SACW | Aug. 19-21, 2008 / Pakistan After Musharraf / India, NSG and non proliferation / Kashmir; AFSPA
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 20:45:38 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 19-21, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2554 -
Year 10 running
[1] Post Musharraf Pakistan:
(i) Beyond Musharraf (Ahmed Rashid)
(ii) Pakistan After Musharraf (Tariq Ali)
(iii) End of an era (Beena Sarwar)
(iv) Musharraf was the last to read the writing on the wall (Kamila
Shamsie)
(v) Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us (Mahfuz Anam)
[2] US India Nuclear Deal - Undermines Non Proliferation
(i) Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala's* statement opposing the US-
India nuclear deal
(ii) Don’t Loosen Nuclear Rules for India (Edward J. Markey And
Ellen O. Tauscher)
[3] India - Kashmir:
(i) Lal before the storm (Rajmohan Gandhi)
(ii) Leaders failed people (Bashir Manzar)
[4] India - Human Rights:
(i) India: Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act (HRW)
(ii) Exploiting Terrorism (Keya Acharya)
[5] India: Textbooks, Religion and Politics (EPW)
[6] Announcements:
(i) evening of song, poetry and performance 'Partition: The Long
Shadow' (New Delhi, 21 August 2008)
(ii) People's Tribunal on the Atrocities Committed Against
Minorities in the Name of Fighting Terrorism (Hyderabad, 22-24 August
2008)
______
[1] Post Musharraf Pakistan : Commentary
(i)
Washington Post
BEYOND MUSHARRAF
by Ahmed Rashid
Tuesday, August 19, 2008; Page A13
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The resignation of President Pervez Musharraf
yesterday after nine years in office is a major victory for
Pakistan's long-battered and still fragile democratic forces. But
particularly given the meltdown the country has endured in recent
weeks, there are still many obstacles to effective civilian
governance. Although the United States will expect things to change
in a hurry, they are unlikely to do so right away.
Three of Pakistan's past four military rulers have been driven from
power by popular movements, but the politicians who followed the
military all failed to take advantage of the people's desire for
democracy and economic development and were eventually forced out by
the military on charges of corruption and incompetence.
The most pressing issues today involve the long-standing tension of
Pakistan's politics and the relationship between the civilian
government and the military. The government is led by the Pakistan
People's Party, now run by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former
prime minister Benazir Bhutto, but his party governs through a
complex coalition of parties.
The PPP's main antagonist is former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, head
of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, who never misses an opportunity to
try to pull down the PPP, his longtime rival, rather than working
with it to consolidate the few democratic gains the country has made.
Overthrown by Musharraf in a 1999 coup and humiliated by the army,
Sharif rejects concessions to the army and offers no support to the
war against Taliban extremists. Busy pandering to his right-wing
supporters, he has little time for American demands.
ad_icon
Sharif believes that his popularity and the parliamentary seats he
controls in the majority province of Punjab will eventually regain
him the prime ministership.
In the next few days, internal coalition battles will continue as key
questions arise, including where Musharraf should live, whether
impeachment should proceed, how the senior judges Musharraf dismissed
last November should be restored to their offices and who should
become president.
Sharif is taking a hard line, while Zardari wants to move slowly and
not confront the army by further humiliating Musharraf, a former army
chief.
These power struggles within the coalition are magnified by the
enormous mistrust that exists between the army and both parties. The
army's mistrust of the PPP has a nearly 40-year history, and the
military dislikes Sharif.
In the past six months, the army and the coalition government have
failed to work out a joint strategy to combat the Pakistani Taliban,
which is swarming across northwestern Pakistan, or to prevent Taliban
fighters from crossing the border and fighting in Afghanistan.
The army, which is not popular, wants the civilian government to take
political responsibility for going after the extremists. Sharif has
no intention of doing the army's bidding, and Zardari has yet to
hammer out a position that can garner coalition agreement. Meanwhile,
the economy is in meltdown, with inflation running at 25 percent, but
the government has not been able to lift investor confidence.
The mess that Musharraf leaves behind will haunt Pakistan and the
world in the months ahead. The international community is likely to
grow even more nervous about Pakistan as extremists become stronger
and more audacious.
The government and the army are besieged by escalating U.S. and NATO
threats that Pakistan must either help catch Osama bin Laden and do
more to stop the Taliban's offensives or face stepped-up U.S. bombing
against the Taliban inside Pakistan.
Much of the fault for this situation lies with Musharraf's aversion
to democracy and his failure to capitalize on the opportunities
offered by joining the Western alliance in the war against terrorism
after Sept. 11. After the 2001 attacks, Musharraf received massive
financial aid ($11.8 billion from Washington alone) and unstinting
international political support -- yet failed to use it for the
common good.
He rigged his own reelection in 2002 and long disrupted attempts at a
transition to a democracy. After millions of Pakistanis took to the
streets last year, demanding the rule of law, Musharraf imposed a
state of emergency. Under extreme public pressure, he was forced to
rescind his measures and agreed to hold free and fair elections in
February, in which his political supporters were trounced.
Meanwhile, Musharraf's relationship with the West disintegrated as
the Taliban gained ground in Afghanistan, using its bases in
Pakistan. There was a Taliban blowback inside Pakistan as the
Pakistani Pashtun tribesmen who protected bin Laden and the Afghan
Taliban when they retreated to Pakistan in 2001 were themselves
radicalized. They formed their own militias with their own agenda: to
turn Pakistan into an Islamic Taliban-style state. In December, they
assassinated the one person who could have pulled the country
together -- PPP leader Benazir Bhutto.
Most Pakistanis see the coalition government as the country's last
chance for democracy, and they want it to work. The army, the
government and the international community have to work together so
that Pakistan can start tackling its real problems.
ad_icon
Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, is the author of "Descent into
Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia."
o o o
(ii)
counterpunch.org - August 18, 2008
HOW LONG BEFORE THE MILITARY IS BACK AT THE HELM?
Pakistan After Musharraf
by Tariq Ali
Pakistan’s military dictators never go quietly. Field-Marshal Ayub
was removed by a three-month long popular insurrection in March 1969.
General Yahya Khan destroyed Pakistan before he departed in 1972.
