SACW | Jan.20-21, 2007

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | January 20-21, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2351 - Year 8

[1]  The army, not the politicians, now runs Bangladesh  (The Economist)
[2]   India: Online Peition - Presidential Clemency For Mohd. Afzal Guru
[3]   India: A travesty of justice (Indira Jaising)
[4]   India: Irom Sharmila's Health Deteriorates
[5]   India's Growing Uranium Enrichment Program for Military 
Purposes (David Albright, Susan Basu)
[6]   India: Report of National Consultation on Minorities and Biases 
in Text Books
[7]   Hindu[tva] activists riot in India's Bangalore

____


[1]

The Economist print edition
Jan 18th 2007 | Dhaka

THE COUP THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME
THE ARMY, NOT THE POLITICIANS, NOW RUNS BANGLADESH

Between the barracks and the mosque

WHEN Iajuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh's president, declared an army-backed 
state of emergency on January 11th and cancelled the election due on 
January 22nd, neither he nor the foreign governments quietly cheering 
him on used the word "coup". Yet that is what it looks like. The 
army, in the tradition of "guardian coups" from Fiji to Thailand, has 
stepped in with the usual list of apparently noble goals. The interim 
government it is backing will enable credible elections, clean up the 
country's extremely politicised civil service, fight corruption, fix 
the country's power crisis and keep food prices in check-and then 
return to the barracks.

The president stood down as head of the caretaker government that had 
been supposed to oversee the elections. He was replaced by Fakhruddin 
Ahmed, a former central-bank governor and World Bank official. The 
technocratic administration he heads has so far sent the right 
signals. A drive against corruption-in which Bangladesh regularly 
nears the top of world league tables-is under way. The 
national-security chief, the top civil servant in the power ministry 
and the attorney-general have all been ousted. A start has been made 
in separating the judiciary from the executive.

But restoring democracy remains a tall order. The political system 
has collapsed. The army insisted the president step in before the 
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which headed a coalition 
government for the past five years, could rig the election and secure 
itself another term.

Delaying the vote averted a possible bloodbath. Allegations of 
election-rigging levelled by an alliance led by the other big party, 
the Awami League, had led to weeks of often violent protests and 
strikes. Their charges were, in effect, backed by foreign observers. 
Both the European Union and the UN withdrew their support for the 
election. The UN also warned the army against partisan intervention 
in politics, adding that this might jeopardise its lucrative role in 
UN peacekeeping operations. This threat helped sever an alliance 
between the army and the BNP.

The BNP's leader, the previous prime minister, Khaleda Zia, is 
reported to have been taken aback by the state of emergency and 
disappointed in the generals. But the BNP is unlikely to go quietly, 
raising fears that the administration might be forced to make fuller 
use of its wide-ranging emergency powers, which it has so far used 
with restraint.

Unless something extraordinary happens to make the parties behave, 
there will be no return soon to two-party politics. It will take time 
to fix a voter list bloated with millions of extra names, to issue 
voter-identity cards, to set up a new independent election 
commission, and to purge the bureaucracy. It seems unachievable 
before the July monsoon, which pushes polls back to the final quarter 
of 2007. Indeed, what would be the fourth electoral battle between 
Mrs Zia and the League's Sheikh Hasina Wajed may never happen.

Arguing in favour of the state of emergency, Bangladesh's 
largest-selling newspaper, Prothom Alo, has exposed the practice of 
parties' auctioning off parliamentary seats for money. Matiur Rahman, 
the editor, also alleges that both big parties entered a bidding war 
to lure the Jatiya Party of the former dictator, Hossain Mohammad 
Ershad, into their alliance. Jatiya has asked the army to shut the 
paper down.

Although the state of emergency has supporters even among some 
liberal democrats, it is a high-stakes gamble. Authoritarian rule is 
unlikely to appeal for long, however fed up voters are with the two 
big parties and their mutually-loathing leaders. The main beneficiary 
from the failure of mainstream politics is an extremist Islamist 
fringe.

Internationally, the stakes are highest for neighbouring India. It 
accuses Bangladesh of harbouring insurgent groups from its 
north-east, and is home, claim politicians, to some 20m Bangladeshi 
migrants. By 2050 Bangladesh, only twice as big as Ireland, will have 
about 250m people. In the short term the only voting on offer to 
Bangladesh's people, half of whom live in abject poverty, is with 
their feet.

