SACW | July 25-26, 2008 / Waiting for New Nepal / Pakistan: Fascist threat / India : Bush-Singh Deal; rudderless NREGA ; activists at risk
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Fri Jul 25 18:48:18 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | July 25-26, 2008 |
Dispatch No. 2544 - Year 10 running
[1] Waiting for 'Naya' Nepal (Rita Manchanda)
[2] Pakistan under the threat of fascist advance
(i) Media Has To Protect Itself Now (Najam Sethi)
(ii) CPJ's letter to the Prime Minister re threat from Lal Masjid Cleric's
(iii) Pakistan must cure itself of the Taliban (Ziauddin Sardar)
[3] India - US Nuclear Deal: Commentary
(i) Another "Bipartisan" Victory for Bush-Singh Deal (J. Sri Raman)
(ii) Apartheid, war and bribery (Jawed Naqvi)
[4] India: NREGA - ship without rudder? (Jean Drèze)
[5] India: Trail of violence: rights activists at risk (Mukul Sharma)
[6] UK: This crackdown on forced marriage is not all it seems (Rahila Gupta)
______
[1]
Economic and Political Weekly
July 19, 2008
WAITING FOR 'NAYA' NEPAL
by Rita Manchanda
The April 2008 mandate notwithstanding, the
Nepali people are still waiting for the formation
of a government and the initiation of the process
of constituting a "naya" Nepal. The forces of the
status quo have rallied around G P Koirala and
the Nepali Congress and are blocking the Maoists
from taking over the reins of government. How
long will the people have to wait for the agenda
of a naya Nepal to get off the ground?
In making "Peace After War" the con- sensus in
the international post-con- flict discourse is
that the "rebels" are given a chance to take
power in the proc- ess of post-conflict
stabilisation. As for Nepal's Maoists, in April,
they won a sig- nificant popular mandate to lead
the youngest republic in the shaping of a radi-
cally different society and polity. Yet, three
months later, there is still no new government in
place to reflect the changed power equations; the
historic constituent assembly (CA) has yet to
begin framing the laws of a new Nepal.
Digging in their Heels
The old guard - the political parties that had
presided over Nepal's flawed experi- ment with
multiparty democracy under the shadow of the
palace - the Nepali Congress (NC) and the
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified
Marxist-Leninist) [CPN (UML)] - are digging in
their heels. Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala
(86), at this stage should have been basking in
the iconic status of a statesman, for his his-
toric role in bringing the Maoists into the
democratic fold and presiding over the peaceful
transition. Instead, he is being derided as the
"spoiler". On June 26, he was constrained to
announce his resigna- tion, but till a president
can be elected to whom he can submit his
resignation, it is business as usual with the
caretaker Nepali Congress-led "government" and a
Maoist government-in-waiting, both ready ing
preparations for the presen tation of the annual
budget in a few weeks.
The issue of who should be the head of state has
been a major point of contestation, with the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN(M)]
obliged to accept that their electoral mandate (a
third of the house) does not entitle chairman
Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Prachanda, to claim both
head of state and head of government. Meanwhile,
the Koirala camp has been insisting that the
apostle of democracy in Nepal should be the first
president. The Maoists fear, and with reason,
that this would be a recipe for the emergence of
a parallel centre of power. To complete the murky
politicking, inspired leaks have appeared in the
press - the Nepal Army (still accustomed to being
the Royal Nepal Army) does not want a Maoist
commander-in- chief (C-in C) and is rooting for
Koirala. A "mysterious list of 'suggestions'" was
sent to political parties indicating the Nepal
Army's supposed political priorities. After
weeks of a "slug-fest" highlighted in the media,
a way-out was found - the CA would vote for who
shall occupy what public offices - president,
speaker, etc. Also, the rules of the functioning
of the CA drafted by the old parties when they
expected to be in driving seat, are to be changed
- decisions, including no confi- dence motion,
will be decided by one-third majority and not as
before by a two-thirds majority. And stapled on
to the fifth amendment of the interim
constitution is the decision to dismantle the
paramilitary trappings of the Maoist Young
Communist League, the highly controversial "third
force". As for the second force, the 19,600
soldiers of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in
the UN-supervised cantonments, there will be a
time bound plan for the integration of the
soldiers in the state army and security forces.
But, the process of passing the fifth amendment
has been stalled for nearly two weeks in the CA
by protesting members of the Madhesh-based
political par- ties. On the basis of campaign
slogan of "one Madhesh, one Pradesh" to right the
discrimination and marginalisation of the people
of the Terai, the Madhesi parties had garnered a
surprising 20 per cent of the seats in the CA.
They were insistent about including the demand
for an "autonomous" Madhesh "province" and
Madhesh representation in the army. Not
unexpectedly, it has prompted the Terai's other
minorities - the Tharus and Rajbhansis to take to
the street with competing claims.
It raises the larger issue of pre-empting the
CA's role in shaping the federal re-structuring
of the state of Nepal, but such democratic
proprieties have got lost in the ugly struggle
for power.
Nepalis are discovering that it is easier to get
rid of the 239 year old monarchy, the symbol of
old feudal structure, than the "imperial" prime
minister, Koirala who Rita Manchanda
(ritamanchanda2003 at yahoo. co.in) is a
journalist, who has written extensively on human
rights and the role of women in peace-building,
and is with the Kathmandu- based South Asia Forum
for Human Rights.
is poised to emerge as the rallying point for the
status quo forces. Admittedly, though, even in
the case of the monarchy, as Nepali journalist
Prashant Jha observed, "the monarchy continued
its twilight existence two years after the Jana
Andolan II (People's Movement) step by step
stripped the king of his powers". The palace
tried to stoke up disturbances, tempted by the
protracted wrangling of the democratic forces and
the uncertainties that dogged the road map to the
CA. There were bomb blasts in Kathmandu and
violence in the Terai, where people are believed
to be more sympathetically inclined towards the
king. Traditionally, the monarch has mediated the
proble matic relationship between the hills and
the Terai.
Till the very last minute, the palace, the army
and the prime minister were involved in frantic
negotiations to salvage
some role for the king. According to
well-informed sources, the (Royal) Nepal Army was
itching to provoke a confrontation with the
Maoists soldiers, and there was a spurt in minor
incidents involving the armies, even the orders
were said to have been issued, when the United
Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) which is
mandated to "manage" the forces, quashed such
adventurist plans.
Finally, on May 28, at the first sitting of the
CA, but at the eleventh hour, the elected
representatives abolished the monar- chy, and the
republic was born. On June 11, king Gyanendra who
learnt to his dynasty's cost that the "Nepali
people (did not) want a king who can be seen and
heard", finally quit the Narayanhiti Palace,
leaving to the republican state his sceptre and
crown, to become an ordinary Nepali citizen -
Gyanendra Shah.
Stake in the Status Quo
The symbol of the old order is gone, but the
array of forces with a stake in the status quo -
the Kathmandu elite, the institution of the army,
the right-wing interest groups - are by no means
defeated, as evident in the throwing up of one
obstacle after another to block the emergence and
now functioning of the CA. In the CA, with more
than 60 per cent of the newly elected members
associated with left-oriented politics, the
writing is ominously clear, as regards land
reform, social justice and the redistribution and
participatory politics agenda. Moreover, the CA
is an exceptional rarity in Nepal's politics, it
is truly inclusive and truly representative of
the country's multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic,
multi-caste, multi-regional profile. It breaks
out of the mould of Nepal's socio-political
culture of "institutionalised exclusion",
dominated by the Bahun, Chhetri hill elite to the
marginalisation and exclusion of the majority *
women, janajati, dalit and Terai peoples.
