SACW | May 28-29, 2009 / S Lanka: Justice and Equality / Pakistan-India: Give up the Bomb; Nehru / Bangladesh: Proshika / India: Human Rights / Nicaragua

Thu May 28 21:39:20 CDT 2009

South Asia Citizens Wire | May 26-29, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2629 - 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]  Take swift action against Hindu fundamentalist group called  
Nepal Defense Army (Editorial, respublica)
[2]  Standup For Equality, Justice And Democracy In Sri Lanka (Rohini  
Hensman)
[3] Pakistan  / India:  Another Nuclear Anniversary (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
    - A Rosetta Stone for peace (Jawed Naqvi)
    - Mourning Nehru in Pakistan (Inder Malhotra)
[4] Pakistan: Barbaric practices (Editorial, Dawn)
[5] Bangladesh:  Ambition, corruption and nepotism - around the  
second-largest NGO Proshika (Mushfique Wadud and Khamin)
      - Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai in a Small Town in Bangladesh (Delwar  
Hussain)
[6] India: Need spine, not muscle, to fight for human rights (Antara  
Dev Sen)
[7] India: The myth of Hindu tolerance (Rahila Gupta)
[8] Miscellanea:
  - Nicaragua: Total Ban on Abortion Violates Human Rights, Says UN  
(José Adán Silva)

_____

[1]  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

_____

[2]  Sri Lanka:

http://www.sacw.net/article933.html

THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY, JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY IN SRI LANKA

by Rohini Hensman (groundviews.org, May 27, 2009)

This year marks the twentieth death anniversary of  Rajini  
Thiranagama, doctor, lecturer, feminist and human rights defender,  
and the first death anniversary of human rights lawyer and political  
activist Maheshwari Velauthan. The former was shot dead by the  LTTE  
as she cycled home to her children after presiding over an Anatomy  
examination, the latter shot dead by the LTTE as she cared for her  
sick mother. They were among thousands of Tamils killed by the LTTE  
simply because they did not agree with it. For Tamil progressives  
like them, the defeat of the LTTE mitigates one source of terror.

The LTTE’s claim to be the sole representative of Sri Lanka’s Tamils  
could be sustained only by the physical liquidation of all those who  
disagreed with, criticised, or simply posed a challenge to its  
leadership, even from within the organisation. This meant that all  
Tamils with a different vision of the struggle for equality, justice  
and democracy had to choose between risking their lives (and, like   
Kethesh Loganathan and T. Subathiran, all too often losing them),  
accepting security cover from the government of Sri Lanka (which  
obviously crippled their capacity to criticise that government), and  
exile. Any Tamil who believed in the possibility of Tamils living  
alongside people of other communities in a united Sri Lanka was  
considered a traitor and sentenced to death. Probably the first of  
such ‘traitors’ to be executed by Prabakaran was  Alfred Duraiappah,  
the popular Mayor of Jaffna, who was killed in 1975;  Neelan  
Thiruchelvam and  Lakshman Kadirgamar came later. Standing up for  
freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to vote  
in free and fair elections were all aberrations punishable by death.  
Parents who resisted the forcible conscription of their children  
received violent punishment. Indeed, questioning the decisions of the  
Supreme Leader in any way was an act of treachery. In fascist Tamil  
Eelam, internal terror was all-pervasive.

Could an organisation which destroyed the freedom of Tamils fight for  
their liberation from oppression? Clearly not. Could an entity which  
stood for an exclusively Tamil nation, in which Muslims and Sinhalese  
would be massacred or ethnically cleansed, pose an ideological  
challenge to exclusivist Sinhala nationalism? Hardly. The LTTE was  
simply a Tamil translation of the most reactionary Sinhala fascist  
politics. Where Sinhala nationalists stereotyped all Tamils, Tamil  
nationalists stereotyped all Sinhalese. Where the former claimed  
exclusive ownership of the whole of Sri Lanka, the latter claimed  
exclusive ownership of a third of the island. The politics of both  
harked back to the days of absolutist monarchies. Far from helping  
Tamils in their struggle for democracy, the LTTE created a further  
obstacle to be overcome. From this perspective, although its demise  
has occurred in the most horrific circumstances, prospects for the  
struggle for democracy in Sri Lanka have improved.

Conditions for a Successful Struggle

However, the success of this struggle would depend on several  
factors. The reactionary mirage of a totalitarian, exclusively Tamil  
state needs to be laid to rest once and for all. Such an agenda does  
not acknowledge the reality in Sri Lanka, where diverse communities  
are represented in all parts of the island – indeed, the most  
oppressed of the Tamil-speaking communities, the Hill-country  
plantation workers, did not fall within the proposed Eelam at all –  
and diverse peoples and cultures are inextricably intertwined. The  
incredible violence required to tear us apart cannot be allowed to go  
on. Whether we like it or not, we sink together or swim together.

Instead, Tamil progressives would need to fight for a vision of a  
democratic Sri Lanka which is a homeland for all its diverse peoples.  
They would need to fight for this in alliance with other minority  
communities as well as Sinhalese progressives. And they would need to  
win over a majority of Tamils to this vision: not so difficult within  
Sri Lanka, harder in the diaspora, much of which is disconnected from  
the reality in Sri Lanka in many ways. This effort would need support  
from Tamil and Muslim political parties and other formations which  
have hitherto tended to remain in the government fold out of fear of  
reprisals by the LTTE. Now that this threat no longer looms over  
them, they need to come out and present their demands to the  
Rajapaksa regime and ruling party, threatening to withdraw their  
support if the demands are not met.

The same is true of Sinhalese progressives in Left parties and other  
formations. While some have consistently supported the struggle of  
Tamils for justice, others have veered to one side or the other. We  
do not need to go as far back as the 1960s and 1970s, when Left  
parties which had previously stood up for minority rights when  
Upcountry Tamils were disenfranchised and the Sinhala Only Act was  
passed joined the Sinhala nationalist bandwagon. As recently as  
January 2008, Tissa Vitharana of the LSSP – who had earlier laboured  
conscientiously to produce a viable political solution based largely  
on the excellent proposal presented by a multi-ethnic majority of the  
Panel of Experts to the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) –  
lost his nerve, and instead of presenting the real APRC proposals to  
President Rajapaksa, presented him with a mutilated version of the  
13th Amendment (introduced as a result of the Indo-Lanka Accord)  
which had just been given to him by the president! This bizarre farce  
was yet another instance of Sinhalese Leftists aligning themselves  
with a government dominated by Sinhalese fascists. If these Leftists  
wish to redeem themselves, they too must threaten to withdraw their  
support to the government unless it accepts and implements far- 
reaching political reforms that redress the genuine grievances of  
minorities.

