------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/nJ9qlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
South Asia Citizens Wire | 11 November, 2004 via: www.sacw.net [INTERRUPTION NOTICE: There will no SACW posts on the 12th and 13th of November] [1] Rocking the boat on Kashmir (Edit, Daily Times) [2] Kashmir Issue - Thinking Out Of The Box (M B Naqvi) [3] A blueprint for Kashmir - Autonomy for both sides (Kuldip Nayar) [4] India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Getting down to serious business (Praful Bidwai) + [related recent material] Looking Beyond Musharraf's Proposals (Siddharth Varadarajan) India And Pakistan's Road To Detente (Ahmed Rashid) [5] Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers Forcibly Recruit Child Soldiers - A report by Human Rights Watch [6] India: Lie of the State: Zahira Symbolises Flaws in Prosecution Process (Anil Dharker) [7] India: Zahira is still the victim : Setalvad [8] India: The twist doesn't change the tale (J Sri Raman) [9] Events and Resources : (i) Taimur Bandey speaking on Breaking communal barriers and projecting development: promoting communal harmony to further development (New Delhi, 14 November) (ii) Film Screening: Crossing the Lines : Kashmir, Pakistan, India by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian (New Delhi, 17 November) (iii) Sansad News Release On Kashmir (iv) "Passage to China" (Amartya Sen) (v) Online Petition: Gujarat Genocide Trials: Appeal For The Protection of Witnesses -------------- [1] Daily Times, November 10, 2004 | Editorial ROCKING THE BOAT ON KASHMIR Is Mr Manmohan Singh less forthright and decisive as prime minister than he was as finance minister of India? Talking to the Financial Times of London on Monday November 8 he said that he was willing to "look at all options to think about a new chapter and a new beginning... So long as Pakistan remains committed (to ending cross-border terrorism) we are willing to look at all possible ways of resolving all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir." However, later the same day, speaking at a conference in the Netherlands, he asserted that "Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and therefore this question of deployment of troops in our own country is not a subject matter of discussion with outside agencies". As if in lock-step with the other side, the Foreign Office in Islamabad shot back that a solution to the Kashmir dispute based on making the Line of Control the permanent border was unacceptable to Pakistan: "All issues relating to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute are subject to debate and negotiations, but Pakistan does not accept any solution based on the LoC. The status quo is the problem, not the solution". This exchange came in one day and suggests how weak-kneed the resolve to break new ground is in India. Prime minister Singh has not done this for the first time. Indeed he can say that he had said it before and that he was not inconsistent! On the Pakistani side, it must be admitted too, President Musharraf has not talked of options without a baseline of reservations. Despite his more sophisticated approach he wants to make sure that the "options" he doesn't like should not be left open. That means that his "seven" regions approach should not be taken to mean that the LoC or any modifications of it would be acceptable to him. But this carefully constructed ambivalence was punctured last week by the MQM leader Mr Altaf Hussain who went to New Delhi and recommended that the two countries should agree for the time being on the LoC which was already "sacrosanct" by reason of the commitments made by the two parties in the Simla Agreement. There was some vitriolic comment in the vernacular press in Pakistan on his "acceptance" of the LoC but the common man remained unmoved. A few months ago President Musharraf's "opening up" with India had offended the "jihadi" leaders but had been accepted by the common man. Even then President Musharraf has been forced to do some flip-flopping on his Kashmir diplomacy, suggesting there are invisible lobbies which he cannot shrug away. In the case of Mr Singh, the flip-flopping is quite understandable. In India there is an all-parties consensus on Kashmir and he is much less of a statesman than Mr Vajpayee to cross the line without feeling jittery. The BJP - like the PPPP and PMLN in Pakistan over Musharraf's "seven" regions option - has already expressed itself dissatisfied with Mr Singh's Kashmir initiative. While this tendency betrays a perfectly understandable psychology on both sides, it also exposes the limits of leadership on both sides. If the two sides admit that Kashmir is a dispute of long standing made deeply complex by conflict and indoctrination, why should they be anxious to make their traditional stance on it public while the composite dialogue is going on? In some ways, the two have told the world that they would keep their cool and not break off after parroting their old lines on Kashmir; yet time and again the leadership on both sides feels compelled to undermine the dialogue by drawing red lines across their ongoing discussions. This gives the impression that they don't much care about the window of opportunity in which they can resolve their lesser disputes and thus defuse the tension that has existed in the past years, especially starting 1999. Experts who have analysed such negotiations between traditional rival states believe that unless normalisation brings disarmament of bilateral suspicion the deadlocked issues cannot be tackled. India and Pakistan have been offered many "formulas" for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and they have steadily rejected all of them because they didn't fit precisely into their own fundamentally "rejectionist" plans. They have fought wars and remained hamstrung over Kashmir while "larger" regional options have emerged to improve their economies and fend off negative global shocks. That is why it still seems that after 56 years, the Kashmir dispute has become too complicated to resolve. It has accumulated a large and negative body of jurisprudence that wont allow them to unwind quickly whether under external pressure or convinced from within even though they both wish to resolve it in order to exercise much larger