SACW | Dec. 26-28, 2007 / Fundamentalists Strike Terror: Benazir Bhutto's assassination / A murderous Orissa / Hussain Paintings vandalised in the heart of Delhi / Nepal's secular republic
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Thu Dec 27 16:36:37 CST 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 26-28, 2007 |
Dispatch No. 2481 - Year 10 running
Fundamentalists Strike Terror
[1] Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007
(i) Benazir Bhutto - the ultimate sacrifice (Beena Sarwar)
(ii) Beyond belief (Kamila Shamsie)
(iii) Bhutto's death rocks Pakistan (Shahan Mufti and Mark Sappenfield)
(iv) After Benazir (Ejaz haider)
(v) 'Her death has left a vacuum in Pak politics
which will be impossible to fill' (Murtaza Razvi)
(vi) Murderous blow to Pakistan's stability (Financial Times)
(vii) Pakistan at the edge (Editorial, The Hindu)
[2] Pakistan - Op-ed's prior to Benarir's assassination:
(i) Taliban in Pakistan : The long shadow (M B Naqvi)
(ii) Looking beyond the polls (I.A. Rehman)
(iii) An unnatural alliance (Farzana Bari)
[3] Nepal: From Hindu kingdom to secular republic (Editorial, The Daily Star)
[4] India: Communal Mayhem in Orissa: News and Editorials
- Orissa's Communal Flare up (Sampad Mahapatra)
- Remember Staines (Editorial, Indian Express)
- Attack on churches - Attempt to terrorise a
whole community (Editorial, The Tribune)
[5] India: Terror on Christmas in Hindutva's lab
in Orissa : Statements by Parties and citizens
groups
(i) On Attacks On Christians In Orissa - Press Statement by CPI(M)
(ii) Letter to India's Prime Minister - Statement by AICU
(iii) Invitation to a Prayer rally to protest
Sangh violence against Orissa Christians
[6] India: Shiv Sena activists attack Husain
exhibition in the heart of Delhi; vandalise
paintings
[7] 6th of December 1992 on 6th of December 2007 (Nivedita Menon)
[8] India: Charm offensive (Sitaram Yechury)
[9] Announcements:
HRCP: invitation to participate in a Consultation
on Workers' Rights (Karachi, 28 December 2007)
______
[1] Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007
BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED IN RAWALPINDI ON 27 DECEMBER 2007
Commentary:
(i)
Inter Press Service
PAKISTAN: BENAZIR BHUTTO - THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
by Beena Sarwar (27 December 2007)
LAHORE (Dec 27): Benazir Bhutto has paid the
heaviest price possible for her insistence on
engaging in participatory, democratic politics in
Pakistan. Bhutto was killed on Thursday evening
in what was apparently a suicide bombing
following gunshots that injured her as she was
leaving a pre-election rally she had just
addressed in the garrison town of Rawalpindi.
Twice-elected former prime minister Benazir
Bhutto, the 54-year old mother of three children,
died in hospital in Rawalpindi at about 6.15 pm –
barely an hour after an unidentified man fired
shots at her as she left the rally venue, a
fenced off park, before blowing himself up. Some
twenty others were killed and dozens more injured.
"She feared something like this would happen, but
she was so brave," said PPP spokesperson
Farhatullah Babar, who was with Benazir Bhutto at
the rally minutes before the tragedy struck,
speaking to IPS from Rawalpindi shortly before
Bhutto's body was transferred to her hometown
Larkana on a C-130 plane. "She waved at the
people, and then there was firing and the blast."
"I don't think people realize this, but she was
one of the last hopes we had in Pakistan for a
peaceful transition to democracy," said
Karachi-based economist Haris Gazdar, who
supported Bhutto's much-criticised 'deal' with
the military government that allowed her to
return to the country and participate in politics.
President and Chief of Army Staff General Pervez
Musharraf's National Reconciliation Ordinance
(NRO) promulgated on Oct. 5, a day before the
presidential elections that he was a nominee for
despite being in military uniform, gave Bhutto
immunity against corruption charges brought
against her after she was ousted from power in
1996 (none of these charges were proved in
court). In return, her Pakistan People's Party
(PPP) lent the election legitimacy by abstaining
from the vote – the rest of the opposition
boycotted the proceedings.
Explaining his support for Bhutto, Gazdar added,
"The Americans think we are a dangerous state,
and they want to come and sort things out here.
This was a chance to do this peacefully
Make no
mistake about it, the state is responsible for
her death. They may think that by removing the
vehicle for a peaceful change, they can stop the
change. But that will not happen. Now that the
peaceful mediator has been killed, they
(Americans) will use armed force."
"I was nine when ZAB was killed by a General. Now
my son is nine and another general has killed his
daughter. I grew up with Benazir. It's a
personal loss. I want to cry forever,"
text-messaged a lawyer in Lahore. The military
regime of General Ziaul Haq overthrew and later
executed the democratically elected prime
minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (ZAB), Benazir's
father, in 1979.
News of the tragic incident ignited violence all
over the country, particularly in Sindh, Bhutto's
home province. "They've shut down all the shops,
and there is firing all around," said Abdul
Jabbar who works as a driver in the Sindh capital
and Pakistan's largest city and business center
Karachi. "People are just overcome with grief."
By 9 pm, violence had claimed at least five lives
in Karachi. Protestors in Sindh evacuated two
trains and set them on fire. Angry mobs attacked
police stations and other symbols of state
authority. Commuters were reported to be
stranded in towns and cities all over the
province.
Benazir Bhutto had chosen to return to Pakistan
after almost nine years of exile, leaving a
comfortable life of exile in London and Dubai,
defying warnings by Musharraf to delay her
arrival due to the danger of suicide attacks.
"This is why I am here," she said, radiant atop
her armoured truck soon after her arrival from
Dubai at Karachi on Oct 18. Waving to the sea of
people that surrounded her truck as far as the
eye could see, she added as thousands of arms
rose in response, "These people are the reason I
am here."
Hours later, her slow-moving convoy bogged down
by thousands of exuberant supporters on foot had
only covered a few kilometers when two bombs
struck soon after midnight. Initially thought to
be a suicide attack, the blasts claimed over 130
lives and 500 injuries.
Addressing a press conference the following day,
a defiant Bhutto implied the involvement of
Pakistan's intelligence agencies in the attacks
by mentioning three anonymous men whom she said
she had named in a letter of Oct 16 to Musharraf.
"I said that if something happens to me, I will
hold them responsible rather than militant groups
like the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the Pakistani
Taliban."
The PPP also demanded the removal of the
Intelligence Bureau chief, Ijaz Shah, hinting at
Pakistani intelligence agencies' linkage with
militancy. Bhutto's later claim that the Oct 18
blasts were remote-controlled further implied the
involvement of forces other than the 'religious
militants' who are traditionally held responsible
for such acts.
Despite the threats, Bhutto hit the campaign
trail after the Election Commission announced on
Nov 20 that polls would be held on January 8,
2008. With elections barely two weeks away,
Bhutto was engaged in a series of public rallies
around the country. Also on the campaign trail
was her major political rival, another
twice-elected former prime minster who like
Bhutto had recently returned from several years
of exile, Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim
League-Nawaz (PML-N). Despite their political
rivalry, the two leaders had developed what
Sharif termed as a "rapport" over the last couple
of years. In May 2006, the two exiled leaders in
London signed a Charter of Democracy aimed at
pushing the military out of Pakistani politics.
Speaking to the media from the hospital in
Rawalpindi where he arrived soon after hearing of
the incident, Bhutto's death, Sharif termed it as
"very tragic". He said that the tragedy reflected
a "lapse in security" and said that the
government should have taken greater measures to
protect her.
As they embarked on their election campaigns, the
two leaders drew huge crowds marked by a passion
that the 'kings' party', the Pakistan Muslim
League-Quaid (PML-Q) was unable to muster. The
campaigning was also marked by violence. Several
political workers, mostly PPP, died in various
incidents. On Dec 20, a suicide bomb in a mosque
in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) killed
over 20 people and injured 200 in an attack
apparently aimed at former PPP stalwart and
ex-interior minister Aftab Sherpao. On Dec 27,
barely three hours before the blast that killed
Bhutto, gunfire killed four PML-N supporters in a
welcome rally for Nawaz Sharif outside the
capital city Islamabad.
