SACW | Oct. 19-20, 2006 | Pakistan: Fire the General; India: Get the Hindutva Thugs; Fund food not bombs; Strip army of special powers; slums dwellers / Danny Pearl documentary
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Thu Oct 19 20:16:12 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | October 19-20, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2306
[1] Pakistan: Another line of fire (I. A. Rehman)
[2] Pakistan: The General's book (Arif Azad)
[3] Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum Struggle against
illegitimate allotment of Twin Island of Karachi
[4] India: Hang First The Prime Traitors and Terrorists (I K Shukla)
[5] India: Public money to fund religion and war
- while health and education badly need funds
- Children under six -- out of the spotlight (Jean Drèze)
- Aedes of October (Pamela Philipose)
[6] India: Scrutinising these 'special powers' (Rakesh Shukla)
[7] India: 'Yamuna Gently Weeps', Ruzbeh N
Bharucha chronicles Delhi's Yamuna Pushta slum
demolitions
[8] Announcements:
(i) Documentary film coming soon: 'The
Journalist and The Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel
Pearl'
(ii) The `Doon School' - a documentary film
screening (London, 20 October 2006)
____
[1]
Dawn
October 19, 2006
ANOTHER LINE OF FIRE
by I. A. Rehman
THREE diverse groups of prominent citizens have
in recent weeks issued open letters on the
distressing state of the nation and indicated the
direction in which the road to salvation lies.
Unfortunately, these non-lethal missiles
generated more scepticism about the credentials
and motives of their authors than a debate on
their contents.
However, taken together, these statements reveal
a significant progression of ideas and provide a
useful study in the evolution of public opinion.
But first a few words about the tendency to
concentrate on who is claiming public attention
instead of listening to the call. The effort to
look for untainted knights among the characters
that have somehow commanded the public space in
Pakistan is not only futile, it is also
irrelevant. It is not right to deny the
possibility that a person who was wrong in the
past can be right today. Besides, it is strange
that the critics of the regime should be
subjected to a credibility test while no such
test is applied to official spokesmen whose sole
task apparently is demonisation of the opposition
figures.
One of the common comments, especially on the
first letter in the sequence, was that most of
its signatories had at one time or another been
on the authoritarian bandwagon. The retired army
generals constituted a primary target of such
criticism. The fact that a voice of dissent,
however feeble, had been raised from quarters
close to the regime should have carried more
weight than the past record of the gentlemen
concerned. (No group has considered women capable
of making a meaningful contribution to the
current political debate; in the first group only
one was a woman, among the 23 who signed the
subsequent two letters none was a woman).
References to absence of representatives of the
large oppressed majority (women, peasants, youth
and workers) among the authors of the letters
could have been more appropriate than breaking
the locks on the cupboards of some of the
signatories.
There was no serious disagreement with the group
of 18 over the grounds of their petition. In some
of the comments in the media exception was taken
to the writers' greater concern for the future of
the army than for the health of the nation. Much
stronger was the criticism of the remedy
prescribed in this letter - that President
Musharraf should give up his army uniform and set
up a neutral caretaker regime (under himself) to
ensure a fair general election. The contradiction
within the latter part of the formulation was
manifest.
The second letter - by six politicians still on
the active list and an odd couple made by two
former Chief Justices - obviously drew upon both
the contents of the first letter and the
criticism attracted by it. The signatories to
this letter deemed it necessary to tell General
Musharraf that "none of us sought office under
your dispensation." They also chose to confess
that "many of us may have given you the benefit
of the doubt as seemingly 'reluctant
coup-maker'." (The layer upon layer of
reservation here is quite remarkable.) After thus
meeting the common objections to the group of 18,
the eight signatories to the second letter tried
to give, in comparison to the former, a fuller
description of the regime's failures and a more
radical cure.
President Musharraf was reminded of the "lengthy
litany of promises which remain unfulfilled." The
conclusion reached by the authors after
recounting the regime's failures and a long list
of public grievances, was that "in our considered
opinion these policies now pose a serious threat
to the integrity, solidarity and wellbeing of
Pakistan."
Further, the writers of the second letter moved
several steps ahead of the preceding 18 good
Samaritans by declining to be content with asking
President Musharraf to shed his armour. They
further urged him not to embarrass himself much
longer by clinging to power and earnestly asked
him to hand over power to the Supreme Court,
'largely constituted by yourself' to hold
elections through a 'consensual and neutral
caretaker government.' The view that President
Musharraf might, after relinquishing the army
post, preside over a neutral caretaker regime was
implicitly repelled. And, of course, caretakers
must not only be neutral, they have to be
'consensual' too.
Where does one go after the second missive? To
the people. Isn't that elementary, Dr Watson? So
the last letter (so far) in the series is not a
petition to General Musharraf. Instead, it gives
the people, who have been recognised as the "real
sovereign of the territories of Pakistan" even in
the second letter, a call to the barricades.
The 15 men (again no woman worthy of joining the
august group) who signed the third letter,
include more representatives of independent civil
society segments than found in the preceding
groups. Some of them can claim credit for
rejecting the regime change seven years ago. They
do not think a thick brief is needed to attack a
ruler "who lacks both legitimacy and
credibility." They directly come to the point:
"that freedom from army rule is not negotiable;
that their interest and the interest of Pakistan
do not coincide; that we are tired of military
rule, tired of tyranny, tired of being
humiliated, tired of being deprived of our right
to elect our rulers. We say to them: enough is
enough! We can't take it anymore."
