SACW | August 19-20, 2007

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun Aug 19 20:29:50 CDT 2007


South Asia Citizens Wire | August 19-20, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2437 - Year 9

[1] Pakistan:
   (i) Pakistan needs real democratic government (Zia Mian)
   (ii) Just Justice (Ahmed Rashid)
   (iii) At democracy's crossroads? (Praful Bidwai)
[2] Sri Lanka:  APRC' s progress (Editorial, Daily Mirror)
   + APRC rules out Unitary State (Editorial, The Sunday Leader)
[3] Amartya Sen on India: Past and future
[4] India: Broken Peace: Fact - Finding Committee 
Report on the first communal violence in Goa
[5] India: Don't Shackle The Waves (Ammu Joseph)
[6] India: Solidarity Fast In Support of Irom Sharmila
[7] India: Jan Sunwais [public hearings] in Jaipur from the 21- 26 August, 2007

______


[1]
sacw.net - 19 August 2007
http://www.sacw.net/pakistan/zia_aug07.html

PAKISTAN NEEDS REAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

Rather than prop up Musharraf, the world must 
demand that Pakistan's army give up control of 
the government and vast sectors of the economy.

by Zia Mian* (This article was published earlier 
in Philadephia Enquirer, 17 August 2007)


On the 60th anniversary of independence, Pakistan 
is under siege. Its leaders lack legitimacy, 
politics is held hostage by its army, and radical 
Islamists stalk the land. The future looks bleak. 
There is talk of civil war.

There is only one way out: End the cycle of 
military dictatorship and allow truly free, 
representative government to take root.

Pakistan's leaders have failed it from the 
beginning. Its founding father, Muhammad Ali 
Jinnah, claimed the Muslims of British India 
needed a separate country if they were to be free 
from domination by its more numerous Hindus. He 
cast a wide net, offering orthodox Muslims a 
vision of an Islamic society and more secular 
Muslims a dream of a country where religion was 
no business of government. This ambiguous legacy 
and the terrible religious violence that 
accompanied the partition of British India have 
haunted Pakistan ever since.

Jinnah died within a year of independence. 
Politics became a personal power grab, with seven 
prime ministers in the first 10 years and then, 
in 1958, a military coup. The decade of army rule 
brought a close military alliance with the United 
States, further strengthening the army, and the 
forced modernization of a poor rural society. The 
costs were war with India, wrenching social 
change, and grievous inequality. Eventually, the 
people rose in revolt. In 1971, East Pakistan 
broke free and became Bangladesh.

The army relinquished power. But the new civilian 
leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, lacked a democratic 
temper and treated opposition as threat. He 
established Pakistan's nuclear weapons program 
and a practice of buying public support by 
appeasing the mullahs.

In 1977, the army took back control and executed 
Bhutto. In his decade in power, Gen. Zia ul-Haq 
sought to Islamize Pakistan. He introduced 
religious laws, courts, and taxes, supported 
radical Islamist madrassas (seminaries) and 
political parties, and altered school textbooks 
to promote a conservative Islamic nationalism. 
Work on the bomb proceeded apace.

The United States turned a blind eye to the 
dictatorship and the bomb. It poured billions of 
dollars into Pakistan to buy support for a war 
against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Islamic 
militants from around the world were trained and 
armed by the Pakistan army, with American money, 
and sent across the border to fight godless 
communism. The jihad was born.

Zia was killed in a mysterious plane crash in 
1988, and the Soviet Union admitted defeat and 
left Afghanistan. Elections were held, only to 
have the army become the power behind the throne. 
The new crop of leaders, including Bhutto's 
daughter, Benazir, descended into corruption and 
intrigue, each seeking the army's help to take 
office. There were nine prime ministers in 10 
years. Some actively courted the mullahs; none 
tried to undo the Islamic order created by Zia. 
As one third of Pakistanis fell below the poverty 
line, Pakistan tested nuclear weapons and 
missiles and went to war with India. Both sides 
hurled nuclear threats.

There were few protests when the army, led by 
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seized power again in 
1999. He promised that "the armed forces have no 
intention to stay in charge longer than is 
absolutely necessary to pave the way for true 
democracy to flourish." Instead, he rigged 
elections and made a deal with Islamist political 
parties willing to support him as president.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United 
States gave Musharraf no choice but to join 
another American war. Money poured in (more than 
$10 billion so far), and U.S. demands for a 
return to democracy fell silent. Musharraf 
consolidated military rule. Generals rule 
provinces, run government ministries, administer 
universities, and manage national companies. The 
army's business interests now span banking and 
insurance, cement and fertilizer, electricity and 
sugar, corn and corn flakes. Inequality has grown.

But Pakistan is being torn apart by an Islamic 
militancy that rejects Musharraf's alliance with 
America. Militants have attacked soldiers, 
policemen, local officials, ordinary people, and 
national leaders, including Musharraf himself. 
Suicide bombings have claimed hundreds of lives 
across the country. The army has struggled to 
respond. Many soldiers resent fighting their own 
people in what they see as an American war 
against Islam.

Islamist fighters have taken over whole villages. 
Emulating the Taliban, they repress women, close 
girls' schools, attack DVD and music shops, 
destroy TVs, and demand that men grow beards and 
go to the mosque. The movement is spreading. For 
six months, Islamist students and fighters 
occupied a mosque in Islamabad and set up their 
own court. The government sat idly until forced 
to act by national and international pressure. 
The bloody storming of the "Red Mosque" in July 
served only to fuel the militancy and enrage 
public opinion.

The outside world appears threatening, too. The 
United States warns of al-Qaeda and Taliban 
havens in Pakistan; some politicians talk openly 
about the possibility of a U.S.-led attack on 
Pakistani soil. The United States fears 
Pakistan's nuclear weapons may fall into the 
hands of Islamists. America is cultivating a new 
strategic relationship with India, causing fears 
among Pakistan's army leaders of losing ground in 
its nuclear and missile arms race with India.

Some hope that restoring a semblance of democracy 
could turn the tide against the Islamists and 
reduce the nuclear danger. Musharraf, with U.S. 
help, is trying to cobble together a deal to stay 
in power, dumping his Islamist allies for support 
from Benazir Bhutto, who would be allowed to 
return from exile, cleared of the corruption 
charges she fled. These steps will not be enough.

Pakistan needs to break its cycle of military 
rule and puppet politicians for democracy to take 
root and flourish. Rather than keeping Musharraf 
in power, the world must demand that Pakistan's 
army yield control over government and economy 
once and for all. Only a freely elected and 
representative government that can make decisions 
can pursue economic development as if people 
mattered, confront the Islamists, and make peace 
with India.

