SACW | Jan 6, 2011 | Pakistan: Rising tide of religious fanatics / Bangladesh: Where are the ‘death squads’/ Nepal: Maoists divided / India: Threat to human rights activists from Gujarat

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 22:22:07 EST 2011


South Asia Citizens Wire -  Dispatch No. 2689 - Jan 6, 2011
From: sacw.net

[1]  Pakistan: Salman Taseer's assassination : comments, editorials and statements
     (i) This is the wrong time to punish Pakistan (Ahmed Rashid)
     (ii) A divided Pakistan buries Salman Taseer and a liberal dream (Declan Walsh)
     (iii) The courage of Taseer (editorial, Daily Times)
     (iv) The murder of Salmaan Taseer (editorial, The News)
     (v) The real blasphemy (Saroop Ijaz)
    (vi) HRCP condemns Punjab governor’s assassination (press Release)
    (vii) Human Rights First Statement on Murder of Pakistani Governor Salman Taseer
   (viii) Reflecting after Taseer (Nazish Brohi)
   (ix) An Assassination in Pakistan (Steve Coll)
[2]  Where are the Bangladesh ‘death squads’ for the UK government to train? (David Bergman)
[3]  Maoists in Nepal: the differences within (Prashant Jha)
[4]  India: Threat to Teesta Setalvad and other rights activists, lawyers working for justice for the victims of 2002 Gujarat pogrom

---------

[1]  Pakistan: 

(i) Financial Times

THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO PUNISH PAKISTAN

by Ahmed Rashid

Published: January 4 2011 22:35 | Last updated: January 4 2011 22:35

The assassination on Tuesday of Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab province and one of the most powerful voices for democracy and secularism in the ruling Pakistan People’s party, has only highlighted the deepening political and social divide in his country.

The assassin, a police officer in the security detail guarding Taseer, is believed to have been motivated by his victim’s strong opposition to a controversial blasphemy law that targets Christians and other minorities. It is the highest-level assassination since the killing of PPP leader Benazir Bhutto three years ago.

Pakistan faces a catastrophe that has been brewing for months. Forget about increased co-operation from Islamabad on international terrorism or Afghanistan. The government is in crisis yet again, but more importantly it is paralysed, unable to legislate, unwilling to take any hard decisions or even to rule effectively as politicians in the provinces defy the central government.

Today the world should be concerned that the situation in Pakistan is probably worse than in Afghanistan. The country needs help.

The PPP-led coalition of Yusuf Raza Gilani is tottering but it will not fall – yet. The headline in Tuesday’s daily Pakistan Today said it all: “PM running from pillar to post.”

The government lost its majority in parliament after two coalition partners walked out. The first was the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, a religious party with eight seats in the 342-seat National Assembly, which objected to any reforms of the blasphemy law. The second was the Karachi-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement, with 25 seats, which objected to new price increases in energy. The coalition now has fewer than the 172 votes needed to pass any legislation.

There is the possibility of a vote of no confidence in Mr Gilani, but it will probably not happen for several reasons. The opposition parties are divided as to what to do, no party has a majority in parliament, there is no obvious replacement for Mr Gilani, and Nawaz Sharif, the main opposition figure, does not want the government to fall at this moment.

No party wants elections right now, with the country in the midst of hyperinflation and riots in the streets over shortages of fuel, electricity, gas and other essentials. The economy is in virtual freefall after the International Monetary Fund stopped a payment of $3.5bn of its $11.3bn loan to Islamabad – a decision that followed the government’s failure to push through parliament a general sales tax and a tax on agricultural incomes demanded by the IMF as part of a much-needed reforms package.

The budget deficit has soared to 6 per cent in spite of a 4 per cent target for the current financial year. It is expected to increase further to 8 per cent before the year is out. Corruption, chronic mismanagement and a lack of political will have fuelled the crisis. There have been four finance ministers in the space of three years.

The IMF withdrawal is likely to lead other big lenders such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the US, Japan and the European Union to halt or delay payment of their promised loans and aid. Donors have said they will not bail out Pakistan unless reforms are implemented first.

Equally dangerous is that political chaos will encourage efforts by the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda to enlarge the territory under their control in Pakistan’s tribal areas. That is already happening. A government trying to survive is not the best morale booster for those at the front line against the extremists.

Meanwhile, there has been a spate of foiled terrorist attacks across Europe. Dozens of would-be plotters arrested in Britain, Germany and last week in Sweden and Denmark over a plan to massacre the staff of a Danish newspaper all have large or minor links to groups based in Pakistan.

Those links are becoming ever more complex. A suicide bomber who killed himself in Stockholm in December as he was trying to explode a bomb among Christmas shoppers was of Arab origin, but was linked to Pakistan-born British extremists in Luton, England. Senior US officials said recently they had warned Islamabad that any successful terrorist strike in the US that could be traced back to Pakistan would have instant and enormous repercussions.

The international community cannot afford to let Pakistan – a nuclear-armed state critical to securing Afghanistan and the region – fail or go down the tubes. Western capitals cannot do much to calm the political factionalism, but continued economic assistance and a loud public declaration of that by key western donors are urgently needed. A resumption of IMF money would send a crucial positive signal.

Even more dangerous than a political meltdown would be large-scale, directionless unrest on the streets due to further price rises. International economic support could help stabilise the political crisis; inaction can only benefit the extremists.

The writer’s latest book is Descent into Chaos. A revised edition of his Taliban was published last summer

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. 

o o o

(ii) 

The Guardian,  5 January 2011

A DIVIDED PAKISTAN BURIES SALMAN TASEER AND A LIBERAL DREAM

Liberals have long been a minority force in Pakistan, reviled for importing 'western' ideas and culture; now they are virtually an endangered species

Declan Walsh in Lahore

Prime minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani at the funeral of assasinated Punjab governor Salman Taseer. Photograph: Ilyas J Dean/Rex Features
There was silence in the ancient city of Lahore yesterday as Salman Taseer, a pugnacious son of the soil who made his name by speaking out, was lowered into an early grave.