The rhetoric echoes a common citizen's mood,
though the authors of this letter may be
considered a few years late in realising that the
time to wake up has come.
One could be asked whether epistles drafted by
some eminent citizens will have any effect on a
regime that is wallowing in a sea of self-praise
and which has imperviously shrugged off attacks
from a sizable group of opposition politicians
and an even larger array of civil society
organisations, human rights campaigners, women
activists, trade unions, and peasant groups.
True, the regime is unlikely to pay any heed to
the call of generals without any soldiers behind
them. Nevertheless, even after making allowances
for the cynicism of middle class commentators,
which operates to the advantage of the regime,
the open letters we have seen (and such writings
that may be in the pipeline) do matter for more
reasons than one.
First, as we move from the guarded pragmatism of
the non-committed academician in the first
letter, to the quasi-judicial phraseology of the
second letter, and then to the executive rhetoric
of defiance in the third letter, we cover a wide
spectrum of public opinion. These letters not
only contain responses by informed citizens to
the national crisis but also a progression in
prescriptions from sedatives/painkillers to the
minimum essential surgery. This is how ideas
develop before they become irresistible.
Secondly, the admittedly small effort by the
writers of the three letters should be taken as
complementary to, and not in contradiction with,
the consistent struggle by the real agents of
change - the much maligned political workers.
They have been saying in fewer words and far more
pithily all that is contained in the letters.
Unlike the letter-writers they neither send up
petitions nor do they call others to act; they
have been risking their life and weal for quite
some time - for years, indeed. These men and
women of action will bring ideas of change to
fruition and whatever voices can be raised in
their support are welcome.
Nobody can say in advance what will be the last
straw on the back of a very docile camel. After
all the anti-Ayub movement was sparked by a
routine search of some students' bags (for
smuggled goods).
Thirdly, the regime appears to have lost the
battle of words. The last of the three letters
came on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the
1999 putsch. In their references to the event the
official propagandists avoided mentioning the
seven-point agenda the regime had started with.
Indeed, all the three letters hit the regime in
varying degrees for non-realisation of these
seven objectives.
The government's retreat in the public debate on
its failures was fully borne out by a recent
cataloguing of General Musharraf's 12
achievements by a loyal minister. These in the
given order were: projection of the Palestine
issue; the checking of Al Qaeda; the model accord
with militants in Waziristan; Pakistan providing
intellectual leadership for eradication of
terrorism; Pakistan has emerged as a peace symbol
in the region; new concepts evolved for resolving
India-Pakistan issues through creative
initiatives and out-of-box solutions; all
pretexts for denying nuclear cooperation with
Pakistan demolished; Pakistan has emerged as a
non-controversial Muslim country - a bridge
between the Muslim world and the West; Pakistan
playing a role in regional stability through its
geopolitical location; Pakistan may need aid but
it prefers investment; Pakistan moving ahead with
changes in its democratic, social and economic
fibre and has introduced the culture of
tolerance; the US has realised that the story of
abandoning Pakistan after the Afghan war shall
not be repeated.
Apart from the fact that each one of these claims
can be challenged, and some of the formulations
are devoid of meaning and sense, what happened to
the problems of federalism, secrecy of rule,
corruption and the day-to-day needs of the people
the regime had set out to resolve?
_____
[2]
The News
18 October 2006
THE GENERAL'S BOOK
by Arif Azad
General Musharraf's much-trumpeted memoir grandly
titled 'In the Line of Fire' reminded me of TV
footage shown by the BBC when he staged a
tit-for-tat coup in 1999. In the short clip
featuring the coup, the general is caught up in
the motion of firing a pistols in the air,
surrounded by a band of his admiring uniformed
colleagues, and saying with characteristic
bravado that he would have been an actor had he
not been a soldier (I am recollecting from my
memory here). This clip in a way denoted his
hallmark characteristics of self-promotion at the
expense of others and total disregard for normal
rules and conventions guiding the conduct of
institutions and nations.
The second occasion, which strengthened this
earlier image of him, was when he managed to get
through to his only address, so far, to the joint
session of the engineered parliament by staging a
triumphal and defiant show of literal muscle
flexing in front of legislators for having faced
them down for an indefinite future and stamped
his authority over unruly noise and chaos of
democracy evident in the parliament. Later on
General Musharraf's cloyingly boastful website
ploughed in the same furrow of unverifiable tales
of his bravery and courage in the field,
unveiling deep-rooted streak of self-promotion in
his personality.
What is noteworthy, however, is to keep in mind
the back-story to the way the book might have
come to be written. It is no longer a privileged
insight to suggest that the so-called war on
terror, having undergone quite a few linguistic
plastic surgeries lately, has spawned a
profitable industry in contracts, books, videos
and films. Publishers and media people are
hounding anyone who would be willing to offer
some juicy bits in order to make quick bucks.
However, most of those in the inner or peripheral
loop of the war on terror have wisely resisted
this temptation to temporary stardom either from
terms of contract of employment or official
secret act or from a complex mixture of both
factors. Few exceptions could include Christopher
Meyer, who was British ambassador to the US in
the run up to invasion of Iraq. His book titled
'DC Confidential', though finely balanced and
nuanced in its judgments and conclusions exposed
some of behind-the-scene goings on in the build
up to the war from a diplomatic vantage point.
