SACW | Dec 21-29, 2008 / Bangladesh Elections / Nepal attack on Himal / Pakistan - India War Talk
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Mon Dec 29 00:29:16 CST 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 21-29, 2008 | Dispatch No. 2594 -
Year 11 running
From: www.sacw.net
[1] A Joint Statement from Sri Lanka Diaspora Dialogue in Australia
[2] Bangladesh: No more a pawn (Khushi Kabir)
[3] Nepal: Another Attack on Himal Media - responses & statements
(i) Alliance for Press Freedom formed
(ii) Maoist Activists Attack Newspaper Group Again (Reporters
Without Borders)
(iii) CPJ calls for nonpartisan investigation into attack
[4] Pakistan - India Tensions After the Terror Attack in Bombay
(i) Trapped in hysteria (I.A. Rehman)
(ii) The march of folly (Ayaz Amir)
(iii) 'It is the poor who always suffer'(Beena Sarwar)
(iv) There is no military option (Praful Bidwai)
(v) Terrorism in Mumbai: A Challenge for Democracy - Press Release
(NTUI)
[5] Pakistani theatre group plays a peace tune (Avneep Dhingra)
[6] Announcements:
(i) Film Screening - 'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?' (Bombay, 29
December 2008)
(ii) Invitation for Ballet and Felicitation of Kannabiran's (New
Delhi, 30 December 2008)
_____
[1]
SRI LANKA COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
16 December 2008
JOINT STATEMENT1
Following an extensive series of discussions sponsored by La Trobe
University's Centre for Dialogue over a period of twelve months,
participants drawn from the various Sri Lankan communities resident
in Melbourne agreed to the following statement.
This statement, it should be stressed, is not offered as a solution
to the conflict in Sri Lanka. Participants in the dialogue continue
to hold different views about different aspects of the conflict.
Nonetheless, participants agree that the dialogue in which they have
engaged has served a useful purpose, enabling a free exchange of
views and a better understanding of each other's positions. They
believe that further dialogue both among the Sri Lankan diaspora
communities in Australia and in other countries is a positive step
and should be actively promoted.
The participants also agree that:
1. The long-term objective is to restore peace in Sri Lanka and to
foster a society that nurtures a culture of peace based on mutual
respect, mutual understanding and cooperation - this would immensely
improve relations between the Sri Lankan communities in Australia.
2. A just and durable solution to the Sri Lankan conflict requires
each community to develop greater understanding of and support for
the legitimate rights, needs and aspirations of all communities.
3. A just and durable solution also requires:
a) respect for the human rights of all the citizens and communities
in Sri Lanka, including all the rights outlined in the International
Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights;2
b) serious, transparent and free discussion involving all the
communities about future political reforms, including the possibility
of future constitutional change - the overriding aim of such reforms
must be to promote good governance and the legitimate interests and
security of all citizens and communities in Sri Lanka.
4. Even before peace has been restored, all parties have a
responsibility to:
a) bring to an end all attacks on civilians;3
b) meet basic humanitarian needs of civilians and to protect them
from the effects of the fighting - where appropriate, accredited
international agencies should be invited to assist in the provision
of such services;4
c) ensure that any use of force is conducted in strict accordance
with international law.
5. Constructive dialogue within and between Sri Lankan diaspora
communities around the world can make a vital contribution to the
healing of wounds and reconciliation, and help create a more
favourable environment for a durable peace.
6. More specifically, such dialogue can:
a) encourage truth and objectivity in the reporting of events and
responses to them;
b) promote use of language likely to foster mutual trust and
understanding;
c) strengthen forward-looking, constructive leadership that is
prepared to take risks in the interests of peace;
d) take small, practical steps towards greater collaboration,
including joint educational and social activities;
e) enable new opportunities for inter-communal dialogue in Australia
and beyond.
For further information contact:
Project Coordinator: Dr Michális S. Michael
(m.michael at latrobe.edu.au), tel. (03) 9479-2140, fax. (03) 9479 1997,
Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia.
1 This statement was considered and approved by consensus by members
of Melbourne's Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher communities at
the Sixth and final Sri Lanka Community Dialogue session on 29
November 2008.
2 Sri Lanka acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights in June 1980 and to the first Optional Protocol in
October 1997.
3 As defined by the International Red Cross or the Geneva Conventions.
4 In line with the Guiding Principles for Humanitarian and
Development Assistance agreed by donor countries and the Sri Lankan
government in 2007.
_____
[2] Bangladesh:
New Age
December 2!, 2008
NO MORE A PAWN
The real role and function for us, the citizens, begins now. We need
to ensure that we have a functioning as well as a truly democratic
and accountable government in place. We need to find our own
mechanisms on to how to ensure true representation of the majority of
the people, the toiling masses, women and men from all religions,
ethnicity, occupations and classes, particularly the down trodden.
That is the main challenge,
writes Khushi Kabir
During elections, especially National Elections, the nation gets
energised with deciding the fate of the Nation. Though for some,
there exists frustration, a feeling of ennui that this is a farce,
but for most, elections dominate discussions at the household level,
at social gatherings, at public places and in the media. I find that
whether in the villages I travel to, or in Dhaka, this is the main
topic of conversation. The long awaited elections are eventually
happening! But what of the long two years wait itself? Was it
necessary for Bangladesh’s democracy? Has it changed the nature of
how elections are to be conducted and the systems within the parties
itself, of selecting their candidates? Has the Election Commission
really shown its teeth and proven its ability to act independently
from the government in power? In other words has the two years that
the ‘caretaker government’ under the ‘care’ of the armed forces,
taken to prepare itself to enable them to perform and conduct the
elections effectively and efficiently, really been worth the wait?
We need to assess the performance and role of the government in
light of ‘reforming’ the election process itself, whether these
‘reforms’ have impacted upon the political parties or the electorate.
This is crucial for the present as well as future elections. Why did
we need two caretaker governments and changes in the council of
advisers within a span of two years instead of the three month
period? Is such a period of undemocratic rule needed each time we
elect a government? Will this be required every time our political
parties fail, stumble, hiccup while attempting to ensure democracy
and accountability? The role of this caretaker government is unclear.
