SACW | Dec 19-20, 2008 / Nepal's Disappeared / Pakistan-India ties nose dive / Draconian anti terror laws
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 21:24:29 CST 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 19-20, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2593 -
Year 11 running
From: www.sacw.net
[1] Pakistan: UN Report on Conflict-related Disappearances in Bardiya
District, Nepal
[2] Bangladesh: In defense of secularism (A.J.M. Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan)
+ Jamaat's version of history (Edit, The Daily Star)
[3] Attacks in Bombay and the fallout on India Pakistan Ties:
(i) Test of statesmanship (I.A. Rehman)
(ii) Hasten The Indo-Pak Peace Talks (Najam Sethi)
(iii) How could flowers blossom here? (Murtaza Razvi)
(iv) Mumbai attack could be as much Oklahoma City as it was 9/11
(Jawed Naqvi)
[4] Mumbai attacks and its Fallout in India: Anti terror laws
introduced that might turn India into a police state
(i) India: New Anti-Terror Laws Draconian Say Activists (Praful
Bidwai)
(ii) Our Politicians Are Still Not Listening (Colin Gonsalves)
(iii) Equality before the law? (Editorial, Herald)
(iv) India: New anti-terror laws would violate international
human rights standards (Amnesty International)
[5] Latest from India's Hindutva Labs: Gujarat and Orissa
(i) Surat, Gujarat: A Divided Cityscape (Tridip Suhrud)
(ii) Orissa Crisis Feared at Christmas (Press Release by AICC)
[6] Violence Today. Actually Existing Barbarism-Socialist Register 2009
[7] Announcements:
- Indians united against terrorism and communalism: A convention
(Chickmagalur, 28-29 December 2008)
_____
[1]
UN Report on Conflict-related Disappearances in Bardiya District, Nepal
http://www.sacw.net/article436.html
_____
[2] Bangladesh:
(i)
The Daily Star
16 December 2008
In defense of secularism
by A.J.M. Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan
The freedom fighters fought for secularism. Photo: bbyouth.net
SECULARISM remains as an enigmatic concept in our national politics.
Progressive politicians are yet to be successful in establishing it
as a principle of governance. The last several years have been tough
for them, and they were on the run because of the emergence of a
radical right wing. Many progressive politicians would be happy to
see secularism remain as a non-issue in the upcoming election.
Unfortunately, they will have to face it. During every general
election it became an issue. I can share the example of one election
with you when I, as a journalist at the time, intensively covered
election processes. It was during the 1996 parliamentary election
when I traveled across the country to know how common people would
see the election, who they would prefer for their votes, and what
they would expect to see after the election.
During that election, one party was subject to a smear campaign that
if the party would be voted to power, we would hear ululation from
the mosques instead of azans, since the party holds secularism as one
of its principles. Many elderly Muslims in rural areas asked me about
this for clarification.
In our country, ululation is a Hindu ritual. Muslims never did it as
a practice. But in Arab countries, women, irrespective of religion,
ululate to celebrate a wedding, to express grief over a death, and to
show honour to a respected person. In East Africa, women at some
orthodox churches ululate to call people for prayer. Ululation is not
a Hindu religious practice; rather it is a cultural act performed
mainly by the Arabs.
The AL could undo the smear campaign at that time because people were
fed up with BNP rule. Of course, during AL's tenure we did not hear
any ululation. Nobody really expected to. People understood that it
was a ploy to scare voters away from the AL. The AL may encounter
this propaganda again as we are approaching to a general election at
the end of this month. One hopes that the four-party alliance will
not bring this issue back to challenge secularism.
Since the mid-1970s, the right wing politicians hijacked the idea of
secularism and defamed it as something anti-religious and anti-Islam
to establish their political legacy, stoking people's fear of losing
their religious rights, and became somewhat successful. General
Ershad's declaration of Islam as the state religion and the rule of
the four-party alliance have weakened the foundation of secularism in
the country. Religious fundamentalists are now pushing for enacting
laws to protect religious fanaticism. Having the goal to enact
blasphemy laws in the election manifesto is one example of that.
It is necessary to re-discover secularism. Secularism is neither anti-
religious nor anti-Islamic. Secularism means that the government of a
country should not carry out its day-to-day jobs adhering to any
religious texts. Religion is for people to practice for their
spiritual development, if they want. Inherent in the idea of
secularism is the plurality of religion and tolerance.
In a country, people of multiple religions exist. If the country is
run by the texts of a particular religion, people from other
religions will find it discriminating against them. The duty of a
democratic country is to establish justice and equality and ensure
the protection of the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups.
Bangladesh is a unique country in terms of its birth. It was created
as a result of a language-based nationalism, not based on any
religion. Adhering to this fact, the founding figures outlined
secularism as one of the principles of state organisation.
The military dictators, who ruled the country after the murder of the
founding father, initiated the exploitation of religion for their
political purposes. But one thing Bangladeshi people demonstrated
time and again is that they are deeply religious, but they do not
tolerate religious fanaticism in any form or shape.
In the 1960s people stood against Mawdudi's orthodox interpretation
of Islam. In recent years, people have rallied against religious
fanatics like the so-called Bangla Bhai, the leader of a religious
vigilante group who faced capital punishment. People are aware that
the so-called Islamic parties invoke the religion for their political
gains.
It is not only Muslim fundamentalists who hate secularism and use
religion for political gains, but the Hindu, Christian, and Jewish
fundamentalists also do the same. Secularism emerged as a political
principle as a result of people's upheaval against Christian churches
across 19th century Europe.
We can keep faith on the awareness of our people, but hardly can sit
idle if we want to regain secularism. Muslim fundamentalists have
gained strength and have got organised and are working round the
clock to cajole people in the name of religion. Pakistan lends us a
great lesson here.
Once Pakistan had a vibrant progressive force, but the country began
to be dominated by fundamentalists with the patronage of President
General Ziaul Haque in the early 1980s, who, with Middle Eastern
money and US support, trained various Islamic groups to fight the
Soviets in Afghanistan. Now not only Pakistan but also the whole
South Asia including Bangladesh and India is now under threat from
religious radicals.
The government which we hope to elect through the upcoming
parliamentary election should initiate a tripartite move involving
India and Pakistan against religious extremism. Our government's role
may be critical in this move since we have an opportunity to emerge
as a mediating force between India and Pakistan if we can have an
independent stand without moving toward any one of them. I believe
most Bangladeshis would like to see the country emerge as a key
player of peace in the increasingly volatile South Asia.
