SACW | Dec 3-5, 2009 / CHT accord / Sri Lanka Ethnic Cleansing / Taliban's War on Children / Kashmir Unmarked Graves / Bhopal 25 years on / Nuclear Safety after Kaiga / India's carnage carnivals
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 00:16:22 CST 2009
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 3-5, 2009 | Dispatch No. 2673 -
Year 12 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] Bangladesh: 12 Years of CHT Peace Accord
+ Dithering over implementation of CHT treaty regrettable
(Editorial, New Age)
+ Implementing CHT peace accord: A consensual approach
needed (Editorial, The Daily Star)
+ Peace lies in roadmap
[2] An Island Tragedy: Buddhist Ethnic Cleansing in Sri Lanka (A.
Sivanandan)
[3] The Pakistani Taliban's War on Schoolchildren (Christopher
Allbritton)
[4] India Administered Kashmir: Burried Evidence on Unmarked Graves
(International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in
Kashmir)
+ Editorial : Noise about 'quiet' diplomacy (Editorial,
Kashmir Times)
[5] India: The Bhopal Disaster, 25 years on - an sacw.net compilation
[6] India: Nuclear Safety and Public Accountability
(i) Kaiga: Question mark over nuclear safety (Praful Bidwai)
(ii) Our Atom State (Ramachandra Guha)
(iii) Some Questions Raised by the Contamination Incident at
Kaiga (Surendra Gadekar)
[7] India: Resources For Secular Activists
(i) Can we stop the carnage carnivals? by Javed Anand
(ii) Liberhan Commission Report: Better Late than Never by Ram
Puniyani
(iii) Karnataka govt. machine used by Hindu right to violate
status quo on the Bababudan giri hills
(iv) Interview with D.N.Jha, eminent historian.
[8] Announcements :
(i) Dharna Against Atrocities on Dalits in Madhya Pradesh (New
Delhi, 5 December 2009)
(ii) Memorial Meeting for Professor Mohammad Nauman (Karachi, 5
December 2009)
(iii) Remembering Ayodhya (New Delhi, 6 December 2009)
(iv) Book Release and Discussion: Praful Bidwai's New Book on
Climate Change (New Delhi, 7 December 2009)
(v) Buddhist Warfare, edited by Michael Jerryson and Mark
Juergensmeyer
_____
[1] Bangladesh:
New Age, December 3, 2009
EDITORIAL : DITHERING OVER IMPLEMENTATION OF CHT TREATY REGRETTABLE
IT IS regrettable that the Chittagong Hill Tracts peace treaty has
not yet been completely implemented although 12 years have passed
since the previous Awami League government signed the agreement with
the Parbatya Chhatagram Jana Sanghati Samiti, the political umbrella
of the now-defunct Shanti Bahini on December 2, 1997. The treaty not
only heralded the end to 22 years of guerrilla warfare but also
marked, for the first time, the state’s theoretical recognition of
the conflict of interest between the majority Bengalis and the
minority ethnic communities and thus gave rise to the possibility of
natural peace in the war-ravaged hill tracts. Subsequently, however,
a combination of political opportunism of the AL government and
political chauvinism of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance
government has stalled the process of its implementation.
Indeed, the treaty has its own drawback. At least two of its
provisions, both related to voter registration, are untenable and run
counter to the constitution and the spirit of democracy. While a
separate voter roll for the hill tracts is in direct contravention
with the constitution, the suggestion that land ownership is a
necessary precondition for registration as voters is completely
unacceptable in a democratic polity, which does not discriminate
between the landed and the landless with regard to their right to
exercise their adult franchise. Yet, in spite of such drawbacks, the
treaty offers a realistic chance to establish sustainable peace and
harmony in the hill tracts. Even the United People’s Democratic
Front, which has thus far opposed the treaty and marked December 2 as
a ‘black day’, now believes ‘restoration of peace in the hills
is possible through full implementation of the hills.’
Overall, these are auspicious times to let the seed of peace, so
to speak, bloom in the hill tracts. However, to this end, the ruling
class belonging to both sides of the political divide has a crucial
decision to make. They have to decide whether they want to see
Bangladesh as a nation-state shaped up by Bengali nationalism alone
or recognise that the country is home to not only the Bengalis but
also people of different ethnicities who have their own aspirations
– political, economic, social and cultural. Global experience and
our recent history teach us that deprivation and suppression of any
ethnic group ultimately results in adverse impact on a state’s
territorial integrity. The ruling class need also to realise that the
nationalistic chauvinism of the majority Bengalis, may have, in the
first place, stirred resentment in the minority ethnic communities
and prompted them to resort to violent actions prior to the signing
of the peace treaty. If the minority ethnic communities continue to
feel deprived of their rights as a citizen of the people’s republic,
the simmering discontent in the hills might once again erupt into a
sustained conflict with grave ramifications for the territorial
integrity of the state. Moreover, if such a conflict were to emerge,
foreign powers would be only too happy to fish in the muddy waters,
just as a neighbouring country did during the guerrilla wars in the
hills for more than two decades.
The prime minister’s assertion that her government is determined
to implement the CHT treaty is indeed welcome. However, the people in
general and the ethnic communities of the hill tracts in particular
have had enough of assurances and reassurances; they want action
commensurate with such promises. The people also expect the
opposition camp led by the BNP to extend the government a helping
hand and not become a barrier to implementation of the peace treaty
merely for partisan mileage.
o o o
The Daily star, December 3, 2009
Editorial : IMPLEMENTING CHT PEACE ACCORD: A CONSENSUAL APPROACH NEEDED
Twelve years of Chittagong Hill Tracts accord provided an occasion
for not only stocktaking as to where we stand in terms of realisation
of its provisions but also for some hard thinking on the part of
people who have a stake in accelerating the process of its
implementation. The observance of the twelfth anniversary of the
signing of the accord has therefore served a useful purpose by
providing an in-depth reappraisal of the CHT situation. Practically,
it has been as much a matter of commemorating an auspicious turning
point in the history of Bangladesh in that it ended 25 years of
insurgency, conflict and bloodshed in Chittagong Hill Tracts through
political means as one of regrets and soul searching over why some
major provisions of the accord remain unimplemented even to this day.
While taking heart from the AL-led Mahajote government's efforts to
push the process of implementation forward by means of a national
committee and the task force, we would urge the government to try a
new approach in materialising some important provisions set out in
the accord. There has been talk of a review of the agreement in a bid
to remove the weaknesses of the accord. We think, this suggestion
should be heeded to respond to contemporary ground realities,
strengthened in the fundamental belief that the accord brought peace
in the region and upon its full implementations benefits would accrue
to all sides.
Let's not forget, land disputes between the indigenous people and the
settlers from plain land are at the heart of implementation problems.
By all means, the land commission which has done very little since
its inception in 2001, should be revitalised and its modus operandi
determined in consultations with all the stakeholders. Importantly,
the question relating to constitutional guarantee may be addressed.
The powers of the CHT regional council should be clearly laid down.
It is important from the representational and participatory points of
view that elections be held to the regional and district councils.
