SACW | Sept. 25-26, 2007

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | September 25-26, 2007 
| Dispatch No. 2453 - Year 10 running

[1] Sri Lanka: democracy and the hegemony of the fringe (Jayadeva Uyangoda)
[2] An Indo-Pakistani face-off in funny hats (Henry Chu)
[3] India: No work-no pay for the legislators - A 
Welcome Move (Rajindar Sachar)
[4] India: In Mumbai, one man's meat is indeed 
another man's poison (Amelia Gentleman)
[5] India: Chemical generation: Punjabis are poisoning themselves (Economist)
[6] India - Sri Lanka: Sethuraman Project Controversy:
   (i) Text of Petition - Condemning Communalisation of Sethuraman Project
   (ii) Letter to President, PM, Sonia Gandhi on 
Ram Setu and Sethusamudram Project (S. G. 
Vombatkere)
   (iii) Hindus say don't mess with Rama's Bridge (Praful Bidwai)
   (iv) Septic Politics: Imam Ram and Ram Jehadis
   (v) The Ramar Sethu controversy (Kancha Ilaiah)
[7] Announcements:
- Tribute to Ghalib on 30th September and 7th October 2007 (Karachi)
- Sign the 'Investigate Justice Sabharwal  Petition' to the President of India

______



[1]

Seminar
August 2007

SRI LANKA: DEMOCRACY AND THE HEGEMONY OF THE FRINGE

by Jayadeva Uyangoda

             ACCOMPANYING Sri Lanka's elusive 
quest for a political solution to the ethnic 
conflict is an equally elusive goal: consensus 
among political parties about a broad framework 
of a constitutional settlement to offer regional 
autonomy to the Tamil minority. The two main 
parties, the United National Party (UNP) and Sri 
Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), that have alternately 
ruled Sri Lanka for the past six decades, despite 
a number of attempts to reach such a consensus, 
have at crucial moments backtracked to return to 
what has been described as 'acrimonious 
competition'.

             Let me illustrate this point by three 
concrete examples. In 1995, President Chandrika 
Kumaratunga began a constitutional reform 
initiative to offer an autonomy package to the 
Tamil minority. The package envisaged an 
amendment of the existing constitution, which is 
unitary in nature and permits only a limited 
devolution framework. However, Sri Lanka's 
Constitution has some 'entrenched' clauses, like 
the unitary state clause, which require a 
two-thirds support of Parliament plus the 
people's approval in a referendum. Meanwhile, Sri 
Lanka's electoral system of proportional 
representation has made it near impossible for 
any single ruling party, even with the support of 
small parties, to secure a two-thirds majority in 
parliament. The only way to ensure such a 
majority necessary for a constitutional amendment 
is for the main ruling party - the SLFP or UNP - 
to enter into a consensus agreement with the main 
opposition party, which could be either of the 
two.

             In 1996, a British minister came to 
Colombo to negotiate an agreement between 
President Chandrika Kumaratunga and the Leader of 
the Opposition, Ranil Wickramasinghe, to work 
together on the basis of a 'bi-partisan' 
consensus so that a devolution package could be 
brought into the constitution. It was named after 
Liam Fox, its mentor. The two leaders signed the 
Liam Fox agreement, and then had a meeting at the 
president's office as a symbolic public gesture 
of their new politics of cooperation.

             The next day, when a journalist asked 
the president about this highly publicized 
meeting with her great adversary, she responded 
by choosing an evocatively dismissive colloquial 
Sinhalese expression: 'Yes, the leader of the 
opposition came. There was no dialogue, only a 
monologue. I only spoke. He did not even wag his 
tongue, because his mouth was full of pittu.' 
Pittu is a dish made of rice flour and grated 
coconut. When one eats pittu, one's tongue 
movement is restricted and that explains this 
statement of agrarian wisdom which the president 
used to contemptuously dismiss the meeting that 
others thought symbolised an unprecedented 
political breakthrough! Thus ended a serious 
British initiative to bring together the two main 
Sinhalese political parties into a bi-partisan 
framework of consensus to work towards a 
political solution to the ethic conflict.

             It is ironic that Sri Lanka's quest 
for bi-partisan consensus has an enduring life of 
its own despite, or rather because of, it not 
having materialized. In 2002-2003 the peace 
process initiated by Ranil Wickramasinghe who had 
then become the prime minister, also required a 
UNP-SLFP 'cohabitation' for its success, under 
new circumstances brought about by the 
peculiarity of Sri Lanka's Constitution. When the 
opposition UNP won a parliamentary majority in 
the December 2001 election, it resulted in a 
situation of dual power in which the president 
and the prime minister came from two opposing 
political parties. This created a constitutional 
compulsion for them to work together to ensure 
proper functioning of the government as also to 
take the new peace process with the LTTE forward.

             But from day one the leaders and 
their parties, instead of finding a framework of 
cohabitation, chose the path of confrontation. 
President Kumaratunga gave Prime Minister 
Wickramasinghe only two years in power. In 
October 2003, when the PM was on an official 
visit to the US, Kumaratunga took over three 
major ministries of the Wickramasinghe 
administration including defence and foreign 
affairs, effectively crippling the ability of the 
UNP regime to continue the engagement with the 
LTTE. Two months later, the president dissolved 
Parliament, effectively dismissing her opponent's 
government.

             A third, and more recent, example is 
illustrative of Sri Lanka's continuing cycle of 
consensus-seeking and consensus-failing. At the 
presidential election of November 2005, Mahinda 
Rajapakse of SLFP heading a new coalition won 
narrowly, defeating Ranil Wickramasinghe, the 
main opposition candidate. Towards the end of 
2006, Rajapakse had doubts about the 
parliamentary majority of his government, because 
of the shaky nature of his coalition in 
Parliament. By this time Rajapakse had also 
initiated talks with the LTTE. Once again there 
was a public clamour for the two parties to work 
together in order to effectively address key 
national challenges, the ethnic conflict being a 
major and immediate issue.

             In October that year, Rajapakse and 
Wickramasinghe began a dialogue to work together. 
They exchanged letters and even met a few times 
to discuss the modalities of collaboration. 
Wickramasinghe pledged that his party, the UNP, 
would vote in Parliament for Rajapakse's annual 
budget in November. When Rajapakse solicited his 
support in passing the budget at a time when he 
was not sure about the loyalty of his own 
coalition partners, Wickramasinghe is reported to 
have told Rajapakse: 'Don't even tell me what you 
will have in your budget. I will ensure that it 
will be passed in Parliament.'

             Rajapakse got his budget passed in 
Parliament with UNP support. This was an 
unprecedented show of cooperation between a 
ruling party and the opposition. Yet, just a few 
weeks later Rajapakse engineered the defection of 
19 UNP MPs to his government, offering them 
lucrative, though relatively powerless, cabinet 
positions. Thus ended in comic disaster yet 
another bitter story of consensus politics in Sri 
Lanka.

             There has been, and continues to be, 
a certain politics of consensus in Sri Lanka in 
part linked to the specificities, or 
peculiarities, of Sri Lanka's democratic 
politics. And though every-body talks about it, 
no major party wants to put it into practice and 
translate it into a concrete policy programme. 
Neil DeVotta has called the broad framework of 
this process 'ethnic outbidding'. It is this 
politics of ethnic-outbidding - electoral 
competition between the UNP and SLFP to persuade 
Sinhalese voters that they are the best equipped 
to ensure Sinhalese dominance - that marginalized 
Tamils from the state, reinforced the ideology of 
Sinhalese ethnic and political supremacy, and 
eventually created conditions for the Tamil 
separatist insurgency.

             This process first congealed in a 
context where the Sinhalese voters constituted 
about three-fourths of the total electorate and 
the ethnic minority votes were not critical for 
either the UNP or SLFP to win a parliamentary 
majority. The politics of ethnic-outbidding thus 
generated a kind of pan-Sinhalese consensus for 
Sinhalese ethnic hegemony in the polity. 
Elections have, even as recently as in 2005, been 
an occasion for Sinhalese political leaders to 
renew, revalidate and reinforce the Sinhalese 
social contract of consensus. Tamil and Muslim 
leaders also renew and revalidate their mini 
ethnic contracts with their respective 
electorates.

             The kind of political consensus that 
the three stories above refer to is a different 
kind of consensus. It suggests a breaking away 
from the Sinhalese social contract and forging a 
new consensus for democratizing ethnic politics 
and broadening the ethnic foundations of the Sri 
Lankan state. The imperatives of regime formation 
and regime survival, inter-party mistrust as well 
as practices of deception and duplicity have 
prevented the forging of any enduring intra-class 
alliance in order for Sri Lanka's ruling class to 
be able to effectively manage the ethnic conflict.

