South Asia Citizens Wire | October 19-20, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2306 [1] Pakistan: Another line of fire (I. A. Rehman) [2] Pakistan: The General's book (Arif Azad) [3] Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum Struggle against illegitimate allotment of Twin Island of Karachi [4] India: Hang First The Prime Traitors and Terrorists (I K Shukla) [5] India: Public money to fund religion and war - while health and education badly need funds - Children under six -- out of the spotlight (Jean Drèze) - Aedes of October (Pamela Philipose) [6] India: Scrutinising these 'special powers' (Rakesh Shukla) [7] India: 'Yamuna Gently Weeps', Ruzbeh N Bharucha chronicles Delhi's Yamuna Pushta slum demolitions [8] Announcements: (i) Documentary film coming soon: 'The Journalist and The Jihadi: The Murder of Daniel Pearl' (ii) The `Doon School' - a documentary film screening (London, 20 October 2006) ____
[1] Dawn October 19, 2006 ANOTHER LINE OF FIRE by I. A. Rehman THREE diverse groups of prominent citizens have in recent weeks issued open letters on the distressing state of the nation and indicated the direction in which the road to salvation lies. Unfortunately, these non-lethal missiles generated more scepticism about the credentials and motives of their authors than a debate on their contents. However, taken together, these statements reveal a significant progression of ideas and provide a useful study in the evolution of public opinion. But first a few words about the tendency to concentrate on who is claiming public attention instead of listening to the call. The effort to look for untainted knights among the characters that have somehow commanded the public space in Pakistan is not only futile, it is also irrelevant. It is not right to deny the possibility that a person who was wrong in the past can be right today. Besides, it is strange that the critics of the regime should be subjected to a credibility test while no such test is applied to official spokesmen whose sole task apparently is demonisation of the opposition figures. One of the common comments, especially on the first letter in the sequence, was that most of its signatories had at one time or another been on the authoritarian bandwagon. The retired army generals constituted a primary target of such criticism. The fact that a voice of dissent, however feeble, had been raised from quarters close to the regime should have carried more weight than the past record of the gentlemen concerned. (No group has considered women capable of making a meaningful contribution to the current political debate; in the first group only one was a woman, among the 23 who signed the subsequent two letters none was a woman). References to absence of representatives of the large oppressed majority (women, peasants, youth and workers) among the authors of the letters could have been more appropriate than breaking the locks on the cupboards of some of the signatories. There was no serious disagreement with the group of 18 over the grounds of their petition. In some of the comments in the media exception was taken to the writers' greater concern for the future of the army than for the health of the nation. Much stronger was the criticism of the remedy prescribed in this letter - that President Musharraf should give up his army uniform and set up a neutral caretaker regime (under himself) to ensure a fair general election. The contradiction within the latter part of the formulation was manifest. The second letter - by six politicians still on the active list and an odd couple made by two former Chief Justices - obviously drew upon both the contents of the first letter and the criticism attracted by it. The signatories to this letter deemed it necessary to tell General Musharraf that "none of us sought office under your dispensation." They also chose to confess that "many of us may have given you the benefit of the doubt as seemingly 'reluctant coup-maker'." (The layer upon layer of reservation here is quite remarkable.) After thus meeting the common objections to the group of 18, the eight signatories to the second letter tried to give, in comparison to the former, a fuller description of the regime's failures and a more radical cure. President Musharraf was reminded of the "lengthy litany of promises which remain unfulfilled." The conclusion reached by the authors after recounting the regime's failures and a long list of public grievances, was that "in our considered opinion these policies now pose a serious threat to the integrity, solidarity and wellbeing of Pakistan." Further, the writers of the second letter moved several steps ahead of the preceding 18 good Samaritans by declining to be content with asking President Musharraf to shed his armour. They further urged him not to embarrass himself much longer by clinging to power and earnestly asked him to hand over power to the Supreme Court, 'largely constituted by yourself' to hold elections through a 'consensual and neutral caretaker government.' The view that President Musharraf might, after relinquishing the army post, preside over a neutral caretaker regime was implicitly repelled. And, of course, caretakers must not only be neutral, they have to be 'consensual' too. Where does one go after the second missive? To the people. Isn't that elementary, Dr Watson? So the last letter (so far) in the series is not a petition to General Musharraf. Instead, it gives the people, who have been recognised as the "real sovereign of the territories of Pakistan" even in the second letter, a call to the barricades. The 15 men (again no woman worthy of joining the august group) who signed the third letter, include more representatives of independent civil society segments than found in the preceding groups. Some of them can claim credit for rejecting the regime change seven years ago. They do not think a thick brief is needed to attack a ruler "who lacks both legitimacy and credibility." They directly come to the point: "that freedom from army rule is not negotiable; that their interest and the interest of Pakistan do not coincide; that we are tired of military rule, tired of tyranny, tired of being humiliated, tired of being deprived of our right to elect our rulers. We