General Zia-ul-Haq (the worst of the lot) was blown up in his
military pl;ane rtogether with the US Ambassador in 1988. And now
General Musharraf is digging his heels. There is a temporary
stalemate in Pakistan. The Army is in favour of him going quietly,
but is against impeachment. Washington is prepared for him to go, but
quietly. And last Friday the chief of Saudi intelligence agency,
Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, had secretly arrived in Pakistan and
held talks with coalition leaders and President Musharraf. He wants a
‘safe exit’ for the president. Sanctuaries in Manhattan, Texas and
the Turkish island of Büyükada (Prinkipo) are being actively
considered. The General would prefer a large estate in Pakistan,
preferably near a golf course, but security considerations alone
would make that infeasible.
One way or another he will go soon. Power has been draining away from
him for over a year now. Had he departed peacefully when his
constitutional term expired in November 2007 he would have won some
respect. Instead he imposed a State of Emergency and sacked the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. In January, the latter wrote an open
letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Condoleezza Rice and the
president of the European Parliament. The letter, which remains
unanswered, explained the real reasons for Musharraf’s actions:
At the outset you may be wondering why I have used the words
‘claiming to be the head of state’. That is quite deliberate. General
Musharraf’s constitutional term ended on 15 November 2007. His claim
to a further term thereafter is the subject of active controversy
before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was while this claim was
under adjudication before a bench of 11 learned judges of the Supreme
Court that the general arrested a majority of those judges in
addition to me on 3 November 2007. He thus himself subverted the
judicial process which remains frozen at that point. Besides
arresting the chief justice and judges (can there have been a greater
outrage?) he also purported to suspend the constitution and to purge
the entire judiciary (even the high courts) of all independent
judges. Now only his hand-picked and compliant judges remain willing
to ‘validate’ whatever he demands. And all this is also contrary to
an express and earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on 3
November 2007.
Now Musharraf will go in disgrace, threatened with impeachment and
abandoned by most of his cronies, who grew rich under his rule and
are now sidling shamelessly in the direction of the new power-
brokers. The country has moved seamlessly from a moth-eaten
dictatorship to a moth-eaten democracy. Six months after the old,
morally obtuse, political gangs returned to power, the climate has
further deteriorated. The widower Bhutto and his men are extremely
unpopular. The worm-eaten tongues of long discredited politicians and
resurrected civil servants are on daily display. Removing Musharraf,
who is even more unpopular, might win the politicians some time, but
not for long.
Amidst the hullabaloo there was one hugely diverting moment last week
that reminding one of pots and kettles. Asif Zardari, the caretaker-
leader of the People’s Party who runs the government and is the
second richest man in the country (funds that accrued when his late
wife was Prime Minister) accused Musharraf of corruption and
siphoning official US funds to private bank accounts. For once the
noise of laughter drowned the thunder of money.
Musharraf’s departure will highlight the problems that confront the
country, which is in the grip of a food and power crisis that is
creating severe problems in every city. Inflation is out of control
and was approaching the 15 percent mark in May 2008. Gas (used for
cooking in many homes) prices have risen by 30 percent. Wheat, the
staple diet of most people has seen a 20 percent price hike since
November 2007 and while the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organisation
admits that the world's food stocks are at record lows there is an
additional problem in Pakistan. Too much wheat is being smuggled into
Afghanistan to serve the needs of the NATO armies. The poor are the
worst hit, but middle-class families are also affected and according
to a June 2008 survey, 86 percent of Pakistanis find it increasingly
difficult to afford flour on a daily basis, for which they blame
their own new government.
Other problems persist. The politicians are weak and remain divided
on the restoration of the judges sacked by Musharraf. The Chief
Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is the most respected person in
the country. Zardari is reluctant to see him back at the head of the
Supreme Court. A possible compromise might be to offer him the
Presidency. It would certainly unite the country for a short time.
Over the last fifty years the US has worked mainly with the Pakistan
Army. This has been its preferred instrument. Nothing has changed.
How long before the military is back at the helm?
Tariq Ali’s latest book, ‘The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of
American Power’ will be published on September 15 by Scribner.
o o o
(iii)
The Daily Star
August 20, 2008
END OF AN ERA
by Beena Sarwar
THERE was no electricity at our place in Karachi this afternoon, but
it was cool so we hadn't turned on our little generator. "Aren't you
watching our president's speech on TV?" asked a friend on the phone.
On came the generator. Live on Geo, the TV channel that spearheaded
the media boom under Musharraf, was the president in a dark western
suit and tie (rather than the high-collared sherwani that leaders
tend to don when trying to appease nationalist or religious forces).
The obligatory portrait of the country's founder (sherwani-clad) on
the wall behind him, Musharraf was listing his government's
achievements.
The economic achievements are tempered by rising inflation and
increasing divide between the rich and poor, but he made a couple of
good moves when he restored the women's reserved seats in parliament
and introduced thirty percent women's seats at the district level, as
well as striking down the "separate electorate system" that divided
voters on religious grounds.
Reminding people that he was a human being, prone to making mistakes,
whose intentions were always noble, he thanked his mother, his wife,
and his children for always standing by him.
And then he did what no leader in Pakistan has ever done: publicly
announced his resignation -- something he should have done a long
time ago. The elections of February 18 provided a good opportunity
but the tenacious former army commando had dug his heels in and
refused to go, despite his earlier promise to step down if the people
rejected the parties that supported him.
America is perceived as one of the major factors keeping him in
place, as a key ally in the "war on terror." Washington has now
started realising the need to back the people of Pakistan and the
elected government rather than an un-elected president and the army.
The "war on terror" cannot be won by military means alone. It is
important to support the political process and take the people along.
In resigning, Musharraf avoided the impeachment that loomed over his
head (another first), which would have carried confrontation further.
As I left on August 12 for Jakarta to participate in a forum on
"Islam and Democracy in South Asia," someone remarked that I would be
returning in five days to a transformed Pakistan.
Not likely, I replied. Even if Musharraf went during this time, there
would be no dramatic change. Inflation would continue to break the
people's backs, violence in the name of religion would continue to
take lives, unprincipled forces would continue to try and sabotage
the democratically elected government, hidden hands would continue to
needle India and Afghanistan, and the lawyers would continue to
agitate for restoring the judiciary that Musharraf had axed during
his imposition of emergency on November 3 last year, that the ruling
coalition is dragging its feet over.
As Musharraf announced his resignation, television news showed
jubilant men and women dancing in the streets of Multan (Prime
Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani's hometown).
Some called for Musharraf to be held accountable and charged with
treason, punishable by death. Wisdom would call for another course of
action that provides Musharraf safety and "leave his accountability
to history … (which) is necessary for the stability of the country
and for moving forward," as political analyst Shaheryar Azhar puts it.
