SACW | Aug 4-9, 2006 | Nuclear Free South Asia; Bigots in Bangladesh
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Tue Aug 8 20:48:34 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 4-9, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2279
[1] Towards a nuclear-free South Asia (M.B. Naqvi)
[2] South Asia's Strange Partnership Against Peace (J. Sri Raman)
[3] Bangladesh: Thin line between piety and perfidy (Shahnoor Wahid)
[4] India should not emulate Israel's disastrous model (Praful Bidwai)
[5] India: Narmada agitation attracts thousands despite heavy rain
[6] India: Where rape convicts give lessons in patriotism (Jawed Naqvi)
[7] Film Screening: 'Final Solution' (Panjim, Goa, August 10)
___
[1]
The News International
August 09, 2006
TOWARDS A NUCLEAR-FREE SOUTH ASIA
by M.B. Naqvi
The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance columnist.
Exactly sixty-one years ago the US inaugurated
the nuclear age by dropping a nuclear bomb on
Nagasaki. The evil nature of the bomb is obvious.
It is a weapon against which there is no defence
and it does not distinguish between combatants
and civilians; and kills all indiscriminately;
men, women and children.
Atomic weapons did not remain a US monopoly for
long. The Soviets, British and French quickly
acquired them. By 1960s the Israelis had made
their own atomic weapons, helped by France,
Britain, the US and South Africa. China entered
this exclusive club in 1964. Ten years later
India blasted its way into it. Pakistan felt
compelled to go nuclear in 1972 after India had
defeated and dismembered it. The rumours of
Islamabad trying to go nuclear may have moved the
Indians to explode a bomb in 1974; maybe to
forestall Pakistan. Pakistan acquired the
know-how in 1984 and a device by 1986. Many
nations may be trying to acquire nuclear
capability. And the US is accusing Iran. North
Korea is the latest member of the club.
One's compelling concern is about the
nuclearisation of South Asia. Islamabad freely
acknowledges its nuclear weapons are to deter
India that is perceived as a permanent
existential threat. As for India, it has grand
ideas of a great power status with a military
capability to match it. In 1998, India reminded
the world of its nuclear status. Pakistan felt
constrained to go one better by blasting six
nuclear devices against India's five. There has
been no moment of tranquillity since. Instead an
armed truce in which the arms race in nuclear,
missiles and conventional weapons spheres has
escalated. South Asia's emotional volatility may
make this area see nuclear weapons being used
again.
Pakistan's propaganda and existence of its
conventional and nuclear deterrent ensures that
India does not achieve the status uncontested.
Its true stature is reduced by Pakistan's
truculence and constant negative propaganda.
Nevertheless, Indians have managed their foreign
policy well enough and the world recognises it,
or at least pretends to, as being a great
emerging power comparable to China. Its status,
thanks to the western media, has recently risen
sharply.
Pakistan's ruling establishment realises that
Pakistan's stature has diminished. The reasons
for this are varied: Pakistan is the epic-centre
of the Islamic Revolution; it has many militant
Islamic groups; whenever a terrorist is arrested
anywhere, some connection with Pakistan is
mentioned. Pakistan is also perceived as a
volatile, unstable and unreliable state with
nuclear weapons. Major world powers are volubly
worried about the future of Pakistan's nuclear
weapons. Would they fall into the hands of
Islamic extremists, given the growing influence
of Taliban in many areas of Pakistan? The US has
become wary in its ties with Pakistan because of
the threat of it being ruled by Taliban-like
militants eventually.
Pakistan president claims standing for a moderate
and modern Islam. But his regime's actions negate
modernism and tolerance. The whole county is
racked by sectarian terrorism. Jihadi
organisations want to liberate Kashmir and the
regime is still facing near revolt in FATA areas
and Balochistan. The rhetoric of the ruling party
is vaguely about Islam. This distance between
reality and claims alarms foreigners. Nuclear
weapons have aggravated great powers' concerns.
Qazi Hussain Ahmed has claimed that the Americans
have already taken control of these weapons. True
or false, the suspicion of American intentions
vis-a-vis Pakistan's nuclear weapons is
widespread. The question is what should Pakistan
do about, or with, these weapons?
There was the threat of an Indian invasion in
2002 during which Pakistan threatened the use of
nukes a dozen times to make India desist. India
had 600,000 troops on the border with armour. The
world took this threat of war seriously. The fact
is that Pakistan's atomic weapons had not
deterred India. Why didn't they deter? It is
simple. India too has many more nuclear weapons
and vehicles to deliver. If Pakistan's nuclear
deterrent deters India, there is no reason why
many more Indian nuclear weapons would not deter
Pakistan.
Actually, India dared Pakistan to use its nukes
first and wait for a massive riposte. Pakistanis,
instead of worsening the situation, found
discretion to be better than valour and decided
to concede the main Indian demand: Pakistan
should rein in jihadis. The Indians were not
fools to then go to war. They got what they
wanted: that Pakistan should not let its
territory be used against India. The assurance
was credible. One's conclusion is that the
nuclear weapons of Pakistan did not deter India
from invading it. What happened was that Pakistan
gave India what it demanded. The nukes proved
useless in deterring India from demanding and
getting the desired promise.
This central fact should guide Pakistan's policy
makers. No more wars with India should be the
aim. Islamabad has to follow a policy of peace,
whether or not India responds likewise. Pakistan
has to persevere. This is now a given. If this is
so, a whole new policy orientation towards India
is needed. This new India policy would be
hindered by the presence of nukes, being a cold
war baggage.
