Saturday, November 07, 2009

India: Protect Civilians in Anti-Maoist Drive



http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86459

 

For Immediate Release

 

India: Protect Civilians in Anti-Maoist Drive

Maoists and Government Forces Should Not Repeat Past Abuses

 

(New York, November 5, 2009) – Government forces and anti-government Maoist fighters should ensure that civilians are protected during armed operations in central India and elsewhere, Human Rights Watch said today.

 

"Government and Maoist claims to be acting on behalf of India's poorest people can be undermined by the atrocities by both sides against these very same people," said Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Local people are at risk of being caught in the middle of the fighting – killed, wounded, abducted, forced to take sides, and then risk retribution."

 

On November 4, 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, noting the "systematic exploitation and social and economic abuse" of tribal communities, said that "more could be done; more should be done." However, he also warned that the threat of violence by the Maoists will be countered with "determination." The Indian government's new counter-insurgency measures, "Operation Green Hunt," has deployed national paramilitary forces, along with state police forces, to end armed resistance by the Maoists, also called Naxalites, and to secure areas that had been under rebel control.

 

The Maoists claim that they are fighting for the rights of the poorest of the poor in India, particularly tribal groups, Dalits, and landless peasants. The government, while agreeing that there is a desperate need for development in Maoist-dominated areas, says that the Naxalites are blocking government development initiatives and should engage in peaceful advocacy. A key factor in the dispute is access to natural resources, particularly huge mineral deposits in many of the states suffering conflict.

 

The Naxalites operate in nearly 200 of India's 600 districts and recruit local villagers to support the combatants, leaving the villagers vulnerable to arrest and torture by government forces. Villagers accuse the Naxalites of forced recruitment, including the recruitment of children, and widespread extortion. The Naxalites attack government installations, including schools, raid police stations and armories, and use landmines and improvised explosive devices. In recent attacks, the Naxalites have hijacked a passenger train, abducted police officials, attacked employees of industry or mining companies, and beheaded police and suspected informers.

 

"The Maoists have used violence to highlight the government's failure to address poverty and the harm caused by big infrastructure projects," Ganguly said. "But their own abusive methods call into question the sincerity of their claims."

 

Human Rights Watch and others have documented widespread abuses by Indian government forces, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and unlawful killings, all of them unpunished, during previous operations against Maoists.

 

In Chhattisgarh, the state government has backed a vigilante movement called the Salwa Judum, leading to killings, rapes, and the forced displacement of tens of thousands of civilians. Human Rights Watch supported a statement on October 30 by Home Minister P. Chidambaram condemning the Salwa Judum, in which he said that the government does not "favor non-state actors like Salwa Judum taking to arms."

 

Human Rights Watch urged the government to ensure that Salwa Judum members and state forces responsible for human rights violations are properly prosecuted. Yet with large numbers of paramilitary forces also being deployed, there is reason to be concerned that the abuses will increase.

 

"While senior officials have been saying the right thing, the real test is what happens on the ground," Ganguly said. "The government needs to send a strong message to Operation Green Hunt forces that human rights violations will not be tolerated and prosecute those responsible for past abuses."

 

Human Rights Watch called on the Indian central government and state governments to protect freedom of expression and to avoid conflating sympathy for concerns expressed by the Maoists with criminal complicity in acts of violence or intimidation. The state government of West Bengal has recently accused some filmmakers, writers, and activists of supporting the Maoists merely because they supported groups protesting police violence.

 

Human rights activists have repeatedly come under attack or been arbitrarily arrested on unsubstantiated accusations of Naxalite links. Binayak Sen, a physician and human rights activist, was detained from 2007 to 2009 for allegedly acting as a courier for a Naxalite leader in jail, even though Dr. Sen had visited the leader under the supervision of jail authorities. In 2008, Dr. Sen was awarded the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human Rights; rights groups, doctors, and ordinary citizens all over the world signed petitions for his release.

 

While the Supreme Court order to release Dr. Sen on bail in May was a positive step, days earlier, the police surrounded the Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, a nongovernmental organization run by the human rights activist Himanshu Kumar in Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district. Himanshu, who has criticized the Salwa Judum and atrocities by state forces, was given half an hour to move out, and then bulldozers were brought in to destroy the center. The reason given was that the center, which had been there for two decades, was encroaching on protected forest land.

 

"The government should ensure that those who stand up for human rights are not branded criminal collaborators with the Maoists," Ganguly said. "This is not how a democracy behaves. Above all, both sides need to understand that a continuing cycle of abuse will not solve the problems faced by India's most impoverished people."

