SACW | June 4, 2008 /
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Tue Jun 3 20:14:29 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | June 4 , 2008 | Dispatch No. 2518 - Year 10 running
[1] Pakistan: Unmaking of the state (Adil Zareef)
[2] Sri Lanka: The media at a time of war (groundviews)
[3] Nepal: Mount Neverest (Harsh Mander)
[4] India: Article Writing Equals Sedition ? (Subhash Gatade)
[5] India: Speak, freedom (Tarunabh Khaitan)
[6] India - 10 years after Pokharan II: Saying no to nukes (Praful Bidwai)
[7] India: Statement to the commission of inquiry
Re. communal violence in Kandhamal, Orissa
[8] Kashmir Cantata - Junoon's concert in Srinagar (Namrata Joshi)
[9] Pakistan: "Bread, not Bomb" a Peace rally in Hyderabad
[10] Book Review: 'Roti Kapra aur Makan by
Krishan Chander' (Reviewed by Syeda Saleha)
______
[1]
Dawn
June 3, 2008
UNMAKING OF THE STATE
by Adil Zareef
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia.
It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an
enigma!" - Winston Churchill
PAKISTAN in this age and time clearly fits this
description. The US prediction that the next 9/11
would come from Fata is no less ominous -
Pakhtunkhwa certainly is in the eye of the storm.
Only last week, the Pak-India Forum for Peace and
Democracy meeting scheduled in Peshawar for May
24-26 was postponed for 'security reasons'. It
had last met in Peshawar in November 1998 in an
altogether different world. There was music and
classical dancing by the Sheema Kermani troupe as
well as panel discussions on diverse issues
between the two rival neighbours. Our world
seemed to be inching towards normality.
Most ordinary folks ask the question: from where
have the Sufi Mohammads, Nek Mohammads, Baitullah
Mehsuds, Fazlullahs, Mangal Baghs, Namdaars and
their ilk suddenly appeared and fortified their
positions, taking the public hostage and
challenging the state? Why do these things not
happen in Punjab where they have Raiwind,
Mansoora and the renowned 'bazaar' alongside the
famous Badshahi mosque? How do the profound and
the profane coexist as their economies thrive?
And here in our land known for centuries for its
peaceful civilisations and syncretism of cultures
there has suddenly emerged the most violent
interpretation of religion threatening to take
the country into the dark ages.
As Swat's tenuous peace holds after a
controversial agreement with the militants,
cynics have termed it a total capitulation of the
traditionally secular ANP and PPP to the
Wahabi-sponsored movement supported by state
intelligence agencies. The argument goes like
this.
The caretaker government led by former Chief
Minister Shams ul Mulk had already prepared the
blueprint of this deal with the establishment's
man, Maulana Sufi Mohammad, who instigated the
insurgency against the state for imposition of
the Islamic system in 1994, and later on led
thousands of gullible Pakhtuns to their deaths in
Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. He was not the
only one who was indemnified for his crimes.
Mullah Fazlullah, another shadowy character, who
sprang into prominence last year after taking the
entire Swat district hostage, also got official
reprieve for his gross violations of human rights
despite the fact that he had inflicted heavy
losses on the provincial economy and
infrastructure. In fact, both men have been
rewarded with this peace agreement.
According to one Swati academic, "The liberal
intelligentsia is pitched against the Taliban
backed by the agencies to enforce Wahabi Sharia
in the entire Malakand division. As a result
there is a stifling silence and suffocating fear.
In fact, Sufi Mohammad never signed the peace
agreement but many others did on his behalf as
Mullah Fazlullah was on a special umrah visit to
Saudi Arabia. Armed vigilantes are defying the
ban on weapons display and still targeting their
opponents."
According to another source, the government made
commitments to the militants some of which have
not been made public. As a result, the militants
have started roaming around freely and are doing
what they had done previously. Very few residents
in Kabal, Kanju, Matta and Mingora are convinced
that militants would abide by the guarantees
given in clauses 3-16 of the agreement.
Talking to the people of Swat, I found that they
resent the fact that a few unrepresentative
hardcore militants should decide their future.
They feel that by acquiescing to the demand for
complete Sharia, the provincial government may
further erode the credibility of the already
vulnerable state institutions. No relief has been
provided to the victims of the upheaval. To fill
in the vacuum left by the destruction of
institutions, a multi-pronged approach with a
comprehensive participatory development plan and
transparent governance is immediately needed.
Both peace and development are essential
components of this deal, which are not yet in
sight.
Closer to Peshawar, in the Khyber Agency, Mangal
Bagh representing the Lashkar-i- Islam is
consolidating his position after eliminating all
opposition. The recent gunning down of several
followers of MNA Noor ul Haq Qadri's relatively
peaceful Qadriya silsila is equally disturbing
with hardcore Taliban backers and notorious drug
barons of the region having openly sided with the
menacing Mangal Bagh brigade. The political
authorities always look the other way.
When the killers of Qadri's men were nabbed by
the authorities, they were immediately freed
within hours through 'high level' contacts.
People living in the area also say that whenever
a new killing spree takes place, the security
personnel conveniently disappear from the scene.
A representative of the Shia Toori tribe in
Parachinar also reported the political
authorities' pressure to give safe passage to the
Taliban into Afghanistan after the peace deal was
struck in Fata.
Banned FM radios go on and off sermonising to the
people on their dress code, religious rituals
etc. The presence of over 200 brand new vehicles
is tolerated by the political authorities and no
action is taken against them. The Lashkar-i-Islam
has virtually taken over Bara tehsil and the
public is subjected to heavy fines for missing a
prayer. Even old men are ducked in water for not
following one Islamic code or another. In fact,
people live under the shadow of intimidation.
For this reason, the ANP-PPP's role has come in
for a lot of flak from opponents for making a
deal with hardcore Islamists. But Dr Minhaj ul
Hasan who heads the history department at the
Peshawar University has another view. He finds
this approach to be in line with
'atamam-i-hujat', which, according to the Quran,
is the last step to avoid a full-scale
catastrophe which is the alternative to this
peace agreement. "If peace fails this time we are
in for big trouble," he remarked.
Dr Fazl ur Rahim, who accompanied Dr Minhaj to
Kabul to participate in the Bacha Khan peace
conference, agreed, saying, "What we gathered
from Nato officials there is worrying. If
Pakistan does not get the Taliban to put their
act together it may not be just pre-emptive
missiles from across the border that we will get
but the total obliteration of Fata and perhaps
more!" he said.
A parody of Sufi poet Rehman Baba's famous lines
is making waves these days, "Da sabab da
jahilanoTalibano - kor au gor au Pekhawar dree
wana yo di!" (On account of the illiterate
Taliban - our homes and graves and Peshawar have
all become synonymous!)
______
[2]
Daily Mirror
June 4, 2008
THE MEDIA AT A TIME OF WAR
During the Second World War the German people
tuned into the BBC for war news rather than their
own radio managed by Goebbels who broadcast war
propaganda as news. People under Communist rule
listened to Radio Free Europe.
Is it important for people in a democracy to know
what the government is doing? Can the media print
or broadcast all information they receive? What
press policy should the military use in wartime?
This is an important issue. The freedom of the
press is guaranteed in any Constitution. If it is
to be curtailed it must be in terms of the
Constitutional provisions.
In USA where there is similar protection for
freedom of the press in the First Amendment the
press filed action in the US Supreme Court when
the Pentagon interfered with the right of the
press to collect and report war news. Some news
organizations filed a lawsuit charging the
military with violating the First Amendment
guarantee of freedom of the press. They argued
that a free press should have access to a war
zone, because the people have a right to know
what is happening. They won the lawsuit. They
argued that the First Amendment's protection of
the free press should not be thrown out.
