SACW | Sep 16, 2006 | Stayagraha / Pakistan Citizenship / Sri Lanka / Kashmir / India: overturn section 377 of penal code
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Sep 15 20:25:58 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | September 16, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2289
[1] Resolution adopted at the "Satyagraha : a ProPeace Agenda" Conference
[2] Pakistan: [Citizenship Act] Discriminatory
and wholly biased (Edit, The News)
[3] Sri Lanka: The People's Opinion on Peace
Keeps Hope Alive (National Peace Council)
[4] Kashmir - India: Give cease-fire a trial (Edit., Kashmir Times)
[5] India: Open letter for the overturning of
section 377 of the Indian penal code (Vikram Seth
and Others)
- Campaign against Sect. 377 (by Vir Sanghvi)
- Statement in support by Amartya Sen
[6] India: 7th National Conference of Women's
Movements, Kolkata condemns State
repression on the people of Kashipur in Orissa
[7] Upcoming Events:
(i) Conference on People's Foreign Policy (Bombay, 5-6 October, 2006)
(ii) International Festival on "Peace and
Justice" (Bombay, 1 - 3 December 2006)
___
[1]
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE
"SATYAGRAHA : A PROPEACE AGENDA" CONFERENCE HELD
IN DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA FROM SEPTEMBER 10 -13
2006 ON THE OCCASION OF THE CENTENARY OF
"SATYAGRAHA"
We, human rights defenders, academicians,
intellectuals and others members of civil
society, from various parts of the world,
assembled in Durban (September 10 - 13 2006), to
commemorate the centenary of Mahatma Gandhi's
Satyagraha, express our grave concern at the
growing use of violence as the ultimate form of
power.
The urgency to intervene in the defense of the
principles of non-violent means to resolve
conflicts at the national, regional and the
international level has never been more pressing
than in the conditions prevailing in the world
today.
The agenda to build a global system under their
control in the name of liberalization of trade
and globalization by the US and its allies, the
growing plunder and exploitation, the widening
gap between the rich and the poor, the
pauperization of the poor, growing gender
inequality, growing militarization of the state
powers, gross violation and brazen disrespect for
the international humanitarian and civil laws,
breakdown of democratic processes, invasion of
countries and foreign occupation under various
pretexts, demonization of Muslims in the name of
waging a global war on terror, continuous hate
mobilization , the growing religious
fundamentalism across religions, violation of
human rights of people by using the draconian
security laws, de-linking of economic development
from the social development at the national,
regional and international level, corporatization
and misuse of the media to serve the interests of
the State powers and many other burning issues,
are a cause of grave concern to us.
We also take strong note of the fact that in the
land of Mahatma Gandhi's birth, Gujarat in India,
where a State-sponsored pogrom was organized in
2002 against Muslims, the hate mobilization
continues unabated against the Muslims and other
minorities.
In the present world context, the principles of
Mahatma Gandhi especially Satyagraha, are
becoming much more relevant than ever before.
There is an urgent need to energize the
progressive, democratic, secular and pro-peoples'
movements across the world to challenge
political, economic and social injustices and
oppression.
The prevailing conditions are absolutely unacceptable to us.
We therefore pledge to re-dedicate ourselves, to
build an international struggle for peace,
justice, equality and human dignity.
Durban
September 13, 2006
Among the signatories were :
A Krishnaratne, Sri Lanka
Anil Nauriya, Supreme Court of India
A T Ariyaratne, Founder-President, Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, Sri Lanka
Bettina Corke, Film-maker, Decade Media, Italy
Bhaya Hadeba
Bongni N Kasi
Bouginkosi Mdlow
Cedric Prakash, Activist, PRASHANT, India
Rev Cynthia Shelkofsky, Catholic University, Washington, US
Deacon Jose Alvarez, California, US
Deena Padayachee, Writer, South Africa
Prof. Dennis Brutus, Centre for Civil Society, UKZN, South Africa
Dianne Lang, South Africa
Dikshita Padalkar, Economist, South Africa
Dumisani Naidi
Ebrahim Ebrahim, South Africa (imprisoned with
Nelson Mandela for twenty years in Robben's
Island)
Eric Shabalala
Farooq Meer
Florence Murugu, Mucodes, Kenya
Gunavant Govindjee, Ceasefire Campaign, South Africa
Hassim Seedat, Satyagraha Committee Member
Iqbal Jhazbhoy, Analyst, University of South Africa
J Pather
Khurshed Gunwala
Lindime Phiki
Linet Karani
Mbuyisdo Gwamanda
Mgondisi W Mdloun
Murunki Catherine
Myo Naing, Free Burma Campaign, South Africa
Nelly Thusi
Nokuptriva
Priscilla Maranya, Mucodes, Kenya
R Choomilall
Rasheeda Meer
Niloa Castro, Foccolare, Italy
Sazi Nollore
Scolo Masow
Shabnam Hashmi, Activist, ANHAD, India
Sonam Tenzing, Representative of H H the Dalai Lama for Africa
Sunny Singh, Freedom Fighter, South Africa
Sylvia Alvarez, Educationist, USA
Sylvia Kaye, Lecturer, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa
Dr. Thein Win, National Council of the Union of Burma, SA
TWM Perumal
Urmila Singh, Tours of Remembrance, South Africa
Yashica Padia
Zamite Mbanjwa
Zine BlamuniŠ..and several others
_____
[2]
The News International
August 27, 2006
Editorial
DISCRIMINATORY AND WHOLLY BIASED
The apparent understanding reached between the
treasury and opposition benches on August 24 for
amending the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951 to
free it from existing gender biases is welcome
but it still goes to underline the blatant
discrimination that the women of this country
have to face at all levels, including even under
the law. The act, as it currently stands, allows
citizenship to women of foreign origin married to
Pakistani men but does not confer the same
privilege to foreign men married to Pakistani
women. This raises the obvious question, why are
not Pakistani women who have foreign spouses
entitled to the same treatment under the law as
Pakistani men? The reasons, according to one
report, put forward for this refusal is that this
presents a security risk and that in some cases
it is based on reciprocity, and since other
countries do not allow it, so Pakistan will not
either. One has to say - without losing a sense
of decorum and civility - that both these reasons
border on the nonsensical. How can foreign men
married to Pakistani women be termed security
risks when foreign women married to Pakistani men
aren't? What world are those who framed the law
and those who are now implementing living in? It
really begs commonsense to find any justification
on this score. As for reciprocity, a state need
not base such grant of citizenship on
reciprocity. The issue should be not whether
another country does or doesn't allow its
nationals' spouses similar citizenship rights but
rather to guarantee equal rights under the law to
both Pakistani men and women.