The self declared agenda to reform political processes was limited to
selectively targeting individuals. The recent spurt of withdrawal of
extortion cases against the leaders proves this point.
It did not attempt to include people at large in their efforts to
reform systems, neither party workers nor their rank and file.
Our political parties are yet to realise that those who vote them
into power, their constituents, are the ones that matter. In a
democracy, based on the principle of ‘one person, one vote’, that is
obvious. Unfortunately, the parties and their leaders tend to cater
to the minority, but the dominant class of people with funds and
power, whether muscle, financial, religious or political. This is
supported and enhanced by external interests, not just for
Bangladesh, but most other countries like ours. Globalisation is not
just economic domination but political control as well, with geo-
political dynamics playing a very crucial role. Events taking place
in nearby countries illustrate this further. Thailand, where the
elected government, albeit corrupt, but elected nevertheless, could
be overthrown by a group of urban and elite minority, primarily
because of their support from royalty and the army (some of the
members of the new cabinet having doubtful reputations). In Pakistan,
the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the subsequent events within
and in the region. The media’s role in creating an Islamic terrorist
image juxtaposed with the recent events in Mumbai. The role of the
international media, more concerned with events at the Taj and the
Trident, rather than the Victoria Terminus, the same media who were
somehow not as forthcoming during the time of the Gujrat massacre,
the demolition of Babri Masjid, the horrifying attacks on the
Christian Nuns in Orissa, in terms of identifying which acts are
globally more newsworthy than others, all point towards certain
images that are pre-imposed upon us. Global interests failed to
address the issue of war crimes of our secular Liberation War of
1971. Those who killed and raped us misused the name of religion
because socialism was the threat then.
So what does this have to do with our own elections and how does
this relate to the points raised before. The role and effectiveness
of the current government and how has it impacted the behaviour of
the voters and the political parties are important. The point to be
noted is that while we act as citizens in asserting our right to
vote, we need to be aware of what is happening and what will in fact
be ‘allowed’ to happen. There is a feeling of festivity regarding the
upcoming elections, though less exuberant than the past. This cannot
be singularly contributed to the ‘reformed’ election rules. Political
parties have not yet been able to muster the kind of organization
required to get into action in full swing. Last minute change of
candidates, last minute consolidation of alliance partners, getting
green signal from the courts or the Election Commission, after having
first been disqualified, not to mention sudden and late release of
senior leaders from prison or returning to Bangladesh, are more
responsible for the less vigorous campaigning. My prediction is that
in the last few days election fervour will be just as before. Already
it is rumoured that certain candidates have begun their election
spending spree. Profiles of the candidates do not show that
representatives of the poorest and the most socially, economically
and culturally deprived have been given nominations. Majority of the
candidates are elitist. New faces are often relations of those who
were unable participate in the elections. This does not in any way
signify change. We apprehend the Election Commission may be too busy
reprinting and updating ballot papers to take full cognisance of
adherence of election rules and may be unable to play a desired,
decisive and timely role this time either. If we observe the roles
that have been played by various non political party actors,
including diplomats and others, during the last two and a half years,
in ‘guiding’ us, we wonder as to how the new government will sustain
democracy and independence. So what were these past two years all
about? Will we know once the elections are held, results announced,
results accepted and the parliament starts functioning?
The real role and function for us, the citizens, begins now. We
need to ensure that we have a functioning as well as a truly
democratic and accountable government in place. We need to find our
own mechanisms on to how to ensure true representation of the
majority of the people, the toiling masses, women and men from all
religions, ethnicity, occupations and classes, particularly the down
trodden. That is the main challenge. Round table conferences, TV talk
shows are an extremely limited outlet catering and reaching out to a
few. Lobbying by economically powerful groups is used to get bills
passed that serve their interests. Those that act for the poor will
never find these implemented due to the same vested interests.
Maybe we could just make it work. As a nation that fought such a
valiant and true liberation war, we can and will stand up. We need to
remind ourselves that this was our war which we won. A war that
rejected religion as the basis of our nationality, upholding
secularism, socialism and defining our own cultural and social
identity has to be reiterated. Whereas we recognise the support given
to us by India, India too has to remember that the only war they ever
won against Pakistan was our Liberation War. But for the people of
Bangladesh and all the millions of freedom fighters, this war would
not have been won. We first need to be clear in rejecting the
negative brainwashing and dogma that the past has burdened us with.
War criminals and their collaborators need to be rooted out and
tried, just as the military rulers and dictators need to be
challenged. We can then stand up without being a pawn in any global
power’s religious, economic or political agenda. This should be the
thrust for this election.
Khushi Kabir is a development activist and coordinator of Nijera
Kori, a non-governmental organisation
_____
[3] Nepal: Another Attack on Himal Media - responses & statements
(i) ALLIANCE FOR PRESS FREEDOM FORMED
Five media organisations came together on Tuesday to take forward a
joint struggle to protect press freedom from recent serious threats.
Nepali Times, 24 Dec 2008
Nepal Media Society and Editors' Alliance joined forces with BAN
(Broadcasting Association of Nepal), ACORAB (Association of Community
Radio Broadcasters Nepal) and KVFBF (Kathmandu Valley FM Broadcasters
Forum) to launch the Alliance for Press Freedom.
The Alliance brings together Nepal's national daily newspapers,
magazines, television stations, radio networks and news portals.
"We have come together to magnify the voice from all sectors of media
for the protection of their freedom at a time when it is under
serious threat," said the Alliance in a statement.
A task force has been set up by the Alliance to determine its
immediate strategy to pressurize the government to protect the
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the media against threats. It
will chart out medium-and long-term strategies to safeguard press
freedom.
Mohan Bista of ACORAB said the Nepali press has never been under so
much pressure as it is now."
"This is a collective pressure group that is a unique partnership
across the Nepali media spectrum," said Kailash Sirohiya of Nepal
Media Society.
Bishnuhari Dhakal of BAN said the recent attacks on the press are
just the latest, and the media have been facing such threats in the
districts for a long time."
"This time it's the media industry that is under attack, but the
industry as a whole has been facing similar threats for a long time,"
said Bhaskar Raj Karnikar of Avenues TV.
Kunda Dixit of Editors Alliance said, "Our strength comes from our
unity.
