SACW | Dec. 6-7, 2007 / Stalemate in Sri Lanka / Nepal's peace process/ Kashmir - Article 370 / India: Don't Let Them Silence Taslima Nasreen

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Dec 7 02:10:02 CST 2007


South Asia Citizens Wire | December 6-7, 2007 | 
Dispatch No. 2473 - Year 10 running

[1] Sri Lanka:
   (i) Who is feeding the Tigers? (Rohini Hensman)
   (ii) Civil Society Statement Condemning All Violence Against Civilians
[2] Challenges Facing The Peace Process In Nepal (Tapan K. Bose)
[3] Kashmir: Remember Article 370 (AG Noorani)
[4] India: Don't Let Them Silence Taslima Nasreen 
- Stand Up For The Sake of Freedom Of Expression 
In India:
An SACW compilation of statements and opinions 
[4.1] Shameful Attack On Artistic Freedom : Stop 
hounding Taslima (Praful Bidwai)
[4.2] A Forgotten History (Priyamvada Gopal)
[5] Announcements:
Democracy/Devolution: Two Discourses in Sri 
Lanka's National Crisis - Talk by Rohini Hensman 
(Colombo, 7 dec 2007)
(ii) Panel Discussion: A Campaign Against Martial 
Law Event "Fiction And Politics (London 7 
December 2007) 
(iii) Zuban Books public events (Delhi, 7-8 December 2007)
(iv) Public Forum Pakistan Under The Gun (Vancouver, 11 Dec, 2007)

______


[1] SRI LANKA

(i)

The Colombo Post
4 December 2007

WHO IS FEEDING THE TIGERS?
THE GENESIS OF A SUICIDE BOMBER

by Rohini Hensman

On 27 November, Kilinochchi was the venue for the 
annual Great Heroes' Day event, at which LTTE 
leader Velupillai Prabhakaran paid tribute to the 
'martyrs' he himself had sent to their deaths. 
Much of his speech was a tirade against the 
international community,which he accused of 
turning against the LTTE, thus indirectly paying 
tribute to the efficacy of the pro-democracy and 
human rights campaigns of Tamil activists and 
Lakshman Kadirgamar, and contradicting 
allegations that the international community is 
supporting the Tigers. He vowed to continue the 
struggle until his goal of a separate Tamil state 
had been achieved, and demonstrated how serious 
he was the very next day, with two deadly 
terrorist attacks in Colombo and Nugegoda that 
killed and injured dozens of innocent civilians.

The only realistic characterisation of the 
current military situation is that it is a 
stalemate. Both the government and the LTTE can 
win some battles, but neither can win the war. We 
need only look at Iraq and Palestine, where the 
US and Israel with their overwhelming military 
superiority are unable to quell the Iraqi and 
Palestinian insurgencies, to realize that a 
purely military strategy in Sri Lanka will never 
defeat the LTTE. How do such movements survive in 
the face of a militarily superior adversary? How 
do they keep recruiting young people ready to 
give their lives to the cause?

In his brilliant film 'Paradise Now,' Palestinian 
director Hany Abu-Assad follows two young men, 
Said and Khaled, as they prepare to become 
suicide bombers. Said has suffered the loss and 
stigma that comes from being the son of a 
Palestinian executed for collaboration with the 
Israelis, as well as the daily oppression 
inflicted by the Israeli occupation. Based on 
extensive research, the film makes one hope 
against hope that the men will change their 
minds, as indeed Khaled does at the last minute; 
even Said refrains from bombing a bus full of 
civilians including children, climbing instead on 
to one full of soldiers.

The people who really make one's flesh creep in 
this film are those who give pep talks and make 
'martyr's videos' of the men before turning them 
into human bombs. An interview with failed LTTE 
suicide bomber Menake, published in the fashion 
magazine Marie Claire, tells a similar story. Her 
grandparents rescued her from an abusive father, 
who killed her mother and raped her repeatedly as 
a child, but they died when she was fifteen years 
old. Her aunt and uncle took her in reluctantly, 
only to give her away to the Tigers during one of 
their conscription drives. She volunteered to 
become a suicide bomber in order to give her life 
some purpose.

There are common elements in the stories: an 
unhappy past, an intolerable present under a 
repressive state, and an unscrupulous terrorist 
group that takes advantage of vulnerable young 
people to use them for its own ends. Humiliation, 
privation and bereavement inflicted by a hostile 
state are crucial ingredients, driving young 
people into the arms of terrorist groups. It is 
impossible to put an end to terrorism without 
cutting off this source of new recruits, the 
life-blood of such groups. So who are the 
recruiting agents of the LTTE in Sri Lanka?

The President and the SLFP

The prime culprits are the President and current 
leadership of the SLFP. Mahinda Rajapaksa came to 
power courtesy the LTTE: without its enforced 
boycott of the Presidential elections in the 
North and East, he would not have been elected. 
He and his hard-line Sinhala chauvinist allies 
within the SLFP, JHU and MEP have repaid the 
favour many times over. Prabhakaran wanted war 
because he cannot survive a just peace, 
andPresident Rajapaksa has given him what he 
wanted. The LTTE needs human rights abuses and a 
refusal to implement a just political solution to 
justify its call for a separate state, and there, 
too the President has obliged them. The 
government adamantly refuses to accept the help 
offered by the UN to improve its abysmal human 
rights record, and thus helps Prabhakaran to 
recruit his suicide bombers. And the only measure 
initiated by the President that could lead to the 
final defeat of the LTTE - the All Party 
Representative Committee (APRC) process to 
formulate proposals for political reform - has 
been delayed and sabotaged time and again by none 
other than the President himself and his party, 
the SLFP. Prabhakaran is no fool: he referred to 
the APRC's failure to put forward a solution in 
his speech. The President's bizarre statement 
that he represents the Sinhalese who voted for 
him but not the Tamils of the North-East further 
supports the LTTE's struggle for a separate 
state: after all, if the Sri Lankan head of state 
doesn't represent the Tamils of the North-East, 
then they are entitled to their own state! Even 
his claim that a unitary state was demanded by a 
majority of the Sinhalese people simply does not 
hold water.

A poll sponsored by the National Peace Council 
and carried out by the Marga Institute in 
May/June this year showed that 70 per cent of the 
respondents, who did not include Tamils, were 
ready to support a three-tiered system of 
devolution which came close to a federal system 
and certainly could not be described as unitary. 
It is time the President stopped passing off his 
own bigoted views as the views of the more 
enlightened Sinhalese majority. Far from 
representing the Sinhalese majority, the 
President has acted against their interests in 
every conceivable way. The government's offensive 
military strategy led to the debacle at the 
Anuradhapura Air Base, in which, according to 
Iqbal Athas, eightaircraft and two Unmanned 
Aerial Vehicles were destroyed and many more 
aircraft damaged. We must remember that this was 
not a terrorist attack aimed at unarmed 
civilians, but an attack on a legitimate military 
target in the midst of an ongoing war. If the 
President and Defence Ministry claim credit for 
the victory at Thoppigala, they must also accept 
blame for this defeat, in which the lives of 
several military personnel were lost, along with 
destruction and damage costing well over $ 30 
million. It would not have occurred if they had 
given priority to defending the installations and 
territory controlled by the government instead of 
embarking on a reckless offensive against the 
LTTE in its Northern stronghold. Who will pay the 
cost? The people of Sri Lanka, of course. 
Inflation has been described as a way in which 
the government robs the people, and that is 
indeed what is going on in Sri Lanka. At a 20 per 
cent rate of inflation, a wage will be worth 
one-fifth less at the end of a year than it was 
worth at the beginning. That is one way in which 
the government funds its war. Borrowing money at 
high rates of interest - which, again, the people 
will have to pay - is another. Meanwhile the 
garment industry - Sri Lanka's biggest foreign 
exchange earner - is going down the drain. 
Workers are demanding a wage increase of Rs. 2500 
and there are tens of thousands of unfilled 
vacancies because inflation has cut into real 
wages so badly.