A.J.M. Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan is a faculty member in the Department of
Mass Communication and Journalism at the University of Dhaka. He
would encourage feedback at abhuiyan at sfu.ca.
o o o
(ii)
The Daily Star
18 December 2008
Editorial
Jamaat's version of history
Viciously anti-Bangladesh
THE Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, a political party still unrepentant
of its 1971 role, seems to miss no opportunity to hit out at the
principles and events that form the very foundation of our
nationhood. Not long ago, the party's general secretary deliberately
insulted our Independence War and our freedom fighters by claiming
that our liberation war was nothing but a civil war and also that
there were no war criminals in Bangladesh! Later he also said, "If we
had the same strength in '71 as we have today, then history would
have been different."
Now, Moulana Nizami, the Jamaat Amir, has uncorked yet another
shocker by defending the two-nation theory and, terming Bangladesh as
a product of the same ideology that led to the birth of Pakistan,
totally ignoring our nationalism, language movement and struggle for
cultural identity. Jamaat chief's observation did not come as a
surprise to us, rather it is only natural that they would continue to
praise their mentor, Pakistan's founder, Quad-e-Azam MA Jinnah.
Nizami's love for Jinnah and the two-nation theory is understandable,
as it was the same belief that made them oppose, and collaborate with
Pakistan to prevent, the birth of Bangladesh. What perhaps reveals
most strikingly Jamaat's attitude to everything connected with our
independence movement is the fact that its chief chose an occasion
like Victory Day to say what he said and hurt the feelings of the
people, who had to endure the Pakistani atrocities for nine
excruciating months before liberating themselves.
The Jamaat has acknowledged the War of Liberation in its constitution
to comply with the RPO. That the party did so more under compulsion
than conviction has been made clear once more.
The Jamaat Amir has made the outlandish statement that we would never
have been independent -- had there been no Pakistan. It is not clear,
though, what independence means to him. What would have happened had
the Pakistan army, supported by the Jamaat and its killing squads
like the Al-Badr and Al-Shams, succeeded in its mission of
perpetually subjugating the people of Bangladesh? We would still have
been part of a country that committed genocide, destroyed our homes
and wanted to obliterate our culture and language.
The irony is that the Jamaat leaders are still not realising, or are
not ready to admit, that what they did in 1971 could only be termed
crimes against humanity, not to mention against the very people whose
votes they are seeking, and against the country whose parliament they
hope to enter.
We are in a sense happy that the Jamaat leaders are actually not
hiding the fact that the changes brought about in their constitution
were to hoodwink the people, and did not signal any change of heart
or mind. We are confident that people will not fail to judge the
Jamaat's real position on core issues of our nationhood and will let
their ballot teach them a good lesson.
_____
[3] Attacks in Bombay and the fallout on India Pakistan Ties:
(i)
Dawn
18 December 2008
TEST OF STATESMANSHIP
by I.A. Rehman
APART from anything else, the terrorist outrage in Mumbai put
Pakistan and India to a grim test. They have not failed — so far at
any rate. That is the gratifying part of the story. The regrettable
part is that the South Asian twins do not seem to have struck the
path of success either. As a result, the huge population of the
subcontinent is in the grip of fear or anger, both antithetical to
rational thinking.
Whether so designed or not, the events of Nov 26 had the potential,
at the very least, to derail the process of normalisation of
relations between the two neighbours and for precipitating an armed
conflict between them, at the worst. The movement for a comprehensive
India-Pakistan accord has no doubt suffered a setback but both sides
have expressed a keenness to reduce the damage to the minimum. And
they have been quite forthright in ruling out war.
However, in this state of suspended hostility the threat to regional
peace will remain alive. Sadly enough, India and Pakistan are still
engaged in a dangerous debate regarding the identity of the
perpetrators of the horrible massacre of nearly 200 innocent people,
and their sponsors. Necessary though such a probe is, total
concentration on this point amounts to taking a narrow view of the
matter and entertaining the illusion that the monster of terrorism
can be overcome by catching and hanging a few culprits and punishing
their patrons. Anyone opting for this course will be guilty of a
costly failure to learn from the disastrous consequences of the Bush
wars.
What is more important than the identity and parentage of the Mumbai
killers is the fact that they were enemies of the peoples of India
and Pakistan — they damned the Indians by killing many of them and
wounding their government’s pride and they damned Pakistanis by
putting them in the dock.
Without minimising the enormous hurt to the people of India it can be
demonstrated that the Mumbai terrorists caused much greater harm to
the world’s Muslims, including those living in Pakistan and India,
just as Muslims the world over have been more the victims of 9/11
than the Americans.
The foremost task before the governments and the peoples of India and
Pakistan is to make every effort to deny the terrorists success in
their criminal undertaking. The assault on Mumbai was obviously a
means to an end and not an end in itself.
Since the attack on Mumbai must have been planned many months earlier
it is not easy to pinpoint the objectives of those who made the plot,
except for a bid to pre-empt the new Pakistan government’s attempts
to normalise ties with India. This should have been the overriding
goal in November too when a couple of other factors — state and union
elections in India and the Kashmiri people’s shift away from violent
struggle — might have influenced the terrorists’ planning.
It should not be difficult to recognise the terrorists’ (regardless
of their parentage) interest in helping India’s communal factions in
both state and union elections, as similar to their preferences among
Pakistani political formations. Terrorists everywhere like to see in
power parties that are committed to the politics of exclusion,
because of their common roots in intolerance. Likewise, the prospect
of the Kashmiri people’s return to a non-violent political struggle
for their rights cannot be welcome to all those who have thrived on
conflict and confrontation between India and Pakistan, and such
elements can be found in both countries. This reading of the
situation offers a fair indication of the course India and Pakistan
need to follow jointly and severally.
The wave of anger in India is understandable and the emotions of a
large number of Indians have been whipped up to the extent of making
them impervious to friendly counsel from abroad. However, India is
fortunate in having a sizeable community of peace-lovers that must
not surrender to the jingoism of hate-preachers. Apart from the fact
that peace is the highest moral ideal for entire humankind, the
Indian people must be enabled to take into account the prohibitive
cost of confrontation with any neighbour not only in economic terms
but also in those of an increase in intolerance of differences based
on belief, ethnicity or social status.
The people of Pakistan, on their part, have to conduct an honest self-
appraisal, however agonising it may be. The question whether Pakistan
has fostered terrorism beyond its frontiers has become irrelevant.
What is relevant today is that the world is not convinced of its
disclaimers despite the fact that militants have forced a civil war
on it. Now it is the international community’s perception that
Pakistan is up against — and perception is often more effective than
the truth. Pakistan can escape being branded an international pariah
only if it undertakes a sincere and concerted campaign against
extremist elements whose existence cannot be denied.
