SACW | Dec.1-5, 2007 / Pakistan: Codepink / India: The Religion of Force, Nadigram, Assam, Kashmir

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | December 1-5, 2007 | 
Dispatch No. 2472 - Year 10 running

[1]  The Battle for Democracy in Pakistan:
   (i) Politics of boycott (M B Naqvi)
   (ii) Codepink activists from the US who came to 
Pakistan arrested and being deported
   (iii) India's and Now Pakistan's emergency: 
Indira and the Islamists (Shikha Dalmia)
[2] Nepal: Rising communal tensions fuelling 
displacement - rights activists (irinnews)
[3] Bhutan/India: An appeal to the poets, 
writers, theatre artists and other 
intellectuals (Anand Swaroop Verma)
[4] India - West Bengal's Left Govt. Must 
Re-shape: No to no say and to violence in 
Nandigram
   (i) The Religion of Force (Dilip Simeon)
  (ii) Report of an Independent Citizens' Team on 
the Current State of Affairs in Nandigram
  (iii) Time for the Left in India to do a serious 
rethink, else it will perish (Praful Bidwai)
  (iv) Second Statement by Chomsky, Tariq Ali et al on Nandigram
  (v) The Truth of Nandigram - CPI(M) in Lok Sabha
     + Mending fences (Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay)
[5] Assam, an Indian tragedy (Sanjoy Hazarika)
[6] Kashmir: Demilitarisation process - 
Relocation of troops in civilian areas is no 
answer
[7] Announcements:
  (i) Ramachandra Guha on 'the Beauty of 
Compromise ' Himal Annual Lecture (New Delhi, 4 
December 2007)
  (ii) Celebration of Human Rights Defenders (Colombo, 6 December 2007)

______


[1]  Pakistan:

The News International, December 05, 2007

POLITICS OF BOYCOTT

by M B Naqvi

Opposition parties are making a spectacle of 
themselves. All Parties Democratic Movement, 
minus JUI of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, has decided 
that January 8 election should be boycotted. The 
reason given is that it is unlikely to be free 
and would only perpetuate Mr Pervez Musharraf's 
rule. Behind Musharraf looms Pakistan Army, whose 
new Chief was his confidante. The PPP Chairperson 
will contest the election, with a fig leaf of 
doing so under protest. Anyhow, both JUI of 
Maulana Fazlur Rehman and PPP are sure to contest 
the election.

The need for united opposition arises from the 
fact that the ordinary citizens do not enjoy all 
the civil liberties the way western people do. In 
democracies, people's right to civil liberties is 
respected by courts, governments, political 
parties and all state agencies. In Pakistan 
self-perceived strongmen have ruled 
autocratically whether they were democratic 
governments of PPP or PML-N or a General's 
government.

Take the case of treating the judges of superior 
courts. PPP's record is not a bright one; 
remember the harassment of Justice Sajjad Ali 
Shah and his family. Mian Nawaz Sharif's goons, 
led by a Cabinet Minister, stormed the Supreme 
Court and the judges had to run for their lives. 
What General Musharraf did on March 9 was a tad 
less crude than what had happened in 1997. 
Factually, there is a strong element of 
commonality between major parties and the Army 
itself.

Army flaunts faith in Pakistan ideology and makes 
others follow it despite its vagueness. It shares 
the value system of feudals. It is a thoroughly 
conservative force dedicated to keep the society 
as it has always been. Now look at major parties: 
PML-N, PML-Q, PPP or take the innards of smaller 
nationalistic parties that often pass for being 
left-inclined. Their leaderships belong to or are 
descended from feudal class. Socially they are as 
conservative as any Muslim Leaguer.

All these parties have an unwritten agreement 
with the military to leave the fundamentals of 
social system untouched. Society with all its 
inequities must remain as it has always been. 
This is how the attraction of offices under the 
leadership of a General or even a former General 
is stronger than the facts about fundamental 
rights and democratic norms. These parties 
implicitly accept the apologias to the west that 
these strongmen make about 'doing things their 
own way'. Pakistanis are supposed to be quite 
different from western people; they can be beaten 
by the police and other law enforcing agencies. 
They can be made to 'disappear', 'writ of the 
government has to run' and so forth in the name 
of Pakistan ideology.

Even the conduct of a PPP government or the life 
within the party is autocratic. The same applies 
to PML-N; the other day its central body left the 
final decision about election participation to 
Nawaz Sharif alone. Their acquaintance with 
democratic working of parties and governments has 
been more theoretical than real.

Fact is since the two main parties (JUI and PPP) 
would participate, all others would follow suit. 
They cannot leave field alone to others. The 
sight of other parties' members becoming 
Ministers of government(s) alone is unacceptable. 
'If A can get a ministership or chairmanship of a 
parliamentary committee, why cant my party allow 
me to do the same', a feudal argues. While there 
is a case for unity because people should have 
the freedoms a democracy guarantees, so is a case 
for disunity: the lure of offices has been strong 
enough to overcome the appeal of democratic norms 
and methods. After all, participating in a 
military-led government is seen as doing no great 
harm to society or their own standing. Since, 
their ideas on social matters remain undisturbed, 
what is wrong in participating, in winning 
ministerships and being happy. Which is a basic 
case for disunity.

Sad fact is that Army or Army-dominated or 
Army-controlled governments are actually 
acceptable to PPP, PML-Q, MQM and many other 
smaller parties. This is Pakistan's Rightwing 
Consensus and it includes the Army and all the 
other social elite groups. Their relationship 
with the free-enterprise west is historically 
close and ideological; their worldview is common 
with the west. There is however a new 
contradiction to be noted.

This is emergence of a new middle class, 
especially in the Punjab -- other provinces have 
not seen the process. Only Karachi boasts of a 
middle class that is the matter of what is known 
as civil society. It is relatively affluent and 
educated. It is aware of the denial of political 
liberties, freely available in democracies. Their 
love for democracy is genuine. Today civil 
society is being led by lawyers, who ran four 
months long successful campaign for the 
restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. 
They mean to continue the movement until they get 
the restoration of the Chief Justice and other 
judges now under internment. They need democracy 
keenly enough and would not rest content until 
they get it.

But civil society, luminous as it is, is 
politically weak. When pitted against the phalanx 
of the upper classes serried behind military-led 
governments they need the support of either the 
larger mainstream parties or of left parties if 
there had been any. As it happens, there are no 
cognisable left parties.

Destruction of the left was the achievement of 
the past Pakistan governments. They destroyed 
students movements, banned unions, prevented 
teachers from having effective trade unions. The 
normal industrial phenomenon, trade unions, has 
been all but destroyed. Most of the trade 
unionists have been purchased or co-opted; some 
stragglers are left. The lower social orders have 
no organization; they have no voice. Their 
political clout is today zero.

The country's alliance with the west enabled the 
CENTO's anti-subversion funds to help destroy the 
left groups, trade unions and students' movement. 
That had happened in 1960s and 1970s. The 
Pakistan that used to talk of social inequities, 
workers, peasants and the Karigars has now 
disappeared. This weakens the middle class no end 
because its natural allies would have been the 
leftists in the fight for all freedoms.

If the idea of a boycott means boycotting the 
election and going home to sleep, it would surely 
leave the field to all others no matter if they 
were opportunists. To be significant, the boycott 
should accompany a fierce popular agitation for 
democratic freedoms, beginning with the 
restoration or the Supreme Court and High Courts 
as they existed on November 2 last and the 
Constitution being rescued from the deforming 
amendments that have been forced by successive 
generals to make the President all powerful at 
the expense of a show boy Prime Minister, 
including what this latest PCO has done. The 
question of provincial autonomy that will satisfy 
smaller provinces can no longer be postponed 
indefinitely. Without an all out political 
struggle, boycott means nothing. It is a silly 
thing if it stands alone as some kind of virtuous 
gesture.