At the same time, hundreds of factories have 
closed, and employers are complaining of 
ruinously high costs, due to the same sky-high 
inflation. To add to the economic problems, Sri 
Lanka could lose European Union trade incentives 
because of its deteriorating human rights 
record.Politicians carry on their profligate 
spending, the elite continue to enjoy their 
expensive life-styles, corruption is rampant at 
the highest levels of government, and those who 
report on it are penalised. Votes and political 
support are openly bought and sold. The President 
hands out political posts to family members and 
supporters like a feudal rulerrather than the 
leader of a modern democratic nation. In this 
context, COPE chairman Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha's 
demands that ministers and top officials found 
guilty of corruption should be fired, that the 
allocation of Rs. 23.6 billion for the President 
and his ministers be cut to five billion and the 
rest of the money used to improve health and 
education services, and that there be 
transparency and accountability in government 
spending, sound like eminently reasonable demands 
for good governance and democracy.

The UNP and its Leader

At first sight, the UNP under its current 
leadership does not seem to be guilty of helping 
the LTTE in this particular way. The ceasefire of 
2002 did provide a breathing space to a war-weary 
population in the North-East, and Ranil 
Wickremesinghe's declaration of support for a 
federal solution to the conflict was a courageous 
move. Yet, while in opposition, Wickremesinghe 
repeatedly sabotaged earlier efforts, especially 
in 1995 and 2000, to implement political reforms 
that could not go through without the cooperation 
of his party.

If those reforms had been implemented, the war 
might have been over by now, and thousands of 
lives might have been saved. Even during the 
period he was Prime Minister, there was little 
progress towards a political solution. When 
Prabhakaran denied LTTE backing for a federal 
solution, he made no effort to pursue discussions 
with other representatives of minority parties. 
Moreover, the provisions of the CFA and the way 
in which it was implemented helped the LTTE to 
murder its Tamil critics and prepare for Eelam 
War IV, thus making it inevitable that war would 
break out once more. More recently, his attitude 
to the APRC process, which holds out the promise 
of bringing about a political solution to the 
conflict, has been opportunistic in the extreme. 
It is understandable that he was piqued by the 
SLFP poaching UNP MPs and offering them Cabinet 
posts in violation of the Memorandum of 
Understanding signed between the two party 
leaders, but to respond by undermining the APRC 
process was childish and shortsighted. In fact, 
the SLFP's thoroughly unprofessional proposal, 
making the district the unit of devolution and 
contradicting itself on the subject of the 
Executive Presidency, gave him a chance to 
upstage it by declaring the UNP's support for the 
consensus that was emerging in the APRC, thus 
demonstrating greater political maturity than the 
SLFP. Instead, he first took the UNP out of the 
APRC discussions on the pretext that a final 
consensus had not emerged within the deadline he 
had given it, and later back-tracked on his 
earlier support for a federal solution.

That in itself might not have been a problem, 
since theminority parties had agreed to a state 
that was neither federal nor unitary, but his 
silence on this issue led to speculation that he 
was contemplating an alliance with the JVP which, 
of course, is insisting on a unitary state. His 
failure to contradict such rumours suggests a 
leader who is totally devoid of principles. Ranil 
Wickremesinghe's ability to win over the 
Sinhalese majority to a just political solution 
is also very doubtful. His economic policies were 
as callous towards the majority of the population 
as those of the current government, and his 
record of brutal human rights violations in an 
earlier UNP administration still hangs over him.

The TNA and JVP

The TNA MPs are at least honest about their 
support for the LTTE. JVP MPs, on the other hand, 
breathe fire and brimstone against the Tigers, 
yet their opposition to a democratic political 
solution acceptable to Tamil moderates sustains 
the credibility of the LTTE and its effort to 
divide the country: so long as Tamils are not 
treated as equals in a united Sri Lanka, the 
demand for a separate state where their 
democratic rights will be respected has 
legitimacy. Furthermore, JVP opposition to human 
rights monitoring that would reduce atrocities 
against Tamils helps Prabhakaran to recruit his 
deadly suicide bombers.

In other ways too, the JVP's actions contradict 
their claim to act in the interests of the 
Sinhalese majority. They claim to defend the 
living standards of workers, yet they are at the 
forefront of the demands for a military solution 
to the conflict which entails an endless war, 
which in turn slashes workers' salaries due to 
inflation; thus they must share the blame for 
falling real wages. They claim to be 
anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, yet they 
collude in the divide-and-rule policies of 
capitalists and imperialists, with their Sinhala 
nationalism and refusal to defend the rights of 
Tamil workers.

This is a pity, because in other ways their 
behaviour has been commendable. For example, it 
has been reported that in a finance committee 
meeting chaired by President Rajapaksa, two JVP 
MPs had protested against political appointments 
to state banks that bypassed standard 
qualifications for these positions. After the 
meeting, the President told the MPs that these 
types of appointments were a necessary way of 
rewarding 'apey minissu', and invited them to 
forward the names of their supporters for 
appointments as well. Much totheir credit, they 
resisted the all-pervasive culture of nepotism 
and corruption, and declined the offer.

What is to be done?

It is a sad fact that most of the political 
parties in Sri Lanka have helped the LTTE in one 
way or the other, and none of them has shown an 
ability to defeat the Tigers. This was the 
complaint of fifteen high-ranking former 
commanders of the armed forces who met the 
President to discuss the grave military and 
political situation in the country. According to 
a news report, 'The former service chiefs made it 
clear to the President that their move was 
completely non-partisan, and that they were only 
worried that even after facing a challenge from 
terrorism for 30 years, the country was still to 
get united and draft and implement a national 
plan to eliminate terrorism and bring about a 
political settlement.'

The two biggest parties need to listen to the 
former service chiefs, and make a joint effort to 
end human rights violations and implement 
democratic political reforms that address the 
legitimate grievances of minorities. Once this is 
done, the LTTE leadership will lose its source of 
willing recruits, and the war can be ended. 
Unless Mahinda Rajapaksa follows their advice, he 
will face increasing popular anger and hatred as 
the war drags on, the death toll mounts, and 
living standards plummet.

Unless Ranil Wickremesinghe follows their advice, 
he faces political oblivion: if he wants to have 
the hope of winning an election in the future, he 
needs to demonstrate a capacity for statesmanship 
now. It is in the interests of both leaders to 
put aside their egos for the moment in order to 
save the country, not necessarily by forming a 
national government, but by both pledging support 
for the APRC proposals. If they are too selfish 
to do this, their supporters should serve notice 
on them that they will withdraw support unless 
they do the right thing. The people of Sri Lanka 
and civil society organisations too have a role 
to play.

The deliberative poll conducted by the Marga 
Institute is a model that should be followed more 
widely, since it seeks an informed opinion from 
its respondents and provides them with the 
information that is required for such an opinion. 
An interesting finding of this poll was that when 
Sinhalese people realised that devolution could 
bring government closer to the people - i.e. that 
it could promote democracy - they supported it. A 
three-tier system of government combined with a 
Right to Information Act like the Indian one 
could be a potent weapon against corruption as 
well as an instrument of democracy that would 
serve the interests of all the people of Sri 
Lanka.

