SACW | May 16- June 3, 2008 / Dhaka's Mass Arrests / Sri Lanka: Violence, Media / Bangladesh -India: Friendship Express? / Pakistan's Bomb / India: State impunity
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at gmail.com
Mon Jun 2 18:29:59 CDT 2008
South Asia Citizens Wire | May 16 - June 3 , 2008
| Dispatch No. 2517 - Year 10 running
[1] Bangladesh: Arbitrary Arrests Can Never
Strengthen Democracy (editorial, New Age)
[2] Sri Lanka:
(i) Is there no end to the violence? (Shanie)
(ii) Contradictory Positions on Media Freedom
Encourage Impunity (National Peace Council)
[3] Bangladesh-India: Trouble on the Friendship Express? (Antara Datta)
[4] Pakistan: Has the bomb helped us? (M B Naqvi)
[5] India: The saga of State impunity (K G Kannabiran)
[6] India: Statement and charter of demands @ the
seminar 'Scapegoats and Holy Cows' - The Indian
State's 'Response' to Terrorism
[7] International: Gender Imbalance of UN Human
Rights Council Panel on Intercultural Dialogue -
NGO Intervention
[8] India: Withdraw FIR against Journalists in Ahmedabad (SAHMAT)
[9] India: The Second Murder (Vir Sanghvi)
[10] Announcements:
- India-Pakistan: Themes Beyond Borders -
Selections from Nikhil Chakravartty's Writings
______
[1]
New Age
June 2, 2008
Editorial
ARBITRARY ARRESTS CAN NEVER STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY
WE ARE alarmed by the initiation of fresh drives
by the military-controlled interim government to
arrest grassroots politicians from around the
country. Although the inspector general of police
has claimed that these are routine drives to
contain crime and have not been triggered by any
political motive, it is evident from the
identities of most of those detained thus far
that the regime has decided once again to tighten
the noose around the Awami League and the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party. It is also probably
not a coincidence that these drives come at a
time when both the BNP and the Awami League have
decided to pull out of planned dialogues with the
government and have hinted at initiating
movements to free their detained leaders and to
bring to an end the ongoing state of emergency.
Leaders of both parties have already condemned
the new arrests and have stated that these are,
in their opinion, nothing more than the latest
attempts by the regime to frighten politicians
into submission.
Our anxiety about these fresh arrests stems
from the fact that the current regime is doing
nothing but making a bad situation worse. Already
the country is reeling under a state of emergency
that has suspended the fundamental rights of
citizens as granted by our constitution, has put
restrictions on the people's right to seek bail
and to move the courts and has attempted to
muzzle the free press and control the flow of
information. The people are not only being
governed by a regime that they did not chose and
have little control over, they are being made to
live as prisoners in their own land, unable to
raise their voice or create a platform to protest
even when the prices of essential commodities
like food have gone nearly out of the reach of
the vast majority.
Under this repressive state of emergency, the
government, during its prolonged tenure, have
arrested some 440,000 people, according to a
recent report of the UK-based Amnesty
International. Besides, the 69 jails of the
country are bursting at the seams as they are
currently home to over 90,000 detainees,
including the high-level politicians and
businessmen who were the early targets of this
regime. A spate of new stories in different
newspapers has reported on the abysmal state
within our prisons at present and a recent story
in this paper reported that there are only 16
doctors for the over 90,000 detainees in our
prisons.
The regime now apparently wants to add to that
figure by arresting more politicians, although
the focus seems to have shifted to grassroots
level politicians who are essential for the
parties to mobilise public support against the
government and who would undoubtedly stand in the
way of any plan by the government to set up a
political platform at the grassroots through the
holding of local government polls. However, the
arbitrary arrest of politicians cannot and will
not strengthen democracy. Hence, we would like to
remind the government that instead of arresting
more people in its endless quest to weaken the
political parties in order to cling to power, it
would do better to lift the suffocating state of
emergency that has made us all prisoners in our
own land and to hold parliamentary elections in
order to allow the people to be governed by their
elected representatives.
_______
[2] Sri Lanka
(i)
The Island
May 31, 2008
IS THERE NO END TO THE VIOLENCE?
by Shanie
The level of violence with its attendant
abductions, targeted killings, disappearances,
etc has once again reached a high after a period
of lull. The bombings targeting civilians using
public transport at Dehiwala, Piliyandala and
Colombo Fort have been blamed on the LTTE. The
LTTE was also undoubtedly responsible for the
killing of a prominent civilian Maheswary
Velayutham. She may have been working for the
EPDP leader but was by no means a militant
herself and was an unarmed civilian; and there is
no evidence to suggest she had any connection
with or even condoned the violence in Jaffna
blamed on EPDP cadres. She was killed because she
was a prominent civilian who dared to defy the
LTTE.
Like the LTTE, the Karuna/Pillayan Group also
continues with its violence against civilians,
targeting anyone who defies them in the East.
Even the resurgence of abductions and
disappearances outside the North and East is
blamed on this Group with or without the
connivance but at least enjoying the protection
of the security forces. Some of the abducted
persons have been released, but some who are
found to have had any connection with those
opposed to the Karuna/Pillayan Group are paying
the price. That is also precisely why the Muslims
in the Eastern province are being targeted by
Pillayan. They dared to vote for the SLMC. The
Government is making a huge mistake by allowing
the security forces to turn a blind eye to the
systematic harassment of civilians who dissent
from the politics of Pillayan. In due time, this
will come to haunt President Mahinda Rajapaksa
and the SLFP. The SLFP has enough senior leaders
with the political sense to realise the dangers
of supporting an outfit like that of Pillayan. If
they want to survive as a significant force in
Sri Lankan politics, then the SLFP must distance
themselves from Pillayan - now, before it is too
late.
The security forces themselves have not been
blameless. The recent claymore mine attacks
within LTTE-held areas in the Vanni, the
intimidation of media personnel and some
abductions and disappearances are directly or
indirectly blamed on the security forces. The
'war on terror' or even the fact that the LTTE is
in gross violation of human rights by killing
dissidents cannot justify the extra-judicial
killing of any civilian. In any case, Governments
must not sink to the level of 'terrorist' groups.
One simply fails to understand the reasoning
behind the direct targeting of civilians. What
did the LTTE hope to achieve by the horrendous
act of killing innocent civilians returning home
from work in a train? What does the Pillayan
Group (or their minders) hope to achieve by
intimidating and alienating the Muslims in the
Batticaloa District? What is hoped to be achieved
by the indiscriminate attacks in the Vanni
allegedly carried out by the Deep Penetration
Unit of the security forces?
Only the Government can find a way out of this
impasse. It must take the civil society into
confidence and invite them to mediate in bringing
these senseless loss of lives - civilian and
military - to an end. That is the first step and
that must lead on to a political settlement that
ensures justice for everyone.
AHRC as defenders of human rights
D. Siriratne from Ambalangoda takes issue with
this columnist for our reference last week to the
Asian Human Rights Commission which has been
taking up violations of human rights throughout
the region, and in particular for the initiative
they took in the case of young Rizana Nafeek in
Saudi Arabia. He refers to five members of our
security forces being held captive by the LTTE
and asks what the AHRC has done in their case.
