SACW | June 11, 2008 / Violence and malicious "patriotism" / Defeated Dictators / Lynching of Jagdish / Guestworkers Hunger Strike
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 21:28:35 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | June 11, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2522 - Year 10 running
[1] Sri Lanka:
(i) Civil Society Organisations Condemn All Acts of Violence
Against Civilians
(ii) A malicious "patriotism" and its impact on media and
journalists (Ruwanminee Wickremasinghe)
[2] Nepal and Pakistan: Dislodging Defeated Dictators (J. Sri Raman)
[3] Pakistan:
- A new Constitutional settlement (A G Noorani)
- Finding the right power balance (A G Noorani)
- Debating a new constitutional settlement (A G Noorani)
[4] Lynching Jagdish: The Inhumanity of Majoritarianism (Farida Majid)
[5] India: But who are these Gujjars? (Shail Mayaram)
[6] Support Indian Guestworkers in Their Historic Hunger Strike in Washington
[7] Calls / announcements:
(i) Call For Peoples SAARC 2008!
(ii) Upcoming at T2F: An Evening With Salima Hashmi / Cinema for
Change / Partition Stories etc (Karachi, 13-27 June 2008)
(iii) Peaceworks, A 3-day intensive workshop on peace-building
(Calcutta, 27, 28, 29 June 2008)
______
[1] The War in Sri Lanka:
(i)
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS CONDEMN ALL ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS
9 June 2008, Colombo, Sri Lanka: As members of Sri Lankan civil
society, we are shocked by the continuing disrespect for human life
that has increasingly become a part of our everyday lives throughout
the island. We vehemently condemn all acts of violence, especially
those that target unarmed civilians.
The first week of June alone witnessed several bomb attacks on public
transport and public thoroughfares that have resulted in the death of
32 persons, including children:
On June 6, at least 21 were people killed, including 7 women, and
more than 50 people were injured when a claymore mine exploded
targeting a civilian bus in Katubedda, Moratuwa. On June 6, an
explosion in Polgolla, Kandy led to the death of 2 civilians and the
injury of 12 others.
On June 5, a claymore exploded between Moonrumurippu and
Paalaippaani, in LTTE-controlled Mannar targeting a tractor
reportedly carrying IDPs, killing 2 civilians.
On June 4, a bomb exploded on a railway track, in Deihwela injuring
18 civilians.
On June 2, a claymore exploded in Puttur, LTTE-controlled Wanni
targeting civilians travelling in a van reportedly travelling to
Naakathampiraan Temple, leading to the death of 6 civilians,
including 2 women and 2 children and the injury of 6 other civilians.
In addition there are reports of acts of violence targeting civilians
from other areas in the country.
On June 5, a Tamil businessmen R.A. Ravichandran was shot dead in Dambulla.
On June 4, M. Hussein was reported missing from Puttalam.
On June 1, the body of Farook Mohammed Kuthoos was found in Kathankudy.
These acts of violence are a part of a wider pattern of violations
within the affected communities and the areas concerned. During early
June, Batticaloa experienced a spate of attacks including killings,
disappearances, assaults and abductions of Muslims and Tamils. These
incidents have been reported from the Kathankudy and Eravur areas in
Batticaloa which have experienced increased insecurity, fear and
tension since late May.
Each of these attacks and violations adds another layer of suffering
to the lives of ordinary people in the country. The victims join the
ranks of countless others who have been killed, disappeared, maimed
and subjected to numerous other violations as a result of this brutal
civil war. The climate of mutual mistrust and fear continues to grow,
making daily life for all communities, especially those in the
conflict-affected areas, more difficult and dangerous.
These cowardly acts of violence reinforce the cycle of terror and the
culture of impunity. Those who perpetuate these acts of violence
enjoy impunity, because the climate of war and inherent flaws within
the system do not allow for investigations and justice.
We extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of
those who have been affected by this violence.
We call on all armed actors, especially the Government, the LTTE and
the TMVP to ensure that attacks on civilians will be brought to a
halt. These attacks are violations not just of international
humanitarian law but also of basic human norms.
We call on all Sri Lankans to condemn all acts of violence against
all civilians, to respect the sanctity of life and to bring pressure
on the Government, the LTTE, political actors and other relevant
actors to return to a sustainable peace process.
It is only through bringing about an end to the conflict that we can
guarantee that the rights and lives of all Sri Lankans are fully
protected.
Signed by:
Association of War Affected Women
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Equal Ground
Home for Human Rights
INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
Law & Society Trust
Mothers and Daughters of Lanka
Muslim Council of Sri Lanka
Muslim Information Centre
National Peace Council
Rights Now - Collective for Democracy
Women and Media Collective
o o o
(ii)
A MALICIOUS "PATRIOTISM" AND ITS IMPACT ON MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS
by Ruwanminee Wickremasinghe
(Groundviews, June 6, 2008)
Journalists in Sri Lanka are trying to recollect whether they had a
worse time under the regime of President Ranasinghe Premadasa when
during the height of a crackdown on a JVP insurrection many media
personnel were killed or simply disappeared, or if the regime of
President Mahinda Rajapaksa is moved ahead of that dark era and is
fast creating a special niche for himself as the biggest suppressor
of whatever media freedom is there in this country.
Journalists in Sri Lanka have to admit, especially those in the
private media that how much ever we may like to fool ourselves into
believing we are truly "independent" journalists, this is far from
the truth. All journalists have to work within limits and it is the
interests of big businesses who come in the guise of advertisers who
really decide where journalists should get off. But that does not
mean we cannot preserve at least this level of freedom that we have
to write and in turn safeguard the right of the citizens of this
country to have access to another point of view than which the
government wants to force down their throats.
Getting back to what I started out with, I talked to several
journalists who lived through that Premadasa period and are still
practicing journalists; the majority is of the view that journalists
in this country have never had a witch-hunt of this magnitude
launched against them as under the present regime.
For a President who during the late 80s /early 90s was one of the
strongest advocates of human right and media freedom, nothing could
be more shameful. In the last Presidential polls that brought him to
power, President Rajapaksa portrayed himself as media friendly and
exploited the good will he generated among media personnel to his
full advantage to help his rise to the highest position in the land.
