SACW | Nov. 15-27, 2007 / Pakistan Between The General and The Mullah's / Sri Lanka's Leadership Crisis / India: Sinking Freedom of Expression Now Taslima on the Run

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | November 15-27, 2007 | 
Dispatch No. 2470 - Year 10 running

[1] Pakistan:
   (i) Citizens Challenge Emergency Rule in Pakistan: updates and resources
   (ii) Clash of cultures in Pakistan: Never a dull moment (M B Naqvi)
   (iii) Why Musharraf Should Go (Pervez Hoodbhoy)
[2] Crisis of leadership in Sri Lanka (Rohini Hensman)
[3] India's Sinking Freedom of Expression . . . 
Taslima Nasreen on the Run Again : An SACW 
compilation of statements and opinions
  (i)  Is this a mobocracy? (Ritu Menon)
  (ii) Denying Taslima Nasreen Refuge Is An 
Affront to India's pluralist culture (Madanjeet 
Singh)
  (iii) Citizen Taslima (Editorial, The Times of India)
  (iv) Let Taslima Stay In India (Khushwant Singh, 
Arundhati Roy, Leila Seth, Kuldip Nayyar, Vijay 
Tendulkar, Aruna Roy, Shyam Benegal, Girish 
Karnad, Saeed Naqvi . . .)
  (v) Desai, Puniyani and Engineer: Statement on Taslima Nasreen
  (vi) The shame of an ill-informed debate about Taslima Nasrin (Jawed Naqvi)
  (vii) Do we pass the Taslima test? (Karan Thapar)
  (viii) Minority report (Harbans Mukhia)
  (ix) Fundamental issues (Barkha Dutt)
  (x) Fall & Fall Of Buddha (Saugata Roy)
  (xi) Muslim activists support Taslima (Avijit Ghosh)
  (xii) Call for citizenship to Taslima hailed - SAHMAT Statement
[4]  Announcements:
   (i) Silent Demonstration :In Defense of Taslima 
Nasreen (New Delhi, 27 November, 2007)
   (ii) Exchange with visiting CodePink Activists (Karachi, 28 November, 2007)
   (iii) Book Release Dada Amir Haider Khan's 
Chains to Loose (Toronto, 1 December, 2007)

______


[1]  PAKISTAN:

(i) CITIZENS CHALLENGE EMERGENCY RULE IN PAKISTAN : updates and resources
        http://emergency2007.blogspot.com/


(ii)

Deccan Herald
27 November 2007

CLASH OF CULTURES IN PAKISTAN: NEVER A DULL MOMENT
by M B Naqvi

The two versions of Islam, now at each other's 
throat and killing Pakistanis wantonly, are a 
fundamental crisis.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte 
apparently demanded in Islamabad that General 
Pervez Musharraf should leave the army and 
withdraw emergency by restoring the Constitution. 
America wants Pakistan to fight Islamic terror 
along with them. Musharraf told Negroponte: Put 
it in your pipe and smoke it.

Was he creating a serious crisis between America and Pakistan?

The backdrop comprises a looming crisis between a 
Salafi or Wahabi Islam and traditional Islam that 
Pakistan Army champions. Taliban leaders 
represent Salafi Islam while being mainly drug 
dealers-cum-Islamic militants with militias of 
their own. Another major political crisis is 
between sticklers for democracy and toadies 
supporting Musharraf who think that military 
dictatorship can also be democracy; Musharraf 
sells this idea.

Musharraf re-ignited this second crisis by trying 
to force an upright Chief Justice to resign and 
the sequel is history. Aware Pakistanis are 
demanding that along with restoration of the 
Constitution the old pre-Nov 3 emergency Supreme 
Court be recreated. The jailed (in their own 
houses), SC Judges have pronounced their 
judgement that Musharraf was ineligible to 
contest the Presidential election of October 6. 
These judges say they are the legitimate Supreme 
Court of Pakistan.

There are also the new judges who have taken new 
oaths of allegiance to the Provisional 
Constitutional Order issued by General Musharraf 
on Nov 3 which amounts to an allegiance to 
Musharraf himself. These new judges have taken 
over the Supreme Court building, proclaiming to 
comprise the Supreme Court. They have also said 
that the old doctrine of necessity that 
legitimised military takeovers is alive. The old 
judges, now confined to their houses, say "we had 
buried it".

Two Supreme Courts are contending with each other 
over legitimacy. Pakistan army and its toadies 
serving the military dictator support the new 
Supreme Court, while most aware citizens are 
loyal to the old SC. The battle lines are thus 
drawn.

The two versions of Islam, now at each other's 
throat and killing Pakistanis wantonly, are the 
more fundamental crisis. It is basically a civil 
war in the making, with potential to spread. The 
American involvement in it makes it harder to 
resolve: the American presence in West Asia, Gulf 
and Afghanistan is so much oil on fire.

The Wahabi-Salafi Islam is fighting Pakistan's 
army viciously. The army represents, inadequately 
and inefficiently, the old subcontinental Islam 
that had integrated into six thousand years old 
civilisation of India and is a part and parcel of 
India for these thousand years. The amalgam 
produced the Indo-Persian civilisation in 
northern India.

All this is under attack by Saudi and 
American-created Mullahs who have gone back to a 
far more austere and intolerant Islam that 
incidentally has now become fiercely 
anti-American. It has created havoc in Pakistan 
and has the potential to inherit Pakistan and 
much else beyond - unless it is countered 
politically.

The minor tiff between two good friends, 
President George Bush and General-President of 
Pakistan, can grow and can affect the immediate 
future in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistani 
potentate's refusal to lift emergency is an 
explosive move. He wants to hold Jan 8 elections 
under it to ensure desired results. What are 
Americans going to do is the question.

Americans cannot possibly destabilise the 
military regime. Even if they detest it, now 
cannot do without it. It does do things that 
America wants. Destablising it may hurt America's 
own interests. They cannot also hurt its army's 
discipline or its effectiveness in matters 
military or politically in Pakistan.

The Americans seem convinced that Pakistan cannot 
remain stable without the army's control. But 
America's rhetoric of democracy and of free 
election is so frequent that swallowing it is 
difficult. Words can sometimes become fetters on 
the feet. The spat has set off a spate of 
speculation about how long Musharraf would last. 
The fact that Americans dare not destabilise the 
Pakistan army and its government may be decisive.

Apart from the crisis over Islam, polarisation 
between those wanting democracy who take their 
stand by the old Supreme Court and those that 
defend the Nov 3 SC can divide the security 
establishment. Those wanting democracy want 
restoration of the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar 
Muhammad Chaudhry, release of all lawyers, 
political activists and end of restrictions on 
the media.

But ground facts are: New caretaker governments 
have taken over. Lovers of democracy may reject 
these caretakers because they are the B team of 
Musharraf. But the security forces obey them. But 
deeper implications of the controversy over the 
Supreme Court and the demand for restoration of 
Chief Justice Chaudhry also point to a possible 
civil war.

Most people are asking what the opposition 
parties will do. These are still talking - with 
the government secretly and among themselves 
openly. Whether they end up as pragmatic to 
conclude secret deals with Musharraf or will 
finally fight him is uncertain.

Cynical opinion holds that conventional parties 
originating in the same social and economic elite 
groups as the rulers themselves will continue to 
bicker but may never be able to see the wood from 
the trees. They shall stay disunited and would 
eventually become irrelevant. Who knows if the 
cynics are right?

o o o

(iii)

WHY MUSHARRAF SHOULD GO
Musharraf's military rule has damaged his 
country's ability to fight Islamist insurgents.

by Pervez Hoodbhoy, Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2007

Gen. Pervez Musharraf seized power in Pakistan 
eight years ago, claiming that the army had to 
step in to save the country from corrupt and 
incompetent politicians. Since then, he has run 
both the army and the government himself, with 
the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put 
in place through rigged elections. His rule has 
proved to be a dismal failure, creating more 
problems than those it set out to solve.

Earlier this month, with opposition to his regime 
growing and the courts about to rule that he 
could not legally be president, Musharraf chose 
to suspend the constitution and impose emergency 
rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested 
the judges, replacing them with judges who will 
bend to his will. He blocked all independent 
television channels and threatened to punish the 
news media if it disparaged him or the army. His 
police arrested thousands of lawyers and 
pro-democracy activists. He ordered that 
civilians be tried in closed military courts. 
This is what is necessary, he said, to save 
Pakistan from a rapidly growing Islamist 
insurgency.

But no one should believe him.

It is true that over the last decade Islamist 
militants-Pakistani Taliban nurtured in madrasas 
along the Afghan border-have grown stronger and 
widened their reach. Each day brings news that 
the government's security forces have surrendered 
to Taliban fighters without firing a shot. 
Flaunting its strength, the Taliban has released 
many of these soldiers-and even paid their way 
home. Other prisoners, especially Shiites, have 
been beheaded and their corpses mutilated.

Musharraf's government and his army have been 
woefully unsuccessful at handling this 
insurgency. They have lost control in many areas 
bordering Afghanistan and in the North-West 
Frontier Province. Earlier this month, the 
militants took over a third town in the Swat 
valley, only half a day's ride from the capital, 
Islamabad, while others captured the 
Pakistan-Austria Training Institute for Hotel 
Management in Charbagh.

Across the country, Islamists have taken over 
public buildings, forced local government 
officials to flee and promised to bring law and 
order. A widely available Taliban-made video 
shows the bodies of criminals dangling from 
electricity poles in the town of Miranshah, the 
administrative headquarters of North Waziristan.
The militants have even made their first major 
foray into the capital. From January to July of 
this year, the government allowed heavily armed 
extremists sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the 
Taliban to freely function out of Islamabad's Red 
Mosque. It is less than two miles from 
Musharraf's official residence at President 
House, from parliament and from the much-vaunted 
Inter-Services Intelligence headquarters. But the 
authorities were nowhere to be seen as armed 
vice-and-virtue squads sent out by the Islamists 
kidnapped prostitutes, burned CDs and videos, 
forced women to wear burkas and demanded that 
city laws be bent to their will. The government 
sent in clerics and politicians sympathetic to 
the militants as negotiators, and made one 
concession after another.

