SACW | July 26-28, 2009 / South Asia Arms Race / Disarm and Democratise Sri Lanka / Pakistan: Drive-in Madrasa / India: Keep Religion out of Monuments / Nuclear Reactor Accident Risk / Geography in Development Report / No Animal Testing

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | July 26-28, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2650 -  
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] The Way Forward in Sri Lanka - Demilitarise and Democratise  
(Rohini Hensman)
[2] Pushing South Asia Toward the Brink (Zia Mian)
[3] Revisiting the Kargil conflict (Jawed Naqvi)
[4] Pakistan: Parking Lot or Drive-in Madrasa (Nadeem F. Paracha)
     + Pakistan arts-lovers defy Taliban stage fright (David Loyn)
     + Online Petition: Citizens of Pakistan Demand for  
Constitutional Amendment: Separate Religion from the State
[5] India: Defend Historical Monuments from Religious Groups / Stop  
State Funding for Pilgrimages
      + Qutb barge-in for prayers (Cithara Paul)
      + Andhra Ruling State funding of Pilgrimages (Excerpts from a  
recent op-ed BG Verghese)
[6] The safety inadequacies of India's fast breeder reactor (Ashwin  
Kumar and M. V. Ramana )
[7] Where Is the Geography? World Bank’s WDR 2009 (Anant  
Maringanti , Eric Sheppard , Jun Zhang)
[8] The long fight against animal testing (Peter Tatchell)
[9] Announcements:
    - International Conference on Genocide, Truth and Justice (Dhaka,  
3-31 July 2009)
    - 8th annual Ruth First Memorial Lecture (Johannesburg, 17 August  
2009)
    - Call for Entries: Daniel Pearl Awards to honour world's best  
cross-border investigative journalism


_____


[1]  THE WAY FORWARD IN SRI LANKA - DEMILITARISE AND DEMOCRATISE

by Rohini Hensman, 25 July 2009

The way forward in Sri Lanka involves demilitarisation, restoration  
of the rule of law, and democratisation. These are interlinked so  
closely that it is impossible to separate them, and on their  
fulfillment depends not only the political future of Sri Lanka, but  
also its economic survival.

http://www.sacw.net/article1044.html


____


[2] PUSHING SOUTH ASIA TOWARD THE BRINK

Zia Mian | July 27, 2009
Foreign Policy In Focus	
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6295


The contradictions and confusions in U.S. policy in South Asia were  
on full display during Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's recent  
visit to India. U.S. support for India, which centers on making  
money, selling weapons, and turning a blind eye to the country's  
nuclear weapons, is fatally at odds with U.S. policy and concerns  
about Pakistan.

By enabling an India-Pakistan arms race, rather than focusing on  
resolving the conflict and helping them make peace, the United States  
is driving Pakistan toward the very collapse it fears.

America's New India

In an op-ed in The Times of India just before the start of her visit,  
Clinton laid out U.S. interests in India. The first item on Clinton's  
list was "the 300 million members of India's burgeoning middle  
class," that she identified as "a vast new market and opportunity."

The emerging Indian middle class is large — for comparison, the  
current total U.S. population is also about 300 million — and greedy  
for a more American lifestyle. But the focus on India as  
fundamentally a market for U.S. goods and services, and a source of  
cheap labor for U.S. corporations, marks a remarkable shift. The  
United States and other western countries have traditionally seen  
India as the home of the desperately poor, deserving charity and  
needing development. But no more. Clinton's article made no mention  
of India's poor, which the World Bank recently estimated as including  
over 450 million people living on less than $1.25 a day.

India is also seen as a new emerging power of the 21st century, one  
that can be an ally of the United States and help it balance and  
contain the rise of China. Under the Bush Administration, in 2004,  
the U.S. and India signed an agreement called the "Next Steps in  
Strategic Partnership." To make India a fitting strategic partner, a  
senior State Department official later explained the U.S."goal is to  
help India become a major world power in the 21st century," and left  
no doubt what this meant, saying "we understand fully the  
implications, including military implications, of that statement."

India is seeking both to modernize and expand its military forces. It  
has dramatically increased its military budget, up over 34% alone  
this year. India now has the 10th-highest military spending in the  
world. It's becoming a major market for U.S. arms sales. U.S. weapons  
makers Lockheed Martin and Boeing have already racked up deals worth  
billions of dollars. But the real bonanza is still to come. India is  
said to be planning to spend as much $55 billion on weapons over the  
next five years.

But the big news of the Clinton visit was the announcement of an  
India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. This will include an annual formal  
meeting of key officials, co-chaired by the secretary of State and  
India's external affairs minister, and including on the U.S. side the  
secretaries of Agriculture, Trade, Energy, Education, Finance, Health  
and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others. But given the  
difference in the power and range of interests of the two states,  
this will be no dialogue of equals. The process is intended to align  
Indian interests and policies in a wide range of areas with those of  
the United States.

Nuclear India

In her press conference with India's minister of external affairs,  
Clinton said, "We discussed our common vision of a world without  
nuclear weapons and the practical steps that our countries can take  
to strengthen the goal of nonproliferation." But there was no mention  
here of India's nuclear buildup, or of the United States asking India  
to slow down or to end its program. In fact, one would never guess  
from Clinton's remarks that India even had a nuclear weapons program.  
She seemed interested only in the prospect of U.S. sales of nuclear  
reactors to India worth $10 billion or more.

India is one of perhaps only three countries still making material  
for new nuclear weapons. The others are Pakistan and Israel (with  
North Korea threatening to resume production). India is building a  
fast-breeder reactor that is expected to begin operation in 2010 and  
is outside International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It could  
increase three- to five-fold India's current capacity to make  
plutonium for nuclear weapons.

India seeks to become a major nuclear power. On July 26, it launched  
its first nuclear–powered submarine. India plans to deploy several  
of these submarines. Last year, it carried out its first successful  
underwater launch of a 700 kilometer-range ballistic missile,  
Sagarika, intended for the submarine. India joins the United States,  
Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China in the club of those  
owning such nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Israel is  
believed to have nuclear-armed cruise missiles on diesel powered  
submarines.

India is also developing an array of land-based missiles. In May  
2008, it tested the 3,500 kilometer-range Agni-III missile, which was  
subsequently reported to have been approved for deployment with the  
army, and is working on a missile with a range of over 5,000  
kilometer. In November 2008, India also tested a 600 kilometer-range  
silo-based missile, Shourya. In 2009, India carried out several tests  
of its cruise missile, Brahmos, which the army and navy are inducting  
into service.

