SACW | August 29-30, 2007
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Aug 29 21:00:24 CDT 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | August 29-30, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2442 - Year 9
[1] India and Pakistan dispute on Wullar Barrage :
(i) Wullar Lake dries up before solution (Editorial, Daily Times)
(ii) Preserve joint heritage: India, Pak
belligerence making water so dear (Editorial,
Kashmir Times)
[2] Pakistan: Any way out? (M B Naqvi)
[3] Nepal :
(i) A tryst with Nepali destiny (Kanak Mani Dixit)
(ii) Not this king, but India's religious right still wants the monarchy
[4] India: Our tryst with secularism (Kuldip Nayar)
[5] India: In Defense of Pluralism (Ram Puniyani)
[6] Tibet: An unpublished letter to the Editor re
The Politics of Tibet (Tenzing Sonam)
+ Reincarnation of living Buddha needs gov't approval (China Daily)
[7] India: Online Petition to Protest Violence Against Taslima Nasreen
[8] Announcements:
CNDP, Heinrich Böll Foundation and PEACE -
International Conference on Indo -US Nuclear Deal
(New Delhi, 31 August - 1 Sept 2007)
______
[1] INDIA AND PAKISTAN DISPUTE ON WULLAR BARRAGE
(i)
Daily Times
August 29, 2007
Editorial
WULLAR LAKE DRIES UP BEFORE SOLUTION
As India and Pakistan take their time resolving
their dispute over the Wullar Barrage/Tulbul
Navigation project in Indian-administered Jammu &
Kashmir, the lake in question is drying up, thus
introducing a third factor in the dispute that
the two countries have refused to recognise so
far. That third factor is the environment which
threatens the SAARC states with closure to all
disputes they have refused to resolve.
In the heat of bilateral blame-game, no one had
pointed out that Wullar Lake feeding the Jhelum
River and filling Pakistan's Mangla Dam was
Asia's largest freshwater reservoir. As the two
countries quarrel over whether the barrage on the
lake is illegal storage or not, the lake has
shrunk from 202 square kilometres to 30 square
kilometres, and whatever is left over is full of
sewage that human settlements dump into it.
Pakistan should rethink its plan to raise the
Mangla Dam for more capacity and talk to India
about "joint action" against environmental
degradation. *
(ii)
Kashmir Times
August 29, 2007
Editorial
PRESERVE JOINT HERITAGE: INDIA, PAK BELLIGERENCE MAKING WATER SO DEAR
Some of the trickiest obstacles on the road to
India and Pakistan peace perhaps lie in the
hearts of the water sources that are naturally
located on this side of Kashmir. The unresolved
water disputes including the Tulbul Navigation
Project and Wullar Barrage are not only posing to
be difficult irritants, the prolonged delay in
brokering peace is also posing a major threat to
the health of the water bodies. Experts are
rightly worried about the plight of the water
bodies like Wullar lake, which is one of the
largest fresh lake of River Jhelum, that are
reeling under continued neglect and plagued by
massive militarization that is eventually taking
a toll of the health of the lake. No doubt,
environmental degradation and polluting water
bodies is almost a universal phenomenon,
especially in the third world countries with
limited resources and dilemmas between
development and conservation. Besides, the
typical red tapism in the government departments
often contributes to the existing mess. But the
huge military presence, which not only exerts an
extra burden on the water bodies but also makes
the water bodies or sources of major rivers out
of bounds for the environmentalists or concerned
government departments who should be taking
requisite steps to stop defiling and pollution of
these water sources also significantly adds to
the degradation, which is rather unfortunate. In
the back drop of this scenario that necessitates
immediacy of adopting adequate measures, India
and Pakistan are still steeped into the same old
mould of belligerence sugar coated with a dash of
friendship. Though indeed, this is one step
forward, in view of the alarming situation, it is
too late and too less. The prolonged deadlock
over the Siachen dispute, which is not only
costing both the countries in terms of manpower
and money but also proving to be a major cause of
threat to the environment and water bodies that
depend on this highest battlefield glacier, is
just one indication. Experts have been ringing
alarm bells over how such a heavy presence of
troops from both sides is causing environmental
degradation and drying up water in streams and
rivers. Unfortunately, belligerence and mutual
distrust, has often got the better of common
concerns that both the countries ought to
understand deeply. Though water-sharing
agreements can often be tricky questions, they
need to be resolved amicably in the best
interests of the people. In that respect, the
plea raised by the people of Kashmir on both
sides of the Line of Control that they have been
disadvantaged by the water treaties including the
Indus Water Treaty, also needs to be addressed.
Water treaties cannot be aimed at depriving
indigenous people, who have a natural claim to
the rivers that run through their land. There is
nothing sacred about water treaties and they can
be reviewed. Unfortunately, both India and
Pakistan, who are simply looking at their
respective short term gains, are yet to grasp the
gravity of the situation vis a vis both the
degradation of water bodies and the question of
depriving people of their right to water. In this
scenario, it would have been ideal for India and
Pakistan to set up a joint mechanism for better
monitoring of the common water bodies to ensure
their health and their optimum utilisation.
Unfortunately, both the countries appear to be
dragging feet over the suggestion of a joint
commission to monitor and maintain water sources.
The common heritage of both the countries can be
best maintained by shedding old prejudices,
partisan attitude and by making peace overtures
more people oriented. Water is the elixir of life
and the needs of the people on both sides of the
divide depend on water, much of which is shared
by India and Pakistan both. Bellicose rhetoric
and old mindset, therefore, would only be
detrimental to the interests of the people. There
is need to think of innovative ways to resolve
all outstanding water disputes and protect the
water bodies in the best possible way.
_____
[2]
The News
August 29, 2007
ANY WAY OUT?
by M B Naqvi
The situation today is precarious, pregnant with
different possibilities. If good sense prevails,
Pakistanis can regain their lost sovereignty and
a democratic dispensation may be within reach.
But equally, selfishness of rulers can lead to
dangerous consequences. It all depends.
The Supreme Court continues to do the country
proud by being a court of law, unafraid and
upright. A third historic judgement was handed
down on Thursday last by simply noting that the
Sharif Brothers were Pakistanis and had the
fundamental right under Article 15 to return and
reside and no one can prevent their re-entry into
Pakistan.
General Pervez Musharraf, used to unlimited
powers, is threatened by two forces: the Supreme
Court and superior judiciary now insist on law
being obeyed and Constitution prevailing. But
that is superficial. The reality behind the
independence of judiciary today is the awareness
of common Pakistanis and their support for it.
This is a rejection of military-controlled
government.
Doubtless, Musharraf still insists on getting
himself re-elected by the current assemblies that
are now reaching the end of their mandate. True,
he has the votes in them and shall be re-elected
'president' till 2012. Thus reinforced, he will
hold elections in much the same way as he did in
2002 and deal with the PML-N and the PPP later
depending upon announced results. The question
is: who outside the charmed circle of power would
accept this.
