South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch No. 2691 - January 8, 2011
From: sacw.net
[1] Pakistan: More reactions to Salman Taseer's assassination
(i) Citizens for Democracy, Pakistan: Position and Press Statement on
assassination of Salmaan Taseer
(ii) Asma Jahangir: Taseer's murder will embolden the Pakistani religious
right
(iii) If it takes up the extremists' baton, liberal Pakistan is lost
(Kamila Shamsie)
(iv) Wake up Pakistan (Editorial, The Hindu)
[2] Bangladesh: EU diplomats in Dhaka divided (David Bergman)
[3] India: Andhra Is Headed For Chaos & Violence: The Telangana challenge
i(Praful Bidwai)
[4] India: Hurdles facing plan against Maoists (Jamal Kidwai)
[5] How Indians look at Taseer’s assassination (Jawed Naqvi)
[6] India: The Idea of Sedition (Jeremy Seabrook)
---------
[1] Pakistan: More reactions to Salman Taseer's assassination
(i) CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY, PAKISTAN: POSITION AND PRESS STATEMENT ON
ASSASSINATION OF SALMAAN TASEER
Karachi: Citizens for Democracy (CFD), a nation-wide umbrella group of
political parties, trade unions, professional organisations, NGOs and
individuals, strongly condemns the cold-blooded and cowardly murder of Salmaan
Taseer.
The unarmed Governor of Punjab was shot in the back in the most cowardly manner
by one of his own bodyguards on Jan 4, 2011, following a concerted propaganda
campaign that falsely accused him of having been disrespectful to the Prophet
of Islam (peace be upon on Him). This campaign was conducted in the media and
through the mosques.
We strongly condemn those who are glorifying the assassin, who opened fire at
the back of an unarmed man. We express our concern at the Rawalpindi District
Bar Association’s support to the murderer and the offer to contest his case
free of any fee, which signifies support for the murderer.
There is no proof of ‘blasphemy’ against Taseer. Even in the case of Aasia
Bibi, the Christian woman sentenced by a sessions court for alleged blasphemy,
the sentence has yet to be confirmed by the High Court and then by the Supreme
Court before she can be considered guilty and executed.
The questions arising from this assassination indicate the involvement of
retrogressive forces in Pakistan that have over the past couple of decades made
inroads into the ‘establishment’.
The assassin, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, was assigned to the elite force guarding the
Punjab Governor even though he (Qadri) was earlier removed from the Special
Branch because he was perceived as a security threat.
How did he end up on the security detail of a Governor who was already
receiving death threats?
Why did the other guards not open fire, as per standard operating procedures in
VIP guard duty? (In Qadri’s confession after his arrest, he said that he had
told his colleagues what he was going to do and asked them not to open fire, as
he would surrender.)
While appreciating the arrest of the cleric who had offered a reward for
Taseer’s murder, and of the other guards who were on duty and did nothing to
protect the Governor, we demand:
• Detailed inquiry and names of those responsible for this negligence
should be made public and they be tried in a court of law.
• Action and a legal process against all the guards on duty, who have
been apprehended and placed in police custody, for they are accomplices.
• Legal proceedings against the cleric Yousuf Qureshi of the Mohabat
Khan Masjid, Peshawar, who at a public gathering on Dec 3, 2010 offered a Rs
500,000 reward to kill Aasia Bibi if her death sentence was not confirmed by
the High Court.
• Legal action against the Khatm-e-Naboohat for distributing
threatening pamphlets (attached) against PPP MNA Sherry Rehman.
• Legal action against those who continue to indulge in hate speech and
threaten those who support amendment of the ‘Blasphemy Law’.
We reiterate our stand that no one has the right to take the law into their own
hands and kill anyone, regardless of whether they are accused of blasphemy or
any other crime.
CFD was formed at a meeting convened by Professional Organisations Mazdoor
Federations & Hari Joint Committee (POJAC) on Dec 19, 2010 in Karachi. POJAC
member organizations include:
1. Sindh High Court Bar Association
2. Pakistan Medical Association
3. All Pakistan Newspaper Employees Confederation
4. Mutahida Labour Federation
5. Karachi Union of Journalists
6. Pakistan Workers Federation
7. All Pakistan Trade Union Federation
8. All Pakistan Clerk Association
9. Democratic Labour Union State Bank of Pakistan
10. UBL Workmen Union (CBA)
11. National Bank Trade Union Federation
12. Karachi Bar Association
13. Pakistan Nursing Federation
14. National Trade Union Federation
15. Sindh Hari Committee
16. Govt. Sec. Teachers Association
17. Pakistan Hotel And Restaurant Workers Federation
18. Mehran Mazdoor Federation
19. All Sindh Primary Teachers Association
20. Sindh Professor Lecturer Association
21. Malir Bar Association, Karachi
22. Pakistan Trade Union Federation
23. Railway Workers Union Open Line (cba) Workshop
24. Mehran Railway Employees Welfare Association
25. All Pakistan Trade Unions Organisations
In addition to POJAC, CFD members and those endorsing the above statement
include:
26. Awami Party
27. Labour Party Pakistan (LPP)
28. Progressive Youth Front (PYF)
29. Communist Party Pakistan (CPP)
30. Peace and Solidarity Council
31. Pakistan Institute of Labour, Education & Research (Piler)
32. Action Committee for Human Rights
33. Dalit Front
34. Commission for Justice and Peace (CJP)
35. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)
36. Caritas
37. Aurat Foundation
38. Women’s Action Forum (WAF)
39. People’s Resistance
40. Sindh Awami Sangat
41. National Organisation of Working Committees
42. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum
43. Child and Labour Rights Welfare Organisation
44. Progressive Writers Association (PWA)
45. Port Workers Federation
46. Shirkat Gah
47. Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC)
48. Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi (ITA)
49. Sanjan Nagar Public Education Trust (SNPET)
50. Pakistan Dalit Solidarity Network (PDSN)
51. Sindh Democratic Forum (SDF)
52. SAP-Pakistan
53. AwazCDS-Pakistan
54. GCAP-Pakistan
55. Home Based Women Workers Federation (HBWWF)
56. Labour Education Foundation (LEF)
57. Progressive Youth Forum
58. National Students’ Federation (NSF)
59. The Researchers
Contact: Citizens for Democracy – cfd....@gmail.com
Blog: www.citizensfordemocracy.wordpress.com
(ii) Deutsche Welle - 05.01.2011
ASMA JAHANGIR: TASEER'S MURDER WILL EMBOLDEN THE PAKISTANI RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Pakistan's leading human rights activist Asma Jahangir tells DW that after the
assassination of the governor of the Punjab, it will become more difficult for
people to challenge the country's controversial blasphemy law.