The government has to restore the rule of law, 
which is all but non-existent thanks to its own 
lawlessness. Restoring democratic rights and 
freedoms is also essential if it wishes to 
continue claiming that Sri Lanka is a democracy - 
a claim that is becoming increasingly laughable 
every passing day. It is already facing huge 
embarrassment for breaking both Sri Lankan and 
international law by giving Karuna a fake 
passport and obtaining a British visa for him 
under false pretences. Now UN High Commissioner 
forHuman Rights Louise Arbour warns that since 
members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri 
Lanka were appointed directly by the President in 
violation of the Constitution, its international 
accreditation could be withdrawn, bringing 
further shame on our country. Louise Arbour 
repeated her public request that the government 
of Sri Lanka consider allowing her own office to 
have a presence in Sri Lanka, and APRC 
proceedings are scheduled to resume in 
mid-December. This time round, supporters of 
democracy and opponents of the LTTE in ALL 
parties should see to it that the Sinhala 
nationalist recruiting agents of the LTTE in the 
JVP, JHU, MEP and SLFP are not allowed to derail 
progress towards justice, democracy and peace.

o o o

(ii)

CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT CONDEMNING ALL VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS

The month of November 2007 in Sri Lanka has been 
irrevocably scarred by acts of senseless 
brutality and violence that have led to the 
deaths of women, men and children throughout the 
country, including the attacks in Nugegoda, 
Iyankerni (Killinochchi), Pottuvil and 
Tissamaharama. These figures swell the numbers of 
dead, abducted and disappeared, which continue to 
rise, especially in the north and east of the 
country.

This situation reminds us once again of the 
crisis that we are facing, in which rampant 
impunity and lawlessness enable armed actors, 
especially the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, 
and the security forces of the government of Sri 
Lanka to launch indiscriminate attacks on 
ordinary civilians and citizens of Sri Lanka. Our 
environment has deteriorated to the point that 
nobody can leave home with the confidence that 
they will return. Armed actors like the State, 
the LTTE and Karuna group amongst others, claim 
to represent the civilian population but pay 
little attention to the security of those they 
claim to represent, and even target civilians as 
a part of their brutal war on terror. Sections of 
the armed forces, charged with the responsibility 
of protecting us, as civilians, and of protecting 
democratic principles and processes, are 
implicated in the violations of these rights and 
processes.

As civil society organizations we condemn these 
acts of violence in every part of the country, 
and extend our condolences and heartfelt sympathy 
to all who have lost a loved one.

We call on the Government and the LTTE, as well 
as other armed groups, to halt acts of violence 
and aggression. We call on all parties to respect 
and abide by international humanitarian law 
including the Geneva Conventions. We call on the 
Government and the LTTE to return to negotiations 
to end the conflict in Sri Lanka.

We also appeal to the international community, at 
both the state and non-government levels, to use 
their good offices to impress on all actors in 
the Sri Lankan conflict the imperative need to 
cease hostilities and return to the peace process.

As responsible members of Sri Lankan civil 
society, and as citizens who have always spoken 
out against all forms of violence and human 
rights violations, we call upon all Sri Lankans 
to condemn all acts of violence against 
civilians. We stand committed to extend our 
fullest support to all those who will uphold the 
sanctity of life, and facilitate a swift return 
to a viable peace process in Sri Lanka.

Dated: December 03 2007

Signatories:

Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Christian Alliance for Social Action
Citizen Committee for Forcibly Evicted Northern Muslims
Community Trust Fund
Equal Ground
INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo
International Movement Against Discrimination and Racism
Janasansadaya
Law & Society Trust
Mannar Women for Human Rights and Democracy
Muslim Information Centre - Sri Lanka
Muslim Women's Research and Action Forum
Muttur People's Forum
National Peace Council
Rights Now Collective for Democracy


______


[2]

INSAF Bulletin
December 2007

CHALLENGES FACING THE PEACE PROCESS IN NEPAL

by Tapan K. Bose

The peace process in Nepal which was ushered in 
by the Jana Andolan II (Peoples' Movement II) 
after the autocratic king Gyanendra was forced to 
handover political power to the political parties 
in April 2006 seems to be on the verge of 
collapse.

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) had 
signed the 12 Point Understanding with the Seven 
Party Alliance in November 2005 and joined the 
'peaceful struggle' for democracy agreed to 
abandon their armed struggle. They joined forces 
with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) to transform 
Nepal into a federal republic. In September 2007 
the Maoists pulled out of the interim government 
blaming the Nepali Congress Party's octogenarian 
supremo, Mr. G. P. Koirala and the interim 
government for the continuation of the political 
crisis and the uncertainty about the status of 
the monarchy.

The Maoists who had voluntarily laid down their 
arms and put the members of their 'Peoples' Army' 
in UN monitored camps, had earlier participated 
in the creation of an interim parliament, an 
interim constitution and an interim government. 
Their walk out of the 'Interim Government' on the 
ground that the interim parliament had to declare 
Nepal as a republic and abolish the monarchy 
before the election to the Constituent Assembly 
was a serious blow to the peace efforts and the 
up coming elections to the Constituent Assembly. 
Every body was looking forward to the election of 
the Constituent Assembly. By walking out of the 
interim government in September 2007, the Maoists 
effectively derailed the holding of the election 
to Nepal's first 'Constituent Assembly' which was 
due on the 22nd of November this year.

In addition to the demand for declaring Nepal a 
republic before the election to the Constituent 
Assembly the Maoists also insisted that the 
election to the Assembly should be conducted on a 
fully proportional basis that would provide an 
opportunity to the divergent different ethnic 
communities and national minorities an 
opportunity to be represented in the Constituent 
Assembly on the basis of their status in the 
national population. The Maoists rejected the 
agreed 'dual system' of half first past the post 
and half on the basis of the seats won by each 
party in the first past the post system. The 
Seven Party Alliance, particularly the Nepali 
Congress rejected these demands of the Maoists. 

Most of the political leaders, the intellectuals, 
civil society actors and the news analysts of 
Nepal have blamed the Maoists for stopping the 
holding of the election to the Constituent 
Assembly. Various constituents of the Seven Party 
Alliance (SPA) also claimed that that the Maoists 
took the desperate step of walking out of the 
government as they were afraid that they would do 
rather badly in the election. The non-Maoists 
political parties  claimed that after the 
election of the Constituent Assembly all of 
Nepal's political problems would have been 
resolved and the country would have moved on to 
the path of political stability and progress. If 
this reading is correct then the Maoists are 
certainly to be blamed for the continuation of 
the political impasse in Nepal. However, one 
needs to ask whether the Constituent Assembly, 
elected on the basis of the dual system with the 
participation of the 'Royalist' or the 
'loyalists' political parties could live up to 
the expectations of  the people as articulated on 
the streets during the Jana Andolan II and 
subsequent to that in Terai and other places. 

The Seven Party Alliance opposed the demand of 
the Maoists on the ground that it was the 
prerogative of the elected Constituent Assembly 
to formally remove the monarchy and declare the 
country as a republic. They argued that it would 
be illegal for the 'interim' parliament to take 
this decision before the election of the 
Constituent Assembly. However, considering the 
fact that the 'interim parliament' has taken many 
decisions including declaring the 'interim Prime 
Minister' as the de-facto head of state replacing 
the monarch, this argument sounded a bit hollow. 
Also, one can not deny that there is merit in the 
argument of the Maoists that if the status of the 
monarchy was left ambiguous and the political 
parties loyal to the monarchy were allowed to 
contest in the election to the Constituent 
Assembly, there is the possibility that the king 
and sections of Nepal's feudal elite and the army 
loyal to the monarch would try to influence the 
electoral process to restore the monarchy.

The Maoists also pointed out that the people of 
Nepal during the Jana Andolan II had clearly 
indicated their preference for the removal of the 
monarchy and establishment of a 'Federal 
Republic'. They argued that there was no need to 
fall back on constitutional niceties, 
particularly those which would give the royalists 
an opportunity to subvert the peoples' mandate. 
The fact that till October this year, Mr. Koirala 
and several influential leaders of Nepali 
Congress were continuing to talk about retaining 
a form of 'constitutional monarchy' and that it 
was only after the Maoists walked out of the 
interim government, that the Nepali Congress 
adopted the resolution to establish a 'federal 
republic in Nepal', gives credence to the 
position of the Maoists that the interim 
government was not fully committed to the 
'republic'.

Similarly the demand of the national minorities 
and the ethnic communities to convert Nepal into 
a federal polity also remains to be addressed. 
The interim constitution is not clear about how 
the demands for territorial autonomy and division 
of power structures would be done. Though the 
demands for devolution of political power 
continue to be placed before the interim 
government every day by the ethnic minorities and 
the nationalities, the government has yet to come 
up with any policy perspective.

