SACW | 3-6 June 2005
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun Jun 5 20:12:33 CDT 2005
South Asia Citizens Wire | 3-6 June, 2005
[1] Sri Lanka: Failure of Justice for Victims of Massacre (Human Rights Watch)
[2] Sectarian curse of Pakistan (Kunwar Idris)
[3] Kashmir: Voices of reason - A purposeful
visit across the dividing line (Editorial,
Kashmir Times)
[4] A Prodigal Returns to Pakistan (J. Sri Raman)
[5] Advani Praises Jinnah: Or How Hindu and
Muslim Communalists Make Perfect Bedfellows
(Yoginder Sikand)
[6] Victims' Responsibility - Patterns of
violence against women in India (Githa Hariharan)
[7] India: Classify riot-hit as internally displaced: NHRC (Rajiv Shah)
[8] India: Police attack on the Rozgar Adhikar
Yatra (eye-witness account from Reetika Khera)
[9] Announcements:
(i) NAPM Consultation on Urban Development (Bombay, June 6, 2005)
(ii) Insaf Bulletin for June 2005
______
[1]
Human Rights Watch
June 2, 2005
SRI LANKA: FAILURE OF JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF MASSACRE
Launch New Investigation of Senior Officers
(New York, June 2, 2005)-- Last week's acquittal by the Sri Lankan Supreme
Court of all defendants in the mob killing of 27 Tamil detainees at the
Bindunuwewa detention facility in October 2000 demonstrates the failure of
the Sri Lankan justice system to address crimes against alleged Tamil
Tiger members, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called
for a new investigation to be launched immediately to identify those,
including senior police officials, responsible for the killings.
On the night of October 25, 2000, following days of rumors in the local
community that detainees were armed and dangerous, an angry mob stormed
the detention facility. In spite of the presence of armed police, the mob
killed 27 of the inmates, hacking and clubbing them to death. Some victims
were burned to death. The remaining 14 detainees were seriously injured.
"These acquittals show a shocking failure of the police and judicial
system in Sri Lanka to find justice for the dead and injured from this
horrific incident," said Brad Adams, Asia Director of Human Rights Watch.
"As the victims were all Tamil, the government needs to move quickly to
start fresh investigations and to prosecute the perpetrators, some of whom
were police officers, or it will only further distance aggrieved Tamils."
Though there were approximately 60 police officers stationed around the
camp, not a single officer arrested any member of the attacking crowd.
Subsequent independent investigations revealed that not only did the
police not do anything to prevent or stop the killings, but some police
officers also participated in the attack.
The Bindunuwewa detention facility housed a total of 41 inmates, all of
them Tamil men or boys with real or suspected links to the armed
opposition Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The youngest inmate in
the camp was 12 years old, the eldest was in his mid-thirties. Among the
inmates were youths who had been abducted by the LTTE, had escaped and
sought refuge with the Sri Lankan government. Others were accused by the
Sri Lankan government of being LTTE members, although none of them was
ever formally charged. The detention facility was set up as a transitional
rehabilitation centre, and despite many problems was regarded by many,
including international observers, as a model center where the inmates had
better conditions than at other detention facilities in Sri Lanka.
After years of investigation and prosecution, on May 27, 2005, the Supreme
Court acquitted the last of the accused in the case, citing lack of
evidence.
The police conducted investigations into the killings. Prosecutors charged
41 persons with various crimes, including murder. Most of those charged
have been acquitted. Last year, five of the accused were found guilty and
sentenced to death. These convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court
last week.
Impartial observers of the Supreme Court hearing said the justices were
openly hostile to the prosecution, and seemed to have decided beforehand
that the accused were unfairly sentenced. One justice publicly reminded
the courtroom to remember that the inmates who had died were members of
the LTTE, suggesting that this might mitigate the guilt of the accused.
"The judgment of the Supreme Court calls into question its impartiality in
dealing with cases related to the Tamil Tigers," said Adams. "The Court
must put aside politics and personal feelings when dealing with criminal
offenses involving Tamils."
Following a public outcry over the deaths, on March 8, 2001, the
government established a Commission of Inquiry into the killings. The
Commission faulted the local police commanders (Assistant Superintendent
of Police, A.W. Dayaratne, and Headquarter's Inspector, Jayantha
Seneviratne) for failing to protect the detainees from the attack in spite
of prior knowledge of a planned demonstration by local villagers in front
of the detention centre. Both are alleged to have known that an attack was
likely, but neither acted to prevent the attacks. Neither officer has
taken any disciplinary action against their subordinates for failing to
protect inmates under their control. However, to date, neither Dayaratne
nor Senivaratne has been indicted or even disciplined.
"To ensure that justice is done and seen to be done, investigations of
senior police officials such as Dayaratne and Seneviratne should be
re-opened," said Adams. "To date, those in authority who should accept
responsibility for the mob killing appear to be protected instead of
investigated."
______
[2]
Dawn
June 5, 2005
SECTARIAN CURSE OF PAKISTAN
By Kunwar Idris
PAKISTAN is far from being an Islamic welfare
state but it has, assuredly, become a land of
sectarian murders and senseless violence. Exactly
a year ago the Madrasatul Islam and Ali Raza
mosques in Karachi were bombed. This time it is
the Bari Imam shrine in Islamabad and Madinatul
Ilm mosque in Karachi. The target in all four,
undoubtedly, were the unwary Shia worshippers and
they died by the dozens.
On May 30 last year Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of
Pakistan's largest seminary was shot dead. This
year on that date it was Aslam Mujahid, a leader
of Pakistan's most doctrinaire politico-religious
outfit with its student and labour affiliates,
Jamaat-i-Islami. Both the Mufti and Mujahid were
murdered in daylight rush hours. No trace was
found of the Mufti's assassins nor, it can be
safely assured, would be of Mujahid's whatever
the president, the ministers and police officials
might have to say to the contrary.
The tragedy of the suicidal assault on Karachi's
Gulshne-i-Iqbal mosque has been made more
poignant by the death of six youth in the
fast-food joint - KFC - set afire by the rioters.
The common past practice on such occasions is to
burn vehicles and shops. This time the zealots or
the hoodlums - one not distinguishable from the
other - burnt to death even human beings. And
then they would not let the Edhi rescuers save
the dying ones who stood at their post in a
manner reminiscent of the boy on the deck of a
sinking ship in the British sea warfare lore.
