SACW | 18-23 Apr 2006 | Nepali's Push for Democracy; South Asia Needs A Bomb-Less Deal; India's Hindu Right; Rally to Narmada

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 18-23 April, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2239

[1]  Nepal -  A Tidal Wave for Democracy Building Up:
  (i) In Solidarity With The Democratic Uprising In Nepal - A statement
(ii) Statement to the EU Ambassadors and the UN, 
by a group of eminent Nepali citzens
(iii) Letter from Nepal (Tapan Bose)
(iv) Nepal's Battle Is No Part of the Bush War (J. Sri Raman)
[2]  South Asia Needs A Bomb-Less Deal (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
[3] What constitutes the Real Threat to India ? (Subhash Gatade)
[4] India - Gujarat: Press Release - Intimidation 
and Victimisation by Gujarat Police (Citizens for 
Justice and Peace)
+ Notice to Gujarat Government in Pandarwada case (Manas Dasgupta)
[5] India: Pol  Khol Yatra being organized by the 
Narmada Bachao Andolan from April 25th - 27th

___

[1]  NEPAL: A Tidal Wave for Democracy Building Up

(i) URL: http://www.sacw.net/free/Nepal22April06.html

(23 April 2006)

Please support this statement, publicise it in 
your country and send copies to your government, 
Nepal
embassy and the UN agencies who are still supporting the king

IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE DEMOCRATIC UPRISING IN NEPAL

The compromise proposed by King Gyanendra of 
Nepal on Friday, April 21st evening, which 
envisages his continuance as a constitutional 
monarch, is a last-ditch attempt to perpetuate 
the old order. It will not satisfy the demand for 
the establishment of a true democracy in the 
country, for the fulfillment of which the nation 
has risen in a spontaneous and mass revolt.
We must recall that the pledge to go in for an 
elected Constituent Assembly had first been made 
through the Interim Government of Nepal Act, 
1951, proclaimed by King Tribhuvan in February 
1951. After a long period of democratic struggle, 
the political parties led by the Nepali Congress 
formed a coalition government in April 1990 and 
worked out yet another compromise with the 
palace. Their failure to elect a Constituent 
Assembly vitiated the promise of democracy. The 
vitiation resulted in the declaration of a 
People's War in February 1996. After a long 
period of State repression and political 
violence, all the democratic forces in the 
country are once again united on the core demand 
for an elected Constituent Assembly.  The latest 
proposal of king Gyanendra to go back to the old 
order, after all the violence and turmoil the 
country has been through, appears to be senseless 
in not taking cognizance of the aspiration of the 
Nepali people to be masters of their own destiny. 
It is also bereft of any pragmatic value. As the 
inexorable effervescence of democratic uprising 
in the country demonstrates, the monarchical 
tyranny in the country does not fulfill even the 
minimal criterion of an effective regime with at 
least some semblance of legitimacy. Not only are 
the people of Nepal out on the streets, even the 
government officials, in growing numbers, appear 
to have joined the democratic uprising. It must 
also be pointed out that the international law 
forbids external interventions that go against 
the political will of a sovereign people.  The 
consequences of any attempt to stem the tide of 
democratic uprising in the country with brutal 
force or political subterfuge can only be tragic 
and politically volatile.
The international community of nations and the 
civil society, especially in South Asia, have an 
obligation to try to avert the repression of 
Nepal's democratic will through violence. It is 
their duty to recognize and support the arduous 
and peaceful struggle of the people of Nepal to 
attain a framework of rule of law that 
democratizes all important positions of authority 
within the State. The procedures and the politics 
of the constitutional process can vary but they 
cannot develop without respect for the idea of 
the sovereignty of people; the current state of 
democratic uprising being a powerful assertion of 
it.
The struggle of the Nepali people to attain a 
democratic framework of rule of law has been 
going on for long. It has survived myriad 
betrayals and impediments since November 1950 
when India first intervened to actively support 
the demands for a democratic constitution, 
fundamental rights, free and fair elections and 
brokered a compromise between the feudal and 
democratic forces. King Gyanendra terminated the 
incomplete experiment of democratic transition 
initiated by his brother in April 1990 by 
usurping all executive powers of State through a 
proclamation of Emergency made by him on 1 
February 2005. Despite the reign of brutal 
military repression unleashed by the State, 
people of Nepal, in urban areas and more 
significantly in the countryside, have once again 
risen in massive numbers to defy tyranny and 
totalitarianism. Hundreds of thousands of people 
are disregarding the curfew, shoot at sight 
orders, killing, bludgeoning, torture and 
imprisonment to defy the monarchic tyranny and to 
demand true democracy and the rule of law. Yet, 
the international community of States has done 
little to support the democratic struggle. On the 
contrary, it has helped prop up the illegal 
regime with military hardware and political 
support, which it has been using implacably to 
defeat the democratic upsurge. This must stop. 
Nepal is in the danger of descending deeper into 
the world of violent anarchy, with irrevocable 
consequences for the stability and security of 
entire South Asia, unless the governments and the 
people of all the countries in the region speak 
in one voice against the current regression of 
the monarchic tyranny to its medieval mould.
We are here to extend our support and solidarity. 
We appeal to the international community of 
States and the civil society in the region and 
outside to ensure that the extraordinary 
phenomenon of democratic uprising in the country 
in evidence today is not thwarted once again with 
repression, violence, political ruse and 
strategic manipulations.

o o o

(ii) URL: http://www.sacw.net/free/Nepal22April06.html

(Statement issued on 23rd April 2006 by a group 
of eminent Nepali citizens who were arrested in 
the capital, Kathmandu on April 8 while breaking 
curfew to press for democratic rights in Nepal.)