(ii)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, December 4
Dana Balicki 202 422 8624
In Pakistan 0308-204-2346


US ACTIVISTS ARRESTED AT GUNPOINT BY PAKISTANI SECURITY FORCES
FORCED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY

U.S. human rights activists Medea Benjamin and 
Tighe Barry were arrested in Lahore, Pakistan at 
8:30pm on Wednesday, December 4 after attending a 
student rally at the Lahore Press Club. Upon 
leaving the Club in the company of several 
journalists, the car they were driving in was 
pulled off the road. Armed policemen jumped out 
of cars and motorcycles and surrounded their car, 
guns drawn. They forced the driver and 
journalists out, beat passers-by who were looking 
at the scene, and hijacked the car with Benjamin 
and Barry inside. They raced recklessly through 
the crowded streets of Lahore, endangering the 
lives of those in the car and outside. They took 
the two activists to the Race Course Police 
Station. Benjamin was roughed up by a woman 
police officer who was given orders to take away 
their cell phone.

Benjamin and Barry were never charged with 
anything and no reason was given for their brutal 
arrest. After four hours, a representative of the 
US Embassy appeared. The activists were allowed 
to leave in his custody, but are being forced to 
leave the country on Wednesday.

"It was a terrifying experience," says Benjamin. 
"I had no idea if we would get out of it dead or 
alive. If they do this to us, who have the 
protection of being US citizens, imagine what 
they do to their own citizens."

"It is so sad that peace activists would be 
treated like this," says Barry. "We call on our 
government to condemn our abusive treatment and 
deportation. It is one more example of the 
dictatorial nature of Musharraf's government and 
one more reason why the U.S. government should 
stop supporting him."

Benjamin and Barry are members of the U.S. human 
rights group Global Exchange and the women's 
peace group CODEPINK. They arrived in Pakistan on 
November 25 to learn about and support Pakistani 
civil society. They have been meeting with 
lawyers, students, judges, journalists and 
political leaders. They also conducted a 24-hour 
vigil outside the home of prominent lawyer Aitzaz 
Ahsan, who is under house arrest. Through these 
activities, they have received tremendous support 
and appreciation from the Pakistani people, 
including a Letter of Thanks from the Lahore High 
Court Bar Association extending "heartfelt 
gratitude for showing solidarity with the legal 
community of Pakistan."

The activists leave Pakistan shaken by their 
treatment but inspired by the example of the 
Pakistani people struggling for democracy.

Benjamin and Barry will be arriving at New York's 
JFK airport at 8am on Thursday and will be 
available for interviews.


(iii)


Wall Street Journal
November 13, 2007

INDIRA AND THE ISLAMISTS

by Shikha Dalmia

The Bush administration has so far taken only 
perfunctory steps to prod Pakistani President 
Pervez Musharraf to lift "emergency rule," 
reinstate the constitution and hold elections. 
Doing anything more, the United States seems to 
fear, might produce an Islamist victory at the 
polls -- and undermine a key ally in its war on 
terror. In effect, the old foreign policy 
bogeyman of the "fear of the alternative" is back 
in the White House.

But at least with respect to Pakistan, this fear 
ought to be banished. If anything, the longer Mr. 
Musharraf is allowed to suspend democracy, the 
more politically powerful Pakistan's religious 
extremists are likely to become. Those who doubt 
this thesis should peer across Pakistan's 
southern border and examine what happened during 
India's two-year flirtation with emergency rule 
in 1975.
[illustration]

Like Mr. Musharraf, India's then Prime Minister 
Indira Gandhi declared emergency after a state 
high court invalidated the elections that had 
brought her to power, on grounds of corruption 
and fraud. But instead of stepping down, she gave 
herself extraordinary powers and launched a 
massive crackdown on every democratic institution 
that India had painstakingly built since its 
independence from the British in 1947. She threw 
leaders of opposition parties behind bars and 
clamped down on the press, threatening to cut off 
the power supply to newspapers that refused to 
submit to her censorship. She also banned 
political activity by grassroots organizations.

Shutting down these institutions had a perverse 
side effect from which India's secular democracy 
has yet to fully recover: It left the field of 
resistance open to Hindu extremist groups such as 
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its 
then political front Jan Sangh, allowing them to 
regain the political legitimacy they had lost 
after one of their erstwhile recruits 
assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. The RSS was banned 
shortly after the assassination, but once the ban 
was lifted, it decentralized its organization 
further, making it harder for authorities to keep 
track of all its activities. The RSS maintained a 
public face of a charitable social organization, 
but beneath that facade lay a more sinister side 
that engaged in communal sectarian incitement and 
other subversive activities.

The RSS's quasi-underground character proved to 
be a vital asset after Gandhi choked off all 
regular channels for political organization. 
Unlike the other parties, Jan Sangh was quickly 
able to mobilize the nationwide network of RSS's 
"shakhas," or highly disciplined cadres, and take 
over the mantle of resistance. It temporarily 
suspended its ideology of "Hindutva," or Hindu 
nationalism, to make common cause with what it 
dubbed the "second struggle for independence." It 
played an important role in producing and 
disseminating underground literature chronicling 
Gandhi's excesses, publishing speeches by her 
opponents and reaching out to families of 
arrested dissidents.

The upshot was that once the emergency was lifted 
and elections called, Jan Sangh declared itself 
the savior of Indian democracy -- a boast that 
its successors like the Bharatiya Janata Party 
still make -- and won a prominent place in the 
coalition of secular parties that ultimately 
defeated Gandhi. This alliance collapsed in less 
than two years, thanks in no small part to Jan 
Sangh's sectarian demands. Nevertheless, as New 
York University Professor Arvind Rajagopal has 
noted, this brief stint in power proved an 
invaluable launching pad for the group's virulent 
ideology and did lasting damage to the country's 
commitment to secularism.

Indeed, although Gandhi, like her father, 
Jawaharlal Nehru, was an ardent secularist, after 
she returned to power she assiduously tried to 
build her Hindu bona fides, even accepting an 
invitation by a Hindu fundamentalist group to 
inaugurate the Ganga Jal Yatra, an annual event 
under which Hindus gather in a show of unity and 
collectively march to the mountains to get water 
from the holy Ganges river. Gandhi's gesture was 
significant because it legitimized the use of 
Hindu symbolism for political mobilization, 
something that subsequently produced immense 
tensions and ugly confrontations among Hindus and 
Muslims.
* * *

A similar political mainstreaming of radical 
Islamist groups might occur in Pakistan if Mr. 
Musharraf is allowed to prolong his power grab. 
In fact, the situation could be worse, given 
that, unlike India, Pakistan has never been a 
secular country and Islamists have always exerted 
considerable behind-the-scenes influence on 
government. They have infiltrated the Pakistani 
intelligence services and are well represented in 
the ranks of the civil bureaucracy. And there has 
always been close cooperation between Pakistan's 
generals and mullahs because of their common 
interest in cultivating Pakistan's Islamic 
identity and playing up the threat that Hindu 
India poses to it. The one government institution 
where Islamists have only a minority presence is 
the Pakistani Parliament.

But that might change if Mr. Musharraf continues 
to postpone elections and crush political 
opponents. Under such circumstances, 
Jammat-e-Islami (JI), Pakistan's oldest religious 
party with ties to the Taliban -- and an 
organization that harbors a long-standing desire 
to impose Shariah, or Islamic law, on the country 
-- and its sister organizations might well become 
useful to secular parties such as former Prime 
Minister Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's 
Party. JI and its cohorts command even bigger 
powers of mobilization than Jan Sangh did during 
India's emergency. They run madrassas, or 
religious schools, publish newspapers and have 
sizeable cadres that can be quickly deployed for 
street protests. These resources might prove 
vitally important in resisting Mr. Musharraf.