It's the only way we can deal with violent threats against our freedom."
o o o
(ii)
Reporters Without Borders
22 December 2008
MAOIST ACTIVISTS ATTACK NEWSPAPER GROUP AGAIN
Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by a new attack by supporters of
the ruling Maoist party yesterday on the offices of the Himal Media
press group in Kathmandu. And when the Federation of Nepalese
Journalists today staged a protest against the attack, police used
violence to disperse them, injuring around a dozen journalists.
“We urge the government to take particular care to safeguard press
freedom,” Reporters Without Borders said. “After the recent wave of
attacks on the media, the Maoist party took no steps to punish those
responsible. The government must guarantee the right of every voice
to be heard by punishing violators and by not allowing its supporters
to act with the impunity.”
Around 50 Maoist party supporters took part in yesterday’s attack on
Himal Media, ransacking its offices and injuring CEO Ashutosh Tiwari
and Kunda Dixit, the editor of one of its publications, the English-
language Nepali Times.
The raid appears to have been prompted by an article in the Nepali
Times and in another of the group’s publications, the Nepalese-
language fortnightly, Himal Khabapatrika, accusing certain Maoist
party activists of “extremist behaviour,” interfering in business
interests and threatening the media.
A member of the Himal Media staff said the assailants stormed into
the group’s premises, hitting employees and warning that “anything
could happen if one of the group’s newspapers published anti-Maoist
reports again.”
Dixit said: “These people appeared to be martial arts experts, they
had military training. It was an attack not just on Himal Media but
on democracy and the media in particular, which the Maoists are doing
everything possible to control.”
Maoist activists previously attacked Himal Media distribution depots
in the capital on 16 November, vandalising equipment and torching
more than 1,000 copies of Himal Khabapatrika in the street outside.
Nepal’s Maoist prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known as
“Prachanda”), today promised a delegation of civil society leaders
that yesterday’s attack would be investigated and those responsible
would be punished.
One of the delegation’s leaders, former finance minister Devendra Raj
Pandey, told Reporters Without Borders that the prime minister
insisted that it was not Maoist policy to attack the media and that
“immoral agents” had “infiltrated” the party. The prime minister
expressed sadness about the incident and urged public opinion to help
combat the “infiltrators.”
Nepal News video showing the damage to Himal Media’s offices and an
interview with Kunda Dixit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Os9k2GToGhY&eurl=http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2008/dec/dec21/
news06.php
o o o
(iii)
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 7th Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
cpj.org
CPJ CALLS FOR NONPARTISAN INVESTIGATION INTO ATTACK
New York, December 22, 2008--Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal
Dahal's coalition government must carry out an open, independent, and
nonpartisan investigation into Sunday's attack on Himalmedia in
Kathmandu, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.
Journalists protest Maoist attacks on the press in Kathmandu today.
(AP/Binod Joshi)
Journalists protest Maoist attacks on the press in Kathmandu today.
(AP/Binod Joshi)
According to numerous local and international media reports, about 50
activists, many of whom were supporters of Nepal's ruling Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist), swarmed into Himalmedia's offices.
Himalmedia publishes the English-language weekly Nepali Times and
other magazines. In a statement, the publisher said 12 people were
injured during the attack, and that the group had broken windows.
The activists said they were angry with critical coverage of the
Maoist-led government, which came to power in April, according to the
news reports. Recent issues of Himalmedia's publications, including
the Nepali Times, carried stories on "extremist behavior" by Maoists,
including threats that had been made to businesses and media
organizations. Today, Dahal told local reporters that his party was
not directly involved in the attack, and blamed "some immoral agents"
who "infiltrated" the party. Dahal promised that his government will
look into the incident and prosecute those involved in the attack.
"The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has a long tradition of
harassing and attacking journalists," said Bob Dietz, CPJ's Asia
program coordinator. "In the interest of full transparency, the
authorities should carry out an open, nonpartisan investigation into
this attack, followed by full prosecution of the perpetrators.
Anything less will not reassure the Nepalese people or the rest of
the world that Prime Minister Dahal's government is committed to the
free press necessary to ensure a democratic Nepal."
Journalists have long been under attack in Nepal, with little or no
investigation of their deaths. The country ranks eighth on CPJ's
Impunity Index, a list of 13 countries where journalists are murdered
on a recurring basis and governments are unable or unwilling to
prosecute the killers.
_____
[4] Pakistan - India:
(i)
Dawn
25 December 2008
TRAPPED IN HYSTERIA
by I.A. Rehman
THE escalating tension between India and Pakistan exposes the efforts
powerful elements in both countries are making to change the Mumbai
raiders’ failure into a success — for a clash between the two major
South Asian states was obviously one of their prime objectives.
There were many matters of serious concern to the people that one
wished to take up today but these have to be passed over because
almost the entire population of the subcontinent has been trapped in
conflict hysteria. Little attention is being paid to the colossal
loss the two countries are inflicting on themselves by diverting all
their energies into pursuing a course mature people might loathe to
adopt.
As was feared, in both countries professional warmongers are
choreographing a waltz of insanity and politicians in authority are
afraid of falling out of step. Hawks in the opposition parties see in
the situation opportunities to further their electoral prospects.
This will harm both countries, Pakistan to a greater extent than India.
A ball-by-ball coverage of petty happenings is inflicting nerve-
racking strain on the ordinary people. For instance, a delay in a
flight’s scheduled departure is interpreted as cancellation dictated
by an ominous turn in the security climate and distressful rumours
sweep the land at supersonic speed. The flight is rescheduled barely
15 minutes later but corrective information travels at a snail’s pace
and many are no longer listening or are in no mood to revise their
first reaction.
A TV channel announces the Indian claim that a letter from Ajmal
Kasab has been delivered to the Pakistan High Commission. The next
moment the news strip says “the High Commission has not received any
letter” and the insinuation introduced in the line by dropping ‘as
yet’ is clear. Only a few minutes later comes another — “the High
Commission has received the letter”. This kind of phurti (indecent
haste) reminds one of a half-baked cricket commentator who begins a
sentence by praising the batsman for a brilliant shot and closes it
on his offering a dolly catch. What is the harm in allowing a
situation to crystallise before rushing to spread consternation?
