South Asia Citizens Wire | 18-23 April, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2239 [1] Nepal - A Tidal Wave for Democracy Building Up: (i) In Solidarity With The Democratic Uprising In Nepal - A statement (ii) Statement to the EU Ambassadors and the UN, by a group of eminent Nepali citzens (iii) Letter from Nepal (Tapan Bose) (iv) Nepal's Battle Is No Part of the Bush War (J. Sri Raman) [2] South Asia Needs A Bomb-Less Deal (Pervez Hoodbhoy) [3] What constitutes the Real Threat to India ? (Subhash Gatade) [4] India - Gujarat: Press Release - Intimidation and Victimisation by Gujarat Police (Citizens for Justice and Peace) + Notice to Gujarat Government in Pandarwada case (Manas Dasgupta) [5] India: Pol Khol Yatra being organized by the Narmada Bachao Andolan from April 25th - 27th
___ [1] NEPAL: A Tidal Wave for Democracy Building Up (i) URL: http://www.sacw.net/free/Nepal22April06.html (23 April 2006) Please support this statement, publicise it in your country and send copies to your government, Nepal embassy and the UN agencies who are still supporting the king IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE DEMOCRATIC UPRISING IN NEPAL The compromise proposed by King Gyanendra of Nepal on Friday, April 21st evening, which envisages his continuance as a constitutional monarch, is a last-ditch attempt to perpetuate the old order. It will not satisfy the demand for the establishment of a true democracy in the country, for the fulfillment of which the nation has risen in a spontaneous and mass revolt. We must recall that the pledge to go in for an elected Constituent Assembly had first been made through the Interim Government of Nepal Act, 1951, proclaimed by King Tribhuvan in February 1951. After a long period of democratic struggle, the political parties led by the Nepali Congress formed a coalition government in April 1990 and worked out yet another compromise with the palace. Their failure to elect a Constituent Assembly vitiated the promise of democracy. The vitiation resulted in the declaration of a People's War in February 1996. After a long period of State repression and political violence, all the democratic forces in the country are once again united on the core demand for an elected Constituent Assembly. The latest proposal of king Gyanendra to go back to the old order, after all the violence and turmoil the country has been through, appears to be senseless in not taking cognizance of the aspiration of the Nepali people to be masters of their own destiny. It is also bereft of any pragmatic value. As the inexorable effervescence of democratic uprising in the country demonstrates, the monarchical tyranny in the country does not fulfill even the minimal criterion of an effective regime with at least some semblance of legitimacy. Not only are the people of Nepal out on the streets, even the government officials, in growing numbers, appear to have joined the democratic uprising. It must also be pointed out that the international law forbids external interventions that go against the political will of a sovereign people. The consequences of any attempt to stem the tide of democratic uprising in the country with brutal force or political subterfuge can only be tragic and politically volatile. The international community of nations and the civil society, especially in South Asia, have an obligation to try to avert the repression of Nepal's democratic will through violence. It is their duty to recognize and support the arduous and peaceful struggle of the people of Nepal to attain a framework of rule of law that democratizes all important positions of authority within the State. The procedures and the politics of the constitutional process can vary but they cannot develop without respect for the idea of the sovereignty of people; the current state of democratic uprising being a powerful assertion of it. The struggle of the Nepali people to attain a democratic framework of rule of law has been going on for long. It has survived myriad betrayals and impediments since November 1950 when India first intervened to actively support the demands for a democratic constitution, fundamental rights, free and fair elections and brokered a compromise between the feudal and democratic forces. King Gyanendra terminated the incomplete experiment of democratic transition initiated by his brother in April 1990 by usurping all executive powers of State through a proclamation of Emergency made by him on 1 February 2005. Despite the reign of brutal military repression unleashed by the State, people of Nepal, in urban areas and more significantly in the countryside, have once again risen in massive numbers to defy tyranny and totalitarianism. Hundreds of thousands of people are disregarding the curfew, shoot at sight orders, killing, bludgeoning, torture and imprisonment to defy the monarchic tyranny and to demand true democracy and the rule of law. Yet, the international community of States has done little to support the democratic struggle. On the contrary, it has helped prop up the illegal regime with military hardware and political support, which it has been using implacably to defeat the democratic upsurge. This must stop. Nepal is in the danger of descending deeper into the world of violent anarchy, with irrevocable consequences for the stability and security of entire South Asia, unless the governments and the people of all the countries in the region speak in one voice against the current regression of the monarchic tyranny to its medieval mould. We are here to extend our support and solidarity. We appeal to the international community of States and the civil society in the region and outside to ensure that the extraordinary phenomenon of democratic uprising in the country in evidence today is not thwarted once again with repression, violence, political ruse and strategic manipulations. o o o (ii) URL: http://www.sacw.net/free/Nepal22April06.html (Statement issued on 23rd April 2006 by a group of eminent Nepali citizens who were arrested in the capital, Kathmandu on April 8 while breaking curfew to press for democratic rights in Nepal.) To the Ambassadors Of the European Union member states, The United States, India, China, and the Representative of the United Nations. 