SACW | Nov 20-21, 2008 / Sri Lanka: war displaced / Bangladesh: interview prof. sobhan / India versus Hindu right

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | November 20-21, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2583 -  
Year 11 running
From: www.sacw.net

[1] Sri Lanka : government must act now to protect 300,000 displaced  
(Amnesty International)
     + The appalling silence of the good people (Shanie)
[2] Bangladesh:
   (i) Talking Polls and Beyond: An interview with  Prof Rehman  
Sobhan (Daily Star)
   (ii) No rationale to prolong emergency (Editorial, New Age)
[3] Pakistan: HRCP alarmed at threats to Peshawar NGOs
[4] India: Wake up and act now before there is a full scale takeover  
by the Hindu right
   (i) India’s democracy locked in a life and death battle to survive  
(Jawed Naqvi)
   (ii) Ugly defence of the indefensible (Editorial, The Hindu)
   (iii) Combating Hindutva terror (Editorial, Kashmir Times)
   (iv) Religious Right and its political future (Harish Khare)
[5] India: No room for Taslima (Edit, expressbuzz)
[6] USA - India Diaspora: An Open Letter To Ms. Sonal Shah (Coalition  
Against Genocide)
[7] Announcements:
- Forum: Religion and Politics in Pakistan (Vancouver, 30 November,  
2008)

-----

[1]   Sri Lanka

Amnesty International

SRI LANKAN GOVERNMENT MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT 300,000 DISPLACED

  19 November 2008

The humanitarian crisis in the Wanni region of northern Sri Lanka is  
worsening as the government fails to provide shelter and protect over  
300,000 displaced civilians.

Tens of thousands of families are now enduring the monsoon season  
with limited food, shelter, water or sanitation. They fled their  
homes to escape the fighting between the Sri Lankan military and the  
opposing Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

These civilians are trapped in the LTTE-controlled Wanni region. The  
Tigers continue to forcibly recruit one person per family with recent  
steep recruitment of younger people. The LTTE have hindered people  
from moving to safer places by imposing a strict pass system.

In some instances they have forced family members to stay behind to  
ensure the return of the rest of the family. The LTTE also controls  
the movement of displaced people within the Wanni. These measures  
seem designed in part to use civilians as a buffer against government  
forces.
[. . .]
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/sri-lankan-government- 
must-act-now-protect-300000-displaced-20081119


o o o


The Island, 15 November 2008

THE APPALLING SILENCE OF THE GOOD PEOPLE

by Shanie

"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful  
words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of  
the good people."

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who  
helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting  
against it is really cooperating with it."

Martin Luther King, the author of the words quoted above, was as a  
thirty five year old in 1964, the youngest person in history to  
receive the Nobel Peace Prize. A year earlier, he had made his famous  
‘I Have a Dream’ speech in Washington DC which has now been shown as  
truly prophetic. Four years later, he was assassinated. A man was  
convicted for this but it was widely believed that it was part of a  
conspiracy in which the FBI was also involved. Throughout his  
involvement with the civil rights movement, King had been receiving  
death threats, some of it allegedly emanating from the FBI itself. He  
had been a strident opponent of the Vietnam War and criticized the US  
Congress for the continuing to spend billions in the conduct of the  
war. "A nation", he declared, "that continues year after year to  
spend more money on military defence than on programmes of social  
uplift is approaching spiritual death". For this King was riled not  
only by the establishment but even by the mainstream media. The Life  
magazine called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a  
script for Radio Hanoi" and even the liberal Washington Post wrote  
that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country,  
his people." Later events however proved right the wisdom of King.

Two years ago at A Veterans for Peace Convention in the US, a US  
soldier facing court martial for being a conscientious objector to  
being posted to the US army in Iraq made a statement which is worth  
quoting extensively in the light of both the re-interest in Martin  
Luther King’s civil rights movement as well as our own war situation.  
Lt Ehren Watada from Hawaii stated, "I have broken no law but the  
code of silence and unquestioning loyalty. If I am guilty of any  
crime, it is that I learned too much and cared too deeply for the  
meaningless loss of my fellow soldiers and my fellow human beings. If  
I am to be punished it should be for following the rule of law over  
the immoral orders of one man. If I am to be punished it should be  
for not acting sooner. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ‘History  
will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period … was  
not the strident clamour of the bad people, but the appalling silence  
of the good people.’

"Now, I'm not a hero. I am a leader of men who said enough is enough.  
Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy  
with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise  
now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option  
instead of the last to act with impunity. Many have said this about  
the World Trade Towers, "Never Again." I agree. Never again will we  
allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free - be they  
terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now - the  
time to stand up and be counted is today.

"I'll end with one more Martin Luther King Jr quote: ‘One who breaks  
an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly  
accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience  
of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the  
highest respect for law."

The life and words of Martin Luther King, re-echoed by the young US  
officer, have a relevance for us today in Sri Lanka. Terrorism, in  
all its form, has to be rooted out. Abductions, extra-judicial  
killings, extortions and intimidation of those holding different  
views is terrorism, whether they are committed by a terrorist in the  
jungles of Vanni or by a terrorist who now sits on a political chair.  
We must protest against double standards and break the ‘appalling  
silence’.

Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala people?

Cabinet Minister Champaka Ranawaka and Army Commander Sarath Fonseka  
believe that our country belongs to the Sinhala people. Though each  
has stated it in different words, they both appear to claim that all  
other ethnic groups do not have the same rights in Sri Lanka as the  
Sinhala people. Their statements have led to protests from the Tamil  
and Muslim communities and in at least one incident last Friday,  
there has been some violence. But the focus of criticism seems to be  
on the protestors, for their violence, rather than on the  
majoritarian supremacism displayed in the provocative statements of  
those in authority.

Neither President Rajapaksa nor any other Government political leader  
has disassociated themselves from this claim. Even the media, both  
state and non-state, have little to state on it. On the contrary,  
there have been many comments in the opinion pages of the newspapers  
in support. We cannot say that they represent the majority, or even a  
substantial section of the Sinhala people. But the tragedy is that  
our political leadership and the opinion makers have not countered  
this statement by assuring the minorities that Sri Lanka belongs  
equally to all her citizens, that all have equal rights and equal  
protection from the state. We will have to repent in this generation  
not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but  
for the appalling silence of the good people. And not only that, all  
those who passively accept evil are as much involved in it as those  
who help to perpetrate it. Those who accept evil without protesting  
against it are really condoning or cooperating with it.

Is it any wonder then that the minorities are only lukewarm in their  
support for the current "war"? The University Teachers for Human  
Rights (Jaffna) have been strident in their exposure of LTTE’s  
terrorism. But even they, in their latest report, have been  
constrained to question the present strategy. We quote, "Fighting the  
LTTE has become almost secondary to the prerequisite of the  
extremists close to the corridors of power to establish a Sinhalese- 
Buddhist state and erase all semblance of pluralism. It is this  
obscurantism that in the first place kindled the present ethnic  
conflict. An important category that became targets of the State’s  
killer groups are those who are not LTTE sympathizers, but were  
active in defending and speaking up for legitimate Tamil interests.  
The result is the further isolation of the State from the Tamils.

