SACW | April 20-27, 2008 / Sri Lanka: Sovereignty and intervention / India: Binayak Sen Wins International Human Rights Award
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Sat Apr 26 22:34:48 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | April 20-27, 2008 |
Dispatch No. 2507 - Year 10 running
[1] Sri Lanka: Sovereignty and intervention (Rohini Hensman)
[2] Pakistan: No longer Worried about Becoming a 'free sex Zone' (Haris Gazdar)
[3] Nepal:
(i) Democratic Secular Republic of Nepal (Vidya Bhushan Rawat)
(ii) Hindutva Fundamentalists Renew Call for
restoration of monarchy in Nepal (Rajesh Kumar
Singh)
[4] India: Flirting with regionalism - BJP's new
formula must worry a PM-in-waiting (J. Sri Raman)
[5] India: Dr. Binayak Sen Wins Prestigious International Human Rights Award
[6] India: A Letter from Tihar Jail (Parveez Ahmad)
[7] Announcements:
(i) Persistence Resistance: a festival of
contemporary political films (New Delhi, 28-30
April 2008)
(ii) Celebrate World Dance Day with Sheema Kermani (Karachi, 29 April 2008)
______
[1]
The Island
April 2, 2008
SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERVENTION
by Rohini Hensman
The invariable response by government
spokespersons to criticisms of Sri Lanka's human
rights record by UN officials - for example,
Advisor on Children and Armed Conflict Allan
Rock, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise
Arbour, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment Manfred Nowak, Under-Secretary-General
for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes - is an
assertion of Sri Lanka's state sovereignty and
right to freedom from foreign interference. The
more suave responses insist that Sri Lanka's
domestic institutions are quite capable of
dealing with human rights violations, while the
more gung-ho approach is to deny everything,
while at the same time excusing such violations
as being inevitable in a time of war and/or war
against terrorism.
The most sophisticated respondents concentrate
their fire not on the UN but on NGOs and INGOs
making substantially the same points as these UN
officials. An example of this is Dr Pradeep
Jeganathan's broadside against the International
Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES), International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
(ICISS), and International Crisis Group (ICG), in
The Island of 22 February 2008, suggesting that
the I in ICG 'isn't all that very far from the I
in Imperial'. It is worth looking at his critique
of intervention more closely. Human Rights and
Imperialism
The idea of human rights can be traced to the
European Enlightenment. But human rights could
never become a reality while imperialism
perpetrated the genocide of indigenous peoples in
America and Australia, enslaved tens of millions
of Africans, and colonised much of the rest of
the world. Marx saw slavery and the 'colonial
system' as inseparable from the birth of
capitalism: 'The discovery of gold and silver in
America, the extirpation, enslavement and
entombment in mines of the indigenous population
of that continent, the beginnings of the conquest
and plunder of India, and the conversion of
Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting
of blackskins, are all things that characterise
the dawn of the era of capitalism,' he comments
in Capital Volume I. 'If money,' he adds, 'comes
into the world with a congenital blood-stain on
one cheek, capital comes dripping from head to
toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt'. Not
exactly an environment conducive to respect for
human rights!
It was only after the darkest days of European
civilisation in World War II that the idea of
universal human rights, and the pooling of
sovereignty to defend them, gained strength. The
Nazi genocide of European Jews played a key role
in introducing the terms 'crimes against
humanity' and 'genocide' into international law,
and in modifying the notion of sovereignty to
rule out the right of a state to commit egregious
violations of the human rights of its people, or
allow such violations to be committed. The
sixtieth birthday of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights falls on 10 December 2008: it is
younger than Ceylon/Sri Lanka. And this is not
accidental. The notion of universal human rights
is very much part of an anti-imperialist,
post-colonial world, not an imperialist one. For
example, in 1954 the newly independent Asian and
African countries used it in the declaration of
the Bandung Conference, 'affirming that the
subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation constitutes a denial
of fundamental human rights'.
Ten years later, the Cairo Conference of the (by
then far more numerous) Non-Aligned Heads of
State or Government noted with satisfaction that
'the movements of national liberation are engaged
in different regions of the world in a heroic
struggle against neo-colonialism and the
practices of apartheid and racial
discrimination,' and pledged their support to all
peoples struggling against imperialism, including
the Palestinian people, whose country had been
colonised by Israel just when other colonies were
gaining their independence. In a world where
Third World countries were fighting against
imperialist oppression, and the two super-powers
threatened each other and the world with nuclear
annihilation, the Non-Aligned Movement occupied
the moral high ground. How, then, did we lose it?
Third World Oppressors
Anagarika Dharmapala argued that the Sinhalese
were a 'superior race': a notion that has nothing
to do with either science or Buddhism, and
everything to do with European race theory, which
was used to justify imperialism and culminated in
the Nazi genocide. His latter-day disciples in
the JHU continue the vile tradition. The JVP
harps on about state sovereignty - but isn't
that, too, a concept that originated in
imperialist Europe? Moreover, sovereignty is
supposed to be vested in the people in a
democracy, whereas the JVP's notion of state
sovereignty, like that of the Rajapaksa
presidency, means the right of the state to crush
the people. Mahinda Rajapaksa imitates George W.
Bush, with his use of the so-called 'war on
terrorism' as an excuse for attacks on civil
liberties as well as acts of state terrorism.
Meanwhile, Prabakaran seems to have modelled
himself on Hitler, who wiped out all political
opposition both inside and outside his party, and
exterminated Jews in the territories he occupied.
The political leaders of Sri Lanka, as well as
many other Third World countries, have lost the
moral high ground by adopting the worst, most
retrograde, political cultures of the West.
Many of the points made by Dr Jeganathan are
valid ones. He is right to stipulate that
military intervention is justified only if a
world body
like the UN Security Council or General Assembly
concludes that mass starvation, genocide or
ethnic cleansing etc are occurring, and the state
is unable or unwilling to stop it, or is itself
the perpetrator. His concerns about the possible
imperialist agendas concealed behind supposedly
humanitarian interventions by European and North
American countries are also absolutely valid, as
the case of Iraq demonstrates: the ostensible
reason for intervention, once allegations of
weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda
were shown to be fabrications, was to remove a
brutal dictator; yet even Kofi Annan acknowledged
that the condition of the Iraqis after the
invasion was much worse than it had been before.
Jeganathan is right to point out that the ICISS
report, entitled 'The Responsibility to Protect',
does not rule out such an outcome, although it
does emphasise that the primary responsibility to
protect its people lies with the sovereign state,
and if military intervention to protect them
becomes necessary, it should be authorised by the
UN. However, it adds that other parties may
intervene if the UN fails to do so, and does not
regard such instances as violations of
international law. It acknowledges that
intervention is likely to be against states that
are not powerful militarily, and will therefore
be selective, but asks: Does the fact that we
cannot help people in all countries mean that we
should not help them wherever we can?
The issue of military intervention is necessarily
a contentious one, and there is no simple answer
to it. Allowing genocide to take place when it
can be prevented seems unacceptable; on the other
hand, it is necessary to guard against the
possibility that intervention will unleash even
greater slaughter, as in Iraq. It seems to be a
wise precaution to insist that there should be UN
authorisation, but the UN would have to be
overhauled if it is to play this role, rather
than allowing people to be slaughtered as it has
done in Bosnia, Rwanda and Palestine.