23 April 2006 Duwakot, Bhaktapur District Excellencies, We civil society detainees, kept at the Duwakot Armed Police barrack, believe that your governments' welcoming response to Friday's address by King Gyanendra was based on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a misreading of the address itself. Though surely based on the best of intentions, your reaction has needlessly delayed a peaceful transition in the country at a critical hour, when millions of Nepalis are on the streets agitating for an immediate return to democracy. This show of people's solidarity carried out massively and peacefully all over the country and in Kathmandu Valley, deserves more respect than has been accorded by the international community. While the royal address certainly indicated a step back by the king, and it might even have been adequate sometime ago, at the given moment it was grievously misplaced in both tone and substance. In terms of tone: the king justified his 1 February 2005 coup d'etat; spoke in favour of the security forces despite their dubious record; did not acknowledge the need to engage the Maoist rebels; and ignored the incredible show of people power on the streets whose essential demand is that kingship be abolished or made absolutely powerless. In terms of substance, the king has talked about returning power that had been given to him for 'safekeeping', when the fact is that the events of 4 October 2002 and 1 February 2005 represented a naked power grab. Further, the king is not the custodian of sovereignty, which is naturally inherent in the people under the constitution of 1990 and it is not up to him to hand it back to the people. Most importantly, those who welcome the royal address seem to believe that the king has unequivocally conceded sovereignty to the Nepali people. This is not our reading. Nowhere does 'sovereign' or 'sovereignty' occur in the Nepali original, unlike in the translation, apparently provided by the royal palace, where there is reference to "source of sovereign authority". In the Nepali original, the king refers to "state power remaining with the people" as part of listing the terms of reference of the government to be formed. This phrase is included only in passing, and does not amount to the king conceding sovereignty as residing in the people. According to two jurists, both framers of the 1990 Constitution, who are included in our Duwakot group, 'state power' does not by any stretch of imagination translate as 'sovereign authority'. We believe that there is a sleight of hand involved here, by a royal palace intent on misleading the embassies. Overall, we conclude that the king is not prepared to transfer sovereign power. As things stand, what king Gyanendra has asked the political parties to do is to set up a government with 'executive power' but without legislative authority. In substance and form, this government would have the same authority, under the much-maligned Article 127 of the Constitution, as given to governments constituted thrice and disbanded as many times by the king between October 2002 and February 2005. The government would be an executive at the king's command, meant to take responsibility for the excesses committed under the royal direct rule. It would only have the power over day-to-day administration, without authority to undo the ordinances, appointments, and other actions of the king during his period of active rule. Because the executive would act without the backing of a legislature, the king would be the authority of last resort, retaining the power of dismissing the sitting prime minister. Given the royal palace's record, we know that the government to be formed would be hindered at every step as the latter seeks to pursue the publicly announced seven-party roadmap for peace and democracy. Nor would this government have the authority ab initio to challenge the army's current role and the ongoing militarisation of state and society by the royal regime. Further, the royal address seeks to retain the link of loyalty between the king and the army. This is a far cry from what is needed: a government that works on the mandate of the People's Movement and not that of the royal palace. In sum, the king's grudging concession does not address the great issues that cry out for resolution. We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the many times that the royal palace has played the game of deception with you, and to introspect whether king Gyanendra, retaining all the powers as head of state not responsible to a legislature, will allow any forthcoming government to act independently. Your attitude seems to be "the king has given this much, take it and make the best of it". Unfortunately, neither the political parties nor we here in Duwakot, are confident that the royal palace will not intervene in the workings of the executive to be formed. This would be in line with the historical record of the royal palace victimizing the people whenever there has been a move toward genuine democracy. We ask you, in the hours and days ahead, to be more alert to royal machinations and to support the political parties as they challenge the royal palace. For our part, we would hope that the political parties make a