The 601 member CA elected by a mix of
first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional
representation comprises as many as 25 parties
with the Maoists leading with a third and the NC
and UML trailing behind. The elected body
comprises janajatis - 34 per cent, women - 33 per
cent, Madhesi - 20 per cent, dalits - 9 per cent
and the Muslims - 3 per cent. Reflecting the
esprit of the awakened sense of people's power,
there is a huge billboard hanging on one of the
main state buildings depicting dalits' storming
the seat of governance. The caption reads, "The
state belongs to us. We should be a part of it".
It is important to remind ourselves that dalits
who comprise 12 per cent of the population, were
almost entirely "missing" from parliament and
through the 15-year multi-democracy period, only
once had a representative. In the gender index,
Nepal has outstripped all the countries of the
region as regards women's representation, and
ranks 14th in the world. The CA is a motley group
with Pratibha Rana of the royalist party RPP and
her daughter, Arzu Deuba of NC side by side with
the CPN(UML)'s Savita Chadhuri, a former bonded
labourer. She is the vice-chairperson of Bhumi
Adhikar Manch. Her sister still lives by washing
dishes, her brother is a day labourer, and she a
member of the CA that is to frame the destiny of
Nepal on an agenda radicalised in the furnace of
struggle.
Radicalisation of Youth
Over the last decade or so, the template of
Nepali politics and society has got radically
restructured, as evinced in even a diehard
royalist like the former prime minister Surya
Bahadur Thapa voting "Republic" in the CA.
Ironically, even from Bhaidrakali, the
headquarters of the Nepal Army, some 200 votes
went to the Maoists. Analysts of the Nepali
scene, largely, have tended to overlook the
radical socio-political structural changes
brought about during 10 years of the Mao- ist-led
"People's War". Indeed, this down- playing of the
political mobilisation and radicalisation of
youth and especially women, during the 10 years
of militarised struggle, may be one of the
reasons why so many got the April elections
wrong. Kathmandu-based commentators tend to
exclusively emphasise the "peaceful" people's
movement in April 2006, which undoubtedly was a
triumph of people's power. It gave the final
push, toppling the autocratic king, and paved the
way for the revival and reconfiguration of
democratic politics, now expanded to include the
CPN(M). The road map has been full of de- tours,
setbacks, breaks and even near collapse as the
Seven-Party Alliance (SPA) entered into a
dialogue with the Maoists, and developed a
consensus articulated in a series of agreements -
November 2005: the consensus on realising "full
democracy"; November 2006: Comprehensive Peace
Agreement; January 2007: Interim Constitution;
April 2008: elections to the CA, May 2008:
Republic.
It has been a unique achievement that has enabled
the CPN(M), to shift from militarised politics
towards a strategy of "peaceful revolution"; to
work through a democratic constitutional politics
to transform the socio-political structure of the
Himalayan kingdom. However, as Baburam Bhattarai,
the deputy leader of the party reminded us - the
base was laid during the 10 years of "People's
War". That phase saw the emergence of women as
important political protagonists. Newly inducted
CA member, the social scientist Hari Roka, noted
during the election campaign, the huge presence
of women at rallies, a stark contrast to their
extremely thin presence during the 1999
elections. He recalled how struck he was by the
political consciousness of women while
travelling, much before the elections, in the
remote rural mountainous areas of Humla. There
was a 72-year old woman of the house busy cooking
for him, half listening to his conversations with
her husband, when suddenly she remarked, "do you
think Koirala will let it happen?" She proved to
be more prescient than many. The old guard's
initial gracious acceptance of the Maoist victory
has given way to obduracy and aspersions about a
"stolen victory". Moreover, the argument bruited
about in Kathmandu elite circles goes thus - "the
Maoists got just over 30 per cent of the votes,
and that too with a voter turn out of only 60 per
cent. This means that the non-Maoists represent
80 per cent of the population". More
disappointing has been the return to old style
Kathmandu politics, characterised by an
oligarchic cabal cutting secret deals. Wherein
lies the difference when you have three hill
Bahuns - Koirala (NC), Khanal (CPN-UML) and now
Dahal [CPN(M)] closeted in Baluwater, the prime
minister's official residence, working out
compromises. What difference does a truly
representative CA make if it is to be reduced to
a rubber stamp? The Madhesi leaders have reason
to be disgruntled about their exclusion. As Bipin
Adhikari, a senior lawyer commented in The
Kathmandu Post, "what matters to this group
(producing one logjam after another), is a
guarantee against the assembly itself - its
powers to frame the issues, discuss them through
the active participation of the people..."
Already, one-eighth of the two-year period set to
draft the constitution has lapsed.
Increasing Anarchy
"Our problems are domestic, not international",
said Hisila Yami, a senior CPN(M) leader and
former minister of works in the interim
government. Ironically, most of the international
players are eagerly pushing for the realisation
of the democratic mandate, and so be it, if it is
a government led by the Maoists. Post- conflict
stabilisation models prescribe that the "rebels"
should be given a chance in running democratic
politics. As regards India, left and socialist
forces have been in the forefront of crafting a
democratic consensus for peace. Official India,
having abandoned its twin pillar policy of crown
and multiparty democracy, had actively pushed for
elections to the CA and the democratic
denouement. The results as former Nepal
ambassador Shiv Mukherjee, a little
disingenuously said "are imma terial". However,
on the eve of the elections, the national
security adviser, M K Narayanan, in a television
interview indiscreetly revealed India's
preferences for a NC victory. Since then, the
Indian diplomatic establishment has been quick to
accept the surprise victory of the Maoists. Shyam
Saran, a former Nepal ambassador and the
organiser of the Indo-Nepal Patna exchange in
May, clarified India's position: "It is for the
Nepali people to deliver a verdict on who should
govern them and in what manner". The problem is
that Nepal is still wait- ing for a government.
Meanwhile, all around there is increasing anarchy
and mounting chaos. In the last week of June,
Nepal was paralysed by no less than eight
disrupting strikes and protests. A section of the
Armed Police Force (APF) mutinied over poor
living conditions. The fuel price hike saw an
outcrop of protests - a transport cartel declared
a bandh and tourist buses were stoned in Pokhara;
students took to the streets in protest at rising
bus fares, vandalising the chief justice's car;
gas station owners and taxi service providers
went on strike for days; high school students
imposed a 'chakka jam' over the delayed delivery
of school textbooks; civil servants went on a
flash strike because one of their own was locked
up in a toilet by the Maoist minister of forests,
Matrika Prasad Yadav for gross corruption; and,
as for us in Kathmandu, the garbage piled up and
up as the controllers of the landfill site
withheld permission even if there chanced to be
trucks to move the garbage. All around corruption
has become an every day affair as there are no
checks, except the vigilantes of the Maoist YCL
and the CPN(UML)'s newly minted "Youth Force" to
expose corrupt officials. With no government, the
law and order agencies are whistling away while
crime stalks the land. In the violence prone
Terai, the latest victim is the civil rights
activist Govind Pande, murdered by an anonymous
criminalised militant group. It follows upon the
rape and killing of several women activists.
Lawlessness sans Government
In this hiatus of lawlessness sans government,
the Kathmandu media is full of re- ports of the
YCL's continuing coercion and highhanded
behaviour, including abductions, extortions and
their intimidating and beating up people. The
difficulty of transforming a militarised force
accustomed to meting out a rough and ready
justice, into an accountable democratic force was
dramatically highlighted by the abduction of
Kathmandu-based business- man Ram Hari Srestha,
and his murder in a PLA cantonment managed by the
UN. The evidence implicates the PLA cantonment
commander.