_____


[2]


[ Endorse the petition to the President of India ; Sign on petition 
open for signature at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/CMAG/petition.html
Deadline for signatures is 31 January 2007. ]

o o o

PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY FOR MOHD. AFZAL GURU

19 January 2007

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
President of India
Rashtrapati Bhavan
New Delhi

Dear Dr. Abdul Kalam,

When the then President of India rejected the mercy petition of Kehar 
Singh, sentenced to death in the Indira Gandhi assassination case, 
the statement of the government was this: "The President is of the 
opinion that he cannot go into the merits of a case finally decided 
by the Highest Court of the Land."

This was challenged by Kehar Singh, and a five-judge Bench of the 
Supreme Court (AIR 1989 SC 653) held that the opinion formed by the 
then President was wrong because a decision of the Supreme Court can 
also be wrong.

The President, the Supreme Court held, can determine whether or not a 
convict is guilty--the findings of the courts, including the Supreme 
Court, notwithstanding.

Here are a few excerpts from the full-bench judgment:

"... To any civilized society, there can be no attributes more 
important than the life and personal liberty of its members. That is 
evident from the paramount position given by the courts to Article 21 
of the Constitution. These twin attributes enjoy a fundamental 
ascendancy over all other attributes of the political and social 
order and consequently, the Legislature, the Executive and the 
Judiciary are more sensitive to them than to the other attributes of 
daily existence. The deprivation of personal liberty and the threat 
of deprivation of life by the action of the State is in most 
civilized societies regarded seriously and recourse, either under 
express constitutional provision or through legislative enactment, is 
provided to the judicial organ. But, fallibility of human judgement 
being undeniable even in the most trained mind, ... it has been 
considered appropriate that in the matter of life and personal 
liberty, the protection should be extended by entrusting power 
further to some high authority to scrutinize the validity of the 
threatened denial of life or the threatened or continued denial of 
personal liberty. The power so entrusted is a power belonging to the 
people and reposed in the highest dignitary of the state.

"... It is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested 
in him by Article 72 of the Constitution to scrutinize the evidence 
on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion 
from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and 
sentence imposed on, the accused.

"... It is apparent that the power under Article 72 entitles the 
President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and 
to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant 
of relief falling within that power. The President is entitled to go 
into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been 
judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by the Supreme 
Court."

You will be aware, Sir, that the Supreme Court has without 
explanation rejected the curative petition filed by Mohd.  Afzal 
Guru, sentenced to death in the Parliament attack case. That petition 
was the last option available to him through the courts. Now his only 
hope of living is the mercy petition which is with you.

As we have seen, the Supreme Court itself has said, in a full-bench 
judgment, that it is in the nature of things that it can be wrong. We 
know that Mohd. Afzal Guru was convicted on the basis of 
circumstantial evidence and that from the start he had no effective 
legal defence. We know also that he was the victim of a shrill media 
campaign.

The President has the power to re-examine the evidence and come to a 
conclusion different even from that of the Supreme Court. While a 
court is limited to examining the material placed before it, the 
President can take into account a wide range of considerations, 
including political, social and moral ones.

The Supreme Court has referred only to the President's power under 
Article 72 of the Constitution. We wish to go further and say that it 
is the President's moral responsibility to ensure that injustice is 
not done to a citizen by depriving him of life or personal liberty.

We urge you, Sir, to exercise your constitutional power in the matter 
of Mohd. Afzal Guru's mercy petition keeping in mind your moral 
responsibility and also the fact that your power was entrusted to you 
by us, your fellow citizens.


Yours truly,

Mukul Dube, N. D. Pancholi and Harsh Kapoor


_____


[3]

The Hindustan Times
January 20, 2007

A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

by Indira Jaising

In an otherwise verbose Constitution, one of the simplest - yet the 
one of the most important provisions - is the one relating to the 
Right to Life: Article 21. "No person shall be deprived of life or 
liberty, except by procedure established by law." For anyone alive, 
this is the most important guarantee there is in the Constitution. No 
doubt the more privileged among us rely not only on the law for our 
protection, but also on our class background, our connections with 
those in power and so on. But the poor have only the law to depend on 
- and that is where the guarantee of the procedure prescribed by law 
comes in.

Many among us detest the death penalty. Legal processes are fallible, 
but execution cannot be revoked to  restore justice. Be that as it 
may, at least the process by which the penalty is imposed needs to be 
fair. The seminal requirement of this fairness is that the person 
facing a death penalty be represented by a lawyer. How would we like 
it if we entered a court room, when arraigned as an accused, without 
a lawyer? Journalists facing defamation, newspapers facing contempt, 
business tycoons locked in legal battles are all represented by very 
senior lawyers. What if a person facing the death penalty were to be 
unrepresented by a lawyer?

