SACW | Nov. 11-14, 2007 / State of Emergency in Pakistan / India: Nandigram Madness

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | November 11-14, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2469 - 
Year 10 running

[Interruption Notice : Please note, The will be no SACW dispatches 
between 15-26 November 2007]

[1] Pakistan in a State of Emergency:
   (i) Today's imperatives (M.B. Naqvi)
   (ii) Sinking Deeper Into The Quagmire - Pakistan's coup within a 
coup (Praful Bidwai)
  (iii) The beginning of Musharraf's end (Kuldip Nayar)
  (iv) Washington envisions a Pakistan beyond Musharraf (Howard LaFranch)
  (v)  resolution adopted at meeting on "A People's Programme for Social Change"
  (vi)  Why aren't we fighting terrorism? (Dr Ayesha Siddiqa)
  (vii) 'We express our support and solidarity -  Letter From 
Concerned Indian Citizens
  (viii) Manchester, London, Lahore, Berlin, Toronto - Videos of 
protests against emergency in Pakistan
[2] Bangladesh:  Judiciary Freed From Gov't But Doubts Linger (Farid Ahmed)
[3] Sri Lanka: Upgrade Human Rights Compliance in the Military to 
Ensure International Standards
[4] India: Violence in West Bengal
- Where Party Rules : Only an incompetent government sanctions terror 
(Rudrangshu Mukherjee)
- Statement from Concerned Citizens - On the Shameful Events in 
Nandigram in the last few days.
[5] Announcements:
- Public Meeting: Committee for the Release of Dr. Binayak Sen (New 
Delhi, 14 Nov)
- Film Screening: Missing in Pakistan (Karachi, 17 November 2007)

______


[1] Pakistan:

(i) TODAY'S IMPERATIVES

by M.B. Naqvi

[November 12, 2007]

General Pervez Musharraf, the Army Chief, moved on Nov 11 to mollify 
his foreign critics, especially the US Administration, by naming the 
date of the coming election and of dissolving the National and 
Provincial Assemblies. He, the pivot of entire governance, is to 
nominate the caretaker governments that will supervise the polls in 
uniform. How different will be his new nominees from his old 
nominees: Mr. Shaukat Aziz and his happy band? They will do what he 
will want.

The US has already approved the move, though it also wants to see 
another general to head the Army soon enough and may want an 
assurance that Musharraf would stick to the deal America brokered for 
empowering Ms. Benazir Bhutto, the PPP Chairperson. Thus all that he 
did on Nov 3 last stays: his uniform, Emergency, PCO, laws and orders 
to muzzle the media and the PCOed Supreme and High Courts. These 
measures were comprehensively rejected by Pakistan's democratic 
forces. Democratic forces cannot also accept the Army 
Chief-supervised elections under Emergency and other PCO 
restrictions. Polls under these conditions and his overarching powers 
are sure to be manipulated. Current Crisis will continue to intensify.

Lawyers and democratic forces in the country are sure to go on 
resisting Army's domination of politics, though this cannot be said 
with certainty about two mainstream parties, viz. PPP and MMA, each 
of whom seems to be ready to do a deal with the military for a 
limited share in power. Only PML (N) rejects both a deal with 
Musharraf and the military's domination of politics. That will get 
PML (N) a lot of votes in Punjab, if gerrymandering is not too 
massive.

The imperative anyhow is the ending of Emergency, PCO, new gagging 
laws and orders for the media and restoration of pre-Nov 3 
conditions, including pre-PCOed Supreme and High Courts. These things 
cannot be achieved easily. Not only the national disgrace of a 
uniformed President has to be ended, military as such has to be sent 
out of political arena.

There is no point in begging for democratic freedoms; they have to 
won through popular struggle. This struggle does not look like being 
led by mainstream parties. It is the new heroes - lawyers led by 
Aitezaz Ahsan, Munir Malik, Ali Ahmed Kurd et al and Judges who did 
not take new PCO oath - who will have to lead while new and smaller 
parties interested in social justice would also be in the vanguard. 
And if Musharraf reneges on the deal with Benazir, PPP too may be 
forced to join the anti-dictatorship movement and military's 
political role in earnest, beginning with its long march, though 
ordinarily Benazir would prefer to be in the Bush-Musharraf corner.

As for the regime's foreign friends, Musharraf remains the option on 
which some of their money is still on, though doubts about his 
utility are now growing. Still, no one need discount all American 
public pronouncements. Anyway, American government shows both 
exasperation and desperation in dealing with Musharraf. Despite fine 
statements, it is hard to imagine that Musharraf could have carried 
out his second coup against the American wishes; Musharraf's 
difficulties in retaining the PML (Q) support and the need to 
suppress growing opposition may have necessitated the Emergency route 
to execute the deal with Benazir after the elections.

Have all concerned factored in the changed temper of the people after 
the lawyers' six months long movement? The docility of Pakistanis, on 
which all dictators have relied on, is no more in Punjab villages and 
small towns. The old tacit acceptability of the military domination 
is also a thing of the past. All generals have to make a special note 
of it.

With the Pakistanis' refusal to accept Musharraf's Nov 3 actions is 
to be combined the growing amount of western disenchantment with 
Musharraf regime. No matter what western governments say on the 
record, there is wide realization that Musharraf experiment is not an 
answer to western prayers. One expects a rough ride for the proposed 
Musharraf regime Mark II even in the immediate future.

However, the cost to Pakistan of what impends will be grievous. It 
has suffered grievous blows of four or five Martial Laws, each 
abrogated the Constitution or put it in abeyance. This has deepened 
all the faultlines. Battering of the constitution and 
constitutionalism promotes lawlessness and corruption, making the 
state race toward failure. Already, Talibanisation is proceeding 
apace; state's writ is increasingly disappearing over large areas of 
NWFP; small statelets are emerging in tribal areas. These are being 
run by men who are Taliban, warlord and narco-dealers rolled into 
one. Pakistan state has been retreating and Army has suffered huge 
casualties.

Despite American and western importance for Pakistan's dictatorial 
rulers, especially for the economy, reactions of people are far more 
important. Foreigners are a secondary factor. People have to assess 
what has the Musharraf's eight years yielded. True, Shaukat Aziz and 
his happy band go on harping on their great achievements of high 
growth rates and good governance. For 75 per cent of Pakistanis live 
below World Bank-defined poverty line, things look differently: they 
find jobs scarce for a burgeoning population; claims of poverty 
reduction by 10 per cent in four years is credible to nobody; 
structural unemployment is just too high. The combination of high 
inflation rates (for tackling of which the regime has no clue) with 
the unemployed, irregularly employed or not employed at all is 
wreaking havoc on 75 per cent of people.

