SACW | August 19-20, 2007
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sun Aug 19 20:29:50 CDT 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 19-20, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2437 - Year 9
[1] Pakistan:
(i) Pakistan needs real democratic government (Zia Mian)
(ii) Just Justice (Ahmed Rashid)
(iii) At democracy's crossroads? (Praful Bidwai)
[2] Sri Lanka: APRC' s progress (Editorial, Daily Mirror)
+ APRC rules out Unitary State (Editorial, The Sunday Leader)
[3] Amartya Sen on India: Past and future
[4] India: Broken Peace: Fact - Finding Committee
Report on the first communal violence in Goa
[5] India: Don't Shackle The Waves (Ammu Joseph)
[6] India: Solidarity Fast In Support of Irom Sharmila
[7] India: Jan Sunwais [public hearings] in Jaipur from the 21- 26 August, 2007
______
[1]
sacw.net - 19 August 2007
http://www.sacw.net/pakistan/zia_aug07.html
PAKISTAN NEEDS REAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
Rather than prop up Musharraf, the world must
demand that Pakistan's army give up control of
the government and vast sectors of the economy.
by Zia Mian* (This article was published earlier
in Philadephia Enquirer, 17 August 2007)
On the 60th anniversary of independence, Pakistan
is under siege. Its leaders lack legitimacy,
politics is held hostage by its army, and radical
Islamists stalk the land. The future looks bleak.
There is talk of civil war.
There is only one way out: End the cycle of
military dictatorship and allow truly free,
representative government to take root.
Pakistan's leaders have failed it from the
beginning. Its founding father, Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, claimed the Muslims of British India
needed a separate country if they were to be free
from domination by its more numerous Hindus. He
cast a wide net, offering orthodox Muslims a
vision of an Islamic society and more secular
Muslims a dream of a country where religion was
no business of government. This ambiguous legacy
and the terrible religious violence that
accompanied the partition of British India have
haunted Pakistan ever since.
Jinnah died within a year of independence.
Politics became a personal power grab, with seven
prime ministers in the first 10 years and then,
in 1958, a military coup. The decade of army rule
brought a close military alliance with the United
States, further strengthening the army, and the
forced modernization of a poor rural society. The
costs were war with India, wrenching social
change, and grievous inequality. Eventually, the
people rose in revolt. In 1971, East Pakistan
broke free and became Bangladesh.
The army relinquished power. But the new civilian
leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, lacked a democratic
temper and treated opposition as threat. He
established Pakistan's nuclear weapons program
and a practice of buying public support by
appeasing the mullahs.
In 1977, the army took back control and executed
Bhutto. In his decade in power, Gen. Zia ul-Haq
sought to Islamize Pakistan. He introduced
religious laws, courts, and taxes, supported
radical Islamist madrassas (seminaries) and
political parties, and altered school textbooks
to promote a conservative Islamic nationalism.
Work on the bomb proceeded apace.
The United States turned a blind eye to the
dictatorship and the bomb. It poured billions of
dollars into Pakistan to buy support for a war
against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Islamic
militants from around the world were trained and
armed by the Pakistan army, with American money,
and sent across the border to fight godless
communism. The jihad was born.
Zia was killed in a mysterious plane crash in
1988, and the Soviet Union admitted defeat and
left Afghanistan. Elections were held, only to
have the army become the power behind the throne.
The new crop of leaders, including Bhutto's
daughter, Benazir, descended into corruption and
intrigue, each seeking the army's help to take
office. There were nine prime ministers in 10
years. Some actively courted the mullahs; none
tried to undo the Islamic order created by Zia.
As one third of Pakistanis fell below the poverty
line, Pakistan tested nuclear weapons and
missiles and went to war with India. Both sides
hurled nuclear threats.
There were few protests when the army, led by
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seized power again in
1999. He promised that "the armed forces have no
intention to stay in charge longer than is
absolutely necessary to pave the way for true
democracy to flourish." Instead, he rigged
elections and made a deal with Islamist political
parties willing to support him as president.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United
States gave Musharraf no choice but to join
another American war. Money poured in (more than
$10 billion so far), and U.S. demands for a
return to democracy fell silent. Musharraf
consolidated military rule. Generals rule
provinces, run government ministries, administer
universities, and manage national companies. The
army's business interests now span banking and
insurance, cement and fertilizer, electricity and
sugar, corn and corn flakes. Inequality has grown.
But Pakistan is being torn apart by an Islamic
militancy that rejects Musharraf's alliance with
America. Militants have attacked soldiers,
policemen, local officials, ordinary people, and
national leaders, including Musharraf himself.
Suicide bombings have claimed hundreds of lives
across the country. The army has struggled to
respond. Many soldiers resent fighting their own
people in what they see as an American war
against Islam.
Islamist fighters have taken over whole villages.
Emulating the Taliban, they repress women, close
girls' schools, attack DVD and music shops,
destroy TVs, and demand that men grow beards and
go to the mosque. The movement is spreading. For
six months, Islamist students and fighters
occupied a mosque in Islamabad and set up their
own court. The government sat idly until forced
to act by national and international pressure.
The bloody storming of the "Red Mosque" in July
served only to fuel the militancy and enrage
public opinion.
The outside world appears threatening, too. The
United States warns of al-Qaeda and Taliban
havens in Pakistan; some politicians talk openly
about the possibility of a U.S.-led attack on
Pakistani soil. The United States fears
Pakistan's nuclear weapons may fall into the
hands of Islamists. America is cultivating a new
strategic relationship with India, causing fears
among Pakistan's army leaders of losing ground in
its nuclear and missile arms race with India.
Some hope that restoring a semblance of democracy
could turn the tide against the Islamists and
reduce the nuclear danger. Musharraf, with U.S.
help, is trying to cobble together a deal to stay
in power, dumping his Islamist allies for support
from Benazir Bhutto, who would be allowed to
return from exile, cleared of the corruption
charges she fled. These steps will not be enough.
Pakistan needs to break its cycle of military
rule and puppet politicians for democracy to take
root and flourish. Rather than keeping Musharraf
in power, the world must demand that Pakistan's
army yield control over government and economy
once and for all. Only a freely elected and
representative government that can make decisions
can pursue economic development as if people
mattered, confront the Islamists, and make peace
with India.