"A responsible government must think and do the political work it is  
there to do, in winning over the Tamils and to persuade the world  
that it has a viable plan to minimize the damage and loss of life,  
before sending in the armed forces. To conduct a war with the present  
chauvinistic outlook is utterly irresponsible by the Sinhalese youth  
being sacrificed, even if the State has no empathy for the Tamil  
victims. But what is to be gained by giving the Tamils the message  
that they would lose everything and have no place in this country if  
the LTTE is defeated?

"On the other side the people are in this terrible plight because the  
LTTE for its totalitarian ends repeatedly spurned opportunities to  
reach a political settlement. The people’s relationship with the LTTE  
is complex. The general mood among the people of the Vanni was  
strongly anti-LTTE four months ago, and resistance continues.  
Resistance however to the LTTE is either passive or tragically  
fatalistic. With increased aerial bombing and shelling and stories of  
increasingly repressive treatment of minorities coming from other  
parts of the country, the mood is changing. Despite this the LTTE, by  
October 2008, had once again become very aggressive in conscription.

"There was fear under the LTTE, but now there is terror, violence and  
extreme uncertainty under the much travestied label of democracy. The  
natures of internal terror and external terror and their dynamism  
have been regularly discussed in our reports. The first destroys the  
soul of the community and the latter creates continuous uncertainty  
and fear; both take away hope and dignity from the people. That is  
why for us the choice is not between an LTTE victory and a Government  
victory. Both are obnoxious in their aims and inimical for the  
people. Any evil ultimately burns itself out. We could only hope and  
pray that the suffering of the people would be brief, followed by a  
dawn of fresh hope."

That dawn will come only when, as we have repeatedly stated in this  
column, when the two major national parties, the SLFP and the UNP,  
set aside political games and get together in the national interests,  
in consultation with the Muslim and Tamil elected political  
leadership, and present a joint political package that will ensure  
peace and justice to all the people of our country. Both Mahinda  
Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe must know that the APRC has just  
been a wasted time-stalling exercise. They have the 2000 consensus  
proposals to work around and they must quickly come with a proposal  
that will end the meaningless loss of lives and the tragic  
displacement of people and restore dignity and justice for all our  
people.

_____


[2]  Bangladesh

(i)

The Daily Star, November 20, 2008

  TALKING POLLS AND BEYOND

'The government has to tell the nation why it needs emergency'

Prof Rehman Sobhan

Born in Kolkata in 1935, Prof Rehman Sobhan obtained MA in Economics  
from Cambridge University in 1956. He started his career as a faculty  
at Department of Economics at Dhaka University in 1957 and retired in  
1977. He served as a Member of Bangladesh Planning Commission  
1972-1974 and at BIDS as Chairman, Research Director, Director  
General and Emeritus Fellow 1974-1993. He was a visiting Fellow at  
Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford 1976-1979. A former Adviser to the  
President in 1991, Professor Sobhan was the Founder and Executive  
Chairman of Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) 1994-1999, Executive  
Director of South Asia Centre for Policy Studies 2001-2005 and is now  
Chairman of the CPD. He was one of the founders and Editor of weekly  
Forum 1969-1971 and is now the chair of the editorial board. He was  
active in the liberation struggle and was appointed as Envoy  
Extraordinary in 1971 by the Bangladesh government with special  
responsibility for economic affairs. Shamim Ashraf took the interview.

How do you see the uncertainty over all parties' participation in the  
December 18 polls?
Unfortunately in Bangladesh to participate or not usually depends on  
how you feel you are going to fare in the election. If you are  
confident that you are going to win or do well, you're keen to  
participate. The AL seems to think it is going to do well, so it is  
anxious to see the election is held on schedule. Their principal  
rivals, for reasons which seem unclear, appear less confident about  
their prospects otherwise they would also be pressing for early  
elections.

The BNP leaders are pressing for seven-point demand, now reduced to  
four points, as condition for participating in the elections…
3 of the 4 demands of BNP are common with the AL. BNP are arguing  
that they don't face a level playing field. But whether their demands  
are accepted or not by CTG surely affects all parties equally. The  
crucial difference has therefore come down to the timing of the  
election. It is not clear how 30 days will help to level the playing  
field any further. Nor will voters be particularly impressed by the  
argument that their desire for an early election needs to be  
frustrated on account of the franchise of 50,000 voters.

How do you see BNP's demand for scrapping amendments to the RPO?
The particular provision that BNP would like to be withdrawn seems  
also to be endorsed by other political parties and may thus be  
acceptable to the EC.

Does keeping off from election due to a lower prospect of victory go  
with the philosophy of democracy?
The main issue is that today you have a situation in which the CG is  
wanting to hold elections and to hand over power to an elected  
government. The notion of a major party pressurising a non-elected  
government to defer their withdrawal by delaying the holding of the  
elections is very unusual. Over the last 2 years the main demand of  
the political parties had been that the CG should quit as early as  
possible through holding elections and return us to being ruled by  
our elected representatives. Such a posture by a political party  
tends to confuse not just the electorate but their party workers.

Do you support deferring the election as demanded by some BNP leaders?
I don't think it would bring any great advantage even to the BNP if  
the election were postponed. If the BNP face any practical problem,  
in contesting elections on 18 December, they should consult with  
other parties as well as the CTG and find what can be done about  
putting their concerns to rest. If they offer some realistic  
alternative dates, backed by a categorical public assurance that they  
will contest elections on this date, which the other parties find  
acceptable, the CTG may go with the consensus. But it would be a bad  
precedent to delay elections and a disappointment to the electorate  
who mostly want an early election.

Could the government do anything earlier to ensure participation of  
all the parties?
The CTG should have negotiated the road map and reforms with the  
parties much earlier. The delay and consequent pressure of time, in  
relation to their road map, appears to have compelled the CTG to make  
quite a few concession to both the parties, and particularly to one  
of them. Political negotiations are all about give and take. One  
party cannot lay down demands on a take it or leave it basis. This is  
the privilege only of the unchallenged victor and even victors need  
to be magnanimous. It would have been sensible for the EC to have  
secured some firm commitment from all parties over their  
participation in the elections.

Couldn't the reform and registration process be easier had the  
government sat with parties at the beginning of 2007?
Definitely. The CG began the negotiation process very late and didn't  
take this to any definitive conclusion. There should have been a  
general agreement on all the issues which needed to be settled before  
the start of preparations for the elections. Negotiation on many of  
these issues started only a few months ago. Yet many of these issues  
have been under discussion for many years and could have been carried  
forward at the initial stage of the life of the CTG including on such  
issues as how to deal with corruption.