Asma Jahangir is the president of Pakistan's Supreme Court Bar Association and
one of the country's leading human rights activists. She was the chairperson of
the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a non-governmental rights-based
organization, and has also worked with the United Nations as Special Rapporteur
on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Deutsche Welle: The Governor of the Punjab Salman Taseer was apparently
murdered for opposing Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. How difficult
will it be now for others who are campaigning against the law?
Asma Jahangir: Obviously it has posed difficulties, because people's lives will
be at risk more and more. Not only that Salman Taseer was murdered, on top of
it there are people coming on television and justifying his murder. Even the
interior minister said that if somebody blasphemed in front of him, he would
shoot him himself. Salman Taseer actually had not said anything which was in
any way blasphemous. He had only said that the law needs to be looked at. So
yes, I think it will become difficult for people to campaign against the law.
But I also see that there is a lot of resilience in the Pakistani society
because a lot of people have come on television, and a lot of people are saying
that this is not the way to go.
Will Salman Taseer's murder polarize the Pakistani society further? Will it
increase the divide between right-wing and liberal Pakistanis?
Some of us are of the opinion that we have to now begin to negotiate with them
(the religious right), and have a dialogue with them rather than just talk at
each other. I don't know what the outcome will be because the ball is in the
court of political forces of the country. The have to take the initiative.
Civil society has been doing it for many years.
Hundreds of educated young Pakistanis have welcomed Taseer's killing on social
networking websites, such as Facebook and Twitter. What does this celebration
of violence mean for the future of Pakistan?
Well, it just means that we are on the way to fascism. But we must not ignore
the fact that Facebook and Twitter are also manipulated by a very well-knit
group of militants, who are also backed by elements within the state.
Do you mean to say that it does not reflect a mainstream trend?
I do not think that it shows the mainstream trend, but there are people who
will welcome a murder like this.
Most leaders of Pakistan's religious parties have not condemned the murder. On
the contrary, some religious leaders have warned that anyone expressing grief
for Taseer could also meet the same fate. How serious are these threats?
Today at Taseer's funeral there were thousands of people, and they were surely
there because they were grieving. The right wing is always threatening us.
Every single day we get threats from them. If they could, they would kill all
of us.
What should the Pakistani government do now? Will it not be synonymous with
surrendering to the religious extremists if the government doesn't do anything
to amend the blasphemy law?
To my mind, Taseer's murder was as political as it was religious. The fact that
they have killed a governor from the Pakistan People's Party also shows that
they want to destabilize the government and derail the democratic process. So
they are succeeding in that way. The government is walking a tightrope. They
have to do something about it, but they have to have the leadership to take
other people along with them.
Will it not embolden the religious right in Pakistan if the government does not
do anything about the blasphemy law?
They are already emboldened. They have been emboldened for months. This has
further emboldened them, and I believe it will continue if the government and
other political parties do not come out and say enough is enough. Somewhere
this has to stop. There will be further bloodshed. People will be scared, may
be they won't say anything, but every time there is somebody who is going to be
arrested because the law has been misused, people will also get angry.
Interviewer: Shamil Shams
Editor: Thomas Baerthlein
(iii)
The Guardian, 7 January 2011
IF IT TAKES UP THE EXTREMISTS' BATON, LIBERAL PAKISTAN IS LOST
The murder of Salmaan Taseer is terrible enough. But the feting of his killer
has tipped people into a response of utter despair
by Kamila Shamsie
That Pakistan is a nation bound upon a wheel of fire is not in any doubt. The
assassination of Salmaan Taseer, killed for speaking out against a blasphemy
law that has been used time and again to persecute minorities and settle
private scores, would itself have been a significant blow, depriving the nation
of one of the few politicians willing to be fearless in facing down radicalism.
But it was the image of lawyers sprinkling rose petals on to Taseer's smiling
assassin – as though he were a bride and they the family of the groom welcoming
him into their fold – that dealt a body blow from which Pakistan's liberals and
progressives are unsure they can ever recover.
How far the nation has travelled over the decades is evident in the distance
between the petal-throwing lawyers and the finest document in the country's
history – not its ever-amending constitution, but a judicial report penned by
Justices Munir and Kayani in 1954, in response to the anti-Ahmadiyya riots of
1953, which marked the first time the religious right used violence against the
state to try and push forward its programme of defining Pakistan.
