SACW | Dec 13-15, 2008 / After Mumbai: Pakistan - India relations (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Arundhati Roy, Jawed Naqvi, Kaiser Bengali ...)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | December 13-15, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2591 -  
Year 11 running
From: www.sacw.net

[1] The Mumbai Massacre and Pakistan’s New Nightmares: An Interview  
of Pervez Hoodbhoy  (Christina Otten)
[2] September is not November - Mumbai was not our 9/11 (Arundhati Roy)
[3] Stepping away from the brink (Abbas Rashid)
[4] India: Mumbai attack could be as much Oklahoma City as it was  
9/11 (Jawed Naqvi)
[5] Beyond conspiracy theories (Kaiser Bengali)
[6] ‘The Media Can Provoke War’ - Pakistani journalist Imtiaz Alam  
tells Tusha Mitta
[7] One side of the story (Ammar Ali Jan)
[8] Mumbai is Not India’s 9/11 (CERAS)
[9] Hawks causing huge collateral damage to people to people contact
  - Protest rally against presence of Pak actors in Mumbai tomorrow
  - Pakistan stops Ghulam Ali from flying to India
  - Pakistan: first casualty, people-to-people contact (Nirupama  
Subramanian)
  - India-Pakistan Tensions Cast Cloud Over Cricket Matches (Rama  
Lakshmi)
[10] December 13, seven years on (Shekhar Gupta)
[11] Dancing girls of Lahore strike over 'Taliban' law (Patrick  
Cockburn and Issam Ahmed)
[12] No More Hindutva Terrorism”: Mumbai Attack shifts the debate  
(Jamia Teachers Solidarity Group)
[13] Amaresh Mishra’s web of lies (Teesta Setalvad)
[14]  Announcements:
(i) After Mumbai, Which Way Forward? A Public Dialogue (New York, 15  
December 2008)
(ii) Film screening - 'Forced to Marry' and a conversation with  
Producer/Director Ruhi Hamid (Karachi, 16 December 2008)
(iii) 'Day for Women's Dignity' : programme (New Delhi 17 December 2008)
(iv) Professor I. K. Shukla Memorial Meeting (New Delhi, 20 December  
2008)

_____

[1]

sacw.net,
13 December 2008

THE MUMBAI MASSACRE AND PAKISTAN’S NEW NIGHTMARES: AN INTERVIEW OF  
PERVEZ HOODBHOY

by Christina Otten for FOCUS Online

( original text of interview in English for FOCUS )

Christina Otten - FOCUS: Tensions between Pakistan and India have  
been growing after the Mumbai attacks. Are we close to a military  
escalation?

Pervez Hoodbhoy: In spite of vociferous demands by the Indian public,  
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government has withstood the pressure  
to conduct cross-border strikes into Pakistan. Correspondingly, in  
spite of the bitter criticism by Islamic parties, Pakistan’s  
government has moved against the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), the  
jihadist organization that is almost certainly behind the attacks.  
For now, the tension has eased somewhat but another attack could push  
India over the fence.
[. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article407.html

_____

[2]

The Guardian, 12 December 2008

MUMBAI WAS NOT OUR 9/11

by Arundhati Roy

We’ve forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in  
Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels  
informed us that we were watching "India’s 9/11". Like actors in a  
Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we’re expected to play  
our parts and say our lines, even though we know it’s all been said  
and done before.

As tension in the region builds, US Senator John McCain has warned  
Pakistan that if it didn’t act fast to arrest the "Bad Guys" he had  
personal information that India would launch air strikes on  
"terrorist camps" in Pakistan and that Washington could do nothing  
because Mumbai was India’s 9/11.

But November isn’t September, 2008 isn’t 2001, Pakistan isn’t  
Afghanistan and India isn’t America. So perhaps we should reclaim our  
tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own  
broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions.
[. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article404.html

_____

[3]

Daily Times,
December 13, 2008

STEPPING AWAY FROM THE BRINK

by Abbas Rashid

If the Pakistani government is destabilised or undermined as a result  
of Indian tactics, the forces of militancy and extremism will not  
only get greater space in Pakistan, India too will end up facing a  
bigger problem

A fortnight after the Mumbai attacks that killed over 170 people and  
injured many more, Pakistan remains under pressure to do more to  
apprehend groups accused of playing a key role in the operation.  
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has referred to Pakistan as the  
epicentre of terrorism and has insisted that the international  
community ensure the dismantling of the ‘infrastructure of terrorism’  
in Pakistan.

The accusation is particularly directed at the Lashkar-e Tayba (LeT),  
the banned group that is seen as having taken the form of, or  
subsumed under, the Jama’at-ud Dawa (JD), also led by the former head  
of LeT, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. The Indian media has by and large  
weighed in with considerable hype more likely to inflame popular  
sentiment rather than promote reasoned discussion. At the same time,  
the temperature has also been raised by media reports that the  
defence forces of both countries have been put in a state of  
heightened preparedness.

In an encouraging sign, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab  
Mukherjee told Parliament on Thursday that attacking Pakistan to  
‘avenge the Mumbai terror attacks is no solution’. However, this  
statement was accompanied by the demand that Pakistan hand over no  
less than forty people that India believes are behind the terror  
attacks.

Whatever the merit of such a demand, the government would risk a  
serious domestic backlash going though with it without unimpeachable  
proof of guilt being provided. Meanwhile Pakistan has sought the  
custody of Lt-Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit, allegedly involved in the  
Samjhota Express attack.

Among other things, we need to keep in mind that the Mumbai attacks  
also had the effect of reliving pressure on the Far Right extremist  
groups in India who appear to have supporters in the Indian armed  
forces as well, going by Purohit’s suspected involvement in the  
Samjhota Express attack. Similarly, it is extremist groups operating  
in the vicinity of Pakistan’s western border that have the most to  
gain from heightened tensions on the eastern border with India.  
Instead of more forces being moved west, as many advocate, to  
consolidate whatever gains have been made, this would have the  
opposite effect of relieving pressure on these groups.

Certainly, one key aspect of the issue then is whether Pakistan and  
India should cede a kind of veto to these groups over the peace  
process between the two countries.

The Pakistan leadership has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to  
cooperate in apprehending the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre and  
bringing them to justice. A number of JD members have been picked up  
from Azad Kashmir and its leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed has been put  
under house arrest.

There is also now a broader context to this focus. A Security Council  
panel late Wednesday declared Jama’at-ud Dawa a terrorist group  
subject to UN sanctions, including an asset freeze, travel ban and  
arms embargo. Now that authorities in Pakistan are moving against  
those identified by India and the international community, it would  
be far better to help in making this process more effective by  
sharing relevant intelligence, for instance.

Meanwhile, we cannot afford to lose sight of the peace process. Not  
least because, as the Indian external affairs minister has indicated,  
war is not an option. Given Pakistan’s many and widely known problems  
at this juncture, it seems that the Indian government regards this as  
an appropriate time to put maximum pressure on Pakistan. But if the  
government is destabilised or undermined as a result of Indian  
tactics, the forces of militancy and extremism will not only get  
greater space in Pakistan, India too will end up facing a bigger  
problem.

Pakistan must proceed with doing what it should have done much  
earlier, i.e., reorganise its forces and intelligence services to  
deal effectively with the greatest challenge to its integrity as a  
nation-state, which comes from within. This is not something that we  
should be doing at the behest of India or the United States, or any  
other country for that matter, but in our own national interest.

And certainly it poses a threat to our integrity if groups are found  
putting us in a position of vulnerability by using our territory as a  
launch pad to attack another country, whether on one border or the  
other. As President Zardari is reported to have told the most recent  
in a long line of visitors from the US, Deputy Secretary of State  
John Negroponte, “The government is undertaking its own investigation  
of the incident and taking appropriate measures.”