[* Zia Mian directs the Project on Peace and
Security in South Asia at Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs]
o o o
Outlook
August 17, 2007
Pakistan:
JUST JUSTICE
Yes, that's Pakistan's only anniversary wish.
There cannot be a sustainable fight against
extremists who pretend to fight for justice if
those called to join the battle are not offered
justice themselves.
by Ahmed Rashid
LAHORE
As a tense and wary Pakistan celebrated 60 years
of independence on 14 August, there was no doubt
that a profound movement of change has swept the
country affecting many global issues - the
struggle against Islamic extremism, the movement
for democracy in the Muslim world and the danger
of nuclear weapons. At the heart of the mass
movement in Pakistan is a profound undercurrent
that both the West and Muslims need to support -
the demand for justice.
For four months, from March to July, millions of
Pakistanis led by lawyers and other middle-class
professionals marched in the streets to protest
the arbitrary manner in which President Pervez
Musharraf had suspended Iftikhar Mohammed
Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Ordinary people demanded justice, the rule of
law, democracy and an independent judiciary free
of control from the military. The lawyer
protestors were reminiscent of those who had
marched in 1945 in Indian cities before the
creation of Pakistan.
When Chaudhry was reinstated by a Supreme Court
bench on 20 July, the verdict stunned Musharraf
and was celebrated by the nation. For the first
time in Pakistan, reinvigorated judges released
unprecedented judicial activism. The Supreme
Court swiftly issued pro bono, for the public
good, verdicts on previously untouchable issues,
such as examining the disappearance of political
prisoners by the intelligence services and making
the Election Commission independent of the
military.
Before the verdict Musharraf had presumed he
would easily win another term of five years as
president and also be allowed to remain army
chief by a supine parliament that has done the
army's bidding since it was elected in a
blatantly rigged election in 2002. Musharraf's
election by the national and four provincial
assemblies would be followed by another rigged
general election.
Since the verdict Musharraf has thrashed around
in a virtual state of panic as he tried to
re-impose the army's presence on the political
scene - now toying with the idea of an emergency
rule, now martial law, while at the same time
trying to be conciliatory towards the opposition
by meeting in secret with exiled leader Benazir
Bhutto and unleashing a charm offensive on
state-controlled television. The biggest threat
to his plans is the Supreme Court, which has
pledged to follow the rule of law. Any one of
several cases now awaiting adjudication by the
Court could bring Musharraf's house crashing down.
For a country that has been ruled for half its
life by the military, the present mass movement
against continued military rule is more profound
than expected. Underlying it and emphasized by
the new lawyer-turned-politicians is the demand
for social and political justice. The failure
over decades to receive day-to-day justice at the
hands of the army, the courts and the political
elite now drives public activism. The demand for
justice is a natural corollary of the demand for
democracy, but it is also a root cause for unrest
and upheaval in the Muslim world today.
What Pakistan has been witnessing in the past few
months is emblematic of a fundamental cause
behind the instability and turmoil in many of the
world's Islamic countries. The lack of justice
permeates every aspect of autocratic Muslim
societies around the world and is an essential
argument used by Islamic extremists from Osama
bin Laden to Taliban's Mullah Omar. They can do
so because justice is not just a democratic
demand, but also the fundamental promise of the
Koran. The Koran is permeated with demands for
justice for the oppressed - be they Muslims or
non-Muslim minorities or women.The most quoted
Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, also recount
his dispensation of justice and his demand that
all rulers do the same.
The lack of justice is a principal driver of the
Talibanization now taking place in Afghanistan
and in the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan.
Where no social or political institutions exist
or they have been totally corrupted and
subverted, the first thing the Taliban offer is
justice. When Islamic radicals occupy an area,
they set up a sharia, or Islamic court of law -
not because people necessarily demand sharia, but
because such courts dispense quick, cheap justice.
The fortunate aspect of the movement in Pakistan
is that it is led by educated middle-class
professionals, determined to introduce justice
through democracy not religion. This could have a
long-lasting effect in helping win the wider
struggle against extremism in the Muslim world.
However, the US administration retains tunnel
vision in supporting Musharraf and army rule. The
Bush administration failed to plan for a
post-Musharraf era and now ignores the
justice-through-democracy movement. Influential
presidential Democratic candidates point out what
Pakistanis have long known - that the US
dependency on Musharraf and the US $10 billion
aid money to the military since 2001 - has led to
Musharraf and the army confidently double dealing
the US on stopping Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In
the face of failure within the desperate Bush
administration, there is now open and dangerous
talk of invading Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan.
With Musharraf hell-bent on persevering power,
the risks multiply. Al Qaeda spreads its
tentacles through several Pakistani proxies
across the country, and a wave of suicide
bombings target the army and police. In
Balochistan a separatist insurgency by secular
rebels, possibly backed by India and Iran, picks
off Chinese workers - thereby creating a crisis
with Pakistan's closest ally.
After 100 militants were killed in the army's
July crackdown on the Red Mosque in Islamabad,
where Islamic militants had holed out for six
month, the Islamists promised revenge.
Intelligence agencies report that more than 600
students who escaped the mosque siege have become
suicide bombers. Then there is the elephant in
the room: Pakistan's 40-odd nuclear weapons.
Washington is considering how to deal with loose
nukes if anarchy spreads and radical army
officers take control of some nuclear weapons. In
the past Musharraf rejected US offers of
technical assistance in securing the weapons, out
of concern about losing sovereign control. In the
current heightened anger against the US, amid
talk of unilateral intervention in Pakistan,
cooperation on the nuclear front may be even more
difficult.
Since 2001, the Bush administration has refused
to accept that political stability in Pakistan is
a prerequisite for fighting terrorism and the
army acting alone could not guarantee that
stability. Washington presumed that because
Musharraf represented the army's big stick there
was no need to look further.
A more reasonable policy for the US to pursue and
one that would help win back Pakistani hearts and
minds would be to support the immediate return of
exiled politicians, early general elections
monitored by international observers followed by
a free and fair election for the presidency.