The question of seeking foreign help in the fight against terrorists
that are threatening Pakistan’s very existence also needs to be
studied dispassionately. A state that has no qualms about begging for
aid to buy palm oil or to keep the administration running should not
feel shy about asking for help to ward off the terrorists’ challenge.
It is perhaps necessary to realise that the plea that Pakistan itself
is a victim of terrorism, though true, could become self-
incriminatory if it does not produce the required zeal in combating
terrorism.
Efforts by India and Pakistan to deal with terrorism separately will
not bear fruit unless they stop demonising each other and start
acting in concert. Unfortunately, both countries have become
prisoners of confrontationist forces they have thoughtlessly
nourished for six decades and more. The leaders of both countries
appear to be so helpless in the face of these forces that they may be
afraid of thinking of a summit meeting right now. Such fears will be
the undoing of the subcontinent as the situation demands boldness in
the pursuit of peace and goodwill instead of proficiency in sabre-
rattling or diplomatic sophistry.
The governments of Pakistan and India will not be able to seize the
present opportunity to close the chapter of adversarial relations
without the active backing of their respective civil societies. The
latter alone have possibilities of silencing extremist elements in
their populations and weaning their media away from their habit of
fuelling tensions.
In any case both countries should make the fullest possible use of
the Track-II channels to evolve an agreed approach to terrorism. The
starting point has to be the realisation that terrorism is not a
transitional law and order problem, that the roots of the threat to
both India and Pakistan lie in the pre-Partition communal politics
and that their future lies in burying that hateful legacy of religion-
based politics.
o o o
(ii)
Mail Today
19 December 2008
HASTEN THE INDO- PAK PEACE TALKS
by Najam Sethi
THERE is a consensus among Indians and their state and government and
media that jihadi elements in Pakistan belonging to the Lashkar- e-
Tayba carried out the Mumbai carnage, with the involvement of unknown
serving or retired elements of Pakistan’s intelligence services but
without the complicity of Pakistan’s civilian government.
Fortunately, however, the Indian government and media seem to have
quietened down a bit after the initial outrage. There is no more talk
of retaliatory strikes against either state or non- state actors and
sites in Pakistan; two provocative incursions by Indian jets last
week have been shrugged away as an “ oversight”; extradition demands
for the wanted terrorists in Pakistan are not being thundered; and
the idea of joint intelligence sharing has been spurned.
Unfortunately, however, the peace process is on “ pause”. India is
insisting that Pakistan should do more to demonstrate its commitment
to put down terrorism before New Delhi moves on pending conflict-
resolution issues. It is exhorting the international community, in
particular the USA and UK, to lean on Islamabad. It is also trying to
embarrass Pakistan by asking it to accept the bodies of the nine dead
terrorists as Pakistani citizens as well as a letter purportedly
written by the surviving terrorist to his parents in Faridkot in
Pakistan. Is this productive? The agonising fallout of Mumbai seems
to persist on the Pakistani side. The original state of mass denial
about any Pakistani state or non- state hand in the Mumbai carnage
has not even been dented by the evidence of an independent section of
the Pakistani media which has tracked the lone terrorist in Indian
hands to Faridkot near Depalpur in Punjab.
EVERY day incredible new explanations of an “ Indian conspiracy” to
malign Pakistan crop up or are manufactured by hidden hands.
The refrain everywhere is: “ where is the evidence”, as though such
irrefutable evidence can ever be collected and presented in such
cases. Indeed, the very existence of special anti- terrorist courts
and laws and prisons not just in Pakistan and India but elsewhere,
Guantanamo being the best case in point, points to the difficulty of
trying terrorists under due process of law.
The civilian government of President Asif Zardari, too, seems to be
politically backtracking from its earlier readiness to crack down on
the LeT and its various affiliates. Half- hearted detentions of some
jihadis aside, the government seems unsure about how to handle the
charities linked to these banned organisations.
First it was announced that everything would be closed down; then,
that their charity work would be transferred to state organs; and now
that it might be allowed to continue under the original umbrella
bodies. President Zardari had earlier admitted that “ nonstate actors
in Pakistan might have been involved”; now he is saying that there is
no “ conclusive proof” of that possibility.
Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar has added his two bits worth by “
clarifying” that LeT leader Hafiz Saeed cannot be detained beyond 90
days under the Maintenance of Public Order law in the absence of any
incriminating evidence.
And Ambassador Hussain Haqqani says Jaish e Mohamed leader Masood
Azhar is probably not even in Pakistan. The Pakistan government is
also under pressure to hype the war rhetoric, with Prime Minister
Yousaf Raza Gillani thundering in Parliament amidst much desk
thumping that Pakistan doesn’t want war but will embrace it
honourably if it is imposed on it. What’s going on?
For seven years, determined attempts have been made by, first, the
dubious Musharraf regime and now the elected Zardari administration
to cobble a national consensus in favour of the war on terror. But no
such luck. Most Pakistanis still insist it is America’s war and not
Pakistan’s war, despite the loss of territory and thousands of
soldiers. On the other hand, the peace process with India by both
these governments has run for five years since 2003 and covered
considerable ground in back- channel diplomacy with the support of
the people, yet it took less than 24 hours after the Mumbai attack
and the Indian media’s jingoistic outburst for anti- India
nationalism to seize all of Pakistan and plunge it in a state of
self- denial. This should tell us something of the hold of national
security institutions like the army and ISI and their outlook on the
mindset of Pakistanis of all shades and opinions. It is the same
religious- nationalist backlash that the Zardari government is now
facing.
There is media criticism that it didn’t fiercely oppose the UN
Security Council directives; indeed that it tripped over itself to
comply with them; and there is apprehension that it may succumb too
readily to the US- UK axis on the war on terror, this time on India’s
behalf, in view of the steady stream of Western big- wigs into
Islamabad, urging it to crack down on the Jihadi organisations.
In fact, the fiery Jamaat i Islami is demanding a maximalist defiance
of UN resolutions on terrorism, including the new ones favouring
India, and demanding a withdrawal of the army from FATA and lifting
of the ban on LeT and Jamaat ud Dawa. Meanwhile, the Pakistan Muslim
League Quaid is harking back to the UN resolutions on Kashmir and
insisting that India hasn’t accepted the reality of Pakistan, quite
forgetting that under Musharraf it went the furthest in normalising
relations with India and replacing the UN resolutions with out- of-
the- box thinking on Kashmir.
MR SHAH Mahmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, has asked
the Indian government to send a delegation to Pakistan to map out the
next steps for the two countries to take on how to deal with the
Mumbai attack and its consequences.