regional options related to their economies. These "larger" options are not visible to the populations on both sides but make sense to outsiders. No scenario of solutions based on such past jurisprudence seems feasible. Yet many of the "formulas" offered from different quarters carry a barely concealed message. They are based on disputes that were resolved after they were overtaken by some other overarching event. Can India and Pakistan focus on the larger "regional" options - while discussing Kashmir - and let normalisation of relations be the "overarching" event that eventually yields the final solution acceptable to all the parties involved? Whether they recognise it or not, both India and Pakistan are under attrition. Pakistan has sacrificed its internal cohesion at the altar of Kashmir and India has damaged its status as a regional power by committing atrocities there. Both are mistaken if they think that the attrition is on the other side. Rocking the boat now will not obliterate this reality. * ______ [2] Deccan Herald November 11, 2004 KASHMIR ISSUE - THINKING OUT OF THE BOX Joint control of Kashmir by both India and Pakistan is one of the interesting suggestions that have been thrown up By M B Naqvi President Pervez Musharraf's October 21 plea to the Pakistanis to think out of the box has largely succeeded; the issue is being discussed everywhere and by all who care about these things. On Kashmir, there used to be just one line that emanated from the government; 57 years of intense propaganda at home and abroad has made it almost a reflex reaction of most Pakistanis: a UN supervised plebiscite which would give only two options to the Kashmiris, to join India or Pakistan. Now that is a thing of the past. Ever since October 21, discussing the various possible solutions to the Kashmir problem, other than the UN resolutions, is now occupying attention. It can be said that it was Musharraf who killed Pakistan's traditional stance on Kashmir, with no likelihood of its revival. That option is now politically dead. It is necessary to see if any other option can be acceptable to India - and as a long shot to the Kashmiris. There is however a hole in the heart in this proposition. It is about India's readiness to accept any change in the status of Kashmir at all. Until recently it was only Pakistan that rejected anything less than a radical change in the status of Jammu and Kashmir State. India has what it wanted or most of it. What incentive is there for it to change? The various Indian governments and party leaders have made it plain over the years that come what may Kashmir's accession to India is sacrosanct and will not be allowed to be tampered with. Other ideas to a Kashmir solution, if they involve substantial change in constitutional and realpolitik status of Kashmir, can have a chance if there is a cogent reason why Indian authorities will countenance it. There is no evidence that authorities in Pakistan have applied their mind to this part of the problem. Flexibility and give and take have been mentioned. But what will be in it for India to compromise its sovereignty and total control over Kashmir? Indians cannot be asked merely to give and not take anything. The question persists. Unappealing to India Musharraf has merely recommended the discussion of various possible options or approaches to a solution. By a process of elimination most analysts have come to the conclusion that he was suggesting a division of Kashmir along broad outlines by calling for dividing the State into seven regions on the basis of geography. Musharraf merely has sugarcoated a pill that is unappealing to India. He has left ample space for other possible solutions. In this connection he has mentioned condominium and joint control. A solution being actually hawked by the Americans and which seems to have been adopted by many Indian publicists: it is to de-militarise the two Kashmirs, both Indian-controlled and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. The joint control or the condominium comes into play in this scenario. But this begs the same question: why would India change and accept any condominium or joint control scheme to whatever shape or degree being suggested. After all India has never countenanced such a proposition. Something has to be done about this hole in the heart. The onus for it is mostly on Musharraf and other proponents of the idea. Don't forget the Indians are quite prepared to live with the status quo with all its inconveniences. To make it shift, some goodies have to be offered. Hitherto relations between the two countries have been largely hostile, with much ill will. The constant cold war between them has left a residue that has reduced the normal power and influence of both countries. India is certainly a potential great power. While Pakistan does not equal it, it is not entirely without some importance and influence, particularly in the so-called Islamic world. If this relationship can be recast into one of friendly cooperation, it will unlock many doors. There is also something unique about the India and Pakistan relationship. The two cannot be wholly indifferent and distinct from each other; they can be close friends and also enemies. There is something of exceptional value that Pakistan and India can achieve, apart from the creation of more wealth, which alone will be no mean achievement. The thousand and one commonalities between them, if given free play, can create a lot of satisfaction all around. Cooperation possibilities Think of the situation when Indian and Pakistani diplomacy would cooperate. In the third world counsels, a proposition would become acceptable to all the third world, if the two cooperate. Let us say with Pakistan facilitating India's entry into OIC (for whatever it is worth) or supporting India's claim to a permanent UN Security Council seat, the state of international opinion would be radically different. But most of all, the immense benefit would accrue to both in the field of arts and culture, not to mention scientific and technological cooperation. Above all else, SAARC can be revived, well and truly, into something that not merely works but achieves exemplary results. After all, South Asia has a wonderful resource base. That alone is a price that should tempt India. Anyhow other than this, there can