Word has spread of the extreme brutality of the regime on leading 
lawyers like Aitzaz Ahsan, Munir Malik, Ali Ahmad Kurd et al. Now 
even PPP leaders are being picked up on a mass scale; even second 
rank leader like Jam Saqi was being sought by the police on Sunday. 
Repression will be so much oil on fire. Who can forget the savagery 
with which security personnel beat the lawyers and journalists on 
Sept 29 and has continued since. Someone will have to pay for it.

Anyhow, who can forget the two full blown insurgencies going on in 
NWFP and Balochistan. The obviously unrealistic Afghanistan policy 
has resulted in growing Talibanisation, it has sharpened the complex 
ethnic-nationalistic aspirations of the Pushtoons mixed with 
extra-austere Islamic fanaticism. Law and order is rapidly 
deteriorating. The inter-provincial harmony - one of the original 
aims of General Musharraf in 1999 - is at its worst now. Look, how 
Pakistani bureaucracy is deadlocked over big dams, Indus waters 
distribution, distribution of the funds from the Divisible Pool and 
even on WAPDA; on all these subjects Musharraf regime has been 
clueless.

The people of Pakistan have the grit, wit and wisdom to effect a true 
regime change through sustained peaceful agitation. But change there 
has to be. To repeat, what is a must is the immediate undoing of Nov 
3 Emergency, PCO, media suppression law and other measures to control 
the media and press have to be withdrawn in toto. Release of all 
lawyers, political workers and human rights activists brooks no 
delay. The position as it obtained on Nov 2 needs to be restored 
without caveats. It includes restoration of the Supreme and High 
Courts as they were before PCO. There has also to be an 
across-the-board amnesty for all political leaders. The question 
before all political parties and lawyers' leaders should be how to 
find neutral caretakers? Or can there not be a national government, 
headed by the pre-PCO Chief Justice for the polls purposes? 
Organizing free polls involves tight control over all intelligence 
agencies by the Caretakers to prevent them from playing any role in 
the election processes.

(ii)