At the same time, India needs to work with Pakistan to restore the  
peace process and to get the scheduled meetings back on track. The  
two countries have also in this tragedy had the opportunity to see  
how fragile this process remains after all the years of confidence  
building measures that have gone into it.

Both countries must go back with renewed vigour into resolving the  
issues that have been held up for years not only because of their  
complexity but more due to the absence of political will. Sir Creek  
and Siachen are two such issues. The groundwork for settling both is  
pretty much in place and it would be a fitting response to the terror  
unleashed in Mumbai last month if the two governments move for their  
resolution in 2009, as well as embarking on a credible initiative on  
Kashmir.


____


[4]

Dawn
December 8, 2008

MUMBAI ATTACK COULD BE AS MUCH OKLAHOMA CITY AS IT WAS 9/11

By Jawed Naqvi

THE Mumbai attacks have opened a season of rare confabulations among  
Indian Muslims, but these cannot be described as introspective. Let  
me explain why. Every other day there are invitations on the mobile  
phone or email by Muslim groups or individuals to join their  
discussions. I haven’t been to one yet, but their cogitations have so  
far produced band-aid to cover a deep gash.

And TV channels are deriving easy pleasure from the fulminations. A  
few channels showed a typical scoop in motion at the expense of the  
image of Indian Muslims. For example, they repeatedly telecast sound  
bites of a mullah in Mumbai who seemed so outraged because the  
terrorists were Muslims that he refused to have them buried in the  
community’s cemetery.

Having thus declared this witless cleric as a model Indian Muslim,  
the channels didn’t feel the need to inform us what then became of  
the bodies of the gunmen. Their titillation over, the anchors  
couldn’t care less if by showing an ignorant man’s rant they had  
applauded the travesty of a civil society. They should know that no  
Constitution, other than perhaps the Taliban’s, endorses the abuse of  
dead bodies. The henna-haired mullah needs to be made aware of this.

In this moment of national grief let’s not turn sorrow into  
vaudeville of jingoists. It’s not patriotic to deny terrorists a  
quiet burial, and the din over it most certainly doesn’t solve the  
problem at hand – of isolating and arresting the growth of mindless  
killers. Bury those boys somewhere in unmarked graves and let them  
rest there so that we can move on to more urgent firefighting. Don’t  
provoke silly comments and pass them on as patriotic.

The other symbolic gesture that Delhi’s Muslim “leaders” have  
reportedly agreed to is to wear a black armband on Eidul Azha to mark  
their anguish at the carnage in Mumbai. Nothing could be more  
cosmetic, meaningless and distractive than to make the token  
observation.

This is a bizarre world of assertive commerce. The first thing that  
TV channels were keen to bring into the frame even though the terror  
attacks were on in full cry was to worry about the Bombay Stock  
Exchange and when it would open. Let’s assume that was a justified  
pursuit. The prompt reopening of the Leopold café, the first to bear  
the brunt of the killing spree, was in fact truly heart warming. It  
reflected the owner’s grit and a practical mind. Then the TV  
discussions turned to which movies would be released and when. And  
movies were released. There were weddings, the usual partying and  
intermittent lighting of candles at the Gateway of India.

Everybody has been trying to carry on with life after the outrage.  
There is no other way. Why should the Muslims, therefore, not  
celebrate life, more so on Eid? What is the purpose behind the black  
armbands idea? Are Muslims required to grieve more than the rest of  
the country, or do they need to display their grief more? Everyone  
else is going to watch movies without any black armbands. The idea to  
wear them to Eid prayers thus looks silly, and yet again is rooted in  
tokenism. But what worries me even more is that there is no secular  
or even religious voice in sight from any direction to tell these men  
and women that they do not really need to display their anguish with  
meaningless gestures, that suspecting their Indianess was as good or  
bad as suspecting their own bona fides.

I think Indian Muslim leaders need to accept that the act of  
terrorism perpetrated in Mumbai, and from which they are trying to  
dissociate themselves by wearing black armbands, is as much their  
responsibility as it is of the state that allows them to nurture  
exclusivist and supremacist ideas in their seminaries. The mullahs  
viciously targeted the beacon of secular poetry, Yas Yagana Changezi,  
for chiding them thus:

Sab tere siwa kaafir, aakhir iska matlab kya!

Sar phira de insaa’n ka, aisa khabt-i-mazhab kya!!

(All others except you are kaafirs, does it at all make any sense?

Why are you so obsessed with your religion, or is it just pretence?)

Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, was  
an alienated member of American society. Can the mullahs deny that  
Indian McVeighs are lurking in the shadows of alienation for a  
variety of reasons that foments satanic ideas of revenge and harm? If  
they are not in denial then they should recognise that helping  
isolate the lurking Mcveighs is far more urgent than demonstrating  
their sympathy with the Indian state.

At one of their meetings, so I am told, Muslim intellectuals and  
priests alike came up with fanciful stories that ranged from the role  
of the Israeli intelligence to that of Hindu extremists in the  
devastation of Mumbai’s high-profile Colaba district. Of the bizarre  
ideas thrown up by these cynics not all should be dismissed without a  
moment’s pause, or even a probe, as it would be cavalier to ignore  
such questions, even if they seem predictable.

One question that caught my eye pertains to the timing. Whoever  
planned the attacks knowingly or otherwise timed them to coincide  
with crucial Indian elections in which an upsurge in jingoism, as has  
happened, would inevitably boost rightwing zealots. In fact, we can  
take it as a given that the results due on Monday of the state polls  
in Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh could decide the next steps in  
the escalation or tempering of hostilities with Pakistan. If the  
Congress is unable to win even one of the three states from the BJP,  
there is a real possibility that it would sustain the hardline  
rhetoric, if not resort to military manoeuvres, against Pakistan to  
brace for general elections expected by April.

Whether it is Al Qaeda that is involved, as Ms Condoleeza Rice and  
the Israelis have hinted could be the case, or the Lashkar-i-Taiba is  
the key player in the attacks as Indian thrust seems to suggest, or  
whether both of them are involved, it does not absolve Indian Muslims  
of their responsibility to prepare for a big battle within their  
ranks against fanatical tendencies that breed terrorism.

To that extent the Indian state is equally culpable for having  
surrendered the community’s fate and identity to an association of  
self-serving clerics. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has  
proved to be the undoing of the 150 million strong community, as it  
has kept them tethered to mediaeval notions of religion, a fertile  
ground for breeding violence. The clerics earned brownie points  
demanding the ban on Salman Rushdie’s otherwise unreadable book.

They also got the government to overturn a law that empowered Muslim  
women at par with other Indian women in matters of divorce. Even  
today there are pockets in northern India where Muslim clerics are  
holding off a global anti-polio campaign. The other place the polio  
campaign has met with resistance is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border  
regions where the Taliban hold sway. If these clerics share a common  
mindset how can they help fight terrorism, which is an adjunct of  
fanaticism? But why blame the mullahs alone? They have a pact of  
mutual support with all the political parties, including the BJP. Who  
can forget the clarion call by the group called Muslims for Vajpayee  
that came out in support of the former prime minister in the last  
elections?

The attack in Mumbai might resemble the 9/11 plot, or even look like  
an aborted sea-based attack on Israel, but it also has shades of the  
Oklahoma bomber. In other words, it is at least partly home-grown.  
Let us not get away by pointing, as some Muslim leaders have done, to  
the recent discovery of neo-fascist Hindu groups for the Mumbai  
atrocity. These groups may have indulged in false flag attacks by  
pretending to be Muslims elsewhere. But the Mumbai terrorists were  
too spectacular to be blamed on nascent fascists who are under probe.  
To deny any role of Indian Muslim extremists, as facilitators if not  
as plotters, in the Mumbai tragedy would be opportunism with an eye  
on the next elections.

