SACW | Dec. 24-25, 2006
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Mon Dec 25 07:25:10 CST 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 24-25, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2338 - Year 8
[1] Bangladesh: Awami League to bid goodbye to secularism
- What a pact with Khelafat-e-Majlish! (Editorial, The daily Star)
- AL-bigots electoral deal stuns all
- AL under fire over Khelafat deal (Editoral, New Age)
- Women's rights leaders appalled
[2] Pakistan: Terror tactics [against girls schools} in tribal areas
[3] India's Fundamentalists Demand Nepal be Declared a Hindu State
[4] India: [Intelligence Agencies, Police and
Media] Who needs Reality TV? (Arundhati Roy)
[5] India: W Bengal On The Wrong Track? - The Singur syndrome (Praful Bidwai)
[6] India: Toying Around (Arvind Gupta)
____
[1]
The Daily Star
December 25, 2006
Editorial
WHAT A PACT WITH KHELAFAT-E-MAJLISH!
How credible is AL's denial
We are dumbfounded by the once-anointed secular
party the Awami League's U-turn into an
inexplicable marriage of expediency signed up
with Khelafat-e-Majlish, the ultra orthodox
Islamist group led by Shaikul Hadith Allama
Azizul Haq.
Though AL has denied making such a deal, we find
the denial somewhat convenient. We feel some sort
of undertaking has been given by the AL which is
far removed from its founding principles.
In terms of what has been reported as parts of a
written contract between AL's general secretary
Abdul Jalil on behalf of his party and
Khelafat-e-Majlish secretary general Abdur Rab
Yusufi, the AL, on assumption of power, stood
committed to grant the right of fatwa (Islamic
decree) to 'certified clerics', which a High
Court verdict in our country had forbidden
earlier on. The AL also has virtually acquiesced
in enacting an anti-blasphemy law.
The other three features of the accord are:
firstly, no law that in any way contradicts the
Quran and Sunnah will be enacted in parliament;
secondly, recognition will be accorded to
Quam-I-Madrasah; and thirdly, those who do not
believe in the assertion that the Prophet of
Islam is the last messenger of Allah would
forfeit their right to be known as Muslim, an
oblique reference to the Ahmadiyya community.
On the question of fatwa, a system of law
parallel to the existing legal system is being
pandered to. This means that certain Ulemas will
be placed above the law of the land.
By one fell stroke, the AL has sacrificed at the
altar of opportunism and a numbers game in the
power struggle against the right of centre
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), whatever
principle the party stood for as a historically
secular and liberal organisation.
By this action the AL has disappointed a large
part of its traditional voters who may well, in
disgust, desist from voting for the party.
Therefore, we believe the AL should withdraw from
the position it has reportedly taken, both out of
a principled stand as well as to preserve its
traditional vote bank.
To build a forward looking and modern Bangladesh
aligning with fringe obscurantist elements cannot
be of any help; this realisation must dawn on the
AL before the party can come out clean on the
issue.
o o o
The Daily Star
December 25, 2006
AL-BIGOTS ELECTORAL DEAL STUNS ALL
Party faces protest from within; allies threaten to split unless pact scrapped
Staff Correspondent
Awami League (AL) faces severe criticism from its
13 allies who yesterday said the party must scrap
its Saturday's controversial deal with Bangladesh
Khelafat Majlish (BKM) that shattered the promise
of secularism or face a split.
AL General Secretary Abdul Jalil Saturday signed
a five-point memorandum of understanding (MoU)
with BKM. AL promised that certified Alems
(Islamic clerics) will have the right to issue
fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) if the grand
electoral alliance comes to power through the
upcoming election.
The other points of the MoU include promises to
impose a bar on enacting any law that goes
against Quranic values, initiation of steps for
proper implementation of the initiative for
government recognition of the degrees awarded by
Qaumi Madrasas, and a ban on criticisms of
Prophet Muhammad.
The signing took place in the Azimpur residence
of BKM Chairman Allama Azizul Haque on Saturday
in a sequel to an AL attempt to bring BKM into
the fold of the grand alliance.
Even a large majority of AL central and
grassroots members, just as a cross-section of
socio-political organisations and people of all
spectrum, were deeply shocked by the party's
sudden and inexplicable decision. Many of them
feel it will prove a hara-kiri for the party in
the election.
The disgruntled 13 parties of the so-called grand
alliance last night forced a delegation led by AL
General Secretary Abdul Jalil to meet Sheikh
Hasina with a demand to scrap the deal. They
clearly hinted a split as they feel it will be
difficult for them to go along with the AL with
such controversial and anti-secular stances.
"We won't accept this five-point MoU under any
circumstances," JSD President Hasanul Haq Inu
told The Daily Star at 12.30am today, who was
waiting at Jalil's house to know the outcome of
the delegation's meeting with Hasina.
The 13 partner parties feel all the more
ridiculed as Hasina in less than 24 hours of the
MoU signing sought 'blessings' of all to build
Bangladesh as a 'secular democratic' country.
But as the public outrage poured in, the AL first
tried to deny signing of any such agreement,
suggesting that it was all a hoax fanned by some
'vested quarter' with an ulterior motive using
the media. But as copies of the signed agreement
circulated around, Jalil finally said he signed
'only a MoU and not any agreement'.
