SACW | August 12-13, 2007
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun Aug 12 21:25:53 CDT 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 12-13, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2434 - Year 9
[1] Nepal:
(i) Domestic trappings (Sudeshna Sarkar)
(ii) Out of the closets: Nepal's lesbians are tired of hiding (Mallika Aryal)
[2] On India-US Nuclear Deal
(i) No nukes for peace (Praful Bidwai)
(ii) NAPM Opposes the India-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
(iii) Implications of US-india nuclear deal (Sandeep Pandey)
(iv) This Business of a US-India Nuclear Deal (J. Sri Raman)
[3] Pakistan:
(i) Protection for minorities, (Editorial, Dawn)
(ii) Ramchand Pakistani, a film with a difference (Ananth Krishnan)
[4] India: Defending the liberal voice (Jyotirmaya Sharma)
[5] Book Review: A battle hymn (Mohan Rao)
[6] India: Sexual Harassment Case (Women's
groups letter to Economic and Political Weekly)
[7] India: Activists disappointed with draft of
Communal Violence Prevention Bill (Manas Dasgupta)
______
[1]
Kashmir Times
12 August 2007
DOMESTIC TRAPPINGS
by Sudeshna Sarkar
In Nepal, domestic violence is quite common.
However, battered wives who have taken legal
recourse are often compelled to think that living
with an abusive husband is a more practical
approach to life.
Punyashila Ghimire, a lawyer with Legal Aid and
Counselling Centre (LACC), a Kathmandu-based NGO
offering free legal assistance to women and
children, has handled many cases of domestic
violence. Of the horrific tales of abuse, one has
been exceptionally outrageous. Ghimire recalls
that the woman said, "My husband is fixated on a
film star. He watches blue films and then orders
me to have sex, whenever and wherever he wants.
When we are in bed, he tapes the actress's
photograph on to my face and pretends I am she.
He is sick."
Despite the agony that her husband was subjecting
her to, the woman wanted "a divorce on some other
grounds" saying that she would "die of shame" if
anyone learned the truth.
"Domestic violence is a way of life in Nepal,"
says Anita Sapkota Chapagain, a director at LACC.
"We have a patriarchal society that prefers sons
and regards women as inferior. This feeling
prevails among the uneducated and poor as well as
the rich and elite."
Six months ago, Nepalese tabloid 'Jana Aastha'
had run a front-page story detailing how Princess
Prerana, daughter of King Gyanendra, had been
assaulted by her businessman-husband, Raj Bahadur
Singh. However, the mainstream media in Nepal
generally ignores such incidents, not because
discussing the royal family is taboo, but because
the issue of domestic violence is not unusual.
According to the Central Women's Cell of Nepal
Police, 939 complaints of domestic violence were
filed in the last financial year, ending June 15,
2006. This reflects an exponential increase in
domestic violence cases - between 1998 and 2004,
when only 3,505 cases were registered. However,
these figures are just the tip of the iceberg
because most victims are unable to file a case
because of family pressures, social stigma and
lack of financial independence.
Elaborating on the reasons behind domestic
violence, Ghimire cites the demand for dowry,
alcoholism and drug addiction, polygamy (if the
wife does not bear a male child); and the viewing
of pornographic channels and blue films as some
of the causes.
A lack of effective laws is another significant
cause. While rape carries a seven-year
imprisonment in Nepal, marital rape carries a
term of just three to six months. Recently, Forum
for Women, Law and Development (FWLD), an NGO
fighting against discriminatory laws, filed a
public interest litigation (PIL) on behalf of a
marital rape victim, challenging the law as
discriminatory. In response, the Supreme Court
issued a show-cause notice to the government,
asking for an explanation within 15 days. Till
date there has been no response from the
government.
Political instability usually comes in the way of
speedy justice. For a new, tougher law to be
enacted, it has to be passed by Parliament. But
Nepal's House remained dissolved from 2002 to
early 2006. While it was eventually restored in
April 2006, better laws for women were not part
of the government's top priorities of peace
negotiations and elections.
Even if stronger laws are passed, women's
organisations point out that the issue of shelter
and means to earn a livelihood still need to be
tackled. Only one of the approximately 20 NGOs
working for women's rights in the country runs
shelters for women. Saathi operates a 15-bed
centre in the capital and a 30-bed centre in
Nepalgunj.
"It is not enough," admits Sulakshana Rana,
administrative officer, Saathi. "We started out
as a counselling centre. We realised victims
needed a place to stay where they would be safe
from abusive husbands. At Saathi, we can offer a
maximum stay of six months." Besides counselling
and legal aid, the organisation provides
vocational training and sometimes seed money to
set up small businesses.
The biggest threat to victims, however, is their
ingrained sense of dependency and fear of what
acquaintances will say. "Most of the women who
are battered, humiliated and even thrown out,
want to go back to their husbands and families,"
Rana says. "Even after going through the motions
of obtaining a divorce and starting a new life,
their wistful response is, 'I wish I could go
back to my husband.'"
-(Courtesy: Women's Feature Service)
o o o
(ii)
Nepali Times
From Issue #361 (10 August 07 - 16 August 07)
OUT OF THE CLOSETS: NEPAL'S LESBIANS ARE TIRED OF HIDING
by Mallika Aryal
HAPPY TO BE GAY: Members of Mitini Nepal at their
office in Baluwatar on Wednesday pose for the
media for the first time after deciding to go
public. More Nepali lesbians have come out after
Mitini was set up two years ago to provide
support, counselling, and skills training.
A modest house in Baluwatar, just five minute's
walk from the prime minsiter's residence, has
become the official home of Nepal's lesbians as
they come out in the open.
Most members of Mitini Nepal were fired from
their jobs or ostracised by their families and
communities after they were found out. Here, they
get skills training and learn to be beauticians
and office assistants so they can be financially
independent.
With help from Austrian and Norwegian groups,
Mitini members also conduct research and outreach
to find out more about lesbians who still haven't
come out in the open. So far, Mitini has a data
base of more than 1,200 women, most are middle
class, some are from the upper crust of Nepali
society, there are atheletes, policewomen, and
soldiers.
Mitini was set up two years ago, but Nepal's
low-profile lesbian community hit the headlines
this week after two soldiers at an army base in
Bhaktapur were detained and discharged for
alleged homosexual behaviour. Media coverage of
the issue and international outrage forced the
army to backtrack and reinstate the women this
week.
The human rights of Nepal's gender and sexual
minorities is being raised with government
officials and MPs by lawyers and activists. They
have demanded a 'third gender' status to
transgendered people, and guarantee of
representation at policy making levels.
Sunil Pant, an activist with the gay rights
group, Blue Diamond Society, says the army's
dismissal is the first reported incident of
discrimination in the military, but it isn't
uncommon.
"For a long time we have suspected and heard of
discrimination and harassment, but the victims
don't know where to go and ask for help," Pant
told us. He also wonders why only women are being
targeted. "There must be so many gay men in the
army, have their cases ever come out?" he asks.
Advocate Sharmila Dhakal is glad the Nepal Army
retracted its dismissal of the women. "But it
proves that there are many in the army who are
conservative," she says.
Says one Mitini member: "Society will take time
to change its attitude, but if the law protected
us we would feel safer
______
[2]
(i)
The Times of India
10 Aug 2007
NO NUKES FOR PEACE
by Praful Bidwai
August 9 was the 62nd anniversary of the atomic
devastation of Nagasaki. It is an appropriate, if
sad, occasion to look at the military as well as
energy implications of the India-US nuclear
agreement.