____


[5]

Dawn
15 December 2008

BEYOND CONSPIRACY THEORIES

by Kaiser Bengali

THE Mumbai massacre has been a shocking event for all civilised souls  
across the world, including those in Pakistan.

As is always the case, the search for responsibility began and,  
almost immediately, fingers were pointed at Pakistan. Equally  
promptly, denial followed from this end.

However, the world community appears to be accepting the Indian view  
and Pakistan is under enormous pressure from all quarters. The  
government has been aware of the gravity of the situation and the  
complete diplomatic isolation of the country. It has acted  
responsibly and has taken a series of measures on the domestic and  
diplomatic fronts to limit the damage.

Questions arise as to who could be responsible for this barbaric act  
and what could have been the motive. Three classes of conspiracy  
theories can be discerned. One, there is the Indian view that the  
perpetrators were Pakistanis and the attack originated in Pakistan.  
It is stated that Pakistan has been using non-state actors since the  
1980s to forward its regional agenda in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In  
Afghanistan, their motive was to bring down the pro-Soviet, pro-India  
regime and to install a pro-Pakistan dispensation.

Post-2001 it is stated that these non-state actors have been  
operating with the support of rogue elements within the country’s  
intelligence agencies, meaning without official sanction. Their  
theatre of operation is now limited to Kashmir and to the occupying  
power, India, with the objective of bleeding India to the point of  
conceding Kashmir.

The second view is that the Mumbai attacks were executed by the  
Indian intelligence. India, it is said, has been unnerved by the  
sustained peaceful agitation for independence in Kashmir, aggravated  
by the sharp communal split in the held state. India’s claim that the  
Mumbai attackers had trained in camps in Azad Kashmir as well as  
implied threats that India could launch attacks on such camps are  
noteworthy in this respect. It is suggested that a successful Indian  
military operation in Kashmir would effectively exclude Pakistan as a  
party to the dispute and weaken the independence movement therein to  
enable India to force a political settlement on its own terms.

The third view is that the Mumbai operation was part of an Indo- 
Israeli-US conspiracy with the larger objective of denuclearising  
Pakistan. The immediate objective could be to prove to the world that  
the Pakistani security establishment is incapable of controlling the  
militant establishment which can hijack the country’s nuclear  
arsenal. If this is indeed the case, one can expect more such  
sponsored attacks.

The latter explanations may sound preposterous, given that half a  
dozen US and Israeli citizens and more than 100 Indians have been  
killed. This kind of modus operandi is, however, not unknown in the  
world of covert intelligence operations. Of course, it was necessary  
for the nature and scale of the attack to be audacious, the targets  
high profile and symbolic, and the death toll high if the desired  
ends were to be attained. The actual involvement of Pakistani  
nationals is irrelevant. Anybody in the world could have covertly  
hired any number of Pakistanis to carry out the operation for them.

Herein lies the catch for Pakistan. Of the above three scenarios, all  
of them may be true, none of them may be true, or some of them may be  
partly true. That, however, is not relevant. What is relevant is the  
fact that Pakistanis could have been hired by foreign elements. This  
implies that there are enough Pakistanis with the necessary  
ideological mentoring to be available for jihadist operations. And  
these jihadis do not emerge as individual products.

Clearly, there is an infrastructure with organisational, financial  
and operational resources to recruit, indoctrinate and train the  
jihadis. Clearly, such an infrastructure cannot exist and operate  
without an element of tolerance or support from powerful elements  
aligned to state agencies. Otherwise, how is it possible that  
sophisticated arms can be stockpiled in the centre of the capital  
city, Islamabad, enabling the ‘students’ of Lal Masjid/Jamia Hafsa to  
fight the Pakistan Army for days?

How is it possible that A.Q. Khan can engage in worldwide nuclear  
smuggling without the intelligence agencies deputed to protect him  
failing to discover his operations? How is it possible that hundreds  
of firearms are brought out and liberally used in clashes in Karachi  
and the intelligence agencies cannot identify the source and supply  
channels of such arms?

Apart from the bloody mayhem these outfits may or may not be causing  
in neighbouring countries, they have certainly torn Pakistani society  
apart.

Either the nation’s intelligence agencies are completely incompetent  
or totally complicit. If it is the former, then the country is in  
mortal danger. If a mere imam of a mosque can stockpile arms or if a  
high-security state official can smuggle sensitive material out of  
the country then it must be equally possible for an enemy country to  
smuggle in its agents and arms for internal sabotage in the event of  
a war. If it is the latter, then the criminal adventurism of the self- 
styled protectors of national interest is bestowing on the country  
international disdain and endangering its stability and security.

In the 1980s, the ‘non-state actors’ paradigm was used within the  
ambit of the US and western global strategy. Understandably, no  
aspersions were cast internationally with respect to the legitimacy  
of the means being employed. Of course, the paradigm was  
irresponsible and criminal then and is equally so now. The difference  
is that, in the current global scenario, US patronage is no longer  
available and this paradigm is simply unacceptable. The cost that  
Pakistan will have to pay for continuing such a course of action will  
be exorbitant.

It is likely that the stage can be set for US-led international  
forces to carry out an operation aimed at eliminating the presumed  
capacity to mount terrorist operations abroad — and to prevent  
nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Given, however,  
that India will be a partner in any such operation, an attempt will  
be made to disable our intelligence capability altogether. The  
implications for national security will be grave.

It would, therefore, be prudent for the country’s security leadership  
to undertake to renounce the highly counterproductive use of non- 
state actors as a policy tool and launch a full-fledged clean-up  
operation on their own initiative. An operation of some sort is  
currently underway. That is not sufficient. The leadership of jihadi  
organisations may appear fierce with their bushy beards and fiery  
rhetoric. However, a more potent danger is posed by their handlers.  
Pakistanís security demands that these handlers be neutralised.
_____


[6]

 From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 50, Dated Dec 20, 2008

‘THE MEDIA CAN PROVOKE WAR’

Pakistani journalist Imtiaz Alam tells TUSHA MITTAL that Indian and  
Pakistani media mirrored each other in hatred

Secretary General of the South Asian Free Media Association, and  
Editor of the South Asian Journal, Imtiaz Alam, says media should  
rise above national identity and unite, not demonise other states

You’ve written that during the Cold War, the media was instrumental  
in fanning nationalisms and demonising the other side. Did the  
coverage of the Mumbai attacks by Indian and Pakistan media do the same?
I am very disappointed with the coverage of the Mumbai attacks. The  
Indian media jumped to conclusions and displayed national jingoism.  
The Pakistani media went a step ahead by blaming India itself. They  
thought India had manufactured the event and it was a big conspiracy  
to take away Pakistan’s nuclear arms. A South Asian union is the  
ultimate goal we are pursuing. We build it brick-by-brick and one  
terrorist attack demolishes the entire building. I feel disgusted at  
the role of media in both countries in building and furthering hate.

What role do Indian and Pakistani media play in the idea of a united  
South Asia?
The media can either bring the states to conflict, or it can create  
space for reconciliation. The footage you take, the way you sequence  
the events, the way you ‘balance’ and treat your story, the way you  
conduct your so-called debates and select participants, all this  
colours your story. You can choose what colour it will have. The  
event is the same, but media in two different countries report it  
differently. In times of conflict, this becomes important. The media  
should not take sides with nation-states. There should be guidelines  
about how not to report in a conflict situation.

