South Asia Citizens Wire | July 15-16 , 2008 |
Dispatch No. 2540 - Year 10 running
[1] Which Pakistan: Secular / Plural or Talibanised ?
(i) A suicide bombing and Haji Namdar (Omar R. Quraishi)
(ii) Cartoons, threats and journalism (Editorial, Daily Times)
(iii) Taleban set up 'Pakistan courts' (M Ilyas Khan)
[2] Bangladesh Needs Its Secular Agenda
(i) Jamaat and Bangladesh's history (Editorial, Daily Star)
(ii) Badsha's retreat and secular unity (Syed Badrul Ahsan)
[3] Nepal: The Uncertain Future of the New Republic (ICG)
[4] India's Communalised Politics: Playing the
Muslim Card on Nuclear Deal (Siddharth
Varadarajan)
[5] India - Chattisgarh: End State Support for
[Salwa Judam] Vigilantes (Human Rights Watch)
[6] India - Goa: The making of a terrorist? (Editorial, Herald)
______
[1] Pakistan:
The News, July 13, 2008
A SUICIDE BOMBING AND HAJI NAMDAR
by Omar R. Quraishi
The tragic deaths of at least 16 policemen
deputed at Islamabad's Melody Market area to
apparently provide security to participants of a
conference commemorating the first anniversary of
the Lal Masjid operation is difficult to digest
given that the country had been placed on high
alert and that the police themselves had said on
several occasions prior to this particular
tragedy that suicide bombers would be targeting
sensitive places in the federal capital and
Rawalpindi. Besides, a few days prior to the
attack, the head of the Tehrik-e-Taliban
Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, had said in response
to the launch of the so-called operation in Bara,
that he would turn Punjab and Sindh into a
"furnace."
Given all this background, the police should have
been prepared for any kind of eventuality.
However, going by the reports of the attack, the
police failed to successfully intercept the
alleged suicide bomber, who was apparently
running towards a group of police personnel. Had
someone been more alert, the bomber could have
been shot before he had approached the group and
in that eventuality even if he had succeeded in
detonating his explosives the damage and loss of
lives might have been far less. So one really
wonders what is going to make the law-enforcement
and security agencies adopt a more pro-active
strategy in dealing with would-be suicide bombers.
Other than that, one also has to raise the
question that why was police security being
provided to the shuhada conference? Given the
past statements of those who had been the 'karta
dhartas', so to speak, of Lal Masjid, that they
had an army of suicide bombers ready to take on
the government, and given that the banned
Sipah-e-Sahaba (according to several news
reports) was present in force at the conference,
including its current chief Maulana Ahmed
Ludhianvi (which also goes to show the sectarian
nature of the mosque), one can only wonder what
was the dire need for providing security to such
a conference. If anything, the police in the
city, and the law-enforcement agencies in
general, needed to be on full alert and mindful
of any such incident, but particularly for their
own safety.
Attended by thousands of madrassah students,
questions have also been raised -- unfortunately
only in the English press -- that why was the
conference allowed to be held in the heart of
Islamabad in the first place. Fiery speeches were
given at the conference and it was reported in
newspapers the next day that several of the
speakers present asked for the public hanging of
those responsible for the operation against Lal
Masjid. Announcements were also made that
madrassah students from all over the country
would go whatever they had to do to protect each
and every seminary and mosque in the country from
the long arm of the state/government, whom they
believed was towing the line of the west (i.e.
the Americans).
One can only wonder why the conference was
allowed to be held in the very place where such a
controversial and emotion-evoking event took
place last year, particularly given that the
premise of the moot was to commemorate the said
incident.
*********
Just read on the Long War Journal blog
(www.longwarjournal.org), which quoted an Asia
Times report as saying that during the operation
in Bara, Haji Namdar, head of the self-proclaimed
pro-Taliban organisation Amal Bil Maroof Nahi
Anil Munkir was seen riding with the paramilitary
convoys that were conducting the operation. If
true, this may seem surprising to say the least
given that the said operation was being conducted
apparently against three organisations, including
the one run by Namdar. The AT report said that
Namdar was with the convoys to ensure that
"encounters with militants were kept to a
minimum."
A detailed background check on Namdar revealed
some interesting things -- and these may
partially help explain why he was riding with the
convoy. Allegedly, he provided the Taliban of
South Waziristan assistance in attacking NATO
supply lines -- particularly oil tankers passing
through Khyber Agency, on their way to the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border crossing at Torkham.
The Taliban sent in one of their Afghan
commanders, Ustad Yasir, to the area and Namdar
liaised with him and his men to provide a place
for his fighters to mounting attacks on the main
road leading to the border.
This was however initially resisted by the local
tribals and the Taliban responded by sending a
suicide bomber who blew himself up as a local
jirga was in session deliberating measures to rid
the agency of Taliban influence, killing around
40 people. During one of his numerous visits to
Pakistan, the number two in the US State
Department, Deputy Secretary John Negroponte also
visited Khyber Agency but only six tribal elders
showed up to meet him -- the low turnout probably
had to do with the suicide attack earlier. As for
the Taliban, the report said, with Haji Namdar's
help, the number of attacks on convoys heading
for Afghanistan began to increase and in April
they ended up taking hostage two employees of the
World Food Programme who were captured along with
their vehicle. Surprisingly, the Taliban were
chased by the security forces and in the ensuing
gun-battle five security personnel were killed.
However, their ammunition ran out after which
point they gave up the WFP em
ployees and tried to flee. However, their escape
was blocked by the security forces, and the
Taliban called for reinforcements, as did the
government forces.