Amid growing public and international demands to 
act, Musharraf finally sent in special troops. 
The military action turned Islamabad into a war 
zone. When the smoke from rocket-propelled 
grenades and heavy machine guns had cleared, more 
than 117 people (the official count) were dead, 
many of them girls from a neighboring seminary. 
Mullahs promised revenge, and it began shortly 
afterward in a wave of suicide bombings across 
the country that has claimed hundreds of lives.

Why has Musharraf failed so dramatically to stop 
the insurgency? One reason is that most of the 
public is hostile to government action against 
the extremists (and the rest offer tepid support 
at best). Most Pakistanis see the militants as 
America's enemy, not their own. The Taliban is 
perceived as the only group standing up against 
the unwelcome American presence in the region. 
Some forgive the Taliban's excesses because it is 
cloaked in the garb of religion. Pakistan, they 
reason, was created for Islam, and the Taliban is 
merely asking for Pakistan to be more Islamic.

Even normally vocal, urban, educated 
Pakistanis-those whose values and lifestyles 
would make them eligible for decapitation if the 
Taliban were to succeed in taking the cities-are 
strangely silent. Why? Because they see Musharraf 
and the Pakistan army as unworthy of support, 
both for blocking the path to democracy and for 
secretly supporting the Taliban as a means of 
countering Indian influence in Afghanistan.
There is merit to this view. Army rule for 30 of 
Pakistan's 60 years as a country has left a 
terrible legacy. The army is huge, well-equipped, 
armed now with nuclear weapons and ballistic 
missiles and has perhaps the world's richest 
generals. Sitting or retired army officers govern 
provinces, run government agencies, administer 
universities, manage banks and make breakfast 
cereals.

Military rule has also created a class of 
dependent politicians who understand that cutting 
a deal with the army is the passage to power. For 
them, public office is an opportunity not to 
govern but to gain privilege and wealth for 
themselves, their relatives and their friends. 
Meanwhile, barely half of Pakistan's people can 
read and write, and one-third live below the 
poverty line.

The ties between the military and the Islamic 
militants are also well known. For more than 25 
years, the army has nurtured Islamist radicals as 
proxy warriors for covert operations on 
Pakistan's borders in Kashmir and Afghanistan. 
Various army chiefs honed a strategy that juggled 
their relationship with the U.S. against the 
demands of local intelligence chiefs, and of 
mullahs, tribal leaders, politicians and fortune 
seekers who have contacts with the militants. 
Radical groups are encouraged. As they grow and 
start to slip out of control, these groups are 
tolerated and appeased to keep them loyal. When 
interests inevitably clash, a military crackdown 
follows. The innocent are caught in the crossfire.

If Pakistan is to fight and win the war against 
the Taliban, it will need to mobilize both its 
people and the state. Musharraf's recent 
declaration of emergency will only make this much 
harder.

In the short term, Pakistan's current political 
crisis may be managed by having Musharraf 
resign-both as president and as head of the army. 
And before he does so, he must also restore the 
judiciary and constitution, lift the curbs on the 
media, free all political prisoners and set up a 
caretaker government. These are the necessary 
conditions for holding free and fair elections.

Credibility of elections requires that former 
prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz 
Sharif-whatever one might think of their personal 
integrity-both be included among the contestants. 
Bhutto loudly announced in Washington that she 
will take on Al Qaeda and the Taliban as her 
first priority, whereas Sharif is closer to the 
Islamic parties. But, as their past tenures 
suggest, if elected, realpolitik will force both 
to act similarly.

Only a freely chosen and representative 
government can win public support for taking on 
the Taliban. But to do this, it will need to 
begin addressing the larger, long-term political, 
social and economic problems facing Pakistan. The 
country must seek a more normal relationship with 
India. Only then can the army be cut down to size 
and Pakistan free itself from the massive 
military expenditures and the nuclear weapons 
that burden it. It must address the grievous 
regional inequalities that feed resentment 
against Islamabad. The government must push to 
provide basic needs and sustainable livelihoods 
to the rural and urban poor. It must offer people 
hope.

Pervez Hoodbhoy teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad.

______



[2]

The Island
November 27, 2007

CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP IN SRI LANKA

by Rohini Hensman

When fifteen high-ranking former commanders of 
the armed forces have to meet the President to 
discuss the grave military and political 
situation in the country, we can only conclude 
that the country is facing a crisis of political 
leadership. According to a news report, 'The 
former service chiefs made it clear to the 
President that their move was completely 
non-partisan, and that they were only worried 
that even after facing a challenge from terrorism 
for 30 years, the country was still to get united 
and draft and implement a national plan to 
eliminate terrorism and bring about a political 
settlement.' They are absolutely right: there is 
still no implementation of a national plan that 
can eliminate terrorism and bring about a 
political settlement. And that is entirely due to 
the failure of political leadership in Sri Lanka.

The President and the SLFP

President Rajapaksa seems to have put all his 
eggs in the military basket, which is a dangerous 
thing to do in the midst of a war where eggs can 
easily be shattered. The most optimistic 
characterisation of the current situation, as the 
former military chiefs recognised, is that it is 
a stalemate. Both the government and the LTTE can 
win some battles, but neither can win the war. We 
need only look at Iraq and Palestine, where two 
states with overwhelming military superiority 
(the US and Israel) are unable to quell the Iraqi 
and Palestinian insurgencies, to realise that a 
purely military strategy in Sri Lanka will never 
defat the LTTE. So long as Tamils are embittered 
by the daily humiliation, privation and 
bereavements they are forced to suffer, there 
will always be some who are ready to undertake 
suicide missions like the attack on Anuradhapura 
Air Base in October, or terrorist attacks against 
innocent civilians. The LTTE will always have new 
recruits to replace their dead.
Who was responsible for the debacle at the 
Anuradhapura Air Base, in which, according to 
Iqbal Athas, eight aircraft and two Unmanned 
Aerial Vehicles were destroyed and many more 
aircraft damaged? We must remember that this was 
not a terrorist attack aimed at unarmed 
civilians, but an attack on a legitimate military 
target in the midst of an ongoing war, so the 
LTTE cannot be blamed for it although the LTTE 
leadership can be criticised for sending their 
cadre on a suicide mission.  If the President and 
Defence Ministry claim credit for the victory at 
Toppigala, they must also accept blame for this 
defeat, in which the lives of several military 
personnel were lost, along with destruction and 
damage costing well over $ 30 million. It would 
not have occurred if they had given priority to 
defending the installations and territory 
controlled by the government instead of embarking 
on a reckless adventure in the North.

Who will pay the cost? The people of Sri Lanka, 
of course. Inflation has been described as a way 
in which the government robs the people, and that 
is indeed what is going on in Sri Lanka. At a 20 
per cent rate of inflation, a wage will be worth 
one-fifth less at the end of a year than it was 
worth at the beginning. That is one way in which 
the government funds its war. Borrowing money at 
high rates of interest - which, again, the people 
will have to pay - is another. Meanwhile the 
garment industry - Sri Lanka's biggest foreign 
exchange earner - is going down the drain. 
Workers are demanding a wage increase of Rs 2500 
and there are tens of thousands of unfilled 
vacancies because inflation has cut into real 
wages so badly. At the same time, hundreds of 
factories have closed, and employers are 
complaining of ruinously high costs, due to the 
same sky-high inflation. To add to the economic 
problems, Sri Lanka could lose European Union 
trade incentives because of its deteriorating 
human rights record.

Yet the government adamantly refuses to accept 
the help offered by the UN to improve protection 
of human rights. Politicians carry on their 
profligate spending, the elite continue to enjoy 
their expensive life-styles, corruption is 
rampant at the highest levels of government, and 
those who report on it are penalised. Votes and 
political support are openly bought and sold. The 
President hands out political posts to family 
members and supporters like a feudal ruler rather 
than the leader of a modern democratic nation; 
indeed, many feudal rulers cared more for the 
welfare of their subjects than the president 
cares for the welfare of workers and the poor in 
Sri Lanka. In this context, COPE chairman 
Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe's demands that ministers 
and top officials found guilty of corruption 
should be fired, that the allocation of Rs 23.6 
billion for the president and his ministers be 
cut to 5 billion and the rest of the money used 
to improve health and education services, and 
that there be transparency and accountability in 
government spending, sound like eminently 
reasonable demands for good governance and 
democracy.

Last but not least, the only measure initiated by 
the president that could lead to the final defeat 
of the LTTE - the All Party Representative 
Committee (APRC) process to formulate proposals 
for political reform - has been delayed and 
sabotaged time and again by none other than the 
president himself and his party, the SLFP. The 
latest obstacle put in the path of the process 
was their demand for a unitary state. His claim 
that this was the will of the majority of the 
Sinhalese people simply does not hold water. On 
the contrary, a poll sponsored by the National 
Peace Council and carried out by the Marga 
Institute in May/June this year showed that 70 
per cent of the respondents, who did not include 
Tamils, were ready to support a three-tiered 
system of devolution which came close to a 
federal system and certainly could not be 
described as unitary. It is time the president 
stopped passing off his own bigoted views as the 
views of the more enlightened Sinhalese majority.