be nothing more tempting from Pakistan's side than political, economic and cultural partnership. And again as a long shot, Kashmiris can be won over by both Pakistan and India jointly and life can be easier all around. ______ [3] The Tribune, November 10, 2004 A BLUEPRINT FOR KASHMIR - AUTONOMY FOR BOTH SIDES by Kuldip Nayar Whether we like it or not, President General Pervez Musharraf has been able to retrieve the Kashmir problem from the backburner. Our satisfaction is that the military establishment he heads has realised that no solution is possible through hostilities. This is a substantial gain because from the days of the Tashkent Agreement in 1966 New Delhi's endeavour has been to convince Islamabad to renounce the use of arms to end all disputes between the two countries. Now when the talks look like throwing up a solution, we should not be seen flinching. The international community is watching the progress on Kashmir anxiously. We should not be found wanting. Moreover, this is an opportunity the two countries cannot afford to miss. General Musharraf has set the ball rolling. He first told two Indian journalists that the solution of Kashmir lay in identifying the area, demilitarising it and giving it a status. Subsequently, he gave shape to his proposal by specifying seven areas: the plains, including Jammu, the foothills up to 7,000 feet, Pir Panjal, the valley, the Great Himalayan zone, the upper Indus valley and the Northern Areas, the Karakoram, parts of which are with China. For the first time, a Pakistan ruler has proposed independence for Kashmir, besides joint control or UN mandate. General Musharraf must have done the rethinking after talking to the Indian journalists, including myself. At that time, when he said that the Kashmiris wanted independence, he meant that they would "step back" once concrete proposals were on the table. This might still happen. But independence is an option as of now. New Delhi has not yet reacted to General Musharraf's proposals in any significant manner. In the past, there have been remarks like "the sky is the limit." Still India has been fiercely supporting and sustaining the status quo - the four corners of our policy on Kashmir. The Home Ministry has a department on Kashmir which does not believe in having any input from outside. Politicians in power and bureaucrats in the department work out a strategy, not policy, as and when the situation demands. A few former bureaucrats are thrown in as interlocutors every now and then to know the minds of the leaders in the valley. The department often gets it wrong. What General Musharraf has proposed is a re-division of Jammu and Kashmir. This is something to which none in the government - the Opposition or even the experts - has applied his mind, at least not methodically or seriously. Even if they had, I do not think any government in New Delhi can sell to the country a proposal which suggests a division on the basis of religion and throws out the status quo completely. True, a sterile policy is worth jettisoning, but when the price demanded is a seven-tier state, the suspicion heightens. I believe that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proposed to discuss certain options when he met General Musharraf in New York, putting two riders: one, no territorial adjustment, and two, no division on the basis of religion. General Musharraf's proposals eschew the word "religion", but the geographical changes he suggests are primarily on that basis. An unsteady secular polity like ours cannot accept this. Any division or even a hint of it may revive the horrors of Partition. The defeated BJP is only looking for a semblance of a chance to revive Hindutva which, at present, does not arouse any response. Still General Musharraf's seven-region proposal should not be rejected outright. It can be made the basis for riveting a setup which may ultimately overcome the objections voiced by India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Why not merge the seven regions into two units so that they are viable and, at the same time, can pass the muster to be acceptable to the majority? I have a proposal. Having been associated with leaders and people in the state for more than four decades, I consider myself competent as well as involved enough to suggest a wayout. Once youthful Kashmiri leader Yasin Malik advised me not to make any proposal on Kashmir so that I might one day help the process of negotiations. My profession of writing demanded me to react to the situation prevailing at a particular time. If that rules me out, I cannot help. The crux of the problem is the valley. The Indian Parliament has also asked the government to take up "the other Kashmir under Pakistan's occupation." So there are two units: Kashmir and "Azad Kashmir". They have established their identity in the last 55 years - the first is Kashmiri-speaking and the second Punjabi-speaking. My suggestion is that both Kashmirs should be given autonomy. The governments in these two regions should enjoy all subjects except defence, foreign affairs and communications. The three subjects were the ones which the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir gave to New Delhi when he signed the Instrument of Accession to integrate his state with India. "Azad Kashmir" is directly under Islamabad and enjoys only the crumbs of power thrown at it. My proposal gives it full autonomy like the one in Kashmir on the Indian side. The border between the two Kashmirs should be made soft so that the citizens of the two sides travel freely, without any passport or papers, in both parts. (I hope terrorism will be over by that time). The status for these areas is that of an autonomous unit. The three subjects - foreign affairs, defence and communications - will vest in the government in New Delhi as far as Kashmir is concerned and Islamabad regarding "Azad Kashmir." Both Kashmirs should be demilitarised, India withdrawing its forces from the valley and stationing them at the valley's border. Pakistan will do a similar thing regarding "Azad Kashmir". The UN and major powers should be individually or collectively involved to guarantee the demilitarisation of the areas if and when a final settlement is reached. The settlement should be final. There will be no reopening. Both countries should withdraw