SACW | 21-22 July 2006 | Pakistan: women's rights; India: rights, religion and the state

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Jul 21 21:10:42 CDT 2006


South Asia Citizens Wire | 21-22 July, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2276


[1]  Pakistan: North West Frontier Province - NGOs under threat (Edit, Dawn)
[2]  Pakistan: No Hope for Women Raped and Jailed for Adultery (Zofeen Ebrahim)
[3]  India: Forests on fire (Shankar Gopalakrishnan)
+ Rights and Promises (Ashish Kothari)
[4]  India: Politics of Packages & The Packaging of Politics (P. Sainath)
[5]  India: Zahira Sheikh's Clemency Petition to the President of India
[6]  Secularism in India: 
   (i) India govt move for Bullet proofing of so called Ram temple
   (ii) Documentary maker's continuing battle to 
get his film on communalism telecast
   (iii) What Ails Gujarat? (Teesta Setalvad)
[8]  An investigation into the relationship of 
State and Religion in Secular India
[9]  New Publications: 
      (i) Taking the State to Court - Public 
Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere in 
Metropolitan India
      (ii) UK: When Progressives Treat with 
Reactionaries: The British State's flirtation 
with radical Islamism (Martin Bright)

___


[1] 

Dawn
July 21, 2006

Editorial

NGOS UNDER THREAT

IT should come as no surprise that clerics in 
Mansehra have asked NGOs to sack their female 
employees by July 30 or face being forcibly 
stopped from working in their area. It is no 
secret that right-wing elements in the country, 
particularly the religious ones, see NGOs as 
foreign-funded and inspired therefore un-Islamic 
in motivation. The lengths to which certain 
elements can go to discredit NGOs is what is 
worrisome. Earlier this year, a woman NGO worker 
in the Kailash area was kidnapped in Peshawar and 
released only after she paid a ransom of one 
million rupees. She was still lucky compared to 
an NGO worker who last year, along with her 
teenage daughter, was killed in Dir, her crime 
being that she worked for a women's rights 
organisation. Dir was also the focus of much 
attention during elections when women were 
prevented from voting until the Supreme Court 
stepped in and ensured against forcible 
prevention. NGO workers were then beaten for 
encouraging women to exercise their right to 
vote. These incidents show the scale of threats 
and coercion NGO workers, especially women, face 
in carrying out their work, especially in the 
NWFP. This makes it imperative for the 
authorities to provide security to NGO personnel 
in Mansehra against threats of violence by 
bigoted elements.

It is unfortunate that while governments seem 
unwilling to undertake social work, those that do 
are often obstructed in every possible way. It is 
perhaps futile to argue with the clerics on the 
valuable service NGOs render in promoting health 
and education for the poor, for they are not open 
to reason. But they simply must be allowed to 
obstruct the good work the NGOs are doing for the 
betterment of the people.


_____


[2] 

Inter Press Service
July 19, 2006

PAKISTAN: NO HOPE FOR WOMEN RAPED AND JAILED FOR ADULTERY
Zofeen Ebrahim

KARACHI, Jul 19 (IPS) - While a Presidential fiat 
grants bail to 1,300 females facing trial for 
various offences, it is unlikely to permanently 
benefit those charged with adultery under 
Pakistan's notorious religious-based 'hudood' 
laws -- long criticised by rights groups as being 
anti-women.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's reform 
ordinance, ushered in on Jul. 7, excludes from 
bail women charged with murder, acts of terrorism 
and economic crimes. It must gain parliamentary 
approval in four months, or lapse.

''If Parliament does not pass this into an act, 
then on November 7 this year, these bailable 
offences will automatically become 
non-bailable,'' explained Nasir Aslam Zahid, a 
former judge who recommended complete repeal of 
the Hudood laws in his well-known 1997 report, 
'The Commission of Inquiry for Women'.

Zahid, who now runs a legal aid centre for women 
in Karachi's Central Prison, was critical of the 
presidential order on other counts and said it 
should have helped release women charged with 
economic offences. "It is always men who make 
their wives and sisters scapegoats for financial 
misdemeanours carried out in their (female 
relatives') names.'' Rights groups have long been 
campaigning on behalf of a large number of rape 
victims who ended up being falsely accused of 
adultery and been incarcerated under the 1979 
Hudood Ordinance (HO) laws.

Musharraf's reforms closely follow a public 
debate, hosted last month, by Geo TV, a private 
television channel. While little real headway was 
made during the debate, in which religious 
scholars and jurists supported or opposed HO, 
participants were unanimous that it was 
undesirable in Islam to keep women in prison.

Earlier this month, the President also directed 
the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) to draft an 
amendment to the HO, after consulting all schools 
of thought.

Some officials said that the President has 
indicated the government's intention to scrap the 
HO laws completely. And this has provoked the 
ulema (religious scholars) to vow, at a recent 
convention, that they would protect Hudood laws. 
The ulema also condemned statements issued by 
civil society groups, demanding repeal of the HO, 
as 'westernised' and made at the behest of the 
government.

