traditions of the country." And, 
quite out of character, his party leaders found 
themselves obliged to indulge in some dubious 
U.S.-bashing. The stage seemed set for yet 
another essay in Moditva - this time a swabhiman 
mass campaign.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom chose a somewhat 
different but equally impactful course: it would 
not revoke Mr. Modi's visa but, in keeping with 
its post-2002 policy of `no [high level] contact' 
with him, it would deny him official status, 
including special security. Instant political 
punditry saw the situation as favourable to the 
Gujarat Chief Minister but that is not how events 
have played out. After his decision not to travel 
to London given the prospect of militant 
demonstrations by human rights activists and 
possible arrest, the dissidents in the Gujarat 
unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party have refused 
emphatically to withdraw their demand for his 
removal. The publicity surrounding the 
controversy is seen by dissident leaders as yet 
another instance of the Gujarat Chief Minister's 
penchant for individual glory, a "megalomaniac" 
attempt to place himself above the party. In 
fact, dissident leaders view his decision not to 
travel to London, ostensibly under advice from 
the Central Government, as a clear case of cold 
feet. It was perfectly clear that influential 
groups of Indians opposed to him would be at 
liberty to protest against his presence in the 
U.K. What was more, the Indian High Commission in 
London apparently communicated through New Delhi 
that, in view of the fact that cases had been 
filed against Mr. Modi on behalf of the families 
of two British nationals killed in the Gujarat 
pogrom of 2002, the arrest of the Gujarat Chief 
Minister on British soil could not be ruled out; 
and legal opinion confirmed this assessment. 
Interestingly, attempts by Mr. Modi to paint the 
recent developments as a slight to the 
self-esteem of the people of Gujarat have evoked 
little response from BJP cadres, not to mention 
the public.

The Gujarat Chief Minister is a highly polarising 
figure. There is a large segment of political 
India, including much of the citizen sector, that 
believes that Mr. Modi brought indelible shame on 
State and country by the way his administration 
presided over the massacre of some 2,000 
citizens, most of them Muslim, in the days and 
weeks following the Godhra tragedy of February 
27, 2002. If he has not been arraigned in a court 
of law for being a party to a conspiracy to 
`avenge' Godhra or, at the very least, for gross 
and wilful dereliction of duty, there is a twin 
explanation. The criminal investigation machinery 
of the State has been under his control; and the 
Central Government of the day, in flagrant 
disregard of its constitutional duty, chose to 
shield him. Despite these factors, enough 
actionable evidence has accumulated to indict Mr. 
Modi morally, politically - and legally. The case 
against him does not consist of mere 
"allegations," as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 
ill-advisedly stated on the floor of the Rajya 
Sabha. The cumulative findings of the National 
Human Rights Commission, the Central Bureau of 
Investigation (in the one case it has been 
allowed to investigate so far), and the Supreme 
Court in the Best Bakery case are not 
"subjective" by any stretch of the imagination. 
It may be a weakness of the Indian system that an 
individual of such notoriety can manage to pass 
off as a "constitutional authority" and enjoy 
effective immunity from the operation of both the 
rule of law and effective moral judgment. 
However, other countries are not obliged to 
withhold meaningful censure and sanctions of a 
sort against Mr. Modi's appalling record.

Whether we like it or not, we live in an era of 
growing international accountability. The people 
of the world have as much right to be outraged by 
Gujarat as they are by Abu Ghraib. India may not 
be a party to the International Criminal Court - 
which has jurisdiction over crimes against 
humanity, war crimes, and genocide - but this 
does not mean its citizens cannot be called to 
account there. Sudan is not a state party to the 
ICC but France is trying to invoke Article 13b of 
the ICC Statute (which enables the U.N. Security 
Council to refer a case to the court under 
Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter) so that 
individuals accused of crimes against humanity in 
Darfur can be prosecuted at the Hague. So long as 
Mr. Modi remains Chief Minister, he will continue 
to be a profound embarrassment to India's 
constitutional system. If Indians do not like the 
prospect of foreign courts getting involved, they 
must ensure that he is called to account under 
the rule of law, which is internationally 
acknowledged to be one of the country's major 
strengths.