The act, in its current form, is clearly
unconstitutional since the 1973 Constitution
explicitly guarantees equal treatment under the
law to both men and women and it really is
incredible that it (the law) has survived in its
current highly discriminatory form till today.
Apparently, there is a discretionary clause that
permits the government to grant citizenship to
any foreign national. The fact of the matter is
that it is not often exercised. Also, there
should be no need to exercise any such discretion
if the law were equitable, inclusive and unbiased
for all citizens. The federal minister for
parliamentary affairs, Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, has
said that the matter will be referred to the
interior ministry for further consideration.
However, it should be noted that the National
Commission on the Status of Women has already
recommended to the government to amend the act so
one wonders why the matter should be sent to the
interior ministry for "further consideration".
Besides, mere understanding between the
opposition and treasury benches does not
necessarily mean that the law will be amended,
especially since the minister's referring it to
the interior ministry seems more of a delaying
tactic than anything else. It is worth pointing
out that in recent days, the same minister has
made somewhat uncharitable remarks against women
in general in parliament and does not seem the
kind of individual who would be a stout defender
of the rights of women. Nevertheless, the
discrimination exhibited under this law is so
blatant and clear-cut that the government should
be able to pass an amendment to it with ease,
enabling the foreign spouses of Pakistani women
to become eligible for citizenship.
_____
[3]
National Peace Council
of Sri Lanka
12/14 Purana Vihara Road
Colombo 6
15.09.06
Media Release
The People's Opinion on Peace Keeps Hope Alive
Contrary to popular belief and to what many
politicians seem to fear, the general public is
open to a political solution to the ethnic
conflict which would involve substantial power
sharing between the centre and the regions.
A recent public opinion survey commissioned by
the National Peace Council and conducted by the
Marga Institute showed that 51 percent of those
who participated in the survey believed that in
order to achieve peace in Sri Lanka, a
constitutional framework that did not confine
itself to the unitary state should be explored.
Of these 51 percent, 39 percent believed that a
constitutional change that provided maximum
devolution of power was the best solution, while
7 percent preferred a federal solution and 5
percent chose the Indian model. However, 34
percent chose the unitary state as the framework
for the solution.
It is likely that the willingness to accept a
power sharing framework beyond the unitary system
would have been even greater if the public were
better informed of the different forms of
government, and how they were applicable to the
Sri Lankan context. Of those polled, only 24
percent claimed that they had some knowledge of
what federalism meant, while only 14 percent were
able to identify the federal system as one of
devolution of power within an undivided country.
A majority of 62 percent had no idea of what the
federal system was. This lacuna in public
awareness highlights the need for a much greater
governmental and civic effort to educate the
general public on the issue.
Interestingly, most of those surveyed anticipated
a return to war within six months. Given that
this survey was conducted in July this year, it
confirms the accuracy of popular expectations
especially at this time. When probed further
about how soon the war would end, as many as 41
percent did not see it ending in the near future.
Only 14 percent said it would end soon. Another
interesting finding was that those surveyed
believed that both the government and LTTE were
to be blamed for the current situation, with 30
percent blaming the government only, 23 percent
blaming the LTTE only and 22 percent blaming both
parties.
A noteworthy finding was that a large majority of
79 percent were of the view that the best
solution to the conflict was through peaceful
means, including the re-negotiation of the
Ceasefire Agreement, negotiation of an interim
solution or negotiation of a final solution.
Only a relatively small minority of 21 percent
believed that a full scale war was the best
option. This finding, together with the measured
response that all communities provided in
attributing blame to both sides, indicates
attitudes that can provide a foundation for
building a conflict resolving process.
The survey also assessed the perception that the
general public had towards the role of the
international community. A significant majority
of 67 percent wanted the role of the
international community to be strengthened. The
response towards the international monitors of
the SLMM was also positive with a majority of 55
percent wanting the role of the international
monitors strengthened as against 27 percent who
wanted it reduced. Although the international
community and the SLMM have come in for much
politically motivated criticism in recent times,
the general public who were surveyed believed in
the positive role the members of the
international community had to play.
The survey was conducted from a sample of 5000
persons aged 18 and above who were interviewed
from a random sample of 2500 households. A multi
stage stratified sampling technique was used.
The respondents were from all provinces, and a
total of 3460 Sinhalese, 580 Sri Lanka Tamils,
740 Muslims and 220 Hill Country Tamils were
selected for the survey. The survey was
conducted in the field in June and July of this
year.