The unrests in the hill areas by the Janajatis 
(indigenous/ethnic communities) and the Madhesis 
in Terai plains have exposed the weaknesses of 
Nepal's peace process. The Madhesis - 
plainspeople who constitute one third of Nepal's 
population - have been protesting against the 
discrimination that has virtually barred them 
from public life. The demonstrations and clashes 
which have been going on since the past six 
months have left several dozen dead. The interim 
government led by Koirala has offered to increase 
electoral representation, affirmative action for 
marginalized groups and federalism but has 
dragged its feet over implementing dialogue.

Tension between the Janajatis and the Madhesis on 
one side and the Bahun-Chetri hill elite on the 
other has been building for several years. It has 
been largely ignored by the political elites 
dominated by the Pahadi Bahun and Chetri 
communities. The Madhesh or the Terai plains that 
stretch the length of the southern part of Nepal 
and are home to half the total population, 
including many non-Madhesis (both indigenous 
ethnic groups and recent migrants from the 
hills). With comparatively good infrastructure, 
agriculture, industrial development and access to 
India across the open border, the Terai is 
crucial to the economy of Nepal. It is also an 
area of great political importance, both as a 
traditional base for the mainstream parties and 
as the only road link between otherwise 
inaccessible hill and mountain districts.

The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has emerged as 
a powerful umbrella group though it lacks an 
organizational base and clear agenda. It has 
decided to enter the electoral fray but if it is 
to challenge the established parties, it must 
first deal with the traditional Madhesi political 
parties like the Sadbhavana Party and other 
Madhesi politicians competing for the same votes. 
There has also been a proliferation of Madhesi 
armed groups; some have expanded significantly in 
numbers, and their strategy and attitudes will 
affect the political process. As is evident the 
from the continuing 'Bandhs', strikes and violent 
clashes the mood among Terai residents is 
increasingly confrontational, with collapse of 
trust between most Madhesis and the government. 
The armed Madhesi groups, led by break away 
leaders of the Maoists party have been attacking 
the cadres and leaders of the Maoists all over 
Madhesh.

Unresolved grievances and the hangover from the 
Maoist insurgency, especially the lack of 
reconciliation and the greater tolerance for 
violence, make a volatile mix. The unrest has 
also provided a fertile ground for subversion to 
the diehard royalists and Hindu fundamentalists 
in Nepal and from across the border in India, who 
see it as a chance to disrupt the peace process. 
The mainstream parties have changed their 
rhetoric but are reluctant to take action that 
would make for a more inclusive system. 
Mainstream parties, particularly the Nepali 
Congress who rely on their Terai electoral base 
have failed to compete with Madhesi groups in 
radicalism. They have also been ineffective at 
communicating the positive steps they have taken, 
such as reforming citizenship laws. Competition 
within the governing coalition is hindering any 
bold moves.

For the Maoists, the Terai violence was a wake-up 
call. As much of it was directed against their 
cadres, the Maoists characterized the Madhesi 
movement as a regressive movement supported by 
the Hindu fundamentalists from India and 
sponsored by the royal palace. However, the 
outbreak of the armed movement in Terai by rival 
groups like the Loktrantik Jana Adhikar manch led 
by former Maoists - Jaiprakash Goit and Jwala 
Singh shattered the myth of dominance of the 
Maoists. The Maoists hit back. What ensued was a 
virtual battle between the Maoists, the armed 
factions of the Madhesi groups and the Madhesi 
Jana Adhikar manch. Several lives were lost on 
both sides. Despite the pressure and attacks, the 
Maoists continue to remain well organized, 
politically coherent and determined to reassert 
themselves.

The key political issues in Nepal are clear and 
still offer room for a reasonable compromise. The 
Seven Party Alliance need to demonstrate more 
serious intent, such as ensuring political 
participation of all excluded groups (not just 
those whose protests have forced attention) and 
undertaking to discuss and resolve grievances not 
only with protest leaders but also with concerned 
parliamentarians, local community representatives 
and civil society representatives. The interim 
government has made several agreements with the 
leaders of the Jana Jatis organization demanding 
'autonomy' and 'equal rights'. Unfortunately 
those promises are yet to be translated into 
action. The Seven Party Alliance's willingness to 
make concessions on the basis of equal rights for 
all citizens has to be demonstrated effectively. 
Confidence in national and local government will 
only come if there is decent governance, public 
security based on local community consent and 
improved delivery of services, redress for 
heavy-handed suppression of protests, demands for 
compensation, honoring of dead protestors and 
follow-through on a commission of enquiry need to 
be met. There is urgent need to revise the 
electoral system to ensure fair representation of 
Madhesis and all other marginalized groups, 
including a fresh delineation of constituency 
boundaries.

The political parties and the government in 
Kathmandu need to increase the representation of 
Madhesis and other agitating Jana Jatis in 
parties and state bodies. This would pave the way 
for longer-term measures to remove inequalities. 
This requires a change in outlook and a delicate 
political balancing act. The Kathmandu government 
must do some things immediately in order to earn 
the trust of the Madhesis and other marginalized 
communities. There is no doubt that the election 
of the constituent assembly is an urgent need. 
However now that the elections have been 
postponed, the time should be utilized in 
re-designing the elections in a manner that will 
give proper representation of the Madhesis and 
other Jana Jatis in the Constituent Assembly. If 
this does not happen, the fear of sections of the 
Nepali people rejecting the assembly will always 
remain.

______


[3]

Hindustan Times
December 3, 2007

REMEMBER ARTICLE 370

by AG Noorani

When, on November 15, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq 
announced his acceptance of Kashmir's "pre-1953 
status plus", he was signifying acceptance of 
autonomy within the Indian Constitution, which 
the state had before Sheikh Abdullah's arrest in 
1953. The 'plus' implied Pakistan's agreement to 
it. It was disingenuous of him to say, on 
November 17, that "no solution within the 
framework of the Indian Constitution is 
acceptable." Abdul Ghani Butt, a colleague, 
amplified that this "could be a first step" 
towards President Pervez Musharraf's four-point 
proposal. It envisages self-governance, 
demilitarisation, open borders and joint 
management. It rules out de-accession of Jammu & 
Kashmir. Both points are for India and Pakistan 
to settle, bearing in mind the wishes of the 
Kashmiris. In 2002, Umar Farooq offered "some 
process through which people can elect their 
representatives and we are ready to assert our 
representative characterŠwe are ready to prove 
it." He should do so in the 2008 Assembly 
elections. India should settle J&K's autonomy 
with the assembly's representatives. Meanwhile, 
Kashmiris should put their heads together and 
agree on a joint draft of a final Presidential 
order under Article 370 which guarantees autonomy.

Clause (3) of Article 370 says "Notwithstanding 
anything in the foregoing provisions of this 
article, the President may, by public 
notification, declare that this Article shall 
cease to be operative or shall be operative only 
with such exceptions and modifications and from 
such date as he may specify". Its marginal note 
describes Article 370 as "temporary provisions" 
with respect to J&K. When Article 370 was adopted 
by the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949, 
N.H.Gopalaswamy Ayyanger explained that India was 
then committed to a plebiscite.

Article 370 embodies a compact negotiated for 
five months from May 15, 1949, between the 
national leaders and the state's leaders. It 
contained guarantees against unilateral change by 
New Delhi. But as far back as on November 27, 
1963, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told the 
Lok Sabha, "It [Article370] has been eroded, if I 
may use the word" as if it were something eroded 
by the elements over time. It was calculatedly 
wrecked. He added, "We feel that this process of 
gradual erosion of article 370 is going onŠwe 
should allow it to go on." Sheikh Abdullah was in 
prison then. Union Home Minister G.L. Nanda used 
a more meaningful metaphor on December 4, 1964. 
Article 370 can be used as "a tunnel in the wall" 
to increase the Centre's powers. Article 370 was 
"the wall". The "tunnel" was a provision enabling 
extension of central power with the concurrence 
of the state government but subject to its 
ratification by the state's Constituent Assembly. 
It was abused to amass Central power, even after 
that body had dispersed, after adopting the 
state's constitution on November 17, 1956. There 
was, now, no prospect of any ratification.