On the other side, some Sinhalese Leftists, who had split away when  
their parties embraced Sinhala nationalism, subsequently provided  
implicit support to the LTTE’s fascism in the name of supporting ‘the  
right of Tamils to national self-determination’, ignoring Rosa  
Luxemburg’s pertinent question: who determines the will of the  
‘nation’? In this case, the answer, clearly, was the Supreme Leader,  
Prabakaran, who took it upon himself to determine the lives – and  
deaths – of all Sri Lankan Tamils. Was this a worthy cause for  
socialists to support? Surely not, given that it involved  
slaughtering Tamil socialists! Paradoxically, their implicit support  
for the Tamil fascist agenda indicated unconscious Sinhala chauvinism  
(or, in the case of their European comrades, racism): the belief that  
Tamils are inferior beings, not yet ready for democracy. Furthermore,  
even Lenin did not argue for the ‘right to national self- 
determination’ in circumstances where an oppressed community was  
dispersed among a national population. Creating ethnically ‘pure’  
enclaves, as the LTTE attempted to do in 1990, involved massacres and  
ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, defined in international law as  
crimes against humanity. A genuine liberation movement, which is  
supported by the people, cannot be defeated militarily. The military  
defeat of the LTTE occurred because it and its agenda were rejected  
by the Tamil people in Sri Lanka whom it claimed to represent.

These Leftists, along with Sinhalese liberals who followed a similar  
path, have to redefine ‘self-determination’ to mean real control over  
their own lives for all Tamils – and other minorities – in all parts  
of Sri Lanka. They could then play a much more useful role,  
persuading the Sinhalese masses to support this cause too. There is  
certainly a minority of rabid Sinhala chauvinists, but the majority  
of Sinhalese do not hate Tamils. Celebrations of the government  
victory over the LTTE have been interpreted as an expression of  
Sinhala chauvinism, and some of them have certainly been orchestrated  
by chauvinist elements. But Nirupama Subramanian pointed out that  
there were similar celebrations when the Cease-Fire Agreement was  
signed in 2002 – indeed, celebrations began in December 2001, when  
the UNP was elected and promised to bring peace – and Chandrika  
Kumaratunga swept to victory in 1994 on a promise of bringing peace  
through negotiations. What the war-weary people (including Sinhalese  
people) of Sri Lanka wanted, and still want, is peace. At that time,  
they thought that negotiations with the LTTE would bring peace, but  
they were disappointed. Now they think that a military victory over  
the LTTE will bring peace, but are likely to be disappointed again,  
unless Sinhalese progressives can convince them that only equality,  
justice and democracy can bring a lasting peace.

A precondition for this is that they must be made to understand that  
there is a problem which has not been solved by the military victory,  
since recognition of a problem is a necessary step for its solution.  
Many Sinhalese – including members of the English-educated diaspora –  
are astonishingly ignorant about what has been happening in Sri Lanka  
since Independence, taking the position that the only problem has  
been one of terrorism. Educating them about the persistent  
discrimination and violence against Tamils, which led to and fuelled  
the conflict, would be a vital contribution for Sinhalese  
progressives to make. It is also worth reminding Sinhalese people in  
Sri Lanka that equality is the bedrock of democracy, and that they  
allow democracy to be undermined at their own peril. The last time  
they allowed state security forces to torture and kill Tamils on a  
large scale, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, this was followed by  
the same security forces torturing and killing an estimated  
40,000-60,000 Sinhalese between 1987 and 1990. The Rajapaksa regime  
shows disturbing signs of sliding into the same totalitarianism  
unless it is halted by the public. The struggle for justice and  
democracy is a programme which can unite working people of all  
communities, rather than dividing Tamils from Tamils, Sinhalese from  
Tamils, and Tamils from Muslims.

Immediate Programme for Progressives of All Communities

The most urgent priority is to ensure the survival and fundamental  
rights of all the civilians displaced by the war. Failing this, the  
death toll will mount catastrophically, and this time, the government  
alone will be to blame. Food and water, medicines and doctors,  
clothing, shelter and so on must be procured from all agencies which  
are offering to provide it, and distributed in a rational manner  
which does not simply ensure the survival of the strongest, as some  
women in the camps have complained. The government itself has  
appealed for help, making it clear that it cannot cope with the task,  
so international agencies should be involved in the relief effort.  
Unless they and independent reporters are allowed in the camps,  
sickening stories of rapes, killings (especially of women and girls),  
abduction of children, and starvation deaths cannot be discounted.  
After all, senior citizens were released from the camps only after  
the District Magistrate in Vavuniya determined that 30 of them had  
died of starvation and malnutrition, and more were dying on a daily  
basis, so there is official confirmation of this particular story.

This is not just a matter of humanitarian concern. These people are  
citizens of Sri Lanka, and incarcerating them in prison camps, as has  
been done so far, is a violation of their fundamental rights. If the  
government fears that terrorists are hidden among the civilians, they  
need to screen them rapidly, move LTTE fighters into prisoner-of-war  
camps, register both civilians and fighters, provide civilians with  
identity cards and freedom of movement, and provide fighters with  
humane conditions and rehabilitation. All this needs to be monitored  
by the UN and ICRC. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the government,  
given several high-profile killings (like the killing of five  
students in Trincomalee in 2006, the massacre of 17 ACF workers, and  
the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge) and thousands of less- 
publicised ones, all of which bear the mark of state-linked death  
squads. Unless some agency other than the state monitors the  
screening and the camps, and keeps lists of both civilians and LTTE  
cadres, there is every possibility that thousands of camp residents  
will be abducted and killed.

Keeping a register of people in the camps and giving them freedom of  
movement is also vitally important for families that have been  
separated, and people desperately trying to locate loved ones. The  
President, in his address to parliament, referred to mettha (loving  
kindness) and karuna (compassion), but there is little evidence of  
these Buddhist values in the way that these traumatised civilians  
have been treated by the state. Running the camps by a civilian  
administration, access to them for international and local aid  
workers, and freedom of movement for the inmates would be  
preconditions before we can talk of mettha or karuna.

In the slightly longer term, all the displaced should be assisted to  
resettle back in their original towns and villages by the end of the  
year. Now that the war is over and terrorism, according to the  
president, has been vanquished, there is no need for High Security  
Zones, and industrial zones and the Indian-built power station also  
should not be located on the land of displaced people, neither in the  
North nor in the East. It is important to emphasise that the  
displaced include tens of thousands of Muslims, some of whom have  
been languishing in camps since 1990, and any resettlement programme  
must cater to those Muslims who wish to return to their original  
habitats.

The end of the war and defeat of the LTTE also demolishes the excuses  
for various other ‘special measures’, among them: carrying of arms by  
cadres of other Tamil groups, supposedly in order to defend  
themselves from the LTTE: all these cadres should be disarmed; the  
emergency provisions and anti-terrorism legislation which have  
destroyed the rule of law in our country and allowed the state to act  
in a dictatorial, brutal and corrupt fashion: all these should be  
withdrawn forthwith; and the silencing of the press and imprisonment  
of journalists, which should be replaced by the immediate release of  
journalists like J.S.Tissainayagam and the restoration of freedom of  
expression. All these special measures promote state terrorism, and  
what is the point of eliminating LTTE terrorism only to fall prey to  
a different band of terrorists?

In the longer term, it is crucially important to introduce and  
implement a new, democratic constitution, without which the cycle of  
violence will simply begin again. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s speech  
indicates that he has no intention of introducing a political  
solution to the conflict; his reference to respect for ‘the principle  
of the unitary state that has been established in our Constitution’  
shows that he has failed to learn from history, and is therefore  
quite capable of repeating the mistakes that led to the war in the  
first place. When Sri Lanka was first defined as a ‘unitary state’ in  
1972, there was no separatist movement, no militant groups; soon  
there were both. The same Constitution confirmed Sinhala as the only  
official language, gave a special place to Buddhism, and removed  
protection from discrimination for minorities: in other words, it was  
clear that a ‘unitary state’ was synonymous with a ‘Sinhala-Buddhist  
state’. The 1978 Constitution, which introduced the all-powerful  
Executive Presidency, turned this into a totalitarian Sinhala- 
Buddhist state.