The crucial question of security sector reform
has not been touched in these last two years
despite the commitment in the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (November 2005) to "professionalise"
the PLA and "democratise" the Nepal Army. The
fifth amendment to the constitution pro- vides
for the "integration" of the 19,600 odd soldiers
of the PLA within six months. (There is also the
question of the "inclusion" of the neglected
region of Madhesis in the Nepal Army.) Quite
evidently, there can be no two armies and the PLA
is a highly politicised military force. Hsila
Yami, believes that once the political decision
is taken about absorption in various security
agencies, the rest is a "technical" matter. But
is it?
During this two-year interregnum, the political
parties have been loath to con- front the issue
of security sector reform and the democratisation
and downsizing of the army. Moreover, in the
midst of the prevailing uncertainty and anarchy,
the army stands tall as the strongest institution
remaining. The army has success- fully bullied
the political parties in not meddling with it or
the army chief. For ex- ample, general Katwal
carries a baggage of human rights abuses but that
has conveniently been glossed over. Indeed, the
proposed Truth Commission will provide for a
virtual amnesty (to both sides) for "gross human
rights abuses" committed in the line of duty.
Neither is there any "vetting" process that has
been put in place to exclude gross violators.
The army chief, general Roopmangad Kautwal used
the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nepal's
participation in UN peacekeeping, to publicly
assert a hands off policy on the institution of
the Nepal Army. On June 12, the army chief held
up the force as "the only centripetal force in
Nepal. That is why we strongly believe that in
the name of democracy, the army's purity,
sanctity and integrity should not be
compromised", he said. Earlier, the Royal Nepal
Army functioned under the palace's direction;
today, the Nepal Army virtually functions
independently of any checks and balances. The new
National Security Council that was established by
the "restored" parliament in 2006, was never set
up and the understaffed defence ministry is
nothing more than a post office for the Nepal
Army. The only oversight exercised is in the form
of the meetings between prime minister Koirala
and the army chief. As the bastion of democratic
politics in Nepal, Koirala's relationship with
the royalist army has been a problematic one.
This became more so after the July 2001 Holeri
incident, when Koirala as prime minister called
out the army against the Maoists and the army
refused to act. Koirala resigned. But necessity
makes strange friends and there seems to be a
strange alliance of convenience. For the present
though, the political alignments are still fluid,
and the possibility of working through a
consensual process to draft the new constitution
has as yet not been vitiated by a polarisation of
politics. According to Shyam Srestha, editor of
the influential monthy Mulyankan, the Maoists are
still hoping to take the NC, with them. He
claimed that reports of a done deal between the
Maoists and the CPN(UML), that would isolate
Koirala, were deliberately being planted in a
section of the press. However, the longer the
political gridlock persists, and given the high
stakes involved, it could take weeks, the more
likely that it will produce a polarised polity.
Will it mean that the Maoists will align with the
Madheshi group or will it be the CPN(UML), the
third party that will hold the balance?
Patience of the Nepalis
What is astounding is the patience of the Nepali
people. "People understand that structural change
takes time", explained CA member Hari Roka. "They
know that they have given a fractured mandate",
he said. "Outside Kathmandu, the Nepali state has
had so little impact on the day- to-day lives of
the people, that the protests and strikes over
price rise and the disruptions have no meaning
for their lives. In any case, at this time of the
agricultural year, people are busy sowing and
planting", he said. However, the looming signs of
a food emergency, do not make for complacency
about the continuing absence of a government and
a budget. International food aid agencies say
that 41 per cent of Nepal's population does not
get enough to eat.
Taking a long view of Nepal, Shyam Srestha,
refuses to be pessimistic. In the last two years,
at every stage, the NC leadership has tried to
hold back change - formation of an interim
government, the elections to the CA, the
emergence of a Re- public and federal
restructuring. But the agenda for change is
unstoppable because of three reasons, Srestha
claimed - (i) a radicalised youth cadre of all
political parties, (ii) awakened consciousness
of the people through mass mobilisation and media
technologies like FM radio, and (iii) a strong
civil society that has shown that it has the
capacity to come forward whenever there is a
crisis.
The question, remains - how long will the people
wait for the power games in Kathmandu to subside
so that the agenda for change can begin to be
tackled? The forces opposed to change have reason
to be anxious and expectedly will do everything
to delay the process, even after the first hurdle
of government formation is crossed.
_____
[2] Pakistan: The Daily Advance of Fascists
(i)
Mail Today
25 July, 2008
MEDIA HAS TO PROTECT ITSELF NOW
by Najam Sethi
First it was The Friday Times. Then it was Daily
Times. Now it is Daily Aajkal. All three national
papers that I edit are at the receiving end of
credible threats from radical Islamists to change
their editorial policies which oppose
Talibanisation and jihad and espouse liberal,
democratic, progressive and humanist values, or
else. The Taliban have forcibly stopped the sale
of Daily Aajkal in FATA and hurled menacing
warnings at the paper in Peshawar. The latest
incitement to violence against me and the papers
comes from the mullahs of the Lal Masjid and
their network in Islamabad and Punjab. The
pretext is a cartoon in Aajkal of Umme Hassan,
the fiery wife of jailed Lal Masjid leader
Maulana Abdul Aziz, which shows her teaching the
virtues of jihad and kidnapping to her students.
This is a reference to her statements on the need
to wage violent jihad and the kidnapping of five
Chinese from a local massage parlour carried out
by her Lal Masjid activists last year, an act of
vigilantism that provoked a strong protest from
the Chinese government. Mrs Hassan claims the
Aajkal cartoon is blasphemous like the Danish
cartoons. But by so insisting, she is putting
herself on the same pedestal as the Prophet of
Islam, (peace be upon him), which is truly
blasphemous. Actually, she cannot stand the
thought of being the object of satirical comment
even though her brand of radical politics is much
more objectionable than that of most politicians
who are daily lampooned by the media. The only
difference is that, while politicians take such
cartoons in their stride as they should according
to the rules of the democratic game, the
self-righteous radical clerics are prone to use
violent means to stifle dissent or adverse
comment.
This is what did in Algeria and in Egypt where
hundreds of journalists were assassinated in the
1990s because they dared to oppose their brand of
extremist politics. In the world of today where
information is delivered on the second into every
house via cable or satellite, everyone needs to
be on the right side of the media. The government
wants airtime to expand its point of view. The
opposition wants a more than equal opportunity to
disagree. Civil society wants to take on both.