Evaluate the advancement since 1/11 political changeover.
In many areas, the CTG's intentions were good and they were putting  
issues on the table which were being discussed not just by the so- 
called civil society but also the political parties. Everyone should  
remember that the 31-point demand of the 14-Party Alliance covered  
many of the issues incorporated in the CTG reform agenda. The CTG  
would, therefore, have expected considerable support for reforms from  
everyone including most political parties. This shared perspective on  
reforms could have been used as the basis for initiating a dialogue  
on reforms with the political parties. After all none of these  
reforms can be sustained unless they are ratified by the political  
parties in parliament and they commit themselves to their  
implementation.

Can the CG have agreement on reforms at this point?
The government will find it difficult to involve the political  
parties in a dialogue on reforms and come to an agreement at this  
late stage when they remain absorbed in their election campaign.

Identify major achievements since 1/11.
The electoral list will be an enduring achievement as will be the  
move to give autonomy to the EC, ACC and Public Service Commission,  
as also the Right to Information Ordinance and the separation of the  
Judiciary and Executive. However, even these positive achievements  
will have to be sustained by the elected government.

How much qualitative change will come from 1/11 changeover and  
following exercises?
Change may come if the parties basically recognise that there are  
serious problems with their democratic practices and approach to  
governance. It will be politically advantageous to the parties to  
bring about such changes like democratising the party organisation,  
bringing in good candidates, committing themselves to eliminate  
corruption and ensuring financial transparency, though it may be  
disadvantageous for some individuals in the parties. But whether they  
would really do so is another question. Part of the problem lies in  
the culture of opposing something if your political opponent supports  
it. Much will depend on the quality of the election. If some parties  
have already taken a position that the election will not be fair,  
they're already telling us in advance that the government which comes  
to power will not be acceptable to them. They will then find problems  
with everything done by the elected government.

Does that mean we'll be seeing that the politics of boycott and  
violence will resume?
Whoever wins the election will need to go out of their way to give  
the opposition full freedom to express themselves in parliament and  
to consult them on all major policy decisions. In such circumstances  
the opposition must also agree to work through parliament rather than  
to resort to the streets to express themselves. This will merely give  
the ruling party a free hand to govern without accountability, which  
has been the bane of our system of governance.

Do you see any such soul searching by the leaders?
Some soul searching is going on. But we will have to see how strongly  
they feel about it. Most people would like to see our leaders  
conceding that they did something wrong and publicly recognising that  
the parties should expose themselves to change. Leaders themselves  
should be the leaders for reforms. But they have to recognise first  
that there is a need for reforms.

We've seen a division between reformists and non-reformists
That was an artificial division. There was an attempt to create such  
a divide within the parties; the leaders were the people who should  
have been initially invited to lead the reforms. Confusing the issue  
of leadership and the issue of reform created part of the problem.

Who do you think were instrumental in creating the divide?
Dividing the leaders and some people who were supposed to be  
reformers, to a great extent discredited the reformers and created  
difficulties for them. Had the reformers basically been persuaded to  
sit with their leaders and say we should bring about reforms within  
the party, then the leaders themselves may have been willing to  
discuss it with them. But if it is assumed that the leaders are not  
going to carry out the reforms and new leaders will have to be  
brought in, then problems arise. If the rank and file of the party  
continue to support the leaders, the people who will become  
marginalised within the party, are likely to be the so called  
reformers. That in practice, appears to be what actually happened.

Parties earlier complained that the environment was not proper for  
reform as emergency was there…
If we wanted a genuinely democratic reform process, we would have to  
create conditions where you can hold consultations within the party  
and listen to the rank and file's demand for reforms. People say that  
the same faces came up in the mayoral and local body elections. That  
was, to some extent, inevitable. How could new candidates emerge  
within the parties without scope for active politics to mobilise  
alternative leaders at the local level. In its absence the political  
process is frozen. Whoever was prominent at the local level, before  
the political process was put on hold, emerged as the most visible  
candidate who could command support both from party workers and the  
voters.

What would be the best way to deal with emergency?
If we want a functional election campaign, we will have to minimise  
the restraints on campaigning through lifting the emergency. The  
government has to tell the nation clearly why it needs emergency.  
Obviously there is one problem relating to the issue of who can and  
who can't contest the election. But this will be settled the moment  
the nominations are filed. From what is reported in the press it  
appears that the government is now agreeable to lift all those parts  
of the emergency powers which relate to election campaigning so  
hopefully this may no longer remain a moot issue.

The issue of two leaders' meeting has surfaced again. Can't they play  
a role to breakaway from confrontational politics?
Public should certainly make this appeal. The two leaders should  
obviously meet in general, even for social reasons. I don't know of  
any second country where top leaders of major parties don't meet and  
dialogue. Other leaders in these parties also need to meet on a  
regular basis as a general practice of democratic politics. But we  
should not expect any immediate result from such a meeting in  
resolving any longstanding problems which haven't been resolved for  
so many years. Right now the minds of the parties are preoccupied  
with more immediate issues such as contesting the elections and  
nominating candidates. Hopefully, after the elections a tradition of  
dialogue between the leaders can be put in place but this will, no  
doubt, depend on how far the opposition leaders are willing to accept  
the results of the election.

How can the questionable people be kept off from election?
People who know best who is clean are the parties themselves. They  
should exercise their judgement and people will appreciate their good  
judgement. Looking at the nominations of the Awami League they appear  
to have decided to keep some controversial candidates from contesting  
the elections. They have also given opportunities for grassroots  
workers to register their preferences for their parliamentary  
candidate. Someone should do some research on the number of  
constituencies where the AL leadership honoured the preference of  
their grassroots members. It is to be seen who the 4 Party Alliance  
nominates and whether similar opportunities for grassroots voters to  
declare their preference for candidates is recognised. Ideally, most  
people would like to see that dubious candidates are kept out of the  
polls. But this can either be done by due process of law or by the  
parties themselves. In the final analysis the voters can reject such  
candidates at the polls.

How do you see procession of bail after a long time when no bail was  
granted?
The legal system has become very controversial. Some judicial  
appointments in the past appear to have been guided by political  
considerations. The legal fraternity are themselves questioning the  
qualifications of some of these appointees. This matter needed to be  
resolved by the CTG but was not and will now be bequeathed to the  
elected government. The problem of the judiciary have been further  
aggravated though conflating politics and the legal process. Public  
have become very concerned as to which judgements are based  
exclusively on legal issues and which originate from political  
expediency. This will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the  
judiciary in the days ahead.