             Is competitive politics, then, an 
obstacle to a successful peace process in Sri 
Lanka? A reasonable answer to this question, 
despite the political misdemeanours associated 
with competitive politics as illustrated in our 
stories above, is that competitive politics can 
only partially explain why Sri Lanka has not 
achieved peace. There is a larger question of the 
capacity and incapacity of the Sinhalese ruling 
elites, who intensely compete in the electoral 
arena, to envision and nurture a viable peace 
process. What they have demonstrated so far is 
their limited capacity and will in this difficult 
endeavour. On the question of regime incapacity 
for decisive action for reforms in the face of 
even minor resistance, let me cite two 
paradigmatic examples.

             In 1997, when President Chandrika 
Kumaratunga was in power and her People's 
Alliance regime still commanded significant 
public support, there was a proposal to introduce 
an equal-opportunity legislation. This 
legislation was spearheaded by some liberal 
reformist sections of the regime, assisted by 
liberal and reformist civil society groups. To 
strike a personal note, I too had a not so 
marginal role in initiating this legislation. 
Quite inexplicably, Sri Lanka does not have 
constitutional or legal provisions for 
affirmative action. Its non-discrimination laws 
are limited to a fundamental rights clause in the 
Constitution which is seldom invoked by ethnic, 
religious or social minorities for equal 
protection before the law and public policy.

             The proposed equal opportunity law 
sought to correct this anomaly by creating laws 
and mechanisms for equal treatment and 
opportunities, particularly in areas of 
education, employment and access to public 
resources, for ethnic and other minorities as 
well as women, and even for the physically 
disabled. From a reformist perspective this was a 
great step forward in the direction of 
democratizing the Sri Lankan state by making the 
law and public policy somewhat reflective of the 
pluralist constitution of society.

             But, when a small group of 
Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalists organized noisy 
demonstrations in Colombo on the day the draft 
law was to be finally approved by the cabinet, 
the president and her ministers, including the 
great reformists, decided to drop the proposed 
law. A senior minister was reported to have said 
at the cabinet meeting after listening to the 
story of the incidents of protest that morning: 
'How can we win the local government election 
with this law and with these protests?'

             

             Actually, the law and the protests 
would not have cost the government more than a 
few hundred votes from the entire country. 
Instead, it would have brought more minority 
votes to the government. Even assuming that the 
government lost a few local government bodies, 
what difference would it have made in terms of 
regime stability? None at all. But the 
Kumaratunga regime, most reformist of the recent 
Sri Lankan governments, lacked the courage and 
conviction to go against even a small group of 
protesters who presented themselves as the 
representatives of the 'Sinhalese-Buddhist 
majority'. Is this reflective of the nature and 
essentialist character of the Sinhalese ruling 
class?

             The second story is also about the 
last Kumaratunga regime, and it happened in 2005, 
after the December 2004 tsunami. The tsunami had 
devastated areas under the state as well as LTTE 
control. Effective delivery of relief and the 
initiation of resettlement and reconstruction 
programmes for thousands of Sinhalese, Tamil and 
Muslim people required a new institutional 
mechanism based on cooperation between the 
government and the LTTE. The two sides negotiated 
an agreement for setting up such a joint 
administrative mechanism in February-March 2005.

             Expectedly, the Sinhalese nationalist 
groups organized opposition to this move. Then 
the government dilly-dallied with the proposed 
MoU with the LTTE for another five months, 
allowing the opposition to muster more strength. 
Some radical Buddhist monks even threatened 
suicide by means of self immolation. Ultimately 
when the MoU for the post-tsunami reconstruction 
was signed by the government along with the LTTE 
in July 2005, the nationalists challenged its 
legality in the Supreme Court. The court, ever 
vigilant of which direction the political winds 
were blowing, invalidated this MoU on technical 
grounds.

             Had President Kumaratunga signed this 
agreement with the LTTE in March-April 2005, the 
opposition would have been insignificant. In all 
likelihood there would have been overwhelming 
public support for such a bold move. A joint 
engagement by the government and the LTTE in 
post-tsunami reconstruction would certainly have 
paved the way for a renewal of the stalled peace 
process. Kumaratunga is reported to have said, 
explaining the delay in signing the MoU, that she 
was really scared about the Sinhalese nationalist 
opposition. Scared of being branded a traitor to 
the Sinhalese-Buddhist nation? Scared of being 
killed, like her father in 1959? Scared of losing 
the next election?

             This ruling class fear of Sinhalese 
nationalist opposition is the other half of the 
explanation of the paradox of the many stalled 
peace processes in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese 
nationalist opposition is mobilized by small 
political parties using Buddhist monks as well as 
ethno-religious symbols in their public 
campaigns. They appeal to the deep-seated fears 
of the majority community about how its future is 
threatened by the minorities and political 
parties who seek minority votes to win elections. 
In social terms they come from various 
intermediate social strata, particularly in the 
limited urban milieu. But neither the UNP, nor 
the SLFP, the political parties representing the 
Sinhalese ruling class, seem to have any capacity 
to ignore, resist and combat the politics of 
ethno-paranoia of the small Sinhalese nationalist 
groups whose actual electoral strength is not 
very strong, not even ten per cent of the total 
electorate. Clearly, Sri Lanka has a weak ruling 
class with no organic links to other class groups 
in society.

             All these incidents are symptomatic 
of the kind of democracy Sri Lanka has made for 
itself over the past several decades. At 
elections, almost as a rule, ethnic social 
contracts - Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim - are 
re-negotiated and revalidated. Between elections, 
ruling parties make half-hearted attempts, with 
no firm will or conviction, for a negotiated 
peace. They are easily intimidated by small, yet 
active, extreme nationalist groups who the media 
projects in a larger-than-life fashion. This 
helps develop a political logic in which the 
fringe controls the centre, instead of the other 
way round. Thus, cowardice does seem to pay, at 
least in the short run. It will hardly pay in the 
long run. But, ethnic out-bidding for power and 
ruling class vacillation has been a deadly 
combination for a political solution.

             That, sadly, is how democracy has 
been working in Sri Lanka. It may be called a 
democracy that has facilitated the hegemony of 
the fringe. The disproportionate power that the 
nationalist or religionist fringe appears to 
exercise over the mainstream political parties 
and institutions constitutes an enduring paradox 
in at least three South Asian countries - 
Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The paradox 
is that the ethno-religious extremist parties, 
often claiming to represent the interests of the 
numerically majority community, might not even 
get a few per cent of votes in democratic 
elections. Nevertheless, they have acquired the 
ability and capacity to shape the terms of 
national political debate. That is why despite 
their weak electoral strength, the mainstream 
political parties, the state institutions, the 
bureaucracy, the media and even the judiciary, 
often capitulate before them. One way to reverse 
this 'counter-revolution' is to subvert, 
appropriate or turn around, in a Foucauldian 
sense, this dominant political discourse.

             But, to subvert an existing hegemonic 
discourse, one needs to have a radically new 
alternative political vision concerning the 
state. This is where democracy can have some 
fantasizing value in a pan South Asian framework. 
Actually, the initial aesthetics of modern 
democracy in South Asia has been largely in its 
being a social emancipatory fantasy. What South 
Asia needs today, as imagined from the 
perspective of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan 
is a post- democracy fantasy, a dream that can 
facilitate an imagination that can and should 
subvert the existing master mode of imagining the 
nation and the state.

             Such a radical fantasy would be to 
see South Asia as a confederation of a number of 
democratic and autonomous republics. Being 
republics in a large democratic confederation, 
which should be an advanced form of the present 
European Union, there would be no need for 
secessionist warfare. In a confederation that 
guarantees autonomy to each republican unit, no 
republic needs to feel threatened by its 
neighbours or its dissident citizens. Such a 
de-centred South Asian Federation of Democratic 
Republics could be an utterly exciting form of 
political future for the peoples in South Asia in 
which ethnic identities, identity rivalries, 
violence and war can give way to multiple 
citizenships, free movement of labour, capital 
and technology, flexible borders for the 
protection of which nuclear weapons are totally 
unnecessary. In this vision, the massive standing 
armies can be no more than transitory state 
sector employment agencies for young men and 
women.

             Does this sound utopian? Of course it 
does. But it tells us that to get out of the 
multiple predicaments which Sri Lanka and our 
South Asian neighbours find themselves in, we 
need to search for a democratic utopia. 
Paraphrasing Lenin, we may say that a good 
democratic utopia will have the capacity to 
become a material force, capable of mobilizing 
the people into action for ethnic peace through 
democratization. This is where a fantasy of 
democracy is more useful for political 
transformation than a mere academic theory of 
democracy.

______


[2]


Los Angeles Times
16 September 2007
   
   [Caption of a photograph by Aman Sharma / AP: A 
Pakistani guard, left, and an Indian counterpart 
march during a nightly border-closing ceremony. 
It’s an elaborate, almost comical, show of 
martial bravado and chest-puffing that has gone 
on for nearly 60 years.]
   
