SACW | May 9-11, 2008 / India: nuclear tests 10 years on / What is the RSS? / The Maoist spectre / Nepal: Watch the donor / Pakistan: Brutalisation

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at gmail.com
Sat May 10 22:57:11 CDT 2008


South Asia Citizens Wire | May 9-11, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2514 - Year 10 running

[1] Nepal: Revolution to development - Dont let 
the donors drive ! (Bihari Krishna Shrestha)
[2] Pakistan: 'Brutalisation of State, Society 
Behind Spurt in Executions' Interview with I. A. 
Rehman
[3] India: Ten years after India's nuclear tests: 
Deeper into the morass (M.V. Ramana)
[4] India: What is the RSS ? (Madhu Limaye)
[5] India: Judiciary should go for transparency, 
not secrecy (Suchi Pande, Nikhil Dey and Aruna 
Roy)
[6] India: The Maoist spectre hides unholy nexus of corruption (Dipankar Gupta)
[7] India: MF Hussain & Freedom of Expression: The court cases dismissed
(i) Press Statement by Sahmat on the dismissal of cases against MF Hussain
(ii) An end to Husain's travails (Editorial, The Hindu)
[8] Announcements:
(i) "BREAD, NOT BOMB" - Pakistan Peace Coalition 
campaign against 'Arms' Race' in South Asia
(ii) International Day of Protest for Dr. Binayak Sen  May 13/14, 2008
(iii) ASAA Ninth International Women in Asia 
Conference (Brisbane, 29 September to 1 October 
2008)

______


[1]


Nepali Times
02 May 08

REVOLUTION TO DEVELOPMENT
Job-creation is about local ownership and institution-building

by Bihari Krishna Shrestha

[PHOTO CAPTION] IT'S DEVELOPMENT: Maoist senior, 
CP Gajurel, at a panel discussion on 
post-election development delivery with 
Kathmandu-based donors and academics last week.

At an interaction last week organised by this 
paper, Maoist foreign minister-in-waiting C P 
Gajurel, like many past politicians in Nepal, 
turned to donors present for help in rebuilding 
the country.

He said his party would make sure aid goes 
directly to the people and without leakage and 
corruption along the way. There was a strong 
sense of déjà vu hearing all this. It was 
reminiscent of the euphoria after 1990. Leaders 
then, as now, promised corruption-free good 
governance.

It didn't take long for the hope to evaporate. 
Given the role of money in competitive politics, 
most politicos were soon up to their necks in the 
quagmire of corruption.

Gajurel was asked how his party would meet the 
aspirations of thousands of his cadre. He said 
there had to be massive job creation for Maoist 
youth, and he asked for donor help. It left many 
wondering whether the Maoists would now use 
ministries as recruitment centres as the UML and 
NC did post-1990.

Gajurel's reliance on donors also shows that the 
Maoists may fall into the same old dependency 
trap. Nepal has been receiving ODA for more than 
50 years and part of the goal has been poverty 
alleviation through job creation. Despite this, 
unemployment (13 percent) and under employment 
(47 percent) are at all-time highs. In fact, this 
was a factor that enabled Maoist recruitment.

In order to do things differently and 
effectively, the Maoists must realise that 
employment creation as well as other development 
undertakings have never been a function of money 
alone, but building people's institutions. Only 
then can local development also generate 
employment opportunities in the process.

Unfortunately, while the donors are good at 
doling out money, their record is tardy at best 
in building institutions resulting usually in the 
wastage of scarce resources. Take the Ministry of 
Local Development (with its interesting acronym, 
MOLD) which has spent a budgeted sum of Rs 38 
billion in its nearly 30 years of existence. This 
does not include the vast sums spent by donors 
directly to micro-manage projects that they fund.

Despite all this, the rural landscape is 
characterised by grinding poverty, decreasing 
production, widespread hunger and malnutrition, 
unemployment and an exploding population. All of 
this fuelled the combustion of the insurgency 
during the last decade.

An example of good institution-building is 
Nepal's community forestry success. At the heart 
of the achievement was the government's decision 
to introduce forest user groups in 1988, an 
innovation deriving from the Panchayat-era 
Decentralisation Act of 1982. It had taken us 30 
years from 1957, the year when forest was 
nationalised, to steadily destroy it and only 10 
years to resurrect it.Our forests now not only 
meet needs for fodder, fuel and timber, they also 
generate money for local development including 
employment opportunities. Besides, the hinterland 
is also dotted today with user-owned coops and 
saving and credit groups that are also doing 
marvellous work in self-help economic and social 
development.

Unfortunately, the so-called Local Self 
Governance Act of 1999 written with generous 
financial and technical help from the UNDP and 
DANIDA (which fiercely competed against each 
other to dominate the exercise and together lured 
government professionals into abdication) 
practically removed the user group concept. This 
set the stage, however inadvertently, for the 
colossal wastage of resources.

Nepal's new bosses, the Maoists, must recognise 
that donors are good only as donors, the basic 
decision-making must be by national professionals 
and predicated on the dispassionate assessment of 
our successes and failures. The elections may 
have been for an assembly to write the new 
constitution, but the two years that it is 
estimated to take is far too long given the 
urgency of the cause of the poor and hungry in 
the villages.

The new government must follow a twin-track 
approach: even as the constitution is written it 
must set up and strengthen a nationwide network 
of autonomous user-owned institutions through 
which all development projects must be 
implemented on a countrywide and priority basis.

Bihari Krishna Shrestha is a freelance writer on 
development issues and politics.

_______


[2]  PAKISTAN:

Inter Press Service

Q&A:  'BRUTALISATION OF STATE, SOCIETY BEHIND SPURT IN EXECUTIONS'
Interview with I. A. Rehman, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

I.A. Rehman, director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Credit:Alefia Hussein/IPS

KARACHI, Apr 18 (IPS) - In 2007, Pakistan 
executed someone, somewhere on an average, every 
three days. And every single day 7,000 others 
died -- ''figuratively speaking" -- waiting in 
dread for the black warrant announcing their own 
date with the gallows, says I.A. Rehman, director 
of the independent Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan (HRCP).

In an interview with IPS correspondent, Zofeen 
Ebrahim, Rehman attributed Pakistan's huge 
increase in executions last year as a reflection 
of the "brutalisation of state and society".

IPS: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has 
just released its annual report. Can you explain 
the enormous increase in executions last year?

I.A. REHMAN (IAR): There were 134 executions in 
2007, compared to 83 in 2006. That's a 61 percent 
increase. Executions have been rising year by 
year - 18 in 2003, 21 in 2004, 52 in 2005 and 83 
in 2006. The spurt in executions is due to a 
number of reasons, but mainly the brutalisation 
of state and society. Also responsible has been 
the bar to pardons and remissions caused by the 
1990 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance (on retribution 
and blood money), the government's increasing 
despair at the burgeoning death row population 
and its cost, and lastly, the high number of 
offences for which death penalty is prescribed.

IPS: Amnesty International in its annual report 
now ranks Pakistan second in the world for the 
numbers of those sentenced to death. What are you 
reporting on this?

IAR: Pakistan does have a fairly high rate of 
death penalty convictions. For example, there 
were 455 in 2004, 362 in 2005, 445 in 2006 and 
319 in 2007. The pattern is clear. Every year the 
death row population is increasing by a good 
margin. Obviously, the state has decided not to 
wait long enough for "compromises" that would 
enable convicts to escape the gallows.

IPS: Can you generalise about the crimes, 
background and ages of the people sentenced to 
death?

IAR: The largest group comprises of men convicted 
of murder, some 147 in 2007. There were also two 
women sentenced to death for murder in 2007. 
Other crimes for which death penalty can be 
awarded are drug smuggling, kidnapping for 
ransom, rape, robbery, terrorism. As for the age 
and background of those sentenced to death, I am 
unable to give you details.

IPS: How can you stop the execution numbers rising even more this year?

IAR. The only way is to reduce the number of 
offences liable to the death sentence and by 
reviving the practice of commutation. For the 
last two years, HRCP has been demanding a 
moratorium on executions, pending the abolition 
of death penalty.

IPS: The HRCP reports that Pakistan has more than 
7,000 on death row. Can you explain how 134 of 
these were selected for the gallows last year?

IAR: There is no logical way of selecting 
candidates for execution. Those who complete the 
process of trial, review and mercy application 
can be hanged. It goes something like this: first 
a trial - taking up to 3 years; the High Court's 
confirmation of the sentence - another 2 to 3 
years; the appeal to Supreme Court - many years; 
and, finally, a period allowed for compromise and 
mercy petitions - possibly indefinite. In some 
cases, such as terrorism and if the target is the 
president of Pakistan or an army general, the 
sentence may be carried out quite soon - even 
within a year of the crime.