Eventually -- and the report doesn't say how they
did this -- the Taliban managed to take hostage a
local government official and used him to flee
back to their safe houses. However, when they
reached these they were surprised to find
security forces lying in wait and dozens were
arrested and their arms stocks were seized. Since
Haji Namdar was the person who had provided these
safe houses in the first place, the Taliban
realised that he had more or less betrayed them.
Namdar then went on a local radio station and
announced that Ustad Yasir and other Taliban
commanders should surrender or face the
consequences. The report alleges that Namdar got
a substantial reward for this which was the
equivalent of $150,000. This also explains why he
was then the target of a suicide attack within
weeks of this happening -- though he survived the
attack unhurt. Ironically, a safe house in which
seven of Namdar's men died during the Bara
operation was allegedly fired upon by missiles.
Local militants said that the Americans were
behind this strike while Islamabad insisted that
the explosion happened when explosives stored
inside the house went off.
However, the million dollar question is that why
conduct an operation against him in the first
place? And did not the government know that after
this apparent betrayal by Namdar, the Taliban had
lost their footing in Khyber Agency? And so why
the need for an operation that wasn't even
directly targeting the Taliban in the first place?
o o o
Daily Times
July 16, 2008
EDITORIAL: CARTOONS, THREATS AND JOURNALISM
Daily Aajkal, which is a sister publication of
Daily Times in Urdu, is under attack from the
clerical partisans of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad
for its anti-extremism editorial policy in
general and a cartoon in particular. The Lal
Masjid mullahs say the cartoon is "insulting" and
they say their "patience with the paper is
running out" because of its "editorial policy".
The cartoon published in Aajkal showed the leader
of the partisans, Umme Hassaan, in a burka
teaching her burka-clad students the radical
political philosophy of the group. But since this
could hardly be construed as insulting in any way
- after all, the various statements of the
group's philosophy are already public knowledge -
the group has clutched at the argument that the
cartoon "insulted those who taught the Quran",
implying some sort of "Islamic" justification for
their threats.
This is completely untrue and totally divorced
from the purport of the cartoon. The cartoon was
made and published within the tradition and
practice of satire in the Pakistani press. It was
aimed at political partisans, like all political
cartoons against other partisans in the political
parties and groups.
The umbrage has been taken owing to the heat
produced by the political fallout of the
operation against Lal Masjid. This is
understandable and Aajkal is not too happy about
offending any side involved in the controversy.
But the cartoon itself was not intended to attack
anyone; it was published in the spirit in which
all political cartoons in Pakistan are accepted
as the lighter side of our political life. There
was nothing more and nothing less in the
conceiving of the said cartoon. It was not
directed at the faith that Aajkal itself upholds
within the permitted variety of belief among
Muslims.
A cartoon is the yardstick by which you measure
the level of tolerance in any given society. When
states are troubled, the first institution that
is attacked is the institution of public
criticism through satire. This is simply because
satire is always considered less harmful and
subversive than a detailed indictment of any
person or institution. It is light-hearted and
asks the victim to smile rather than take
offence. In Pakistan, as everywhere else in the
world, all public events, all happenings that
touch the consciousness of the people, become the
subject of a cartoon. The caricature tries to
capture what the people at large think of a
certain issue. This is the way it has developed
in Pakistan in the last 60 years.
The fact is Lal Masjid involved itself in public
affairs when it took in hand the task of "social
cleansing" some years ago. The subliminal intent
was to attract public attention and plead for
approval because it was, according to its lights,
doing moral correction where the state had
failed. This was the beginning of the public
image of the madrassa at Lal Masjid. Its leaders
sought public limelight and asked to be judged at
the court of public opinion, partly by vigilante
action. The result was a mixed verdict. That was
natural because any invitation to arbitration by
public opinion will yield positive and negative
opinion. This process also activated the
journalistic device of the cartoon.
If you pick up the newspapers of the past few
years, you will come across a lot of cartoons
made on the events related to the activity of the
Lal Masjid clerics and their pupils. The crux of
these drawings was the same: to highlight an
incongruity through humour and satire. Pakistan
has now a well established tradition of cartoons.
The politicians don't mind being portrayed in a
funny manner, and even when they do, they keep
quiet rather than hurt threats. Therefore the
clerics in the public eye should also know that
this is the process they have to go through.
Neither the politician nor the cleric has
suffered any lowering of his respect and honour
because of the cartoons.
With the spread of the private TV channels, the
business of cartoons has been revitalised. It has
become dramatised with live characters mimicking
well-known personalities including the ulema who,
incidentally, also teach the Quran. The cartoon
itself has become a "cartoon strip" and has
supplemented and strengthened the tradition of
cartooning in Pakistani journalism. The tragedy
of Lal Masjid in 2007 happened right in front of
the seeing eye of the cartoon. Where Lal Masjid
received a lot sympathetic support, and the
government had to face criticism, there were
occasions when the opposite happened too.
There are always two sides to an issue, even a
religious issue, and there will be partisans of
this or that point of view. That is the essence
of a free society and democracy. Even the issue
of suicide-bombing has two opposed ways of
looking at it. The division is there even among
the ulema. Over fifty ulema in 2005 issued a
collective fatwa saying suicide-bombing was
against Islam. It was their right to say so, but
it was wrong on the part of some other ulema to
threaten them to cow them into silence. They
would have been within their rights had they
issued a counter-fatwa saying suicide-bombing was
right.