The race to be the first to cause a scare does not allow quite a few
to wait for a turn of events that they can pounce on as an omen of
doom. Anyone who counsels restraint must be denounced as a coward
lacking the mettle of patriotism. A search is made for people who can
condemn a Pakistani cultural troupe for visiting India at the present
juncture. Has anyone assumed the power and the right to change
geography? Whatever may happen in the short run, India and Pakistan
have to live side by side as permanent neighbours and prudence
demands the avoidance of actions and words that either country, or
both, may eventually find impossible to live down.
It is not clear whether an overheated media has tricked the
government spokesmen into talking more than they should or whether it
is the other way round. The need to advise the Pakistani gladiators
(the Indians have their own counsel) to eschew banal cliches and
reduce their contribution to gloom is manifest.
For instance, statements such as ‘we do not want war but will resist
with full force if a conflict is imposed on us’ amounts to stretching
the obvious. Of course, in the event of conflict, however unwelcome,
the people will do their duty but the real issue is how will their
resistance be organised? That the defence forces are prepared to meet
any eventuality is reassuring. But only up to a point, for no
country’s security can be guaranteed by the defence forces alone. An
equally crucial role belongs to the people.
However, the citizens can play their part best only if they know what
they are defending or fighting for. The slogan ‘my country right or
wrong’ is a throwback to the days when the people used to be their
rulers’ galley-slaves. Today’s Pakistanis will fight for their
country with the requisite fire in their hearts if they know exactly
what is what and are convinced of the justness of their cause.
Unfortunately, the official spokespersons do not appear inclined to
take the people into confidence. For instance, we are told that
Pakistan is not isolated. The authorities should have in their
possession facts and information on which this claim is based.
Withholding such facts and information from the people causes
confusion, to put it mildly. Why can’t we be told about the nations
siding with us?
Are our supporters China and the US or Canada, Germany, the UK or
Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Nigeria? If a country is with us only in
private and not in public, it should be deleted from the list of
friends that can be depended upon. Is Islamabad alive to the risk of
a repetition of 1971 when soldiers and citizens both were fed false
tales about powerful friends’ intervention on Pakistan’s side?
Things will be better managed if the government admitted to the
people that it is not up against India alone. The stark reality is
that over the past 30 years the authoritarian rulers (and the elected
ones who were unable to defy their legacy) have destroyed Pakistan’s
credibility in the councils of the world and the present government
will compound its problems by not disowning this inheritance. The
Foreign Office is being taken to task for not taking a stand in the
Security Council while it ruled against some organisations and
individuals although the critics know very well the limits of vacuous
rhetoric.
The impression one gets is that the government is banking to a great
extent on American keenness to ensure that Pakistan is not forced to
withdraw its troops from the western front. This is much too rickety
a bridge to promise safe passage. The danger in assuming the
situation on the western border to remain unchanged should be
obvious. Is it impossible to admit the possibility of a shift in the
US strategy about Afghanistan and the Taliban? Where will Pakistan in
such a situation find itself?
Much good will accrue by admitting that Pakistan has been pushed by
the enemies within into a marsh from which it cannot extricate itself
by bluff and bluster. Rootless confidence and simulated panic are two
sides of the same coin that no one should rely upon. Pakistan most of
all needs today to break out of the make-believe world of armchair
warriors and concentrate on winning the international community’s
diplomatic support. Instead of looking all the time for ways of
diverting India and the US from whatever they might be suspected of
Pakistan must look for support in the rest of the wide world.
For this it will not be enough to find brilliant counsel. More
important is the need to check Pakistan’s brief. It will win the day
for this country only if it is based on truth and a verifiable
commitment to justice at home and abroad. Any other course will be an
invitation to disaster.
o o o
(ii)
Hindustan Times
December 28, 2008
THE MARCH OF FOLLY
by Ayaz Amir
The mood here is not jingoistic and there is no beating of the drums
of war. But it is grim all the same with some army units being pulled
out from the western marches for deployment on the eastern front and
the military in a state of “high alert”.
Mumbai has slipped into the background and the dynamic of Indo-Pak
confrontation — something with which both countries are all too
familiar — has taken over. Apart from the usual suspects mouthing the
usual clichés about giving India a “mouth-breaking response” (moon
torh jawab) few Pakistanis are comfortable with the heightened
tension between the two countries or the drift towards something akin
to a state of war.
But the dynamic once started creates its own momentum. Thus despite
everything tension is growing and armed forces on both sides are
preparing for the worst. Does this suit anyone, expect al Qaeda? But
oblivious to the larger picture India and Pakistan are setting out on
the familiar terrain of confrontation. The Americans can’t be pleased
and understandably are counselling restraint. But the march of folly
continues.
At least this is what it looks like on this side of the border. In
Pakistani eyes, and they could be wrong, chief among Indian jingoists
has been Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee with his persistent talk
about all options on the table including some kind of armed response.
Pakistan army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, was replying to him that in
case of any kind of strike Pakistan’s response would come in minutes.
The rhetoric could have become more heated if Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh had not stepped into the breach by declaring that the issue was
not war but terrorism.
Whatever the sentiment on the other side, the feeling in Pakistan is
that India is playing a clever game, using the moment to isolate
Pakistan and build international opinion against it. There is also
the feeling that India is trying to bully Pakistan, an impression
heightened by the tone of Indian statements after Mumbai.
This is why President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani
have come in for sharp criticism for not standing up more robustly to
Indian pressure. Their initial response to Indian accusations of
Lashkar-e-Tayyeba complicity in the Mumbai attacks was considered
weak and fumbling and did not go down well with public opinion. If
since then there has been a change of tone from Pakistan’s side — as
highlighted by Gen Kayani’s statement — it has been dictated by the
necessity of standing up to perceived Indian pressure.
Mercifully, there has been no rush to war in the Pakistani media with
most analysts and even television anchors striking a sober note.
Which is not what can be said of sections of the India media,
especially some television channels, which give the impression that
nothing short of all-out war would satisfy their craving for
sensationalism.
The debate in the National Assembly on national security was also
remarkable for its sobriety. The need was stressed for a firm but
responsible stance towards India. There was little of the usual sabre-
rattling at which both Indians and Pakistanis can so easily excel.