The concurrence was given by state governments 
installed in office through rigged polls. This 
process has gone on for decades. All orders under 
Article 370 since November 17, 1956, increasing 
the Centre's powers or extending more federal 
institutions, are patently void, perhaps since 
August 9, 1953, when Sheikh Abdullah was 
unconstitutionally removed as J&K's premier.

A new final order under Article 370 would delete 
the word "temporary", repeal orders made in 
violation of that compact, and drop the obsolete 
references to the state's Constituent Assembly in 
the revised and permanent Article 370. It should 
provide stringent guarantees against its 
"erosion". It would no longer be amendable by an 
executive order but only by the normal 
legislature process - a two-thirds vote by the 
state's Assembly, preferably one elected after 
Parliament's vote.

Kashmiris can constructively contribute to this 
and to two other points. One is open borders; 
i.e. "just a line on a map". Concretely, what 
does it spell? Will a teacher in Srinagar be 
allowed to teach in a school in Muzaffarabad? 
Will the old permit system be reinstalled so that 
a poor villager would be able to visit his kin 
freely access the LoC? Free exchange of person, 
goods and literature? Seminars, meetings, 
concerts and mushairas in which the people of the 
state can participate, irrespective of the LoC? 
Babus can be trusted to make things difficult. 
Kashmiris can insist that the state's de jure 
partition must be coupled with its de facto 
re-unification and provide a scheme that both 
governments can accept.

The other is the elected head of state which 
J&K's Constituent Assembly endorsed on June 12, 
1952. The Delhi agreement mauled it in July 1952 
to make the election subject to New Delhi's veto 
and the elected head of state removable at is 
will. The 6th Amendment to J&K's Constitution 
(1965) substituted this joke with another -  a 
governor appointed by New Delhi. On July 23, 
1975, an order under Article 370 barred, 
unconstitutionally, the state Assembly from 
legislating on the matter. The best course to 
empower the Assembly is to elect a panel of three 
from whom the President would accept one as the 
Sadar-e-Riyasat. He should be removable only by 
impeachment. Like Article 370, the Delhi 
agreement is also a wreck.

A "tunnel" can be entered from either end. An 
able memo submitted by the National Conference on 
November 6, 1995, to Prime Minister  P.V. 
Narasimha Rao shows that Article 370 "is not, and 
cannot, just be a one-way stream". It can be used 
to restore the powers robbed since 1953.

On August 5, 2000, Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) chief 
Syed Salahuddin said he was prepared to drop "the 
UN resolutions" for something else - "or the 
tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and 
Kashmiris". On September 11, he was "even ready 
to contest elections if they are monitored by the 
international community". Once a ceasefire is in 
place, the HM will become a political party. Syed 
Ali Shah Geelani admitted on June 16, 1998, "we 
are not in a position to stop the use or misuse 
of the gun. There is no rapport between the APHC 
and gunmen."

An exceptionally informed writer, Engineer S.A. 
Rashid, questions the APHC's capability to 
deliver at all. In an article on November 15, 
2007, in Chattan, a respected Urdu weekly in 
Srinagar, he reminds the Hurriyat that its 
importance has stemmed only from popular support 
to the militancy. If the militants disown the 
APHC, it will be nowhere.

It is unwise to spurn Salahuddin's overtures for 
a ceasefire. India should proceed apace with the 
peace process with Pakistan to which Kashmiris 
must contribute sound ideas. As for the polls, an 
election is meaningful only as part of an 
on-going political process with full 
opportunities to hold meetings and rallies and to 
march in processions. No election can at all be 
said to be fair if civil liberties are denied and 
there is no mass-based political process as in 
the rest of India. Such polls are a sham.


______


[4]

DON'T LET THEM SILENCE TASLIMA NASREEN - STAND UP 
FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIA:
An SACW compilation of statements and opinions (27 November - 6 December 2007)
www.sacw.net

Contents:

  i. Is This A Mobocracy? (Ritu Menon)
  ii. Denying Taslima Nasreen Refuge Is An Affront 
To India's Pluralist Culture (Madanjeet Singh)
  iii. Citizen Taslima (Editorial, The Times of India)
  iv. Let Taslima Stay In India (Khushwant Singh, 
Arundhati Roy, Leila Seth, et.al)
  v. Desai, Puniyani And Engineer: Statement On Taslima Nasreen
  vi. The Shame Of An Ill-Informed Debate About Taslima Nasrin (Jawed Naqvi)
  vii. Do We Pass The Taslima Test? (Karan Thapar)
  viii.  Minority Report (Harbans Mukhia)
  ix. Fundamental Issues (Barkha Dutt)
  x. Fall & Fall Of Buddha (Saugata Roy)
  xi. Muslim Activists Support Taslima (Avijit Ghosh)
  xii. Call For Citizenship To Taslima Hailed (Sahmat)
  xiii. Outrage and indignation in Bengal on Taslima issue
  xiv. Statement by South Asia Scholars in Defence of Taslima
  xv. Exiled By Bigots' Edicts (J. Sri Raman)
  xvi. An Open Letter To Narendra Modi (Shabnam Hashmi)
  xvii. Candlelight support for Taslima
  xviii. Our Con Artists (Sitaram Yechury)
  xix. Taslima Nasrin Talks To Kathleen Mccaul
  xx. Taslima withdraws lines from autobiography (NDTV)
  xxi. Interview with Arundhati Roy on Taslima Nasrin case
  xxii. Unfortunate witchhunt (Praful Bidwai)
  xxiii. A Forgotten History (Priyamvada Gopal)
  xxxiv. Sheela Reddy interviews Taslima Nasreen

http://www.sacw.net/FreeExpAndFundos/defendtaslimaDec07.pdf

[4.1]

SHAMEFUL ATTACK ON ARTISTIC FREEDOM
STOP HOUNDING TASLIMA

by Praful Bidwai

West Bengal's Left Front government, already 
reeling under the ignominy of Nandigram, has 
earned yet more embarrassment by throwing 
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen out of 
Kolkata. Tossed since from Jaipur to Delhi to 
Haryana, Ms Nasreen has been forced into an 
emotionally insecure nomadic existence even as 
the sangh parivar cynically tries to exploit her 
plight to its narrow advantage.

Neither the state governments involved, nor the 
Centre, seems inclined to defend Ms Nasreen's 
right to live with dignity and without fear 
anywhere in India. There are reports that the 
Centre is discreetly nudging her to leave 
India-at least for awhile. Although Foreign 
Minister Pranab Mukherjee says India will give 
her shelter, the offer comes with a gracelessly 
stated condition: she must do nothing to "hurt 
the sentiments of our people"-whatever that means.

The episode raises serious questions about 
artistic freedom, fundamental rights of belief, 
expression and association, and the state's duty 
to protect them. One doesn't have to be an 
admirer of Ms Nasreen to defend her rights. This 
writer is aware that she's considered mediocre 
and often writes provocatively. Yet, banning her 
work or banishing her is not the solution.

The West Bengal government wants to minimise its 
role in expelling Ms Nasreen from Kolkata, one 
day after a violent rally held by the 
little-known, but originally Congress-backed, 
All-India Minority Forum, which brought the army 
to the city for the first time since 1992. Some 
Left Front leaders claim she left Kolkata of her 
own will and is welcome to return. 

This just won't wash. Ms Nasreen's departure from 
Kolkata followed an unambiguous statement by CPM 
state secretary Biman Bose that the LF had 
welcomed her because two Central ministers 
pleaded for her, but that her presence has since 
created law-and-order problems, and hence she 
should leave West Bengal.