say to them: enough is enough! We can't take it anymore." The rhetoric echoes a common citizen's mood, though the authors of this letter may be considered a few years late in realising that the time to wake up has come. One could be asked whether epistles drafted by some eminent citizens will have any effect on a regime that is wallowing in a sea of self-praise and which has imperviously shrugged off attacks from a sizable group of opposition politicians and an even larger array of civil society organisations, human rights campaigners, women activists, trade unions, and peasant groups. True, the regime is unlikely to pay any heed to the call of generals without any soldiers behind them. Nevertheless, even after making allowances for the cynicism of middle class commentators, which operates to the advantage of the regime, the open letters we have seen (and such writings that may be in the pipeline) do matter for more reasons than one. First, as we move from the guarded pragmatism of the non-committed academician in the first letter, to the quasi-judicial phraseology of the second letter, and then to the executive rhetoric of defiance in the third letter, we cover a wide spectrum of public opinion. These letters not only contain responses by informed citizens to the national crisis but also a progression in prescriptions from sedatives/painkillers to the minimum essential surgery. This is how ideas develop before they become irresistible. Secondly, the admittedly small effort by the writers of the three letters should be taken as complementary to, and not in contradiction with, the consistent struggle by the real agents of change - the much maligned political workers. They have been saying in fewer words and far more pithily all that is contained in the letters. Unlike the letter-writers they neither send up petitions nor do they call others to act; they have been risking their life and weal for quite some time - for years, indeed. These men and women of action will bring ideas of change to fruition and whatever voices can be raised in their support are welcome. Nobody can say in advance what will be the last straw on the back of a very docile camel. After all the anti-Ayub movement was sparked by a routine search of some students' bags (for smuggled goods). Thirdly, the regime appears to have lost the battle of words. The last of the three letters came on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the 1999 putsch. In their references to the event the official propagandists avoided mentioning the seven-point agenda the regime had started with. Indeed, all the three letters hit the regime in varying degrees for non-realisation of these seven objectives. The government's retreat in the public debate on its failures was fully borne out by a recent cataloguing of General Musharraf's 12 achievements by a loyal minister. These in the given order were: projection of the Palestine issue; the checking of Al Qaeda; the model accord with militants in Waziristan; Pakistan providing intellectual leadership for eradication of terrorism; Pakistan has emerged as a peace symbol in the region; new concepts evolved for resolving India-Pakistan issues through creative initiatives and out-of-box solutions; all pretexts for denying nuclear cooperation with Pakistan demolished; Pakistan has emerged as a non-controversial Muslim country - a bridge between the Muslim world and the West; Pakistan playing a role in regional stability through its geopolitical location; Pakistan may need aid but it prefers investment; Pakistan moving ahead with changes in its democratic, social and economic fibre and has introduced the culture of tolerance; the US has realised that the story of abandoning Pakistan after the Afghan war shall not be repeated. Apart from the fact that each one of these claims can be challenged, and some of the formulations are devoid of meaning and sense, what happened to the problems of federalism, secrecy of rule, corruption and the day-to-day needs of the people the regime had set out to resolve? _____ [2] The News 18 October 2006 THE GENERAL'S BOOK by Arif Azad General Musharraf's much-trumpeted memoir grandly titled 'In the Line of Fire' reminded me of TV footage shown by the BBC when he staged a tit-for-tat coup in 1999. In the short clip featuring the coup, the general is caught up in the motion of firing a pistols in the air, surrounded by a band of his admiring uniformed colleagues, and saying with characteristic bravado that he would have been an actor had he not been a soldier (I am recollecting from my memory here). This clip in a way denoted his hallmark characteristics of self-promotion at the expense of others and total disregard for normal rules and conventions guiding the conduct of institutions and nations. The second occasion, which strengthened this earlier image of him, was when he managed to get through to his only address, so far, to the joint session of the engineered parliament by staging a triumphal and defiant show of literal muscle flexing in front of legislators for having faced them down for an indefinite future and stamped his authority over unruly noise and chaos of democracy evident in the parliament. Later on General Musharraf's cloyingly boastful website ploughed in the same furrow of unverifiable tales of his bravery and courage in the field, unveiling deep-rooted streak of self-promotion in his personality. What is noteworthy, however, is to keep in mind the back-story to the way the book might have come to be written. It is no longer a privileged insight to suggest that the so-called war on terror, having undergone quite a few linguistic plastic surgeries lately, has spawned a profitable industry in contracts, books, videos and films. Publishers and media people are hounding anyone who would be willing to offer some juicy bits in order to make quick bucks. However, most of those in the inner or peripheral loop of the war on terror have wisely resisted this temptation to temporary stardom either from terms of contract of employment or official secret act or from a complex mixture of both factors. Few exceptions could include Christopher Meyer, who was British ambassador to the US in the run up to invasion of Iraq. His book titled 'DC Confidential', though