Washington needs to help bring about a just
political transition in Islamabad before it again
insists that the army battle Al Qaeda. The US can
then help ensure that the new elected political
leadership works closely with the army to combat
extremism.There cannot be a sustainable fight
against extremists who pretend to fight for
justice if those called to join the battle are
not offered justice themselves.
The danger is that, if the present democratic
movement for justice is deprived of international
support and is left to wither, then it will be
taken over by the forces of Islamic extremism.
That would be a disaster not just for Pakistan
but the entire Muslim world.
Ahmed Rashid is the author of Taliban: Militant
Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia
and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central
Asia and a correspondent for the Daily Telegraph.
Rights: © 2007 Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization.
<http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/>YaleGlobal Online.com
o o o
The News
August 18, 2007
AT DEMOCRACY'S CROSSROADS?
by Praful Bidwai
The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a
researcher and peace and human-rights activist
based in Delhi
All South Asians who value freedom must feel
relieved that President Pervez Musharraf dropped
the disastrous idea of imposing a state of
emergency on Pakistan, which would have allowed
him to postpone the legislative and presidential
elections due soon. Musharraf seems to be
undertaking some sobering introspection to the
point of admitting that his popularity ratings
have declined and accepting part of the blame for
dismissing Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry -- a
deplorable move on which he had to eat crow.
Yet, it would be wrong to attribute Musharraf's
decision to some new-found respect for democracy.
He blinked because there was tremendous pressure
from the United States, exercised through threats
and hints, capped by a 17 minutes-long 2 a.m.
telephone call by Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice. Secondly, Musharraf probably calculated
it'd be far too risky to further inflame adverse
popular opinion against the army. Another
eruption of public protest--probably worse than
the agitation against Chaudhry's sacking--would
rob his regime of whatever's left of its
legitimacy. A just-released Indian
Express-CNN-IBN-CSDS-Dawn-News survey says 55.4
percent of Pakistanis want him to quit as army
chief before the presidential elections; only
29.6 percent accept his continuation.
However, Musharraf hasn't fully reconciled
himself to holding free and fair national
assembly elections, which former Prime Ministers
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif can contest. On
August 11, he again opposed their return from
exile because it might create a situation not
"conducive" to elections. Nor has Musharraf given
up the idea of contesting the presidential
election in uniform, or as a bizarre alternative,
nominating civilian loyalists--Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz or Chaudhary Shujat Hussain--for the
contest if the Supreme Court rules against his
candidature. That would be a weird case of
illegitimate substitution and a travesty of
democracy.
The more one learns about Musharraf's secret deal
with Bhutto, the worse it sounds. Under it, she
would return to Pakistan and contest elections
provided she accepts that Musharraf would stay on
as army chief till November 16. Bhutto has
confirmed the existence of this "confidential
understanding". She claims she would like certain
"confidence-building measures", such as
withdrawal of corruption cases against her and
amending the constitution to enable her to become
Prime Minister for a third time. Her spokesperson
has said that the General's uniform is not an
"obstacle". This suggests that the Pakistan
People's Party might not oppose the President's
re-election, due earlier.
Bhutto would then consider allying with
Musharraf. Bhutto's logic is that forcing him out
of power through a street agitation might lead to
another spell of military rule or risk an
extremist takeover of Pakistan. The logic is
dubious. It makes a false opposition between two
extremes and rules out the possibility that
Musharraf might be forced by the court not to
seek re-election from the sitting assemblies
whose terms will expire shortly. It also
underestimates the strength of public opinion.
It's unclear whether Musharraf maintains a strong
enough hold over the army to persuade it to
impose another term of martial law. In recent
months, the army's standing has greatly eroded
because of its long years in power, increasing
intrusion into civilian authority, and its
handling of the Lal Masjid crisis.
Eight years ago, many Pakistanis accepted
Musharraf's coup out of disgust with the corrupt
governance of civilian leaders. Some civil
society groups even supported military rule.But
the military regime betrayed its many promises:
to cleanse governance, make the rich pay taxes,
oppose the forces of extremism, and adhere to
transparency while implementing "free-market"
policies. For instance, the Accountability
Commission became a farce. Musharraf struck a
deal with the MMA. And there were scandals in the
privatisation of public enterprises. Today,
there's widespread disillusionment with the
military.
A recent opinion poll by the US-based
pro-Republican International Republican Institute
found that Musharraf's approval ratings had
dipped to just 34 percent from 60 percent in June
2006. As many as 58 percent of the 4,000 adults
polled gave the army-dominated government poor or
very poor marks; 56 percent said they felt less
safe than a year ago. 62 percent said they wanted
Musharraf to step down as army chief if he wants
to contest the presidential election.
By entering into a shady deal with Musharraf
which allows him to get re-elected as president
before fresh assembly elections, Bhutto would
violate the Charter of Democracy she signed with
Sharif in May, which states: "We shall not join
the military regime or any military- sponsored
government. No party shall solicit the support of
the military to come into power or dislodge a
democratic government".
This will make it doubly difficult for Sharif to
return home. Musharraf bears a special animus
against him. Whatever Sharif's faults--and there
are many--, his continued exile will be a setback
for democratisation. And it would be tragic if
the PPP, Pakistan's largest party, were to reach
such a compromise with the military regime.
There's a distinct risk that the PPP could split
or some of its leaders like Aitjaz Ahsan might
leave it. That apart, such a deal would help the
army entrench itself in a prominent role in
public life just as it's losing its credibility.
This would undermine some major gains that the
momentum towards democratisation has registered.
Regrettably, despite Musharraf's ambivalent
record in fighting the Taliban, and the
questionable role his secret agencies are playing
in Afghanistan, external factors too seemingly
favour him. The three major nations that matter
the most to Pakistan, the US, China and India,
seem inclined to support a large role for the
Pakistan army. This is of course understandable
in the case of the US which, true to type,
follows a myopic policy guided primarily by its
Global War on Terror (GWoT). It believes that
Musharraf remains its best or sole bet as regards
GWoT. China is probably deeply sceptical, if not
suspicious, of the prospect of Pakistan's
democratisation.