[* Zia Mian directs the Project on Peace and 
Security in South Asia at Princeton University's 
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International 
Affairs]

o o o

Outlook 
 
 
 
 
		August 17, 2007

Pakistan: 
 
		JUST JUSTICE

Yes, that's Pakistan's only anniversary wish. 
There cannot be a sustainable fight against 
extremists who pretend to fight for justice if 
those called to join the battle are not offered 
justice themselves.
 
 
	by Ahmed Rashid

LAHORE

As a tense and wary Pakistan celebrated 60 years 
of independence on 14 August, there was no doubt 
that a profound movement of change has swept the 
country affecting many global issues - the 
struggle against Islamic extremism, the movement 
for democracy in the Muslim world and the danger 
of nuclear weapons. At the heart of the mass 
movement in Pakistan is a profound undercurrent 
that both the West and Muslims need to support - 
the demand for justice.

For four months, from March to July, millions of 
Pakistanis led by lawyers and other middle-class 
professionals marched in the streets to protest 
the arbitrary manner in which President Pervez 
Musharraf had suspended Iftikhar Mohammed 
Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. 
Ordinary people demanded justice, the rule of 
law, democracy and an independent judiciary free 
of control from the military. The lawyer 
protestors were reminiscent of those who had 
marched in 1945 in Indian cities before the 
creation of Pakistan.

When Chaudhry was reinstated by a Supreme Court 
bench on 20 July, the verdict stunned Musharraf 
and was celebrated by the nation. For the first 
time in Pakistan, reinvigorated judges released 
unprecedented judicial activism. The Supreme 
Court swiftly issued pro bono, for the public 
good, verdicts on previously untouchable issues, 
such as examining the disappearance of political 
prisoners by the intelligence services and making 
the Election Commission independent of the 
military.

Before the verdict Musharraf had presumed he 
would easily win another term of five years as 
president and also be allowed to remain army 
chief by a supine parliament that has done the 
army's bidding since it was elected in a 
blatantly rigged election in 2002. Musharraf's 
election by the national and four provincial 
assemblies would be followed by another rigged 
general election.

Since the verdict Musharraf has thrashed around 
in a virtual state of panic as he tried to 
re-impose the army's presence on the political 
scene - now toying with the idea of an emergency 
rule, now martial law, while at the same time 
trying to be conciliatory towards the opposition 
by meeting in secret with exiled leader Benazir 
Bhutto and unleashing a charm offensive on 
state-controlled television. The biggest threat 
to his plans is the Supreme Court, which has 
pledged to follow the rule of law. Any one of 
several cases now awaiting adjudication by the 
Court could bring Musharraf's house crashing down.

For a country that has been ruled for half its 
life by the military, the present mass movement 
against continued military rule is more profound 
than expected. Underlying it and emphasized by 
the new lawyer-turned-politicians is the demand 
for social and political justice. The failure 
over decades to receive day-to-day justice at the 
hands of the army, the courts and the political 
elite now drives public activism. The demand for 
justice is a natural corollary of the demand for 
democracy, but it is also a root cause for unrest 
and upheaval in the Muslim world today.

What Pakistan has been witnessing in the past few 
months is emblematic of a fundamental cause 
behind the instability and turmoil in many of the 
world's Islamic countries. The lack of justice 
permeates every aspect of autocratic Muslim 
societies around the world and is an essential 
argument used by Islamic extremists from Osama 
bin Laden to Taliban's Mullah Omar. They can do 
so because justice is not just a democratic 
demand, but also the fundamental promise of the 
Koran. The Koran is permeated with demands for 
justice for the oppressed - be they Muslims or 
non-Muslim minorities or women.The most quoted 
Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, also recount 
his dispensation of justice and his demand that 
all rulers do the same.

The lack of justice is a principal driver of the 
Talibanization now taking place in Afghanistan 
and in the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan. 
Where no social or political institutions exist 
or they have been totally corrupted and 
subverted, the first thing the Taliban offer is 
justice. When Islamic radicals occupy an area, 
they set up a sharia, or Islamic court of law - 
not because people necessarily demand sharia, but 
because such courts dispense quick, cheap justice.

The fortunate aspect of the movement in Pakistan 
is that it is led by educated middle-class 
professionals, determined to introduce justice 
through democracy not religion. This could have a 
long-lasting effect in helping win the wider 
struggle against extremism in the Muslim world.

However, the US administration retains tunnel 
vision in supporting Musharraf and army rule. The 
Bush administration failed to plan for a 
post-Musharraf era and now ignores the 
justice-through-democracy movement. Influential 
presidential Democratic candidates point out what 
Pakistanis have long known - that the US 
dependency on Musharraf and the US $10 billion 
aid money to the military since 2001 - has led to 
Musharraf and the army confidently double dealing 
the US on stopping Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In 
the face of failure within the desperate Bush 
administration, there is now open and dangerous 
talk of invading Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan.

With Musharraf hell-bent on persevering power, 
the risks multiply. Al Qaeda spreads its 
tentacles through several Pakistani proxies 
across the country, and a wave of suicide 
bombings target the army and police. In 
Balochistan a separatist insurgency by secular 
rebels, possibly backed by India and Iran, picks 
off Chinese workers - thereby creating a crisis 
with Pakistan's closest ally.

After 100 militants were killed in the army's 
July crackdown on the Red Mosque in Islamabad, 
where Islamic militants had holed out for six 
month, the Islamists promised revenge. 
Intelligence agencies report that more than 600 
students who escaped the mosque siege have become 
suicide bombers. Then there is the elephant in 
the room: Pakistan's 40-odd nuclear weapons. 
Washington is considering how to deal with loose 
nukes if anarchy spreads and radical army 
officers take control of some nuclear weapons. In 
the past Musharraf rejected US offers of 
technical assistance in securing the weapons, out 
of concern about losing sovereign control. In the 
current heightened anger against the US, amid 
talk of unilateral intervention in Pakistan, 
cooperation on the nuclear front may be even more 
difficult.

Since 2001, the Bush administration has refused 
to accept that political stability in Pakistan is 
a prerequisite for fighting terrorism and the 
army acting alone could not guarantee that 
stability. Washington presumed that because 
Musharraf represented the army's big stick there 
was no need to look further.

A more reasonable policy for the US to pursue and 
one that would help win back Pakistani hearts and 
minds would be to support the immediate return of 
exiled politicians, early general elections 
monitored by international observers followed by 
a free and fair election for the presidency. 
Washington needs to help bring about a just 
political transition in Islamabad before it again 
insists that the army battle Al Qaeda. The US can 
then help ensure that the new elected political 
leadership works closely with the army to combat 
extremism.There cannot be a sustainable fight 
against extremists who pretend to fight for 
justice if those called to join the battle are 
not offered justice themselves.