Soldiers in fantail turbans snapped to attention; a cluster of stone-faced relatives looked on. A helicopter had carried Taseer's body from the governor's residence, a short distance away: authorities feared another fanatic, like the one who gunned down the Punjab governor 24 hours earlier, would show up.

At the graveside Taseer's three sons, men with black shirts and soft red eyes, flung clumps of rose petals into the grave. One was supported by a friend. A bugle sounded.

As graveyard workers shovelled sticky winter clay onto the coffin, many Pakistanis wondered what was disappearing into the grave with the outspoken politician.

Liberals have long been a minority force in Pakistan, reviled for importing "western" ideas and culture; now they are virtually an endangered species. As Taseer was buried, petals also flew through the sky in Islamabad where a cheering throng congratulated his assassin, a 26-year-old policeman named Mumtaz Qadri, as he was bundled into court. "Death is acceptable for Muhammad's slave," they chanted.

Taseer's crime, in Qadri's eyes, was to advocate reform of Pakistan's blasphemy law. Few other Pakistani politicians dared to speak against the law, which prescribes the death penalty for offenders yet is widely misused. Those who did now live in fear.

Sherry Rehman, a female parliamentarian from Karachi who tabled a parliamentary bill advocating reform of the blasphemy law, has disappeared from public view. Supporters have urged her to flee the country; sources close to her say she is determined to stay. Rehman has not yet requested extra police protection. A source said she "wasn't even sure what it means any more".

Religious parties refused to condemn Taseer's death, implying that he got what he deserved; some described him as a "liberal extremist". But intolerance from the religious right is nothing new in Pakistan; more striking is the lack of leadership from the country's secular forces.

The opposition Pakistan Muslim League–N party was conspicuously absent from the Lahore funeral, perhaps mindful of a decree by Barelvi mullahs that those condoling with Taseer also risked death. But capitulation to the religious right has also infected the ruling Pakistan People's Party, of which Taseer was a staunch member.

Since Taseer's death party supporters have burned tyres and chanted the old slogans: "Jiye Bhutto!" and "If you kill one Bhutto another will rise!" Party leaders painted Taseer's death as part of a "conspiracy". "We need to find out if this is an attempt to destabilise Pakistan," said law minister Babar Awan, announcing the inevitable judicial enquiry.

But the tired rhetoric masked a less palatable truth: that Taseer had been abandoned by his own leadership. After Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman, was sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws on 8 November, Taseer visited her in jail with his wife and daughter to show his support.

Shortly after, an Islamic mob rioted outside the governor's house in Lahore, burning his effigy and calling for his death. On television prominent media commentators joined the chorus of criticism.

Senior figures in his own party turned tail. Awan, the law minister, said there was no question of reforming the blasphemy law. "As long as I am law minister no one should think of finishing this law," he said on 26 November. Another minister confirmed that position one week ago.

The U-turn was the product of a huge miscalculation. At the start of the Aasia Bibi affair on 8 November, President Asif Ali Zardari suggested he might pardon the Christian woman if she was convicted. But he stalled, apparently hoping to extract political mileage from the affair.

Then on 29 November the Lahore high court, which had a history of antagonism with Zardari, issued an order forbidding him from issuing a pardon. The issue became a political football, a struggle between the government, the courts and the mullahs. Zardari was powerless to act.

And the Punjab governor was left swinging in a lonely wind.

In his last television interview, on 1 January, Taseer said it had been his "personal decision" to support Aasia Bibi. "I went to see her with my wife and daughter. Some have supported me; other are against me […] but if I do not stand by my conscience, then who will?"

The answer, he knew, was simple: not many. Taseer's liberal politics were controversial in Pakistan's media, which is increasingly dominated by rightwing commentators. He ridiculed his enemies with messages on Twitter, a medium that he relished for its ability to deliver brisk, barbed jabs.

In December even Meher Bokhari – a leading female journalist who had once been ridiculed as a "CIA agent" after attending a US embassy party — asked Taseer if he wasn't following a "pro-western agenda" by supporting the Christian woman. Taseer retorted that he didn't know what she was talking about.

For many, the debacle shows how the heroes of yesteryear have fallen in Pakistan. In 2007 brave journalists, judges and lawyers came together to help oust the military leader President Pervez Musharraf from power. Today the judiciary has become enmeshed in controversy, the media offers an unfiltered platform to extremists, and the lawyers movement has been badly divided.

Ayaz Amir, a progressive commentator, noted yesterday: "The religious parties will always do what they do. You can't blame them. It is up the other sections of Pakistani society to stop the rot and reverse the tide. But it's the political parties and the army should have done it. And they did nothing."

Pakistan's military and civilian leaders face many grave challenges, not least the still-burning Taliban insurgency in the north-west. But for embattled liberals, the death of Taseer exposed something ugly in their wider society, much as the shoulder-shrugging reaction to the massacre of minority Ahmadis in a Lahore mosque last May did.

Lahore is the capital of Punjab, the large and wealthy province that is the boiling cauldron of Pakistan's ideological battle. Punjab is the breeding ground of extremists nurtured by the pro-Islamist policies of Pakistan's army, which has used militants to fight Indian soldiers in Kashmir. According to US assessments in the recent WikiLeaks cables, it still does.

Two years ago extremists attacked the police training centre outside Lahore that is home to the Punjab Elite force, the province's best-trained police commandos. This week a member of that same force – Qadri – was responsible for killing Taseer.

Taseer's death has focused that ideological fight around blasphemy. The law originated under British colonial rule in the 19th century but only acquired notoriety in the 1980s when the dictator Zia ul Haq decreed that blasphemy was punishable by death (a provision that Islamic scholars say has little theological foundation). The law is also of questionable civil law value: it contradicts fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

It is a crime where no proof is required. The religious slander allegedly uttered by Aasia Bibi, for instance, has never been repeated by her accusers – to do so would be to blaspheme again. As a result, she has been convicted on the say-so of her neighbours, with whom she was having an argument in a field.