pro-active announcement and seize the moment. There is a need for such an initiative in order to prevent anarchy and dangerous collapse of state structures. For this, the political parties should unilaterally declare restoration of the Third Parliament and/or announce a parallel government. Thereafter, they should consult with the Maoist rebels who have credibly indicated their intention to enter open politics, and announce elections to an unconditional constituent assembly. We hope that the international community will come forward with immediate recognition of such a unilateral declaration, required to prevent Nepal from sinking into the pit of one kind of extremism or another. In such an evolution, we see no role for king Gyanendra other than as a mute spectator. Please note, Excellencies, that this is the only path to stability in Nepal which both the Nepali masses and the international community want so keenly. The world community, which has harboured such enormous goodwill for the Nepali people and which has been party to our nation-building and development efforts for more than five decades, must respect the maturity of the Nepali political discourse which is speeding the current, exhilarating People's Movement. Please also note, Excellencies, the kingship is not indispensable for the maintenance of Nepali nationhood, and that it should henceforth remain, if at all, at the cognisance of Nepal's 26 million citizens. The latest announcement by the Indian Foreign Secretary, about respecting the will of the people of Nepal, we believe, provides a corrective to the error evident in the Indian government's initial welcome note. The Indian corrective, we believe, should be emulated by all other international players who wish the Nepali people well. Sincerely, Signed by: Mr. Rupak Adhikari, Mr. Anubhav Ajeet, Mr. Bimal Aryal, Mr. Laxman Prasad Aryal, Mr. Ramesh Bhattarai, Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit, Dr. Saroj Dhital, Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana, Mr. Arjun Parajuli, Mr. Bhasker Gautam, Dr. Madhu Ghimire, Dr. Mahesh Maskey, Dr. Sarad Wanta, Dr. Bidur Osti, Dr. Bharat Pradhan, Mr. Charan Prasai, Mr. Padma Ratna Tuladhar, Mr. Malla K. Sunder o o o (iii) 22 April 2006 Dear Friends, Yesterday I joined a protest rally at about 5.00 p.m. near Sadtobato on the Ring Road. There were more than 10,000 people in the rally. As we moved along the road towards Balkhu more and more people joined the rally. Men and women, young and old were carrying green branches in their hands. I asked them the significance of the green branch. I was told that in Nepal, when people join a funeral rally they carry a green branch. This they said was the funeral of the Shah dynasty. At different places on the road some of the protesters set fire to wooden logs and old car and truck tyres. These were the symbolic funeral pyres of the Shah dynasty. They were chanting "Gynendra Chor Desh chor" (Thief Gyanendra leave the country.), Hamro Paras kasto Chaa- kukur jasto chaa (Our Paras is like a mad dog.) In one voice they said the movement will not stop till the king was driven out and a "complete democracy" was established by a Constituent assembly elected by the people of Nepal. I let the rally at about 6.45 p.m. to listen to the proclamation of the king. The king as you all know has offered too little too late. Harking back to the great tradition of the Shah dynasty in protecting the sovereignty of the nation and the safety of the subjects, he said the sovereignty of Nepal d taken into his safe custody, was being re3turned to the people. And, this he was going to do by transferring the executive powers of the state to a council of ministers under Article 35 of the 1990 constitution. He invited the Seven Part Alliance to recommend the name of person who he will appoint as the Prime Minister. It was a sick joke. There were at least a quarter million people on the streets of Kathmandu asking for his immediate departure when he made this so-called offer. The massive rally of more than a hundred thousand protesters at Kalanki, the newly named "Republic Square", in one voice rejected the king's offer. They said that an interim government must be set up by the Seven Party Alliance without going to the king. This government must immediately call for elections to the Constituent Assembly, invite the Maoists to dialogue and ensure their participation in the election to the Constituent Assembly. Through out the night the people continued to voice their rejection of king's offer. According to reports more than a million people had gathered in different parts of Nepal, urban and rural and through the night, they too continued to express their rejection of the king's offer. Almost all the leaders of the Seven Party Alliance, the civil society activists inside and outside the jail and the Maoists have rejected the offer of the king. The foreign governments and international agencies have supported the king. India is sending another envoy, Mr. Jaswant Singh, a former foreign minister of India in the Hindu fundamentalist government and a former ruler of a princely state under the British in Rajasthan. He has said that India continues to support multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy in Nepal. Obviously, New Delhi has not heard the voices of the people of Nepal. Like New Delhi, the USA, the European Union, Mr. Kofi Anan have also deaf. The king has re-imposed curfew from 12 noon till 8.00 p.m. today (April 22, 2006). Yesterday the army and the police did to shoot at the protesters except in New Baneshwor in Kathmandu. The representatives of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights were allowed five curfew passes. The national Human Rights