their complaint from the UN and other international bodies. All the 72 confidence-building measures - India has increased the number from eight to 72 - should be implemented straightaway so that people-to-people contact increases and trade gets going. I know General Musharraf is allergic to the line of control (LoC). But there has to be some line drawn to demarcate the border. The LoC can be straightened as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had suggested to the then Pakistan Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at Shimla. Islamabad knows it well that the international community is in favour of the LoC becoming a permanent border, with minimum changes. Since the communications is one of the subjects entrusted to the Central government on either side, the autonomous areas will not feel that they are landlocked. Facilities available in both India and Pakistan will be at the disposal of the two Kashmirs. With soft borders, they can trade between themselves, have a common currency if they so desire and receive tourists freely from all over the world. Both Kashmirs can transfer more subjects to Central governments, "Azad Kashmir" to Islamabad and the valley to New Delhi. It is up to their state assemblies to do so once the settlement is signed, sealed and delivered and fresh elections held. ______ [4] The News International September 30, 2004 GETTING DOWN TO SERIOUS BUSINESS Praful Bidwai When 18 Pakistani journalists from different media groups begin their six-day tour of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday, they will not just be witnessing and chronicling history - which is what they do professionally. They will be making history, or participating in its making. They would be free to meet whoever they wish. Meetings have already been pencilled in with people representing different shades of opinion, including separatists in and outside the Hurriyat Conference, Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, Kashmiri-Pandit refugees, and security officials too. Significantly, the team, which will tour Srinagar, Jammu, Anantnag and Gulmarg, will include two journalists from the Pakistani part of Kashmir, besides some eminent figures in the media, also published in the Indian press. It is unnecessary to contrast this development with the singular bloody-mindedness with which India and Pakistan have so far blocked journalists from each other’s countries. The "quota" of regular correspondents from one country stationed in the other’s capital has dwindled to just three. The general policy, except for special events like conferences or Saarc meetings, is to keep the press off limits. The new openness and transparency is a tribute to the perseverance of the South Asian Free Media Association, which has long lobbied for it. More significantly, it speaks of new levels of mutual comfort and self-assurance in both governments. Earlier, Pakistan had allowed Indian journalists to travel to its part of Kashmir only on rare occasions, like the wedding of Amanullah Khan’s daughter and the late Abdul Ghani Lone’s son in 2000. Both governments used to bristle at the thought of legitimising any interaction between people from the two sides of Kashmir. The new turn will prove momentous if it is followed up with reciprocal moves from Pakistan, and more exchange visits, and then transformed into policy. But the fact that it comes on top of a "historic" meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York could make it a catalyst, which might accelerate the process of India-Pakistan dialogue and detente. The Singh-Musharraf meeting, which extended to almost an hour from the scheduled 15 minutes, was a breakthrough broadly comparable to the Vajpayee-Nawaz Sharif meeting in Lahore in 1999. If that summit began a thaw after years of frozen diplomatic relations amidst military hostility, the New York meeting allayed fears that the dialogue process, which has seen some ups and downs, might run into a roadblock. The meeting confirmed that both sides are seriously invested in dialogue. They will probably sincerely try to hammer out solutions to problems. Above all, it proved that, contrary to fears, Manmohan Singh too now claims ownership of the peace process. He has taken keen interest in it. There is reason to believe that the ebullience evident in Singh’s and Musharraf’s comments at the press conference, and subsequently, is not the result of unwarranted and irrational exuberance. Rather, it speaks of genuine mutual understanding and no-nonsense yet empathetic appreciation of each other’s stated positions, preferences and compulsions. This is why hopes that the dialogue will move forward at a decent clip are not misplaced - despite the cussedness of many bureaucrats, soldiers and diplomats who remain mired in the hot-cold war mindset that has attended India-Pakistan relations for 57 years. Now, there is likely to be a direct channel between Singh and Musharraf, which can be used to iron out last-minute wrinkles and add a dose of just that "out-of-the-box" thinking that is sometimes needed to cut Gordian knots. The Singh-Musharraf meeting was preceded by talks between India’s National Security Advisor J N Dixit and Pakistan’s National Security Secretary Tariq Aziz, and "lateral" consultations with the United States, which was kept in the picture. There was an understanding that Musharraf’s United Nations speech would have a conciliatory diplomatic content and tone; there would be none of the fiery rhetoric that marked his address last year. Or else, there would be no one-on-one meeting between him and Singh. During their meeting, the two men apparently expressed themselves with candour on their respective commitments to resolving bilateral problems, and on the constraints within which they must work. Singh reportedly told Musharraf that he is not desperate for a solution - unlike Vajpayee, who was in a hurry to leave a "legacy" behind, despite the sangh parivar’s aversion to Pakistan - but nevertheless genuinely keen on it. Rivalry with Pakistan will remain a drag and a source of insecurity for India. Peace is worthy. Yet, Singh would have to work within the constraints imposed by democracy. Musharraf apparently raised questions about bringing some relief to the "people of Kashmir". He was emphatic that he would abide