SACW | 18-20 July 2006 | Bangladesh: domestic violence bill; India: Internet Censorship
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Jul 19 19:57:26 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | 18-20 July, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2275
[1] Bangladesh: The draft Bill on domestic violence: Some
recommendations (Surobhi Chopra)
[2] UK: Statement on Mumbai bomb blasts (South Asia Solidarity Group)
[3] India: Shielding The Powerful (Jyoti Punwani)
[4] India: Oppose Internet censorship in India
[5] Upcoming Events:
(i) Seminar - 60 Years of Vasant Rajab (July 22, 2006, Ahmedabad)
(ii) Sixth International Kashmir Peace Conference (July 20th & 21st,
2006, Washington DC)
(iii) Kashmir Roundtable (July 21, 2006, Washington DC)
(iv) A Public Meeting on Sri Lanka, Peace, Human Rights and the
Diaspora (August 5, London)
(v) Talk by Dionne Bunsha, author of the book on Violence in Gujarat
(July 21, Bangalore)
(vi) Late announcement: Film on Jana Natya Manch by Lalit Vachani
___
[1]
The Daily Star
July 15, 2006
THE DRAFT BILL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
Surobhi Chopra
The Law Commission of Bangladesh recently took the initiative of
drafting a Bill on domestic violence. Ain-o-Salish Kendra (ASK), a
well-known human rights and legal aid organization has welcomed the
Law Commission's initiative.
Domestic violence is one of the most widespread and least recognized
human rights abuses in the world. Bangladesh is no exception in this
regard. Recent research by the One Stop Crisis Centre (OCC) revealed
that almost 70% of sexual abuse suffered by women occurred within
their own homes. The Draft DV Bill is an important step towards the
legal recognition of domestic violence in Bangladesh.
In its introduction to the Bill, the Law Commission recognizes the
fact that domestic violence is not restricted to those who are
economically disadvantaged, but cuts across all barriers of class and
community. Importantly, it also recognizes that multiple strategies
are needed to combat domestic violence, and that domestic violence
legislation is necessary but not sufficient.
The Law Commission has tailored this Bill to the Bangladeshi context,
and attempted to address the particular manifestations of domestic
violence in Bangladesh, such as harassment on the failure to have a
son, violence related to dowry, and acid attacks. It has also adopted
a number of innovative measures, including interim protection orders,
protection orders, compensation for the victim, and counseling orders.
This Draft Bill combines civil law and criminal law measures, which
acknowledges the fact that many victims of domestic violence do not
want criminal prosecution of the abuser as a first resort. Its
structure, in brief, is as follows: a victim of domestic violence can
contact an enforcement officer who will investigate the complaint and
put it before the Family Court. The Court is empowered to issue
protection orders that bar the abuser from committing a range of acts
and provide for safe accommodation for the victim if needed. If the
abuser breaches the protection order, he is liable to a fine and
imprisonment for this breach, in addition to being liable to
prosecution for any other offences (such as assault or dowry demands)
that he might have committed when he abused the victim.
ASK has responded in detail to the Draft Bill on Domestic Violence,
with a view to making it more comprehensive and effective in the
Bangladeshi context.
The Draft Bill has many strong positives. These include the following:
* The Bill extends to the whole of Bangladesh and grants
jurisdiction to Family Courts.
* The Bill is gender neutral, and includes a range of domestic
relationships within its ambit.
* The Bill provides for a person other than the victim of
domestic violence to make an application to the court on behalf of
the victim.
* The definition of domestic violence extends beyond merely
physical violence, to include sexual and psychological violence as
well.
* The Bill provides for interim protection orders while an
applicant's complaint is being investigated.
* The Bill provides for a range of measures that can be included
in a protection order, including barring the abuser from entering the
shared home.
* The Bill empowers the court to grant compensation to the victim
where appropriate, of any amount.
* The Bill empowers the court to order counseling for the abuser
and / or the victim.