Commission was given four such passes. The protest rallies have not been called off. As I was walking to my office from my house in Dhobighat, I saw men and women leaving their homes to go join the protest rallies in Baneshwor, Chabahil and Kalanki. An old woman told me "we will not stop till we drive out this king". I am not a Nepali. I am Indian. I have been here for about ten years. I believe it is my duty to be a part of the movement. I also must protest against the position of the government of India which is a clear violation of the inalienable right of the people of Nepal to seek any change in their polity. It will be a sad day for India, world's largest democracy if it ends up helping a rouge king in suppressing the democratic struggles of the people. I appeal to all democratic Indians and all fellow South Asian to stand up for the Nepalese people. Oppose the pro-Nepal king policies of our governments. Organise rallies, pickets and meeting condemning this betrayal of the people of Nepal. Send protest letters to heads of states and the Secretary General of the UN asking them to change their current position. The Seven Part Alliance which is spear heading the popular peaceful movement and has already worked out a road map to peace with the Maoists has already received a massive mandate of the people of Nepal. The people have spilled their blood on the streets and given their lives to express their support for a Constituent Assembly. It this Seven party Alliance, which must form the interim government immediately. They do not and must not seek the approval of this rouge king. He has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Nepal. The foreign governments and the international agencies must recognise this interim government, if they do not want to participate in more bloodshed and mayhem in the country. Tapan Kumar Bose Secretary general South Asia Forum for Human Rights Kathmandu Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] o o o (iv) truthout.org 17 April 2006 NEPAL'S BATTLE IS NO PART OF THE BUSH WAR by J. Sri Raman The Himalayan kingdom of Nepal is witnessing a heightened popular surge for democracy. King Gyanendra cowers as relentless waves of people battle uniformed protectors of royalty in the bloodstained streets of picturesque Kathmandu, the country's capital. A conspiracy is on, however, to convert the battle into a part of a so-called "war for democracy" that the world has come to dread. The people of the tiny nation, particularly the youth free from the feudal tradition of loyalty to the King, continue their heroic struggle despite the mortar bombs dropped from military helicopters on agitating crowds including women and children. Hardly concealed, meanwhile, are attempts to hijack the struggle into the holy war on "terror," unleashed by the George Bush administration of the USA. The Bush regime has long been engaged in a war on "terror" in Nepal - but on the King's side. It is now pretending to an initiative on the people's side through a new-found regional proxy - but may end up bailing Gyanendra out of his grave predicament. The dangers of such disorientation facing the struggle find illustration in the impact of the Nepal events in India. It was about two months before 9/11 that Gyanendra made his gory ascent to the throne. His anointment as king after a massacre of King Birendra and the rest of the entire royal family by Crown Prince Dipendra is an oft-recounted piece of recent history. Not so well recorded is the post-9/11 story of an increasingly intimate Washington-Kathmandu alliance. It was "terrorism" of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), or CPNM, popularly called Maoists, that supplied the rationale of the alliance. It was the same "threat" that also provided the King a rationale for his subsequent assaults on a parliamentary democracy that co-existed with a constitutional monarchy and that the people had won after years of struggle. India's stand has similarly been one of support for democracy as also for constitutional monarchy in Nepal (the two being described as "the twin pillars" of a desirable order in Nepal) along with anti-Maoist solidarity with Kathmandu. The similarity has acquired a new significance ever since the birth and growth of a USA-India "strategic partnership." Promoters of this "partnership" are busy pleading for intervention in Nepal by India as an ally of Bush in "the war on terror." In January 2002, Colin Powell, at the time US Secretary of State, paid an unprecedented visit to Kathmandu to announce open and total support for the monarchy in crushing the Maoists. "You have a Maoist insurgency that's trying to overthrow the government and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world," Powell declared. The then-US ambassador to Nepal James Francis Moriarty made no secret of America's "strategic interest" in the region. The partnership had grown to menacing proportions by February 2005, when Gyanendra sacked the elected government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and declared an emergency. Wrote US journalist Conn Hallinan: "The Bush Administration has concluded that the civil war threatens to make Nepal a "failed state" and a haven for international terrorists, leading it to place the CPNM on the State Department's 'Watch List,' along with organizations like al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, and Lebanon's Hezbollah." Then US Ambassador to Nepal Michael E. Malinowski waxed enthusiastic in his endorsement of the King's line. As I wrote in these columns then, the result was "the heavy influx into South Asia's poorest nation of US weaponry and military equipment, along with British helicopters and American advisers, to aggravate a civil