Sadly less than three years into his six year term, he seems to have
forgotten much of that and other than paying lip service to upholding
media freedom and holding proper inquires into attacks against media
personnel and institutions, done little to stop the escalating
attacks on journalists, both in the state and private institutions.
The Government's official Defence website devotes much of its time
and effort to slander and label media personnel who do not toe the
official line as "LTTE agents" and have no qualms about calling them
traitors. In its latest article titled" Deriding the war heroes for
a living - the ugly face of "Defence Analysts" in Sri Lanka", the
article concludes ,"The Defence Ministry expects all the responsible
media professionals to comprehend that soldiers are in a noble
mission; i.e.: to rid the country from the scourge of terrorism.
Thus, the Ministry does not find any other word better than a
"Traitor" to call whoever attempts to show the soldiers as thieves or
fools by making false allegations and raising baseless criticism
against them."
Which in other words means that any sort of misdeeds done by members
of the armed forces needs to be kept well and truly swept under the
carpet as such exposure would demoralize them. Why didn't the
pundits at the Defence Ministry realize that it is the extravagances
and waste and corruption by a handful of people in the military that
is demoralizing the men and women who serve in the military and not
the writings of journalist? It is a well known fact that whatever
corrupt practices that take place in the military are done at higher
level, while the majority of the men and women who serve in the lower
ranks and who are the majority of these who put their lives on the
line in this on going war, have no hand in these unsavorily acts. It
is they who are disgusted by what their own senior people do and are
supportive of journalist who exposes corruption in their
organizations.
For the Government which is facing crisis on all fronts, economic,
social or political, using journalists as the scapegoat to cover
its sins may help in the short terms but the long term repercussions
will far more serious. By crippling the independent media, the
government is also effectively stepping on the fundamental rights of
the people of this country guaranteed in the Constitution. If every
citizen is entitled to the freedom of speech and expression including
publication, how constitutional is it for the Government to use the
pretext of its quest to achieve an "honorable peace" to terrorize
journalists? With no sane voices to be heard in this government, it
will be those with their misguided notions of patriotism who will be
crying for the blood of more journalists who will be heard loudly.
______
[2]
DISLODGING DEFEATED DICTATORS
by J. Sri Raman
(truthout.org , 10 June 2008)
Celebrations continue in two South Asian countries, which have
just witnessed the defeat of dictatorships. The war for democracy,
however, is yet to be fully and finally won in Nepal and Pakistan.
In both cases, popular movements and mandates have yet to put a
period to issues involving personalities that symbolize a discredited
past.
And, in both, the survival and stabilization of hard-won
democracy will hinge crucially on the role of a distant superpower
that claims to be the supreme savior of the system, though it has
been among the dear friends of the overthrown dictators.
Take the more recent and more dramatic case of Nepal, first. In
theory, Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev is a totally defeated dictator
with his famous palace in Kathmandu about to be turned into a museum
and a 240-year-old monarchy into a fossil of feudal history. The
people and the political forces of Nepal, however, are not ready as
yet to treat the former king as just a reminder of a predemocracy
past.
Only two low-impact bomb blasts near the capital disturbed the
festivities on the eve of the first session of the newly elected
Constituent Assembly (CA) on May 27. The holy "Hindu" war threatened
by a rump of pro-royalty forces turned out to be a damp squib on this
occasion.
The threat, however, remains - the four votes against the
abolition of monarchy in the 601-member CA's historic session
represent a numerically small force, which can grow significantly
fierce in days to come, in the nation that has stayed a "Hindu
kingdom" for centuries. It may not take too many mistakes on the part
of the parliamentary parties for another political storm to hit the
Himalayan state, where the people have shed their traditional
patience.
It was revealing that the CA resolution did not exactly send the
dethroned king packing from his Narayanhity palace in Kathmandu. It
took days of diplomacy, combined with popular demonstrations in
support of the resolution outside the royal abode, to dislodge him
from the place. Gyanendra, in fact, kept the country guessing with
his mysterious movements.
The hapless new rulers have since then decided to shift him to
the lesser Nagarjuna palace, further from the capital's heart,
despite growing protests against the privileges still accorded to him
in a land with a large population of homeless poor. The former king
has issued a Musharraf-like denial of any intention to flee the
country in such circumstances. He, however, has refrained from
responding to Maoist chief Prachanda's invitation to him to continue
his career as a businessman and even to participate in Nepal's
democratic politics.
The plans of Gyanendra and his political camp may depend on a
factor independent of the internal balance of forces - Washington's
approach to the Maoists, even after the end of Nepal's civil war and
the electoral empowerment of the former insurgents. The approach has
undergone no major alteration, despite the much-publicized meetings
between US ambassador Nancy Powell and Prachanda.
After the elections, the US State Department announced it had
never really tagged the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) a terrorist
organization. Washington was indulging in worse than a half-truth.
The CPN (M) may not figure in the old US designated list of foreign
terrorist organizations - 42 of them, mostly of the "Islamist"
category. The Maoists, however, were listed in October 2003, under
Executive Order 13224, which President George W. Bush issued shortly
after 9/11.
The distinction made no difference to Washington's touch-me-not
approach to the Maoists, whom Bush's man in Nepal, James Francis
Moriarty, went on calling "terrorists," until the other day, The
legal implications of the different lists did not stop the former
ambassador from threatening cessation of any US aid to Nepal in areas
where Maoist ministers might come to yield power.
It is an open secret that until very recently, Washington and New
Delhi shared anti-Maoist predilections and pro-royal preferences.
Moriarty repeatedly warned that the differences between the King and
the non-Maoist parliamentary parties could benefit only the CPN (M).
India, for its part, was tireless in trying to sell the theory that
monarch and non-Maoist parliament were "twin pillars" indispensable
for Nepal's stability.
New Delhi has now officially welcomed the rapid change of Nepal
from a feudal monarch to a free republic. Observers can only hope,
however, that the US-India "strategic partnership," of which we
continue to hear about so much, does not revive an alliance between
two major democracies in defense of a discredited monarchy.