Mahinda Rajapaksa came to power courtesy the 
LTTE: without its enforced boycott of the 
presidential elections in the North and East, he 
would not have been elected. He and his hardline 
Sinhala chauvinist allies within the SLFP, JHU 
and MEP have repaid the favour many times over. 
Prabakaran wanted war because he cannot survive a 
just peace, and President Rajapakse has given him 
what he wanted; the LTTE needs human rights 
abuses and a refusal to implement a just 
political solution to justify its call for a 
separate state, and there, too the president has 
obliged them. It looks as if he were willing to 
go on doing so until tens of thousands more are 
dead and the economy of Sri Lanka goes bankrupt. 
It would be easy to conclude that it is time for 
a change of government, but before coming to that 
conclusion, we need to look at the alternatives.
The UNP and its Leader
Does the UNP under its current leadership offer a 
viable alternative?  While in Opposition, Ranil 
Wickremesinghe repeatedly sabotaged earlier 
efforts, especially in 1995  and 2000, to 
implement political reforms that could not go 
through without the cooperation of his party. If 
those reforms had been implemented, the war might 
have been over by now, and thousands of lives 
might have been saved. Even during the period he 
was Prime Minister, there was little progress 
towards a political solution.  His declaration, 
along with Balasingham, of support for a federal 
solution to the conflict was a courageous move. 
But it lost steam when Prabakaran quickly denied 
LTTE support for such a solution, and he made no 
effort to pursue discussions with other 
representatives of minority parties. The 
ceasefire did provide a breathing space to a 
war-weary population, yet the provisions of the 
CFA and the way in which it was implemented made 
it inevitable that war would break out once more.
More recently, his attitude to the APRC process, 
which held out the promise of bringing about a 
political solution to the conflict, has been 
opportunistic in the extreme. It is 
understandable that he was piqued by the SLFP 
poaching UNP MPs and offering them Cabinet posts 
in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding 
signed between the two party leaders, but to 
respond by undermining the APRC process was 
childish and shortsighted.

In fact, the SLFP's thoroughly unprofessional 
proposal, making the district the unit of 
devolution and contradicting itself on the 
subject of the executive presidency, gave him a 
chance to upstage it by making clear the UNP's 
support for the consensus that was emerging in 
the APRC, thus demonstrating greater political 
maturity than the SLFP. Instead, he first took 
the UNP out of the APRC discussions on the 
pretext that a final consensus had not emerged 
within the deadline he had given it, and later 
back-tracked on his earlier support for a federal 
solution. That in itself would not have been a 
problem, since the minority parties had agreed to 
a state that was neither federal nor unitary, but 
his silence on this issue led to speculation that 
he was contemplating an alliance with the JVP 
which, of course, was insisting on a unitary 
state. His failure to contradict such rumours 
suggests a leader who is totally devoid of all 
principles. His economic policies were as callous 
towards the majority of the population as those 
of the current government, and his record of 
human rights violations in an earlier UNP 
administration still hangs over him.  Hardly an 
alternative that inspires confidence!
It is a pity that the SLFP rebels chose to align 
themselves with a political outfit that is so 
unprincipled. Their decision to split from the 
SLFP was understandable, but they have undermined 
their own credibility by the alliance.

The TNA and JVP

The TNA MPs have discredited themselves by being 
representatives of the LTTE rather than of their 
own constituents, who have not had an opportunity 
to vote in free and fair elections for a long, 
long time. They cannot be seen as part of a 
democratic alternative so long as they remain 
bound by the fascist politics of their LTTE 
mentors. The JVP, on the other hand, can claim to 
have been elected democratically. It has also 
been reported that in a finance committee meeting 
chaired by President Rajapakse, two JVP MPs had 
protested against political appointments to state 
banks that bypassed standard qualifications for 
these positions.  After the meeting, the 
President told the MPs that these types of 
appointments were a necessary way of rewarding 
‘apey minissu', and invited them to forward the 
names of their supporters for appointments as 
well.  Much to their credit, they resisted the 
all-pervasive culture of nepotism and corruption, 
and declined the offer.
However, the politics of the JVP are as dishonest 
and hypocritical as those of the SLFP. They claim 
to defend the living standards of workers, yet 
they are at the forefront of the demands for a 
military solution to the conflict which entails 
an endless war, which in turn slashes workers' 
salaries due to inflation; thus they must share 
the blame for falling real wages. They claim to 
be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, yet they 
collude in the divide-and-rule policies of 
capitalists and imperialists with their Sinhala 
nationalism and refusal to defend the rights of 
Tamil workers. Worst of all, they claim to oppose 
the LTTE, yet their consistent opposition to 
human rights monitoring and a democratic 
political solution acceptable to Muslims and 
Tamil moderates sustains the credibility of the 
LTTE and its effort to divide the country. So 
long as Tamils are not treated as equals in a 
united Sri Lanka, the demand for a separate state 
where their democratic rights will be respected 
has legitimacy, and the JVP is at the forefront 
of those who provide legitimacy to the LTTE and 
their demand for a separate state. Thus, they 
support the LTTE in a different way from the TNA, 
but support it nonetheless.

Conclusion

We can conclude that an election at this point in 
time would be a colossal waste of time and money. 
Whether the same government comes back to power 
or is defeated,we would end up in the same mess 
that we are now. Going through an expensive 
exercise that will inevitably be accompanied by 
violence and possibly even bloodshed just in 
order to come back to our present position is not 
a good idea at all.
On the other hand, continuing to slide inexorably 
towards bankruptcy and the kind of barbarism that 
gripped our country in the late 1980s is not an 
acceptable option either. So what is the 
alternative?
The two biggest parties need to listen to the 
former service chiefs, and make it a priority to 
arrive at and implement democratic political 
reforms that address the legitimate grievances of 
minorities. Once this is done, the LTTE 
leadership will lose support very quickly, and 
the war can be ended. Unless Mahinda Rajapaksa 
follows their advice, he will face increasing 
popular anger and hatred as the war drags on, the 
death toll mounts, and living standards plummet. 
Unless Ranil Wickremesinghe follows their advice, 
he faces political oblivion; if he wants to have 
the hope of winning an election in the future, he 
needs to demonstrate a capacity for statesmanship 
now. It is in the interests of both leaders to 
put aside their egos for the moment in order to 
save the country, not by forming a national 
government but by both pledging support for the 
APRC proposals.  If they are too selfish to do 
this, their supporters should serve notice on 
them that they will withdraw support unless they 
do the right thing.

The government in addition has to restore the 
rule of law, which is all but non-existent thanks 
to its own lawlessness. Restoring democratic 
rights and freedoms would also be a good idea if 
it wishes to continue claiming that Sri Lanka is 
a democracy - a claim that is becoming 
increasingly laughable every passing day. It is 
already facing huge embarrassment for breaking 
both Sri Lankan and international law by giving 
Karuna a fake passport and obtaining a British 
visa for him under false pretences. A week ago, 
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise 
Arbour said in an interview with the BBC that 
members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri 
Lanka had been appointed directly by the 
President in violation of the Constitution, and 
its international accreditation could therefore 
be withdrawn, bringing further shame on our 
country. She repeated her public request that the 
government of Sri Lanka consider allowing her own 
office to have a presence in Sri Lanka. Perhaps, 
the government should accept her offer in order 
to avert further embarrassment. If it holds 
itself in such contempt, how can it expect anyone 
else to have respect for it?

The people of Sri Lanka and civil society 
organizations, too, have a role to play. They 
need to make it clear that they reject the 
Sinhala nationalist allies of the LTTE in the 
JVP, JHU, MEP and SLFP, who advocate policies 
that help to divide the country. The deliberative 
poll conducted by the Marga Institute is a model 
that should be followed more widely, since it 
seeks an informed opinion from its respondents 
and provides them with the information that is 
required for such an opinion. An interesting 
finding of this poll was that when Sinhalese 
people realised that devolution could bring 
government closer to the people - i.e. that it 
could promote democracy - they supported it. A 
three-tier system of government combined with a 
Right to Information Act like the Indian one 
could be a potent weapon against corruption as 
well as an instrument of democracy that would 
serve the interests of all the people of Sri 
Lanka.  We have to go forward to genuine 
democracy or slip backward into dictatorship: 
that is the choice facing us today.


______


[3]   THE SINKING BOAT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 
IN INDIA. . . NOW ITS TASLIMA NASREEN ON THE RUN:
An SACW compilation of statements and opinions (27 November 2007)


(i)

Indian Express
November 27, 2007

IS THIS A MOBOCRACY?

by Ritu Menon

Taslima Nasreen, it seems, cannot do anything 
right. Her attackers, however, are deemed to be 
in the 'right'.

Looking back on the events in Kolkata over the 
last week, one may be forgiven for thinking that 
we had stepped right through Alice's looking 
glass into her topsy-turvy wonderland. A writer, 
sitting in her home and minding her own business, 
suddenly becomes the focus of out and out 
criminal activity on the city streets, ostensibly 
because of some connection to the goings-on in 
Nandigram - but nobody quite knows what. To the 
best of my knowledge, she hasn't opened her mouth 
on that issue, in fact she has been remarkably 
low-key for several months now, having earlier 
been the direct target of a similar criminal 
attack on her in Hyderabad. Taslima Nasreen, it 
seems, cannot do anything right, not even if it 
means doing nothing.

Her attackers, on the other hand, are deemed to 
be in the 'right', even though they have broken 
the law, damaged public property, caused grievous 
losses and wilfully acted against the public 
good. They remain free to spring yet more 
violence on the public while Taslima is 
unceremoniously shunted out of the city because 
she's a 'threat' to public security and peace.

Yet she has not uttered a single word, let alone cast a single stone.

The Queen of Hearts would be well pleased. As are 
assorted I-told-you-so politicians of various 
hues in our benighted polity. Like AIDWA's 
Shyamali Gupta, who sanctimoniously declared, "We 
respect freedom of expression but one has no 
right to hurt the sentiments of others. One 
should exercise restraint." Or, like NCP's Farooq 
Abdullah who has decreed that if Taslima wishes 
to stay in the country, she should say sorry. 
Sorry, India, for being who I am.

