SACW | Sep 13, 2006 |

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Sep 13 02:32:39 CDT 2006


South Asia Citizens Wire | September 13, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2286


[1]  Pakistan: Govt. back's out on Hudood Ordinance
- Women's bill fiasco (Edit., Dawn)
- Pakistan rape reform fails after Musharraf caves in (Jerome Taylor)
- Pakistan Makes Compromise on Rape Law (Sadaqat Jan)
[2]  Pakistan:
   - Civil society activists Demand end military operation in Balochistan
   -  Punjab again on trial (IA Rehman)
[3]  Not a good time for advocates of peace in Sri Lanka (B. Muralidhar Reddy)
[4]  India:  Impunity Fuels Conflict in Jammu and Kashmir (Human Rights Watch)
[5]  India: Recommendations - Report of the delegation to 
Kashmir/Srinagar, on working conditions of lawyers (Hans Gaasbeek, 
Silke Studzinsky and Marjan Lucas)
[6]  Solar future: India should pay attention to alternative fuels 
(Madanjeet Singh)

___


[1] 

Dawn
September 13, 2006
Editorial

WOMEN'S BILL FIASCO

FAR from having the women's rights bill passed and adding a feather 
to its cap, the government seems to have created an utter mess as 
much for itself as for the original and basically sound idea of 
amendments to the Hudood ordinances. That the Hudood laws would not 
be repealed but would be amended was itself a climbdown from the 
hopes aroused by the repeated declarations by President Pervez 
Musharraf that one of the aims of his government was to improve the 
lot of women and minorities and other disadvantaged groups by doing 
away with discriminatory laws. Later, it became obvious that the 
government did not have the courage to stare the still-strong Zia 
lobby in the face and make the necessary changes in the Hudood laws 
if a repeal was not possible. Now the events of the last few days, 
the deferment of the bill twice in five days, and Maulana Fazlur 
Rehman's ego-boosting heli-lift testify as much to the clerics' power 
as to the ruling party's political pussyfooting.

One might now be tempted to ask whose brilliant idea it was to 
synchronise the passage of the women's rights bill with the 
president's visit to the US. In the first place, it is doubtful that 
a parliamentary approval of the bill would have really made a 
difference to the outcome of the president's American trip. At best 
the president could perhaps have an easy time with the American 
media, the rights groups and the plethora of boisterous and volatile 
Pakistani associations in the US. In fact, possibilities are that the 
president will be grilled much more on the North Waziristan situation 
than on the proposed changes in a law that few even on Capitol Hill 
or among the US media have any idea about. Whether the law in its 
final form will really conform to the original aim behind the women's 
rights bill remains to be seen, but the plain fact is that the 
government has shown an appalling lack of political sagacity and its 
vacillation in tackling the forces of obscurantism which claim for 
themselves the sole right to interpret Islam in the 21st century.

o o o

The Independent
12 September 2006

PAKISTAN RAPE REFORM FAILS AFTER MUSHARRAF CAVES IN
By Jerome Taylor

In a setback for women's rights in Pakistan, the ruling party in 
Islamabad has caved in to religious conservatives by dropping its 
plans to reform rape laws.

Statutes known as the Hudood ordinances, based on sharia law, 
currently operate in Pakistan. They require a female rape victim to 
produce four male witnesses to corroborate her account, or she risks 
facing a new charge of adultery.

The ruling party in Islamabad, made up of a coalition of groups 
allied to President Pervez Musharraf, had hoped the new Protection of 
Women Bill would place the crime of rape within the country's secular 
penal code, which works in tandem with sharia.

But the government said rape would remain a crime punished by Islamic 
law yesterday after conservatives in an opposition group, Muttahida 
Majlis-I-Amal (MMA), threatened to walk out of parliament in protest 
if the government pushed ahead with reforms.

"If there are four witnesses it will be tried under [Islamic law], if 
there are not, it will be tried under the penal code," said the law 
minister, Mohammad Wasi Zafar. "In the case of both adultery and 
rape, the judge will decide how to try the case." A new amended bill 
will now be presented to parliament on Wednesday.

The news is a significant victory for the MMA, which have vehemently 
opposed any attempts to lessen the influence of sharia.

The Hudood ordinances were enshrined in Pakistani law in 1979 by 
General Zia ul-Haq in an attempt to appease the country's powerful 
religious elite following his military coup. They have been routinely 
criticised by local and international rights groups. Previous 
governments under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have tried to 
repeal the laws but failed.

General Musharraf had told rights groups he was willing to back plans 
for rape to be tried in the secular courts as part of his much 
trumpeted "enlightened moderation" ideology. The timing of the 
amended bill will be embarrassing for the President, who is touring 
Europe and the United States. Pakistan's Western allies have 
pressured General Musharraf to improve the rights situation in his 
country, particularly for women.

The failure of the new bill will be also be a bitter disappointment 
to women's groups in Pakistan, whichhave campaigned against the 
Hudood ordinances. Most women refuse to report a rape for fear they 
will be treated as a criminal. Under current laws, a victim risks 
courting punishment if she reports a rape allegation as the Hudood 
ordinances criminalise all extra-marital sex. A woman who fails to 
prove that she was raped could then be charged with adultery under 
the same legislation.

