South Asia Citizens Wire | 22 June, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2262
[1] Bangladesh: The tirade against Ahmadiyyas
again - must be stopped (Edit, Daily Star )
[2] Challenges in Kashmir (Balraj Puri)
+ Re-open other routes, simplify travel procedure (Edit, Kashmir Times)
[3] India, Israel and the US (Mike Marqusee)
[4] Towards a Politics of Justice Affirming
Diversities; Resisting Divisiveness
Declaration of the National Co-ordination Committee of the Seventh National
Conference of Autonomous Women's Movements in India, 2006
___
[1]
The Daily Star
June 22, 2006
Editorial
THE TIRADE AGAINST AHMADIYYAS AGAIN
IT MUST BE STOPPED ONCE AND FOR ALL
It is a matter of great worry that the Khatme
Nabuwat Andolon (KNA), a fiercely anti-Ahmadiyya
outfit, is again planning to attack a mosque of
the beleaguered community in Uttara next Friday.
Twenty-two Ahmadiyya families are now apparently
at the mercy of the organisation which wants them
to be declared non-Muslims. It is an exact
repetition of incidents in which the Ahmaddiyyas
were targeted in the past. The KNA activists
usually select an Ahmadiyya mosque, launch a
massive hate campaign, and then try to evict the
Ahmadiyyas from their own mosque.
Now, this is a kind of outburst of religious
fanaticism which could only create a sense of
great insecurity not only among the Ahmadiyyas,
but also among all small sects or religious
communities.
The right to pursue any religious faith equally
and freely is guaranteed to every citizen both by
our constitution and religion -- a point that we
have raised several times in the past while
commenting on such issues. There is absolutely no
room for such persecution of a small group of
people in the name of serving Islam. Islam does
not need the service of the people who don't know
that it is a religion which treats oppression of
any type as an unpardonable offence.
The KNA modus operandi deserves a closer look.
They try to revive the issue of Ahmadiyya bashing
whenever it looks like losing its tempo. And they
have been putting pressure on the government to
declare the Ahamadiyyas non-Muslims. They seem to
be quite well organised.
The government should not evade the issue as the
KNA activists are adopting a more and more
threatening posture. The violation of law is so
blatant in this case that one doesn't need to be
a legal expert to understand that the rights of a
small group of people are being encroached upon
by zealots having no authority to decide who is a
Muslim and who is not. These self-styled
custodians of Islam must be reined in before they
start intimidating the followers of other faiths
as well.
_____
[2]
Deccan Herald
June 21, 2006
CHALLENGES IN KASHMIR
By Balraj Puri
Power devolution to J&K and its regions is a
logical step forward within constitution
The Prime Minister's suggestion at the second
round table conference of power sharing among the
regions of Jammu and Kashmir was perhaps the
significant move for internal reform. Regional
imbalances and the Centre-State relations add to
complications prevailing in the state. Conscious
of this fact I pleaded for recognition of
regional identities with Nehru in my meeting with
him on April 14, 1952. I also reminded him that
"the greatest problem of the state is to maintain
cordial relations between its constituent units."
On the eve of Nehru-Abdullah agreement on
Centre-State regions in July 1952, called the
Delhi Agreement, I reiterated my demand for
regional autonomy. The Prime Minister announced a
press conference on July 24, 1952, in the
presence of Abdullah that "the state government
was considering regional autonomies within the
larger state."
Regional identities
Unfortunately the Nehru-Abdullah agreement was
opposed by the Bhartiya Jana Sangh, Hindu Maha
Sabha and Ram Rajya Parishad and their
ideological protégé the Jammu Praja Parishad
which neither recognized regional identities nor
a distinct identity of Kashmir. They started an
agitation for abrogation of Article 370 of the
Constitution, which guaranteed autonomy of the
state within India and withdrawal of commitment
to regional autonomy in November 1952.