Furthermore, the rules of engagement would have
to ensure that the interventionary force is
effectively prohibited from perpetrating the very
war crimes and crimes against humanity it is
supposed to prevent. These are rules that have
all too often been flouted by UN forces,
including over 110 peacekeepers from Sri Lanka
who were accused of sexual misconduct at the
expense of the local population, including
minors, in Haiti.
As for non-military intervention, it is taking
place all the time, whether we like it or not.
When the British Foreign Office endorsed the
Jayewardene regime just after it had orchestrated
a brutal pogrom against Tamils in 1983, it
intervened in support of the regime, and thereby
became an accomplice in the carnage that followed
in the North-East as well as the South. When the
Norwegian government treated a fascist group
oppressing the Muslims and Tamils of the
North-East as their sole representative, it
intervened in support of the LTTE, and thereby
became an accomplice in all the atrocities
committed thereafter by the LTTE, both during the
ceasefire and later. At this point in time, if a
strict policy of non-intervention in the affairs
of Sri Lanka were followed by the international
community, it would probably strengthen the LTTE
and weaken the government. Is this what the
government is asking for? Surely not! A crucial
point omitted by Jeganathan is that government
spokesmen like G.L.Pieris are NOT opposed to
intervention by the 'international community' -
quite the contrary. They have been urging foreign
governments to clamp down on LTTE supporters in
their countries, and, indeed, it is largely due
to such actions that the recent military setbacks
of the LTTE have occurred: is this not
'intervention' in the affairs of Sri Lanka?
However, they do not want similar sanctions to be
used against the government when it acts in a
similar way to the LTTE. Here is G. L. Pieris,
literally begging for aid in Washington last
year: 'It would be a tragic error to withhold
pecuniary resources from Sri Lanka because that
will create conditions in which extremism and
terrorism would thrive.' In other words,
intervention is welcome if it weakens the LTTE or
props up the government; it is unwelcome only if
it targets the government. The argument for this
discrimination, put forward by Pieris and
presumably accepted by Jeganathan, is that the
Sri Lankan government is a democratically elected
one. Well, there may be questions about the
'democratic' character of the elections in which
the president came to power, aided by a boycott
imposed forcibly by the LTTE, but let us leave
that question aside. The more salient point is:
Do we accept that if an elected government is
subjecting its own civilians to enforced
disappearances and murder, people and governments
of other countries should simply continue doing
business with it as usual?
Solidarity and Truthfulness
This is not a stance compatible with a notion of
international solidarity. I belong to a
generation that grew up backing the boycott of
Apartheid South Africa, and marching in
solidarity with the courageous people of Vietnam.
More recently, I have supported the boycott and
divestment call against Apartheid Israel, and
marched in solidarity with the Iraqi people
suffering a brutal occupation. In a globalised
world, everything we or our political leaders do
(or do not do) has an impact on people in other
countries. We should, at the very least, try to
avoid acting in a way that injures others (and
speech, too, is a type of action); better still,
we should do whatever we can to help them. In the
case of a natural disaster like the tsunami, a
huge number of people around the world
contributed to help the victims, but in the case
of a political crisis, it is not so easy for
people outside a country to know how they can
help, or at least avoid making things worse. This
is where analyses can be helpful - but only if
they are truthful.
Information and analysis by government officials
like G. L. Pieris and Rajiva Wijesinha are
unhelpful not because they are regarded as
'parochial,' as Jeganathan claims, but because
they are one-sided, and therefore untruthful:
while documenting atrocities committed by the
LTTE meticulously, they are silent when it comes
to crimes committed by government forces and
their allies, and Jeganathan echoes this silence
when he endorses their views. LTTE
representatives and apologists do exactly the
opposite: they document atrocities committed by
the government meticulously, but are silent when
it comes to crimes committed by the LTTE.
Apologists for both the government and the LTTE
choose to support the perpetrators of crimes
against the victims of those crimes in selected
cases. On the other hand, organisations like
University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) and
the Sri Lanka Democracy Forum, as well as some
courageous journalists, make a conscious effort
to publicise ALL attacks on human rights and
democracy, and to identify with the victims of
violations, regardless of creed or ethnicity. For
this they have been reviled by both sides, and in
some cases threatened, assaulted, arrested, and
even killed.
No doubt it is important for organisations like
ICG, doing research that might contribute to a
decision to intervene, to be aware of possible
ulterior motives for doing so on the part of
Western countries, and also to produce reports on
countries even where there is no possibility of
military intervention, in order to allow for
comparison and impartiality. But it is equally
important for intellectuals like Dr Jeganathan to
be aware that the dialectic between imperialism
and Third World oppressors is not as simple as he
thinks. It is precisely because our leaders are
so busy aping imperial arrogance - albeit on a
smaller scale - that they have neither the
language nor the moral stature to oppose it. If
we want a genuine anti-imperialist movement in
our part of the world, we need to be looking for
leaders who can reclaim the moral high ground. We
certainly should not be massaging the egos of our
Bush and Hitler clones.
______
[2]
Economic & Political Weekly
April 19, 2008
letter from south asia
NO LONGER WORRIED ABOUT BECOMING A 'FREE SEX ZONE'
by Haris Gazdar
High politics in Pakistan will continue to
provide its share of thrills and frills, but this
is an appropriate moment to take stock of the
politics of the most fundamental relationship
that helps to shape all others - that between
women and men. Social policy retain huge
potential for challenging patriarchy in many
subtle but fundamental ways, and the present
array of political forces offers as good an
opportunity as any for pushing ahead with such an
agenda.
At its base Pakistani society is deeply
patriarchal and patriarchy sets the parameters
for virtually all other institutions including
markets, social networks, systems of dispute
resolution, party politics and even the state.
Statistical measures such as the sex ratio and
gender differences in literacy, health, labour
force participation, and voter turnout tell a
striking but incomplete story. The issue is not
just female disadvantage, though the disadvantage
is severe and pervasive. There are just 93
females for every 100 males in the population,
indicating some eight mil- lion "missing women"
in Pakistan.1 The literacy rate for men is almost
twice as high as for women, and only 20 per cent
of adult women are counted as part of the work-
force compared with over 90 per cent of men.2 The
quantitative indicators are merely reflections of
the ways in which the patriarchal family extends
its reach across society, and reproduces itself
over time. Extreme forms of violence against
women - physical assault, rape, "honour" crime,
and murder - make headlines. Some individual
cases become conspicuous and are taken up by the
mass media. But the everyday oppression and
exclusion of women is hardly even noticed.
Political analysts can spin entire theses about
democracy and dictatorship without ever wondering
out aloud why the voter turnout for women is a
third less than that for men, and that most women
voters "follow their men" in any case. Economic
pundits regularly inform us about the foreign
exchange earned by Pakistani workers abroad
without making even a passing reference to the
fact that state policy virtually prohibits the
emigration of women workers.
