SACW | July 13-14, 2009 / Concerned Tamils / Ecologists on Tipaimukh Dam / B’EAU-PAL Water / Malalai Joya interview / Unions Statement on Terrorism / forced marriage / homophobia
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 21:25:39 CDT 2009
South Asia Citizens Wire | July 13-14, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2644 -
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] Fourth Statement of Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka
[2] Bangladesh Environment Network Resolution on Tipaimukh Dam
[3] Pakistan - India: Voices for Peace
- Joint India-Pakistan Trade Unions’ Statement on Terrorism in
South Asia: A Challenge for Democracy
- For the peace dividend (Beena Sarwar)
[4] India: “B’EAU-PAL” Water Sends Dow Executives Scurrying for Cover
(Press Release from The Yes Men)
[5] India: Damage can still be undone (Kuldip Nayar)
- We lacked a civil society movement to halt the hatred in
Gujarat’ (Melanie P Kumar)
[6] India: Homophobia just cannot have constitutional sanction (A
Surya Prakash)
[7] Bangladesh diaspora in UK: Forced marriage - 'I can't forgive or
forget what they did to me' (Dr Humayra Abedin talks to Nina Lakhani)
[8] Afghanistan: Women’s rights activist Malalai Joya interviewed
(Stephen de Tarczynski)
_____
[1] Sri Lanka:
The Island, 12 July 2009
FOURTH STATEMENT OF CONCERNED TAMILS OF SRI LANKA
Why do we sign as ‘Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka’? It is not for lack
of endorsement by very many non-Tamil Sri Lankans of every clause of
each of our statements. Elsewhere, Tamil voices are heard loud and
clear on our problems, but within our island, independent Tamil
voices have been progressively stilled. In this crisis situation, we
have a right and a duty to express our concerns collectively as
Tamils of Sri Lanka. It will not do for the Tamil Diaspora or for
Tamil politicians to be the sole spokespersons for the Tamils of Sri
Lanka. Independent Tamil voices need to be heard.
The question has also been asked as to why we waited until the LTTE
was on the verge of collapse before raising our concerns. Firstly, we
were not previously aware of the scale of the tragedy – that the
population trapped in the shrinking sliver of land held by the LTTE
was several times higher than reported by our media and that the
casualty rate among that population was very high and continuing to
rise. As soon as were alerted of the facts by the ICRC and the UN
agencies, some of us got together to prepare our first statement. The
focus of that statement was on urgent relief for trapped and injured
civilians and on negotiating an end to the war, thus freeing all
civilians. Our fears were set out in that first statement: ‘the
manner in which the final phase is worked out and the terms on which
it is brought to a close are critical to the future of ethnic
relations in Sri Lanka’.
We have already, as concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka, called for a
reversal of all ethnic cleansing over the decades, of Tamils and non-
Tamils alike. We now go on to assert that the future of the
overwhelming majority of the 280,000 IDPs as well as over 3 million
Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka lies within the borders of this island.
While we very much welcome the concerns shown and assistance
forthcoming from overseas, we need to negotiate our future and to
preserve our ethnic identity within Sri Lanka. We have been sharing
this island from time immemorial and are committed to continuing to
do so as citizens with individual and collective rights, not second
to those of any other ethnicity.
Our immediate focus is primarily on 280,000 IDPs interned in camps
and hospitals, mostly in the Vanni districts. These citizens are war
victims not war criminals, and entitled to all the rights of all
citizens. They need to be compensated for the injuries and losses
they have suffered. Instead, they have been treated as suspected war
criminals, interned and denied some of their most fundamental human
rights: freedom of communication, freedom of association, freedom of
movement and the right to get back as a family unit to their own
homesteads. Families have not only lost their loved ones in the
course of the war but even those remaining are often separated. And
yet others have been and are being taken away without the due
processes of law. There is urgent need for transparency in compiling
and maintaining records of IDPs and of those taken away under arrest
or for questioning. Further, why is it that those who have already
been screened and against whom there are no charges continue in
detention? Security can never be achieved by unlawful and unjust
practices that alienate people.
There are numerous reports on disappearances and other human rights
violations in the camps. It is not possible for us to set out a
verified comprehensive report on the subject because many barriers to
accessing information are yet in place. What is clear is that the
crisis that has recently sullied the reputation of our country and is
continuing to do so is incomparably worse than at any time in our
history. The consequences of disappearances and of suspected
vigilante activity, whether by state agencies or by the LTTE or by
any other group, may continue to haunt the families of the victims
unless there is an effective Truth Commission leading, on the part of
(or on behalf of) those responsible, to an acknowledgement of their
complicity in those crimes. This has been the experience in many
countries across the globe.
One of us has vivid memories of Chairing a Committee on
Disappearances in the Jaffna Region appointed by the Human Rights
Commission in the period 1990-1998. The following extract from the
conclusion of that report is pertinent to our concerns and
recommendations set out above: "In addition to socio-economic
degradation, the population has sustained physical, mental and
psychological damage over the years on account of the disappearances
and experiences since then. Many in the population require
counselling, training for employment and job opportunities. In most
cases, these are not alternatives but are closely inter-connected.
Even those who are potentially productive in terms of skills and
experience, appeared to be depressed, dispirited and unable to earn a
living on account of their extended and continuing trauma…. There can
be no enduring and comprehensive reconstruction, physical or social,
economic or political, local or national, without reconciliation; and
there can be no true reconciliation without all sections of the
population collectively examining, diagnosing and working out
remedies to eliminate the cancer that has eaten into our society.
"This exercise could be led by a post-conflict Truth and
Reconciliation Commission established with an appropriate mandate.
Such a process could be time-bound but its prescription could include
the institution of commemorative processes and memorials to address
the causes and consequences, and to prevent the recurrence of those
ills…. (These) need to be addressed on an all-island basis with a
view to healing and reconciliation, without prejudice to any steps
that may be taken to secure justice. There should be no blanket
amnesty. Rather, a balance needs to be struck between what Archbishop
Tutu, in his Foreword to the South African Truth Commission, referred
to as ‘retributive and punitive justice’ and ‘restorative justice
which is concerned not so much with punishment as with correcting
imbalances, restoring broken relationships, healing, harmony and with
reconciliation.’"
Dr. Devanesan Nesiah, Prof. Karthigesu Sivathamby, Mr.Sivathasan S,
Mr.Thangharajah Biriyantha, Mr.Chinniah S, Prof. Ganesan S,
Dr.Ganeswaran K,Ms.KirupaHoole, Dr.Rajan Hoole, Prof.Ratnajeevan
Hoole, Ms.Leela Isaac, Dr.Jayasingam T, Mr.Jeyaraj D.B.S,
Mr.Kanagasabai C, Dr.Kandasamy P, Dr.Kasynathan S.V, Ms.Bhawani
Loganathan , Mr.Malavarayar S, Dr.Nachinarkinian C.S, Dr.Nanthikesan
S, Mr.Rudra Navaratnarajah, Dr.Anita Nesiah, Mr.Lanka Nesiah,
Dr.Vasuki Nesiah, Dr.Pathmanathan P, Mr.Ponnambalam V, Mr.Ratnam A,
Dr.Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Mr.Saravanapavan E, Dr.Muttukrishna
Sarvanandan Mr.,Shanmugalingam K, Mr.Shanmugasamy A, Mr.Nagendra
Subramaniam, Mr.Thambar J.V,
Mr.Visakaperumal ,Rehambaramivegananthan, Mr.Visakaperumal
_____
[2] Bangladesh:
12 July 2009
Bangladesh Environment Network
BEN RESOLUTION ON TIPAIMUKH DAM
(draft)
Observations and Analysis
In view of the fact that
1. Tipaimukh Dam is not an isolated project; it is part of a
comprehensive Indian plan of using rivers that flow from India into
Bangladesh, and hence needs to be viewed in the broader context of
sharing of international rivers by these two countries;
2. In general India has been using its upper riparian position and
its economic and financial strength to take unilateral steps with
regard to the flow of these international rivers;
3. Most of these unilateral steps have been of diversionary
character, diverting the water flow to destinations inside India and
thus reducing the flow of water into the rivers of Bangladesh.