 

To read the July 2008 Human Rights Watch report, "Being Neutral is Our Biggest Crime," please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/07/14/being-neutral-our-biggest-crime

 

To read the September 2008 Human Rights Watch report, "Dangerous Duty," please visit: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/05/dangerous-duty

 

 

For more information, please contact:

In London, Brad Adams (English): +44-20-7713-2767; or +44-7908-728-333 (mobile)

In Mumbai, Meenakshi Ganguly (Hindi, Bengali, English): +91-98-200-36032 (mobile)

 


Saturday, October 31, 2009

Journalism for Sale


 JOURNALISM FOR SALE


Read this powerful, blunt, no punches pulled editorial in the Hindu yesterday.  
These are the issues we should be discussing in the community and dialoguing outside with men of goodwill.
These should be the subject of study circles we should be forming by bringing some of the best minds, young and old, from our parishes together every fornight or three weeks.  
These should feature on the website of the CBCI and other dioceses and papers like the Examiner. This is how we strengthen bridges with the majority of the 98% of people in this country who matter.
This is how we will have better informed and better formed lay people, nuns and priests (in that order). People armed with Knowledge, leaders in the true sense.
We have to ACT NOW. Don't wait for the clergy -- they want martyrs (read the Mission Congress speeches)! I prefer a live Christian to a dead one! And I dont want any more Sister Meenas.
The Hindu
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 31, 2009

Opinion - Editorials   

Journalism for sale

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/10/31/stories/2009103153620800.htm

India's elections, which in mid-2009 brought 415 million voters to the 1.18 million ballot units in 834,944 polling stations and were mostly peaceful, may be one of the wonders of the world. But it is widely understood that in 2009 the free, fair, and democratic attributes of these elections have been compromised as never before by the large-scale, illegal, and scandalous use of money power — which, to a considerable extent, involved recycled dirty money garnered through corruption in executive and legislative office. The role of the Election Commission of India in curbing booth capturing, intimidation of voters, and some other kinds of electoral fraud has won public appreciation. But as P. Sainath points out in his article, "The medium, message and the money," published in The Hindu on October 26, 2009, "it is hard to find a single instance of rigorous or deterrent action" by the ECI in the face of such a serious danger to the democratic process. That is a large question that needs to be addressed in depth and in all its complexity by the various players in the political system.

The new shame is the extensive and brazen participation of not insignificant sections of the news media, notably large-circulation Indian language newspapers in two of India's largest States, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, in this genre of corruption — which a politician speaking at a Hyderabad media seminar memorably characterised as a "Cash Transfer Scheme" from politicians to journalists. Sainath's article exposes the phenomenon of "coverage packages" exploding across India's most industrialised State during the recent Assembly election. Candidates paid newspapers different rates for well-differentiated and streamlined packages of news coverage. Those who could not or would not pay for the packages tended to be blacked out. The Andhra Pradesh Union of Working Journalists has, on the basis of a sample survey conducted in West Godavari district, estimated that newspapers across the State netted Rs. 350 crore to Rs. 400 crore through editorial coverage sold to candidates during the 2009 Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. Some candidates even recorded the expenditure incurred in purchasing editorial coverage in their official accounts submitted to the ECI. With some senior journalists drawing its attention to this new-fangled cash transfer scheme in Andhra Pradesh, the Press Council of India has constituted a two-member committee to inquire into the matter. What to do about such a shocking breach of readers' trust (which is unlikely to be confined to Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra) by the so-called Fourth Estate will form the subject of a follow-up editorial. ###


--
Allwyn Fernandes
Communications Professional
'Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind do not matter, and those who matter don't mind'

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Heart Of India Is Under Attack

 

To justify enforcing a corporate land grab, the state needs an enemy – and it has chosen the Maoists

The low, flat-topped hills of south Orissa have been home to the Dongria Kondh long before there was a country called India or a state called Orissa. The hills watched over the Kondh. The Kondh watched over the hills and worshipped them as living deities. Now these hills have been sold for the bauxite they contain. For the Kondh it's as though god had been sold. They ask how much god would go for if the god were Ram or Allah or Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to their Niyam Raja, God of Universal Law, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge). It's one of the biggest mining corporations in the world and is owned by Anil Agarwal, the Indian billionaire who lives in London in a mansion that once belonged to the Shah of Iran. Vedanta is only one of the many multinational corporations closing in on Orissa.

If the flat-topped hills are destroyed, the forests that clothe them will be destroyed, too. So will the rivers and streams that flow out of them and irrigate the plains below. So will the Dongria Kondh. So will the hundreds of thousands of tribal people who live in the forested heart of India, and whose homeland is similarly under attack.

In our smoky, crowded cities, some people say, "So what? Someone has to pay the price of progress." Some even say, "Let's face it, these are people whose time has come. Look at any developed country – Europe, the US, Australia – they all have a 'past'." Indeed they do. So why shouldn't "we"?

In keeping with this line of thought, the government has announced Operation Green Hunt, a war purportedly against the "Maoist" rebels headquartered in the jungles of central India. Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in–the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers. They're pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people's land and resources. However, it is the Maoists that the government has singled out as being the biggest threat.

Two years ago, when things were nowhere near as bad as they are now, the prime minister described the Maoists as the "single largest internal security threat" to the country. This will probably go down as the most popular and often repeated thing he ever said. For some reason, the comment he made on 6 January, 2009, at a meeting of state chief ministers, when he described the Maoists as having only "modest capabilities", doesn't seem to have had the same raw appeal. He revealed his government's real concern on 18 June, 2009, when he told parliament: "If left-wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected."