finely balanced and nuanced in its judgments and conclusions exposed some of behind-the-scene goings on in the build up to the war from a diplomatic vantage point. But General Musharraf, having ruled without checks and balances built in a democratic society for seven years, feels himself free of such compulsions and discreet policy inhibitions. No wonder, when offered the book contract, he leapt at the opportunity of self-publicity and artificially enhancing his exploits in the line of fire lit by his decision to ally himself with the US-led war on terror, regardless of long-term ill consequences flowing from his decision. In the process his policy indiscretions, spun as plain talking, have backfired, raising serious long-term questions about the integrity of the country and institutions fingered in the book. As reported by Amir Mir in a newspaper recently, the title of the book in itself could be a conscious nod to a Hollywood film of the same title where a secret agent acts as an indispensable human shield between the US president and his assassin. If so, then the title and content of the book could be construed as General Musharraf's pitch to the US in particular and the West in general to continue backing him in the foreseeable future as the most allied ally in the fight against Al Qaeda. This underlying intent assumes importance when set beside the backbeat of growing doubts within Western capitals about the sincerity of General Musharraf in prosecuting the war on terror. To pick up the story, thus once committed to a slick publishing company, General Musharraf placed himself at the mercy of PR team of the publishing concern that might have a role in parading Musharraf on all possible media outlets to whet the curiosity in sexy bits of the book. By contradicting himself on a number of issues in the book, Musharraf has laid himself open to the firing line of his critics. Quite unexpectedly-while praising the country's premier sleuth agency, the ISI-he has exposed the agency to ever tighter scrutiny at international and national levels. While praising the ISI as the winner of cold war one day (an oversimplification of a very complex war which was already winding down in other parts of the world without the guiding and organising genius of the ISI), he backtracked the next day and duly implicated retired ISI officers in aiding Taliban. Furthermore, the ISI comes out as a purely mercenary agency in his account that is shown to be interested only in chasing up bounty money by handing over Al Qaeda suspects to the CIA circumventing legal channels. Significantly, how many innocents are still being handed over to the CIA for monetary reasons outside the due process of law (Moazzam Beg, one of those handed over to the CIA, has excoriated this policy in his review of Musharraf's memoirs for a London-based online magazine Open Democracy)? The book is full of contradictions which do not reflect favourably on the reputation of the country' institutions. For example Khalid Sheikh is named as the killer of Daniel Pearl in the book? If this is true, then Omar Saeed Sheikh emerges, logically, as innocent and wrongly convicted for murder. Does this not reflect adversely on our judiciary that might have capitulated to General Musharraf's demand to convict some one summarily to appease the Western wrath? Kargil's is continued to be rewritten as a great military achievement contrary to overwhelming weight of counter evidence and facts accumulating in a weekly. Is there not a crying need now for an independent inquiry into the Kargil catastrophe as this paper has argued in a recent editorial? In the same vein, displaying his great historical insights, Bhutto senior is held solely responsible for the break up of Pakistan contrary to the evidence preserved in the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report, which is adamning indictment of the Pakistani military's full-star ineptitude. Strangely, while reading excerpt-saturation coverage of the book, I was reminded of the great Paraguayan writer Augusto Roa Bastos's classic novel titled 'I the supreme' about the psychological makeup of a South American military dictator. A thought occurred to me instantly: perhaps a more suitable title for 'In the line of fire' would be 'I the supreme' as it closely parallels the self-created cult of self-glorification brilliantly captured in the novel. _____ [3] 19 October 2006 PAKISTAN FISHERFOLK FORUM SCHEDULE OF STRUGGLE AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ALLOTMENT OF TWIN ISLAND OF KARACHI Brief over the Issue Recently federal government has made a contract with UAE based construction firm regarding construction of a new city of international standard on the threshold of port Qasim. It is planned that the new city of international standards will be built on the twin islands of Bundar and Buddo, located close to the port Qasim and the design of the proposed city will be prepared on the pattern of that of Dubai namely Diamond Bar Island City. The estimated cost of the mega project has been put at $.43 billion. The construction of the new city would result in poverty and hunger among 8 million Fisherfolk historically inhabitants of coast and traditionally earning their livelihood at Karachi coast. Besides the destruction of basic and traditional source of livelihood of the poor fishing communities, it would render the entire marine ecological system terribly unsustainable. Hundreds of fishing grounds would be annihilated. The unemployment ratio among poor Fisherfolk will dramatically increase. Mangroves forests, which are already being rapidly destroyed, will suffer more due construction of new city. With the passage of time new and more investors will surge into the areas and will invest and earn at the cost of lives of poor people. Ironically the federal government has done contract on its own without informing the Sindh government. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum strongly condemns this decision of construction the new city of the Karachi coast line. Opposing this devilish plan, and is of the view that it would put colossal negative impact on the lives and livelihood of local fishing communities, that is, this project is totally anti-human and illegitimate in its essence. PFF has invariably rejected any development process which is done at the expense of live and livelihood of poor people. PFF appeals national, international, media, social, human rights and development experts to immediately intervene into the matter of sheer violation of human rights and dignity and save the lives and livelihood of the poor people of these islands. In this connection PFF initiating the struggle against this injustice The activities of the Struggle - Corner meetings in different areas of coastal Karachi (Continuing) - Circulation and displacement of Endorsement Letters to the higher authorities (Continuing) - A research study over the issue (Started) - Preparation of documentary Film (Started) - Protests rallies and hunger strikes at all district headquarters thought Sindh (from 2nd November) - The International Fisherfolk Day a massive protest demonstration at Bhundar Island (On 21 November) - Press conference in Islamabad (5th November) - Seminar with SDPI in Islamabad (6th November) - Protest demonstration with Peoples Rights Movement in front of Parliament house Islamabad (7th November) - Printing and wide distribution of Pamphlets, Posters and Staggers (from 2nd November) - Hunger Strike till death (1st December) This struggle will continue unless the government changes its decision. All the members of Civil Society are invited to join the campaign. ><(((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·..><(((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·...><(((º> Muhammad Khan Jamali Coordinator Community Development Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum Sachal Hall Ibrahim Hydery, Bin Qasim Town Karachi. o o o The News Oct 10, 2006 NO TO ISLAND CITIES What does one say when a country as underdeveloped and backward as Pakistan wishes to develop supposedly state-of-the-art cities in two uninhabited islands off its coastline and even hands them over to a foreign development firm? Should one be delighted at this, given that this means that foreign investment will come into the country, that jobs will be created when the project gets underway and that once completed it will provide the country with cities just like that pearl across the Gulf, Dubai? The recent announcement that the two islands have been handed over to a reputed UAE-based developer by the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) has already become controversial -- but that was only to be expected given the scope and nature of the project and the secretive manner in which the deal has been completed. Not all the opposition has come from NGOs, environmental groups, concerned citizens and fisherfolk groups and communities. In the days following the announcement, the Sindh chief minister himself told reporters that he was not too sure whether a federal government body could give the islands -- situated off Karachi's coast -- to a foreign firm for development. However, a couple of days later he was quoted in the press as saying that there should be no problem with the project. But then other officials of the Sindh government raised issue over the project saying that the islands in question did not belong to the PQA and that their ownership needed to be ascertained since in all likelihood it could well lie with the provincial government. In any case, these are procedural objections. Various NGOs, environmental groups and especially the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum have more basic and well-grounded objections to the project and these should have been considered before deciding to hand over the islands to a foreign developer. For instance, it has been rightly pointed out that the development on the islands may well have a very adverse impact on the local fishermen communities because of the construction activity that will take place. Also, once the project is in place it is bound to pollute the area around the islands and it is likely that the pollution will spread far beyond the islands affecting the marine life in the area and the potential catch for local fishermen. Another argument that goes against such development is that it does nothing for the ordinary person who lives along the city's coastline and is geared for providing entertainment and leisure activities to the very affluent. Besides, of all places why choose two uninhabited islands off the city's coast for setting up such cities? Could a better site not have been chosen, one that would have lesser environmental impact and not threaten the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and their families? One has to say that the whole rather hurried manner in which this project has been undertaken and awarded to a foreign developer smacks of a complete lack of transparency as well as insensitivity to the needs of all stakeholders concerned. Most regrettably, this is the way most infrastructure and development projects are being planned in this country: by bureaucrats or ministry officials sitting behind closed doors handing over vast tracts of land to foreign or local developers without conducting the legally-mandated environmental impact assessments and without taking into consideration the views of ordinary people who would be directly affected by the project's construction. This lack of transparency in decision-making and formulation of policies, and the generally opaque manner of implementing these policies, especially with regard to development, needs to change or else the balance of power within the country -- heavily stacked currently in favour of the elites -- will become even more imbalanced and tilted in favour of the powerful. _____ [4] HANG FIRST THE PRIME TRAITORS AND TERRORISTS by I K Shukla Any nation worth its salt, on assuming the reins of power after a bitter and protracted struggle against a foreign enemy, is duty bound to try the collaborators and traitors as enemies of the people, and mete out justice by hanging them. In the case of India, this righteous duty remained unexercised, this major responsibility remained undischarged. This glaring dereliction of duty was a tragic lapse on the part of the Congress. The criminals left unpunished and unhanged felt emboldened to keep conspiring against the nation, their habitual treason and terrorism culminating in the assassination of Gandhi, the father of the new nation, and continuing thence the bloodbaths of the minorities. Unfortunately, that was not the only tragedy that wrenched the new nation, and that was not the only instance of Congress abdicating its responsibilty of fighting and uprooting the enemies of the people. Saffronazis had made several earlier attempts too on the Mahatma's life - in 1934 (Poona), in 1944 (Panchgani), in 1944 (Wardha), in 1946 (Poona), and on 20 January 1948 (Delhi). 