South Asia Citizens Wire | June 25-26, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2424 - Year 9
[1] Sri Lanka: As Violence Rises, Media Climate Declines (Amantha Perera)
[2] Bangladesh pressed over UN expert (BBC)
+ Details on Sigma Huda by Coalition Against
Trafficking in Women International
[3] Television Interview with Nepal's Maoist leader Prachanda (Karan Thapar)
[4] India - The Emergency of June 26, 1975: The
Unkindest Cut (Rajindar Sachar)
[5] A comment re the film on Daniel Pearl: A Mighty Shame (Asra Q. Nomani)
[6] An interview with the Bangladeshi writer Tahmima Anam (Emile Chabal)
[7] Sri Lanka: 'The Month of October' - A documentary film on suicides
[8] Book Review: Democracy In Practice (K. N. Panikkar)
[9] India: Depicting divinity (Editorial, Hindustan Times)
[10] Announcements:
Public Meeting Anti-Emergency Day : 'Emergency
then and Now' (New Delhi, June 26, 2007)
______
[1]
Inter Press Service
June 25, 2007
SRI LANKA: AS VIOLENCE RISES, MEDIA CLIMATE DECLINES
by Amantha Perera
Colombo, Jun 25 (IPS) - The overhead projector
cast a ghastly glow on the larger- than-life
picture of Darmarathnam Sivaram, the Sri Lankan
Tamil journalist abducted and killed in April
2005.
Colleagues had gathered for his commemorative
lecture and the ghostly atmosphere fit right into
place. "On the day we remember Siva, his website
has been blocked by authorities here," Sunanda
Deshapriya, the convener of the Free Media
Movement (FMM), wondered aloud just before the
lecture.
Two days before the lecture, the popular website
tamilnet (www.tamilnet.com) was rendered
inaccessible from Sri Lankan servers.
The FMM, the foremost media group in this South
Asian nation, charged that the government was
behind the move that it called cyber terrorism.
Information Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa
denied any government involvement, but none of
the local Internet service providers could give a
clear answer to why the site was blocked.
Despite the perception that it slants toward the
Tamil Tigers, the rebels that have for decades
been fighting for a Tamil homeland, the website
is widely accessed in Sri Lanka.
The blocking of the site, though, appeared to be
a minor distraction compared to events that
followed.
Nadesapillai Vidyatharan, editor of the Tamil
daily 'Sudar Oli', complained that he feared for
his life after unknown persons had come looking
for him at his new residence in downtown Colombo,
the capital.
"We had written an editorial criticising the
recent eviction of Tamils from Colombo and
supporting court action against the move. Maybe
that was the cause," he later said.
Vincent Jeyam, a Tamil journalist working in the
volatile Jaffna Peninsula in the north, had to
flee to Colombo after he received death threats
via mobile text messaging. He had acted as the
local guide for an international media monitoring
team that toured Jaffna, just before the threat
came.
The mission's findings were bleak but not
surprising. "Pressures on the media have
multiplied over the recent months with increasing
fears for the safety of journalists, especially
those operating in the embattled North and East.
In Jaffna peninsula, dozens of journalists have
been forced to stop working for fear of their
safety," it said.
"Jaffna is one of the most dangerous places in
the world to be a journalist," Jacqueline Park of
the International Federation of Journalists
remarked.
IFJ, together with International Media Support,
International Press Institute, Reporters Without
Borders and the South Asia Media Commission,
formed the mission that had also published a
report on the Sri Lankan press in October, titled
'Struggle for Survival'.
During the visit by the mission, government
authorities had nevertheless pledged to enhance
the climate for media freedom.
"In October, we received a commitment from the
Government that cases of murdered media workers
would be properly investigated with the intention
of clearly demonstrating that there is no
impunity. However, we saw little to demonstrate
that action has been taken," the mission said at
the conclusion of its mission.
Since December 2005, 11 media workers have been
killed and none of the perpetrators have been
found guilty. The mission also blamed the Tamil
Tigers and other armed groups for stifling media
freedom, but the onus fell on the government.
Journalists and activists have long felt that the
environment for independent reporting was
declining as ethnic violence once again increased
from December 2005. "On either side of this war,
we see those in power pressuring the media to
fall in line with them. It is the us-and-them
mentality -- legitimate dissent is made to appear
traitorous," Deshapriya told IPS.
The FMM, along with several other organisations,
has been in dialogue with the government to push
for change, but remains pessimistic about a quick
recovery.
During the week when Vidyatharan and Jeyam came
under threat, they met with Yapa and other
officials from the Ministry of Media. "The
government is defending its actions. It does not
acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong. The last time also we had officials
defending that there was press freedom in the
country, but no one could answer why Tamilnet
remained blocked," Poddala Jayantha of the
Working Journalists Association said in an
interview.
The international mission came up with the same
findings. "The increasing hostility of the
authorities toward the media and the willingness
of individual ministers to verbally attack
journalists for their perceived failings are
encouraging a climate of self-censorship, which
is damaging the free flow of information," it
said.
Observers see the menacing attitude toward the
media as part of the changing political climate
since violence reared its head. Despite a
Norwegian-brokered, five-year-old ceasefire, in
the last 18 months more than 4,500 have died in
the fighting, including at least 1,500 civilians,
according to the truce monitoring group, the Sri
Lanka Monitoring Mission.