In order to avoid such an eventuality, the Constitution was amended 
in 1976 to introduce the Right to Legal Aid for indigent people as a 
directive principle of state policy. The Supreme Court has held the 
Right to Legal Aid for an accused facing  a trial which could lead to 
deprivation of life or liberty. The government enacted the Legal 
Services Authority Act 1986, to ensure that legal aid is available to 
indigent people.

And yet, Afzal went to trial for a capital crime without adequate 
representation. From his arrest till he made a so-called confession, 
he was not represented by a lawyer. He gave a list of four lawyers 
who he would have liked to have represented him. Judge Dhingra, who 
finally found him guilty of conspiracy to wage war against the 
country, records that two of the named lawyers refused to represent 
him. There is no record of the other two being asked. When produced 
in court, he was told that a lawyer, who he had never met, who had 
not visited him in jail to get a first-hand account of what happened, 
would represent him. He is then said to have admitted documents 
identifying the five dead persons and the post mortem reports. It 
seems that the die was cast then: if he admitted to knowing the five 
who were dead, he must have been be part of the conspiracy.

Sometime early in the trial, the lawyer withdrew her appearance and 
represented another accused. Afzal  was told that her junior would 
represent him. During the trial, he noticed, that the young lawyer 
was denying facts he had admitted, at which point he said that he did 
not want the lawyer in question.

 From then on, the record indicates that he was cross-examining 
witnesses against him himself and that too without being given copies 
of the depositions. The court, in the meantime, appointed the very 
same lawyer in whom Afzal had expressed no confidence as an amicus 
curiae. Amicus curiae means "a friend of the court"!

Now that Afzal's curative petition has been dismissed by the Supreme 
Court, there will be far-reaching consequences for thousands of 
people in this country. To send a man to his death without legal 
representation is not only unconstitutional but also barbaric. Why go 
through an elaborate trial if the accused is not represented by a 
lawyer? One might as well be judge, prosecutor, and counsel for the 
accused anyway and pronounce judgment.

The tragedy is that Afzal is not the only one in these circumstances; 
there are hundreds like him, deprived of liberty without adequate 
legal services. The legal profession is privatised, regulating its 
own fees. The legal aid on offer provides no more than Rs 3,000 to 
the counsel representing an indigent accused for the entire trial. 
Can one really hope to get adequate representation for that fee? It 
is pointless to argue that lawyers should appear free of charge in an 
otherwise unregulated profession.

A well-funded Legal Services Authority should pay its legal aid 
lawyers better to attract talent to legal aid. There are many young 
lawyers committed to providing legal services to the poor, who need 
to be backed by a proper legal aid system. There is no lack of 
finances with the authority; the question is how the money is spent. 
On conferences and airfares, or on providing legal services to the 
poor?

I am aware that these questions have been raised in the appeal and 
the review petition. But review petitions are rejected without 
reasons and without a hearing. The law laid down by the Supreme Court 
visualises the filing of a curative petition to cure a miscarriage of 
justice.

That was done by Afzal - to no avail. Now, only the President of 
India can have the last word.

We can only give opinions that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.

(The writer is a senior advocate.)

______


[4]

[with thanks to Kavita Joshi for forwarding this]

o o o

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: kshetrimayum onil onilrights at gmail.com

IROM SHARMILA'S HEALTH DETERIORATES

New Delhi: 19th January 2007

The health condition of Irom Sharmila Chanu deteriorates under the 
arbitrary detention of Delhi police in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. 
Since 7 th October 2006 she has been detained in two different 
hospitals (AIIMS and RML) at Delhi. Since then she has lost 4 kgs. 
and her current body weight is only 37 kg.

Today, the Delhi High Court heard the two fresh applications filed by 
her brother Singhajit. The first application asked for RML to be made 
a party to the case and also to handover all medical records to 
Sharmila's family. So far the hospital had refused to give any 
medical reports. The High Court has now asked for copies of all 
medical records to be produced on Tuesday, 23 rd January - the next 
date of hearing. The Court has expressed its opinion that Sharmila 
can be detained in order to protect her health. It is critical to 
note that during six years of detention in Manipur her weight had 
remained almost constant.

The second application was for Sharmila to be allowed to attend a 
meeting in New Delhi. The Court will decide the application on 
Tuesday after receiving and assessing for itself Sharmila's health 
status.