However, India's pro-Musharraf position is less
understandable, much less justifiable. India has
a long-term stake in a democratic, stable
Pakistan which can rein in the military and its
secret services, which nurture a strong
anti-India prejudice -- probably the obverse, if
a more extreme one, of the anti-Pakistan attitude
of their counterparts across the border. That
certainly conforms to the dominant view held
within the Indian security establishment, which
has for long years argued that the
"state-within-the-state" autonomy which agencies
like the ISI enjoy have allowed them to sustain
anti-India activities.
Yet, India's National Security Adviser M K
Narayanan declared (July 29) that "the worst is
over" for Musharraf; there's been no "major dent"
in his influence because he accepted the Chief
Justice's reinstatement "with grace". Besides
echoing the dominant US view of Musharraf's
indispensability, this expresses cynicism towards
the aspirations of the Pakistani public.
A survey of democratisation in South Asia by
India's Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies suggests that the democratic
aspirations of ordinary Pakistanis are no weaker
than those of Indians or Nepalis. One can only
wish the people success in making Pakistan a
full-fledged democracy, with a properly
functioning party system which can respond to the
people's wishes on the basis of accountability,
and not benevolent paternalism.
______
[2]
Daily Mirror
August 18, 2007
APRC's PROGRESS
The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) has
at long last reached broad consensus on
devolution proposals aimed at resolving the
national problem. APRC Chairman Tissa Vitharana
has said the parties would complete a draft and
hand it over to President Mahinda Rajapaksa by
the end of next week.
The present accord where the majority of parties
have been able to reach agreement is indeed
significant although the other two main parties,
the
UNP and the JVP, have yet to actively participate
in the process. The parties are reported to have
reached 70 percent agreement on a number of
issues. And they are confident that they would be
able to settle the remaining issues at the next
meeting,
What is significant is that the parties have been
able to reach such consensus through discussion
and compromise. The unit of devolution that
remained a controversial matter has been settled
among these parties with the main ruling party,
the SLFP agreeing to accept province as the
administrative unit for devolution.Chairman Prof.
Vitharana has appealed to the UNP that had
refrained from participating in APRC
deliberations to rejoin the process without
making any attempt to gain political advantage at
this stage. It is obvious that the APRC would not
be able to successfully accomplish its task
unless the other two main parties lend their
support and cooperation. The UNP indeed cannot
have serious disagreement with what has been
agreed upon by other parties because there are
close affinities between the UNP proposals and
those of other parties in the APRC. It is a
positive sign that the Tamil National Alliance
(TNA) also has reportedly decided to submit a set
of proposals to the APRC. The JVP too should join
in these deliberations since earlier policy has
been to fall in line with any reasonable
agreement reached by the majority of political
parties.
The people will wait with fingers crossed
wondering whether the political parties even at
this late stage would deviate from their
traditional pattern of confrontational politics
and cooperate in the present effort to end the
ongoing bloodletting in the country. The
resolution of this conflict that has robbed this
country of thousands of precious lives and
destroyed property worth billions of rupees
should be the priority task of all those who have
the country's well-being at heart.
It has been the opportunistic political party
rivalry throughout that obstructed the solution
of this problem. The storms that this ethnic
conflict weathered over the years leading to the
present parlous situation where foreign forces
are poised to dictate terms, is well known.
Unfortunately, even at this late stage extremist
are emerging posing problems for the present
attempt to clinch an agreement. While those
extremists in the North beating the separatist
drums are poised to oppose any reasonable
solution, those beating war drums in the south
are prodding the government into prolonging the
war until the LTTE is completely vanquished.
Encouraged and emboldened by recent military
successes these sections want the war further
extended. The level of alleged corruption even in
the purchase of arms to prosecute the war, lends
strong credence to the widely held view that arms
dealers and commission hunters have a say in
prolonging the war for their benefit.
It is, therefore, the duty of the UNP that
accuses the government of clinging on to the war
for political purposes to actively cooperate in
the present effort to forge an acceptable
political solution to the problem. If it does
not cooperate at this stage, then they will not
be able to escape the charge that they are aiding
and abetting extremism that they vow to shun.
If the JVP is honest in their commitment to
democracy and its values, Justice, equality and
so on, they should reexamine their attitudes to
the national problem considering the present
dangerous form it has taken. If they are true
progressives they should be prepared for change.
As it is often said conclusions are like
motorcars; they need to be periodically examined
and serviced for them to be in proper condition.
In the same way they have deviated from their
former policy of toppling governments through
violent revolution and opted for democratic means
for political change, the party has to revise its
policies to keep pace with changing times and
situations.
o o o
The Sunday Leader
19 August 2007
APRC RULES OUT UNITARY STATE
APRC proposals for new constitution federal in nature
North-East merger to be discussed at peace talks
Wide ranging fiscal devolution
Blocked draft to out this week
The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) is
this week planning to release the main proposals
to form the basis of a future constitution where
Sri Lanka is defined as a free, sovereign and
independent state known as the Republic of Sri
Lanka.
The main proposals backed by a majority of the
parties represented in the APRC has excluded the
'unitary state' concept as proposed by the SLFP,
JHU and the MEP.
The 'main proposals' which were to be released on
August 15 did not see the light of day after the
SLFP and MEP moved for the indefinite adjournment
of the APRC on a request by the President on
Tuesday.
However The Sunday Leader learns the proposals
are to be released this week even if the
President does not give the green light for the
APRC to resume proceedings.
A copy of the main proposals in the possession of
The Sunday Leader states, 'the Republic of Sri
Lanka shall give the foremost place to Buddhism
with the state to protect and foster the Buddha
Sasana while according to all religions the
rights guaranteed by the articles in the proposed
constitution.'
The 'main proposals' also reiterate that the unit
of devolution will be the province, once again
rejecting the SLFP, MEP and JHU position.
'The Republic of Sri Lanka is a single state in
the sense in which it shall be deemed to be an
undivided, integrated and inter-dependent state
structure where the devolved state power shall be
shared between the centre and the provinces and
among the provinces inter se,' the draft
proposals state.
It is learned the use of the word 'shall' was
intended to give the proposed constitution a
federal flavour as opposed to characteristics of
the unitary state.
