SACW | May 9-12, 2009 / Conflict Sri Lanka / Interview: Prachanda, Zardari / India: Polls, Binayak Sen, communalism

Tue May 12 00:29:34 CDT 2009

South Asia Citizens Wire | May 9-12, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2624 - Year  
11 running
From: www.sacw.net

[1] Sri Lanka's 50,000 hostages (Andrew Stroehlein)
[2] Nepal: Interview with Prime Minister Prachanda [Part 1 and 2]  
(Siddharth Varadarajan)
[3] Pakistan: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) for a  
crash plan for IDPs
    + Spiegel Interview With Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari
    + Talibanisation of the mind (Babar Sattar)
    + Rethink Corporate Farming in Pakistan (Syed Mohammad Ali)
[4] Bangladesh: Yet another case for repeal of Special Powers Act  
(Editorial, New Age)
   + Bangladesh: Madrasas, militancy, and education reform (Mahfuzur  
Rahman)
   + Prove innocence in war crime (Chaitanya Chandra Halder and  
Shakhawat Liton)
   + Focus back on, 8yrs after (Julfikar Ali Manik)
[5] India:  Election Gas
    +  Lying In Wait - Election is a time of illusions, both for the  
rulers and the ruled (Ashok Mitra)
    +  Want Press Coverage? Give Me Some Money (Paul Beckett)
    +  Web site on India's Corrupt Politicians: Bleed India
[6] India: the unacceptable incarceration of a human rights activist
   + No Country for the Brave - The dark heart within the glory of  
Indian democracy (Bhaswati Chakravorty)
   + US Committee of Concerned Scientists Calls for Urgent Action to  
Free Dr. Binayak Sen
[7] India's Slow and steady communalistion - Right, Left and Center
   + The Hour of The Saints (Meera Nanda)
   + Disturbing Alliance of the Kerala CPM with Communal Forces of  
Muslim Right
   + Faith No Bar (Harbans Mukhia)
   + Crossed and Crucified Parivar's War Against Minorities in Orissa  
- A report by PUCL Bhubaneswar / Kashipur Solidarity Group)
   + The New Hindu Fundamentalists : A radio documentary by Navdip  
Dhariwal
[8] Announcements:
(i) People's Campaigns and Democratic Process: A Conversation with  
Nikhil Dey of MKSS (New York, May 12th, 2009)
(ii) Dialogue with Nimalka Fernando (Colombo, 21 May 2009)
(iii) New Publication: Locality, History, Memory: The Making of the  
Citizen in South Asia (eds) Rila Mukherjee and M. N. Rajesh

_____

[1] Sri Lanka:

The Guardian, May 11 2009

SRI LANKA'S 50,000 HOSTAGES

The civilians trapped in north-east Sri Lanka are innocent: the Sri  
Lankan government must begin treating them as such

by Andrew Stroehlein

The police have the building surrounded. Inside, a dangerous gunman  
holds five hostages. The authorities have to decide how to free the  
innocent safely when those lives are at the mercy of a desperate and  
violent criminal.

Multiply by about 10,000, and you have the situation in north-east  
Sri Lanka today.

For months, the Sri Lankan army has been tightening the noose around  
the remaining forces of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil  
Eelam (LTTE), pushing them into an ever smaller space. Some 250,000  
civilians were initially in that same zone of operations.

But instead of playing the role of professional police trying to save  
the lives of those trapped in the building, the Sri Lankan  
authorities have let the LTTE draw them into a civilian slaughter  
that allows the rebels to act the martyr. Government troops have been  
shelling civilian areas and are even using air strikes in areas where  
the Tamil Tigers are holding their hostages, using equally lethal  
force when they have tried to escape.

In recent weeks, many of those civilians have managed to flee the  
immediate conflict zone, but the UN estimates there are still at  
least 50,000 left, possibly as many as 100,000. The government  
promised in late April it would stop using artillery and other heavy  
weapons in the area to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but  
that pledge has been repeatedly broken since then.

The government says the LTTE are holding those people as "human  
shields", which is indeed the case, and it claims to want to "rescue  
the hostages", which it argues it has done for tens of thousands  
already. It is true the Tamil Tigers have imprisoned the very people  
they claim to be liberating, and they have acted with horrific  
violence against them.

But the government cannot use the "human shields" argument as an  
excuse for such extremely high civilian casualties under the  
bombardment of its heavy weaponry. Shelling into concentrations of  
mixed Tamil Tiger terrorists and civilians flies in the face of the  
state's obligations to safeguard non-combatants under international  
humanitarian law and may constitute a war crime.

What's more, the government's screening process for those who escape  
has been highly chaotic, and no international monitors are present at  
the initial checkpoints. In a country known for government-linked  
disappearances, the fate of those going through such screening is  
cause for deep concern.

Even from its own perspective, Sri Lanka's entire approach is counter- 
productive. Showing such callousness to the suffering of Tamil  
civilians is not going to sow peace and stability. It is going to  
entrench Tamil bitterness and more conflict.

The comparison with the city hostage situation is useful. A modern  
and well-trained police force would not shoot wildly and with maximum  
force into a building to free the hostages inside. They would call in  
experts. They would ask an experienced negotiator to work for the  
hostages' safe release and the criminal's peaceful surrender.

In the Sri Lankan situation this would mean direct international  
involvement. The Red Cross is on the ground already, but they could  
and should be asked to apply their expertise to help with negotiating  
safe passage for the trapped civilians and an orderly surrender of  
remaining Tamil Tigers in such a way that those fighters have  
assurances they will not simply get killed as soon as they put down  
their weapons. True, the LTTE have thus far shown no intention of  
surrendering, but at least Red Cross presence could make it safer for  
more civilians to come out of the zone without permission of their  
captors.

Of course, the gunman in this case is driven by extremism and is  
unpredictable, particularly given the prospect of inevitable defeat.  
It is not impossible to imagine the Tamil Tigers turning on their  
hostages and then killing themselves to set out some kind of Masada- 
like marker of martyrdom for future generations of Tamil resistance.

But that is still no excuse for shelling areas with high civilian  
concentrations. In fact, it is yet another reason to calm the  
situation down with expert international engagement. Ratcheting up  
the pressure on them at this point is the surest way to make  
desperate criminals even more murderous and suicidal. Also, the  
government needs to realise that already the large Tamil diaspora  
around the world is more and more enraged with every passing day, and  
continuing this massacre will only channel their anger, and financial  
resources, to future insurgencies.

The Sri Lankan government needs to rethink, and the international  
community needs to bring all pressure to bear to get them to do so.  
If this were happening on a scale one-ten-thousandth as tragic in any  
city, there would be outrage at the authorities' behaviour. For Sri  
Lanka, the world's outrage may help it wake up from the nightmare it  
is living. Colombo's friends around the world have to shake the  
government awake to break the tragic downward spiral of violence it  
has caught itself up in.

