SACW | Dec. 20-22, 2007 / Pakistan: Goodbye General, Hello Troika / India: Moditva in Gujarat / Taslima Nasreen under house arrest
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Thu Dec 20 20:48:29 CST 2007
South Asia Citizens Wire | December 20-22, 2007 |
Dispatch No. 2478 - Year 10 running
[1] Pakistan:
(i) Goodbye General Musharraf, Hello 'Troika' (Haris Gazdar)
(ii) Free and Fair Elections Impossible With
Dismantled Judiciary (Human Rights Watch)
[2] Nuclear Missile Madness in India-Pakistan:
Terror by clerical error (Jawed Naqvi)
[3] India: BJP On A Downswing In Gujarat (Praful Bidwai)
+ Is Gujarat the New India? (Pamela Philipose)
[4] Bangladesh: VPA: the profile of a black law (M Abdus Salam)
[5] India: Taslima Nareen living in a state of
virtual of house arrest - cant return to calcutta
(news reports)
[6] Announcements:
(i) Peoples' Tribunal on Tsunami
Rehabilitation (Chennai, 21-22 December 2007)
(ii) An evening of conversation with Sara
Suleri Goodyear (Karachi, 24 December 2007)
______
[1]
(i)
Economic & Political Weekly
December 15, 2007
GOODBYE GENERAL MUSHARRAF, HELLO 'TROIKA'
by Haris Gazdar
As Pakistan faces the prospect of returning to
the "troika" system of governance after eight
years of direct military rule, political parties
have important decisions to make about fighting
elections and electoral fraud. They also need to
keep an eye on history to make the most of the
chances that the end of direct military rule is
likely to offer.
The military regime of general Pervez Musharraf
ended with a sniffle on Nove mber 28, when he
passed on the ceremonial baton of the army chief
to his succe ssor general Ashfaq Kayani. As the
world looked on, a visibly shaken Musharraf shed
a tear and also that which he had declared a few
months ago to be his second skin. The following
day he took oath as civilian president for the
next five years. Musharraf's loyal yes-man,
Shaukat Aziz, who had served him as finance
minister and then prime minister, suffered the
indignity of being denied a ticket by his own
party for contesting the forthcoming elections.
It was rumoured that Shaukat Aziz, the alleged
architect of a supposed economic miracle, would
return to his banking career abroad. Thus ended
Pakistan's third long experiment with direct
military rule, with the chief disrobed, and his
favourite mascot shooed away.
While all this happened without much fanfare,
overshadowed by the dark clouds of the emergency,
it is important to recall how far Pakistan has
travelled since this time last year when
Musharraf supporters had vowed to elect him as a
uniformed president not just once but twice over.
The lawyers' movement for the restoration of
judicial independence will stand out as a key
turning point in Musharraf's political fortunes.
The unity of the bar associations in defence of
the sacked chief justice and the courage of many
judges in defying the military forced the
commando general into several retreats and the
grave strategic error of the November 3
emergency.
But there have been other factors too.
Opposition political parties, much battered and
maligned, must be given credit for maintaining
their constituencies and keeping their nerves,
through eight-long years of suppression,
vilification and exile. It is easy to overlook
their role in the lawyers' movement until one
realises that nearly all of the 60 or so people
who have lost their lives in that struggle have
been political party activists.
Then there is the crucial part being played by
foreign powers such as the US. They supported
Musharraf, almost unconditionally until this
year, but have remained deeply involved in the
process of a peaceful regime change - something
they could not have done if credible
interlocutors had been unavailable on the
political side. The shift was precipitated by
growing unease with the dual game that the regime
had played in the war against the Taliban and Al
Qaida. The US and Britain, and lately Saudi
Arabia are openly involved in negotiations
between various sides, ostensibly to ensure that
regime change remains peaceful, and presumably to
advance their own political interests in the
country.
A threesome Now
For over eight years general Musharraf ruled
Pakistan alone. He did so by virtue of being army
chief and president, and through closely and
directly line-managing his prime ministers. He
went through three of them, kept them at his
beck-and- call, and exercised authority over them
well beyond anything sanctioned even in the
emasculated version of parliamentary democracy
that his own self-serving con- stitutional
amendments prescribed.
Musharraf must revert to the much- reviled
Pakistani "troika" system of governance that
prevailed between 1988 and 1997, in which power
was unstably shared between president, prime
minister and army chief. Two slots in the
"troika" are already filled, and the third, that
of the prime minister, will be occupied once
elections are held. Even if he gets his way in
picking a friendly and amenable prime minister,
that person will enjoy far greater powers than
the three prime ministers who served Musharraf in
the previous parliament.
That would be the most favourable outcome that
Musharraf can look forward to now, and it is the
one that he is doing every thing in his power to
ensure. The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League
(Quaid-e-Azam), also known as PML-Q, and allied
regional parties such as the Karachi-based
Muttahida Quami Move- ment (MQM), are the ones
that must win the elections called for January 8
if Musharraf is to retain his slot in the
"troika". The two main opposition group- ings,
led, respectively, by Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan
People's Party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan
Muslim League (Nawaz), the PML-N, have already
indicated that they would not like to keep
Musharraf as president if they came to office.
Musharraf today needs the support of civilian
politicians like he never did before, which means
that even his former toadies are in a position to
extract their pound of flesh.
How to fight fraud
In the meanwhile, the hot political debate is
about how to approach the forthcoming elections.
The opposition has demanded an end to the
emergency and the reversal of draconian measures
taken under it as preconditions for taking part
in the elections. Some of these demands will be
conceded, but one conspicuous action that will
not be reversed is the en masse dismissal of
judges. Musharraf believes that restoring the
chief justice and his close associates will be
tantamount to political suicide, and he is
probably right. The judges have become cause
celebre, and there is an argument that elections
should be boy-cotted unless the judges are
restored. There are indications that the
government wants to offer a deal through which
all of the deposed judges, save a handful of
sen-ior ones including the chief justice, will be
restored. This is not likely to be accepted at
the moment by the deposed judges or their lawyer
supporters.
The post-emergency Musharraf is desperate for
legitimacy, and sees elections as the way for
achieving it. Some of his oppo- nents such as the
lawyers, and smaller parties like the
Jamaat-e-Islami and Im- ran Khan's
Tehreek-e-Insaaf believe that an opposition
boycott of elections will ensure that Musharraf
is further delegitimised. Nawaz Sharif's PML-N
has made the judges issue its one-point agenda,
but maintains ambivalence about an electoral
boycott while continuing with its cam- paign
preparations. The PPP and other parties such as
the Pashtun-nationalist Awami National Party
(ANP) and the clericist Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam of
Maualna Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) believe that it
would be wrong to leave the field open for the
pro-Musharraf parties. A boycott, they believe,
will play into Musharraf's hands, as people will
turn out to vote due to local factors, and
Musharraf will get a parliament full of his own
supporters.
