SACW | June 7-8, 2008 / Pakistan: Peace with the Fascist Taliban? / New Nepal / India: Hyper Nationalism and 'national security' / Freedom of Press

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 20:29:30 CDT 2008


South Asia Citizens Wire | June 7-8 , 2008 | 
Dispatch No. 2520 - Year 10 running

[1] Bangladesh: On a Bumpy Road to Elections (Farid Bakht)
[2] Hyper Nationalism and India's 'national 
security' industry: Democracy paying the price 
for anti terror laws and machinery
    (i) Importance of mending our fences (Editorial, Daily Mirror)
    (ii) And then there's always Bangladesh (Naeem Mohaiemen)
   (iii) The Intimate Enemy (Ajay K. Mehra)
   (iv) Sustaining violence and impunity - 50 
Years of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958
[3] Terror in Pakistan :  Democrats Should Think 
Twice Before Making Peace with the Fascist Taliban
    (i) The Killing Fields Are Spreading (Irfan Husain)
    (ii) A mini-Taliban state in making (Muddassir Rizvi)
[4] End of Hindu Rashtra : Birth of A New Nepal (Subhash Gatade)
[5] India: Minorities & judges (Noorani)
[6] India: Freedom of Press at Risk in Gujarat 
and Maharashtra - declarations by concerned 
citizens and editorials
   (i) Report on Citizens and Media Persons 
Solidarity Meeting in Ahmedabad Against Sedition 
Charge on Times of India
   (ii) Statement by journalists and concerned 
citizens following assault on Kumar Ketkar the 
Bombay based newspaper editor
   (iii) Here They Go Again (Editorial, The Times of India)
[7] Shifting balance (Pritam Singh)

______


[1]

Economic and Political Weekly
May 31 - June 06, 2008

ON A BUMPY ROAD TO ELECTIONS

Fakhruddin Ahmed announced that the elections in 
Bangladesh will take place as scheduled in 
December. The ultimate motives are questionable 
as the state of emergency is still in place. 
Qualms about closer civil-military cooperation 
are widespread. With the pretext of bolstering 
national security the fear is that military will 
play a permanent role in political affairs. The 
choice of the new us ambassador is also 
indicative of American intervention in empowering 
the army.

by Farid Bakht
http://www.epw.org.in/epw//uploads/articles/12301.pdf

______


[2]

Daily Mirror

June 7, 2008
Editorial

IMPORTANCE OF MENDING OUR FENCES

We hear nice things about South Asian camaraderie 
emanating from the South Block, and we believe 
them. As the SAARC summit rolls up in early 
August, we can expect to hear from all capitals, 
including New Delhi, about the importance of 
mending fences in the subcontinent, and about 
promoting trade and people-to-people contact. And 
we will believe them.

But even as tentative movements are being made to 
relax visa regimes and expand the token rail 
transport that exists between India and 
Pakistan/Bangladesh, there is the awkward fact of 
the border fence that the Indian Home Ministry is 
constructing along the frontiers of the east and 
west. As the article on the India-Bangladesh 
border in this issue indicates, the fencing 
project is well on its way to completion, with 
only 1495 km left unfenced along the 4095 km-long 
India-Bangladesh border. On the western front, 
meanwhile, less than 100 km of the 2000 km that 
are planned for fencing remain to be sealed.

Try as we might, we are not able to correlate the 
fact of fence-building - with service roads, 
steel pylons, concertina- and barbed-wire, 
watchtowers and floodlights - with expressions of 
SAARC-era bonhomie. Curiously, this period of 
fence-building coincides with perhaps the most 
responsible period of bilateral relations in the 
northern half of the subcontinent. While the 
India-Bangladesh relationship has always been 
relatively stable, that between India and 
Pakistan has survived all kinds of events that, 
in an earlier era, would have led to escalating 
tit-for-tat actions between Islamabad and New 
Delhi. And yet, the fence-building has gone on 
and on.

On the Pakistani side, these fences are supposed 
to be to deal with infiltration by militants; on 
the Bangladeshi side, for militancy and to check 
illegal migration. While some might say that it 
is in fact the construction of fences along the 
border that has resulted in less friction and 
more peace, we believe that the relative peace 
that is being experienced today is due to factors 
other than a wealth of fences.

Fence-building flies in the face of the 
historical movement of peoples of Southasia 
across the landscape, and creates a rigid 
frontier that is incongruous with both our past 
and present. The Nepal-India frontier is all the 
proof needed that an open border does not destroy 
sovereignties, even while allowing people to move 
freely between countries. A fence is easier to 
build than to dismantle, however. This is 
particularly important to remember given that the 
current spree is a essentially a rather primitive 
reaction by the central government in New Delhi 
to the populist ultra-nationalism in India, which 
tends to blame 'cross-border terrorism' for any 
and all ills. Incidentally, the fence is not 
being built with the support of either Dhaka or 
Islamabad, though the exercise may be tacitly 
supported by the establishments in both.

Those Indian policymakers who are slightly 
embarrassed by the fence-building ask other South 
Asians to take note of the fact that, anyway, the 
fence will not really work for its intended 
purpose: it cannot really prevent infiltration, 
because there remain too many ways for a 
determined militant or migrant to force a way 
through. That may well be, but it is more likely 
that this exercise proves the hypothesis that in 
the humongous machinery that is the Indian 
government, one hand (the Home Ministry) does not 
quite know what the other hand (the Foreign 
Ministry) is doing. It may be still more likely 
that the dynamics of the Home Ministry makes it 
wary and unsupportive of South Block's overtures 
to the neighbouring countries.

o o o

(ii)

Indian Express
June 6, 2008

AND THEN THERE'S ALWAYS BANGLADESH

by Naeem Mohaiemen

They let us cook rice-daal for them, let us raise 
their children, trust us with the keys to 
house-home-jewelry. And then they turn around and 
vote for people who call us terrorists and want 
to cut us into pieces and bury us underground - A 
Bangladeshi taxi driver in Delhi, 2005

Bomb blast in Jaipur. What will we do now? Round 
up the usual suspects. Abdul, Rahman, Rahim, 
Karim, Salim. All you 'illegal' Bangladeshi 
immigrants within our borders. Report to the 
newest detention centres.

Remember, it's not who you say you are, it's what we say you are.

Bangladesh has emerged as the all-purpose 'Nondo 
Ghosh' (scapegoat) for Indian intelligence 
agencies. Attack on train station? Defused bombs? 
Bicycle bombs? Bag bombs? It must be the 
ultra-efficient, tentacle-spreading, 
just-in-time, always there spectre of 'terrorist 
organisations based in Bangladesh'.

With meticulous efficiency, we are informed that 
the 'modus operandi' of the Jaipur blasts is 
similar to the UP court blasts (November 2007), 
Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blasts (May 2007) and 
Malegaon (2006). Every bomb blast is similar to 
the one before. They are all connected, except 
when they aren't. Working on these leads, police 
are raiding Bangladeshi localities at Galta Gate, 
Baghrana, Ramganj, Subhash Chowk and Bhatta Basti 
in Jaipur. It's also election season.

I remember (a little wistfully) the old days of 
media hysteria about 'Pakistani' militants. 
Bullet riddled bodies (dead don't talk) and 
Pakistani passports (always in their pockets!). 
But Pakistan has become more complex, with its 
role in the US axis of willing. Anyway the public 
wants new, fresh faces. New borders. New panic.

Some time in the last few years, it has become 
easier and acceptable to bring out the 
Bangladeshi 'militant cell' bogey. That there is 
Islamist politics inside Bangladesh is not in 
question (many of us spend a great deal of energy 
opposing it as a political force). That these 
forces have more theatrical clout than a decade 
ago is also clear (electoral strength is muddied 
by the vote splitting agreement of 2001, and the 
cancelled elections of 2007). That some of them 
have fantasies of armed intifada is not in 
question either. But that they have the capacity 
to wage cross-border forays - this still needs to 
be proven (that is, are the fantasy groups ten 
strong, or one hundred thousand - noone has done 
credible research on this inside or outside 
Bangladesh).