The nuclear deal is as much about weapons as
civilian power. Not only does it recognise India
as a "responsible" state "with advanced nuclear
technology"; it specifically distinguishes
between India's civilian and military nuclear
facilities while placing the former under
international inspections (safeguards). Its
Article 2.4 affirms that its purpose is "not to
affect the unsafeguarded nuclear activities of
either party" or to "hinder or otherwise
interfere" with any other activities involving
"material and technology" acquired or developed
"independent of this agreement for their own
purposes".
Put simply, India can produce and stockpile as
much weapons-grade material as it likes in its
unsafeguarded and military-nuclear facilities,
including dedicated weapons-grade plutonium
producers like Dhruva, the uranium enrichment
plant near Mysore, the Prototype Fast-Breeder
Reactor (PFBR) under construction, and the eight
power reactors (of a total of 22 operating or
planned ones) exempted from the agreed separation
plan.
According to an International Panel on Fissile
Materials report, the eight reactors alone will
yield 1,250 kg of weapons-grade plutonium a year,
enough to build 250 Nagasaki-type bombs. In
addition, the PFBR and Dhruva will respectively
produce 130 and 20-25 kg of plutonium annually.
India can use imported uranium for its
safeguarded reactors and dedicate scarce domestic
uranium exclusively to military uses, generating
up to 200 kg of plutonium after reprocessing.
This will each year allow India to more than
triple its existing estimated plutonium inventory
of 500 kg, itself enough for 100 warheads. The
deal leaves India free to build even more
weapons-dedicated facilities. Surely, this puts
India's potential nuclear arsenal way beyond the
realm of a "minimum deterrent". This should put
paid to the argument that the deal will cap
India's nuclear-military capability. If anything,
the deal panders to India's vaulting nuclear
ambitions.
Washington made unique exceptions in the global
non-proliferation order for India primarily to
recruit it as a close, if subordinate, strategic
ally for reasons elaborated since 2000 by
Condoleezza Rice, Ashley Tellis and Philip
Zelikow, among others. A strong rationale was to
create a counterfoil to China, and an anchor
within a US-dominated Asian security
architecture, on a par with Japan and Israel.
There's a price to pay for this. This isn't
merely acquiescence in US strategic-political
plans, or accommodation to Washington's pressures
in respect of Iran. It also, critically, lies in
potentially triggering a regional nuclear-arms
race and abandoning the fight for global nuclear
disarmament. It is sordid that India, long an
apostle of nuclear disarmament, should end up
apologising for mass-annihilation weapons.
Will the deal help India achieve energy security?
Nuclear power is a hazardous and accident-prone
energy source.
Its radiation is an invisible but deadly poison;
it leaves extremely toxic wastes which remain
active for thousands of years. No solution to the
waste-storage, leave alone disposal, problem is
on the horizon.
Nuclear power is costly. A Massachusetts
Institute of Technology study estimates US unit
costs of 6.7 cents for nuclear, 4.2 cents for
coal, and 3.8-5.6 cents for gas. In India, power
from nuclear plants under construction will cost
Rs 3-plus. But the winning bid for the coal-based
Sasan project is only Rs 1.20.
Nuclear power has a bleak future worldwide -
despite global warming, which the nuclear
industry claims it can mitigate. Nuclear power
can only make an insignificant contribution to
greenhouse gas reduction. A just-published Oxford
Research Group study says that for nuclear
industry's contribution to be significant, the
global industry would have to construct about one
reactor a week for 60 years - an absurdity.
Nuclear power in India is less than 3 per cent of
its total electricity capacity. Even if its
utopian mid-century targets materialise, nuclear
power will only contribute 6-7 per cent to power
generation. What price are we paying for it?
The writer is a commentator on public affairs.
o o o
Press Release
NAPM OPPOSES THE INDIA-US NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT
August 9, 2007
The National Alliance of People's Movements, a
network of over two hundred people's movements in
India working for social and economic justice,
believes that the India-US nuclear deal has grave
consequences for India’s national security and
sovereignty, for India's relations with its
neighbours, for India's economy, for the health
of its people and for the state of its
environment. It will directly impact the rights
and well-being of the people of India for
generations to come. On the anniversary of Quit
India call given in 1942 and the atomic bombing
of Nagasaki, we demand that the Government of
India withdraw from the India-US nuclear deal and
reject strategic partnership with the United
States.
Democracy
In July 2005, President George Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a deal to
exempt India from US laws and international rules
that for almost three decades have sought to
prevent states from using commercial imports of
nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear
weapons ambitions. These rules were created
because India secretly used nuclear materials and
technology that it acquired for peaceful purposes
to make a nuclear weapon. The deal is of profound
importance since it allows for India to import
nuclear fuel, reactors and other technologies,
and will enable India to expand both its nuclear
weapons and nuclear energy programme.
The US Congress took a year and half to discuss
and approve the new US policy and change existing
US laws to enable nuclear commerce with India. In
India, the government simply told parliament that
it had made a deal with the United States.
Subsequently, the US and have negotiated a '123
agreement'’ a treaty that will cover nuclear
cooperation between the two countries. But while
this agreement will have to be approved by the US
Congress, India’s parliament will not be allowed
a vote on it.
NAPM believes that the people of India have been
denied the right to debate the nuclear deal and
the larger changes in foreign policy and other
issues that it involves, and to express their
opinion through their elected representatives.
The nuclear agreement should not be accepted
under these circumstances.
Foreign policy
The United States sees the nuclear deal with
India as part of a process of building a
strategic relationship between the two countries.
The US seeks to use India as a client state in
its new confrontation with a rising China and to
achieve other strategic goals, for example
putting pressure on Iran.
NAPM believes that India should not compromise
its national sovereignty or its long standing
tradition of an independent non-aligned foreign
policy. The India-US strategic partnership and
the nuclear deal in particular will escalate the
nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India, and
upset the India-Pakistan peace process. It will
also create serious tensions between India and
China, instead of helping improve relations. The
deal with the US also threatens India’s relations
with Iran, which the US considers to be a rogue
state. The US in particular is opposed to an
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could
improve political and economic relations among
these three countries and provide relatively
cheap, clean energy to India.
Economy
The US - India nuclear deal was first announced
as part of a larger package of agreements that
included a commitment to "deepen the bilateral
economic relationship” between the US and India,
and create in India an enhanced “investment
climate" so that "opportunities for investment
will increase." The US sees India as an
increasingly important source of cheap labour and
high profits for its corporations.
NAPM believes that privileging business interests
means pursuing neo-liberal economic policies
which favour the interests of Indian and US
corporations. These policies include the creation
of Special Economic Zones and other such measures
that come at the cost of the poor. These policies
have been followed for almost twenty years and
have failed. In 2006, India was ranked at number
126 among 177 nations according to the United
Nations Human Development Index. NAPM believes
India should follow policies that will promote a
just and equitable social and economic
development aimed at meeting the needs of India’s
poor and disadvantaged.
Energy
The nuclear deal assumes that nuclear energy is
an economic and safe way for producing
electricity for India. Nuclear energy has failed
in India and offers no solution for the future.
After 60 years of public funding Department of
Atomic Energy (DAE) produces less than 3% of
India’s electricity. For comparison, in less than
a decade and without state support, wind energy
now accounts for about 5% of India’s electricity
capacity.
