SACW | June 17-18, 2007

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | June 17-18, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2420 - Year 9

[1] Pakistan-US: The General in his Labyrinth (Ahmed Rashid)
[2] Buddhist nationalism behind Sri Lanka's violent surge (Mian Ridge)
[3] India: Prominent citizens reject proposed Communal Violence Bill, 2005
[4] India: Release Dr Binayak Sen, Repeal 
Chattisgarh Act  (intellectuals statement 
released by PUDR)
[5] India: It's a Long Wait to Revolution, Mayaji (Meera Nanda)
[6] India: Superstition, Feudalism and the Media (Mukul Dube)
[7] India: Fraud scientist takes RSS for a ride 
down Adam's bridge (Shishir Gupta)
[8] Book Review: Highway to heaven? (I.A. Rehman)
[9] Announcements:
(i) Public Rally for the Restoration of Democracy 
and Justice in Pakistan (New York, 22 June 2007)
(ii) Call For Entries - Film South Asia '07 (deadline 30 June 2007)

______


[1]

THE GENERAL IN HIS LABYRINTH
America's Bad Deal With Musharraf, Going Down in Flames

by Ahmed Rashid
(Washington Post, June 17, 2007; Page B01)

LAHORE, Pakistan Pakistan is on the brink of 
disaster, and the Bush administration is 
continuing to back the man who dragged it there. 
As President Pervez Musharraf fights off the most 
serious challenge to his eight-year dictatorship, 
the United States is supporting him to the hilt. 
The message to the Pakistani public is clear: To 
the Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops 
everything, and that includes democracy.

The crisis began on March 9, when Musharraf 
suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the chief 
justice of the supreme court, who bravely 
threatened Musharraf's plans to consolidate his 
power. That triggered street protests demanding 
Musharraf's resignation, which were met by a 
government-led crackdown on lawyers, the 
opposition and the media. Thousands of lawyers 
nationwide, looking like penguins in their 
courtroom black suits and white shirts, braved 
police batons and the heat to lead marches. They 
were joined by women's groups, journalists and 
the opposition. For the first time in two 
decades, Pakistan's civil society has taken to 
the streets.

The roots of the crisis go back to the blind 
bargain Washington made after 9/11 with the 
regime that had heretofore been the Taliban's 
main patron: ignoring Musharraf's despotism in 
return for his promises to crack down on al-Qaeda 
and cut the Taliban loose. Today, despite $10 
billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, that 
bargain is in tatters; the Taliban is resurgent 
in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda's senior leadership 
has set up another haven inside Pakistan's 
chaotic border regions.

The problem is exacerbated by a dramatic drop-off 
in U.S. expertise on Pakistan. Retired American 
officials say that, for the first time in U.S. 
history, nobody with serious Pakistan experience 
is working in the South Asia bureau of the State 
Department, on State's policy planning staff, on 
the National Security Council staff or even in 
Vice President Cheney's office. Anne W. 
Patterson, the new U.S. ambassador to Islamabad, 
is an expert on Latin American "drugs and thugs"; 
Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of 
state for South and Central Asian affairs, is a 
former department spokesman who served three 
tours in Hong Kong and China but never was posted 
in South Asia. "They know nothing of Pakistan," a 
former senior U.S. diplomat said.

Current and past U.S. officials tell me that 
Pakistan policy is essentially being run from 
Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is 
close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. 
criticism of him. This all fits; in recent 
months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition 
politicians visiting Washington have been ushered 
in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to 
the State Department.

No one in Foggy Bottom seems willing to question 
Cheney's decisions. Boucher, for one, has largely 
limited his remarks on the crisis to expressions 
of support for Musharraf. Current and retired 
U.S. diplomats tell me that throughout the 
previous year, Boucher refused to let the State 
Department even consider alternative policies if 
Musharraf were threatened with being ousted, even 
though 2007 is an election year in Pakistan. Last 
winter, Boucher reportedly limited the scope of a 
U.S. government seminar on Pakistan for fear that 
it might send a signal that U.S. support for 
Musharraf was declining. Likewise, I'm told, he 
has refused to meet with leading opposition 
figures such as former prime ministers Benazir 
Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf has 
exiled. (Boucher says he has met with "people 
across the full political spectrum of Pakistan" 
during his nine visits there, from government 
parties to Islamic radicals to Chaudhry's 
lawyer.) Meanwhile, Boucher's boss, Secretary of 
State Condoleezza Rice, demands democracy and 
media freedom in Venezuela but apparently deems 
such niceties irrelevant to Pakistan.

With Cheney in charge and Rice in eclipse, 
rumblings of alarm can be heard at the Defense 
Department and the CIA. While neither agency is 
usually directly concerned with decision-making 
on Pakistan, both boast officers with far greater 
expertise than the White House and State 
Department crew. These officers, many of whom 
have served in Islamabad or Kabul, understand the 
double game that Musharraf has played -- helping 
the United States go after al-Qaeda while letting 
his intelligence services help the Taliban claw 
their way back in Afghanistan. The Pentagon and 
the CIA have been privately expressing concern 
about the lack of an alternative to blind support 
for Musharraf. Ironically, both departments have 
historically supported military rulers in 
Pakistan. They seem to have learned their lesson. 
It's a pity that those calling the shots have not.

What is at stake? Quite simply, the danger of a 
civil war or the country unraveling even more 
dramatically than it did when it lost Bangladesh 
in 1971.

The establishment that has sustained four 
military regimes is deeply divided. The judiciary 
and the legal system are out in the streets, 
demanding an end to military rule. They are 
backed by the country's gleeful federal 
bureaucracy, which resented being shunted aside 
by Musharraf, and joined by civil society 
organizations and opposition parties. The 
protesters' ranks have also been swelled by poor 
people protesting increases in the price of food 
and other necessities and shortages of 
electricity during an already blistering summer.

These dissenters have been joined by an 
increasingly influential media. Under military 
regimes, the media always grow in stature as they 
act as the conscience of the people and give 
voice to political opposition. For the first 
time, the public can watch demonstrations live on 
private satellite-TV channels -- something that 
has bewildered the army's Orwellian 
thought-control department.