Since 1995, there have been several attempts to formulate and put in  
place a new, democratic Constitution, yet the President seems to be  
ignorant of all these efforts, including his own creation of the  
APRC, when he talks about the necessity to ‘find a solution that is  
our very own’. Where was he when the APRC crafted an excellent  
political solution well over two years ago? Or was that not a  
‘solution that is our very own’ because it was based on the proposals  
of a multi-ethnic panel of experts? Does ‘our very own’ mean ‘Sinhala- 
Buddhist’?

A credible political solution would need to abolish the Executive  
Presidency and special place for Buddhism in the Constitution; ensure  
real parity for Sinhala and Tamil; put in place a Bill of Rights that  
rules out discrimination on any grounds whatsover in all parts of the  
island, and guarantees other rights like freedom of expression and  
association; includes the right to life, which is missing from the  
existing Constitution; devolves power to the Provincial Councils to a  
much greater degree than the 13th Amendment; and ensures greater  
representation of minority communities at the centre through a  
bicameral legislature.

The minority and Left parties that are currently part of the  
government must give Mahinda Rajapaksa and the SLFP notice that they  
will quit unless he implements the measures outlined above, and thus  
force him to choose between them and the Sinhala Right. In the event  
that he chooses the latter, they should form a third front – since  
the UNP is as compromised as the SLFP – and start campaigning for  
this programme as soon as possible. Whether they win or lose the next  
elections is less important than demonstrating to the people of Sri  
Lanka – and especially the minorities, who have suffered so much –  
that there are political leaders in Sri Lanka willing to stand up for  
equality, justice and democracy.

_____

[3]  Pakistan / India:

Dawn, May 28, 2009

ANOTHER NUCLEAR ANNIVERSARY

by Pervez Hoodbhoy

Once upon a time making nuclear bombs was the biggest thing a country  
could do. But not any more; North Korea’s successful nuclear test  
provides rock-solid proof. This is a country that no one admires.

It is unknown for scientific achievement, has little electricity or  
fuel, food and medicine are scarce, corruption is ubiquitous, and its  
people live in terribly humiliating conditions under a vicious,  
dynastic dictatorship. In a famine some years ago, North Korea lost  
nearly 800,000 people. It has an enormous prison population of  
200,000 that is subjected to systematic torture and abuse.

Why does a miserable, starving country continue spending its last  
penny on the bomb? On developing and testing a fleet of missiles  
whose range increases from time to time? The answer is clear: North  
Korea’s nuclear weapons are instruments of blackmail rather than  
means of defence. Brandished threateningly, and manipulated from time  
to time, these bombs are designed to keep the flow of international  
aid going.

Surely the people of North Korea gained nothing from their country’s  
nuclearisation. But they cannot challenge their oppressors. But, as  
Pakistan celebrates the 11th anniversary of its nuclear tests, we  
Pakistanis — who are far freer — must ask: what have we gained from  
the bomb?

Some had imagined that nuclear weapons would make Pakistan an object  
of awe and respect internationally. They had hoped that Pakistan  
would acquire the mantle of leadership of the Islamic world. Indeed,  
in the aftermath of the 1998 tests, Pakistan’s stock had shot up in  
some Muslim countries before it crashed. But today, with a large  
swathe of its territory lost to insurgents, one has to defend  
Pakistan against allegations of being a failed state. In terms of  
governance, economy, education or any reasonable quality of life  
indicators, Pakistan is not a successful state that is envied by anyone.

Contrary to claims made in 1998, the bomb did not transform Pakistan  
into a technologically and scientifically advanced country. Again,  
the facts are stark. Apart from relatively minor exports of computer  
software and light armaments, science and technology remain  
irrelevant in the process of production. Pakistan’s current exports  
are principally textiles, cotton, leather, footballs, fish and fruit.  
This is just as it was before Pakistan embarked on its quest for the  
bomb. The value-added component of Pakistani manufacturing somewhat  
exceeds that of Bangladesh and Sudan, but is far below that of India,  
Turkey and Indonesia. Nor is the quality of science taught in our  
educational institutions even remotely satisfactory. But then, given  
that making a bomb these days requires only narrow technical skills  
rather than scientific ones, this is scarcely surprising.

What became of the claim that the pride in the bomb would  
miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute  
Pakistan? While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis  
want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away.  
Pakhtun refugees from Swat and Buner, hapless victims of a war  
between the Taliban and the Pakistani Army, are tragically being  
turned away by ethnic groups from entering Sindh. This rejection  
strikes deeply against the concept of a single nation united in  
adversity.

As for the Baloch, they deeply resent that the two nuclear test sites  
— now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at  
being governed from Islamabad, many have taken up arms and demand  
that Punjab’s army get off their backs. Many schools in Balochistan  
refuse to fly the Pakistani flag, the national anthem is not sung,  
and black flags celebrate Pakistan’s independence day. Balochistan  
University teems with the icons of Baloch separatism: posters of  
Akbar Bugti, Balaach Marri, Brahamdagh Bugti, and ‘General Sheroff’  
are everywhere. The bomb was no glue.

Did the bomb help Pakistan liberate Kashmir from Indian rule? It is a  
sad fact that India’s grip on Kashmir — against the will of Kashmiris  
— is tighter today than it has been for a long time. As the late  
Eqbal Ahmed often remarked, Pakistan’s poor politics helped snatch  
defeat from the jaws of victory. Its strategy for confronting India —  
secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear  
weapons — backfired terribly in the arena of international opinion.  
More importantly, it created the hydra-headed militancy now haunting  
Pakistan. Some Mujahideen, who felt betrayed by Pakistan’s army and  
politicians, ultimately took revenge by turning their guns against  
their sponsors and trainers. The bomb helped us lose Kashmir.

Some might ask, didn’t the bomb stop India from swallowing up  
Pakistan? First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an  
additional 170 million Muslims. Second, even if India wanted to,  
territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by  
Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If mighty  
America could not digest Iraq, there can never be a chance for a  
middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times  
larger than Iraq.

It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India  
from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests.  
Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack  
on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i- 
Muhammad), and the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba, did  
create sentiment in India for ferreting out Pakistan-based militant  
groups. So should we keep the bomb to protect militant groups? Surely  
it is time to realise that these means of conducting foreign policy  
are tantamount to suicide.

It was a lie that the bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its  
armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously  
troubled situation and offers no way out. The threat to Pakistan is  
internal. The bomb cannot help us recover the territory seized by the  
Baitullahs and Fazlullahs, nor bring Waziristan back to Pakistan.  
More nuclear warheads, test-launching more missiles, or buying yet  
more American F-16s and French submarines, will not help.

Pakistan’s security problems cannot be solved by better weapons.  
Instead, the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active  
democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in  
which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination  
of the feudal order and creating a society that respects the rule of  
law.

It is time for Pakistan to become part of the current global move  
against nuclear weapons. India — which had thrust nuclearisation upon  
an initially unwilling Pakistan — is morally obliged to lead. Both  
must announce that they will not produce more fissile material to  
make yet more bombs. Both must drop insane plans to expand their  
nuclear arsenals. Eleven years ago a few Pakistanis and Indians had  
argued that the bomb would bring no security, no peace. They were  
condemned as traitors and sellouts by their fellow citizens. But each  
passing year shows just how right we were.