Pakistan is facing chaos: Various rebellions and
uprisings are threatening the state. The
potential of creeping Talibanisation over NWFP
and parts of Balochistan are well known. Even
Punjab is not immune from it. The power of the
six religious parties alliance, MMA, has helped
this Talibanisation processes. Behind the MMA's
formation was General Musharraf's own advice and
an ambiguous relationship between the military
and the mullahs has been known. The trouble is
inherent in the extra austere Islam's spread that
undermines and seeks to displace the old state
with its own.
Musharraf regime is basically a partnership of
the Pakistan Army with America. Americans have
ensured that in the last five years over $60
billion have come into Pakistan thanks to the war
on terror. The Musharraf-picked economic team is
supposed to have performed miracles. Pakistan is
projected as either having taken off or being
close to it.
The government has assiduously promoted
consumerism by keeping interest rates low and
letting banks finance consumption by the middle
class -- resulting inflation and basic economic
facts be damned! The country's GDP growth rate
soared to 8.4 per cent in one year and the
average of seven per cent has been maintained
during the last four years. This is the near
miracle frequently referred to, buttressed by
reference to sizeable monetary reserves. If
propaganda could make a country take off,
Pakistan should have been soaring at a high
altitude. The facts remain dismal, however.
Come 2007. The rebellions flared up in earnest in
Frontier, Balochistan and even in Islamabad. The
world has now woken up to the Pakistani state
itself going the way it had once assisted the
Talibanisation processes in Afghanistan and later
used in Kashmir. Suspicion is that some elements
of the state may still have links with, and
sympathy for, Taliban and or other extremists.
In recent years this suspicion has progressively
grown in America. Although they appear to have no
option but to go on backing Musharraf, they can
only be searching alternatives. At first they
suggested Benazir Bhutto and her PPP were
adequately modern, moderate and pragmatic
politicians. They wanted to tag them with the
Musharraf's team to enable Pakistan to fight the
war on terror as a non-Nato ally of America
better.
Musharraf seemed to have bought this idea at
first and did a deal in Abu Dhabi. But he came
under other pressures and has lagged behind in
implementing the understandings he had given,
even if he is not going back on them. He can
alter the deal as he goes along and wants to have
the last say in 'managing' the 2007-08 elections.
He may be interpreting the deal narrowly of being
first re-elected and holding elections next and
then actually doing a deal with whoever emerges
winner in the polls.
Meantime, the over four-months-lawyers' agitation
has brought about a sea change in ordinary
people's opinions, particularly in Punjab. The
Supreme Court, once the people's new temper was
on full display, thanks to the media, is now
quite a different institution. It is big, bold
and upright. Legal fraternity too has thrown up
new leaders.
As Fakhruddin G Ebrahim has said, the SC has
given three historic judgements in just over a
month. On July 20 it reinstated the CJP of
Pakistan after Musharraf's illegal dismissal of
him; it has taken a hard line with the executive
regarding the Latin America-like 'disappearances'
by intelligence agencies; that has had an
electric effect on the country; and now on
Thursday they allowed the Sharif Brothers to
return as and when they want to and forbade the
executive from putting any obstacles. Other High
Courts and the judges have also become
independent and strong.
One way or another, both the PPP's top leader
Benazir and PML-N's chief Nawaz Sharif would soon
be back in Pakistan. The government is
threatening to arrest Sharif, though. Political
opinions will thus become radical some more. The
legal fraternity has not spoken so far over this
re-election. The fact is that, given the public
opinion and strong judiciary, the Musharraf
regime's options have rapidly narrowed. His
programme of current assemblies re-electing him
now looks fanciful. He may not be able to get
away with it. There may be no way out except,
theoretically, by imposing a tough state of
emergency or a brutal martial law.
But who can do it? If Ayub Khan could not impose
a partial martial law in 1969 and Yahya Khan
balked, what likelihood is there that Musharraf
can take the drastic measure to save his own
rule. Others in the regime may be hollow men but
they are not dummies. There may be no way to save
this discredited regime. Of course, it has an
honourable option: Musharraf should realise when
and where to stop. He should call a
representative conference of political leaders
and other eminent persons and tell them: "Ladies
and Gentlemen, I have come to the end of my
tether; I shall now go home and play golf. You
have a few days to find a formula for the future
of this state. Go ahead." But can it be all that
simple? Not merely that. Besides, Musharraf, a
particular general, is not the issue. The main
issue is the army-domination of the polity. Who,
or how, is going to clean up its Augean stables?
_____
[3]
(i)
Himal - South Asian
August 2007
A TRYST WITH NEPALI DESTINY
Everyone agrees on the importance of holding
Nepal's Constituent Assembly elections on 22
November, and it's beginning to look like we'll
get there.
by Kanak Mani Dixit
In the last year, seminars and conferences in
Kathmandu have begun to include categories of
people that would never have been there a few
years ago. This photograph of a meeting on the
challenges to the Constituent Assembly elections,
held in mid-July, brought together confident,
demanding activists representing a multitude of
regions, faiths, ethnicities, languages, castes,
ideologies and classes. This hall is what the
Constituent Assembly will look like, said one
observer.
There is a unique experiment in
nation-state-building underway in a corner of
Southasia, where a people and a country enjoy a
chance given them to redefine state-society
relations. While the dangers of failure do loom,
there are also immense opportunities at hand: to
create a polity that responds to the demands of
pluralism and democracy, while also providing
social inclusion amidst a demographically
ultra-diverse population, where essentially
everyone is a minority. The people of Nepal today
have the opportunity to learn from both other
Southasian experiences and those of the rest of
the world, as they put behind them ten years of
insurgency and a history of exploitation and
Kathmandu Valley centralism. But most
importantly, in drafting a new constitution -
elections to a Constituent Assembly will be held
on 22 November - they are being given the chance
to learn from their own half-century of
modern-day experience, accumulated since Nepal
opened itself to the world with the end of the
Rana oligarchy.
It is a privilege to be a Nepali at this hour: to
be able to see and to give one's input in the
fashioning of a political system that provides
space simultaneously for national and
communitarian identities; and on that basis, to
evolve a pluralistic democracy, which brings
political stability and an economic boost at long
last to the entire populace in mountain, hill and
plain. Nepal, in reality the oldest country of
Southasia, achieved democracy only in 1990, but
is only now going about the process of 'nation
building'. That process must move the people
quickly from self-awareness to articulation,
activism and then to the act of drafting
constitutional text. There is no way around the
compressed timeframe, as there are dangers of
mayhem, anarchy, foreign interference and
inter-community strife if the current momentum is
lost.
The eight parties in government, including the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), have now
agreed on mixed-format elections. These will
subsequently provide 240 seats for candidates
competing in as many constituencies, and another
240 seats for the proportional ballot, where
parties will have to fill the seats they win in
accordance with the percentage of communities in
the population, attributing proportional numbers
to Janajati hill-ethnic groups, Madhesi
plainspeople, Dalits, people from the neglected
far west and others. Devised by a task force
within the interim parliament, this mixed ballot
system is a unique compromise between the demands
of parliamentary governance and those of
participation in the framing of a new
constitution; between political ideology and
identity politics; between the political parties
at the helm and groups claiming to better
represent the diverse communities.
