SACW | June 25-26, 2008 / Pakistan: Lawyers / India: Security forces, culture of impunity

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | June 25-26 , 2008 | 
Dispatch No. 2530 - Year 10 running

[1] Pakistan:
   (i) Lessons of the long march (Mohammad Waseem)
   (ii) Whatever is to become of the Movement for Justice
a letter to activists of the People's Resistance by Dr. Awab Alvi
  (iii) By not spearheading the lawyers' movement, 
the PPP has made a big political mistake (Arif 
Azad)
[2] Challenges, risks, and obligations for women (Rounaq Jahan)
[3] India: 
- Addressing the issue of enforced disappearances (Mukul Sharma)
- Security forces, culture of impunity behind 
fake killings (Editorial , Kashmir Times)
- Chhattisgarh Redux (Nandini Sundar)
[4] India: Frontline Defenders ALERT: Re harassment of Kashmir Tribunal
[5] India: Let's stop at partial recall (Ajay K. Mehra)
[6] India - Kerala: Textbook in religion row
- Jeevan, the casteless (The secular schoolbook lesson)
[7] India: Gujarat State The Freedom of 
Expression Conference Resolution and Memo to 
Governor
[8] Announcements:
Amnesty International Roundtable (New Delhi, 26 June 2008)

______


[1] Pakistan:

Dawn
June 28, 2008

LESSONS OF THE LONG MARCH

by Mohammad Waseem

THE great show of solidarity with the judiciary 
from June 10 to 15 ended not with a bang but with 
a whimper. Nothing can be more offensive to the 
leaders and organisers of the long march than 
being blamed for turning back from their 
commitment to lay siege to the corridors of power 
till they achieve their objectives. They never 
promised that.

But, scepticism about the efficacy of the whole 
strategy of the long march has crept into the 
minds of at least some of the leaders at the top 
of the movement itself, apart from others from 
the media, the political class and civil society.

The march was a genuine outburst of anger against 
a series of illegal actions taken by President 
Musharraf from March 9 till Nov 3, 2007. It was a 
tribute to the intellectual, organisational and 
financial commitment of the lawyers' community to 
the noble cause of the restoration of the 
judiciary. The march exhibited a superb sense of 
collective leadership, and a sense of shared 
responsibility on the part of the leaders and 
their followers. The picture fitted the frame.

But the question is, to what end? This has been 
answered in multiple ways by people from within 
and outside the march. The leadership replied on 
a positive note; it believes that the objective 
of building pressure on the powers that be on the 
judges issue has been achieved. But, some 
lawyers, many journalists and a large number of 
participants from the civil society interpret it 
as a lost opportunity. In hindsight, one finds 
two things missing in the whole spectacle: 
firstly, there was no strategy to achieve the 
goal of putting the judges back in the courts in 
the form of either a sit-in or a blockade, or 
lobbying as a pressure group or conducting 
negotiations. Second, there was no policy on the 
target of the long march, whether it was the 
President House or Parliament House or Army House.

In terms of strategy, the black coats movement 
failed to devise a plan beyond a show of street 
power. No sit-in was on the agenda, possibly 
because it would have been difficult to sustain 
it after a while in terms of numbers, momentum 
and newsworthiness. To lay siege needed a 
commitment of a much-higher order, such as in the 
case of Shia activism in 1980.

In the weeks and months before the march, the 
leaders of the movement had consistently lobbied 
but failed to elicit a favourable response from 
the government. Similarly, no elaborate 
preparations were made to enter serious 
negotiations with the PPP leadership. In the 
absence of a strategy, it boiled down to a shot 
in the dark with a hope that sheer numbers on the 
street would deliver.

In the light of a long delay in the restoration 
of judges, protagonists of the cause wanted to 
put their entire weight behind the long march to 
achieve their objective. Others, especially from 
the media and political parties, cautioned the 
lawyers against measures that could weaken 
parliament and harm democracy. The leadership 
seemed to take two steps forward and one step 
back.

Who was the target of the long march? President 
Musharraf did it all. But, he was already 
relegated to a secondary role in the power 
structure. He could not bring the judges back to 
their positions even if, in theory, he wanted to 
do so. Why was parliament projected to be the 
target? Was a new law to be passed or a new 
amendment sought? It was amazingly naive to 
target the parliament. In the end, even the 
parliament was not really targeted, unless 
gathering in the parade ground can be construed 
to mean that.

Prime Minister Gilani was conspicuous by his 
absence from the political scene altogether. It 
was a tacit recognition of the fact that the 
chief executive did not carry authority of his 
office with him. He was neither a part of the 
controversy nor the target of public anger. The 
lawyers' leadership comprehensively missed out on 
delineating the target of their great show of 
discipline, commitment and solidarity.

In the first phase, the movement upheld what was 
essentially a legal cause. The case in the 
Supreme Judicial Council, later Supreme Court, 
against rendering the chief justice 
non-functional remained a constant point of 
reference in the movement. Lawyers were able to 
make a common cause with the civil society, the 
media and to some extent the political community.

In the second phase after the emergency, when 
sixty judges were sent home in an overtly 
extra-constitutional measure, the movement 
widened its scope to join the political parties 
in protest. The third phase after the formation 
of governments in the centre and provinces from 
April onwards obfuscated the whole situation. 
Partners of yesterday stood opposite each other. 
Partners within the coalition spoke with two 
faces.

What will happen now? Will the bar associations 
be able to mobilise lawyers and the public at 
large within a few weeks or months? Loss of 
momentum on June 15 is critical in this respect. 
People saw no tangible gain after their huge 
mental and physical input. PPP lawyers are caught 
between two loyalties. Meanwhile, other issues 
such as inflation and shortage of food items and 
electricity are potential competitors when it 
comes to attracting people's attention and 
energies.

All this poses a great challenge to the 
leadership of the legal fraternity in terms of 
its credibility; and the judges' issue is staring 
it in the face. Will it or will it not deliver on 
this count? Will it reconcile with half-way 
measures such as the provision for 29 judges of 
the Supreme Court and other 'soft' provisions in 
the envisioned constitutional package? Will the 
movement be overtaken by events? Alternatively, 
do lawyers have other strategies up their sleeve 
to restore the judges to their rightful 
positions, and the country to a respectable 
position in the comity of nations?


(ii)

To: "All talk Pakvoices" <all(at)talk.pakvoices.net>
From: "Dr. Awab Alvi" <drawab(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:30:26 +0500
Subject:  Whatever is to become of the Movement for Justice

WHATEVER IS TO BECOME OF THE MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE
A LETTER TO ACTIVISTS OF THE PEOPLE'S RESISTANCE

by Dr. Awab Alvi

One issue which we all have dodged to question 
ourselves, is to decide what is acceptable when 
the powers-to-be talk about the 'conditional' 
restoration of the judiciary, either in the form 
of the much trumpeted 60-point constitutional 
package or separately.