Bhutto's decision to contest elections "under
protest" went against the move to boycott the
polls, initiated by 'civil society'-lawyers,
students, human rights activists, non-government
organisations and the smaller political parties –
who argued that participating in the elections
would only legitimize Musharraf's role in
Pakistani politics. Bhutto maintained that a
boycott would not solve anything. Her stand
forced Sharif to reconsider his initial position
and announce that his party would contest rather
than boycotting the polls.
The participation of these political forces posed
a major challenge to the PML-Q which ruled the
roost along with Musharraf for five years since
the 2002 general elections – that Bhutto and
Sharif had both been barred from contesting.
Democratic electoral politics were also expected
to push back the 'jihadists', the right-wing
religious parties who had joined hands as the
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and made
significant electoral inroads during the 2002
elections. MMA was also weakened by internal
divisions as some of its components were in the
boycott camp while others were contesting
elections.
Bhutto's assassination "sends a very frightening
signal to those who aim to pursue liberal
politics in Pakistan," commented Ali Dayan Hasan,
Pakistan-based South Asia Researcher for Human
Rights Watch. "This will leave a huge vacuum at
the heard of Pakistani politics. It is the most
significant political event to happen in Pakistan
since the death of General Zia." Gen. Zia's death
in 1988 had paved the way for fresh elections
that brought Benazir Bhutto into power as the
world's first Muslim woman prime minister.
Condoling with Bhutto's family and other affected
people in a brief, televised address, President
Musharraf announced a three-day mourning period
during which the Pakistani flag will be flown at
half-mast.
"It is important now for Asif Ali Zardari
(Bhutto's husband) to call for peace, and to give
Benazir Bhutto a decent burial that she
deserves," said Nusrat Javeed, the banned head of
current affairs for Aaj Television who appeared
in a special transmission along with another
banned host, Talat Hussain. "We need to sit and
think, and transform the grief and the anger into
strength." (ends)
o o o
(ii)
The Guardian
December 27, 2007
BEYOND BELIEF
In exile, in power, in opposition, Benazir Bhutto
was ever present. It is hard to imagine Pakistani
politics without her
by Kamila Shamsie
A few hours ago I was talking to my sister in
Karachi, asking her if she knew whether or not my
name was on the electoral role. It's been one of
the features of my nomadic life - and of
Pakistan's sporadic forays into elections - that
I've never been in Pakistan during elections
since I was too young to vote. That there was no
one running who I had any interest in voting for
- my most recent notion was to write in
"Chewbacca" - and that rumour had it that massive
pre-poll rigging was under way didn't entirely
destroy my desire to be present and participating
on polling day itself.
I ended the phone call - without any conclusive
news about my presence on the electoral role -
and logged on to Geo TV's live streaming
bulletins. While the news anchors were talking
about rising prices of commodities the banner
running across the bottom of the screen announced
a suicide attacks at Benazir Bhutto's rally in
Rawalpindi.
I thought it was a horrific comment on the
frequency of such attacks in Pakistan that it
wasn't reason to cut to live reporting. And
obviously, I recall thinking, Benazir is fine.
Always the massive security around the leadership
- and the poor supporters get the brunt of the
violence. For the space of a few seconds I
stopped to imagine an alternative scenario, but
then I brushed the thought away.
Impossible: despite the October 18 attack on her
homecoming rally, despite knowing how may people
must want her dead, it was still impossible to
imagine Benazir as anything other than an
insistent presence in the world of Pakistani
politics. In exile, in power, in opposition - but
always present, always a factor. It had been that
way since Zia-ul-Haq took power in 1977, when I
was four years old. I've never known a Pakistan
in which hers wasn't a name to conjure with.
A few minutes later Geo was reporting that
Benazir had left the rally just prior to the
explosion. Of course, I thought, and logged off.
And so when a Pakistani friend called from a
small village in Devon to say "Benazir's dead" my
first reaction was to simply disbelieve her.
She must have heard there was a suicide blast at
the rally and incorrectly surmised Benazir had
been caught up in it. But no, she insisted and
insisted again - and then my phone's display
showed another call coming through from a friend
in Karachi, and I knew.
A little later a friend from Calcutta texted his
horror at the news, but added, "It's the least
surprising assassination since Malcolm X."
If that's so, why is it that every one of my
compatriots I speak to can find little to say
beyond, "I can't believe it."
What happens next? Only two things are certain:
whatever happens, Benazir will continue to be an
insistent presence in Pakistan's politics for
quite a while; and it is a tremendously bleak day
for Pakistan.
(iii)
The Christian Science Monitor - December 28, 2007 edition
BHUTTO'S DEATH ROCKS PAKISTAN
The assassination of the former prime minister
raises questions about the Musharraf government's
security measures.
by Shahan Mufti and Mark Sappenfield
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p01s01-wosc.html
(iv)
Indian Express
December 28, 2007
AFTER BENAZIR
Whoever did this wants two things: create unrest
through violence; and get the elections postponed
sine die.
by Ejaz haider
Benazir Bhutto is dead, assassinated. A grave
tragedy, this could likely have even graver
consequences. She was walking back to her vehicle
after addressing a rally at Rawalpindi's Liaquat
Bagh on December 27 when, according to reports, a
man approached her, started shooting and then
blew himself up. The bullet that entered her neck
proved fatal.
That Bhutto was attacked is not surprising; it
wasn't the first time. What is surprising is that
someone could so easily get close to her and had
enough time to start shooting before activating
his suicide belt.
Who could have done it? The answer to this
obvious question, unfortunately, is not so
obvious. If motive is the benchmark, culprits can
range from the rightwing elements - Al-Qaeda and
its affiliate groups had repeatedly threatened to
take her out - to her political rivals, to
elements within the establishment and
intelligence agencies. Anyone, singly or in
tandem, could be behind this murderous act.
Bhutto had, after the gruesome Karachi bombings,
pointed the finger at what she called the "Zia
remnants"; later, however, she had decided not to
press with that line. But the manner in which
Pakistan's politics is configured, the PPP rank
and file will entertain no other thought except
that the dark deed was committed by Bhutto's
rivals - and rivals range from the army (for whom
Bhutto was a bete noire) to intelligence
agencies, to right-of-centre political parties,
to the extremist groups on the loose.
PPP cadres are already in a foul mood and in the
coming days the possibility of increasing
violence in the party's strongholds cannot be
discounted. The consequences of Bhutto's
assassination have to be seen on the basis of the
vertical fault-line that has historically run
through Pakistan's politics and where the army
has overtly and covertly tried to do everything
possible to keep the PPP on the margins since its
very inception (the former director-general of
Inter-Services Intelligence, Lt Gen Hamid Gul,
has publicly confessed that he put together the
Islami Jamhoori Ittehad in 1988 to thwart the
PPP).
Even now, while President Pervez Musharraf began
to make overtures to the PPP, partly because he
realised that the next phase of politics would
require a much stronger PPP presence and partly
because the Americans pushed him in that
direction, Musharraf's allies were extremely
unhappy. It doesn't bear repeating that Musharraf
presides over a system where many functionaries
of the government are not particularly enamoured
either of his policy of alliance with the US or
his idea of cultural liberalism and moderation.
An alliance between Musharraf and Bhutto, even
one based on self-interest, was not in the
interest of such players. That her rally in
Karachi was targeted within hours of her landing
on Pakistan's soil shows that these elements
meant business. It also proved that they
considered her a grave threat and would strike
again.
Turmoil suits extremist groups; the absence of
Bhutto suits some political groups as well as
some elements within the establishment. But
unlike the extremist groups, those who are in
this game to seek power must realise that some
basic rules of the game are important all round -
for themselves as well as the rivals. Without
règle du jeu, the country can never acquire the
stability which makes politics the only
profitable game in town.
Where does Pakistan go from here?