The U.S. silence on India's nuclear weapons and missile programs is  
all the more telling, given that it was the Clinton administration  
that proposed United Nations Security Council resolution 1172. In  
1998, this unanimous Security Council resolution called on India and  
Pakistan to "immediately stop their nuclear weapon development  
programs, to refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease  
development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear  
weapons, and any further production of fissile material for nuclear  
weapons." The Bush administration ignored it. It seems the Obama  
administration will too.

Pakistan v. India

Pakistan was noticeable for its near absence from Clinton's agenda in  
India. It came up only in the context of the need to fight terrorism.  
Forgotten was the brute fact that India and Pakistan are straining  
harder than ever in their nuclear and conventional arms race. A  
Pakistani diplomat responded to the Clinton visit to India by telling  
The Washington Post that "What Hillary is doing there is probably  
again going to start an arms race." This race drives Pakistan toward  
collapse, the very thing the United States fears.

Pakistan is buying U.S. weapons as fast as it can, some paid for with  
U.S. military aid, with arms sales agreements worth over $6 billion  
since 2001, including for new F-16 jet-fighters. China, an old ally,  
is also supplying the country with jet fighters and other weapons.  
Pakistan is also boosting its nuclear program. It's building two new  
reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. It continues to test  
both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

The principal U.S. concern about Pakistan, aside from the country  
falling apart and its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of  
Islamists, is the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan  
and in the border areas of Pakistan. It has been telling Pakistan to  
focus its military forces and strategic concerns on this battle,  
which requires moving more soldiers away from the border with India.  
The generals who command Pakistan's army were bound to resist such a  
redeployment. They worry about the new U.S.-India strategic  
relationship, and what it may mean for them when the war on the  
Taliban is over and the United States no longer needs Pakistan.

The Pakistani army, which rules the country even when civilians are  
in office, will not easily shift its view of India. The army and  
those who lead it see the threat from India as their very reason for  
being. The army has grown in size, influence, and power, to the point  
where it dwarfs all other institutions in society and would lose much  
if there was peace with India. But there is a personal dimension as  
well. The partition of the subcontinent 62 years ago that created  
Pakistan is in the living memory of many who make decisions in  
Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, who was chief of army staff  
before he seized power in 1999 and ruled for nine years, was born in  
India before partition. General Musharraf, along with the current  
chief of army staff, General Kayani, and others in Pakistan's high  
command, fought as young officers in the 1971 war against India. The  
war ended with Pakistan itself partitioned, as East Pakistan became  
the independent state of Bangladesh, with India's help, and 90,000  
Pakistani soldiers captured by India as prisoners of war.

As Graham Usher notes in the new issue of the Middle East Report,  
before becoming president, Barack Obama seemed to understand that  
resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan was critical to  
dealing with the problems in Afghanistan and with the Taliban. In  
2007, Obama claimed "I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and  
India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between  
Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and  
develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the  
east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that  
its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the  
Taliban." There is little evidence that this view has yet informed  
U.S. policy.

The Reality of Pakistan

In their rush to make money and to preserve American power in the  
world by crafting an alliance with India, U.S. policymakers seem to  
have averted their eyes from the reality that stares them in the face  
in Pakistan. In March 2009, the Director of National Intelligence  
summed up the situation in Pakistan:

     The government is losing authority in parts of the North-West  
Frontier Province and has less control of its semi-autonomous tribal  
areas: even in the more developed parts of the country, mounting  
economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given  
rise to greater radicalization…Economic hardships are intense, and  
the country is now facing a major balance of payments challenge.  
Islamabad needs to make painful reforms to improve overall  
macroeconomic stability. Pakistan's law-and-order situation is  
dismal, affecting even Pakistani elites, and violence between various  
sectarian, ethnic, and political groups threatens to escalate.  
Pakistan's population is growing rapidly at a rate of about 2 percent  
a year, and roughly half of the country's 172 million residents are  
illiterate, under the age of 20, and live near or below the poverty  
line.

Things have worsened since then. The Taliban is now seeking to escape  
U.S. drone attacks and major assaults by the Pakistan army in the  
Tribal Areas by taking refuge in the cities. There are already no-go  
areas in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, where the Taliban controls  
the streets. Meanwhile electricity riots have exploded in cities  
across the country, with mobs attacking public buildings, blocking  
highways, and damaging trains and buses. Each day seems to bring news  
of some new failure of the state to provide basic social services.

The Obama administration believes that an increase in U.S. aid to  
Pakistan can help solve the problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill (the  
Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act) approved by the Senate in  
June would triple economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for  
five years. But as the Congressional Research Service noted in its  
recent report on Pakistan, the United States has given Pakistan about  
$16.5 billion in "direct, overt U.S. aid" up to 2007. More of the  
same offers little hope for change.

A basic reordering of U.S. priorities in South Asia is long overdue.  
The first principle of U.S. policy in the region should be to do no  
more harm. This means it has to stop feeding the fire between India  
and Pakistan. Only an end to the South Asian arms race can begin to  
undo the structures of fear, hostility, and violence that have  
sustained the conflict in the subcontinent for so long. The search  
for peace may then have at least a chance of success.


Zia Mian is a physicist with the Program on Science and Global  
Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International  
Affairs at Princeton University and a columnist for Foreign Policy In  
Focus.

[The above article is now also available at:  http://www.sacw.net/ 
article1068.html ]

_____


[3]  REVISITING THE KARGIL CONFLICT

by Jawed Naqvi

(Dawn, 27 July 2009)

General Pervez Musharraf’s claim to an Indian TV channel last week  
that the Kargil war forced India to negotiate the Kashmir dispute  
with Pakistan would be laughable had he not been responsible for so  
much suffering on both sides, suffering that any military conflict  
brings with it. Gen Musharraf’s perspective makes no sense at all.  
—AFP/File photo

War and jingoism go together, and the Kargil conflict was no  
different. India on Sunday celebrated the 10th anniversary of the end  
of the lacerating Himalayan conflict, which it claims was a military  
victory. Some Indian journalists have raised questions about the  
conduct of the messy war and a brigadier lost his job for disagreeing  
with the higher-ups about the need to sacrifice more than 500 young  
soldiers and officers in the haste to evict the Pakistanis from their  
surreptitiously occupied strategic heights.