In a ground breaking provision the draft also
states the people of Sri Lanka shall be described
in the constitution as being composed of
"Sinhala, Sri Lankan Tamil, Moor, Indian Tamil
and other constituent peoples of Sri Lanka.
"The right of every constituent people to develop
their own language, to develop and promote their
culture and to preserve its history and the right
to its due share of state power including the
right to due representation in institutions of
government shall be recognised without in any way
weakening the common Sri Lankan identity..." the
main proposals also state.
Legal sources said this provision taken with the
earlier provisions provide for a federal
constitution all but in name.
The report further proposes the abolition of the
executive presidency at the end of President
Mahinda Rajapakse's present term of office with
Sri Lanka to return to a parliamentary democracy.
The proposals state the president shall act on
the advice of the prime minister.
The proposals also envisage peace talks with the LTTE.
It states two or three provinces can merge
subject to a referendum in those provinces.The
draft states since the Tamil parties have been
agitating for the north-east merger it is best
kept open for discussion at the peace talks with
Muslim representation at such talks.
The report further provides for the abolition of
the concurrent list in the present constitution
for the distribution of powers and makes way for
a national list and a provincial list.
The proposals also envisage far reaching fiscal
devolution to enable the provinces to effectively
develop their areas.It is proposed to look at the
fiscal devolution proposed in President Chandrika
Kumaratunga's 2000 Draft Constitution.
______
[3]
AMARTYA SEN ON INDIA: PAST AND FUTURE
Amartya Sen, Forbes | August 14, 2007
It is 60 years now since I, like many other
schoolchildren, stayed up till midnight,
bleary-eyed, to hear Jawaharlal Nehru, soon to be
prime minister of India, give his famous speech
on India's "tryst with destiny."
This was on the eve of India's independence
from British rule on Aug. 15, 1947. India would
not only be, we were told, a fully democratic and
secular state but also a country that will fight
for "the ending of poverty and ignorance and
disease and inequality of opportunity." It is
interesting to ask how far along we have gone in
60 years in fulfilling that momentous resolve.
On the democratic front, India's success was
immediate and came with astonishing speed. India
became overnight the first poor country in the
world to be a full-scale democracy. And there
was--and is--success enough here.
There was a short-lived hiccup in the 1970s
when there was a brief attempt to change the
system, but when the government sought
endorsement in a general election for those
changes, it was driven out of office by the
voters.
There have been regular and orderly elections,
and the ruling parties have vacated office when
defeated in general elections, rather than
calling in the army. India has also had other
essential features of a democracy, in particular
continued freedom and vigor of the media and
independence of the judiciary, with the Supreme
Court often disallowing decisions of those in
governmental office on constitutional grounds.
So democracy has indeed flourished nicely in
India, and that has been the case right from the
time when India became independent after two
centuries of authoritarian British colonial
dominance. India's democratic success is
sometimes seen only as a consequence of British
rule, but that is comparatively recent history
shared by a hundred or more other countries that
also emerged from the empire, none of which has
had quite the easy success that India has had
with democracy.
In fact, as I have tried to argue elsewhere (in
my book The Argumentative Indian, Piccador,
2005), India's long argumentative tradition and
toleration of heterodoxy, going back thousands of
years, has greatly helped in making democracy
flourish with such ease. This would be remarkable
enough for any poor country, but it was a much
harder task in a land with a great many major
languages, each with a long and proud history,
and with a rich and old literature.
And there was, of course, the challenge of the
multiplicity of religions in India, with nearly
every religion well represented. Jews came to
India in the first century; Christians in the
fourth; Parsees immigrated as soon as persecution
began in Persia in the late seventh century; and
early Muslim traders started coming to the
western coast of India from the eighth century,
well before the later invasion of the north of
India by Muslim conquerors in the late tenth
century onwards.
Even though British India was partitioned into
India and Pakistan in 1947 on religious lines,
the vast majority of Muslims on the Indian side
chose to stay on in India, and today India has
nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan and many more
Muslims than Bangladesh.
India chose to have a solidly secular
constitution, and it is as a secular democracy
that India has flourished. Secularism has been
threatened from time to time by actions of
sectarian groups, but the massive support for
secularism across India has asserted itself again
and again, the last time in the Indian general
elections in 2004. In the political field,
India's success today is a firm vindication of
what, 60 years ago, it breathlessly tried to
achieve.
The story is very different on the economic
side. The growth rate of the Indian economy
remained stuck at its low traditional point of 3
per cent a year for a very long time. The
economic policies needed substantial reform. In
the old days, some wise guys used to put forward
the thesis that India's growth rate was low
because of its democracy, which seemed to many of
us rather ridiculous.
But with continued low growth, that
anti-democratic point of view gained some ground
among high-octane commentators (never with the
general public, though). When India changed its
economic policies, the growth rate picked up as
expected, without India becoming any less of a
democracy to achieve this result.
The economic changes came amid much hesitation
and huge resistance. To start with, India
hastened slowly. The 1980s, which saw some
moderate reforms, produced some quickening, with
an economic growth rate of 5 per cent, which may
now seem sadly slow but was much faster than what
had happened in the early decades of
independence, not to mention a century of
colonial semi-stagnation.
But the economy was still full of problems
connected with financial instability, trade
imbalances and choking public administration. In
general, what used to be called the 'license Raj'
made business initiatives extremely difficult and
at the mercy of bureaucrats (large and small),
thereby powerfully stifling enterprise while
hugely nurturing corruption.
When Manmohan Singh came to office in the early
1990s as the newly appointed finance minister, in
a government led by the Congress Party, he knew
these problems well enough, as someone who had
been strongly involved in government
administration for a long time. (This was after
his stint as a very successful university
professor at Delhi University where I was
privileged to have him as a colleague.)
And Singh's response was sure-footed though
cautious, given the complex politics of policy
reorientation. While the going has been rough
from time to time, the direction of policy change
has been unmistakable from that point onwards,
endorsed even by successor governments run by
other political parties.
India is now getting used to its much higher
rate of growth, first around 6 per cent a year
and now about 8 per cent, occasionally touching 9
per cent. It is also remarkable that India's main
success has come not in traditional areas of
exports but largely on newer industries, with a
large component of high-tech, such as the
information technology industry, which has
rapidly grown to be a giant from a very modest
beginning.
