SACW | May 25-27, 2009 / 1971 Crimes / 1998 Nuclear tests / Women's Rights / Religion / Politics
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Tue May 26 22:36:05 CDT 2009
South Asia Citizens Wire | May 25-27, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2628 - Year
11 running
From: www.sacw.net
[ SACW Dispatches for 2009-2010 are dedicated to the memory of Dr.
Sudarshan Punhani (1933-2009), husband of Professor Tamara Zakon and
a comrade and friend of Daya Varma ]
____
[1] Sri Lanka: HRC Eleventh special session on the human rights
situation in Sri Lanka Web Cast
- UN faces fierce clash over call for Sri Lanka war crimes inquiry
- Multiple displacements, total loss of identity (B. Muralidhar
Reddy)
- Sri Lankans divided by war: (Gethin Chamberlain)
[2] Pakistan: Healing the Wounds of the Past (Action for a
Progressive Pakistan)
- Can Pakistan say no? (M.B. Naqvi)
[3] Bangladesh: On High Court Verdict on Sexual Harassment (Rahnuma
Ahmed)
[4] India: Binayak Sen's Case - 741 days later... (Indrajit Hazra)
[5] India: What women want (Pamela Philipose)
[6] India: Religion and Politics
- Sikh identity politics (Pratap Bhanu Mehta)
- Delink religious boards from secular state apparatus
(Editorial, Kashmir Times)
- Bhagat Singh, The Journalist (S Irfan Habib)
[7] 1998 Nuclear Tests: This Madness of Nuclear Weaponisation Must
End in India - Pakistan (Admiral L Ramdas)
[8] India: Dogs are gods anyway you spell it (Tara Deshpande Tennebaum)
[9] Miscellanea:
- Now at last it's time for Shell to atone for my father's death
(Ken Saro-Wiwa Jnr)
- Meeting, Then Eating, The Goat (Anne Barnard)
_____
[1] Sri Lanka:
Human Rights Council
Eleventh special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka
Geneva, 26 - 27 May 2009
LIVE WEBCAST
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
10:00 - 13:00 - 2nd Plenary Meeting
15:00 - 18:00 - 3rd Plenary Meeting
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.
o o o
The Times, May 26, 2009
UN faces fierce clash over call for Sri Lanka war crimes inquiry
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6361091.ece
o o o
The Hindu, May 27, 2009
MULTIPLE DISPLACEMENTS, TOTAL LOSS OF IDENTITY
by B. Muralidhar Reddy
MANIK FARM COMPLEX (Vavuniya district): Some time on May 10, a week
before the Sri Lankan military decimated the military capabilities of
the LTTE and wiped out its entire top brass, the Tigers had informed
80,000 civilians under their custody that they have lost the battle
and were no longer in a position to defend them, conversation with a
group of last batch of civilians to escape from the control of Tigers
reveals.
Currently housed in one of the camps at Zone IV of the 1,400-acre
Manik Farm Complex, with 25 big and small camps dotted with blue and
white tents, hosting nearly 2.2 lakh of the 2.71 lakh Eelam War IV
displaced, most look visibly shrunk and still to come to grips with
the horrors of last weeks and days spent amid a rain of bullets,
shells, explosions and terrible shortage of essential items.
Each person who crossed over to the government-controlled territory
from May 11 to 14 has at least one tragic tale of a dear one killed,
maimed, lost and mentally numbed. They had to leave behind everything
they had lugged with them as they traversed from one destination to
another deeper into the Wanni along with the Tigers. It is not just a
case of multiple displacements but also of total loss of identity.
Speaking out
The remarkable aspect is that they are not afraid to speak though
grief and sadness is writ large on their faces. In all 21, huddled
together in a 10 by 6 ft rain proof tent courtesy the United Nations
Human Rights Commissioner for Refugees, they gathered around a
contingent of international media group to narrate their last days
and hours under the custody of the Tigers. The media group was on a
military conducted trip.
“Please note all the details. I am 67. I do not know the whereabouts
of my wife, son, daughter and my wife’s sister who was with me. I
have lost every thing in my life. I do not know the purpose of my
life. I wonder why and for what the LTTE and military fought the
battle and what was achieved in the end. We believe the Tigers, Sri
Lanka government and Indian people with whom we share a special bond
are all responsible for our fate today,” S. Aryanathan, told The
Hindu in English as the rest of his hut mates nodded in agreement. He
translated his statement in Tamil for the benefit of those around him.
[. . .]
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/27/stories/2009052755811500.htm
o o o
The Guardian, May 27, 2009
SRI LANKANS DIVIDED BY WAR: TAMILS TRAPPED IN INTERNMENT CAMPS TELL
OF DESPERATE HUNT FOR LOVED ONES
by Gethin Chamberlain in Menik Farm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/26/sri-lanka-tamil-tigers-camps
_____
[2] Nepal:
respublica.com
Published on 2009-05-25 09:44:14
EDITORIAL
Religious fundamentalism
The bomb blast inside the Catholic Church in Dhobighat, Lalitpur, on
Saturday, which left two dead and injured 14 others, carried out by a
little-known Hindu fundamentalist group Nepal Defense Army (NDA) is
barbarism at its extreme manifestation that calls for swift action
against the perpetrators. The state should immediately, and without
fail, make an example out of all those behind this gory act,
something that is completely against the norms and values of a
civilized society.
The blast that went off amidst a congregation of about 300
worshippers during the Saturday morning mass at the Church of the
Assumption took the precious lives of Deepa Patrick, 22, and Celeste
Joseph, 15, both from Patna, India. Among the 14 injured, some of
them are reportedly in critical condition. We join the families of
the deceased in their prayers for their loved ones and, at the same
time, wish for a successful and speedy recovery of all the injured.
The NDA, which was formed by Ram Prasad Mainali of Sarlahi district,
following the declaration of Nepal as a secular state by the
Constituent Assembly last year, has been involved in various violent
communal activities, including last July’s murder of Father John
Prakash at Don Bosco School in Sirsiya, Morang. Reportedly, Mainali
walks out every time after serving jail terms and paying fines. This
is a national shame. Religious fundamentalism can inflict deep wounds
to a society and to understand this, we need not travel further than
India and Pakistan; hence such elements should be dealt with firmly
and made incapable of raising their ugly heads time and again.
Nepal is a secular country and every individual, irrespective of
gender, nationality and caste, has the right to follow and practice
the religion of his/her choice. This is a fundamental right that
cannot be encroached or trampled upon by any element or force under
any pretext. It is an individual’s prerogative whether to follow
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or Islam or to pray in a temple,
church, mosque, monastery, synagogue or a gurudwara.
Until now, Nepal has been one of the finest examples of a country
where different religions have coexisted peacefully and in perfect
harmony for centuries, except for a few stray incidents of communal
violence in the Tarai belt, particularly in Nepalgunj in the recent
past. Perhaps, Kathmandu stands out as a shining example where
Hinduism and Buddhism are equally revered and followed, thus
displaying exemplary religious tolerance. The state should not allow
any individual or group to upset this fine balance
_____
[3] Pakistan:
http://www.sacw.net/article931.html
HEALING THE WOUNDS OF THE PAST
by Action for a Progressive Pakistan
On May 13, 2009, the Government of Bangladesh demanded an
unconditional apology from the Government of Pakistan for war crimes
committed during the 1971 army action in what was then East Pakistan.
The Pakistani government’s response was to dismiss the demand,
telling Bangladesh to ‘let bygones be bygones’. This was not the
first time this demand was made, nor the first time it was dismissed
with such flippancy by Pakistan.