We endorse the suggestion from the civil society that the existing
CHT regional council, the land commission and the CHT accord
implementation committee should deliberate among themselves as well
as with the leaders of the indigenous communities and the Bangalees
to resolve the problems of implementation.
o o o
SEE ALSO:
Peace lies in roadmap
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=116039
_____
[2] Sri Lanka:
New Left Review 60, November-December 2009
AN ISLAND TRAGEDY: Buddhist Ethnic Cleansing in Sri Lanka
A. Sivanandan recounts his country's long road to ethnic cleansing,
from the social engineering of colonial Ceylon to Colombo's anti-
Tamil campaigns. Marginalization, displacement and destruction of a
people, in a communal onslaught fanned by Buddhist chauvinism.
Could you tell us about your origins and background?
I was born in Colombo in 1923, but my father's family were tenant
farmers from the village of Sandilipay in Jaffna Province. The north
of the island is flat and arid‚ there are no trees, no rivers, no
mountains. My grandfather had so little land, and such poor land,
that the only thing he grew was children: he had thirteen in all, but
seven died in childbirth or very young. He was so fertile that he was
known locally as the farmer with a green penis. My father was the
second-youngest of thirteen. He was very bright, did very well at the
local school, and won a scholarship to a Catholic school in Colombo.
Education was the only route to jobs and social advancement for
Tamils. Under British colonial rule, many Tamils were sent to fill
bureaucratic posts in one or another malarial station in the
interior, to open up the country, as it were. My father, who was
educated at primary school in Tamil and English, joined the postal
service at the age of sixteen, to support his family. By the time I
was born, he was a sub-postmaster in Kandy, but throughout my
childhood he was often transferred from one place to another. So when
I was ten or eleven, I was sent to Colombo, to attend St Joseph's
College. It was a big Catholic school in the middle of the city, but
surrounded by narrow streets and slums, through which rich people
travelled to attend classes.
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2812
_____
[3] Pakistan:
THE PAKISTANI TALIBAN'S WAR ON SCHOOLCHILDREN
by Christopher Allbritton
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/
0,8599,1943639,00.html#ixzz0Ymk0VVkp
–––––
[4] Kashmir:
(i) BURRIED EVIDENCE
International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in
Kashmir (IPTK)
For Immediate Release
December 2, 2009
Announces the release of its report
BURIED EVIDENCE: Unknown, Unmarked, and Mass Graves in Indian-
administered Kashmir
At a press conference on Wednesday, December 02, 2009, in Srinagar,
Kashmir.
Report, photographs, video clips available at: www.kashmirprocess.org
BURIED EVIDENCE documents 2,700 unknown, unmarked, and mass graves,
containing 2,943+ bodies, across 55 villages in Bandipora, Baramulla,
and Kupwara districts of Kashmir, based on applied research conducted
between November 2006-November 2009.
BURIED EVIDENCE is authored by Angana P. Chatterji, Parvez Imroz,
Gautam Navlakha, Zahir-Ud-Din, Mihir Desai, and Khurram Parvez.
[Dr. Angana P. Chatterji is Convener IPTK and Professor,
Anthropology, California Institute of Integral Studies.
Advocate Parvez Imroz is Convener IPTK and Founder, Jammu and
Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society.
Gautam Navlakha is Convener IPTK and Editorial Consultant, Economic
and Political Weekly.
Zahir-Ud-Din is Convener IPTK and Vice-President, Jammu and Kashmir
Coalition of Civil Society.
is Legal Counsel IPTK and Lawyer, Mumbai High Court and Supreme
Court of India.
is Liaison IPTK and Programme Coordinator, Jammu and Kashmir
Coalition of Civil Society.]
Findings
The graveyards investigated by IPTK entomb bodies of those murdered
in encounter and fake encounter killings between 1990-2009. These
graves include bodies of extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary
executions, as well as massacres committed by the Indian military and
paramilitary forces.
Of these graves, 2,373 (87.9 percent) were unnamed. Of these graves,
154 contained two bodies each and 23 contained more than two
cadavers. Within these 23 graves, the number of bodies ranged from 3
to 17.
A mass grave may be identified as containing more than one, and
usually unidentified, human cadaver. Scholars refer to mass graves as
resulting from crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. If
the intent of a mass grave is to execute death with impunity, with
intent to kill more than one, and to forge an unremitting
representation of death, then, to that extent, the graves in
Bandipora, Baramulla, and Kupwara are part of a collective burial by
India’s military and paramilitary, creating a landscape of "mass
burial."
Post-death, the bodies of the victims were routinely handled by
military and paramilitary personnel, including the local police. The
bodies were then brought to the "secret graveyards" primarily by
personnel of the Jammu and Kashmir Police. The graves were
constructed by local gravediggers and caretakers, buried individually
when possible, and specifically not en mass, in keeping with Islamic
religious sensibilities.
The graves, with few exceptions, hold bodies of men. Violence against
civilian men has expanded spaces for enacting violence against women.
Women have been forced to disproportionately assume the task of
caregiving to disintegrated families and undertake the work of
seeking justice following disappearances and deaths. These graveyards
have been placed next to fields, schools, and homes, largely on
community land, and their affect on the local community is daunting.
The Indian Armed Forces and the Jammu and Kashmir Police routinely
claim the dead buried in unknown and unmarked graves to be "foreign
militants/terrorists." They claim that the dead were unidentified
foreign or Kashmiri militants killed while infiltrating across the
border areas into Kashmir or travelling from Kashmir into Pakistan to
seek arms training. Official state discourse conflates cross-border
militancy with present nonviolent struggles by local Kashmiri groups
for political and territorial self-determination, portraying local
resistance as "terrorist" activity.
Exhumation and identification have not occurred in sizeable cases.
Where they have been undertaken, in various instances, "encounter"
killings across Kashmir have, in fact, been authenticated as "fake
encounter" killings. In instances where, post-burial, bodies have
been identified, two methods have been used prevalently. These are 1.
Exhumation; and 2. Identification through the use of photographs.
The report also examines 50 alleged "encounter" killings by Indian
security forces in numerous districts in Kashmir. Of these persons,
39 were of Muslim descent; 4 were of Hindu descent; 7 were not
determined. Of these cases, 49 were labelled militants/foreign
insurgents by security forces and one body that was drowned. Of
these, following investigations, 47 were found killed in fake
encounters and one was identifiable as a local militant.
IPTK has been able to study only partial areas within 3 of 10
districts in Kashmir, and our findings and very preliminary evidence
point to the severity of existing conditions. If independent
investigations were to be undertaken in all 10 districts, it is
reasonable to assume that the 8,000+ enforced disappearances since
1989 would correlate with the number of bodies in unknown, unmarked,
and mass graves.
Allegations
The methodical and planned use of killing and violence in Indian-
administered Kashmir constitutes crimes against humanity in the
context of an ongoing conflict. The Indian state’s governance of
Indian-administered Kashmir requires the use of discipline and death
as techniques of social control. Discipline is affected through
military presence, surveillance, punishment, and fear. Death is
disbursed through "extrajudicial" means and those authorized by law.
These techniques of rule are used to kill, and create fear of not
just death but of murder.
Mass and intensified extrajudicial killings have been part of a
sustained and widespread offensive by the military and paramilitary
institutions of the Indian state against civilians of Jammu and
Kashmir. IPTK asks that the evidence put forward in this report be
examined, verified, and reframed as relevant by credible,
independent, and international bodies, and that international
institutions ask that the Government of India comply with such
investigations.
