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 agesIt 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
functionariesThe 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
Constitution" 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 available 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
information 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