Glaring example of such diversionary interventions are the Farakka
Barrage on the Ganges and the Gozaldoba Barrage on the Teesta. The
Farakka diversion has drastically reduced the flow of Padma, drying
up south-western Bangladesh. The Gozaldoba barrage on the other hand
has drastically reduced the flow of Teesta in Bangladesh; India has
undertaken numerous other diversionary and flow-controlling
structures on most of the 54 common rivers flowing from India into
Bangladesh.
4. These diversionary projects of India go against the international
norms regarding sharing of international rivers. In particular, they
violate Bangladesh’s right to prior and customary use of river water.
The entire economy and life in Bangladesh have evolved on the basis
of rivers. Any major change in the volume and direction of flow of
these rivers seriously disrupt the economy and livelihood in
Bangladesh; Furthermore, river intervention structures affect the
flow of not only water but also of sediment, which are vital for the
long-run sustainability of the deltaic Bangladesh, in particular in
face of the threat of submergence by rising sea level caused by
global warming;
5. There is a pent up emotion among Bangladesh people against India’s
unilateral river intervention projects. They perceive Farakka as
unjust. Similarly, they perceive Gozaldoba and other barrages as
unfair toBangladesh and as proof of India’s hubris. These unilateral
river intervention projects are a thorn in Bangladesh-India bilateral
relationship, which should be not only good neighborly and mutually
beneficial, but also warm and friendly given India’s crucial help in
Bangladesh’s Liberation War;
6. After many years of hiatus, Bangladesh and India signed the Ganges
Water Treaty in 1996 specifying the sharing of the Ganges water at
Farakka. Though Article IX of this Treaty enjoins India not to
undertake unilateral projects intervening rivers shared with
Bangladesh, in practice India has not shown much respect to this
provision of the Treaty. Instead, it has proceeded with many
intervention projects, on a more or less unilateral basis.
7. The Tipaimukh project is one such example of unilateral
intervention aimed at construction of a dam on the Barak river that
flows into Bangladesh from India. India went all the way to floating
international tender inviting bids for construction of the project
without even sharing the DPR (Detailed Project Report) with
Bangladesh. Only in May 2009, when the news of construction of
Tipaimukh dam has generated considerable civic protest in Bangladesh,
the Government of India (GoI) has apparently sent to the Bangladesh
foreign ministry some information about the Tipaimukh project;
8. The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) is yet to make public the
information on Tipai that it has received from India;
9. The GoB has proved to be ineffective in dealing with India with
regard to the Tipaimukh project, as is the case with sharing of
rivers in general. The GoB did not take up the Tipaimukh issue with
India in a serious and timely manner. In particular, the political
parties who are in opposition now did not play their expected role
when they were in power during 2001-2006, when India moved Tipaimukh
project from conception to implementation stage;
10. The current GoB has decided to send a delegation of Bangladesh
Parliament on a fact-finding mission to Tipaimukh project site, and
the Prime Minister has stated that GoB would express its opinion on
the Tipaimukh project after studying the report of that delegation.
11. Unfortunately various Bangladesh ministers are expressing
opinions that contradict Bangladesh’s official position as expressed
by the Prime Minister, and are thus creating confusion;
12. There is the possibility that the Tipaimukh dam with its
reservoir can be helpful in stabilizing the Barak flow across
seasons, as has been pointed out by some water experts and reflected
in some of the ministers’ statements. However there are many reasons
why the suggested across-season flow-stabilization many not hold true
and may not be beneficial for Bangladesh.
First, Bangladesh does not yet have the necessary facts to assess the
changes in Barak flow that the Tipaimukh dam will bring about;
Second, dams can also be a source of destabilization of river flow,
not only in the extreme situation of dam break, but in the often
recurring situation when the excess water needs to be released in
order to protect the dam from overflow. Such unplanned releases lead
to unseasonal floods or floods of unusual depth and extent. For
example, the unusual 2008 floods in Bihar were caused by unexpected
release of water by the dams that India has constructed on the Ganges
tributaries near the border with Nepal;
Third, for Bangladesh to benefit from stabilization of the Barak
flow, it has to have a say or some control over the release of water
at the Tipaimukh dam. This would suggest that Tipaimukh dam should be
put under joint control of India and Bangladesh. As of now, Tipaimukh
dam will be entirely under the Indian control, and the water release
decisions will be made by India alone, putting Bangladesh at the
mercy of the Indians operating the Tipaimukh dam. Such a helpless
situation is not in Bangladesh’s interests;
Fourth, river flow contains not only water, but also sediments, which
are very important for the deltaic Bangladesh. One important impact
of the Tipaimukh dam will be reduced sediment volume of the Barak
flow reaching Bangladesh, with detrimental effects on Bangladesh;
Fifth, Bangladesh has to assess the costs and benefits for her
economy of the seasonal changes in the Barak flow that the Tipaimukh
dam will bring about. For example, current Boro is the main crop for
many in the Surma-Kushiara basin, cultivated in the haors andother
low lying areas that become dry due to low winter flows of the
rivers. If now the winter flows increase due to the Tipaimukh dam,
cultivation of Boro may become impossible in many areas, disrupting
the economy and livelihood. Without detailed studies to determine
whether these losses will be offset by gains in other respects, it is
difficult to say whether the net benefit of the across-season
stabilization of the Barak flow will be positive for Bangladesh;
Sixth, apart from economy there is the issue of ecology to consider.
The flora and fauna of the Surma-Kushiara-Meghna basin have developed
on the basis of a certain river flow seasonal pattern, which is going
to be affected markedly by the Tipaimukh dam. Detailed studies are
necessary to gauge the environmental and ecological impact of the
Tipaimukh dam;
13. The Tipaimukh dam project cannot be separated from the other
project in the offing, in particular the Fulertal barrage project,
meant to divert Barak water for irrigation to the Kachar district of
Assam. As of now, with a price tag of $1.8 billion, the Tipaimukh
project uneconomical, because per unit cost of electricity, even
assuming the advertised production of 1500 MW, will be too high. The
cost irrationality of the Tipaimukh dam can be justified only if it
is viewed jointly with water diversionary projects at Fulertal or
some other point on Barak allowing benefits from irrigation to be
counted against the Tipaimukh costs. However, combined with such
diversionary projects, the Tipaimukh dam is completely unacceptable
to Bangladesh. In such combination, the Tipaimukh-Fulertal duo will
be a repetition of Farakka for Bangladesh, now only on the eastern
side her.
14. The worldwide experience shows that large scale interventions in
the volume and direction of river flows do not prove to be that
beneficial in the long run. The hydro power generated often proves to
be meager and costly. The irrigation carried out on the basis of
diverted water often proves wasteful and leads to salinity and
deterioration of the soil quality. Meanwhile, the reservoir submerges
huge amount of land, destroying the ecology and displacing thousands
of (often most vulnerable, indigenous) people, destroying their
culture, causing permanent problems of alienation and insurgency. The
reservoir also becomes a source of methane, undercutting the emission
reducing potentiality of hydro-power generated. The reservoir and the
upstream flow often becomes a cesspool of pollution. The diversionary
projects end up harming not only the basin from which water is
withdrawn but also the basin or area to which water is directed and
transported (at a great
cost). The experiences of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers are
prominent examples of such negative consequences. Dams also destroy
the natural rhythm of the river flow, obstruct the free movement fish
stock, and obstruct the sediment flow. Finally while many of the
damages prove to the permanent, the dams themselves expire their
lifetime, becoming obsolete due to sedimentation and filling up of
the reservoir, etc. In view of the negative consequences BEN is
generally skeptical about dams, barrages and other large-scale river
intervention projects. BEN is therefore skeptical that the Tipaimukh
dam will be beneficial in the long run in net terms even for India.
15. It is therefore not surprising that many in India are opposed to
the Tipaimukh dam. Protests from local, indigenous people and the
state governments of Manipur and Mizoram did hold up the project for
a long time. It is true that by providing various monetary benefits
and by offering free electricity, etc., the North East Electricity
Production Company (NEEPCO), the current Tipaimukh implementing
agency, has been able to pacify the state governments. However, many
in India, particularly the indigenous people of the area, continue to
oppose Tipaimukh dam project precisely because of the many reasons
cited above;
16. Worldwide there is now disenchantment with the Commercial
Approach to river that suggested that any flow of river water to the
sea is a waste, so that all of it should be used up. The approach led
to degradation of rivers and increased conflict and animosity among
countries of the river basin. In view of the experience there is now
a move towards the Ecological Approach that recommends preservation
of the natural volume and direction of river flow and helps to foster
friendly neighborly relationship among the countries of the river
basin. Instead of being a source of discord, as is the case under the
Commercial Approach, rivers under the Ecological Apporach become a
bond of friendship and good neighborliness.