The riots were designed to press the government into declaring members of the
Ahmadiyya sect as non-Muslim. The attempt failed, but showed up certain
dangerous problems within the new state. The Munir-Kayani report didn't merely
look at the facts surrounding the riots, but delved into theology, philosophy
and dry wit to expose the dangers and absurdity of the religious right's
position. In a particularly brilliant section the report asks 10 ulema (Islamic
scholars) to lay out the minimum conditions a person must satisfy to call
themselves a Muslim. After reproducing the wildly divergent answers, the
justices write: "Need we make any comment except that no two learned divines
are agreed on this fundamental ... And if we adopt the definition given by any
one of the ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim
[scholar] but kafirs [infidels] according to the definition of everyone else."
One thing the justices never envisioned as they highlighted the impossibility
of "an Islamic state" when so many different versions of Islam exist, was that
anything could band together the disparate groups of the religious right. Yet
that is precisely what happened around demands for the blasphemy laws to be
amended. There are far too many differences and enmities between those groups
for agreement to stretch very far. But the site of agreement has encroached on
the liberal space within Pakistan.
The extent of this encroachment became clear recently as many of those who had
been insisting that a decisive response was needed in the name of
anti-extremism blogged and tweeted their delight at a fatwa apparently issued
by a previously unheard-of mufti, Muhammad Idris Usmani of the Jamia Islamia.
He declared that, on examining all the evidence, it was clear Salmaan Taseer
was not guilty of blasphemy; rather, the real blasphemers were those who
praised or justified his assassination in the name of Islam. Their punishment,
in accordance with the Qur'an, was "execution, or crucifixion or the cutting
off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile". He then went on to list
all those real blasphemers, including "200 lawyers who cheered up the killer;
dozens of journalists, scholars and media persons who justified the killing".
The authenticity of the fatwa – and the man himself – is in serious doubt. But
the responses to it from liberals were genuine enough. Some who expressed
delight at the fatwa probably would be entirely pleased to see the execution of
those cheering on the assassin – in Pakistan you can be both a liberal and a
fascist, so long as you're a secular fascist. But in other places the approval
for the mufti seems indicative of a deep despair born of a certainty that
extremism has won. We are left with the image of liberalism's last act – the
attempt to hurl extremism's weapons back at it, not in the hope of causing
serious damage but because there are no other weapons left. At least, that's
how it feels today. That is the cheeriest note it's possible to strike at the
moment.
For those who insist that Pakistan's religious right problem started with the
rule of General Zia in 1977, look at the warning within the Munir-Kayani report
of 1954: "Provided you can persuade the masses to believe that something they
are asked to do is religiously right or enjoined by religion, you can set them
to any course of action, regardless of all considerations of discipline,
loyalty, decency, morality or civic sense."
That should have been a wake-up call; it wasn't. Two decades later, Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto, who had campaigned on a secular socialist platform, declared the
Ahmadiyyas non-Muslim, in an awful attempt to outflank the religious right.
Like many other politicians before and since, he thought he could use Islamic
rhetoric to his advantage, without too much concern about fallout. And so we
are left with the haunting final words of the report: "But if democracy means
the subordination of law and order to political ends – then Allah knoweth best
and we end the report."
o o o
(iv)
The Hindu, 8 January 2011
Editorial
WAKE UP PAKISTAN
The assassination of Salmaan Taseer by his police bodyguard — which recalls in
some way the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 — is a grim
reminder of the extent to which Pakistan has descended into the depths of
religious extremism. The Governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Mr. Taseer was
an abrasive and sharp-elbowed politician of the ruling Pakistan People's Party.
Commendably, he was one of the rare leaders in this party of diffident
moderates who was unafraid to confront religious extremism. One of his first
acts after taking office in May 2008 was to declare that Basant, a spring
festival in Punjab opposed by religious clerics and banned by a court order,
would be revived. Recently, he angered Pakistan's Islamic political parties
with a spirited campaign against the controversial blasphemy law. His visit to
a jail to meet Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman convicted under the law and
sentenced to death, and his assurance to her that he would help her obtain a
presidential pardon, triggered a nation-wide protest against him by the
religious parties. Some clerics declared he was an apostate. Mr. Taseer's
assassin declared, after being taken into custody following the killing, that
he was proud to have killed a “blasphemer.” It remains unclear if the man was
acting alone or at the behest of others. Certainly, it is no secret that the
Pakistan security forces, the law enforcing agencies and other key government
institutions are infiltrated by sympathisers of militant groups and those with
extremist views. But the realisation that even a special commando unit assigned
to protect Pakistan's leaders is not immune from such elements is frightening.
The incident is bound to reduce the limited space for Pakistan's
liberal-moderates and their modest efforts to stem the tide of extremism
sweeping across the country. The mealy-mouthed condemnations of the killing
even by PPP politicians and the surge of popular support for the assassin show
which way the wind is blowing. Pakistani voters may not choose Islamist
political parties to lead them. But over the decades, large enough numbers in
all sections of society have become sufficiently radicalised to ensure that
anyone who attempts reform, even of recent horrors such as the murderous
blasphemy law and the anti-women Hudood laws — both the legacy of the military
dictator Zia-ul-Haq — does so at great personal and political risk. The
radicalisation is the undeniable result of a deliberate policy by the Pakistan
state to nurture militancy in order to meet regional strategic objectives. Mr.
