SACW | 28-29 May 2006 | Indo-Pak Nuclear Tests 8 years on; India sluggish on fighting communalism, active on assaulting poor

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun May 28 19:43:13 CDT 2006


South Asia Citizens Wire | 28-29 May, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2252

[1]  Pakistan: What a bomb cannot buy (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
[2]  India, US Tighten Nuclear Handshake (Praful Bidwai)
[3]  India: Two Years of UPA and Communal Amity (Ram Puniyani)
[4]  India: The Assault on the Poor (Prashant Bhushan)
[5]  India: Letter to the Editor re the skewed Bombay Film (Mukul Dube)

_____


[1]

The News on Sunday
May 28, 2006

pakistan
WHAT A BOMB CANNOT BUY

Eight years after the nuclear test, a lot many promises remain 
unfulfilled and costs unacknowledged

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

On the eighth anniversary of Pakistan's nuclear tests, there is 
little point in debating whether we should have followed India down 
the nuclear gutter. But there is need for a sober stock-taking that 
moves us away from the still rampant, simple-minded, nuclear 
triumphalism. So far the region's nuclear 'experts' and 
'strategists', actively assisted on both sides of the border by their 
respective states, have effectively monopolised discussion on nuclear 
policy. But many promises remain unfulfilled and various political 
and social costs for Pakistan are barely acknowledged. What are these?

The most obvious fact is that testing the bomb speeded up the 
subcontinent's arms race, rather than slowing it down. If you had 
believed what the nuclear pundits used to say, it should have been 
the other way round. Their argument was so seductive and simple that 
even well-meaning people were taken for a ride. They said acquiring 
the bomb would ensure national security into eternity -- the threat 
of a nuclear response would deter territorial violations by the 
other, and hence the need for conventional arms would evaporate. Just 
a few bombs would do. Before the May 1998 tests, and even for several 
months after it, some Pakistanis cheerfully wrote that after going 
nuclear, little more than salaries for soldiers would be needed. 
Defence budgets could be slashed, and (at last) funds would go into 
development and education.

Instead, what have we seen? Today the need for acquisition of battle 
tanks, artillery, fighter aircraft, surface ships, submarines, 
anti-ballistic missile systems, early warning aircraft, and 
space-based surveillance systems is now claimed -- by many of the 
same people -- to be more urgent than ever before.  The US-India 
nuclear deal, if ratified by Congress, will add fuel to the fire. 
After India's breeder reactors come on line, it will be able to 
produce as many nuclear warheads in just one year as it had in the 
previous 30. Pakistan is sure to react in various ways.

The once-popular concept of 'minimal deterrence' died after India's 
firm statement that the requirements for a deterrent force will be 
'dynamically determined' and cannot be explicitly stated. In other 
words, it will never say how many bombs are enough. That is not how 
it used to be. I well remember my intervention during a conference in 
Chicago (1992) which provoked the Indian strategist K. Subramanyam to 
angrily protest that "arms racing is a Cold War concept invented by 
the western powers and totally alien to sub-continental thinking". We 
Pakistanis and Indians were supposed to be infinitely wiser than the 
compulsive Americans and Soviets. But one sees that Cold War racing 
has been followed to the letter on the subcontinent. Tactical nuclear 
war-fighting, once considered escalatory, is reported to be 
incorporated into current Indian and Pakistani military doctrines.

The fact is that nuclear racing and doctrines is everywhere and 
always driven by the same implacable, mad, runaway logic. Should 
there be the slightest danger of the race slackening, a nuclear 
'expert' will point to the other side's latest acquisition and shout 
wolf. With every passing decade, advances in technology make it 
easier and cheaper to create ever more deadly nuclear weapons, buy or 
make longer range and more effective missiles, and go for various 
hi-tech weapon systems that could not have been imagined just a while 
ago.

For Pakistan, the nuclear cost -- political and social -- has been 
even higher than for India.

First, nuclear weapons led to Pakistan's Kargil debacle. The 1998 
tests gave the country's leaders a false sense of security. This was 
the direct cause of a misadventure that ended in a stunning political 
and diplomatic defeat for Pakistan. If anything, it made clear that 
Pakistan could no longer hope for a military victory in Kashmir.