Promulgated in 1979 by the then military dictator 
Zia ul Haq, to strengthen his campaign of 
Islamising the country, Hudood laws have since 
been running in tandem with the country's secular 
legal system. Subsequent governments tried to do 
away with them but invariably buckled under 
pressure from the religious right. Even 
Musharraf, after promising to amend the laws when 
he took over power five years ago, was forced to 
backtrack.

Hudood covers a range of crimes, but the most 
controversial of them pertains to rape. If a 
woman cannot prove that she has been raped by 
producing four witnesses she could end up being 
charged with adultery -- punishable by being 
stoned to death.

According to the Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan (HRCP), of the nearly 6,000 women and 
children in prison, 80 percent have been charged 
with adultery under the HO and most are from 
disadvantaged sections of society.

While the apparent move against Hudood laws has 
been hailed by civil society and rights groups, 
some remain sceptical. Far too often, and on too 
many issues, the government has first parried and 
then bowed to the religious right.

"The President does not always know what he is 
talking about. The institutions that could do the 
work of ending discriminatory laws have been 
undermined, and only bad rhetoric is left," says 
I.A Rehman, noted rights activist and director of 
the HRCP.

Musharraf's inability to act stems form the fact 
that he draws political backing from 
fundamentalist parties such as the Muttahida 
Majlis-e-Amal and the Pakistan Muslim League. 
Both support the HO and other discriminatory laws.

Even now the government has not called for a 
repeal but requested an amendment, Rehman points 
out. "The government never wanted to repeal the 
HO. It is afraid of going to the parliament as it 
avoids debate on any issue and it is not equipped 
to deal with the mullahs (religious leaders).''

''The government is asking CII to review the HO 
because it wants a compromise. It knows the 
council will not call for a repeal," says Rehman. 
He predicts that at the most the amendments will 
"make prosecution more difficult, plead for easy 
bail to accused and suggest a harsh penalty for 
false accusation."

Ayesha Mir, a lawyer with the women's rights 
group, 'Shirkatgah', looks at the president's 
order as a ''positive step". But she is also 
concerned about rehabilitation. Where will they 
go once they are freed? What plan does the 
government have for their protection and 
security?"

Rehman, thinks that rights activists can now 
''claim credit for prying open the Pakistani 
ruling elite's mind. It has taken them 26 years 
to move this first step''.

There are other questions left unattended. "The 
big hitch is the bail (money) which most women 
won't be able to pay and so they will remain 
behind bars,'' said Zohra Yusuf, a member of the 
HRCP. (END/2006)


_____


[3]


The Times of India
July 19, 2006

FORESTS ON FIRE
Shankar Gopalakrishnan

India's Adivasis are in the news, on account of 
the growth of Maoist organisations and rapidly 
escalating conflict and repression in 
Chhattisgarh.

Meanwhile, the report of a joint parliamentary 
committee (JPC) on a Bill for forest rights is a 
subject of controversy. Not many seem to have 
noticed that the two issues are intertwined.

The links have been ignored since last year, when 
there was an uproar over the Scheduled Tribes 
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005. Its 
opponents dubbed it as being the "most dangerous 
act of any Indian government since 1947" and 
"privatising a national resource".

"Tribal welfare" can be ensured in better ways, 
we were told. The sound and fury masked the basic 
reality of this Bill and the situation in India's 
forests.

Why are forest dwellers and tribals the poorest 
and most marginalised people in this country? The 
usual reply is that "development" has not reached 
them. There are many areas where "development" - 
roads, schools, hospitals - has not reached 
ordinary people.

Yet those areas do not suffer from the kind of 
bondage, destitution and inhuman exploitation 
synonymous with tribal and forest areas.

  Forest dwellers are not poor by accident. They 
have been systematically deprived of their lands, 
homes and livelihoods by official policy for more 
than a century. This policy was initially 
justified as necessary for Britain's timber 
needs, then for the industrial needs of the 
"nation", and finally for conservation.

Whatever the justification, the policy has 
remained the same: Bring all forests under 
centralised control of policing agencies, 
particularly the forest department, and take over 
the lands and rights of people who live there.

The Indian Forest Act, 1927, which is still 
India's main forest law, embodied this 
philosophy. Any area can be declared a government 
forest, after which a "settlement officer" is to 
survey and "settle" the rights of people in that 
area.

Anyone familiar with India's social reality can 
predict what happened. These settlement officers 
either did nothing or only recorded the rights of 
those who were powerful. The result is that 
millions of people, mostly tribals, found 
themselves declared "encroachers" in their own 
homes.

This happened time and again. For instance, 82 
per cent of Madhya Pradesh's forest blocks were 
never surveyed, and 40 per cent of Orissa's 
"reserved forests" were "deemed" to be so without 
surveys.

The millions of people who lived in or depended 
on these forests entered a twilight zone, where 
their lives and homes were declared illegal. At 
any time, the forest guards could evict these 
people, imprison them or fine them.