This is a good idea. Given the growing mood of defiance in Pakistan,
it is not advisable to keep the “ pause” button pressed on bilateral
relations while suspicions abound all round. What is needed is
immediate engagement, not gradual distancing.
Of course, this is easier said than done in India which is the
wounded party. But states have to think in terms of self- interest
and not honour or pride. The Indian government acted maturely and
wisely by not reacting militarily to the Mumbai provocation. If it
had followed in America’s foolhardy footsteps after 9/ 11, it might
have provoked an un- winnable war in the region. Now it must go the
extra mile to kick start the peace process that had stalled during
the last year of Musharraf’s rule and start resolving all conflicts
one by one so that those state and non- state actors in both
countries, but especially in Pakistan, who want to plunge the region
into conflict and anarchy are defeated for all times to come.
The writer is editor of The Friday Times ( Lahore)
o o o
(iii)
Indian Express
December 16, 2008
HOW COULD FLOWERS BLOSSOM HERE?
by Murtaza Razvi
India-Pakistan relations: the view from Karachi
Mann baggia mein aag bhari thi phool kahaan se khilte (fire filled
the heart; how could flowers blossom here?), crooned a rather in-tune
whitewash man (an old Noorjehan number from the 1960s) as he applied
layers of crushed limestone on the office wall outside my room. What
an apt metaphor — the lyrics and the situation — for what’s been
happening in Pakistan, and now its fallout on India since last
month’s horrid events in Mumbai.
But first to India-Pakistan relations in the aftermath of that city’s
siege by a handful of terrorists who took dozens of innocent lives.
It’s more than just varying perceptions that dog India-Pakistan
relations: neither fails the test of expecting the worse of the
other. If the finger-pointing at Pakistan even as the crisis was
unfolding was restrained, the situation perhaps would have been
different today. If the rhetoric had stopped after Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh asked for the ISI chief to be sent over for help with
the investigations and President Zardari readily replied in the
affirmative, posturing by the two sides perhaps would have been less
antagonistic.
When Zardari went back on his promise the very next day for whatever
reason, it sent relations spiraling down. Since then New Delhi and
Islamabad have been talking at each other rather than to each other.
The media war being fought in the two countries aside, Islamabad and
New Delhi demand that the opposite side take the first step in
defusing tensions. India wants concrete action taken against those it
holds responsible for the Mumbai attacks; Pakistan wants concrete
evidence before it takes any action. Had it been any country other
than India, and in which case there perhaps would have been no
allegations of ISI’s involvement in the matter, Pakistan’s response
would have been different. When Gordon Brown or Condi Rice come to
Islamabad and say that Pakistan must crack down against extremist
groups, no eyebrows are raised; when India demands that so and so be
handed over to it, all hell breaks loose. It’s simply bad blood that
refuses to wash clean.
Logically, the unveiling by the media of the family of the known,
lone survivor among the terrorists, Ajmal Kasab, in the Pakistani
Punjab village of Faridkot should be all the proof anyone needed to
establish that Pakistan’s soil was used by terrorists to carry out
the assaults in Mumbai. But that is not the case anymore because of
the ongoing media war. It makes the acceptance of the allegation on
the part of Pakistan as being defeatist; unless India provides
credible proof of the Lashkar-e-Toiba’s involvement, with or without
assistance from the ISI. As passions run high “Pakistan shall not
accede to any demand by India; a request may be considered” is what
the mood is like, rightly or wrongly, on this side of the border.
Some in Pakistan may find it self-defeating that Islamabad should
still insist on being given proof of its nationals’ involvement in
the terrorist attacks by the Indians before it can take decisive
action against militants operating in and out of this country, but
such voices will now be considered cowardly given India’s threatening
posture. The key question, as to why the will in Islamabad to act
against these killers is so shaky, has taken the backseat. As regards
the Mumbai outrage and the Indian reaction that followed it, the
answer lies in the years of nurtured animosity at the worst, and
mistrust at the ironical best, that have defined India-Pakistan
relations. That’s why even otherwise sane Indians, as the aggrieved
party, may now be baying for Pakistanis’ blood. A growing number of
people in Pakistan have responded by going into denial that some
Pakistanis might well have been involved in the Mumbai mayhem.
It is surprising and sad in equal measure what a threatening posture
by New Delhi can do to Pakistanis. Even after the tracking down of at
least one terrorist’s family here, the Government has lost little
credibility in its claim that India acted prematurely in assigning
the blame for the Mumbai tragedy on terrorists operating from
Pakistan. If it were not for a UN resolution declaring the Jamaat-ud-
Dawa and its operatives as terrorists, the Islamist group’s
leadership would still be out preaching hate and destruction of
everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their worldview; thankfully a
worldview not shared by the vast majority of Pakistanis.
Terrorist organisations like the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba
may have been banned and their leaders put under house arrest or
forced to go underground but there is little evidence to suggest that
such groups’ lower cadres will stop pursuing their destructive
agenda. Suicide bombings targeting state institutions and personnel
and attacks among rival sects in Pakistan have continued; proof, if
one is needed, that merely banning such rogue outfits will not make
them mend their ways. Sustained action to root out militancy is the
only way to arrest the growing scourge of religious extremism, with
or without prodding by India. It threatens Pakistan more than it does
its neighbours.
Islamabad must realise that after the rude awakening in Mumbai, India
may well be able to keep such rogue elements out of its territory by
being more vigilant, even if that means imposing security measures
bordering on paranoia. It is Pakistan that can burn in the fire
ignited in its backyard by some of its own, vilest people who are
allowed to do so — largely unhindered.
Pakistan’s democratic leadership can act independently of its armed
forces if it enjoys good public support on a given issue; the army
does not like to be on the wrong side of public opinion. New Delhi’s
posturing in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks makes it
impossible for the Government to accede to Indian demands and risk
being seen as acting under Indian pressure; public sentiment demands
otherwise.
Under the circumstances, engagement and dialogue can accomplish more
than demands made by India that are seen as threats by a vast
majority of Pakistanis.
o o o
(iv)
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.
______
[3] Mumbai attacks and its Fallout in India: Anti terror laws
introduced that might turn India into a police state
(i)
Inter Press Service
19 December 2008
INDIA: NEW ANTI-TERROR LAWS DRACONIAN SAY ACTIVISTS
by Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI, Dec 19 (IPS) - Following the late November terror attacks
in Mumbai, India has passed two tough laws being seen by rights
activists as potentially eroding the country’s federal structure and
limiting fundamental liberties.