The nation seems to have heaved a collective sigh of relief that the
drama is finally over. But Musharraf's departure is just one step in
the process of democracy, for the continuation of which Pakistan and
its allies will need all the patience they can muster.
Beena Sarwar, a freelance journalist and film-maker, writes from
Karachi.
o o o
(iv)
The Guardian,
Tuesday August 19 2008
MUSHARRAF WAS THE LAST TO READ THE WRITING ON THE WALL
Pakistan's president took his time to go, but the country now needs
to unite and trust in democracy not dictators
All comments (26)
by Kamila Shamsie
Over half an hour into President Musharraf's address to the nation I
texted a friend to say: "This is a resignation speech, right?" She
wrote back: "I don't see what else it could be." Neither could I, but
to the last Musharraf had the air of a man so strongly convinced that
he was indispensable to Pakistan that it was hard to believe the
former commando would resist one final assault on his political
rivals. When it came to it, though, the assault was merely rhetorical
- the man of action with nothing left but words to fall back on.
His exit seemed inevitable from the moment his king's party - the
Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) - was routed in the February
elections; but Pakistan's leaders have a way of turning the
inevitable into the suspenseful. Over the weekend Islamabad was rife
with rumours - including the one that said he was still waiting for
Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, the leaders of the two largest
democratic parties and the country's most uneasy bedfellows, to tear
each other to pieces and allow him to step in and clean up the mess.
Other pundits weighed in to say the army wouldn't allow its former
head to be humiliated, and Sharif - who was deposed in 1999 by
Musharraf - would settle for nothing less.
But in the end it was in no one's interests to stand up for a man who
wreaked incalculable damage on the nation in his refusal to accept
challenges to his authority - challenges that arose last year from
the judiciary, and were taken up by the press. In his nine years as
president, Musharraf tangoed and tangled with a number of individuals
and institutions, but it is his relationship with the press that is
most revealing. To start with, he missed few opportunities to extol
the virtues of a free press and did more than any leader in
Pakistan's history to make that free press available with his
decision to open up the airwaves and allow a mushrooming of cable
channels.
It is a tragedy of Musharraf's time in office that he came to see
this, his one great legacy, as Frankenstein's monster; before long he
was darkly commenting that to speak against him was to speak against
the nation, and he imposed draconian curbs on the media when he
declared a state of emergency last November - in an act of utter
desperation. However, no degree of censorship could obliterate the
writing on the wall - clear for everyone except Musharraf to see.
But although he has finally bowed out - there remained no other
option once both the army and the US refused to back his bid to stay
in power - Pakistan is not really in any condition to be euphoric.
Suicide bombings are rampant, the Taliban have control over parts of
the country, and the economy is in free fall. To add to this, Zardari
and Sharif have given the nation ample reason in the past to deeply
mistrust their governance.
In fact, so great is their unpopularity that there exists a
vociferous segment of Pakistani society that continues to believe
that Musharraf was the better option - "This is Pakistan, not Oz," a
friend angrily wrote to me when I voiced approval of Musharraf's
departure. She meant that in a fairytale world democracy might be an
ideal solution, but the corruption and infighting of Pakistan's
democratic leaders still made Musharraf the better choice. But for me
her comment merely conjured up an image of Musharraf as the man
behind the curtain. And claims of the army's lack of corruption need
to be considered in the context of the staggering degree of economic
wealth and influence the top brass has garnered for itself - legally,
but not ethically - as discussed in Ayesha Siddiqa's revealing book
Military Inc, published last year.
But even among the strongest supporters of democracy there is anxiety
about what tomorrow brings. The removal of Musharraf means Sharif and
Zardari no longer have common cause, and the jostling for power
between them is likely to get very ugly, just when the country most
needs them to put aside personal enmities and deal with the problems
at hand. The more frightening truth is that those problems - in terms
of both security and the economy - have snowballed so far that there
are no quick fixes.
Musharraf's final machiavellian act in his resignation speech was to
paint a picture of his presidency as a period of prosperity,
moderation and good governance - set against the dismal state of the
nation today, which reflects the abuses of six months of civilian
rule. Right now, only the truly deluded would accept that version of
events, but the fragility of Pakistan's democracy makes the months
ahead particularly perilous. If things get worse, as they may well
do, it will be easy to blame democracy itself. It's worth bearing in
mind a comment made at the South Bank Centre by the Booker-longlisted
Mohammed Hanif: "I think we Pakistanis need to be a little more
patient with our democrats, and a little less patient with our
dictators."
· Kamila Shamsie is the author of Broken Verses
o o o
(v)
The Daily Star - August 20, 2008
Commentary
MUSHARRAF'S EXIT: LESSONS FOR THEM AND US
by Mahfuz Anam
The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's
ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the
only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or
that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are
archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People
everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been
found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration
of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains
the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh
have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve
under all circumstances.
The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people
everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a
sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has
proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military
rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning
(and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live
up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they
begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also
happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what
military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --
administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The
most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy
themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power
and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the
discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.
Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's
stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military
charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make
Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense
of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-
centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy
that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity
between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation
of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide
of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate
destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of
the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces
that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen
Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup
under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his
own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard
for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been
under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His
selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but
destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.
If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual
destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the
state power.
Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who,
back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then
colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent
holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for
February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might
well have been far happier.
While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country,
what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from
Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the
door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the
adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born
in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest
Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the
ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of
Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the
elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the
eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in
1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13
months of its taking office).
After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections
held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind,
people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards
democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him
the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets,
making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The
supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to
stage his coup.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice
they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance
but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's
husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known
as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz
Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's
tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister
of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who
joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that
defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.
While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the
democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of
Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr.
Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment
to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's
most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath
to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house
to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars
of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the
'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the
father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to
run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for
years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had
no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear,
lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the
personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an
inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy
to Pakistan.
If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of
democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant
part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in
Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen
Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into
politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to
consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in
the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh
Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken
the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to
set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up
business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime
ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority
in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar,
and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a
minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in
the national airlines, the Biman.
Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic
movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we
have better social indicators, and our military today is far
different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of
democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever
was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as
in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League,
are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two
major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their
dominance in our politics following the elections later this year.
The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise
to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so
that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from
our realm of possibility?