The danger is that, if the present democratic 
movement for justice is deprived of international 
support and is left to wither, then it will be 
taken over by the forces of Islamic extremism. 
That would be a disaster not just for Pakistan 
but the entire Muslim world.

Ahmed Rashid is the author of  Taliban: Militant 
Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia 
and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central 
Asia and a correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. 
Rights: © 2007 Yale Center for the Study of 
Globalization. 
<http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/>YaleGlobal Online.com

o o o


The News
August 18, 2007

AT DEMOCRACY'S CROSSROADS?

by Praful Bidwai

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a 
researcher and peace and human-rights activist 
based in Delhi

All South Asians who value freedom must feel 
relieved that President Pervez Musharraf dropped 
the disastrous idea of imposing a state of 
emergency on Pakistan, which would have allowed 
him to postpone the legislative and presidential 
elections due soon. Musharraf seems to be 
undertaking some sobering introspection to the 
point of admitting that his popularity ratings 
have declined and accepting part of the blame for 
dismissing Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry -- a 
deplorable move on which he had to eat crow.

Yet, it would be wrong to attribute Musharraf's 
decision to some new-found respect for democracy. 
He blinked because there was tremendous pressure 
from the United States, exercised through threats 
and hints, capped by a 17 minutes-long 2 a.m. 
telephone call by Secretary of State Condoleezza 
Rice. Secondly, Musharraf probably calculated 
it'd be far too risky to further inflame adverse 
popular opinion against the army. Another 
eruption of public protest--probably worse than 
the agitation against Chaudhry's sacking--would 
rob his regime of whatever's left of its 
legitimacy. A just-released Indian 
Express-CNN-IBN-CSDS-Dawn-News survey says 55.4 
percent of Pakistanis want him to quit as army 
chief before the presidential elections; only 
29.6 percent accept his continuation.

However, Musharraf hasn't fully reconciled 
himself to holding free and fair national 
assembly elections, which former Prime Ministers 
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif can contest. On 
August 11, he again opposed their return from 
exile because it might create a situation not 
"conducive" to elections. Nor has Musharraf given 
up the idea of contesting the presidential 
election in uniform, or as a bizarre alternative, 
nominating civilian loyalists--Prime Minister 
Shaukat Aziz or Chaudhary Shujat Hussain--for the 
contest if the Supreme Court rules against his 
candidature. That would be a weird case of 
illegitimate substitution and a travesty of 
democracy.

The more one learns about Musharraf's secret deal 
with Bhutto, the worse it sounds. Under it, she 
would return to Pakistan and contest elections 
provided she accepts that Musharraf would stay on 
as army chief till November 16. Bhutto has 
confirmed the existence of this "confidential 
understanding". She claims she would like certain 
"confidence-building measures", such as 
withdrawal of corruption cases against her and 
amending the constitution to enable her to become 
Prime Minister for a third time. Her spokesperson 
has said that the General's uniform is not an 
"obstacle". This suggests that the Pakistan 
People's Party might not oppose the President's 
re-election, due earlier.

Bhutto would then consider allying with 
Musharraf. Bhutto's logic is that forcing him out 
of power through a street agitation might lead to 
another spell of military rule or risk an 
extremist takeover of Pakistan. The logic is 
dubious. It makes a false opposition between two 
extremes and rules out the possibility that 
Musharraf might be forced by the court not to 
seek re-election from the sitting assemblies 
whose terms will expire shortly. It also 
underestimates the strength of public opinion.

It's unclear whether Musharraf maintains a strong 
enough hold over the army to persuade it to 
impose another term of martial law. In recent 
months, the army's standing has greatly eroded 
because of its long years in power, increasing 
intrusion into civilian authority, and its 
handling of the Lal Masjid crisis.

Eight years ago, many Pakistanis accepted 
Musharraf's coup out of disgust with the corrupt 
governance of civilian leaders. Some civil 
society groups even supported military rule.But 
the military regime betrayed its many promises: 
to cleanse governance, make the rich pay taxes, 
oppose the forces of extremism, and adhere to 
transparency while implementing "free-market" 
policies. For instance, the Accountability 
Commission became a farce. Musharraf struck a 
deal with the MMA. And there were scandals in the 
privatisation of public enterprises. Today, 
there's widespread disillusionment with the 
military.

A recent opinion poll by the US-based 
pro-Republican International Republican Institute 
found that Musharraf's approval ratings had 
dipped to just 34 percent from 60 percent in June 
2006. As many as 58 percent of the 4,000 adults 
polled gave the army-dominated government poor or 
very poor marks; 56 percent said they felt less 
safe than a year ago. 62 percent said they wanted 
Musharraf to step down as army chief if he wants 
to contest the presidential election.

By entering into a shady deal with Musharraf 
which allows him to get re-elected as president 
before fresh assembly elections, Bhutto would 
violate the Charter of Democracy she signed with 
Sharif in May, which states: "We shall not join 
the military regime or any military- sponsored 
government. No party shall solicit the support of 
the military to come into power or dislodge a 
democratic government".

This will make it doubly difficult for Sharif to 
return home. Musharraf bears a special animus 
against him. Whatever Sharif's faults--and there 
are many--, his continued exile will be a setback 
for democratisation. And it would be tragic if 
the PPP, Pakistan's largest party, were to reach 
such a compromise with the military regime. 
There's a distinct risk that the PPP could split 
or some of its leaders like Aitjaz Ahsan might 
leave it. That apart, such a deal would help the 
army entrench itself in a prominent role in 
public life just as it's losing its credibility. 
This would undermine some major gains that the 
momentum towards democratisation has registered.

Regrettably, despite Musharraf's ambivalent 
record in fighting the Taliban, and the 
questionable role his secret agencies are playing 
in Afghanistan, external factors too seemingly 
favour him. The three major nations that matter 
the most to Pakistan, the US, China and India, 
seem inclined to support a large role for the 
Pakistan army. This is of course understandable 
in the case of the US which, true to type, 
follows a myopic policy guided primarily by its 
Global War on Terror (GWoT). It believes that 
Musharraf remains its best or sole bet as regards 
GWoT. China is probably deeply sceptical, if not 
suspicious, of the prospect of Pakistan's 
democratisation.

