SACW | Jan 8, 2011 | Pakistan: Extremists' baton / Bangladesh: EU and war crimes law / India: Sedition ; Telengana

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 19:17:24 EST 2011


South Asia Citizens Wire -  Dispatch No. 2691 - January 8, 2011
From: sacw.net

[1]  Pakistan: More reactions to Salman Taseer's assassination
     (i) Citizens for Democracy, Pakistan: Position and Press Statement on assassination of Salmaan Taseer
     (ii) Asma Jahangir: Taseer's murder will embolden the Pakistani religious right
     (iii) If it takes up the extremists' baton, liberal Pakistan is lost (Kamila Shamsie)
     (iv) Wake up Pakistan (Editorial, The Hindu)
[2]  Bangladesh: EU diplomats in Dhaka divided (David Bergman)
[3]  India: Andhra Is Headed For Chaos  & Violence: The Telangana challenge i(Praful Bidwai)
[4]  India: Hurdles facing plan against Maoists (Jamal Kidwai)
[5]  How Indians look at Taseer’s assassination (Jawed Naqvi)
[6]  India: The Idea of Sedition (Jeremy Seabrook)

---------

[1]  Pakistan: More reactions to Salman Taseer's assassination

(i) CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY, PAKISTAN: POSITION AND PRESS STATEMENT ON ASSASSINATION OF SALMAAN TASEER

Karachi: Citizens for Democracy (CFD), a nation-wide umbrella group of political parties, trade unions, professional organisations, NGOs and individuals, strongly condemns the cold-blooded and cowardly murder of Salmaan Taseer.

The unarmed Governor of Punjab was shot in the back in the most cowardly manner by one of his own bodyguards on Jan 4, 2011, following a concerted propaganda campaign that falsely accused him of having been disrespectful to the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon on Him). This campaign was conducted in the media and through the mosques.

We strongly condemn those who are glorifying the assassin, who opened fire at the back of an unarmed man. We express our concern at the Rawalpindi District Bar Association’s support to the murderer and the offer to contest his case free of any fee, which signifies support for the murderer.

There is no proof of ‘blasphemy’ against Taseer. Even in the case of Aasia Bibi, the Christian woman sentenced by a sessions court for alleged blasphemy, the sentence has yet to be confirmed by the High Court and then by the Supreme Court before she can be considered guilty and executed.

The questions arising from this assassination indicate the involvement of retrogressive forces in Pakistan that have over the past couple of decades made inroads into the ‘establishment’.

The assassin, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, was assigned to the elite force guarding the Punjab Governor even though he (Qadri) was earlier removed from the Special Branch because he was perceived as a security threat.

How did he end up on the security detail of a Governor who was already receiving death threats?

Why did the other guards not open fire, as per standard operating procedures in VIP guard duty? (In Qadri’s confession after his arrest, he said that he had told his colleagues what he was going to do and asked them not to open fire, as he would surrender.)

While appreciating the arrest of the cleric who had offered a reward for Taseer’s murder, and of the other guards who were on duty and did nothing to protect the Governor, we demand:

	• Detailed inquiry and names of those responsible for this negligence should be made public and they be tried in a court of law.
	• Action and a legal process against all the guards on duty, who have been apprehended and placed in police custody, for they are accomplices.
	• Legal proceedings against the cleric Yousuf Qureshi of the Mohabat Khan Masjid, Peshawar, who at a public gathering on Dec 3, 2010 offered a Rs 500,000 reward to kill Aasia Bibi if her death sentence was not confirmed by the High Court.
	• Legal action against the Khatm-e-Naboohat for distributing threatening pamphlets (attached) against PPP MNA Sherry Rehman.
	• Legal action against those who continue to indulge in hate speech and threaten those who support amendment of the ‘Blasphemy Law’.
We reiterate our stand that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands and kill anyone, regardless of whether they are accused of blasphemy or any other crime.

CFD was formed at a meeting convened by Professional Organisations Mazdoor Federations & Hari Joint Committee (POJAC) on Dec 19, 2010 in Karachi. POJAC member organizations include:

1. Sindh High Court Bar Association
2. Pakistan Medical Association
3. All Pakistan Newspaper Employees Confederation
4. Mutahida Labour Federation
5. Karachi Union of Journalists
6. Pakistan Workers Federation
7. All Pakistan Trade Union Federation
8. All Pakistan Clerk Association
9. Democratic Labour Union State Bank of Pakistan
10. UBL Workmen Union (CBA)
11. National Bank Trade Union Federation
12. Karachi Bar Association
13. Pakistan Nursing Federation
14. National Trade Union Federation
15. Sindh Hari Committee
16. Govt. Sec. Teachers Association
17. Pakistan Hotel And Restaurant Workers Federation
18. Mehran Mazdoor Federation
19. All Sindh Primary Teachers Association
20. Sindh Professor Lecturer Association
21. Malir Bar Association, Karachi
22. Pakistan Trade Union Federation
23. Railway Workers Union Open Line (cba) Workshop
24. Mehran Railway Employees Welfare Association
25. All Pakistan Trade Unions Organisations

In addition to POJAC, CFD members and those endorsing the above statement include:

26. Awami Party
27. Labour Party Pakistan (LPP)
28. Progressive Youth Front (PYF)
29. Communist Party Pakistan (CPP)
30. Peace and Solidarity Council
31. Pakistan Institute of Labour, Education & Research (Piler)
32. Action Committee for Human Rights
33. Dalit Front
34. Commission for Justice and Peace (CJP)
35. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)
36. Caritas
37. Aurat Foundation
38. Women’s Action Forum (WAF)
39. People’s Resistance
40. Sindh Awami Sangat
41. National Organisation of Working Committees
42. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum
43. Child and Labour Rights Welfare Organisation
44. Progressive Writers Association (PWA)
45. Port Workers Federation
46. Shirkat Gah
47. Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC)
48. Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi (ITA)
49. Sanjan Nagar Public Education Trust (SNPET)
50. Pakistan Dalit Solidarity Network (PDSN)
51. Sindh Democratic Forum (SDF)
52. SAP-Pakistan
53. AwazCDS-Pakistan
54. GCAP-Pakistan
55. Home Based Women Workers Federation (HBWWF)
56. Labour Education Foundation (LEF)
57. Progressive Youth Forum
58. National Students’ Federation (NSF)
59. The Researchers

Contact: Citizens for Democracy – cfd.pak at gmail.com
Blog: www.citizensfordemocracy.wordpress.com

(ii) Deutsche Welle - 05.01.2011

ASMA JAHANGIR: TASEER'S MURDER WILL EMBOLDEN THE PAKISTANI RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Pakistan's leading human rights activist Asma Jahangir tells DW that after the assassination of the governor of the Punjab, it will become more difficult for people to challenge the country's controversial blasphemy law.


Asma Jahangir is the president of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association and one of the country's leading human rights activists. She was the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a non-governmental rights-based organization, and has also worked with the United Nations as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

Deutsche Welle: The Governor of the Punjab Salman Taseer was apparently murdered for opposing Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. How difficult will it be now for others who are campaigning against the law?

Asma Jahangir: Obviously it has posed difficulties, because people's lives will be at risk more and more. Not only that Salman Taseer was murdered, on top of it there are people coming on television and justifying his murder. Even the interior minister said that if somebody blasphemed in front of him, he would shoot him himself. Salman Taseer actually had not said anything which was in any way blasphemous. He had only said that the law needs to be looked at. So yes, I think it will become difficult for people to campaign against the law. But I also see that there is a lot of resilience in the Pakistani society because a lot of people have come on television, and a lot of people are saying that this is not the way to go.

Will Salman Taseer's murder polarize the Pakistani society further? Will it increase the divide between right-wing and liberal Pakistanis?

Some of us are of the opinion that we have to now begin to negotiate with them (the religious right), and have a dialogue with them rather than just talk at each other. I don't know what the outcome will be because the ball is in the court of political forces of the country. The have to take the initiative. Civil society has been doing it for many years.

Hundreds of educated young Pakistanis have welcomed Taseer's killing on social networking websites, such as Facebook and Twitter. What does this celebration of violence mean for the future of Pakistan?

Well, it just means that we are on the way to fascism. But we must not ignore the fact that Facebook and Twitter are also manipulated by a very well-knit group of militants, who are also backed by elements within the state.

Do you mean to say that it does not reflect a mainstream trend?

I do not think that it shows the mainstream trend, but there are people who will welcome a murder like this.

Most leaders of Pakistan's religious parties have not condemned the murder. On the contrary, some religious leaders have warned that anyone expressing grief for Taseer could also meet the same fate. How serious are these threats?

Today at Taseer's funeral there were thousands of people, and they were surely there because they were grieving. The right wing is always threatening us. Every single day we get threats from them. If they could, they would kill all of us.

What should the Pakistani government do now? Will it not be synonymous with surrendering to the religious extremists if the government doesn't do anything to amend the blasphemy law?

To my mind, Taseer's murder was as political as it was religious. The fact that they have killed a governor from the Pakistan People's Party also shows that they want to destabilize the government and derail the democratic process. So they are succeeding in that way. The government is walking a tightrope. They have to do something about it, but they have to have the leadership to take other people along with them.

Will it not embolden the religious right in Pakistan if the government does not do anything about the blasphemy law?

They are already emboldened. They have been emboldened for months. This has further emboldened them, and I believe it will continue if the government and other political parties do not come out and say enough is enough. Somewhere this has to stop. There will be further bloodshed. People will be scared, may be they won't say anything, but every time there is somebody who is going to be arrested because the law has been misused, people will also get angry.

Interviewer: Shamil Shams
Editor: Thomas Baerthlein

(iii)

The Guardian, 7 January 2011

IF IT TAKES UP THE EXTREMISTS' BATON, LIBERAL PAKISTAN IS LOST

The murder of Salmaan Taseer is terrible enough. But the feting of his killer has tipped people into a response of utter despair

by Kamila Shamsie

That Pakistan is a nation bound upon a wheel of fire is not in any doubt. The assassination of Salmaan Taseer, killed for speaking out against a blasphemy law that has been used time and again to persecute minorities and settle private scores, would itself have been a significant blow, depriving the nation of one of the few politicians willing to be fearless in facing down radicalism. But it was the image of lawyers sprinkling rose petals on to Taseer's smiling assassin – as though he were a bride and they the family of the groom welcoming him into their fold – that dealt a body blow from which Pakistan's liberals and progressives are unsure they can ever recover.

