South Asia Citizens Wire | 8 November, 2004 via: www.sacw.net
[1] The Morning After: The Bitter Pill Of "American Democracy" (Vinay Lal)
[2] Sri Lanka: Torture Still Instilled in Police Culture (Aaron Goodman)
[3] Pakistan: Open letter to the prime minister (Feryal Ali Gauhar)
[4] India: May be the UPA government should learn from China (Daya Varma)
[5] India: Sorry, you're not part of the plan (Siddharth Varadarajan)
[6] India: Gujarat Genocide Trials - Appeal for the Protection of Witnesses (Mukul Dube, Harsh Kapoor)
[7] India: Let us not manipulate Zahira Shaikh (Rajdeep Sardesai)
[8] Upcoming events:
- A dance recital by Tekrik-e-Niswan, Karachi - Director: Sheema Khermani.
and A play by Interactive Resource Centre - Director: Mohammad Waseem
(Calcutta, November 19, 2004)
--------------
[1]
THE MORNING AFTER: THE BITTER PILL OF "AMERICAN DEMOCRACY" Vinay Lal
The recently concluded American elections, which have given George W. Bush the victorious verdict that he so vigorously sought, are already being touted as the most marvelous demonstration of the success and robustness of American democracy. The lines to vote were reported to be unusually long in many places around the country, the prolific predictions about fraud, voting irregularities, and the unreliability of electronic voting machines nearly all fell flat, a record number of new (mostly young) voters made their presence felt at the polls, and more Americans cast their vote than at any time since 1968. The usual platitudes, calling upon all Americans to "unite" after a bitterly divisive election campaign, were heard from Senator Kerry in his concession speech, and once again Bush, that archangel of "compassionate conservatism", has promised his opponent's supporters that he will attempt to win their trust. Only the future lies ahead of this, as Bush puts it, "amazing country".
Quite to the contrary, these elections furnish the most decisive illustration of the sheer mockery that electoral democracy has become in America. The iconoclastic American thinker, Paul Goodman, observed four decades ago in Compulsory Miseducation that American democracy serves no other purpose than to help citizens distinguish between "indistinguishable candidates". Both parties are utterly beholden to the culture of the corporation and what used to be called "monied interests", and both have contributed to bloated military budgets; besides, however short the memory of those who fetishize Democrats as paragons of liberalism, decency, and civility, Democratic administrations have been scarcely reticent in exercising military power to subjugate enemies or ensure American dominance. Many Democrats held Ralph Nader, who understands better than most people the elaborate hoax by means of which one party has been masquerading as two for a very long time, responsible for sprinting votes away from Al Gore in 2000. This served as one long-lasting excuse to which the Democrats could resort to explain why Gore was unable to prevail at the polls, and also explains why they went to extraordinary lengths to keep him from appearing on ballots in 2004; the other excuse originated in the circumstances under which a tenacious Bush, whose ambition for power is just as ruthless as his ignorance and arrogance are colossal, was able to get his brother Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court to hand over the White House to him. The dictators who run banana republics were doubtless imbibing a very different meaning from the axiom that America leads the way.
The present elections have blown these excuses, under which the Democrats have been sheltering and smoldering, to smithereens. Bush's victory margin, by the standards of democracy, is very large. Nader, the so-called "spoiler and traitor", won a mere few hundred thousand votes, and his presence doubtless even emboldened more Democrats to go to the polls. If Americans could not much distinguish between Bush and Kerry, and indeed how could they when Kerry, with his promise to "hunt down" the terrorists and wipe them from the face of this earth, sounded entirely like his opponent, the Democrats must ponder how they could have moved so far to the right and thus surrendered what little remains of their identity. Considering the horrendous record that Bush has compiled in nearly every domain of national life -- an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, the occupation of a sovereign nation, the strident embrace of militarism, the reckless disregard for the environment, the shameless pandering to the wealthy, the transformation of a 5-trillion dollar surplus into a 400-billion dollar deficit, the erosion of civil liberties, and much else -- one cannot but conclude that the American people have given Bush carte blanche to do more of the same. Even the English language has not been spared by the Butcher of Crawford. Bush's election means, in stark terms, that the majority of Americans condone the torture and indefinite confinement of suspects, the abrogation of international conventions, and an indefinite war -- of terror, not just on terror -- against nameless and numberless suspects. No extenuating circumstances can be pleaded on behalf of Americans, however much progressive intellectuals might like to think that Americans are fundamentally "good and merely "misinformed" by the corporate media.