The National Peace Council believes that the
positive sentiments of the general population
towards a negotiated political settlement
highlighted in this survey must be the foundation
for a fresh and genuine attempt at peace talks by
the government and LTTE. The present time is
both opportune and crucial. Sri Lankaís main
donor countries have urged that peace talks
should commence in early October. The government
and major opposition party, the UNP, are engaged
in high level talks to work out a common approach
to national issues, including the ethnic
conflict. We appeal to the parties concerned
that the bloodshed should cease and political
dialogue and normalcy in the lives of people
should resume.
Executive Director
On behalf of the Governing Council
_____
[4]
Kashmir Times
September 16, 2006
Editorial
GIVE CEASE-FIRE A TRIAL
IT WILL HELP TO PUSH FORWARD THE PEACE PROCESS
Chief minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, sprang a
pleasant surprise when, on the anniversary of the
bloody 9/11, he announced his intention to
declare a cease-fire by the security forces
during the month of the Holy Ramzan and to
continue it thereafter, as in Nagaland, if only
the militants here respond positively to his
gesture and to the innermost urge of the people.
This is not for the first time that a cease-fire
is being suggested or enforced. The first time a
short-lived case-fire was experimented with was
between 24 July and 8 August 2000, when the HM
commander Abdul Majid Dar announced a cease-fire
which was followed by talks with the mandarins of
Union home ministry. The talks broke down when
the HM insisted on Pakistan's presence during the
peace-talks, which was then rejected outright by
India. In the month of November, that very year,
a cease-fire was announced during the Holy month
of Ramzan and it continued till 31 May, 2001. The
unfortunate break-down of the cease-fire was
followed by the world-shaking holocaust of 9/11,
the US conquest of Afghanistan, the attack on the
Indian parliament on 13/12 and the ill-advised
Operation Parakram that cost India over 400 lives
and Rs. 7,000 crores and kept the forces of India
and Pakistan eye-ball to eye-ball for ten long
months. But, the over-all situation involving our
two countries has visibly changed and changed for
the better, since the initiation of the peace
process on 18 April, 2003. True, we have been so
far rather long on CBMs but short on steps for
the resolution of the conflict, inflicting
frustration on all lovers of peace. But, it is
also a fact that, over-all relationship between
our two countries -- both people-to-people and
government-to-government -- has improved
considerably. Now, Pakistan is encouraging the
peace process and is urging the various
separatist groups to be realistic and reasonable
in their talks with Delhi for a realisable
settlement of the fifty-year old dispute. So, the
scenario is encouraging and after five more years
of bloodshed people's urge for aman is stronger
than over before.
Our Nagaland experience has clearly demonstrated
that, unless shattered early, a long cease-fire
is over a half a settlement. Both the contending
parties may still ask for what they consider to
be their due and a fair settlement, but they both
enjoy most the blessings of the cease-fire after
years of futile bloodshed. So, both the
contending parties, in course of time, tend to
put in the back-burner their original demands and
aim at the undisturbed continuance of peace
ensured by the cease-fire. Nothing else explains
the continuance of the cease-fire in Nagaland for
the last nine years. A cease-fire in Jammu and
Kashmir will spur both the parties to shift their
emphasis from seeking their right to the
continuance of the cease-fire, i.e. peace. Peace,
even at some sacrifice slowly becomes the goal
for both and that is what is presently sought.
The ceasefire announced by India and Pakistan
along the Line of Control putting an end to
frequent exchange of fire between the Indian and
Pakistan forces had brought much relief to the
people in the border areas. Happily, the
ceasefire has been effective so far. Though this
has reduced the killing of civilians due to
border shelling, the ceasefire has not helped in
reducing the level of violence internally in the
state. While militants have been targetting both
the civilians and the security forces, the
violation of human rights by the security forces
continues unabated. Such killings, whether by the
militants or by the forces, create major
roadblocks on the path to peace. The peace
activisits, both in India and Pakistan, have been
insisting on extending ceasefire internally to
push forward the peace process. This will remove
a sense of fear and insecurity to pursue the
process of dialogue in a conducive climate for
finding a solution to the Kashmir problem.
_____
[5]
http://www.sacw.net/SexualityMinorities/OletterSec377sept06.html
www.sacw.net
September 15, 2006
OPEN LETTER FOR THE OVERTURNING OF SECTION 377 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
by Vikram Seth and others
To build a truly democratic and plural India, we
must collectively fight against laws and policies
that abuse human rights and limit fundamental
freedoms.
This is why we, concerned Indian citizens,
support the overturning of Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law dating to
1861, which punitively criminalizes romantic love
and private, consensual sexual acts between
adults of the same sex.
In independent India, as earlier, this archaic
and brutal law has served no good purpose. It has
been used to systematically persecute, blackmail,
arrest and terrorize sexual minorities. It has
spawned public intolerance and abuse, forcing
tens of millions of gay and bisexual men and
women to live in fear and secrecy, at tragic cost
to themselves and their families. It is
especially disgraceful that Section 377 has on
several recent occasions been used by homophobic
officials to suppress the work of legitimate
HIV-prevention groups, leaving gay and bisexual
men in India even more defenceless against HIV
infection.
Such human rights abuses would be cause for shame
anywhere in the modern world, but they are
especially so in India, which was founded on a
vision of fundamental rights applying equally to
all, without discrimination on any grounds. By
presumptively treating as criminals those who
love people of the same sex, Section 377 violates
fundamental human rights, particularly the rights
to equality and privacy that are enshrined in our
Constitution as well as in the binding
international laws that we have embraced,
including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
Let us always remember the indisputable truth
expressed in the opening articles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "All
persons are born free and equal in dignity and
rightsŠEveryone is entitled to all the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind."