"People in a free society should decide whether
to go to war, whether to stay at war, and whether
a war is just. To decide, people need information
from a free press, not from a press controlled by
the military. Otherwise, Americans might fight
wars knowing only what the military wants them to
know. And the military might not want people to
know any bad news, anything critical of the
military, or anything that might turn them
against a war. Americans could then find
themselves in the position of citizens in a
military dictatorship-like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
We need to tell the factual story-good or
bad-before others seed the media with
disinformation and distortions, as they most
certainly will continue to do. Our people in the
field need to tell our story-only commanders can
ensure the media get to the story alongside the
troops."
The above sums up the case for freedom of the media during a war.
Debates about freedom of speech and liberty are
ultimately shaped by two contrasting views. Those
who cherish liberty argue that free speech is not
only a democratic right; it is also indispensable
for the clarification of ideas and the conduct of
civilized public life. It is the only barrier to
the manipulation of the people by the government
of the day. From the perspective of an
authoritarian government however, free speech
should not be used to blame the government or
criticize it. Traditionally our ancient rulers
did not stomach criticism of their actions. In
China during the Qing dynasty, people who were
more intelligent and knowledgeable were either
exiled or executed if they spoke out their minds
against the ruler. Even democratic countries have
been tempted to curb fundamental freedoms of the
people in times of war.
When the criticism comes from its political
opponents they consider free speech and
expression as being subversive. The view that too
much freedom is not good was enunciated by the
late Felix Dias Bandaranaike, who was exasperated
by the undisciplined actions of trade unionists
and special interest groups. He called for a
little bit of totalitarianism. But this is to
mistake freedom for license. Some argue that too
many civil rights are somehow inconsistent with
waging a war.
Our liberal democratic values like freedom of the
press are being undermined, because of the
alleged necessity not to undermine the morale of
the armed forces. Has democracy and liberal
values to be sacrificed for the sake of war?
Groundviews
______
[3]
Hindustan Times
June 3, 2008
MOUNT NEVEREST
by Harsh Mander
These are momentous times for the people of
Nepal. Two years ago, in the late spring of 2006,
for 19 exhilarating days, tens of thousands of
Nepali students, farmers and workers surged on to
the streets of Kathmandu - peaceful, resolute and
uncompromising in their demand for the end of
monarchy. The Rhododendron Revolution, as it came
to be known, has culminated two years later with
notice to the last monarch after 240 years of the
reign of the Shah dynasty to vacate the palace,
and the metamorphosis of a Hindu kingdom into a
secular republic.
The same people's power again unexpectedly
asserted itself, when it elected through the
ballot, for the first time anywhere in the world,
a Maoist revolutionary party with a still
standing 'people's army'. Not many observers had
anticipated the wave of popular support for a
party that was leading an armed insurgency since
1996. Political commentator Kanak Dixit sees the
vote for the Maoists as fuelled by the
aspirations of youth, and of the silenced and
suppressed minorities - by caste, ethnicity and
class - disenfranchised by all earlier regimes,
regardless of whether they were democratically
elected, monarchic or panchayats. But the
turbulent Maoist insurrection has left a bloody
trail of an estimated 14,000 deaths, the economy
virtually stopped growing, and impoverished
people fled the mountains and plains in droves as
they found themselves not only in hopeless
poverty but caught in the crossfire between the
royal and insurgent armies.
The unexpected popular mandate to the Maoists to
lead (in collaboration with the Congress and
Marxist parties) not just the new republican
government but also the Constituent Assembly to
frame the Constitution of the newly born
republic, has raised critically important debates
about the legitimacy of violence for political
transformation that both resonate and have vital
lessons for India as well. Many interpret the
spring revolution of 2006 to be the triumph of
non-violent public protest, as the king was
ultimately dethroned without any blood being
shed. But others argue that the mass support of
the Maoists was based on foundations of their
prior mobilisation around what was unarguably a
violent rebellion. The electoral victory of the
Maoists is interpreted by their supporters as an
endorsement of the ideology and strategies of the
Maoist 'people's war' (which incidentally was
waged against the democratically elected
government and not against the king). But others
argue that it is paradoxically a vote for peace,
as it signalled that the Nepali people wanted the
Maoists to abandon their firearms for the
instruments of democratic statecraft.
The debate around political violence spilled
recently again on to the streets and popular
debate, when a Maoist sympathiser was
exterminated in murky circumstances, allegedly
because he expropriated illegal money that he had
gathered for the party. I was in Kathmandu when a
bandh was called to remonstrate against this
killing on May 20 2008, and observed visible mass
anger again on the streets, with crowds of young
men protesting that a democratically elected
party continues to use extortion and murder.
Maoist leader Prachanda, in a public meeting,
rather grandly compared himself to the ancient
emperor Ashoka, who abjured violence after a long
and bloody war in Kalinga. But there have been by
the Maoists no official pronouncements of regret
for the excesses, killings, extortion and
disappearances in the guerrilla violence of the
past decade, and many - not just political
observers but also ordinary people in Nepal -
seek a clear assurance of peaceful democratic
practice for the future. There is optimism that
the Maoists will usher in land reforms, end debt
bondage and untouchability, and respect ethnic
identity aspirations. But there is far less
certainty that they will end bloody cycles of
slaughter and mayhem which has racked life of
ordinary people for too long.
This passionate political and ethical debate -
about the legitimacy of the use of political
violence, including armed insurrection, to fight
perceived injustices - that rages today in Nepal
not just in newsprint, but in roadside cafes,
farms, and factories, has been evaded for too
long in various troubled zones of India. There is
appropriate anger among human rights defenders in
India against State repression and killings in
Maoist strongholds like Bihar and Chhatisgarh,
but conspicuous silences when Maoists blow up
police stations and kill scores of junior police
personnel. Brave human rights defenders in Punjab
continue to fight for accountability of security
forces which killed and cremated thousands of
youth, but many among them celebrate uncritically
Khalistani icons like Bhindarawale, and almost
none protest the depiction of Indira Gandhi's
assassins as revered Sikh martyrs in the Golden
Temple. There is righteous opposition to the
suppression and atrocities by uniformed forces in
Kashmir and Manipur, but rare non-official
condemnation of the violence and even extortion,
often targeted against civilian populations, by
armed insurgent groups. It is as though violence
is wrong only when the State crushes dissent, but
not when non-State organisations and guerrilla
armies kill, molest and rampage. Such a position
is just not ethically tenable, as the experience
of Nepal reflects.
One notable exception in India is a group of
citizens of undisputed moral standing which came
together in early 1997 to form the Committee of
Concerned Citizens. Convened by S.R. Sankaran,
its aim was to bring an end to decades of
violence in Telengana by consistently applying
the same democratic and moral principles in
evaluating acts of violence by the state and by
revolutionary parties. The committee condemns
killing of alleged Naxalites by police in
'encounters', which it describes as "targeted
extra-legal executions". It maintains that 'the
government particularly the police have converted
themselves into the prosecutor, the judge and the
executioner....'
The committee is significantly also scathing in
its condemnation of Naxalite violence, which
focuses more on "military actions rather than on
the mobilisation of people for social
transformation". Its strategies include physical
liquidation of people, attacks on police stations
and targeted killing of police personnel, killing
so-called informers and 'coverts', exploding
landmine, destruction of public property, and
death threats. It regards the policy of
individual annihilation followed by the Maoists
as flawed, mirroring the policy of government
which believes that liquidation of activists and
leaders will lead to liquidation of the movement.