Gender apartheid
Ask a young woman in Karachi about why she puts
on a "burqa" while travelling to work on public
transport and she may tell you about all of the
verbal and physical aggression she experiences as
a matter of routine. She would rather not have to
deal with the male gaze too, while trying to
remain cheerful through the working day. Small
wonder, then, that millions of women are
involved in home-based work with wages that are a
fraction of the going labour market wage. Some
"market" indeed - half of whose potential
participants face a playing field that is about
as level as a ski slope.
In smaller towns and villages travelling alone on
public transport would be out of the question.
Over 80 per cent of women in a survey covering
rural Punjab and Sindh reported that they could
not visit a health facility on their own if it
were located over an hour's journey away from
home. When these women were asked if they felt
safe walking alone during the day, 18 per cent
said that they felt unsafe even within their
settlements, while 60 per cent felt unsafe
walking outside the settlement.3 It might be
noted that Punjab and Sindh are considered to be
"more relaxed" in terms of women's mobility
compared with the other two provinces - North
West Frontier Province and Balochistan.
Public space is clearly a male domain across
Pakistan, and this goes a long way in explaining
gender differences in health, education, labour
force participation and political activity.
Pakistan is not that different, of course, from
many "traditional" societies in terms of its
gendered division of space. The strength of the
patriarchal family is projected through broader
caste and kinship group networks or tribal
organisation, extending norms that regulate
interaction between women and men. These norms
can persist and get reproduced even in the face
of gender-neutral formal rights of citizenship,
urbanisation and economic change. In fact,
political and economic change can open up strange
paradoxes.
Upward mobility of formerly oppressed castes is
often symbolised through the acquisition of
stricter gender segregation. The narrative of
change often has statements about "low castes"
becoming more patriarchal in a society whose
apex of power is the patriarch: "we are empowered
now because 'our women' will no longer go and
work in 'their houses'." 4 In many cases this
means that women from upwardly mobile families
stop going out to work, and in some instances not
step out of home at all. These observations about
upwardly mobile groups acquiring the cultural
norms of the dominant groups are not too
dissimilar from the process of sanskritisation
that was described and analysed in the Indian
context by M N Srinivas.
the honour Code
There are even formal statements that link
political empowerment with acquiring patriarchal
control over women - or acquiring "honour" in a
society where a patriarchal "honour code" remains
powerful. It was seen as an act of great
political sym- bolism in the Baloch tribal
tradition when upon assuming the chieftaincy of
the Bugti tribe in 1944, Akbar Khan Bugti
nominally freed the marhatta (a subject caste of
the Bugtis) from bondage, and included them among
those who were protected by the patriarchal
honour code of "siyahkari". Until that time
marhatta men were formally barred from invoking
the tribal honour code in case of sexual
transgression against "their" women. Pioneering
research on honour-related violence in upper
Sindh by recently-elected parliamentarian Nafisa
Shah shows repeated cases of men from the
formerly marginalised groups gaining symbolic
parity with their more powerful neighbours by
inflicting violence upon "their own" women.
The role of Islam in all this has been widely
misunderstood. It is all too easy but lazy to
point to Islam's prescriptive tone with respect
to women's mobility and autonomy to explain the
persistence and reproduction of patriarchal norms
in Pakistan. The responsibility for this
association of Islam with social conservatism
lies largely with Islamic "modernists" such as
the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the late Maulana
Maudoodi. Maudoodi and other contemporary
interpreters of Islam were not interested in the
sociology of existing "traditional" communities
in Pakistan.
Their main focus was on the construction and
maintenance of patriarchal control in the
"modern" setting of urban life, educational and
employment opportunities, and gender-neutral
formal rights of citizenship. Maudoodi and his
ilk are not the sources of patriarchy in Pakistan
- rather, they provided intellectual and
ideological props for the perpetuation of
traditional patriarchal norms in a changing world
The ideologues offered sustenance to Zia-ul-Haq's
military regime in the 1980s and lent him the
desperately needed Islamic credentials. State
policies actively discouraged women's entry into
the workforce, and encouraged the "moral
policing" of public spaces. The Hudood laws
promulgated under Zia-ul-Haq's martial law
government in 1979 placed the full ideological
and coercive apparatus of the state at the
disposal of the patriarchs. Not only was adultery
made a criminal offence, but the law gave
draconian powers to the police to pursue and
detain individuals on the mere filing of a
complaint.
social Policy issues
Amendments brought about through the Women's
Protection Act of 2006 took away the bite of
Zia's Hudood laws through drastically altering
the procedure of filing and pursuing a complaint.
Pervez Musharraf proclaimed the Women's
Protection Act as a sign of his regime's
enlightenment and its commitment to reform. In
fact there was a split in his own party over the
issue, and the smooth passage of the Act was made
possible by the support received from the then
opposition, the Pakistan People's Party. The
debate leading up to the change of law was
revealing and historic. Religious parties and
their allies in the Musharraf camp justified
their stand as a defence of Islam and morality
against vulgarity. It was said that the law will
turn Pakistan into a "free sex zone". Despite
this emotive, if absurd, rhetoric, the public
mood had swung decisively against the religious
lobby. So much so, that the issue has
disappeared from public view without a trace.
The Jamaat-e-Islami and its fellow travellers
were right in fearing changes in the Zia-era
religious laws. They know that the state wields
enormous, if subtle power, through its ability to
create economic incentives and symbolic gesture,
to effect changes in the gendered division of
space. If the machinery of the state is not
going to be available for enforcing the writ of
the patriarch, it may become available for
enforcing formal rights of citizenship.
The "normal" course of social policy too will
continue to create new opportunities for
challenging tradition. There is a proposal on the
table for doubling the number of women employed
by the Lady Health Workers Programme - a health
and family planning service delivery scheme that
already employs some 1,00,000 women in rural
areas. Many of these women are the first ones in
their communities to have taken up paid formal
sector jobs, and a soon-to-be-published study by
Ayesha Khan shows that the experience has changed
them and their surroundings in interesting ways.
The steady increase in the provision of
government schooling facilities for girls in
rural areas has had an unintended consequence.
There has been a mushrooming of low-fee private
schools across the country that have taken
advantage of the availability of young educated
women - some 2,00,000 of them on last count - who
are keen to take up paid employment.5
In the political dramas that lie ahead social
policy issues are unlikely to make an appearance.
Thankfully, the debate about whether Pakistan
would be a "free sex zone" is not high on the
list of issues that preoccupy the big guns in the
political parties, the parliament, the
presidency, the judiciary and the military.
Unlike many other countries, in Pakistan the
depoliticisation of women's issues at the top is
a minor blessing. It means the resumption of
normal business - of hiring more Lady Health
Workers, making contraceptives more easily
available, creating more job opportunities for
female teachers, registering women voters and
letting young people choose their life partners
without incurring the wrath of the state.
Haris Gazdar (gasht AT yahoo.com) is with the
Karachi-based Collective for Social Science
Research.
Notes
1 The World Bank, Bridging the Gender Gap:
Oppor- tunities and Challenges, Pakistan Country
Gender Assessment, Islamabad, 2005.
2 Government of Pakistan, Labour Force
Survey, Federal Bureau of Statistics, 2005-06,
http://
www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/lfs2005_06/summary.pdf
3 The World Bank, op cit.
4 Such generic statements were recorded by
the author during fieldwork in various parts of
rural Punjab over the last few years.