With government forces and Tamil Tigers now
engaged in full frontal confrontations, access to
conflict areas have been severely restricted not
only to journalists, but members of the
monitoring staff and relief agencies as well. The
monitoring mission only secured access to
Sampoor, close to the eastern harbour town of
Trincomalee, in early June after a six- month
wait. Government forces had wrested control of
the coastal town in late 2006.
"The pressure on the media is part of a wider
psychological culture where objective reporting
has to be subject to the political or military
agenda of those in power," Deshapriya explained.
"The significant erosion of media freedom
contributes to and is a result of the marked
deterioration of human rights in Sri Lanka
today," said Sanjana Hattotuwa, author of a
recent report by the Colombo-based think tank,
the Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Hattotuwa said that all parties in the conflict
were blatantly abusing civic rights. "The LTTE
(Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the formal
name of the Tigers), the Karuna faction (led by a
breakaway Tiger leader) and distressingly, the
Government itself, are serious violators of media
rights and have all repeatedly and severely
undermined media freedom."
"The situation is getting worse and now that the
Government's censorship of media extends to the
web, it shows no signs of improvement in the near
future," Hattotuwa said. (END/2007)
______
[2]
BBC News
June 7, 2007
BANGLADESH PRESSED OVER UN EXPERT
UN officials are urging the authorities in
Bangladesh to clarify the fate of a UN human
rights expert prevented from leaving the country
since mid-May.
Sigma Huda, a UN special rapporteur on people
trafficking, faces charges under the
military-backed caretaker government's
anti-corruption drive.
Mrs Huda said the Supreme Court had withdrawn her
permission to travel because she was a "security
threat".
She was due to address the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next week.
'Immunities'
"We have been advised that Sigma Huda has been
prevented from leaving Bangladesh, where she has
reportedly been charged under provisions of
anti-corruption legislation in that country," the
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights spokesman Jose Luis Diaz told the Reuters
news agency.
There is a court case involved and that's why she'll not be leaving the country
Bangladesh government
He said his office had requested clarification
from the Bangladeshi authorities on the legal
proceedings and charges against her.
The Bangladesh government had also been asked
"how, in light of the convention on privileges
and immunities of the UN... such proceedings
allow for keeping her from attending to her
duties as special rapporteur," he added.
Bangladesh's acting foreign secretary, Zahid
Hussein, confirmed to the BBC that Mrs Huda would
not be joining delegates in Switzerland next
week, where she had been due to address the fifth
session of the UN Human Rights Council.
"We'll be telling the United Nations there is a
court case involved and that's why she'll not be
leaving the country," he said.
Correspondents say Mrs Huda is accused of having
wealth disproportionate with her income. She is
on bail and denies the charges.
'Security threat'
In an interview with the BBC, Mrs Huda said
Bangladesh's High Court had granted her
permission to travel earlier this year and that
she had been able to travel on three occasions
"under different excuses", including once in her
capacity as a UN special rapporteur.
After not being allowed to leave Bangladesh on 14
May, Mrs Huda was told the country's Supreme
Court had rescinded the permission.
Mrs Huda said she doubted it had simply been a legal decision.
"It's not a matter of the court," she said. "The
court had already given me permission to travel."
"It's the government which went to the Supreme
Court and termed me a security threat to
Bangladesh."
Mrs Huda said the authorities would not say what
kind of security threat she posed.
"Am I the security threat, or is the government itself the threat?" she asked.
Her husband, Nazmul Huda, was communications
minister in the government of Bangladesh
Nationalist Party leader Khaleda Zia, which left
power in October.
He is among scores of senior politicians and
business leaders rounded up in the
anti-corruption drive. He also denies wrong-doing.
Bangladesh's caretaker administration declared a
state of emergency in January and postponed
elections after months of political violence.
It says it will hold polls by late 2008, giving
it time to deal with Bangladesh's endemic
corruption.
o o o
Details on Sigma Huda by Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International
UN Watch is releasing the following new details
as provided by a fellow NGO that has been in
close contact with Ms. Huda.
The following statement is by Janice Raymond:
"Janice Raymond, Co-Executive Director of the
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, has been
in constant contact with UN Special Rapporteur on
Trafficking, Sigma Huda. Raymond states that the
government of Bangladesh has recently issued a
restraining order preventing Sigma Huda from
leaving the country to fulfill her duties as
Special Rapporteur and to deliver a key report on
trafficking before the Human Rights Council in
Geneva on June 11, 2007. She alleges that the
government fears that Special Rapporteur Huda
will discredit the military-backed government and
spotlight its recent human rights abuses in
detaining and torturing over 95,000 Bangladeshis.
We join UN Watch and other NGOs in calling upon
governments and UN Secretary-General, Ban
Ki-moon, to take action against the Bangladeshi
government's harassment of human rights expert
Sigma Huda and the illegal detention, torture and
harassment of her family members."
"The more recent prohibitions against Sigma Huda,
including the restraining order against her
leaving the country to perform her UN duties, is
an outrage and a violation of her right to
freedom of movement and freedom of speech. The
government's illegal actions are now being
imposed on more and more members of Sigma's
family, including her older daughter."