That's the question now and its answer will
depend on Musharraf. He will have to make a
decision and a smart one. And the only sensible
decision is to not postpone the elections.
Whoever did this wants two things: create unrest
through violence; and get the elections postponed
sine die. The postponement of elections will only
increase the possibility of violence by
signalling to an already bereaved PPP rank and
file that the dastardly act of killing Bhutto was
aimed at eliminating a political threat and
keeping the country away from democracy.
In fact, the only way Musharraf can show his
sincerity and even get himself, the army and
perhaps his political allies absolved of the
accusations that will now fly thick and fast,
such being the nature of Byzantine politics, is
to go ahead with the elections.
The talk about imposing another emergency will be
akin to playing with fire. Investigations into
this tragedy need sincerity, not a blanket
imposition of drastic measures curtailing basic
rights, not least because emergency in and of
itself can have no impact on the efficacy of
investigations intended to unearth the culprits
who did this. Indeed, imposition of emergency and
postponement of elections will serve to do just
the opposite: convince the PPP cadres as also the
majority of Pakistanis that Bhutto was targeted
only so the ancien regime could carry on merrily.
This is a death whose shadow will linger over
Pakistani politics for many years to come.
There's also a lesson here for those who have
ruled Pakistan for so long and defied the logic
of establishing a succession principle. If
Pakistan were a stable state, this death would
still be mourned but no one would consider even a
tragedy as big as this to be the undoing of the
state itself.
Bhutto was fighting for just such stability; the
only way to honour her and her sacrifice is for
the country to return to democracy and to the
creation of a legal-normative framework. And the
first step to that is free and fair elections.
President Musharraf has announced a three-day
mourning and appealed to Pakistanis to stay calm.
By not announcing emergency measures, he seems to
be signalling that elections will go ahead as
planned.
(v)
Indian Express
December 28, 2007
'HER DEATH HAS LEFT A VACUUM IN PAK POLITICS WHICH WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FILL'
by Murtaza Razvi
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/255100.html
(vi)
Financial Times
MURDEROUS BLOW TO PAKISTAN'S STABILITY
Published: December 27 2007 19:14 | Last updated: December 27 2007 19:14
The assassination on Thursday of Benazir Bhutto,
the twice former prime minister of Pakistan who
was staging a formidable comeback from exile
ahead of elections next month, is a disaster for
a country that was already flirting with state
failure.
That is not because she was credible in the role
she scripted for herself as Pakistan's saviour
and the spearhead of a democratic restoration.
Her preference had been to try to cut a deal with
General Pervez Musharraf to join forces in a
manipulated transition from his military rule to
a regime that left the general as president and
his allies in command of the army - with an
amnesty for Ms Bhutto from the corruption charges
that have clouded her career.
But her violent death leaves a hole in national
politics and adds a vicious extra dimension of
disintegration to a country that is already
falling apart after decades of civilian and
military misrule.
The regime of Gen Musharraf, Ms Bhutto's Pakistan
People's party, and the Pakistan Muslim League
faction of Nawaz Sharif - another ousted former
prime minister - now need to set aside personal
advantage and rise to the challenge of the
emergency facing their country. Little in their
records suggests they will. The removal of Ms
Bhutto from the equation also leaves the Bush
administration adrift.
Washington's commitment to Gen Musharraf as a
vital asset in the "war on terror" led it to
promote an alliance between the general and Ms
Bhutto. This was shortsighted. Rather than
support the democratic revival of civil society,
seen above all in this year's lawyers' movement
against the regime and the vigour of the local
press, the US sought to use Ms Bhutto as a
figleaf of democracy - widening further the
already extensive circle of her enemies.
Her motorcade was the target of a massive
suicide-bombing in Karachi when she returned in
October, probably by jihadis who turned against
Gen Musharraf this summer.
Her death in Rawalpindi, where her father, the
deposed prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was
hanged by a previous military regime in 1979,
ends the baroque and bloody saga of a political
dynasty that also saw two of her brothers perish,
one shot, another found dead in southern France
in murky circumstances.
Ms Bhutto presented a plausible face of
modernity: a young, glamorous woman in a
male-dominated society, educated at Oxford and
Harvard, fluent in the political idiom of western
capitals. But she was also tough and ruthless -
south Asian politics is not for the faint-hearted
- and the PPP remained more feudal hierarchy than
political party under her command.
Her two spells in power in the 1980s and 90s were
marked by venality and incompetence - just as Mr
Sharif's were - as well as a willingness to
temporise with the generals and Islamists. Yet,
however badly civilians misruled, Gen Musharraf's
marginalising the mainstream PPP and PML offered
power not only to the army but gangster
politicians and radical Islamists, sinking
Pakistan deeper in the mire.
It is in danger of dissolution, with the tribal
areas that harbour al-Qaeda in revolt, an
increasingly Talibanised Pashtun nationalism
ablaze in North West Frontier Province,
nationalist insurgency in Balochistan, rekindled
ethnosectarian conflict in Ms Bhutto's Sindh
fief, and jihadis openly challenging a state
whose institutions have buckled under Gen
Musharraf's rule.
The general will no doubt see in this violent
turn of events proof of his indispensability. Mr
Sharif becomes the unquestioned head of the
opposition. A headless PPP will struggle to
regroup.
Yet all Pakistan's leaders need to regroup around
a national accord, to defeat extremism by
restoring the legitimacy of its rulers and the
credibility of its institutions. That should be
the object of the January 8 elections - even if
they are postponed - because the challenge for
Pakistan is no less than to restart the process
of nation-building.
(vii)
The Hindu - 28 December 2007
Editorial
PAKISTAN AT THE EDGE
"I am not afraid," Benazir Bhutto declaimed at
her father's mausoleum two months ago, "of anyone
but Allah." In the last weeks of her life,
Benazir demonstrated that she possessed a depth
of conviction that was, beyond dispute,
exceptional. When she returned to Pakistan
earlier this year after long exile, she made
clear to family and confidantes that she was well
aware of the great dangers lying ahead. She was
undeterred by the murderous bombing that greeted
her on her return home. During her two tenures as
Prime Minister of Pakistan, she was charged by
adversaries and critics with corruption, with
sponsoring Islamist terrorism directed at India,
with dilettantism. Whatever be the truth in
relation to these accusations, the Pakistan
People's Party chief showed, in word and deed,
that she possessed the raw courage needed to set
past wrongs right. In his last interview before
his execution by the military regime of General
Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto said: "I
am not afraid of death. I am a man of history and
you cannot silence history." Democrats across
Pakistan will recall these words as they ponder
how best to respond to a despicable act by
terrorists who made no secret of their loathing
at the prospect of a progressive, secular woman
emerging as Pakistan's ruler.
With this body blow to democracy in Pakistan,
what is clear is that epic struggles lie ahead
for its hard-pressed people. Some analysts fear
the assassination will spell the end of the
tentative movement towards democracy witnessed in
recent months. While such an outcome will suit
the military establishment as well as the
Islamists, it will have dangerously destabilising
consequences. As Benazir pointed out movingly in
a recent interview, "people are just being
butchered and it has to stop, somebody has to
find a solution and my solution is, let's restore
democracy." It was this combination of
extraordinary courage and well-reasoned
commitment to democracy that made Benazir stand
out among Pakistan's political leaders. Her death
illustrates in stark relief the failure of Pervez
Musharraf's regime, which continues to be
underwritten by the United States, to confront
al-Qaeda- and Taliban-linked religious
neoconservatives who are working to obliterate
the last traces of democracy in Pakistan. It is
one of the grimmer ironies of history that
Benazir was killed at the gates of Rawalpindi's
Liaqat Bagh - the very location where a gunman
shot dead Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan in 1951,
an action some believe was provoked by his
opposition to clerics' calls for Pakistan to be
declared an Islamic state. In the decades since,
the country has lurched ever closer towards the
abyss. All those who care for its future - and
for the future of our shared region - must join
hands to ensure it is pulled back from the edge.
The Hindu shares the deep grief of the people of
Pakistan over this terrible loss during a time of
troubles.