To escape its failures, the DAE plans to import
large nuclear power plants and fuel. The US,
France, Russia and Japan hope to profit from
this. This pursuit of nuclear energy comes
despite that fact that the cost of producing
nuclear electricity in India is higher than
non-nuclear alternatives and each reactor adds to
the risk of a serious nuclear accident and
worsens the problem of radioactive nuclear waste.
The DAE’s budget is ten times more than the
budget for development of renewable energy
technologies. India must reverse its priorities
and invest more in wind, solar, biomass and micro
hydel energy resources.
NAPM believes that the real energy challenge
facing India is to meet the needs of the majority
of Indians who still live in its villages. India
needs an energy policy that works with the rural
poor to develop and provide the small-scale,
local, sustainable and affordable energy systems
that they need. Renewable energy resources are
better suited to fulfill this need.
Major General (Retd.) Sudhir Vombatkere, D.
Gabriele, Aruna Roy, Medha Patkar, Sr. Celia,
Suniti S.R., Ulka Mahajan, Mukta Srivastava,
Thomas Kocherry, N.D. Koli, Sanjay M.G, Anand
Mazgoankar, Geetha Ramakrishnan, P.
Chennaiah, Arundhati Dhuru, Hussain P.T., Uma
Shankari, Sandeep Pandey
o o o
The Daily Star
August 9, 2007
IMPLICATIONS OF US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL
by Sandeep Pandey
The US is having a difficult time trying to
justify the US-India nuclear deal as part of
which the 123 agreement has just been concluded,
guaranteeing India full civil nuclear
cooperation. As the text of the agreement has
been released 3 days prior to Hiroshima Day,
there is consternation among people believing in
a world free of nuclear weapons.
After imposing sanctions on India, after its
nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, the US is
ultimately according it the status of a nuclear
weapons state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty without formally saying so.
The US is willing to do business with India in
nuclear technology and materials, as it is with
any other nuclear weapons or non-nuclear weapons
state, which is a party to the NPT. As a
non-signatory state, India is not supposed to
derive this privilege.
However, under the deal, India is being given the
benefits which have been made available to some
very close allies of the US, like Japan or
EURATOM, making other NPT members wonder about
the utility of their acceding to the Treaty.
The US seems to be more worried about the
business interests of its corporations than about
the more worthy cause of disarmament, and it has
once again proved that to maintain its global
hegemony it does not mind throwing all national
and international norms and laws to the wind.
With Nicholas Burns, the chief diplomat-architect
of the 123 agreement, hinting at subsequent
non-nuclear military cooperation with what he
describes as a "soon to be the largest country in
the world," we are going to see more of a
unipolar world, posing a threat to the smaller
countries around the world, especially the
unfortunate ones out of favour with the US
Government.
It is quite clear that US wants to court India as
a strategic ally, with the objective of
developing joint military capabilities and
perhaps even establishing military bases on
Indian territory, and it is willing to play along
with Indian nuclear ambitions.
The recent stop-over of the US nuclear powered
aircraft carrier Nimitz, recently deployed in the
Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran and possibly
carrying nuclear weapons, at the port of Chennai,
in violation of India's stated policy of not
allowing transit of foreign nuclear weapons
through its territorial waters, is a sign of
things to come.
At the preparatory committee meeting for the 2010
NPT review conference held in May-June, in
Vienna, the New Agenda Coalition countries,
Ireland, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand,
South Africa, Sweden and Japan have urged India,
besides Pakistan and Israel, to accede to the NPT
as non-nuclear weapons states in order to
accomplish universality of the Treaty.
Under the Treaty a nuclear weapons state has been
defined as one, which has manufactured and
exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear
explosive devices prior to January 1, 1967.
It would really be a misnomer to call India --
and Pakistan and Israel -- as non-nuclear weapons
states. So, the US is doing the next best thing.
It says that by signing the deal with India it is
bringing India into the non-proliferation regime,
as more of its nuclear facilities will now be
subjected to IAEA safeguards.
As part of the negotiations, India has agreed to
bifurcate its nuclear activity into clearly
identified civilian and military categories, with
the provision of the former being open to IAEA
inspections.
The US has agreed upon this India specific deal
as an exception, in spite of resistance from
within and without, because it thinks that India
has not contributed to proliferation.
It is a different matter, though, that by
conducting nuclear explosions twice India has
violated the global non-proliferation regime,
instigating Pakistan to do the same. North Korea
was also emboldened to come out of NPT because of
India's brazen transgression.
India has consistently refused to sign the NPT,
CTBT or FMCT. It is amazing how India has come
this far with the US, outraging the modesty of
the international community, and extracted
significant concessions in the deal.
Against the spirit of the Henry Hyde Act, if
India decides to conduct another nuclear test or
violates IAEA safeguards agreement, the US will
not immediately exercise its right of return of
materials and technology but, giving due
considerations to the circumstances which
prompted India's action, will ensure the
continuity of India's nuclear fuel supply from
other sources around the world.
The text of the 123 agreement has even gone as
far as identifying France, Russia and the UK as
potential suppliers in the eventuality of the US
terminating its supply. And even if the US
exercises right of return, India will be suitably
compensated. Moreover, the US would support India
in building up a strategic nuclear fuel reserve,
ensuring that India will not be stranded like it
was when fuel for the Tarapur plant was stopped
after India's first testing.
The issue which clinched the 123 agreement was
India's offer to subject a new reprocessing
facility, which will be built exclusively for
this purpose, to IAEA safeguards in return for
the consent to reprocess the spent fuel, even
though the US president is on record as saying
that enrichment and reprocessing are not
necessary for a country to move forward with
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India will
be free to maintain and develop its nuclear
arsenal.
The deal will not have any impact on this. In
fact, with external resources available for its
nuclear energy programme, it will be able to
divert its internal resources for strengthening
its strategic programme. 8 nuclear reactors out
of 22, and an upcoming Prototype Fast Breeder
Reactor, will remain dedicated for military
purposes, outside the purview of IAEA.
Hence, in essence, India will enjoy all the
powers of a nuclear weapons state under the NPT,
especially if the Nuclear Suppliers Group of 45
countries also yields to the US-like concessions
to India.
The US is going to campaign with the NSG to
engage in nuclear trade with India after it has
helped India sign an agreement with IAEA on
safeguards, because it has to seek another
approval of the Congress before the deal can be
considered final.
It is intriguing how Australia, Canada, South
Africa, and others, are only too willing to go
along with the US desire so that they can do
business with India, giving up their long
standing commitment to non-proliferation.
23 US lawmakers wrote a letter to the US
president on July 25, expressing concern over
India's growing ties with Iran, including the
domain of defence partnership. It must be
remembered that India is considering a very
important deal with Iran on the
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
Considering that the energy information
administration of the US has, in its
International Energy Outlook 2007, predicted that
the largest proportion of the new capacity
addition for electricity generation until 2030
will be in the form of gas fired technologies,
which are also better from the point of view of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is more
likely that India will give equal if not more
importance to its relationship with Iran. The
deal with Iran is also one of the rare instances
where Indian and Pakistani interests converge.
Hence, it should not surprise anybody if the gas
pipeline deal with Iran dominates the nuclear
deal with US in the Indian and regional context,
at least for a couple of decades to come.
India claims that with this deal the global order
has been changed. And it is right. It has upset
the non-proliferation regime. Globally and
regionally, it is going to lead to
reconfiguration of forces, possibly leading to a
renewed arms race.
The National Command Authority of Pakistan, which
oversees the nuclear programme there, chaired by
President Musharraf, has already expressed its
displeasure at the deal and pledged to maintain
(read upgrade) its credible minimum deterrence.