_____

[2]  Nepal: Interview with Prime Minister Prachanda [Part 1 and 2]

The Hindu
May 11, 2009

‘INDIA SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED CIVILIAN SUPREMACY IN NEPAL’

by Siddharth Varadarajan

Allowing the military chief to prevail today will condemn the country  
to a fate similar to Pakistan, says Nepal’s Prime Minister, Prachanda.

In an interview on the circumstances leading to the dismissal of his  
country’s army chief and his own subsequent resignation, Prime  
Minister Prachanda of Nepal tells The Hindu the Maoists will prefer  
to sit in the opposition rather than see the authority of a  
democratically elected government undermined.

Excerpts:

Controversy has surrounded your decision to sack General Rookmangad  
Katawal as army chief. He had defied civilian authority since  
December on the recruitment issue but was going to retire soon. Why  
precipitate a political crisis when his tenure was ending anyway?

When the question of recruitment came, we knew what was at stake was  
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and its implementation. So we  
discussed the issue within government and also tried to convince  
other political parties that this man is trying to challenge civilian  
supremacy. That this is a question of principle — either we assert  
civilian supremacy or army supremacy will get established. A serious  
debate took place with different political parties and ultimately, I  
acted because the other major political party in the government  
besides the Maoists — the United Marxist-Leninists — agreed to take  
action against Katawal. It is only then that I asked some questions  
of the army chief and tried to take action against him.

Who were the UML leaders who agreed with this?

Top central leaders like Jhalanath Khanal, Ishwar Pokharel and Bam  
Dev Gautam agreed that Katawal is always trying to challenge the  
elected government and that this will create a very bad situation in  
the coming days and therefore we should take some action. And when  
UML leadership agreed, I also discussed with the leadership of the  
Madhesi Forum (MJF). They too agreed to go ahead. Today, the MJF is  
sticking to its position but the UML reversed itself later on.

In the cabinet, when it became clear that UML was no longer on board,  
why did you feel it necessary to go ahead with the dismissal, knowing  
it would trigger a major crisis?

Because it is a question of principle, it is a question of making  
history in this country. If we surrender to this army chief or to  
army supremacy, this will create a very big problem in coming days.  
Therefore, we preferred to stand firmly. Even if I should have to  
resign from the government, I must establish civilian supremacy in  
Nepal.

So you were looking at the experience of Pakistan?

Exactly, we discussed here what happened in Pakistan, and how in  
India, civilian supremacy has been established from 1947 up to this  
time.

And that is the model you wanted to follow for Nepal?

Exactly, I discussed this question with different political leaders,  
that we have to learn from the experience of India in this issue, not  
Pakistan.

But India went along with President Ram Baran Yadav’s decision to  
rescind the cabinet order and reinstate the general. Did that  
disappoint you?

Well, we expected that India would take a consistent position in  
favour of civilian supremacy because of its own traditions and  
because it had supported the struggle for democracy here. In fact, I  
want to make it clear that before taking any action against Katawal,  
I told the Indian Ambassador, Rakesh Sood, that if it is possible,  
could you please send a message that I want to have a serious  
discussion on this issue and if either the foreign secretary or some  
other senior person can come here to talk. We knew some confusion is  
there between the Maoist-led government and India on this question. I  
wanted to settle this issue through interaction and discussion with  
high-level officials from Delhi. But unfortunately, the ambassador  
informed me that this cannot happen now because the election campaign  
is going on, that nobody is there, that it is very difficult.

So you wanted the Indian leadership to be on board before you took  
action against Katawal?

Exactly.
But they say you promised you would not act without wide  
consultations, and that you didn’t stick to that assurance.

Let me clarify. When the question of this army chief was in debate,  
right from the beginning of the recruitment issue last December, I  
tried to consult with different stakeholders, even with Indian  
officials, that this man is not comfortable with the peace process,  
not comfortable with civilian supremacy. And, therefore, I want to  
take some action against him. So the debate was there, just after the  
recruitment issue came. They said, yes, but it is not good to take  
action now, let him go in the natural way. But these negative things  
continued. Even then, before taking action, I had said I would  
consult with the different political parties. And there were 15 days  
of consultations.
Some people say the change in the UML’s position was the result of  
Indian pressure. Do you agree?

That would be going too far. Inside UML there was a heavy pressure  
for the leadership and maybe some sorts of pressure from Delhi also.
The media is speculating that the Maoists had reached out to Lt.  
General Kul Bahadur Khadka, that you wanted him as army chief because  
of some understanding. What is the truth?

All these rumours are baseless and completely wrong. We see no  
difference between Khadka or Chattra Man Singh Gurung or other  
generals. Our concern is with Katawal, who is acting against civilian  
supremacy. And we tried to convince other political parties, and even  
some members of the international community, that we don’t have any  
preference that Khadka should be the next chief. He is second in  
command and when we take action against the chief, the second will  
naturally come. But we did not have any hidden agenda or hidden  
interaction with Khadka.
And there was no plan to give him an extension, since has only a few  
weeks to go till retirement?

No. In fact, we made him acting chief. If we wanted to make him chief  
in that way for an extended period, we would not have made him only  
acting chief in our cabinet decision. So he was to be acting chief  
and we were open to discuss about the chief [after his retirement] —  
to either make Gurung or some other general. Some people think we are  
trying to manipulate Khadka in favour of the Maiosts. These baseless  
rumours are meant to confuse the people.

Why was the army recruitment issue so important for you? And what was  
the need to deny an extension to the eight brigadiers as recommended  
by Gen. Katawal? I am told many of them were highly competent,  
professional officers.

It was agreed that there should be no recruitment by the Nepal Army  
or Peoples Liberation Army until integration and rehabilitation of  
the PLA is complete. In fact, the UN wrote a letter to us saying the  
proposed army recruitment should be stopped as it violates the CPA.  
After this, we wrote to Katawal saying it should be stopped. But he  
defied us. As for the brigadiers, there have been so many instances  
in the past when an officer’s tenure ended and extension was not  
given. So this time too, in the case of the eight brigadiers who had  
reached the end of their tenure, we felt that to address change, to  
give opportunity to new officers, we should do this. And not only in  
the army but in the police, 10-11 officers were not given extension.  
If I don’t give opportunity to new officers, the old status quo will  
be maintained, it will not be consistent with the movement for change.

Some of your leaders have said that unless Katawal’s reinstatement is  
revoked, the Maoist bloc will not allow the Constituent Assembly to  
function. Wouldn’t that be an irresponsible thing to do?