The proof after the blasts always seems to come 
from shaky sources. That shadowy beast of Indian 
intel. Well, not just Indian intel, also American 
intel. The US has listed HuJI as a 
'global-standard' terrorist organisation. Does 
this listing reflect the reality, or it is 
wish-fulfillment elevating a group of smalltime 
operators into the global bigtime? We don't know 
and we won't know as long as the WOT equation 
continues to profit from inflated enemy strategy.

The Bangladesh government muddies the water 
further by insisting that there are 'no 
Bangladeshis' inside India. Of course there are 
many Bangladeshi immigrants inside India. There 
will always be. The real question about Jaipur is 
- who are these people in the 'Bangali para' - 
what were they doing all this time? Working for 
middle class Indian families, of course. Everyone 
in India knows exactly why these people are there 
- to work. As house help, cleaners, sweepers, 
cooks, maids, taxi drivers, tailors, weavers, 
jewelry makers, construction workers. Keeping 
Shining India rolling along. Yesterday, they were 
your convenient and easy source of cheap labour. 
Why are they a problem today?

As India develops as a hyper-growth Asian tiger, 
with Bangladesh next door, immigration is 
inevitable. Until Bangladesh becomes a medium 
growth country (Goldman Sachs seems to believe 
it's possible), we will be as a 'Mexico' to 
India's 'United States'. Bangladeshis, hungry for 
work, with families to feed, will cross the 
borders.

Immigrants are ubiquitous in the daily lives of 
modern cities. In a megapolis like New York, they 
are the ones who drive taxis, sell newspapers and 
coffee, clean restaurant tables and work in 
kitchens. They are intimately present in the 
physical space, but absent from consciousness. 
Only when they are detained do they become 
hyper-visible as 'sleeper cells.'

The desire to identify 'traitors' within borders 
has a long lineage. In America ('the immigrant 
nation'), the last century saw detention of 
Italian immigrants after the anarchist bomb 
attack in 1919, jailing of German-Americans 
during WWI, internment of Japanese-Americans 
during WWII, execution of suspected Soviet spies 
Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, Joseph McCarthy's 'Red 
Scare', the scapegoating of California Mexicans, 
and the rise of the border vigilante militia 
Minutemen. W.E.B. Dubois's question to African 
Americans, "How does it feel to be a problem?" is 
now redirected and made freshly relevant for a 
new population.

When the Hyderabad blasts happened, we heard 
intel was tracking phone calls to Bangladesh. 
What happened to that trail? Did the 
investigation go somewhere? If not, what about 
the public perception created about 'dangerous' 
Bangladeshis? A few years ago, there was another 
Bangla 'terror cell', splashed across Indian 
media. Again the story died out. The similarities 
to the US media are eerie.

After Jaipur, Pankaj Singh, a senior Rajasthan 
police officer told the press: "The modus 
operandi, the way the bombs were manufactured and 
concealed in bags, is very similar to the way 
Huji [Bangladesh] operates." I wonder what 
exactly made the trademark so easily spotted? 
Were the bags made out of jute? Sealed with 
jackfruit juice? Lined with Nilkhet Bangla book 
pages? Now I hear that bombs of medium intensity 
planted on bicycles are a HuJI trademark? Really? 
It's an original and never before tried idea? The 
Vietcong were using bicycle bombs against 
Americans in public spaces as far back as 1965. 
But oh dear, that's only history.

A previously unknown Islamic militant group, the 
Indian Mujahedeen, has actually claimed credit 
for the Jaipur bombing. But internal enemies are 
suddenly not so convenient. Questions of internal 
disenfranchisement and homegrown anger are so 
inconvenient. Naturally, Indian intel says the 
'evidence' provided by Indian Mujahedeen is not 
credible, it has many holes. But apparently the 
Bangladesh HuJI link is rock solid. The smoking 
gun points to over there, across the border. 
Inevitably, tragically, the fallout is underway. 
Political, legal and social. Arrest, round up, 
deport. Kick them out.

So hard to get good help these days. Now who will 
clean little Siddharth's bottom? I hear the 
Nepalis are rested and ready.

The writer works on art projects in Dhaka and New York

o o o

(iii)

Indian Express
Saturday, June 07, 2008

THE INTIMATE ENEMY

by Ajay K. Mehra

The political discourse around the recent blasts 
in Jaipur has fallen into a predictable pattern. 
Not surprising, for most such discourses are 
state-propelled, if not state-sponsored. The 
opposition (and government-in-waiting) BJP has 
been quick to demand the anti-terrorist law 
repealed by the UPA government, blaming the 
absence of such laws for the rise in terrorism 
during the UPA's tenure. The prime minister 
stressed the need for a federal agency to deal 
with terrorism and federal crimes, an assertion 
repeated after each "terrorist" attack since the 
UPA came to power.

Both these "anti-terrorism" assertions of the 
Indian state, represented by the two political 
formations that are likely to alternate in power 
in near future, deserve to be analysed. States 
and international state systems, as well as 
non-state actors, are implicated in the savagery 
of blowing innocents to pieces to achieve 
political ends. The matter of concern is that 
people who are helplessly caught in the 
collateral damage zone are orchestrated to play 
the state-composed tune.

Interestingly, the organised use of political 
terror coincides with the emergence of the most 
notable slogan of democracy since the French 
Revolution - liberté, égalité, fraternité . 
Obviously, the use of terror as a tool by state 
or non-state actors receives political-moral 
justification from similar sources. Even 
religious validation of terror has lately been 
used as a political instrument of mobilisation 
(by non-state actors) and condemnation (state 
systems). Further, both in national and 
international contexts, states and regimes have 
created terrorist monsters they then lost control 
over.

It is not surprising that the post-colonial 
Indian state, retaining many of the harsh 
features of the colonial state, has also dabbled 
in the politics of terrorism. It has maintained 
and perpetuated the colonial criminal justice 
system, insensitive to democracy in several ways. 
It has also enacted and re-enacted "security" 
acts - Defence of India Rules, Preventive 
Detention Act, Maintenance of Internal Security 
Act, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, Prevention of Terrorism 
Ordinance, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) 
Amendment Act and the Armed Forces (Assam and 
Manipur) Special Powers Act (in the context of 
the Northeast, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir) - with 
strong anti-human rights features, such as arrest 
on suspicion and long detention without trial. 
Not all of these have been in response to 
terrorism, neither have they minimised, let alone 
eradicate, terrorism; they have nonetheless been 
a source of state terror. A look at the legal 
instruments available within India's criminal 
justice framework would suggest that the 
country's arsenal of normal laws is not too 
deficient, if properly utilised.

Whether or not a Central counter-terror agency is 
eventually created, the Indian state's role in 
internal security has been constitutionally 
obligated. Even before entry 2A of the Union list 
was inserted in 1976 to empower the Centre to 
deploy the armed forces or the paramilitary "in 
any state in aid of the civil power", qualifying 
the entry on "police" in the state list, Article 
355 charged it with a clear duty "to protect 
every state against external aggression and 
internal disturbance..." Moreover, the suggestion 
of a parliamentary panel on the law to give 
special powers as well as responsibilities for 
intelligence to a Central agency like the CBI to 
investigate terror-related cases on its own, also 
suggests that institutional instruments for 
counter-terror exist with the Centre; these have 
to be properly utilised.

The key to effective counter-terror, however, is 
a balanced and non-partisan partnership between 
the Centre and the states. For, the police 
stations are the nodal policing agencies, as they 
alone can discover and keep tabs on the sleeper 
cells within their territories. Police reforms 
therefore are key to effective counter-terror; an 
inefficient, corrupt and brutal police system 
cannot take on terrorism despite a Union body to 
fight terrorism. The Punchhi Commission, assigned 
a fresh look at Centre-state relations, has a 
task in hand in this regard too.