However, India's pro-Musharraf position is less 
understandable, much less justifiable. India has 
a long-term stake in a democratic, stable 
Pakistan which can rein in the military and its 
secret services, which nurture a strong 
anti-India prejudice -- probably the obverse, if 
a more extreme one, of the anti-Pakistan attitude 
of their counterparts across the border. That 
certainly conforms to the dominant view held 
within the Indian security establishment, which 
has for long years argued that the 
"state-within-the-state" autonomy which agencies 
like the ISI enjoy have allowed them to sustain 
anti-India activities.

Yet, India's National Security Adviser M K 
Narayanan declared (July 29) that "the worst is 
over" for Musharraf; there's been no "major dent" 
in his influence because he accepted the Chief 
Justice's reinstatement "with grace". Besides 
echoing the dominant US view of Musharraf's 
indispensability, this expresses cynicism towards 
the aspirations of the Pakistani public.

A survey of democratisation in South Asia by 
India's Centre for the Study of Developing 
Societies suggests that the democratic 
aspirations of ordinary Pakistanis are no weaker 
than those of Indians or Nepalis. One can only 
wish the people success in making Pakistan a 
full-fledged democracy, with a properly 
functioning party system which can respond to the 
people's wishes on the basis of accountability, 
and not benevolent paternalism.

______


[2]


Daily Mirror
August 18, 2007

APRC's PROGRESS

The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) has 
at long last reached broad consensus on 
devolution proposals aimed at resolving the 
national problem. APRC Chairman Tissa Vitharana 
has said the parties would complete a draft and 
hand it over to President Mahinda Rajapaksa by 
the end of next week.

The present accord where the majority of parties 
have been able to reach agreement is indeed 
significant although the other two main parties, 
the
UNP and the JVP, have yet to actively participate 
in the process. The parties are reported to have 
reached 70 percent agreement on a number of
issues. And they are confident that they would be 
able to settle the remaining issues at the next 
meeting,

What is significant is that the parties have been 
able to reach such consensus through discussion 
and compromise. The unit of devolution that 
remained a controversial matter has been settled 
among these parties with the main ruling party, 
the SLFP agreeing to accept province as the 
administrative unit for devolution.Chairman Prof. 
Vitharana has appealed to the UNP that had 
refrained from participating in APRC 
deliberations to rejoin the process without 
making any attempt to gain political advantage at 
this stage. It is obvious that the APRC would not 
be able to successfully accomplish its task 
unless the other two main parties lend their 
support and cooperation. The UNP indeed cannot 
have serious disagreement with what has been 
agreed upon by other parties because there are 
close affinities between the UNP proposals and 
those of other parties in the APRC. It is a 
positive sign that the Tamil National Alliance 
(TNA) also has reportedly decided to submit a set 
of proposals to the APRC. The JVP too should join 
in these deliberations since earlier policy has 
been to fall in line with any reasonable 
agreement reached by the majority of political 
parties.

The people will wait with fingers crossed 
wondering whether the political parties even at 
this late stage would deviate from their 
traditional pattern of confrontational politics 
and cooperate in the present effort to end the 
ongoing bloodletting in the country. The 
resolution of this conflict that has robbed this 
country of thousands of precious lives and 
destroyed property worth billions of rupees 
should be the priority task of all those who have 
the country's well-being at heart.

It has been the opportunistic political party 
rivalry throughout that obstructed the solution 
of this problem. The storms that this ethnic 
conflict weathered over the years leading to the 
present parlous situation where foreign forces 
are poised to dictate terms, is well known. 
Unfortunately, even at this late stage extremist 
are emerging posing problems for the present 
attempt to clinch an agreement. While those 
extremists in the North beating the separatist 
drums are poised to oppose any reasonable 
solution, those beating war drums in the south 
are prodding the government into prolonging the 
war until the LTTE is completely vanquished.

Encouraged and emboldened by recent military 
successes these sections want the war further 
extended. The level of alleged corruption even in 
the purchase of arms to prosecute the war, lends 
strong credence to the widely held view that arms 
dealers and commission hunters have a say in 
prolonging the war for their benefit.

It is, therefore, the duty of the UNP that 
accuses the government of clinging on to the war 
for political purposes to actively cooperate in 
the present effort to forge an acceptable 
political solution to the problem.  If it does 
not cooperate at this stage, then they will not 
be able to escape the charge that they are aiding 
and abetting extremism that they vow to shun.

If the JVP is honest in their commitment to 
democracy and its values, Justice, equality and 
so on, they should reexamine their attitudes to 
the national problem considering the present 
dangerous form it has taken. If they are true 
progressives they should be prepared for change. 
As it is often said conclusions are like 
motorcars; they need to be periodically examined 
and serviced for them to be in proper condition.

In the same way they have deviated from their 
former policy of toppling governments through 
violent revolution and opted for democratic means 
for political change, the party has to revise its 
policies to keep pace with changing times and 
situations.


o o o

The Sunday Leader
19 August 2007

APRC RULES OUT UNITARY STATE

APRC proposals for new constitution federal in nature
North-East merger to be discussed at peace talks
Wide ranging fiscal devolution
Blocked draft to out this week

The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) is 
this week planning to release the main proposals 
to form the basis of a future constitution where 
Sri Lanka is defined as a free, sovereign and 
independent state known as the Republic of Sri 
Lanka.

The main proposals backed by a majority of the 
parties represented in the APRC has excluded the 
'unitary state' concept as proposed by the SLFP, 
JHU and the MEP.

The 'main proposals' which were to be released on 
August 15 did not see the light of day after the 
SLFP and MEP moved for the indefinite adjournment 
of the APRC on a request by the President on 
Tuesday.

However The Sunday Leader learns the proposals 
are to be released this week even if the 
President does not give the green light for the 
APRC to resume proceedings.

A copy of the main proposals in the possession of 
The Sunday Leader states, 'the Republic of Sri 
Lanka shall give the foremost place to Buddhism 
with the state to protect and foster the Buddha 
Sasana while according to all religions the 
rights guaranteed by the articles in the proposed 
constitution.'
The 'main proposals' also reiterate that the unit 
of devolution will be the province, once again 
rejecting the SLFP, MEP and JHU position.

'The Republic of Sri Lanka is a single state in 
the sense in which it shall be deemed to be an 
undivided, integrated and inter-dependent state 
structure where the devolved state power shall be 
shared between the centre and the provinces and 
among the provinces inter se,' the draft 
proposals state.
It is learned the use of the word 'shall' was 
intended to give the proposed constitution a 
federal flavour as opposed to characteristics of 
the unitary state.
In a ground breaking provision the draft also 
states the people of Sri Lanka shall be described 
in the constitution as being composed of 
"Sinhala, Sri Lankan Tamil, Moor, Indian Tamil 
and other constituent peoples of Sri Lanka.