It is no secret that the defeat of George Bush was, from the standpoint of the world, a consummation devoutly to be wished for. Many well-meaning Americans deride Bush as an "embarrassment". Used with reference to him, the word sounds like an encomium. The best of peoples are embarrassed by their own actions at times, and embarrassment can, at least on occasion, be read in the register of modesty, awkwardness, and innocent virtue. 'Embarrassment' seems wholly inadequate as an expression of the visceral anger and hatred Bush unleashes among some of his detractors. Those even more critical of Bush are inclined to view him as a liar. There is, however, scarcely any politician in the world who does not lie, though one can say of Bush that he almost always lies. But what if the American electorate understood his lies to be desirable, necessary, and premonitions of truth? Bush lied to the world about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he lied about the purported imminence of a threat against the United States from Iraq, and he falsely claimed a link between the al-Qaeda network and Iraq. Yet none of these revelations about the insidious modes in which consent is manufactured made an iota of difference, and Bush charged ahead with insistent reiterations of the same falsehoods.
Consequently, more arresting clues to the danger that Bush poses to the world must be located elsewhere. A very substantial number of Americans have declared that they found Bush to embody "moral values", presumably the same moral values that they hold sacrosanct. Bush's moral vision, as is well-known, extends to clear and unambiguous distinctions between "good and evil", and he is emphatic in his pronounced belief that "those who are not for us, are against USA". The success of Bush points, in other words, to something much more ominous, namely the sheer inability of Americans to comprehend complexity and retain some degree of moral ambivalence. The fear that Bush is charged with exploiting, namely the fear of terrorism, is more broadly the fear of the unknown, the fear of ambiguity. Such exhortations to simplicity and unadorned moral fervor, and clear invocations of authoritarianism, couched as messages to people to entrust themselves into the hands of tried leaders who are hard on crime and terror, have in the past unfailingly furnished the recipe for transition to anti-democratic, even totalitarian, regimes.
Elections in India have consequences mainly for the Indian sub-continent, just as those in Australia largely impact Australia. But the American elections impact every person in the world, and there are clearly compelling reasons why every adult in the world should be allowed to vote in an American presidential election. However much every American might balk at this suggestion, it is indisputable, as the striking examples of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and Iraq so vividly demonstrate, that the United States has never considered sovereignty an inviolable fact of international politics. We shall, then, have to radically rethink the received notions of the nation-state, sovereignty, democracy, and internationalism. These elections will widen the gulf between Americans, ensconced in their gigantic Hummers and endlessly adrift in the aisles of Cosco and Walmart, and most of the rest of the "civilized world". One nonviolent way of moving the world towards a new conception of ecumenical cosmopolitanism is to allow every adult an involvement in the affairs of a nation that exercises an irrepressible influence on their lives.
______
[2]
Inter Press Service - November 2, 2004
RIGHTS-SRI LANKA: Torture Still Instilled in Police Culture
Aaron Goodman
COLOMBO, Nov 2 (IPS) - When Anthony Michael Fernando, a 50 year-old trade union secretary in Sri Lanka, was sentenced to a year in prison for contempt of court, he thought his life could not get any worse.
But four days after being sent to jail in February 2003 on charges later criticised by the U.N. Special Representative on the Independence of the Judiciary and Lawyers as an injustice done by the courts, he suffered a massive asthma attack.
While being treated in hospital, he had another attack, fell and injured his spine. And as he was being escorted back to prison, he says he was beaten and tortured by police. ''Two police officers were carrying me in a stretcher to the prison van,'' recalls Fernando at a church in Sri Lanka's capital that works to defend torture victims.
''The police officers ordered me to stand up and walk. I told them I was having a spinal problem, and they threw me into the van like dirt. And while the van was moving, one of the officers in civilian clothes beat and kicked me on my spine and all over my body,'' he tells IPS.
For the next 104 days, Fernando was hospitalised. After serving 10 months of his jail term, he was finally freed. But when he got home, he started receiving death threats by telephone demanding that he withdraw the complaints he had filed against the police officers who allegedly tortured him. Shortly thereafter, the threats took on much more serious proportions.
''On February 2 (this year) I was coming out of a friend's house and there was a vehicle parked opposite his gate,'' explains Fernando. ''Someone opened the sliding door and jumped out and sprayed some kind of gas onto my face. It didn't work because I started coughing. He tried to put a handkerchief and cover my mouth, but because that failed, I dodged and ran to the closest tailor shop.''
For most of the last 30 years, Sri Lanka has been gripped by internal conflict and civil war. Over 60,000 people have died in fighting between government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Tigers have been fighting for a separate homeland for minority Tamils in the north and east of the largely Buddhist country since 1983.
A 32 month-old ceasefire currently hangs in the balance. Fighting between rival factions of the Tamil Tigers, and alleged support from the state for breakaway Tiger leader Venayagamoorthy Muralitharan, best known by his alias, Colonel Karuna Amman, threatens to draw the country back into war.
Meanwhile, a number of prominent civil society organisations and human rights groups, both in Sri Lanka and internationally, continue to make ending police torture their foremost priority.
In 2001, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) based in Hong Kong began documenting police torture in Sri Lanka. In doing so, they and other groups that focused on the issue broke a longstanding taboo about the subject.
Yet in spite of near-daily reports by the country's media about police torture, and international pressure placed on the government to try to stop the abuses, torture remains a widespread form of police investigation in Sri Lanka.