It concludes that "there is a general public
feeling that people are sandwiched between
Naxalites and police apparatus..." This could be
as true of Nepal, tribal tracts of central India
under Maoist influence as well as the insurgent
regions of Kashmir and India's North-East. It
calls on both the State and Maoists instead to
"establish a tradition of human rights and values
as a part of their political perception and
practice". This is advice that Prachanda, leader
of the elected Maoist party in Nepal, could do
well to heed.
The world will watch how a political party in
Nepal, which raised and armed its cadres for
armed insurrection, but which acquired power
through non-violent democratic instruments,
handles the responsibilities of building a just
and humane polity. The experience of the people
of Nepal will carry lessons vital for everyone.
Harsh Mander is the convenor of Aman Biradari.
______
[4]
ARTICLE WRITING EQUALS SEDITION ?
by Subhash Gatade
Whether the police commissioner of a city and his
colleagues are an incarnation of the state itself
?
Any sane person would reply in the negative.
Perhaps the (newly appointed) honourable police
commissioner of Ahmedabad has a different take on
the whole issue. It is not for nothing that he
has filed a case of 'sedition and treason'
against the Ahmedabad edition of the Times of
India supposedly for carrying a series of
articles which questioned his alleged links with
a Mafia Don.According to the complaint filed by
the Commissioner, the said articles 'gave the
impression that state police officers were in
league with criminals'.It is learnt that these
reports are based on the statement given before
the CBI by a henchman of the Don in which he had
claimed that the present commissioner was once on
the Don's 'payroll'. (The Hindu, 2nd June 2008).
The honourable police commissioner has every
right to feel offended over such charges and if
needed he can take recourse to legal action to
seek redressal. Normally in all such cases
case(s) are filed under the charges of
defamation. But as they say it, in Gujarat they
do things differently.
While the police commissioner's complaint
vis-a-vis the newspaper have underlined the scant
respect with which the fourth estate is viewed by
the Supercops in a saffron regime, another
incident involving a leading intellectual of our
times underline the challenges which lie before
anyone who loves to exercise her/his right to
freedom of expression under such dispensation.
The case involves a leader page article (Blame
The Middle Class, 8 th January 2008, Times of
India) written by Prof Ashish Nandy, a leading
political psychologist and sociologist of our
times.According to a report which appeared in a
section of the media, (Indian Express 31 May 08)
Ahmedabad, May 30 The Gujarat Police has
registered a criminal offence against Professor
Ashish Nandy, a political psychologist and
sociologist, for writing an alleged inflammatory
article in the second week of January 2008 in an
English daily.
...The case was registered on a complaint
filed by advocate - activist V K Saxena, the
president of the Ahmedabad-based National Council
for Civil Liberties.
The complaint registered under Section 153
(A) (B) of the Indian Penal Code said that the
article was prejudicial to national integration
and intended to cause friction and promote enmity
between different communities on grounds of
religion, race, language and place of birth.
Nandy's article, the complaint said, was
highly intemperate, vituperative and showed
Gujaratis in a low light.
Surprisingly, the state government gave the
permission for filing the case through a
notification on April 15. While granting
permission for filing the criminal case against
Nandy, the government notification said "there is
prima facie evidence against the accused for his
involvement in the commission of offences under
sections of the IPC".
The particular article had tried to analyse the
election results of the Gujarat assembly held in
December 2007 which had once again given a
mandate to Mr Narendra Modi. Apart from
delineating the plight of the Muslims who are
condemned to a life of second class existence and
the growing marginalisation of the 'secular
formations/ideas' it had tried to focus its
attention on the 'state's urbane middle class'
which has remained 'mired in its inane versions
of communalism and parochialism'.
It concluded with the observation that :
Recovering Gujarat from its urban middle
class will not be easy. The class has found in
militant religious nationalism a new self-
respect and a new virtual identity as a martial
community, the way Bengali babus, Maharashtrian
Brahmins and Kashmiri Muslims at different times
have sought salvation in violence. In Gujarat
this class has smelt blood, for it does not have
to do the killings but can plan, finance and
coordinate them with impunity. The actual killers
are the lowest of the low, mostly tribals and
Dalits. The middle class controls the media and
education, which have become hate factories in
recent times. And they receive spirited support
from most non-resident Indians who, at a safe
distance from India, can afford to be more
nationalist, bloodthirsty, and irresponsible.
While the state government can console itself
over the fact that it has not been consulted over
the case filed against the Times of India, it
would be height of innocence to say that it has
not been party to the decision which saw filing
of criminal charges against Prof Nandy. And it is
not very difficult to understand the growing
displeasure of the Saffron lobby over Prof Nandy
- who has at times been very critical of the
left/secular intellectuals/formations as well.
Perhaps the manner in which Prof Nandy has
castigated the 'Sangh Parivar's contribution to
the growth of radical Islam' in India has hit
them below the belt.
Events like the desecration of Wali
Gujarati's grave have pushed one of India's
culturally richest, most diverse, vernacular
Islamic traditions to the wall. Future
generations will as gratefully acknowledge the
sangh parivar's contribution to the growth of
radical Islam in India as this generation
remembers with gratitude the handsome
contribution of Rajiv Gandhi and his cohorts to
Sikh militancy. (Quoted in Times of India ( 8 th
January) 'Blame The Middle Class'.)
Looking at the unsustainable charges against the
leading newspaper and the condemnation it is
receiving for throttling the right to freedom
expression, one can expect that wiser sense would
prevail and the state government would itself
intervene to rectify the mistakes. But looking at
the past history of the government the chances
seem remote.
It was only two years back that an editor of an
eveninger from Surat, Gujarat was charged with
'anti-national activities' including 'instigating
people against a duly elected government' and was
put behind bars by the same government.As
reported in a section of the media, the law and
order people had felt offended when Manoj Shinde,
editor of 'Surat Samna' the said eveninger in an
editorial '..[a] ttacked several officials and
BJP leaders for mishandling of the release of
water from the Ukai dam resulting in the flooding
of the city and causing colossal losses to the
people'. (The Hindu, 30 th August 2006,Delhi).
The complaint against Shinde on behalf of the
government of Gujarat was lodged under Section
124A (sedition: anyone who by words or expression
of any kind brings or attempts to bring or
provoke a feeling of hatred, contempt or
disaffection towards government established by
law shall be punished with life imprisonment)
292, 293, 294(b) (dealing with obscene
publication), 500 (defamation), 501 (printing and
aggravating matter against union territory or
Chief Minister) and 502 and 505(1) (circulation
of false statement against the public peace)
under the Indian Penal Code.
Despite nuanced opinion of human rights activist
that "Shinde's editorial doesn't amount to
sedition as the comments were against an
individual. The tendency here is that the CM
considers himself to be Gujarat. It is not
sedition even if he is called Hitler. It may
amount to defamation but not sedition."(Indian
Express, 31 st August 2006) the government went
ahead with the case.
The arrest of the journalist under charges of
sedition two years back and the filing of similar
charges against the leading newspaper raise
another pertinent question as well which question
the presence of such draconian provisions in the
statue books of a sovereign democratic set up
which helps the powers that be to apprehend
anyone under its pretext.
To further elaborate about the leeway it gives to
ruling elite one can have a look at a few cases
during last few years where it can be clear to
even laypersons that the 'offenders' were engaged
in activities not even remotedly connected with
sedition.
Post 9/11 when the anti war movement took shape
all over the world to oppose machinations of the
USA for world hegemony, a section of its
participants in Delhi had a tough experience at
the hands of the then BJP regime. Six students
belonging to Delhi university were charged with
'sedition' and were arrested for the "crime" of
distributing anti-war leaflets and denouncing the
communal-fascist war mongering stand of the
Vajpayee government. It is a different matter
that faced with large scale criticism at the
hands of the media and civil society the
government had to retrace its arbitrary move.