There are many who believe that, for this
election to a body that would formulate a
constitution, the 'full proportional' formula
should have been applied - to provide a totally
inclusive assembly representing all of the
country's population groups. Most have
nonetheless come to accept the mixed formula as a
fait accompli, while not just a few believe that
it is just right for Nepal. Given the dangers of
postponing the November elections, the mood is to
grasp the achievements already at hand and to
lobby for more during the Constituent Assembly
debates.
Few are thinking of just how the Constituent
Assembly is going to function, as all attention
is currently focused on actually getting to 22
November. Expected to take up to two years after
November, the Assembly will provide an
opportunity for the articulation of demands by
myriad communities and identities, demands that
will mostly be aired for the first time and have
not been tested against each other. Among other
things, the Assembly will ultimately decide on
whether to keep a constitutional kingship (unless
Gyanendra the Incumbent makes a foolish move,
given which the existing interim parliament is
empowered to abolish the institution altogether);
what kind of affirmative action can be applied in
a country full of deprived minorities; which type
of federal system can best incorporate identity
demands, while maintaining inter-community
relationships and economic viability; the issue
of language policy; whether Nepal requires a
standing army at all; what kind of welfare state
the country will be, and so on. But that is for
later. What is required right now is to address
the immediate demand of proper representation in
the polls; other hurdles may be tackled further
along on the way to the elections.
Roadblocks
Besides the all-important factor of lawlessness
countrywide and the failure of state
administration, the biggest challenge on the road
to the Constituent Assembly elections is the
buy-in of Janajati groups and the Madhesi
community to the mixed electoral system. While
more disenfranchised than even these communities,
the Dalits of the hills and plains have greater
justification for insisting on a proportional
system; but their ability to organise and agitate
has been stymied for various reasons.
The mixed electoral system - of direct and
proportional ballots - now seems to be a
necessity for several reasons. First and
foremost, the political parties and the interim
parliament in control of the polity have already
decided on it. Some Janajati and Madhesi
activists lobbying for a full-proportional system
insist that it is "Better to have no elections
than a flawed election." However, the dangers of
a failed election loom so large that most seem
willing to compromise in favour of a mixed system
as a bird in hand, with the hope for getting the
two in the Constituent Assembly bush. Everyone
other than the incorrigible rejectionists among
the Janajatis and Madhesis can be brought on
board through the granting of sunischita-ta,
whereby the eight parties provide guarantees
rather than mere assurances that the Janajati
groups will have at least one representative each
on the official roster of nationalities present
in the Constituent Assembly, and that the Madhesi
plains people will be represented in proportion
to their 33.2 percent presence in the population.
The hazard of November passing without the polls
is severe. The earlier deadline for elections
this past June was allowed to lapse, but that did
not create an insurmountable problem because the
public understood the date to have been
impossible in any case. However, the November
tryst with the ballot box is regarded as
make-or-break by the Nepali people and the
international community alike. Both Girija Prasad
Koirala's interim coalition government and the
self-appointed interim parliament (which
superseded the earlier elected House in order to
rope in the Maoists), having failed to make the
June date as mandated by the interim
constitution, are actually functioning within a
grace period over the monsoon and the autumn of
2007. Inability to hold elections in November
would take away the fig leaf of legitimacy from
the government and interim parliament alike, at
which point the country would enter a freefall.
The likely scenario of what would then happen
runs thus. While the country presently lacks real
governance, Nepal would enter a period of utter
chaos, at which point the public would be ready
to accept any entity that could assure a state
administration. In the search for stability, the
international community, including India, would
support an army-backed civilian government - and,
judging from past experience during the royal
autocracy, there would be enough Nepali
politicians and parties willing to submit
themselves to the ignominy of being a part. What
would result is a significant loss of the
people's sovereignty, both internally (to the
military) and externally (to India and the larger
world). The hopes manifested in the upsurge of
the People's Movement of April 2006 would be
dashed.
Once is not enough: Durga Thapa became an icon of
the 1990 People's Movement through this
well-known picture by Min Ratna Bajracharya.
Bajracharya shot Thapa again on the streets of
Kathmandu during the April 2006 uprising.
The generals of the Nepal Army itself, as the
allies of a king defeated by the People's
Movement, would be savouring the prospect of a
comeback, riding on the hobbled horse of a failed
state. The goal must be to give the generals no
such satisfaction. As with Gyanendra (as yet the
king), at the time of writing the Nepal Army does
not actually have the ability to create
roadblocks to the Constituent Assembly. The eight
parties remain in command, though their unity at
times appears to fray, and as long as they stand
together, the generals will be kept at bay even
as the poll date nears. The Nepal Army used to
provide the primary logistics and security during
general elections past. Though bloated in size to
a lakh soldiers, it will have no function in
November but to watch from the barracks, which is
indeed its comeuppance.
As for Gyanendra, the man remains a potent danger
and a rallying point for anarchists, royalists
and ultra-conservatives alike, who would prefer a
reversal from the course towards peace and
democracy. He could decide to open his coffers to
fund Hindu extremists, royalists and other
disgruntled elements, or to infiltrate existing
movements, to rock the society and obviate
elections.
Fifteen months after his ignominious retreat in
the face of people power, Gyanendra has yet to
see a reversal of his monarchy's fortunes,
however. The Maoists, who need to distract their
followers' attention from the abandonment of the
'people's war', have been clamouring publicly for
the immediate creation of a republican state.
This, coupled with the thick residue of suspicion
for his autocratic antecedents and his continuing
unwillingness to sit still (seen, for instance,
in the attempt to organise a three-day bash for
his birthday in early July), Gyanendra's kingship
is currently lower in the water than it was even
a year ago - and is sinking fast.
In terms of getting to the November polls, more
critical than fanciful royal hopes of a comeback,
or even the army's mindset, are the issues of
internal security and voter education. The
inability to ensure law and order and the absence
of state administration have been the biggest
failures of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala
and his Home Minister, Krishna Prasad Sitaula
over the past year. The monsoon is generally the
period when the agitations of the spring level
off in Nepal, however, and the hope now is that
the government will take this hoped-for lull to
motivate the police force and district
administrations, creating conditions for free and
fair elections to be held in a country just
emerging from the violence of a ten-year internal
conflict.
The challenge of ballot education, meanwhile, is
said to be singular - voters are asked to vote
twice, once for a candidate and once for a party.
That in itself would not be beyond the ken of the
average voter, but the issues in the election
campaign will be novel - the federal structure,
affirmative action, the role of the military, the
place of a transforming rebel party, and so on.
While the National Election Commission and scores
of NGOs are likely to attend to the needs of the
voters in the months ahead, nothing educates
better than political parties getting active in
campaign. In Nepal, the parties now need to focus
on reaching directly to the grassroots, and must
not wait for the police posts to get there first.
They have been very late in doing this, the
representatives having become remote from their
constituencies over the decade of Maoist
insurgency, when it was next to impossible to
visit the villages. Lately, the party leaders
have at least started to arrive in the district
headquarters - Nepal has 75 - but it is crucial
that they now undertake sustained campaigns in
the hinterland.