How far the nation has travelled over the decades is evident in the distance between the petal-throwing lawyers and the finest document in the country's history – not its ever-amending constitution, but a judicial report penned by Justices Munir and Kayani in 1954, in response to the anti-Ahmadiyya riots of 1953, which marked the first time the religious right used violence against the state to try and push forward its programme of defining Pakistan.

The riots were designed to press the government into declaring members of the Ahmadiyya sect as non-Muslim. The attempt failed, but showed up certain dangerous problems within the new state. The Munir-Kayani report didn't merely look at the facts surrounding the riots, but delved into theology, philosophy and dry wit to expose the dangers and absurdity of the religious right's position. In a particularly brilliant section the report asks 10 ulema (Islamic scholars) to lay out the minimum conditions a person must satisfy to call themselves a Muslim. After reproducing the wildly divergent answers, the justices write: "Need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental ... And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim [scholar] but kafirs [infidels] according to the definition of everyone else."

One thing the justices never envisioned as they highlighted the impossibility of "an Islamic state" when so many different versions of Islam exist, was that anything could band together the disparate groups of the religious right. Yet that is precisely what happened around demands for the blasphemy laws to be amended. There are far too many differences and enmities between those groups for agreement to stretch very far. But the site of agreement has encroached on the liberal space within Pakistan.

The extent of this encroachment became clear recently as many of those who had been insisting that a decisive response was needed in the name of anti-extremism blogged and tweeted their delight at a fatwa apparently issued by a previously unheard-of mufti, Muhammad Idris Usmani of the Jamia Islamia. He declared that, on examining all the evidence, it was clear Salmaan Taseer was not guilty of blasphemy; rather, the real blasphemers were those who praised or justified his assassination in the name of Islam. Their punishment, in accordance with the Qur'an, was "execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile". He then went on to list all those real blasphemers, including "200 lawyers who cheered up the killer; dozens of journalists, scholars and media persons who justified the killing".

The authenticity of the fatwa – and the man himself – is in serious doubt. But the responses to it from liberals were genuine enough. Some who expressed delight at the fatwa probably would be entirely pleased to see the execution of those cheering on the assassin – in Pakistan you can be both a liberal and a fascist, so long as you're a secular fascist. But in other places the approval for the mufti seems indicative of a deep despair born of a certainty that extremism has won. We are left with the image of liberalism's last act – the attempt to hurl extremism's weapons back at it, not in the hope of causing serious damage but because there are no other weapons left. At least, that's how it feels today. That is the cheeriest note it's possible to strike at the moment.

For those who insist that Pakistan's religious right problem started with the rule of General Zia in 1977, look at the warning within the Munir-Kayani report of 1954: "Provided you can persuade the masses to believe that something they are asked to do is religiously right or enjoined by religion, you can set them to any course of action, regardless of all considerations of discipline, loyalty, decency, morality or civic sense."

That should have been a wake-up call; it wasn't. Two decades later, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had campaigned on a secular socialist platform, declared the Ahmadiyyas non-Muslim, in an awful attempt to outflank the religious right. Like many other politicians before and since, he thought he could use Islamic rhetoric to his advantage, without too much concern about fallout. And so we are left with the haunting final words of the report: "But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends – then Allah knoweth best and we end the report."

o o o

(iv)

The Hindu, 8 January 2011
Editorial

WAKE UP PAKISTAN

The assassination of Salmaan Taseer by his police bodyguard — which recalls in some way the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 — is a grim reminder of the extent to which Pakistan has descended into the depths of religious extremism. The Governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Mr. Taseer was an abrasive and sharp-elbowed politician of the ruling Pakistan People's Party. Commendably, he was one of the rare leaders in this party of diffident moderates who was unafraid to confront religious extremism. One of his first acts after taking office in May 2008 was to declare that Basant, a spring festival in Punjab opposed by religious clerics and banned by a court order, would be revived. Recently, he angered Pakistan's Islamic political parties with a spirited campaign against the controversial blasphemy law. His visit to a jail to meet Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman convicted under the law and sentenced to death, and his assurance to her that he would help her obtain a presidential pardon, triggered a nation-wide protest against him by the religious parties. Some clerics declared he was an apostate. Mr. Taseer's assassin declared, after being taken into custody following the killing, that he was proud to have killed a “blasphemer.” It remains unclear if the man was acting alone or at the behest of others. Certainly, it is no secret that the Pakistan security forces, the law enforcing agencies and other key government institutions are infiltrated by sympathisers of militant groups and those with extremist views. But the realisation that even a special commando unit assigned to protect Pakistan's leaders is not immune from such elements is frightening.