We note that the international community and institutions have not
examined the supposition of crimes against humanity in Indian-
administered Jammu and Kashmir. We note that the United Nations and
its member states have remained ineffective in containing and halting
the adverse consequences of the Indians state’s militarization in
Kashmir.
We ask that evidence from unknown, unmarked, and mass graves in
Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir be used to seek justice,
through the sentencing of criminals and other judicial and social
processes. As well, the existence of these graves, and how they came
to be, may be understood as indicative of the effects and issue of
militarization, and the issues pertaining to militarization itself
must be addressed seriously and expeditiously.
The violences of militarization in Indian-administered Kashmir,
between 1989-2009, have resulted in 70,000+ deaths, including through
extrajudicial or "fake encounter" executions, custodial brutality,
and other means. In the enduring conflict, 6, 67,000 military and
paramilitary personnel continue to act with impunity to regulate
movement, law, and order across Kashmir. The Indian state itself,
through its legal, political, and military actions, has demonstrated
the existence of a state of continuing conflict within Indian-
administered Jammu and Kashmir.
Queries may be directed to:
Khurram Parvez
E-mail: kparvez [at] kashmirprocess [dot] org
Phone: +91.194.2482820
Mobile: +91.9419013553
o o o
(ii)
Kashmir Times
4 December 2009
EDITORIAL : NOISE ABOUT 'QUIET' DIPLOMACY
Symbolic reduction of troops will not make any difference in the
ground situation
Neither the Union Home Minister's announcement about the Centre's
willingness to take, what he described as a "risky step" of
withdrawing "significant" number of armed forces from Jammu and
Kashmir nor his claim that there has been "positive response" to New
Delhi's offer for talks "with every shade of opinion" in the State
will bring any cheers to the beleaguered people caught in a devil and
deep sea situation for the past two decades. In no way it generates
hopes for an early, peaceful and lasting solution of the over six
decade old Kashmir dispute. The merciful gesture of withdrawing some
troops from the State is certainly not going to any change in the
ground situation. On P. Chidambram's own admission level of violence
in the state has been lowest this year and it has been repeatedly
stated by the official spokesmen of the Union government that the
number of militants operating in J&K has come down from several
thousands to just a couple of hundreds. It is also officially
conceded that the infiltration from across the Line of Control has
considerably gone down. The number of armed forces deployed in the
State to deal with militancy at present is much more than what it was
during the peak period of militancy with official statements putting
the figure at 5,000 and even more. In addition a number of para-
military forces have been deployed in the State to assist the Armed
Forces. The strength of the State police has increased menacingly
with the manifold step up in the budget allocations for this force.
In addition a large number of dreaded "Ikhwanis" are at the command
of the security forces, resorting to grave human rights abuses.
Contrary to the Prime Minister's promise of "zero tolerance" to the
human rights abuses there has been no let up on that account, as the
recent events have shown. Nothing has been done to strengthen
mechanism for dealing with the cases of human rights abuses and not a
single culprit has been brought to book. While in most cases no
independent probe has been ordered, the reports of some of the
inquiry commissions have remained unimplemented. The armed forces are
armed with the blanket powers, enjoying impunity for their acts,
under the notorious Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and other
similar draconian laws. It is now nearly two years that the working
group of the mainstream political parties headed by M.H. Ansari, at
present Vice President of India, on Confidence Building Measures, set
up by the Prime Minister himself, had in its report recommended the
repeal of AFSPA, Disturbed Areas Act and other laws which impinge the
fundamental rights of the citizens. But so far nothing has been done
in this regard. Unless these laws or repealed and the situation is
tackled through normal laws the symbolic reduction of armed forces is
not going to make any difference. Such a step alone can neither
overcome trust deficit nor can it reduce the level of people's
alienation from New Delhi.
Chidambram's claim of "encouraging response" to New Delhi's offer for
talks with every shade of opinion too is contrary to the reality. The
dialogue process for a Kashmir solution has to go beyond the
diplomatic jargon, bureaucratic hassles and misplaced sense of
national security, if it has to reach its logical end. It has also to
be based on mutual trust among the negotiating parties. Any process
of dialogue must be meaningful, credible, transparent and all
inclusive. The manner in which the present process of dialogue is
going on does not raise hope of any early breakthrough, not to talk
of a final and lasting solution of the vexed problem. The policy of
divide and rule or to use one section against the other has proved
counter-productive in the past and its result can be no different
now. The proclaimed "quiet diplomacy" being pursued by New Delhi has
already created doubts in the separatists camp about the genuineness
of New Delhi in reaching out a negotiated settlement. Instead of
uniting them to speak with one voice it has further divided them.
Without bringing all shades of opinion in J&K and Pakistan, which is
a party to the dispute in view of its controlling a part of the
State, no lasting solution is possible. New Delhi is still not
willing to resume composite dialogue with Pakistan not to talk of
involving the neighbouring country in finding an agreed solution of
the Kashmir problem. For creating a conducive climate for dialogue
the Confidence Building measures are necessary. Nothing is being done
in this regard.
_____
[4] India: The struggle for justice for people of Bhopal
The Bhopal Disaster, 25 years on - A Dossier
an sacw.net compilation on the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster
Contents:
1. Letter to India’s Prime Minister by Bhopal Survivors
Organisations (Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Saghathan, Bhopal Gas
Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti) 9 November 2009
2. Memorandum to the Prime Minister (Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila
Udyog Saghathan, Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti) 16
November 2009
3. A video by Amnesty International
4. 25 Years After Bhopal Disaster, Survivors Still Seeking
Justice (A Democracy Now Audio)
5. December 1984 (Sathyu Sarangi)
6. Bhopal: 25 years of shame (Praful Bidwai)
7. A quarter century of unnatural gas (Antara Dev Sen)
8. Poisoned and shut (Indra Sinha)
9. A Cloud Still Hangs Over Bhopal (Suketu Mehta)
10. Bhopal: Generations of Poison (Nityanand Jayaraman)
11. Bhopal Gas Tragedy: All papers in order, but denied their due
(Suchandana Gupta)
12. Bhopal water still toxic 25 years after deadly gas leak, study
finds (Randeep Ramesh)
http://www.sacw.net/article1264.html
_____
[5] India: Nuclear Safety and Accountability
(i)
rediff.com, December 04, 2009
KAIGA: QUESTION MARK OVER NUCLEAR SAFETY
To investigate the Kaiga episode, we need an independent committee,
composed of external experts, radiation biologists, safety
specialists and representatives of workers. We cannot afford to be
cavalier about nuclear safety, writes Praful Bidwai.
The poisoning of more than 90 workers with radioactive tritium at the
Kaiga nuclear power station is a serious safety violation, which
calls for a critical look at India's nuclear power programme. The way
the episode came to light, and the manner in which the authorities,
from plant managers to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, to top
officials of the Department of Atomic Energy, responded to it is a
disturbing tale in itself.
The tritium ingestion was noticed on November 24 only after its
effects had become manifest in abnormal levels of the isotope found
in the urine of 92 plant workers, of the 800 tested. The plant
managers admitted to the incident only after it caused public concern
and the media reported it. Although they called this a "malevolent
act", they didn't report it to the police for a week. The police
aren't convinced this was the first occurrence of its kind at Kaiga.