During Mayawatis third stint of power in Lucknow
with due support of the BJP, peace activist and
Magasaysay award winner Sandeep Pandey and his
fellow activists also faced charges of 'sedition'
and 'inciting communal violence.' Interestingly a
poster put up by them on the dharana site in
Faizabad (U.P.) which was organised to demand
peaceful resolution of the Ayodhya issue was
declared inflammatory.( 20 March 2003) The poster
in question had a quote from a poem by Laxmi
Shankar Vajpayee and said " Oh God, Please don't
accept the temple which is built on the
foundations of the dead and has blood stained
walls."
Human Rights Watch in its report of 1999 tells us
about the violation of dalit rights which is done
with impunity. Under the heading 'Criminalisation
of Social Activism' the report narrates the story
of one Tirumavalavan a dalit rights activist from
Tamilnadu and other members of his movement who
are targeted by the police for organizing Dalits
to claim their rights. According to the testimony
of Tirumavalavan he is ".[o]ften arrested under
Indian Penal Code sections 153(a) [for promoting
enmity between different groups] and 120(b) [for
criminal conspiracy], and also under the Sedition
Act and the National Security Act.
A cursory glance at the genesis of the 'crime of
sedition' would make it that it has its roots in
an era when statesmen and political leaders were
considered to be largely above reproach by the
common man. It was a time when coups and
revolutions were a constant threat and the resort
to political violence a common phenomenon. Coming
to Indian case one can see that while the British
colonialists imposed it supposedly to rein in the
natives but as an offence it originated in UK.
Prior to 1606, treason (an offence similar to
sedition) was punishable under the Statute of
Treasons of 1352. The offence of seditious libel
was first created in 1606 by the infamous Star
Chamber decision in de Libellis Famosis18 and
continued to exist at common law as a species of
libel.
One can say that the rationale for incorporating
sedition act has come in for criticism on two
counts. Firstly its clear espousal of methods
adopted by our colonial rulers to discipline the
'natives' and secondly its core concept which
seems clearly antithetical to the underlying
premises of modern democracy. A mere look at the
'Sedition Act' embodied under Indian penal Code
section 124 A would make it clear what one wants
to convey :
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to
excite disaffection towards, the Government
established by law in India, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be
added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, to which fine may be added..
It is symptomatic of its anachronism that in most
of the mature democracies, the law of sedition
has now either formally been rescinded or is
largely defunct. A considered observation of
'Global Campaign for Free Expression' is worth
quoting in full : Pronouncements by courts and
law reform commissions in a number of common law
jurisdictions support the contention that the law
of sedition serves no useful purpose, is
anachronistic, is palpably undemocratic, and is
an unconstitutional encroachment on the right to
freedom of expression.
Whether India the 'largest democracy in the
world' is ready to pay heed to the voices in the
other mature democracies?
To start with the honourable Police Commissioner
of Ahmedabad can reconsider his decision.
_______
[5]
Indian Express
May 30, 2008
SPEAK, FREEDOM
by Tarunabh Khaitan
The courts' orders in the M.F. Husain and
Khushboo cases earlier this month offer hope. But
in the long run, we need to review the utility of
Sections 177 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure
Code
In a remarkably unequivocal judgment delivered
on May 8, Delhi High Court quashed eight criminal
cases against artist M.F. Husain, saying that 'it
has become imperative that in this information
age, jurisdiction be more circumscribed so that
an artist ... is not made to run from pillar to
post facing proceedings.' A few days later, on
May 15, the Supreme Court stayed criminal
proceedings against actor Khushboo in 23 cases.
While these orders are commendable, they do not
go far enough. Each time an actor, writer,
artist, journalist, or anyone else whose speech
or expression is transmitted widely through the
media expresses a controversial sentiment,
multiple law suits will be filed across the
country. Higher courts will continue to waste
their strained resources to quash these
proceedings. The problem needs a permanent
solution.
The root of the problem of multiple proceedings
lies in Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure
Code: 'Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed'. Section 178,
which deals with offences committed in more than
one jurisdiction, provides that they 'may be
inquired into or tried by a court having
jurisdiction over any of such local areas.'
Crimes such as obscenity that are committed
wholly or in part by expression usually include
the publication of such expression as well.
Therefore, every court within whose local
jurisdiction such expression has been published
in any medium has potential jurisdiction. This,
in the case of TV broadcast or internet
publication, includes every single court in the
country! It is this loophole that allows
disgruntled groups to pursue such proceedings.
The impact on the speaker of multiple criminal
proceedings initiated in different corners of the
country is easy to imagine. If implicated, you
have to spend a lot of time and money organising
legal defence and making personal appearances
before these various courts, however frivolous
the allegation. Usually the court finds that no
offence was committed and that the speech was
constitutionally protected. Many people give up
before reaching that stage. Taslima Nasreen and
M.F. Husain chose to leave the country.
A less obvious but more worrying consequence of
these multiple proceedings is that certain things
may never be said for fear of similar
consequences. This nightmarish possibility has a
chilling effect on any potentially controversial
- though constitutionally legitimate - speech. It
encourages self-censorship and undermines our
democracy.
Thus, however harmless they might appear to be,
Sections 177 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure
Code seriously impair free speech by allowing
multiple proceedings. They undermine the
constitutional protection of freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a).
That is not to say freedom of speech is absolute.
Any law that restricts speech may be justified as
a 'reasonable restriction' under Article 19(2) of
the Constitution. The procedural laws in question
are anything but reasonable. Most of these
criminal proceedings result in acquittal. In the
rare instance that a person is successfully tried
and convicted by two courts for the same crime,
the constitutional bar on double jeopardy in
Article 20(2) guarantees that 'No person shall be
prosecuted and punished for the same offence more
than once.' Only one of these punishments can be
enforced.
Not only do these multiple proceedings serve no
legitimate state purpose, they in fact conflict
with a vital state interest. Our overstrained
courts waste much precious time entertaining
these complaints, most of which will be
unfruitful even when not frivolous. Several cases
go all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking
intervention on a case-by-case basis. The cases
always end up quashed, stayed or consolidated,
but not before much detriment to the speaker and
to judicial resources.
What, above all, makes these cases so
unreasonable is that they severely harm the
speaker's interests even before they establish
that a crime has been committed at all. Legal
proceedings are rarely much fun. But being
obliged to appear in several courts for
exercising what usually turns out to be one's
constitutional right to free speech will strain
anyone's time, money and sanity.
Sections 177 and 178, as they stand now, have an
unconstitutional impact on freedom of speech. To
pass constitutional muster, an exception to these
provisions must be carved out which provides that
any crime constituted by speech or expression can
only be tried in the defendant's place of
ordinary residence, or in Delhi, if the defendant
lives outside India.
The writer is a legal researcher at the
University of Oxford tarunabh[AT]gmail[dot]com
______
[6]
Frontline
May. 24-Jun. 06, 2008
SAYING NO TO NUKES
by Praful Bidwai
Ten years after Pokhran-II, India is being sucked
into an upward spiral of insecurity, high
military spending and yet more insecurity.
THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY
The Kargil War, the world's worst conflict
between nuclear weapons states, belies the theory
that nuclear bombs bring deterrence.
HEN the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government decided,
in complete secrecy and without even the pretence
of the promised strategic defence review, to
cross the nuclear threshold 10 years ago, it did
not advance a national-consensual programme but a
sectarian, hawkish agenda, which reflected a
peculiar Hindutva obsession with mass-destruction
weapons.
