SACW | Dec. 6-7, 2007 / Stalemate in Sri Lanka / Nepal's peace process/ Kashmir - Article 370 / India: Don't Let Them Silence Taslima Nasreen
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Dec 7 02:10:02 CST 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 6-7, 2007 |
Dispatch No. 2473 - Year 10 running
[1] Sri Lanka:
(i) Who is feeding the Tigers? (Rohini Hensman)
(ii) Civil Society Statement Condemning All Violence Against Civilians
[2] Challenges Facing The Peace Process In Nepal (Tapan K. Bose)
[3] Kashmir: Remember Article 370 (AG Noorani)
[4] India: Don't Let Them Silence Taslima Nasreen
- Stand Up For The Sake of Freedom Of Expression
In India:
An SACW compilation of statements and opinions
[4.1] Shameful Attack On Artistic Freedom : Stop
hounding Taslima (Praful Bidwai)
[4.2] A Forgotten History (Priyamvada Gopal)
[5] Announcements:
Democracy/Devolution: Two Discourses in Sri
Lanka's National Crisis - Talk by Rohini Hensman
(Colombo, 7 dec 2007)
(ii) Panel Discussion: A Campaign Against Martial
Law Event "Fiction And Politics (London 7
December 2007)
(iii) Zuban Books public events (Delhi, 7-8 December 2007)
(iv) Public Forum Pakistan Under The Gun (Vancouver, 11 Dec, 2007)
______
[1] SRI LANKA
(i)
The Colombo Post
4 December 2007
WHO IS FEEDING THE TIGERS?
THE GENESIS OF A SUICIDE BOMBER
by Rohini Hensman
On 27 November, Kilinochchi was the venue for the
annual Great Heroes' Day event, at which LTTE
leader Velupillai Prabhakaran paid tribute to the
'martyrs' he himself had sent to their deaths.
Much of his speech was a tirade against the
international community,which he accused of
turning against the LTTE, thus indirectly paying
tribute to the efficacy of the pro-democracy and
human rights campaigns of Tamil activists and
Lakshman Kadirgamar, and contradicting
allegations that the international community is
supporting the Tigers. He vowed to continue the
struggle until his goal of a separate Tamil state
had been achieved, and demonstrated how serious
he was the very next day, with two deadly
terrorist attacks in Colombo and Nugegoda that
killed and injured dozens of innocent civilians.
The only realistic characterisation of the
current military situation 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 the
US and Israel with their overwhelming military
superiority are unable to quell the Iraqi and
Palestinian insurgencies, to realize that a
purely military strategy in Sri Lanka will never
defeat the LTTE. How do such movements survive in
the face of a militarily superior adversary? How
do they keep recruiting young people ready to
give their lives to the cause?
In his brilliant film 'Paradise Now,' Palestinian
director Hany Abu-Assad follows two young men,
Said and Khaled, as they prepare to become
suicide bombers. Said has suffered the loss and
stigma that comes from being the son of a
Palestinian executed for collaboration with the
Israelis, as well as the daily oppression
inflicted by the Israeli occupation. Based on
extensive research, the film makes one hope
against hope that the men will change their
minds, as indeed Khaled does at the last minute;
even Said refrains from bombing a bus full of
civilians including children, climbing instead on
to one full of soldiers.
The people who really make one's flesh creep in
this film are those who give pep talks and make
'martyr's videos' of the men before turning them
into human bombs. An interview with failed LTTE
suicide bomber Menake, published in the fashion
magazine Marie Claire, tells a similar story. Her
grandparents rescued her from an abusive father,
who killed her mother and raped her repeatedly as
a child, but they died when she was fifteen years
old. Her aunt and uncle took her in reluctantly,
only to give her away to the Tigers during one of
their conscription drives. She volunteered to
become a suicide bomber in order to give her life
some purpose.
There are common elements in the stories: an
unhappy past, an intolerable present under a
repressive state, and an unscrupulous terrorist
group that takes advantage of vulnerable young
people to use them for its own ends. Humiliation,
privation and bereavement inflicted by a hostile
state are crucial ingredients, driving young
people into the arms of terrorist groups. It is
impossible to put an end to terrorism without
cutting off this source of new recruits, the
life-blood of such groups. So who are the
recruiting agents of the LTTE in Sri Lanka?
The President and the SLFP
The prime culprits are the President and current
leadership of the SLFP. 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 hard-line Sinhala chauvinist allies
within the SLFP, JHU and MEP have repaid the
favour many times over. Prabhakaran wanted war
because he cannot survive a just peace,
andPresident Rajapaksa 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. The
government adamantly refuses to accept the help
offered by the UN to improve its abysmal human
rights record, and thus helps Prabhakaran to
recruit his suicide bombers. And 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. Prabhakaran is no fool: he referred to
the APRC's failure to put forward a solution in
his speech. The President's bizarre statement
that he represents the Sinhalese who voted for
him but not the Tamils of the North-East further
supports the LTTE's struggle for a separate
state: after all, if the Sri Lankan head of state
doesn't represent the Tamils of the North-East,
then they are entitled to their own state! Even
his claim that a unitary state was demanded by a
majority of the Sinhalese people simply does not
hold water.
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. Far from
representing the Sinhalese majority, the
President has acted against their interests in
every conceivable way. The government's offensive
military strategy led to the debacle at the
Anuradhapura Air Base, in which, according to
Iqbal Athas, eightaircraft 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. If the
President and Defence Ministry claim credit for
the victory at Thoppigala, 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 offensive against the
LTTE in its Northern stronghold. 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.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 rulerrather than the
leader of a modern democratic nation. In this
context, COPE chairman Wijeyadasa Rajapaksha'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 five 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.
The UNP and its Leader
At first sight, the UNP under its current
leadership does not seem to be guilty of helping
the LTTE in this particular way. The ceasefire of
2002 did provide a breathing space to a war-weary
population in the North-East, and Ranil
Wickremesinghe's declaration of support for a
federal solution to the conflict was a courageous
move. Yet, while in opposition, 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. When
Prabhakaran denied LTTE backing for a federal
solution, he made no effort to pursue discussions
with other representatives of minority parties.
Moreover, the provisions of the CFA and the way
in which it was implemented helped the LTTE to
murder its Tamil critics and prepare for Eelam
War IV, thus making it inevitable that war would
break out once more. More recently, his attitude
to the APRC process, which holds 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 declaring 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 might not have been a problem,
since theminority 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, is insisting on a unitary state. His
failure to contradict such rumours suggests a
leader who is totally devoid of principles. Ranil
Wickremesinghe's ability to win over the
Sinhalese majority to a just political solution
is also very doubtful. His economic policies were
as callous towards the majority of the population
as those of the current government, and his
record of brutal human rights violations in an
earlier UNP administration still hangs over him.