Source: UN Watch
______
[3]
TELEVISION INTERVIEW WITH NEPAL'S MAOIST LEADER PRACHANDA
24 June 2007
As Nepal goes through a difficult transition,
what is the stand of the country's Maoists on the
important issues that will determine the future?
Nepal's Maoist leader Prachanda spoke exclusively
to CNN-IBN on those issues in an interview on
Devil's Advocate.
Video 1
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/devils-advocate-prachanda.html
Video 2
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/06_2007/devils_prachanda_2/devils-advocate-prachanda.html
Video 3
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/43520/06_2007/devils_prachanda_3/deluge-nightmare-haunts-mumbai.html
______
[4]
Times of India
26 June, 2007
THE UNKINDEST CUT
by Rajindar Sachar
Today happens to be the 32nd anniversary of the
proclamation of the Emergency - an occasion to
hang our heads in shame over the violation of
human rights during that 19-month period. June 26
is an embarrassment to India for another reason.
The UN Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (UNCAT) came into force on June 26,
1987, but India is yet to ratify it.
The fact that various political forces have come
to power at the Centre over this period shows the
general unconcern for human rights.
Torture is defined under Article 1 of UNCAT to
mean any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person with a view to obtaining
information or a confession.
Article 2 (2), of UNCAT mandates that "No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a
state of war or a threat of war, internal
political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of
torture".
Article 17 provides for the establishment of a committee against torture.
Each ratifying state is to submit its report to
the committee, which is authorised to make any
comments in its annual report and give
suggestions.
The Supreme Court said in D K Basu (1997) that
custodial violence, including torture and death
in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of
law. "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of
human dignity.
How do we explain the indifference of Indian
political parties to human rights? The police and
security forces have convinced their political
masters that if UNCAT were to be ratified, they
cannot resort to torture, which would impede
crime detection.
This approach is seriously flawed. Torture and
death in custody have assumed alarming
proportions as to affect credibility of the rule
of law and the administration of the criminal
justice system.
While ratification of UNCAT will not
automatically abolish the use of torture, a
machinery that oversees the infractions of law
will have an impact.
In 1976, at the height of terrorism in Northern
Ireland, the European Commission of Human Rights
ruled that the practice of depriving suspects of
sleep constituted torture and inhuman treatment.
UK ratified the treaty in 1988.
In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights was
confronted with a situation of whether an alleged
criminal should be returned by a foreign country
to the criminal's own country if he was likely to
be tortured as a result. It responded: "The Court
is well aware of the immense difficulties faced
by states in modern times in protecting their
communities from terrorist violence.
However, even in these circumstances, the
convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
irrespective of the victim's conduct..."
In 2005, the House of Lords (UK) in a judgment
has taken the view that UNCAT represented a
universal consensus on international law.
In the context of inhuman treatment at Abu Ghraib
prison and Guantanamo Bay, the US could not
justify its behaviour by invoking the post 9/11
situation and conceded that the detenus will be
governed by the Geneva Convention.
The US had ratified the Convention in 1994.
According to the National Human Rights
Commission's 2004-05 annual report, there were
1,493 custodial deaths including 136 deaths in
police custody and 1,357 deaths in judicial
custody during 2004-05.
In 2005, the Union government established an
inter-ministerial group consisting of the
Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home
affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice on
the question of early ratification of the UNCAT.
It has not made any recommendations so far. The
Centre has reportedly drafted a Bill and views of
the NHRC have been sought. But nothing has been
made public.
India has also refused to extend an invitation to
the special rapporteur on torture who applied for
an invitation in 1993. In the neighbourhood,
Pakistan, Nepal, China and Sri Lanka had invited
the special rapporteur.
Will India change by June 26 next year?
The writer is former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court.
______
[5]
Washington Post
June 24, 2007; Page B01
A MIGHTY SHAME
It's the Story of Our Search for Danny Pearl. But
in This Movie, He's Nowhere to Be Found.
by Asra Q. Nomani
O n Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2002, I stood at the gate
of my rented house in Karachi, watching my friend
Danny Pearl juggle a notebook, cellphone and
earpiece as he bounded over to a taxicab idling
in the street. He was off to try to find the
alleged al-Qaeda handler of "shoe bomber" Richard
Reid in Pakistan. "Good luck, dude," I called,
waving cheerfully as he strode off, a lopsided
grin on his face. His pregnant wife, Mariane,
stood smiling and waving beside me as the taxi
pulled away. A gaggle of parrots swooped through
the trees above, squawking in the late afternoon
sun.
That was the last image I had of Danny until late
last month, when a PR executive for Paramount
Vantage pulled up to my house in Morgantown,
W.Va., in a black Lincoln Town Car. She was
carrying a DVD of "A Mighty Heart," the
just-released movie, based on the book by Mariane
Pearl, about the staggering events that unfolded
after that innocuous moment in Pakistan: Danny's
kidnapping and eventual beheading.
With my parents and a friend beside me, I pressed
"play" on my DVD player and settled in to watch.
Slowly, as the scenes ticked by, my heart sank. I
could live with having been reduced from a
colleague of Danny's to a "charming assistant" to
Mariane, as one review put it, and even with
having been cut out of the scene in front of my
house in Pakistan. That's the creative license
Hollywood takes. What I couldn't accept was that
Danny himself had been cut from his own story.