The incident is bound to reduce the limited space for Pakistan's liberal-moderates and their modest efforts to stem the tide of extremism sweeping across the country. The mealy-mouthed condemnations of the killing even by PPP politicians and the surge of popular support for the assassin show which way the wind is blowing. Pakistani voters may not choose Islamist political parties to lead them. But over the decades, large enough numbers in all sections of society have become sufficiently radicalised to ensure that anyone who attempts reform, even of recent horrors such as the murderous blasphemy law and the anti-women Hudood laws — both the legacy of the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq — does so at great personal and political risk. The radicalisation is the undeniable result of a deliberate policy by the Pakistan state to nurture militancy in order to meet regional strategic objectives. Mr. Taseer's killing is another setback for President Asif Ali Zardari and the PPP government, already in trouble after being reduced to a minority regime following the withdrawal of support by a key coalition partner. It can only be hoped that the tragic incident serves as an alarm call to Pakistan's decision-makers, the Pakistan Army included, that they need to act with extraordinary urgency, courage, and honesty to clamp down on fanaticism, extremism, and terrorism of all kinds before the country sinks any deeper.

_____


[2]  Bangladesh:

New Age, 8 January 2011

EU DIPLOMATS IN DHAKA DIVIDED

by David Bergman

A difference of opinion has surfaced among Bangladesh-based European diplomats about what public position the European Union should take on the adequacy of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973.

The 1973 act governs the powers of the International Crimes Tribunal which was set up by the government earlier this year to prosecute the people accused of war crimes and other international crimes during the 1971 independence war of Bangladesh.

Andrew Barnard, the chair of the European Union’s Human Rights Task Force which comprises EU diplomats based in Dhaka told New Age a month ago that although there may be some ‘technical’ shortcomings in the legislation, they ‘will not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice.’

This is the first time that a senior European Union diplomat had publicly given the legislation conditional international support and the view will be seen as controversial given that the legislation has been widely criticised by international lawyers outside Bangladesh including senior judges and prosecutors from the International Bar Association’s War Crimes committee.

Diplomats based at embassies belonging to different European countries were surprised at Barnard’s statement and emphasised that the Human Rights Task Force is simply ‘an informal Dhaka-based grouping that discusses policy and shares ideas,’ and that ‘the EU has yet to come to a formal, collective position on the war crimes trials.’

On hearing the position given by the task force, one senior German embassy contacted Andrew Barnard, who is also the head of the political, trade and information section of the European Union, and asked him to send a revised statement to New Age.

Andrew Barnard stated in his subsequent e-mail that ‘Rolf [dieter Reinhard] asked me to clarify to you the stance of EU diplomats in Bangladesh on the War Crimes trials.’

The e-mail went onto set out to set out the new position. ‘It is for Bangladesh to decide whether to bring perpetrators of crimes during the war of independence to trial. The EU would however urge Bangladesh to ensure that trials meet international standards for fair judicial processes.’ Significantly, it omitted any assessment of the 1973 act.

In contrast, a British High Commission official told New Age that the British government accepts the criticisms of the 1973 act made by international lawyers.

Jon Ryan, political and global issues secretary, told New Age, ‘We concur with the opinion of the IBA’s War Crimes Committee, i.e, that whilst the 1973 act is “broadly compliant” with international standards, we would want to see the adoption of the [committee’s] 17 recommendations.’

However, he went onto state in an e-mail, ‘Whilst we attach significant weight to the [IBA’s] opinion, we are not saying that trials cannot be held to international standards without the wholesale adoption of all recommendations. Much will depend on how the trials are conducted once they begin.’

This view differs from either of the statements given by the EU diplomats in that it accepts certain changes are necessary for the 1973 act to allow for a fair trial.

Barnard told New Age that the Human Rights Task Force came to its ‘consensus’ view that the 1973 act ‘will not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice,’ following meetings in the summer of 2010 with three ‘experts’— MA Hasan, the chair of the War Crimes Facts Finding Committee, Adilur Rahman, the secretary of the human rights organisation Odhikar and Shahdeen Malik, advocate of the Supreme Court.

‘We did not think it necessary to meet international law experts,’ Barnard said.

Both Hasan and Adilur Rahman, however, told New Age that they did not tell the task force that the 1973 act was adequate. Hasan said that he told the EU members that in order ‘for the trial to be fair it needed modification.’

Adilur Rahman said that he did not give his view about the adequacy of the legislation, ‘as I am not in a position to give one. I am not an expert on this issue.’

Shahdeen Malik was not available to comment but he is previously reported to have said that the 1973 act is adequate to provide for a fair trial.

Abdur Razzaq, one of the senior lawyers acting for the five Jamaat-e-Islami leaders currently detained by the International Criminal Tribunal, told New Age that he was not impressed by the level of expertise consulted by the European Union. ‘How can these three people be war crimes experts? The European Union is expected to have better standards.’

The apparent divergence of position within the European Union comes at a time when the Bangladesh government has invited Stephen Rapp, the US War Crimes Ambassador at Large, to come to Dhaka to provide the government assistance with war crimes.

New Age has previously reported that the invitation is seen by the diplomatic community in Dhaka as recognition that the Bangladesh government has begun to acknowledge that changes to the legislation are necessary.

The International Bar Association’s advice on the 1973 act stated that there were ‘significant omissions’ regarding protection of rights of the people on trial and ‘out of date’ definitions of war crimes.

The Government has rejected the criticisms and pointed to the fact that the IBA’s advice also states that the legislation ‘provides a system that is broadly compatible with current international standards’.