Last year, the AHRC documented 31 cases of torture committed by police involving 46 victims at 29 police stations. Meanwhile, the group claims the numbers are much higher.
''There are many reasons for it, but torture is widespread,'' says Ali Saleem, a representative of the AHRC in Sri Lanka.
"It is just part of normal day-to-day business for police. We have been trying to make sure that it stops, but it seems to be beyond state control to stop it,'' he says in an interview.
Saleem points to the militarisation of the police over the last 30 years as it moved from a crime detection and law enforcement agency to an insurgency suppression body. He attributes that role change as the root cause of such high rates of torture in police stations.
Yet in spite of its lobbying efforts, Saleem argues the state has not taken the steps that are required in order to end torture. ''There is a legal framework to try to stop torture, but it's not being implemented,'' says Saleem.
''The government isn't doing anything. Secondly, institutions fail to respond to victims of human rights violations. There are no witness protection arrangements. If you submit a human rights complaint against police, you are re-victimised, harassed, and sometimes attempts are made to kill you,'' he adds.
Rohan Edrisinha is director of the legal unit at the Centre for Policy Alternatives in Colombo. For the last five years, he and a number of other organisations have led a campaign to try to pressure the government to repeal the country's Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). According to Edrisinha, the PTA and other emergency measures, implemented by the state beginning in 1979, need to be abolished in order to stop torture.
''Repealing the PTA is important in order to eradicate torture, and also to eradicate impunity which has developed in Sri Lanka as a result of Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict,'' says Edrisinha. "The PTA, Emergency Regulations, and other pieces of legislation have given sweeping powers to the armed forces which sometimes result in human rights violations of a very serious nature.''
In spite of a million signatures collected by the campaign to try to repeal the PTA, as well as widespread protests against the act since its inception, the country's own minister of justice and judicial reforms, John Seneviratne, dismisses the existence of any legitimate lobbying efforts related to this issue.
''I should say that as a responsible minister of this country, that there has not been a campaign to repeal the PTA,'' states the minister. ''There may have been some sporadic requests to repeal this PTA, but these requests are engineered by these NGOs who are engaged in really the provoking the minds of the people in their favour.''
Although Sri Lanka signed the Convention Against Torture in 1994 that prescribes a mandatory seven-year sentence, only two people have been successfully convicted under the act. Among 59 other cases, only 10 have been filed in the courts. The rest remain with the attorney general's department. This leaves most torture victims, including Anthony Fernando, to file fundamental rights cases before the Supreme Court. In these cases, compensation is sometimes awarded, but jail terms for perpetrators are never applied.
The country's own Human Rights Commission chaired by the well-respected former U.N. special representative on violence against women, Radhika Coomaraswamy, recently implemented a zero-tolerance policy on torture. The commission established a special torture unit to investigate torture cases, began visiting police stations around the country as a preventive measure, and is coordinating training sessions for police on human rights and alternative methods of investigation.
''Due to rapid recruitment into the police force, the police force has not been thoroughly trained in how to do investigations properly, so that as a practice they engage in torture as a first means of getting information,'' argues Coomaraswamy.
''Frequently, the police pick up an informant and beat him up to get the information they are looking for, especially if he's lower class and doesn't have access to the relief that people of upper classes have,'' she tells IPS. ''This is a structural problem, in that this is about everyday policing and the need is to change the way police do investigations and deal with the community.'' (END/2004)
______
[3]
DAWN 06 November 2004
OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz,
Prime Minister's House, Islamabad
Dear Sir,
I write to you today after many long days of serious consideration, wondering whether it was worth the effort, even worth the paper I write on, to speak to you about the things which trouble me, which keep me awake at night, pulsing like a river whose banks will surely collapse with the weight of the water which gathers bit by bit, even in this barren, desert landscape which stretches before me.
Two months ago I began another letter to you, congratulating you on your achievement of the highest office in the land and asking you the questions I have asked each time I have had the privilege to meet you.
These were questions the answers to which had been deferred by you, questions leading perhaps to further questions, enquiring about the desperate times we have entered, demanding resolutions.
I never finished that letter, Sir, because at a certain point I lost all hope, and even as I saw the smart, young armies of adolescent ministers swell the ranks of your stately cabinet, I feared the terrible disaster which awaits us, sharpening its claws on the flesh of my beloved homeland, smacking its purple lips in smug anticipation of the feast which awaits.
Sir, it appears to me that the method one adopts to seek solutions should reflect the nature of the problem itself. In other words, in terms of state craft, the policies which are formulated in order to redress issues and grievances must take into consideration causality.
Obviously, in order to understand the essential relationship between cause and effect, it is necessary to first understand the cause itself, and for this one needs to be informed, one needs to peel off the layers of acquired meaning and to seek the source of the rot which besets us.
For some reason, Sir, it appears to me that this most evident, simple truth has been obfuscated by insidious design, intended perhaps to skirt around the issue and to beat a drum which no one hears, promising to lead us further into dangerous complacency.