Taseer's killing is another setback for President Asif Ali Zardari and the PPP
government, already in trouble after being reduced to a minority regime
following the withdrawal of support by a key coalition partner. It can only be
hoped that the tragic incident serves as an alarm call to Pakistan's
decision-makers, the Pakistan Army included, that they need to act with
extraordinary urgency, courage, and honesty to clamp down on fanaticism,
extremism, and terrorism of all kinds before the country sinks any deeper.
_____
[2] Bangladesh:
New Age, 8 January 2011
EU DIPLOMATS IN DHAKA DIVIDED
by David Bergman
A difference of opinion has surfaced among Bangladesh-based European diplomats
about what public position the European Union should take on the adequacy of
the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973.
The 1973 act governs the powers of the International Crimes Tribunal which was
set up by the government earlier this year to prosecute the people accused of
war crimes and other international crimes during the 1971 independence war of
Bangladesh.
Andrew Barnard, the chair of the European Union’s Human Rights Task Force which
comprises EU diplomats based in Dhaka told New Age a month ago that although
there may be some ‘technical’ shortcomings in the legislation, they ‘will not
necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice.’
This is the first time that a senior European Union diplomat had publicly given
the legislation conditional international support and the view will be seen as
controversial given that the legislation has been widely criticised by
international lawyers outside Bangladesh including senior judges and
prosecutors from the International Bar Association’s War Crimes committee.
Diplomats based at embassies belonging to different European countries were
surprised at Barnard’s statement and emphasised that the Human Rights Task
Force is simply ‘an informal Dhaka-based grouping that discusses policy and
shares ideas,’ and that ‘the EU has yet to come to a formal, collective
position on the war crimes trials.’
On hearing the position given by the task force, one senior German embassy
contacted Andrew Barnard, who is also the head of the political, trade and
information section of the European Union, and asked him to send a revised
statement to New Age.
Andrew Barnard stated in his subsequent e-mail that ‘Rolf [dieter Reinhard]
asked me to clarify to you the stance of EU diplomats in Bangladesh on the War
Crimes trials.’
The e-mail went onto set out to set out the new position. ‘It is for Bangladesh
to decide whether to bring perpetrators of crimes during the war of
independence to trial. The EU would however urge Bangladesh to ensure that
trials meet international standards for fair judicial processes.’
Significantly, it omitted any assessment of the 1973 act.
In contrast, a British High Commission official told New Age that the British
government accepts the criticisms of the 1973 act made by international lawyers.
Jon Ryan, political and global issues secretary, told New Age, ‘We concur with
the opinion of the IBA’s War Crimes Committee, i.e, that whilst the 1973 act is
“broadly compliant” with international standards, we would want to see the
adoption of the [committee’s] 17 recommendations.’
However, he went onto state in an e-mail, ‘Whilst we attach significant weight
to the [IBA’s] opinion, we are not saying that trials cannot be held to
international standards without the wholesale adoption of all recommendations.
Much will depend on how the trials are conducted once they begin.’
This view differs from either of the statements given by the EU diplomats in
that it accepts certain changes are necessary for the 1973 act to allow for a
fair trial.
Barnard told New Age that the Human Rights Task Force came to its ‘consensus’
view that the 1973 act ‘will not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice,’
following meetings in the summer of 2010 with three ‘experts’— MA Hasan, the
chair of the War Crimes Facts Finding Committee, Adilur Rahman, the secretary
of the human rights organisation Odhikar and Shahdeen Malik, advocate of the
Supreme Court.
‘We did not think it necessary to meet international law experts,’ Barnard said.
Both Hasan and Adilur Rahman, however, told New Age that they did not tell the
task force that the 1973 act was adequate. Hasan said that he told the EU
members that in order ‘for the trial to be fair it needed modification.’
Adilur Rahman said that he did not give his view about the adequacy of the
legislation, ‘as I am not in a position to give one. I am not an expert on this
issue.’
Shahdeen Malik was not available to comment but he is previously reported to
have said that the 1973 act is adequate to provide for a fair trial.
Abdur Razzaq, one of the senior lawyers acting for the five Jamaat-e-Islami
leaders currently detained by the International Criminal Tribunal, told New Age
that he was not impressed by the level of expertise consulted by the European
Union. ‘How can these three people be war crimes experts? The European Union is
expected to have better standards.’
The apparent divergence of position within the European Union comes at a time
when the Bangladesh government has invited Stephen Rapp, the US War Crimes
Ambassador at Large, to come to Dhaka to provide the government assistance with
war crimes.
New Age has previously reported that the invitation is seen by the diplomatic
community in Dhaka as recognition that the Bangladesh government has begun to
acknowledge that changes to the legislation are necessary.
The International Bar Association’s advice on the 1973 act stated that there
were ‘significant omissions’ regarding protection of rights of the people on
trial and ‘out of date’ definitions of war crimes.
The Government has rejected the criticisms and pointed to the fact that the
IBA’s advice also states that the legislation ‘provides a system that is
broadly compatible with current international standards’.
The International Crimes Tribunal was established by the government in March
25, 2009 and since then five men, all Jamaat-e-Islami leaders, have been
detained by the tribunal on accusations of war crimes.
The tribunal on December 30, 2010 passed an order requiring the BNP standing
committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury to be produced before the tribunal
on January 17.