Kashmir Times
November 13, 2007

Sinking Deeper Into The Quagmire
PAKISTAN'S COUP WITHIN A COUP

by Praful Bidwai

As General Pervez Musharraf continues his crackdown on his opponents, 
the meaning of "the state of emergency" becomes brutally clear. It's 
crude, unadulterated, despicable martial law imposed by a desperate 
dictator bereft of a strategy to resolve any of the problems which 
his own eight year-long rule has aggravated. Through his 
recklessness, driven by a quest for absolutist power, he has not only 
undermined Pakistan's nascent and fragile democratic institutions; he 
has plunged his nation into frightening instability and turmoil.
Gen Musharraf's principal targets are unmistakable: the higher 
judiciary, lawyers, the media, and civil society organisations 
(CSOs). That explains the detention of thousands of their members, 
including the non-official Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, on 
whose office the police swooped down one day after the emergency was 
proclaimed.
Even more brazen was the General's assault on the Supreme Court, his 
dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry, and his order directing 
all judges of that court and the High Courts to take an oath of 
allegiance to the new regime. To their credit, a majority of the 
judges refused.
It equally speaks to the craven submissiveness of the four Supreme 
Court judges who fell in line that their very first act was to cancel 
all pending litigation, including most importantly, petitions against 
Gen Musharraf's election as President, on which the court was meant 
to pronounce judgment before the expiry of this term as chief of army 
staff on November 15.
Gen. Musharraf has selectively arrested political leaders, mainly 
from the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Islamic-Right 
Jamat-e-Islami. But their detention seems aimed, like his railing 
against "extremism" and "terrorism" during his national address, more 
at pleasing his backers in the West than at containing real 
opposition.
Meanwhile, pitched battles continue between the police and 
anti-martial law protesters, primarily lawyers, whose intensity and 
defiant spirit have surprised many. If the political parties join in, 
the protests could acquire irresistible force. Although the protests 
were blacked out, because private TV channels were off the air, their 
news is fuelling public anger against the military.
Signs are emerging that the General's decision to impose martial law 
did not have the full backing of the Establishment, not even the 
military. Some of own his advisers opposed it.
It's doubtful if even a small minority believes that the imposition 
of martial law was necessary in "the national interest". Gen 
Musharraf cited 11 different reasons in justification, eight of which 
pertain to the judiciary's "constant interference in executive 
functions", including "control of terrorist activity, economic 
policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban 
planning". These won't wash.
It's not that the judiciary didn't assert itself and try to expand 
its powers through suo motu interventions. It certainly did, largely 
justifiably-for instance, by questioning the sell-off of Pakistan 
Steel Mills at below-market prices, by reinstating Chief Justice 
Choudhry, demanding an inquiry into the cases of "missing persons", 
and reprimanding negligent civil servants. Admittedly, it also 
indulged in some grandstanding.
However, all this happened well before the crisis caused by the 
October 6 Presidential election. Gen Musharraf went along with 
it-conveniently forgetting constitutional propriety and defence of 
the executive's domain, until judgment in his own case became 
imminent. Then, he used ruthless means to perpetuate his rule while 
cynically citing grand causes like threats to the nation.
Some of the Supreme Court's interventions were questionable, as in 
ordering the government to reopen the Lal Masjid and release 61 
extremist suspects long held without charges. Yet, ironically, the 
judges responsible for this, Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi and Faqir Mohammad 
Khokhar, were Musharraf loyalists who took the new oath of allegiance!
The plain truth is that Gen Musharraf chose to voice his complaint 
against the judiciary only when he sensed, apparently through an 
illegally tapped telephone call, that the Supreme Court was likely to 
rule against his eligibility for the Presidential election.
Even more unconvincing are the other reasons cited for martial law: 
viz, protecting Pakistan against the growing forces of "extremism" 
and "terrorism". These forces have indeed been growing, especially in 
the North-West Frontier Province, and tribal Agency areas like North 
and South Waziristan, Bajaur, and most recently, Swat, besides 
Baluchistan.
However, their growth can be largely attributed to Gen Musharraf's 
inept and half-hearted handling of anti-extremist operations, coupled 
with his strategy of cutting unviable deals with pro-Taliban forces. 
He has been content to receive $11 billion in assistance from the 
United States since September 2001 as part of its Global War on 
Terrorism (GWoT). But it's doubtful if he has used it purposively.
In any case, it's not lack of military powers, or judicial 
constraints on their exercise, that has hobbled the fight against the 
pro-Taliban fundamentalists. The real and growing constraint lies in 
the demoralisation of Pakistan's security forces deployed in the 
"badlands", their high casualty rates-more than 1,000 have died-, and 
rising desertions, currently estimated at more than 150.
Such desertions have occurred for the first time since the Bangladesh 
War. Besides, paramilitary units like the Frontier Corps, recruited 
from the tribal population, simply lack the will to fight their own 
brothers. At the end of August, pro-Taliban militants kidnapped as 
many as 247 Pakistani soldiers, a majority of whom were released 
recently in exchange for 25 extremists.
As America's GWoT spills over into Pakistan's Federally Administered 
Tribal Areas, the Durand Line, artificially drawn by the British in 
1893 to run through the Pashtun belt, and not accepted by the Afghan 
government or by the Pashtuns, is under serious threat. Gen Musharraf 
has no strategy to meet that threat. But over 100,000 Pakistani 
troops are deployed in that region-in highly vulnerable conditions. 
Meanwhile, the US is threatening to send in troops in hot pursuit of 
al-Qaeda and Taliban elements, which have found a sanctuary there.
This rising threat to Pakistan's control over its volatile tribal 
frontiers is an extraordinarily serious matter. It has arisen because 
GWoT has gone haywire in Afghanistan, and Gen Musharraf's strategy of 
fighting pro-Taliban forces has proved bankrupt. The US may yet add 
to these complications by replicating in the border region the myopic 
policies it pursues in Iraq and Afghanistan-to disastrous effect.
The continuation of martial law is certain to increase public 
alienation, social turmoil and political instability in Pakistan. 
That in turn will prove conducive to the further growth of extremism. 
Gen Musharraf has effectively aborted the political process which 
alone could have acted as a buffer against extremism. Absent 
democratic space, extremism will thrive.
Ms. Benazir Bhutto is perfectly right in saying that military 
dictatorship and fundamentalism will feed on each other. It's another 
matter that she herself has been complicit and collusive in creating 
conditions which favour this. Had she not entered into a US-brokered 
deal with Gen Musharraf, which led to the so-called National 
Reconciliation Ordinance-which lets her off serious corruption 
charges in return for her tacit support to the General's election as 
President- events could have shaped differently.
Instead, Ms. Bhutto prevented her Pakistan People's Party from 
joining the pro-democracy agitation, and made a series of unsavoury 
compromises with Gen Musharraf.
Yet, it's not clear that she has learnt her lesson. Her 48-hour trip 
to Dubai at a critical juncture, probably after being tipped off 
about the imminence of martial law, and her unexpectedly quick 
return, possibly after secret talks with Gen Musharraf and the 
Americans, suggest otherwise.
The future of the other major player, Mr Nawaz Sharif, remains 
uncertain. A recent Supreme Court verdict allowing him to return to 
Pakistan stands cancelled. Whether his PML(N) can join and energise 
the anti-martial law struggle is unclear.
One thing is plain, though. By targeting Pakistan's CSOs and human 
rights groups, which represent the secular liberals, Gen Musharraf 
has undermined the chance of building a political climate that could 
help him combat extremism without becoming slavishly dependent on the 
US.
There's some uncertainty over how strongly Washington will use its 
leverage over Gen Musharraf to get martial law lifted. Left to 
itself, it wouldn't have gone beyond "regretting" the coup and 
(unconvincingly) threatening to review aid to Pakistan. The New York 
Times says many US officials want to "keep billions of dollars 
flowing to Pakistan's military" because they see Gen Musharraf as 
their best bet in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Yet, when President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 
shamed by strong street-level protests in Pakistan, hardened their 
stand to demand that Gen Musharraf "take off his uniform" and 
"quickly return to a constitutional path", the Pakistan establishment 
announced that elections would be held soon.
This shows that political pressure can yield excellent results in 
tandem with mass protests. In their absence, Pakistan won't move 
towards democratisation. A historic chance now awaits Ms Bhutto: she 
can make small, personal gains by colluding with the General and 
prolonging military rule, or she can end the darkness and help 
transform Pakistan into a real democracy.

(iii)


The Asian Age
November 13, 2007

THE BEGINNING OF MUSHARRAF'S END

by Kuldip Nayar

The good news that filters through the emergency-cum-martial law 
clamped on Pakistan is that thousands of people are coming out on the 
streets in protest. Lawyers, doctors and journalists are in the 
forefront. They are being dragged into vans in the bazaars of Lahore, 
Karachi and the small towns of Punjab and Sindh. Yet their resistance 
is resolute. The Pakistan military has even entered the Supreme Court 
building. Wrongly deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, 
after his house arrest, has said that whatever General Musharraf has 
been doing is illegal. Chaudhry's call to the lawyers to rise up in 
protest has had a determined response. The majority of the judges in 
the Supreme Court and the high courts of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan 
and the North West Frontier Province have refused to take new oath as 
ordered by the government.

A message received from Pakistan says, "Cases of Muneer A. Malik, 
Aitzaz Ahsan, Tariq Mahmood and Ali Ahmed Kurd are serious. Muneer A. 
Malik, the former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association and 
leader of the lawyers' movement has been shifted to the notorious 
Attock Fort. He is being tortured and is under the custody of the 
military intelligence. Tariq Mahmood, former president of the Supreme 
Court Bar Association, was imprisoned in Adiala Jail. No one was 
allowed to see him and it is reported that he has been shifted to an 
unknown place. Ali Ahmed Kurd, former vice chair of the Pakistan Bar 
Council, is in the custody of military intelligence and being kept at 
an undisclosed place. Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court 
Bar, is being kept in Adiala Jail in solitary confinement, after 
torture."

Civil society in Pakistan has urged bar associations all over the 
world to mobilise public opinion in favour of the judges and lawyers. 
I believe that the Delhi high court has already passed a resolution 
to condemn the emergency. Other high courts in the country and the 
Supreme Court are expected to follow suit.

A creature of America, President General Pervez Musharraf had to 
"surrender" when the word from Washington was that he would have to 
be "hammered" to shape. After US President George W. Bush telephoned 
Musharraf to say that he could not be President and Army chief at the 
same time, he really had no option except to declare that the 
elections would be held before February 15, and that he would shed 
his uniform.