Despite the rhetoric, the key issue facing the
political parties is not the restoration of
judges, but the prospect of massive electoral
fraud. The government's actions indicate that it
is preparing to fix the elections. Caretaker
administrations are stacked with PML-Q and its
allies, and the Election Commission is widely
believed to be partisan or toothless. The
question for the main opposition parties is
whether participation or boycott will create a
stronger momentum for an anti-government movement
against electoral fraud. They veer towards
participation because they believe that
mobilisation for the election campaign will give
them a headstart for possible agitation in case
elections are massively rigged. Then there is
also the possibility that vigourous electoral
partici- pation might make rigging more
difficult. A boycott, they argue, will obviate
the need for rigging and will let Musharraf and
his supporters off the hook.
Back to the 'troika'
The "troika" system was first put together in
1988 as a precondition for the transfer of power
to Benazir Bhutto when she won the election held
following the end of Zia-ul-Haq's military
regime. The PPP was allowed to take office after
agreeing to the oversight of the president who
was to protect the corporate interests of the
military and ensure continuity of key strategic
policies. It was a deal underwritten by the US,
which sought policy continuity with respect to
Afghanistan and the cold war. In truth, the
"troika" was not a three-way sharing of power,
but simply a check placed upon the elected
civilian government by the military. The
president was the constitutional lever through
which the military acted.
The "troika" arrangement broke down with
clockwork regularity, and almost always at the
expense of the prime minister. The courts waved
through Benazir Bhutto's two dismissals in 1990
and 1996 respectively. The Supreme Court did come
to Nawaz Sharif's rescue when his first
government was dismissed in 1993. He was
nevertheless forced to leave office because the
army chief stepped in to resolve the crisis
between him and the then president, getting both
of them to resign. In his second tenure Sharif
had a large enough majority to restore de jure
parliamentary sovereignty over the president,
thus ending the "troika". According to the then
US ambassador, however, an informal US- brokered
power-sharing deal was in place between Sharif
and Musharraf a month before he made a botched
attempt to dismiss the army chief, triggering the
coup.
Limited options
When the dust settles on the present regime
change, there is little to indicate that any of
the options before Musharraf, the judges and the
lawyers, and the opposition parties including the
boycotters, will leave us in a place other than
the dreaded "troika". If Musharraf gets his way
with the new parliament he would have to work
with the military chief Kayani and the new prime
minister. If the opposition parties win the
elections they may get a new president, but they
will have to work within the "troika" at least
until Musharraf's constitutional amendments can
be over- turned. Finally, in any agitation
against Musharraf, or against electoral fraud, it
is the military that will be looked upon as the
implied arbiter. Short of directly con- fronting
the military - something that no democratic
firebrand has advocated as yet - all political
outcomes of an agitation will require the
cooperation of the generals.
The 1988-97 interregnum showed that the "troika"
is not a stable arrangement. It was simply the
price that needed to be paid to get a breather
from direct military rule. The previous round
also demonstrated that judicial and legislative
means are not enough to ensure constitutional
government. Politics are important, and there is
no alternative for the political parties other
than to strengthen their organisations, expand
their outreach, and cooperate more actively with
one another. Moreover, they can use the current
favour- able international opinion of Pakistan's
democratic politics to end the military's
monopoly in shaping relations with the rest of
the world.
Haris Gazdar (gasht at yahoo.com) is a political
economist who works with the Karachi-based
Collective for Social Science Research.
o o o
(ii)
Human Rights Watch Press Release
Pakistan: End Persecution of Lawyers and Judges
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IMPOSSIBLE WITH DISMANTLED JUDICIARY
(New York, December 19, 2007) - Scores of
lawyers, judges and other government critics
remain detained in Pakistan despite the lifting
of the state of emergency on December 15, Human
Rights Watch said today in a new report.
President Pervez Musharraf's dismantling of an
independent judiciary and the crackdown on the
vocal lawyers' movement mean free and fair
elections, scheduled for January 8, 2008, will be
impossible.
The 84-page report, "Destroying Legality:
Pakistan's Crackdown on Lawyers and Judges,"
presents eyewitness accounts of police violence,
arbitrary arrests, and mistreatment of detained
lawyers across Pakistan since November 3, 2007.
The report details police beatings of lawyers
peacefully protesting government policies from
within the grounds of Pakistan's high courts. It
is the most detailed account to date of the
November crackdown, showing how Musharraf used
the emergency as an excuse to disempower the
judiciary, the legal profession and civil society
in the name of fighting terrorism and Islamic
extremists.
"The lawyers' movement had done more in eight
months to challenge the pillars of military rule
than the political opposition had done in eight
years," said Ali Dayan Hasan, South Asia
researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Musharraf's
crackdown on legal institutions is a huge setback
for human rights and the rule of law in
Pakistan."
Since March 9, 2007, the movement of lawyers and
the growing independence of the nation's
judiciary had made genuine progress in putting
Pakistan back on the path to democracy, Human
Rights Watch said.
Under the revised constitution, unilaterally
imposed by Musharraf, the government has new
powers to disbar lawyers involved in peaceful
anti-government activities, and the military can
now try civilians for a wide range of offenses
previously under the purview of the country's
judiciary, including charges as vague as causing
"public mischief."
Deposed Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry remains under strict house
arrest along with his family and most of the
other justices on the Supreme Court who refused
to accept the suspension of the constitution on
November 3. Leaders of the lawyers' movement,
including Supreme Court Bar Association President
Aitzaz Ahsan, retired Justice Tariq Mehmood, and
former Bar Council Vice Chairman Ali Ahmed Kurd,
also remain under house arrest.
Restrictions on the media remain in force and the
government has repeatedly warned it will not
tolerate the "politics of agitation."
Human Rights Watch noted that in such a
repressive political environment, elections
scheduled for January 8, 2008, cannot to be free
or fair.
Given the well-documented history of
election-rigging by the Pakistani military, the
emergence of an independent judiciary provided
the best hope for a free and fair election. A
military-backed ruler who dispensed with the
constitution in order to get rid of such a
judiciary is unlikely to preside over an
electoral exercise that could bring his political
opponents to power.
"A genuine election campaign is impossible when
the media remains muzzled, leaders of civil
society remain under arrest, and the legitimate
judiciary of the country has been deposed and
replaced by hand-picked supporters of the
government," said Hasan.