On the opposing side stand Musharraf's remaining 
allies. The most important is the powerful, 
brooding army. On June 1, its top brass issued a 
strong statement of support for Musharraf that 
dismissed the protests as a "malicious campaign 
against institutions of the state, launched by 
vested interests and opportunists." But on live 
TV talk shows, pundits are lambasting the army 
for the first time, shocking many viewers. Such 
withering criticism has forced younger officers 
to question whether the entire military 
establishment should risk the public's wrath to 
keep one man in power.

Musharraf is also supported by the business 
community, which has experienced economic 
stability and rising investment from the Arab 
world during his regime. He also retains -- for 
now -- the backing of a motley group of 
politicians who came to power after the military 
rigged elections in 2002, although many of them 
are considering jumping ship or ditching 
Musharraf.

Running parallel to this domestic political 
crisis is the growing problem of radical Islam; 
the Taliban and al-Qaeda are now deeply 
entrenched in the tribal border belt adjacent to 
Afghanistan. These groups gained political 
legitimacy last year when Musharraf signed a 
series of dubious peace deals with the Pakistani 
Taliban. They are now coming down from the 
mountains to spread their radical ideology in 
towns and cities by burning down DVD and TV 
shops, insisting that young men grow beards, 
forcibly recruiting schoolboys for the jihad and 
terrifying girls so that they won't attend 
school. The military has refused to put a brake 
on their extremism.

Musharraf promised the international community 
that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from his 
security services and convinced the Bush 
administration that his philosophy of 
"enlightened moderation" was the only way to fend 
off Islamic extremism. But Pakistan today is the 
center of global Islamic terrorism, with Osama 
bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar 
probably living here.

Instead of confronting this threat, the army has 
focused on keeping Musharraf in power -- 
negotiating with extremists, letting radical 
Islamic students set up a base in Islamabad and 
so forth. Meanwhile, to spook the West into 
continuing to support him, Musharraf continues to 
grossly exaggerate the strength of the Islamic 
parties that he warns might take over his 
nuclear-armed country. In fact, the United States 
would be far safer if it pushed for a truly 
representative Pakistani government that could 
marginalize the jihadists, rather than placing 
all its eggs in Musharraf's basket.

How will the current crisis end? It's unlikely to 
peter out; the movement has lasted three months 
now, despite Musharraf's intelligence services' 
prediction that it would end within days. And 
Chaudhry is a formidable foe -- not a mere 
politician (who, in Pakistan, are inevitably 
corrupt) but a judge perched above the political 
fray.

The logical strategy for Musharraf would be to 
apologize to the nation for hounding the chief 
justice, bring all parties to a reconciliation 
conference and agree to early elections under a 
neutral interim government. If he still insisted 
on running for president, he would have to agree 
to take off his uniform first so that no matter 
who won, Pakistan would return to civilian rule.

But how can a commando general carry out such a 
U-turn without losing face, especially when he is 
being publicly backed by the White House? A 
secretary of state with vision -- a James Baker 
or a Madeleine Albright -- could have recognized 
that Musharraf's time is up. Instead, we have 
Rice and Boucher and Cheney, who -- just as in 
Iraq -- can only reinforce a failed policy. 
Washington is doing itself no favors by serving 
as Musharraf's enabler. Indeed, the Bush 
administration's policy of sticking by Musharraf 
is fast becoming eerily reminiscent of the Carter 
administration's policy of sticking by the shah 
of Iran.

Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, is the author of "Taliban."


_______


[2]

The Christian Science Monitor
June 18, 2007 edition

BUDDHIST NATIONALISM BEHIND SRI LANKA'S VIOLENT SURGE
The island nation's government is receiving new 
support from an unusual political group.
by Mian Ridge | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Colombo, Sri Lanka - As the war that has ravaged 
Sri Lanka for 25 years once again degenerates 
into widespread violence, the government is 
receiving new support from an unusual political 
group.

They are orange-robed, barefoot Buddhist monks. 
But instead of extolling peace and harmony, they 
are employing the uncompromising language of 
military strength.

"Day by day we are weakening the LTTE 
militarily," says the Venerable Athuraliye 
Rathana, a monk in Sri Lanka's capital, Colombo, 
as he spoke of the government's campaign to 
destroy the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, 
known as the Tamil Tigers. "Talk can come later."

Sri Lanka's hard-line monks are at the frontline 
of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, which views 
Tamils as outsiders. In January, they joined the 
government's ruling coalition with their party, 
the Jathika Hela Urumaya, or National Heritage 
Party - pushing its narrow one-seat majority up 
to nine.

Since 1983, the Tigers have been fighting for a 
crescent-shaped homeland, or "Eelam," in the 
north and east of Sri Lanka for the Tamil 
minority, which is Hindu and Christian. Tamils 
have suffered decades of discrimination by the 
Sinhalese Buddhist majority.

Many observers say that a resurgence of Sinhalese 
Buddhist nationalism has played its part in 
several recent human rights violations.

The monks are arguing vociferously against any 
self-determination for the Tamils in the north, 
including even the measure of autonomy that most 
observers believe is necessary for peace.

Nine seats is not many in a 225-seat parliament, 
but the monks wield greater power because they 
share their nationalist ideology with many other 
members of the government, says Paikiasothy 
Saravanamuttu, who runs the Centre for Policy 
Alternatives, a think tank in Colombo.

Despite enjoying a strong majority on the island 
nation, the presence of 50 million Tamils across 
the Palk Strait in southern India can rattle 
Sinhalese Buddhists. Buddhist nationalists are 
able to tap into deep fears that any territorial 
concessions to the Tamils would lead to eventual 
Indian subjugation.

"I feel so sorry for the Tamils who are 
suffering," says a Sinhalese taxi driver in 
Colombo. "But giving them power in the north 
would not be good. They might try to extend their 
power."

The monks have used their new clout to urge the 
president, Mahinda Rajapakse, to honor the vow 
with which he came to power in late 2005: to 
destroy the Tigers.

The Tamil desire for a homeland is just an excuse 
for violence, says Mr. Rathana. "Sri Lanka was 
totally a Sinhalese kingdom and most people 
accept that."