India perhaps could do well to take a leaf out of America’s book. The
US has also been engaging with Pakistan and urging it to take firm
action against so-called jihadi groups. But it has been doing so
behind the scenes without mounting the housetops. The approach
adopted by India — perhaps because it is new at this game — is to
speak in a public manner, in a tone most Pakistanis find threatening
and therefore offensive, which far from serving any useful purpose
merely puts Pakistani backs up.
Few people have any doubts in their minds that the focus should be on
terrorism and its sources. But what Mumbai and its aftermath have
done is to shift the focus from regional terrorism onto the familiar
plane of Indo-Pak confrontation. Who benefits from this? Not the US,
not India, not Pakistan. But it suits al Qaeda.
There is an urgent need to turn down the rhetoric. No one wants war
but the present drift is dangerous. Both countries share a history of
unwanted wars. We can do without another exercise in futility.
o o o
(iii)
http://www.sacw.net/article453.html
'IT IS THE POOR WHO ALWAYS SUFFER'
by Beena Sarwar (December 15, 2008)
Karachi is much like Bombay (as we have always called it) in many
respects. Filmmaker Anand Patwardhan on a visit here once commented
that it reminded him of Bombay thirty years ago. One of their
similarities, besides the Arabian Sea lapping their shores, is being
home to hordes of migrant workers, like Ahmed Sher.
Ahmed Sher came to Karachi from his impoverished native village in
southern Punjab some thirty years ago in order to earn and send money
home, working as a gardener at several officers and private
residences. "Bohot burra hua (it's terrible)," he says, his craggy
face sad in response to how he felt when he heard about what happened
in Mumbai. "They are also human beings... killed while going about
their business, without even knowing why."
Many grieve about the Mumbai tragedy while also making a connection
between what happened there and what happens on a daily basis in
Pakistan. "We are ourselves the targets of such violence," said Abdul
Razik, a fresh-faced Pathan who sells used shoes at a bustling Itwar
(Sunday) Bazar in Karachi.
We're conversing two days after a bomb in a market in Peshawar,
capital of his native North West Frontier Province (NWFP) killed
close to forty people. "The people who got killed in Mumbai were not
made of gold or wood, they were human beings of flesh and blood, just
like us... Who knows who is behind it? All I know is that it is the
poor who always suffer."
A woman haggling in Pashto with another shoe salesman made a similar
connection. "We feel for the people in India, for those who died and
for their families. We suffer in the same way too. So many people
were killed in Peshawar just the other day," she said.
"It's a game of the great powers," interrupted a man in an
embroidered Bohri cap. "We are all just pawns in it. They are playing
this for their own gains." The woman quickly moved away, clearly
unwilling to be drawn into a public debate on the issue.
A third typical response combines these reactions with scepticism
about the identity of the captured gunman and allegations of his and
his slain companions' backgrounds and links.
"It was terrible what happened in Bombay," said Abdur Razzak, a
jacket salesman. "We all felt the horror. But the next moment, we
knew that the blame would come to Pakistan. They always blame us
anyway for whatever happens there."
Asked about the possibility of war, he was emphatic that it should
not come to that. "It will be bad for the people of both countries.
Yes, we all have to die some time, but it should not be like that."
"Yeh inn donon ki mili bhagat hai (elements from both countries are
in it together)," said Mohammad Ali, selling trendy belts and chunky
beaded accessories. "I have been to Bombay to visit relatives and the
dargah there. They are so strict with the visas and passport control.
How could those people have gone there with so much ammunition
without some collusion from people there, getting through the Indian
navy and patrols? Just like in the USA, they are so strict about
passports and security, how could those people (the hijackers) have
got onto planes with so much ammunition and destroyed those towers
without help from insiders?"
"I was shocked and saddened by the attacks in Mumbai," says well
known musician Rohail Hyatt. "But then I also felt angry when they
immediately blamed Pakistan. Now the media on both sides is hyping up
the conflict. That should not happen. We don't want war. I think the
artists will form some joint response against the kind of war-
mongering that is going on especially in the media on both sides," he
added.
These responses are fairly typical of the mood in Pakistan: grief for
the tragedy in Mumbai, empathy as fellow-victims of terror,
scepticism about the origins of the attackers, conviction that the
gunmen were acting in collusion with from elements inside India, and
anger at being blamed for the event. There is also a conviction that
it is ordinary people on both sides who are the losers in any kind of
conflict and that they should come together against knee-jerk
responses and war-mongering.
The Pakistani media reflects these views, certainly, but what
dominates are the elements of resentment and anger, hostility and
efforts to discredit India in one way or another. In one recent talk
show, a well known current affairs host held forth about the invasion
of Indian films in Pakistani cinemas, including as one of his studio
guests ('specimen' to be psycho-analysed rather) the 15-year old
Nasir Sultan who had run away to Bollywood and ended up in an Indian
prison before being returned to Pakistan some months later.
Much of the criticism of India in the Pakistani media is correct.
Many Indian journalists and anchors have allowed their anger and
'nationalism' (or 'chauvinism' as the well known linguist Dr Tariq
Rahman put it in a recent op-ed criticising the Pakistani media - the
cap fits both heads) to overtake journalistic ethics. But as the old
sayings go, 'people in glass houses should not throw stones', and
'first set your own house in order before trying to sort out your
neighbour's'.
Both sayings fit both heads. Some say that the Pakistani media has
been 'less jingoistic' than the Indian. This may be so, but the media
on this side of the border has been more obviously in a state of
denial about the Mumbai attacks and their links to Pakistani elements.
If the media in India has played up the Pakistani connection, the
media here has played it down, for the most part ignoring or
discrediting reports emerging from India that provide details of the
captured gunman's Pakistani origins. The dominant attitude seems to
be that the information has been fabricated in order to bash Pakistan
- even after a British reporter (of Pakistani origin) dug out
information about the captured man's parent's from the electoral
register in Faridkot village in the Pakistani side of the Punjab and
other details.
On the whole, the media on both sides has focused on the hawkish
voices rather than those who provide a more nuanced view urging
restraint and a deeper look at the causes and consequences of the
Mumbai tragedy. The mainstream media plays up fiery statements
threatening annihilation while sidelining peace demonstrations like
the recent rally of some 15,000 in Delhi organised by the Communist
Party of India, which the television channels there virtually
ignored, according to newspaper reports.