Fears in this regard are well founded. The main opposition in
India, the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been among the
few mourners of Nepal's monarchy. What makes the BJP's heart bleed,
in particular, is the rise of a secular Nepal over the ruins of a
"Hindu kingdom." The pro-democracy movement in Nepal cannot rejoice
over the prospect of a general election in India in early 2009, with
the BJP doing remarkably well in a string of State elections, forming
the runup to the main event. The prospect must worry Kathmandu all
the more for the fact that the party is the strongest supporter of
the "strategic partnership" in India.
In Pakistan, too, popular unease is growing over a perceived
difficulty in dislodging a defeated dictator from a position of
dangerous authority. An expanding body of opinion sees no more
legitimate or morally warranted a place for Pervez Musharraf in the
new scheme of things than for Gyanendra in Nepal. Many Pakistani are
not prepared to trust Musharraf even as a president with limited
powers - and lesser ones than of the parliament and the prime
minister - just as most Nepalese do not expect Gyanendra to conduct
himself only as a constitutional monarch.
Those who expected Musharraf to seek exile elsewhere after the
elections in Pakistan - some even talked of a plane waiting for him -
have proven as wrong as their Nepalese counterparts, who were, at one
point, sure of the former king's flight to India. Musharraf has even
called a media conference to deny any such plan, and to deliver
ill-veiled threats to some of his enemies.
The source of his confidence is no secret either. The confidence
was unmistakable in the media conference, where he lambasted General
Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani for letting down "the institution of Pakistani
Army" by siding with civilian politicians against him on the
sensitive issue of the Kargil war with India (lost by Musharraf in
his previous avatar as the army chief.) The conference came soon
after a well publicized telephonic call to Musharraf to the White
House. President Bush had felt it necessary to extend solidarity to
the besieged ex-general in the "war of terror," which only elected
government in Islamabad alone could wage now.
Well-wishers of Pakistan and Nepal will hope the controversies
over Musharraf and Gyanendra do not halt the historic advance of the
two countries. It must also be hoped that Washington and its worthy
allies find ways to carry forward their crusade for democracy without
protecting and providing comfort to discredited dictators rejected by
the people.
______
[3]
Daily Times
June 09, 2008
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT
by A G Noorani
The parliamentary system requires a head of State powerful enough to
check a wayward head of Government, yet not so powerful as to be able
to subvert the systems himself. And a prime minister powerful enough
to foil the plans of such a president
Pakistan is at a crossroads today, very much as it was in 1972 and in
1988. On both occasions its leaders took a wrong turn. The
Constitution which Zulfikar Ali Bhutto got enacted in 1973
established a prime ministerial dictatorship. In 1988 President
Ghulam Ishaq Khan set up an adversarial role against the
democratically elected prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
The task now is to establish parliamentary democracy anew, firmly on
the basis of a balance of power between the president and the prime
minister, render impossible excesses by either and put army rule
beyond the pale.
Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani's pronouncements have been
statesmanlike. On April 14 he said his government would ensure a
balance of power between the president and parliament. On April 24 he
called for "a new and balanced relationship between the civil and
military institutions of the State". On May 27 he acknowledged that
President Pervez Musharraf "supports democracy. He is very frank,
straight-forward". On the same day the president pledged, "I will not
take any step to dissolve the current parliament ... will never
dismiss the elected government".
If the leaders act in this spirit, they will not find it too
difficult to craft a new and enduring Constitutional settlement based
on the national consensus, putting behind them the ruinous rancour of
the past. Fundamentally, the parliamentary system requires a head of
State powerful enough to check a wayward head of Government, yet not
so powerful as to be able to subvert the systems himself. And a prime
minister powerful enough to foil the plans of such a president.
The 1973 Constitution established a prime ministerial dictatorship,
tailored to the needs of Mr Bhutto. Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri resigned
in protest as chairman of the Constitution Committee and law minister
in October 1972. It made the prime minister all powerful and crippled
the president.
He was shorn of discretion on dissolution of the National Assembly
(Art. 58) and the power to dismiss a wayward prime minister [Art. 48
(1)]. All the orders of the president had to bear "the
countersignature of the Prime Minister" [Art. 48(3)]. The cabinet
system was undermined by empowering the prime minister to act
directly [Art. 90 (2)]. He became "the Chief Executive of the
Federation" [Art. 90 (1)].
A pliable Fazal Elahi Chowdhry was elected president. But there were
two salutary provisions. The prime minister was to be elected by the
National Assembly [Art. 91 (2)]. Germany's "constructive vote of no
confidence" was emulated. A motion of non-confidence must name the
successor [Art. 96(2)].
In its judgement on May 12, 2000, validating the army takeover in
1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan approvingly quoted a note by
Justice Hamoodur Rehman to Zia, on September 24, 1977, criticising
the 1973 Constitution as "a deliberate departure" from the 1956
Constitution "in order to render the President ineffective and vest
the Prime Minister with absolute powers".
He was right. But his suggestion that the president be empowered to
impose martial law for a limited period made a mockery of democracy.
It was a precursor to Article 58(2)(b) inserted by the Eighth
Amendment in 1985. It empowered the president to dissolve the
National Assembly in his discretion while Art. 48(5) empowered him
thereupon to appoint a caretaker cabinet; after dismissing the prime
minister.
The Supreme Court should have quoted also the brilliant and prophetic
note of January 4, 1978 by Ghulam Ishaq Khan, then secretary general
to Zia. It was written on a summary submitted by the ministry of law
on that judge's undemocratic proposals and bears quotation in full,
so prescient it is:
"CMLA (Chief Martial Law Administrator) may kindly see, apart from
opinion of the Attorney-General, that except for the provision
relating to the restoration of constitutional safeguards to civil
servants, the other amendments proposed by Justice (R) Hamoodur
Rehman would not be upheld by the courts under the doctrine of
necessity. It would also not appear politically advisable to change
the basic structure of the Constitution in such a radical manner by a
Martial Law Order.
"The need for checks and balances is no doubt there; but what other
checks should be and how this balance be struck requires a political
consensus which will not be forthcoming in the present circumstances
and if it is imposed from the top is not likely to prove enduring.