That is a question which this columnist cannot
answer for the AHRC. But Siriratne must know that
there is a difference between civilians and
combatants in a war. The treatment of prisoners
of war is governed by the Geneva Convention. Even
though the LTTE may not be signatories to the
protocols of the Convention, we would expect them
to honour the Geneva Convention. We would also
expect them to allow, in the absence of the SLMM
now, the ICRC to have access to these young men
in their custody. If, as Siriratne says, they are
being held incommunicado, then that is totally
unacceptable.
I hope Siriratne is also concerned about the
hundreds of non-combatant civilians who are being
held in custody without any charges being brought
against them. They and their families, like the
prisoners of war, also go through trauma. The
same goes for the many who are even today being
abducted and some disappearing without a trace.
Thousands remain in camps for the internally
displaced persons. Siriratne surely also knows
that all parties to this conflict - the security
forces, the LTTE and the other para-military
armed groups - are guilty of all these violations
of human rights. I am sure he will apply the same
standard in judging the violations by all parties.
Organisations like the Asian Human Rights
Commission, the University Teachers for Human
Rights (Jaffna), Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, and various other human rights
organisations have for decades been campaigning
for the observance of human rights and the rule
of law. They have not been selective in their
condemnation of human rights violations, as many
of us with our own prejudices and partisanship
are. Terrorism and deliberate violations of human
rights cannot be justified under any
circumstances and it will do our country good if
we have a strong citizens' movement that will
lobby all parties to the conflict to respect
human rights.
SCOPP and civilian deaths
Rajiva Wijesinhe, Secretary General of the
Secretariat for the Co-ordination of the Peace
Process, also takes issue with this column for
stating that the Peace Secretariat was in a state
of denial as regards civilian deaths. He states
that the Peace Secretariat has not denied that
there have been civilian killings, nor indeed
that there have been civilian deaths in the
course of military operations. He adds that at
the Peace Secretariat, they monitor all reports
of civilian deaths to the extent of seeking
clarification if explanations seem insufficient.
We are certainly glad to hear this because this
is the job which a Peace Secretariat is expected
to do. Unfortunately, none of it has come out in
the many Press statements that Wijesinhe has been
issuing in the name of the Press Secretariat.
In one of the recent Press Statements dated 22nd
May 2008, Wijesinhe was critical of former
President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu
for the statements they issued and titled his
piece invoking Coleridge's poem on the ancient
mariner shooting the albatross. Referring to
criticisms of indiscriminate attacks on
civilians, Wijesinhe states that 'their on
reports could only cite one civilian deaths in
the course of operations - and in that instance,
the deaths were caused by mortar locating radars
with the HRW report itself testifying to the
presence of armed LTTE cadres and the existence
of bunkers in the refugee camp that was fired
upon.' Now could Wijesinhe, who is familiar with
the nuances of the English language, explain if
that statement accepts or denies civilian
killings. Is he not saying that only one instance
of civilian deaths has been cited and in that
particular case there was justification for the
killing? Could he cite any statement that he has
issued, where he accepts that there have been
unacceptable civilian deaths. If not, is that not
being in a state of denial?
During the course of the last couple of weeks,
Wijesinhe has issued a statement correctly
condemning the killing of Maheswary Velautham, a
civilian, almost certainly by the LTTE. He has
also issued a statement correctly condemning the
use of child soldiers by the LTTE. But why has he
not issued a statement on the use of child
soldiers by the Karuna/Pillayan Group? (He must
know that the recent token release of a few child
soldiers is as hollow as the earlier token
release of a few child soldiers by the LTTE.) And
why was no statement issued by the Peace
Secretariat on the
deaths/disappearances/abductions of other
civilians blamed on the security forces and/or
paramilitary groups?
Why was no statement issued on the discovery of
mass graves at Kebbitigollawa? I trust he does
not see his role in the Peace Secretariat as that
of only being a propagandist for the government.
If, as he suggests in his response, he is engaged
in silent diplomacy with the Government, then
that diplomacy will be better served if his
public statements refrain from selectively
justifying violations of human rights.
(ii)
National Peace Council of Sri Lanka
12/14 Purana Vihara Road
Colombo 6
Tel: 2818344, 2854127, 2819064
Tel/Fax:2819064
30.05.08
Media Release
CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS ON MEDIA FREEDOM ENCOURAGE IMPUNITY
The silencing of journalists by killing and
intimidating them has become a major problem in
Sri Lanka. The National Peace Council condemns
the killing of Paranirupasingam Devakumar who is
the ninth journalist to be killed in the past two
years. We are appalled at the brutal manner of
his death by waylaying him as he was traveling
and hacking him to death. This killing comes soon
after the brutal assault and torture of senior
journalist Keith Noyahr in Colombo.
International experience has shown that a key
component of any political solution is its
acceptance by the people of the country. It
through public awareness creation, in which the
media plays a central role, that the people's
mandate for a sustainable political solution can
be found. The National Peace Council notes that
the government continues to stand by the position
that it is for a political solution to the ethnic
conflict and the ongoing military operations are
meant to facilitate that political solution.
In this context, the killing of Paranirupasingam
Devakumar, who worked for a national television
network in Jaffna will be a further constraint on
the free flow of information from the war zones
of the north. We reiterate our concern about the
continued incarceration of senior journalist J S
Tissaianayagam, whose arrest and detention now
continues into its third month without charges
being made against him in a court of law.
We are perturbed by statements made by senior
Defence Ministry officials that the military and
its leadership should not be criticized by the
media and that journalists working for the state
controlled media had no right to criticize the
government. While welcoming the Media Minister's
statement that this is not government policy, we
ask the government to ensure a unified media
policy as contradictory statements may be taken
by various groups as a further license to behave
with impunity towards the media.
The National Peace Council expresses solidarity
with those journalists who are courageously
committed to revealing realities from the ground
and to risking their lives in the service of
truth. We express our admiration of the
willingness of media personnel to continue their
work in the face of such fatal risks. We call on
the government to put in place protection
mechanisms that would ensure the safety of
journalists in Sri Lanka and the right of
citizens to access a diverse media that provides
free and accurate reporting on national affairs.
Media Director
On behalf of the Governing Council
_______
[3]
Economic and Political Weekly
May 24, 2008
TROUBLE ON THE FRIENDSHIP EXPRESS?
by Antara Datta
The Maitreyi (Friendship) Express, the rail
service between India and Bangladesh that was
restarted recently evoked nostalgia and hopes for
stronger ties between the two nations. However,
it will take more than a rail link to deal with
fears of infiltration by Bangladeshi Muslims that
is being used in aggressive political rhetoric.
