SACW | 8-10 Jan. 2006 | Sri Lanka Civilians & War; Demilitarise Kashmir; Minorities India - Pakistan; Foreign Indians - Honour Dishonour

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 08-10 Jan, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2200


[1] Sri Lanka:
     - Rising Civilian Toll . . . Worsening Conflict (N P C)
     - Focus on tsunami overlooks Sri Lanka's war refugees (Sunil
      Jagtiani)
[2] Pak - India, Kashmir: Time Guns Fall Silent (Edit., Kashmir Times)
[3] Pakistan - minorities: Standing up to be counted (Sherry Rehman)
[4] India - minorities: On Muslims, UPA has bad answers (Pratap Bhanu
     Mehta)
[5] India: The Foreign Policy Shift We can do Without (Anuradha M.
     Chenoy)
[6] India - Foreign policy:: Waiting for Bush (J. Sri Raman)
[7] India Honour's Hindutva's Chum in the US : Some Secular India's Speak up

____________________________________


[1]

National Peace Council of Sri Lanka
12/14 Purana Vihara Road
Colombo 6

06.01.06

  MEDIA RELEASE

  RISING CIVILIAN TOLL IS OMINOUS CONSEQUENCE OF WORSENING CONFLICT

The targeting of civilians for acts of violence and in counter-insurgency
operations is becoming part of the escalating cycle of violence in the
north east.  Even places of worship such as the Grand Mosque in
Akkaraipattu and the Cathedral in Batticaloa have not been spared the
desecration of murder.  The National Peace Council expresses its shock
and distress at the brutal killing of five young students in Trincomalee
in an alleged encounter with security forces on the beach.  We condemn
these killings and welcome President Mahinda Rajapakse's appointment of
a committee to inquire into the incident.  We request this committee to
conduct its investigations impartially and call on the government to
make its findings known soon. The appointment of committees that do not
publicise their findings erodes public credibility.

The National Peace Council also expresses its serious concern the mass
detention of Tamil people in Colombo on New Year's eve.  This mass
detention of about a thousand men and women took place in the context of
the increased number of deadly attacks on the security forces virtually
on a daily basis by suspected members of the LTTE.  The government
should be mindful that actions of this nature, even if meant to protect
national security, can undermine its claim that it is acting with
restraint in the face of LTTE provocations.  In particular we urge
President Mahinda Rajapakse to ensure that human rights abuses by the
security forces are brought to an immediate halt.  Human Rights and
Peace are two sides of the same coin.  It is incumbent on both the
Government and the LTTE to demonstrate that they respect the rights of
citizens as a way of indicating their commitment to peace.

The National Peace Council demands that the government and LTTE should
engage in peace talks without further delay to resolve their differences
instead of engaging in more and more violence.  We urge both sides to
show a greater degree of flexibility to accommodate each other's
conditions for the resumption of peace talks as each day of delay adds
to the human costs of conflict.  As a civic organization, we will join
with other like minded organizations to make visible demonstrations of
the people's rejection of violence.  We also urge all peace loving
persons, both local and international, who have access to the government
and LTTE leaderships to engage with them and persuade them to reject the
path of violence.


Executive Director
On behalf of the Governing Council


o o o

The Christian Science Monitor
January 04, 2006

   FOCUS ON TSUNAMI OVERLOOKS SRI LANKA'S WAR REFUGEES

   The 90,000 people displaced by civil war have received a slower
   response, threatening to deepen ethnic grievances.
   by Sunil Jagtiani

VAVUNIYA, SRI LANKA – Kandya Parwathy and her family live in abject
poverty and discomfort in a sprawling camp in northern Sri Lanka. They
are refugees, not from the tsunami 12 months back, but from battles
years ago in the island's civil war.

"We want to leave this place as quickly as possible," says Mrs.
Parwathy, gesturing at the small room she and nine others have subsisted
in for nearly a decade. "There's only one water well and one toilet in
our unit for hundreds of people."		

The record aid that quickly targeted Sri Lankans displaced by the
tsunami has highlighted the predicament of roughly 90,000
longer-standing war refugees like Parwathy, posing, some suggest, an
obstacle to Sri Lanka's struggle to achieve peace.

Aid workers say these war refugees have received nothing like the speedy
help delivered to tsunami refugees, even though some war refugees have
languished in camps ever since the onset of hostilities between the
government and separatist Tamil Tiger rebels in 1983.

The war refugees come mainly from the Tamil community, the biggest
minority in Sri Lanka, which feels it is discriminated against by the
majority Sinhalese community. The civil war flows from this claim of
discrimination. Refugee experts worry the aid disparity could exacerbate
Tamil ethnic grievances.

The advocacy group Refugees International took up the issue in a recent
report based on an inspection of Sri Lankan refugee camps. It labels the
disparities in aid as "unjust." The report also describes the aid funds
available to war refugees as "meager" compared with the "generous
outpouring" for tsunami survivors.

"The international community and the government of Sri Lanka must act
immediately to rectify this injustice if Sri Lanka is to achieve
stability and peace," it says.

Meanwhile, recent violence is undermining a fragile cease-fire and is
adding to the refugee problem. Fearing a resumption of the civil war,
scores of Tamil families in northern Sri Lanka have fled their homes in
Army-held territory to seek refuge in Tiger-controlled areas.

After the tsunami, donors pledged about $3 billion in 2005 to rebuild
Sri Lanka and provide shelter to an estimated 516,000 displaced survivors.

