South Asia Citizens Wire | January 7-9, 2007 | Dispatch No. 2345 - Year 8 [1] Sri Lanka: Civilians are Main Casualties in Escalation Strategies (National Peace Council) [2] Kashmir Resolution in Sight? (Praful Bidwai) [3] Pakistan: The great kidney bazaar (Irfan Husain) [4] India: Concern over Nandigram violence [5] India: Long way to go - anti-trafficking with little to do with women's rights (Ratna Kapur) [6] India - Gujarat: Women & Children In Modi's Regime (Nalini Taneja) [7] The purpose behind the current Indian admiration for China (Achin Vanaik) [8] Upcoming Events: (i) an interaction with author, Baby Halder (New Delhi, 9 January 2007) (ii) Creative Commons, India to be launched (Bombay, 26 January 2007) ____
[1] National Peace Council of Sri Lanka 12/14 Purana Vihara Road Colombo 6 www.peace-srilanka.org 08.01.07 Media Release CIVILIANS ARE MAIN CASUALTIES IN ESCALATION STRATEGIES The killing of civilians in the course of the ethnic conflict has taken a new turn for the worse with the two bomb explosions on board passenger buses on two successive days in the south of Sri Lanka far from the conflict zones. These acts of terror have claimed over twenty lives and left over a hundred injured. The government has accused the LTTE of these attacks, which the LTTE has denied. The National Peace Council condemns the bomb attacks which have targeted adults and children without exception. The deliberate targeting of civilians in the south follows military actions by both the government and LTTE in the north and east in which civilians have been casualties. Last week the LTTE and civic groups in the north accused the government of airforce bombing of a civilian settlement in Mannar in which 14 people lost their lives, including children, and several more were injured. Prior to that there was an LTTE mortar attack in Trincomalee in the east that hit a school in which five civilians died, including school children. Whether these killings of civilians were deliberately perpetrated or were in the nature of collateral damage is immaterial from the view point of the affected civilian population. The National Peace Council condemns the lack of regard for the safety of the civilian population and urges the two parties to desist from attacking each other in the vicinity of civilian settlements. As a civic organization we also appeal to the two parties not to go down the road of escalation and reprisal which will only worsen the situation for the general population, on whose behalf the war is purportedly waged. Mass displacements, human rights violations, abductions, child recruitments and attacks on humanitarian workers are some of the cruel features of the present time that can only be overcome by a revival of the peace process. There are many factors that could be brought together to revive the peace process. These include the political proposals for a new political framework put forward by the Panel of Experts on a constitutional solution to the ethnic conflict and the Memorandum of Understanding between the ruling party and the main opposition party on bipartisanship in pursuit of the peace process. We also believe that the unwillingness of either the government or LTTE to formally renounce the Ceasefire Agreement is a positive indicator that both are prepared to accept a revival of the peace process. We urgently call for these agreements to be activated to deal with the emerging crisis rather than perpetuate a further escalation of hostilities. Executive Director On behalf of the Governing Council ____ [2] Inter Press Service January 6, 2007 KASHMIR RESOLUTION IN SIGHT? by Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI - A month after President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan proposed a four-point formula to resolve the troubled question of Kashmir jointly with India, exploratory contacts between the two governments have gathered momentum. Their efforts at reconciling mutual differences are likely to get a boost during a planned visit to Pakistan next week by Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee. But the top leaders of the two countries will have to resolutely counter criticism from ultra-nationalists on both sides and take bold, imaginative initiatives if the efforts are to bear fruit. Musharraf proposed a "four-point solution" to the Kashmir issue on Dec. 5 in an interview with an Indian television channel. His formula envisions soft or porous borders in Kashmir with freedom of movement for the Kashmiris; exceptional autonomy or "self-governance" within each region of Kashmir; phased demilitarization of all regions; and finally, a "joint supervisory mechanism," with representatives from India, Pakistan and all parts of Kashmir, to oversee the plan's implementation. The dispute over Muslim-majority Kashmir goes back to the decolonization and partition of British India, on the basis of religion, into the independent countries of India and Pakistan in 1947. Kashmir, then a separate kingdom, was claimed by both countries and they proceeded to carve it up into two regions that are divided by the militarily fortified Line of Control (LoC). India has been pushing for a conversion of the LoC, which has stood for almost 60 years, into an international border. But Pakistan has consistently rejected this plan and several wars have been fought between the two countries that have altered the contours of the original ceasefire line. So far, India has not officially responded to Musharraf's proposal