According to a 2002 report by the Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan, a woman is raped every two hours and gang raped every eight 
hours. However, because of social taboos, discriminatory laws and 
victimisation of victims by police, campaigners say that the scale of 
rape is almost certainly higher.

Despite the dangers, Pakistani women had begun to fight back. In 
2002, a woman named Mukhtar Mai forced the government drastically to 
reassess women's rights in Pakistan after she dared to speak out 
publicly. She had been gang-raped by a number of men on the orders of 
a village council.

The Protection of Women Bill was, until yesterday, part of the 
government's attempts to reform Pakistan's laws following her rape.

In a setback for women's rights in Pakistan, the ruling party in 
Islamabad has caved in to religious conservatives by dropping its 
plans to reform rape laws.

Statutes known as the Hudood ordinances, based on sharia law, 
currently operate in Pakistan. They require a female rape victim to 
produce four male witnesses to corroborate her account, or she risks 
facing a new charge of adultery.

The ruling party in Islamabad, made up of a coalition of groups 
allied to President Pervez Musharraf, had hoped the new Protection of 
Women Bill would place the crime of rape within the country's secular 
penal code, which works in tandem with sharia.

But the government said rape would remain a crime punished by Islamic 
law yesterday after conservatives in an opposition group, Muttahida 
Majlis-I-Amal (MMA), threatened to walk out of parliament in protest 
if the government pushed ahead with reforms.

"If there are four witnesses it will be tried under [Islamic law], if 
there are not, it will be tried under the penal code," said the law 
minister, Mohammad Wasi Zafar. "In the case of both adultery and 
rape, the judge will decide how to try the case." A new amended bill 
will now be presented to parliament on Wednesday.

The news is a significant victory for the MMA, which have vehemently 
opposed any attempts to lessen the influence of sharia.

The Hudood ordinances were enshrined in Pakistani law in 1979 by 
General Zia ul-Haq in an attempt to appease the country's powerful 
religious elite following his military coup. They have been routinely 
criticised by local and international rights groups. Previous 
governments under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have tried to 
repeal the laws but failed.

General Musharraf had told rights groups he was willing to back plans 
for rape to be tried in the secular courts as part of his much 
trumpeted "enlightened moderation" ideology. The timing of the 
amended bill will be embarrassing for the President, who is touring 
Europe and the United States. Pakistan's Western allies have 
pressured General Musharraf to improve the rights situation in his 
country, particularly for women.

The failure of the new bill will be also be a bitter disappointment 
to women's groups in Pakistan, whichhave campaigned against the 
Hudood ordinances. Most women refuse to report a rape for fear they 
will be treated as a criminal. Under current laws, a victim risks 
courting punishment if she reports a rape allegation as the Hudood 
ordinances criminalise all extra-marital sex. A woman who fails to 
prove that she was raped could then be charged with adultery under 
the same legislation.

According to a 2002 report by the Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan, a woman is raped every two hours and gang raped every eight 
hours. However, because of social taboos, discriminatory laws and 
victimisation of victims by police, campaigners say that the scale of 
rape is almost certainly higher.

Despite the dangers, Pakistani women had begun to fight back. In 
2002, a woman named Mukhtar Mai forced the government drastically to 
reassess women's rights in Pakistan after she dared to speak out 
publicly. She had been gang-raped by a number of men on the orders of 
a village council.

The Protection of Women Bill was, until yesterday, part of the 
government's attempts to reform Pakistan's laws following her rape.

o o o

Washington Post
September 11, 2006

PAKISTAN MAKES COMPROMISE ON RAPE LAW

by Sadaqat Jan
The Associated Press

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's government agreed to a compromise 
deal with hardline Islamic lawmakers Monday over proposed changes to 
a law that has long made punishing rapists almost impossible in the 
country.

The widely criticized Hudood Ordinance law, based on Islamic tenets, 
requires a woman who claims she's been raped to produce four 
witnesses. Religious political parties had fiercely criticized an 
amendment bill that would have dropped the requirement as un-Islamic.

Women supporters of a Pakistani Islamic alliance leave after a 
protest rally in front of Parliament House against the Women's 
Protection Bill presented by government in the National Assembly, 
Monday, Sept. 11, 2006 in Islamabad, Pakistan. Pakistan's government 
is
Women supporters of a Pakistani Islamic alliance leave after a 
protest rally in front of Parliament House against the Women's 
Protection Bill presented by government in the National Assembly, 
Monday, Sept. 11, 2006 in Islamabad, Pakistan. Pakistan's government 
is "very determined" to get a bill passed to protect rape victims, 
despite Islamic hard-liners' objections to the change, a government 
spokeswoman. (AP Photo/Anjum Naveed) (Anjum Naveed - AP)

Senator S.M. Zafar, a prominent ruling-party lawmaker, said Monday 
the government had agreed to compromise by letting rape victims 
choose between prosecuting suspects under the four-witness rule or 
under Pakistan's civil penal code.

Rape would remain punishable by death.

"It's a compromise which doesn't make difference in the substance (of 
the law), but provides two different procedures for prosecuting a 
rape case," he said.

Pakistan's law minister, Wasi Zafar, who is not related to the 
senator, said, "If a woman has four witnesses she can file a case 
under the Hudood law, or if she does not have witnesses she file a 
case under the penal code."

But opposition lawmaker Hafiz Hussain Ahmed called it victory for 
Pakistan's coalition of six hard-line religious parties.

