SACW | Dec. 29-30, 2007 / Pakistan after Benazir / Mining the People in Kashmir / Militarizing Sri Lanka - Neloufer de Mel

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | December 29-30, 2007 | 
Dispatch No. 2482 - Year 10 running

[1] Pakistan After Benazir:
   (i) Requiem for Benazir Bhutto (Women's Action Forum)
   (ii) Women's Action Forum Press Release 29 December 2007
   (iii) HRCP condoles the death of Benazir Bhutto
   (iv) Who killed Benazir Bhutto? (Najam Sethi)
   (v) A tragedy born of military despotism and anarchy (Tariq Ali)
   (vi) Pakistan Without Benazir (Moni Mohsin)
[2]  Developmentalism / Industrialisation - Economising on Democracy :
  (i) Human rights concerns for Bangladesh mine investment
  (ii) Ethical Investing: Norway's Oil Riches And The Dongria Kondh
  (iii) The Industrial Strategy - Developments in West Bengal (Amartya Sen)
  (iv) Policy By Discussion - Developments in West Bengal (Amartya Sen)
  (v) Peasant Suicides: Why Kerala Is Different (Prabhat Patnaik)
  (vi) The SEZ versus the 'unrewarding' small farm (Aseem Shrivastava)
  (vii) New People's Movements in India (Sanjay Sangvai)
[3] Jammu and Kashmir : govt's deceitful claims of mine-free interiors
[4] Publication Announcements:
- Militarizing Sri Lanka: Popular Culture, Memory 
and Narrative in the Armed Conflict by Neloufer 
de Mel
[5] Announcements:
Sahmat's Annual event (New Delhi, 1 January 2008)

______


[1]  [ Pakistan After Benazir

(Below articles and more material at:
Citizens Challenge emergency Rules in Pakistan
http://emergency2007.blogspot.com/) ]

o o o

Women's Action Forum
28 December 2007

REQUIEM FOR BENAZIR BHUTTO

Women's Action Forum grieves.
It grieves with Bakhtawar, Bilawal and Asifa,
It grieves with Nusrat and Sanam Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari,
It grieves with all members of the Bhutto family,
It grieves with the PPP and all PPP workers and supporters,
It grieves with the poor and the oppressed,
It grieves with and for our country and the people of Pakistan,
WAF grieves.

Benazir Bhutto lived a tragic and tumultuous life,
Fraught with pain and loss,
A celebrated life,
Of success and exhilaration,
One that reached out and responded to the anguish and hope of people,
And articulated and converted these hopes, giving sustenance to so many.

Women's Action Forum while sometimes critical of her policies
Took pride in the fact that she was a woman.
A woman who controlled her own destiny,
A woman who instinctively and wholeheartedly
Embraced equal rights and opportunities,
For women and religious minorities,
A brave woman, a woman of courage.

As with her father, Z. A. Bhutto,
Look for her in moments that need fortitude,
Look for her in moments that need courage,
Look for her in hope,
Look for her in all those she touched.

Women's Action Forum grieves.

o o o

Women's Action Forum

PRESS RELEASE

29 December 2007

Women's Action Forum is profoundly grieved and 
shocked at the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. 
WAF is also deeply angered at the pretense that 
this was a suicide bomber. The people of Pakistan 
are not fooled by this attempt at a cover-up.

Women's Action Forum demands to know why the 
venue of the assassination was immediately hosed 
down by the government, destroying any evidence 
of what happened. WAF also demands to know why no 
post-mortem was conducted and how, in the absence 
of any knowledge and evidence the government 
stated so categorically that the assassin was an 
extremist. The international community has 
colluded with this sinister attempt to mislead 
the people of Pakistan and the world at large.

Women's Action Forum vehemently condemns the assassination and demands that:

- General Musharraf immediately resign, and put 
an end to this regime that has proved to be the 
bloodiest period since 1971;
How much more blood needs to be shed before we can rid ourself of this general?

- The judges of November 2nd be reinstated 
immediately, so that an impartial Inquiry 
Commission can be established and the real 
culprits be identified and brought to justice.

- A strong vibrant media is essential in the 
inquiry process to ensure transparency and that 
the people of Pakistan are fully informed of the 
proceedings and verdict.

WAF stands with the people of Pakistan, the PPP 
and the Bhutto family, as we all grieve the 
tremendous loss of Benazir Bhutto for the nation.


o o o

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

HRCP CONDOLES THE DEATH OF BENAZIR BHUTTO
December 28, 2007 by HRCP

PRESS RELEASE, December 27, 2007

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan is 
shocked and deeply grieved at the assassination 
of Benazir Bhutto, Chairperson, Pakistan People's 
Party.

HRCP strongly condemns the barbaric act and 
demands an inquiry by an international team of 
investigators. The Commission holds the 
Government of Pakistan and all the law enforcing 
authorities under it, responsible for this 
tragedy. It notes that in spite of the suicide 
attack on the former prime minister's convoy in 
Karachi in October and her frequent concerns of 
safety communicated to the authorities, adequate 
protection was not provided.

HRCP salutes the courage of Benazir Bhutto who, 
in spite of threats to her life, continued to 
address public rallies and be close to the 
people. She demonstrated in life and in death her 
commitment to the revival of a democratic process 
in Pakistan.

Issued on behalf of the HRCP Council (governing body).

Asma Jahangir, Chairperson,
Iqbal Haider, HRCP Secretary General
Zohra Yusuf, HRCP Vice Chairperson, Sindh

Mr. I. A. Rehman - Director, Mr. Shahid Kardar - 
Treasurer, Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Shahwani (Advocate) - 
Vice-Chairperson Balochistan, Mr. Kamran Arif - 
Vice-Chairperson NWFP, Ms. Hina Jilani - 
Vice-Chairperson Punjab, and HRCP Council Members 
Mrs. Surriya Amirrudin, Ms. Rahila Durrani, Mr. 
Tahir Husain Khan, Mr. Malik Adeel Mengal, Mr. 
Habib Tahir, Mr. Afrasiab Khattak, Advocate, Ms. 
Musarrat Hilali, Mr. Sher Mohammad Khan, Ms. 
Salima Hashmi, Dr. Mubashar Hasan, Dr. Mehdi 
Hasan, Air Marshal Zafar Chaudhry, Ms. Shahtaj 
Qizilbash, Mr. Nadeem Anthony, Mr. 
Attiq-ur-Rehman, Advocate, Ms. Uzma Noorani, Mr. 
Rochi Ram, Ms. Perveen Soomro (Advocate), Mr. Ali 
Hasan, Mr. Jam Saqi, Mr. Ronald de Souza, Mr. 
Ghazi Salahuddin, Mr. Amarnath Motumal, and Mr. 
Asad Iqbal Butt.


o o o


Daily Times
December 29, 2007

WHO KILLED BENAZIR BHUTTO?

by Najam Sethi

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has raised 
two important questions. Who killed her and why? 
And what happens next to the Pakistan People's 
Party and by corollary to Pakistani politics?

Most Pakistanis are by instinct inclined to 
believe that the "agencies" did it. This is the 
easy explanation for anything that happens in 
this country which is either inexplicable or 
unpalatable. All political assassinations in 
Pakistan remain inexplicable since the truth 
about them has never been investigated or 
investigated but not made public. But the truth 
of Ms Bhutto's assassination may also be 
subliminally unacceptable to many Pakistanis 
because a religious or "Islamist" element may be 
at its unpleasant core.

This response is also partly due to the 
ubiquitous role of the "agencies" in ordering 
Pakistan's political contours since the 1980s, 
including making and unmaking governments and 
elections. So we can hardly be blamed for 
suspecting the "agencies" or clutching at 
half-baked theories. Certainly, the political 
opposition to President Pervez Musharraf would 
like everyone to think so. It suits the 
politicians' purpose because it discredits the 
Musharraf regime and seeks to exploit the 
widespread anger and outrage at the killing of a 
popular leader to try and overthrow him.

But if the "agencies" have done this at President 
Musharraf's bidding, why is no one asking about 
their motives for doing so, or whether this suits 
him in any way, considering that it is likely to 
provoke a popular movement to undo his regime? 
Indeed, why is no one wondering whether there is 
some non-agency link between Ms Bhutto's 
assassination and the assassination attempts on 
the lives of President Musharraf (two), the 
former corps commander of Karachi, Ahsan Saleem 
Hayat (one), the former prime minister Shaukat 
Aziz (one) and the former interior minister Aftab 
Sherpao (two)? Surely, the "agencies" did not 
target these gentlemen.