but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said he welcomes the "new ideas and thoughts expressed from Pakistan"; they can help "resolve all pending issues" which must be approached "with an open and friendly mind." Addressing a meeting in Amritsar on Dec. 20, Singh said India and Pakistan "should forget the past"; "we need to think about our collective destiny, a destiny where both neighbors can work jointly towards a better future for their citizens." During the past month, Musharraf and other senior Pakistani officials have offered to drop Pakistan's "claim" to Kashmir if the issue can be resolved through "self-governance" just short of independence on both sides of the Line of Control, which divides the former kingdom. They have clarified that Islamabad has never in fact "claimed Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan"; its legal position is based on resolutions of the United Nations Security Council going back to the late 1940s. These call for a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine if its people want to accede to India or Pakistan. (The plebiscite never happened). The officials quote Article 257 of the Pakistan Constitution: "When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State ..." Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has further elucidated this by saying Pakistan has "no territorial claims" upon Kashmir. "Clearly, bold sides have adopted a soft tone and indicated that they are willing to depart from stated positions," says Karamat Ali, a Karachi-based social activist and a founder-member of the Pakistan Peace Coalition, an umbrella group formed in 1999. "This, in and of itself, is a welcome development. It signifies that the peace process, which stalled after the July Mumbai train bombings, is likely to be resumed earnestly." This change hasn't come about suddenly. It is the culmination of "back-channel" discussions over several months between Manmohan Singh's special envoy S.K. Lambah and Pakistan's National Security Adviser Tariq Aziz. These have narrowed mutual differences. Thus, Singh and Musharraf could report "progress" on Kashmir when they met during the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Havana in September. "Beyond the back channels," says Karamat Ali, "there is a deeper realization in both countries that losing the present opportunity for normalizing India-Pakistan relations will entail heavy costs. Musharraf knows he has to deliver something to the Pakistani public before the presidential elections due this year. His economic record isn't impressive enough. If he can achieve progress towards a Kashmir settlement, that will help him in the election." Similarly, Indian leaders realize that Musharraf might be the best candidate for negotiating a Kashmir solution. The present moment is propitious. The India-Pakistan ceasefire across the LoC has held for three years. There has been a significant decrease in terrorist violence in Indian Kashmir. And the popular mood in the Kashmir Valley favors reconciliation. Major parties of the Valley, such as the National Conference and the People's Democratic Party, and the moderate faction of the pro-separatist All Parties' Hurriyat Conference have applauded Musharraf's four-point solution. Musharraf's proposal builds on the basic understanding reached recently between him and Singh: the Kashmir status quo must change; but there can be no redrawing of boundaries; and yet, the LoC should become irrelevant. Of the four points, the last one (pertaining to a "joint supervisory mechanism" to oversee the implementation of a solution) is completely new and assumes a high level of cooperation between India and Pakistan. The "joint supervision" issue is likely to prove the most contentious. The Hindu, right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) bitterly opposes it and says Pakistan cannot be trusted enough. Last weekend, senior BJP leader and former home Minister L.K. Advani accused the Manmohan Singh government of entering into clandestine deals with Pakistan at the expense of "the national interest." "The BJP would of course like, if it can, to wield veto power on foreign policy," says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, of the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. "But it mustn't be allowed such excessive power. Singh will have to stand firm on a deep dialogue on Kashmir with Pakistan and either ignore the BJP or blunt its opposition. He should know that Indian public opinion strongly favors dialogue." In Pakistan too, right-wing and pro-jehadi parties oppose "dilution" of Islamabad's stated position on Kashmir. But it's relatively easy for Musharraf, a self-appointed president and military leader, to ignore them. The other points in Musharraf's formula will also be bitterly contested in both countries. Each of them raises questions. What will be the content of "self-rule" or "self-governance"? Will the pattern vary from sub-region to sub-region? Who will ensure the economic viability of the "self-rule" government? Which judicial tribunal can determine if the rules of self-governance have been followed? How soon can the first step of troops reduction, eventually leading to demilitarization, be taken given the violence prevalent in Indian Kashmir? What will be the scope, functions, powers and composition of the "joint mechanism"? What if a dispute arises? Who will settle it? "All these could prove deal-breakers," agrees Chenoy. "But obstacles to mutual cooperation created by conservative hardliners in