Timmo Gaasbeek, an aid worker with ZOA Refugee Care, says the largest
aid agencies received money earmarked specifically for the tsunami,
which they cannot, therefore, spend on war refugees. That, combined with
the sheer amount of money raised for tsunami relief, has led to "an
imbalance," he says.

"In 2005, work in war-affected areas was reduced because aid workers
have been shifted to tsunami-affected areas," Mr. Gaasbeek adds. "The
whole tsunami response was the first time ever that there was enough
money for aid agencies. That's what distinguishes it."

One of the key tsunami aid projects was to construct about 55,000
transitional shelters for homeless victims as quickly as possible. In
November, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said the
target had been hit in less than a year.

But, while purpose-built transitional shelters have been given to some
war refugees, too, aid workers say they have taken longer to construct.
Many still have yet to receive any such shelters.

Under another initiative, both war refugees and those left homeless by
the tsunami can receive cash grants of about $2,500 towards building
permanent homes.

But in coastal areas, "there is in reality a lot more money, and people
are spending double or triple that," according to Gaasbeek. "In the
war-affected areas, the standard is still $2,500. The pressure is on
building tsunami houses," he says.

"After the tsunami hit, the war-affected people were forgotten about,"
says Naresh Newton, a director of The Sewalanka Foundation, an aid
organization. He is based in Vavuniya, where Parwathy's family and
10,000 other war refugees reside.

"Funds were also reduced and there is much less resettlement taking
place," Mr. Newton says. "Not many of the new aid organizations
operating in Sri Lanka since the tsunami are working with the war-affected."

Suspension of an interim aid- sharing agreement between the Sri Lankan
government and the Tigers, who control areas containing thousands of war
refugees, has complicated matters, Newton adds.

Many war refugees are in or near conflict zones, he says, making life
difficult since permits are required to transport construction materials.

In its report, Refugees International did find some hope that the
aid-response gap between war and tsunami refugees might start to close.
The advocacy group says the UNHCR in Colombo is to seek government
approval and donor funding to relocate the most vulnerable war refugees
by the end of 2006. Moves were also afoot to allow tsunami relief funds
to be spent on war refugees, it adds.

But any such measures could be disrupted by fresh fighting. The island's
stalled peace process has already delayed the disbursement of $4.5
billion in international aid promised in 2003.

-
(Photograph) 		
DISPLACED: Fresh fighting in Sri Lanka has created hundreds of new
refugees like this family in a Kilinochchi camp.
ANURUDDHA LOKUHAPUARACHCHI/REUTERS

____


[2]

   Kashmir Times
   January 10, 2005
   Editorial

   TIME GUNS FALL SILENT
   BELLIGERENT RHETORIC CAN BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

There are some positive and negative signs emerging from all this
cacophony of voices in the sub-continent on demilitarizing Kashmir. Good
things first. Several Kashmiri separatist organizations including the
Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq led Hurriyat, a delegation of which recently
returned from a tour of Pakistan and its administered Kashmir, have
finally showed some seriousness and consistency over the issue of
demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir. On earlier occasions and during
its two rounds of talks with New Delhi, the Hurriyat had either not
taken up the plea of internal ceasefire or talked about it in very
feeble tones. Truce in the interiors of Jammu and Kashmir is imperative
for initiating a dialogue and paving way for the participation of people
in the negotiations process. Though de-militarisation cannot ensure
peace on its own, it is one of the most important steps towards it.
There can be no encouraging participation of people in any talks about
the political fate of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of
the Line of Control amidst an atmosphere charged with violence,
bloodshed and fear psychosis. Guns from both sides - of the Indian
security forces as well as the militants need to fall silent to ensure
that a dialogue process gets into full gear. Though, amidst chaotic
conditions of insurgency and counter-insurgency operations,
de-militarising the entire Valley and other affected parts of the state
is no easy task. Guns cannot be expected to fall silent overnight. They
take time to vanish. But a beginning in this direction is imperative,
lest it is too late and the process becomes irreversible. For effecting
a ceasefire, the onus lies on both New Delhi and Islamabad. The role of
separatist leadership, too, is significant and that is where the recent
Hurriyat stand brings in fresh optimism. The separatist leaders can
influence militant groups to give up the gun once India takes the first
step towards de-militarization. Unfortunately, that is where the dismal
picture comes into being. While Pakistan president General Pervez
Musharraf has asked India to begin a process of de-militarization,
without giving adequate assurance from his side on reining in militant
groups operating from his territory, India has out-rightly rejected the
proposal, quoting security concerns, reflecting the endorsement of its
ritualistic belligerence. India would have done better to have responded
to Musharraf's proposals with a greater optimism and addressed its own
security concerns by asking Pakistan to give counter guarantees on
ensuring that militant groups respond to any call for ceasefire. New
Delhi needs to realize the significance of bringing in a ceasefire,
which it can start in a phased manner, if it does not feel comfortable
with withdrawal of forces in one go. More than a year back, the Indian
prime minister had offered this assurance. But it was never put into
practice. Now with New Delhi out-rightly rejecting the proposal of a
truce, it appears to have been a step backwards. Already, the next round
of talks with Hurriyat has been over-delayed. The involvement of other
separatist groups, which is equally imperative, is nowhere in the
picture. If peace has to be pursued, imaginative and flexible approach
is required. There can be no room for backtracking, which eventually
send down wrong signals to the masses and even the militant groups,
which too need to be convinced to drop the gun. The fears of Hurriyat
and other separatist organizations, supporting the call for an internal
truce, are not misplaced that India's rigidity would cost the
sub-continent and the Kashmir issue dearly, the onus of which will lie
on New Delhi, are not misplaced. Certainly, there can be no political
solutions hammered from the top and outside without an effort to ease
the situation and remove the fear psychosis inside the territory of the
conflict ridden state, which is likely to increase in the presence of
the gun. A beginning has to be made without getting lost in the rhetoric
and harsh debate over the subject.