_____
[3] India:
Kashmir Times, 7 January 2011
ANDHRA IS HEADED FOR CHAOS & VIOLENCE: THE TELANGANA CHALLENGE
by Praful Bidwai
The Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has thrown down the gauntlet to the Central
government by boycotting meetings convened to discuss the report of the BN
Srikrishna committee on the issue of separate statehood for Telangana,
comprised of the northern districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Bharatiya Janata
Party has followed suit.
The TRS questions the method of consultations proposed by Home Minister P
Chidambaram, of inviting two representatives each from all the significant
parties in Andhra, one from Telangana and the second from the other two
regions, coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. TRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao says the
absence of a unified position on separate statehood in the Congress and Telugu
Desam will only cause further confusion. On what basis the Centre will take a
political call on the issue remains unclear.
The battle-lines on Telangana were drawn even before Justice Srikrishna
submitted his report, which apparently doesn’t make recommendations either in
favour of statehood for Telangana or other arrangements. These could include
the status quo; making Hyderabad a Union Territory and the capital of both
Telangana and the rest of Andhra on the Chandigarh-Punjab-Haryana model; or an
altogether new reconfiguration.
On one side of the battlefield are ranged the TRS, the BJP, the Communist Party
of India, some sections of the CPI(ML), and most, if not all, the
Telangana-based legislators from the Congress, the TDP and actor Chiranjeevi’s
Praja Rajyam Party (PRP). They emphasise Telangana’s distinctive culture,
dialects, cuisine and customs.
On the other side are: the Communist Party of India (Marxist); the new
political formation-in-the-making under Jaganmohan Reddy, son of the late Chief
Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, who recently quit the Congress; and members of
the Congress, TDP and PRP from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.
Newly-installed CM Kiran Kumar Reddy and Governor ESL Narasimhan are believed
to be hostile to separate statehood. The Governor isn’t supposed to express or
influence political opinion. But Mr Narasimhan, a former intelligence official,
who served controversially as Chhattisgarh’s Governor, is an ambitious man
prone to be meddlesome.
The opponents of statehood also warn against violating the principle of
linguistic reorganisation of states, which might trigger the formation of “too
many” small states like Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Gorkhaland and Bodoland. But
there’s nothing wrong with smaller states, based on cultural, agro-climatic,
economic and administrative considerations. India is huge, with 1,130 million
people—far greater than the average population of just 30-35 million of the
world’s 190-odd nations.
There are strong political and administrative reasons for, say, 50 states,
where small social groups would be better represented than in the present 28
states and 7 Union Territories. There’s no harm if Vidarbha and Bundelkhand are
created. We aren’t dealing with secession or separatism, only a second stage of
reorganisation of states beyond linguistic identities. There are enough
sub-linguistic differences that warrant such reorganisation. Smaller states are
generally better at promoting participatory democracy and development.
Federalism is a worthy principle which is neglected in an over-centralised
India.
No matter how the Srikrishna report is debated, and what procedure is followed
to decide on statehood, it’s likely that the consequence will be contention and
conflict. The TRS is uncompromising on demanding a separate Telangana state
with Hyderabad as its capital. The repeated fasts by KCR and other leaders, and
their pronouncements, unambiguously demand that the Centre should move a
resolution in the budget session of Parliament to create the new state.
That indeed was Mr Chidambaram’s promise when he panicked at reports in
December 2009 that KCR, then on a hunger strike, could slip into a coma, and
announced that the process of creating a separate state would be launched
immediately. The Home Minister’s ineptitude was staggering. His promise greatly
exceeded the wildest expectations of the pro-Telangana proponents.
The pro-Telangana group in the Congress feels resentful that it’s not being
consulted enough by the Central party leadership, whereas MPs from coastal
Andhra and Rayalaseema have used their superior money power to gain access to
New Delhi’s top-level decision-makers. The pro-Telangana sentiment is far
weaker in the TDP, whose leadership comes predominantly from the coastal region
and the landowning Kamma caste.
The unified-Andhra lobby bristles at the thought that Telangana should be
rewarded with the prized jewel that’s Hyderabad, a city to which all three
regions lay claim. If the TRS demand is conceded, people in the other two
regions will almost certainly take to the streets. Violence and bloodshed will
follow. The Centre has tactlessly sent thousands of paramilitary forces
primarily to Telangana, thus giving the impression of an anti-Telangana bias.
One can only hope that it behaves more maturely, aware that even a minor
mistake on its part will lead to avoidable bloodshed and loss of life.
Eventually, the Congress may settle the Telangana issue on a crudely political
self-interest calculus. If it accepts KCR’s public offer of merging the TRS
with the Congress if a separate state is created, it can secure enthusiastic
support of the Telangana people and win 17 Lok Sabha seats (of Andhra’s total
of 42). If it dithers, or opposes separate statehood, it stands to lose in all
the regions.
Andhra Pradesh is extremely important for the Congress. It owes 35 of its Lok
Sabha seats to the state—the highest in any province. This was the Congress’s
highest success rate in the 2009 election. On balance, the Congress might tilt
towards Telangana for opportunistic reasons.
Yet, there’s a persuasive principled case for a separate Telangana state based
on social, cultural, economic and political considerations. As a political
entity, Telangana as the erstwhile Hyderabad state has an older history than
Andhra. This is partly rooted in the anti-Nizam-anti-British Freedom Movement
and the Telangana armed peasant struggle, led by the undivided Communist Party.