"Instead of the secular and religious parties 
working against each other, they will start 
working together," fears Prof. Hasan-Askari Rizvi 
of Punjab University in Lahore. Indeed, the 
Associated Press has already reported that Ms. 
Bhutto is inviting the Islamist parties, many of 
whose members too have been thrown in jail, to 
"join hands" with her. All of this will allow the 
Islamists to mask their real agenda and piggyback 
on a popular cause to win more representation in 
parliament when elections are held. Even if 
secularists like Ms. Bhutto prevail in these 
elections eventually, it will be much harder for 
them to resist Islamist demands if they are 
beholden to them for beating back the emergency. 
In effect, the Islamist reach will not only gain 
in depth -- but legitimacy as well.
* * *

If Mr. Musharraf were prodded to call off the 
emergency and honor his commitment to hold 
genuinely free and transparent elections in early 
January, would that lead to an Islamist victory, 
or at least significant gains, as the Bush 
administration fears? Not at all.

Islamist parties had their best showing in the 
2002 general elections, when they secured 11.1% 
of the vote and 53 out of 272 parliamentary seats 
-- a major gain over the pathetic three seats 
they won a decade before. But this gain was less 
serious than it seems. Most of the additional 
seats came not from Pakistan proper, but a few 
border provinces in the West that were 
experiencing a resurgence of anti-Americanism 
given their deep cross-border ties with the 
Taliban in Afghanistan. More crucially, however, 
Mr. Musharraf banned Ms. Bhutto and leaders of 
other secular parties from running, making it 
hard for these parties to secure a decent voter 
turnout. If free and fair elections were to be 
held today, Prof. Rizvi estimates secular parties 
would win handily, with the Islamists commanding 
no more than 5% of the national vote.

Islamist victory at the polls is not a real 
threat in Pakistan right now. The Bush 
administration should not allow that fear to 
deter it from applying maximum pressure on Mr. 
Musharraf to hold elections posthaste. The U.S. 
can, for instance, threaten to cut off Pakistan's 
supply of F-16 fighter jets and other 
nonterrorism-related aid.

India's example shows that even one vacation from 
democracy can be a huge setback for secularism. 
Yet another prolonged suspension of democracy 
will leave Pakistan few resources to beat back 
its Islamists. This is one instance where the 
Bush administration's avowed commitment to 
democracy is not just the more principled -- but 
also the more practical -- way of countering the 
threat of Islamic extremists.

Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason 
Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank.
An appeal to the poets, writers, theatre artists and other intellectuals

______


[2]

www.irinnews.org

  NEPAL: RISING COMMUNAL TENSIONS FUELLING DISPLACEMENT - RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

Photo: INSEC
Displacement in the Terai is increasing due to escalating ethnic tension

KATHMANDU, 29 November 2007 (IRIN) - Nepal's 
human rights workers are concerned at the 
increasing number of displaced families in the 
country's Terai region where ethnic tension 
between the Madhesi and Pahade communities is 
rising, activists told IRIN on 29 November.

In the past few weeks alone, over 100 Pahade 
families - at least 500 people - fled their homes 
in Bara, Rautahat, Siraha, Saptari and Parsa 
districts, the most affected areas in the Terai, 
a fertile lowland area of southern Nepal which is 
the breadbasket and industrial hub of the country.

Whilst the Madhesi are the original inhabitants 
of the Terai, the Pahade are hill migrants who 
moved to the Terai, own much of the land and 
dominate Terai's political life and economy. The 
Pahade make up about one third of the population 
of the Terai, which itself accounts for nearly 
half Nepal's population.

The two communities have had a long history of 
tensions especially over the control of forests 
and regional politics, but not to the extent of 
communal violence as in the past few months, say 
activists.

"There will be renewed displacement and a crisis 
if the current violence is not controlled," said 
rights activist Gopal Siwakoti of the 
International Institute for Human Rights, 
Environment and Development (INHURED).

Since pro-Madhesi political groups launched their 
protests in a bid to achieve more regional 
autonomy in February, violence has led to ethnic 
clashes and the displacement of both groups, with 
most displaced being Pahades.

Last week alone, nearly 90 families fled in fear 
of the militant group Madhesi Mukti Tigers in 
Bara, Siraha and Saptari districts, 400km 
southeast of the capital, according to the 
Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC), a local 
human rights group.

"Most of the families like ours were constantly 
threatened with death if we didn't leave," said a 
displaced villager Om Bahadur Shrestha in 
Barachettra village of Sunsari District.

He said Pahade families were being targetted by Madhesi militant groups.

"All the displaced families, including children, 
are living in very poor conditions," said aid 
worker Hari Bhattarai from the Norwegian Refugee 
Council (NRC), one of the main agencies providing 
support to the displaced.

Madhesi also targetted

Rights activists say Madhesi families have also 
been displaced, among them those who do not 
support militant groups.
''Most of the families like ours were constantly 
threatened with death if we didn't leave.''

Madhesis working for the government, media and 
human rights organisations also live in fear as 
they are constantly under threat of losing their 
jobs or being killed.

The worst affected are middle class families and 
well-off farmers who own large tracts of land or 
have a lot of property. They are forced to pay 
large sums to militant Madhesi groups, activists 
said.

Displaced Madhesi families are now taking refuge 
in safer Terai areas like Biratnagar, Inarwa, 
Janakpur and near the main highway leading 
towards the northern belt of the Terai, according 
to INHURED. Many Madhesi families have moved to 
the capital for protection and better security.

Dangerous trend

"This is quite a different form of displacement 
and it is likely that the displaced families will 
never be able to return to their homes," said an 
international aid analyst requesting anonymity.

He explained the current links between some 
political groups and armed gangs - with the 
latter funding militant activities and supplying 
arms, and the former giving them space for their 
criminal activities.

"Both of them are working towards displacing 
anyone who disagrees with them - even Madhesis - 
and waging an ethnic-cleansing war," he warned.

______


[3]  BHUTAN-INDIA: AN APPEAL TO THE POETS, 
WRITERS, THEATRE ARTISTS AND OTHER INTELLECTUALS

It is matter of shame for all of us that while 
the neighboring country Bhutan is continuing with 
the autocratic monarchy and its repressive 
activities with the help of world's largest 
democracy India, the intelligentsia in our 
country has maintained silence over the issue 
whereas the Indian media, time and again, keeps 
on praising the monarchy in Bhutan. We are 
repeatedly told by the media that the tiny 
populace in Bhutan is prospering, the country is 
unaffected by the environmental degradation and 
cultural pollution and so on. During the last 
couple of years, Indian media is full of news 
praising the King for his liberal attitude by 
arguing that he himself wants to end the monarchy 
to usher in the democratic system of governance. 
The media keeps on telling us that the King of 
Bhutan wants to join the modern world because he 
feels that continuing with monarchy in the 
present scenario is suggestive of a regressive 
thought.

The same media never told us sternly that this 
'peaceful and environment friendly' King, in 1990 
with the help of his army, had expelled 1.5 lakh 
citizens of his country, run bulldozer over their 
hamlets, destroyed their orange and cardamom 
plantations and unleashed a reign of terror and 
oppression on elders, women and children just 
because they were asking for the establishment of 
minimum democracy and respect for their human 
rights. Media never bothered to tell us that in 
the drama that is being enacted in the name of 
the countrywide elections scheduled for February 
2008, neither political parties banned for last 
20 years and termed illegal (Bhutan People's 
Party, Bhutan National Democratic Party, Druk 
National Congress) nor the people living in seven 
refugee camps run by UNHCR inside Nepal's border 
for last 17 years have been permitted to 
participate. The total population of Bhutan is 
around seven lakhs and expelling 1.5 lakh people 
out of this tiny population has been an incident 
never witnessed in the history of any country. 
The most surprising thing is that India is the 
only country in the subcontinent extending 
support to the King of Bhutan. He was even 
invited by the Indian government as chief guest 
in Republic Day parade two years back.