AN INDO-PAKISTANI FACE-OFF IN FUNNY HATS
   Each evening at the border, guards engage in a 
peculiar ceremony of martial bravado. But the 
silliness seems to trump the surliness.
   
by Henry Chu, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 16, 2007
   
   WAGAH CROSSING, INDIA-PAKISTAN BORDER -- -- If 
nations rose and fell according to their camp 
quotient and funny hats, then these rivals would 
still be locked in a total stalemate.

Most every evening for nearly 60 years, a 
peculiar ritual has unfolded here on what has 
been one of the world's hottest borders. As 
twilight approaches and the gates are about to 
close between India and Pakistan, the guards on 
either side face off in an elaborate show of 
martial bravado and chest-puffing that 
nonetheless includes that most basic of fraternal 
gestures: the handshake.
   
   Hundreds of spectators from both countries 
cheer as their men in uniform strut, goose-step 
and stamp their feet like impatient bulls. 
Individual guards on either side break ranks and 
power-walk toward one another as if to collide 
head-on, but stop just short of the line dividing 
their homelands and glower fiercely through their 
mustaches.

Patriotic songs boom through loudspeakers as the 
national flags are lowered at exactly the same 
speed and the gates finally swing shut.

The tightly choreographed ceremony is part 
colonial pomp, part macho posturing and part 
Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks. The rowdy 
tourist crowds eat it up.

"Everything was just perfect," Rajat Kalia, an 
electrical engineer who lives in Delhi, said 
after a recent viewing. "It's impressive."

It is also, of course, a manifestation of a very 
real rivalry that has produced three bloody wars 
since the twin birth of India and Pakistan in 
1947.

For half an hour each evening at sunset, the 
decades of enmity are sublimated in a mostly 
good-natured, almost comical competition between 
the men in black, wearing headgear with fantails 
of the same color (Pakistan); and the men in 
khaki, whose hats are adorned with scarlet 
fantails (India).

The theatrics attract audience members from 
hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles away. 
Grandstands on both sides fill up, turning into a 
sea of colorful saris, tunics and flags.

Like a warmup act before a sitcom taping, emcees 
on either side prime the crowd, getting the 
nationalistic juices flowing by leading chants of 
"Long live Pakistan!" and "Long live Mother 
India!"

Even schoolchildren pump their tiny fists.

There can be ugly moments. When a Pakistani 
passenger bus was allowed to cross the border 
back onto home turf one evening before the 
gate-closing ceremony began, some Indian 
spectators jeered, "Stop terrorism! Stop 
terrorism!"

New Delhi blames the Pakistani government for 
funding and aiding anti-Indian Kashmiri militants.

But the patriotism soon became something of the 
relatively benign, Olympic-medal-count variety. 
Two volunteers were chosen from the Indian crowd 
to charge the gate while hoisting large national 
flags. A pair of Pakistanis answered with their 
national colors, to thunderous applause.

Taking a stab at loving thy nuclear-armed 
neighbor, a recording on the Pakistani side 
crooned: "When hearts meet, when the divide is 
healed. . . . "

The original divide was that of partition, the 
violent carving up of the subcontinent along 
religious lines into India and Pakistan when the 
British Empire pulled out in 1947. Not long 
afterward, the archrivals instituted the border 
pas de deux still on display here at the Wagah 
crossing, which lies about 20 miles from the 
bustling Pakistani city of Lahore on one side and 
India's Amritsar on the other.

Over the decades, the ceremony has become such a 
fixture that, one guard said, it continued to be 
performed nightly during the most recent 
Indo-Pakistani war, in 1999, which was fought in 
the snowy heights of the Himalayas.

The high-stepping legs, scissoring arms, 
exaggerated salutes and stomping feet of India's 
Border Security Force guards are big 
crowd-pleasers, as are similar movements by the 
Pakistan Rangers.

Individuals and pairs march right up to the 
border line to go eyeball to eyeball with their 
opposite numbers. But the "Quien es mas macho?" 
maneuvers are so campy that the answer seems to 
be "Neither."

Not all watchers like the implicit message of 
confrontation, however lighthearted. The concerns 
arise even though the Pakistani and Indian guards 
share handshakes, albeit curt ones, at least 
twice during the ceremony, once around the 
beginning and again at the end, just before the 
gates clang shut.

"I don't think it was patriotic. I thought it was 
very offensive," said Aastha Gulati, 21, a dance 
instructor from Delhi. "If you're neighboring 
countries, you should do something together, 
instead of doing something [over] here and a few 
meters over there."

Last year, the Indian government appeared to 
agree with Gulati. To create a more conducive 
atmosphere for peace talks underway between New 
Delhi and Islamabad, officials from India 
reportedly asked their border guards to tone down 
the aggressiveness of their antics.

Satendra Kumar, resplendent in his khakis, said 
he and his fellow guards now no longer stand 
before the Pakistanis with their arms akimbo, as 
they once did. The Pakistani guards, however, 
still do that, he noted.

"This is our parade," Kumar said with a shrug. "They do theirs."

The Hindustan Times newspaper protested the 
suggested dialing-down on its editorial page, 
describing the ceremony as a relatively harmless 
spectacle good for drawing in tourists. Officials 
of the Indian state of Punjab have set aside 
$1.25 million to develop the border area as a 
tourist destination.

"It's true that India and Pakistan can be the 
best of friends, but the show must go on," the 
paper said.

Kalia, the engineer, found the event a 
good-humored, patriotic bit of fun, a friendly 
contest between two rival nations over pomp and 
circumstance. It wasn't a competition in which 
national pride and prestige were really on the 
line.

"If it's cricket," he said, "then it's a completely different feeling."

henry.chu at latimes.com


_____


[3]


NO WORK-NO PAY FOR THE LEGISLATORS - A WELCOME MOVE

by Rajindar Sachar (12 September 2007)

Press reports that Lok Sabha Speaker, wants to 
apply principle of “no work no pay” to those 
legislators who disrupt proceedings in the House 
has been universally welcomed. The legislators 
with cheek in their tongue term it as a 
abridgement of their Parliamentary privileges, 
but the masses find this self glorification 
laughable. The conduct of such legislators is a 
standing shame to the nation and calls for 
immediate action. A recent study by a civil 
society organization found that in the 13th Lok 
Sabha, time lost due to disruptions was 22.4 per 
cent while in the 14th Lok Sabha which commenced 
in June 2004, it went up to 26 per cent. Each 
minute of Parliament costs about Rs.26.035.

Under the Parliamentary rules, a legislator has 
to sign the attendance register when he comes in 
the morning. He is paid daily attendance 
honorarium of Rs.1000 per attendance irrespective 
of the fact that he may just attend for 5 minutes 
out of normal five hours daily sitting.

Dealing with delinquent individual legislator is 
manageable under the rule of procedure. The more 
serious problem is when gross disorderly conduct 
by large number of legislators makes the sittings 
of the legislatures impossible.  In such a 
situation the Speaker perforce and against his 
inclination is forced to adjourn the House. The 
damage to the dignity of the House and the nation 
is for every one to see. But the legislators, 
still draw their daily allowance suffering no 
monitory loss. Is the Speaker powerless to direct 
no payment to legislators in such a case without 
a specific provision in the Rules of Procedure, 
which the legislators are not willing to change. 
I submit no. Though there is no specific rule 
permitting the Speaker to direct no payment to 
members in case the House is adjourned because of 
disorderly conduct, the Speaker would have 
inherent power to so direct. In Mays 
Parliamentary practice it is noted that the 
Speaker of the House of Commons (U.K.) has power 
to suspend for conduct falling below the standard 
House was entitled to expect and in certain 
cases, the practice is including withholding the 
member salary for the period of suspension. 
Admittedly the power to suspend House in case of 
members misconduct vests in the Speaker. 
Parliament has not codified the privileges of 
Legislators and thus the precedents of Speaker of 
House of Commons would be equally available in 
India. The principle of no-work, no pay can not 
be doubted because of the law laid down by 
Supreme Court (1990). In that case, the Bank of 
India employees went on 4 hour strike but joined 
the duty for the  rest  of  the  day.   But   the 
bank deducted the salary of for the whole day. 
Similarly, legislators who are paid daily 
allowance for attending the Session, at least for 
the good part of the day,  but  because  of their 
own disorderly conduct thus forcing the Speaker 
to adjourn the House against his own violation 
can not in all fairness ask to be paid his daily 
allowance which would mean rewarding him for his 
misconduct. As Lord Denning in one of his 
judgements (1980), (no doubt dealing with the 
workmen but the principles would be applicable to 
legislators also) said: “I ask: is a man to be 
entitled to the wages for his work when he, with 
others, is dong his best to make it useless? 
Surely not. Wages are to be paid for services 
rendered, not for producing deliberate chaos. 
“The Supreme Court has accepted this 
interpretation of law and has held that “it is 
not only permissible for the employer to deduct 
wages for the hours or the days for which the 
employees are absent from duty but in cases such 
as the present, it is permissible to deduct wages 
for the whole day even if the absence is for a 
few hours.” The legislators can not complain that 
why everyone should suffer because of disorderly 
conduct of a few delinquents. But a sobering 
reflection will remind them that legislators have 
passed laws imposing collective fine in a 
locality because of a few unsocial elements when 
admittedly majority of residents are law abiding. 
Courts have upheld such legislation the interest 
of general public good. Surely, legislators 
should not cavil at applying the same standard to 
themselves when they electorally claim that they 
are the true servants of the public.