"The right of every constituent people to develop 
their own language, to develop and promote their 
culture and to preserve its history and the right 
to its due share of state power including the 
right to due representation in institutions of 
government shall be recognised without in any way 
weakening the common Sri Lankan identity..." the 
main proposals also state.

Legal sources said this provision taken with the 
earlier provisions provide for a federal 
constitution all but in name.
The report further proposes the abolition of the 
executive presidency at the end of President 
Mahinda Rajapakse's present term of office with 
Sri Lanka to return to a parliamentary democracy. 
The proposals state the president shall act on 
the advice of the prime minister.
The proposals also envisage peace talks with the LTTE.

It states two or three provinces can merge 
subject to a referendum in those provinces.The 
draft states since the Tamil parties have been 
agitating for the north-east merger it is best 
kept open for discussion at the peace talks with 
Muslim representation at such talks.
The report further provides for the abolition of 
the concurrent list in the present constitution 
for the distribution of powers and makes way for 
a national list and a provincial list.

The proposals also envisage far reaching fiscal 
devolution to enable the provinces to effectively 
develop their areas.It is proposed to look at the 
fiscal devolution proposed in President Chandrika 
Kumaratunga's 2000 Draft Constitution.


______


[3]

AMARTYA SEN ON INDIA: PAST AND FUTURE

Amartya Sen, Forbes | August 14, 2007
   
   It is 60 years now since I, like many other 
schoolchildren, stayed up till midnight, 
bleary-eyed, to hear Jawaharlal Nehru, soon to be 
prime minister of India, give his famous speech 
on India's "tryst with destiny."
   
   This was on the eve of India's independence 
from British rule on Aug. 15, 1947. India would 
not only be, we were told, a fully democratic and 
secular state but also a country that will fight 
for "the ending of poverty and ignorance and 
disease and inequality of opportunity." It is 
interesting to ask how far along we have gone in 
60 years in fulfilling that momentous resolve.
   
   On the democratic front, India's success was 
immediate and came with astonishing speed. India 
became overnight the first poor country in the 
world to be a full-scale democracy. And there 
was--and is--success enough here.
   
   There was a short-lived hiccup in the 1970s 
when there was a brief attempt to change the 
system, but when the government sought 
endorsement in a general election for those 
changes, it was driven out of office by the 
voters.
   
   There have been regular and orderly elections, 
and the ruling parties have vacated office when 
defeated in general elections, rather than 
calling in the army. India has also had other 
essential features of a democracy, in particular 
continued freedom and vigor of the media and 
independence of the judiciary, with the Supreme 
Court often disallowing decisions of those in 
governmental office on constitutional grounds.
   
   So democracy has indeed flourished nicely in 
India, and that has been the case right from the 
time when India became independent after two 
centuries of authoritarian British colonial 
dominance. India's democratic success is 
sometimes seen only as a consequence of British 
rule, but that is comparatively recent history 
shared by a hundred or more other countries that 
also emerged from the empire, none of which has 
had quite the easy success that India has had 
with democracy.
   
   In fact, as I have tried to argue elsewhere (in 
my book The Argumentative Indian, Piccador, 
2005), India's long argumentative tradition and 
toleration of heterodoxy, going back thousands of 
years, has greatly helped in making democracy 
flourish with such ease. This would be remarkable 
enough for any poor country, but it was a much 
harder task in a land with a great many major 
languages, each with a long and proud history, 
and with a rich and old literature.
   
   And there was, of course, the challenge of the 
multiplicity of religions in India, with nearly 
every religion well represented. Jews came to 
India in the first century; Christians in the 
fourth; Parsees immigrated as soon as persecution 
began in Persia in the late seventh century; and 
early Muslim traders started coming to the 
western coast of India from the eighth century, 
well before the later invasion of the north of 
India by Muslim conquerors in the late tenth 
century onwards.
   
   Even though British India was partitioned into 
India and Pakistan in 1947 on religious lines, 
the vast majority of Muslims on the Indian side 
chose to stay on in India, and today India has 
nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan and many more 
Muslims than Bangladesh.
   
   India chose to have a solidly secular 
constitution, and it is as a secular democracy 
that India has flourished. Secularism has been 
threatened from time to time by actions of 
sectarian groups, but the massive support for 
secularism across India has asserted itself again 
and again, the last time in the Indian general 
elections in 2004. In the political field, 
India's success today is a firm vindication of 
what, 60 years ago, it breathlessly tried to 
achieve.
   
   The story is very different on the economic 
side. The growth rate of the Indian economy 
remained stuck at its low traditional point of 3 
per cent a year for a very long time. The 
economic policies needed substantial reform. In 
the old days, some wise guys used to put forward 
the thesis that India's growth rate was low 
because of its democracy, which seemed to many of 
us rather ridiculous.
   
   But with continued low growth, that 
anti-democratic point of view gained some ground 
among high-octane commentators (never with the 
general public, though). When India changed its 
economic policies, the growth rate picked up as 
expected, without India becoming any less of a 
democracy to achieve this result.
   
   The economic changes came amid much hesitation 
and huge resistance. To start with, India 
hastened slowly. The 1980s, which saw some 
moderate reforms, produced some quickening, with 
an economic growth rate of 5 per cent, which may 
now seem sadly slow but was much faster than what 
had happened in the early decades of 
independence, not to mention a century of 
colonial semi-stagnation.
   
   But the economy was still full of problems 
connected with financial instability, trade 
imbalances and choking public administration. In 
general, what used to be called the 'license Raj' 
made business initiatives extremely difficult and 
at the mercy of bureaucrats (large and small), 
thereby powerfully stifling enterprise while 
hugely nurturing corruption.
   
   When Manmohan Singh came to office in the early 
1990s as the newly appointed finance minister, in 
a government led by the Congress Party, he knew 
these problems well enough, as someone who had 
been strongly involved in government 
administration for a long time. (This was after 
his stint as a very successful university 
professor at Delhi University where I was 
privileged to have him as a colleague.)
   
   And Singh's response was sure-footed though 
cautious, given the complex politics of policy 
reorientation. While the going has been rough 
from time to time, the direction of policy change 
has been unmistakable from that point onwards, 
endorsed even by successor governments run by 
other political parties.
   
   India is now getting used to its much higher 
rate of growth, first around 6 per cent a year 
and now about 8 per cent, occasionally touching 9 
per cent. It is also remarkable that India's main 
success has come not in traditional areas of 
exports but largely on newer industries, with a 
large component of high-tech, such as the 
information technology industry, which has 
rapidly grown to be a giant from a very modest 
beginning.
   