The best course will be to ask Muhammad al
Baradei, the IAEA chief, to come and take charge
of these weapons. Let his scientists dismantle
them in a scientific manner into elements that
can be used or disposed off safely. Doubtless,
the world faces a problem: fissile material
cannot safely be disposed off. But that is a
different subject for scientists to tackle.
Islamabad had better sign the NPT, CTBT and all
the rest of the protocols. It should become a
wholly non-nuclear power. That would lift the
nightmare of India using its nuclear arsenals to
decimate the urban-industrial centres of
Pakistan. The threat of a possible conventional
war would remain. But that will be faced best
with policies of peace, more democracy, more
trade and more popular contacts.
The matter does not end here. The nuclearisation
of South Asia has meant huge distortions in the
economies of both India and Pakistan. Far too
many resources are being devoted to useless
militarisation. Insofar as India is doing it,
well that has to be deprecated. But Pakistanis
should desist from doing what the Indians are
doing so as not to remain entrapped in an arms
race. Pakistan must eschew militarism.
Indians pose no existential threat to Pakistan.
One holds that India is now far too Hinduised to
think of annexing even a village of Pakistan. It
simply has no use for Pakistani Muslims. India
would say fine things for diplomatic purposes and
be a good enough foreign power, if Pakistanis
would allow it. But it would remain a foreign
power. It would not now do what Nehru implied
with his policy of more popular contacts. Nehru
is dead and India has got rid of much of his
legacy. India is now a different kettle of fish.
Pakistan has to adjust and evolve new policies
regarding its nuclear weapons. Nukes are bad for
the world and are even worse for South Asia.
Pakistanis should revert to their earlier stance
of wanting to make South Asia a nuclear
weapons-free zone. Islamabad would acquire a high
moral stature, a la South Africa, and its words
would resonate. Pakistanis should be leading the
world nuclear disarmament movement. Arguments
have long been clear against a nuclear apartheid
in which some possess nuclear weapons and boss
over others on that basis. Pakistanis should be
an important part of world peace and anti-nuclear
movements. Some Indians are also campaigning
against nuclearisation of South Asia. Pakistanis
should join hands with them and strengthen the
common movement.
_____
[2]
truthout.org
02 August 2006
South Asia's Strange Partnership Against Peace
by J. Sri Raman
Pundits can differ on how closely India and
Pakistan can cooperate for peace. There can be
little difference, however, on the readiness of
the rulers of the two countries to collaborate in
the common cause of a nuclear arms race in the
region. No debate on the subject is warranted
after the latest demonstration of their
willingness to build a pro-Bomb coalition.
And this strange South Asian partnership
against peace is closely connected to the
"coalition of the willing" that the US President
commands. It is the India-US nuclear deal, an
initiative of George W. Bush aimed at
consolidating the "coalition," which has led
directly to the current India-Pakistan nuclear
compact of a covert kind.
The demonstration of New Delhi's willingness
in this regard followed the findings of a report
by a US security think-tank that might have once
elicited a very different response. "Pakistan
Expanding Nuclear Program" was the alert-sounding
headline in the Washington Post of July 24, and
the story summarized the report by the Institute
for Science and International Security.
The institute said that Pakistan had started
building "a powerful new reactor" for producing
plutonium. According to the report, satellite
photographs of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear reactor
show "what appears to be a partially completed
heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough
plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a
20-fold increase from the country's current
capabilities."
In normal times, such a report would have led
to some rejoicing in New Delhi. The context,
however, made it a cause for concern. Media
analysts, always quick to see "cross-border
terrorism" behind every calamity, hastened to see
flaws in the findings. They even went to the
extent of questioning the institute's reading of
the satellite pictures. These, to them, were
evidence that Pakistan's plutonium-producing
reactor would take no less than five years to go
operational.
The official Indian experts, obviously
managing the media in the matter, were not
exhibiting a movingly indulgent attitude towards
Pakistan and its military regime. They were only
concerned with the "national interest" they never
stop talking about - and trying to save the
country's nuclear-weapons program.
They were quick to connect their defense of
Pakistan with the India-US nuclear deal. Their
interpretation of the institute's report was that
it aimed at creating a scare about an impending
acceleration of the nuclear arms race in the
sub-continent and thus influencing opinion in the
US against the deal that makes a sharp departure
from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The same experts have sought to sell the deal
to the Indian pubic by claiming that it will
leave the country at liberty to use its own
indigenous fuel resources and thus acquire the
capacity to augment its nuclear arsenal a rapidly
increased rate.
This is not the first time the nuclear hawks
in India have thus joined hands with their
cross-border counterparts. The unnatural alliance
of South Asia's nuclear adversaries, in fact,
dates back to the aftermath of the nuclear-weapon
tests of India and Pakistan in May 1998.
Immediately after the tests, there was much
muscle-flexing on both sides. But within months,
in February 1999, India's prime minister at the
time, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, undertook a famous
"bus ride" to Lahore in order to meet his
Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Shrif. The mission,
which appeared a mystery, was soon to be solved.
The main Vajpayee mission was to promote the
idea that nuclear weapons would usher in peace
between the neighbors. It was part of an
image-mending exercise, and not on India's behalf
alone. The idea was to present both the countries
as "responsible" nuclear-weapon states before an
incredulous international audience. The mission
yielded a Lahore Declaration that promised
several steps to "reduce the risk of accidental
or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons" and
contemplated a series of "confidence-building
measures" (CBMs). The promise has remained on
paper.