Parliament -- meeting under the shadow of the November 26-29 attacks
on India’s commercial hub resulting in close to 200 deaths --
approved the legislations on Thursday with no considered debate and
the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) of Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh pushing them past amendments tabled by several
parliamentarians.
One law, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, seeks to
establish a new police organisation to investigate acts of terrorism
and other statutory offences.
The other, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Act,
radically changes procedures for trying those accused of terrorism,
extends the periods of police custody and of detention without
charges, denies bail to foreigners, and the reverses the burden of
proof in many instances.
Civil liberties activists and public-spirited citizens are appalled
at the new laws, which they describe as draconian and excessive in
relation to the measures India really needs to take to fight terrorism.
"The UAPA Act is particularly vile, and will have the effect of
turning India into a virtual police state," says Colin Gonsalves,
executive director of the Delhi-based Human Rights Law Network. "It
basically brings back a discredited law, the Prevention of Terrorism
Act of 2002 (POTA), except for admitting confessions made to a police
officer as legal evidence."
POTA was an extremely unpopular law, which the UPA government
abrogated upon coming to power in 2004 in response to innumerable
complaints of its selective and discriminatory use against India's
Muslim minority, and its cavalier and irresponsible application to
offences not even remotely connected with terrorism.
While rescinding POTA, the UPA kept in place all of India's criminal
laws, which are much stricter than those in many democracies.
In addition, it also enacted an amendment to the Unlawful Activities
Act, 1967, which increased punishment for committing acts of
terrorism and for harbouring terrorists or financing them, enhanced
police powers of seizures, made communications intercepts admissible
as evidence, and increased the period of detention without charges to
90 days from the existing 30 days.
However, this was not enough to please those who want a "strong"
militarised state which will prevent and punish terrorism by
violating the citizen’s fundamental rights, including the right to a
fair trial, and not to be detained without charges.
India's main right-wing political group, the Bharatiya Janata Party,
has been stridently demanding that POTA be re-enacted. Until
recently, the UPA, the Left and other centrist parties stood firm in
rejecting the demand despite the numerous terrorist attacks that
India has suffered over the past few years.
"But now, the UPA has suddenly, and shamefully, caved in to the BJP's
demand under the pressure of elite opinion," says Jairus Banaji, a
highly regarded Mumbai-based social scientist. "The capitulation
seems to be based on the UPA’s anxiety to counter the BJP's
ridiculous charge that it lacks the will to fight terrorism, and on
its political calculations about the next general election due by May."
In its desperation to be seen to be taking a tough stand against
terrorism, the Manmohan Singh government also tabled the NIA Bill
earlier this week. The new agency will specifically investigate
offences related to atomic energy, aviation and maritime transport,
weapons of mass destruction, and Left-wing extremism, besides terrorism.
Significantly, it excludes Right-wing terrorism, which has become a
greater menace in India.
Unlike the existing Central Bureau of Investigation, which needs the
consent of a state before investigating crimes there, the NIA will
not need a state's concurrence. This is a serious infringement of the
federal system, where law and order is a state subject.
Many state governments and regional political parties have sharply
criticised the Act on this count. In India, Central agencies are
politically vulnerable to manipulation by New Delhi and often used to
settle scores with states ruled by opposition parties.
The NIA Act also provides for special courts to try various offences.
This too has drawn criticism from eminent lawyers such as Rajeev
Dhavan, who argues that the potential misuse of this anti-terror
legislation will now "come from both the states and the union, which
can hijack the case".
The UAPA Act contains a number of draconian clauses, and is also
applicable to the entire country -- unlike the Unlawful Activities
Act, which was originally not extended to the strife-torn state of
Jammu and Kashmir. This too has drawn protests from Kashmir-based
political parties and human rights groups.
The stringent clauses cover a broad range, including a redefinition
of terrorism, harsh punishment extending from five years’
imprisonment to life sentence or death, long periods of detention,
and presumption of guilt in case weapons are recovered from an
accused person.
The new definition now includes acts done with the intent to threaten
or "likely" to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty
of India, and offences related to radioactive or nuclear substances,
and even attempts to overawe, kidnap or abduct constitutional and
other functionaries that may be listed by the government. Dhavan
says: "The list is potentially endless."
Under the Act, an accused can be held in police custody for 30 days,
and further detained without charges for 180 days, although courts
can restrict the period to 90 days.
"This is a travesty of constitutional rights and the rule of law,"
says Gonsalves. "Even worse is the presumption of guilt in case there
is a recovery of arms, explosives and other substances, suspected to
be involved, including fingerprints on them. The police in India
routinely plants such arms and explosives, and creates a false record
of recovery."
"The very fact that offences such as organising terrorist training
camps or recruiting or harbouring terrorists carry a punishment as
broad as three or five years to life imprisonment shows that the
government has not applied its mind to the issue,’’ Gonsalves added.
Under the Act, there is a general obligation to disclose any
information that a police officer of a certain rank thinks is
relevant to the investigation. Failure to disclose information can
lead to imprisonment for three years. Journalists are not exempt from
this.
Besides making telecommunications and e-mail intercepts admissible as
evidence, the Act also denies bail to all foreign nationals, and
mandates a refusal of bail to anyone if a prima facie case exists,
which is decided on the basis of a First Information Report filed by
the police.
POTA and its predecessor, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act (TADA), were extensively abused. They typically
targeted the religious minorities, specifically Muslims, and allowed
for their harassment and persecution.
The TADA story is especially horrifying. Some 67,000 people were
arrested under it, but only 8,000 put on trial, and a mere 725
convicted.
Official TADA Review Committees themselves found the law’s
application untenable in all but 5,000 cases. In 1993, Gujarat
witnessed no terrorism, but more than 19,000 people were still
arrested under TADA.
Religious minorities were selectively targeted under both Acts. For
instance, in Rajasthan, of 115 TADA detainees, 112 were Muslims and
three Sikhs.
Gujarat had a worse pattern under POTA, when all but one of the 200-
plus detainees were Muslims, the remaining one a Sikh.
The passing of the two new laws is certain to increase the alienation
of India's Muslims from the state. They have been the principal
victims of India's anti-terrorism strategy and activities in recent
years.
Muslims are first to be arrested and interrogated after any terrorist
incident, even when the victims are Muslims, and although strong
evidence has recently emerged of a well-ramified pro-Hindu terrorist
network, in which serving and retired army officers were found to be
key players.
Muslims also distressed at the alacrity and haste with which the new
laws were passed, especially since it contrasts with the UPA
government’s failure to enact a law it promised five years ago to
punish communal violence and hate crimes targeting specific religious
groups.