If Bibi's conviction is upheld she will be hanged, the first woman in Pakistan's history to be executed for blasphemy. If freed, she will have to flee Pakistan immediately.

Senior supporters say that Canada has made a tentative offer of asylum. But in the present climate in Pakistan it seems unlikely that Bibi will be set free. Senior human rights campaigners told the Guardian they feared she could be killed by zealots in jail or on the steps of the court, as has happened in other blasphemy cases.

The question now is who will speak up for her. For liberals, Taseer's death is a sign that their political space, already highly constrained, is becoming impossibly small.

"If Pakistan and Pakistanis do not try to excise the cancer within, the future of this country is very bleak," read an editorial in Dawn yesterday.

The face of Mumtaz Qadri, smiling beatifically as he was led away by police after killing Taseer, perhaps dreaming of his rewards in heaven, has become the image of Pakistan's national agony. Qadri claims to act in the name of Islam, the reason that Pakistan was founded.

Yesterday on Twitter, the medium beloved of Salman Taseer, liberal Pakistanis bemoaned the disappearance of "Jinnah's Pakistan" – the tolerant, pluralistic country envisioned by its founder, the lawyer Muhammad ali Jinnah, in 1947. Others tried to remember if it had ever existed.

And in the streets outside Pakistan's silent majority – the ordinary, moderate people who do not favour extremism or violence, and only want their society to thrive – were saying nothing. But in Pakistan, that is no longer good enough. Silence kills.

o o o

(iii)

Daily Times
January 06, 2011	   

EDITORIAL: THE COURAGE OF TASEER

Pakistan was still reeling from the shock of Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer’s assassination when his murderer, Mumtaz Qadri, revealed that he had informed his colleagues about the murder plot. Qadri said that he had asked them to let him finish his ‘job’ and then arrest him alive. An FIR against Qadri was lodged by the governor’s son, Mr Shehryar Taseer, wherein it was stated that some political and religious groups were giving threats to the governor and should be held responsible for his murder. A one day remand of Qadri has been granted. There are speculations that more than one magazine of bullets were fired on Governor Taseer. The post-mortem report is not being made public for the time being due to investigative concerns. It seems that the security staff was complicit in Mr Taseer’s murder, which is why there was no response from any one of them. The implications of such a huge security lapse are grave. How could no one possibly find out about Qadri’s plan to assassinate a sitting governor is something hard to digest. The security for a VVIP has to be vetted first by the authorities. If a lunatic like Qadri was allowed to ‘guard’ Governor Taseer, there must be deeper reasons behind it. Qadri might have been a lone assassin but the investigation must find out who masterminded this plan. We of course have no dearth of religious zealots. There are reports that some other liberal, enlightened people are next on the hit-list of these bigots. This means that there is a wider conspiracy afoot and unless Qadri is meted out the punishment that is due under the law, and that too quickly, this murderous trend of issuing senseless edicts and subsequent assassinations would continue. A deterrent message is necessary to curb further threats to the lives of liberal Muslims in our narrow-minded society.

Punjab Governor Taseer had been condemned by the right-wingers since the day he met a Christian woman charged with alleged blasphemy, Aasia Bibi, in jail. Aasia Bibi had been given the death penalty by a lower court. Mr Taseer wanted President Zardari to grant her a pardon on humanitarian grounds. He also asked for the Blasphemy Law to be amended or repealed. The mullahs bayed for his blood after that and issued fatwas against him, declaring him wajib-ul-qatl (worthy of murder). Governor Taseer argued that the law was misused and not only affected the minorities but many Muslims too were implicated on false charges under this flawed law. Religious scholars like Ghamdi are of the view that the blasphemy law is a man-made law and can be amended. Death threats did not deter Governor Taseer, who vowed to fight bigotry even if, as he put it himself, he were “the last man standing”. Even in death, the mullah brigade did not leave Mr Taseer alone. The Jamaate Ahle Sunnat Pakistan (JASP) not only praised Mr Taseer’s murderer but also issued a statement that said, “No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salmaan Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident.” If this is not uncivilised behaviour, then what is? Islam does not condone murdering innocent people and to use the religion card in this derogatory way as JASP has done is not just disgusting but completely contradictory to the teachings of our Prophet (PBUH). 

Some sections of the media too were complicit in inciting hate against Governor Taseer. They virtually asked for some sort of reprisal against him, which is the height of irresponsibility. Even after Mr Taseer’s death, some television channels and print media tried to justify his assassination. Governor Salmaan Taseer’s was a voice of reason and sanity. When our media and right-wing parties stoop to such levels and most people just sit idly and watch silently, it points to our collective failure as a society. Mr Taseer was a man of valour and great courage. He stood up for the rights of the oppressed when no one else would. We should not dishonour his sacrifice. We must all condemn the killer and the barbarians who are out to mute the liberal, progressive voices of Pakistan.

o o o

(iv)

The News International

Editorial

THE MURDER OF SALMAAN TASEER 
January 05, 2011

The governor of Punjab died as he had lived: controversially. In the hours after his death, police officials continued to insist that the possible motives needed to be assessed. But most people had already reached what was the only obvious conclusion – the remarks Salmaan Taseer had made a few weeks ago on the blasphemy laws and on the need to amend them were enough for someone to kill him. While Taseer may have angered or annoyed people, while his sometimes bombastic manner may have been irritable, there can be no doubt that he was a courageous man, willing to speak out on issues that few choose to address due to the growing fear forced on us by religious extremists.