Evaluate the anti-corruption drive?
It began well but there were serious problems that needed address. A  
major issue was the need to examine, at the very outset, the existing  
laws and judicial process as to their efficacy in dealing effectively  
with corruption cases. Even in normal times, it is very difficult to  
get convictions in corruption cases. There are many loopholes through  
which the corrupt can escape. Besides, there are severe weaknesses in  
the ACC's system of collecting evidence. Dealing with pervasive  
corruption, as pertained in Bangladesh, is a long-term process. A  
government which is likely to be in business for two years cannot be  
expected to deal with a disease which has infected our body politic  
for years. They can begin the process, but should recognise that  
someone else is going to see it to a conclusion. The CTG also needed  
to consider who would carry the anti-corruption process forward. If  
we have to depend on the existing status quo of law, cases may remain  
unresolved for years. So far very few anti-corruption cases have been  
discussed in the courts on issues of substance. Everything has been  
argued on issues of legal procedure. People want to know whether the  
accused actually committed the act, what is the evidence, and want  
the case to be openly argued. We've rarely seen such arguments in  
court. The government should have been clear as to whether they were  
exclusively committed to deal with corruption in its own right or  
whether anti-corruption cases were to be used as a political  
instrument against some leaders. Most people were supportive of the  
government when it began the anti-corruption drive. They should have  
stuck to it and avoid politicising the process. They should have also  
recognised their limitations and been more selective in their filing  
of cases.

You wrote two pieces earlier on the government's exit policy. How do  
you see it now?
 From their behaviour it seems the CTG feel that they have been in  
office long enough and now seek a painless exit. It would have been  
better if they had worked out how the system would be functioning  
once elections take place and they could depart with some  
understanding of what part of their reforms would be carried on and  
what would be protected by the incoming elected government. We need  
to know more as to how far the CTG has managed to discuss these  
issues with the parties, or to secure any firm commitments to sustain  
the reform process.

The government asked parties to sign a national charter but parties  
strongly opposed…
I didn't see any attempt to formulate and place such a charter before  
the country or the parties. If we had such a document the public and  
the parties could decide whether they would discuss and even endorse  
it. Today the CTG remains completely dependent on the goodwill of  
whichever parties come to power. It would have been good for the  
future of democracy if the integrity and independence of such  
institutions as the ACC and EC could have been guaranteed by all the  
parties before they went into the elections. Then the electorate  
would at least have a clearer idea of what to expect from the post- 
election process.

What lesson does 1/11 leave for the people?
There may be political differences but these have to be resolved  
through a process of negotiation rather than through confrontation.  
If the underlying premise of the constitution, to ensure a genuine  
free and fair election under a truly non-partisan government, had not  
been frustrated, the events of 1/11 could have been avoided. In the  
final analysis Bangladesh's history suggests that it is best to be  
ruled by elected governments. But then the political parties have to  
also honour their mandate from the voters. They need to keep in mind  
that they are elected to serve a public purpose and not abuse the  
political process as a license for private gain. At the same time we,  
the electorate, also have to make sure that those we elect serve us  
well. If the electorate fail in exercising due vigilance over the  
democratic process we end up getting the governance we deserve.
	
  o o o

(ii)

New Age
17 November 2008

Editorial
NO RATIONALE TO PROLONG EMERGENCY

The commerce adviser, who is also the official spokesperson for the  
council of advisers, has asserted that the military-controlled  
interim government has completed all preparations to hold  
parliamentary polls on December 18. ‘The entire nation is now ready  
for the democratic transition through the December 18 elections to be  
participated by all the parties,’ Hossain Zillur Rahman said at a  
press briefing after meeting with the chief adviser. While we have no  
doubt that the nation is ready and eager for a democratic transition  
and has been for many months, we are not so sure about the state of  
preparation of the present regime and the Election Commission – let  
alone the major political parties. By preparation, we refer not only  
to administrative and logistical tasks, some of which are still  
ongoing, but also to the levelling of the electoral playing field and  
the creation of an environment that is conducive to free and fair  
polls. So, while we want elections to be held at the earliest, we  
would like all disputed issues between the political parties and the  
present regime to be resolved and for the commission to have actually  
completed all preparations, including the publishing of constituency- 
wise voters’ rolls that are still only half-done.

    Also, we continue to stress on the need for the immediate  
withdrawal of the state of emergency so that the upcoming elections  
can be held in a free and unrestrictive atmosphere. While we have  
repeatedly stated that truly participatory and credible elections  
cannot be held under a state of emergency, and have commended the  
major political parties for making withdrawal of emergency prior to  
elections one of their principal demands, it is worth mentioning that  
the chief election commissioner himself made the same point on  
February 24. He had said, ‘I do not understand how the election can  
be held under a state of emergency, because the necessary scope for  
electioneering should be facilitated. Emergency means, from what I  
understand from my experience as a magistrate, that ten people cannot  
hold an assembly. Emergency is more serious than the imposition of  
Section 144. So emergency should be lifted. If it is not lifted, then  
how do you campaign? How do you address the voters, through the  
television? That is why we ask for the creation of an environment  
that will enable the people to move about freely and go for  
electioneering.’ We agree completely.

    On Saturday, Hossain Zillur said, however, that the regime will  
consider the full lifting of the state of emergency if ‘the election  
environment develops smoothly’. First of all, the adviser must  
understand that the conditions that justify a state of emergency are  
enshrined in our constitution and that a not-so-smooth election  
environment is not a justification for emergency. Therefore, he must  
refrain from adding to the constitutional provisions nebulous  
conditions of his own. Also, the adviser should know by now that a  
qualitative change in the nature of politics can only be brought  
about through vibrant political activity by the democratically- 
oriented people, not by restricting the political process.

    Hence, if the government wants to see a qualitative change in the  
nature of politics, the only route forward is through restoration of  
normal political process, holding of truly participatory and credible  
parliamentary elections and a peaceful transfer of power to a  
government elected by the people. In order to do so, the regime must  
withdraw in full the state of emergency and resolve all remaining  
disputes with the major political parties to bring them to the polls.


____


[3]  Pakistan

HRCP ALARMED AT THREATS TO PESHAWAR NGOS
November 18, 2008 by HRCP

Press Release, November 17, 2008


Lahore, November 17: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)  
has expressed anxiety at the growing reach of extremist elements in  
the NWFP, especially at recent threats by the so-called Tehreek-e- 
Taliban to an NGO working on development issues and women’s rights,  
in Peshawar.

A statement issued by the Commission on Monday said: “On top of the  
recent spate of targeted killings and abductions in Peshawar and  
generally in the NWFP by extremist elements, this escalation in  
threats to NGOs is not only aimed at the civil society but at  
whatever remains of the state’s writ in that part of the country.

In the latest threat sent to an NGO’s Peshawar office by email, the  
extremists’ claim of having photographic and video evidence of  
immoral activity by female staff – being seen with male colleagues  
and working in the field without wearing a veil – and asking them to  
‘mend their ways’ should not surprise anyone.

The escalation in pressure and blackmail against NGOs working for  
public welfare has not come overnight, but is a direct result of the  
authorities cowing down to extremists, negotiating with criminals and  
ignoring clear signs of dilution of state authority.

The government must take meaningful measures without wasting any more  
time to ensure safety, security and freedoms of individuals, as much  
for the citizens’ sake as to reassert its authority in a region where  
extremists are filling the void left by the State.”