5 See 'Students Today, Teachers Tomorrow?
Identifying Constraints on Private Schools', Leaps
Project Report, September 2007,
http://leap-sproject.org/assets/publications/FromStudent_ToTeacher%20(12).pdf.
______
[3] Nepal:
(i)
April 25, 2008
DEMOCRATIC SECULAR REPUBLIC OF NEPAL
by Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Cynics in India might feel offended as how the
only 'Hindu' Rastra of the world has
democratically sealed the fate of an over
pampered as well as highly autocratic monarchy in
the recently held elections. For them Hindu
dharma epitomizes the democratic spirit in true
sense, for that matter the reason of India's
being secular republic. Yes, the present
elections in Nepal has thrown more challenges in
front of the future leaders, for it is definitely
a different world of agitational work and when
you are in power and will have to see interest of
various parties, communities as well as
ethnicities. Nepal lost its tryst with democracy
many times in the past as the political parties
behaved in entirely undemocratic way as well as
were thoroughly corrupted and used their
proximity to the Royal palace to settle their
scores with each other, giving the over sized
king enough ammunition to intervene whenever and
wherever he wished.
Therefore when the Maoists made a clean sweep in
Nepal, it raised many eyebrows in India, not
because the Indian establishment will be
threatened with Maoists power but for sure, the
fear is in Delhi is that a Maoist democratic
government will undermine New Delhi's controlling
mechanism in Nepal. And the indication from Nepal
have clearly reflected in that it is poised for
an independent foreign policy and want to remain
a younger brother of India and not as a colony of
India. Nepalese have often resented this despite
the fact that Nepal and India share common
cultural values and have close relationship but
then so are India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Do we
not have relations and common culture of language
and food habits? Don't Muslims in India have
family relations with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
and Tamils in Tamilnadu with Sri Lankan people?
Don't the Pakistani Hindus have relations in
India like the Bangladeshi Hindus? But this over
emphasis on Indo Nepali friendship comes from
Nepal's Hindu background. This was used by the
Monarchs in Nepal for their own benefits,
strengthening their own positions and denying
Nepal a truly democratic government. A rigid
Hindu regime in Nepal not only denied people
opportunity for social reform but in certain
pockets Nepal follows outdated brahmanical
values. That Brahmins and Kshatriyas remained too
powerful in Nepal because of such crafty politics
that Nepal's governing castes played on various
occasions. And while the change in Nepal is
welcome yet it is the beginning of another order
which will be democratic but the real transition
of Nepal will only happen once the democracy
reach the grassroots and the tribal and Dalit
minorities in Nepal stand up against the corrupt
social order which is patriarchical and feudal.
One does not know how the so-called Maoists with
red mark over their head will deal with this.
Whether, their secularism will ever stop that the
religious holidays in the government offices be
reduced. Whether the form of rigid varnashram
dharma that we witness in Nepal will end? Whether
the Maoist government will have fair
representative of various communities in Nepal or
whether it will turn out another dose of
brahmanical system that we have witnessed in
India under secular garb.
Democracy is not just 'secular' government or
government of 'proletariat'. Unfortunately, both
democracy and, communism rarely went together and
we have seen various examples. We might boast
some of these great in Latin America and
elsewhere where they 'take on' the 'mighty'
George Bush. It is the double standard when we
cry for the freedom of expression at one place
and keep quiet in our own place. Clearly, it is
the ideology which has become powerful than the
people. People have to be slaughtered for
ideology, a very similar exercise that the
religious thugs did in the past world over where
religion became a tool to slaughter the people.
Comrade Prachanda and his company must not repeat
the same. Democracy in Nepal should mean end of
not only Monarchy but also hegemonies that exists
in Nepal's village. And for that Nepal can take a
few lessons from India, for its constitution was
drafted by a true republican called Ambedkar. The
man who came from the formerly untouchable
communities, championed the cause of freedom and
dignity, decried the much romantic Indian village
system. 'Indian villages are den of corruption,
nepotism and feudalism,' he said. Castes live in
Indian villages. Every caste is a village and
Indian republic is failing in dismantling it. The
9% growth rate does not help if these caste
republics in India are not destroyed. I am sure
the Maoists know it well that Nepal's villages
are not heaven as the rigid caste system that
pervades in Nepal lives in villages
predominantly. And how will that end. It will not
end with just upper caste leaders of the Nepali
dalits. No doubt, we need ideologically committed
people and I am sure Nepal's Dalits and ethnic
communities will throw some great leaders in
future who will not participate in democracy just
as a Dalit but as leaders of the society. Change
makers of society, if I could say them. Some time
construction of these identities creates further
middlemen who sale communities interest for their
own one and equate both as happened in the case
of India. But democracy strengthened with the
participation of people. It will learn from
mistakes, as in India, the Dalit and other
minorities are learning. It is a new phase where
people would not question their own party and
leaders because the 'others' have rarely helped
them, so some time leadership which manipulate
survive because of the absence of an alternative.
But today, if we see growth of the politics and
groups of the marginalized in India right from
Panchayats to every political party, there is a
lesson, that the communities will challenge every
one, even the so-called own leaders. Ultimately,
it is the people who have to be benefited. People
can not remain happy to see one former milk
seller riding helicopter or becoming chief
minister. That is a great thing but you can not
exploit that sentiments for next twenty years and
that question would always come. Hence
Prachanda's 'revolutionary' leaders have brought
many hopes to millions of the people in Nepal,
but it need to be seen how revolutionaries are
they. Whether they have guts to challenge the
status quo in Nepal or not or they will be
another instrument in maintaining the status quo
ante in the social system, it will be the biggest
questions for all of to observe.
As the future head of Nepal, Prachand's demand to
reevaluate the Indo-Nepalese treaty is welcome.
Nepal is an independent country and its people
have a right to decide about its relationship
with India and any country in the similar way as
India has a right to plan its strategic interest
in Nepal but Indian establishment must not shy
away in welcoming the change in Nepal. When Nepal
become a republic, it will have to shed many
burden of its past. The migration is growing
phenomenon world over and Nepal is not new. The
only thing is that Nepal's politicians and
monarchy did everything to kill the spirit of the
Nepalese. Nepal is at the threshold of a new era
when in democracy its citizens will take pride
and in return democracy would provide equal
opportunity to every one which theocratic Nepal
never did to its untouchable population. If
democracy remained caged to gimmickries and
rhetoric's of imperialism and capitalism, then
contradictions in the Nepalese society would
deepen. Every body wants freedom. We all enjoy it
and aspire for it hence when Nepal enjoy
political freedom, how can it deny
social-cultural and economic freedom to a vast
segment of Nepali population which are treated as
unequal. Nepal's future leaders will have to keep
that in mind and resolve it. Often the ruling
elite create an enemy to suppress the internal
contradictions and one hope that the dispensation
which take over Nepal would not do the same to
retain its power and position by creating false
enemies. They will have to deliver and now when
they have the power with them, further pretence
would not work. Anti Indian sentiments in Nepal
are some time used for political purposes which
ignore the vital factor of genuineness of the
grievances that the Nepali people have towards
India and its ruling establishment which never
supported democratic movements any where despite
people protest, popular uprisings, under the
pretext of 'internal' problems of the country. It
is also interesting that Prachanda has spoken
against the recruitment of the Nepalese soldiers
in Indian as well as British army but one does
not know whether those who join the forces as a
lucrative profession would take such a stand
lightly. Nepalese as brave fighters are well
known and as long as they get good salaries
should not have that concern but Prachanda should
focus more on agrarian reform, pending land
reform, land entitlements to ethnic minorities,
Dalits and also the pathetic conditions of the
Nepalese migrants in India. That is an image
which hurt Nepal a lot and it has reflected in
the Nepalese middle class and intellectuals as
they have to go through that image problem
created by the Indian middle classes and media
about Nepal due migrants laborers in various
Indian cities. When the Indians tourists travel
to Nepal, this image of immigrant Nepali workers
again force them think of not just a big brother
but big boss of Nepal and that baggage of past
must go. Yes, India and Nepal will have to sit
together and sort out their issues and strengthen
their legacy.