Other pressure groups representing parties,
students, labour, women, minorities etc all want
to be heard and seen demanding their rights. Even
the media uses its own platform to demand its own
set of rights that include the right to
information and the right to expose corruption in
government or mischief in opposition. In short,
the media is at the core of society today. Two
issues constantly arise - the extent of media
freedom and its relationship with media
responsibility. There are no hard and fast rules
except one: media freedom ends only where someone
else's freedom is violated. This media "freedom"
is defined by well known laws like the law of
defamation and the law of contempt. But there is
almost always a small print in the constitution
that restricts media freedom where the "national
interests" of the state are concerned. In such
cases, the first determinant of what constitutes
the national interest is the state or government
while the final arbiter is the judiciary which is
the custodian of the constitution. Attacks on the
media are of two kinds. The government of the day
can try and silence media critics by intimidation
and media owners by arbitrary repressive action
designed to hurt their commercial interests. In
recent times, two major repressions stand out in
particular. Nawaz Sharif lashed out at the Jang
Group and The Friday Times in 1999. And General
Pervez Musharraf pulled the plug on a number of
TV channels in 2007, wounding the Geo/Jang group
the most. Both strategies have been used against
the Pakistani media in the past, with varying
degrees of success in the short term but
inevitable failure in the long term as Mr Sharif
and General Musharraf can testify. Interestingly,
in recent times non-state actors, especially when
they are armed with weapons and/or passionate
ideologues, are increasingly interacting with the
Pakistani media with a view to "using" it or
"exploiting" it for the propagation of their
ideas and interests. But serious problems tend to
arise when any section of the media doesn't agree
with their policies or seeks to expose their
narrow interests or anti-state positions. In
democratic societies, the law takes its course
for the resolution of such disputes or
differences of opinion. But in non-democratic
societal cultures, like that of Pakistan, such
nonstate actors are often inclined to use threat
of violence or actual violence to silence media
critics or affect editorial policy changes to
suit their goals.
The classic example that used to be given in
Pakistan about non-state actors using violent
means and direct threats to bring the media in
line was that of the MQM in Karachi. The MQM is a
cadre based ethnic party that has a criminal and
fascist record even though it is avowedly
secular. But the media has managed to survive
despite its violent threats and practices.
However, the media is now faced with the spectre
of another violent non-state actor. This is
radical extremist fundamentalist religious belief
that goes under the name of "political Islamism".
It is self-righteous, self-obsessed and
intolerant. Various armed groups professing jihad
and Talibanism are now trying to capture the
imagination of the free media and mould it
according to their view and version of world
events. They are doing this largely by invoking
fear and retribution. How should the media react
to this latest threat to its integrity? The
primary responsibility of protecting the media
lies with the armed state. But where the state
abdicates such responsibility, either because it
has a dubious strategic relationship with such
non-state religious groups or because it cannot
defend and enforce its writ against them because
of internal weaknesses, both of which are
relevant in the case of the Pakistani state, the
media has no choice but to band together and
close ranks despite internal strains and stresses
of personalities, egos and commercial interests.
Indeed, when elements of the media are attacked
thus, it is time not only to boycott the
propagandistic activities of such non-state
actors but to openly criticise them at every
opportunity. When journalists can routinely
threaten to boycott politicians and proceedings
in parliament, and agitate against government for
not accepting their demands, why can't they unite
and do the same to these religious vigilantes
when they physically threaten any of them?
The writer is editor of The Friday Times (Lahore)
o o o
(ii)
July 18, 2008
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani
c/o Ambassador Husain Haqqani
3517 International Court
Washington, DC 20008
By facsimile: 202 686-1544
Mr. Prime Minister:
We are deeply concerned about the safety of the
staff of the Urdu-language Daily Aaj Kal
newspaper. According to Najam Sethi, the paper's
editor-in-chief, clerics at the Lal Masjid mosque
in Islamabad have repeatedly issued inflammatory
statements aimed at the newspaper and its staff.
The accusations leave them vulnerable to attack
by militant groups at a time when civil violence
is on the rise.
Sethi is a respected journalist who was awarded
CPJ's International Press Freedom Award in 1999.
He is also editor-in-chief of Aaj Kal's
English-language sister paper, the Daily Times.
According to Sethi and numerous media reports,
Lal Masjid clerics and their supporters assembled
in Islamabad on July 11 following the one-year
anniversary of the siege there by government
forces. Your government has said that 102 people,
including 11 security personnel, were killed in
the siege.
On July 9, Aaj Kal published a cartoon depicting
Umme Hassan, wife of cleric Abdul Aziz, who had
been jailed after last year's fighting. The
cartoon showed her calling for resistance among
her followers and their children, according to
local news reports that describe the cartoon.
Hassan, who had led the women's branch of the
well-known seminary, which police closed after
last year's raid, is on record making statements
similar to the ones the cartoon portrays,
according to Reuters.
Hassan and other groups affiliated with the
mosque demonstrated on July 11 against the
cartoon and the broader anti-extremism and
anti-terrorism editorial policy of Aaj Kal.
Hassan held a press conference on Monday in
Islamabad in which she characterized the cartoon
as an affront to Islam equivalent to the Danish
cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad
published last year, according Sethi. On
Wednesday, Hassan attended a mullah's conference
in Lahore and repeated strong statements
classifying the newspaper as anti-Islamic, Sethi
said. She has "accused us of blaspheming and
including us in the category of anti-Islamic
elements who attacked the Lal Masjid a year ago.
Those people are now the target of suicide
bombers," Sethi said.
Following the July 11 demonstration, anonymous
callers threatened staff in the paper's Islamabad
offices. They warned us "not to test their
patience," Sethi said. After Wednesday's
statements, more threats were called in to Aaj
Kal offices in Lahore, according to Sethi. The
paper has offices in Islamabad, Lahore, and
Karachi.
CPJ takes these threats very seriously. Made in
the context of the widespread civil unrest and
violence in Pakistan, anyone who is considered an
enemy of the mosque's supporters, particularly
those who work for a civilian media organization,
is at great risk. We feel it is imperative that
your government take immediate steps to protect
journalists and media outlets who dare to take
openly critical stances, even when it comes to
criticizing clergy.
We note that Minister of Information Sherry
Rehman and Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz
Sharif have condemned the threats, according to
Pakistani news reports, and that Minister Rehman
has promised to help increase the paper's
security at its offices. We urge you to ensure
that all steps necessary to ensuring the safety
of the newspaper's staff are taken, and that
these threats are fully investigated and
addressed under the law.
Sincerely,
Joel Simon
Executive Director
The Committee to Protect Journalists
o o o
(iii)
New Statesman
24 July 2008
PAKISTAN MUST CURE ITSELF OF THE TALIBAN
by Ziauddin Sardar
The Taliban have given an ultimatum to Pakistan:
leave Peshawar within five days or face the
consequences. That a band of terrorists can tell
a democratically elected government to quit its
own territory says a great deal about the power
of the Taliban. Far from being beaten and on the
run, as we are constantly being told, the Taliban
are stronger than ever.
The ultimatum was issued this past week by
Baitullah Mehsud, a prominent leader of the
Taliban. Mehsud's men are already in Peshawar,
the largest city of the North-West Frontier
Province (NWFP) and birthplace of al-Qaeda.
Peshawar is also the administrative centre for
the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) of
Pakistan. The Taliban have been in total control
of Fata for almost a decade. Peshawar will be the
jewel in their crown. And if Peshawar goes, the
rest of Pakistan would not be far away.
The NWFP government rejected the "five-day
ultimatum" and is now bracing itself for the
consequences. The city, my friends tell me, looks
like a garrison town. Armoured vehicles belonging
to the Pakistan Frontier Corps occupy key
positions. Paramilitary forces and anti-terror
units patrol the streets. Nevertheless, Taliban
warlords freely roam the city in pick-up trucks.
Abductions and hit-and-run raids have become
routine facts of life.
I fear for Pakistan. Commentators in Islamabad
are talking openly about losing Peshawar. Many
believe the Talibanisation of Pakistan is well
under way and impossible to reverse.
The problem is that Islamabad has no coherent
policy towards the Taliban. It has tried to
appease them, to buy their loyalty, has bombed
their villages and schools and, when required,
used them as its proxy. Even peace treaties, such
as the one made in September 2006, have been
half-hearted. During the election campaign, both
the People's Party and the Muslim League
emphasised the Taliban problem required a
political rather than a military solution. After
the elections, politics was abandoned in favour
of military operations. The newly elected
government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani
seems too preoccupied with internal political
feuding to realise that it has a full-blown
rebellion on its hands.