Another area is that of pharmaceuticals. Even
though in that field the Indian entry began with
generic drugs (with a huge reduction--sometimes a
cut of 80 per cent or so in the price for many
essential drugs, like AIDS medicines), it is now
going much more into new research as well.
There is reason enough to celebrate many things
happening in India right now. But there are
failures as well, which need urgent attention.
For example, there is still widespread
undernourishment in general and child
undernutrition in particular--at a shocking
level. The failures include, quite notably, the
astonishing neglect of elementary education in
India, with a quarter of the population--and
indeed half the women--still illiterate.
The average life expectancy in India is still
low (below 64) and infant mortality very high (58
per 1,000 live births). It is certainly true that
India has narrowed the shortfall behind China in
these areas--that is, in life expectancy and
infant mortality--but there is still some
distance to go for the country as a whole.
The problems are gigantic in some of the more
'backward' states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
And yet there are other states in which the
Indian numbers are similar to China's.
There is also one state, Kerala, where the life
expectancy is higher than China's (75 years at
birth, as opposed to China's 72), and infant
mortality lower (12, as opposed to China's 28).
Kerala has had good state policies of supporting
school education for all and making sure that it
works, and has provided free health care to all
for many decades now. Even though now many
better-off families choose private medical care,
everyone still has the option of having health
care from the state.
If India has to overcome these failures, it has
to spend much more money on expanding the social
infrastructure, particularly school education and
basic health care. It also needs to spend much
more in building up a larger physical
infrastructure, including more roads, more power
supplies and more water. In some of these, the
private sector can help.
But a lot more has to be spent on public
services themselves, in addition to improving the
system of delivery of these services, with more
attention paid to incentives and disciplines, and
better cooperation with the unions, consumer
groups and other involved parties.
On the basis of some investigations that have
been done by the Pratichi Trust (a trust I was
privileged to set up in 1999 through the use of
my 1998 Nobel money), it is clear how much needs
to be done and can be done to change the
organizational structure of school education and
basic health care. (We studied only one part of
India, but the results from other studies from
elsewhere in India are often quite similar.)
However, aside from organizational change, more
public funds, too, will be needed. Where will the
money come from? Well, to start with, India can
spend a much higher proportion of its public
resources on school education and on basic health
care, on both of which its percentage share of
public spending is among the lowest in the world.
There is, furthermore, good news that has been
discussed astonishingly little. If the total
revenue, from taxes and other channels, of the
central and state governments keeps pace with the
rapid growth of the economy, when the economy is
growing at 8 per cent a year, that would be a big
rate of increase of available funds for public
services.
As it happens, government revenue has
persistently grown faster than the growth of
gross domestic product: in 2003-04, the economic
growth of 6.5 per cent was exceeded by the
revenue growth of 9.5 per cent, and in 2004-05 to
2006-07, the growth rates of 7.5 per cent, 9 per
cent, and 9.4 per cent have been bettered,
respectively, by the expansion rates of
government revenue (in 'real terms'--that is
corrected for price change) of 12.5 per cent, 9.7
per cent and 11.2 per cent.
Money will continue to come very rapidly into
the government's hands if the fast economic
growth continues. What is critically important is
to use these generated resources to remedy
India's continuing deficiencies, in particular in
basic health care, in school education and in
rapidly expanding its physical infrastructure.
So, as we look back over the last 60 years,
some things have happened well enough, and some,
where the gaps were large, have started to catch
up. However, there are other areas in which there
are still huge shortfalls. These gaps would need
to be urgently remedied. We know what to do, and
there are resources to do it. What we need now is
some determined action to do what we can do and
must do.
Amartya Sen is the Lamont University professor
and a professor of economics and philosophy at
Harvard University. Previously, he served as
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and Drummond
Professor of Political Economy at Oxford.
He was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics
"for his contributions to welfare economics" and
was the first Asian to receive this honor.
He has served as the president of the American
Economic Association, the Indian Economic
Association, the International Economic
Association and the Econometric Society.
______
[4]
BROKEN PEACE
FACT - FINDING COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE FIRST COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN GOA
PANAJI, APRIL 2006
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/brpeace.pdf
______
[5]
Times of India
17 Aug 2007
DON'T SHACKLE THE WAVES
by Ammu Joseph
Back to square one. The current row between the
government and broadcasters over the draft
Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007, is
taking place exactly a year after a similar
fracas over the draft Broadcasting Services
Regulation Bill, 2006.
In July last year the ministry of information and
broadcasting had announced that it would hold
meetings with top representatives of the media
and entertainment industries before finalising
the Bill and tabling it in Parliament. Last week
I&B minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi said a
decision regarding the introduction in Parliament
of the new Bill, and the accompanying draft
Self-Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting
Sector (alias Content Code), would be taken after
another round of discussion with "stakeholders".
The more things change the more they seem to stay
the same.
For the ministry, then and now, the term
"stakeholders" evidently encompasses only
broadcasters. This is despite the fact that the
preamble to the new draft Bill reaffirms the
12-year-old opinion of the Supreme Court that the
airwaves are public property, and goes on to
state that the proposed legislation is meant "to
regulate the use of such airwaves in the national
and public interest". Of course, that is both the
first and the last reference to the public within
the document.
Most broadcasters have rejected the Bill and the
Code in their present form on the ground that
certain provisions in the two documents would
curb their freedom of expression. What is often
forgotten in such arguments is the fact that
freedom of the press (or media) is actually part
of the broader democratic right to freedom of
expression to which all citizens are supposed to
be entitled.
Representatives of the broadcast industry have
mooted a 12-month moratorium so that the question
of regulation can be properly discussed instead
of the draft legislation being rushed through
with just a 15-day period for feedback. According
to the newly formed News Broadcasters Association
(NBA), more time is required to devise their own
criteria and systems for self-regulation of
content.
Dasmunshi apparently believes that posting the
Bill and Code on the ministry's website is
adequate proof of democratic intent. He has also
made embarrassing claims about the draft
legislation, projecting it as the best and the
most democratic in the world, more in tune with
the changing times than anything anywhere else,
including the United States and Europe, and
therefore a possible model for others to follow.