"Now they have acknowledged that the amendment was in conflict with 
the Quran," Ahmed said.

He said the government would give lawmakers a new draft of the 
proposed amendment bill on Tuesday.

The government's ruling Muslim League party has a parliamentary 
majority and could easily pass the bill. It had originally been 
scheduled for legislative debate on Monday but was postponed until 
Wednesday after a panel of Islamic clerics, asked by the government, 
suggested the adjustments.

Human rights groups have demanded that the Hudood Ordinance be 
entirely repealed. They say the four-witness requirement makes 
punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public.

A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be 
convicted of adultery, punishable by death.

The ordinance was approved by a former military dictator in 1979 in 
an attempt to make Pakistani laws more Islamic.

Last month, the government presented the amendment bill to drop the 
four-witness requirement, but more than 60 hardline lawmakers 
threatened to vacate their legislative seats in protest. That could 
have forced a by-election and a major political crisis for President 
Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

_____


[2] 


Dawn
September 12, 2006  

DEMAND TO END MILITARY OPERATION IN BALOCHISTAN

By Our Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Sept 11: Speakers at a seminar here on Monday expressed 
their concerns over the dangerous situation that has emerged in 
Balochistan after the "brutal" killing of veteran political leader 
Nawab Akbar Bugti, and demanded an immediate end to military 
operation in the province.

Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) had organised the 
seminar on "Balochistan Crisis: A Civil Society Perspective", in 
which speakers also demanded the release of political prisoners and 
nationalists.

Karamat Ali from the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education Research 
(PILER) said real provincial autonomy was the only solution to the 
ills of Balochistan.

Besides abolishing the concurrent list, he said the issue of 
distribution of resources on population basis should also be resolved 
with the provinces in a political manner by involving all 
stakeholders.

Nawab Bugti occupied some important political positions such as that 
of the federal minister, governor and chief minister and his killing 
had further deteriorated the already volatile law and order 
situation, he observed.

Mr Ali said the establishment - military and civil bureaucracy and 
feudal - had deprived the nation not only of their sovereignty and 
independence but also of their constitutional rights.

He said Akbar Bugti had always enjoyed good relations with the 
establishment and supported the federation. But, his assassination in 
such circumstances would lead to horrendous repercussions for the 
whole country.

During the present military rule, he added, provincial autonomy and 
national cohesion were at the lowest ebb. And, if corrective measures 
were not taken on time, the country could face the 1971 situation 
again.

He endorsed the demand of some nationalists to divide Punjab into 
three provinces - Potohar, Seraiki and Punjab.

Analysing the recent images and news articles on Balochistan, Dr 
Rubina Saigol, country representative of Actionaid Pakistan, said the 
process of myth-making was underway. Sardar Bugti has being 
transformed from a disillusioned politician of a disaffected province 
into a mythological figure of heroic proportions.

She lamented that the critical role of the ruling elite and military 
had pushed Pakistanis to an alarming situation and they were living 
under circumstances of uncertainty.

Harris Khalique, chief executive of Strengthening Participatory 
Organisation (SPO), said the issue was not of Punjab versus the rest 
of the provinces but the state versus citizens. He said Bugti was 
first pushed to the wall and then eliminated. The federation had 
failed as the state had failed to deliver.

He said it was the Pakistani state, which made Sardars, Waderas and 
Khans powerful. The state made them collaborators and nurtured and 
strengthened them.

He advocated pro-poor growth and environment-friendly development. He 
said enforcement of socialist system was the best solution to our 
problems.