Last but not the least, the political blame game 
amongst politicians obfuscates the real issue of 
the "ticking bomb" scenario presented by the 
politics of terror. Considering that the extreme 
use of terror is only a deviant extension of 
mainstream politics (I am indeed implying that 
the use of a certain degree of terror is implied 
in politics), the politics of terror finds space, 
if not justification, in democratic politics, 
which condemns terrorism day in and day out. 

The writer is Ford Foundation Professor, Centre 
for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia 
Islamia

o o o

(iv)  [Invitation Note for a panel discussion and 
press conference by Intercultural Resources, 
INSAF and Reachout ]

Sustaining violence and impunity

50 YEARS OF ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT, 1958

On 22nd May 1958, the Government of India 
promulgated an ordinance called the Armed Forces 
Special Powers Ordinance to meet the challenges 
arising out of the assertions of the Naga tribes 
in the then Naga Hills of Assam and parts of the 
then North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA). This 
ordinance was almost identical to a similar 
ordinance promulgated by the colonial British on 
15 August 1942 to suppress the uprising of Quit 
India Movement. It gave extraordinary powers to 
members of the armed forces, such as arrest 
without warrant and shoot to kill on the basis of 
suspicion. The Parliament subsequently converted 
this ordinance, (which was brought in as a 
temporary measure), into an Act on 18 August 
1958, and the President gave his assent on 11 
September 1958.

Thus, the unleashing of state's violent power or 
what some have called "State terrorism", that 
began on 22nd May 1958 was consolidated on that 
fateful 9/11 as the Armed Forces Special Powers 
Act and began its journey as a permanent 
instrument to militaristically treat the people 
of North East. While the people of Punjab had a 
brief taste of the Act in the 1980s, the people 
of Kashmir have been subjected to the same Act 
since 1990. But it is the people of the North 
East who have been its sustained victims for the 
last 50 years.

  While two MPs from Manipur opposed the Act in 
the Parliament in 1958 itself, and protests have 
regularly occurred, since the 1980s, various 
organizations and individuals have also 
challenged the legal and constitutional validity 
of the Act. After 15 long years, the Supreme 
Court took up litigation by NPMHR, and while 
accepting that the disturbed condition where the 
Act has been enforced is not due to armed 
rebellion and that it does not constitute a 
threat to national security, it upheld the 
constitutional validity of the Act in 1997.

  The numerous acts of human rights abuses under 
the Act came to the fore again in the gruesome 
murder of Manorama by the security forces 
operating under the Act in 2004. The people of 
Manipur rose up not only against the murder but 
also against the Act, which was joined by various 
civil liberties organizations and concerned 
citizens from across the country and world. 
Ultimately, the PMO was compelled to constitute 
the Reddy Committee to look into the matter and 
explore the possibility of substituting the AFSPA 
with a "more humane" Act. The Committee submitted 
its report on 6 June 2005 and recommended that 
the Act be repealed. Similarly the Administrative 
Reforms Committee headed by Veerappan Moily also 
recommended on 26 June 2007 that the Act to be 
repealed. Earlier, in February 2007, the United 
Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination had also recommended that the 
Indian Government immediate repeal the AFSPA. 
There has been no response from the Government. 
Even the Jeevan Committee report has not been 
made public, though The Hindu has leaked the 
report.

  Just as the people continue to suffer under the 
Act, the struggle, including that of Sharmila who 
has been on fast for years, against the Act also 
continues. On the 50th anniversary of the Act, to 
initiate further debate and to affirm the urgent 
need to repeal the Act, we are organizing a panel 
discussion and a Press Conference. We will also 
circulate a dossier at the Conference.

Date: 22 May 2008
Place: Indian Press Club
Time: 3:00 pm

Chair:               Mr Smitu Kothari, Intercultural Resources and Lokayan

Panelists:

  Mr  Sanjoy Hazarika, Member of Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee
Dr  Bimol Akoijam, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
Mr. Ravi Himadri, The Othermedia

______


[3]  Terror in Pakistan :  Making Peace with the Fascist Taliban a Huge Mistake

Dawn
June 04, 2008

THE KILLING FIELDS ARE SPREADING

by Irfan Husain

I WAS going to write about something else, but 
got sidetracked by the explosion outside the 
Danish embassy in Islamabad. As usual, almost all 
the casualties in this latest act of terrorism 
were Pakistanis, and presumably, Muslims.

None of them were in any way connected with the 
publication of the sacrilegious cartoons 
published in Denmark. Indeed, most of the embassy 
personnel had been moved to a local hotel after 
the controversial cartoons were printed, and the 
Danish mission had been reduced to a skeleton 
staff. So basically, the killers were targeting 
Pakistanis for something that happened thousands 
of miles away.

Most of the targets of Islamist militants have 
been fellow-Muslims who happened to be at the 
wrong place at the wrong time. And yet, there is 
little condemnation of these ruthless killers. 
Instead, I hear plaintive questions like 'Why did 
the Danes have to publish those offensive 
cartoons, anyway?'

This is a classic case of blaming the victim. The 
other refrain in media reporting of the incident 
was the fact that the embassy was not in the 
heavily-guarded diplomatic enclave, and was 
therefore somehow fair game.

These perceptions are totally at odds with how 
the rest of the world perceives this attack. The 
thing to remember is that Denmark is a democracy, 
and freedom of the media is taken for granted. 
And while the cartoons were insensitive, 
offensive and in poor taste, the fact remains 
that their publication did not break any law.

The Danish government has no powers to dictate 
the content of newspapers. We would do well to 
remember that Jesus Christ is caricatured 
regularly in the Western media.

Certainly, editors and publishers can be taken to 
court by individuals and groups. In any case, 
there is due process available to aggrieved 
parties. Suicide bombing is not on of the options 
civilised people take recourse to in order to 
lodge a protest. But obviously, those behind this 
and similar acts of terrorism are brutal killers 
of whom we cannot expect civilised behaviour.

It is the duty of the host country to provide 
security to diplomatic missions. In case of 
terrorist attacks, it has to pay for damages. In 
1979, when the US embassy in Islamabad was 
attacked by a mob and partly burned down, Zia's 
junta paid the repair bill (with our taxes, of 
course). To say that all missions will be moved 
to the diplomatic enclave, as this government has 
just done, is to force foreign countries to pay 
for the lawlessness that prevails in Pakistan. 
For many developing countries, this might not be 
possible. Even for some rich countries, Pakistan 
might not be important enough to build a new 
chancery. We operate out of rented buildings in 
many capitals abroad. How well would we cope if 
we had to construct new embassy buildings in 
every country where we have permanent 
representatives?

But more important than these practical 
considerations is the larger question of how 
Pakistan is increasingly perceived abroad. Hardly 
a week passes without some foreign government 
warning its citizens not to travel to Pakistan. 
This recent attack will only reinforce the 
perception of a weak, dangerous country where 
religious fanatics rule the streets, and killers 
can strike at will. Unfortunately, we have got so 
accustomed to this frightening level of violence 
that we no longer see how abnormal it is to have 
terrorist attacks rocking our country day in and 
day out.

The bombing of the Danish embassy also shows us 
the hollowness of the so-called peace accord 
reached with Baitullah Mehsud and his loose 
alliance of militants. It should be obvious to 
the meanest intelligence that he has no intention 
of keeping his word, and that this truce is only 
a tactical ploy for him. He will use it to 
strengthen his base, and launch more attacks in 
Afghanistan. Significantly, when he was asked by 
a BBC reporter if he would offer the Karzai 
government in Kabul a similar deal, his only 
response was a mocking laugh. Many observers, 
both in Pakistan and abroad, have warned the 
government of the dangers inherent in a separate 
peace. Already, despite the accord signed with 
the militants, there have been a number of 
attacks within the country, with the bombing of 
the Danish embassy being the most serious. Our 
western allies have expressed their grave 
reservations about the one-sided nature of the 
talks with Baitullah Mehsud. Given the weakness 
of our economy, and the serious security threats 
we face, we cannot afford to antagonise our 
friends, especially when the returns are so 
transient.