Pakistan's predicament is that of the war on
terror. The only secure solution must deal with
the totality of the social conditions
underpinning the problem. There is no military
solution that does not exacerbate social
problems, thus fuelling the instability in which
the Taliban can thrive. The war on terror has
merely extended the agony it was meant to
obliterate.
The Taliban may look invincible, but they are
nothing more than a marauding band of zealous
puritans. A typical "Taliban commander" is a
warlord with fewer than a hundred armed men. He
pays them with money earned from drugs or
extortion. He takes over an area, ruthlessly
imposes taxes, administers summary and brutal
justice, and declares himself the ruler. He
murders his opponents and kidnaps others for
ransom. Any Pakistani soldiers captured are
slaughtered in the most barbaric way.
There are roughly 500 Taliban commanders, every
one of whom is known to the Pakistani
authorities. The reason that they have not been
captured is simple: Islamabad believes it can use
them for its own purposes. This illusion has now
become dangerously obsolete.
It is not sufficient, however, merely to defeat
the Taliban. Candidates to replace them will not
be hard to find in territory that has never been
equitably incorporated into the nation state. And
as a nation, Pakistan, having diverted so much
aid and development to the military
Establishment, has little to offer the Fata
territories. This is the underlying conundrum
that makes not only crushing the Taliban, but
also sustaining Pakistan so difficult.
The Taliban are a Pakistani problem, created and
nourished by Pakistan itself. To defeat the
Taliban and defeat them truly, Pakistan must find
a way to cure itself.
_____
[3] India- US Nuclear Deal: Commentary
(i)
truthout.org
24 July 2008
ANOTHER "BIPARTISAN" VICTORY FOR BUSH-SINGH DEAL
by J. Sri Raman
photo
The US-India nuclear deal may have had an effect
on the recent confidence vote for Manmohan
Singh's (left) government. (Photo: The Associated
Press)
Very few found the victory of India's
government in a confidence vote in the country's
parliament on Tuesday evening anything like
startling news. The margin of victory, however,
turned out to be much wider than many had
expected. This created a tailor-made situation
for conspiracy theories, with the media going to
town with two of them.
Almost no one has talked of a collaboration
theory, though that is more connected with the
catalyst of the parliamentary debate - the
US-India nuclear deal.
The first of the conspiracy theories, of the
more familiar kind on such occasions, was
advanced with all the force at the command of the
main opposition, the far-right Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), soon after three of its members of
parliament (MPs) flaunted in the House fat wads
of currency allegedly paid for their promised
votes. The drama has proven a damp squib for the
BJP. It has raised questions about how the filthy
lucre found its way into the House, the holy of
parliamentary holies, while there is no proof of
the origin of the tainted funds.
Even as the country awaits the findings of an
inquiry into the whole affair, the second
conspiracy theory has struck a heavy blow at the
BJP and its credibility. According to this
theory, the BJP did not really try to topple
Manmohan Singh's government because the run-up to
the vote had produced a rival to party leader Lal
Krishna Advani, projected as the next prime
minister. Mayawati Kumari Naina, the woman chief
minister of India's most populous State of Uttar
Pradesh, the theory presumes quite plausibly, was
all the more unacceptable to the BJP for being a
leader of Dalits, a socially long-oppressed
section of people called Untouchables until
recently.
The left rushed to build bridges with
Mayawati, after burning those with Singh's United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) government over the
nuclear deal. Other parties opposed to the BJP,
too, did the same, in the wake of the major
political crisis created by the left's withdrawal
of outside support for the minority government.
Many observers have been mystified by the sudden
launch of an orchestrated campaign over the past
couple of weeks, presenting Mayawati as a prime
minister in the making.
She would have certainly gained in stature if
Singh had lost the vote. In a post-vote
statement, she has said that the BJP and the
Congress could not digest the idea of a Dalit
prime minister. Even those who do not see her as
a principled politician or a paragon of such
virtues as probity may find themselves agreeing
with her, especially about the far right.
Neither of these theories, however, would
appear to explain the BJP's strangely halfhearted
battle against the government's motion in the
House, in striking contrast to the party's
earlier rhetoric about its resolve to vote Singh
out. The collaboration theory would seem to offer
a more convincing explanation than the conspiracy
theories, all the more because of its direct link
to the US-India deal and the way its authors have
peddled it in both countries concerned.
It is known that, soon after his deal with
Singh in Washington on July 18, 2005, President
George W. Bush and his administration set out to
build "bipartisan support" for it in the US and
achieved this once apparently unattainable
objective. It is less recognized that the
administration pursued the same objective in
India as well. Can it be, can it just be, that
the objective has been achieved here in its own
way with the BJP losing the parliamentary battle?
I have quoted in these columns before US
Under Secretary of State for South and Central
Asian Affairs Nicholas R. Burns on the subject,
but it bears repetition in the current context.
In an essay on "America's Strategic Opportunity
with India" in the November to December 2007
issue of Foreign Affairs, Burns wrote: "That this
new US-India partnership is supported by a
bipartisan consensus in both countries
considerably strengthens the prospects for its
success."
He added: "In India, both the ruling Indian
National Congress and the opposition Bharatiya
Janata Party have worked for over a decade to
elevate India's ties with the United States." He
recalled that, after India's nuclear-weapon tests
of 1998 under a BJP-headed government, "then
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott engaged
India's then-Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh in 14
rounds of talks over two and a half years." The
seeds of the US-India "strategic partnership,"
which the deal is intended to promote, were sown
in those days. The process has continued ever
since, especially evident in the bid for
bipartisan support for the deal in India.
American participants in the campaign on Indian
soil have included, besides Ambassador David C.
Mulford, high-profile dignitaries like former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who met top
BJP leaders) and a delegation of the Bush-blessed
US-India Political Action Committee or the
Usinpac (whom Singh asked to carry a message of
consen sus to the BJP.)
The bipartisan consensus on the issue, in
fact, does not need to be built. The BJP has not
even bothered to conceal it, repeatedly placing
on record its support for a US-India "strategic
partnership." The party has stated, repeatedly
again, that it will not hinder the deal if India
enacts "its own Hyde Act" to assert the country's
right to conduct nuclear-weapon tests again. The
prime minister, for his part, has conceded this
demand in parliament, saying: "We are willing to
look at possible amendments to our Atomic Energy
Act to reinforce our solemn commitment that our
strategic autonomy will never be compromised."
Some, in fact, saw in the crude drama during
the debate only an attempt to cover up the
bipartisan consensus on the deal. A perceptive
analyst, Yogendra Yadav of New Delhi's Center for
Developing Studies, says: "I was expecting
mudslinging, but this exceeded all previous known
limits.... In fact, there is very little that
separates the Congress and the BJP in terms of
their fundamental foreign policy orientations -
on nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, the alliance
with the US - and that's why the marketing has to
be so aggressive."
The government and gleeful nuclear hawks in
India see Singh's victory as a green signal for
speedily moving forward on the deal. In
Washington, even before the vote, the
administration was reported to be "moving full
steam ahead on all fronts to operationalize the
deal." The administration, said a report quoting
Assistant Secretary of State for South and
Central Asia Richard Boucher, was preparing to
"consummate the nuclear partnership with India
even under a caretaker government in New Delhi"
in case Singh lost the vote. Presumably, all
stops will now be pulled out.