We will move many steps closer to our goal of
achieving a just, pluralistic and democratic
society by the ending of Section 377, which is
currently under challenge before the Delhi High
Court. There should be no discrimination in India
on the grounds of sexual orientation. In the name
of humanity and of our Constitution, this cruel
and discriminatory law should be struck down.
Sincerely,
Vikram Seth, author,
Swami Agnivesh,
Nitin Desai, former UN Under Secretary-General,
Aditi Desai, sociologist,
AND
Rukun Advani, Author/Publisher
MJ Akbar, Editor-in-Chief, Asian Age & Deccan Chronicle
Ashok Alexander
Kanti Bajpai, Headmaster, The Doon School
Kaushik Basu, Professor of Economics, Cornell University
Shyam Benegal, internationally-acclaimed film
director and Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Prashant Bhushan, advocate, Supreme Court, and civil rights activist
Urvashi Butalia, author, publisher and activist
Uma Chakravarty, Vedic scholar
Shoma Choudhury, Tehelka
Purnendu Chatterjee, Chairman, Chatterjee Group
Nandita Das, award-winning actress and activist
Mahesh Dattani, playwright, Sahitya Akademi Award 1998
Devika Daulet-Singh, photographer
John Dayal, Member, National Integration Council, Govt of India
Shobhaa De, best-selling author and columnist
Astad Deboo, choreographer & dancer
Darryl D'Monte, environmental journalist & author
Dilip D'Souza, author and journalist
JB D'Souza, former Maharashtra Chief Secretary
and Bombay Municipal Commissioner (IAS retd)
Neela D'Souza, writer
Bharat Dube, Counsel, Richemont Group S.A.
Barkha Dutt, award-winning anchor and journalist, NDTV
Mallika Dutt, Breakthrough, National Citizen's Award 2001
Rajiv Dutta, President, Skype
Rehaan Engineer, actor
Naresh Fernandes, Editor, Time Out Mumbai
Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Watch
Amitav Ghosh, author, Sahitya Akademi Award 1990
Sagarika Ghosh, author, and CNN-IBN
Ramachandra Guha, Social Anthropologist, Historian
Ruchira Gupta, activist and Emmy-winning journalist
Syeda Hameed, Member of the Planning Commission
Yazad Jal, Praja Foundation and blogger
Ashok Jethanandani, editor, India Currents
Ruchir Joshi, writer
Sudhir Kakar, psychoanalyst and author
Mira Kamdar, author, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute
Sanjay Kapoor, Vice President, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems
Girish Karnad, Playright, Actor
Sujata Keshavan, Graphic Designer
Soha Ali Khan, actor
Sunil Khilnani, Director of South Asian Studies, Johns Hopkins
Amitava Kumar, writer, Professor of English, Vassar College
Radha Kumar, author and professor Jamia Millia Islamia
Jhumpa Lahiri, author, Pulitzer Prize 2000
Ruby Lal, Assistant Professor of South Asian Civilizations, Emory University
Rama Mani, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Ajay K. Mehra, Director, Centre for Public Affairs
Suketu Mehta, author, Kiriyama Prize 2005
Nivedita Menon, Department of Political Science, Delhi University
Shomit Mitter, author
Dinesh Mohan, professor, Indian Institute of Technology
Sophie Moochala, businesswoman
Shubha Mudgal, vocalist, Padmashree Award 2000
Ashish Nandy, political psychologist and sociologist
Mira Nair, internationally acclaimed film director
Derek O'Brien, author and television quiz master
Onir, film director, My Brother Nikhil
Pankjaj Pachauri, Senior Editor, NDTV
Gopika Pant, Partner, DSK Legal
Gyanendra Pandey, Distinguished Professor of Arts
and Sciences, Emory Unviversity
Kirit Parikh, Member, Planning Commission
Vibhuti Patel, journalist
Sanjay Pradhan, Director, Public Sector Governance, The World Bank
Rahul Ram, Indian Ocean band
Debraj Ray, Julius Silver Professor of Economics, New York University
Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan, Ramon Magsaysay Award 2000
Arundhati Roy, Activist and Author. Booker Prize 1997
Sandip Roy, Editor, New America Media and Trikone Magazine
Sanjoy Roy, managing director, Teamwork Films
Rajeep Sardesai, editor-in-chief CNN-IBN
Madhu Sarin, psychoanalyst
Sumit Sarkar, social historian
Tanika Sarkar, historian and Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
NC Saxena, former Secretary Planning Commission
and Rural Development, and Director, LBS National
Academy of Administration
Dayanita Singh, photographer
Sreenath Sreenivasan, Professor, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism
Vidya Subrahmaniam, Deputy Editor, The Hindu
Nandini Sundar, Professor, Delhi School of Economics
Tarun Tahiliani and Sal Tahiliani, designers
Tarun Tejpal, editor and founder of Tehelka
Dolly Thakore, theatre personality
Tilotamma Tharoor, Humanities Professor, New York University
Laila Tyabji, Chairperson, DASTKAR
Nilita Vachani, documentary-maker, President's Award 1992
Ruth Vanita, author and professor, U of Montana
Siddharth Varadarajan, Deputy Editor, The Hindu
Jafar Zaheer, Air Vice Marshal (retd, Param
Vishist Seva Medal), and Mrs Rafath Zaheer
Shama Zaidi, script writer and film maker
Soli Sorabjee,
Captain Lakshmi Sahgal,
Siddharth Dube,
Subashni Ali,
Satish Gujral,
Sudhir Kakar,
Saleem Kidwai,
Sonal Mansingh,
Kuldip Nayar,
Vir Sanghvi,
Mrinalini V Sarabhai,
Aparna Sen,
Admiral RH Tahiliani (retd),
BG Verghese
(Listing of institutional affiliations does not
imply that these organizations necessarily
endorse this statement)
o o o
The Hindustan Times
September 15, 2006
CAMPAIGN AGAINST SECT. 377
by Vir Sanghvi
In the late Seventies, Tom Robinson, the gay rock
singer, would introduce his bitter-sweet Glad to
be Gay with the words, "This is a medical song.