Who are the Maoists? They are members of the banned Communist party of India (Maoist) – CPI (Maoist) – one of the several descendants of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), which led the 1969 Naxalite uprising and was subsequently liquidated by the Indian government. The Maoists believe that the innate, structural inequality of Indian society can only be redressed by the violent overthrow of the Indian state. In its earlier avatars as the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in Jharkhand and Bihar, and the People's War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh, the Maoists had tremendous popular support. (When the ban on them was briefly lifted in 2004, 1.5 million people attended their rally in Warangal.)

But eventually their intercession in Andhra Pradesh ended badly. They left a violent legacy that turned some of their staunchest supporters into harsh critics. After a paroxysm of killing and counter-killing by the Andhra police as well as the Maoists, the PWG was decimated. Those who managed to survive fled Andhra Pradesh into neighbouring Chhattisgarh. There, deep in the heart of the forest, they joined colleagues who had already been working there for decades.

Not many "outsiders" have any first-hand experience of the real nature of the Maoist movement in the forest. A recent interview with one of its top leaders, Comrade Ganapathy, in Open magazine, didn't do much to change the minds of those who view the Maoists as a party with an unforgiving, totalitarian vision, which countenances no dissent whatsoever. Comrade Ganapathy said nothing that would persuade people that, were the Maoists ever to come to power, they would be equipped to properly address the almost insane diversity of India's caste-ridden society. His casual approval of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka was enough to send a shiver down even the most sympathetic of spines, not just because of the brutal ways in which the LTTE chose to wage its war, but also because of the cataclysmic tragedy that has befallen the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, who it claimed to represent, and for whom it surely must take some responsibility.

Right now in central India, the Maoists' guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa. They are people who, even after 60 years of India's so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel. Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades.

If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have – their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to "develop" their region. Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms.

Even if the ideologues of the Maoist movement are fighting to eventually overthrow the Indian state, right now even they know that their ragged, malnutritioned army, the bulk of whose soldiers have never seen a train or a bus or even a small town, are fighting only for survival.

In 2008, an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission submitted a report called "Development Challenges in Extremist-Affected Areas". It said, "the Naxalite (Maoist) movement has to be recognised as a political movement with a strong base among the landless and poor peasantry and adivasis. Its emergence and growth need to be contextualised in the social conditions and experience of people who form a part of it. The huge gap between state policy and performance is a feature of these conditions. Though its professed long-term ideology is capturing state power by force, in its day-to-day manifestation, it is to be looked upon as basically a fight for social justice, equality, protection, security and local development." A very far cry from the "single-largest internal security threat".

Since the Maoist rebellion is the flavour of the week, everybody, from the sleekest fat cat to the most cynical editor of the most sold-out newspaper in this country, seems to be suddenly ready to concede that it is decades of accumulated injustice that lies at the root of the problem. But instead of addressing that problem, which would mean putting the brakes on this 21st-century gold rush, they are trying to head the debate off in a completely different direction, with a noisy outburst of pious outrage about Maoist "terrorism". But they're only speaking to themselves.

The people who have taken to arms are not spending all their time watching (or performing for) TV, or reading the papers, or conducting SMS polls for the Moral Science question of the day: Is Violence Good or Bad? SMS your reply to ... They're out there. They're fighting. They believe they have the right to defend their homes and their land. They believe that they deserve justice.

In order to keep its better-off citizens absolutely safe from these dangerous people, the government has declared war on them. A war, which it tells us, may take between three and five years to win. Odd, isn't it, that even after the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, the government was prepared to talk with Pakistan? It's prepared to talk to China. But when it comes to waging war against the poor, it's playing hard.

It's not enough that special police with totemic names like Greyhounds, Cobras and Scorpions are scouring the forests with a licence to kill. It's not enough that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF) and the notorious Naga Battalion have already wreaked havoc and committed unconscionable atrocities in remote forest villages. It's not enough that the government supports and arms the Salwa Judum, the "people's militia" that has killed and raped and burned its way through the forests of Dantewada leaving 300,000 people homeless or on the run. Now the government is going to deploy the Indo-Tibetan border police and tens of thousands of paramilitary troops. It plans to set up a brigade headquarters in Bilaspur (which will displace nine villages) and an air base in Rajnandgaon (which will displace seven). Obviously, these decisions were taken a while ago. Surveys have been done, sites chosen. Interesting. War has been in the offing for a while. And now the helicopters of the Indian air force have been given the right to fire in "self-defence", the very right that the government denies its poorest citizens.

Fire at whom? How will the security forces be able to distinguish a Maoist from an ordinary person who is running terrified through the jungle? Will adivasis carrying the bows and arrows they have carried for centuries now count as Maoists too? Are non-combatant Maoist sympathisers valid targets? When I was in Dantewada, the superintendent of police showed me pictures of 19 "Maoists" that "his boys" had killed. I asked him how I was supposed to tell they were Maoists. He said, "See Ma'am, they have malaria medicines, Dettol bottles, all these things from outside."

What kind of war is Operation Green Hunt going to be? Will we ever know? Not much news comes out of the forests. Lalgarh in West Bengal has been cordoned off. Those who try to go in are being beaten and arrested. And called Maoists, of course. In Dantewada, the Vanvasi Chetana Ashram, a Gandhian ashram run by Himanshu Kumar, was bulldozed in a few hours. It was the last neutral outpost before the war zone begins, a place where journalists, activists, researchers and fact-finding teams could stay while they worked in the area.