In these times of sectarian madness those
visiting a house of prayer knowingly risk their
lives; those working in a restaurant for a living
don't. The strapping six youngmen had not
bargained for death nor tried to escape it when
it looked imminent. A special thought must be
spared for Johny Terence for our religious
leaders wouldn't even pray for his soul nor would
ministers condole with the bereaved. Even the
president in his message hasn't.
Thus, while sectarianism has entered a new and
more brutal, dehumanizing phase, the outpourings
from the maulanas and ministers remain routine
and self-serving. Interior Minister Sherpao on
whom it lies to ensure conditions in which the
life, honour and property of every citizen are
safe, says it is "extremely difficult" to prevent
suicide bombings. Since he himself has disowned
his basic responsibility he should resign. It
might also incidentally help his political career
which has been shaded by Mehran tapes and
defection from the PPP.
The prime minister hasn't spoken but he should
surely act. He should offer the interior ministry
to Mumtaz Bhutto, Mustafa Khar or Shahbaz Sharif.
None of them would, at least, say the job cannot
be done or is not worth doing.
Chaudhry Shujaat says the bombing should be
investigated by a special squad, which is for the
sake of saying it. It signifies nothing. He is
however for once being realistic in suggesting
that the causes underlying the sectarian tension
need to be addressed. The causes are known but in
political action expediency prevails.
Maulana Samiul Haq thinks there is no Sunni-Shia
problem in the country and the two massacres, as
before, are perpetrated by enemy agents (does he
mean that even the arsonists of KFC were enemy
agents?). He disclaims any responsibility on the
part of Islamic elements. In doing that he had in
mind, perhaps, the Taliban (mostly from his Akora
Khattak seminary) who, now being hunted down as
terrorists, in their heyday, he thought, should
be ruling Pakistan, besides Afghanistan. Since
the Maulana thinks there is no sectarian problem,
there is nothing for him and other seminarians to
do.
Since the interior minister, too, says he cannot
do much, the mosque massacres and street riots
that follow will continue and, perhaps, become
more frequent and deadlier. Nobody should expect
an end to the gory cycle if Qazi Husain Ahmad is
right in alleging that the killers enjoy official
patronage. Nor would it end if one were to go by
a more widely held view that the very presence of
religion in politics inexorably leads to
sectarianism, which in turn breeds hatred
periodically bursting out in violence.
Every politico-religious party is dominated by a
sect even if belonging to that sect is not a
condition for its membership. It is true of
Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam or
Pakistan, Jamiat Ahle Hadis, Tehrik-i-Islami
(formerly TNFJ) and, you name it, every other
party. The militant organizations, outlawed or
operating underground, are also off-shoots or
breakaway factions of one or the other mainstream
party (the investigators of Karachi incident
suspect that an injured bomber who was
apprehended on the spot belongs to
Lashkar-i-Jhangvi).
The political parties are formed but to capture
state power. If a religious party can achieve
that goal by appealing to sectarian sentiments,
just as socialist parties do by exploiting
economic iniquity, it would be vain to expect
that it wouldn't. The difference is that the
aroused religious sentiment can lead to violence
quicker and easier than a sense of economic
deprivation. By one count sectarian violence in
Pakistan has taken a toll of 170 lives just in
last two months. It is for this reason and
lessons learnt from the past that most countries
of the world, whether democracies, monarchies or
dictatorships, have chosen to keep the sensitive
matters of faith out of the maelstrom of
politics. It is of particular importance in
backward societies where traditions are weak,
people are gullible and rulers tend to be
authoritarian. Exceptions like Sudan and Saudi
Arabia are few.
The sectarian sentiment is hard to understand and
the forces it releases are harder to control. The
remedies that glibly flow after every outburst of
violence in Pakistan are either inadequate or
impracticable, hence never applied. If the state
were to try to control the lessons in madressahs
and sermons in mosques, it would exacerbate and
not lesson sectarian tensions, for the controller
himself would belong to one or the other sect;
fatwas, whether extracted or volunteered tend to
undermine the law of the land (a murder must
remain a crime whatever its motivation); no
government is ever able to check foreign
intervention in its affairs, much less Pakistan
with its porous borders and dependence on foreign
arms and aid; and every mosque or imambargah
cannot be guarded nor is sectarian violence
limited to places of worship.
No remedy conceived or applied in the past has
worked. It would not at all work now that the
standards of governance and tolerance both have
fallen to appallingly low levels. Islam which
means peace has been made into a metaphor for
unilateralism, allowig one set of beliefs and
notions to question the legitimacy of others. To
this image transformation Pakistan has
contributed in no small measure.
From Liaquat Ali Khan's Objectives Resolution
through Bhutto's Islamic socialism to Ziaul Haq's
rule of Shariat and Musharraf's Islamic
moderation, it has been one sad tale of rising
intolerance and receding virtues. Pakistan as a
human, tolerant society has declined as religious
fanaticism has become ascendant. If the people of
Pakistan have been denied democracy and peace it
is because of this, among other, factors.
Without looking for an alibi or a foreign peg to
hang the blame on, the government should, for a
change, tend the economy and maintain law and
order and leave the people to take care of their
own faith. Thus the state would be secular but
society Islamic - it cannot be otherwise because
95 to 97 per cent of the people are Muslims.
_______
[3]
Kashmir Times - June 6, 2005 | Editorial
VOICES OF REASON
A PURPOSEFUL VISIT ACROSS THE DIVIDING LINE
The visit of the leaders of the All Parties
Hurriet Conference and other leaders like JKLF
chief Yasin Malik, who spearheaded the ongoing
struggle for azadi in Kashmir, to
Pak-administered Kashmir (PaK) and Pakistan has
vindicated the stand of those who were advocating
a peaceful, just and democratic solution to the
vexed Kashmir problem and involvement of the
people of the troubled state in the ongoing peace
process between India and Pakistan. Though
belated, the purposeful visit not only gives a
sense of participation to the leaders of Kashmir
in finding a lasting solution to a problem that
has been the major cause of bedevilling the
relations of the two neighbouring countries for
over five decades but also sets in motion a
process of intra-Jammu and Kashmir dialogue for
evolving a concensus on the vexed problem.