India has contributed significantly towards the 
plight of Bhutanese refugees. These refugees had 
brought out some pamphlets and organized peaceful 
demonstration demanding a minimum democracy in 
1990. The centre of this movement was southern 
part of Bhutan which is close to the Indian 
border, particularly the West Bengal border. 
Although the King of Bhutan had imposed ban on 
the entry of television in his country, but how 
could this neighboring region of West Bengal 
could remain uninfluenced by the movement related 
activities which are the very soul of life in 
West Bengal. People from South Bhutan came to 
India for educational purposes and they had to 
pass through West Bengal. Apart from that, due to 
lack of connecting roads in mountainous Bhutan, 
people had to take the road which passes through 
West Bengal in order to reach the other parts of 
Bhutan. Since southern part of Bhutan was 
primarily inhabited by Lhotsompas, a Nepali 
speaking Bhutanese community which constituted 90 
percent of the Southern Bhutanese population, the 
King charged them with creating disturbance. When 
the people of Sarchop community from east and 
north Bhutan were also expelled, it became clear 
in the long run that this movement was not 
confined to the Nepali speaking community alone.

Teknath Rizal, advisor to the Royal Council set 
up by the King wrote a letter to the King 
requesting that he must humbly pay heed to the 
people's complaints. But instead, the King put 
Teknath Rizal behind the bars. He was forced to 
suffer unbearable pains for 10 long years. He was 
released in 1999 when the King's officials 
realized that he could die in prison due to 
illness. He is now living an exiled life in Nepal 
and leading the anti-monarchy struggle. Rizal 
hails from Lhotsompa community.

On the same lines, the popular leader of Sarchop 
community Rongthong Kunley Dorji was arrested by 
the monarchy and charged with supporting the 
demand of minimum democracy. The King seized his 
property, put  him in the jail where he was 
subjected to severe atrocities and was finally 
kicked out of the country along with his family. 
He was arrested by the Indian police on his 
arrival to India in 1996 and was put in Tihar 
prison for two years. He is currently on bail and 
the Indian government has imposed various 
restrictions on him. He is also leading the 
anti-monarchy struggles. He is the president of 
Druk National Congress. India has always given 
refuge to the pro-democracy activists of various 
countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan, 
Afghanistan, Iran, Burma, Tibet and Nepal. 
Keeping this in mind, India's discriminatory 
attitude towards pro-democracy forces in Bhutan 
is surprising.

India's role in this regard is both shameful and 
significant because when the helpless Bhutanese 
citizens arrived inside the Indian border after 
being expelled from their own country, Indian 
security forces forcefully loaded them in trucks 
as if they were livestocks and dumped inside 
Nepal border. Those who resisted were beaten up 
severely. With no choice left they stayed in 
Nepal. Later on India laid its hands off from the 
issue. Whenever Government of India was requested 
to hold talks over the Bhutanese refugees issue, 
it raised its hands by saying that this was a 
bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan. Bhutan 
shares border with India, not Nepal. Any one who 
leaves Bhutan will obviously enter India first. 
It is a known fact that India has itself created 
this problem for Nepal. Nepal being a small and 
weaker state cannot force India, which has 
repeatedly ignored its request to resolve the 
refugee crisis.

In the last 17 years, whenever the Bhutanese 
refugees tried to return home risking their 
lives, they were stopped at Indo-Nepal border at 
Mechi bridge by the Indian security forces. When 
they tried to proceed further, they were beaten 
up. The most recent incident in this series is 
that of May 28, 2007  when one refugee was killed 
in police firing  and hundreds of them were 
injured.

I had organized a conference on the Bhutanese 
refugee issue in 1991 along with friends from 
Nepal and India. At that time, a booklet entitled 
'Human Rights in Bhutan' was also published. Many 
distinguished people including Justice V.R. 
Krishna Iyer, Justice Ajit Singh Bains and Swami 
Agnivesh participated. In order to create a mass 
consensus on the issue, an organization named 
'Bhutan Solidarity' was formed towards the end of 
the conference and Justice Krishna Iyer was made 
its patron. I was asked to take the 
responsibility of convener. A study team from 
this organization in 1995 prepared a detailed 
report after a tour to the refugee camps. I tried 
my level best to contribute in resolving the 
issue till May 2006 in this capacity. From June 
2006 onwards, MLA from MP and young farmer leader 
Dr. Sunilam is holding the position of convener.

As per UNHCR, the total number of refugees in the 
camps of Nepal is One lakh six thousand. The 
survey carried out by Bhutan Solidarity in 1996 
revealed that more than 40,000 refugees are 
living in India (West Bengal, Assam and Arunachal 
Pradesh) and they have not been given the status 
of refugee by UNHCR. As per 1950 Friendship 
Treaty between India and Bhutan, government of 
India refused to give these people refugee 
status. They too are living in worst conditions.

A team from 'Bhutan Solidarity' visited the 
refugee camps again in August 2006 and found that 
40 percent of the refugees were in the age group 
of 17-40. They are losing patience after the 
failure of many peaceful attempts to go back home 
and feeling that this problem can not be resolved 
through peaceful means. They have also been 
inspired by the Maoist people's war in Nepal and 
this thought is getting concretized in their 
minds that justice will only prevail through the 
barrel of the gun. In spite of being aware of 
everything, Bhutan government and government of 
India have maintained an indifferent attitude. It 
seems as if both the governments are waiting for 
the refugees to take the violent path which will 
give them an excuse to unleash repression.

I feel that the Bhutanese refugee crisis can be 
resolved in a peaceful way provided the 
intellectuals of India raise their voice and 
stand behind them in solidarity with their 
struggle. The area which relates with these 
refugees is politically very sensitive. Assam, 
Arunachal Pradesh and Jhapa, close to West 
Bengal, have been experiencing violent movements 
since long but the arms here are not in the hands 
of revolutionary forces, but in the hands of 
separatists, anarchists and state sponsored armed 
groups. In this scenario, if the Bhutanese 
refugees take to armed struggle, their voice will 
be lost and it will pave the way for their 
repression. In nutshell armed struggle waged by 
the Bhutanese refugees to solve their problem 
will prove to be suicidal at this stage.

Monarchy in Bhutan is at the weakest stage. As I 
said earlier, it is supported only by India. It 
has somehow sustained itself by giving offerings 
to the high officials of Ministry of External 
Affairs and a crop of selected journalists. This 
is the reason why every Foreign Minister- be it 
I.K. Gujral, Yashwant Sinha, Jaswant Singh or 
Pranab Mukherjee- has 'off the record' given same 
argument that the Indian support to Bhutan is 
only due to India's 'geo-political compulsions'.

In the last couple of years, US policy has been a 
fiasco in Nepal. Despite US disliking, the 
political parties of Nepal and Maoists reached a 
12 point understanding in Nov 2005, signed a 
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Maoists entered 
the parliament and they even joined the interim 
government. Inspite of all this, Maoists are 
still listed as 'terrorist' in the US records. 
Having seen utter failure of its policy in Nepal, 
US has now shifted its focus on Bhutan since it 
wants to consolidate its position in South Asia 
by hook or crook. US had announced last year that 
it will undertake to settle 60,000 Bhutanese 
refugees on its own and assist to settle 10,000 
each in Australia and Canada. This announcement 
revealed many things. Firstly, it tried to create 
a divide among the refugees. Secondly, it tried 
to prevent the ideology of violence taking an 
organized form among them and lastly, assured the 
King of Bhutan that it will help him get rid of 
the mounting problem of refugees. This is what US 
aims at. While this proposal seems to be 
providing some relief to the King at the same 
time the debate on this proposal has for the 
first time in 17 years generated violent 
conflicts among the refugees. It is interesting 
to know that hardly 10 percent refugees are in 
favor of US proposal. One more incident is 
noteworthy. King of Bhutan  Jigme Singhe Wangchuk 
had announced to abdicate the throne voluntarily 
in 2008 in favor of his son Prince Khesar Singhe 
Wangchuk. But suddenly US came in picture and 
through its efforts got the process completed 
much earlier, that is in May 2007 itself. Prince 
Khesar is now the King of Bhutan and US has full 
faith in him.