Pakistan’s perspective is more complex. There are quite a few who  
blame their army for the folly of triggering the military standoff  
with India, more so when the two countries were trying to resolve  
their differences in a serious way. Pakistan’s prime minister of the  
day and the army leadership are still offering opposite views of how  
it all happened.

In any case, General Pervez Musharraf’s claim to an Indian TV  
channel last week that the Kargil war forced India to negotiate the  
Kashmir dispute with Pakistan would be laughable had he not been  
responsible for so much suffering on both sides, suffering that any  
military conflict brings with it. Gen Musharraf’s perspective makes  
no sense at all.

And all he had to do to be better informed was to read the Lahore  
Declaration penned by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers in  
February 1999, way before his misadventure flared into an untenable  
war. The declaration specifically recalled the agreement of 23rd  
September, 1998 between the prime ministers, namely that an  
environment of peace and security ‘is in the supreme national  
interest of both sides and that the resolution of all outstanding  
issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose’.

On that basis they agreed that their governments ‘shall intensify  
their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and  
Kashmir’. They would also ‘refrain from intervention and  
interference in each other’s internal affairs’. They also resolved  
to ‘intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an  
early and positive outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda’.

Everything the two could ask for was there in the Lahore Declaration,  
including the prospects of an equitable and just solution to the  
Kashmir imbroglio. So it’s not clear what Gen Musharraf was trying  
to suggest in the interview.

Indian claims of the military victory in Kargil are just as far- 
fetched. All you have to do is to listen to the thunderous applause  
of hundreds of Indian MPs when President Bill Clinton addressed the  
Indian parliament in March 2000. The speech belies all claims of  
victory in Kargil by either side. Mr Clinton in fact announced  
unequivocally that it was he who had helped the Pakistanis to vacate  
their positions, and Indian MPs endorsed that with their applause.

Excerpts from Mr Clinton’s take in his own words: ‘Let me also  
make clear, as I have repeatedly, I have certainly not come to South  
Asia to mediate the dispute over Kashmir. Only India and Pakistan can  
work out the problems between them. And I will say the same thing to  
General Musharraf in Islamabad. But if outsiders cannot resolve this  
problem, I hope you will create the opportunity to do it yourselves,  
calling on the support of others who can help where possible, as  
American diplomacy did in urging the Pakistanis to go back behind the  
line of control in the Kargil crisis.’ (Applause)

Is there any room then to doubt how the conflict ended and who the  
victors were? There can be another view of the Kargil conflict and it  
doesn’t matter if it will not be the most popular one. On the one  
hand the war was seen by some official quarters in India as a  
consequence of the intelligence failure by the army to detect  
Pakistani camps on the heights earlier on. There is a good reason to  
disagree with the view. A book released by Mr Brajesh Mishra, who was  
Mr Vajpayee’s national security adviser around the time of the  
standoff, hints at a different possibility.

The book describes how Pakistani shells were falling 20 km inside  
Indian-administered Kashmir from across the Kargil heights much  
earlier, at a time when Indian and Pakistani prime ministers were  
holding a failed summit in Colombo in July 1998. That summit was held  
barely weeks after their globally denounced nuclear tests. It is  
difficult to digest that Kargil was in turmoil in July 1998, but the  
Indian prime minister made no mention of it during the Lahore talks  
in February the following year.

There was a distinct possibility that Mr Vajpayee needed the Lahore  
summit for compelling domestic reasons. Contrary to the expectations  
of his jingoistic supporters, the nuclear tests of May 1998 were  
electorally ruinous for his party, the BJP, which lost the key state  
elections in Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh to the Congress.

This was followed by another political disaster, which brought India  
into international disrepute. The gruesome murder of Australian  
missionary Graham Steins and his two young sons by BJP supporters  
besmirched India’s image and isolated it further in the  
international comity of democracies that looked up to the country’s  
secular and liberal traditions as worthy of emulation. The electoral  
rout and the shame of his own supporters being involved in the  
lynching of a family of an Australian Christian missionary preceded  
Mr Vajpayee’s dramatic overture of the bus journey to Lahore. The  
idea had come from Mr Nawaz Sharif though when he declared to an  
Indian journalist that bilateral talks were better than a third-party  
mediation. ‘Why go to Amritsar via Bhatinda?’ Mr Sharif had  
remarked. Mr Vajpayee accepted the offer at a news conference in  
Lucknow.

The people who are adept at subverting India-Pakistan peace  
initiatives – like those who did so in Mumbai last year and  
previously with the serial train blasts in India’s financial  
capital – killed 16 Hindus in Kashmir on the eve of Mr Vajpayee’s  
journey to Lahore.

But such was his compulsion to make the visit anyhow that the  
gruesome killings were ignored. Mr Vajpayee quoted from Sardar  
Jafri’s poem on India-Pakistan ties at the Punjab governor’s house  
in Lahore to make his pitch for peace. ‘Tum aao gulshan e Lahore se  
chaman bar dosh, hum aayein subhe Banaras ki roshni lekar, phir uske  
baad ye poocchein ke kaun dushman hai.’ (You bring the fragrance  
along from the gardens of Lahore, I shall bring light from the fabled  
dawn of Banaras. And then ask of ourselves, who is the enemy.)

Mr Vajpayee’s euphoria was short-lived but it wasn’t because of  
Gen Musharraf’s soldiers, who were in any case lodged on the wrong  
side of the Line of Control for days before his visit to Lahore. His  
own political ally, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu Ms J.  
Jayalalitha, pulled the rug from under his feet. Her MPs rebelled  
against him in the Lok Sabha and he lost the confidence test by one  
vote. Here was a man who tried everything to gain too much too  
quickly. The nuclear tests failed him; his own religious supporters  
failed him and now his crucial ally had let him down.

We know why Gen Musharraf staged Kargil. He has said why he did what  
he did. But India’s response will continue to remain a mystery. Had  
Mr Vajpayee not lost the vote of confidence in parliament, there  
would be no need to hold elections. Therefore, there would be no need  
for a lame duck government not to consult the Rajya Sabha – not even  
call it once during the course of the war – and to go into a full- 
blown conflict virtually unilaterally, with political rivals becoming  
mere spectators.