However, ASK also has concerns about some aspects of the Draft
Domestic Violence Bill, and feels that other aspects of the Bill need
further development and clarification. Therefore, ASK has offered
suggestions on possible amendments to these aspects of the draft
Bill, which it hopes would open up avenues for discussion on the
future development of the Bill. These include the following:
* ASK is concerned about the role of "enforcement officer" in the
draft Bill, which makes the police directly responsible for receiving
and investigating complaints under the Bill.
* In addition, the Bill lacks any punishment or complaints
mechanism for enforcement officers.
Recommendation: Rather than "enforcement officers" the DV law should
create a distinct cadre of "protection officers", who are trained to
deal sensitively with problems of domestic violence. In addition, the
Bill should include a robust oversight mechanism to monitor the
performance of these officers.
* The current Bill does not offer protection to those who are
separated or divorced.
Recommendation: The Bill should be amended to offer protection to
persons who live in a shared household, or have ever lived, in a
shared household.
* The Bill includes domestic servants below the age of eighteen
within the ambit of domestic relationships. ASK feels that a detailed
discussion is needed on whether domestic servants should be included
under a DV law or whether they should be protected by labour /
employment laws.
Recommendation: There is a need for further discussion on the
appropriateness of including domestic servants under a DV law and
analysis the protection available to domestic servants under current
law. This must be followed by the appropriate legal and policy steps
needed to ensure that domestic servants work in safe, violence-free
conditions and are fairly remunerated.
* The definition of domestic violence in the draft Bill excludes some
important aspects of such violence, like economic abuse, marital rape
and forced marriage.
Recommendation: Economic abuse, marital rape and forced marriage
should be included within the definition of domestic violence.
* The draft Bill provides that protection orders can last for a
maximum of 12 months. This could seriously undermine civil-law
protection for the victim of DV. Recommendation: There should be no
maximum limit for protection orders.
*The draft Bill provides that the offender can be excluded from the
shared home, but also provides that if alternative accommodation can
be found for the victim, it is the victim who must move out of the
shared home rather than the offender.
Recommendation: The Bill should ensure that it is the offender who,
if necessary, moves out of a shared home rather than the victim.
Otherwise, the fear of losing the home and access to children would
prevent victims from complaining about domestic violence.
* The draft Bill states that when a protection order is breached, an
"offence of domestic violence" is committed. The current language of
the Draft Bill creates inconsistencies with many provisions of the
existing criminal law, because it creates the possibility that the
same action by an abuser, for example, harassing a spouse for dowry,
could be prosecuted under anti-dowry legislation as well as DV
legislation, with different procedures and penalties under each law.
Recommendation: The draft Bill should make the action of breaching
the protection order a criminal offence (rather than creating a
separate "offence of domestic violence", and enjoin the magistrate
trying the breach of a protection order to lay charges against the
offender for any other offences that he has committed under existing
criminal law.
* The draft Bill provides for rather weak protection to the victim,
as compared to DV laws in other countries. If the abuser breaches the
protection order, the protection order is renewed. The abuser faces
criminal prosecution only on a second breach of the protection order.
Moreover, the punishment for the second breach is restricted to a
maximum of 6 months imprisonment and/or a Tk 10,000 fine. The
punishment for a third breach is also restricted to a maximum of 1
year's imprisonment and/or a Tk 20,000 fine.
Recommendation: The very first breach of a protection order should be
followed by arrest and prosecution. The maximum penalty for breaching
the protection order should be higher; the maximum fine should be
raised to Tk 1 Lakh.
* ASK also recommends ensuring that the court can rely on the sole
testimony of the victim to conclude that a protection order is
required and that the abuser has breached the protection order.
* There is a need for general procedural clarification in the Bill,
including time limits for investigation and trial.
In analyzing the draft DV Bill, ASK has reviewed DV laws in other
jurisdictions, and done a section by section review of the present
draft Bill. The above discussion is a summary of ASK's comprehensive
comments. These comprehensive comments and recommendations have been
submitted to the Law Ministry by ASK.
The writer is a practicing lawyer and working as an associate of Ain
O' Shalish Kendra (ASK).