17. World wide there is also move away from the unilateral approach
toward multilateral, basin wide approach that includes all countries
of a river basin in decision making regarding the use of the river.
Recommendations and Demands
In view of the above, BEN
1. Demands that India halts proceeding with the Tipaimukh project any
further and engages in serious, sincere discussion with Bangladesh
about the fate of this and all other projects of intervention in the
shared international rivers;
2. Demands that India agrees to abandon its current unilateral
approach and adopts a multilateral, basin-wide integrated water
resources management approach to rivers of the region;
3. Demands that India agrees to adopt the multilateral approach with
regard to the Tipaimukh dam project;
4. Demands that India should under no circumstances undertake water
diversionary project (such as at Fulertal or at other points) on the
Barak river;
5. Demands that India should under no circumstance undertake water
diversionary projects on rivers shared by Bangladesh either directly
or through tributaries and distributaries;
6. Urges Bangladesh, India, and all countries of the sub-continent to
abandon the current Commercial Approach to rivers and to adopt the
Ecological Approach;
7. Demands that GoB immediately makes public the information that it
has received on the Tipaimukh dam project from India so all
interested parties and scholars can conduct necessary analysis on the
basis of the information;
8. Urges that GoB sponsors independent research by Bangladeshi
experts on the possible impact of the Tipaimukh dam on Bangladesh
economy and ecology;
9. Urges all political parties of Bangladesh to adopt a non-partisan
approach to the Tipaimukh issue (and issues of water sharing with
India in general) and cooperate to develop a united national position
with regard to Tipaimukh and to dealing with India on this issue;
10. Urges all parties to lend cooperation to the government, to the
extent that it sincerely tries to find a solution with India
regarding Tipaimukh, defending Bangladesh’s national interests and
legitimate rights;
11. Urges all political parties represented in the Parliament to join
the proposed all-party delegation of Bangladesh Parliament to visit
Tipaimukh dam site to find out the facts and prepare a report on the
basis of the findings;
12. Urges all citizens of Bangladesh to build a strong civic movement
to save the rivers of the country;
13. Urges formation of a region-wide (including India, Bangladesh,
Nepal, China, and Bhutan) civic movement for protection of rivers and
for promotion of the Ecological Approach to rivers in place of the
Commercial Approach to rivers.
14. Urges all concerned in Bangladesh, including political parties,
civil society organizations, NGOs, think tanks, media, mass
organizations, local peoples’ organizations, non-resident
Bangladeshis, etc. to come together, leaving aside narrow partisan
and sectarian interests, and develop and rally behind a united
national position regarding Tipaimukh dam and other river sharing
issues. Bangladesh needs national unity in order to defend its rivers.
_____
[3] Pakistan - India:
http://www.sacw.net/article1009.html
JOINT INDIA-PAKISTAN TRADE UNIONS’ STATEMENT ON TERRORISM IN SOUTH
ASIA: A CHALLENGE FOR DEMOCRACY
6 July 2009
India and Pakistan have witnessed many attacks of terrorism and have
taken them all in their stride. The most recent attack in Mumbai on
26th November 2008 and in Lahore on 3rd March, 2009 has shaken the
subcontinent and the world.
We condemn terrorism in all its manifestations.
It is understandable that people become furious and outraged in face
of such acts. They have the right to be so when such attacks
terrorise and kill innocent citizens who are not accountable for the
acts of the state. There is a growing expressing of anger and horror
by people over such incidents in many different ways. But, it is to
the credit of the people of India and Pakistan, that they have not
been provoked and drawn into sectarianism, national chauvinism or war
mongering. We welcome this spirit of the people of India and
Pakistan. We also believe that time is right for democratic debate
on the nature of terrorism and the context of its emergence, in the
region, which all progressive forces should engage in, with a sense
of historical responsibility.
We believe that this context of rising terrorism is being used by the
ruling elite to shift public opinion towards an internal security
doctrine that is undemocratic, chauvinistic and anti-people. They are
redefining internal governing structures to suit the new internal
security doctrine and integrating it into U.S. sponsored ‘global war
against terror’.
Working people of India and Pakistan must unite to fight terrorism.
We express our indignation on the growing dependence on US agencies
to exchange information and intelligence, and for backhand diplomacy,
between the two countries. This undermines sovereignty of each
country and allows the US to influence, prevail and intervene in our
mutual relationship.
We believe that both governments are reluctantly coming to realise
that the best policy to deal with cross-border terrorism, is
cooperation. These are positive approaches in these difficult times.
Any mature response to the situation has to respect the sovereignty
of the states of India and Pakistan and develop credible and
cooperative mechanisms to deal with non-state actors. But, there are
strong forces in each of our countries that are opposed to this policy.
We call upon the governments of India and Pakistan to overcome mutual
suspicions and build mutual trust by:
1. Exchange of information and intelligence without any
misgivings and reservation
2. Providing access for interrogation of arrested persons
3. Ensure legal rights and assistance to the arrested persons in
accordance with international human right standards
South Asia out of the U.S. Area of Influence
The partition of Indian sub-continent had never really settled down
to mutual co-existence, let alone to cooperation and a peaceful
relationship. The unresolved Kashmir dispute has remained a festering
wound in preventing any peace initiatives. The U.S. intervention in
the subcontinent, particularly its support for military regimes and
use of extremist groups as per political exigencies has weakened the
democratisation of societies and peaceful coexistence and development
in the region
The emergence of terrorism in sub- continent has to be viewed in the
context of international politics, wherein U.S. imperialism has been
both using religious extremism for its military policy, and now,
demonising the people of Islamic faith into a global enemy, in order
to oppress and control Muslim nations and their oil wealth.
Imperialism can opt for such policy because of the still surviving
domestic ground of landlordism, and in general medievalism This has
led to formation of non-state actors fighting a global war of
terrorism against U.S. imperialism and its allies. As in all war, it
has resulted in major collateral damages and immense killing of
innocent people who are not accountable for the acts of their States.
Both, terrorism and the response of the state have always led to
undermining of democracy. Historical experience has shown that the
cycle of terrorism and state terrorism never eliminates terrorism. In
fact, it is the people’s movement that can cut this nexus through a
struggle for democratisation, equality and equity for all. In
building this movement, the working class across borders have to play
crucial role. The millions strong Trade Unions in both countries have
to coordinate and converge to fulfil this historic responsibility.
No war between India and Pakistan
The people of India and Pakistan are witnessing the militarisation of
state and society. The dominance of militarist thinking in the two
governments: the doctrine of preventive intervention and terrorism as
a State policy has prevented the strengthening of the fraternity of
the people, consolidation of the political constituency for peaceful
resolution of conflict and build a common identity for South Asian
people.
The reduction of tensions between India and Pakistan means the
reduction of defence budgets in both countries. This will have a
major and meaningful impact on the well being of each country’s
citizens. We demand:
• Reduce the influence and control of the military and make it
accountable and subordinate to the elected governments.
• Stop militarising society by developing the doctrine of
internal security, as extensions of war concepts into society, and
creating armed forces for internal war.
Terrorism Weakens the Unity of the People of the sub-continent and
the Struggle against Imperialism
We therefore call upon the people of India, Pakistan and South Asia
to deepen the process of democracy, contend ideologically and
politically with all forms of regressive and chauvinistic viewpoints
and ideologies, and build a secular framework for peaceful co-existence.
We believe that terrorism finds fertile ground when society and state
demonises, deprives and oppresses a large section of people and can
be addressed by:
• Creating a democratic ground where even extreme ideologies
are compelled to defend their views, policies, and action in open
public space and thereby limiting the politics of terrorism;
• Isolating extremism within society by defeating their views
through an ideological and political battle within a democratic
framework of nation building process.
We understand that the present situation demands a protracted,
flexible and sensitive approach to deal with terrorism, which finds
its justification in primordial loyalties and ideologies, like
religion which has a wider social resonance. We respect and
appreciate that, in the last decade, in India, Pakistan and abroad,
many theologians, institutions and ordinary religious people have
campaigned against terrorism and joined forces to build a tolerant
and peaceful society
Fight against terrorism! Defend and deepen a tolerant, secular and
democratic society in India and Pakistan!