For the left and the peace movement in India,
the lesson of the vote should be loud and clear.
The dangers that the deal poses, after its
dubious political legitimization in particular,
cannot ever be fought in the company of the BJP,
a proactive party to the "bipartisan consensus."
o o o
(ii)
Dawn
July 24, 2008
APARTHEID, WAR AND BRIBERY
by Jawed Naqvi
THREE crores is 30 million. That's the amount of
Indian rupees three opposition MPs evidently
smuggled into the Lok Sabha on Tuesday just when
the live telecast of a tense trust vote was
peaking.
They flashed the neat bundles of currency notes
before a scandalised nation and claimed it was
part of the bribes offered by government
lobbyists to bail out Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh's minority coalition.
Today, 30m Indian rupees would translate roughly
into 2.4m Israeli new shekels, which equals about
6.5bn Iranian rials. That is loose change going
by the percentages handed out to middlemen in,
say, a minor oil deal with Iran or the comfort
money involved in talks presaging an arms deal
with Israel.
Arguably, if they had their way, both sides -
Iran and Israel - could have handed out far more
to the MPs than they were apparently offered to
influence Tuesday's verdict which, as the final
numbers indicated, became a comfortable margin
for the prime minister from a close call that it
was. Whether the money did change hands is not
the issue here.
Why these two countries and not any other were
the biggest winners and losers in the 275-256
verdict for the Singh government is the question
to ponder. For lost in the din of corruption
charges was the essence of the debate, which
centred on the India-US nuclear deal but carried
far wider implications for the Iran-Israel
stand-off. Most of the Left Front deputies
focused their ire on the United States whose laws
the civilian nuclear cooperation deal is really
tied with.
That it took a Dalit politician, known better for
her battles against India's caste apartheid than
for her perspicacity in international affairs, to
present an astute perspective was a critique of
the two-day debate. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
Mayawati told a news conference that the
innocuous-looking India-US deal would enable
Israel to attack Iran, in all probability with
nuclear weapons.
"If something unfortunate happens to Iran, which
will inevitably have an impact on the world, the
region and us, then India would not be able to
shake off its complicity," she charged. She
wondered why the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline had
taken forever to materialise and whether it was
prudent to target Tehran by voting against it at
the IAEA.
For the record, Ms Mayawati cannot be mistaken
for any dyed-in-the-wool Muslim rabble-rouser
playing the Iran card. In her day she has
canvassed support for the right-wing Hindu
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in elections
he would have otherwise found difficult to win.
Mr Modi and the BJP are strong supporters of
strategic ties with Israel. On another occasion
Ms Mayawati may even have supported close
relations with Israel. But this week she chose to
speak about an issue the media and the political
parties alike have all but obfuscated.
Her alert about the looming catastrophe was
nearly lost in the din of the trust vote. Their
focus was on the number of convicted MPs bailed
out to cast their vote, and on convalescing MPs
wheeled in on hospital stretchers to help clinch
a narrow decision. Much of the discussion was
pegged on the unprecedented brazenness of
horse-trading.
The big picture about the global involvement in
the controversial deal was blurred in the
excitement of live images of corruption in
action. Ms Mayawati, who is not an MP, ran a
separate sideshow to drive home her point.
What is the basis for the Indian Dalit leader's
fears of cataclysmic events in the Gulf? Ms
Mayawati is probably aware that the departure of
senior Indian diplomats has been on hold in Tel
Aviv and Washington, who had otherwise been
transferred out months ago. The veritable
standstill is believed to be linked to the deal,
and perhaps rightly so. What is brewing is lethal.
Israel is the only undeclared nuclear weapons
state the world knows of. This has its
advantages, which explains the Israeli
intelligence making an example of the nuclear
whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu. However, the
nuclear ambiguity poses a problem in a larger
strategic architecture in the Middle East. Given
a choice, the United States would want Israel
declared the region's only nuclear weapons state,
just as it chose India for South Asia.
To do this, Washington first needs Israel to
declare it possesses nuclear weapons! Israel's
current ambiguity was a handicap in the
sabre-rattling contest it recently had with Iran.
Should war break out, as is frequently feared by
the world's better analysts, an Israeli nuclear
attack on Iran would become the first one to be
carried out by a notionally non-nuclear state. In
other words, there would be no legal support even
if Israel's indulgent godfathers in the West
overlooked the immorality of it. No one, not even
the United States, could give approval to the use
of weapons that do not exist!
It is this existentialist dilemma that the
India-US deal may help end. There is no other way
to understand the tearing hurry to send the deal
signed and sealed by the IAEA and the NSG to the
US Congress for approval before the presidential
elections get under way. Neither Barack Obama nor
John McCain is going to kill the deal. It could
have waited. The prime minister was safe with the
Left Front supporting it till the very end of the
government's tenure, or as long as it was
politically feasible for the two sides to remain
together. The fact that a lobby led by BJP
ideologue and former security adviser to the
prime minister Brajesh Mishra has supported the
deal in its present form is as good an indication
as any that the India-Israel-US axis he advocated
is active and working overtime.
Whether the India-specific deal with the United
States will be extended to Israel is no longer
the question. When it will happen is what
matters. With the world's eyes focused on Iranian
culpability, the time is ripe for frazzled Arab
governments to be made to accept a country with a
de facto nuclear stockpile as a de jure nuclear
weapons state. India says its deal with the
United States will legitimise it as a nuclear
weapons state even if it does not fetch the
status of the Big Five. Israel should be happy
with similar status.
But has the deal ended the nuclear apartheid, as
India had once described the NPT regime that it
is now about to break? For Ms Mayawati that may
not be an important question. As a Dalit leader
who is best equipped to break the glass ceiling
of caste apartheid she has to prepare for the
next battle for India's top job. Which means
another round of the rupee-shekel-rial nexus to
come into play, provided, as she feared,
something more catastrophic does not occur before
that.
The writer is Dawn's correspondent in Delhi.
_____
[4]
The Hindu
July 19, 2008
NREGA: SHIP WITHOUT RUDDER?
by Jean Drèze
The tremendous potential of the scheme is in
danger of being wasted in some States.
- Photo: AP
A productive scheme: NREGA could be even more
productive with a small dose of technical and
scientific support.
Recent events in Jharkhand highlight various
issues that need to be urgently addressed if the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)
is to survive and thrive. These events include
the murders of two NREGA activists (Lalit Mehta
and Kameshwar Yadav), a survey of NREGA initiated
by the G.B. Pant Social Science Institute in
Palamau and Koderma districts, and public
hearings held there on May 26 and June 18
respectively. The latest incident is the tragic
death of Tapas Soren, who immolated himself in
Hazaribagh on July 2 to protest against official
harassment in the context of NREGA work.
By way of background, a glimpse of the survey
findings may be useful. Even in Jharkhand, one of
the worst performing States as far as NREGA is
concerned, there is some good news. For instance,
the transition to a rights-based framework has
led to a major decline in labour exploitation on
rural public works. Wages are higher than they
used to be, delays in wage payments are shorter,
productivity norms more reasonable, and
complaints of worksite harassment rare. NREGA is
a valuable and valued opportunity for the rural
poor, and particularly for women, to earn a
living wage in a dignified manner.
Most of the respondents in a random sample of
about 200 NREGA workers in Palamau and Koderma
districts were highly appreciative of the
programme. For instance, they felt that NREGA
helped them to avoid hunger and distress
migration. Also, a large majority of the
respondents felt that the assets being created
under NREGA were "useful" or "very useful." This
was also the assessment of field investigators.