Andhra came into being only in 1953, comprising the coastal region and
Rayalaseema, with Kurnool as its capital. The present entity, Andhra Pradesh,
was created in 1956 through Hyderabad’s merger. Its basis was linguistic
identity and a 10-point “Gentlemen’s Agreement” between the then Chief
Ministers of Andhra (Bezawada Gopal Reddy) and Hyderabad (Burugula Ramakrishna
Rao). This included the creation of a Regional Committee for Telangana whose
recommendations would “normally be accepted by the government and the state
legislature”.
Another understanding was that 40 percent of Cabinet members would be from
Hyderabad/Telangana. There would be a Deputy Chief Minister too, so that either
the CM or the Deputy CM would be from Telangana. Many in Telangana believe
these conditions haven’t been properly fulfilled.
There has since been a strong assertion of a distinct Telangana identity,
through two major agitations in 1969 and in 2000. These sharpened Telangana’s
sense of discrimination and highlighted its educational backwardness and
“developmental backlog”. Incidentally, the Telangana demand in 2000 was led by
none other than YS Rajasekhara Reddy, strongly identified with Rayalaseema.
The pro-statehood proponents argue that Telangana has not received state
development assistance proportional to its size. This argument is largely valid
although semi-arid Rayalaseema too can claim that it’s poor and underdeveloped.
Only coastal Andhra, with its prosperous agrarian economy and rapid industrial
growth around Vishakhapatnam, is decisively more developed than Telangana.
Where Telangana has an even stronger case is on its share of the waters of
rivers Krishna and Godavari. Sixtynine percent of the catchment area of the
Krishna and 79 percent of that of the Godavari is located in Telangana.
Internationally, water-sharing is decided on the basis of this area.
But opponents of Telangana’s statehood club Hyderabad with the region to argue
that Telangana’s per capita development indices are higher than coastal
Andhra’s or Rayalaseema’s. Besides, Hyderabad’s prosperity is the result of
investments from the other regions, especially coastal Andhra, known for its
aggressive enterprise in construction, trading and industry. This is true. Many
non-Telangana people have settled in Hyderabad for decades; it would be unfair
to displace or disenfranchise them.
Telangana clearly has the first claim on Hyderabad: it’s literally at the heart
of the region. But it’s also logical to treat Hyderabad as a special category,
where some degree of regional representation and sharing is possible. In a
truly federal India, we ought to go beyond the “Chandigarh Union Territory”
formula, and try something that would substantially meet divergent expectations.
There are useful precedents from elsewhere in the world, such as Trieste, an
ethnically distinct region in which Italy and Slovenia agreed to share
sovereignty, and the Autonomous Aland Islands in Finland, which have a Swedish
ethnic majority. Above all, there is Hong Kong, where China set up a Special
Administrative Region in 1997 while taking it over from Britain.
There’s no reason why Hyderabad can’t be the capital exclusively of Telangana,
but also have a city government in which all the local people participate. What
we need is unorthodox, out-of-the-box, imaginative solutions that reconcile
contradictory demands, expectations and aspirations. But can the Congress
summon up the courage to think imaginatively? That’s a tall order. But the
alternative is far grimmer—endless chaos and bloodletting.
email: bid...@bol.net.in
____
[4]
The Economic Times
11 Dec, 2010
HURDLES FACING PLAN AGAINST MAOISTS
by Jamal Kidwai
The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved the Integrated Action
Plan (IAP) for 60 of the mostly Naxal-affected districts. The aim is to draw
people away from the Maoists by propelling development schemes like those
related to employment, drinking water and healthcare. Under the plan, each of
the 60 districts will get Rs 25 crore in the current fiscal year. This
assistance will be increased to Rs 30 crore in 2011-12, with a total allocation
of Rs 3,300 crore. It is interesting that civil society groups and panchayati
raj institutions will have no role to play in the implementation of these
schemes. The entire burden of implementation has been left to district
administrations, that is the district magistrate, the superintendent of police
and forest officer.
Going by the past experience, such monetary and administrative packages have
rarely made difference in areas where there is insurgency and rebellion.
Instead, what is required is a radical political intervention by central and
state governments at various levels to ensure Acts like PESA, PRI, MNREGA,
Minimum Wages Act and others are not subverted and are instead implemented in
letter and spirit. Until this is done, these plans and programmes are bound to
fail and pumping in more money in Maoist-affected regions will lead to more
corruption. However, political initiatives require political will which
sometimes does not pay electoral dividends in the short run. Some of the issues
the central and state governments could address are as follows.
First, they demonstrate political will and statesmanship to give up the lure of
largesses from big corporations, as well as challenges the powerful village and
district-level political lobbies. All the Acts mentioned above through which
these development programmes will be implemented are being subverted primarily
by the political class. Take the case of corruption in MNREGA and Indira Awaas
Yojana. It is the people’s elected representatives at the grassroots level like
the mukhiya or the zilla parishad members who are the main source of
corruption. They are the main implementing authorities for such programmes and
without their knowledge and consent, it would be impossible to misappropriate
funds.
Similar is the case when big companies acquire tribal land for mining purposes.
Under the PESA, no one can acquire tribal land without the permission of the
gram sabha. Yet, it is common that villagers come to know that the acquisition
has taken place only at the time they are about to get displaced. Here also, it
is the elected representatives who are “bought” by the big companies to subvert
the PESA by illegally fabricating the consent of the gram sabha. All political
parties are implicated in subverting Acts like the PRI, PESA and the Minimum
Wages Act that seek to empower the poor, dalits and tribals.