o o o

Dawn
September 7, 2006

PUNJAB AGAIN ON TRIAL
by IA Rehman

PUNJAB is once again on trial. Is this key unit of the Pakistan 
federation capable of putting its past aside and taking the lead in 
defending the federal polity? On a satisfactory answer will depend 
the state's ability to fulfil its most basic obligations to the 
citizens, namely, maintenance of an order that can offer all sections 
of the population guarantees of freedom, equality and prosperity.
A preliminary objection to the query - why is it being raised and 
that too at the present moment? - can easily be met. Balochistan is 
ablaze and where fires are not visible the loud voices of resentment 
and resistance can hardly be mistaken. The killing of Akbar Bugti has 
merely opened the floodgates of discontent that had been gathering 
for decades.
No elaboration of the circumstances of Bugti's liquidation, no white 
papers on his "acts of terrorism", and no post-mortem media trial of 
the late Baloch sardar can sustain the delusion that the crisis in 
Balochistan is limited to the Bugti affair. True, this case will have 
to be decided in accordance with the dictates of justice. But the 
real issue is the need to satisfy the political, economic and 
cultural aspirations of the long-wronged people of Balochistan.
What Balochistan has been asking for is no more that what it is 
entitled to as a full unit of the federation: its right to its 
resources, and its right to protest against arbitrary encroachments 
on these resources. Above all, it wants to be heard and not to be 
shot at every time it cries for justice. Fears that Bugti may not be 
the last nationalist to pay with life for his "audacity" and reports 
that some young radicals have already been put on the hit list add to 
the urgency of damage control measures. The sooner the process begins 
the better it will be. Delay will make matters worse; it could even 
push the wounded Baloch to the point of no return.
The most basic reality, the country's entire population, especially 
in Punjab, must bear in mind is that force alone cannot provide a 
fair resolution of the Balochistan crisis the state has quite rashly 
blundered into. There is little doubt that the Baloch are two few (in 
Balochistan), too scattered and too poorly equipped to resist for 
long the state's vastly superior firepower and numerical strength - 
at least in open plains.
Some other relevant factors may not appear to be in their favour at 
present. There is some substance in the oft-quoted bit of 
vainglorious boast that Balochistan is not East Bengal. The state may 
also not fail to find some quislings within Balochistan who will be 
glad to play the role of hatchet-men. Of course, for a heavy price to 
be paid by the people, including the Baloch themselves. Such people 
can be found in Balochistan as easily as they have been collected in 
other parts of the country.
But, for one thing, no one can predict the configuration of forces in 
the region a few years hence. Even a few months hence. For another, 
force can at best quell the violent manifestations of a political 
issue, it cannot ensure the kind of peace all societies need not only 
for progress but also for civilized existence.
Force can only smother hearts, it cannot win them. No self-respecting 
Pakistani should welcome the prospect of having to tell the world 
month after month, year after year, "Please do not worry about 
Balochistan; we can deal with the primitive people living in that 
part of the country".
Neither Balochistan's wail nor its youth's spirit of defiance alone 
will be sufficient to secure renunciation of use of force. That will 
be possible only if Punjab realises its duty to prevent armed 
expeditions into the Baloch heartland. Punjab must tell the powers 
that be that any state that uses armed forces against its own people, 
whatever the provocation, is guilty of violating international 
humanitarian law. More than that, it will be guilty of violating its 
compact with the people from which all modern states derive 
legitimacy.
Till some years ago one might not have been bold enough to appeal to 
Punjab's mind and its conscience. There were times when both seemed 
to have been put behind padlocks as ugly and as repulsive to normal 
eyes as the one on Bugti's coffin. But there are some welcome straws 
in the wind. Punjab has not unanimously backed the bludgeoning of the 
Balochistan people; many voices have been raised in protest, and many 
more have counselled prudence.
There is hope that Punjab may be able to see the urgency of calling 
for a halt to all armed operations in Balochistan. It will not be a 
favour to Balochistan as much as it will be to Pakistan and to Punjab 
itself. No community can be at peace with itself if it condones (to 
say nothing of supporting) suppression of a people bound to it by 
many sacred ties.
Once recourse to violence has ended, Punjab must try to understand 
and resolve its historical disagreement with the people of the other 
federating units. The latter believe recognition of their 
historically-formed cultural and linguistic identities can be 
accommodated within the concept of Pakistani nationhood. They 
therefore reject integration with any other identity and suppression 
both. Punjab however has had serious problems with reconciling itself 
to the reality of Pakistan being a multinational state. Till 1971 it 
was possible to see the logic, howsoever convoluted, in such a 
tenuous stand as this - the interest of Punjab's ruling elite drove 
it to look for any means for negating a bigger federal unit's 
entitlement to occupy the state's driving seat. But there is no 
reason after 1971 for Punjab to stick to its muddled thinking on the 
national question, unless it is argued that denial of diversity and 
demands of pluralism can often take roots in the psyche of a people 
with all the attributes of belief.
That some people outside Punjab, not only in Balochistan and Sindh 
but also in the Frontier and former East Bengal too denied diversity 
does not alter the argument that Punjab has been the main force 
opposed to the resolution of the national question. In order to 
oppose the expression and assertion of their identities by the 
Baloch, the Sindhi and the Pakhtun, the Punjabi has been bamboozled 
by the self-appointed custodians of his interest into denying the 
lure of his own identity.
However, even if Punjab wishes for any reason to live without an 
identity distinctively its own for any length of time, this cannot be 
a valid reason for expecting the Baloch, the Sindhi and the Pakhtun, 
or the Seraiki for that matter, to follow suit. Pakistan will be much 
stronger and more beautiful a country if all units are accorded 
recognition of their multiple identities.
If must however be said in fairness to the Punjabis that they are not 
the first or the only ones to deny the existence of diverse 
ethno-linguistic, cultural communities within the Islamic fold. The 
revolt of Iraq against Hijaz was never understood nor was the 
Berbers' revolt against the Omayyads. In recent times Mohammad Ali's 
bid for autonomy from the Caliph in Istanbul was not approved and the 
Arab revolt against the Ottomans, though instigated against the 
interest of both, was roundly denounced by the most vocal advocates 
of the Ummah, especially in South Asia.
Many in this part of the world bad, probably still have, difficulty 
in appreciating Nasser's decision to assert his Arab and African 
identities along with his identity as a Muslim. For a long time in 
Pakistan anyone who spoke of multiple identities was condemned for 
fuelling fissiparous tendencies ('markaz-gurez jhruh, janat') to the 
satisfaction of official speech writers.
A debate on this subject has been made unavoidable by the recent 
events in Balochistan, as had happened during 1948-71 when East 
Bengal was asking for its rights. The crux of the matter is that the 
theocratic ideology formally foisted upon Pakistan by Gen. Ziaul Haq 
offers no scope for the flowering of a genuinely federal plan. 
Religion is being used, without authority and without sanction, to 
obliterate the various communities' legitimate ethno-linguistic, 
cultural and territorial loyalties.
It is precisely for accommodating such entities that federations have 
been founded and quite a few unitary states have in recent years had 
to opt for federal arrangement. A theocracy is innately incompatible 
with federalism while Pakistan was always visualized as a federation. 
Call the forced marriage between these irreconcilable concepts a 
political folly or a suicidal mindset, or whatever expression one may 
fancy, the essential fact Punjab must grasp is that it will be 
impossible to solve the Balochistan crisis, or any similar crisis 
that may erupt in future, without discarding the theocratic 
distortions introduced in the original vision of Pakistan.
Equally manifest is a federation's incompatibility with any form of 
authoritarianism. All authoritarian regimes are promoters of a 
'strong centre', to recall F.M Ayub's favourite cliche, and they can 
appreciate neither the demands of autonomy by federating units nor 
the imperatives of devolution of power to local communities.
Thus, the only path towards a just resolution of the Balochistan 
crisis lies in Pakistan's abandonment of both theocratic and 
authoritarian state models. And this cannot happen unless Punjab 
seizes the latest opportunity to discover its role as the builder and 
defender of a democratic, non-theocratic federation. Let no more 
blood be shed in Balochistan because that will put matters beyond the 
powers of Punjab even.