To the Ambassadors
Of the European Union member states,
The United States, India, China,
and the Representative of the United Nations.

23 April 2006
Duwakot, Bhaktapur District

Excellencies,

We civil society detainees, kept at the Duwakot 
Armed Police barrack, believe that your 
governments' welcoming response to Friday's 
address by King Gyanendra was based on a 
misperception of Nepali political reality and a 
misreading of the address itself. Though surely 
based on the best of intentions, your reaction 
has needlessly delayed a peaceful transition in 
the country at a critical hour, when millions of 
Nepalis are on the streets agitating for an 
immediate return to democracy. This show of 
people's solidarity carried out massively and 
peacefully all over the country and in Kathmandu 
Valley, deserves more respect than has been 
accorded by the international community.

While the royal address certainly indicated a 
step back by the king, and it might even have 
been adequate sometime ago, at the given moment 
it was grievously misplaced in both tone and 
substance. In terms of tone: the king justified 
his 1 February 2005 coup d'etat; spoke in favour 
of the security forces despite their dubious 
record; did not acknowledge the need to engage 
the Maoist rebels; and ignored the incredible 
show of people power on the streets whose 
essential demand is that kingship be abolished or 
made absolutely powerless.

In terms of substance, the king has talked about 
returning power that had been given to him for 
'safekeeping', when the fact is that the events 
of 4 October 2002 and 1 February 2005 represented 
a naked power grab. Further, the king is not the 
custodian of sovereignty, which is naturally 
inherent in the people under the constitution of 
1990 and it is not up to him to hand it back to 
the people.

Most importantly, those who welcome the royal 
address seem to believe that the king has 
unequivocally conceded sovereignty to the Nepali 
people. This is not our reading. Nowhere does 
'sovereign' or 'sovereignty' occur in the Nepali 
original, unlike in the translation, apparently 
provided by the royal palace, where there is 
reference to "source of sovereign authority". In 
the Nepali original, the king refers to "state 
power remaining with the people" as part of 
listing the terms of reference of the government 
to be formed. This phrase is included only in 
passing, and does not amount to the king 
conceding sovereignty as residing in the people.

According to two jurists, both framers of the 
1990 Constitution, who are included in our 
Duwakot group, 'state power' does not by any 
stretch of imagination translate as 'sovereign 
authority'. We believe that there is a sleight of 
hand involved here, by a royal palace intent on 
misleading the embassies. Overall, we conclude 
that the king is not prepared to transfer 
sovereign power.

As things stand, what king Gyanendra has asked 
the political parties to do is to set up a 
government with 'executive power' but without 
legislative authority. In substance and form, 
this government would have the same authority, 
under the much-maligned Article 127 of the 
Constitution, as given to governments constituted 
thrice and disbanded as many times by the king 
between October 2002 and February 2005. The 
government would be an executive at the king's 
command, meant to take responsibility for the 
excesses committed under the royal direct rule. 
It would only have the power over day-to-day 
administration, without authority to undo the 
ordinances, appointments, and other actions of 
the king during his period of active rule. 
Because the executive would act without the 
backing of a legislature, the king would be the 
authority of last resort, retaining the power of 
dismissing the sitting prime minister.

Given the royal palace's record, we know that the 
government to be formed would be hindered at 
every step as the latter seeks to pursue the 
publicly announced seven-party roadmap for peace 
and democracy. Nor would this government have the 
authority ab initio to challenge the army's 
current role and the ongoing militarisation of 
state and society by the royal regime. Further, 
the royal address seeks to retain the link of 
loyalty between the king and the army. This is a 
far cry from what is needed: a government that 
works on the mandate of the People's Movement and 
not that of the royal palace. In sum, the king's 
grudging concession does not address the great 
issues that cry out for resolution.

We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the 
many times that the royal palace has played the 
game of deception with you, and to introspect 
whether king Gyanendra, retaining all the powers 
as head of state not responsible to a 
legislature, will allow any forthcoming 
government to act independently. Your attitude 
seems to be "the king has given this much, take 
it and make the best of it". Unfortunately, 
neither the political parties nor we here in 
Duwakot, are confident that the royal palace will 
not intervene in the workings of the executive to 
be formed. This would be in line with the 
historical record of the royal palace victimizing 
the people whenever there has been a move toward 
genuine democracy.

We ask you, in the hours and days ahead, to be 
more alert to royal machinations and to support 
the political parties as they challenge the royal 
palace. For our part, we would hope that the 
political parties make a pro-active announcement 
and seize the moment. There is a need for such an 
initiative in order to prevent anarchy and 
dangerous collapse of state structures. For this, 
the political parties should unilaterally declare 
restoration of the Third Parliament and/or 
announce a parallel government. Thereafter, they 
should consult with the Maoist rebels who have 
credibly indicated their intention to enter open 
politics, and announce elections to an 
unconditional constituent assembly. We hope that 
the international community will come forward 
with immediate recognition of such a unilateral 
declaration, required to prevent Nepal from 
sinking into the pit of one kind of extremism or 
another. In such an evolution, we see no role for 
king Gyanendra other than as a mute spectator.