These results of the elections in Nepal and its
transformation to democracy, secular republic can
be a lesson to India's right wing elements who
considered the Monarch of Nepal as the true
symbol of Hindu pride. Nepalese do not take pride
in an autocratic king which the political
formations in the name of Hindus in India do.
Modern nation need modern ideas and secular
inclusive constitution which have no place for
old fashioned monarch who consider himself as the
sole representative of Vishnu. We need true
representative of the people who can serve them
and not enjoy on the fruits of the poor. Nepal
must shun the values of an old kingdom which was
religious based. It must ensure not only
political representation to all sections of
Nepali population and ethnicities but also
special arrangements should be made to bring
these people into the mainstream of the country,
in the government jobs, in judiciary, in the
police and army. Unless, each section is
represented in government and power structure,
Nepal transition to democracy and secularism
would just proves hollow and people will rise
against those in power. Once people taste freedom
and democracy, it would be difficult for any
regime to suppress their ideas and aspirations.
One hope that the would be prime minister of
Nepal and his government would understand that
people of Nepal have huge expectations from them.
They have decided to do away with a Monarchy
which is a good step though it will be seen when
they are able to do so and then they need to
deliver to the people and dismantle the feudal
and casteist structure prevailing in the
Himalayan kingdom and first step in that
direction would be to admit the problem that
Nepal's problem does not lie in economic issues
only but deep rooted socio-cultural prejudices.
Hence many observers might claim that Nepal has
won a class war but it will always be superficial
and hollow without the participation of Dalits
and ethnic minorities in the power structure as
well as in village republics that the new
democracy will throw. One sincerely hope that
democracy does not strengthen the old feudal
structure where the marginalized, the Dalits,
religious and ethnic minorities and women, just
remain the vote banks and the elite become
'revolutionaries'. Nepal's tryst with democracy
has just begun and one hope the present
dispensation on whose soldier people have highest
hope will not fail it.
o o o
(ii)
[THE HINDU RIGHT] RENEW'S CALL FOR RESTORATION OF MONARCHY IN NEPAL
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Hindustan Times
Tulsipur, April 26, 2008
Leaders of the World Hindu Federation on Saturday
gave a call for the restoration of monarchy in
Nepal. The leaders said Hindu organisations
active in India and Nepal would join hands to
launch a movement under the leadership of King
Gyanendra to safeguard the rights of the king in
the emerging political scenario in Nepal.
Inaugurating the general council meeting of the
World Hindu Federation International (WHFI) the
BJP MP from Gorakhpur, Yogi Adityanath, said
Maoists managed to capture power through the
barrel of the gun.
Terming the Maoists anti-Hindu and anti- monarch,
Yogi said the new government in Nepal under the
leadership of the Maoists would be a major threat
to the security of India.
"No doubt China would now try to make inroads in
Nepal and strengthen its base. Maoists have a
close relationship with the Naxal organisations
and would provoke them to capture political power
in India," he said.
International president Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP), Ashok Singhal said the interim government
had declared Nepal a secular country. "It is a
conspiracy to destroy Hinduism in Nepal. Maoists
plan to repeat what China had done in Tibet."
______
[4]
The Tribune 18 April 2008
FLIRTING WITH REGIONALISM
BJP's new formula must worry a PM-in-waiting
by J. Sri Raman
During one of his television interviews to
promote his autobiography, BJP leader L.K. Advani
recounted a chance meeting with Rahul Gandhi in
the wake of the last Uttar Pradesh Assembly
elections. The would-be AICC general secretary
asked the 'Prime Minister-in-waiting' for his
views on the political situation. The veteran
pointed to the strange ways of electoral
politics, with a "regionalist" and a "caste-based
party" (like Mayawati's BSP) achieving power
because of the antagonism between the two
"national" parties.
The former Deputy Prime Minister may have a fuzzy
memory about men like Punjab's Communist
patriarch Satyapal Dang and matters like the
Kandahar episode, but he remembered the rest of
this conversation very well. The political novice
wondered "what can be done" in such a situation.
Advani's sage counsel was that the BJP and the
Congress should treat each other like "political
opponents" and not as "enemies". The corollary
was clear: the two "national parties" should
consider only the "regionalist" and "caste-based"
outfits as "enemies".
Restricting ourselves to the BJP and regionalism
for the moment, the anecdote strikes an obvious
note of irony. Advani was reiterating the point
he made to Rahul Gandhi at a time when the BJP
had won a major Assembly election itself on
regionalist grounds and was attempting to repeat
the achievement on the same plank in yet another
Assembly poll.
The reasons for the resounding victory of the BJP
and Narendra Modi in the recent Gujarat Assembly
election have been debated heavily. Few would
disagree, however, that regionalism was a major
factor behind the famous victory. Modi
successfully made his re-election as the State's
Chief Minister appear a matter of Gujarati
"asmita (pride)".
He made attacks on his role in the grisly pogrom
of 2002 sound to the voters like a vilification
of Gujarat. As perceptive analysts have pointed
out, he played skillfully on a widely shared
Gujarati resentment at a once politically leading
State being left for long out of representation
in Central power and, indeed, even in the highest
forums of national parties.
And the party is trying to score a historic first
and march to power in a Southern State, not
through the highway of "national" politics, but
by resorting to the short-cut of rank
regionalism. The BJP in Karnataka was, until the
other day, expected to make its "betrayal" by
former Prime Minister Deve Gowda's Janata Dal (S)
- he had refused to honour a power-sharing pact
envisaging equal terms as chief ministers for
Gowda scion H. D. Kumaraswamy and BJP's B. S.
Yeddyurappa - its main election issue. The party
now pins most of its hopes on the highly emotive
issue of the Hogenekkal water dispute with Tamil
Nadu.
In the cases of both Gujarat and Karnataka, of
course, the BJP's core issue of communalism has
not been given up at all, but has been given a
regionalist wrapping. In Modi's state, campaigns
by "outsiders" for justice to surviving victims
of anti-minority crimes have been projected as
cruel affronts to the State's sensibilities. In
Karnataka, where the BJP was built on a movement
to hoist the tricolour atop the Idgah mosque, the
party's foray into regionalism began with an
official drive to remove Tipu Sultan from
schooltextbooks as a patron of Persian and Urdu
and not Kannada.