These days, one could be forgiven for thinking 
that the only people whose freedom of expression 
the state is willing to protect are those who 
resort to violence in the name of religion - 
Hindu, Muslim or Christian. (Let's not forget 
what happened in progressive Kerala when Mary Roy 
tried to stage 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' at her 
school. Or when cinema halls screened The Da 
Vinci Code.) Indeed, not only does it protect 
their freedom of expression, it looks like it 
also protects their freedom to criminally assault 
and violate. Not a single perpetrator of such 
violence has been apprehended and punished in the 
last decade or more that has seen an alarming 
rise in such street or mob censorship. Not in the 
case of Deepa Mehta's film; not in the attack on 
Ajeet Cour's Academy of Fine Arts in Delhi; not 
in M.F. Husain's case; not in the violation of 
the Bhandarkar Institute; not at MS University in 
Baroda; not in the assault on Taslima Nasreen in 
Hyderabad this August. I could list many, many 
more.

We would do well to remember that the more 
regressive the state is in response to attacks 
like this, the more aggressive the mob will 
become. The simultaneous absence and presence of 
the state at these moments entrenches the 
vulnerability of the individual while at the same 
time ensuring the 'invincibility' of the mob. By 
their very nature, mobs form and dissolve, 
disappearing as an entity that can be charged; 
individuals, on the other hand, are isolated and 
easily targeted.

Does this mean they should be removed from the 
scene, like Taslima Nasreen? If say, Mahasweta 
Devi or Aparna Sen or Sunil Gangopadhyay were 
under threat, would the West Bengal government 
have sent them packing? Would we have been told 
that ensuring their protection is the Centre's 
responsibility? (We shouldn't be too surprised, 
though - remember, West Bengal has the dubious 
distinction of being the only government in a 
good long while to have actually banned a work - 
yes, Nasreen's Dwikhondito in 2003).

So what are ordinary people to do, if we cannot 
depend on the state to protect not only our 
freedom of expression, but our freedom of 
movement and of association as well? All three 
rights are subsumed under the fundamental rights 
guaranteed in the Constitution, but it seems we 
will, once more, have to move the courts in order 
to reinforce them.

In August 2007, Women's WORLD (India), a 
free-speech network of writers, publishers and 
critics, and Asmita, a women's resource centre in 
Hyderabad, filed a writ petition in the Hyderabad 
High Court against the four MLAs who led the 
attack on Taslima Nasreen in that city and 
against the two parties, the Majlis Ittehadul 
Muslimeen and Majlis Bachao Tehreek. The petition 
sought the removal of the four legislators and 
the cancellation of the registration of both 
political parties with the Election Commission of 
India. The grounds are misconduct, and the 
primary issue is the public conduct of elected 
representatives. The case is being heard, 
although - and this is a matter of some concern - 
there is no code of conduct prescribed for 
elected representatives during their term of 
office, in India.

The issues before us in this, and every other 
case of street/mob censorship that has come up in 
the recent past, are those of public misconduct, 
vandalism and criminal activity that no 
government so far, either state or central, has 
dealt with summarily and effectively.

Rather than safeguarding and upholding the 
fundamental right to freedom of expression, all 
of us who try to exercise that freedom are told 
to mind our language. In much the same way that 
women who are vulnerable to rape are told to 
behave themselves, or stay at home.

The writer is a publisher and founding member of Women's WORLD, India


o o o

(ii)
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2007/11/denying-taslima-nasreen-refuge-is.html

DENYING TASLIMA NASREEN REFUGE IS AN AFFRONT TO INDIA'S PLURALIST CULTURE

by Madanjeet Singh [November 24, 2007]

I am shocked and ashamed as an Indian to learn 
that the Bengali poet and writer, Taslima 
Nasreen, the living embodiment of secular 
culture, has been compelled to move out of West 
Bengal, first to Jaipur and then to Delhi, 
because of her secular views.

  It is deplorable that the authorities and the 
leading political parties, the Congress, the 
Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the CPI (M)-Ied 
Left Front Government are using unfortunate 
Taslima as the political shuttlecock with their 
ugly rackets of pseudo secularism. Their 
perfidious political maneuvers are clearly 
exposed by the recent violent events in Kolkota, 
the spark of which was ignited by a small group 
of protesters led by Ali (full name?), a Congress 
affiliated All India Minority Forum demanding 
cancellation of Nareen's Indian visa. The protest 
turned into a mayhem as the local CPM boss Bimal 
Bose threw oil into the fire of violence by 
stating that "Taslima Nasreen should leave West 
Bengla". Then realizing that this was contrary to 
the fundamental secular profession of his party, 
he hit the shuttlecock into the Congress court by 
explaining that "the state government does not 
have the authority to grant or cancel visa and 
only the Centre can do this and therefore let the 
Union Government take an appropriate decision on 
his issue." Then BJP, the viciously anti-Muslim 
organization that demolished the Babri Masjid at 
Ayodhya, suddenly became holier than thou by 
seizing upon Bose's comment to drive home that 
Left's commitment to freedom of expression was 
fake. "how can you ask her to leave West Bengal 
when she has been allowed to stay anywhere in 
India?"  asked BJP leader VK Malhotra." Thus in 
order to gain political mileage, BJP hit the 
Taslima shuttlecock into the UPA court of both 
the Congress and the CPI (M)-Ied Left Front 
Governments by demanding that she be given 
permanent visa to stay in India, even if the 
communalists had to cut their noses to spite 
political adversaries.

The terrorists have arrogated to themselves the 
role of lawmakers, judges, and executioners of 
people whom they accuse of blasphemy and go 
around freely violating the human rights of 
artists, writers, filmmakers, scholars, and other 
cultural practitioners. Taslima Nasreen is among 
the victims. She had no option but to flee her 
country and take refuge in India, unaware that 
that the long arm of Al Qaeda network of 
International Islamic Front (IIF) and its 
subsidiaries as the Bangladesh-based Huji, Simi 
and Jamiat, would not spare her even in India. 
She was threatened by an Indian Taliban, Taqi 
Raza Khan, the head of the All India Ibtehad 
Council, who wants her beheaded (qatal) and has 
publicly offered Rs. Five lakhs to anyone who 
would carry out the execution because of her 
secular views. The bigots also passed a 
resolution to oust Nasreen from India "for her 
crime in attacking the Islamic Shariah laws."

Taslima Nasreen, was awarded the 2004 
UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize for the Promotion of 
Tolerance and Non-Violence by the UNESCO 
Director-General Koichiro Matsuura on behalf of 
an International Jury. The prize was established 
in 1995, marking Mahatma Gandhi's 125th birth 
anniversary and awarded on the United Nations' 
Day of Tolerance on 16 November. Taslima 
poignantly described her ordeal in the speech she 
delivered accepting the award at UNESCO 
headquarters in Paris which received a long and 
standing ovation: "Bangladesh", stated Nasreen, 
"is a nation of more than 133 million, a country 
where 70 per cent of the people live below the 
poverty line, where more than half of the 
population cannot read and write. Nearly 40 
million women have no access to education nor do 
they have the possibility of becoming 
independent. With the country's strong 
patriarchal tradition, women suffer unbearable 
inequalities and injustices. They are considered 
intellectually, morally, physically and 
psychologically inferior by religion, tradition, 
culture and customs. As a result, the 
fundamentalists refuse to tolerate any of my 
views. They could not tolerate my saying that the 
religious scriptures are out of time and out of 
place. They were upset at my saying that 
religious law, which discriminates against women, 
needs to be replaced by secular law and a uniform 
civil code. Hundreds of thousands of the 
extremists appeared on the streets and demanded 
my execution by hanging".

"Humankind is facing an uncertain future. In 
particular, the conflict is between two different 
ideas, secularism and fundamentalism. I don't 
agree with those who think the conflict is 
between two religions, namely Christianity and 
Islam, or Judaism and Islam. Nor do I think that 
this is a conflict between the East and the West. 
To me, this conflict is basically between modern, 
rational, logical thinking and irrational, blind 
faith. While some strive to go forward, others 
strive to go backward. It is a conflict between 
the future and the past, between innovation and 
tradition, between those who value freedom and 
those who do not. My pen is the weapon I use to 
fight for a secular humanism."

The Indian government's ambivalent response has 
emboldened the communal fanatics. Taslima Nasrin 
was again roughed up in Hyderabad by three 
legislators of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen 
(MIM) and a mob led by them in the Press Club of 
where she was invited to release her book Lajjai 
(Shame), translated into Telugu. The book had 
nothing to do with offending Islam. It describes 
how the hooligans of Jamat-e-Islami of Bangladesh 
attacked Hindus and demolished their temples and 
set fire to their houses in retaliation to the 
demolition of Babri Masjid by the Hindutva 
fanatics. She condemns terrorism and tells how 
some fair-minded Hindus stood by Muslims when 
Hindu fanatics attacked them in India. And 
likewise the fair-minded Muslims protected the 
Hindu and other minorities in Bangladesh.

In Hyderabad, Taslima had just completed her 
engagement when about 20 MIM activists, led by 
MLAs Syed Ahmed Pasha Qadri, Afsar Khan and 
Moazzam Khan, barged into the conference hall. 
She looked in disbelief as they hurled abuses 
against her, demanding to know "who had mustered 
the guts to invite her to Hyderabad." Without 
further warning, they began throwing books, 
bouquets, chairs, and whatever they could lay 
their hands on at her. A number of people 
sustained injuries in the scuffle including 
journalists trying to shield her. One of the MLAs 
threatened that "if Taslima comes to Hyderabad 
again, she will be beheaded". Nasrin escaped 
unhurt though she was badly shaken. Later she 
made a categorical statement that "if Islam 
stands for such hooliganism I will fight the evil 
till my death".