We believe the president should correct his extraconstitutional  
action and we are not going to disrupt the CA functioning for the  
time being. Previously, the Nepali Congress had disturbed the  
functioning of parliament on the issue of the chief and in a  
counterattack we are also stopping it because NC taught us to do  
these kind of activities! But we are not going to have a continuous  
kind of programme like that, we will let the CA function and elect  
the government.

So you are not going to stand in the way?

No.

And can you rejoin government?

We will not be part of the government if the president does not  
correct his instruction on Katawal.
Could a possible compromise be restoring the status quo ante before  
the dismissal but with the CA passing a resolution firmly  
establishing the principle that the civilian government alone has the  
right to take decisions about the military and not the president?

On the issue of the principle, we will agree with that kind of  
proposal. But right now, in the process of forming the government, it  
is not possible to form an agreement on that line. We will be in the  
opposition in that situation.
Do you feel the Maoists will gain electorally in the future by  
staying in the opposition now?

We haven’t thought of the next election, we are thinking about  
civilian supremacy. If we go into opposition, it will mainly be for  
civilian supremacy. The Maoists struggled hard for a CA when others  
were against it, we fought hard for a Republic and now for civilian  
supremacy. People will ask why other parties are silent, how come  
only the Maoists are fighting for this. The image of the party has  
gone up in the hearts and minds of the people. This is our victory.

o o o

The Hindu
May 12, 2009

‘THE PERCEPTION THAT NEPAL IS TILTING TO CHINA IS EXAGGERATED’

by Siddharth Varadarajan

BASELESS: No Chinese delegation came to Nepal on my invitation, says  
Prachanda.

Hours after Nepal’s Prime Minister resigned last week on the question  
of civilian supremacy over the army, a videotape of a speech he made  
to PLA combatants 18 months ago was leaked to the media. The aim was  
to discredit Prachanda since the speech showed him boasting about how  
the Maoists would eventually take over the Nepal Army. In the second  
and concluding part of his interview to The Hindu, the Maoist leader  
explains the contents of that speech, his party’s understanding of  
army integration and India’s fears about a ‘China tilt’ in Nepali  
policy. Excerpts:

Why should the generals and political parties not be afraid of  
integrating the Peoples Liberation Army cadres in the Nepal Army? In  
your leaked speech of January 2, 2008, you said unit-wise integration  
is good because “that way our units will remain with us.” Doesn’t  
this formulation create danger of a state within state? If some units  
are loyal to one party after integration, this will create a problem,  
won’t it?

First of all, we should not compare the integration process with the  
January 2008 speech. That was said in very different circumstances.  
There was uncertainty about whether elections would be held and I  
needed to boost the morale of my cadres. That cannot be compared to  
the current situation, after the election and formation of a  
government Secondly, as far as I understand the process of  
integration, only those cadres who are physically fit should be  
integrated in the army. And I think it would be preferable to have  
unit-wise integration. This is not because we want to remould the  
whole army according to the Maoist understanding. We want to  
integrate them. When Maoist cadres are taken [as individuals] into  
different battalions of the NA, they will take 3-4 years to be really  
integrated because the PLA cadre are not very professional. They are  
more political and ideological. And there is necessity of  
democratising the NA, because it has not been very democratic in its  
functioning and nature. Now, to do this in a planned way, it’s quite  
important to have separate units of the PLA coming under the NA’s  
direct command. Only then can they be really integrated.

So you don’t expect the former PLA units will remain loyal to your  
party after integration in the army?

They must be loyal to the state, to the government. We don’t have any  
confusion on this question.

The principle of civilian supremacy over the military cuts both ways.  
Tomorrow, a non-Maoist government might feel these former PLA units  
or officers are not loyal and may wish to act against them. Would  
that be acceptable to you?

Yes, this is acceptable to me. According to the constitution, the  
elected government can take action if they challenge civilian  
supremacy, if they challenge the decision of the government.

For example, by siding with your party…

Exactly. There is no confusion in my mind.

Your critics say the 30-year service rule is being applied to retire  
senior people in different fields as a way for the Maoists to capture  
the state.

This is wrong. The 30-year provision was there previously in the  
police. And we established it in the armed police and police. But we  
do not have the intention to apply it in the army, where the  
situation is quite different. Although there was a debate and  
discussion on this, I clearly stated my position, even in public,  
that in the army, the 30 year issue will not be applicable.

The Shaktikhor video has also created doubts about the size of the  
PLA. There you said, “We were at 7,000 to 8,000. If we had reported  
that, we would have had 4,000 left after verification. Instead we  
claimed 35,000 and now we have 20,000.” Don’t you think this  
admission makes the integration process more difficult?

No, I don’t think so

There is a demand for re-verification, for example.

That is not going to happen. We had two kinds of regular forces  
during the Peoples War: central and regional forces. Both were PLA  
cadres and 35,000 was the combined figure. What I said in the  
videotape was about the central force, whose number was 7-8,000 at  
that time. The regional forces were near about 25-27,000. During the  
peace process, regional and central forces were merged and taken into  
cantonments. And they were scaled down to 20,000. In fact, during the  
Peoples War, we also had a militia of irregulars, 65-70,000 strong.  
We wanted them to be integrated or rehabilitated as well but the  
government and all major political parties did not agree because the  
state would not be able to handle such a big force. So it was  
suggested that this militia should be changed into a political  
organization. In this way the Young Communist League (YCL) emerged.

In your interview to The Hindu in April 2008, you said you wanted to  
convert the YCL into a development-oriented organisation. But we  
haven’t heard much about that, and again, there are allegations of  
criminal activities by the YCL.

The YCL has changed from a political to a social and development  
organisation. There is also a lot of exaggeration about the  
activities of the YCL; all the positive things they are doing in the  
development and social sector are not covered by the media. The media  
only reports things when something bad is done by an individual  
connected to the YCL. And in those incidents where members are  
involved, we are taking action against them.

Maoist cadres have targeted the media in the past — there was the  
attack on Himal Khabarpatrika, for example. Can you assure us the  
party will not tolerate such acts?

We are in favour of freedom of the press. But even in democratic  
countries and old democratic parties there will always be some  
incidents. In the Himal incident, some of our workers were involved.  
But I took the initiative and brought them into police custody.
India played a positive role in the peace process and the  
transformation of Nepal to a republic. But now, it appears as if  
there is distrust between the Maoist leadership and the Indian  
government. Why?

Because there has been a very mechanical and subjective analysis of  
the situation by the Indian side. Especially on the question of the  
so-called tilt to China. With the Indian political leadership busy  
with elections, security and bureaucratic officials are perhaps  
driving policy. And a highly exaggerated perception exists about what  
is going on here.
Indian officials say a huge number of Chinese delegation have visited  
Nepal recently. And they wonder why your defence minister paid a  
“secret visit” to China.