IPS: Can you describe conditions for those held in prison awaiting execution?

IAR: Conditions on death row are horrendous. In 
the distant past those awarded the death sentence 
used to be kept in solitary confinement -- one 
person per cell. Often they were kept in chains, 
with an iron ball in their mouths. Now there are 
three or four prisoners to a cell. This is an 
improvement. There are better class convicts on 
death row also.

IPS: Are these conditions better or worse than in 
the general, overcrowded sections of the prisons?

IAR: My impression is that conditions in death 
cells are no worse than elsewhere in the prisons.

IPS: What prevents Pakistan the most from simply 
abolishing the death penalty - religion or 
politics?

IAR: Religion more than politics, but I'd say, 
inertia above all. The state is a victim of the 
belief that Islam provides for mandatory death 
penalty and thus this cruel practice cannot be 
done away with.

IPS: But doesn't Islam, indeed, teach "an eye for an eye"?

IAR: Eye for an eye is the classical 
interpretation of the Quranic verse. But there is 
room for debate whether the trial system 
prevailing here accords with the incorruptible 
system considered necessary for application of 
the Quranic rules. I also accuse the Pakistani 
clerics of selective obedience to Islam holding 
to this tit-for-tat rule. They also condone, for 
example, the marrying of minor girls and even 
more fundamental Islamic principles rather than 
fight exploitation and support living by honest 
labour.

IPS: Are you planning any new initiatives to 
bring an end to capital punishment in Pakistan?

IAR: We are planning quite a few activities this 
year to persuade people to support death penalty 
abolition.

IPS: Will you give more details of these?

IAR: After our annual meeting last month, we sent 
a 16-point priority list in response to the prime 
minister's 100-day agenda for the newly-formed 
government. Point number eight strongly suggests 
a moratorium on executions and the setting up of 
a parliamentary review committee on this form of 
punishment. We also plan to publish brochures and 
hold meetings across the country to mobilise 
public opinion in support of our views.

IPS: Will you be targeting lawmakers on the 
argument that the capital punishment is not a 
deterrent?

IAR: We have done a study on the death penalty 
with the Paris-based International Federation of 
Human Rights (FIDH) and published it in both Urdu 
and English. The idea behind this is to try to 
sensitise parliamentarians on such issues.

IPS: Is a one-time study with the FDIH going to 
be sufficient to achieve your aims of raising 
awareness of the lawmakers and bring about a 
review of the laws?

IAR: No one-time, two-time, 10-time study will 
ever bear fruit. It is going to be a long haul. 
We have to go on slogging at the bad practice.

IPS: With a democratic set-up now in place, are 
you optimistic that the new government will be 
more amenable to your pressure to halt executions?

IAR: We will push for a moratorium. We had higher 
hopes while Benazir Bhutto was alive, because she 
understood our point of view. She pardoned many 
convicts in 1988 -- the first thing after 
becoming the prime minister. And executions 
during her two terms were rare. Maybe something 
can be done even now, though coalitions are not 
good or fast vehicles.

IPS: You say you will be pushing hard for a 
moratorium. Have you started building momentum 
towards this and already held meetings with the 
new government?

IAR: It is too early to meet the new government 
leaders. But we have sent a statement to all 
ministers. All offices of HRCP are approaching 
the government and political parties on the 
subject.

IPS: Do you feel the new government is ready to 
listen to you on this sensitive issue?

IAR: There is no harm in hoping.

(END/2008)


______


[3]

TEN YEARS AFTER INDIA'S NUCLEAR TESTS: DEEPER INTO THE MORASS

by M.V. Ramana
(Magazine Section / The Hindu, May 11, 2008)

Since Pokharan, we have been witness to an 
opportunistic shift in the stance of the 
government, from an outright condemnation of 
nuclear deterrence to an unabated enthusiasm for 
the development of a full-fledged arsenal.

Hand in hand, expenditures on non-nuclear 
military activities and acquisition of 
conventional weapons have also increased 
dramatically...The impact of these expenditures, 
of course, falls primarily upon the poor and the 
vulnerable.


In 1996, the International Court of Justice 
offered a historic Advisory Opinion where it 
ruled that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons 
would generally be contrary to the rules of 
international law applicable in armed conflict, 
and in particular the principles and rules of 
international humanitarian law" and endorsed 
unanimously a legal obligation on all States "to 
pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion 
negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in 
all its aspects under strict and effective 
international control." Earlier, as the case was 
being considered, India submitted a Memorial 
where it argued that nuclear deterrence should be 
considered "abhorrent to human sentiment since it 
implies that a state, if required to defend its 
own existence, will act with pitiless disregard 
for the consequences of its own and adversary's 
people". This description is apt. Though just an 
unproven assumption, nuclear deterrence relies on 
the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction 
aimed at killing large numbers of people in the 
wishful hope that such annihilation would deter 
another country from attacking because of fear.

Some years later, in January 2003, the Indian 
government issued a nuclear doctrine which 
explicitly stated that the country is pursuing 
nuclear deterrence, though this was qualified as 
a minimal one. But the doctrine also warns that 
"nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be 
massive and designed to inflict unacceptable 
damage". Unacceptable damage, in plain English, 
means that these nuclear weapons would be dropped 
on cities, each killing lakhs or millions of 
innocent people. The few years between the clear 
and forthright condemnation of deterrence and the 
enthusiastic invocation of deterrence are among 
the most important in recent Indian history.

The biggest event occurred 10 years ago, on May 
11, 1998, when three nuclear devices exploded in 
the Pokharan desert. Two days later, two more 
explosions were conducted and Prime Minister 
Vajpayee proudly announced that India was now a 
nuclear weapon State. Pakistan's leaders, showing 
that they too subscribed to the twisted logic 
that drives the acquisition of nuclear weapons, 
conducted six explosions of their own on May 28 
and 30. With those tests, the half-century-old 
conflict between India and Pakistan acquired a 
nuclear edge.
Nuclear threats

The edge was to be seen soon. Contrary to the 
claims of nuclear weapons advocates, who promised 
peace and a cessation of war, India and Pakistan 
fought over Kargil bitterly within a year of the 
tests. Though limited geographically, the war is 
estimated to have cost about 1,700 Indian lives 
and nearly 800 Pakistani ones. Indian and 
Pakistani officials delivered indirect and direct 
nuclear threats to one another at least 13 times. 
There are also plausible, though not convincing, 
reports that the two countries did prepare their 
nuclear arsenals for potential use.

Kargil was the first major confrontation between 
two nuclear powers. Indeed, the war may even be 
the first caused by nuclear weapons. The late 
Benazir Bhutto stated that in 1996 Pakistani 
military officers had presented her with plans 
for a Kargil style operation, which she vetoed. 
It would therefore seem that the 1998 tests 
convinced Pakistan's political and military 
leaders that the operation might be feasible with 
nuclear weapons to restrict any possible Indian 
riposte.

The pattern of nuclear intimidation seen in 
Kargil was to be repeated during the major 
military crises that followed the militant attack 
on the Parliament in December 2001. Even Prime 
Minister Vajpayee warned: "no weapon would be 
spared in self-defence. Whatever weapon was 
available, it would be used no matter how it 
wounded the enemy". On the other side of the 
border, former chief of the Pakistan Army, 
General Mirza Aslam Beg, declared: "We can make a 
first strike, and a second strike or even a 
third".

Although it did not develop into war, a number of 
factors make the 2002 crisis more dangerous than 
the Kargil war. Unlike Kargil, where Pakistan is 
clearly seen to have lost, especially 
politically, both sides claim the 2002 crisis as 
a victory. On the one hand General Musharraf's 
promise that he would rein in Pakistan-based 
militant organisations is seen as proof that 
India's "coercive diplomacy" worked. Pakistan's 
case is simpler. Despite the huge build-up of 
forces by India, and much talk of attacking 
so-called terrorist camps within Pakistan, no 
military attacks actually occurred. That a 
massive military confrontation with strong 
nuclear overtones is seen by both sides as a 
victory increases the likelihood that similar 
incidents will occur in the future.