A people's wish
One reason that elections are more than likely to
go forward in November is simply that influential
India wants them so bad. New Delhi policymakers
see the Constituent Assembly polls as the only
way for Nepal to achieve political stability,
which New Delhi wants for a variety of reasons,
not the least of which is for the opportunity to
tap into Nepal's vast hydropower potential,
besides the benefit of having a secure neighbour
for Uttar Pradesh and Bihar across the open
international border. The rest of the
international community, long involved in Nepal
as development partners and having relatively
little geopolitical stake, also seeks stability
as a means of promoting progress in a country in
such a frustrating situation - full of
possibilities, but so sadly unable to fulfil them.
Within Nepal, all of the mainstream political
forces want elections. Koirala's Nepali Congress
party is expected to do comparatively poorly,
particularly for having lost its Tarai vote-bank
to the Madhes agitation. While this might worry
the ailing prime minister, he is too keen on
leaving a legacy through the Constituent Assembly
not to want the polls to go forward - holding the
elections would cap his success in bringing the
Maoists in from the cold and pushing back the
royal ambitions of Gyanendra. The mainstream
Communist Party of Nepal (United
Marxist-Leninist), or CPN (UML), is also keen on
the November elections because its internal
surveys predict a good harvest.
And what of the Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist)? Most analysts predict a poor showing
for the Maoists in the first-past-the-post
ballots, mainly because the organisational
political base of the transforming rebel party is
as yet weak, such that even its most towering
leaders are expected to have a hard time winning
seats by themselves. However, the Maoists are
expecting to make up some of this shortfall by
attaining numbers in the proportional half of the
elections - tapping into the underclass vote
throughout the country, which will cumulatively
add up to what will hopefully be a respectable
sum. But this will undoubtedly still fall far
short of the strength the Maoists currently enjoy
in the interim parliament, which is at par with
that of the Nepali Congress and the mainstream
CPN (UML).
As such, it is natural for the more doctrinal
among the Maoists to shy away from the possible
ignominy of defeat, after its past rhetoric of
'carrying the country', which had quite a few
foreign observers believing. Fortunately, the
hold of the political-minded Maoist leadership,
led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Chairman
Prachanda), seems to indicate that the CPN
(Maoist) would opt for long-term growth as a
political party, rather than risk being an
international pariah for playing the role of
spoilsport. Even if the Maoist leadership is
willing, however, there are dangers that the
polls could still get derailed by its inability
to handle its internal contradictions and the
waywardness of its cadres, including in the Young
Communist League. And there is always the
alarming possibility that if they do poorly at
the ballot, the Maoists will reject the results
and put the blame on national and international
conspiracies.
The Tarai violence and criminalisation could also
play a role in thwarting attempts to make the
November date. The Madhesi and Janajati groups
alike could decide that they have not received
the necessary guarantees from the political
parties for proper representation of their flock
in the election roster.
And yet, for all of these roadblocks and
imponderables, the people's desire for stability
in an inclusive 'new Nepal' is expected to see
through the elections - in addition to the
activities of an able National Election
Commission and the firm backing of India and the
larger international community. Meanwhile, how
free and fair the elections are will have to be
seen against the prism of the three general
elections held in 1991, 1994 and 1999, and some
allowances must be made for a country emerging
from a long decade of conflict and intimidation.
Besides, the expected turnout of a little under
70 percent should allow for an extra margin of
forbearance when it comes to evaluating the
elections. All in all, it will be a matter of
conducting polls of enough credibility that the
results will not be rejected by the people of
Nepal.
The people see the upcoming elections as part of
the as-yet incomplete peace process, and so from
villages to towns to cities, in violence-prone
regions and those at relative calm, the
apariharyata (necessity) of the elections is seen
side by side with the chunauti (challenges) of
holding it. The citizen does not have to be a
jurist to recognise that the Constituent Assembly
polls are an attempt to re-legitimise governance
in Nepal - an attempt to provide
punah-baidhanikata, or full legality - through
the imprimatur of the ballot box. This is why the
people of Nepal want a Constituent Assembly, to
acquire a fully legitimate government in the
place of today's kaam-chalau (literally, make-do)
regime, backed by an unelected parliament. As far
as the Madhesi and Janajati activists are
concerned, they say they want elections much more
than do the nervous politicians - who fear the
unknown - and that their enthusiasm will be at
100 percent once they get the guarantees of
representation they seek.
Then there is the need for international election
observation. The world community must reward the
Nepali people for their continuing perseverance
and patience, so long after the People's Movement
of April 2006, by flooding the country with
election observers in the run-up to and during
the elections. Indeed, the onomatopoetic Nepali
word chyapchyapti describes well what is needed
come November - election observers everywhere,
behind every bush.
Fortunately, the task of monitoring the
arms-management process prior to the elections -
as well as the monitoring of the preparations for
and holding of elections - has been tasked to the
United Nations Mission in Nepal, a well-endowed
team of 1000, including some 300 international
staff. The Nepali public is looking forward to
the international standards that the UN team will
bring to its work, in the hope that the
waywardness of the nervous Maoists ranks will be
kept in check even as the state administration is
held up to some standards, and the Nepal Army
locked within the barracks.
Obstacles everywhere: a roadblock on the Mahendra Highway, January 2007
Beyond 22 November
Under the arrangements that have been made, the
Constituent Assembly will not only write the new
Constitution, but will also function as a
parliament, to choose the government that will
rule the country while the Constitution of Nepal
is being drafted. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the political parties are already
in campaign mode to maximise their showing in the
Assembly, in order to form a government. Given
the instability and polarisation extant in the
country as it prepares for elections, and to
provide stability within the Constituent
Assembly, three formulae are currently important
for a campaign process that is not so acrimonious
that it defeats its purpose.
First, in order to ensure that the top ranks,
including that of the Maoists, makes it to the
Assembly, it would be advisable for the political
parties to come to an arrangement among
themselves whereby a handful of leaders of the
ruling alliance would win without too much
difficulty. This kind of arrangement, while it
may be considered undemocratic at other times, is
requried to moderate the level of hostilities
during the campaign phase between now and
November. There is a need to minimise the threats
to the holding of the elections, and this would
be one way. With their berth in the Assembly
secure, the top leaders would also hopefully be
able to campaign more magnanimously for the
transformative polls than they would on
competitive terrain.
Second, there should be an all-party unity
government for the duration of the Constituent
Assembly, as well as leading up to the first
general elections. The relative stability of such
a unity government would also allow the Assembly
to concentrate on the task of writing a
constitution. The guarantee of such a cooperative
government would also, once again, lower the
level of animosity and competition in the months
ahead. This would also go along with the spirit
of the interim constitution, which calls for a
government by consensus during the Assembly,
which in turn would make it possible to adopt the
draft constitution unanimously.
Third, there is the view that it would make sense
for the political parties to agree on a set of
non-binding guiding principles before the
elections, so as to ensure a general agreement on
some basic tenets - such as commitment to
political pluralism, human rights, social
security, accountability for past atrocities, and
inclusion in governance. At a time when the
Maoists still prefer to talk in terms of
'multi-party competition' rather than democracy
and pluralism, there are many who believe that
these ideals must be written in stone before the
elections, as basic values that would
automatically be included in the new
constitution. Many also want such a set of
principles to include reference to a republican
state - this would allow the Maoists to claim
victory and puncture any remaining royalist
ambitions.