The results of the recent state elections in India indicate the
maturity of the electorate, which chose to retain the Congress in key
states rather than voting it out or voting the BJP in despite the
latter's inclusion of fear and terrorism a part of its election
rhetoric. In Pakistan too, despite the television anchors' vocal
disapproval of the crackdown by the beleaguered civilian government
on the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and its leadership, there appears to be
widespread approval of this move.
There are clearly elements on both sides attempting to push Pakistan
and India into a conflict-a more dangerous game than ever before
given the nuclear-armed capacities of both countries, a game in which
there will be no winners, only losers. "We can't afford to fall into
this trap," says Faisal, a young software engineer in Karachi.
"Otherwise there will be only cockroaches left to reap the results."
The writer is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker in
Pakistan.
(This article appeared in Mail Today, on 16 December 2008, under a
different title]
o o o
(iv)
The News
December 26, 2008
THERE IS NO MILITARY OPTION
by Praful Bidwai
Ultimately, it wasn’t superior firepower, sophisticated interception
methods or commando training that explains how one of the Mumbai
attackers was arrested alive. The key to that feat lies in the great
courage shown by the city’s policemen in overpowering Mohammed Ajmal
Amir Iman (Kasab) with nothing more than lathis after his accomplice
Abu Ismail was killed.
Assistant sub-Inspector Tukaram Ombale held on to the barrel of
Kasab’s gun even as he took a burst of fire and pounced on the man,
allowing his colleagues to arrest him. Ombale died, but his bravery
ensured that a key participant in the attack would live to tell the
tale.
Kasab’s arrest is unique in the annals of anti-terrorist operations
anywhere. His interrogation has produced invaluable evidence about
the preparation for and execution of the attack.
Kasab must be tried scrupulously fairly and with full respect for his
right to legal defence. A lawyer of unimpeachable competence must be
drafted to defend him. His conviction cannot be a foregone conclusion
merely because of the attack’s barbarity. His guilt must be proved on
the highest norms of criminal law.
After Kasab’s disclosures to the police, there can be little doubt
that Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the attack after
putting recruits through rigorous training and ideological-political
indoctrination for almost a year. The Pakistani media has since
verified Kasab’s home address, and interviewed his father in Faridkot
village in Punjab’s Okara district. The international community has
confirmed the LeT’s involvement through the ban imposed on its sister
organisation, Jamaat-ud-Daawa, by the United Nations Security Council
under Resolution 1267.
The LeT isn’t just another jehadi group. It has had a special
relationship with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
Unlike other groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, which are Deobandi, the
LeT is Salafist and doesn’t believe in fighting governments in
Islamic countries. The LeT doesn’t actively oppose the army’s anti-
Taliban-Al-Qaeda operations at the Afghanistan border.
It’s not clear if the ISI or its “rogue” elements logistically
supported the Mumbai attack. But it’s reasonably plain that the
attackers’ main motive was to provoke a military response from India,
which would cause a troops build-up at Pakistan’s eastern border.
This would create a rationale for redeploying Pakistani troops from
the western border—where they face considerable pressure from US-
Pakistan operations—to the Indian border. This would allow Al Qaeda-
Taliban fighters to regroup and overrun large swathes of Afghanistan
and Pakistan
Secondarily, the attackers’ motive was to increase disaffection among
Indian Muslims and provoke a backlash—to further help extremism.
Mercifully, this hasn’t happened—despite the Sangh Parivar. The
attacks have triggered unprecedented Hindu-Muslim unity and a
spirited condemnation of terrorism by an overwhelming majority of
India’s Muslim organisations.
Indian military retaliation would play straight into LeT’s hands.
This would further destabilise Pakistan, which is already in a
precarious condition, to the point of unravelling its state—with
disastrous consequences for the whole region. The Indian government
has acted with restraint and used diplomatic, not military, means to
deal with the crisis. On December 11, Foreign Minister Pranab
Mukherjee underscored this approach. In response to a demand for
attacking Pakistan, he said: “That is not the point….I am making it
quite clear that that is not the solution. Let us be very clear and
frank that that is no solution.”
The meaning of the military option, advocated stridently by hawkish
“strategic experts” and by Bharatiya Janata Party MPs like Arun
Shourie should be plain. Shourie wants India to target Pakistan’s
vital installations and keep Pakistan “preoccupied”, presumably
through covert action, with its “own problems in Balochistan, in
Gilgit, Baltistan”, etc. He said: “Not an eye for an eye; but for an
eye, both eyes. For a tooth, (the) whole jaw.”
This is an insane prescription. Any India-Pakistan conflict is liable
to escalate into nuclear war. In Nuclear Armageddon, there are no
winners—only mega-deaths.
Even a limited nuclear exchange will kill millions of civilians in
both countries. The economic and environmental damage will set us
back by decades. A single Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type bomb will kill 8 to
20 lakh people in a big city. India and Pakistan both have scores of
such bombs, indeed even more powerful ones.
In every conceivable war-gaming scenario—and many credible ones exist
—, an India-Pakistan conflict has one inevitable outcome: full-scale
war, in which Pakistan won’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons if it
fears loss of territory. This will invite nuclear retaliation from
India, with consequences too horrifying even to contemplate.
No leader has the moral right or political mandate to sacrifice
millions of civilians. Only extremists with apocalyptic visions like
RSS chief KS Sudarshan believe nuclear war is acceptable.
He recently told an interviewer: “Whenever the demons (Asuri powers)
start dominating this planet, there is no way other than war…I know
it will not stop there. It will be a nuclear war and a large number
of people will perish. But … let me say with confidence that after
this destruction, a new world will emerge, which will be very good,
free from evil and terrorism.”
It’s dangerous to imagine that the threat of war can compel Pakistan
into acting decisively against extremist groups. Indeed, Pakistan
will respond with even greater bellicosity.
The idea of “surgical strikes” against terrorist training camps is
equally harebrained. LeT camps are makeshift affairs, and poor
candidate-targets for strikes. Any strike, however “limited”, will
invite armed conflict. Pakistan isn’t Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which
the US could attack without fear of resistance because it crippled
all military communications. Even covert action, which will require
the creation of a new monster—”India’s own ISI”—will trigger escalation.