The character I saw on the screen was flat --
nerdy, bland and boring. He's not at all like
Danny, who wrote "ditties" about Osama bin Laden
while he was investigating Pakistan's nuclear
secrets and jihadist groups as a reporter for the
Wall Street Journal. On screen, he's warned three
times to meet with Sheik Mubarik Ali Gilani --
the man with whom he thought he had an interview
-- only in public. But off he goes, ignoring the
warnings. The message: Reckless journalist.
That was nothing like the Danny I knew. As the
credits rolled, I murmured to my mother, "Danny
had a cameo in his own murder."
For me, watching the movie was like having people
enter my home, rearrange the furniture and
reprogram my memory. I'd known it was a gamble
when I agreed to help with a Hollywood version of
Danny's kidnapping, but I'd done it because I
thought the movie had the potential to be
meaningful. I'd hoped it could honor the man I'd
worked alongside for nine years at the Journal by
explaining why he was so passionate about his
work as a reporter. I'd hoped that it would tell
the story of the unique team of law enforcement
agents, government officials and journalists --
of varying religions, nationalities and cultures
-- that had searched for him. And I hoped it
could spark a search for the truth behind Danny's
death.
But the moviemakers and their PR machine seemed
intent on two very different and much shallower
goals: creating a mega-star vehicle for Angelina
Jolie, who plays Mariane, and promoting the glib
and cliched idea that both Danny and Mariane were
"ordinary heroes."
I think Danny would have rolled his eyes at that.
In the prologue to her book, Mariane wrote to her
son: "I write this book for you, Adam, so you
know that your father was not a hero but an
ordinary man." In a movie voiceover, that
dedication becomes: "This film is for our son so
he knows that his father was an ordinary man. An
ordinary hero."
But there weren't any real heroes in the story of
Danny's tragedy. Danny would have said he was
just doing his job. When he went off that day in
Karachi, he didn't give any impression that he
thought what he was doing was especially
dangerous. He just had a story he wanted to
pursue and an interview he thought would help
him. After he vanished, I don't think any of us,
not even Mariane, did anything particularly
courageous, either. We each had a duty to try to
find him -- either as professionals or because of
the bonds of friendship or family.
I know that movies need a dramatic arc and that
there has to be room for artistic license in the
telling of a true story, because reality is often
so chaotic. I know that it's natural to search
for a compelling narrative structure to make
sense of tragedy and pointlessness. And I do
believe that Danny's last moments, as he declared
his Jewishness for his kidnappers' video camera,
showed his strength of character.
But recasting a story just so we can tell
ourselves that we've found a hero is too easy.
It's the quickest way to convince ourselves that
what happened wasn't such a bad thing, that it
had redeeming value, that we can close the book
on it and move on with our lives. We do it too
often -- with television shows about ordinary
people with extraordinary powers, with magazine
features that extol the "heroes among us" and
with our impulse to elevate every story -- think
Jessica Lynch, ambushed and wounded in Iraq -- to
one of heroism.
For me, "A Mighty Heart" and all the hype
surrounding it have only underscored how cheap
and manufactured our quest for heroism has
become. Paramount even launched an "ordinary
hero" contest to promote the movie. "Nominate the
most inspiring ordinary hero," its Web site
shouts. "Win a trip to the Bahamas!"
Lost in the PR machine and the heroism hoopla is
Danny, whose death is at the center of the story.
After all, as one person involved in the
production candidly told me: Danny can't do
interviews. So in the Associated Press review, he
amounts to nothing more than a parenthetical
phrase.
But Danny was not parenthetical. He deserves to
be remembered fully. He was charming and
charismatic. He was an outstanding investigative
reporter with an irreverent streak. The year
before he died, I'd taken a leave from the
Journal to work on a book, and he faxed me an
article from an Indian magazine that he thought
would help with my research. "From your
assistant, Danny," he scrawled across the cover
sheet, in his self-deprecating style.
He observed the media machine with a contrarian,
skeptical eye. In November 2001, after the war in
Afghanistan had begun, he wrote to me: "I'm
getting to Pakistan just in time for the lull
between 'well, more bombings, more deaths -- who
cares now?' and 'shit, it's December, we have to
round out our prize packages' " with big articles
for awards such as the Pulitzers. "Okay, no more
cynicism from here," he signed off. "I'm going to
be a father and must maintain an idyllic view of
the world."
Danny had me teach him how to say "Do I look like
a fool?" in Urdu so he could tell off Mumbai taxi
drivers who tried to overcharge him. Once,
shortly after arriving in Peshawar on an
assignment, he wrote me: "I'm at the Pearl
Continental, wasn't able to get a free room
despite my argument that I was the owner."
Don't look for that personality in the movie. You won't find it.
I know I'm guilty of assisting in Hollywood's
mythmaking. In the fall of 2003, I went with
Mariane to the Los Angeles home of Brad Pitt and
Jennifer Aniston, where we ate bagels and drank
coffee by the pool while listening to their pitch
for buying the movie rights to her book. When
Mariane decided to sell, Warner Bros. Pictures
sought my "life rights," too. I agreed to sell
them, even though a friend told me that making a
movie about Danny's death seemed exploitative.