The inability of the authorities to apprehend and 
punish the criminals out to kill Taslima and 
hesitation in giving her permanent resident in 
India is not a political issue. It is against all 
ethical and traditional norms of Indian morality 
of protecting a refugee in distress as was done 
in the case of the Dalai Lama. The expulsion of 
Taslima Nasreen by the CPI (M)-Ied Left Front 
Government from West Bengal (which she calls her 
second home) is an affront to India's pluralist, 
secular culture and traditional multiculturalism. 
It is all the more deplorable if is it is true 
that the decision was taken in consultation with 
the Central Government which must abide by 
India's ancient cultural traditions. In the Sibi 
Jataka, painted in the 2nd - 5th century at the 
Ajanta Caves, the king of the Sibis offered an 
equal weight of his own flesh to save a dove that 
a hawk wanted to kill as its prey.


Excerpts from Madanjeet Singh's forthcoming book, 
Cultures and Vultures. He is a UNESCO Goodwill 
Ambassador and Founder, South Asia Foundation.

o o o

(iii)

The Times of India
27 Nov 2007

EDITORIAL: CITIZEN TASLIMA

Those on the look out for ironies in politics 
would savour this. The BJP, not an unqualified 
supporter of the right to freedom of expression, 
is rooting for Taslima Nasreen whereas the CPM, 
which claims to uphold secular values, wants her 
to keep off Kolkata.

The BJP wants the government to treat Taslima, on 
the run from Islamic fundamentalists in 
Bangladesh and West Bengal, as a political 
refugee. The CPM would perhaps prefer to reserve 
its opinion on the matter. The party appears to 
believe that support for Taslima could lead to a 
loss of Muslim
votes in West Bengal.

All secular-minded people would agree with the 
BJP in this matter even if the party's decision 
has a political design to it. Taslima has been 
living in India since 2004. Islamic 
fundamentalists hate her and have physically 
assaulted her many times.

The open display of hostility from the religious 
right has prevented the government from acceding 
to her request for Indian citizenship. This 
should not be the case. Our Constitution gives 
pride of place to secularism and protects the 
right to free speech.

Of course, it is not an unqualified right. But 
fringe radical elements in the society can object 
to anything and everything. They have low 
tolerance levels and take the law in their hands 
at the first instance. More often than not, the 
Indian state acquiesces to their demands. Such 
tame surrender by the state has added muscle to 
their activities and isolated moderate opinion.

The Left Front government in West Bengal has also 
followed the same pattern and gave in to pressure 
from Muslim fundamentalists. Unfortunately, such 
acts give credence to the accusation of the 
political right that secularism is a euphemism 
for 'minority appeasement'.

There is every reason now for all secular-minded 
people to support Taslima's plea for citizenship. 
That should make it easy for the administration 
to protect her rights as a human being and a 
professional writer.

Since the BJP recognises the artist's right to 
freedom of speech, it should now take the lead to 
persuade M F Husain to end his exile.

Husain was forced to flee the country after 
various sangh parivar outfits filed a slew of 
cases against him for hurting the sensibilities 
of Hindus, a charge that Islamic fundamentalists 
have raised against Taslima. Hindu fanatics, like 
their Muslim counterparts vis-a-vis Taslima, have 
issued death threats to Husain.

Husain, one of the finest artists of his times, 
is an icon of secular India. His forced exile is 
a blot on our secular and liberal credentials. So 
is the failure to give citizenship to Taslima.

o o o

(iv)

  LET TASLIMA STAY IN INDIA

We uphold Taslima Nasrin's right to speak 
forthrightly on any subject, including the burqa. 
It is her fundamental right. Instead of taking 
her on intellectually, her detractors are using a 
reprehensible way of suppressing her opinions. 
They are gathering outside her apartment in 
Calcutta, and demanding that the government 
should throw her out of the country. Keeping in 
mind that her visa expires by next week, this is 
a clear sign of intimidating her into retracting 
her views. It would be a shame if we who pride 
ourselves on our democratic traditions should 
refuse her asylum on this count. Or at the very 
least an extension of her visa.

Khushwant Singh, Arundhati Roy, Leila Seth, 
Kuldip Nayyar, Vijay Tendulkar, Aruna Roy, Shyam 
Benegal, Girish Karnad, Saeed Naqvi, Y.P. Chibber 
(General-Secretary, PUCL), Shanker Singh (Mkss, 
Rajasthan), Nikhil Dey (MKSS, Rajasthan)

o o o

(v)

  DESAI, PUNIYANI AND ENGINEER: STATEMENT ON TASLIMA NASREEN

The recent agitation in Kolkata demanding that 
the visa of Taslima Nasreen should be invoked and 
that she should be asked to leave the country is 
most unfortunate. Ms. Nasreen has applied for 
Indian citizenship, and in accordance with the 
ruling of the Supreme Court, no person can be 
denied permission to reside while the application 
for citizenship is pending. Ms. Nasreen has been 
residing in Kolkata for sometime and felt at 
home. Ms. Nasreen is a South Asian. Universal 
Brotherhood and Human rights being our 
civilizational values, we should allow Ms. 
Nasreen to permanently reside in India in 
accordance with Indian law.

A small section of Muslims is agitated that Ms. 
Nasreen has authored books with text derogatory 
to Islam while she was in Bangladesh. We recall 
the story of a Jewish woman who always threw 
rubbish on Prophet Mohammed whenever he passed 
her house. When she didn't one day, Prophet 
Mohammed inquired why she didn't and learnt that 
she was not well. Prophet went to inquire about 
her health and wish her well. We note that many 
Muslim religious leaders had condemned the attack 
on Ms. Nasreen in Hyderabad.

We, the undersigned, call upon the West Bengal 
Government to do everything to see that Ms. 
Nasreen can reside peacefully. The statement of 
the Chairperson of the Left Front in West Bengal 
stating that if there was any law and order 
problem, Ms. Nasreen could be asked to leave her 
residence in Kolkata is also very unfortunate. We 
also appeal to the Prime Minister of India to 
take speedy steps to grant her Overseas 
Citizenship by virtue of which she will have life 
time Indian Visa. Stree Sanman is our basic 
civilazational value.


B.A. Desai,
Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India and former 
Additional Solicitor General of India

Dr.Ram Puniyani,
All India Secular Forum.

Adv. Irfan Engineer

o o o

(vi)

Dawn
26 November 2007

THE SHAME OF AN ILL-INFORMED DEBATE ABOUT TASLIMA NASRIN

by Jawed Naqvi

For many who have taken sides on the Taslima 
Nasrin debate she is the author of the novel 
Lajja, which translates as Shame. The story is 
made out to be about ill treatment of Hindus in 
Bangladesh by the majority Muslims, which was 
enough for the BJP to get hold of the book, 
translate it into Hindi and use of it for its 
narrow propaganda. The slightly more knowing 
pretenders would add that she is a feminist who 
provokes controversies. I too hadn't read Lajja 
till last week even though the book has been 
lying on my desk for years. But now I have also 
read a brilliant paper on the Bengali author by 
Prof Kabir Chowdhury who presented it to me in 
Dhaka in 1997. Saikat Chowdhury is the co-author 
of this paper, which I shall share with the 
readers. But let's discuss the current context 
first.

Taslima Nasrin has been living in Kolkata for 
some time now. Her Indian visa expires in 
February. Rightwing Muslim groups recently 
threatened to bring life to a standstill in West 
Bengal if she was not thrown out of the country. 
What provoked the sudden outburst by the 
reactionary groups is a mystery. There are 
rumours that great powers are at work to dislodge 
the communist government from West Bengal. It is 
said, for example, that just as Muslim groups 
were banded together to take on the Russian 
communists in Kabul, Henry Kissinger, who was in 
Kolkata last month, prescribed similar methods to 
evict communists from power there. They had been 
a thorn in the flesh over the nuclear deal. On 
its part, the weak-kneed Left Front government, 
reeling on the backfoot with its culpability in 
the violence in Nandigram, wasted no time to pack 
off Ms Nasrin to the BJP-ruled Rajasthan state. 
Nothing could be more ironical. The spearhead of 
India's liberal ideals had dispatched a hapless 
poet and author to the den of rightwing 
obscurantism. To add yet one more twist to her 
sad drama, Taslima was soon escorted from 
BJP-ruled Jaipur to Congress-ruled Delhi.

So, really, none of the three major political 
parties that claims to swear by India's fairly 
liberal rulebook, the constitution, has acquitted 
itself honourably in the testing battle against 
obscurantism. The BJP today advocates giving 
asylum to Taslima Nasrin but it can barely hide 
its glee at the fact that its goons hounded out 
celebrated painter M.F. Hussain from his own 
country. Hussain, 92, faces arrest in Gujarat, 
his home state, over alleged desecration of Hindu 
sentiments in his drawings. Hindu groups have 
issued threats to lynch him. To show their clout 
they had raided an arts college in Gujarat over 
similar allegations.

The Congress has not fared any better. Even 
before Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini came into the 
frame, Rajiv Gandhi had banned Salman Rushdie's 
Satanic Verses. Later when a group of Muslim 
intellectuals met Rajiv Gandhi to ask him not to 
overturn the Supreme Court's verdict in favour of 
a Muslim divorcee in the notorious Shahbano case, 
he smiled and gave them tea and biscuits. He was 
always happy to meet liberal Muslims, he 
confessed, but he could not do anything because 
the Muslim Personal Law Board would be offended. 
It needs to be recorded that the board is not the 
creature of the Indian constitution but derives 
its strength from an administrative order passed 
during the Indira Gandhi period. And now the Left 
Front has dispatched Taslima Nasrin to the BJP's 
den. Frustrating times all round.

The foreword to the book, "Taslima Nasrin and the 
issue of feminism", by the two Chowdhurys was 
written by Prof Zillur Rahman Siddiqui, the 
former vice-chancellor of Dhaka's Jahangirnagar 
University. "To my mind, more important than 
Nasrin's stature as a writer is her role as a 
rebel which makes her appear as a latter day 
Nazrul Islam," he says.