_____
A STATEMENT ON THE MUMBAI BOMB BLASTS
South Asia Solidarity Group strongly condemns the horrific bomb
blasts in Mumbai on July 11 that killed some 200 people and injured
more than 700. We extend deep condolences to all those who have lost
loved ones, and our hopes for the speedy recovery of all who have
been injured. We salute the spirit of solidarity and resilience
shown by the ordinary people of Mumbai in recent days. People of all
communities have come together to give blood and support to the
victims and their families, refusing to be manipulated by the forces
of sectarian terror behind the blasts.
We fervently hope that this spirit can be sustained over the coming
weeks in the face of a new onslaught by Hindu fascism. We deplore
the blatantly provocative decision by the Sangh Parivar to invite
Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat to lead an 'anti-terrrorist'
march in Mumbai. The projection of the chief architect of the
genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 as the leading face of the
BJP at this juncture indicates the sinister intentions of the
Hindutva forces. This comes in the wake of the Jammu and Kashmir
BJP's recent call for an implementation of a 'solution' to the
Kashmir problem on the lines of the 'Gujarat model'.
What has been the Congress Government's response?
We are disturbed to note that rather than send out a message that any
attempts to make communal capital out of the bomb blasts will not be
tolerated, the Congress Government has inadvertently strengthened the
Sangh Parivar by once again invoking Pakistan as the ultimate enemy.
The government has essentially brushed aside the Pakistani
government's denials of responsibility and offers of cooperation and
have held it responsible for what happened in Mumbai. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh is attending the G-8 meeting at St. Petersburg and is
reported to be planning to pin-point Pakistan as the ultimate source
of terrorism round the world. The process of normalisation of
relations between India and Pakistan has already been affected, with
India calling off the proposed meeting of the Foreign Secretaries
later this month.
We are also concerned about mass arrests targeting the Muslim
community . Already, around 250 have been taken into custody near the
railway station of Mahim in Mumbai alone. Many more have been rounded
up in other parts of Maharastra. Previous experiences lead us to be
concerned for the safety and human rights of innocent people in this
context.
We call on the people of India to draw upon their deep reserves of
mutual solidarity and resist the attempts of the ruling parties to
draw them into further bloodshed.
South Asia Solidarity Group
18 July 2006
www.southasiasolidarity.org
_____
[3]
The Times of India
17 July, 2006
SHIELDING THE POWERFUL
by Jyoti Punwani
In May, an alleged LeT member, in jail since January, had 'confessed'
to Mumbai's Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) that his organisation was
recruiting Mumbai boys to carry out blasts in trains.
The ATS chief, who now dismisses that 'confession' as having no
connection to Tuesday's blasts, was earlier in charge of the Special
Task Force set up to act on the Srikrishna Commission report.
The only concrete action taken by the STF was to book former police
commissioner R D Tyagi (and ultimately let him walk free), and
exonerate the rest of his colleagues in the police force who had been
indicted by Justice Srikrishna.
But why blame the police when their political masters decide to turn
a blind eye to, and at times, actually shield known offenders? The
events in Mumbai in the turbulent week that preceded the blasts are a
culmination of this attitude.
The Shiv Sena indulged in an entire day of terrorism on July 9,
piqued that Muslims in Bhiwandi had got away with burning buses and
even killing policemen.
The incident that is supposed to have provoked their "anger" - the
alleged desecration of Meenatai Thackeray's statue - is so suspect,
even the press that normally fawns on the Thackeray family, is openly
questioning it.
The police, as always (even at the peak of the 1992-93 riots),
'appealed' to the Sena to protest peacefully. Home minister R R Patil
was openly supportive.
"If the violence continues on Monday (July 10), the police will take
action", he promised. Similar indulgence was shown to those who
stirred passions among Bhiwandi's Muslims last week. Bhiwandi's
violence shocked everyone.
What happened to the acclaimed mohalla committees that had ensured
peace for 18 years, among the largely illiterate population of this
hyper-sensitive township?
Set up and sustained by two imaginative and committed police
officers, how did these Hindu-Muslim bodies allow four lives to be
lost in a dispute over the construction of a police station adjacent
to a graveyard?