Dr SP Mukerjee, founder president of the Bhartiya
Jana Sangh, who led the agitation was arrested on
entering the state. However, Mukerjee offered on
February 17, 1953, to withdraw the ongoing
agitation in Jammu and accept the Delhi Agreement
"if the principle of autonomy would apply to
Jammu as a whole and of course also to Ladakh and
Kashmir." This was precisely the assurance I got
from Nehru and Abdullah.
However Mukerjee's death triggered demonstrations
by Hindu parties in Jammu and some towns of north
India demanding "quatil Abdullah ko phansi do"
(hang Abdullah, the murderer). This caused a
great provocation among Kashmiri Muslims who
thought that they had fought against Pakistan, a
Muslim country to join India and now their leader
was called a murderer. This was one of the
factors that alienated Abdullah, who sought
options other than India, leading to his
dismissal and detention. Thus the first emotional
rupture between Kashmir and the rest of India was
caused.
State's autonomy
The Jana Sangh resumed its opposition to the
state's and regional autonomy, which added
further complications to the Kashmir problem. In
October 1968, Sheikh Abdullah, as leader of the
Plebiscite Front convened the J&K State People's
Convention to discuss the future of the state. It
was inaugurated by Jayaprakash Narayan. The
Sheikh accepted my plea to discuss the future of
regions ahead of the state's future.
Being the only member on the convention's
steering committee from Jammu, I was asked to
draft an internal constitution of the state that
pleaded for a five tier constitutional set up for
the state apart from regional autonomy. The
formula envisaged further devolution of power to
the districts, blocks and Panchayat.
Delegates of the convention, Kashmir valley's
most represented political gathering, unanimously
accepted the draft constitution. The Praja
Parishad and its patron the Jana Sangh rejected
the draft constitution as it would strengthen
disintegrating forces.
The state government-appointed Regional Autonomy
Committee (headed by me) was another defining
exercise. Studying various experiments in India
and abroad, I had discussions with top experts of
international law and social scientists of the
country. The draft report more precisely defined
powers at various tiers of the administration. It
also called for safeguarding interests of every
ethnic identity in the state and prescribed an
eight point formula for objective and equitable
allocation of funds at various levels. It may not
be the final word, but could be the basis for
further discussion.
o o o
Editorial
Kashmir Times
June 22, 2006
BRIDGING THE GULF
RE-OPEN OTHER ROUTES, SIMPLIFY TRAVEL PROCEDURE
After, over a year's waiting, another
breakthrough has been achieved across the LoC --
this time connecting Poonch with Rawlakote. Of
course, there was less hoopla about the opening
of this route than what had greeted the opening
of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road -- because the
latter is in much-talked about Kashmir and the
first in the series of new routes between the two
divided parts of Jammu and Kashmir -- this one is
certainly far more important in bringing nearer
to one another divided families and separated
friends. In the Kashmir valley the LoC has
followed, more or less, the ethnic faultline
separating the Kashmiris and the non-Kashmiris,
leaving not many families divided in that
process. Of course, quite a few Kashmiris did
migrate to Muzaffarabad after the cease-fire of
December 1948, when the going was still good.
But, in the case of the north-western border of
Jammu division, the situation was much different.
Here the LoC, just cut through the homes and
villages of thousands of families, arbitrarily
and cruelly separating, for over half-a-century,
near and dear ones closely linked to one another
through manifold ties, ethnic, emotional and
economic. Naturally, people on both sides of the
LoC here have greeted the re-opening of this
route with considerable enthusiasm and
expectation.
However, to enable this route live up to the
expectations of the local population, the
authorities on both sides of the LoC will have to
work out an arrangement with both sympathy and
imagination. They should bear in mind that,
although the volume of trade across this route
may never be very heavy, many more people will be
regularly availing of this route on a regular
basis and most of them are the common poor people
of this region. So, to enable them come and go
across the border frequently, the travel
procedure must be made simple and easy. The
authorities permitting travel on this route must
be there at Poonch and Rawlakote, so that
intending travellers do not have to travel to
Delhi or Islamabad for getting such a permission.