Please note, Excellencies, that this is the only 
path to stability in Nepal which both the Nepali 
masses and the international community want so 
keenly. The world community, which has harboured 
such enormous goodwill for the Nepali people and 
which has been party to our nation-building and 
development efforts for more than five decades, 
must respect the maturity of the Nepali political 
discourse which is speeding the current, 
exhilarating People's Movement. Please also note, 
Excellencies, the kingship is not indispensable 
for the maintenance of Nepali nationhood, and 
that it should henceforth remain, if at all, at 
the cognisance of Nepal's 26 million citizens.

The latest announcement by the Indian Foreign 
Secretary, about respecting the will of the 
people of Nepal, we believe, provides a 
corrective to the error evident in the Indian 
government's initial welcome note. The Indian 
corrective, we believe, should be emulated by all 
other international players who wish the Nepali 
people well.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Mr. Rupak Adhikari, Mr. Anubhav Ajeet, Mr. Bimal 
Aryal, Mr. Laxman Prasad Aryal, Mr. Ramesh 
Bhattarai, Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit, Dr. Saroj 
Dhital, Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana, Mr. Arjun 
Parajuli, Mr. Bhasker Gautam, Dr. Madhu Ghimire, 
Dr. Mahesh Maskey, Dr. Sarad Wanta, Dr. Bidur 
Osti, Dr. Bharat Pradhan, Mr. Charan Prasai, Mr. 
Padma Ratna Tuladhar, Mr. Malla K. Sunder

o o o

(iii)

22 April 2006
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I joined a protest rally at about 5.00 
p.m. near Sadtobato on the Ring Road. There were 
more than 10,000 people in the rally. As we moved 
along the road towards Balkhu more and more 
people joined the rally. Men and women, young and 
old were carrying green branches in their hands. 
I asked them the significance of the green 
branch. I was told that in Nepal, when people 
join a funeral rally they carry a green branch. 
This they said was the funeral of the Shah 
dynasty. At different places on the road some of 
the protesters set fire to wooden logs and old 
car and truck tyres. These were the symbolic 
funeral pyres of the Shah dynasty. They were 
chanting "Gynendra Chor Desh chor" (Thief 
Gyanendra leave the country.), Hamro Paras kasto 
Chaa- kukur jasto chaa (Our Paras is like a mad 
dog.)  In one voice they said the movement will 
not stop till the king was driven out and a 
"complete democracy" was established by a 
Constituent assembly elected by the people of 
Nepal.  I let the rally at about 6.45 p.m. to 
listen to the proclamation of the king.

The king as you all know has offered too little 
too late. Harking back to the great tradition of 
the Shah dynasty in protecting the sovereignty of 
the nation and the safety of the subjects, he 
said the sovereignty of Nepal d taken into his 
safe custody, was being re3turned to the people. 
And, this he was going to do by transferring the 
executive powers of the state to a council of 
ministers under Article 35 of the 1990 
constitution. He invited the Seven Part Alliance 
to recommend the name of person who he will 
appoint as the Prime Minister. It was a sick 
joke.  There were at least a quarter million 
people on the streets of Kathmandu asking for his 
immediate departure when he made this so-called 
offer.

The massive rally of more than a hundred thousand 
protesters at Kalanki, the newly named "Republic 
Square", in one voice rejected the king's offer. 
They said that an interim government must be set 
up by the Seven Party Alliance without going to 
the king. This government must immediately call 
for elections to the Constituent Assembly, invite 
the Maoists to dialogue and ensure their 
participation in the election to the Constituent 
Assembly.  Through out the night the people 
continued to voice their rejection of king's 
offer. According to reports more than a million 
people had gathered in different parts of Nepal, 
urban and rural and through the night, they too 
continued to express their rejection of the 
king's offer. Almost all the leaders of the Seven 
Party Alliance, the civil society activists 
inside and outside the jail and the Maoists have 
rejected the offer of the king.

The foreign governments and international 
agencies have supported the king. India is 
sending another envoy, Mr. Jaswant Singh, a 
former foreign minister of India in the Hindu 
fundamentalist government and a former ruler of a 
princely state under the British in Rajasthan. He 
has said that India continues to support 
multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy 
in Nepal. Obviously, New Delhi has not heard the 
voices of the people of Nepal. Like New Delhi, 
the USA, the European Union, Mr. Kofi Anan have 
also deaf.

The king has re-imposed curfew from 12 noon till 
8.00 p.m. today (April 22, 2006). Yesterday the 
army and the police did to shoot at the 
protesters except in New Baneshwor in Kathmandu. 
The representatives of the UN High Commissioner 
for Human Rights were allowed five curfew passes. 
The national Human Rights Commission was given 
four such passes.  The protest rallies have not 
been called off. As I was walking to my office 
from my house in Dhobighat, I saw men and women 
leaving their homes to go join the protest 
rallies in Baneshwor, Chabahil and Kalanki. An 
old woman told me "we will not stop till we drive 
out this king".