The TNA and JVP
The TNA MPs are at least honest about their
support for the LTTE. JVP MPs, on the other hand,
breathe fire and brimstone against the Tigers,
yet their opposition to a democratic political
solution acceptable to 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. Furthermore, JVP opposition to human
rights monitoring that would reduce atrocities
against Tamils helps Prabhakaran to recruit his
deadly suicide bombers.
In other ways too, the JVP's actions contradict
their claim to act in the interests of the
Sinhalese majority. 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.
This is a pity, because in other ways their
behaviour has been commendable. For example, it
has been reported that in a finance committee
meeting chaired by President Rajapaksa, 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 totheir credit, they
resisted the all-pervasive culture of nepotism
and corruption, and declined the offer.
What is to be done?
It is a sad fact that most of the political
parties in Sri Lanka have helped the LTTE in one
way or the other, and none of them has shown an
ability to defeat the Tigers. This was the
complaint of fifteen high-ranking former
commanders of the armed forces who met the
President to discuss the grave military and
political situation in the country. 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.'
The two biggest parties need to listen to the
former service chiefs, and make a joint effort to
end human rights violations and implement
democratic political reforms that address the
legitimate grievances of minorities. Once this is
done, the LTTE leadership will lose its source of
willing recruits, 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 necessarily 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 people of Sri Lanka
and civil society organisations too have a role
to play.
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.
The government has to restore the rule of law,
which is all but non-existent thanks to its own
lawlessness. Restoring democratic rights and
freedoms is also essential 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. Now UN High Commissioner
forHuman Rights Louise Arbour warns that since
members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri
Lanka were appointed directly by the President in
violation of the Constitution, its international
accreditation could be withdrawn, bringing
further shame on our country. Louise Arbour
repeated her public request that the government
of Sri Lanka consider allowing her own office to
have a presence in Sri Lanka, and APRC
proceedings are scheduled to resume in
mid-December. This time round, supporters of
democracy and opponents of the LTTE in ALL
parties should see to it that the Sinhala
nationalist recruiting agents of the LTTE in the
JVP, JHU, MEP and SLFP are not allowed to derail
progress towards justice, democracy and peace.
o o o
(ii)
CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT CONDEMNING ALL VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS
The month of November 2007 in Sri Lanka has been
irrevocably scarred by acts of senseless
brutality and violence that have led to the
deaths of women, men and children throughout the
country, including the attacks in Nugegoda,
Iyankerni (Killinochchi), Pottuvil and
Tissamaharama. These figures swell the numbers of
dead, abducted and disappeared, which continue to
rise, especially in the north and east of the
country.
This situation reminds us once again of the
crisis that we are facing, in which rampant
impunity and lawlessness enable armed actors,
especially the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,
and the security forces of the government of Sri
Lanka to launch indiscriminate attacks on
ordinary civilians and citizens of Sri Lanka. Our
environment has deteriorated to the point that
nobody can leave home with the confidence that
they will return. Armed actors like the State,
the LTTE and Karuna group amongst others, claim
to represent the civilian population but pay
little attention to the security of those they
claim to represent, and even target civilians as
a part of their brutal war on terror. Sections of
the armed forces, charged with the responsibility
of protecting us, as civilians, and of protecting
democratic principles and processes, are
implicated in the violations of these rights and
processes.
As civil society organizations we condemn these
acts of violence in every part of the country,
and extend our condolences and heartfelt sympathy
to all who have lost a loved one.
We call on the Government and the LTTE, as well
as other armed groups, to halt acts of violence
and aggression. We call on all parties to respect
and abide by international humanitarian law
including the Geneva Conventions. We call on the
Government and the LTTE to return to negotiations
to end the conflict in Sri Lanka.
We also appeal to the international community, at
both the state and non-government levels, to use
their good offices to impress on all actors in
the Sri Lankan conflict the imperative need to
cease hostilities and return to the peace process.
As responsible members of Sri Lankan civil
society, and as citizens who have always spoken
out against all forms of violence and human
rights violations, we call upon all Sri Lankans
to condemn all acts of violence against
civilians. We stand committed to extend our
fullest support to all those who will uphold the
sanctity of life, and facilitate a swift return
to a viable peace process in Sri Lanka.
Dated: December 03 2007
Signatories:
Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Christian Alliance for Social Action
Citizen Committee for Forcibly Evicted Northern Muslims
Community Trust Fund
Equal Ground
INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo
International Movement Against Discrimination and Racism
Janasansadaya
Law & Society Trust
Mannar Women for Human Rights and Democracy
Muslim Information Centre - Sri Lanka
Muslim Women's Research and Action Forum
Muttur People's Forum
National Peace Council
Rights Now Collective for Democracy
______
[2]
INSAF Bulletin
December 2007
CHALLENGES FACING THE PEACE PROCESS IN NEPAL
by Tapan K. Bose
The peace process in Nepal which was ushered in
by the Jana Andolan II (Peoples' Movement II)
after the autocratic king Gyanendra was forced to
handover political power to the political parties
in April 2006 seems to be on the verge of
collapse.
The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) had
signed the 12 Point Understanding with the Seven
Party Alliance in November 2005 and joined the
'peaceful struggle' for democracy agreed to
abandon their armed struggle. They joined forces
with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) to transform
Nepal into a federal republic. In September 2007
the Maoists pulled out of the interim government
blaming the Nepali Congress Party's octogenarian
supremo, Mr. G. P. Koirala and the interim
government for the continuation of the political
crisis and the uncertainty about the status of
the monarchy.
The Maoists who had voluntarily laid down their
arms and put the members of their 'Peoples' Army'
in UN monitored camps, had earlier participated
in the creation of an interim parliament, an
interim constitution and an interim government.
Their walk out of the 'Interim Government' on the
ground that the interim parliament had to declare
Nepal as a republic and abolish the monarchy
before the election to the Constituent Assembly
was a serious blow to the peace efforts and the
up coming elections to the Constituent Assembly.
Every body was looking forward to the election of
the Constituent Assembly. By walking out of the
interim government in September 2007, the Maoists
effectively derailed the holding of the election
to Nepal's first 'Constituent Assembly' which was
due on the 22nd of November this year.
In addition to the demand for declaring Nepal a
republic before the election to the Constituent
Assembly the Maoists also insisted that the
election to the Assembly should be conducted on a
fully proportional basis that would provide an
opportunity to the divergent different ethnic
communities and national minorities an
opportunity to be represented in the Constituent
Assembly on the basis of their status in the
national population. The Maoists rejected the
agreed 'dual system' of half first past the post
and half on the basis of the seats won by each
party in the first past the post system. The
Seven Party Alliance, particularly the Nepali
Congress rejected these demands of the Maoists.