All the components of AL-led 14-party coalition
--11-party, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) and
National Awami Party (NAP) -- in separate news
releases yesterday condemned the deal and
demanded that AL cancels the deal immediately to
maintain its conformity to the 23-point common
national minimum programme of the coalition,
which includes a promise to ban religion based
politics.
But, AL, which was supposed to give a formal
clarification regarding the matter, did not
provide any till 9:00pm last night.
Abdul Jalil yesterday said, "It is not a
contract. It is a memorandum of understanding,"
adding, "It is an understanding based on an
election strategy."
Talking to a private television channel, Jalil
said, "Ordinary people, especially villagers, are
weak on the issue of fatwa. If educated
alem-ulemas, who are knowledgeable on matters of
religion, issue fatwas or directions, those will
be better than the ones issued by uneducated
persons."
Defining a fatwa, Jalil said, "A decision on any
issue is a fatwa," adding, "There is a very wrong
interpretation of it in this country. If we can
escape that interpretation, then we can have
control over fatwas so that no one can issue a
fatwa on a whim."
"AL is against those rural fatwas that order
whipping of people or public humiliation of
women," Jalil said.
Talking to The Daily Star a number of AL
presidium members, leaders of its central working
committee (ALCWC), and its city, district and
upazila level leaders expressed their utter shock
over the agreement.
AL Presidium Member Tofail Ahmed rather angrily
said he was not aware of the MoU.
Another Presidium Member Suranjit Sengupta said,
"It's a hoax! What I have seen in newspapers is
baseless."
AL President Sheikh Hasina's Political Secretary
Saber Hossain Chowdhury said, "We have not and
will not compromise our secular ideal and stance."
Many former lawmakers of AL also told The Daily
Star yesterday that they feel ashamed because of
the agreement. They also said they might quit the
party if the MoU is not cancelled immediately.
"If our party allows Islamic fundamentalist
practices like fatwas after 35 years of
liberation then what is wrong with forging an
alliance with anti-liberation Jamaat," one of the
frustrated leaders of ALCWC told The Daily Star.
"The understanding was signed between Awami
League and us as it is in the press statement,"
BKM Organising Secretary Humayan Kabir told The
Daily Star last night. The MoU was read out at
the meeting between AL and BKM, he said adding
that the AL general secretary and their secretary
general both signed on the MoU after listening to
the points of the understanding that had been
read out.
Sources in AL said the MoU was signed keeping
most of the top leaders of the party in the dark.
Party insiders said AL presidium members Sheikh
Fazlul Karim Selim and Kazi Zafarullah, Adviser
to Sheikh Hasina Salman F Rahman, and AL leaders
Sheikh Helal and Abul Hasnat Abdullah however
knew about the move for the agreement.
Zafarullah told The Daily Star that their MoU
with BKM was misinterpreted by newspapers. "We
have reached an agreement with them that no one
will be able to issue a fatwa except authorised
persons or institutions," said the AL leader.
Sources however said the agreement was signed
following a faction of top AL leaders' initiative
to bring different Islamic political parties,
which largely depend on donations from a few
Islamic countries, into the fold of the grand
alliance.
The faction also succeeded in bringing several
Islamic political parties into the grand
alliance, some of which secured several
nominations also.
o o o
New Age
25 December 2006
AL UNDER FIRE OVER KHELAFAT DEAL
Staff Correspondent
Socio-political organisations, especially
left-leaning political parties and
pro-independence groups, on Sunday condemned the
agreement between the Awami League and the
Islamist political party Khelafat Majlish signed
on Saturday.
The Awami League signed a three-point
agreement with the Islamist group saying they
would contest in the polls together and the
alliance, if voted to power, would not get any
law enacted which would be inconsistent with the
dictates of the Qur'an, Sunnah and Shariah.
The agreement with the Khelafat Majlish also
stipulates that the alliance, if in power, would
'reserve the right' of certain category of
Islamic clerics 'to issue fatwa [religious
decrees]', and that criti cism of the prophets
and their associates will be considered a
criminal offence and that an official recognition
of the qoumi madrassah degrees will be given.
The 11-Party Alliance leaders at a meeting in
the central Workers Party office on Sunday
decided to inform their main partner, Awami
League, of their grievances.
The central steering committee of the 11-Party
Alliance will inform the alliance coordinator,
Abdul Jalil, also the Awami League's general
secretary, of their grievances, the meeting
sources said.
The meeting resolution said the sprit of the
agreement was contrary to the 23-point charter of
demands where establishment of a secular
democratic party was desired and banning of
communal politics, and free thinking and trial of
the war criminals were contained.
Abdul Jalil, however, defended on Sunday his
party's move by saying, 'I know what I have
done.' Some other leaders of the Awami League,
however, claimed it seemed to be media hype.
The 11-Party Alliance hoped the Awami League
would scrap the agreement and appreciate
non-communal politics.
Chaired by the 11-Party Alliance coordinator,
Bimal Biswas, the meeting was attended by Rashed
Khan Menon, Pankaj Bhattacharya, Abdus Samad,
Dilip Barua and Mohammad Nurul Islam.