Between 25/26th March 1971 – the start of the military offensive –
and the signing of the instrument of surrender on 16th December,
1971, the Pakistani army engaged in what essentially amounted to
genocide against its own citizens for daring to demand that their
electoral writ be implemented. The army’s atrocities were both
indiscriminate and targeted – the rape of countless Bengali women,
the killing of hundreds of Bengali intellectuals and students, and
the senseless murder of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Bengalis
and indigenous people, besides looting and pillaging on an
unprecedented scale. Nearly forty years on, even a reliable estimate
of the number of people killed by the army isn’t possible because
mass graves continue to be unearthed, a powerful testimony to the
horror that was perpetrated on our people. This is the horror which
the Pakistani army continues to cravenly refuse to acknoweldge. The
sole recognition of these atrocities – the Hamoodur Rahman Commission
Report – which was an official Government of Pakistan panel – was
ignominiously suppressed by then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
and successive governments, and declassified only in December 2000.
The outrageous dismissal of Bangladesh’s demand by the Pakistani
foreign office – “let bygones be bygones” – is a shameful reflection
of Pakistan’s constructed amnesia over the horrific actions of its
Army and its political leadership. Not only has there never been a
move on the part of the Pakistani state to apologize to Bangladesh,
there has not been any sustained effort by citizens’ groups to
pressure the government to publicly acknowledge the truth.
As Pakistanis, we find this unconscionable. We find it unconscionable
that the Pakistani army raped, killed and pillaged our brothers and
sisters in East Pakistan in 1971. We find it unconscionable that the
Pakistani state has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these
atrocities for the past 38 years, leave alone hold those responsible
for them accountable as suggested by its own Chief Justice in the
State commissioned inquiry. We reject the Pakistani state and army’s
claim that these atrocities were committed in our name.
Today, as we stand at the brink of yet another army action aimed at
our own people, at the brink of another human catastrophe brought
about by and for the same interests and institutions, namely the
Pakistani military, we remember 1971. We demand that our state
acknowledge and apologize for the actions of its army, punish those
responsible for the atrocities (and named in the HR Commission’s
report) and pay reparations for the extensive infrastructural damage
and looting to Bangladesh. Only through such an expiation can we – as
a people and a state – heal the wounds of the past and hope to build
a new partnership with the people of Bangladesh.
On his return from his first and only trip to Dhaka following the
establishment of Bangladesh, Faiz Ahmed Faiz asked in anguish ‘Kab
nazar mein aaye gi, bedaagh sabze ki bahar, khoon ke dhabbe dhulen ge
kitni barsaaton ke baad’. We must atone for the death and destruction
visited upon our brothers and sisters in our name, and do it soon,
lest these stains on our national conscience become permanent.
o o o
The Daily Star
May 23, 2009
CAN PAKISTAN SAY NO?
by M.B. Naqvi
ONLY one newspaper has carried the story. It was about the four-hour
in-camera briefing of the Parliament by Pakistan Army Chief on May
15. No one knows whether the account is accurate but it does look
like being based on that briefing.
Supposing the account is accurate, we do not definitely know whether
the briefing was confined simply to informing the Parliament of
either the Pakistan Army decisions that have been authoritatively
taken or it was at least thinking of the Pakistan Army made known to
the Parliament that the Army cannot be withdrawn from its locations
of covering the expected attack routes or alternatively to mount its
own operations. The question is of very high significance. The
background is well-known.
The Americans have been trying hard in their Afghan-Pak thinking to
make Pakistan withdraw the bulk of its Army from positions of
confronting India to its western borders where the Taliban trouble is
still going strong. What is clear is that Pakistan Army is simply not
willing to withdraw from positions of checkmating Indian military
forces.
The next question arises whether Pakistan would continue to resist
American pressures to relieve the bulk of its troops to serve on its
northwestern frontier. The raison d'etre of Pakistan was that it
could not live in a Hindu-dominated India. Pakistan in its first
partial year of existence devoted some 43 per cent of its budget to
defence. It was meant in Muslim League government's thinking that it
would prevent Pakistan from being gobbled up by India.
That situation has lasted 62 years. This is now almost an article of
faith for all conservative sections. To move away would be such a
radical shift in Pakistan policy that it is hard to imagine it can be
agreed to. The Americans are recommending such a radical departure
from traditional Pakistani view that has congealed into an ideology.
The conservative political class -- which is most of it -- does think
that India is an existential and permanent threat to Pakistan. To
move away from the original is now too hard an exercise. No major
request of Pakistan Army, to one's knowledge, has ever been rejected
by Islamabad, whether democratic or a dictatorship at the time.
On the other hand, Pakistan agreed to join the west in lieu of
military and some economic aid. The Americans were clear headed. They
had made it plain from day one that their aid is not to be used
against India. But General Ayub Khan, the first Commander-in-Chief,
believed that what can America do if we do use its aided equipment?
He did use it in 1965 war and the Americans were angry. They imposed
sanctions on Pakistan; aid was suspended for some years.
But the Americans always knew that Pakistan would do such a thing
when needed. They showed their anger more for the record than actual
punishment of Pakistan. Later America relented and the aid was
resumed. New sanctions were imposed on Pakistan and were fairly
quickly lifted. There are contrary considerations on this subject.
Pakistan and its Army cannot possibly annoy Americans in any big way.
Without American aid Pakistan Army cannot be sustained. It now
requires anything from $ 500 million to 1 billion a year in foreign
exchange. This is one consideration. There are others: Can Pakistan
say no to what Americans may insist on? Can Pakistan sustain a policy
of defiance to America? It is easier said in a conference or in a
briefing. Some political posturing is permissible by the donors but
not in terms of fundamental choices.
The Americans today are demanding a different fundamental choice by
Pakistan that goes wholly against the thinking behind the Pakistan
Movement and later politics of Pakistan. If a fundamental change has
to come about it will not be because of someone else saying so. It is
only up to India and Pakistan to compose their differences; no one
else can do so.
Let us not forget the reasons why this great Hindu-Muslim problem of
Indian Empire arose. One asserts that it did not exist before 1857
when Mangal Panday, the leader of the 1857 Mutiny, was demanding of
the rebellion's aim as no more than the restoration of powers and
privileges of the Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar. He was a devout
Hindu. So were many other devout Hindus who were loyal citizens of
Mughal Empire. If they could rebel against the rising British power
and demanded the restitution of Mughal power, it simply means that
the Hindu-Muslim problem did not really exist.
To come back to the particular debate, Pakistan is ruled by a
political class that is largely absentee landlords of large sizes.
Their present status owes their origin to the loyalty of their
ancestors to the British who restored large estates to their trusted
people. The British intention was clear: They were creating a new
ruling class in the then India that would always support the British.
The behaviour of this absentee landlords class of large landholdings
could always be trusted by the British.
The question arises how did this Hindu-Muslim problem arise in a
matter of say 80 or so years pior to the partition of India. What the
British did was deliberate. Their intention was to place one
community against the other. For the purpose they made religion the
main identity of a person for official purposes. Which is one reason
why this Hindu-Muslim problem arose. Through slow stages the British
played Muslims against the Hindus and delayed the freedom.
After 1906 the Hindus were grouped to vote for Hindu representatives
in various bodies. Hindus voted for Hindus and Muslims voted for
Muslims. What was the upshot? Muslims seemed to need more aid and
support from the British. 'The Hindus are ahead of us in education
and in economic activity; they have already some industries and would
go on progressing leaving us behind'. This was inherently anti-Hindu.
This became the raison d'etre for Pakistan after Jinnah took over the
League in 1937.
The question now is: can America, Britain or any other power order
India Pakistan to make up? It is simply not possible. If ever a
reconciliation comes about, it will be through political forces of
India and Pakistan coalescing together and reconciling with one
another in realistic stages for their own reasons.
Then there is the sordid turf reasons. If Pakistan Army is not needed
to deter India then what is it meant for. Pakistan Army's basic need
was India and not Taliban or any other passing show. Other enemies
cannot last like India. Army's longevity depends on a big permanent
threat. That is way to save the job for the boys.
M.B. Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.