Most of the political leaders, the intellectuals,
civil society actors and the news analysts of
Nepal have blamed the Maoists for stopping the
holding of the election to the Constituent
Assembly. Various constituents of the Seven Party
Alliance (SPA) also claimed that that the Maoists
took the desperate step of walking out of the
government as they were afraid that they would do
rather badly in the election. The non-Maoists
political parties claimed that after the
election of the Constituent Assembly all of
Nepal's political problems would have been
resolved and the country would have moved on to
the path of political stability and progress. If
this reading is correct then the Maoists are
certainly to be blamed for the continuation of
the political impasse in Nepal. However, one
needs to ask whether the Constituent Assembly,
elected on the basis of the dual system with the
participation of the 'Royalist' or the
'loyalists' political parties could live up to
the expectations of the people as articulated on
the streets during the Jana Andolan II and
subsequent to that in Terai and other places.
The Seven Party Alliance opposed the demand of
the Maoists on the ground that it was the
prerogative of the elected Constituent Assembly
to formally remove the monarchy and declare the
country as a republic. They argued that it would
be illegal for the 'interim' parliament to take
this decision before the election of the
Constituent Assembly. However, considering the
fact that the 'interim parliament' has taken many
decisions including declaring the 'interim Prime
Minister' as the de-facto head of state replacing
the monarch, this argument sounded a bit hollow.
Also, one can not deny that there is merit in the
argument of the Maoists that if the status of the
monarchy was left ambiguous and the political
parties loyal to the monarchy were allowed to
contest in the election to the Constituent
Assembly, there is the possibility that the king
and sections of Nepal's feudal elite and the army
loyal to the monarch would try to influence the
electoral process to restore the monarchy.
The Maoists also pointed out that the people of
Nepal during the Jana Andolan II had clearly
indicated their preference for the removal of the
monarchy and establishment of a 'Federal
Republic'. They argued that there was no need to
fall back on constitutional niceties,
particularly those which would give the royalists
an opportunity to subvert the peoples' mandate.
The fact that till October this year, Mr. Koirala
and several influential leaders of Nepali
Congress were continuing to talk about retaining
a form of 'constitutional monarchy' and that it
was only after the Maoists walked out of the
interim government, that the Nepali Congress
adopted the resolution to establish a 'federal
republic in Nepal', gives credence to the
position of the Maoists that the interim
government was not fully committed to the
'republic'.
Similarly the demand of the national minorities
and the ethnic communities to convert Nepal into
a federal polity also remains to be addressed.
The interim constitution is not clear about how
the demands for territorial autonomy and division
of power structures would be done. Though the
demands for devolution of political power
continue to be placed before the interim
government every day by the ethnic minorities and
the nationalities, the government has yet to come
up with any policy perspective.
The unrests in the hill areas by the Janajatis
(indigenous/ethnic communities) and the Madhesis
in Terai plains have exposed the weaknesses of
Nepal's peace process. The Madhesis -
plainspeople who constitute one third of Nepal's
population - have been protesting against the
discrimination that has virtually barred them
from public life. The demonstrations and clashes
which have been going on since the past six
months have left several dozen dead. The interim
government led by Koirala has offered to increase
electoral representation, affirmative action for
marginalized groups and federalism but has
dragged its feet over implementing dialogue.
Tension between the Janajatis and the Madhesis on
one side and the Bahun-Chetri hill elite on the
other has been building for several years. It has
been largely ignored by the political elites
dominated by the Pahadi Bahun and Chetri
communities. The Madhesh or the Terai plains that
stretch the length of the southern part of Nepal
and are home to half the total population,
including many non-Madhesis (both indigenous
ethnic groups and recent migrants from the
hills). With comparatively good infrastructure,
agriculture, industrial development and access to
India across the open border, the Terai is
crucial to the economy of Nepal. It is also an
area of great political importance, both as a
traditional base for the mainstream parties and
as the only road link between otherwise
inaccessible hill and mountain districts.
The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has emerged as
a powerful umbrella group though it lacks an
organizational base and clear agenda. It has
decided to enter the electoral fray but if it is
to challenge the established parties, it must
first deal with the traditional Madhesi political
parties like the Sadbhavana Party and other
Madhesi politicians competing for the same votes.
There has also been a proliferation of Madhesi
armed groups; some have expanded significantly in
numbers, and their strategy and attitudes will
affect the political process. As is evident the
from the continuing 'Bandhs', strikes and violent
clashes the mood among Terai residents is
increasingly confrontational, with collapse of
trust between most Madhesis and the government.
The armed Madhesi groups, led by break away
leaders of the Maoists party have been attacking
the cadres and leaders of the Maoists all over
Madhesh.
Unresolved grievances and the hangover from the
Maoist insurgency, especially the lack of
reconciliation and the greater tolerance for
violence, make a volatile mix. The unrest has
also provided a fertile ground for subversion to
the diehard royalists and Hindu fundamentalists
in Nepal and from across the border in India, who
see it as a chance to disrupt the peace process.
The mainstream parties have changed their
rhetoric but are reluctant to take action that
would make for a more inclusive system.
Mainstream parties, particularly the Nepali
Congress who rely on their Terai electoral base
have failed to compete with Madhesi groups in
radicalism. They have also been ineffective at
communicating the positive steps they have taken,
such as reforming citizenship laws. Competition
within the governing coalition is hindering any
bold moves.
For the Maoists, the Terai violence was a wake-up
call. As much of it was directed against their
cadres, the Maoists characterized the Madhesi
movement as a regressive movement supported by
the Hindu fundamentalists from India and
sponsored by the royal palace. However, the
outbreak of the armed movement in Terai by rival
groups like the Loktrantik Jana Adhikar manch led
by former Maoists - Jaiprakash Goit and Jwala
Singh shattered the myth of dominance of the
Maoists. The Maoists hit back. What ensued was a
virtual battle between the Maoists, the armed
factions of the Madhesi groups and the Madhesi
Jana Adhikar manch. Several lives were lost on
both sides. Despite the pressure and attacks, the
Maoists continue to remain well organized,
politically coherent and determined to reassert
themselves.