by the commitments made in the January 6 joint declaration. Both agreed that more deliberations would take place between officials, including another meeting in a month’s time between Dixit and Aziz, to take the dialogue forward through more CBMs. Going by reports, India and Pakistan have agreed soon to open consulates in Karachi and Mumbai, and to resolve their differences over the papers to be carried by passengers on the proposed Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus. In discussions so far, India insisted on passports. This was not acceptable to Pakistan, which fears that this would eventually interfere with its claim to Kashmir. Pakistan would prefer some other identity papers. Now, a compromise seems likely: Passports could be carried, but not stamped. Alternatively, a certificate of domicile or residence would do. Meanwhile, talks on proposals for oil and gas pipelines from Iran to India via Pakistan, and from the Indian Punjab to the Pakistan Punjab, are gathering momentum. This is a project which would be mutually beneficial. It would be mindless to sacrifice it at the altar of hostility and suspicion. Once the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus starts plying, it would naturally accelerate the process of consultation in the two parts of Kashmir and eventually facilitate a solution to a vexed problem. It is of the utmost importance that the two governments show flexibility, resilience and imagination in agreeing and implementing other CBMs too. India should seriously consider Musharraf’s reported offer on demilitarising Siachen and his assurance that Pakistani troops would not try to occupy the heights that Indian troops might vacate. The time has come to move forward in long strides, while of course verifying compliance with agreements. A final word. The time has also come to reconsider the BJP’s commitment to the peace process, and rethink Vajpayee’s role as a peacemaker nonpareil. The BJP’s reaction to the New York meeting was petty and petulant. No less a person than former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha accused Singh of compromising India’s interests by failing to obtain a commitment from Musharraf on ending "cross-border terrorism". Some sangh acolytes even term Musharraf’s offer on Siachen "a cunning ploy". A commentator in the sangh parivar’s house journal ("The Pioneer") reminds Indian policy-makers of a 1984 Parliamentary resolution on Kashmir, warns against peace, and pompously says foreign policy "is far too important to be made subordinate to the pleasure of exchanging Urdu couplets in a New York hotel". The BJP may eventually support the peace process - for pragmatic reasons. But its heart is not in it. [Related Material:] The Hindu - 01 November 2004 LOOKING BEYOND MUSHARRAF'S PROPOSALS By Siddharth Varadarajan There are options on Kashmir which lie beyond what both India and Pakistan consider unacceptable. The challenge is to explore them. http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/01/stories/2004110103291000.htm BBC News - 10 November, 2004 INDIA AND PAKISTAN'S ROAD TO DETENTE By Ahmed Rashid in Islamabad and Delhi The upcoming peace talks between India and Pakistan in December will be significant for one big reason: it will feature the first detailed discussion on the composite dialogue on resolving the Kashmir issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3995007.stm ______ [5] Human Rights Watch SRI LANKA: TAMIL TIGERS FORCIBLY RECRUIT CHILD SOLDIERS (New York, November 11, 2004) - By abducting children or threatening their families, the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have recruited thousands of child soldiers in Sri Lanka since active fighting ended in 2002, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or Tamil Tigers) use intimidation and threats to pressure Tamil families in the north and east of Sri Lanka to provide sons and daughters for military service. When families refuse, their children are sometimes abducted from their homes at night or forcibly recruited while walking to school. Parents who resist the recruitment of their children face retribution from the Tamil Tigers, including violence or detention. "The ceasefire has brought an end to the fighting, but not to the Tamil Tigers' use of children as soldiers," said Jo Becker, children's rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, and a co-author of the report. "Many Tamil families who expected a 'peace dividend' now expect an unwelcome visit from armed Tamil Tiger recruiters." The 80-page report, "Living in Fear: Child Soldiers and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka," includes firsthand testimonies from dozens of children from northeastern Sri Lanka who have been recruited by the Tamil Tigers since the ceasefire came into effect. Children described rigorous and sometimes brutal military training, including training with heavy weapons, bombs and landmines. Children who try to escape are typically beaten in front of their entire unit as a warning to others. The Tamil Tigers have recruited at least 3,516 children since the start of the February 2002 ceasefire with the government, according to cases documented by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The agency states that this figure represents only a portion of the total number of children recruited. Human Rights Watch also documented targeted re-recruitment drives of children released from a breakaway LTTE faction earlier this year. In March, the LTTE's Eastern commander, Colonel Karuna, broke away from the main LTTE forces loyal to Vellupillai Prabhakaran, based in the northern region known as the Vanni. In April, Prabhakaran's forces, known as the Vanni LTTE, attacked and defeated Karuna's Eastern forces, which quickly disbanded. About 2,000 child soldiers fled Karuna's forces or were encouraged by their commanders to leave. Some died in the fighting. The Vanni LTTE quickly began an intensive campaign to re-recruit Karuna's former forces, including children. The Vanni forces have gone from house to house, organized village meetings, sent children letters and made announcements from motorized vehicles to demand that the former child soldiers return. They have taken many children by force. "They took away my younger brother the other day. He was coming home