That obsession is traceable all the way to 1964,
when the Jan Sangh became the sole political
party to demand that India build nuclear weapons
- just when it was crusading for global nuclear
disarmament.
Political polarisation
The "Shakti" blasts polarised political opinion.
The Left parties criticised them as a reversal of
India's long-standing policy and demanded that
India must under no circumstances induct nuclear
weapons. The Sangh Parivar went into raptures.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad demanded that India be
officially declared a Hindu state.
The Congress was divided. Some of its leaders
congratulated Indian scientists for the
"achievement". Sonia Gandhi said that the "real
strength lies in restraint, not in the display of
'Shakti'". A fortnight later, Manmohan Singh,
Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, made
what was probably his most eloquent and
impassioned speech when he argued that the
Vajpayee government had breached the national
consensus that nuclear arms were mass-destruction
weapons whose use was "a crime against humanity"
and "India should be in the forefront of
international efforts to. have these weapons
outlawed".
Manmohan Singh warned against ignoring the
economic and social dimensions of security and a
single-minded pursuit of military objectives.
India, he said, would be "sucked into an arms
race" and "uncontrollable increases in
expenditure" on nuclear weapons, which would
prove ruinous, as in the former Soviet Union:
"Therefore, think before you act, think before
you weaponise." Playing partisan politics with
nuclear policy would be a "great disservice to
our nation" ("Sanctifying atomic apartheid",
Frontline, August 12, 2005).
The tests came as a surprise even to most
supporters of the bomb. Few of them had advocated
testing. But as soon as it happened, a majority
of these so-called security experts concocted all
kinds of justifications for the bomb.
Many of these worthies cited threats from
Pakistan although some of them had lobbied
against all nuclear restraint proposals emanating
from Pakistan since the 1980s. They now began to
crave a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan as if
that would show that India was not totally
isolated. When the Pakistan excuse did not work,
they changed their tune and pointed fingers at
China. But they could not explain why India could
live with China's bomb for a quarter-century
without having one of its own. Completely absent
from this "security discourse" was the vitally
important moral dimension of the nuclear issue.
The moral question was taken up passionately by
the peace movement, which soon gathered force
among scientists, writers, scholars, artistes,
environmentalists and social activists. Although
fledgling, it powerfully challenged the political
and security assumptions of the dominant
discourse, including nuclear deterrence.
The peace movement acquired a pan-Indian
organised expression in 2000, with the formation
of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and
Peace (CNDP) by over 200 people's movement
groups, non-governmental organisations,
scientists' associations, artists' networks and
other citizens' bodies. The movement's views had
a resonance with the underprivileged masses who,
opinion polls showed, opposed the manufacture and
use of nuclear weapons, which do not invest them
with prestige, and accorded priority to
bread-and-butter issues.
May 1998 thus witnessed a clear split between the
policy-shaping elite led by cynical strategic
experts and the poor and disadvantaged majority,
who wanted state funds to be spent on health
care, education, food security and employment
generation, not on the military.
Four trends
Ten years on, four distinct trends are
discernible. First, the elite-mass divide has
sharpened in keeping with the general experience
of the poor with increasingly predatory and
dispossessing growth under neoliberal
globalisation.
Second, political party-level polarisation has
decreased. Both the Congress and the Bharatiya
Janata Party claim "credit" for India's
nuclearisation (through Pokhran-I and Pokhran-II)
or its follow-up (through the proposed United
States-India nuclear deal). Even the Left parties
are no longer as vocal as they used to be in
demanding a rollback of India's nuclearisation
and its return to the global disarmament agenda.
A major reason for this is the debate over the
nuclear deal, which has generally been couched in
nuclear-nationalist terms or within the framework
of resistance to neocolonial hegemony, rather
than in considerations of peace, rational energy
options and environmental sustainability.
Third, most forecasts made by the bomb's
apologists have turned out false. They
confidently predicted that India's nuclear
weapons would give it security and impart
stability and maturity to its relations with
Pakistan. They said it would also help limit
conventional military spending while effectively
pre-empting conventional war. (Does not the
deterrence theory say that nuclear weapons states
- NWSs - do not go to war with each other?) Most
important, they claimed that India's nuclear
status would enhance its global prestige and
expand its room for manoeuvre in world affairs.
In reality, nuclearisation has made South Asia
manifestly more volatile and insecure. Although
the India-Pakistan peace process has reduced
tensions since 2004, millions of Indians and
Pakistanis remain within the range of missiles of
different descriptions but capable of carrying
nuclear weapons that concentrate devastating
power against which armies, governments and
citizens are defenceless.
The presumption that nuclear weapons give
security is based on the doctrine of nuclear
deterrence. But deterrence - which India for 50
years rightly described as "morally repugnant",
strategically unworkable, and a recipe for an
arms race - is a deeply flawed doctrine. As game
theory analysis and experience with military
stand-offs (the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, for
instance) show, it is hard to predict how an
adversary may behave following a rational
calculus - although there is no guarantee that he
or she will behave rationally.
Thomas Schelling, who won the Economics Nobel in
2005, has shown that "a party can strengthen its
position by overtly worsening its own options,
that the capability to retaliate can be more
useful than the ability to resist an attack, and
that uncertain retaliation is more credible and
more efficient than certain retaliation".
Certain, devastating retaliation is at the core
of deterrence - and India's nuclear doctrine.
We now know that the probability of a nuclear
exchange during the Cuban crisis was far higher
than was then understood. And yet, key players
from the same side such as John F. Kennedy and
Robert S. McNamara had widely divergent
perceptions of the effectiveness of their own
strategic moves.
Kargil, the world's greatest-ever conflict
between NWSs, offers an even more powerful
refutation of the deterrence theory than did the
limited Sino-Soviet clashes of the 1970s over the
Ussuri river. Kargil, a mid-sized war involving
40,000 troops and top-of-the-line armaments,
occurred a year after the Pokhran/Chagai tests.
Pakistan's generals embarked on that misadventure
in the belief that nuclear weapons would shield
them against Indian retaliation.
During those seven weeks, India and Pakistan
exchanged nuclear threats no fewer than 13 times
even as 2,500 soldiers were killed. According to
former White House advisor Bruce Riedel, U.S.
intelligence had gathered "disturbing information
about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal"
without even the knowledge of Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif. It is inconceivable that India did
not make contingency plans for the use of nuclear
weapons as the two "were heading for a deadly
descent into full-scale conflict, with a danger
of nuclear cataclysm".
Kargil might have had a far worse outcome had
Sharif not asked for U.S. mediation, which led to
Pakistan's unconditional withdrawal. It also led
to a huge escalation of tension between Sharif
and General Pervez Musharraf and eventually, an
army coup. Pakistan is just beginning to recover
from its debilitating effects on the process of
democratisation.
Dangerous precedent
Kargil set an extremely dangerous precedent. The
potential for escalation of an India-Pakistan
conventional conflict to the nuclear level again
became evident after the Parliament House attack
in December 2001. India and Pakistan eyeballed
each other with one million troops for 10 months,
and India contemplated a "limited" strike across
the Line of Control.
Pakistan made credible threats to the effect that
this would lead to full-scale war and warned of
its escalation to the nuclear level. The two
states twice came close to the brink of a nuclear
catastrophe in early and mid-2002 as they readied
nuclear weapons for use according to
unimpeachable reports - a prospect almost too
frightening even to imagine but one that cannot
be firmly ruled out given the history of mutual
strategic hostility and miscalculation. Once
conflicts begin, they acquire their own momentum,
and the logic of retaliation and
counter-retaliation prevails over normal,
rational judgment.