war that has taken a toll of thousands of Nepali lives." India, for its part, had been extending anti-terror military assistance of 4.5 billion Indian rupees to Nepal per year. New Delhi did discontinue this assistance in February 2005, but it took only a few face-saving measures by the King for it to resume its military supplies. In the current context, staunch Indian lobbyists for the "strategic partnership" are asking New Delhi to play the role of the super power's regional proxy in this matter. One of them, C. Raja Mohan, for example, writes: "In the last few years much of the world, including the United States and the European Union have waited for India to take the lead on Nepal and agreed to coordinate their policies with those of New Delhi. If India holds back, other powers would soon begin to act on their own." The other powers presumably include China, which has played an unabashedly pro-monarchy role thus far and has just started recognizing parliamentary parties in Nepal. Warns Raja Mohan : "If India does not act immediately, the ground situation - worsening by the day - would compel India to consider more drastic remedies in the future. That could include military intervention to prevent state failure in Nepal." Ironically, the main opposition to such a course come from the far right which, during the term of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had set the "strategic partnership" in motion. The ground for their opposition would be the special place for Nepal in their as the "world's only Hindu kingdom." Apologists for the king in these quarters have even advocated absolute monarchy. This opposition can conceivably be overcome if the US-India partnership over Nepal is projected as a possible precedent for a similarly combined role with regard to Pakistan and Kashmir in particular. The Vajpayee government, it may be recalled, spoke in significant approval of the right of nations to pre-emptive anti-terror strikes and pressed for extension of such a right to India. Needless to add, such an extension of the "war on terror" to Nepal can do no good at all to the cause of peace in South Asia. A freelance journalist and a peace activist of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. ____ [2] South Asians Against Nukes - April 23, 2006 URL: http://tinyurl.com/gamqo SOUTH ASIA NEEDS A BOMB-LESS DEAL by Pervez Hoodbhoy For all who have opposed Pakistan's nuclear program over the years - including myself - the US-India nuclear agreement may probably be the worst thing that has happened in a long time. Post agreement: Pakistan's ruling elite is confused and bitter. They know that India has overtaken Pakistan in far too many areas for there to be any reasonable basis for symmetry. They see the US is now interested in reconstructing the geopolitics of South Asia and in repairing relations with India, not in mollifying Pakistani grievances. Nevertheless, there were lingering hopes of a sweetener during President George W. Bush's furtive and unwelcomed visit in March 2006 to Islamabad. There was none. This change in US policy thrilled many in India. Many enjoyed President Musharraf's discomfiture. But they would do well to restrain their exuberance. The nuclear deal, even if ratified, will not dramatically increase nuclear power production - currently this stands at only 3% of the total production, and can at most double to 6% if currently planned reactors are built and made operational over the next decade. On the other hand, Pakistan is bound to react - and react badly - once US nuclear materials and equipment starting rolling into India. One certain consequence will be more bombs on both sides of the border. The deal is widely seen in Pakistan as signaling America's support or acquiescence, or perhaps even surrender, to India's nuclear ambitions. India will be freely able to import uranium fuel for its safeguarded civilian reactors. This will free up the remainder of its scarce uranium resources for making plutonium. Further, when India's thorium-fuelled breeder reactors are fully operational, India will be able to produce more bombs in one year than in the last 30. Not surprisingly, important voices in Pakistan have started to demand that Pakistan match India bomb-for-bomb. Abdus Sattar, ex-foreign minister of Pakistan, advocates "replication of the Kahuta plant to produce more fissile uranium. to rationalize and upgrade Pakistan's minimum deterrence capability". He has also written about the need to "accelerate its [Pakistan's] missile development programme". This is a prescription for unlimited nuclear racing, given that "minimum deterrence" is essentially an open-ended concept. Pakistan has mastered centrifuge technology, and giving birth to more Kahutas would require only a political decision. Moreover, unlike India, Pakistan is not constrained by supplies of natural uranium. Thus, at least in principle, Pakistan can increase its bomb production considerably. Although nuclear hawks in India and Pakistan had once pooh-poohed the notion of an arms race, there is little doubt that India and Pakistan are solidly placed on a Cold War trajectory. As more bombs are added to the inventory every year, and intermediate range ballistic missiles steadily roll off the production lines, both countries seek ever more potent weaponry. Many years ago, all three countries crossed the point where they could lay cities to waste and kill millions in a matter of minutes. The fantastically cruel logic, known as nuclear deterrence, requires only the certainty that one nuclear bomb will be able to penetrate the adversary's defences and land in the heart of a city. No one has the slightest doubt that this capability was crossed multiple times over during the past few