A year passed. Pitt and Aniston got a divorce.
Pitt and Jolie got together. The movie rights
passed to Paramount Vantage. Paramount hired
British director Michael Winterbottom. And a
script emerged.
When I read it last summer, I felt as though I'd
been punched in the gut. I sat across from
British actress Archie Panjabi, who had been
dispatched to my home in Morgantown to learn to
play me. I lamented that none of the characters
were fully developed, least of all Danny.
When I watched the movie last month, I was
relieved that I wasn't a servant girl, as I felt
an early script had it. So I wrote to a producer,
"Thumbs up okay on my end." But I wasn't being
true to myself. I was reacting to the power and
seduction of Hollywood.
A few days later, when I saw the photos of stars
in evening gowns and tuxedos floating down the
red carpet for the Cannes premiere of "A Mighty
Heart," Danny's not-quite-5-year-old son among
them, I had that sinking feeling again. Other
friends of Danny's said they did, too. It was so
not Danny.
Worst of all, the pomp came at the same time as a
chilling reminder of his death. On the night of
the Cannes premiere, the Daily Times, a Pakistani
newspaper, ran a photo of an emaciated man said
to have been the owner of the plot of land where
Danny had been held and where his remains had
been buried. The accompanying story alleged that
the man had been held in the U.S. naval prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, then released to Pakistani
intelligence authorities, who had recently dumped
him at his family's home. The headline: "Most
wanted man in Daniel Pearl case: Saud Memon dies."
On the eve of the movie's New York premiere
earlier this month, I was in Phoenix at the
Investigative Reporters and Editors conference. I
was there to announce the establishment of the
Pearl Project, a joint faculty-student
investigative reporting project at Georgetown
University that will aim to find out who really
killed Danny and why. It's my own way of honoring
him. His story isn't over for me. I set up the
project because -- despite a confession from
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of
9/11 and of Richard Reid's failed shoe-bombing,
that he killed Danny -- I believe we still don't
know the real truth behind what happened to him.
After the conference, I had to decide whether to
go to New York for the premiere or head back
home. I went home. In my home office, I stood in
front of a copy of the chart I had started in
Karachi to make sense of everything that happened
after that January day in 2002. At the center is
a single name: Danny.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asra Q. Nomani teaches journalism in Georgetown
University's School of Continuing Studies.
______
[6]
[Tehmina Anam is the author of the important novel 'A Golden Age']
o o o
Newsline
June 2007
"WRITING THIS NOVEL WAS A WAY OF TRYING TO BELONG"
- Tahmima Anam
Curious to know some of the experiences that went
into the making of A Golden Age, Emile Chabal
decided to meet Tahmima Anam in Cambridge. She
came to read excerpts from her book for
'Wordfest,' Cambridge's annual literary festival,
alongside debut authors Paul Torday and Jeremy
Page. It was an unusually warm spring day and the
discussion ranged far and wide - from the
intricacies of contemporary Bangladeshi politics
to the meaning of intellectual engagement.
Excerpts from the interview
Q: What is the relationship between
your Ph.D on the Bangladeshi freedom fighters'
movement and the novel?
A:I was already an undercover writer
in the guise of being a doctoral student, but I
wasn't one of those people in their 20s who could
just write. I felt I needed to build up my
confidence. It's proven very useful because the
book is political in Bangladesh, and having a
Ph.D allows me to reply to those who would doubt
my legitimacy because I've grown up abroad and
not lived through the war.
Q:One thing people are unlikely to
grasp fully outside Bangladesh are the political
ramifications of the book. Do you feel like
you've written a political book?
A: Mostly what I wanted to do is take
that historical moment away from politics and
talk about how ordinary people lived through the
war. Whether this is political or not, I'm not
sure. How, say a widow, a housewife or a refugee
survived the war and how it changed their lives.
Whenever people in Bangladesh ask me, 'What's
your national aim?' I reply that I want people to
be able to own this part of history and remember
it as theirs.
Q: Do you feel that you are doing
something new? Because of the relative lack of
literature in English surrounding 1971, who did
you take as your inspiration?
A: My Bangla is poor and much of the
literature I've read about 1971 has been in
translation, but I know there is a lot of
literature on the subject - in fact, all
Bangladeshi literature is about 1971 in some way,
so it is not so much writing an unwritten history
as translating it for a wider audience. In terms
of inspiration, however, I admire not only the
'greats,' like Rushdie or García-Márquez, but
younger authors as well, among them Chimamanda
Ngozi Adichie, whose latest book Half of A Yellow
Sun also deals with a war from the perspective of
characters who were not major players.
Q: How did your status as an outsider
affect your perceptions of the 'national goal' of
1971?
A: I feel very implicated in
Bangladesh. I don't have an immigrant's viewpoint
and therefore don't have stakes in a place other
than Bangladesh. Nevertheless, I definitely wrote
the book from an outsider's perspective and
that's why the novel is told from Rehana's point
of view and not that of her children since she,
too, is an outsider. Part of the book is about
Rehana discovering where her loyalties really
lie. And for me too, I think, writing the novel
was a way of trying to belong to a place that I
don't always belong to - sometimes I feel I
belong and sometimes I don't. Now that I've
written this book, I feel I belong so much more;
people come up to me and say, 'Now that you've
written this about your country, we embrace you
as a citizen.'