None of these assertions can be taken seriously.
The few merits and many demerits of the draft
Bill and Code, as well as the ifs, buts and hows
of media regulation, have received some attention
over the past fortnight. But equally questionable
is the process through which the legislation has
emerged and is being pushed ahead. The lack of
transparency, the
absence of public consultation, the assumption
that mere appearance on a website constitutes
public notice, and the ridiculously short period
provided for public response make a mockery of
any claims to democratic functioning.
Contrast this with what is happening right now in
the US, where the controversial Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a
public notice related to its forthcoming
comprehensive review of broadcast ownership
policies.
Announcing the release of 10 research studies on
different aspects of media ownership, conducted
by external researchers as well as FCC staff, the
commission has given the public a full 60 days to
file comments.
Not only are the complete texts of the research
documents available on the FCC website but people
with disabilities can request materials in
accessible formats. Copies of all related
documents are also available to the public at the
commission's Reference Information Centre. Both
the evidence gathered through the studies and the
comments received from the public are to be used
to guide and support the commission's decisions
in the ownership proceeding. In other words, the
public can provide inputs into the policy review
process - not just react to a fait accompli.
UK's communications industry regulator, the
Office of Communications (Ofcom), has a whole
section on the consultation process on its
website. Ofcom's multi-pronged consultations
typically take place over five to 10 weeks,
depending on the complexity and urgency of the
issues under discussion. It considers
consultation an important part of its mandate
because its decisions must not only be based on
evidence but also take into account the views of
all those who have an interest in the outcome -
not just the relevant industries and companies
but also consumer and community groups and even
individuals.
The idea is to ensure that policy decisions are
based on the widest available range of
information and opinions. In other words,
consultation is supposed to precede and feed into
decision-making, not the other way around.
Critics of the FCC and Ofcom within their
respective countries question several aspects of
their differing approaches to regulation,
including their consultation processes. Compared
to the lack of due process here, however, their
systems appear quite enviable.
Within days of placing the draft Bill on the
ministry's website - despite the vociferous,
ongoing objections from the broadcast industry -
Dasmunshi had declared that since there was no
opposition to the legislation from any quarter
there was no reason to delay it.
Considering the primary objective of media
regulation in a democracy is to preserve and
protect citizens' fundamental rights to
information and freedom of expression, the
democratic approach to regulation would be to
increase informed public participation in media
policymaking. In the absence of authentic public
debate, policies will continue to be made in the
people's name without their informed consent.
The writer is a Bangalore-based freelance journalist.
______
[6]
SOLIDARITY FAST IN SUPPORT OF IROM SHARMILA
Date: 14th August, 2007
Dear friends,
Some of us have decided to organize a solidarity
fast in support of Irom Sharmila, who is in her
7th year of fast with a demand to repeal the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (for more
information see below).
This solidarity fast will be organized in Imphal,
Manipur where Sharmila is presently confined to
the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, from 13th
September, 2007, and will go on for 3-5 days. We
invite more people from all over India and even
outside to come and join this solidarity fast for
as many days as you can. This is the least we can
do to support one of the longest solitary
peaceful struggles of our times which saddens our
hearts but doesn't move the authorities a bit. We
are confident that the truth will emerge
victorious one day.
Looking forward to seeing you in Imphal on 13th
September. For more information please contact
Sapamcha Kangleipal, President of Manipur
Forward Youth Front at 09862096539.
Love,
Sandeep Pandey, Lucknow, ashaashram at yahoo.com
Faisal Khan, Delhi, 9313106745
Biju Borbaruah, Guwahati, 9435198562
Organizations endorsing the action:
Asha Parivar
National Alliance of People's Movements
Irom Sharmila Chanu - Repeal Of AFSPA Update:
Irom Sharmila continues to fast in the Security
Ward, J.N. Hospital, Imphal. Confined to a
solitary existence!
Dear friends,
It is now almost five months since Irom Sharmila
returned to Imphal on 5th March 2007, to continue
her hunger fast against the draconian Armed
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The situation
continues to be grim - both for Sharmila as well
for all those suffering under the prolonged
implication of AFSPA.
For those of you reading about Sharmila's epic
struggle for the first time - on 4th November
2000, 28 year old Irom Sharmila Chanu started her
hunger fast seeking repeal of the draconian
AFSPA. This was her response to one among
countless incidents of arbitrary killing by the
Armed Forces in the north east when on 2nd
November 2000, 10 innocent civilians were killed
at Malom near Imphal, Manipur. Sharmila has since
been incarcerated at J.N. Hospital Imphal. Over
the years she has been repeatedly arrested and
detained under Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit
suicide). In October 2006, for the first time
Sharmila left Manipur and continued her protest
fast at Jantar Mantar, and then at AIIMS and RML
hospitals in New Delhi where she was kept under
constant police vigil.
Sentenced to solitary confinement?
Now in her 7th year of the fast, Sharmila's
health is deteriorating. Far from responding to
her demand of Repeal of AFSPA, the state is doing
everything it can to isolate her and her peaceful
struggle.
At the hospital, Sharmila is not allowed visitors
on a regular basis. This is in complete violation
of the law, which permits anyone in custody, be
they an undertrial prisoner or a convict in a
high security prison regular visits by his or her
family members, friends, supporters and/or
lawyers. And yet, Sharmila does not even this
basic
freedom, despite the fact that there is no court
order commanding her isolation. Her family,
friends and supporters are put through an arduous
and cumbersome process to meet her.
The 'Special' process takes to meet Sharmila can
take up to 20 days and involves an application to
the Joint Secretary Home Department, Government
of Manipur; the DGP, Prison, Central Jail,
Manipur; the Additional Superintendent, Sajiwa
Jail, Manipur and the SI, Sajiwa Jail who if
the application gets all the due clearances, then
'accompanies' the visitor to meet Sharmila!
What are we to surmise except that the Government
is attempting to isolate her from all contact
with the outside world in the hope of weakening
her struggle?
Matter of honour.
It is unlikely that the Government of India will
acknowledge or respect, let alone honour Sharmila
for her determined struggle for justice and
peace. Satyagraha, after all, has been
disregarded repeatedly in these times.