Had there been no elections there would be no need to cover up the  
government’s failure to anticipate the post-Lahore summit  
possibilities as they unfolded so bizarrely. Am I suggesting that  
India should have allowed the Pakistanis to remain in their positions  
in Kargil? Not at all. But, if President Clinton had to play the key  
role in driving out the Pakistanis, why would he not have done the  
favour without either side resorting to an unavoidable war? Moreover,  
it was Mr Vajpayee’s chance to rescue his friend Mr Sharif from the  
clutches of his hawkish general. Instead he put Mr Sharif in the dock  
as a villain.

They say truth is the first casualty in war. And everyone’s  
knowledge of the facts seems too limited to claim to know the entire  
truth. But we can at least continue to ask the unresolved, even  
unpopular, questions.


______


[4] PAKISTAN:

Dawn
26 July 2009

DRIVEWAY TO HEAVEN

Nadeem F. Paracha deals with piety in a parking lot.

While driving up a three-storied parking structure, I noticed that at  
the turn of each level, a wall chalking commanded drivers to say  
‘God is great’ while ascending (ooper jatey waqat Allah-o-Akbar  
kahen).

On the way up, I also noticed a tremendous amount of litter scattered  
on the sides of the heavenly pathway as well as paan stains on the  
walls. I also saw cars parked awkwardly, some almost in the middle of  
the pathway, hindering the flow of traffic on the curving ramp.

After parking my car, I asked one of the teenaged attendants as to  
who was responsible for the wall chalking.

‘We are,’ he said, with an expression that was a cross between  
pride and suspicion.

‘Bhai,’ I continued, ‘how many Pakistanis remember God  
everyday?’

‘Almost all,’ he said, following his declaration with an,  
‘Alhamdulliah.’

‘I agree with you,’ I said. ‘God is remembered and his name  
constantly used from the most pious of men to the most corrupt of  
them. Nobody is prone to forget him in this country.’

‘Yes,’ he said. ‘Bilkul sahi.’

‘If so, then why are you telling the drivers to chant his greatness  
even while looking for a parking space?’ I asked. ‘Are you  
suggesting that people forget him while driving?’

‘Nothing wrong with reminding people about him,’ he shrugged his  
shoulders.

‘Absolutely!’ I said. ‘But don’t you think God would be  
happier if the chalking asked people not to litter, or spit paan on  
the walls, or think about those who don’t have a car, or to be more  
charitable?’

He started to smile: ‘But this is only a place for parking cars.’

‘Arrey dost, if this is only a parking lot, then why are you turning  
it into a drive-in-madrassa?’ I heartily slapped his right shoulder.

He started to laugh, promising he will get chalking done for the  
littering issue as well.

‘Alhamdullillah!’ I exclaimed. ‘Forgetting to say ‘God is  
great’ while going up or down is not the issue in our Land of the  
Pure. But getting people like you to get a better job is!’

He told me he had passed his intermediate exams but didn’t have the  
money or time to study further.

‘Then you should tell those who asked you to do those wall chalkings  
to give you that opportunity,’ I said.

‘They wont,’ he said, disappointingly. ‘In fact they ask us for  
money.’

‘Really?’ I said, genuinely surprised. ‘What for?’

‘For building mosques,’ he explained. ‘They are religious  
people. They only give us sermons and some stickers and posters.’

‘And you pay for them?’ I asked.

‘Sometimes they come and ask for money because they say they will  
build a mosque in this area,’ he replied.

‘But there are already three mosques in this area,’ I said. ‘The  
next time they come to you, tell them you want a clinic in the area.  
That’s doing God’s work too, isn’t it?’

‘I can’t say that,’ he shook his head. ‘How can I tell them  
not to build a mosque?’

‘Okay, then tell me,’ I said. ‘While driving up and down, I  
chant God is great. What should I say if I get stuck in the middle  
because a fellow Muslim has parked his car wrongly on the ramp?’

He started to giggle: ‘Perhaps then you should say, Lahauliwalkuat!’

That made me laugh: ‘Okay, great. But am I supposed to say God is  
great loudly or in my heart?’

‘It’s up to you,’ he said.

‘And is it also okay if I don’t say it at all?’ I asked, smiling.

‘Of course, sir jee,’ he said. ‘Nobody’s forcing you to say  
it!’

‘But that wall chalking feels like an enforcement,’ I said. ‘It  
reads like a stern order!’

Before he could answer my query, a middle-aged, pious looking man  
appeared. He turned out to be the lad’s boss, who, according to the  
teenager, was also very close to the owner of the parking lot.

‘You seem to have a problem with the wall chalking,’ he said,  
smiling sarcastically.

‘Oh, not at all, sir,’ I said. ‘I was just asking the lad where  
to park my camel.’

Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn  
Newspaper and Dawn.com.


o o o


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8170803.stm
BBC News
27 July 2009 15:57 UK

PAKISTAN ARTS-LOVERS DEFY TALIBAN STAGE FRIGHT

Usman Peerzada: "This is the moment when people need the arts"
By David Loyn
BBC News, Islamabad

It would cost a million dollars to stage the Lahore International  
Arts Festival - not much to restore a sense of hope in a city that  
sometimes feels under siege.

The last festival was bombed in November last year, so even without  
the global economic downturn, the big sponsors would have shied away  
from connection with the event this year.

The Taliban have staged their most spectacular attacks in Pakistan  
recently on five-star hotels - the Pearl Continental in Peshawar and  
the Marriott in Islamabad - but it is the Punjab province capital,  
Lahore, that has faced the most constant attention.

Since the festival bombing, targets have included a cafe belonging to  
the Peerzada family who stage the festival, and theatres across the  
city in co-ordinated overnight raids.

Cultural frontline

Salman Shahid, who has a popular TV chat show, says that every time  
people go out for the evening, there is a danger that was not there a  
couple of years ago.

"Somewhere at the back of your mind there is a thought that you are  
taking a bit of a risk," he says.

A dancer at one of Lahore's theatres
Despite the bombings, Lahore theatres remain defiant

To go backstage in one of the theatres that was bombed, I climbed a  
steep and narrow metal staircase, squeezing along stained walls in a  
side street in Lahore.

On stage, some of Pakistan's biggest screen stars are playing parts  
amid the poor lighting and makeshift scenery. Their industry has  
failed to keep up with Bollywood in recent years.

The theatre's owner Bilal Ahmed said: "The cinema of Pakistan has  
been facing a lot of crisis. There was a time when Pakistan and India  
were going neck to neck.

"We do not have the state of the art equipment our neighbour does. It  
is just hopeless in Pakistan."