from the market and he was taken away," said Vanji, who was recruited by the LTTE in 1997 at age 16. "They didn't release him, and they threatened to shoot if I reported his abduction. They also told me at the same time that I had to re-join." International law prohibits the recruitment of children under the age of 18 by non-state armed groups, and all participation of children in active hostilities. The recruitment of children under the age of 15 is now considered a war crime. The LTTE denies recruiting children and claims that any children in its forces have joined because of poverty, lack of educational opportunities, or the loss of their parents and lack of alternative care. Although some children do join because of socioeconomic factors or because they want to fight for an independent Tamil state, such "voluntary" recruitment is also a violation of international law. In June 2003, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government agreed to a formal Action Plan on Children Affected by War. Under the Action Plan, the Tamil Tigers agreed to end their recruitment of children and to release children from their forces, either directly to the children's families or to new transit centers that were constructed specifically for this purpose. Since the Action Plan was signed, UNICEF figures show that the LTTE has recruited more than twice as many children as it has released. A transit center opened in October 2003 received a total of only 172 children in its first year of operation. Although the center has capacity for 100 children, it has never held more than 49, and for a six-week period in mid-2004, was completely empty. The other two centers never opened because of the low number of children released. "Time and again, the Tamil Tigers have pledged to end their use of child soldiers, but each time they've broken those promises," said Becker. "It's time for the Tamil Tigers to live up to their legal responsibilities and stop recruiting children." o o o [84 Page Report in PDF] Living in Fear Child Soldiers and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka URL: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/srilanka1104/srilanka1104.pdf ______ [6] The Times of India November 11, 2004 LIE OF THE STATE: ZAHIRA SYMBOLISES FLAWS IN PROSECUTION PROCESS by Anil Dharker Who, or what, is Zahira Sheikh? Is she victim, heroine or mercenary? It's a tangled story, so she could be all of these at different times, or some of these at the same time... But if her case is confusing, it's only because everything that happened in Gujarat in February-March 2002 is topsy-turvy. To start with, what we call "the Gujarat riots" weren't riots at all. What took place was a state-sponsored pogrom against Muslims, planned by state-level politicians, executed by mobs led by local politicians while the police either stood by or participated in the mayhem. The indifference of law-enforcing agencies to record FIRs, collect evidence or protect witnesses was so obvious that the Supreme Court had to take the unprecedented step of transferring cases out of Gujarat. If that seemed like a victory for justice, it was short-lived because to prosecute a case, you need a prosecution. The prosecution, in this case, is the state of Gujarat and its various agencies, and in many instances, they should really be the defendants. Which is why when Zahira changed her testimony yet again recently to say that she couldn't identify the accused in the Best Bakery trial, she did so in the beaming presence of the Vadodara collector as well as the Vadodara commissio-ner of police, two gentlemen who forgot they were part of the prosecution! How do you prosecute when the prosecution seems keen to sabotage the case? There's only one way: You try and bypass official agencies as much as possible. It was this awareness that guided the actions of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO of which I am a part. Immediately after the Gujarat violence CJP had FIRs registered and evidence recorded. A Citizens' Tribunal was appointed to record evidence from affected people. Headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Krishna Iyer and including other retired high court justices, the tribunal collected evidence from over 1,500 witnesses and victims. The tribunal's report is blood-curdling and damning, especially about the participation or connivance of officials and politicians in what happened. Unfortunately, this report is not official. Which is why the CJP petitioned the Supreme Court as early as April 2002 to get a high-level investigation into the Gujarat massacres starting with Godhra, before the evidence was destroyed. Sadly, that plea has become part of the court's backlog of cases. Will justice ever prevail in any of the cases in Gujarat? While the Best Bakery case has got all the attention, CJP has been responsible in launching 18 other cases dealing with incidents in places like Naroda and Sardarpura, once ordinary names which have now become associated with horror. Teesta Setalvad, CJP's secretary, now needs protection because of the many threats on her life, while the CJP's hands-on man in Ahmedabad has been under protection for over a year. CJP's funds are low (contrary to what Zahira believes) and it continues to function only because of emergency infusion of small sums from friends and well-wishers. Most of all, the range of forces out to subvert justice is formidable. Zahira stayed in Mumbai happily for a year, moving freely, even making three unescorted trips to Vadodara. But just before she was to testify in court, came her volte face, turning her erstwhile friends into sudden foes and her erstwhile foes into protective friends. Her new "friends" now give her "protection" of the kind chief ministers give their captive MLAs before the head-count to prove their majority. What compelling reason made her do a complete flip-flop, so much so that she has earned the wrath of her community and her neighbours in Vadodara have burnt her effigy? We don't have to be rocket scientists to figure out who are the potential beneficiaries of her changed testimony. But her advisors have probably miscalculated: How much credibility does Zahira have now? And they have overlooked the brave workers at the Bakery who have already testified, given eye-witness accounts of the