When the estimated 17.5 million voters in Nepal
go to the polling booths on 22 November, they
will be confronted with two ballot sheets, and
two ballot boxes of translucent plastic. On one
ballot, they will select their choice candidate
for their constituency. On the other, they will
select the party they prefer. Even if the mixed
system is not perfect, there will be a whole new
political class that will emerge on the national
landscape. From the 240 proportional seats will
come representatives
according to their percentage in the population;
there will be Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits and
others, and fifty percent of all of these will be
women. The task of civil-society activists in the
days ahead will be to lobby and pressurise the
political parties, such that even the 240 seats
for direct elections are distributed in a way
that reflects the principles of inclusion and
proportion in population.
Once in the Constituent Assembly, those who get
elected will be representatives who - through
their skills in oration, grasp of principles and
issues, ability to lobby, and sheer charisma -
will wrest the leadership of their respective
parties. In the last year, seminars and
conferences in Kathmandu have begun to include
categories of people that would never have been
there a couple of years ago. Already, the rainbow
spectrum is discernable in the television talk
shows, the discussion programmes and the line-up
of orators at mass rallies. The Constituent
Assembly will consolidate this trend, and it will
work towards making a country and polity that is
democratic and stable. Then, at long last, the
people of Nepal will be able to reap the benefits
that their country had long promised but had been
unable, in the absence of sustained democracy, to
deliver.
What the massive People's Movement of April 2006
demanded was peace, pluralism and inclusion, for
the sake of political stability and economic
progress, and the Constituent Assembly is how we
will get there. What will result, nearly 240
years after the founding of the country, will be
a polity that is stable and increasingly
prosperous, in which the people get to reap the
rewards of what their geography is capable of
providing. Nepal will at long last - centuries
late - be a country from which people will not
have to migrate in search of menial labour. It
will be a country that will do Southasia proud.
o o o
(ii)
Nepali Times
Issue #363 (24 August 07 - 30 August 07)
Hindu righteousness
NOT THIS KING, BUT INDIA'S RELIGIOUS RIGHT STILL WANTS THE MONARCHY
India's Hindu right which has been traditionally
sympathetic to the monarchy and opposed to Nepal
going secular is split about Nepal policy.
There are differences in approach between the
Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). about the political
approach to Nepal. The RSS is reassessing its
past policy on the future of the monarchy and say
putting all their eggs in the royal basket was
not a wise move. Besides being a Hindu king, they
believed only the king could fight the Maoists.
Now, senior RSS leaders admit the erosion of the
king's credibility in Nepal has damaged them as
well.
We depended on proximity with the king for our
influence, now with the king gone we have lost
our strength on the ground," one senior RSS
leader told us.
Despite this, the RSS would like the institution
of monarchy to remain. While more radical groups
in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad still hope for an
active monarchy, most in the Hindu right in India
know that the days of an assertive king are gone.
"We would be quite happy if the institution
remains, it is a symbol of unity and is the only
Hindu monarchy in the world. We know Gyanendra
and Paras are unacceptable but then the grandson
formula could work," says an RSS leader who has
tracked Nepal for decades.
BJP leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, have
said they will not actively push for retention of
monarchy, and will decide on their stance based
on the public mood in Nepal. The rightwing in
India has kept the channels of communication open
with king Gyanendra who has met three
intermediaries in the past few months: a former
minister from Tamil Nadu close to the RSS, a
journalist with a Delhi-based pro-BJP paper, and
a former intelligence official.
All have returned with the impression that the
king is relatively calm but at a loss about what
steps to take. It appears he has been advised
that a four month retreat, possibly a pilgrimage
to India, would be in his interest as this would
take the sting off criticism that he is
obstructing elections.
More than saving the monarchy, the RSS wants to
contain and curb Maoist influence and begin a
political campaign in favour of reverting to a
Hindu state. It is on these two issues they are
willing to invest energy and capital, not on the
monarchy.
Utterly convinced of Maoist insincerity, the
Indian right is, contrary to popular perception,
keen on constituent assembly elections. The RSS
is convinced that the Maoists would fare
miserably and see the polls as the right way to
expose them. They believe that Maoists are keen
on derailing polls and using the ensuing
uncertainty to organise violent street agitations.
Like many others in India, the RSS was happy with
the madhesi movement because it eroded Maoist
support along the border. On the ground,
especially in Raxaul and Gorakhpur, some RSS
activists provided support (political,
logistical, and possibly, limited financial help)
during the movement through the Seema Jagaran
Manch, a front organisation. Upendra Yadav has
met senior BJP leaders in Delhi through RSS
interlocutors.
But this support is limited and they neither have
the will nor capacity to drive the movement. "We
realise there is limited benefit for us out of
the madhesi agitation. There is a crisis of
leadership.
Upendra Yadav is playing too many games with too
many people and can't be trusted. No madhesi
group is willing to boldly say they are for a
Hindu state. "What's in it for us?" asks an RSS
activist.
The RSS' opponents tend to over-estimate its
strength, and even the RSS leaders know their
capacity to influence domestic politics in Nepal
is limited. But its leaders are aware there is
strong sentiment in Nepal opposed to secularism.
For now, the Hindu right in India is waiting for
a strong anti-Maoist leader with a popular base
who can publicly declare he is for a Hindu rastra.
(Prashant Jha in New Delhi)
_____
[4]
The Asian Age
August 29, 2007
OUR TRYST WITH SECULARISM
Between The Lines / Kuldip Nayar
One feels stumped when one finds that Muslim
fundamentalists are taking a leaf out of the BJP
book of hatred and hostility. Their number is
small. But when they are able to issue fatwas
(cheaper by the dozen these days) in favour of
their wrong actions, they cause serious concern.
The recent instance is that of the attack on
Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasreen in
Hyderabad. Members of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul
Muslimeen (MIM) who came to her book launch
attacked her. The organisers protected her at the
risk of their own life. Then the MIM issued a
fatwa in no time at all, as if it was ready
beforehand.
The best of works are those that challenge
religion and its holistic attitude. What the MIM
members did - physically attacking Taslima -
smacks of fascism. One need not agree with the
author, but she must have her right to say what
she wants to say. This is what differentiates a
democratic set-up from a theocratic or
dictatorial state. What the MIM members exhibited
was deep-rooted religious prejudice. I hope this
virus does not spread. Liberals from both
communities need to work on such elements and
check them.
Still, criticising any religion is not in order,
because its followers feel hurt. But one cannot
stop writers from exercising their freedom of
expression. So I was sorry to watch on television
Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad
and Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Salman Khurshid
advocating that authors should avoid writing on
religion. This amounts to defending the MIM. Both
are top leaders. They should have joined issue
with the fundamentalists.
Extremists among Hindus and Muslims have failed
to realise that our tryst with destiny is to
build a secular state. This is not dependent on
whether Pakistan is Islamic or not. The goal of
the freedom struggle was to build a secular
state. And that was what Jawaharlal Nehru did. So
I feel disappointed that even after 60 years of
independence we have not sorted out the
Hindu-Muslim question. I thought that, after
independence, the pluralism which the British had
meticulously destroyed would reassert itself. It
is clear that this has not taken place. The
nation must introspect to find out why.