The International Crimes Tribunal was established by the government in March 25, 2009 and since then five men, all Jamaat-e-Islami leaders, have been detained by the tribunal on accusations of war crimes.

The tribunal on December 30, 2010 passed an order requiring the BNP standing committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury to be produced before the tribunal on January 17.

_____


[3]  India:

Kashmir Times, 7 January 2011

ANDHRA IS HEADED FOR CHAOS  & VIOLENCE: THE TELANGANA CHALLENGE

by Praful Bidwai 

The Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has thrown down the gauntlet to the Central government by boycotting meetings convened to discuss the report of the BN Srikrishna committee on the issue of separate statehood for Telangana, comprised of the northern districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Bharatiya Janata Party has followed suit.

The TRS questions the method of consultations proposed by Home Minister P Chidambaram, of inviting two representatives each from all the significant parties in Andhra, one from Telangana and the second from the other two regions, coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. TRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao says the absence of a unified position on separate statehood in the Congress and Telugu Desam will only cause further confusion. On what basis the Centre will take a political call on the issue remains unclear.

The battle-lines on Telangana were drawn even before Justice Srikrishna submitted his report, which apparently doesn’t make recommendations either in favour of statehood for Telangana or other arrangements. These could include the status quo; making Hyderabad a Union Territory and the capital of both Telangana and the rest of Andhra on the Chandigarh-Punjab-Haryana model; or an altogether new reconfiguration.

On one side of the battlefield are ranged the TRS, the BJP, the Communist Party of India, some sections of the CPI(ML), and most, if not all, the Telangana-based legislators from the Congress, the TDP and actor Chiranjeevi’s Praja Rajyam Party (PRP). They emphasise Telangana’s distinctive culture, dialects, cuisine and customs.

On the other side are: the Communist Party of India (Marxist); the new political formation-in-the-making under Jaganmohan Reddy, son of the late Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, who recently quit the Congress; and members of the Congress, TDP and PRP from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
Newly-installed CM Kiran Kumar Reddy and Governor ESL Narasimhan are believed to be hostile to separate statehood. The Governor isn’t supposed to express or influence political opinion. But Mr Narasimhan, a former intelligence official, who served controversially as Chhattisgarh’s Governor, is an ambitious man prone to be meddlesome.

The opponents of statehood also warn against violating the principle of linguistic reorganisation of states, which might trigger the formation of “too many” small states like Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Gorkhaland and Bodoland. But there’s nothing wrong with smaller states, based on cultural, agro-climatic, economic and administrative considerations. India is huge, with 1,130 million people—far greater than the average population of just 30-35 million of the world’s 190-odd nations.

There are strong political and administrative reasons for, say, 50 states, where small social groups would be better represented than in the present 28 states and 7 Union Territories. There’s no harm if Vidarbha and Bundelkhand are created. We aren’t dealing with secession or separatism, only a second stage of reorganisation of states beyond linguistic identities. There are enough sub-linguistic differences that warrant such reorganisation. Smaller states are generally better at promoting participatory democracy and development. Federalism is a worthy principle which is neglected in an over-centralised India.

No matter how the Srikrishna report is debated, and what procedure is followed to decide on statehood, it’s likely that the consequence will be contention and conflict. The TRS is uncompromising on demanding a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as its capital. The repeated fasts by KCR and other leaders, and their pronouncements, unambiguously demand that the Centre should move a resolution in the budget session of Parliament to create the new state.

That indeed was Mr Chidambaram’s promise when he panicked at reports in December 2009 that KCR, then on a hunger strike, could slip into a coma, and announced that the process of creating a separate state would be launched immediately. The Home Minister’s ineptitude was staggering. His promise greatly exceeded the wildest expectations of the pro-Telangana proponents.

The pro-Telangana group in the Congress feels resentful that it’s not being consulted enough by the Central party leadership, whereas MPs from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema have used their superior money power to gain access to New Delhi’s top-level decision-makers. The pro-Telangana sentiment is far weaker in the TDP, whose leadership comes predominantly from the coastal region and the landowning Kamma caste.

The unified-Andhra lobby bristles at the thought that Telangana should be rewarded with the prized jewel that’s Hyderabad, a city to which all three regions lay claim. If the TRS demand is conceded, people in the other two regions will almost certainly take to the streets. Violence and bloodshed will follow. The Centre has tactlessly sent thousands of paramilitary forces primarily to Telangana, thus giving the impression of an anti-Telangana bias. One can only hope that it behaves more maturely, aware that even a minor mistake on its part will lead to avoidable bloodshed and loss of life.

Eventually, the Congress may settle the Telangana issue on a crudely political self-interest calculus. If it accepts KCR’s public offer of merging the TRS with the Congress if a separate state is created, it can secure enthusiastic support of the Telangana people and win 17 Lok Sabha seats (of Andhra’s total of 42). If it dithers, or opposes separate statehood, it stands to lose in all the regions.

Andhra Pradesh is extremely important for the Congress. It owes 35 of its Lok Sabha seats to the state—the highest in any province. This was the Congress’s highest success rate in the 2009 election. On balance, the Congress might tilt towards Telangana for opportunistic reasons.
Yet, there’s a persuasive principled case for a separate Telangana state based on social, cultural, economic and political considerations. As a political entity, Telangana as the erstwhile Hyderabad state has an older history than Andhra. This is partly rooted in the anti-Nizam-anti-British Freedom Movement and the Telangana armed peasant struggle, led by the undivided Communist Party.