______
[2] [PAKISTAN OP-ED'S PRIOR TO BENAZIR'S ASSASSINATION ]
(i)
Deccan Herald
25 December 2007
TALIBAN IN PAKISTAN : THE LONG SHADOW
by M B Naqvi
The need is for flooding of the region with new
social, cultural ideas and politics.
News of atrocities against "sinners" is reported
from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP)
every day. The suicide bombers' murderous attacks
or remote controlled bombings are attributed to
Islamic extremists groups, particularly the
Taliban. The targets are usually music shops, net
cafes or military-related. Girls' schools are
also targeted, but music-related shops are
favourites.
What makes Islamic extremists, particularly the
Taliban, a formidable force is their supposed
piety and extra-austere life, despite the use of
modern weapons, transport etc is common. The
austerity part needs investigation and no first
hand knowledge of it is available. Their leaders
live well. However, facts are less important than
perception and the perceptions of their piety are
common.
Propensity to like the Taliban is widespread
throughout Pakistan. It has to do with psychology
and cultural prepossessions of Muslims. Idea of
living piously like the early Middle Ages Arab
Muslims fascinates the subcontinent's Muslims.
This is one strand but not the only one. Most
religious elements therefore demand Muslims must
live in accordance with Shariat; this has a wide
appeal, despite Shariat being uncodified or
commonly agreed. The Shariat mostly means a
system of quick justice that was traditional in
Arabia that Islam generally adopted, involving
cutting off a thief's hand or inflicting 100
lashes or stoning to death on an adulterer.
Things like that.
In Pakistan, Gen Ziaul Haq in the 80's instituted
four Shariat laws. They resulted in many women
being punished for being raped while rapists went
scot-free. The reason was that Islamic evidence
law requires four adult male witnesses of good
repute for conviction. Who will rape a woman in
the presence of four adult males? The result was
raped women became guilty of adultery by their
very complaint.
There was a case of an insane woman having been
raped and who served a long term for adultery,
leading to continuing howls by civil society.
Such anomalies abound. Propensity to love the
pious is but one among many: Sufistic tradition
of love and forgiveness is strong even in these
areas. The fact is that a semi-dormant strand has
become hyper-active because of developments in
Afghanistan, Middle East and even in Pakistan:
perception in the west is waging wars against
Muslims, arousing xenophobic sentiments and anger.
A climate of opinion has developed against
aggressive imperialists for being intent on
destroying Muslims. Resistance to them makes the
Taliban and other Islamic militants popular.
America's imperial invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan has made it all too plausible. This
psychology needs study for making counter
measures appropriate and adequate.
Islamic militants are waging a regular
insurgency, with initiative clearly in their
hands. They select targets for ambushes or remote
control bombings at precise moments when a
military convoy passes by. They receive excellent
intelligence of the military's or paramilitary's
movements and time the attacks accurately.
Intelligence they get is frequently better than
Pakistan security forces'. They are using what
are essentially guerilla techniques: attack here
and disappear. They are doing that in Afghanistan
to telling effect and are repeating it in Swat
and other areas.
Where do the Taliban or other militants
disappear? They go away to places where their
protectors are: institutions, madressas, mosques
or simple relatives' houses. The point is they
have plenty of supporters, ready to protect them
from state intelligence.
US President George Bush is leading the fight
against Islamic terrorism in Pakistan, with
Musharraf cooperating. But his is a military
approach: go and kill. But go after who? By the
time soldiers or paramilitaries reach them they
have disappeared or have made themselves
unidentifiable amidst the local population. There
is no way of identifying them.
A whole area or a village does get punished in
accordance with colonial tradition. But this
means civilian casualties that make people angry
and support militants. The Taliban accuse
Pakistan's forces are underlings of Americans,
fighting America's war. If war is politics with
weapons, a military approach creates more enemies
than those killed. What is needed is to counter
the ideas motivating Taliban and the like.
The word "countering" is misleading. The need is
for flooding of the region with new political,
social, cultural ideas and politics. These areas
need to be opened up. The ancient Frontier Crimes
Regulation, the Bible left by the colonial
masters that Pak army and bureaucracy revere,
needs to be buried. Let normal Pakistan laws be
applied to all tribal areas in NWFP and
Balochistan. Why treat them separately?
These areas' supposed independence militates
against Pakistan sovereignty. They are not really
independent nor were they ever. The British kept
them in a state of semi-independence so as to
create a buffer of sorts between India and
Afghanistan. The times have changed. These people
need being integrated into a relatively more
modern Pakistan.
Flooding these areas with new ideas means letting
all political parties come in and propagate their
ideas and programmes. Greater intercourse with
other parts of Pakistan is also needed. Let their
children study in all parts of Pakistan and other
Pakistanis should visit these areas. Then there
has to be more economic development to provide at
least such amenities as many Pakistanis enjoy
like piped clean water, pucca houses, a more
humane dispensation of justice and of course more
education and healthcare.
Tribals need democracy here and now. It is learnt
by practicising it; democracy is not a
theoretical course to be learnt in schools.
Ideological support to insurgents originates in
NWFP's religious political parties that run
thousands of madrassas. Not until these areas are
impacted by new ideas and parties, mere killing
of militants with helicopter gunships and
artillery is not the answer. True, the military
has to defend itself. But the riposte must not
inflict excessive collateral damage. The solution
lies in political, social and cultural measures
to dilute and balance the ideas of the Taliban.
o o o
(ii)
Dawn
27 December 2007
LOOKING BEYOND THE POLLS
by I.A. Rehman
WITH polling day less than a fortnight away, the
greatest cause of anxiety among democratic-minded
people is whether the anti-authoritarian
stirrings of the past few months will survive the
so-called general election. The question touches
on the present society's capacity for realising a
democratic change as well as the direction of its
strivings.
Whatever the outcome of the electoral exercise,
it has already split the political community into
two camps, one of them hoping for salvation by
joining the process and the other by boycotting
it. Neither camp apparently has a reason to be
sanguine about its success.
Those joining the electoral race are crying
themselves hoarse that the establishment is
determined to rig the election and their
inability to foil such designs will hardly be
challenged. The boycott group argues that,
instead of leading to a democratic dispensation,
the election will only extend and legitimise
authoritarian rule. But, regardless of the logic
in its stand, this group too has not been able to
demonstrate the strength needed to defeat the
forces of the status quo.
That this division has weakened the democratic
forces is quite obvious. The reasons that made
unity among the parties professing adherence to
representative rule impossible are now less
important than the need to guard against the
possibility of the rift continuing into the
post-election period. Nobody should ignore the
danger that those who come out on top in the
election, howsoever it is conducted, or whoever
are chosen by the establishment to lend it a
democratic façade, may not be able to force the
people's agenda on their more powerful partners.
If that happens, those in assemblies and those
outside will exhaust themselves fighting one
another and thereby give a new lease of life to
the autocracy that they should be fighting
unitedly. Is it possible to ensure that after the
polls the two camps will be able to jointly work
for the restoration of democracy? Can the civil
society elements out in the field - lawyers,
media people, students - accomplish this?
The task has been made harder by the failure of
political parties to nourish democratic ideals
through regular contact with the masses during
periods between elections. Lack of organised
cadres has been the single most important cause
of division on the boycott issue.
This is the fatal flaw in national politics that
has enabled one authoritarian regime after
another to make a mockery of civilised
governance. And this is the truth the events of
2007 have laid bare, for what happened on Nov 3
constituted the greatest assault ever on the
Pakistani people's democratic rights. Now the
restitution of the rights of the judiciary has
been pushed to the top of the country's agenda.
For more than 50 years political parties have
tried to hide their lack of public support by
shifting the responsibility of guarding democracy
entirely to the judiciary. All parties, small
ones as well as those that supposedly constitute
the mainstream, have expected the courts to save
them from the consequences of their sloth, lack
of conviction and alienation from the people. And
when, some months ago, the judiciary chose to
fulfil its constitutional duty they were quick to
assume that democracy had finally triumphed. It
hadn't.