The Sammilita Sankskritik Jote president,
Nasiruddin Yousuff Bacchu, and general secretary
Golam Quddus in a statement on Sunday expressed
their grave concern about the Awami League's
signing the agreement with the Islamist
fundamentalist group.
A Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal faction president
Hasanul Haq Inu said they were aware of the
agreement and would not support it. The agreement
signed by the Awami League was not acceptable,
Inu said.
The agreement was not part of the AL-led
alliance and 'We have no responsibility for its
implementation,' he said. The Communist Party of
Bangladesh, in a statement, said the agreement
signified that the Awami League would turn the
present misrule into liberal misrule.
The Communist Party general secretary,
Mujahidul Islam Selim, told New Age the agreement
would remain as an instance of surrender of the
Awami League to communal political forces.
The instance would increase the chance of the
entrance of communal forces within the two major
political parties, the Awami League and the BNP,
Selim said.
The instance once again proved that without
establishing left democratic alternatives, the
establishment of non-communal political force was
impossible.
Selim called on the people not to be
frustrated and to strengthen the left democratic
alternatives.
Some socio-political and pro-independence
organisations, including the South Asian People's
Union against Fundamentalism and Communalism, Ain
O Salish Kendra, Gana Sangskritik Front and
Nagarik Udyog also condemned the agreement and
said the agreement was against human rights.
A statement of the South Asian People's Union
against Fundamentalism and Communalism faxed by
eminent journalist Shahriyar Kabir said there
would be no difference between the Awami League
and the BNP if the former compromises with the
patron of ultra-Islamist forces and godfathers to
go to power.
The statement was signed by eminent people,
including Kabir Chowdhury, Vinod Bihari
Chowdhury, Justice KM Sobhan, Kalim Sharafi,
retired major general CR Dutta, Borhanuddin Khan
Jahangir, Barrister Shafique Ahmed, Kamal Lohani,
Hasan Azizul Haq, Qayyum Chowdhury, Syed Shamsul
Huq, retired lieutenant colonel Abu Osman
Chowdhury, Professor Ajoy Roy, Abul Hossain,
Professor Anupan Sen, Anwara Syed Haq, Waliur
Rahman, Professor Razia Matin Chowdhury, Hashem
Khan, Rafiqunnabi, Rabiul Hossain, Muntassir
Mamum, Shaymali Nasreen Chowdhury, Professor
Mahfuza Khanum, Ferdausi Priyabhashini, Rana Das
Gupta, Professor Gazi Salauddin, Safiqul Alam,
Pradip Dewanji, Abul Barak Alvi, Kajal Debnath,
Tarique Ali, Dalia Nausheen, Salma Haq, Aroma
Dutta, Zafar Iqbal, Shamim Akhtar, Shirin Banu
Mithil, Kazi Mukul, Zahid Newaz, Daulat Ara
Mannan, Professor Md Kamruzzaman, Abu Sayeed,
Zulfiqar Ali Manik, Fazlur Rahman, Amal Das, Md
Arafat, Kazi Lutfar Rahman and Shawkat Banagali.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat said the understanding
reached between the Awami League and religious
bigots signals disaster for the country.
Such understanding will not bring any positive
result for Bangladesh, rather will ruin the long
existing communal harmony, said the organisation.
'We are simply astonished to see the Awami
League, which has a reputation for its
progressive and secular ideals, signing such a
memorandum,' said Abdul Awwal Khan Chowdhury, a
spokesman for Ahmadiyyas, told New Age.
'Nobody, except Allah and his prophet, has the
virtue to define Muslim. The definition has been
finalised and no government or parliament or any
mullah group has the right to redefine the
Muslim,' he said.
Awwal Khan observed that the conditions
incorporated in the memorandum, if implemented,
would turn Bangladesh into another Pakistan.
The community will hold a news briefing at its
central office on Monday afternoon.
o o o
New Age
25 December 2006
WOMEN'S RIGHTS LEADERS APPALLED
Staff Correspondent
Women leaders and right activists have blasted
and condemned the reported agreement signed by
Awami League with Khelafat Majlish on legalising
fatwa if voted to power.
They said such a move is a suicidal one and a
big assault on the ongoing movement against
religious fundamentalism; and also a blow to the
fight for a democratic and liberal humanitarian
society.
They said such a decision was not expected
from Awami League, which preaches spirits of
liberation war, democracy and secularism.
'As an election strategy, the decision is a
suicidal one,' said Ayesha Khanon, general
secretary of Bangladesh Mohila Parishad. 'I am
seriously concerned and disappointed by such an
agreement.'
She said the decision came when they are
fighting against fundamentalism to establish of a
secular state having no disparity between men and
women.
Terming the move a very unfortunate one for
the countrymen, she said it will leave a dreadful
impact on the society, while rural women,
especially those who are poor, are subject to
frequent torture and harassment through issuance
of fatwa, a religious decree, by Islamic clerics.
Since Awami League itself was very vocal
against fundamentalism, Ayesha said they would
soon take the matter to party chief Sheikh Hasina
and ask her to scrap the settlement with the
Islamist group.
Former adviser to the caretaker government and
executive director of Ain O Salish Kendra,
Sultana Kamal strongly condemned the accord and
vowed to resist it at any cost. 'It's not
acceptable.'