For me, this movement (People's Resistance) has 
been for the unconditional restoration of the Nov 
3rd Judiciary (which also has included condemning 
the Martial Law & the restrictions on the media) 
When the powers-to-be talk about 'middle ground' 
compromises in the restoration of the Judiciary, 
it is sadly FAR from our own objectives.  The 
irony is that we, in PR all seem to be preparing 
for a celebration the day Zardari restores the 
Judiciary in whatever way he thinks its best 
'for-him'.  Is this 'whatever-way-possible' 
acceptable to PR.  It sadly is not my wish, and I 
may venture to say that it might also echo the 
sentiments of other like-minded friends in this 
group

In my opinion the only reason to make a circus of 
the constitutional package is to show the judges 
that the powers-to-be have given them grace, and 
they should remain grateful to have received this 
gift-from-god.  It is just another facade to the 
traditional appointment by the President / 
establishment which ensures that the buck stops 
at the supreme authority thereby ensuring the 
status quo.  I hope we, in PR, are not fooling 
ourselves to believe that the 'Zardari form' of 
restoration comes without any strings attached. 
Had they been sincere then all this hoopla was 
not necessary and the legal way, via an executive 
order, was not too difficult to pull out of the 
bag.  As opinion makers in this resistance we 
should be clear on our position, and be willing 
to call a spade, a spade and not worry otherwise.

Long March or Long Mobilization

In my opinion the Long March 'mobilization' was a 
tremendous success, it showed us that there are 
still thousands of Pakistanis who continue to 
believe in Pakistan.  But sadly the Anti-Climatic 
end was a tragic blow which took us all by 
surprise and our movement is profusely bleeding 
as a direct consequence of the fateful decision 
to terminate the event so abruptly.

It is not the fact, that we did not have a 
dharna, it is not the fact, that there was no 
confrontation, it is not the fact, that we did 
not achieve anything except show up at 2 am in 
the morning and disappear just before sunrise. 
For me it is the feeling of immense betrayal 
which was most visibly seen on the faces of the 
thousands of patriotic Pakistanis standing on 
Constitutional Avenue in front of the Parliament, 
the feeling of having been 'sold out' by yet 
another leader.

My heart goes out to our friends who traveled 
1200 km up north from Karachi in a mind numbing 
frenzy, rocking to the tunes of Mujhe-Insaf-do or 
the rhyme of Lab-hain-Azaad having been drummed 
to the chant of "Hum Mulk bachanay Niklay Hain - 
Aao Humaray Saath Challo" and even to 
convincingly tell their colleagues 'Hum Judges 
restore kar kay aain gay' this sudden change of 
plan was tragic it was like having been disgraced 
publicly barely 3 hours into their arrival in 
Islamabad, as if to have said 'go back home, you 
crazy patriotic fools, we only wanted to test 
your mobilization skills'.  It literally turned 
out to be nothing but a Long Mobilization, a show 
of strength, a game of numbers.  If numbers was 
the intention, then the money spent to mobilize 
people from Karachi, Sukkur, Multan and Lahore, 
could have been better utilized to hire a sizable 
audience like the one purchased by Musharraf on 
the night of May 12th 2007, standing on the same 
stage before an audience of thousands he too, 
like Aitzaz, lacked the umph to deliver the 
goods, little good did the May 12th Jalsa do for 
Musharraf, that we expect miracles from the 
lawyers mobilization on Friday the 13th

Instinctively I blame the core leadership which 
naturally points to the figure-head Aitzaz Ahsan, 
who will forever carry the burden of this fumbled 
catch, he alone had the opportunity of a 
life-time to have been garlanded in the history 
books as the man who changed Pakistan, but sadly, 
he now is regarded as yet another leader that 
'could have changed Pakistan, but couldn't'. 
This rising star turned into a shooting star, 
vanishing into infinity barely moments after it 
appeared on the horizon of Islamabad.

Postmortem, even Aitzaz accepts that it may have 
been a 'strategic mistake', but in an attempt to 
do damage control, he claims it to have been a 
good decision in hindsight, blaming the 
diminishing numbers of lawyers on the front-line 
in the presence of an overwhelmingly politically 
charged crowd which had the potential of running 
out of control.  The scenario might have been 
true, but the sudden dismissal like the 
Anti-Climax orchestrated by Aitzaz was precisely 
what the doctor could have ordered in the 
prescription written out to Musharraf and Asif 
Ali Zardari, who may have been cowering at home 
in tachycardia watching the buildup to the Long 
March, they both truly could not have asked for a 
better finale to the Long March, a finale one 
would always wish your arch nemesis to always 
have before any big contest.  It was simply 
finger lick'in good.  Did Aitzaz and his team 
leaders play into the hands of the establishment, 
willingly or unwillingly they might have.

The Anti-climax witnessed that fateful night can 
be compared to the feeling one has while rocking 
to great music in a dance club and all of a 
sudden the lights & music turn off, the frenzy 
dissipates instantly and the people disappear, 
dismayed, disgruntled and disheartened.  It was 
this feeling of helplessness that destroyed the 
movement, with no hope to live for, a nation 
limps back home to try and forget to never dream 
again.  this is what destroyed the movement. 
Whatever is to become of the Movement is a fading 
dream shattered on the morning of Friday the 13th 
in year of Two Thousand and Eight

What to do?

How so ever, one may feel regarding the actions 
of the Lawyer leadership that day, one must 
quickly recover in time before the powers-to-be 
make minced meat out of our issue.  I fear that 
is exactly what Asif Ali Zardari is doing these 
days, trying to cajole a restoration so that he 
alone can bask in glory, while he attempts to 
sneak past his version of the conditional 
restoration while we tend to our wounds

My suggestion for members of the People's 
Resistance is to urgently get to work primarily 
to re-evaluate our position on what form of 
judicial restoration is acceptable to us.  Maybe 
crack open the 60-point package and go through it 
one by one deciding what's acceptable and whats 
not, once this position is determined then I urge 
PR to issue a public statement, independent of 
any lawyer movement or political party but simply 
as a civil society urging for our demands.  We 
must remain as a pressure group that leads the 
change for the un-conditional restoration of the 
Judiciary, let not the promises of compromises be 
our guiding light to salvation.  Let us for once 
stand up for Pakistan and lead the way and not be 
led.

Awab Alvi
http://teeth.com.pk/blog

o o o

(iii)

An uneasy relationship
BY NOT SPEARHEADING THE LAWYERS' MOVEMENT, THE 
PPP HAS MADE A BIG POLITICAL MISTAKE

by Dr Arif Azad

The recent Long March has raised many questions 
about the relationship between the lawyers' 
community and the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). 
On the positive side of the equation, the PPP can 
be credited with making the Long March possible 
by easing the protestors' movement to their 
destination. This is quite an advance in terms of 
governance, which places the PPP in league with 
other democratic-minded governments that tolerate 
difference of opinion. Beyond this, the 
relationship between the lawyers' community and 
the PPP gets more convoluted.

The PPP's complicated relationship with the 
lawyers' movement can be traced to its 
leadership's political zigzags, spurred by a 
series of compromises the party made with Pervez 
Musharraf's regime. This compromised position put 
the PPP in an awkward situation in relation to 
the lawyers' movement, which is basically aimed 
at the ouster of Musharraf and the restoration of 
deposed CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. When the 
lawyers' movement started in March 2007, the 
PPP's response was very calculated. As a result, 
it was alleged that the PPP was trying to thrash 
out a deal with Musharraf for the safe return of 
the exiled Benazir Bhutto.