Still, the real credit for this goes to the people of Pakistan whose 
protest remains undiminished, although it may take time to build up a 
countrywide movement because Pakistan has never gone through a 
national movement, as India has. Aitzaz Ahsan who has led the 
agitation from the front has often told me how they are now going 
through that process. And all credit to them.

In fact, people in Pakistan who have been under one military rule or 
the other for almost 50 years, have shown more courage than we, 
living as a democratic nation for decades, did when emergency was 
imposed in India (1975-1977). Fear was stalking the country, people 
were afraid to come out on the streets. The then Prime Minister, 
Indira Gandhi gloated over the fact that people were so timid, and 
said that not even a dog had barked when emergency was imposed. 
Little did she realise that the sense of alienation would one day be 
so strong that she and her Congress Party would be ousted from 
office, as it happened in 1977. The Opposition secured more than 300 
seats in the Lok Sabha, out of 546.

Similarly, Pakistan's military rulers should realise that the apathy 
of the people towards Musharraf will grow as the days go by. Even in 
the "free and fair" polls, when held, his party - the Muslim League 
(Q) - may not be anywhere in the picture. This will be the people's 
catharsis for the silence they have maintained for decades.

The best jihad is to speak the truth in front of an unjust ruler. 
This is a saying by Prophet Muhammad. Thousands of people in Pakistan 
have done exactly that. Government repression has been savage and 
brutal. It has picked up for punishment those lawyers in particular 
who had won the battle to reinstate Chief Justice Chaudhry. There 
have been demonstrations during the regimes of the Chief Martial Law 
Administrators - General Ayub Khan and General Zia-ul Haq. Even 
General Pervez Musharraf himself experienced one a while ago. But 
never before has the defiance been so widespread, so resolute and so 
persistent. Belatedly, Benazir Bhutto, chairperson of the Pakistan 
People's Party (PPP), has woken up to the task of leading the country 
to a democratic future. She was under house arrest, but released on 
Washington's orders. But suspicions still lurk about her because of 
the deal she struck with Musharraf for joint civil-military rule. Now 
that she is leading an alliance of 14 parties for the restoration of 
democracy, she is in the midst of the battle. Nawaz Sharif's 
opposition to her does not make sense. However, the political parties 
are yet to put their act together. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of the 
MMA, an alliance of six religious parties, has rightly said that the 
parties must close their ranks to oust Musharraf.

In India, there is widespread sympathy for the people of Pakistan. I 
wonder if New Delhi's policy on Pakistan is being formulated by the 
Central government or the ministry of external affairs. To refuse a 
visa to Pakistan railway minister Sheikh Rashid to watch the One-Day 
cricket match at Mohali was to create a point of digression at a time 
when all attention should be focused on the battle between the 
military rulers and the democratic elements. It was a thoughtless 
act, however undesirable Rashid himself was.

One is getting constant messages from across the border that there 
are serious differences in the Army over what Musharraf has done. The 
corps commanders have not been kept fully in the picture. They did 
not want to write off the civil side completely as Musharraf has 
done. They reportedly favoured the earlier arrangement which had put 
the civil elements in the front and the military in the background. 
It looks as if the same arrangement will be tried again, with 
Musharraf, if possible, or without him, if necessary. The beginnings 
are there. After the large-scale killing of students outside 
Peshawar, there was so much resentment against General Ayub that he 
had to step down. He wanted to stay but the then Chief of Army Staff, 
General Yahya Khan, had to ask him to quit. A similar situation can 
develop in Pakistan.

Elections are bound to be held early because of American pressure. 
But the people in Pakistan are not sure how free and fair they will 
be. However, Musharraf should realise that the party is over. The 
emergency-cum-martial law has proved to be the last straw on the 
camel's back. His exit is only a question of time.


(iv)

The Christian Science Monitor
November 13, 2007

WASHINGTON ENVISIONS A PAKISTAN BEYOND MUSHARRAF
Despite enthusiasm from the White House, analysts are looking to the 
next best thing.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Reporter Howard LaFranchi compares US-Pakistan relations today to 
those with Iran in the late 1970s.

[. . .
http://tinyurl.com/2cu9t7

(v)

  Text of resolution adopted at consultation meeting on "A People's 
Programme for Social Change" - Karachi 7-8 November 2007

RESOLUTION ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY IN THE MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF 
LEFTIST, PROGRESSIVE AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES AND GROUPS, LAWYERS' 
COMMUNITY, TRADE UNIONS, PROFESSIONAL BODIES, WRITERS AND HUMAN 
RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, HELD AT PILER CENTRE, GULSHAN-E-MAYMAR, KARACHI ON 
7-8 NOVEMBER 2007

This meeting, after thorough discussion of all aspects of the 
situation arising from the imposition of State of Emergency by the 
Chief of the Army Staff resolves as follows: [. . .]
http://tinyurl.com/ys2h72


(vi)

Daily Times
November 05, 2007

WHY AREN'T WE FIGHTING TERRORISM? -Dr Ayesha Siddiqa

Why should people come out on the street and protest against the 
killing of innocent security officials, who have nothing to do with 
erroneous policies of the top leadership, when they are being 
constantly brainwashed to comply with authority, even in the face of 
highly questionable decisions?

In his article 'Whose war is this?' (Daily Times, October 30), Rasul 
Buksh Rais raised a pertinent point about the apathy of religious 
parties in not protesting the deaths of innocent security personnel 
and the rise of Talibanisation in the country. However, he is not the 
only one protesting. Recently, eminent civil society activist, Pervez 
Hoodbhoy also talked about the silence of civil society in protesting 
the obvious crime of the religious extremists. In both cases, the 
gripe is that in their rage against General Pervez Musharraf, 
politicians and members of the civil society are no longer 
considering the 'clear and present danger' to Pakistan posed by 
terrorism. This is not just the state of the politicians but applies 
to common people as well.

Let us consider why ordinary people do not have the ownership of this 
war on terror and why we don't see protests against suicide attacks.

Criticism levelled against religious parties for their complacency is 
understandable because not only are such parties silent but also 
because of the uncertainty regarding their continued partnership with 
some militant groups. This partnership dates back to the Afghan War 
that these parties and militants had fought together. Moreover, 
religious parties would have little problem with the political agenda 
of the militants which is the imposition of sharia in the country.