"This will pave the way for more disaffection amongst Muslims and
make the social and political climate more conducive to terrorism,"
argues Gonsalves. "Even worse, it will promote excesses of the kind
associated with state terrorism. And that is no way to fight sub-
state terrorism."
o o o
(ii)
Mail Today, 19 December 2008
OUR POLITICIANS ARE STILL NOT LISTENING
by Colin Gonsalves
ONE would have thought that after the Bombay attack and the public
outpouring of resentment against politicians, that the establishment
would get its act in order. One would expect that careful thought
would go into the making of proposals to combat terrorism and to keep
the people secure. Instead what do we find? The same old clichés and
the usual attack on human rights activists.
What the people of India expected, was that the governments would
give careful thought to making the police a professional fighting
force oriented towards the security of the ordinary citizens of India
rather than operating, as it does now, as the protectors of
politicians. They also expected that the police would eliminate from
its ranks the use of torture and the vice of corruption, two aspects
of policing today that make the general public both distrustful and
fearful of the police.
Listening carefully, however, to the statements of BJP and Congress
politicians in the media, one can find no reference to the demands of
the people. Politicians are obviously distracted by the national
elections scheduled for early next year and even such a serious
incident of terrorism as the Bombay attack figures even now in their
consciousness as a vote catching exercise.
In a knee-jerk reaction, GOI proposes to enact The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008. Under section 15, the
prosecution is to be granted upto 180 days to file a chargesheet (it
is a 90 day limit today after which the accused is granted bail
mandatorily), the provisions for bail are stricter, and if arms or
explosives are proved to be recovered from the accused, then the
court is entitled to presume that the accused has committed a
terrorist act.
Indian criminal law provisions rank among the strictest in the world.
In the US and the UK even after the terrorist attacks in those
countries, the maximum period of detention without a chargesheet is 2
days and 28 days respectively. The provisions in India for search and
seizures are the most liberal in the world.
Supreme Court decisions to the effect that even if the searches and
seizures are illegal they may still be relied upon in evidence
against the accused, has given the police a free hand to do all kinds
of hanky panky while conducting raids. Amendments have been made in
various statutes to permit interceptions of communications.
Supreme Court decisions after 2000 have watered down the criminal law
protection of accused persons and have lowered the criminal law
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to such an extent, that
international jurists are appalled by the way in which the Indian
courts are convicting accused persons. Why then, with such strict
laws and with such a convicting judiciary, did the Bombay attack
happen with such impunity? The answer is simple. The problem in India
lies not in the law but in its implementation.
This is where the main demands of the people that the police become a
professional force, that law and order be separated from the
investigation of crimes, and that corruption and violence be
eliminated, becomes important. The Central Government also proposes
to pass The National Investigation Agency Bill, 2008 which will see
the setting up of a national body to oversee the investigation and
prosecution of terrorist offences. Here again the approach is
cosmetic rather than substantial and the aim is to impress rather
than protect. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is today a
national body for the investigation of all serious crimes. The only
difference between the CBI and the NIA is that the former is required
to take the permission of the states prior to acting within the
state, whereas the NIA can operate without consent. But if all the
states are agreed, as indeed they are, that terrorism ought to be
fought at the national level as well, then there ought to be no
difficulty for the Central Government to consult the legislatures of
the states in a transparent manner, to obtain consent for the CBI to
operate throughout the country.
All that would be necessary thereafter is for the Central Government
to administratively upgrade the CBI. THOUGH it must be said to the
credit of the Union Government that they have not succumbed to the
temptation to introduce the draconian POTA provision authorising
confessions to a police officer (which rendered POTA trials
farcical), the reference to Left Wing Extremism in the Statements of
Objects and Reasons is disappointing.
Naxalism has deep social roots in injustice, poverty and state
violence, unlike the senseless terrorism of Pakistani agents. Like
the IRA in Ireland, it must be recognised as a political tendency and
negotiated with politically. The reasons for the growth of naxalism
must be understood as requiring a radical shift from the inequities
of globalisation to a more socialistic programme where the common
person is treated with dignity. In the present political situation
however, one can only see hysteria and the lack of reason.
The writer is an eminent lawyer and civil rights activist.
o o o
(iii)
Herald, Panjim, 18 Dec 2008
Editorial
Equality before the law?
No lessons seem to be have learnt by the central government from the
experiences with terrorism over the past few years. On 16 December,
the central government tabled two laws in Parliament – one to set up
an FBI-style National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the other to
amend the law to bring in more stringent provisions to deal with
terror crimes. Nobody can object to the NIA, but the latter law has
many provisions similar to draconian laws (now repealed) like TADA
and POTA, two laws which were misused extensively, but produced so
few convictions of terrorists, that any objective assessment would
have classified them as practically useless. The new proposed law,
broadens the definition of terror acts to cover violence related to
militancy, insurgency and left-wing extremism, but significantly
leaves out engineered communal riots, like the recent ones against
Christians in Orissa and Karnataka.
Special laws like the Chhattisgarh Special Powers Act, meant to fight
Naxalism, have been used to victimise and intimidate anybody who
dares to speak up for the poor. This is seen in the case of Dr
Binayak Sen, who has been languishing in jail for over 20 months
without any convincing evidence of any kind having been presented
against him. This is not a problem existing only outside Goa. In a
shocking incident on 16 December, the police rounded up 88 teenage
girls and six teachers from a madrasa in Vasco and took them to the
police station since their identity verification forms had not been
submitted in time. It is not as if the madrasa was an unknown one –
some of its trustees are respected businessmen locally. The police
could easily have contacted them and asked them to complete the
procedures. Instead, they acted in a high-handed and insensitive
fashion against teenage girls, who cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be considered terrorists.
Would one be very wrong if one were to conclude that this was done
only because the institution in question happened to be a madrasa?
One would like to know whether the police have asked for these forms
from all schools in Goa which have ‘outsiders’ studying in them. If
any such school had not complied in time, would the police have
dragged all the students to the police station? Or is this kind of
behaviour reserved only for Muslim institutions and those which cater
to the lower socio-economic classes? Selective actions like this
raise suspicions among the minorities that the police have communal
and class biases.
Ever since the Mumbai terror strikes, the police have been conducting
raids in colonies housing migrant labourers, and rounding up large
numbers of them. But how many middle- and upper-class migrants, of
whom there are so many in Goa, have been asked to fill up these
identity verification forms? The police cannot claim that these socio-
economic groups are not terror risks – there have been plenty of
highly educated terrorists, as well as those who have come from
affluent backgrounds.