'Those who claim themselves the carriers of
the liberation war spirit and secular belief now
seem bowing to fundamentalists by signing the
agreement,' she said, wondering, 'What will
happen to the country's women if fatwa is
legalised?'
She apprehended that the country would turn
into a fundamental state if such agreement was
implemented.
She believed that the move was aimed to grab
political benefits by the party. 'We are stunned
by the news,' said Shirin Akhter, joint general
secretary of Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal, adding AL
did not discus the issue with others in the
14-party alliance. 'It is contrary to our
(alliance's) ongoing movement for a secular and
progressive country.'
Also president of Karmajibi Nari that
campaigns for protecting women workers' rights,
Shirin said the move was very alarming for the
movement for establishing and protecting rights
of women in the society. 'Such an agreement can't
be implemented in the country, no matter which
government or party goes to power,' she replied
when asked about her stand against the move. 'We
will soon discuss the issue in a meeting of our
(14-party) alliance.
Seriously condemning the agreement, Hazera
Khatun, a central leader of Workers Party of
Bangladesh, said AL took a terrible step by doing
that. 'All the bad things are accommodated in the
five-point pact, which is enough to take the
whole women society to the dark.'
She said there is no place for fatwa in a
democratic and modern society. 'Fatwa is the main
weapon of harassing women and snatching their
rights,' she lamented.
'AL has formed a mega alliance and it can do
it, but it can never sign such a reactionary
agreement with an Islamist party.'
_____
[2]
Dawn
25 December 2006
Editorial
TERROR TACTICS IN TRIBAL AREAS
RECENT news from the NWFP's tribal areas only
confirms what is already public knowledge but it
makes for disturbing reading all the same.
According to the United Nations' Integrated
Regional Information Networks (IRIN), many
families living in and around Darra Adamkhel in
Frontier Region Kohat are too scared to send
their girls to school in the wake of renewed
threats from pro-Taliban militants. These include
the recent bombing of a girls' high school and a
similar attack on an under-construction degree
college. Warning notices have been affixed on the
gates of area schools, while parents, teachers
and support staff have been threatened with dire
consequences if any attempt is made to educate
girls. Sadly, the terror tactics are having the
desired effect as even parents who want to
educate their daughters are now reluctant to do
so. In Bajaur Agency, pamphlets are being
circulated warning parents not to send their
girls to school. Similar intimidation is being
reported from some 'settled' areas that come
under the administrative control of the NWFP
government.
All this is happening in a province where the
official adult female literacy rate is a paltry
26 per cent, according to the Pakistan Social and
Living Standards Measurement Survey 2004-05. Far
worse is the situation in the tribal areas, where
the 1998 census turned up an adult female
literacy rate of only three per cent. Progress,
if any, made since 1998 is now under clear and
imminent threat from the medieval ideology of
retrograde militants and clerics. Mindsets
clearly need to be changed but it is hard to
envisage how this can be done in areas where even
security forces fear to tread, let alone
well-meaning NGOs and rights activists who are
currently being hounded out of the NWFP as a
whole. Enlightenment can only come through
education, socio-economic uplift and the
resulting access to different schools of thought.
This cannot be achieved without bringing the
tribal areas into the mainstream of national laws
and values. In the so-called settled areas, it is
the duty of the NWFP government to ensure the
security of teachers and students. The ruling MMA
claims it is in favour of women's education. It
is time its actions matched its words.
_____
[3]
Hindustan Times
DECLARE NEPAL A HINDU STATE, DEMAND RELIGIOUS LEADERS
by Rajesh Kumar Singh
Gorakhpur, December 23, 2006
THE HINDU religious leaders (Dharmacharyas) on
Saturday called for declaration of Nepal as Hindu
state and restoration of monarchy there.
The Hindu religious leaders were here to
participate in the Vishwa Hindu Mahasammelan
(VHM) that began yesterday. They said sants would
take initiative to establish Hinduism in Nepal.
They criticised the Indian Government stand on
Nepal and said no political party was taking
Maoists' activities seriously.
Shankaracharya of Goverdhan Peeth, Puri Swami
Nishchalanand Saraswati said the saints would
have to work to control the religious and
political system in Nepal. "Today we should take
vow to work till Hindu Kingdom status is restored
in Nepal," he said.
As the political system failed to protect
Hinduism in Nepal, it was the duty of sants to
provide guidance to the citizens of Nepal. "We
are not against formation of democratic
government in Nepal, still Constitutional
monarchy could be restored as is the practice in
several Christian, Islamic and Buddhist
countries," Nischalanand said.
Over 500 delegates from Nepal are taking part in
the VHM. They drew the attention of the
'Dharmacharyas' towards the pathetic condition of
the Hindus in Nepal yesterday. They said ISI of
Pakistan was spreading its network in Nepal to
create disturbance in India.
Former Union minister Chinmayanand said the BJP
national executive should make its stand clear on
Nepal.
