reader-list-request
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:36:43 -0800
Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
reader-l...@sarai.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
reader-list-requ...@sarai.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
reader-list-ow...@sarai.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. At the mercy of tanker lorries (T Peter)
2. Re: Taliban is the future (yasir ~يا سر)
3. Re: Kalat's occupation by Paki army in 1948 (yasir ~يا سر)
4. Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from remaining state
subjects (S. Jabbar)
5. Re: Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from remaining state
subjects (A.K. Malik)
--- Begin Message ---At the mercy of tanker lorries Special Correspondent http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/09/stories/2010030960410300.htm Vizhinjam residents spend most of their earnings on murky drinking water Thiruvananthapuram: Impoverished residents in the coastal village of Vizhinjam barely two kilometres away from the Kovalam international beach resort dread the summer. Every year, they are forced to shell out most of their meagre daily earnings for drinking water supplied in tanker lorries. An average family in the fishing village spends about Rs.1,000 a month on water. The village is almost entirely dependent on a fleet of tanker lorries that make a killing from supplying water during the hot months. Piped water has remained a distant dream here. With no water supply scheme, the people are forced to depend on polluted sources, ignoring health hazards. Epidemics like cholera stalk the crowded colonies. Water-logging and accumulation of garbage add to the risk. Predictions of a severe drought have only added to their woes. Tanker operators have jacked up their prices to take advantage of the acute shortage of water throughout the district. A pot of water, which used to sell for Rs.2, now costs Rs.3. The residents have no idea of where the water supplied by tankers is sourced from or whether it is potable. With most of the families depending on fishing, fishermen have to be supplied with potable water to prevent dehydration at sea. “During the lean season, a fisherman earns hardly Rs.50 a day, out of which at least Rs.30 is spent on water that is often hard and brackish. We have no idea where the water is collected from. It is probably sourced from a dirty canal or an abandoned quarry, who knows?” laments T.Peter, State president of the Kerala Swathantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation (KSMTF). “Most of us are aware of the health hazards of contaminated water but in the absence of a piped water supply scheme, we are forced to take the risk. It is ironic that the residents in Vizhinjam have to shell out so much money for water transported in tanker lorries when the swimming pools at the Kovalam beach resort nearby have adequate water supply from the Aruvikkara reservoir. Extending the pipeline towards Vizhinjam across a distance of just two km would be a good option. But a section of officials who are hand in glove with the tanker lorry operators have torpedoed the proposal,” he alleged. On Monday, the Theeradesa Mahila Vedi, the women's wing of KSMTF took out a march to the Secretariat demanding government intervention to resolve water scarcity at Vizhinjam. The protestors brandished empty pots to highlight their demand. The women vented their ire by hurling the pots over the police barricade into the Secretariat premises. Inaugurating the protest, Mr. Peter demanded free supply of drinking water to the parched coastal areas. He said the federation would be forced to spearhead an agitation if the Government continued to turn a deaf ear to its pleas. Leaders of KSMTF and Theeradesa Mahila Vedi addressed the protestors. KSMTF submitted a memorandum to Minister for Water Resources N.K.Premachandran urging the government to resolve the water scarcity in the densely populated coastal belt.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---1. Hamid Gul is a cold warrior, with an islamist pov. always interesting to hear. yet he and his views have been marginalized in pk. let us us say it is the end of the zia era. 2. pk and afg are very different entities. while taliban are making a quiet come back in afg, even they themselves are not supporting the pk-taliban as this would sour their relations with pk. besides the pk-talibs are either being massacred or disappearing to resurface at some point later, the moment in northwest-pk. so this can be dicey for that region only ie fata. there is no such problem for the rest of the country. foreign entities and money incl china, russia, US, saudi, india, are all stoking the fires to thwart each others' regional agendas in the border regions of baluchistan and nwfp/fata - a fact of life at the moment. but the country seems to have regained some agency of itself with upsurge in popular sentiment and pressure on govt since the lawyers movement and the last elections. a good point for negotiations with india for instance, to streamline our own common regional agendas, which are overdue since at least partition, actually much before... 