Threatening a newspaper into silence indicates
the level of intolerance that will do no one any
good in the long run. The mission of moral
correction taken up by the Lal Masjid partisans
will be successful only if it is accepted by the
people without coming under duress. Indeed, any
order imposed through intimidation and threat of
violence is not durable and will be rejected by
the people in the long run. Therefore Lal Masjid
should become the symbol of struggle against the
use of violence; and it should not give the
impression that it can use violence to achieve
its ends. *
o o o
(iii)
BBC News
15 July 2008
TALEBAN SET UP 'PAKISTAN COURTS'
by M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad
Taleban militants carry out a public killing in Bajaur
The militants have their own brand of harsh justice
Taleban militants in Pakistan's north-western
Mohmand tribal area have set up permanent Islamic
courts, they say.
The districts have been divided into four
judicial zones, each having two judges and a
permanent court address.
The Taleban have up until now used mobile courts
- with no permanent offices or judges - to settle
criminal and financial disputes.
They say the permanent courts show the
diminishing authority of the central and local
governments.
The Taleban currently control large areas of
Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas
(Fata) along the border with Afghanistan.
'Dozens of judgements'
"There will be eight judges, two for each zonal
court, and there will be a top judge to whom
appeals can be made," Dr Asad, a spokesman for
the Mohmand Taleban, told the BBC News website.
Map
An official of the Mohmand tribal administration
confirmed the report, saying the courts were
already functioning a day after the Taleban's
announcement.
Meanwhile, the top spokesman for the Pakistani
Taleban Movement (PTM), Maulvi Omar, has told the
BBC Urdu service that permanent Taleban courts
were already functioning in Bajaur district,
Mohmand's northern neighbour.
"About 20 local religious scholars issue dozens
of judgements each day in Bajaur, where we have
the most organised judicial system in place," he
said.
Public killings
In addition the PTM also runs a vast network of
mobile courts in the rest of the Fata areas, he
said.
The cases range from land transactions and loan disputes to family matters.
Pakistani militants
The Taleban are becoming increasingly powerful in the tribal areas
All this is embarrassing for the Pakistani
government, especially because the Taleban have
in the past carried out cruel punishments against
people accused of moral turpitude, crime or
spying.
Earlier this month, two Afghan nationals accused
of spying for the US were publicly killed on the
orders of a Taleban court in Bajaur.
Last month, a court in Orakzai ordered the public
killing of half a dozen alleged bandits.
And in March, the Taleban killed a couple after
they were allegedly found guilty of adultery by a
court in Mohmand.
Meanwhile, Pakistani troops are engaged in a
week-long face off with militants in the Hangu
district of NWFP, on the border with Orakzai
tribal region.
The militants say they are holding more than 20
government officials hostage, and would like to
exchange them for four Taleban activists arrested
by the police on 5 July from Doaba, a town near
Hangu.
______
[2]
The Daily Star
July 16, 2008
Editorial
JAMAAT AND BANGLADESH'S HISTORY
The party should repudiate its past to be acceptable
WE thought we have heard it all. We were wrong.
The Jamaat-e-Islami has now laid claim of a sort
to the War of Liberation. For a party which
actively collaborated with the Pakistan
occupation army, and formed the al-Badr and
al-Shams goon squads whose specific job was the
abduction and killing of Bengalis, this is quite
a claim. The nation would have been happy to see
this new face of the Jamaat if meanwhile it had
done something about its past. To suddenly appear
before the country with a so-called Jatiyo
Muktijoddha Parishad and tell people that Jamaat
supported our Liberation War and it honours our
freedom fighters seems at best a joke and at
worst a travesty of history. The joke and the
travesty both have been emphasised by the recent
ugly incident of a genuine freedom fighter being
subjected to physical assault at a meeting of the
so-called parishad.
It is the terribly flawed past of the Jamaat
which makes it hard for us to share in its
celebration of Bangladesh's freedom struggle in
1971. But, of course, thanks to the myopia of
some of our rulers in the mid 1970s and later,
the party which felt no compunction about trying
to kill freedom and conspire against our war of
independence most cheerfully came back into the
political arena. It has been the Jamaat's good
fortune, and the nation's ill luck, that the
party graduated to being a coalition partner of
the BNP following the 2001 elections. How much
more mind-boggling can irony get to be? If today
the Jamaatis are willing to turn a new leaf and
persuade us into believing that they are loyal,
patriotic Bangladeshis like the rest of us, they
are most welcome. But for their claim to be
credible, they must do a few things. They must
repudiate the shameful role the Jamaat played as
an adjunct of the Pakistan army in 1971. The
party cannot suddenly cry hoarse about upholding
the spirit of the Liberation War without at the
same time informing the country officially and
publicly that it has atoned for its sins in 1971.
In the second place, the Jamaat should move
decisively about expelling all its leaders and
workers who took active part in the genocide of
1971 if it wishes to have a respectable place in
Bangladesh.
The options are clear before the Jamaat. If it
desires to set itself a new, nationally
acceptable course in politics, it must publicly
repent its dark deeds in 1971. It must not try,
as it has tried so recently, to make a farce of
the War of Liberation in any way. Public memory
is known to be short, but not that short that we
will forget 1971. For the Jamaat to suggest that
it has freedom fighters under its banner is to
insult the sacrifices of three million Bengalis.
But it surely can make a new beginning, indeed
reinvent itself, through joining in the national
call for a trial of the war criminals of 1971.