  The result again is unsurprising - massive 
corruption, extortion and even sexual abuse of 
forest dwellers by the new zamindars, namely the 
forest department. The issue, in short, is not 
about "handing out" forests. Nor is it about 
development alone. It is about justice.

It is about the right of forest dwellers to live 
as equal citizens and not as a permanent 
underclass, surviving at the mercy of the forest 
department. The Maoist movement is closely linked 
to the injustice inherent in the present 
situation.

The Bill ostensibly aims to address this 
injustice. But it establishes some grand 
principles and then pulls the rug out from under 
its own feet.

It includes arbitrary and severe restrictions on 
the rights recognised, allows bureaucrats to 
retain the power to decide on rights and, 
finally, a requirement that communities must 
protect the forest without any authority to do 
so. This is a return to the mentality that forest 
dwellers are trespassers.

The JPC's recommendations in this regard are a 
breath of fresh air. The report is premised on 
the need for democratic and transparent 
institutions, where respect for people's rights 
and for protection of the forest become the twin 
principles of a new system of forest management.

The UPA government would do well to listen to the 
JPC. Rather than treat people as enemies, the 
government ought to treat them as citizens.

The writer is with Campaign for Survival and Dignity.

o o o

[see also ]

RIGHTS AND PROMISES
by Ashish Kothari (Frontline, July 15-28, 2006)
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20060728000706400.htm

_____


[4]

The Hindu
July 14, 2006

POLITICS OF PACKAGES & THE PACKAGING OF POLITICS

by P. Sainath

Had there been a waiver of debt of up to just 
Rs.25,000, more than 80 per cent of Vidharbha's 
farmers would no longer have owed the banks money.

FARMERS ACROSS the land will doubtless be 
ecstatic on learning there is now one more 
committee - to look into debt relief. Gee, 
another committee. Just what we needed. Who 
knows, it might even do something, like form a 
sub-committee. But the joy might be hard to 
sustain. It's all part of a `package.' That too 
is not a new thing. Governments in this country 
have handled more packages than FedEx. My 
all-time favourite is the 
Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput or KBK package, which 
has outlasted four Prime Ministers and seen more 
variations than Rubik's Cube.

Every imaginable programme for which funds 
already exist has been merged or purged from the 
KBK development package at some point. A Rs.4,750 
crore package swelled to Rs.6,500 crore over a 
decade. Of which only Rs.360 crore actually 
showed up till 2004. Even from that paltry sum, 
money was diverted for the total literacy 
programme.

The `package' declared at the end of Prime 
Minister Manmohan Singh's trip to Vidharbha will 
have little or no impact on the crisis there. 
Neither in the short run nor in the long term. 
The visit's political fallout is another matter. 
No one can now deny a major agrarian crisis 
exists. Dr. Singh's journey thoroughly exposed 
the Maharashtra Government and the Union 
Agriculture Ministry. It also brought - if for a 
week - some media focus on the crisis. Well on 
the farm suicides, at least.

Yet the suicides are the effect, not the cause, 
of a much wider agrarian distress. The death 
count is not the story but a window to it. There 
are millions of farm households across the 
country that have not seen suicides but whose 
conditions are similar to those that have. They 
too are in deep trouble.

Yet the question will be asked - will farmers' 
suicides in Vidharbha halt now that there's a 
financial `package' to bring it relief? The 
answer is no. The deaths do have seasonal highs 
and lows. But a relative decline now would have 
little to do with the measures announced at the 
end of the Prime Minister's visit. The number of 
suicides in the 10-day run-up to his trip: 34. 
The number in 10 days after he left: 34.

It was no one's case that farm suicides would end 
with the visit. But people wanted steps that 
would slow the bleeding and restore hope. That 
did not happen.

Advance bonus

The first thing the Prime Minister could have 
done or made the State Government do, was to 
restore the `advance bonus' of Rs.500 a quintal 
for cotton. The State withdrew this in May 2005. 
Appeals by growers - and even by the National 
Commission on Farmers (NCF) - were ignored. We 
knew all hell would break loose. It did. If 
suicide numbers were high when the price of 
cotton was Rs.2,250, how could things get better 
when it fell to Rs.1,700 a quintal? That too due 
to state policy? (There is also no mention in the 
new deal of a `price stabilisation fund' called 
for by the NCF to protect farmers against the 
shock of plummeting prices.)

The final `package' ignored this vital demand. 
Nor did it announce a debt waiver though many in 
power know there is no escape from such a 
measure. Some government of India will have to do 
this at some point. Sure, it would draw flak and 
cries of `fiscal imprudence' from the 
ideologically devout. (Though, when tens of 
thousands of crores are written off for a handful 
of industrialists, that is barely reported. 
Unlike that pampered lot, farmers have landed 
where they are due to policies hostile to 
agriculture for over a decade.)

Had there been a waiver of debt of up to just 
Rs.25,000, more than 80 per cent of Vidharbha's 
farmers would no longer have owed the banks 
money. People thought that waiver would come. It 
didn't and the sense of being let down is great. 
This matters across the country, too. 
Indebtedness amongst farm households has almost 
doubled in the past decade.