____


[3]

Daily Times
January 01, 2006 	

   STANDING UP TO BE COUNTED
   by Sherry Rehman

All of us must consider the questions thrown up by the premise of
Qandeel’s petition. Can minorities really feel that they have equal
opportunities in a country where the constitution states that the head
of the state has to be a Muslim; where the blasphemy law is used
routinely to victimise them; where knowledge of other religions is not
valued at par with knowledge of Islam?

Earlier this year, a girl from Gujranwala applied for admission to King
Edward Medical College, but was rejected. Instead, another student, who
was awarded 20 additional marks for being a hafiz-e-Quran, was accepted.
Qandeel, the aggrieved Christian girl, has since posed the following
question before the Lahore High Court: is she, a Pakistani Christian,
equal to a fellow Muslim citizen?

In a society where litigation is seen as a political ploy, or
non-option, Qandeel has raised some critical issues. The questions are
central to the way we perceive ourselves as citizens of a nation-state
founded on a confessional political campaign. They are equally germane
to the matter of the ideology of Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s vision of a secular state is
challenged everyday on the streets and in legislatures of Pakistan,
where reactionary elements have hijacked the essence of what he sought
to achieve: a haven for undivided India’s Muslim minorities to prosper
in. That haven was at no point designed to exclude, marginalise or
discriminate against non-Muslims who became a minority in a land they
had lived in for generations. Yes, Pakistan was a Muslim state,
extracted from British India on the basis of a communalised political
campaign. But the white stripe on the green national flag was meant to
emphasise the importance of communal diversity to the project of a
secular state. In terms of citizenship and rights guaranteed under the
constitution, Pakistan would be a state where Hindus would cease to be
Hindus, and Muslims cease to be Muslims. Everyone, including Christians,
would be free to worship in their temples to their God, and no Muslim,
Christian, Hindu or members of other religious sect be denied the right
to celebrate their identity.

Qandeel has asked a question that disturbs almost all minority
Pakistanis. She is challenging a legal system riddled with flaws and
internal contradictions. According to Article 22 of the constitution,
“no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution
receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion,
caste or place of birth,” and according to Article 27, “No citizen
otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be
discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground
only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth.” From
this it would appear that the treatment meted out to Qandeel amounts to
a violation of the constitution.

This is sadly, not the first example of the dismal indifference towards
minorities and disregard for the constitution. Recently, the atrocious
Sangla Hill incident illustrated the government’s failure to protect the
rights of minorities and served as another reminder to society that the
much-contested blasphemy law is a tool for victimisation and persecution
of the minorities.

The discrimination is hardly surprising given a political climate in
which laws serve as tools for authorities to further their own agenda,
irrespective of the aggrieved person’s response. All of us must consider
the questions thrown up by the premise of Qandeel’s petition. Can
minorities really feel that they have equal opportunities in a country
where the constitution states that the head of the state has to be a
Muslim; where the blasphemy law is used routinely to victimise them;
where knowledge of other religions is not valued at par with knowledge
of Islam? In other words if learning the Quran by heart is rewarded with
20 marks for admission then shouldn’t the same rule be extended to
knowledge of Christianity and Hinduism? The last question is
additionally complicated and adequate reason for rethinking the
decision. It needs to be recognised that it is virtually impossible to
define what amounts to “considerable knowledge” for each religion? The
logical conclusion would be that it makes far more sense to abolish the
20 marks awarded for hifz. A similar debate has been holding back a
major revision of our public school textbooks, which are still filled
with hate-language and war symbolism targeting Hindus as largely equated
with India, the state’s old arch-enemy.

Naeem Sadiq’s heartfelt complaint to the chairman of the Higher
Education Commission is welcome. However, while it is necessary to
protest against such incidents, it is just as necessary to avoid losing
sight of the central conflict — in this case, targeted discrimination
and affirmative action. Mr Sadiq praises the Indian parliament for
passing an affirmative action bill reserving university seats for lower
castes, and admonishes Pakistan for continuing to favour the majority
and the powerful.

Implicit in his statement about Pakistan favouring the majority, unlike
India, is the inaccurate assumption that the lower castes of India
compose the minority population whom the government is seeking to
protect. Together, the Scheduled Tribes, Castes, and Other Backward
Classes (all official terms used in the Indian constitution) constitute
over 50 percent of Indian citizens. Sceptics question the value of a set
of definitions that label over half the country “backward” and in need
of state intervention in the first place. This is one reason why the
issue of positive discrimination in India is so contentious. It is also
why the Indian government has consistently failed in efforts over the
years to follow through on even a limited agenda.