Of course, there is the problem of the problem of innocent people 
being killed, but then religious parties find an excuse to remain 
silent - the terrorists have not really started a battle against the 
general public. Security forces remain the terrorists' main targets. 
This is also one of the reasons that common people have not really 
stood up against the killing of police and military officials. The 
security forces are the terrorists' main targets. This is also one of 
the reasons that common people have not really stood up to the 
killings of police and military officials. Why start battles against 
violent people, especially when there are old and deep connections 
between government agencies and the militants? After all, how can 
ordinary people stand up against forces which were nourished and 
nurtured by intelligence agencies? The government has not even used 
all its efforts to stop Maulana Fazlulah's radio channel. So, why 
blame the people?

There is something even more sinister in the silence of the civil 
society. It denotes apathy and cynicism. People are not only afraid 
of taking action, but they also believe that they do not have any 
capacity to change anything. Policies are either made at the top in 
Islamabad or in Washington. Such a perception is obviously ridiculous 
but then why blame the general public when the country suffers from a 
dearth of leadership or people are made to believe that there is 
nothing beyond pragmatism and realpolitik.

Ordinary people are afraid of the terrorists and are scared to take 
risks when the top leadership or the elite wants to play it safe. Can 
people forget the fate of three mullahs from the frontier who were 
killed for the sin of sticking their necks out and condemning 
honour-killing, leave alone suicide bombing?

Why should people come out on the street and protest against the 
killing of innocent security officials, who have nothing to do with 
erroneous policies of the top leadership, when they are being 
constantly brainwashed to comply with authority, even in the face of 
highly questionable decisions? The state of apathy and cynicism in 
society can be ascertained from another incident that took place in 
Islamabad recently. Reportedly, Professor Khwaja Masood, who is a 
teacher to many in the country, was recently insulted during a 
literary gathering in a government institution. He was called names 
by a federal minister and an army officer for talking about hypocrisy 
in the society.

The tragedy is not that a retired brigadier and a serving minister 
insulted him public and asked him to get out of the hall, but the 
fact that the audience failed to react to the old professor's 
humiliation. There was no one except one brave young woman, Samar 
Minallah who got up and tried to cajole the conscience of the people 
that included retired bureaucrats, military officers and other civil 
society activists. Instead of letting her be, some government 
functionaries tried to ask the brave woman's contact probably to 
harass her for committing the sin of annoying an arrogant minister.

Has this society come to such a sorry state that people will not walk 
out in protest against the insult of a respectable educationist? 
Where is the sense of honour and self-respect of the people? Most 
probably, most of the people sitting amongst the audience just sat 
there out of fear of not spoiling relations with a serving minister 
and a retired military officer. After all, Khawaja Masood is a 
retired professor. A serving minister and that too a favourite of the 
president is a more important figure. Others might have said to 
themselves: why should we stand up and fight? As long as our honour 
is secure and we are not being insulted, why get up and fight. 
Unfortunately, today this is the mindset of most people. Everybody 
wants to secure his or her own space without bothering to stand up 
for the other.

I am reminded of the story of a king who ordered all his subjects to 
bring a pail of milk and empty it into the pond in front of the 
castle before dawn. Next morning when the king woke up, he found the 
pond filled with water and no milk. Everyone thought that others 
would bring milk so a bucket of water would suffice. This is pure 
realpolitik and pragmatism. People are encouraged not to fight for 
norms, values and principles but to save their interests. Power is 
the name of the game and people are meant to respect that.

How, then, can we expect a society, which could not snub two 
extremely arrogant agents of the state for insulting an educationist, 
to stand up against terrorists that kill innocent security personnel? 
This is not to justify the society's complacency but an effort to 
understand the sickening apathy. Both the individual and the society 
he lives in do not have the strength to stand up to often violent 
humiliation at the hands of all sorts of rogue elements.

The underlying lesson of pragmatism that is being taught to the 
people says that they should not protest against anything wrong for 
the sake of creating limited opportunities. People must not condemn 
corrupt politicians and should support deals condoning corruption 
because those at top believe this to be the only way to stabilise 
politics and return to democracy. However, such short-term stability 
is at the cost of the honour and strength of a society. Then why 
blame the people of this very society for not standing up against 
terrorism? After all, isn't this also an aspect of pragmatism face of 
pragmatism that people are afraid of standing up to the brutal force 
of the terrorists?

The ordinary people are afraid of further victimisation at the hands 
of the terrorists. The good and honourable people in Waziristan or 
other parts of the country have systematically been silenced through 
the killing of those who opposed the terrorists or protested against 
such forces. The militant, on the other hand, either has contact with 
some segments of the state or is getting strengthened due to the 
inefficient policies of the state. For years, powerful agencies have 
created rogue elements that have later turned into local heroes and 
are now propagating their version of Islam. Such people are the 
result of a policy that aimed to use the militants as a tool of 
security and foreign policies. While creating these characters the 
state did not think about the long-term costs.

Unfortunately, the state still does not think of long-term costs of 
terrorising people at the hands of militants or its functionaries. A 
fragmented and terrified society cannot have the strength to stand up 
for itself or its martyrs.

Ayesha Siddiqa is author of Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military 
Economy. She can be reached at Ayesha.ibd at gmail.com


(vii)   'WE EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY WITH PAKISTANI CIVIL 
SOCIETY' - LETTER FROM CONCERNED INDIAN CITIZENS

Date: 12 Nov 2007

Letter to the Editor:

We unequivocally condemn the imposition of Emergency in Pakistan by 
General Musharraf, along with the promulgation of the Provisional 
Constitution Order, suspension of fundamental rights, muzzling of the 
press, and violence against lawyers, human rights activists, 
journalists, feminists, artists, trade unionists and other civil 
society members. We condemn the arrest of the regime's critics and 
demand their unconditional release.

Musharraf claims to be saving Pakistan from 'suicide,' primarily 
through 'religious militancy'. Yet, armed militias are being allowed 
to overrun Swat. The Shariah has been imposed, Pakistani flags on 
government buildings replaced by religious ones, and the Frontier 
Constabulary in Daroshkhela town disarmed and disbanded by the 
militants. These are grim portents with roots in the U.S. backed 
military-mullah alliance of the 1980s. Musharraf has chosen to wage 
war against Pakistan's liberals instead of combating fundamentalist 
militants.

We express our support and solidarity with Pakistani civil society in 
its twin struggle against Musharraf's tyrannical rule and religious 
fundamentalism. We demand the immediate lifting of the Emergency, 
restoration of the Constitution, the judiciary, the independent press 
and the parliament. We hope the international community will support 
the people of Pakistan in their hour of need and help its transition 
to genuine democracy.