I am not a Nepali. I am Indian. I have been here 
for about ten years. I believe it is my duty to 
be a part of the movement. I also must protest 
against the position of the government of India 
which is a clear violation of the inalienable 
right of the people of Nepal to seek any change 
in their polity. It will be a sad day for India, 
world's largest democracy if it ends up helping a 
rouge king in suppressing the democratic 
struggles of the people.

I appeal to all democratic Indians and all fellow 
South Asian to stand up for the Nepalese people. 
Oppose the pro-Nepal king policies of our 
governments. Organise rallies, pickets and 
meeting condemning this betrayal of the people of 
Nepal. Send protest letters to heads of states 
and the Secretary General of the UN asking them 
to change their current position.

The Seven Part Alliance which is spear heading 
the popular peaceful movement and has already 
worked out a road map to peace with the Maoists 
has already received a massive mandate of the 
people of Nepal. The people have spilled their 
blood on the streets and given their lives to 
express their support for a Constituent Assembly. 
It this Seven party Alliance, which must form the 
interim government immediately. They do not and 
must not seek the approval of this rouge king. He 
has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people of 
Nepal.  The foreign governments and the 
international agencies must recognise this 
interim government, if they do not want to 
participate in more bloodshed and mayhem in the 
country.


Tapan Kumar Bose
Secretary general
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
Kathmandu
Email: bose.tapan at gmail.com


o o o

(iv)

truthout.org
17 April 2006

NEPAL'S BATTLE IS NO PART OF THE BUSH WAR
by J. Sri Raman

     The Himalayan kingdom of Nepal is witnessing 
a heightened popular surge for democracy. King 
Gyanendra cowers as relentless waves of people 
battle uniformed protectors of royalty in the 
bloodstained streets of picturesque Kathmandu, 
the country's capital. A conspiracy is on, 
however, to convert the battle into a part of a 
so-called "war for democracy" that the world has 
come to dread.

     The people of the tiny nation, particularly 
the youth free from the feudal tradition of 
loyalty to the King, continue their heroic 
struggle despite the mortar bombs dropped from 
military helicopters on agitating crowds 
including women and children. Hardly concealed, 
meanwhile, are attempts to hijack the struggle 
into the holy war on "terror," unleashed by the 
George Bush administration of the USA.

     The Bush regime has long been engaged in a 
war on "terror" in Nepal - but on the King's 
side. It is now pretending to an initiative on 
the people's side through a new-found regional 
proxy - but may end up bailing Gyanendra out of 
his grave predicament.

     The dangers of such disorientation facing the 
struggle find illustration in the impact of the 
Nepal events in India.

     It was about two months before 9/11 that 
Gyanendra made his gory ascent to the throne. His 
anointment as king after a massacre of King 
Birendra and the rest of the entire royal family 
by Crown Prince Dipendra is an oft-recounted 
piece of recent history. Not so well recorded is 
the post-9/11 story of an increasingly intimate 
Washington-Kathmandu alliance.

     It was "terrorism" of the Communist Party of 
Nepal (Maoist), or CPNM, popularly called 
Maoists, that supplied the rationale of the 
alliance. It was the same "threat" that also 
provided the King a rationale for his subsequent 
assaults on a parliamentary democracy that 
co-existed with a constitutional monarchy and 
that the people had won after years of struggle.

     India's stand has similarly been one of 
support for democracy as also for constitutional 
monarchy in Nepal (the two being described as 
"the twin pillars" of a desirable order in Nepal) 
along with anti-Maoist solidarity with Kathmandu. 
The similarity has acquired a new significance 
ever since the birth and growth of a USA-India 
"strategic partnership."

     Promoters of this "partnership" are busy 
pleading for intervention in Nepal by India as an 
ally of Bush in "the war on terror."

     In January 2002, Colin Powell, at the time US 
Secretary of State, paid an unprecedented visit 
to Kathmandu to announce open and total support 
for the monarchy in crushing the Maoists. "You 
have a Maoist insurgency that's trying to 
overthrow the government and this really is the 
kind of thing that we are fighting against 
throughout the world," Powell declared. The 
then-US ambassador to Nepal James Francis 
Moriarty made no secret of America's "strategic 
interest" in the region.

     The partnership had grown to menacing 
proportions by February 2005, when Gyanendra 
sacked the elected government of Prime Minister 
Sher Bahadur Deuba and declared an emergency. 
Wrote US journalist Conn Hallinan: "The Bush 
Administration has concluded that the civil war 
threatens to make Nepal a "failed state" and a 
haven for international terrorists, leading it to 
place the CPNM on the State Department's 'Watch 
List,' along with organizations like al Qaeda, 
Abu Sayyaf, and Lebanon's Hezbollah." Then US 
Ambassador to Nepal Michael E. Malinowski waxed 
enthusiastic in his endorsement of the King's 
line.

     As I wrote in these columns then, the result 
was "the heavy influx into South Asia's poorest 
nation of US weaponry and military equipment, 
along with British helicopters and American 
advisers, to aggravate a civil war that has taken 
a toll of thousands of Nepali lives."