Western governments have long been appalled by 
the tactics of the Tamil Tigers, who terrorize 
both Sinhalese and Tamils with their bombings and 
the forcible recruitment of child soldiers.

Now, several governments have expressed horror 
over independent reports of government collusion 
in abductions and murders of civilian Tamils, 
particularly in the north and east.

Earlier this month, the government rounded up 
more than 350 Tamils in Colombo and transported 
them by bus to the north and east - a move human 
rights groups described as a "pogrom." Sri 
Lanka's Supreme Court intervened to halt the 
evictions soon after they began.

This was a "minor example," says Jehan Perera, 
executive director of the National Peace Council 
of Sri Lanka, a group working for reconciliation. 
Throughout Sri Lanka, Tamils felt insecure and 
vulnerable, says Mr. Perera, who is Sinhalese.

On the Jaffna Peninsula alone, the only part of 
the Tamil-majority north controlled by government 
forces, more than 300 civilians have been 
murdered in the past 18 months; many of them, it 
is suspected, by a paramilitary force with close 
ties to the military intelligence agency.

Both Sinhalese and Tamils trace their presence in 
Sri Lanka back centuries. Until relatively 
recently, theirs was a harmonious coexistence.

But in the 19th century, many Buddhist Sinhalese 
felt that the British, who then ruled Ceylon, 
gave the Tamils preferential treatment. At 
independence in 1948, a disproportionate number 
of civil servants were Tamils.

In 1956, the Sinhalese made swift and brutal 
amends. Prime Minister Solomon Bandaranaike, an 
ardent Buddhist nationalist, launched a 
successful campaign to make Sinhalese the 
official language.

He was heavily backed by the island's monks in a 
move that excluded many Tamils from educational 
opportunities and prestigious jobs. In 1970, 
university admission rules were changed to favor 
the Sinhalese.

______


[3]

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Released at the

NATIONAL CONSULTATION

ON

The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & 
Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005

June 16, 2007, New Delhi

The completion of three years of the UPA 
Government is an opportune moment to take stock 
of what the Government has achieved in terms of 
justice for communal crimes. The demand for a law 
on communal violence emerged from a brutal record 
of recurring violence in our country, the 
increasing occurrence of gender-based crimes in 
communal conflagrations, and complete impunity 
for mass crimes. The reasons are many - lack of 
political will to prosecute perpetrators, State 
complicity in communal crimes, lack of impartial 
investigation, and lack of sensitivity to 
victim's experiences. But there is also, 
crucially, the glaring inadequacy of the law. 
Today, despite huge strides in international 
jurisprudence, India continues to lack an 
adequate domestic legal framework, which would 
allow survivors of communal violence to seek and 
to secure justice.

The UPA Government's Common Minimum Programme 
(CMP) had promised to give the citizens of this 
country a 'comprehensive legislation' to fill 
this legal vacuum. We were promised a legislation 
that would strengthen the hands of the citizens 
in the struggle against communalism, and allow us 
to prosecute for mass crimes committed with 
political complicity and intent. While the 
country does need a strong law on communal 
violence, this present Bill is totally 
misconceived. What we have before us today is a 
dangerous piece of legislation called the 
Communal Violence (Prevention, Control & 
Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, which will 
not only fail to secure justice for communal 
crimes, but will actually strengthen the shield 
of protection enjoyed by the State, its political 
leaders and its officials for their acts of 
omission and commission in these crimes. It is a 
Bill, which conceives of communal violence as a 
'one time' event rather than as a long-term 
politically motivated process, and seeks to 
prevent it only by giving greater powers to 
(often communally tainted) State governments. 
Further, it continues to perpetuate the silence 
around gender-based crimes.

It is a travesty that a Bill of such fundamental 
importance in addressing the challenges posed to 
the secular character of our society and polity, 
was drafted by the Government without any real 
consultative process involving civil society. At 
this National Consultation on the Communal 
Violence (Prevention, Control & Rehabilitation of 
Victims) Bill 2005, we the undersigned, reject 
this Bill in its entirety. The assumptions of the 
Bill are so flawed that it cannot be remedied by 
amending a few components. We therefore reject 
this Bill and ask the Central Government to 
forthwith set up a Drafting Committee to 
formulate an entirely new bill on communal 
violence, with the active participation of civil 
society through an open, transparent, and public 
process. Eminent jurists, civil society 
activists, academics and legal experts who have 
engaged on the ground and in court rooms with 
communal crimes must be part of such a process. A 
statute which is sincere about addressing gaps in 
criminal jurisprudence, must base itself on the 
experiences of victims of communal violence over 
the last 60 years, the recommendations of various 
Commissions of Enquiries and international 
covenants to which India is a signatory.


Endorsed by:

Justice A M Ahmadi, former Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Justice Hosbet Suresh, former Judge, Mumbai High Court
Justice K K Usha, former Judge, Kerala High Court
Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court
Justice Sardar Ali Khan, former Judge, AP High Court
Professor K.N. Panikker, former VC, Shree Shankaracharya University, Kerala
Harsh Mander, Social Activist (Aman Biradari)
Professor Rooprekha Verma, former VC Lucknow University
Colin Gonzalves, Supreme Court Advocate, Delhi
Dr. Ram Puniyani, Social Activist, Mumbai
Professor Kamal Mitra Chenoy, JNU, Delhi
Anil Chaudhary, PEACE, Delhi
John Dayal, Senior Journalist & Social Activist, Delhi
V.N. Rai, IPS, Lucknow
K.S. Subramanian, former IPS, Delhi
P.J.G Nampoothiri, former NHRC Spl Rapporteur, Gujarat
Dr. Abdul Salam
Zafar A. Haq, FFCL, Delhi
M. Hilal, FFCL, Delhi
Abid Shah
Uma Chakravarti, Feminist Historian, Delhi University
Hanif Lakdawala, Sanchetna, Gujarat
Prasad Chacko, Action Aid, Gujarat
Kavita Srivastava, Social Activist, Rajasthan
Mehak Sethi, Lawyers Collective, Delhi
Ajay Madiwale, HRLN, Delhi
Avinash Kumar, Oxfam, Gujarat
Ravindra, Lawyers Collective, Delhi
Sophia Khan, Safar, Gujarat
Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Delhi
Usha Ramanathan, Senior Law Researcher, Delhi
Madhu Mehra, Partners for Law in Development, Delhi
Dr. Pratixa Baxi, JNU, Delhi
Zakia Johar, Action Aid, Gujarat
Niti Saxena, AALI, Lucknow
Saumya Uma, WRAG, Mumbai
N.B.Sarojini, SAMA, Delhi
Soma K.P
K.A. Salim
Sharafudheen M.K.
Jahnvi Andharia, Anandi, Gujarat
Gauhar Raza, Anhad, Delhi
Anjali Shenoy
Asmita Asawari
Shabnam Hashmi, Anhad, Delhi
Gagan Sethi, Janvikas, Gujara
Farah Naqvi, Delhi