The claim of post-nuclear peace lay shattered
on Himalayan heights as the Kargil War between
the two countries erupted within months after the
Lahore talks. The conflict did not only disprove
the theory that the Indian and Pakistani Bombs
had banished the prospect of a conventional war
between the two. It brought the sub-continent
close to a nuclear war.
The two adversaries, of course, traded
nuclear threats freely during the war. But there
is reason to believe that they also went further.
The US administration under President Bill
Clinton was reported later to have received
intelligence that Pakistani nuclear warheads were
being moved toward the border with India.
According to a report of May 2000, India had
responded by readying "at least five
nuclear-tipped missiles."
Even more intimidating threats and missile
movements were reported during the standoff
between the armies of India and Pakistan along
the entire border, and especially in Kashmir,
during the Indian summer of 2002. It was not
because of the "responsibility" and restraint of
New Delhi and Islamabad that a nuclear war was
then averted in this over-populated region.
All this did not prevent the rulers of India
and Pakistan from seeking the same legitimization
of their nuclear programs as in Lahore from the
"peace process" that has continued for over two
and a half years now. The people-driven part of
the process has yielded some positive results,
like a resumption of rail and bus links, as well
as people-to-people contacts. Extreme care,
however, has been exercised to ensure that this
does not entail any advance toward the
elimination or even reduction of the grave risks
that the two countries' nuclear-weapon policies
and programs pose for the sub-continent.
As we noted in these columns at the outset of
the process, "the joint document on CBMs desisted
from mentioning regional nuclear disarmament even
as a distant goal. Instead, it recorded the joint
resolve of New Delhi and Islamabad to seek parity
with the nuclear powers - or to join the nuclear
club." The two capitals have remained firm in
that resolve.
It is clear that the India-US nuclear deal
has only strengthened their determination to
persist with their perilous nuclear course.
A freelance journalist and a peace activist
of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of
Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a
regular contributor to t r u t h o u t.
_____
[3]
The Daily Star
August 06, 2006
Sense & Insensibility
Thin line between piety and perfidy
by Shahnoor Wahid
THIS is a country where one moment we preach
piety and the next do a perfidious act of
horrendous scale. Some of us seem to enjoy being
on the extremes. Either we are too religious, too
hospitable, too polite -- or we are too
villainous and too wicked. We cross over the line
between good and bad with considerable ease and
composure, never caring to ponder the
long-lasting impact of such acts on the
collective morals of society.
For example, we may deliver a speech at a public
meeting or talk to the media in the secretariat
on the villainous activity of market syndicates,
and then join a luncheon with some
black-marketers at Hotel Sonargaon. While we talk
of virtues and morals to our children at home, we
may so very easily hold back the upward movement
of an important file on the release of pension
money of some poor, grade-two employees.
We may also sit on a file concerning allotment of
a government quarter against a female employee
who happens to be a widow with four children. We
may quickly respond to a call for donation for a
mosque or a school, and then go to office to send
heroin to Britain or some other country.
The line continues to get thinner by the day.
Then again, a poor patient may die untreated on
the road in front of a posh clinic. Why so?
Because the renowned surgeon of the country would
not remove his tumor until he sees the money on
his table. While the tumor devours the poor man,
the thin line becomes invisible in the twilight.
But the scary news for the saner citizens is that
the line has totally disappeared for a section of
young men and their leaders who are preaching
piety as a profession one moment and are hurling
bombs at innocent citizens with the intent to
kill the next. Can anything be more perfidious
than taking the life of innocent human beings?
Well, the young people in question do not think
so. These are the religious rogues. They and
their leaders are doing such heinous acts with
the skewed notion that by doing so they would one
day fulfill their agenda --establish Allah's rule
(whatever that may mean) in Bangladesh.
These people have had their initiation at the
hands of some half-literate religious bigots and
have been programmed to do anything at their
command. Under the banner of some organisations
(the names of which sound quite foreign and
frightening) they have secretively but surely
made inroads deep inside our society. They have
used various madrasahs and mosques as their base
for recruitment and training, and they did it all
so effortlessly under the nose of the
administration.
After the arrest of the top JMB leaders, the
nation heaved a sigh of relief thinking that the
country had been saved from the evil clutches of
the local and foreign conspirators and that the
Talebanic tartars have been done away with. But
lo and behold!
Many more of those menacing-looking guys keep coming out of their rat-holes!
The recent haul of a big group of militants
undergoing training in some remote part of a
forest under Mymensingh district tells us that we
have not seen the back of the die-hard militants
in this country. Far from that, now we hear of
more secretive organisations with equally
bone-chilling names working at the grassroots
level. Their leaders look more like the bandits
of India's notorious Chambal forest than a person
who would evoke holiness in our minds. To be
candid, some of them look like close cousins of
Rasputin in his heyday!
What remains unanswered is where do these outfits
get funds and who are providing them legal,
administrative and network support within the
country? Shall we be able to progress amply to
reach the ranks of other developed countries of
Asia if we fail to uproot them? To be honest,
these obscurantist elements want to take us back
to the medieval times through establishing their
own brand of rule.