The Kargil episode offers the very first example in history where 
nuclear weapons, by dint of creating a presumed shield for launching 
conventional covert operations, were responsible for having brought 
about a war. The unrestrained propagation of false beliefs in nuclear 
security brought India and Pakistan to the brink of a full-blown 
confrontation that could well have been the very last one. Arguably 
it was the Bharatiya Janata Party that, by ordering Pokhran-II, 
fathered Kargil.

Second, Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons has made it 
effectively a less independent state, rather than it being the other 
way round. While Pakistan became popular in Saudi Arabia and other 
Muslim countries after testing, its inability to stand up for real 
Muslim interests remains as chronically weak as ever. Unlike many 
European and non-aligned countries -- which were vociferous in their 
opposition to the US war upon Iraq -- Pakistan chose the side of 
pragmatism. One can also be sure that if Iran's nuclear facilities 
are bombed by the US, Pakistan's leaders will do no more than shake 
their heads in mild disapproval. The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline 
provides yet another example of weakness.

Although nukes have pushed up Pakistan's rental value for fighting 
the wars of other nations, the constraints on its behaviour have also 
greatly increased. The danger that our nukes may turn loose is a 
source of deep discomfort to Pakistan's chief patron and paymaster, 
the United States of America. The fiery rhetoric of religious 
parties, who claim the bomb for the entire Muslim Ummah rather than 
just for Pakistan, understandably terrifies many in the West. 
Moreover, the A. Q. Khan episode -- in spite of Pakistan's repeated 
assertions that the matter has now closed -- is still very much on 
the minds of the US establishment and media. These reasons account 
for the US's flat rejection of any kind of nuclear deal with Pakistan 
along the lines that it had proposed to India.

For the time being, with General Pervez Musharraf in power, the US is 
willing to tolerate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- and may even 
satisfy some of its needs for advanced conventional weaponry. But 
this could be shortlived. Many gaming scenarios played in the US 
strategic war planning institutions indicate there are well-rehearsed 
contingency plans if Pakistan's political situation changes radically 
in the event of General Musharraf's departure. Clearly, Pakistan is a 
country that is closely watched and monitored.

Third, and finally, while a connection is sometimes alleged, in fact 
nuclear weapons have been irrelevant to two of Pakistan's critical 
needs -- national integration and high technology. If anything, the 
effect has gone the other way.

National integration remains a distant goal, and the hope that the 
bomb would be a rallying call for all Pakistanis has disappeared. The 
tumultuous, officially inspired, 1999 celebrations of 'yaum-e-takbir' 
all over the country were supposed to infuse a new sense of national 
spirit in Pakistanis. Bomb and missile models were installed at every 
other street corner; many still survive. But instead of love for the 
centralised Islamabad-based Pakistani state, the ongoing widespread 
insurgency in Balochistan and rising bitterness in Sindh are sending 
clear messages of a dangerous disaffection. Nuclear weapons cannot 
compensate the absence of a democratic process, which alone can weld 
Pakistan's disparate people into a nation.

The failure is evident. Punjab celebrates the bomb while Balochistan 
protests it. It resents the fact that the nuclear test site -- now 
radioactive and put out of bounds -- is located on Baloch soil. 
Accused of dumping nuclear wastes, the Pakistan Atomic Energy 
Commission is now being increasingly targeted by Baloch nationalists 
as an instrument of foreign domination. On May 15, 2006, Baloch 
insurgents reportedly launched a mortar attack on a Pakistani nuclear 
establishment controlled by the PAEC in the vicinity of the Dera 
Ghazi Khan-Quetta highway.

And, what of the Bomb being a technical miracle? Over thirty years 
ago, fearful of India's newly acquired nuclear weapons, Pakistan set 
out on its own quest to become a nuclear weapons state. It lacked a 
strong technological base. But its secret search of the world's 
industrialised countries for nuclear weapons technologies was 
successful. It now advertises itself as a high-tech state.

But in a world where science moves at super-high speeds, nuclear 
weapons and missile development is today second-rate science. The 
undeniable fact is that the technology of nuclear bombs is six 
decades old. Famine-stricken North Korea, with few other 
achievements, is probably also a nuclear power and clearly has a very 
advanced missile programme. In fact it had transferred this 
technology to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and other countries. While 
Pakistani and Indian weapons programmes have diverted substantial 
financial and material resources away from social and scientific 
needs, they have merely used scientific principles discovered and 
developed elsewhere. Not surprisingly, there are no worthwhile 
spin-offs. Surely it is time to drop the pretence that making nuclear 
weapons and guided missiles is a wonderful thing.