Though seen to be supporting lawyers in terms of 
its strategic participation in the pro-chief 
justice rallies, the PPP leadership kept on the 
safe side of the debate by not openly criticising 
the recent acts of Musharraf. In November, 
however, the policy of standing politically aloof 
from a gathering social movement became almost 
untenable after the imposition of emergency. 
Sensing popular wind behind the lawyers' 
movement, the late Benazir Bhutto made some 
cosmetic adjustments to her political strategy. 
This adjustment involved visiting the deposed 
chief justice's residence to demand his release. 
Earlier, she had also paid a fleeting visit to a 
journalist rally to re-establish her 
pro-judiciary credentials.

Despite making a few public appearances for the 
lawyers' cause (partly due to Musharraf's 
changing stance over the NRO), Benazir stuck to 
her abstract line of restoring the judiciary, but 
not necessarily the deposed chief justice. This 
policy is still being followed by the PPP even 
after Benazir's tragic death, because it supports 
the PPP top leadership's new forged closeness to 
the establishment. Continuing with this policy 
involves pitting the PPP against the prevailing 
public mood, which is overwhelmingly pro-chief 
justice.

While the PPP can take the credit for making the 
Long March possible, it would be akin to 
misjudging its alienation from most people who 
have thrown themselves behind the movement. This 
sense of alienation within the workers of the 
party is visibly growing and may prove fatal in 
terms of future mobilisation, particularly when 
the pulling figure of Benazir is no longer there. 
A large part of this sense of alienation has been 
caused by the way decisions are being made by a 
selected few in the party.

From a cursory look at the media, it is not 
difficult to deduce that old party guard and the 
experienced hands have been sidelined. More 
ominously, the policies are being allegedly 
framed by a group of recent entrants to the PPP, 
whose link with the party's culture is very weak 
(this bears uncanny resemblance to the way 
Blair's Young Turk -- not schooled in the party's 
history -- changed the British Labour party and 
moved it away from its historical power base). In 
an effort not to antagonise the establishment, 
the party has withdrawn into its 'safety first' 
mentality.

Though Asif Zardari's stolid silence may give the 
whiff of a long-term game plan, there is no 
evidence that the party intends to return to its 
roots -- the masses. This alienation from the 
mass is going to acquire greater salience in the 
absence of a charismatic leader like Benazir. 
Moreover, the policy of disengaging the party 
from the people and the most energetic social 
movement of recent years may cost dearly in 
future. There is widespread feeling that Benazir 
would have acted differently in these 
circumstances and would not have let things go 
thus far.

By not taking a firm stand on the issue of 
judges, the PPP has provided space to 
right-of-centre parties to enter the progressive 
civil rights discourse. Historically, the party 
has been in the vanguard of social protest 
movements for the rule of law and civil rights. 
There are strong indications that the PPP would 
restore the judges in future, but only after the 
lawyers' movement is shown to be exhausted as a 
proof of its grand game. The package reportedly 
also includes protecting the repressive measures 
of Musharraf ñ a far cry for a party known for 
its anti-dictatorship credentials.

But the damage done to the concept of people's 
power, asserting itself in a magnificent show of 
nationwide mobilisation, would be irreparable; 
and the only loser would be the PPP, which itself 
grew out of a social protest movement of the 
1960s. In future, the social movement may be led 
by forces of the right if the PPP does not 
correct its stance and makes a direct reference 
to the people. With charismatic Benazir out of 
the scene, the bond between people and the party 
is likely to be tested in the days to come.


______


[2]


The Daily Star
June 26, 2008

CHALLENGES, RISKS, AND OBLIGATIONS FOR WOMEN

by Rounaq Jahan

THE lives of women have changed significantly 
ever since I was a graduate student around 
mid-1960s. In the last forty years gender gaps in 
education, employment, income, decision making 
and even in political leadership have been 
narrowed. In many countries women now outnumber 
men in the education system. They have a 
significant presence in many fields like science, 
medicine, business, and law, which used to be 
heavily dominated by men.

Women's labour force participation has also 
equalled to men. Marriage and family patterns 
have changed enabling women to have greater voice 
within the household, which had traditionally 
been a major site of women's exploitation. We 
have travelled far but we still face many 
challenges. Here I will focus on four.

Our first challenge is to shape our own identity 
without being defined by others. This is not 
always easy as our families and societies are 
constantly telling us who we should be. But from 
my own experiences, I know that when we stand 
firm on what we want to be, we can break many 
barriers.

When I began my academic-activist life in 
Bangladesh around early 1970s, I stood out as a 
young, single woman pursuing a path unique from 
other women. What I find remarkable is how 
quickly our society changed. Change happened 
because I was not alone; many other women also 
decided to fulfil their own potentials.

Our second challenge is to improve the terms and 
conditions of women's work, both paid and unpaid. 
We all know that women's employment rates have 
increased significantly in the last forty years, 
but women's share of earned income has not been 
at par with their employment.

A part of the problem is that the conditions of 
poverty have pushed women to take any employment, 
no matter how poor the terms and conditions. This 
has resulted in women predominantly concentrated 
in low paid jobs.

For example, in Bangladesh, men dominated 
manufacturing jobs in the 1970s. Now the 
situation has reversed where young women make up 
a majority of the industrial workforce. Further, 
80% to 90% of the workers of the garment industry 
are young women. This industry, which constitutes 
Bangladesh's main exports, annually earns 9 
billion dollars whereas these women workers earn 
less than a dollar a day while putting in 12-14 
hours.

Additionally, the burden of unpaid work in the 
care economy (i.e. child care, care of elderly 
family members, etc.) continues to be a problem 
for women as they expand their participation in 
paid employment. Getting governments and the 
private sector to recognise women's contribution 
to economic growth, their poor work conditions, 
and their labour in the care economy remains a 
major challenge for women in the future.

Our third challenge is to reduce violence against 
women. We have succeeded in making violence 
against women, particularly domestic violence, a 
criminal offence in many countries. But this has 
not resulted in any significant reduction of such 
violence.

Even in Sweden, which ranks number one in global 
women's empowerment index, police reports of 
assaults on women have increased by 40% during 
the 1990s. What is worse is that war, political 
and ethnic conflicts have embraced violence 
against women as a part of their arsenal. In 
recent years, rape is seen used as a weapon in 
conflict situations in Asia, Africa as well as 
Europe.

Our final challenge is to improve women's 
presence in political leadership positions. With 
the exception of Nordic countries, where women 
have made significant progress, in the rest of 
the world progress has been extremely slow. Women 
in US hold only 16% of Congressional seats and 
14% of ministerial positions. In India, which is 
a model for stable democracy in Southern 
countries, the progress of women is even slower, 
though a women prime minister governed India for 
more than a decade. In India, women's share of 
parliamentary seats is 9% and ministerial 
positions are 3%.