The objective of writing this letter is to inform 
you about the plight of Bhutanese refugees and 
government of India's position in this regard as 
well as to appeal you to give a serious thought 
on the possible ways to resolve the problem. This 
problem can surely be resolved peacefully and a 
terrible bloodshed can be avoided in this region 
if the intellectuals, human rights activists and 
active pro-democracy people of Indian political 
parties think seriously over this issue. If our 
endeavour fails to bring change the government of 
India's attitude of indifference, then the 
movement of Bhutanese refugees taking a violent 
turn can not be termed as illegitimate. But I 
have strong feeling that even a small effort on 
our part can bring a peaceful solution to the 
problem.

Your suggestions on this issue are invited so 
that we can sit together in the near future and 
find out a way in the coming days.


Yours,

Anand Swaroop Verma
Q-63, Sector-12, Noida - 201301
Phone: 0120-4356504, 9810720714
	email: vermada at hotmail.com
Date : September 14, 2007

______



[4] INDIA: NO TO NO SAY AND TO VIOLENCE IN NANDIGRAM

(i)

www.sacw.net - December 3, 2007
http://www.sacw.net/Nation/simeonNovember2007.html

THE RELIGION OF FORCE

by Dilip Simeon

The practice of violence, like all action, 
changes the world, but the most probable change 
is a more violent world - Hannah Arendt

After Nandigram, the most important concern in 
political debate ought to be the issue of 
violence - legitimate, illegitimate, formal and 
informal. I doubt whether this debate will take 
place, because the ground shared by enemies is 
embarrassing for everyone and by mutual consent, 
remains unspeakable. Still, certain disquieting 
facts stare us in the face. Avoiding their 
implications will take us yet again to the zone 
where we focus on "who started it" - an infinite 
sequential regression that explains nothing and 
satisfies no-one.

Political violence is always ugly, but thus far, 
the state has held the monopoly on legitimate 
force. The more a state relies on outright force, 
the more brittle and shaky its hegemony. This is 
true for empires such as the British, the Soviet 
and the American, as well as for national 
regimes. A connected issue is the maintenance of 
'irregulars' or vigilantes. These political 
para-militaries (not to be confused with the 
state's paramilitary apparatus) represent the 
stabilisation of informal violence; and their 
deployment is a grave symptom of the decline of 
state legitimacy.

The opposition cannot deny that a number of 
supporters of the CPI (M) in Nandigram were 
forced to leave their villages. It is an abuse of 
democracy to engage in armed confrontations and 
force one's opponents to vacate their homes. 
Certain parties intervened there more with the 
motive of augmenting their political standing 
than to fulfil popular aspirations. However, on 
the issue of land-acquisition, democratic norms 
demanded that the villagers be consulted prior to 
making plans for their eviction. With the 
outbreak of conflict, the government was bound to 
maintain peace whilst looking for a solution. 
Instead, there were cases of intimidation, 
leading to the alienation even of left-wing 
cadre. The matter was compounded in March, when 
the police confronted the opposition with the 
help of an informal militia. This use of an 
extra-constitutional force was illegal. The 
government is entitled to use legitimate force to 
maintain civic peace. It does not have the right 
to despatch anonymous armed men to thrash its 
opponents. But this is exactly what it did. The 
second week of November saw a blatantly partisan 
administration neutralise the police and give 
free rein to vigilante groups. All constituents 
of the government bear responsibility for this. 
Arson and murder have taken place. Now that rape 
cases have been registered, the comrades could 
ask themselves whether this is a price worth 
paying for the 'new sunrise' in Nandigram. Is 
rape, too, a coin that needs to circulate?

There is a long-standing fascination with 
militarism in Indian politics. Savarkar's 
favourite slogan was 'Militarise Hindu-dom!' 
Freedom fighters saw themselves as an Army, 
Netaji Subhas was drawn towards uniforms and 
military dictators. The RSS has maintained itself 
in para-military format since its inception, and 
the communist tradition has tended to glorify 
'People's War'. Two decades ago the Khalistanis 
organised 'commando forces', and took titles such 
as 'Lt General'. Islamist guerillas see 
themselves as warriors of the Almighty. The 
North-East is teeming with generalissimos. A more 
immediate kind of informal violence has appeared 
in landlord armies such as the Ranvir Sena, and 
groups such as Chhatisgarh's Salwa Judum. We 
could call it 'security outsourcing' in today's 
managerial jargon.

There are distinctions to be made among 
paramilitaries. Some are inspired by Heavenly or 
Historical goals, others have more prosaic ends. 
Some are ideological, others pragmatic. Our 
upper-caste establishment refers to Jehadis and 
Naxalites as 'terrorists'; but doesn't see the 
Bajrang Dal or Shiv Sena that way. They're only 
'ultra-nationalists'. It objects to the violence 
and lawlessness practiced by the former, but 
winks at mass-murder and revenge-attacks by its 
own vigilantes, as in 1984 and 2002. Often 
political violence is enacted in the name of the 
oppressed - those who espouse it like to appear 
as the injured party, even when they are chief 
ministers. A binary division in the political 
ethos takes place, wherein we are moved to tears 
by the plight of our preferred victims, but 
impervious to the suffering inflicted on others 
by 'our' side. This gives rise to surreal 
spectacles such as Mr Advani's declaration of 
never having witnessed such barbarity as he saw 
in Nandigram. Indeed. The victims of his cohorts 
in Gujarat still await the smallest gesture of 
human sympathy from this statesman, whose trip to 
West Bengal was unhampered by the administration, 
unlike Medha Patkar's movements. Some citizens 
are more equal than others. Yes, we all make 
distinctions of one type or another.

But there remain some things in common between 
these formations. They all look upon, and wish to 
convert civil society into a war-zone. Their 
emotional universe is peopled by warriors and 
martyrs, and history for them is a long march of 
dead heroes. War is glorious, and bloodshed 
brings out the best in man. I submit that the 
best is close to the worst. One symptom of the 
mental disorder called sociopathy, is the absence 
of pity. It is a sad feature of India's political 
life that so many sociopaths have found their way 
to its commanding heights. And they are no less 
diseased who possess the capacity to order 
brutality from afar, but never get blood on their 
own hands..

During the Cold War, it was a commonplace that 
democracy and socialism were antithetical to each 
other. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, it 
has become clear that it is precisely capitalism 
that cannot co-exist with democracy. And as one 
gives way to the other, attacks on democracy will 
increase. The SEZ policy is an example of the 
suspension of constitutional rights, already 
battered by religious fanatics and imperialists. 
Evidently, capitalism can manipulate every form 
of social oppression, from gender inequity to 
caste and race, as a means of enforcing a 
congenial environment for itself. Capitalist 
development will never terminate social 
injustice, rather, it will feed upon and 
perpetuate it in hybrid forms. Extra-economic 
coercion is the social capital of modernity.

Meanwhile, instead of defending what freedoms we 
have, the so-called people's warriors abet the 
above process by attacking democracy in the name 
of a unilateral claim to represent peoples 
interests. May one expect the freedom of speech 
in their liberated areas? This October, the 
Maoist party murdered 18 persons in Jharkhand. 
Did their victims have the opportunity to plead 
for mercy? It verges on the surreal when 
executioners demand democratic rights. Theirs is 
another kind of suspension of politics and of 
socialist ethics. Ironically their programme 
calls for yet more capitalism, on the argument 
that the capitalism we already have is not the 
genuine variety. In a certain mental universe, 
all we may look forward to is one or other brand 
of communist-administered capitalism. Maybe more 
people will turn to God for assistance.