1. Nabi Ahmed, Senior Vice-President, Muttahida Labour
Federation Pakistan;
2. Mohammad Hanif Jhangiri President, Pakistan Workers’
Federation, Balochistan;
3. Abdul Salaam, Chairman, Pakistan Workers’ Federation
Balochistan;
4. Jaffar Khan, Deputy General Secretary, Muttahida Labour
Federation Pakistan;
5. Sajjad Hussain, General Secretary, Allied Bank Staff Union of
Pakistan;
6. Anwar Habib President, Allied Bank Staff Union of Pakistan;
7. Manzoor, General Secretary, Muttahida Labour Federation,
Balochistan;
8. Shaukat Ali Chaudhury, Vice-President Railway Workers’ Union
Collective Bargaining Authority Workshops, Pakistan;
9. Fazal-e-Wahid, General Secretary, Railway Workers’ Union
Collective Bargaining Authority Workshops, Pakistan, and President
All Pakistan Trade Union Federation;
10. Ashiq Jhangiri Deputy General Secretary, Railway and
Workers’ Union Collective Bargaining Authority Workshops’ Pakistan;
11. Chaudhury Ashiq Ali, President, Railway Workers’ Union Open
Line, Pakistan;
12. Gulzar Ahmed Chaudhury, General Secretary, All Pakistan Trade
Union Federation, Pakistan;
13. Rubina Jamil, President, Working Women Organisation, Pakistan.
14. Ashim Roy, General Secretary, New Trade Union Initiative
15. Anuradha Talwar, President, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samiti, India
16. Swapan Ganguly, Agricultural Workers Alliance
17. D. Thankappan, President, Kamani Employees Union, India
18. Ashok Chowdhury, National Forum of Forest People and Forest
Workers, India
19. V. B. Cherian, President, Cochin Shipyard Employees Union
20. Chandrashekhar, CTU Punjab & Chandigarh General Workers Union
21. Guatam Mody, Working People Trade Union Council, India
22. Mohan Kothekar, Vidharbha Heavy Vehicle & Truck Chalak Sangathan
23. Sujata Mody, Penn Thozilalargal Sangam
24. D.C. Gohain, Jharkhand Krantikaari Mazdoor Union
25. Milind Ranade, Kachra Vahatuk Shramik Sangathan
26. M. A. Patil, Maharashtra Anganwadi Karamchari Sangh
27. M. A. Parray, Jammu & Kashmir Trade Union Council
28. Mohd. Shafi Khan, All Jammu & Kashmir Trade Union Centre
29. Nisar Ali Mir, All Jammu & Kashmir Trade Union Centre
30. M. Subbu, Tamil Maanila Kattida Thozilalar Sangham
31. N. Vasudevan, Blue Star Workers Union
32. K. P. Vishwavalsalan, Kerala Samsthana Kasuandi Thozhilai Union
33. P.T. John, Plantation Working Class Union
34. Chandan Sanyal, All West Bengal Sales Representatives Union
35. Sailen Bhattacharya, ECL & ICML Shramik Union
36. S. P. Vansadia, Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat
37. Himanshu Banker, Gramin Mazdoor Sabha
38. Rohit Prajapati, Jyoti Karamchari Mazdoor Union
39. Bhagmal Rana, Federation of Union Territory Chandigarh
Employees and Workers
o o o
The Hindu
14 July 2009
FOR THE PEACE DIVIDEND
by Beena Sarwar
Initiatives for bilateral contact at the popular level should go a
long way in correcting the India-Pakistan dissonance.
— PHOTOS: RAJEEV BHATT, AFP
HIGH STAKES: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
The upcoming meetings between the Prime Ministers and Foreign
Secretaries of Pakistan and India on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned
summit in Egypt on July 14 and 15, again raise hopes for a revival of
the composite dialogue process, suspended since the November 26, 2008
attacks in Mumbai. India accuses Pakistan of not doing enough to
contain terrorism. In turn, Pakistan accuses India of not cooperating
in terms of sharing evidence and translations.
The Mumbai attacks came barely four days after President Asif Ali
Zardari’s ground-breaking address to the Hindustan Times Leadership
Summit, via satellite link from Islamabad, on November 22. Mr.
Zardari, Pakistan’s first head of state to promise a “no-first-
nuclear-strike” policy against India, talked of a common South Asian
economic bloc, even a passport-free “flexible Indo-Pakistan visa
regime.”
It is an all-too-familiar pattern — goodwill gestures followed by
incidents of violence that are used to set back the peace process
(the bus yatra-Kargil; talks-the Samjhauta Express blast; peace
overtures-Mumbai). Who benefits from these? It is certainly not the
ordinary people but the right-wing, the security apparatus, the
military establishments and the arms lobbies on both sides.
Those who critique the push for peace as an obsession of the “liberal
elite” and the “Punjabi lobby” ignore the sentiments at the
grassroots level: while being aware of the problems, people on both
sides are keen to live in peace as neighbours. This is what surfaces
during interactions with “ordinary people” across the ethnic and
economic divide — as the Indian delegates found out when they met
with fishermen’s families, workers and community-based organisations
in the low-income localities of Karachi, Hyderabad and Lahore.
At a seminar in Karachi recently to honour Nirmala Deshpande
(‘Didi’), the peace activist who passed away in May 2008, most
members of the audience were poor women from far-flung localities
brought over by community-based workers. Prominent writers, political
leaders and activists who addressed the seminar included three Indian
delegates (the visas of the other two were “pending for clearance”).
Mumtaz, a young Pushtun mother distracted by a six-year old and a
suckling toddler, said her husband was a daily-wage-earner who was at
work that day. To be honest, she said she had hoped to get something
out of the seminar, like food (which was served at the end). She had
completed the eighth grade at school, and it showed in her bright
eyes. She had attended one such event in the past. What did she think
of the event? “I don’t understand everything they are saying, but I
do understand that they want peace between India and Pakistan,” she
replied. “We should live in peace with our neighbours. Maybe then our
lot will improve. We all want that.”
Jaipur-based Kavita Srivastava of the People’s Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL) had come with a concrete agenda: to get information
about five Indian prisoners incarcerated in Pakistani prisons since
1991.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
“Only two are in touch with their families, we don’t even know if the
other three are alive,” she said. “When they heard that I got my
visa, their families walked for a whole day to meet me. With tears in
their eyes they begged me to bring any information I could.”
Ms Kavita spent an evening in the Ranchore Lines with some women
belonging to the Silawat community, Rajasthanis with families on both
sides of the border. Shakeel Silawat of the Youth Progressive Council
who helped organise the meeting, says such visits are important to
increase mutual contacts. “After all, we are one region. We should be
able to meet.”
I remember an engineering student I interviewed in 1995 for Outlook’s
launch issue. He hated India’s Kashmir policy and would not wear
India-made jeans — but believed that India and Pakistan should
cooperate economically even while maintaining separate identities.
A student from Kolkata who had visited Lahore with the Nirmala
Deshpande-led women’s peace bus in 2000 following the Kargil conflict
had no Partition baggage or ties with Pakistan. Yet she was overcome
with emotion upon arriving in Pakistan. She befriended an engineering
student who was volunteering with the group “out of
curiosity” (having never met an Indian but hated India and Indians).
He told me that, despite disagreeing with official policies “now at
least we can talk about our disagreements.” Young Pakistanis and
Indians wept as they said goodbye three days later.
I am reminded of these encounters by Ashutosh Varshney’s essay
‘Founding Myths’ (in The Great Divide, HarperCollins, 2009) in which
he suggests that India-Pakistan rivalry be re-imagined “as a
thoroughgoing competition, not as a do-or-die conflict.”
The essay further said: “A distinction needs to be drawn between two
terms: adversaries and enemies. Adversaries can be respected, even
admired; enemies are killed. India and Pakistan must cease to be
enemies; they need to become adversaries competing vigorously to
become better than the other.”
The stakes are high for both the nuclear-armed neighbours riddled by
internal insurgencies and ‘religious’ militancy, endemic poverty and
high military budgets that directly and negatively impact development.