Nuclear costs

The obvious lesson of these two military crises, 
that nuclear weapons cause insecurity, has been 
ignored by nuclear advocates. Instead, they 
claimed that just testing nuclear weapons is 
insufficient for deterrence and called for the 
kinds of steps that India had earlier criticised 
nuclear weapons States for taking. Following 
their advice, India has not only adopted 
use-doctrines and practices similar to those of 
nuclear weapon States, but has also embarked on 
developing the paraphernalia needed for the 
adoption of these doctrines. These include a 
triad of delivery vehicles, including aircraft 
capable of dropping nuclear bombs, missiles 
launched from land and sea, and a nuclear 
submarine; training the military to use these; a 
command and control structure to oversee the 
deployment and use of nuclear weapons; components 
of an early warning system and an anti-ballistic 
missile (ABM) defence system. No one has been 
keeping count of the crores of rupees being spent 
in this process. Hand in hand, expenditures on 
non-nuclear military activities and acquisition 
of conventional weapons have also increased 
dramatically. This is in direct contradiction to 
the erstwhile claims of nuclear advocates that 
the acquisition of nuclear weapons would reduce 
expenditure on conventional weapons. The impact 
of these expenditures, of course, falls primarily 
upon the poor and the vulnerable.

A growing arsenal

One of the adjectives appended to deterrence in 
India's nuclear doctrine is minimal. (The other 
adjective - credible - is superfluous. A 
deterrent that is not credible cannot deter.) 
When asked to delineate what constitutes minimal, 
policy makers resort to obfuscation. Minimal, 
they claim, is a dynamic concept and one which 
cannot be specified in advance. Given the massive 
destructive power of nuclear weapons, it should 
be obvious that a dozen or so suffice to 
obliterate several cities and millions of people 
in Pakistan or China. But going by current public 
estimates, the fissile material stockpile just 
from CIRUS and Dhruva, the two reactors 
reportedly assigned for making plutonium for 
weapons, should be sufficient for over a hundred 
nuclear weapons. Perhaps the meaning of minimal 
is simply that it is not maximal.

That the future arsenal size sought by 
policymakers is much larger was made clear during 
the negotiations and public debates surrounding 
the nuclear deal that is being negotiated with 
the United States. As a report from the 
International Panel of Fissile Materials, which 
the author is a part of, shows, the number of 
reactors that the DAE strenuously kept outside of 
safeguards can produce several dozen nuclear 
weapons worth of plutonium every year (available 
at www.fissilematerials.org).

New attitudes

During the 1990s, one oft-heard argument from 
those espousing nuclear weapons was that while 
these were evil, they were a necessary evil. To 
the extent that the pressures of this lobby were 
resisted, India acquired weapons only 
reluctantly. That was then. What is on display 
today is unabated enthusiasm for the ongoing 
development of a full fledged arsenal. And all 
the attitudes that go with being a State 
possessing nuclear weapons.

Such a shift in attitude was on display during 
the unexpected vote against Iran at the 
International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005. While 
much attention was focused on US pressure, there 
was something deeper too. In an earlier era, 
Indian leaders would have denounced the hypocrisy 
of the United States, with its immense nuclear 
arsenal, lecturing Iran about its small uranium 
enrichment plant. Now, one heard many 
policy-makers talking about why nuclear 
proliferation was dangerous and Iran should not 
be allowed to have nuclear technology. 
Non-proliferation, which used to be seen as 
immoral, has come to take the place of 
disarmament, the truly worthwhile goal.

The opportunistic switch in stance is somewhat 
akin to what has been called the third class 
railway compartment syndrome. Those waiting on a 
crowded platform clamour in the name of justice 
and fairness to be let into compartment. But once 
inside, the opportunist shuts the door and keeps 
the others outside, with force if necessary.

In July 1946, following the US attacks on 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mahatma Gandhi observed, 
"the atom bomb has deadened the finest feelings 
which have sustained mankind for agesŠIt has 
resulted for the time being in the soul of Japan 
being destroyed. What has happened to the soul of 
the destroying nation is yet too early to see." 
Unfortunately in our case, the first decade after 
Pokharan has already started making the impacts 
quite clear. It is not too late to reverse these.

M. V. Ramana is Senior Fellow, Centre for 
Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and 
Development at the Institute for Social and 
Economic Change, Bangalore, and co-editor of 
Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream.


[In public interest, the above article is also 
available at www.s-asians-against-nukes.org ]

______


[4]


Communalism Combat
May 2008

WHAT IS THE RSS?

A veteran socialist on an 'age-old enemy'

by Madhu Limaye

I entered political life in 1937. I was quite 
young then but as I had passed my matriculation 
examination at a relatively early age, I also 
entered college quite early. Quite active in Pune 
in those days were the RSS and the Savarkarites 
(followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the 
one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist 
political organisations on the other. On May 1, 
1937 we took out a march to observe May Day. The 
marchers were attacked by the RSS and 
Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known 
revolutionary Senapati Bapat and our socialist 
leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had 
serious differences with these Hindutva 
organisations ever since.

Our first difference with the RSS was over the 
issue of nationalism. We believed that every 
citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. 
But the RSS and the Savarkarites came up with 
their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali 
Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. 
He believed that India was made up of two 
nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu nation. 
Savarkar too said the same thing.

The other major difference between us was that we 
dreamt of the birth of a democratic republic 
while the RSS claimed that democracy was a 
western concept that was not appropriate for 
India. In those days members of the RSS were full 
of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav 
Sadashiv Golwalkar) was not only the 
sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was its 
ideological guru as well.

There is amazing similarity between the thoughts 
of Guruji and the Nazis. One of Guruji's books, 
We or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several 
editions, its fourth edition having been 
published in 1947. At one point in the book, 
Guruji says, "The non-Hindu people in Hindustan 
must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must 
learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu 
religion, must entertain no ideas but those of 
the glorification of the Hindu race and culture 
i.e. they must not only give up their attitude of 
intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land 
and its age-old traditions but must also 
cultivate the positive attitude of love and 
devotion instead - in a word, they must cease to 
be foreigners, or may stay in the country wholly 
subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming 
nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any 
preferential treatment - not even citizen's 
rights."

In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of 
Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all 
their citizenship rights taken away. 
Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly 
formulated. From the time we were in college (in 
the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined 
to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, 
Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be 
treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in 
Germany.

The extent of Guruji's sympathies for the views 
of the Nazi Party is evident from the following 
passage from We or Our Nationhood Defined: "To 
keep up the purity of the race and its culture, 
Germany shocked the world by
her purging the country of the Semitic races - 
the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been 
manifested here. Germany has also shown how 
well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures 
having differences going to the root, to be 
assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson 
for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by" (We 
or Our Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).

You might say that this is an old book, of a time 
when India was in the throes of the struggle for 
independence. But then there is his second book, 
Bunch of Thoughts. I cite below an example from 
this "popular publication" which was brought out 
in November 1966. In this book, while discussing 
India's internal security problem, Guruji 
identifies three internal dangers. One is 
Muslims, the second Christians and the third 
Communists. In Guruji's view, every Indian 
Muslim, every Christian and every Communist is a 
danger to the nation's security. Such is his 
ideology.

Our second major difference with Guruji and the 
RSS has to do with the caste question. They are 
supporters of the caste system while a socialist 
like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself 
to be the biggest enemy of brahminism and the 
caste system. I am of the firm view that there 
can be no economic and social equality in India 
until the caste system and the inequalities based 
on it are demolished.

But Guruji says, "Another unique feature of our 
society was the varna vyavastha (caste system, 
the former occupation-based classification of 
society) which is today vilified as jati pratha 
(a rigid caste system)." He adds, "Society was 
conceived of in the image of an all-powerful god, 
of four aspects, who was to be worshipped by 
different people in their own ways as determined 
by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was 
considered great because he was the purveyor of 
knowledge. The Kshatriya was considered equally 
great because he destroyed the enemies. The 
Vaishya was no less important than others because 
through agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a 
social need. The Sudra too was important for he 
served society through his workmanship." Here it 
is very shrewdly being asserted that through his 
workmanship the Sudra is fulfilling an important 
social need. But Chanakya's Arthashastra, from 
which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly 
states that it is the religious duty of the 
Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and 
the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji 
replaces service of the upper castes with 
"service of society".

The fourth issue on which we differ is that of 
language. We are in favour of promoting the 
languages of the people. All regional languages, 
after all, are indigenous. But what does Guruji 
have to say on this? Guruji says that for now 
Hindi should be made the common language for all 
while the ultimate objective should be to make 
Sanskrit the national language. He says in his 
Bunch of Thoughts, "For convenience, Hindi should 
be given primacy as our link language until such 
time as Sanskrit is adopted as our national 
language." Thus Hindi is merely for convenience, 
the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.