The key political issues in Nepal are clear and
still offer room for a reasonable compromise. The
Seven Party Alliance need to demonstrate more
serious intent, such as ensuring political
participation of all excluded groups (not just
those whose protests have forced attention) and
undertaking to discuss and resolve grievances not
only with protest leaders but also with concerned
parliamentarians, local community representatives
and civil society representatives. The interim
government has made several agreements with the
leaders of the Jana Jatis organization demanding
'autonomy' and 'equal rights'. Unfortunately
those promises are yet to be translated into
action. The Seven Party Alliance's willingness to
make concessions on the basis of equal rights for
all citizens has to be demonstrated effectively.
Confidence in national and local government will
only come if there is decent governance, public
security based on local community consent and
improved delivery of services, redress for
heavy-handed suppression of protests, demands for
compensation, honoring of dead protestors and
follow-through on a commission of enquiry need to
be met. There is urgent need to revise the
electoral system to ensure fair representation of
Madhesis and all other marginalized groups,
including a fresh delineation of constituency
boundaries.
The political parties and the government in
Kathmandu need to increase the representation of
Madhesis and other agitating Jana Jatis in
parties and state bodies. This would pave the way
for longer-term measures to remove inequalities.
This requires a change in outlook and a delicate
political balancing act. The Kathmandu government
must do some things immediately in order to earn
the trust of the Madhesis and other marginalized
communities. There is no doubt that the election
of the constituent assembly is an urgent need.
However now that the elections have been
postponed, the time should be utilized in
re-designing the elections in a manner that will
give proper representation of the Madhesis and
other Jana Jatis in the Constituent Assembly. If
this does not happen, the fear of sections of the
Nepali people rejecting the assembly will always
remain.
______
[3]
Hindustan Times
December 3, 2007
REMEMBER ARTICLE 370
by AG Noorani
When, on November 15, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq
announced his acceptance of Kashmir's "pre-1953
status plus", he was signifying acceptance of
autonomy within the Indian Constitution, which
the state had before Sheikh Abdullah's arrest in
1953. The 'plus' implied Pakistan's agreement to
it. It was disingenuous of him to say, on
November 17, that "no solution within the
framework of the Indian Constitution is
acceptable." Abdul Ghani Butt, a colleague,
amplified that this "could be a first step"
towards President Pervez Musharraf's four-point
proposal. It envisages self-governance,
demilitarisation, open borders and joint
management. It rules out de-accession of Jammu &
Kashmir. Both points are for India and Pakistan
to settle, bearing in mind the wishes of the
Kashmiris. In 2002, Umar Farooq offered "some
process through which people can elect their
representatives and we are ready to assert our
representative characterŠwe are ready to prove
it." He should do so in the 2008 Assembly
elections. India should settle J&K's autonomy
with the assembly's representatives. Meanwhile,
Kashmiris should put their heads together and
agree on a joint draft of a final Presidential
order under Article 370 which guarantees autonomy.
Clause (3) of Article 370 says "Notwithstanding
anything in the foregoing provisions of this
article, the President may, by public
notification, declare that this Article shall
cease to be operative or shall be operative only
with such exceptions and modifications and from
such date as he may specify". Its marginal note
describes Article 370 as "temporary provisions"
with respect to J&K. When Article 370 was adopted
by the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949,
N.H.Gopalaswamy Ayyanger explained that India was
then committed to a plebiscite.
Article 370 embodies a compact negotiated for
five months from May 15, 1949, between the
national leaders and the state's leaders. It
contained guarantees against unilateral change by
New Delhi. But as far back as on November 27,
1963, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told the
Lok Sabha, "It [Article370] has been eroded, if I
may use the word" as if it were something eroded
by the elements over time. It was calculatedly
wrecked. He added, "We feel that this process of
gradual erosion of article 370 is going onŠwe
should allow it to go on." Sheikh Abdullah was in
prison then. Union Home Minister G.L. Nanda used
a more meaningful metaphor on December 4, 1964.
Article 370 can be used as "a tunnel in the wall"
to increase the Centre's powers. Article 370 was
"the wall". The "tunnel" was a provision enabling
extension of central power with the concurrence
of the state government but subject to its
ratification by the state's Constituent Assembly.
It was abused to amass Central power, even after
that body had dispersed, after adopting the
state's constitution on November 17, 1956. There
was, now, no prospect of any ratification.
The concurrence was given by state governments
installed in office through rigged polls. This
process has gone on for decades. All orders under
Article 370 since November 17, 1956, increasing
the Centre's powers or extending more federal
institutions, are patently void, perhaps since
August 9, 1953, when Sheikh Abdullah was
unconstitutionally removed as J&K's premier.
A new final order under Article 370 would delete
the word "temporary", repeal orders made in
violation of that compact, and drop the obsolete
references to the state's Constituent Assembly in
the revised and permanent Article 370. It should
provide stringent guarantees against its
"erosion". It would no longer be amendable by an
executive order but only by the normal
legislature process - a two-thirds vote by the
state's Assembly, preferably one elected after
Parliament's vote.
Kashmiris can constructively contribute to this
and to two other points. One is open borders;
i.e. "just a line on a map". Concretely, what
does it spell? Will a teacher in Srinagar be
allowed to teach in a school in Muzaffarabad?
Will the old permit system be reinstalled so that
a poor villager would be able to visit his kin
freely access the LoC? Free exchange of person,
goods and literature? Seminars, meetings,
concerts and mushairas in which the people of the
state can participate, irrespective of the LoC?
Babus can be trusted to make things difficult.
Kashmiris can insist that the state's de jure
partition must be coupled with its de facto
re-unification and provide a scheme that both
governments can accept.
The other is the elected head of state which
J&K's Constituent Assembly endorsed on June 12,
1952. The Delhi agreement mauled it in July 1952
to make the election subject to New Delhi's veto
and the elected head of state removable at is
will. The 6th Amendment to J&K's Constitution
(1965) substituted this joke with another - a
governor appointed by New Delhi. On July 23,
1975, an order under Article 370 barred,
unconstitutionally, the state Assembly from
legislating on the matter. The best course to
empower the Assembly is to elect a panel of three
from whom the President would accept one as the
Sadar-e-Riyasat. He should be removable only by
impeachment. Like Article 370, the Delhi
agreement is also a wreck.
A "tunnel" can be entered from either end. An
able memo submitted by the National Conference on
November 6, 1995, to Prime Minister P.V.
Narasimha Rao shows that Article 370 "is not, and
cannot, just be a one-way stream". It can be used
to restore the powers robbed since 1953.
On August 5, 2000, Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) chief
Syed Salahuddin said he was prepared to drop "the
UN resolutions" for something else - "or the
tripartite talks between India, Pakistan and
Kashmiris". On September 11, he was "even ready
to contest elections if they are monitored by the
international community". Once a ceasefire is in
place, the HM will become a political party. Syed
Ali Shah Geelani admitted on June 16, 1998, "we
are not in a position to stop the use or misuse
of the gun. There is no rapport between the APHC
and gunmen."