But there are alternatives. Manmohan Singh outlined a two-pronged
approach: galvanising international opinion for effective action
against terrorism, and persisting with diplomatic pressure on
Pakistan. Domestically, he promised reform of internal security
arrangements. US and UK pressure has already led to a ban on JuD. But
India must develop a broader multilateral approach to avert getting
drawn into Washington’s parochial plans for the region.
The best strategy would be to press Pakistan through UN Security
Council Resolution 1373, under which sanctions can be imposed on a
state that fails to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan,
support, or commit terrorist acts…” and violates its duty to “refrain
from providing … support… to entities or persons involved in
terrorist acts…”.
Bilaterally, India can achieve much by sharing evidence of the LeT’s
role in the Mumbai attacks with Pakistan, and acting demonstrably to
defuse suspicions about its covert operations in Balochistan and
Afghanistan.
While revamping India’s internal security system, the Singh
government should have followed the advice of Chief Justice KG
Balakrishnan against using “questionable methods such as permitting
indefinite detention of terror suspects…coercive interrogation
techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial”, and his plea
for “substantive due process”.
Regrettably, it has done the very opposite by having a law passed
which replicates all the obnoxious provisions, including detention
without charges for 180 days, of the discredited Prevention of
Terrorism Act—except for making police confessions admissible as
evidence. The National Investigative Agency Act too has flaws,
including overcentralisation of powers, and their illegitimate
extension to areas affected by insurgency and Left-wing extremism.
These Acts must be undone.
The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and
human-rights activist based in Delhi. Email: prafulbidwai1 at yahoo.co.in
o o o
(v)
http://www.sacw.net/article450.html
New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI)
Press Release
TERRORISM IN MUMBAI: A CHALLENGE FOR DEMOCRACY
[28 December 2008]
Mumbai has witnessed many attacks of terrorism and has taken them all
in its stride. But the militant attack on Mumbai on 26 November 2008
which continued for more than 60 hours shook Mumbai, India and the
world. NTUI condemns terrorism in all its manifestations. It is
understandable that people are furious and outraged, and they have
the right to be so when such attacks terrorise and kill innocent
citizens who are not accountable for the acts of the state. People
are expressing anger and horror over the incident in many different
ways. However, to the credit of Indian people, these actions are
imbued with a sense of instinctive understanding of the nature of the
incident, and people have not been drawn into sectarianism, national
chauvinism or war mongering. The NTUI welcomes this spirit of the
people, and their moving from passivity to active engagement with the
problems of terrorism. This opens up a space for democratic debate,
which all progressive forces should engage in with maturity, to
deepen our understanding of the problems of terrorism. The Mumbai
attack had clear political targets – the symbols of wealth and power
in the city. The rich and foreign nationals in Mumbai were for the
first time exposed to physical threat, which earlier primarily
affected the poor and the ordinary people. In this context, the
ruling elite is using public opinion and arguments to shift the
discourse towards the right - towards undemocratic national
chauvinism and redefining internal security, governance structures
and external policies. It is also using the situation as a pretext
for forcing integration of Indian policies on internal security into
U.S. sponsored global war against terrorism.
Working People of India and Pakistan must Unite for Peace in South Asia
The Government of India, though vacillating, has taken a cautious
approach. It is mainly using diplomatic mechanisms to address the
challenge, and has so far desisted from taking any specific
militaristic actions. It is primarily relying on international
mechanisms to build pressure on Pakistan. The international effort is
also focused on diplomacy. The NTUI believes that these are positive
approaches to deal with this complex situation. Any mature response
to the situation has to respect the sovereignty of the State of
Pakistan and allow it to deal with non-state actors with
international assistance and support.
The Hindu chauvinist forces led by the BJP-RSS combine have pursued a
sectarian, narrow nationalist perspective. This has given legitimacy
to breaking at the community level syncretic traditions and social
cohesion, politically excluding all discussions for meaningful
engagement of minority rights in democratic politics. The BJP-RSS
combine when in government have further used their power to unleash a
pogrom of organised violence, sponsoring extreme, and now even
terrorist outfits. These actions have transformed the local level
communal differences into a national ideology and integrated it to
the U.S.-Zionist campaign against Muslim people. The BJP has been
using every incident of terrorism for demonising a section of the
Indian people who are nearly 140 million, and are largely poor and
marginalised. It is using the Mumbai attack for asserting its
ideological hegemony against secularism and democracy, and developing
a political constituency for:
* Extraordinary laws and expansion of police force with hard
striking capability disproportionate to societal need for democratic
policing.
* Advancement of a doctrine of preventive intervention of a
limited and lightning war.
Reject U.S. Influence in the sub-continent
The partition of Indian sub-continent had never really settled down
to mutual co-existence, let alone to cooperation and peaceful
relationship. The unresolved Kashmir dispute has remained a festering
wound in preventing any peace initiatives. The U.S. intervention in
the subcontinent, particularly its support for military regimes and
use of extremist groups against Russians in Afghanistan provided the
ground and cover for integrating such non-state armed groups into the
military doctrine of Pakistan’s establishment. The domination of
feudal remnants, and of the Army, have weakened the democratic
struggle against these extremist groups in Pakistan.
Any serious and rational analysis of the incident makes it evident
that the whole militant actions were designed to first reverse the
ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan and escalate it into
a military confrontation; and second show that the consequence of
strategic military alliance with the U.S. and Israel will open India
as a site of terror attack. The Mumbai attack has to be viewed in the
context of international politics, wherein U.S. imperialism has been
both using religious extremism for its military policy, and
propagating a doctrine of making people of Islamic faith a global
enemy, in order to oppress and control Muslim nations and their oil
wealth. This has led to formation of non-state actors fighting a
global war of terrorism against U.S. imperialism and its allies. This
has resulted in major collateral damages and immense killing of
innocent people who are not accountable for the acts of their States.
For the trade union movement and peace loving citizens it is
necessary to assess the risk of associating with U.S. imperialism,
and the danger of this association inviting terror attacks. Both
terrorism and the response of the state have always led to
undermining of democracy. Historical experience has shown that the
cycle of terrorism and state terrorism never eliminates terrorism. In
fact, it is the people’s movement that can cut this nexus through a
struggle for democratisation, equality and equity for all.