horrific happenings and identified a considerable number of the accused. Whatever happens, these cases bring up much wider questions going beyond what happened in Gujarat. We already have the example of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 which killed in excess of 2,000 people and resulted in not a single conviction in 20 years! Gujarat was worse because official connivance was open and unchecked. If the state is the criminal, who will book the state? You cannot expect NGOs to do the job every time. In any case, isn't the delivery of justice an essential duty of any government? Even with a Congress-led government in Delhi, there has been no change in the attitude of either the home or the law ministry, no sense of urgency in pursuing the cases. In this vacuum, do we then need an autonomous organisation, which is well-funded and dynamically led, which can suo moto take up cases anywhere in India? It will need to be flexible in its approach, taking the initiative when it can, cooperating with NGOs when it can't. It will need access to an independent investigative agency (like a new, improved CBI). And it will need the clout to stop state agencies from interfering in its cases. Sounds like a lot? It probably is. But who will deny that we need something like this? ______ [7] The Times of India 10 November 2004 ZAHIRA IS STILL THE VICTIM : SETALVAD Mumbai : "Zahira is not the culprit. She was the victim at the start of the trial. She is still the victim." activist Teesta Setalvad said here on Tuesday. She was speaking at a meeting held by several organisations from across the state to express solidarity with her and her partners in the cause. The meeting came in response to the doubts cast over Setalvad's credibility after the star witness in the Best Bakery case, Zahira Sheikh, alleged that Setalvad was pressurising her: "We need to see Zahira not as a villain, but as a victim" said lawyer Mihir Desai. Speakers from social groups, trade union leaders and film-makers urged the public to understand the circumstances under which the 20-year-old had turned hostile. Women's rights activist Flavia Agnes said it was not a fight between two women, Teesta and Zahira, but one of justice versus injustice. ìThere are many more players who we need to identify in this case. There is a right-wing government, a biased police force, an extremely slow judicial system, and hostile members of both communities,î said Agnes, adding that there was no need to judge Zahira, but an urgent need to change the entire system of justice delivery. Setalvad told the gathering that the accounts of her group, Citizens for Justice and Peace, were transperent, and were open to scrutiny. She was reacting to allegations made shortly after Zahira'a statement in Gujarat that in functioning of NGOs should be probed. "What about probing the two most opaque NGOs in the country - the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad?" asked Desai. Ram Punyani of the people's group, Ekta, suggested that citizens attend the court hearings to extend their support and sympathy to the witnesses, who is the absence of a proper witness-protection scheme were subject to all manner of pressures and influences. Justice (retd) Hosbet Suresh emphasised that the case of the prosecution remained strong, and that the retrial and the supreme court's order to move the case of Maharashtra had not taken place because of Setalvad, but because of Zahira's own appeals to the judiciary and to the Human Rights Commission, as well as the irregularities that were evident in the Gujarat court's handling of the case, in which all the accused were acquitted. Justice Suresh warned that under section 145 of the Evidence Act, the judge could confront Zahira with her previous statements, and that the court could slap contempt of court charges on those who had prevented her from deposing in Mumbai. ______ [8] Daily Times November 11, 2004 THE TWIST DOESN'T CHANGE THE TALE by J Sri Raman Nothing illustrated the Indian variant of fascism better than the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. And nothing illustrates the extra-electoral endurance of the phenomenon better than the latest twist in one of the many pogrom-related tales. In September 2003, I wrote in this same column, about the Best Bakery case. I was rejoicing then about a twist in the tale that illustrated the power of popular opinion. Was I rejoicing too soon? I still do not think so, despite all the smirks and sniggers in the fascist camp. To refresh the reader's memory, this was one of the more gruesome instances of the Gujarat carnage. The Best Bakery case, in courts now for over two years, is about the burning down of a bakery unit of that name - along with 14 persons working and trapped inside - in Baroda (or Vadodara), a city in Gujarat, in the presence of police by most accounts, on March 1, 2002. It has been a case of justice delayed and denied ever since. Over a year later, on June 27, 2003, a Gujarat court acquitted all 21 accused - for want of testimony by witnesses. It was later reported that the witnesses, including the wife and daughters of the bakery-owner, had gone back on their original testimony under "death threats". One of the daughters, 19-year-old Zaheera Sheikh, electrified the country by what almost everyone then saw as a damning exposure of the regime of chief minister Narendra Modi. It was Zaheera who demanded the shifting of the case outside Gujarat. Modi had no defence left, when the Supreme Court called a perfunctory appeal by his government against the acquittals "a complete eyewash". Not long after that, in an unusual step that the apex court must have found unavoidable, it transferred the case to Mumbai. Mumbai-based anti-fascist activist Teesta Setalvad and her Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) played a leading role in securing the transfer and in the conduct of the case. The same Zaheera has now denounced the same Teesta. The best-known face of the Best Bakery case went public, in a media conference under the auspices of the Vadodara police, days ago to disown her own statements to the Supreme Court, swear by her original non-testimony in the fast-track court where the case went first - and to allege "threats" from Teesta. No guesses are needed about who saw a victory in the volte