New Delhi
June 16th, 2007

NATIONAL CONSULTATION ORGANISED BY ANHAD, DELHI
With inputs from Justice Ahmadi, Farah Naqvi and Gagan Sethi (CSJ)

______


[4]


PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

PRESS STATEMENT

16 June 2007

"Release Binayak Sen": Noam Chomsky

The widespread campaign to release Dr Binayak Sen 
and repeal the Chattisgarh Special Public 
Security Act received a fillip today with one of 
the world's foremost public intellectuals, 
Professor Noam Chomsky, demanding that he be 
released.

Noam Chomsky, Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, 
Arundhati Roy, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra, 
Habib Tanvir, and Rajendra Yadav and many other 
intellectuals, writers, and poets, issued a 
statement today, in which they said they were 
"dismayed at the continued detention in custody 
of Dr Binayak Sen, General Secretary of the PUCL, 
since 14 May". His arrest, their statement said, 
"is clearly an attempt to intimidate PUCL and 
other democratic voices that have been speaking 
out against human rights violations in 
[Chattisgarh]". They have demanded that that Dr 
Binayak Sen be released immediately; that 
harassment of other activists be stopped; that 
the Salwa Judum be disbanded; and that the 
Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act 2006 and 
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 2004 be 
repealed.

Their statement is attached.

NAGRAJ ADVE, SHASHI SAXENA
Secretaries PUDR


Statement follows:

RELEASE DR BINAYAK SEN, REPEAL CHATTISGARH ACT

  We, the undersigned, are dismayed at the 
continued detention of Dr Binayak Sen, General 
Secretary of the Chhattisgarh People's Union for 
Civil Liberties (PUCL), since 14 May. Dr Binayak 
Sen is also National Vice-President of PUCL, one 
of the oldest civil liberties organizations in 
India.

Dr Sen epitomises a dwindling tradition in India 
of public health professionals taking health care 
to the poorest sections and most underdeveloped 
regions of this country. For the past 30 years, 
he has been promoting community rural health care 
centres. He was a member of the state advisory 
committee that piloted a community-based health 
worker programme in Chhattisgarh. He also helped 
establish the Shaheed Hospital in Dalli Rajhara, 
set up and operated by workers for over 25 years.

We believe that the arrest of Dr Binayak Sen is a 
grave assault on the democratic rights movement 
in India. PUCL Chhattisgarh has been one of the 
foremost independent organizations to draw 
attention to the excesses committed by the 
Chhattisgarh government under its Salwa Judum 
campaign. The fake encounters, rapes, burning of 
villages and displacement of adivasis in tens of 
thousands and consequent loss of livelihoods have 
been extensively chronicled by several 
independent investigations. Dr Sen's arrest is 
clearly an attempt to intimidate PUCL and other 
democratic voices that have been speaking out 
against human rights violations in the state. In 
recent days, the targets of state harassment have 
widened to include Dr Ilina Sen, who for years 
has been active in the women's movement, Gautam 
Bandopadhyaya of Nadi Ghati Morcha, PUCL's Rashmi 
Dwivedi, and other activists of PUCL.

Dr Sen has been detained under the Chhattisgarh 
Special Public Security Act, 2006 and the 
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004 on 
charges that are completely baseless. Both these 
extraordinary laws have been criticized by 
numerous civil rights groups for being extremely 
vague and subjective in what is deemed unlawful, 
and for giving arbitrary powers to the State to 
silence all manner of dissent. As was feared, 
these undemocratic laws have been used to target 
Dr Sen and PUCL Chhattisgarh.

We demand:

1.          That all charges against Dr Sen be 
dropped and that he should be released 
immediately;

2.          That the threats to and harassment of 
other activists be stopped immediately;

3.          The immediate disbanding of the Salwa Judum; and

4.          That the Chhattisgarh Special Public 
Security Act, 2006 and the Unlawful Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 2004 be repealed.


SIGNATORIES

1. Professor Noam Chomsky
2. Professor Romila Thapar
3. Professor Irfan Habib
4. Dr Ashok Mitra
5. Habib Tanvir
6. Arundhati Roy
7. Professor Amiya Bagchi
8. Professor Prabhat Patnaik
9. Rajendra Yadav
10. Professor Sumit Sarkar
11. Dilip Chitre
12. Professor Jean Dreze
13. Professor Utsa Patnaik
14. Professor Namwar Singh
15. Shyam Benegal
16. Professor Jayati Ghosh
17. Anand Patwardhan
18. Professor Utsa Patnaik
19. Professor Imrana Qadeer
20. Dr Rama Baru
21. Dr Ritu Priya
22. Professor Tanika Sarkar
23.  Anand Swaroop Verma
24.  Sayera Habib
25. Professor Abhijit Sen
26. Geetha Hariharan
27. Professor Jasodhara Bagchi
28. Dr Uma Chakravarti
29. Professor Anand Chakravarti
30. Gopa Sen
31. Krishna Suman
32. Dunu Roy
33. Dr K. J. Mukherjee
34. Amar Kanwar
35. Vrinda Grover
36. Dr Mohan Rao
37.  Professor K.R. Nayar

______


[5]

Tehelka
  16 June 2007

IT'S A LONG WAIT TO REVOLUTION, MAYAJI

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar figures large in 
Mayawati's campaign exhortations, but would the 
Constitution's founding father have applauded her 
politics? Meera Nanda imagines a post-electoral 
conversation between the two

Lucknow, Sunday, May 13, 2007. It was past 
midnight, and Mayawati was tired. She had spent 
the day at the Governor's residence, taking the 
oath of office as Chief Minister of Uttar 
Pradesh. It was quite a show, what with her team 
of fifty ministers tagging behind her, the 
milling crowds of admirers and the glare of all 
the cameras. Mayawati felt like a long-distance 
runner reaching the finish line: exhilarated but 
exhausted. She fell asleep the moment her head 
touched the pillow. It was then that Dr 
Ambedkar's statue, which she had garlanded 
earlier that evening in Ambedkar Park, came alive 
and began to speak, as statues sometimes do in 
dreamsŠ

Ambedkar: It was wonderful to see you and so many 
of your comrades in the park today, Mayaji. It 
warms my heart to see my fellow Indians go to 
vote with such enthusiasm, such earnestness, such 
great hope.