Besides, police verification should be made much
simpler, if not altogether done away with and the
entire process of securing a permit must not be
expensive and time-consuming. If the local
authorities can issue a certificate, in a week,
why should not a travel permit be available in
24, 48 hours? The buses should be just
comfortable, but need not be expensive and the
fair charged for this 29 km route should not be
exorbitant. However, endeavour should be made to
ply the buses daily for the common man.
Since this one is the third new route to be
opened in the last one year and the heavens have
not crashed, both New Delhi and Islamabad should
take courage in both hands and carry forward the
process by reopening similar routes between Jammu
and Sialkot and between Jourian and Bhimber and
Jhangan and Kotli. That will help, more than any
thing else, in bringing nearer to one another a
people arbitrarily divided into two. The opening
of these routes, allowing free movement of people
and goods and several other CBMs are no doubt
important in themselves. But these cannot be
taken as an end in themselves. In no case such
CBMs can be the substitute for a final settlement
of the Kashmir problem. These can no doubt push
forward the ongoing peace process and facilitate
the final settlement of the vexed Kashmir
problem. To remove any suspicions in this regard
it is important that the dialogue for a solution
of the basic problem moves in tandem with such
measures.
_____
[3]
zmag.org
June 18, 2006
India, Israel and the US
by Mike Marqusee
Presumably because I'm Jewish and write about
India, I received an invitation to a
'Jewish-Indian Reception' held earlier this year
at Columbia University in New York.
"Did you know that Jews have lived in India for
over 2000 years without any signs of
Anti-Semitism?" the invitation began. "Did you
know that annual bi-lateral trade between India
and Israel reached $2.7 billion this past year?
Interested in learning more about the historical,
cultural, and political connections and
similarities between Jewish and Indian Americans?
Join us for a night of great speakers ..."
These speakers included the Indian
Consul-General, the Israeli Deputy-Consul General
and Congressman Gary Ackerman. The event was
organised by a pro-Israel student group called
LionPAC, with support from the South Asian Law
Students Association, among others. It offers a
microcosm of the burgeoning India-Israel-US axis,
a phenomenon supporters of the Palestinian cause
need to be more aware of.
Let's start with Gary Ackerman, the ranking
Democrat on the House International Relations
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. A
loud voice for Israel on Capitol Hill, Ackerman's
career "highlights", according to his website,
include "authoring legislation that required
President Bush to impose sanctions against the
Palestinian Authority". He championed the Israeli
military offensive of spring 2002, and denounced
the ICJ finding on the wall as "shameful".
Ackerman is also a Congressional point-man for
the "India lobby". A former chairman of the
Congressional Caucus on India and Indian
Americans, he unequivocally backs India on
Kashmir, lays all the blame for the conflict
there on Pakistan and pushes for increased
US-India arms trade and military collaboration.
In 2003, Ackerman helped organise the first-ever
joint Capitol Hill forum between AIPAC and AJC,
on the one side, and the newly formed US Indian
Political Action Committee, on the other.
Ackerman stressed the two countries' common
concerns: Israel, he said, was "surrounded by 120
million Muslims" while " India has 120 million
Muslims [within]". Last year, he was the leading
Democratic sponsor of Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh's address to a joint session of
Congress.
Then there's LionPAC, the main pro-Israel group
at Columbia. A couple of years ago LionPAC
members played a key role in the documentary film
'Conduct Unbecoming', in which it was alleged
that Jews and supporters of Israel at Columbia
faced systematic intimidation and bias, and which
slandered a number of Columbia professors as
anti-semites. The ensuing uproar led the
university to appoint a committee of
investigation, which, in due course, dismissed
the film's allegations and reprimanded the
methods used by the film-makers. LionPAC is
clearly in need of campus allies and the
reception was an attempt to seek friends among
just about the only people of colour at Columbia
for whom Israel is not anathema - career-minded
students of Indian origin.