This is also baseless. Last year, because of the Tibet situation, the  
Chinese side got more sensitive about Tibet-related activities going  
on in Nepal. I would like to say clearly that not a single delegation  
came to Nepal on my invitation. The initiative came solely from the  
Chinese side. As for this “secret visit” of our defence minister,  
that was no “secret” at all. It was also not much of a “visit.” Some  
of our ministers went to Tatopani near the border during Deepavali.  
 From there, they crossed the border and went to Khasa and spent the  
night. Everybody from Kathmandu wants to go to Tatopani and sometimes  
stay in Khasa to shop.

There are also apprehensions on the updated Nepal-China friendship  
treaty being negotiated. Do you intend to hold wider consultations on  
this before proceeding?

Time and again I have proposed that we should have continuous  
discussion, so that we can clear any confusion. We have a very  
specific type of relation with India — an open border, history,  
culture. When I was in Delhi, I tried to explain why our relations  
are unique. With China, we have our own specific nature of relations  
— because of the Himalayan range. One should not confuse this issue.  
As for the treaty, there is still so much discussion to be held  
between the parties here. Nothing is going to be signed in a hurry.  
Certainly, I was not going to sign anything during the trip I had  
scheduled to Beijing before this crisis.

The Indian side says the Maoists send mixed signals. When you came to  
Delhi, you spoke of 10,000 MW joint hydroelectric projects, an East- 
West railway. But at the Kharipati party convention in December,  
existing projects like Arun-III were called a manifestation of  
“Indian expansionism.”

There is no confusion. I don’t know what kinds of documents India  
received from Kharipati. There was serious discussion and debate on  
different issues and it is possible someone has seen different  
documents and taken them to be the final ones. If there are such  
references, in my assessment that was not the final document. There  
are different documents and maybe some tendency inside the party [to  
look at things that way] but in the final document a more pragmatic  
conclusion is there. I stand by my position that the east-west  
railway is very important for us, and without India it cannot be  
fulfilled. I have talked about the Chisapani project. I am in favour  
of having those kinds of megaprojects with India’s cooperation,  
although in some issues, like Pancheshwar on the Mahakali, there is  
serious confusion among the masses here. Unless we clear this, it is  
difficult to go ahead there. But on Karnali, there is no problem from  
our side. (Concluded)

_____

[3] Pakistan:

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN FOR A CRASH PLAN FOR IDPS

Press Release, May 07

Lahore: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has called  
upon the federal government to immediately set up a special task  
force to implement a crash plan for extending relief to the large  
number of people displaced in the ongoing conflict in the country’s  
northern part. In a statement issued today, the commission said:

The plight of the people displaced from their homes in Swat, Dir and  
Buner as a result of militants’ activities and the security forces’  
operations against them is getting more and more serious day by day.  
The number of these IDPs may soon touch a million mark. The  
circumstances in which these unfortunate people have been forced to  
abandon their homes have made it impossible for them to find succour  
on their own. Many among them, from barbers and musicians to teachers  
and lawyers, lost their means of income weeks and months ago and are  
now in dire straits. Their needs for relief are both urgent and  
substantial.

HRCP believes the NWFP government’s plan to set up six camps in Swabi  
will not touch even a fringe of the problem. The matter is clearly  
beyond the provincial government’s means and capacity. The federal  
government must take matters into its hands and set up a special task  
force manned by people skilled in relief work. Since the number of  
IDPs is likely to grow it is necessary to draw up a master plan for  
looking after them in the days and weeks ahead. The civil society  
organisations also must rise to the occasion and convince the  
innocent victims of conflict that they are not going to be abandoned.

Asma Jahangir
Chairperson

o o o

SPIEGEL ONLINE
  05/06/2009

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH PAKISTANI PRESIDENT ASIF ALI ZARDARI
'Nuclear Weapons Are Not Kalashnikovs'

The West is concerned about the stability of Pakistan. SPIEGEL spoke  
with President Asif Ali Zardari, 53, about failed peace talks with  
the Taliban, the possible whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and the  
safety of his country's nuclear arsenal.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the Taliban is advancing deeper and deeper  
into the heart of Pakistan. Does your army lack the will or the  
capability to effectively combat the extremists?

Pakistani army vehicles moving into the Swat Valley in a recent  
offensive against the Taliban.
AFP

Pakistani army vehicles moving into the Swat Valley in a recent  
offensive against the Taliban.
Zardari: Neither the one nor the other. Swat itself has a particular  
nature -- its physical boundaries limit our action and capabilities.  
We had a similar situation in Bajaur along the border to Afghanistan.  
There, too, we went in with F-16s, tanks, heavy artillery and our  
forces. At the time, 800,000 people lived in the region, and 500,000  
were displaced by the fighting. What we really wanted, though, was  
for the local population to stay and help resist the Taliban on their  
land. In the case of Swat, the Taliban used the population as human  
shields. A more aggressive offensive would have caused greater  
civilian casualties. For us, the concept of a policy of dialogue has  
always applied. War is not the solution to every kind of problem.

SPIEGEL: The peace agreement you supported with militant Islamists in  
Swat Valley just failed like others before it. The Taliban didn't  
give up their arms as agreed to in the deal. Are deals with  
extremists a realistic strategy for peace?

Zardari: During negotiations, we try to differentiate between  
copycats or criminals and the hardcore. It is an ongoing insurgency  
which takes time to finish. We go in with our troops, we talk, we  
retreat, we pull back, and then the Taliban goes on a new offensive.  
It is a drawn-out issue and there is no encyclopaedia one can turn to  
for answers. I would advise you to read about the Afghan wars. It's  
the way the Taliban, who are Pashtuns, fight: They take you on and  
then they melt into the mountains. And you often can't tell who is  
who or what they are up to. These men are like old Indian chiefs in  
the US who didn't want to recognize the fact that, by then, they were  
ruled by American laws.

SPIEGEL: The chief Taliban negotiator in Swat, Sufi Mohammed, claims  
that democracy is opposed to Islam. So what are the foundations for a  
treaty?

Zardari: When he refuses to recognize Pakistan's constitution, he is  
breaking the terms of the peace deal. That gives our negotiators and  
the populace the support they need to take him on. If the deal  
doesn't work, then parliament will have to decide on it again. That's  
democracy and, as you can see, it works.

SPIEGEL: In the meantime, the army has entered into battle against  
the Taliban. Is it not just a bogus operation in order to quiet a  
concerned West?

Zardari: It is a large-scale operation. Altogether, more than 100,000  
Pakistani troops are operating in the region. Of course we also have  
a comprehensive strategy and a plan for reconstruction.