On April 14, this year the Bengali new year was
ushered in with the reopening of a train link
between India and Bangladesh after a gap of
nearly four decades. As the Maitreyi (Friendship)
Express chugged out of the Kolkata railway
station in Chitpur bound for the Dhaka
Cantonment, there were those who argued that it
would strengthen bilateral relations between the
two neighbours. The biweekly train that has the
capacity to carry over 350 passengers and takes
about 12 hours (including the time taken at the
border), parallels the Samjhauta Express that
runs between Lahore and Delhi.1 The train link
between Dhaka and Kolkata is not the first train
between the two regions. Prior to 1965 there were
three trains - the East Bengal Mail, East Bengal
Express, and the Barishal Express that serviced
the two halves of the region. These were stopped
following the 1965 war. Freight services were
resumed in 1972 but were later discontinued. A
bus service between Kolkata and Dhaka began in
1999 and there are daily flights between New
Delhi and Kolkata and Dhaka and Chittagong. But
it was the opening of this train link that had
many waxing nostalgic about a time when the two
Bengals were not separated by manmade borders2. A
refugee from East Pakistan, Janatosh Pal spoke of
how he was six when he left for India but that
Kalindi, the village he was born in Bangladesh,
"remained my motherland".3 Such sentiment though
was not echoed by all. A group calling itself the
Nikhil Banga Nagarik Sangha (All Bengal Citizens'
Committee) opposed the opening up of a train link
with a country they accuse of persecuting Hindus.
Deep Insecurities
What then does this new train symbolise? Does it
mark a metaphorical coming together of people
separated by borders they did not create, or is
the reality far more complicated? A closer look
at the negotiations and controversies
demonstrates that bilateral relations between
Bangladesh and India will take more than just a
train link to heal. Given the sensitive nature of
discourse regarding any movement of human beings
across this fractured border, it is unlikely that
the train will heal deeper prejudices and
insecurities.
When negotiations about the train first opened
there was friction between the two countries when
Bangladesh refused to accept India's proposal for
a 800-metre fence from the border on either side.
India wanted a box like fence from the border
crossing point to Gede in the Nadia district.
Bangladesh objected to both the construction of
the fence as well as the terming of any such
"fortification" as a "fence".4 India's demand for
a fence was a reflection of the fear that the
train could be used by illegal infiltrators
including terrorists.5 The entire discourse about
illegal infiltration from Bangladesh has several
con- notations. On the one hand, the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) has protested in the past that
vast numbers of Bangladeshis are "flooding" the
Indian mainland particularly along the eastern
border and changing India's demographic structure.
In April 1992 the BJP national executive passed a
resolution blaming the Congress
Party for not taking action against illegal
infiltration. There was a call for a rally in
Calcutta in April 1993 and the BJP issued a
direct threat that they were willing to target
and expel Bangladeshi workers. This rhetoric
became particularly strident and violent in
Mumbai with the Shiv Sena picking on a
non-Marathi, non-Hindu "other", in this case
Muslim Bengalis whom they accused of being
"infiltrators" from Bangladesh. In April 1995
they threatened a large-scale deportation of such
illegals and carried out another attempt to do so
in April 1998 which provoked international
tension between Bangladesh and India.6
'Infiltrators' and 'Refugees'
This is not to say that there has not been
illegal migration from across the border,
particularly of a labour force that does not
accept the sanctity of the international
boundary. India has in the past repeatedly
expressed concern about the presence of illegal
immigrants and the porous border between the two
countries. However what is striking about this
political discourse is that only Muslims who
cross the border illegally are "infiltrators" and
deserve to be sent back, whereas Hindus, who
cross the border, more often than not, illegally,
are "refugees" who deserve the sympathy and
protection of the Indian nation. Such a belief
mirrors the two- nation theory that saw east and
west Pakistan as a homeland for the Muslims, and
assumes that India then would be a similar
homeland for Hindus.
Indian law does not recognise "refugees" as a
distinct legal category. All who cross a border
into India are either citizens and thereby have a
valid right to do so, or "aliens" who fall under
the 1946 Foreigner's Act. Any non-citizen who
enters the country without a visa is technically
an "illegal infiltrator".8 But in both popular
and political discourse the term "infiltrator"
has come to signify Muslims from Bangladesh who
cross the border into Bengal and Assam, usually
in search of employment. This then has two
implications. First, it assumes, that all Hindus
across the world (and particularly those from
Bangladesh) deserve refuge in India as legal
residents whether or not they cross the border
legally. Second, it marks out the Muslim who
crosses illegally both as an illegal migrant and
as a Muslim infiltrator - he is marked both by
his legal and communal status. It implies that
the influx of Muslims infiltrates and infects the
body politic that would otherwise be "pure" and
free of such contamination.
The fear that the Maitreyi Express would become a
conduit for terror and illegal workers meant that
there had to be extensive checks at the border
areas leading to significant delays. Almost five
of the 12 hours of the journey is spent by
passengers at the border waiting for immigration
checks to be completed.
These delays are perhaps a result of bureaucratic
incompetence but they also reflect a certain
official and popular unease about a border that
can be seen as a "central space where the
relationships between state and citizenship,
between nation and territory, were and are being
constantly tested and negotiated".9
Post-Partition the eastern frontier was not a
closed defined space.
The government of India in 1947, as in 2008,
remained uneasy about the people who were
crossing this frontier. Jawaharlal Nehru and the
Congress high command did not think that
conditions in east Bengal were particularly grave
and that the flight of the Hindu refugees was a
product of baseless and imaginary fears, which
meant that the human flow could be halted,
perhaps even reversed.10 The Nehru-Liaqat Pact
of April 8, 1950 provided for the return of
migrants on both sides to their original
homelands.11
The first part of the pact was concerned with
ensuring equal citizenship rights for minorities
in both countries while the second part attempted
to ensure that such migrants had freedom of
movement along with protection in transit and if
they decided to return to their homes by December
31, 1950, they would be entitled to the
restoration of their immovable property, house or
land.12 Those refugees who came from East
Pakistan/Bengal between October 1946 and March
1958 were termed "old migrants" (a total of 41.17
lakhs) and were eligible for aid but those
crossing the border between April 1958 and
December 1963 were not eligible for assistance.
In 1952 a passport system was introduced and the
fear that the border would be permanently closed
pushed up migration. In 1956 the Indian
authorities tried to install a barrier of permits
and migration certificates and finally they tried
to deter people by not recognising them as
refugees and refusing them rehabilitation.13
Following riots in 1964, refugees who crossed the
border between January 1964 and March 1971 were
termed "new migrants" (a total of 11.14 lakhs)
and relief was to be given only to those who
agreed to settle outside West Bengal. The 6.1
lakhs in West Bengal were not eligible for relief
and rehabilitation benefits.14 The
bureaucratisation of the border area and the
classification of refugees however masked the
reality that the border was an interstitial space
that many navigated by evading officialdom
without needing passports and visas.
Much has been written about how the treatment of
refugees on the eastern frontier was markedly
different from those in the east - how refugees
in the east were not seen as "true refugees", as
opposed to the "deserving poor", the hardworking
Punjabis, and how the state functioned as a
benevolent despot deciding what was best for the
refugee.15 Haimanti Roy has argued that these
refugees were forced to claim and proclaim their
victimhood before they could claim their
nationality.16 What this particular line of
argument demonstrates is that in the
post-Partition period, the concern about the
movement of people was not a communal question
since the bulk of the refugees were Hindu. By
the time of the refugee crisis of 1971 though,
the public and official tone had changed
somewhat. The government of India keen to
emphasise that those who crossed in 1971 were not
going to be considered for rehabilitation, that
they were "foreigners" and would be treated as
such.17 A series of semantic strategies in naming
and labelling the refugees ensured that this was
emphasised. However, in popular discourse as the
number of refugees multiplied, there were
increasing concerns about the communal nature of
the problem. The concern was no longer about the
relief and rehabilitation that had not been
provided for East Bengali refugees but about the
changing communal configurations.