   Another area is that of pharmaceuticals. Even 
though in that field the Indian entry began with 
generic drugs (with a huge reduction--sometimes a 
cut of 80 per cent or so in the price for many 
essential drugs, like AIDS medicines), it is now 
going much more into new research as well.
   
   There is reason enough to celebrate many things 
happening in India right now. But there are 
failures as well, which need urgent attention. 
For example, there is still widespread 
undernourishment in general and child 
undernutrition in particular--at a shocking 
level. The failures include, quite notably, the 
astonishing neglect of elementary education in 
India, with a quarter of the population--and 
indeed half the women--still illiterate.

   The average life expectancy in India is still 
low (below 64) and infant mortality very high (58 
per 1,000 live births). It is certainly true that 
India has narrowed the shortfall behind China in 
these areas--that is, in life expectancy and 
infant mortality--but there is still some 
distance to go for the country as a whole.
   The problems are gigantic in some of the more 
'backward' states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. 
And yet there are other states in which the 
Indian numbers are similar to China's.
   
   There is also one state, Kerala, where the life 
expectancy is higher than China's (75 years at 
birth, as opposed to China's 72), and infant 
mortality lower (12, as opposed to China's 28). 
Kerala has had good state policies of supporting 
school education for all and making sure that it 
works, and has provided free health care to all 
for many decades now. Even though now many 
better-off families choose private medical care, 
everyone still has the option of having health 
care from the state.
   
   If India has to overcome these failures, it has 
to spend much more money on expanding the social 
infrastructure, particularly school education and 
basic health care. It also needs to spend much 
more in building up a larger physical 
infrastructure, including more roads, more power 
supplies and more water. In some of these, the 
private sector can help.
   
   But a lot more has to be spent on public 
services themselves, in addition to improving the 
system of delivery of these services, with more 
attention paid to incentives and disciplines, and 
better cooperation with the unions, consumer 
groups and other involved parties.
   
   On the basis of some investigations that have 
been done by the Pratichi Trust (a trust I was 
privileged to set up in 1999 through the use of 
my 1998 Nobel money), it is clear how much needs 
to be done and can be done to change the 
organizational structure of school education and 
basic health care. (We studied only one part of 
India, but the results from other studies from 
elsewhere in India are often quite similar.)
   
   However, aside from organizational change, more 
public funds, too, will be needed. Where will the 
money come from? Well, to start with, India can 
spend a much higher proportion of its public 
resources on school education and on basic health 
care, on both of which its percentage share of 
public spending is among the lowest in the world.
   
   There is, furthermore, good news that has been 
discussed astonishingly little. If the total 
revenue, from taxes and other channels, of the 
central and state governments keeps pace with the 
rapid growth of the economy, when the economy is 
growing at 8 per cent a year, that would be a big 
rate of increase of available funds for public 
services.
   
   As it happens, government revenue has 
persistently grown faster than the growth of 
gross domestic product: in 2003-04, the economic 
growth of 6.5 per cent was exceeded by the 
revenue growth of 9.5 per cent, and in 2004-05 to 
2006-07, the growth rates of 7.5 per cent, 9 per 
cent, and 9.4 per cent have been bettered, 
respectively, by the expansion rates of 
government revenue (in 'real terms'--that is 
corrected for price change) of 12.5 per cent, 9.7 
per cent and 11.2 per cent.
   
   Money will continue to come very rapidly into 
the government's hands if the fast economic 
growth continues. What is critically important is 
to use these generated resources to remedy 
India's continuing deficiencies, in particular in 
basic health care, in school education and in 
rapidly expanding its physical infrastructure.
   
   So, as we look back over the last 60 years, 
some things have happened well enough, and some, 
where the gaps were large, have started to catch 
up. However, there are other areas in which there 
are still huge shortfalls. These gaps would need 
to be urgently remedied. We know what to do, and 
there are resources to do it. What we need now is 
some determined action to do what we can do and 
must do.
   
   Amartya Sen is the Lamont University professor 
and a professor of economics and philosophy at 
Harvard University. Previously, he served as 
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and Drummond 
Professor of Political Economy at Oxford.
He was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics 
"for his contributions to welfare economics" and 
was the first Asian to receive this honor.
He has served as the president of the American 
Economic Association, the Indian Economic 
Association, the International Economic 
Association and the Econometric Society.


______


[4]

BROKEN PEACE

FACT - FINDING COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE FIRST COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN GOA

PANAJI, APRIL 2006

http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/brpeace.pdf

______


[5]

Times of India
17 Aug 2007

DON'T SHACKLE THE WAVES

by Ammu Joseph

Back to square one. The current row between the 
government and broadcasters over the draft 
Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007, is 
taking place exactly a year after a similar 
fracas over the draft Broadcasting Services 
Regulation Bill, 2006.

In July last year the ministry of information and 
broadcasting had announced that it would hold 
meetings with top representatives of the media 
and entertainment industries before finalising 
the Bill and tabling it in Parliament. Last week 
I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi said a 
decision regarding the introduction in Parliament 
of the new Bill, and the accompanying draft 
Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting 
Sector (alias Content Code), would be taken after 
another round of discussion with "stakeholders". 
The more things change the more they seem to stay 
the same.

For the ministry, then and now, the term 
"stakeholders" evidently encompasses only 
broadcasters. This is despite the fact that the 
preamble to the new draft Bill reaffirms the 
12-year-old opinion of the Supreme Court that the 
airwaves are public property, and goes on to 
state that the proposed legislation is meant "to 
regulate the use of such airwaves in the national 
and public interest". Of course, that is both the 
first and the last reference to the public within 
the document.

Most broadcasters have rejected the Bill and the 
Code in their present form on the ground that 
certain provisions in the two documents would 
curb their freedom of expression. What is often 
forgotten in such arguments is the fact that 
freedom of the press (or media) is actually part 
of the broader democratic right to freedom of 
expression to which all citizens are supposed to 
be entitled.

Representatives of the broadcast industry have 
mooted a 12-month moratorium so that the question 
of regulation can be properly discussed instead 
of the draft legislation being rushed through 
with just a 15-day period for feedback. According 
to the newly formed News Broadcasters Association 
(NBA), more time is required to devise their own 
criteria and systems for self-regulation of 
content.

Dasmunshi apparently believes that posting the 
Bill and Code on the ministry's website is 
adequate proof of democratic intent. He has also 
made embarrassing claims about the draft 
legislation, projecting it as the best and the 
most democratic in the world, more in tune with 
the changing times than anything anywhere else, 
including the United States and Europe, and 
therefore a possible model for others to follow.