Mayawati: Pujya Babasaheb! What a shubh mahurat 
to have your darshan. (Bends to touch Ambedkar's 
feet).

Ambedkar: (Steps back, folds his hands in a 
namaste) Please don't lower yourself before me or 
anyone else. And this reminds me: now that you 
are chief minister again, could you please stop 
erecting Ambedkar statues all over the place? You 
went overboard the last three times you held 
office. There are better ways of spending 
tax-payers' money than turning me into an idolŠ

Mayawati: But you are our guiding light, 
Babasaheb. Your statutes inspire pride and 
self-confidence among the Dalit masses.

Ambedkar: I'm deeply moved by their struggles and 
genuinely proud of their achievements. But they 
don't need my statues to feel inspired. Our 
Constitution should be enough to lift up their 
spirits and fill their hearts with courage. I 
live through my ideas and my writings.

Mayawati: Then you must be very proud of the way 
we are putting your ideas to work. The social 
revolution we have started in Uttar Pradesh is 
nothing but your philosophy in action. As we in 
the Bahujan Samaj Party used to say when Kanshi 
Ramji was our leader, "Baba tera mission adhura, 
Kanshi Ram karega puraŠ"

Ambedkar: It is this "social revolution" of yours 
that I have come to talk about. I hear bigwig 
academics compare you favourably with Mao, I hear 
left-wing journalists celebrate you for inverting 
the caste pyramid, I hear right-wing Hindu 
chauvinists praise you for promoting caste 
harmony. But, Mayaji, I can't join this chorus of 
praise. This is not the revolution I dreamt of.

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy to see you, 
daughter of a Chamar, come so far and rise so 
high. I admire you and Kanshi Ram for mobilising 
our Dalit brethren who have been treated as mere 
vote banks for so long. And you certainly have 
shown great political astuteness in putting 
together a winning political coalition. I bet 
you'd make an excellent chess player! ButŠ

Mayawati: Sab apki kripa hai, Babasaheb. We are 
your students. We practice Ambedkarism.

Ambedkar: But, as I was saying, I am 
uncomfortable with what you call "Ambed-karism." 
I find it a sad caricature of my philosophy. In 
my view, democracy is not merely a matter of 
formal equality and periodic elections. Real 
democracy means fraternity, a mode of associated 
living, an attitude of respect toward fellow 
citizens. For this kind of democracy to take root 
in our society, the hold of all beliefs that make 
hierarchies of caste, class and gender look 
natural and harmonious has to be destroyed. That 
is what I mean by the annihilation of caste. So 
you see, Ambedkarism - if you want to give my 
philosophy a name - is not about winning 
elections only. It is about creating a new 
society committed to the ideals of liberty, 
equality, justice and fraternity. When you have 
some spare time, you should dust off your copy of 
my Annihilation of Caste. I summed up my 
philosophy in that little book.

It is true that I wanted Dalits to seek allies so 
they could become the nation's "ruling 
community". In my Independent Labour Party, for 
example, we worked with workers and peasants of 
all castes. And at many junctures, I was helped 
by enlightened Brahmins and other dwijas. But I 
sought allies not because they could bring me 
votes, but because they shared my ideals of 
liberty, equality and fraternity.

In contrast, the pursuit of raw power has become 
an end in itself for your party. It doesn't seem 
to matter who you seek out, how you woo them and 
what you do with political power once you have 
it. Where is the larger transformative agenda to 
challenge capitalism, Brahminism and religious 
superstition? I don't see any signs of it.

Mayawati: But Babasaheb, times have changed. 
These days all political parties make deals - 
it's called "social engineering." Why, just 
recently the Akalis came to power in Punjab with 
the help of the BJP, which treats Sikhs as if 
they were still Hindus! The Congress stayed in 
power all these years because it created a big 
tent which brought in Brahmins, Muslims and 
Dalits. As you know, Dalits make up only 21 
percent of UP. We can never come to power unless 
we create a big tent of our own and put Dalits in 
charge.

Ambedkar: You are 100 percent correct, Mayaji. 
All major political parties make all kinds of 
deals to win elections. As the old saying goes, 
politics makes strange bedfellows. But just 
because everyone does it, does not make it right. 
This kind of horse-trading harms the quality of 
our democracy. At the grassroots, we are not yet 
a country of laws, but rather a country at the 
mercy of the whims and prejudices of men and 
women in power.

I understand the bsp's electoral compulsions. But 
why drape the mantle of "Ambedkarism" on this rat 
race? If tactical caste calculation in pursuit of 
power is how you define Ambedkarism, then I am 
not an Ambedkarite. Ambedkarism is about so much 
more than winning elections: it is about creating 
a new egalitarian, rational cultural commonsense; 
it is about turning our political democracy into 
a secular social democracy. As I used to remind 
Congressmen in the Constituent Assembly, "We are 
having political democracy to reform our social 
system which is so full of inequalities and 
discriminations..."

Mayawati: But we are seeking power in order to 
reform our social system. We in the bsp are 
committed to annihilating caste, but we are 
pragmatic. We believe in using caste calculations 
to end casteism. By bringing upper castes to 
support our core constituency of Dalits, the most 
backward castes and poor Muslims, we are building 
a sarvajan samaj, a big tent, a rainbow coalition 
of all castes led by us Dalits.