_____
[3] Bangladesh:
(i)
New Age,
May 25, 2009
HC VERDICTS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT
‘Dismantling the master’s house’
Of course, we are happy, thrilled, and excited at the High Court’s
recognition, at its validation of our long-standing demands and
struggles. That unwelcome sexual attention is, well, just what it is.
Unwelcome. Period, writes Rahnuma Ahmed
THE High Court’s verdict was a ‘revolution’, said Salma Ali,
president of Bangladesh Jatiya Mahila Ainjibi Samity (BNWLA).
In response to a public interest litigation filed by the BNWLA,
the High Court ruled on May 14 that any kind of physical, mental or
sexual harassment of women, girls and children at their workplaces,
educational institutions and at other public places, including roads,
was a criminal offence, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The
ruling detailed sexual misdemeanour as ‘any kind of provocation
through phone calls or e-mail, lewd gestures, showing of pornography,
lurid stares, physical contact or molestation, stalking, vulgar
sounds or any display of a derogatory nature.’ The HC bench directed
the government to make a law on the basis of its guidelines; until
that happened, its guidelines would enjoy the status of law.
On May 17, ‘another’ revolution took place. The same bench, of
Justices Syed Mahmud Hossain and Quamrul Islam Siddiqui, in response
to a writ petition, declared that the decision of the Jahangirnagar
University authorities to exonerate Drama and Dramatics chairperson
Sanwar Hossain Sani from charges of sexual harassment and to suspend
six students (which include four women complainants) for allegedly
assaulting him was ‘illegal’. It directed the JU authorities to hold
a fresh enquiry. The new one, according to the verdict, should be
conducted by ‘neutral persons’. It should accord with the High
Court’s recent guidelines. The writ petition, represented by
barrister Sara Hossain and advocate Ruhul Quddus Babu, was jointly
filed by Ain o Salish Kendra, Nijera Kori, Karmojibi Nari, professor
Serajul Islam Choudhury, and journalist Kamal Lohani.
The complaints were not proven ‘beyond any doubt’, there was no
‘hard evidence – that is what the JU Syndicate had said when clearing
Sanwar Hossain of all charges in September 2008. Dismissing this, the
HC bench ruled that the standard of ‘beyond a[ny] reasonable doubt’
could not be applied to allegations of sexual harassment. A slap in
the face of the JU authorities? Of the members of the final enquiry
committee, the Syndicate, and the university teachers association
(JUTA) which had expressed ‘relief’ at the Syndicate’s decision and
had advocated that ‘indisciplined’ students (and not a teacher who
had sexually harassed women students) be punished? Beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Of course, we are happy, thrilled, and excited at the High
Court’s recognition, at its validation of our long-standing demands
and struggles. That unwelcome sexual attention is, well, just what it
is. Unwelcome. Period. And as Fawzia Karim, the petitioner’s counsel,
had argued in court, the absence of a law against sexual harassment,
‘rampant’ in Bangladesh, means that victims cannot file accusations
against the offenders.
But our moment of happiness is also overcast with feelings of
grief and loss. We have not forgotten our sisters, those who were
either killed for having rejected declarations of love, or took their
own lives at the humiliation suffered. Simi Banu, art student,
taunted and harassed by local mastaans, committed suicide in 2001.
Mohima Khatun, raped, killed herself in 2002. Shahinoor, a garment
worker, raped, threw herself under a train, in 2003. Biva Rani
Singha, a college student, kidnapped and raped for a week in 2003,
later became mentally unbalanced. Farzana Afrin Rumi, a college
student, hanged herself when a local group of thugs barged into her
house to kidnap her, in 2003. Alpina, a class four student, killed
herself after being assaulted in front of her mother, in 2003
(Farzana Rahman Shampa http: //www.adhunika.org/community/disquiet/
SMR.html). Chameli Tripura, nine years old, was raped and killed in
Ramgarh, Chittagong Hill Tracts, in 2008. And many, many more.
Killed. Committed suicide. Became mentally ill. Acid disfigurement.
Humiliation. No, we have not forgotten our sisters. Nor have we
forgotten sub-inspector Bashar who went to Simi’s house and insulted
her parents. He advised them to control ‘her’ movements. He filed a
general diary against her, instead of her harassers. Nor have we
forgotten countless police officers who have repeatedly refused to
register complaints made by women and their family members,
distraught and angry, seeking safety and protection through legal means.
It was, after all, a bloody revolution.
Will things change? Krishnokoli, a young singer and cultural
activist, doesn’t think so. Mere court verdicts are not enough. The
political structure of the country needs to be altered first (New
Age, May 15). I understand and sympathise with her misgivings as I
turn to look at neighbouring India, at the famous Vishaka judgement
(Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan and others, Supreme Court,
1997), which is known to have informed our own HC judgment. The
Vishaka PIL arose out of the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a member of
a group of women called sathins, trained by the local government to
do house-to-house social work at the village level, in exchange of
honorariums. Bhanwari Devi, as part of a government campaign against
child marriage, had tried to prevent the marriage of a one-year-old
girl. The family, who happened to be high caste, were outraged at
Bhanwari’s audacity. Five men, including the girl’s father, gang-
raped her in her husband’s presence. The village authorities, the
local police and doctors teamed up with the rapists: police were
reluctant to record her statement, two government doctors refused to
examine her. When she finally took her case to the state criminal
court, the accused were acquitted. The judge declared that it was not
‘credible’. Upper caste men would surely not stoop as low as raping a
lower caste woman? The humiliation and violation of the court
process, says Naina Kapur, a New Delhi-based lawyer, led her to
initiate the Vishaka petition. She, like many others, was frustrated
by the criminal justice system’s inability to provide tangible
remedies, restore the dignity of the victim, address systemic issues,
and to create social change (Avani Mehta Sood, 2006).
The Vishaka PIL has made a significant impression upon the
public, says Sood, because it has led to the establishment of systems
of legal accountability. It has created tremendous awareness and open
acknowledgement of sexual harassment. The judgement has had a huge
impact on universities and large workplaces. Women now know that
there is a law, and as a human rights lawyer put it, ‘It makes a big
difference to people harassing women as well, to know that they can
be called upon it.’ Awareness created by the Vishaka decision has
also led to many more cases being filed by women victims, at the HC
level. However, it has not yet been enacted (The Protection of Women
Against Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Bill 2007), and the SC
guidelines continue to be the law. Very few complaints committees
have been set up. Service rules have not been amended. The judgement
has been flouted by both public and private employers. Social
activists have claimed that the guidelines were too general, it did
not cover the entire gamut of workplace relationships (e.g. doctor
molesting his patient). The unorganised sector does not fall under
the ambit of the bill.
Investigations carried out by the inquiry committees have too often
been bound by red-tape, leading to long drawn out cases, and thereby,
delaying punishment for the harasser, and adding to the victim’s
trauma. But continued activism has led to two significant interim
orders being issued by the Supreme Court. One of these asks
professional bodies (e.g. the UGC) what steps they have taken to
implement the Vishaka guidelines, while the other, clarifies that the
investigation and report of the investigation committee is to be
deemed final. Committees have also been directed to submit annual
reports of complaints and actions taken to the government.
By highlighting the problem of sexual harassment, the Vishaka
judgement has simultaneously opened up questions and dilemmas over
separating sexual harassment from, and its close intermeshing with
other forms of gender-based discrimination/harassment at workplaces
(Kalpana Kannabiran and Vasanth Kannabiran 2002). As the authors say,
the separation between professional victimisation and sexual
harassment is never absolute. And there are other things too.
Sometimes sexual harassment can become a weapon of retaliation for
progressive dalit men who face offensive and discriminatory behaviour
from upper caste and upper class, articulate women classmates and
colleagues. Where systemic forms of discrimination and inequality run
deep, where the legal system, in its entirety, overwhelmingly
promotes unjust hierarchies, are changes possible? Or, to pose
Caribbean-American writer, poet and activist Audre Lordes’ words as a
question: can the master’s house be dismantled with the master’s tools?