An exceptionally informed writer, Engineer S.A.
Rashid, questions the APHC's capability to
deliver at all. In an article on November 15,
2007, in Chattan, a respected Urdu weekly in
Srinagar, he reminds the Hurriyat that its
importance has stemmed only from popular support
to the militancy. If the militants disown the
APHC, it will be nowhere.
It is unwise to spurn Salahuddin's overtures for
a ceasefire. India should proceed apace with the
peace process with Pakistan to which Kashmiris
must contribute sound ideas. As for the polls, an
election is meaningful only as part of an
on-going political process with full
opportunities to hold meetings and rallies and to
march in processions. No election can at all be
said to be fair if civil liberties are denied and
there is no mass-based political process as in
the rest of India. Such polls are a sham.
______
[4]
DON'T LET THEM SILENCE TASLIMA NASREEN - STAND UP
FOR THE SAKE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIA:
An SACW compilation of statements and opinions (27 November - 6 December 2007)
www.sacw.net
Contents:
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, et.al)
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)
xiii. Outrage and indignation in Bengal on Taslima issue
xiv. Statement by South Asia Scholars in Defence of Taslima
xv. Exiled By Bigots' Edicts (J. Sri Raman)
xvi. An Open Letter To Narendra Modi (Shabnam Hashmi)
xvii. Candlelight support for Taslima
xviii. Our Con Artists (Sitaram Yechury)
xix. Taslima Nasrin Talks To Kathleen Mccaul
xx. Taslima withdraws lines from autobiography (NDTV)
xxi. Interview with Arundhati Roy on Taslima Nasrin case
xxii. Unfortunate witchhunt (Praful Bidwai)
xxiii. A Forgotten History (Priyamvada Gopal)
xxxiv. Sheela Reddy interviews Taslima Nasreen
http://www.sacw.net/FreeExpAndFundos/defendtaslimaDec07.pdf
[4.1]
SHAMEFUL ATTACK ON ARTISTIC FREEDOM
STOP HOUNDING TASLIMA
by Praful Bidwai
West Bengal's Left Front government, already
reeling under the ignominy of Nandigram, has
earned yet more embarrassment by throwing
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen out of
Kolkata. Tossed since from Jaipur to Delhi to
Haryana, Ms Nasreen has been forced into an
emotionally insecure nomadic existence even as
the sangh parivar cynically tries to exploit her
plight to its narrow advantage.
Neither the state governments involved, nor the
Centre, seems inclined to defend Ms Nasreen's
right to live with dignity and without fear
anywhere in India. There are reports that the
Centre is discreetly nudging her to leave
India-at least for awhile. Although Foreign
Minister Pranab Mukherjee says India will give
her shelter, the offer comes with a gracelessly
stated condition: she must do nothing to "hurt
the sentiments of our people"-whatever that means.
The episode raises serious questions about
artistic freedom, fundamental rights of belief,
expression and association, and the state's duty
to protect them. One doesn't have to be an
admirer of Ms Nasreen to defend her rights. This
writer is aware that she's considered mediocre
and often writes provocatively. Yet, banning her
work or banishing her is not the solution.
The West Bengal government wants to minimise its
role in expelling Ms Nasreen from Kolkata, one
day after a violent rally held by the
little-known, but originally Congress-backed,
All-India Minority Forum, which brought the army
to the city for the first time since 1992. Some
Left Front leaders claim she left Kolkata of her
own will and is welcome to return.
This just won't wash. Ms Nasreen's departure from
Kolkata followed an unambiguous statement by CPM
state secretary Biman Bose that the LF had
welcomed her because two Central ministers
pleaded for her, but that her presence has since
created law-and-order problems, and hence she
should leave West Bengal.
Mr Bose hastily retracted the statement, but
meanwhile, reports The Indian Express, the city
police had asked two businessmen belonging to the
Rajasthan Foundation (HM Bangur and Sandeep
Bhutoria) to "facilitate" her exit, which they
did. She discovered she was headed for Jaipur
only when a police officer handed over the ticket
to her. Ms Nasreen's move was certainly not
voluntary. She's clear that Kolkata is her home
and she wants to return there.
The CPM kept its own Left Front allies in the
dark about its decision to expel Ms Nasreen. The
allies have termed the decision "shameful" and
"another blot on our name". The CPM will find it
hard to deny that it so decided because it was
rattled by the ferocity of the AIMF rally, held
as a protest against the Nandigram violence and
to demand that Ms Nasreen's visa be revoked. The
AIMF used Nandgram as a cover and tried to give
the issue a communal twist by claiming that CPM
cadres had specially targeted Muslims there.
This was a canard. More than half of Nandigram's
victims were indeed Muslims. But then, two-thirds
of Nandigram's population is Muslim too. Muslims
lead both the CPM and its rival, Bhumi Ucched
Pratirodh Committee. The AIMF's real ire was
directed at Ms Nasreen because of her past
writings, some of which it terms
"anti-Islamic"-although it's unlikely that many
Front members have read them.
It's easy to deplore the AIMF. But the CPM
doesn't come out of the episode smelling of
roses. It speaks poorly of its adherence to
secularism and other Constitutional values that
it should cave in to mob pressure for censorship,
or that it should bend over backwards to guard
its "Muslim vote" by expelling Ms Nasreen. Muslim
opinion has been moving away from the LF since
disclosures by the Sachar Committee about the
community's abysmal status in West Bengal, and
because of the Rizvanur Rehman case (which
exposed class and religious biases in the police).
Muslims form more than 25 percent of West
Bengal's population, but their representation in
government employment is an appalling 2.1
percent. (The respective ratios even for Gujarat
are 9.2 and 5.4 percent). Instead of remedying
this failure of inclusion through purposive
affirmative action, the Front resorted to
gimmicks of the kind that it itself criticises
other parties for, including pandering to
religious bigots.
However, the Left's timidity in the face of
religious hardliners pales in comparison beside
the breath-taking duplicity of the Bharatiya
Janata Party and its allies. The BJP parades
itself as a saviour of Ms Nasreen and a defender
of the freedom of expression. It even demands
that she be granted refugee status because she's
fleeing persecution by religious fanatics.
In reality, the sangh parivar is merely
capitalising on the fact that Ms Nasreen's
adversaries are Muslims; and that she wrote a
novel on the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindu
minority following the Babri mosque's demolition.
This gives the parivar a chance to indulge in
Islam-bashing by claiming that that faith is
uniquely, incorrigibly intolerant.