Letters to the Amrita Bazar Patrika in late April
and early May 1971, less than a month after
refugee crisis had assumed serious proportions,
reflected this concern. S A Basu from Nagpur
wrote to express his displeasure at the growing
numbers of Muslim refugees predicting that, "The
hope that these refugees will return to their own
homes as soon as normalcy is restored to East
Bengal is rather a faint hope".18 A month later
an anonymous letter to the editor pointed out
that Hindus in East Bengal had been attacked by
those Muslims who had subsequently become
refugees. "India is now thoughtlessly allowing
those very people to come to West Bengal in their
millions...Surely India is overdoing charity and
imperilling (sic) the interests of her own
people." Suggesting that there was an insidious
plan to plant Muslim teachers in West Bengal
schools in order to subvert and Islamicise the
education system, the anonymous reader predicted
that the "Muslim escapees" would soon turn West
Bengal into a Muslim majority area.19
In official discourse while the communal
composition of the refugees was never publicised,
it is believed that Hindus made up a bulk of the
refugees.20 The government was sensitive to any
attempts to publicise and potentially exploit the
communal composition of the refugees. The journal
Mother India was prevented from publishing an
editorial on the subject of Muslim refugees
titled 'Refugees or Trojan Horses' that would
have suggested that Muslim refugees had been sent
to deliberately destabilise the country. The
government of India declared that this would be
"prejudicial to the maintenance of communal
harmony and were likely to affect public order"
and prohibited the publication of the editorial
under Section 6 of the Criminal and Election Laws
(Amendment) Act of 1969.21
Communalisation of the Border
As a result of this fluid border the fear of the
"infiltrator" has now become an almost accepted
part of the political discourse about relations
between India and Bangladesh. This unease is a
product of actual illegal infiltration,
aggressive political rhetoric and what can be
described as the "communalisation" of the border.
On the day the train set off, a group of
protestors representing the Nikhil Banga Nagarik
Sangha disrupted its passage at Aranghata in the
Nadia district. The police blamed the group for
planting seven crude bombs on the tracks that
were defused a day before the inauguration of the
train. The bombs were found at Bikramtola near
Dhantola by local residents who then informed the
police. The bombs were not powerful enough to
cause any significant damage and were seen as a
political statement by the group (which denied
any association with the bombs).22 The leader of
the group, Subhas Chakrabarti, described the
train as a "cruel joke" and asked "Why should
democratic and secular India seek to develop such
intimate links with Islamic Bangladesh, where
Hindus continue to suffer huge torture,
intimidation and dishonour".23 The group then has
two distinct demands - first that Bangladeshi
Hindus who have been tortured be rehabilitated
properly in India. Next, that India take
responsibility for the plight of Hindus in
Bangladesh and ensure that it forms a key part of
bilateral relations. Such demands demonstrate how
the refugee/infiltration/ migrant issue remains a
thorn in the side of both countries. On the one
hand, groups such as the Sangha locate them-
selves specifically within the Indian nation
state and demand rehabilitation from it, and yet,
they claim rehabilitation and assistance for
those, who in the eyes of the state ought to be
seen as "foreigners". Just as the discourse about
the Muslim migrant becoming a terrorist
infiltrator while taking away scarce jobs from
Indians was a concern voiced by the Sangha,
similarly the Hindu migrant was seen as a
legitimate refugee worthy of the protection of
the Indian state. Thus, in such a discourse, the
Hindu is twice disadvantaged - first, he is being
"swamped" by illegal Muslims from across the
border, and second, he is denied the rights that
he deserves both as a refugee, and as a victim of
oppression by the Indian state.
It is patently illogical to suggest that illegal
migrants attempting to sneak across a national
boundary would use a train that stops for nearly
four hours to check for visas. The less than
stellar record of the train since its inception
however suggests that this fear, however un
founded, will not come to fruition. There have
been very few takers for the Friendship Express
and passengers have cited the difficulty in
booking tickets, the long wait at the border and
lack of publicity about the train as contributing
factors. Despite the yearning for the past of
those like Janatosh Pal who would like to return
to a homeland they left behind nearly six decades
ago, such nostalgia about the movement of people
across the two halves of Bengal is only one part
of the story about the Maitreyi Express. In fact,
the rumblings about the ill-treatment of refugees
and fears about infiltration indicate that it
will take more than a train to mollify the unease
about the flow of humanity that has and continues
to cross the Bengal border. As long as there
remain disgruntled Hindu refugees in West Bengal
and masses in the east seeking a better life
across the border there will be more than a few
hiccups along the way for the train of friendship.
Notes
1 'Kolkata-Dhaka Moitree Express Flagged
Off', The Times of India, April 14, 2008.
2 'The Train Next Door', The Telegraph, April 17, 2008.
3 Subir Bhaumik, 'Dhaka-Calcutta Train Link
Resumes', BBC News, April 14, 2008.
4 Nishit Dholabhai, 'Friendship Express
Runs into a Fence', The Telegraph, November 2,
2007.
5 'Train to Bangladesh Caught in Row over
Wire- Mesh', The Deccan Herald, October 3, 2007.
6 Michael Gillan, 'Refugees or Infiltrators? The
Bharatiya Janata Party and 'Illegal' Migration
from Bangladesh', Asian Studies Review, 26/1
(March 2002).
7 Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs, 'India Bangladesh Political and Economic
Relations' (April 2008).
8 B S Chimni, 'Status of Refugees in India:
Strategic Ambiguity', in Ranabir Sammadar (ed),
Refugees and the State: Practices of Asylum and
Care in India - 1947-2000, Sage, New Delhi, 2003.
9 Haimanti Roy, 'Citizenship and National
Identity in Post-Partition Bengal, 1947-65',
University
of Cincinnati, Ohio, 2006, unpublished PhD
dissertation, 17.
10 Joya Chatterji, 'Rights or Charity?
Government and Refugees: The Debate over Relief
and Reha- bilitation in West Bengal, 1947-1950'
in Suvir Kaul
(ed), Partition of Memory, Permanent Black,
New Delhi, 2001, pp 74-110.
11 Committee of Review of Rehabilitation
Work in West Bengal, Ministry of Labour and
Rehabilitation, Department of Rehabilitation,
'Report on Conferment of Right and Title to Land
on Dis- placed Persons from Erstwhile East
Pakistan in West Bengal and Remission of Type
Loans, 12th Report', 1973.
12 Jhuma Sanyal, Making of a New Space, Ratna Prakashan, Kolkata, 2003.
13 Nilanjana Chatterjee, 'Midnight's
Unwanted Children: East Bengali Refugees and the
Politics
of Rehabilitation', Brown University, 1992,
un published PhD dissertation, p 35.
14 Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation,
Govern- ment of India, 'Report of the Working
Group on the Residual Problem of Rehabilitation
in West Bengal' (March 1976).