Lastly, there is a need to consider what the focal point in the Qandeel
situation should be. Mr Sadiq’s claim about Pakistan’s political
preferences once again wrongly assumes that hafiz-e-Qurans in this
country are in the powerful majority. Given Pakistan’s dismally high
illiteracy rate, it is probably safe to say that persons receiving
education — religious or other — are not the bulk of the population. The
point here should not be to pit one minority population against another,
but rather, to focus on the larger problem of state-sponsored
discriminatory policies, the denial of equal treatment for its citizens,
and means by which these can be overcome. One can only hope that
Qandeel’s courage in taking her case to the courts will serve as a
wake-up call to the ruling elite.

Recognising our collective folly can be a useful first step towards
change. There is no absence of viable agendas or good people in the
country. It is just difficult for the majority to be anything but silent
in an atmosphere where politics is derided as a refuge for scoundrels.
Yet without political organisation, no real challenge can be mounted to
a decaying status quo. We all need to stand up and be counted. If
Qandeel can do it, so can many others.

Sherry Rehman, a former editor of Herald magazine, is a member of the
National Assembly and head of policy planning for the Pakistan People’s
Party



____



[4]

Indian Express
January 10, 2006
  	
   ON MUSLIMS, UPA HAS BAD ANSWERS
   by Pratap Bhanu Mehta	

Pratap Bhanu Mehta The UPA government’s approach to the well-being of
Muslims is threatening to inject an insidious poison into Indian
politics, whose ramifications for all Indian citizens are too dreadful
to contemplate. There is absolutely no doubt that in the wake of the
horrendous violence unleashed in Gujarat, and the haunting spectre of
Hindutva forces, Indian society and politics need to do much more to
ensure that Muslims are not targeted in the unconscionable ways that
they have been in the recent past.

There is also no doubt that Muslim politics has been faced with a deep
existential crisis. For all the visibility of Muslim film stars and
cricketers, there is considerable evidence to suggest that independent
India has done a bad job of integrating Muslims into the mainstream of
politics, or public institutions. Muslim representation in the police,
civil service and other public services is woefully inadequate. The
literacy and poverty gap between Muslims and non-Muslims has been
growing; Muslims have not participated in the phenomenal growth of the
Indian middle class. But, more disquietingly, the project of building a
common civic life, where institutions incorporate all communities, has
been set back in recent years. Spaces where members of all communities
are socialised in the project of common citizenship are diminishing
rather than gaining in strength.

Advertisement
Moreover since Independence, there has not been any form of genuine
Muslim politics. The space for creating such a politics has been closed.
Externally, the terms of Muslim inclusion in Indian politics have been
circumscribed by the dominant political configuration of the moment.
Initially, this took the form of Congress’ desire that Muslims remain a
supplicant minority, dependent upon Congress’ benevolence. So it was
always necessary for Congress to create circumstances that emphasised
their separation rather than integration: witness what Congress did to
ensure that Muslims were not educated in common institutions. For years
the state would rather fund religious madarsas than secular Urdu-medium
schools. Then, Hindutva forces effectively closed off space for a
meaningful Muslim politics. Internally, few Muslim political leaders
have had the imagination to create a space to do justice to the diverse
needs of the community without succumbing to extremism or a politics of
tokenism.

What is it that has led Muslims to be less than full participants in
India’s common political life? What is it that allowed Hindutva to
gather such political fervor? What has led them down a path where they
remain deprived in many respects? This is a complex question, but one
central element of an answer is this. The state’s approach to the
development of Muslims has been premised on one fallacious assumption:
that the best way of serving the interests of Muslims is to target them
as Muslims. Almost six decades after Independence, after the
impoverishment of Muslims these policies have produced, after the blood
strewn politics this approach spawned, it is time to question this
assumption. Muslims in India will be far safer and more empowered, not
when we, at every step, heighten the consciousness of majorities and
minorities as separate groups, to whom flows of funds be audited and
represented separately. Rather, Muslims will be better served when the
distinction between majority and minority becomes irrelevant to
participation in public life and institutions.

Of course, Hindus and Muslims will have different vestments in their
identities; but the whole point of our constitutional project is to make
these vestments less salient for participation in the modern economy and
politics. Everything that the UPA is proposing with respect to Muslims,
from reservations to separate auditing, is retrograde with respect to
this ambition. Of course, Muslims need to be given access to greater
opportunities, but both moral principle and political prudence suggest
that there is no reason to structure these opportunities for them qua
Muslims. The politics of token representation will do nothing to address
the well-being of those Muslims whose needs are urgent. If we figure out
a way of creating an education revolution in UP and Bihar, if we can
address the problems of public services in urban slums, poor Muslims
will automatically benefit. Reservation has never been an effective
anti-poverty measure. Genuine opportunities for Muslims will not come
from ghettoising them into third-rate institutions we designate as
minority; it will come from preparing them for participating in general
institutions of excellence.

A Congress government, with merely 145 seats, is threatening to undo a
wise constitutional consensus that marked Indian politics by introducing
reservations along religious lines. This will only heighten competition
within religious groups for concessions from the state. Neither the
majority nor minority will be secure if religious competition
intensifies. Rather, this competition has to be defused and the only way
to do so is to refuse to make religion an axis along which rights,
privileges and public provision is allocated. Gujarat may have created a
revulsion against aspects of Hindutva politics, but the Congress is
gambling too much with history, too much with the lives of innocent
people, if it is complacent about the backlash its own brand of
political division will generate.