Human Rights Watch faulted the United States and
the United Kingdom, which consider Musharraf an
indispensable ally in the "war on terror," for
failing to back formulaic statements of concern
with concrete measures such as sanctions. Human
Rights Watch urged both countries to press for
the immediate release of all persons arbitrarily
detained, the restoration of the judiciary, and a
return to genuine constitutional rule.
"Foreign policy that tries to appease the
Pakistani military at the expense of democracy is
as dangerous as it is flawed," said Hasan. "If
the United States and the United Kingdom are
genuinely interested in Pakistan's political
future and stability, they should focus on
restoring the judiciary and lawyers to their
status prior to November 3."
--
Destroying Legality
Pakistan's Crackdown on Lawyers and Judges
This 84-page report presents eyewitness
accounts of police violence, arbitrary arrests,
and mistreatment of detained lawyers across
Pakistan since November 3, 2007. The report
details police beatings of lawyers peacefully
protesting government policies from within the
grounds of Pakistan's high courts. It is the most
detailed account to date of the November
crackdown, showing how Musharraf used the
emergency as an excuse to disempower the
judiciary, the legal profession and civil society
in the name of fighting terrorism and Islamic
extremists.
HRW Index No.: C1919
December 19, 2007 Report
Download PDF, 1770 KB, 86 pgs
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/pakistan1207/
______
[2]
Dawn
December 20, 2007
TERROR BY CLERICAL ERROR
by Jawed Naqvi
INDIA's top missile scientist unveiled plans last
week to build a ballistic missile defence by 2010
that should effectively tackle the threat from
Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Dr V.K. Saraswat was
also quoted as saying that the proximity of
Pakistan's assets would give India just three to
four minutes to respond to a perceived attack.
The missile defence system now on the anvil would
protect 'high-value' assets and major cities like
Delhi and Mumbai.
Informed people would consider the plan
delusional, and therefore dangerous. Russia and
the United States, with far greater lead-time to
respond to each other's nuclear threat and with a
highly refined command and control mechanism,
still do not have a completely trustworthy system
in place.
The official doomsday scenario written by the US
government during the Cold War - called The
Emergency Plan Book - would make countries like
India and Pakistan look not just ill-prepared to
consider the use of nuclear weapons but also
ill-advised to flaunt them. For all its
sophistication and years of preparedness for
nuclear attack on its territory, the United
States looked pretty vulnerable as recently as
Sept 11, 2001. How the administration went round
like a headless chicken in the aftermath is
nicely recorded in The Doomsday Scenario, a 2002
book based mostly on the Emergency Plan, which
author L. Douglas Keeney wangled from a library
during a brief period when it was declassified.
During the Cold War, more than $45bn was spent to
protect both senior US government officials and
the general public in the event of a nuclear
attack. This funding supported everything from
the production and distribution of films and
pamphlets instructing citizens how to mitigate
the effects of a nuclear blast and fallout to the
secret construction of massive underground
facilities to allow the government to continue to
operate during and after a nuclear war.
The extensive and extremely expensive plans to
build massive blast and fallout shelters for the
populace were systematically rejected by US
presidents on the grounds that they did not want
to create a national panic. The Congress balked
at the price tag and the military leaders argued
that it was more sensible and cost-effective to
invest in offensive weapons to deter war and, if
need be, wage war. One fallout of the Sept 11
attacks was that for the first time the United
States activated its Continuity of Government
plans (COG), some of which have been lampooned in
Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.
But the real emergency envisioned in The Doomsday
Scenario, cited by Keeney, pertained to "kiloton
and megaton-sized bombs" that would "pummel our
industrial, transportation, communication, and
financial centres in a sustained downpouring of
warheads". The national landscape, according to
the American response plans, "would be blurred
with smoke and haze and littered with death and
destruction and contamination, with only the most
rudimentary fragments of community and government
surviving".
Said the Emergency Plans Book, "12,500,000 are
suffering from blast or thermal injuries and have
an immediate and evident need for treatment." The
surviving labour force is "engaged in large
numbers in disposing of the dead".
America's shipping ports would be clogged with
sunken ships; it would be a nation of people
scrounging for food, "with crematoriums working
around the clock".
Ironically the current discourse on nuclear
weapons in Islamabad and Washington DC and Dr
Saraswat's plans to defend India's high-value
assets, whatever that means in the context of
millions dead, are so obviously unreal. America's
headache stems from the fear of Muslim extremists
taking control of the nuclear trigger. That the
bomb looks any more secure with the followers of
other faiths is one of the big fallacies of our
times.
We did feel (or know) during the 2002
India-Pakistan stand-off that a more real nuclear
threat could come from any 'mad major' lurking
within the chain of command of either country.
And why blame the mad major when the political
leadership of that period on both sides looked
quite prepared to do the job of, let's say,
Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper?Do we remember
the delusional commander of a US air force base
in Dr Strangelove who initiated an attack plan to
strike the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons? He
had set out to thwart what he believed was a
Communist conspiracy to "sap and impurify" the
"precious bodily fluids" of the American people
with fluoridated water which he believed had
caused his impotence. Change the bodily fluids
with some other catchphrase that sells with our
people and we are in the same league with Stanley
Kubrick's villainous brigadier.
The advent of Al Qaeda as the all-pervasive ogre
out to destroy the world tends to lull us into
the false belief that the messianic zeal of the
president of the United States is any less
threatening. The readiness to use tactical
nuclear weapons against Iran or any other country
(don't forget the Seventh Fleet flexing its
muscles in the Bay of Bengal not too long ago) is
at par with the clarion call for "aar paar ki
larai" (fight unto finish) that emanated from the
Indian leadership.
Pakistan's nuclear doctrine too comes ironically
from a highly disciplined and professional army,
not gun-toting mullahs. It signals the readiness
to be the first one to stage a nuclear strike.
Add to this conundrum the bristling tensions
between the United States and Europe on the one
side confronted by an increasingly insecure but
militarily powerful Russia, and we have a serious
problem on our hands.
In our self-absorption with Narendra Modi in
India and the hurly-burly of January elections in
Pakistan, there has been a tendency to miss out
on the subversive action underway in our
vicinities that is of equal if not more serious
consequence to the region. Last month Russia's
parliament voted to suspend compliance with a key
Cold War treaty limiting conventional forces in
Europe as Moscow signalled it was weighing new
force deployments on its western flank. Last week
Russia's defence officials warned that any
Iran-bound missile from Europe travelling over
Russian air space could be read as enemy action
by its trigger-ready retaliatory system.