Needless to add that with divergent aspirations
within the State the process will have to be
carried forward at various levels to involve the
people in all the areas and regions in Jammu and
Kashmir belonging to various religious and ethnic
communities. True, the visiting leaders do not
represent all sections of the people but they
admittedly represent the feelings and sentiments
of the vast majority of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir who do not accept the status-quo and the
vivisection of the State and favour a democratic
solution of the problem to the satisfaction of
the aspirations of the people. It may be somewhat
disappointing for the Pak authorities that the
fiesty Geelani and his group have stayed away
from this team of visitors. They would have
certainly welcomed Geelani to be on board
endorsing the Pak initiative for peace and
Musharraf's advice to seek a peaceful and
negotiated settlement step by step. Happily, the
visiting leaders while in the PaK and on the
Pakistani soil have favoured a peaceful solution
to the Kashmir problem by involving the leaders
of Jammu and Kashmir in the process - a solution
that not only satisfies both India and Pakistan
but also satisfies to a great extent the genuine
political aspirations of the people of the State.
Pakistan by inviting these leaders for joining
the process of dialogue and India by allowing
them, after initial hesitation, have conceded
that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are the most
important party to the Kashmir dispute and their
involvement is not only essential but will also
push forward the peace process.
During their visit to PaK and Pakistan the
visiting leaders have made it clear that they
support the ongoing peace process and are in
search of a peaceful solution of the Kashmir
problem in accordance with the wishes of the
people of the state and for that purpose they
wanted the involvement of the people's
representatives in the process. Another important
point that they made was that though "Kashmiris
have a just cause mere justness of it is not
enough and time has come to evolve a consensus
among themselves". As Mirwaiz Omar Farooq
succinctly put it "Kashmiris must be taken into
confidence, as peace talks cannot succeed without
their participation." Yasin malik was more
forthright when speaking at the session of PaK
legislature he said that a "romantic aura"
created by the PaK leadership about militancy had
attracted very talented Kashmiri youth who later
lost their lives" implying that their sacrifices
should not go in vain. Asserting that he had
supported the peace process (in fact he was the
first leader to advocate peaceful struggle to
pursue their objective) and talked about
flexibility, Yasin blamed the Kashmiri leaders on
both sides for being hypocritical in toeing the
line of Indian and Pakistani governments."
Ridiculing the leaders he wanted to know if any
one of them was taken into confidence by the
governments of India and Pakistan when the two
countries started the peace process. As authentic
voice of the struggling people of J&K he
contended that the "paid servants cannot change
the situation, emphasising that no solution can
be imposed without consulting the Kashmiris." The
crux of the utterances of the visiting leaders
was that it was time to put an end to violence,
killings and human rights abuses and to find a
peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem through
a process of dialogue and in accordance with the
wishes of the people. As Prof. Abdul Ghani summed
up "we want to end the human rights abuses in
Kashmir. We want the killings to stop at the
earliest. We have to hold dialogue with people
holding the guns and ask them to give peace a
chance. We want to end violence, insurgency,
indignity, humiliation and submission. We want to
end them as quickly as possible". These were the
voices of reason, sanity and justice. The voices
that cannot and should not be ignored by India
and Pakistan and by the hawks in the two
countries as also within the troubled state who
have developed a vested interest in perpetuating
violence and maintaining the status-quo. For
peace process to succeed and for ushering into a
new era of peace and mutual cooperation in the
region these voices must be heard and understood
in the right perspective.
_______
[4]
truthout.org
03 June 2005
A PRODIGAL RETURNS TO PAKISTAN
by J. Sri Raman
Can a hawk play a convincing dove? India's former
deputy prime minister Lal Krishna Advani, now in
Pakistan, is striving to suggest an answer in the
affirmative.
Advani, president of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), has the well-earned reputation of a 'hardliner'
in the parliamentary echelons of the far right. He led
the movement that culminated with the demolition of
the Babri Mosque in December 1992 with disastrous
consequences for the country. He has always been in
the vanguard of the virulent far-right campaign
against any semblance of friendship with Pakistan.
Advani is currently on a 'peace mission' in
Pakistan, on an invitation from President Pervez
Musharraf extended during the latter's visit to New
Delhi this April. Eyebrows were raised, not so much at
the invitation as at its acceptance by Advani with
alacrity.
For those who did not credit him with a paramount
concern for peace, the question was about the politics
of his move. For BJP watchers, the leader's
metamorphosis seemed to have more to do with a power
struggle within his party than with the India-Pakistan
'peace process'." (Not many attributed his instant
acceptance of the invitation to an overpowering
nostalgia - Advani had been born and brought in
pre-Partition Karachi, now a seat of serious ethnic
and sectarian unrest in Pakistan.)
The invitation came at a time when an
image-mending exercise seemed mandatory for the Leader
of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of
India's parliament).
When Advani replaced former prime minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee as the formal and real chief of the
BJP, the development seemed to run to a familiar
script. Advani had ever been the chosen leader when
the party was out of power and plotting to return with
the support of its 'core constituency' of
religious-communal fascism. Vajpayee, on the other
hand, was the party's talisman in its times of
triumph, when it needed to cobble up a power-sharing
coalition.
The times, however, have changed. The period since
its loss of parliamentary elections and federal power
last May has convinced major sections in the party of
the constraints imposed by its 'core constituency'.
The state assembly elections since then have confirmed
the party's continued need for allies and a broadly
acceptable image.
Advani, too, acknowledges the need. The 'Iron Man'
(as adoring followers call him), who has been asking
the party not to be "ashamed of its ideology", has of
late been anxious to stress the need for it to appear
"inclusive". The image makeover efforts may have
earned him enemies within the 'parivar' (the far-right
'family'), but the political objective has made him
persist in the thus far unconvincing performance.
Advani's mission to Pakistan has made
man-bites-dog kind of news for the media. Even a
tongue-in-cheek Vajpayee marveled in public about a
leader of Advani's long-stuck label undertaking such a
mission.
In Pakistan, Advani has been at pains to disown
his own political past - especially on two counts. He
has been repeatedly asserting that he deplored the
Babri demolition. And he has been disclaiming any role
in the sabotage of the Musharaff-Vajpayee summit in
Agra, the city of India's Taj Mahal, in July 2001.
The crocodile tears over the Babri tragedy won't
convince anyone who remembers the many spot reports
and pictures of the incident. Photographs of Advani
and his colleagues greeting the mosque collapse with
broad smiles were then widely circulated. Former BBC
correspondent Ruchira Gupta testified that the BJP
leader hailed the vandalism as "historic". The party,
with its peculiar sense of history, went on to compare
the crime with the storming of Bastille.