Iqbal Haider

Co-chairperson


______


[4]

(i)

Dawn, November 17, 2008

INDIA’S DEMOCRACY LOCKED IN A LIFE AND DEATH BATTLE TO SURVIVE

by Jawed Naqvi

IT IS not difficult to accept that Pakistani establishment,  
particularly its right wing politicians and entrenched India-haters  
within the army and bureaucracy, share a vested interest in the rise  
of Hindu religious zealots to the helm of power in New Delhi.

It serves their purpose in several ways. The growth of groups like  
Bharatiya Janata Party, the RSS and the Shiv Sena rationalises and  
justifies the partition to Pakistanis. So that’s an important  
psychological victory straightaway. India is innately Hindu in the  
communal sense and therefore the Muslim League was right in demanding  
a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, the argument gets repeated ad  
nauseum.

The other reason for Pakistani right to exult at the rise of the  
Hindutva forces is perverse. What better way to destroy the very idea  
of India as a viable secular democracy than by encouraging fascist  
mindsets to surge and prosper in that country, ad lib the votaries of  
this approach. This is not a far-fetched plot. Right-wingers in the  
Pakistani establishment have succeeded to a large extent in creating  
a Hindu replica of what they have licked into shape in Pakistan in  
six decades.

This growing resemblance had prompted progressive Pakistani poet  
Fehmida Riaz to lament in her poem when she visited India under BJP’s  
care: “Tum bilkul hum jaise nikley, ab tak kahaan chhupe thay  
bhai?” (So you have turned out to be just like us, brother. It’s  
taken you a while to get there though.) A third and equally widely  
shared argument given by the Pakistani establishment to applaud the  
BJP’s hold in India posits that only a hard-line nationalist party in  
Delhi could solve the “core issue” with Pakistan.

It is of course left nicely unstated that the equation would also  
need Pakistan to be led by macho nationalists, and who better than  
the army to assume the role? Unfortunately, even left-oriented  
intellectuals on both sides of the border seem to subscribe to the  
view. Therefore, every time there was a lethal blast with heavy  
fatalities in India, and the government blamed the ISI, whether the  
spy agency was involved or inspired the perpetrators, the BJP gained  
in strength.

And given its affections for the BJP, the right wing establishment in  
Pakistan also must have felt good. For homegrown Indian Muslim  
groups, however, who stand accused of fomenting terrorist violence in  
India, it would seem preposterous to help fortify the BJP. Every time  
they carried out, if they did, a bomb attack at a temple or a busy  
bazaar they would have known that it could only recoil on them. It  
just didn’t make sense for an Indian Muslim group to vent its spleen  
against Hindutva leaders in emails to the media and then go on to  
attack innocent civilians in acts that could only be exploited by  
their enemies to win sympathy, and to target Muslim youths. It is  
this puzzle that may be about to be solved, wittingly or otherwise,  
by Indian sleuths. They appear to have unearthed a widely connected  
group of motivated Hindus in terror plots that were otherwise blamed  
on Indian Muslim groups.

This is a qualitatively new beginning in someone’s quest to  
revitalise faltering secular ideals of India. So who is this brave  
somebody who has picked up such amazing courage to call a spade a  
spade? It must require courage after all to link a serving lieutenant  
colonel in the Indian army to the bombing of the Samjhauta Express  
last year. Until last week the bombing of the Pakistan-bound  
passengers last year was being blamed on Pakistan, the ISI and  
terrorist groups based in Pakistan. The entire Indian establishment  
and much of the media were behind the thesis as is their wont. The  
sole political beneficiary of course was the BJP, its right wing  
sponsors and supporters. Now we are being told that a certain Lt-Col  
Shrikant Purohit had stolen 60kg of RDX explosives from the army’s  
warehouse in Jammu and Kashmir, transferring some of it to the  
perpetrators of the train blasts, which killed scores of Indian and  
Pakistani passengers.

Lt-Col Purohit is said to be a key player in a fanatical group called  
Abhinav Bharat, or New India. It has emerged as the unlikely hub of a  
terror network across the country. The discovery has embarrassed the  
army and it has backed a thorough probe. The outcome of the Purohit  
probe could determine the fate of democracy in India. The stakes are  
huge. The world is watching. So who is the gritty person who may have  
triggered what could be a decisive battle between fascism and  
democracy in India? Is it Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? It’s  
possible. He is in all likelihood prepared to call it a day after  
this tenure since the chances of the Congress winning the next  
elections because of his policies are remote. He has nothing to lose  
by taking a chance. Or is it Congress leader Sonia Gandhi? With the  
probe, she may have found the one big ticket that could clear the  
path for her party’s return to power. My own guess is that the  
ongoing investigations would not be possible without the involvement  
of National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, although the secular  
lobbies in the country seriously mistrust him. There was perhaps a  
hint of something like this about to happen, strangely enough, when  
the national security advisers of India and Pakistan found themselves  
in a potentially groundbreaking embrace last month. That was when the  
two agreed that the problems they now faced were “more internal than  
external”.

Was the impulse for the meeting a homegrown master move by Narayanan  
to help his bosses regain their secular halo or did it come from  
Washington as often happens between the two countries? The overriding  
American interest as we know is primarily to get its problems in  
Pakistan and Afghanistan sorted out. And to that effect, as President- 
elect Barack Obama has suggested, bilateral issues between Pakistan  
and India could not be left ignored. Which means: Pakistan should be  
asked to stop fomenting terrorism in India and India should deliver  
the doable in Kashmir and, now, in Afghanistan too where its  
influence worries Islamabad.

The problem is that Pakistan could only stop what it had started, but  
it could hardly be in a position to do much about something like  
Samjhauta Express bombing for obvious reasons. The problem appears to  
have been discussed between the two national security advisers. “I  
told the prime minister after today’s talks that I agree with you sir  
that we share a common destiny with Pakistan,” Narayanan told Mahmud  
Ali Durrani in a dinner speech that went largely unreported.

If this is so, a keen American interest under Obama in the threats  
posed by Hindutva militants, who derive their financial strength from  
America, cannot be ruled out. This despite claims by a few that  
somebody tainted with Hindutva is already in the Obama transition  
team. It was President Clinton after all who refused to agree with  
India’s official claims, when he visited Delhi in March 2000 that a  
group of Sikh civilians were massacred just then in Kashmir by  
Pakistani militants.

Clinton’s thoughts on the Chittisinghpura massacre are contained in  
former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s book titled: The  
Mighty and the Almighty Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs.