Mr Bose hastily retracted the statement, but 
meanwhile, reports The Indian Express, the city 
police had asked two businessmen belonging to the 
Rajasthan Foundation (HM Bangur and Sandeep 
Bhutoria) to "facilitate" her exit, which they 
did. She discovered she was headed for Jaipur 
only when a police officer handed over the ticket 
to her. Ms Nasreen's move was certainly not 
voluntary. She's clear that Kolkata is her home 
and she wants to return there.

The CPM kept its own Left Front allies in the 
dark about its decision to expel Ms Nasreen. The 
allies have termed the decision "shameful" and 
"another blot on our name". The CPM will find it 
hard to deny that it so decided because it was 
rattled by the ferocity of the AIMF rally, held 
as a protest against the Nandigram violence and 
to demand that Ms Nasreen's visa be revoked. The 
AIMF used Nandgram as a cover and tried to give 
the issue a communal twist by claiming that CPM 
cadres had specially targeted Muslims there.

This was a canard. More than half of Nandigram's 
victims were indeed Muslims. But then, two-thirds 
of Nandigram's population is Muslim too. Muslims 
lead both the CPM and its rival, Bhumi Ucched 
Pratirodh Committee. The AIMF's real ire was 
directed at Ms Nasreen because of her past 
writings, some of which it terms 
"anti-Islamic"-although it's unlikely that many 
Front members have read them.

It's easy to deplore the AIMF. But the CPM 
doesn't come out of the episode smelling of 
roses. It speaks poorly of its adherence to 
secularism and other Constitutional values that 
it should cave in to mob pressure for censorship, 
or that it should bend over backwards to guard 
its "Muslim vote" by expelling Ms Nasreen. Muslim 
opinion has been moving away from the LF since 
disclosures by the Sachar Committee about the 
community's abysmal status in West Bengal, and 
because of the Rizvanur Rehman case (which 
exposed class and religious biases in the police).

Muslims form more than 25 percent of West 
Bengal's population, but their representation in 
government employment is an appalling 2.1 
percent. (The respective ratios even for Gujarat 
are 9.2 and 5.4 percent). Instead of remedying 
this failure of inclusion through purposive 
affirmative action, the Front resorted to 
gimmicks of the kind that it itself criticises 
other parties for, including pandering to 
religious bigots.

However, the Left's timidity in the face of 
religious hardliners pales in comparison beside 
the breath-taking duplicity of the Bharatiya 
Janata Party and its allies. The BJP parades 
itself as a saviour of Ms Nasreen and a defender 
of the freedom of expression. It even demands 
that she be granted refugee status because she's 
fleeing persecution by religious fanatics.

In reality, the sangh parivar is merely 
capitalising on the fact that Ms Nasreen's 
adversaries are Muslims; and that she wrote a 
novel on the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindu 
minority following the Babri mosque's demolition. 
This gives the parivar a chance to indulge in 
Islam-bashing by claiming that that faith is 
uniquely, incorrigibly intolerant.

However, the parivar vilifies Islam. It has 
nothing but contempt for the right to free 
expression, in particular, artistic freedom. It 
is inherently suspicious of originality and 
creativity, and of bold experimentation with 
art-forms that delve deep into the human or 
social condition. It fears freedom and rational 
inquiry.

Not just the parivar's goons in the Vishva Hindu 
Parishad and Bajrang Dal, but even the BJP's most 
respectable parliamentary leaders are 
instinctively censorship-oriented and prone to 
demand bans on anything they don't approve. If 
the government doesn't ban the books, paintings 
or films and plays they label "anti-Hindu" or 
"anti-national", the parivar itself terrorises 
the concerned writer, artist, playwright or 
filmmaker.

This has happened so often to distinguished 
artists like M. F. Husain, filmmakers like Anand 
Patwardhan and Deepa Mehta (of Water and Fire 
fame), to authors of countless books pertaining 
to Shivaji, and to exhibitions on historical or 
contemporary themes, that it has become an 
inexorable, entirely predictable, pattern. 
Students like Chandramohan and scholars like 
Shivaji Panikkar of MS University in Baroda, and 
actresses such as Khushboo, have been victims of 
the same phenomenon. So have publications like 
Outlook, Mahanagar and Deccan Herald.

The parivar  has not only imposed its fanatical 
will upon every performing art and every form of 
cultural expression. It has often succeeded in 
bullying the state into conceding its demands-to 
the point of abdicating its responsibility to 
protect the life and limb of its citizens.

Husain's case is a painful reminder of the Indian 
state's failure to provide security to a 92 
year-old painter so he can return home from 
self-imposed exile and live in freedom from 
threats to his life by Hindutva bigots bent on 
misrepresenting his work, and questioning his 
deep respect for all faiths, based on 
spirituality. Husain is a victim of mob 
censorship, as well as the state's cowardice in 
the face of communal bullies and religious bigots.

True, it's not only the Hindu fanatics of the 
parivar who demand censorship and bans. Groups 
that claim to be speaking in the name of Sikhs, 
Muslims, Christians or Jains also do the same. 
Typically, the state  yields to them; indeed, it 
acts as if it had granted them the "right" to 
vandalise works of art and criminally assault 
writers. The cases of The Last Temptation of 
Christ and The Da Vinci Code, or Salman Rushdie 
and the Dera Sacha Sauda are instances of this.

All such groups effectively exercise veto power 
over society and the state by invoking the "hurt 
sentiments" of a particular community. So we end 
up defining tolerance as the sum-total of 
different intolerances, as Amartya Sen so aptly 
put it. This is not the sign of a deeply 
democratic, mature and balanced society which 
genuinely respects difference and the right to 
dissent.

Of course, some books or works of art do hurt, 
upset or even scandalise holders of particular 
beliefs. But banning them is generally 
incompatible with their authors' freedom of 
belief and expression. If they are indeed 
scurrilous or defamatory, the remedy lies in 
filing civil and criminal lawsuits, which would 
lead to appropriate penalties-including a ban in 
the exceptional case.

In any case, private groups or individuals have 
no right to usurp the functions of the courts in 
deciding what is permissible and what is 
impermissible by virtue of being gratuitously 
offensive, vulgar, egregiously scandalous, or 
calculated to incite violence or to insult and 
humiliate. Such groups only impoverish social 
life by regimenting it and imposing conformity or 
homogeneity on it. They simply have no business 
to dictate uniform norms, whether in respect of 
sexual preference, dress, religious practices or 
social behaviour.

Societies greatly enrich themselves if they 
respect difference and celebrate diversity-as 
India did during the best, most tolerant periods 
of its history. This means accepting the unusual, 
the irreverent, the quirky-even if some of us 
find it distasteful. In the last analysis, we 
don't have to read the books we don't like, or 
eat things that we find "impure" or "bad", but 
others relish. Let a thousand flowers bloom!-end- 


o o o

[4.2]

outlookindia.com
web feature
December 06, 2007

A FORGOTTEN HISTORY

by Priyamvada Gopal

In 1932, a young woman named Rashid Jahan was 
denounced by some clerics and threatened with 
disfigurement and death. She and three others had 
just published a collection of Urdu short stories 
called Angarey in which they had robustly 
criticized obscurantist customs in their own 
community and the sexual hypocrisies of some 
feudal landowners and men of religion. The 
colonial state, always zealous in its support of 
authoritarian religious chauvinists over 
dissenting voices, promptly banned the book and 
confiscated all copies under Section 295A of the 
Indian Penal Code. Rashid Jahan, as a woman, 
became a particular focus of ire. A doctor by 
training like Taslima Nasreen, she too had 
written about seclusion, sexual oppression and 
female suffering in a patriarchal society.

What has changed in three quarters of a century? 
Periodically, we witness zealots of all faiths 
shouting hysterically about 'insults' to 
religious sentiments and being backed by the 
state while little is done to address more 
serious material injustices that affect members 
of their community.