The prime minister has many virtues. But he is letting the insidious
poison of reservation politics, and division along religious lines,
dominate the political agenda, as if it were an inconsequential
technicality. What will remain of the PM’s authority if extremists like
Arjun Singh are allowed to sacrifice the long-term interests of the
nation for some warped notion of expedience? It would be hugely
disappointing if his premiership was judged by history to create the
very conditions for the revival of Hindutva that Congress politics in
the ’80s did.


____


[5]

Asian Age
5th January 2006

   THE POLICY SHIFT WE CAN DO WITHOUT
   by Anuradha M. Chenoy

Makers of India’s foreign policy are planning a major shift in India’s
strategic and foreign policy. Their arguments are that in the current
international strategic scenario there is one global superpower and the
shortest way for India to achieve the great power status it  by linking
itself strategically to this power, i.e. the US.
The US is seeking alliances with India because (i) India has established
legitimacy as a responsible power internationally, (ii) is recognized as
  one of the leaders of the South, (ii) has pulled itself up to a stable
and rising economic power; (iv) has democratic and open economic
institutions and political stability; (v) India been known for its
independent foreign policy, that some wrongly club as 'ideological' or
'socialist'. However, all policies have an ideological content. To take
a position, means to take value judgments, to strengthen a particular
constellation of forces, national or international.  Non-alignment was
an aspect of India's foreign policy that served it in all these years.
(vi) The Indian market is being viewed as a positive breakthrough for US
exports and industry that are facing a decline. Cheap Indian labour can
substitute for expensive US labour, and Indian productive assets are
much cheaper than US equivalents. It is the US that needs India, whereas
India has done without the US during its worst periods.
The idea popularized by some leading Indian strategic thinker's that
India can follow China’s model and build relationship with the US as
China has done is a myth. After all foreign policy is an outcome of
domestic concerns, otherwise why the focus on economic diplomacy, trade,
etc? Chinese path to 'great power' status is based not on its relation
with the US, but its internal domestic policies, including land reforms,
a public social sector,  and a whole gamut of state controlled market
policies that make it distinct. If there is a belief that China became a
great power because of its links with the US then why did not Pakistan,
South Korea, Turkey, and a host of other countries that were even more
closely tied than China was? Further, China has a huge trade surplus
with US and US a deficit in China. India must not get into this
ideological myth making. Those who do not learn from history are bound
to suffer its mistakes.
India’s need for nuclear fuel cannot be fulfilled by the US alone. India
will have to abide by the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and
international treaties. Tying up with the US will strategically bind
rather than free India. Nuclear confidence building measures should be
initiated because a perceived nuclear buildup by India will be matched
by Pakistan. Any nuclear exchange will result in annihilation of
millions of our people. Threat perceptions are perceived and thus cannot
be verified, quantified, or certified. Most often they tend to be
exaggerated and lead to a spiral escalation of nuclear and military
rivalry. The concept of deterrence is not workable for these reasons
either. The Kargil conflict demonstrates that nuclear arms do not deter
conventional war. The only way to avert nuclear threats, even they are
perceived is to sign no-use agreements; get off high alerts; de-alert
weapons by separating the nuclear warhead from the delivery vehicle;
have more confidence building between military, state, and civil levels;
and above all take sustained and active measures for nuclear disarmament.
US relations with India should not be to the detriment of relations with
any third country. A case in point is the July 18, 2005 agreement  with
the USA. The vote on Iran following this, that was against Iran in the
IAEA, was widely seen to be based on bending backwards to accommodate
USA's attempt to isolate Iran. It seriously compromised India’s position
in the South.
India can have good relations with the US in the sectors of trade,
investment, technology, like China did. At the same time, China never
once compromised on its geo-strategic interests as far as the US was
concerned. For example: on Taiwan, on Tibet, on human rights, on North
Korea, on their approaches to Japan, etc. The Chinese opposed US
policies in international fora on many issues like  Kosovo, the war in
Iraq, the Palestine issue, the US bases in Central Asia, the position on
Iran, US position on 'rogue states', etc.  The US thus sees China as a
threat.
Indian enthusiasm with the US should be based on (i) India's historical
experience with the US, where they have almost never supported India in
any of its foreign policy choices in the past. How does one conclude
that they will do so in the future? Policy cannot be based on the myths
and 'ifs' of an unknown future. (ii) On US strategic relations with
Pakistan; where Pakistan continues to be their frontline state in their
war on terror; where Pakistan has been termed as the most important
'non-NATO ally'; (iii) US interest in geo-strategically balancing China,
and using India for this purpose; (iv) US interest in advancing its
hegemony in West Asia, Central Asia, Caucuses, etc, that has led to US
involvement in a variety of local conflicts; US has stirred up Islamic
sentiments by these involvements. (v) US policy has been one to isolate
Russia in its former Republics, and in Asia. (vi) USA plans to
re-structure West Asia and to intervene in the region under the guise of
democratizing it. Does India want to be part of US enterprises for
intervention or containment? (vii) US efforts to weaken the UN and
retain the closed Security Council. India has said they want to
democratize it. A strategic alliance with the USA must calculate such risks.