15 Joya Chatterji, op cit.
16 Haimanti Roy, op cit
17 The exact instructions for the
registration of refu- gees read like this:
"Refugees from East Bengal should be got
registered under the Foreinger's Act, 1946
according to the instructions of the Ministry of
Home Affairs to all State Governments and they
are required to obtain residence permit for stay
at the place where registered for a period of
three months. After registration if any refugee
desires to leave the present place of residence
unauthorisedly he should be handed over to the
police for violation of the provision of the
Foreigner's Act". Government of India, Minsitry
of Labour and Rehabilitation, Branch Secretariat,
'Administrative Instructions for Transit Releif
Camps for Refugees from East Bengal' (1971) 12.
18 The Amrita Bazar Patrika, April 29, 1971.
19 The Amrita Bazar Patrika, May 21, 1971.
20 United Nations High Commision for Refugees,
The State of the World's Refugees, UNHCR, 2000,
66.
21 Rajya Sabha Debates, Vol LXXVIII, No 4, July 22, 1971, 93.
22 'Bag of Bombs near Maitreyee Tracks', The Telegraph, April 14, 2008.
23 Subir Bhaumik, 'Excitement Mounts over
Train Link', BBC News, April 9, 2008.
_______
[4]
The News International
May 28, 2008
HAS THE BOMB HELPED US?
by M B Naqvi
Today is the tenth anniversary of Pakistan's test
explosion of nuclear weapons in Chagai ordered by
then prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. The tests
were in response to India's actions of May 11
when it tested five nuclear devices.
Let's get one thing clear. All test explosions
are basically military threats to the enemy: On
May 11 and 13, 1998, India was threatening to
nuke Pakistan if it did not stop its proxy war in
Indian-held Kashmir. Pakistan's reply was, We too
will nuke you; come on. Both India and Pakistan
paid a price in sanctions that in fact hurt
Pakistan more than they did India.
A second truth about the Bomb is that it
unavoidably causes its intended enemy to reply in
kind and a competitive build up of atomic
weaponry ensues. Western bomb-making was aimed at
communist powers. Nobody could mistake that
communists' nukes were aimed at Western targets.
Israeli nukes are meant to annihilate Arab states
or Iran. India's enemy remains ambiguous: it
could be China or Pakistan. This mystery is
intended. But irrespective of what L K Advani,
the BJP's prime minister-in-waiting, may say,
circumstantial evidence suggested that the BJP
decision in 1998 was Pakistan-centred.
Anyhow, Pakistanis should make honest
cost-benefit analysis of the Bomb. Why Pakistan
decided to have atomic weapons should not be
difficult to understand. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
meant what he said when he said that "we will eat
grass" but have the Bomb. What he said has
happened because the people of this country are
close to doing just that. It is time to ascertain
the costs and benefits that it has given to
Pakistan's security. Pakistan achieved the
ability to enrich uranium in 1984. By 1986 it was
able to threaten India with a possible nuclear
response if Operation Brass Tacks grew into an
invasion. Next came the Kargil adventure in
which, the Americans inform us, Pakistan readied
its missiles with nuclear warheads and asked
India not to go too far. However, Nawaz Sharif
managed to extricate Pakistani troops from those
heights with American help. Far from being an
achievement, it was a political and military
defeat despite Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
The Agra talks are irrelevant here, but 2002 is
not. That year the Vajpayee government threatened
an all-out invasion and sent the Indian army on
the borders in ready-to-attack mode. Again
Pakistan threatened some 13 times in the first
few months that it would launch nuclear weapons
if India's troops crossed the international
border - and India refrained from doing that. But
overall judgement on the matter should be based
on several factors: effective American mediation
and that Delhi's purpose was to coerce Pakistan
into giving up its proxy war in Kashmir. Finally,
the Indians got what they wanted: a firm promise
from Pakistan that the mujahideen would not be
allowed to cross over into Indian-controlled
Kashmir, with probable American guarantees.
This is not a glorious record in terms of
national security; Pakistan has been
unsuccessfully seeking concessions out of India
since 2004 in negotiations. The fact of the
matter is that the Bomb has helped neither in war
nor in peace time.
In all the above cases the Indians knew that
Pakistan had the Bomb. Also, India's generals
must have known that there is no defence against
nuclear weapons and if Pakistan had launched its
arsenal the losses would have been unacceptable.
How could they then dare to blatantly threaten
Pakistan in 2002? And the answer to that is that
they were obviously not overly afraid of the
Pakistani Bomb. Perhaps, by 2002, if not 1999,
the Indians reasoned that the maximum Pakistan
can do is to take out a few Indian cities? Let
it. But India, with a second-strike capability,
could retaliate decisively. Pakistan comprises
seven or eight urban-industrial centres and India
must have felt that it could wipe out all of
them. Hence, can any Pakistani government or
general really take the risk of launching nuclear
weapons against India, knowing that in
consequence most of Pakistan could be destroyed?
Thus, Pakistan's Bomb has amounted to what one
could call a bluff.
And with this the much-hyped deterrent value of
nuclear weapons has been dealt a mortal blow. The
only plus point was in 1986 when Pakistan
threatened India with a nuclear strike and the
Indians retreated. But that has not prevented
India from credibly threatening Pakistan with a
conventional invasion, in full confidence of
gaining a victory and knowing that Pakistan, when
the chips are down, would not nuke India. Thus,
India's conventional superiority again becomes
relevant. In that sense, our costly nuclear
arsenal is more or less irrelevant for our
national security, if not completely a minus
point.
Politically, Pakistan has paid a huge price. Far
from being an important or respected country, it
is now seen as an American satellite. The kind of
micro-managing that the Americans are doing in
Pakistan politics is an abject lesson. Besides,
minor EU countries continue advising it what to
do and what to avoid in forming a government
after an election. How much lower can it sink? As
for economics, look at the state of our economy
today. How does having nuclear weapons help us in
any way - with a massive current account deficit
and rampant inflation? Those who think that the
cost of the arms race with India does not play a
key role in all of this are sadly mistaken. Since
resources are limited, those that are diverted to
the upkeep of the nuclear arsenal and the defence
budget means that less are available for
socio-economic development.
It is time that Islamabad rids itself of its
nuclear arsenal - in the responsible that for
instance South Africa has done. Even the size of
the conventional army is too big for a country
like Pakistan. Leveraged by help from the US
(which allows the latter to achieve its own
geo-political aims), the army continues to
threaten democracy because of its repeated
interventions.
The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance columnist.
______
[5]
rediff.com
THE SAGA OF STATE IMPUNITY
by K G Kannabiran
May 28, 2008
Less than a year after the Chhattisgarh
government arrested Binayak Sen, the general
secretary of the People's Union for Civil
Liberties, PUCL, another PUCL member, Ajay T G,
has been arrested on charges of being a Maoist
sympathiser.
The real question underlying these arrests is not
of guilt or innocence, but rather, how far can
the State go in harassing human rights activists
who challenge it. So many civil liberties
activists, colleagues of mine, have been killed
by the state and their deaths left unaccounted
for that I am beginning to despair.
Binayak Sen: A people's doctor
Dr Binayak Sen is a doctor focused on providing
medical and health access to the poor. He
graduated first in his class from CMC, Vellore,
and has been practicing in Chhattisgarh for
around 25 years.
Binayak, along with other activists of that area,
established a workers hospital at Dalli-Rajhara.
He did not know that as a people's doctor, his
work could be sedition, could be conspiracy to
wage war against a lawfully established
government.