Pakistan views this deal as disturbing the
regional strategic stability, and has asserted
that it cannot remain oblivious to its security
requirements.
An International Panel on Fissile Materials
report predicts at least four to five times
increase in India's weapons grade plutonium
production rate. The present Indian stock is
estimated to be sufficient for about 100 nuclear
warheads. This is obviously alarming for Pakistan.
What India and Pakistan need, in the interest of
the people of the sub-continent, is a mutually
reassuring deal to suspend the nuclear arms race
rather than something which will fuel the nuclear
fire. The peace process undertaken by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez
Musharraf is in danger of being eclipsed by the
US-India nuclear deal.
Sandeep Pandey recieved Ramon Magsaysay Award for emergent leadership in 2002.
o o o
(iv)
truthout.org
04 August 2007
THIS BUSINESS OF A US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL
by J. Sri Raman
In his farewell address on January 17, 1961,
President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered the
prophetic warning: "In the councils of
government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex." He
was talking of the influence of the complex (for
which his epithet was to prove enduring) in
Washington's corridors of power.
We in India had to wait until the second term
of a distant successor with very different views
on the subject to discover the relevance of the
warning to us. The US military-industrial complex
(along with its strategic-business partners
elsewhere) has just given us proof of its
influence in the councils of government in New
Delhi as well. The influence has, in fact, been
as important a factor behind the dramatic advance
towards the finalization of the US-India nuclear
deal as the diplomatic skills said to have been
displayed on both sides.
Conspicuous has been the omission of the role
of the complex in official versions of the
advance. By these accounts, it was the brilliant
negotiators on both sides who brought about the
advance. On July 18, 2005 President George W.
Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sprang a
nasty surprise on the peace-loving world with the
announcement of a nuclear deal to be worked out
in detail. On the same date last month,
high-ranking Indian officials started fresh talks
with their US counterparts in Washington to give
a final shape to the deal in the form of a
bilateral agreement, as required under American
law.
Days later, the two sides proclaimed to a
dead world that the deal had been clinched at
last. The text of the agreement was ready, with
well-advertised differences vanishing as if at
the touch of a magic wand. Nuclear scientists and
others, who had made so much noise about '"the
national sovereignty" involved, suddenly fell
silent, with some of them even turning into
eulogists of the deal.
There is no doubt, of course, that India's
"strategic concerns" over the deal seem to have
been addressed, to the satisfaction of nuclear
hawks here. The discretionary powers of the US
president, it has been delicately hinted, will
take due care of the letter of American law,
which had seemed to prohibit further nuclear
testing in India, for example. But there was more
to the advance than met the eye in mere official
statements.
Less than due publicity was given to the fact
that the military complex was conducting its own
parallel negotiation process. Buried in reports
on the advance was a semiofficial acknowledgement
of this accompanying exercise.
The former chairman of India's Atomic Energy
Commission, M. R. Srinivasan, a late addition to
the pro-deal lobby, let the cat out of the bag. A
newspaper story reported him as saying that, once
the 123 Agreement was legislatively approved in
both countries, "French and American nuclear
businesses, holding talks with Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) could go
ahead with the selection of sites for power
plants and other modalities."
He added: "All these things will begin
rolling once the agreement ... gets final
approval from the Union Cabinet." The Cabinet, it
may be noted, has already approved the agreement,
though the text is going to be placed before
Parliament only on or after August 10.
On July 21, Ron Somers, president of the
US-India Business Council, articulated the main
concern of the military-industrial complex in the
matter. While hailing US civilian nuclear
cooperation with the "world's largest free-market
democracy," he said the agreement "will present a
major opportunity for US and Indian companies
...."
He took the opportunity to plead for adoption
by the US Congress and India's Parliament of a
"multilateral Convention of Supplementary
Compensation (CSC), so US and Indian
private-sector companies can engage in India's
nuclear power build-out." The convention will
provide a compensation mechanism against
unforeseen liabilities. "Without this mechanism,"
Somers said, "Americans would be put at a
disadvantage in competition with public-sector
companies from France and Russia."
The US-India Business Council, a division of
the three-million-member US Chamber of Commerce,
has been spearheading advocacy of the deal
through the Coalition for Partnership with India.
We have noted before in these columns the
expectations of corporations and experts from the
deal, and these bear repetition. Expert
projections made in December 2006 envisage an
increase in India's nuclear arsenal by 40 to 50
weapons a year as a result of the deal. The
country is also expected to acquire 40 nuclear
reactors over the next two decades or so.
According to more recent reports, India has
announced plans to expand its current installed
nuclear-energy capacity from 3,500 megawatts to
60,000 megawatts by 2040. The expansion is valued
at $150 billion.
Last year, Somers said the deal would create
27,000 "high-quality" jobs a year over the next
decade in the US nuclear industry, "which has
been losing orders in a world increasingly wary
of nuclear power."
Corporations on both sides spent large
fortunes on hard-selling the deal to an initially
reluctant Congress. New Delhi has spent about
$1.3 million dollars in this regard on two
lobbying firms, one of which (Barbour, Griffith
and Rogers) is headed by US Ambassador to India
Robert Blackwill. The US-India Business Council
has not revealed the amount it paid Patton Boggs,
a lobbying firm known for its larger fees.
The Confederation of Indian Industries, for
its part, has helped to fund numerous business
trips to India by US congressmen and their staff
over the past few years. Modest estimates place
the cost of nuclear tourism at $550,000.
The US military-industrial complex does not
conceal its excitement at the mega-sized defense
agreements with India and the proposed Indian
cooperation with Bush's missile-defense program.
Last year, talk in the complex was about a $9
million contract for Lockheed Martin to supply
126 fighter planes. There is talk now of more
profits ahead for the arms merchants from the $40
billion budget for India's defense purchases by
2020.
When the nuclear warship USS Nimitz came
calling at the port of Chennai on India's
southern shore last month, US Ambassador David
Mulford used the occasion to talk of a "new era
of defense cooperation." He recalled that last
year India had purchased the troop carrier USS
Trenton and hoped for the possible sale to this
country of C-130 aircraft, "the celebrated
workhorse of multi-role lift airplanes with the
longest continuous production run of any military
aircraft."
The cost of all the commerce the agreement
will make possible, for the poor people of India
and for peace in South Asia, of course, does not
enter at all into the calculations of the
military-industrial complex.
A freelance journalist and a peace activist
in India, J. Sri Raman is the author of
"Flashpoint" (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a
regular contributor to Truthout.
______
[3] [on Minorities in Pakistan]
(i)
Dawn
August 12, 2007
Editorial
PROTECTION FOR MINORITIES
THERE is an urgent need to take seriously the
threats being hurled at the Christian community
in Peshawar. On Friday, members of the community
met the police chief and told him about the
threatening letters they had received, asking
them to convert to Islam in 10 days or face dire
consequences. The police have increased security
vigilance in the Christian-populated areas
although they suspect the letters could just be
pranks as was the case a few months ago when the
same thing happened in Charsadda. However, it
will be unwise to take these threats lightly for
there is every likelihood that they are seriously
meant, especially given the current climate of
religious extremism in the province. In May, it
took a while for the police in Charsadda to
respond to Christians' fears when they received
threatening letters which apparently were bogus.
But the letters did succeed in frightening the
Christians in Charsadda, many of whom left the
area. It also prompted some 100 Christians to
write to the President and the Chief Minister of
NWFP appealing for help to protect their lives.