It appears, at least at these initial stages, that the member of the Punjab Elite Force who shot him formed a part of a growing army of extremism. His act seemed to be a carefully planned one, with fire initially opened on the governor’s vehicle and the victim then shot in the chest as he, perhaps unwisely, stepped out. The shooting is evidence that it is not necessary for extremists to be in the garb of the Taliban, with their beards and turbans. They exist everywhere and come in all forms. And even those in the police may form a part of their ranks. The incident means several things. On many issues we have for years, indeed decades, been reluctant to speak our thoughts. Some taboos have only now begun to lift. The killing of the governor by a member of his own security team could mean that even fewer will speak out on such issues. Those who have already done so – Sherry Rehman comes to mind – run a risk of falling victim to bullets. The situation is awful. Taseer’s death highlights just how grim it is, and how difficult it will be to change our country for the better. The challenges are already immense. They grow greater by the day. We have already lost our right to express opinion freely. Extremism holds us in a vice. Will we ever be able to break free? That is the question we must ask before more bodies fall on our roads, staining them with blood that will perhaps never be fully washed away.

o o o

(v) 

Los Angeles Times

THE REAL BLASPHEMY

Pakistan's law not only threatens people like Asia Bibi, it strengthens radicals and the Taliban.

by Saroop Ijaz
January 5, 2011

In June 2009 in Punjab, Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a mother of five and a farmhand, was asked to fetch water. She complied, but some of her Muslim co-workers refused to drink the water, as Bibi is a Christian and considered "unclean" by them. Arguments ensued, resulting in some co-workers complaining to a local cleric's wife that Bibi had made derogatory comments about the prophet Muhammad. A mob reportedly stormed her house, assaulting Bibi and her family.

However, the police initiated an investigation of Bibi, not her attackers. She was arrested and prosecuted for blasphemy, under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code. She spent more than a year in jail. On Nov. 8, she was sentenced to death by hanging; she has since filed an appeal.

There is a need for broad legal and social reforms in Pakistan, and it can start with the repeal of this law. But the assassination Monday of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, by one of his official security guards shows how difficult that will be. The alleged assailant reportedly gave a statement after his arrest expressing no remorse as he was ostensibly "protecting Allah's religion." Taseer was perhaps Pakistan's most brave, vocal and liberal statesman. He had met with Bibi in prison and subsequently lent his support to the campaign calling for the repeal of the blasphemy law.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

Section 295C was introduced into the Pakistani legal system in the 1980s by the military dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq as part of his broader effort to Islamize laws in Pakistan. It stipulates that "derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet … either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly … shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

Bibi is far from the first person from a minority community in Pakistan to be sentenced to death for blasphemy. Although no person has yet been executed under the blasphemy law, at least 32 people have been killed while awaiting trial or after they have been acquitted of blasphemy charges. In 2009, 40 houses and a church were set ablaze by a mob of 1,000 Muslims in the town of Gojra, Punjab. At least seven Christians were burned alive. The attacks were triggered by reports of desecration of the Koran. The local police had already registered a case under Section 295C against three Christians for blasphemy. Hence a conviction or even an accusation under this law is often a death sentence.

The blasphemy provisions were an important component of a social engineering campaign devised and implemented by Zia during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The ostensible objective was to Islamize the Pakistani state. But the goal was also to tailor the social and legal system of the country to aid the mujahedin (loosely, the contemporary Pakistani Taliban) by making them appear to be indigenous freedom fighters.

The infamous discriminatory Hudood Ordinance, supposedly based on the Koran, was put into effect. It sought to charge women who were raped with adultery if they could not bring forth four pious male Muslims who were witnesses to the rape. Zia also undemocratically amended the constitution to implement Sharia, or Islamic law. The school curriculum was modified to make it more Islamic. Female television anchors were ordered to cover their heads on the air; heavy censorship was exercised on the print and electronic media to safeguard the glory of Islam.

But it is not only Pakistan that has been adversely affected.

Zia's Islamization efforts played a significant role in today's global war on terrorism because of his social engineering, aimed to deliberately introduce ethno-centrism and intolerance into the moral fabric of Pakistani society. This, in turn, aided in the rise of the Taliban in the region, particularly the Pakistani Taliban.

It is almost an accepted fact now that the war on terrorism, both globally and in Pakistan, cannot be won by military might alone. Stopping Al Qaeda is still important, but the Taliban has become the top priority. We must isolate the Taliban, and not only geographically. It must also be stripped of all moral authority and public sympathy. That is hard to achieve with provisions like the blasphemy law in place. Institutionalized biases influence human behavior.

Legal and social reforms in Pakistan are imperative not only to save many like Asia Bibi but to provide a long-term, sustainable solution to the growing threat of extremism inside and outside Pakistan.

Pakistan and its democracy are in a state of ethical and political uncertainty, and the coalition government is too fragile to address the crisis without internal and external help. A tolerant and secular Pakistan is crucial for eradication of global Islamic fundamentalism. And the international community is well placed to demand change, given Pakistan's extraordinary reliance on foreign support.

Bibi needs to be saved, and the laws perpetuating these barbaric practices need to be repealed.

Saroop Ijaz is a lawyer and human rights activist based in Lahore, Pakistan.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

o o o

(vi)   HRCP CONDEMNS PUNJAB GOVERNOR’S ASSASSINATION

Date: 04 January 2011 

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has condemned the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, expressing grief and alarm at his murder and calling it a manifestation of growing intolerance in society.
Lahore, January 4: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has condemned the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, expressing grief and alarm at his murder and calling it a manifestation of growing intolerance in society.

A statement issued by the Commission on Tuesday said: “HRCP is saddened by the murder of the governor, which must be condemned by all sane people, and is alarmed at the ever growing shadow of intolerance and violence in society. A thorough inquiry to establish the motives of the killer must be held so that people do not jump to conclusions. It would be exceedingly unfortunate if it turns out that the governor’s call for sanity following the death sentence of Asia Bibi’s on charges of blasphemy or differences with political opponents in any way led to his assassination. The fact that the killer was a policeman is a matter of acute concern and shows the extent to which the services have been infected by intolerance.”