But, aren't these people the offspring of
ruthless, illiterate dogmatists who had wreaked
havoc in human society throughout the centuries
in a bid to seize state power? And haven't they
always bungled very badly when it came to
establishing order and cohesion in society? We
find solace in the historical fact that these
elements have been thrown into the dustbin of
human civilisation again and again.
Therefore, the burning question of the day is:
how long will it take to uproot the militants who
are audacious enough to disregard the very tenets
of our constitution -- secularism, democracy, and
social equality. They have no business upsetting
the social order that the majority of the people
are happy with. The very fact that they would
find no space in a democratic set up is evident
in the secretive way they have been carrying out
their operations. But enough is enough. The
nation wants to see the capital punishment of the
ringleaders of JMB is carried out so that it
finally scares off the smaller fries. Let these
medieval entities be given the modern treatment
they deserve. Let them be deleted from the
nation's hard drive permanently.
Shahnoor Wahid is a Senior Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.
o o o
Daily Star, July 30, 2006
What about the militants?
Bibhu Ranjan Sarker
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/07/30/d607301503117.htm
_____
[4]
Frontline
July 29 - Aug. 11, 2006
A disastrous model
Praful Bidwai
Those advocating armed attacks on Pakistan in
response to the Mumbai bombings wish to emulate
Israel's aggression. That is the worst model
India could follow.
{Photo: by R.V. Moorthy
Caption: President Pervez Musharraf and Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh watching a cricket match
between India and Pakistan in April 2005.}
A crass and hysterical nationalism is taking hold
among a section of the Indian middle class in
response to the Mumbai blasts. This nationalism
is paranoid. It considers India uniquely
vulnerable to terrorism because its state is
exceptionally soft, pusillanimous and "cowardly".
At the same time, it wants a militant response -
armed attacks on Pakistan. Its votaries say it is
not enough just to suspend India-Pakistan talks;
India must teach Pakistan "a lesson". Some
advocates of this view have strong sympathies for
Hindutva and harp on the "timidity of Hindus", a
phrase the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)
fondly uses to explain why India has been
repeatedly subjugated by "aggressors". But even
if the communal element is excised from this
view, its essential content remains unaltered. It
advocates a particular model unfolding before our
eyes - namely, Israel's aggression in Gaza and
Lebanon, after the arrest of one-third of the
Palestinian Authority's Cabinet. India would be
"effete", unlike Israel, if it fails to respond
to threats to its security with all-out punitive
attacks.
This view was encouraged by the state's confused
initial response to the Mumbai blasts. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh's address to the nation
did not reflect the gravity of the destruction in
Mumbai, which is of the same order as Madrid
2004, the world's worst recent terrorist
incident, next only to 9/11. In a recent
English-language television programme in which I
participated, the anchor asked whether India
should follow Israel's example. While the
participants argued against this on differing
grounds, 94 per cent of the audience agreed with
the proposition through email and SMS responses.
In keeping with such extreme opinions, the
government hardened its stand and cancelled the
Foreign Secretary-level meeting, issued
belligerent statements, rounded up hundreds of
Muslims, and mindlessly banned access to blogs on
the Internet.
It is of vital importance that we view the Mumbai
blasts in perspective and formulate a rational
response that defends the interests and security
of the Indian people. To start with, it is not at
all clear that the attacks exposed India's
"exceptional" vulnerability. A similar attack
could well have occurred on suburban trains in
Paris, New York, Moscow or London and produced
similar damage. True, the Mumbai suburban rail
system is even more crowded than the New York
subway. But it is nearly impossible to prevent
such attacks altogether. Beyond a point, no state
can anticipate such events, screen passengers,
check all unattended baggage, and so on. The very
pace of metropolitan life makes such checks
impracticable.
India lags behind in quickness of response, in
sounding warnings and providing emergency
services. We have failed to create the
infrastructure necessary to deal with mishaps
such as train coaches falling on tracks, which
need to be quickly cleared, and so on. There is a
strong case for installing inexpensive
closed-circuit television cameras at important
transport hubs. But this is not a watertight
guarantee that terrorist attacks will never
occur. No state, however powerful, especially a
democratic one, can provide 100 per cent security
or guarantee absence of violence. It can take
precautionary measures, be more vigilant, and
improve police efficiency and procedures. That is
where India fails badly.
Secondly, the response of the Mumbai and railway
police was tardy and meagre. Citizens themselves
had to rush victims to hospitals and arrange for
blood much before the state acted. There was
public anger that the state was not doing enough
or being responsive. This grievance is legitimate.
However, a rational long-term response to
terrorist violence can only be based on
systematic investigation to establish the
identity of the culprits, their motives, and
their internal and external links. Only thus can
a responsible government conclude that the
terrorists received encouragement or help from
abroad - in the present case, Pakistan. But
senior officials, including National Security
Adviser M.K. Narayanan, rushed to judgment and
selectively briefed the media alleging that the
Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Students Islamic Movement of
India and other organisations allegedly supported
by Pakistani clandestine agencies were involved.
Most national newspapers duly echoed such views
based upon mere guesswork and speculation.
The assessment that Pakistan was behind the
Mumbai attacks is open to doubt on two grounds.
In the past too, similar allegations were made.
Yet, in no major case have the culprits' identity
or links with Pakistan been fully established and
convictions secured (an exception being the
Parliament building attack case, now under
appeal). Accusations about their links with
"sleeper cells", or agencies operating through
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal remain unsupported
under Indian laws of evidence.
The second reason pertains to recent developments
in Pakistan and in India-Pakistan relations.