What is of grave concern, Sir, is the state's perilous effort to cling on to some vague notions of modernization and development which came into vogue following the decolonization of what is now known as the less developed world.
At that time in history, the armies of the newly independent states were considered to be the forces of modernization. Given that military officers often received their training within the various institutions of the colonial administrative structure, it was considered that this training would serve to create a new paradigm of development, new ways of thinking and moving forward.
And so we saw the emergence of military juntas in much of the decolonized world, stretching from Argentina to Indonesia, uniformed men wielding power and preening their moustaches meaningfully, comfortable in the knowledge of their supposed infallibility.
Along with military rule came military hardware and the consultants who drew up the long list of demands to further enrich the depots where our nation's security supposedly lay, safe beneath weapons intended to annihilate the enemy.
We were told that our borders were not safe, that we needed to invest in armaments in order to protect the fragile state. We were told that Harvard educated economists would draw up development plans so that our country can achieve its fullest potential, so that our people can enjoy the benefits of independence.
And so we saw the men with the Mont Blanc pens flourishing signatures on pieces of paper which have held us hostage to international lending institutions for half a century.
Exactly 50 years ago, Sir, our government signed a joint Pakistan-American communique announcing a grant of $105 million in economic aid, representing an increase of $80 million over the previous programme.
At the signing of this agreement, the US government announced that it will "endeavour to accelerate the substantial military aid programmes for Pakistan" which began in October 1954 and lasted till 1965. By the mid-1960s, the focus of US policy was shifting on South Asia.
A US arms embargo was imposed in 1965 which lasted for ten years. The period of relative neglect by the US ended abruptly with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.
Pakistan was hailed as an indispensable ally of America, and over the next eight years its military dictator, General Ziaul Haq, received some $7 billion in military and economic aid from the US.
These loans, contracted by an undemocratic government and devoted to unproductive ends, formed the nub of a debt burden that would be serviced far into the future by the poor of Pakistan.
Three years ago, our position as a state of geo-political significance was given a massive shot in the arm. After 14 years on the sidelines, in September 2001, Pakistan once again assumed a position of great strategic importance to the US, this time as a crucial ally in the West's so-called "war against terror".
This unenviable role has placed huge additional demands on the country's economy at the end of a period which had already witnessed a steady increase in poverty. By 1999 some 47 million people were living below the poverty line, and the incidence is now estimated to be significantly higher.
During this period the servicing of Pakistan's escalating external debt, which by 2000-01 amounted to 54.9 per cent of the country's GDP, had severely curtailed pro-poor policies, and the costly support now required by the US makes it all the more imperative that this unsustainable burden be properly addressed.
Sir, I need not remind you that the current war into which we have been subsumed is a war created by the policies of the United States in this region. It seems ironic that the poor in our country should be made to foot the bill for US foreign policy objectives.
It is also ironic that the louder the talk about our economy "taking off", the shallower and more insidious the argument for increasing foreign interference in our policies.
It is beyond dispute that conditions have worsened for the poor of Pakistan over the last decade. The Asian Development Bank in its Poverty Assessment Report of 2002 observes that "since 1999, growth has slowed down even further, the fiscal squeeze has intensified, development spending has declined, and the country has experienced severe drought...the incidence of poverty in Pakistan is now significantly higher than in 1999".
While admitting that exogenous shocks such as drought and global recession have adversely affected the economy, the country's western creditors and their institutions typically conclude that bad governance and political instability lie at the root of the problem.
They assert that if these were rectified, the usual package of macro-economic stabilization and structural reforms would lead to growth and a general increase in prosperity.
Sir, I have heard this argument countless times, and I have heard the refrain about the enriching effect that this supposed growth will bring to the poor of our country.
I have been distressed at the ease with which this mythology has been created and then perpetuated, spoken eloquently through the mouths of the scions and heiresses of feudal lords who have taken it upon themselves to become Their Master's Voices raised in unison. I have been even more disturbed by the bandying about of figures which would make any economist worth her salt cringe.
Sir, it is absolutely not true that with a growth rate of 6.7 per cent the poor of our country shall be pulled out of the poverty trap. The "trickle down" effect spoken about ad nauseam does not occur until an economy has achieved a 13-14 per cent growth rate, which is, in most cases, unsustainable.
In any case, Sir, the very same theorists who came up with the rather patronizing concept of "trickle down" have reconsidered it and thrown it out of the proverbial window.
I believe even at the premier international lending institute, poverty is being examined for structural causes, not for symptoms, but for the very root of deprivation and inequity.
The economic legacy inherited from General Zia in 1988 already consisted of a huge and escalating external debt burden, including military loans, and was further marked by a neglect of development expenditure.
The IFI-led stabilization and reform policies in the decade following General Zia's death simply led to an increase in the debt, and inherently required continued cuts in development expenditure in order to transfer assets to creditors.
Over this time, real wages fell, inequality and unemployment increased, and Human Development Indicators lagged behind those of comparably low-income developing countries in South Asia.