Meanwhile, the Indian establishment has unleashed its most potent weapon. Almost overnight, our embedded media has substituted its steady supply of planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Islamist terrorism" with planted, unsubstantiated, hysterical stories about "Red terrorism". In the midst of this racket, at ground zero, the cordon of silence is being inexorably tightened. The "Sri Lanka solution" could very well be on the cards. It's not for nothing that the Indian government blocked a European move in the UN asking for an international probe into war crimes committed by the government of Sri Lanka in its recent offensive against the Tamil Tigers.

The first move in that direction is the concerted campaign that has been orchestrated to shoehorn the myriad forms of resistance taking place in this country into a simple George Bush binary: If you are not with us, you are with the Maoists. The deliberate exaggeration of the Maoist "threat" helps the state justify militarisation. (And surely does no harm to the Maoists. Which political party would be unhappy to be singled out for such attention?) While all the oxygen is being used up by this new doppelganger of the "war on terror", the state will use the opportunity to mop up the hundreds of other resistance movements in the sweep of its military operation, calling them all Maoist sympathisers.

I use the future tense, but this process is well under way. The West Bengal government tried to do this in Nandigram and Singur but failed. Right now in Lalgarh, the Pulishi Santrash Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee or the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities – which is a people's movement that is separate from, though sympathetic to, the Maoists – is routinely referred to as an overground wing of the CPI (Maoist). Its leader, Chhatradhar Mahato, now arrested and being held without bail, is always called a "Maoist leader". We all know the story of Dr Binayak Sen, a medical doctor and a civil liberties activist, who spent two years in jail on the absolutely facile charge of being a courier for the Maoists. While the light shines brightly on Operation Green Hunt, in other parts of India, away from the theatre of war, the assault on the rights of the poor, of workers, of the landless, of those whose lands the government wishes to acquire for "public purpose", will pick up pace. Their suffering will deepen and it will be that much harder for them to get a hearing.

Once the war begins, like all wars, it will develop a momentum, a logic and an economics of its own. It will become a way of life, almost impossible to reverse. The police will be expected to behave like an army, a ruthless killing machine. The paramilitary will be expected to become like the police, a corrupt, bloated administrative force. We've seen it happen in Nagaland, Manipur and Kashmir. The only difference in the "heartland" will be that it'll become obvious very quickly to the security forces that they're only a little less wretched than the people they're fighting. In time, the divide between the people and the law enforcers will become porous. Guns and ammunition will be bought and sold. In fact, it's already happening. Whether it's the security forces or the Maoists or noncombatant civilians, the poorest people will die in this rich people's war. However, if anybody believes that this war will leave them unaffected, they should think again. The resources it'll consume will cripple the economy of this country.

Last week, civil liberties groups from all over the country organised a series of meetings in Delhi to discuss what could be done to turn the tide and stop the war. The absence of Dr Balagopal, one of the best-known civil rights activists of Andhra Pradesh, who died two weeks ago, closed around us like a physical pain. He was one of the bravest, wisest political thinkers of our time and left us just when we needed him most. Still, I'm sure he would have been reassured to hear speaker after speaker displaying the vision, the depth, the experience, the wisdom, the political acuity and, above all, the real humanity of the community of activists, academics, lawyers, judges and a range of other people who make up the civil liberties community in India. Their presence in the capital signalled that outside the arclights of our TV studios and beyond the drumbeat of media hysteria, even among India's middle classes, a humane heart still beats. Small wonder then that these are the people who the Union home minister recently accused of creating an "intellectual climate" that was conducive to "terrorism". If that charge was meant to frighten people, it had the opposite effect.

The speakers represented a range of opinion from the liberal to the radical left. Though none of those who spoke would describe themselves as Maoist, few were opposed in principle to the idea that people have a right to defend themselves against state violence. Many were uncomfortable about Maoist violence, about the "people's courts" that delivered summary justice, about the authoritarianism that was bound to permeate an armed struggle and marginalise those who did not have arms. But even as they expressed their discomfort, they knew that people's courts only existed because India's courts are out of the reach of ordinary people and that the armed struggle that has broken out in the heartland is not the first, but the very last option of a desperate people pushed to the very brink of existence. The speakers were aware of the dangers of trying to extract a simple morality out of individual incidents of heinous violence, in a situation that had already begun to look very much like war. Everybody had graduated long ago from equating the structural violence of the state with the violence of the armed resistance. In fact, retired Justice PB Sawant went so far as to thank the Maoists for forcing the establishment of this country to pay attention to the egregious injustice of the system. Hargopal from Andhra Pradesh spoke of his experience as a civil rights activist through the years of the Maoist interlude in his state. He mentioned in passing the fact that in a few days in Gujarat in 2002, Hindu mobs led by the Bajrang Dal and the VHP had killed more people than the Maoists ever had even in their bloodiest days in Andhra Pradesh.