None of these assertions can be taken seriously. 
The few merits and many demerits of the draft 
Bill and Code, as well as the ifs, buts and hows 
of media regulation, have received some attention 
over the past fortnight. But equally questionable 
is the process through which the legislation has 
emerged and is being pushed ahead. The lack of 
transparency, the
absence of public consultation, the assumption 
that mere appearance on a website constitutes 
public notice, and the ridiculously short period 
provided for public response make a mockery of 
any claims to democratic functioning.

Contrast this with what is happening right now in 
the US, where the controversial Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a 
public notice related to its forthcoming 
comprehensive review of broadcast ownership 
policies.

Announcing the release of 10 research studies on 
different aspects of media ownership, conducted 
by external researchers as well as FCC staff, the 
commission has given the public a full 60 days to 
file comments.

Not only are the complete texts of the research 
documents available on the FCC website but people 
with disabilities can request materials in 
accessible formats. Copies of all related 
documents are also available to the public at the 
commission's Reference Information Centre. Both 
the evidence gathered through the studies and the 
comments received from the public are to be used 
to guide and support the commission's decisions 
in the ownership proceeding. In other words, the 
public can provide inputs into the policy review 
process - not just react to a fait accompli.

UK's communications industry regulator, the 
Office of Communications (Ofcom), has a whole 
section on the consultation process on its 
website. Ofcom's multi-pronged consultations 
typically take place over five to 10 weeks, 
depending on the complexity and urgency of the 
issues under discussion. It considers 
consultation an important part of its mandate 
because its decisions must not only be based on 
evidence but also take into account the views of 
all those who have an interest in the outcome - 
not just the relevant industries and companies 
but also consumer and community groups and even 
individuals.

The idea is to ensure that policy decisions are 
based on the widest available range of 
information and opinions. In other words, 
consultation is supposed to precede and feed into 
decision-making, not the other way around. 
Critics of the FCC and Ofcom within their 
respective countries question several aspects of 
their differing approaches to regulation, 
including their consultation processes. Compared 
to the lack of due process here, however, their 
systems appear quite enviable.

Within days of placing the draft Bill on the 
ministry's website - despite the vociferous, 
ongoing objections from the broadcast industry - 
Dasmunshi had declared that since there was no 
opposition to the legislation from any quarter 
there was no reason to delay it.

Considering the primary objective of media 
regulation in a democracy is to preserve and 
protect citizens' fundamental rights to 
information and freedom of expression, the 
democratic approach to regulation would be to 
increase informed public participation in media 
policymaking. In the absence of authentic public 
debate, policies will continue to be made in the 
people's name without their informed consent.

The writer is a Bangalore-based freelance journalist.

______


[6]


SOLIDARITY FAST IN SUPPORT OF IROM SHARMILA
                                                                        
Date: 14th August, 2007

Dear friends,

Some of us have decided to organize a solidarity 
fast in support of Irom Sharmila, who is in her 
7th year of fast with a demand to repeal the 
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (for more 
information see below).
This solidarity fast will be organized in Imphal, 
Manipur where Sharmila is presently confined to 
the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, from 13th 
September, 2007, and will go on for 3-5 days. We 
invite more people from all over India and even 
outside to come and join this solidarity fast for 
as many days as you can. This is the least we can
do to support one of the longest solitary 
peaceful struggles of our times which saddens our 
hearts but doesn't move the authorities a bit. We 
are confident that the truth will emerge 
victorious one day.

Looking forward to seeing you in Imphal on 13th 
September. For more information please contact 
Sapamcha Kangleipal, President of Manipur
Forward Youth Front at 09862096539.
Love,
Sandeep Pandey, Lucknow, ashaashram at yahoo.com
Faisal Khan, Delhi, 9313106745
Biju Borbaruah, Guwahati, 9435198562

Organizations endorsing the action:
Asha Parivar
National Alliance of People's Movements

Irom Sharmila Chanu - Repeal Of AFSPA Update:

Irom Sharmila continues to fast in the Security 
Ward, J.N. Hospital, Imphal. Confined to a 
solitary existence!

Dear friends,
It is now almost five months since Irom Sharmila 
returned to Imphal on 5th March 2007, to continue 
her hunger fast against the draconian Armed 
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The situation 
continues to be grim - both for Sharmila as well 
for all those suffering under the prolonged 
implication of AFSPA.

For those of you reading about Sharmila's epic 
struggle for the first time - on 4th November 
2000, 28 year old Irom Sharmila Chanu started her 
hunger fast seeking repeal of the draconian 
AFSPA. This was her response to one among 
countless incidents of arbitrary killing by the 
Armed Forces in the north east when on 2nd 
November 2000, 10 innocent civilians were killed 
at Malom near Imphal, Manipur. Sharmila has since 
been incarcerated at J.N. Hospital Imphal. Over 
the years she has been repeatedly arrested and 
detained under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit 
suicide). In October 2006, for the first time 
Sharmila left Manipur and continued her protest 
fast at Jantar Mantar, and then at AIIMS and RML 
hospitals in New Delhi where she was kept under 
constant police vigil.

Sentenced to solitary confinement?
Now in her 7th year of the fast, Sharmila's 
health is deteriorating. Far from responding to 
her demand of Repeal of AFSPA, the state is doing 
everything it can to isolate her and her peaceful 
struggle.
At the hospital, Sharmila is not allowed visitors 
on a regular basis. This is in complete violation 
of the law, which permits anyone in custody, be 
they an undertrial prisoner or a convict in a 
high security prison regular visits by his or her 
family members, friends, supporters and/or 
lawyers. And yet, Sharmila does not even this 
basic
freedom, despite the fact that there is no court 
order commanding her isolation. Her family, 
friends and supporters are put through an arduous 
and cumbersome process to meet her.

The 'Special' process takes to meet Sharmila can 
take up to 20 days and involves an application to 
the Joint Secretary Home Department, Government 
of Manipur; the DGP, Prison, Central Jail, 
Manipur; the Additional Superintendent, Sajiwa 
Jail, Manipur and the SI, Sajiwa Jail – who if 
the application gets all the due clearances, then 
'accompanies' the visitor to meet Sharmila!

What are we to surmise except that the Government 
is attempting to isolate her from all contact 
with the outside world in the hope of weakening 
her struggle?

Matter of honour.
It is unlikely that the Government of India will 
acknowledge or respect, let alone honour Sharmila 
for her determined struggle for justice and 
peace. Satyagraha, after all, has been 
disregarded repeatedly in these times.