It appears that in our desperation to seek peace 
with the militants at any price, we are willing 
to gamble with the Pakistan the nation's founder 
wanted. Although we have drifted far from his 
goal, there was still a lingering hope that sheer 
pragmatism would prod us away from the kind of 
extremist dystopia many Muslims are striving for 
today.

We see the shape of things to come in the daily 
attacks on girls' schools, barber-shops and video 
stores in settled districts and tribal areas in 
the NWFP every day. When this image of Pakistan 
is overlaid on the constant reports of radical 
young Muslims coming to Pakistan from all over 
the western world to receive training in 
bomb-making, we can understand why our country is 
now seen as the source of great danger to the 
region and the world.

Should we proceed on our present path of 
providing a safe haven to terrorists, we will 
give western forces in Afghanistan a good reason 
to attack them. If we cannot enforce our 
sovereignty over the tribal areas, somebody else 
will fill the vacuum.

To think that other governments will permit their 
forces to suffer casualties through attacks from 
Pakistani soil, and not retaliate, is to live in 
a fool's paradise. In England and elsewhere, I am 
often asked by friends why we cannot tackle this 
menace. After all, they argue, with such a huge, 
well-equipped standing army, why can't your 
government take on these terrorists? Why not, 
indeed?

Obviously, there are big problems in fighting our 
own countrymen. But as long as Baitullah Mehsud 
and his cohorts are willing to slaughter innocent 
fellow Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere, we owe 
them no mercy. We certainly owe them no sympathy 
or support.

o o o

(ii)

Himal
June 2008

A MINI-TALIBAN STATE IN MAKING

The recent agreement between the NWFP government 
and the Taliban of the Swat Valley may have 
brought a momentary peace, but at what cost?

by Muddassir Rizvi

It has come full-circle. The friends-turned-foes 
say they are friends again. The latest peace 
agreement between the Pakistan government and the 
Taliban could well cease hostilities in the 
serene Swat Valley, but the price of peace might 
prove too high. The deal, finalised on 21 May, is 
a unique quid pro quo: the Taliban has agreed to 
respect the writ of the state, in return for the 
government's commitment to enforce the writ of 
Allah, by implementing Sharia law in the 
country's mountainous northern Malakand area.

The agreement, clinched by representatives of the 
government of the Northwest Frontier Province 
(NWFP) is, however, somewhat limited in scope, 
and will cover only six districts of the province 
- Swat, Shangla, Bunair, Dir Upper, Dir Lower and 
Chitral. As such, it will not be implemented in 
the seven Federally Administered Tribal Agencies 
(FATA) along the border with Afghanistan, which 
have been witness to Taliban militancy following 
the US-led coalition attack on Afghanistan in 
2001. However, the contents of the agreement with 
the Swat Taliban are indicative of the extent to 
which the government is ready to go to achieve 
peace in militancy-stricken areas. "Separate 
channels are being used to engage with all 
groups, in an effort to stop violence which has 
paralysed our lives in the country," said a Home 
Ministry official. "We hope we'll be able to 
bring everybody on board to protect the interests 
of the country."

The 16-point agreement is considered by many to 
be an achievement for the new democratically 
elected government, which is trying to clear the 
political, security and institutional debris left 
behind by nine years of military rule. At least 
one of its election promises, of curtailing 
militancy through talks, appears now to be 
materialising. This was taking place even as the 
government was drawing flak from its own 
coalition partners and civil society, on the 
question of the restoration of judges sacked by 
President Pervez Musharraf as he imposed 
emergency rule on 3 November last year.

It was not difficult, though, to understand why 
the government appeared jubilant. 
"Congratulations - we have an agreement!" 
exclaimed Bashir Bilour, head of the official 
team that drew up the accord much quicker than 
expected, after just two rounds of talks over 11 
days. Besides agreeing to de-escalate the 
violence, the Taliban also undertook to withdraw 
its opposition to various vaccination efforts, 
and agreed not to obstruct women's education. 
Other clauses include handing over all foreign 
militants to the government, and an assurance 
from the militants that they would not attack 
barber shops and markets visited by women.

For all the excitement, worries remain that the 
agreement is mostly one of a statement of 
promises, and ominously lacks details of 
implementation. The agreement names 
representatives from both sides who will oversee 
its operationalisation, but little more. 
"Matching fine words with actions will be the 
real test," said Shamrez Khan (not his real 
name), who has previously been affiliated with a 
proscribed religious group. "Attaining peace is 
easier than sustaining it." He believes that 
Taliban-affiliated formations are not the only 
groups active in Swat, an area that saw 
stepped-up insurgency in reaction to the military 
action against the Red Mosque in Islamabad last 
summer, which left hundreds of people dead. These 
groups have been active in the area since 1993, 
when the Movement for the Enforcement of Shariat 
Mohammadi launched an armed struggle for Islamic 
laws in the area. The Movement eased after the 
Benazir Bhutto government agreed to constitute 
Islamic courts in the area in the mid-1990s; 
however, the various groups continued to pursue 
their Islamicisation agenda on the local level.

The Movement again reared its head when its 
leader, Sufi Muhammad, led thousands of people 
across the border to fight the American forces 
following their attack on Afghanistan in October 
2001. Sufi was arrested on his return, only to be 
released in April 2008. This was apparently as a 
gesture of goodwill towards the Swat Taliban, 
which had been led by the hardcore Islamist 
Maulana Fazullah in Sufi's absence. During that 
time, the Swat Taliban had been able to shut down 
the video and cable-television businesses in many 
areas of the valley, in addition to having closed 
many schools for girls. Fazullah's illegal radio 
station, which he used to mobilise foot soldiers 
and preach his message, had become a constant 
irritant for the country's security apparatus. 
The valley, which used to be a popular tourist 
destination, had become a base for all sorts of 
extremist groups on the run, at least until the 
government launched a military operation in 
December 2007.

The foreign hands

"Taliban are not the only stakeholders," 
explained Shamrez Khan. "There are Islamic groups 
such as Jaish Muhammad, which may not accept the 
agreement and may continue their struggle until 
the withdrawal of American forces from 
Afghanistan and Iraq." Khan's suspicions are not 
unfounded. Just hours before the agreement was 
inked, unidentified attackers bombed two girls' 
schools and cable-television shops in the Swat 
Valley - perhaps a statement of protest against 
the deal by any one of an assortment of militant 
groups that continues to function in the valley 
and throughout the country's tribal areas.

The worst threat to lasting peace, however, could 
be foreign militants. Many of these have been 
left stranded in Pakistan, where they have taken 
refuge in the wake of the American invasion of 
Afghanistan. "There are foreigners, hundreds of 
them, many from Central Asia, who are not going 
to stop unless their presence is legitimised by 
the government," said a leader of the Pakistan 
People's Party (PPP) from Shangla District, 
requesting not to be named. But the government 
seems to be in no mood to compromise on the issue 
of foreign militants, and appears to have been 
successful in convincing the Swat Taliban to turn 
them in to the authorities. "This may provoke 
internal fighting among militant groups," warned 
the PPP leader. "There are numerous Uzbeks in the 
area who are armed with sophisticated weapons. 
They will not give in at any cost, and will fight 
whoever attempts to uproot them."

The peace agreement has also made Pakistan's 
international allies in the US-led 'war on 
terror' quite jittery. "We hope that they proceed 
cautiously," said American Deputy Secretary of 
State John Negroponte, "and do not accept an 
outcome that will give extremist elements the 
ability to use FATA in order to carry out attacks 
on Pakistan, on Afghanistan, or on the United 
States or the rest of the world." When he visited 
Pakistan this past March, Negroponte had opposed 
talks with "irreconcilable" elements.