Since November 2000, the 'Iron Lady of Manipur', Sharmila has been on 
hunger fast for the repeal of the repressive Armed Forces Special 
Powers Act. Determined to continue her agitation for justice and 
peace, she is currently detained at Room No. 8 A, Nursing Home, Ram 
Manohar Lohia Hospital.

For further information contact:

Kshetrimayum Onil - 98187 81767
Coordinator Desk for Sharmila's Struggle

______


[5]

Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
January 18, 2007

INDIA'S GAS CENTRIFUGE ENRICHMENT PROGRAM:
GROWING CAPACITY FOR MILITARY PURPOSES

by David Albright and Susan Basu

Since the 1970s, India has pursued gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. 
The history and
current status of India's gas centrifuge program has been a long-held 
state secret.
Nonetheless, ISIS sought to trace the history of India's centrifuge 
enrichment program
and assess its current and projected enrichment capacity based on open sources,
information from interviews with Indian and other government 
officials, and publicly
available procurement data.

The Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) commissioned India's 
main enrichment
plant, codenamed the Rare Materials Project (RMP), around 1990. In 
addition to a gas
centrifuge facility, this site, located about 19 kilometers from 
Mysore, may also contain a
uranium hexafluoride production facility. By 1997, after several 
years of difficulty, India
seems to have achieved a technical breakthrough at RMP. Although India has
experienced difficulties in building centrifuges, it now appears to 
be competent at
constructing centrifuges comparable to those common in Europe in the 1970s. Our
conclusion is that India is currently operating between 2,000 and 
3,000 centrifuges at the
RMP. The DAE is currently attempting to expand the number of 
centrifuges at RMP by
3,000, increasing RMP's capacity by at least 15,000 separative work 
units (SWU) per
year, a common measure of the output of a uranium enrichment plant 
and more than
double its current output. Further expansions in capacity are expected.

The Indian government has proposed to designate its gas centrifuge 
enrichment facilities,
such as RMP, as military sites under the framework of US-India 
nuclear cooperation.
Thus, India is unlikely to use these facilities to create fuel for 
the Tarapur boiling water
reactors, which will be designated as civilian facilities. India is 
currently importing
sufficient amounts of low enriched uranium (LEU) to fuel the Tarapur 
reactors. These
reactors could have otherwise absorbed the RMP's capacity.

As a result of its recently acquired ability to import LEU, India can 
devote the enrichment
capacity of RMP to highly enriched uranium (HEU) for military 
applications. India
would most likely use the HEU for fuel in submarine reactors and in 
thermonuclear
weapons. The production of thermonuclear weapons may lead India to conduct
additional underground nuclear tests as it seeks to make more 
deliverable, reliable, and
efficient weapons.

[. . .]

FULL TEXT AT:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/indiagrowingcapacity.pdf

______


[6]

sacw.net |  19 January 2007

REPORT OF NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON MINORITIES AND BIASES IN TEXT BOOKS
13 - 14 January 2007, New Delhi
http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/textbrep19Jan07.html

______


[7]

HINDU[TVA] ACTIVISTS RIOT IN INDIA'S BANGALORE
21 Jan 2007 13:50:45 GMT
Source: Reuters

BANGALORE, India, Jan 21 (Reuters) - Hundreds of Hindu activists 
burnt shops owned by Muslims and set vehicles ablaze in the southern 
city of Bangalore, India's technology hub, on Sunday, police and 
witnesses said.

The violence occurred as activists moved through the city to join a 
rally organised by the right-wing Hindu fundamentalist organisation 
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS -- National Volunteers' Corps).

On Friday, thousands of Muslim demonstrators protesting against last 
month's execution of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, clashed with police and 
destroyed shops and cars in the city.

Bangalore is home to about 1,500 global and Indian IT firms. Their 
operations were not affected by the violence as they are located on 
the city outskirts.

Police used teargas and batons to disperse the crowds and prohibition 
orders, restricting movement of four or more people together, were 
issued in central Bangalore.

More than 2,000 police officers patrolled the affected areas as mobs 
targeted Muslim shops and vehicles, forcing the closure of some 
businesses, witnesses said.

Police said there were no injuries but witnesses said about five 
people were wounded in stone-throwing incidents.

"Prohibitory orders will be in force until Tuesday," city police 
chief N. Achuta Rao, told Reuters. He said there had been some 
arrests but did not give a number.

The Indian state of Karnataka, of which Bangalore is the capital, is 
ruled by a coalition of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party 
and a regional party.

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

Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.