That should not be such a hard thing to do, is
it, now?
o o o
(ii)
The Daily Star
July 16, 2008
BADSHA'S RETREAT AND SECULAR UNITY
by Syed Badrul Ahsan
FAZLE Hossain Badsha has proved to be a thorough
gentleman. He did not need to withdraw from the
mayoral race in Rajshahi, for he had been
nominated by the fourteen-party alliance. He
could have stuck to his guns and gone into battle
with Khairuzzaman Liton on election day, if it
came to that. Maybe he would have won. Perhaps he
would have lost. But that he would have been on
perfectly tenable ground as a candidate, as a
worthy nominee of the alliance that was behind
him, would never have been in doubt.
Badsha is also a man with a worldview of his own.
His interests have gone beyond the parameters of
normal politics. He reads, he thinks and he
listens. Those are the attributes of a modern
man. And they should be of any individual who
means to take politics back to the people. Given
all these attributes in him, he should have
stayed on in the race; his alliance should have
backed him to the hilt; and he should have won
the election come August.
That Badsha decided to withdraw, for "personal
reasons" that were not so personal, is a shame.
That Khairuzzaman Liton defied the decision of
the fourteen-party alliance and decided to stay
on in the campaign to be mayor of Rajshahi is a
bigger shame. And it is that because Liton proved
to all of us, to his party and even to his fans,
that ambition sometimes can get in the way of the
bigger public interest and end up marring the
possibility of all good ideas coming to fruition.
There is little question that Liton has been and
is a popular man in Rajshahi. Over the years, he
has worked assiduously for the Awami League, a
party that once was glorified by the dynamic
presence of his illustrious father, and he has
thus earned the right and the honour to be the
Awami League spokesperson in Rajshahi.
That said, Khairuzzaman Liton would have done
greater good to himself and bigger service to his
party and his country had he chosen to accept the
nomination of Fazle Hossain Badsha for the
mayoralty of Rajshahi in good grace. Both men are
eminently respectable politicians; and both have
the capacity in them to do good for those they
wish to serve. Both represent those cherished
values that we in Bangladesh have always held
dear, values we associate with the War of
Liberation, values that eventually shape up as
secular democracy.
And yet only one of them could be the candidate
for mayor. When the fourteen-party alliance opted
to give the go-ahead to Badsha, a very large
number of people around the country were pleased.
The Awami League came in for particular
appreciation because of its willingness to
sacrifice its own man for an individual coming
from a relatively smaller political party. More
significantly, it was the feeling that the
fourteen-party alliance was serious about
presenting a unified position at the mayoral
elections that mattered. The Almighty knows just
how steep has been the decline of secular forces
in this country over the years.
In this dark era we inhabit, when a freedom
fighter can be kicked around (and literally at
that) by the goons of an organisation notorious
for the abduction and murder of Bengalis, as a
cooperative endeavour with the Pakistan
occupation army in 1971, one does not need to be
reminded of the immense requirement for secular
unity. Men like Badsha, with years of political
commitment behind them in such secular
organisations as the Workers' Party, are the
stuff that solidifies democracy.
Badsha's presence on the national stage, as mayor
of Rajshahi, as a member of Parliament, as a
minister, would only strengthen our hold on
democracy. It is a point the citizens' committee,
so much behind Khairuzzaman Liton, ought to have
borne in mind before pressing its point for
Badsha's retreat.
And Khairuzzaman Liton would have gained stature
as a politician if he had rallied behind Badsha
in a constructive demonstration of unity, and
vowed to campaign for him. That he did not do
that, that he was ready to defy even his party
chief and so go ahead with being a rival to
Badsha, pained all of us. It is not just the
Workers' Party that has been hurt.
All good men believing in the ability of promise
in politics have been wounded. When a decision
arrived at through consensus is flouted, when the
projected unity of secular Bengali forces is
undermined by a politician's inexplicable
willingness to throw that consensus overboard and
vow to stand for election in defiance of
everything, it is democratic principles that are
left with bad scratches on them.
It should have been the job of the fourteen-party
alliance to rally behind Badsha, to uphold his
candidacy resolutely. Precisely under what
circumstances he chose to take himself out of the
mayoral race are not yet clear. The cynics, of
course, have something to say here. Maybe there
will be compensation for Badsha, in the form of a
nomination for the Jatiyo Sangsad. Maybe there
will be something else. Or perhaps all these
conjectures, call them insinuations if you will,
are what they are . . . pointless digressions.
Whatever interpretations you come up with, the
truth remains that secular politics has taken a
knock in Rajshahi. The feeling just might grow
that smaller political parties in the company of
bigger ones do not matter, that they can be
treated with cavalier fashion. Such thinking will
not be misplaced. And there lies the danger, for
it is all a pointer to all the good things that
may not happen in the times to be.
With democracy on the ropes, with organised
corruption (as demonstrated in the times of the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party-Jamaat-e-Islami
alliance government) having led us to the
precipice we now try to draw back from, with
religious zealots up in arms against women, it
becomes the moral responsibility of all political
leaders and workers professing loyalty to the
principles of the War of Liberation to come
together around the core values we have always
upheld as a society.
It is a job that demands an eschewing of personal
ambition and of immediate party interests. In
conditions where the political right has held on
to its unity, for whatever personal or political
reasons, cracks in the armour of democratic
forces cannot but mean further regression for the
country. In his moment of triumph, Khairuzzaman
Liton has drawn Fazle Hossain Badsha into an
embrace. The embrace should have come when Badsha
was anointed the nominee of the fourteen-party
alliance, with Liton conceding the ground to him.
That would have added vigour to the pluralistic
culture we strive to build today.