But General Musharraf, having ruled without
checks and balances built in a democratic society
for seven years, feels himself free of such
compulsions and discreet policy inhibitions. No
wonder, when offered the book contract, he leapt
at the opportunity of self-publicity and
artificially enhancing his exploits in the line
of fire lit by his decision to ally himself with
the US-led war on terror, regardless of long-term
ill consequences flowing from his decision. In
the process his policy indiscretions, spun as
plain talking, have backfired, raising serious
long-term questions about the integrity of the
country and institutions fingered in the book.
As reported by Amir Mir in a newspaper recently,
the title of the book in itself could be a
conscious nod to a Hollywood film of the same
title where a secret agent acts as an
indispensable human shield between the US
president and his assassin. If so, then the title
and content of the book could be construed as
General Musharraf's pitch to the US in particular
and the West in general to continue backing him
in the foreseeable future as the most allied ally
in the fight against Al Qaeda. This underlying
intent assumes importance when set beside the
backbeat of growing doubts within Western
capitals about the sincerity of General Musharraf
in prosecuting the war on terror.
To pick up the story, thus once committed to a
slick publishing company, General Musharraf
placed himself at the mercy of PR team of the
publishing concern that might have a role in
parading Musharraf on all possible media outlets
to whet the curiosity in sexy bits of the book.
By contradicting himself on a number of issues in
the book, Musharraf has laid himself open to the
firing line of his critics. Quite
unexpectedly-while praising the country's premier
sleuth agency, the ISI-he has exposed the agency
to ever tighter scrutiny at international and
national levels. While praising the ISI as the
winner of cold war one day (an oversimplification
of a very complex war which was already winding
down in other parts of the world without the
guiding and organising genius of the ISI), he
backtracked the next day and duly implicated
retired ISI officers in aiding Taliban.
Furthermore, the ISI comes out as a purely
mercenary agency in his account that is shown to
be interested only in chasing up bounty money by
handing over Al Qaeda suspects to the CIA
circumventing legal channels. Significantly, how
many innocents are still being handed over to the
CIA for monetary reasons outside the due process
of law (Moazzam Beg, one of those handed over to
the CIA, has excoriated this policy in his review
of Musharraf's memoirs for a London-based online
magazine Open Democracy)?
The book is full of contradictions which do not
reflect favourably on the reputation of the
country' institutions. For example Khalid Sheikh
is named as the killer of Daniel Pearl in the
book? If this is true, then Omar Saeed Sheikh
emerges, logically, as innocent and wrongly
convicted for murder. Does this not reflect
adversely on our judiciary that might have
capitulated to General Musharraf's demand to
convict some one summarily to appease the Western
wrath?
Kargil's is continued to be rewritten as a great
military achievement contrary to overwhelming
weight of counter evidence and facts accumulating
in a weekly. Is there not a crying need now for
an independent inquiry into the Kargil
catastrophe as this paper has argued in a recent
editorial? In the same vein, displaying his great
historical insights, Bhutto senior is held solely
responsible for the break up of Pakistan contrary
to the evidence preserved in the Hamoodur Rehman
Commission report, which is adamning indictment
of the Pakistani military's full-star ineptitude.
Strangely, while reading excerpt-saturation
coverage of the book, I was reminded of the great
Paraguayan writer Augusto Roa Bastos's classic
novel titled 'I the supreme' about the
psychological makeup of a South American military
dictator. A thought occurred to me instantly:
perhaps a more suitable title for 'In the line of
fire' would be 'I the supreme' as it closely
parallels the self-created cult of
self-glorification brilliantly captured in the
novel.
_____
[3]
19 October 2006
PAKISTAN FISHERFOLK FORUM SCHEDULE OF STRUGGLE
AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ALLOTMENT OF TWIN ISLAND OF
KARACHI
Brief over the Issue
Recently federal government has made a contract
with UAE based construction firm regarding
construction of a new city of international
standard on the threshold of port Qasim. It is
planned that the new city of international
standards will be built on the twin islands of
Bundar and Buddo, located close to the port Qasim
and the design of the proposed city will be
prepared on the pattern of that of Dubai namely
Diamond Bar Island City. The estimated cost of
the mega project has been put at $.43 billion.
The construction of the new city would result in
poverty and hunger among 8 million Fisherfolk
historically inhabitants of coast and
traditionally earning their livelihood at Karachi
coast.
Besides the destruction of basic and traditional
source of livelihood of the poor fishing
communities, it would render the entire marine
ecological system terribly unsustainable.
Hundreds of fishing grounds would be annihilated.
The unemployment ratio among poor Fisherfolk will
dramatically increase. Mangroves forests, which
are already being rapidly destroyed, will suffer
more due construction of new city. With the
passage of time new and more investors will surge
into the areas and will invest and earn at the
cost of lives of poor people. Ironically the
federal government has done contract on its own
without informing the Sindh government.