One reason is that the guilty get away without
any punishment. Leaders like L.K. Advani do not
help when they say that the case against the
rioters in Mumbai should not be reopened. If the
accused in the Mumbai blasts could be tried and
punished even after 15 years, why not those who
killed scores of Muslims in the wake of the Babri
Masjid demolition in December 1992? The Mumbai
bomb blasts of 1993, as the Justice B.N.
Srikrishna Inquiry Commission put it, were a
"cause and effect" occurrence.
The Shiv Sena has threatened to organise a "Hindu
backlash" if the government reopens the rioting
cases. The then chief minister, Manohar Joshi has
warned that communal amity in Maharashtra will be
destroyed if the past is revived. But what does
one do when out of 13,000 cases, only 800-odd are
taken up? Obviously, the others were not pursued
because of communal considerations. But if things
are left as they are, the government will be seen
coddling the communal elements.
The Sena's hysterical outcry is an admission of
guilt, because the Srikrishna Commission has held
it guilty. The report, now nine years old, has
said, "There is no doubt the Shiv Sena and Shiv
Sainiks took the lead in organising (the) attack
on Muslims and their properties under the
guidance of several bodies of the Shiv Sena."
Justice Srikrishna has specifically mentioned
Sena chief Bal Thackeray "who, like a veteran
general, commanded the loyal Shiv Sainiks to
retaliate by organising attacks against Muslims."
When the report was published, the Sena-BJP
combine was ruling Maharashtra and Atal Behari
Vajpayee was leading the BJP coalition at the
Centre. Both governments rejected the report,
with the Sena characterising it as "pro-Muslim."
Today, the Congress rules Maharashtra as also the
Centre. Both have been in power for three odd
years. The question is, why didn't they, in spite
of knowing about BJP inaction, move against the
politicians and police officials indicted in the
report?
Even now, the action taken is cursory in nature
because of the Sena's threats. The Mumbai police
has established a cell to re-examine the cases
that have been closed. But when the police itself
is involved, how can a fair probe be possible? By
dragging their feet, the Maharashtra and the
Central governments have proved that there is no
rule of law, no Constitutional right of equal
citizenship.
The guilty, whatever be their religion, have to
be punished. However wayward India's democratic
system, there has to be justice. Instances like
the non-implementation of the Srikrishna report
give the impression that when it comes to taking
action against Muslims, the government is firm,
but when it has to act against Hindus, it is lax.
Unfortunately, this reading is confirmed when one
sees that the recommendations made by various
commissions since independence have seldom been
implemented. Action is still awaited on the
reports on riots at Jabalpur (1961), Ranchi
(1967), Bhiwandi (1970), Jamshedpur (1979),
Meerut (1982) and Bhagalpur (1989). These were
major riots where the inquiry commissions said
that politicians and police officials were
involved. In these reports, Hindu extremists were
found to be the instigators. The police were
blamed in every riot for their connivance. Muslim
fundamentalists, too, were involved in some
cases. But politicians of both communities
remained behind the scenes. None of them got any
punishment. The action against the police and
other officials was a simple departmental inquiry
which ended with a warning, censure or demotion.
Politicians and criminals have got so intertwined
that when it comes to prosecution or punishment,
it depends on political convenience, not legal
advice. Invariably, those who get scot-free are
Hindus.
Take Gujarat. It is a standing shame. No action
has been taken against chief minister Narendra
Modi keeping in mind the political
considerations. Around 20,000 Muslims are still
refugees, with no means of livelihood and with
practically no future. Even the belated action
being taken against those who are responsible for
the massacre is not really moving forward. The
government is doing its best to shield the
politicians and officials who were party to the
pogrom. This seems to have become a prestige
issue for the BJP. Or is Gujarat a dress
rehearsal for the party's hidden agenda?
When organisations like the Shiv Sena, feeding on
hatred, continue to pick on Muslims and when the
MIM MLAs at Hyderabad are not willing to
apologise, it is clear that the muck of religion
has thickly coated our society. It cannot be
cleaned easily. The minimum that the government
can do is to see that the political parties do
not append the name of religion to their outfits.
_____
[5]
IN DEFENSE OF PLURALISM
by Ram Puniyani
A debate has been raging in the society about
secularists being anti Hindu. Numerous examples
are cited, their stance on the culprits of Godhra
train burning, culprits of Bane family burning in
Radhabai chawl, and to cap it all their
insensivity to the plight of Kashmiri Pundits and
security of Hindus in Kashmir. What is the truth?
Why the perception sustains in this direction,
not only by RSS combine communalists but in
milder form by other sections of society also.
To begin with let's take these glaring examples,
which have been listed above. The Radhabai Chawl
case was well investigated by the state and the
case went on in the courts for long when the
alleged
culprits were released as the courts found that
there is no ground to punish them. Incidentally
the tragic burning of this family was used as the
pretext to launch the second phase of violence in
Mumbai. Even before the investigations were
undertaken, it was popularized that Muslims have
done it and that Hindus should become aggressive
now.
This call was given by those who were bent to
start the riots. The 'real estate' angle of the
thing has been pointed out by observers but
irrespective of that the guilty must be punished
has been the stance taken by those struggling to
preserve the civic liberties. About Godhra, while
the Bannerjee commission report doubts 'Modi
theory' that ISI in collusion with local Muslims
have done it, large number of local Muslims,
including a respectable Imam are behind the bars
as the accused in this crime. And surely those of
them who have aided in this crime must be
punished as per the law. The general trend of the
state has been to take serious action in cases
where victims are Hindus. If the state is already
on the job, what more does one want? That's
generally the demand of civil liberties group,
'punish the guilty-protect the innocent',
anything wrong with that?
But surely the case of Kashmiri Pundits is
different. The security of Hindus, the Kashmiri
Pundits emigration from the valley is not in the
purview of communal issue. They are more akin to
the way the killings of Hindi speaking people by
ULFA in Assam. Kashmir is basically an ethnic
issue, caught in the cross fire of Indo Pakistani
tensions. The added factor of it being located in
the strategic area has added to the problem. The
communalization of Kashmir issue by Al Qaeda
infiltrators in the decade of late 80s is to be
distinguished from the struggle for autonomy by
the Kashmiri militants. While one strongly
defends the rights of Kashmiri Pundits living in
Jammu or other parts of the country as refugees,
one should not communalize the issue.
Kashmir, which acceded to India with the
initiative of Sheikh Abdullah, was promised
autonomy, which was the condition of accession.
Since there were attempts to undermine the
autonomy promised to Kashmir, the problem began.
This was totally mishandled by state, with US and
Pakistan also trying to dominate in the area for
strategic advantages. Kashmiris in general and
Pundits in particular have been the victims of
Kashmir imbroglio.
Irrespective of the complexity of the problem,
the nature of long term solution, dialogue with
Pakistan, the correct nod from US and the winning
over the hearts and minds of people of Kashmir
are a must to solve the issue. Some symptoms of
improvement in the situation in Kashmir, due to
the opening of dialogue with militants are
already visible with decline in the militancy
during last three years. To trivialize it as a
communal issue is the travesty of truth.