The correspondent as well as police officer Anju
Gupta vouched that Advani voiced concern only when the
mosque's dome was about to collapse, with the BJP's
volunteers precariously perched on it. Reports record
that saffron-clad Uma Bharati, now a member of the BJP
national executive, hugged Advani in heavenly ecstasy
as the historic monument was reduced to rubble.
As for the Agra summit, again, the role of Advani
and a BJP coterie in preventing the emergence of a
joint declaration has been reported in some detail,
despite official denials. The sabotage, party cadres
were persuaded, saved India from making an
impermissible compromise on Kashmir.
Advani's statements on a Kashmir solution now,
obviously, will be seen as an impermissible compromise
by many in his party, and even more in the 'parivar'.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which prides itself
on delivering the deadliest blows to the Babri mosque,
provides an example.
VHP leader Acharya Giriraj Kishore has described
the Advani mission as no more than an 'old boy's
meeting' (the BJP luminary and General Musharraf
hailing from the same St. Patrick's School of
Karachi). The Acharya has gone on to reiterate that
there is nothing to discuss on Kashmir except the
return of 'Pak Occupied Kashmir (PoK)' to India.
The Pakistan visit is going to make no dramatic
difference to Advani's political profile. Nor is it
likely to make the India-Pakistan 'peace process'
irreversible by assuring it of all-round political
support in this country.
Advani returns to India on June 6. Doubtless, many
a public reception awaits him where he will be hailed
by the BJP flock as a new prophet of south Asian
peace. The already scowling 'parivar', however, can be
counted upon to make sure that the party and the
patriarch return soon to their familiar, far right
ways.
A freelance journalist and a peace activist of
India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint
(Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular
contributor to t r u t h o u t.
_______
[5]
[June 5, 2005]
ADVANI PRAISES JINNAH: OR HOW HINDU AND MUSLIM
COMMUNALISTS MAKE PERFECT BEDFELLOWS
Yoginder Sikand
L.K Advani's recent utterances during his visit
to Pakistan have created considerable
consternation in the Hindutva camp. His statement
recognizing Pakistan as an 'unalterable reality
of history' has been received with shock and
horror by his fellow Hindutva-walas, who have
been taught to believe, by leaders such as Advani
himself, that the ultimate cause that they are
struggling for is Akhand Bharat, stretching from
Iran to Myanmar. Further aggravating his Hindutva
sympathizers, Advani made so bold as to visit to
the mausoleum of the founder of Pakistan,
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the bete noire of the
Hindutva brigade. He even went so far as to lay a
wreath at Jinnah's, paying what he called his
'respectful homage' to Jinnah. In his comments in
the visitors' book at the mausoleum he described
Jinnah as the 'Qaidñe Azam' or 'great leader', a
'great man', an ardent 'secularist', and as one
of those rare men who 'actually create history'.
Critics might argue that Advani's latest antics
are a typical example of fork-tongued Hindutva in
action. Hindutva ideologues speak in different
many voices as the occasion demands. To expect
them to be logical and consistent is, therefore,
obviously asking for too much. This, however, is
only a partial explanation for Advani's remarks
that appear, on the face of it, to cut at the
very roots of the cause that he and his fellow
Hindutva-walas claim to espouse. In actual fact,
and contrary to what some of his fellow Hindutva
critics insist, Advani's comments are entirely in
line with the logic of Hindutva itself, rather
than constituting a cruel betrayal of its
supposed ideals.
Hindu and Muslim chauvinists, while claiming to
be arch-enemies, are actually the greatest allies
of each other. Hindu and Muslim communalism share
a common conceptual universe. Both are predicated
on the notion of a religiously defined community
that transcends internal boundaries of class,
caste, sect, gender and ethnicity. Both
desperately need an 'enemy' to shore up the
imagined monolith that they claim to represent.
Hence, the notion of the monstrous religious
'other', constructed in equally monolithic terms,
occupies a central place in their discourse.
Hindu and Muslim communalism, therefore, cannot
survive without each other. Ironically, their
visceral hatred for each other necessitates not
just the existence but even the flourishing of
the 'other' in order for them to claim to be the
defenders of the community and religion that they
claim to represent. Further underlining this
symbiotic relationship between Hindu and Muslim
communalism is the fact that both are united by
what they regard as common threats, such as
secularism, democracy, and, above all, communism.
All this, then, clearly suggests that Advani's
recent controversial noises in praise of Jinnah
do not constitute in any way a betrayal of the
Hindutva cause. Nor, for that matter, did the
enthusiasm with which a range of militantly
anti-India Islamist groups in Pakistan responded
when the BJP first came to power in India mean
that they had suddenly abandoned their
irrepressible hatred for India and the Hindus.
Muslim communalists and Islamic fundamentalists
are just the allies that Hindu chauvinists crave
for in order to whip up Hindu sentiments and
press their claims to leadership of the imagined
Hindu community. And vice versa. Hindu
communalists would willingly accord Muslim
communalists the position of sole spokesmen of
the Muslims if by doing so this gesture is
reciprocated, in turn, by them. Muslim
communalists would act identically. In this
seemingly fierce, but actually rather friendly,
competition between Hindu and Muslim extremists,
Hindus and Muslims who seek to challenge the
politics of communalism come to be jointly
branded as 'pseudo secular', 'anti-national',
'enemies of religion' and so on. It is truly
amazing that what unites Hindu and Muslim
chauvinists so overwhelmingly overshadows their
apparent differences. And this, once again, makes
Advani's recent utterances appear all that less
inexplicable.
The common discursive framework that Hindu and
Muslim chauvinists share is predicated on the
notion of Hindus and Muslims as two separate
nations. In this sense, Advani's praise of Jinnah
should come as no surprise. In actual fact,
although Hindutva-walas would hate to admit it,
Hindutva ideologues can claim the dubious
distinction of inventing the notorious 'two
nation' theoryóof Indian Muslims and Hindus being
two separate, irreconcilable nationsówell before
Jinnah and the League stole it from them to use
it to spearhead the cause of a separate Muslim
state of Pakistan.