We have had differences over this right from the 
start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, we 
too have always been in favour of the regional 
languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on 
anyone. We would like to see Tamil as the 
prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in 
Andhra Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and 
Bengali in West Bengal. If the non-Hindi speaking 
states wish to adopt English, it should be up to 
them. We have no differences with them on this. 
But Sanskrit is the language of a handful of 
people, the language of a particular caste. 
Making Sanskrit the national language means the 
supremacy of a handful of people over others, 
something we definitely do not want.

Fifth, the national movement for independence had 
accepted the idea of a federal state. In a 
confederation, the centre would definitely have 
certain powers on specific matters but all others 
would be a subject matter for the states. But 
following partition, in a bid to strengthen the 
centre, the Constitution stipulated a concurrent 
list. As per this list, several subjects were 
made concurrent, subjects over which both the 
centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. 
What was originally meant to be under the domain 
of different states was included in the 
concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. 
Thus the federal state came into existence.

But the RSS and its chief ideologue, Guru 
Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to this 
basic constitutional provision. These people 
ridicule the very concept of 'a union of states' 
and maintain that this Constitution, which 
envisages a confederation of states, should be 
abolished. Guruji says in his Bunch of Thoughts, 
"The Constitution must be reviewed and the idea 
of a unitary state should be written into the new 
Constitution." Guruji wants a unitary or, in 
other words, a centralised state. He says that 
this system of states should be done away with. 
What he wants is one nation, one state, one 
legislature and one executive. In other words, he 
wants to abolish state legislatures and state 
ministries. That means they wish to see the rule 
of the stick. If they were to capture power, they 
would doubtless bring into existence a 
centralised state.

Another issue was the tricolour, the flag chosen 
by the national movement. Hundreds of Indians 
sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt 
of lathis for the honour and glory of our chosen 
national flag. But surprisingly, the RSS has 
never accepted the tricolour as the national 
flag. It always swore by the saffron flag, 
asserting that the saffron flag has been the flag 
of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.

Just as Guruji rejected the concept of a federal 
state, similarly, he had no faith in a democratic 
system. He was of the firm view that democracy is 
a concept imported from the West and the system 
of parliamentary democracy did not jell with 
Indian thought and Indian civilisation. As for 
socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. 
He repeatedly said that all isms, including 
socialism and democracy, were alien ideas which 
should be rejected, that Indian society should be 
founded on Indian culture. Speaking for 
ourselves, we believe in parliamentary democracy, 
in socialism, and we aspire to establish 
socialism consistent with Gandhian principles in 
India through peaceful means.

While we were engaged in a struggle against the 
Congress party's autocratic rule, our leader, Dr 
Ram Manohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we 
should join hands with all opposition forces to 
save the nation and dislodge from power the 
Congress party which was responsible for our 
humiliation at the hands of the Chinese. I had 
lengthy discussions with Doctorsaheb on the 
issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept 
insisting throughout that we cannot have any 
alliance with the RSS and the Jan Sangh. 
Ultimately, Doctorsaheb asked me, "Do you accept 
my leadership or not?" I replied, "Yes, I do." He 
said it wasn't necessary for us to agree on every 
issue or for him to have to convince me on every 
issue. Let there be an issue or two on which we 
disagreed. And since he was only thinking of a 
political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I 
should cooperate with him, let his idea be given 
a "trial". Perhaps he would be proven right, he 
said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced 
however that a clash between the RSS and the 
Lohiaite ideologies was inevitable.

It is a fact that we formed an alliance with 
these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs Indira 
Gandhi imposed the emergency, increasingly 
resorted to dictatorial methods, started 
promoting Sanjay Gandhi and the Maruti scandal 
surfaced. Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if 
the opposition did not unite under the banner of 
a single party it would be impossible to defeat 
Mrs Gandhi and dictatorship. Choudhary Charan 
Singh was also of the view that we should come 
together and form a united party. While we were 
in jail, we were all asked to give our opinions 
on the need to form such a party and contest 
elections. I recall sending a message that in my 
view we must contest elections. Millions of 
people would participate in elections. Elections 
are a dynamic process. As the electoral tempo 
builds up, the shackles of emergency are bound to 
snap and people are bound to exercise their 
democratic right. Therefore, I stressed, we must 
participate in elections.

Since Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain and other 
leaders were of the view that without coming 
together under the banner of one party we could 
not succeed, we (socialists) too gave it our 
consent. But I would like to stress that the 
understanding that was arrived at was between 
political parties - the Jan Sangh, the Socialist 
Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Loktantrik 
Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. 
We did not come to any arrangement with the RSS, 
nor did we accept any of its demands. What is 
more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was 
circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that 
on July 7, 1976 Choudhary Charan Singh had raised 
the issue of a possible clash of interests 
because of dual membership when members of the 
RSS also became members of the new party. In 
response, the then acting general secretary of 
the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the 
proposed party should feel free to formulate 
whatever membership criteria it wanted. He even 
said that since the RSS, having faced many 
constraints, had been dissolved anyway, the 
question of RSS membership did not arise.

Later, when the constitution of the proposed 
Janata Party was being drawn up, the subcommittee 
appointed to draft the constitution proposed that 
members of any organisation whose aims, policies 
and programmes were in conflict with the aims, 
policies and programmes of the Janata Party 
should not be given membership to the new party. 
Given the self-evident meaning of such a 
membership criterion, there was no question of 
anyone opposing it. However, it is significant 
that the sole opposition to this came from Sunder 
Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh). At a meeting convened 
in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference 
was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari 
Vajpayee on behalf of the Jan Sangh and the RSS, 
stating that a section of leaders of the proposed 
party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be 
raised in connection with membership of the 
Janata Party. But several leaders told me that no 
such assurances were given because the RSS was 
nowhere in the picture at the time when the idea 
of a merger of opposition political parties was 
mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison at 
the time and even if there was some secret 
understanding, I had no part in it.

I can categorically assert that the election 
manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any way 
reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each 
point in the manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is 
it not a fact that the manifesto of the Janata 
Party spoke of a socialist society based on 
secular, democratic and Gandhian principles and 
in which there was no mention of Hindu Rashtra? 
The manifesto also assured the minorities equal 
citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their 
rights. In contrast, Guruji wanted to deny equal 
citizenship rights to the minorities and wanted 
them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu 
Rashtra. The Janata Party was committed to 
decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore 
proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish 
separate states, abolish state legislatures and 
ministries while the Janata Party emphasised the 
need for greater decentralisation. In other 
words, the Janata Party had no desire to snatch 
away the autonomy of states. The manifesto spoke 
of socialism, social justice and equality. Did 
the manifesto state that it upholds the caste 
system? Did it maintain that the Sudras' duty was 
to devote their life in the service of others? On 
the contrary, the manifesto not only promised 
that the backward castes would have full 
opportunity to progress, it pledged special 
policies for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for 
them in government jobs.

Yes, it is true that members of the RSS did not 
genuinely accept the provisions of the party's 
election manifesto. It was my contention and I 
had once even complained in writing to Kushabhau 
Thakre that during discussions you people (RSS, 
Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you 
at heart totally disagree with. That is why your 
motives are suspect. I wrote this letter to him a 
long time ago and I have always had doubts about 
the RSS. I have had these doubts since 
Doctorsaheb's time (Dr Ram Manohar Lohia died in 
1967). But despite this, the fact remains that to 
fight dictatorship we entered into a political 
alliance with them.

Since it was Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji's desire that 
all parties should merge for a united opposition 
to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did 
not make any compromises, I consented to our 
coming together. At the same time, I would like 
to say that from the beginning I was very clear 
in my mind that to emerge as a unified and a 
credible body the Janata Party would have to do 
two things. One, the RSS would have to change its 
ideology and accept the ideal of a secular 
democratic state. Two, the various organisations 
that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the 
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi 
Parishad, would have to dissolve themselves and 
merge with the secular-minded trade union and 
student wings of the Janata Party. I was very 
clear about this from the beginning and as the 
Janata Party had given me the responsibility to 
manage the affairs of its trade union and student 
wings, it was my consistent attempt throughout to 
ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad and the 
Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate 
existence.