Even otherwise, some of the proposals, particularly the arrangements
envisaged for carrying on the administration of the affairs of the
Federation and the provinces when the assemblies are dissolved, are
debatable and are likely to give rise to different type of problem".
GIK added almost with prophetic insight: "Personally I am also not in
favour of getting the armed forces involved, as a permanent feature,
even if such a course be politically acceptable, as in the long run
it will politicise the armed forces themselves and result in
weakening of the defence of the country. The best that can be done is
to try to educate the political parties on the need of some checks
and balances which would avoid repetition of the happening in the
near past in the hope that, when elected, they would on their own
bring about the required constitutional changes."
These documents were disclosed by Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, on
September 19, 1991 following an exchange in the Supreme Court with
Raja Mohammad Anwar on September 15. Article 58(2)(b) is thus not at
all necessary to prevent "derailment of democracy".
Soon after returning to power in February 1997, Nawaz Sharif had the
Eighth Amendment repealed by the 13th Amendment. Prime ministerial
government was reinstated without any checks. The rest is history.
A G Noorani is a prominent lawyer and a commentator on regional
affairs. This is the first article in a series of three.
- - -
Daily Times
June 10, 2008
FINDING THE RIGHT POWER BALANCE
by A G Noorani
It is perfectly possible to strike a balance which prevents exercise
of arbitrary power alike by the president and the prime minister.
That can be done by grafting onto the 1973 Constitution the
well-established checks and balances of the parliamentary system to
prevent abuse of power
The problem for Pakistan at this stage, when a new civilian
government is in place, is to devise a Constitutional framework which
prevents the prime ministerial government without any checks and
balances which Pakistan suffered under ZA Bhutto (1973-1977), Benazir
Bhutto (1988-1990 and 1993-1996) and Nawaz Sharif (1991-1993 and
1997-1999).
At the same time, such a framework must prevent arbitrary dismissals
of the PM by the president: Mohammed Khan Junejo's dismissal by
Zia-ul-Haq on May 29, 1988, Benazir Bhutto's dismissals on August 16,
1990 and November 5, 1996, by Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq
Ahmed Khan Leghari, respectively; and Nawaz Sharif's dismissal by
President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on April 18 1993.
Besides, military rule must be rendered impossible.
Can this be done?
It is perfectly possible to strike a balance which prevents exercise
of arbitrary power alike by the president and the prime minister.
That can be done by grafting onto the 1973 Constitution the
well-established checks and balances of the parliamentary system to
prevent abuse of power. The 1956 Constitution provides some guidance.
For example, article 42 of the 1956 Constitution enjoined the PM,
explicitly to communicate to the president all decisions of the
cabinet relating to the affairs of the nation, and proposals for
legislation; to furnish to the president such information relating to
these matters "as the President may call for" and "if the President
so requires" to submit to the cabinet any matter on which a decision
has been taken by a minister alone.
But it was replaced by Art. 46 of the 1973 Constitution with a vague
duty to "keep the President informed on matters of internal and
foreign policy" and on intended legislative proposals. The
president's limited and proper rights to ask for information and
consideration by the Cabinet were dropped. They were restored in 1985
by the Eighth amendment.
Both constitutions required the president to "act in accordance with
the advice" of the cabinet. The 1973 Constitution made it more
explicit ("binding") and removed all discretionary powers (Art. 48).
The Eighth Amendment added a proviso empowering the president to
empower the president to require the cabinet or the PM "to reconsider
such advice" while binding him to "act in accordance with the advice
tendered after such reconsideration". Such a proviso was added to art
74(1) of the Indian Constitution by an amendment in 1978.
The 1973 Constitution omitted whatever discretion the president had
on the appointment and dismissal of the PM. He was removable only by
a vote of no-confidence by the National Assembly (Art 96). It was
deleted by the Eighth Amendment which introduced the obnoxious Art
58(2) (b) (President's rule at the Centre). But, it made one
improvement. The President cannot dismiss the PM unless he has lost a
majority in the National Assembly and the president summons it to
"require the Prime Minister to obtain a vote of confidence from the
assembly".
Clearly, a thorough review is required, so that the Constitution is
shorn of all the undemocratic features introduced by the 1973
Constitution and the Eighth Amendment. A return to full blown
parliamentary system is required.
Under the conventions of the parliamentary system, recognised in the
United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the head of state
has the following rights: (1) to be consulted; (2) to demand
information; (3) to select the prime minister if the elections yield
a hung Parliament in which no party has a clear majority; (4) the
discretion to dissolve a House; and (5) albeit in the very last
resort, to dismiss the prime minister.
These added up to a president and a prime minister each powerful
enough to prevent the subversion of the Constitution by the other,
but not powerful enough to be able to subvert it himself. The
president must also have the power to force a dissolution and require
the PM to face the electorate, but without dismissing him, if he goes
flagrantly beyond his electoral mandate on a matter of fundamental
importance.
There is little controversy about dissolution of Parliament. The PM
must have this power, whether to seek a mandate or keep his flock in
place. But he has no absolute right to demand dissolution regardless
of the circumstances. The president must have the discretionary power
to refuse.
The locus classicus cited by every work on constitutional law is a
letter by 'Senex' published by The Times, London on May 2, 1950. He
was none other than Sir Alan Lascelles, Private Secretary to the
King. It bears quotation in full:
"It is surely indisputable (and common sense) that a prime minister
may ask - not demand - that his sovereign will grant him a
dissolution of parliament and that the sovereign, if he so chooses,
may refuse to grant this request. The problem of such a choice is
entirely personal to the sovereign, though he is, of course, free to
seek informal advice from anybody who he thinks fit to consult.
"In so far as this matter can be publicly discussed, it can be
properly assumed that no wise sovereign - that is, one who has at
heart the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the
monarchy - would deny a dissolution to his prime minister unless he
were satisfied that: (1) that existing parliament was still vital,
viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a general election would be
detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding
another prime minister who could carry on his government, for
reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons."
A prime minister whose advice to dissolve is rejected, can resign and
force an election.
A G Noorani is a prominent lawyer and a commentator on regional
affairs. This article is the second in a three-part series.