That job can yet be done. Rashed Khan Menon,
Fazle Hossain Badsha and their people in the
Workers' Party, overcoming their disappointment,
can take politics to new heights by ensuring that
Khairuzzaman Liton's message is disseminated to
every household in Rajshahi. And now that he is
where he has wanted to be, Liton must reassure
voters, especially those who would have stumped
for Badsha, that he means to be what Badsha would
have been to them.
On a bigger plane, it is the political defeat of
the reactionary right that must be the goal.
Schism in the secular camp can only help
rehabilitate the "Bangladeshi nationalists" and
their fanatical cohorts. Men like Khairuzzaman
Liton would do well to roll back the damage they
have caused in Rajshahi.
______
[3]
NEPAL: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE NEW REPUBLIC
Kathmandu/Brussels, 3 July 2008: Nepal's major
parties should cooperate in a coalition
government led by the Maoists, who won the April
Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, to help the
world's newest republic avoid political
instability.
The International Crisis Group today released
companion reports: Nepal's Election: A Peaceful
Revolution?, an extensive analysis of the 10
April vote, and Nepal's New Political Landscape,*
which examines the major challenges remaining in
a peace process that has made considerable
progress but is still incomplete. The voters in
the CA elections delivered a mandate for peace
and change, giving the Maoists a clear victory
but leaving them without an absolute majority.
The major established parties, shocked by their
defeat, have stalled the formation of a
Maoist-led coalition government.
"The political landscape has changed irrevocably,
but the old parties have not woken up to the new
realities", says Rhoderick Chalmers, Crisis
Group's South Asia Deputy Project Director. "The
aftermath of the election has been marred by the
behaviour of powerful losers, who are reluctant
to keep the promise of working on the basis of
consensus".
Nepal's Maoists crowned their transition from
underground insurgency to open politics with an
electoral victory that was impressive but
insufficient to allow them to dominate the CA,
which must both draft a new constitution and
serve as a legislature. Overall, the elections
were credible, and the CA is far more
representative than any past parliament. But the
Maoist's surprise success has thrown the
traditionally dominant parties into confusion, as
has the emergence of powerful new regional
parties.
Multiple issues need to be tackled in order to
build a sustainable peace, most critically
security sector reform. The continuing existence
of both the People's Liberation Army and the
Nepal Army is inherently destabilising. The
national army remains outside meaningful
democratic control, and Maoist willingness to
discuss compromise options has met with a brick
wall.
All main parties must accept the election results
and form a consensus-based government under a
Maoist leadership that in turn still has a
distance to go to prove that it is irrevocably
committed to democratic behaviour. The CA and the
new government must also rebuild law and order in
the countryside, put an end to the culture of
impunity that grew during the long civil war, do
more to build peace at the local level and adjust
to other changes in the political landscape such
as the rise of identity politics.
"The way in which political leaders cope with the
political challenges of the election aftermath
will determine whether the remarkable result
delivers peace and change or further conflict",
says Robert Templer, Crisis Group's Asia Program
Director.
Read the full Crisis Group report :
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5552&l=1
______
[4]
Economic and Political Weekly
July 12, 2008
PLAYING THE MUSLIM CARD ON NUCLEAR DEAL
by Siddharth Varadarajan
The nuclear deal and other questions of foreign
policy should be opposed or defended on their own
merits. Sadly, both the government and its
opponents have played fast and loose with the
"Muslim" card, to the detriment of the
community's larger interest.
Going by the statements Indian politicians make,
Hindus and Muslims must be the most gullible
people on earth. How else can one explain the
cynical revival, in the run-up to the next
general election, of the Ayodhya temple card by
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L K Advani?
Or the manipulative assertion by the Bahujan
Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati that the nuclear
deal is anti-Muslim.
Sadly, Mayawati is not the only one to look at
one of the most important foreign policy issues
confronting India in this manner. On June 23, M K
Pandhe, a member of the politburo of the
Communist Party of India (Marxist), warned the
Samajwadi Party against supporting the UPA
govern- ment on the nuclear issue because, he
claimed, "a majority of the Muslim masses are
against the deal". The CPI(M) general secretary
Prakash Karat wisely disowned this shocking
statement two days later by saying that Pandhe's
remarks "are not the view of the party" but the
damage had al- ready been done. Now that it has
been let out of its bottle, this dangerous genie
will not be exorcised easily. Parties eager to
hoodwink Muslims into supporting them feel they
now have an issue. And waiting in the wings are
the traditional Muslim- baiters in the BJP, who
thrive on the com- munalisation of any issue and
will point an accusatory finger at the community
when the time is ripe.
For the past three years, Mayawati has maintained
a studied silence on the deal despite its
supposedly "anti-Muslim" char- acter. Now that an
alliance between the Samajwadi Party and the
Congress is look- ing increasingly likely,
however, she is discovering she can no longer
afford to sit on the fence. "The UPA government
is adamant to sign the nuclear deal with the US
at the cost of much cheaper gas from Iran but
Muslims would never accept the deal", she
declared at a press conference in Lucknow on July
1.
As if on cue, Muslim leaders like Zafaryab
Jillani and Kalbe Sadiq have swallowed this
poisonous bait hook,line and sinker. According
to UNI, Jillani asked why the Congress government
at the centre was supporting the deal when
the minority community was against it. Can there
be a better way of offering communal grist to
the BJP's political mill than the issuing of
such
foolish statements?