Has the Goa Police asked the Sanatan Sanstha Ashram in Ramnathi,
Ponda, to submit these forms for all its inmates? Some of the
activists of this organisation were arrested earlier this year for
their involvement in the Thane bomb blasts. Have any investigations
been carried out on its activities? Or does the Goa Police believe,
like the RSS, that Hindus, by definition, cannot be terrorists?
Communal profiling of all Muslims as ‘terrorists’ since the 1993
Mumbai bomb blasts has created among them a deep sense of alienation
from the mainstream. And, when the police behave like this, it only
leads Muslims to conclude that the system is deeply biased against
them, and that they cannot expect justice from it. Terror must be
fought resolutely, but also sensitively. Framing draconian laws that
are then used to selectively target minorities and the poor only
builds a fertile breeding ground for creating terrorism, rather than
eradicating it. Our laws must respect the human rights enshrined in
the Constitution of India. They must be applied firmly, sensitively
and even-handedly. That is the only way to take on terror and
effectively fight it, in the long run.
o o o
(iv)
India: New anti-terror laws would violate international human rights
standards
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/india-new-anti-
terror-laws-would-violate-international-human-rights-stan
_____
[5] [LATEST FROM INDIA'S HINDUTVA LABS: GUJARAT AND ORISSA]
o o o
(i)
A DIVIDED CITYSCAPE
Denying Muslims housing is shaping the city of Surat into ‘ours’ and
‘theirs’
by Tridip Suhrud
HOW IS one to understand the decision of the real estate developers
and agents of Surat not to sell or rent houses or commercial
properties to Muslims of the city? “
We want to control the percentage of Muslims with properties and
shops in our areas,” was the official explanation of the association
that called the meeting of builders. This, they argued, was a
precautionary measure against Mumbai-like terror attacks and the
failed bomb strikes against Surat in July. No terror attack could be
planned or carried out without local support, they argued. This comes
at a time when Muslim groups in the country have assiduously
distanced themselves from the Mumbai terror attack. The Babri Masjid
Action Committee decided not to observe December 6 as a ‘black day’,
Eid was marked by mourning, and a few months ago, the Darul Uloom at
Deoband had unequivocally declared terror as being un-Islamic.
This could be seen as a public acknowledgement of a process that has
been going on for a long time, not just in Surat or Gujarat but also
elsewhere in the country. Terror is only the upper layer of many
deepseated fears, which include in Gujarat fears of non-
vegetarianism. But it is not just an expression of cultural fear or a
communal mindset. It is also a sign of a newly-emerging cityscape. It
is possible to speak of a city as being divided into ‘our’ areas and
‘their’ areas. It conveys a belief that a city can be conceived as
being inhabited by mutually exclusive community groups, with no
interdependence, either in terms of trade and commerce or in the
sense of a shared daily life. It claims that the new city will have
no ‘public spaces’ but only community specific institutions: separate
schools, hospitals, commercial establishments and also separate
underworlds. In this new city, it is possible to speak in terms of
‘boarders.’ And as Juhapura in Ahmedabad would testify, this boarder
is not imaginary or pathological. It is real, in all its brick and
mortar materiality. What they hope to create is a city of ‘a
permanent underclass.’
But it is not only this imagination that drives Surat. Surat was and
is an entrepreneurial city; with diamonds and textiles driving the
city’s growth. It is a city that is capable of exemplary civic will,
as the post-plague period in the city’s recent past demonstrated.
Surat’s economic ambitions are at variance with its desire to create
separate enclosures for its Muslims and Hindus. What they do not
recognise is that an entrepreneurial city cannot survive with a
permanent underbelly.
For Surat, it also conveys a deep amnesia about its own history and
cultural moorings. Surat, on the banks of the river Tapi, has been a
major trading port since medieval times. The Arabs, Mughals,
Portuguese, English, Dutch and the French all came to Surat and
contributed to its cultural and architectural imagination, which are
still in evidence, if recessive in memory. Surat was the most
cosmopolitan of urban settlements on the west coast of Gujarat,
before the emergence of Mumbai. Surat celebrates its association with
Narmad, the poet, lexicographer and historian of the city, who gave
us the song “Jay Jay Garvi Gujarat.” Its major university is named
after Narmad. But it also violates Narmad’s memory. It was Narmad who
asked the question of “Who does Gujarat belong to?” He listed all the
cultural and religious symbols, communities and caste groups and said
that Gujarat does not belong to anyone of them. He sang that Gujarat
belongs to all those who make Gujarat their home.
If Surat wants to prosper as an entrepreneurial city, it can do so
only by reclaiming its forgotten cosmopolitan character, and not as a
city that seeks the erasure of a large part of its citizenry.
(Suhrud is an academic living in Ahmedabad)
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 51, Dated Dec 27, 2008
o o o
(ii)
PRESS STATEMENT BY ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCIL
Extremist Hindutva groups plan a bandh on Christmas Day
International community closely watching Orissa situation
NEW DELHI – December 19, 2008 – Rightwing Hindutva organisations in
Orissa confirmed they will hold a bandh (strike) on Christmas Day
triggering fears of further anti-Christian violence. Separately,
politicians held hearings in Washington, D.C. and London about
extremism and violence in India. And a European Union delegation
conducted a fact finding trip to Orissa from Dec. 9-12, 2008
On Dec. 17, 2008, ultra-nationalist Hindutva groups said they will
observe a state-wide shut-down for 12 hours on Christmas Day,
reported The Hindu newspaper. The protest is due to the failure of
authorities to arrest the killers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
leader Lakshmanananda Saraswati who was assassinated on Aug. 23,
2008. The Orissa Chief Minister, Naveen Patnaik, opposes the bandh,
and the newly appointed Minister of Home Affairs in New Delhi, P.
Chidambaram, publicly assured Christians they’ll be safe. Aicc
leaders remain concerned it will have the same results as an August
25th bandh which saw anti-Christian violence spread across the
eastern state of Orissa. Last Christmas, a bandh called by a tribal
organisation, Kui Samaj, resulted in unprecedented anti-Christian
attacks throughout one district.
“The bandh is provocative. Combined with a continuing hate campaign
against Christians, there is potential for violence over Christmas.
We appeal to police, politicians, local language media, and civil
society in Orissa – and across India – to seek peace instead of
hostility,” said John Dayal, aicc Secretary General. “Specific
actions like positioning adequate Central Reserve Police Forces and
banning the entry of VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders from the sensitive
Kandhamal District are essential.”