General Musharraf is under tremendous pressure
from the U.S., other Western powers and China to
demonstrate that he will take on jehadi groups
and comply with the anti-terrorist commitments he
made in 2004. It is hard to believe, at this
point in the evolution of the India-Pakistan
dialogue, that it makes sense for Pakistani
agencies to risk wrecking the dialogue process by
encouraging or instigating gross violence such as
the Mumbai bombings.
It is possible that some "rogue elements" of the
Inter-Services Intelligence could have done this.
But the central issue is Manmohan Singh's
assessment that the sheer scale of the attack
points to external involvement. Any number of
Indian groups with no live contact with foreign
agencies is capable of getting hold of explosives
and planting them. Such groups learn by watching
others in different parts of the world. Enough
hatreds and injustices exist in Indian society,
which can explain the kind of ideological
pathologies that encourage them to visit violence
on innocent civilians. It is a terrible, very
sick, pathology. But such groups exist.
India has a huge amount to gain from the peace
process with Pakistan. It would be foolhardy to
make it a hostage to speculation about Pakistani
involvement in terrorist violence. In any
cultural, economic or social interaction, India
stands to gain more than Pakistan. Apart from
launching bus and train services, India has
received an assurance from Musharraf that the
Kashmir issue would be discussed on condition
that there can be no redrawing of boundaries. The
more we blame Pakistan, the more obsessively we
look for "the foreign hand", the farther we get
from the task of looking inwards, to examine what
is wrong with our police, intelligence agencies
and criminal justice system so that we can
address some of the cesspool of grievances in
which violence and extremist ideologies flourish.
The "hit-Pakistan-teach-Pakistan-a-lesson"
clamour is a complete negation of any reasonable,
balanced, mature and sober approach to the Mumbai
blasts - just as was the 10-month-long military
mobilisation after the Parliament building
attack, which achieved nothing. What gives the
demand a dangerous edge is the advocacy of
Israel-style militaristic approaches. Its
proponents admire Israel for unleashing high
levels of violence upon its adversaries when
threatened. But, to start with, Israel is not a
state that respects international law. It has the
longest history in the world of violation of
Security Council resolutions, such as 242 and
338, as well as the World Court judgment on the
apartheid wall. India cannot and should not
emulate it. This will encourage terrible
lawlessness and violence in our own neighbourhood.
Secondly, what Israel is now doing is illegal,
immoral and politically disastrous. The roots of
the current conflict go back to Israel's recent
liquidation of Abu Jamal Samhanada, newly
appointed security-chief of the Interior Ministry
of the Palestinian Authority. This was
calculated, as many past Israeli actions, to
provoke. It brought on retaliatory attacks from
pro-Hamas militants with crude home-made Qassam
rockets which inflicted minimal damage. In
response, Israel launched devastating attacks on
civilians, including a picnicking family of
eight. The ensuing violence eventually led to the
killing of two Israeli soldiers and the capture
of one.
Under international law, it is perfectly
legitimate for people under occupation to
militarily target occupying military personnel,
although not to abduct them. But Israel has
itself practised abduction and kidnappings and
made hostage-prisoner swaps, as in 1968, 1983,
1985 and 2004. In June, it took one-third of the
Palestinian Cabinet hostage. It escalated its
attack on Hamas with a view to destroying its
entire military infrastructure. Israeli troops
cut off Gaza's water and power supply and
inflicted collective punishment on civilians who
were in no way responsible for the earlier
attacks or abduction. Cutting off electricity
means cutting off refrigeration - and people's
food supplies.
Israel has since invaded Lebanon, in response to
a Hizbollah raid on its forces. One need not
justify Hizbollah's actions to note the sheer
disproportion of the violence Israel unleashed on
civilians. More than 380 were killed in 10 days.
The number of Israeli casualties is not even
one-tenth this number. Israel targeted civilian
installations in Beirut and devastated its
infrastructure. Israel hopes to weaken decisively
the Hizbollah militarily and further the
objective of establishing a Greater Israel, which
annexes large parts of the West Bank.
This objective can only be achieved if Israel
destroys all regional challenges and unilaterally
draws - for the first time ever - its national
boundaries after dividing up Palestinian
territory into a series of Bantustans through the
apartheid wall. To do this, it must claim that
there is no Palestinian agency with which it can
negotiate. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza even
while continuing with the colonisation of the
West Bank must be seen in this perspective. To
these ends, Israel has inflicted cruel forms of
collective punishment, as well as large-scale
violence, upon non-combatant civilians.
Collective punishment is impermissible under
international law, as are sieges of cities, which
starve them of food and water - the state of
Beirut today after 15 years of recovery and
revival as one of West Asia's liveliest cities.
Israel's unconscionable military offensive is an
act of international brigandage linked to
expansionism. Those who want India to emulate
Israel assign the most obnoxious motives and
purposes to our state. Obviously, they see
nothing wrong with expansionism, aggression,
occupation, disproportionate force,
hostage-taking and outright assassination of
suspects - actions that are punishable under
international law.
India is being asked to follow Israel's
bellicose, lawless and brigand-like conduct on
the presumption that "shock-and-awe" methods,
although excessive, disproportionate and immoral,
successfully deter future terrorist attacks.
However, this presumption has been repeatedly
falsified. Israel's coercion has failed to deter
adversaries or generate security for Israeli
citizens. In fact, the moral force of the first
Intifada derived from the determination that
Palestinian youth showed when fighting the mighty
Israeli military with nothing more than stones.