The disturbing truth revealed by the violence - both by the police
and against it - is that the "Bhiwandi Model" no longer exists. Over
the last five years, as the police began nominating disreputable
khabris (informers) on these committees, ignoring the older,
respected members, the latter began to withdraw.
The khabris had neither the standing nor the inclination to mediate
in petty fights or guide youngsters left idle during the long hours
of load-shedding.
Into this vacuum stepped the Raza Academy, an organisation of fanatic
Bareilvis best known among Muslims for throwing Deobandis out of
their mosques, among political parties for its ability to collect a
mob on religious issues, and in the press for providing sexy
headlines - 'Kick Tasleema Nasreen out of the country'; 'Rs one lakh
for blackening Salman Rushdie's face'.
Shakeel Raza lost no time in taking over as spokesman of Bhiwandi's
Muslims. Taking their cue from their political masters, the police
accepted him as such.
So, instead of involving the township's most respected citizens in
resolving all issues, be it the graveyard-police station dispute, or
the revival of the Id-e-Milad procession (banned after the 1970
riots), the Bhiwandi police chose to negotiate only with Raza's bunch.
Once their deals became common know-ledge, the Raza Academy had to
save face. One way of doing so would have been to get the government
to accept their demand, in this case, stopping the construction of
the police station.
But being wooed during elections is one thing; being taken seriously
by the government is quite another, especially if you are a minority.
Besides, the rival claimant in this dispute was no ordinary party.
You cannot oppose the police and hope to succeed except through the
courts. The Raza Academy has no use for democratic, low-key
processes. It is easier to instigate your followers to take to the
streets against the police, knowing you will not be touched.
So, while 13-year-olds lay in hospital hurt by police bullets,
minister Baba Siddiqui, leading a delegation to the police
commissioner, kowtowed to Saeed Noorie, the academy's founder.
Defending the police firing on a mob stoning the police, in which two
Muslims were killed, the state home minister declared, violating all
legal norms: "Stones will be met with bullets".
Will Patil explain his ministerial colleagues' links with those who
instigated the stone throwers? Will he ask his policemen why they
have yet to arrest Shakeel Raza?
In the backdrop of Bhiwandi's violence, the Sena's Sunday terrorism,
and Tuesday's blasts, the last thing Mumbai needs is communally
provocative acts. Yet, the government is allowing Narendra Modi to
address a public meeting in Mumbai on his favourite topic: Terrorism.
It is time the citizens stepped in. Bhiwandi's respected Muslims, who
have often control-led situations on their own, and are once again
helping defuse the tension there, must publicly condemn the Raza
Academy, as they do in private. Mumbai's citizens must force their
government to restrain Modi.
The writer is a political commentator.
_____
[4]
India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch
July 17, 2006, Year Seven, No 163
AVAILABLE AT : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/174
_____
[5]
Economic and Political Weekly
June 30, 2006
DEFINING, CONSTRUCTING AND POLICING A 'NEW INDIA': RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN NEOLIBERALISM AND HINDUTVA
by Shankar Gopalakrishnan
http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2006&leaf=06&filename=10269&filetype=pdf
_____
[6] Internet censorship in India - Once again, as in 2003, thousands
of blogs have been blocked in India as result of blocking of entire
domains (blogspot, typepad, and Geocities). An active community of
Indian bloggers are fighting back. It is a shame that India's human
rights circles including its 'Right to Information Campaign' are no
where to be seen in efforts to challenge India's bureaucrats and the
all too willing ISP's who enforce the ban. All SACW users are invited
to make noise and to needle Indian authorities, to lift this ban.
People may write to:
Dayanidhi maran (The minister for information technology)
http://www.dmaran.nic.in/
or to:
Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In)
Department of Information Technology
http://www.cert-in.org.in/
o o o
Bloggers Against Censorship
http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship
Background Info:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/17blog.htm
Rediff.com - July 17, 2006
Are Internet Service Providers blocking blogs?