The good aspect of the `package' was, of course, 
the promise of crop loans to all farmers across 
the board. This could help many tide over the 
current season. But the interest waiver of Rs.712 
crore mainly helps banks that have been hostile 
to farm lending. And some of the banks were 
anyway looted by the rich barons of the ruling 
elite, not by poor farmers. The move does not put 
a new rupee in the farmer's pocket. Since the 
principal amount has not been waived, the debt 
crisis will renew itself rapidly. Besides, there 
is no help with seed or other inputs. Not even a 
promise of it.

The package gives Rs.2177 crore to 82 major and 
medium and 442 minor irrigation projects in the 
six districts it covers. Much of this simply 
revises book entries. That is, it draws money 
from existing programmes. If all these schemes 
were completed tomorrow, they would not add three 
per cent of acreage to irrigated area. That, in a 
region where irrigated land adds up to just 11 
per cent of the total. Sure, people want water. 
But all problems are not due to lack of 
irrigation. Distress suicides have occurred in 
irrigated parts of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh.

There was and is total silence on the Maharashtra 
Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act, 2005. 
This regressive law puts irrigation beyond the 
reach of all except corporate farmers. It could 
raise irrigation costs by thousands of rupees per 
acre. It also allows an unelected authority to 
compel farmers to use drip or sprinkler 
irrigation. Those unable to pay the huge rate 
hikes in the offing could face fines of up to ten 
times the new charges. They could also face six 
months imprisonment. And yes, farmers with more 
than two children pay one and a half times those 
rates anyway.

The new package is silent on this. It has nothing 
for the 85 per cent non-irrigated farmers now 
shut out from even the chance of having that 
facility. Its gift of Rs.225 crore for 
horticulture and Rs.87 crore for drip irrigation 
will touch only those who already have access to 
water.

There is also not a whisper of incentives for 
food crops in the `package.' The rebirth of jowar 
would have helped farmer, soil, and food 
security. Suicides are far higher among cash crop 
farmers than among food crop growers here. It 
would also have seen the revival of livestock - 
jowar is where the fodder comes from. Instead, 
there is Rs.180 crore for "seed replacement." 
This sounds like gifting big bucks to people 
pushing Bt and other exotic seed that would 
further ruin farmers here. The same sum could 
have been used for an incentive of Rs.1000 per 
acre for growing jowar. Instead, we got notions 
like gifting a thousand high yielding cows to 
farmers in each of six districts here. For those 
with no access to fodder and struggling to feed 
their families, these cows will eat them out of 
hearth and home.

Meanwhile, the Maharashtra Government has raised 
its own `relief package' for Vidharbha farmers 
from Rs.1075 crore to over Rs.1300 crore. Since 
no one ever took this deal seriously, it matters 
little. The first commissioner in charge of this 
`package' left after weeks, disbursing nothing. 
He was never given the money to do so. His 
replacement had barely unpacked his bags when he 
went off to do poll duty in Tamil Nadu. So months 
passed with nothing happening. Except, of course, 
the suicides. Those kept happening.

Meanwhile, the Union Agriculture Ministry, 
feeling left out, kept threatening its own 
`package' for some months. Then it said it had 
drawn up one that the Prime Minister would 
announce in Vidharbha. Like the Prime Minister 
was its postman or PRO. Still, it meant there was 
one more `package' in the running.

None of these has a word on the strengthening of 
cotton procurement by the state machinery. With 
big corporations now free to directly buy and 
sell in any quantities they wish, prices will be 
steadily pushed down by cartels. The media focus, 
of course, is on the initial `higher price' they 
seem to offer. So it's barely noticed that the 
price takes a dive very soon after.

Sadly, what might have been a useful short-term 
remedy was drowned in flawed national policy that 
remains anti-farmer. Dragged down by double 
standards on `fiscal imprudence.' Never allowed 
to meet people's real needs. The `Vidharbha 
package' also ran aground on the rocky shores of 
State politics. Who would get the `credit' for 
bringing relief? Who would land the blame for 
years of neglect? Not a single top leader of 
Maharashtra had entered a grieving household 
prior to the Prime Minister's visit. So his doing 
so would be a real problem, disgracing them in 
the public eye. That saw a gang-up to undermine 
the tour and its agenda. Dr. Singh's visit to a 
village like Koljhari in Yavatmal was scuttled 
for reasons plainly false.

Ultimately, though, you cannot have a `package' 
going one way while policy moves in the reverse 
direction. Vidharbha's farmers sought urgent 
relief. They find themselves left only with 
packaging.

_____


[5] 

ZAHIRA SHEIKH'S CLEMENCY PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/zahirasheikh/

o o o

Punishment for  harsh, activists tell Kalam
http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/21/stories/2006072101811500.htm

_____


[6]  Secularism in India . . .

The Hindu
July 20, 2006 : 2200 Hrs
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200607202130.htm

Supreme Court moved against bullet proof security to 'Ram Lalla'

New Delhi, July 20 (PTI): Md. Aslam alias Bhure, 
known for his legal interventions in the Ayodhya 
matter, today moved the Supreme Court against 
Centre's decision to put a bullet-proof steel 
structure around the idol of 'Ram Lalla' at the 
disputed site at Ayodhya.