Moreover, although fiscal austerity measures impacted adversely on the poor, debt servicing and defence spending requirements prevented the fiscal deficit from falling in any substantial way.
Sir, it is my humble submission that the reality of poverty in our country needs to be looked at through the eyes of the poor, not through the designer-bespectacled gaze of the privileged elite which make up your cabinet.
It is not possible for one who has not known hunger to eradicate it, it is not possible for one who has not known injustice to deliver justice. It is not possible for one who has been fattened on the wealth of the land to know the deprivation of land and one's intrinsic connection to it.
And it is certainly paradoxical to expect genuine land reforms if parliament is populated with feudal lords and ladies whose primary interest would appear to be the perpetuation of the oppression which enriches them and which allows them the privilege of "representing" their constituencies.
Perhaps it is time to take a long, hard look at our country's reality, at the lives of the poor who have never been called to the table when decisions regarding their lives have been formulated.
Perhaps it is time to consider that it is not only bad governance and tempestuous politics which are not conducive to a thriving economy. It is time, Sir, to recognize that poverty in our country has increased to a large extent as a result of IFI funded stabilization and structural adjustment programmes, the very policies which were meant to dig us out of the quagmire which threatens to suffocate progress and prosperity for all.
And it is time to take cognizance of the fact that unless resources are shared equitably, in particular land, hunger shall claim our people while suited booted charlatans beam and amuse themselves with meaningless portfolios and empty rhetoric.
It is a fact, Sir, that while the rulers of our country speak in glowing terms of the "progress" we have supposedly made in the past five years, thousands of rural poor are borrowing money to take a bus ride into the cities, in the hope of employment, in search of a life.
Listen to their voices, Sir, if you genuinely wish to rectify the wrong done to our people for over 50 years. Listen, for they shall show you something different from either your shadow at morning striding behind you; or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; they will show you fear in a handful of dust...
Yours truly,
Feryal Ali Gauhar
______
[4]
insaf Bulletin [31] November, 2004
MAY BE THE UPA GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEARN FROM CHINA Daya Varma
The October 23 edition of the Globe and Mail (Canada's New York Times) displayed on the entire front page three lines of large Chinese characters. On the top of each set of these characters was written in English: "If, you can't read these words, better start brushing up. A profound global shift has begun, the kind that occurs once every few lifetimes. Don't be left behind. CHINA RISING". The inside cover page had the Letter from the Editor titled "Witnessing the birth of a superpower". The next 18 pages described one thing or the other about China.
I feel immensely happy at the prospect of a brighter future for former colonies and neo-colonies, long dominated by the West and lately by the rogue United States. So looking at the Globe and Mail was so refreshing despite its hostile attitude and the West's fear of an Eastern "Empire".
I wonder if late Chairman Mao Zedong was aware of this when he pronounced on October 1, 1949 from Tiananmen Square that China has stood up. I am inclined to feel he did.
So why can India not become like China? India was in every which way far ahead of China on August 15, 1947, two years before China was liberated. India too has progressed. The life expectancy has approximately doubled during these 50 odd years, which is only possible if there has been an all round progress. But Indian progress is small compared with that of China. Our snail-pace progress can only partly be explained by the chaotic period under anybody-or-everybody-but-not-Congress governments and disastrous rule by the fascist Sangh Parivar. The significant part of the answer lies elsewhere. But where?
Usually a political formation which assumes power begins to develop a comprehensive economic and political plan. The Chinese Communist Party had one, which gave rise to several transformations but all planned. The Indian National Congress began to develop basic economic and political framework for India in 1930's. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was the only alternative major political formation before and for quite some time after the independence; however, its vision was that of the Soviet kind of socialism. Because socialism required revolution, there was no need for any interim economic plan. So it entered the Indian Parliament in a surprisingly robust way in 1952 only as a critic rather than with an alternative economic plan within a capitalist framework.
Most non-Marxist economists think that Indian economy is less integrated with global capital than is that of China. In some small way the economic journey of both countries has something in common. Both started with greater state control. In both cases the economic foundation which the state-led development created led to the opening of the economy. Nehru-Mahalanobis framework led to the Rajiv-Manmohan Singh approach. Mao's approach was replaced by that of Deng Tsao-Peng. This shift was forced by what preceded it. Can there be an economy outside the international financial institutions? Or the global capitalist framework? North Korea may be an exception. But India can hardly afford to become a North Korea although it can aspire to become a China.
The task before a government like that of India is to formulate policies and ensure that they are implemented judiciously. Indian economy is big enough to ensure that its dealings with the developed capitalist countries are not detrimental to India's progress and any disinvestment of the public sector does not jeopardize the interest of workers.
The 14th Parliamentary election in India brought the left parties into the circle of decision-makers in a rather big way. Not only this but more. Every body who is any body is somehow in the inner or almost inner circle of governance. This is more than what ever happened during the Nehru-Indira Gandhi period. Can the Indian left try to learn from the Chinese model of economic reforms?