We still don't know precisely how and for how long the workers'
internal exposure to tritium occurred, what was the concentration of
tritium in the water-cooler (which was allegedly deliberately spiked
with tritium), and how many people drank the water. All that the
Nuclear Power Corporation, which operates the Kaiga reactors, said is
that two workers received a dose exceeding the 30 millisievert
maximum limit stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. This
is a general limit for radiation, not specific to tritium, a highly
toxic substance for which different measures such as Curies or
Bequerels per litre are usually prescribed the world over.
AERB and DAE officials have denied safety lapses and blamed the
mishap on internal 'sabotage' or 'mischief-making' by unidentified
employees: these employees, 'it appears', added tritium-contaminated
heavy water to a drinking-water cooler. The officials claim the
cooler was properly sealed and the 'mischief-maker' poured the
tritiated water into it through its 'overflow tube'.
This raises many awkward questions. Did the affected workers involved
belong to the Kaiga power reactor? How frequently and rigorously are
their urine samples tested? If the testing is not done daily, the
tritium ingestion could have occurred many days before it was
detected. If so, the heath effects would be far worse than claimed.
If, on the other hand, the workers belonged to a special facility to
produce tritium for military purposes by separating it from tritiated
heavy water -- as some reports suggest -- then the incident points to
a grave safety vacuum or violation.
In the second case, only the best-trained and security-cleared
employees should have been allowed to extract tritium-containing
water, put it into vials and handle or transport it -- and too only
under strict supervision. Evidently, this wasn't ensured. In any
case, it doesn't make sense to allow anyone to handle a dangerous and
expensive material like tritium without stringent oversight. The
estimated costs of producing tritium vary from $30,000 (about Rs
13.88 lakh) per gramme in Canada [ Images ] to $100,000 (about Rs
46.27 lakh) in the US. Strategically, tritium is an extremely
sensitive material used in nuclear weapons as a booster
The AERB and the DAE are wrong to counterpose 'mischief' by
'disgruntled' employees to safety lapses. Good regulation and sound
safety procedures must reckon with the possibility of mischief,
irresponsible conduct or sabotage, and prevent or limit harm from
them. The possibility that employees' discontent should reach such
extremes as deliberately inflicting harm upon their colleagues speaks
of a poor working culture and calls for introspection on the DAE's part.
The DAE's hypothesis that a worker inserted the tritium into the
water cooler through its overflow tube sounds dubious. Given the
weight of the water column inside the overflow tube, the tritium
would have to be pumped into it with considerable force. This at
minimum would require some planning and prior collection of equipment
like pumps.
This needs thorough investigation by an independent body. That body
cannot be the AERB. The board is a subsidiary of the Atomic Energy
Commission, without its own staff, budget or equipment. The DAE is
the operator, planner, licensor, builder and manager of all nuclear
projects -- without independent regulation or safety audit. The DAE
secretary is also the AEC chairman. The AERB, as former board
chairman A Goapalakrishnan puts it, is the DAE's 'lapdog'.
To investigate the Kaiga episode, we need a truly independent
committee, composed of external experts, radiation biologists, safety
specialists and representatives of workers and citizens liable to be
affected by nuclear mishaps. Parliament must demand such a committee
which is empowered to examine all the relevant records and practices
and recommend compensation to the affected workers and corrective
action. The truth about the tritium exposure must be fully established.
The DAE has tried to trivialise the hazards posed by tritium and
treated it as a non-toxic substance. But tritium is a beta-ray
emitter and can cause extensive, irreversible damage. Scientific
studies indicate that tritium in living creatures can produce effects
including cancer, genetic defects and developmental abnormalities. It
can cause mutations, tumours and cell death.
Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of
brain and genital tract organs in mice and can cause irreversible
loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low
concentrations. Lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death,
mutations and chromosome damage per dose than higher doses. Tritium
can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than
either X-rays or gamma rays.
There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from tritium exposure.
Even the smallest amount can have negative health impacts. Tritium
bound in animal or plant tissue can stay in the body for 10 years or
longer. Tritiated water may be cleared from the human body in about
10 days. But if a person lives in an area where tritium contamination
continues, s/he can experience chronic exposure. Tritium from
tritiated water can become incorporated into the DNA, the molecular
basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive
to radiation.
The DAE and AERB have a cavalier attitude to tritium safety. They
have failed to evolve adequate exposure standards for tritium, whose
maximum dose has been reduced in many countries by about 1,000 times
over the past two decades. Physicist and nuclear safety researcher
Surendra Gadekar narrates a frightening episode at the DAEs heavy
water plant at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan [ Images ] in July 1991:
'Drums of tritiated heavy water were stored in a room that needed a
whitewash. Outside labourers were hired to do the whitewash and found
that the taps were (as usual) not working. They mixed the lime with
the water in the drums, did the whitewash, then cleaned their brushes
and faces with the same water and went away. All this without any
supervision from plant authorities.'
Says Gadekar: 'It was only later when the radiation counters started
screaming that these worthies surmised that their rooms had the
costliest whitewash in history and instituted a search for the
'errant' labourers who… decided to remain incognito and suffer the
injuries to their health in silence. Since they were only 'casual'
outside labourers and since the incident did not cause any ripple in
the English language media, the nuclear establishment was able to
laugh the matter off.'
The DAE's history is replete with safety breaches, accidents,
hundreds of cases of occupational workers' exposure to radiation well
in excess of the officially stipulated maximum limits. At least 350
such cases were documented by this writer in 1982 in The Times of
India [ Images ] from the Tarapur power station alone. The then DAE
secretary H N Sethna didn't deny the overexposure, but blithely
declared that it posed no danger to the workers!
DAE accidents include a fire in the turbine room (Narora), collapse
of a containment dome -- a concrete shell meant to protect the
environment against leaks from the reactor -- during construction
(Kaiga), flooding of a reactor building (Kakrapar), and a recent 14-
tonne radioactive heavy water spill (Chennai) Not enough is known
about the DAE's safety procedures because it operates under a veil of
secrecy thanks to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. This allows it to
suppress any information it doesn't wish to disclose. However, what
is known about safety lapses in its uranium mines, transportation of
nuclear materials and waste storage practices should raise alarm.
These safety failures are compounded by the absence of transparency,
independent oversight, safety audit and public accountability. The
true social, health-related and environmental costs of nuclear power
in India will only be known if the Atomic Energy Act is amended and
an independent licensing and safety regulatory agency is created,
which reports to Parliament and exercises full authority over the DAE.
Such an agency must formulate transparent rules, procedures and norms
on the basis of expert advice and state-of-the-art understanding of
the best practices prevalent in the nuclear industry. It must subject
them to public debate. It must make a serious environmental impact
assessment based on transparent public consultation and hearings
before approving a project site. And it must conduct health surveys
both before project construction and periodically thereafter. We
cannot afford to be cavalier about nuclear safety.
o o o
(ii)
The Telegraph, December 5 , 2009
OUR ATOM STATE
- India’s nuclear industry is neither profitable nor accountable
by Ramachandra Guha
The most secretive institution in India is the Atomic Energy
Commission. Although its power plants profess to produce goods for
the benefit of the public, they are not judged by the standards of
profitability and accountability that the market imposes on other
industries. Nor, like other government-owned and managed firms, do
they have to report to the parliamentary committee on public
undertakings. In fact, by an act of Parliament they have been made
exempt from the scrutiny of the Parliament itself.