According to the Columbia Spectator, "Around 200
people, mostly undergraduate and graduate
students," attended the reception. The speakers
"highlighted... the similarities between Jewish
and Indian values and culture, and the shared
efforts by the US, India, and Israel to combat
terrorism."
Note how "values", "cultures", states and
geo-politics are interwoven here. The existence
of coherent "Indian" or "Jewish" value systems or
cultures is casually assumed, and in each case
casually attached to a state. These two entities
are then somehow said to have "similarities" and
the whole package is tied up with the help of the
USA and the "war on terror".
Back in the days of the freedom struggle, Gandhi
and the Indian National Congress opposed the
creation of a 'Jewish National Home' in
Palestine. Nehru insightfully analysed the
relationship between Zionism, Arab Nationalism
and British imperialism. Newly-independent India
voted against the UN Palestine partition plan in
1947 and the admission of Israel to the UN in
1949. As a leading force in the Non-Aligned
Movement, India backed anti-colonial movements in
the middle-east and enjoyed close links with
Nasser's Egypt.
Nonetheless, a clandestine relationship with
Israel developed, thanks in part to Mossad, which
acted as an unofficial - and deniable -
diplomatic courier. During the 1971 war with
Pakistan, Israel supplied India with mortars and
ammunition. In the following years, intelligence
collaboration was established, with an exchange
of information about Pakistan, which at that time
was building alliances with Arab regimes in the
Middle East. In the late 1980s, Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi, keen on improving relations with
the US, began the process of upgrading ties with
Israel. As the Indian press put it at the time,
"The road to Washington passes through Tel Aviv."
Since full diplomatic relations were established
in 1992, military and commercial links have grown
exponentially. The process escalated under the
right-wing BJP-led government of 1998-2004. The
BJP is the political wing of the Sangh Parivar,
the family of organisations dedicated to the
ideology of Hindutva (roughly, 'Hinduness'): an
authoritarian, Hindu supremacist, virulently
anti-Muslim movement. Its founders were admirers
of Hitler and Mussolini, but it also has a long
history of support for Israel and Zionism.
In many respects, Hindutva and Zionism are
natural bedfellows. Both depict the entities they
claim to represent as simultaneously national and
religious. Both claim to be the sole authentic
spokespersons for these entities (Hindu and
Jewish). Both share an ambivalent (to say the
least) historic relationship with British
colonialism. Both appeal to an affluent diaspora.
And, most importantly at the moment, both share a
designated enemy ('Muslim terrorism').
During the Kargil War of 1999 (in which India and
Pakistani troops clashed in Kashmir), Israel
supplied India, at 24 hours notice, with high
altitude surveillance vehicles and laser-guided
systems. In the wake of 9/11, the alliance was
deepened, with Hindutva and Zionist world-views
dovetailing snugly with the US war on terror. In
May 2003, India's then National Security Adviser
Brajesh Misra spelled out the strategy in an
address to the American Jewish Congress, in which
he pleaded for a "Tel Aviv-New Delhi-Washington"
axis. A few months later, Ariel Sharon arrived in
India as an hounoured guest.
When a Congress-led coalition replaced the BJP
after the 2004 elections, its left supporters
urged it to abandon the previous government's
foreign policy, notably the embrace of Israel and
the USA. They have been ignored. The government
has signed deals with the US for military
purchases, joint military exercises and most
recently, in the course of Bush's state visit,
nuclear collaboration. In February, India
abandoned Iran at the IAEA, voting with the US to
refer the country - usually considered one of
India's major strategic allies - to the Security
Council.
At the same time, the link with Israel has been
consolidated. In the course of 2005, India's
Ministers of Science and Technology, Commerce and
Industry, and Agriculture and Food all visited
Israel, holding high-level meetings with
political and business leaders. In February 2006,
Israel's National Security Council Chairman Giora
Eiland was welcomed in Delhi.