However, the parivar vilifies Islam. It has
nothing but contempt for the right to free
expression, in particular, artistic freedom. It
is inherently suspicious of originality and
creativity, and of bold experimentation with
art-forms that delve deep into the human or
social condition. It fears freedom and rational
inquiry.
Not just the parivar's goons in the Vishva Hindu
Parishad and Bajrang Dal, but even the BJP's most
respectable parliamentary leaders are
instinctively censorship-oriented and prone to
demand bans on anything they don't approve. If
the government doesn't ban the books, paintings
or films and plays they label "anti-Hindu" or
"anti-national", the parivar itself terrorises
the concerned writer, artist, playwright or
filmmaker.
This has happened so often to distinguished
artists like M. F. Husain, filmmakers like Anand
Patwardhan and Deepa Mehta (of Water and Fire
fame), to authors of countless books pertaining
to Shivaji, and to exhibitions on historical or
contemporary themes, that it has become an
inexorable, entirely predictable, pattern.
Students like Chandramohan and scholars like
Shivaji Panikkar of MS University in Baroda, and
actresses such as Khushboo, have been victims of
the same phenomenon. So have publications like
Outlook, Mahanagar and Deccan Herald.
The parivar has not only imposed its fanatical
will upon every performing art and every form of
cultural expression. It has often succeeded in
bullying the state into conceding its demands-to
the point of abdicating its responsibility to
protect the life and limb of its citizens.
Husain's case is a painful reminder of the Indian
state's failure to provide security to a 92
year-old painter so he can return home from
self-imposed exile and live in freedom from
threats to his life by Hindutva bigots bent on
misrepresenting his work, and questioning his
deep respect for all faiths, based on
spirituality. Husain is a victim of mob
censorship, as well as the state's cowardice in
the face of communal bullies and religious bigots.
True, it's not only the Hindu fanatics of the
parivar who demand censorship and bans. Groups
that claim to be speaking in the name of Sikhs,
Muslims, Christians or Jains also do the same.
Typically, the state yields to them; indeed, it
acts as if it had granted them the "right" to
vandalise works of art and criminally assault
writers. The cases of The Last Temptation of
Christ and The Da Vinci Code, or Salman Rushdie
and the Dera Sacha Sauda are instances of this.
All such groups effectively exercise veto power
over society and the state by invoking the "hurt
sentiments" of a particular community. So we end
up defining tolerance as the sum-total of
different intolerances, as Amartya Sen so aptly
put it. This is not the sign of a deeply
democratic, mature and balanced society which
genuinely respects difference and the right to
dissent.
Of course, some books or works of art do hurt,
upset or even scandalise holders of particular
beliefs. But banning them is generally
incompatible with their authors' freedom of
belief and expression. If they are indeed
scurrilous or defamatory, the remedy lies in
filing civil and criminal lawsuits, which would
lead to appropriate penalties-including a ban in
the exceptional case.
In any case, private groups or individuals have
no right to usurp the functions of the courts in
deciding what is permissible and what is
impermissible by virtue of being gratuitously
offensive, vulgar, egregiously scandalous, or
calculated to incite violence or to insult and
humiliate. Such groups only impoverish social
life by regimenting it and imposing conformity or
homogeneity on it. They simply have no business
to dictate uniform norms, whether in respect of
sexual preference, dress, religious practices or
social behaviour.
Societies greatly enrich themselves if they
respect difference and celebrate diversity-as
India did during the best, most tolerant periods
of its history. This means accepting the unusual,
the irreverent, the quirky-even if some of us
find it distasteful. In the last analysis, we
don't have to read the books we don't like, or
eat things that we find "impure" or "bad", but
others relish. Let a thousand flowers bloom!-end-
o o o
[4.2]
outlookindia.com
web feature
December 06, 2007
A FORGOTTEN HISTORY
by Priyamvada Gopal
In 1932, a young woman named Rashid Jahan was
denounced by some clerics and threatened with
disfigurement and death. She and three others had
just published a collection of Urdu short stories
called Angarey in which they had robustly
criticized obscurantist customs in their own
community and the sexual hypocrisies of some
feudal landowners and men of religion. The
colonial state, always zealous in its support of
authoritarian religious chauvinists over
dissenting voices, promptly banned the book and
confiscated all copies under Section 295A of the
Indian Penal Code. Rashid Jahan, as a woman,
became a particular focus of ire. A doctor by
training like Taslima Nasreen, she too had
written about seclusion, sexual oppression and
female suffering in a patriarchal society.
What has changed in three quarters of a century?
Periodically, we witness zealots of all faiths
shouting hysterically about 'insults' to
religious sentiments and being backed by the
state while little is done to address more
serious material injustices that affect members
of their community.
But in the light of the Taslima Nasreen
controversy, the Angarey story has particularly
ironic resonances. For Rashid Jahan and two of
her co-contributors, Mahmuduzzafar and Sajjad
Zaheer, were members of the Communist Party of
India who would go on to help found the
Progressive Writers Association (PWA) in 1936.
The PWA was to be a loose coalition of radical
litterateurs, both party members and 'fellow
travelers', who would challenge all manner of
orthodoxies and put social transformation on the
literary map of India. Unsurprisingly, many
PWA-linked writers had run-ins with the law,
constantly fending off charges of obscenity,
blasphemy and disturbing the peace. Challenging
these attacks with brave eloquence, they defended
the task of the writer as one of pushing social
and imaginative boundaries. The then beleaguered
undivided CPI too faced constant attacks,
including censorship, trials and an outright ban.
Today, heirs of that same Communist party, the
CPI(M), find themselves on the same side with the
state and religious orthodoxies whose excesses
they once challenged. Their actions shore up
anti-democratic authoritarianism, whether this
takes the form of corporate land-grabbing, the
suppression of popular protest, or religious
chauvinism. In response to criticism from
progressive quarters, they invoke the subterfuge
of 'left unity' which forbids criticism because
this will provide grist for the opposition's
mills. A pro-CPI(M) statement signed by the likes
of Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali (with, one can only
presume, the airy historical carelessness that
even the best intellectuals in the West are
sometimes prone to) warns against 'splitting the
left'. With the unmistakable timbre of a Party
pamphlet, it goes on to suggest that all is now
well in Nandigram and 'reconciliation' with the
dispossessed is fast being effected. (How do they
know?). Meanwhile, many CPI(M) leaders parrot the
conservative statist line that Taslima is free to
stay in India if she behaves herself and refrains
from 'hurting religious sentiments'. But those
oppressed by religious orthodoxies, like women
and Dalits, often have no choice but to speak of
how those very sentiments are used against them.