Not, in its entirety, no. But as I write this, it is also
important to acknowledge the difference that it is bound to make at
Jahangirnagar, to the lives of six young women and men-students,
whose suspension will have to be withdrawn by the JU authorities. The
difference that the second HC judgement will make to the lives of
four young women complainants who had, against overwhelming odds,
protested. Whose dignity – with the help of a new inquiry committee
composed of neutral persons, working in accordance with guidelines
set by the High Court – will be restored.
Laws, fortunately or unfortunately, are part of the political
process. And, revolutions need to be created, and re-created. Again,
and yet again.
_____
[4] India: Democracy Would Die without Dissent
Hindustan Times
May 25, 2009
741 DAYS LATER...
by Indrajit Hazra
The Great Indian Democracy, strange as it may sound to us still
triumphantly waving our ink-marked fingers in the air, is not only
about the freedom to vote and such genuinely wonderful things. It’s
also about being told what’s going on when someone is arrested and
kept locked away beyond the reach of queries and counter-queries for
a little over two years.
On May 14, 2007, Dr Binayak Sen, paediatrician, public health and
human rights activist, was arrested for violating the provisions of
the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005, and the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He had allegedly acted as a
courier for a Naxalite detained in Raipur Jail and had then
absconded. We needn’t believe Dr Sen when he denies the charges,
maintaining that his interactions with the Naxal leader in the
capacity of a physician had taken place under the supervision of jail
authorities and after being given permission by them. Also, just
because he is a good, caring doctor and has been defended by the
likes of Noam Chomsky and Amartya Sen shouldn’t force us to believe
that he was, as he said, on pre-announced leave and had returned to
Chhattisgarh when he heard that he was an accused.
But we do have the right to know three things now that Dr Sen has
been finally granted bail by the Supreme Court: one, what evidence
was provided to establish his ‘crime’; two, why was his ‘crime’
considered a non-bailable offence; and why have we been kept in the
dark about the exact nature of the crime he allegedly committed in 2007?
With Dr Sen out on bail, one hopes that this murky fog hanging above
Democratic India is cleared once and for all, if for nothing else but
for the sake of the clarity of law and how it’s wielded in this land.
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh’s response to the court’s
direction on Monday wasn’t reassuring: “Let the law take its own
course. We have full faith in the judiciary,” he said, adding, “The
bail has nothing to do with the ongoing trial in the court.”
Singh is right. The apex court has granted Dr Sen bail for reasons of
ailing health and not because of any new evidence kept in the dark or
otherwise coming to light. But as the law, that billowing skirt on
which anything and anyone rides to create their own sceneries, puts
it, “If it appears to such officer or court at any stage of the
investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are
not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a
non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for
further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the
provision of Section 446-A and pending such inquiry, be released on
bail...”
So, was Dr Sen not granted bail for two years for some specific
reason that we should perhaps be told about now?
Considering that it is his health that has made the law have a change
of heart, could we please be told about whether there are indeed
“sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt” or not? Let
us just view a few other dots alongside the ‘Binayak Sen Dark Circle’
that’s been there for the last two years so that someone can attempt
to join some dots. On March 31, 2007, several adivasis at Santoshpur,
Chhattisgarh, were killed by police forces who alleged that they were
Maoists.
A week before Dr Sen’s arrest, these bodies were exhumed after an
order by the state Human Rights Commission who acted on eye-witness
‘complaints’. Subsequent autopsies revealed that some of the victims
bore close-range bullet wounds in their heads and waists while the
others were hacked to death by axes. Like other ‘suspicious, no-
questions-asked killings’ before in the area, Dr Sen had highlighted
the fact that Santoshpur’s dead were not violent Naxals but innocent
adivasis. Can his two-year-long incarceration have had something to
do with his desire to see murderers in police uniform brought to
justice, the same institution that sent him packing for two years?
On May 9, 2007, a police official told the media: “It’s certain that
some police personnel crossed the limits and killed innocent
villagers branding them as Maoist militants... Now the government has
to decide whether the police involved in killings should be arrested
or not.” The government had, indeed, decided the very same day. Who
said that justice in India drags on for years on end? Chhattisgarh
Home Minister Ramvichar Netam went on record to say, “The government
will not arrest the policemen involved in the killings.” Five days
later, Dr Sen was detained for “passing on letters” from a jailed
Naxal and, by extension, waging a war against the State.
I sincerely hope that we get to hear even half as much from Dr Sen as
we got to hear from, say, Ajmal Kasab via the media. And let us,
newly-charged democratic people of India, be told about whatever
happened to those policemen who were there in Santoshpur on March 31,
2007. As those who’ve been vaguely intrigued about Dr Sen’s ‘crime’
for the last two years, we promise to keep an open mind.
_____
[5] India: Women's rights
WHAT WOMEN WANT
by Pamela Philipose
May 25, 2009
Memories of the elections have already been swept away in the hurly-
burly of government formation. But rewind for a moment to those who
queued up under the punishing sun to cast their votes with the hope
of change. Women constitute around 340 million of the 710 million
voters, a largely silent category whose concerns have been ignored,
underplayed or denied by successive governments.
Will the newly-sworn-in government do more than continue with
ritualistic posturing and ineffectual policy-making for this
faceless, voiceless and largely unrepresented section?
Social philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum has listed several capabilities
she sees as central for “truly human functioning”. Let’s highlight
some of these to help evolve a roadmap for the future. On top of
Nussbaum’s list is ‘Life’: the ability to live to the end of a human
life of normal length. ‘Bodily Health’ and ‘Bodily Integrity’ are the
other central capabilities she sets down. The first of these requires
nourishment and shelter; the second, the capacity to move freely
while being secure against bodily assault. ‘Senses, Imagination and
Thought’ are other requirements that figure on the
list, and which hinge on education. Finally, there is ‘Control over
One’s Environment’.
Many concerns emerge from Nussbaum’s central capabilities. Take the
first, ‘Life’. India’s skewed sex ratio and son preference. The
government’s approach to what is arguably one of the greatest
challenges facing Indian society has been to enact a law. But not
only have advances in medical technology outpaced the law; laws in
themselves are only as effective as society’s ownership of them. That
is why the legal process that seeks to outlaw female foeticide can
only work if it partners social movements working to change women’s
realities.
Bodily Health’ in Nussbaum’s list takes us to India’s high maternal
mortality rate (MMR), with recent estimations putting it at 450 per
100,000 live births. Since the foundational physical cause for women
dying in childbirth is anaemia, the high MMR points to the breakdown
of healthcare delivery and the lack of proper nutrition. Linked to
this is early marriage. Despite a slew of laws prohibiting early
marriage, India accounts for over 40 per cent of underage marriages
globally. This has implications for maternal mortality levels.
The lack of women’s agency in marriage and childbirth is a pivotal
factor for women being in a social trough. Data shows that women who
had studied for 12 years or more, were employed and earned an
independent income could exercise greater autonomy over such issues.
What is needed, then, is interlinked action rather than separate and
discrete interventions.
This brings us to the denial of eight years of schooling. According
to National Sample Survey Organisation data, school has never been a
part of life for over 15 per cent of girls between the ages of 5-14,
and one in five drop out by 14. We then come to the lack of an
enabling environment for women’s employment. Not only is women’s
representation in public employment dismal, their wages are roughly
half that of men and the conditions of work do not cater to their
specific needs, such as childcare. The sluggish pace of legal reform
is another concern. Our new law-makers could, for instance, consider
important legal reform, including legislation that recognises women’s
economic contribution within the family.
Nussbaum’s highlighting of ‘Bodily Integrity’ brings us to yet
another concern. Today, rape is one of the fastest growing crimes in
India and the required State machinery to assist rape survivors is
almost non-existent.