______
[5]
The Hindu Oct 06, 2004
SORRY, YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE PLAN By Siddharth Varadarajan
The debate over the composition of the Planning Commission panels was really a battle over the direction of the economy. And the outcome suggests the electorate's concerns do not count.
RIGHT IN the midst of the high-profile controversy over the inclusion of representatives of the World Bank and McKinsey in the formal deliberative process of the Planning Commission, an act of exclusion was being played out in distant Noamundi, a part of Jharkhand's West Singhbhum district that is rich in iron ore. Several hundred villagers who wished to take part in a public hearing on the proposed expansion of mining leases were not allowed inside to air their views.
In New Delhi, it is comforting to know that Montek Singh Ahluwalia believes in keeping the Government's "doors and windows open" to all influences. But at the grassroots, where the struggle for economic betterment is being waged, the gates are usually tightly bolted for all those who are poor or landless or tribal or likely to be displaced by some big project or the other. In Noamundi, the September 25 public hearing was held inside the premises of the Tata Iron and Steel Company - something which was a violation of the Environment Ministry's statutory norms. According to Chokro Khandait of the Chaibasa-based Jharkhand Organisation for Human Rights (JOHAR), the villagers fear TISCO's expanded mining operations will lead to the loss of their lands. They wanted to speak out in the public hearing, to air their views, he told me. "But the police stopped us before we could come near the premises." Asked who were the "300 people from nearby villages" who attended the hearing - as claimed in the official Tata press release - Mr. Khandait, whose organisation now plans to move the High Court, alleges they were mostly TISCO employees.
So there we have it: At the very moment when Dr. Ahluwalia was elegantly arguing that World Bank and McKinsey people had to be part of Yojana Bhavan's planning process because of the "perspective on global practice" these agencies would bring to the table, another more local argument over planning and perspective was being settled with the help of bamboo staves and Section 144. In India, multinational consulting companies and banks have a right to full representation in public bodies but the public has no right to attend public hearings, especially since they tend to be held inside private premises.
Though cast in the unfortunate form of a debate over sovereignty and the propriety of "foreign" experts serving on quasi-official panels, the question at hand was never really about their ethnicity or domicile but the utility and quality of the advice they brought with them. During the early days of Planning, nobody objected to the Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen (who was actually on the Dutch Government's planning board at the time), the Norwegian Ragnar Frisch or the Polish-American Paul Rosenstein-Rodan being regularly consulted. Under P.C. Mahalanobis, the Indian Statistical Institute and its journal, Sankhya - which provided crucial intellectual inputs to planning in India - opened their doors to economists like Oskar Lange, Michal Kalecki, N. Georgescu-Roegen and Branko Horvat. The econometric model for India's fourth Five Year Plan drew heavily upon the `consistency model' of Alan S. Manne of M.I.T. and Ashok Rudra. And the Ministry of Finance threw open its most confidential files for Nicholas Kaldor to produce his 1956 report on Indian Tax Reform.
Nobody objected to "foreigners" then and with good reason. For none of them allowed the advice they proffered to be weighed down by any institutional or corporate baggage. This does not mean their advice was always correct but it was delivered without the slightest trace of an ulterior motive. If Prof. Frisch influenced Indian planners with his export pessimism - something the young Manmohan Singh took on in his D.Phil - this was not because he had shares in a South Korean export house and wanted to leave the trading field open for his clients. In some cases, the advice was so good, Indian policymakers baulked at implementation: The "philosophy of taxation" Prof. Kaldor developed to deal with India's resource imbalance was described by Sukhamoy Chakravarti in the Cambridge Journal of Economics more than 30 years later as "fully relevant today."
If Mahalanobis' "foreigners" had no ideological or vested interest to promote and no great institutional backing behind them, what of the expertise Dr. Ahluwalia wanted to foist on the Planning Commission? When multinational management consulting companies like McKinsey and the Boston Consulting Group push a certain policy or outlook, can we really be confident that this is disinterested advice? Or that when an ideologue like John Briscoe, the World Bank's senior water adviser, pushes one-size-fits-all schemes of water privatisation, the fact that he is from a key donor agency like the World Bank will not give his views undue weightage and influence in any deliberative process?
Though the Left was right to object to the inclusion of such individuals in the Planning Commission's consultative groups, the retort that State Governments like West Bengal regularly employ McKinsey and others to produce vision documents and reports did catch them a little off balance. Objections to the World Bank or McKinsey cannot be confined to the formal or legalistic domain; what has to be challenged is our tendency to let institutions like these provide us with `visions' of where we want to be as a nation 10 or 20 years from now. Whether he attends a Yojana Bhavan panel or not, do we really want Mr. Briscoe - who told the Third Water Forum in Kyoto last year that it was a "fantasy" to say water is a human right - influencing the direction of our economy? Or McKinsey, whose dystopic Vision 20-20 plan for a privatised Andhra Pradesh has put that State in the `Bimaru' category as far as its peasant population is concerned?