VHM national president and BJP MP Yogi Adityanath
said the movement launched by the Hindu sants was
high-jacked by political parties to serve their
vested interests. He said Dharmacharyas launched
a movement on migration of Hindus from Jammu and
Kashmir, terror attack on Hindu temples and
attack on Amarnath yatra.
o o o
united we blog
INDIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS DEMAND NEPAL BE DECLARED A HINDU STATE
24 12 2006
The Hindu fundamentalists of India have demanded
that Nepal be declare a Hindu State and its
constitutional monarchy restored. Speaking at the
Vishwa Hindu Mahasammelan (VHM) in Gorakhapur,
India on Saturday (Dec 23), the Dharmacharyas
(religious leaders) called for declaration of
Nepal as Hindu state and restoration of monarchy
there, according to the reports by The Hindustan
Times. Here is more from HT by Rajesh Kumar Singh:
Criticising the declaration of Nepal as a secular
country by seven-party interim government,
Adityanath said that it should again be declared
as a Hindu country and monarchy should be
restored there. He called upon the saints to take
an initiative for the liberation of Nepal from
the clutches of Maoists. He said that the
[Indian] government should impose a total ban on
cow slaughter.
Hindutva remained at the top of the agenda as the
participants discussed various issues related to
the Hindu community. Over 500 delegates from
Nepal participated in today's meeting. They
expressed concern over Maoists strengthening
their hold over Nepal politics. Terming the new
government as anti Hindu, they said Nepal was and
would remain a Hindu country.
National president of VHM General Bharat Keshar
Singh, chief of Nepal Shiv Sena Arun Subedi,
former minister of Nepal Bhola Nath Jha, Swami
Prapannacharya and former MP Padm Bahadur Kota
also spoke on the occasion. They were unanimous
in saying that anti-Hindu activities had
escalated in Nepal since Maoists had tightened
their grip on power. ISI and Christian
missionaries have also spread their tentacles,
they pointed out and added that the Hindu
majority in Nepal was looking towards India for
assistance.
Adityanath said Hindu organisations in India
would organise yatras, congregations and joint
feasts with Hindus in Nepal for restoration of
the Himalayan kingdom as a Hindu country.
-----
[4]
Hindustan Times,
December 22, 2006
WHO NEEDS REALITY TV?
by Arundhati Roy
The Supreme Court of India has sentenced Mohammad
Afzal, Accused No. 1 in the Parliament Attack
case, to death. It acknowledged that the evidence
against him was not direct, only circumstantial,
but in its now famous statement it said: "The
incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has
shaken the entire nation, and the collective
conscience of the society will only be satisfied
if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."
Is the 'collective conscience' the same as
majority opinion? Would it be fair to say that
it is fashioned by the information we receive?
And, therefore, that in this case, the mass
media have played a pivotal role in determining
the final court verdict? If so, has it been
accurate and truthful? A small group of scholars,
writers and lawyers has followed the case over
the years and meticulously documented media
reports. Some of this work has recently been
published by Penguin Books as a reader (13
December: The Strange Case of The Parliament
Attack). They have found that in the early days
of the trial, Delhi Police's Special Cell was
spectacularly successful in getting both the
print and electronic media (with a few honourable
exceptions), to put out its entirely
unsubstantiated claims as the 'truth', making it
seem as though the impending judicial trial was
just a formality. Now, five years later, when
disturbing questions are being raised about the
Parliament Attack, is the Special Cell, once
again, cleverly exploiting the frantic hunt for
'breaking news'?
Suddenly, spurious 'exposés' are finding their
way on to prime time TV. Unfortunately, some of
India's best, most responsible news channels have
been caught up in this game, in which
carelessness and incomprehension is as deadly as
malice. A few weeks ago, we had a fiasco on
CNN-IBN.
Last week (December 16), on a 90-minute prime
time show, NDTV showcased an 'exclusive' video
of Mohammad Afzal's 'confession' made in police
custody, in the days immediately following his
arrest. At no point was it clarified that the
'confession' was five years old. Much has been
said about the authenticity, reliability and
legality of confessions taken in police custody,
as well as the circumstances under which this
particular 'confession' was extracted. Because of
the very real danger that custodial torture will
replace real investigation, the Indian Penal Code
does not admit confessions made in police
custody as legal evidence in a criminal trial.
POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) was considered
an outrage on civil rights and was eventually
withdrawn, primarily because it made confessions
obtained in police custody admissible as legal
evidence. In fact, in the case of Afzal's
'confession', the Supreme Court said the Special
Cell had violated even the tenuous safeguards
provided under POTA, and set it aside as being
illegal and unreliable. Even before this, the
High Court had already reprimanded the Special
Cell sharply for forcing Afzal to incriminate
himself publicly in a 'media confession'.
So what made NDTV showcase this thoroughly
discredited old 'confession' all over again? Why
now? How did the Special Cell video find its way
into their hands? Does it have something to do
with the fact that Afzal's clemency petition is
pending with the President and a curative
petition asking for a retrial is pending in the
Supreme Court? In her column in this paper (Death
of the Middle ground, December 17), Barkha Dutt,
Managing Editor of NDTV, said the channel spent
many hours debating what the 'fairest' way to
show this video was. Clearly, it was a serious
decision and demands to be discussed seriously.
At the start of the show, for several minutes,
the image of Afzal 'confessing' was inset in a
text that said "Afzal ne court mein gunaah qabool
kiya tha" (Afzal had admitted his guilt in
court). This is blatantly untrue. Then, for a
full 15 minutes, the 'confession' ran without
comment. After this, an anchor came on and said,
"Sansad par hamle ki kahani, Afzal ki zubaani."