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum strongly condemns this
decision of construction the new city of the
Karachi coast line. Opposing this devilish plan,
and is of the view that it would put colossal
negative impact on the lives and livelihood of
local fishing communities, that is, this project
is totally anti-human and illegitimate in its
essence. PFF has invariably rejected any
development process which is done at the expense
of live and livelihood of poor people. PFF
appeals national, international, media, social,
human rights and development experts to
immediately intervene into the matter of sheer
violation of human rights and dignity and save
the lives and livelihood of the poor people of
these islands.
In this connection PFF initiating the struggle against this injustice
The activities of the Struggle
- Corner meetings in different areas of coastal Karachi (Continuing)
- Circulation and displacement of Endorsement
Letters to the higher authorities (Continuing)
- A research study over the issue (Started)
- Preparation of documentary Film (Started)
- Protests rallies and hunger strikes at all
district headquarters thought Sindh (from 2nd
November)
- The International Fisherfolk Day a massive
protest demonstration at Bhundar Island (On 21
November)
- Press conference in Islamabad (5th November)
- Seminar with SDPI in Islamabad (6th November)
- Protest demonstration with Peoples Rights
Movement in front of Parliament house Islamabad
(7th November)
- Printing and wide distribution of Pamphlets,
Posters and Staggers (from 2nd November)
- Hunger Strike till death (1st December)
This struggle will continue unless the government changes its decision.
All the members of Civil Society are invited to join the campaign.
><(((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·..><(((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·...><(((º>
Muhammad Khan Jamali
Coordinator
Community Development
Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum
Sachal Hall Ibrahim Hydery, Bin Qasim Town
Karachi.
o o o
The News
Oct 10, 2006
NO TO ISLAND CITIES
What does one say when a country as
underdeveloped and backward as Pakistan wishes to
develop supposedly state-of-the-art cities in two
uninhabited islands off its coastline and even
hands them over to a foreign development firm?
Should one be delighted at this, given that this
means that foreign investment will come into the
country, that jobs will be created when the
project gets underway and that once completed it
will provide the country with cities just like
that pearl across the Gulf, Dubai? The recent
announcement that the two islands have been
handed over to a reputed UAE-based developer by
the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) has already become
controversial -- but that was only to be expected
given the scope and nature of the project and the
secretive manner in which the deal has been
completed. Not all the opposition has come from
NGOs, environmental groups, concerned citizens
and fisherfolk groups and communities. In the
days following the announcement, the Sindh chief
minister himself told reporters that he was not
too sure whether a federal government body could
give the islands -- situated off Karachi's coast
-- to a foreign firm for development. However, a
couple of days later he was quoted in the press
as saying that there should be no problem with
the project. But then other officials of the
Sindh government raised issue over the project
saying that the islands in question did not
belong to the PQA and that their ownership needed
to be ascertained since in all likelihood it
could well lie with the provincial government.
In any case, these are procedural objections.
Various NGOs, environmental groups and especially
the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum have more basic and
well-grounded objections to the project and these
should have been considered before deciding to
hand over the islands to a foreign developer. For
instance, it has been rightly pointed out that
the development on the islands may well have a
very adverse impact on the local fishermen
communities because of the construction activity
that will take place. Also, once the project is
in place it is bound to pollute the area around
the islands and it is likely that the pollution
will spread far beyond the islands affecting the
marine life in the area and the potential catch
for local fishermen. Another argument that goes
against such development is that it does nothing
for the ordinary person who lives along the
city's coastline and is geared for providing
entertainment and leisure activities to the very
affluent. Besides, of all places why choose two
uninhabited islands off the city's coast for
setting up such cities? Could a better site not
have been chosen, one that would have lesser
environmental impact and not threaten the
livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and their
families?
One has to say that the whole rather hurried
manner in which this project has been undertaken
and awarded to a foreign developer smacks of a
complete lack of transparency as well as
insensitivity to the needs of all stakeholders
concerned. Most regrettably, this is the way most
infrastructure and development projects are being
planned in this country: by bureaucrats or
ministry officials sitting behind closed doors
handing over vast tracts of land to foreign or
local developers without conducting the
legally-mandated environmental impact assessments
and without taking into consideration the views
of ordinary people who would be directly affected
by the project's construction. This lack of
transparency in decision-making and formulation
of policies, and the generally opaque manner of
implementing these policies, especially with
regard to development, needs to change or else
the balance of power within the country --
heavily stacked currently in favour of the elites
-- will become even more imbalanced and tilted in
favour of the powerful.
_____
[4]
HANG FIRST THE PRIME TRAITORS AND TERRORISTS
by I K Shukla
Any nation worth its salt, on assuming the reins
of power after a bitter and protracted struggle
against a foreign enemy, is duty bound to try the
collaborators and traitors as enemies of the
people, and mete out justice by hanging them. In
the case of India, this righteous duty remained
unexercised, this major responsibility remained
undischarged.
This glaring dereliction of duty was a tragic
lapse on the part of the Congress. The criminals
left unpunished and unhanged felt emboldened to
keep conspiring against the nation, their
habitual treason and terrorism culminating in the
assassination of Gandhi, the father of the new
nation, and continuing thence the bloodbaths of
the minorities.
Unfortunately, that was not the only tragedy that
wrenched the new nation, and that was not the
only instance of Congress abdicating its
responsibilty of fighting and uprooting the
enemies of the people.