The BJP in Gujarat, of course, has little 
ideological sympathy with the way the `outside 
world' and `pseudo-secularists' view the 
post-Godhra bloodbath. Many local leaders want 
Mr. Modi replaced because of the way he has 
squandered the party's political stock; his 
authoritarian style of functioning; and his 
neglect of their interests. With elections to 
local bodies just a few months away, they fear a 
further erosion of the party's stock, a process 
that was evident in the mediocre performance of 
the BJP in the State during the May 2004 general 
election. Mr. Modi's calculation that the snubs 
by the U.S. and the U.K. could be turned to his 
advantage by whipping up pseudo-nationalist 
hysteria has gone awry. There are enough 
indications that the countdown to his exit has 
begun.

If the dissidents succeed, Mr. Modi's ouster 
should not be interpreted, simplistically, as 
political and moral accounting for his role in 
the Gujarat pogrom. The BJP as a party and other 
constituents of the sangh parivar have 
persistently refused to show any contrition for 
the events of 2002. Mr. Modi's downfall, if it 
happens, will reflect the play of mixed factors - 
the values of constitutionalism, secularism, 
democracy, human rights, and common decency 
working in tandem with realpolitik. For a restive 
flock of BJP MLAs and MPs from Gujarat, Mr. Modi 
has become a political and electoral liability, 
leading them on a road to nowhere. For those 
committed to democratic values, Mr. Modi is 
persona non grata, and Moditva a blot on India's 
civilisational heritage.




______

[6]

The Times of India -  March 29, 2005

Modi Episode Will Serve To Redeem NRI Image

Rajiv Desai

Sign into earnIndiatimes points
Like L K Advani, a refugee from Pakistan, I am 
also a refugee. I can still remember May 11, 
1960, standing in the doorway of the special 
train that took Gujarati civil servants and their 
families from Bombay to an unknown future in 
Ahmedabad, a place I had never heard of. With 
heart-rending sobs, I bid goodbye to my friends 
and family in Bombay, where I grew up. This 
happened because the erstwhile state of Bombay 
was partitioned into Gujarat and Maharashtra.

I spent my life in Bombay in middle-class 
neighbourhoods that were rich in cultural 
diversity - Juhu, Warden Road and Byculla Bridge. 
If my family had the mindset that Advani 
inherited from his kin, I would have become a 
rabid anti-Marathi propagandist much the same way 
he became an anti-Muslim fundamentalist.

Mercifully, my family came under the influence of 
Mahatma Gandhi nearly 30 years before I was 
plucked from the cosmopolitanism of Bombay and 
deposited into the mofussil cauldron of Gujarat.

Despite the dislocation at a tender age in my 
life, I remain proud of my Bombay upbringing and 
secure about my roots in Gujarat. On the other 
hand, Advani has yet to come to terms with his 
refugee status.

I find it galling that Advani, for whom Gujarat 
is merely a parliamentary constituency, should 
overtly support Modi, the worst chief minister in 
the state's 45-year history. When the erstwhile 
Bombay state was bifurcated into Gujarat and

Maharashtra, men of honour like Jivraj Mehta and 
Hitendra Desai, served for many years as highly 
respected chief ministers. Compared to them, Modi 
just does not measure up.

As a Gujarati, I find both Advani and Modi to be 
an embarrassment to my culture. By and large, the 
vast majority of Gujaratis are more comfortable 
with Gandhian ways than with the Advani-Modi 
bigoted worldview.

Coming to the US visa issue, the facts first: The 
US denied Modi a diplomatic visa because he was 
not on an official mission. He was scheduled to 
address an interest group, the Asian-American 
Hotel Owners' Association, the Patel Motel types. 
In revoking his business visa, the US government 
was responding to the lobbying of Indian-American 
groups opposed to his religious bigotry.