Andhra came into being only in 1953, comprising the coastal region and Rayalaseema, with Kurnool as its capital. The present entity, Andhra Pradesh, was created in 1956 through Hyderabad’s merger. Its basis was linguistic identity and a 10-point “Gentlemen’s Agreement” between the then Chief Ministers of Andhra (Bezawada Gopal Reddy) and Hyderabad (Burugula Ramakrishna Rao). This included the creation of a Regional Committee for Telangana whose recommendations would “normally be accepted by the government and the state legislature”.

Another understanding was that 40 percent of Cabinet members would be from Hyderabad/Telangana. There would be a Deputy Chief Minister too, so that either the CM or the Deputy CM would be from Telangana. Many in Telangana believe these conditions haven’t been properly fulfilled.
There has since been a strong assertion of a distinct Telangana identity, through two major agitations in 1969 and in 2000. These sharpened Telangana’s sense of discrimination and highlighted its educational backwardness and “developmental backlog”. Incidentally, the Telangana demand in 2000 was led by none other than YS Rajasekhara Reddy, strongly identified with Rayalaseema.

The pro-statehood proponents argue that Telangana has not received state development assistance proportional to its size. This argument is largely valid although semi-arid Rayalaseema too can claim that it’s poor and underdeveloped. Only coastal Andhra, with its prosperous agrarian economy and rapid industrial growth around Vishakhapatnam, is decisively more developed than Telangana.

Where Telangana has an even stronger case is on its share of the waters of rivers Krishna and Godavari. Sixtynine percent of the catchment area of the Krishna and 79 percent of that of the Godavari is located in Telangana. Internationally, water-sharing is decided on the basis of this area.
But opponents of Telangana’s statehood club Hyderabad with the region to argue that Telangana’s per capita development indices are higher than coastal Andhra’s or Rayalaseema’s. Besides, Hyderabad’s prosperity is the result of investments from the other regions, especially coastal Andhra, known for its aggressive enterprise in construction, trading and industry. This is true. Many non-Telangana people have settled in Hyderabad for decades; it would be unfair to displace or disenfranchise them.

Telangana clearly has the first claim on Hyderabad: it’s literally at the heart of the region. But it’s also logical to treat Hyderabad as a special category, where some degree of regional representation and sharing is possible. In a truly federal India, we ought to go beyond the “Chandigarh Union Territory” formula, and try something that would substantially meet divergent expectations.

There are useful precedents from elsewhere in the world, such as Trieste, an ethnically distinct region in which Italy and Slovenia agreed to share sovereignty, and the Autonomous Aland Islands in Finland, which have a Swedish ethnic majority. Above all, there is Hong Kong, where China set up a Special Administrative Region in 1997 while taking it over from Britain.

There’s no reason why Hyderabad can’t be the capital exclusively of Telangana, but also have a city government in which all the local people participate. What we need is unorthodox, out-of-the-box, imaginative solutions that reconcile contradictory demands, expectations and aspirations. But can the Congress summon up the courage to think imaginatively? That’s a tall order. But the alternative is far grimmer—endless chaos and bloodletting.
email: bidwai at bol.net.in

____


[4]  

The Economic Times
11 Dec, 2010

HURDLES FACING PLAN AGAINST MAOISTS

by Jamal Kidwai 

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved the Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for 60 of the mostly Naxal-affected districts. The aim is to draw people away from the Maoists by propelling development schemes like those related to employment, drinking water and healthcare. Under the plan, each of the 60 districts will get Rs 25 crore in the current fiscal year. This assistance will be increased to Rs 30 crore in 2011-12, with a total allocation of Rs 3,300 crore. It is interesting that civil society groups and panchayati raj institutions will have no role to play in the implementation of these schemes. The entire burden of implementation has been left to district administrations, that is the district magistrate, the superintendent of police and forest officer. 

Going by the past experience, such monetary and administrative packages have rarely made difference in areas where there is insurgency and rebellion. Instead, what is required is a radical political intervention by central and state governments at various levels to ensure Acts like PESA, PRI, MNREGA, Minimum Wages Act and others are not subverted and are instead implemented in letter and spirit. Until this is done, these plans and programmes are bound to fail and pumping in more money in Maoist-affected regions will lead to more corruption. However, political initiatives require political will which sometimes does not pay electoral dividends in the short run. Some of the issues the central and state governments could address are as follows. 

First, they demonstrate political will and statesmanship to give up the lure of largesses from big corporations, as well as challenges the powerful village and district-level political lobbies. All the Acts mentioned above through which these development programmes will be implemented are being subverted primarily by the political class. Take the case of corruption in MNREGA and Indira Awaas Yojana. It is the people’s elected representatives at the grassroots level like the mukhiya or the zilla parishad members who are the main source of corruption. They are the main implementing authorities for such programmes and without their knowledge and consent, it would be impossible to misappropriate funds. 