Democracy can only survive if democratic freedoms 
are valued and extended to the home and 
workplace. This cannot be done via the culture of 
militarism and violence. As Gandhi said in 1909, 
what is obtained through fear can be retained 
only as long as the fear lasts. The comrades who 
wrought the new sunrise in Nandigram have lots of 
work ahead.

o o o

(ii)

FINAL INTERIM REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS' 
TEAM FROM KOLKATA ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS 
IN NANDIGRAM
30 November 2007

Kavita Panjabi, Anuradha Kapoor, Rajashri 
Dasgupta, Saswati Ghosh, Shyamoli Das, Swapna 
Banerjee, Trina Nileena Banerjee, Shuktara Lal, 
Sushmita Sinha, Shubhasree Bhattacharya and 
Sourinee Mirdha

http://www.sacw.net/Nation/CitRepNandigramNov07.pdf


o o o

(iii)

  THE LEFT IN ITS LABYRINTH

It's time for the Left in India to do a serious 
rethink, else it will perish. The excesses of one 
single year have led to this situation, writes 
Praful Bidwai

THE INDIAN LEFT has in a single year managed to 
do through its own actions what all its opponents 
could not accomplish over eight long decades: 
namely, damage its credibility as a force which 
speaks for the underprivileged, the excluded and 
the wretched of the Indian earth, and which 
upholds the values and practices of inclusive 
democracy. This is starkly evident in the two 
major states where it rules: West Bengal, and to 
a lesser extent, Kerala.

In West Bengal, 2007 witnessed forcible land 
acquisition for a car factory in Singur, two 
planned episodes of armed violence in Nandigram, 
starvation deaths among long-unemployed 
tea-garden workers in Jalpaiguri and dirt-poor 
Adivasis in Purulia and Bankura. Besides, there 
were food riots in nine districts against corrupt 
ration shop-owners linked to the CPM, Rizwanur 
Rehman's mysterious death amidst a 
party-police-business nexus, and the expulsion of 
writer Taslima Nasreen in place of a principled 
defence of her fundamental rights to the freedom 
of belief and expression.

2007 was no ordinary year. It marked 30 
continuous years of the Left Front's rule in West 
Bengal - a tenure unmatched in India and probably 
in the world. Nowhere else have Communist parties 
been mandated in free and fair elections to rule 
a country or province the size of West Bengal 
(population 80 million) for three decades. This 
is a tribute to the relevance of Left-wing 
politics.In Kerala, the Left Democratic Front 
came to power with an impressive majority, but 
now faces a bleak prospect primarily because of 
serious infighting within the CPM, and pressure 
from party state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan to 
follow pro-rich neoliberal policies, which are 
alienating the vast majority. The stench of 
scandal hangs heavy in Kerala, with lottery 
scams, sweetheart deals with shady businessmen, 
and expropriation of Adivasis. In the next Lok 
Sabha elections, the LDF may well lose the bulk 
of the seats it holds.

Nationally, the Left parties, comprising the CPM, 
the Communist Party of India, the Forward Bloc 
and the Revolutionary Socialist Party, are set to 
shrink in their parliamentary representation, and 
more crucially, their moral and political 
influence. The CPM is likely to be worst 
affected. This could reverse the one-and-a-half 
decades-long trend under which the Left survived 
the international collapse of Soviet-style 
socialism, retained much of its moral and 
intellectual capital, and in many cases, extended 
its influence - defying the tendency towards a 
decline of Left-wing politics and a surge of the 
Right in most parts of the world, barring Latin 
America.

Neither the Left, nor the CPM in particular, has 
a strategy to resolve the ideological, political, 
and organisational crisis it faces. The plain 
truth is the Indian Left is less and less able to 
articulate a vision of social emancipation and 
present alternatives to corporate-led 
globalisation with all its enormous economic 
imbalances and social distortions. The Left must 
rethink - or perish. The Left's achievements must 
not be underrated. The greatest include land 
reform, an unblemished record of communal harmony 
and peace, stable, relatively clean governance, 
panchayati raj institutions, and above all, 
politicisation and empowerment of the masses. No 
other political current can claim to be such a 
principled upholder of democratic traditions and 
values. If the Left didn't exist in India, we 
would have to invent it!

In West Bengal, Operation Barga gave 2.3 million 
cultivators tenancy rights, and accounts for more 
than one-half of the total The state also 
witnessed a 210 percent increase in literacy and 
a halving of infant mortality. Urban poverty 
ratio declined to 14.8 percent, well below the 
national average (25.7 percent).

However, the Front's record in some other 
respects is poor, as the official Human 
Development Report (2004) admits. Public spending 
and access to health services have stagnated. 
Some indicators - immunisation, antenatal care, 
nutrition among women, and number of doctors and 
hospital beds per lakh people - are below the 
national average. West Bengal has not opened a 
single new primary health centre in a decade.

RURAL POVERTY decreased between 1983 and 1993-94 
at an annual rate of 2.24 percentage- points. But 
the decline has slowed down to 1.15 points 
annually. To compound matters, W. Bengal has the 
lowest rate of generating work under the National 
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme - a mere 14 
person-days per poor family, against the national 
average of 43, in place of the promised 100 days 
a year.

Worse still, according to the National Sample 
Survey, "the percentage of rural households not 
getting enough food every day in some months of 
the year" is highest in West Bengal (10.6 
percent), worse than in Orissa (4.8). An alarming 
indicator is the number of school dropouts in the 
6-14 age group. At 9.61 lakh in West Bengal, this 
figures is even higher than in Bihar (6.96 lakh). 
Of India's 24 districts which have more than 
50,000 out-ofschool children, nine are in West 
Bengal.

Yet another dark spot is the Front's failure of 
inclusion in respect of the religious minorities. 
Muslims form 25.2 percent of the state's 
population. But their proportion in government 
employment is an abysmal 2.1 percent, even lower 
than Gujarat's 5.4. This represents, sadly, the 
downside of the LF's record of protecting the 
minorities against communal violence.Clearly, 
West Bengal has a long way to go before it can 
become a model. Regrettably, its leadership's 
priorities have shifted towards elitism. It now 
obsessively promotes industrialisation at any 
cost, at the expense of peasants and workers. It 
has set its mind upon neoliberal projects like 
the Singur car factory and Special Economic Zones.

The results of the neoliberal orientation were 
evident in Nandigram in March and again in the 
first half of November, when the CPM forcibly 
"captured" two blocks, over which it had lost 
control. The bulk of Nandigram's people - 
including many CPM supporters - got disenchanted 
with the party because it tried to impose an SEZ 
on them, earmarked for Indonesia's Salim group - 
a front for General Suharto's super-corrupt 
family.The SEZ plan was tentatively abandoned 
under popular resistance, led (but not 
exclusively) by the Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh 
Committee (BUPC). But the CPM started a campaign 
of intimidation of ordinary people, turning 
thousands into refugees, and resulting on March 
14 in a murderous attack on villages, accompanied 
by arson, loot and rape. The attempt failed. 
CPM-BUPC clashes continued in recent months, and 
pressure grew to call in the Central Reserve 
Police Force (CRPF). To pre-empt CRPF 
intervention, CPM cadre launched their second bid 
to capture" Nandigram, turning it into a "war 
zone". The rest is history.

Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya presents 
the violence as a spontaneous clash between two 
organisations, in which the BUPC was "paid back 
in the same coin". In reality, this was a clear 
case of abuse of the state police, and its 
subordination to the CPM. The CPM treated its 
political adversaries as another country's enemy 
population.

This does not argue that the BUPC does not have 
goons in its ranks. It certainly does. But their 
power could not have matched the clout of armed 
CPM cadre backed by the state. Nandigram- II was 
a grievous blunder, which betrayed the Front's 
own core constituency. No argument about 
"provocation" by the opposition, or a 
"conspiracy" between the Right and the Extreme 
Left, can justify the gunning down of innocent 
peasants.