the two establishments are an even bigger problem. They have now taken on a particularly unpleasant form, through restrictions on travel by diplomats." In keeping with tough visa regimes, which are calculated to discourage people-to-people interaction, India and Pakistan do not allow each other's diplomats to leave the capital cities without prior permission. A Pakistani diplomat posted in New Delhi can only visit neighboring suburbs like Gurgaon. And an Indian diplomat based in Islamabad can only visit Rawalpindi next door, or Murree in the hills close by. In recent days, the two governments carried these restrictions to absurd lengths, insisting that diplomats obtain prior permission even for visiting these neighboring places. "Indian and Pakistani leaders must not allow cussed bureaucracies and intelligence agency hardliners to dictate the agenda," says Chenoy. "Singh and Musharraf should personally take charge of the peace process and insulate it from hardline interference." Adds Chenoy: "Conservative mindsets won't be easy to change, but change they must if India and Pakistan are to put behind themselves their half-century-long hot-cold war and reap the peace dividend by demilitarizing their relations and ending their arms race. A Kashmir solution represents a great bonanza. The must not squander the chance to reach it." _____ [3] Dawn January 06, 2007 THE GREAT KIDNEY BAZAAR by Irfan Husain WE have officially entered the 'Visit Pakistan' year. No doubt government spokesmen will dutifully extol the delights of the Land of the Pure as a tourist destination. But although healthy foreigners might not fill our hotels, those with failing kidneys will continue to arrive in large numbers. The way things are going, "transplant tourism" is going to be a growth industry in Pakistan for a long time to come. Last year, an estimated 2,000 operations were performed, with foreigners shelling out around $15,000 (or Rs 900,000) each. Out of this, impoverished donors received a maximum of $1,500, with the hospitals getting the lion's share. Thus, nearly two billion rupees a year are being spent on these dubious operations in which rich clients, greedy doctors and shady hospitals join hands to exploit the poor. Indeed, in certain areas, the medical fallout of this pernicious practice is reaching epidemic proportions. According to the Guardian, "most adults of Sultanpura, northern Punjab, have donated a kidney.... It is one of dozens of villages that provide the human stock for Pakistan's burgeoning cash-for-kidneys trade." Apart from the demand for healthy kidneys, what is driving this ghoulish trade is the lack of any laws on the subject in Pakistan. For years, Dr Adeebul Hasan Rizvi, head of the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), has been lobbying for the creation of a legal framework to regulate organ transplants. Time after time, he has tried to convince members of successive assemblies to push through the necessary legislation, all to no avail. Now, tired after all his attempts, he acknowledges the power of those involved in the trade: "There is just too much money involved." Those benefiting from the current lack of regulation argue that a law permitting the transplant of organs from cadavers, even with the permission of the family, is somehow "un-Islamic". And yet nine Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, have laws that ban the sale of organs, while permitting transplants of organs that have been freely donated. What such a law would do is to protect people like Nazar Mohammad, a rickshaw driver in Sultanpura. Talking to CNN, he said: "No one does this for fun. We have all sold our kidneys to pay off a debt so that we can save our families from indentured servitude. There is nothing here, not even water. The landowners keep us oppressed." He went on to say that more than 20 of his relatives, both men and women, had sold their kidneys. And yet, despite the evidence that giving up a kidney can have hugely damaging effects on the donor's health, you can visit a number of websites where such procedures are advertised. At www.masoodhospital.com we learn that "The transplant team at Masood Hospital consists of some of the most experienced doctors in the field.... The most important fact to be considered is that patients are in absolutely safe hands." Perhaps the patients are, but what about the donors? In India, a study found that the health of 86 per cent of kidney donors had declined after their operations. The sale of organs was banned in India 10 years ago, and this is one reason the trade is now booming in Pakistan. In fact, ours is one of the few countries in the world where no laws regulate transplants. Although a bill was drafted as long ago as 1992, no government has pushed it through, ostensibly fearing a backlash from fundamentalists. However, given the fact that even a conservative country like Saudi Arabia regulates transplantation, it is clear that the doctors making millions through the trade are using religious sentiment to block any legislation that would upset the status quo. To be fair, the health ministry has been calling for a law to halt this trade. In a summary sent last year to the cabinet, it was pointed out that "Incidents of kidney selling by the poor is on the rise. Patients from certain developed countries visit Pakistan buy organs for transplantation at local kidney centres." Nearly a year later, there has been no movement on the ministry's proposal for legislation. Despite the government's fears of