______
[2] US India Nuclear Deal and the NSG:
(i)
AMBASSADOR JAYANTHA DHANAPALA'S* STATEMENT OPPOSING THE US-INDIA
NUCLEAR DEAL
(recorded in Tokyo at the beginning of August 2008). The statement
can be viewed on You Tube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQ9AZGtX5U
o o o
(ii)
The New York Times
August 19, 2008
DON’T LOOSEN NUCLEAR RULES FOR INDIA
by Edward J. Markey And Ellen O. Tauscher
IN the next day or so, an obscure organization will meet to decide
the fate of an Indian nuclear deal that threatens to rapidly
accelerate New Delhi’s arms race with Pakistan — a rivalry made all
the more precarious by the resignation on Tuesday of the Pakistani
president, Pervez Musharraf.
Nonetheless, President Bush is lobbying the Nuclear Suppliers Group,
which governs international nuclear commerce, to waive its most
crucial rules in order to allow the trade of reactors, fuel and
technology to India. If the president gets his way, the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty — for 50 years, the bulwark against the
spread of nuclear weapons — would be shredded and India’s yearly
nuclear weapons production capability would likely increase from 7
bombs to 40 or 50.
India’s nuclear history is checkered at best, and New Delhi has been
denied access to the international nuclear market for three decades.
The reasons are well known: the country has never signed the
nonproliferation treaty or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
it misused civilian nuclear technology to produce its first nuclear
weapon in 1974, and it continues to manufacture nuclear weapons to
this day.
Paradoxically, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was formed in direct
response to India’s illegal 1974 nuclear test. Its central purpose is
to ensure that no other country exploits foreign nuclear energy
assistance to make a bomb, as India did. If the group accedes to
President Bush’s dangerous request, countries such as Iran and North
Korea would certainly use the precedent to their advantage.
The Indian nuclear deal threatens international security not only by
undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding India’s nuclear
weapons program. That’s because every pound of uranium that India is
allowed to import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium
for its bomb program.
Pakistan, with its unstable government and Al Qaeda sanctuaries, is
already ratcheting up its nuclear weapons program in an attempt to
keep pace with its regional rival. Just last month, the Pakistani
government darkly announced that waiving the nuclear rules for India
“threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the
subcontinent.”
Because changes to these international rules can be made only by
unanimous agreement, every country in the 45-nation group has the
ability and the duty to insist that this flawed nuclear deal be
improved and to ensure that nuclear trade with India cannot benefit
New Delhi’s nuclear weapons program.
Thankfully, there is an easy solution. The group can say yes to
nuclear trade with India if two simple conditions are met. First,
India must sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a step
already taken by 178 other countries and every member state of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group. After all, why should the group’s members
grant India a huge exemption from the rules that they themselves are
supposed to follow?
Second, India must agree to halt production of nuclear material for
weapons. That doesn’t mean that India has to give up the weapons it
has, or even that it cannot make more weapons with the nuclear
material it has already produced. But by closing down its
manufacturing of new plutonium and highly enriched uranium, India
would prove to the international community that opening up nuclear
commerce would not assist, either directly or indirectly, its nuclear
weapons program.
This deal was foolish when Pakistan was relatively stable; with Mr.
Musharraf gone, an arms race on the subcontinent would likely be more
difficult to control. But even if the president continues to insist
on the deal, he can’t do it alone. He needs the 44 other countries in
the Nuclear Suppliers Group to acquiesce. And the group, created to
prevent the further spread of the atom, would vote itself out of
existence if it allowed India to have nuclear technology with no
strings attached.
Edward J. Markey, a Democrat of Massachusetts, is co-chairman of the
House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation. Ellen O. Tauscher, a
Democrat of California, is chairwoman of the House Strategic Forces
Subcommittee.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 20, 2008, on
page A23 of the New York edition.
______
[3] Kashmir:
(i)
LAL BEFORE THE STORM
by Rajmohan Gandhi
Hindustan Times, August 19, 2008
In his letter to the Prime Minister on nationalism versus separatism,
L.K. Advani has placed the people of Jammu, the national flag, the
Motherland and the Indian Army in one column, and the people of the
Kashmir Valley and separatism in a second, adversarial, column. Some
will see this as fair. Can it be denied that the national flag and
the Indian Army have many more admirers in Jammu than in the Valley?
Don’t we hear of attacks on security forces and the raising of
Pakistani flags in Kashmir? Does anything like that happen in Jammu
town?
Advani’s divisive formulation has to be opposed not because it is
entirely untrue but precisely because it is a half-truth, more
dangerous than a lie for being believable.
A difficult reality can be dealt with in two ways. It can be
admitted, deplored, and corrected. Or it can be welcomed with glee,
presented as a fundamental and unchangeable truth, and used as a
political springboard.
For the first time, an important political leader has suggested that
not just the terrorists but all the people of the Kashmir Valley are
adversaries — foes of the Motherland, of the national flag, and of
the Army.
For the first time, a possible future Prime Minister of India has
divided the people of Jammu and Kashmir into two sections, one with
positive qualities and worthy of the Army’s protection, and the other
with negative impulses, deserving of the Army’s suspicion.
Advani was careful not to use the word ‘Muslims’. But, of course, he
is not implying that Kashmiri Pandits are separatists. He means
Kashmiri Muslims. Everyone knows that, and Advani knows that everyone
knows what he means.
He also knows — and this is even more serious than what he says about
Kashmiri Muslims, grave as that is — that his remark about people
with anti-Motherland, anti-flag and anti-Army sentiments will be
understood as referring to India’s Muslims in general, and not just
the Muslims of Kashmir. The tactic of dividing J&K, and by
implicating India as a whole, into Hindu and Muslim is particularly
dangerous at this juncture, when India and the rest of the
subcontinent is facing the most serious challenge that extremists
using Islam have ever posed. Advani is much too intelligent and
experienced to believe that the way to meet this challenge is to
unite all non-Muslims in confrontational solidarity against all Muslims.
He knows perfectly well that the vast majority of India’s Muslims
oppose extremism and terrorism. As for Kashmiri Muslims, Advani is
aware of their tradition, which equips Muslims of the Valley to lead
a fight against bigotry. And he knows also that Pakistani Muslims in
general not only oppose extremism but are the major targets of
jehadist militancy today.
Above all, as a 1947 refugee from Sindh and as a former Home
Minister, Advani has an idea of the incalculable costs of Hindu-
Muslim conflict. He must, therefore, know, as do the rest of us, that
the real clash in India, and within the subcontinent, is not between
Hindus and Muslims, or between Indians and Pakistanis, or between
nationalists and traitors, or even between the people of Jammu and
the people of Kashmir. Instead, it is between all those (of every or
no religion and of every region) who cherish life, with all its
vagaries and, therefore, seek to solve problems through peaceful
means, and a relatively small but dangerously dedicated number of
those (Muslims, Hindus and others) who are willing to kill people,
including the innocent and themselves, to achieve a goal. He knows
this well. Yet, when he saw a political springboard, he just went for
it.