Apprehensions on Nuclear Deal
Like a large number of Indians, most Muslims
probably have apprehensions about the nuclear
deal adversely affecting India's national
interest. Even if they are agnostic or ignorant
about the deal itself, the majority of Indians
(including the majority of Muslims) are opposed
to any kind of military or strategic alliance
with the US. It is perfectly legitimate to hold
such sentiments and express them too and it was
wrong for the Congress Party to claim the foreign
policy debate was being "communalised" because
Muslim organisations demonstrated against the US
president George W Bush when he visited India in
2006. However, for Mayawati or anyone else to
suggest that the deal is "anti Muslim" or that
the agreement should be scrapped because the
Muslims are not in favour is an act of political
cynicism that the "Muslim masses" would be well
advised to be wary of. For today they are being
used only as alibis to justify a political
realignment. Tomorrow, they could well be turned
into scapegoats when the next realignment occurs.
In 2005 I had argued that the Manmohan Singh
government was under pressure from the Americans
to sacrifice the Iran pipeline for the nuclear
deal ('A Farewell to the Gas Pipeline?', The
Hindu, July 22, 2005) so I have no problem with
Mayawati attacking the Congress for this. But how
is this a "Muslim" issue? India, I wrote at the
time, needs Iranian gas till well into the 21st
century and that it would be foolish for Manmohan
Singh
to "give up the energy in hand for two in the
Bush". Already, the shortage of gas in the
country has led to more than 7,000 MW of
installed thermal power capacity lying idle.
According to ministry of power data, 13,400 MW
of electricity generating capacity in the
country is operating on gas with a plant load
factor (PLF) of only 53 per cent as against the
required 90 per cent.
The pipeline from Iran would help alleviate this
shortfall and it is shocking that the UPA
government is needlessly dragging its feet on the
negotiations with Tehran and Islamabad. Equally
short- sighted was the government's capitulation
to American pressure on the question of sending
Iran's nuclear file to the UN Security Council.
Thanks partly to that vote, there is a much
greater likelihood of a new war being launched by
the US or Israel. But how did these become
"Muslim" issues? The majority of Indian
expatriates in the Gulf whose livelihood would be
threatened by a regional war are not Muslim. And
aren't Hindus also interested in "much cheaper
gas"?
'Shia' Sentiments
Of course, the original sin of communalising the
Iran issue belongs not so much to Mayawati or the
Samajwadi Party but the UPA government itself.
Unwilling to counter the American pressure on
Iran with strong political and strategic
arguments of the kind that the ministry of
external affairs and the directorate general of
military intelligence were making internally, our
leaders preferred to buy time for themselves with
the lame excuse of "Shia sentiments". Both the
prime minister and Natwar Singh, who was external
affairs minister at the time, used this dangerous
argument in 2005 in order to (unsuccess-fully)
tell the Americans why they were prepared to go
thus far and no further on Iran. And as recently
as April this year, national security adviser M K
Narayanan told the International Institute of
Strategic Studies' conference in Delhi that
one of the reasons India was concerned about how
the west was handling Iran was because it had "a
very large Shia population".
Narayanan was being coy about India's opposition
to the use of force but another speaker at the
conference, the former US ambassador to India,
Robert Blackwill, was more blunt. If asked to
choose between Iran going nuclear and a war to
stop it going down that route, he said, India
would undoubtedly choose the former. However, no
Indian leader would dare to spell out our
national priorities in so forthright a fashion
for fear that the Americans would take offence.
It is much easier to use the Indian Muslims as an
alibi. Of course, the Manmohan Singh government
is not unique in this regard. If the erstwhile
National Democratic Alliance government finally
backed away from the folly of sending Indian
soldiers to die alongside the American
occupation forces in Iraq in 2003, this was not
because of any "Muslim" opposition to its plans.
Nevertheless, Vajpayee told more than one
opposition leader who went to see him in the
run-up to the Cabinet's July 14, 2003 decision
that if only the Muslims were to take to the
streets of Delhi to protest the proposed
deployment of Indian troops, this would make
his job of saying 'No' to the Americans easier.
No Tangible Gains
For the Muslims of India, the idea that they
wield so much influence over the country's
foreign or any other policy must surely come as a
big surprise. Especially since they have no
tangible gains to show for this influence. The
Sachar Committee's report has painted a vivid
statistical picture of a community that lags
behind the national average in most
socio-economic indicators. When the UPA
government came to power, it promised to do
something to address the genuine concerns of the
community.
Four years later, the record is spotty indeed.
There has been some positive fiscal targeting of
districts where Muslims live in large numbers but
it is too early to judge how effective this has
been. The promised Communal Violence bill - which
is supposed to ensure that massacres of the kind
that were enacted in Gujarat in 2002 never
happen again - appears to have been quietly
shelved. Even a simple issue like uniform
compensation for all victims of mass violence and
terrorism has not been addressed; the
Congress-led UPA would much prefer making
piecemeal announcements for each set of victims
so as to maximise electoral gains.
To make matters worse, non-delivery in the core
areas of Muslim concern is accompanied in the
Indian system by quick action or outlandish
promises on bogus issues. As chief minister of
Uttar Pradesh, for example, Mayawati is not
prepared to lift a finger to ensure that the
ongoing trial of policemen charged with the
massacre of Muslims in Hashimpura and Malliana 21
years ago is brought to a speedy and just
conclusion. But she is all ready to fight the
good fight against the nuclear deal in the name
of the community. It is almost as if there is a
conspiracy to keep Muslims, like other Indians,
confined to pressing purely identity-based
sectional demands. Muslims or Gujjars who
protest against SEZs could find themselves
arrested or shot and their demands will never be
addressed in a 100 years. But if Muslims and
Gujjars protest against Taslima Nasrin or for
scheduled tribe status, they may still get shot
at but their irrational demands are almost
always acceded to.