"The rage and the fury turned against her by her 
irate critics reminds one of a similar onslaught 
directed against the rebel poet in the twenties. 
More than half a century separates the two, but 
the society, despite some advance of the status 
of women, has not changed much. The forces 
opposed to change and progress, far from yielding 
the ground, have still kept their fort secure 
against progress; have in fact gained in striking 
power. While Nazrul never had to flee his 
country, Nasrin was forced to do so."

Kabir Chowdhury describes in the paper how Muslim 
fundamentalists in Bangladesh bayed for her 
blood. A Sylhet-based group of clerics with the 
high-sounding nomenclature of Bangladesh Sahaba 
Sainik Parishad gave a fatwa against her in 
September 1993 and offered an amount of 50,000 
taka for her head. But Nasrin refused to be cowed 
down. She would not recant or compromise. In fact 
in her poem 'Death Sentence', she wrote about her 
own cherished dream that people like John 
Lennonhad once dreamt of. She says:

If I asked for a secular world, would you give me that?

Or, if I wanted all the fences of crop-fields, all barbed-wire boundariesŠ

All walls between countries to be demolishedŠ

What then?

If I wanted a classless society, no discrimination between men and womenŠ

Would you give me that?

If you do, I will smilingly go to the gallows and hang from the noose.

The demand for her head intensified after her 
alleged statement that the Quran was in need of 
revision, though as Kabir Chowdhury observes, 
"she repeatedly said that the Islamic law known 
as Shariah should be revised in order to remove 
the discrimination between male and female, 
permitted and encouraged under it." The novel 
Lajja is not rated as Ms Nasrin's most 
outstanding work but it deals with a sensitive 
issue. The book narrates the condition of a Hindu 
family in Dhaka after the communal flare-up there 
following violence in Ayodhya where religious 
zealots had razed a mosque in December 1992. The 
young daughter of the family is raped and to its 
utter frustration and dismay the family finds 
itself deserted even by its secular Muslim 
friends. A young liberal Hindu is transformed 
into a fanatic and a communalist. Suranjan was a 
leftist and a progressive person who was imbued 
with the ideals of Bengali nationalism. But when 
he saw all his ideals crumble around him in a 
maelstrom of communal frenzy his desperate 
emotion slowly turned him into a communalist.

Says Chowdhury: "The way this transformation is 
shown in the novel is psychologically valid and 
contributes in no mean measure to the aesthetic 
worth of the work. Suranjan, mauled and battered, 
angry and vengeful, almost rapes a Muslim whore 
just to prove that Hindus were also capable of 
raping."

Prof Chowdhury quotes a passage from the novel to 
make his point. "Many told Suranjan - why did you 
then demolish Babri Masjid? You! Suranjan was 
amazed to hear it. You are a Hindu. Suranjan in 
India and Suranjan in Dhaka are one and same. Is 
India then the real homeland of Suranjan? Has he 
been an alien in this country from the day of his 
birth?" Even as he supports Nasrin's feelings in 
the novel, Prof Chowdhury seems justified in 
questioning some of its details. "Nasrin's novel 
does not give a total picture of Bangladesh," he 
says. "It gives the impression that Bangladesh is 
a fundamentalist state where most Muslims are 
communal and Hindu-haters.

Which is not true. On almost every occasion when 
communal disturbances broke out in Bangladesh 
many progressive Muslims organised themselves 
quickly and stood by the side of the oppressed 
and harassed Hindus against their frenzied 
coreligionists."

Prof Chowdhury slams the BJP for seeking to 
exploit the story of Lajja for its own communal 
agenda. "Without Nasrin's permission it arranged 
a Hindi translation of Lajja which sold like hot 
cake and gave an incomplete and one-sided picture 
of the state of things in Bangladesh.

Did Nasrin play into the hands of the BJP? If she 
did it was certainly not done consciously. She 
stated very clearly: "I am very pained at what is 
happening with my book in India. I condemn the 
politics of the BJP and the Jamaat-i-Islami 
equally and I haven't given permission to any 
fundamentalist mouthpiece to publish the novel'". 
It is a shame that the current debate about 
Taslima Nasrin tends to be ill informed, even 
prejudiced, because her ideas do not in with the 
agenda of the main political groups here.


o o o

(vii)

Hindustan Times
November 24, 2007

DO WE PASS THE TASLIMA TEST?

by Karan Thapar

Democratic we may be, but liberal we most 
certainly are not. The test is accepting that 
others have a right to say and do things we don't 
approve of, consider offensive, or even 
emotionally and sentimentally hurtful, but which 
don't actually physically harm us. Voltaire put 
it most pithily: "I do not agree with a word that 
you say, but I will defend to the death your 
right to say it." However he was French. We're 
Indian.

Taslima Nasreen may not be a great novelist. She 
may even be motivated by a quest for publicity. 
And many say she deliberately and calculatedly 
compromises other people by revealing their 
personal secrets. But those are literary or moral 
judgements. No doubt each of us will accept or 
reject them as we deem fit. The question is, do 
we have a right to silence her voice because of 
them?

I might not like someone criticising my gods or 
exposing the faults and flaws in my faith. It may 
even feel like an attack on my identity. But the 
correct response is to question my intolerance 
rather than vent my anger on the critic. If the 
criticism is justified, it can only help. If not, 
I will emerge stronger for tolerating or, at 
least, ignoring it. But to ban the critic is to 
diminish myself. It fails the test of the values 
I claim to espouse.

Taslima's case is no different to MF Husain, the 
Baroda University art students, Karunanidhi, 
Salman Rushdie, Baba Gurmit Ram-Rahim Singh or 
Gautam Prasad's Youtube Gandhi. Whether the 
motive is art or literature, satire or politics, 
the liberal options are to accept, criticise or 
ignore, but definitely not ban. To do so would be 
not just intolerant and narrow-minded, but proof 
of insecurity and self-demeaning. That's why it's 
wrong. That's why I consider it indefensible.

The argument made in India is that we are an 
uneducated, deeply-religious, conservative 
society where faith is an anchor unlike in the 
West. In such conditions criticism of god or 
religion can - and often does - provoke violence. 
To prevent this governments have to censor and 
ban. At first that may sound persuasive or, at 
least, sensibly pragmatic. But, I'm sorry, I do 
not subscribe to this line of thinking. It 
ignores essential facts. And it's philosophically 
mistaken.

The truth is that on almost every such occasion 
when violence has occurred, people have been 
incited and provoked. Not by the novelist or 
artist, not by the criticism or the cartoon, but 
by those who have exploited and manipulated the 
situation for their own ends. The authority to 
ban and the power to censor plays into their 
hands. As long as they exist they will be used. 
Where they don't, the matter invariably resolves 
itself peacefully.

But I have a deeper point to make. Why should 
brute force, which damages property, destroys 
lives and devastates cities intimidate me? The 
answer to those who behave unlawfully is not to 
give in and appease but to stand up and enforce 
the law. If you love freedom you have to be 
prepared to defend it. You can't protect freedom 
by compromise and concession.

After all, freedom is not just the right to be 
considered if correct, it is equally the right to 
be heard even if you are thought of as wrong. And 
in these matters who is to judge right and wrong? 
Were Buddha, Mahavira and Luther wrong? Were 
Copernicus, Darwin and even Marx wrong? And who 
today would maintain that DH Lawrence or Boris 
Pasternak was wrong?

The India I would be proud of would welcome 
Taslima Nasreen and grant her sanctuary. It would 
guarantee MF Husain's return home without fear of 
imprisonment or harassment. It would hear 
Karunanidhi, read Rushdie, accept Baba Gurmit 
Ram-Rahim Singh, even if it does not agree with 
them. The India I'm embarrassed by wreaks 
violence on the streets of Calcutta, vandalises 
art schools in Baroda and threatens peaceful 
worshippers in Sirsa. Alas, that is the India I 
live in.


o o o

(viii)

The Times of India
26 Nov 2007

MINORITY REPORT

by Harbans Mukhia

The unwillingness to face the challenge of 
minority communalism is now coming home to roost. 
An obscure body claiming to speak for minorities 
has called Kolkata's secular credentials into 
question. It was more keen to ensure the 
expulsion of Taslima Nasreen from the city than 
resettle the displaced refugees of Nandigram.

The West Bengal government and Left parties will 
explain it away as the work of anti-social 
elements, if not that of some Islamic militants 
from across the border. But the fact that a 
number of people responded to the call and played 
havoc with life in the city stands out over and 
above these explanations. We are paying the price 
for underrating the threat of minority 
communalism. Now, it has assumed proportions 
serious enough to pose a threat to government 
that projected itself as the chief protector of 
minorities.

"Secular" mobilisation has lent strength to the 
notion that while all communalism is bad, 
majority communalism poses a much greater threat 
to the nation than minority communalism. We are 
left with only majority communalism as a strong 
adversary. The "secular" parties' unwillingness 
to question, challenge and confront minority 
communalism has thus created a space for it to 
grow, as its leaders realise the power vested in 
it as a political force or vote bank. Almost all 
parties have contributed to this growth: the 
Sangh Parivar by posing a threat to the physical 
existence of Muslims, the Congress by playing up 
this threat, the Left by underplaying minority 
communalism and the liberal Muslim intelligentsia 
by harping on the decline of Urdu and 
safeguarding of Muslim Personal Law and so forth.

There have been voices of dissent within the 
Muslim community. Rajiv Gandhi's minister Arif 
Mohammad Khan was against surrendering to the 
demands of dogmatic mullahs on the Shah Bano case 
in the 1980s. He even resigned from the 
government when Rajiv Gandhi decided to go ahead 
and defy the Supreme Court in the hope of 
cornering Muslim votes. Khan lost the election.