     India, for its part, had been extending 
anti-terror military assistance of 4.5 billion 
Indian rupees to Nepal per year. New Delhi did 
discontinue this assistance in February 2005, but 
it took only a few face-saving measures by the 
King for it to resume its military supplies.

     In the current context, staunch Indian 
lobbyists for the "strategic partnership" are 
asking New Delhi to play the role of the super 
power's regional proxy in this matter. One of 
them, C. Raja Mohan, for example, writes: "In the 
last few years much of the world, including the 
United States and the European Union have waited 
for India to take the lead on Nepal and agreed to 
coordinate their policies with those of New 
Delhi. If India holds back, other powers would 
soon begin to act on their own." The other powers 
presumably include China, which has played an 
unabashedly pro-monarchy role thus far and has 
just started recognizing parliamentary parties in 
Nepal.

     Warns Raja Mohan : "If India does not act 
immediately, the ground situation - worsening by 
the day - would compel India to consider more 
drastic remedies in the future. That could 
include military intervention to prevent state 
failure in Nepal."

     Ironically, the main opposition to such a 
course come from the far right which, during the 
term of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari 
Vajpayee, had set the "strategic partnership" in 
motion. The ground for their opposition would be 
the special place for Nepal in their as the 
"world's only Hindu kingdom." Apologists for the 
king in these quarters have even advocated 
absolute monarchy.

     This opposition can conceivably be overcome 
if the US-India partnership over Nepal is 
projected as a possible precedent for a similarly 
combined role with regard to Pakistan and Kashmir 
in particular. The Vajpayee government, it may be 
recalled, spoke in significant approval of the 
right of nations to pre-emptive anti-terror 
strikes and pressed for extension of such a right 
to India.

     Needless to add, such an extension of the 
"war on terror" to Nepal can do no good at all to 
the cause of peace in South Asia.

     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.


____

[2]

South Asians Against Nukes - April 23, 2006
URL: http://tinyurl.com/gamqo

SOUTH ASIA NEEDS A BOMB-LESS DEAL
by
Pervez Hoodbhoy

For all who have opposed Pakistan's nuclear 
program over the years - including myself - the 
US-India nuclear agreement may probably be the 
worst thing that has happened in a long time.

Post agreement: Pakistan's ruling elite is 
confused and bitter. They know that India has 
overtaken Pakistan in far too many areas for 
there to be any reasonable basis for symmetry. 
They see the US is now interested in 
reconstructing the geopolitics of South Asia and 
in repairing relations with India, not in 
mollifying Pakistani grievances. Nevertheless, 
there were lingering hopes of a sweetener during 
President George W. Bush's furtive and unwelcomed 
visit in March 2006 to Islamabad. There was none.

This change in US policy thrilled many in India. 
Many enjoyed President Musharraf's discomfiture. 
But they would do well to restrain their 
exuberance. The nuclear deal, even if ratified, 
will not dramatically increase nuclear power 
production - currently this stands at only 3% of 
the total production, and can at most double to 
6% if currently planned reactors are built and 
made operational over the next decade. On the 
other hand, Pakistan is bound to react - and 
react badly - once US nuclear materials and 
equipment starting rolling into India.

One certain consequence will be more bombs on 
both sides of the border. The deal is widely seen 
in Pakistan as signaling America's support or 
acquiescence, or perhaps even surrender, to 
India's nuclear ambitions. India will be freely 
able to import uranium fuel for its safeguarded 
civilian reactors. This will free up the 
remainder of its scarce uranium resources for 
making plutonium. Further, when India's 
thorium-fuelled breeder reactors are fully 
operational, India will be able to produce more 
bombs in one year than in the last 30.

Not surprisingly, important voices in Pakistan 
have started to demand that Pakistan match India 
bomb-for-bomb. Abdus Sattar, ex-foreign minister 
of Pakistan, advocates "replication of the Kahuta 
plant to produce more fissile uraniumŠ. to 
rationalize and upgrade Pakistan's minimum 
deterrence capability". He has also written about 
the need to "accelerate its [Pakistan's] missile 
development programme".

This is a prescription for unlimited nuclear 
racing, given that "minimum deterrence" is 
essentially an open-ended concept. Pakistan has 
mastered centrifuge technology, and giving birth 
to more Kahutas would require only a political 
decision. Moreover, unlike India, Pakistan is not 
constrained by supplies of natural uranium. Thus, 
at least in principle, Pakistan can increase its 
bomb production considerably.

Although nuclear hawks in India and Pakistan had 
once pooh-poohed the notion of an arms race, 
there is little doubt that India and Pakistan are 
solidly placed on a Cold War trajectory. As more 
bombs are added to the inventory every year, and 
intermediate range ballistic missiles steadily 
roll off the production lines, both countries 
seek ever more potent weaponry.

Many years ago, all three countries crossed the 
point where they could lay cities to waste and 
kill millions in a matter of minutes. The 
fantastically cruel logic, known as nuclear 
deterrence, requires only the certainty that one 
nuclear bomb will be able to penetrate the 
adversary's defences and land in the heart of a 
city. No one has the slightest doubt that this 
capability was crossed multiple times over during 
the past few decades.

What action would best serve the interest of the 
peoples of India and Pakistan, as well as of 
China?