decades. What action would best serve the interest of the peoples of India and Pakistan, as well as of China? A fissile material cutoff is the easiest and most straightforward way to ease nuclear tensions. It offers the best hope to limit the upwards spiral in warhead numbers. Instead of threatening to create more Kahutas, Pakistan should offer to stop production of highly enriched uranium while India should respond by ceasing to reprocess its reactor wastes. Previous stockpiles possessed by either country should not be brought into issue because their credible verification is extremely difficult and would inevitably derail an agreement. Years of negotiation at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva came to naught for this very reason. A series of "Nuclear Risk Reduction" talks between Pakistan and India have also produced zero results. The cessation of fissile material production is completely absent from the agenda; it must be made a central item now. If a Pakistan-India bilateral agreement could somehow come through, it would have fantastically positive effects elsewhere. China - which is the major target of US nuclear weapons - may not have enough warheads to match the US but has more than a sufficient number to constitute a nuclear deterrent. Inspired by an Indian cutoff, it could formally declare a moratorium on fissile material production. The US, which no longer produces fissile materials because it has a huge excess, could encourage the Chinese action by offering to suspend work on its Nuclear Missile Defence (NMD) system. Unfortunately the United States is not acting as a force for peace in South Asia. Confronted by the accusation that it is pumping arms into a region that some of its leaders had once described as a "nuclear tinder box", US officials have responded defensively with answers such as: you have to deal with the world as it is and the Indian program cannot be rolled back; India is a democracy; India needs to import nuclear fuel and technology and we need to sell them. But such lame replies sweep under the carpet the disturbing history of near-nuclear conflict on the subcontinent for which the US has often taken credit for defusing. The arms race directly benefits Indian and Pakistan elites. Hence they are tacit collaborators as they woo the US and prove that their states belong to the community of "responsible nuclear states" that are worthy of military and nuclear assistance. The past has been banished by an unwritten agreement. Retired Pakistani and Indian generals and leaders meet cordially at conferences around the world and happily clink glasses together. They emphatically deny that the two countries had even come close to a nuclear crisis in the past. Being now charged with the mission of projecting an image of "responsibility" abroad, none amongst them wants to bring back the memory of South Asian leaders hurling ugly nuclear threats against each other. But instances of criminal nuclear behaviour are to be found even in the very recent past. For example, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes told the International Herald Tribune on June 3, 2002 that "India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot." Indian Defence Secretary Yogendra Narain had taken things a step further in an interview with Outlook Magazine: "A surgical strike is the answer," adding that if this failed to resolve things, "We must be prepared for total mutual destruction." On the Pakistani side, at the peak of the 2002 crisis, General Musharraf had threatened that Pakistan would use "unconventional means" against India if necessary. Tense times may return at some point in the in the future. But Indian and Pakistani leaders are likely to once again abdicate from their own responsibilities whenever that happens. Instead, they will again entrust disaster prevention to the US. Of course, it would be absurd to lay the blame on the US for all that has gone wrong between the two countries. Surely the US does not want to destabilize the subcontinent, and it does not want a South Asian holocaust. But one must be aware that for the US this is only a peripheral interest - the core of its interest in South Asian nuclear issues stems from the need to limit Chinese power and influence, fear of Al-Qaida and Muslim extremism, and the associated threat of nuclear terrorism. The Americans will sort out their business and priorities as they see fit. But it is unwise to participate in a plan that leaves South Asian neighbours at each others throats while benefiting a power that sits on the other side of the globe. Regional tensions will increase because of the deal. Given that the motivation for the US-India nuclear agreement comes partly from the US's desire to contain China, the Pakistan-China strategic relationship will be considerably strengthened. In practical terms, this may amount to enhanced support for Pakistan's missile program, or even its military nuclear program. Speaking at Pakistan's National Defense College in Islamabad a day before Bush's arrival there, Musharraf declared that "My recent trip to China was part of my effort to keep Pakistan's strategic options open." By proceeding with the nuclear deal with India the US may destabilize South Asia. It will also wreck the NPT, take the heat off Iran and North Korea, open the door for Japan to convert its plutonium stocks into bombs, and bring about global nuclear anarchy. [ Published in Economic and Political Weekly (India) and The Friday Times (Pakistan), week of 17 April, 2006.] The author is professor of nuclear and high energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad. ____ [3] sacw.net > Communalism Repository - April 22, 2006 WHAT CONSTITUTES THE REAL THREAT TO INDIA? by Subhash Gatade Hyderabad : BJP leader L.K.Advani has said that after naxalism and terrorism, infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals from across the border was the third biggest threat to country's security. (The Hindu, April 19, 2006 ) '(they) were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle.' Tacitus (Roman historian and official, c.58 to 115 C.E.) The Annals, Book XV, C.E. 62-65 Lal Krishna Advani, ex President of BJP would not have imagined in his wildest dreams that Sangh Parivar's own people, would get caught in making illegal bombs just when he with his entourage was busy sermonising all and sundry about threats before the nation. And the coincidence was striking. According to a writeup in Mid Day ( 9 th April 2006) "..