No ordinary citizen can get anywhere near an atomic installation, and
even the most well-connected historian cannot get anywhere near the
records of the AEC or its associated bodies. But by a stroke of luck
I once stumbled upon snatches of correspondence connected with this
otherwise closed and inward-looking organization. When I found these
documents, a decade ago, I xeroxed and filed them away. They bear
exhuming today, since they speak directly to the controversy relating
to the recent leak in the Kaiga nuclear plant.
The documents date to the year 1967, when the Congress had just won
its fourth general elections in a row. Among the new entrants to the
ministry was M.S. Gurupadaswamy, who was appointed the minister of
state for atomic energy. Gurupadaswamy had previously been a member
of the Praja Socialist Party, an organization known for cultivating
both intelligence as well as independence of mind. In keeping with
this tradition, he took his new job rather seriously.
He visited the plants then in operation, and spoke to a cross-section
of scientists and staff. What he found was not altogether to his
liking. He wrote to the prime minister, Indira Gandhi, that the work
of the AEC “appears to be on [a] low keel”; that there were
serious delays; and that there was a loss of morale among the staff.
He recommended that a set of procedures “be evolved to achieve
greater accountability [as] to the time-schedule, production, cost,
technical performance, etc” of our nuclear power plants.
Having alerted the prime minister to the deficiencies within the AEC,
the new minister of state then took up the matter with the chairman
of the commission, the physicist, Vikram Sarabhai. He asked him to
supply details of project costs, expenditure incurred over the past
few years including the foreign exchange component, the reasons for
delays, and the impediments faced in the execution of their work.
These details were important in themselves, but Gurupadaswamy further
added that they might be used in “a comparative study of the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Railway Board, and the P&T Board”. (That he
thought of these comparisons is testimony to the minister’s
intelligence, for the railways and postal service were the two
government agencies that provided tangible and mostly positive
services to the citizens of India.)
These (very reasonable) suggestions provoked panic and paranoia in
the AEC. The chairman wrote to the prime minister insisting that he
report only to her, since there was “no provision in the
constitution [of the AEC] for a Minister of State for Atomic Energy
to concern himself with the formulation of policy or with the
implementation of decisions”. He believed that “it would be most
unfortunate” if the “existing relations between the Commission,
its Chairman and the Prime Minister” were to be altered “through
the nature of information and consultation that is required at the
Ministerial level and the frequency of reporting” that Gurupadaswamy
had asked for.
In a handwritten note to her secretary (a copy of which I possess)
Mrs Gandhi enclosed this correspondence with the comment: “Shri
Gurupadaswamy is full of zeal. Dr Sarabhai thinks it is misplaced
zeal!” Four decades on, I think that we can safely conclude that the
zeal was in fact well directed. For studies by independent
researchers strongly suggest that our atomic energy programme is an
economic failure as well as an environmental disaster. Nor does the
charge-sheet end here, for, by the very nature of its functioning,
the AEC has undermined the democratic ideals of the nation.
Take the environmental question first. The construction of nuclear
installations often involves the loss of green cover — in the case
of Kaiga, the loss of some of the best rainforests in the Western
Ghats. In the extraction of thorium and uranium, health hazards are
imposed on the communities which live near the mines. In the normal
operations of these plants further health costs are borne by
surrounding communities. (A study by Sanghamitra and Surendra Gadekar
demonstrates that those living near nuclear installations in India
are exposed to very high levels of radiation.) Then there is the ever-
present threat of nuclear accidents. Finally, there is the question
of the disposal of the wastes, which remain radioactive for thousands
of years.
On the economic side, work by the distinguished energy scientist,
Amulya Reddy, has shown that nuclear power in India is more costly
per unit than coal, hydel, solar or other available options (see
http://www.amulya-reddy.org.in/Publ_427_E_NE.htm). Reddy based his
calculations on official statistics, those contained in the annual
reports of the AEC (the only information about the organization that
ever becomes public). However, if one was to take into account the
hidden subsidies that the commission enjoys, the comparison would be
even more damaging to its interests. Remarkably, despite contributing
a mere three per cent of the country’s energy needs, more than 60
per cent of the total research budget on energy goes to this sector.
How much better served would we and the nation be if the priorities
were reversed, with clean technologies like solar and wind power
provided the assistance that nuclear energy currently obtains?
Finally, nuclear energy is a technology that is inherently anti-
democratic. It erects a wall of secrecy between itself and the
ordinary citizen. It is not subject to the scrutiny of elected
legislators. It refuses even to submit itself to the peer-review of
the scientific community. In response to public pressure exerted over
a number of years, the government set up an Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board, only to staff it with former employees of the AEC. No credible
or independent scientist serves on it. Naturally, the AERB sees its
job as merely being to whitewash the errors of its paymasters.
To these very serious limitations has now been added a new and
perhaps still more serious one — that the industry is peculiarly
vulnerable to terror attacks. In seeking to deflect criticism of the
recent accident at Kaiga, the chairman of the Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Limited told a television channel that this may
have been sabotage by a “foreign hand”. The claim only dropped
more egg on his face, for if, despite all the secrecy and security,
the AEC or NPCIL cannot prevent contamination of a single water
tower, who is to say that they can ever thwart a suicide bomber or a
plane flying low into one of their plants?
The Atomic Energy Commission in India is both a holy cow as well as a
white elephant. Because it can, in theory, deliver atomic weapons to
the State, successive prime ministers are loath to interfere with its
workings. As a result, the taxpayer has been forced to sink billions
of crores into an industry that has consistently under-performed,
that after six decades of pampering still produces a niggardly
proportion of our energy requirements, and this at a higher cost and
at a far greater risk than the alternatives. It is past time that the
industry and those who control it were made to answer for their
actions. The Kaiga accident may yet help in reviving, albeit 42 years
too late, M.S. Gurupadaswamy’s public-spirited demand that we seek
to “achieve greater accountability [as] to the time- schedule,
production, cost, technical performance, etc” of our much cossetted
and grossly overrated nuclear industry.
o o o
[SEE ALSO]
SOME QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE CONTAMINATION INCIDENT AT KAIGA
by Surendra Gadekar (30 November 2009 | http://www.sacw.net/
article1260.html )
_____
[7] India: Resources For Secular Activists
(i) CAN WE STOP THE CARNAGE CARNIVALS? by Javed Anand
http://www.sacw.net/article1265.html
(ii) LIBERHAN COMMISSION REPORT: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER by Ram Puniyani
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/12/liberhan-commission-report-
better-late.html
(iii) KARNATAKA GOVT. MACHINERY IS USED BY SANGH PARIVAR TO VIOLATE
THE SUPREME COURT ORDER TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO ON THE BABABUDAN GIRI
HILLS
Deccan Herald
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2009/12/karnataka-govt-machinery-is-
used-by.html
(iv)
Frontline, December 05-18, 2009
‘STATE SHOULD RELY ON HISTORIANS’ : INTERVIEW WITH D.N.JHA,
EMINENT HISTORIAN.
by Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta
D.N. JHA: "Historians who come in proximity to power change their
secular lines, too."