Of course, Ms Bhutto did not make any 
explanations easier following the assassination 
attempt on her on 18 October when she pointed to 
"remnants" of the Zia regime in the Musharraf 
administration, including some former "agency" 
people. Apparently, she had been given to 
understand as much, but by whom and why we will 
never know.

There may also have been an element of political 
opportunism in her accusations at the time. She 
was trying to distance herself from President 
Musharraf to regain her credibility because most 
Pakistanis were unhappy at the prospect of a 
"deal" between her and him. Indeed, she was seen 
as being let off the hook regarding the 
corruption cases against her in exchange for 
agreeing to work with him at a time when he was 
terribly unpopular both for his political 
blunders regarding the judiciary and also for his 
pro-US stance on the "war against terror". Most 
Pakistanis saw this war an unjust American war 
and not a just Pakistani war.

Later, however, Ms Bhutto saw the writing on the 
wall and changed tack. She started to say that 
the biggest threat to Pakistan lay in religious 
extremism and terrorism, a clear allusion to the 
Al Qaeda network that was trying to lay down 
roots in Pakistan's tribal areas as part of its 
global strategy after Iraq to reclaim Afghanistan 
and make Pakistan a base area for Islamic 
revolution.

Shortly before she returned to Pakistan, Daily 
Times reported a statement by Baitullah Mehsud, 
an Al Qaeda-Taliban warlord based in Waziristan, 
saying that he had trained "hundreds of suicide 
bombers" and was determined to kill Benazir 
Bhutto because she was an American agent. The 
story was based on an interview given to Daily 
Times by a sitting member of the Pakistan senate 
who has been a conduit for Masud's statements and 
who had recently met him.

The story was not denied for two weeks and 
disregarded until the assassination attempt 
provoked widespread outrage in Pakistan and 
refocused attention on Al Qaeda. But sections of 
the media sympathetic to Al Qaeda's anti-American 
aims and objectives now quickly pounced on Daily 
Times and accused it of wilfully carrying an 
erroneous report. The senator was dragged to a TV 
studio and made to recant his statement and much 
was made of the motives of Daily Times in airing 
such a story. Later, a statement from Baitullah 
Masud was floated denying involvement in the 
assassination attempt on October 18. Last month, 
however, Baitullah Masud gave up pretences and 
formally announced himself as the head of the 
Taliban Movement of Pakistan.

Why is it difficult to believe that the same 
Islamist network that tried to eliminate 
President Musharraf, Shaukat Aziz, Aftab Sherpao 
and Benazir Bhutto on October 18 may be 
responsible for her murder on December 27? The 
first three have overtly been involved in the 
"war against terror" while Ms Bhutto had pledged 
many times to wipe out the extremists and 
terrorists if she was returned to power. All were 
seen as "American agents" or "puppets".

In the case of President Musharraf, it was later 
revealed that "rogue elements" in the "agencies" 
or "forces" may have been involved as Al Qaeda 
"supplementaries" or "accessories" in the 
assassination attempts on his life. Indeed, in 
many of the Al Qaeda attacks on the armed forces 
and paramilitary forces, especially those in 
Islamabad and Rawalpindi, low-level "insider" 
elements with contacts with the Lal Masjid, which 
was part of the Al Qaeda network, are known to 
have been involved. How else can one explain the 
Al Qaeda attacks on ISI busses in Islamabad in 
which civilian employees of the agency have been 
killed?

Clearly, Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan 
doesn't just comprise Arabs and Uzbeks and 
Tajiks. It also comprises Pakistanis; and among 
such Pakistanis it comprises Pathans and Punjabis 
and possibly Urdu speakers who constitute the 
Pakistani Taliban. Certainly, it is known that a 
number of Pakistani sectarian and jihadi Sunni 
organisations have joined the Al Qaeda Network 
after the government launched efforts to disband 
them since the "peace process" started with 
India. So Al Qaeda is now as much a Pakistani 
phenomenon as it is an Arab or foreign element.

There is not much room for doubt on this score 
any more. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the number two Al 
Qaeda man, has already gone public in his 
exhortations to Pakistanis to overthrow the 
Musharraf regime. Indeed, last September Bin 
Laden declared a jihad against the Musharraf 
regime. Now, following the assassination of Ms 
Bhutto on December 27, an Al Qaeda spokesman and 
Afghanistan commander Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid 
telephoned the Italian news agency AKI to make 
the claim that his organisation had killed Ms 
Benazir Bhutto "because she was a precious 
American asset". This should have reminded 
Pakistanis that their country is in the midst of 
a global war against religious extremism. But the 
tragedy is that it hasn't.

There is no inconsistency between what Ms Bhutto 
said on October 18 after the assassination 
attempt on her life about remnants of the Zia 
regime gunning for her and what she said in 
Rawalpindi on December 27 about terrorists and 
extremists targeting her minutes before one of 
them succeeded in eliminating her. Now Al Qaeda's 
primary targets are President Musharraf and 
Maulana Fazlur Rehman and its sole objective is 
to destabilise Pakistan and sow the seeds of 
anarchy by scuttling its halting transition to a 
moderate democracy.


o o o

The Guardian
December 28, 2007

A TRAGEDY BORN OF MILITARY DESPOTISM AND ANARCHY

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto heaps despair 
upon Pakistan. Now her party must be 
democratically rebuilt

by Tariq Ali

Even those of us sharply critical of Benazir 
Bhutto's behaviour and policies - both while she 
was in office and more recently - are stunned and 
angered by her death. Indignation and fear stalk 
the country once again.

An odd coexistence of military despotism and 
anarchy created the conditions leading to her 
assassination in Rawalpindi yesterday. In the 
past, military rule was designed to preserve 
order - and did so for a few years. No longer. 
Today it creates disorder and promotes 
lawlessness. How else can one explain the sacking 
of the chief justice and eight other judges of 
the country's supreme court for attempting to 
hold the government's intelligence agencies and 
the police accountable to courts of law? Their 
replacements lack the backbone to do anything, 
let alone conduct a proper inquest into the 
misdeeds of the agencies to uncover the truth 
behind the carefully organised killing of a major 
political leader.

How can Pakistan today be anything but a 
conflagration of despair? It is assumed that the 
killers were jihadi fanatics. This may well be 
true, but were they acting on their own?

Benazir, according to those close to her, had 
been tempted to boycott the fake elections, but 
she lacked the political courage to defy 
Washington. She had plenty of physical courage, 
and refused to be cowed by threats from local 
opponents. She had been addressing an election 
rally in Liaquat Bagh. This is a popular space 
named after the country's first prime minister, 
Liaquat Ali Khan, who was killed by an assassin 
in 1953. The killer, Said Akbar, was immediately 
shot dead on the orders of a police officer 
involved in the plot. Not far from here, there 
once stood a colonial structure where 
nationalists were imprisoned. This was Rawalpindi 
jail. It was here that Benazir's father, Zulfikar 
Ali Bhutto, was hanged in April 1979. The 
military tyrant responsible for his judicial 
murder made sure the site of the tragedy was 
destroyed as well.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's death poisoned relations 
between his Pakistan People's party and the army. 
Party activists, particularly in the province of 
Sind, were brutally tortured, humiliated and, 
sometimes, disappeared or killed.

Pakistan's turbulent history, a result of 
continuous military rule and unpopular global 
alliances, confronts the ruling elite now with 
serious choices. They appear to have no positive 
aims. The overwhelming majority of the country 
disapproves of the government's foreign policy. 
They are angered by its lack of a serious 
domestic policy except for further enriching a 
callous and greedy elite that includes a swollen, 
parasitic military. Now they watch helplessly as 
politicians are shot dead in front of them.

Benazir had survived the bomb blast yesterday but 
was felled by bullets fired at her car. The 
assassins, mindful of their failure in Karachi a 
month ago, had taken out a double insurance this 
time. They wanted her dead. It is impossible for 
even a rigged election to take place now. It will 
have to be postponed, and the military high 
command is no doubt contemplating another dose of 
army rule if the situation gets worse, which 
could easily happen.

What has happened is a multilayered tragedy. It's 
a tragedy for a country on a road to more 
disasters. Torrents and foaming cataracts lie 
ahead. And it is a personal tragedy. The house of 
Bhutto has lost another member. Father, two sons 
and now a daughter have all died unnatural deaths.