opposition from religious quarters, as long ago as 1981, an Islamic Code of Medical Ethics was worked out, and which recommended: "The donation of body fluids or organs such as blood transfusion to the bleeding or a kidney transplant to the patient with bilateral irreparable renal damage is 'fardh kifaya', a duty that donors fulfil on behalf of the society and if the living are able to donate, the dead are even more so.... This is indeed charity." This unambiguous and humane interpretation of Islamic doctrine should surely put to rest any reservations in the minds of our politicians. And yet, legislation remains stalled. Clearly, it is greed, and not faith, that is enhancing Pakistan's reputation as a "kidney bazaar". Doctors who make a very good living out of transplants justify their actions by claiming that they are saving lives, while at the same time enabling poor donors to make some money. To hear them talk, it would seem they are saints who only perform these operations out of the goodness of their hearts. The reality is very different: the very fact that hospitals charge around $15,000 for the procedure, while giving donors only a tenth of this amount, indicates the level of exploitation. Those involved in this racket are aware that if the government were to pass a law permitting transplants from cadavers, as well as from brain-dead people, while banning their sale and purchase, this lucrative business would end. As this is the law in most countries, including many Muslim ones, they are trying to use every trick in the book to block legislation. And while this behind-the-scenes lobbying takes place, thousands of poor Pakistanis are being tempted to sell their organs to benefit rich foreigners and unscrupulous surgeons. A law would not just protect the poor, it would make more organs available for transplants. Currently, only the rich can afford the operation because kidneys are unavailable. The poor simply die. Surely it is high time that we acted to protect our most vulnerable citizens from a handful of vultures. If foreigners want to visit our shores, we should welcome them, but not to raid the body parts of the poor of Pakistan. _____ [4] The Hindu Jan 09, 2007 CONCERN OVER NANDIGRAM VIOLENCE Eminent scholars and civil society members have issued a statement on the Nandigram issue in West Bengal. It says: We are deeply concerned about the escalating levels of violence being reported from Nandigram in West Bengal, as a consequence of the State Government's policy of land acquisition for industrial use. TV reports from Calcutta indicate growing levels of tension and violence in the villages. This situation is likely to be repeated across the State if the policy continues to be executed as it has, without consideration for human rights, democratic procedures, and livelihoods. We deplore the recent attack on the CPM office at Nandigram, but deplore even more strongly the policy of retaliation advocated by some constituents of the Left Front Government, and the use of armed elements against the villagers, already at the cost of several lives. We urge the formation of an all-Party Peace Committee in West Bengal to ensure the cessation of hostilities against the villagers, and an immediate end to the forcible acquisition of land. While industrial development is necessary in many parts of the country, detailed, democratically accountable and transparent discussions about the categories of land to be allocated for acquisition are equally necessary prior to making a decision. The International Economic Covenant, which India has ratified, makes prior consultation and resettlement mandatory in all cases of displacement. The violation of human rights in the process of land acquisition that we have recently seen in West Bengal (and a number of other states) is completely unacceptable. Signatories: Romila Thapar, Justice Rajinder Sachar, Jean Dreze, Arundhati Roy, Sumit Sarkar, Praful Bidwai, Kavita Srivastava (PUCL), Yogendra Yadav, Tanika Sarkar, Anil Chaudhary (PEACE), Achin Vanaik, Pradip Kumar Datta, Dilip Simeon and Colin Gonzalves. _____ [5] The Times of India 8 January, 2007 LONG WAY TO GO by Ratna Kapur The Standing Committee of the Rajya Sabha has submitted its views on the proposed amendments to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2006. The Bill constitutes part of the global effort to eradicate human trafficking. There has been an extraordinary proliferation of law at the UN, European Union and SAARC countries to combat trafficking in the course of the past decade. These efforts have been assisted by human rights organisations, women's groups, and other social justice movements. Yet the outward sense of progress, of a social justice project being pursued in the name of human rights especially of women and children, is emerging as disingenuous and illusory. Indeed, anti-trafficking is perhaps the most explicit example of how good intentions can boomerang. Despite a decade of activism backed by millions of dollars, there is an increase in the human trafficking statistics and the level of prosecutions and convictions remain abysmally low. One primary reason is that anti-trafficking work is being used to pursue agendas that have little to do with women's rights. They either adopt a paternalistic attitude towards migrant women, feed anti-immigrant policies in destination countries, or support sexually conservative agendas led by faith-based groups in the US and anti-sex work groups in India and elsewhere. These competing agendas are present