- - -
Daily Times
June 11, 2008
DEBATING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT
by A G Noorani
The Parliament of 2008 has no less power. One hopes that it will be
exercised after a thorough debate and it will enact amendments that
command the support of all the political parties as well as the
president in a Constitutional Settlement that marks a new beginning
for a truly democratic Pakistan
In continuing with the discussion of Pakistan's case and how a
balance might be struck between the president and the prime minister,
the English case can be instructive. On dismissal, every work on
Constitutional law says that the Crown's power does exist. Although
it has not been exercised since 1783, it has not become extinct
either.
Prof Geoffrey Marshall writes: "Dismissal would be appropriate if a
government, by illegal or unconstitutional administrative action,
were to violate some basic convention of constitutional behaviour.
Even then it would be necessary for the breach to be a profound one
for which no other remedy could be found".
Prof Vernon Bogdanor asserts that dismissal can be used "at the point
at which the constitution itself, which determines the role of the
head of state, appears to be under threat. At that point, it may be
suggested, the sovereign has the right to exercise his or her
discretion, to act as a constitutional guardian, to ensure that the
values which lie at the foundation of a constitutional system are
preserved. In such circumstances, some would suggest that the
sovereign has the right, and perhaps indeed the duty, to act as a
guardian of the constitution. The doctrine that the sovereign is
required to act on the advice of ministers presupposes that ministers
themselves act within the framework and presumptions of
constitutional government."
In his authoritative work on Dissolution of Parliament, Prof Eugene A
Forsey writes: "It is probably safe to say that under modern
conditions forced dissolutions will take place only if the crown
considers them necessary to protect the Constitution or to ensure
that major changes in the economic structure of society shall take
place only by the deliberate will of the people. In other words, the
power to force dissolution is now likely to be used only negatively,
preventively; never as a means of bringing about some positive and
desired by the King himself or his representative."
The Crown will nonetheless need the PM's advice to dissolve. If he
refuses, he can be dismissed. The new PM will advice dissolution and
the country will give its verdict.
Not one authority on the parliamentary system questions the head of
State's right, power and, indeed, the duty to dismiss the PM in
extreme cases. But they stress the dangers of abuse. A work published
in 2007, while disfavouring dismissal, grants its use in "the most
exceptional circumstances" or as "an available measure of last
resort" (Colin Turpin and Adam Tomkins, "British Government and the
Constitution", Cambridge University Press; pp. 361-2).
Take a test case.
Indians rightly criticised President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed for his
subservience to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. But no lawyer has
braced himself to consider his options under the parliamentary
system. The question is: What precisely could and should President
Ahmed have done on the night of June 25, 1975 when Prime Minister
Gandhi advised him to proclaim an Emergency on manifestly,
demonstrably false grounds? Was the democratic system incapable of
meeting her challenge?
The answer is that the president could have, and ought to have,
sacked her, invited the Leader of the Opposition to form a
government, dissolved the Lok Sabha, ordered fresh elections and
revealed to the nation the reasons for the action. Or, he could have
simply declined to sign the Proclamation and waited to see how she
conducted herself. If she behaved unconstitutionally, dictatorially
even without the Proclamation, the president could have sacked her
from the office.
In both cases, dismissal of the PM and refusal to dissolve, the
president risks public controversy, but no president would act thus
unless he was sure of public support. The task, then, narrows down to
codification of the conventions.
Australia's experience can help. On November 11, 1975 its Governor
General Sir John Kerr dismissed from office Prime Minister Gough
Whitlam. The country was plunged into a constitutional crisis. But,
instead of sterile rancour, a constructive course was adopted of
holding all-Party Constitutional Conventions over the years. The
Joint Select Committee of the Australian Parliament submitted in
August 1999 its "Advisory Report on Constitution Alteration
(Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999, and Presidential Nominations
Committee Bill, 1999". It was asked to consider what powers the
president should have. It decided to retain those of the
governor-general.
The Republic Bill sought to insert Section 59 in the Constitution of
Australia Act, 1900. Its clause (3) read thus: "The President shall
act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council ... but the
President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the
Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions
relating to the exercise of that power."
Para 4.10 of the Report spells out those "reserve powers" explicitly:
"It is generally accepted that there are probably only four such
powers; namely, the power to appoint a Prime Minister, the power to
dismiss a Prime Minister, the power to refuse to dissolve Parliament
and the Power to force a dissolution of Parliament".
A fair course is to restore the 1973 Constitution with the
president's powers under the democratic Constitution of 1956, while
also making clear his status as Constitutional head of State bound by
the prime minister's advice, and codify the conventions of the
parliamentary system in the Constitution itself in order to prevent
abuse of power by both the prime minister and the president. The
reports of the Australian Conventions can help in this exercise.
The Legal Framework Order promulgated on August 21, 2002 revived the
1973 Constitution with 29 amendments and restored Art. 58 (2)(b). But
as President Musharraf conceded on October 8, 2002, the new
Parliament to be elected then had the power to amend the Constitution
"as per existing Constitutional provisions." That applies to the PCO
of November 3, 2007 also.
The Parliament of 2008 has no less power. One hopes that it will be
exercised after a thorough debate and it will enact amendments that
command the support of all the political parties as well as the
president in a Constitutional Settlement that marks a new beginning
for a truly democratic Pakistan.
Finally, there are various varieties of the National Security
Council. India has one, for instance. It is different from the
American Council. Pakistan will, if it so chooses, establish one to
suit its needs and in conformity with the principles of democracy.
A G Noorani is a prominent lawyer and a commentator on regional
affairs. This article is the last in a three-part series
_______
[4]
LYNCHING JAGDISH: THE INHUMANITY OF MAJORITARIANISM
by Farida Majid
Jagdish was a 'man of no importance'. A 'nobody'. While he was alive
no man of any importance would have suspected that this obscure
'nobody' could turn into an 'everyman' of the 1.6% of minority in a
Muslim country of 160 million people. The lifeless torso of 22-yr
old Jagdish became more than that, or, as Dr. Moeed Pirzada put it in
a column in The Daily Times (19th April, 2008), it became "the
battered face of the state of Pakistan." Not just of Pakistan, but
the act of lynching Jagdish symbolizes the ongoing story of the
entire South Asia's spree of majoritarianism in the name of modern
democracy.