I first met Benazir at her father's house in 
Karachi when she was a fun-loving teenager, and 
later at Oxford. She was not a natural politician 
and had always wanted to be a diplomat, but 
history and personal tragedy pushed in the other 
direction. Her father's death transformed her. 
She had become a new person, determined to take 
on the military dictator of that time. She had 
moved to a tiny flat in London, where we would 
endlessly discuss the future of the country. She 
would agree that land reforms, mass education 
programmes, a health service and an independent 
foreign policy were positive constructive aims 
and crucial if the country was to be saved from 
the vultures in and out of uniform. Her 
constituency was the poor, and she was proud of 
the fact.

She changed again after becoming prime minister. 
In the early days, we would argue and in response 
to my numerous complaints - all she would say was 
that the world had changed. She couldn't be on 
the "wrong side" of history. And so, like many 
others, she made her peace with Washington. It 
was this that finally led to the deal with 
Musharraf and her return home after more than a 
decade in exile. On a number of occasions she 
told me that she did not fear death. It was one 
of the dangers of playing politics in Pakistan.

It is difficult to imagine any good coming out of 
this tragedy, but there is one possibility. 
Pakistan desperately needs a political party that 
can speak for the social needs of a bulk of the 
people. The People's party founded by Zulfikar 
Ali Bhutto was built by the activists of the only 
popular mass movement the country has known: 
students, peasants and workers who fought for 
three months in 1968-69 to topple the country's 
first military dictator. They saw it as their 
party, and that feeling persists in some parts of 
the country to this day, despite everything.

Benazir's horrific death should give her 
colleagues pause for reflection. To be dependent 
on a person or a family may be necessary at 
certain times, but it is a structural weakness, 
not a strength for a political organisation. The 
People's party needs to be refounded as a modern 
and democratic organisation, open to honest 
debate and discussion, defending social and human 
rights, uniting the many disparate groups and 
individuals in Pakistan desperate for any halfway 
decent alternative, and coming forward with 
concrete proposals to stabilise occupied and 
war-torn Afghanistan. This can and should be 
done. The Bhutto family should not be asked for 
any more sacrifices.

· Tariq Ali's book The Duel: Pakistan on the 
Flightpath of American Power is published in 2008


o o o

The Nation
December 28, 2007 (web only)

PAKISTAN WITHOUT BENAZIR

by Moni Mohsin

When news of Benazir's assassination broke, my 
nephew gasped, "She can't be dead! She's always 
been a part of my life. Always." So strong and 
ubiquitous was her presence over the last twenty 
years that he cannot imagine a Pakistan without 
her. No one can. She grew up in the public eye, 
and we all knew her through her various 
incarnations from pimply adolescent to the first 
female leader of a Muslim nation. Dressed in her 
signature Seven-Up green shalwar kameez, her head 
covered by a white chiffon scarf, this arresting, 
contradictory woman, with an impossibly 
tragi-glamorous family history, had the 
wherewithal to save her country but repeatedly 
disappointed. She was consistent only in her 
bravery. I, along with others, had expected so 
much from her the day that she was swept to power 
in 1988, washing away a decade of General Zia's 
military oppression. We all hoped this third 
opportunity would see her redeeming her past 
failings; the religious extremists put paid to 
that.

There is a strong element of predestination to 
her life and death. Her father, Zulfiqar Ali 
Bhutto, was a charismatic and ruthlessly 
ambitious demagogue who created the Pakistan 
Peoples Party (PPP), the only political party 
with a national footprint. A complex personality, 
he was ultimately most true to his roots as a 
feudal land owner. He espoused socialist 
principles, but his politics were about the cult 
of his personality. He said he was a man of the 
people, but his lieutenants were hand-picked from 
among privileged classes. He claimed to be a 
nationalist, yet his personal ambition paved the 
way for the dismemberment of the nation in 1971 
and for an orgy of vindictive and economically 
ruinous nationalizations. The eldest of four, 
"Pinky" was the apple of her father's eye and, 
unusually in a traditional society, his anointed 
successor; dynastic ambition trumped any pretense 
at democratic process.

Probably more than we realize, she was a creature 
of her father, mirroring many of his own 
paradoxes but without his petty vindictiveness. 
Like him, her Western liberal persona was 
cultivated and nurtured at Western academic 
institutions, first Harvard then Oxford (where 
she was president of the Union). These 
experiences honed her sharp mind and inculcated 
easy familiarity with Western liberal tradition. 
Additionally, she became well versed in objective 
analysis, debate and persuasion. However, a 
strong sense of entitlement and an autocratic 
nature were also part of the patrimony. This 
duality wrestled for her soul and largely 
explains her blemished political history.

Constantly stressing her relationship to her 
martyred father, Benazir made leadership of the 
People's Party contingent on bloodline rather 
than political ability. Squabbling with her 
mother, she appointed herself sole Chairperson 
for life of an allegedly democratic institution. 
Like her father, she crushed aspirants to 
prominence within her party, and old stalwarts 
were ruthlessly sidelined. The creation of party 
structure came second to self projection. Her 
death leaves a leadership vacuum. Moreover, she 
could not distinguish between what was hers and 
what belonged to Pakistan, treating state assets 
and revenues as hers to dispense as favors to 
courtiers. She was dismissed twice on charges of 
personal corruption with her husband, widely 
dubbed "Mr. Ten Per Cent"; yet she refused to 
countenance any allegations of wrong doing.

Despite her failings, she will be sorely missed 
at a time when Pakistan needs unifying, 
far-sighted national leaders. She was a woman of 
great courage and political shrewdness, with a 
firm grasp of geopolitical realities and global 
economic imperatives. Alone among the entire 
democratic leadership of Pakistan, she understood 
the grave threat the country faced from religious 
extremists. And in an atmosphere of extreme 
hostility and suspicion towards America, she was 
brave enough to articulate that it was not just 
America's war on terror but ours as well. She 
knew the risks and had already survived one 
bloody attack on her life. But in continuing to 
campaign openly, she refused to be cowed by 
extremists. Despite repeated warnings from 
military intelligence and her own oft-stated 
fears of assassination by Islamists, she was 
determined to confront this genie. In this final 
confrontation, there was a neat coincidence 
between her feudal patrimony ("It is my land") 
and her democratic values. Flawed, she still 
represented the best secular option for breaching 
Pakistan's multiple provincial, linguistic, 
ethnic, and social fissures. We will miss her.

______


[2]  DEVELOPMENTALISM / INDUSTRIALISATION - Economising on Democracy :

(i)

UBS alerted over Phulbari Coal mine

HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS FOR BANGLADESH MINE INVESTMENT

http://www.banktrack.org/index.php?show=news&id=138


Zurich, Utrecht, Dec 17 2007 -
UBS, a financial heavyweight from Switzerland, is 
facing scrutiny by civil society organisations 
for investing in a proposed coal mine in 
Bangladesh. The Phulbari coal mine, proposed by 
GCM Resources Plc, is set to cause major social 
and environmental upheavals in the region, 
displacing upwards of 50 000 residents. Despite 
strong local opposition, investors UBS, RAB 
Capital and Barclays continue to back GCM with 
significant shareholdings. GCM Resources' 
strategic focus is the mine, and financial 
institutions with sights on easy profits derived 
from expropriation and significant environmental 
damage, are propping up a shaky project which has 
already been stalled for over two years.  

Swiss based Berne Declaration and the BankTrack 
network recently wrote to UBS on behalf of local 
community representatives outlining the grave 
environmental, social and human rights problems 
associated with the project. As proposed, the 
Phulbari Coal mine is "open cut" meaning that 
between 140 and 300m worth of earth will need to 
be removed to access coal seams deep under 
ground. Some 50 000 residents will need to be 
relocated, potentially reaching 200 000 should 
full scale expansion plans be realised. Extensive 
damage to the UNESCO declared world heritage site 
Sundarbans mangrove forest, the largest single 
block of mangrove forest in the world, is also 
expected from port facilities. Energy production 
from coal poses substantial impacts on climate 
change, and is also inappropriate at a time when 
Bangladesh is appealing to the rest of the world 
to curb greenhouse gas emissions.  