Finally, Advani’s demand for a transfer of land in the Kashmir Valley
to the Amarnath Shrine Board is also unwise. Something other than a
transfer should be entirely acceptable.
No ‘title deed’ has ever been less necessary. Until the end of June,
tourists from all over India were enjoying Kashmir and helping its
economy along. Less offensively conspicuous than before, security
forces were in complete control, and Kashmiris were looking back
upon militancy as a curse (many blamed it for the 2005 earthquake).
The Amarnath pilgrimage was growing in numbers and convenience.
Environmental aspects were receiving attention. There was no sense in
taking away with the ‘religious’ or ‘pilgrimage’ hand, the autonomy
promised by the political hand.
That India can retain Kashmir was not and is not in doubt. Size
counts. Numbers count. Armies count. The economy counts. But anyone
who thinks that coercion can be more effective in Kashmir than
genuine respect and autonomy, or that the respect that India commands
worldwide will grow with effective Indian coerciveness, does not
understand the 21st century. And such a person has not thought of the
effect on towns across India of coercing the people of Kashmir, or of
using the religious card towards that end.
Let Advani say what he likes. The rest of us should appeal to the
people of Jammu and the people of Kashmir to return to sobriety and
calmness. They are not foes but much-needed allies for greater tasks,
and are fully entitled to their dignity.
Rajmohan Gandhi is the author of Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the
Empire.
o o o
(ii)
LEADERS FAILED PEOPLE
by Bashir Manzar
Leaders have done it again - failed people, that too at a juncture
when the masses had exhibited unparalleled unity – unity of thought
and action. Courageous masses of Kashmir Valley were out on streets,
in hundreds and thousands, pouring from cities, towns, villages,
hamlets – marching on roads, making their voices heard. Shaking the
conscience of India and Pakistan, waking them from the slumber,
asking them to heal the festering wounds, people were one. There were
no rural and urban divides; there were no shia sunni conflicts; there
were no pahari gujjar tensions – all raising one voice. Leaders asked
them to march on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road on August 11, they did it
and died. Leaders asked them to continue protests against the
killings; they did it and died again. Leaders asked them to further
continue the agitation; they did it and died once again. Leaders
asked them to march to Pampore to pay tributes to slain Hurriyat
leader, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, they were there. Leaders asked them to
assemble at TRC grounds to present memoranda to United Nations
Military Observers Group, they flooded the area. They have not erred
at any stage. Yes, there was some violence on streets but when
leaders told them not to pelt stones on security forces, it were the
people themselves who guarded CRPF and police bunkers lest some
miscreants pelt stones. What else a leadership needs from the people?
People didn’t let their leaders down and followed whatever they were
asked to do. Children sacrificed studies; patients sacrificed
medicare; poor cut down on their food. This all was done to make
world notice that there is a problem which needs to be resolved.
And what did the leadership do? When they saw people out on streets
in hundreds and thousands on August 18, they mistook the crowds as
their personal property to satiate their Himalayan egos. They
couldn’t realise and appreciate that the people were out for a cause
and the cause was much bigger than all the leaders put together. The
cheering crowds made them mad and the cat was out of the bag. While
some leaders made people to raise slogans – Iss Paar Bhi Lenge Azadi,
Uss Paar Bhi Lenge Azadi (We want freedom on either side of the
divide), others jumped in with slogans – Hum Pakistani Hain, Pakistan
Hamara Hai (We belong to Pakistan and Pakistan belongs to us). As if
the contradictory sloganeering was not enough to pain and hurt the
crowds, the senior most leader, Syed Ali Geelani got swayed by the
public participation and declared himself the ‘sole leader.’ Although
he later apologised saying if his utterances have hurt someone, he
was sorry, the damage was done. The people, who had braved all the
odds and came out to demonstrate their will were let down. A message
was conveyed to them in an unambiguous manner that whatever their
sacrifices, those on the podium are fighting a war for their
individual supremacy. They are not sensitive to their sentiments
instead are busy in a mad race of leadership. They are there to score
points over each other not realising the seriousness and gravity of
the situation. They don’t realise that they are parading in front of
a crowd that is there with some mission but treat it just as a beauty
pageant where number ones and twos are to be chosen. Shame!
Iss Ghar Ko Aag Lag Gae Ghar Ke Chirag Se
(This house was set to fire by its own lamp)
The writer is editor of Srinagar based English Daily, Kashmir Images
and can be contacted at bmanzar at gmail.com
______
[4] INDIA - HUMAN RIGHTS:
(i)
Human Rights News
INDIA: REPEAL ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT
50th Anniversary of Law Allowing Shoot-to-Kill, Other Serious Abuses
(New York, August 18, 2008) – India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act
has been used to violate fundamental freedoms for 50 years and should
be repealed, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
Human Rights Watch’s 16-page report, “Getting Away With Murder: 50
years of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act,” describes how the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act, or AFSPA, has become a tool of state
abuse, oppression, and discrimination. The law grants the military
wide powers to arrest without warrant, shoot-to-kill, and destroy
property in so-called “disturbed areas.” It also protects military
personnel responsible for serious crimes from prosecution, creating a
pervasive culture of impunity.
“The Indian government’s responsibility to protect civilians from
attacks by militants is no excuse for an abusive law like the AFSPA,”
said Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher for Human Rights
Watch. “Fifty years of suffering under the AFSPA is 50 years too long
– the government should repeal the AFSPA now.”
Enacted on August 18, 1958 as a short-term measure to allow
deployment of the army against an armed separatist movement in
India’s northeastern Naga Hills, the AFSPA has been invoked for five
decades. It has since been used throughout the northeast,
particularly in Assam, Nagaland, Tripura and Manipur. A variant of
the law was also used in Punjab during a separatist movement in the
1980s and 90s, and has been in force in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990.
Indian officials have long sought to justify use of the law by citing
the need for the armed forces to have extraordinary powers to combat
armed insurgents. Human Rights Watch said that abuses facilitated by
the AFSPA, especially extrajudicial killings, torture, rape and
“disappearances,” have fed public anger and disillusionment with the
Indian state. This has permitted militant groups to flourish in the
northeast and Jammu and Kashmir.