Dr Mehdi Hasan
Chairperson

o o o

(vii)  


CONTACT: Brenda Bowser Soder, Human Rights First
C: 646-897-6372, W: 202-370-3323 | bowsersoderb at humanrightsfirst.org

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST STATEMENT ON MURDER OF PAKISTANI GOVERNOR SALMAN TASEER

For Immediate Release: January 4, 2011

Washington, DC – Today, following news that Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, Pakistan and a member of the nation’s ruling Pakistan People’s Party, was allegedly murdered by a member of his security team as a result of his opposition to blasphemy laws, Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke issued the following statement:

“The murder of Governor Salman Taseer is the most recent illustration of how deadly the debate over blasphemy laws has become. After speaking out against the proposed death sentence of a Christian woman accused of blasphemy, Taseer was allegedly killed by one of his guards.

“Despite the demands of religious extremists, Pakistan’s government should make clear their commitment to amend laws that promote religious intolerance and perpetuate prejudice. Officials should also punish the person responsible for this disturbing crime to send a clear signal that such acts will not be tolerated.

“As illustrated by the recent vote in the General Assembly, the world community is increasingly rejecting the concept of a global blasphemy law and will have an opportunity to vote against that concept once again in March when the Human Rights Council convenes.”

o o o

(viii)

The Daily Times, 5 January 2011

REFLECTING AFTER TASEER
by Nazish Brohi

The PPP leaders will speak to the press eventually. The criminal investigators will take even more time. But the party workers have spoken and indicted. The Polyclinic resounded right now with slogans against religious extremism, workers proclaiming willingness to carry more bodies, including their own, in the battle for a tolerant Pakistan. Those who want to live in a tolerant plural society and are willing to struggle for it might need to make the same vow. 

Salmaan Taseer knew. Among his last tweets on the mullah backlash against him was his quoting a verse in anticipation of his murder, dil figaaro chalo, phir hameen qatl ho aien yaaro chalo. He was openly named and castigated in rallies in his own city on December 31 for supporting the blasphemy accused. “Thousands of beads screaming for my head. What a great feeling,” he wrote. 

This is not the first killing on the blasphemy law. It is not even the first time those in office to protect people kill those who they protect. In KP a few years ago, a policeman killed a blasphemy accused who he was guarding. When the police tried to protect a blasphemy accused in another case, the police station was burnt down, after which the police apologised for attempting to provide protection. And when accepted political leaders publicly proclaim rewards for whoever kills a blasphemy accused, in this case against Aasia Bibi by a Jamaat-e-Islami leader appealing to the TTP to do religion a ‘real service’, this sets the stage. 

Minority leader Father John Joseph shot himself dead to protest the blasphemy law. Hundreds others have spoken against this colonial-era legislation, strengthened by the blackest military dictatorship of Ziaul Haq, and now packaged as an ordained sacred law. Rudimentary trend analysis shows that the law is increasingly invoked against Muslims, and the parameters of who qualifies as a Muslim are growing more and more stringent and restrictive. A shoemaker in Lahore was accused of embroidering slippers in a design that looked like Islamic calligraphy. In Peshawar, a man was accused of blasphemy for forcing his neighbours to reduce the volume of a CD of religious recitation. In Gojra, nine Chirstians were burnt alive, according to the HRCP fact-finding report, in a planned and premeditated act. The same charges have been brought against towering national personalities such as Akhtar Hameed Khan. Those who speak openly against the law have also been threatened, including Sherry Rehman and Asma Jehangir. 

The death sentence was made mandatory during the Nawaz Sharif government of the 90s. Since then, the killings have peaked, with the highest numbers in Punjab. The identified Elite Force guard will be punished, but this won’t even begin to address the malignant wilful blindness gripping our society. Right-wing political parties have repeatedly sent across the message that issues of religion should not be left to the courts, and all believing Muslims should take up the persecution as a part of their religious duties. Vigilantism has been marketed as a ‘farz’ (duty). Common supporters do not find it ironic, forget blasphemous, that they seek to protect the name of the person whom they pray to for protection – an equality of sorts.

This vigilantism has gone unpunished and victims uncompensated. In countless cases of lynching, from Shantinagar to Pabbi, people have been incited to violence. It is important to see that these are not isolated cases of brainwashed madmen, but a trend of increasing militant mentality, given fillip by tolerant silences. Jut like BB’s murder was preluded by the point-blank shooting of MNA Zille Huma by a man who said she had no place being in politics as a woman undertaking progressive politics. Religious scholars are also persecuted. Fazlur Rehman and Javed Ghamdi were made to leave the country. Khalid Masud was removed from the CII. Maulanas who have condemned suicide bombings have been assassinated. Public intellectuals of KP have been increasingly targeted. 

All religious and right-wing parties who refused to see the flaws in the British-made law and would not recognise that this law is used to target people to settle personal and political disputes and vow to attack those who speak against its oppressiveness are partially responsible. All those who incite and provoke ‘believers’ to carry out punishments as religious duty should be named in FIRs and prosecuted because this nullifies the need for a state at all. The ‘right time’ for citizens to actively engage in radical progressive politics passed years ago, now its a matter of survival, even though it may be too late, as Taseer’s assassination shows. People may be intimidated and censor their opinions. Then we’ll be at the point typically cued as the point to pack up and go home. But we are home. Whoever does not overtly challenge, tacitly condones.

o o o

(ix)

The New Yorker
January 4, 2011

AN ASSASSINATION IN PAKISTAN
Posted by Steve Coll


The photograph of Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s accused assassin, credited to photographer Sabir Khan, is a chilling snapshot of where thirty years of state-sponsored Islamism has dragged Pakistan. Qadri’s full beard and trimmed mustache, a cultural adaptation of certain Islamic conservatives, would have been uncommon among the armed and authorized police guards of a secular-minded Pakistani governor a generation ago. The expression on Qadri’s face in the moments after his arrest seems to be one of self-satisfaction—certainly not a portrait of anxiety or distress.