(The story of the Parliament Attack, in Afzal's
words.) This, too, is a travesty of the truth.
Well into the programme, a reporter informed us
that Afzal had since withdrawn this 'confession'
and had claimed it had been extracted under
torture.
The smirking anchor then turned to one of the
panelists, S.A.R. Geelani, who was also one of
the accused in the case (and who knows a thing or
two about torture and the Special Cell), and
remarked that if this confession was "forced",
then Afzal was a very good actor. The anchor has
clearly never experienced torture, or even read
the wonderful Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano
- "The electric cattle prod turns anyone into a
prolific storyteller." Nor has he known what
it's like to be held in police custody in Delhi
while his family was hostage (as Afzal's was) in
the war zone that is Kashmir. Later on, the
'confession' was juxtaposed with what the channel
said was Afzal's statement to the court, but was
actually the text of a letter he wrote to his
High Court lawyer in which he implicates State
Task Force (STF) in Kashmir and describes how in
the months before the Parliament Attack he was
illegally detained and tortured by the STF. NDTV
does not tell us that a Deputy Superintendent of
the STF has since confirmed that he did illegally
detain and torture Afzal. Instead, it uses
Afzal's letter to discredit him further. The
bold caption at the bottom of the frame read:
"Afzal ka badalta hua baiyan." (Afzal's changing
statements.)
There is another serious ethical issue. In
Afzal's confession to the Special Cell in
December 2001 (as opposed to his 'media
confession'), he implicated SAR Geelani and said
he was the mastermind of the conspiracy. While
this was in line with the Special Cell's
chargesheet, it turned out to be false, and
Geelani was acquitted by the Supreme Court. Why
was this portion of Afzal's confession left out?
So that the confession would seem less
constructed, more plausible? Who made that
decision to leave it out? NDTV or the Special
Cell?
All this makes the broadcast of this programme a
seriously prejudicial act. It wasn't surprising
to watch the 'collective conscience' of society
forming its opinion as the show unfolded. The
SMS messages on the ticker tape said: "Afzal ko
boti boti mein kaat ke kutton ko khila do. Afzal
ke haath aur taang kaat ke, road mein bheek
mangvaney chahiye." (Cut him into bits and feed
him to the dogs. Cut off his arms and legs and
make him beg.) "Hang him by his balls in Lal
Chowk." "Hang him and hang those who are
supporting him." "Even without Sharia courts, we
seem to be doing just fine." For the record, the
reporter credited several times on the programme
for procuring the video from the Special Cell
has been previously exposed for publishing
falsehoods: on the 'encounter' in Ansal Plaza; on
the Iftikhar Gilani case; on the S.A.R. Geelani,
and now on this one.
This kind of thing really makes you wonder
whether media houses have an inside track on the
police and intelligence agencies, or whether it's
the other way around. The quietest guest on the
panel was M.K. Dhar, a former Joint Director of
the Intelligence Bureau. He was pretty
enigmatic. He certainly didn't repeat what he
has said in his astonishingly frank book Open
Secrets: India's Intelligence Unveiled. (Manas
Publications, 2005):
"Some day or the other, taking advantage of the
weakening fabric of our democracy, some
unscrupulous intelligence men may gang up with
ambitious Army Brass and change the political
texture of the nationŠ" Weakening fabric of our
democracy. I couldn't have put it better.
(Arundhati Roy is a Booker Prize-winning writer.
She has written the introduction to 13 December:
The Strange Case of The Parliament Attack)
______
[5]
25 December 2006
W BENGAL ON THE WRONG TRACK?
THE SINGUR SYNDROME
by Praful Bidwai
As Ms Mamata Banerjee's fast against the Singur
project in West Bengal moves into its third week,
and as the deadline for handing over land to the
Tatas approaches, the conflict over the proposed
car factory is coming to a head. One can only
hope that a just solution is soon reached on
acquiring land in Singur village. By the time
these lines appear, a compromise may well have
been reached. It is of the utmost importance that
this be a sustainable and comprehensive
settlement which includes the rehabilitation of
all those who will be displaced.
What happens in Singur will create a benchmark
for all future industrial products in West
Bengal, including export-oriented special
economic zones (SEZs). Singur has become a new
paradigm of development, and a test case for the
ruling Left Front's economic policies and its
relations with the United Progressive Alliance.
It's not difficult to understand why Singur has
become so controversial. At stake are 997 acres
of land, and the livelihoods of 12,000 landowners
and share-croppers. Given that the village is
barely 45 km away from Kolkata, just off the
Durgapur Expressway, the landowners know their
land is valuable. At least 30 percent (according
to one report, 68 percent) of it is
multi-cropped. Some want higher compensation for
it than the government has offered (basic rate,
Rs 6 to 8.9 lakhs). Both the political Right and
the Far Left have jumped into the fray by
focusing on their discontent.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Left
Front's leading component, claims the landowners
had written in their consent to sell 954 of the
997 acres of land. It also says it has
rehabilitation and employment plans for the local
population. It denies that the police used brute
force against peaceful demonstrators. Most
controversially, Chief Minister Buddhadeb
Bhattacharjee dismisses all protesters as "forces
opposed to Bengal's growth".