But these people started insisting on their 
autonomy. In fact, these organisations always 
function on the dictates of Nagpur (RSS 
headquarters), they believe in the one leader 
principle. Take, for example, Guruji himself. 
Guruji maintained that they create a mind-set 
which is totally disciplined and where people 
accept whatever they tell them. This organisation 
operates on a single principle: one leader. They 
do not believe in democracy, they have no faith 
in discussions and debate. They have no economic 
policy. For example, in his Bunch of Thoughts, 
Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition 
of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was 
deeply saddened, deeply disturbed by the 
abolition of the zamindari system. But he felt no 
compassion for the poor.

I told members of the RSS that you must abandon 
your ideal of organising Hindus alone and find a 
place for people of all religions within your 
organisation, that you must merge your different 
class-based organisations with those of the 
Janata Party. They responded by saying that this 
could not be done so soon, that there were very 
many difficulties involved but they did want to 
change, bit by bit. They continued to give such 
evasive replies.

From their behaviour I concluded that they had no 
intention of changing. Especially after the 
assembly elections of June 1977, when they 
managed to gain power in four states and one 
union territory, after which they began to think 
that with this newly acquired clout they had no 
need to change. Now that they had already 
captured four states, they would gradually also 
gain control of other states and finally even the 
centre. The leaders of other political parties in 
the Janata Party were older leaders who would not 
live long; and they would ensure that no younger 
(non-RSS, non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the 
top.

As is evident from the pages of the Organiser and 
Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and 
Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata 
Party leader who is not from their parivar. I, of 
course, was their special favourite, the target 
of special attention. They probably devoted more 
column space to abusing me than they did even for 
Mrs Indira Gandhi.

For a protracted period I persisted in dialogue 
with these people. I recall an occasion when 
Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) 
visited me at my residence in Mumbai. 
Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971 
polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule 
once before the emergency. On the fourth 
occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and Madhavrao 
Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim 
that I made no attempt to talk to them. But I 
finally reached the conclusion that they have 
closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.

On the contrary, the RSS specialises in casting 
young minds in a particular mould from a very 
young age. The first thing they do is 'freeze' 
the minds of children and of youth, making them 
impervious. After this they are rendered 
incapable of responding to other ideas.

Still, I tried. On one occasion I convened a 
meeting of all trade union leaders. The 
representatives of all constituents of the Janata 
Party attended but the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh 
boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they hurled 
abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar 
efforts were made with the Vidyarthi Parishad and 
the Yuva Morcha but despite all attempts at a 
merger, they held aloof. This is only because of 
the RSS' desire to function as a "super party".

Their aim is not only to enter into every aspect 
of people's life but also to control it. In an 
article written for The Indian Express around 
that time, George Fernandes used the example of 
Dattopant Thengdi to make the same point. Thengdi 
responded by saying that the RSS intended to have 
all of society under its sway, it would leave no 
aspect of a person's life untouched, it would 
establish its hegemony in every department of 
life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. 
Similar views have been repeatedly asserted by 
Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood Defined, as 
also in Bunch of Thoughts. No totalitarian 
organisation allows any space for freedom, its 
tentacles reach everywhere: art, music, economy, 
culture. This is the essence of any fascist 
organisation.

The fact is that the RSS wanted to capture the 
Janata Party and through it to take control of 
the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously 
dangled the carrot of the prime minister's chair 
before several Janata Party leaders. On the one 
hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the 
end that he was their choice for prime minister. 
Every now and then they would promise Choudhary 
Charan Singh that they would support his claim to 
be prime minister. Concurrently, they kept giving 
similar assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan 
Ram and George Fernandes. Not once did they dare 
to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly 
mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, "Why you, 
Nanaji (Deshmukh) has never made me such a 
promise either. They want neither you nor me as 
prime minister." Anyway, they never made any such 
suggestion to me, knowing only too well that I 
would not deny others their due nor would I allow 
others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you 
can't fool this man so what's the point of 
promising him anything - it will only make him 
(Limaye) even more cautious.

What these people (the RSS) do on the odd 
occasion is however of little importance. Has the 
RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji's 
way of thinking? Only Atalji says that we should 
all accept the principles of composite 
nationalism, democracy, socialism, social 
justice, etc because we cannot move forward 
without them in today's world. But Atalji is the 
only one who says this. I do not trust the other 
sanghis. These people pleaded for pardon while in 
prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated Indira 
Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour 
in the Raj Narain case. So I have no faith in the 
utterances of these people. I am of the firm 
belief that I could only have trusted these 
people (erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata 
Party) if they had ousted RSS leaders from the 
party, expelled them from the working committee, 
placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in 
particular, expelled people like Nanaji Deshmukh, 
Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from the party.

(Translated by Javed Anand.)

(May 1 marks the 31st anniversary of the united 
Janata Party and also the 86th birth anniversary 
of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu 
Limaye. The above piece, penned by Limaye soon 
after the split in the Janata Party, was 
published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. 
Though dated, many of the issues he raises in the 
article are relevant even today.)


_______


[5]

The Hindu
May 07, 2008


JUDICIARY SHOULD GO FOR TRANSPARENCY, NOT SECRECY

by Suchi Pande, Nikhil Dey and Aruna Roy

There are several instances where the Indian 
judicial establishment has tried to dilute the 
applicability of RTI to the courts and the 
judicial system. No matter what the issue, the 
penultimate interpretation lies with the courts, 
and RTI is no exception.

The RTI Act draws inspiration from proactive 
judicial pronouncements on the citizens' right to 
know

The Chief Justice of India, as the high priest of 
the legal system, must uphold the RTI Act

The judiciary can only occupy the high moral 
ground it often claims by setting an example

The recent statements by the Chief Justice of 
India (CJI) that his is a Constitutional office 
and therefore exempt from the Right to 
Information (RTI) Act, has justifiably drawn much 
criticism. Long before the RTI Act came into 
effect in 2005, it was the Supreme Court of India 
that had laid the grounds for opening up the acts 
of government and its functionaries to the 
people. In 1975 in the State of U.P. vs Raj 
Narain case for instance, the Supreme Court held 
: "In a government of responsibility like ours, 
where all the agents of the public must be 
responsible for their conduct, there can be but 
few secrets. The people of this country have a 
right to know every public act, everything that 
is done in a public way, by their 
functionariesŠThe right to know, which is derived 
from the concept of freedom of speech, though not 
absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, 
when secrecy is claimed for transactions which 
can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public 
security. To cover with veil of secrecy, the 
common routine business is not in the interest of 
public."

Not an isolated comment

The statement of the Chief Justice is in any case 
not supported by the law and the intent of 
parliament, which is perhaps why the Speaker of 
the Lok Sabha chose to make public his 
disagreement with the Chief Justice on this 
matter. The RTI Act was created to give Indian 
citizens access to information held by any public 
authority. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, 
defines a public authority as "any authority or 
body or institution of self government 
established or constituted by or under the 
ConstitutionŠ" Even if as reported, the Chief 
Justice prefers to see himself as a 
constitutional authority, and not a public 
servant, all constitutional authorities are also 
public authorities as defined in the Act. 
Unfortunately, the statement of the Chief Justice 
is not an isolated comment. Ever since the RTI 
Act came into force, there are several instances 
where the Indian judicial establishment has tried 
to dilute the applicability of RTI to the courts 
and the judicial system.

The irony is that this act draws much inspiration 
and legitimacy from proactive judicial 
pronouncements on the citizens' right to know. In 
fact the first draft of the Act was formulated by 
a committee, chaired by a former Judge of the 
Supreme Court - Justice P.B. Savant, as Chairman 
of the Press Council of India in 1996. The Act as 
it stands today owes its basic principal 
formulations to that committee. The Indian 
judiciary has an honourable history of being able 
to view its constitutional obligation as 
fundamental to its functioning. It is most 
unfortunate that the Supreme Court, which in its 
past judgments has laid down the basis for a 
citizen's right to know (in State of U.P. vs Raj 
Narain, 1975) and upheld the right to information 
as a fundamental right (in S.P. Gupta vs the 
Union on India, 1982); is now being seen as 
backtracking from its own leading role, and in 
many cases taking an adversarial position.

Within months of the passage of the RTI Act, the 
Supreme Court tried to insulate itself from the 
Right to Information Act. It reportedly first 
sought a blanket exemption from the Act. That did 
not succeed, but subsequently various High Courts 
and the Supreme Court, have drafted rules that 
not only violate the letter and spirit of the RTI 
Act, but threaten to defeat the fundamental 
purpose of the Act to ensure transparency and 
accountability in government functioning.