Unfortunately the central governments, including
the six year rule of NDA has not done anything to
sooth the travails of those living in refugee
camps, but surely the liberal voices stand for
the peaceful solution of Kashmir through the
process of dialogue. This is a prerequisite for
peaceful existence of Hindus, and the return of
Pundits to the valley. Democrats have been
calling for the long term and the short term
measures in both these directions.
Still why this perception lingers on. There are
shades of communalists, and even some liberal
sounding intellectuals do take the cudgels
against the secular activists. Some lessons from
freedom movement may help us understand it
better. When Indian National Congress was formed,
the Muslims communalists advised Muslims to keep
aloof from it as it is mainly a Hindu body, and
Hindu communalists cried hoarse that it is
appeasing Muslims by taking them in the Congress
fold, and that Congress is against the interests
of Hindus.
This argument was taken to its logical extreme,
when Gandhi was criticized by both the variety of
communalists. It should be recalled that the
landed aristocracy and Kings and Nawabs were the
fountain head of these communal streams to begin
with. In the similar vein one can add that the
Muslim communalists were also against the likes
of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar
Khan.
Later Gandhi, who came to embody the secular
values to the core, was the recipient of the
wrath of both these groups. And the cause of his
assassination lies in the concocted perception
that he is against the interests of Hindus. Very
similar to the way present critics of secularism
are doing. Gandhi's secular policies were labeled
as anti Hindu. This perception of Gandhis
politics was the cause for Nathuram Godse to pump
in three bullets in to the chest of Mahatma.
Godse was the trained prachrak (preacher) of RSS,
who later joined Hindu Mahsabha, and was editor
of a newspaper titled, Agrani; subtitled Hindu
Rashtra. In his statement in the court, that
Gandhi was pursuing
anti Hindu policies was the fulcrum of argument.
It seems in a communalized atmosphere to talk
about the defense of weaker communities or to
take a human approach to the issues is generally
seen through the colored glasses of religious
identity, and secular voice is mocked at being
anti Hindu.
______
[6]
[Posted below is a letter from Tenzing Sonam the
well known Tibetan film maker and writer based in
New Delhi. A number of SACW subscribers have
requested that the below letter be publicised in
public interest and in the hope that India's most
progressive and forward looking newspaper 'The
Hindu' will take note.-SACW ]
o o o
Date: 16-Jul-2007 17:04
Subject: The Politics Of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check, July 5, 2007
Dear Friends -
Many of you will have read the editorial, "The
Politics of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check, 5 July,
2007", in The Hindu newspaper, written by its
editor, N Ram. On 10 July, I sent him a letter
rebutting some of his more outrageous comments.
Having received no response from him, I sent him
another letter on 13 July. Unfortunately, it
appears that Mr Ram does not deem it necessary to
extend even the courtesy of an acknowledgment
letter, let alone a forum for any debate on this
issue. Although Mr Ram's wide-eyed admiration for
the People's Republic of China is
well-documented, it is still a matter of alarm
that he should continue to so blatantly use the
pages of The Hindu as a mouthpiece to trumpet
Chinese interests. I would be grateful if you
could circulate this message as widely as
possible.
Mr Ram's editorial can be read
at: http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/05/stories/2007070559671300.htm
Sincerely,
Tenzing Sonam
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ritu and Tenzing < ritu10zing at gmail.com>
Date: July 13, 2007 4:45:59 PM BDT
To: letters at thehindu.co.in
Subject: Fwd: The Politics Of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check, July 5, 2007
Mr N Ram
Editor, The Hindu
Dear Sir,
I sent you the attached email on 10 July. I would
be grateful if you could let me know whether you
intend to run it or not, and if not, what the
reason might be.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Tenzing Sonam
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ritu and Tenzing
Date: July 10, 2007 10:52:14 AM BDT
To: letters at thehindu.co.in
Subject: The Politics Of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check, July 5, 2007
To
Mr N Ram
Editor, The Hindu newspaper
10 July 2007
Dear Sir,
Your report on the current situation in Tibet :
The Politics Of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check, July
5, 2007, contains not only misrepresentations of
fact but is so one-sided as to come across as
pure propaganda on behalf of the Chinese
government.
You begin by making the crude comparison of the
Dalai Lama's international popularity as a
religious leader to Ayatollah Khomenei, thereby
signalling your intentions to demonise him. You
then rail against what you describe as "his
alignment with colonial interests and western
powers...". This critique may be set against the
fact that China's vast holding of US Treasury
bonds is literally keeping the imperial economy
afloat. We may well ask who is more aligned with
western powers - the Chinese government or the
Dalai Lama?
You claim that, "while the Tibetan Buddhist
doctrine of reincarnation belongs to the
mystical-religious realm and asks a lot from 21st
century believers, the Dalai Lama's approach even
to rebirth is decidedly ideological-political."
However, you also say that the Chinese government
continues to follow "centuries-old custom and
tradition that empower it to recognise and
appoint both the Dalai and the Panchen Lama." The
historical accuracy of this statement is
debatable but it begs the question, why does an
avowedly atheistic Communist Party find it
necessary to involve itself in the
"mystical-religious realm" in the 21 st century?
You contend that China's constitution "guarantees
religious freedom to all citizens and regional
autonomy to ethnic minorities in extensive parts
of a giant country." Is it really enough for a
journalist to cite the existence of a law to
prove that all is as it should be? Surely you are
aware of the ongoing repression of religious
freedom in Tibet? Today, it is a crime in Tibet
to be found in possession of the Dalai Lama's
picture. Amnesty International's 2006 China
report stated that in Tibet, "freedom of
religion, expression and association continued to
be severely restricted and arbitrary arrests and
unfair trials continued." On the fate of groups
such as Falun Gong, even the avowedly left-wing
journal, CounterPunch, has made grave allegations
against the Chinese government in an article on
October 1-15, 2006.
You mention "China's unprecedented economic
growth" and "inclusive and nuanced
socio-political and cultural policies" as markers
of its "exceptional patience" in dealing with the
Tibet issue. This glowing picture is at odds with
the reality of a country where the growing
division between the rich and the poor saw no
less than 23,000 incidents of rural and urban
unrest in 2006, many of which were quelled by
force.
Even more beguiling is your continued faith in
the Communist Party of China's Marxist
credentials - "The law... defines national
regional autonomy as the basic political system
of the Communist Party of China to solve the
country's ethnic issues using Marxism-Leninism".
That the CPC has now launched a form of 'leninist
capitalism' untrammeled by democratic freedoms or
trade union rights is fairly well-known. The only
ideology guiding China's present rulers is that
of absolute power at any cost. Would any Chinese
newspaper publish a defence of India's
sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh in the manner
in which The Hindu sees fit to blindly defend the
Chinese line on Tibet? Or do you have a different
measure for basic democratic freedoms in
different countries? At the very least, one
expects a debate on these matters in your
columns, rather than blatant partisanship.