Israel is now the second largest supplier of arms
to India (after Russia). It provides India with
missile radar, border monitoring equipment, night
vision devices, the new Phalcon reconnaissance
aircraft, among other items. India, in turn, is
the biggest purchaser of high-tech Israeli
weapons and accounts for almost half of Israel's
arms exports. In addition, several thousand
Indian soldiers have received "anti-insurgency
training" in Israel.
In a speech at Tel Aviv University in March, the
Indian Ambassador described India and Israel as
"heirs to great and ancient civilizations" which
"emerged from foreign domination as independent
nations around the middle of the last century"
and whose "historical interaction... is vividly
embodied in the presence of Judaism in India for
over 1600 years."
While the ambassador was speaking in Tel Aviv,
the Jewish-Indian reception was being held in New
York, knitting together the same alliance and
using the same themes. The Indian presence in the
USA is highly diverse (many are Muslims), but an
affluent, suburban constituency within it
identifies with the Indian right and more broadly
with Indian elite aspirations for economic and
military status. Many see American Jews as the
"model minority" and seek to emulate their
political clout. A number have openly declared
their intention of constructing a lobby similar
to the Israel lobby. The attraction has been
reciprocal. The American Jewish Committee is soon
to open an office in New Delhi.
It's ironic that Indian Jews should find
themselves used as a lynch-pin in this marriage
of convenience. Of course, India's population is
so diverse, its diaspora so far flung, that it
can claim some kind of relationship with almost
anyone anywhere. India's small Jewish communities
were themselves highly diverse - in language,
ritual, origin - but today they number merely
6000 (out of a population of one billion). During
the 50s and 60s, most Indian Jews went to Israel,
many to the US. The motives were mainly economic.
The niche they had occupied collapsed after
independence.
Although there's no history of anti-semitism in
India, it's striking that one of the country's
best-selling books is Mein Kampf, openly
available at bookshops, stationers and street
stalls. One young man pursuing a degree in
business administration explained that the book
was popular because it was "an excellent
management text". Ironically, the aspirant
bourgeoisie buying Mein Kampf is precisely that
section of Indian society most keen on the
alliance with Israel. The mentality is summed up
by a catchphrase currently favoured by India's
foreign policy-makers: "Non-alignment is for
losers."
Manmohan Singh described India's deal with the US
and its vote against Iran as acts of "enlightened
self-interest". The same excuse is applied to the
link with Israel. The reality is that India's
betrayal of the Palestinians, however profitable
for a few, is not remotely in the interest of the
vast Indian majority. It certainly diminishes
India's status and influence in the developing
world. What price favor in Washington?
_____
[4]
(Received from Ammu Abraham, Women's Centre Bombay)
----------------------
womens's rights page @ www.sacw.net | June 22, 2006
http://www.sacw.net/Wmov/TowardsaPoliticsofJustice.html
TOWARDS A POLITICS OF JUSTICE
AFFIRMING DIVERSITIES; RESISTING DIVISIVENESS
Declaration of the National Co-ordination Committee of the Seventh National
Conference of Autonomous Women's Movements in
India, 9th to 12th September, 2006, Kolkatta
Since 1980, six National Conferences have been
organised by autonomous women's groups, in
response to our need to link up with each other,
to share experiences and build friendships,
express solidarity with each other's struggles,
strategise and formulate joint action plans for
the future. Over the years, the Conferences have
evolved as a space for expression of our ideas,
politics and struggles - where no one voice is
more important than another, but rather, where
the spirit of democracy, sisterhood and
solidarity seeks to encourage debate and
dialogue. We hope that this upcoming Conference
too will reflect the rich history of women's
movements in India, build on our collective
strengths, make visible the continuing
intervention of women in society for justice, and
our solidarity with the struggles of all people
for equality and justice.