Mr. Zardari’s talk of a South Asian bloc and easing of visa
restrictions did not emerge from a vacuum — peace activists have been
presenting such out-of-the-box ideas for years. The visiting Indians
added more to the previous talk, like twinning press clubs and even
granting dual nationality to Indians and Pakistanis (“believe me,
many would take it,” asserted award-winning social activist Sandeep
Pandey from Lucknow).
These ideas may be ahead of their time — but then, so was the
Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy notion, first
articulated in 1994, that Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute
between Pakistan and India but a matter of the lives and aspirations
of the Kashmiri people, who must be included in any dialogue about
their future. This formulation has now permeated the political
discourse.
When Mr. Pandey and others participated in a peace march in 2005 from
Delhi to Multan, villagers along the way enthusiastically welcomed
them (though the urban-based media largely ignored this “rural”
activity) and endorsed their demands. One, resolve all problems
through dialogue; two, de-weaponise and remove the armies from the
borders; three, end the visa restrictions.
“One cyclist stopped and said, ‘Make the third demand your first
[one]. Once that happens, the rest will sort [themselves] out’,”
recalls Mr. Pandey.
The Indian delegates have now left with a renewed sense of the
urgency that Pakistanis feel about the need for peace with India.
They also realise the need to go against the tide back home and push
the Indian government to go beyond pressuring the Pakistani
government to “take action.”
There may be no immediate results to any of these initiatives. But
the very fact that the governments allow them to take place, by
itself speaks for the realisation of the need to at least maintain
such contacts. And in the long run, they create pressure for peace
from below — something for the political and bureaucratic
establishments to bear in mind when they next meet.
(Beena Sarwar is a freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker
based in Karachi: www.beenasarwar.wordpress. com)
_____
[4] India:
July 13, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“B’EAU-PAL” WATER SCARES DOW EXECS INTO HIDING
Plans to contribute to climate action in lead-up to Copenhagen begin
to take shape
Photos: http://www.theyesmen.org/blog/dow-runs-scared-from-water
London - A new, beautifully-designed line of bottled water - this
time not from the melting Alps, nor from faraway, clean-water-
deprived Fiji, but rather from the contaminated ground near the site
of the 1984 Bhopal catastrophe - scared Dow Chemical’s London
management team into hiding today.
Twenty Bhopal activists, including Sathyu Sarangi of the Sambhavna
Clinic in Bhopal, showed up at Dow headquarters near London to find
that the entire building had been vacated.
Had they not fled, Dow employees could have read on the bottles’
elegant labels:
B’eau-Pal: Our Story
The unique qualities of our water come from 25 years of slow-leaching
toxins at the site of the world’s largest industrial accident. To
this day, Dow Chemical (who bought Union Carbide) has refused to
clean up, and whole new generations have been poisoned. For more
information, please visit http://www.bhopal.org.
The launch of “B’eau-Pal” water came as Bhopal prepares to mark the
25th anniversary of the Bhopal catastrophe, and coincides with the
release of an official report by the Sambhavna Trust showing that
local groundwater, vegetables, and breast milk are contaminated by
toxic quantities of nickel, chromium, mercury, lead, and volatile
organic compounds. The report describes how a majority of children in
one nearby community are born with serious medical problems traceable
to the contamination.
The attractive yet toxic product, developed by the Bhopal Medical
Appeal and the Yes Men with pro-bono help from top London creative
design firm Kennedy Monk, highlights Dow’s continued refusal to take
responsibility for the disaster. (Five years ago, the Yes Men
impersonated Dow Chemical live on BBC World Television and announced
that after 20 years, the company was finally going to clean up its
mess in Bhopal. That hoax, which temporarily knocked two billion
dollars off Dow’s share price, is featured in the Yes Men’s new
movie, The Yes Men Fix The World, which opens in UK cinemas on August
11.)
Though Dow has consistently refused to clean up the mess in Bhopal,
they have taken numerous steps to clean up their image. In a recent
press release, for example, Andrew Liveris, Dow’s Chairman and CEO,
noted that “lack of clean water is the single largest cause of
disease in the world and more than 4,500 children die each day
because of it.” He went on to assert that “Dow is committed to
creating safer, more sustainable water supplies for communities
around the world.”
The Yes Men met Liveris’ attempt to greenwash Dow’s environmental
record with a challenge.
“Since Liveris earns $16,182,544 per year, he could give each of the
children who die worldwide for lack of clean water $10 per day to buy
Evian, Fiji Water, or Perrier,” said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men.
“Or, for vastly less money, he could build them clean-water
pipelines, like the ones that Bhopal so badly needs.”
Dow’s greenwashing comes while Bhopal is experiencing an extremely
rare drought (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/12/india-water-
supply-bhopal), just three years after facing its greatest floods
ever. “Even though people are already dying by the hundreds of
thousands, and we know that climate change will kill many more,
companies like Dow are not being forced to cut back on emissions,”
said the Sambhavna Clinic’s Sathyu Sarangi. “Bhopal should be a
lesson to the world - one we must learn before it’s too late for all
of us.”
The Yes Men have elaborate plans to contribute to the movement for
meaningful action on climate change, beginning in early September and
culminating at the December climate talks in Copenhagen. To
contribute financially to these efforts (which of course we can’t
tell you about), please visit http://theyesmen.org/donate/now. And if
you live in New York and know how to sew, swim, get arrested, or
pretty much anything else, please write to us.
- B’eau-Pal water: http://www.bhopalwater.com
- Information on Bhopal water study:
Bhopal Medical Appeal
Contact: Colin Toogood
colintoogood at bhopal.org
T: +44 7798 845074
http://www.bhopal.org/
- The Yes Men in the UK:
Contact: Mike Bonanno
T: +44 7940739950
E: mike at theyesmen.org
http://www.theyesmen.org/
- August 11 UK release of The Yes Men Fix the World:
McAinsh Consulting
Ian Thomson
T: +44 7909 685077
E: ian at mcainshconsulting.com
Isabelle Knight
T: +44 7717 152006
E: isabelle at mcainshconsulting.com The Yes Men Fix The World will be
shown across the UK in participating cinemas on Tuesday, 11 August,
via a nationwide satellite link-up. Directed by The Yes Men (Andy
Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno) in collaboration with Bowling for
Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 editor Kurt Engfehr, who co-directs,
The Yes Men Fix The World leads us through the daring political
pranks of two gonzo activists as they take on the fake identity of
corporate executives in a bid to highlight the brutal selfishness of
some of the world’s biggest multi-national corporations. The film
received the Berlin Film Festival’s prestigious Audience Award
earlier this year.
http://www.theyesmenfixtheworld.com/
-30-
_____
[5] India: Will justice be done ? Will people responsible for 1992
Demolition of Babri Mosque and the Gujarat Pogrom of 2002 be brought
to book?
Dawn, 10 July, 2009
DAMAGE CAN STILL BE UNDONE
by Kuldip Nayar
The demolition of the Babri Masjid was the result of bigotry. — File
Photo
The Babri Masjid issue has been a source of worry for several years —
first with the controversy over whether the Ram temple stood there
once and then in the aftermath of the mosque’s demolition in December
1992 by Hindu extremists.
This was a blow to secularism which India claims as its ethos. There
were widespread riots in December 1992 and January 1993. Elements
hailing from the Muslim community took their revenge in the form of
the 1993 Mumbai blasts.
The Justice Liberhan Commission which has taken 17 years to submit a
report has at least put the judicial seal on the issue. The report
coming rather late in the day has tried to reconstruct the sequence
of events. It has revealed the lesser-known fact that it was the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which had planned the destruction in
Faizabad, some 10 kilometres from Ayodhya, the location of the
mosque. It was not an outpouring of frenzy at the spur of the moment.
Once the RSS gave the roadmap, the BJP provided the necessary help to
the Bajrang Dal, a militant wing of the RSS, to execute the
demolition plan to the shame of the Indian nation.
L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and the then UP chief minister,
Kalyan Singh, were among the witnesses. Some BJP leaders shed
crocodile tears when they discovered that people across the country
were angry.
New Delhi dismissed the BJP government in UP. But it is still
unexplainable why the Congress government at the centre did not act
when a determined group of kar sevaks appeared ready to destroy the
mosque. P.V. Narasimha Rao, then prime minister, did nothing to
prevent the incident. The Liberhan Commission refers to the lapse but
it does not hold Narasimha Rao guilty. This may give an excuse to the
ruling Congress to escape responsibility which nevertheless lies on
the party to a large extent. True, the extremists struck the first
blow, but the centre could have acted long before to ensure that the
mosque, the focus of the dispute, would stay intact, particularly
when the Supreme Court had ordered that it should.