Stanley Kubrick's film was loosely based on Peter
George's Cold War thriller novel Red Alert, also
known as Two Hours to Doom. Dr Strangelove
satirises the Cold War and the doctrine of mutual
assured destruction. For India and Pakistan, with
just three to four minutes to take evasive
action, if Dr Saraswat's count is right, there
won't be any time for Brigadier General Ripper to
deliver all his humorous lines before doom
strikes us suddenly. Whether the threat comes
from a Muslim cleric or a clerical error of a
secular nature, it would still spell disaster for
millions.
The writer is Dawn's correspondent in New Delhi.
______
[3]
Kashmir Times
December 22, 2007
BJP ON A DOWNSWING IN GUJARAT
Is Modi losing ground?
by Praful Bidwai
If there's one thing on which most of Gujarat's
politicians, social scientists, civil society
activists, bureaucrats, and public-spirited
citizens agreed a month ago, it was the dead
certainty of the Bharatiya Janata Party's victory
in the Assembly election. The BJP would
inevitably romp to power-for the fourth time. Its
entrenched position in Gujarati society,
Hindutva's appeal, and Chief Minister Narendra
Modi's strong leadership would ensure this. If
there was any question-mark at all, it was over
the margin of the win, not the win itself.
The tide seems to have turned. Today, the very
same people will tell you, the BJP could lose the
election. What seemed unthinkable only weeks ago
could actually happen. The Congress ran a
remarkably timid campaign, skirted all issues
pertaining to the terrible communal violence of
2002, always looked uneasy while countering the
BJP's "Gujarat Gaurav" campaign, and didn't
gather the nerve to put up more than half-a-dozen
Muslim candidates in a state where 20 Muslim MLAs
used to get elected. But it might yet get
catapulted into power.
All exit polls after the first phase of voting in
87 constituencies (of Gujarat's total of 182)
point to a vote-swing away from the BJP. An NDTV
poll in 86 constituencies forecasts a loss of 13
seats for the BJP, placing it behind the Congress
by 3 seats. Plausibly, the trend might get
strengthened in the second phase.
A BJP defeat in Gujarat will deliver the party a
seismic political and organisational shock and
mark a historic setback for the entire Sangh
Parivar. Mr LK Advani's laughable anointment as
the party's Prime Ministerial candidate won't
mitigate, but aggravate, the shock. In terms of
power, the setback will of course be much lesser
than the BJP's rout in the 2004 Lok Sabha
elections.
But ideologically, the setback will be far more
severe. It will have proved that divisive
politics based on religious hatred, which rejects
pluralism and secularism, is not sustainable even
in the most favourable of conditions. Gujarat,
after all, was "Hindutva's laboratory".
On December 23, we'll get to know how the BJP has
fared. But it's worth noting that estimates by
state civil servants and intelligence agencies of
its likely tally vary from 70 to 80, way, way
below its 2002 score of 127 seats. Even the state
BJP's internal assessment is reportedly that it's
sure to win only 63 seats. Optimistically, it
could at best win another 15. But even then, it
would still fall short of a majority.
Assuming that the estimates conform broadly to
reality, how and why has this change come about?
Even if the BJP does not get routed in the
election, what can explain the downturn in its
prospects and its likely reduced share of the
vote?
Four broad factors seem to have been at work:
recent shifts in the BJP's social support-base;
reassertion of what may be called normal or
mundane politics vis-Š-vis ideology- or
personality-driven politics; major changes in
intra-Sangh Parivar relations; and Mr Modi's
intensely personalised and confrontationist
election campaign.
To start with, the long expansion of the BJP's
social base in Gujarat seems to have come to an
end. During the period stretching from the
anti-Babri mosque movement to the massacre and
beyond in 2002, the BJP managed to split the
Congress party's traditional base among Gujarat's
"core minorities", comprised of Adivasis, Dalits
and Muslims, and among subaltern but numerous
layers like the Kolis, who form about one-fifth
of the state's population.
Thanks to the appeal of militant Hindutva, the
BJP attracted a significant proportion of votes
from the first two groups in 2002. Using the
state machinery, it browbeat and effectively
disenfranchised Muslims and prevented them from
voting against it.
However, over the past year or longer, not only
are these groups returning to the Congress; the
BJP has suffered a severe erosion of support
amongst Kolis, and even more important, the
prosperous and politically powerful Leuva Patels,
who wield a great deal of clout in Saurashtra and
Kutch (which elect almost a third of Gujarat's
MLAs).
These shifts in social base can eliminate the
small 3 percentage-point vote lead that the BJP
enjoyed over the Congress in the 2004
Parliamentary elections, itself down from 10
points in 2002. Indeed, they can even give the
Congress the upper hand. This seems to be
happening in Saurashtra and the southern tribal
belt, and also in parts of central and northern
Gujarat.
It's only among urban upper caste-upper class
Hindus that the BJP enjoys firm, unshakable
support. And although Gujarat is India's most
urbanised state, with 40 percent of its
population living in cities, the upper-crust
elite is too small to ensure electoral success.
Second, Mr Modi has concentrated all power in his
own hands and tried to demolish normal, routine
or mundane politics based on deal-making and
patronage. He has consistently bypassed the party
organisation and the Sangh Parivar, and barred
not just opposition leaders, but even senior BJP
functionaries, from establishing access to
himself. He has tried to stamp a distinctly
authoritarian Moditva imprint upon the state and
all its programmes.
Mr Modi's calculation was that the combined
banner of Gujarat's asmita (self-esteem or
glory), "development" and "Vibrant Gujarat" would
work magically. But the asmita slogan couldn't
cover up chasms in Gujarat's society, nor the
prevailing sleaze. "Development" got reduced to
mere "GDP-ism" or worship of growth without
inclusion. And "Vibrant Gujarat" is going exactly
the way "India Shining" did in 2004-exposing the
BJP to popular scorn and ridicule for celebrating
elite-oriented, highly dualistic growth.
Reality is now catching up with Moditva. In the
absence of a communally charged atmosphere,
Hindutva has become irrelevant to the public's
mood and its voting choices. "Normal politics"
and mundane issues of survival and governance,
like high electricity bills and a wilting
Bt-Cotton crop, are chipping away at the
artificial edifice Mr Modi tried to construct out
of the tacky slogans of "Gujarat's glory", and
tall claims about investment and
industrialisation.
As this Column noted seven weeks ago, Gujarat's
is a case of unbalanced growth and warped
development. It's falling behind other large
states in gender, health and environment indices.
As many as 74 percent of Gujarat's women and 47
percent of its children are anaemic. Gujarat's
infant mortality and malnutrition rates remain
stubbornly high, especially in the rural areas.
Gujarat's indices of patriarchy are frightening.