The Hindutva invention of the two-nation theory
is a carefully guarded secret. Hindutva-walas
are, of course, understandably reluctant to
broach the subject as it would expose the
hollowness of their patriotic claims. The notion
of Hindus and Muslims being separate,
antagonistic, nations was central to the Hindu
'nationalist' discourse articulated by 'upper'
caste, principally Brahmin, ideologues in late
nineteenth century Bengal and Maharashtra. It was
these ideologues who laid the basis of Hindutva
as the full-blown ideology of Brahminical fascism
in later years. Advocates of this discourse of
Hindu supremacy sought to create the notion of
what they called a single Hindu 'nation' out of a
bewildering number of castes and sects by setting
them up against an imagined monolithic Muslim
'other' that was branded with all that the
'Hindu' was not meant to be: violent,
iconoclastic, lascivious, murderous, and, above
all, an 'enemy' of 'Mother India'. Muslims, they
insisted, could not coexist comfortably with the
Hindu 'nation'. Accordingly, the nationalism that
these ideologues of Hindu racism devised made no
provision for Muslims to exist on terms of
equality. Muslims were given three unenviable
choices: migration to some other country;
conversion to Hinduism, or else acceptance of
second-class citizenship, being forever at the
mercy of the Hindus [read Brahmins and other
'upper' castes].
In pre-Independence years the principal
organization representing Hindu communalism was
the Hindu Mahasabha. The Mahasabha was
essentially an 'upper' caste outfit, representing
as it did 'upper' caste interests while at the
same time claiming to champion the rights of
'Hindu nation'. A number of RSS leaders were
schooled in the Mahasabhite tradition of Hindu
'nationalism'. As Jinnah and his Muslim League
were to later go on to do, from its very
inception the Mahasabha spoke in terms of Hindus
and Muslims being two separate and antagonistic
'nations'. In fact, Hindu supremacists associated
with the Mahasabha were peddling the 'two nation'
theory at a time when Jinnah was still being
hailed as the 'Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity'.
The Maharsahtrian Brahmin V.D. Savarkar, inventor
of the term and concept of 'Hindutva, also spoke
of the Hindus and Muslims of India as two
separate 'nations'. He served as the President of
the Mahasabha for six years, from 1937 to 1942.
Addressing the Ahmedabad session of the Mahasabha
in 1937, he declared, '[T]here are two nations in
the main, the Hindus and the Muslims, in India'.
The official biography of the Hindu Mahasabha
extols Savarkar's commitment to the 'two nation'
theory in the following words: 'To Veer Savarkar
[Ö] goes the credit of creating the ideology
which is popular by the name of Hindu Rashtravad.
It is Veer Savarkar who gave the national soul to
Bharat and asserted that Hindus are a nation by
themselves'.
In actual fact, then, it could be said, Hindu
supremacists, and not Jinnah and his ilk, were
the founders of the pernicious 'two-nation'
theory. Although earlier ideologues of Hindu
supremacy did speak of Hindus and Muslims as two
separate 'nations', none of them went so far as
to suggest that a possible solution to the
Hindu-Muslim question was geographical separation
or the partition of India. The credit for that
goes not to Jinnah, as is generally believed, but
to leading Hindutva ideologues. One of the first
to suggest this drastic measure was a certain
Bhai Parmanand, a major Hindutva icon and
one-time President of the Hindu Mahasabha.
Shortly after the British government announced
the division of Bengal in 1905, Parmanand was
provoked to demand that 'the territory beyond
Sindh should be united with Afghanistan and
North-West Frontier Province into a great
Musulman Kingdom. The Hindus of the region should
come away, while at the same time the Musulmans
in the rest of the country should go and settle
in this territory'. Parmanand's suggestion for
the Partition of India, it should be noted,
preceded the Muslim League's Pakistan Resolution
by over three decades.
Parmanand's proposal was not a mere personal
whim. Rather, it seems to have reflected a
considerably important shade of Hindutva opinion
for the official biography of the Hindu
Mahasabha, published in 1966, mentions that 'very
few understood the Hindu-Muslim problem better
than Bhai-ji (Parmanand)'. The obscure Bhai
Parmanand, not Jinnah, then, could well be said
to be the ideological founder of Pakistan!
Advani's visit to Jinnah's mausoleum may not be
that inexplicable after all, although some might
be distressed that, given Hindutva-walas'
remarkable penchant for claiming a Hindu origin
for just about everything, from the Taj Mahal to
the Ka'aba in Mecca to the Notre Dame Cathedral
in Paris, Advani did not make so bold as to
declare that the credit for establishing Pakistan
should go to the Hindu Mahasabha and not to the
Muslim League!
Another pioneering proponent of the 'two nation'
theory and Partition was Lala Lajpat Rai, hailed
in Hindutva circles as a great advocate of the
Hindu 'nation'. Pandit Sunderlal, a close friend
of Gandhi, and for six years Lajpat Rai's
personal secretary, claimed in an article
published almost four decades ago that 'The idea
of Partition of India into a Hindu India and a
Muslim India for solving the Hindu-Muslim problem
occurred first to the mind of the late Lala
Lajpat Rai'. Well before Jinnah came up with his
demand for Partition, Rai had suggested that the
Frontier Province and the Muslim-dominated parts
of Punjab 'should be separate from the rest of
India and allowed under exclusive Muslim
administration', while the rest of India should
'remain Hindu India'. Sunderlal adds that 'the
majority of Indian Muslim leaders of that day not
only pooh-poohed the suggestion but even called
it a device to exclude the Muslims from the
country'.
The Maharashtrian Brahmin M.S.Golwalkar, the
second RSS supremo, was yet another of the early
Hindutva advocates of the 'two nation' theory. He
fiercely condemned that the 'composite' or
'territorial' nationalism propounded by groups
such as the Congress that sought to build an
Indian identity that transcended religious
differences. He insisted that Hindus were a
'nation' by themselves and that India belonged to
them alone. Muslims and Christians, he argued,
were not part of the Hindu or Indian 'nation',
using these two terms interchangeably. In
contrast to Parmanand and Lajpat Rai, he did not
envisage Partition as a means for resolving the
problem of the 'two nation' theory. Instead, he
held out to Muslims the bone-chilling choice
between death, conversion to Hinduism or complete
capitulation to Hindu (read 'upper' caste)
tyranny. 'The non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan',
Golwalkar pronounced, 'must either adopt the
Hindu culture and language, must entertain no
ideas but the glorification of the Hindu race and
religionÖor may stay in the country wholly
subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming
nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any
preferential treatmentónot even citizens'
rights'. If Muslims and other non-Hindus refused
to accept this, he warned, they would be treated
in exactly the same way as Hitler treated the
Jews.