Shivam Vij
o o o
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 7th Avenue, 11th Fl., New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212)
465-1004 Fax: (212) 465-9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail:
info at cpj.org
July 19, 2006
His Excellency Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister, Republic of India
Office of the Prime Minister
South Block
New Delhi 110 011
India
Via facsimile: ++91-11-23016857
Your Excellency,
The Committee to Protect Journalists is troubled by the government's
recent order to ban certain Web sites, an action that has resulted in
blocked access to domains hosting many thousands of Web logs. We urge
you to lift the ban, which has disrupted the flow of news,
information, and commentary in a medium of growing importance in
India. We are concerned as well that the order was imposed with no
official explanation and without judicial or independent review.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in India have told reporters that
they received an order last week from the Department of
Telecommunications to remove access to a limited number of Web sites,
but without elaboration on why those sites were listed. Your
government has not named the Web sites on the list, but officials
have said that as many as 20 may have been included, according to
news reports.
The order came in the wake of a series of bombings that killed 182
people on Mumbai's commuter trains on July 11.
After the order was issued, Internet users in India were deprived of
access to many thousands of blogs hosted by popular services
blogspot.com, typepad.com and geocities.com, according to news
reports, bloggers, and journalists inside the country.
In an explanation provided to the South Asian Journalists Association
(SAJA) today, the deputy consul general in New York, A.R. Ghanashyam,
said that the ban was initiated by India's Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT). He said the order intended to ban two Web pages
"containing extremely derogatory references to Islam and the holy
prophet, which had the potential to inflame religious sensitivities
in India and create serious law and order problems." CERT is a unit
of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology that
deals with computer security issues.
"Because of a technological error," Ghanashyam said, "the Internet
providers went beyond what was expected of them, which in turn
resulted in the unfortunate blocking of all blogs."
A similar government action in 2003, which was intended to block a
single Yahoo group, resulted in blocked access to an entire domain,
groups.yahoo.com, according to Internet analysts.
Bloggers and Internet users in India have strongly protested your
government's recent move, which has impeded the flow of information,
news and opinions during a time of national crisis. As a
non-governmental organization dedicated to defending press freedom
around the world, CPJ joins with our colleagues in India who have
demanded greater transparency in state efforts to intervene in
Internet content and access. Especially in a country like India, with
a strong history of press freedom, any effort to limit or control the
Internet should be subject to judicial or independent review and
narrowly tailored to address urgent national security concerns. We
urge Your Excellency to lift last week's ban and to clarify publicly
all government's efforts to block Web sites and filter Internet
content.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. We await your response.
Sincerely,
Joel Simon
Executive Director
o o o
See Also:
Pakistani Bloggers Reach Out to Indian Bloggers
http://groups.google.com/group/BloggersCollective/browse_thread/thread/6e3ba122398c524a
_____
[5] UPCOMING EVENTS
(i)
60 Years of Martyrdom
Vasant Rajab : A Symbol of Communal Harmony
July 22, 2006
Heerak Mahotsav Sabhagrah, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad
Seminar-10.00am -5.00pm
10.30- Welcome on behalf of Anhad
10.40- Tribute to Vasant and Rajab- Prakash Shah
Session I
10.00am -1.00pm
Chairperson: Sudarshan Iyangar
Looking at Present Gujarat through Historical Prism- Raj K Hans
Reclaiming Secular Spaces- Fr.Cedric Prakash
The Dot Com Boom: Exporting Software or Communalism-Biju Mathew
Communalism of Tribals- Arjun Patel
Inclusive Economic Development- Abu Saleh Shariff
Lunch Break 1.00pm -2pm
Session II
2.00pm - 5.00pm
Chairperson: Ghanshyam Shah
Invoking Identities- Gauhar Raza
Rethinking Secular Intervention- Gagan Sethi
Challenges to Secular Education- Iftikhar Ahmad Khan
Communalism and Cultural Resistance- Hiren Gandhi
Cultural Spaces and Politics of Intolerance- Rakesh Sharma
A Cultural Tribute to Vasant and Rajab
An Evening of Poetry and Music
7.30pm onwards
Vidya Shah
Vidya began her journey into the world of music at the age of 12 when
she started learning South Indian Classical music.
With her love for and exposure to the North Indian style of
classical music, she decided to make a foray into this style of vocal
music. She has trained under Smt.Shubha Mudgal for the last 9 years
in Khayal Gayaki and with Smt.Shanti Hiranand in Thumri, Dadra and
Ghazal.