The sex-ratio is an abysmal 487:1000 in the 0-4
age-group and 571 in the 5-9 group (national
averages, 515 and 632). Gujarat's health indices
have been declining and are barely higher than
Orissa's. In social sector spending (as a
proportion of public expenditure), Gujarat ranks
Number 19 among India's 21 major states.
Mr Modi's claims about abundant electricity
supply are belied by facts. The Mumbai-based
Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy says the
Gujarat's power deficit averaged 10.7 percent and
peaked at 23.7 percent in the past year. Given
the rising weight of these issues, the Congress
has succeeded in putting Mr Modi on the mat on
the "development" agenda.
A third adverse factor for Mr Modi is serious
infighting in the Gujarat BJP, where more than 40
"rebels" are contesting against the official
candidates or engineering their defeat. Worse,
the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bharatiya Kisan
Sangh and other Sangh front organisations have
decided not to help the BJP.
Absence of door-to-door campaigning by RSS
pracharaks will deliver a major blow to the BJP,
especially in the cities. No less significant
will be the absence of canvassing by the Vanavasi
Kalyan Ashram in the tribal areas. The synergy
these groups generated together was crucial to
the BJP' victory in past elections. Now some of
them will work against it-a double whammy, which
could cause great damage.
Finally, Mr Modi has run a sectarian, foul and
demagogic campaign, which used every conceivable
low-level tactic. But he has still failed to
attract large audiences. No other BJP leader has
got a worthwhile public response either. By
contrast, top Congress leaders' rallies were
well-attended. Although the Congress's election
campaign was weak on secularism and social
justice, it managed to corner Mr Modi on
governance and development issues.
In response, a desperate Mr Modi played the
anti-Muslim card. He shamelessly justified the
cold-blooded murder of Sohrabuddin Shaikh in a
"fake encounter", and maligned Muslims. This
blatantly violated the Election Commission's Code
of Conduct, which prohibits hate speech and
vilification of any religious group. It was an
implicit and shocking admission of the state's
complicity in the murder. Ironically, this will
only encourage Muslims to go out and vote.
The Election Commission rightly took note of this
grave electoral malpractice. Sadly, to appear
"even-handed", it also issued notice to Ms Sonia
Gandhi for her "merchants of death" speech. But
the two speeches aren't even remotely comparable.
The EC must correct this error of judgment and
severely punish Mr Modi. But what Mr Modi most
richly deserves is political punishment.
Gujarat's electorate should send him packing.
o o o
IS GUJARAT THE NEW INDIA?
by Pamela Philipose
http://tinyurl.com/38b5jv
______
[4]
New Age
December 22, 2007
VPA: THE PROFILE OF A BLACK LAW
The Vested and Non-Resident Property
(Administration) Act, 1974 is an iniquitous law.
Now is the time to get rid of this black law. We
hope that the non-party caretaker government led
by Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed will take the necessary
steps, writes M Abdus Salam
As the citizens of an independent and sovereign
state, we have the authority to make our own
laws. We also have the authority to rescind any
law which we think is against our interests.
Unfortunately we have been unable to invalidate
such a law which is called the Vested and
Non-Resident Property (Administration) Act, 1974.
Because of this black law, many of us have lost
their lawfully earned properties.
On 6 September 1965, Pakistan proclaimed a
state of emergency under the Defence of Pakistan
Ordinance at the outbreak of war with India. In
exercise of the powers conferred by the
ordinance, the central government of Pakistan
promulgated on the same day the Defence of
Pakistan Rules. Under the rules, the governor of
East Pakistan passed an Order on 3 December 1965
regarding enemy property by which the property of
the minorities was declared 'Enemy Property'.
After independence from Pakistan, the
president of Bangladesh, in Order No. 29 of 1972,
changed the nomenclature of the law from the
Enemy Properties Act (EPA) to the Vested Property
Act (VPA). Clause 2 of the Order further states:
'Nothing contained in this Order shall be called
in[to] question in any court.' The Order of the
president was not subsequently subject to
judicial review.
A circular of 23 May 1977 on the Ministry of
Lands of the Government of Bangladesh empowered
the tehsildars to find out the lands suitable for
enlisting as 'vested' property. Since there was a
provision for rewarding the successful tehsildars
they felt encouraged to bring many undisputed
properties of the Hindus under this list. Hindu
peasants were thus left with no alternative but
to migrate, as they could not expect any remedy
from the additional deputy commissioner, the
sub-divisional officer, or the circle officer
who, like the tehsildar, were similarly entrusted
with the responsibility and similarly promised
reward. Many Hindus sold their lands to Muslims
after 1970 as usual. In many cases the tehsildars
enlisted any land as vested property only if it
was owned by a Hindu during the period of
1965-1969 even if that owner never left East
Pakistan or Bangladesh and even if that land was
owned by a Muslim at the time of enlistment. Thus
a large number of Muslims have lost their legally
purchased land and could not find any legal way
to get it back.
The Sayem government cancelled the provision
for selling vested properties by the
sub-divisional committee. The government of
President Ershad passed an order for selling the
vested properties (land and buildings), 'the
dilapidated and kutcha houses' not required by
the government, to the existing lessees and if
the lessees were unwilling or unable to purchase,
through public auction. Subsequently, President
Ershad passed an order for selling all vested
properties by December 1983 but on an appeal made
to him by a conference of the representatives of
the Hindu community on 31 July 1984, General
Ershad scrapped the order and also the enlisting
of new vested properties. He further offered that
vested properties would be governed according to
the Hindu law of inheritance. The policy of the
government of Khaleda Zia was to sell vested
properties to those occupants who could pay 10
per cent higher than the prevailing market price
and not sell any vested property below the market
price. Moreover, the government of Khaleda Zia
passed an order for the release of vested
property in land up to eight bighas outside the
'pourasabha'
Abul Barkat and Shafiquzzaman, of Bangladesher
Grameen Samaje Arpito Sampattite Ainer Probhab:
Ekti Anusandhan, in their report to the National
Seminar of Association for Land Reform And
Development, 13 April 1996, pp-7, said: 'On the
devastating effects of the vested property Act on
the material and psychological conditions of the
Hindus it was calculated that from 1964 each day
on an average 538 Hindus have 'vanished'. The
basis of calculation was the uniformity of the
death rate for all religious communities in
Bangladesh, the birth rate among the Hindus which
has been 13 per cent less than that of the
Muslims, and the difference between the migration
figures coupled with total Hindu population and
the figures of the census. Thus, had there been
no migration, the Hindu population in Bangladesh
would have been 16,500,000 instead of the census
figure of 11,200,000. The same report calculated
that the vanishing rate has not been uniform over
periods; in 1964-71 it averaged 703 per day,
between 1971 and 1981 it was 537, and in 1981-91
the figure stood at 439. The report further said:
'The sample survey, on the basis of which the
report was prepared, showed that out of the 161
dispossessed, 13 per cent were near landless,
whereas 40 per cent became landless through
dispossession, and 15 per cent of the surveyed
persons were rich before dispossession but the
figure came down to 6 per cent later.