30th January 1948 was the last in a long series of murderous attempts on Gandhi's life by the Hindutva assassins. Not to have them hanged proved fatal not just for the Father of the Nation, but perilous for the nation at large and for its future as a sovereign state enity. The traitors of yesteryear remained unrepentant and turned into inveterate and seasoned terrorists, masquerading as patriots. Congress remained remiss and negligent in dealing with the Hindutva fascists, and allowed the communal reactionaries and reprobates a field day. That is how the polity became polluted and the nation set ablaze repeatedly by Hindu gangsters spawned by RSS, functioning under various names. Thus the cult of crime came into vogue in India as cultural nationalism, a verbal variant of national socialism of the German Nazis and fascism of the Italian capo. The wave of killings and assassinations launched by the Hindutva hordes rocked the nation no end setting aflame city after city in various parts of India and drowning minorities in blood, the police actively participating in the pogroms and protecting the Hindutva murderers, rapists and arsonists as their "duty". The communally contaminated bureaucracy played the willing accomplice of the criminals, judiciary functioning rarely to deliver. The state was subverted, and law suborned, to the extent that for the minorities there was left no exit, no reprieve, let alone justice. They were victims several-fold of murder, robbery, rape, frame-up, hunt and harssment, violence and villainy. Their rights as citizens, as humans, were abrogated by hoods the state becoming compliant and complicit. Their widespread rampage of outlawry going unpunished swelled the heap of their crimes. Whether it was Gujarat 2002 ethnocide, planned long in advance and executed "quite efficiently" by the state, taking a toll of over 2000 innocent lives, or the successive holocausts against Muslims and Christians in Dangs, Surat, Ayodhya, Muzaffarnagar, Hashimpura, Meerut, Mumbai, Nanded, Malegaon, Madhya Pradesh and scores of other places in other states, they saw to it that their trick of raucous diversion kept them out of the loop of law. It is the nagging fear of and bid to escape punishment and gallows for their countless crimes of treason and recurrent terrorism that these saffronazis are the most vocal in demanding death for Afzal whose crime cannot be proved as a terrorist. Thus they are seeking to wipe off their stigma of treason that they have perpetrated against the nation and that they persist in still when they scream that 1942 was a failure, i.e., it should not have taken place to discomfit their paymasters, the Brits. With no other electoral ploy or catchy plank to mobilize their vote bank handy, their desperate resort to phony patriotism and their stridency in respect of Afzal Guru can be understood as a pitiable gambit, a pathetic attempt at playacting, characteristic of a drowning and degenerate party. It is they who must be hanged first for their umpteen crimes against the nation. Let them not deceive anyone this time around. Had they been hanged there would have been no holocausts and carnages against minorities, nor would India have been bereft of the Mahatma. They threatening a nationwide campaign for Afzal's illicit execution, and Congress intimidated by them, spell , for their benefit, and to the world, that India is a soft state where fascist criminals and assassins, rapists and arsonists can flourish and function with impunty. 06.10.18 _____ [5] [It is truly outrageous that India's 'secular' state has money to throw around utterly useless religious projects such as the latest Rs. 100-crore grant for Kumbh Mela (www.hindu.com/2006/10/20/stories/2006102005261200.htm) or the decades old practice of providing subsidies for Haj travelers to Mecca etc. The state also continues to spend endless amounts on Defence and 'National' Security; the non performing Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), corners 30 per cent of India's R&D budget . . . All this precious public money should be diverted for funding programmes that provide basic human security. -- SACW ] o o o The Hindu October 20, 2006 CHILDREN UNDER SIX -- OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT by Jean Drèze Universalisation of the Integrated Child Development Services should be a priority to safeguard the child's right to nutrition, health, and pre-school education. THE DRAFT Approach Paper to the 11th Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission, has been discussed and criticised from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to its worst blind spot: the situation of children, particularly those below the age of six years. The facts are well known. About half of all Indian children are undernourished, more than half suffer from anaemia, and a similar proportion escapes full immunisation. This humanitarian catastrophe is not just a loss for the children concerned and their families, and a violation of their fundamental rights, but also a tragedy for the nation as a whole. A decent society cannot be built on the ruins of hunger, malnutrition, and ill health. Yet one is at a loss to find any serious discussion of these issues in the Approach Paper. Patient search uncovers a little "box," tucked away in the section on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, where children under six are finally mentioned. The box (two paragraphs) begins with the grand statement that "development of children is at the centre of the 11th Plan" but does not give any inkling of what this actually implies. Instead, it essentially confines itself to the startling suggestion that anganwadis (child care centres) should "concentrate