However, according to the "status report" on
Singur published by the government (see The Times
of India, Dec 16), prior consent for land
purchase was obtained only for 586 acres-and that
too on the day the government started fencing off
land. It had no consent for acquiring the rest
(411 acres). It clamped Sec 144 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, banning the assembly of five or
more persons, and imposed the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (LAA)-a colonial law whose application
the Left parties rightly oppose in many states!
The LAA permits forcible land acquisition for
"public purpose", but the Tata Motors factory
fulfils no public purpose, as distinct from
purely commercial objectives. It passes
comprehension why the government agreed to
procure a large contiguous plot on the Tatas'
behalf, rather than ask them to buy it
themselves. In respect of SEZs in other states,
the Left parties oppose such mediation by
governments,. as well as the acquisition of
multi-cropped land.
There's a problem about land value too. The
government claims it's paying Singur's landowners
more than the going market rate. But it's known
that less than half the market price is
registered in land deeds. Extrapolating from
recent purchases (e.g. at Dankuni, about 25 km
from Kolkata), land in Singur could be worth
about Rs 30 lakhs/acre.
Matters are even more complicated because the
bulk of Singur's land belongs to absentee
landowners, and is actually cultivated by
share-croppers (Bargadars). The cultivators will
get just 25 percent of the land value even if
they're registered under the land reform
programme known as "Operation Barga". If they
aren't, as is bound to happen with any
large-scale programme, they will get no
compensation. Their number is
significant-estimated at 250.
Even if they're brought into the net, the
compensation payable would still be meagre-only
one-quarter of the land value. As for the 1,000
or so landless agricultural workers and other
providers of village services like blacksmiths,
mechanics and barbers, the less said the better.
They will get wiped out without any compensation.
This land transaction model will have a
profoundly negative effect on West Bengal's
agrarian situation. "Operation Barga" not only
registered share-croppers, it also reduced the
landlord's share in the harvest to one-quarter or
one-third of the total. At Singur, that ratio
will be reversed-a sign of what may be called
counter-reform. The Left Front will have turned
its back on the biggest and most successful land
reform it executed in Bengal in its three decades
in power.
The West Bengal police used force against
peaceful demonstrators, injuring at least four,
and slapped serious charges upon them, including
attempt to murder. This aggravates the state's
culpability. As does its bypassing of the village
panchayat-in violation of Article 74 of the
Constitution. One can and should criticise Ms
Banerjee for her Right-wing politics, coercive
tactics and opportunism. But that doesn't
exonerate the Front.
This is doubly tragic. First, the Left should
know that the land issue is at the cutting edge
of today's class struggles, which pit the poor
against predatory commercial interests. Second,
the Left had the responsibility-and a unique
opportunity-to create a worthy model of
consensual and humane land acquisition and full
rehabilitation in Singur.
This would have allowed the Left Front to redeem
its indifferent record of rehabilitation in West
Bengal. A recent study finds that the state has
rehabilitated a measly 9 percent of the people
displaced by the Damodar Valley project and other
World Bank-funded schemes since the 1950s. This
is a far lower proportion than Andhra's 28
percent, Orissa's 33 and Goa's 34.
Once instituted, the Singur Paradigm will be
applied to a much larger area, over 40,000 acres,
to be acquired near Kolkata for a host of other
industrial projects, including SEZs and
industrial parks, of the kind the Left parties
oppose elsewhere. The Left Front government has
received requests for a total of 125,000 acres
from 20 Indian and two foreign companies. Among
the latter is the favoured Selim group from
Indonesia, known to be a front for the
super-corrupt Suharto family which has looted
national wealth.
Singur's significance or impact doesn't end
there. Singur is a concentrated expression of the
pattern of industrialisation and development that
the Left Front has embraced in Bengal. This
pattern is led or dominated by private capital,
and is weak on social development. The Front
government seems desperate to attract private
corporate investment, including foreign
investment, at any cost, and irrespective of
whether it generates employment, skills and other
spin-offs, and contributes to public welfare.
This means the Front is adopting the neoliberal
model in which the corporate investor calls the
shots and sets the market rules, leaving elected
governments and other publicly accountable
institutions helpless in directing investment
into the most desirable areas to maximise public
welfare. The Left Front vocally-and
rightly-opposes neoliberal and corporate-led
pro-globalisation policies at the national level.
Of all Indian parties, the Left alone has a
coherent critique of such policies, which are
creating havoc through their vicious dualism,
contribution to widening disparities, and
callousness towards the poor.
If the Left follows a contradictory approach in
the states where it rules, it will attract the
charge that it practises double standards. This
will damage its credibility, and also weaken its
ability to act as a pressure-group on the UPA in
favour of progressive policies. This
pressure-group role is the central reason why the
Left supports the UPA government from the
outside. It would be tragic if this function were
to get undermined.
India's Left parties, which today enjoy their
highest-ever representation in Parliament, and
which rule in three states, command a level of
credibility and respect far in excess of their
membership or direct political influence. At the
present juncture, they are better placed than
ever before to develop an alternative model of
development and industrialisation which is not
predatory on people's livelihoods and does not
squeeze the peasantry to fund the creation of
factories and services.