The reality the political parties faced in
November last was that they had exaggerated the
role of the judiciary in enabling authoritarian
regimes to stay in power as long as they did and
to do whatever they had chosen to do, and that it
was time they accepted the challenge of resisting
autocracy, a challenge they could not pass on to
any other institution or body of people.
The unity of pro-democracy forces the country
needs will hinge on an understanding on the
restoration of the judiciary to its pre-November
2007 status.
Unfortunately, some of the major players are
reluctant to accept this formulation. The reasons
vary from party to party. Some find it hard to
overcome their subjective responses to the
judiciary's past performance while some others
have consciously or unconsciously accepted the
theory that the courts have been harrying the
knights engaged in saving the world from
terrorists. This complaint is similar to
inefficient prosecutors' protests at courts'
refusal to convict the accused without evidence
and both grievances merit summary dismissal. The
case for taking a stand on the restoration of the
judiciary, on the other hand, can easily be
summed up.
The mess one notices all around is largely due to
the executive's acts of omission and commission.
It cannot possibly disown responsibility for
first promoting militancy and then making a hash
of the campaign to overcome it. It is also
responsible for inviting judicial activism by
neglecting its normal duties to the people. There
would have been no need for the courts to
reprimand the establishment's privileged knights
if the administration had rendered to the people
what was due to them, if the police and security
agencies had functioned within the law, if women
had been protected from feudal brutality, and if
bonded haris had been recognised as human beings.
The November attack on the judiciary has resulted
in freeing a manifestly incompetent executive of
any semblance of accountability. The consequences
to the people are too grim to be ignored. Fears
of an increase in police excesses and abuse of
law to suit a predatory executive's convenience
are not unfounded. The restoration of the
judiciary is necessary to repair the
accountability bar to the executive's actions
that has wantonly been destroyed. The undoing of
a wrong done to some justices is less important
than the need to free the judiciary of its fears
of an executive that recognises no limits to its
powers.
More importantly, the people have been eagerly
looking for means to make the polity immune to
relapsing into absolute rule by the military
after each spell of limited and strictly
regulated representative governance. Progress
towards this end demands, among other things,
that elected representatives should be able to
roll back the extra-democratic measures of
authoritarian regimes. The idea is not unknown to
students of Pakistan's politics. The movement
against Ayub Khan was aimed at ridding the
country of the anti-democratic assumptions
underlying the system of Basic Democracies and
the so-called constitution of 1962. Similarly the
prolonged agitation against the eighth amendment
of Gen Zia was directed at demolishing
institutionalised encroachments on democratic
principles.
Now a large part of the population believes
Pakistan will not be able to negotiate the crisis
of the state unless the Nov 3 measures are
expeditiously rolled back. Restoration of the
judiciary is thus essential as the first step
towards ensuring protection against any
disruption of the constitutional order in future.
The people will forgive the boycott generals for
challenging autocracy without gathering any
soldiers behind them and the election-wallas
their haste in coming to the executive's rescue
if they do not lose sight of the fact that the
long-term survival of both depends on fighting
for justice for the judiciary.
o o o
(iii)
The News
December 27, 2007
AN UNNATURAL ALLIANCE
by Dr Farzana Bari
The failure to ensure fundamental rights of
survival, protection and security to its citizens
is a clear violation of the social contract
between the state and its citizens. The main
factors responsible for this collapse of
governance in Pakistan include the consistent
interference of the military in politics and the
domination of feudals, sardars and the moneyed
classes in the mainstream politics of the
country. Both the military and civilian ruling
classes have systematically weakened the state
institutions in order to protect their own vested
interests. In the presence of a strong and
independent judiciary, media and parliament, it
becomes difficult for the ruling clique to
exploit public resources and violate people's
rights.
Therefore, none of the military or civilian
regimes over the last sixty years have ever made
any substantive effort to establish the
independence of state institutions. While the
military and civilian ruling elite are in
agreement to maintain the status quo, people are
desperate for a change in governance structures.
That is why they are not taking any interest in
the power-sharing tussle, currently going on
between the political civil and military forces.
They are least interested in the forthcoming
elections. Their main concern is how to restore
the pre-November 3 judiciary which showed some
independence and has become the only hope for the
people of Pakistan.
The decision of major political parties to
contest elections without resolving the issue of
the restoration of the judiciary has come as a
big disappointment to the general public. This
has created a huge gulf between the people and
the political parties. People refuse to be
engaged in an election process which cannot be
anything but a farce. In the absence of an
independent judiciary, it is impossible to hold
free and fair elections. Instead of engaging in
election campaigns, people are articulating their
resentment and resolve to restore the ousted
judiciary by holding protests and demonstrations
all over the country. This protest movement is
spearheaded by civil society organizations that
include the legal fraternity, journalists, human
rights activists, non-governmental organizations
and students. Political parties remain the
missing element in this movement so far.
The inability of political parties to take a
collective stand on the issue of boycotting the
election until the pre-November 3 judiciary is
restored has split political parties into two
blocks. While all the major political parties
have decided to contest elections, all
progressive, nationalist, left-wing parties with
the exception of Jamaat-e-Islami and
Tehreek-e-Insaf decided to boycott the elections.
Among those who are advocating boycott of
elections, almost all of them with the exception
of the Jamaat-e-Islami are known for their
progressive, secular and anti-establishment
credentials and had a history of fighting against
the status-quo. Whereas Jamat-e-Islami is known
as a fundamentalist Islamist party that has used
Islam and covertly supported the military
dictators to gain political power over the last
sixty years. Tehreek-e-Insaf's ideological
position is not very clear as it keeps on
vacillating from the Centre to the Right. The
alliance of these ideologically opposing forces
in the All Parties Democratic Alliance (APDM) is
unnatural and extremely damaging for the secular
and democratic politics of the country.
It must be understood that the present political
movement launched by civil society groups and
intelligentsia is not about election boycott
alone. It is about establishing a democratic
secular state where the judiciary, media,
parliament and executive are independent. This is
about ensuring substantive democracy where the
rights of all citizens irrespective of their
creed, caste, class and gender are ensured and
protected. The Jamaat-e-Islami does not believe
in the secular principle of democratic state.
Therefore, it does not make any sense for the
liberal, democratic secular parties to make an
alliance with the JI to launch an election
boycott campaign while they fundamentally differ
on the outcomes to be achieved through launching
such a political movement.
It would have been much better that instead of
making an alliance with the most retrogressive
party i.e. the JI, the progressive and leftist
forces should have formed their own alliance to
launch a movement against the regime. This was a
great opportunity for them to establish their own
progressive and secular identity. The united
front of democratic and secular parties could
have really filled the political vacuum that has
been created due to the decision of major
political parties to participate in the election.
However, their decision to sit with the JI in the
APDM has once again shown the short-sightedness
of our nationalist and progressive parties. By
walking on the same path with the most
retrogressive and anti-women party, the
nationalist and democrats have given a new life
and legitimacy to the JI. The role of the Jamaat
during the last seven years of the Musharraf
regime is highly dubious. The MMA played an
instrumental role in the passage of the 17th
amendment and yet remained the leader of the
opposition as well. The lukewarm response and the
low participation of the JI during the movement
to restore the chief justice and against the
emergency now show the lack of seriousness on its
part. Moreover, the recent statement of Qazi
Hussain that the MMA will continue to work as a
religious alliance despite some of its component
parties' decision to contest elections makes him
a real suspect. Instead of working with such
unworthy political allies, the secular parties
should have used this opportune moment to isolate
the JI from politics.
The leadership of our nationalist/secular parties
argues in defence of their decision to enter into
the alliance with the JI and Tehreek-e-Insaf,
that they have the leadership of the APDM and not
the JI. In my view it is fairly naïve to think
that these secular parties with a low vote bank,
an inability to make electoral victories and weak
party organization will reap the benefit of
popular movement. The Jamaat is the only party in
the APDM which has the most sophisticated party
structure and also the political clout.
Presently, the Jamaat's silence is the most
strategic and its willingness to offer leadership
of the APDM to nationalist is also not without
deep political thinking.