Threats were also hurled at a bible school in
Peshawar earlier this year. These threats can no
longer be ignored.
It is tragic that with each passing day,
minorities feel increasingly unsafe in their own
country. Every time a minority community or place
of worship is attacked, members move out - be
they Christians, Hindus or Sikhs who have been
living in their areas for decades. Apart from
beefing up security around sensitive areas, like
places of worship, the government must engage all
religious leaders in a dialogue on mutual
tolerance and harmony. This is the only way a
change in attitude can come about. Of equal
importance is a change in discriminatory laws
like the blasphemy law which is routinely misused
against the non-Muslims.
(ii)
The Hindu
July 22, 2007
RAMCHAND PAKISTANI, A FILM WITH A DIFFERENCE
by Ananth Krishnan
Will it be a precursor to greater cultural
exchanges between India and Pakistan?
- Photo: K. Pichumani
Movie with a message: Director Mehreen Jabbar at
the shooting. (Above) Javed Jabbar makes a point.
Chennai: "Two nations poised for war. One family
torn apart," reads the tag line for the
soon-to-be-released film Ramchand Pakistani.
While this dramatic description would seem to fit
the bill for any of the numerous war movies
Bollywood has produced, RamchandŠ is a film
project with a difference.
The first-ever film from Pakistan whose main
characters are from the country's minority Hindu
community, Ramchand seeks to emphasise the
commonality between the people of the two
countries rather than focus on the differences
and the violence, as many Bollywood movies have
tended to do.
"While the story is very sharply drawn in a
political context of extreme polarisation, what
it attempts to do is to project the unifying
human dimension," says Javed Jabbar, former
Pakistan Cabinet Minister and Senator, who wrote
and is producing the film, where the characters
speak Urdu and Hindi.
The film, which is directed by his daughter
Mehreen Jabbar and stars Nandita Das, tells the
story of how an accidental border crossing
affects the life of a poor Pakistani Hindu
peasant family. The two Hindus find themselves
imprisoned in India as unwelcome trespassers.
Inspired by actual events, the narrative attempts
to depict the heavy irony that underlies the
relationship between Pakistan and India.
Many parts
Mr. Jabbar, who was born in Chennai and lived
here with his mother before migrating to
Pakistan, is a man of many parts: a leading
figure in the advertising world, who ran a
successful ad agency, MNJ Advertising, for 22
years; a film-maker who created Pakistan's first
English language film Beyond The Last Mountain,
which was shown at the first Bombay International
Film Festival in 1976; a political figure; and a
highly articulate public intellectual. His 1972
documentary for Pakistan television, Moenjodaro:
The City That Must Not Die, (the title is a play
on 'Mound of the Dead,' the Sindhi term for the
celebrated Indus Valley city), won several
international awards. He is also known in the
adve rtising world for his memorable line on the
Dancing Girl of Mohenjo-daro: "Miss Mohenjo-daro:
Her Age is Her Great Attraction - 5000 years."
Mr. Jabbar was recently in Chennai to render
fattehha at the grave of his maternal
grandfather, Khan Bahadur Sharif Mohammad Ali, a
senior police officer in the 1940s.
The director
Mehreen Jabbar, who is in her mid-thirties, is an
acclaimed independent film-maker (see
www.jazbah.org, www.mehreenjabbar.com).
Her interest in theatre and film began in the
advertising agency; her first play, Nivala
(Morsel), was based on a short story by Ismat
Chagtai, the Indian Urdu writer; and she studied
film at UCLA (University of California Los Ange
les). Her portfolio ranges from short art films
to tele-plays shown on television in Pakistan and
abroad, including Putli Ghar (Puppet House),
Farar (Escape), Pehchaan (Recognition) and New
York Stories. She is known for her fresh voice,
her original style of story telling, and her
themes focussing on the everyday lives and
dilemmas of women in Pakistan.
Ramchand Pakistani is Ms. Jabbar's directorial
debut in full-length feature films.
Mr. Jabbar, the writer, notes that this story of
difference ultimately seeks to convey a message
of universality, but without compromising the
inherent differences in identities of self,
religion, or nationality. "While we are
respecting the diversity and plurality of
identities, we are trying to find the commonality
of human values."
Larger issue
The larger issue within which the film is
situated is the ongoing peace process between
India and Pakistan. "Fortunately we have been
able to release several hundreds of prisoners on
both sides," Mr. Jabbar points out. "But the
unspoken, unexplored tragedy is that for many
prisoners, whether they are Pakistani prisoners
in India or Indian prisoners in Pakistan, when
you are held for just having crossed the line or
overstaying your visa, you become a part of the
larger morass of it all. This film will attempt
to make a small contribution towards this process
of improved appreciation of each other."
Part of this process is portraying Pakistan's
Hindu community in a different light. "Pakistani
films have so far dealt with the Hindu community
in stereotypical terms," explains the former
Minister and three times elected Senator.
"This is a country where 97 per cent of the
population is Muslim. If you happen to be Muslim
and poor, that is bad enough. But if you happen
to be Hindu and come from the lowest caste, then
you are completely at the bottom of the bottom.
We wanted to show life from their perspective."
Director Mehreen Jabbar believes that despite the
location of the film's message so far from the
mainstream in Pakistani and Indian cinema, it
will be received well by the public in both
countries. "I don't think the religious aspect
will be a negative factor," she told The Hindu
over the phone from Mumbai. "It is more a human
story with universal themes."
The collaboration between Pakistani and Indian
artists during this project speaks to the same
sentiment Ramchand invokes. While a majority of
the actors are drawn from Pakistan's thriving
television industry, the film stars Na ndita Das
and features the musical talents of director
Debajyoti Mishra and singer Shubha Mudgal.
Support
"I wanted to support the message of the film,"
Ms. Das told The Hindu over the phone from New
Delhi. "It is a small way of dispelling the myth
and perception that Pakistan is our enemy. There
is this whole idea tha t Pakistan is another
country, but I don't feel like an Indian living
in Pakistan. In fact, to do a film in Malayalam
and Tamil is in some ways more difficult than
doing one in Pakistan." Ms. Das hopes that the
film will start a cinematic 'revolution' in
Pakistan, noting that it will be "quite a big
leap" for such a film as Ramchand to be shown in
Pakistan's cinemas, "which is something we take
for granted in India."
The poor quality of films usually screened in
Pakistan has resulted in declining audiences and
the absence of a movie-going culture as in India,
according to Ms. Jabbar. After the 1965 war,
Pakistan and India banned the exhibition of each
other's films in cinemas.
Recently, Pakistan exempted films such as Taj
Mahal, Mughal-e-Azam and Awarapan. It is also
common for Pakistani cable operators to show
pirated Indian films.
The plan, according to Mr. Jabbar, is to release
the film - which is in the post-production stages
in Mumbai and New York - commercially in India
and Pakistan some time after October, after it
goes through the film festival circuit. Mr.
Jabbar hopes that such a cinematic collaboration
will be the precursor to greater cultural
exchange and political cooperation between the
countries.
He says: "Recently there has been another step
forward. A Bollywood film, Awarapan, has just
been released in Pakistan, and a few films from
Pakistan are going to be released in India. So
these are all very good signs."
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
______
[4]
The Hindu
Aug 13, 2007
DEFENDING THE LIBERAL VOICE
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
The assault on Taslima Nasrin exemplifies an
attack on liberal values and the growing
insensitivity towards discussion and debate.