We are women from different women's groups and
various streams of life, coming from different
states, having different feminist political
persuasions, belonging to various cultures and
religions, (with some of us refusing religious
persuasions), as well as from different class,
caste, sexuality, ethnic and linguistic
backgrounds, who work in diverse ways to
challenge oppressive and patriarchal structures
in society. We remain committed to recognising
and respecting these 'diversities', even as we
seek justice for the inequities that result from
those very diversities.
This Declaration is a shared expression of our
politics, perspectives, and commitment to the
women's movement. First drafted in 1998 by the
National Coordination Committee* of the
conferences, it has, over the years, changed and
grown to reflect our varied journeys and
concerns. The Conference is open to all those who
abide by this Declaration.
The Indian Women's Movement has many streams and
hues, and we do not claim to be representative of
all of them. The National Conference brings
together women and organisations who are
'autonomous' - i.e. non-government,
non-electoral, non-political party, non-violent
and not underground groups or funding agencies.
These are groups, both formal and informal, that
form a distinct political stream united by a
broad critique of society, and patriarchal
institutions, and of the intersections of caste,
gender, class, religion and sexuality.
As the Autonomous Women's Movement, we share a
broad common understanding of women's oppression
and liberation, but differ in our emphasis and
practices. Yet our beliefs and ideologies have
evolved into another collective way of looking at
the world, of weaving theory with practice. In
strategising for change, we all attempt to
personalise politics and politicise the personal.
This has meant confronting patriarchy and social
values such as authoritarianism, aggression,
competition and hierarchy in the family and
society, and the oppression and exploitation
imposed by dominant class, caste and patriarchal
rule.
The last few decades have witnessed substantial
economic and political changes in India. Yet
women remain controlled by families, communities,
the State and increasing corporate power. Our
labour is controlled through strict sexual
division of labour at home and the workplace; our
fertility is regulated by a glorified emphasis on
motherhood and purity; our sexuality is repressed
by a double standard of morality and compulsory
heterosexuality; our bodies, while youthful, are
commercialised and commodified; our lives when
ageing, are often forgotten. Religions and
cultures depend on us, yet circumscribe us and
violate our rights. These controls and power
relations operate subtly as well as overtly, at
the ideological and material levels, to reinforce
each other through various relationships and
institutions, including the family, the market,
the media, education, religion, customs and the
law All, while the State, grants itself
increasing powers of censorship to silence voices
of dissent, while at the same time, steadily
withdrawing from providing essential services to
its citizens, particularly the marginalised and
the poor.
At an international level, we resist the coming
together of global capital, imperial power and
military might to threaten the sovereignty of
regions and the will of people over their own
political destinies. State sponsored 'wars on
terror' in the name of protecting and promoting
human rights, democracy, peace, justice, national
security, in fact only breed militarisation,
heightened conflict, increased cultural
nationalisms, racism and xenophobia.
The National Conference has a vision of an
alternative society based on equality, social
justice and equitable development. A society that
is free from violence and that believes in
women's rights, human rights, democratic
processes, diversity, dignity and peace. We
condemn the forces of fundamentalism and
communalism that are sweeping the country, and
oppose nuclearisation, militarisation and war. In
doing so, we seek to find ways to create a world
of peace, equality, rights and a politics of
justice.
Challenging Violence against Women
Violence against women, ranging from the visible
to the invisible - from battery to sexual
atrocities like molestation and rape, dowry
tortures and murders, trafficking and female
infanticide - continues to be perpetrated by
families, communities and the State. Abortion of
female foetuses is still rampant in spite of a
law banning it. Violence against women and girls
within the family, both parental and marital
continues, as does sexual harassment at the
workplace. Community-based honour killings are
still common, and casteist and communal power
struggles take recourse to chilling forms of
sexual violence against women. Aggressive
masculinity leading to rape and murder of women,
including minors and adolescents, are other
heinous examples. Women who desire women,
including those who identify as lesbian and
bisexual, as well as those who do not conform to
the binaries of 'men' and 'women', such as
transgender women including hijras, as well as
women in prostitution/sex work are becoming
victims of increasingly repressive norms of
normality and abnormality. Norms bolstered by law
that criminalises alternate sexualities perceived
to threaten patriarchy and compulsory
heterosexuality. Such laws urgently need to be
repealed, and many others on sexual violence, etc
need immediate reform.