Hindutva-walas and Islamic fundamentalists make
the most comfortable ideological bedfellows.
There is little to distinguish the ranting of
Hindutva ideologues from the likes of the Muslim
League or even Islamists like the Lashkar-e
Tayyeba and the Jama'at-i Islami on the question
of 'authentic' religious, communal and national
identity. Looking at the world through the same
conceptual lens and speaking essentially the same
discourse of exclusivism and exclusion, they
desperately need each other to survive and
thrive. Advani's recent utterances, should,
therefore, come as no surprise. Contrary to what
some in the Hindutva camp insist, far from
constituting a betrayal of the ideology of
Hindutva they actually amount to an enthusiastic
endorsement of it.
_______
[6]
The Telegraph
June 05, 2005
VICTIMS' RESPONSIBILITY
- Patterns of violence against women in India
Second Thoughts Githa Hariharan
Bar dancers demonstrate in Mumbai
One of the reasons the India Shining slogan was
such a bad joke is that the lives of Indian women
prove, in a hundred ways, that they continue to
be second-class citizens. Indeed, recent events
may force even the most optimistic of women to
wonder if they have slipped one rung down the
ladder - whether they have now become third-class
citizens.
Consider only the most "sensational" of the list.
First there is the witch-hunting of women in
Mumbai who earn a livelihood dancing in bars.
Whatever the morality police may say, these women
are not the imagined glamorous vamps of Bollywood
dancing item numbers. They are real women, as
many as 75,000 victims of poverty, unemployment,
lack of education and negligible vocational
skills. They are vulnerable to sexual
exploitation, health risks and police harassment.
But to hear the witch-hunters, the bar girls are
the vessels of all anti-social activity. They are
immorality incarnate, corrupting all those
politicians and policemen and decent upright men
who frequent these bars. Public morality is a
helpless infant, and the witch-hunters have to
play guardian. If the bar girls lose their
precarious means of livelihood, if they are
pushed into prostitution, that is not the concern
of the morality police - whether of the BJP, Shiv
Sena or Congress variety. And though the Mumbai
bar girls come from all over India, the
"rehabilitation" package (announced as an
afterthought) is only for women from Maharashtra.
Then a sixteen-year-old girl is raped in broad
daylight in Marine Drive by a drunken constable.
There is, naturally, anger and protest. But there
are also reactions that sidestep the central
issue of increasing crimes against women by those
in positions of authority. An editorial in the
Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, does not say, in so many
words, that the girl is guilty of "inciting" the
drunken constable. But what are we to make of the
Sena's reaction of cautioning girls against
"low-waist jeans and mini skirts"
What do we make of the question, "If a man is
incited by such clothes, who can we blame?" If a
woman wants to be safe, she has to learn where
that Laxmanrekha is drawn. And the Sena leader,
Pramod Navalkar - a self-appointed expert in both
morality and Indian culture - describes this
rekha with geographical precision. Navalkar
claims that the way in which girls "socialize"
today is "exceeding all limits. In the good old
days, girls from Ghatkopar would not venture to
Chowpathy." Another "senior" Sena leader, Narayan
Rane, says, "The changing culture is perhaps
responsible for the rising rapes against women."
(Rane says nothing about the changing culture
that allows women - Hindu women at least - to be
organized into stepping out of their homes to
participate in crimes of hate.)
Next, a sessions court in Delhi admits a marriage
proposal from a man convicted of rape. In 2003, a
ward boy in a hospital in East Delhi brutally
raped a nurse, blinding her in one eye. Two years
later, when the court is to announce his
sentence, an application is moved: "To save the
life of the victim as well as both the families,
the convict from the core of his heart without
prejudice to the merit of the case is ready to
marry her." The additional sessions judge asks
the victim and her family to file a reply; the
proposal is actually being taken seriously. Even
worse, the judge indicates that the victim's
punishment may be reduced if the marriage takes
place. If you see the victim of rape as a
secondclass citizen to begin with, it is that
much easier to "rehabilitate" her life by getting
her married - and to the rapist. After all, you
may reason, who else will marry her?
Meanwhile, despite the efforts of women's groups
over the years, a model nikaahnama announced by
the All India Muslim Personal Law Board does not
include any real, basic reform. Perhaps this is
unsurprising. The board is clearly a conservative
religious entity, not exactly devoted to the
rights of women. Even so, the board had raised
some hopes by asking women's groups to contribute
their viewpoint. But the model announced by the
board does not reflect the draft prepared by the
women's groups. It merely "advises" men to avoid
triple talaq. The board says it all with the code
of conduct it lays down for men and women: the
husband should be a good Muslim and look after
his wife; the wife should obey him and support
him. Though years of struggle have led to access
to family courts to settle disputes, the model
suggests that if the family is unable to
arbitrate on differences between a husband and
wife, they should go to the equivalent of a
shariat court. In short, these victims of
conservatives from both Muslim and Hindu camps,
should go back to their familiar little ghetto.
There's a pattern that brings together all these
victims - the bar girls and the raped nurse and
student and the Muslim women being coaxed into
submission with stray crumbs of kindness. All
these cases reveal some deeply disturbing
assumptions. One assumption is that the most
conservative elements in society, part of the
patriarchal army that made women second-class
citizens in the first place, have the authority
to tell women what their rights are and how and
where to exercise them; instruct them on how to
be safe; and how to heal their wounds. The oldest
method behind the patriarchal madness is to make
the victim responsible - for what is perpetrated
on her, for her rehabilitation, for the recovery
of the moral order.
Making the victim responsible has served as an
effective way to keep women out of large chunks
of the world's places and experiences. It has,
over generations, instilled an amorphous fear in
women, fear of what their bodies can cause.
Male-dictated tradition has it, whether in
history, literature or popular folklore, that
women cause men to stray from the straight path.
So ingrained is all this received wisdom in our
society that it survives the onslaught of time,
new ideas, even new ways of looking at women's
rights.
Despite appearances, there is, as always, hope,
even in these dark times for Indian women. There
is a little glimmer of hope to be found in the
immediate and angry reaction of the nurse whose
rapist proposed to her through a court of law.
The nurse's reaction pulls us back from dangerous
nonsense about repentance and forgiveness
culminating in marriage. "It's like being raped
for the second time," she says. Her words bring
us back to what has actually happened to a woman;
to what can happen again. The bar girls have come
together as the Bharatiya Bar Girls Union to
fight for their right to a livelihood.