All parties, whether secular or communal, Left or
Right, need to fight it out among themselves on
the merits and demerits of the nuclear deal. But
to drag the Muslims into the midst of their
squabbles is to do a great disservice to the
struggle of the community against marginalisation
and discrimination and to turn them into nothing
more than sacrificial sheep at the altar of the
BJP, if and
when the party ever returns to power.
How unlikely is it that the party - which says it
is against the nuclear deal but in favour of a
strategic alliance with the United States - will
reverse its stand on the 123 Agreement the next
time it comes to power in New Delhi? When that
happens, it is the Muslims of India who will be
set up as straw figures and demonised for
allegedly holding back the "progress" of the
country.
______
[5]
Human Rights News
INDIA: END STATE SUPPORT FOR VIGILANTES
Prosecute Rights Violators and Protect Internally Displaced Communities
(Raipur, July 15, 2008) - The Indian central and
Chhattisgarh state governments should hold
accountable government security forces and
state-backed vigilantes responsible for
attacking, killing, and forcibly displacing tens
of thousands of people in armed operations
against Maoist rebels since mid-2005 in southern
Chhattisgarh, Human Rights Watch said in a new
report released today.
Human Rights Watch called for an end to all
government support for unlawful activities by the
Salwa Judum vigilantes, and urged affected state
governments to take immediate measures to protect
the tens of thousands of persons displaced. Human
Rights Watch also called on Maoist rebels known
as Naxalites to end attacks on civilians and
other abuses.
The 182-page report, "'Being Neutral Is Our
Biggest Crime': Government, Vigilante, and
Naxalite Abuses in India's Chhattisgarh State,"
documents human rights abuses against civilians,
particularly indigenous tribal communities,
caught in a deadly tug-of-war between government
security forces and the vigilante Salwa Judum and
Naxalites.
Human Rights Watch found that since mid-2005
government security forces and members of the
Salwa Judum, which officials falsely describe as
a spontaneous citizen's anti-Naxalite movement,
attacked villages, killed and raped villagers,
and burned down huts to force people into
government camps. Human Rights Watch collected
more than 50 eyewitness accounts of attacks
involving government security forces in 18
different villages in Dantewada and Bijapur
districts in Chhattisgarh. At the same time, the
Naxalites have carried out bombings, and have
abducted, beaten, and executed civilians,
particularly those suspected of supporting the
Salwa Judum. Tens of thousands of internally
displaced persons (IDPs) are stranded in
government camps in Chhattisgarh or in the
forestlands of neighboring Andhra Pradesh state.
"The Chhattisgarh government denies supporting
Salwa Judum, but dozens of eyewitnesses have
described police participating in violent Salwa
Judum raids on villages - killing, looting, and
burning their hamlets," said Jo Becker,
children's rights advocacy director at Human
Rights Watch and member of the research team.
"Instead of promoting vigilantes, the
Chhattisgarh government should be promoting
respect for human rights and pursuing
accountability."
"Being Neutral Is Our Biggest Crime" is based on
four weeks of on-the-ground research in
Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh in late 2007 and
early 2008, including approximately 175 accounts
from affected villagers, Salwa Judum leaders,
government officials and police, and former
Naxalites.
Naxalite rebels have retaliated in a brutal
manner, abducting, assaulting, and killing
civilians perceived to be Salwa Judum supporters.
Even before the conflict escalated in mid-2005
due to Salwa Judum's operations, the Naxalites
have been responsible for widespread human rights
abuses, including torture, extortion, summary
executions, and the recruitment of child
soldiers.
The conflict has given rise to one of the largest
internal displacement crises in India - at least
100,000 people have resettled in camps in
southern Chhattisgarh or fled to neighboring
states, principally Andhra Pradesh, according to
Human Rights Watch. Those living in camps have
limited access to government health care or
livelihood opportunities. Basic sanitation is
often lacking. According to some camp residents,
the government has cut or failed to provide free
food rations. The conflict has forcibly displaced
and resettled many other villagers to sites in
southern Chhattisgarh that are not recognized as
camps by the government. Such populations are
virtually unaccounted for, and little information
is available about their living conditions.
"Thousands of families have lost their land,
homes, and livelihoods, and now survive in
crowded and decrepit camps with little
assistance," said Becker. "Chhattisgarh officials
should help restore the lives of those who wish
to return to their homes, and improve conditions
for those who fear returning."
Between 30,000 and 50,000 displaced persons have
settled in the forestlands of Andhra Pradesh and
are doubly dispossessed. Saying that their
hamlets are illegal, the Andhra Pradesh
authorities have used excessive force to
repeatedly evict or relocate them, without
consulting with or giving alternative adequate
housing to the displaced. Forest officials have
repeatedly burned many of these hamlets to the
ground. Human Rights Watch found that the Andhra
Pradesh government follows a discriminatory
policy that refuses to extend the benefit of
government welfare schemes, such as food
subsidies and employment guarantees, to these
displaced communities. Displaced children are
forced to drop out of schools because of the
different language of instruction in Andhra
Pradesh schools. Many of these displaced persons
are waiting to return to their home villages in
Chhattisgarh.
Human Rights Watch called on the Naxalites to
immediately end all attacks against civilians and
allow camp residents to return to their home
villages without reprisals.