In his petition filed through counsel M M 
Kashyap, Aslam sought to restrain the Centre from 
going ahead with its plan as it would violate the 
status quo orders passed by the apex court in 
1993, 1994 and 2003.

He contended that the proposed over Rs 2.89 crore 
civil work which included wooden roof with 
bullet-proof steel structure on four sides of 
'Ram Lalla' and internal walls would make it a 
"confirmed Ram temple" even before the final 
decision of title suits by Allahabad High Court's 
Lucknow Bench.

Bhure's petition was likely to be taken up for 
hearing in the first week of August along with 
Centre's plea for permission to carry out certain 
construction to strengthen the security of the 
disputed site and the idol in view of threat from 
terrorists.

The Centre had said that the decision was taken 
after discussions with the Uttar Pradesh 
Government and various intelligence agencies.

The Court's permission for carrying out any 
constructions in the disputed complex was needed 
in view of its earlier order to maintain status 
quo there.

The Government had planned to instal bullet-proof 
steel structures around the the idol of 'Ram 
Lalla' at the disputed site in Ayodhya to further 
enhance security there in the wake of last year's 
terrorist attack.

Since the Supreme Court is hearing a petition on 
the issue of acquisition of 71.361 acres of land 
by the Government and has directed that status 
quo be maintained there, the Centre had moved an 
application before it on May 17 this year seeking 
permission to install the temporary steel 
structures.

The Centre had also prepared a plan to install 
close circuit television and set up concrete 
bunkers at the disputed site.

According to the plan, the square steel 
structures would be 11 by 11 feet and would have 
a height of 7-and-a-half feet. The total 
expenditure on further enhancing security was 
reported to be Rs 7.22 crore.

Following a meeting chaired by Home Secretary V K 
Duggal to further scale-up security at Ayodhya, 
the Government had filed the application in the 
apex court saying "some measures are being 
planned, including providing temporary 
bullet-proof steel structures on the four sides 
of Ram Lalla (idol). The roof will be made of 
wood."

o o o

The Telegraph
July 21, 2006

Holy War, for court's eyes
OUR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
The Supreme Court and a poster of the film Father, Son and Holy War

New Delhi, July 20: Documentary filmmaker Anand 
Patwardhan's Father, Son and Holy War was today 
screened before a Supreme Court bench hearing 
Doordarshan's plea against a Bombay High Court 
order directing the public broadcaster to 
telecast the film.

A division bench headed by Justice A.R. 
Lakshmanan, which saw the two-hour film on 
religious violence this evening, had asked to see 
the film before hearing arguments on behalf of 
Prasar Bharati and Patwardhan.

The filmmaker, who was present at the screening 
organised by Prasar Bharati, had moved court 
after the public broadcaster refused to telecast 
the film on Doordarshan's national network.

While Patwardhan has been arguing that 
Doordarshan was being arbitrary and had violated 
his freedom of expression, Prasar Bharati 
contended that the film could not be shown as it 
had sexually explicit scenes and speeches which 
could incite religious passion.

Both parties entered into protracted litigation 
over the broadcast of the film, which has won 
national and international awards.

The filmmaker had first approached Bombay High 
Court after Prasar Bharati refused to telecast 
the documentary submitted by him in 1995. The 
court ruled in his favour in 2001 but Doordarshan 
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which asked 
the broadcaster to reconsider its decision.

When Doordarshan rejected the film again, 
Patwardhan filed a new petition in Bombay High 
Court, which ruled in his favour in 2003. Prasar 
Bharati, thereafter, once again filed an appeal 
in the apex court.

While Patwardhan has pointed out that Doordarshan 
rejected the film a second time despite a 
favourable decision by the screening committee, 
Prasar Bharati contended that the panel ignored 
the fact that films certified "A'' - having 
mature content - could not be broadcast in 
keeping with its policy.

In its petition challenging the high court order, 
Prasar Bharati said production-wise, too, the 
documentary "does not leave any mark. The scenes 
and topics are repeated again and again''.

But Patwardhan said film-maker Buddhadeb 
Dasgupta, who scrutinised the film for 
Doordarshan, had stated that it had a "secular 
message relevant to our times and our society'' 
but had recommended scrutiny by a larger 
committee as some parts were "religio-political 
in nature''. The film was, thereafter, was also 
cleared by the larger committee.

This is not the first time that Patwardhan has 
moved court for broadcast of his film on 
Doordarshan. His films like Bombay Our City (on 
the plight of the poor), In Memory of Friends (on 
the fight for communal harmony in Punjab) and Ram 
ke Naam (In the name of Ram) on the Ayodhya issue 
were aired on court orders.