It is about a disease. Or at least it is about
something that the World Health Organisation
regards as a diseaseŠ"
That was then. In 1981, the WHO realised how
foolish it was to regard homosexuality as a
disease and most Western countries stopped
persecuting gay people. Homosexual acts between
consenting adults were legalised in Britain as
early as the Sixties and by the end of the
Eighties, it was entirely acceptable for leading
politicians to come out and declare that they
were gay. Even film stars no longer found it
necessary to pretend to be heterosexual and open
declarations of homosexuality did no damage to
the careers of such actors as Ian McKellen and
Rupert Everett. Nor did it hurt such romantic
leading men as Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas to
play gay characters in their movies.
How strange then to find that homosexuality
remains a crime in India. Consenting adults
caught engaging in homosexual acts can be sent to
jail. Politicians routinely denounce gay
behaviour as a hideous aberration. And the focus
of our anti-Aids campaign is heterosexual sex
even though there is a considerable body of
evidence to suggest that homosexuals are among
those most at risk. (By the way, even though the
WHO no longer lists homosexuality as a disease,
the Indian Psychiatric Association continues to
do so. Think of that and consider it a measure of
the sophistication of the profession of
psychiatry in India if you ever need to consult a
shrink.)
Much is being made of the origin of the law
against homosexuality. It dates back to 1861 and
incorporates Victorian prejudices against gay
people. Given that even Britain has abandoned
Queen Victoria's prejudices, why should we in
India remain slaves to a colonial mindset? Why
should we preserve this unpleasant legacy of the
Raj a century and a half after the law was
originally passed?
But my objections to the law go beyond its Empire
origins. One of the founding principles of the
Indian State has been that we ensure justice and
fairness to all minorities. Thus, scheduled
castes will find jobs and university places
reserved for them. Seats in panchayats will be
reserved on a gender basis so that women get a
fairer deal. Political parties will make some
attempt to reassure religious minorities that
their personal laws will be preserved by the
Indian State. And now, there is an increasing
emphasis on measures that will benefit senior
citizens: cheap fares, tax breaks, higher
interest rates, etc.
But homosexuals are exempt from all special
consideration. As far as the law is concerned,
they are not a minority. They are criminals.
And why are they criminals? What justification
can there possibly be for a law that criminalises
homosexual acts? No legal scholar I have spoken
to has been able to provide any kind of
justification for this provision.
The basis of all law is that it punishes acts
that harm other people. So, if I rob you or
assault you or cheat you, then I am clearly in
breach of the law and should be punished. But
there is no evidence that homosexual acts between
consenting adults harm anybody. Both parties have
provided consent, and both are adult enough to
decide what behaviour is appropriate to their
lifestyles.
So how can you justify legislating against such
acts? How can you possibly justify turning
otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals
purely on the basis of their personal choices -
choices that hurt nobody?
Because there is no effective rebuttal to this
argument, supporters of Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code, which criminalises homosexuality,
fall back on a variety of bogus justifications.
Most popular is the paedophilia argument: if
homosexuality is legalised, then dirty old men
will rape children. This is nonsense. There are
several laws already in existence to protect
children and to guard against all kinds of rape.
And, in any case, most instances of paedophilia
in India involve heterosexual sex. If this is an
argument for anything, it is an argument for
banning heterosexuality.
Then there is the society-is-not-ready argument.
This states that India is a deeply conservative
society and harmless law-abiding heterosexuals
will be deeply offended by the knowledge that
somewhere, two consenting adults are performing
homosexual acts in private. I don't think this
even needs a rebuttal. The truth is that
homosexuals exist anyway and regardless of what
the IPC says, they do have sex. As far as I can
see, this has done no damage to Indian society.
And the overturning of Section 377 does not
affect the usual laws about public indecency: it
does not mean that homosexuals will make love in
the centre of Connaught Place or Kala Ghoda.
And, finally, there is the what-does-it-matter
argument. The law against homosexuality is not
rigorously enforced. We all know homosexuals who
are clearly not celibate. And yet, nobody puts
them in jail. So, even if there is a Raj-era law
on the statute books, why make such a fuss about
it?
The problem with this argument is that it
actually works against Section 377. If there is
no justification for a law and it is not enforced
anyway, then what reason is there for keeping it
as part of the Indian Penal Code? Surely, it is
much easier to simply abolish it.
But, of course, it does matter. If I were a
homosexual, I would find it deeply offensive and
an affront to my human rights that my romantic
and sexual choices were considered illegal by the
Indian State and that each time I had sex with my
partner, I was breaking the law. Under Section
377, I would turn into a criminal every night. It
would be no consolation for me to know that even
though the police had a perfect right to lock me
up, they had decided not to bother.