A fissile material cutoff is the easiest and most 
straightforward way to ease nuclear tensions. It 
offers the best hope to limit the upwards spiral 
in warhead numbers. Instead of threatening to 
create more Kahutas, Pakistan should offer to 
stop production of highly enriched uranium while 
India should respond by ceasing to reprocess its 
reactor wastes. Previous stockpiles possessed by 
either country should not be brought into issue 
because their credible verification is extremely 
difficult and would inevitably derail an 
agreement. Years of negotiation at the Conference 
on Disarmament in Geneva came to naught for this 
very reason.  A series of "Nuclear Risk 
Reduction" talks between Pakistan and India have 
also produced zero results. The cessation of 
fissile material production is completely absent 
from the agenda; it must be made a central item 
now.

If a Pakistan-India bilateral agreement could 
somehow come through, it would have fantastically 
positive effects elsewhere. China - which is the 
major target of US nuclear weapons - may not have 
enough warheads to match the US but has more than 
a sufficient number to constitute a nuclear 
deterrent. Inspired by an Indian cutoff, it could 
formally declare a moratorium on fissile material 
production. The US, which no longer produces 
fissile materials because it has a huge excess, 
could encourage the Chinese action by offering to 
suspend work on its Nuclear Missile Defence (NMD) 
system.

Unfortunately the United States is not acting as 
a force for peace in South Asia. Confronted by 
the accusation that it is pumping arms into a 
region that some of its leaders had once 
described as a "nuclear tinder box", US officials 
have responded defensively with answers such as: 
you have to deal with the world as it is and the 
Indian program cannot be rolled back; India is a 
democracy; India needs to import nuclear fuel and 
technology and we need to sell them. But such 
lame replies sweep under the carpet the 
disturbing history of near-nuclear conflict on 
the subcontinent for which the US has often taken 
credit for defusing.

The arms race directly benefits Indian and 
Pakistan elites. Hence they are tacit 
collaborators as they woo the US and prove that 
their states belong to the community of 
"responsible nuclear states" that are worthy of 
military and nuclear assistance. The past has 
been banished by an unwritten agreement. Retired 
Pakistani and Indian generals and leaders meet 
cordially at conferences around the world and 
happily clink glasses together. They emphatically 
deny that the two countries had even come close 
to a nuclear crisis in the past. Being now 
charged with the mission of projecting an image 
of "responsibility" abroad, none amongst them 
wants to bring back the memory of South Asian 
leaders hurling ugly nuclear threats against each 
other.

But instances of criminal nuclear behaviour are 
to be found even in the very recent past. For 
example, India's Defence Minister George 
Fernandes told the International Herald Tribune 
on June 3, 2002 that "India can survive a nuclear 
attack, but Pakistan cannot." Indian Defence 
Secretary Yogendra Narain had taken things a step 
further in an interview with Outlook Magazine: "A 
surgical strike is the answer," adding that if 
this failed to resolve things, "We must be 
prepared for total mutual destruction." On the 
Pakistani side, at the peak of the 2002 crisis, 
General Musharraf had threatened that Pakistan 
would use "unconventional means" against India if 
necessary.

Tense times may return at some point in the in 
the future. But Indian and Pakistani leaders are 
likely to once again abdicate from their own 
responsibilities whenever that happens. Instead, 
they will again entrust disaster prevention to 
the US.

Of course, it would be absurd to lay the blame on 
the US for all that has gone wrong between the 
two countries. Surely the US does not want to 
destabilize the subcontinent, and it does not 
want a South Asian holocaust. But one must be 
aware that for the US this is only a peripheral 
interest - the core of its interest in South 
Asian nuclear issues stems from the need to limit 
Chinese power and influence, fear of Al-Qaida and 
Muslim extremism, and the associated threat of 
nuclear terrorism.

The Americans will sort out their business and 
priorities as they see fit. But it is unwise to 
participate in a plan that leaves South Asian 
neighbours at each others throats while 
benefiting a power that sits on the other side of 
the globe.

Regional tensions will increase because of the 
deal. Given that the motivation for the US-India 
nuclear agreement comes partly from the US's 
desire to contain China, the Pakistan-China 
strategic relationship will be considerably 
strengthened. In practical terms, this may amount 
to enhanced support for Pakistan's missile 
program, or even its military nuclear program. 
Speaking at Pakistan's National Defense College 
in Islamabad a day before Bush's arrival there, 
Musharraf declared that "My recent trip to China 
was part of my effort to keep Pakistan's 
strategic options open."

By proceeding with the nuclear deal with India 
the US may destabilize South Asia. It will also 
wreck the NPT, take the heat off Iran and North 
Korea, open the door for Japan to convert its 
plutonium stocks into bombs, and bring about 
global nuclear anarchy.

[ Published in Economic and Political Weekly 
(India) and The Friday Times  (Pakistan), week of 
17 April, 2006.]
The author is professor of nuclear and high 
energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in 
Islamabad.