The fact is he has proved himself to be a 
persecutor of Muslims. His stand that he has not 
been indicted in a court of law does not wash. I 
was part of the Congress party's campaign in the 
Gujarat state election in 2002 and I can vouch 
for the fact that Modi's appeal was a viscerally 
communal one.

In the Panchmahal district, a traditional 
Congress stronghold and the home of my father's 
family, Modi's cohorts wreaked communal mayhem 
and in the event wrested most of the assembly 
seats therein. The Panchmahal is known for its 
genteel ways despite the fact it is dirt poor. 
Generations of my family and their friends stand 
in silent testimony to the district's tolerant 
and peaceful lifestyle.

It is true that there have been communal riots in 
Gujarat when Modi was serving as a waiter in an 
RSS cafeteria. But never before has the 
government been complicit in the violence. In 
1969 and later in the 1980s, there were 
large-scale disturbances and the government of 
the day proved itself inept. Under Modi, the 
state government played an active role in fanning 
the communal bloodletting.

The US stand on Modi's visa is a slap in the face 
for the BJP. The saffron brotherhood believes it 
has total support from non-resident Indians, 
especially in America. I lived and worked in the 
US for nearly two decades and it thrills me that 
a progressive NRI lobby succeeded in its campaign 
against Modi. NRIs were faced with the tag of 
being religious fundamentalists. The success of 
the anti-Modi lobby will go a long way in 
changing that perception.

The reason the Hindu fundamentalist tag has stuck 
to American NRIs goes back to 1977 when the US 
decided to approve more immigrant visas for 
relatives of naturalised Indian-Americans. The 
new immigrants were less educated but more 
business-savvy.

They built successful service businesses to cater 
to the established Indian community. They ran 
grocery stores, video libraries, restaurants, 
insurance and real estate agencies, convenience 
stores and newspaper kiosks. These small 
businesses were lucrative. Most of them being 
Gujaratis, they became very influential in 
Gujarat and sponsored visits of Gujarati 
politicians. By the same token, when they visited 
Gujarat, they were able to command audiences with 
ministers and legislators. This gave them the 
sense of power that they were denied in their 
enclaves in America. Their alienation from the 
mainstream culture of America made them 
susceptible to the BJP message of cultural 
nationalism.

As someone who lived for nearly two decades in 
America, I find the Bush government's decision to 
deny Modi a visa very satisfying. The net effect 
is to show up this most odious of all Gujaratis 
as a violator of religious freedom and human 
rights. It restores my faith in America, India 
and Gujarat. It will make it difficult for Modi 
to continue his subversion of the Gujarat ethos 
of peace and tolerance as articulated by Mohandas 
Gandhi. Modi should not only resign but abjure 
forever any political position. Any ambition he 
had for a national role is finished.

(The author is chief executive, Comma.)



______


[7]

truthout.org
21 March 2005

MODI AND A METAMORPHOSIS: From a Fascist Massacre to a Fake Martyrdom
By J. Sri Raman

Narendra Modi needs very little introduction to 
newspaper-reading people anywhere. His sudden 
transformation into an alleged victim of the 
George Bush administration of the USA, however, 
would need some explanation.

     Modi acquired worldwide renown three years 
ago as the man behind a massacre. As the chief 
minister of India's State of Gujarat, he presided 
in the early months of 2002 over an anti-Muslim 
pogrom that took a toll of about 3,000 human 
lives. He has got into the headlines after being 
refused entry into the USA by a Washington 
revealing an unexpected concern for human rights 
in this particular regard.

     The bearded face of Modi was back, after a 
long time on the front page of Indian newspapers, 
after the US government denied him a diplomatic 
visa and revoked an already-issued 
tourist/business visa. He was scheduled to leave 
for the USA on Sunday. His crowded program would 
have included an oration as the 'guest of honor' 
at the annual convention of the Asian-American 
Hotel Owners' Association (AAHOA), March 24-26 in 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, besides a public 
meeting of the Association of Indian-Americans of 
North America (AIANA) in New York.