The decision of liberal and centralist parties to
contest elections that will be held under the
supervision of the PCO judges and the alliance of
secular forces with the JI in the APDM does not
leave much choice for the citizens. Also this
situation creates a dilemma for the civil society
groups who are at the forefront of the protest
movement. They know the movement cannot succeed
until the political parties join forces with
them. Nevertheless, they are reluctant to join
hands with the APDM due to the above-mentioned
analysis. This makes the current political
situation highly complicated and has serious
repercussions for the current political movement.
The only way out of the present dilemma is that
all democratic and secular forces must walk on a
separate track. They must not blur their identity
by mingling with retrogressive religious parties
of the APDM. They should make their own alliance
and should be ready to lead this secular
movement. Therefore, it is critically important
for the democratic/secular forces in the country
to unite and lead the movement under its own
banner and with its own identity.
______
[3]
The Daily Star
25 December 2007
Editorial
FROM HINDU KINGDOM TO SECULAR REPUBLIC
NEPAL'S DEMOCRACY WILL NEED STRONG FOUNDATIONS
NEPAL'S monarchy is finally set to make an exit.
The decision by the country's major political
parties to do away with it, in line with the
long-standing demand of the people, most
vigorously articulated by Maoists, is a
development that cannot but satisfy the Nepalese
population and people of the Saarc region as a
whole. That sense of satisfaction of course has
to do with some recent actions of King Gyanendra
himself. Since taking charge of the throne
following the murder of his brother, King
Birendra and his family, in 2001, Gyanendra has
not exactly endeared himself to the people of
Nepal. But it was his seizure of absolute power,
through which he sought to impose grave
restrictions on politics, that proved to be the
last straw. In the end, popular discontent made
the monarch eat humble pie.
The latest development should bode well for
Nepal's democracy which, in many ways, is still a
fledgling one. But one of the brighter aspects of
all this effort to transform the Hindu kingdom
into a republic is the willingness with which the
Maoists have joined hands with the traditional
parties. For all the hiccups of the past few
months, when the Maoists quit the coalition
government to demand that a clear decision be
taken about abolishing the monarchy, there was
hardly any doubt in the popular mind about the
fate of King Gyanendra and his family. Now that a
consensus has finally developed on the state of
Nepal's future politics and Maoist leader
Prachanda prepares to lead his party back into
the government, it is a new, stable order that
has become the priority in the country. Nepal's
break with the past will be all the more
remarkable considering that it will move headlong
from being a Hindu kingdom to a secular republic.
It will be to the credit of the politicians in
Kathmandu, including the Maoists, if they finally
succeed in laying the foundations of such a new
order.
And yet there cannot be any illusions about the
future. The Maoists, having waged a long, often
terrifying guerrilla war in the mountains, must
convince Nepal's people that they have repudiated
the path of revolution in favour of a modern
democracy. For the other parties, their
internecine squabbles will need to end if
democracy is not to descend into chaos.
However, we conclude by expressing our deep sense
of satisfaction that when religious extremism is
causing such havoc in many parts of the Saarc
region. Nepal becomes a secular country from a
religious one.
_____
[4] INDIA - COMMUNAL MAYHEM IN ORISSA: News and Editorials
ORISSA'S COMMUNAL FLARE UP
by Sampad Mahapatra
NDTV, December 27, 2007 (Kandhmal)
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070036990&ch=12/27/2007%205:14:00%20PM
o o o
Indian Express
December 27, 2007 at 0000 hrs
Editorial
REMEMBER STAINES
ATTACKS ON CHURCHES, PRIESTS FRAME A CULTURE OF
IMPUNITY IN WHICH HATE CRIMES ARE ALLOWED TO OCCUR
The Indian Express
: On Tuesday, this paper reported the case of
Brother Ramesh, a Catholic priest from Tamil Nadu
working in Gujarat. Brother Ramesh was attacked a
few days earlier in Kwant, a tribal town in
Vadodara, by "activists" who alleged that he was
involved in "conversions"; four fingers of his
right hand have had to be amputated since.
Strangely, though, the police has registered an
FIR against the victim, while the assailants are
still absconding. Brother Ramesh's predicament
appears to point to the vicious circle of
impunity within which attacks on minority
communities, including Christians, continue to
take place in parts of our country. The attack on
churches and large-scale violence between Hindu
and Christian groups that has followed in the
wake of a reported attack on a VHP leader who
leads the anti-conversion movement in Orissa's
Kandhamal district, must be seen in the same grim
context.
Both Gujarat and Orissa have a recent history of
violence against Christian missionaries by groups
that subscribe to an ideology of militant
Hindutva. On the night of January 22, 1999, in
Manoharpur village of Keonjhar district,
Australian missionary Graham Staines and his
minor sons were burnt alive by a mob as they
slept in their station wagon. That case had
rightly sparked country-wide outrage. At roughly
the same time, a 10-day spate of violence against
Christians in the Dangs district of Gujarat had
also stirred the nation's conscience. Both events
have been seared into collective memory and this,
in itself, should have ensured that such hate
crimes did not recur.
Yet the latest episodes of violence in Narendra
Modi's Gujarat and Naveen Patnaik's Orissa frame
a continuing failure of both civil society and
the state. In a diverse and plural polity like
India, both must be vigilant against forces of
intolerance. The onus is especially on the
government. The message must be sent out that
violence will not be tolerated and that all its
perpetrators will be brought to book. Only when
justice is done and is seen to be done will goons
and criminals acting in the name of their faith
be dissuaded.
editor at expressindia.com
o o o
The Tribune
27 December 2007
Editorial
ATTACK ON CHURCHES
Attempt to terrorise a whole community
WHILE the people the world over were celebrating
Christmas on December 25, the Christians in
Orissa's Kandhamal district were at the receiving
end with alleged activists of the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad destroying church after church. In the
mindless violence unleashed on the community, one
person was killed and several were injured. The
attack was ostensibly to retaliate against the
alleged manhandling of a VHP leader. That the VHP
chose to convert some Christians to Hinduism on
that day bears out that the whole purpose was to
foment trouble. Orissa is one state where the
so-called Freedom of Religion law is in force
which makes it obligatory for the organisers of
such conversion ceremonies to follow certain
procedures. That the VHP has been paying scant
regard for such a law on the specious plea that
what it organises is not conversion but
"home-coming".
Despite all the potential for mischief, the
district authorities failed to take any
preemptive action. What's more, they could not
even protect the house of a minister from the
communally surcharged lot. It is not the first
time that Orissa has witnessed religious tension.
The burning of Australian missionary Graham
Staines and his two minor sons was preceded by
several incidents of attack on the minorities in
the name of protest against cow slaughter and
religious conversion. It is the kid-glove
treatment those behind such violent campaigns
received that emboldened them to burn the
missionary who was tending to the leprosy
patients in one of the most backward areas of
Orissa. There are feudal and pseudo-political
forces that do not want the poor to get educated
and know their legal and democratic rights for
fear it would upset the caste-based social system.
The Orissa government is duty-bound to take
stringent action against all those who desecrated
the churches. It should also go after those who
"attacked" the VHP leader and bring them to book.
No excuse is good enough to terrorise a whole
community. In fact, any leniency shown will be
construed as a failure of the state to protect
not just the life and property of the people but
also their right to preach and practise their
religious beliefs. What the Orissa government
does in Kandhamal district will show how
committed it is to uphold the rule of law and the
religious rights of the people.
______
[5] TERROR ON CHRISTMAS IN HINDUTVA'S LAB IN ORISSA : NEWS AND STATEMENTS
(i)
26 December 2007
Press Statement
The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India
(Marxist) has issued the following statement:
ON ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANS IN ORISSA
The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) strongly condemns
the organised attacks against Christians and
Christian institutions in Kandhamal district in
Orissa. On Christmas eve and Christmas day, the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad and RSS mobs burnt down 15
churches and destroyed property in Christian
educational institutions. Kandhamal district has
been, for years, the target of communal
activities against the Christian community.
The Orissa state government and district
administration failed to take adequate steps to
protect the minority community. The Polit Bureau
demands immediate measures to protect the
Christian community and its institutions in the
district by deploying adequate security forces.