The author is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at 
Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.

____


[2]

Inter Press Service
May 27, 2006

INDIA, US TIGHTEN NUCLEAR HANDSHAKE
Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, May 27 (IPS) - The United States and India have taken yet
another step towards finalising the nuclear cooperation agreement they
signed in July last year and more key lawmakers in Washington have
expressed support for the deal.

The agreement makes a special, one-time exception in the global
nuclear non-proliferation regime for India by acknowledging and
legitimising it as a 'responsible' nuclear weapons state.After decades
of technology sanctions, civilian nuclear commerce with it will now be
resumed.

The deal has provoked controversy because of the unique
country-specific treatment given to India which is not a signatory to
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and 'weaponised' its
nuclear programme eight years ago. The deal is part of, and further
consolidates, the emerging India-U.S. "strategic partnership" which is
designed to contain China.

Both governments are making hectic efforts to get the agreement
through U.S. Congress before it goes into a recess in August. The Bush
administration staunchly defended the deal in Congressional hearings.
And India has redoubled its lobbying on Capitol Hill through
professional public relation agencies and influential groups of
Indians settled in the U.S. Their efforts have borne fruit as
increasing numbers of U.S. lawmakers, who were earlier sceptical, have
come around to backing the deal.

Washington and New Delhi are negotiating the language of what they
hope will be the final text of the agreement, under which India must
separate its civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, and place
the former under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India
has offered to put 14 out of its 22 operating and planned civilian
reactors under safeguards.

The current negotiations centre on issues other than the
civilian-military separation. They also highlight the limits beyond
which neither side can press the other.

On Friday, India's foreign secretary (chief of the diplomatic cadre)
Shyam Saran and U.S. under secretary of state Nicholas Burns concluded
two days of talks in London, which the State Department described as
"another good step forward". At the talks, the U.S. prodded India on
making a legal commitment to abjure further nuclear testing.

Saran, however, made it plain that "we are not in a position to
deviate from the July 18 joint statement" signed between President
George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in which India only
said it would continue with its voluntary moratorium on testing.

A voluntary moratorium can be lifted at will. Nuclear hardliners in
India do not want to write off the option of further tests to develop
a fusion (hydrogen) bomb. India claimed it successfully tested a
fusion assembly in 1998, but independent experts say it turned out to
be a dud.

Nuclear testing is one of the two issues on which the U.S. has been
trying to push India, the other being a treaty to ban the production
of fissile material, the fuel that goes into nuclear weapons. Last
fortnight, the U.S. introduced a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
(FMCT) at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

In the past, India was lukewarm towards the FMCT which it regards as a
measure to limit the size of its nuclear arsenal. India, like
Pakistan, is still producing and stockpiling fissile material, whereas
the major nuclear weapons-states have a surplus of it. But in the
nuclear deal, initialled last July, New Delhi had to make a concession
on the issue.

"This is part of the small price that India paid for the deal," says
Achin Vanaik, professor of International Relations and Global Politics
at Delhi University. "The U.S. is keen on an FMCT because it wants to
freeze nuclear competition among the major states at the present
level. China resists this and would like the Conference on Disarmament
(CD) to negotiate a treaty to ban an arms race in outer space before
it takes up the FMCT."

China is especially anxious about Washington's plans for "Star
Wars"-style ballistic defence (BMD). Beijing believes the BMD
programme is targeted primarily at China.

By committing itself to "work with" Washington on getting the FMCT
passed, New Delhi has signalled that it stands by the U.S., not with
China. India has nevertheless entered a minor caveat by emphasising
the issue of verification of the FMCT.

The London talks showed that Indian officials are wary of introducing
even minor changes in the agreement, which was fleshed out further
during President George W. Bush's visit to India during March.

The Bush administration finds itself under some pressure to show
"flexibility" in "accommodating some of the desires of Congress",
Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs
Richard Boucher told an Indian news agency. "We certainly accept the
views of Congress on different issues but we are also going to make
clear that we cannot do things --legislations or conditions--at this
point that will break the deal".

India's lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill received a big boost when it
managed to win over a traditionally anti-Indian Republican
Congressman, Dan Burton. He joined three members of the Congress'
India Caucus to write a letter countering "distortions" and
"erroneous" statements made by detractors of the nuclear deal.