But these are lone, individual voices, pitted 
against not only the orthodox leader-ship within 
the Muslim community but almost every government. 
In the absence of a larger social movement, the 
orthodox leadership's hold on the Muslim 
community has increased. The expansion of 
political space for the assertion of communal 
identity has only helped conservative elements. 
Secular parties, including the Left, abet such 
tendencies by their silence.

Given these developments, some of the assumptions 
of India's modernisation project can be called 
into question.

Jawaharlal Nehru's enthusiasm for parliamentary 
democracy based on universal adult franchise was 
based on his perception that colonial 
exploitation had left India and its people 
"backward" vis-a-vis the indices of modernity - 
industrial economy, education and political 
awareness. Hence, they fell back upon their 
pre-modern identities of caste, community and 
religion.

It was believed that industrialisation, bringing 
together workers of all religions and castes, 
will obliterate their pre modern mindset and 
forge a new collective identity of class. Modern 
education was expected to raise them above 
pre-modern identities.

The experience of parliamentary democracy, where 
each individual is left alone before the ballot 
box, with the symbolic withdrawal of all 
extraneous controls - those of the family, the 
community, and caste - was expected to act as a 
catalyst for creating modern political 
sensibilities.

All this has not happened. Casteism, communalism 
and regionalism have never been stronger as a 
political force. The clash between secularism and 
communalism has come to imply multi-community 
mobilisation as opposed to single community 
mobilisation.

If the majority and minority communalisms are 
left to challenge each other, it is hard to 
imagine a greater disaster awaiting India, for 
their mutual challenge leads to mutual 
reinforcement. As a fallout of the happenings in 
Kolkata, one can visualise one man laughing all 
the way to his vote bank: Narendra Modi in far 
off Gujarat.

The writer was a teacher of history in Jawaharlal Nehru University.

o o o

(ix)

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES
Hindustan Times, November 23, 2007
Barkha Dutt

As ironies go, it probably doesn't get any better 
than this. A panic-stricken Marxist government 
bundling up a feminist Muslim writer in the 
swathes of a protective black burqa and parceling 
her off to a state ruled by the BJP -- a party 
that the Left would otherwise have you believe is 
full of religious bigots.

The veil on her head must have caused Taslima 
Nasreen almost as much discomfort as the goons 
hunting her down. She once famously took on the 
'freedom of choice' school of India's Muslim 
intelligentsia by writing that "covering a 
woman's head means covering her brain and 
ensuring that it doesn't work". She's always 
argued that whether or not Islam sanctifies the 
purdah is not the point. A shroud designed to 
throttle a woman's sexuality, she says, must be 
stripped off irrespective. In a signed piece in 
the Outlook called 'Let's Burn the Burqa', 
Nasreen took on liberal activists like Shabana 
Azmi (who has enraged enough mad mullahs herself 
to know exactly what it feels like) for playing 
too safe on the veil.

So, does that make some of you feel that she's 
only got what she asked for? Or do we need to 
shamefully concede that the public discourse on 
creative freedom and individual liberties has got 
horribly entangled in a twisted version of 
secularism and political hypocrisy?

Nasreen may well be an attention-seeker who is 
compulsively provocative and over-simplistic in 
her formulations on Islam and women. Her literary 
worthiness could be a matter of legitimate 
dispute and her eagerness to reveal her personal 
sexual history a complete turn-off. Many of her 
critics condemn the Bangladeshi writer for her 
propensity to 'seek trouble' in a country that 
has been generous enough to offer her asylum.

But when confronted with India's larger claim to 
being a democratic, free society, none of that is 
really the point. All great art is historically 
rooted in irreverence and disbelief. And all open 
societies must permit absolute freedom to 
individuals -- artistes or not -- to question and 
reject inherited wisdom. Nasreen has been reduced 
to living the life of a fugitive on the run all 
because some fringe Muslim group decided to mix 
up the carnage in Nandigram with literary 
censorship and because the CPI(M) government was 
too nervous to question the bizarre juxtaposition 
of the protestors.

The Taslima Nasreen controversy is not as 
important for what it says about her as it is for 
what it says about us -- as a country and as a 
people.

We may want to brand Nasreen as an 'outsider' who 
is not worth the turmoil she causes. But we 
aren't qualitatively different when it comes to 
our own people either. Much the same arguments 
and adjectives (publicity-hungry, insensitive, 
arrogant, childishly provocative, etc.) were used 
to justify the forced exile of India's most 
celebrated painter, M.F. Husain. India's elite 
may trip over itself to own one of his frames, an 
aspiring middle-class may invest in him like they 
once did in gold and starlets may twitter 
incoherently at the possibility of being 
immortalised on the great man's easel. But it 
hasn't moved any of us into campaigning for a 
92-year-old man pushed out of his own country.

Joking with me recently, Husain said he was 
living the life of a global jetsetter -- dividing 
his time between London and Dubai. Then, 
suddenly, the quivering voice dropped to a faint 
whisper, as he said, "I don't think I can come 
back home till the BJP is willing to change its 
mind."

And so, these are the befuddling contradictions 
of India's political establishment.


o o o

(x)

The Times of India
25 Nov 2007

FALL & FALL OF BUDDHA

by Saugata Roy

KOLKATA: A UN refugee with a valid visa is 
desperately looking for a home in the city she 
loves, A panicky government, struts and frets, 
and finally pushes her out of the state. This is 
despite its professed love for the underdog - 
especially if she is facing persecution from 
fundamentalists. Welcome to the Left-ruled West 
Bengal where the fatwa rules today, fatwa in any 
form -religious or political.

Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen today has one 
thing in common with scores of families in 
Nandigram. They have all lost their home in a 
day. Taslima doesn't know how long she will be 
moving places, hiding her face from the Muslim 
fanatics who want her scalp, as though she has 
done something criminal. She is yet to hear from 
chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee - 
yesterday's Marxist poster boy and todays 
run-of-the-mill opportunist politico - who 
appears to head a mobocracy where numbers matter 
more than principles.

Bengal is not familiar with this servile face of 
the Left that didn't hesitate to stand by the 
Muslim divorcee Shah Bano despite pressures from 
the Muslim fundamentalists. When the Supreme 
Court granted alimony to Shahbano in 1985, the 
Rajiv Gandhi government moved the Muslim Personal 
Law Bill in Parliament against the court ruling 
in a bid to make peace with fundamentalists. 
Buddhadeb and his party at that time stood 
against the tide. Now, after 30 years of 
uninterrupted rule, Buddha and his ilk in the CPM 
have chosen the easy path: either crush dissent, 
or compromise.

The role reversal didn't come in a day. It began 
the day when the CM banned Nasreen's novel 
Dwikhandita on grounds that some of its passages 
(pg 49-50) contained some "deliberate and 
malicious acts intended to outrage religious 
feelings of any group by insulting its religion 
or religious belief." What's worse is Buddha 
banned its printing at the behest of some city 
'intellectuals' close to him. This was the first 
assault on a writer's freedom in the 
post-Emergency period. Later, a division bench of 
the Calcutta High Court lifted the ban.

But the court order was not enough to repair the 
damage. The government move dug up old issues and 
left tongues wagging. Soon thereafter, Hindu 
fundamentalists questioned M F Hussain's 
paintings on Saraswati. Some moved the court 
against Sunil Gangyopadhyay's autobiographical 
novel Ardhek Jiban, where he recounted how his 
first sexual arousal was after he saw an 
exquisite Saraswati idol. All this while, the 
Marxist intellectuals kept mum lest they hurt 
religious sentiments. And when fundamentalists 
took the Taslima to the streets, they were at a 
loss. Or else, why should Left Front chairman 
Biman Bose lose his senses and say that Taslima 
should leave the state for the sake of peace? Or, 
senior CPM leaders like West Bengal Assembly 
Speaker Hashim Abdul Halim say that Taslima was 
becoming a threat to peace? Even worse, former 
police commissioner Prasun Mukherjee - now in the 
dog house for his alleged role in the Rizwanur 
death - went to Taslima's Kolkata residence and 
put pressure on her to leave the state. This was 
before last week's violence in Kolkata. But 
still, the timing is important. Mukherjee went to 
Taslima's place when the government went on the 
back foot after the Nandigram carnage.

The former top cop offered her a shelter in 
Marxist-ruled Kerala that Taslima reportedly shot 
down. The purpose seems apparent. Mukherjee 
perhaps felt that his showing Taslima the door 
might help his political bosses to assuage 
feelings of the Muslims, some of whom lost their 
home and hearth in Nandigram. The flip flop in 
the CPM and the administration that followed, 
bears out how the ruling CPM is slowly becoming 
panicky about its influence over large sections 
in the peasantry and among Muslims that were 
earlier solidly behind the party. Hence, it's 
given to knee-jerk reactions, like turfing 
Taslima out, after crassly toting up political 
numbers. This is the way parties that were 
scorned by the Marxists as being solely governed 
by electoral considerations, would have perhaps 
behaved.

But the Marxists themselves? Perhaps unknown to 
himself, Buddha has been steadily losing his 
admirers. There was a time - just a few months 
ago, really - when not just the peasantry and 
workers but the Bengali middle class swore by 
him. Today leftist intellectuals like Sumit 
Sarkar, liberal activists like Medha Patkar are 
deadly opposed to him and his government. The 
Bengali middle class, for whom Buddha represented 
a modernizing force, is today deeply disappointed 
with him. One thing after another has added to 
the popular disenchantment. First, there was the 
government's high-handed handling of Nandigram, 
then came the Rizwanur case in which the state 
apparatus seems to have been used and abused to 
thwart two young lovers, and now the government's 
capitulation in the Taslima affair before Muslim 
fundamentalists.