On 18th May 2007, Sharmila was awarded the 
Gwangju Prize for Human Rights in Seoul, Korea. 
Her brother Singhjit received the award on her 
behalf and returned to Manipur only to be told 
that the certificate would not be shown to 
Sharmila. He had to wait till 30 June to get 
'permission' to visit Sharmila and give her an 
update of the events surrounding the award.

The Gwanju Prize includes a cash award of $25,000 
(approx. Rs. 12 lakhs). Sharmila and her family 
have decided that this money will go towards 
assisting the victims of the human rights 
violations in Manipur. The Ministry of Home 
Affairs (FCRA department) claims it has 'lost' 
the FC-5 application required to facilitate 
transfer of the award amount. What will it take 
for the Government to expedite and release it 
without any further game playing?
AFSPA - No response to the demand for repeal.

At both, the Central and State level, the 
government is simply refusing to address the 
peoples' demand for repeal of AFSPA - despite the 
voices against it being raised against it from 
Kashmir to Kerala to Delhi to Manipur and 
Nagaland, for over two decades now. In  addition 
of course, have been the recommendations for 
Repeal of the Act by the Justice Jeevan Reddy 
Committee set up by the government as well as the 
Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Mr. 
Veerappa Moily.

Meanwhile in the shadow of this draconian Act, 
and the impunity it offers the armed forces, 
everyday the people of Manipur are disappearing, 
being killed and tortured.  Mr. Nongmaithem Tomba 
alias Chinung (37 years),  Miss. Soniya alias 
Najama Latif (15 years), Mr. Moirangthem Gandhi 
Singh (24 years)  everyday AFSPA continues to 
claim new victims.

Need for urgent action
It is imperative that as individuals and groups 
who believe in democracy and justice, we raise 
our voice against the continued injustice under 
AFSPA and the continued harassment of Irom 
Sharmila.

1.      Send a statement. Let's be heard this time!
Here is a draft statement you could use to lend your support:

We, the undersigned, as individuals and groups 
who believe in democracy and justice, demand that 
the government of India:
·        Respect the peaceful struggle of people 
like Irom Sharmila and immediately withdraw all 
restrictions on her mobility as well as her 
freedom to meet and interact with people
      ·        Release her from custody without any further delay
      ·        Drop all facetious cases against her

Moreover, the government must:
      ·        Repeal the AFSPA with  immediate effect
      ·        Implement the recommendations of the Justive Jeevan
Reddy Committee and the Administrative Reforms Commission.
·        B ring the armed forces within the 
democratic framework of accountability and 
justice without any further delay.
Only then can the people of the north-east and 
J&K have any chance or hope to live with security 
and dignity.
Sd/-
Please email the Statement to  the following (and 
copy us in so we know how much support the 
campaign is getting):

President of India, Smt. Pratibha Patil,

Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh,

Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Shivraj V. Patil, 
Minister of Defence, Mr. A. K. Antony, Minister 
of State for
Labour & Employment, Mr. Oscar Fernandes, 
Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission of 
India, Chief
Minister of Manipur, Mr. O. Ibobi Singh, Governor of Manipur, Shri Ved Marwah.

Compiled email list: presidentofindia at rb.nic.in, 
pmosb at pmo.nic.in, svpatil at sansad.nic.in, 
ak.antony at sansad.nic.in, oscar at sansad.nic.in, 
chairnhrc at nic.in , cmmani at hub.nic.in, 
govmani at hub.nic.in
      Copy to:	onilrights at gmail.com, preetiverma10 at yahoo.com ,
saheliwomen at hotmail.com

      2.      Sign the petition!
      ·        Please forward this to as many 
people as you can on your mailing list and 
various list serves, and sign the online petition 
against Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 at 
this link:  
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?afspa

      3.      Stay in touch with Sharmila!
      ·        You can also write directly to Sharmila and send her 
messages of solidarity at:-
      Irom Sharmila Chanu
      Security Ward
      Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital
      Porompat
      Imphal - 795001
      Manipur

      This update is an attempt to keep informed 
all those in solidarity with Sharmila, who 
resolutely persists in her demand for the repeal 
of an anti-people law.

      In Solidarity
      Kshetrimayum Onil (Reachout) – onilrights at gmail.com
      Preeti Verma (Human Rights Law Network) – preetiverma10 at yahoo.com
      Vani Subramanian (Saheli) – saheliwomen at hotmail.com

______


[7]

Dear friends,

You might have already heard from us about the 
"Jan Adhikar Yatra" - a 12 day Mass Padyatra that 
over 300 people are currently undertaking through 
three hundred villages from four directions of 
Jaipur namely  Alwar, Tonk, Ajmer and Sikar. The 
Padyatras, and a cycle yatra that began from 
Chittorgarh District will will culminate in a 
continuous dharna and a series of Jan Sunwais in 
Jaipur from the 21st to 26th August on a number 
of issues. The programme will take place in front 
of the Collectorate in Jaipur.

We would like to invite you to join us during 
these public hearings beginning on the 22nd of 
August 2007 on the SEZ Act 2005 and other  land 
grab policies. The public hearing will also focus 
on the impact of the recent decision of the 
Rajasthan Government to hand over lakhs of 
hectares of so called "wasteland" to companies 
for jethropha  (agro fuel) plantation.

On the 23rd, there will be a public hearing on 
social security legislation for the unorganised 
sector.

On the 24th there is a public hearing on 
extending the National Rural Employment Guarantee 
Act  to the whole of Rajasthan, a demand that the 
State Government also dedicate resources to the 
programme so that the employment entitlement can 
be increased, and an examination of the 
implementation of the law in the State with 
particular focus on non-payment of minimum wages.

On the 25th will be a public hearing on the 
implementation of the Right  to Information in 
Rajasthan

This phase of the campaign will culminate in a 
Jan Manch on the 26th where political parties are 
being invited to come and state their public 
positions, and join the public debate on these 
issues. We feel that this public debate will 
help increase political accountability of 
political parties as well as move in the 
direction of exploring modes of  "peoples 
politics" before the next State and General 
elections.


We are also attaching the programme for the 21st 
to the 26th August and a background note about 
the issues concerned.

We hope you will be able to join us at any time 
during this process. Your presence will enrich 
the process and give us strength in our attempt 
to bring these crucial issues of peoples lives 
and livelihood into the realm of public debate 
and action.

in anticipation of your support
thanking you

yours sincerely

Aruna Roy
on behalf of the Rozgar evum Suchna Adhikar Abhiyan
0141-6419720, 09414004180

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

Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), 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: http://insaf.net/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