Far from being a case of "playing with mud," as
one grumpy commentator recently put it, NREGA is
a productive scheme - and it could be even more
productive with a small dose of technical and
scientific support.
Massive corruption
In Jharkhand, unfortunately, the tremendous
potential of NREGA is in danger of being wasted
due to massive corruption. Judging from the
survey findings in Koderma and Palamau,
transparency safeguards are routinely violated
and funds are being siphoned off with abandon. A
similar picture emerges from surveys in Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh, though there are also heartening
examples of transparent implementation of NREGA,
notably in Rajasthan (where we found very little
evidence of embezzlement of wage funds) and
Andhra Pradesh (where post office payments and
institutionalised social audits appear to have a
similar impact).
Coming back to recent events in Jharkhand, there
is much scope for introspection. To start with,
these events have exposed the repressive if not
criminal character of the Indian state in large
parts of the country. It is bad enough that
brazen embezzlement of NREGA funds in Jharkhand,
with the complicity of many government officials,
has deprived millions of people of employment and
wages, and thereby, of their constitutional right
to life. For good measure, State authorities
often scuttle any attempt to expose this nexus of
corruption and crime. Our own survey team had a
taste of this bitter medicine in Palamau: instead
of acting on the complaints we brought to its
attention, the District Administration turned
against the team and sent a malicious and
defamatory "report" to the Ministry of Rural
Development, even insinuating that some of us
might have had a hand in Lalit Mehta's murder.
Defenceless grassroots workers are not so lucky
as to get away with insults: they literally risk
their lives every time they stand up against
state-sponsored corruption and exploitation.
Second, the counterpart of this repressive
apparatus is the utter helplessness of working
people. This helplessness begins with a thick
cloud of ignorance: we were amazed to discover
how little people knew about NREGA in the survey
areas, more than two years after the Act came
into force. To illustrate, among 200 persons
currently working on NREGA worksites in Palamau
and Koderma, less than 30 per cent knew that they
were entitled to 100 days of employment per year
under the Act. The concept of "work on demand",
for its part, had not sunk in at all. The
vulnerability of the programme to corruption and
abuse begins with this lack of awareness of their
rights among NREGA workers.
Third, this powerlessness is also due to the
absence of any effective grievance redressal
system for NREGA. Gross violations of the Act can
be perpetrated with virtual impunity, and most
people do not know what to do and where to go
when they have complaints. Even when there is
conclusive evidence of fraud, and with the full
backing of the Central Employment Guarantee
Council, we have found it extremely hard to
secure any remedial or punitive action. This
state of affairs opens the door to further
deterioration of the standards of implementation
of NREGA, as the message is rapidly spreading
that "anything goes" and that those responsible
for fraud and embezzlement are "safe."
Fourth, while this situation is not unique to
Jharkhand, it has been amplified there by the
absence of Gram Panchayats in rural areas.
Jharkhand is the only state where Gram Panchayat
elections have not been held since the 73rd and
74th amendments of the Constitution (known as
"Panchayati Raj amendments"). This is not only a
flagrant violation of the law, but also an
infringement of people's fundamental rights,
since it is impossible to provide effective
public services in rural areas without functional
institutions of local governance. NREGA itself is
a casualty of this state of affairs. In the
absence of Gram Panchayats (the chief
"implementing agency" under the Act), the
implementation of NREGA in Jharkhand is
effectively under the control of private
contractors, or quasi-contractors such as the
so-called "labhuk samitis" (beneficiary
committees). But private contractors work for
profit, and the only way to make profit from
NREGA is to cheat. In Jharkhand, therefore,
corruption is built into the system.
Fifth, this impending anarchy also reflects the
casual attitude of the Central government towards
its own money. Given that about 90 per cent of
the NREGA funds come from the Centre, the Central
government has a right and a duty to enforce high
standards of transparency and accountability in
the programme. The Act gives it wide powers to do
so, whether it is through framing rules,
conducting investigations, designing an effective
Monitoring and Information System (MIS), or
taking action where there is evidence of fraud.
Instead of seizing these opportunities, the
Ministry of Rural Development largely expects the
State governments to comply with its Operational
Guidelines. These guidelines are indeed very
good, but their legal status is unclear, and many
State governments are treating them lightly -
applying what suits them and ignoring the rest.
Thus, NREGA is being implemented in a dangerous
vacuum, with few mandatory norms except for the
general provisions of the Act. Even basic
safeguards, such as the maintenance of job cards
and the transparency of muster rolls, are
effectively left to the discretion of the State
governments. This state of affairs makes NREGA
quite vulnerable to corruption and other
irregularities. As political parties are about to
launch their respective election campaigns, there
is a frightening possibility that many of them
will try to "dip" into NREGA funds to fill their
coffers. A wake-up call is badly needed.
Finally, the powerlessness of NREGA workers is
also a reflection of the timidity of grassroots
organisational work on this issue. Somehow,
political organisations and social movements are
yet to seize the vast potential for collective
action around NREGA, whether it is through joint
work applications, struggles for minimum wages,
participatory planning, or building workers'
unions. One rarely sees crowds of people blocking
the road to demand NREGA work, or staging a
dharna against delayed wage payments. The fact
that a large majority of the rural population is
still in the dark about the basic features of the
Act, almost three years after it was passed, is
another symptom of this organisational gap.
The way forward
On a more constructive note, these observations
point to the way forward. As far as government
policy is concerned, urgent priorities include
framing strong rules for NREGA, putting in place
grievance redressal procedures, enforcing the
transparency safeguards, and taking swift action
whenever there is evidence of fraud. As far as
public action is concerned, the need of the hour
is to make better use of NREGA as a tool of
organisational work and enable NREGA workers to
defend their rights. Counting on the kindness of
the state would be futile.
(The author is Visiting Professor at Allahabad
University and member of the Central Employment
Guarantee Council.)
______
[5]
The Hindu
July 26, 2008
TRAIL OF VIOLENCE: RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AT RISK
by Mukul Sharma
Rights activists face a series of obstacles to
their work. Rights violations also have wider
repercussions. They create a climate of fear.
The Karnataka convener of the National Alliance
for People's Movement, A.D. Babu, was killed
recently. He was on his way, along with two
colleagues, to a NAPM meeting on an anti-liquor
campaign at Ramnagaram, when a group stopped his
vehicle at Mayanagram, a few km from the venue,
and attacked him with knives and swords. He died
on the spot. It is believed that a Karnataka
liquor mafia is behind the gruesome murder.
In May, Lalit Kumar Mehta of Palamau district,
Jharkhand, who fearlessly raised the issue of
corruption in implementation of the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Programme , was
murdered. So was Narayan Hareka - a naib sarpanch
belonging to the Kandha tribal community - of
Kambivalsa village in Koraput district, Orissa,
who fought against liquor brewing, private
money-lending, land alienation and corruption.
Social activists Leo Saldanha and his wife
Lakshmi Nilakantan of Bangalore are being
targeted by the Karnataka police and the Forest
Department in connection with sandalwood
smuggling, forest encroachment and theft, because
of their role in unearthing the land scam in the
controversial Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure
Corridor Project.
Amnesty International's monitoring highlights
cases of human rights violations, including
killing and attacks, and threats and
intimidation, against rights activists in
different parts of the country. They are facing
obstacles to their work. They have to stop or
radically curtail their activities. Direct
attacks or threats to their lives sometimes mean
the activists fleeing their homes or even areas.
These violations also have wider repercussions.