However, these challenges cannot be effectively 
addressed without recognising the emerging risks 
for women's empowerment. I will be selective and 
focus on four major risks.

The first risk is the cutting of government and 
the public sector roles and relying more on the 
market/private sectors. This particularly affects 
poor women's health and education. From 
experience, we know that government laws/policies 
played a critical role in improving women's 
conditions. Nordic women are doing better 
compared to women of other regions mainly because 
Nordic governments have been proactive. Their 
women friendly social policies and laws, 40/60 
principle of political representation, public 
sector provisioning of health and education have 
contributed significantly in pushing Nordic 
countries to the top in women's empowerment index.

The second risk is the alarming class gaps 
between different groups of women, holding back 
our overall progress and creating obstacles in 
building a cohesive political voice. The gains 
women have made in the last 40-50 years have not 
been equitably shared.

A few examples of these disparities are: maternal 
deaths are 1 in 2,500 in the West, 1 in 94 in 
Asia, and 1 in 16 in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, 
along with North-South disparities there are 
greater inequalities within countries too. In 
India 43% of births are attended by skilled 
personnel compared to 99% in US. But disparities 
within India are greater than that between India 
and US. Only 16% of the poorest families compared 
to 84% of the richest families in India have 
skilled birth attendance. Sustaining progress 
means working towards reducing these disparities.

The third and related risk for women is the 
narrow constituency base of the women's 
movements. Women's movements have played a key 
role, globally, in mobilising women to demand 
their rights, pressurise governments to enact 
laws, adopt policies and take specific actions. 
But the constituency bases of these movements 
have been limited to upper and middle class women 
only. Working class and poor women have generally 
not been drawn into them. This gap has 
considerably weakened the capacity of the women's 
movement to work as a strong unified political 
force.

The fourth risk is the backlash from conservative 
groups, consisting of mostly religious extremists 
from all religious backgrounds. In recent years, 
the resurgence of political use of religion has 
directly threatened women's rights. For example, 
religious extremists in US are limiting women's 
choice in this country; and via the gag rule are 
threatening reproductive rights of women 
globally. The secularists, championing women's 
rights, are politically in a much-weakened 
position as well. The global war on terror has 
further exacerbated these risks by legitimising 
political use of religion.

Let me finally turn to women's obligations. 
Again, I will be selective and highlight only 
four.

Our first obligation is to ourselves. As 
mentioned earlier, we need to stand up for our 
rights, be constantly vigilant and ever ready 
promote our rights.

Our second obligation is to assist the less 
privileged women in our own countries and 
globally. We may all have our own paid and unpaid 
work responsibilities, but we still need to 
volunteer for civic and political actions that 
address inequities and exclusion.

Our third obligation is to recognise the critical 
role that education has played in fuelling 
women's progress. Millions of girls and women 
around the world are still denied access to 
education, particularly quality education. Girls 
account for more than half of the 57 million 
children who are out of school. We need to move 
beyond simple knowledge generation. We have to 
get involved in quiet initiatives as well as 
public campaigns to ensure that quality education 
becomes available to all of the world's citizens.

Finally, we need imagination to create a vision 
of a society, economy, polity and world order 
that will be equal, just and inclusive; and we 
need to be in the forefront and provide 
leadership to a shared struggle of women and men 
to reach that vision. We need stamina and 
courage, but above all, we need to be committed 
and have faith in our own strength to transform 
the world.

The above is an abridged version of Dr. Jahan's 
address to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced 
Study on receipt of the Graduate Society Award, 
June 2008.

_______


[3] India:  Human rights


The Hindu
June 24, 2008

  ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES

by Mukul Sharma

To "disappear" is to vanish, cease to be, to be 
lost. But the "disappeared" have not simply 
vanished. Someone, somewhere, knows what happened 
to them.

Enforced disappearances, a dominant feature of 
the second half of the 20th century as they were 
committed on a gross scale in Nazi-occupied 
Europe, are not a thing of the past. They are 
continuing in our country.

When the Srinagar-based Association of the 
Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), recently 
released its report, Facts under Ground, 
indicating the existence of multiple graves in 
localities which, because of their proximity to 
the Line of Control with Pakistan, are not 
accessible without the specific permission of the 
security forces, and the Army claimed that those 
buried there were armed rebels and "foreign 
militants" killed lawfully in armed encounters, 
it opened the lid on many facts.

According to the report, more than 8,000 persons 
have gone missing in Jammu and Kashmir since 
1989. Central and State authorities countered, 
saying the number was less than 4,000. The 
government branded those who went missing "the 
people who went to Pakistan to join the armed 
opposition groups." But the detailed testimonies 
in the report, taken from local villagers, state 
that most of those buried were residents from the 
State.

These exchanges remind us of the intervention by 
the judiciary in a number of high-profile cases, 
including the Chattisingpura case in which a 
series of hearings established that the security 
services had extra-judicially executed five local 
residents, while claiming lawful use of force 
against suspected "foreign militants." However, 
the number of such judicial inquiries into 
individual complaints has not been many, going by 
their volume. But it establishes one thing - that 
in recent years and decades, in the course of our 
fight against terrorism, the security agencies, 
sometimes with the complicity of our governments, 
have carried out enforced disappearances of 
terror suspects. They have responded to terror 
with terror. They have lowered society's 
standards and undermined the prospects of 
justice. Those who commit these crimes have done 
so with near impunity.

To "disappear" is to vanish, to cease to be, to 
be lost. But the "disappeared" have not simply 
vanished. Someone, somewhere, knows what happened 
to them. Someone is responsible. Each enforced 
disappearance violates a swathe of human rights: 
the right to security and dignity of a person; 
the right not to be subjected to torture or other 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment; the right to humane conditions of 
detention; the right to a legal personality; as 
well as rights related to fair trial and family 
life. Ultimately, it violates the right to life, 
as victims of enforced disappearance are often 
killed.
Not limited to regions or issues

These disappearances and extrajudicial executions 
are not limited to specific regions or 
terror-specific issues. They are happening not 
only in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast but 
are also being regularly reported from Gujarat, 
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, 
Bihar, Rajasthan and Orissa. Those who have 
disappeared are not just terror suspects. People 
of all ages, professions and backgrounds have 
been victims. These are crimes committed on the 
order of state organs, and those responsible for 
them always try to avoid being called to account, 
through lies, cover-ups and propagation of 
misleading explanations and excuses. An 
institutionalised impunity, which has ensured 
that almost no one is brought to justice for 
human rights violations, is particularly 
entrenched in the case of forced disappearances. 
Courts, prosecution services, the investigating 
police and State human rights commissions have 
repeatedly failed in their obligations to 
investigate crimes of forced disappearances, and 
remained subordinate to the interests of state 
institutions such as the military and civilian 
executive authorities, who have sought to prevent 
access to truth and justice.

Take for example Jammu & Kashmir, where the State 
government pledged that the State Human Rights 
Commission (SHRC) would investigate all enforced 
disappearances. However, the SHRC was unable to 
order prosecution against members of the security 
forces, without prior sanction from the Union 
Home Ministry. In August 2006, outstanding 
concerns over the powers of the SHRC and its 
ability to effectively investigate enforced 
disappearances were further heightened when its 
chairperson resigned over the 'non-serious' 
attitude of the State government to addressing 
human rights violations.