How Pakistan will manage complex diplomatic 
concerns will be seen in the days to come. 
Indeed, the government may find it difficult to 
sell the idea of withdrawing militarily from Swat 
and the tribal areas to its international allies. 
Such a withdrawal from Waziristan could well be 
met with a non-negotiable 'no', particularly from 
the US, which sees the rugged terrain as a hotbed 
of militancy, where the Taliban and al-Qaeda have 
found a 'safe haven' to regroup. There is clearly 
some truth in this. In 2007 alone, Pakistan saw 
the killing of more than 750 people, including 
Benazir Bhutto, in 56 suicide attacks. Most of 
these were blamed by Pakistan's intelligence 
agencies on the Baitullah Mahsud-led Taliban 
Movement of Pakistan. Mahsud is believed to 
operate out of hideouts in Waziristan, and his 
men have also been accused by NATO commanders of 
carrying out attacks inside Afghanistan. Mahsud 
has also been accused of Benazir's assassination, 
and with holding the Pakistan ambassador to 
Afghanistan, Tariq Azizuddin, hostage until 
mid-May, when he was apparently released as the 
government attempted to woo Mahsud into accepting 
the recent deal.

Perhaps most critically in this diplomatic dance, 
the agreement with the Swat Taliban does not 
allay concerns about the crossborder militancy. 
While on the one hand the accord entails the 
gradual withdrawal of the Pakistani military from 
certain areas, it does not preclude the Taliban 
from joining international jihadi movements. 
Taliban members thus may transform into 
law-abiding citizens in Pakistan, but be quite 
free to foment terror elsewhere. This fear was in 
fact raised by Kabul, even as the new government 
opened channels for dialogue with Taliban groups. 
A spokesperson for the Afghan Foreign Ministry 
warned that the peace deal in Pakistan's tribal 
areas would not stop Taliban attacks on targets 
inside Afghanistan - and could even jeopardise 
the relationship between the two countries.

At the moment, Pakistani officials have no 
answers to these concerns. Rather, they are 
merely reiterating the government's resolve to 
curb militancy and prohibit the use of Pakistani 
soil to launch attacks on other countries. 
"Pakistan has reassured the United States that 
any deal with Taliban will require their 
disarming," said an official with the Foreign 
Ministry in Islamabad. In the face of such 
promises, however, the deal with the Swat Taliban 
does not expressly include any such provision, 
but merely requires their 'voluntary ceasefire'.

High price for peace

It is not just Pakistan's international allies 
who are nervous. Equally stressed are the 
country's liberal democrats, who believe that, in 
the long run, the country may be paying too high 
a price for peace. "We are giving ground to the 
rightwing forces, accepting their demands such as 
enforcing Islam on their terms," said Afreina 
Noor, a rights activist based in Islamabad. "We 
have seen the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and we 
are legitimising the same band of people in our 
country."

These fears mostly stem from some of the more 
blatant Taliban demands to which the government 
has now acceded. The withdrawal of the military 
from Malakand, despite the fact that no timeframe 
has been specified, is itself a moral victory for 
the Swat Taliban. The group now hopes to draw up 
an amnesty for its leaders, including Maulana 
Fazullah. Meanwhile, the government agreed to 
enforce Sharia law, though again the accord is 
silent on exactly how this will happen. This has 
already created a fear within many that a 
mini-Taliban state is on the verge of being set 
up within Pakistan. Perhaps most worrying to many 
is the precedent of the agreement - for other 
groups to band together, take up arms and kill 
innocent people in order to push the state to 
accept their radical demands. "This agreement 
will encourage the spread of Talibanisation in 
Pakistan," said Noor.

At the moment, the NWFP government sees the peace 
deal as a reinforcement of the writ of the state, 
which has been consistently challenged by 
militants since the military launched an 
operation in the area more than four years ago. 
"What we couldn't achieve through force over all 
these years was made possible by meaningfully 
engaging with them [the Taliban] and hearing them 
out," said a government official who has been 
privy to the dialogue. "There has been no barter 
involved, but only an understanding of the 
position of the two parties. Let's give dialogue 
a chance."
______


[4]

END OF HINDU RASHTRA : BIRTH OF A NEW NEPAL

Why Jaswant Singh feels Humiliated Over Developments in Nepal !

by Subhash Gatade

Jaswant Singh, the exforeign minister of India, 
who also handled the finance portfolio for quite 
sometime, rather could not hide his displeasure 
in the recently held meeting of the BJP executive.

Of course the immediate provocation for the 
ex-Army man was neither because of any fresh move 
by his bete noire in state politics namely Ms 
Vasundhara Raje Scindia. It also had nothing to 
do with the manner in which L.K.Advani had flatly 
denied any knowledge of his not so famous sojourn 
to Kandahar after the plane hijacking incident.

In fact he shared his piece of mind over recent 
developments in Nepal. He called it a 'negative 
development' and a 'danger to India's security' 
and said that 'as a believer in sanatan Dharma he 
feels humiliated and as a Hindu, he felt 
diminished over the ouster of a Hindu king.'

Any close watcher of the Nepal situation would 
tell you that Jaswant Singh is not alone in 
having and expressing a negative opinion about 
the developments in the newest republic which has 
seen the end of 250 year old monarchy and the end 
of the 'model Hindu Rashtra' much espoused by the 
Sangh Parivar organisations. In one of his recent 
outbursts,  Mr Ashok Singhal, the International 
President of Vishwa Hindu Parishad is reported to 
have compared Jihadists and Maoists who would 
together bring further calamity to the tiny 
country.

It was expected that all such outbursts from the 
BJP and its allied organisations would be 
immediately rebuked by the Nepalese leaders. 
Rambahadur Thapa, a senior leader of NCP 
(Maoists) called all such utterances 'anti-Nepal' 
and an 'intervention in the internal affairs of 
the country' .

Perhaps one needs to ask oneself why does Mr 
Singh feels pertrubed over the end of a regime 
which concentrated all power in the hands of a 
small caucus centred around the King which denied 
basic human rights to a vast majority of Hindus 
and which condemned the followers of the other 
religions to a secondary status. Whether it has 
to do with emergence of NCP (Maoists) as the 
single largest party in the new republic which 
has humbled all the other parties or it has to do 
with the emergence of the most diverse and 
representative parliament in the world today. 
Independent observers have noted that the newly 
elected Nepalese parliament has more than one 
third of women and other one third representation 
is from the different ethnicities and oppressed 
castes.

Does Mr Singh then think that while he and his 
formation can benefit themselves from 
participating in the Democratic process, for the 
Nepalese people monarchy provides the best 
solution ?

Jaswant Singh's displeasure and outbursts of 
other hotheads from the Sangh Parivar once again 
brings into sharp focus the special relationship 
enjoyed by them with the ( now defunct) monarchy. 
To be very frank, it was a relationship which 
benefitted both the parties. While the Monarchy 
let the Sangh Parivar organisations spread their 
network in the Himalayan kingdom, which at times 
brought them in conflict with local religious 
heads who did not support their weltanshauung ( 
world view) on their part BJP and other Sangh 
Parivar organisations provided crucial support to 
the beleagured monarchy on very many occasions.

It is now history how VHP working president, 
Ashok Singhal had exhorted Hindus of the world to 
follow the great monarch in a conference of Hindu 
leaders form across the world which was held in 
Kathmandu. He said : "It is the duty of 900 
million Hindus the world over to protect the 
Hindu samrat (king)..ŠGod has created him to 
protect Hindu dharma." In this conference these 
leaders had deified King Gyanendra as the world's 
only Hindu monarch. Mr Singhal had also then 
proposed to organise a world Hindu meet in New 
York the coming  year under the leadership of 
King Gyanendra (Indian Express, January 23, 
2004). He added that the New York gathering would 
project Hindus as a global power..Šwith the Nepal 
king leading the way.

It did not matter to Mr Singhal then that with 
his utterances he was showing loyalty to the King 
of another country much derided by his one time 
leader and RSS ideologue Golwalkar.In his 
monograph 'Bunch of Thoughts'  he had castigated 
Muslims, Christians and Communists as the 
country's main enemies for their 
"extraterritorial loyalty". It is worth noting 
that Secular formations and individuals in this 
part of the world also did not try to put him on 
the defensive over such a sensitive issue.