Taseer’s death will shock many Pakistanis; like Benazir Bhutto’s killing, it is a little-needed reminder to the country’s internationally minded elites that they are as vulnerable as the rest of Pakistan’s citizenry to the virus of revolutionary violence now afoot. Taseer was a flawed machine politician, but also a brave and ardent defender of the Pakistan People’s Party’s vision of a modernizing and more culturally balanced Pakistan. The political act that cost him his life involved his defense of progressive amendments to the country’s retrograde blasphemy laws. According to the BBC, he issued this Twitter message on December 31: “I was under huge pressure sure 2 cow down b4 rightist pressure on blasphemy. Refused. Even if I’m the last man standing.”

In its character and details, the assassination recalls the killing of India’s Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards at the tail end of Indian Punjab’s Sikh separatist insurgency. At a certain point the violence of insurgency and counterinsurgency among people sharing language, geography, faith, and culture becomes so intimate that it is no longer possible to reliably vet friends from foes.

Pakistan’s Personnel Reliability Programs, as they are known in the nuclear security trade, involve not only evaluating the suitability of bodyguards for governors but also the management of the country’s swelling stockpile of fissile materials and nuclear bombs. Taseer’s betrayal should give pause to those officials in Washington who seem regularly to express complacency, or at least satisfaction, about the security of Pakistan’s arsenal.



_____


[2]  WHERE ARE THE BANGLADESH ‘DEATH SQUADS’ FOR THE UK GOVERNMENT TO TRAIN?


Condemning the British government for its engagement with RAB—without any actual evidence that the training it provides facilitates RAB in violating human rights—risks preventing the organisation from gaining the skills and capacity that might allow it to develop into a human rights compliant organisation, writes David Bergman



THERE has been much in the WikiLeaks cables that is new, revelatory and damning, but the recent ‘disclosure’, published by the Guardian newspaper, claiming wrongdoing by the British government in providing training to Bangladesh’s law enforcement body Rapid Action Battalion is far from being any one of them.

The article describes RAB as a ‘death squad’, and suggests that the British government training may well have increased RAB’s criminality, at one point reporting that its journalists asked the UK’s National Policing Improvement Agency whether its ‘courses in investigative interviewing techniques might not render torture more effective.’

If these claims were true, this would, of course, be a significant scandal. Yet, they are unsubstantiated.

Unlike the suggestion in the article, it has been no secret that the UK government has provided training to RAB.

In April 2009, Human Rights Watch itself had reported that, ‘The United Kingdom and the United States’ were providing ‘training to RAB in the stated hope that the force will improve its human rights record and eventually become a more effective counterterrorism outfit.’

And, after the Guardian article was published, the news agency AFP reported that, early in 2010, Duncan Norman, Britain’s deputy high commissioner in Bangladesh, had given it an on-the-record interview about the training the British government provided to RAB.

Moreover, the use of the term ‘death squad’ is highly sensationalist.

The words are taken from a comment given by Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch who is quoted in the Guardian article as saying that ‘RAB is a Latin American-style death squad dressed up as an anti-crime force.’

The article adds that ‘Human Rights Watch has repeatedly described the RAB as a government death squad.’

However, Human Rights Watch has only once used the term ‘death squad’ to describe RAB and that was in a report four years ago. Since then—despite numerous press releases and a further detailed report on the organisation in May 2009—HRW has routinely described RAB either as ‘an elite crime-fighting force’, or a ‘paramilitary law enforcement agency’. Not a ‘death squad’. And certainly not a Latin American-styled one.

When asked about this, Brad Adams said, ‘I’m not sure when and whether we’ve used the term before’ saying that he didn’t ‘have time right now to research this.’

And although the Guardian article suggests that HRW is not the only organisation to refer to RAB as a ‘death squad’, no other human rights organisation in Bangladesh or outside has done so.

This is not surprising. They know very well that although there is much to condemn RAB for, it is simply not a militia that goes around the country solely engaged in kidnapping and killing people, as suggested by the term ‘death squad’.

It is instead a law enforcement agency with over 7,000 officers who spend most of their time dealing with straightforward law enforcement issues.

RAB officers are, for example, commonly seen on the roads of Dhaka manning road blocks and the daily newspapers are full of reports of people arrested by them for ordinary criminal offences.

It, of course, does have a very dark side. The Guardian is right to report serious allegations against RAB of extrajudicial killings. As it says, RAB has over the years reportedly killed hundreds of people in what are often euphemistically called ‘cross fires’. These need to be investigated, the people responsible brought to justice and the agency itself needs to be seriously reformed.

Yet, there is quite a significant difference between a 7,000-man death squad, as suggested in the article, and a law enforcement agency some of whose members have allegedly committed torture and extrajudicial killings.

Use of the term ‘death squad’ only prejudices the question of whether or not it is appropriate for the British government to provide RAB training.

And there does not seem to be anything contentious about the training itself.

The leaked US embassy cable describes the UK government providing ‘human rights training’, ‘training to make the RAB a more transparent, accountable and human-rights compliant paramilitary force’ part of which is training in ‘areas such as investigative interviewing techniques and rules of engagement.’

The British-based National Police Improvement Agency expands on this in the Guardian article by stating that it provides RAB training in ‘forensic awareness, management of crime scenes and recovery of evidence. Throughout the training we have emphasised the importance of respecting the human rights of witnesses, suspects and victims.’

Following the publication of the Guardian article, a British High Commission spokesperson in Bangladesh told the BBC that the training involved ‘interview skills, investigation skills, [and] basic scene of crime skills.’

This kind of investigation skills training to improve compliance with basic human rights standards is very similar to that provided to the Bangladesh police by the United Nations Development Programme as part of its ‘Police Reform Project’, which is funded by the UK Department for International Development and development agencies of other countries. This has been going on for a number of years without any controversy.

Since the Bangladesh police has been accused over many years by human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, of involvement in the systematic torture of detainees to extract confessions, those critical of improving RAB’s investigative skills should also want to end the police training.