People who had come from the war zones, from Lalgarh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa, described the police repression, the arrests, the torture, the killing, the corruption, and the fact that they sometimes seemed to take orders directly from the officials who worked for the mining companies. People described the often dubious, malign role being played by certain NGOs funded by aid agencies wholly devoted to furthering corporate prospects. Again and again they spoke of how in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh activists as well as ordinary people – anyone who was seen to be a dissenter – were being branded Maoists and imprisoned. They said that this, more than anything else, was pushing people to take up arms and join the Maoists. They asked how a government that professed its inability to resettle even a fraction of the 50 million people who had been displaced by "development" projects was suddenly able to identify 1,40,000 hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 Special Economic Zones, India's onshore tax havens for the rich. They asked what brand of justice the supreme court was practising when it refused to review the meaning of "public purpose" in the land acquisition act even when it knew that the government was forcibly acquiring land in the name of "public purpose" to give to private corporations. They asked why when the government says that "the writ of the state must run", it seems to only mean that police stations must be put in place. Not schools or clinics or housing, or clean water, or a fair price for forest produce, or even being left alone and free from the fear of the police – anything that would make people's lives a little easier. They asked why the "writ of the state" could never be taken to mean justice.

There was a time, perhaps 10 years ago, when in meetings like these, people were still debating the model of "development" that was being thrust on them by the New Economic Policy. Now the rejection of that model is complete. It is absolute. Everyone from the Gandhians to the Maoists agree on that. The only question now is, what is the most effective way to dismantle it?

An old college friend of a friend, a big noise in the corporate world, had come along for one of the meetings out of morbid curiosity about a world he knew very little about. Even though he had disguised himself in a Fabindia kurta, he couldn't help looking (and smelling) expensive. At one point, he leaned across to me and said, "Someone should tell them not to bother. They won't win this one. They have no idea what they're up against. With the kind of money that's involved here, these companies can buy ministers and media barons and policy wonks, they can run their own NGOs, their own militias, they can buy whole governments. They'll even buy the Maoists. These good people here should save their breath and find something better to do."

When people are being brutalised, what "better" thing is there for them to do than to fight back? It's not as though anyone's offering them a choice, unless it's to commit suicide, like some of the farmers caught in a spiral of debt have done. (Am I the only one who gets the feeling that the Indian establishment and its representatives in the media are far more comfortable with the idea of poor people killing themselves in despair than with the idea of them fighting back?)

For several years, people in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal – some of them Maoists, many not – have managed to hold off the big corporations. The question now is, how will Operation Green Hunt change the nature of their struggle? What exactly are the fighting people up against?

It's true that, historically, mining companies have often won their battles against local people. Of all corporations, leaving aside the ones that make weapons, they probably have the most merciless past. They are cynical, battle-hardened campaigners and when people say, "Jaan denge par jameen nahin denge" (We'll give away our lives, but never our land), it probably bounces off them like a light drizzle on a bomb shelter. They've heard it before, in a thousand different languages, in a hundred different countries.

Right now in India, many of them are still in the first class arrivals lounge, ordering cocktails, blinking slowly like lazy predators, waiting for the Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) they have signed – some as far back as 2005 – to materialise into real money. But four years in a first class lounge is enough to test the patience of even the truly tolerant: the elaborate, if increasingly empty, rituals of democratic practice: the (sometimes rigged) public hearings, the (sometimes fake) environmental impact assessments, the (often purchased) clearances from various ministries, the long drawn-out court cases. Even phony democracy is time-consuming. And time is money.

So what kind of money are we talking about? In their seminal, soon-to-be-published work, Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminum Cartel, Samarendra Das and Felix Padel say that the financial value of the bauxite deposits of Orissa alone is $2.27 trillion (more than twice India's GDP). That was at 2004 prices. At today's prices it would be about $4 trillion.

Of this, officially the government gets a royalty of less than 7%. Quite often, if the mining company is a known and recognised one, the chances are that, even though the ore is still in the mountain, it will have already been traded on the futures market. So, while for the adivasis the mountain is still a living deity, the fountainhead of life and faith, the keystone of the ecological health of the region, for the corporation, it's just a cheap storage facility. Goods in storage have to be accessible. From the corporation's point of view, the bauxite will have to come out of the mountain. Such are the pressures and the exigencies of the free market.

That's just the story of the bauxite in Orissa. Expand the $4 trillion to include the value of the millions of tonnes of high-quality iron ore in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and the 28 other precious mineral resources, including uranium, limestone, dolomite, coal, tin, granite, marble, copper, diamond, gold, quartzite, corundum, beryl, alexandrite, silica, fluorite and garnet. Add to that the power plants, the dams, the highways, the steel and cement factories, the aluminium smelters, and all the other infrastructure projects that are part of the hundreds of MoUs (more than 90 in Jharkhand alone) that have been signed. That gives us a rough outline of the scale of the operation and the desperation of the stakeholders.

The forest once known as the Dandakaranya, which stretches from West Bengal through Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, is home to millions of India's tribal people. The media has taken to calling it the Red corridor or the Maoist corridor. It could just as accurately be called the MoUist corridor. It doesn't seem to matter at all that the fifth schedule of the constitution provides protection to adivasi people and disallows the alienation of their land. It looks as though the clause is there only to make the constitution look good – a bit of window-dressing, a slash of make-up. Scores of corporations, from relatively unknown ones to the biggest mining companies and steel manufacturers in the world, are in the fray to appropriate adivasi homelands – the Mittals, Jindals, Tata, Essar, Posco, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and, of course, Vedanta.