SPIEGEL: The Taliban is increasingly calling on the poor to follow  
them and to chase away the landlords and feudal lords. Are the  
Islamists in the process of transforming themselves into a social  
movement that pits Pakistan's underprivileged against the rich elite,  
who have opposed land reform?

Zardari: I don't see that. In regions of the northwest border  
provinces, there is no feudalism because there is no land available  
that would be sufficient for agriculture -- it is all mountainous  
terrain. There are old families and there is a tribal chief system  
that relies on tribal laws that has been indigenous for centuries.  
The Taliban have superiority of numbers and arms and are more  
aggressive, so they sometimes overpower the local authority.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari: "I see no danger of a military  
coup."
Zoom
AFP

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari: "I see no danger of a military  
coup."
SPIEGEL: Why don't you move some of the troop divisions you have  
stationed on the eastern border with India to the northwest border,  
where there is clearly a greater need?

Zardari: Both borders are of equal importance. The fact that the  
Indians recently increased their troop presence on the border creates  
a little concern. We react appropriately and we understand our  
country better than outsiders. This year we have already killed many  
foreign fighters and even more local attackers. Our opponents have  
incurred heavy losses -- this is a serious battle.

SPIEGEL: The Taliban in Swat Valley have invited Osama bin Laden to  
live with them and they have offered to protect him from the  
Pakistani army and the Americans. What will you do if he accepts  
their offer?

Zardari: It would be a great gesture if Osama bin Laden were to come  
out into the open in order to give us a chance of catching him. The  
question right now is whether he is alive or dead. The Americans have  
told me they don't know. They are much better informed and they have  
been looking for him for a much longer time. They have got more  
equipment, more intelligence, more satellite eavesdropping equipment  
and more resources on the ground in Afghanistan, and they say they  
have no trace of him. Our own intelligence is of the same opinion.  
Presumably, he does not exist anymore, but that has not been confirmed.

Pakistan's embattled border regions.

SPIEGEL: The relationship between the democratic government in  
Islamabad and the traditionally dominant army has never been an easy  
one. Do you trust your army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the  
notorious ISI secret service?

Zardari: It is a trustful working relationship and I am well enough  
informed. My party, the Pakistan People's Party, and its allies have  
the majority and we will see things through. At the moment I see no  
danger of a military coup.

SPIEGEL: Why do you leave the elimination of top terrorists in the  
Pakistani tribal areas to the Americans, whose drone attacks are  
extremely unpopular amongst the populace? Why don't you handle this  
yourselves?

Zardari: If we had the drone technology, then we would. It would be a  
plus. We have always said that we don't appreciate the way the  
Americans are handling it. We think it is counterproductive. But it  
is mostly happening in the border areas between Pakistan and  
Afghanistan -- for all intents and purposes no man's land.

SPIEGEL: What are you hoping will happen during your visit with US  
President Barack Obama this week?

Zardari: That is a million dollar question. And I am hoping the  
answer will be billions of dollars, because that is the kind of money  
I need to fix Pakistan's economy. The idea is to request that the  
world appreciate the sensitivity of Pakistan and the challenges it  
faces and to treat us on par with General Motors, Chrysler and Citibank.

SPIEGEL: The Americans currently view a nuclear-armed Pakistan as the  
world's most dangerous country. Your wife, Benazir Bhutto, who was  
assassinated by terrorists, feared that your country's nuclear  
weapons could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists. Do you  
share this fear?

Zardari: If democracy in this country fails, if the world doesn't  
help democracy -- then any eventuality is a possibility. But as long  
as democracy is there, there is no question of that situation  
arising. All your important installations and weaponry are always  
under extra security. Nuclear weapons are not Kalashnikovs -- the  
technology is complicated, so it is not as if one little Taliban  
could come down and press a button. There is no little button. I want  
to assure the world that the nuclear capability of Pakistan is in  
safe hands.

Interview conducted by Susanne Koelbl

o o o

The News
May 9, 2009

  TALIBANISATION OF THE MIND

by Babar Sattar

Last week a conservative schoolteacher in Rawalpindi hailed a cab to  
get to work in the morning. She wore a gown and had covered her head  
with a 'dupatta’. A few minutes into the journey the bearded taxi  
driver asked her if she was Muslim. She said she was. Then why she  
had not covered her head properly, he asked. She responded by  
explaining that she ordinarily wears a headscarf, but as she was  
running late that day she was unable to put it on. Such hurry could  
invite punishment and result in her being dispatched to the hereafter  
soon, he retorted. At this point she began to shake with fear and  
tried to reach for her cell phone to seek help. He turned back and  
grabbed the cell phone. As the taxi had almost reached the school  
campus, she insisted that she be let out. The driver obliged, but  
left her with a chilling message: if the female staff of the school  
failed to observe proper 'pardah’ they would all be sent to God  
sooner rather than later. Once out of the taxi, this horror-struck  
woman turned back to see if she could note the registration number of  
the taxi. The driver was still standing there watching her  
menacingly. She rushed into the school.

This is no isolated event. Be it warnings delivered to the medical  
community in NWFP to wear shalwar qameez, or edicts issued to music  
shops and barbers, or threats communicated to schools, or reports  
regarding women being harassed in bazaars and public spaces more  
generally, there has been a surge in vigilante action being carried  
out by our self-styled moral police. The worst justification for the  
Nizam-e-Adl regulation comes from liberals within the ANP and the PPP  
claiming that this legislation doesn’t set up a parallel system of  
justice, as it is merely procedural law adorned with Islamic  
nomenclature. Accepting the demand to 'enforce’ religion legitimizes  
the discourse of bigots and their obscurantist project of personally  
stepping into God’s shoes to judge fellow Muslims, taking a measure  
of their sins and delivering divine justice in this world on God’s  
behalf. The growing intolerance that our society is witnessing with  
mute horror is fuelled by our odious brand of hypocrisy that  
encourages double-speak in the name of protecting and preserving  
tradition, culture and religion.

The growing Talibanization of the mind that Kamila Hyat spoke about  
in her column this week is a real threat to our fundamental rights  
and liberties. Simply put it is bigotry, intolerance, obscurantism  
and coercion practiced in the name of religion that feeds on (a) the  
fear of change being ushered in by modernity, (b) confusion about the  
role of religion in the society, and (c) the failure of the state to  
provide for the basic needs of citizens, including means of  
subsistence the absence of which renders people desperate and a  
balanced education without which they lack the tools to question and  
resist extreme intolerant ideas. The message of the Taliban or other  
religious bigots can be simple and appealing to a majority of the  
population that is deprived of basic needs, disempowered and  
consequently disgruntled. The contract between the citizens and the  
state is not being honoured by the state and thus the system neither  
provides for the basic needs of a majority of the citizens nor offers  
them any real prospect for upward social mobility. This problem of  
governance is then presented by the maulvi as a consequence of lack  
of religion.