_____


[3]

The Hindu
September 12, 2006

NOT A GOOD TIME FOR ADVOCATES OF PEACE IN SRI LANKA

B. Muralidhar Reddy

The peaceniks are against a military solution to the ethnic conflict 
in the island nation. The government believes the NGOs have done more 
harm than good. And the stalemate continues.

PHOTO: AP

UNDER ATTACK: National Anti-War Front activists participate in a 
peace rally in Colombo on August 17.

PEACENIKS, MEDIATORS, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), 
indigenous and foreign, in Sri Lanka are all increasingly coming 
under attack from several quarters.

On the face of it, the logic of those criticising the advocates of 
peace and resolution appears simple. The anti-war and 
pro-rapprochement campaign is an obstacle in the state's war against 
terrorism. Worse, peace chants and yagnas are supposed to be giving 
much-needed breathing space for the terrorists to regroup.

There are always elements in every society that view the agenda of 
peaceniks with suspicion. The rights and wrongs of it apart, Sri 
Lanka could not be expected to be the exception especially given its 
record of nearly two-and-a-half decades of ethnic disharmony. What is 
causing concern is the tacit and not-so-tacit state patronage that 
these forces seem to be enjoying.

And the Government appears to have given legitimacy to those engaged 
in discrediting forces attempting to mobilise public opinion in 
favour of peace. Further, the Government and institutions such as the 
military have their own grievances and complaints against those in 
the business of peace-making.

The August 17 clash in Colombo between a group of monks and activists 
of a peace rally best illustrates the point. Under the banner of the 
Jathika Sanga Sammelanaya (National Buddhist Monks Association) a 
group of monks stormed the stage and attempted to disrupt an anti-war 
rally.

Organised by the National Anti-War Front (NAWF), an amalgam of 
political and apolitical groups of all hues, the rally's basic 
objective was to voice the desire of the people for a peaceful rather 
than a military solution to the ethnic conflict. An estimated 5,000 
people had gathered on the occasion. Politicians from national and 
minority parties as well as prominent civil society personalities 
were on the stage. A few members of the clergy were there as well.

Then the monks trooped in. They grabbed the microphone and began 
yelling "if you want peace, go to Vavuniya and Kilinochchi" (areas 
under the control of the Tamil Tigers). They disregarded the 
organisers' plea to leave the stage and started behaving violently. 
In response, a few peace protesters went up to the stage, pulled the 
monks down, and burned their banners.

It was very clear that the monks' intention was to disrupt the rally. 
Later a monk from the group told a TV station that they intended to 
stop all peace campaigns in the South as such activities would 
demoralise the fighting sprit of the Armed Forces.All-round 
condemnation ensued but the group which led the monks to attack the 
rally was far from discouraged. In interview after interview in the 
local media, the leader of the monks denounced the peace yatra as a 
"circus" enacted by a bunch of "foreign funded dollar motivated 
activists" out to undermine the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka. He 
did not even spare the Government Ministers and ruling combine 
representatives associated with the rally, branding them "Sinhala 
Tigers" as opposed to "Tamil Tigers."

Colombo did condemn the vandalism but nothing more. So far, no case 
has been registered against anyone. The rhetoric against the peace 
constituencies continues unabated.

The main grouse of the anti-rally activists is that the peace rally 
leaders never take on the LTTE or speak against its atrocities. 
However, says Kumar Rupesinghe, one of the organisers of the peace 
rally, this is not true: "It is our view that violence begets 
violence. We condemn all forms of violence. We also state that 
violence will not resolve the problems. Proxy wars or selective wars 
will eventually lead to a total war and will devastate the entire 
country."

The establishment seems to look the other way if not encourage the 
logic and thinking of the anti-peace lobby. In an article titled 
"opposing war to please the Sun God" in the government-owned paper, 
Daily News, Janaka Perera says: "These `revolutionaries' are more 
agitated over `southern terrorists' rather than the striped monsters 
in the Wanni. The fact of the matter is that the so-called southern 
terrorists [an obvious reference to JVP and JHU] are in Parliament 
while the real terrorists in the north have no guts to face an 
election... The whole farcical exercise in the South of opposing the 
`war' can be linked to a group of people calmly discussing peace and 
non-violence while right before our eyes armed psychopath is on the 
rampage killing everyone in sight."