____

[3]

sacw.net > Communalism Repository - April 22, 2006

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE REAL THREAT TO INDIA?
by Subhash Gatade

Hyderabad : BJP leader L.K.Advani has said that 
after naxalism and terrorism, infiltration of 
Bangladeshi nationals from across the border was 
the third biggest threat to country's security.
(The Hindu, April 19, 2006 )

'(they) were doomed to the flames and burnt, to 
serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had 
expired. Nero offered his gardens for the 
spectacle.'
Tacitus (Roman historian and official, c.58 to 115 C.E.)
The Annals, Book XV, C.E. 62-65

Lal Krishna Advani, ex President of BJP would not 
have imagined in his wildest dreams that Sangh 
Parivar's own people, would get caught in making 
illegal bombs just when he with his entourage was 
busy sermonising all and sundry about threats 
before the nation. And the coincidence was 
striking. According to a writeup in Mid Day ( 9 
th April 2006) "..[o]n the eve of Lal Krishna 
Advani's Bharat Suraksha Yatra in Maharashtra, 
police officials in Nanded said Bajrang Dal 
activists were actually making a bomb before a 
bomb exploded in an activist's house." It is 
worth noting that in this bomb blast two people 
died on the spot and three others got badly 
injured. The investigating officer was 
categorical enough to tell that the duo Naresh 
and Himanshu, which died on the spot were 'office 
bearers of Bajrang Dal from time to time and used 
to attend their meetings,'.
[. . .]
FULL TEXT AT:
URL: 
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/gatade22April06.html



____

[4]

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)

Press Release

April 20, 2006

INTIMIDATION AND VICTIMISATION BY GUJARAT POLICE:
NOTICE TO GUJARAT GOVERNMENT

Justice AS Dave of the Gujarat HC has issued 
notice to the Gujarat Government on the plea of 
victim survivors of the Pandharwada massacre for 
stay and transfer of the FIR-related 
investigations to CBI and posted the case for 
urgent hearing on April 28, 2006.

After lengthy arguments made by Shri Prakashbhai 
Thakker, senior counsel for the petitioners, the 
Court passed the order. Meanwhile, no action can 
be taken by the Gujarat Police on the 
investigation. The Citizens for Justice and Peace 
[CJP] had moved the urgent criminal application 
following the issuance of non-bailable warrants 
against victim survivors who had lost their near 
and dear ones and Shri rais Khan, the CJP's 
coordinator on April 18.

A malafide FIR was registered against victim 
survivors in the early morning of January 1, 2006 
after  the Gujarat High Court had already passed 
an order transferring investigations to the CBI. 
The Godhra Sessions Court had granted 
anticipatory bail to the survivors and Shri 
Pathan on January 10, 2006 observing that the FIR 
was obviously a counterblast meant to subvert the 
Gujarat HC order. Interestingly, the sections 
invoked in the FIR against survivors and Shri 
Pathan are normally those that require government 
sanction! The simple act of retrieving dead 
remains of their loved ones has been interpreted 
as an act of 'inflaming religious sentiments by 
the Lunawada police.' Religious sentiments of 
whom?

The Gujarat police at Lunawada pressurized by the 
top echelons of the police administration and 
Government continued to harass victims and human 
rights activists to cover up the issue of illegal 
burial  in mass graves, of those killed in the 
Gujarat Carnage of  2002.  They attempted to get 
the anticipatory bail order cancelled in the 
Gujarat HC, which was also turned down on April 
5, 2006. On April 5, 2006 the Gujarat High Court 
passed a speaking order rejecting the Gujarat 
State's appeal to cancel anticipatory bail 
granted by the Sessions Court at Godhra.  Though 
one of the conditions of the High Court order 
formally allowed the police to apply for remand 
(a practice in all cases),  the victims and Shri 
Khan remained present at the Lunawada court while 
arguments took place on April 17, 2006,   the 
single-handed vindictiveness of the Gujarat 
police can be seen, in that, they obtained 
non-bailable warrants by misleading the court 
despite the fact that there were no orders asking 
that these persons  remain present in court on 
April 18, 2006.  Despite this order of the High 
Court to convert bail into regular bail, the 
Gujarat police is not only using intimidatory 
tactics to browbeat victims of a massacre and 
representatives of organisations supporting the 
struggle for justice, but in fact attempting to 
influence the investigation itself.   In this 
entire matter, the Gujarat police is the chief 
culpable party being responsible for the 
undignified and hasty burials of victims of a 
mass crime. Today, despite the fact that the 
matter has been seized of  in the Gujarat High 
Court, the Gujarat police functions with impunity 
and is trying to subvert the investigation to 
escape liability for the illegal and unauthorised 
burial of bodies of victims of a mass crime.

The non-bailable arrest warrants have been issued 
against Mehboob Rasul Chauhan, Habib Rasul 
Saiyed, Sikander Abbas Shaikh, Kutubsha  Ayubsha 
Diwan and Gulam Ghani Kharadi who are victim 
survivors of the ghastly massacre that took place 
in March 2002 and have lost family members in the 
carnage.  The police that   is accused in the 
crime of illegally mass burying bodies is today, 
under pressure from the very top harassing victim 
and human rights defenders.