All these developments show the distance the BJP
has travelled from the days of Jana Sangh, its
parent. The Sangh was known all over the country,
and especially in States where it lacked a
significant presence, as the party of Akhand
Bharat (India Undivided). The party's pet phrase
was supposed to articulate its continuing
reluctance to accept Partition and its commitment
to the idea of "reunifying" India.
The slogan, however, soon became one against
"separatism" as the Sangh often saw even
regionalism in many parts of the country.
"Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan" replaced Akhand Bharat as
the phrase that represented the Sangh, and later
the BJP, particularly in non-Hindi-speaking
States. The words may still evoke misty-eyed
nostalgia in party old-timers, but have no place
today in the vocabulary of the BJP, however
"national" it may be.
It is not, however, as if the BJP did not find
"regionalism" a reprehensible variety of politics
anywhere any more. Only the other day, party
president Rajnath Singh made a thundering
declaration about its resolve to fight
"regionalism". The Shiv Sena and its splinter
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena had provided the
provocation.
After the musclemen of the MNS sent North Indians
back home from Nasik and other places, the
"national" party had to come up with at least a
promise of resistance to regionalism. But there
are severe limits, to which this sacred resolve
can be kept. The BJP, after all, had to acquiesce
in the Shiv Sena's attacks on job-seeking Biharis
before. Even while boasting of Advani and an
all-India outlook, the BJP is ready to accept the
second place in a regionalist-led alliance.
The first rule in the game of regionalist
politics, after all, is that no party can play it
successfully in several states, particularly
neighbouring ones. Regionalism thrives on
problems with other regions, especially adjacent
claimants to shared and often scarce resources.
If the water dispute works a wonder and puts the
BJP in power in Bengaluru, for example, it won't
be welcome news at all to the party in Tamil Nadu.
The BJP may still find it hard to fight the lure
of the regionalist formula. If Yeddyurappa proves
as successful as Modi, however, the slogan of
"repeating Gujarat and Karnataka" may prove
harder to resist.
The formula can help the BJP win a few states.
But it can also initiate a process of the party's
transformation, especially in areas that do not
represent its traditional terrain, into a
conglomerate of competing regionalisms. This can
hardly be a comforting prospect for a Prime
Minister-in-waiting to contemplate.
______
[5]
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE
DR. BINAYAK SEN WINS PRESTIGIOUS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD
The Global Health Council today announced that
Dr. Binayak Sen of Chhattisgarh has won the 2008
Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human
Rights.
The Global Health Council www.globalhealth.org is
the world's largest membership alliance of public
health organizations and professionals working to
improve health and save lives among the poor.
The Jonathan Mann Award was established by the
Global Health Council in 1999 to honor Dr.
Jonathan Mann and to highlight the vital link
between health and human rights. Sponsored in
2007 by four organizations, Association
François-Xavier Bagnoud, Doctors of the World,
John Snow, Inc. and the Global Health Council,
the Award is bestowed annually to a leading
practitioner in health and human rights.
Despite his untimely death in a 1998 plane crash,
Jonathan Mann is considered by many to be one of
the most important figures in the 20th century
fight against global poverty, illness and social
injustice. As the first director of the World
Health Organization's Special Program on AIDS
from 1986-1990, Dr. Mann pioneered the approach
to AIDS that continues to shape public health
policy today. As Professor of Health and Human
Rights at Harvard University from 1990-1997, Dr.
Mann began to articulate the ways in which the
health of individuals and populations reflects
access to basic human rights, using as his
warrant his years as a public health practitioner
and strategist and as his text the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. History will
especially remember Dr. Mann for bringing to the
world's attention the basic notion that improved
health cannot be achieved without basic human
rights, and that these rights are meaningless
without adequate health.
A list of the 57 individuals worldwide who were
nominated for the 2008 Mann Award can be viewed
at
http://www.globalhealth.org/conference/view_top.php3?id=850.
Of note, and a matter of pride for India, nine of
the 2008 nominees are Indian: Dr. Swami Hardas
of Pune, Mr. Surya Makaria of Hyderabad, Mr.
Deelip Mhaske of Mumbai, Dr. Ugrasen Pandey of
Firozabad, Dr. Prameelamma Pedamali of
Srikalahasti, Dr. Kamalesh Sarkar of Kolkata,
Dr. Mukesh Shukla of Surendranagar, Dr. Diwakar
Tejaswi of Patna, and Dr. Binayak Sen of Raipur.
In reviewing these distinguished nominees, the
international jury of public health experts
considered and evaluated several criteria
including: practical work in the field and in
difficult circumstances; actual relevance to the
linkage of health with human rights; predominant
activities in a developing country and with
marginalized people; evidence of serious and
long-term commitment; and potential for the Award
to strengthen the nominee's work.
The Jonathan Mann Award along with three other
awards (the Gates Award for Global Health, the
Best Practices in Global Health Award, and the
Exellence in Media Award for Global Health) will
be presented to the winner at a formal ceremony
during the annual meeting of the Global Health
Council, which this year takes place in
Washington, DC, USA.
Dr Binayak Sen, alumnus of the Christian Medical
College ,Vellore, has devoted a lifetime to the
healthcare of the tribal population of
Chhattisgarh. Along with the legendary trade
union leader Shankar Guha Niyogi, he founded the
Shaheed Hospital in the mining town of Dalli
Rajhara, an institution that till today
continues the tradition of providing accessible
and rational health care to the people. For the
last fifteen years, Dr Sen has worked in a remote
tribal area treating those afflicted with
chronic malnutrition, endemic malaria and other
infectious diseases. He has also worked on issues
of food and livelihood security, and has been the
general Secretary of the State Unit of the
Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), as
well as the National Vice Resident of the
organization. In this latter capacity he has
been a vociferous critic of police excesses
carried out by an unaccountable state , and of
the state sponsored vigilante Salwa Judum
movement in Chhattisgarh that has led to near
civil war conditions in large parts of southern
Chhattisgarh. Dr Sen has earlier received the
Paul Harrison Award from his alma mater for his
contributions to 'redefining health care in a
broken society', and the RR Keithan Gold Medal
from the Indian Academy of Social Sciences for
.. 'a fresh and radical interpretation of
Gandhiji's core concerns..'
Unfortunately, as is well known within India,
Dr. Binayak Sen has been incarcerated in the
Raipur Central Jail in Chhattisgarh on charges
of being a supporter of the banned Maoist party
for almost one year, and is soon to stand trial
on charges under the Chhattisgarh Special Public
Security Act.
In a letter to the President of India, the Prime
Minister of India, and the Chief Minister of
Chhattisgarh, Dr. Nils Dulaire (president and
chief executive officer of the Global Health
Council), has written:
Dr. Sen was selected for this honor by an
international jury of public health experts on
the basis of his years of service in poor and
tribal communities in India, his effective
leadership in establishing self-sustaining health
care services where none existed, and his
unwavering commitment to civil liberties and
human rights. His long history of selfless
service and this Award's recognition are
commendations that we hope will be celebrated by
India's leaders and citizens.