Despite the project having reportedly cleared by 
advisors Barclays to satisfy the Equator 
Principles, development standards which encompass 
community and social considerations, the 
undertaking faces immense local opposition. In 
August 2006, 50 000 people protested outside the 
local offices of Asia Energy (now GCM Resources 
Plc). A paramilitary force peppered the crowd 
with bullets, killing five people, including a 
fourteen year old boy. Approximately 100 
individuals suffered injuries from the shootings. 
Since then, GCM Resources Plc has fled the site 
and the Bangladesh government has signed an 
agreement with the local communities promising 
that the coal mine would be stopped. In January 
2007, Bangladesh declared a state of emergency, 
and a military backed government was installed. 
The current ruling party has proceeded to 
infringe of fundamental rights of countless 
citizens whilst maintaining relationships with 
transnational corporations in an attempt to stoke 
foreign investment and additional income.  

Without the developer's presence in the region 
and fearing reprimand from a heavy handed 
government, local opponents to the projects have 
little recourse within their own country or with 
project sponsors. Responsible financial 
institutions have been approached with evidence 
of environmental damage and extensive social 
harm, and have been asked to respect the human 
rights of those affected by divesting.  

The Berne Declaration and BankTrack have offered 
to put financial institutions in direct contact 
with communities in the area. 

Responding to questions about on their 11% 
investment listed in GCM Resources Plc, the 
second largest listed shareholding, UBS denies 
any strategic interest in the company. The large 
multinational communicated that "it does not 
comment on potential or specific client relations 
or transactions or its investments in any 
particular company". UBS vaguely asserts to civil 
society and the communities affected that its 
holding may or may not be on behalf of other 
people.  

Andreas Missbach from the Berne Declaration says 
"responding to victims of actual and potential 
human rights abuses in this way, UBS has shown 
complete disregard for its duties to 
stakeholders, selectively and irresponsibly 
hiding behind bank secrecy provisions".  

The transparency of financial institutions 
shareholdings is of major consequence to 
determine who is responsible for facilitating 
dodgy investments. Determining whether banks 
themselves are actual shareholders, or whether 
they are holding shares on behalf of another 
party, can sometimes be an impossible task for 
local communities. Banks have been known to take 
advantage of these vagaries to shun their 
responsibilities. Whoever are the real 
shareholders in GCM, by virtue of their 
involvement in share listings, financial 
institutions must fulfil their duty to respect 
the human rights of stakeholders.

Read and download the letter to UBS: 

www.banktrack.org/doc/File/banks%20and%20human%20rights/members%20on%20human%20rights/UBS%20letter%20Phulbari.pdf


-- 
zakir kibria
Executive Director, BanglaPraxis
and Co-ordinator, Solidarity Workshop
Web: http://banglapraxis.wordpress.com


o o o

(ii)

International Herald Tribune
ETHICAL INVESTING: Norway's oil riches and the Dongria Kondh
By Kavaljit Singh
Published: December 17, 2007

NEW DELHI:

On Nov. 19, the Norwegian Embassy in New Delhi 
received some unusual visitors. The visitors were 
Indian citizens, but ethnically they belonged to 
a distinct tribal minority group called Dongria 
Kondh.

Dressed in their traditional attire, the tribal 
representatives came all the way from the remote 
Niyamgiri hills of Orissa to express gratitude to 
the Norwegian authorities for selling the 
country's equity stake in the British-based metal 
company, Vedanta Resources, on ethical grounds. 
Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the Government 
Pension Fund-Global, had an investment of about 
$14 million (an equity ownership of 0.16 percent) 
in this company.

The Dongria Kondhs have been opposing a proposed 
$850 million aluminum refinery and bauxite mining 
project belonging to Vedanta. Representatives of 
the tribe assert that the project would lead to a 
substantial loss of their livelihoods and 
traditional culture, and would destroy water 
sources.

Dongria Kondhs largely survive on hunting, 
gathering and forest produce in their hilly 
region.

Given the poor economic status and weak political 
clout of the tribal community, their concerns 
were initially largely overlooked by both state 
agencies and company officials.

However, their resistance received a major boost 
two years ago when campaigners, human rights 
groups and advocacy groups from India and Britain 
lent support to their cause. That was how 
Norway's sovereign wealth fund, one of the 
largest such funds in the world, became active.

Unlike other sovereign wealth funds from the 
Middle East and Asia, Norway's fund follows some 
of the strictest disclosure and ethical 
standards. In 2004, the fund adopted ethical 
guidelines that bar investment in companies if 
there are serious violations of human rights, 
labor exploitation, corruption or environmental 
damages.

The evaluation of the investment portfolio from 
ethical perspectives is frequently carried out by 
the Norwegian fund's Council of Ethics.

On the recommendations of the council, the fund 
had sold its equity stake in several major 
corporations in the recent past. Interestingly, 
such penal actions had no adverse impact on the 
fund's financial performance.

After carrying out investigations in Vedanta's 
four Indian subsidiaries, the council submitted 
its report to Norway's Ministry of Finance on May 
15. The report said in part: "The allegations 
leveled at the company regarding environmental 
damage and complicity in human rights violations, 
including abuse and forced eviction of tribal 
peoples, are well founded."

Based on the council's advice, the Norwegian 
Finance Ministry ordered the fund to sell off its 
stake in Vedanta. On Nov. 6, the ministry 
announced the completion of sale at its Web site.

Undoubtedly, the Norwegian decision has lifted 
the morale of Dongria Kondhs and their 
supporters. They feel that their concerns stand 
vindicated.

Should one welcome the Norway's decision? The 
answer is yes. If globalization can facilitate 
the movement of capital, goods and services 
across borders, the same instrument could also be 
used to seek the support of the international 
investment community in influencing corporate 
behavior.

Until now, such boycott actions have been largely 
used to put pressure on repressive regimes (such 
as South Africa's apartheid regime in the past 
and Sudan and Burma today).

Perhaps this is the first time that such action 
took place in a private investment project 
located in a democratic third-world country.

Should boycott action be the only effective way 
to bring corporate accountability?

The answer is no, for three main reasons.

First, the real political contest for tribal 
community remains with the local and national 
authorities, that have the legal power to 
regulate the corporations and enforce human 
rights and other standards within their 
jurisdictions.

Second, on a purely financial basis, Norway's 
sale of equity (a miniscule 0.16 percent) had no 
major impact on the share value and market 
capitalization of Vedanta Resources. The shares 
sold by the Norwegian fund were bought by some 
other entity in the financial markets.

Lastly, Norway's sovereign wealth fund is an 
exception in terms of its higher governance and 
ethical standards. No other sovereign wealth 
fund, at present, follows similar standards. So 
any boycott strategy has its limitations.

But in this case, at least it is a moral victory for the Dongria Kondhs.

Kavaljit Singh, director of the Public Interest 
Research Center in New Delhi, is the author of 
"Why Investment Matters" and "Questioning 
Globalization."

o o o

(iii)

[2 part article by Amartya Sen]

The Telegraph
29 December 2007
Editorial

December 29 , 2007

THE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY - Developments in West Bengal
Amartya Sen

Lessons not learnt

I see that our rajyapal, my friend Gopal Gandhi, 
told the graduating students of Jadavpur 
University, at its 52nd convocation on December 
24, "Students who pass from this university 
should have a clarity of mind so that they speak 
lucidly and logically." I have never been a 
student at Jadavpur University, but I have taught 
there, and I decided that Gopal Gandhi's firm 
instruction must apply to me as well: we cannot 
ask the students to do something that their 
teachers cannot do. Certainly, there is need for 
seeking some clarity and reach in speaking about 
events and developments in West Bengal right now.

The first thing to note is that there are some 
very important distinctions to be made between 
the different issues involved in the current 
debates - distinctions that are sometimes missed. 
The first, and perhaps the most immediate, 
distinction is that between a general economic 
strategy and the general politics of governance 
(including matters of law and order) associated 
with that economic strategy. A second distinction 
relates not to the economics-politics division 
but arises within the political domain: that 
between the politics of administration (including 
maintaining law and order with justice) and the 
general importance of some political values, 
particularly that of democracy. The third 
distinction arises within the economic domain, in 
particular the difference between the nature of a 
general economic strategy, on the one hand, and 
the specific economic proposals, on the other, 
that are devised to carry out that strategy. I 
begin with the general industrial strategy that 
underlies the economic policy programme, but this 
will have to be supplemented, in the second essay 
(to be published tomorrow in this two-essay 
presentation), with considerations of the 
politics of governance, the importance of 
democracy, and the translation of the general 
strategy into concrete economic policies.