Women's groups are, as always, working hard, not
only to fight physical violence against women,
but violence of a more insidious variety, the
kind that delivers blows through ideas, beliefs,
prejudice. But the uphill climb is futile if only
women undertake it. It has to be a far more
public hike, judges, policemen and scripture-men
included.
______
[7]
The Times of India
June 1, 2005
CLASSIFY RIOT-HIT AS INTERNALLY DISPLACED: NHRC
Rajiv Shah
Times News Network[ Monday, May 30, 2005 11:14:26 PM ]
GANDHINAGAR: The National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) is considering to ask the Gujarat
government to classify thousands of riot-affected
families that still remain uprooted from their
habitual place of residence after the post-Godhra
outrage as "internally displaced."
An authoritative survey _ prepared under the
guidance of NHRC's monitoring committee on riot
victims _ has already listed 4,387 as internally
displaced families that have so far failed to
return to their original houses for fear of
safety.
A survey called "A report of the
internally-displaced in Gujarat due to communal
violence", prepared by the Centre for Social
Justice, Ahmedabad, says that the families listed
are "only a sample", estimating the "number of
internally displaced families would be not less
than 10,000."
Based on the survey, the NHRC wants the state
government to report on the steps it has taken to
rehabilitate the uprooted riot victims. Officials
here kept mum when asked what they were doing.
Says the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement, "The internally displaced are those
who have been forced or obliged to flee or to
leave their homes or places of habitual
residence, in particular as a result of or in
order to avoid the effects of armed conflict,
situations or generalised violence, violations of
human rights or natural or manmade disasters and
who have not crossed an internationally
recognised state border. The displaced suffer
economically, socially, psychologically."
The NHRC-supported report says that in the first
week of April 2002, 1,13,697 persons from the
minority community, in need of security and
shelter, were forced to live in 102 relief camps
in the state. Calling it an "organised campaign
to eradicate Muslims from Gujarat" ...
...and with the "state doing little to stop
this", the report regrets the government has no
record of those still internally displaced.
Those who have not been able to return now live
in "semi-permanent camps funded by local NGOs,
the report adds. The highest number of displaced
(1939 families) are in Sabarkantha district,
followed by Ahmedabad 960, Godhra 853, Mehsana
325, Dahod 134, Vadodara 98, Gandhinagar 40,
Anand 25 and Kheda 13.
The report states, "There is evidence of 500
other families who are homeless or stay with
relatives and have made requests for providing
shelter to the NGOs." It wants the state to
provide them humane conditions of habitation,
occupation, education and healthi care
facilities.Wanting these persons not be "coerced
to return to their original places against their
free will", the report accuses the government of
"not realising its obligation" to provide
adequate food, water, shelter, proper sanitation,
medical services or employment.
It has also not realised the obligation to
replace or re-issue relevant documents lost in
the course of displacement to search those
missing in the riots to recover, protect and
compensate for the property lost.
The report recommends a thorough survey of the
internally displaced and wants they be provided
with a comprehensive rehabilitation package like
the one given to Narmada dam oustees and Kutch
quake victims.
It wants a high-powered committee, comprising of
Central and state officials and representatives
of NHRC, National Minorities Commission, National
Commission of Women and NGOs, to determine the
package and monitor implementation.
______
[8] [6 June 2005]
POLICE ATTACK ON THE ROZGAR ADHIKAR YATRA
(eye-witness account from Reetika Khera)
The Rozgar Adhikar Yatra was brutally attacked
and lathi-charged on 4 June by a squad of CRPF
jawans in civilian clothes, armed with loaded
AK-47s.
The incident happened in village Balrampur of
Surguja district. The Yatra reached Balrampur
around 8:30 p.m. and a public meeting began, much
like any of the other peaceful gatherings that
have taken place on the Yatra's route. Within a
few minutes, two CRPF men in civilian clothes
reached the spot on motor-cycles and told all the
Yatris to meet the tehsildar immediately. The
yatris politely told them that they would prefer
to continue the meeting since we were late by
more than five hours. The CRPF men left in anger
and returned within fifteen minutes with three or
four other men, also on motor-cycles, in civilian
clothes, armed with loaded guns and lathis.
Without any warning, they disrupted the meeting
and loaded their guns. As soon as they did this,
the local villagers and the yatris began running
towards the tractor and bus respectively. The men
with the lathis and guns started shouting at
those gathered there, abusing them using foul
language. Initially they were just kicking
chairs, breaking the lights, and the mike, but
then they started hitting the bus, the yatris and
villagers with their lathis. They also held a
loaded gun to the driver's chest, forced him into
the bus, and ordered him to get going.
Several women on the bus were bruised - this
includes Nazia from Mumbai who is volunteering
with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, and Zulekha
a journalist from Chhattisgarh. As I was making
my way to the bus, I was hit by a lathi on my
legs. One of the men tried to stop this and said,
"Don't hit her - it's a lady". But this did not
stop his friend who proceed to hit my arm.
Kaustav, a PhD student from JNU was hit on the
head and his cheek was bleeding. Samar, another
PhD student from JNU was hit on the knee.
Purnaram from Tilonia village in Rajasthan was
also hit on his back. Jean Drèze (economist and
NAC member) was hit the most. He was making a
phone call across the road when this happened. On
hearing the screams and cries he made a dash for
the venue of the meeting. But as soon as he
arrived, he was surrounded by four of these men
and beaten with lathis.
The bus was also damaged - the window of the bus
door and the left indicator glass has been broken.
Local villagers who attended the meeting were
also lathi-charged. We are all deeply concerned
about their safety. We are demanding that
immediate action be taken before the Yatra leaves
for Palamu (Jharkhand). As Jean Drèze said at a
press conference held the next day in Ambikapur:
"If CRPF jawans indulge in arbitrary attacks on
the Yatra, launched from Delhi in the full glare
of the national media, you can imagine how they
treat defenceless people in the area. Indeed, we
found that local residents live in constant
terror of State authorities." Even making a
phone call from the next village, after the
incident, proved extremely difficult as local
residents were very scared of being targeted if
they offered us any assistance.
On 5 June some of us returned to Ambikapur to
file a FIR with the police authorities here. We
were able to meet the IG, A.N. Upadhyay, after
three trips to his office. While the IG accepted
that this was a "very unfortunate incident", he
did not give us any assurance that action would
be taken against those responsible for the
incident. The SP (Balrampur), B.P. Kalluri, was
also present for a short while at the meeting and
shockingly, he denied that any lathi-charge had
taken place. He also stated that for the police,
"every outsider is a suspected Naxalite, until
proved otherwise".