Vijay Tendulkar, President
Teesta Setalvad, Secretary

o o o

The Hindu
April 21, 2006

NOTICE TO GUJARAT GOVERNMENT IN PANDARWADA CASE

Manas Dasgupta

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/22/stories/2006042216951300.htm

____

[5]  RALLY TO THE VALLEY

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN
· C/o B-13 Shivam Flats, Ellora Park, Vadodara - 390023, Gujarat
     Telefax: 0265-2282232, baroda at narmada.org
· 62, M.G Marg, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh 451551. Telefax: 07290-222464
· Maitri Niwas, Tembewadi, Dhadgaon, Dist. Nandurbar, Maharashtra. Ph:
02595-220620


21 April,2006.

POL-KHOL YATRA IN THE NARMADA VALLEY:

25 to 27 April: From Indore to 'tribal and farmers' villages in Narmada Valley.

After the 30 days sit-in and fast by the Narmada 
Bachao Andolan activists in the capital, a new 
chapter has been opened in respect of Sardar 
Sarovar Dam. The movement has raised the issue of 
the displacement and the environmental damage due 
to the dam. For the last 20 years, it has 
questioned all the illegal decisions by the 
Government through a strong mass movement. It has 
brought to light, the true story of the Narmada 
Valley. The decision to increase the height of 
the dam from 110.64 meters to 122 meters has 
proved to benthe death sentence for the tribals, 
the farmers and people residing in the valley. 
This called for a strong protest which was joined 
by allnfrom various people's movements all over 
the country, students, teachers, the sensitive 
among the artist community to the lay person
on the street, they who have offered their help, 
participation and backing. This makes it clear 
that the darker side of development has come to 
the light in front of right thinking, sensitive 
and selfless elements of the community. That is 
why they are now bent upon not only saving the 
Narmada Valley but also question the 
anti-democratic, non-scientific process going on 
in the country in the name of
development and based on grossly misleading 
facts. People are now reacting strongly to the 
situation. It is now necessary to take some solid 
steps. The Narmada struggle is a symbol of the 
same reaction. Its a question of debate as to 
what is the truth and what is only a mirage.

This can be asked in respect of all the issues in 
connection with Sardar Sarovar. During the 
protest in Delhi, various reports by thenstate as 
well as Central Governments, figures and 
affidavits, the experiences of the displaced and 
the agitators have come to the lightnin front of 
the country as well as the whole world. All the 
three Governments concerned have to submit their 
affidavits regarding
applications submitted by 48 displaced families, 
to the Supreme Court within a week's time. The 
reactions of the displaced on the affidavits will 
be a heard in the court on the first of May. The 
court has already said that the Prime Minister is 
free to take any decision or intervene in the 
matter wherever he feels necessary. At the same 
time, the court has made it clear that if the 
rehabilitation of all the oustees upto the 122 
meters is not done in letter and spirit of the 
Narmada Tribunal award, then the work of the dam 
can be stopped.

The Narmada Movement has now declared a Pol-Khol 
Abhiyan (reveal the truth campaign). We will go 
on bringing to the fore, each and every aspect of 
the Sardar Sarovar story. The social as well as 
environmental losses, compensation as also the 
real side of the exaggerated and beautifully 
painted picture about the profits also has to be 
revealed. Those of our brothers and sisters who 
have been termed as outsiders while they are 
actually displaced in thousands have to be met in 
person. It has become necessary to reveal the 
real faces of all those who make baseless 
accusations on us of accepting foreign funds. We 
have to move in this direction on different 
fronts taking with us, the like-minded. One of 
the main programs in this direction will be the 
Pol-Khol Yatra: 25 to 27th April.

You are cordially invited for this Yatra. All the 
friends, co-workers, youth, students, members of 
various people's movements, those displaced due 
to various projects, labourers, tribals, dalits, 
sensitive citizens, artists, journalists and 
media persons are welcome. We invite you to the 
valley. Verify the truth, find out and see for 
yourselves, the Government corruption and the 
atrocities, contempt of court as also the game in 
the name of democracy.  You may reach Indore in 
the morning of 25th April. Please let us know the 
route and the time of your arrival. There will be 
a meeting at Indore between 10 a.m. and 12 noon 
and the 'Yatra' will proceed to the valley 
straight from there. During the three days, the 
Yatra will visit villages, settlements and see 
first hand, the Government's working
style and also listen to the profit and loss story.

There will be answers to each and every question 
raised on each aspect of the Narmada Movement, 
its working, its resources. Your presence is 
necessary for raising the issue in front of the 
Government. Come and see the region which is 
either already submerged or about to be 
submerged; the generations old culture and the 
picturesque surroundings.

You may return on 27th night or 28th morning from 
Baroda, Indore or Khandwa. Your participation is 
utmost necessary now after your important 
participation and contribution on this occasion. 
There will be welcome in villages, overnight stay 
in the farmers' houses, visits to tribal villages 
on the banks of the river, tribal dances and 
travel through the boats in the river followed by 
a long march in Badwani and a torch rally. On one 
side are those administrators who are bent upon 
destruction in the valley and going ahead with 
the dam while on the other side are the lively 
villages and communities and the rich valley. 
This picture is incomplete without your presence.

Your strong intervention is necessary this time 
to stop the destruction without resettlement. 
Please come and bring others along.

Waiting for you,

Mohanbhai Patidar, Swapna Kanera, Kamala Yadav, Medha Patkar, Ashish
Mandloi, Omprakash Yadav, Hirdaram Bharud, Chandubhai, Kailash Awasthi


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

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.