     As I write, Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party 
(BJP) is holding a rally in Ahmedabad, Gujarat's 
capital, which witnessed some of the grisliest 
parts of the pogrom, to hail him as the target of 
a widely hated superpower. The party, thrown out 
of federal power by the voter after its rule as a 
friend of indigenous fascism and warmongering 
forces of the world, is trying to use the issue 
and repair his and its own tarnished image.

     The rally and the rest of the current BJP 
campaign represent a ridiculous attempt to 
rewrite a recent history of India-US relations. 
And they seek to deny well-deserved credit to the 
Coalition Against Genocide (CAG), an umbrella 
organization of US-based Indians, for Modi's 
equally well-merited comeuppance. Modi, the 
martyr, is now indulging in rhetoric against 
Bush, to whom he proudly compared himself as a 
politician not long back.

     While the Gujarat carnage (accompanied by 
unspeakable gender crimes) elicited condemnation 
from the rest of the world, silence from the US 
government on the issue had been deafening so 
far. In the aftermath of the genocide, the only 
public comment from then-US Ambassador Robert 
Blackwill was: "All our hearts go out to the 
people who were affected by this tragedy. I don't 
have anything more to say than that." Washington 
was not bothered that even the European Union, 
constrained to speak for countries that had 
either experienced or encountered fascism, had 
much, much more to say.

     Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security 
Advisor, was asked why the USA was "not 
forthcoming in its criticism." She responded that 
the then-BJP government in New Delhi "is leading 
India well, and it will do the right thing." 
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell visited 
India in July 2002, immediately in the wake of 
the carnage, but unscrupulously avoided all 
mention of Gujarat in his statements.

     The visit to the USA, canceled now, was to be 
Modi's first after the carnage. He, however, had 
a trial run in August 2003, when he visited Tony 
Blair's Britain. Though London paid lip service 
to the EU resolution and promised to have "no 
contact" with him, he was allowed to carry his 
anti-minority crusade to Indian expatriates. 
Reports about his main public meeting in the 
British capital quoted him as dismissing 
secularism (which he is constitutionally sworn to 
protect) as "the pet concern of five-star 
activists" and denouncing "Pakistani terrorism" 
as responsible even for the pogrom he presided 
over.

     The miraculous US transformation has left 
many wondering about the motives behind it. 
Indian and, indeed, South Asian Muslims are not 
debating whether or not Washington has acted out 
of cynical considerations. All agree that it has. 
The debate is about whether the action should 
still be welcomed. Those who want it welcomed 
just do not believe that the action will win the 
Muslims over to the US side on Iraq or Iran.

     Until the other day, no one had espied any 
sign of US concern over Gujarat. Initiatives by 
the CAG to deny India's fascists an opportunity 
to display a foreign constituency, however, have 
been increasingly reported. The recent CAG 
report, titled 'Genocide in Gujarat: the Sangh 
Parivar, Narendra Modi and the Government of 
Gujarat,' testifies to a painstaking public 
awareness campaign that has yielded timely 
political returns.

     Proof: the letter of March 7 from Joe Pitts 
and 21 other US Congressmen to Secretary of State 
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, requesting that Modi be 
denied permission to enter the US "due to 
numerous reports of his involvement in horrific 
human rights violations in India." The letter 
added that a Modi visit would represent "a 
violation of the International Religious Freedom 
Act."

     Besides this Act, Washington has cited the 
findings of India's own National Human Rights 
Commission (NHRC). The commission's report, 
released in July 2003, accused the Modi 
government of helping the guilty of 2002 get 
away. "The machinery of justice in Gujarat is 
stacked against Muslims," it said. "If the rule 
of law has been non-existent for some, it has 
been draconian for others."