By consigning Tibet's fate so unambiguously to
the implied benevolence of its Chinese overlords,
you seem to forget that India has a stake in this
matter. You dismiss the Dalai Lama's claim that
Tibet had "been a strategic 'buffer state' in the
heart of Asia guaranteeing the region's
stability" for centuries. Yet, the truth is that
until the People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet
in 1950, India and China had never shared a
common border. Last November, Chinese Ambassador
to India, Mr Sun Yuxi, stated that "the whole of
the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese
territory. And Tawang is only one of the places
in it." Had Tibet not been forcibly deprived of
its sovereignty, such imperious statements would
not have been heard. It is truly unfortunate that
your esteemed newspaper should choose to deprive
its readership of a balanced perspective or even
a democratic debate on the question of Tibet.
Yours sincerely,
Tenzing Sonam
E-302 Som Vihar
New Delhi 110022
o o o
[Related relevant reading]
China Daily
REINCARNATION OF LIVING BUDDHA NEEDS GOV'T APPROVAL
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2007-08-04 08:47
All the reincarnations of living Buddhas of
Tibetan Buddhism must get government approval,
otherwise they are "illegal or invalid," China's
State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA)
said in Beijing Friday.
The SARA has issued a set of regulations on
reincarnation of Tibetan living Buddhas, which
will take effect as of September 1.
"It is an important move to institutionalize
management on reincarnation of living Buddhas,"
the SARA said in a statement issued Friday.
The regulations require that a temple which
applies for reincarnation of a living Buddha must
be "legally-registered venues for Tibetan
Buddhism activities and are capable of fostering
and offering proper means of support for the
living Buddha."
All the reincarnation applications must be
submitted to the religious affairs department of
the provincial-level government, the
provincial-level government, SARA, and the State
Council, respectively, for approval in accordance
with the fame and influence of the living Buddhas
in the religious circle, the regulations said.
"The selection of reincarnates must preserve
national unity and solidarity of all ethnic
groups and the selection process cannot be
influenced by any group or individual from
outside the country, " SARA said.
Tibet became an administrative district directly
under the central authorities of the Yuan Dynasty
(1279-1368) in the 13th century. Kublai Khan of
the Yuan Dynasty conferred the title of living
Buddha on Vphag-pa, a religious leader in Tibet
at that time. Since then, people began to call
eminent monks in Tibet living Buddhas.
SARA said the regulations are favor of
guaranteeing normal religious activities of
Tibetan Buddhism and protecting the religious
belief of Tibetan Buddhism followers according to
law.
"The government only administrate religious
affairs related to state and the public interests
and will not interfere in the pure internal
religious affairs," SARA says.
The regulations are composed of 14 articles,
including the principle, conditions, approval
procedures, the duties and responsibilities of
religious groups for reincarnation as well as
punishment for those violating the regulations.
______
[7]
ONLINE PETITION TO PROTEST VIOLENCE AGAINST TASLIMA NASREEN
To: Prime Minister, India; Chief Ministers, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal
We, the undersigned, would like to ask the
UPA (Congress-Left) at the Centre and the
Congress Government of Andhra Pradesh how they
are performing their secular democratic
responsibilities, in connection with the shocking
attack on Taslima Nasreen? In Hyderabad, the
State Government's coalition partner MIM
physically attacked Taslima Nasreen at a book
release at the Hyderabad Press Club and its
leader in the Assembly Mohammed Owaisi openly
threatened to kill Taslima if she visited the
city again. In a secular democracy the law of the
land says that any individual or organization
that threatens to kill someone publicly is to be
immediately arrested. Instead the Hyderabad
police registered an FIR against the victim filed
by the threat givers.
We are enraged that in a "communally
harmonious" city like Kolkata the Sahi Imam of
Tipu Sultan Mosque Syed Barkati and Majidullah
Khan Farhad of Majlis Bachao Hyderabad have the
audacity to offer unlimited financial reward to
anyone who kills the writer. Instead of arresting
those who are issuing life-threats on Taslima
Nasreen, the Commissioner of Police Prasun
Mukherjee could comment that the threat was a
result of momentary anger. We strongly condemn
these threats, the irresponsible comments of the
Commissioner of Police, the feigned ignorance of
DC (headquarters) Gyanwant Singh and the absolute
refusal to comment by the chief secretary Amit
Kiran Deb. It is this kind of selective amnesia
of the administration and the thundering silence
of most intellectuals that provide a handle to
the aggressive rise of majoritarian religious
fundamentalism.
We demand a strong punishment for the
fundamentalist religious leaders and an absolute
guarantee for freedom of thought and movement for
Taslima. We also demand a proper governmental
response to why the police remained silent and
inactive in the face of such communal attacks.
In handling the issue of communal violence,
the difference between governments run by parties
claiming to be secular (Congress, Left Front,
UPA) and the openly communal forces (e.g.,
government of Bangladesh) is that while the
latter initiate communal action, the former are
showing a disgraceful lack of willingness to
confront minority communalism.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
The Protest Violence Against Taslima Nasreen
Petition to Prime Minister, India; Chief
Ministers, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal was
created by Maitree and written by Maitreyi
Chatterjee and Mira Roy
o o o
Sign the Petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/Taslima1/petition.html
______
[8] ANNOUNCEMENT:
CNDP, Heinrich Böll Foundation and PEACE
invite you to attend
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDO -US NUCLEAR DEAL
to discuss:
* Strategic - Political Dimensions
* Nuclear Weapons: Implications for
Global and South Asian Disarmament
* Nuclear Energy: Myth and Reality
at Main Auditorium, India International Centre (IIC)
40 Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi - 110003
on 31st August and 1st September, 2007
Conference programme
31.8.2007
Inauguration ( 9.30am 10.30am)
Welcome - Dr. Michael Köberlein
Key-note Speaker - Prof.Jean Dreze
Vote of Thanks - Representative of Peace/ CNDP
Tea Break (10.30 am 10.45 am)
Session 1: ( 10.45 am 1 pm)
The Strategic- Political Dimension of the Deal
Chairman:
Prof. Neera Chandhoke ( India)
Speakers:
Prof. Achin Vanaik (India)
Mr. Andrew Lichterman (USA)
Prof. T, Jayaraman (India)
Mr. Ejaz Haider (Pakistan)
Lunch Break: (1pm 2.15 pm)
Session II: ( 2.15 pm 5pm)
Nuclear Weapons: Implications on Global and South
Asian Disarmament
Chairman:
Mr.C.Rammanohar Reddy (India)
Speakers:
Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit (Nepal)
Mr. Praful Bidwai (India)
Dr. Abdul Hameed Nayyar (Pakistan)
Dr. Oliver Meier (Germany)
01.9.2007
Session III: (10am - 1pm)
Nuclear Energy: Myth and Reality
Chairman:
Prof. Anuradha M. Chenoy (India)
Speakers:
Dr.M.V. Ramana (India)
Ms. Sudha Mahalingam (India)
Dr. Sanghamitra Gadekar (India)
Dr. Felix Matthes (Germany)
Lunch Break: (1 pm 2 pm)
Session IV: Meet the press (2pm 3pm)
Presentation of joint resolution / Press Release
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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