And, as Amartya Sen points out in his statement
which we reproduce on the Op-ed page today,
"Whenever any behaviour is identified as a
penalisable crime it gives the police and other
law enforcement officers huge power to harass and
victimise some people. The harm done by an unjust
law like this can, therefore, be far larger than
would be indicated by cases of actual
prosecution."
I am one of the signatories to the open letter
sent by Vikram Seth and many other concerned
citizens (also reproduced on the Op-ed page)
addressed to the government, the judiciary and to
Indians everywhere demanding the overturning of
Section 377.
I know that there will be a tendency to treat us
as bleeding-heart liberals and to argue that
India has many greater priorities. But I do not
believe that a law that turns at least 50 million
otherwise law-abiding Indians into criminals can
be a low priority. As long as Section 377 exists,
as long as we fall back on the colonial law book
to discriminate against our own citizens and as
long as we deny a fundamental human right to a
large section of our people, we lower ourselves
as a nation. And we lose the right to be
considered a liberal society where all men and
women are equal.
o o o
http://www.sacw.net/SexualityMinorities/ASen_377sept2006.html
AMARTYA SEN'S STATEMENT [supporting the open
letter of Vikram Seth and others on the need to
overturn section 377 of the Indian Penal Code]
(The Hindustan Times
15 September 2006)
I have read with much interest and agreement the
open letter of Vikram Seth and others on the need
to overturn section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Even though I do not, as a general rule, sign
joint letters, I would like, in this case, to add
my voice to those of Vikram Seth and his
cosignatories. The criminalisation of gay
behaviour goes not only against fundamental human
rights, as the open letter points out, but it
also works sharply against the enhancement of
human freedoms in terms of which the progress of
human civilisation can be judged.
There is a further consideration to which I would
like to draw attention. Gay behaviour is, of
course, much more widespread than the cases that
are brought to trial. It is some times argued
that this indicates that Section 377 does not do
as much harm as we, the protesters, tend to
think. What has to be borne in mind is that
whenever any behaviour is identified as a
penalisable crime, it gives the police and other
law enforcement officers huge power to harass and
victimise some people. The harm done by an unjust
law like this can, therefore, be far larger than
would be indicated by cases of actual prosecution.
It is surprising that independent India has not
yet been able to rescind the colonial era
monstrosity in the shape of Section 377, dating
from 1861. That, as it happens, was the year in
which the American Civil War began, which would
ultimately abolish the unfreedom of slavery in
America. Today, 145 years later, we surely have
urgent reason to abolish in India, with our
commitment to democracy and human rights, the
unfreedom of arbitrary and unjust criminalisation.
_____
[6]
To,
Shri Naveen Patnaik,
Chief Minister,
Government of Orissa,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa.
SUBJECT: 7th National Conference of Women's
Movements, Kolkata condemns State
repression on the people of Kashipur in Orissa.
Dear Sir,
We, as participants of the 7th National
Conference of Women's Movements, 9 - 12
September, 2006, Kolkata strongly condemn the
continuing State and police repression on the
struggle of the people of Kashipur, who are
resisting the attempts of UAIL and ALCAN to begin
bauxite mining in the area.
Our enclosed statement has been endorsed by 62
women's organizations and activists from the
states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya,
New Delhi, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar
Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West Bengal. It has also
been endorsed by several eminent women like
Mahashweta Devi (Kolkata), Gabriele Dietrich
(Madurai, Tamil Nadu), and Ilina Sen (Raipur,
Madhya Pradesh).
-- We view the current 'industrial development'
agenda for Orissa set by multinational companies
and the State, as adversely affecting the lives
of the adivasis and dalits of the area who will
be displaced in thousands by the mining projects.
-- We supported the struggle of the people of
Kashipur for land, livelihood and dignity in
conference sessions pertaining to Displacement,
Adivasi Rights, and State Violence.
-- We strongly condemn your government overruling
people's just demands and using repressive
measures to facilitate the entry of mining
companies in the name of development.
-- We demand:
o an immediate cancellation of mining projects in Orissa
o immediate stoppage of police repression
o unconditional withdrawal of police
charges on local people and activists of Kashipur
o that development of any kind be carried
out with the explicit informed consent of the
people whose lands and livelihoods are at stake.
Anticipating an urgent intervention from you in
the interests of the people of Kashipur,
Sincerely,
On behalf of the 7th National Conference of Women's Movements, Kolkata
Signed/-
Ranjana Padhi, New Delhi; Shabnam, Mumbai; Nilanjana Biswas, Bangalore
Dated: Kolkata, 12 Sep. 06
Contact: kashipur_sangharsh at yahoo.co.in
Oppose State and Police Repression on Adivasis and Dalits in Orissa!
In the name of development, a war is being waged
in the state of Orissa today. The primary targets
of this war are the adivasi and dalit people, who
have lived for generations in Orissa’s
mineral-rich hills, forests and plains. Today, a
gigantic corporate mining lobby for whom these
mineral reserves guarantee unimaginable profit is
viewing the adivasi and dalit dwellers as an
obstacle to economic progress, to be removed at
any cost, by any means.