Describing the deal as 'visionary', the letter said: "We firmly
believe that the facts underlying the decision to enter into the
agreement fully warrant the conclusion that its implementation is in
the best interest of both the U.S. and India.''

The letter commends India's record on nuclear non-proliferation to
reassure Congress that legitimising India's nuclear weapons would not
lead to their further spread. The letter said: "For 30 years, India
has protected its nuclear programmes. It has not engaged in or allowed
proliferation of its nuclear technology. Simply put, India is treated
uniquely because of its history of maintaining a successful nuclear
non-proliferation regime".

New Delhi is anxious to have the agreement ratified along with the
necessary legislation during the term of the present (109th) Congress.
Elections to the 110th Congress are due in November. It is possible
that it will be controlled by the Democrats, who are less amenable
than the Republicans to persuasion to ratify it.

Both governments are testing the waters to see how far they can go to
meet domestic concerns and head off accusations that they are
compromising their respective national interests. In the U.S., much of
the opposition to the deal in the Senate has been softened. But in the
House of Representatives, it still faces significant opposition, in
particular from a group of Democrats led by Ed Markey.

In India, the deal faces opposition from the right-wing, especially
the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accuses the
Manmohan Singh government of having sold India's interests short. It
was a BJP government that, in 1998 ran a series of tests and declared
India a nuclear weapons state.

Domestic pressure will limit the extent to which India can be
flexible. Having tabled the main contents of the deal in Parliament,
the government cannot ask for amendments without inviting the charge
that it succumbed to U.S. pressure. (END/2006)

____


[3]

AND PROMISES TO KEEP  . . .
TWO YEARS OF UPA AND COMMUNAL AMITY

Ram Puniyani (May 21, 2006)

United Progressive Alliance came to power in the backdrop of the 
massive Gujarat carnage and a worsening communalization of society. 
Efforts to bring in harmony and integration were incorporated in the 
common minimum program. This CMP did promise to work for controlling 
the rising communalization. It promised to promote amity in the 
society, it aimed at winning over the confidence of minorities and to 
improve their lot. Where do matters stand two years down the line as 
the Govt. is completing its two years in the office?

POTA had become synonymous with the imprisoning a section of Muslim 
youth and putting them behind the bars in the aftermath of one or the 
act of terror. The arbitrary nature of this law was a major source of 
torment for a section of community. While UPA did withdraw it, it 
failed to do so from the retrospective effect with the result that a 
large section of people which was in the jails continues to be there. 
The communal violence bill which was brought in was drafted on the 
assumption that police and administration do not have enough powers 
during the violence. So with more powers under their belt they will 
be able to control the riot, that's what the bill provided for. As 
such the matters are the other way around. It is the complicity of 
these sections with rioters, it is their proactive role in the 
violence that carnage begins and continues. After the protests by 
human rights groups the bill was taken back for reworking and despite 
a lapse of a long time one is not hearing much about it. The need is 
to bring in a bill, which can punish those in the seats of powers and 
not doing their assigned duty to control the violence. The bill 
failed to provide suitable clauses against gendered violence and 
provisions for the adequate relief and rehabilitation of the victims 
of the violence.

On the positive side, the UPA did take up the issue of communalized 
text books and after the gap of two years, better books are coming 
out from the NCERT stable, only pity is that while they cater to a 
small section of students a large number of students have to follow 
the books by state education boards, many of which are very communal 
in nature and leave a lot to be desired as for as the suitability for 
the growing children is concerned.

The role of this government in the potentially dangerous Baroda riots 
needs to be given half a clap. The state administration and the 
complicit communal organizations like VHP, RSS and Bajrang dal etc 
are having a field day in this Hindu Rashtra of Gujarat. The pressure 
put by the human rights groups was well received and the central 
intervention brought a halt to the carnage unleashed by the Sangh 
combine and state and municipal administrations, which in Gujarat, 
have become part of the Sangh combine.

While most of the things are not taken serious note of as many of 
these issues come under the purview of state Govt., time has come to 
see that if these have deeper repercussions on the national unity 
they should be taken up by center in all sincerity. The aim of 
winning over the confidence of minorities is no where in sight, 
currently the minorities have to hide in their cocoons for security. 
The Rajinder Sacchar Committee report is keenly awaited but the 
glimpses of it as coming through some section of media show that the 
social and human development indices of Muslims have slid in the 
downward direction. One awaits the Govt response on the plans to 
develop education and employment schemes for minorities. The much 
promised commission for minority education is nowhere in sight. The 
attempts to curtail the acts of terror have been restricted to the 
Muslims names alone. In a major blast which occurred in Nanded on 6 
th April in the house of RSS sympathizers, the people who got 
accidentally killed while making the bomb belonged to Bajrang Dal. 
Proper investigation of this blast is nowhere in sight.