Ideally, how should Indian and Pakistani media have covered Mumbai?
Editorially, the media should have taken the position that both  
countries should join against the common enemy. But the media became  
an instrument in the hands of the terrorists who must be laughing at  
us. Both countries should be cooperating at all levels, even at the  
level of the media. We have been fighting for media freedom, but now  
I feel there should be some self-imposed checks so that the media  
does not push countries to war.

Does the media have enough power to either prevent or provoke war?
The media can play havoc with a situation and swing the public from  
one end to the other. The media is playing havoc right now. The  
Pakistani media is pushing for a confrontation with India. On day one  
of the Mumbai attacks, the Indian media gave the judgement that the  
culprit is Pakistan. Here, we feel threatened by the extremists too.  
I have never felt such a great threat in my life as I am feeling now.  
The media in both countries brought the governments under pressure to  
take stronger actions that could lead to war. They argued that a  
diplomatic approach would be seen as weakness. Terms like surgical  
operations, limited war and, on Pakistan’s side, even nuclear war,  
were being heard often. I’m about to faint watching this demonising  
coverage. It is traumatic.

A specific example of when you thought the media had crossed the line?
In Pakistan, they brought scientists to ask how capable Pakistan’s  
nuclear weapons are of destroying Indian cities. Phrases like  
‘limited war’ mean nothing. One side can see it as a limited war, and  
the other can perceive it as a full-scale war on them. Once you start  
using these terms, you don’t know where to draw the line. In a combat  
situation, we should not be using nuclear terms, or demonising  
clichés. For example, we do not use the terms Indian-occupied Kashmir  
or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. We use Indian-administered Kashmir and  
Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

What steps should be taken to ensure coverage that encourages peace,  
not war ?
When the dust settles, I plan to hold a joint Indian and Pakistani  
media conference of reporters and editors to discuss how we behaved  
in this crisis. There should be accountability. We should have  
records of the coverage and point to what went wrong. We should bring  
the so-called big guns of media in the dock of public opinion.

_____


[7]

The News,
14 December 2008

ONE SIDE OF THE STORY
A look at the art of omission that the modern media has mastered and  
how this completely changes the perspective, especially in a time of  
crisis
By Ammar Ali Jan

For the past two weeks, the Pakistani media has been busy exposing  
the 'bias' and 'hypocrisy' of the Indian media. Our anchors,  
columnists, analysts and journalists are drawing our attention  
towards the baseless allegations being hurled at Pakistan from across  
the border without any investigation at all.
The critique of this lack of substantiation is indeed a valid one. It  
has created an atmosphere of anger and hate in India, perfect pre- 
requisites for war. Our media is also right in pointing out the  
growing disparity in 'shining India', the great injustices being  
committed against minorities and the dozens of insurgencies that have  
rocked our neighbour. That the Hindu right-wing will benefit from the  
Mumbai carnage in the upcoming elections is also a fact that has been  
given a lot of attention in the Pakistani press.

However, this is the actual limit of the 'honest' critique by our  
media. While we condemn the one-sided reporting by the Indians, are  
we not falling prey to the same?

In order to understand this bias in the media, we should look at the  
art of omission that the modern media has mastered and how this act  
completely changes the perspective, especially in a time of crisis.  
People like Professor Noam Chomsky from MIT have been very critical  
of the way the US media handled the 9/11 incident. In order to create  
war hysteria in the country, the media played on the existing anger  
and directed it towards a country without demanding much evidence  
from the administration. The US media was right in pointing out that  
these barbaric acts were committed by those who became a threat to  
civilisation. That terrorists groups did exist in the Muslim world  
and there was an increasing radicalisation among the Muslim youth.  
The dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world were also severely  
criticised, and rightly so. However, this was the limit of the  
'truth' that the US media could afford.

As Chomsky points out, the US media failed to educate the American  
people about the reasons for this monstrous attack. For example, no  
one in the mainstream media was able to highlight the US policy in  
the Israel-Palestine conflict where it completely favours Israeli  
aggression. It did not expose the results of sanctions on Muslims  
countries like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan and the periodic  
bombings of these countries. Nor could it demonstrate the support the  
US gave to tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world including Saddam  
Hussain himself. Mort importantly, the media was never able to  
demonstrate the support given to these terrorist organisations during  
the Reagan era and establish that 9/11 was nothing more than a  
blowback of a short-sighted imperialist policy. Being patriotic meant  
being pro-war. Dissent was silenced.

Coming back to Pakistan, we can witness a similar line being taken in  
"reaction to the Indian threats". It is easy to criticise the US  
media and its citizens, but are we any better? The sort of jingoistic  
nationalism portrayed by our media has been extremely disturbing  
because one had great respect for the independence of the Pakistani  
media. It will be worthwhile to have a look at some of the things  
being said on various channels.

As already stated, the Pakistani media is highlighting the plight of  
minorities in India. One anchor stated that all of the viewers should  
bow in front of Allah and thank Him for creating Pakistan; otherwise  
we would have been oppressed (obviously there is no oppression in  
Pakistan!). Our anchors are also trying to prove how RAW has been  
interfering in Afghanistan against our interests (since we have never  
interfered in that unfortunate country!) and it is involved in  
insurgencies in Balochistan and even in the recent Karachi riots (of  
course, it is only the responsibility of the Indian media to  
substantiate its claims). This tit-for-tat rubbish would have made us  
all laugh, only if the future of millions was not at stake!
Another outcome of this crisis has been the revival of the image of  
the army and ISI in the eyes of the public. Suddenly, we are being  
told by all television networks about the importance of the ISI as  
our first line of defence and warned of the 'Jewish-Hindu conspiracy'  
to destroy this 'national asset'. General (r) Hameed Gul is seen on  
TV all the time lecturing us about the 'professionalism' of the  
agency and his willingness to lead our defence against the US and  
India (much like he did during the Afghan jihad, though as a crony of  
the US).

Suddenly all criticism of the army, bureaucracy and the monstrous  
intelligence agencies has vanished as we need to "unite as one nation  
under one flag". Anyone showing dissent is a RAW agent.There is a  
frightening similarity to the US media's response after 9/11.

Why is there no one questioning this narrow interpretation of  
nationalism? Was it the RAW that disrupted the democratic process in  
Pakistan? Was it the Indian army that deprived Bengalis of their  
rights and later launched a brutal operation that is termed genocide  
by the Bengalis? Did the Indian generals hang the most popular prime  
minister of Pakistan? Was the Indian government alone responsible for  
patronising ethnic groups like the MQM? Is India responsible for the  
deprivation felt by the Balochs, Sindhis and the Pukhtoons? Are they  
the ones launching military operations against Pakistani citizens?  
Are the Indian agencies involved in rigging elections in Pakistan and  
depriving our people of their democratic rights? Who was involved in  
handing over Pakistani citizens to the US for paltry rewards? Who has  
monopolised our economy and is depriving ordinary workers the right  
to decent life?

In acting the way it is, our media is lending its uncritical support  
to all the state and non-state actors which have only put our  
existence under threat. "We must stand united as one" is the typical  
reply you get these days as a response to any criticism of these  
actors. However, if we hold this form of nationalism to be true, then  
why do we critique the US, Israeli and the Indian media? Plus, what  
does this line of defence actually imply? It can be rephrased in  
these words "at a time of a national security threat, it is okay for  
the media to twist facts, make unsubstantiated claims, slander the  
enemy and conceal facts in order to spread patriotism".

The job of the media is not to spread the elite's version of  
patriotism. Its job is to educate the masses through objective facts  
and objectivity cannot change with one's own association with a  
geographical location.