Similar is the case when big companies acquire tribal land for mining purposes. Under the PESA, no one can acquire tribal land without the permission of the gram sabha. Yet, it is common that villagers come to know that the acquisition has taken place only at the time they are about to get displaced. Here also, it is the elected representatives who are “bought” by the big companies to subvert the PESA by illegally fabricating the consent of the gram sabha. All political parties are implicated in subverting Acts like the PRI, PESA and the Minimum Wages Act that seek to empower the poor, dalits and tribals. 

Second, a proper administration and implementation of these Acts can only happen if the target group is aware of its rights enshrined in these Acts. Until that happens, how can we expect them to demand their rights from the government and elected representatives? What is striking when one travels in rural Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and other Maoist-affected states is the complete lack of awareness amongst the vast majority of the poor about MNREGA, Indira Awaas Yojna, Widow Pension Scheme and hundreds of other government programmes. This is a major challenge because the target group is illiterate. Education and awareness will not only put pressure on the elected representative to deliver, but also create a sense of ownership among the beneficiaries. There are entrenched and powerful vested interests who would like the poor to remain ignorant. Again, what is required is political will and not pumping in more money that will encourage these vested interests to ensure that the poor remain ignorant while they pocket the funds. 

Finally, transparency and accountability in public welfare schemes is a major political challenge if the government wants to regain the confidence of the people in Maoist-affected regions. The practice of social audits in states like Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in MNREGA has given a sense of ownership to the people in development works. They have become less cynical towards politicians. Yet, this is easier said than done. On September 1, hundreds of sarpanches staged a demonstration and clashed with the police in Jaipur demanding an end to social audits of MNREGA works. Obviously, they were enraged because social audits in Rajasthan have exposed the corruption of the sarpanches in the MNREGA works. None of the political parties in Rajasthan had the courage to tackle the sarpanches and endorse the practice of social audits. Social audits in all government schemes should be made mandatory and should not be left to NGOs and civil society groups. 

(The author is director of a Delhi-based organisation Aman Trust)

____


[5]

Dawn, 7 January 2011

HOW INDIANS LOOK AT TASEER’S ASSASSINATION

by Jawed Naqvi

NEW DELHI: A popular cartoon strip in the Times of India on Thursday equated Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws with India’s statute against sedition. The widely loved children’s doctor Binayak Sen was recently given a life sentence under the law.

Writer Arundhati Roy is among others being investigated for sedition after they spoke up for Azadi for Kashmir.

The cartoon strip, crafted by the nationally applauded humorist Jug Suraiya, shows two women. The first says: “Salman Taseer has been shot dead because of Pakistan’s blasphemy law.” Her friend replies: “Binayak Sen has been jailed for life because of India’s blasphemy law.” “I didn’t know India had a blasphemy law,” says the first woman. “Sure, we do — it’s called sedition,” replies the second.

A few in the Indian media have found in the murder of Salman Taseer an opportunity to prescribe ways to Pakistan to fight religious terrorism, but a small news item in the Times of India on Thursday offered a clue to New Delhi’s own nervousness with home-grown terror.

The single-paragraph report did not have a dateline, but appeared to refer to a police advisory in Mumbai. It said: “Police have instructed private security agencies to check background details of guards they recruit, especially youths from Kashmir, as intelligence agencies suspect the Indian Mujahideen (IM) plans to use such people for terror strikes in the city.”

The IM, which some say has links with Lashkar-e-Taiba, has been blamed for a clutch of attacks across the country.

In an editorial titled ‘The slippery slope’, The Indian Express said Tuesday’s murder of Salman Taseer by one of his guards underlined the deepening structural crisis in the nation.

“The first major political assassination since the killing of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto a little over three years ago has brought into sharp relief the growing militant infiltration of the security forces, a weak civilian government that is unable to govern, an economy in shambles, and an all-powerful army leadership that appears to have lost the plot,” The Express said.

“The assassin has reportedly said his motivation was to avenge the governor’s support to changes in Pakistan’s notorious law against blasphemy that has victimised not only religious minorities but also mainstream Muslims,” the paper pointed out.

It said Pakistan’s leaders must comprehensively reject Ziaul Haq’s vision and turn back to a more moderate and democratic ideal of Pakistan, taking on extremist elements.

“Otherwise cracks in the polity will only deepen, and the worst losers will be the people of Pakistan.”

The Kolkata-based Telegraph said Taseer’s murder makes clear that Pakistan remains on the edge of the abyss.

“Thousands of lives, and billions of pounds, have been lost in an effort to defeat the insurgents who threaten to seize control of the nuclear-armed state. And it is becoming clear that the Pakistani state either isn’t willing, or isn’t able, to confront the Islamist movement that it has nurtured for decades — and which now threatens to turn the country into a burnt-out dystopia.”

Last month Ashok Singhal, leader of the neo-fascist Vishwa Hindu Parishad, had warned that Congress president Sonia Gandhi would meet the fate of her assassinated mother-in-law, former prime minister Indira Gandhi, if she persisted with an investigation into the alleged involvement of rightwing Hindu activists in sabotage and bomb attacks, including the fire-bombing of the Samjhota Express. Most Indian newspapers didn’t find the comments newsworthy.