3. pk-taliban or their views, in fact islamist views are definitely on the margin in pk at the moment. so i totally disagree with KK (who is writing fron across the border wearing border-glasses), and agree with pawan, that the common enemy are the islamists in afg/pk/and hardly so (ie totally overblown) in india, where too, just like us, they love to make a circus out of it. lets hope the common bonds are stronger than the hate, of which there has been enough. best, y
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---the problem exacerbated as a federal-prvincial, ie provincial autonomy issue which has hardened over the last 60 years as authoritarian and military rule, but the federal framework is capable of resolving this, through devolution, interprovincial/federal coordination etc. while there are separatists there are many refomists and deniers of the problem also. On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> wrote: > That Kalat is an independent and sovereign state its status is different > from other princely states of British India, its relations with the British > government being based on various mutual agreements and treaties. > > That Kalat is not an Indian state, its relations with India being of only a > formal nature by virtue of Kalat's agreements with the British and that > with > the ceasing of the Agreement of 1876 with the Kalat government, Kalat would > regain its complete independence, as it existed prior to 1876. All such > regions including Quetta Municipality as were given under the control of > the > British in consequence of any treaty will be returned to the sovereignty of > the Kalat state, and resume their original status as parts of the Kalat > state. > > On March 22, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last of the Viceroys of India, > arrived in Delhi to wind up British supremacy in this part of the British > dominions. The final partition plan of June 3, 1947 stated in respect of > transfer of power in India. Mr, Jinnah wrote to the Khan of Kalat that > since > the position of the Kalat State was different from the other Indian States, > representation on behalf of the state should be made directly to the > Viceroy > in Delhi to discuss the future position of Kalat and the return of Baloch > regions hitherto under the control of the British Government. Accordingly, > the Chief Secretary of Kalat State was sent to Delhi with a draft of the > new > position of Kalat as prepared by legal experts. This resulted in a round > table conference, held on August 4, 1947, in which Lord Mountbatten, Mr, > Jinnah, Mr Liaqat Ali Khan, Chief Minister of Kalat, Sir Sultan Ahmed, the > legal Advisor of Kalat State and the Khan of Kalat took part in the > deliberations The following points were agreed upon: > > "Kalat State will be independent on August 5, 1947, enjoying the same > status > as it originally held in 1838, having friendly relations with its > neighbours. In case the relations of Kalat with any future government got > strained, Kalat will exercise its right of self-determination, and the > British Government should take precautionary measures to help Kalat in the > matter as per the Treaties of 1839 and 1841." > > As a corollary to the round table conference at Delhi, another agreement > was > signed between Kalat and Pakistan on August 4, 1947. The points agreed upon > were broadcast on August 11, 1947, as under: > > "The Government of Pakistan agrees that Kalat is an independent state, > being > quite different in status from other states of India; and commits to its > relations with the British Government as manifested in several > agreements..... In the meantime, a Standstill Agreement will be made > between > Pakistan and Kalat by which Pakistan shall stand committed to all the > responsibilities and agreements signed by Kalat and the British Government > from 1839 to 1947 and by this,.... In order to discuss finally the > relations > between Kalat and Pakistan on matters of defense, foreign relations and > deliberations will be held in the near future in Karachi." A few weeks > after > the agreement, the Agent to the Governor-General informed the rulers of > Kharan and Lasbela that the control of their regions had been transferred > to > the Kalat State. Hence they once again came under the direct influence of > Kalat. The Marri and Bugti tribal region was also returned into the Kalat > fold soon after. Thus the whole