The culprits responsible for the violence must
be arrested and proceeded against.
o o o
(ii) [AICU] PRESS STATEMENT:
Church leaders urge Prime Minister to ensure safety of Christians in Orissa
Over 30 churches, Institutions destroyed in
Christmas violence, many injured as Hindutva
extremists go on the rampage, fire on people in
tribal belt
[The following is the text of the memorandum
submitted by Dr John Dayal, Member: National
Integration Council, Government of India, on
behalf of the All India Catholic Union (Founded
1919), the All India Christian Council (Founded
1999), and the President: United Christian
Action, Delhi (Founded 1992). Dr Dayal was member
of the Church delegation, together with
Archbishop Vincent Concessao, Dr Richard Howell,
and Dr Dominick Emmanuel, which was meeting Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on the Orissa issue.]
Christmas 2007, 25-26 December 26, 2007
Dr Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
New Delhi
Re: Appeal for immediate action to prevent
massacre of Christians in the Tribal Phulbani
region of Orissa, and desecration of Churches in
the state. There must be no repeat of Gujarat's
Dangs area violence on Christmas 1998.
Dear Prime Minister
I bring to you and your government Greetings of
Christmas from the All India Catholic Union,
representing the 1.6 crore [16 million] Catholic
laity in the country, and the All India Christian
Council, whose membership includes 3,000
Independent churches, Human rights organisations
and Insitutions.
It is, however, with a heavy heart that I also
bring to you our collective apprehensions and
fear that the current atrocities against
Christians in the tribal area of Phoolbani in the
State of Orissa is fast exploding into the type
of violence we saw in the Dangs district of
Gujarat during Christmas 1998. The official
apathy, the police indifference and the freedom
allowed to marauding bands of Hindutva fanatics
and armed thugs in Gujarat has been repeated in
Orissa in what is a planned conspiracy against
the Church and our faith.
[. . .]
God Bless you
And God Bless India
Dr. John Dayal
[Full Text at:
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2007/12/church-leaders-urge-prime-minister-to.html
]
o o o
INVITATION TO A PRAYER RALLY TO PROTEST SANGH
VIOLENCE AGAINST ORISSA CHRISTIANS
Place: Orissa Niwas, Bordoloi Marg, Near Ashoka Hotel, Chankayapuri
Date: Thursday, 27th December 2007
Time: 4 pm to six pm - ending with candlelight vigil
Former Prime Minister VP Singh, Delhi Archbishop
Vincent Concessao, John Dayal and other Church
leaders, and several other political leaders
together with Civil society and Human Rights
activists, university teachers and students,
Nuns, pastors, priests and Bishops will also
participate.
The violence in Orissa over Christmas has seen
over 30 churches and institutions destroyed, many
people shot and injured in gunfire from Sangh
mobs, and the administration held to ransom. Nuns
and pastors have been forced to flee their homes
at pain of death and are now hiding in the first
area of the Phulbani district.
This is ominously renascent of the events in the
Dangs district of Gujarat almost the day eleven
years ago, on Christmas, 1998. The government of
the day there, like the government in Orissa,
failed to take action. The police were apathetic.
The Bharatiya Janata Party then ruling at the
Centre-and it is a coalition partner of the
Government in Orissa today, sought to defend the
Sangh goons. The rest is a dark chapter of
India's recent history - leading to the burning
of the Staines family in Orissa a month later,
21st January 1999, and the massacre of Muslims in
Gujarat in February-March 2002.
This is to invite you to please join us in the Prayers and Protest in
New Delhi on 27th December 2007 at Orissa Bhawan, Chanakyapuri at 4 pm
God bless you
John Dayal,
For the organizing committee
[United Christian Forum, Delhi catholic
Archdiocese, CNI, NCCI, EFI, All India Catholic
Union, All India Christian Council, United
Christian Action and others]
______
[6] India:
SENA ACTIVISTS ATTACK HUSAIN EXHIBITION; VANDALISE PAINTINGS
New Delhi (PTI): Shiv Sena activists on Thursday
attacked an exhibition of paintings by acclaimed
painter M F Husain in the capital, damaging two
of his works on display.
The activists managed to enter the 'Art Gallery'
at the famous India International Centre here,
despite a heavy police presence at the venue and
prior information of Shiv Sainiks planning to
attack the exhibition.
Two Sainiks entered the hall in the guise of
visitors to watch the 'India in the Era of
Mughals' exhibition at around 4 p.m. They shouted
slogans against the artist and damaged the frames
of two paintings.
One of the damaged paintings depicted Emperor
Akbar and was priced at Rs 1.5 lakhs. The second
painting suffered minor damage as police
overpowered them when they tried to damage it.
The activists shouted slogans like 'Balasaheb
(Bal Thackeray) Zindabad', 'Shiv Sena Zindabad'
and 'M F Husain Murdabad' besides distributing
pamphlets, which threatened to disrupt any
exhibition of Husain in the country. They were
later taken to the police station.
However, IIC officials said they will not close
the exhibition. "If police wants us to close down
the exhibition, we will do. But they have to give
it in writing," they said.
The attack on the 12-day exhibition comes a day before its closure on Friday.
The exhibition ran into rough weather last week
with the organisers deciding to suspend the
display for a day last Saturday after curator
Dolly Narang and the IIC receiving threat calls
from Bajrang Dal.
Narang as well as the Centre received threat
calls, SMSes and letters on December 20 and on
wednesday from Delhi, Mumbai and Pune asking that
the exhibition be closed.
Four men claiming to be Bajrang Dal activists
barged into the room of IIC Secretary Venugopal
and allegedly threatened him with dire
consequences if they continued with the
exhibition.
However, they defied the threat calls and decided
to go ahead with the exhibition later.
The exhibition, the first major exhibition of
Husain's works in Delhi after a gap of about 20
years, have 20 graphical prints of the paintings
which are permanently put up at Fida Museum in
London. These works are a tribute to the history
of Indian cinema.
The 92-year-old artist, described by Forbes
Magazine as the 'Pablo Picasso of India', is
currently in self-exile in Dubai after a series
of protests against him for his depiction of
Hindu Goddesses.
______
[7]
kafila.org
December 6, 2007
6TH OF DECEMBER 1992 ON 6TH OF DECEMBER 2007
by Nivedita Menon
What were you doing on December 6, 1992?
We remember with a great sadness that winter's
day on which the unthinkable came to passŠ
In the 15 years since then, there have been
greater horrors, smaller defeats, and many lives
lost, many many lives lost. But there has also
been continued defiance to the Hindutva agenda,
and new ways of resisting, new ways of thinking,
celebrating what we do have along with mourning
what we have lost. And after all, 15 years after
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and
notwithstanding six unbroken years of being in
power at the centre, something has prevented the
BJP from building its temple thereŠ
It is as political actors, not as believers, that
many Hindus are mobilized for the politics of
Hindutva. But there is also determined resistance
both from within the ranks of 'Hindus', for
varying reasons, to being mobilized in this way,
and from all sorts of people who would call
themselves different kinds of things - Dalits
voting with their feet as mass conversions to
Buddhism continue to be staged publicly;
feminists supporting both Tasleem and Husain; the
emerging movements of gay and lesbian people
(remember a banner at one of the protests against
the Hindu right's violent attacks on Fire that
read defiantly, 'Indian and Lesbian'?); from
'India Inc.' fearing insecurity that will affect
investments; from the thousands of ordinary
Indians of all communities and walks of life who
poured into Gujarat to do something, anything at
all, to reach out to say - Not in My Name.
When the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992 the
shock in the secular ranks was matched by the
confidence that this was only a matter of a short
sharp battle. Fifteen years down the line, with
Gujarat behind us, secular India looks back on
that shock as well as that optimism with
disbelief - why were we taken so off-guard? And
why did it appear to be such an easy battle to
win? Why, to begin with, had the battle raging
beneath the polished surfaces of Nehruvian
secularism been invisible?