America, the big Satan, has mesmerized the elites of this country,  
explains the maulvi. These elites, as agents of the devil, have  
signed on to modern/western ideas that are taking our society and our  
country away from our religion. Our miseries are a consequence of our  
sins and God’s vengeance and the solution is a return to a backward  
lifestyle that shuns modernity. The appeal of this thesis lies in its  
simplicity. We are unhappy with the performance of the state and the  
manner in which it is leading to the creation of a predatory society  
and crave change. And such change is promised by the maulvi in the  
name of religion.

We have never candidly spoken about the desired role of religion in  
our country and no sensible distinction has been between the  
discourses on what religion is and how it should be practiced. Thus,  
whether or not Sharia prescribes 'pardah’ is one question, and  
whether the state has a right to enforce 'pardah’ or citizens have a  
private right to ensure that others observe 'pardah’ is a separate  
question. Because we don’t separate the individual right to freely  
practice religion from the debate on what constitutes the legitimate  
prescriptions of Islam, an interpretation of Sharia that favours  
'pardah’ automatically ends up justifying illegal actions of private  
citizens coercing and harassing others to abide by an interpretation  
they prefer.

The Constitution of Pakistan holds out the promise of 'enabling’  
citizens to order their lives in accordance with the teachings of the  
Quran and Sunnah. What the Constitution does is create a right and  
not an obligation. Except laws that regulate our collective lives as  
a society, that are informed by Islamic injunctions, the Constitution  
does not empower the state to 'enforce’ religion in the private lives  
of citizens. Should a Muslim choose to order his private life in  
accordance with his understanding of the edicts of the Quran and  
Sunnah, the state is under an obligation to 'facilitate’ him. And  
this individual right to freely practice one’s religion includes the  
right not to be goaded into practicing Islam in a manner that one  
finds disagreeable. This requires the state and the society to  
differentiate between propagation and intimidation. Where propagation  
of religion enters the realm of coercion, the right to freely  
practice religion becomes a casualty. Thus, the individual right to  
practice religion freely can only be meaningful if it protects  
against the type of bigotry being practiced by Sufi Mohammad in Swat  
or Abdul Aziz in Islamabad.

It is imperative that the distinction between virtue/vice and  
legality/illegality in the country be kept alive. The growth and  
spread of bigotry in our society is not only blurring the line  
between sin and crime, but is also arrogating to private citizens the  
ability to enforce an obscurantist moral code – a right that citizens  
don’t have even when it comes to enforcing the law. As aforesaid, the  
right to practice religion freely in one’s personal life naturally  
includes the right not to practice religion, just as the right to  
free speech includes the entitlement not to speak at all. Let people  
privately judge others for being good or bad Muslims if they so wish.  
But such judgment must not be allowed to abridge or fetter the  
constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties of those being  
judged. Irrespective of our disagreements over the content and  
interpretation of Sharia, all those who value the right to profess  
and practice religion freely can rationally agree that 'enforcing’ a  
certain brand of Sharia neither falls within the province of the  
state, nor is a private right of any citizen or a group of citizens.

Further, within the discourse on the content of Sharia, it is  
imperative to resist the propensity of authoritatively determining  
whether or not someone is Muslim. Here too, the issue of what Islam  
allows and disallows as understood by human agency must be  
distinguished from the authority to declare someone a non-Muslim or  
oust a Muslim from the circle of Islam. Who are we after all to  
appropriate to ourselves the divine right of judgment that God has  
reserved for the day of deliverance? The tendency to readily issue  
decrees denouncing the faith of fellow Muslims not only makes us more  
intolerant, exclusive and fractured as a community, but also confuses  
the rationale and the need to act against militant groups. For  
example, Sufi Mohammad declares that anyone who doesn’t abide by his  
view of Sharia will automatically be ousted from the circle of Islam.  
In turn, maulvis opposed to Sufi emphasize that anyone who supports  
the Taliban who plan suicide bombings and slaughter Muslims is an  
infidel. This discourse is unhelpful. The state and the society need  
to strengthen their resolve to act against the Taliban terrorizing  
citizens, not because they are infidels or bad Muslims, but because  
they are criminals and have usurped the lives and liberties of  
compatriots.

Talibanization of the mind is finding room in our society either  
because a majority of our population that is religiously inclined  
continues to confuse its responsibilities toward God with those  
toward fellow citizens or because we are too timid to defend a  
lifestyle that might be judged by the religiously inclined. Unless we  
shun hypocrisy and stand up to defend a legal and social structure  
that allows us to order our private lives freely, in a secular  
fashion or in accordance with our own understanding of religion,  
freedom of religion will continue to be chipped away and more and  
more vigilantes will develop the urge to play God within Pakistan.

o o o

See Also:

WANT PRESS COVERAGE? GIVE ME SOME MONEY
by Paul Beckett (Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2009)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124158152250690795.html

BLEED INDIA
http://www.bleedindia.com/

______

[6] India Must Free Binayak Sen:

NO COUNTRY FOR THE BRAVE
The dark heart within the glory of Indian democracy
by Bhaswati Chakravorty (The Telegraph, May 12, 2009)
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090512/jsp/opinion/story_10947804.jsp

(also at: http://www.freebinayaksen.org/?p=274)

USA: COMMITTEE OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS CALLS FOR URGENT ACTION TO  
FREE DR. BINAYAK SEN
http://www.freebinayaksen.org/?p=273

______

[7]  India's slow and steady Communalisation :  Right, left and center

The Telegraph
May 12, 2009

THE HOUR OF THE SAINTS
Election 2009 will be remembered as the first serious attempt by the  
BJP to create a Hindu vote bank, writes Meera Nanda

The Bharatiya Janata Party has worked hard to create the impression  
that it is not pursuing an aggressive Hindutva agenda in the 2009 Lok  
Sabha elections. It has made good governance, development and  
security its election plank, and has promised to give us a “majboot  
neta, nirnayak sarkar”. Old Hindutva favourites like the Ram temple,  
Ram Setu and the much- beloved ‘cow and its progeny’ do make an  
appearance in the party’s manifesto, but they are clubbed together  
under the unobjectionable idea of “preserving our cultural heritage”  
and tacked at the very end.

But like a leopard that cannot change its spots, the saffron party  
cannot turn saffron, green and white without losing its very reason  
for being. The truth is that in this election, the BJP has pursued a  
Hindu agenda which, in the long run, may prove to be far more radical  
than the hot-button issues that we are all familiar with. The new  
agenda can at best be described as the hindukaran of voters, that is,  
making voters vote as Hindus First.