     The NHRC had a finding of special interest to 
Indian Americans: "Little beknown to charitable 
Indians who have donated millions to the VHP and 
the RSS (sister bodies to the BJP) - groups that 
represent themselves as cultural, educational or 
humanitarian - some of their money is being 
redirected for violent and sectarian purposes."

     Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, 
which recommended a visa for Modi in the normal 
bureaucratic course, has voiced an objection to 
the US action. It has protested that this should 
not have been done to a constitutionally-elected 
chief minister of a State of India. For the 
victims of Modi's fascism and their friends, this 
begs the question: must Modi have been allowed to 
continue as chief minister after the breakdown of 
constitutional governance in Gujarat under his 
benign supervision?

     They certainly won't rush to hail the Bush 
administration's snub to Modi as a blow for human 
rights. They would, however, welcome it as a 
victory for anti-fascist public opinion, Indian 
and international.



______


[8]

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/26modi1.htm

Modi gets an unlikely supporter, Sri Sri
Aziz Haniffa in Florida | March 26, 2005 17:37 IST
Last Updated: March 26, 2005 19:38 IST

The Modi imbroglio
'Modi visit was about opportunity, not religion'

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of 
Living Foundation and the International 
Association for Human Values, spoke at the annual 
convention of the Asian American Hotel Owners 
Convention on Thursday.

He provided the organisation with a show of 
support for its controversial decision to invite 
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and took a 
dig both at the Bush administration for declaring 
Modi persona non grata in the US and the 
coalition of groups that successfully lobbied to 
bring about the US action to ban Modi's entry.

Don't find national insult | Religiously against Modi

Sri Sri, during a long interactive session with 
nearly 4,000 delegates attending the convention, 
was asked a loaded question in the midst of a 
spiritual discourse.

Asked to give his comments on how he views Modi, 
he said, after what seemed like a pregnant pause, 
"I don't comment on individuals because 
individuals are just part of one wholeness."

Callous US, guilty Bush

Sri Sri, who recently spoke at the United Nations 
and the World Economic Forum in Davos, said the 
thoughts that come to every individual and the 
way an individual acts are not governed by 
collectiveness consciousness. "Everybody is what 
you call a nimitta -- an instrument of the 
divine," he said.

But before all this could sink in, he asserted, 
"So branding someone good or bad or right or 
wrong and boycotting them is meaningless is 
useless."

Modi calls off UK visit

The audience exploded in applause.

"Every individual has done something good for 
society," he continued, "and knowingly or 
unknowingly something bad might happen from an 
individual. So when someone does something wrong, 
don't hold him a culprit all his life."

Sri Sri noted that he and his followers 'we go 
and teach our program in the prisons around the 
world and I look into the eyes of all those 
prisoners... they are beautiful people... they 
are nice people."

Modi 'live' at Madison

He argued "situations, circumstances, might have 
made them do something, but we should be beyond 
all these little happenings."

Sri Sri asserted that 'I haven't seen one bad 
human being on the planet. So, I don't find any 
reason to excommunicate any one person. It's 
really foolish.'

He acknowledged that 'actually, I also got a 
letter asking me not to come to this conference 
-- to boycott it. I said, in my world there is 
nobody I can boycott and I am not going to do it. 
I am just going to come."

'No racist undertones in visa denial'

The audience went wild.

Sri Sri then went on to talk about the 
unprecedented progress that was occurring in 
Gujarat under the Modi administration. He noted 
that more than 40,000 dams had been constructed 
in just one year. "The water level has come up in 
Gujarat so much. People are so happy," he said.

"In the villages for the first time in many years 
there is enough water for the people -- even in 
drought-hit areas. So see the positive things 
that are happening and tell the person all the 
nice things the person has done. You will uplift 
the goodness in people," he said.

'Decision taken at the highest levels'

Sri Sri reiterated, apparently referring to the 
sustained campaign against Modi, "If you always 
keep telling a person of all the negative things 
all the time, the person gets frustrated."



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

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.