Q: Your book ends on a note of
defiance and hope. To me, that seems peculiar
since the story of 1971 is both tragic and full
of unresolved contradictions.
A:It's funny you say that because
when I talk to people about the war, they never
think of it as a tragedy, though, to be fair,
there is a big difference between the way the
rich and the poor talk about 1971. The poor
generally talk about 1971 and their feeling of
being betrayed: they thought they were getting
something but materially their lives didn't
change at all. When you talk, on the other hand,
to the elite or those who were student
revolutionaries, they very rarely think of it as
a tragedy, even if terrible things happened to
those they knew. For them, it's a moment of hope,
the 'best time of their lives', and I borrowed
that for the book. That's also why I wrote about
1971: I wanted to say something uncomplicatedly
positive.
Q: Why were you not pushed to write a
counter-voice to this nostalgic story?
A: There is a dissenting voice in the
form of Silvi, who doesn't believe in the premise
of the war, but if you're talking about the story
of the violence committed by the Mukti Bahini
then, yes, that is absent from the novel.
Q: Is this something you have been thinking of writing about?
A: I think the Pakistani side is
completely different; it is the army's side. I
think there is a big difference between Pakistan
and the Pakistan Army. It is a distinction I only
recently learned to make when I went to Pakistan
this year and met people who had protested
against the war; this was a transformative
experience for me. As for the Bihari story, I
think it is one that really needs to be told. I
didn't put it in the novel by choice - partly a
narrative choice.
Q: Was that the first time you'd visited Pakistan?
A:No, some of my family moved to
Karachi in 1947, so I used to visit as a child.
Then, when I developed a sense of history, I no
longer wanted to and refused to go for 15 years.
I finally went back when I organised this
conference on 1971 in January, which was a very
moving experience as I got the chance to meet
people who had left the army or had gone to jail
for opposing the war. It made me realise that,
much as it is difficult for us to imagine having
a foreign force committing atrocities on us,
imagine what it would feel like to live in a
country that was capable of such a thing. Who
knows in future who the army might turn on?
Q: 1971 is certainly one of Pakistan's great silences.
A: Yes, having said that, I feel
things are changing: 1971 has finally been
introduced into school curricula and there is now
a university course on the subject at Karachi
University. In terms of acknowledgement, I think
the problem is not just with Pakistan;
Bangladesh, too, was very quick to let go of the
past. While I don't think being litigious is
necessarily a good thing for a national wound, if
you think about South Africa's Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, it seems as if
Bangladesh has skipped a step. I think Bangladesh
has not only 'forgiven' Pakistan but, in some
ways, has a longing to be more Pakistani, more
Islamic.
Q: How do you feel perceptions of
Pakistan are changing in Bangladesh?
A: I know some people who refuse to
go to Pakistan and have a lot of anger towards
Pakistan. But you'd be surprised at how few they
are. There is so much fighting about what
happened in 1971 that it is hard for those locked
in the debate to focus their energies outwards.
Q: Did you consciously try and
incorporate some of the big themes - rape,
refugees, guerrilla fighting?
A: Most of these things did happen,
certainly if you take the perspective of a
middle-class woman from Dhaka like Rehana. But
there are also a lot of things that do not appear
in the book: for instance, there are no battle
scenes, no politicians and the peasant story is
not told. With Rehana, I wanted us to be able to
see the war through a mother's eyes; this seemed
to me the most authentic way of telling the story.
Q: As an author, are you comfortable in the role of 'spokesperson'?
A: If I were English, or from
somewhere else, I could simply say that I only
write fiction, but I have real stakes in the
future of Bangladesh and I can't retreat behind
the mask of an artist. Being an artist in a
country like Bangladesh means you have to have
opinions. In the subcontinent, being a writer has
always been a political act; this idea that the
novel is 'outside' the workings of the world is
very European - and, even then, it is inaccurate.
Q: And what's next?
A: I'm writing the story of Rehana's
father - a Muslim zamindar in Calcutta at the
turn of the century - and it ends in 1947. It's
actually part of a trilogy. A Golden Age is the
second book. The first will deal with the
Partition of Bengal and the last will focus on
modern-day Bangladesh.
______
[7] Sri Lanka: A Note worthy Documentary film
THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
Brief synopsis:
The separatist war in Sri Lanka is responsible
for over 60,000 deaths. In that same period of
time almost twice as many people committed
suicide in Sri Lanka.
This documentary describes the high rate of
suicides in rural Sri Lanka and shows that often
people harm themselves to communicate their
feelings. It looks into the social cultural and
religious reasons for this act of self harm
Photo: Heshani Edward
Format: Beta, DVD
Year of Production: 2005- 2006
Running Time: 56 mins
Director: Heshani Edward
Producer: Heshani Edward
Editor: Umesh Fernando
Screenwriter: Heshani Edward, Chandi Jayawickrama
Director of Photography: C Athukorala
Sound: Ruwan Prasad
Music: PAK Ruwan
Production Company:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______
[8]
Book Review / The Hindu
June 19, 2007
DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE
by K. N. Panikkar
A tribute to Indian democracy capturing the pain
and the struggle, the humiliations and the glories
INDIA AFTER GANDHI - The History of the World's
Largest Democracy: Ramachandra Guha; Pan
Macmillan, Picador India, 5A/12, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. Rs. 695.