DWIJENDRA NARAYAN JHA, an eminent historian, has campaigned
extensively against the communalisation of history. His book Myth of
the Holy Cow,wherein he dispelled popular misconceptions that Muslims
introduced beef-eating in India, created ripples in political
circles. An ardent critic of the Hindu nationalist ideology, Jha,
along with three other historians, sought to prove in a report,
“Ramjanmabhoomi–Babri Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the
Nation”, that there was no evidence of the existence of a Ram temple
under the Babri mosque and that the controversy was created by the
Sangh Parivar for political gains. In an interview to Frontline, he
talks about his findings in Ayodhya and the role of professional
historians in countering hate politics for a better nation-building
process. Excerpts:
With the Liberhan Commission’s report indicting several top and
second-rung leaders of the Sangh Parivar, what will be the status of
the original Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute?
Well, in my view, this has no bearing on the original dispute. I have
seen the ATR [Action Taken Report] and I didn’t find anything there
that has any implication for what will happen to the dispute. The
Liberhan report doesn’t talk about the original dispute. That matter
is still pending in court. I think there should be a day-to-day
trial, and the judiciary should expedite the whole matter now that
the report is out. Those who have been named should be brought to
court; but my own feeling is that the Government of India does not
seem enthusiastic about taking action against any of those who are
named in the list of 68 people.
Justice M.S. Liberhan has also said that the Muslim organisations
failed to protect the interests of the people they claimed to
represent. How valid is this opinion?
That would be a very remote conclusion one can draw. You see
fundamentalism of all sorts. Maybe some Muslim organisations have
heightened the consciousness of the community to protect the
monument, but that’s about all. But if you say that these
organisations gave implicit instigation to convert people to
fundamentalism, I don’t think so.
Could you briefly tell us about the findings of the independent
report prepared by M. Athar Ali, Suraj Bhan, R.S. Sharma and you?
The Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi, a military officer in the
kingdom of the Mughal ruler Babur, in 1528-29. The main contention of
the Sangh Parivar is that the mosque was built by demolishing a Ram
temple and that it was the birthplace of Rama. But it was only in
1948-49 that you see a miraculous appearance of idols under Gobind
Ballabh Pant’s chief ministership [of the United Provinces] and
Nehru’s prime ministership. Between then and the mid-1970s, one does
not hear of this controversy at all. It was only after the VHP
[Vishwa Hindu Parishad] came into being that it started talking about
Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya as pilgrimage centres. Gradually in 1986,
you see the opening of the locks [of the masjid] and, subsequently,
the shilanyaas.
All these developments coincided with the emergence of the VHP as a
strong force and other organisations such as the Bajrang Dal and the
RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] in the Hindutva camp. They made
political use of it.
I think the dispute is really an artefact created by the Hindutva
camp for fundamentalist purposes that culminated in the demolition of
the mosque in 1992. Before 1992, slogans like “Mandir wohin
banayenge”, and “this is Ram’s janmabhoomi [birthplace]” rent
the air in North India. But if you look at the historical texts and
evidence, Ram Janmabhoomi does not find prominence.
For instance, a very important text, Skanda Purana, speaks of Ayodhya
mahatma [greatness]. Only 100 verses are devoted to the ascent of
Rama to heaven from a place called Swargadwar at the confluence of
the river Ghaggar and the river Saryu. It exists even now. But only
10 verses are devoted to his birth. This shows that his birthplace
was not important but what was important was the place from where he
went to heaven. Only Swargadwar was a tirtha (centre of pilgrimage).
In the 11th century text Tatvachintamani by Bhatta Lakshmi Dhar, the
list of pilgrimages is detailed extensively. It is a very long list.
The author was a minister in the Gahrwal kingdom, which ruled even
Ayodhya at that time. He does not mention Ayodhya as a centre for
pilgrimage in “Tirthavivechan Kanda” [a section devoted to
pilgrimage centres in the book].
Now, take, for instance, Tulsidas, the author of Ramacharitamanas. He
writes about Rama and Ayodhya but never says that a Rama temple was
demolished. I don’t understand why these people made so much of
hullabaloo about the temple.
Other types of archaeological evidence also show that in the whole of
North India, there were no temples exclusively devoted to Rama until
the late 17th-early 18th century. In South India, you find them since
the Chola period (10th-12th century) but not in North India. Two or
three temples of Rama belonging to the 12th century are found in
Madhya Pradesh but not in Uttar Pradesh, not in Bihar, not even in
Orissa. Ram temples became common in North India only in the 17th
century.
The famous temple devoted to Sita at Janakpur in Nepal Tarai came up
only in the late 18th-early 19th century. I don’t think there is
enough historical evidence about the temple. In fact Ayodhya was
important for other religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism. The
Chinese pilgrim Xuan Zhang [who toured the subcontinent during the
Gupta period, around A.D. 630] recorded that there were around 100
Buddhist monasteries and only 10 abodes of devas [brahmanical gods].
Vishnu Smriti also lists 85 pilgrim centres very early in 3rd-4th
century A.D. but it does not name Ayodhya. What I am trying to say,
even for argument’s sake, is that if there was a temple so important
at Ayodhya, it should have existed in the literary and archaeological
evidence before 1528 when the mosque was built.
At least, it should have existed in the 11th-12th century.
Before the demolition of the masjid, Professor B.B. Lal of the
Archaeological Survey of India had claimed to have found ‘evidence
of pillar bases’ of a mandir beneath the Babri Masjid. Indologist
Koenraad Elst also writes about the [existence of a] temple. Some
have said that the mosque was called Masjid-e-janmasthaan. What is,
then, the basis of such claims?
B.B. Lal in his first report on Ayodhya did not mention any temple.
He says that the upper-most layers are represented by Kankar [stone]
and other things. In 1985-86 he retired from the ASI and began to
change his tune. He began to say that the pillars of the mosque might
indicate a pre-existing temple. But that was all tongue-in-cheek.
Then, subsequently, in a paper he presented [at a seminar] in Patna
he said that he had not found any evidence of a Rama temple at
Ayodhya and urged Mother Earth to forgive him for this. Later on, at
another seminar in Vijaywada, he said that the only way to solve the
problem was to excavate the area, which meant demolishing the mosque.
He and his camp started saying that something should be done to
demolish the mosque. There was already the PWD’s [Public Works
Department] levelling work and kar seva going on there.
Archaeology is a scientific activity and cannot be done like this.
The pillars are, in fact, 1.70 metres in height and the experts who
went with us to visit the site said that these pillars could not be
load-bearing pillars. The mosque had three big domes and the height
of the 16 pillars did not suggest that they were part of a temple.
What may have happened is that they could have been brought from
outside for decorative purposes. What is important is that the area
does not have that kind of pillar stone. The art historians whom we
consulted said that these pillars could be from Bengal and must have
been brought by the Palas who ruled the area.
Even the word janmasthaan does not exist in any of the texts. Skanda
Purana is an amorphous text and its composition stretches over
centuries, from the 14th century to the 18th century. It is only in
the last stage [around the 18th century] that janmasthaan is
mentioned in passing. So, the whole idea becomes important only in
the 19th century. There were conflicts, of course, but there is no
evidence to support them. It is important to see that in the earlier
period, we do not get any sculptures from Ayodhya. There are two or
three catalogues in museums in Uttar Pradesh. One in Lucknow, one in
Allahabad and one in Faizabad, which is Ayodhya. None of the
catalogues mentions Rama.
The VHP movement around the Ram temple started only in the 1970s
after the Paramhans vs Wakf Board case. How did Ayodhya become a
centre of contention? Does colonial knowledge formation play a part
in the controversy a s some historians try to suggest?