Signed:

Kamla Bhasin
Praful Bidwai
Amrita Chhachhi
Sonia Jabbar
Ritu Menon
Bina Agarwal
Sheba Chhachhi
Sumit Sarkar
Tanika Sarkar
Smitu Kothari
Anuradha Chenoy
Renuka Mishra
Pamela Philipose
A. G. Krishna Menon
Achin Vanaik
Kamal Chenoy
Ratna Menon
Indira Chandrasekhar
Prabeen Singh
Narendar Punjwani
Harsh Kapoor

(viii)

MANCHESTER, LONDON, LAHORE, BERLIN, TORONTO - VIDEOS OF PROTESTS 
AGAINST EMERGENCY IN PAKISTAN
http://tinyurl.com/2wmry5

_____


[2]

Inter Press Service
November 2, 2007

POLITICS-BANGLADESH:  Judiciary Freed From Gov't But Doubts Linger
by Farid Ahmed

DHAKA, Nov 2 (IPS) - While Bangladesh's judiciary has been freed from 
the corrosive influence of the bureaucracy and the political 
establishment, it remains to be seen how the momentous change will 
work to dispense real justice to the people.

In a historic ceremony in Dhaka, on Thursday, Fakhruddin Ahmed, head 
of the interim government, and Chief Justice Ruhul Amin officially 
announced the historic separation of the judiciary from the executive.

Henceforth, instead of the government, the Supreme Court will appoint 
all lower court judges and judicial magistrates and hold them 
accountable. Earlier, these judicial functionaries were chosen by the 
Establishment Ministry, and the judges reported to the government.

Describing the changed situation in his speech Amin said that 
judicial functionaries would now wield power ''which is actually not 
a power but a pledge to wipe off tears caused by injustice''.

In a ruling, eight years ago, the Supreme Court had asked the 
government to take measures to separate the judiciary from the 
executive organ. But the governments of two former prime ministers -- 
Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Khaleda Zia both now in jail on corruption 
charges -- failed to do so during their tenures.

But neither the political parties nor the bureaucrats were sincere 
about giving independence to the judiciary, which was observed to 
have suffered from serious erosion in public confidence because of 
political pressure and interference from the executive branch.

The job was left to the interim government of Ahmed, a former World 
Bank economist, who took power with the backing of the military 
following bloody street violence between the supporters of the two 
main political rivals over the conduct of the general elections that 
was scheduled for January this year.

Late October more than 600 administrative officials rallied in Dhaka 
to make a last-ditch effort to scuttle a decision that would deprive 
them of the judicial power they had been enjoying since British 
colonial times.

But, according to the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association 
(SCBA) M. Amir-ul Islam, at least 13 of the bureaucrats, including 
four top secretaries, are now facing contempt-of-court charges for 
distorting the Supreme Court ruling and impeding the separation 
process.

The SCBA has demanded disciplinary action against officials showing 
disregard to the Supreme Court judgment and the provisions of the 
constitution.

Reflecting the difficulties in overcoming the vested interests, the 
country's military chief Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed, who plays a key role in 
Ahmed's government, said: "If the judiciary is not separated right 
now, it will never happen.'' The country has been under a state of 
emergency ever since the interim government took office and President 
Ahmed, who is committed to hold free and fair elections late next 
year, has said he would first complete a drive against corruption and 
effect a handful of urgent reforms.

Speaking with IPS, Kamal Hossain, the eminent jurist who helped draft 
Bangladesh's constitution and served as foreign minister in the 
cabinet of the country's founder-president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, 
said the demand for an independent judiciary went back to 
Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan in 1972, following a bloody 
war of secession.

"As we drafted the constitution of Bangladesh in 1972, it was clearly 
stated that the judiciary should be separated from the executive 
organ of the state," Hossain said. ''Initially we couldn't implement 
it because of the shortage of manpower immediately after the (civil) 
war and the process stopped after the changeover in 1975 when 
Bangabandhu (a popular name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) was 
assassinated in a military putsch."

Hossain explained that the existing magistracy was first established 
in 1872 during the British rule when the magistrates were put under 
the executive so that the colonial government could have direct 
control over it.

Government officials who held judicial responsibilities as 
magistrates did not want to relinquish their power and political 
parties were not keen to lose their ability to harass political 
rivals, Hossain said. "It (separation) has been possible now as there 
is no political party in power."

"We have to monitor and see how far the judiciary can dispense 
justice to the people and reduce their woes," said Hossain. 
''Theoretically, the people should benefit from a judiciary that is 
able work freely and independently, but there is still a need to 
evolve a system within the judiciary to check corruption and undue 
influence.''

One of Bangladesh's leading legal experts M. Zahir told IPS that 
because of the mindset of the people working in the judiciary, it 
might take some time before true separation is achieved. ''Unless the 
people in the judiciary feel that they were truly independent in 
dispensing justice it might hamper the process,'' Zahir said. He 
feared that there could be a manpower shortage because the 
magistrates with the executive branch would now no longer be 
available for the dispensation of justice.

But overall the mood in the country was a welcoming one. Nurul Kabir, 
editor of 'New Age' a leading English-language told IPS: "A society 
or a state can never be democratic without an independent judicial 
system and now the first step of an independent judiciary has been 
implemented, meeting the long-cherished demand of the people."

In a published article, former chief justice Mostafa Kamal summed up 
popular expectations: "People of our country do not want to enter 
into the complexity of who is conducting a trial, a man from the 
administration or a man from the judiciary. They want that there be 
no harassment, bribery and corruption; and that cases are disposed of 
quickly, and there is a just judgment."

(END/2007)

______



[3]

National Peace Council
of Sri Lanka
12/14 Purana Vihara Road
Colombo 6
Tel:  2818344, 2854127, 2819064
Tel/Fax:2819064
                    E Mail:  npc at sltnet.lk
Internet:  www.peace-srilanka.org

13.11.07

Media Release 1

UPGRADE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANCE IN THE MILITARY TO ENSURE 
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

The allegations of sexual abuses levelled against Sri Lankan peace 
keeping troops in Haiti have focused international attention on the 
behaviour of Sri Lankan troops. The alleged actions have led to the 
recall of over a hundred soldiers bringing disrepute to the entire 
group and damaging those who are innocent of such offenses. This 
episode is unfortunate because international peace keeping service 
abroad provides an opportunity for Sri Lankan troops to hone their 
skills in different terrain and in a range of conflict situations. 
Overseas missions also provide a conduit for much needed foreign 
currency to enter the country though staff salaries.