Prof. Abul Barkat of Dhaka University opined
in an article that 50 lakh people of the Hindu
community have, meanwhile, lost 20 lakh acres of
land under Enemy/Vested Property tussle. The
present day value of those property would be one
lakh ninety thousand crore Taka (Prothom Alo, 4
November 04).
According to a report of the Land Ministry of
October, 2004, which was submitted to a
parliamentary standing committee: '445,726 acres
of vested property out of 643,140 acres ended up
in encroachment across the countryŠGrabbers
gabbled up more than two-thirds of vested
property as the government lost control over the
lands as the custodian and its long-line
dithering blocked anti-encroachment efforts" (The
Daily Star, 15 October, 2004). It may be recalled
that 'Transfer of Property Act' is ignored in
case of the Hindus by keeping the Enemy Property
Act as The Vested Property Act. So the
property-based crisis deepened and disturbed
society at the root.
Justice Debesh Bhattacharjya (1914-2004) was
the founder president of Bangladesh Enemy
Property Act Repeal Committee and some of his
verdicts have been precedent-setting judgments.
Earlier Justice Abdur Rahman Choudhury and
Justice A.T. M.Afzal in their judgement (31 DLR,
p 343) opined: 'Such high handedness, if
overlooked and allowed to go unchecked, might
undermine confidence of the citizens in the
administration and bring a slur on the fair name
of the Government.' Former Chief Justice Syed
Kamal Uddin Hossain also opined: 'The laws on
abandoned property, non-resident's property and
the like although enacted as temporary laws to
meet peculiar and emergency situations had been
continuing for indefinite time in one form or
another causing untold sufferings to honest
citizens and burdening the courts with
unnecessary cases.'
Here are two judgments of the High Court:
(1) Custodian of enemy property treating a
property as being a vested property without
lawful basis for treating it as vested property
and leasing out the same to another is
unauthorised and illegal. [31 D L R (HR) 359].
(2) It appears from order sheet of Vested
Property Miscellaneous Case that even before the
property in question was declared as vested
property, the third party applied for lease and
succeeded in obtaining a favourable report from
local tahsilder. Thereafter it was apparent from
the records that the Tahsilder and the interested
party acted in collusion with each other in
securing the impugned order and throwing the real
owner out of their possession. It is our
considered opinion; it would be just to award
exemplary cost against the Tahsilder and Sona
Meah, who are responsible for harassing a
helpless widow and her son and depriving them of
their lawful right to enjoy their own
property.[31 D L R (HR) 343].
Here is an another Judgment of the Appellate
Division (civil) dated 14th August 2004 on Saju
Hossain Vs Bangladesh (58DLR (AD)(2006) Enemy
Property (continuance of Emergency Provisions)
Ordinance (1of1969) Section 2: ' Since the law of
enemy property itself died with the repeal
Ordinance No. 1 of 1969 on 23 March 1974 no
further vested property case can be started
thereafter on the basis of the law which is
already dead.'
It is needless to say that Vested Property Act
is a law against the spirit of the constitution
of Bangladesh. The Act violates the fundamental
rights of the people guaranteed in the
constitution:
Article-27: 'All citizens are equal before the
law and are entitled to equal protection of law';
Article-28(1): 'The State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of
birth'; Article-29(1): 'There shall be equality
of opportunity for all citizens in respect of
employment or office in the service of the
Republic' and
Article 29(2): 'No citizen shall, on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth, be ineligible for, or discriminated
against in respect of, any employment or office
in the service of the Republic".
Article 11 in Part-II of the constitution
(Fundamental Principles of State Policy) says:
'The Republic shall be democracy in which
fundamental human rights and freedoms and respect
for dignity and worth of the human person shall
be guaranteed*** [, and in which effective
participation by the people through their elected
representatives in administration at all levels
shall be ensured].'
A man-made problem
'This is a man-made problem contrary to the
spirit of humanity. We have to get rid of this
uncivilised state of affairs to establish a
civilised society. Otherwise, we have to face a
bigger historic catastrophe,' Professor Abdul
Barkat, who teaches economics, insists in his
research paper, 'Deprivation of affected million
families: Living with Vested Property in
Bangladesh'. Some 12 lakh or 44 per cent of the
27 lakh Hindu households in the country were
affected by the Enemy Property Act 1965 and its
post-independence version, the Vested Property
Act 1974.
Barkat points out that 53 per cent of the
family displacement and 74 per cent of the land
grabbing occurred before the country's
independence in 1971 after the then Pakistan
government, following the India-Pakistan War in
1965, introduced the Enemy Property (Custody and
Registration) Order II, which was widely
criticised as a tool for appropriating the lands
of the minority population.
The Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government
annulled this Act in 2001. It wanted to return
the 'vested' property to their original Hindu
owners. The move was criticised as a 'political
tokenism' aimed to appease minority voters prior
to the general elections.
But in reality, as Professor Barkat study
shows, the Hasina largesse did not benefit the
members of the Hindu minority community who owned
land at the time of partition. In fact, it ended
up displacing most of them from their ancestral
land.
Political elements, locally influential people
in collaboration with the land administration,
trickery by land officials and employees
themselves, use of force and crookedness, fake
documentation, contracted farmers and death or
exile of original owners have contributed to the
phenomenon, according to Professor Barkat's study
covering 6 districts across the country. The
professor doesn't think the land grab was a
problem of 'Hindu versus Muslim' polarisation.
'Criminals do not bother whether a piece of land
is owned by a Hindu, a Muslim or a Santal and
they simply loot property. The problem highlights
the "inability" and "weakness" of the majority
people to raise protests though they are
non-communal" (The NewAge, the daily Janakantha,
the daily Manabzamin, 27 May.07).
The Vested and Non-Resident Property
(Administration) Act, 1974 is an iniquitous law.
Now is the time to get rid of this black law. We
hope that the non-party caretaker government led
by Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed will take the necessary
steps.