By persisting with the Singur model, the Left
stands to lose in yet another way. Over the past
decade or so, a healthy coalition has emerged
between the organised Left, and civil society
groups, grassroots people's movements, and the
radical intelligentsia Singur has created a
serious rift within this coalition. Unless this
is healed, it will weaken all its components and
reduce their effectiveness.
The Left Front must not sit on prestige on
Singur, as Mr Bhattacharjee would like it to do.
It must radically rethink and revise the Singur
land acquisition plan even if that means the
Tatas carry out their threat to relocate the
project if land is not handed over to them by the
year's end. Far too much is at stake for the
owners of a car factory to be allowed to dictate
terms to the Left.
_____
[6]
The Times of India
23 December 2006
TOYING AROUND
by Arvind Gupta
A parent bought an expensive toy and after
removing it from its gleaming box gave it to the
child with a warning, 'Handle it carefully, don't
break it'.
The toy had rounded corners so the child could
not even feel its edges. She couldn't hammer it
on the ground as it was made of plastic. It had
no smell or taste.
Within three minutes flat the child had left the
neatly rounded plastic toy in the corner, and was
merrily playing with its box. She knew that she
would not be scolded for throwing the box on the
floor.
From her own viewpoint the little girl had made
an intelligent assessment of the toy.
Today, children are inundated with expensive
toys. Parents seem to be in a hurry to buy the
latest toys with flashing lights and sounds.
Pedagogic learning is now associated with gloss
and gleam. Children play with such toys for a
while and then they throw them away. Instant
gratification, instant forgetfulness seems to be
the norm.
Children need large chunks of time to play and
mess around with things they like. This is how
they construct their own knowledge patterns.
According to Rabindranath Tagore, the best toys
are those which are innately incomplete and which
a child completes with her participation.
As a child, my daughter was gifted many expensive
toys. But she was happiest playing with spoons
and pots in the kitchen.
Whenever we broke a coconut to make chutney we
would preserve all the pieces of the hardwood in
the washed plastic milk bag.
In her spare time she really enjoyed putting the
pieces together to make a wooden ball. This was
akin to a three-dimensional jigsaw.
Children are eternal explorers. In their free
moments they are experimenting and improvising.
They are always making and inventing things out
of odd bits and trinkets.
They learn a great deal from ordinary, organic
things found around the house, and without being
taught. The main thing about scrap is that
children can use it freely without adult
admonishment.
Traditionally children in India made their own
toys - sometimes with the help of adults, often
by themselves. Old pieces of leftover cloth were
recycled into dolls and puppets.
Empty matchboxes were favourites for making
dressing tables and houses. Crown caps made
lovely gears. Old newspapers were wonderful for
making caps one could wear. And one made several
kinds of whistles using leaves and scraps of
paper.
Over a hundred such handmade, self-made toys have
been documented by Sudarshan Khanna, a professor
at National Institute of Design, in his
fascinating book, The Joy of Making Indian Toys.
In today's context these toys can only be
described as minimalist and eco-friendly. Since
everything mattered nothing was ever destroyed,
only reincarnated.
These toys are a salute to the genius of Indian
children. Much before the onslaught of the
Barbies and Skullman - sexist and violent toys,
children made their own toys and had loads of fun.
They used local materials, often throwaway
discards which didn't cost any money. Even poor
children could enjoy them. Traditional toys
evolved over centuries. Someone tried a simple
design.
Others added to it, and still other generations
refined it to perfection. So the aesthetics,
simplicity, utility, cost-
effectiveness of a vernacular toy is a product of
years, maybe centuries of R&D effort.
And it is left behind in the public domain for
subsequent generations to enjoy - magnanimity in
an era of constipated patent regimes.
'The best thing a child can do with a toy is to
break it', might sound like an anarchistic
slogan. But there is great deal of truth in it.
Every curious child would want to rip open a toy
to peep into its 'tummy'.
Good toy designs invite children to pull them
apart and put them back again. The Mecanno is a
classic example. Children with fertile
imaginations make far more things with the
generic pieces of the Mecanno than are listed in
the manual.
Children learn best with familiar things.
In 1907, Yakub Perelman, father of Russian
popular science, published a book Fun with
Physics, in which he used roubles and kopeks as
weights. Coins are minted and therefore have
standard weights.
Coins are also accessible to the poorest
children. A century later none of our puritanical
science textbooks start on 'weights' with coins.
What is the weight of an ordinary matchstick?
Many science graduates wouldn't have a clue to
this simple question.
Our feel for things and phenomena are very crude.
Our estimates of length, area, volume, weight and
time are often off the mark.
These concepts are merely 'covered' in the course
curriculum and remain empty words.Before children
can understand a thing they need experience:
Seeing, hearing, touching, arranging, taking
things apart, and putting them together.
They need to experiment with real things.
Children require a lot of experience, with
different materials and situations before they
start making sense of the world.
The biggest crisis of Indian design is that
educated people do not wish to dirty their hands.
And there are no good schools for children of
artisans. Burettes, pipettes, test tubes and
fancy glassware often threaten children.
Fortunately, in most schools they are kept locked
in the cupboards with a grime of dust covering
them. The need of the day is to do more with less.
The great pioneers of science did their work with
simple equipment. It is possible to follow in
their footsteps. After all, the child's mind is
the most precious piece of equipment involved.
The writer works in a children's science centre.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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