No war between India and Pakistan
In the Indian context the reduction of tensions between India and
Pakistan means reduction of defence budgets in both countries. This
will have major and meaningful impact on the well being of each
country’s citizens. The doctrine of preventive intervention as a
military strategy, even with the might of U.S. imperialism’s military
strength, has failed to eliminate terrorism. In fact, it activates
the emergence of resistance of nations and people, reducing if not
effacing the demarcation between political and ideological forces.
The struggle can best be met through democratic political contention,
the most fertile ground for contending against terrorism.
Terrorism Weakens the Unity of the People of the sub-continent and
the Struggle against Imperialism We therefore call upon the people of
India, Pakistan and South Asia to deepen the process of democracy,
contend ideologically and politically with all forms of regressive
and chauvinistic viewpoints and ideologies, and build a secular
framework for peaceful co-existence.
It is imperative on us to understand that terrorism can be best met by:
* Understanding and eliminating the causes that create and
provide motivation for the terrorists, which is primarily caused when
society and state demonises, deprives and oppresses a large section
of people;
* Limiting the politics of terrorism by creating a democratic
ground where even extreme ideologies are compelled to defend their
views, policies, and action in open public space;
* Isolating extremism within society by defeating their views
through an ideological and political battle within a democratic
framework of nation building process.
The present situation demands more complex and sensitive approach to
deal with terrorism, which finds its justification in primordial
loyalties and ideologies, like religion which has a wider social
resonance. In fact, in the last decade, both in India and abroad, the
theologians, institutions and ordinary people in the Islamic world
have provided theological opposition, and campaigned against
terrorism more than people of any other religion. It is time we
boldly take a stand in support of the principled opposition of these
Islamic groups to terrorism. We will contribute most to the fight
against terror by creating a tolerant, secular and democratic society
in Pakistan and defending it in India.
_____
[5]
Mail Today
27 December 2008
PAK THEATRE GROUP PLAYS A PEACE TUNE
By Avneep Dhingra in New Delhi
AS TENSION mounts between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks,
a theatre group from across the border took the stage in Jawaharlal
Nehru University ( JNU) to spread the message of peace.
Ajoka Theatre from Lahore is the first Pakistani theatre group to
visit India in 20 years. The irony of the group’s visit in these
tense times was not lost on the crowd that applauded their
performance with gusto.
“ For years, artists have been trying their bit to promote peace and
harmony between the two nations. It is our small attempt to help
diffuse the tension. Peace activists and artists like us have worked
very hard to build this peace process,” said Madeeha Gauhar, artistic
director of the theatre group.
The 23- member group performed its popular play “ Bullah” at a
festival hosted by the Students’ Federation of India ( SFI) and the
All India Students’ Federation on Tuesday.
Ajoka also performed Sufi qawwali on the JNU campus, which attracted
a lot of crowd.
“ It’s a great feeling to have artists from our neighbouring country
perform here. Not only do we get a chance to interact, but it is also
a peace making process,” said Abdul, a senior SFI member.
The performance by the group was well appreciated.
“ The show was splendid. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Our politicians
should learn something from them and should understand a war- like
situation is not the solution to terror,” said Devdeep Choudhury, a
student of international relations.
“ We are here to bring the message of the great Sufi poet, Bulleh
Shah, that is extremely relevant in today’s turbulent times,” said
Gauhar, a famous theatre artist from Lahore. The famous Sufi poet
professed “ humanism, peace, love, tolerance and looking beyond
religious divides”. She said many people were apprehensive about the
visit but she decided to go ahead.
“ When the Indo- Pak cricket tour was cancelled, there was
disappointment in our country.
People questioned us why we were going and said we would not be
welcomed there,” Gauhar said.
“ People came out to condemn those terror strikes. There were marches
and human chains in Karachi and Lahore,” the actor said. The group
will perform at several other places in India.
avneep. dhingra@ mailtoday.in
_____
[6] Announcements:
(i)
VIKALP @ PRITHVI
'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?' directed by Shubhradeep
Chakravorthy, is based on investigative documentation of the alleged
encounters of Sameer Khan Pathan (22 October, 2002), Sadik Jamal (13
January, 2003), Ishrat Jahan-Javed Seikh (16 June, 2004) and
Shorabuddin Seikh (26 November, 2005).
In an atmosphere where unabashed calls are being made crying 'War on
Terror', the film is thought provoking, as it patiently and
critically questions such politics.
ON MONDAY, 29th DECEMBER, 2008
AT 7 PM ONLY
Vikalp at Prithvi is a collaboration between Prithvi Theatre and Vikalp:
Films For Freedom. We screen a curated selection of documentaries and
short films on the last Monday of every month at Prithvi House from 7
pm onwards. For more information, browse www.freedomfilmsindia.org
and www.prithvitheatre.org.
* No Entry Fee. Limited Seating.
* Prithvi House, Opposite Prithvi Theatre, Janki Kutir, Juhu, Mumbai.
* The registration desk will be open between 6 pm to 6:45 pm only.
* Please write to us with your feedback & suggestions to
vikalp.prithvi at gmail.com.
* For screening queries contact Anand Patwardhan 9819882244 Lynne
Henry 9820896425
- - -
(ii)
Subject: Invitation for 30 December Ballet and Felicitation of
Kannabirans at IHC
My dear Friends,
I am happy to invite you to a special event. The invitation
below provides all the details.
We also need your help to inform people interested in socially
committed art, about the ballet we are hosting in Delhi on December
30 at the Stein Auditorium.
Also, before the Ballet we will be felicitating Ms Vasantha
Kannabiran and Mr. K.G Kannabiran for their life's work for human
rights and women's rights. So, I request you to please send out the
following invite to the Human Rights and Women's Rights community.
I hope you will be able to join us as well.
I take this opportunity to wish you Merry XS Mas and a just and
peaceful 2009. We will keep HOPE alive.
With regards and solidarity
Kamla Bhasin
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
S o u t h A s i a C i t i z e n s W i r e
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. An offshoot of South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.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