  Internationally, there is one super power--the US.  The United States
would like there to a unipolar world, since that serves their interests
and  ensures that all countries follow 'one path'. The stated position
of most other countries is that there is a multipolar world and that is
the way the international system should be constructed for states to be
able to exercise choices. The world is tremendously diverse historically
and politically, countries have differences and even similar democracies
have variations and specificities. To homogenize people even of one
religious domination reveals at best ignorance of reality leading to
disaster in policy.  It would be suicidal for Indian policy makers to
assume that the world is unipolar and that there are no choices but to
endorse, join and reinforce this illusory unipolarity.  In fact such a
policy would help make propaganda reality.
India, has achieved its growth, current GDP, etc, by its policy of
diversification and not because of a relationship with any one single
power. Economic ties with the US are important, but it should not be
privileged at the cost of others. Even neo-liberal theories concede the
need to obtain the best prices and assured supplies from a variety of
sellers.
Privileging the USA or entering into special strategic relations will
cost India its independent image. No power can be considered a 'great
power' as is India's aspirations if it is so linked and incapable of
carrying on an independent foreign or economic policy. All countries,
will then view India through the prism of the US lens, like they do
Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, etc

_____


[6]

www.truthout.org
January 5, 2006

   WAITING FOR BUSH
   by J. Sri Raman

     Can plans for a state visit serve as a pressure
tactic? Yes, they can - and the George Bush
administration of the USA is showing how.

     For over six months now, India's establishment has
been excitedly waiting for the finalization of
President Bush's proposal to visit this far-off
country and put the final seal of approval on what is
rapturously described as a "strategic partnership" in
the making. The mandarins of New Delhi and their
mentors in the media and elsewhere have been ready
with the red carpet, but Washington won't let them
roll it out just like that.

     They have been told, if in more diplomatic terms,
that India has to deserve such a great distinction and
honor first. There is no mistaking the message to
them: the country has to complete its part of the
nuclear bargain with the US for the best results from
the Bush visit.

     The conditionality has been made clear repeatedly,
and the few official denials of the stipulation have
been far from strenuous. The Bush visit, originally
expected this January, was first put off to February,
and is now promised sometime between February and
April.

     It was after striking the already infamous
"nuclear deal" with Bush in Washington on July 18,
2005, that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited the
President to visit India. By all accounts, however,
the proposal originated in May at a dinner in Moscow
to celebrate the D-Day. Bush then reportedly informed
wife Laura that India had "a large number of Muslims
but no al-Qaeda" and that therefore she need have "no
fears" about visiting the country in his company.

     The President, obviously, lacked the information
that India's Muslims, while no terrorists, were no
supporters of his war on Iraq. Nor are the country's
non-Muslims as a whole. However, Bush has had
enthusiastic - even effusive - supporters in India's
establishment. And what pleased them then was the
point he was making about an alleged anti-terrorist
basis to the US-India alliance. This has been their
pet refrain too, even if they have failed to turn the
alliance against Pakistan thus far.

     Under the nuclear deal, Bush promised to amend US
laws in order to provide all assistance for India's
civilian nuclear program, despite its refusal to sign
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and its
nuclear weapons test of 1998. India, in return,
undertook the task of separating its civilian and
military nuclear facilities and laying the former open
to inspection by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Neither side has made serious progress on its
accepted obligations.

     In India, the deal has elicited strong opposition
not only from critics of the "strategic compact" with
the Bush dispensation but also from political forces
that had initiated the process. Former Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose coalition government took
the first steps towards the "partnership," came out
against the deal because of the dire threat he saw it
posing to India's nuclear weapons program.

     The Bush administration has, however, refused to
budge. As the President's point man for the deal,
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns, put it recently, Washington "believes
it is better to wait before we ask Congress to
consider any adjustments in law until India is further
along in taking the necessary steps to fulfill our
agreement." He said it was unlikely the Indians would
have taken these steps before the first part of 2006.
"It could be February or March or April," months which
he also mentioned as possible months of the
Presidential mission.

     To this, he has now added the teaser, "Of course,
yes, very definitely he will visit India. It will be
nice to have this initiative completed by the time of
the President's visit, but it is not necessary."

     Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Robert Joseph has been more
explicit. Said he: "We are going to continue and we
have continued to work with India to get it to take
additional nonproliferation measures. We've talked
with them about joining the Proliferation Security
Initiative, we've worked with them very closely in the
context of the International Atomic Energy Agency
actions on Iran. These are the kinds of actions that
we would like to see just as a member of the
nonproliferation community."

     New Delhi, as we have seen in these columns
before, has demonstrated readiness to join the
proliferation security initiative (PSI), which some
concerned countries in Southeast Asia see as a major
violation of international maritime law. The Singh
government has also shamed India by voting with the US
against Iran in the IAEA. All this, however, won't
free India from its obligations under the nuke deal,
as Bush and Burns have made loud and clear.

     The US pressure campaign has received powerful
support from security think tanks that have
proliferated along with nuclear weapons. Illustrative
is a sermon on the importance of the "strategic
partnership" by K. Subrahmanyam, chairman of the
National Task Force on Strategic Development. He
attributes the "partnership" to the US
Administration's alleged perception that "India is a
responsible nuclear power and valuable partner in
fields vital to US interests."

     Another Bush-admiring security expert, C. Raja
Mohan, asks the Prime Minister not to abandon "bold
experimentation" in foreign policy. In a newspaper
article, he says, "If the fear of entering uncharted
waters extends to the implementation of the nuclear
pact with the United States and making a choice in
Vienna on Iran's nuclear proliferation at the end of
this month, there won't be much intellectual
excitement or credibility left in UPA's (the ruling
United Progressive Alliance's) foreign policy."