He extended medical health facilities to the
impoverished men, women and children living in
Chhattisgarh, which the government of
Chattisgarh, despite its Constitutional mandate,
was unable or unwilling to do. If Binayak Sen's
attempt to fulfill the demands of the
Constitution of India is an offence under the
law, then, of course, he does not have any
defence!
One of the 'crimes' charged against Binayak is
that he visited Narayan Sanyal, a 70-year-old
undertrial prisoner and an alleged Maoist in
Raipur Central Jail a number of times and acted
as his courier. The truth is that Binayak met him
to assess his health condition and his desire to
get legal aid, as is Sanyal's right under law.
Binayak applied for permission every time he
visited Sanyal and there was never any demur by
either the authorities or the intelligence
service at any point of time. Now Binayak's
efforts to try and provide an undertrial with
medical and legal aid, efforts made in full
compliance with the demands of the authorities,
are a crime!
It seems that the law in this country is now
employed more as a trap, than as an instrument of
discipline; as a method of inculcating the habit
of unquestioning obedience to those in power.
Ajay T G: The incarceration of another PUCL activist
On May 4, 2008, the Chhattisgarh government
arrested another PUCL activist, Ajay T G, on
similarly spurious charges. Ajay has worked with
Professor Jonathan Parry, a world renowned social
anthropologist at the London [Images] School of
Economics, and also with Professor Murli
Natarajan, who teaches anthropology at William
Paterson University in New Jersey.
In September 2005, Ajay started an organisation,
Drksakshi, aiming to provide a dignified
educational environment for young girls from
extremely impoverished families who live in an
urban slum in Bhilai. By providing the nutritious
meals and regular health check-ups, Ajay and his
small team at Drksakshi have given some dignity
and positive vision to all the children.
For this work, Ajay now stands accused by the
state of being a Maoist sympathiser!
The Maoist movement: A political solution or a law and order issue?
In the absence of Constitutional governance, the
formal structures listed in the Constitution of
India have no impact on the struggle for
equality, or on the quest for justice in all its
facets, and do not provide any possibility of
social transformation leading to the improvement
of the living conditions of 80 per cent of the
population.
Under these conditions, movements of varied sorts
arise. The Maoist movement in Chhattisgarh aiming
to overthrow the exploitative order is one of
them. The state treats this as a law and order
problem, and entrusts it to the police and its
intelligence wing, granting them enormous
impunity, and total immunity for all violent
deeds.
If political movements are dealt with as criminal
acts, without reference to law and legality, what
meaning does our democracy have?
As a general secretary of PUCL, Binayak Sen
opposed the destruction of households and
displacement of tribal habitats in the name of
Salwa Judum or police combing operations in the
guise of searching for Maoists. Defenders of
human rights do not have to support the politics
of the targeted, and such defenders often do not,
but they certainly must oppose the use of violent
methods and of the kind of impunity that has been
sanctioned to the state law enforcement agencies.
No honest person can doubt that Binayak Sen has
been accused of terrorist activity precisely
because the state did not like his condemnations
of the human rights violations by the state.
State impunity: When the State turns lawless
As the last 40 years have shown, radical
movements cannot be treated exclusively as a 'law
and order' problem by the government. Political
solutions must be found. When the government
resorts to violence, it results in a variety of
human rights violations, forcing human rights
organisations to step in.
It was during such a process of contending with
human rights violations by the state machinery
that Dr Binayak Sen, like many other human rights
activists who preceded him, risked his life and
liberty -- not for any personal gain but to
preserve the constitutional value system of
India's democracy.
The question is if the State identifies civil
liberties activities as extremist activity, how
would one enforce human rights? India has signed
the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the 1998 Declaration of the Rights of
Human Rights Defenders, but how is one to enforce
them? Human rights and criminal justice are
intertwined -- how does one effectively bring
about integration between the two?
It is in the process of crime detection and
intelligence gathering, investigation and
apprehension of the accused that human rights
violations takes place. The accused may be held
in illegal custody for long periods, subjected to
torture, coerced to confess to planted recoveries
-- none of which is permitted by the Constitution.
These are the areas in which the human rights
activists operate, but the law enforcement
agencies see them as impediments to be put out of
the way. With a view to silence criticism and
produce results (it is the 'productivity ethic'
that governs) the police very often end up
framing persons on suspicion.
When the government employs the police to control
political dissent, it trains the police force
into a political force. When Hindu communalism
came to the fore in Delhi, Mumbai and Gujarat,
the ideologically trained police force bared its
anti-minority claws and fangs.
In Chhattisgarh, we are witnessing its
vindictiveness against left extremist politics as
well.
The methods used by the government are in fact
enlarging the constituency of the sympathisers of
the Maoist movements. If the government wants to
contain this movement, it will have to retrace
its steps to sanity and make human rights a
non-negotiable component of governance.
According to the Constitution, the government is
obligated to ensure that justice -- social,
economic, and political -- shall inform all
institutions of governance, political justice
being most important. That is what has been
absent in Chhattisgarh throughout, as evident in
the needless arrests and detentions of T G Ajay
and Binayak Sen. The law enforcement agencies of
India need to learn to distinguish between human
rights activity and extremist activity.
K G Kannabiran is an eminent human rights lawyer
and the National President of People's Union for
Civil Liberties, an organisation founded by
Jayaprakash Narayan.
______
[6]
Statement and Charter of demands adopted at the
seminar 'Scapegoats and Holy Cows' - The Indian
State's 'Response' to Terrorism, at IIC new
Delhi, May 29, 2008
organised by PEACE, HRLN and ANHAD
Each time there is a bomb blast like the recent
one in Jaipur, the Indian State reaches out its
'long arms of injustice' to pick a scapegoat from
amidst the Indian population to cover up its own
incompetence in providing security to its
citizens.
The hapless creature, decorated and demonized by
the 'fashion designers' of Indian officialdom, is
then paraded before the entire nation to create a
public spectacle prior to its ritual sacrifice.
The armchair warriors then call for 'tougher
laws' to deal with terrorism while the scapegoat
disappears forever into the black hole of the
Indian prison system.
That the 'prime suspects' in such cases always
happen to be bearded young Muslim men and Islamic
theologists to boot is not a surprise at all. In
the racist imagination of theadministration,
police , intelligence agencies , security
forces, sections of the media and politicians all
the criminals in this country wear their
'criminality' on their faces- the suspects are
always MAD- Muslim, Adivasi, Dalit.
The latest example of such scapegoating comes
from Jaipur where within hours of the heinous
bomb blasts that killed innocent people the state
police has started harassing, arresting and
deporting Bangladeshi and Bengali speaking
Muslims in the city.
What we have witnessed in the last decade is that
after each blast or surprise violent act, arrests
are made, organisations named but the police and
investigative agencies have not been able to
prove their claims in any of the cases. But the
people arrested continue to languish in jails or
suffer other kinds of victimisation. It is very
disturbing as it shows that the agencies
responsible for the security of the people are
incapable and to cover their inefficiency, they
keep abducting people from the minority community
which are produced at their chosen time. The real
culprits remain at bay and the threat remains
undiminished.