Unfortunately, the CPM leadership has learnt few 
lessons from Nandigram. It remains obsessed with 
GDP-ism and boasts that Bengal has the highest 
growth (8.55 percent) of all states. It has ruled 
out any rethinking on neoliberal policies. Even 
CPM general secretary Prakash Karat says: "We 
have to adopt industrialisationŠ. we have to 
compromise. Industrialisation cannot be achieved 
without the help of capitalists like the 
Tatas."This approach is creating a rift, for the 
first time ever, within the LF and threatens to 
weaken its greatest collective strength: unity. 
The approach could eventually turn the Left into 
an elitist, Social Democratic entity favoured by 
the rich and middle classes. That cannot be the 
future of the Left as a viable and relevant 
plebeian force.

The CPM must decide whether it should fight for 
radical social change, or merely manage 
capitalism Chinese-style, however honestly. If it 
chooses the second option, it will go into 
historic decline. It must also make a decisive 
break with the undemocratic organisational 
culture it has inherited, which punishes 
dissidence and encouragesa "my-party- 
right-or-wrong" attitude. Unless the Left 
undertakes ruthless self-criticism, it can't 
effect course correction.

Source: Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 47, Dated Dec 08 , 2007

o o o

(iv)

http://www.kafila.org/2007/12/04/second-statement-from-chomsky-tariq-ali-et-al/

[December 4, 2007]

We are taken aback by a widespread reaction to a 
statement we made with the best of intentions, 
imploring a restoration of unity among the left 
forces in India -a reaction that seems to assume 
that such an appeal to overcome divisions among 
the left could only amount to supporting a very 
specific section of the CPM in West Bengal. Our 
statement did not lend support to the CPM's 
actions in Nandigram or its recent economic 
policies in West Bengal, nor was that our 
intention. On the contrary, we asserted, in 
solidarity with its Left critics both inside and 
outside the party, that we found them tragically 
wrong. Our hope was that Left critics would view 
their task as one of putting pressure on the CPM 
in West Bengal to correct and improve its 
policies and its habits of governance, rather 
than dismiss it wholesale as an unredeemable 
party. We felt that we could hope for such a 
thing, of such a return to the laudable 
traditions of a party that once brought extensive 
land reforms to the state of West Bengal and that 
had kept communal tensions in abeyance for 
decades in that state. This, rather than any 
exculpation of its various recent policies and 
actions, is what we intended by our hopes for 
'unity' among the left forces.

We realize now that it is perhaps not possible to 
expect the Left critics of the CPM to overcome 
the deep disappointment, indeed hostility, they 
have come to feel towards it, unless the CPM 
itself takes some initiative against that sense 
of disappointment. We hope that the CPM in West 
Bengal will show the largeness of mind to take 
such an initiative by restoring the morale as 
well as the welfare of the dispossessed people of 
Nandigram through the humane governance of their 
region, so that the left forces can then unite 
and focus on the more fundamental issues that 
confront the Left as a whole, in particular focus 
on the task of providing with just and 
imaginative measures an alternative to 
neo-liberal capitalism that has caused so much 
suffering to the poor and working people in India.

Signed

Michael Albert, Tariq Ali, Akeel Bilgrami, 
Victoria Brittain, Noam Chomsky, Charles Derber, 
Stephen Shalom

o o o

(v)

THE TRUTH OF NANDIGRAM - CPI(M) IN LOK SABHA
http://pd.cpim.org/2007/1202_pd/12022007_salim%20speech.htm

MENDING FENCES
by Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20071221501502200.htm

______


[5]


Hindustan Times
November 30, 2007

ASSAM, AN INDIAN TRAGEDY

by Sanjoy Hazarika

As Assam lurches through a cycle of hatred, 
violence, suspicion and ethnic division, with the 
state government an impotent observer despite its 
talk of action and ministers scurrying from one 
press conference to another, the question that 
needs to be asked is not just how did this happen 
or what can be done, but also what it means in 
the larger context of Assam's complex social 
milieu and India's policies.

For one, it shatters the dying myth of a 
'tolerant' society in Assam, a myth that died 
many years ago in Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and 
Nagaland with their random bursts of ethnic 
cleansing, at times directed against plains 
dwellers, at other times against fellow 
tribespeople. There is not just one monolithic 
society. The North-east has no less than 220 
distinct ethnic groups, with a number like the 
Monpas and Nagas, Mizos, Garos and Khasis having 
kin in neighbouring countries - whether it is 
Tibet of Myanmar or Bangladesh.

A state like Assam is home to no less than 20 
ethnic groups, large and small, many of which 
function as exclusive entities, without a role 
for those outside of the specific ethnic group. 
These groups are in different stages of economic 
growth and political mobilisation.

What needs emphasis is that while the core of 
traditional social structures and practices 
remains intact, these traditions are being 
challenged by more radical voices, especially 
among younger leaders in these ethnic groups, 
particularly among the tea community. This is a 
coalition of tribes, whose forebears were 
forcibly transported to Assam to work on British 
tea plantations. Many died in the course of those 
journeys, as they were moved from the dry 
highlands of Chotanagpur and today's Jharkhand to 
the humid plains of Assam.

It is one of the largest organised forced 
migrations in pre-Independent India and one of 
the most shameful. Their numbers are large - not 
less than 20 lakh these days, critical to the 
future of most governments. They live largely on 
plantations, in a world apart, where they live in 
free housing (called lines), their food is 
subsidised and their salaries protected. But 
their conditions remain poor with high levels of 
substance abuse, especially alcohol, lack of 
savings and very low levels of education and 
overall health.

They are slow to react angrily but have conducted 
violent assaults against tea managers and others. 
Most recently, when pro-Ulfa supporters blocked 
highways in Upper Assam last May, forcing 
near-starvation conditions in the nearby estates, 
they scattered the protesters, armed with bows 
and arrows and heavy sticks. In many of these 
incidents, there has been heavy use of raw 
country liquor by the crowds.

The images of the ongoing confrontations in Assam 
hark back to another era, with bows and arrows as 
well as spears and lathis being brandished. Last 
Saturday's initial outburst by the protesters who 
were demanding ST status exploded against stunned 
and unprepared residents, car and shop owners as 
well as students. For nearly two hours, the 
adivasis, some of whom who were in Guwahati or a 
big city for the first time, ran riot, unchecked 
by the police, many of whom were on security duty 
at the International Tea Convention.

It was after this mayhem that the organised 
retribution began: residents with assistance from 
local thugs broke up the rioters into smaller 
groups, beat them senseless and, in one horrific 
episode, stripped a young girl and chased her 
before an elderly man, shamed and outraged by the 
incident, gave her his shirt and protection. But 
the images of the young men, smiling, staring, 
and clicking photos with their cellphones while 
this child of 15 was being thrashed and 
brutalised, is an ugly example of the intolerance 
and lumpenisation that pent up angers fuelled by 
growing unemployment and poor governance (Assam's 
jobless numbers are about 30 lakh or one-tenth of 
the population, according to a top economist 
here) have pushed a state, once known both for 
peace and composite culture, to the brink.

What was a saving grace has been the scores of 
men and women saved by local people, who pulled 
them into their homes away from the mobs, of 
auto-rickshaw drivers who drove the injured to 
hospital. And I know of one case when a scooter 
driver gave a young woman and her child every 
rupee he had after taking them to a safe 
locality. But these stories of silent bravery and 
humanity were forgotten, once the tragic footage 
of the young girl was shown in the media.

The state government has offered compensation to 
the injured adivasis. But that's created a sense 
of resentment. There has been none for those 
whose shops, vehicles and other property were 
destroyed, who were injured and harmed.

At one time, Congress leaders held sway over the 
tea tribes, as they are known in Assam. But the 
years have seen their power base rapidly eroded. 
The BJP has made inroads into the region. But two 
groups which have emerged as strident and 
powerful are the All Assam Adivasi Students 
Association, which had organised the ill-fated 
demonstration, largely located on the North Bank; 
the other is the All Tea Tribal Students 
Association, which is based in Upper Assam, in 
the plantations of Dibrugarh and Jorhat. They are 
among those leading the current movement, which 
have changed course suddenly from seeking a 
Constitutional demand to pure revenge against the 
ubiquitous 'other'.