Israel is one of the world's most militarised
societies: more than 576,000 of its 6.5 million
people serve in its armed forces. The country
probably has the world's highest density of
surveillance equipment such as X-ray machines,
closed-circuit cameras and explosive detectors.
And yet, suicide-bombers infiltrate populated
high-security areas and kill. Such is the deep
sense of injustice, injury, insult and resentment
that Israel's excesses have created among its
neighbours; that its own citizens cannot remotely
hope to become secure in the absence of a just
settlement of the Palestinian question.
It should be demeaning for India even to think of
following a model based on devotion to violence
and cultivation of hatred and prejudice. It is a
sign of the moral and political degeneration of
the Indian elite that it has stooped to clamour
for attacks on Pakistan, without even
establishing its complicity in the Mumbai carnage.
It is incumbent upon all those who value sanity,
sobriety and principle in public life to counter
such crass and extreme militarist nationalism.
Such extremism is the stuff of fascism.
_____
[5]
oneworld.org
Aug 6, 2006
NARMADA AGITATION ATTRACTS THOUSANDS DESPITE HEAVY RAIN
Badwani, Madhya Pradesh: Even as the swirling
waters of the Sardar Sarovar project is
threatening the villages in the Narmada valley,
over 3,000 farmers and Adivasis braved the heavy
rains, launched the Satyagraha against unjust
submergence and displacement on Saturday (August
5) at Rajghat, near Badwani, Madhya Pradesh.
Despite betrayal by the government and other
institutions of democracy, they resolved to
continue and strengthen their struggle for
justice. Similarly, Satyagraha will be launched
at Bhitada (District Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh) on
August 6th and at Chimalkhedi (Maharashtra) on
August 7th.
Despite the heavy rains, thousands of people came
to Badwani, took out a rally and came to Rajghat
on the banks of the Narmada. They were joined by
the supporters and fraternal organizations from
various states including Gujarat, Tamilnadu,
Kerala, U.P., W.Bengal, Delhi and other states.
The people decried the deliberate tactics by the
Prime Minister's office and other bureaucrats to
illegally increase the height of the dam and
impose the submergence over 1,00,000 people
during this monsoon, despite knowing the fact
that at least 35,000 families need to be
resettled with land for land before any such
height increase.
They also wondered about the Supreme Court's
attitude of keeping mum on the outright violation
of law, constitution and its own orders.
Prominent activists like Keshav Vasave, Kamla
Yadav, Jagannath Kaka, Bawabhai along with Medha
Patkar and supporters like educationist Dr. Anil
Sadgopal, Shri S.C. Behar, former Madhya Pradesh
Chief Secretary exposed the fraud played by Union
and State governments on the lives of thousands
of people.
People ridiculed the totally false, dishonest and
unprofessional report by the Oversight Group
(OSG) appointed by the Prime Minister. Medha
Patkar made it clear that " It is a joint
offensive by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO),
the corporate powers and multilateral financial
agencies, to defeat the struggle by the Narmada
valley's people, to push forth the larger
neo-liberal agenda of corporatization of water,
land and forests, including the controversial
projects like river inter-linking and the special
economic zones".
Keshav Vasave pointed out that not only the
Madhya Pradesh government, but Maharashtra
government too failed to provide any decent and
legal resettlement to the tribal oustees in the
state. "In the first rains itself, resettlement
sites of Javda and Vadchhil in Maharashtra are
inundated.
There are no basic services like drinking water,
fodder, fuel, cultivable land, protection from
rains in these places. We are cheated and live a
life of a destitute". The fields of Thuvavi,
Parveta, Kamboikua and many other resettlement
sites in Gujarat, more than ten to fifteen years
old, are facing water-logging and crop loss
during monsoon, for the last few years.
Dr. Anil Sadgopal, while taking a dig at the OSG
(Shunglu Committee) report, pointed out that even
this committee had to admit that at least 25,000
families need to be resettled. This shows the
enormity of the democratic and human rights
violation that the Central government, Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh governments are resorting to push
ahead the dam.
Support from Delhi:
Leading jurists, academicians, journalists and
social-political activists including Dr. Mohini
Giri, Kamla Bhasin, Shabnam Hashmi, Dr. L.C.
Jain, Swami Agnivesh, Prof. Manoranjan Mohanty,
Kamal Mitra-Chenoy, Yogendra Yadav, Kuldip Nayar,
Thomas Kocherry, Nandini Sundar, Qamar Agha,
Prashant Bhushan, Pamela Philipose, Praful
Bidwai, Anand Patwardhan, Anil Choudhary, Achin
Vanaik, Jai Sen and others extended support to
the Satyagraha and expressed concern over "the
increasing violation of human rights in the
Narmada valley, due to the construction of Sardar
Sarovar dam... We are saddened to note that the
dam officials misguided the Supreme Court and the
Prime Minister on the status of rehabilitation to
get the dam going. We request the concerned
authorities to hold these officials accountable
for such gross callousness".
While, at the same time the first bout of floods
in the Narmada valley have fully encircled the
legendary Manibeli village in the swirling waters
of Sardar Sarovar dam on August 3 (Thursday). The
impact was felt down to a hundred and fifty
kilometers back in the fertile plains of Nimad.
Thousands of people in the villages have not
moved their houses or the government has not
reached to these villages. The claims of
compensation by the Maharashtra government are
false.