The work of hindukaran is more subtle than the in-your-face Ram  
temple agitation of the 1990s. It is taking place through yagnas,  
kathas and yogashivirs held in temples, ashrams and through public  
meetings that are often presided over by popular and supposedly  
apolitical gurus and ‘saints’ whose spiritual discourses could well  
be lifted out of the writings of the sangh parivar. In many of these  
meetings, people are urged to take an oath to vote for the party that  
takes care of ‘Hindu interests’. This is not very different from what  
happened in the United States of America in 2000 and in 2004 when  
evangelical preachers used their pulpits to urge their congregations  
to vote for the party of “traditional values,” whose representative  
was none other than George W. Bush.

No one can predict just yet if this so-called Hindu vote bank will  
come through for the BJP. But whatever the outcome, Election 2009  
will be remembered as the first time when a serious coordinated  
attempt was made to create a Hindu vote bank. It is important,  
therefore, to create a public record of this phenomenon.

A good place to start would be the letter L.K. Advani wrote to a  
thousand sadhu-sants within days of the release of the BJP’s election  
manifesto. While the manifesto is lukewarm towards Hindutva, Advani’s  
letter lays out the red carpet for the saints to come marching  
straight into the government. His letter promises to establish a  
permanent institutional mechanism to enable holy men and women “guide  
politics, governance and other national affairs by the lofty ideals  
as enshrined in the concept of Ram Rajya”. In addition, Advani  
reaffirmed the promises made in the manifesto, namely, cleaning the  
Ganga, protecting the Ram Setu and the cows, promoting spiritual  
tourism, and giving tax-exemption to dharmic activities. So while the  
party promised good governance to the yuppie “Friends of the BJP,” it  
offered faith-based governance to its more traditional constituency.

Who are these raj gurus-in-waiting whom the BJP is so eagerly  
courting? What role are they being asked to play in electoral  
politics? This is where the plot begins to thicken.

The sadhu-sants who received Advani’s pledge of allegiance were  
chosen from a hand-picked list put together by the Vishwa Hindu  
Parishad. While the complete list remains a secret, there is  
speculation that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Swami Ramdev have received  
the letter, as did many other members of the Dharma Raksha Manch, a  
VHP-managed forum, which held its inaugural meeting in January 2009  
in Mumbai.

The Dharma Raksha Manch is the culmination of the VHP’s dream of  
converting the vast majority of religious-minded Hindus into a Hindu  
vote bank. The idea was first put forward by Swami Chinmayananda in  
the 1980s. Later, it was taken up enthusiastically by Praveen  
Togadia, the current general secretary of the VHP.

The creation of a Hindu vote bank required a two-step action plan,  
which was hammered out in the various dharam sansads held over the  
last five years or so. The first step was to put forth a Hindu  
Charter of demands and get a political party to formally accept it.  
The second step called for organizing grassroot campaigns in which at  
least 50,000 voters in each Lok Sabha constituency were to take an  
oath to vote for only that party that accepts the Hindu Charter. The  
action plan also called for unleashing the power of popular gurus and  
kathakars, who have a mass following among the moderate middle  
classes, who may be turned off by communal issues but may still be  
mobilized to vote for “Hindu interests”.

The sangh parivar has executed this plan to the very last dot in this  
election. In late January, the VHP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak  
Sangh organized the Dharma Raksha Manch in Mumbai which gave the  
pride of place to a number of popular gurus. In March, the Dharma  
Raksha Manch came out with an 11-point Hindu Charter. Within days,  
the BJP announced that it had included all the 11 demands in its  
manifesto. This was followed by Advani’s fawning letter to the sadhu- 
sants.

All this set the stage for the Step Two. The VHP’s Ashok Singhal  
declared that since the BJP is the only party that has accepted the  
demands of the saints, the saints will henceforth “educate the voters  
by touring even the remote villages to vote for the BJP”. And that is  
precisely what the saints have been doing, especially in the  
communally sensitive areas of Karnataka and Orissa. In mid-March,  
Mangalore, the home-turf of the Sri Ram Sena, witnessed a huge  
samajotsva (social festival) organized by the Dharma Raksha Vedike  
with full support from the state where participants were asked to  
take an oath to only vote for pro-Hindu candidates/party. As the  
elections approached and public rallies became difficult to organize,  
oath-taking moved inside temples: at least 100 yagnas were organized  
by temples all across the state where the presiding priests  
administered the oath to vote as Hindus. Yagnas were also the ritual  
of choice for Ashok Sahu in Orissa, the BJP’s candidate for  
Kandhamal, the site of anti-Christian riots last year.For their part,  
the supposedly apolitical gurus have been on the same page as the  
Dharma Raksha Manch. These gurus with mass appeal have been a major  
conduit for mainstreaming the Hindutva agenda.

How effective has been this strategy of hindukaran? We will know the  
answer shortly when the elections results are out.
Meera Nanda’s book, God Market: How Globalization is Making India  
More Hindu, will be published later this year

[The above article is also available at: http://www.sacw.net/ 
article911.html ]

o o o

Express Buzz
04 May 2009

COMBATING MINORITY COMMUNALISM

Express News Service

Thiruvananthapuram: Money, especially Gulf money, is the driving  
force behind the unholy nexus between mainstream political parties  
and minority communal organisations, Teesta Setalvad, human rights  
activist and co-editor of ‘Communalism Combat’, has observed.

  Addressing a meet-the-press programme organised by Kesari Memorial  
Journalists Trust on Sunday, Teesta said that it was highly  
disturbing to see the LDF clinching an alliance with PDP and the UDF  
with NDF in the Lok Sabha polls.

  ``We were closely watching the activities of NDF, PDP and similar  
organisations. When the CPM calls Jama’at-e-Islami a cultural  
organisation, it is no different than the claim of RSS that it is a  
cultural organisation,’’ she said.

  Teesta said Jama’at has two different organisations, one for India  
and the other for Kashmir. ``Do they think Kashmir is not a part of  
India?’’ she asked.

  When asked about CPM dropping its values and going ahead with the  
PDP alliance, Teesta replied that they had lost the moral authority  
to speak about communalism by doing so. ``Minority communalism is  
equally dangerous because it breeds majority communalism,’’ she said.

  Regarding the recent Supreme Court orders on the Gujarat riot  
cases, Teesta said that there had been years of hard work by some  
good human beings behind that. ``The base petition of Lakia Jafry  
that prompted the SC to deliver an order to inquire into Modi’s role  
was supported by 63 affidavits from police officers. There are 1,000  
charges against Modi himself as per this petition,’’ she said.