Finally, the lack of meaningful political participation, which,
according to Nussbaum, falls in the category ‘Control Over One’s
Environment’. A measure like the Women’s Reservation Bill, now
hanging in limbo in the Rajya Sabha, can only be one among several
initiatives to deepen women’s participation in democracy. A moment
that has seen the highest ever number of women being elected to
Parliament in India’s history is the right time to start. For those
hundreds of thousands of women, who queued up outside polling
stations this summer, the act of exercising their vote should mark
the beginning, not the end, of the process of change.
(Pamela Philipose is director of Women’s Feature Service)
_____
[6] India: Identity Politics / Religion / Secularism
Indian Express, May 26, 2009
MONOPOLY RELIGION
by Pratap Bhanu Mehta
New Delhi: It is deeply sad that a most gloriously inventive, radical
and genuinely pious religious community like the Sikhs now seems to
be frequently hostage to a regime of internal intolerance. Not only
was this tradition founded on the premise of an astonishing
synthesis; it allowed an amazing internal diversity as well. In the
nineteenth century, there were a large number of traditions with
which Sikhs identified: Khalsa, Nirmala, Udasi, Nanak-Panthi, Nihang,
Kalu Panthi, Ram Dasi, Kuka, Nirankari, etc. Now it is fair to say
that over the course of the twentieth century this diverse tradition
has also succumbed to the cardinal sins any religious tradition can
commit: establish a coercive set of monopolies.
The roots of the current conflict that took a murderous turn in
Vienna will, in due course be traced to contingent causes. On the
face of it, both the violence in Vienna and the violent response in
Punjab will turn out to have political overtones. But underlying this
conflict is the fact that Sikh identity has been transformed over the
course of the twentieth century, often in the direction of internal
intolerance.
Some of its followers have succumbed to the idea that there can be
only one authoritative interpretation of the tradition, there can be
only one authority pronouncing over temporal aspects of the religion,
and that both of these monopolies will also be tied to a territorial
imagination. The attempt is to monopolise the master narrative of
Sikh tradition, to eviscerate its diverse imaginings, and to
concentrate power in organisations like the SGPC. You take all of
these aspirations, and align them with religious politics and you
will get the combustible mix that we are seeing in Punjab.
The blunt truth is that the drive to standardise Sikh identity is the
root cause of so many of these troubles. It is not often discussed in
public, but there is no getting away from the fact that organised
groups within Sikhism, including the SGPC, have served to silence
internal criticism within the tradition. Openly challenging authority
has become a risky business, and a number of Sikh intellectuals feel
under pressure not to challenge the insidious monopolies that are
putting the liberal imagination within Sikhism at great risk.
It is a truism that the conditions for generating an enlarged and
liberal outlook are less a function of the doctrine of a religion,
but more a product of the fragmentation of authority. When any
tradition is comfortable with the idea that there is no monopoly over
authority, over interpretation, it is more likely to be comfortable
with internal dissent. The fragmentation of authority is important
for the intellectual vitality of any tradition. But the move in
organised Sikhism has often been in the reverse direction: to uphold
monopoly over authority and homogeneity of identity at all cost.
Unless the tradition comes to terms with this increasing internal
intolerance it will remain hostage to violence.
Many religious identities see themselves under siege in the modern
world, and are inventing new abstract identifications that do away
with the richness of traditions. In that sense Sikhism is not
exceptional. But in the Indian context the fact that so much of its
authority has been closely linked to politics, complicates its
character. Political parties, let alone unfriendly powers, will not
hesitate to fish in this political cauldron. It is important that
this conflict be contained, and justice done, before it acquires
dangerous proportions. And it is important to learn the lesson that
monopolies within any religion are dangerous: they generate more
conflict. One can only hope that the religion will return to the
eternal and limitless verities of the sabda, and not be hijacked by
the narcissism of so many little selves.
o o o
http://www.sacw.net/article930.html
Kashmir Times
May 27, 2009
Editorial
PERPETUATING A DANGEROUS ANOMALY
High time to delink religious boards from secular state apparatus and
insulate them against political manipulation
As the annual Amarnath yatra gets under way the turbulent events of
last summer come to haunt our minds. Not because of any perceptible
fear of their repetition but because of the ever present probability
of the mischief mongers feeling tempted to again fish in the state's
troubled political waters. The wounds of the defeat inflicted upon
these elements in the just concluded Lok Sabha elections are still
fresh. In fact, some murmuring is already there. The state or its
people can ill afford the unbearable cost of repetition of last
year's disastrous events. It would be more advisable to err on the
side of caution in this particular case than being complacent. There
is no occasion to recount the sequence of events leading to the
paralysis of the politico-constitutional system in the face of
dangerous polarisation along communal and regional lines. The failure
of the state apparatus, however, is yet to be analysed in the
interest of preventing its reoccurrence. Much of what happened and
why it happened, though, became clear with the statements of the real
author of that tragedy. Ex-governor, Lt Gen (R) SK Sinha has left
precious little to imagination as to how it all started and why. That
he was acting on the definite agenda is by now an open secret. That
he was the most unworthy occupant of the Raj Bhavan has been more
than proved by his words and actions. That, however, is not really as
important at this point in time as it is to ensure that the legacy
left behind by Sinha is uprooted lock, stock and barrel.
On a deeper thought, it becomes obvious that the scope for mischief
will always be there so long as the ground exists for mischief
mongers like Sinha to pursue their dark agenda. The flaw lies in
mixing religion with the affairs of a secular state. There is no
problem and the arrangement works without any trouble so long as
there are men of integrity and understanding at the helm. But last
year's traumatic experience has shown how dangerous it is to take
things for granted. It would be folly to ignore the possibility-
indeed, probability-of its happening again now or in distant future.
Apart from the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, the state has also the
Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and the Muslim Wakf Board, all of them
under the administrative control of the government. On the face of
it, there is nothing objectionable in this kind of arrangement. But
that does not take into account the ever present possibility of
intending trouble seekers trying to exploit their working or
manipulating their prescribed functioning. The sentiment associated
with these institutions leaves very little scope for the
administrative apparatus to deal with the fall out of malfunctioning
within the arrangement itself.
Even otherwise the question of identity in the state is fraught with
sensitive implications of far reaching consequence. These are,
however, historically built into the psycho-political ethos of the
state. Adding a new and combustible dimension to it is certainly not
desireable at all. Yet we have these religious-related boards loaded
on to the secular state apparatus. Even under best of circumstances
there are serious differences of opinion not only between communities
but also within them. The state is ill equipped to entangle itself in
such controversies. If anything, the state should be insulated from
all such entities. This principle cannot be over emphasised in the
troublesome atmosphere of Jammu and Kashmir. As both, the Congress
and the National Conference claim to be above sectarian politics it
should be in their own interest to take initiative towards separating
religion from politics by devising an autonomous arrangement without
involving high constitutional functionaries and administrative
personnel in its working. The fallacy of the existing arrangement was
exposed by Sinha himself when he misused the secretary to governor to
hurl an insult on the supposedly sovereign legislature. The then
governor turned down the demand for legislative scrutiny of the
religious boards headed by him although the boards were created by
acts of the legislature which by itself binds them to such
accountability. The failure of the Azad government to assert itself
and correct the distortion only whetted Sinha's appetite with
disastrous consequences. The sooner the anomaly is removed the better
it would be for us all. Substituting the existing arrangement with
disguised or open politically-controlled arrangement will, however,
be a greater disaster, going by the past experience
o o o
http://www.sacw.net/article929.html
The Friday Times
May 22-28, 2009
“Man does not live by politics alone”-Lenin
S IRFAN HABIB UNVEILS THE REVOLUTIONARY BHAGAT SINGH’S LITERARY SIDE
Little is known about the revolutionary nationalists beyond their
daring exploits leading to supreme sacrifice for the motherland. All
of them were not merely bundles of emotion, ever ready to kill or die
for the freedom of India. Quite a few of them were serious thinkers,
besides being active revolutionaries. They read voraciously about the
world politics and wrote extensively about Indian politics, economy,
society and culture. Bhagat Singh, one of the most heroic amongst
them, was one such extraordinarily gifted young thinker and writer.