Windows broken in the bomb attack have still not been repaired at the  
front of the theatre, but Mr Ahmed was not giving up. Like everyone I  
spoke to on this cultural frontline, he saw his theatre work as  
having a role beyond mere entertainment.

Bawdy shows

Being able to put on vulgar bawdy shows about Punjab family life was  
in some way standing up for a civilisation in peril from the Taliban.

	
Map

It is the best form of fighting terrorism to expose them, so that  
normal people will have no sympathy for them

Younis Butt

Although his dancers were clothed from head to foot, their gyrations  
miming to Bollywood movies have to be passed by the censor, and the  
police do come and check.

It is as if the theatre is on a tightrope, and could fall off any time.

TV in contrast does not face censorship, and Pakistan has seen fierce  
competition in recent years. One of the most successful channels, Geo  
TV, like many institutions in the country, has taken a far harder  
line against the Taliban this year than before.

The tolerance for brave Islamic fighters was fine when they were  
fighting foreign wars in Afghanistan and in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

But now that Pakistan faces an internal Islamist threat, the real  
nature of the kind of life the fundamentalists want has brought a new  
unity against them.

Younis Butt has launched a comedy show specifically to respond to the  
Taliban threat, including a spoof Taliban TV channel, complete with a  
woman singer who sits in silence with her back to the camera, and  
time-checks made by bullets striking a bell.

Mr Butt says: "It is the best form of fighting terrorism to expose  
them, so that normal people will have no sympathy for them. That is  
only way we can isolate them, then we can fight them."

He says his lampooning of US policy has caused complaints from  
Americans, too.

Mainstream v mullahs

"Americans say if this truth is by Jon Stewart or by David Letterman  
then that is good, but if you are doing it in Pakistan then you are  
not doing good work," he says.

A man dressed in a mask, holding a gun, on Taliban TV
"Taliban TV" pokes fun at the militants

But he believes that if he is getting strong protests from both the  
US and the Taliban, then he is fulfilling his function as a safety  
valve for a society that needs to laugh.

The Peerzada family, still hoping against the odds to stage their  
international festival, stress Pakistan's Sufi Islamic traditions as  
a counter to the Taliban.

Usman Peerzada said: "This is the moment people need the arts, need  
music to relax. This is the moment that people need to see drama."

Lahore is full of shrines remembering Sufi saints - a type of  
religion that the Taliban detest.

Faizan Peerzada has been on a long tour of Sufi areas, collecting  
stories, music and poetry.

'Total war'

And he has promoted a Sufi singer, Sain Zahoor, now internationally  
famous.

A performer on the stage in Lahore
Pakistan's performing artists face deadly occupational hazards

Sain Zahoor sings ancient poetry that tells of past conflicts between  
the Sufi mainstream and mullahs who wanted a more restrictive vision  
of Islamic life - a reminder that the Taliban represent an old  
viewpoint, appearing in a modern guise.

All of these artists are striking back with the only weapons they  
have - drama, music and above all humour. And the public are responding.

The day after the arts festival was bombed last year, the open-air  
theatre was packed.

Lahori people walked through the debris, some bringing babies and  
small children, in defiance of the threat. Those who were there said  
the atmosphere was electric.

Sadaan Peerzada said: "It is a total war. They are trying to choke  
and discourage. They are bold. We have to do the same and keep doing  
it."

Pakistan feels like a country on a hinge of history. This year for  
the first time it has turned on the extremist version of Islam that  
it nurtured for so long.

But the decisive battles in its war with the Taliban might not turn  
out to be on the North West Frontier Province, but on this cultural  
frontier of hearts and minds, as a nation struggles with its identity  
in the world.

o o o


Citizens of Pakistan Demand for Constitutional Amendment: Separate  
Religion from the State
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rarrepetition1/

_____


[5] India: Historical Monuments Under Danger from Religious Groups /  
State Funding for Pilgrimages


http://www.sacw.net/article1069.html

SAHMAT
29 , Ferozeshah Road , New Delhi -110001
Telephone-2 3070787,23381276
e-mail: sahmat(at)vsnl(dot)com

29.7.2009

PRESS STATEMENT

We are deeply disturbed by attempts being made by interested quarters  
to take over several historically important and protected monuments  
in different parts of the country, in clear violation of The Ancient  
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, on the  
excuse of offering worship there. Many of the monument are parts of  
the precious legacy of the country and under the rules framed under  
the Ancient Monuments Act, there can be no installation of worship  
wherever it had ceased.

We call upon the PM, who is also in-charge of the ministry of Culture  
to initiate immediate action to save these monuments from  
encroachment. We also call upon the Chief Minister of Delhi to rein  
in all such elements who are aiding and abetting the violation of the  
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. We  
also call upon the authorities to initiate immediate steps to evict  
the encroachers and to take all steps to ensure the protection of all  
listed monuments. This should set a model for official action against  
law-breakers irrespective of the religious community or ritual  
concerned.

Irfan Habib, Ram Rahman, Amar Farooqui, D. N. Jha, Prabhat Shukla,  
Arjun Dev, Sohail Hashmi, Zahoor Siddiqui, Shireen Moosvi, Suraj  
Bhan, Suvira Jaiswal, Archana Prasad

Released to the press

Ashok
for
SAHMAT


o o o

http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/07/state-must-ensure-that- 
protected.html

The Telegraph
25 July 2009

QUTB BARGE-IN FOR PRAYERS

Cithara Paul

New Delhi, July 24: A group of 200 barged into mosques on the  
premises of three protected monuments in south Delhi, including the  
Qutb Minar, this afternoon and offered Friday prayers against the rules.

Prayers are not allowed at mosques or temples inside monuments  
protected by the Archaeological Survey of India “unless prayers were  
already being held there when the ASI took the monument over”, ASI  
Delhi circle chief K.K. Mohammad said.

“What happened today was unfortunate and can have a national  
ramification. What if similar demands are made by Hindus and  
Buddhists over the Ajanta, Ellora or Elephanta caves?” Mohammad said.

Today, a single group entered the three mosques one after the other,  
brushing aside the two security guards at each. It prayed for 10  
minutes at the Qutb Minar, for another 10 minutes at Jamali Kamali —  
the tomb of Sufi saint Shaikh Fazlullah — and then for a longer time  
at the Rajakibawali monuments. Here, ASI officials and police arrived  
and persuaded them to leave. A case has been registered.