Vidya has a rich and captivating voice. With her ongoing training in
Khyal Gayaki, Vidya has also under the guidance of her Guru gained a
rich repertoire of Sufi and Bhakti Music.
o o o
(ii)
Sixth International Kashmir Peace Conference
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.
Rayburn House Office Building, Gold Room
July 20th & 21st, 2006
Tentative Program
8.00 a.m. - 9.00 a.m. Registration
9.00 a.m. - 9.05. a.m. Welcome: Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
9.05 a.m. - 9.30 a.m. Inaugural remarks: Ms. Karen Parker
Congressman Joseph Pitts
Senator Tom Harkin
9.30 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.
First Session:
Kashmir: New Hopes and Aspirations;
Moderator: Mr. Sareer Fazili, Esq.
1. Prof. Kamal Chenoy, Jawahar Lal Nehru, New Delhi
2. Amb. Yusuf Buch, Former Senior Advisor to the UN
Secretary General
3. Prof. Robert Wirsing, Prof. of International
Security, Honolulu
4. Mr. Yasin Malik, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front
5. Mr. Ajaz-ul Haq, Federal Minister of Pakistan
6. Sardar Mohammad Anwar Khan, President Azad Kashmir
11.00 a.m. - 12. 30 p.m.
Second session:
Is Self-Governance a means towards Self-Determination?
1. Amb. John McDonald, President, Institute of
Multi-track Diplomacy
2. Mr. Shahid Malik, Member, British House of Commons, London
3. Mr. Praful Bidwai, Journalist & Writer, New Delhi
4. Mr. Talaat Hussain, Aaj Television, Islamabad
5. Mr. Ved Bhasin, Editor-in-Chief, Kashmir Times, Jammu
6. Amb. Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistani Ambassador to
the United States
1.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m.
Third session
Demilitarization: First step towards setting a stage for settlement
1. Dr. Ghulam N. Mir, President, World Kashmir
Freedom Movement
2. Ms. Anuradha Jamwal, Executive Editor, Kashmir Times, Jammu
3. Amb. Teresita Schaffer, CSIS
4. Prof. Mumtaz Ahmed, Professor of Political
Science, Virginia
5. Mr. Gautam Navlakha, Journalist & Writer, New Delhi
6. Dr. Parvaiz Iqbal Cheema, Islamabad
7. Sardar Attique A. Khan, President, Muslim
Conference, Azad Kashmir
8. Barrister Majeed Tramboo, Executive Director,
Kashmir Center, Brussels
3.00 p.m. - 4.30 p.m.
Fourth session
Kashmir: Human Rights Dimension.
1. Mr. Lars Rise, Former Member of Norwegian Parliament
2. Prof. Nazir Shawl, Executive Director, Kashmir
Center, London
3. Prof. Ashraf Saraf, All parties Hurriyet Conference
4. Mr. Mowahid Hussain Shah
5. Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor of
Social & Cultural Anthropology, California Inst.
of Integral Studies, San Francisco
6. Ms. Marjan Lucas, The Hague
7. Ms. Karen Parker, Association of Humanitarian Lawyers
Conclusion:
o o o
(iii)
Kashmir Roundtable
July 21st 2006
Holiday Inn Capitol
550 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024.
8.00 a.m. Registration
9.00 a.m. Welcome: Dr. Ghulam-Nabi Fai
Executive Director,
Kashmiri American Council/Kashmir Center
9.10 a.m. 'Kashmir: New Hopes and Aspirations"
Moderator: Ms. Karen Parker Esq. & Mr. Sareer Fazili, Esq.