Locating secularism as it has developed in the
Indian context, perhaps we need to make a
distinction between secularism as a value (of
non-discrimination, acceptance of difference,
mutual respect) and secularism as a principle of
state-craft. Recognising the latter's implication
in statist and authoritarian discourses, we need
to unhinge secularism from the state, to rework
it into our everyday practices. That reworking
will have to confront the uncertainties of
democratic functioning in political society, and
not depend on the state to impose secularism from
above. It is possible to continue to call
ourselves secular in the first sense while
mounting a critique of the practice of secularism
by the Indian state. Perhaps the greatest gain of
the last decade and a half for democracy in India
is the recognition that 'secularism', sixty years
down the line, is and will always be, in the
process of becoming.
______
[8]
Hindustan Times
December 26, 2007
CHARM OFFENSIVE
by Sitaram Yechury
Much has been written about the BJP's fourth and
Narendra Modi's second consecutive win in the
elections to the Gujarat state assembly. Much
more will surely be written, analysing various
tangible and imaginary factors. This does not
excite me. The CPI(M)-led Left Front has won
seven consecutive elections in West Bengal with
two-thirds to three-fourths majority.
The following, however, concerns me. Last
fortnight, we noted that as the campaign was
reaching its culmination, the BJP had more or
less abandoned its initial 'development plank' in
favour of its time-tested hardcore Hindutva
agenda. Clearly, the factors we had noted - viz.,
a stronger index of Opposition unity and an
apparently weaker index of internal unity of the
BJP and other RSS affiliates - could not be
adequately marshalled to produce a different
result. Why? We shall return to it later.
This victory bolsters the tendency of an
aggressive return to the Hindutva agenda. The
anointment of LK Advani as the BJP's future PM
(ie, if the party ever wins the next general
elections) is an obvious effort to recreate the
atmosphere of communal frenzy that was roused
during the rath yatra preceding the demolition of
Babri masjid in order to consolidate the Hindu
vote-bank.
Advani now describes this Gujarat result as a
"turning point" signalling the BJP's "comeback"
into national politics. It is not only the memory
of the 'masses' that can be short. Some leaders
too, it appears, suffer a similar predilection.
Recall the euphoria after the 2003 Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh elections leading the BJP-led NDA
to advance the 2004 general elections. The result
is there for all to see.
Nevertheless, the stridency being shown on the
Ram Setu issue is yet another component of this
'return to basics' strategy.
As we noted in this column many fortnights ago,
it was the BJP-led NDA government that had
cleared this project and had begun making the
required financial allocations. Yet, today, its
opposition, negating its own stand when in
government, means only one thing: rousing
communal passions to sharpen communal
polarisation.
Add to this the latest item on this agenda. At
the recent National Development Council (NDC)
meeting to finalise the Eleventh Five-Year Plan,
the BJP mounted a strident attack on the Prime
Minister's new 15-point programme for the welfare
of the minorities, dubbing this as "communal
budgeting". The record needs to be set right.
This programme was adopted by the Union cabinet
way back on June 22, 2006. Further, this is not
the first time that such a programme is being
outlined. In May 1983, Indira Gandhi had
addressed a letter to all the chief ministers
containing, again, 15 points. These were
reiterated in August 1985 by Rajiv Gandhi.
The Sachar Committee report, apart from
comprehensively nailing the lie of the BJP's
clamour against 'minority appeasement', has
thoroughly exposed how none of these earlier
directions resulted in any appreciable
improvement. On the contrary, the situation of
the minorities worsened. Responding to the
growing demands for the implementation of the
Committee's recommendations, the UPA government
has outlined this new programme. While the points
relating to prevention of communal riots and
provision of relief to the victims of such riots
find an important place, the focus is on issues
intimately connected with the social, educational
and economic uplift of the minorities.
Many of us have been demanding that the UPA
government implement a sub-plan for the
minorities on the lines of the existing sub-plan
for the tribals. Though the word 'sub-plan' is
not used, this programme ends with the following:
"Care shall be taken to ensure that wherever
applicable, there is separate earmarking of the
physical and financial targets for the minority
communities under each of the programmes/schemes,
preferably in the ratio of the all-India
population of each minority community.
Thereafter, these targets shall be further split
state-wise for each minority community in the
ratio of the population of the minority community
in each state. This will ensure that the benefit
necessarily reaches the target group in the
proportion of the population of the group in each
state."
At the NDC meeting, Modi, vehemently opposing
this plan, said that such a programme is not "in
the interests of maintaining the social fabric of
the nation". He further said that such a
programme will not help in taking the people of
India "on the path of development". Given the
fact that the BJP is the political arm of the
RSS, he is essentially articulating the RSS
ideology of equating India's 'social fabric'
exclusively with the majority Hindu community. If
communalism is to be effectively combated, then
this ideological challenge has to be squarely met.
India's social fabric is distinguished by its
vast plurality and rich diversity. The interests
of our country can be protected and strengthened
only when this fact is not merely recognised but
accepted. It is precisely this that the BJP
refuses to accept. Further, the strength of any
country lies in how well and competently the
interests of the minorities are protected. The
measure of the success of democracy is the rising
index of the welfare of the minorities.
Only when these concerns are addressed in right
earnest can India move ahead on 'the path of
development' that is both inclusive and
comprehensive.
Rejecting these realities, as the next general
elections draw closer, such aggressive communal
polarisation will be on the rise. The façade of
'coalition dharma', advanced periodically by
Vajpayee, will increasingly take a back seat.
Apart from the fact that the BJP's allies in the
NDA would be thrown into a state of high
discomfort, this aggressive return to the basics
by the RSS/BJP does not auger well for the future
of India's secular, democratic, republican
foundations.
Let us now return to our initial question. The
failure to marshal all positive factors lies in
the inability to move beyond mere manoeuvres and
tactics at election time. Communalism, like
fascism, can never be defeated on either its own
terms or its own agenda. A paradigm shift needs
to be brought about by a sustained ideological
campaign against communalism, on the lines argued
above, that rejects the living vibrancy of India
- celebration of its diversity.
Further, the only way to prevent the BJP from
exploiting popular discontent for electoral gains
is through a right-earnest effort to improve
people's welfare. The UPA government must make a
redoubled effort to implement the pro-people
provisions of the Common Minimum Programme in the
remaining part of its tenure. The National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme suffers serious
inadequacies in its implementation, thus
depriving crores of people of benefits that ought
to flow to them.
Though the Tribal Rights Bill has been enacted,
its implementation has been on hold. The Public
Distribution System is in shambles and unless
immediate corrective measures are taken, neither
availability of foodgrains can be ensured nor can
the rising prices be contained.
The communal onslaught can be contained only by
improving the economic conditions of the people,
while drawing them in the battle for the defence
of secular democracy. The failure to do so, in
the first place, is the reason for not being able
to favourably marshal the factors noted at the
outset. A repetition of this failure can only be
at the UPA's - worse, the country's - peril.
(Sitaram Yechury, MP, Rajya Sabha and Member, CPI(M) Politburo)
______
[9] ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
December 27, 2007
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan cordially
invites you to participate in a Consultation on
Workers' Rights
On Friday, December 28, 2007, at 09:30 am
At Crown B, Regent Plaza Hotel and Convention Center, Karachi
RSVP
HRCP Karachi Chapter
PROGRAM
Consultation on Workers' Rights
December 28, 2007, Karachi
09:30 am - 10:00 am Registration + Refreshments
10:00 am - 10:20 am Welcome Address
Mr. I. A Rehman
Paper Presentations
10:20 am - 11:00 am Right to
Collective Bargaining Mr. Shaikh Majeed
11:00 am - 11:40 am Right to
Unionization Mr. Farid
Awan
11:40 am - 12:20 pm Labour Welfare
Mr. Shafique Ghauri
12:20 pm - 01:00 pm Problems of Fishermen
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shah
Lunch Break
02:00 pm - 02:10 pm Formation of
Working Groups Ms. Zohra Yusuf
· Peasants Rights
· Labour Rights
· Fishermen Rights
02:10 pm - 04:10 pm Group
Discussions
04:10 pm - 05:00 pm Group
Presentations Group Moderators
05:00 pm - 05:30 pm Declaration
Mr. I. A. Rehman
05:30 pm Tea
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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