In the post-Zia-ul-Huq Pakistani society dominated by rebarbative
Salafi-Wahhabi Islamist zealots even Sufi Muslims quake in fear of
being caught as the defiler of "faith." Ahmadiyyas are declared
"non-Muslims", and Khoja, Ismaili Shia and other communities pray at
their mosques and celebrate their holy days with the very real
possibility of being blown up by a suicide bomber. What hope would
non-Muslims have of leading a dignified human existence in such
atmosphere? There was a Pakistani Christian nurse in my English
class at a CUNY college in the Bronx, New York City, in 2005. Clouds
of pain and bitterness floated over her face as she groped for an
answer to my casual question after a class: "How are things at home?"
Jagdish had come to Karachi to earn a living as a factory worker
from a hangdog Hindu community in the south of Sindh province. Fellow
Hindu workers with whom he resided in Marwari Mohalla in the city
were too traumatized to go out to work after the lynching incident on
April 8, 2008, thereby losing their meager income. The factory
management of Nova Industries neither condoled Jagdish's death nor
made any gesture to reassure the return of the Hindu laborers.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's fact-finding team revealed
how Jagdish was caught in a specious argument with two fellow workers
and how quickly an emotional mob was mustered by the spread of a
rumor that Jagdish had made blasphemous remarks against the Prophet
of Islam (pubh). The frenzied mob kept beating him with boots and
bars; screwdrivers and scissors were used to gouge his eyes out, and
then an axe was found handy for hacking. The mood was so intense
that the police, mere onlookers during the beating, could not rescue
the body from the crowd's fury even though the man was long dead.
Blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis who
question the purpose of such a law believe that since the imposition
of the blasphemy law in 1982, reformulated in 1986, violence and
brutality against non-Muslims increased exponentially (see Prof.
Ishtiaq Ahmed's column in www.thetimes.com.pk, 4/26/2008). No one
seems to have been officially sentenced by the law thus far giving
further evidence of its uselessness in real-world juridical matters.
A vague knowledge of its existence is enough to engage in illegal
summary justice. But then again, for some perpetrators of communal
crimes, it matters little whether a law is in the books or not. The
frenzy of doing something in honor of "religion" is boosted by the
pretension that such behavior must be so 'good' in the eyes of God
that it does not need accountability to any man-made law. Indeed,
law enforcement agencies are effectively paralyzed by the
pseudo-religious aspect of the frenzy. The police have either
remained inactive spectators or got beaten up themselves by the
rioters in these eruptions of communal violence throughout the Indian
subcontinent.
Communalism, the Pakistani-Indian-Bangladeshi version of European
fascism, is made of such mob frenzy and inhuman brutality created
around falsehoods and fabrications. In India, officially a secular
state, the Hindutva Brigade has made communalism a crude but
elaborate machinery with organizational punch. Anyone with some
knowledge of Jew-baiting in Nazi Germany and Austria of 1930-40 will
detect the similarity in the Hindutva group's tactics of mobilizing
anti-Muslim and anti-Christian passions to garner support. Not in
spite of, rather it seems because of the avowed secular nature of the
government at the centre; the Hindu State or Hindu Rashtra proponents
pose as ultra-nationalists resembling those of Nazi Austria of
1938-39 and proclaim that every Muslim, every Christian and every
Communist in India is a threat to the nation's security.
Eruptions of communal riots, resulting sometimes in cold-blooded
massacre of Muslims, and terrorizing whole communities, are routine
occurrences in India. As if they are not bad enough, to top them all
was the brutality of Gujarat carnage of 2002. I was not there, but,
being with a bunch of fellow activists against communalism, Concerned
South Asians in New York City, I had access to close documentation of
escalation of events from Godhra train station incident to the full
scale riot that followed. The gruesome details of rape, arson,
killings and general carnage exceed the scale of what happened on
Kristallnacht, November, 1938 in Germany. The gleeful mood of the
Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and other Hindutvawala perpetrators in
Gujarat, however, was reminiscent of the marauding Nazis at
Kristellnacht in Germany, 1938.
Close to 2000 lives were lost in the Gujarat 2002 riot and an
estimated 150,000 displaced Muslims were shacked in relief camps
living as refugees in their own city and state. As a disturbing
picture of the state government's complicity emerged at a hearing,
the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
termed Gujarat's anti-Muslim riot 'genocide' in June, 2002. Report
after report by fact-finding missions, forensic teams, NGOs and
government commissions, plus a slew of criminal court cases have
yielded paltry results in terms of punishment for the miscreants and
meting out justice for the victims. What is equally disheartening is
the way fervor for communal hatred is skillfully translated into
electoral victories for BJP, the official arm of the Sangh Parivar or
the loose collection of Hindutva orientated organizations. Narendra
Modi, the chief architect of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 as the Chief
Minister of the state, was re-elected in December 2007. Sonia Gandhi
of Congress party had called Modi "Maut ka Saudagar" or the Merchant
of Death during the election campaign. She was roundly rebuked by the
press for her remark and her party was defeated at the polls.
An Independent People's Tribunal was convened in March, 2007 in
order to assess the pervasive state of communalism in India. Its
findings have clearly shown that most "forms of communal violence are
engendered by creation and perpetration of a particular worldview
that can legitimately be termed fascist". Over 300 victims and
activists from 17 Indian states came to relate their experiences to
this tribunal before a jury of eminent personalities noted for their
role in the struggle for communal harmony. Among many conduits of
the majoritarian fascist worldview, the Tribunal identified the
Indian vernacular and English language press and media. Through both
sins of commission and omission they fabricate and exaggerate
instances of violence against Hindus which help sharpen the intensity
of the riots.
Fabrication of the figure of the enemy constitutes a large portion
of all fascist propaganda and agenda. I came across a reference to
the times in Europe describing the unbearable pressure on the Jews to
leave Germany and Austria. Emigration meant replenishing the Reich's
coffers through despoiling the Jews. "Once emigration had taken
place, the emigrant was classified as an enemy of the Reich" and any
remaining property of the Jew was seized. In 1965 Pakistan adapted
this imported concept in the aftermath of an India-Pakistan armed
skirmish and enacted the Enemy Property Act, a thin veneer of law for
grabbing the property of fleeing Hindus. The 'black law' was widely
expected to be repealed when in 1972 the new government was
established in Bangladesh, a nation born out of a bloody struggle of
liberation against Pakistani Military aggression with a promise of
banishing communalism embedded in its idealism.