The writer teaches nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University,  
Islamabad.

[The above article is also available at: http://www.sacw.net/ 
article934.html ]

o o o

Dawn
28 May, 2009

A ROSETTA STONE FOR PEACE

by Jawed Naqvi

India would have thought twice before handing over Marathi or Hindi  
scripts of such a crucial piece of evidence to the FB. —AFP/File photo

MARATHI is a rich language, richer in many ways than Hindi. Pula  
Deshpande, Vijay Tendulkar, Kusumagraj, Prahlad Keshav Atre, Saney  
Guruji, Shanta Shelke are some of the towering icons of Marathi  
literature.

If Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has read any of these  
writers, it must be in Urdu or English, the two languages we know he  
knows.

It is highly unlikely that Home Minister P. Chidambaram, whose mother  
tongue is Tamil, would be able to read the Marathi or even the Hindi  
version of any of the fabled writers. His English is good though.

Given the inherent difficulties of dealing with diverse languages, it  
is baffling that authorities in Pakistan have been asked to decode  
Hindi and Marathi, the two languages in which India has given them  
Ajmal Kasab’s confession about his involvement, and that of his other  
Pakistani accomplices, in the November terror attack on Mumbai.

Pakistan requires the statement in Urdu or English if its judges are  
to proceed against the few suspects rounded up for the heinous act.

It is not clear what the legal propriety in these matters is, but my  
instinct is that India would have thought twice before handing over  
Marathi or Hindi scripts of such a crucial piece of evidence to the  
FBI, for example, without an authenticated English summary. This  
should not be such a tall order. English is after all the official  
language of India.

Having said that, it would be equally preposterous for Pakistani  
prosecutors to pretend that without procuring a copy of the alleged  
confession of Kasab they would have to stall the probe into an affair  
that has single-handedly brought ties with India to a virtual halt.

We know how comparatively innocent people were incarcerated without  
trial in Pakistan for demanding no more than a little bit of  
democracy, not to speak of social justice. This is not to suggest  
that due process of law should be abandoned in the case of the Mumbai  
suspects, not at all. The widely held belief that the mandarins in  
Islamabad happily bent rules for the perpetrators of Guantanamo Bay  
tortures when it suited them should not be a ruse to allow its  
replication elsewhere.

A perception is being promoted that without the right papers from  
India Pakistan could find itself compelled to free the suspects. Such  
a possibility would be fraught with risks not only for future ties  
with India, but also for Pakistan’s own battle with religious  
terrorism. The link, no matter how circuitous it might seem, between  
Mumbai of November and Wednesday’s devastation in Lahore is  
inescapable and, therefore, suicidal for Pakistan to ignore.

If it believes it has picked up serious suspects in the Mumbai  
affair, Pakistan would do well to patiently explore a modus vivendi  
with India to jointly track the culprits, whose arms otherwise seem  
long enough to strike at will in Kabul, Islamabad or New Delhi.

Which means the confusion created by a surfeit of languages the  
subcontinent is gifted with must be overcome. This is a bold measure  
that could only be predicated on political will. A new lingua franca  
of peace is required, one that can be readily understood and accepted  
across the region – from Kathmandu to Colombo from the Chittagong  
Hill Tracts to the Panjshir Valley via Jaffna, Kashmir, Nagaland and  
Swat through Kandahar and Quetta.

The new Indian foreign minister Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna in his  
first policy statement upon taking office used a long lost and  
supposedly archaic phrase from South Asia’s diplomatic dictionary –  
Non-Aligned Movement. Fondly known as NAM, it could in fact be the  
elusive Rosetta Stone to help divine South Asia’s destiny, which  
hitherto has looked a jumble of hieroglyphics. The minor quarrel over  
the language of Kasab’s confession would thus appear to be a façade  
that masks the hidden meaning of politics.

In simple words the way the fault lines are configured around the  
Caspian region, fountainhead of a new global polarisation, India can  
find itself either in the company of the United States, where it  
would have to deal with Pakistan, or it could see itself veering  
towards a morally cloaked coalition headed by Russia where it would  
need to feel at ease with China. Jawaharlal Nehru gave India and many  
others a third option, one which, if we are lucky, Mr Krishna might  
be willing to consider as his preferred choice.

For its sheer resemblance to the current crisis it would be useful to  
recall here the catastrophe that Nehru had warned of as early as  
1953. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles met Gen Ayub Khan in  
Washington.

Dennis Kux in the marvellous book on India-US Ties: Estranged  
Democracies, writes: ‘Tall, handsome, speaking with a clipped South  
Asian English accent, Ayub looked and sounded like someone central  
casting round for a Hollywood production of The Lives of a Bengal  
Lancer. The Pakistani general lobbied hard with the State Department,  
the Pentagon, the Congress, saying all the right things about the  
dangers of communism and the need to stand against the Red threat.’

A quote from Ayub described the future aptly: ‘For Christ’s sake, I  
didn’t come to the United States to look at barracks. Our army can be  
your army if you want us. But let’s make a decision.’

When he leaked the story to New York Times, Nehru reacted angrily,  
first in private, warning Pakistan Prime Minister Mohammed Ali Bogra:  
‘If such an alliance takes place, Pakistan definitely enters into the  
region of Cold War…. It must be a matter of grave consequence to us,  
you will appreciate, if vast armies are built up in Pakistan with the  
aid of American money…. All of our problems will have to be seen in a  
new light.’

Writing to India’s chief ministers, Nehru roundly criticised the  
United States as being unable to ‘think of anything else but of  
getting bases all over the world and using their money power to get  
manpower elsewhere to fight for them’.

Mr Krishna’s brief would no doubt be rooted in more contemporary  
realities. But how different is the neighbourhood from what Nehru had  
cautioned us about? The new foreign minister has raised hopes for a  
new informed initiative with India’s neighbours. If he is from the  
Marathi-speaking musically gifted Dharwar region of Karnataka, as I  
suspect he is, he could begin by helping translate for the Pakistanis  
the badly needed piece of evidence they need to nail the culprits of  
Mumbai. There is far more for him to do than to quibble over a brief  
that his interlocutors can’t read.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

o o o

Indian Express
May 29, 2009

MOURNING NEHRU IN PAKISTAN

by Inder Malhotra

On the day Jawaharlal Nehru passed into history 45 years and two days  
ago, I was in Pakistan along with some others of the Indian hack  
pack. It was no happenstance but practically willed by Nehru himself.  
For, one of his last official acts was to release his old, if  
estranged, friend, the towering Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Mohammed  
Abdullah, from prolonged and unjust imprisonment; withdraw the  
meandering “Kashmir Conspiracy” case against him; invite the Sheikh  
to be his house guest at Teen Murti; and encourage him to go to  
Pakistan to explore with then Pakistani president, Ayub Khan, the  
possibility of a settlement on Kashmir.

In his conversations with the prime minister, Abdullah broached the  
idea of a “Confederation of India, Pakistan and Kashmir”. Nehru did  
not like it and called in Syed Mir Qasim, later chief minister of  
Jammu and Kashmir. “Ji, kaan kaat dijiye”, advised Qasim. “What  
nonsense is this? Whose ears do I cut off?” asked Nehru testily.  
Qasim explained: “Sir, I am saying that make it federation rather  
than confederation”. (Source: Mir Qasim’s autobiography in Urdu.)