M Abdus Salam can be reached at: karnafuli at myway.com
______
[5] TASLIMA NAREEN LIVING IN A STATE OF VIRTUAL OF HOUSE ARREST:
Govt's of India and West Bengal must ensure her
return to Calcutta (see 5 news reports pasted
below)
(i)
The Times of India
21 Dec 2007
TASLIMA FRETS IN 'HOUSE ARREST'
[0109 hrs IST, Times News Network & Agencies]
KOLKATA: The Centre has told controversial
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen that she will
have to stay put where she is and would not be
allowed to return to Kolkata under any
circumstances.
Nasreen has been living in an undisclosed
location in the National Capital Region under
heavy security since she was hounded out of
Kolkata a month ago.
The 46-year-old author, who has been living in
exile after death threats to her in Bangladesh,
said she was told by a senior MEA official that
she would also not be allowed to come out in
public or meet people -- restrictions she
described as "house arrest". "If I live in India,
I will not be allowed outside. I will not be
allowed to meet any friend. I will have to live
this way in India and it must not be in Kolkata,"
she said, quoting the government decision as
conveyed by the official. Nasreen said she told
the official, "I am not a criminal."
The writer, who spent a night in Jaipur and a
week in Rajasthan House after virtually being
thrown out of Kolkata, said she has been told she
would not be able to lead a normal life in Delhi.
"I had told the official I should be allowed to
lead a normal life at least in Delhi," said
Nasreen, who recently offered to delete some
controversial portions from her novel
'Dwikhandita' to pacify those opposed to her
writings.
"The officials told me if I stay in India, I will
have to stay under house arrest," Nasreen told
TOI , adding, "I don't have any wish to leave
India." The author said she had hardly any option
now but to agree to MEA's terms.
o o o
(ii)
TASLIMA'S APPEAL: 'PLEASE LET ME LIVE IN KOLKATA'
Suhasini Haidar / CNN-IBN
TimePublished on Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 01:20,
Updated at Fri, Dec 21, 2007 in Nation section
TASLIMA GETS ULTIMATUM: The Centre sent a
representative to tell Taslima to leave India.
The controversial writer says she did not leave Bengal on her own accord.
New Delhi: Controversial Bangladeshi author,
Taslima Nasreen has nowhere to go and the Indian
Government went about in a convoluted way to tell
her to leave the country.
Taslima was shifted out of Kolkata after outbreak
of large-scale violence in the city during a
'shutdown' called by a Muslim outfit - All India
Minority Forum - for cancelling her visa, which
was extended by the Government till February 17
next.
She has angered conservative Muslims by her
writing and fled her homeland in 1994 after
radical Muslims demanded her execution. She was
attacked by activists of Majlis Ittehadul
Muslimeen at a book release function on August 9
this year in Hyderabad.
In an exclusive telephone conversation with
CNN-IBN this is what she had to say.
Taslima Nasreen: The Central Government came to
me and told me that I will not be able to go back
to Kolkata now. When I asked the person who came
to deliver the news when will I be able to go
back to Kolkata, he said that he did not know.
Then I asked him whether I could live a normal
life in Delhi if I cannot live in Kolkata and he
said that I would not be able to lead a normal
life in Delhi either.
I hope the Government will be able to reconsider
the issue and I will be able to go back to
Kolkata. If I can have security in Kolkata, then
I can live there.
However, if I cannot go back to Kolkata, then I
want to have a normal life in Delhi. I know that
the people who live in Kolkata want me to come
back and live there.
I love Kolkata and I have got support,
,solidarity and sympathy from the people there. I
know that nothing would happen if I go back to
the city and start living there. I have a home
there and I am missing my home.
I am hoping that the Government will rethink this
and let me go back to my home and will allow me
to have a normal life there.
No writer likes to censor his or her work and I
was forced to delete certain paragraphs of my
work. I hope that nobody will be angry with me
and that I will be able to live a peaceful life
in Kolkata.
TASLIMA SPEAKING TO CNN-IBN VIDEO
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/54629/taslimas-appeal-please-let-me-live-in-kolkata.html
o o o
(iii)
The Hindu
December 21, 2007
I F I C A N N O T G O B A C K T O
K O L K A T A , A R R A N G E F O R M Y
S T A Y I N D E L H I : T A S L I M A
M a r c u s D a m
K o l k a t a : B a n g l a d e s h i
w r i t e r T a s l i m a N a s r e e n
h a s n o i n t e n t i o n o f
l e a v i n g I n d i a , a n d
i n s i s t s o n l i v i n g i n
K o l k a t a , whic h s h e c a l l s
h e r h o m e .
" I w a n t t o l e a d a n o r m a l
l i f e a n d i f I a m n o t
p e r m i t t e d t o r e t u r n t o
K o l k a t a , l e t t h e m [ t h e
C e n t r e ] a r r a n g e f o r m e
t o le a d o n e i n D e l h i "
M s . N a s r e e n t o l d T h e
H i n d u o v e r t e l e p h o n e o n
T h u r s d a y e v e n i n g , a d a y
a f t e r s h e w a s t o l d b y a n
E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s
M i n i s t r y o f f i c i a l t h a t
s h e w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o
r e t u r n t o K o l k a t a .
" T h e o f f i c i a l a l s o t o l d
m e t h a t i f I d e c i d e t o
l i v e o n i n I n d i a , I w i l l
h a v e t o l e a d a l i f e i n
c a p t i v i t y & . I a s k e d h i m
f o r how l o n g w i l l I n o t
b e a l l o w e d t o g o b a c k t o
K o l k a t a o r w i l l h a v e t o
c o n t i n u e t o l e a d a l i f e
w i t h s u c h r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
w i t h o u t a n y f r e e d o m o f
m o v e m e n t . T h e a n s w e r w a s
" I d o n o t k n o w " ,
s h e
s a i d .
M s . N a s r e e n w a s s p e a k i n g
f r o m a n u n d i s c l o s e d
l o c a t i o n w h e r e s h e h a s
b e e n p u t u p s i n c e s h e
l e f t J a i p u r a d a y aft e r
a r r i v i n g t h e r e f r o m
K o l k a t a o n N o v e m b e r 2 2 .
" I a m a p p e a l i n g t o t h e
G o v e r n m e n t o f I n d i a t o
r e c o n s i d e r t h e de c i s i o n .
W h y d o I h a v e t o l e a d a
l i f e i n c a p t i v i t y ? A l l
I' m a s k i n g f o r i s t o b e
a b l e t o l e a d a n o r m a l
l i f e "
s h e s a i d .
D e m o n s t r a t i o n s
T h e a u t h o r l e f t K o l k a t a
a d a y a f t e r
d e m o n s t r a t i o n s i n t h e
c i t y , d e m a n d i n g
r e v o c a t i o n o f h e r v i s a ,
t u r n e d v i o l e n t o n
N o v e m b e r 2 1 . H e r v i s a i s
d u e t o e x p i r e o n
F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 .