The assault last week in Hyderabad on Taslima
Nasrin, the exiled Bangladeshi writer living in
India, is to be seen in the context of two other
such incidents that have taken place in the last
four months. While condemnation, outrage, and
regret are the logical reactions that come from
those who respect the Indian Constitution,
democracy, liberal ideas, and the rule of law,
there is a pattern emerging from these incidents
that needs careful examination.
In May, Niraj Jain, a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
activist and lawyer, entered the Faculty of Arts
in Vadodara and vandalised exhibits that were
part of the annual internal evaluation process of
the Faculty. While Mr. Jain and his supporters
smashed pieces of art and assaulted the students,
the police stood mute spectators to the whole
incident. The Vice-Chancellor of the M.S.
University suspended the Dean of the Faculty of
Arts, Shivaji Panikkar. Chandramohan, a student
whose work was part of the internal evaluation,
was arrested on charges of causing offence to the
religious sentiments of Hindus and Christians.
Chandramohan spent five days in prison before he
could get bail. Liberal voices across the country
marched, wrote petitions, and appealed to the
good sense of the organs of the state to ensure
justice. The VHP activist who desecrated an
institution of excellence and learning remains a
free man. No case has been registered against him
till this day.
On July 13, a political science teacher's
comments in class at the St. Ann's College for
women in Hyderabad led to demonstrations against
the teacher and her subsequent arrest. The
students alleged that the teacher, Ms. Prashanti,
had made derogatory remarks against Islam in the
contest of discussing Salman Rushdie. The
students marched shouting slogans demanding that
a case be registered against the teacher and she
be arrested for hurting their religious
sentiments. Politicians belonging to the
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalmeen (MIM), the Telangana
Rashtra Samiti (TRS), and the Telugu Desam Party
(TDP) jumped into the fray demanding action
against the teacher. The teacher later apologised
for her remarks and was released on bail.
The latest in this series is the attack on August
9 in Hyderabad on Ms. Nasrin. She was to release
a Telugu translation of her book at the Press
Club in the city when MIM activists led by three
MLAs attacked her. The three legislators were
arrested and later released on bail. The MIM
leader Sultan Salauddin Owaisi commended the
assailants and his son, Akbaruddin Owaisi, also
an MLA, defended the assault on the author and
said that his party would ensure that Ms. Nasrin
would never be allowed to enter Hyderabad again.
The MIM, in turn, has filed a case against her
under Section 153 (a) of the IPC for hurting the
religious sentiment of Muslims. The police
meanwhile have booked a case against the MIM
legislators under Section 506 for criminal
intimidation.
In all the three cases mentioned above, a pattern
seems to be emerging. Firstly, the Bharatiya
Janata Party-ruled Gujarat government and the
Congress-ruled Andhra Pradesh government came up
with reactions to these incidents that were
uncannily similar in tone and substance. Both
governments reiterated that the law would take
its own course. The way the law operated, in the
first instance, Niraj Jain remains free and
immune to punishment, justice, and censure. In
the other two cases, the testimony of a mob was
sufficient to imprison a political science
teacher and book a case against Ms. Nasrin.
Contrast this with the case of the Andhra Pradesh
Chief Minister's brother being involved last
month in a case of road rage involving the son of
an MLA who happens to be the Chief Minister's
political bete noire. In this instance, a case of
attempt to murder was registered against P.
Janardhan Reddy's son.
The second feature of all these cases is the idea
of 'hurt' religious sentiments. While the
Constitution does provide for 'reasonable
restrictions' against freedom of speech, there
has been little attempt in the country for the
last 60 years to define what form or manner of
speech or expression is 'unreasonable'. If
disruption of public peace is the sole standard
by which to measure imposition of reasonable
restrictions, then it is evident that the easiest
thing to do in the country is to hire a mob to
create such disruption. In a landmark judgment
striking down the ban on the cinematic version of
The Da Vinci Code in 2006, Justice G. Raghuram of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court had perceptively ob
served: "Dissenters of speech and expression have
no constitutional right in respect of the
intellectual, moral, religious, dogmatic
[beliefs] or the choices of all mankind. The
Constitution of India does not confer or tolerate
such individualized, hypersensitive private
censorial intrusion into and regulation of the
guaranteed freedom of others."
Further, the three MLAs involved in the assault
on the Bangladeshi writer have sworn to protect
and preserve the Indian Constitution and its
stated guarantees. This includes the preservation
and furthering of the rule of law. After the
incident, the three MLAs and their leaders have
argued that they consider their religion to be
above the Constitution of India. While the
sentiment for one's religion as a private
individual is entirely tenable, defiance of the
Constitution in the public realm can never be
justified. It is a supreme irony that while a mob
can determine and persuade the law enforcement
machinery to take into account alleged instances
of 'hurt' religious sentiment, a blatant defiance
of the Constitution invites little or no action
on the part of the state machinery. The supreme
irony is that the MIM regretted the vandalism in
the Press Club in Hyderabad, stating that the
party had the greatest respect for the press.
This arbitrary and opportunistic use of the
instruments of democracy is dangerous and
hypocritical.
These trends have serious implications for
liberal democracy and the Indian polity. For it
is the very stuff of democracy that it allows
expression of sentiments such as those of the
Praveen Togadias and the Akbaruddin Owaisis of
the world. Yet, these very individuals with
regular impunity and insouciance trample the
freedoms that democracy bestows. There are also
those among us for whom liberal and secular
notions such as freedom, equality, justice,
fairness, truth, and beauty are as sacred as the
piety of a man of religion. While these secular
values may not yet have been invested with the
emotional charge that religion has acquired, the
Indian state has been less than fair in
protecting these liberal and secular 'pieties.'
There is a third set of people who are entirely
happy to keep religion within the personal realm
and equally cherish the secular freedoms that
Indian democracy grants to them. There is,
therefore, an essential tension between these
contending and often incommensurable claims. One
way to lessen the divide would be to hope for a
more potent idea of citizenship, which would, in
future, enable the girls of St. Ann's College to
march against the communal carnage in Gujarat, in
favour of those displaced by the Narmada Dam,
against corruption, and in favour of nuclear
disarmament.
But the first step is to recognise that in this
fight for decency and the liberal space, the
Togadias and the Owaisis share their predilection
for brutality, terror, intimidation, falsehood,
self-serving theories of victimhood, and
sanctimonious self-righteousness. David Shulman,
the writer and peace activist, in a recent book
titled Dark Hope, puts the point across
succinctly: "This conflict is not a war of the
sons of light with the sons of darkness; both
sides are dark. 221; He quotes from the Greek
poet Seferis who said, "There are always but two
parties, Socrates and his accusers." One must
choose between the two is Shulman's advice.
The zealots who assaulted Taslima Nasrin accusing
her of denigrating their faith, overlooked an
important injunction in the Koran: "If anyone
attacks you, attack him as he attacked you." If
for the purposes of argument, one were to agree
with the MIM and its supporters that Taslima
Nasrin did, indeed, offend and attack their
faith, the way in which she did so was through
the pen. The defenders of the faith, then, must
follow the letter and spirit of the Koran and
attack her through the pen and not through the
sword. In following this sublime message lies the
way to strengthen Indian democracy.
______
[5] [Book Review]
Biblio
May-June 2007
A BATTLE HYMN
by Mohan Rao
The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays
By Utsa Patnaik
Published by Three Essays Collective, Gurgaon,
2007, 232 pp., Rs 250 ISBN 81-88789-33-X
Till some years back Orient Longman brought out
splendid slim books of extraordinary topical
interest in their 'Tracts for the Times' series.
Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags and Hindi
Nationalism, for example, were both brilliant
books that went into many reprints. For some
reason, the publication of this series has
apparently ceased. But they will not entirely be
missed because Three Essays Collective has begun
where Orient Longman left off: high quality
volumes of great contemporary salience, aimed at
the general reader.
Utsa Patnaik is of course a well known economist,
but this book, a battle hymn against neo-liberal
policies, is not for students of Economics alone.
Powerful, passionate and eminently readable, it
is for the general reader who wants to make sense
of the world we live in. It is compulsory reading
for public health scholars, students of Gender
Studies and indeed for the rare and concerned
policy maker as well. As a student of public
health, my review will be coloured by the book's
singular importance to my discipline.
The world has never before been as rich as it is
today. Yet substantial populations of the world
are bereft of resources to ensure a modicum of
health. Nearly 1.3 billion people, overwhelmingly
in the formerly colonised countries of the South,
live on less than a dollar a day and close to one
billion cannot meet their basic calorie
requirements. More than 800 million people lack
access to health services, and 2.6 billion people
to basic sanitation. Although people are living
longer today than at any time in the past, around
1.5 billion people are not expected to survive to
age 60. Indeed life expectancy in some countries
of sub-Saharan Africa is only around 40 years.
One familiar reason given for the widespread
poverty and ill-health in poor countries is of
course, overpopulation, a red herring, as an
essay in the volume reveals. Despite population
growth, per capita food production increased by
nearly 25 per cent between 1990 and 1997. The per
capita daily supply of calories rose from less
than 2,500 to 2,750 and that of proteins, from 71
to 76 grams. In other words, not one person in
the world needs to go to bed hungry. Yet given
the fact that the overall consumption of the
richest fifth of the world's population is 160
times that of the poorest fifth, 840 million
people, 160 million of them children, are
undernourished. Close to 340 million women are
not expected to survive to age 40.
The over-population argument also elides the fact
that there occurs a net T transfer of close to
180 billion dollars annually from the countries
of the South to those of the North. Indeed this
figure has increased substantially over the last
three decades. During this period, marked by the
demise of actually existing socialism and of
Keynesianism, along with the rise of the
neo-liberal policies, inequalities within and
between countries have risen sharply: the income
gap between the world's richest and poorest has
more than doubled. In 1960 the 20 per cent of the
world's people in the richest countries had 30
times the income of the poorest 20 per cent ;
today they command 74 times more. The same
richest 20 per cent of the population command 86
per cent of the world GDP while the poorest 20
per cent command merely 1 per cent. More than 80
countries have per capita incomes lower than they
were a decade or more ago; 55 countries, mostly
in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, have had declining per
capita incomes. Thus as Patnaik shows us, it
makes no sense to talk of population and not
consumption, and therefore of "effective
population".
The changes in the global economy have been
accompanied by dramatic reversals of health gains
made in the immediate post-World War II period as
formerly colonised nations rushed to their trysts
with destiny, and as countries of the 'free
world' built their welfare states. In some
countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the average age
of death has actually declined in the last
decade. Sharp declines in life expectancy have
also been recorded in countries of the former
Soviet Union, as an essay in the volume discusses.
With the initiation macro-economic policies
commonly known as the Structural Adjustment
Programs (SAPs) under the aegis of the World Bank
and the IMF, Infant Mortality Rates and Child
Mortality Rates increased in several countries of
Latin America and Africa, along with increases in
levels of undernutrition and morbidity. Public
health services reeling under fund cuts, a sine
qua non of the SAPs, collapsed. Indeed so
devastating were the consequences of these
reforms that UNICEF was compelled to call for
structural adjustment 'with a human face'.
Similarly Infant Mortality Rates have stagnated
in India and in China in the post-economic
reforms period. But it is when looking beyond
deceptive averages that the full extent of the
damage to health emerges: a sharpening of health
inequalities.
This apparent paradox-of hunger and want in the
midst of plenty- Patnaik explains in this book,
is not fortuitous; nor is it a consequence of
some chimera such as 'governance' or 'comparative
advantage'. It is, on the other hand, a result of
policy options made both at the national and
international level, of political will,
ruthlessly applied. This does bring enormous
benefits to the elites in the First World and in
the developing countries. What are the
mechanisms, the institutions and the policies,
that hold this arrangement together? This
political economic structure is brilliantly
explained, with a wealth of data and case studies
from around the world.
As the long boom of the post-War golden age of
capitalism ground to a crisis, this period was
marked by the rise of Right-wing monetarist
regimes in the USA and the UK, along with the
domination in the belief in what Hobsbawm
describes as "ultra-liberal economic
theologians", whereby "the ideological zeal of
the old champions of individualism was now
reinforced by the apparent failure of
conventional economic policies" (E.J. Hobsbawm,
Age of Extremes, Viking, Delhi, 1994, p. 409).
Neo-liberal economic policies, described
variously as Reaganomics, Thatcherism, corporate
globalisation or monetarism, reflected an
ideological commitment to unbridled market
principles, ignoring the remarkable role that the
State had played even in the advanced capitalist
countries. One of the significant lessons of
post-War economic growth had been the singular
role that the State could play, and indeed needed
to play, in capitalist countries to avoid
recurrent periods of crisis due to falling
demand. For instance, State involvement in public
health had been considered critical, as State
provision of public goods was also at the heart
of the strategy to stabilise the economies and to
increase productivity. In the new environment of
the '80s, these Keynesian policies increasingly
came under fierce attack.
This new consensus shared a profoundly cynical
view of the State, especially in developing
countries, although neo-liberal free-market
rhetoric often contrasted sharply with the actual
practices of the Reagan and Thatcher governments
in their own countries where the State was
increasingly subsidising the rich. Patnaik shows
us how the subsidies given to the farmers in the
West has actually increased over this period even
as WTO rules are used to exhort poor countries to
cut their subsidies to the poor. Reducing the
role of the State and increasing that of the
market, irrespective of their social and indeed
long-term economic costs, was thus at the centre
of this model of therapy. Economic growth, it was
maintained despite extensive evidence to the
contrary, would trickle down to the less
fortunate and thus result in overall development.
At the height of her economic and political power
in the new uni-polar world, the United States
found a way out of the impasse of falling rates
of profit and increasing unemployment within her
shores by opening up potential markets in Third
World countries. The debt situation of these
countries-itself a product of First World lending
policies in the past- became the vehicle for
introducing these measures in countries, now
subject to a neo-colonial onslaught. Future loans
from international With the of initiation
macro-economic policies commonly known as the
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) under the
aegis of the World Bank and the IMF, Infant
Mortality Rates and Child Mortality Rates
increased in several countries of Latin America
and Africa, along with increases in levels of
undernutrition and morbidity. Public health
services reeling under fund cuts, a sine qua non
of the SAPs, collapsed. Indeed so devastating
were the consequences of these reforms that
UNICEF was compelled to call for structural
adjustment 'with a human face'. Similarly Infant
Mortality Rates have stagnated in India and in
China in the post-economic reforms period. But it
is when looking beyond deceptive averages that
the full extent of the damage to health emerges:
a sharpening of health inequalities financial
institutions, and access to donor funds and
markets became linked to accepting this broad
package of macroeconomic policies under the
rubric of the SAP. This also provided the rich
countries of the world to increasing-and
increasingly cheaper - access to resources of the
world, even as it reinforced the international
division of labour.