On the morning of May 22, Nehru addressed what was to be the last of  
his famous press conferences. Someone asked him whether he should not  
nominate his successor during his lifetime. “My lifetime is not  
ending that soon” was Nehru’s reply. His audience greeted it with  
loud and prolonged cheers that I joined heartily. I then left for  
Lahore and was in Rawalpindi — then Pakistan’s capital because  
Islamabad was under construction — before sunset. Sheikh Abdullah  
arrived the next evening to receive a hero’s welcome.

During his talks with Ayub, the Sheikh vaguely mentioned both the  
ideas of a confederation and a federation. The field-marshal rejected  
them out of hand, as he has recorded in his memoirs Friends, Not  
Masters. However, on one point Ayub and Abdullah were agreed: that  
the Kashmir issue must be resolved, and that Nehru and Ayub were the  
two leaders who could do this and “sell” the “compromise solution” to  
their respective countries. On the evening of May 26, the Sheikh  
announced that a meeting between Nehru and Ayub would take place in  
New Delhi in June, and that he (Abdullah) would “not be far from the  
conference table”.

The expectations this aroused were tempered with skepticism. On the  
morning of May 27, however, excitement was high. For, Sher-e-Kashmir  
was going to ‘Azad’ Kashmir, and the Pakistan government had  
reluctantly allowed Indian journalists to accompany him. Our  
instructions were stern. “Be at Sheikh Sahib’s place at 7.30. The  
journey will begin at 8 am sharp”. We ought to have known better. In  
the best subcontinental tradition, nothing happened for a few hours.  
We were saved from boredom by cordial conversations with Pakistani  
hosts and an endless supply of tea, coffee and delectable kebabs.

Asrar Ahmed, a Pakistani colleague, asked me whether something  
worthwhile would come out of the Nehru-Ayub talks. With my unfailing  
knack for stressing the obvious, I replied that it all depended on  
how much time Nehru had. Whereupon Asrar and others exclaimed in  
unison, “May Allah prolong his life”. As if on cue, Hafeez Jullundari  
— the nearest thing Pakistan had to the poet laureate as well as a  
sort of minister-in-waiting during the Sheikh’s stay — stalked up to  
our table and sat down. Wagging his finger, he told me: “Inder  
Malhotra, you people have had a long ride feeling superior to us  
because you were lucky to have Nehru. Our misfortune was that after  
the early deaths of Jinnah and Liaquat, all our leaders were useless.  
Now Nehru is about to go. You will be down to our level, and then we  
will see”. All the Pakistanis around the table were horrified. They  
started remonstrating with the renowned poet but their attempt was  
drowned in the sudden flurry and noise. Sheikh Sahib had come down  
and everyone was being directed to his or her vehicle.

I do not know whether Murree’s Lintot restaurant still exists. On  
that day, however, it served us excellent breakfast in its balcony.  
It was there that the news of Nehru’s illness caught up with us. He  
died at the precise moment when the Sheikh set foot in Muzaffarabad.  
The thought uppermost in my mind was that the capital of Pakistan- 
held Kashmir was not the best place to to be in at the time of  
Nehru’s passing. But what followed stunned me.

The huge crowd that had assembled to welcome Sheikh Abdullah  
instantly turned into a mourning mass. Every man, woman and child,  
hands raised skywards, was praying for Nehru. Some of them were  
crying. No one touched the elaborate wazwan laid out. Suddenly, there  
was commotion at a short distance. A tall man was shouting my name,  
beating his head with both his hands and cursing his “black tongue”.  
It was Hafeez Jullundari. As he apologised to me profusely, Sheikh  
Sahib arrived to calm him. Instead, the two embraced each other and  
sobbed.

Agha Shaukat, a Pakistani official, drove Prem Bhatia (my guru and  
then Delhi editor of Indian Express) and me back to Rawalpindi. On  
the way he stopped at a roadside dhaba and insisted that we must have  
tea. A trickle of people from a nearby village turned into a torrent.  
They all offered us condolences, adding: “He was a great man”.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, then Ayub’s foreign minister, placed a PIA plane  
at the disposal of those of us who had assembled at his house. Its  
crew, overworked because it had flown in from Gilgit, could not have  
been more courteous or considerate.

After the dinner trays were cleared, most of us got busy writing our  
dispatches. The airhostess came, sat down in the empty seat next to  
me, and asked if she could read what I was typing. When, while  
reading my homage to the iconic leader for The Statesman, my paper  
then, she reached my brief reference to the Pakistani reaction to his  
death, she broke down. Rushing to the washroom, she came back  
composed, and said: “Sir, I am sure we cannot be enemies for ever”. I  
told her that these were exactly the words Nehru had used seven years  
earlier.

The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator

_____

[4]  Pakistan:

Dawn
28 May, 2009

Editorial   BARBARIC PRACTICES

  THE police have finally registered a case against a Bahawalnagar  
landlord for forcing a ‘marriage’ between his 50-year-old brother and  
an under-age girl. It is worth noting, however, that this became  
possible only after the victim’s father, a peasant, brought the  
matter to the Punjab chief minister’s notice. Even so, there has been  
no arrest and few indications of a full inquiry. The case illustrates  
how common medieval transgressions against citizens’ constitutional  
rights are in Pakistan. This is particularly true of rural and  
underdeveloped areas where the effective control of tribal and feudal  
elites — that often collude in the crime — renders the state’s  
authority nominal. The victims are the poor and powerless, deserving  
therefore of greater access to police and local bodies’ officials. In  
actuality, however, representatives of the government are not immune  
to the feudal and tribal elites’ power, thus nipping in the bud any  
chance of justice for the victims.

The immediate victims of barbaric crimes such as karo-kari, vani and  
swara are usually women, condemned to virtual slavery and certain  
abuse. Despite being citizens with constitutional freedoms and human  
rights, a medieval system of patriarchy and an ineffective state  
justice system allow them to be reduced to the status of chattel on  
the basis of gender. Some, including politicians, defend such crimes  
as social or tribal customs. They forget that no custom or tradition  
can be allowed to violate the laws and constitution of the country.  
Such abuse tramples the victims’ rights while simultaneously making a  
mockery of the state justice system. The project to modernise  
Pakistan must include the extension of the state’s writ and  
protection to all areas, particularly where tribal and feudal elites  
hold sway. Meanwhile, access to police and other complaint centres  
must be improved, and the functioning of such institutions be  
cleansed of the influence of powerful individuals.

_____

[5]  Bangladesh:

(i)

xtra / New Age
May 24, 2008

AMBITION, CORRUPTION AND NEPOTISM

Mushfique Wadud and Khamin reveal the gross irregularities and  
nepotism that revolve around the second-largest NGO in the country,  
Proshika and Qazi Faruque, its controversial chairman

photo by Prito Reza
Abul Kashem Palash, the acting director of Proshika Manobik Unnayan  
Kendra, was arrested by the law enforcement authorities just after  
the declaration of the state of emergency in the country on January  
11, 2007 for being involved in anti-social activities during the pre- 
election violence from October to December 2006 as well as in the  
Awami League leader Abdul Jalil’s infamous ‘trump card’ deadline.