In a time of crisis, one would expect genuinely critical analyses, if  
only because the stakes are too high. Think about it. This current  
crisis can even lead to a war in which millions of lives will be  
affected. The media of both India and Pakistan, however, is busy  
spreading 'patriotism' and concealing facts from its viewers. The  
more troubling part is that no one seems to have an ethical problem  
with all this bigotry. A scary thought, indeed!
We are waiting for someone in the media to categorically state that  
the war-mongers in both these countries are a threat to ordinary  
people. We cannot equate Indian nationalism with Hindutva or  
Pakistani nationalism with its intelligence agencies. We need people  
in the media who can put a stop to this bashing of the other country  
and look at the crisis in its entirety by criticising their own  
establishments, who can show that our nationalism is about the  
betterment of our people, and not simply a hateful reaction to the  
other country.

Dr Luther King Jr.'s words directed at the US media for their  
shameful silence on US atrocities in Vietnam may prove useful for the  
Indian and Pakistani media. He said, "In a time of a great moral  
crisis, silence in the name of patriotism is betrayal."

_____

[8]

MUMBAI IS NOT INDIA’S 9/11

by CERAS
http://www.sacw.net/article405.html

_____


[9]  Hawks causing huge collateral damage to people to people  
contact: Its amazing that artists, writers and sports persons are  
being prevented from crossing borders

Times of India
PROTEST RALLY AGAINST PRESENCE OF PAK ACTORS IN MUMBAI TOMORROW
6 Dec 2008, 1951 hrs IST, PTI

MUMBAI: A protest rally against Pakistani actors in Mumbai and  
condemning the terror attack on the metropolis has been organised on  
Sunday.

Filmmaker Ashok Pandit said that television industry professionals,  
students, lawyers and people from different sections of the society  
will participate.

He said 200 college students on motorbikes will move from Otters Club  
in Bandra towards suburban Versova and proceed to Juhu Police station  
where the rally will be held. The participants will condemn the  
attacks and pay homage to the martyrs'.

"Induction of Chhagan Bhujbal will be condemned. He is more corrupt  
than R R Patil. His track record is very bad. There should have been  
a better alternative," Pandit said.

The political bankruptcy as evident in the fact that the ruling  
parties took several days to chose the successors of Vilasrao  
Deshmukh and R R Patil.

He said the television industry will not allow Pakistani actors in  
their midst.

"We will not allow Pakistani actors or performers in Mumbai and  
television channels should desist from taking Pakistani actors  
anywhere in India," he added.

o o o

The Times of India
6 Dec 2008

PAKISTAN STOPS GHULAM ALI FROM FLYING TO INDIA

by Pranava K Chaudhary, TNN

PATNA: While there hasn't been anything "chupke chupke" about his  
past visits, a small "hungama" seems to have followed the  
cancellation of
Pakistani singer Ghulam Ali's eight-city tour following the Mumbai  
terror attack.

The ghazal singer, who was to kick-off his umpteenth India visit —  
this time with Bihar's Rajgir Mahotsava on Saturday — told TOI on  
phone on Friday, "Hum sadme mein hain. Hamein roka gaya hai (I am  
traumatised. I have been stopped from travelling)."

Ali had a visa to travel to India but a call from a Pakistani  
official, whom he did not name, advised him against going ahead with  
the tour. Ali did not want to share details of the call.

The soulful singer expressed anguish at the sudden eruption of  
hostility. "What can I do? I am sitting at home. I am helpless," he  
said. "Haalaat theek nahi hain (the scenario isn't good)."

o o o

PAKISTAN: FIRST CASUALTY, PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE CONTACT
by Nirupama Subramanian
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/15/stories/2008121556681100.htm

INDIA-PAKISTAN TENSIONS CAST CLOUD OVER CRICKET MATCHES
by Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, December 12, 2008; 3:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/ 
AR2008121202642.html

_____

[10]

Indian Express
Dec 13, 2008

DECEMBER 13, SEVEN YEARS ON

by Shekhar Gupta

Just last month, Asif Ali Zardari made a stunning commitment at the  
HT Summit of a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons against India.  
Now, this overturned the classical, old and stated Pakistani nuclear  
doctrine, of using their nukes early — as if war was a Twenty20 match  
where the power-play overs were to be made to count upfront — on its  
head. No-first-use was the central pivot of the Indian nuclear  
doctrine. Did you notice, however, how muted the reaction to it was,  
not just in South Block but around the world in general? It did not  
even cause a whimper in non-proliferation circles in Washington, DC.

His speech caused a whoosh of delight among our upper crust and large  
sections of the intelligentsia. Here was a Pakistani leader willing  
to put the past behind him, a real change from Musharraf. Today, in  
the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, the same crowd is demanding that  
we go to war with Pakistan, or at least carry out “surgical” strikes,  
following the precedent set by the Americans. They were wrong then,  
and they are wrong now, for the same reason: that Asif Ali Zardari is  
not what he believes he is, and certainly not what he wants you to  
believe him to be. Yes, he is the president of Pakistan, but his  
powers, authority, room for policy manoeuvre are all not merely  
limited but very well-defined; and nobody, least of all his American  
allies, has any confusion on this.

Zardari’s government, if anything, is weaker than other elected  
governments in the past, twice each under his late wife Benazir  
Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif; and there is no question of the army ceding  
its control of the “strategic assets” to it. Nor the control of  
Pakistan’s India, Kashmir, Afghanistan, US and China policies. He  
spoke from the simplicity and inexperience of an accidental head of  
state and was probably dismissed derisively by the powers that be  
back home. That is how they would have also reacted to his “offer” of  
sending the director-general of the ISI to New Delhi. He would have  
to be delusional to believe that the current political arrangement in  
Pakistan empowers him to order the head of the ISI around, and he was  
cured of it soon enough. The global community knows the limitations  
of his authority well enough, and thus India’s own expectations are  
realistic.

That is why all talk of military action is not just futile but also  
counter-productive. First of all, given the history of India-Pakistan  
relations there will never be such a thing as a limited war or a  
surgical strike. Just because the Pakistanis routinely take the  
humiliation of American drone strikes and more should not delude us  
into believing that a strike from us won’t lead to an immediate  
escalation. Our actions, therefore, have to make that clear  
presumption. Then we have to remind ourselves of at least three clear  
presumptions that the Pakistani army would make. One, that even if an  
escalation leads to a war it will be short and sharp, with the US and  
others intervening at once to ensure that India doesn’t get the time  
to achieve any worthwhile military objectives. Two, that military  
conflict with India would provide them the perfect justification to  
pull forces out of their western borders, from the fratricidal,  
demoralising and debilitating war against their own countrymen in  
support of the Americans. And three, most importantly, it would  
restore the prestige and respect which the people of Pakistan have  
accorded their army, giving it such a special place in their power  
structure, which has depreciated rapidly in the Musharraf decade and  
after.

Any action that brings the military to the fore in Pakistan, and  
gives it the justification to shift its units from the west to the  
east would be detrimental to the future of democracy in Pakistan, the  
war against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their more India-centric  
proliferations and, ultimately, harm India’s interests too. That is  
why India’s leadership has so carefully eschewed all military  
provocation, and why all talk of movement of air assets, high alerts,  
cancellation of military leave and war-like moves is utter rubbish.  
Of course if provocations go on and other policy instruments fail to  
work entirely, India’s hand may ultimately be forced. But that,  
military action in anger, would be more a compulsion than a policy  
option. Pakistan, particularly in terms of its internal balance of  
power, is still seen globally as a work in progress. Nobody is  
delusional about which side will win in the end. But nobody wants to  
write off the process of “civilianisation” just yet, no matter how  
slow the progress.