The AFSPA has not only led to human rights violations, but it has
allowed members of the armed forces to perpetrate abuses with
impunity. They have been shielded by clauses in the AFSPA that
prohibit prosecutions from being initiated without permission from
the central government. Such permission is rarely granted.
“Violations under the AFSPA have served as a recruiting agent for
militant groups,” said Ganguly. “In both Kashmir and the northeast,
we have heard over and over again that abuses by troops, who are
never punished for their crimes, have only shrunk the space for those
supporting peaceful change.”
Indians have long protested against the AFSPA. The Supreme Court has
issued guidelines to prevent human rights violations, but these are
routinely ignored. Since 2000, Irom Sharmila, an activist in Manipur,
has been on hunger strike demanding repeal of the act. The government
has responded by keeping her in judicial custody, force-fed through a
nasal tube, and has ignored numerous appeals for repeal from
activists in Jammu and Kashmir.
Following widespread protests after the 2004 murder in custody of an
alleged militant called Manorama Devi in Manipur, the Indian
government set up a five-member committee to review the AFSPA. The
review committee submitted its report on June 6, 2005, recommending
repeal of the act. In April 2007, a working group on Jammu and
Kashmir appointed by the prime minister also recommended that the act
be revoked. However, the cabinet has not acted on these
recommendations because of opposition from the armed forces.
There has long been international criticism of the AFSPA. Over 10
years ago, in 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Committee
expressed concern over the “climate of impunity” provided by the act.
Since then, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions (2006), the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (2007) and the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), have all called for an
end to the AFSPA.
Human Rights Watch said that the government should follow its own
example when in 2004 the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
repealed the widely abused Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). POTA
was enacted soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United
States and allowed security agencies to hold suspects for up to 180
days without charges. In practice, the law was often used against
marginalized communities such as Dalits (so-called “untouchables”),
indigenous groups, Muslims, and the political opposition.
“The Indian government acted with principle when it repealed the
controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act,” said Ganguly. “It must
display the same courage now in repealing AFSPA.”
o o o
(ii)
Inter Press Service
August 13, 2008
INDIA: EXPLOITING TERRORISM
by Keya Acharya
BANGALORE, Aug 13 (IPS) - In the aftermath of the spate of serial
bomb blasts that rocked Ahmedabad in western India and the southern
city of Bangalore, late July, prominent civil rights activists,
advocates and experts have criticised the government, for political
interference in and misuse of the country’s counter-terrorism laws.
Teesta Setalvad, well-known activist for civil rights for victims and
alleged suspects of terror in India, especially in Gujarat and
Kashmir, says terrorist attacks in India are routinely exploited by
politicians.
"The deep rooted politicisation of India's battle with terror can be
understood by how the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the major right
wing party, has used political and religious tensions in Jammu and
Kashmir during electoral battles over the past 20 years, the manner
in which the issue of illegal immigrants, (read Bangladeshis,
Muslims) has been whipped up by them to polarise sentiments and win
elections and now how the issue of recent terror attacks is likely to
be used in future" Setalavad told IPS.
After the blasts in the two cities, both the BJP and the ruling
Congress coalition traded insults and accusations. Lost in the din
was the fact that the series of 21 bomb blasts in Ahmedabad, on Jul.
26, left 56 people dead. The Bangalore blasts, a day earlier, left
two dead. Political reactions were true to Setalvad’s comment,
holding deep implications to claims by both parties over who provides
more safety and support for India’s minority Muslim populations.
Setalvad also accused the BJP of a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with
violent and fanatic outfits that ‘’generate terror’’, like the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, using them to generate communal
divisiveness in states of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh,
where the BJP is the locally ruling party.
In India’s sensitive, multi-religious society, the fear psychosis
around bomb blasts are said to have become easy pickings for vested
political interests, while effective legal action to apprehend and
punish those responsible is missing.
Existing counter-terrorism laws in India, stringent and sweeping in
their powers, have a history of being misused. "It is these draconian
laws that are causing terrorism in the country", charges respected
Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan.
India’s first counter-terrorism law, the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA), detained 59,509 people
without charges and managed to convict just 725 of those held. The
overwhelming majority of TADA detainees belonged to religious
minorities, mainly Muslims.
TADA was also controversially used to harass journalists and extorted
confessions amongst other misuses.
TADA subsequently collapsed in the face of several arbitrary cases,
amidst opposition by the BJP in 1995 which then went on to create yet
another harsh law in its place, the Prevention of Terrorism Act
(POTA) 2002. This too was flagrantly misused because of its
similarity to TADA’s sweeping police powers.
Controversial and high-profile cases under POTA have involved an
academic and two opposition party politicians, both subsequently
acquitted for lack of evidence.
The highest number of POTA cases were registered not in Kashmir or
the northeastern states where armed insurgencies were active, but in
the central Indian, tribal-dominated State of Jharkand, where POTA
arrests included, a 12-year old boy and an 84-year-old man. In
Gujarat, barring one individual, all POTA detainees were Muslim and
most arrests by the earlier law, TADA, were made in this state which
had no record of terrorism till the brutal Hindu-Muslim riots in 2002.
Advocate Bhushan says the large-scale misuse of both TADA and POTA,
especially in Gujarat have ‘turned normal people into terrorists’.
"If police officers kill innocent people in fake encounters and if
this and other misuse happens on a large scale, then the inevitable
consequence of that is to turn ordinary people into terrorists",
Bhushan told IPS.
Bhushan points to Iraq as an illustrative international example,
where stringent laws and total control by the military ‘without any
accountability’ have aggravated its citizens so much that it is now
the ‘worse-affected terrorism-country in the world’.
In Tamil Nadu, POTA was used as a political weapon for arresting
opposition politician, Vaiko (one name) for his praise of the Sri
Lankan ‘Tamil Tiger’ rebels, while in the northern State of Uttar
Pradesh it was used against dalits, the lowest group in India’s
social rung.
Though POTA too has now been annulled, India’s Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act (UAPA), amended in 2004 is now, yet again, being
misused by the authorities in their bid to apprehend the culprits of
the Bangalore and Ahmedabad blasts, charged by the government as
being members of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
Last fortnight, a Delhi High Court special tribunal outlawed the
government’s banning of SIMI, on grounds of insufficient clinching
evidence of the organisation’s current terrorist actitivites. India’s
Home Ministry has since obtained a Supreme Court time-bound stay on
the tribunal’s judgement to produce concrete evidence of SIMI’s
terrorist-activities by September 2008.