Saffronazis had made several earlier attempts too
on the Mahatma's life - in 1934 (Poona), in 1944
(Panchgani), in 1944 (Wardha), in 1946 (Poona),
and on 20 January 1948 (Delhi). 30th January 1948
was the last in a long series of murderous
attempts on Gandhi's life by the Hindutva
assassins.
Not to have them hanged proved fatal not just for
the Father of the Nation, but perilous for the
nation at large and for its future as a sovereign
state enity. The traitors of yesteryear remained
unrepentant and turned into inveterate and
seasoned terrorists, masquerading as patriots.
Congress remained remiss and negligent in dealing
with the Hindutva fascists, and allowed the
communal reactionaries and reprobates a field
day. That is how the polity became polluted and
the nation set ablaze repeatedly by Hindu
gangsters spawned by RSS, functioning under
various names.
Thus the cult of crime came into vogue in India
as cultural nationalism, a verbal variant of
national socialism of the German Nazis and
fascism of the Italian capo.
The wave of killings and assassinations launched
by the Hindutva hordes rocked the nation no end
setting aflame city after city in various parts
of India and drowning minorities in blood, the
police actively participating in the pogroms and
protecting the Hindutva murderers, rapists and
arsonists as their "duty". The communally
contaminated bureaucracy played the willing
accomplice of the criminals, judiciary
functioning rarely to deliver.
The state was subverted, and law suborned, to the
extent that for the minorities there was left no
exit, no reprieve, let alone justice. They were
victims several-fold of murder, robbery, rape,
frame-up, hunt and harssment, violence and
villainy. Their rights as citizens, as humans,
were abrogated by hoods the state becoming
compliant and complicit.
Their widespread rampage of outlawry going
unpunished swelled the heap of their crimes.
Whether it was Gujarat 2002 ethnocide, planned
long in advance and executed "quite efficiently"
by the state, taking a toll of over 2000 innocent
lives, or the successive holocausts against
Muslims and Christians in Dangs, Surat, Ayodhya,
Muzaffarnagar, Hashimpura, Meerut, Mumbai,
Nanded, Malegaon, Madhya Pradesh and scores of
other places in other states, they saw to it that
their trick of raucous diversion kept them out of
the loop of law.
It is the nagging fear of and bid to escape
punishment and gallows for their countless crimes
of treason and recurrent terrorism that these
saffronazis are the most vocal in demanding death
for Afzal whose crime cannot be proved as a
terrorist.
Thus they are seeking to wipe off their stigma of
treason that they have perpetrated against the
nation and that they persist in still when they
scream that 1942 was a failure, i.e., it should
not have taken place to discomfit their
paymasters, the Brits.
With no other electoral ploy or catchy plank to
mobilize their vote bank handy, their desperate
resort to phony patriotism and their stridency in
respect of Afzal Guru can be understood as a
pitiable gambit, a pathetic attempt at
playacting, characteristic of a drowning and
degenerate party.
It is they who must be hanged first for their
umpteen crimes against the nation. Let them not
deceive anyone this time around. Had they been
hanged there would have been no holocausts and
carnages against minorities, nor would India have
been bereft of the Mahatma.
They threatening a nationwide campaign for
Afzal's illicit execution, and Congress
intimidated by them, spell , for their benefit,
and to the world, that India is a soft state
where fascist criminals and assassins, rapists
and arsonists can flourish and function with
impunty.
06.10.18
_____
[5]
[It is truly outrageous that India's 'secular'
state has money to throw around utterly useless
religious projects such as the latest Rs.
100-crore grant for Kumbh Mela
(www.hindu.com/2006/10/20/stories/2006102005261200.htm)
or the decades old practice of providing
subsidies for Haj travelers to Mecca etc. The
state also continues to spend endless amounts on
Defence and 'National' Security; the non
performing Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO), corners 30 per cent of
India's R&D budget . . . All this precious public
money should be diverted for funding programmes
that provide basic human security. -- SACW ]
o o o
The Hindu
October 20, 2006
CHILDREN UNDER SIX -- OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT
by Jean Drèze
Universalisation of the Integrated Child
Development Services should be a priority to
safeguard the child's right to nutrition, health,
and pre-school education.
THE DRAFT Approach Paper to the 11th Plan,
prepared by the Planning Commission, has been
discussed and criticised from various
perspectives. However, little attention has been
paid to its worst blind spot: the situation of
children, particularly those below the age of six
years.
The facts are well known. About half of all
Indian children are undernourished, more than
half suffer from anaemia, and a similar
proportion escapes full immunisation. This
humanitarian catastrophe is not just a loss for
the children concerned and their families, and a
violation of their fundamental rights, but also a
tragedy for the nation as a whole. A decent
society cannot be built on the ruins of hunger,
malnutrition, and ill health.
Yet one is at a loss to find any serious
discussion of these issues in the Approach Paper.
Patient search uncovers a little "box," tucked
away in the section on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan,
where children under six are finally mentioned.
The box (two paragraphs) begins with the grand
statement that "development of children is at the
centre of the 11th Plan" but does not give any
inkling of what this actually implies. Instead,
it essentially confines itself to the startling
suggestion that anganwadis (child care centres)
should "concentrate on inculcating good health
and hygienic practices among the children."