In 1977 after a spell of Emergency for two years
Indira Gandhi had, to the surprise of many,
including her influential son Sanjay Gandhi,
dissolved the Parliament and ordered fresh
elections. There was much speculation about the
reasons for this momentous decision, which as it
turned out, resurrected Indian democracy from the
brink of doom. Several reasons have been
attributed to the decision to revoke the
Emergency, but it is difficult to be certain till
Ms. Gandhi' s private papers are available for
scrutiny. Whether she was lulled into a sense of
safety by intelligence reports or was stung by
the comments of those foreign observers
impossible to dismiss as enemies of India remain
in the realm of speculation. However, that the
election was ordered and Ms. Gandhi and her party
were defeated was essentially due to the strength
of democratic ethos in society, to the making of
which her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his
generation had handsomely contributed.
Success story
The Emergency, though was the gravest, was not
the only crisis that Indian democracy had to
face. Linguistic conflicts, regional secessionist
movements, communal tensions and riots and
political violence had often made its existence
rather precarious. On many an occasion, it so
seemed that the existence of India as a nation
was itself in danger. It not only survived all of
them but also emerged from them much stronger,
reinforcing in the process its commitment to
democratic ideals. "The sapling (of democracy),"
says Ramachandra Guha in the book under review,
"was planted by the nation's founders, who lived
long enough (and worked hard enough) to nurture
it to adulthood. Those who came afterwards could
disturb and degrade the tree of democracy but,
try as they might, could not uproot or destroy
it." The history of the world's largest democracy
which Guha chronicles in this remarkably lucid
and extensively researched account, (on private
papers, newspapers and secondary sources),
admirably captures the agony and ecstasy of the
democratic practice in independent India.
Guha is quite obviously an admirer of the
achievements Indian democracy has attained in a
largely hostile environment, vitiated by
religious superstitions, caste prejudices and
acute economic disparities. He claims that the
"real success story of modern India lies not in
the domain of economics but in that of politics."
The low levels of income and literacy, and high
levels of social conflict have often led to the
prediction that India might any day succumb to
dictatorship. That India has managed to prove
these predictions wrong and remained a democracy
for 60 long years have surprised many political
observers, particularly because democracy became
a casualty in the neighbouring countries. How it
managed to do that, both through the contribution
of individuals and institutions, is the theme of
this pioneering study which is by far the most
comprehensive work on the contemporary history of
India.
Internalisation
The first task that Indian democracy had to face
was to establish and internalise what Sunil
Khilnani has described as the idea of India. It
was initially attempted through the adoption of a
democratic constitution, integration of princely
states and the linguistic reorganisation of
states. In the conditions obtaining in India in
the wake of Independence all the three were beset
with considerable difficulties. The Constitution
in which many heard the "music of an English
band" rather than the "music of veena" laid down
the principles and practices of a democratic
state and society. The integration of princely
states, which Vallabhai Patel accomplished with
the assistance of V.P.Menon, was indeed a
landmark in the political unification of the
country. It is often overlooked that it initiated
the process of the abolition of the feudal order.
At the same time the linguistic reorganisation
helped to underline the cultural diversity, which
underlay the unity of the nation. The basic
structure of the polity that evolved stood the
test of time, withstanding the pressures, be they
from the Northeast or the South or Kashmir.
The democratic practice in India is a highly
contested terrain. Even during the anti-colonial
struggle different political formations with
widely different ideological persuasions and
programmatic approaches were in existence. Yet,
after Independence the Indian National Congress
held the sway for quite some time under the
leadership of Nehru. Soon after coalition
governments came into existence which Guha
contends is a "manifestation of the widening and
deepening of democracy" as different regions and
groups acquired a greater stake in the system.
Weaknesses
A result of the decline of the Congress party was
the rise of the Hindu communal forces to
political prominence, which led to the Bharatiya
Janata Party wielding power at the Centre. Rising
to power at the crest of popularity generated by
the mobilisation of religious sentiments around
the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, the
BJP rule made serious inroads into the democratic
and secular fabric of the society. The
governments under its control, be it at the
Centre or in the states, promoted the communal
cause. Moreover, its cadres actively participated
in violence against minorities and its leaders
expounded the virtues of religious state in the
name of cultural nationalism and positive
secularism. These tendencies have led many to
recognise the fascist character of the BJP. Guha,
however, differs. To him, "to call BJP 'fascist'
is to diminish the severity and seriousness of
the murderous crimes committed by the original
fascists in Italy and Germany...to see the party
(BJP) as fascist would be both to overestimate
its powers and to underestimate the democratic
traditions of the Indian people." Whether such a
reading of the character of BJP is tenable after
the Gujarat carnage of 2002 is doubtful.
Guha further suggests that the threat of fascism
has passed presumably because the BJP has lost
the election of 2004. Such an analysis and
conclusion tend to overlook the inherent
character of Hindutva, the strength of which is
not limited to its political work, but more in
their influence in social and cultural domains.