In the centre of the war zone is Kashipur in
southern Orissa where for more than a decade a
fierce resistance movement has grown. People have
put everything, including their lives at stake in
the struggle against these mining companies. In
Kashipur, the Baphlimali hills alone contain more
than 2000 lakh tons of bauxite ore, the source of
aluminium for the booming automobile, aviation,
defense and missile industries. With an
investment of Rs 4500 crores, the Utkal Alumina
International Limited (UAIL) consortium plans to
set up a refinery at Kucheipadar to mine about
200 million tones of bauxite every year from
Baphlimali. The Orissa government, led by Chief
Minister Naveen Patnaik, who has publicly
declared war on any opposition to his plans, is
also signing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
documents with other corporate giants like POSCO
(South Korea), Vedanta (UK), Rio Tinto (UK), BHP
Billiton (UK – Australia), ALCAN (Canada),
HINDALCO and Larsen & Toubro.
As multinational giants close in on Kashipur,
their entry is facilitated through the country’s
new economic liberalization policies. Mandatory
environmental impact studies and social audits of
hazardous open-cast mining projects are waived;
fast track project approval mechanisms created;
large tracts of mineral-rich land are identified
and sold without the knowledge and consent of
adivasi and dalit inhabitants; eviction notices
are served; and finally, to crush local
resistance, armed security forces and gangs of
hired mafia are deployed throughout the region.
Repeated fact finding studies and recently, a
people's tribunal have testified that the people
of Kashipur are facing brutal state repression.
Three adivasis were killed in police firing on
unarmed villagers on December 16, 2001. In the
recent intensification of repression, the terror
tactics being used to wipe out resistance include
large-scale arbitrary arrests, 'disappearances',
rape, and constant patrolling of villages by
security forces and hired mafia gangs. It may be
recalled that two decades ago, the Tatas were
forced by the organized resistance of the local
people to withdraw from the plans to commercially
exploit Orissa's Chilika Lake. Today, capital is
much more determined to wipe out opposition. On
12th January 2006, 12 adivasis were gunned down
by the police for demanding compensation for the
loss of their lands to the Tata-owned
Kalinganagar industrial complex. So powerful are
the corporate mining lobbies and so widespread
the regime of kickbacks and corruption associated
with each MoU that not just the Orissa government
but also political parties and local media are
dancing to the corporate tune. Ignoring the
plight of the people, local newspapers have
become the mouthpiece for company CEOs.
From the experience of the 14 lakh people who
have been displaced since 1947 in Orissa to make
way for dams, hydro electric plants, industries,
mining projects, firing ranges, and wildlife
sanctuaries, the people of Kashipur have learnt
that when the government wishes to steal from the
poor and give to the rich, it begins to talk
about development. The women of Kashipur, whose
labor, care, creativity and struggles sustain
their communities, know from the experiences of
adivasi women in the neighboring Damanjodi
resettlement camp, that displacement from land is
the beginning of the end. It shackles mobility,
crushes freedom and self-reliance, exposes women
to rape and sexual assault, and offers beggary or
prostitution as the means of survival. The
plunder of the natural resource base through
commercial activities, combined with the lack of
essential services like food, water, health, and
education has reduced adivasi and dalit
populations from a state of relative
self-sufficiency to one of utter market
dependency.
When Naveen Patnaik declares: "No one - I repeat
no one – will be allowed to stand in the way of
Orissa’s industrial development and the people's
progress", whose progress is he really talking
about? Is the state of Orissa no longer a part of
a functioning democracy for, of, and by the
people or is it merely the Chief Minister’s
private property to sell at will to the highest
bidder? Are the people of Orissa willingly
sacrificing their lives, land and dignity to
promote aluminium extraction for the global
military industrial complex? Why have they not
been asked?
As participants of the 7th National Conference
of Women's Movements in Kolkata, September 9-12,
2006, we affirm the aspirations of the people of
Kashipur to lead a life of dignity with better
education facilities, health care, and
sustainable irrigation facilities. We also affirm
the inalienable right of the people of Orissa to
their land, lives and livelihood.
Hence, we:
- Oppose the war on adivasis and dalits in the name of development.
- Oppose the model of development that
crushes the rights of millions, irreversibly
poisons the environment and barters our
collective freedom for multinational profit.
- Demand an immediate cancellation of mining projects in Orissa
- Demand an immediate stoppage of
repression by the police machinery and the hired
mafia of mining companies.
- Demand that all police charges on the
local people and activists be dropped immediately.
- Call for a process of genuine
participation of the adivasi and dalit population
to determine the course of their development.
_____
[7] Upcoming Events
(i)
Conference on People's Foreign Policy
5th and 6th October, 2006
Mumbai, India
Dear Friends,
Warm Greetings from Mumbai!
The All India preparatory meeting of Citizens
Against War and Occupation held on 24th August
2006 in Mumbai unanimously reaffirmed the
proposal to have a conference on India's Foreign
Policy. It was felt that not only was there an
urgent need to discuss and debate the
contemporary shifts in India's Foreign Policy but
it was important to deepen our understanding
about what the Indian Foreign Policy should
constitute and from which should emerge our
vision for a "People's Foreign Policy". In
response to the same, it gives us great pleasure
to announce an international conference on
"People's Foreign Policy" in Mumbai on 5th and
6th October 2006.
It has been reiterated in various discussions
that there is an urgent need for all progressive
forces to come together to examine and critique
the perceptible shift in India's Foreign Policy
marked by the Indian Prime Minister's visit to
the USA (on 18th July 2005) and Britain. Both the
Indo - US nuclear deal and India's stand
vis-à-vis Iran as well as its increasing
cooperation with the apartheid state of Israel
epitomise a betrayal of India's claims of having
a sovereign and independent foreign policy along
with our long standing support to the Palestinian
cause and their quest for an independent nation.