Exorbitant application fees

Many High Courts for instance have fixed 
exorbitant application fees under the RTI. The 
Delhi High Court has refused to divulge 
information on appointments of class 3 and class 
4 officers in its offices, taking recourse to 
rules that prohibit disclosure of information on 
administrative and financial matters. Recently 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected an RTI 
application seeking information on pendency of 
cases (including writs) in the High Court and the 
number of cases remanded by the Supreme Court for 
rehearing and/or expeditious disposal. The PIO of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in rejected the 
application on the grounds that "the information 
specified under section 8 of the RTI and shall 
not be disclosed and made availableŠ which is not 
in the public domain or does not relate to 
judicial functions and duties of the court and 
matters incidental or ancillary thereto." The 
rules of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are in 
violation of the RTI Act as the quoted exemption 
is absent from the relevant exemption section 
(section 8) of the RTI Act.

Progressive orders stayed

The Judiciary has taken advantage of general 
atmosphere of opaqueness and non-accountability, 
in the other wings of government, in dragging its 
feet about its own transparency issues. There is 
a sense that no matter what the issue, the 
penultimate interpretation lies with the courts, 
and RTI is no exception. With notable exceptions, 
many progressive orders of the Information 
Commissions have been stayed by various high 
courts. The courts have also raised objections 
about the locus standi of the Information 
Commissions and their power as independent 
appellate authorities to direct the Courts in 
dispensing information as per the provisions of 
the Act. If the judiciary is so persistent in 
exempting itself, is it not logical to fear that 
it may undermine the implementation of the RTI 
Act in the other wings of government?

It is even more surprising that the statements of 
the CJI come in the light of a request for 
information regarding the disclosure of 
information pertaining to judges' assets. 
Corruption is a matter of concern no matter where 
it may occur. It is not the first time the CJI 
has expressed his preference for secrecy over 
transparency in refusing to divulge information 
pertaining to judges' assets. In 2007 in an 
interview to a television news channel the CJI 
said that no self-respecting judge would accept 
the idea of a compulsory declaration of assets. 
Last week the CJI, in response to an RTI 
application, once again refused to reveal details 
of judges' assets stating that the information 
was not available with the Supreme Court 
registry. This denial is contrary to the 
resolution adopted in a full court meeting in 
1997 attended by 22 judges, which provided for 
the declaration of assets by judges to the CJI of 
the Court and a similar declaration by the CJI 
for the purpose of record. It is also contrary to 
its own ruling in 2003 requiring all electoral 
candidates including Members of Parliament, to 
disclose their assets.

A step forward

In a democracy all institutions, including the 
judiciary, must be transparent and accountable. 
Transparency in judicial functioning and 
accountability for judicial actions and inactions 
inspire public faith and confidence in the 
institution. The lack of stringent in house 
accountability and transparency mechanisms has 
allowed the judiciary to keep itself free from 
regular public scrutiny. The Right to Information 
Act is a step forward towards opening a closed 
and secretive judicial system. The preamble of 
the Act specifically states that India is a 
democratic republic and in a democracy an 
"informed citizenry and transparency of 
informationŠ are vital to its functioning and 
also to contain corruption and to hold 
Governments and their instrumentalities 
accountable". The Chief Justice of India, as the 
high priest of the legal system, must uphold the 
RTI Act and realise that no institution can be 
considered credible and inspire public confidence 
unless it is open and transparent. The judiciary 
can only occupy the high moral ground it often 
claims, by setting an example, and leading from 
the frontlines of transparency; not by hiding 
behind the veil of secrecy.

(The authors are RTI activists.)


______


[6]

THE MAOIST SPECTRE HIDES UNHOLY NEXUS OF CORRUPTION

by Dipankar Gupta
(Mail Today, 7 May 2008)

THE more things look the same the more they are 
different! Maoism today hardly bears any 
resemblance with Maoism of the 1960s and 1970s. 
In fact, except for the term, " Maoism" there is 
little in common between Maoism then and now. In 
fact, had they been historical contemporaries, 
they would have been busy annihilating each other 
most of the time. In the 1960s when Maoism 
affected huge chunks of village India where 
peasant, landlord and bania lived, the government 
of the day played down its significance. Today, 
when Maoism is only a fringe affair and present 
largely in tribal areas, the government of the 
day ( led by Congress or BJP) exaggerates its 
significance. From Rahul Gandhi to the Prime 
Minister there are calls for help to contain 
Maoism as it might mutate and migrate from tribal 
India to the rest of the country. The fact is 
that Maoism is practically non- existent in 
peasant India today. In the 1960s it was the 
exploitative relations between landlord and 
tenant that fuelled most Maoist violence. But in 
contemporary India there are neither landlords 
nor tenants, but a mass of small owner- 
cultivators. As these farmers are barely able to 
scratch the soil for their own subsistence, the 
very notion of class war in the countryside is 
unthinkable. This is why old fashioned Maoism 
withered away and became history in peasant India.

Robbers
Maoism today is said to thrive in tribal regions 
of the country. In these forested tracts mainline 
administrative presence has been traditionally 
weak for nobody cared to go there. At its best, 
this new Maoism fights for tribal rights over 
forest produce, but that is when it is at its 
best. But when it is not in shining armour, which 
is most of the time, Maoism is all about 
extortion and high level corruption. This aspect 
of 21st century Maoism has rarely been commented 
upon for a number of reasons, most of which flow 
from different shades of political correctness. 
This is why the nexus between Maoists, 
contractors and bureaucrats has gone unnoticed in 
public consciousness. The fear of Maoism has 
helped cement a high opaque wall behind which 
corrupt business and corrupt bureaucrats have a 
free hand to do just about anything they want. 
The rest of India is in the dark on such matters 
as nobody dare take on the Maoists. This 
effectively seals off any real surveillance 
leaving bureaucrats and contractors to do as they 
please under Maoist protection. This is the real 
problem today in many so- called Maoist 
districts, most notably in the states of 
Jharkhand and Bihar. The contractors operating in 
these tribal areas would make the robber barons 
of yore look like Narayan Murthy. And yet their 
connection with the conniving administrators 
draws little notice because they both prosper 
under the cover the Maoists provide. As Maoism 
thrives in areas where the peasant, babu and 
merchant population is either absent or only 
nominally present, there are a hundred blank 
power spots ready for capture. This is why a 
determined band of activists, under whatever 
name, finds it easier to claim control over some 
of these geographical regions. We must remember 
that the tribal belt of India that cuts a huge 
swathe from the north east to the south west has 
not only been exploited in recent history but 
also in pre- history. Against this backdrop it is 
quite natural to expect well meaning members of 
the general public to advocate for a more 
sympathetic understanding of Maoists. This is why 
when Rahul Gandhi visited Bastar district in 
Chhatisgarh he argued that if Maoism is thriving 
in these tribal pockets it is because the tribals 
are poor and have nowhere else to turn but to 
political extremism. While all of this is true, 
it is only a partial truth. Because it is a 
partial truth it conceals more than it reveals. 
What is kept from view is that merchants, 
bureaucrats and Maoists are in it together. If 
the tribal is left holding the shorter end of the 
stick it is because this unholy trinity is at 
work. In Jharkhand, for example, there are many 
junior officials who do not want to be 
transferred from the socalled Maoist areas. It is 
often whispered that there is a premium to be 
posted in Latehar, Lohardaga or Palamau 
districts. It is also acknowledged in some 
administrative circles that many of these 
officials do not take leave that they are 
entitled to either. Some have left their wives 
and children in Ranchi or Jamshedpur, but 
continue to stand by their posts in these alleged 
Maoist regions quite cheerfully.