On the issue of water, there is need for a broad reform of the entire system of water resource management in India. Most of our urban water authorities are inefficient and corrupt, leading to excessive ground water depletion and high costs for the poor, who must depend on private water tankers for their daily needs. There is need for greater public investment in water, as well as for decentralisation and democratic accountability of the jal boards at the local level. Instead of going down this route, however, there is a danger that politicians will look at privatisation as a quick fix, in part because of World Bank pressure. In Chhattisgarh, a 23.6-km stretch of the Sheonath river has been `privatised', creating problems for the communities which live alongside its banks. "We lent Jordan money to improve the water sector," Mr. Briscoe said a few years ago, adding that the World Bank told Jordan "it must bring someone else" (i.e. a private company) to run the water rehabilitation programme of the Greater Amman municipality. Of course, once private companies come in, water prices tend to rise well beyond the reach of the poor - as in Cochabamba in Bolivia, Ghana and South Africa.
The defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance at the polls earlier this year has been read by different political parties differently. But there can be no denying the fact that the verdict reflected, at least in part, the growing public uneasiness over the economic policies followed by the Vajpayee Government. The election saw the electorate in virtually every major urban centre voting in favour of parties that either openly criticised privatisation and fiscal cutbacks or promised reforms "with a human face." In rural areas, the fact that inequality has either not fallen as dramatically in the reform years as the BJP claimed or has even increased is now fairly well established (See Abhijit Sen and Himanshu, `Poverty and Inequality in India, I and II', in Economic and Political Weekly, September 18 and 25, 2004, for the most comprehensive and thorough review of the statistical evidence so far).
Against this backdrop, it is unfair for the Left parties to be pilloried for demanding that the Manmohan Singh Government pay attention to the electorate's fears and concerns in drawing up its policies, even if their mode of argumentation has not been the most effective.
The debate over "foreign experts" has now been aborted by a clever if shabby compromise in which Dr. Ahluwalia has scrapped the consultative process altogether. It is almost as if the Government feels that if the World Bank does not get a say, neither should anyone else. Of course, this controversy was only a `proxy war' in the larger battle over the direction of the economy. The electorate voted for the parties that today form the United Progressive Alliance because of the economic promises made during the campaign. Some of these promises - such as the right to employment - have already been watered down, but the fact that the Prime Minister has made a commitment to begin its phased implementation in the country's poorest districts suggests it is possible for social movements and Left parties to influence policy, if only partially. But that is not enough. What is needed is an acknowledgement of the fact that in a democracy, it is the aspirations of ordinary people - and their vision of what they want their lives to be - which should guide economic policy. India needs to stop listening to the McKinseys of the world. And start tuning in to what people in Noamundi are saying.
______
[6]
[Sign on Online Petition]
To: President of the Republic of India, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Home, and to the National Human Rights Commission
GUJARAT GENOCIDE TRIALS: APPEAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF WITNESSES Initiated by Mukul Dube and Harsh Kapoor
http://www.petitiononline.com/gapw/
______
[7]
Gulf News - November 7, 2004
Let us not manipulate Zahira Shaikh
By Rajdeep Sardesai
Special to Gulf News
Zahira Shaikh was perhaps just another victim of the Gujarat violence till a year go. The power of the media and the protection of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) transformed a gaunt teenaged girl into the face of the failure of the Gujarat government to provide justice to the victims of the riots.
Now, after having retracted her statement identifying the accused in the Best Bakery case in which 14 people were burnt alive, the 20-year-old is being used by the Gujarat government to try and tarnish the media and the NGOs as anti-Gujarat, anti-Hindu, and anti-Narendra Modi.
It's no coincidence that Zahira, who till only days ago was being targeted by the Gujarat government as a "liar", is now being offered complete state protection and five-star treatment.
It is a classic case of an individual being manipulated by a system that has failed to provide justice to the families of hundreds of victims of the Gujarat violence. While the focus of the media might be on Zahira once again, the larger issues which the case raises should lead to introspection. Let's start with the NGOs since it is their role which has come under scrutiny. Did the NGOs invest too much in one individual Zahira at the cost of the wider issue of providing justice to all the victims of Gujarat?
Yet, to question an NGO's motives and those of an incredibly committed individual like Teesta Setalvad would be to completely falsify reality. If Teesta and her NGO stepped in to offer support to Zahira, it was obvious that they did so because the Gujarat government was unable to provide protection.
When the 21 accused were let off by a Vadodra court in the Best Bakery case for want of "evidence", it was apparent that the legal system and its political patrons were not willing to encourage witnesses to reveal the truth.
Instead of asking for Setalvad's role to be investigated, should not the role of the police be investigated in Gujarat? Why did they file faulty First Information Reports, why did they do little to provide protection to witnesses? What kind of a state system would appoint a public prosecutor who is a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the group which was blamed for the post-Godhra violence?
Already, Modi's propaganda machine has been busy labelling Setalvad and her NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, as a Muslim NGO. The accusation is that NGOs have only taken up the cause of members of minorities. Few remember, however, that at least three of those who died in Best Bakery were poor Hindu labourers.