[o]n the eve of Lal Krishna Advani's Bharat Suraksha Yatra in Maharashtra, police officials in Nanded said Bajrang Dal activists were actually making a bomb before a bomb exploded in an activist's house." It is worth noting that in this bomb blast two people died on the spot and three others got badly injured. The investigating officer was categorical enough to tell that the duo Naresh and Himanshu, which died on the spot were 'office bearers of Bajrang Dal from time to time and used to attend their meetings,'. [. . .] FULL TEXT AT: URL: http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/gatade22April06.html ____ [4] Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) Press Release April 20, 2006 INTIMIDATION AND VICTIMISATION BY GUJARAT POLICE: NOTICE TO GUJARAT GOVERNMENT Justice AS Dave of the Gujarat HC has issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the plea of victim survivors of the Pandharwada massacre for stay and transfer of the FIR-related investigations to CBI and posted the case for urgent hearing on April 28, 2006. After lengthy arguments made by Shri Prakashbhai Thakker, senior counsel for the petitioners, the Court passed the order. Meanwhile, no action can be taken by the Gujarat Police on the investigation. The Citizens for Justice and Peace [CJP] had moved the urgent criminal application following the issuance of non-bailable warrants against victim survivors who had lost their near and dear ones and Shri rais Khan, the CJP's coordinator on April 18. A malafide FIR was registered against victim survivors in the early morning of January 1, 2006 after the Gujarat High Court had already passed an order transferring investigations to the CBI. The Godhra Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail to the survivors and Shri Pathan on January 10, 2006 observing that the FIR was obviously a counterblast meant to subvert the Gujarat HC order. Interestingly, the sections invoked in the FIR against survivors and Shri Pathan are normally those that require government sanction! The simple act of retrieving dead remains of their loved ones has been interpreted as an act of 'inflaming religious sentiments by the Lunawada police.' Religious sentiments of whom? The Gujarat police at Lunawada pressurized by the top echelons of the police administration and Government continued to harass victims and human rights activists to cover up the issue of illegal burial in mass graves, of those killed in the Gujarat Carnage of 2002. They attempted to get the anticipatory bail order cancelled in the Gujarat HC, which was also turned down on April 5, 2006. On April 5, 2006 the Gujarat High Court passed a speaking order rejecting the Gujarat State's appeal to cancel anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court at Godhra. Though one of the conditions of the High Court order formally allowed the police to apply for remand (a practice in all cases), the victims and Shri Khan remained present at the Lunawada court while arguments took place on April 17, 2006, the single-handed vindictiveness of the Gujarat police can be seen, in that, they obtained non-bailable warrants by misleading the court despite the fact that there were no orders asking that these persons remain present in court on April 18, 2006. Despite this order of the High Court to convert bail into regular bail, the Gujarat police is not only using intimidatory tactics to browbeat victims of a massacre and representatives of organisations supporting the struggle for justice, but in fact attempting to influence the investigation itself. In this entire matter, the Gujarat police is the chief culpable party being responsible for the undignified and hasty burials of victims of a mass crime. Today, despite the fact that the matter has been seized of in the Gujarat High Court, the Gujarat police functions with impunity and is trying to subvert the investigation to escape liability for the illegal and unauthorised burial of bodies of victims of a mass crime. The non-bailable arrest warrants have been issued against Mehboob Rasul Chauhan, Habib Rasul Saiyed, Sikander Abbas Shaikh, Kutubsha Ayubsha Diwan and Gulam Ghani Kharadi who are victim survivors of the ghastly massacre that took place in March 2002 and have lost family members in the carnage. The police that is accused in the crime of illegally mass burying bodies is today, under pressure from the very top harassing victim and human rights defenders. Vijay Tendulkar, President Teesta Setalvad, Secretary o o o The Hindu April 21, 2006 NOTICE TO GUJARAT GOVERNMENT IN PANDARWADA CASE Manas Dasgupta http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/22/stories/2006042216951300.htm ____ [5] RALLY TO THE VALLEY NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN · C/o B-13 Shivam Flats, Ellora Park, Vadodara - 390023, Gujarat Telefax: 0265-2282232, [EMAIL PROTECTED] · 62, M.G Marg, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh 451551. Telefax: 07290-222464 · Maitri