The report highlights the impact of this conflict
on children's lives. The Naxalites have long used
children as young as 6 years old as informers and
children from 12 years old in armed operations.
The Chhattisgarh police have recruited and used
children as special police officers to assist
government security forces in the region, often
deploying them in high-risk anti-Naxalite combing
operations. While the Chhattisgarh police have
acknowledged this as an error, the government is
yet to devise a scheme for systematically
identifying, demobilizing, and rehabilitating
such underage special police officers.
The conflict has also severely impaired
children's access to education. Once Salwa Judum
began its operations, many children stopped
attending school for fear of abduction. The
Naxalites have destroyed many schools, ostensibly
to prevent their use for military or Salwa Judum
operations. Schools have been relocated to camps,
where displaced children study in crowded
conditions.
Extracts from eyewitness accounts:
"Judum and police came to our village. They came
in three or four trucks, and many more on foot.
Came and burned our village - about six huts were
set on fire. The very first time they came, they
came early in the morning - something like 4 a.m.
They first burned some huts and then announced
that if we did not vacate our village and go to
Injeram camp this would be the fate of everyone
in the village, and that they would burn all the
huts . They also beat the sarpanch [village
official] and the poojari [priest]. They beat
others also. The people who came to our village
had bows and arrows, sticks, and the police had
rifles. From our village they also raped [name
withheld] (about 20 years old). They raped her
and left her in the village itself."
- Villager who fled from Mukudtong village in
Dantewada district, Chhattisgarh, November 2007
"We have got employment only once last year.
When I was in [name of village withheld], I had
fields and used to cultivate them. Now it is just
an overgrown jungle that we cannot cultivate
anymore. We have all our land and property there
[in the village]. If we die, we want to die on
our land. We don't want to die in the camp. The
last place we want to die is in the camp."
- Residents from a camp in Dantewada district, December 2007
"My husband went back to the village [from the
camp] to bring grains for us to eat. When he went
back, they [Naxalites] abducted him, killed him
and left his body on the road. This happened in
July last year [2006] I have not gone back to
my village even once. I don't know why Naxalites
killed my husband - he was not a sarpanch
[village official], he was not a patel [village
headman], he was not an SPO [special police
officer], he was nothing."
- Resident of Dornapal, a government-run Salwa Judum camp, December 2007
Being Neutral Is Our Biggest Crime
Report, July 15, 2008
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/india0708/
This report is also available in Hindi:
Vigilante Dal Ko Sarkari Sahayata Band Karen
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/07/14/india19345_hindi.pdf
______
[6]
Herald, 15 July 2008
Editorial
THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST?
The strange case of Tariq Ahmed Battlo - the man
who was released by a Goa Fast Track Court only
to be seized by plain clothes policemen outside
the New Delhi airport and whisked away in a car,
after which Jammu & Kashmir policemen claimed he
was arrested from a 'hideout' in Jammu - will
probably come back to haunt us all.
What happens when a man is unfairly caught on
trumped-up charges and forced to spend years in
jail? He grows bitter, and loses faith in law and
justice. What happens when the same thing is done
repeatedly, and the best years of his life are
stolen from him by cynical policemen and
intelligence operatives? Would he not then be
'justified' in feeling that there is simply no
justice in this country? If the law enforcement
authorities in this country themselves show so
little respect for the law they are sworn to
protect, they are only sending the wrong signals.
Tariq Ahmed Battlo was arrested by the Goa
Police. They said he was getting off the Mangala
Express, and had a kilo of RDX, grenades and
detonators in his suitcase, and that he planned
to set off bomb blasts in Goa. The arrests caused
a sensation worldwide. But thankfully, the Indian
justice system requires proof. The cops neither
had a ticket, nor did the prosecution examine
anybody from the railways to prove that Battlo
had travelled on the train that day. The RDX and
grenades he was allegedly carrying were neither
produced in court nor examined by experts. Both
investigating officers admitted that they had not
interrogated him about the
source of his alleged explosives. Other
prosecution witnesses hopelessly contradicted
each other. The 'panch' witnesses turned out to
be 'veterans' that had appeared in dozens of
cases before... The police simply didn't have a
case.
Battlo, on the other hand, said he was picked up
at Grace Church in Margao a full week before his
'official' arrest. And he had some 'proof' of
sorts - a newspaper report of a statement made by
then Chief Minister Pratapsingh Rane, before
Battlo's official arrest, that police in the
state had held a 'terrorist'. It was a perfect
picture of what he alleged was a frame-up.
And, on his acquittal, we saw another such
performance. Battlo, accompanied by his brother
and cousin, was having a shave at a barber's when
police picked them up and took them to Vasco
police station. They were instructed to take the
very next flight out of the state. Police were at
the airport, questioning them, as well as
photographing and filming them, and making calls
on their mobile phones. As soon as they reached
Delhi and collected their bags, they were
surrounded by men in plain clothes who took
Battlo away. Two days later, J&K police said they
caught him in his 'hideout' in Jammu, on the same
day that he left Goa. He has been booked in an
old 2005 case against someone else, and now faces
the prospect of spending a few more years in
jail, until another court realises that it wasn't
possible for him to reach Jammu on the same day
he left Goa at 5.45 pm and reached Delhi at 8.30
pm, and acquits him from those charges as well.
But what happens to a young man whose own
experiences tell him that there is no such thing
as justice in this country if the police want to
get you anyhow? He starts thinking that the guys
who have taken up guns against the government may
be right after all...
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
_______________________________________________
SACW mailing list
SACW@insaf.net
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