However, The Indian state's treatment of
scapegoats is in stark contrast to the 'holy
cows' it protects, irrespective of their
trespasses or crimes against the people of the
country.
Whether it be the Hashimpura massacre of 1987,
the Babri Masjid demolition and the Mumbai
massacre of 1992, the Gujarat genocide of 2002 or
the Nanded bomb blasts of 2002, the real culprits
are either never apprehended and even if they are
- never punished. Despite the open involvement of
the leaders of the BJP and Shiv Sena , RSS, VHP
and other Sangh outfits in a systematic and
consistent hate campaign, organised communal
massacres and in stockpiling and manufacture of
arms they are never declared terrorist
organisations and banned. Open armed parade by
the RSS , Trishul dikshas Dikshas are tolerated
and allowed. They are the holy cows who are
never touched.
It is time to end the division of the Indian
people into scapegoats or holy cows and ensure
equal justice to all irrespective of caste,
class, community or religion. And to achieve this
we the citizens of India have to pledge to fight
atrocities of the Indian State and its holy cows
wherever they occur, from the smallest to the
highest levels in the country.
This convention on 'Scapegoats and Holy Cows- The
State's 'Response to Terrorism' therefore
condemns:
- The way innocent people, especially Muslims,
across India are being harassed, picked up,
arrested and tortured in the name of fighting
terrorism;
- The existence of draconian 'anti-terrorist'
laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
ASPA,1958 and calls for more new ones that will
suspend basic Constitutional rights as this will
only worsen the problem of terrorism and never
solve it.
- The victimization of the entire Muslim
community in the country without a proper
investigation of the role of specific individuals
who may come from any community in the country;
- The failure of the Indian Home Ministry and
national security agencies in providing proper
intelligence on terrorist activities and
protecting the lives of innocent civilians;
- Attempts to prevent lawyers from providing
legal assistance to those arrested on 'suspicion'
of being involved in the 'terrorist' act;
We further demand the Indian government:
- Repeal all repressive laws that have
replaced POTA at both the national and state
level or are already part of the Indian Penal
Code as also the Armed Forces Special Powers Act
and the Disturbed Areas Act;
- Stop promoting civil war through the
unconstitutional arming civilians to fight
'terrorists' as in the case of Salwa Judum in
Chattisgarh and also in the Indian northeast and
Kashmir;
- Closely investigate the involvement of the
RSS, VHP and other Sangh outfits in terrorist
bomb blasts and attacks as also their vast
network of individuals and institutions
propagating anti-Constitutional values;
- Present a White Paper to the Indian public
on the follow up and results of investigations
into various terrorist attacks that have happened
in the country over the last twenty years;
- Present a White Paper on the numbers of
Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits imprisoned in the
country and the status of the cases against them;
-Stop harassing human rights activists and
release with due compensation to all innocent
people arrested and tortured in the name of
countering terrorism;
- Make the Indian intelligence service
accountable for its grand failures in either
warning the public or catching the real
masterminds behind terrorist attacks despite all
the huge sums of taxpayer money spent on them;
- End the culture of fake encounters that has
taken hold within the Indian security forces
seeking material rewards for their anti-terrorism
operations;
- Evolve a humane national policy towards foreign
migrant labour coming into India from
neighbouring countries particularly migrant
Muslims, if necessary by promoting a visa-free
regime for South Asia;
- End the rampant corruption of border security
forces that has criminalised the entire migration
process and aggravated the problems of both
migrants and host populations;
We on our part as citizens of India pledge to;
- Fight the demonisation of Muslims and other
communities in the country by the Indian state as
also sectarian, communal political forces in the
country;
- Set up an independent Commission comprising
retired judges, eminent intellectuals, retired
police officials, and journalists to probe into
atrocities and discrimination against Muslim as
part of anti-terrorism operations;
______
[7]
From: Womens United Nations Report Network
Sent: 15 May 2008 21:54
Subject: Gender Imbalance of UN Human Rights
Council Panel on Intercultural Dialogue - NGO
Intervention
Human Rights Council 7th Session- 18 March 2008
PANEL ON INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE
JOINT NGO INTERVENTION ON GENDER IMBALANCE OF UN
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PANEL ON INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE
Delivered by Conchita Poncini - International Federation of University Women
Joint Statement in the interactive dialogue on
behalf of International Federation of University
Women, Zonta International, International
Federation of Business and Professional Women,
Femmes Africa Solidarité, Interfaith
International, Women's International Federation
for World Peace, International Council of Women,
Women's International Zionist Organization:
In any country, whether developed or developing,
women and girl children have been the target of
cultural stereotypes and harmful practices. The
CEDAW Convention has 22 reservations on culture
and religion. We strongly feel that the all-male
panel of experts today although incontestably
competent in discussing intercultural dialogue on
human rights, should have been gender balanced in
order to ensure a more realistic assessment of
factors paramount to such a dialogue. May we
remind this august body of its resolution 5/1 to
have a gender perspective and a gender balance in
its programme of work and institutional
mechanisms.
Culture and religion are closely interlinked and
have been the two main factors used in human
rights discourses and practices to subordinate
women's reproductive and caring roles and
excluding women from decision and policy-making
in all spheres. Furthermore, gatekeepers of
cultural and religious institutions being
fundamentally male-dominated, it is necessary to
invite women from the grassroots and experts
level to give their views and present models of
best practices on intercultural, ethnic and
inter-religious dialogue among civilizations
notably in conflicts situations, as called for in
Security Council Resolution 1325.A good example
of this model is the case of the Mano River women
who succeeded in bringing together African male
leaders under one roof to reach peace agreements.
Finally, as reported by the first Special
Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Ms Rhadika
Coomaraswamy, cultural relativism has been the
most pervasive factor in perpetuating violence
against women. Through building alliances and
global campaigns, women organizations have
advanced inter-cultural dialogue. We ask the
panelists if any of them have analysed
intercultural dialogue systematically with a
gender lens?
______
[8]
SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001
Telephone-23711276/ 23351424
e-mail: sahmat [at] vsnl [dot] com
2.5..2008
Press Statement
WITHDRAW FIR AGAINST JOURNALISTS IN AHMEDABAD
The registration of a criminal case by the
Gujarat police against Times of India journalists
at Ahmedabad is a highly condemnable and
deplorable act. It is aimed at throttling freedom
of expression of the media, which needs to be
strongly opposed by all democratic minded people
in the country.
The approach of Gujarat police has not been
impartial at all, which was apparent from its
role in the 2002 riots resulting in the murders
of more than one thousand innocent citizens in
the state. It has faced severe indictments from
the Supreme Court and National Human Rights
Commission.
The latest unexplainable act of booking
journalists in a case of sedition, criminal
conspiracy and common intent proves that there is
no room for any differing views in that state.
The journalists booked in the case had merely
written about the Police Commissioner of
Ahmedabad, on the basis of their investigation.
The FIR on such flimsy grounds exposes the
hypocrisy of the Sanghparivar leadership and the
administration run by it on the vital issue of
defence of freedom of expression. We demand that
the FIR against the journalists should be
immediately withdrawn.