His intellectual legacy needs to be remembered in these
troubled times, both in India and Pakistan. He fought most of his
battles, intellectual as well as otherwise, in Lahore, till he was
hanged on the outskirts of the city. I strongly feel that Bhagat
Singh’s revolutionary bequest is our collective memory and should not
be divided by political borders.
The body of serious writings, philosophical, thought-provoking
and critical, which Bhagat Singh has left behind, would place him in
the ranks of Keats and Shelley who died as young. Unfortunately,
romantic poetry puts you on a pedestal, whereas hard words, painfully
true words, which questions society and systems are too uncomfortable
to remember. Bhagat Singh not only set high standards as a great
martyr, he also left behind a rich legacy as a journalist who worked
for Kirti, Arjun and Pratap, well known papers of their times. Hardly
anything is known about his vocation as a scribe and the issues he
dealt with in his articles. These focused on the various aspects of
the nationalist struggle, combating communalism, untouchability,
students and politics, world brotherhood etc. This piece is an
attempt to set up Bhagat Singh as a potential role model for the
aspiring journos.
Bhagat Singh did not merely wish to free India from colonial
bondage but dreamt of independent India, which would be egalitarian
and secular. This was reflected in his revolutionary activities as
well as in his commitment as a sensitive journalist. I have chosen
some of his articles to illustrate his priorities and obligations as
a young scribe.
In the June 1928 issue of the Kirti, published from Amritsar,
Bhagat Singh wrote two articles titled Achoot ka Sawaal (On
Untouchability) and Sampradayik Dange aur unka Ilaj (Communal riots
and their solutions). What Bhagat Singh wrote in 1928 appears to be
contemporaneous even in 2008, which unfortunately proves how precious
little has been done to resolve these questions. In the first piece,
Bhagat Singh starts by saying that “our country is unique where six
crore citizens are called untouchables and their mere touch defiles
the upper castes. Gods get enraged if they enter the temples. It is
shameful that such things are being practised in the twentieth
century. We claim to be a spiritual country but hesitate to accept
equality of all human beings while materialist Europe is talking of
revolution since centuries. They had proclaimed equality during the
American and French revolutions. However, we are still debating
whether the untouchable is entitled for the sacred thread or can he
read the Vedas or not. We are chagrined about discrimination against
Indians in foreign lands, and whine that the English do not give us
equal rights in India. Given our conduct, Bhagat Singh wondered, do
we really have any right to complain about such matters?”
He also seriously engaged with the possible solutions to this
malaise. The first decision for all of us should be “that we start
believing that we all are born equal and our vocation, as well, need
not divide us. If someone is born in a sweeper’s family that does not
mean that he/she has to continue in the family profession cleaning
shit all his life, with no right to participate in any developmental
work”.
For him, this discrimination was directly responsible for
conversions, which was a burning issue even in the 1920s. Despite his
anti-colonialist fervour, he neither spewed venom against the
missionaries nor did he instigate Hindus to kill and burn all those
who had accepted the new faith. He was rather self-critical when he
wrote “If you treat them worst than animals then they will surely
join other religions where they will get more rights and will be
treated like human beings. In this situation it will be futile to
accuse Christianity and Islam of harming Hinduism”. Bhagat Singh was
convinced that “no one would be forced or tempted to change faith if
the age old inequalities are removed and we sincerely start believing
that we are all equal and none is different either due to birth or
vocation”. All those who have organized pogroms against the hapless
Christians in Orissa should pause to ponder about the views of the
revolutionary they claim to revere.
As a young writer, just out of his teens, Bhagat Singh was
profoundly stirred by the communal upsurge of the 1920s. Expressing
his anguish in the second article, he held some of the political
leaders and the press responsible for inciting communalism. He
believed that “there were a few sincere leaders, but their voice is
easily swept away by the rising wave of communalism. In terms of
political leadership, India had gone totally bankrupt”.
Bhagat Singh felt that journalism used to be a noble
profession, which had now fallen from grace. Now they give bold and
sensational headlines to incite people to kill each other in the name
of religion. There were riots at several places simply because the
local press behaved irresponsibly and indulged in rabble-rousing
through their articles. Not much seems to have changed since Bhagat
Singh wrote these lines. He categorically spelt out the duties of
journalists and then also accused them of dereliction of duty. He
wrote that “the real duty of the newspapers is to educate, to cleanse
the minds of people, to save them from narrow sectarian divisiveness,
and to eradicate communal feelings to promote the idea of common
nationalism.Instead, their main objective seems to be spreading
ignorance, preaching and propagating sectarianism and chauvinism,
communalising people’s minds leading to the destruction of our
composite culture and shared heritage”.
Bhagat Singh’s disenchantment needs to be placed in the
context of the developments during the 1920s, which included the
birth of the RSS and the Tablighi jamaat. Both these communal
platforms further polarised the political leadership as well as the
press, particularly the Hindi and Urdu press of the times. Its ugly
manifestation can be seen today in the emergence of Hindutva in India
and the increasing Talibanisation of Pakistan, both of them threats
to peace and harmony in their respective nations.
(S Irfan Habib holds Maulana Azad Chair at the National University of
Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi. His most recent
book is To Make the Deaf Hear: Ideology and Programme of Bhagat Singh
and His Comrades)
_____
[7] From the SACW / South Asians Against Nukes Archives / On the 11th
Anniversary of India’s Nuclear Tests of 1998
ADMIRAL L RAMDAS: THIS MADNESS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONISATION MUST END IN
INDIA - PAKISTAN
An audio recording of a retired Admiral L. Ramdas (former chief of
Indian Naval Staff - from 1990-93) speaking in August 1998 at a
University campus in the United States. Admiral Ramdas has been an
outspoken advocate for peace between India and Pakistan. Following
the May 11, 1998 Nuclear tests conducted by India, Admiral Ramdas
called for restraint. His public stance is a rare and courageous
effort by one of highest ranked former officials of India’s armed
forces to challenge Nuclear weaponisation.
Run Time: 48 Minutes
http://www.sacw.net/article924.html
_____
[8] India:
Indian Express > Op-Ed >
February 07, 2009
IT’S A DOG’S LIFE
by Tara Deshpande Tennebaum
Dogs are gods anyway you spell it. And if you have a pet you know
exactly what I mean. And like humans, canines are flawed. Some bark,
poop inside buildings, dig mud, squabble with mates and some are
friendly, wanting to play with you and your pet dogs. The ambiguous
declaration by the Mumbai High Court eight weeks ago meant all these
dogs could be declared nuisances and put to sleep “humanely”.
Fortunately, sanity prevailed and the Supreme Court dismissed the
ruling. But despite clear evidence in favour of sterilisation, this
will not put an end to the forty year battle between animal lovers
and the Muncipal Council of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The argument has
competing components: law, morality and public health. The Indian
judiciary pronounces capital punishment only for the “worst of the
worst” murderers and traitors. Yet they deem death fair punishment
for ‘nuisance’ crimes by man’s best friend.
Demonstrably such rulings are a huge mistake, leading to brutal
infringements in unaccountable systems like India, Puerto Rico and
Armenia, where all it took was a corrupt official or a morphine
shortage. Strangulation, electrocution, bludgeoning — dogs were
jettisoned off trucks and bridges, confined and starved till they
killed each other. It has been proven unequivocally in a MCGM
circular 38755/C dated 25/3/1994 that despite mass killings during
1984-94 of 45,000 dogs annually, the population and rabies deaths
only increased. Dogs have a high, multiple birth rate and spaying has
greater success. WHO studies presented in the writ petitions state
that sterilisation programs were implemented “unscientifically and
inefficiently” by the MCGM; only four vans of which, three did not
work were supplied for dog collection in the entire city of Mumbai.