A question can be asked that even if there is 
uncertainty about the law why at least the 
government party and certainly the Ministers who 
would be against the adjournment of the House, 
can not resort to the Gandhian method of self 
sacrifice especially when they are celebrating 
the centenary of Gandhian Satyagrah. If the 
government party or the Ministers were to 
announce that they will forego the daily 
allowance for the days that the House is 
suspended for disorderly conduct by opposition it 
would set a very high principled precedent and 
will shame the opposition into following either 
their example or to so behave that whatever the 
provocation, the House would not be adjourned. I 
may in this connection note the precedent of Mr. 
Kuldip Nayar, the eminent journalist and a 
nominated Rajya Sabha member (Retired) who during 
his term had written to the Chairman that he will 
not be drawing his daily allowance when the House 
is adjourned because of disorderly conduct. This 
request of his was accepted and no allowance was 
paid to him for those days. Thus a voluntary 
renunciation as a sort of self repentenace and as 
tribute to the memory of the Father of the Nation 
should at least be practiced by the Ministers and 
the government party which claims to be 
inheritors of the Gandhian values.

I have no doubt that in such circumstances, 
opposition too will also fall in line to avoid 
being called hypocrites, as Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia 
used to describe those politicians whose words 
did not match their deeds.

There is one other alternative that I am 
suggesting, if the Speaker with his noble 
determination refuses to adjourn the House even 
if there is disorderly conduct and thus no work 
can be done yet automatically the government 
party will have to remain the House. If the 
opposition in those circumstances chooses to walk 
out it would invite the ridicule and the anger of 
the electorate. This moral force will then shame 
the legislators both in government and the 
opposition to calm down. I know my suggestions 
look unreal but what is happening in our 
legislatures is so embarrassing that it calls for 
different and innovative methodology.



______


[4]

International Herald Tribune
September 21, 2007

IN MUMBAI, ONE MAN'S MEAT IS INDEED ANOTHER MAN'S POISON

by Amelia Gentleman

MUMBAI: Cooking chicken has become a 
high-security, covert operation for Shailaja 
Hazare, an undercover meat eater who has spent 
the last decade pretending to be vegetarian so 
she can keep her apartment in one of Mumbai's 
strictly vegetarian-only residential complexes.

Her preparations are meticulous. She travels to a 
butcher a few kilometers from her home to avoid 
running into a neighbor and makes sure her 
purchases are disguised in layers of plastic bags 
and paper. She lights sandalwood, rose and 
jasmine incense on her doorstep to mask the smell 
of frying meat.

If the doorbell rings while she is eating, she 
clears the surfaces, retreats to her bedroom with 
her food and lets her vegetarian daughter open 
the door.

While Mumbai is one of India's most cosmopolitan 
cities, much of its housing is splintered along 
ethnic and religious lines. There are 
predominantly Muslim, Roman Catholic and Hindu 
areas. And then there are extensive 
vegetarian-only stretches, some of which occupy 
desirable patches of real estate along the 
waterfront.

Such divisions have long been a feature of life 
in Mumbai, where around a third of the city is 
estimated to be vegetarian - because they are 
Jain by religion, members of the Hindu Marwari 
business community, or Hindus originally from 
northern state of Gujurat, all groups that 
renounce meat, fish and eggs.

But recently the tone of Mumbai's vegetarianism 
has become more militant, and activists have 
started battling against a tide of Westernization 
that they fear is seducing a younger generation 
of vegetarians to start eating meat.

This summer campaigners in the city staged 
protests against plans to open a chain of 
shopping malls that would sell meat as well as 
vegetables

Vegetarianism in India is far removed from the 
animal-rights vegetarianism of the West. It is 
usually a marker of religious identity, handed 
down over generations, inherited at birth, rather 
than adopted for reasons of personal health or 
concern for animal welfare.

But aware that lectures on spirituality are not 
working, activists here have begun adopting shock 
tactics, like organizing visits to 
slaughterhouses, to persuade "flesh eaters" to 
return to the fold.

In such a climate, the fear of discovery hangs 
heavy on Hazare, who requested that her maiden 
name be used and would be photographed only from 
behind to obscure her identity. Her husband and 
mother-in-law, both strict vegetarians 
themselves, are understanding about her 
occasional need to eat meat and conspire to make 
sure that the neighbors remain unaware.

"The real estate agent told me 'You don't look 
vegetarian. You won't be able to live here,' " 
she said, recalling his discomfort as he studied 
her face and surname, trying to divine if she was 
a Jain or a Marwari. In fact, she was brought up 
in a coastal area near Mumbai as a non-vegetarian 
Hindu.

"That annoyed me a lot," she said of the 
inspection. The apartment was in a highly 
sought-after building, a good investment. "I lied 
and told him I didn't eat meat."

It was the start of an existence punctuated with deception.

Pieces of eggshell swept out to her landing 
almost exposed her double life a few months back.

"My neighbor, a strict Jain, asked my sweeper who 
the eggshells belonged to," she said. "The 
sweeper was loyal to me and said she didn't know.

"Another time he came into my flat, opened the 
fridge and found eggs inside. I had to tell him 
that the doctor had told me to feed eggs to my 
daughter."

She estimates that 99 percent of the people 
living in a three-kilometer, or two-mile, radius 
from her apartment are vegetarian.

For most residents of these enclaves, the very 
idea of being near someone who might cook meat is 
repulsive.

"I'd have issues living next to a non-vegetarian 
person," said Nirmala Mehta, a Marwari housewife 
who lives in another apartment block with 200 
fellow vegetarians, a few kilometers away in 
north Mumbai.

"The smell would be a problem, but it's more than 
that," she said. "A non-vegetarian person eats 
hot blood and it makes him hot blooded; he might 
not keep control of his emotions."

The passionate disgust that the notion of eating 
meat elicits is summed up by Vinod Gupta, the 
leader of one of Mumbai's most vocal 
pro-vegetarian movements, Maharashtra Gopolan 
Samiti.

"Even the sight of someone eating meat is 
revolting," he said. "It's not just a matter of 
principle, I have a sense of physical repulsion. 
I wonder how they can behave that way."

Denying someone the right to move into an 
apartment on the grounds of caste or religious 
affiliation is illegal in India, but 
vegetarian-only homes occupy a gray area under 
the law. Although the government does not record 
numbers, vegetarian leaders say thousands of such 
buildings are dotted around the city. No other 
city in India has such a concentration of 
vegetarian ghettoes.

Their existence is the source of some unease to 
Mumbai's Muslims, who see this as a cover for 
creating Hindu-only enclaves.

"They should be discouraged," said Majeed Memon, 
a leading Muslim lawyer in the city. "It's very 
sad if, under the guise of vegetarianism, 
residents are excluding people of a particular 
religion."

Although Muslims have routinely been excluded 
from such housing complexes, he said, he did not 
know that anyone has filed a discrimination suit. 
"No one wants to live in an atmosphere of 
hostility," he said.

Lifestyles are shifting fast in Mumbai, and there 
is a growing unease among older vegetarians that 
the next generation may not be so fastidious. 
Nirmala Mehta lists meat eating as the worst 
misdemeanor her two sons could commit - above 
smoking and drinking.

"It's blood-spilling. It's almost murder," she 
said, and yet she knows both sons regularly eat 
meat when they go out. "They are grown now, I 
can't control it. They don't do it to hurt me, 
just to fit in with their friends. Society has 
changed."

India's census does not reveal the number of 
vegetarians, but government research published 
this year showed that households eating chicken 
increased threefold in urban areas and two and a 
half times in rural areas between 1993 and 2005, 
a trend that may partly be explained by rising 
incomes.

"There is a lot of false publicity coming on 
television, saying that non-veg food is better 
than veg," said Mahendra Jain, a lawyer and 
vegetarian activist. "It's part of the process of 
Westernization. There are advertisements for 
McDonalds everywhere.

"It's like drug addiction," he continued. "You 
taste it, once or twice, and then you get an idea 
that you must have it.

"We have to fight this."