*********

I begin, then, with the policy strategy of 
rapidly industrializing West Bengal, involving 
various means but firmly including the use of 
private investment in industries and in modern 
services in this state. I would argue that this 
general strategy is basically correct. What is so 
good about rapid industrial development? The 
basic point is simple enough. In removing 
poverty, incomes would have to be raised (though 
there are a variety of other things also to be 
considered, since we do not live by income 
alone), and it is hard to do effective and secure 
income-raising without substantial industrial 
expansion. This works not just through direct 
income generation but also through its indirect 
consequences in energizing an economy and 
generating new skills (critics of industrial 
expansion often overlook the extent to which 
different parts of a working economy are 
interdependent). It is not surprising that no 
substantial country ever has crossed the barrier 
of poverty without very substantial 
industrialization. If the need for an industrial 
base and the corresponding skills applies to all 
countries in the world (as I believe it does), it 
has a particularly strong relevance to Bengal 
which was one of the more prosperous parts of the 
world based on strong industries in pre-colonial 
days, and was especially advanced in textile 
production. That industrial advantage was lost 
during colonial rule when the pre-mechanized 
industries went downhill without new and modern 
industries coming up, and to this has to be added 
the reputation that Calcutta developed in the 
second half of the 20th century as a hotbed of 
industrial action, scaring industrial investors 
away.

Strong rejection of this general approach comes 
from at least two distinct groups. There are, 
first of all, those who simply do not want 
capitalists in West Bengal, and do not, in 
particular, want to invite private capital to 
help industrialize the state. What is the point, 
the politically determined typically ask, of 
having a communist government if it is going to 
turn all soft on capitalism? The second group of 
opponents are on a very different track, even 
though in denouncing the government they can be 
strong allies. This group of critics would not 
want to take land away from agricultural use. 
There are some genuine "physiocrats" among this 
group, with agriculture-fetishism and a strong 
belief in the unparalleled - almost mystical - 
merits of agriculture. Their arguments were 
adequately rebutted about 200 years ago, and if 
life has ceased to be quite as "nasty, brutish 
and short" as Thomas Hobbes found it, the 
contribution of industrial development to that 
change would be hard to overlook.

However, the agriculture-favouring opponents have 
presented some other arguments that are indeed 
very weighty. Two in particular deserve very 
serious consideration. Some oppose the diversion 
of fertile and productive land into industrial 
use, which applies to some extent to Singur as 
well, since such land is clearly very useful for 
agriculture. Another important argument points to 
the possibility that taking land from agriculture 
would impoverish the agriculturalists who live on 
that land, no matter how large an income the new 
enterprises may actually produce for other 
people. I have seen various arguments making this 
point forcefully, including in one case invoking 
- I believe appropriately - my own concerns about 
entitlement failures of specific occupation 
groups and the effects that this might have on 
starvation of those groups (no matter what 
happens to the totality of incomes).

********

How strong is the anti-capitalist high theory 
against private investment, with an implicit 
vision of a hugely prosperous State ownership 
economy? In particular, should not communists 
shun private investment? It is sad for high 
theory, but in most cases that would be a 
mistake, if the communists want rapid economic 
development for the removal of poverty (as they 
clearly do). It is not an accident that every 
communist country reliant on pervasive state 
ownership in the world has either moved to 
welcoming private investment quite substantially 
(as China has done), or has declined and been 
replaced by straightforward capitalist systems 
(as has happened in Russia and other countries in 
the former Soviet Union). The exception is Cuba, 
but its economic success is extremely limited. It 
remains a poor economy.

But is there, then, nothing to learn from Cuba? 
There is, in fact, a hugely positive lesson in 
the Cuban experience about how much can be 
achieved, despite economic poverty, through 
excellent public healthcare and school education. 
Despite its low income, Cuba has nearly the same 
life expectancy as the much richer population of 
the United States of America, primarily because 
of its medical system which is good and which 
does not leave a huge proportion of the 
population uninsured, as the US one does. There 
is, however, also a precise lesson here about how 
one need not become a capitalist camp follower 
simply because of accepting the pragmatic case 
for using private investment in industries. The 
role of the State in many fields, including in 
universal medical care and in universal 
schooling, remains extremely strong, and it is a 
lesson that has often been missed, even by 
countries that are formally communist.

Take China. Pre-reform China, before the 
privatization that began in 1979, had already 
achieved a high life expectancy (68 years at 
birth) and very high literacy rates through 
universal public healthcare and public education. 
To be sure, China also had a terribly inefficient 
communal agriculture, and this, combined with a 
general lack of democracy and a free media, was 
mainly responsible for the famines of 1958-61 
which killed between 23 and 30 million people 
(the existence of this catastrophe is now denied 
only in the Indian subcontinent, not in China or 
anywhere else, and then again only by some whom I 
would call hard-core theorists - it is hard to 
call them Marxists since Marx had such strong 
respect for empirical information). But the 
general system of public healthcare with 
universal coverage and universal schooling had 
dramatic achievements in pre-reform China, and in 
1979, China was 14 years ahead of India in life 
expectancy at birth.

The Chinese economy was, however, in a mess, and 
the reforms of 1979 put agriculture on a much 
surer footing through private farming under the 
new "responsibility system". In industries too, 
the reforms achieved a great deal, when China 
went on to use private investment drawn from all 
over the world. But the reforms did not stop 
there. Such was the new belief in the magic of 
the market (China leaped from a comprehensive 
anti-market position to a comprehensive 
pro-market philosophy) that the Chinese also 
abolished overnight the entitlement to free 
healthcare for all. Everyone now had to rely on 
private purchase of health insurance, except in 
the relatively few cases where the employing 
organization did that for the employee. The bulk 
of the population got suddenly excluded from 
entitlement to public health service, and it is 
now thought that no more than 20 per cent of the 
population has assured healthcare. Since then, 
China's progress in health and longevity has 
slowed down dramatically. Even India has been 
catching up with China, despite the messy state 
of India's own healthcare: India's shortfall from 
China in life expectancy at birth has been halved 
since 1979, from 14 years to 7 years. And a state 
like Kerala with universal medical coverage by 
the State (even though private medicine also 
thrives in Kerala on the secure foundation of 
public medical entitlement for all) is very 
substantially ahead of China in life expectancy. 
To take another measure, in 1979, China and 
Kerala both had an infant mortality rate of 37 
per thousand, and this has now fallen only to 28 
in China, whereas the rate is less than half that 
in Kerala (around 10 to 14, depending on which 
survey you use).

There is, thus, a lesson from Cuba that China 
missed (about the merits of universal public 
healthcare) and a lesson from China that Cuba 
missed (about the positive role of private 
investment in industries). And there are huge 
lessons from the experiences of the rest of the 
world. India in general, and West Bengal in 
particular, can learn from all. Neither a 
comprehensive anti-privatization philosophy, nor 
a comprehensive pro-privatization position, would 
offer what is needed.

o o o

(iv)

The Telegraph
30 December 2007

POLICY BY DISCUSSION - Developments in West Bengal
by Amartya Sen

Joe Stalin: the last icon

Since I am now what is called a "senior citizen" 
-an euphemism for being old and feeble - when 
people are supposed to turn autobiographical, 
indulging incessantly in reminiscences, I shall 
follow that hallowed practice myself, beginning 
with my college days in the early Fifties. Like 
many students in Calcutta at that time, I was 
quite firmly on the left of the political 
spectrum, without joining any political party. If 
there was anything in particular that worried me 
greatly, it was the scepticism with which 
democracy - usually called "bourgeois democracy" 
- was viewed by those with whose radical 
commitment to economic equity and social justice 
I was, otherwise, much in sympathy. Krushchev's 
denunciation of Stalin at the Twentieth Congress 
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 
1956 was yet to come, but we knew something 
already about the demise of other political 
parties in the Soviet Union, the arbitrary 
arrests and trials and purges, the "voluntary 
confessions" of former comrades, the famine in 
the Ukraine, the devastation of independent 
workers' unions, and so on. And yet it was hard 
to join the political opponents of the Left, who 
very often deserved their reactionary reputation 
and seemed indifferent to removing terrible 
economic deprivations and social inequity with 
adequate speed and urgency.

So the chosen position of many of us was to 
remain broadly in support of the Left, with the 
hope that problems such as inadequate 
appreciation of the value of democracy and 
liberty would get rectified over time. A big 
cluster of people I knew well, including such 
diverse personalities as Sukhamoy Chakravarty, 
Satyajit Ray, P.C. Mahalanobis (to name just a 
few, with very different involvements and of 
varying ages) had somewhat similar attitudes 
about the Left, and over the years, this yielded 
a sizeable Left-oriented civil society in 
Calcutta. The broad support of the Left civil 
society might not have swung any elections, but 
it did make some difference to what was written 
in the newspapers and books, and what came out in 
films and theatres.