____


[6]  India:


Outlook,  Jan 04, 2011

THE IDEA OF SEDITION
Those who protest most loudly their devotion to their country are the truly seditious; that is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell on archaic offences...

by Jeremy Seabrook

The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen suggests India is waging war against its own people. This should come as no surprise, for India is in the paradoxical position of pursuing colonial policies without any colonies. This means that unusual pressure is placed upon its periphery, its outlying ‘hinterland’, which must be seized for the treasures it contains, to feed, not the poor, but the voracious growth of the economy.

The idea of sedition has, of course, strong colonial associations. Sedition, in its modern usage, first entered the English language during the Elizabethan period, towards the end of the sixteenth century. (from Latin –se apart, ire to go) At that time, it was interpreted as ‘inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority.’

Sedition contained the notion, not only of illegal actions, but also of actions committed by unauthorised people: that is to say, it was essentially a pre-democratic concept, initiated by the lower orders, outlaws and riff-raff, unruly elements who had no stake in society. Laws against sedition were widely used in Britain when the franchise remained limited, particularly in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the more so since this coincided with the disruptions of early industrialism in Britain. Governments lived in fear of the mob, and its insurrectionist capacity. ‘Seditious libel’ was used to stifle free expression.

The last prosecution for sedition in Britain took place in 1972, in a case in which the accused were charged with inciting people to travel to Northern Ireland to fight for the Republican cause. The case was dropped. The crimes of ‘sedition’ and ‘seditious libel’ gradually withered away, and these outworn acts were repealed in Britain last year.

It is regrettable, but perhaps only to be expected, that such grand-sounding offences as sedition should have found a comfortable resting-place in India, where so many colonial echoes lead a sinister after-life, waiting to be invoked against dissenting voices and those who question the wisdom and integrity of an India, certified to have ‘emerged’ by none less than the President of the United States. The original British law on sedition stands, despite subsequent modification, as Section 124A of the Penal Code. ‘Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fines may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.’

That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such immoderate punishment, when his calling is the relief of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints at the insecurity of those who know how fragile the trumpeted economic success of India is, how promiscuously distributed its rewards, and how estranged large segments of the population remain from the international hyperbole.

In many ways, the India of today bears a strong resemblance to the condition of Britain in the early nineteenth century, when the rising imperial power, whose reputation abroad struck awe into lesser peoples, had, at home, set in movement great rural-urban migrations, evicting people in large numbers from settled ways of life and sending them to fetid city slums, there to make their own accommodation with the forces of capital. At that time, too, Britain had seen the growth of an assertive middle class, which also demanded its place in the sun. So India today is represented, not by its excluded and impoverished majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a middle class which fills the malls and hypermarkets of the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology of its own creation. And beneath the hymns of praise to commodities, the voice of the dispossessed has been stilled, as the unemployed noiselessly sweep the fallen bougainvillea blossoms from the terrace, self-effacingly serve whisky and cocktails, silently swab marble floors, quietly open doors and unsmilingly sit behind the wheel of cars, conveying their betters to the superior destinations of power.

It would be astonishing if there were not convergences between the old imperial power and its legatee in the modern world. For like all rising powers, the territory it occupies is never sufficient for its own perceived needs. India now occupies its border spaces in much the same way that Britain once governed its own outer fringes – clearing the Highlands of Scotland of people for the sake of more profitable sheep, enclosing common land for private use, plundering Wales of its coal and tearing up the valleys that were exhausted of their riches in a mere two or three generations, doing nothing to mitigate hunger in Ireland, because this might interfere with the sacred laws of the free market. It should be noted that colonialism began at home; and nothing Britain practised in its global empire had not already been tried and tested in the British Isles; a story India seems only too ready to emulate.

So it is that India, that booming later miracle of the 21st century, constantly revisits is own past, seeking inspiration in the way it was treated by its former masters, in order to deal with its own contemporary recalcitrants and dissidents. Beset by the consequences of injustice to its minorities, its indigenous peoples, to victims of development sheltering in city slums, to the unfortunates of Kashmir, who occupy one of the most highly military pieces of real estate on earth, it is bound to have recourse to the blunt legal instruments bequeathed to it, directly and indirectly by its sometime rulers.

Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the gods, at least of imperialists who behaved like gods. How satisfying to still the tongues and the pens of those who persist in bringing to public attention disquieting truths.

The real offence of Dr Sen, like that of others threatened with charges of sedition, Arundhati Roy or SAS Geelani, has little to do with ‘sedition.’ They have disturbed the self-flattering image with which India has been beguiled by foreign leaders to their shores, people seeking markets, kickbacks, loot, easy pickings, cheap labour or any other advantages to be had from those ready to sell anything to the highest bidder. It is a great pity that government should have believed the blandishments of all the new East India Companies, which have come in such smart modern garb, sharp suits and battalions of security personnel with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more advanced trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of India out of whatever they can be persuaded to part with.

Sen, Roy or Geelani are not the true anti-nationals. The true betrayers of India are those who act in the name of patriotism and pride of the waking giant, the power-house of tomorrow, the new arrival at the top table. Those who protest most loudly their devotion to their country are the truly seditious; that is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell on archaic offences, rather than addressing the epic inequalities which divide the people of India.

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

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