But the idealism of the War of Liberation, whose spirit was behind
the framing of the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh as a secular
nation, took repeated thrashing at the hands of successive military
dictatorships and autocratic rules by democratically elected
governments. The Constitution got badly mangled and has remained so
without amends. Most of the articles, clauses, and provisions that
guarantee individual freedom and equal protection of law have been
crossed out. Wiped out are the articles that prohibit the formation
of religion-based political parties. The fascism-inspired Enemy
Property Act was not only not repealed, but in a new garb it was
reinstated as Vested Property Act. The implementation of this law
turned out to be a gainful tool of greedy politicians for asserting
control and supremacy of the majority over the Hindu minority, or the
so-called "enemy".
A recently published book, Deprivation of Hindu Minority in
Bangladesh (2008), describes how 1.2 million household and 6 million
people belonging to the Hindu communities have been directly and
severely affected by the Vested Property Act. In the "Foreword" of
the book, M. Gholam Rabbani, a former Justice of the Apellate
Division of the Court, wistfully draws attention to the articles in
the Constitution that uphold the principle that " all citizens are
equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law."
It is a futile reminder, alas, in the current atmosphere of the
country. Under an Emergency Rule imposed by an unelected interim
government backed by the Military, there is a curtailment of free
press, free assembly and free political discussion. Reports of
sporadic arson attacks on indigenous tribal people in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts trickle in the mainstream news media usually with caveat
from a spokesman for the ruling regime saying something about
innocents caught in the crossfire in a vague but ongoing "war on
terror." It is no secret that the regular infiltrations of Bengali
settlers receive support from the Bangladesh military in these
expeditions of land-grabbing from the tribal homesteads.
"Might is right" may have been judged as a formula for lawlessness in
some other era in these South Asian countries or in this era in
another country. But in the subcontinent "might" is figured into a
peculiar formulation of "democracy" and wherever "might" is exercised
with intent to brutalize a weaker segment of society the act is
decriminalized by the governing authorities as the "rule of the
majority." I assume that the factory workers in Karachi who lynched
Jagdish had taken part in the recently held elections in Pakistan
which was praised by the international watchers as a fair one.
When Mohandas K. Gandhi remarked that the real test of democracy is
the way it treats its (religious, linguistic, ethnic, etc.)
minorities, he had no idea that the Chief Minister of his own state
of Gujarat would regale in a genocide of religious minority and be
re-elected five years later riding the outcome of that carnage. What
he probably had in mind was that Hitler was popularly elected in a
democratic election.
______
[5]
Hindustan Times
June 10, 2008
BUT WHO ARE THESE GUJJARS?
by Shail Mayaram
The Gujjar protests cumulatively represent a demand for equal
citizenship and social justice. To its credit, the report of the
Chopra Committee, constituted by the Rajasthan government to examine
the Gujjar demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, had certain
strengths. It pointed to State neglect and a situation that has been
rendered so urgent that it is advisable not to wait for
reclassificatory processes. Further, it acknowledged the need to
review the criteria used to determine a group's 'tribal' status.
The response of the Rajasthan government to the Chopra Committee's
recommendations has been half-hearted. The political class of Delhi,
on its part, continues to distance itself from the issue, always
ready to take advantage of vote banks but wary of their political
fallout. In a presentation as part of a People's Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) panel to the Chopra Committee last year, I had
pointed out that before pronouncing on Gujjar OBC/ST status, it must
first review the question of what an ST is.
A national review of the conceptual category of ST would mean a
review of the indices used by parliamentary legislation, governmental
committees and the bureaucracy. 'Primitive traits' and 'shyness of
contact' as indices for 'tribality' draw upon colonial anthropology.
Far from 'primitive', Bastar tribals knew of iron-smelting and
metallurgy and were able to build fairly advanced bridges. Tribal
groups are often ahead of non-tribals in their understanding of
nature, its powers and properties, a relationship often encoded in
their religious cultures. Their indicators with respect to the girl
child, women's mobility and sex ratio also tend to be better.
New indices of backwardness then need to be debated, specified and
concretised. Indeed, 'vulnerability' as a category disconnected from
ethnicity, as a means of identifying groups might be considered.
Further, the State must take responsibility for an every ten-year
review of the backwardness of tribal, pastoral and backward class
groups.
Finally, there is a need for hard data. The absence of demographic
data leads to speculation as there has been no caste-wise census
published after 1931. The Census of 2001 was a lost moment, one which
could have been used to obtain comprehensive data on backwardness.
Let us not lose the opportunity provided by the Census of 2011 to
provide us with a richer understanding of marginality.
Shail Mayaram is Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies, New Delhi.
______
[6]
Support Indian Guestworkers in Their Historic Hunger Strike
by the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice
From the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice. Many of you
know about this courageous group of workers, who have won incredible
victories already for guestworkers and gained the support of labor,
immigrant rights, and civil rights communities as well of a number of
elected officials. Your contribution would go a long way in
sustaining their hunger strike, now in its third week, as they build
pressure on US federal authorities and the Indian government. We
encourage you to forward this message broadly. The following appeal
was written on Wednesday, June 4th from the leadership team of the
Indian Workers Congress.
URGENT:
Support Indian Guestworkers in Their Historic Hunger Strike
HUNGER STRIKE IN THIRD WEEK AS PRESSURE MOUNTS IN DC, INDIA FOR
WORKERS' DEMANDS
Dear friends: We are the Indian guestworkers who were trafficked to
the post-Katrina Gulf Coast in December 2006. We are now in
Washington, DC fighting labor trafficking and modern-day slavery. We
need your donation to sustain our historic campaign.