On 18th May 2007, Sharmila was awarded the
Gwangju Prize for Human Rights in Seoul, Korea.
Her brother Singhjit received the award on her
behalf and returned to Manipur only to be told
that the certificate would not be shown to
Sharmila. He had to wait till 30 June to get
'permission' to visit Sharmila and give her an
update of the events surrounding the award.
The Gwanju Prize includes a cash award of $25,000
(approx. Rs. 12 lakhs). Sharmila and her family
have decided that this money will go towards
assisting the victims of the human rights
violations in Manipur. The Ministry of Home
Affairs (FCRA department) claims it has 'lost'
the FC-5 application required to facilitate
transfer of the award amount. What will it take
for the Government to expedite and release it
without any further game playing?
AFSPA - No response to the demand for repeal.
At both, the Central and State level, the
government is simply refusing to address the
peoples' demand for repeal of AFSPA - despite the
voices against it being raised against it from
Kashmir to Kerala to Delhi to Manipur and
Nagaland, for over two decades now. In addition
of course, have been the recommendations for
Repeal of the Act by the Justice Jeevan Reddy
Committee set up by the government as well as the
Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Mr.
Veerappa Moily.
Meanwhile in the shadow of this draconian Act,
and the impunity it offers the armed forces,
everyday the people of Manipur are disappearing,
being killed and tortured. Mr. Nongmaithem Tomba
alias Chinung (37 years), Miss. Soniya alias
Najama Latif (15 years), Mr. Moirangthem Gandhi
Singh (24 years) everyday AFSPA continues to
claim new victims.
Need for urgent action
It is imperative that as individuals and groups
who believe in democracy and justice, we raise
our voice against the continued injustice under
AFSPA and the continued harassment of Irom
Sharmila.
1. Send a statement. Let's be heard this time!
Here is a draft statement you could use to lend your support:
We, the undersigned, as individuals and groups
who believe in democracy and justice, demand that
the government of India:
· Respect the peaceful struggle of people
like Irom Sharmila and immediately withdraw all
restrictions on her mobility as well as her
freedom to meet and interact with people
· Release her from custody without any further delay
· Drop all facetious cases against her
Moreover, the government must:
· Repeal the AFSPA with immediate effect
· Implement the recommendations of the Justive Jeevan
Reddy Committee and the Administrative Reforms Commission.
· B ring the armed forces within the
democratic framework of accountability and
justice without any further delay.
Only then can the people of the north-east and
J&K have any chance or hope to live with security
and dignity.
Sd/-
Please email the Statement to the following (and
copy us in so we know how much support the
campaign is getting):
President of India, Smt. Pratibha Patil,
Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Shivraj V. Patil,
Minister of Defence, Mr. A. K. Antony, Minister
of State for
Labour & Employment, Mr. Oscar Fernandes,
Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission of
India, Chief
Minister of Manipur, Mr. O. Ibobi Singh, Governor of Manipur, Shri Ved Marwah.
Compiled email list: presidentofindia at rb.nic.in,
pmosb at pmo.nic.in, svpatil at sansad.nic.in,
ak.antony at sansad.nic.in, oscar at sansad.nic.in,
chairnhrc at nic.in , cmmani at hub.nic.in,
govmani at hub.nic.in
Copy to: onilrights at gmail.com, preetiverma10 at yahoo.com ,
saheliwomen at hotmail.com
2. Sign the petition!
· Please forward this to as many
people as you can on your mailing list and
various list serves, and sign the online petition
against Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 at
this link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?afspa
3. Stay in touch with Sharmila!
· You can also write directly to Sharmila and send her
messages of solidarity at:-
Irom Sharmila Chanu
Security Ward
Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital
Porompat
Imphal - 795001
Manipur
This update is an attempt to keep informed
all those in solidarity with Sharmila, who
resolutely persists in her demand for the repeal
of an anti-people law.
In Solidarity
Kshetrimayum Onil (Reachout) onilrights at gmail.com
Preeti Verma (Human Rights Law Network) preetiverma10 at yahoo.com
Vani Subramanian (Saheli) saheliwomen at hotmail.com
______
[7]
Dear friends,
You might have already heard from us about the
"Jan Adhikar Yatra" - a 12 day Mass Padyatra that
over 300 people are currently undertaking through
three hundred villages from four directions of
Jaipur namely Alwar, Tonk, Ajmer and Sikar. The
Padyatras, and a cycle yatra that began from
Chittorgarh District will will culminate in a
continuous dharna and a series of Jan Sunwais in
Jaipur from the 21st to 26th August on a number
of issues. The programme will take place in front
of the Collectorate in Jaipur.
We would like to invite you to join us during
these public hearings beginning on the 22nd of
August 2007 on the SEZ Act 2005 and other land
grab policies. The public hearing will also focus
on the impact of the recent decision of the
Rajasthan Government to hand over lakhs of
hectares of so called "wasteland" to companies
for jethropha (agro fuel) plantation.
On the 23rd, there will be a public hearing on
social security legislation for the unorganised
sector.
On the 24th there is a public hearing on
extending the National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act to the whole of Rajasthan, a demand that the
State Government also dedicate resources to the
programme so that the employment entitlement can
be increased, and an examination of the
implementation of the law in the State with
particular focus on non-payment of minimum wages.
On the 25th will be a public hearing on the
implementation of the Right to Information in
Rajasthan
This phase of the campaign will culminate in a
Jan Manch on the 26th where political parties are
being invited to come and state their public
positions, and join the public debate on these
issues. We feel that this public debate will
help increase political accountability of
political parties as well as move in the
direction of exploring modes of "peoples
politics" before the next State and General
elections.
We are also attaching the programme for the 21st
to the 26th August and a background note about
the issues concerned.
We hope you will be able to join us at any time
during this process. Your presence will enrich
the process and give us strength in our attempt
to bring these crucial issues of peoples lives
and livelihood into the realm of public debate
and action.
in anticipation of your support
thanking you
yours sincerely
Aruna Roy
on behalf of the Rozgar evum Suchna Adhikar Abhiyan
0141-6419720, 09414004180
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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