Similarly, apologists of the bomb have been
proved totally wrong on the supposedly moderating
effect of nuclear weapons on conventional
armaments acquisition. This proved a complete
delusion during the Cold War, which witnessed
both a nuclear and a conventional arms race. In
fact, the two fed on each other.
Military spending
This is equally true of India and Pakistan, which
have raised their conventional military spending
by leaps and bounds even as they stockpile bomb
fuel and test-fly new missiles. India's military
spending has tripled since 1998; Pakistan's has
doubled. And it is still early days for their
nuclear programmes.
Nor have nuclear weapons bestowed global prestige
on India. India's global profile has certainly
risen. But that is the effect of India's
successful practice of democracy in a highly
diverse and plural society and, more recently,
its growing economic power, besides a hangover
from the past, when India was a force of
moderation and reform of the global system.
If nuclear weapons enhance a nation's prestige,
one would have seen proof of this in Pakistan and
North Korea. But nuclear Pakistan was considered
a failing state until late 2001. And North Korea
commands nothing approaching prestige.
The peace movement has proved right on most
counts although it must be conceded that some of
its representatives, including this writer,
overestimated the degree and duration of India's
isolation and underestimated the rapidity with
which the U.S. would move to embrace this
"emerging power", not least to contain China.
Not just the moral but also the
political-strategic arguments of the movement
stand fully validated. The core "guns vs. butter"
moral argument has lost none of its force despite
India's high gross domestic product (GDP) growth,
which has not significantly reduced poverty,
hunger and mass deprivation. Spending 3 to 3.5
per cent of the GDP on the military while
remaining at the level of Afghanistan in public
health spending (1 per cent) continues to be
obscenely immoral.
Retreat from restraint
The fourth trend is the total retreat of the
Indian establishment from the agendas of nuclear
restraint, arms reduction and disarmament. Its
topmost priority is to push through the nuclear
deal with the U.S. and thereby secure legitimacy
for India's mass-destruction weapons.
Behaving like a "responsible" member of the
nuclear club means not rocking the boat but going
along with Washington's plans for upgrading its
nuclear weapons, finding new uses for them,
launching the unilateral Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI) to intercept "suspect"
shipments, and proceeding with ballistic missile
defence (BMD). As if in recompense for this, some
strategists offer a "moderate-sounding" agenda in
contrast to the maximalist one of testing another
H-Bomb and greatly expanding India's
nuclear-missile programme. This includes sticking
to "minimum" deterrence and no-first-use,
limiting India's capability to threaten some of
China's "key industrial and population centres",
negotiating nuclear confidence-building measures
with Pakistan and, at maximum, joining the recent
appeal for a nuclear weapons-free world by George
Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam
Nunn
(online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html).
Problems with the appeal apart - including
vagueness, lack of a time frame, silence on PSI
and BMD - this "moderation" is misleading.
Possessing nuclear weapons is itself against
moderation: all NWSs have the will and readiness
to kill lakhs of non-combatant civilians - an act
of extreme terrorism if there ever was one. As
Manmohan Singh said 10 years ago, history shows
that even when NWSs "said they would not be the
first to use nuclear weapons, their opponents
never took that seriously".
This deceptive agenda does not involve stepping
back from the nuclear abyss, only not jumping
headlong into it. It does not meet the urgent
need to grasp the nuclear nettle by energetically
promoting regional nuclear restraint and global
nuclear elimination.
A good way of doing so would be to update the
thoughtful 1988 Rajiv Gandhi Plan for global
nuclear disarmament, presented to the Special
Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
But doing this will also demand unilateral
gestures from India - like offering to suspend
missile test-flights or fissile production -
while convening an international conference on
disarmament jointly with other initiatives such
as the Mayors for Peace campaign, the "2020
Vision campaign", Abolition-2000, and advocating
a Nuclear Weapons (elimination) Convention. Can
India muster the will?
______
[7]
www.sacw.net > Communalism Repository
June 3, 2008
To: The Commission of Inquiry of Honourable
Justice Panigrahi/Re. Kandhamal, Orissa
From: Dr. Angana Chatterji
Associate Professor, Social and Cultural Anthropology
California Institute of Integral Studies
E-mail: achatterji [at] ciis[dot]edu; Angana [at] aol[dot]com
Address in the United States: Anthropology
Department, 1453 Mission Street, San Francisco,
California - 94103, United States
Phone in the United States: 001-415-575-6119
Phone when in India: 9937770819
Note: I am a Citizen of India, born and raised in
Calcutta/Kolkata, and a Permanent Resident of the
United States. I travel to India regularly and
remain committed to making myself available
should you require any clarifications from me.
Note 2: I am submitting this sworn statement by
fax through Advocate XXXX on 31 May 2008. The
original will arrive by courier the following
week, and I request the Commission to kindly
accept the same on arrival.
________________
TO: THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY OF HONOURABLE JUSTICE PANIGRAHI
From: Dr. Angana Chatterji
Re. Kandhamal, Orissa
30 May 2008
To whom it may concern
I am writing to submit the enclosed sworn
statement of fact/affidavit on the violence in
Kandhamal district in Orissa that ensued in
December 2007. This affidavit has been notarized
by a Public Notary.
My statement is based on extensive research on
the communalisation of Orissa conducted by me
between June 2002-June 2008. I have undertaken
over 15 trips to the state since June 2002,
including in 66 villages, 11 towns, and 4 cities
across 17 districts. I travelled to Kandhamal
district in January 2005, after the incidents in
Raikia. I travelled to Kandhamal district and
visited certain towns and villages again in
January 2008, following the violence of December
2007.
In 2005-2006, I co-convened with Advocate Mihir
Desai the Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism
in Orissa organised by the Indian People's
Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT).
The Tribunal was led by Justice K. K. Usha,
Retired Chief Justice of Kerala. The Tribunal was
constituted in response to concerns voiced by
citizens over the growth of communalism and
increased aggression throughout Orissa
particularly since the Gujarat 2002 genocide. The
Tribunal was targeted by Hindutva, Hindu
extremist, activists and women members of the
Tribunal threatened, in June 2005.
The findings of the report strongly warned about
the formidable extent of mobilisation by the
majoritarian communalist group of organisations
in Orissa, including in Kandhamal district, and
documented their adverse impact of society,
economy, culture, and polity in the state.
According to the report, the Sangh Parivar group
of Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, organisations has
a visible presence in twenty-five of thirty
districts in Orissa. The Tribunal's report had
submitted detailed recommendations for action,
which did not invoke any reflection or
determination on part of the Government of Orissa
or the Central Government.
The State Government of Orissa has been incapable
of dealing with, or responding appropriately to,
these issues and the serious concerns they pose
to democratic governance in the state, and of
ensuring the security and sanctity of peoples and
groups made vulnerable through majoritarian
communalism as perpetrated by Hindu nationalist
organisations in the state. These matters and
circumstances that led to the Kandhamal violence
of December 2007 in Orissa continue to pose a
threat to the sanctity and security of human
rights in the state, particularly of religious
and ethnic minorities, disenfranchised Adivasi
and caste groups, and other vulnerable groups
such as women and secular organisations, and
active individuals across the state. Failure to
take preventative action jeopardises rule of law,
the right to life and livelihood, freedom of
speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly,
freedom of inquiry, and the right to information
in Orissa.
NOTE: While working in Orissa, I have, at times,
been portrayed by Hindutva activists and its
leaders as a 'foreigner' and a 'missionary', who
have also campaigned against my travels in Orissa
publicly and to the police and intelligence
agencies. I would like to clarify, again, for the
record, that I am a citizen of India and a
resident of the United States, who is an
associate professor of anthropology and teaches
in an accredited institution of higher learning.