Writing in the Sunday Standard, Eymard de Sila Wijeyeratne dwells at 
length on how mediatory efforts by international groups and 
volunteerism (NGOs) are nothing but elaborate efforts to gobble up 
Sri Lanka. "The peace-process was an argued assumption based on an 
ideology that generates violence. It was never a genuinely reciprocal 
response between two parties to settle grievances," he says.

The Mahinda Rajapakse Government has done its bit to contribute to 
the prevailing sense of cynicism on international mediation as well 
as the role of the NGO sector in conflict management. The 
Government's antipathy towards Norway, particularly its role as a 
facilitator of peace, is well known. Before the November Presidential 
election, Mr. Rajapakse vigorously advocated easing out Norway and 
disbanding the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) in view of his 
belief that both have only helped the LTTE consolidate.

The Government wants to tighten the noose around the NGO sector as 
well. It believes some of the NGOs have done more harm than good to 
society. A new diktat from the Government makes it obligatory for the 
NGOs, international and national, to obtain a no-objection 
certificate from the Department of Defence (DoD) before August 31 to 
continue their work in the country. A section in the Government seems 
convinced that such a measure is needed to weed out NGOs advocating 
and advancing the Tigers' goals.

There is little doubt that the Norwegian experience has not worked 
the way it was envisaged and intended and that a small group of NGOs 
is working against the interests of the Sri Lanka state. 
Nevertheless, the question is: does the solution lie in throwing the 
baby out with the bathtub? Certainly not and it is amply evident in 
Muttur, now reduced to a ghost town after the Government-LTTE 
clashes. The 50,000-odd displaced just do not want to return. The 
town is also out of bounds for the NGO community thanks to the tragic 
execution of 17 NGO workers in the town and the reluctance of the 
Government to let them into the town.

_____


[4]


Human Rights Watch
350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
USA

Press Release

September 12, 2006

INDIA: IMPUNITY FUELS CONFLICT IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR
ABUSES BY INDIAN ARMY AND MILITANTS CONTINUE, WITH PERPETRATORS UNPUNISHED

(Srinagar, September 12, 2006) - The Indian government's failure to 
end widespread impunity for human rights abuses committed both by its 
security forces and militants is fueling the cycle of violence in 
Jammu and Kashmir, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 156-page report, "'Everyone Lives in Fear': Patterns of Impunity 
in Jammu and Kashmir *," documents recent abuses by the Indian army 
and paramilitaries, as well as by militants, many of whom are backed 
by Pakistan. Indian security forces have committed torture, 
"disappearances" and arbitrary detentions, and they continue to 
execute Kashmiris in faked "encounter killings," claiming that these 
killings take place during armed clashes with militants. Militants 
have carried out bombings and grenade attacks against civilians, 
targeted killings, torture and attacks upon religious and ethnic 
minorities. 

These abuses have taken place against the backdrop of almost two 
decades of the failure of the political and legal systems in India 
and Pakistan to end abuses or punish the perpetrators. Since 1989, 
the armed secessionist struggle against Indian rule in Jammu and 
Kashmir has claimed more than 50,000 lives. Kashmir remains a 
potential flashpoint between the nuclear-armed neighbors India and 
Pakistan. 

"Human rights abuses have been a cause as well as a consequence of 
the insurgency in Kashmir," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human 
Rights Watch. "Kashmiris continue to live in constant fear because 
perpetrators of abuses are not punished. Unless the Indian 
authorities address the human rights crisis in Jammu and Kashmir, a 
political settlement of the conflict will remain illusory." 

The new report, based on research from 2004 to 2006, documented 
abuses that have occurred since the election in 2002 of a Jammu and 
Kashmir state government with an avowed human rights agenda and the 
resumption of peace talks between India and Pakistan that same year 
(after the countries nearly went to war in 2002). 

Indian security forces claim they are fighting to protect Kashmiris 
from militants and Islamic extremists, while militants claim they are 
fighting for Kashmiri independence and to defend Muslim Kashmiris 
from an abusive Indian army. In reality, both sides have committed 
widespread and numerous human rights abuses and violations of 
international humanitarian law (or the laws of war). 

Extrajudicial executions by Indian security forces are common. Police 
and army officials have told Human Rights Watch that security forces 
often execute alleged militants instead of bringing them to trial in 
the belief that keeping hardcore militants in detention is a security 
risk. Most of those summarily executed are falsely reported to have 
died during armed clashes between the army and militants in 
"encounter killings." 

The Indian government has effectively given its forces free rein, 
while Pakistan and armed militant groups have failed to hold 
militants accountable for the atrocities they have committed. Through 
documentation of the failure to prosecute in recent cases and some 
older, key cases, the report shows how impunity has fueled the 
insurgency. If the Indian authorities had addressed these abuses 
seriously when they took place, public confidence in the authorities 
would have increased and future abuses may have been substantially 
reduced. Instead, India failed to prosecute or discipline the 
perpetrators. 

Impunity has been enabled by Indian law. The report documents cases 
where Indian security forces have shot civilians under the authority 
of laws such as the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and the 
Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act. These laws, 
enacted near the beginning of the conflict, allow lethal force to be 
used "against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or 
order for the time being in force in the disturbed area." Other laws 
offer state agents effective immunity from criminal prosecution. For 
example, Article 197 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure only 
allows the prosecution of state actors with the permission of the 
relevant ministry. This is rarely provided. Prosecutions of security 
force personnel, even where the facts are well established, are 
therefore rare. 