Theme presentations:
Mr. Ved Bhasin, Editor-in-Chief, Kashmir Times, Jammu
Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, Qaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
Prof. Robert Wirsing, Honolulu, Hawaii
Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, Professor of Political Science, Virginia
Prof. Kamal Chenoy, Jawahar Lal Nehru university, New Delhi
Response:
Mr. Praful Bidwai, New Delhi
Amb. Yusuf Buch, Former Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary General
Barrister Majeed Tramboo, Executive Director, Kashmir center, Brussels
Amb. Teresita Schaffer, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Mr. Gautam Naulakha, Journalist & Writer, New Delhi
Prof. Ashraf Saraf, All Parties Hurriyet Conference
Pir Aftab Hussain Shah Jillani, PPPP, Islamabad
Professor Nazir Shawl, Justice Foundation, London
Sardar Anwar Khan, President, Azad Kashmir
Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor of Social & Cultural
Anthropology, California Inst. of Integral Studies, San Francisco
Mr. Talaat Hussain, Aaj Television, Islamabad
Mr. Yasin Malik, Chairman, Jammu Kashmir liberation Front
Amb. Mohammad Aslam Khan, DCM Pakistan Embassy
Mr. Shahid Malik, M.P. British House of Commons
Mr. Ajaz ul Haq, Federal Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad
Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan, President, Muslim Conference, Azad Kashmir
Mr. Mowahid Hussain Shah, Lahore
Remarks:
Ms. Anuradha Jamwal, Executive Editor, Kashmir times, Jammu
Prof. Faizan Haq
Dr. Ghulam N. Mir, World Kashmir Freedom Movement
Ms. Marjan Lucas, The Hague
Mr. Lars Rise, Former Member of Norwegian Parliament
Amb. John McDonald, Institute of Multi-Track Diplomacy, Washington, D.C.
o o o
(iv)
A Public Meeting on Sri Lanka, Peace, Human Rights and the Diaspora
Amnesty International
and
Human Rights Watch
Invite you to a public meeting with
Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,Summary or
Arbitrary Executions
and speakers from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
on Saturday 5 August 2006 from 2 to 5 pm at the
Amnesty International Human Rights Action Centre
17 - 25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA
o o o
(v)
Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
invite you to a talk by Dionne Bunsha, journalist and author of the book
SCARRED : Experiments with Violence in Gujarat
http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/Books/BookDetail.asp?ID=6174
followed by an informal discussion
21st July 2006
6.30 p.m.
Xavier Hall,
2nd floor, Ashirvad,
St. Marks Road,
Bangalore.
Scarred is an intense, moving narrative of the aftermath of the
communal violence in Gujarat 2002, which etched deep faults in
Gujarat's social landscape. It looks at both the larger as well as
the closer picture to understand what happened in Gandhi's Gujarat.
"Beautiful... Scarred is not dark, it is one assured step inside the
darkness, to explore the light...
It's straight-forward, honest to the core, a reporter's authentic
notebook on the scars that have refused to heal."
- Tehelka
o o o
(vi) (Apologies for not having posted the below announcement in time;
but SACW readers might be interested to get to see the film )
FILM ON JANA NATYA MANCH BY LALIT VACHANI
Monday, the 17th of July at 6.30 pm at the India International Centre
40 Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi Synopsis: Natak Jari Hai (India;
2005; Colour & B/W; 84 min.) (The Play Goes On) A film by Lalit
Vachani - A documentary video on the theatre group, Jana Natya
Manch (JANAM) (in Hindi & English, with English subtitles; made with
support from the India Foundation for the Arts) What does it mean
to perform socialist 'agit-prop' theatre in India in a globalized
era of increasing intolerance and inequality? Natak Jari Hai is a
documentary about JANAM (The People's Theatre Front), the little
theatre group that never stopped performing in the face of dramatic
political transformation and personal tragedy. The film explores the
motivations and ideals of the JANAM actors and their vision of
resistance and change as they perform their 'People's Theatre' in
diverse parts of
India. It brings to life the world of socialist theatre through the
words of JANAM's members, and through a reflective portrayal of the
group's greatest tragedy - the assassination of its convenor Safdar
Hashmi in 1989. Camera: Mrinal Desai Sound: Asheesh Pandya
Additional editing: Sameera Jain Editing, additional camera,
production and direction: Lalit Vachani Proscenium stage management
and lighting: The Players, Kirori Mal College A Wide Eye Film,
2005 Film Festival premiere: 17th Marseille International
Documentary Film Festival, July 2006
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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