Although laden with irony, this sorry state of
affairs is not an altogether unexpected
development in the cultural history of the
official left in India even if it is less
shocking than the thuggish assistance provided to
big global corporations in Singur and Nandigram
by the leaders of the proletariat.
As the PWA gained strength and became one of the
most influential cultural movements of its day, a
rift developed between increasingly authoritarian
Party members like Sajjad Zaheer and writers like
the doughty Ismat Chughtai and maverick, Saadat
Hasan Manto, neither of whom would ever agree to
have their imagination and critique constrained
by a party line.
Both Chughtai and Manto insisted on intellectual
independence and the continuing need to address
gender and sexuality, subjects which the Party
began to frown upon. Accordingly, they found
themselves attacked not only by the state but
also by hardliners in the PWA who dutifully
denounced the 'perversions' of writing about the
body and its desires as well as prostitution and
sexual violence. Justifiably annoyed, Manto (who
fought five cases on 'obscenity' charges) wrote
an essay sharply titled 'Taraqqi-Pasand Socha
Nahin Karte' [Progressives Don't Think] in which
he deplored the unthinking adherence to prudish
literary categories which allowed him and others
to be denounced as 'individualists' and
'pornographers.'
Of obscenity charges Chughtai asks: 'Don't you
see that the writer himself is trembling
fearfully and is terrified of the world's
obscenity? All he's doing is converting events
that are taking place in the world into words.'
Today, this unwillingness to examine received
ideas emerges in party leader Sitaram Yechury's
firm endorsement of 'certain conditions' on
Taslima if she is to stay, including 'refraining
fromŠactivities and expressions that may hurt the
sentiments of our people', whatever 'our' means
in a remarkably heterogeneous society that can
take pride in allowing dissent. The obviously
opportunistic attack from the BJP allows more
relevant criticism of the CPI(M) from progressive
people and the broad, non-party left to be
ignored, all of it thrown into the same basket of
'belittlingŠthe present-influence of the Left in
the country.' Used in this self-exculpatory way,
'anti-communist prejudice' is no more meaningful
a mantra than 'anti-American' enabling all
criticism to be dismissed as malicious. This
denigrates not only those on the left who are
unwilling to countenance the CPI(M)'s recent
betrayals of humane values and social justice
goals, but also older communists like Rashid
Jahan who came under vicious attack precisely for
speaking their mind against injustices, including
those inflicted by religion. However much we may
deplore the BJP's obvious hypocrisies in
denouncing 'pseudo-secularism', the fact remains
that the actions of the CPI(M) serve to undermine
the credibility of those who have stood up more
consistently for pluralism and secularism.
Moreover, the depredations of the right-wing
should not serve as an alibi for misconduct by
those who rightly oppose them.
These are difficult times for progressive people
who are aware of the ways in which Islam and
Muslims are under siege both from Hindu
majoritarianism and Bush's 'War on Terror'.
Confronted with a similar colonial situation and
accused of betraying their community, Rashid
Jahan and her comrades maintained that criticism
and self-criticism could not be shunted aside in
the name of battling a greater enemy; the two are
not mutually exclusive. Mahmuduzzafar, another
communist and contributor to Angarey, refused to
apologise for the book and wrote that he and his
co-authors, all Muslim, chose Islam 'not because
they bear it any 'special' malice, but because,
being born into that particular society, they
felt themselves better qualified to speak for
that alone.' Taslima Nasreen is exercising a
similar privilege.
There's an odd kind of condescension in
maintaining that some sentiments are more fragile
than others and that some forms of belief are
less resilient and, therefore, beyond
questioning. Critique and dissent are essential,
particularly when they come from those most
affected by particular forms of religious and
political practice.
When CPI(M) leaders commend the withdrawal of
passages from Taslima's book and insist on the
objectionable nature of some of her writing, they
would do well do remember that a good many people
in this world claim to find communism profoundly
objectionable, even deeply offensive to their
most cherished sentiments. The right of the left
more generally to articulate critique and
opposition has been hard won and remains under
siege in many parts of the world.
India needs nothing more than a genuine and
strong left. But this will not be forged by
dishonouring one's own more radical past,
covering up mistakes and rewriting recent
history. In a second, modified statement, Chomsky
et al have qualified their support for the CPI(M)
and indicate that they were simply exhorting the
left in India to 'unite and focus on the more
fundamental issues that confront the Left as a
whole'. In theory, this is a goal devoutly to be
wished for. And yet, it is not one that can be
accomplished at the cost of self-criticism and
silence. We can do no better than to follow the
principle always advocated by the late Edward
Said, a left intellectual and activist of the
highest integrity in these matters: 'Never
solidarity before criticism.' It is only in so
doing so that we honour the history of genuinely
oppositional movements in India and elsewhere.
Priyamvada Gopal, the author of Literary
Radicalism in India, is Senior Lecturer of
English, University of Cambridge
______
[5] Announcements:
(i)
LST FORUM
Democracy/Devolution: Two Discourses in Sri Lanka's National Crisis
Dr Rohini Hensman
Researcher and activist in the women's
liberation, trade union, human rights and
anti-war movement in India and Sri Lanka; author
of Playing Lions and Tigers (Earthworm Books,
Chennai 2004)
Friday 07 December 2007
5pm
@
3 Kynsey Terrace
Colombo 08
RSVP Janaki 2691228/2684845 Email lst at eureka.lk
---
(ii)
London - Panel Discussion - 7-9 PM
A CAMPAIGN AGAINST MARTIAL LAW EVENT "FICTION AND
POLITICS" The Campaign Against Martial Law
invites you to a reading by Pakistani fiction
writers and writers who are friends of Pakistan.
The writers will be reading from their work,
leading to a discussion on the intersection of
literature and politics.
Friday 7th December
Venue: Room 3, South Range Building, King's
College, Strand Campus, University of London.
Timing: 7.00-9.00
Price of admission: £5
Schedule- Introduction: CAML member- The current
situation in Pakistan: Ghazi Salahuddin-
Readings: Moni Mohsin Amarjit Chandan Saqlain
Imam Kamila Shamsie Zubaida Metlo Mohammed Hanif
Aamer Hussein
o o o
(iii)
Dear Friends,
Zubaan is pleased to invite you to two literary events this week.
On FRIDAY 7th December
Please join us to celebrate the launch of Anjum
Hasan's brilliant debut novel, set in Shillong,
Lunatic in My Head, published by Zubaan and
Penguin Books India. The author will be in
conversation with Siddhartha Deb, author of
Surface and Point of Return.
All are welcome, but seating is limited, so do
come early and join us for tea from 6:30 onwards,
at The Attic (above The Shop), 36 Regal Building,
Sansad Marg (Parliament Street), New Delhi 110
001.