Human Rights Watch also stated that the work of both the National 
Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission in 
Jammu and Kashmir is severely hampered by laws that prohibit them 
from directly investigating abuses carried out by the army or other 
federal forces. Although government officials claim that disciplinary 
measures have been taken against some security personnel, it is 
unclear this happens, as details are almost never made public. 

"It's absurd that the world's largest democracy, with a 
well-developed legal system and internationally recognized judiciary, 
has laws on its books that prevent members of its security forces 
from being prosecuted for human rights abuses," said Adams. "It's 
time for the Indian government to repeal these laws and recommit 
itself to justice for victims of all abuses, whoever the perpetrator 
may be." 

The report also documents serious abuses by militants, many of whom 
continue to receive backing from Pakistan. Numerous massacres, 
bombings, killings and attacks on schools attributed to the militants 
are often intentionally downplayed by supporters of Kashmiri 
independence or its accession to Pakistan. Militant groups have 
targeted civilians, including women and children, whom they consider 
to be "traitors to the cause" or for expressing views contrary to 
those of one or another armed group. Alleged militants have murdered 
nearly 600 Kashmiri politicians since the conflict began, usually as 
retribution for joining in the electoral process. Officials 
conducting the polls have been killed or tortured, some with their 
noses or ears chopped off. 

Militants have also been responsible for bomb attacks that targeted 
civilians. They have attacked religious minorities in Kashmir such as 
Hindus and Sikhs, as well as ethnic minorities such as the Gujjars, 
whom the militants target because they believe them to be government 
informers. Although many of the militant groups currently operating 
in Jammu and Kashmir have become increasingly unpopular, Kashmiris 
are afraid to speak out against them. A conflict over Kashmiri 
identity and independence has slowly but visibly mutated into a fight 
under the banner of religion, pitting Islam against Hinduism and 
drawing religious radicals into its heart. 

There is considerable evidence that over many years Pakistan has 
provided Kashmiri militants with training, weapons, funding and 
sanctuary. Officially, Pakistan denies ever arming and training 
militants. Under pressure from the United States after the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, Pakistan banned several militant groups in 
January 2002, including the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Toiba. 
But these groups have continued to operate after changing their 
names. India blames these groups for many armed attacks. Pakistan 
appears to be keeping its options open should peace talks collapse by 
continuing to support these groups. Pakistan remains accountable for 
abuses committed by militants that it has armed and trained. 

"The militants and their backers must end the bombings and the 
targeting of civilians," said Adams. "Continued abuses ensure that 
the cycle of violence will continue. And these abuses only add to the 
suffering of the people in whose name the militants are ostensibly 
fighting."

[ * URL for 'Everyone Lives in Fear': Patterns of Impunity in Jammu 
and Kashmir http://hrw.org/reports/2006/india0906/ ]

_____


[5] 

REPORT OF THE DELEGATION TO KASHMIR/SRINAGAR, TO INVESTIGATE THE 
WORKING CONDITIONS OF LAWYERS -18 April to 22 April 2006.

by Hans Gaasbeek, Silke Studzinsky and Marjan Lucas

(Lawyers without Borders  -    www.advocatenzondergrenzen.nl
European Democratic Lawyers  -  www.aed-edl.net
Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society  - www.jkccs.org
IKV Interchurch Peace Council  -  www.ikv.nl

The Hague/Berlin/Haarlem, August 31st 2006 )
[ . . . ]
Recommendations

-- The PSA, POTA, AFSPA and all extraordinary laws related to the 
conflict should be abolished or amended as far as they violate 
national and/or international (humanitarian) law and facilitate the 
ongoing impunity.

-- The Government of India (GOI) and the Jammu and Kashmir State 
Government (SG) should ensure and guarantee that all human rights 
violation such as torture, extrajudicial killings and custody, 
disappearance, intimidation of activists, rapes, arbitrary arrests 
and detentions are immediately, impartially and independently 
investigated.

-- In addition, the said Governments should bring the perpetrators, 
particularly the members of the security forces, before courts and 
end impunity.

-- The said Governments should establish an operational, effective, 
well-equipped and independent Human Rights commission and implement 
its recommendations.

-- The said Governments should guarantee expeditious and fair trials 
and take the interests of civilians under consideration and grant 
them appropriate compensation.

-- The said Governments should admit international independent 
observers and NGOs to monitor the steps and give the UN Human Rights 
Commission against Torture the opportunity to enter prisons and to 
make a report. The said Governments should also take into account 
their recommendations.

-- The said Governments should give permission to international NGO's 
to interact with Kashmiri civil society and be present on the ground.