The irony of course is that Dr. Sen is now in his
twelfth month of imprisonment without trial in
Raipur. This is of deep concern to the global
health community. Therefore those signing on to
the statement attached here felt it important to
bring this matter to your attention and to kindly
request that you consider how means could be
found to allow Dr. Sen to attend the award's
ceremony in Washington, DC, on May 29th, 2008.
We wish to be clear: it is not our intent to
interfere with the judicial process. We simply
request that this doctor's good works and highly
regarded reputation as a man of science and
service, and his international following, serve
as guarantee of his obligation to return to India
to participate in a just and fair judicial
process after the awards ceremony, if his case is
not resolved sooner.
The world is watching this case. Some have
expressed concern that it might represent a
dwindling respect for civil liberties in India.
We believe, however, that allowing Dr. Sen to
attend the award's ceremony would send a strong
signal internationally that would help to restore
faith that India and its states are indeed
committed to fairly addressing this and other
cases related to civil conflicts and civil
liberties. Dr. Binayak Sen's travel to the
United States for this purpose would pose no
threat to the security of Chhattisgarh or the
integrity of the Indian judicial system.
Please consider finding the means to allow him to receive his award in person.
As the 2008 Mann Award winner, Dr. Binayak is the
tenth individual and the first South Asian to be
thus honored by the Global Health Council.
Previous winners include the following. Dr.
Bogaletch Gabre, a champion of women's rights who
is a pioneer in eradicating the practice of
female genital excision in Ethiopia (2007); Dr.
Juan Canales, who helped marginalized peasants
and indigenous communities in conflict-ridden
areas of El Salvador and Mexico gain their human
right to health care by establishing community
medicine and public health programmes (2006);
Prof. Abdel Mohammad Gerais who advocated for and
established reproductive health services to those
most in need in Egypt (2005); Dr. Sima Sahar who
led innovative programs in health, education,
construction, relief, and income generation to
improve the lives of women and girls in
Afghanistan (2004); Mr. Zackie Achmat and Dr.
Frenk Guni, who have worked to raise awareness
and advocate for equity of people with HIV/AIDS
in South Africa and Zimbabwe (2003); Dr. Ruchama
Marton and Mr. Salah Haj Yehya, associated with
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, providing
volunteer health care in the occupied territories
of the Wset Bank (2002); Dr. Gao Yaojie, a
gynaecologist involved in HIV/AIDS care and
prevention work in China (2002); Dr. Flora
Brovina and Dr. Vjosa Dobruna who worked with
refugees in the Kosovo conflict and now with
women and children victims of war crimes, in
Kosovo (2000); and Dr. Cynthia Maung who
committed her life to healing victims of human
rights abuses in Burma (1999).
An interesting parallel is that one of the Mann
Award winners in the year 2000 was also in
prison at the time she was selected for the
award. Dr. Flora Brovina is the founder and
director of the League of Albanian women in
Kosovo, and at the time the award was presented,
Dr. Brovina was imprisoned in Serbia. The world
community dedicated to health and human rights
celebrated her release on November 1, 2000 after
18 months of imprisonment on charges that she
committed terrorist acts by helping refugees in
the conflict in Kosovo.
______
[6]
Combat Law
March - April 2008
Prison pleas
LETTER FROM TIHAR
A Kashmiri youth, Parveez Ahmad, narrates how
police turned him from a gentleman to 'bomb-man'
in a letter from his confinement in Tihar Central
Jail, Delhi. Combat Law is in possession of his
letter. It is being reproduced here
Subj: Save my career, as I am innocent.
With due reverence and respect, I am writing this
letter with the hope that I will get justice
without delay. I want your kind attention towards
the real fact of my arrest, interrogation and
torture, which is totally different and
contradictory to that of police's statement. All
the allegations and sections they have charged
upon me are baseless. All the confessions I have
made before them were all under compulsions and
force. As I could not tolerate the torture and
electric shocks. I am still frightened of that
treatment. Those electric shocks are still
breaking my sleep.
Being citizen of India I keep faith in Indian law
and judiciary. And hope no discrimination will be
done against me. Though my faith in law and being
a citizen of India has scattered badly by the
role of police. But still I have not left the
rope of hope. To restore the faith, it is
essential to give me justice, through fare trial,
and save my career. To prove my innocence your
goodself is requested to see my past record.
Which will reveal you how clear my past and
present is. Though I am concerned about the
condition of J&K.
Now I want your kind attention towards the
following lines which will reveal your goodself
the whole story.
As I have done my M. Sc (Zoology) from the
University of Pune and now am seeking admission
to Ph.D for which I was going to Pune.
* On September 12, 2006, I left home for Pune
by flight (Spice Jet). Srinagar - Delhi &
Delhi-Pune. On reaching Delhi, when I was
approaching for Spice-Jet counter to collect my
boarding pass, some seven to eight persons held
me firmly and took away my luggage and whatever I
had in my pockets. They took me to Lodhi Colony
special cell office. where they torture and
interrogated me severely. They beat me up
ruthlessly and gave me electric shocks. Later, I
came to know that they were from the special cell
of police. Led by inspector Sharma ji.
* On the same day they forced me to call one
of my friends to give his SIM card to their
contact person already in Pune.
* ON September 13, 2006, they made my I Card
with the name of Iqbal and took me to Pune by
Spice-Jet flight. On reaching Pune, one police
team was already there but in civil dress. I can
reveal all the details, their names, where they
kept me in Pune, and how they mentally tortured
me.
* On September 14, 2006 evening after
receiving few calls they took me to one shop in
Pune and collected some 10 lakh rupees from that
shopkeeper.
* On September 15, 2006 they took me back to
Delhi, and kept me again in Lodhi Colony Special
Cell lock up where they tortured me very badly
and severely. I was unconscious and half dead.
* On September 16, 2006 they took me to some
unknown place and kept me there for almost one
month. I was not able to walk and move as they
kept me handcuffed in one room. The details of
that very place and persons will be revealed in
the court. What they did with me there, will also
be revealed.
* During that duration they neither informed
my parents nor took me into police remand or
judicial custody. Instead, they forced me to lie
to my parents that I got a job in Maharashtra.
* After one month on October 15, 2006 they
took me to hospital for medical, which was just a
formality, as I was already instructed not to say
anything about my ailment, torture and muscular
spasm. Even doctors wrote the medical report
without examining me. I was shocked to see the
collusion between police and doctors. I could not
understand what was going on. As I was seeing
that for the first time in my life.
* On the same day October 15, 2006 in the
evening they took me to a lady magistrate for
taking me into police remand. That too was a
joke, as I was in their custody for more than one
month. Before presenting me before that
magistrate they threatened me of dire
consequences If I narrated the true story. I was
made to narrate my story their way. The story was
like this. I was coming from Mumbai by Golden
Temple express to Nizamuddin. To hand over rupees
10 lakh and three Kg of RDX to some Tariq at
Azadpur Mandi. But that Tariq did not come.
Meanwhile police party caught hold of me. The
magistrate did not ask me anything.