Or, see the situation even when India signed the 
International Convention for the Protection of 
All Persons from Enforced Disappearances in 
February 2007. In spite of this, the government 
does not allow the United Nations Working Groups 
on Arbitrary Detention and on Enforced or 
Involuntary Disappearances to visit the country. 
India has still not ratified the Convention 
against Torture, and requests by the U.N. Special 
Rapporteurs on torture and on extrajudicial 
executions to visit the country have been pending 
for long.

On December 21, 2006, the U.N. General Assembly 
unanimously adopted a major new human rights 
treaty: the International Convention for the 
Protection of All Persons from Enforced 
Disappearance. For over 25 years, relatives of 
the disappeared, some governments and 
non-governmental organisations worked hard to 
bring this landmark convention into existence, 
and it filled a major gap. Before this, the U.N. 
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from 
Enforced Disappearance was adopted by the General 
Assembly without a vote in December 1992 "as a 
body of principles for all States."

The Declaration emphasises the non-derogable 
right to be free from disappearances, stating in 
Article 2 that the prohibition of 'disappearance' 
is absolute. Article 7 states: "No circumstances 
whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of 
war, internal political instability or any other 
public emergency, may be invoked to justify [an] 
enforced "disappearance."' This places an 
obligation on the states to adopt and enforce 
safeguards against disappearances, and requires 
them to provide judicial remedy and redress to 
the victims and their families.

Then why does the Indian state not ensure that 
its national courts and commissions exercise 
universal jurisdiction over grave crimes like 
enforced disappearances? Why don't our national 
legislatures ensure that their courts and 
commissions exercise jurisdiction over anyone 
suspected or accused of this crime, whatever the 
official capacity of the suspect or the accused 
at the time of the alleged crime or anytime 
thereafter? Why don't we ensure an investigation 
and a prosecution, where there is sufficient 
admissible evidence, without waiting for a 
complaint by a victim?

To ensure that justice is not only done but also 
seen to be done, should not NGOs be permitted by 
competent authorities to attend and monitor the 
trials of persons accused of causing a 
disappearance? Should not the interests of 
victims, witnesses and their families be taken 
into account? Should not courts protect them?

Till such time broad principles and laws based on 
them come into existence, action is needed on 
specific issues and incidents raised locally by 
victims' relatives, human rights organisations 
and others. We need to ensure that all past and 
current allegations of enforced disappearances 
are promptly, thoroughly, independently and 
impartially investigated, and that where there is 
sufficient evidence, anyone suspected of 
responsibility for such crimes is prosecuted in 
proceedings that meet international fair trial 
standards; that all victims of unlawful killings, 
enforced disappearance and torture are granted 
full reparation, including restitution, 
compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and 
guarantees of non-repetition; that the civilian 
prosecutor's office is assigned jurisdiction to 
investigate all cases of suspected enforced 
disappearances, irrespective of whichever 
military, security or law-enforcement agency is 
suspected of being involved; and that the 
civilian prosecutor's office is provided with the 
mandate and authority to be able to effectively 
investigate all such cases. These will provide a 
healing touch to the troubled families and 
societies.

The continuing failure of our states to implement 
these measures could pave the way for an increase 
in the number of enforced disappearances in the 
future. Finally, the crime of disappearance 
should be introduced in the Indian law in 
accordance with international standards.

(Mukul Sharma is Director of Amnesty 
International in India. mukul at amnesty.org.in)

o o o

Kashmir Times
25 June 2008

Editorial

Systematic pattern of abuse
SECURITY FORCES, CULTURE OF IMPUNITY BEHIND FAKE KILLINGS

With the arrest of two Ikhwanis in the Bandipora 
fake encounter case, the role of the security 
agencies cannot be diminished in the killing of 
the labourer, hailing from Korkernag and working 
in Srinagar. The case was not unknown to the 
police and security agencies. In fact, police had 
claimed three weeks ago, after villagers accused 
the security persons of the killing in Brar 
village of Bandipora, that it was investigating 
the case. It seems more than just an ordinary 
coincidence that the culprits should be arrested 
and the case claimed solved only a day after the 
slain man was identified by his family members. 
The police claims that the men have confessed to 
the crime but it is of equal significance to know 
the reasons behind the killing. The police in 
Jammu and Kashmir, as elsewhere in the country, 
is notorious for often extracting fake 
confessions that may be baseless or half truths. 
This too necessitates the need for a greater 
degree of transparency in such investigations. 
Whatever may have inspired the police to swiftly 
act after a gap of three weeks, the arrest of two 
Ikhwanis (surrendered ultras) in the case, 
indicates a much larger picture of use of 
surrendered ultras enjoying official patronage in 
not just counter insurgency operations but also 
unleashing a wave of terror against innocent 
civilians. The co-option of the surrendered 
militants, mostly through coercive tactics, to 
work for various security agencies is not a 
secret. Despite all the criticism and the hollow 
claims of reining in these Ikhwanis, the 
government business has been limited purely to 
legitmising their actions by recruiting them as 
SPOs, Territorial Army Personnel or in the 
dreaded Special Operations Group of the Jammu and 
Kashmir police. On official papers, the Ikhwanis 
don't exist. For practical purposes, they not 
only operate freely spreading terror in their own 
little fiefdoms but are also capacitated by 
impunity they enjoy through official patronage 
and protection. Many of them continue to live in 
camps of security forces. So, it would be a 
travesty of justice to simply pin the entire 
blame on Ikhwanis, who mostly operate at the 
behest of the security forces or at least, enjoy 
their unquestioned patronage and protection. In 
the Bandipora case, the security forces may have 
been directly or indirectly involved. Thus the 
government cannot shun the incident as a mere 
aberration and go about its usual business of 
absolutely negating the existence of human rights 
violations and the vulnerability of the civilians 
in the presence of such a massive presence of 
troops. It must take not just take note of the 
incident but also acknowledge the rather 
systematic manner of suppressing the civilians 
with unbridled freedom to the security forces. 
The central and the state governments, which not 
only deny but also plead ignorance about such a 
pattern of systemic violence, cannot be absolved 
of their responsibility.
There is no way the security forces can organise 
material and human resource of the state to 
arrange for the systematic genocide of a specific 
group of persons without being checked? 
Obviously, this circular pattern of abuse emerges 
from a culture perpetrated at the political and 
bureaucratic level in a systematic manner for 
years. This culture is too un-impregnable to be 
demolished or even manipulated by agents of 
social and administrative control. That is purely 
why when politicians are in power they suffer 
from the disability to act against it, when 
outside power, they cry hoarse about this cyclic 
pattern of violence for vote bank politics. The 
National Conference talks about this culture of 
impunity only after it was thrown out of power. 
Despite his consistent stand to disband SOG, 
former chief minister Mufti Mohd Sayeed was 
unable to do anything soon after coming to power 
even though an official announcement was made to 
this extent. In fact, even the Ikhwanis, many of 
whom have still not been recruited in the regular 
forces or as temporary personnel in various 
security agencies, operate with liberty. There is 
no legal basis for this system. It is purely 
legitimized by this culture of impunity which 
does not simply stem from draconian laws like the 
Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Otherwise, why 
is it that the SOG and the Ikhwanis would enjoy 
the official patronage and protection to do as 
they please, given the limitations of the AFSPA 
that simply covers the central forces? It stems 
more from a deep rooted mindset at the top of the 
political and bureaucratic hierarchy that lacks 
the committed will to challenge this monstrous 
system of vesting unlimited powers in the 
security forces. What is needed to deflate the 
monster is a leadership in the corridors of power 
that is both responsive and sensitive. Besides, 
it should have the zeal to bring an end to this 
culture of impunity that is violative of the very 
democratic norms and the constitution of the 
country.