    ‘In fact, we were forcibly involved in these political events,’  
says Palash. ‘Our chairman (Proshika chairman Qazi Faruque Ahmed)  
assigned us to take part in those activities,’ he says. Having been  
released from jail after five months, he requested Faruque not to  
continue with his political activity. ‘“We have come here to make a  
living, not for political activity” I told him,’ recalls Palash. In  
reply, Faruque retorted. ‘Have you lost your ideology!’ asked Faruque  
sir,’ says Palash.

    A father of two sons, Palash, suffered a lot for Faruque’s  
political ambitions. ‘I passed a very bad time during my stay in  
jail,’ he says.

    Asma, an employee of Proshika’s Mohammadpur Development area, is  
another victim of Faruque’s political ambition. She was forced to  
join political activities during the reign of last BNP-led government  
and used for the ‘trump card’ – a planned siege on the then prime  
minister’s office - and other blockades.

    ‘Some of the logis and boithas, used in the political rally, are  
still in my house,’ she claims, alleging that they had received these  
from Proshika authorities. ‘We were threatened to be sacked if we did  
not agree to join the activities,’ she alleges. Proshika employees  
were also forcibly made activists of the political party named  
Oikyabaddha Nagorik Andolan, formed by Faruque, during the period of  
the army-backed interim government, they allege.

    While describing the issues, Asma further describes that during  
Abdul Jalil’s ‘trump card’ incident, Asma forwarded taka five lakhs  
to the head office from the Mohammadpur office, as expenses for this  
political programme, she claims.

    ‘In our audit, this cost was shown as the cost of providing food  
to the dwellers of a burnt slum,’ she alleges. Since it was difficult  
for a woman to continue such political activities, she abandoned the  
job last year after serving in Proshika for around eleven years.

    Palash and Asma are two of the many Proshika employees who were  
forcibly involved in political activities during 2006. As most of  
them allege, Qazi Faruque, chairman of Proshika and his management,  
used employees to further their own political ambitions.

    Ironically, on April 7, the chief executive of Proshika issued a  
circulation with a document in which employees were asked to sign.  
The document included a section which stressed that employees did not  
perform their duties properly and they were involved in  
irregularities causing financial losses to the organisation. They  
were asked to acknowledge the allegations and sign it.

    Employees claim that they could not concentrate on official  
duties as they were being used in political activities. These  
employees also did not receive salaries for the last four to five  
months. Furthermore, the chief executive of the NGO issued a letter  
confirming a 25 per cent cut in the existing salary of employees,  
according to Proshika employees.

    As a result, from April 25, Proshika employees staged  
demonstrations at their head office premises, giving birth to stories  
in national dailies about the 33-year-old non-government organisation.

    On April 29, the employees formed a human chain and a ‘sit in’ at  
the office premises in Mirpur. On May 1, employees also staged a  
country wide demonstration in all the field offices of the NGO. In  
all their demonstrations, the employees voiced the slogan ‘Ak dofah  
ak dabi, Qazi Faruque kobe jabi’ (one point one demand, Qazi Faruque  
when will you go).

    The discord

    While employees are not getting their salaries and allowances due  
to so-called massive financial losses, employees allege that Qazi  
Faruque and his relatives, involved in various important positions of  
the company, are getting hefty and regular salaries.

    ‘Most of Faruque’s family members were appointed by the NGO  
although they were not qualified for the posts,’ says Alauddin, a  
senior accounts coordinator of Proshika. He also informs that  
Faruque’s son, Qazi Rubayet Ahmed is the chief of Proshika Computer  
System, drawing around Tk. 98,000 as his monthly salary though PCS is  
not a profitable organisation.

    Faruque’s brother in law, Meer Habibur Rahman was a physical  
instructor at Jahangirnagar University. Just after he went to leave  
preparatory to retirement (LPR) from JU, he was made a director of  
Proshika for projects where he does not have any expertise. Faruque’s  
wife, Shahana Ahmed works at Proshika Fabrics. A wife of his  
relative, Nargis Jahan Banu, is also a director of the organisation.

    ‘They are all receiving salaries when there is no increase in our  
salaries for the last ten years,’ says Serajul Islam, a director of  
Microfinance and Field Operation at Proshika. He points out that  
there is a huge gap between the salary structure of the organisation  
and other relevant NGOs.

    Financial misappropriation is the order of the day, the employees  
allege. A car (licensed: Dhaka Metro GA14-9419) was bought by PCS.  
Though PCS’s fund was used to buy the car on official documents, the  
car was registered under Rubayet Ahmed’s name, say rebel directors.

    According to an official report of Proshika (one that Xtra  
obtained), prepared by financial coordinator Alamgir Kabir Khan and  
published on June 16, 2008, scholarships were also provided to  
Faruque’s relatives and children. Tk 1, 464,655 was given to Nargis  
Jahan Banu’s son, Qazi Md. Tarique, Tk 9,984,805.74 was given to Qazi  
Faruque’s son Qazi Rubayet Ahmed, Tk 2,654,766 was given to Qazi  
Faruque’s daughter Qazi Zabin Ahmed and Tk 6,882,240.75 was given to  
Faruque’s son Qazi Bouland Mussabbir as a scholarship award from the  
staff welfare fund.

    However, the children of general staff did not receive any amount  
as scholarship or for any academic purposes. ‘My son got A in four  
subjects in his GCE Advanced level examinations. But he did not get  
any scholarship from the staff welfare fund,’ says SM Rokeya, a staff  
of Proshika’s computer department.

    Even during the period of financial crisis, as alleged by  
Proshika management when employees did not get salaries for three to  
four months, Proshika chairman Qazi Faruque continued his political  
ambitions. According to a letter of Proshika - Reference number:  
Proshika/CAFO/2009/14 (one of which Xtra obtained) prepared by  
Proshika CFO Altaf Hossain Talukder, approved by Faruque himself on  
March 22, 2009, the NGO disbursed taka one lakh as a donation to  
writer and columnist, Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury for making a film.

    A receipt was handed to Proshika on the pad of Red Rose Films  
Limited on March 16, 2009 where Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury also signed.  
Xtra also obtained a letter of Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury given to  
Proshika on March 15, 2009 seeking help for making the film. ‘Faruque  
donates to funds with an aim to gain political favours and also to  
hide his corruption,’ says Omar Tareq, a former Proshika official.

    According to organisational policy, ten per cent of each  
employee’s salary is deducted and accumulated in their provident  
fund. However, employees allege that lack of proper information  
regarding their provident fund is leading them to also believe that  
the Proshika chairman is using the provident fund money for his  
personal purposes. Some employees, who retired or resigned from the  
NGO in the last three to four years, are yet to receive their  
provident fund amounts, as alleged by some victims.

    ‘While Faruque claims to be upholding the democratic spirit, his  
organisation’s constitution lacks accountability and democracy,’ says  
Abdur Rob, a director of microfinance and field operation of  
Proshika. He also informs that there is no ‘check and balance’ system  
in its constitution. ‘Without Qazi Faruque, no one can call a meeting  
both in the general and executive body,’ he says. ‘Even the treasurer  
of the NGO cannot work without Faruque’s instructions. He enjoys  
supreme power at the NGO,’ he adds.

    He also informs Xtra that the chief executive of the NGO, Syed  
Giasuddin Ahmed, is an 80-year-old cancer patient. ‘Gias is Faruque’s  
puppet as he does everything as Faruque instructs,’ says Rob.