Second, a proper administration and implementation of these Acts can only
happen if the target group is aware of its rights enshrined in these Acts.
Until that happens, how can we expect them to demand their rights from the
government and elected representatives? What is striking when one travels in
rural Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and other Maoist-affected states is the complete
lack of awareness amongst the vast majority of the poor about MNREGA, Indira
Awaas Yojna, Widow Pension Scheme and hundreds of other government programmes.
This is a major challenge because the target group is illiterate. Education and
awareness will not only put pressure on the elected representative to deliver,
but also create a sense of ownership among the beneficiaries. There are
entrenched and powerful vested interests who would like the poor to remain
ignorant. Again, what is required is political will and not pumping in more
money that will encourage these vested interests to ensure that the poor remain
ignorant while they pocket the funds.
Finally, transparency and accountability in public welfare schemes is a major
political challenge if the government wants to regain the confidence of the
people in Maoist-affected regions. The practice of social audits in states like
Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan in MNREGA has given a sense of ownership to the
people in development works. They have become less cynical towards politicians.
Yet, this is easier said than done. On September 1, hundreds of sarpanches
staged a demonstration and clashed with the police in Jaipur demanding an end
to social audits of MNREGA works. Obviously, they were enraged because social
audits in Rajasthan have exposed the corruption of the sarpanches in the MNREGA
works. None of the political parties in Rajasthan had the courage to tackle the
sarpanches and endorse the practice of social audits. Social audits in all
government schemes should be made mandatory and should not be left to NGOs and
civil society groups.
(The author is director of a Delhi-based organisation Aman Trust)
____
[5]
Dawn, 7 January 2011
HOW INDIANS LOOK AT TASEER’S ASSASSINATION
by Jawed Naqvi
NEW DELHI: A popular cartoon strip in the Times of India on Thursday equated
Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws with India’s statute against sedition.
The widely loved children’s doctor Binayak Sen was recently given a life
sentence under the law.
Writer Arundhati Roy is among others being investigated for sedition after they
spoke up for Azadi for Kashmir.
The cartoon strip, crafted by the nationally applauded humorist Jug Suraiya,
shows two women. The first says: “Salman Taseer has been shot dead because of
Pakistan’s blasphemy law.” Her friend replies: “Binayak Sen has been jailed for
life because of India’s blasphemy law.” “I didn’t know India had a blasphemy
law,” says the first woman. “Sure, we do — it’s called sedition,” replies the
second.
A few in the Indian media have found in the murder of Salman Taseer an
opportunity to prescribe ways to Pakistan to fight religious terrorism, but a
small news item in the Times of India on Thursday offered a clue to New Delhi’s
own nervousness with home-grown terror.
The single-paragraph report did not have a dateline, but appeared to refer to a
police advisory in Mumbai. It said: “Police have instructed private security
agencies to check background details of guards they recruit, especially youths
from Kashmir, as intelligence agencies suspect the Indian Mujahideen (IM) plans
to use such people for terror strikes in the city.”
The IM, which some say has links with Lashkar-e-Taiba, has been blamed for a
clutch of attacks across the country.
In an editorial titled ‘The slippery slope’, The Indian Express said Tuesday’s
murder of Salman Taseer by one of his guards underlined the deepening
structural crisis in the nation.
“The first major political assassination since the killing of former prime
minister Benazir Bhutto a little over three years ago has brought into sharp
relief the growing militant infiltration of the security forces, a weak
civilian government that is unable to govern, an economy in shambles, and an
all-powerful army leadership that appears to have lost the plot,” The Express
said.
“The assassin has reportedly said his motivation was to avenge the governor’s
support to changes in Pakistan’s notorious law against blasphemy that has
victimised not only religious minorities but also mainstream Muslims,” the
paper pointed out.
It said Pakistan’s leaders must comprehensively reject Ziaul Haq’s vision and
turn back to a more moderate and democratic ideal of Pakistan, taking on
extremist elements.
“Otherwise cracks in the polity will only deepen, and the worst losers will be
the people of Pakistan.”
The Kolkata-based Telegraph said Taseer’s murder makes clear that Pakistan
remains on the edge of the abyss.
“Thousands of lives, and billions of pounds, have been lost in an effort to
defeat the insurgents who threaten to seize control of the nuclear-armed state.
And it is becoming clear that the Pakistani state either isn’t willing, or
isn’t able, to confront the Islamist movement that it has nurtured for decades
— and which now threatens to turn the country into a burnt-out dystopia.”
Last month Ashok Singhal, leader of the neo-fascist Vishwa Hindu Parishad, had
warned that Congress president Sonia Gandhi would meet the fate of her
assassinated mother-in-law, former prime minister Indira Gandhi, if she
persisted with an investigation into the alleged involvement of rightwing Hindu
activists in sabotage and bomb attacks, including the fire-bombing of the
Samjhota Express. Most Indian newspapers didn’t find the comments newsworthy.
____
[6] India:
Outlook, Jan 04, 2011
THE IDEA OF SEDITION
Those who protest most loudly their devotion to their country are the truly
seditious; that is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell on archaic
offences...
by Jeremy Seabrook
The disproportionate sentence passed on Dr Binayak Sen suggests India is waging
war against its own people. This should come as no surprise, for India is in
the paradoxical position of pursuing colonial policies without any colonies.
This means that unusual pressure is placed upon its periphery, its outlying
‘hinterland’, which must be seized for the treasures it contains, to feed, not
the poor, but the voracious growth of the economy.