The National Peace Council welcomes the positive action of the 
government in speedily addressing the issue by sending a high level 
investigation team to Haiti that included a senior female military 
officer. On the other hand, there have been long standing and 
consistent reports of human rights violations, including sexual 
abuse, emanating from the north and east, especially where there has 
been civilian displacement and resettlement due to war and the 
weakening of civilian infrastructure.

The National Peace Council believes that human rights violations, 
including sexual violence against women cannot be tolerated amongst 
troops whose duty is to protect and defend civilians. Security forces 
will nearly always be in a position of power, in terms of essential 
resources (food and fuel items, for example) and in military terms. 
They cannot be allowed to exploit and abuse their power over civilian 
victims caught in political violence.

We believe that the allegations against Sri Lankan soldiers in Haiti 
highlight the duty of military authorities to enforce appropriate 
standards of discipline amongst troops, including the importance of a 
display of command responsibility. The National Peace Council is 
encouraged by the Sri Lankan government's prompt response to the UN 
investigation into the alleged offenses in Haiti. We see this as a 
positive indication of how international involvement in the form of 
an international human rights monitoring mechanism can protect human 
rights in Sri Lanka itself. The government needs to continue with 
credible investigations in Sri Lanka so that the integrity of the 
investigations process does not suffer, those found guilty are dealt 
with according to law and the innocent are helped to clear their 
reputation as expeditiously as possible.



______


[4] 


The Telegraph
November 12, 2007

WHERE PARTY RULES
- Only an incompetent government sanctions terror

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

In the communist pantheon, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee will occupy, when 
history passes its verdict, a higher pedestal than Joseph Stalin, Mao 
Zedong and even that leader beyond human reproach, Vladimir Illyich 
Lenin. This is because Bhattacharjee is the only communist leader 
under whose aegis the State has actually withered away in one part of 
the world. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has ushered West Bengal into the 
ultimate communist utopia.

[. . .]
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071112/asp/opinion/story_8536257.asp

o o o


STATEMENT FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS
ON THE SHAMEFUL EVENTS IN NANDIGRAM IN THE LAST FEW DAYS
.
We the undersigned have been dismayed and revolted by the events of 
the past few days in and around Nandigram in West Bengal's East 
Midinapur district.  The manner in which the anti-socials of the 
dominant party in the ruling front attacked the residents to 
reestablish the domination over the area exposes the party's lack of 
commitment to democratic values, principles and norms. The actions of 
these people under the benign indulgence of the State administration 
can only strengthen the criminalized and anti-democratic forces in 
our polity. For four days since the operation began the media and 
journalists have not been allowed to enter Nandigram, indicating that 
there is much to hide.

We condemn the assault by the anti-socials carrying the Red flag and 
functioning under the protection and encouragement of the ruling CPM 
on the group of reputed social activists, writers, intellectuals and 
artists led by Medha Patkar who were on a visit to Nandigram to find 
out first hand what was going on and express their solidarity with 
the hapless residents evicted from their hearths and homes. Not only 
were they prevented from entering Nandigram, they were subjected to 
physical violence and intimidation. The events in Nandigram are 
inconsistent with the norms of democratic functioning, claims of 
creating an alternative political culture and the traditions of 
Bengali culture.

We see in this the application of the so-called "Dum Dum dawai" that 
a senior CPM Polit-Bureau member approvingly advocated the other day. 
This is unfortunate since this slogan was coined as a part of the 
democratic resistance during the memorable food movement in the State 
in 1966, whereas it is now sought to be applied against the people 
themselves.  All this is reflective of not just intolerance but a 
strong anti-democratic tendency in the dominant component of West 
Bengal's ruling party today. What is happening in West Bengal today 
is indeed unprecedented in contemporary India and has doubtless 
besmirched the State's rich history of democratic struggles so that 
even the Governor of West Bengal who has shown tremendous restraint 
has been pained   to issue a statement against the unfolding events 
in the State.

We are dismayed at the attitude of the CPM's State and Central 
leadership which not only did not rein in its cadres but did not deem 
it necessary or worthwhile to tender unqualified apology to the group 
led by Medha Patkar for the undemocratic actions of their cadres. 
This suggests that they are condoning such activity.
If such activities continue even for a day more it would be 
tantamount to the State government abdicating its constitutional 
responsibility and a break down of the constitutional functioning in 
the State.

We demand that the CPM leadership, both at the Centre and in the 
State immediately put a stop to the undemocratic actions let loose by 
their cadres.

We also demand that they convey their sincere apology to the people 
of Nandigram and to the group of citizens led by Medha Patkar that 
were trying to visit the area.

We demand a solemn assurance that such things will not recur in the days ahead.
We demand that the state government facilitate the visit of a fact 
finding team consisting of concerned citizens to visit the area.

We appeal to all democratic forces, representing various shades of 
opinion, to stand up and defend the very edifice of our democracy 
which is in peril by taking whatever action they can wherever they 
are (say, by sending copies of this statement (or one based on this) 
to the Chief Minister and the Governor and by holding demonstrations 
and protests on November 12th at 1. 00 pm.