They create a climate of fear. Other rights
activists become aware how easily they too can
become targets of direct attack.
Harassment comes through a range of means,
including surveillance. We receive a large number
of complaints of raids and break-ins at the
office of people's organisations or at the homes
of rights activists. During these incidents,
crucial human rights information related to the
work of the activists is seized. The legal system
is misused to harass and intimidate them. This
also results in stigmatising the individuals and
organisations and creates a negative perception
of their work. Criminal proceedings initiated
against the activists on unsubstantiated evidence
or judicial proceedings, which remain unresolved
for extended periods, also seriously curtail
their ability to carry out legitimate work. This
is especially true of activists working in
grass-roots organisations at the local level.
Deteriorating situation
The human rights situation in the country has
been deteriorating rapidly. The killings of
rights activists take place in a context
characterised by a fast-growing economy that is
accelerated by government policies. These
policies, particularly on land, agriculture and
forced evictions, are creating serious tensions.
The police and the administration categorise all
legitimate activities of rights activists as
criminal. At a time when human rights abuse
against activists is becoming widespread and is
showing signs of further deterioration, with
governments showing their apathy, we need to draw
attention to the situation, point to the failure
of governments to live up to their obligations,
and plan for concrete action so that the
activists can carry on with their important work
free from attacks and fear of reprisals.
At the heart of people's rights work is the
individual - as one at the receiving end of
rights abuses, as survivor, as partner in the
defence of rights, and as activist speaking out
and working with, and for, other individuals.
Individuals, as part of the political, social and
cultural collective and spread through the length
and breadth of the country, lie behind much of
the activism of social-political groups, working
at local, grass-roots and community levels. They
try to change lives by acting on their own or
with other people and political groups making the
same demand - an end to injustice in all its
forms. These individuals are always at risk.
Despite this, no mechanism exists at the
district, State, regional or national levels, to
protect those working to protect and promote our
constitutional rights.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and
its State editions, and the commissions
established for women, the minorities and the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are
often approached by victim activists for redress.
However, in the absence of a focussed system for
monitoring, documenting and reporting rights
violations against rights activists, and for lack
of a mechanism for timely and pro-active
intervention to provide justice to them, the
commissions more often than not fail to arrest
the continuing violations. Why do the commissions
themselves not develop a system for taking action?
Where are our governments, which are parties to
numerous international and regional human rights
treaties and have voluntarily undertaken a legal
commitment to protect the rights activists?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
contains important standards relevant to the work
of rights activists. In addition to the UDHR, the
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders), adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1998, is a set of
safeguards designed to guarantee and ensure the
protection of human rights defenders. These
include the right to know, seek, obtain and
receive information about human rights and
fundamental freedoms; the right to participate in
peaceful activities against violations of human
rights; the right to criticise and complain when
governments fail to comply with human rights
standards; and the right to make proposals for
improvement.
In line with the U.N. Declaration, why can't the
work of rights activists, including those working
on economic, social and cultural rights, be
recognised and legitimatised? Rather than
harassing them, governments should take steps to
develop a national plan of action that includes
multidisciplinary proposals at the political,
legal and practical levels, which aim at
improving the environment in which rights
activists operate; the measures to ensure their
immediate protection and the allocation of
appropriate human and financial resources.
Along with mechanisms and laws, there is need to
call on a wider human rights community for
intervention and support. It must include
political activists and leaders, non-governmental
organisations, human rights bodies, international
organisations and professionals. The lukewarm
response to Dr. Binayak Sen's arrest from the
established bodies of the medical fraternity and
inter-governmental organisations, and the near
non-response to the killings of Narayan Hareka
and Lalit Mehta from the people and groups
working on NREGA show the lack of solidarity,
networking and common action in the human rights
community.
Rights are not just concepts and laws. They are
not just about project-making, training, advocacy
and building capacity. They also mean showing
courage and mobilising thousands of activists as
fast as possible when someone is arrested,
killed, or faces immediate and often
life-threatening human rights violations. If a
fragile "people's rights concern" is to withstand
the vagaries of political ebb and flow, future
attacks on activists and practical applicability
of rights will need to be anticipated and
forestalled. The continuous hardships of
activists, working in different contexts and
cultures, reinforce the point that they must not
only remain our reactive agenda but should also
be a progressive proposition for a better future.
The existence of 'failed states' such as
Chhattisgarh and Orissa - those without any
functioning human rights governance - is a
formidable challenge to human rights activists.
Where the institutions necessary for the delivery
of justice - from law-enforcement to healthcare
and education - are either entirely lacking or
dependent on a weak authority, and the rights are
regularly abused by companies, armed groups,
security forces and religious leaders, the
challenge is to work creatively with and through
political and social structures. Only then can
immediate abuse be prevented and redressed, and a
framework of protective safeguards at the local
and community levels built.
(Mukul Sharma is the Director of Amnesty
International in India. mukul at amnesty.org.in)
______
[6]
The Guardian
July 25 2008
THIS CRACKDOWN ON FORCED MARRIAGE IS NOT ALL IT SEEMS
Is the government raising the age for marriage
visas out of concern for women, or to impose
stricter immigration controls?
by Rahila Gupta
The government has announced that it will be
raising the age limit for those marrying overseas
spouses from 18 to 21 in its "crackdown" on
forced marriage while the legal age for marriage
within Britain remains 16. Yet another
differential has been introduced in its treatment
of minorities. It pressed ahead with this policy
change despite the fact that half the
organisations and individuals who responded to
the consultation disagreed with the proposal, and
at least another three organisations opposed to
this measure were initially left off the list -
their views may not have been taken into account.
If the object is to prevent forced marriage, it
seems odd that the government has introduced
measures that may help the 400 or so cases that
the Forced Marriage Unit deals with, while at the
same time cutting back women's services which
provide support and protection to women facing
forced marriage. Although exact numbers are not
available, all the evidence points to the fact
that a much larger percentage of forced marriages
takes place within national borders. Southall
Black Sisters alone has a caseload (including
inquiries) of approximately 150 per year.
There is also evidence that raising the age limit
does not work. Families intent on forcing through
such marriages simply take their girls abroad,
get them married off and abandon them there till
they are the right age. The longer they are kept
overseas, the more likely they are to have had
children and to become further trapped in their
situation. The government view that increasing
the age limit will allow girls to acquire more
life skills, better education and increase in
maturity does not apply to families where girls
have been taken out of full-time education at 16
and where there is no culture of women's autonomy.
Turning the immigration screw has become the
government's response to any social evil. Rather
than concern for the lives of young women, this
is more about restricting the number of people
entering Britain and the underlying belief that
marrying overseas is a barrier to integration. In
2006, the government granted almost 42,000
settlement visas to spouses, which implies that
the overwhelming number of marriages across
borders are bona fide, and yet the government has
introduced a measure that arguably may help only
1% of the total number of marriages taking place
to overseas partners while making it extremely
difficult for the majority.
What is worrying is that it appears to be a
Europe-wide move towards convergence of measures
to restrict immigration to the most draconian
standards. Denmark and the Netherlands have
already raised the minimum age to 24 in a lurch
to the right which has seen the extensive
adoption of an anti-immigration agenda targeting
Muslim immigrants in particular.
Paradoxically, it is the relaxation of
immigration controls which will reduce the
likelihood of forced marriage, since marriage
will not be seen as a route to gaining entry to
the UK. However, any argument advocating
liberalisation of immigration laws, no matter how
reasonable, is like waving a red flag in front of
this bullish, reactionary government.
______
[7]
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the SACW
mailing list