    However, on May 5, the chief executive issued a letter (one of  
which Xtra obtained) saying ‘I did not agree with all the letters  
issued after April 20, 2009. I signed the letters as Qazi Faruque  
instructed me. I am a victim of Faruque’s autocratic mentality,’ it  
further read.

    News of corruption at Proshika has been making the rounds for a  
few years now. Focusing on all the said irregularities, NGO Affairs  
Bureau (NGOAB) conducted an investigation into Proshika in 2003. The  
report, published on October 30, 2003, pointed out 55 financial  
irregularities of the NGO. Some of these include: around Tk 32,00,000  
paid to Oikyabaddha Nagorik Andolan and Association of Development  
Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB), spending Tk 15,00,960 in the name of  
voter education but mainly using it for political purposes, spending  
Tk 17,66,358 for making posters in favour of a certain political  
party, spending Tk 2,10,000 for observing chairman Qazi Faruque’s  
birthday and providing Tk 1,99,423 to Kamol Kar, an Indian citizen,  
without showing any reason.

    Lust for power

    Despite all the irregularities and crises in the company, Faruque  
was almost always busy in fulfilling his political ambitions. During  
the tenure of the BNP-led alliance, Abdul Jalil, the secretary  
general of the Awami League, declared that on April 30, 2004, he  
would reveal his ‘trump card’, which would result in the downfall of  
the then government. ‘In fact, Proshika’s staffs were the “trump  
card”,’ says Alauddin.

    Proshika officials allege that Faruque planned to gather a good  
number of Proshika people from across the country in the Dhaka city  
to overthrow the-then government.

    Then, during the period of the army-backed interim government,  
Faruque formed a political party named Oikyabaddha Nagorik Andolan.  
‘He forced us to be its members,’ says Serajul, a Proshikha employee.

    The organisation’s staff members, further, believe that they have  
not been getting foreign aid and support from the government only  
because of Faruque’s political involvement. ‘Due to the political  
involvement of the NGO, donor organisations have not been supporting  
it as it did not get the certificate from the Micro credit Regulatory  
Authority. Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation (PKSP) has also stopped  
providing assistance to Proshika. NGO bureau has also shied away from  
providing necessary support,’ says Rob.

    Pressure to stop staff’s movement

    Rob informs that 77 directors, deputy directors, chief programme  
coordinators and central coordinators of Micro credit Savings  
Services (MCSS) were recently transferred as punishment. Ten  
officials and six drivers were also sacked from Proshika. Thirty-four  
officials were given compulsory retirement. Sixty officials were made  
officer on special duty (OSD) for their protest against Faruque’s  
autocratic reign.

    However, when this could not contain the revolt amongst the  
employees, the management took ‘drastic measures’. ‘On April 25,  
Rubayet brought Abir Bahini, a local terrorist group, to stop our  
movement. But since a good number of staff were present in the  
office, Abir bahini could not do any harm to us,’ says Alauddin. He  
also informs Xtra that through different methods, Faruque and his son  
and a handful of officials are trying to create pressure on the staff  
so that they cannot continue their movement.

    ‘Even our mobiles that were given from the office were cut off  
through the mobile operator. My mobile (01713062742) was cut off as I  
attended the movement,’ says Palash. Palash also informs that Faruque  
and his allies have allegedly brought some JMB and Islamic militant- 
style books in the head office so that they can give the unrest a  
political flavour.

    ‘On May 5, they told us that they got such books in the office.  
We suspect they have brought them to link our movement with Islamic  
militants,’ says Palash. ‘We were the activists of Qazi Faruque’s  
political party. When he calls us militants, it indicates that his  
party activists were militants. I would like to say it is no  
militants’ movement but a movement of all Proshika employees,’ he says.

     Their demand

    On May 6, director Abdur Rob announced a three-point demand on  
behalf of the staff of Proshika at a press briefing at Dhaka  
Reporters’ Unity Auditorium. He demanded immediate removal of  
Proshika chairman Qazi Faruque. ‘As he does not have any credibility  
at this moment, a credible person like the vice chairman should be  
appointed as interim chairman of Proshika,’ reads his written statement.

    He also demanded an inquiry committee to investigate Qazi  
Faruque’s corruption, nepotism, and political use of a non political  
organisation. He also requested the government to intervene into the  
Proshika crisis.

    No comments

    Despite repeated attempts from Xtra, Qazi Faruque could not be  
reached.

    ‘My father and high officials of Proshika do not want to talk to  
the media as we think, if we do that, the movement will be considered  
a big issue,’ says Rubayet, Faruque’s son. He adds, ‘we think a  
handful of staff is involved in the movement and Islamic militants  
are providing fuel to the movement.’

    ‘We suspect the unrest is a militants’ plan to do harm to a  
progressive NGO,’ he claims. When asked about Qazi Faruque’s  
nepotism, he says ‘ask director Serajul Islam how many of his  
relatives work in Proshika. In fact many directors’ relatives work in  
Proshika.’

    About the staffs’ allegation that he brought terrorist Abir  
bahini to stop the movement, Rubayet says ‘no terrorist came in the  
office premise. But as some of the staff vandalised the place, some  
of my people came to look after my PCS office.’

    About the staffs’ allegations that he draws Tk 98,000 when  
general staffs do not get their salaries, he says ‘yes, I do draw Tk  
98,000 as my salary. But I deserve it since I did my Masters from the  
USA. A handful of staffs are attending the movement. I believe  
everything will be solved within a very short time,’ he concludes.

    But the employees of Proshika do not agree with him. ‘If our  
demands are not met, we will call all our employees across the  
country to Dhaka to fulfil the demand of Qazi Faruque’s removal,’  
says Serajul Islam, in the press briefing at Dhaka Reporter’s Unity  
Auditorium.

One man’s ambition

o o o

(ii)

HINDU-MUSLIM BHAI BHAI IN A SMALL TOWN IN BANGLADESH
by Delwar Hussain (EPW, May 23 - May 29, 2009)

Following Partition, the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 and later  
the Babri Masjid demolition in India in 1992, the Hindu population in  
Bangladesh has been dwindling, targeted as it is by politicians and  
communalists

http://www.epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/13539.pdf

_____

[6]  India:

Deccan Chronicle, May 28th, 2009

NEED SPINE, NOT MUSCLE, TO FIGHT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

by Antara Dev Sen

It took two years of sustained shaming to get Dr Binayak Sen out on  
bail. The state had been stoutly ignoring the worldwide chorus of  
appeals and angry protests since the doctor and civil rights  
activist’s arrest on flimsy charges back in May 2007.

Now the Supreme Court has finally ordered his release from custody on  
a personal bond, on grounds of ill health. While this is lovely news,  
it is not really a victory of civil rights over state repression. In  
fact, that the state had managed to keep Dr Sen behind bars for so  
long without evidence, ignoring the international outcry and  
unrelenting national protests for two years, shows us what our  
wonderful democracy has been reduced to.