Dr. Joseph D’souza, aicc President, said, “The climate of
intimidation and fear among Christians continues in Orissa. Although
we hope the state and central authorities act to protect thousands of
innocent victims and prevent future mob violence, we’re deeply
worried. We are appealing for preventative action through all legal
avenues.”
Yesterday, Dec. 18, 2008, the British House of Lords held a two and a
half hour debate about recent developments in India. Baroness
Caroline Cox, whom aicc hosted during a fact finding trip in early
November, initiated the debate and several peers spoke. John Montagu,
Earl of Sandwich, said, “Patnaik, is a personal friend of mine from
Delhi in the 1960s…But I have to tell Naveen that, from what I have
read, neither his Government nor the Union Government in Delhi have
taken sufficient action to find the perpetrators of this massacre or
to protect its victims still in camps.” Excerpts of the debate are
available at: http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/2660/47/.
On Dec. 10, 2008, the United States Congressional Task Force on
International Religious Freedom held a briefing titled, “The Threat
Religious Extremism Poses to Democracy and Security in India: Focus
on Orissa.” Witnesses included Vishal Arora, an independent Indian
journalist; Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor of Social and
Cultural Anthropology at California Institute of Integral Studies;
Angela Wu, International Director at The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty; Sophie Richardson, Advocacy Director for Human Rights
Watch’s Asia Division; and Joannella Morales with the State
Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom. The aicc
briefed two of the panelists during their recent visits to India.
From Dec. 9-12, 2008, aicc coordinated briefings for a delegation of
European Union representatives by Orissa’s non-governmental
organisations, advocates, and both Christian and non-Christian
community leaders. The delegation included officers from the
embassies of Finland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and United
Kingdom. Despite public assurances by Indian authorities that the
rule of law has returned to Orissa, both the central and state
government advised the delegation not to visit the two most affected
districts: Kandhamal and Gajapati. The reason given was “the
prevailing law and order situation”. This meant the delegation was
effectively prevented from observing the current condition of
government-run relief camps and victims.
D’souza said, “We are hopeful that our great democracy can resolve
these issues by itself, but at the same time we welcome the interest
of nations friendly to India and citizens of goodwill from across the
world who believe in human rights and religious freedom.”
According to aicc leaders and Indian media reports, there are still
8,000+ in government-run relief camps and victims don’t have adequate
food and medical care. On Dec. 1, Chief Minister Patnaik told the
Orissa state assembly that 4,215 houses and 252 churches or prayer
halls were destroyed. The state government issued compensation checks
to a few of the families who lost loved ones or houses. Fast track
courts have not been started. The aicc has reliable reports that 118
people died in the violence. In October, India’s Supreme Court
ordered the state government to compensate for burned churches, but
no progress is reported yet. Two state-appointed investigations are
ongoing. Justice (retired) Basudev Panigrahi continues to investigate
the Dec. 2007 violence, and Justice (retired) Sarat Chandra Mohapatra
started an inquiry into the killing of swami Saraswati and subsequent
communal violence.
The All India Christian Council (www.aiccindia.org), birthed in 1998,
exists to protect and serve the Christian community, minorities, and
the oppressed castes. The aicc is a coalition of thousands of Indian
denominations, organizations, and lay leaders.
For more information, contact:
Dr. John Dayal, aicc Secretary General
catholicunion at gmail.com
+91-9811021072
Sam Paul, aicc National Secretary of Public Affairs
sam at christiancouncil.in
+91-9989697778
+91-40-2786-8908
_____
[6]
VIOLENCE TODAY. ACTUALLY EXISTING BARBARISM-SOCIALIST REGISTER 2009
Leo Panitch and Colin Leys (eds)
available from Monthly Review Press.
Given the extent and extremity of violence today, even in the absence
of world war, and two decades after the end of actually-existing
socialism, it is hard not feel that we are living in another age of
barbarism. The scale and pervasiveness of violence today calls
urgently for serious analysis-from "the war on terror" and counter-
insurgencies, from terror and counter-terror, suicide bombings and
torture, civil wars and anarchy, entailing human tragedies on a scale
comparable to those of the two world wars, not to mention urban gang
warfare, or the persistence of chronic violence against women. That
the nirvana of global capitalism finds millions of people once again
just "wishing (a) not to be killed, (b) for a good warm coat" (as
Stendhal is said to have put it in a different era) is, when fully
contemplated, appalling.
The opening essay offers an overview of the scale and variety of
contemporary violence while also taking up once again the question of
socialism versus barbarism. Other essays analyze the nature and roots
of paradigmatic cases and types of violence today around the world.
And several of the concluding essays deal, from various different
standpoints, with the still important question of whether violence
has any place in socialist strategy in the context of today's
actually-existing barbarism.
Contributions:
Henry Bernstein, Colin Leys, and Leo Panitch - Reflections on
Violence Today
Vivek Chibber - American Militarism and the U.S. Political
Establishment: The Real Lessons of the Invasion of Iraq
Philip Green - On-Screen Barbarism: Violence in U.S. Visual Culture
Ruth Wilson Gilmore - Race, Prisons and War: Scenes from the History
of U.S. Violence
Joe Sim and Steve Tombs - State Talk, State Silence: Work and
'Violence' in the UK
Lynne Segal - Violence's Victims: The Gender Landscape
Barbara Harriss-White - Girls as Disposable Commodities in India
Achin Vanaik - India's Paradigmatic Communal Violence
Tania Murray Li - Reflections on Indonesian Violence: Two Tales and
Three Silences
Ulrich Oslender - Colombia: Old and New Patterns of Violence
Sofiri Joab-Peterside and Anna Zalik - The Commodification of
Violence in the Niger Delta
Dennis Rodgers and Steffen Jensen - Revolutionaries, Barbarians or
War Machines? Gangs in Nicaragua and South Africa
Michael Brie - Emancipation and the Left: The Issue of Violence
Samir Amin - The Defense of Humanity Requires the Radicalization of
Popular Struggles
John Berger - Human Shield
Leo Panitch is professor of political science at York University in
Toronto and author of Renewing Socialism: Democracy, Strategy, and
Imagination.
Colin Leys is emeritus professor at Queen's University, Kingston,
Ontario and author of Market-Driven Politics.
_____
[7] Announcements:
(i)
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2008/12/indians-united-against-
terrorism-and.html
Indians united against terrorism and communalism: A convention in
Chickmagalur (28-29 December 2008)
A convention by people of multiple faiths, communities and beliefs
by Karnataka
Komu Souharda Vedike
Karnataka
Communal Harmony Forum
Durga Nilaya,
2ndcross, Bapuji
Nagar, Shimoga. Ph: 9448256216
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the SACW
mailing list