But in the light of the Taslima Nasreen 
controversy, the Angarey story has particularly 
ironic resonances. For Rashid Jahan and two of 
her co-contributors, Mahmuduzzafar and Sajjad 
Zaheer, were members of the Communist Party of 
India who would go on to help found the 
Progressive Writers Association (PWA) in 1936. 
The PWA was to be a loose coalition of radical 
litterateurs, both party members and 'fellow 
travelers', who would challenge all manner of 
orthodoxies and put social transformation on the 
literary map of India. Unsurprisingly, many 
PWA-linked writers had run-ins with the law, 
constantly fending off charges of obscenity, 
blasphemy and disturbing the peace. Challenging 
these attacks with brave eloquence, they defended 
the task of the writer as one of pushing social 
and imaginative boundaries. The then beleaguered 
undivided CPI too faced constant attacks, 
including censorship, trials and an outright ban.

Today, heirs of that same Communist party, the 
CPI(M), find themselves on the same side with the 
state and religious orthodoxies whose excesses 
they once challenged. Their actions shore up 
anti-democratic authoritarianism, whether this 
takes the form of corporate land-grabbing, the 
suppression of popular protest, or religious 
chauvinism. In response to criticism from 
progressive quarters, they invoke the subterfuge 
of 'left unity' which forbids criticism because 
this will provide grist for the opposition's 
mills. A pro-CPI(M) statement signed by the likes 
of Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali (with, one can only 
presume, the airy historical carelessness that 
even the best intellectuals in the West are 
sometimes prone to) warns against 'splitting the 
left'. With the unmistakable timbre of a Party 
pamphlet, it goes on to suggest that all is now 
well in Nandigram and 'reconciliation' with the 
dispossessed is fast being effected. (How do they 
know?). Meanwhile, many CPI(M) leaders parrot the 
conservative statist line that Taslima is free to 
stay in India if she behaves herself and refrains 
from 'hurting religious sentiments'. But those 
oppressed by religious orthodoxies, like women 
and Dalits, often have no choice but to speak of 
how those very sentiments are used against them.

Although laden with irony, this sorry state of 
affairs is not an altogether unexpected 
development in the cultural history of the 
official left in India even if it is less 
shocking than the thuggish assistance provided to 
big global corporations in Singur and Nandigram 
by the leaders of the proletariat.

As the PWA gained strength and became one of the 
most influential cultural movements of its day, a 
rift developed between increasingly authoritarian 
Party members like Sajjad Zaheer and writers like 
the doughty Ismat Chughtai and maverick, Saadat 
Hasan Manto, neither of whom would ever agree to 
have their imagination and critique constrained 
by a party line.

Both Chughtai and Manto insisted on intellectual 
independence and the continuing need to address 
gender and sexuality, subjects which the Party 
began to frown upon. Accordingly, they found 
themselves attacked not only by the state but 
also by hardliners in the PWA who dutifully 
denounced the 'perversions' of writing about the 
body and its desires as well as prostitution and 
sexual violence. Justifiably annoyed, Manto (who 
fought five cases on 'obscenity' charges) wrote 
an essay sharply titled 'Taraqqi-Pasand Socha 
Nahin Karte' [Progressives Don't Think] in which 
he deplored the unthinking adherence to prudish 
literary categories which allowed him and others 
to be denounced as 'individualists' and 
'pornographers.'

Of obscenity charges Chughtai asks: 'Don't you 
see that the writer himself is trembling 
fearfully and is terrified of the world's 
obscenity? All he's doing is converting events 
that are taking place in the world into words.'

Today, this unwillingness to examine received 
ideas emerges in party leader Sitaram Yechury's 
firm endorsement of 'certain conditions' on 
Taslima if she is to stay, including 'refraining 
fromŠactivities and expressions that may hurt the 
sentiments of our people', whatever 'our' means 
in a remarkably heterogeneous society that can 
take pride in allowing dissent. The obviously 
opportunistic attack from the BJP allows more 
relevant criticism of the CPI(M) from progressive 
people and the broad, non-party left to be 
ignored, all of it thrown into the same basket of 
'belittlingŠthe present-influence of the Left in 
the country.' Used in this self-exculpatory way, 
'anti-communist prejudice' is no more meaningful 
a mantra than 'anti-American' enabling all 
criticism to be dismissed as malicious. This 
denigrates not only those on the left who are 
unwilling to countenance the CPI(M)'s recent 
betrayals of humane values and social justice 
goals, but also older communists like Rashid 
Jahan who came under vicious attack precisely for 
speaking their mind against injustices, including 
those inflicted by religion. However much we may 
deplore the BJP's obvious hypocrisies in 
denouncing 'pseudo-secularism', the fact remains 
that the actions of the CPI(M) serve to undermine 
the credibility of those who have stood up more 
consistently for pluralism and secularism. 
Moreover, the depredations of the right-wing 
should not serve as an alibi for misconduct by 
those who rightly oppose them.

These are difficult times for progressive people 
who are aware of the ways in which Islam and 
Muslims are under siege both from Hindu 
majoritarianism and Bush's 'War on Terror'. 
Confronted with a similar colonial situation and 
accused of betraying their community, Rashid 
Jahan and her comrades maintained that criticism 
and self-criticism could not be shunted aside in 
the name of battling a greater enemy; the two are 
not mutually exclusive. Mahmuduzzafar, another 
communist and contributor to Angarey, refused to 
apologise for the book and wrote that he and his 
co-authors, all Muslim, chose Islam 'not because 
they bear it any 'special' malice, but because, 
being born into that particular society, they 
felt themselves better qualified to speak for 
that alone.' Taslima Nasreen is exercising a 
similar privilege.

There's an odd kind of condescension in 
maintaining that some sentiments are more fragile 
than others and that some forms of belief are 
less resilient and, therefore, beyond 
questioning. Critique and dissent are essential, 
particularly when they come from those most 
affected by particular forms of religious and 
political practice.

When CPI(M) leaders commend the withdrawal of 
passages from Taslima's book and insist on the 
objectionable nature of some of her writing, they 
would do well do remember that a good many people 
in this world claim to find communism profoundly 
objectionable, even deeply offensive to their 
most cherished sentiments. The right of the left 
more generally to articulate critique and 
opposition has been hard won and remains under 
siege in many parts of the world.

India needs nothing more than a genuine and 
strong left. But this will not be forged by 
dishonouring one's own more radical past, 
covering up mistakes and rewriting recent 
history. In a second, modified statement, Chomsky 
et al have qualified their support for the CPI(M) 
and indicate that they were simply exhorting the 
left in India to 'unite and focus on the more 
fundamental issues that confront the Left as a 
whole'. In theory, this is a goal devoutly to be 
wished for. And yet, it is not one that can be 
accomplished at the cost of self-criticism and 
silence. We can do no better than to follow the 
principle always advocated by the late Edward 
Said, a left intellectual and activist of the 
highest integrity in these matters: 'Never 
solidarity before criticism.' It is only in so 
doing so that we honour the history of genuinely 
oppositional movements in India and elsewhere.

Priyamvada Gopal, the author of Literary 
Radicalism in India, is Senior Lecturer of 
English, University of Cambridge

______


[5] Announcements:

(i)


LST FORUM

Democracy/Devolution: Two Discourses in Sri Lanka's National Crisis

Dr Rohini Hensman
Researcher and activist in the women's 
liberation, trade union, human rights and 
anti-war movement in India and Sri Lanka; author 
of Playing Lions and Tigers (Earthworm Books, 
Chennai 2004)

Friday 07 December 2007
5pm
@
3 Kynsey Terrace
Colombo 08

RSVP Janaki 2691228/2684845 Email lst at eureka.lk

---

(ii)

London - Panel Discussion -  7-9 PM 

A CAMPAIGN AGAINST MARTIAL LAW EVENT "FICTION AND 
POLITICS" The Campaign Against Martial Law 
invites you to a reading by Pakistani fiction 
writers and writers who are friends of Pakistan. 
The writers will be reading from their work, 
leading to a discussion on the intersection of 
literature and politics.