of Balochistan came under the suzerainty of > the Khan of Kalat in the same confederacy of Baloch tribes that Nasir Khan > I, in 1666-67, was able to create. The Kalat government made a formal > declaration of its independence on August 15, 1947, soon after the end of > British supremacy, and a day after Pakistan's coming into being on the map > of the subcontinent. Immediately, a delegation comprising the Kalat prime > minister and foreign minister was sent to Karachi, the then capital of > Pakistan, for discussions and an honorable settlement vis-a-vis relations > with Pakistan in the light of the mutually endorsed Standstill Agreement of > August 11, 1947. > > To shock and grief of Khan of Kalat Mr, Jinnah coarsely persuaded the Khan > to expedite the merger. The Khan replied, "I have great respect for your > advice......but Balochistan, being a land of numerous tribes, the people > there must be duly consulted in the matter prior to any decision I take; > for, according to the prevalent tribal convention, no decision can be > binding upon them unless they are taken into confidence beforehand by their > Khan." > > With this provisional agreement, the Khan returned to Kalat and promptly > summoned the Kalat State Houses of Parliament, the Dar-ul-Awam and > Dar-ul-Umra and proposed to the House to accord him a mandate on the matter > of Kalat's merger with Pakistan. Both the Houses, however, contended > unanimously that the proposal of Kalat's merger militated against the > spirit > of the earlier agreement arrived at between Kalat Government and the > spokesmen of Pakistan on August 4, 1947, as also against the Independence > Act of 1947. > > This decision of Kalat's Parliament was forwarded to the Ministry of > Foreign > Affairs, Government of Pakistan, for necessary processing. Shortly > afterwords, the Mr, Jinnah visited Sibi and during his stay there insisted > upon the Khan to sign the merger documents in his personal capacity. > Finding > reluctance in Khan Govt: Pakistan Cabinet under the leadership and > instruction of Mr, Jinnah working on a scheme to breakup the 500-year old > state. The nature of their scheme, as it turned out subsequently, was > tantamount to a political castration of the Baloch people. > > Illegally and in violation of of 4th August 1947 round table conference > declaration and agreement made by Mr, Jinnah on the very day with Khan, > Stand Still Agreement and also Govt; of Pakistan's earlier decion, it had > decided to punish and encircle Kalat and Baloch people cut off Kharan and > Lasbela by giving them an equal status as Kalat and obtaining their > "mergers" with Pakistan directly. Makran, which had been a part of the > Kalat > State for the last 300 years, was made independent of Kalat on March 17, > 1948; and one of the three Sardars made its ruler. > > Thus Makran, too, was made a part of Pakistan. These hasty, illogical, > irrational and politically illegal and oppressive steps naturally > disillusioned the Baloch people. They rightly felt that all their erstwhile > services and sacrifices in the cause of Pakistan were now forgotten. So > deep > was their despair and frustration that several of them wanted to revolt. > Meanwhile, the wave of hatred and animosity generated by the irrational > policies of the Government of Pakistan against Kalat was fast gaining > dangerous dimensions all over Balochistan. Feelings in the tribal areas > particularly were running high against Pakistan and the Baloch people were > calling the position of the Khan of Kalat himself into question. > > Things were moving fast towards a show down. The Government of Pakistan > instructed the Brigadier in Command at Quetta to go on full alert for > action > against Kalat state and the Agent to the Governor General began to prepare > for police action. This was the situation as it stood in the first quarter > of 1948 triggered by the illogical actions of the Pakistan. > > Under duress Khan of Kalat signed the merger documents in his personal > capacity on March 27, 1948, in an effort to diffuse the situation in > Balochistan. In his autobiography, he admits that he did not have the > mandate to sign the merger without the consent of the Houses of Parliament > of Kalat State. A fortnight after the merger, on April 15, 1948, the Agent > to the Governor General in Balochistan issued an order in the name of Mr, > Jinnah, and the legal entity of the Khan of Kalat was abolished and within > 20 hours of the order many of the members of the Balochistan Cabinet were > arrested or exiled from Balochistan. Prince Abdul Karim's revolt and first > Baloch armed struggle sarted in this back ground. By Hussain Bux Thebo > 30.3.07 > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with > subscribe in the subject header. > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Shocker on Women¹s Day PR Bill again haunts govt NC allows PDP bill for discussion Rising Kashmir News Jammu, March 8: A Bill moved by PDP legislator Murtaza Ahmad Khan to provide for disqualification from being Permanent Resident (PR) of the State on marriage of a female resident with a non-permanent resident was allowed in the House unopposed. The bill (LC Private Members Bill No 04 of 2010) moved by Khan was allowed unopposed in the House. The Bill favours disqualification from being Permanent Resident of the State on marriage of a female permanent resident with a non-permanent resident and on termination of marriage of a non-resident female with a permanent resident husband. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly in March 2004. However, Congress, which was then the coalition partner of PDP-Congress ruling alliance voted against the bill in Legislative Assembly. The bill was rejected by the House. NC had then supported the Bill but Congress was strongly opposed. The PDP legislator Murtaza Khan also moved a Bill (LC Private Members Bill No 01 of 2010) to provide for effective protection of women from domestic violence and for matters connected therewith was rejected by the House. Earlier, the government had said that it will move a bill on Domestic Violence in the Assembly. ''To empower the Jammu and Kashmir women so that they can fight for their rights, the government is going to move a bill on Domestic Violence in the ongoing session,'' Sakina Ittoo, Minister for Social Welfare had said. She had said that the bill will soon be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. ³We are sure that the government will give green signal for its implementation in the state.'' Sakina had said the complaints of domestic violence are rising in the state.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Sonia Jee, Does the bill not go against the Basic Constitutional provision of Equality under Art 14 and can't it be challenged by some NGO on infringement of equality enshrined under the Constitution?It seems reservation and other things being talked about Women's welfare are all farce.Basic reality is women are still being treated as Second Class citizens and all political parties coolly acquiesce to it. Regards, (A.K.MALIK) --- On Wed, 3/10/10, S. Jabbar <sonia.jab...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: S. Jabbar <sonia.jab...@gmail.com> > Subject: [Reader-list] Bill to disqualify Kashmiri women from remaining state > subjects > To: "Sarai" <reader-l...@sarai.net> > Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 10:52 AM > Shocker on Women¹s Day > > PR Bill again haunts govt > NC allows PDP bill for discussion > > Rising Kashmir News > Jammu, March 8: A Bill moved by PDP legislator Murtaza > Ahmad Khan to provide > for disqualification from being Permanent Resident (PR) of > the State on > marriage of a female resident with a non-permanent resident > was allowed in > the House unopposed. > > > The bill (LC Private Members Bill No 04 of 2010) moved by > Khan was allowed > unopposed in the House. The Bill favours > disqualification from being > Permanent Resident of the State on marriage of a female > permanent resident > with a non-permanent resident and on termination of > marriage of a > non-resident female with a permanent resident husband. > > The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly in March > 2004. However, > Congress, which was then the coalition partner of > PDP-Congress ruling > alliance voted against the bill in Legislative Assembly. > The bill was > rejected by the House. > > NC had then supported the Bill but Congress was strongly > opposed. > > The PDP legislator Murtaza Khan also moved a Bill (LC > Private Members Bill > No 01 of 2010) to provide for effective > protection of women from domestic > violence and for matters connected therewith was rejected > by the House. > > Earlier, the government had said that it will move a bill > on Domestic > Violence in the Assembly. > > ''To empower the Jammu and Kashmir women so that they can > fight for their > rights, the government is going to move a bill on Domestic > Violence in the > ongoing session,'' Sakina Ittoo, Minister for Social > Welfare had said. > > She had said that the bill will soon be tabled in the > Legislative Assembly. > ³We are sure that the government will give green signal > for its > implementation in the state.'' > > Sakina had said the complaints of domestic violence are > rising in the state. > > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the > city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net > with subscribe in the subject header. > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ reader-list mailing list reader-l...@sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list