Establishment Left politics did, in fact, come to 
terms gradually with democracy and a multi-party 
liberal society. A deep-rooted conservatism might 
have prevented the CPI(M) from "de-Stalinizing" 
formally (I remember telling my 11-year-old 
daughter in answer to her question about who the 
moustached person was in the posters at the 
Howrah station, "Look at him carefully, Indrani, 
since you will not see his picture anywhere else 
in the world any more: his name was Joe Stalin"). 
But the operational beliefs of the party did 
change over time, and the dismissal of "bourgeois 
democracy" gave way to multi-party politics, 
defence of minority rights, championing of habeas 
corpus, celebration of media freedom - indeed 
most of the basic ingredients of democratic 
practice.

However, central to democracy is also the idea of 
"government by discussion" (I think John Stuart 
Mill, a socialist himself, floated the term, but 
it probably pre-dated him substantially). The 
question I am about to ask is whether some of the 
turmoil of the past year relates to a less 
vigorous practice of discussion than should 
ideally go with decisions and their execution. 
This may apply both to governmental policies at 
the top and to the strong-armed behaviour of 
party activists down the line. I do, of course, 
see the difficulty in having "government by 
discussion" when the principal opposition party 
seems much more keen on shutting down the town 
than in chatting about problems and their 
solutions, but the government does have a huge 
responsibility, especially given its large 
majority in the assembly, in initiating and 
trying hard to make a success of the dialogic 
route.

In yesterday's essay, I defended the general 
strategy of industrialization chosen by the West 
Bengal government, including the participation of 
private investment. And yet, even though that 
policy is, I think, right, I would not say that 
there is nothing much to discuss there. A 
discussion allows differentiations and variations 
in a way that the announcement of an already 
cemented policy does not. I think, for example, 
the merits of the economic plans for Singur and 
Nandigram are hugely different. This is not only 
because the Nandigram plan called for ten times 
the amount of land (10,000 acres) than Singur 
needed (1,000 acres). It is also because Singur 
residents are, in general, much less dependent on 
agricultural income than Nandigram residents (the 
percentage of labouring families dependent on 
agriculture is 32 per cent in Singur and 52 per 
cent in Nandigram), and have much less risk of 
minority vulnerability (the Muslim population is 
9 per cent of the total population in Singur, as 
opposed to 32 per cent in Nandigram). No less 
importantly, the Singur project is from an 
industrial group, the Tatas, with the best record 
in India of good relations with workers and 
sensitivity to public concerns, whereas the 
Nandigram proposal came from a group not known 
here in India and very often not thought to be 
terribly admirable by those who know something 
about it abroad.

The Nandigram proposal is now evidently abandoned 
(after abusive exchanges, rowdy demonstrations, 
street fights, violent evictions of residents on 
both sides of the divide in sequence, and most 
alarmingly, police shooting and killing), but the 
abandonment could have emerged on the basis of 
discussions before the parties involved declared 
full-scale war. There are things to discuss about 
the specifics of the Singur project as well, 
including global and local issues about the 
environment. There are also more immediate issues 
of land acquisition and pricing, which take me 
back to the arguments mentioned in the first 
essay on the possible case against transferring 
land from agricultural use to industrial 
utilization.

Is it fair to acquire land at prices which, 
though substantially higher than current market 
values of the land, when confined to agricultural 
use, are undoubtedly quite a bit lower than the 
prices that these bits of land would have 
commanded if they were sold in the market after 
being released from confinement to agriculture? 
Going further, is it really essential for the 
government to acquire the land that is needed, 
rather than allowing the industrial firm involved 
to buy it? Had the land been voluntarily sold to 
the Tatas, there would be no ground for complaint 
about non-consent, and no sense of being hard 
done by through governmental fiat. Such private 
purchase might, of course, be difficult to 
achieve when the plots are divided into quite 
tiny holdings, but the general policy, now in 
widespread use, of thinking of acquisition first, 
rather than of purchase, seems rather breathless.

It is not hard to see that the industrialists 
might favour, for reasons of relative costs and 
the ability to attract good management, locations 
that happen to involve fertile land (Singur's 
proximity to Calcutta clearly moved the Tatas), 
and it is also true that the new industries can 
generate large incomes - much larger than the 
agriculture it replaces, even when based on 
multiple-cropping. But we also have to see where 
the new incomes go. The worry about the 
subsistence and living standard of the owners and 
cultivators of acquired lands is not, thus, 
misplaced, though the problem would be far less 
had the land transfer followed sales rather than 
compulsory acquisition. There is surely much to 
discuss here.

There is also the consideration that a larger 
aggregate income can be a huge source of public 
revenue, which can be used for any public 
purpose. It is often said that the country is not 
getting anything substantial, because of the 
inequality of the generated income, from India's 
high rate of growth of gross domestic product. 
One reason why this critique may be mistaken is 
that public revenue is going up much faster than 
even the GDP growth that is generating this 
revenue expansion. In 2003-4, for India as a 
whole, the economic growth of 6.5 per cent was 
exceeded by the revenue growth of 9.5 per cent, 
and in 2004-5 to 2006-7, the growth rates of 7.5 
per cent, 9.0 per cent, and 9.4 per cent have 
been respectively bettered by the expansion rates 
of government revenue of 12.5 per cent, 9.7 per 
cent, and 11.2 per cent (all figures in "real 
terms", that is corrected for price change). This 
creates a wonderful opportunity to make much 
larger investments in public education, 
healthcare, public transport, environmental 
protection, and other public goods. There is, 
however, a catch here, since the SEZs that are 
being set up across the country do not do this - 
they are exempt from most taxes. Singur is not, 
of course, an SEZ (though it did get some tax 
concessions), but the proper SEZs, which are 
springing up all over the country, are huge 
forgone opportunities for raising public revenue.

There was - and is - strong ground for much more 
discussion on the case for and against SEZs in 
India as a whole, and in West Bengal in 
particular. It seems reasonable enough to propose 
particular tax concessions, as the West Bengal 
government did with the Tatas and may do with 
other industrial groups to break the isolation of 
West Bengal in the world of modern industries and 
enterprises, but the wholesale forgoing of public 
revenue in SEZs as a general policy certainly 
demands much closer examination and more critical 
scrutiny.

I began by talking about the Left civil society 
in Calcutta and West Bengal. As someone who, 
broadly speaking, belongs to that group, I do not 
think I have seen it as sceptical and alienated 
from Left politics ever before. And the shift 
goes, I think, well beyond the intellectuals of 
Left civil society and applies to people who are 
less vocal but whose disquiet about their 
previous favourites is not at all hard to detect. 
There is, I think, quite widespread frustration 
about not having much discussion on what seem 
eminently discussable questions. Joe Stalin, who 
smiled down from the walls of the Howrah station 
20 years ago, would not approve, but the 
establishment Left does have to remember the long 
tradition of fighting for democracy and voice and 
dialogue in Left movements.

My support for the general economic strategy of 
industrialization of the government of West 
Bengal cannot but be combined with questions 
about the importance of democratic values. I 
believe I am right in claiming that more practice 
of "government by discussion" would have not only 
enriched and improved the process of economic 
decision-making, it would have actually led to 
better economic plans and better translation of 
the general strategy of industrializing - or 
re-industrializing - West Bengal. If this applies 
to the past, it is no less relevant for the 
future.


o o o

(v)

PEASANT SUICIDES: WHY KERALA IS DIFFERENT

by Prabhat Patnaik

THE last few years have seen a spate of peasant 
suicides all over the country. The affected 
regions have included even the cradle of the 
Green Revolution, Punjab, where the state 
government has admitted that over 2,000 farmer 
suicides have taken place over a decade, while 
actual numbers are likely to be higher. While 
peasants even in hitherto prosperous mainly 
foodgrains producing areas have not escaped such 
a tragic fate, the brunt of the tragedy has been 
borne by peasant families in southern India, from 
Maharashtra to Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka and 
Kerala, who are exclusively engaged in growing 
cash crops.