-- GOI and ICRC in India/Kashmir should  agree on a wider  mandate 
so  that ICRC can inquire indeed about  EID's, reported  stories or 
documents about existence of illegal detention centres and  about 
unannounced visits to detainees

-- GOI should respect the 'EU-Guidelines for Human Rights Defenders' 
as well as the 'UN-Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of 
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect 
Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom' (the 
so-called Havana Principles)


_____


[6]

The Tribune
September 12, 2006

SOLAR FUTURE
INDIA SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS
by Madanjeet Singh

VESTIGES of the Cold War in United States policy towards India are 
evident from the manner in which American lawmakers have been 
shifting the so-called goal posts of the July 18 2005 agreement with 
US President George Bush. The US government has no intention of 
admitting India into the exclusive club of the five nuclear weapon 
states or as a permanent member of the United Nations Security 
Council. On the other hand, agreements that allow US agencies and 
companies to sell India nuclear fuel and outdated technology 
perfectly suit their commercial interests.

The United States has not built a nuclear power plant in more than 
three decades. All reactors ordered after 1973 were cancelled. Even 
at present, with all the incentives which the US administration is 
offering, the majority of senior utility executives in the United 
States do not want to take the risk of Chernobyl-type accidents. Nor 
do they want to build new nuclear plants unless the government 
guaranties full subsidy, with assurance that radioactive 
contamination will be prevented by opening several nuclear waste 
repositories, as reported in the International Herald Tribune dated 
22 August 2006.

The French government with its large number of nuclear power reactors 
is already in a quandary, offering large sums of money for storage of 
its radioactive waste which no country is willing to accept. India 
hardly has the resources to spare that kind of money to subsidise new 
nuclear reactors and build the extremely expensive radioactive 
nuclear waste repositories.

I am firmly of the view that by the end of the century a solar energy 
economy will prevail, when fossil fuels would have been exhausted and 
nuclear power entrepreneurs would find it impossible to store 
mountains of radioactive waste.

I have visited several major solar energy projects in the remote and 
poorer regions of Africa, Australia, the Americas and Asia. An 
unforgettable experience was my visit to Inner Mongolia, where, 
driving mile after mile along the road in this vast, treeless 
landmass, I was amazed to see hundreds of small, hybrid, solar-energy 
systems - comprising a small wind turbine with a photovoltaic panel - 
installed on the roofs of houses and even on the top of yurts, which 
the nomads move seasonally with their animals. There I witnessed the 
'human face' of solar energy, integrated with the environment, 
culture and traditions of the people.

In India, camels are often used to carry photovoltaic panels to 
remote and backward areas in the Rajasthan desert, such as 
Megh-wallon-ki-dhani, a village inhabited by marginalized people 
belonging to the schedule castes. The Sumitra Foundation has 
installed a number of photovoltaic solar systems to provide 
electricity for the 40 health and education centres in the remote 
tribal region of Bastar, now in Chhatisgarh.

The spin-off benefits of renewable energies are also of the greatest 
importance. Small and dispersed solar-energy projects in rural areas, 
including individual photovoltaic plants, biomass and small hydro 
facilities, have a cardinal role to play in halting the increasing 
rush to the cities by peasants living in the poorest regions.

Such projects, by virtue of their local and participatory nature, are 
also more 'democratic', tending to create new cooperative structures 
that resist the concentration of power in a few authoritarian hands 
as in the management of nuclear power plants. By promoting 
sustainable development based on partnership with nature, they 
protect the environment and favour the emergence of a culture of 
peace, which is inseparable from democracy and grassroots development.

Above all, the future of the solar energy economy depends on the 
development of fuel-cell technology, a remarkable demonstration of 
which I saw in Germany at the biogas-fuel-cell project of a 
waste-water plant on the banks of the river Rhine, at 
Cologne-Rodenkirchen. Here the city's refuse is collected, converted 
into digester gas containing 62 per cent methane, from which hydrogen 
is produced to run a fuel-cell facility. This, Europe's first 
regenerating fuel-cell plant, not only serves to electrify 
Rodenkirchen but also prevents helps control pollution of the River 
Rhine, in which the waste was previously dumped.

Earlier I had attended a meeting in Cambridge, UK, of motorcar 
manufacturers working on the development of fuel-cell technology. Dr. 
Stan Ovshinsky, Director, Energy Conversion Devices, USA, visualised 
that after fuel-cell engines have been sufficiently miniaturised for 
use in small vehicles, they could also be connected to generate 
electricity for residences, thus dispensing with grids for 
electricity. In fact, the scientists at this meeting from Japan, 
Germany and the United States, were all secretly working day and 
night, each probing to find out what others were doing without 
revealing the progress of their own research.

The first step on the road to a hydrogen-based economy was taken in 
1998 at the Daimler-Benz plant in Germany where a prototype station 
wagon, 'Necar II', run on hydrogen energy, was launched. The 
commercial use of hydrogen-based engines by three red London buses 
plying between the Tower of London and Covent Garden is noteworthy. 
London is not alone. Hydrogen-powered bus projects are being prepared 
all over the world. From Cambridge to California, Norway to Nagoya, 
Perth to Porto, pilot schemes are being readied. This month Shell 
announced a partnership with the Dutch bus manufacturer MAN that will 
see 20 hydro-buses on the streets of Rotterdam by 2009.

It is high time that India, too, pays more attention to renewable 
solar energy, and catch up with the worldwide research in 
hydrogen-based fuel-cell technology by increasing government support, 
instead of going on a wild goose chase and beating about the 'Bush' 
for some outdated American nuclear equipment. Thanks to our very 
capable scientists, India can do without becoming subservient to any 
other country.

The writer has worked with UNESCO on solar energy and is the author 
of "The Timeless Energy of the Sun,".


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

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