Bengal which prides itself for its liberal and 
secular ethos, seems shocked that their 
once-favourite leader is a party to all this. The 
government seems aware of its steep decline in 
the popularity chart. Hence it is desperately 
trying to make up for little losses with huge 
compromises. The chief minister may be praying 
for Taslima's visa to expire on February 17, 
2008. But that won't rid his conscience of the 
fact that he denied a home to a writer in his 
"progressive" state.

o o o

(xi)

The Times of India
24 Nov 2007

MUSLIM ACTIVISTS SUPPORT TASLIMA
Avijit Ghosh, TNN

NEW DELHI: Hounded by fundamentalists in Kolkata, 
forced to leave Jaipur and now someplace 
somewhere, Taslima Nasreen must be feeling like a 
vagabond or worse. But on the brighter side, the 
45-year-old exiled Bangladeshi writer has found 
support from several Muslim activists and 
intellectuals across the country.

Mumbai-based social activist Javed Anand says it 
is possible to understand why some Muslims are 
upset with Taslima's writing and that they have 
every right to protest but in a civilized, 
democra-tic fashion. "But fundamentalists are 
using the threat of violence as a way of 
bulldozing the government. This is unacceptable. 
These protestors do not realize the extent of 
damage they end up doing to the community. Such 
conduct results in Muslims being seen as 
intolerant, violent fanatics," says Anand, 
general secretary, Muslim for Secular Democracy.

The activist adds, "There's every chance Taslima 
would be killed if she goes back to Bang-ladesh. 
India being a democracy, should give her a 
long-term visa, if she desires." Taslima's visa, 
renewed by the government in August, expires on 
February 17, 2008. She was living in Kolkata 
since 2004.

Hyderabad-based political scientist Javeed Alam 
says that the Muslim politics on Taslima Nasreen 
issue is no different from Praveen Togadia's 
politics. "Both strengthen fascism," says Alam, 
also a social activist. He wants the government 
to give Taslima an Indian citizenship. She had 
applied for it sometime back.

Pune-based Razia Patel of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila 
Andolan too believes that it is possible to 
disagree with what Taslima says. But she also 
points out that the writer has a right to express 
herself. "If the Indian government decided to 
give her visa, then it is the government's duty 
to protect her," she says. The view is affirmed 
by the Hyderabad based poet and activist Jamila 
Nishad. "Having granted her asylum, the 
government should ensure that she lives in peace 
wherever she wants in India," says Nishad of 
Shaheen, a women's organisation.

In August, Taslima was attacked by a group of 
Islamic activists while attending a literary 
function in Hyderabad. Alam points out that in 
her writings, Taslima has said that there is no 
scope of emancipation of Muslim women within the 
Shariat. "What the Muslims must understand is 
that there is a difference between criticism and 
insult," he says.

o o o

(xii)

The Hindu
Nov 25, 2007

CALL FOR CITIZENSHIP TO TASLIMA HAILED

Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI: Academics and artistes on Friday 
protested against the rioting in Kolkata by 
Muslim fundamentalist forces against Bangladeshi 
writer Taslima Nasreen and her subsequent 
"externment" from the city.

In a statement issued by the Safdar Hashmi 
Memorial Trust, they welcomed the call for giving 
Ms. Nasreen Indian citizenship in the face of 
fundamentalism in her country.

At the same time, SAHMAT sought to underline the 
"unabashed duplicity" exhibited by Hindu 
fundamentalist forces in this matter when they 
continued to viciously persecute painter M.F. 
Husain. Expressing happiness that Left Front 
chairman Biman Bose had revised his statement 
asking Ms. Nasreen to leave West Bengal if her 
presence disturbed peace in the State, the 
statement said everyone should stand united to 
defend freedom of expression in an unfettered 
manner without violence, threat or hindrance from 
fundamentalist forces and frenzied mobs openly 
exhibiting extreme intolerancea.

"What is particularly frightening is the fact 
that this is not the first time in recent history 
that such a situation has been created by 
sectarian forces and the reaction of the state 
has been identical. We have had to face almost 
exactly the same situation in regard to veteran 
painter M.F. Husain."

The signatories to the statement include Prabhat 
Patnaik, Ram Rahman, D.N. Jha, Amiya Bagchi, 
Indira Chandrasekhar, M.K. Raina, Sohail Hashmi, 
Radha Kumar, C.P. Chandrasekhar and M.M.P. Singh.

o o o

The Hindu
November 23, 2007

Kolkata
Outrage and indignation in Bengal on Taslima issue

Kolkata (PTI): The intelligentsia in West Bengal 
on Thursday night expressed indignation and 
outrage at Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen 
being taken to Rajasthan following the violence 
here during a shutdown to demand cancellation of 
her visa.

Magsaysay Award winning writer, Mahasweta Devi 
when told that the police had on Wednesday 
offered to take Taslima to Rajasthan, said "When 
the police are involved, then the government is 
also involved. The government has kowtowed to 
communal pressure. This is very bad."

Writer Sunil Gangopadhay said, "It's a matter of 
shame and regret that the unjust demand of 
fundamentalists has been met. This is improper. 
Why should the government bow to fundamentalists?"

Poet Shankha Ghosh was also vociferous in 
condemning Taslima being taken to Rajasthan.

"I do not think this is correct. An unjustified 
demand has been acceded to at the pressure of 
fundamentalists. This will embolden 
fundamentalist forces," Ghosh, an Academy Award 
winner said.

Celebrated actor Soumitra Chatterjee said, 
"Taslima had a valid visa for her stay here. She 
was not staying illegally. She was our guest. She 
should have been allowed to stay in West Bengal."

"I don't agree with those who are saying that she 
should not stay here. I also condemn in the 
strongest terms those who demonstrated on 
Wednesday seeking cancellation of her visa," said 
Chatterjee, a pro-CPI(M) actor and Satyajit Ray 
find.

"But it is not clear to me who took her to 
Rajasthan and whether she went of her own 
accord," he said.

All India Minority Forum President Idris Ali, who 
had called Westerday's shutdown which spiralled 
into violence, however, welcomed the development.

"It's good that Taslima has gone from West 
Bengal. The government was forced to heed to the 
demand of the people, especially Muslims," he 
said.

"The government understood there would be serious 
law and order problem in the state if she 
remained here," Ali said.


______


[4]  Announcements:

(i)

In Defense of

TASLIMA NASREEN

we are organising a

SILENT DEMONSTRATION

On: Tuesday, November 27, 2007

At: 5:00 pm

Venue: Safdar Hashmi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Near Mandi House)

DO JOIN US.

ANHAD, JAGORI, Delhi Solidarity Group, SAHR., 
SANGAT, Women's World. Women Unlimited, Women's 
Feature Service, Zubaan, Praful Bidwai, Kuldip 
Nayar.

- - -


(ii)

CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace 
and social justice movement working to end the 
war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect 
resources into healthcare, education and other 
life-affirming activities. They reject the Bush 
administration's fear-based politics that justify 
violence, and instead call for policies based on 
compassion, kindness and a commitment to 
international law.  With an emphasis on joy and 
humor, CODEPINK women and men seek to activate, 
amplify and inspire a community of peacemakers 
through creative campaigns and a commitment to 
non-violence. 

Find out more at <http://www.codepink4peace.org>http://www.codepink4peace.org


Two CODEPINK activists, Medea Benjamin and Tighe 
Barry are visiting Karachi for a few days and 
will be coming over to The Second Floor (t2f) on 
Wednesday. They'd like to meet local peace 
activists, learn about our experiences, and 
discuss ways in which we can collaborate.

Join us for an exchange of ideas.  

Date: Wednesday 28th November, 2007
Time: 7:00 pm
Venue: The Second Floor (t2f)
6-C, Prime Point Building, Phase 7, Khayaban-e-Ittehad, DHA, Karachi
Phone: 538-9273 | 0300-823-0276 | <mailto:info at t2f.biz>info at t2f.biz
Map: <http://www.t2f.biz/location>http://www.t2f.biz/location

- - -


(iii)

Dear all:

You are cordially invited to the launching of a 
unique book, CHAINS TO LOSE, being an 
autobiography of a South Asian working class 
revolutionary, most of it written in a British 
colonial jail in Bombay (Mumbai)

The book (in two vlumes) is an autobiographical 
account of the late Dada Amir Haider Khan's epic 
struggle for the liberation of India from 
colonial rule. He left Bombay at the age of 13 as 
a coal passer on a British supply ship, and for 
many years toiled as a seafarer, worked on the U. 
S. railroads, studied at the Lenin University of 
the People of the East in Moscow, only to return 
to India for a last ditch battle to free his 
homeland from colonial rule by organizing factory 
workers in Bombay and Madras. He was jailed by 
the British for "conspiracy to deprive the King 
Emperor of sovereignty over India" and after 
independence Pakistan's rulers kept him 
imprisoned for long periods for "being a 
communist."

The book offers a history of the world between 
the two great wars from the perspective of a 
class concious proletarian. It makes a 
facsinating reading, something one will never 
find in the academic history books by armchair 
historians of the East or the West. Copies of the 
book, published by the Pakistan Studies Centre, 
University of Karachi, will be available at the 
launching event.

    Place and Programme:

  ROYERSON UNIVERSITY, Toronto, Canada
  Saturday, December 1, 2007

   Book Launch at 4 PM
   Room 101, Engineering Building
   (Corner of Church and Gould Streets)

   Speakers: Dr. Hassan Gardezi(editor)
   and Dr. Syed Jaffar Ahmed (publisher)
     Reception at 6PM
   Oakham House, Gould Street

   For further information please contact:
Omar Latif, Phone: 416-536-6771
Hassan Gardezi Phone 705-750-0123,
(e-mail: gardezihassan at hotmail.com)

Please circulate this announcement to friends and 
collauges. Everyone is welcome to attend the 
launching and the reception.

Hassan Gardezi


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

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.