Jaswant Shah, president of the Vegetarian Society 
of Asia, based in Mumbai, said no one in his 
family had eaten meat for at least seven 
generations, but he was uncertain how long this 
would last.

"We've no way of knowing how quickly younger 
people are turning to non-veg lifestyles," he 
said. "But we feel it has been going faster over 
the past 10 years. The impact of globalization is 
so great."

Shailaja Hazare veers between relishing the 
subterfuge that underlies much of her life and 
fearing the consequences of exposure. She thinks 
that her building's residents' society would 
probably balk at evicting the family if they 
discovered that she eats meat, but is quite 
certain that disclosure would poison her life.

"Now it's become funny," she said. "It's like a 
hide-and-seek game. But if they found out, my 
neighbors would hate me. They would stop inviting 
me anywhere. They would never take food from my 
house again. My life would become very 
unpleasant."

______


[5]

Economist.com
September 24 2007

CHEMICAL GENERATION: PUNJABIS ARE POISONING THEMSELVES


IF INDIAN newspaper reports are to be believed, 
the children of Punjab are in the throes of a 
grey revolution. Even those as young as ten are 
sprouting tufts of white and grey hair. Some are 
going blind. In Punjabi villages, children and 
adults are afflicted by uncommon cancers.

The reason is massive and unregulated use of 
pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in 
India's most intensively farmed state. According 
to an environmental report by Punjab's 
government, the modest-sized state accounts for 
17% of India's total pesticide use. The state's 
water, people, animals, milk and agricultural 
produce are all poisoned with the stuff.

Ignorance is part of the problem. The report 
includes details of a survey suggesting that 
nearly one-third of Punjabi farmers were unaware 
that pesticides come with instructions for use. 
Half of the farmers ignored these instructions. 
Three-quarters put empty pesticide containers to 
domestic uses.

Yet, over 250 dense pages, the report also 
reveals structural problems in the state's 
agricultural sector that no mere education 
programme could address.

Punjab was the totemic success of India's green 
revolution, a leap forward in agricultural 
productivity during the 1960s and 1970s that 
ended the subcontinent's periodic famines. It was 
based on the introduction of a few simple 
technologies-including artificial fertilisers, 
pesticides and better seeds. In Punjab, 
especially, the benefits were massive.

Between 1960 and 2005 the state's annual 
food-grain production increased from 3m tonnes to 
25m tonnes. Punjab, one of India's richest states 
on a per capita basis, supplies more than half 
the country's central grain reserves.

But the successes of the green revolution are in 
retreat. Punjab's agricultural growth rate has 
slowed from 5% in the 1980s to less than 2% since 
2000. In the past five years production of food 
grains has increased by 2%, and the state's 
population has grown by 8.6%.


What price bounty?

"Punjab, the most stunning example of the green 
revolution in India, is now at the crossroads," 
the report states. "The present agricultural 
system in Punjab has become unsustainable and 
non-profitable... the state's agriculture has 
reached the highest production levels possible 
under the available technologies."

Indeed, the technologies available to farmers are 
part of the problem: "Over-intensification of 
agriculture over the years has led to overall 
degradation of the fragile agro-ecosystem of the 
state"

In particular, massive use of nitrogenous 
fertilisers-which draw multiple crops from 
Punjab's rather poor soil-has reduced the soil's 
overall fertility and led to widespread soil 
erosion.

Massive application of pesticides has meanwhile 
extinguished some pests and insects while letting 
others thrive, including the American bollworm, 
an unpleasant cotton blight, and rice-leaf 
folder. Many of these survivors have developed 
resistance to common pesticides.

Intensive irrigation-especially from tube-wells, 
of which there are over a million in Punjab-has 
depleted the water-table. It drops by 55cm each 
year. Partly as a result, the land irrigated by 
canals has decreased by 35% since 1990.

Use of sewage and industrially contaminated water 
for irrigation has drenched Punjab's soils in 
heavy metals and other poisons.

The state's government is not entirely passive 
before this catastrophe. It has banned the use of 
several agricultural chemicals. And it has taken 
steps to encourage organic farming. But there is 
much more it could do.

In particular, it needs to scrap its populist 
policy-reintroduced in 2005-of providing farmers 
with free electricity. Though a great 
vote-grabber, the policy encourages farmers to 
pump water up from their tube-wells both day and 
night.

Equally disastrous is a subsidy on agricultural 
fertilisers, for which India's central government 
is responsible. There is little hope of turning 
Indian farmers greener until both subsidies are 
ended.

Meanwhile, the report by Punjab's government 
encourages farmers to alleviate the twin crises 
of environmental degradation and falling 
productivity by returning to traditional 
practices.

It recommends they use rice and wheat straw for 
mulch instead of burning it, rotate their crops, 
use a range of different seeds, manure their 
fields, and so on. In short, it recommends many 
of the agricultural practices that the green 
revolution swept away.



______


[6]

(i) Text of Petition - Condemning Communalisation of Sethuraman Project

COASTAL STRUGGLE SOLIDARITY
A124/6, First Floor, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-16
Ph, +91 9871880686 Email: css at movingrepublic.org

With the recent debate on Sethusamudram and the 
subsequent violence in Bangalore, we feel that 
there is a conscious attempt to take over a 
genuine issue concerning environment and 
fisherpeople's lives by the communal forces. The 
secular forces and fisherpeople's organisations 
in this country have expressed their strong 
dissent against these developments. We are 
enclosing a statement by a large number of 
concerned people, fisherpeople's organisations 
and civil society groups on the recent debate on 
Sethusamudram Project. We request you to provide 
adequate coverage in you pubication and support 
the spirit of secularism, ecology and coastal 
people's lives.

Thanking you,

Shree Prakash,
For Coastal Struggle Solidarity,
New Delhi
Mobile: 9871880686

--
[25 September 2007]

CONDEMN KILLINGS!!
CONDEMN COMMUNALISATION OF SETHUSAMUDRAM PROJECT!!

We, the undersigned civil society groups, 
people's movements, human rights organisations 
and concerned individuals condemn the killings of 
innocent people and destruction of public 
property by Hindutva-inspired communal forces 
recently. A mob, now identified as members of 
Sangh Parivar organizations, attacked a Tamil 
Nadu public transport bus in Bangalore recently 
and burned down the vehicle that was carrying 26 
passengers. Two passengers were killed and their 
bodies were charred beyond recognition. This 
attack was a part of conscious and systematic 
efforts of the religious fundamentalist forces to 
undermine the real issues concerning 
Sethusamudram Project and to make political 
capital by flaring up the emotions of the people 
and dividing them on religious and provincial 
lines.

The Sethusamudram Project was introduced by the 
BJP while they were in power at the centre 
without considering the ecological and human 
problems. The Sethusamudram Project will endanger 
a rich biosphere reserve with 400 endangered 
species, including sea turtles, dolphins, dugongs 
and whales. The project will destroy the 
livelihood of 15 Lakh people who depend on 
fishing and allied areas in the waters where the 
canal will be dug. Several fisher people's 
organisations and human rights groups had 
protested against the project for a long time 
without getting any recognition from the 
mainstream political parties. Today the effort by 
the communal-fundamentalist forces is to divert 
the real issues concerning the project and 
generate political gain in view of the 
forthcoming elections.

We feel that there is an immediate need to stop 
any further violence & communalisation of this 
issue. Hence we call upon all secular forces and 
social movements to take a strong stand to 
condemn these efforts of communal
forces and recognise the real struggles of fisher 
people. We call upon the civil society to support 
the fisher people's struggles to protect the 
coast from all destructive developmental projects 
including Sethusamudram project