The creeping fascism through the change in attitudes of the 
Administration and Police is slowly strangulating the society. These 
are the visible parts of communalization of society due to the deeper 
processes at work. The intense propaganda and word of mouth campaign 
by the communal forces has vitiated the social thinking to the hilt 
and the emotional divide between religious communities is increasing, 
with the possibility of the divide being bridged appears to be a very 
difficult prospect. If this is not addressed through the awareness 
programs of communal harmony we cannot hope for the prospering of the 
Indian identity. The sectarian identities around religion are already 
flourishing. UPA governments' promises will remain totally 
unfulfilled if the riots are not controlled. During last few years 
the faith based obscurantist trends as manifested in Babas, Acharyas 
and Bapus is on the rise. Criticsing them has become hazardous and 
some of them are now adorning the status of brand ambassadors of 
states, with all the state functionaries attending and bowing to 
them. The constitution tells us to uphold the rational though and 
spirit, now and open embrace with blind faith is shamelessly visible.

In adivasi areas the development funds are being channeled to promote 
religiosity as witnessed in the Shabri Kumbh festival in Dangs. The 
places of religious worship of the minority community are being taken 
over or demolished with the full cooperation from local authorities. 
The civil society is becoming more and more apathetic to the plight 
of minorities. This in turn is resulting in the development of 
sectarian thinking amongst minorities themselves who have started 
feeling that they are outcastes by the national community. The 
ghettotisation, the division between minority majority, is sowing the 
seeds which can take the form of violence on the pretext of even a 
small incident.

UPA is acting in a sluggish manner to this serious threat to the body 
politic of our society and nation. A mere patch work will not do, 
mere running to control the Barodas won't do, what we need is a far 
sighted approach to weed out the communal thought process and 
associated activities of communal nature.


____


[4]

Outlookindia.com
May 26, 2007

THE ASSAULT ON THE POOR
When the history of the country's descent towards violence and chaos 
is written, the judiciary of the country can claim pride of place 
among those who speeded up this process.
Prashant Bhushan

There was a time, not so long ago, when the Supreme Court of India 
waxed eloquent about the Fundamental right to life and liberty 
guaranteed by Article 21. It held that the right to life includes the 
right to food, the right to employment and the right to shelter: in 
other words, the right to lead a decent and dignified life.

That was in the roaring 80s when the Court gave a series of 
path-breaking judgements; Olga Tellis (where it held that even 
pavement dwellers have the right to resettlement and a right of 
hearing before they are evicted); the Asiad Workers case (where it 
held that non payment of minimum wages to the workers violated their 
right to life); the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (where it was held that 
workers cannot be kept in bondage because of loans they or their 
ancestors had taken from their employers); in Vishaka (where while 
giving a liberal interpretation to sexual harassment of women in the 
workplace, it held that international covenants signed by India can 
be read into domestic law).

A new tool of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was fashioned where 
anyone could invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts even by writing a 
post card on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. It seemed that a 
new era was dawning and that the courts were emerging as a new 
liberal instrument within the state to provide the poor some respite 
from the various excesses and assaults of the executive.

Alas, all that seems a distant dream now, given the recent role of 
the courts in not just failing to protect the rights of the poor that 
they had themselves declared not long ago, but in fact spearheading 
the massive assault on the poor, particularly since the era of 
economic liberalization.

This is happening in case after case, whether they are of the tribal 
oustees of the Narmada Dam, or the urban slum dwellers whose homes 
are being ruthlessly bulldozed without notice and without 
rehabilitation, on the orders of the court, or the urban hawkers and 
rickshaw pullers of Delhi and Mumbai who have been ordered to be 
removed from the streets by the courts.

Public Interest Litigation has been turned on its head. Instead of 
being used to protect the rights of the poor, it is now being used by 
commercial interests and the upper middle classes to launch a massive 
assault on the poor, in the drive to take over urban spaces and even 
rural land occupied by the poor, for commercial development.