Jharkhand
While this can be commended as a kind of gallant 
" boy- stood- on- theburning- deck" syndrome, is 
it possible that there is only low self- interest 
at work? Are these circle officers and 
subdivisional officers making sure that they 
always remain a part of the corruption that takes 
place in the areas under their charge by 
spreading the fear of Maoism? In Jharkhand, as in 
many other tribal regions, all kinds of 
extractive enterprises are at work in full steam. 
None of this would have been possible if 
government officials were not covering up for 
them with the help of Maoists. The threat of this 
dreaded political outfit not only excuses 
administrative inaction, but also keeps people 
from getting to know the heights to which low 
level corruption can reach in India's tribal 
belt. The police and administration are not doing 
too badly by taking advantage of the Maoist 
threat. According to the Jharkhand Development 
Report the police personnel strength has risen by 
175 per cent between 2002 and 2005. Security 
related expenditures too have shot up from Rs. 80 
crore to Rs. 100 crore in the last two years. The 
expenditure heads for this amount is also 
usefully vague. Nobody really knows what it means 
to conduct " propaganda" nor how to go about " 
securing durable assets," and yet substantial 
sums are allocated for these purposes. 
Ostensibly, Maoism today is all about chasing the 
outsiders away. The truth, however, is that in 
most of the acknowledged Maoist affected 
districts of Jharkhand and Bihar, the hated 
contractor would not have done so well without 
the presence of Maoists. There has been a show of 
revamping the police to tackle Maoists, but the 
much talked of Police Modernisation drive in 
Jharkhand, for example, only involves some blocks 
of Chatra and Palamau districts, leaving the rest 
of the state virtually untouched. The most 
inhibiting factor in bringing about far reaching 
administrative reform is the collaborative 
interests involving corrupt officials, 
contractors and Maoists. This is why the 
offensive against Maoism should begin by 
attacking the administrative personnel in these 
trouble- torn regions. As they say in the boxing 
world: attack the head and the body will fall. As 
far as forest produce goes some caution needs to 
be displayed before we come out with the standard 
argument that tribals are being forcibly robbed 
of their natural wealth. In Jharkhand it is quite 
common to see a line of tribals struggling up the 
hilly slopes carrying chopped logs of Sal on the 
carrier of their bicycles. To fell trees in this 
fashion, and that too Sal, is clearly illegal, 
but tribals are doing it freely for they can sell 
the wood to timber merchants who are protected by 
Maoists.

Violence
Then there are occasions when thieves fall out. 
One set of officials, contractors and Maoists get 
into a hostile relationship with another set. 
That is when guns blaze, police stations are 
looted, and people in general hide for cover. 
These instances are then printed and broadcast as 
incidents of Maoist violence. But in spite of all 
this gunfire only five policemen were reportedly 
killed in all of 2007 in Jharkhand. Were the 
Maoists playing with water pistols? That we 
should listen to the tribals is incontrovertible. 
Doubtless, they are being exploited by 
contractors. Yet, it is also true that these 
contractors are running effective operations in a 
state like Jharkhand because they are in league 
with the Maoists. Without the Maoist presence 
these contractor brigands would not have dared to 
indulge in the kind of extortionate activities 
they specialise in. But with the Maoists in their 
corner they are home and secure. Angry words from 
the Prime Minister or Rahul Gandhi will hardly 
frighten them into throwing in the towel.

The author teaches sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University


______


[7] India: MF Hussain & Freedom of Expression: The court cases dismissed

(i) STATEMENT BY SAHMAT

SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001
Telephone-23711276/ 23351424
e-mail: sahmat at vsnl.com

9.5.2008


The artists community welcomes the Delhi High 
Court ruling dismissing three criminal cases 
against the painter M.F. Husain for the supposed 
crime of obscenity. The court has in our 
perception, upheld the right to artistic creation 
and decisively quashed efforts at censorship 
through street violence and orchestrated legal 
action by politically motivated groups. The court 
has importantly, held that there was no intent on 
the part of the artist to cause offence. 
Obscenity in this reading, is in the eyes of the 
viewer. And a difference in perspective cannot be 
the basis of criminal charges.

We note that despite an earlier ruling from the 
higher judiciary holding the criminal charges 
against India's greatest living painter 
thoroughly unfounded, the campaign of 
victimization against him for artistic 
productions dating back a quarter century or 
more, has shown no signs of abating. This has 
compelled the 92-year old artist to seek refuge 
in a distant country, rather than risk the 
possibility of arrest on the orders of some 
over-zealous police official.

We note that police in Mumbai went so far on a 
recent occasion, to order the sealing of 
residential premises owned by Husain, for failure 
to respond to judicial summons in one such case. 
The possibility that an old and distinguished 
artist could be subject to the ignominy of 
summary arrest and prolonged detention, was very 
real.

Despite the ruling of the Delhi High Court, we 
observe with concern, that because of procedural 
complications, four cases are still pending 
against the artist in the Sessions Court at 
Patiala House in Delhi, on virtually identical 
charges. We call upon the judicial authorities 
concerned to recognize the value of the precedent 
set in the Delhi High Court ruling and to deal 
with all pending complaints against Husain 
accordingly. We call upon the Union Home Ministry 
to heed the principles laid down in the Delhi 
High Court ruling - that differences in 
perspective cannot be the basis of criminal 
complaints - and to intervene accordingly in the 
pending cases.

Having been active in the defence of Husain for 
many years, through public meetings, petitions, 
symposia and appeals to constitutional 
authorities like the President and the Home 
Minister, we feel our stand that Husain's art is 
a part of a longstanding evolving tradition of 
Indian iconography has been vindicated.

Ram Rahman
For SAHMAT

o o o

(ii)

The Hindu
May 10, 2008

Editorial

AN END TO HUSAIN'S TRAVAILS

By quashing the proceedings in three cases 
against M.F. Husain, the Delhi High Court has 
sent a strong message against cultural bigotry 
and moral vigilantism. The order provides a 
measure of welcome relief for India's most 
celebrated painter, who has suffered terribly at 
the hands of rank communalists and a criminal 
justice system that failed to factor in the utter 
ludicrousness of his so-called offence. Mr. 
Husain has been living in self-imposed exile in 
Dubai since 2006, thanks to a vicious and 
orchestrated campaign by right-wing groups, which 
charged him with offending religious sentiments 
through paintings that insulted Bharat Mata 
(Mother India) and Hindu gods and goddesses. The 
92-year-old artist was threatened, his Cuffe 
Parade residence in Mumbai was ransacked, and 
exhibitions of his paintings were vandalised. As 
if this weren't enough, the harassment spilled 
over into the legal sphere with lower courts 
taking cognisance of what were clearly frivolous 
complaints, resulting in a chain of events - a 
proclamation declaring the painter an 'absconder' 
and an order to attach his Cuffe Parade 
residence, not to speak of the many non-bailable 
warrants.

In observing that frivolous and vexatious 
complaints that affect the freedom of an 
individual should be scrutinised strictly at the 
magisterial level, the Delhi High Court was 
echoing the Supreme Court which, in a series of 
judgments, has cautioned lower courts from taking 
cognisance of them reflexively. In its 192nd 
report, the Law Commission recommended the 
enactment of a law to prevent the filing of such 
litigations (civil and criminal); the Commission 
framed a model Act by drawing upon laws in force 
in countries such as Britain, Australia, and 
Canada that deal very firmly with vexatious 
litigants. Orders such as the one passed by the 
Delhi High Court are a good precedent and will 
act as a check on lower courts, which - instead 
of upholding freedom of expression - have tended 
to be extremely accommodating of frivolous 
complaints. A recent case that made international 
headlines related to Richard Gere; the Supreme 
Court had to step in to quash the arrest warrant 
issued against the famous Hollywood actor for 
pecking Indian actress Shilpa Shetty on the cheek 
at a public function in New Delhi. Four more 
cases, which were registered in different parts 
of the country and transferred to a lower court 
in Delhi, survive against Mr. Husain. They are in 
different stages of the legal process but are 
similar inasmuch as they relate to the same tired 
and hollow controversy over the obscenity of his 
paintings. They would hopefully meet the same 
legal fate - a firm and forthright quashing.


______



[8] Announcements:

(i)  "BREAD, NOT BOMB" - Pakistan Peace Coalition 
campaign against 'Arms' Race' in South Asia

---From Adam Malik
Saturday, May 10, 2008

Civil society organizations, peace activists, 
human rights groups, trade unions, peasants and 
farmers' organizations have decided to launch a 
people's mobilization campaign against 'Arms' 
Race' in South Asia. The campaign will start on 
May 11th the day India experienced the atomic 
explosion and May 28th the day Pakistan 
experienced the atomic explosion. During 
deliberation participants will focus on resources 
spent on weapons and wars instead of food, 
especially in the time when reports are being 
received on food crises all over the world 
including South Asia. The theme of the campaign 
is "BREAD, NOT BOMB".

Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) is a group of 
different civil society organizations, trade 
unions, peasants and farmers' organizations, 
human rights activists and individual 
professionals and activists. PPC is organizing 
following activities all over Sindh.

Karachi: Seminar will be held on May 11th at 
4.00pm in PMA House, Garden Road, Karachi. Ms. 
Zahida Hina, Dr. Tipu Sultan, Dr. S. Jaffer Ahmad 
and Mr. Karamat Ali will be the key speakers.

Khairpur Mirs': From 13th to 16th May painting 
competition will be held among girls and boys 
students of primary schools in Union Council 
Layari of District Khairpur on the theme BREAD, 
Not BOMB[s].