The British might have had something to do with this. But in Ayodhya,
there were around 6,000 temples in the 19th and the early 20th
century. It is likely that there were property disputes like the Wakf
Board and the Paramhans court case. Such court cases might be a
legacy of the past. Even if the Britishers played a role, how does it
matter? It could have been their method of governance, instigating
the existing conflicts. The point is that there was no temple.
The VHP and leaders like Pravin Togadia have given an estimate of
around 30,000 temple sites where mosques came up in India. Temple
politics such as the Ayodhya case has had a calamitous impact on
national contemporary politics, leading to killings and riots in the
past two decades. The American historian Richard M. Eaton’s
“Essays on Islam and Indian History” is probably the only book
that studies the temple desecration issue and pegs the number of
desecrated temples at 80 between 1192 and 1760 as a consequence of
political compulsion and not because of religious righteousness. As a
historian, do you see the need for more such studies to counter the
growing fascist influence on history writing?
Yes, of course. This will ultimately help to unite different
religious communities and help in nation building. How do people like
Togadia come up with such a figure? If historians take up such
studies it will reduce the much-hyped hostilities. Togadia and others
speak of Muslim hostility towards Hindus. But what happened in
Karnataka? Lingayats occupied Jain temples. They put their tilak [a
Hindu symbol] on Jain statues, appropriated other religious places of
worship. In fact, Jains were so much oppressed by the Lingayats that
they had to seek protection from the Vijaynagara rulers. In Tamil
Nadu, 8,000 Jains were impaled at a Madurai court, as mentioned in a
historical text. It is not only Muslims who did it. This has been
done by all religions. Similar things happened in Europe also.
Churches were damaged by Muslims. Sects within Christianity fought
against each other. We always say that Hinduism is the most tolerant.
If there is anything like the Hindu, there is a streak of intolerance
in all historical texts. Vaishnavas and Saivites have fought all the
time.
As was understood in Ayodhya and now at many other places in India, a
disputed structure has many meanings and emotions attached to it –
religious, territorial, property, class and caste. In your view what
is a disputed structure and what are its political implications?
The common people are not bothered about these disputes. There is a
class understanding to it. When we went to Ayodhya, we didn’t find
any Muslim or Hindu living there who was interested in the
controversy. Kar sevaks were mobilised from outside and used for
political purposes. What I am saying is that if there is a disputed
structure anywhere and the local people are not bothered, the state
should see to it that it does not flare up. Only those who belong to
the elite and who are likely to gain something out of the conflict
are interested. How does the state function? They are talking of Rama
now. In Delhi itself, there are thousands of Hanuman temples that
have come up on illegally occupied government land and the state is
not playing any role in stopping it.
Our Constitution identifies religion while defining secularism but it
doesn’t say that a state official can identify himself as belonging
to one religion while doing his duty. When the first President of
India, Rajendra Prasad, went to take a dip in the Ganga at Prayag
[Allahabad], there was a controversy. People objected to his
performing the religious ritual with the presidential paraphernalia.
But today, no one objects to such things when the Prime Minister goes
to a gurdwara. People are against giving any subsidy for Hajj
pilgrimage. But no one questions the huge amount of state money spent
at the Vaishno Devi temple [Katara, Jammu and Kashmir] or for the
Amarnath Yatra and the Kumbh Mela.
Ayodhya is a clear case of politics that relied heavily on the study
of historical ‘facts’. What is a historical fact and how should
the state look at it in the methods of governance? Even the state is
following different secular trajectories. Liberhan has quoted Amartya
Sen while pushing the values of secularism, in a way keeping in line
with the ‘facts’ that have come out of your school of history. In
2003, the same judicial machinery within a nation state implicitly
validated the facts of the school of history represented by the likes
of B.B. Lal when the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) ordered a
probe to find out about the existence of the temple. How, as a
professional historian who is in a position to critique both the
state and the communal forces, do you locate yourself in society and
how do historians participate in these complexities through history
writing, given the complex nature of historical interpretations?
I think historians and social scientists have to come out very
clearly and say that there cannot be a state religion, and a nation
state cannot be built on the basis of religion. The state should rely
on historians and not on what the courts say.
The Allahabad High Court order of excavation was not in good taste
because the court doesn’t have any academic credentials. Even the
ASI’s findings are awful. It takes help from Tojo Vikas
International, which has no archaeological expertise. It uses the GPR
[Ground Penetration Radar], which has nothing to do with archaeology.
Their conclusions are that there are certain anomalies and
disturbances under the ground. What does that mean? It is a site
2,000 years old and there can be anomalies for anything like
earthquakes or conflicts between different groups or hundreds of
reasons.
Archaeological evidence becomes important in their context of
physical relationship to the surroundings in a certain material culture.
In order to resolve the dispute over fact, the best thing is to have
B.B. Lal and other historians sit in front of the court and debate.
The court could then decide on what convinces it on the basis of
rationality. That is one of the ways.
There was a system of vaad-vivaad (debate) and shaastrath
[interpretation of shastras] in ancient times. The court should take
into account the patron-client relationship, like the one B.B. Lal
has with the BJP. The Liberhan Commission has recommended setting up
a national commission to look into the masjid-mandir dispute, but the
Government of India refused to have that, citing the existence of the
ASI. My point is: Where was the ASI when the mosque was demolished? I
participated in the series of deliberations that took place between
the Babri Masjid group and the VHP group, and I always found that the
ASI’s stand was equivocal. We were given access to antiquities, but
the ASI didn’t give us the site notebook of Trench 4, which was the
crucial evidence for judging whether there was anything underground.
The site notebook is the only record of day-to-day excavation detail
as after excavation the ground is filled with earth. There should be
an autonomous national commission constituted by historians and
archaeologists both from India and outside.
The ASI should be taken away from the Culture Ministry and made a
part of the national commission, and, perhaps, statutory if it is
required. The ASI should be made accountable to the commission.
There seems to be a gap between history in classrooms and popular
historical notions, as is clearly reflected in the Ram Janmabhoomi
case. Similarly, the state tries to create its own history as part of
nation building and the political parties teach another kind of
history for indoctrination. How do you assess the role of a
professional historian in engaging with popular history to reshape
historical understanding among the masses? Do you see any space in
between from where history writing is possible in order to create a
harmonious society instead of a divisive one?
I think, in this regard, historians are at fault to a certain extent.
If professional historians write for the people that will ultimately
have some impact.
In Gujarat, what happened in 2002 can be attributed to the kind of
history that was being taught in the State for the past 40 years. In
North India, schools like Sishu Mandir and Vidya Bharati are teaching
non-history in the name of history.
Ninety per cent of professional historians are the most secular
people in the country, but the state has to play a greater role in
unifying the education system. Anything that is not borne out by
rationality and evidence should be stopped altogether by the state.
The problem, however, is that education is both a Central and a State
subject. The NCERT brings out model textbooks, but the States do not
adopt them. They make their own changes. Secularisation of education
and promotion of scientific temper should be a state effort.
Otherwise, whatever historians write, it won’t be of any help. I
don’t see any indication of this in the ATR. The state makes its own
compromises according to political pressure, as was seen in the Ram
Setu case recently.
Historians who come in proximity to power change their secular lines,
too. There should be an atmosphere of dialogue in the academic
community. Intellectuals should come out in the open and say that
there was no Ram temple in Ayodhya, which most of them believe. They
should make their assumptions clear to the reader and then be as
objective as possible in writing history. Only then the reader will
judge the writer and historical facts better.