NOTORIOUS UNDERESTIMATES
Statistics about the number of peasants in the 
different parts of the country who have taken 
their lives are difficult to come by. The 
official statistics are notorious underestimates. 
Since official recognition of a suicide makes the 
victim's family eligible for compensation, the 
tendency on the part of bourgeois state 
governments is to economise on compensation 
through non-recognition. This is compounded by a 
number of conceptual problems as well: often the 
land happens to be in the name of the old father 
but is cultivated by his able-bodied son; in the 
event of distress it is the son who commits 
suicide but this is not recognised as a peasant 
suicide because the son, not having any explicit 
rights on land, is not even counted as a peasant. 
A second problem arises from the lack of 
appreciation of the fact that the peasant economy 
is a complete and interrelated economy. If a 
peasant's income drops either because of a crop 
failure or because of a drop in the price he 
receives, then this manifests itself in the fact 
that he has to borrow more for his daughter's 
wedding or his elderly parents' medical treatment 
or other such purposes. And if he commits suicide 
because he cannot pay back this loan then this is 
attributed not to any agrarian causes but to his 
"profligacy" in borrowing for such purposes. Such 
suicides therefore are not treated with much 
sympathy and the victim's family in such cases is 
often not recognised as being eligible for state 
government relief.  Non-recognition of cases of 
this sort again keeps down the official number of 
suicides.

STOPPED IN KERALA
Official data on suicides therefore mean little. 
Data provided by kisan organisations are far more 
reliable, but they are not available on a 
continuous basis for all parts of the country. 
But on the basis of such data as we have, a 
remarkable fact emerges, which, surprisingly, has 
escaped attention till now, namely that Kerala is 
the only one among the major affected states 
where peasant suicides have virtually stopped.
Let us take the Wayanad district, which was the 
worst affected district in Kerala. The numbers of 
suicides, according to the figures compiled by 
the Wayanad Karshaka Sangharsh Samiti, were as 
follows:
2001 -	56
2002 -	96
2003 -	117
2004 -	131
2005 -	86
2006 -	48
2007 -	7 (till date)

Of course seven suicides during 2007 is still 
depressing, but these occurred in the earlier 
part of the year. Over the last several months, 
which are normally the months witnessing the 
maximum number of suicides, there have hardly 
been any suicides at all.
By contrast in Vidarbha, which had been one of 
the worst hit regions in the country and which 
had attracted much attention because of prime 
minister Manmohan Singh's visit there and 
unveiling of a relief package that was to get 
generalised later to the country as a whole, 
suicides continue with depressing regularity. 
According to figures compiled by the Vidarbha 
Jana Andolan Samiti, the number of suicides was 
1452 in 2006, and 827 in 2007 (till date). In 
fact the number of suicides after Manmohan 
Singh's relief package was launched is an 
incredible 1695!
Likewise even in Andhra Pradesh which was once 
afflicted by this tragedy and which is now 
thought to be free of it because of the 
non-appearance of any newspaper reports on 
suicides, the tragedy continues. The figures 
compiled by the Andhra Pradesh Rytu Sangham are 
as follows.
2004 -	1709
2005 -	617
2006 -	370
2007 -	522 (till September 23)

What is striking here is that the number which 
had declined till 2006, has started increasing 
once again in the current year. Whatever one may 
say about the accuracy of these figures, they 
clearly show that with the exception of Kerala, 
where they have virtually come to an end, 
suicides continue in every other major affected 
state.

BRINGING HOPE
The question naturally arises: why have suicides 
come to a virtual end in Kerala and not 
elsewhere? There is no doubt that the 
international prices of a number of cash crops 
grown in Kerala have firmed up in the recent 
period, especially after 2004, even though they 
still remain in most cases below their earlier 
peaks. But this is true of other states as well. 
Raw cotton prices have certainly improved even 
though they fall well below what the peasants 
have been asking for; suicides in Vidarbha 
continue nonetheless.
One big difference between Kerala and the other 
states which perhaps explains why suicides have 
stopped in Kerala and not elsewhere, is that 
Kerala has set up a Debt Relief Commission, which 
at this very moment is engaged in a case-by-case 
scrutiny of the magnitude of debt and the 
requisite relief in the Wayanad district. The 
important thing about the Commission is not the 
actual amount of relief it has provided (in any 
case the amount it has at its disposal from the 
current year's budget is Rs 130 crore, which, 
even though large relative to the size of the 
state budget, is paltry relative to the size of 
the debt); the important thing is that it has 
brought a measure of hope to the distressed 
peasantry. And it is this hope, that something at 
last is being done for them, which has prevented 
peasants from taking the ultimate drastic step. 
For this very reason however one cannot be 
complacent about the end of suicides in Kerala. 
Any dashing of peasant hopes and any reversal in 
their fortunes because of a lowering of output 
and prices will once again revive the dismal saga 
of suicides.

REASONS FOR CONCERN
There are at least four reasons for concern here. 
The first arises because of the nature of the 
central government's relief measures. These 
measures, leaving aside the ones relating to 
investment and output-stimulation, focused mainly 
on interest relief. They did not touch the issue 
of providing assured remunerative prices which is 
at the centre of the crisis. But even in the 
matter of interest relief, those who were the 
"beneficiaries" of 2004 relief measures, were 
excluded from its purview. Now, the 2004 relief 
measures were actually no relief measures: all 
they did was to reschedule debt, which means that 
the date on which a debt had to repaid to a bank 
was postponed, but during the period of 
postponement the peasants were required to 
continue paying compound interest which got added 
to the debt that had to be eventually paid. And 
yet this niggardly measure of dubious relief was 
considered sufficient to exempt all its so-called 
"beneficiaries" from the "interest relief" 
announced by Manmohan Singh. As a result, in the 
case of Kerala, against NABARD's own estimate 
that interest relief of around Rs 750 crore had 
to be given, if 2004-"beneficiaries" were not 
exempted from its purview, only around Rs 219 
crore have been given to date. The bulk of the 
remainder cannot be given owing to the central 
government's insistence that any "beneficiary of 
2004-relief" is ineligible for interest relief. 
This fact continues to subject the peasants to a 
massive burden, which the Debt Relief Commission 
can scarcely alleviate. Outstanding debt 
continues therefore to hang like a Damocles sword 
over the peasantry.
The second reason for concern is that NABARD is 
threatening to stop providing refinance to the 
State Co-operative Bank (SCB) because of its high 
ratio of "non-performing assets", reportedly 
around 26 per cent. In such a case, the SCB will 
not be able to provide agricultural loans 
including to small and marginal farmers. The fact 
that the State Cooperative Bank may in the past 
have made loans of dubious quality to political 
favourites of the UDF is no reason for denying 
credit to the poor and marginal farmers. When we 
talk of NPA we are after all not talking about 
the NPA on account of loans to such farmers (for 
to deny them credit on this argument defeats the 
very purpose of relief); we are talking about NPA 
consisting of loans to other segments. To deny 
credit to farmers on account of this, and to 
force them to borrow from moneylenders instead, 
is cruel and absurd. But this is precisely what a 
government-controlled bank is threatening to do 
in the regime of "neo-liberalism". Contrast this 
with the Bank of England's coming to the rescue 
of British commercial banks, caught with high 
NPAs owing to the sub-prime loan crisis of the 
USA. Neo-liberalism dislikes only peasants, not 
finance capital.
The third source of concern arises because of the 
central government's penchant for entering into 
Free Trade Agreements with other Asian economies 
many of which grow the same commercial crops as 
Kerala but at lower costs of production because 
of the relative youth of their plantations. Such 
FTAs may benefit the manufacturing sector, i.e. 
the large Indian industrial capital, but they do 
so at the expense of the peasantry and petty 
producers. Not only is there no system of 
compensation of the losers by the gainers, such 
as even elementary bourgeois economics demands as 
a condition for such a move, but state 
governments are not even consulted when the 
commerce ministry goes on its FTA-signing spree. 
But every such signing brings misery to the 
Kerala peasantry.
The fourth source of concern is the appreciating 
rupee, which depresses the peasants' prices. Now 
that both Kamal Nath and Chidambaram have made it 
clear that the government will do nothing to stem 
the appreciation of the rupee, the only logical 
possibility that remains for an alleviation of 
the distress of the peasantry is if the 
speculators bring the rupee down. But because of 
their "herd instinct", when they do so, the rupee 
will crash, which will bring misery to the 
peasants in another form, through high input 
costs and industrial consumer goods prices, which 
will have escalated owing to the high import 
prices of oil and other essential commodities.
In the epoch of "globalisation" associated with 
the hegemony of international finance capital, 
peasants and petty producers necessarily face a 
crisis. Suicides were caused by this crisis. The 
LDF government's ameliorative measures have 
brought suicides to a halt for the present. But 
the logic of "globalisation" remains. The only 
resistance against that logic is when the 
peasants move away from suicides to struggles.