India's increasing military ties with the USA,
joint military exercises, and its emergence as
the biggest arms purchaser from Israel will have
serious ramifications not only on India's
independent and sovereign status but also for all
of Asia in terms of its security, trade and
development. Last but not the least, this is a
set back to the process of disarmament which had
been initiated in the region too.
The group is of the unanimous opinion that there
is a strong need to take stock of evolution of
India's Foreign Policy so far and also to
demystify and decode the concept of "Foreign
Policy" so as to bring it into the domain of
"people's politics". It is evident that the
foreign policy of our country impacts the lives
of ordinary people and hence, the need for a
wider dissemination and debate on the issues
concerned. This conference should not be an end
in itself but a mere starting point. The idea is
to have a series of meetings in many cities and
regions within India preceding and succeeding
this conference.
All those persons, political parties,
socio-political movements, civil society
organizations and groups that are in opposition
to India's strategic alliance with Israel and the
United States and therefore support their
unconditional and immediate withdrawal from
Central and West Asia will be welcome to attend
and be a part of this conference. Hence, even
political parties (worldwide) who prescribe to
this criterion will be participating in this
conference.
The main themes of the conference will comprise
opposition to US hegemony (including discussions
on WMDs and the Global War on Terror), crises in
West and Central Asia, South Asian issues like
nuclearisation, militarization and ongoing
conflicts, economic dimensions of the Foreign
Policy, evolution of India's Foreign Policy, etc.
Apart from plenary sessions, the conference will
have workshops focusing on issues like peace
processes in South Asia, India's Foreign Policy
vis-à-vis Israel, Indo - US nuclear treaty, among
others. Citizens Against War and Occupation will
organise a public meeting focusing on Occupation
of and Solidarity with West and Central Asia on
the previous evening (4th October, 2006) with
comrades from West and Central Asia, and
Venezuela, and representatives of political
parties in the Indian Parliament speaking at the
platform.
We expect around 300 participants from India and
its neighbours. Our comrades from Palestine,
Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan as well
as Israel, and other parts of Asia, Europe /USA
and Venezuela and Cuba will also join us.
We wish to invite you to this conference, which
will be the first of its kind (as peace and anti
war organisations have never before organised a
conference on an Alternative Foreign Policy).
This will also be the first attempt on the part
of the people's movement to forge a meaningful
alliance with the political parties to rightfully
stake their claim in formulating a
people-oriented foreign policy for our country.
We hope to have you amongst us on all 3 days and
actively participate in the debates that ensue,
thus providing the necessary intellectual and
political impetus to the anti-war movement world
over.
While we cannot provide travel support to
participants, we are trying our best to organise
modest accommodation for outstation participants.
The details of venue, registration procedures and
programme will be conveyed shortly. A line of
your confirmed participation at the earliest
would be greatly appreciated.
Warm regards,
Citizens Against War and Occupation
C/o. Focus on the Global South, India
A - 201, Kailash Apartments, Juhu Church Road, Juhu,
Mumbai - 400 049. India
Tel : +91-22-6592 1141 / 51
Telefax : +91-22-2625 4347
Email : <mailto:peacemumbai at gmail.com>peacemumbai at gmail.com
o o o
(ii)
International Festival on "Peace and Justice"
1st - 3rd December 2006
Dear Friends,
The quest for peace is an eternal pursuit for
human fulfilment. Human beings can become human
and humane only in conditions of peace.
Creativity, spirituality, individual and
collective achievements attain grandeur and glory
only when there is amity. Qualities of
compassion, forgiveness, love, sharing and
universal solidarity become cherished and sought
after virtuous attributes only when a community,
society or nation is at peace - within and
without. War on the other hand, internal or
external, civil or military, declared or
undeclared valorises bravery - the capacity to
kill or be killed - the destruction of human life
and accomplishments; it mocks compassion and
conscience. Economic, social and cultural rights
are necessary pre-conditions for the realisation
of an effective, egalitarian and
non-discriminatory civil and political order.
Peace Festival on the theme "Peace and Justice"
aims to address the importance of justice and
peace issues and raise public awareness using
innovative and alternative means of
communication- video films, street theatre,
poster exhibitions, literature, etc. The thrust
of the Festival will be based on perspectives and
worldviews of rural and urban communities -
Dalits, Adivasis, Women and minorities. At the
close of the Festival there will an attempt to
formulate a perspective and establish linkages
with various groups working towards strengthening
peace and justice.
Mumbai based organisations* under the banner of
"Forum for Peace and Justice" in collaboration
with Peace for Life - a Philippines based global
solidarity network have taken the initiative to
organise a International Festival on the theme
'Peace and Justice'. The significance of this
theme is very relevant especially in the context
of war, conflict and crime against humanity. In
this context there is an urgent need to uphold
the desirability and principle of peace that can
only be realised through the actualisation of
justice with democracy, equality and
strengthening the principles of secularism.
We invite you on behalf of "Forum for Peace and
Justice" to participate in the Peace Festival and
you are welcome to present any cultural items
giving expression to Peace and Justice. Please
confirm your participation at the earliest to the
addresses given below:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK)
D-1, Shivdham,
62 Link Road,
Malad (West)
Mumbai 400 064
Email: <mailto:vak at bom3.vsnl.net.in>vak at bom3.vsnl.net.in
Tel: 2882 2850
* Center for Study of Society and Secularism
(CSSS), Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK), Federation
of Center for Community Organizations (FCCO)
Mumbai, Movement for Peace and Justice (MPJ),
Focus of the Global South, Pakistan India Forum
for Peace and Democracy, Peoples India
Initiative, CNDP, Muslim Intellectual Forum, EKTA.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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