o o o

Hindustan Times
June 25, 2008

CHHATTISGARH REDUX

by Nandini Sundar

When IRATE villagers from Heirok, Manipur, 
demanded guns to protect themselves from the 'UG' 
- as the armed groups of Manipur are collectively 
referred to - they had little idea of what they 
were in for. frustrated by persistent extortion 
demands, the last straw came when PREPAK cadres 
killed three youth and blinded one girl in March. 
The villagers' demand was trumpeted around as 
another instance of a spontaneous 'local 
resistance group', as the Salwa Judum in 
Chhattisgarh is called in Home Ministry parlance, 
asking to be armed.

The truth, however, is far more complicated. In 
Heirok alone, 46 people have been killed in the 
last 30 years, 30 by the UG and 16 by the 
security forces, including four fake encounters 
by the army. When I met the Joint Action 
Committee (JAC) of Heirok, it turned out that 
they had asked for licensed guns so that they 
could patrol the entrances to their village from 
both security forces and UG. Instead, the police 
recruited them as SPOs at Rs 3,000 per month. The 
JAC got worried - village defence was one thing - 
being deployed for counter-insurgency outside 
Heirok, as the police planned, quite another. The 
villagers of Chajing, who had also asked for 
arms, were also wary.

The alacrity with which the police responded to 
these demands, however, is in contrast to their 
indifference to a similar demand by the villagers 
of Moirang. In May, a man had been picked up from 
his home and his body was found three days later. 
The police claimed it was an encounter. When we 
asked a member of the Moirang JAC how guns would 
have helped, she responded: "The demand for guns 
was just an angry reaction. We know it won't 
happen. But we wanted to show the 
double-standards of the government." Local 
attitudes towards encounters are qualitatively 
different from attitudes towards extra-judicial 
killings. In the former, people are philosophical 
even if a loved one dies; but when innocents are 
targeted, there is outrage.

If the villagers are ambivalent about guns, they 
are equally ambivalent about the UG. After the 
March incident, while the houses of some PREPAK 
supporters at Heirok were burnt, the JAC also 
placed demands before the UG, such as developing 
a code of conduct, unification of factions and 
welfare activities. The idea was to teach them a 
lesson on the villagers' own terms. But time and 
space for local decision-making is not something 
securitymen are willing to afford the villagers. 
Even as members of the Heirok and Chajing JACs 
were visiting Chhattisgarh to assess the 
implications of becoming SPOs, the police stepped 
up its recruitment drive in Heirok. If enough 
people could be shortlisted, the lure of jobs 
would over-ride any cautionary tales the JAC 
might bring back with them.

The UG now has threatened to cut off all access 
to Heirok as revenge for taking up arms against 
them. The army has assured protection - 
something they should have been doing all this 
time, so that the demand for arms for 
self-protection would never have arisen. In a 
state where children have come together to throw 
away their toy guns, it is a pity that the 
securitymen is bent on arming civilians, and 
fomenting a new civil war.

The author is Professor of sociology at Delhi School of Economics


_______


[4] Frontline Defenders ALERT: Re harassment of Kashmir Tribunal

Dear Colleague:

Frontline Defenders, an organization committed to 
protecting human rights defenders who work 
non-violently "for any or all of the rights 
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights", has issued an urgent action alert 
regarding the harassment of Professor Chatterji, 
Advocate Imroz, and the Kashmir Tribunal team:

http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/1481/action

Frontline Defender's Leadership Council includes:
* Hannan Ashrawi, Founder and Secretary General 
of the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion 
of Global Dialogue and Democracy.
* The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.
* Indai Lourdes, Founder and former Executive 
Director of the Asian Centre for Women's Human 
Rights.
* Desmond Tutu, Anglican archbishop and opponent of apartheid.

Should you wish to send an appeal letter, please 
copy the Tribunal at tribunal at kashmirprocess.org 
and khurramparvez at yahoo.com.

For immediate contact with the authorities, the 
following contact information may be useful:

Office of the President of India
Email: presidentofindia at rb.nic.in

Minister of Home Affairs
Mr. Shivraj Patil
Email: svpatil at sansad.nic.in
Fax: 0091-11-23794833

Ministry of External Affairs
Phone: 0091 23737623, 23737657, 23011165
Fax: 0091-23013254

Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad
Fax: 0091-194-2479133

______


[5]

Indian Express
June 24, 2008

LET'S STOP AT PARTIAL RECALL

by Ajay K. Mehra

The voters of the Nagar Panchayats of Gunderdehi 
and Nawagarh in Durg district and of Rajpur in 
Sarguja district, in Chhatisgarh, have created 
history by electing to recall their 
representatives on June 16, 2008. Though the 
right to recall (RTR) in local bodies exists in 
some states like Maharashtra, which NCP supremo 
Sharad Pawar objected to, it has been exercised 
for the first time in democratic India since 
Independence. This "first" raises interesting 
questions and possibilities.

Several proposals have been mooted in India to 
remove electoral malpractices and anomalies in 
recent years. The introduction of the EVMs has 
been the most notable development in electoral 
reforms since Independence. A model code of 
conduct has been in operation. A ceiling on 
election expenses has been imposed and political 
parties and candidates have to provide details of 
such expenses. To check the entry of candidates 
with criminal antecedents, a system of affidavits 
with details of criminal cases was introduced. 
The candidates are also obliged to give the 
details of their financial assets. These apart, 
in 2004, a proposal was made by the Election 
Commission of India to introduce to the ballot 
paper the option of "None of the Above" (NOTA), 
which has not been accepted.

RTR has also been mooted as a measure of 
electoral and parliamentary reform in the 
country. Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee has 
been the most ardent supporter of this measure, 
using every possible public forum since 2006 to 
express his support for it. Recently, he 
reiterated its need while delivering the EMS 
Namboodiripad Memorial lecture in 
Thiruvananthapuram on June 13. Former Chief 
Election Commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy has 
included RTR as an electoral reforms measure in 
his PIL before the Supreme Court. However, its 
practicability and implementation need a critical 
review in the light of global experience and 
Indian realities.