I recall asking Narasimha Rao how the centre had allowed a small
temple to be built on the site overnight after the UP government had
been dismissed and central rule imposed. Narasimha Rao explained that
central forces were flown from Delhi but could not reach Lucknow
because of a fog engulfing the airport. I told him that he did not
have to fly in troops because there was already a surfeit of them at
Ayodhya and around it. Narasimha Rao had no answer but told me
emphatically that the temple would not be there ‘for long’.
That was in December 1992. The temple is still there. Hundreds of
pilgrims visit it daily and the government has vast security
arrangements to protect it. No political party has ever raised the
question of removing it from there. It can be said without
contradiction that if the BJP government in UP was responsible for
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Congress was responsible for
the construction of the temple.
The Muslim psyche is hurt. The Liberhan Commission findings put a
balm on the wounds in the sense that it has recommended certain steps
which the community expects to be implemented. It does not appear
that this will happen.
After all, the government has not taken any action against leaders
like Bal Thackeray, although the Justice Srikrishna Commission named
him responsible for the Mumbai riots. Some BJP leaders mentioned by
the Liberhan Commission for the same reason remain at the forefront
of the party.
The Congress initiated no action against those who took the law into
their own hands during the emergency (1975-77). In fact, the party
punished those who brought the perpetrators to justice. Although
people were not killed values and institutions were. Even fundamental
rights were suspended and the press gagged.
My worry is that without the awareness of what is right and a desire
to act according to what is right, there may be no realisation of
what is wrong. Over the years, the dividing line between right and
wrong, moral and immoral, has ceased to exist. The crucial tug of
conscience, which was once there, has gone.
The Liberhan Commission has provided an opportunity to set things
right. The guilty, however high in office or politics, must be
punished in accordance with the constitution. Democracy is nothing
but the independence of institutions. The demolition of the mosque
was a consequence of the bigotry demonstrated by the people in the
north at that time. Bigotry still lingers in some places and
organisations. The idea of India cannot exist for long without
pluralism. The institutions have to rise to the occasion.
Before the demolition when there were efforts to settle the Ram
Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute peacefully, many proposals were
mooted. One of them was that the Babri Masjid and Ram temple should
be side by side. If the two communities can agree to this then the
Hindus could build the mosque and the Muslims the temple.
My preference is that the site should be left vacant. Just as people
go to Hiroshima and weep over the destruction that the atom bomb
caused, we should also convert the site into a place of pilgrimage
with an inscription which says, ‘Here is the place where our
pluralism was murdered on Dec 6, 1992’.
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.
o o o
WE LACKED A CIVIL SOCIETY MOVEMENT TO HALT THE HATRED IN GUJARAT’
by Melanie P Kumar
When minorities have no place in a state sworn to secularism, when
freedom of speech and expression is curtailed, what vibrant Gujarat
are we talking about, asks Father Cedric Prakash, human rights
activist from Ahmedabad
Fr Cedric Prakash is a Jesuit priest and currently the Director of
Prashant, a centre for human rights, justice and peace in Ahmedabad,
Gujarat.
Prakash founded Prashant in October 2001 as a response to the growing
human rights violations all over Gujarat especially against the poor
and vulnerable sections of society.
In the wake of the Gujarat carnage of 2002, Prashant has been trying
to ensure justice for the many victims. The centre has carefully
documented various attacks on the minorities and has provided impetus
for analysis and research. Prashant has also highlighted the growing
communalisation of education in the state.
Prakash himself has been a very visible and vocal critic of the
Gujarat government’s role in the riots of 2002. He has testified on
this issue before the US Commission for International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF) and has also succeeded in bringing to world
attention the plight of the minorities of Gujarat and other parts of
India.
For his consistent work in the promotion of human rights, justice,
communal harmony and peace, he has received several national and
international recognitions which include the Kabir Puraskar from the
President of India in 1995, the Legion of Honour from the President
of France in 2006 and the National Minority Rights Award from the
National Commission for Minorities also in 2006.
You were among the few in Gujarat who spoke out against the Godhra
carnage of 2002. How successful have you been in initiating criminal
action against the accused?
There are other voices of sanity that speak out against the Gujarat
carnage of 2002. Yes, we are few but that does not mean to say we
can be silenced. Recent rulings from the Supreme Court have provided
a ray of hope! Hopefully, six fast track courts will be put into
action soon. At this moment we are eagerly looking forward to a day
when truth and justice will triumph in Gujarat.
Would you say that you have been successful in creating public
awareness in the state of Gujarat against the unjust actions of the
government?
It is not easy to do this in Gujarat. The vernacular press for one is
generally biased and most of them fail to report important news
concerning the situation of minority and other vulnerable sections of
society. On the other hand, the Sangh Parivar consistently brings out
patrikas which demonise the minorities and we really do not have an
effective machinery to counter this false and malicious propaganda.
What has been the role of the intelligentsia in Gujarat in raising
their voices against injustice?
In Gujarat some people have spoken out against the violence meted out
to the minorities, especially the Muslims. However, we definitely
lacked a civil society movement where top intelligentsia could have
come out on the streets in order to halt this wave of hatred. In
fact, politicians and petty criminals motivated by the government,
the Sangh Parivar and their ilk, ruled the roost. That is another
problem because here you directly have to confront the powers that in
a way control your destiny.
What is the situation of the average Muslim in Gujarat after 2002?
In most parts of Gujarat today, a Muslim is treated as a second class
citizen. He cannot hope to live in the upmarket areas of Ahmedabad,
Vadodara and Surat. Neither can he involve himself in commerce like
shops and other business ventures in all areas or have a choice of
where to send his children to school. In other words, more and more
the community is being pushed into ghetto-like situations. In
Juhapura, we have one of the biggest Muslim ghettoes with over
400,000 Muslims living there. Even senior Muslim officials including
those in the government must be willing to submit themselves for
questioning at any given time. In some housing societies, there are
bye-laws which clearly forbid the selling of one’s house to a
Muslim. All these actions are in complete violation of a person’s
fundamental rights.
What about the land that is owned by Muslims?
Most of them are making distress sales for fear of losing more
money. Even brokers from their own communities are exploiting the
situation to make a fast buck. Chief Minister Modi has also been
clever enough to split up the Muslims who are a fragmented lot in the
absence of good leadership. Many of the Dawoodi Bohras who take
their directives from the Syedna at Burhanpur are supporting Modi in
Gujarat.
But you have to admit that Vibrant Gujarat is a reality and Modi’s
suitability for the prime minister’s post has been endorsed by
corporate czars like Ratan Tata, Anil Ambani and Sunil Mittal?
‘Vibrant Gujarat’ is one of the big lies in today’s India. We have
several documents to bust this myth. Just because a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) is signed, that doesn’t mean it has become actual
investment in the state. On an RTI application, the Gujarat
government has itself admitted that less than 40% of the promised
investment has actually begun. Besides we also have to question this
whole concept of ‘vibrancy’ and for whom; when people do not have
food, clothing and shelter, when a sizeable majority have no access
to clean drinking water and quality education, when infant mortality
and female foeticide are on the rise, then we have to question this
myth of vibrancy. Above all, when minorities have no place in a state
which has been sworn to secularism, what are we talking about!
Finally, freedom of speech and expression is curtailed. When Aamir
Khan emphatically states that the tribal oustees of the Narmada dam
should be humanely rehabilitated, his film Fanaa is banned from the
state. So what Vibrant Gujarat are we talking about? It is easy for
the corporate czars to endorse Modi as PM. Of course they would!
When a few of them get land, water, electricity, infrastructure to
maximise their profits at the cost of the state exchequer they
certainly would want him as prime minister.
Why would a corporation not be happy if free water and land is
offered to them and tax-free loans for the next 99 years! What right
has a chief minister to sell the state to a business house?
But you have to admit the arrival of Modi has spelt financial
prosperity for Gujarat?