Ironically, Setalvad and her NGO are not just fighting the case of the Best Bakery case. They are also involved in the process of providing justice to the families of those who were killed in the Godhra train carnage. They have taken up the case of five families of those killed in the Sabarmati Express because the state government was lethargic.
A victim of bloodletting has no religious identity, he is a citizen of this country first. When will this distasteful propaganda aimed at promoting a cycle of hatred and retribution ever end?
After all, Gujarat 2002 mirrors Delhi 1984 which in turn mirrors Mumbai '92-'93. Then, it was a Congress government, now it is a BJP government. In the anti-Sikh riots of '84 only nine people were convicted after more than 3,000 people were killed.
In Mumbai, not a single person has been convicted for his role in the violence in which more than 800 people were killed.
In Gujarat, there hasn't been a single conviction even though more than a 1,000 people died. This is not, therefore, about Gujarat and Narendra Modi. The larger issue must remain that of a system that has repeatedly failed to provide justice to its citizens. There are several other politicians belonging to the Congress who have also failed to act responsibly in cases of mass violence.
If the Congress wants to retain the moral high ground on Gujarat, they must first make sure that those indicted by various commissions of inquiries into the 1984 riots are kept away from public office. Justice demands those in power implement the rule of law. Not try and manipulate the Zahira Shaikhs.
The writer is Managing Editor, New Delhi Television,
______
[7]
PAKISTAN CULTURAL NITE
Pakistan India peoples' Forum for Peace and Democracy And Prbha Khaitan Foundation invite you to
A dance recital by Tekrik-e-Niswan, Karachi Director : Sheema Khermani. and A play by Interactive Resource Centre Director : Mohammad Waseem
Venue: Rabindra Sadan [Calcutta] Date: November 19, 2004 Time: 6 pm
Pranab Ghosh Sundeep Bhutoria
President Hon. Trustee
PIPFPD, west Bengal Chapter Prabha Khaitan Foundation
Sheema Kermani & Tehrik-e-Niswan
Internationally acclaimed Pakistani dancer, Sheema Kermani started
Tehrik-e-Niswan, a cultural group to create greater
awareness about women's rights.. This was during the military dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88),a period often regarded as the darkest period in the country's history. The State's major institutions, especially
the judiciary, education and the media were under attack. One of the social groups most affected by General Zia's Islamisation policy was women, who were made the targets of discriminatory laws and practices.
Sheema Kermani was the only dancer during General Zia's martial law when dance came to be seen as an activity highly disliked by the state and the clergy. She stood up against great opposition and continued with her efforts to establish classical dance as a respectable medium.
Through Tehrik, Sheema started a series of Tele-films on socially relevant topics such as on women's health, education and marriage. Through the use of dance, drama and music Tehrik takes socially relevant plays to slums and villages. Sheema has organised women workers to form trade unions and brings this experience and consciousness into performing arts.
Sheema has been teaching classical dance for the last 20 years. After the 1988 general elections when Benazir Bhutto came to power Sheema came to India on an ICCR scholarship to study dance. Her efforts have helped in the
awareness and acceptance of dance as a respectable medium. She has also
directed documentaries, music- videos, teleplays and dramas.
In 1989 Sheema was invited to the prestigious American Dance Festival held at Duke University, North Carolina. In 1997 she was invited to the Hamburg Theatre Festival, and in 1999 to the Nandikar Festival in Calcutta. Sheema
has performed in many countries of the world including China, Egypt, Indonesia, U.S.A., U.K., Germany, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.
Sheema is a peace activist and is an active member of the Pakistan India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy and in the forefront of the women's movement in Pakistan.
Md.Waseem and Interactive Resource Center
The well-known Interactive Resource Center (IRC) in Pakistan was formed in December2000 as an initiative to explore new avenues for community mobilization and awareness in order to assist people in their struggles to retrieve collective power and strength. IRC strives to employ interactive theatre for development and human rights struggle of marginalized communities in Pakistan.
The issues pertaining to gender, political education, minority rights, education etc are addressed by IRC using Interactive Theatre Technique, altogether a new form, as it goes beyond the cultural stereotypes and societal taboos.
IRC has organized interactive theatre workshops and performances in 87 districts of Pakistan. The performances are more commonly classed as 'Theatre of The Oppressed'. In December 2003 IRC organized a theatre festival titled as " Journey through the lives of courageous women" to highlight success stories of the courageous struggling women.
The father figure of IRC, Mohammed Waseem started his career as a sale's personnel. Waseem got involved in alternative theatre in the 1980s. But his pursuit for making theatre more communicative and interactive made him leave his well-paid job and set up IRC. Under the leadership of Mohammed Waseem, IRC has become a phenomenon receiving many accolades in national and international level.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
Sister initiatives : South Asia Counter Information Project : snipurl.com/sacip South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
_______________________________________________ Sacw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