RTR was endorsed by Lenin in November 1917 for 
the Soviet system. Switzerland is considered a 
pioneer in this field, but seldom uses this 
instrument. Eighteen US states have provisions 
for the recall of elected representatives. 
However, the provision has been used rather 
infrequently. Some Canadian provinces have 
provisions for the recall of representatives. 
Even a premier can be removed from office. In 
order to check defections, Guyana has given 
parties the right to recall any of their elected 
members. Sweden, New Zealand, Zambia and Germany 
are other countries that are considering the 
introduction of RTR to enforce political 
accountability and check political corruption.

All over the world, representative democracy 
assumes responsibility/ accountability as an 
elemental founding principle. Elected 
representatives get the right to represent people 
for a period, during which they are expected to 
be accountable to their electors and 
constituencies, as also to the constitution and 
political institutions. While in certain cases 
impeachment is the constitutional instrument, 
exercised indirectly, to check personal and 
political malfeasance, RTR is a direct exercise 
of popular sovereignty against political 
irresponsibility. Despite the fact that the 
exercise of the right to impeach involves the 
electoral process on a much smaller scale, it is 
not a very commonly exercised instrument. RTR 
involves a full election process in a 
constituency to de-elect an elected 
representative. The process also means that, 
within a period, an alternative representative 
will have to be elected, which doubles the cost 
in terms of time and money to the democratic 
process. Further, without electoral and political 
reforms, this would be an attempt to cleanse the 
system with an ineffective detergent.

Therefore, while we watch in appreciation the 
first experience of RTR in India's deepening 
grassroots institutions and applaud the maturing 
of Indian democracy, we should be circumspect in 
its replication at the state legislature and 
parliamentary levels. Rushing to prescribe it as 
the wonder drug for India's democratic ills and 
an ailing electoral system may cause more harm 
than good. First, partisanship in Indian politics 
is becoming too fractious and cantankerous for 
democratic comfort, which could reduce RTR to a 
flawed exercise. Second, with elections in India 
becoming a 24/7 affair, due to the addition of 
local bodies elections to the already delinked 
Lok Sabha and legislative assembly elections, RTR 
will not only add to the electoral volume but it 
will also operate with the prevailing electoral 
malpractices.

Finally, RTR is no solution to the political 
anomalies visible in representative institutions; 
it is only an instrument to plug occasional 
leakage in the democratic system. It must, 
however, be celebrated as "just a beginning", and 
also as "a just beginning".

The writer is Ford Foundation Professor, Centre 
for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia 
Islamia drmehra at vsnl.com

______


[6]  [Kerala's minister of education should be 
warmly commended for standing firmly in defence 
for now of a school textbook lesson that is under 
attack from the church, certain muslim 
organisations and the congress party. Kerala's 
minister of M.A. Baby can be reached via 
<minister-education at kerala.gov.in>]

- - - -

The Telegraph
25 June 2008

TEXTBOOK IN RELIGION ROW
- Left govt in Kerala accused of preaching atheism

by John Mary
The controversial chapter of the book

Thiruvananthapuram, June 24: A textbook that 
allegedly tries to inject atheism into pupils has 
rallied disparate groups against the Left 
Democratic Front government in Kerala.

The Congress-led United Democratic Front, the 
Church and Muslim organisations have demanded 
immediate withdrawal of the Class VII social 
studies book, being taught under the Kerala board.

For the past one week, pro-UDF student activists 
have been out on the streets, attacking the 
police, burning textbooks and damaging public 
property. Arrested leaders of the Kerala Student 
Union have launched a fast in jail.

The Church, the Muslim League and the Nair 
Service Society allege that large portions of the 
book betray an attempt to instil atheism into 
schoolchildren's minds. They also claim that the 
book, which cites caste cruelties, will sow 
sectarian discontent.

At the heart of the controversy lies a chapter 
titled "No Religion for Jeevan", which advises 
children not to enter their religion in school 
registers. It describes how an inter-caste 
couple, while enrolling their child at school, 
insist that the columns against religion and 
caste be left blank.

M.R. Chandrasekharan, once a pro-CPM teachers' 
union leader, said the lessons appeared to have 
been drafted by people well versed in preparing 
material for CPM study classes. The book has been 
prepared by the State Council for Education 
Research and Training.

Education minister M.A. Baby has ruled out 
withdrawing the book, either in full or part, 
saying no one has pinpointed any part of the book 
as unfit for Class VII students. He said the book 
mirrored the modern, secular ethos of Kerala but 
added that he would make corrections if genuine 
criticism was brought to bear against the book.

The minister insisted that the book did not 
contain material that was more anti-religion than 
that in CBSE texts.

Baby has justified the book's "irreligious 
content" by citing that India's first Prime 
Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was an atheist. 
Former education minister E.T. Mohammed Basheer 
has questioned this logic and said the state 
should uphold secularism in schools rather than 
create discord by offending religious sentiments.

T.M. Jacob, another former education minister, 
said the book presented Mahatma Gandhi in poor 
light, overplayed isolated communist-led peasant 
uprisings and underplayed milestones of the 
freedom struggle, including the Quit India 
Movement.

Christian bishops resolved at a meeting last week 
to carry on the fight against the state 
government, especially in the light of the latest 
developments in the education sector.

On Sunday, priests in all parish churches read 
out a circular protesting the alleged attempt to 
lure children away from religion. A full-fledged 
agitation has been devised for the coming days.

State Congress president Ramesh Chennithala and 
the Muslim League state president, Panakkad 
Mohammed Ali Shihab Thangal, have asked the 
government to withdraw the book before offering 
talks.

Even religious groups that supported the Left in 
the last polls argue that "lessons questioning 
the relevance of religion in society" are aimed 
at drawing students away from their faith. For 
instance, the book asks whether religions are 
affected by natural disasters, poverty and 
epidemics.

A series of reforms in the Church-dominated 
education sector had, among other factors, led to 
the "liberation struggle" against the 1957 E.M.S. 
Namboodiripad government that resulted in its 
dismissal two years later.

Archbishop Bishop Emeritus Mar Joseph Powathil of 
the powerful Syro-Malabar Catholic Church said: 
"When they (the current government) said the 
reforms were the continuation of (those by) the 
first communist government in the state, we 
should have been more alert.

o o

The Hindu
26 June 2006

  JEEVAN, THE CASTELESS

Here is the 58-word lesson in the eye of the 
textbook controversy in Kerala, titled 
Mathamillaatha Jeevan (Jeevan, the casteless), in 
translation:

After seating the parents, who had come with 
their ward, in the chairs before him, the 
headmaster began filling the application form.

"Son, what's your name?"

"Jeevan"

"Good, nice name. Father's name?"

"Anvar Rasheed."

"Mother's name?"

"Lakshmi Devi."

The headmaster raised his head, looked at the parents and asked:

"Which religion should we write?"

"None. Write there is no religion."

"Caste?"

"The same."

The headmaster leaned back in his chair and asked a little gravely:

"What if he feels the need for a religion when he grows up?"

"Let him choose his religion when he feels so."