in the current Bill. As defined in the UN Trafficking Protocol, trafficking involves the recruitment, movement or transportation of a person through force, deception, fraud or violence into a site of exploitative work. Recruiting a person by deception into domestic work or forcibly transporting somebody to a bar where she is made to perform sexual services constitutes trafficking. The central problem with the proposed law is that it collapses the issue of sex work with sex trafficking and equates all trafficking with sex trafficking. The committee has honed in on this confusion, recognising that trafficking takes place into a broad range of sectors, such as construction, agriculture, or domestic work. Secondly, it clarifies that trafficking should be distinguished from consensual commercial sex work, and that not all sex workers are trafficked. Yet the committee does not take the logical step of recommending a comprehensive law on human trafficking, and a separate law to address the concerns of sex workers. The committee recommends some major amendments. It strongly criticises the proposal to criminalise clients, recognising that such a provision would be used to further harass sex workers, and do little or nothing to stop trafficking. The recommendation goes some way in recognising consensual sex work and the need to protect the rights of sex workers. Yet it still fails to delink the issue of trafficking from sex work, thus making any effort to seriously tackle human trafficking unworkable. Similar tensions have plagued efforts made by government since 1993 to reform the law. Given these inherent tensions, why is the government supporting such a flawed law? The answer lies partly in pressure being exerted by the US. In 2000, Christian evangelicals successfully lobbied for the enactment of the Trafficking in Victims Protection Act, with the support of the Bush presidency and anti-sex work groups. Under the Act, a task force annually evaluates the anti-trafficking efforts of over 150 countries and classifies them into three tiers: Tier 1 for those who have met the minimum standards for fighting trafficking; Tier 2 for those who have not met the standard but are trying; and Tier 2 Watch List for those who better shape up or else they will be pushed into Tier 3, a category that triggers the withdrawal of non-humanitarian aid from the US as well as US opposition to non-humanitarian assistance from institutions such as IMF and World Bank. India is the only South Asian country to be placed in the Tier 2 Watch List for the third consecutive year because of its apparent 'failure to show evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking in persons'. While India has a range of legal provisions on trafficking, kidnapping and slavery, it does not have a law outlawing prostitution. USAID, which sits on the task force, has an explicit policy of refusing funding for HIV/AIDS or anti-trafficking projects to "organisations advocating prostitution as an employment choice or which advocate or support the legalisation of prostitution". Yet opposition to prostitution is not the central criterion for tier placements. Pakistan has been placed in Tier 2 though it has not enacted a single significant law against trafficking. Nepal was placed in Tier 1 in 2005 after the monarchy's grab for power, but pushed into Tier 2 in 2006 after the Maoists victory. Bangladesh provides the death penalty for certain forms of trafficking and bans unskilled and semi-skilled women from working abroad. It is in Tier 2. The committee recognises that the proposed reforms serve as only a 'half-hearted' effort to combat trafficking. US bullying and the threat of sanctions should not push India in a direction that will harm more women than it will help. India should draft a comprehensive human trafficking law that is human rights oriented. And this law needs to be framed against a comprehensive policy on migration and rights of migrant workers. Otherwise, the security of migrants, especially female migrants, may end up less threatened by people smugglers and traffickers than by the system of protection offered by anti-trafficking laws. The writer is director, Centre for Feminist Legal Research. _____ [6] People's Democracy January 07, 2007 GUJARAT 2006 Women & Children In Modi's Regime by Nalini Taneja WOMEN have been special targets of communalist ideology and communalist violence. Most scholars engaged in gender studies and activists of women's movements have emphasised the role of communalist ideology in strengthening patriarchy and have shown how women have been specially targeted in communal violence. The Gujarat genocide of Muslims in 2002 seemed, in many ways, an unprecedented and culminating stage in this trend: the incidence and scale of rapes pointed towards deliberate barbarism, having mass complicity and approval of a very large section of Gujarat society, and not just an aberration on the part of some depraved, individual men. The acts were committed in full public gaze, often in front of the children of the women concerned. There is no guarantee by the state and no system in place to ensure that it does not happen again. No public regret has been voiced to date in Gujarat or elsewhere despite the data and concrete evidence provided by women's and other concerned citizens' groups. DOMINANT FEELING: FEAR A very great many of those women and children were burnt alive after these horrendous acts, but a great many continue to live equally horrendous lives: having survived the experience, and