The Undersigned

1. Just. H.Suresh, Formal Judge, High court Mumbai
2. Praful Bidwai, Journalist & Writer
3. Arundhati Roy, Activist, Writer
4. Aruna roy
5. Vinod Raina, BGVS, New Delhi
6. Gabriele Dietrich, NAPM
7. Shripad Dharamadhikary, Manthan
8. Bruce Rich, Environmental Defense
9. T.Peter, President KSMTF & Secretary, NFF
10.Gilbert, Tamil Nadu - Pondicherry Fisher people's Forum
11.Anton Gomez, National Union of Fisherpeople
12.R. Mangaiyarselvam, Founder, Meenavar Viduthalai Vengaigal
(Fisherpeople Liberation Tigers)
13.V. Gowrilingam, President, Kancheepuram District Fisher people
Federation,
14.Dr. M. E. Raja, Ph D, General Secretary, National Union of Fishermen,
15.J. Kosumani, President, Tamilnadu Fisherpeople Progressive Assoociation,
16.K. Bharathi, President, South Indian Fishermen's Welfare Association,
17.B. Maran, President, Tamilnadu Fisher People Movement.
18.Dunu Roy , Hazards Centre
19.Kamala Bhasin, SANGAT, New Delhi
20.Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizens Web
21.Dr. T.T Sreekumar, Academic, National University of Singapore
22.Madhumitha Dutta, Corporate Accountability Desk
23.Nityanand Jayaraman, Corporate Accountability desk
24. Anivar Aravind, moving Republic, Kerala
25. Wilfred D'Costa, INSAF
26.Benny Kuruvila, FOCUS on Global South Mumbai
27.Mohaji BHAP, Chandigad
28.Prasad Chacko, Action Aid
29.Jacob Nellithanam, Richaria Campaign
30.Mahendra Kumar Rauson, NCDHR, Bihar
31.K.P. Sasi, Visual Search
32.Jai Prakash, PEACE
33.I.K.Shukla, Writer, Los Angeles
34.Himanshu Upadhyaya, Intercultural Resources
35.P.T. George, Intercultural Resources
36.Abhishek Srivastava, Freelance Journalist
37.Navin Kumar, Star News
38.Lalit Batra, researcher
39. Hitendra, Human Rights Law Network
40.Amarjit Singh,
41.S. Majumdar, HRLN
42.Nandini Oza , Manthan, Badwani
43.Praveen, Delhi University
44.Anja K , Researcher
45.Geetanjali, NBA
46.Supriya , DU student
47.Ankitha, DU student
48.Amit , JNU student
49.Harsh Dobhal , Combat law
50.Renu Khanna , PUCL, Baroda
51.Debaranjan, PSSP, Kashipur
52.J.John, Centre for Education & Communication, New Delhi
53.Badar, PEACE, Delhi
54.Surekha, HRLN
55.Andrea Wright, TISS.MADS
56.Lalhlieupuii , JNU student
57.Lalrindiki , Student, Mizoram
58. Nima Lamu Yolmo, JNU student, Darjeling
59.Preeti, Activist
60.Rajesh rangarajan, Activist
61.Vidya Rangan, Activist
62.Sunayana JNU student
63.Simpreet Singh, NAPM
64.Sheena kanwar, Activist
65.Swastika Sanghmithra, Activist
66.Subir Dey , JNU Student
67.Kasturi Sharma, JNU Student
68.Shrikanth , HRLN
69.S. Hussaini, IT consultant
70.Sanja Sharma, HRLN
71.Sarojini, Samad
72.Ritwik
73.Anshu Malviya, poet, Activist, UP
74.Grace Pelly, HRLN
75.HR Hiramat, NCPNR, Karnataka
76.Smriti, HRLN
77.E.P Menon, IDF , Bangalore
78.Pradeep Kumar, SVP, UP
79.Jharna Jhavera, Janmadhyam
80.Mihir Engineer , BOSS institute Kolkotta,
81.Sulak Sivaraksa, SEM, Tailand
82.Irfan Ahmed, Lokmach, Insaf
83.Kousal K, Activist Bihar,
84.Binod Tyagi, Lok Manch, Bihar
85.Rakesh, PEACE
86.Jitendra C, PEACE
87.Anant Deo N, INSAF Bihar
88.Ganesh Prasad, INSAF, UP
89.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, PUCE, INSAF, UP
90.Chittaranjan Singh, PUCL, INSAF, UP
91.Raghavendra kumar Advocate MP
92.Jithendra Kumar, Journalist
93.Umpiliha DSW
94.Mohan Rao, JNU
95.Beena, SAMA
96.Sarojini, SAMA
97.Riwik, SAMA
98.Pakhi, SAMA
99.Jacqulin J, NAPM
100.Deepa Naveen, Activist
101.Swathi Mukharji, JMIICR
102.Mallika Virdi MAATI, Utharghand
103.Jasamia Sarma, Student
104.Anil Tharayath Varghese, NCAS, Pune
105.Ajay, People's watch, Kerala
106.Pradeep Esteves, Activist, Bangalore
107.Savad Rahman, Journalist, Kerala
108.Satyajit Roy
109.Pritham K Chakravarthy- Theatre Activist
110.Sukla Sen, EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), Mumbai
111.Satya Sivaraman, Journalist
112.Nilanjana Biswas, Freelance Writer, Bangalore
113.Gaurav Dwivedi, Manthan, Badwani, MP
114.Shrish Khare, Manthan, Badwani, MP
115.Edwin, Openspace, Bangalore
116.Manohar.R, South India Cell for Human Rights Education &
Monitoring(SICHREM), Bangalore
117.Rohan D'Souza
118.Nasiruddin Haider Khan
119.Deepak Roy, Film Maker
120.Ranjana Padhi, Activist, Delhi
121.Renu Ghosh, Film maker, Kolkotta
122.K.C. Santhosh Kumar, Activist, Kerala
123. Anuja Jain, Student, New York University
124.Ranjit Thankappan
125.Madhuresh Kumar, CACIM, New Delhi
126.Ashim Jain, Bangalore
127.Souparna Lahiri, NFFPFW
128.K.M.Venugopalan. Writer & Activist, Kerala
129.Carol Geeta, SAMEEKSHA, Ajmeer
130. Raja Swamy, Bangalore
131.Soman Nair, Delhi
132.KH Hussain, Kerala Forest Research Institute
133.Rakesh Sharma, Filmmaker
134.Sushovan Dhar, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai
135.Bobby Kunhu
136.Tapas Ray, Researcher, Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of
Delaware
137.Asmita Collective, Secunderabad, A.P.
138.Prathibha Ganesan , JNU Student
139.Ranjan Panda, Journalist and Social Worker
140.Ullash Kumar R K, Bangalore
141.Monica Narula, Sarai
142.Benny Francis, Journalist, Chennai
143.Ranjit Panicker, Centre for Post Graduate Studies, Thrissur
144. Raktim Mukhopadhyayu, Bangiya Unnayan Parishad
145.Rosemary Viswanath, EQUATIONS
146.Sukanya Kanarally, Gelathi e-monthly, Karnataka
147.Anindo Banerjee, PRAXIS
148.Aditi Chandra , University of Minnesota
149.Alpana Kannabiran - ASMITA
150.Dr.Pratiksha Baxi - Associate Prof Center for the Study of Law and
Governance, JNU
151.Aanchal Kapur - Kriti
152.Suman Bisht - Kriti
153.Priya Bajpai - Human Rights Law Network
154.Ram - Intercultural Resources
155.Mira Shiva - Initiative for health equity and Society
156.Rahul Chowdhary - Advocate, LIFE
157.Dr. Tapanj Kalita - G B Pant Hospital
158.Dr. Harish Chandra - G B Pant Hospital
159.S A Joshi - Chartered Accountant
160.Anil Patwal - Chartered Accountant
161.Vinay - All India Drug Action Network
162.Mukesh - Hazard Center
163.Niteesh Vikram
164.Priyanka Pandey
165.Rameeta Sagar
166.Sonal
167.Saharsha Sabharwal
168.Umaira Rizvi
169.Huma Maqsood
170.Dr. Yasir
171.Sivija Singh
172.Jagpreet
173.Himmat Singh
174.Reva Dutta
175.Shashvat Pandit
176.Shreya Kumar
177.Varun Tandon
178.Nanaki Singh
179.Phea Suri
180.Shalini Sharma
181.Sreejitha PV , Translator ,New Delhi
182.Sudeep.K.S , New delhi
183. V. Kumaravel, Vangakadal Meen Thozhilalar Sangam, TN
184.Biji, M.phil scholar, Mahatma Gandhi University

---


(ii) 

Mainstream Weekly
22 September 2007

LETTER TO PRESIDENT, PM, SONIA GANDHI ON RAM SETU AND SETHUSAMUDRAM PROJECT

by S. G. Vombatkere

Dear Madams/Sir,
	The issue at hand in the current Ram Setu 
controversy is whether the strip of submerged 
land connecting India with Sri Lanka is natural 
or created by human intervention, and not whether 
Lord Rama is a real or mythological character. 
The scientific data shows that the strip of land 
is natural. Anybody who denies the existence of 
Lord Rama in the minds of the people is certainly 
misguided and perhaps also ill-motivated.
	It is piquant that those who now oppose 
the Sethusamudram project on religious grounds 
have gained media attention and those who have 
from the outset been opposing it on grounds of 
human displacement, ecological reasons and even 
on economic viability grounds have been sidelined 
and forgotten.
	The displacement of thousands of 
fisherfolk and their loss of livelihood and the 
undoubted environmental damage that will occur 
due to dredging the channel to create a canal do 
not need elaboration, except to say that if these 
costs are taken into consideration, the project 
may actually prove economically unviable.
	However, there is another economic 
argument that has been neglected-the canal will 
permit passage of only low-draft vessels (under 
36,000 tonnes displacement) which constitute only 
about 30 per cent of the shipping traffic that 
sails around Sri Lanka. Even these vessels may 
not be able to pass under their own power because 
of turbulence that their propellers will create 
that will cause the canal to fill up quicker with 
sand, and will therefore have to be towed by 
tugs. Further, while a vessel is passing in one 
direction, it may not be possible to pass another 
vessel in the opposite direction, and therefore 
negotiating the canal will take time.
	The actual traffic management and 
operation of the canal needs to be carefully 
studied before the claimed time-saving advantage 
of the project can be established. There is no 
evidence that a comprehensive economic 
feasibility study considering these factors, the 
cost of maintenance dredging and the user charges 
to the cargo shipping lines has been done.
	Pushing the Sethusamudram project forward 
for political reasons or short-term economic 
gains that over-ride sound long-term economics 
will do great disservice to the people and the 
nation.
	I urgently urge you to order a 
comprehensive economic viability study, and have 
the human and environmental issues re-examined in 
the best interests of the people.
	Yours sincerely,
September 16, 2007
475, 7th/..Main Road,
Vijayanagar Ist Stage
Mysore - 570 017      Major Gen S.G. Vombatkere
(Ph.: 0821-2515187)	VSM (Retd)