Meanwhile, despite heavy rains and agricultural
work, the villagers are preparing for a long
drawn struggle against the submergence and
eviction and displacement. They are keeping vigil
on the submergence and are ready to face that.
Ashish Mandloi
Rohan Joshi
Geetanjali
M.K. Sukumar
_____
[6]
Dawn
August 07, 2006
WHERE RAPE CONVICTS GIVE LESSONS IN PATRIOTISM
by Jawed Naqvi
IFTIKHAR Gilani's diary of his ordeal in Delhi's
notorious Tihar Jail has now been translated into
Urdu and published by Penguin Books, who last
year brought out the English title "My Days in
Prison". The translation in Hindi script is
titled "Jail mein katey wo din" and the Urdu
version is called "Tihar mein mere shab-o-roz".
There is otherwise not much difference in the
language. The translation is by Iftikhar and
Nusrat Zaheer, a fellow journalist.
We always learn some thing new in Iftikhar's
company. This time round it was the fact that
Urdu publications constitute the second largest
exports from India after English books. This is
what Penguin claimed, and perhaps this is why
they have embarked on publishing Urdu titles in
their Indian language imprint, Yatra.
The Urdu version is bound to be popular in
Pakistan and with the South Asian diaspora
elsewhere. Those who have read the English title
must have noticed the tremendous irony that the
author is capable of generating by his simple and
factual reporting. From his illegal arrest on a
baking hot afternoon in June 2002 to his
gruelling torture by jail inmates, the narrative
doesn't betray even the slightest bitterness.
In fact, his description of some of his
tormentors and those fellow inmates he got to
observe closely reveals an impish humour despite
the trauma he suffered. The character he etches
of his wife Aanisa, a woman of fortitude and grit
despite her fragile appearance and extremely
vulnerable circumstances and details of his
incarceration under the archaic Official Secrets
Act are extremely moving.
There are a few incidents recounted by Iftikhar
in the Urdu version that are missing from the
English original. One new story refers to the two
maulvis being tried for anti-national activities.
They are in Tihar because one has been named by
the other as an accomplice. The lawyers suggest
that the accuser take back his claim and put the
blame on police for extorting the confession. The
accuser decides to conduct an "istikhara", a
divine advice usually sought by trying to join
the two index fingers with eyes closed. Since the
fingers kept missing each other, the alleged
accomplice's stay in Tihar kept getting longer.
Most human rights workers would baulk at the idea
of saying kind things about Rajbir Singh, the
Delhi Police officer known as an encounter
specialist. He has killed goodness knows how many
innocent people in fake encounters, or so the
accusation goes. If you were to ask supporters of
S.A.R. Geelani, for example, the Kashmiri teacher
who was named in the attack on the Indian
parliament, they would identify Singh as a rogue
officer and a bloody-minded killer. Iftikhar had
a completely different experience with the
officer and he didn't hesitate to say it as he
saw it.
He could have easily deleted the account
concerning ACP Rajbir Singh, but that would not
be Iftikhar. He writes: "The presence of the
published version of the incriminating document
caused consternation among the IB officials
pursuing the case. They had searched my house
thoroughly and found no trace of it. And now here
it was. The Special Cell (of Delhi Police) was
literally under siege. A number of IB sleuths
descended on its premises. The police officers
were trying to persuade them to drop the case
since no offence was made out. From my room,
which was adjacent to inspector Lamba's, I heard
ACP Rajbir Singh tell them the published version
had made things crystal clear. But Gauba, Majid
and company were in no mood to relent. While they
agreed that no offence was made out, I could not
be released so easily."
Marvel also at Iftikhar's ironical description of
a "gentleman" with the straight-face that only he
could keep. "ŠThat afternoon an IB official came
to meet me. He was an elderly gentleman,
pleasant, polite. He asked me nothing pertaining
to the document. Rather, he seemed more keen to
explain to me his methods of interrogation. One
of his favourites was to insert chilli powder
into the rectum of an accused. In vivid details
he explained what a person feels when subjected
to third degree methods, and claimed that they
had been perfected in India. Of the vast variety
of torture techniques, most are simple and
brutal. Others are far more sophisticated and use
technology to maximize pain and leave few signs."
Inside the prison, Iftikhar meets criminals of
every kind. Of particular attraction to him was a
rape convict who taught him the virtues of
singing the National Anthem. There were others
too. "Assistant Superintendent Kishan asked my
name. Before I had finished saying it a Nepalese
staffer slapped me. It was the signal for a
free-for-all. I was kicked from behind, blows
rained on my back and someone grabbed my hair and
banged my head against the table. Blood started
oozing from my mouth. My nose and ears started
bleeding too. Accompanying these abuses were the
choicest abuses. 'Sala, gaddar, Pakistani agent,'
they were screaming. 'People like you should not
be allowed to live. Traitors should be hanged
straightaway.'
"For about half an hour I suffered this ghastly
display of patriotism as both the officials and
the jail inmates exhorted each other to show me
the punishment for treason. Finally I lost
consciousness." Perhaps among the worst tortures
he endured in Tihar, Iftikhar remembers the day
he was falsely told that his wife too had been
arrested. That shattered him. When she is allowed
to meet him one day, Iftikhar Gilani's
description of the feminine poise of Aanisa and
his own trauma at meeting her in the state
underscores his simple and lucid prose.
"I saw Aanisa. She was looking tired and pale.