Of the 6 crores provided by the state for sterilisation in 2001-02 no
reimbursements to NGOS were made for 6 years. Additionally, only 1.77
per cent of this allocated budget was spent by the MCGM on these
programs. The MCGM opines exterminating stray dogs will turn Mumbai
into Shanghai. Yah, right. Like China shall we also kill freedom and
individual rights?
Rabies is a fatal, horrible disease and a rabid or hostile dog should
be put to sleep. But killing all street dogs, even dogs deemed
nuisances, will not end the rabies menace. Pet dogs, horses, monkeys,
rats, sheep, goats, cats, bats, even humans are vectors. We need to
find better ways to sterilise and track street dogs. Micro-chipping
is expensive but we can cheaply maintain computer databases with
descriptions, populations, locations and medical records. The
Government should make it mandatory for private vets with state
licenses to annually neuter and vaccinate a specified number of
strays, at cost. The best dog and rabies control program is when
communities and neighbourhoods get involved. The MCGM has a difficult
job. Running Mumbai is probably the only thing harder than living in
it. So let’s help them. Get your building society or workplace to
vaccinate and adopt a stray, find contacts for the local vet or NGO
and report feral or injured strays. Sterilise your pets and don’t
abandon them to the streets when the going’s tough. Consider adopting
strays as companions for senior citizens and children. Educate
yourself on how to tell if a dog is friendly or avoiding strays
without cruelty. Report anyone abusing animals; that makes dogs
aggressive.
The new human rabies immunisation has few side effects and better
long term protection than the older vaccine. It is however, costly,
in short supply and needs refrigeration. The government must find
ways to procure the vaccine cheaply, make it easily available and
advertise pre-exposure vaccination like they do polio or small pox,
in big dog populations areas and in economically depressed localities
where direct contact with vectors is harder to avoid. Let’s not strip
Mumbai of what makes it great — its talent for tolerance. Victimising
dogs is clearly an insincere attempt to placate citizens, furious
with a complacent administration. Life in Mumbai is not easy but it
shouldn’t be cheap. Let us instead show prejudice against corruption
and urban poverty, ask for changes that will really make our lives
better like improved waste disposal, clean water and fair housing
regulation. A law we uphold that is compassionate may leave us with
regret but a short sighted, inhuman law will only leave us with shame
and wasted rupees.
In Indian mythology dogs are dwarpals — protectors of heaven’s gates.
In this world, dogs are our fellow Mumbaikars, (friends of rich and
poor alike) enriching our city and sharing our traumas. On 26/11,
they were among the first to perish at the Taj and CST as they sensed
intruders and sounded the alarm. Surely, now they deserve better than
death from a misguided MCGM. Sterilisation will reduce their numbers
more cheaply and effectively in a humane way that is worthy of our
great city and of the dwarpals, who will someday let us too, pass.
The writer is an actress and author
_____
[9] MISCELLANEA:
(i)
The Observer,
Sunday 24 May 2009
NOW AT LAST IT'S TIME FOR SHELL TO ATONE FOR MY FATHER'S DEATH
The son of the executed activist faces the oil giant in a human
rights trial this week. He seeks understanding rather than retribution
by Ken Saro-Wiwa Jnr
This week, a US court will hear a case that I and nine other
plaintiffs filed against Royal Dutch Shell for its part in human
rights violations committed against some Ogoni families and
individuals in Nigeria in 1995. For some, the case is already being
cast as a bookmark in the struggle for corporate accountability, but
to me and the other nine plaintiffs it is all that and more.
Fourteen years ago, Ken Saro-Wiwa predicted that Shell would one day
have to account for its actions in Nigeria. "I repeat," he wrote in
what would have been his final statement to the military tribunal
that was to order his execution, "that I and my colleagues are not
the only ones on trial. Shell is here on trial... the company has,
indeed, ducked this particular trial, but its day will surely
come ... there is no doubt in my mind that the ecological war that
the company has waged in the delta will be called to question sooner
than later and the crimes of that war be duly punished. The crime of
the company's dirty wars against the Ogoni people will also be
punished."
My father was prevented from making his final statement to the court
and he and eight of his colleagues were tried and executed for their
alleged role in the harrowing murders of four Ogoni chiefs including
his brother-in-law. The murders divided my family and set Ogoni
against Ogoni, providing a convenient excuse for the military regime
to arrest my father, detain and torture scores of innocent men and
send in a military taskforce whose leader publicly vowed to
"sanitise" Ogoni so that Shell could drill oil in my community.
Ken Saro-Wiwa's real "crime" was his audacity to sensitise local and
global public opinion to the ecological and human rights abuses
perpetrated by Shell and a ruthless military dictatorship against the
Ogoni people. The success of his campaign had mobilised our community
to say "No to Shell" and to demand compensation for years of oil
spills that had polluted our farms, streams and water sources. My
father called the world's attention to the gas flares that had been
pumping toxic fumes into the Earth's atmosphere for up to 24 hours a
day since oil was discovered on our lands in 1958. He accused Shell
of double standards, of racism and asked why a company that was
rightly proud of its efforts to preserve the environment in the west
would deny the Ogoni the same.
In response to his campaign, Shell armed, financed and otherwise
colluded with the Nigerian military regime to repress the non-violent
movement, leading to the torture and shootings of Ogoni people as
well as massive raids and the destruction of Ogoni villages. In an
infamous memo, Colonel Paul Okuntimo, the head of the military
taskforce sent to pacify Ogoni, boasted that Shell provided the
logistics for his soldiers. In one incident, Shell was building an
oil pipeline and requested support from the Nigerian military. The
pipeline destroyed Karalolo Kogbara's farm and, as she was crying
over her lost crops, the soldiers shot her. In another incident,
Uebari N-nah was shot and killed by soldiers near a Shell flow
station; the soldiers were requested by and later compensated by Shell.
A year after the executions, some of the relatives of what has become
known as the "Ogoni Nine" filed a federal lawsuit against Shell in a
district court in New York. We felt we would not get a fair hearing
in a Nigeria groaning under the very same military dictatorship that
had colluded with Shell to violate the human rights of our relatives
and our community.
In response Shell, which denied that it encouraged violence against
Ken Saro-Wiwa, or other Ogonis, and said it attempted to persuade the
Nigerian government to grant clemency to the Ogoni 9, hired the most
expensive legal minds to prevent us from holding them to account for
their actions in the US. Their filibustering brought 13 years of
time, four spent arguing over where they should stand trial.
No doubt Shell will try to present themselves as the victims, whose
only interest was to produce hydrocarbons in a "challenging" business
environment. But can you be so sure of Shell? This, after all, is a
company that, as revealed in an investigation by this paper in
January 1996, lied about importing arms to Nigeria. And even its own
consultants concluded in a 2003 report that its community development
schemes were fanning the flames of conflict in the Niger Delta. Shell
declined to publish the results. Moreover, this is a corporation that
was widely reported to have misled investors and shareholders in 2004
about the size of its reserves in places like Nigeria.
For that financial violation, the New York stock exchange moved
quickly to protect the rights of shareholders and investors and Shell
was fined $100m. It took less than two years to hold a multinational
corporation to account in a US court for financial violations in a
foreign jurisdiction.
And yet it has taken 14 years to bring a case to trial against the
same multinational corporation in a US court for human rights
violations.
All over the globe, people are becoming better informed about the
global economy. People are joining the dots that connect the oil
under their farms to the extravagant lifestyles in the west. You can
make these connections via cable television in my village even
thought there is no pipe-borne water and the electricity mostly comes
from a diesel generator. There is increasing awareness of the
connections between irreversible climate change and our thirst for
fossil fuels. More and more people are now feeling the effects of
unregulated corporations.
My father was not against oil exploration and production. He
appreciated many of the benefits of capitalism, valued the "can-do"
spirit, the innovation and would never deny the right of anyone to
seek adequate reward and fulfilment from their risk and sweat equity.