Niwas, Tembewadi, Dhadgaon, Dist. Nandurbar, Maharashtra. Ph: 02595-220620 21 April,2006. POL-KHOL YATRA IN THE NARMADA VALLEY: 25 to 27 April: From Indore to 'tribal and farmers' villages in Narmada Valley. After the 30 days sit-in and fast by the Narmada Bachao Andolan activists in the capital, a new chapter has been opened in respect of Sardar Sarovar Dam. The movement has raised the issue of the displacement and the environmental damage due to the dam. For the last 20 years, it has questioned all the illegal decisions by the Government through a strong mass movement. It has brought to light, the true story of the Narmada Valley. The decision to increase the height of the dam from 110.64 meters to 122 meters has proved to benthe death sentence for the tribals, the farmers and people residing in the valley. This called for a strong protest which was joined by allnfrom various people's movements all over the country, students, teachers, the sensitive among the artist community to the lay person on the street, they who have offered their help, participation and backing. This makes it clear that the darker side of development has come to the light in front of right thinking, sensitive and selfless elements of the community. That is why they are now bent upon not only saving the Narmada Valley but also question the anti-democratic, non-scientific process going on in the country in the name of development and based on grossly misleading facts. People are now reacting strongly to the situation. It is now necessary to take some solid steps. The Narmada struggle is a symbol of the same reaction. Its a question of debate as to what is the truth and what is only a mirage. This can be asked in respect of all the issues in connection with Sardar Sarovar. During the protest in Delhi, various reports by thenstate as well as Central Governments, figures and affidavits, the experiences of the displaced and the agitators have come to the lightnin front of the country as well as the whole world. All the three Governments concerned have to submit their affidavits regarding applications submitted by 48 displaced families, to the Supreme Court within a week's time. The reactions of the displaced on the affidavits will be a heard in the court on the first of May. The court has already said that the Prime Minister is free to take any decision or intervene in the matter wherever he feels necessary. At the same time, the court has made it clear that if the rehabilitation of all the oustees upto the 122 meters is not done in letter and spirit of the Narmada Tribunal award, then the work of the dam can be stopped. The Narmada Movement has now declared a Pol-Khol Abhiyan (reveal the truth campaign). We will go on bringing to the fore, each and every aspect of the Sardar Sarovar story. The social as well as environmental losses, compensation as also the real side of the exaggerated and beautifully painted picture about the profits also has to be revealed. Those of our brothers and sisters who have been termed as outsiders while they are actually displaced in thousands have to be met in person. It has become necessary to reveal the real faces of all those who make baseless accusations on us of accepting foreign funds. We have to move in this direction on different fronts taking with us, the like-minded. One of the main programs in this direction will be the Pol-Khol Yatra: 25 to 27th April. You are cordially invited for this Yatra. All the friends, co-workers, youth, students, members of various people's movements, those displaced due to various projects, labourers, tribals, dalits, sensitive citizens, artists, journalists and media persons are welcome. We invite you to the valley. Verify the truth, find out and see for yourselves, the Government corruption and the atrocities, contempt of court as also the game in the name of democracy. You may reach Indore in the morning of 25th April. Please let us know the route and the time of your arrival. There will be a meeting at Indore between 10 a.m. and 12 noon and the 'Yatra' will proceed to the valley straight from there. During the three days, the Yatra will visit villages, settlements and see first hand, the Government's working style and also listen to the profit and loss story. There will be answers to each and every question raised on each aspect of the Narmada Movement, its working, its resources. Your presence is necessary for raising the issue in front of the Government. Come and see the region which is either already submerged or about to be submerged; the generations old culture and the picturesque surroundings. You may return on 27th night or 28th morning from Baroda, Indore or Khandwa. Your participation is utmost necessary now after your important participation and contribution on this occasion. There will be welcome in villages, overnight stay in the farmers' houses, visits to tribal villages on the banks of the river, tribal dances and travel through the boats in the river followed by a long march in Badwani and a torch rally. On one side are those administrators who are bent upon destruction in the valley and going ahead with the dam while on the other side are the lively villages and communities and the rich valley. This picture is incomplete without your presence. Your strong intervention is necessary this time to stop the destruction without resettlement. Please come and bring others along. Waiting for you, Mohanbhai Patidar, Swapna Kanera, Kamala Yadav, Medha Patkar, Ashish Mandloi, Omprakash Yadav, Hirdaram Bharud, Chandubhai, Kailash Awasthi _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. _______________________________________________ Sacw mailing list [email protected] http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