Ambedkar: In theory, it sll sounds great. But the 
sad fact is that a real fellow-feeling of 
sarvajan samaj does not exist in India. Even 
though we have stopped using the vocabulary of 
chaturvarna, the mental attitudes that justify 
hierarchies are still there.

Mayawati: I agree caste prejudice abounds at all 
levels in our society. But we are trying to 
challenge it by bringing all castes together 
under the leadership of Dalits, so that we can 
open the doors of equality for all.

Ambedkar: Judging by your own record, caste-based 
coalitions seem to deepen casteism, not lessen 
it. When you were cm, you took care of your Dalit 
constituency; when Mulayam Singh got his turn, he 
took care of his Yadavs. When you became cm 
again, you tightened the law preventing 
atrocities against Dalits, and when your BJP 
"allies" came to power, they immediately loosened 
those laws. By your third stint as cm in 2002, 
you were so keen on retaining the BJP's support 
that you even condoned Narendra Modi's 
anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. After all this, 
you will understand why I'm unable to rejoice in 
your victory.

Mayawati: On all previous occasions, bsp 
governments were short-lived. This time, we will 
be more productive because we will complete our 
full five-year term.

Ambedkar: Yes, yes, I know that this time your 
upper-caste allies are a part of the bsp and not 
simply supporting it from the outside. But do you 
really believe that just because they ran on bsp 
tickets, they have given up their belief in Hindu 
majoritarianism and Hindu traditionalism? Don't 
you see that they are using you, just as much as 
you think you are using them?

Mayawati: That may be so. But you are overlooking 
the energising effect a Dalit chief minister has 
on Dalits. Whenever I'm in power, Dalits feel 
safer and more confident. Did you notice how 
proud they looked when all my Brahmin ministers 
and hangers-on touched my feet at the oath-taking 
ceremony?

Ambedkar: That Dalits should feel more confident 
when one of their own is in power is a sign of 
the shallowness of our democracy. And this 
business of Brahmins falling at your feet, is not 
something you should revel in or encourage. My 
idea of a good society is a society where there 
is no bowing and scrapingŠ

Mayawati: You may not like all this "bowing and 
scraping," but we have to respect the reet rivaz 
of the people. After so many centuries, it is no 
small matter that the mighty savaranas are bowing 
before us! These gestures are important. They 
create a sense of empowerment.

But our social revolution goes beyond symbols. 
Whenever we have come to power, we brought solid 
material gains like roads, electricity, water and 
schools to thousands of Ambedkar Villages. We 
provided jobs to landless Dalits through the 
Ambedkar Rozgar Yojna. Dalits know that their 
needs will be taken care of only when there is 
one of their own in power. That is why they vote 
for us again and againŠ

Ambedkar: I agree these are positive steps. But 
Dalits and the poor of other castes and religious 
minorities are citizens of this country, and they 
have a right to all the basics for a good life. 
Their welfare should not depend upon the caste or 
creed of those in power. In the deliberative 
democracy I envisioned, policy was set by 
rational criteria guided by principles of 
equality.

Mayawati: Your deliberative democracy sounds very 
good. But we politicians have to worry about 
reality on the ground. But on one thing at least 
you must give us full marks: we are defending 
secularism. I consider that our most important 
achievement. The bsp has peeled off the Brahmin 
vote from the BJP. Once we nationalise our UP 
model, the BJP will be finished.

Ambedkar: It is true that the bsp's gains have 
come at the BJP's expense. I'm very pleased to 
see the Hindu nationalists checkmated. But there 
are two reasons why I am still worried.

One, you have defied the first principle of 
secularism by openly invoking the gods in your 
election appeals. I was aghast to see bsp's 
haathi first turn into Ganesh, and then morph 
into the Hindu trinity! If it is wrong for the 
BJP to parade the gods for electoral gains, it is 
equally wrong for the bsp to do the same. Indeed, 
it is downright hypocritical of the bsp to start 
showing reverence to gods that Dalits and shudras 
were forbidden to worship through the ages. You 
have kept the BJP at bay for now, but you have 
failed to advance a secular idiom suitable for 
the public sphere.

Mayawati: With due respect, Babasaheb, you are 
again measuring existing reality against very 
high ideals.

Ambedkar: We must measure our actions against our 
highest ideals. What else are ideals for? But let 
me give you the second reason why I'm not 
rejoicing in your defence of "secularism". You 
seem to think that just because Brahmins do not 
lord it over landless Dalit labourers in the 
villages, they're automatically your allies 
against the shudra landowners. That because there 
is no immediate economic conflict between 
Brahmins and Dalits, there is no ideological 
contradiction either.

I'm afraid you underestimate the power of belief, 
ritual, myth, and habits-of-the-heart. Neither 
the urban middle classes nor the land-owning 
peasants have revised the notions of atman and 
rebirth that underlie the hierarchies of caste 
and gender. If anything, neo-Hindu gurus and 
traditional pundits are getting more 
sophisticated in packaging this superstitious 
worldview in the covers of "science". That is why 
I have always urged Dalits to cultivate the 
scientific temper and actively challenge 
irrational ideas and practices. That was the 
message of my Buddha and His Dhamma.

It is possible that the Brahmin communities that 
voted for you for tactical reasons are actually 
making a living propagating conservative social 
values and superstitious religious practices in 
the temples, ashrams and Vedic pathshalas that 
dot your state. Now that they have a foot in your 
government, will they not expect state largesse 
for a traditionalist agenda in education and 
other cultural matters? In my humble opinion, 
Hindu traditionalism is the breeding ground of 
Hindu nationalism. That is why I worry whether 
you will be able to hold the Hindutva forces at 
bay.

Mayawati: I think I am strong enough to defy all 
communal agendas. Our agenda is secular, and I 
will not put up with any Hindutva propaganda.

Mayawati: All power to you, Mayaji. You and the 
people of UP have my best wishes. It is getting 
late, and I must take your leave. But I am always 
with you in spirit.