There's an MoU on every mountain, river and forest glade. We're talking about social and environmental engineering on an unimaginable scale. And most of this is secret. It's not in the public domain. Somehow I don't think that the plans afoot that would destroy one of the world's most pristine forests and ecosystems, as well as the people who live in it, will be discussed at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Our 24-hour news channels that are so busy hunting for macabre stories of Maoist violence – and making them up when they run out of the real thing – seem to have no interest at all in this side of the story. I wonder why?

Perhaps it's because the development lobby to which they are so much in thrall says the mining industry will ratchet up the rate of GDP growth dramatically and provide employment to the people it displaces. This does not take into account the catastrophic costs of environmental damage. But even on its own narrow terms, it is simply untrue. Most of the money goes into the bank accounts of the mining corporations. Less than 10% comes to the public exchequer. A very tiny percentage of the displaced people get jobs, and those who do, earn slave-wages to do humiliating, backbreaking work. By caving in to this paroxysm of greed, we are bolstering other countries' economies with our ecology.

When the scale of money involved is what it is, the stakeholders are not always easy to identify. Between the CEOs in their private jets and the wretched tribal special police officers in the "people's" militias – who for a couple of thousand rupees a month fight their own people, rape, kill and burn down whole villages in an effort to clear the ground for mining to begin – there is an entire universe of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders.

These people don't have to declare their interests, but they're allowed to use their positions and good offices to further them. How will we ever know which political party, which ministers, which MPs, which politicians, which judges, which NGOs, which expert consultants, which police officers, have a direct or indirect stake in the booty? How will we know which newspapers reporting the latest Maoist "atrocity", which TV channels "reporting directly from ground zero" – or, more accurately, making it a point not to report from ground zero, or even more accurately, lying blatantly from ground zero – are stakeholders?

What is the provenance of the billions of dollars (several times more than India's GDP) secretly stashed away by Indian citizens in Swiss bank accounts? Where did the $2bn spent on the last general elections come from? Where do the hundreds of millions of rupees that politicians and parties pay the media for the "high-end", "low-end" and "live" pre-election "coverage packages" that P Sainath recently wrote about come from? (The next time you see a TV anchor haranguing a numb studio guest, shouting, "Why don't the Maoists stand for elections? Why don't they come in to the mainstream?", do SMS the channel saying, "Because they can't afford your rates.")

Too many questions about conflicts of interest and cronyism remain unanswered. What are we to make of the fact that the Union home minister, P Chidambaram, the chief of Operation Green Hunt, has, in his career as a corporate lawyer, represented several mining corporations? What are we to make of the fact that he was a non-executive director of Vedanta – a position from which he resigned the day he became finance minister in 2004? What are we to make of the fact that, when he became finance minister, one of the first clearances he gave for FDI was to Twinstar Holdings, a Mauritius-based company, to buy shares in Sterlite, a part of the Vedanta group?

What are we to make of the fact that, when activists from Orissa filed a case against Vedanta in the supreme court, citing its violations of government guidelines and pointing out that the Norwegian Pension Fund had withdrawn its investment from the company alleging gross environmental damage and human rights violations committed by the company, Justice Kapadia suggested that Vedanta be substituted with Sterlite, a sister company of the same group? He then blithely announced in an open court that he, too, had shares in Sterlite. He gave forest clearance to Sterlite to go ahead with the mining, despite the fact that the supreme court's own expert committee had explicitly said that permission should be denied and that mining would ruin the forests, water sources, environment and the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of tribals living there. Justice Kapadia gave this clearance without rebutting the report of the supreme court's own committee.

What are we to make of the fact that the Salwa Judum, the brutal ground-clearing operation disguised as a "spontaneous" people's militia in Dantewada, was formally inaugurated in 2005, just days after the MoU with the Tatas was signed? And that the Jungle Warfare Training School in Bastar was set up just around then?

What are we to make of the fact that two weeks ago, on 12 October, the mandatory public hearing for Tata Steel's steel project in Lohandiguda, Dantewada, was held in a small hall inside the collectorate, cordoned off with massive security, with an audience of 50 tribal people brought in from two Bastar villages in a convoy of government jeeps? (The public hearing was declared a success and the district collector congratulated the people of Bastar for their co-operation.)

What are we to make of the fact that just around the time the prime minister began to call the Maoists the "single largest internal security threat" (which was a signal that the government was getting ready to go after them), the share prices of many of the mining companies in the region skyrocketed?

The mining companies desperately need this "war". They will be the beneficiaries if the impact of the violence drives out the people who have so far managed to resist the attempts that have been made to evict them. Whether this will indeed be the outcome, or whether it'll simply swell the ranks of the Maoists remains to be seen.

Reversing this argument, Dr Ashok Mitra, former finance minister of West Bengal, in an article called "The Phantom Enemy", argues that the "grisly serial murders" that the Maoists are committing are a classic tactic, learned from guerrilla warfare textbooks. He suggests that they have built and trained a guerrilla army that is now ready to take on the Indian state, and that the Maoist "rampage" is a deliberate attempt on their part to invite the wrath of a blundering, angry Indian state which the Maoists hope will commit acts of cruelty that will enrage the adivasis. That rage, Dr Mitra says, is what the Maoists hope can be harvested and transformed into an insurrection.