Her face was marked with lines of stress and
anxiety. Seeing me in such circumstances must
have been extremely hard on her. But just the
sight of her face, the mix of relief and sorrow,
hit me hard and I broke down, weeping
inconsolably. This was the first time I had wept
before her. She was shocked. She did not know
what to do. Quickly, she pulled herself together,
and forgetting all her worries and tensions she
asked me what the matter was. It was extremely
frustrating to talk to her through the barriers.
And under the watchful eyes of my tormentors."
Iftikhar Gilani's life is an amalgam of
bitter-sweet ironies and so it was not strange
that among those who came to watch the release of
the Urdu edition of his book was former defence
minister George Fernandes. It was during his
watch that the Indian army had helped falsely
implicate Iftikhar in a case that was never
there. But, we are also told that Iftikhar's
sudden and equally surprising release from prison
would not be possible too without the strange,
un-stated intervention by Mr Fernandes.
_____
[7]
CITIZENS' INITIATIVES FOR COMMUNAL HARMONY
The film 'Final Solution', an anti-hate/violence film set in Gujarat
during the period Feb/March 2002 - July 2003, will be screened at
Caritas Holiday Home Conference Room, Santa Inez, Panjim, on Thursday,
10 August 2006 at 6.00 p.m. The director, Rakesh Sharma, will be
present, and the screening will be followed by a discussion with him.
Sd/-
Albertina Almeida Ramesh Gauns
Co-convenors
------
Final Solution
Dir: Rakesh Sharma
India 2004
149 minutes
Final Solution is a study of the politics of hate. Set in Gujarat during
the period Feb/March 2002 - July 2003, the film graphically documents
the changing face of right-wing politics in India through a study of the
2002 genocide of Moslems in Gujarat. It specifically examines political
tendencies reminiscent of the Nazi Germany of early/mid-1930s. Final
Solution is anti-hate/ violence as those who forget history are
condemned to relive it .
Part 1: Pride and Genocide deals with the carnage and its immediate
aftermath. It examines the patterns of pre-planned genocidal violence
(by right-wing Hindutva cadres), which many claim was state-supported,
if not state-sponsored. The film reconstructs through eyewitness
accounts the attack on Gulbarg and Patiya (Ahmedabad) and acts of
barbaric violence against Moslem women at Eral and Delol/Kalol
(Panchmahals) even as Chief Minister Modi traverses the state on his
Gaurav Yatra.
Part 2 : The Hate Mandate documents the poll campaign during the
Assembly elections in Gujarat in late 2002. It records in detail the
exploitation of the Godhra incident by the right-wing propaganda
machinery for electoral gains. The film studies and documents the
situation months after the elections to find shocking faultlines,
voluntary ghettoisation, segregation in schools, formal calls for
economic boycott of Moslems and continuing acts of violence.
----
Rakesh Sharma began his film/TV career in 1986 as an assistant director
on Shyam Benegal's Discovery of India. His broadcast industry experience
includes the set up/ launch of 3 broadcast channels in India: Channel
[V], Star Plus and Vijay TV and several production consultancy
assignments. He has now gone back to independent documentary
film-making. His last film Aftershocks: The Rough Guide to Democracy won
the Best documentary film award at Fribourg, Big MiniDV and Big Muddy
and 7 other awards (incl. the Robert Flaherty prize) at various
festivals in USA/ Europe in 2002-03. It has been screened at over 90
international filmfests. Aftershocks was also rejected by the
government-run Mumbai International film festival in 2002. Note : The
209 minute version, structured in 4 parts, is available as a 4-VCD set
and on VHS.
Email : carnagefilm at yahoo.com / actindia at vsnl.com
Address : PO Box 12023, Azad Nagar post office, Mumbai 400053, India.
----
Final Solution was banned in India by the censor board for several
months. The ban was lifted after a sustained campaign (an online
petition, hundreds of protest screenings countrywide, multi-city
signature campaigns and dozens of letters to the Government sent by
audiences directly). Final Solution was rejected by the government-run
Mumbai International film festival and was screened at Vikalp: Films for
Freedom (http://www.freedomfilmsindia.org), organised by the Campaign
Against Censorship. Rakesh Sharma has been an active member of the
Campaign since its inception.
Awards : Wolfgang Staudte award & Special Jury Award (Netpac), Berlin
International film festival Humanitarian Award for Outstanding
Documentary, HongKong International film festival Silver Dhow (Best Doc
category), Zanzibar International film festival Best feature-length
documentary, Big MiniDV (USA) Special Jury Mention, Munich Dokfest,
Nominated for the prestigious Grierson Awards (UK) Special Award by NRIs
for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), NY-NJ, USA
Festivals : Berlinale (International premiere; Feb 2004), HongKong,
Fribourg, Sao Paulo, 3 continents filmfest (South Africa), Hot Docs
(Canada), Vancouver, Zanzibar, Durban, Vermont International film
festival (USA), Asiatica filmmediale (Rome), Leeds (UK), Cork (Ireland),
Bogota ( Colombia), Commonwealth film festival (UK), One world filmfest
(Prague), Academia Olomouc (Czech), Voces Contra el Silencio (Mexico),
Istanbul 1001fest, Singapore, Flanders (Belgium), International film
festival of Human rights (Spain), South Asian film festivals (New York,
Seattle, Dallas),World Social Forum (Mumbai), Vikalp (organised by
Campaign against Censorship) and several other filmfests.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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