1.	Sumit Chakravarty, Journalist.
2.	Meher Engineer, Social Activist.
3.	Prashant Bhushan, Lawyer
4.	Arvind Kejriwal, Social Activist
5.	Amit Bhaduri, JNU
6.	Sumit Sarkar, Retd. Delhi University.
7.	Manoranjan Mohanty, Delhi University.
8.	Ramaswamy R. Iyer, Retd. Civil Servant
9.	Madhu Bhaduri, Retd Ambassador
10.	Achin Vanaik, Delhi University
11.	Praful Bidwai, Journalist.
12.	Arundhati Dhuru, Social Activist
13.	Sandeep Pandey, Social Activist.
14.	Thomas Kocherry, Social Activist.
15.	Ambarish Rai, Social Activist.
16.	Vijay Pratap, Social Activist
17.	Yogendra Yadav, CSDS.
18.	Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, Retd. Civil Servant
19.	Vitusha Oberoi, Journalist
20.	Mythili Bhusnurmath, Journalist
21.	Rami Chabra, Social Activist.
22.	Mira Shiva, Social Activist.
23.	Mani Subramanian, Retd. Police Officer
24.	Suhas Borkar, Social Activist.
25.	Ashok Aggrawal, Lawyer.
26.	Smitu Kothari, Social Activist.
27.	Fr Cedric Prakash, Social Activist.
28.	Dr. A.S. Ravindra Rao, Doctor.
29.	Ms. Jayashree Rao, Businesswoman
30.	Sukla Sen , Social Activist.
31.	Mukta Shrivastava, Social Activist
32.	Prasad Chacko, Social Activist.
33.	Kalpana Mehta, Social Activist.
34.	Atal Behari Sharma, Social Activist.
35.	Gaurang Raval, Social Activist.
36.	Kavita Das Gupta, Social Activist.
37.	Nimmi Chauhan, Social Activist.
38.	Meenakshi Ganguly, Social Activist.
39.	Asit, Social Activist
40.	Sauquat Hussain, Social activist
41.	Satya Sivaraman, Social Activist
42.	Jimmy Dabhi, Social Activist
43.	Nityanand Jayaraman, Independent Journalist
44.	Sunil Gupta, Social Activist.
45.	Vijay Parmar, Social Activist.
46.	Saurabha Bhattacharya, The Other Media.
47.	Kalyani Menon-sen, Social Activist
48.	Rudy Herdia, Social Activist.
49.	Rasmi Ranjan, Advocate
50.	Dhruva Narayan, Publisher
51.	J Saikia, Academic, Assam
52.	Arun K Bidani, Social Activist
53.	Persis Ginwalla, Social Activist
54.	Pradeep Gawande, Social Activist.
55.	Arvind Shukla, Economist
56.	Harish Dhawan, Delhi University.
57.	Sunil Dharan, Delhi University.
58.	Srijit Mishra, Economist.
59.	Rohit Prasad, MDI.
60.	N P Chaubey, Academic, Allahabad
61.	R. C. Tripathi, Academic, Allahabad
62.	T Karunakaran, Academic, Tamil Nadu.
63.	Ghanshyam Shah, Academic, Ahmedabad
64.	Mahendra Verma I.I.T. Kanpur
65.	Rahul Varman, I. I. T. Kanpur
66.	Sujata Patel, Academic, Pune
67.	Romar Correa, Mumbai University
68.	Anil Sadgopal, Delhi University.
69.	B. Vivekanandan, Formerly in JNU.
70.	Saumen Chattopadhyaya, JNU.
71.	Ritu Priya Mehrotra, JNU
72.	Krishnendu Dastidar, JNU
73.	Avijit Pathak, JNU
74.	Shashi Kant Jha, JNU               
75.	Sudhir Vombatkere,NAPM
76.	Pradipta Chaudhury, JNU         
77.	Satish Jain, JNU
78.	Anjan Mukherji, JNU
79.	Promod Yadav, JNU
80.	Alokesh Barua, JNU
81.	Birendra Nath Mallick, JNU.
82.	Arun Kumar, JNU
83.	Sridevi Panikkar, Delhi Solidarity Group
84.	Thomas Kocherry, NFF
85.	Geetha Ramakrishnan, NCC-USW
86.	Sanjay M.G, NAPM
87.	Gabriele D, NAPM
88.	Sister Celia, NAPM
89.	Anand Patwardhan, Film Maker
90.	Suniti S.R, NAPM
91.	Simpreet Singh, NAPM
92.	Vijayan MJ, Delhi Forum
93.	(Rt. Major General) Sudhir Vombetkere

______


[5] ANNOUNCEMENTS:

(i)

Please share this information with all friends

  Committee for the Release of Dr. Binayak Sen

  Dear Friend,

You are invited to attend and to participate in a public meeting to 
protest the continued detention of Dr. Binayak Sen, National Vice 
President and the Chhattisgarh General Secretary of the Peoples Union 
for Civil Liberties (PUCL). Dr. Sen was arrested on 14 May 2007 on 
trumped up charges. Six months later he continues to be in 
incarceration at the Raipur Central Jail.

The public meeting will be held
from 3 pm to 6 pm
on Wednesday, 14 November 2007
at the Indian Law Institute, Opposite Supreme Court, New Delhi

Speakers:
Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Rajendra Sail, President, Chhattisgarh PUCL
Ms. Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Rajasthan
Mr. Tarun Tejpal, Editor, Tehelka
Dr Vandana Prasad and Dr. Indira Chakravorty, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
Mr. A.B. Bardhan, CPI General Secretary, will chair

( a few other confirmations are being sought)

A medical doctor by training, Dr. Sen has spent 30 years of his life 
reaching health services to the poorest sections of our people, as 
also designing and implementing public health programmes. His 
association with the PUCL led him to highlight and protest the 
atrocities and barbarities upon common people being conducted by 
security forces as part of the most recent anti-Naxalite operations 
called Salwa Judum. PUCL was also in the forefront of the opposition 
to the new law, Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, promulgated 
to stifle protest. These activities, as an office bearer of the PUCL, 
form the backdrop of Dr. Sen's arrest.

Dr. Binayak Sen has been charged under various provisions of the 
Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, Unlawful Activities 
Prevention Act, and later IPC provisions of Sedition and conspiracy 
of waging war.

Dr. Sen's bail petition is presently in the Supreme Court. The court 
had issued notice on 31 August, and since then the prosecution has 
been successful in delaying hearing of the petition.

Please circulate this to as many friends and please come in solidarity.

Contact:
9811667776 (Harish Dhawan); 9868012986 (Pushkar Raj); 9868076576 
(Nandini Sundar); 9810201369 (Ranjana Padhi), 011-26495976 
(Apoorvanand), 9811119347(Anil Chaudhary)

dated 7th October, 2007


- - -

(ii)

Join us at T2F for a screening of Missing in Pakistan, a short 
documentary that explores a new category of human rights violations 
that have taken root in Pakistan in the larger context of the war on 
terror.

Shot in real time over a period of a few weeks in February and March 
2007, the documentary is an investigative dossier and a time slice of 
a crucial epoch in Pakistan's history. According to Sairah Irshad 
Khan, Senior Editor - Newsline, the documentary is "riveting - a 
graphic and scathing indictment of the abuse of power and a chilling 
reminder of the prevailing uncertainty in Pakistan today".

Missing in Pakistan has been written and directed by Ziad Zafar, an 
independent journalist and filmmaker. Ziad will be present during the 
screening and the Q&A session.

Date: Saturday, 17th November 2007

Time: 7:00 pm

Minimum Donation: Whatever you like

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.


Join us at T2F for a screening of Missing in Pakistan, 
a short documentary that explores a new category of human rights 
violations that have taken root in Pakistan in the larger context of 
the war on terror.

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

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.