He wrote: “During my visit to India in 2000, some Hindu militants  
decided to vent their outrage by murdering thirty-eight Sikhs in cold  
blood. If I hadn’t made the trip, the victims would probably still be  
alive. If I hadn’t made the trip because I feared what religious  
extremists might do, I couldn’t have done my job as president of the  
United States. The nature of America is such that many people define  
themselves—or a part of themselves—in relation to it, for or against.  
This is part of the reality in which our leaders must operate.” Words  
of wisdom the new president would do well to heed.

o o o

(ii)

The Hindu, November 20, 2008

Editorial

UGLY DEFENCE OF THE INDEFENSIBLE

When someone takes to offence as a form of defence of the  
unjustifiable, the outcome turns nasty. The Bharatiya Janata Party,  
which was on the political offensive over the last decade on an anti- 
Islamist terrorism plank, is clearly shaken by the revelations of the  
role of extremist Hindutva elements in the Malegaon bomb explosions  
and some other terrorist attacks. As news broke of the alleged  
involvement of Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur in the bomb blasts, BJP  
leaders first tried to distance themselves from her. On October 30,  
party president Rajnath Singh said he was embarrassed to find that he  
had been photographed with her. The next day the party’s prime- 
minister-in-waiting, L.K. Advani, took the politically correct stand  
that the sadhvi should be punished if found guilty. All this changed  
quickly enough with the Hindutva command centre, the Rashtriya  
Swayamsevak Sangh, deciding to back her to the hilt. Mr. Singh went  
over the top, claiming that those who believed in “cultural  
nationalism” — a euphemism for the sangh parivar’s highly toxic  
communal politics — could never take to terror and voicing his  
suspicion of a frame-up. But more significantly, the heavyweight Mr.  
Advani spelt out a new line, condemning the “barbaric treatment” of a  
“spiritual person,” seeking a judicial probe into her dramatised  
allegations of torture, and assailing “the manner in which  
unsubstantiated allegations have been made against serving Army  
personnel [Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit].” No one can miss the irony of  
such statements coming from the top leaders of a party that has tried  
to position itself as India’s foremost adversary of terrorism. Indeed  
the BJP, which attacked the Jamia Millia Islamia’s offer of legal  
assistance to two Muslim students accused of involvement in bomb  
blasts, now has no qualms about supporting alleged terrorists of the  
saffron kind. Every accused is constitutionally entitled to legal  
assistance but political support to those accused of serious crimes,  
especially terrorist acts, is an entirely different matter.

Clearly, the BJP’s stance on Malegaon has nothing to do with the  
principle that a person must be presumed innocent unless proved  
guilty. It is a stance of blanket opposition to the law of the land  
bringing to justice sangh parivar elements accused of terrorist  
crimes. The double standard aside, the BJP is guilty of seeking to  
politicise, pressure, and derail the legal investigation of the  
Malegaon explosions and the conspiracy behind them by Maharashtra  
Anti-Terrorism Squad. It is particularly shocking that Mr. Advani, a  
former Union Home Minister, going on nothing but the hysterical words  
of an accused, charged the ATS with being politically motivated and  
unprofessional in its investigation. The parivar has a track record  
of applauding the ATS whenever it acted against alleged Islamist  
terrorists. Blinded by its communal agenda, the main opposition party  
has gone dangerously over the top in the cause of Hindutva.


o o o

(iii)

Kashmir Times
November 20, 2008

COMBATING HINDUTVA TERROR
Secular forces must unite to frustrate nefarious designs of saffron  
brigade

The arrests of some serving and retired army officers, self- 
proclaimed saints, so-called godmen and the activists of the sangh  
parivar in connection with the blasts at Malegaon and other places   
have not only exposed the naked fascism and terrorism of the saffron  
brigade but have also revealed the extent of penetration of the RSS  
and its outfits in the country’s vital institutions. Shockingly, the  
Hindu fascists have not only found their place in bureaucracy and  
other wings of the services, apart from the legislatures in large  
numbers but have also penetrated into the armed forces and even  
judiciary, the watchdog of democracy. The systematic process of such  
penetration into various democratic and secular institutions apart  
from the country’s social and political life started  right after  
independence and more than any one it is the Congress and other  
secular parties which would be blamed for this kind of situation.   
RSS’s role in the communal holocaust in the wake of  India’s  
partition was too well known to allow it to continue its activities  
in secular India. RSS, Hindu Mahasabha and  some other parties which  
openly believed in the concept of a theocratic state and thus were  
opposed to secularism should have no legal right to exist in a  
secular country. RSS not only stood for India as a Hindu nation but  
also considered the minorities like Muslims, Christians and Parsis as  
aliens who, according to erstwhile RSS chief M.S.Golwalkar cannot be  
treated as citizens of India and as such should either stay as second  
class citizens denied of all rights or should be driven out. The  
demand for banning such organizations after independence was  
unfortunately was not heeded by the Congress which assumed power. It  
was only after the assassination of Gandhiji on January 30 in 1948  
that a ban was imposed on RSS and a number of its leaders and  
activists as also V.D. Savarkar were arrested for their alleged  
involvement in the conspiracy to kill the father of the nation.  
However, succumbing to the pressure of communal forces and as a  
matter of political convenience the ban on RSS was removed with its  
chief  assuring to function in a democratic manner. (Intriguingly  
while such a ban imposed in Jammu and Kashmir was never lifted the  
RSS was allowed to continue and expand its activities in the state).

The involvement of RSS and its various offsprings in the large number  
of communal riots  since independence is an established fact. Still  
nothing was done by the  proclaimed secular state to outlaw such  
organizations working for destroying the secular fabric of the  
country. On the contrary the RSS and its political outfits like the  
Jana Sangh (now BJP)  could increasingly penetrate into the country’s  
social, political and administrative life only due to the  
compromising attitude of the secular parties. While the Congress  
adopted a soft Hindutva policy keeping in view the majority vote bank  
it were the  parties with clear commitment for secularism and  
socialism which provided a kind of respectability to the RSS and its  
political wing. It was the veteran socialist leader, Dr Ram Manohar  
Lohia, who out of his anti-Congress obsession and with a view to oust  
it from power floated the idea of samukta vidayak dals (SVDs) with  
his Socialist Party joining hands with the Jana Sangh. That made the   
RSS outfit possible not only to increase its legislative strength and  
gain respectability but also to form coalition governments in  
alliance with a staunch secular party. Again it was due to another  
veteran socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan, who led the movement  
against the black Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975  by  
uniting various non-Congress parties under the banner of Janata  
Party, that the Jana Sangh as its constituent managed to share power  
with the socialists and erstwhile Congress leaders like Morarji  
Desai. However, before his death JP, known for his secular  
credentials and unimpeachable integrity, regretted the decision of  
embracing RSS. It was another socialist leader, Madhu Limaye who,  
along with George Fernandez, Sharad Yadav and other socialists, was  
instrumental in undoing the mistake of joining hands with RSS by  
raising the issue of duel membership. This brought the Janata  
experiment and its rule to an end. Some of the erstwhile socialist  
leaders like George Fernandez, Sharad Yadav  and several others  
failed to learn any lesson from their past mistakes and again joined  
the BJP and other communal outfits merely for the sake of power.