Father, Son and Holy War, which won national 
awards for best social film and best 
investigative film in 1996, looks at the question 
of gender along with the issue of religious 
violence. It is the third in a trilogy of films - 
Memory of Friends and Ram ke Naam being the first 
two - against communal violence.

o o o

(iii)

Peoples Democracy
July 16, 2006

What Ails Gujarat?
Teesta Setalvad
http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0716/07162006_teesta.htm


_____


[7] 

ndtv.com

Activists protest government move to tame RTI

Sidharth Pandey, Rahul Srivastava

Thursday, July 20, 2006 (New Delhi):

The UPA government has decided to introduce 
crucial amendments to the RTI act, which critics 
say will weaken the impact of the Act.

The Union Cabinet on Thursday approved an 
amendment to the RTI Act, wherein it decided to 
exempt file notings of officials from the Act.

RTI activists had been protesting the exclusion 
of file notings, as these were critical in 
forming policy and taking decisions, which affect 
the lives of people.

In response to the decision, activist Aruna Roy, 
the woman who set off the Right to Information 
movement, has said that it is simply not 
acceptable and that the campaigners doubt the 
intent of the government.

She added that she would carry the fight forward 
to implement the Act in the right sense with the 
support of common man.

"We got the Act, and we will make sure that the 
government implements this," she said, while 
adding that the amendments effectively destroy 
the Act.

If Parliament passes the amendments, then file 
notings or comments by government officers on the 
files will not be revealed and only notings on 
social projects will be made public.

The amendments may also reduce the power of the 
law to hold several government departments 
accountable, thereby weakening the law.

The amendments will affect people in their daily 
life in terms of issues regarding their 
passports, appointments in UPSC jobs and getting 
cabinet papers, promotions and government 
contracts.

Unclear motives

The cabinet decision comes at the end of a 
successful nation wide RTI campaign during which 
18,000 applications were filed.

In Chennai, several dozen people turned out on 
Thursday at a special help centre set up by the 
RTI campaigners to file RTIs that could change if 
the law is weakened.

The government has argued that the amendments are 
necessary to end the ambiguities, but only when 
more details are available will it be clear 
whether the amendments end ambiguities or curtail 
the Act.

Moreover, the amendments have also upset the Central Information Commission.

"Removing file notings will take the life out of 
the law. I hope that the government steps in or 
Sonia Gandhi steps in to stop such a move," said 
OP Kejriwal, Central Information Commissioner.

The RTI has helped many Indians get their due, 
and thus, it is difficult to understand why the 
government would want to dilute this law. 
Perhaps, the reason is that the law worked too 
well.

o o o

Business Standard

The RTI is an empowering tool, not a panacea
Q&A: Wajahat Habibullah
Nistula Hebbar / New Delhi July 21, 2006

It has been nearly nine months since the Right to 
Information Act, 2005 was implemented and Wajahat 
Habibullah sworn in as India's first information 
commissioner. In a stock taking, Habibullah 
speaks to Business Standard on being the man in 
the middle, between a government still steeped in 
the old secretive mould and a rapidly aware 
public. Excerpts:
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?leftnm=lmnu4&subLeft=3&autono=98876&tab=r

_____


[8] 

DEFAULT RELIGION

An investigation into the relationship of State and Religion in Secular
India 55 Years after the Promulgation of the Constitution of the
Republic 55 Years after the Promulgation of the Constitution of the
Republic

-- A Religious Minority perspective


An appeal for help with continuing research

Dear Friends

Since my early years in journalism at the turn of the 1960s, I have
been documenting the relationship between various instruments of state
and sundry groups on the margins - Labour, linguistic and religious
minorities, the former Denotified tribes. Working in Patriot and Link
during the watershed Seventies and Eighties, I had opportunity to study
the functioning and responses of the State during the Emergency, the
Janata party Raj, Mandal, its response in the Babri demolitions. I have
also studied first hand major communal riots, police and PAC mutinies,
and of course the behaviour of political entities and state structures
during the various elections.

I have some first hand experience of ethnic conflicts and tensions of
various sorts in my reporting from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nepal, and West Asia, particularly Palestine and Lebanon, now
unfortunately again in the news. Unlike India, none of these countries
claims to be secular. It is only a few months since Nepal ceased to be
the world's only Hindu Kingdom and professed constitutional
secularism.

Indian secularism has been scoffed at by the BJP and the Hindutva
Parivar who have mocked it, taunted political and social leadership as
pseudo secularists, and accused governments of appeasing minorities,
particularly Muslims and Christians.  The Sangh Parivar has cited so
called Haj subsidies as examples. They are now questioning very basic,
and much delayed, sample data which would show how much, or how little,
religious minorities have been able to take advantage of employment in
the public sector and under the government, data crucial to planning
and evolving affirmative action schemes.

I am now researching this subject more formally for a book which I hope
to publish by December 2006. [A collection of some of my articles on
Freedom of faith issues published in various journals from 1996 to 2006
will be published in the first week of August 2006].

The professed objective of the book is a dispassionate investigation of
whether the State, government, Judiciary, Army, Executive, media and
Political parties and processes [including Panchayati raj] have been
able to honour the Constitutional commitment to Secularism, Articles
25, 30 etc, in letter and spirit.