     Those quivering with excitement at the prospect of
the Bush visit may have to wait a while. For the
others, the Singh government's foreign policy lost its
credibility quite some time ago.

     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.



____


[7] A BLIND INDIA HONOUR's HINDUTVA's CHUM IN THE US : Some Secular
India's Speak up.

(Blinkered idiots from 'Secular' India's Foreign Ministry, its Mission
in the US, and the Non Resident Indians Day organisers, all who
nominated a supporter of India's Far right for the NRI award should hang
their heads in shame; Kudos to Indians with a spine who chose to
register protest and denounce as shameful the conferring of official
honour on a hateful Hindutwa supporter. See news reports below + The
text of the resolution / petition submitted to the Indian Govt and
circulated in Hyderabad + a message of support for the protest)

o o o

The Hindu - Jan 10, 2006

PROTEST MARS PRAVASI BHARATIYA SAMMAN AWARD FUNCTION
http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/10/stories/2006011008080100.htm

o o o

The Times of India - January 10, 2005

AWARD ROW ROCKS PRAVASI SHOW

[ Tuesday, January 10, 2006 01:45:20 am TIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

CYBERABAD: High drama marred the valedictory function of the Pravasi
Bharatiya Divas when some delegates protested the Pravasi Bharatiya
Samman given to NRI philanthropist Dr Sudhir Parekh, an acolyte of
Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi.

Just as Parekh went up to the dais to receive his award from President
Kalam, Satinath Choudhary, a retired professor from New York, stood up
and started shouting, "Shame, shame! This is a human rights violation
of the worst kind."

Immediately the police dragged him out of the auditorium. Outside,
Choudhary found support in two other NRIs—Hyder M D Khan and Ataullah
Khan—who distributed notes against the award to Parekh.

The three men were rushed into a police control room on the ground
floor of the convention centre and placed under 'preventive arrest'
under Section 151 of the IPC.

The rest of the programme continued without any further glitch.
Cyberabad deputy commissioner of police M K Singh said no case has
been booked against the protesters. "It was only preventive custody.
They will have no problems leaving the country," he told The Times of
India.

After nearly one and a half hours, during which a few NRIs spoke up in
support of Parekh and few others in support of Choudhary, the three
detainees were allowed to go after securing a personal bond from them.

"Giving Parekh the Samman is a dishonour to human rights. He was
instrumental in organising the Gaurav Yatra in honour of Modi and is
closely connected to Narendra Modi," Choudhary said after he was set
free. "I am against Modi and anyone who supports him."

Fellow protester Hyder M D Khan, whose family hails from Hyderabad,
said, "Parekh does not deserve the award. He is not secular.

We believe that supporting Modi is undemocratic." Asked why he had not
protested when Modi was participating in the Pravasi Divas activities
in the past two days, Choudhary said, "Modi was representing his state
as an invitee. He was not being honoured. I could have protested
against him but I chose not to."

Choudhary revealed that he had come to the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas
only to protest against the award conferred on Parekh. "I was in Delhi
when I heard that Parekh was going to be honoured, I decided to come
here. I think I have made my point," he said.

In the run-up to the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, anger had been brewing
among delegates ever since whispers arose that Parekh was being
inveigled into the Samman list.

Delegates of a secularist persuasion felt the New York-based doctor
who organised Modi's abortive US tour in 2004, was not worthy of the
award. Until the valedictory day, the government refused to confirm or
deny that Dr Parekh was one of the awardees.

o o o

http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#Award%20for%20Modi's%20US%20pal

New  Delhi, Jan. 4: The "secular" Congress-led UPA government has
selected the  Vishwa Hindu Parishad's pointperson in the United
States, Dr Sudhir Parekh,  who is also a close friend of Gujarat
Chief Minister Narendra Modi, as one  of the 12 recipients of the
Pravasi Bharatiya Samman awards. These will be  presented at a
glittering ceremony in Hyderabad on January 9. Dr Parekh was  the key
organiser of the finally-aborted visit of Mr Modi to the US to start
what he had termed the "Gaurav Yatra" from New York to Los Angeles
after  the violence in Gujarat had claimed over 2,000 lives.

Dr Parekh, an  allergist in the US, had extended the invitation to
the Gujarat chief  minister at a function in Ahmedabad in what was
projected as a repeat of Mr  Modi's Gaurav Yatra undertaken just
before the December 2002 Assembly  elections in the state. An intense
campaign by US-based human rights groups  against the visit
eventually persuaded the US government not to grant a visa  to Mr
Modi.

Dr Parekh, however, has remained consistent in praising  the chief
minister and applauding his many "achievements." He is   widely
recognised as an influential Sangh supporter in the United  States.

The UPA government has selected Dr Parekh as one of the  recipients
for this prestigious award, which will be presented by President
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to select Persons of Indian Origin at the Pravasi
Bharatiya Divas celebrations in Hyderabad next week. January 9 is a
date  carefully selected by the ministry of overseas Indian affairs
as it was on  this date in 1915 that Mahatma Gandhi had returned to
India from South  Africa.

Dr Parekh, who felicitated Mr Modi at a time when he was under
attack for the communal violence in the state, is now amongst the
handful of PIOs selected from different parts of the world to be
honoured by the President of India on this date The decision has
sent  shockwaves through social activists both in both India and in
the United  States. Eminent Gandhians like Ms Nirmala Deshpande
reportedly contacted  Congress president Sonia Gandhi on her return
from her Mauritius holiday to  take up the issue.