And if you'd like to order the book, you can do
so via our website:
<http://www.zubaanbooks.com>http://www.zubaanbooks.com
On Saturday 8th December
Zubaan is co-hosting a discussion about
Masculinities and Literature, entitled Let's Talk
Men. Panellists: Rana Dasgupta, Anjum Hasan,
Mukul Kesavan and Geetanjali Shree.
Venue: ML Bhartia Auditorium, Alliance Francaise, 72 Lodi Estate, New Delhi
Time: 6:00pm
For more information about this, and the other
events during this week, click
<http://www.southasianmasculinities.org>http://www.southasianmasculinities.org
or call 91-11-46057340, or 41640681
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Urvashi Butalia
Preeti Gill
Anita Roy
---
Zubaan
K92 Hauz Khas Enclave
First Floor
New Delhi 110 016
India
o o o
(iv)
PAKISTAN UNDER THE GUN
Perspectives on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law
Public Forum, Film Screening and Discussion
TUES, DEC 11th, 2007, 6:30 pm
Alma Van Dusen Room, Vancouver Public Library
350 West Georgia - between Homer and Hamilton
(lower level -take elevator/stairs by main
library entrance)
From Granville Skytrain Station: 2 blocks east on
Dunsmuir, 1 block south on Homer
FREE EVENT
Join us for a public forum and interactive
discussion on human rights, democracy and the
rule of law in Pakistan. Support the resistance
of the Pakistani people!
Co-sponsored by the Vancouver and District Labour
Council, India Pakistan Peace Network (IPPN),
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy
(SANSAD), Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada. Endorsed
by the PSAC International Solidarity Committee.
FILM SCREENING:
Showing for the first time in Vancouver, "MISSING IN PAKISTAN"
Newly released documentary from Pakistan. The
Pakistani government is repeatedly preventing
students from showing this film in the country.
SPEAKERS:
Imran Munir, Pakistani journalist and activist
Gail Davidson, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada and Lawyers Against War
Bill Sandhu, IPPN
Zahid Makhdoom, SANSAD
Vancouver and District Labour Council
Other speakers tba
Phone updates from Pakistan
"If they snatch my ink and pen, I should not complain,
For I have dipped my fingers in the blood of my heart.
I should not complain, Even if they seal my tongue,
For every ring of my chain is a tongue ready to speak"
(Faiz)
The declaration of a state of emergency and the
subsequent actions of the Musharraf regime have
pushed Pakistan and its people to the brink and
have resulted in widespread outrage and protests
within the country and throughout the world.
The resistance movement within Pakistan has been
growing stronger by the day, bolstered by
international support from human rights and civil
rights organizations, journalists, trade unions,
lawyers' groups and many others.
Events in the country are unfolding at a rapid
pace. President Musharraf has scheduled elections
for January and has said that he will lift the
state of emergency in the near future.
Yet there have been no commitments to restore the
suspended Supreme Court Justices (many of whom
remain under strict house arrest) or lift the
bans on the media or free the political prisoners
who remain in detention. To fuel the blaze, all
justices who refused to take oath under the
unlawful PCO (Provisional Constitution Order)
have been given a forceful retirement.
The lifting of the state of emergency and
scheduling of an election for January will also
not address many critical issues facing Pakistan
such as the continued oppression of the many
tribal people in the country, brutal conditions
of poverty faced by more than 1/3 of the
population, repression of trade union activities
and the widespread and growing cases of enforced
disappearances and extra-judicial detentions of
hundreds of people in the name of national
security and the U.S led war on terror.
In this setting, what are the prospects for
peace, democracy and human rights in Pakistan?
Is it possible to have a fair, free and impartial
election without the restoration of the
judiciary? What does democracy look like and how
can it be achieved given the historical and
present day political realities in the country?
What role has the U.S played in the history of
Pakistan and the region? How does this impact the
current situation, particularly in relation to
the U.S led war on terror and the resulting
assault on civil liberties in Pakistan, the
surrounding region and around the world?
For more information, email amaltaine at yahoo.com or call 604.764.6257
BACKGROUND:
On November 3rd, 2007 Pakistan President and Army
Chief of Staff Pervez Musharraf declared a state
of emergency in Pakistan and suspended the
constitution and the judiciary.
Musharraf's actions came on the eve of a Supreme
Court hearing to rule on the petitions contesting
his eligibility to contest presidential
elections. Supreme Court Justices such as Chief
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry were arrested along
with lawyers who were counsels in the petitions
including Munir Malik and President of the
Supreme Court bar association Aitzaz Ahsan. Some
members of the judiciary and lawyers still remain
under house arrest. Munir Malik remains in
serious condition after being tortured in
detention.
Hundreds of human rights defenders, journalists,
students, trade unionists and many other
pro-democracy activists were also arrested and
many were charged with acts of terrorism under
the newly amended Army Act which allows the army
to court martial civilians speaking out against
the state with charges of sedition, treason and
terrorism, any of which can carry the death
penalty.
One of the most tragic casualties of Musharraf's
actions has been the loss of hope for the
families of the hundreds of people disappeared by
the government under the pretext of national
security and the U.S led war on terror. The cases
of 485 disappeared people - many missing for 6
years and more - were set to be heard in the
Supreme Court by Chief Justice Chaudhry on
November 13, 2007. The hearings are no longer
taking place and after years of fighting to get
back their loved ones, the families of the
disappeared have had their hopes shattered.
According to Amnesty International and other
human rights organizations, Pakistan's
involvement in the "war on terror" has led to
horrendous abuses of civil rights. Mass arrests
of alleged terror suspects - often for bounties
of thousands of dollars - have led to detainees
being taken away to the US detention facility at
Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, transferred to secret CIA
detention centers, unlawfully transferred to
other countries or held in arbitrary or secret
detention in Pakistan itself. Many - if not most
- of these individuals have been tortured or
otherwise ill-treated.
Most recently this practice has been used to
quell dissent by activists and those perceived to
be against the military regime including lawyers,
journalists and nationalists from Sindh and
Balochistan.
General Musharraf has justified his recent
actions under the guise of protecting national
security and fighting terrorism within Pakistan
and the surrounding areas. However, many leading
human rights and civil society organizations in
Pakistan and around the world assert that
Musharraf's role as a key ally of the U.S led war
on terror is a primary reason for the rise of
insurgency within the country and the region.
Join us for a public forum and interactive
discussion on human rights, democracy and the
rule of law in Pakistan. Speak out in support of
those that have been silenced under the rule of
the gun. Support the resistance of the Pakistani
people!
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: http://insaf.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the SACW
mailing list