The basic question also is if Government's understanding of Indian
culture continues to be that of a Brahminical Hindu Vedic [North
Indian] highly sanskritised ethos and symbolism or it has accommodated
Indigenous cultures, Tribal mores [both pre-Aryan], Sikh [400 years
old], Buddhist [2,500 years old], Christian [1950 years old] and Muslim
[1300 years old on this land] cultural mores in state rites and
rituals, practices.

War cries of the army, official system of laying of foundation stones
of mega projects, religious calendar art in rooms of cashiers in
government offices, police stations and central jails, statuary in
public buildings and educational institutions --- the list is endless.
Also public funding for religious institutions [some], religious
festivals [some].

State television and radio broadcasting and telecasting from certain
religious places, day long telecast of some festivals, religious
tourism, publication division books ...

I would be grateful if you could help out in this comprehensive
research by sharing with me factual information in your personal
knowledge, of your personal experience, or from documents that are
publicly accessible.  Photographs and excerpts are particularly
welcome. They can be emailed to posted to me.

I am also exercising my right under the Right to Information Act to get
necessary data from the Government of India and the State governments.

You help is crucial.

It will, of course, be acknowledged with gratitude.

Thank you and God bless

John Dayal

_____


[9]  PUBLICATIONS:

(i)

The Asian Studies WWW Monitor: Vol. 13, No. 7 (250)

19 Jul 2006

TAKING THE STATE TO COURT - PUBLIC INTEREST 
LITIGATION AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE IN METROPOLITAN 
INDIA [an EBook]

Asia House, Essen, Germany

Supplied note:
"Online Publication: Taking the State to Court - 
Public Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere 
in Metropolitan India. By Hans Dembowski This is 
the online-documentation of a book first 
published [by Oxford University Press] in 2001. 
Rather, we believe that a sociological study, 
which was initially published by a leading 
academic publisher, should be available for 
public debate.

Unfortunately, distribution of the original book 
was discontinued after the Calcutta High Court 
started contempt proceedings against the author, 
the publisher and several other parties. Five 
years on, however, the author has still not been 
officially notified by the court. The case is 
still pending, without having been heard in a 
long time. This, in turn, raises some poignantly 
recurring issues concerning the global potential 
of judicial censorship as well as the freedom of 
speech and expression.

According to the fundamental principles of 
academic freedom, freedom of expression and 
freedom of the press, we believe that this book 
should be available to any interested public. 
Public discourse, after all, is essential for 
democracy as it serves to challenge and 
complement officially constituted publics. For 
this and no other reason do we present the study 
in this online edition. - kf."

Site contents:
Acknowledgements / Glossary; Chapter 1: 
Introductive Overview; Chapter 2: Democracy, 
Development and Functional Differentiation; 
Chapter 3: The Changing Role of the Indian 
Judiciary; Chapter 4: Environment and Politics in 
India; Chapter 5: The Conflict over the East 
Calcutta Wetlands; Chapter 6:The Howrah Matter; 
Chapter 7: Enthnographic Observations: An 
Overarching Lack of Trust; Chapter 8: Conclusion: 
Rudimentary Public Sphere and an Unresponsive 
State; Annexures and References.

[A freely downloadable electronic book (1.7 MB) 
reissued in PDF format by 
Asienstiftung/Asienhaus, Essen, Germany - ed.]

URL http://www.asienhaus.de/taking-state-to-court

Internet Archive (www.archive.org) [the site was 
not archived at the time of this abstract]

Link reported by: Klaus Fritsche (k.fritsche-at--asienhaus.de)

o o o

(ii)

WHEN PROGRESSIVES TREAT WITH REACTIONARIES: THE 
BRITISH STATE'S FLIRTATION WITH RADICAL ISLAMISM

Martin Bright
(Martin Bright is Political Editor of the New Statesman and was previously
Home Affairs Editor of the Observer. He is presenter of Channel 4's
30 Minutes film, "Who Speaks For Muslims?")

First published in July 2006 by Policy Exchange Limited

Policy Exchange
Clutha House
10 Storey's Gate
London SW1P 3AY
www.policyexchange.org.uk
ISBN 0-9551909-4-0

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/176.pdf


_____


[10]  Upcoming Events

(i)

OBSERVE "MUMBAI IN WHITE" ON 26 JULY 2006!

College students, and all citizens of Mumbai!

Wear white on July 26th. White for peace and a memorial to the dead.

If you wear uniform, or you don't own anything white, wear a white
band!

The seven blasts on suburban trains on July 11 shocked Mumbai and the
world. Yet Mumbaikars not only kept calm, they went out of their way to
help the injured and the families of the dead. Despite Mumbai's
inherently cosmopolitanism and its peaceful character, we must actively
take measures to ensure that this spirit of resilience and generosity
endure. There are always communal elements that will try to vitiate the
atmosphere by attempting to target innocents.

Mumbai needs to stand together and defeat the attempts of terrorists and
communal forces to grind down the city's sense of unity. We must make
certain that no more innocent lives are lost.