Deflation, liberalisation and privatisation were
applied in a uniform measure across Latin America
and Africa in the 1980s in what has been widely
described as imperialist globalisation. In the
agricultural sector, as Patnaik shows us with
data, this led to the reinforcement of colonial
patterns of agricultural production, stimulating
the growth of export oriented crops at the cost
of food crops. This, is the Republic of Hunger,
along with 'India Shining'. The problem at the
heart of this pattern of production is that it
was implemented at a time when the prices of
primary commodities were the lowest in history.
Indeed by 1989, prices for agricultural products
were only 60 per cent of their 1970 levels. Thus
the more successful these countries were in
increasing the volume of exports, in competition
with other Third World countries exporting
similar products, the less successful they were
in raising foreign exchange to finance their
imports. It is not surprising that many countries
shifted back in time to being exporters of
unprocessed raw materials and importers of
manufactured goods, albeit with a sharp
deterioration in the terms of trade against
developing countries in general and agriculture
in particular.
In the industrial sector, where developing
countries had been striving to break out of
colonial patterns of dependent development, the
withdrawal of State support plunged many
enterprises into crisis, leading to
de-industrialisation. Such units were then
allowed to close, or were privatised, or handed
over to trans-national corporations, typically
with significant losses of employment. Just as
the State reduced its commitment to critical
sectors such as education and health, so also the
flow of capital across borders in search of
labour, raw materials and markets, indeed the
frenetic search for quick profits, typically
weakened the State. Further, over this period,
capital across the globe was concentrated in
fewer and fewer hands, with an implosion of
mergers and acquisitions. The driving force
behind this phase of imperialist globalisation is
speculative finance.
Together these policies and processes increased
indebtedness of Third World countries that they
were supposed to reduce, increased the rate of
exploitation of wage-workers across the globe,
and shifted wealth from productive to speculative
sectors. The policies also led to the increase of
casual, poorly paid and insecure forms of
employment. Fund cuts in education and health
also meant that already weak and under-funded
systems of health, education and food security
collapsed. It is thus not accidental that these
policies increased levels of poverty in already
poor countries even as a small section of the
population became richer; this section of the
middle and upper classes obtained access to
consumer goods hitherto available only in the
rich countries.
It is this setting that explains the farmer's
suicides in the country, the sharp declines in
food availability for the masses of the
population, the collapse of what little there was
of public health services. Indeed, Patnaik also
argues that it is this context of sharply growing
inequalities that explains the 'appeal' of
communalism. The book helps us make sense of a
world that is otherwise quite incomprehensible
and, above all, utterly heartless. Here is a book
with heart, and guts.
______
[6]
Economic and Political Weekly
August 4, 2007
Letters
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE
This is with reference to the news column
published in The Times of India (July 10, 2007)
regarding the sexual harassment case in Gandhi
Bhawan against its director, Bidyut Chakrabarty,
who is also the head of the department of
political science, and dean, social sciences,
University of Delhi. The news item reveals that
the report of the committee that enquired into
the case was submitted to the vice chancellor at
the end of June by the apex committee and is
still awaiting action. We have followed closely
the way in which this and other cases of sexual
harassment in Delhi University have been
addressed by the university authorities. While
the report submitted by the enquiry committee
into the sexual harassment case against the head
of the Punjabi department has not been acted upon
even six months after it was submitted, we fear
that action on this report may also be deferred
endlessly. The pattern of procedural violations
is becoming much too familiar and foreboding. As
evident from news reports, the complaint in the
Gandhi Bhawan case was allowed to languish in the
VC's office until the complainant made her
grievance public compelling the university to
institute an enquiry under Ordinance XV(D), which
is mandatory, following the directions of the
Supreme Court. Not only were the university
authorities apathetic to the complainant, it
seems that even after setting up the enquiry,
they chose not to comply with the recommendation
of the subcommittee that Bidyut Chakrabarty step
down from all positions of power for the duration
of the enquiry. Continuing in his position as the
director of Gandhi Bhawan, Chakrabarty slapped a
legal notice on the complainant and her
colleagues for dereliction of duty, clearly an
intimidation tactic, which may have dissuaded the
staff of Gandhi Bhawan from coming out with
evidence against him. Now that the committee has
submitted its report with the instruction that
its recommendations be implemented within a time
frame, it is indeed surprising that a spate of
conflicting rumours should be surrounding the
outcome of the enquiry. As women's groups that
have struggled relentlessly for setting up
gender-just procedural norms within the
university and other public institutions, we find
it deplorable that the university should treat
cases of sexual harassment at the workplace with
such indifference and get away with.
Moreover, if the trajectory of past cases is any
indication there emerges a pattern whereby cases
are allowed to peter out through inaction.
Indeed, there appears to be a closing of ranks
among those in authority, so that the perpetrator
is shielded and empathised with, while the
complainant's case, who is almost always working
under the direct authority of the perpetrator, is
cast under a shroud of suspicion and dismissed as
unreliable and motivated. We demand that, first
and foremost, the university should make the
recommendations of the enquiry committees in this
and other previous cases public and the report
immediately available to the complainants.
Following the procedure laid down in its own
ordinance, it should implement the
recommendations that have been made. The
university authorities are bound by the Policy on
Sexual Harassment to ensure that its employees do
not have to work in a hostile working
environment. We therefore demand that immediate
action should be taken with a view to make the
university a safe working place for women.
SADHNA, Saheli, KALPANA, Jagori,
ANJALI, Stree Adhikaar Sangathan,
SUMAN, Kriti,
SUDHA, All India Democratic
Women's Association
MUKTA, Lawyers' Collective
New Delhi
______
[7]
The Hindu
August 12, 2007
ACTIVISTS DISAPPOINTED WITH DRAFT OF COMMUNAL VIOLENCE PREVENTION BILL
by Manas Dasgupta
Surprised at Bill seeking more powers for States
Bill termed a "piece of misconceived legislation"
Demands drafting of new legislation
AHMEDABAD: Human rights activists, legal experts
and others concerned with secular principles in
Gujarat have outrightly rejected the draft bill
of the UPA government to prevent the recurrence
of communal violence in the country.
A meeting of the Concerned Citizens of Gujarat to
discuss the draft Communal Violence (Prevention,
Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill,
2005, expressed disappointment over such a
half-hearted measure coming from the UPA
government which in its Common Minimum Programme
had promised a comprehensive legislation for the
purpose.
With the memory of the scars inflicted during the
"state-sponsored" communal riots in the State in
2002 still alive in the minds of the people, the
meeting expressed surprise at the Bill seeking to
give more powers to the State governments to deal
with such a situation. It said many of the State
governments had often been found wanting when
dealing with such a situation and giving such
authorities wider powers would be an uncalled for
measure.
Terming the Bill a "piece of misconceived
legislation," the meeting said a measure that was
expected to fill the vacuum in the existing
framework and of fundamental importance to
address the challenges posed to the secular
character of the society was drafted in haste
without following the consultative process with
civil society.
It demanded drafting of a new legislation but
only with active participation of the civil
society through an open, transparent public
process involving civil society, particularly
eminent jurists, human right activists,
academicians and legal experts. Without making
any specific reference to the Narendra Modi
government in Gujarat, it said the measure to
prevent communal violence should give more powers
to the citizens in their struggle against
communalism and provide for stringent measures to
curb mass and gender-based crimes committed with
political intent.
The activists hoped that the Centre would give
adequate thought to address the concerns of
citizens, in the coming session of the Parliament.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the SACW
mailing list