It is ironic that while non-resident Indians are
being encouraged to participate in the well-being
of the Indian nation, I am being targeted for
doing so. I travel to India regularly, at least
twice each year, to continue my research work and
visit family and friends. My work has been
focused on the human rights of Dalits, Adivasis,
women, as well as other disenfranchised and
minority groups across religion, caste and class,
inclusive of numerous people who self-define in
various ways as Hindu. I would also like to
clarify that I am a secular person of Hindu
descent and that my taking a position opposing
Hindutva and Hindu nationalism is in no way in
opposition to Hindus or Hinduism.
Kandhamal Riots, December 2007
December 25, 2007: Seven churches, Catholic,
Protestant, Pentecostal, independent... were
torched in Barakhama village, in west
Kandhamal/Phulbani district, central Orissa.
December 23: Hindutva-affiliated Adivasi
organisations organised a march, reportedly
supported by Hindu communalist groups, rallying:
'Stop Christianity. Kill Christians'. It is
stated that the Kui Samaj, a Sangh-affiliated
Adivasi organisation that works in the district,
was prompted by Hindutva activists into calling
for a Kandhamal bandh (strike) on December 25 and
26, demanding that Dalit Christians be denied
scheduled caste status. A Dalit Christian leader
from Barakhama testified: "On December 22,
hearing of plans to create trouble during
Christmas, we went to the local police and
informed them of the situation. They assured us
that things would be under control. On December
24, in the daytime, we heard voices of Bajrang
Dal, VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) , RSS (Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh), Shiv Sena people, chanting:
'Hindu, Hindu, Bhai, Bhai', 'RSS Zindabad',
'Lakshmanananda Zindabad'. Hindutva activists
shut down shops. That night they felled trees to
block roads along National Highway 217, across
hill terrain, severed power and phone lines. On
the 25th, we went to the inspector in-charge of
police again. On the 25th, at 2.30, about 200 of
us sat down to Christmas prayer at our church and
around 4 p.m. we heard the mob approach." "Before
the mob came we heard the sound of people
approaching. The sound of hatred. Our lives, our
faith, our existence is under attack and neither
the neighbours, the police nor the state care." -
Dalit Christian woman in Kandhamal.
The mob, about 3,000-4,000 persons, many bearing
symbolic tilaks (mark on forehead), reportedly
belonged to various Sangh Parivar groups named
above, incited local Hindus into rioting.
Estimates state 20 per cent of the mob comprised
of people from Barakhama, 80 per cent from
surrounding Balliguda, Raikia, Phulbani, as far
away as Behrampur. In Barakhama, Christian homes
were selected for destruction by the mob, Hindu
homes spared. A Dalit Christian woman testified:
"They broke the door to our church. We ran. We
fell and kept running." Women and men were
intimidated and assaulted. Cries of 'Jai
Bajrangbali' rent the air. 'Christians must
become Hindu or Die. Kill Them. Kill Them. Kill
Them. Gita not Bible. Destroy their Faith.'
The crowd carried rods, trishuls (tridents),
swords, kerosene, and crude bombs. They used
guns, a first in Orissa, weapons available in the
market and makeshift local fabrications.
Predominantly middle class caste Hindus
participated in looting, destroying and torching
property. They threw bombs to start the fire. The
breakage was systematic, thorough. Women and men
hid for days in forests in winter temperatures,
later seeking shelter in the Balliguda town
relief camp, returning to decimated Barakhama on
January 2. Engulfed in soot and sorrow, people
attempted to function amid charred remnants. A
woman said: "Everything burns down and we are
left with nothing. How little our lives are made
(of). How alone we are, so far away from
everything."
[. . .] .
FULL TEXT AT: http://tinyurl.com/4cus8z
_______
[8]
outlookindia.com
9 June 2008
Junoon stringing its message of peace
Srinagar: Music
KASHMIR CANTATA
JUNOON, THE SOFT-ROCKING DERVISHES FROM PAKISTAN,
CAME AS A RARE MUSICAL INTERLUDE ...
by Namrata Joshi
Despite staying in the same hotel, it proved hard
to pin down Salman Ahmed-the lead singer and
guitarist of the Pakistani Sufi rock group
Junoon-for an interview. Faced with opposition
from hardliners against his concert, he preferred
to lie low, doing riyaaz at the crack of dawn by
the peaceful expanse of Dal Lake, instead of
talking to the media. But after the success of
the concert, it was quite another story-Salman
had become an instant celebrity, a bigger
presence in the Kashmir capital than the visiting
president of India. When our turn with him
finally came at 2.30 am, you could hear the joy
in his voice, even at that unearthly hour.
For the young, the concert came as a rare
relief from their limited world. And they seized
the moment.
"After performing in innumerable shows you can
get jaded, till something like this comes along
to energise you," said Salman, "the response was
totally unexpected, unprecedented." The concert,
organised by the South Asia Foundation (a
secular, non-profit,
non-political organisation with chapters in the
eight SAARC nations), in association with the
University of Kashmir, was indeed unique, the
first of its kind in the two decades since
militancy claimed Kashmir in 1989. There have
been occasional concerts like those of Begum
Akhtar and Farida Khanum but those were for the
bureaucracy and officials. Junoon's show was the
first one for the public, packing in over 5,000
people. The venue at Chashm-e-Shahi made it even
more memorable, with the majestic Zabarwan ranges
providing a dramatic backdrop to the stage and
the tranquil waters of the Dal Lake spread in
front.
Youngsters cheering on
In this idyllic setting, Junoon's music spoke of
all the right things: peace and harmony,
pluralism, unity and regional cooperation, of
music transcending religion to bring people
together. The political symbolism of the concert
became more pronounced, given the fact that just
a couple of days before the event, the United
Jehad Council, the umbrella group of militant
organisations, had passed a resolution against
the show. Their leader Syed Salahuddin had urged
the Pakistan government to stop Junoon's
performance since it would have a negative impact
on the "disputed status" of Kashmir and send a
wrong signal to the international community that
"Kashmir was an integral part of India".
Salman's response was to dub his show a "jehad
for peace". "It's about waging a war through the
guitar rather than the gun," he said. "Both sides
of the border, we have been demonising the other,
but music is a universal emotion and the success
of Pakistani musicians in India, like Atif Aslam,
Strings and Jal, shows another way to take the
peace process forward," he added. "We have begun
something, now it's for others to take it
forward," said Union minister Mani Shankar Aiyer
who heads the India chapter of SAF.
Junoon's concert had cultural significance as
well: it marked the opening of the Institute of
Kashmir Studies at the University of Kashmir,
which aims to revive the region's rich and
distinctive culture. But more than
political-cultural issues, the concert's real
significance was in the way it reached out to
young Kashmiris. They flocked to the venue in
hordes, stood for hours in long queues; patiently
bore with rigorous security checks and the
scorching sun. But none of this dampened their
enthusiasm. In fact, it came as a rare relief
from the tensions-and tedium-of their daily
lives....
"The boys here have been facing bullets in the
last 20 years and the girls have hardly seen
anything of life," observed a local journalist.
Indeed, youngsters in Srinagar have very few
options for entertainment other than watching TV
or DVDs. There are no malls, multiplexes or
clubs."We carry our music and spend time
listening to it by the lake," said Rashid, a
student at Kashmir University.