Rajen
For
SAHMAT
______
[9]
Hindustan Times
June 01, 2008
THE SECOND MURDER
by Vir Sanghvi
May 31, 2008
Sometimes, a single event can tell us more about
the times we live in than an entire library full
of sociological treatises. The Aarushi murder
case is one such event. The responses to the case
reveal the flaws in the institutions that we
depend on: the police, the government, the media
and the great Indian middle class itself.
But, first, let's clear up one thing: I'm not a
detective and neither are you. One of the
problems with the way in which we have approached
this case is that we've all spent too long trying
to solve the mystery of who the killer was.
That's a legitimate goal, but not one that we, in
our living rooms or our OB vans, are qualified to
pursue. Perhaps her father killed her; perhaps he
didn't. I don't know. And nor do you.
Many of us forget that there are two separate
issues at stake here. The murder mystery is only
the first. The more important one is our response
to the murder. How have we treated the reputation
of a slain 14-year-old girl? What does the manner
in which the police have behaved tell us about
law and order in India? Should we have any faith
in our political system? And is it time to
regulate the media?
The Police: The Noida police appear to have the
investigative abilities of the Keystone Cops and
the sensitivity of the Gestapo. At almost every
stage, the case has been bungled. There's been
the failure to properly search the house and,
therefore, the inability to discover the corpse
of their chief suspect. There's the fiasco of the
remand of the father with no evidence, no
confession, no motive and no murder weapon.
More worrying is the way in which the police have
deliberately set out to destroy the reputation of
a murdered teenager. The IGP in charge of the
case has called Aarushi "characterless". Her
emails have been leaked to the media. So have her
texts to her friends, violating not just her
privacy but that of her schoolmates.
Most worrying of all is the IGP's obsession with
sex. Every possible motive leads back to sex.
First, there was the extraordinary statement that
Rajesh Talwar found his daughter in an
'objectionable' position with Hemraj, the
servant. As Aarushi and Hemraj are dead, and
Rajesh Talwar denies the story, how could the IGP
possibly have known about the incident? Then,
there's the suggestion that Rajesh Talwar was
having an affair with a colleague and that his
daughter objected; off the record, the police
have painted the parents as orgy-goers and wife
swappers. And now, the cops are claiming that the
father was motivated by anger at Aarushi's
relations with various boyfriends.
This is not a sex crime. So why are the Noida
police going on and on about sex, ruining the
reputations of the dead and the living without a
shred of evidence?
My guess is that they are not just incompetent,
they are also sex-starved. Perhaps the IGP needs
professional help.
The Government: The media act as though the Noida
police report to nobody. Some channels have even
confused the IGP with his boss, the DGP of Uttar
Pradesh. In fact, there is a chain of command.
The DGP reports to a home secretary who reports
to both a chief secretary and the home minister.
What is bizarre is that nobody in this chain of
command has reprimanded the IGP or taken the
investigation away from him. Instead, chief
minister Mayawati has turned it into a political
issue.
Imagine now that a joint commissioner of the
Delhi or Bombay police had referred to a murdered
child as "characterless". The media uproar would
have been enough to seal his fate. Why doesn't
the same happen in UP? In fact, why does this
never happen in UP? Even during the Nithari
killings, the Noida police got off scot-free, and
Mulayam Singh's brother dismissed the serial
murders as being of little consequence.
I would argue that it's the difference between
national parties and regional parties. A BJP, CPM
or Congress chief minister would have felt
obliged to act, both because of an innate sense
of right and wrong, and because of public
pressure. But neither Mayawati nor Mulayam have
any sense of right and wrong. As for the media
uproar, they don't give a damn: it doesn't touch
their vote-banks.
Now that regional parties threaten to take power
at the Centre as part of a Third Front, it's
worth pondering the difference.
The Middle Class: As an educated Indian, I share
the general outrage at the shredding of
reputations, the sloppy investigation, the
manhandling of a suspect against whom there is no
solid evidence, and the denial of the presumption
of innocence.
But let's consider another scenario. Suppose
Hemraj had lived. The police were certain to have
arrested him. Would anybody in the middle class
have given a damn about how he was treated in
custody? We, who are so angered by the
manhandling of Rajesh Talwar, would have been
unaffected by the third-degree methods that would
almost certainly have been used on Hemraj. He
would have been beaten up and tortured into
signing a confession. He would have no right to
privacy, no presumption of innocence and none of
us would even have noticed.
I have always been suspicious of the manner in
which every crime committed in a middle class
home is blamed on the servant. Whether it's a
robbery or a murder, the cops never bother to
draw up a list of suspects. They always arrest
the servant and declare, a few days later, that
he has confessed.
This has less to do with detective work and more
with callous laziness. The motto of all Indian
police forces is: we will hang the suspect and
then find the evidence. It's far easier to blame
the servant than to launch an investigation.
Rarely is any genuine evidence ever found.
Instead the case rests on confessions and bogus
'recoveries of stolen objects'.
Do we in the middle class mind? No, not at all.
None of the outrage that has been expressed in
this case ever extends to servants, to the poor
and to anyone who is non-middle class.
The Media: Has there been any case where the
media have behaved so badly? TV channels have
carried MMSes purporting to show Aarushi's loose
ways. Even if these were genuine, there were
privacy issues involved. But they were fakes. The
channels carried them without verification. And
now, they don't even bother to apologise.
The coverage of the Aarushi murder has been
marked by lurid sensationalism. Anchors have
appeared on the screen with their hands dipped in
red paint. Fraudulent 're-enactments', based on a
dubious sense of what really happened, have been
telecast. Even the English channels, which pride
themselves on being more sensitive than their
Hindi counterparts, have telecast the contents of
private SMSes, sometimes, having them read out in
theatrical re-enactments.
In their pursuit of ratings, television channels
have acted as though no liberal value
(presumption of innocence, privacy etc) matters
and no journalistic rule (verification,
attribution etc) is valid.
In their own way, the media have been as bad as -
if not worse than - the Noida police. Journalists
are too self-obsessed to sense the revulsion with
which educated Indians have responded to media
coverage of this case. Broadcasters sometimes
believe that they can do anything they like as
long as they get ratings, because there's nobody
to stop them.
But I think somebody will stop them. For the last
five years, the government has been trying to
regulate the media. All of us have fought this
effort, arguing that self-regulation is the
answer.
After all, we have asked our readers and viewers:
who would you trust more - a civil servant or a
journalist?
Ask that question today, and I suspect that we,
in the media, would not like the answer. If the
civil servant is an educated person, determined
to impose liberal values and standards of
accuracy, and the journalist is some
sensation-hungry moron, metaphorically dancing on
the grave of a murdered child, speculating
breathlessly about her love life, and vulgarly
suggesting that her parents were sex maniacs -
well, then, my guess is that most educated
Indians would pick the civil servant over the
journalist.
The vagaries of Indian politics will ensure that
the Noida police get away with murdering Aarushi
all over again. But the media may not be so
lucky. Any demand for regulation will now have
widespread public support.
And can you really blame the public for feeling this way?
______
[10] Announcements:
INDIA-PAKISTAN
Themes Beyond Borders
Selections from Nikhil Chakravartty's Writings
Introduction by K.R. Narayanan
Available at all major bookshops Price Rs 400
Publishers:
KONARK PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD.
A-149, Main Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092
E-mail: kppl23 at eth.net/konarkpublishers at hotmail.com
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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