This, of course, is the charge of "adventurism" that several currents of the left have always levelled at the Maoists. It suggests that Maoist ideologues are not above inviting destruction on the very people they claim to represent in order to bring about a revolution that will bring them to power. Ashok Mitra is an old Communist who had a ringside seat during the Naxalite uprising of the 60s and 70s in West Bengal. His views cannot be summarily dismissed. But it's worth keeping in mind that the adivasi people have a long and courageous history of resistance that predates the birth of Maoism. To look upon them as brainless puppets being manipulated by a few middle-class Maoist ideologues is to do them a disservice.

Presumably Dr Mitra is talking about the situation in Lalgarh where, up to now, there has been no talk of mineral wealth. (Lest we forget – the current uprising in Lalgarh was sparked off over the chief minister's visit to inaugurate a Jindal Steel factory. And where there's a steel factory, can the iron ore be very far away?) The people's anger has to do with their desperate poverty, and the decades of suffering at the hands of the police and the Harmads, the armed militia of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that has ruled West Bengal for more than 30 years.

Even if, for argument's sake, we don't ask what tens of thousands of police and paramilitary troops are doing in Lalgarh, and we accept the theory of Maoist "adventurism", it would still be only a very small part of the picture.

The real problem is that the flagship of India's miraculous "growth" story has run aground. It came at a huge social and environmental cost. And now, as the rivers dry up and forests disappear, as the water table recedes and as people realise what is being done to them, the chickens are coming home to roost. All over the country, there's unrest, there are protests by people refusing to give up their land and their access to resources, refusing to believe false promises any more. Suddenly, it's beginning to look as though the 10% growth rate and democracy are mutually incompatible.

To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85% of India's people off their land and into the cities (which is what Chidambaram says he'd like to see), India has to become a police state. The government has to militarise. To justify that militarisation, it needs an enemy. The Maoists are that enemy. They are to corporate fundamentalists what the Muslims are to Hindu fundamentalists. (Is there a fraternity of fundamentalists? Is that why the RSS has expressed open admiration for Chidambaram?)

It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the paramilitary troops, the Rajnandgaon air base, the Bilaspur brigade headquarters, the unlawful activities act, the Chhattisgarh special public security act and Operation Green Hunt are all being put in place just to flush out a few thousand Maoists from the forests. In all the talk of Operation Green Hunt, whether or not Chidambaram goes ahead and "presses the button", I detect the kernel of a coming state of emergency. (Here's a maths question: If it takes 600,000 soldiers to hold down the tiny valley of Kashmir, how many will it take to contain the mounting rage of hundreds of millions of people?)

Instead of narco-analysing Kobad Ghandy, the recently arrested Maoist leader, it might be a better idea to talk to him.

In the meanwhile, will someone who's going to the climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year please ask the only question worth asking: Can we leave the bauxite in the mountain?

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Tearing Down the Wall of Caste-by Navi Pillay, UNHCHR


 

Tearing down the wall of caste

By Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

A group of representatives from caste-affected communities in Asia recently gave me a piece of brick from the wall of a torn-down latrine. The brick symbolized the global struggle against the degrading practice of making members of a "lower caste" clean public toilets with their bare hands.

This practice, which persists in many places despite increasing prohibition in law, is not the workers' choice. It is rather a task that they inherit because of their social origins and descent. In turn, these discriminated individuals are further "contaminated" by their work and further trapped in a generational cycle of social exclusion and marginalization.

Today caste-affected communities and civil society activists are hoping to tear down the much bigger invisible wall of discrimination by trying to promote new international standards of equality and non-discrimination. I have tremendous respect for their determination and courage. As a woman of color from a racial minority growing up in apartheid South Africa, I know a thing or two about discrimination.

"Untouchability" is a social phenomenon affecting approximately 260 million persons worldwide. This type of discrimination is typically associated with the notions of ritual purity and pollution which are deeply rooted in different societies and cultures. The problem is neither confined to one geographical area nor exclusively practiced within one particular religion of belief system. It is a global phenomenon.

Caste is the very negation of the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination. It condemns individuals from birth and their communities to a life of exploitation, violence, social exclusion and segregation. Caste-discrimination is not only a human rights violation, but also exposes those affected to other abuses of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

"Lower caste" individuals are frequently confined to hereditary, low-income employment and deprived of access to agricultural land and credit. They often find themselves battling high levels of indebtedness or even debt and labor bondage, which is practically a contemporary form of slavery. The barriers they face in seeking justice or redress are formidable. Child labor is rampant in descent-based communities and children of "lower castes" suffer high levels of illiteracy. For women, caste is a multiplier that compounds their experience of poverty and discrimination.

Laws and policies have been put in place in many to combat this scourge. Constitutions prohibit caste-based discrimination and "lower caste" members have been elected to the highest offices of the land. Special legislation has been enacted to provide for affirmative action in education and employment, as well as protection from violence and exploitation. Judiciaries have sought to enforce laws and provide relief to victims. Dedicated institutions monitor the conditions and advocate on behalf of "lower caste" groups.