A former Indian anti-terrorism squad chief, K.P.S. Raghuvanshi, has
been reported saying that SIMI executes jobs for the Lashkar-e-Toiba,
a militant organisation based in Pakistan, but the government has not
been able to back that charge with solid evidence in several terror
cases in recent years.
"I don’t think any law will have the slightest effect on curbing
terrorism,’’ Maja Daruwala, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative in India, told IPS, " Not unless the entire network of
agencies involved in preventing, investigating and apprehending
terrorism is substantially improved. "
Given that the Indian police have practically no training in
forensics, are currently more adept at VIP (very important people)
security than scientific investigation and have just one central
forensic laboratory in India, the possibility of good investigation
seems remote.
"If the average policing is anything to go by, the police depend
mostly on tip-offs, they appear to have no other means at their
disposal,’’ says Daruwala.
Daruwala says the police need to be " de-politicised, held to a
professional standard and given internal management systems that are
run on competent technology and skills, not on patronage’’. "The
deeprooted politicisation of India’s intelligence agencies in all
blasts investigations has succeeded in investigations not leading to
the guilty", says Setalvad.
Unfortunately for India, says Daruwala, there is ‘arrant disregard’
of good suggestions by politicians and bureaucrats alike who use the
police force as a ‘tool for wielding power’.
Daruwala says as many as seven Supreme Court recommendations on
institutional reform in the police sector have either been diluted or
‘subverted’ by the relevant authorities.
All three experts, Daruwala, Setalvad and Bhushan say that India
needs to urgently address the root cause of terrorism.
Daruwala thinks the system has to get streamlined so that ordinary
people get quick, efficient justice. " We need change right down to
the core", commented Daruwala.
______
[5]
Economic and Political Weekly
August 16, 2008
TEXTBOOKS, RELIGION AND POLITICS
An opportunistic opposition sets alight passions in Kerala, merely to
embarrass the ruling Left coalition.
The class VII textbook controversy in Kerala has brought back
memories of the Vimochana Samaram (liberation struggle) agitation
that resulted in the dismissal in 1959 of the E M S Namboodiripad-led
government by the Nehru-led Congress government in the centre. At
that time it was a combi-nation of religious groups along with the
main opposition, the Congress, leading an agitation against an
education bill that sought greater control for the government over
the administra-tion of educational institutions. Today it is the text
of a chapter on religious tolerance and secularism in a social
sciences school textbook that has brought similar groups together in
opposition to the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government. The
textbook presents concepts in social science in a critical and
reflective manner and introduces students to social issues through
various analytical exercises - all this apart from learning from
history. One could ask if the contents, which are supposed to be part
of the first of a series on social science, are presented too early
in school learning. But having posed that question there is nothing
in the contents that justifies the irrational and inflammatory
passions that have been aroused by the political opposition in the
state.
The chapter (in Malayalam school books) talks about a schoolboy,
Jeevan ("life") whose parents belong to two separate religions. At
the time of Jeevan's admission to school, his parents have not
declared any religion for him and they suggest that he will be free
to decide his religious faith when he grows up. Following this lesson
is a series of quotes from history from a variety of sources:
Jawaharlal Nehru's will, and from religious texts about tolerance,
and exercises for the students. The reaction to this chapter by the
various forces such as the opposition Congress-led United Democratic
Front, some church organisations, Muslim groups and caste bodies has
been a vociferous demand to withdraw the book, and street protests,
in one case leading to the murder of a school headmaster in
Areekode. The government's constitution of a committee headed by
senior academic K N Panikkar to review the textbook ultimately led to
some changes in the controversial chapter (the lesson was re-named
'Freedom of Faith' instead of 'Jeevan with No Religion' as in the
original), amendments to correct errors in the quotations, and the
inclusion of sayings on tolerance by other social reformers such as
Sree Narayana Guru. These changes were more than token alterations
and they went even further than what the Congress Party and its
motley allies had initially demanded. They could even be seen as a
mild rebuke of the LDF government. Though the government has
accepted the recommendations of the committee, they have been
rejected by the opposition who have now chosen to raise questions
about the membership of the committee and have raised other
irrelevant issues. The opposi-tion has constituted its own
"committee" and has also produced an "alternate" textbook. What else
does this response say other than that the issue is not about a so-
called state interference in faith but an insistence on fanning
communal and religious pas-sions to embarrass the ruling coalition.
The presence of normative values such as tolerance and the freedom to
choose one's faith as expressed in the Jeevan chapter has been
interpreted by the opposition as an attempt by the LDF govern-ment to
instil "atheism" and "communism" in the students through textbooks.
Such an interpretation is plainly indefensible. Even if one
considers that Kerala's society is a mosaic of various religions and
people are now showing increasing religiosity, the opposition to the
textbook can be only seen as regressive, reveal-ing a communal fear
of religious tolerance. The agitations on Jeevan have brought to the
surface the tradi-tional discomfort among religious and communal
institutions in the state with the Left. Be it the issue of education
reforms involv-ing controls over self-financing institutions or
efforts by the gov-ernment to reform certain practices such as entry
of women into certain temples, all these have been opposed by
communal and religious groups. The dependence of the Congress Party
and its allies on communal-caste organisations for support is now
there for all to see. Yet, it is also a fact that after more than
half a cen-tury the Left in Kerala has not yet learnt how to relate
to the sub-terranean passions on religion and caste. The question
one can ask is how is it that a state like Kerala, which boasts of
high social development indicators, can still arouse so much anger
about the inculcation of values such as i nter-religious marriage and
freedom of expression of religion. Surely, this must be attributed
to the lack of sufficient political work to defeat the obscurantist
revivalism led by organised reli-gious and caste groups in the state.
Indeed, a major part of the problem is that the Left too has on
occasion played the religion and caste card, contributing only to a
worsening of the problem.
______
[7]
The Heinrich Boll Foundation, India Habitat Centre, Max Mueller
Bhavan and Zubaan are pleased to invite you to an evening of song,
poetry and performance--the closing event of the year-long series,
Partition: The Long Shadow
Thursday, 21 August 2008
7.00 pm
Stein Auditorium
India Habitat Centre
Vardhaman Marg
New Delhi 110003
(entry from gate no 3)
The programme will feature:
Partition Dastans by Anusha Rizvi, Danish Husain and Mahmood Farooqui
Building upon previous Dastangoi presentations on Partition, the
performers focus on the experiences of Indian Muslims to bring alive
untold stories: of
those who wished to return but could not, those who wanted to stay
but were forced out, those who belong not to maps or boundaries but
to South Asia as a whole.