After Hurricane Katrina, a US company -- Signal International, LLC --
recruited us by force, fraud, and coercion. Signal's recruiters sold
us false promises. They told us there were jobs in the Gulf Coast,
and that we could bring our families and build lives in the United
States. We paid recruiters $20,000 for these American dreams. We
sold our homes, plunged our families into debt and mortgaged our
futures to raise the money. But we arrived into a nightmare.
Signal held us in forced labor. We lived like animals, 24 men to a
small room. We faced constant threats and humiliation. When we
started to organize in March 2007, Signal sent armed guards to the
labor camps dawn. They pulled our terrified organizers out of bed,
imprisoned them on company grounds, and attempted to deport them.
300 of us went on strike that day to free our captive organizers.
One year later, our struggle for dignity continues. In March this
year we escaped from the labor camps into freedom in the United
States. In April we walked from New Orleans to Washington in the
footsteps of US freedom fighters, to expose the realities of the
guestworker program. And on May 14 we launched a hunger strike, in
the tradition of Gandhi, to bring Signal International to justice.
What do we want now? The Department of Justice must allow us to
participate safely in a criminal trafficking investigation of
Signal. Congress must hold hearings on guestworker exploitation.
And no future worker should face the humiliation that we have faced:
modern-day slavery in the world's richest nation.
We are now on Day 22 of our hunger strike. Success is at hand. We
have the support of key members of Congress. Grassroots supporters
have written nearly 9,000 letters to Congress on our behalf. And the
Indian government, because of our pressure, has launched criminal
proceedings against the recruiters in India.
But the costs of our campaign are staggering. Our resolve is
unlimited -- but our collective savings are not. We can't work in
the US, and we still face massive debt at home. This fight is all we
have. Help us win!
Please make a secure contribution today at:
<www.neworleansworkerjustice.org/contribute.htm>. You can also write
a check payable to our fiscal sponsor, the National Immigration Law
Center. Be sure to write Indian Workers' Congress on the subject
line, and mail it to: National Immigration Law Center, 3435 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 2850, Los Angeles, CA 90010. With your help, we can
win!
In solidarity,
Indian Workers' Congress/Alliance of Guestworkers for Dignity
______
[7] Calls / Announcements:
(i) CALL FOR PEOPLES SAARC 2008!
South Asian heads of government will meet in Colombo, Sri Lanka for
the annual South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
summit between 27 July and 3 August 2008.
Regrettably, this SAARC summit will be no different to its
predecessors in having little relevance to the needs and daily
struggles of the peoples of South Asia. Its agenda will be shaped by
the policy choices of post-colonial elites, while it has
spectacularly failed to achieve regional unity or even facilitate
grassroots initiatives in that direction.
Therefore, since 1993, social movements and peoples' organisations
have also converged in parallel to the SAARC summit to raise our
agenda for our region, to demonstrate our will for friendship,
solidarity and visa-free movement of people across imposed
boundaries, and to manifest our desire for a peoples union of South
Asia.
On 18, 19 and 20 July 2008, hundreds of women, workers, peasants,
artisans, urban and rural poor, students and youth, cultural
activists, scholar activists, and representatives of marginalised and
excluded social groups and communities from around South Asia will
gather at Peoples SAARC 2008 in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
The main theme of Peoples SAARC 2008 is "Towards A South Asian Union"
while the sub-themes include women's rights; demilitarisation,
denuclearisation and democracy; right to food, livelihood, health,
education and social security in the context of alternatives to
neo-liberalism; environmental justice and natural resource rights;
and South Asian solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles worldwide.
A mass rally for peace and justice in South Asia will form part of
the closing ceremony.
We call upon all those who affirm the vision of a peoples union of
South Asia to join country-level preparations, mobilise for, and
participate in Peoples SAARC 2008 in Colombo on 18, 19 and 20 July
2008.
For further information contact: Secretariat, Peoples SAARC 2008,
19/1/1, Siri Dhamma Mawatha, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka or Email
peoplesaarcsl[AT]gmail.com or Tel: +94 11 267 2586.
---
(ii) Upcoming events at T2F
An Evening With Salima Hashmi
Friday 13th June 2008 | 7:00 pm
Cinema for Change: The 11th Hour
Saturday 14th June 2008 | 6:30 pm
Partition Stories: Readings by Asif Farrukhi, Zaheer A. Kidvai and Others
Sunday 15th June 2008 | 6:00 pm
An Evening of Readings and Recollections by Zehra Nigah (Tentative)
Thursday 19th June 2008 | 7:00 pm
In Their Own Voice: An Evening with Mohammad Hanif - Author of A Case
of Exploding Mangoes
Sunday 22nd June 2008 | 6:00 pm
Helvetica: A Film about Typography, Graphic Design and Global Visual Culture
Friday 27th June 2008 | 6:30 pm
PeaceNiche / The Second Floor
Phone: (92-300) 823-0276
http://www.t2f.biz | http://www.t2f.biz/events
---
(iii) PEACEWORKS, An initiative of The Seagull Foundation for the Arts presents
A 3-day intensive workshop on peace-building and conflict
resolution conducted by 'Play for Peace' (PFP) - a global
organization now in its 10th
year which brings together children, youth and organizations from
communities in conflict. PFP has worked extensively with young people,
notably with Hindu-Muslim and Arab-Jew children/ youth in Gujarat,
and in Israel.
PFP is a process of community building. It is the creation of ongoing
learning partnerships that teaches people to be leaders for peace.
The workshop is aimed at training socially committed young people and
professionals with the PFP tools to become peacemakers in their own
unique
ways.
WORKSHOP VENUE:
46 Satish Mukherjee Road,
Calcutta-700026
(near the Rashbehari crossing)
WORKSHOP DATES
27, 28, 29 JUNE 2008
10 am TO 5 pm daily
ELIGIBILITY: AGE 16 AND ABOVE
REGISTRATION FEE: RS 500 for students
Rs. 700 for sponsored candidates
SEATS: 30
LAST DATE FOR REGISTRATION: 20 JUNE 2008
CONTACT:
INDRANI ROY or SUMEET THAKUR
at 2455 6942/43
REGISTER NOW AT
SEAGULL ARTS & MEDIA RESOURCE CENTRE
36C S.P. MUKHERJEE ROAD, CALCUTTA-700025
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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