Khairpur Mirs': Peace Conference will be held on 
May 17 in Khairpur at 11.00am. On The day 
paintings will be exhibited in the conference and 
winner students will be awarded. At the evening 
sufi Music will be held at the Dargah of Sachal 
Sarmast at Daraza Sharif. On the occasion the 
sufi singers will sing the poetry for peace and 
harmony by Sachal. All the participants of 
conference will attend the occasion.

Khipro: On May 22nd Peace March in Khipro, 
followed by Sufi Music at the Dargah of Manthar 
Faqeer Rajar

Hyderabad: On May 27th Candle Light March will be 
held in Hyderabad at 5.00pm from Hyder chowk to 
Press Club

Shahdadkot: On May 27th Peace March and Street 
Theatre will be held in Shahdadkot at 11.00am.

Hyderabad: On May 28th PPC and Sindh Democratic 
Forum will organize the Peace conference in 
Hyderabad.

Further to Say that different organizations and 
groups are organizing seminars, walks, demos in 
Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, Islamabad and other 
cities during the period from May 11th to May 
28th 2008.


o o o


(ii)  INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST FOR DR. 
BINAYAK SEN  MAY 13/14, 2008 - APPEAL AND PROTEST 
LOCATIONS

On May 13th, 2008 Dr. Binayak Sen, an activist 
with a lifelong commitment to the issues of 
community health and human rights, will
complete one year of unjust imprisonment at the 
Raipur Central jail in Chhattisgarh.

Dr. Sen has devoted his life to providing 
healthcare to some of the most marginalized 
sections of society. Setting up the unique Shaheed
Hospital, the community-driven work of Rupantar 
and through his involvement with Jan Swasthya 
Abhiyan - the Indian circle of the
People's Health Movement, Dr. Sen has made 
healthcare available to people who have been 
ignored by government or private health systems.
This year, Dr. Sen has been awarded the Jonathan 
Mann award for public health and human rights.

As the State Secretary of People's Union for 
Civil Liberties (PUCL) of Chhattisgarh and the 
national Vice President, Dr. Sen has uncovered 
human rights violations by the state and other 
armed groups. He has highlighted starvation 
deaths, dysentery epidemics, poor conditions of 
under-trial prisoners, custodial deaths and extra 
judicial killings.

Dr. Sen has also worked on the issues of right to 
food, work, health and education. He has been 
amongst the most vocal opponents of Salwa Judum, 
a private militia widely thought to be a 
government anti-insurgency effort to combat 
Maoists - that has contributed to a spiraling 
increase in violence and displaced thousands of 
indigenous people in the area. Even the Supreme 
Court of India has issued a strong disapproval of 
the Salwa Judum, citing concerns similar to those 
raised by Dr. Sen.

On May 14, 2007 Dr. Sen was arrested in Raipur 
under the repressive Chhattisgarh Special Public 
Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA) and the Unlawful 
Activities (Prevention) Act 2004 (UAPA) on 
charges of sedition, conspiracy to wage war 
against the state and conspiracy to commit other 
offences. The continuing detention of an activist 
committed to non-violence and social justice is a 
mockery of justice itself. His trial began on 
April 30th, 2008 after a year of imprisonment 
without trial or bail including a cruel spell of 
solitary confinement.

In another instance of state repression on May 5, 
2008, the Chhattisgarh police arrested Ajay TG 
under the CSPSA who is also a PUCL human rights 
activist, an independent film-maker and the 
director of a school for slum children.

Dr. Sen and Ajay are victims to an increasing 
trend of arresting human rights activists in 
India for challenging state authority. Lachit 
Bordoloi, a human rights activist from Assam; 
Prashant Rahi, a journalist from Uttarakhand; 
Govindan Kutty, a journalist from Kerala; Praful 
Jha, a journalist from Chhattisgarh; Vernon 
Gonsalves, an activist from Nasik; Arun Ferreira, 
Ashok Reddy, Dhanendra Bhurule, Naresh Bansode, 
activists from Vidarbha have all been charged 
under the UAPA and kept under prolonged detention 
without bail.

Join us on May 13 at 12:30 pm outside the Indian Consulate to:
.       Protest the unjust arrests of human  rights activists
.       Demand an end to undemocratic and repressive legislations such as
the CSPSA and UAPA
.       Oppose the use of private militias to repress people's movements
.       Express solidarity with political prisoners in India and elsewhere
in the world.

Simultaneous protests are being organized at Indian consulates and
embassies across the world. Please join the NYC action at:
INDIAN CONSULATE
3 East 64th Street
(Between 5th and Madison Avenues),
New York, NY 10065

Subway: N/R/W to 5th Avenue-59th Street, or F to Lexington
Avenue-63rd Street

For more information,  contact:or details contact:
Ashwini: akrao_nyc at yahoo.com
Or Murli: mnatrajan at yahoo.com

+

http://www.aidboston.org/FreeBinayakSen/actions.htm

Known protest locations outside India

You can attend a local event in your city for the 
one year anniversary of the unjust detension of 
Dr. Binayak Sen.

Baltimore/JHU: Talk on Dr. Binayak Sen followed 
by signature campaign. May 13th, 2008 (1:30 to 
2:30 pm) School of Public Health [Contact Email : 
Manjunath - mshankar at jhsph.edu or 952-201-8679]

Boston: Vigil @ Harvard Square on May 13, 2008 
(7pm)  [Contact Email: freebsen at gmail.com]

Houston/Dallas: Stay Tuned.

London: Vigil in front of Indian High Commission 
on May 13, 2008 from 1-3pm.  [Contact Email: sasg 
at southasiasolidarity.org]

New York: Protest in front of Indian Consulate on 
May 13, 2008 (12:30pm).  [Contact Emails: 
Ashwini: akr7 at columbia.edu or Murli: mnatrajan 
at yahoo.com]

Paris: Meet with the Indian Consulate staff to 
voice concerns and deliver petitions on May 13, 
2008. [Contact Email: Sapna - sapnamg at 
gmail.com]

Philadelphia: Candle light vigil @ 40th and 
Locust street field on May 13, 2008 (7:30). 
[Contact Email: AID.Philadelphia at gmail.com]

Pittsburgh: Candlelight Vigil @ Church of the 
Redeemer, 5700 Forbes Avenue on May 13, 2008 
(7:30pm)  [Contact Email: maryganguli at 
yahoo.com or sparun at gmail.com]

San Francisco: Supporters of Dr. Binayak Sen will 
protest in front of the Consulate General of 
India, 540, Arguello Blvd. San Francisco, CA 
94118 at 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008. 
[Contact Email: mail at friendsofsouthasia.org]

Stockholm: Meet with the Indian Consulate staff 
to voice concerns and deliver petitions on May 
13, 2008. [Contact Email: Pradyumna - 
pradyumna.singh at gmail.com]

Vancouver: Protest action at the Indian Consulate 
in Vancouver on May 14th, 2008. [Contact Email: 
Hari Sharma of SANSAD - sansad at sansad.org]

Washington DC: Protest in front of Indian 
Embassy, 2107 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20008 on May 13, 2008 (4pm). 
[Contact: Somu @ 703-728-8987 or Somu at 
aidindia.org]

o o o

(3)  Upcoming International Women in Asia 
Conference at the University of Queensland from 
29 September to 1 October 2008

Dear Colleagues

The ASAA Ninth International Women in Asia 
Conference will be held at the University of 
Queensland from 29 September to 1 October 2008. 
The conference will feature an Emerging 
Researchers Showcase at which some of the best 
early career researchers working on women and 
gender in Asia will present their work. The 
Emerging Researchers Showcase has been made 
possible with funding from the ARC-Asia Pacific 
Futures Research Network. Nominations for the 
Emerging Researchers Showcase are invited from 
early career researchers who have been awarded 
their PhD degree in the last five years. Closing 
date for nominations is 20 May 2008.. Full 
details are in the attached flyer. I would be 
grateful if you would draw the attention of your 
junior colleagues, recent PhD graduates and 
contacts in the Asia region to this opportunity. 
We also hope that many of you will be able to 
join us in Brisbane in September.

For details  of the conference, please visit the 
conference website via the Women in Asia 
Conference link on the School of Languages and 
Comparative Cultural Studies homepage 
http://www.arts.uq.edu.au/slccs/ or contact us at 
wia at uq.edu.au.

For the organising committee
Associate Professor Helen Creese
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies
University of Queensland
QLD. AUSTRALIA 4072


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

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