yet not having survived it. They live haunted lives, still fearful, and without hope of getting back to normalcy: neither the state nor the larger society in the state has done anything about it. Gujarat 2006 is therefore not much better for them than 2002 was. Most reports on the situation in Gujarat, and testimonies of survivors at various conventions, show that fear is the dominant emotion in the life of Gujarati Muslims, particularly Gujarati Muslim women. An Amnesty International report of 2005 says: "They tread quietly and try to keep a low profile, because even small altercations with members of the majority community can easily become serious verbal abuse has the danger of becoming physical at any timeThere is no provision for security." The situation is not any different a year later in 2006. On its part, the UPA government cannot claim that it has done anything to rehabilitate or in any way improve the life for the women and children survivors of 2002 atrocities, while the Modi government does not think they even merit being considered for any special help, rehabilitation or compensation. "For us all are equal," declares Narendra Modi, as brazen as ever. The economic boycott of Muslims and destroyed sources of livelihood have placed a double burden on women. Loss of jobs for men has meant that women have even less to eat in the family. Losses of assets in the form of land in villages (most have not been able to return) and shops etc in urban areas have not been compensated for. Fear, with lack of security, has led to women being forced to stay home, girl children remaining withdrawn from schools, and a tremendous rise in the number of women headed households in cases where the men of the concerned families were killed in 2002. Those who have not been able to return home have lost their traditional support system of family and the larger kinship networks. Most are in no position to find suitable work, in terms of skills, or in the given political and social situation in terms of self-confidence. Destitution among women and children is on the increase, and an unusually large number are surviving on charity from the community or from NGOs. They can hardly use their old ration cards, far way as they are from their earlier places of residences. Many have no documentation of identification left with them. The few who have managed to return find it difficult to use the public services such as community taps, wells or electricity. They are forced to give precedence to others. GREATER BURDEN ON HINDU WOMEN One can give a thousand and one details of how life is so terrible for them, and we are not even speaking of the impact on health, psyche and life choices. Protectiveness has led to curtailment of their rights, greater exclusion from public life, and conservatism within the community which impacts adversely on women. The UPA government has not taken the trouble to even tabulate the data, leave alone take any remedial action. The Hindu women have not gained in all this. The violence against Muslims has contributed to an increase in violence in general, and there are reports of trishuls (tridents) obtained at the arms training camps of the Bajrang dal being used on Hindu women back home. The atmosphere of aggression and communal campaigns has resulted in a general feeling of insecurity, while Hindutva propaganda has placed the heavy burden of tradition on Hindu women, as builders of home and family primarily, and as trainers of future Hindutva activists as nurturers. The participation of Hindu women in the 2002 killings was particularly noted by women's organisations. For several years women are being activated along lines of religious affiliation by the Sangh Parivar, and their influence through social and religious community functions and celebrations has made possible extensive organisational networks among women, especially among middle class Hindu women. Population myths like 'hum paanch, hamare pachees' has helped mobilise women as well as ensured household chores, defence of tradition and motherhood as primary roles for Hindu women --- with the acquiescence of these women themselves. This has also created strong polarisation along class lines, as tribal, dalit and other poor women cannot afford to subscribe to the values of family and motherhood alone. Communalism is thus a tool for restricting women's roles as well as making them active agents for the values the RSS stands for. Everyday social existence, as determined by the Sangh Parivar, has increased the distance among women of different communities, with no scope for meeting one another and questioning their own prejudices, or those being deliberately inculcated among them by the Sangh propaganda machinery. The inculcation of Hinduised religious rituals among tribals has meant greater subjugation of women in many cases, although this is not to suggest that women enjoy equality with men in tribal society. Globalisation and its impact too has contributed to the increased social distance between different sections of women and created differing perceptions of what is good for the society and for the nation. CHILDREN LOSING CHILDHOOD In such an atmosphere one can hardly expect children to grow up as children should. Muslim children are actually losing out on childhood, and all children are losing out on a composite, expansive, democratic vision of the world and society they live in. Muslim children who lost admissions during riots have by and large not been able to return to schools, and