Apart from the mutual support they derived from 
each other the 'Hindu Rashtra' in Nepal under the 
rule of the king served a deeper ideological 
purpose for the Sangh Parivar. It acted as a 
'model' for its own project of nation 
building.And the internal social-cultural 
situation suited its purpose well.

For the Sangh Parivar and its affiliated 
organisations it was the only state in the world 
where the `one nation, one people, one culture' 
weltanschauung of the Hindu rashtra was already 
in place. It had made religious conversion an 
offence and where the slaughter of the official 
national animal, the cow, could be punished by 18 
years of rigorous imprisonment or where the state 
had imposed its own version of `sanatan dharma' 
on the vast multitude of the people.

The hard facts pertaining to Nepal then were for 
everyone to see. Being a Hindu rashtra, 
autocratic rules still persisted in the Himalayan 
kingdom. Its constitution made the Hindu way of 
life a basic part of Nepalese life. It stated: 
"Nepal is a multiethnic, multilingual, 
democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign, 
Hindu and Constitutional Monarchical Kingdom". 
The richest people in this Hindu rashtra were the 
royalty, priestly class and the outsiders. The 
monarchy was so privileged that, according to the 
constitution "... No question shall be raised in 
any court about any act performed by His Majesty".

In order to preserve its Hindu character, 
conversion to any other religion was prohibited. 
Until 1963, the Nepali state upheld Hindu 
jurisprudence - formally at least. Fourthly, in 
view of this ban on conversions 90 per cent of 
the population was stated to be Hindu. Fifthly, 
being a Hindu rashtra, all royal claims were 
legal. The Hindu king could do no wrong. Also, 
though the constitution guaranted that there 
won't be any discrimination based on caste, the 
age-old stranglehold of this institution 
continued. Untouchables, who constitute 22 per 
cent of the Nepalese population, were the worst 
victims. For centuries, Nepal's untouchables have 
had to stay out of Hindu temples, refrain from 
drawing water at village wells and have even 
changed their children's names so that they could 
get an education. The status of Dalits and 
backward communities was the same as it was in 
India 100-125 years ago.

This Hindu rashtra had become the single biggest 
supplier of people to other countries. The system 
trained young workers and soldiers for other 
countries. Statistics of persons leaving this 
`Ram Rajya' on account of poverty and migrating 
in search of jobs was really mind-boggling.

Sudheendra Sharma, a social scientist who had 
written extensively on the religions of Nepal, 
rightly underlined that "...cultural isolationism 
from India meant that Nepal was also shielded 
from influence of the 19th century Hindu 
renaissance. Furthermore, within the territorial 
bounds of the nation-state, this policy 
meantaggressive Sanskritisation and cultural 
integration of hill ethnic communities based on 
an orthodox Hindu framework."

It is widely known that Nepal was ushered into a 
constitutional monarchy as a consequence of a 
people's movement against the partyless panchayat 
system in 1990, when a new constitution was 
adopted by the parliament.But very few people are 
aware that when the constitution of 1990 was 
written, there was pressure to make Nepal an 
officially secular state like India. It could be 
called the only key demand which was put forward 
by the Dalits, tribals, women and people from 
other faiths like Buddhism.

The pressure generated was so great that at one 
point of time the members of the constitution 
committee even had to concede to the demand that 
Nepal won't be declared a Hindu state. This 
demand created dissensions within the 
constitution committee as well. However, in the 
end, the views of the Hindu establishment won the 
day, and the constitution was decided in favour 
of making Nepal a Hindu country.

All that is passe now. And despite all the pious 
wishes and attempts of the BJP leaders and Sangh 
Parivar organisations, the model Hindu Rashtra 
has finally been given a decent burial and Nepal 
is now a secular democratic republic with Maoists 
at the helm of affairs. Perhaps the agony and 
pain experienced by the likes of Jaswant Singh 
and other  Hindutva acolytes could be compared to 
the shock and disbelief experienced by people - 
who believed in justice and progress - over the 
dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Of course it need be underlined that Sangh 
Parivar and affiliated organisations made last 
ditch efforts to save the monarchy despite the 
overwhelming majority going against them. When 
Terai region in Nepal witnessed violent agitation 
recently the role played by Hindu extremist 
organisations had also come under scanner. Mr 
Bharat Bhushan had specifically commented on this 
aspect in one of the writeups in 'The Telegraph' :

Nepalese political observers also point to the 
role being played by Hindu extremist 
organizations from India in fomenting trouble in 
the Terai to save the king. A high-ranking 
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh representative from 
Nagpur is believed to have held a meeting in 
Gorakhpur with several royalists, including 
Upendra Yadav and members of the Sadbhavna Party. 
The role played by the local Indian MP, Mahant 
Avaidhyanath, is also being questioned by some in 
this regard. (Royalists Fish In Terai Trouble, 29 
th January 2008, The Telegraph)

But as things unfolded before us all their not so 
pious wishes and attempts could not stop the 
wheel of history in taking a forward turn in 
Nepal. In fact, despite all the displeasure shown 
by the likes of Mr Singh a New Nepal is before 
us. And now it is upto them to decide whether 
they would welcome this new face Nepal or still 
maintain nostalgia over the bygone era.

______


[5]

Frontline
June 07-20, 2008

Books

MINORITIES & JUDGES

by A.G. Noorani

Discrimination is a legal concept; "appeasement" is a political slogan.

ALL democratic states ensure constitutional 
protection for minority rights. They can, 
however, be enforced only by an independent 
judiciary, comprising judges with a broad, 
liberal outlook when politicians in the executive 
and the legislature trammel on the rights of 
minorities. For obvious reasons, the majority 
needs no such guarantees.

When A.B. Vajpayee said that Article 30 of the 
Constitution (embodying the fundamental right of 
religious and linguistic minorities to establish 
and administer educational institutions of their 
own choice) should be extended to Hindus also, he 
was indicating his distaste for minority rights. 
The Sangh Parivar always said that the Minorities 
Commission should be replaced by a Human Rights 
Commission. It is both facile and deceptive to 
assert that "we are all Indians, why then the 
distinction?"

On February 13, 1988, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh 
(RSS) chief Balasaheb Deoras said that the word 
"minority" should be removed from the 
Constitution.

Will this help? India is a party to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights. Article 27 of the Covenant explicitly 
recognises the rights of "ethnic, religious, or 
linguistic minorities".

India is bound to report on its enforcement of 
the Covenant to the United Nations 
Secretary-General and is answerable to the Human 
Rights Committee set up under it. Successive 
Attorneys-General have been grilled by its 
members for the shoddy reports that New Delhi 
submitted.

The Committee adopted on April 26, 1994, as 
Article 40 (4) envisages, a "General Comment" on 
the scope of Article 27. It ruled: "Positive 
measures of protection are required not only 
against the acts of the state party itself, 
whether through its legislative, judicial or 
administrative authorities, but also against the 
acts of other persons within the state party." 
That includes groups such as the Shiv Sena, the 
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and the RSS.
U.N. declaration

The United Nations General Assembly unanimously 
adopted on December 18, 1992, a Declaration on 
the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or 
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

At the Conference - now Organisation - for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) summit 
in Helsinki in July 1992, its 51 members decided 
to establish a High Commissioner on National 
Minorities.

The Council of Europe adopted on June 22, 1992, 
the European Charter for Regional or Minority 
languages. There is also the E.C. Framework 
Convention on the Protection of National 
Minorities, which was signed by 22 member-states 
on February 1, 1995. India never hesitates to 
instruct other states in good manners in dealings 
with their minorities: Bangladesh and Fiji, for 
instance.

International guarantees, though helpful, are not 
enough. It is the country's ethos that matters. 
Judges reflect it. In 1958, the Chief Justice of 
India, S. R. Das, said in the Kerala Education 
Bill case: "So long as the Constitution stands as 
it is and is not altered, it is, we conceive, the 
duty of this court to uphold the fundamental 
rights and thereby honour our sacred obligation 
to the minority communities who are of our own."