Colleges and citizens' organisations of all hues and sectors have united
to urge that we observe July 26, the first anniversary of the floods in
which 447 Mumbaikars lost their lives, as a day on which to say "Salaam
Mumbai". We appeal to every citizen to wear white on WEDNESDAY 26 JULY
2006, to work, to go anywhere, in memory of those who lost their lives
in the blasts as well and to express their commitment to peace.

On that day, students from more than 30 city colleges in Mumbai will
read a Pledge of Peace in all colleges at 3.00 P.M. exactly. There will
also be two public meetings at colleges held at 2.30 P.M.

1. National College, Linking Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400051
2. Burhani College, Nesbitt Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400010

We request colleges, organisations, NGOs, offices, temples, churches and
mosques to please spread the word. Please come to the public meetings
and read the pledge of Peace wherever you are. Please remember to wear
white on that day!

Dr Subadra Anand
Principal, National College, Bandra
+91.22.2646.1424

Dr. Sabira Dossa
Principal, Burhani College

Ms Ferrukh S. Waris
Burhani College
+91.22.2371.2449, +91.93234.69013

Representatives of all colleges in Mumbai

Varsha Rajan-Berry
Peace Mumbai
+91.22.5582.1141/51, +91.98206.03704


o o o

(ii)

International Institute for South Asian Affairs (INSAF)
and South Asian Journalists Association, New York Chapter (SAJA-NY)
present

a panel discussion on Human Rights in South Asia

with
Radhika Coomaraswamy, Special Representative of the UN
Secretary-General for Violence Against Children

Malika Dutt, founder and Executive Director of Breakthrough

Sahr Muhammed Ally, Researcher in the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch

Moderated by Maya Chadda, Professor of Political Science at William
Paterson University in New Jersey
(bios below)

at Em Lee Concert Hall
Turtle Bay Music School
244 EAST 52nd Street, New York, NY

on Thursday, July 27, 2006
at 6.30pm

PROGRAM:
6.30-7.00 pm reception
7.00 pm- 8.30 panel discussion and q&a

tix: $7

If you would like to contact the panelists for interviews please
contact Aseem Chhabra -- chhabs at aol.com

Bios of the panelists

1. Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy in working at the UN as Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Violence Against Children.
She was Director of the International Center for Ethnic Studies in
Sri Lanka and also Chair Person of the Government of Sri Lanka's Human
Rights Commission.  She worked as Special Rapporteur of the UN for
Violence Against Women--a global project.   Ms. Coomaraswamy has been
a ! Visiting Professor at Oxford and New York Universities.  She is a
graduate of Yale and Columbia Law School and did her LLM at Harvard.

2. Ms. Malika Dutt is the founder  and Executive Director of
Breakthrough, an international human rights organization that uses
media and popular culture to promote values of dignity, equality and
justice. Breakthrough has cutting-edge multi-media educational
materials on issues like racial justice, immigrant rights, women's
rights, HIV/AIDS, religion and peace.  Earlier she had worked for Ford
Foundation in New Delhi as Program Officer for the Human Rights and
Social Justice Program.  She was a co-founder of Sakhi for South Asian
Women in New York, an organization which combats violence against
women in the New York community. She worked at the Center for
Constitutional Rights and the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.  She
is a recipient of many awards and has authored many widely-referenced
books. Ms. Dutt is a graduate of New York University law school.

3. Ms. Sahr Muhammed Ally is a Researcher in the Asia Division at
Human Rights Watch.  She has carried out fact-finding human rights
investigations in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan.
Previously, she worked for two years at the law firm of Gibbons, Del
Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione where she undertook significant
pro bono work on indefinite detention  of non-citizens in the US.  She
has also worked for the American Civil Liberties Union, International
Rescue Committee, ! and Human Rights in China.  She is the author of
Enduring Abuse: Torture and Cruel Treatment by the U.S. at Home and
Abroad; Detained Without Trial: Abuse of Internal Security Act
Detainees in Malaysia; Always on Call: Abuse and Exploitation of Child
Domestic Workers in Indonesia. Ms. Muhammed Ally is a graduate of
Brooklyn Law School and Mount Holyoke College.

4. Prof, Maya Chadda will serve as moderator of the panel.  She
teaches Political Science at William Paterson University in New
Jersey.  She is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Research
Fellow at the South Asian Institute of Columbia University; and also
served on the Review Board of the U.S Institute of Peace.  She has
written extensively, in books and journals, on political issues in
South Asia and on U.S. foreign policy in South Asia.  She is a
recipient of many awards for excellence in teaching as well as in
research. Her major publications include Ethnicity, Security and
Separatism in South Asia; Building Democracy in South Asia: Pakistan,
Nepal and India; and Paradox of Power: U.S. Policy in South Asia.
Prof. Chadda did her Ph.D at the New School for Social Research.


o o o

(iii)

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 â*“ 25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA

Following presentations by Professor Philip Alston, Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch an open plenary discussion will be held to address
the grave human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the constructive role
that could be played by the   diaspora to achieve peace in Sri Lanka with
democracy and human rights

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

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