---

(iii)

Asia Times
September 25, 2007

HINDUS SAY DON'T MESS WITH RAMA'S BRIDGE
by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI - India's plans to dredge a navigable 
canal between Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar 
(which separates India from Sri Lanka) in the 
face of strong economic and ecological objections 
have now run, of all things, into a religious 
obstacle.

This has taken the shape of fierce opposition to 
the project from Hindu fundamentalist or communal 
groups, which claim that the canal's construction 
will damage a sub-sea structure of great 
religious-historical importance, popularly called 
Ram Setu (Lord Rama's Bridge) or (according to a 
Muslim legend) Adam's Bridge.

These groups, led by the right-wing Bharatiya 
Janata Party (BJP) and its more extremist cohorts 
such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu 
Organization or VHP) and the Rashtriya 
Swayamsevak Sangh (National Self-help 
Organization), contend that the shoal/sandbar 
formation is an artificial structure - a bridge 
to Sri Lanka constructed in ancient times under 
Rama's instructions by an army of monkeys.

The Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project is also 
creating a rift within India's ruling United 
Progressive Alliance (UPA), in particular between 
the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) and the 
Congress party, which is the UPA's largest 
component.

The DMK, which rules the southern state of Tamil 
Nadu and also holds the surface-transport 
portfolio in the federal government, is strongly 
rooting for the project, which offers contracts 
worth more than US$600 million. It summarily 
dismisses all arguments against the canal, 
including religious ones.

The VHP has launched a vicious attack on the DMK. 
One of its senior leaders has offered a reward in 
gold to anyone who beheads DMK leader and Tamil 
Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi.

The Congress, under pressure from the BJP, has 
turned defensive and apologetic, and ended up 
lending respectability to the Hindu communalists' 
arguments, which border on rank obscurantism.

The UPA government has withdrawn a detailed 
affidavit filed by the official Archeological 
Survey of India (ASI) in the Supreme Court 
explaining why the Ram Setu is a natural, not 
man-made, structure.

Ironically, there is little debate on rational 
grounds on the real, substantive, critical issues 
involved: namely, the questionable economic 
viability of the canal, and the environmental 
destruction it would likely cause.

Nor is there a reference any longer to the 
disquiet the project may have caused in Sri 
Lanka. Government experts in that country are 
known to have apprehensions about the 
hydrological impact of the project.

The Indian government appears to have prevailed 
over them by claiming that the Sethusamudram 
canal would speed up the movement of naval ships 
and help intercept the boats of the militant 
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Meanwhile, the Ram Setu issue is before India's 
Supreme Court in a petition arguing that the 
bridge is a man-made structure of great 
importance to the Hindus and must not be 
disturbed. In support of this claim, the 
petitioner has cited scriptures and mythological 
texts such as the Ramayana and an epic poem 
eulogizing Ram, written in the Middle Ages.

"All kinds of agendas have got mixed up in the 
Sethusamudram issue," said Tanika Sarkar, a 
historian who teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru 
University and has studied the evolution of the 
BJP in depth. "They won't get disentangled until 
the BJP's claim about the Ram Setu is sorted out. 
That will demand courage from the government and 
a commitment to stand by the expert opinions of 
archeologists, historians and geologists on the 
nature of the structure."

Such opinions are unanimous. Besides the ASI, 
historians, geologists, and earth and marine 
scientists have said the Ram Setu cannot be 
considered a man-made entity in the absence of 
material evidence.

Yet the BJP and its cohorts contend that the ASI 
affidavit denies Ram's existence and constitutes 
"blasphemy" and an "insult to the Hindus". The 
government has "sought to negate all that the 
Hindus consider sacred ... and wounded the very 
idea of India", it railed.

In fact, the affidavit is extremely deferential 
to the scriptures. It reads: "The ASI is aware of 
and duly respects the deep religious import 
bestowed upon these texts by the Hindu community 
across the globe." Yet it argues that no material 
evidence, such as human remains or other 
artifacts, has been discovered at the site, which 
would corroborate the mythological account.

It also quotes studies by India's Space 
Applications Center, which "conclusively" show 
that the Setu formation is purely natural, and 
says that the imagery collected by the US 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
cannot be interpreted as "proof" of a man-made 
structure. NASA itself has clarified that remote 
visual images cannot prove or disprove this.

That's not all. A Geological Survey of India 
study around Adam's Bridge, based on drilling 
holes into submerged rocks, also found "no 
evidence" of man-made structures. It revealed 
three cycles of sedimentation of clay, limestone 
and sandstone - a natural phenomenon that 
occurred millennia before humans settled in 
peninsular India.

"The BJP is trying to exploit superstition and 
rank ignorance to press its ridiculous claims," 
said Sarkar. "It has developed this into a 
political tactic. It succeeded in doing that in 
Ayodhya, in Uttar Pradesh, in the 1980s by 
claiming that a temple marking the birthplace of 
Rama had been destroyed there by the first Mughal 
emperor in the 16th century to build a mosque."

The BJP mobilized a hysterical campaign that 
eventually led to the demolition of the mosque in 
December 1992, and a series of violent riots 
against Muslims all over the country.

Economists and environmentalists argue against 
the canal project on the ground that it would 
result in very little saving in terms of shipping 
distance or time, but would cause enormous 
ecological destruction.

Jacob John, an infrastructure economist, argues 
that the canal would cut transit time for coastal 
shipping, but would have little benefit for 
international shipping from Europe and Africa, 
which accounts for two-thirds of the maritime 
traffic. In fact, transit time from Africa to 
Kolkata would likely increase by 3.5 hours 
because piloting a ship through the canal, which 
would have a shallow draft, would be a slow 
process.

The economic rate of return from the project is 
estimated to be just 2.5%. But India is acquiring 
loans for the project at rates as high as 8%.

"The Sethusamudram canal is an economic 
deadweight," said Sudarshan Rodrigues, a 
Chennai-based environmental economist and marine 
conservationist. "But its ecological impact will 
be utterly disastrous. The project area is part 
of the Gulf of Mannar marine biological reserve, 
which has over 3,600 species and major groups of 
biological resources, including precious 
mangroves, which protect the coast against storms 
and tidal waves. Some of them are endangered 
species. The canal's construction will jeopardize 
their existence."

Among the endangered species are sea fans, 
sponges, pearl oysters, chanks (conchs), 
holothuroids and, above all, coral reefs. Corals, 
sea fans, sponges and holothurians (sea 
cucumbers) are all "protected species" under the 
Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Corals 
belong to the same "protected status" schedule of 
the act as the tiger.

"The project is a recipe for destruction and 
ruin, and must be opposed on environmental and 
economic grounds. But superstition and blind 
faith guide decision-making in a globalizing 
India that aspires to become a modern economic 
superpower," said Sudarshan.