It is a tragedy that the Congress and other secular parties have  
failed to understand the grave danger that the emergence of Hindutva  
forces and their terrorism have been posing not only to the secular  
character of the country but also to the very survival of India as a  
state.  If the onward march of the Hidutva fascism is not checked  
there is every danger of India soon turning into a theocratic Hindu  
nation. This will destroy the very idea of India, its pluralistic  
character and the very cherished value of our freedom struggle. It’s  
time for secular parties to join hands and unite on a single plank of  
defeating the BJP and its outfits and frustrating their nefarious  
designs.  The Congress government at the Centre must shed its  
complacency,  abandon its soft Hindutva approach, and launch an  
ideological battle against the fascist communal forces. At the same  
time there is need to weed out such elements from various vital  
organs of the state.

o o o

(iv)

The Hindu, November 21, 2008

RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND ITS POLITICAL FUTURE

by Harish Khare

The controversy over Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur, accused of terror  
activities, is once again testing the depth of constitutional values  
in our politics.
The Religious Right has grafted for itself a new layer of ideological  
justification
It is making its last ditch attempt to induce young India

http://tinyurl.com/6b42rp


______


[5]

expressbuzz.com
18 November 2008
Editorial

NO ROOM FOR TASLIMA

The secular establishment has let down Taslima Nasreen again. She was  
first hounded out from her adopted city of Kolkata following  
demonstrations against her by a Muslim group.

The Left Front government was so eager at the time to placate the  
minority community that it didn’t bother to consider whether  
kowtowing to a demand based on bigotry was in accordance with either  
Marxism or secularism. The Bangladeshi author was first flown to  
Jaipur, but since refuge in a BJP-ruled state was embarrassing for  
both the communists and the Centre, she was brought back to Delhi,  
but only to be kept under virtual house arrest. Pranab Mukherjee and  
Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, both of whom belong to West Bengal, also  
warned her to be careful of what she says and writes.

Now, she has to pack her bags again because, according to her, the  
Centre gave her a resident permit for six months with the “secret  
condition” that she must leave the country at the expiry of the term.

It may not be too fanciful to link the denial of hospitality to the  
controversial writer to the proximity of a series of assembly polls  
which are to be followed after a few months by the general election.  
At a time like this when the Congress is not too sure of its fate, it  
evidently thought it prudent not to offend the Muslims in any way  
even if its concept of catering to their sensitiveness means  
pandering to the fundamentalists among them. Since this has been the  
pattern of the party’s conduct ever since the ban on Salman Rushdie’s  
The Satanic Verses, it is hardly surprising that it is following the  
line of least resistance yet again. But what is curious is that the  
Left, too, hasn’t demurred, apparently because it also wants to play  
safe, notwithstanding all its protestations about opposing  
retrogressive forces. So, when the comrades say that their fight is  
against imperialism and communalism, they are not referring to the  
Islamic version. The Congress’s pusillanimity in the matter of  
standing up for artistic freedom is essentially no different from its  
failure to act against the vandalism of Raj Thackeray now and of his  
uncle in an earlier period. The cowardice stems from a lack of  
principles and the fear of alienating an identifiable group of voters.

It will be laughable, therefore, if the Congress and the Left claim  
to be champions of secularism during the election campaign.


______


[6]


sacw.net | November 21, 2008
http://www.sacw.net/article328.html

AN OPEN LETTER TO MS. SONAL SHAH, MEMBER OF PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA’S  
TRANSITION ADVISORY BOARD

“Your recent statement on Hindu nationalist groups raises more  
questions than it answers.”

November 20, 2008

Dear Ms. Shah,

We are a coalition of Indian-American groups and individuals  
representing diverse faiths, interests, and political affiliations,  
who are looking forward to working with the administration of  
President Obama to ensure that the interests of all Indian-Americans  
have a place in its policies. We represent families who have  
grievously suffered from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) led pogroms  
against Muslim minorities of Gujarat in 2002; Christians, whose  
communities and places of worship are under assault by VHP and its  
various creations for no other reason than the faith they were born  
in, or chose; Hindus and human rights activists who have been  
fighting, often at great peril to their persons, against religious  
bigotry and violence being fanned by the VHP, the Rashtriya  
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and their various incarnations in India as  
well as in the United States (the Sangh Parivar).

As you can understand, we are legitimately concerned about reports of  
your personal links with the VHP — whose social values, politics, and  
actions are antithetical to President-elect Obama’s message of hope  
and inclusiveness — and how those links might possibly influence your  
role in the transition team and the new administration’s policies  
towards India and Indian-Americans.

Your recent public statement, therefore, that your “personal politics  
have nothing in common with the views espoused by the Vishwa Hindu  
Parishad (VHP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), or any such  
organization” is a welcome one, and we fully expect that your actions  
on the transition team will be faithful to that assertion.

However, your statement does not allay all of our concerns, given the  
irrefutable public record of your and your family’s linkages to the  
VHP and other Sangh Parivar organizations, as confirmed in recent  
utterances by RSS circles in India and by VHP America. We would like  
to share those concerns with you in the hope that you will respond to  
them:

To begin with, like you, many of us were engaged in relief work in  
the aftermath of the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, when we came away with  
admiration for Gujarat’s civil society, despite persistent  
allegations that VHP and RSS were cynically using the disaster relief  
efforts to further their sectarian agendas. Many of us returned to  
Gujarat promptly in 2002 to provide relief and succor to battered  
Muslim (and Hindu) families, following the unprecedented violence  
directed against them — this time despite the openly obstructionist  
tactics of the Gujarat government. This period was followed by  
systematic intimidation of activists by the state: e.g. frivolous  
lawsuits against Ms. Mallika Sarabhai, a renowned artist and  
community activist, which prompted the Supreme Court of India to  
intervene on her behalf. And more recently, emboldened by their  
impunity in Gujarat, the Sangh Parivar has been orchestrating wide- 
spread violence against Christians in several BJP and BJP-partnered  
states of India, which has renewed the public demand for a ban on the  
VHP and its affiliate, the Bajrang Dal.

We remind you of this recent history to express our dismay and  
disappointment that at no time during this terrible period are we  
aware of any statement from you dissociating yourself from these  
dreadful acts of VHP and RSS, especially given your proximity to  
these organizations: As a person associated with VHP/RSS’s earthquake  
relief efforts in 2001, we are not aware of any acknowledgment from  
you of their widely reported sectarian bias in providing relief. We  
are not aware of any assistance from you or by IndiCorps to the  
thousands of families affected by the 2002 communal pogroms, nor are  
we aware of your speaking out against the funding of organizations  
implicated in these hate campaigns by charities in the United States,  
with some of whom you have been partnering. And, more recently, we  
have not heard any condemnation from you of the spate of violence  
against Christian Adivasis being orchestrated by VHP, for which the  
BJP-partnered government in Orissa has been severely indicted by  
India’s National Commission for Minorities.

In the face of these facts, your bold assertion that you have “always  
condemned any politics of division, of ethnic or religious hatred, of  
violence and intimidation as a political tool” is deeply troubling.