Referring to the Aligarh Muslim University case 
decided in 1968, H.M. Seervai remarked that "this 
is the first case in which the Supreme Court has 
departed from the broad spirit in which it had 
decided cases on cultural and educational rights 
of minorities which was reflected in the words of 
Das C. J.". The "first case" was followed by not 
a few in which the court whittled down Article 
30. In the AMU case, it ruled, incredibly, that 
"the university was not established by Muslims".

These two books should be read by every judge who 
has to decide such cases. We have reached a stage 
when our judges do not even understand that 
historical fiction is not history. Not that a 
work of history requires assurances of accuracy 
to courts of law. That is a matter for a 
different court - the readers. The judges' 
outlook and intellectual equipment matter.

"Incredible" is the only word one can use to 
characterise the remarks made by Justice T.S. 
Thakur of the Delhi High Court on May 12, when he 
sat on a Bench with Justice Siddharth Mathur.

The court was hearing a petition challenging the 
implementation of the report of the Prime 
Minister's High Level Committee, headed by 
Rajinder Sachar, entitled "Social, Economic and 
Educational Status of the Muslim Community of 
India", submitted in November 2006. It was 
unanimous and massively documented.

Justice Thakur asked: "Is this meant to appease 
some community?... a lot of money is spent in a 
welfare state, is it that you [the Union 
government] spend it only for minority?" The 
remark was highly improper.

Discrimination is a legal concept; appeasement is 
a political slogan. Justice Thakur could not have 
been unaware of the fact that it is used 
exclusively by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 
He has every right to strike down 
unconstitutional discrimination. But, it is no 
concern of a judge whether the government 
"appeases" anybody.

The word itself is used improperly. It is defined 
by the Concise Oxford Dictionary to mean "placate 
(someone) by acceding to their demands". This is 
not a case of placation by sheer redress.

The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru contain 
his letters galore, over the years, urging that 
very redress. Is not the state entitled, indeed 
bound, to redress wrongs to a minority? It is, 
therefore, untenable to ask "why are you not 
doing it (welfare measures) for the majority 
community?" (Indian Express; May 13, 2008).

Now that this issue is squarely joined, it must 
be met and finally resolved. When a judge 
declaims "you are trying to please one community" 
he is making a political criticism and imputing a 
political motive. True, "poverty is the common 
enemy"; but are not some poorer than others? It 
is a fundamental error to say that the state 
cannot take affirmative action to help any 
underprivileged and discriminated section of the 
people.

This principle is recognised even in the United 
States The admonition "such issues should not be 
decided on the basis of emotions" applies to all, 
judges included. Such remarks are inappropriate 
at that stage of the hearing. The matter is far 
too important to be addressed thus. The 
documentation in the report alone merits careful 
study.
Discrimination

For decades, the Minority Rights Group 
International has rendered high service by its 
scholarly studies. Its latest report deserves 
wide readership. This is what it says on page 
111: "Like low-caste Dalits, India's tribal 
Adivasis also face issues of discrimination and 
inhuman treatmentŠ. Religious minorities, mainly 
Muslims and Christians, in majority Hindu India, 
were also victims of violence and persecution in 
2007Š. Muslim minority groups in September 
launched protests against the government for its 
failure to implement recommendations of the 
Sachhar Committee report. The report, released in 
2006, recognised the discrimination against 
minorities and called for a series of government 
measures to bring an end to itŠ."

The scholarly Journal of South Asian and Middle 
Eastern Studies published an article by Omar 
Khalidi, entitled "Entrepreneurs from Outside the 
Traditional Mercantile Communities: Muslims in 
India's private Sector", in the last issue 
(Volume xxxi; No. 2, Winter 2008; pages 13-42). 
Its 167 footnotes testify to thorough research. 
The writer lists the impediments Muslims face - 
state-assisted pogroms, access to bank credits, 
and so on. Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram 
noted: "credit to minorities is not satisfactory" 
(The Hindu; December 20, 2006).

In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in United 
Jewish Organisations of Williamsburg vs. Carey 
(430 U.S. 144) a delimitation law that 
"deliberately increased the non-white majorities 
in certain districts". In 1980, it upheld in 
Fullilove vs. Klutznick (448 U.S. 448) a law that 
reserved 10 per cent of federal public works 
programmes for minority contractors. These 
rulings are of direct relevance to the Sachar 
report.

So, is the mass of material in the volume on 
universal minority rights edited by Marc Weller, 
Director of the European Centre of Minority 
Issues, under whose auspices, jointly with that 
of the Centre of International Constitutional 
Studies, University of Cambridge, it is published.

It assesses the implementation practice of human 
rights bodies worldwide and demonstrates that 
"there is an emerging universal jurisprudence on 
minority rights, drawing on the corpus of general 
human rights. In addition to this overall goal we 
strive to advance the understanding of the 
application of human rights in relation to 
minorities in general and their application to 
issues of particular relevance to minorities."

The issues are analysed in depth by scholars of 
note and cover the rights to equality, freedom of 
speech, assembly and association, and to practise 
religion; family and cultural rights, education, 
"physical integrity", "socio-economic rights as 
minority rights" and "effective participation of 
minorities in public life".

It would shock these scholars if any one were to 
call this "appeasement" of minorities. The 
section of "minorities and economic 
opportunities" is particularly relevant to our 
situation. The volume is indispensable to 
students of minority rights and, indeed, to 
lawyers and judges.*


______


[6]  India: Freedom of Press at Risk in Gujarat 
and Maharashtra - declarations by concerned 
citizens and editorials


(i)

CITIZENS AND MEDIA PERSONS SOLIDARITY MEETING AGAINST SEDITION CHARGE
ON TIMES OF INDIA AND TO UPHOLD FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

  A charge of sedition has been filed against the 
Times of India, Ahmedabad edition, because it 
exposed the nexus of the City Police Commissioner 
Mr. O.P. Mathur with the underworld don. The 
story of the news was how safe is Ahmedabad under 
Mr. O.P.Mathur. Earlier the journalist staged a 
spirited demonstration before the office of the 
Police Commissioner, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad joined 
by the activists and the concerned citizens.The 
journalists met the Governor Mr.  Navalkishore 
Sharma.

The Sedition charge against the Times of India 
developed a unique solidarity of the media 
persons and the concerned citizens and the 
activists. A series of activities on freedom of 
expression are going on in the city.

The citizens of Ahmedabad came out and condemned 
sedition charge and stood for freedom of press 
and freedom of expression. On 5th. June  A 
Citizens' meet was organised at Himavan, Paldi by 
Movement for Secular Democracy (M.S.D.), People's 
Union for Civil Liberties ( P.U.C.L.) and 
PRASHANT to protest  against the Sedition charges 
against ' Times of India' and to uphold the 
freedom of expression.Concened citizens belonging 
to all walks of life joined the meeting. They 
were jurists, academicians, columnists, 
activists, students, youths and of course media 
persons. The journalist friend of Times of India, 
who is facing the charge of sedition (along with 
the resident editor and the photographer), Mr. 
Prasant Dayal, who carried the news on Mr. 
O.P.Mathur was also present and was greeted 
warmly as soon as he entered the hall.

The introductory speech was delivered by Mr. 
Dwarika Nath Rath and there after Sri Gautam 
Thaker conducted the meeting
The meeting was addressed by Advocate Mr. 
Girishbhai Patel, eminent citizen Mr. Prakashbhai 
Shah,. noted journalistm.Mr. Urvish Kothari, 
senior journalists Mr. Rathin Das, Mr. Digant Oza 
.Fr. Cedric Prakash of PRASHANTand Prof. 
Dineshbahi Shukla.

Media persons Mr. D.P. Bhattacharya of India 
Express, Mr. Dilip Patel of Times of India,Mr. 
Ashis Vasi , Vishal Patadiya too   expressed
their anguish

.Of course Mr. Prasant Dayal spoke in the meeting.