In such a limited and limiting world, the concert
was a release, specially for the girls. And they
seized the moment with gusto. They sat quietly as
the concert began, gently moving their hands to
the tunes. By the time Salman began playing the
hot favourite, Sayonee, they were up on their
feet, clapping, dancing and whistling in happy
abandon. What helped was the fact that Junoon's
is the kind of music they could instantly connect
with. It was their language, their concerns and
feelings, be it Meri awaaz suno, mujhe azaad karo
or Yaaro yehi dosti hai; Iqbal's Khudi ko kar
bulund itna or Bulle Shah's Mandir dha de, masjid
dha de.
"We want more such events here," said college
student Aban Mullick. The environment certainly
seems conducive at the moment for fostering a
lively youth culture. The town might look as
though it is under siege, bathed in army hues of
olive green and khaki, but Srinagar has been
peaceful for a while now. The economy is looking
up a little with tourists from Gujarat, south
India and Bengal cavorting in the Mughal Gardens
and posing for pictures in shikaras. Life seems
normal but the underlying unease is also
palpable. One incident can tilt the
balance-that's the unspoken fear.
And though the young may have lost themselves
happily in Junoon's music for an evening, their
frustration at the lack of opportunities in the
Valley remains. The concert was but a glimpse of
a normal, vibrant world, that's still a long way
out of their reach.
______
[9]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:03:07 PM
Subject: "Bread, not Bomb" a Peace rally
Dear all
Greetings from GRDO
A "PEACE" rally was organized from Press Club
Hyderabad to Hyder Chowk on 27th of May, 2008
under the umbrella of Pakistan Peace Coalition.
Hundreds of people from different Areas of Sindh
belonging to different walks of life joined the
Torch-Light Peace Rally. The participants were
carrying placards along with Torches. The slogans
written on the placards were "BREAD, NOT BOMB",
"NUCLEAR FREE SOUTH ASIA", "MAKE PUBLIC THE
DEFFENSE BUDGET" and others. The Rally was
organized on May 27 to protest against nuclear
explosions by India and Pakistan in May 1998.
Karamat Ali, Adam Malik, Dr.Haider, Comrade
Ramzan Memon, Momin Khan, Akhtar Bhutti, Zain
Daodpoto and other Pakistan Peace Coalition
leaders were amongst the participants.
Best regards
Dr.Haider
Director
Green Rural Development Organization [GRDO]
______
[10]
Books / Dawn
June 01, 2008
[BOOK] REVIEW: A red, silk shirt
Reviewed By Syeda Saleha
The title of the book and the publisher's
assertion that the book is a collection of short
stories by the great progressive writer Krishin
Chander (1913 -1977) will prove incorrect as soon
as you open the book and search for an index
containing the list of short stories. As you turn
the pages, you will find that it is not a
selection of short stories but in fact a novella.
This is the first shock. The second shock
awaiting the reader is that the novelette was
originally titled Jab Khait Jage. It was
published in 1952 and the title is symbolic.
Khait is a metaphor which Krishin Chander used to
present the uprising of the landless farmers in
Telengana, now Andhra Pradesh, India. If the
present title is the innovation of the publisher
then I wonder at the liberty taken. Another
irritant, which is not unusual for Urdu
publications (of course I am talking about
certain publishing houses), is the spelling
mistakes and the grammar.
Having said this much about the irregularities,
Jab Khait Jage is regarded as a milestone among
the novels written by Krishin Chander. As pointed
out earlier, the theme is the Telengana movement
of the landless farmers. Dr Aijaz Ali Arshad in
his book Krishin Chander Ki Novel Nigari regards
it as a journey from romanticism to realism. The
novella presents the struggle of farmers against
the landowners who suppress and exploit them,
turning them into bonded labour and depriving
them of the fruit of their labour. Sardar Jafri,
the noted poet, critic and scholar writes, 'This
novella is also most important in the sense that
the helpless farmer (Houri) of Premchand in his
novel Gowdaan( The sacrifice of a cow) has
returned after a lapse of almost 15 years with a
new grandeur. This is not the same helpless
farmer but the courageous fighter who is
disciplined to fight for the rights of the
downtrodden people'.
Jab Khait Jage is the story of Raghu Rao, a young
son of a landless farmer who has been sentenced
to death by execution at the age of 22. His crime
is that he has fought on behalf of the farmers
and for this he is charged with sedition. The
novella starts with his last night in the cell
where he reflects on the events of his life from
his early childhood till the day when he was put
into prison.
As a child, when he was enjoying a mela along
with his father (a landless farmer) he is abused
when he tries to touch a roll of silk in a shop.
Again, to his dismay, he and his father are
picked up by the men of the landowner for forced
labour. Raghu Rao resists this high-handedness
but when threatened with a gun, his father pleads
for mercy. The incident becomes a turning point
in Raghu's life. He runs away from the village
and ultimately lands in Hyderabad (Deccan) where
he becomes a rickshaw-puller, but because of
reckless labour he soon falls victim to
tuberculosis.
The father returns to the village to fulfill his
son's last desire: to wear a silk shirt. The
villagers do not have silk. Eventually he digs
through the dowry box of his late wife and finds
her red dupatta which the villagers use to sew a
shirt.
He meets a trade union leader, Maqbool, who comes
to his rescue by getting him a job in a paper
mill and acquaints him with the triumphs of
communism in the Soviet socialist republic. Raghu
is now a partner in struggle for the rights of
the downtrodden.
The comrades grab land from the landowners and
distribute it among the landless farmers. By this
time Hyderabad is annexed to India by the
Congress whose leaders are no different from the
former rulers. The manipulations of the feudal
class and the new rulers results in the failure
of the farmers' movement. The activists are
arrested, put into prison and charged with
treason. Raghu Rao is sentenced to death.
On the last night of his life in the prison, his
father visits him and Raghu opens his heart
before him, asking him not to lament his death
because it is for an important cause: Wattiyon
(landless farmers) ki duniyan mein virani hai.
Kab tuk is viraan duniya mein sannata rahega. Koi
oper se aanevala nahin ha. Koi unki haalat
tabdeel karne wala nahin hai. Is kaam ko khud
Watti logaun ko karna hoga.Varna hazaraun saal ki
tarha aaj bhi resham udhar rahega aur uryani
idhar rahegi. (The world of the landless farmers
is barren. How long it will remain so. No one
will come from above. No one is going to change
their condition. They will have to do it
themselves. Otherwise like for the past thousands
of years, the silk will remain on that side and
the cloth-less will remain on this side.) The
father returns to the village to fulfill his
son's last desire: to wear a silk shirt. The
villagers do not have silk. Eventually he digs
through the dowry box of his late wife and finds
her red odhni (dupatta) which the villagers use
to sew a shirt. A procession of 10, 000 farmers
gathers at the prison gate and Raghu Rau walks
out wearing the shirt feeling as if he is wearing
not only a shirt but the flag of his people, the
great symbol of their struggle.
The above is only brief summary of the book.
There are many more characters, some weak and
others strong; the exploiters and the suppressed.
Chundri, Raghu Rao's lady love is a Lambada woman
who succumbs to the lust of the landowner's son,
while Jagannath Reddy's mother, Kashma, joins the
band of armed fighters for the rights of the
farmers.
The book may be discarded by some as propaganda
literature, but Krishin Chander is very vocal
about his philosophy of socialism. Today,
although the Soviet Union is not the same as when
this novella was written, socialism has itself
undergone many changes but Krishin Chander was a
firm believer in its philosophy of equality,
justice and humanity. Revolution in India will
succeed but in an Indian way is the message. The
reprint of this book will certainly be
appreciated by lovers of Urdu literature.
Roti Kapra aur Makan
By Krishan Chander
Sarang Publications, Lahore
108pp. Rs110
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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