What is incomprehensible is why the State 
government and the district administrations have 
been reluctant to declare Section 144 -  which 
disallows the gathering of more than four persons 
- and take tough measures, including tear gas, 
water cannons (of course, the latter may not be 
available) and known methods of crowd dispersal.

But beyond the immediate, the situation is 
tailormade for groups like the Ulfa to reach out 
to those most radicalised and angered by recent 
events as well as the trends of the past years in 
the tea community. This is what should be of 
deep, immediate and long-term worry for the state 
and central governments as well as all those who 
have the interest of Assam and the region at 
heart.

Such possible mobilisation and recruitment of tea 
garden youth - many uneducated but still with 
high expectations of achievements - into the 
ranks of armed groups can turn Assam into an 
absolute nightmare. Should this happen, bows and 
arrows can be transformed into modern killing 
weapons. Those who are Assamese and not from the 
tea tribes would need to constantly look over 
their shoulders to see if they are safe; an 
atmosphere of fear and terror would prevail, 
which no amount of police or army presence can 
stop.

This is as dangerous a portend as what security 
analysts and media pundits keep shouting from the 
rooftops about: Islamic radicalisation in the 
soft underbelly of Assam, the borders with 
Bangladesh.

The danger can be reduced, if not solved. For 
one, the central government needs to shed its 
head-in-the-sand attitude about not extending ST 
status to the tea tribes in Assam and order a 
fresh look at the issue. Constitutions and 
communities cannot be locked in time warps. The 
adivasis, Mundas, Santhals, Oraons and other 
groups of Assam still maintain the oral and 
musical traditions of the past, though they may 
live on tea estates. Their relocation was a 
horrible historic injustice.

New Delhi has an opportunity to redeem the past 
by giving them a recognition that is their due. 
The state government needs to go beyond mere lip 
service if it is serious about seeking ST status 
for this group; it needs to stop bracketing them 
as tea tribes (the category does not exist) and 
define them as the tribal groups they are in the 
land of their ancestors. Surely, this can be done 
if the Meenas of Rajasthan can remain an ST group 
when many of them have moved out of their 
traditional areas, discarded their customary garb 
and are powerful in government service.

Sanjoy Hazarika is Managing Trustee, Centre for North East Studies and Policy


_______


[6]

Kashmir Times
December 1, 2007

Editorial

DEMILITARISATION PROCESS
RELOCATION OF TROOPS IN CIVILIAN AREAS IS NO ANSWER

That the security forces have vacated the Nageen 
Club, occupied and rendered defunct in the last 
two decades, and handed it over to the tourism 
department is good news. The prestigious Nageen 
Club, which would fetch tourists in huge numbers 
prior to the years of insurgency, may gradually 
restore all its glory. But all may not really be 
that well as it seems on the surface. The news 
does come close on the heels of official claims 
that 72 government buildings including schools 
and hospitals have been vacated by the security 
forces in the last two months. On the face of it, 
it may give an impression that the forces have 
begun moving away from the civilian areas. That 
could indeed be a good start. Unfortunately, that 
may not be the case. The fact is that though the 
movement of troops may have begun from some of 
the orchards, schools and hospitals, following 
much criticism of this policy of usurping and 
militarizing the civilian space and also due to 
some political pressure being exerted both from 
within Jammu and Kashmir and internationally. 
Yet, the movement is not quite final with reports 
in many cases of troops being relocated close to 
nearby areas after vacating their old positions. 
The over all concentration of security forces in 
villages is actually not being affected. The fact 
is that troops simply move from one corner of the 
village to another and an impression is being 
created that this move has brought some respite 
to the people. Indeed, such moves would help in 
easing movement in some places of tourist 
attraction, revive institutions like schools and 
hospitals. But the alarming presence of troops, 
working out to something like 1 gunman in uniform 
for every 20 persons or so, will continue to 
instill fear and intimidate the militancy 
infested people of Jammu and Kashmir. The process 
can be deemed to be a good beginning only if the 
next move is to send the troops being vacated 
from various areas back to the barracks so that 
the Kashmir Valley and rest of the militancy 
affected areas can gradually begin to get rid of 
the ugly growth of bunkers with a conspicuous 
presence of gun-totting men in uniform that not 
only invokes fear but also prove to be 
detrimental to the peace process.
There can be no doubts about the fact that the 
peace process cannot inch forward without 
trimming down the statistics of the forces 
deployed on the ground. An argument given to 
justify the disproportionate presence of troops 
in Jammu and Kashmir is the bid to draw 
distinction between the borders and the interiors 
and officials have maintained that since Jammu 
and Kashmir is a border state, the presence of 
troops is required. This plea can be dismissed as 
a senseless logic since several other Indian 
states like Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat share 
their borders with Pakistan. In these states, 
however, there is a marginal presence of troops 
even at the borders. In every conflict zone in 
the world, the bed rock of peace has been formed 
over agreements to de-escalate violence and fix 
time frames for demilitarization. The Irish 
model, which may not be politically similar to 
the Kashmir case, is inspiring in terms of the 
Good Friday agreement over cut down in troops and 
reciprocal de-commissioning of the Irish 
Revolutionary Army. Within the first few years of 
the agreement that came about as recently as in 
1999, much of the violence levels were brought 
down with a 30,000 strong British force coming 
down to something between 5,000 to 7,000. This is 
what paved the way for de-commissioning of the 
IRA in 2002. There are several other examples 
worldwide to emulate. The need is for a political 
will to do so and restrict the presence of the 
army and the para-military forces in Jammu and 
Kashmir, without allowing the local police force 
to double up. It would be such a waste of time if 
despite the present mood for peace process in 
South Asia, there are no efforts to stop the 
security forces from becoming a permanent feature 
in this state. An understanding has to dawn that 
they have to gradually begin packing their bags 
to go.

______


[7] Announcements:

(i)

'THE BEAUTY OF COMPROMISE ' Himal Annual Lecture
4 December 2007, IIC Auditorium, 6:30 pm

By Ramachandra Guha

Ramachandra Guha, eminent historian and author most recently of India After
Gandhi:The History of the World's Largest Democracy, will argue in favour of
a political philosophy of moderation and dialogue. Using examples from
Southasian conflicts, such as in the Kashmir Valley, Sri Lanka and the
erstwhile East Pakistan, he will seek to demonstrate how the extremism and
inflexibility of the contending parties have worked to intensify and deepen
the conflicts. Sometimes the inflexibility has come from the State; at other
times, from rebels or insurgents. Ramachandra Guha suggests that it is the
special responsibility of writers and intellectuals to seek and promote the
middle path of compromise and reconciliation.

'The Beauty of Compromise' is the inaugural lecture of an annual series
being started by Himal Southasian, the regional monthly magazine from
Kathmandu. As an independent magazine which seeks to promote peace and
progress in Southasia on the foundation of idealism and realism, we believe
in the importance of a fuller understanding of the subcontinental history of
the last six decades. A central figure who has defined the terrain of these
sixty years has been Mahatma Gandhi, who we see as the quintessential
'Southasian'.

Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Time: 6:30 pm
Auditorium, India International Centre
40, Max Mueller Road, New Delhi 110003

- - -


(ii)

INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
Law & Society Trust
Rights Now Collective for Democracy

are pleased to invite you to a

Celebration of Human Rights Defenders

Please join us in honouring

  Rajan Hoole & Kopalasingham Sritharan
Co-founders, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna)
Martin Ennals Award for
Human Rights Defenders 2007

&

  Sunila Abeysekera

Executive Director, INFORM
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Defenders Award 2007


BCIS auditorium [Colombo]
Thursday, 6 December 2007
5.30pm to 7pm

Simultaneous translation facilities will be available in Sinhala and Tamil

A public exhibition on human rights defenders, 
featuring the work of Sunila Abeysekera and 
UTHR(J),
will be held on 6 December at BCIS, 12pm to 5pm.


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

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.