on inculcating good health and hygienic practices among the children." The anganwadi scheme, officially known as the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), is the only major national scheme that addresses the needs of children under six. As things stand, only half of these children are registered under the ICDS. The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) clearly states that the United Progressive Alliance Government will "universalise ICDS to provide a functional Anganwadi in every settlement and ensure full coverage for all children." This step is also required for compliance with recent Supreme Court orders (PUCL vs Union of India and Others, Civil Writ Petition 196 of 2001). It would be natural, therefore, to expect the universalisation of the ICDS to be one of the top priorities of the 11th Plan. None of this, however, finds mention in the Approach Paper. The main argument for universalising the ICDS is that it is an essential means of safeguarding the rights of children under six - including their right to nutrition, health, and pre-school education. These rights are expressed in Article 39(f) of the Indian Constitution, which directs the state to ensure that "children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity." If we take children's rights seriously, an institutional medium is required to provide these "opportunities and facilities." That is the main role of the ICDS centre or anganwadi. Apathy towards the ICDS in official circles appears to be linked to a perception that this programme is ineffective, if not useless. It is easy to provide superficial support for this claim by citing horror stories of idle anganwadis or food poisoning. These horror stories, however, are not a fair reflection of the general condition of the ICDS. Indeed, recent evidence suggests the ICDS is actually performing crucial functions in many States, and that there is much scope for consolidating these achievements. A recent survey of the ICDS, initiated by the Centre for Equity Studies, sheds some light on these issues. The survey was conducted in May-June 2004 in six States: Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. It involved unannounced visits in a random sample of about 200 anganwadis as well as detailed household interviews. Among mothers with a child enrolled at the local anganwadi, more than 90 per cent said it opened "regularly." This is consistent with direct observation: nearly 80 per cent of the anganwadis were open at the time of the investigators' unannounced visit. Similarly, 94 per cent of the mothers interviewed stated supplementary nutrition was being provided at the anganwadi. Even pre-school education, the weakest component of the ICDS, was happening in about half of the anganwadis visited. More than 70 per cent of the mothers felt the ICDS was "important" for their child's welfare. This is not to deny that the quality of the ICDS needs urgent improvement in many States. But recognising the need for quality improvements is not the same as dismissing the ICDS as a non-functional programme. The survey does not provide any justification for this defeatist outlook. In fact, the survey findings highlight the enormous potential of the ICDS. This potential is well demonstrated in Tamil Nadu, where child nutrition has been a political priority for many years. Every sample anganwadi in Tamil Nadu had an effective feeding programme, and almost all the sample mothers were satisfied with the quality as well as the quantity of the food. Other basic services were also in good shape. For instance, 97 per cent of the mothers interviewed in Tamil Nadu reported that children were being "weighed regularly," and 86 per cent said useful educational activities were taking place at the anganwadi. Every single child in the Tamil Nadu sample had been immunised, fully so in a large majority of cases. Perhaps the best sign of real achievement in Tamil Nadu is the fact that 96 per cent of the mothers considered the ICDS to be "important" for their child's well being, and half of them considered it to be "very important." While Tamil Nadu is an exemplary case of effective action in this field, it is important to note that "success stories" are not confined to this particular state. Maharashtra, for instance, seems to be rapidly catching up with Tamil Nadu. To illustrate, the proportion of mothers who stated that the local anganwadi "opened regularly" or that their child was regularly weighed or that immunisation services were available at the anganwadi, was above 90 per cent in each case. Much as in Tamil Nadu, 93 per cent of the mothers interviewed in Maharashtra considered the ICDS to be important for their child's well being. A large majority (60 per cent) also viewed the anganwadi worker as "a person who can help them in the event of health or nutrition problems in the family." While there were also areas of concern, notably the pre-school education programme, Maharashtra's experience clearly shows that Tamil Nadu's achievements can be emulated elsewhere. In the northern States, the condition of the ICDS varied a great deal, from relatively encouraging in Himachal Pradesh to very poor in Uttar Pradesh (the usual "basket case" as far as public services are concerned). Even in the lagging States, however, the strong potential of the ICDS clearly emerged in villages with an active anganwadi. It is also important to note that these States have largely reaped as they sowed. Consider for instance the "supplementary nutrition programme." There is much evidence that the best approach here is to combine nutritious, cooked food for children aged 3-6 years with well-designed "take-home rations" (together with nutrition counselling) for younger children. Yet many States are not even trying to take these simple steps to improve the nutrition component of the ICDS. For instance, in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, children aged 3-6 years get the same bland "ready-to-eat" food (panjiri or murmura) day after day, and younger children get nothing at all. It is no wonder that mothers interviewed in these States were often dissatisfied with the programme. Similar remarks apply to other hurdles that have plagued the ICDS in the northern