face. Modi himself has seized the occasion to mount an offensive on NGOs as a whole, which have certainly given more of a fight than his political opponents, especially a pusillanimous Congress. His ardent fans in the media have followed suit. They have taunted the "seculars" - as the scribes with no higher regard for grammar than for truth call their targets - for suffering such discomfiture for a second time. They are supposed to have been embarrassed by the alleged disclosure of the terrorist links of Ishrat Jahan, a Mumbai-based young girl shot dead along with two men by the Modi police in Ahmedabad earlier this year. The so-called disclosure came from the same police in the wake of protests against the killings in what appeared a fake 'encounter'. The Zaheera 'bombshell' has been dropped, too, in a media conference called by the Baroda police, not exactly an uninvolved party in the Best Bakery case. Neither of the claims, thus, exemplifies credibility. The Gujarat police, by all accounts, served as the main official instrument in the Modi pogrom. The police allegation did not disprove the charge of a state-managed 'encounter'. We are still waiting for foolproof evidence of Isharat's links that was promised then. There is much, much more that Zaheera's about-turn does not disprove either. It does not counter any of the identical complaints about witness manipulation from surviving victims of the Gujarat violence in many other cases as well. It does not prove much in Zaheera's own case - considering that the original 'testimony', by which she swears now, did not deny the crime but only desisted from identifying the criminals. Even on the extremely absurd and unwarranted assumption that her latest statement is the last word on the subject, the state-wide carnage itself remains a mass crime that the police and propagandists cannot conjure out of public memory. Footage remains of what has been described as the country's most televised communal violence, and it will continue to remind the people of the reality of Indian fascism. Apart from the Goebbelsian defenders of the Gujarat carnage, no one has rushed to swallow Zaheera's retold story. Many, in fact, have demanded her trial on perjury charges. The anti-fascist movement, which sees her still as a victim, has so far distanced itself from the demand. Teesta has asked the apex court only for an inquiry into the circumstances, under which Zaheera retracted her earlier statements. Nor has the twist served to tarnish Teesta's image. It is just not enough to destroy the reputation of the journalist activist who, along with her husband Javed Anand, quit her job in 1993 after the Mumbai blasts and riots, launched the periodical Communalism Combat, and has ever since stood up to be counted for the cause. It may be the smirking and the sniggering admirers of Modi who are rejoicing too soon. The writer is a journalist and peace activist based in Chennai, India ______ [9] [Events and Resources ] (i) Y4P and Anhad invites you to an interactive session with TAIMUR BANDEY on Breaking communal barriers and projecting development: promoting communal harmony to further development. November 14, 2004 4:00 PM at 4, Windsor Place (Opp. Kanishka Hotel), New Delhi Prof. Taimur Bandey has received his degree in International Relations from the University of Westminister, as well as a diploma in Economics from LSE. He is currently teaching at the Lahore School of Economics. (ii) Joshi Adhikari Institute & Anhad invite you to a Film show by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian Crossing the Lines : Kashmir, Pakistan, India Followed by discussion with Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy Dr.Pervez Hoosbhoy received his bachelor’s degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics, master’s in solid state physics, and Ph.D in nuclear physics, all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been a faculty member at the Department of Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad since 1973. On November 17, 2004, 5:30 PM at 4, Windsor place (Opp. Kanishka Hotel), New Delhi Anhad,4 Windsor Place, New Delhi Ph: 23327366-67 o o o (iii) SANSAD NEWS RELEASE ON KASHMIR Following a showing of Dr. Parvez Hoodbhoy's film, 'Kashmir, Pakistan, India: Crossing the Lines of Control' by the South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD) in Vancouver, BC, on October 24, the audience participated in a discussion and adopted the following resolution to be sent to the Governments of India, Pakistan, and Canada: "We deplore the enormous suffering inflicted on the people of Kashmir as a result of the conflict over the status of the region following the partition of the South Asian subcontinent in 1947. We note with great sadness the loss of lives this conflict has produced in Pakistan and India and the damage it has caused to the economy and polity of both nations. We urge the Governments of Pakistan and India to negotiate a settlement, recognizing and bringing into partnership the various interests in this diverse region, in order to establish a peace that is just and founded on the principle of mutual respect among a diverse people. We also urge the Government of Canada to maintain an awareness of the plight of the people of Kashmir, particularly the state of Human Rights in Kashmir, in all its transactions with the Governments of Pakistan and India, and to encourage a peaceful resolution of the conflict." SOUTH ASIAN NETWORK FOR SECULARISM AND DEMOCRACY Suite 435, 205-329 North Road, Coquitlam, BC, Canada. V3K 6Z8 o o o (iv) The New York Review of Books Volume 51, Number 19 · December 2, 2004 "Passage to China" By Amartya Sen URL: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17608 o o o (v) Gujarat Genocide Trials: Appeal For The Protection Of Witnesses To: President of the Republic of India, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Home, and to the National Human Rights Commission URL: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gapw/petition.html _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, 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: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/ Sister initiatives : South Asia Counter Information Project : snipurl.com/sacip South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/