But can we continue to put profits before people and the planet? How
do we monitor institutions and organisations that have the capacity
to operate and organise themselves beyond the regulation and
jurisdiction of the current regimes of global governance?
Ken Saro-Wiwa always maintained that Shell would eventually come to
see him as their greatest friend. He believed that the day would come
when Shell would understand that its social licence to operate is as
valuable as its commercial rights. In a competitive and uncertain
world where the price of doing business becomes ever more
unpredictable, where more players - Russians, Indians and Chinese -
are able to compete for drilling rights, it will become ever more
important to win the battle for local hearts and minds to advocate
for a world run on mutual benefit rather than exploitation.
For the relatives, the trial remains our last opportunity to close
this sad chapter in our lives. For 12 years, we have all separately
developed strategies to survive, living with the anger and the rage
that one's relative was unjustly murdered and that many of the
institutions and individuals who were responsible for human rights
violations continued not only to get away with murder but also to
profit from their crimes.
We have remained dignified while the world has moved on. Few have
ever wondered about the emotional or financial welfare of the victims
but real lives, real people were destroyed.
In the face of the provocations and psychological trauma of all this,
I have tried to maintain a dignified position, worked assiduously to
deny myself the right to grieve in order to find a lasting solution
to the challenges of the Ogoni and the Niger Delta in Nigeria.
The day after my father was hanged, I was asked my opinion of Shell
and I didn't hesitate to answer that Shell was part of the problem
and must be part of the solution.
I haven't changed my opinion. I am not interested in retributive
justice but a justice that is creative, a justice that enables all
stakeholders in this affair to account for and learn lessons from the
past so that we can all move forward within a constructive and
sustainable framework. We have to remain committed to building the
kind of world that ensures that people who live on natural resource-
bearing areas are not treated as collateral damage in a senseless
race for profit.
With all of its experience in Nigeria, Shell knows that such creative
justice is possible and the time for us to move in that direction is
at hand.
o o o
(ii)
New York Times
May 25, 2009
MEETING, THEN EATING, THE GOAT
by Anne Barnard
From the street, the shop could be mistaken for a bodega, but its
red-and-yellow awning advertises live poultry, goats, lamb and beef.
Scores of chickens flutter in cages. A dozen placid goats stare from
a pen at customers from Bangladesh, Trinidad and Colombia. A worker
slices the throats of Rhode Island Reds, uttering a prayer each time,
according to the rites of Islam.
A block away from this tiny slaughterhouse, Jamaica Archer Live
Poultry, which is housed in a former auto-body shop, commuters and
students pour from buses and subways into the commercial hub of
Jamaica, Queens, where tourists catch the train to Kennedy Airport. A
few blocks the other way stand rows of frame houses and postage-stamp
yards that make Jamaica look like any blue-collar American suburb.
In the Jamaica shop, where custom-slaughtered beef is sold for $3.50
a pound, there is not much mention of the “locavore” movement, which
prizes eating locally grown food and knowing how it is produced, and
whose Greenwich Village mecca, Blue Hill restaurant, serves a plate
of grass-fed lamb and fiddlehead ferns for $36.
Yet the shop’s owner, Muhammad Ali, is part of a growing immigrant-
driven market that has taken root in cities but is reviving a
practice dating back to America’s agrarian past: seeing the live
animal that will soon become your meal.
“I like to see it fresh and choose what I want,” said Mitchella
Christian, a native of Trinidad who was visiting L. Alladin, a nearby
competitor of Mr. Ali’s market, to buy a lamb and three chickens.
The lucky cow that escaped another slaughterhouse in Jamaica this
month was only the tip of the horn. There are about 90 live-poultry
markets in the metropolitan area. That number has doubled since the
mid-1990s, state officials say, because of the demands of immigrants
from countries where eyeballing your meat while it is alive is
considered common sense. About a quarter of the markets are also
licensed to slaughter larger livestock.
New York has probably the country’s highest concentration of live-
animal markets, though there are pockets in New Jersey, New England,
Philadelphia, California and the Midwest, said Susan Trock, a
veterinarian who manages poultry health inspections for the State
Department of Agriculture and Markets.
Tom Mylan, who carves up cows in front of customers at Marlow &
Daughters, a butcher shop and locavore’s temple in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn, said he lived near three live-animal markets, two run by
Hasidic Jews and one by Latin Americans. Although they may not share
his obsession with animal welfare and organic feed, he said, he views
them as allies against the mass-market industry he calls “big meat.”
What he teaches his gourmet followers, he said, is what the working-
class live-market customers have never forgotten: “To eat meat, you
have to kill — something that we got pulled out of during the last 50
years in America,” he said. “We’re used to going into the grocery
store and there’s not even a butcher counter, just a bunch of foam
trays with a lot of anonymous blobs of meat in them.”
Perhaps inevitably, when it comes to killing animals for food,
immigrant Queens clashes with suburban-homeowning Queens: Some of the
people who worry about factory-produced meat are unenthusiastic about
having mom-and-pop abattoirs next door.
Last year, residents of St. Albans, Queens, blocked a small
slaughterhouse from opening on Farmers Boulevard. One resident, Marie
Wilkerson, told The New York Times that she feared its stink would
ruin backyard barbecues. Their state legislators pushed through a law
barring new slaughterhouses within 1,500 feet of a residence for four
years, effectively freezing the expansion of slaughterhouses in most
of the city.
Complaints about slaughterhouses often fall among local, federal and
state regulators, said City Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr. of
Astoria, Queens, where a fleeing cow made headlines in 2000. “It’s a
complete maze,” he said.
The rules are so confusing that officials at the Food Safety and
Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture
initially told a reporter that their agency had nothing to do with
live-animal markets.
But while retail poultry markets fall under state jurisdiction, if
they sell goats, sheep or cows, the federal agency steps in.
There is inevitable potential for friction between the businesses’
traditional values and the public-health priorities of the regulating
agencies. Some market owners fear, apparently erroneously, that rules
could interfere with religious rites. Others, when they dress a cow
or a goat for a family to share on holidays, can run afoul of federal
regulations requiring each animal to be custom-slaughtered for a
specific buyer.
More-established market owners say that some new businesses skirt the
rules or do not understand them.
Mr. Mylan, the Williamsburg shop owner, blames a big meat lobby that
wants regulations that favor companies that kill thousands of animals
a day. State and federal officials say they want the smaller
businesses to thrive and are reaching out to help them comply.
Mr. Ali, meanwhile, says he is performing a much-needed service. Some
come for the halal meat, killed according to Islam. (He weighs his
goats on a scale built for pigs, an animal that Islam proscribes as
food. A pig decoration on the scale had been scratched out.) But
customers also want to see that the animals, usually trucked from no
farther than Pennsylvania, are healthy.
“I want to see it with my own eyes,” said Shamsul Rahman, 65, who is
originally from Bangladesh and was buying 11 chickens.
After each chicken’s throat was cut, the bird was placed upside down
for the blood to drain. Then it was scalded and thrown into a machine
that plucked its feathers with rubber mechanical fingers.
Nearby, an energetic goat placed its hooves on an iron rail and
craned its neck toward a photographer like a supermodel flirting with
the camera.
“He wants to make a connection with you,” Mr. Ali said.
A few blocks away, F & D Live Poultry stands opposite the ultimate
urban spot: the scene of the 50-shot killing of Sean Bell by police
officers in 2006.
Inside the shop, Edelsa Angel, 27, who grew up on a Guatemalan farm,
had brought her small son in his stroller. He watched with equanimity
as chickens went into the killing room flapping and came out in
plastic bags.
The owner, Joey Rosario, said the shop, just feet from a house, had
been there for 100 years. But he is open to change: He plans to hire
a halal slaughterer to keep up his market share as Muslims move in.
“I’m already talking to a guy,” he said.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the SACW
mailing list