States - lack of funds, under-staffing, poor infrastructure, erratic supervision, inadequate training, centralised management, among others. These shortcomings are curable, and their persistence essentially reflects a lack of political interest in the well being and rights of children. In sharp contrast to Tamil Nadu, where child health and nutrition are lively political issues, the ICDS is at the rock bottom of policy concerns in the northern States. It is against this background of political indifference to children under six that the CMP commitment "to provide a functional Anganwadi in every settlement" was so important. In pursuance of this commitment, the National Advisory Council formulated detailed recommendations on the ICDS in November 2004, along with cost estimates and a proposed time frame for universalisation. These recommendations have been amplified and improved in a number of recent documents, such as the reports of the Commissioners of the Supreme Court and the concluding statement of a convention on "children's right to food" held in Hyderabad in April 2006. Unfortunately, this wave of creative advice appears to be falling on deaf ears. It is certainly not reflected in the draft Approach Paper to the 11th Plan. An opportunity is being missed to rectify the catastrophic neglect of children under six in public policy and economic planning. (The writer is Honorary Professor at the Delhi School of Economics.) o o o [see also:] AEDES OF OCTOBER by Pamela Philipose (October 19, 2006) http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14947._.html _____ [6] Indian Express October 20, 2006 SCRUTINISING THESE 'SPECIAL POWERS' by Rakesh Shukla Suggestions of the committee which reviewed the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act do not go far enough Irom Sharmila has not let a drop of water pass through her lips in protest against the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act after the brutal killing by the army of ten civilians at a bus stand in Malom in 2000. The AFSPA gives the army powers to kill, arrest, search, even blow up a building - and all this with immunity from prosecution. In contrast, the police has the power to kill but only in case a person accused of an offence that is punishable with death or life imprisonment is resisting arrest or in the exercise of the right to private defence. Unlike the provision for inquest in case of death by the police, there is no requirement under the AFSPA for army personnel to submit a report after the killing of people. It is this which makes the legislation totally arbitrary. From the rape and murder of Manorama in 2004, to the killing of two siblings returning from the fields on October 4 in Kashmir this year, the atrocities committed under the Act are well documented. The Government of India constituted a Committee to Review the Act in the wake of widespread agitation in Manipur in protest against the murder and rape of Manorama Devi. The Committee, headed by Justice Jeevan Reddy, submitted its report in June 2005. Officially, it is still under wraps. The Review Committee recommends the repeal of the AFSPA. Alongside it recommends the insertion of certain provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The recommendation that the power to fire be exercised only in case of possession or suspected possession of bombs, dynamite, explosive substances, firearms, poisonous gases, etc, is a welcome departure. The recommendation to set up grievances cells to redress complaints of unlawful arrests, detentions, disappearances, killings, is well-intentioned. However, the composition of the mechanism does not inspire confidence. Anyone who has been in areas where the Armed Forces are deployed can testify to the total power imbalance between the civil administration and the army. A mere sub-divisional magistrate, even if he is chairman of the cell, will be able to do little. The interface between the civil authorities and the armed forces is of vital importance. The experience of the working of the AFSPA has shown that the minute the Armed Forces are deployed, there is virtual 'army rule' in the region. Unfortunately, the recommendation of the Committee that 'to the extent feasible and practicable', the Armed Forces should coordinate their operations with civil authority, are unlikely to be act as a check. An awareness of fundamental rights and the gradual escalation of force goes against the grain of army training. Therefore, the inevitable consequence of giving independent powers to the army is the large scale violation of human rights. The setting up of a concrete mechanism to place the Armed Forces under civil authority, even after an area has been declared as disturbed, is crucial to check the militarisation of governance. The writer is an advocate in the Supreme Court _____ [7] The Times of India Sep 25, 2006 Q&A: 'SLUM-DWELLERS ARE THE BACKBONE OF LABOUR FORCE' Ruzbeh N Bharucha wears several hats. Once a journalist, he is now a documentary film-maker and writer. His latest book, Yamuna Gently Weeps, chronicles Delhi's Pushta slum demolitions. Avijit Ghosh speaks to Bharucha about the dark side of urbanisation: Your book claims that about 150,000 people from 40,000 families lived on the banks of Yamuna? What has happened to them? In the guise of resettlement, encroachment, pollution and beautification of the city, in early 2004, in a matter of weeks, 40,000 homes were demolished, without any rehabilitation plan. Barely 20 per cent of those displaced were allotted plots, on a barren piece of land in Bawana, 40 km away from the city. The remaining 80 per cent were forced to take refuge on the streets along with their salvaged belongings, until they found some way out of their miserable plight. Remember, you demolish one slum, you create 10 smaller slums as the displaced don't go back to their villages. They have nothing to go back to. Several families living in these slums were Bangladeshis. What is your view on this? My focus is on the plight of forced migration and not on issues of immigration. For me, the plight of a poor family or hungry children is universal. I am not interested in where they come from but where they are being forced to go. What is wrong with the government's