The anganwadi scheme, officially known as the
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), is
the only major national scheme that addresses the
needs of children under six. As things stand,
only half of these children are registered under
the ICDS. The Common Minimum Programme (CMP)
clearly states that the United Progressive
Alliance Government will "universalise ICDS to
provide a functional Anganwadi in every
settlement and ensure full coverage for all
children." This step is also required for
compliance with recent Supreme Court orders (PUCL
vs Union of India and Others, Civil Writ Petition
196 of 2001). It would be natural, therefore, to
expect the universalisation of the ICDS to be one
of the top priorities of the 11th Plan. None of
this, however, finds mention in the Approach
Paper.
The main argument for universalising the ICDS is
that it is an essential means of safeguarding the
rights of children under six - including their
right to nutrition, health, and pre-school
education. These rights are expressed in Article
39(f) of the Indian Constitution, which directs
the state to ensure that "children are given
opportunities and facilities to develop in a
healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity." If we take children's rights seriously,
an institutional medium is required to provide
these "opportunities and facilities." That is the
main role of the ICDS centre or anganwadi.
Apathy towards the ICDS in official circles
appears to be linked to a perception that this
programme is ineffective, if not useless. It is
easy to provide superficial support for this
claim by citing horror stories of idle anganwadis
or food poisoning. These horror stories, however,
are not a fair reflection of the general
condition of the ICDS. Indeed, recent evidence
suggests the ICDS is actually performing crucial
functions in many States, and that there is much
scope for consolidating these achievements.
A recent survey of the ICDS, initiated by the
Centre for Equity Studies, sheds some light on
these issues. The survey was conducted in
May-June 2004 in six States: Chhattisgarh,
Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil
Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. It involved unannounced
visits in a random sample of about 200 anganwadis
as well as detailed household interviews.
Among mothers with a child enrolled at the local
anganwadi, more than 90 per cent said it opened
"regularly." This is consistent with direct
observation: nearly 80 per cent of the anganwadis
were open at the time of the investigators'
unannounced visit. Similarly, 94 per cent of the
mothers interviewed stated supplementary
nutrition was being provided at the anganwadi.
Even pre-school education, the weakest component
of the ICDS, was happening in about half of the
anganwadis visited. More than 70 per cent of the
mothers felt the ICDS was "important" for their
child's welfare.
This is not to deny that the quality of the ICDS
needs urgent improvement in many States. But
recognising the need for quality improvements is
not the same as dismissing the ICDS as a
non-functional programme. The survey does not
provide any justification for this defeatist
outlook.
In fact, the survey findings highlight the
enormous potential of the ICDS. This potential is
well demonstrated in Tamil Nadu, where child
nutrition has been a political priority for many
years. Every sample anganwadi in Tamil Nadu had
an effective feeding programme, and almost all
the sample mothers were satisfied with the
quality as well as the quantity of the food.
Other basic services were also in good shape. For
instance, 97 per cent of the mothers interviewed
in Tamil Nadu reported that children were being
"weighed regularly," and 86 per cent said useful
educational activities were taking place at the
anganwadi. Every single child in the Tamil Nadu
sample had been immunised, fully so in a large
majority of cases. Perhaps the best sign of real
achievement in Tamil Nadu is the fact that 96 per
cent of the mothers considered the ICDS to be
"important" for their child's well being, and
half of them considered it to be "very important."
While Tamil Nadu is an exemplary case of
effective action in this field, it is important
to note that "success stories" are not confined
to this particular state. Maharashtra, for
instance, seems to be rapidly catching up with
Tamil Nadu. To illustrate, the proportion of
mothers who stated that the local anganwadi
"opened regularly" or that their child was
regularly weighed or that immunisation services
were available at the anganwadi, was above 90 per
cent in each case. Much as in Tamil Nadu, 93 per
cent of the mothers interviewed in Maharashtra
considered the ICDS to be important for their
child's well being. A large majority (60 per
cent) also viewed the anganwadi worker as "a
person who can help them in the event of health
or nutrition problems in the family." While there
were also areas of concern, notably the
pre-school education programme, Maharashtra's
experience clearly shows that Tamil Nadu's
achievements can be emulated elsewhere.
In the northern States, the condition of the ICDS
varied a great deal, from relatively encouraging
in Himachal Pradesh to very poor in Uttar Pradesh
(the usual "basket case" as far as public
services are concerned). Even in the lagging
States, however, the strong potential of the ICDS
clearly emerged in villages with an active
anganwadi. It is also important to note that
these States have largely reaped as they sowed.
Consider for instance the "supplementary
nutrition programme." There is much evidence that
the best approach here is to combine nutritious,
cooked food for children aged 3-6 years with
well-designed "take-home rations" (together with
nutrition counselling) for younger children. Yet
many States are not even trying to take these
simple steps to improve the nutrition component
of the ICDS. For instance, in Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh, children aged 3-6 years get the same
bland "ready-to-eat" food (panjiri or murmura)
day after day, and younger children get nothing
at all. It is no wonder that mothers interviewed
in these States were often dissatisfied with the
programme.
Similar remarks apply to other hurdles that have
plagued the ICDS in the northern States - lack of
funds, under-staffing, poor infrastructure,
erratic supervision, inadequate training,
centralised management, among others. These
shortcomings are curable, and their persistence
essentially reflects a lack of political interest
in the well being and rights of children. In
sharp contrast to Tamil Nadu, where child health
and nutrition are lively political issues, the
ICDS is at the rock bottom of policy concerns in
the northern States.