Yet, the threat of military response must never be totally ruled out.  
If the Vajpayee Government described its response to the Parliament  
attack on December 13, 2001 as “coercive diplomacy”, what is  
happening right now can be called “coercive diplomacy II” — in this  
age of sequels. The fundamental difference, however, is that the  
response in the original was a military mobilisation unprecedented in  
its scale. The Vajpayee government had never really wanted/intended  
to go to war. But as Brajesh Mishra once said to me, for coercive  
diplomacy to work, the threat of war had to be so real even we would  
believe it. And we did. So we also accepted the risk that, at some  
point, a grave provocation may indeed leave us no choice other than  
war. That provocation, as Mishra later admitted to me in a Walk the  
Talk interview in November 2007, nearly led to war when families of  
many armymen were killed in a Terror attack at a cantonment at  
Kaluchak near Jammu in May 2002.

This phase of coercive diplomacy does not need that kind of a  
military build-up, or a stated threat of war. The world has changed  
since 2001. Howsoever weak it may be, there is an elected government  
in Pakistan. Because this round of democratisation came through a  
popular movement it is that much tougher for the army to stage  
another coup. The Americans have better focus on the region, and see  
a much greater convergence of strategic interest with India. Most  
importantly, the seven years since 9/11 have led to a world where  
even supreme national interests of almost all nations have got  
globalised. How else is one to explain the ease with which the UN  
Security Council was able to ban Lashkar and Jamaat-ud-Dawa and put  
their leaders on international lists of terrorists? The Chinese have  
obviously not given up their interests in Pakistan. But they cannot  
buck the global move against terror and be marked out as spoilers.

It is a combination of factors, therefore, that is local (to  
Pakistani politics) as well as global, which has enabled India to  
devise this new phase of coercive diplomacy. And while nobody is  
satisfied with the Pakistani response so far, it has yielded a little  
bit more than the last one already and, as voices from several world  
capitals, asking Pakistan to do more, underline, the movement is in  
the right direction.


______


[11]

The Independent
12 December 2008

DANCING GIRLS OF LAHORE STRIKE OVER 'TALIBAN' LAW

by Patrick Cockburn and Issam Ahmed in Lahore

Traditional dancing has been part of Pakistan's culture since the  
Mughal empire


The dancing girls of Lahore, the cultural capital of Pakistan, are on  
strike in protest against the tide of Talibanisation that is  
threatening to destroy an art form that has flourished since the  
Mughal empire.

The strike, which is supported by the theatres where they perform,  
was sparked by the decision of Lahore High Court last month to ban  
the Mujra, the graceful and elaborate dance first developed in the  
Mughal courts 400 years ago, on the grounds that it is too sexually  
explicit.

"The Mujra by its very nature is supposed to be a seductive dance,"  
says Badar Alam, a cultural expert. He recalls that attempts were  
made to ban it during the 1980s. "Gradually, it returned to  
commercial theatre, mostly by paying off officials. The question  
remains: does the government have the right to engage in moral  
policing?"

The government and High Court in particular have no doubt about their  
right to do just that. They have tried to encourage "family friendly"  
dances, but once-packed theatres are now near empty, despite dropping  
their prices from 300 rupees to 25 rupees a seat.

In the face of the strike and the lack of enthusiasm for alternative  
entertainment, the court has suspended its ban. It has, however,  
ordered dancers to cover their necks with shawls and wear shoes (they  
used to dance barefoot but the court deemed that too erotic). "Do  
they expect girls to dance in a burkha?" asks stage manager Jalal  
Mehmoud. "Mujra has been going on for so many years it is part of our  
culture."

The dancers are also distressed by the situation. "Theatre needs  
dance like food needs water," says Rabia, a dancer and actress. "Some  
girls were making up to 15,000 rupees in one night. Hundreds of these  
girls from poorer backgrounds will be out of the work if the crowds  
do not come back."

The ban on dancing is a symptom of a more dangerous trend in  
Pakistani society. "If the government engages in moral policing,"  
says Badar Alam, "it gives vigilantes licence to do the same. It  
fuels intolerance and de-secularisation by violence and intimidation  
and opens the door to extreme Jihadi Islamic movements."

Over the past few months, there has been a crescendo of violence in  
support of fundamentalist morality in Lahore. In the middle-class  
Garhi Shahu neighbourhood, young men and women used to meet in fruit- 
juice bars. There was nothing particularly salacious going on but,  
two months ago, three bombs exploded among them, killing one man and  
wounding others.

One bomb went off in a juice bar called Disco, where Mohammed Zubair  
Khan said he doubted if his customers would ever come back.  
"Everybody's frightened," said Saeed Ahmed Afiz, the owner of a  
another bar. Asked what he thought of those who had ruined his  
business, he declared surprisingly: "They were not terrorists because  
they did not kill anybody. They did the right thing." Asked about the  
man who died, Mr Afiz added unfeelingly: "Maybe he was just here to  
see the show."

A striking feature of those suffering persecution from  
fundamentalists is not their fear but their acceptance that, if they  
had encouraged immorality, they deserved punishment. The main centre  
for selling CDs and DVDs in Lahore is Hall Road. But when one of the  
tough-looking shopkeepers received a threatening letter accusing him  
and others of selling risqué films, the mood was not one of defiance,  
but of submission. The traders heaped up the forbidden DVDs and CDs  
in the middle of Hall Road and made a giant bonfire. "I swear we sell  
no pornography," said one nervously.


_____


[12]

http://www.sacw.net/article406.html

Press Statement

Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Group
13/12/2008

“NO MORE HINDUTVA TERRORISM”: MUMBAI ATTACK LEADS TO A ONE- 
DIMENSIONAL DEBATE ON ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM

All right thinking individuals must unequivocally condemn the recent  
Mumbai attack. However, under the cover of Mumbai attack both the  
Congress and BJP have conveniently pushed the issue of Hindutva  
terrorism under the carpet. The Mumbai attack has also further pushed  
the Indian state into the imperialist camp where America on the plank  
of Islamic terrorism is almost dictating the terms for India to  
indulge in the rhetoric of war with Pakistan .
Unfortunately, in the wake of Mumbai attack the regular secular  
forces in India – barring some organizations of the Left - have been  
largely forced to follow suit – they even forgot to remember the  
demolition of Babri Mosque on 6th of December this year.
It is in the light of the present circumstances that Jamia Teachers’  
Solidarity Group demands:
1. Probes into Malegaon , Nander and other cases related to Hindutva  
terrorism be earnestly pursued and the unfinished investigation of  
Karkare and his team be completed without any delay;
2. The report of the Librahan Commission on the Babri Masjid  
demolition be placed without any further delay as the issue is  
already in the backburner.
3. We reiterate our demand for a judicial inquiry into the Batla  
House ‘encounter’ under the sitting judge of the Supreme Court and  
the case of MD. Sajid – a minor killed in the said ‘encounter’ be  
transferred to the juvenile justice court.
It is an unfortunate paradox into which the political discourse on  
terrorism has been pushed. While minority scapegoating and majority  
victimhood had become the ruling order of the day, the Mumbai attack  
has suddenly swerved the entire terrain of deliberations on Hindutva  
terrorism and its connivance with the institutions of the State.  
While the findings of the Maharashtra ATS led by Hemant Karkare  
indicated the communalization of the army at some level owing to  
right-wing infiltration, CBI findings in one case against two Muslim  
youth picked up as Al Badr terrorists by the Delhi Special Cell  
turned out to be a false one since records indicate that they were  
police informers, quite contrary to what they were alleged with. Some  
of the officers involved in this incident were also in-charge of the  
Batla House ‘encounter’ in which two students were killed and five  
are in police remand in Gujarat for more than a month now. The voices  
of resistance so long
  heard reiterating the need for secularism, democracy and justice  
suddenly seems to have died down to a whimper for what has always  
been addressed is the symptom of the malady and not its root cause.
Selective amnesia of secular forces in this country however, has had  
a long and chequered history. The evils of 26/11 has wiped out from  
collective memory the trail of blood and terror unleashed on 6th  
December 1992 by the Hindu right wing of this country and political  
parties who had so long observed a black day on 6th December every  
year were seen either lighting candles for the victims of the Mumbai  
attack or busy taking peace initiatives as a new ritual around the  
event seems to have immense potential at the given hour. It seems  
strange that all debates around the slaughtering of Christians in  
Orissa including the rape of a nun, humiliation and torture of  
Muslims in several parts of the country, in recent times, Malegaon  
findings about the involvement of Sadhvi Pragya Singh and other  
Hindutva forces behind different terror attacks on common people has  
taken a back-seat while India’s relation with Pakistan coupled with  
war rhetoric on both sides of
  the border has taken centre stage. While all sensible citizens of  
this nation would question how had this massive security failure  
occurred and condemn in one voice the terrible spectacle of violence  
that was primetime news for almost the whole of the past week, there  
are questions surrounding the incident that trouble the critical  
intelligentsia. The death of Hemant Karkare and his team just before  
the submission of his findings of the people involved in the Malegaon  
blast not in the Taj or the Oberoi which were the centres of action  
but in a peripheral site is only the first one to begin with. Mrs.  
Karkare’s refusal of Narendra Modi’s offer of money amounting to one  
crore is an indicator that perhaps her response is more than a denial  
of allowing her husband’s death to be an incident that can be  
politically bartered in the election market. While the electronic  
media is busy organizing CEOs and film stars on the silver screen to  
give their sound
  bites to the cacophony all around, some odd print media reports how  
the DTC bus driver who had lost his limbs while trying to save his  
passengers from the bomb planted in his bus by physically throwing it  
out during the serial blasts that happened in Delhi around Diwali and  
Eid in 2005  suffers the humiliation of trying to get his pending  
medical bills cleared while the small compensation granted to him  
when public sympathy was high has been long used up as the terror of  
the escalating prices in the market has hardly left anyone unscathed.
What needs to be reiterated at this hour is that while religious  
fundamentalism of all shades must be condemned unilaterally, one  
needs to critically re-think why one issue of terror pushes the scale  
of the history of violence perpetrated on the religious and ethnic  
minorities of this country to an oblivion as if prior to 26/11 we had  
a clean slate. Only a few weeks ago the army in Manipur gunned down a  
journalist. Do the Imas of Manipur again need to walk naked on the  
streets to become news? Has the five decade long AFSPA rule been able  
to solve the problem there? While the North-east is the country’s  
hinterland Mumbai is the economic chord of the nation. The impact of  
26/11 has severe repercussions. The question that needs to be asked  
therefore is - what are the implications of 26/11 regarding the  
foreign policy to be followed by the MEA? At this hour of global  
economic recession it seems that 26/11 is the right cherry needed for  
the war pie on the
  making? And of course if war is round the corner, it’s a boom for  
certain sectors of the economy both before and after it. As far as  
civil rights are concerned, one can take a holiday as far more  
stringent measures are being advocated as if those already on board  
were not enough. L-18 and Batla House – justice for ‘encounter’  
victims … who is listening to the din after all?

Anuradha Ghosh
Neshat Quaiser
Adil Mehdi
Manisha Sethy

_____


[13]
[11 December 2008]

  AMARESH MISHRA’S WEB OF LIES

Shri Aziz Burney,
Editor In Chief
Rashtriya Sahara Newspaper

Dear Shri Burney,

I am writing this specifically in response to a news item that  
appeared in The Rashtriya Sahara on December 7, 2008. I was surprised  
and shocked that a respectable and widely read Urdu daily published  
an item without cross checking the baseless allegations made therein.  
I am referring, Sir, to the scurrilous and unsubstantiated new items  
carried by your esteemed publication obviously authored by one MR.  
AMARESH MISHRA, a dangerous individual. I am shocked that your  
newspaper printed without bothering to verify the false and baseless  
allegations against my husband and colleague JAVED ANAND, co-editor  
of COMMUNALISM COMBAT and secretary, MUSLIMS FOR SECULAR DEMOCRACY.

To rectify the one-sided view that has been published, I crave leave  
to dwell on the events of that day. The Citizens for Justice and  
Peace had hosted a meeting at the St. Xaviers College Hall to condemn  
the horrific terror attacks and to outline an action plan for youth  
and citizens. All of us were gathered there, scattered in the  
quadrangle and the hall. Swami Agnivesh and Mufti Fuzail Ul Rahman  
Hilal Usmani, our special guests, were also present having been  
escorted by my husband and colleague, Javed Anand. Suddenly Mr  
Amaresh Mishra arrived on the scene and first started using abusive  
language against M Rajdeep Sardesai, editor in chief of CNN-IBN at  
which point his mother Smt Nandini Sardesai also intervened. He then  
started haranguing Swami Agnivesh our guest, "warning" him on how he  
should speak related to the recent terror attacks in Mumbai! He soon  
turned to abusing both Mr Javed Anand and journalist Sajjid Rashid in  
offensive and unprintable language. In fact our daughter hurried to  
me at this point thinking that her father, Javed Anand was about to  
be assaulted. One of the over dozen witnesses, Shahbaz Khan  
intervened at this point and escorted Mr Amaresh Mishra out of the  
college.

Sir, there were many witnesses present that day, December 4, 2008  
when Mr. Mishra in fact did his best to disrupt our meeting and abuse  
Mr.Rajdeep Sardesai, Mr. Javed Anand and others. I believe he did  
this because he is threatened by the scope and reach of our  
activities and
especially the role of MSD in drawing the Muslim community into  
Civic, Secular Democratic issues breaking the manipulative  
stereotypes perpetrated by the Hindu right wing -- the RSS, the  
Bajrang Dal and the VHP among many other organizations -- against the  
entire community.  Specifically, I believe that Mr Amaresh Mishra was  
out to discredit the courage and initiative shown by both Mr Javed  
Anand and myself in suggesting to Indian Muslims all over the country  
to demonstrate in one voice against the enemies of India and the  
forces of terror following the recent attacks on Mumbai on November  
26, 2008. This eleven city protest was successfully held on Sunday  
December 7, 2008, the day the unsubstantiated news item in your  
newspaper appeared. I trust and hope that this letter of mine finds  
prominent space n ALL editions of the newspaper.

There are more falsehoods, Sir, in Mr Mishra's claims. He mentions  
three respected members of the Muslim clergy who he says also  
condemned M Javed Anand for "ostensibly attacking Mr Mishra (sic)".  
One of the three respected persons Maulana Mustaqeen Azmi  
specifically spoke to me, categorically refuting Mr Mishra's claim  
that he had issued any such statement of condemnation. Finally, Mr  
Mishra ends his diatribe stating that he spoke to some persons that  
include Mr Javed Akhtar, Ms Shabana Azmi and me, Ms Teesta Setalvad  
about the incident. This is an absolute lie. He did not speak to  
either of us and has not for some time.

I am consciously not engaging here on the merits and de-merits of the  
conspiracy theories spouted by Mr Mishra in print and on the internet  
that are not just too incredible but have also, surprisingly escaped  
the wrath of the sangh parivar. I am hoping that your publication  
will give me an opportunity to engage in an open debate with him on  
these theories. Until then I am hopeful that this short piece of mine  
receives de space attention and prominence in Rashtriya Sahara.