To do this though would be entirely counterproductive. A key reason why such organisations as RAB and the police are involved in torture is that these are the only methods by which the organisations know how to investigate crime. In Bangladesh, crime scenes are almost never kept, techniques like finger printing are not used, and cases are not built up on the basis of deductive inquiry and questioning. Both RAB and the police, simply detain people, and carry out investigations by coercion, torture—and sometimes killing.

It is, therefore, essential that these organisations understand that crimes can be solved without torture. Criticising the British government for providing training removes the possibility that these agencies will ever learn how to investigate crime using the human rights compliant techniques standard in the UK and other countries.

And, interestingly Human Rights Watch, in its most recent report on RAB states that international donors like the British government can provide training as long as it is ‘specifically for human rights’.

Human Rights Watch has not responded to a query about why the training by the British government does not constitute the kind of ‘human rights training’ it supports.

The only suggestion in the Guardian article that the training provided by the British government was not human rights training comes from a comment by the RAB’s head of training, Mejbah Uddin ‘that he was unaware of any human rights training since he was appointed last summer.’ It is notable, however, that the Guardian does not set out what training was in fact provided.

It is very likely that Uddin’s response simply reflects a different understanding of what constitutes ‘human rights’ training, not recognising that it includes learning about the maintenance of crime scene and investigation techniques.

There is a purist view that donor agencies should not engage at all with organisations involved in human rights violations, that any engagement simply provides them unhelpful legitimacy. And there may well be questions to be asked of the British government about how much pressure it put on the Bangladesh government to stop torture and extrajudicial killings by RAB.

However, condemning the British government for its engagement with RAB—without any actual evidence that the training it provides facilitates RAB in violating human rights—risks preventing the organisation from gaining the skills and capacity that might allow it to develop into a human rights compliant organisation.

This makes it all the more remarkable that British lawyer Phil Shiner has initiated legal action against the British government. One would expect lawyers of Shiner’s reputation—who made his name in taking action against the British government over killing of citizens in Iraq—to undertake their own due diligence before opportunistically filing legal papers based on a misleading newspaper article.

David Bergman is editor, special reports, New Age. davidbangladesh at gmail.com

[For the original Guardian story critiqued above see: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-british-police-bangladesh-death-squad]

_____


[3] Nepal:

The Hindu, 5 January 2011
December 5, 2010

MAOISTS IN NEPAL: THE DIFFERENCES WITHIN
by Prashant Jha

At a recent meeting, the Maoists expressed their commitment to peace and the constitutional process but also decided to prepare for a revolt.

Four years after a peace accord at the end of Nepal's civil war, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is going through a deep existential crisis. This was most starkly reflected in the separate political documents presented by chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda,' senior vice-chairman Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran,' and another vice-chairman and ideologue Baburam Bhattarai at an extended party meeting in Palungtar of Gorkha district. Almost 6000 delegates — including 1200 Maoist combatants from United Nations-monitored cantonments — reviewed the party's achievements and failures after entering the peace process.

At the end, the Maoists expressed their commitment to peace and the constitutional process but also decided to simultaneously prepare for a general revolt if their aims were not met. But the meeting's real significance lay in the party's failure to resolve the fundamental ideological and political differences. 

In 2005, at a meeting in Chunbang in mid-western Nepal, the Maoists adopted the ‘democratic republic' path. This led to an alliance with other political parties against monarchy, the 2006 People's Movement, entry into the peace process, the CA elections and the abolition of monarchy. After taking over the reins of the government in 2008, the Maoists met at Kharipati on Kathmandu's outskirts and announced that their aim was to establish a ‘People's Federal Democratic Republic.' The other parties viewed this as a shift in goalposts, and attributed the Maoist attempt to dismiss the army chief to this radical turn.

If Chunbang was the result of an alliance between Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Bhattarai, Kharipati saw Mr. Prachanda come closer to the dogmatic ideologue Mr. Kiran. Since then, the political, peace and constitutional process has stalled. The other political parties and India accuse Maoists of turning their back on democracy, and say they cannot be trusted with power till they detach the party from the People's Liberation Army. For their part, the Maoists accuse India and the other parliamentary parties of collaborating to “isolate” them despite their proven electoral strength and subvert progressive political change including the ‘democratisation of Nepal Army.'

It was in this backdrop that the Maoists met. The three leaders have key differences on a range of issues — the “principal contradiction;” the correct “revolutionary line;” the immediate tactics; and the problems facing the organisation.

Principal contradiction

An old debate in Nepal's communist movement is whether “nationalism” or “democracy” is the primary objective in the “semi-colonial and semi-feudal” Nepali context. In 2005, the Maoist party declared “feudalism” the principal enemy and decided to ally with the parties and India in the quest for a democratic republic. After the abolition of monarchy, this debate stirred up again with a section arguing that the party's principal goal must now be “nationalism.”

Mr. Prachanda told party delegates in Palungtar that the principal contradiction of the Nepali people lay in the alliance between “India and domestic reactionaries.” He claimed that India had choreographed political opposition to the Maoist move to dismiss the army chief; blocked political agreement between Nepali actors; stopped Madhesi parties from supporting him in the recent prime ministerial elections; begun intimidating the Nepali media; and was hatching conspiracies to dissolve the CA. In his document, Mr. Kiran agreed with Mr. Prachanda's assessment that India was the main enemy.

On the other hand, Mr. Bhattarai emphasised that the principal contradiction was with the “remnants of feudalism, domestic reactionaries, comprador bourgeoisie and brokers” who received Indian protection. He argued that it would be incorrect, besides being tactically naïve, to label India the enemy until it had militarily invaded Nepal. The primary task was to institutionalise federal democratic republic through a written constitution. It was only by addressing livelihood issues, becoming self-reliant, and creating national unity that an outside power could be fought. The meeting ended with the question of “principal contradiction” unresolved.