Ambedkar's voice fades as the statue turns to 
stone again. Mayawati wakes up and sits thinking 
about her dream into the wee hours of the morningŠ

Nanda is a philosopher of science
and a John Templeton Foundation fellow


______


[6]

SUPERSTITION, FEUDALISM AND THE MEDIA
by Mukul Dube, Indian Express, 1 June 2007

Those of us who are old enough to remember Jawaharlal Nehru will
remember seeing photographs of that Kashmiri from Uttar Pradesh
wearing the head-gear of the Nagas and of other 
peoples elsewhere in the country. Such gestures, 
for all that they may have been hollow and to 
have show-cased the colourfully "quaint", were 
symbolic of the oneness of India and therefore 
were given publicity. They were photo 
opportunities which attracted us; and they 
influenced us, as they were meant to do.

The only vehicles of visual publicity at the time were, for the
relatively well off, a few illustrated newspapers 
and magazines and, for the masses, the Films 
Division newsreels which were shown in cinemas 
before feature films. In today's India there are 
several times as many printed periodicals, going 
with more widespread literacy and increased 
purchasing power: but there can be no doubt that 
the reach and the inherent power of television 
make it the most potent medium there is.

It cannot be said that the media have, in the last few decades,
used their growing effectiveness to do anything 
to promote Nehru's ideals, democracy and more 
specifically the scientific temper. Quite the 
contrary. In every possible sphere and in every 
possible way, they have been twisted to promote 
the most regressive, feudal tendencies.

I recall with disgust how virtually the whole country would come
to a standstill so that the faithful and the 
curious might watch the serialised "Ramayana"; 
how some would fold their hands towards crackling 
and hissing television screens; and how not a few 
would throw reason to the winds by going forward 
to apply tilak to moulded glass.

I recall with disgust how the grand, spectacular 
funerals of Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi were 
pictured, with the press and television going to 
great lengths to show every ritual in gory 
detail. The regal proceedings became specially 
obnoxious when one remembered that the mother was 
the one to have taken the calculated populist 
step of abolishing privy purses.

Then again, while the similar activities of earlier leaders were
given little attention, Indira Gandhi's visits to 
religious places and her cosiness with "holy" 
people and dispensers of mumbo-jumbo received 
much publicity in the media. Because she knew 
well how to manipulate and control the media, it 
must be assumed that this happened with her 
consent or, more likely, by royal command.

The media cynically exploit the fact that the 
common people are drawn by all that has to do 
with the famous and the prominent. The recent 
wedding in the "first family of Bollywood" was an 
excellent instance, the more so because the 
figure to have been brought into that family-the 
person, the object-is a beauty queen and film 
star with her own fan following.

"We gave the people what they wanted" will no 
doubt be the media's justification for what they 
did. The transformation of a female star into a 
demure, humble bride is what a patrilineal and 
essentially patriarchal society would have 
wanted. People rooted in superstition would have 
welcomed absurdities such as the "marriage" of 
the beauty queen with a tree to ward off the 
supposed baneful effect of her planetary indices. 
And millions will have felt the warm glow of 
oneness on seeing that the now bearded 
paterfamilias, Big B. Bachchan, wears stones of 
many hues on his fingers, as they do on theirs, 
to bring good fortune and evade the evil eye, 
whatever those may be.

What of ideas, of ideals, of conscience? Well, 
what of them? Is not money divine, the end of all 
our actions? Film stars sell, the mix of 
astrology and religion sells. What can be a more 
saleable commodity than the stars of the stars?

______



[7]

FRAUD SCIENTIST TAKES RSS FOR A RIDE DOWN LORD RAM'S BRIDGE
by Shishir Gupta
Indian Express, June 17, 2007

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/33813.html

_____


[8]   BOOK REVIEW:

Dawn
June 17, 2007
Books and Authors

HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN?

Reviewed by I.A. Rehman

Probing the Jihadi Mindset, by well-known 
psychologist Dr Sohail Abbas, enjoys a unique 
position amongst studies on Muslim militants in 
and around Pakistan. Quite a few works on the 
subject have included information about the 
jihadis, their recruitment, training and 
activities, that was collected first hand from 
them but here is a study that surpasses the 
earlier works in the size of the sample chosen 
for interviewing as well as the scale of 
information elicited, and all this has been done 
in accordance with the standard procedure for 
scientific research.

Dr Abbas and his team of researchers were able to 
interview 517 men who had left their homes and 
families to fight in Afghanistan. It was possible 
to talk to these jihadis as, on their return from 
Afghanistan, all of them were detained in Haripur 
and Peshawar jails.

The 319 jihadis interviewed in the Haripur jail 
comprised men who had entered Afghanistan in 
September-October 2001 and could not join the 
Taliban in battle. When the Taliban regime 
collapsed, they tried returning to Pakistan but 
were taken into custody at the border. The second 
group of 198 jihadis who met in the Peshawar jail 
comprised men who had gone to Afghanistan 
earlier. They had taken part in the fighting and 
were taken as prisoners and handed over to 
Pakistan by the Karzai government.

The book describes the subjects as jihadis as 
there is no other word for the men we are talking 
about and 'militant' does not convey some of the 
essential characteristics of a person motivated 
by the belief of risking his life in a war that 
does not directly concern him. The data on the 
jihadis interviewed includes age, domicile, 
languages, rural/urban background, marital 
status, education, occupation and income. Since 
the sample from a population of 150 million is 
not sizeable, each finding has been compared to 
the national data on the subject. The result is 
that quite a few assumptions about these jihadis 
are proved wrong and one acquires a sounder 
understanding of the modern phenomenon of jihad 
that produces today's jihadis.

The largest group of jihadis among the Haripur 
detainees (54.9 per cent) was in the 21-30 age 
group, those 20 or less constituted 26.3 per 
cent, the youngest was 13 years old and the 
oldest was 75. In the Peshawar group, the 
sub-group (44.9 per cent) was aged 20 or less, 
47.4 per cent were above 30 (18.8 per cent in the 
Haripur group), and the oldest man was 72.

Similar divergences between the Haripur and 
Peshawar groups were noticed in respect of 
domicile, language and rural/urban distinction. 
The combined results of the two groups, however, 
showed that 42 per cent belonged to NWFP (39.4 
per cent spoke Pushto) while 39.8 per cent came 
from Punjab (36.1 per cent spoke Punjabi), and 
69.9 per cent of them came from the rural areas.