* During my stay in their custody they
compelled me to file so many (rail) reservation
forms in my own hand writing and signature. They
took away my attache bag. On asking where they
were taking my bag, they told me that my final
verification was being done. Soon you would be
released. I got very tense and was confused, and
smelled something fishy. I thought they would
finish me in an encounter. So I could not sleep
all those nights. If they have really sent any
person to Delhi from Mumbai, then that was Ram
Gopal who was looking after me in that police
flat, may be a constable. That police office
(Flat) is near an airport, as I could hear sounds
of aeroplanes. One metro track is also nearby
which I saw from one small pore of window.
Through the bathroom window, I saw a public
school in the neighbourhood. The name of that
public school was ITL Public School, next to this
police flat. In that flat the staff was changing
every 24 hours. The staff comprised of Anil
Tyagi, Ram Gopal, Gurmeet, Raju (Pahalwan),
Mangal (Bihari), Pravesh, Pandit and others whose
name I don't know but I can identify them. They
kept me as an animal, handcuffed and feetcuffed
tied to the iron rods of window, 24 hours.
Because of which I was not able to make any free
movement or walk in that very room. The only time
they were releasing me when I was going to
bathroom. For the whole month I could no see sun.
In that very police flat there was one more
person arrested (rather kidnapped) in other room.
He too was forced to make calls to his relatives.
* After staying few for days in that flat, I
was made to cell my parents and saying that I was
alright and got a job. One evening my parents
called me up with weeping words that they heard
news of my arrest, as somebody had informed them.
I could not tell them that I was in police
custody since the day I left home. I was forced
to assure my parents that I was alright. I was
happy. Also that I thanked God that atleast my
parents came to know. Later police threatened me
not to disclose news of my arrest before my
parents and assured me of releasing before Eid.
Whenever my parents were calling me I was lying
to them that I was not getting travel reservation
confirmed. They (my parents) were insisting on me
to leave my job and come back to home. I was
weeping for the whole day and night. I became
very weak and lazy. Inspector Sharma ji told Anil
Tyagi to provide me Quran and other books so that
I would not loose my concentration. They were
constantly assuring me of releasing me before
Eid. But they were lying and deceiving me as well
as my parents.
* After taking me into police remand
officially, they kept me at Lodhi Colony office
for days. I was thinking perhaps they would
release me now, as Deepawali as well as Eid were
approaching after few days. But there was some
thing worst to come. My career was going to be
spoilt it and my image was going to change from
gentleman to bombman, from student to a terrorist.
Am I not Indian, if I am Kashmiri. Why this
discrimination. When tall claims are being made
by the Govt. of India, by media, that before Law
all citizens are equal. Whether of Kashmir or
Kerala. ...they made me a scape-goat, to get
compliments from their seniors and public. And
public too took me as a terrorist
* Finally the day came when my whole career
was wiped. I was mentally shocked and astonished.
On October 20, 2006, when I was watching TV in
Inspector Badrish Dutt's room, suddenly SI Vinay
Tyagi told me that one press person was
downstairs and wanted to meet me. He advised me
to speak in his presence. After 10-20 minutes,
suddenly everything changed altogether. Every
personnel was trying to catch hold of me and come
close to me. I was just confused to see what was
going on. Especially, SI Vinay Tyagi and Havaldar
Satish held me firmly. Suddenly they opened the
gate and I was just shocked to see the mob of
more then 50 photographers. They started taking
my photographs and shooting me for 10-15 minutes.
I understood that they have now ruined my career
and life. I looked towards inspector Sharma ji.
He by his gesture posed as he had arrested me and
presented me before media as a hard core
terrorist. Now I realised fully what actually
their plan of keeping me in their custody was.
They actually wanted to show me before media and
tell that they have arrested a persons
(terrorist) who arrived in Delhi to explode bombs
on the occasion of Deepawali, which is just shame
upon them. How they (police) were befooling their
public. And media was helping them in propagating
such fake arrests. When I could not celebrate my
Eid at home, with my parents, what I have to do
with the Deepawali. After those false and
baseless allegations I wept like a widow. Now I
realised that I no more could contact my parents.
As they (police) have turned me into a don.
I am still thinking why they ruined my career
* Am I really a terrorist? When I have never
ever seen how that RDX looks like.
* Am I not an Indian, if I am a Kashmiri.
* Why this discrimination. When tall claims
are being made by the Govt. of India, by media,
that before law all citizens are equal. Whether
of Kashmir or Kerala.
* Why they made me a scape-goat, to get
compliments from their seniors and public. And
public too took me as a terrorist. Who had
arrived in Delhi on Deepawali to disrupt the
celebrations? Whole of the police party and the
special cell people know very well that they
arrested me on September 12, 2006 at Delhi
airport. Are they trying to prove that aeroplane
authority were allowing to carry explosives in
their flights.
My faith in Indian democracy and law has
shattered badly and I am very disappointed about
the role of police. I have no hope, than to
appeal before your goodself to provide me fare
trial and give me justice. So that I can restart
my normal life with my old parents. So that my
faith in law is restore.
Jail no. 01, Ward no. 01
Barrack no. 02
Tihar
PARVEEZ AHMAD
S/O. SANAULLAH RADOO
R/O. NOOR BAGH -A
SOPORE BARAMULLA
J & K
PIN - 193201.
______
[7] Announcements:
(i)
Dear friends,
We write to invite you to "Persistence Resistance: a festival of contemporary
political films"; that will screen over 100 films from 28th to 30th
April, at IIC, Delhi.
The festival aims to create a cinema space that celebrates the diverse
nature of films in India today. The idea is to showcase the range of
subjects and forms the films work with, and to interrogate the
emerging aesthetics of political filmmaking.
The festival will also carry a section on international documentaries
in an attempt to explore the notions of internationalism in the
present day scenario of neo-liberal globalisation.
Simultaneously the festival will present films in multiple ways of
seeing, interacting and engaging by creating installations, outdoor
screenings and small intimate screening spaces along with regular
auditorium screenings.
Additionally, over three evenings we explore the linkages between art,
literature, theatre, comics, animation, censorship with films.
The full schedule can be downloaded / viewed here
http://www.magiclanternfoundation.org/PersistenceFest/PR_Mainpage.html
Please note that entry is free, and open to all.
With best wishes,
Gargi Sen
Ranjan De
Priyanka Mukherjee
---
(ii)
Celebrate World Dance Day with Sheema Kermani
Date: 29th April 2008 | Time: 7:00 pm
World Dance Day is observed all over the world on
29th April to pay tribute to one of the oldest
art forms. Join us at T2F on Tuesday as we
celebrate the Power of Dance with Sheema Kermani.
Sheema Kermani, a leading Pakistani classical
dancer, will explore the origins of dance and the
similarities and differences inherent in various
styles of dance. Through a lecture-demonstration,
Sheema aims to create understanding and awareness
about dance as an art form and its crucial
significance for the well-being of our society.
Date: Tuesday, 29th April 2008
Time: 7:00 pm
Suggested Minimum Donation: Rs. 100
Venue: The Second Floor (t2f)
6-C, Prime Point Building, Phase 7, Khayaban-e-Ittehad, DHA, Karachi
538-9273 | 0300-823-0276 | info at t2f.biz
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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