While the lands of the rural poor are being compulsorily taken over 
for commercial real estate development for the wealthy, the urban 
poor are being evicted from the public land that they have been 
occupying for decades for shopping malls and housing for the rich. 
Roadside hawkers are being evicted on the orders of the Courts (which 
will ensure that people will shop only in these shopping malls).

All this is being done, not only in violation of the rights of the 
poor declared by the Courts, but also in violation of government's 
policies. Sometimes these actions of the Court seem to have the tacit 
and covert approval of the government (and the court is being used to 
do what a democratically accountable government cannot or dare not 
do), but occasionally they are against the will of the government.

Let us examine a few of these cases.

When the Narmada oustees approached the courts against the Narmada 
Control Authority's decision to raise the height of the dam to 122 
metres in March this year, the Supreme Court, which was originally 
due to hear the matter on the 3rd April, postponed it to the 17th, 
citing non availability of the bench. This, despite being told that 
the ongoing construction would submerge an additional 150 families by 
every day of construction.

On the 17th April, the report of the Group of Ministers (GoM) which 
had reported the gross and total failure of rehabilitation, was 
placed before the Court. The Court again adjourned the case by 2 
weeks, giving the States more time to reply.

Meanwhile the construction was allowed to go on, though the court 
stated that they would be forced to stop the construction if it was 
found that rehabilitation had not been completed in letter and spirit 
of the Tribunal's award which mandated rehabilitation of the oustees 
a year before submergence.

On the 1st May, the Court heard detailed arguments after the counter 
affidavits of the states had been filed. On behalf of the oustees, it 
was pointed out that it was the admitted position that virtually no 
oustee had been provided land for land. More than 90%of those 
entitled for land had been given only cash compensation. And more 
than 90% of these had been so far given only half of their cash 
entitlement with which they could not even buy half hectare of land 
despite being entitled for 2 hectares.

It was also admitted by Madhya Pradesh (MP) in its affidavit that 
many rehabilitation sites were incomplete and lacked basic 
infrastructure. It was also pointed, that Gujarat's claim that the 
additional height of the dam would provide additional water to 
Gujarat was bogus, since Gujarat was being able to use only 10% of 
the Narmada waters already available, on account of the hopelessly 
incomplete canals and water pipelines.

The court first adjourned the case further to May 8, and on that day 
observed that since facts were disputed, they would like to have the 
report of the Shunglu committee which is supposed to report on the 
state of resettlement of the oustees to the PM by the end of June. 
The court therefore adjourned the matter to the 10th of July. 
Meanwhile the construction would continue and be completed by the end 
of June. In other words, after the dam was completed and the oustees 
submerged, the court would decide whether the construction was legal 
or not!

This, after the admission by MP that many of their rehabilitation 
sites were not ready, and after the scathing report of the Group of 
Ministers. The court's repeated adjournments of the hearing, and then 
allowing the construction to be completed for getting the Shunglu 
Committee's report, clearly demonstrated a total lack of sensitivity 
to the oustees and the complete subordination of their rights to the 
commercial interests of those industrialists led by Narendra Modi who 
are eyeing the Narmada waters for their industries, water parks and 
golf courses. The gap between the rhetoric and the actions of the 
Court could not be more yawning.

Meanwhile, as the Narmada oustees were being submerged without 
rehabilitation, a massive programme of urban displacement of slum 
dwellers without rehabilitation was being carried out in Delhi and 
Bombay, also on the orders of the High Courts. Sometimes on the 
applications of upper middle class colonies, sometimes on their own, 
the Courts have been issuing a spate of orders for clearing slums by 
bulldozing the jhuggis on public land. Some of this is being done 
with the tacit approval of the government, such as the slums on the 
banks of the Yamuna which are being cleared for making way for the 
constructions for the Commonwealth games. But elsewhere the 
demolitions are being ordered despite the government saying that the 
slum dwellers are entitled for rehabilitation on the governments own 
policy and that right now they do not have the land to rehabilitate 
them. Instead of stopping the demolitions in such circumstances, the 
Delhi High Court has ordered the demolitions to continue regardless. 
And all this, without even issuing notices to the slum dwellers, in 
violation of the principles of natural justice.

The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was pointed out 
that the High Court's orders were in violation of at least two rights 
of the slum dwellers: that poor persons occupying public spaces had a 
right to be heard before eviction, and if they had been there for a 
considerable time, they had a right to be given alternative spaces, 
prior to their eviction. However, ignoring the jurisprudence 
developed over two decades by it, the Court dismissed the petitions 
and orally observed that nobody asked these persons to come to Delhi, 
if they could not afford housing here, and that they have no right to 
occupy public land.