Nearly 40 per cent of the men were married. When 
asked as to who was supposed to look after their 
families while they were at the battlefront, some 
answered: 'Making my way to paradise was not only 
for myself but for the whole family.'

The data on the jihadis' educational level and 
their exposure to religious instruction is quite 
revealing. The literacy rate among the jihadis 
and the level of their attendance at formal 
educational institutions were found to be higher 
than the national averages. Some 18.8 per cent 
had eight years of schooling, 11.2 per cent of 
matric level and 3.3 per cent had 14 years of 
education (graduate level). Some 76.7 per cent of 
the Haripur group and 64.5 per cent of the 
Peshawar group had not attended any madressah and 
those who had gone to madressahs had done so for 
short periods. In the two groups combined, 
tenants and labourers formed 52.4 per cent of the 
total and only 6.0 per cent were unemployed.

An interesting finding was that about 40 per cent 
of the total were themselves the most religious 
persons in their families, and the decision of 
over 57 per cent of them to join the war was 
opposed by their families. Questions about 
motivation yielded significant data. Some 65.5 
per cent believed the Taliban were justified in 
protecting Osama, 69.0 per cent thought Islam was 
in danger, 73.7 per cent joined jihad for the 
glory of Islam, the aim of 39.4 per cent was 
harming the Americans, and only 39.7 per cent 
said they had been motivated by religious 
leaders. Finally, only 5.4 per cent wished to 
continue jihad while 79.6 per cent wanted to give 
importance to routine daily life.

Among other things, the study demolishes the 
commonly-held view that the men who went to fight 
in Afghanistan were poor, illiterate and 
unemployed young men or madressah students. The 
study also examines the jihadi groups' 
psychological characteristics (morbidity, 
sociability, emotional stability, prejudice, etc) 
and presents detailed analyses of the two groups' 
responses to important issues, such as 
responsibility in changing the existing 
circumstances, perceptions of conspiracy against 
the Muslim people, attitude towards modernism and 
Taliban-style government.

Following a methodology that cannot be questioned 
and avoiding generalisations that are not borne 
out by national data, Dr Abbas has not only 
successfully probed the jihadi mindset, he has 
also held a mirror to Pakistan's society and has 
revealed the Pakistani people's mindset. There is 
much in this slim volume that anyone interested 
in a proper understanding of the jihadi 
phenomenon and the ways to overcome it should 
find useful.


PROBING THE JIHADI MINDSET
By Sohail Abbas
National Book Foundation
Islamabad
ISBN 969-37-0236-0 207pp. Rs 250


_______


[9]  ANNOUNCEMENTS:

(i)

NEW YORK PUBLIC RALLY FOR THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE IN PAKISTAN

A coalition of political, social and human rights 
organizations of Pakistani Americans and other 
concerned US citizens will hold a public rally 
on June 22nd, 2007 from 2-4 PM, after Friday 
Prayers on Coney Island Avenue in "Little 
Pakistan area" near Makki Masjid in Brooklyn, New 
York.
1117 Coney Island Avenue
Take trains Q and B to New Kirk Avenue

Pakistani Diaspora and other US citizens will 
join forces to demand an end to military rule, 
restoration of democracy and judicial system, 
investigation of Karachi massacre and restoration 
of the constitution in Pakistan. Demonstrators 
will show solidarity against the dictatorial, 
ethnically divisive and ruthless policies of the 
General Musharraf, including the politics of 
fear, curbs on judiciary, restrictions on the 
freedom of movement of citizens, arrest of 
political workers, death threats, kidnappings and 
disappearances dissenting voices and attack on 
the media.

Speakers will include Imran Khan (through 
telephone), Professor Ijazul Hasan (PPP), Ali 
Zaidi, International Coordinator of 
Tehrike-Insaaf Pakistan, champion of women's 
right Dr Amna Buttar (ANAA) and Mola Dad Khan 
(PIA Union).

The rally will be a fusion of civil rights and 
human rights activists and Pakistani Diaspora 
representing a variety of segments of the 
Pakistani-American Population. Current situation 
in Pakistan is becoming unbearable to watch as 
the dictatorial military regime is showing 
blatant abuse of power and making a mockery of 
judicial and democratic institutions within 
Pakistan, and is destroying the integrity of 
Pakistan. The lawyers of Pakistan have initiated 
and sustained a movement to demand independence 
of judiciary which has now become the movement 
for construction of a democratic, secular, and 
peaceful Pakistan. Lawyers have been joined by 
people from all walks of life and this has now 
become of a movement of the masses. Time has now 
come for Pakistani Diaspora and other 
international communities to join forces with 
people of Pakistan and extend this movement to 
the world.

People of Pakistan must get a chance to rule 
their own country and Military must go back to 
the barracks forever.

Coalition for the Restoration of Democracy in Pakistan (CRDP)
Co-sponsors: Pakistani-American Advocates for 
Civil & Human Rights (PAACHR), Asian American 
Network Against Abuse of Human Rights, (ANAA), 
Association of Pakistani Physicians for Justice 
and Democracy (APPJD),  Sindhi Association of 
North America ( SANA ), American Muslims Peace 
Initiative (AMPI) , Coney Island Avenue Project 
(CIAP), Awami National
Party (ANP); Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); 
Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaaf (PTI); and Pakistan 
Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N)

Contact Rana Ramzan 516-376-1868, Bobby Khan 
917-440-9002, Nasir Gondal 917-860-0808, Bazah 
Roohi 347-865-2769, Sarwar Chaudhry 917-817-0895, 
Rana Saeed 718-696-8683, Taj Akbar 718-859-3999, 
Dabeer Tirmazi 848-405-1064

o o o

(ii)

CALL FOR ENTRIES
Film South Asia '07

4-7 October 2007
Kathmandu

Film South Asia, the festival of South Asian 
documentaries, calls for entries for the sixth 
edition of its biennial festival being held in 
Kathmandu from 4-7 October 2007. Documentaries 
made in and after January 2005 are eligible for 
the competitive section.

Submission deadline for the entries: 30 June 2007

Details and entry forms are available at www.filmsouthasia.org

For further information contact:

Upasana Shrestha
Co-Director
Film South Asia
P.O. Box 166
Patan Dhoka
Lalitpur
Nepal

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

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: http://insaf.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

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