It is against this background of political
indifference to children under six that the CMP
commitment "to provide a functional Anganwadi in
every settlement" was so important. In pursuance
of this commitment, the National Advisory Council
formulated detailed recommendations on the ICDS
in November 2004, along with cost estimates and a
proposed time frame for universalisation. These
recommendations have been amplified and improved
in a number of recent documents, such as the
reports of the Commissioners of the Supreme Court
and the concluding statement of a convention on
"children's right to food" held in Hyderabad in
April 2006. Unfortunately, this wave of creative
advice appears to be falling on deaf ears. It is
certainly not reflected in the draft Approach
Paper to the 11th Plan. An opportunity is being
missed to rectify the catastrophic neglect of
children under six in public policy and economic
planning.
(The writer is Honorary Professor at the Delhi School of Economics.)
o o o
[see also:]
AEDES OF OCTOBER
by Pamela Philipose
(October 19, 2006)
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14947._.html
_____
[6]
Indian Express
October 20, 2006
SCRUTINISING THESE 'SPECIAL POWERS'
by Rakesh Shukla
Suggestions of the committee which reviewed the
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act do not go far
enough
Irom Sharmila has not let a drop of water pass
through her lips in protest against the draconian
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act after the
brutal killing by the army of ten civilians at a
bus stand in Malom in 2000. The AFSPA gives the
army powers to kill, arrest, search, even blow up
a building - and all this with immunity from
prosecution. In contrast, the police has the
power to kill but only in case a person accused
of an offence that is punishable with death or
life imprisonment is resisting arrest or in the
exercise of the right to private defence.
Unlike the provision for inquest in case of death
by the police, there is no requirement under the
AFSPA for army personnel to submit a report after
the killing of people. It is this which makes the
legislation totally arbitrary. From the rape and
murder of Manorama in 2004, to the killing of two
siblings returning from the fields on October 4
in Kashmir this year, the atrocities committed
under the Act are well documented.
The Government of India constituted a Committee
to Review the Act in the wake of widespread
agitation in Manipur in protest against the
murder and rape of Manorama Devi. The Committee,
headed by Justice Jeevan Reddy, submitted its
report in June 2005. Officially, it is still
under wraps.
The Review Committee recommends the repeal of the
AFSPA. Alongside it recommends the insertion of
certain provisions in the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act. The recommendation that the
power to fire be exercised only in case of
possession or suspected possession of bombs,
dynamite, explosive substances, firearms,
poisonous gases, etc, is a welcome departure. The
recommendation to set up grievances cells to
redress complaints of unlawful arrests,
detentions, disappearances, killings, is
well-intentioned. However, the composition of the
mechanism does not inspire confidence. Anyone who
has been in areas where the Armed Forces are
deployed can testify to the total power imbalance
between the civil administration and the army. A
mere sub-divisional magistrate, even if he is
chairman of the cell, will be able to do little.
The interface between the civil authorities and
the armed forces is of vital importance. The
experience of the working of the AFSPA has shown
that the minute the Armed Forces are deployed,
there is virtual 'army rule' in the region.
Unfortunately, the recommendation of the
Committee that 'to the extent feasible and
practicable', the Armed Forces should coordinate
their operations with civil authority, are
unlikely to be act as a check.
An awareness of fundamental rights and the
gradual escalation of force goes against the
grain of army training. Therefore, the inevitable
consequence of giving independent powers to the
army is the large scale violation of human
rights. The setting up of a concrete mechanism to
place the Armed Forces under civil authority,
even after an area has been declared as
disturbed, is crucial to check the militarisation
of governance.
The writer is an advocate in the Supreme Court
_____
[7]
The Times of India
Sep 25, 2006
Q&A: 'SLUM-DWELLERS ARE THE BACKBONE OF LABOUR FORCE'
Ruzbeh N Bharucha wears several hats. Once a
journalist, he is now a documentary film-maker
and writer. His latest book, Yamuna Gently Weeps,
chronicles Delhi's Pushta slum demolitions.
Avijit Ghosh speaks to Bharucha about the dark
side of urbanisation:
Your book claims that about 150,000 people from
40,000 families lived on the banks of Yamuna?
What has happened to them?
In the guise of resettlement, encroachment,
pollution and beautification of the city, in
early 2004, in a matter of weeks, 40,000 homes
were demolished, without any rehabilitation plan.
Barely 20 per cent of those displaced were
allotted plots, on a barren piece of land in
Bawana, 40 km away from the city.
The remaining 80 per cent were forced to take
refuge on the streets along with their salvaged
belongings, until they found some way out of
their miserable plight. Remember, you demolish
one slum, you create 10 smaller slums as the
displaced don't go back to their villages. They
have nothing to go back to.
Several families living in these slums were
Bangladeshis. What is your view on this?
My focus is on the plight of forced migration and
not on issues of immigration. For me, the plight
of a poor family or hungry children is universal.
I am not interested in where they come from but
where they are being forced to go.
What is wrong with the government's resettlement measures?
What resettlement measures are you talking about?