Mohammad said crowds had invaded mosques at heritage monuments and  
prayed there earlier too, in places such as Hyderabad and Bihar apart  
from Delhi. “We had brought the issue up but the police took no  
notice.”

o o o

http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/07/welcome-andhra-high-court- 
order-staying.html

Welcome Andhra High Court order staying state funding of christian  
pilgrimages; Central Govt should stop funding pilgrimages  
irrespective of religion
Excerpts from a recent op-ed by the veteran journalist BG Verghese  
(Deccan Herald, 28 July 2009)

" one must welcome a judgment of the Andhra high court staying a  
state government order providing financial assistance to Christians  
desirous of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth.  
The proposal was a clear case of communal vote banking and an abuse  
of public funds on a par with the increasing subsidies being given to  
Haj pilgrims and those undertaking the yatra to Kailas-Mansarovar.

It is time the UPA government put an end to such flagrant competitive  
communalism that goes against the Constitution and the commitment to  
secularism. Provide facilities within reason, yes. Subsidies -  
essentially the buying of community votes – no.

Finally, the country needs to come down heavily on such unacceptable  
traditions as neck-deep burial of children to cure their disabilities  
during total solar eclipses, as happened in Gulbarga last week, and a  
series of ‘honour killings’ for marriage within the same gotra in  
Haryana. Leaving social reform to time alone is a poor answer. "


_____


[6]  A Chernobyl Waiting to Happen in India?

 From South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List
July 27, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/1285



THE SAFETY INADEQUACIES OF INDIA'S FAST BREEDER REACTOR

by Ashwin Kumar and M. V. Ramana
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 21 July 2009)

Article Highlights

     * India's Department of Atomic Energy plans to build a large  
fleet of fast breeder nuclear reactors in the coming years.
     * However, many other countries that have experimented with fast  
reactors have shut down their programs due to technical and safety  
difficulties.
     * The Indian prototype is similarly flawed, inadequately  
protected against the possibility of a severe accident.

India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is planning a large  
expansion of nuclear power, in which fast breeder reactors play an  
important role. Fast breeder reactors are attractive to the DAE  
because they produce (or "breed") more fissile material than they  
use. The breeder reactor is especially attractive in India, which  
hopes to develop a large domestic nuclear energy program even though  
it has primarily poor quality uranium ore that is expensive to mine.

Currently, only one fast reactor operates in the country--a small  
test reactor in Kalpakkam, a small township about 80 kilometers  
(almost 50 miles) south of Chennai. The construction of a larger  
prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) is underway at the same  
location. This reactor is expected to be completed in 2010 and will  
use mixed plutonium-uranium oxide as fuel in its core, with a blanket  
of depleted uranium oxide that will absorb neutrons and transmute  
into plutonium 239. Liquid sodium will be used to cool the core,  
which will produce 1,200 megawatts of thermal power and 500 megawatts  
of electricity. The reactor is to be the first of hundreds that the  
DAE envisions constructing throughout India by mid-century.

However, such an expansion of fast reactors, even if more modest than  
DAE projections, could adversely affect public health and safety.  
While all nuclear reactors are susceptible to catastrophic accidents,  
fast reactors pose a unique risk. In fast reactors, the core isn't in  
its most reactive--or energy producing-- configuration when operating  
normally. Therefore, an accident that rearranges the fuel in the core  
could lead to an increase in reaction rate and an increase in energy  
production. If this were to occur quickly, it could lead to a large,  
explosive energy release that might rupture the reactor vessel and  
disperse radioactive material into the environment.

Many of these reactors also have what is called a "positive coolant  
void coefficient," which means that if the coolant in the central  
part of the core were to heat up and form bubbles of sodium vapor,  
the reactivity--a measure of the neutron balance within the core,  
which determines the reactor's tendency to change its power level (if  
it is positive, the power level rises)--would increase; therefore  
core melting could accelerate during an accident. (A positive coolant  
void coefficient, though not involving sodium, contributed to the  
runaway reaction increase during the April 1986 Chernobyl reactor  
accident.) In contrast, conventional light water reactors typically  
have a "negative coolant void coefficient" so that a loss of coolant  
reduces the core's reactivity. The existing Indian fast breeder test  
reactor, with its much smaller core, doesn't have a positive coolant  
void coefficient. Thus, the DAE doesn't have real-world experience in  
handling the safety challenges that a large prototype reactor will pose.

More largely, international experience shows that fast breeder  
reactors aren't ready for commercial use. Superphénix, the flagship  
of the French breeder program, remained inoperative for the majority  
of its 11-year lifetime until it was finally shuttered in 1996.  
Concerns about the adequacy of the design of the German fast breeder  
reactor led to it being contested by environmental groups and the  
local state government in the 1980s and ultimately to its  
cancellation in 1991. And the Japanese fast reactor Monju shut down  
in 1995 after a sodium coolant leak caused a fire and has yet to  
restart. Only China and Russia are still developing fast breeders.  
China, however, has yet to operate one, and the Russian BN-600 fast  
reactor has suffered repeated sodium leaks and fires.

When it comes to India's prototype fast breeder reactor, two distinct  
questions must be asked: (1) Is there confidence about how an  
accident would propagate inside the core and how much energy it might  
release?; and (2) have PFBR design efforts been as strict as  
necessary, given the possibility that an accident would be difficult  
to contain and potentially harmful to the surrounding population?

The simple answer to both is no.

The DAE, like other fast-reactor developers, has tried to study how  
severe a core-disruptive accident would be and how much energy it  
would release. In the case of the PFBR, the DAE has argued that the  
worst-case core disruptive accident would release an explosive energy  
of 100 megajoules. This is questionable.

The DAE's estimate is much smaller when compared with other fast  
reactors, especially when the much larger power capacity of the PFBR-- 
and thus, the larger amount of fissile material used in the reactor-- 
is taken into account. For example, it was estimated that the smaller  
German reactor (designed to produce 760 megawatts of thermal energy)  
would produce 370 megajoules in the event of a core-disruptive  
accident--much higher than the PFBR estimate. Other fast reactors  
around the world have similarly higher estimates for how much energy  
would be produced in such accidents.

The DAE's estimate is based on two main assumptions: (1) that only  
part of the core will melt down and contribute to the accident; and  
(2) that only about 1 percent of the thermal energy released during  
the accident would be converted into mechanical energy that can  
damage the containment building and cause ejection of radioactive  
materials into the atmosphere.