Today, State and societal recognition of the
problem is increasing, and legal aid, crisis
intervention and support mechanisms are more
easily available to women, yet violence against
women also continues to rise. Despite substantial
achievements in legal reform, we recognise that
laws passed to protect or empower women are still
confronted by societal and institutional
patriarchy in implementation. The road ahead is
long, but we continue to challenge violence
against women in all its forms.
Challenging Increasing Communalisms, Fundamentalisms and Conservatism
As rising nationalisms, religious fundamentalisms
and fascist pressures sweep the world, they
pervade political space and civil society, and
have become entrenched in institutions such as
education, the law, and the media. Instances of
virtual genocide against people from the minority
communities and increasing attacks on dalits and
other marginalised castes, often with State
complicity, have resulted in deaths, mutilation,
widespread fear, insecurity and the aggressive
displacement of thousands from their homes, even
as economic and social boycotts make their lives
more vulnerable. And the system of justice has
failed them time and again.
The increasing hold of communal forces on society
and polity always have an adverse impact on
women, with an increased control of family and
community on women's lives, freedoms and
mobility. Even more disturbing has been the
centrality of sexual violence against women
during times of conflict. Alongside, have been
rising waves of conservatism, moral policing and
control over women through anti-women personal
and customary laws as well as extra-judiciary
bodies like caste and community panchayats. So
much so that both, within and across communities,
women's space to express dissent, debate and
discuss change, and negotiate is shrinking by the
day. We believe that the secular, multicultural
fabric of the country must be preserved, and all
politics of hate, and the forces propagating it,
be challenged.
Challenging globalisation and its impact on 'development'
More than a decade of economic "liberalisation"
has resulted in the withdrawal of the State from
many essential sectors like healthcare, power and
water. As they get privatised, the inequalities
between the rich and poor are getting starker,
large sections of the people are losing access to
them, especially women and girls. Education is
becoming dispensable for girls and women are
becoming more migrant and homeless than ever
before. Simultaneously, natural resources are
being overused and polluted, forests degraded,
rivers disrupted by cost-intensive and unviable
mega-developmental projects, including tourism,
and consequently, hundreds of thousands of people
are being violently displaced by the State -
destroying lives, livelihoods, and whole
communities. The control and governance of forest
based resources and commons are being
increasingly centralized in the hands of the
State and subsequently set up for private
commercial interests, displacing the existing
subsistence use. Even within projects of
urbanisation and industrialisation, it is the
women who bear the brunt. The dismantling of
labour laws and the growth of unorganised sector
where large numbers of women work, has only
increased women's economic vulnerability manifold.
We oppose economic policies which adversely
affect the poor and marginalised, especially
women. We hold the government liable to initiate
policies to ensure food security, clothing,
shelter, health and education for all, and to
decrease defence spending. We oppose policies
that fail to protect the environment; we hold
liable corporations, both national and
multi-national, towards the environment,
communities and society. We are committed to
economic systems that guarantee peoples' right to
livelihood, allow for the participation of all
sections of society in economic activity and
policy making, and ensure the equitable sharing
of benefits among all.
Challenging Coercive Population Policies
We resist the view that women are reproductive
beings alone, to be targeted for achieving
population control goals through the manipulation
and coercion of State-controlled and eugenic
population policies. We strongly oppose the
population control programme of the
'government-donor agencies-pharmaceutical
companies' combine, which continues to promote
hazardous contraceptives in its programmes and
through the market, with little or no regard for
women's health.