resettlement measures? What resettlement measures are you talking about? First of all this isn't resettlement, this is unsettlement. By throwing the poor on the outskirts, we are creating ghettos and it is a move that is going to backfire badly. This isn't relocation but dislocation. If demolition is a must, then you should first rehabilitate and then demolish. Those in power have thrown these families on a barren piece of land, 40 km away, with not even basic civic amenities like clean water, proper sanitation, schools, electricity and, worst of all, no scope of earning a livelihood. We aren't interested in removing poverty. We are only interested in removing the poor from the main city. Are you against slum demolitions? Research indicates that in 30 years, every third human being on planet earth will be a slum-dweller. Mumbai and Delhi by 2015 will be the second and the third most populated cities in the world. Thus slums can't be wished away and ruthless demolition is not the solution. First, take care of rural development. Second, the city Master Plan has kept aside land for housing for the economically weaker sections of society. It has not been implemented. If we can address rural development and implement the Master Plan, growth of slums will decline phenomenally. Those who live in slums serve the city and are the backbone of labour force. They aren't animals. o o o Kalkota Newsline October 12, 2006 History Revisited Author-filmmaker RUZBEH BHARUCHA'S WORK ON THE DEMOLITION OF INDIA'S LARGEST SLUM IS MAKING NEWS AT HUMAN RIGHTS FILM FESTS Avantika Bhuyan Kanpur, October 11: It's a heart-wrenching tale of razed homes and 35,000 dislocated families-the demolition of Yamuna Pushta, one of the oldest and largest slums in India, located on the three-kilometre stretch along the Yamuna river in Delhi. Little wonder then that Ruzbeh N Bharucha's book and documentary Yamuna Gently Weeps has been winning acclaim. It began when Bharucha was writing his first book. "I was interacting with Kiran Bedi while writing my first book, Shadows in Cages. She has been involved in a lot of community work in that area along with Delhi Police Foundation-Navjyoti. There were balwadis and health clinics in the area. But within two days we got the news that the area was going to be demolished," says Bharucha. Advertisement Soon after, Bharucha, along with a team of cameramen, went to the slum-dwellers' homes. Within minutes, around 1.5 lakh slum-dwellers were rendered homeless. Of these, 20 per cent were alloted plots on barren land in Bawana, an area far from Delhi and lacking basic civic amenities. "I was with them before the demolition began and when they were given that land. That day I was ashamed to be called an Indian," he says. In his opinion, if the judiciary had been more responsible and questioned the rehabilitation, and if the media had covered the event properly, the disaster could have been averted. "If Kareena Kapoor or Amitabh Bachchan would have walked through Yamuna Pushta, the news would have been splashed everywhere," says Bharucha, who has held several editorial positions in prominent newspapers. "One of the things I've learnt is that the poor have a lot of self-respect. All they want is a rehabilitation plan if you want to demolish their houses," he says. His documentary has gone to all prominent International human rights festivals and plans are under way to screen it at universities like Symbiosis, Fergusson College and the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). Up next is a documentary about a village on the outskirts of Delhi. With Bharucha at work, it's bound to make news. _____ [10] Announcements: (i) Documentary Film: THE JOURNALIST AND THE JIHADI: THE MURDER OF DANIEL PEARL is an HBO Documentary Films presentation, co-produced by Moving Picture, First Take Ltd. and Distant Horizon. Directed and produced by Ahmed A. Jamal and Ramesh Sharma; producer, Anant Singh; narrated by Christiane Amanpour; written by Amit Roy; edited by Tony Appleton; music by David Heath. For HBO: executive producers, Sheila Nevins and Lisa Heller. Running Time: 79 minutes http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/journalistandjihadi/index.html ___ (ii) Film screening: Anthropology of Media Programme, SOAS [London] Event: David MacDougall wiill be presenting a special screening and seminar featuring the film, The Age of Reason (2003). The `Doon School' Date: Friday, 20 October 2006 Time: 13.00 Venue: Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS Renowned anthropologist and filmmaker David MacDougall will present a special screening and seminar featuring the fifth and final film of his 'Doon School' film series, The Age of Reason (2003 ). The 'Doon School' Quintet is an intimate study of India's most prestigious boy's boarding school located in Dehra Dun in Uttaranchal. Although it has sometimes been called the 'Eton of India' it has nevertheless developed its own distinctive style and presents a mixture of privilege and egalitarianism. It was established by a group of moderate Indian nationalists in the 1930s to produce a new generation of leaders who would guide the nation after Independance. Since then it has become highly influential in the creation of the new Indian elites and has come to epitomise many aspects of Indian postcoloniality. In this final film MacDougall focuses on the life of one student whom he discovers at the school. The film was made in paralell with The New Boys and intersects with it at several points. However instead of looking at the group, it explores the toughts and feelings of Abhishek, a 12 - year-old from Nepal, during his first days and weeks as a Doon student. This is once the story of the encounter between a filmmaker and his subject and a glimpse of the mind of a child at the 'age of reason'. This is the most intimate and interactive film of the series. The screening will be followed with a discussion with David MacDougall _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 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/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. _______________________________________________ Sacw mailing list Sacw@insaf.net http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net