o o o

(vi)

THE SEZ VERSUS THE 'UNREWARDING' SMALL FARM

by Aseem Shrivastava

Kakinada farmer Narasimha Murthy's 5-acre farm 
supports 50 people, each living on around Rs 800 
a month, more than twice the official rural 
poverty line. Why would farmers like him in 16 
villages in Andhra Pradesh want to give up this 
livelihood for the Kakinada SEZ? What does the 
SEZ offer them anyway?
Read it at
www.infochangeindia.org/features466.jsp

o o o

(vii)

NEW PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS IN INDIA
by Sanjay Sangvai
http://www.epw.org.in/uploads/articles/11333.pdf

______


[3]

Kashmir Times - 29 December 2007
Editorial

MENDHAR LAND-MINE EXPLOSIONS
Incident betrays govt's deceitful claims of mine-free interiors

The report of panic in Mendhar villages located 
near the Line of Control, after at least 
thirty-five mines exploded due to devastating 
fire which spread on both sides of the border in 
Balakot sector due to unknown reasons, was 
certainly appalling. But at the same time, the 
incident has also allowed to slip the facade of 
lies of the administration that there exist no 
landmines in the civilian areas and in the 
interiors of the state. Going by the official 
version, even those areas, where the mines were 
laid after the tension escalated between the two 
traditional foes, have been cleared. After the 
incident came to the fore, the official reports 
maintained that the fire broke out on both sides 
of the LoC between forward post Balakot and 
Satlicheer on Sunday. The fire spread in three to 
four kilometers area inside the Zero Line ahead 
of the fence. The area was heavily mined thus 
triggering series of deafening explosions, 
officially which were numbered just thirty-five. 
The unofficial figures of explosions was, 
however, quite higher. Even few months ago, the 
area had witnessed a similar incident wherein 
several mines were damaged. Only matter of 
consolation was that no loss of life was reported 
in the explosions. Interestingly the fresh 
incident occurred close on the heels of the 
publication of official statement of Indian 
government maintaining that there are no 
minefields or mined area in the interiors of the 
country in a news report based on Annual Landmine 
Monitor Report 2007. Even after the military 
standoff with Pakistan, India had claimed in 
February 2005 that it had recovered almost 99 
percent of the mines laid on and near the 
borders. Contrary to such deceitful claims of the 
government, 1890 square kilometers of J&K is 
heavily mined not just along borders but at some 
places even kilometers inside the LoC. The 
contaminated area with mines in the state has not 
only resulted in the casualties suffered both by 
the civilian population and security personnel 
but also destroyed the agrarian economy of the 
affected border belt. The laying of land mines on 
cultivated land and pastures badly affected the 
agriculture operations besides dispossessing 
thousands of families across the state. In the 
past few decades, these mine explosions have also 
taken a heavy toll of livestock. As a matter of 
fact, the Mendhar tehsil of border district 
Poonch is the worst affected area as far as the 
damage to life and property on account of mines 
is concerned in the past six decades. The reports 
suggest around 2000 landmine casualties have been 
recorded in the villages of Mendhar till date. As 
per the latest figures, this year in the Jammu 
region only, over a dozen people including the 
army personnel lost their lives in mine 
explosions and the maximum number of such tragic 
incidents were reported from Mendhar. However 
what is really appalling is the shocking 
government apathy towards its hapless citizens, 
who are paying the cost of antagonistic ties of 
two hostile neighbours. Since the belt is being 
considered as infiltration-prone area, it has not 
been de-mined at all, contrary to the government 
claims, thus putting the life of inhabitants of 
these areas at stake forever. The most horrible 
aspect of this dangerous situation is that since 
majority of the area is hilly terrain, at many 
places the mines have moved from their place thus 
making it impossible for even the authorities to 
locate and destroy them ever. Thus the danger of 
exploding land mines anywhere with in the radius 
of three to four kilometers inside the LoC is 
always lurking. Even in the event of casualties, 
no efficient mechanism of awarding compensation 
to the victims or their kith and kin is in place. 
There is another agonising factor to the woeful 
tale of those, who have been rendered maimed by 
the landmine explosions. While in other parts of 
the country, there is a legislation to protect 
people with disabilities, it is not applicable in 
Jammu and Kashmir and thus the practical benefits 
of the legislation have been minimum here.

______


[4]  Publication Announcement:

MILITARIZING SRI LANKA:
Popular Culture, Memory and Narrative in the Armed Conflict

by Neloufer de Mel

(Sage, Rs 475)

deals with the "cultural consequences" of the 
violence between ethnic Tamils and the Sinhalese 
that has become a constant in the island 
country's socio-political life now. De Mel 
analyses "checkpoint advertisements" campaigning 
for peace, state-run television's representations 
of the conflict, soldiers' interviews, films, 
children's narratives - in short, almost all 
aspects of a Sri Lankan citizen's life. She uses 
the works and ideas of Western social thinkers, 
literary critics and cultural commentators to 
cull some sense out of a state of being which is 
essentially governed by the turns in the war. 
What emerges is an informed and sensitive study 
of the ethnic conflict as it has shaped the lives 
and minds of the people of Sri Lanka.

Paperback ISBN: 9780761936350
Date: 4 December 2007
Sage
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/booksProdDesc.nav?contribId=633558&prodId=Book232783

______


[5]  ANNOUNCEMENTS:

(i)

SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
Telephone-2 3711276/ 23351424
sahmat at vsnl.com

28.12.2007

PRESS NOTE

Safdar Hashmi, actor, poet, political and street 
theatre activist was fatally attacked on January 
1, 1989 while performing a play 20 kms away from 
Delhi. The spontaneous protest generated by this 
gruesome act led to the formation of the platform 
- Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust, (SAHMAT). Actors, 
academics, writers, painters, poets, 
photographers, architects, theatre, media and 
cinema persons and cultural activists came 
together with the conviction that all creative 
and intellectual endeavour in India upholds the 
values of secularism and pluralism. The 
imperative of defending freedom of expression was 
deeply felt.

SAHMAT commencing 20th year of its activities has 
undertaken performances, exhibition, publication 
of books and posters, campaigns, protests, 
seminars and all manners of creative programmes.

Sufi Bhakti tradition of music and poetry, the 
values that propelled the national movement and 
social reform movements have provided the basic 
resource material for our activities.

April 12, Safdar Hashmi's birthday is observed as 
National Street Theatre Day every year.

Since 1989, artists and cultural activists gather 
at a central place in the capital city on January 
1 to pay homage to Safdar's memory.

This year the memorial will be held at the Vithal 
Bhai Patel House Lawns from 1 p.m. onwards. Apart 
from music, theatre, poetry recitation and modern 
dance this year's memorial is going to foreground 
the moment of the modern in the Indian cultural 
tradition. The theatre, poetry and music of IPTA, 
photography of Sunil Janah and paintings and 
woodcuts of Chittoprasad contribute greatly to 
define that moment. M.F.Husain, one of the most 
eminent painters of independent India, currently 
being hounded by the fundamentalists, has been in 
the forefront of fostering modern iconography. 
This year's memorial will have three 
presentations-Sunil Janah ( by Ram Rahman), 
Chittoprasad ( Sanjay Mullick) and M.F.Husain ( 
K. Bikram Singh). Sumangla Damodaran with Deepak 
Castelino will render some of the famous IPTA 
songs in different languages. Tanveer Ahmad Khan 
and Imran Ahmad Khan of Delhi Gharana will sing 
Amir Khusro's Kalam.

Vidya Shah has composed a number of songs in a 
new cross-cultural idiom. A CD of these songs 
will be released. Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar, the 
Dhrupad maestro will also be performing 
accompanied on pakhawaj by Pt. Mohan Shyam Sharma.

The programme will conclude with traditional Sufi 
compositions by Baba Gulam Mohammad, a direct 
descendent of Bhai Mardana.

This year the programme will commence at 1 p.m. sharp. [January 1, 2008]

Traditional food of Delhi will be available on the venue.

Ram Rahman
Madangopal Singh
M.K.Raina
Sohail Hashmi


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

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.