Furthermore, the revelation that you were part of the inner circle of  
VHP America at the time of the Gujarat earthquake indicates that your  
role was not confined only to humanitarian relief — an important  
detail that you did not address in your statement. And your  
consistent support for Ekal Vidyalayas (a VHP-founded movement with  
the major objective of countering Christianity among Adivasis), which  
has been found by the Human Resources Ministry of Government of India  
to be conditioning the minds of young children against religious  
minorities, adds to our fear that you have not fully distanced  
yourself from VHP’s intolerant, anti-minority ideology.

As you know better than most of us, President-elect Obama set a high  
standard of openness and personal accountability for himself during  
the campaign. We note from recent events that he is setting a similar  
standard of transparency for the transition team. In that spirit, we  
hope that you too will take personal responsibility for your  
undeniable past links with the Sangh Parivar and reconcile your  
recent statement against the VHP and the RSS with your silence amidst  
the most egregious human rights violations by them in Gujarat and  
elsewhere. We further hope that you will unequivocally disown and  
repudiate your and your family’s past and current associations with  
the VHP and all other Sangh Parivar organizations. And, as a  
prominent Indian-American, we hope that you will join us in our call  
to the governments of India, Gujarat, and Orissa to speedily bring  
justice and rehabilitation to the thousands of victims of the Sangh  
Parivar’s anti-minority violence and to take immediate and effective  
measures to prevent such violence in the future. These steps will  
lend much credence to your statement that you do not subscribe to the  
views of Hindu nationalist groups. As for your comment that you have  
been the subject of “Ridiculous tactics of guilt by association”:

Being everyday victims of guilt by association in the US as well as  
in India for being Muslims, especially in Gujarat, many of us can and  
do recognize the insidious nature of blog postings that you may be  
the subject of. Others among us have been the target of preposterous  
accusations by supporters of VHP and RSS and have been labeled as  
anti-Hindu, anti-Indian, pro-terrorist, etc., for seeking justice for  
India’s minorities.

In contrast, your family’s connections with the Sangh Parivar have  
been long, deep, well documented, and presumably continue to this  
day. So we must respectfully reject any parallels drawn between  
attempts during the campaign to find President-elect Obama guilty by  
association and legitimate questions about your past affiliations.

In closing, the Indian and Indian-American media have widely covered  
your appointment to the transition team with justifiable pride, and  
have spoken very highly of your credentials. We join them in  
congratulating you and in applauding President-elect Obama for  
demonstrating his commitment to true diversity by appointing an  
Indian-American woman to his closest advisory board. We have no doubt  
that you will bring your expertise to bear upon the many difficult  
decisions that the transition team will have to make in the next few  
weeks. But we also sincerely hope that your actions on the team will  
be mindful of the welfare and aspirations of all Indians, including  
minority communities, which are under unprecedented attacks by Hindu  
nationalist groups.

We wish you all the best in your endeavors and we look forward to  
your response.

Sincerely,

A Coalition of Concerned Indian-Americans

For further information on this letter, please contact:

     * Dr. Angana Chatterji, achatterji at ciis.edu, phone  
415-575-6119/415-640-4013
     * Ravi Ravishankar, ra.ravishankar at gmail.com, phone 503-867-0853
     * Dr. Shaikh Ubaid, su204 at aol.com, phone 516-567-0783

Endorsing Organizations:

     * American Muslim Physicians of Indian Origin (AMPI)
     * Association of Indian Muslims in America (AIM), Washington DC
     * Friends of South Asia (FOSA), San Jose, California  
(www.friendsofsouthasia.org)
     * India Foundation, Michigan
     * Indian Muslim Council (IMC), Morton Grove, Illinois (www.imc- 
usa.org)
     * Indian Muslim Education Foundation (IMEFNA), North America
     * International Service Society, Michigan
     * Non-Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI- 
SAHI), Michigan
     * Sikh American Heritage Organization, Wayne, Illinois
     * South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD),  
Greater Vancouver, Canada (sansad.org)
     * Supporters of Human Rights in India (SHRI)
     * The Coalition for a Secular Democratic India (CSDI), Chicago.  
Illinois
     * Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, Michigan

Personal Endorsements:

George Abraham
  Girish Agrawal
  Rasheed Ahmed
  Shahid Ali, M.D.
  Khalid Azam
  Dr. Chinmoy Banerjee
  Dr. Angana Chatterji
  Nasir Chippa
  Gautam Desai
  Shalini Gera
  Sapna Gupta
  Nishrin Hussain
  Mohammad Imran
  Imtiazuddin
  Kaleem Kawaja
  Attaulla Khan
  Wasim Khan, MD, MPH
  Alex V. Koshy
  Kursheed A. Mallick, M.D.
  Saeed Patel
  Shrikumar Poddar
  Raju Rajagopal
  Ravi Ravishankar
  Dr. Svati Shah
  Dr. Hari Sharma
  Ramkumar Sridharan
  Raja Swamy
  Dr. Shaikh Ubaid

media at coalitionagainstgenocide.org.

Coalition Against Genocide | 6321 W. Dempster St. | Suite# 295 |  
Morton Grove | IL | 60053-2848


______


[7]  Announcements:

(i)

SANSAD is proud to organize, and cordially invite you to, an informal  
forum on:


Religion and Politics in Pakistan
Under the shadow of US-NATO war in Afghanistan

Sunday, November 30, 2008
12 Noon to 3 p.m.
Meeting Room in 131 Regiment Square (Spectrum Complex), Vancouver
(see directions below)

speaker:
Dr. Mohammad Waseem
Former Fellow of St Anthony's College, Oxford; currently a Professor  
of Political Science at Lahore University of Management Sciences  
(LUMS), Pakistan

Samosa type refreshments provided


Regiment Square is a short walk from the Stadium Skytrain Station.  
Exit toward Beatty Street, cross Dunsmuir and walk South on Beatty.  
Do not go up to Georgia. Just past the Armory tanks and guns, turn  
left into the cul-de-sac. Entrance to 131 Regiment Square (a tall  
residential tower) is at the end, on the left side.

For further information, contact
Zahid Macdoom 604-760-1290
Dr. Haider Nizamani : 6054-228-0349, or cell: 6-4-307-3744
Dr. Hari Sharma: 604-2972

SANSAD
# 435, 552A Clark Road,
Coquitlam (Metro Vancouver),  B.C., Canada, V3K 6Z8


- - -

(iii)

PUCL cordially invites
you with family and friends to the

Fourth
V M TARKUNDE MEMORIAL LECTURE
to be held on
November 23, 2008at 4:00 pm
at
Gandhi
Peace Foundation,
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, Delhi

Prabhash Joshi
Former Editor-in-Chief, Jansatta

will deliver the Lecture

Ravikran Jain
(Vice President , PUCL)

will
preside over the function
Kindly reach on time.

K G Kannabiran Pushkar Raj
President General Secretary
Mahi
Pal SinghGeneral Secretary, Delhi PUCL

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

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.