Ms. Ilabehn Pathak of AWAG,.Prof.Ghanshyam Shah, 
Mr. Indukumar Jani.  Editor, Nayamarg Mr. 
Harinesh Pandya, campaigner of RTI Mr.Vithkbjai 
Pandya, the father of slained Harin Pandya, 
Prof.Dhavalbahi Mehta,Ex BJP MLAMr. SunilOza,Mr. 
Rajanibhai Dave ,editor, Bhoomiputra,Mr. Ashok 
Chatterji, ex Director N.I.D., Mr. Mahadev 
Vidrohi of Sarvoday, and others  actively 
participated in the discussion and made valuable 
suggestions


Noted Sarvoday leader Sri Chunibhai Vaidya was 
present in the meeting.  Apart from him Prof. 
Abid Shamsi, Sri Dilip Chandulal,Suvarnabehn, 
Damayanti behn,Sri Arunbhai Thkore, Sri 
Himmatbbhai Shah, Sri Jayesh Patel,Ms. Ramabehn 
Vora,Ms.  Meenakshi Joshi, Ms. Sarah 
behnBaldiwala,Ms.Verona D. Souza , Mr. Bhavik 
Raja,Mr. PravinShah and many others from all walk 
of life were present in the meeting.
A resolution was unanimously  passed

The Resolution

The sedition charge against the Times of India is 
a matter of great concern for all the democratic 
minded people in the society. The meeting of the 
citizens condemns the charge of sedition filed 
against Times of India and term it as a direct 
assault on freedom of Press, which is the fourth 
Estate in a democratic country.  Registering the 
case against Times of India is a deliberate 
action of Police to suppress the voice of dissent 
of the press and create an atmosphere of panic in 
the state, where violation of human rights and 
Democratic rights is  becoming a regular practice 
of the Police and Govt. in Gujarat in overt and 
covert fashion for last so many years.

The features carried by Times of India exposing 
the close  nexus between Police officer Mr. O.P. 
Mathur with Mr. Abdul Latif , is not only 
appalling but raises  serious question about the 
credibility of the Police Officer in high rank 
and  level criminalization of Police in the state.

The Ahmedabad city Police Commissioner Mr. 
O.P.Mathur instead of responding to the 
documented investigative report published by the 
Times of India either by refuting the charges or 
by filing defamation case but  to treat the 
reports questioning his competence as amounting 
to excite hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction to 
wards the Govt.  reflects his undemocratic 
character and audacity to equate himself as Govt. 
established by law.If  Mr.Mathur has acted with 
the  approval of the Govt. ,it exposes how the 
state attempts to suppress democratic dissent., 
which can be a British colonial hang over.
So, we consider any threat to freedom press and 
freedom of expression by any quarter of the 
administration is a direct threat to democracy 
and perpetuate fascist type of rule

The role of media as the watchdog of democracy 
and it's role to disseminate right information to 
the citizen is always indispensable, which we 
consider the Times of India has been performing.

So we demand-
1 Withdrawal of the charge of sedition and conspiracy immediately
2 Institute a high level judicial enquiry on the 
charges against Mr. O.P. Mathur
3 The column of Sedition be scrapped permanently.
4 A delegation of the citizens will meet the Governor of Gujarat
5 A State Level conference will be held on 22nd June  On Freedom of Expression.
6 The Home Minister of Gujarat should come out 
with the clarification on the charge of Sedition 
against Times of India

GAUTAM THACKER
DWARIKANATH RATH
FR. CEDRIC PRAKASH

Date- 6-6-08

- - -

(ii) STATEMENT BY JOURNALISTS AND CONCERNED 
CITIZENS FOLLOWING ASSAULT ON KUMAR KETKAR THE 
BOMBAY BASED NEWSPAPER EDITOR

We condemn the unprovoked and dastardly attack on 
the house of Kumar Ketkar, Editor-in-Chief, 
Loksatta, on the morning of June 5th, 2008. This 
is an attack on the freedom of expression. All 
democratic and freedom loving people must stand 
up to such fascist attacks.

Supporters of Shiv Sangram Sanghtana are 
reportedly behind this attack. They were 
protesting against the editorial in Loksatta of 
June 4th that commented on the government 
proposal to instal Shivaji Maharaj's statue in 
the Arabian sea .

In democracy, no one has the right to scuttle 
freedom of expression by use of force. Such 
fascist means have no place in a democratic and 
civilized society. Those who feel offended by the 
editorial are free to  approach either the Press 
Council of India or an appropriate court of law.

We demand that the Mumbai Police and Government 
of Maharashtra should immediately initiate 
action, as per law, against the culprits. No one 
should be spared, howsoever influential he may be.

Arun Tikekar
Anil K Singh
Darryl D'monte
Deepak Lokhande
Gurbir Singh
Jatin Desai
Kalpana Sharma
Meena Menon
Neera Adarkar
Nikhil Wagle
P Sainath
Rajiv Khandekar
Ramesh Pimple
Ranjona Bannerjee
Shishir Joshi
Siddharth Bhatia
Smruti Koppikar
Vishwanath Sachdeo
Yogesh Kamdar
Yuvraj Mohite

- - -

(iii)

Times of India
7 June 2008

EDITORIAL: Here They Go Again

Competitive identity politics in Mumbai has taken 
yet another ugly turn. In the process, it has 
chipped away, again, at India's liberal, 
democratic foundations.

When activists claiming allegiance to the 
Shivsangram Sangathana - which has links with the 
NCP - vandalised the house of Loksatta editor, 
Kumar Ketkar, on Thursday, it was our 
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression 
that was under assault, along with the life and 
property of Ketkar and his wife.

Vinayak Mehte, a former NCP MLC, claimed his 
organisation was upset by an editorial written by 
Ketkar, which had criticised the Maharashtra 
government's decision to erect a statue of 
Shivaji in the Arabian Sea.

Anyone who has read the editorial will see that 
it simply did not denigrate the great Maratha 
warrior. What it did was ask whether such a 
project was necessary when the state had so many 
pressing problems - including farmer suicides
and malnutrition - facing it.

It's a valid question, and as a journalist Ketkar 
has the right to raise it. Indeed, any other 
citizen could have asked the same. Freedom of 
expression is every Indian's fundamental right.

However, such questioning in Maharashtra seems to 
be an invitation to trouble, especially if 
Shivaji figures in the equation.
We know that the Shiv Sena links pride in the 
warrior and his heritage to Marathi asmita and 
sets its cadre amok, especially in Mumbai, 
whenever it decides this pride has been offended 
in a book, a movie or elsewhere.

Successive administrations of other political 
dispensations, instead of countering this 
regressive brand of politics, have adopted it.

Though the NCP and the Congress do not speak the 
language of Bal Thackeray or Raj Thackeray - at 
least officially - they are in effect doing so by 
merely watching instead of coming down hard on 
the violent mobs. Four years ago, it was the 
Congress government that banned historian James 
Laine's book on Shivaji and an NCP-backed 
organisation that ransacked Bhandarkar Institute 
in Pune.

In their crude attempts to gain political capital 
by presenting themselves as protectors of 
Shivaji's legacy, political parties in
Maharashtra are impoverishing India's liberal tradition.

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Gujarat, freedom of 
the press is under attack as well, for different 
reasons. Angered by investigative reports against 
him by this newspaper, Ahmedabad's police chief O 
P Mathur - instead of suing for defamation - 
pressed sedition charges.

This is a dangerous move. It could have damaging 
consequences for not just journalists but all 
citizens. Freedom of expression, which includes 
the freedom of the press, is vital to a healthy 
democracy, which protects individual and 
collective rights.

Increasingly, in one way or another, we seem to 
be fighting a losing battle against those who 
have little regard or respect for the liberal 
values on which this nation was founded.

______


[7]


Himal, June 2008

SHIFTING BALANCE

by Pritam Singh

As global capital moves East, developing 
economies need to understand the importance of 
not aping the entrenched lifestyles of the West.

[Full Text at: http://www.himalmag.com/2008/june/cover_balance.htm]

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

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