No, I am not being churlish at a moment of jubilation. Just cautious.  
Remember that Dr Binayak Sen is just the most high profile of many  
civil rights activists around India who are being harassed, tortured  
and even killed by government agencies for speaking up against state  
repression. Remember that the horrific terror laws they are held  
under are still firmly in place. Remember that Dr Sen had been  
protesting human rights violations of the tribals in Chhattisgarh by  
a state government keen to label critics Maoists and kill them in  
fake encounters, that he was arrested following his investigations  
into the murder of villagers by the police and state-supported Salwa  
Judum. The vicious Salwa Judum that carries out ethnic cleansing in  
the tribal areas (many say to further corporate agendas in this  
resource-rich belt) and had reportedly clapped almost 50,000 people  
in concentration camp-like conditions. Remember that more than a year  
ago, the Supreme Court had declared that band of vigilantes illegal.

“How can the state give arms to some persons? The state will be  
abetting in a crime if these private persons kill others”, Chief  
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had said. “You will be an abettor of the  
offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”

In short, the Supreme Court had pointed out that the Salwa Judum  
makes the state an accomplice in murder. But Dr Sen was still behind  
bars — partly in solitary confinement — for more than a year after  
that April 2008 judgement. And it was only because of his urgent need  
of medical attention that the court could order bail. So after all  
those marches, fiery speeches, hard-hitting articles, public  
discussions and appeals that many of us have vigorously participated  
in for two years, after all those prestigious international prizes  
and grand awards and worldwide appeals, including one by two-dozen  
Nobel laureates, Dr Binayak Sen got bail on medical grounds. This  
moment of freedom underlined how merely demanding human rights is not  
enough, how we still need fig leaves like heart ailments to bail out  
our heroic activists who are unlawfully incarcerated.

But India is, after all, a well-oiled democracy. Our civil society  
does make a difference. We do have some control over the fate of our  
nation and our fellow citizens, even if the wheels of justice turn  
slowly and we need fig leaves to smuggle in justice. We are still far  
more fortunate than our neighbours in the failed and failing states  
around us. There has been a prolonged dearth of human rights in  
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Tibet and the jewel in the crown,  
Burma.

But the power of civil society is not limited to the democracy it  
lives and breathes in. Its power lies in being able to reach beyond  
local and national boundaries, beyond ethnic, religious and language  
barriers, in being able to come together to demand basic rights for  
unknown people far away simply in the name of humanity and justice.

And just as we need to get our government to stop its own human  
rights abuses, we also need to put pressure on it to be a  
responsible, ethical neighbour that protests human rights abuse  
elsewhere.

Right now, India has an excellent opportunity to help the government  
of Sri Lanka be fair in its rehabilitation and protection of the long- 
suffering Sri Lankan Tamils. It is not just M. Karunanidhi and J.  
Jayalalithaa’s concern, not just a matter of Tamil sentiments and  
vote-bank politics. The plight of the Sri Lankan Tamils is the  
concern of anyone who believes in human rights. And as the world’s  
largest democracy that wishes to be a regional superpower, India must  
rise to the occasion. Yes, our earlier intervention in Sri Lanka was  
a disaster, so we know what not to do this time.

Flexing muscle is not the point, but showing some spine has its  
merits. Take our screaming silence on Burma, even as the junta  
carries on its shameless attempt to jail Aung San Suu Kyi for a  
further five years as her house arrest ends this week. Like our  
earlier silences over Burma’s enormous human rights abuses and  
political wrongs, we have kept politely quiet on this make-believe  
trial to jail the Nobel peace laureate over a curious case of an  
unknown American swimming into her house and thus violating the terms  
of her house arrest just before it was to end.

This seems to be a clear attempt by the Burmese junta to deny Suu Kyi  
freedom yet again, to clap her in jail now to make it easier for the  
generals to win the elections next year. But why go for such  
lugubrious measures to retain power, you may ask, when all they need  
to do is reject the results of the elections? That’s what they did  
when Suu Kyi won with 82 per cent votes in 1990. She has been in and  
out of house arrest for decades, and has been in detention for a  
total of 13 years. Her supporters have been jailed and badly abused,  
hundreds of them killed by the military regime.

Burma, once an integral part of the Indian consciousness, is now a  
lawless jungle that we don’t even think about. Other than occasional  
squeaks, India has not had much of a say in the junta’s atrocious  
affairs.
Today, as Suu Kyi’s trial continues and the world demands her  
release, India looks away. The European Union, the United Nations,  
America and practically every civilised country has spoken up against  
the junta and appealed for her release.

There is further talk of sanctions against Burma and of dragging  
Burma to the UN Security Council. But India, scared of China’s wrath,  
keeps its head down. Hopefully, our civil society will show more  
spine. And we will not have to hang our heads in shame in the world  
out there.

* Antara Dev Sen is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be  
contacted at: sen at littlemag.com

_____

[7] India:

The Guardian,
28 May 2009

THE MYTH OF HINDU TOLERANCE
By presenting Hinduism as a template for tolerance, Nitin Mehta  
glosses over its most divisive element: caste

by Rahila Gupta

There is a profoundly disquieting myth about Hinduism which has been  
put about by its adherents so often and so successfully that it is in  
danger of crystallising into a truth – that of its essentially  
pluralistic and tolerant traditions. Recently this viewpoint was  
repeated in the Face to faith column of this newspaper by Nitin Mehta  
who argued that "There are thousands of sects within Hinduism, and  
violence between them is unknown." This is, at best, disingenuous  
and, at worst, dishonest. He appears to gloss over the troublesome  
fact that caste Hindus have been callous towards their own – the  
Dalits or the "Untouchables" as they were previously known. To argue  
that they are not a sect would be pure semantics.

Nitin Mehta uses a piece of sophistry to suggest the superiority of  
Hinduism particularly vis-à-vis Islam without once mentioning Islam  
by name. He refers to the tolerance of religions that have their  
roots in India namely, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism –  
thereby implicitly damning Islam as a "foreign" imposition and as  
intolerant. Well here are the facts: Islam in India dates back to at  
least the 7th century. A presence of 1400 years is surely long enough  
to put down roots; there were nearly 10,000 cases of recorded crimes  
against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members in 2007 and we  
know that most crimes do not get recorded in India because of a  
corrupt and brutal police force; many Indians are still reeling from  
the massacre of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, one of several over the  
years; and only last year vicious attacks in Orissa left at least 60  
Christians dead. It is little wonder that in the recent elections in  
India, many parties and political candidates defined their agendas in  
opposition to the BJP (Bharatiya Janata party), the political face of  
Hinduism.

Far from being sprinkled with the magic powder of tolerance, all  
those religions that rubbed shoulders with Hinduism picked up its  
divisive caste system. Even South Asian Muslims, despite the emphasis  
on egalitarianism in the Qu'ran, have a caste system. Sikhism, when  
it was founded by Guru Nanak, was an explicit rejection of both  
Hinduism and Islam, especially the caste system. Yet Sikhism is also  
polluted by the strictures of caste, not just in India but the world  
over. Gurdwaras or Sikh temples serving various Sikh castes have been  
flourishing in the UK from the time that Sikhs began settling here.

The recent killing of the Sikh Guru, Sant Ramanand, a Ravidassia  
(Dalit) Sikh in Vienna by higher caste Sikhs is a shocking reminder  
of the strength of these traditions even in small diasporic  
communities in Europe.

The gift of the caste system by Hindus to well over one-fifth of the  
world's population wipes out the beneficial impact of any wisdom in  
its philosophical traditions. Until caste is eradicated, anyone  
trying to claim the mantle of tolerance for Hinduism must be opposed  
and challenged.

o o o