The defeat in the election does not mean the
defeat of the fascist ideology of Hindutva, which
continues to be active and influential in the
cultural and social domains, even if its
political arm is in disarray.
Guha has admirably captured the spirit of the
struggling nation. However, at the end a doubt
lingers in the mind: whether the author has
overstated his case about the strength of Indian
democracy, underplaying in the process some of
its glaring weaknesses. A fairly large section of
the population is deprived of the benefits of
democracy, particularly their right to a share of
the wealth of the nation. That they remain in the
margins of the democratic process can hardly be
wished away.
______
[9]
Hindustan Times
Editorial
Depicting divinity
June 22, 2007
First Published: 05:01 IST(23/6/2007)
Last Updated: 05:09 IST(23/6/2007)
In 1975, two films that went on to become
mega-hits, Sholay and Deewar, were released. What
stumped critics was the runaway success of
another movie released the same year - Jai
Santoshi Maa. The film, based on a vrat katha - a
story narrated during a religious fast - that had
become popular in North India in the 1960s,
expanded on the basic pamphlets on a relatively
unknown deity. Thanks to director Vijay Sharma
and Anita Guha, the actress who played Santoshi
Maa, the film earned cult status drawing crowds
who conflated the identities of the character and
the actress. Anita Guha quietly passed away
earlier this week, ironically at a time when
there is a ruckus about humans being depicted as
gods - women depicted as goddesses, to be precise.
Unlike the late Anita Guha, neither Sonia Gandhi
nor Vasundhara Raje is an actress. Thus, Ms
Gandhi and Ms Raje don't seem to have the licence
that a performer has to portray established
deities. In the case of Ms Gandhi, some of her
supporters have displayed posters of her as
Goddess Durga (something the Congress Party has
expressed strong disapproval of) while some of Ms
Raje's supporters have shown their leader as
Goddess Annapurna.
Visual representation of political leaders as
deities is nothing new. But in an overwhelming
number of cases, the leaders being depicted are
given the paraphernalia of divinity - thus making
them gods, rather than associating them directly
with any existing gods. This seems to have been
what has upset a few: the depictions of political
leaders not as towering personalities in their
own right (which would be perfectly all right,
ask the supporters of Jayalalithaa, for instance)
but as Durga and Annapurna.
Culturally, however, even this is not a
blasphemous act in Hinduism. Durga idols in
Calcutta, for instance, have for decades used the
face of a favourite cinema star (Hema Malini,
Aishwarya Rai, etc) as Durga's. There may have
been aesthetic debates about this practice but
certainly not cultural or religious ones. But
politicians are a different lot when it comes to
'photoshopping' their faces on to deities. Trying
to usurp religious visual representation for
political purposes can seem underhand -
especially when politicians such as the late NT
Rama Rao have reaped the benefits of playing Lord
Krishna and other deities, both on and off screen.
As for Indira Gandhi and her supporters getting
away with her being compared to Durga, smartly
enough no one bothered putting that down on a
poster. Perhaps, no one needed to forcefully make
the connection anyway.
______
[10] Announcements:
INVITE: ANTI-EMERGENCY DAY: 26 JUNE 2007
Dear friends
We are all aware of developments in last few
months how the government has progressively grown
not only indifferent but pathetic to the idea of
civil liberties and fundamental rights that we
are guaranteed in our Constitution. As the
economy is growing so are the woes of
marginalized sections of people and subtle
stranglehold on the rights and liberties of the
people. Be it Nandigram, Dadri, Gurgaon, parts of
Orissa, farmers are not only deprived of land but
of the legitimate right to protest too.
There have been reports of "Encounter" killings
on massive scale in different parts of the
country that shakes one's belief whether we live
in a civilized and rule of law governed society.
We all are aware that these killings have been
made possible because there exists no mechanism
to ensure accountability in the functioning of
the para-military and police forces. Laws like
Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Jammu &
Kashmir, Manipur) Special Powers Act, Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Chattisgarh
Special Power Security Act (CSPSA), MCOCA, have
contributed to the functioning of the Army,
paramilitary forces and police with impunity.
And on top of it if one raises one's voice
against these actions one is termed anti-national
or maoist and is incarcerated.
All this is reminiscent of a state no less
dissimilar than that prevailed during the black
days of Emergency during 1975-77.
You are aware that June 25/26 is an important day
in the movement for Civil Liberties and Human
Rights of the country. Internal Emergency was
imposed on this date in 1975 and it was the
movements by JP to oppose the Emergency that gave
birth to the PUCL. The Constitutional and
technical contents apart, in practice it was
nothing but an attack on the Rights and Liberties
of the people to crush dissent.
On the occasion of commemorating anti-emergency
day PUCL and Jan Hastakshep request you to join
in a public meeting ` EMERGENCY THEN AND NOW at
Gandhi Peace Foundation at 5 o clock on June 26.
A large number of human rights activist, lawyers,
journalists, intellectuals and people who have
borne the brunt of emergency are expected to
attend the meeting. You are invited to come with
friends.
With thanks
Pushkar Raj
Secretary PUCL
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: http://insaf.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
_______________________________________________
SACW mailing list
SACW@insaf.net
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