It is a matter of perception. Financial prosperity for whom? For the
few rich and other vested interests. The waters of the Narmada dam
for one are used by the people of Ahmedabad city and for the water
parks frequented by the rich; whereas the parched lands of Kutch,
Saurashtra and North Gujarat remain without water. The Adanis
Project has destroyed the livelihood of thousands of fishermen in
coastal Gujarat. Reliance Petrochemicals in Jamnagar have meant a
great loss for the small agriculturists in that area. So once again,
financial prosperity for whom?
What would you suggest as an alternative?
I am against the idea of freebies being offered to a select set of
companies. The welfare of other sections has to be factored in too
and there has to be a harnessing of local and natural resources for
the good of all.
How is the issue of conversion being dealt with in Gujarat?
The Government of Gujarat in typical fascist style has also raised
the bogey of conversion. In 2003, it passed the Freedom of Religion
Act and five years later, in April 2008, they framed the rules
necessary to govern the implementation of the law. Government
permission has to be sought for changing one’s religion in Gujarat
and the punishment against women, tribals and dalits is more severe
for such an action than it is for a male particularly if he is from
the topmost rung of the caste system. This law is really very
draconian and is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India
and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
What do you think can help the state?
The problem of Gujarat is the absence of a left movement. Even with
the failure of so many mills and the loss of jobs in the 1980s, there
was no trade union movement to take up the cause of workers. The two-
party system has been a great disadvantage here. There has to be a
local leader who understands the dynamics of Gujarat who must rise up
and take on Modi. The Congress has not paid too much attention to
building up its cadres.
Would you say that the recent parliamentary election has conveyed a
message to the Gujarat government?
The result of the recent parliamentary elections is really a big blow
to Modi. First of all much less then 50% of the total electorate
cast their votes, which is already saying much. Secondly, there has
not been a dramatic rise in the vote share of the BJP, as compared to
the Congress. The interesting thing is that Modi was always boasting
that he would win 25 out of the 26 seats in Gujarat; winning just 15
(just one more than last time) is in fact a big set-back and at least
three of those who won for the BJP were candidates who are actually
against him. Besides, at least two of those who lost the elections
from the Congress lost by a very insignificant margin. So in fact,
this election is a defeat for Modi. On the other hand, the Gujarat
government very effectively sabotaged the NREGA which would have
definitely been a blessing to the small rural person.
With the election results in Karnataka, would you say that there is a
danger of the state going the Gujarat way?
I am really unhappy with the way things are shaping in Karnataka.
The government here has presided over the bashing up of minorities;
youth do not have the freedom to do what they want and even fall in
love with the person they would like to. Freedom of expression and
speech is also curtailed. This has resulted in a massive electoral
triumph for the BJP. It is high time civil society woke up and
protested the rise of fundamentalism and fascism in the state.
Tomorrow may be too late!
What would you say about the attacks on the Christian minorities in
Karnataka? How conscious are the churches here about the threat?
The fact that the Christians in Karnataka have been the target of
systematic and vicious attacks is a matter of great concern. These
are not sporadic attacks and they should not be taken lightly. They
are being meticulously planned with the agenda of destroying the
credibility of the work of the church here. Unfortunately, there has
not been an adequate response from the church in Karnataka. The
church has to get out of its ostrich-like mentality and being
isolated within the walls of their compounds. They should have the
courage to speak truth to power and to take on this current
government of Karnataka which has presided over the attacks on the
Christians.
What do you feel civil society should do in Karnataka?
Please do not be complacent. Spread the message of peace. Identify
civil society groups across the state, which can band together under
one leadership. Groups like the PUCL, which are minus any particular
ideology, can play a big part in preventing the fascist juggernaut
from taking a stranglehold in Karnataka.
(Melanie Kumar is an independent journalist based in Bangalore)
Infochange News & Features, July 2009
_____
[6] India:
Express Buzz
14 July 2009
HOMOPHOBIA JUST CANNOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION
by A Surya Prakash
The Delhi High Court’s path-breaking judgment reading down Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it criminalises consensual
sex among same sex adults in private has raised the hackles of
religious leaders and conservative heterosexuals across the country.
Those troubled by this judgment say it will wreck family life and
that it is yet another example of our blind imitation of the decadent
West. Since the majority of people are heterosexual, they find
homosexuality repulsive. They are horrified at the thought of a man
having sex with a man or a woman with a woman and would, in all
probability, view same-sex relationships as an illness. The majority
therefore sees nothing wrong in the IPC provision that views sodomy
as a criminal act. Baba Ramdev actually echoes the majoritarian view
when he says homosexuality is a ‘disease’ that needs to be cured.
The problem with this view is that it is repugnant to the grammar of
modern, liberal constitutions. Beginning with the second half of the
20th century, courts have enlarged freedoms available to all citizens
in democracies by viewing every policy, law and government statement
through the prism of political correctness. More specifically, they
have extended the concept of equality to what one may call non-
heterosexuals.
Apex courts in a number of democracies find abhorrent the idea that
societies have the right to discriminate against citizens with a
sexual orientation different from the heterosexual majority. This has
resulted in a silent revolution to eject outdated concepts and inject
new meaning to constitutional texts. More often than not, the laws
that criminalise homosexual behaviour have been central to this
debate. Among the courts that have struck down such laws are the
European Court of Human Rights, the US Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Court of South Africa and the Human Rights Committee
of Australia. Broadly, their opinion is that ‘if, in expressing our
sexuality, we act consensually and without harming one another,
invasion of that precinct will be a breach of our privacy’.
The Delhi High Court judgment is in line with this thinking. It
enables us to belatedly catch up with liberal democracies around the
world, which have done so much before us. Among these nations are a
majority of the states in Europe, Scandinavia and Australia. England
decriminalised sodomy in 1967 and Scotland in 1980. Northern Ireland
followed suit in 1982. Closer to home, even the Supreme Court of
Nepal and High Courts of Hong Kong and Fiji have declared such laws
to be unconstitutional.
Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar of the Delhi High
Court cited these cases in their judgment. While it has brought about
a rather strange communion among religious leaders (Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-
Christian), one must remember that views tangential to core
constitutional values cannot and should not gain ground.
Several Hindu religious leaders are critical of the court’s decision
on the ground that it would destroy our ‘culture’ and family life.
The fact that they advance the majoritarian view need not surprise
anybody. But what do the religious minorities say? Why are Muslim and
Christian leaders, who are constantly fighting for minority rights,
reaady to join Hindu leaders in order to crush the rights of another
minority?
In this judgment, the two judges have made a significant point. They
say that, ‘A modern democracy while based on the principle of
majority rule implicitly recognises the need to protect the
fundamental rights of those who may dissent or deviate from the
majoritarian viewpoint’. Is this not the tenet that protects the
rights of religious minorities in India? Should we not apply this
principle to protect the fundamental rights of those who ‘deviate’
from the majoritarian heterosexual viewpoint? India is a Hindu-
majority nation and the Abrahamic religions have been imported into
India. The Muslim and Christian ways of life, modes of worship,
‘culture’, etc, is distinct from Hindu ways. Shall we then say that
it is ‘natural’ to be a Hindu in India and ‘unnatural’ not to be one?
The Delhi High Court has now turned the spotlight on another minority
— the sexual minority. While we celebrate diversity, the Congress
Party has added a new buzzword — ‘inclusive’ growth. However,
possibly because of continuous mollycoddling, leaders of religious
minorities in India think the word ‘diversity’ has just two synonyms
— Muslims and Christians – and that ‘inclusiveness’ just means
including members of these communities in everything the government
does. The judgement on Section 377 of the IPC is bringing them some
home truths. ‘Minority’ is not just religious minority. There are
linguistic, political and sexual minorities in India and they have
the same rights under our Constitution as religious minorities.
Obviously, providing space for other ‘minorities’ does not come
easily to religious minorities. The response of the leaders of these
communities is akin to the behaviour of passengers in an unreserved
railway compartment. Once they get in, they shut the doors to others,
and yet offer lip sympathy to the notion of equality of all railway
passengers.
It is, therefore, the job of the judiciary to prise open the door of
this compartment and let other minorities in. This is exactly what
the Delhi High Court has done.