destitution makes the return almost impossible for a great many of them. Again, the UPA government has not bothered to obtain data on this, and the situation is worse than what most of the people imagine. The school curricula, particularly social science textbooks, are contributing to distortion of the psyche of children of all communities, and the general dominance of the Hindutva discourse in society and Hindutva propaganda on the streets in Gujarat holds greater dangers for the country than what most people realise. Gujarat needs more than mere compensation and rehabilitation for victims of 2002. But, sadly, even this minimum is not forthcoming: we cannot expect Narendra Modi to provide justice if the UPA government is not even demanding it. There is a need to hold the UPA accountable for Gujarat 2006, just as Modi is accountable for Gujarat 2002. ______ [7] The Telegraph (Calcutta) January 09, 2007 NOT THE RIGHT MODEL - The purpose behind the current Indian admiration for China Achin Vanaik The author is professor of international relations and global politics, Delhi University Even before Hu Jintao's visit to these shores, we had got used to the constant extolling of China's economic performance. There is method and purpose behind such admiring accounts. Rarely, if ever, is the long view taken, as Amartya Sen repeatedly insisted that it should. From 1949 to the first stage of reforms in 1978, whatever the horrors of China's undemocratic political system, its command economy carried out a more fundamental land redistribution programme than in India on 20 per cent less arable land, provided a basic minimum of food, shelter, clothing, employment, more-or-less complete public-health coverage, primary and secondary education for all children and social security for the elderly. This silence about China's 1949-78 economic and social experience is demanded by the purposes which the contemporary admiration of China's post-1978 performance is meant to serve. One can discern three main purposes. First, it is necessary to egg India on to try to match, even surpass China. Only then will India achieve its 'rightful' place as a 'great power'. This is psychologically of great importance to an Indian elite that identifies its own sense of self-worth with that of the Indian State. The goal is greatness via 'strength'. Poverty eradication is therefore necessary because its continuing existence would be an embarrassment, a public refutation of 'greatness'. This stated commitment does not betoken the emergence of a more humane, kinder, more moral and sensitive Indian elite - far from it. Second, highlighting China's economic success serves the purpose of affirming the supposedly general and enduring virtues of neoliberal economic policies, thereby justifying India's acceleration on a neoliberal path of reform with further privatization and commodification of ever-more spheres of human activity and existence, ever-freer capital flows, 'labour market flexibility' (shorthand for promoting greater job insecurity), de-unionization and more contract work, less regulations about maintaining proper work and environmental conditions, a longer working week, and so on. China has embarked (as has western Europe and Japan) on a neoliberal trajectory. But because the starting points and the socio-economic character of western Europe and east Asia (Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan) were so different from that of Britain and the United States of America, the impact of neoliberalism on these societies remains very different. The role of the State in western Europe and Japan, for example, with respect to macro-economic management, distributive arrangements and provision of welfare remain very different and generally superior to the American model. Since, in India, the American theoretical model of neoliberalism dominates discourse, there is invariably a misreading of the lessons that the Chinese experience are meant to provide. Third, India is one of the few countries where there continues to exist a politically significant left able to influence national policies. The left's main bastions are more social-democratic than radical, but in these right-wing times this is bad enough. China's openness to foreign direct investment and its anti-democratic restrictions on labour are a stick with which to beat the 'pro-China' Indian left for not learning from its 'hero'. But at other times, its 'pro-China leanings' can be highlighted to attack its 'inadequately nationalist' credentials. A more sober balance-sheet of the Chinese economic performance over the last decades is therefore always of some value. The first wave of reforms began in 1978 and started in agriculture. The commune system was dismantled through the establishment of the 'household responsibility system', allowing long-term land leases and freedom to market surpluses greater than State-demanded quotas of produce. The town and village enterprises were also created out of assets held by the communes.The TVEs became centres of entrepreneurship, producing inputs for State-owned enterprises and markets for the outputs of SOEs and other TVEs. Credit finance for TVEs, SOEs and the growing private sector was provided by the state banking system. Between 1978 and 1984, rural incomes grew by an astonishing 14 per cent per annum. In the late Eighties and Nineties, market mechanisms expanded to cover more and more areas of production in town and country, foreign capital came in massively in the Nineties, while 'labour market