  When asked whether she was happy over the decision of the Supreme  
Court to try 10 cases in Gujarat itself, Teesta said it would have  
been ideal if all cases were tried outside Gujarat. ``But, the SC has  
taken the decision based on several factors, including logistics.  
These cases involve 2,000 witnesses and 3,000 accused. Language is  
also a problem,’’ she said.

  According to Teesta, the SC has tried to restore a responsible  
judiciary in Gujarat by doing so. ``By trying the Bilkis Banu and  
Best Bakery cases outside Gujarat, the SC sent a strong signal. Now,  
the Gujarat courts have to try the cases properly,’’ she said.

  For Teesta and team, a Herculean task is ahead. Trial of ten more  
crucial cases means they have to protect hundreds of victims and save  
them from hidden pressures and provocations.
o o o

see also:

FAITH NO BAR
by Harbans Mukhia
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/05/faith-no-bar.html

CROSSED AND CRUCIFIED PARIVAR'S WAR AGAINST MINORITIES IN ORISSA
A report by PUCL Bhubaneswar and Kashipur Solidarity Group, Delhi  
April 2009
http://www.sacw.net/article910.html

THE NEW HINDU FUNDAMENTALISTS : A RADIO DOCUMENTARY BY NAVDIP DHARIWAL
Listen to the program
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k3zzd

______

[8] Announcements:

People's Campaigns and Democratic Process: Struggles for  
Transparency, Accountability and Livelihood Security in India

  A Conversation with Nikhil Dey of MKSS

May 12th, 2009

Room 9206-07
Graduate Center
365 Fifth Avenue [New York]
(between 34th and 35th)

  6:30-9 pm

Organized by Center for Place, Culture and Politics and MKSS

        Nikhil Dey is one of the founders of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti  
Sangathan (MKSS; Collective for the Empowerment of Peasants and  
Workers), a rural collective of peasants and workers from Rajasthan  
(north western state of India) that has fundamentally challenged the  
state and democratic process in Rajasthan and across India with its  
paradigmatic work on issues of transparency in governance and the  
accountability of the state. The Right to Information movement  
pioneered by the MKSS has led to one of the most progressive  
legislations in the world in 2005 on the transparency and  
accountability of the state in India, and the MKSS has also played a  
crucial role in the Right to Food and Employment Guarantee campaigns  
in the country. The Right to Food campaign has led to the enactment  
of several progressive orders through a Public Interest Litigation in  
the Supreme Court of India and the Employment Guarantee Campaign also  
resulted in a Central (Federal) law in the country in 2005 for rural  
workers- the provision of employment worth around a billion dollars  
in 2008-09 through this Act has helped shield the poorest people in  
rural India from the effects of the global financial crisis. In the  
overall global scenario of privatization and state cut-backs in much  
of the global South, aka neoliberalization, these have been some of  
the most significant victories of people's campaigns in India in  
recent times.

        Nikhil Dey began organising in rural Rajasthan in his early  
20s in the 80s and went on to found MKSS with other similarly  
committed activists in 1990. He is also a founder of the National  
Campaign for the People's Right to Information in India (1996). The  
MKSS is a non-registered collective that takes no institutional  
support and calls itself a non-party political process (all its  
activists earn the state's minimum wage of a little less than $2/ day  
now, funded only through individual contributions of members and  
supporters).

        Join us for a conversation on democratic process in India,  
where people's campaigns composed primarily of peasants and workers  
have articulated and conceived the Right to Information, Right to  
Food and the Right to Employment Guarantee and linked it with the  
Right to Life and Livelihood through their daily struggles against  
poverty and entrenched corruption. These campaigns have not only  
successfully sought legal entitlements through the Indian Parliament  
and the Supreme Court, but continue to strive for effective  
implementation of these laws and are fostering vitally growing  
processes of democratic participation and decision making across the  
country today.

- - -

(ii)

LST FORUM

UN Durban Review Conference on Racism

Dialogue with Nimalka Fernando
President, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination  
and Racism (IMADR)

Thursday 21 May 2009

5pm @

3, Kynsey Terrace, Colombo 08

- - -

(iii) Just Published

http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/Locality--History--Memory--The-Making-of- 
the-Citizen-in-South-Asia1-4438-0188-7.htm

LOCALITY, HISTORY, MEMORY: THE MAKING OF THE CITIZEN IN SOUTH ASIA
Editor: Rila Mukherjee and M. N. Rajesh
Date Of Publication: Feb 2009
Isbn13: 978-1-4438-0188-1
Isbn: 1-4438-0188-7
Locality, History, Memory: The Making of the Citizen in South Asia  
was born out of the need to interrogate the tropes through which  
place, history and memory underpin notions of citizenship in present  
Southasia.

Time as both time present and time past is framed here in two  
settings: as privileging both place (material or ideological site)  
and space. The latter refers to religion, oppression, marginalization  
and/or dalitisation. Time transcends both site/location and actual  
physical boundaries. Locality or location is therefore envisioned in  
terms of both actual place as well as a gateway to a larger space, in  
terms of a situation where historical memory negotiates the  
increasingly complex present. Agency and contingency therefore assume  
a critical importance here.

Citizenship, far from being a discrete entity, is found to be  
multidimensional: it refers to formal status and the legal status of  
nationality and citizenship authenticated in the passport, but it  
also refers to rights and privileges; identity and solidarity,  
religious beliefs and a sense of belonging. Moving away from the role  
of the state, which has been at the centre of all inquiries on  
citizenship, we ask here the following questions in Locality,  
History, Memory: How does our history enforce or dilute the notion of  
the citizen? How far does memory strengthen or weaken it? What role  
does features not normally associated with citizenship such as access  
to natural resources, or ritual, faith and religion play in  
reinforcing such a status?

History in the end is written by the historian and it was easy to map  
the changing methodologies used by the historians to essay the past  
but this is becoming increasingly difficult now. Another twist is the  
shift to hypertext at a popular level echoing what the late E H Carr  
had once called ‘bringing more and more people into history’. These  
so called alternative histories or people’s histories are becoming  
more and more popular because of the point at which we are located in  
time. Moreover, devices afforded by the new media enable these  
alternative histories to have an immediacy that the conventional  
historical format lacked. The collapse of state control over the new  
media has led to the resurgence of many archaic voices unimaginable  
just a decade ago.

Rila Mukherjee is Professor of History at the University of  
Hyderabad, India. She did her doctoral dissertation at the  
E.H.E.S.S., Paris.

M.N. Rajesh is Lecturer in History at the University of Hyderabad,  
India and obtained his PhD. Degree from School of International  
Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

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

South Asia Citizens Wire
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.