We must make peace with the fact that there are an estimated 2.5
million homosexual men and an unknown but possibly smaller number of
lesbians and transvestites in our midst. Hijras even contest
elections and enter legislative chambers. They constitute a minuscule
minority of non-heterosexuals. To mock and ridicule them is one
thing, but to subject them to constitutional inferiority is quite
another. In this time and age, homophobia just cannot have
constitutional sanction.
suryamedia at gmail.com
______
[7] Diaspora & Forced Marriages:
The Independent
5 July 2009
FORCED MARRIAGE: 'I CAN'T FORGIVE OR FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO ME'
Dr Humayra Abedin talks for the first time to Nina Lakhani about the
international storm that began when she visited her parents in
Bangladesh
Last December, Dr Abedin was dramatically freed after frantic efforts
by lawyers in the UK and Dhaka
An NHS doctor from east London who was held hostage and forced into
marriage has spoken for the first time about her four-month ordeal,
during which she feared for her life.
Dr Humayra Abedin, who was freed from her vows on the orders of a
Bangladeshi court soon after The Independent on Sunday highlighted
her plight, described the humiliation and pain she suffered at the
hands of her parents, some members of her extended family and nurses
and doctors in a private psychiatric hospital in Bangladesh last year.
In an exclusive interview with the IoS, Dr Abedin told of the moment
she was abducted: "My face was covered with a piece of cloth by men
who told me they were policemen, before they carried me out into an
ambulance which was parked outside the house. They held my arms and
legs, carried me like a prisoner, while my parents stood in the
background."
She was driven, kicking and screaming, to a private hospital, on the
request of her family. During the journey, she was held down and
gagged by three people as they tried to stop her shouting.
"This was the first time I thought, 'this is it, I am dying'," said
Dr Abedin. "I begged them to stop." And so began the nightmare.
For the next three months, every morning and every night, she was
forced to swallow dangerously high doses of powerful tranquillisers
used to treat people with psychoses. She was kept locked in the
hospital, constantly told she was a disgrace by staff and relatives,
and denied contact with the outside world. But she could make it
stop, so her parents and psychiatrist told her, if she agreed to give
up her life in England, marry the man her family had chosen for her
and stay in Bangladesh. She refused.
Last December, Dr Abedin was dramatically freed after frantic efforts
– highlighted by the IoS – by lawyers in the UK and Dhaka, together
with Ask, a human rights NGO, led to her release. The majority of
victims are not so lucky; hundreds of missing schoolchildren each
year are feared to have been married off abroad by their families.
When you picture a victim of forced marriage, whom do you see?
Probably an uneducated, young Asian girl, from a deeply traditional
and authoritarian family. But research published last week suggests
there could be 8,000 forced marriage cases in England each year,
affecting African, European and Middle Eastern communities as well.
Victims in 14 per cent of cases are male; 14 per cent are under 16. A
worrying proportion involves people with learning disabilities who
may not have the capacity to consent.
Sitting in her friend's house in suburban Essex, Dr Abedin looks a
million dollars. Her physical appearance has been transformed over
the past six months. Gone are the puffy, blotchy skin, brittle hair,
stiff joints and tremor she developed as a result of the medication.
She complains that she can't lose the last few pounds – anti-
psychotics also cause an insatiable appetite – but the physical
transformation is truly remarkable. As for her mental state, she
denies nightmares or flashbacks, often experienced by victims of
abuse and trauma; her anxiety symptoms have gone, but she does admit
to dwelling on what happened in the hospital.
"It's my time at the clinic that I think about. These people are
meant to be health professionals, but what they did to me was a
complete abuse. This I will never forgive or forget," says Dr Abedin,
and just for a second she doesn't seem as relaxed or confident as she
claims to be.
Born and raised in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, Humayra Abedin,
33, is not your typical victim. An only child from a well-off, middle-
class Muslim family, she grew up happily surrounded by friends,
cousins and extremely supportive parents who encouraged her to study
medicine.
After she graduated, her mother, Sophia, 68, a housewife, and her
father, Joynal, 77, a retired businessman who at that time owned a
clothing factory and several shops, supported her move to England in
2002 to study for a master's degree in public health at Leeds
University. She joined several of her Bangladeshi friends in London
the following year and embarked on the exams that would enable her to
work in the NHS.
"I was totally focused on my career and very happy. I was also
learning how to do very ordinary things for the first time, like
washing clothes and shopping, which gave me a great sense of
satisfaction to be independent instead of having people helping me
with everything like at home. I guess I was changing, just becoming
more individual and independent."
She spoke to her parents often and there was occasional talk about
marriage but she made it clear that studying was her priority.
"Actually, some of my aunties had wanted me to get married before I
came to UK, so that I didn't come alone. This would have been quite
normal; in fact, most of my friends who went abroad did so after they
got married. But I didn't want that and my dad totally agreed every
time it came up. I just used the same excuse and kept putting them off."
At the end of 2007, a cousin, also a doctor, came to visit and
started commenting on this new-found independence. After his return
to Bangladesh, the tension started to mount.
"The family pressure was building. There were more phone calls, more
talk about guys they wanted me to meet, but I told them this wasn't
what I wanted. It wasn't about religion; it was a cultural thing. In
their eyes I was becoming too Westernised, too focused on my career
and getting too old to be alone. It was about protecting me."
In July 2008, she flew home to visit her mother, who her dad claimed
was suffering from heart problems. "Both my parents have chronic
health problems so it was possible that she was sick. I did think
they might want me to meet some guys but not in my wildest dreams
could I have imagined what would happen next."
As soon as she arrived she was physically restrained, beaten and
locked away. She was forced to take sleeping tablets and constantly
bombarded with insults. Her parents never touched her; it was a
trusted maid, who had worked for the family for 25 years, who took
the lead in the abuse. But she still refused to consent to marriage;
a week later, the ambulance arrived and took her away.
"After three months of medication, verbal abuse, emotional blackmail,
my mind was weakened. I felt like a puppet. I had lost all hope and
had no more energy to fight back," she says.
But before she was carted off to this so-called hospital, she had
sent texts to friends in the UK. So unbeknown to her, efforts to
secure her release were under way.
A female cousin co-operated with Ask and filed a petition to the
court, which served her family with an order demanding she be brought
in front of the court in Bangladesh, where forced marriage is illegal.
In order to avoid the authorities, her parents discharged her from
the hospital and the next couple of weeks were spent in a medication-
induced haze, travelling between towns, staying with family friends,
until eventually she was forcibly married to a doctor her parents had
deemed a suitable match. She won't talk about what happened with him,
only that she's waiting for the marriage to be annulled.
Eventually, left with no option, her parents brought her to the
court, convinced she would choose her family over her independence.
Her father broke down in court after he was told she had chosen to
come back to the UK. It was the last time she saw him.
She arrived back in London to face a media storm. "I felt joy,
happiness, relief; you've no idea how thankful I was to the media, my
lawyers, everyone who had been trying to get me out of that hospital."
There has been no contact with her parents since she was freed; she
has moved and changed her phone numbers to avoid them. It is not
something she will rule out for ever; she still loves them, but is
nowhere near the point of being able to forgive them. She believes
her aunts and uncles convinced her parents that she was out of
control and needed protection. "I think my dad was made to feel
guilty about encouraging me, his only child, to come to the UK, so he
felt he had to sort things out. What they did was wrong, but I still
think from their point of view they were trying to protect me. But
that psychiatric hospital ... the staff told me they knew I was
normal, so what they did to me was grossly unethically and criminal."
Two other women in similar situations have since been rescued from
the same clinic.
A strong, ambitious woman, she is determined not to let this horrific
experience become a life-defining one. It is her friends, colleagues
and employers she turns to for support; they have become her family
and she cannot praise them enough. Work comes first, but she hasn't
forgotten how to have fun: listening to Bollywood music while eating
home-cooked food with friends is her ideal way to relax. She will
finish her GP training with the London Deanery next year and still
wants the happy-ever-after ending she always dreamed about.
"The whole incident has made me realise how precious and beautiful
life is and it's made me stronger, so maybe it was my destiny. Right
now my focus is my career. I love my job, and I also want to do what
I can to raise awareness about forced marriage – the protection order
was the turning point in my life. In the future, I definitely want to
get married to the right person, have children, all those things that
I always wanted."
_____
[8] Afghanistan:
Q&A: "The Killing of Women Is Like Killing a Bird Today in Afghanistan"
Stephen de Tarczynski interviews Afghan women’s rights activist
Malalai Joya
http://tinyurl.com/luewuz
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
S o u t h A s i a C i t i z e n s W i r e
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. An offshoot of South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the SACW
mailing list