" T h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n o f
c h o o s i n g t o l i v e
a n y w h e r e e l s e i n t h e
c o u n t r y [ o t h e r t h a n
D e l h i ] , i f I c a n n o t g o
b a c k t o Kolk a t a ,
s h e
s a i d . I t ' s a s l o w d e a t h "
O n W e d n e s d a y , s h e s a i d :
" I h a d m a d e t h a t c i t y m y
h o m e ; i t w a s a
l o n g - c h e r i s h e d d r e a m
a f t e r I w a s f o r c e d t o
leave B a n g l a d e s h 1 3 y e a r s
a g o . W h a t h a v e I d o n e
t h a t I a m n o t b e i n g
a l l o w e d t o r e t u r n h o m e ?
I h a v e b e c o m e , i t
appe a r s , a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t
t o a l l a n d I h a v e
n o w h e r e t o g o . I t i s a
s l o w d e a t h . I ' m d y i n g ."
o o o
(iv)
NDTV.com
CENTRE ISSUES ULTIMATUM TO TASLIMA
Barkha Dutt
Thursday, December 20, 2007 (New Delhi)
This time it is not the Marxists but the UPA
government that has decided that controversial
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen cannot return
to her adopted city of Kolkata.
Moreover, Nasreen has been told that if she wants
to live in Delhi, she will not be allowed to take
part in any public functions.
Speaking exclusively to NDTV's Managing Editor
Barkha Dutt, Taslima Nasreen said that the
decision had been communicated officially to her
by a senior official of the Ministry of External
Affairs.
Nasreen also claimed that her security was cited
as the reason for the Centre's decision.
The controversial author, who has already
withdrawn parts of her writing considered
offensive to certain Muslim groups, has been in
hiding for the past month.
Breaking down on the telephone, she claimed that
she was being made to live under house arrest.
''I appeal to the government to change its mind,'' she said.
Nasreen also asserted that she will leave India
if she is refrained from returning to Kolkata.
The author has been in a government safe house
since November and has courted trouble over her
perceived anti-Islamic writings.
Meanwhile, the CPM, which had sent Taslima off to
Jaipur last month, washed its hands off her,
saying that this was between Taslima and the
government.
''It is between Taslima and the Central
government and we have nothing to do with this,''
said Shyamal Chakravarthy, Leader, CPM.
The Congress party too reiterated its earlier
stand that no one who is allowed to stay in India
can hurt the sentiments of the people.
o o o
(v)
The Hindu - December 20, 2007 : 2120 Hrs
I WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RETURN TO KOLKATA: TASLIMA
New Delhi (PTI): Hounded out of Kolkata,
controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen
on Thursday said she has been told by the Central
government that she cannot return to the eastern
metropolis and should live here in seclusion
under protection.
"Yesterday a senior official of the External
Affairs Ministry told me that it is the decision
of the government that I will not be allowed to
go to Kolkata. He also said I am not allowed to
live a normal life in Delhi," she told NDTV after
reports that the government took the decision
following discussions between the IB Director and
Home Secretary. "I love India. I love Kolkata. I
love Bengali culture and I will not leave India,"
she said.
Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Home Secretary
Madhukar Gupta, however, refused to make any
comment on the reported government decision.
______
[6] ANNOUNCEMENTS:
(i)
Tribunal to amplify tsunami survivors' plight
PEOPLES' TRIBUNAL ON TSUNAMI REHABILITATION TO BE HELD IN CHENNAI ON
21ST AND 22ND DECEMBER
CHENNAI: A People's Tribunal on the status of
tsunami rehabilitation will be organised by
Voices from the Margins at ICSA centre, Jeevana
Jyothi campus, Opposite Egmore Museum, Chennai on
December 21st and 22nd 10 am to 5.30 pm.
voices from the Margins is a broad platform of
organisations of marginalized communities and
support groups. This tribunal is an outcome of a
recent study by Voices from the Margins that
exposed several discrepancies and shortcomings in
tsunami rehabilitation.
The tribunal aims to conduct an impartial and
independent enquiry on tsunami rehabilitation
after three years and to compile a policy report
based on the testimonies by the affected people,
observations of experts and community leaders.
This report will be submitted to concerned state
departments and donor groups that supported
tsunami rehabilitation.
The People's Tribunal will have a jury consisting
of eminent persons including Justice Mr. H.
Suresh (retired judge, Mumbai High Court) , Dr.
Asghar Ali Engineer (eminent social activist and
winner of Right to Livelihood award), Dr.
K.N.Panikkar (historian and former vice
Chancellor, Sankaracharya University) and
Dr.Yasodha Shanmugasundaram (former vice
Chancellor, Mother Teresa Women's University).
The jury will be assisted by a panel of experts
on various issues related to tsunami disaster,
relief and rehabilitation, including
Dr.R.K.Sivanappan, Mr. Ossie Fernandez, Advocate
Henri Tiphagne, Dr. P.V. Unnikrishnan, Mr.
Vasudevraju, Prof Ms.V.Kadhambari, Ms. Chaman
Pincha, Dr. Constantin Varidaiah and Mr. Sumesh
Mangalassery.
The outcome of the people's tribunal will be
submitted to the Prime Minister of India, Chief
Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, and
donors. It will be used as policy paper to bring
effective changes in the final phase of tsunami
rehabilitation.
Several civil society organizations have come
forward to take part in and support the People's
Tribunal. Poet Ms Malathy Maithri and
S.M.Prithiviraj are the conveners of Pondicherry
and Tamilnadu respectively.
Contact: Mobile : 9843080963, 9443090175 & 9444224866
E-mail: voicesfromthemargins at gmail.com
Web: http://voicesfromthemargins.com
o o o
(ii)
Oxford University Press and The Second Floor
(t2f) invite you to an evening of conversation
with Sara Suleri Goodyear.
Sara Suleri Goodyear, Professor of English at
Yale University, is the author of Meatless Days,
The Rhetoric of English in India, and Boys will
be Boys: A Daughter's Elegy. She was a founding
editor of The Yale Journal of Criticism, and
serves on the editorial boards of YJC, The Yale
Review, and Transition.
Date: Monday, 24th December, 2007
(t2f is closed on Mondays but will open on the 24th specially for this session)
Time: 6:00 pm
Venue: The Second Floor
6-C, Prime Point Building, Phase 7, Khayaban-e-Ittehad, DHA, Karachi
Phone: 538-9273 | 0300-823-0276 | info at t2f.biz
Map: http://www.t2f.biz/location
Seats are limited and will be available on a
'first come, first served' basis. No reservations.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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