Neither of these assumptions is justifiable. Britain's Atomic Energy  
Authority has done experiments that suggest up to 4 percent of the  
thermal energy could be converted into mechanical energy. And the  
phenomena that might occur inside the reactor core during a severe  
accident are very complex, so there's no way to stage a full-scale  
experiment to compare with the theoretical accident models that the  
reactor's designers used in their estimates. In addition, important  
omissions in the DAE's own safety studies make their analysis  
inadequately conservative. (Our independent estimates of the energy  
produced in a hypothetical PFBR core disruptive accident are  
presented in the Science and Global Security article, "Compromising  
Safety: Design Choices and Severe Accident Possibilities in India's  
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor" and these are much higher than the  
DAE's estimates.)

Turning to the second question: In terms of the stringency of the  
DAE's design effort, the record reveals inadequate safety  
precautions. One goal of any "defense-in-depth" design is to engineer  
barriers to withstand the most severe accident that's considered  
plausible. Important among these barriers is the reactor's  
containment building, the most visible structure from the outside of  
any nuclear plant. Compared to most other breeder reactors, and light  
water reactors for that matter, the design of the PFBR's containment  
is relatively weak and won't be able to contain an accident that  
releases a large amount of energy. The DAE knows how to build  
stronger containments--its newest heavy water reactor design has a  
containment building that is meant to withstand six times more  
pressure than the PFBR's containment--but has chosen not to do so for  
the PFBR.

The other unsafe design choice is that of the reactor core. As  
mentioned earlier, the destabilizing positive coolant void  
coefficient in fast reactors is a problem because it increases the  
possibility that reactivity will escalate inside the core during an  
accident. It's possible to decrease this effect by designing the  
reactor core so that fuel subassemblies are interspersed within the  
depleted uranium blanket, in what is termed a heterogeneous core. The  
U.S. Clinch River Breeder Reactor, which was eventually cancelled,  
was designed with a heterogeneous core, and Russia has considered a  
heterogeneous core for its planned BN-1600 reactor. The DAE hasn't  
made such an effort, and the person who directed India's fast breeder  
program during part of the design phase once argued that the emphasis  
on the coolant void coefficient was mistaken because a negative void  
coefficient could lead to dangerous situations in an accident as  
well. That might be true, but it misses the obvious point that the  
same potentially dangerous situations would be even more dangerous if  
the void coefficient within the core is positive.

Both of these design choices--a weak containment building and a  
reactor core with a large and positive void coefficient--are readily  
explainable: They lowered costs. Reducing the sodium coolant void  
coefficient would have increased the fissile material requirement of  
the reactor by 30-50 percent--an expensive component of the initial  
costs. Likewise, a stronger containment building would have cost  
more. All of this is motivated by the DAE's assessment that "the  
capital cost of [fast breeder reactors] will remain the most  
important hurdle" to their rapid deployment.

Lowered electricity costs would normally be most welcome, but not  
with the increased risk of catastrophic accidents caused by poorly  
designed fast breeder reactors.

_____


[7] WHERE IS THE GEOGRAPHY? WORLD BANK’S WDR 2009

by  Anant Maringanti , Eric Sheppard , Jun Zhang
(The Economic and Political Weekly, 29 July 18 - July 24, 2009)

The World Development Report, a flagship report of the World Bank, is  
a document written by economists who treat politics as an  
inconvenient reality, though it is a thoroughly political document.  
The 2009 edition of the WDR, Reshaping Economic Geography, is  
critically discussed here, first, from a geographical disciplinary  
perspective. This article then demonstrates how the report erases  
politics by drawing on two national experiences, India and China,  
highlighted in the document as global hotspots of growth. The Report  
effectively promotes a checkbox style to development, exhorting  
policymakers to see themselves as managers of “portfolios of  
places”.
http://www.epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/13729.pdf
______


[8] THE LONG FIGHT AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING

The use of animals in medical research is increasing at its fastest  
rate since 1986. We must find a credible humane alternative

Peter Tatchell

(guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2009)


The government has been assuring us for many years that animal  
experiments are only sanctioned for high priority medical research,  
as a last resort. We were told that the trend was for fewer  
laboratory procedures using animals. Indeed, the government boasted  
that it was committed to big cuts in animal-based research through  
the development of replacement methods. This seemed to be the case  
for several years, when the use of lab animals steadily declined.

It therefore comes as a major surprise to learn that in 2008 the  
number of medical experiments involving animals has shown the largest  
rise since modern records began. Home Office figures state that  
nearly 3.7m experiments were performed on animals last year, a rise  
of 454,000 or 14% on the previous year. This is the steepest increase  
in animal use in medical research since 1986, when the government  
introduced new recording and monitoring procedures.

While most experiments in 2008 involved mice, macaque monkeys were  
used in 1,000 extra experiments, a hike of 33%. This trend is  
particularly disturbing and difficult to justify, given that macaques  
(and other monkeys used in UK labs) are intelligent, social animals.  
They share many human-like attributes, including language, tool-use,  
reasoning, emotions, improvisation, planning, empathy and the  
capacity to feel both physical and psychological pain. The mere fact  
of their imprisonment in laboratory cages – usually in solitary  
confinement – is a serious abuse of these thinking, feeling creatures.

The spike in animal experimentation coincides with the 50th  
anniversary of landmark proposals to find alternatives. Alas, for  
half a century successive governments have failed to fund the  
promised development of replacement methods – even though every  
scientist knows that animal models are flawed and imperfect  
approximations of the human body and human disease.

Over a decade ago, I was invited to join a working party based at the  
Medical Research Council's head office in London. The aim was to look  
at ways of replacing animal research with credible, rigorous humane  
options. But in the end, despite the shiny promises, neither the MRC  
nor the government was willing to stump up the money to devise  
cruelty-free alternatives. The meetings were all talk and PR spin. I  
walked out in despair.

The recent jump in animal research has been condemned by animal  
rights campaigners who have called for a new co-ordinated effort to  
reduce the number of animals used in medical research. "With the  
scientific expertise this country has to offer we should have seen  
far greater progress to replace animals with more advanced  
techniques," said Sebastien Farnaud of the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane  
Research. The organisation called on political parties to agree to a  
"roadmap to replacement" to reduce the use of animals in research.