The response from the Congress leadership was that  the decision had
been taken by a committee headed by Vice-President Bhairon  Singh
Shekhawat, and that since the decision had already been taken there
was little that the government or Mrs Sonia Gandhi could do about
it.  Angry activists told this newspaper that they were "shocked
beyond belief,"  with several PIOs who had participated in the
campaign against Mr Modi in  the US now seriously considering a
boycott of the function.

The Rajiv  Gandhi Foundation, which is headed by Mrs Sonia Gandhi,
had earlier sent  alarm bells ringing through the secular camp when
it had judged Gujarat  under Mr Narendra Modi last year to be the
best governed State. The Modi  government had immediately highlighted
the report while the BJP held press  conferences pointing out that
even the RGF, headed by the Congress  president, had given top
position to Gujarat in terms of development,  administration, absence
of corruption and even providing security to people  and maintaining
social harmony.

This report is now being recalled by  angry activists, who were
earlier confident that the award to Mr Parekh  would be cancelled but
have now been told otherwise by the Congress  leadership. The
Nanavati Commission is now considering a petition by Gujarat
activists who want the government to explain why it sought privilege
in  refusing to release the letter written by late President K.R.
Narayanan to  then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee asking about
the delay in  controlling the violence in Gujarat.

The petitioners are hopeful that  the commission will now direct the
government to release the letter, which  can prove very damaging for
the BJP which was then heading the government at  the Centre as well
as the Modi government in the State.

o o o

TEXT OF RESOLUTION FROM SECULAR INDIAN's SUBMITTED TO GOVT OF INDIA:

On the occasion of the fourth Pravati Bharatiya Divas (PBD), being held
in   Hyderabad, India in January 2006, several Non Resident Indian (NRI)
    organizations and individuals as well as prominent Indians and
People of Indian Origin (PIO) dedicated to the cause of peace, communal
harmony, gender and  social justice, and India's secular and pluralist
ethos express grave concern  over the promotion and facilitation of
individuals who have worked against  India's pluralist and secular ethos
at the PBD meeting. The signatories below  have agreed to the following:

Whereas,  The government of India has been organizing an annual PBD for
the last four years aimed at building stronger ties between India and
NRI/PIOs world  wide,

Whereas, The meeting, for the first three years, have so far focused on
  business and cultural ties, with strong emphasis on NRI investments in
India.  Many NRI/PIOs are keen on partnering with civil society
initiatives and the NGO/Social Movements sector to assists in grassroots
initiatives towards sustainable development, communal harmony, social
justice and peace.

Whereas, Many NRI/PIOs dedicated to the causes and ethos expressed in
the beginning of this resolution, bring the desire and expertise to
partner with the Government of India as well as Indian civil society to
build stronger legal and educational foundation to ensure justice -
particularly for victims of sectarian  violence and to combat
caste-based oppression and gender injustice, while fostering harmony,
equity and peace

Whereas, Many such organizations dedicated to the causes expressed in
the beginning of the resolution, had requested the government of India
last year to expand the scope of the Third Pravati Bharatiya Divas to
include a dialogue on issues ofpeace, communal harmony, social justice
and the justice system, and to provide  better opportunities for
interactions between the NRI participants and   the  NGO/social
Movements sector working on grassroots development/socioeconomic
justice work.

Whereas,  The government of India, after a change of leadership  in its
Foreign Affairs  ministry late last year, has included a session in
this year's PBD to  accommodate the above mentioned request.
Whereas,  Recent news reports have reported the felicitation of certain
  individual(s) who have actively worked in the promotion of
anti-secular,  anti-pluralist and   supremacist groups, individuals and
ideology,

We therefore resolve,

To congratulate the government of India on broadening the discourse of
the PBD to include issues of social justice and to request it to
institute a proper process to guarantee that the PBD will not be used
for the promotion and facilitation of those individuals who do not
believe in the pluralist and secular ethos of India and in the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed to all Indians  by the Indian constitution
and instead promote those individuals and groups who by their commitment
to the dream of the founders of modern India have worked as true
ambassadors of our great nation of origin in the world.

o o o

[A Message from NRI-SAHI - January 10, 2005]

Dear Friends,

On behalf of  25 million NRIs and PIOs who live outside India, we wish
to convey warm greetings and much thanks to the three courageous and
concientious activists who protested the NRI award to Dr Sudhir Parekh
of New Jersey.

Dr Parekh is a well known supporter of RSS and BJP and Narendra Modi.
For several years he has been organizing events that applaud Hinduttava
leaders from India who preach suppression of religious minorioties
(Muslims, Christians, Dalits) in India.  Last year he was one of the
main organizers of the welcome event to Narendra Modi in New York city.
  Additionally Dr Parekh can not claim any service to the community in
his adopted USA, other than making lots of money and socializing with VIPs.

The three activists are:
Dr Satinath Chaudhri of New York;
Mr Attaullah Khan of Baltimore,
Mr Hyder Ali Khan of Minnisota.

Today they give a new meaning to the movement to stop religion based
hatred that will spread wide and make India a better and stronger nation.
Congratulations again.

Kaleem Kawaja
Non Resident Indians for Secular and Harmonious India
(NRI-SAHI)
Washington DC

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

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/

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