This was not all. The Court's relentless assaults on the poor 
continued with the Supreme Court ordering the eviction of Hawkers 
from the streets of Bombay and Delhi. Again, turning their backs on 
Constitution bench judgements of the Court that Hawkers have a 
fundamental right to hawk on the streets, which could however be 
regulated, the Court now observed that streets exist primarily for 
traffic. They thus ordered the Municipality and the police to remove 
"unlicenced hawkers" from the streets of Delhi. All this again 
without any notice or hearing to the hawkers. This effectively meant 
that almost all the more than 1.5 lakh hawkers would be placed at the 
mercy of the authorities, since less than 3 percent had been given 
licences.

More recently, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of 
rickshaws from the Chandni Chowk area, ostensibly to pave the way for 
CNG buses. This order will not only deprive tens of thousands of 
rickshaw pullers of a harmless and environmentally friendly source of 
livelihood, it will also cause enormous inconvenience to tens of 
thousands of commuters who use that mode of transport.

Interestingly, witness in this context, the alacrity and speed with 
which the hon'ble Parliamentarians moved to pass and notify the The 
Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act-2006 seeking immediate halt to 
the demolition and sealing drive against illegal structures in the 
capital under court orders for a period of one year, showing once 
again how electoral considerations unite the politicians of all hues, 
and contrast this with the stance of the government in the NBA case.

The country today is living through a phase where the country's 
billionaires are growing as rapidly as farmers suicides in the 
countryside; where opulent shopping malls, commercial complexes and 
futuristic IT cities are coming up on land which the poor are being 
forced to vacate. Thus the poor are being deprived of the only real 
resources that they have, land, and are being made homeless and 
destitute in order to feed the greed of the wealthy. All this is 
being accomplished with the help of the courts, with the courts often 
leading the assault.

This is breeding enormous resentment among the poor and the 
destitute. Feeling helpless and abandoned, nay violated, by every 
organ of the state, particularly the judiciary, many are committing 
suicides, but some are taking to violence. That explains the growing 
cadres of the Maoists who now control many districts and even states 
like Chhatisgarh. The government and the ruling establishment thinks 
that they can deal with this menace by stongarm military methods. 
That explains why the government relies more and more on the advice 
of former policemen and why there is talk of using the Army and Air 
Force against the Maoists. Tribals in Chhattisgarh are being forced 
to join a mercenary army funded by the state by the name of Salva 
Judum to fight the Maoists. But all this will breed more Maoists. No 
insurrection bred out of desperation can be quelled by strong-arm 
tactics. The very tactics breed more misery and desperation and will 
push more people to the Maoists.

Unless urgent steps are taken to correct the course that the elite 
establishment of this country is embarked upon, we will soon have an 
insurgency on our hands which will be impossible to control. Then, 
when the history of the country's descent towards violence and chaos 
is written, the judiciary of the country can claim pride of place 
among those who speeded up this process.

Prashant Bhushan is a noted Supreme Court lawyer and rights activist.


____


[5] Letter to the Editor

D-504 Purvasha
Mayur Vihar 1
Delhi 110091

28 May 2006

Editor,

"Where does the Q'uran sanction the use of violence
against innocent and defenceless people?"

These words are mandatory in every Bombay film which
has anything to do with terrorism, that is, with
Pakistan, that is, with Islam, that is, with Ultimate
Evil. A great many such films have been made, being
an eminently saleable product line in the industry.
It will not surprise me if they are made to order,
so to speak.

This denial of any connection between Islam and
violence comes, most often, from young, female, Muslim
characters. Sometimes it may come from white-bearded
and white-capped peaceniks. Either way, it shows that
among Muslims too, there are sensible people. It shows
that these few sensible people are ranged against an
enormous mass of Muslims of the common kind, blood-
thirsty hyaenas with fangs always bared.

I do not recall seeing, ever, a character wearing a
mangalasutra or sporting white lines on the forehead
or holding little balls of rudraksha, saying similar
words, mutatis mutandis, to hyaenas dressed in khaki
shorts or with saffron bandannas wrapped around their
empty heads. Why preach to the converted? Peace is in
their blood, after all, and the blood they spill is
necessary for building the road to peace.

Mukul Dube


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

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.



More information about the Sacw mailing list