We oppose coercive population policies like the
two-child norm, imposed on members of Panchayati
Raj institutions or in several states on the
people at large, even denying access to
irrigation facilities, as undemocratic and
unacceptable measures that mainly penalise women,
the poor and the traditionally oppressed castes.
Such laws also impede women's right to compete in
the system as equals, give impetus to
sex-selective abortions and female infanticide.
We stand firm against the unethical use of Indian
women as research subjects for Indian and foreign
companies, private and government research
agencies. We assert the need for better health
care and safe birth control choices for women.
Challenging State Aggression and Manipulation
Over the last few decades, the Indian State - a
powerful conglomeration of upper class, upper
caste, patriarchal and large capital interests -
has been compelled to respond to the demands of
the women's movement in many ways. Yet in failing
to implement many of these completely it has
managed to maintain the status quo, even as it
has co-opted our ideas and language to acquire
legitimacy. "Empowering" women, through special
development programmes and granting reservations
in local self-government, have not been matched
by changes for women, either at grassroots or at
various levels of the political system, such as
the Government & the political parties. We
challenge the state's projection of self-help
groups as a panacea for women's empowerment and
poverty reduction, since they fail to address the
root of women's subordination and place the onus
of poverty redressal on the poor, especially
women.
On the other hand, arms of the State meant to
protect citizens, have routinely used rape and
sexual assault in order to intimidate, terrorise
and control populations. Mass rapes by the Army
during the anti-insurgency operations in the
North East or Kashmir, or of Muslim women by
Hindu nationalists during the State-sponsored
violence against the minority community in
Gujarat, are just a few cases in point. We
condemn such State violence and repression on
both men and women, irrespective of whether the
pretext is internal peace, national security, or
the global war against terrorism. Today, the
State is resorting to more and more violence to
suppress people's struggles, censoring differing
points of view and silencing voices of dissent,
instead of finding democratic solutions. We
strongly oppose draconian legislations like the
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act etc., that only strengthen the
abusive powers of the State, the military and the
para-military forces, leaving behind a terrible
trail of human rights' abuses. Such legislations
should be repealed immediately.
Challenging Divisiveness, Affirming Diversities:
We believe that as women, we share common
interests and goals, and hence come together in
our collective struggles. But caste, nation,
class, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, ability or
disability are deeply rooted social constructs
which create multiple identities for many of us.
Consequently, the politics of identity throws up
several contradictions, yet we remain committed
to recognizing and respecting these 'diversities'
even as we seek justice for the inequities that
result from them. In particular, we seek support
for the struggles of women who are made further
vulnerable by specific facets of their identities
- as adivasis, dalits, poor and working class,
religious minorities, lesbian, bisexual,
transgendered, sex workers, disabled, and women
of other socially marginalised groups.
We believe as women we must have the right to
make choices about our lives, our bodies, our
sexuality and our relationships. We also
recognise that these choices are not unchanging.
We commit to creating the space for different
choices to be recognised and evolving the
supportive structures that can make all of these
choices a meaningful reality. We reiterate our
commitment to continue our efforts to realise
these expressions of our politics and struggle,
and to support the struggles of all who seek
justice, with a vision that remains autonomous of
the discourse of dominant powers and politics.
The National Conference calls on all women who
fight against oppression, struggle for equality,
justice and for the liberation of all; to affirm
our diversities, to resist the divisions that
social reality confronts us with; To come
together for a vision of greater justice and
peace.
*The National Conference is organised by the
National Coordination Committee (NCC), that comes
into being prior to every conference, and then
disbands itself. The NCC is not a registered or
permanent body. Prior to a National Conference,
the NCC reconvenes and collectively inducts new
members. Funds are raised for the Conference
through donations and registration fees. The
National Conference does not directly seek or
accept funds from any funding agency.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
_______________________________________________
Sacw mailing list
Sacw@insaf.net
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