The idea of sedition has, of course, strong colonial associations. Sedition, in
its modern usage, first entered the English language during the Elizabethan
period, towards the end of the sixteenth century. (from Latin –se apart, ire to
go) At that time, it was interpreted as ‘inciting by words or writings
disaffection towards the state or constituted authority.’
Sedition contained the notion, not only of illegal actions, but also of actions
committed by unauthorised people: that is to say, it was essentially a
pre-democratic concept, initiated by the lower orders, outlaws and riff-raff,
unruly elements who had no stake in society. Laws against sedition were widely
used in Britain when the franchise remained limited, particularly in the
aftermath of the French Revolution, the more so since this coincided with the
disruptions of early industrialism in Britain. Governments lived in fear of the
mob, and its insurrectionist capacity. ‘Seditious libel’ was used to stifle
free expression.
The last prosecution for sedition in Britain took place in 1972, in a case in
which the accused were charged with inciting people to travel to Northern
Ireland to fight for the Republican cause. The case was dropped. The crimes of
‘sedition’ and ‘seditious libel’ gradually withered away, and these outworn
acts were repealed in Britain last year.
It is regrettable, but perhaps only to be expected, that such grand-sounding
offences as sedition should have found a comfortable resting-place in India,
where so many colonial echoes lead a sinister after-life, waiting to be invoked
against dissenting voices and those who question the wisdom and integrity of an
India, certified to have ‘emerged’ by none less than the President of the
United States. The original British law on sedition stands, despite subsequent
modification, as Section 124A of the Penal Code. ‘Whoever, by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,
brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or attempts to
excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fines may be added, or with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or
with fine.’
That Dr Binayak Sen should have been subject to such immoderate punishment,
when his calling is the relief of suffering among the most dispossessed, hints
at the insecurity of those who know how fragile the trumpeted economic success
of India is, how promiscuously distributed its rewards, and how estranged large
segments of the population remain from the international hyperbole.
In many ways, the India of today bears a strong resemblance to the condition of
Britain in the early nineteenth century, when the rising imperial power, whose
reputation abroad struck awe into lesser peoples, had, at home, set in movement
great rural-urban migrations, evicting people in large numbers from settled
ways of life and sending them to fetid city slums, there to make their own
accommodation with the forces of capital. At that time, too, Britain had seen
the growth of an assertive middle class, which also demanded its place in the
sun. So India today is represented, not by its excluded and impoverished
majority, but by the showy lifestyle of a middle class which fills the malls
and hypermarkets of the cities, seeking the meaning of life in a technology of
its own creation. And beneath the hymns of praise to commodities, the voice of
the dispossessed has been stilled, as the unemployed noiselessly sweep the
fallen bougainvillea blossoms from the terrace, self-effacingly serve whisky
and cocktails, silently swab marble floors, quietly open doors and unsmilingly
sit behind the wheel of cars, conveying their betters to the superior
destinations of power.
It would be astonishing if there were not convergences between the old imperial
power and its legatee in the modern world. For like all rising powers, the
territory it occupies is never sufficient for its own perceived needs. India
now occupies its border spaces in much the same way that Britain once governed
its own outer fringes – clearing the Highlands of Scotland of people for the
sake of more profitable sheep, enclosing common land for private use,
plundering Wales of its coal and tearing up the valleys that were exhausted of
their riches in a mere two or three generations, doing nothing to mitigate
hunger in Ireland, because this might interfere with the sacred laws of the
free market. It should be noted that colonialism began at home; and nothing
Britain practised in its global empire had not already been tried and tested in
the British Isles; a story India seems only too ready to emulate.
So it is that India, that booming later miracle of the 21st century, constantly
revisits is own past, seeking inspiration in the way it was treated by its
former masters, in order to deal with its own contemporary recalcitrants and
dissidents. Beset by the consequences of injustice to its minorities, its
indigenous peoples, to victims of development sheltering in city slums, to the
unfortunates of Kashmir, who occupy one of the most highly military pieces of
real estate on earth, it is bound to have recourse to the blunt legal
instruments bequeathed to it, directly and indirectly by its sometime rulers.
Hence the offence of sedition, a gift, if not of the gods, at least of
imperialists who behaved like gods. How satisfying to still the tongues and the
pens of those who persist in bringing to public attention disquieting truths.
The real offence of Dr Sen, like that of others threatened with charges of
sedition, Arundhati Roy or SAS Geelani, has little to do with ‘sedition.’ They
have disturbed the self-flattering image with which India has been beguiled by
foreign leaders to their shores, people seeking markets, kickbacks, loot, easy
pickings, cheap labour or any other advantages to be had from those ready to
sell anything to the highest bidder. It is a great pity that government should
have believed the blandishments of all the new East India Companies, which have
come in such smart modern garb, sharp suits and battalions of security
personnel with dark eyeshades and fast guns, bringing the more advanced
trinkets of the hour, to cozen the people of India out of whatever they can be
persuaded to part with.
Sen, Roy or Geelani are not the true anti-nationals. The true betrayers of
India are those who act in the name of patriotism and pride of the waking
giant, the power-house of tomorrow, the new arrival at the top table. Those who
protest most loudly their devotion to their country are the truly seditious;
that is, if anyone should be so foolish as to dwell on archaic offences, rather
than addressing the epic inequalities which divide the people of India.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
South Asia Citizens Wire
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. An offshoot of South Asia Citizens Web:
www.sacw.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