______


[7]

GUJARAT STATE THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CONFERENCE

Organized by
J.P. Centenary Committee, PUCL, MSD, PRASHANT, 
Nirikshak, Bhoomi Putra, Nayamarg,  Jalseva
C/o. Gandhi Peace Foundation, Himavan, Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 006
  Ph: 079-26641353     Cell: 9825382556     email:  dn.rath at ...

Delegation meets Governor regarding Freedom of Expression in Gujarat

In the wake of the Gujarat State Freedom of 
Expression Conference which was held in Ahmedabad 
on June 22nd 2008, a representative group met the 
Governor of Gujarat

Shri Naval Kishore Sharma at the Raj Bhavan  in 
Gandhinagar  today and handed over to him a 
Memorandum together with the Resolution of the 
Conference.

The delegation representing several sections of 
civil society consisted Shri Gautam Thaker, 
Gujarat State Secretary of the Peoples Union for 
Civil Liberties (PUCL), Shri Digant Oza, National 
Convenor of the Peoples Movement of India and Fr. 
Cedric Prakash, Director of PRASHANT.

The delegation appraised the Governor, of the 
Conference and urged him as the Constitutional 
Head of the State, to do all within his capacity 
to ensure that the Constitutional Right of 
Freedom of Expression and Conscience is no longer 
throttled in this State.

The Governor gave the delegation a patient 
hearing and assured that he would do his very 
best to address the issue.

GAUTAM THAKER                            FR. 
CEDRIC PRAKASH 
DIGANT OZA
SECRETARY  P.U.C.L.                     DIRECTOR, 
PRASHANT                         SENIOR JOURNALIST
 
NATIONAL CONVENOR
 
PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT OF INDIA


24th June 2008
=============================

GUJARAT STATE THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CONFERENCE
Organized by
J.P. Centenary Committee, PUCL, MSD, PRASHANT, 
Nirikshak, Bhoomi Putra, Nayamarg,  Jalseva
C/o. Gandhi Peace Foundation, Himavan, Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 007
  Ph: 079-26641353     Cell: 9825382556     email:  dn.rath at ...

        Date : 24-6-2008

MEMORANDUM

Subject : Sedition charges on Times of India, 
case against Shri Ashish Nandy and other Freedom 
of Expression issues.

To:
Shri Navalkishore Sharma,
The Governor of Gujarat,
Gandhinagar.

Respected Sir,

The Gujarat State Freedom of Expression 
Conference was held on 22nd June, 2008 at 
Bhaikaka Bhavan, Near Law Garden, Ahmedabad to 
uphold the Freedom of Expression.  The Conference 
was presided by Shri Chunibhai Vaidya, Senior 
Sarvodaya Leader.   Senior Journalist Shri Kuldip 
Nayar, Justice Raginder Sachar and Shri 
Kannabiran, the President of P.U.C.L. were the 
distinguished Speakers at the Conference.

The Conference was organized by P.U.C.L., 
Movement for Secular Democracy, J.P.Centenary 
Committee, PRASHANT, Nirikshak, Nayamarg, Bhoomi 
Putra and Jalseva.  The Conference was attended 
by citizens of the State from all walks of life 
in large numbers.

The other Speakers at the Conference were Prof. 
J. S. Bandukwala, Advocate Girishbhai Patel, 
Digant Oza, Indukumar Jani, Dwarika Nath Rath, 
Fr. Cedric Prakash and Gautam Thaker.

The following Resolution was passed at the 
Conference unanimously and it was decided to 
submit a Memorandum to the Governor of Gujarat. 
On behalf of the Conference, we are submitting 
this Memorandum to you along with the copy of the 
Resolution for your knowledge and prompt measures 
to check the abuse of power and assault on 
Freedom of Expression and human rights in the 
State.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
GAUTAM THAKER                              FR. 
CEDRIC PRAKASH 
DIGANT OZA
SECRETARY,  P.U.C.L.                    DIRECTOR, 
PRASHANT                         SENIOR JOURNALIST
 
NATIONAL CONVENOR
 
PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT OF INDIA

[see Full Text at:
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-express-conference.html ]

______



[7] Announcements:

(i)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA'S ROUND TABLE CONSULTATION
COUNTER TERROR WITH JUSTICE, NOT TORTURE:
POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

June 26, 2008 at India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi

10:00am- 10:30 am- Tea
10:30am-10:45am- Counter Terror with Justice: 
Mukul Sharma, Director, Amnesty International 
India
10:50am- 12:30pm- Session I- No Hiding Place for Torture
Rapporteur: Pranav
10:50am- 11:00am- Opening Remarks by the Chair- 
Dr. Usha Ramanathan, International Environmental 
Law Research Centre, New Delhi.
11:02am- 11:17am- The Politics and Practice of Terror: Dead End or A Way Out?
11:19am- 11:34am- IPC and Security Laws in the 
Region- Baggage of the Colonial Era
Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court 
of India and Trustee, Human Rights Law Network.
11:36am- 11:51am- Holding to Account: Impunity, Institutions & Investigations
Teesta Setalvad, Co-editor, Communalism Combat
11:53- 12:30pm- Q/A
12:30pm- 1:30pm- Lunch
1:30pm- 3:15pm- Session II: State and Dissent: 
National Security versus Human Rights
Rapporteur: Arnav Narain
1:30pm- 1:40pm-Opening Remarks by the Chair- 
Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Professor in the School 
of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru 
University, New Delhi
1:42pm- 1:52pm- Insurgency in the North East and the State Response
Col. Gurinder Singh, Research Fellow, Institute 
for Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi
1:54pm- 1:59pm- Respondent: Mr. A. Bimol Akoijam, CSDS (to be confirmed)
2:01pm- 2:11pm- Non-State Armed Groups and Indian Response in Jammu and Kashmir
Representative from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
2:13pm- 2:18pm- Respondent: Sanjay Kak, Filmmaker
2:20pm- 2:30pm- The Maoist Menace- India's Response Counter Productive
Maloy Krishna Dhar, Former Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau
2:32pm- 2:37pm- Respondent: Prof. Nandini Sundar, Delhi School of Economics.
2:40pm- 3:15pm- Q/A
3:15pm- 4:45pm- Tea
4:45pm- 5:15pm: Keynote Address: Torture, Terror, 
Counter Terror: Beyond a Simplistic Theory
Prof. Ashis Nandy (Honorary Fellow, Centre for 
the Study of Developing Societies)
Moderator: Sana Das, Coordinator, Amnesty International India
5:15pm-6:18pm- Session III- Lessons Learned and 
Future Action Rapporteur: Ruhee Neog
5:15pm- 5:20pm- Chair: Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
5:20pm- 5:30pm- Lessons Learned Shubranshu 
Mishra, Programme Associate, Amnesty 
International India
5:30pm- 5:35pm- Chair of the First Session- Dr. Usha Ramanathan
5:35pm- 5:40pm- Chair of the Second Session- Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy
5:40pm- 5:45pm- Mukul Sharma
5:45pm- 6:00pm- Clarifications/Comments
6:00pm- 6:15pm- Future Action and Policy Implication, Vrinda Grover
6:15pm- 6:18pm- Vote of Thanks by Ruhee Neog


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

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://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.