Partition poetry Brief readings by poets and writers.
Songs of Connectivity Madan Gopal Singh and musicians.
All are welcome!
-----
(ii)
PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL ON THE
ATROCITIES COMMITTED AGAINST MINORITIES IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING
TERRORISM
August 22-24, 2008
Hyderabad
Dear friend,
The global fight against terrorism has veered more around witch
hunting rather than curbing terrorism. This has turned out to be a
battle where people feel more insecure than ever before. Their
liberty and freedom have often been taken away to meet the challenge
posed by terrorists. This is true about most of the world today and
India is no exception. The security-centric world has been empowering
State and robbing citizen of not only freedom but also rendering him
more insecure. He is now at the mercy of the State and his consent
for harsher laws is being taken for granted. This is at such a great
scale that any individual in most societies can be taken as suspect.
An inhospitable climate has been created where electronic door
frames, metal detectors, surveillance cameras, frisking, eves
dropping, snooping and spying are rampant. Yet so much empowered
State always demands more from citizens in its fight against
terrorism. One result of this is that many actions on the part of the
State go unquestioned. Citizenry has to be with the State to save
itself from terror though this remains undiminished to prove neo-
conservatives right and push ahead their main agenda -- globalisation.
This is the backdrop that has been thrust upon not only India but
also most of the impoverished third world. Yet the local leaderships
have come to kowtowing the twin-processes of fighting terror and
offering their resources, manpower, know-how, skills, freedom,
independence and sovereignty to be breached as per the demands and
terms of globalisation. And these are turning out to be so urgent as
to unleash one act of terror after the other. The pace of this is so
mesmerising as to hardly let people to figure out anything except to
believe the State version of incidents of terror and watch mutely law
going through motions that have now become stereotyped and foregone.
Only people from one community are arrested, only organisations of
one sort are blamed and motives too similar are rattled most of the
times. Facts like members of all communities dieing, including of the
one being blamed for the act, or the particular community targeting
its own place of worship simply go unquestioned.
One of the recent cases has been the case of Mecca Masjid blast in
Hyderabad where State's and police wont have always been to truss up
minority community youth, torture and humiliate them to the extent of
extracting 'confessions' howsoever far fetched they may sound to the
lawmen or laymen. It is not that this has not been so before and
after the Hyderabad incident or has been confined to this Muslim
dominated town alone. In towns after towns and states after states in
such incidents Muslims have faced the ire of the State as a matter of
rule rather than exception whether charges against them could stand
in court or fall through despite the climate generally vitiated to
their detriment through constant rattling of their misdeeds,
maligning their ways, castigating their faith whether consciously,
sub-consciously, or unconsciously.
Not long ago, Aftab Ali Ansari, an employee of West Bengal government
was picked up by CID branch of West Bengal Police from Kolkata,
handed over to U P police and framed as one of the main accused
behind the series of bomb blasts that rocked a number of court
premises in U P. Aftab was tortured for days before not only did the
court set him free but West Bengal chief minister had to accede to
his demand for compensation. Aftab's case is only one among hundreds
such unfortunate incidents, a trend where police indiscriminately
picks up innocent youth from minority community on mere basis of
suspicion or to brand them as terrorists. This is despite the fact
that in so many cases charges against people so arrested remain far
from being proved
Each time there is a bomb blast, the long arms of the
Indian State reach out to pick up scapegoats to cover up their
incompetence in providing security to its citizens. After each bomb
blast or surprise violent act, arrests are made, organisations named
but the police and investigative agencies have not been able to prove
their claims in most such cases. The people arrested continue to
languish in jails or suffer other kinds of victimisation. More often,
the real culprits remain at bay and the threat remains undiminished.
Umpteen such cases can be cited here, but we would prefer to hear the
accounts of those who underwent similar trauma so the truth behind
the fight against terror can be laid bare.
An Independent People's Tribunal will set off this process, where a
select jury of distinguished persons with unimpeachable integrity
will hear testimonies of people drawn from not only Hyderabad but
across the country who underwent arrest and interrogation by the
police at the behest of State and its prejudiced and misplaced
policies at one level and calculated to keep the process of
globalisation at another.
Anhad, Human Rights Law Network and Peace in collaboration with
collaboration with APCLC( Andhra Pradesh), Aman Samudaya (Gujarat),
AVHRS (Gujarat), BMMA, Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee (Andhra
Pradesh), PRS( Bhopal),PUCL (Karnataka), PUCL (Rajasthan), Human
Rights Forum ( Andhra Pradesh) , PUHR (UP), Quami Mahaz (Gujarat),
Sandarbh (MP), Siasat (Andhra Pradesh) & Asmita (Andhra Pradesh) are
organising a people's tribunal to document the atrocities committed
on innocent people especially from the minority community in the name
of fighting terrorism by the state.
Victims or their close relatives from over 10 states will depose
before the tribunal. Human Right activists and lawyers fighting the
cases for the innocent victims will also depose before the tribunal.
The report of the tribunal will be published within two months after
the Tribunal is over.
The names which have already been confirmed for the jury include:
Asghar Ali Engineer, Justice SN Bhargava, Justice Sardar Ali, KG
Kannabiran, Kingshug Nag, Lalit Surjan, Prashant Bhushan, Professor
Hargopal, Ram Puniyani, Rooprekha Verma and VN Rai.
Senior experts who have worked on the issue will speak each morning.
They include: Jyotirmaya Sharma, Zafar Agha, Kavita Srivastava, Ajit
Sahi and Suresh Khairnar.
The Tribunal Proceedings will begin on August 22, 2008 at 3pm . On
August 23 & 24 the Tribunal will work from 9 am to 7pm. The venue for
the Tribunal is Siasat Auditorium, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Abids,
Hyderabad
On August 24th at 8pm we are organising an evening of Sufi Music. We
have invited Dhruv Sangari to perform from Delhi. Dhruv Sangari is a
talented vocal singer and has been working professionally since 1999.
His repertoire includes Persian and Arabic, Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu
poetry. For years during his college vacations Dhruv travelled to
Lahore to learn singing from the famous Sufi singer Nusrat Fateh Ali
Khan.
We are writing to invite you to attend the tribunal and extend your
support to the victims.
Sincerely
Harsh Dobhal (HRLN)
Colin Gonsalves (HRLN)
Anil Choudhary( Peace)
Mansi Sharma (Anhad)
Shabnam Hashmi (Anhad)
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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