_____
[8] Announcements:
(i) Dharna Against Atrocities on Dalits in Madhya Pradesh
(2 PM, 5th December (Saturday), at Jantar Mantar, Delhi )
More than 40, 000 Ahirwar Dalits of Gadarwar, Distt Narsinghpur, M.P.
have been facing social and economic boycott by the dominant and
upper castes of the region for the past four months. They have been
denied access to public places like roads, not allowed to use public
transport, and take water from public taps. They have been banned
from buying provisions from local shops and access flour grinding
mills. Dalit women have been threatened with sexual violence if they
use fields of upper/dominant castes. Most of Ahirwar Dalits of
Gadarwar, who are land less and make a living by working on fields
owned by upper/dominant castes, are on the verge of starvation. Like
all Dalits of India, Ahirwars of Gadarwar have faced social and
economic oppression for centuries. The recent spurt in atrocities
against them started when they collectively decided to not perform
their Hindu Caste system assigned role of carrying dead animals. All
upper/dominant castes have banded together and are using their
influence in panchayats and bureaucracy to prevent them from using
social welfare programmes like the NAREGS, Nirashrit Pension Yojana,
and Indira Awas Yojna. Complaints to police and administration have
fallen on deaf ears. No cases have been registered under the SC and
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
New Socialist Initiative (NSI) is organizing this Dharna in
solidarity with the Dalits of Gardarwar and to express our outrage
against the collusion of the Government of Madhya Pradesh with upper/
dominant castes of Gadarwar.
We invite all organizations and individuals offended by atrocities on
Dalits to join us. Please bring your posters/banners for the Dharna.
Contact : 09868940920/ 09868663932/ 09013074978 /
o o o
(ii) Mohammad Nauman 19 December 1951-14 November 2009
In memory of our beloved Professor Muhammad Nauman we are gathering
at NED City Campus (adjacent DJ Science College near Pakistan Chowk)
at 2.00 pm on Saturday 5th December 2009. [Karachi]
Nauman was professionally an electrical engineer, but more so
remained a man for the cause of social engineering in our society. He
worked hard for the poor and weak and will always remain in the
hearts of those who want to improve this society.
All his friends, comrades, colleagues, students and admires are
requested to attend the Saturday’s meeting to join us in paying
tribute to this noble soul.
The meeting is expected to be addressed by his former colleagues and
his comrades who struggled with him for the rights of our fisher
folk, affected by Taunsa Barrage, Chotiari Dam, Lyari Expressway,
against the privatisation of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and
Karachi Water and Sewage Board, for the cause of alternate energies
and technologies and so much more.
If required please contact Mr. Abdul Hai at HRCP, Tel: 35637132/
0333-30466
o o o
(iii) Remembering Ayodhya
December 6th, 2009, Sunday, 3 PM onwards
SAHMAT invites you to an interactive afternoon with key
journalist and photographer eyewitnesses to the Babri Masjid
demolition. Also present will be historians who have been in the
forefront of the debates around Ayodhya. SAHMAT’s interventions on
the Ayodhya issue have been ongoing and a major part of its
activities. SAHMAT is re-issuing its classic Ayodhya poster/
broadsheet from 1993 as well as remounting Hum Sab Ayodhya, its
famous exhibition from 1993, attacked by the Sangh Parivar, which
became the center of an 8 year court case. A new collection of essays
written during that period and edited by Sukumar Muralidharan, will
be released. SAHMAT’s 2010 calendar highlighting 21 years of its
anti-communal actions will also be released. Films will be screened
and there will be singing too. In the aftermath of the release of the
long-awaited Liberhan report there will be a discussion on its
import. All the books on the historical and archaeological debates
around Ayodhya will be on display and also for sale.
We invite you to join us.
o o o
(iv) You are invited to the launch of Praful Bidwai’s new book on
climate change, international negotiations and India, entitled
AN INDIA THAT CAN SAY YES: A CLIMATE-RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
FOR COPENHAGEN AND BEYOND
at The Indian Women’s Press Corps
5, Windsor Place (between the Meridien and Shangri-La Hotels)
New Delhi 110001
at 4 p.m. on Monday, December 7
The launch function features a Panel Discussion led by Navroz Dubash
(Centre for Policy Research), Aditi Kapoor (Oxfam India) and Rohan
D'Souza (Jawharlal N ehru Univrsity).
It will be followed by High Tea.
o o o
(v)
H-ASIA, Dec. 4 2009
Member's New Book: Buddhist Warfare
Mark Juergensmeyer and I would like to announce the publication of
our co-edited volume next month:
BUDDHIST WARFARE, edited by Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). ISBN: 978-0-19-539483-2
From OUP's website:
Though traditionally regarded as a peaceful religion, Buddhism has a
dark side. On multiple occasions over the past fifteen centuries,
Buddhist leaders have sanctioned violence, and even war. The eight
essays in this book focus on a variety of Buddhist traditions, from
antiquity to the present, and show that Buddhist organizations have
used religious images and rhetoric to support military conquest
throughout history.
Buddhist soldiers in sixth century China were given the illustrious
status of Bodhisattva after killing their adversaries. In seventeenth
century Tibet, the Fifth Dalai Lama endorsed a Mongol ruler’s
killing of his rivals. And in modern-day Thailand, Buddhist soldiers
carry out their duties undercover, as fully ordained monks armed with
guns.
Buddhist Warfare demonstrates that the discourse on religion and
violence, usually applied to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, can no
longer exclude Buddhist traditions. The book examines Buddhist
military action in Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Sri Lanka,
and Thailand, and shows that even the most unlikely and allegedly
pacifist religious traditions are susceptible to the violent
tendencies of man.
REVIEWS
“Anyone with idealized notions of Buddhism as a religion fully
committed to peace and non-violence will benefit from this fine
collection. Outlining how a range of Buddhists have participated in
war and justified this apparent violation of their ethical
principles, these essays shed new light on sacred violence, just-war
discourse, religious nationalism, and religious institutions’
collaboration with the state.
This is a rich and timely book.” ---Christopher Ives, author of
Imperial-Way Zen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Michael Jerryson
Buddhism and War
Paul Demiéville
Making Merit through Warfare According to the
Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdesa Sutra
Stephen Jenkins
Sacralized Warfare: The Fifth Dalai Lama and the Discourse of Religious
Violence
Derek F. Maher
Legalized Violence: Punitive Measures of Buddhist Khans in Mongolia
Vesna A. Wallace
A Buddhological Critique of “Soldier-Zen” in Wartime Japan
Brian Daizen Victoria
Buddhists in China during the Korean War (1951–1953)
Xue Yu
Onward Buddhist Soldiers: Preaching to the Sri Lankan Army
Daniel Kent
Militarizing Buddhism: Violence in Southern Thailand
Michael Jerryson
Afterthoughts
Bernard Faure
Anyone who wishes more information may contact me off list, or visit
Amazon.com to view more of the volume:
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-Michael-Jerryson/dp/0195394844/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259727039&sr=8-1
best,
Michael Jerryson
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
Eckerd College - Letters Collegium
4200 54th Ave. S.
St. Petersburg, FL 33711
jerrysm at eckerd.edu
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
South Asia Citizens Wire
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. An offshoot of South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the SACW
mailing list