Replacement of animals is possible in many spheres of medical  
research. Remember how the supporters of vivisection used to say that  
it was impossible and dangerous to halt the animal testing of  
cosmetics and household products? Well, despite their scare- 
mongering, it has been possible to safely replace many animal tests  
that were previously said to be "irreplaceable." The Dr Hadwen Trust  
has shown that alternatives are safe and effective. With tiny amounts  
of self-generated funding, it has already financed the development of  
successful, scientifically-validated alternatives to experiments that  
were once conducted with animals, including brain, kidney, diabetes  
and rheumatism research.

Of course, some animal research has provided breakthroughs in medical  
science. But these breakthroughs might have also come about through  
non-animal experimentation if they had been equally well funded.  
There is also a problem with information gleaned from animals in  
labs. What applies to mice, dogs, monkeys or rabbits may not  
necessarily apply to humans. Our physiology is sufficiently different  
to invalidate most cures devised by animal experimentation.

HIV, for example, is deadly to humans but not to most laboratory  
animals. So studying HIV in other species may not produce results  
that are applicable to humans. The same goes for any treatments  
devised for HIV. They may work in chimpanzees or cats, but not in  
people. Animal research is often bad science. Human-centred research  
invariably gets more accurate, effective and safe results. "The  
animals provide data – of course they do – but it's the wrong  
data," said Andre Menache from Animal Aid. "It applies to monkeys; it  
doesn't apply to people.

"Whatever you discover, you will have to re-discover using people, so  
not only do the animals suffer using these experiments, the first few  
patients using these novel treatments will suffer, too. In fact,  
there are 700 treatments for stroke that work in laboratory animals  
– only one works in people and even that one treatment is  
controversial. We are doing something wrong," he told BBC News.

For me, cruelty is barbarism, whether it is inflicted on humans or on  
other species. The campaigns for animal rights and human rights share  
the same fundamental aim: a kinder, gentler world without oppression  
and suffering, based on care and compassion. The abuse of animals in  
farming, sport, circuses, zoos, the fashion industry and medical  
experiments is a blot on humanity. The sooner we end it, the better.


______


[9] ANNOUNCEMENTS:

(i) INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE SEEKS TO IDENTIFY WAR CRIMINALS

Liberation War Museum holds an international conference in Dhaka on  
July 30-31, seeking to start a process of identifying the  
perpetrators of genocide during Liberation War in 1971, and develop a  
broad network to ensure justice to those responsible for crimes  
against humanity.

This conference is going to be held at a historic moment for the  
nation when the government is moving towards right direction to try  
the war criminals, said Liberation War Museum Trustee Mofidul Haque  
at a press conference on the museum premises in the capital.

The Second International Conference on Genocide, Truth and Justice,  
which will be held at Cirdap auditorium, will bring together  
representatives from the International Criminal Court, international  
legal prosecutors involved in war crimes tribunals, International  
Council of Jurists, and academics from Hong Kong, Korea, Germany,  
Japan, Pakistan, Canada, Cambodia, UK and local experts.

A special programme involving witnesses, victims of genocide and  
members of young generation will also be arranged. Arrangements will  
also be made to ensure participation of the expatriate Bangladeshis  
via online video.

Mofidul Haque said Liberation War Museum held the first such  
conference in March last year to create consensus at home and abroad  
about the demand of trial of the war criminals.

Now that the nation voted for a change upholding the core values of  
liberation war, the government has also decided to try the war  
criminals and made necessary amendments to the International Crimes  
(Tribunal) Act, 1973.

The conference, therefore, carries great significance for Bangladesh  
as well as the world community, Mofidul Haque said, adding that it  
will address how societies victimized by genocide and mass atrocities  
can move forward and how world community can prevent such brutality  
from recurring in future.

The conference will pave the way to be supportive of the justice  
initiative undertaken by the government and get the community  
involved with the process of the trial, he said.

It will assist in recalling the Bangladesh genocide back onto global  
agenda and raise awareness amongst Bangladeshis at home and across  
the globe to strengthen the initiative to bring the war criminals of  
1971 to justice, he noted.

Bangladesh can learn from the experiences of those who were involved  
in trying war criminals in different countries, Haque said.

Liberation War Museum Trustees Tariq Ali and architect Rabiul Husain  
also spoke.
(source: The Daily Star, 28 July 2009)

o o o

THE 2009 RUTH FIRST LECTURE ON MONDAY, 17 AUGUST 2009 - THE 27TH  
ANNIVERSARY OF RUTH FIRST'S ASSASSINATION.

The Vice Chancellor, Professor Lyyiso Nongxa, in partnership with the  
Ruth First Trust and the Wits Journalism Programme, invites you to  
attend the 8th annual Ruth First Memrorial Lecture

The ANC: Then and Now

Frene Ginwala, former speaker of Parliament, will open the event.

Jacob Dlamini, a 2009 Ruth First Fellow, will  present his research  
“Roots, Branches and Politics: An in-depth look at ANC branch   
politics”

Maggie Davey, a 2009 Ruth First Fellow, (currently publisher at  
Jacana Media) will talk about the frustrated attempts to investigate  
the assassination of ANC representative Dulcie September in Paris in  
1988.

Monday 17th August 2009, 17h30
Senate Room, 2nd Floor, Senate House
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg

The Lecture is organised under the auspices of the Investigative  
Journalism Workshop of the University of the Witwatersrand’s  
Journalism Programme. It is done in conjunction with the Ruth First  
Trust in London and the African Studies Journal.

[The Ruth First Committee consists of Jacklyn Cock, Shireen Hassim,  
Liza Key, Indra de Lanerolle and Anton Harber]


o o o

DANIEL PEARL AWARDS TO HONOR WORLD'S BEST CROSS-BORDER INVESTIGATIVE  
JOURNALISM

Posted on: 16/07/2009
Deadline: January 15, 2010

The 2010 Daniel Pearl Awards competition, which honors the world’s  
best cross-border investigative journalism, has begun accepting entries.

The contest is open to any journalist or team of journalists of any  
nationality working in any medium. Entries must involve reporting in  
at least two countries on a topic of world significance.

Granted by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists  
(ICIJ), the awards include two $5,000 first-place prizes, along with  
five additional $1,000 prizes. The awards will be presented at the  
6th Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Geneva,  
Switzerland, in April 2010. Formerly the ICIJ Awards, the prizes were  
renamed in 2008 in honor of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel  
Pearl, who was slain by militants in Pakistan in 2002.

There is no entry fee. Submissions from Latin America, Asia, Africa  
and the Middle East are especially encouraged.

Deadline: January 15, 2010 (postmark).

For more details, go to
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/icij/awards/


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

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.