In anticipation

Teesta Setalvad
Secretary Citizens for Justice and Peace

Co-Editor Communalism Combat


_____


[14]  Announcements:

(i)

South Asia Solidarity Initiative (SASI)

AFTER MUMBAI, WHICH WAY FORWARD? A PUBLIC DIALOGUE

Location: Skylight Room (9100)
CUNY Graduate Center,
Date: Mon, Dec 15th
Time: 7 PM

Speakers
Aziz Huq (Brennan Center, NYU)
Sahar Shafqat (St. Mary’s College)
Smita Narula (NYU Law School)
Jinee Lokaneeta (Drew University)
Svati Shah (Duke University)
And others

The recent violence in Mumbai has claimed the lives of close to 200  
people and injured over 300 others. Even as we join the entire South  
Asian community in condemning this violence and asking for peace and  
solidarity, developments with serious implications are unfolding in  
the subcontinent. In particular, the loss of innocent lives in Mumbai  
is being used as a pretext to escalate tensions between India and  
Pakistan at a time when diplomatic and civil society efforts for  
peaceful coexistence had been making progress. The Obama campaign's  
aggressive rhetoric with regard to Pakistan is only exacerbating the  
issue and pushing the subcontinent further towards unilateral  
intervention.
Violence by state and non-state actors has terrorized ordinary  
citizens in both India and Pakistan.  We are concerned, however, at  
the framing of the latest act of such violence in Mumbai as 'India's  
9/11' which is designed to legitimize creation of a national security  
state along the lines of the US after 9/11. There is talk of stronger  
security, anti-terror legislation and a dedicated central  
investigative agency to deal with terror. In fact, the experience of  
the US serves as a warning and not an example of how to deal with  
acts of terror. The USA-PATRIOT Act, hastily pushed through in the  
wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, has led to the  
racial profiling and unjust detention, deportation, and torture of  
South Asians, Muslims and Arabs and a crackdown on progressive  
activists while failing to make the world, or the USA, safer.  In  
fact, the USA-PATRIOT Act and its attendant policies and practices in  
the wake of 9/11 have undermined the basis of American democracy  
since a democratic polity rests fundamentally on the rule of law and  
the guarantee of basic civil liberties for all.  We must not allow  
this to happen in South Asia.
Please join us in a public discussion of these and related issues at  
this crucial moment.

Directions: The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, is  
located on 365 Fifth Avenue (between 34th-35th on Fifth Av), New  
York. Take the B, D, F, N, R, and Q trains to 34th Street/Avenue of  
the Americas; 1,2,3, and 9 IRT trains to Penn Station at 7th Avenue  
and A, C, and E lines at the 8th Avenue.
For more information, contact us at contact at southasiainitiative.org  
or call Prachi (917-279-4923), Ash (917-279-4923) or Biju (917-232-8437)


Co-sponsors: The Center for Place, Culture and Politics http://
web.gc.cuny.edu/pcp/
The Brecht Forum http://brechtforum.org/
SALAAM Theatre


- - -

(ii)

JOIN US AT T2F FOR A POWERFUL FILM ABOUT FORCED MARRIAGES.
Date: 16th December 2008  |  Time: 7:00 pm

Every year, thousands of young women are taken abroad and forced into  
marriages by their families. This World gains unique access to the  
work of the British Consulate’s unit in Pakistan that rescues girls  
who call them for help. It is a task fraught with diplomatic pitfalls  
and personal risk, lending this film a real tension as the team  
bounce over the roads of rural Pakistan on their way to another  
"rescue". By calling for help the girls are in danger of losing  
everything - including all contacts with their families. "Imagine  
waking up tomorrow and not having a mother", says one. “A father. A  
family. Your home. Your community."

Join us at T2F for a screening of Forced to Marry and a conversation  
with Producer/Director Ruhi Hamid.

About Ruhi Hamid

Ruhi Hamid has pushed boundaries for Muslim women and specialises as  
a solo director/camerawoman. After her award-winning series "Lahore  
Law", Ruhi has made films for the BBC, Channel 4, Arte and Al Jazeera  
International including "Women and Islam" and "The Rockstar and the  
Mullahs". After working as a graphic designer in Holland, Zimbabwe  
and in London at the BBC for many years, Ruhi turned her skills to  
programme making. She worked on the innovative strand of films Video  
Diaries/Video Nation, dedicated to working alone with DV cameras  
giving access to ordinary members of the public to have their voices  
and stories heard on mainstream television. By listening and allowing  
contributors to open up and trust her, Ruhi has gained access to  
peoples and cultures and has captured critical moments on camera.  
This has been the case whether Ruhi worked with a young autistic boy  
in England, the Kalapalo Indians in the Brazillian Amazon, the  
shamans in the Siberian forests or the criminal courts in Pakistan.

Ruhi’s film about the Hmong tribe (ex CIA veterans) in Laos was  
nominated for the Rory Peck Awards in 2004, and "At The Epicentre", a  
documentary about the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in Banda Aceh,  
Indonesia, won her the same award in 2005. Her two recent high  
profile films are "Inside A Shariah Court" filmed in Nigeria and "The  
King’s New Laws" about law reform in Morocco.
Date: Tuesday, 16th December 2008

Time: 7:00 pm

Minimum Donation: Rs. 50

Venue: The Second Floor (T2F)
6-C, Prime Point Building, Phase 7, Khayaban-e-Ittehad, DHA, Karachi
538-9273 | 0300-823-0276 | info at t2f.biz
Map: http://www.t2f.biz/location

--

(iii) 'DAY FOR WOMEN'S DIGNITY' : programme on 17 th Dec 2008

Stree Adhikar Sangathan is organising a Seminar on 'Gender and  
Communalism' on  the occasion of 'Stree Samman Divas' ( Day for  
Women's Dignity). Renowned political scientist Prof Nivedita Menon  
and Writer-activist Subhash Gatade have agreed to initiate the  
discussion.

To underline the fact of the societal violence against women which  
continues unabated till date 'Stree Adhikar Sangathan' has been  
celebrating the day when Manusmriti was burnt ( 25 December 1927)  
under the leadereship of Dr Ambedkar 81 years ago as a Day for  
Women's Dignity since last seven years.

It is a considered opinion of the Organisation / Sangathan that today  
officially the Manusmriti might have been replaced by the more  
egalitarian Indian Constitution more than fifty years ago but at an  
informal level it continues to hold sway over the thinking and  
actions of a vast majority of the Indian people.

Taking into consideration the university calendar the programme is  
being organised on 17 th December itself. We will be happy if you  
spare your valuable time and join us for the celebrations.

Time and Venue

Wednesday, 17 th Dec 2008 at 2 p.m.
Activity Centre, Above U-Special, (Near Vivekanand Statue)
Delhi University (North Campus)

stree adhikar sangathan


--

(iv)

PROFESSOR I. K. SHUKLA MEMORIAL MEETING

IN DELHI

Indukant Shukla (1927-2008), Relentless Fighter Against Fascist And  
Sectarian Ideologies And Philosopher, Guide And Friend Of Democratic- 
Secular-Progressive Movements Breathed His Last On September 17, 2008  
In California.
His Friends In Delhi Are Organizing A Meeting In His Memory
On
December 20, 2008, 5.00 Pm
At
Gandhi Peace Foundation Auditorium, Ito, New Delhi.
You are requested to come to the memorial meeting to pay homage to  
this life-long defender of truth and justice.

RSVP:
Professor Manager Pandey (Cell-9868511770)
Dr. John Dayal (Cell-9868837200)
Shamsul Islam (Cell-9968007740)


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

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.