flexibility' increased dramatically with urban dwellers being favoured with 'residency permits' assuring them of certain welfare benefits. Those without such permits became part of an ever-growing pool of internal mass migrants, now numbering over 100 million and estimated to reach 300 million by 2020. Rural incomes, since the beginning of the Nineties, have stagnated with remittances from the towns having become crucial for the survival of much of the rural population, and the income disparity between town and country now being one of the worst in the world. In the early Nineties, it was the TVEs that provided the real dynamism of the Chinese economy, employing 128 million people by 1995. They set the model, producing light manufactures for export. In contrast, the SOEs fell into debt, were bailed out by non-performing loans from the state banking system and from 1993, large and medium SOEs were being turned into limited-liability or shareholding companies. SOEs that had accounted for 40 per cent of total manufacturing employment in 1990 accounted for only 14 per cent of such employment in 2002. Now TVEs and SOEs are open up to full foreign ownership. By the early Nineties, more than two-thirds of FDI was being brought in by the Chinese who lived overseas. By the end of the millennium, the 'efficiency' of market competition, far from generating massive employment opportunities, created huge labour surpluses, not least through waves of bankruptcies in the TVEs and SOEs. The way the Chinese government has sought to deal with this social and economic time-bomb is through debt-financed mega-infrastructural projects - huge dams, subway and railroad networks, a highway system that in 20 years will exceed that of the US, and frenetic real-estate and construction activities in urban China. Since all this is debt-financed (Keynesian style), there will be an acute fiscal crisis if the investments do not pay off. None of this would even have been possible without a massive expansion of its financial system (doubling of bank branches to over 140,000 in less than a decade) and capital and exchange rate controls. China's growth pattern is much more heavily reliant on FDI than that of South Korea, Taiwan or Japan (the least reliant, of all advanced economies, on FDI). Inter-regional trade (despite massive investments in communication systems) is underdeveloped, with the Guandong province trading much more externally than within China. China now relies on taking in 30 per cent of the world's coal production, 36 per cent of the steel production, 55 per cent of the cement production, and is the second largest oil importer after the US. Besides such external dependence, China faces increasing over-accumulation of fixed capital and ever-growing over-capacities in sectors like electronics and autos, as well as a boom-bust cycle in urban development. If it has coped so far, it is because of a system of macro-economic management that is still Keynesian, provided by China's strategic control over capital flows and exchange rates. But Chinese integration into the world economy via the World Trade Organization, though still able to benefit from the allowed transition period of adjustment, means it will eventually become impossible to pursue such counter-cyclical measures. Its banking system is gravely threatened by having half of its loan portfolio non-performing. Only its huge trade surpluses protect it financially. The other side of the US's dependence on Japanese and Chinese lending is the Chinese dependence on the US's fiscal and monetary policies. China is now one of the most unequal and labour-repressive societies in the world, with one of the most rapidly deteriorating public health and ecological situations. _____ [8] Upcoming events: (i) Hi! The Bookshop, Jorbagh announces Meet the Author evening to be held every second tuesday of the month. Inaugurating the series on Tuesday will be an interaction with author, Baby Halder - 9 Jan 2007 at 7 pm. Her memoir, A Life Less Ordinary has been published by Zubaan/Penguin. It has been translated into several languages including Malyalam, Hindi, French, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean etc. As the space is limited we request that you confirm your interest with Mr. K D Singh, The Bookshop. The address is: 13/7 Jorbagh Market, NEW DELHI 110003 Tel: 24697102 Email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Coffee, Soft Drinks and Cookies will be served. With best wishes, JAYA BHATTACHARJI For ZUBAAN --- (ii) Creative Commons Launch Creative Commons, India will be launched on January 26th [4:00 pm to 6:00 pm] at KReSIT auditoriurm at IIT Bombay, Mumbai. See IIT B Map for directions: www.iitb.ac.in/campus/howto/iitblayout.html [Building No. 37] Confirmed speakers at the launch event: Mr. Joichi Ito [Chairman, Creative Commons] Dr. Catharina Maracke [Creative Commons, Global Coordinator] Mr. Nandu Pradhan [President and Managing Director, Red Hat, India] Mr. Shuddhabrata Sengupta [Sarai-CSDS] Prof. Deepak Phatak [KReSIT, IIT Bombay] Lawrence Liang [Legal Lead, Creative Commons, India] Other Events: Two parallel workshops on Creative Commons: January 26th, 27th [see www.techfest.org] Please contact Shishir K. Jha, Project Lead, CC-India for further details: Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management IIT Bombay Powai Mumbai - 400 076 E-mail: skjha[at]iitb.ac.in Tel: 022-25767845 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: 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