First of all this isn't resettlement, this is
unsettlement. By throwing the poor on the
outskirts, we are creating ghettos and it is a
move that is going to backfire badly. This isn't
relocation but dislocation. If demolition is a
must, then you should first rehabilitate and then
demolish.
Those in power have thrown these families on a
barren piece of land, 40 km away, with not even
basic civic amenities like clean water, proper
sanitation, schools, electricity and, worst of
all, no scope of earning a livelihood. We aren't
interested in removing poverty. We are only
interested in removing the poor from the main
city.
Are you against slum demolitions?
Research indicates that in 30 years, every third
human being on planet earth will be a
slum-dweller. Mumbai and Delhi by 2015 will be
the second and the third most populated cities in
the world. Thus slums can't be wished away and
ruthless demolition is not the solution. First,
take care of rural development.
Second, the city Master Plan has kept aside land
for housing for the economically weaker sections
of society. It has not been implemented. If we
can address rural development and implement the
Master Plan, growth of slums will decline
phenomenally. Those who live in slums serve the
city and are the backbone of labour force. They
aren't animals.
o o o
Kalkota Newsline
October 12, 2006
History Revisited
Author-filmmaker RUZBEH BHARUCHA'S WORK ON THE
DEMOLITION OF INDIA'S LARGEST SLUM IS MAKING NEWS
AT HUMAN RIGHTS FILM FESTS
Avantika Bhuyan
Kanpur, October 11: It's a heart-wrenching tale
of razed homes and 35,000 dislocated families-the
demolition of Yamuna Pushta, one of the oldest
and largest slums in India, located on the
three-kilometre stretch along the Yamuna river in
Delhi. Little wonder then that Ruzbeh N
Bharucha's book and documentary Yamuna Gently
Weeps has been winning acclaim.
It began when Bharucha was writing his first
book. "I was interacting with Kiran Bedi while
writing my first book, Shadows in Cages. She has
been involved in a lot of community work in that
area along with Delhi Police Foundation-Navjyoti.
There were balwadis and health clinics in the
area. But within two days we got the news that
the area was going to be demolished," says
Bharucha.
Advertisement
Soon after, Bharucha, along with a team of
cameramen, went to the slum-dwellers' homes.
Within minutes, around 1.5 lakh slum-dwellers
were rendered homeless. Of these, 20 per cent
were alloted plots on barren land in Bawana, an
area far from Delhi and lacking basic civic
amenities. "I was with them before the demolition
began and when they were given that land. That
day I was ashamed to be called an Indian," he
says.
In his opinion, if the judiciary had been more
responsible and questioned the rehabilitation,
and if the media had covered the event properly,
the disaster could have been averted. "If Kareena
Kapoor or Amitabh Bachchan would have walked
through Yamuna Pushta, the news would have been
splashed everywhere," says Bharucha, who has held
several editorial positions in prominent
newspapers. "One of the things I've learnt is
that the poor have a lot of self-respect. All
they want is a rehabilitation plan if you want to
demolish their houses," he says.
His documentary has gone to all prominent
International human rights festivals and plans
are under way to screen it at universities like
Symbiosis, Fergusson College and the Film and
Television Institute of India (FTII). Up next is
a documentary about a village on the outskirts of
Delhi. With Bharucha at work, it's bound to make
news.
_____
[10] Announcements:
(i) Documentary Film:
THE JOURNALIST AND THE JIHADI: THE MURDER OF
DANIEL PEARL is an HBO Documentary Films
presentation, co-produced by Moving Picture,
First Take Ltd. and Distant Horizon. Directed and
produced by Ahmed A. Jamal and Ramesh Sharma;
producer, Anant Singh; narrated by Christiane
Amanpour; written by Amit Roy; edited by Tony
Appleton; music by David Heath. For HBO:
executive producers, Sheila Nevins and Lisa
Heller.
Running Time: 79 minutes
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/journalistandjihadi/index.html
___
(ii) Film screening:
Anthropology of Media Programme, SOAS [London]
Event: David MacDougall wiill be presenting a special
screening and seminar featuring the film, The Age of
Reason (2003). The `Doon School'
Date: Friday, 20 October 2006
Time: 13.00
Venue: Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS
Renowned anthropologist and filmmaker David
MacDougall will present a special screening and
seminar featuring the fifth and final film of his
'Doon School' film series, The Age of Reason
(2003 ). The 'Doon School' Quintet is an intimate
study of India's most prestigious boy's boarding
school located in Dehra Dun in Uttaranchal.
Although it has sometimes been called the 'Eton
of India' it has nevertheless developed its own
distinctive style and presents a mixture of
privilege and egalitarianism. It was established
by a group of moderate Indian nationalists in the
1930s to produce a new generation of leaders who
would guide the nation after Independance. Since
then it has become highly influential in the
creation of the new Indian elites and has come to
epitomise many aspects of Indian postcoloniality.
In this final film MacDougall focuses on the life
of one student whom he discovers at the school.
The film was made in paralell with The New Boys
and intersects with it at several points. However
instead of looking at the group, it explores the
toughts and feelings of Abhishek, a 12 - year-old
from Nepal, during his first days and weeks as a
Doon student. This is once the story of the
encounter between a filmmaker and his subject and
a glimpse of the mind of a child at the 'age of
reason'. This is the most intimate and
interactive film of the series. The screening
will be followed with a discussion with David
MacDougall
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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