The press release issued by the police
authorities was even more shocking. It contained
many inaccurate statements and lies - for
instance, the yatris were allegedly raising
slogans such as "tehsildar haay-haay" and "police
prashaasan murdabad", which is untrue. Secondly,
it claimed that the yatris tried to block the
road when they were asked to leave. This is also
untrue - once lathi-charged the yatris barely had
enough time to scramble to the safety of the bus.
Thirdly, the press release stated that among the
yatris were young "Nepali-looking" girls, which
led them to suspect that they were Naxalites.
Finally, this press release claims that the
yatris were put on the bus with respect
(sammanjanak tareeke se). This is yet another
lie. In any case, it is hard to know what to
make of a statement which says that the visitors
were suspected Naxalites and proceeds to claim
that these suspected Naxalites were "sent off
respectfully"!
______
[9] ANNOUNCEMENTS
(i)
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS
Haji Habib Building, A- Wing, Naigoan Cross Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-14
Consultation on Urban Development / Peoples Conference postponed by a day-
June 6th
Date: June 6, 2005
Venue: Azad Maidan (Mumbai)
Time: 12-6 pm
Dear friends,
We announce the changed date for the consultation / people's
conference. Instead of the earlier announced June
5th, due to some logistical reasons,
it is postponed to June 6th.
The struggle against the merciless demolitions of slums in Mumbai is
Continuing at different fronts. The sit-in at the
Azad maidan (in Mumbai) since May
16th is demanding for a comprehensive rehabilitation for the people affected by
the demolitions so far. The struggle is asking for a city with a humane face,
with equality and justice as its pillars and not replicating the concept
and development as Shanghai.
On the legal front, Justice Chandrachud, who admitted a petition at the
Mumbai High Court on Tuesday (May 31), expressed the view that he can't
understand the reference of cut-off-date. How can
there be any such date when every
person, the poor too, has a right to come to Mumbai; the poor who serve, go
wherever there is a source of livelihood, he said in the Court.
The Judge asked the Advocate General, who represented the government in
The Court, to advise the state government to organise a meeting urgently with
The People's organisations & NGOs, and to listen to their views and
Proposed solutions.
Further, contrary to the claims of the government and a section of the
bureaucracy that the urban development cannot happen without the active
involvement of the builders and real estate developers, the people, over a
period of time brought out a vision of an alternative development
paradigm, from the perspective of the poor.
In order to present a people-centric proposal of a humane urban
development, a consultation / people's conference is organized on
June 6, 2005, the World Environment Day. The
program would be inaugurated by Jst
(Retd) Kolse Patil.
The consultation would touch upon different issues related to the urban
development. Experts from different walks of life, activists and affected
people in thousands would take part in this. Proposed program is appended.
The program would be from 12 - 6 pm, at Azad Maidan. You and your
organization is cordially invited for the same. Your presence and
solidarity
would go a long way in the struggle for justice.
In Solidarity,
Raju Bhise Shakeel Ahmed Medha Patkar
Proposed Program:
Inauguration : Jst (Retd) Kolse Patil
Session I : Urban Development: Problems and Way Forward
Session II : Voices of the Poor (Representatives of Slum dwellers,
Mill
Workers, Hawkers, Mill and other unorganised workers and fish workers).
Session III : Proposal for the new paradigm with goals, priorities,
process
of planning, democratic structures and technological choices.
Session IV : People's endorsement of the same.
Invited Speakers:
Jst. (Retd) Kolse Patil
Phattak, Ex Planner, MMRDA
Dr. Amita Bhide
Adv. Sirish Patel
Aravind / Nira Adarkar
Gajanan Khatu
Dutta Ishwalkar
Raju Bhise
Rambhau Patil
Medha Thathe
Bahi Chandra Kerkar
R P Nene
Vilas Thaphekar
P.K. Das
N.D.Koli
Session Plan
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Why Shanghai; Listen to People's Plan
June 6th : 12 pm to 6 pm at Azad Maidan [Bombay]
Inaugration by Justice Kolse Patil (Retd.)
Guests : Dr. Paraswaman, Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and
Dr. Shanti Patel, ex-Mayor, Mumbai.
Session I : the crisis and alternative path to city's transformation.
Speakers : Dr. Amita Bhide, TISS; Shri D.Roy, social activist; Shri Ashok
Datar, Prayas- representative.
In chair : Gajanan Khatu
Session II : People's perspective : "Hamara Shahar", not Shanghai
Speakers : Millworkers' - Datta Iswalkar
Fishworkers' - N.D. Koli
Hawkers' - Sandeep Yevale
Industrial and other workers' - Dada Samant
Architectural - Chandrashekhar Deshpande
Slum dwellers' - Raju Bhide, Kausalya
SRA and MUTP affected - Raj Avasthi, Shakeel Ahmed
Session III : The Proposal : A new path to urban development challenging
displacement, destruction, bringing equity.
In chair (Presidium) : Sanjay M.G., Leena Joshi, Medha Patkar, Suniti,
S.R., Mohan Chavan and representatives of slum communities.
o o o o
(ii)
Insaf Bulletin for June 2005 is available at:
http://insaf.net/central/bulletins/200506bull.html
and includes the following headlines:
Op-Eds
------
One Year of UPA Rule - Vinod Mubayi
Something unique and distinct about Nepal Maoists - Daya Varma
The King and Mao - Isabel Hilton (abridged from Financial Times)
News Briefs
-----------
Nepal: Nationwide protest by political parties
Nepal political leaders meet Indian Foreign Minister
Meeting between the Communist Party of India(Marxist)& Nepal Maoists
Shutdown of Communication Center in Nepal protested
Journalists protest in Nepal as further media restrictions are
reported
Millions of students strike in Nepal
Canadian Network for Democratic Nepal
India: Coastal Yatra (march) for Livelihood Rights
Thakre’s hysterics over Bengladeshis
Pakistan: The International Press Freedom Day ends in violence
Students at 60 schools vow to fight DOW Chemicals over Bhopal
contamination
Gruesome murder of Dalit activist
Coming together: India-China-Russia
Obituary
--------
Kamala Mukherjee (1913-2005)
Sunil Dutt (1929-2005)
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the Sacw
mailing list