The debate has real political implications. Mr. Prachanda's effort to carve out a “nationalist alliance” has led him into pacts with former royalists, who blame India for the abolition of monarchy. He has also sought Chinese support to neutralise India's role, though with limited success as Beijing has asked him to mend fences with India. Mr. Bhattarai in turn has condemned the party's understanding with “feudal landlords, monarchists, and opponents of federalism” as a betrayal of the political mandate.

Future line

The Palungtar plenum revealed the complex equation among the three leaders. Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Bhattarai defended the Chunbang decision to enter the peace process; Mr. Kiran was doubtful about its wisdom. Mr. Bhattarai and Mr. Kiran accused the chairman of vacillating in his political stand, and of financial non-transparency. And Mr. Prachanda and Mr. Kiran accused Mr. Bhattarai of being an “Indian stooge.” But there were areas of agreement.

All three emphasised that the aim was to constitute a “People's Federal Republic.” While none of them defined it explicitly, other party documents have often elaborated on the elements of such a political structure — an executive Presidency at the centre; federalism with ethnicity/nationality as a prominent basis; an “equal” relationship with India; “democratisation” of the Nepal Army through the integration of former PLA combatants and firmer civilian control; ‘first rights' to local communities regarding natural resources; revolutionary land reform; and restricted multiparty political competition in which “anti-imperialist and anti-feudal” parties would not be allowed to operate.

There was also a consensus that the PLA must not be “dissolved, dismantled or humiliated.” This assumes importance as non-Maoist parties have demanded immediate movement on the PLA as a precondition to constitution writing.

But there was a clear divergence on the future line and immediate tactics. In his document, Mr. Kiran argued that since there was no chance of such a “people's constitution” being drafted, the party should now focus on revolt and strengthen the organisation for the purpose. Mr. Bhattarai, however, said that in a context where the CA was dominated by the “proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie,” a progressive constitution was definitely possible.

Mr. Prachanda, for his part, sought to portray his line as fighting against both Mr. Bhattarai's “right wing revisionism” and Mr. Kiran's “ultra left orthodoxy,” but claimed he felt closer to Mr. Kiran's position. Explaining the present situation as one of sharpened polarisation between those in favour of “national independence and progressive change” and those who wish to thwart the change, Mr. Prachanda reiterated that while the party's objective would be “peace and constitution,” it would simultaneously prepare for a general revolt. While this “dual line” was passed, Mr. Prachanda was unable to get his document approved at the meet.

The Maoist deliberations could further complicate the prospects of a fresh political settlement in Nepal. In seeking to maintain his supremacy and “revolutionary” image, Mr. Prachanda has incorporated several elements from the Maoist strand, limiting negotiating space with other parties on issues such as the PLA. The radical rhetoric of the Maoist leadership in front of the cadre has only strengthened the right-wing hawks, who have been itching for a confrontation. The hostile position against India would not have won them any friends in Delhi either.

India and the democratic parties in Nepal should introspect whether their actions have contributed to Maoist insecurity and belligerence over the past year. But it is crucial for Mr. Prachanda to show true statesmanship and reiterate the Maoist commitment to past agreements, stick to federal democratic republic as the goal, move to fulfil the Maoist end of the peace process and retain focus on constitution writing.

____


[4]  INDIA: THREAT TO TEESTA SETALVAD AND OTHER RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, LAWYERS WORKING FOR JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF 2002 GUJARAT POGROM

Statement released january 4, 2011


The following statement was released in a meeting held today January 04, 2011 at Prashant, Ahmedabad. A large number of Human Rights Activists participated in the meeting. Apart from those present the statement has also been signed by the activists from others parts of India.

STATEMENT

We strongly condemn the malicious and motivated campaign against human rights activists and their lawyers struggling for justice for the victims of the genocidal carnage in Gujarat in 2002.

The patently false allegations of doctoring evidence are being orchestrated at a time when crucial trials are nearing completion and accused among whom are powerful politicians and policemen face charges of criminal conspiracy and murder.

The allegations against Teesta Setalvad secretary Citizens for Justice and Peace and the organisation she represents as well as advocate Sohail Tirmizi a lawyer who has fought tirelessly for justice were spearheaded first by the state of Gujarat, then fuelled by a former employee.

The recent attempt to file an application before the bar council for the cancellation of the ’sanad’ of five lawyers namely- Mukul Sinha, Amrish Patel, SH Iyer, Shamshad Pathan and Sohail Tirmizi, through an accused of Naroda Patiya is condemnable.

The timings of the malafide allegations are aimed at derailing the course of justice and come at a time when the apex court is poised to hear a complaint of conspiracy to commit mass murder, subversion of justice and destruction of evidence.

The brazen attempts need to be seen for what they are given the seriousness of the charges against the Gujarat state and its functionaries.

Dev Desai
Dhirendra Panda
Dr Ghanshyam Shah
Dr. Harshavardhan Hegde
Feroza Nooruni
Fr Cedric Prakash sj
Gaurang Raval
Gautam Thakar
Govind Parmar
Hanif Lakdawala
Harsh Mander
Hiren Gandhi
Hozefa
John
Junaid Ansari
Kavita Srivastava
Mahesh Pandya
Manisha Sethi
Manisha Trivedi
Manoj Sharma
Mansi Sharma
Meena Jagtap
MM Tirmizi
Mukhtar Sheikh
Mukul Sinha
Nadeem
Nafeesa Barot
Nandita Das
Nasiruddin Haider Khan
Noorjahan Dewan
Prasad Chako
Prashant Bhushan
Praveen Mishra
Prof Anuradha Chenoy
Prof Kamal Mitra Chenoy
Prof KM Shrimali
Prof KN Panikkar
Prof Rooprekha Verma
Prof. Ram Puniyani
Rasheeda
Roopa
Satya Sivaraman
Seema Duhan
Shabnam Hashmi
Sheba George
Sonal Patel
Sophia Khan
Uma Chakravarty


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

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