(iv)

ndtvblogs
September 24, 2007

SEPTIC POLITICS: Imam Ram and Ram Jehadis

There are enough gullible voters in India who 
allow political parties to exploit their 
economical, emotional and religious weaknesses 
and faith. Sixty years of democracy proves it. 
All political parties are guilty. Ram, Ram Mandir 
and Ram Setu are abused as vote winners by BJP, 
for example. The goal is PMO, New Delhi.
No one has questioned BJP, RSS,VHP and others 
like them about all the degradation they have 
caused to Ram by their Ram Jehad and by pocketing 
votes in the name of Ram. Around 1947, no one 
questioned Ram, whether he was a myth, a legend 
or a historic figure. There was great reverence 
for Ram.
  Since Hindutva jehadis have monopolised Ram, 
become his only defenders and advocates, Ram has 
suffered a huge loss in reverence. And why not? 
If Ram jehadis go on using Ram as vote winner for 
them, they expose Ram to all kinds of questions 
and doubts.
Before Babri Masjid demolition not many people in 
India knew that in Ayodhya more than thirty 
places claim to be birthplaces of Ram! One 
wonders how many Rams took birth in Ayodhya! And 
yet one more temple is on the agenda of Ram 
Jehadis. Which Ram's birth place it would be?
Another question: Was Ram an Indian or a 
foreigner like Sonia Gandhi? Yu Kanygin in his 
book, The Path of Aryans: The Role of Ukraine in 
the Spiritual History of Mankind, claims that Ram 
was a Druid born in northern Baltic regions. He 
came to India asked by a voice from heaven to do 
so. On his death Ram was burried in Ukraine 
according to his wishes. Ukraine was called 
Ramavarta.
There is also a Ram who cut off a Shudra's head 
who had dared to educate himself like Eklavya, 
who was lucky to escape by losing his right hand 
thumb only. And the Ram who took his queen to 
jungles with him. He failed to protect her. Then 
instead of defending his queen, exiled her again 
when a dhobi made some derogatory remarks about 
her. The question is: Which Ram is their God, 
about whom these Ram jehadis are waging jehad, as 
elections seem imminent and PMO once again the 
target?
Another question: How many of these Ram Setu 
defenders have ever made a journey to Ram Setu to 
offer their devotion? Now perhaps they would 
suddenly get the idea to build even a temple 
there as well! Perhaps they would wait till next 
elections for Ram setu temple!
Poet Iqbal has sudenly become a hot favorite of 
BJP leaders who tire not quoting him for saying 
Ram as Imam e Hind! They are welcome to do so. 
But Ram as Imam e Hind? Really? If Ram is Imam e 
Hind he cannot be a God! Imam is not God! Imam is 
only a priest. Ask any Imam of any masjid. Isn't 
there a Imam of Jama Masjid in Delhi too?
Moreover, Mr Advani and others who use Ram as a 
vote winner for them have no right to cry Jehad 
against those who raise questions about Ram. As 
long as they use Ram as election winner, all 
Karunanidhis have the right to ask who is Ram? 
What is Ram?
Those who cannot face questions about Ram should 
better confine Ram to temples, pujas and their 
hearts. Don't impose Ram on all Indians. Let all 
the Indians live in peace and harmony, with and 
without Ram.
Playing politics with Ram may be convenient for a 
party but destructive for India. It's anti-India, 
anti-national, anti-national integration.     

(v)

Deccan Herald
19 September 2007

THE RAMAR SETHU CONTROVERSY

by Kancha Ilaiah
If Rama was a king like many other kings building 
temples in his name is a blasphemous act in 
itself.

There is a new debate about Rama, the hero of 
Ramayana, an epic written by Valmiki. With the 
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) submitting an 
affidavit that "There was no historical or 
scientific evidence to establish the existence of 
Lord Rama and also that he constructed the Ram 
Sethu", the BJP has made it an issue to say that 
how can the central government deny the existence 
of Lord Rama who is being seen as god himself?

Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, 
also took the same stand that ASI took. The 
Gandhian nationalist campaign for its own 
legitimacy projected Rama as god. The BJP has 
been using that divine image of Rama as a source 
of political mobilisation. In the interest of the 
nation this question needs to be settled.

When the Supreme Court asked from an 
Archeological organisation naturally it has to 
look for scientific and historical evidence. When 
it came to a conclusion that there was no 
evidence that a historical person called Rama 
ever existed, how can that affidavit be forced to 
be withdrawn?

Does the BJP and its allied organisations claim 
that Rama was not a historical person but god? 
The discourse around the notion of god indicates 
that god has no particular place of birth and he 
does not build just one Sethu here or another 
there but every place is seen as his place and 
every construction is seen as his construction. 
If the name Rama is like the name of Yahova or 
Messiah or Allah or God, neither Yahova nor 
Messiah nor Allah is said to be born at a 
particular place nor such a god is said to have 
built this or that structure.

All places are said to be his birth places and 
all constructions are said to be his 
constructions. Thus, no place or construction 
could become a social or governmental dispute. 
God cannot be drawn into such controversies of 
places and constructions. In religious terms such 
an attempt is seen as blasphemous.

All the claims of the Hindutva forces about Rama 
point to a direction that he was a king and he 
lived at a particular period of time. He was said 
to have been born at a particular place, Ayodhya. 
He was said to have conducted wars against what 
they consider unjust people like Tataka, Bali, 
Ravana and Shambhuka and he built certain cities, 
bridges on rivers and seas and so on. If that is 
so then his period of existence, his contribution 
to constructions needs archeological, historical 
and scientific evidence.

Whether the ASI's affidavit is withdrawn or it 
stands as evidence before the court, the 
affidavit has raised a fundamental point about 
Rama around whom so much politicking is taking 
place. Was he god or was he one of the kings who 
ruled at a particular point of time? Or was he a 
prophetic religious builder like Buddha, Jesus 
and Mohammed? For both kings and prophets 
historical evidence is an essential condition. 
Even the Archeological institutions of the world 
must make a survey of such historical personnel 
and evidence must be produced when disputes 
emerge around their actions.

If Rama was like Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed he 
should have historical evidence of his birth, 
growth and activities. Why should not Rama be put 
to such a scrutiny? Not many court litigations 
have come around the life and activities of 
Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed. But Rama's life is 
coming up before the modern judiciary and 
research institutions time and again. If such 
litigations arise about the life of Buddha or 
Jesus or Mohammed it is not difficult to 
establish their time frame and evidences of their 
activities. Why are the Hindutva forces against 
such evidence centred discourses even in the case 
of Rama? Why do they keep on saying that Rama's 
birth, living and his actions are faith based 
issues and neither courts nor research 
institutions should investigate into such 
evidences? If a Buddhist, or a Christian or a 
Muslim talks about the prophetic builders of 
their religions in that language those very 
prophets suffer major historical setbacks in 
terms of their existential credibility itself.
If Rama is a king like many other kings building 
temples in his name is a blasphemous act in 
itself. Since such temples have come up in the 
course of history the modern state should respect 
them and leave it at that. No political party 
should be allowed to create problems for the 
nation around those temples.

Even the issue of the so called Rama Sethu is 
similar to that of Ayodhya. If so far the Indian 
State has not declared that structure as a 
historical monument and when a national useful 
project is under construction in that area what 
is wrong if that structure is dismantled. No 
modern judiciary can keep on wasting its time 
around such disputes. Some of these things are 
neither provable nor disprovable.

The best course before the judiciary is to leave 
such matters to the national executive and civil 
societal debates. The Indian Supreme Court in 
this case should have dismissed it as 
unresolvable in the court of law. Quite 
interestingly the Supreme Court has not only 
admitted this case, but asked for an affidavit 
from the State.
Whose assistance should the State take in such a 
matter? Naturally that of ASI. What methodology 
should ASI adopt to state its position? Naturally 
it has to come to a conclusion based on 
archeological and scientific basis. The onus now 
lies on the BJP and its allied organisations to 
prove what Rama was.

______



[7] Announcements:

(i)


T2F Pays Tribute to Ghalib on 30th September and 7th October 2007

The mighty Ghalib is considered by many to be the 
most dominating poet of the Urdu language. He 
wrote most of his popular ghazals between the 
ages of 19 and 25 and is hailed as the father of 
modern Urdu prose.

In addition to being one of the finest historians 
of his time, Ghalib was the original hippie: 
subversive, rebellious, and unconventional.

Join us at T2F on two Sundays, as we explore the 
myriad dimensions of Ghalib's genius. The 2 part 
program features the screening of a short film on 
Ghalib by Yousuf Saeed followed by a conference 
call with the Director (who is based in Delhi), 
as well as readings, musical renditions, 
deliberations on Ghalib's relevance to the 
political situation, his religiosity, scientific 
accuracy, and risqué connotations in his work. 
Asif Farrukhi, Tina Sani, Wajid Jawad, Arshad 
Mahmud, Khalid Ahmed, and other Ghalib 
aficionados will participate. We welcome audience 
participation so if there's anything you'd like 
to share, bring it along.

If you're wondering, "Why in Ramzan?", the 
attached ash'aar precipitated the idea.

Dates: Sunday, 30th September and 7th October 2007

Time: 10:00 pm

Entry Fee: Rs. 100 (for each day)

Venue: The Second Floor
6-C, Prime Point Building, Phase 7, Khayaban-e-Ittehad, DHA, Karachi
Phone: 538-9273 | 0300-823-0276 | info at t2f.biz
Map: http://www.t2f.biz/location

Seats are limited and will be available on a 
'first come, first served' basis. No reservations.

----


(ii)

To sign the 'Investigate Justice Sabharwal 
Petition' to the President of India, go to
http://www.petitiononline.com/CJIProbe/petition.html

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

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.