Friday 7th December

Venue: Room 3, South Range Building, King's 
College, Strand Campus, University of London.

Timing: 7.00-9.00

Price of admission: £5

Schedule- Introduction: CAML member- The current 
situation in Pakistan: Ghazi Salahuddin- 
Readings: Moni Mohsin Amarjit Chandan Saqlain 
Imam Kamila Shamsie Zubaida Metlo Mohammed Hanif 
Aamer Hussein




o o o

(iii)

Dear Friends,
Zubaan is pleased to invite you to two literary events this week.

On FRIDAY 7th December
Please join us to celebrate the launch of Anjum 
Hasan's brilliant debut novel, set in Shillong, 
Lunatic in My Head, published by Zubaan and 
Penguin Books India. The author will be in 
conversation with Siddhartha Deb, author of 
Surface and Point of Return.
All are welcome, but seating is limited, so do 
come early and join us for tea from 6:30 onwards, 
at The Attic (above The Shop), 36 Regal Building, 
Sansad Marg (Parliament Street), New Delhi 110 
001.
And if you'd like to order the book, you can do 
so via our website: 
<http://www.zubaanbooks.com>http://www.zubaanbooks.com

On Saturday 8th December
Zubaan is co-hosting a discussion about 
Masculinities and Literature, entitled Let's Talk 
Men. Panellists: Rana Dasgupta, Anjum Hasan, 
Mukul Kesavan and Geetanjali Shree.
Venue: ML Bhartia Auditorium, Alliance Francaise, 72 Lodi Estate, New Delhi
Time: 6:00pm
For more information about this, and the other 
events during this week, click 
<http://www.southasianmasculinities.org>http://www.southasianmasculinities.org 
or call 91-11-46057340, or 41640681


Looking forward to seeing you there!

Urvashi Butalia
Preeti Gill
Anita Roy
---
Zubaan
K92 Hauz Khas Enclave
First Floor
New Delhi 110 016
India

o o o


(iv)

PAKISTAN UNDER THE GUN
Perspectives on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law
Public Forum, Film Screening and Discussion


TUES, DEC 11th, 2007, 6:30 pm
Alma Van Dusen Room, Vancouver Public Library
350 West Georgia - between Homer and Hamilton 
(lower level -take elevator/stairs by main 
library entrance)
From Granville Skytrain Station: 2 blocks east on 
Dunsmuir, 1 block south on Homer
FREE EVENT


Join us for a public forum and interactive 
discussion on human rights, democracy and the 
rule of law in Pakistan. Support the resistance 
of the Pakistani people!
Co-sponsored by the Vancouver and District Labour 
Council, India Pakistan Peace Network (IPPN), 
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy 
(SANSAD), Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada. Endorsed 
by the PSAC International Solidarity Committee.

FILM SCREENING:
Showing for the first time in Vancouver, "MISSING IN PAKISTAN"
Newly released documentary from Pakistan. The 
Pakistani government is repeatedly preventing 
students from showing this film in the country.

SPEAKERS:
Imran Munir, Pakistani journalist and activist
Gail Davidson, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada and Lawyers Against War
Bill Sandhu, IPPN
Zahid Makhdoom, SANSAD
Vancouver and District Labour Council
Other speakers tba
Phone updates from Pakistan

"If they snatch my ink and pen, I should not complain,
For I have dipped my fingers in the blood of my heart.
I should not complain, Even if they seal my tongue,
For every ring of my chain is a tongue ready to speak"
(Faiz)

The declaration of a state of emergency and the 
subsequent actions of the Musharraf regime have 
pushed Pakistan and its people to the brink and 
have resulted in widespread outrage and protests 
within the country and throughout the world.

The resistance movement within Pakistan has been 
growing stronger by the day, bolstered by 
international support from human rights and civil 
rights organizations, journalists, trade unions, 
lawyers' groups and many others.

Events in the country are unfolding at a rapid 
pace. President Musharraf has scheduled elections 
for January and has said that he will lift the 
state of emergency in the near future.

Yet there have been no commitments to restore the 
suspended Supreme Court Justices (many of whom 
remain under strict house arrest) or lift the 
bans on the media or free the political prisoners 
who remain in detention. To fuel the blaze, all 
justices who refused to take oath under the 
unlawful PCO (Provisional Constitution Order) 
have been given a forceful retirement.

The lifting of the state of emergency and 
scheduling of an election for January will also 
not address many critical issues facing Pakistan 
such as the continued oppression of the many 
tribal people in the country, brutal conditions 
of poverty faced by more than 1/3 of the 
population, repression of trade union activities 
and the widespread and growing cases of enforced 
disappearances and extra-judicial detentions of 
hundreds of people in the name of national 
security and the U.S led war on terror.
In this setting, what are the prospects for 
peace, democracy and human rights in Pakistan? 
Is it possible to have a fair, free and impartial 
election without the restoration of the 
judiciary? What does democracy look like and how 
can it be achieved given the historical and 
present day political realities in the country? 
What role has the U.S played in the history of 
Pakistan and the region? How does this impact the 
current situation, particularly in relation to 
the U.S led war on terror and the resulting 
assault on civil liberties in Pakistan, the 
surrounding region and around the world?

For more information, email amaltaine at yahoo.com or call 604.764.6257

BACKGROUND:
On November 3rd, 2007 Pakistan President and Army 
Chief of Staff Pervez Musharraf declared a state 
of emergency in Pakistan and suspended the 
constitution and the judiciary.

Musharraf's actions came on the eve of a Supreme 
Court hearing to rule on the petitions contesting 
his eligibility to contest presidential 
elections. Supreme Court Justices such as Chief 
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry were arrested along 
with lawyers who were counsels in the petitions 
including Munir Malik and President of the 
Supreme Court bar association Aitzaz Ahsan. Some 
members of the judiciary and lawyers still remain 
under house arrest. Munir Malik remains in 
serious condition after being tortured in 
detention.
Hundreds of human rights defenders, journalists, 
students, trade unionists and many other 
pro-democracy activists were also arrested and 
many were charged with acts of terrorism under 
the newly amended Army Act which allows the army 
to court martial civilians speaking out against 
the state with charges of sedition, treason and 
terrorism, any of which can carry the death 
penalty.

One of the most tragic casualties of Musharraf's 
actions has been the loss of hope for the 
families of the hundreds of people disappeared by 
the government under the pretext of national 
security and the U.S led war on terror. The cases 
of 485 disappeared people - many missing for 6 
years and more - were set to be heard in the 
Supreme Court by Chief Justice Chaudhry on 
November 13, 2007. The hearings are no longer 
taking place and after years of fighting to get 
back their loved ones, the families of the 
disappeared have had their hopes shattered.

According to Amnesty International and other 
human rights organizations, Pakistan's 
involvement in the "war on terror" has led to 
horrendous abuses of civil rights. Mass arrests 
of alleged terror suspects - often for bounties 
of thousands of dollars - have led to detainees 
being taken away to the US detention facility at 
Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, transferred to secret CIA 
detention centers, unlawfully transferred to 
other countries or held in arbitrary or secret 
detention in Pakistan itself. Many - if not most 
- of these individuals have been tortured or 
otherwise ill-treated.

Most recently this practice has been used to 
quell dissent by activists and those perceived to 
be against the military regime including lawyers, 
journalists and nationalists from Sindh and 
Balochistan.
General Musharraf has justified his recent 
actions under the guise of protecting national 
security and fighting terrorism within Pakistan 
and the surrounding areas. However, many leading 
human rights and civil society organizations in 
Pakistan and around the world assert that 
Musharraf's role as a key ally of the U.S led war 
on terror is a primary reason for the rise of 
insurgency within the country and the region.
Join us for a public forum and interactive 
discussion on human rights, democracy and the 
rule of law in Pakistan. Speak out in support of 
those that have been silenced under the rule of 
the gun. Support the resistance of the Pakistani 
people!


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

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