At the international level, the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination explicitly lists descent as a ground of racial discrimination. The Durban Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Racism in 2001, recognized descent-based discrimination. It also provided a comprehensive roadmap to combat it which was reaffirmed by states in April this year.

Yet, there is a real need for targeted social policies and programs to address caste-based discrimination. It is imperative to implement education programs that can change deeply rooted systemic, cultural and social prejudices, customs, beliefs and traditions based on descent, power and affluence. Above all, caste-affected communities must be given a voice and full participation in the development, implementation and evaluation of strategies aimed at empowering them. The international community should come together to support these efforts as it did when it helped put an end to apartheid.

This action to stem an abhorrent form of marginalization and exclusion which traps the victims in hopelessness and poverty is long overdue. We owe it to those "lower-caste" families forced to leave their village because they dared to vote in a parliamentary election against the favored candidate of the upper caste. We owe it to the villagers belonging to the lowest social class starving to death because they were not able to benefit from the public services which they were entitled to. We owe it to that "lower caste" woman assaulted, publicly humiliated and forced to eat her own excreta by members of the upper caste community accusing her of witchcraft. All caste-victims demand and deserve remedies. The plight of hundreds of millions cannot be justified as age-old traditions, nor can it be regarded merely as a "family business."

The Human Rights Council, the premier intergovernmental body for the protection and promotion of human rights, should promote the 2009 Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent. This study complements existing international standards of non-discrimination. All states must rally around and endorse these norms. The time has come to eradicate the shameful concept of caste. Other seemingly insurmountable walls, such as slavery and apartheid, have been dismantled in the past. We can and must tear down the barriers of caste too.

This opinion piece was released on 8 October 2009

 


Wednesday, July 29, 2009

THE NOWHERE PEOPLE...Sumanahalli Society( Indian Express,29th July 2009)


 

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/495299/

The Indian Express
 
THE NOWHERE PEOPLE

Johnson TA Posted online: Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009 at 0138 hrs

Bangalore : For the last eight years 51-year-old Thimmaiah, his wife Jayamma and 13-year-old daughter Varalakshmi have been living on the campus of the Sumanahalli Society — a centre for leprosy, HIV treatment, street kids, orphans and destitutes — located on 50 acres of what is now prime land in Bangalore. Sent out of his village after he developed leprosy, the Sumanahalli Society, run by Christian priests and nuns, is the only home for Thimmaiah and his family. His wife Jayamma is blind. Their life revolves around their daughter who looks after the couple between attending a school on the same campus.

Ten days ago, Thimmaiah learnt from Fr George Kannanthanum, the director of the society, that the BJP government in Karnataka in a July 6 Cabinet meeting has decided to take back the land leased to the society.

"There will be nowhere to go. I don't know what will become of us," says Thimmaiah.

At the St Joseph's School, run by the Sumanahalli Society, where Thimmaiah proudly says his daughter is learning English, the nine teachers have been informed about the possible government takeover of the land, but the 108 children have not been told yet. "We don't want to inform the children or their parents as yet because they will stop sending them. Most come from poor families who cannot afford books, fees or food and the free education here is the incentive to send them," says headmistress Sister Suma.

Over 1,700 people, including poor schoolchildren, AIDS-affected, destitute and disabled persons are set to be uprooted as the state government moves to take back 210 acres set aside for their rehabilitation and relief over the years.

"When I heard about the land being taken over by the government, I felt sad for all the people here who have nowhere to go. This land has given a new lease of life to so many hundreds of people," says 21-year-old Lokesh Kumar, a third-year law student in a local college who first came to Sumanahalli 10 years ago as a homeless boy after being diagnosed with leprosy at a home for runaway kids.

Apart from the 50 acres of land leased to the organisation, an adjacent 160-acre property with a Beggars Colony that houses 922 people — including 131 mentally disabled, 45 disabled and 402 elderly — will also be a part of the government land swoop. "The prime land valued at Rs 1,000 crore has been coveted by politicians for a while now. In 2007, during the JD(S)-BJP rule, a minister had proposed handing over the entire property at one-third of the market value to private developers. But the proposal did not go through," said a senior bureaucrat in the government.

While the Yeddyurappa government has officially announced plans to acquire the 160-acre Beggars Colony, the move on the Sumanahalli property has not been announced. But senior officials confirmed that a Cabinet decision has been taken in this regard.

"The Cabinet decision covers the entire land and includes Sumanahalli. A notification is yet to be issued. Modalities are being worked out for the takeover. The land will be entirely used for public purpose and will involve government agencies," said Principal Secretary, Social Welfare department, E Venkataiah, under whose purview the 210 acres of land falls. Social Welfare department officials said plans were afoot to finalise the rehabilitation of the people from the Beggars Colony, but added there were no such plans for Sumanahalli.

A Cabinet decision on moving the Beggars Colony was taken on July 6 after Yeddyurappa paid a "surprise visit" and expressed unhappiness over health, food and working conditions of the people living there.

In a press briefing on the proceedings of the July 6 Cabinet meeting, Home Minister V S Acharya announced that the Cabinet has decided to take over 160 acres of the Beggar's Colony on the Magadi Road for the construction of a hospital, a bus terminus and a large park, but remained silent on 50 acres of land with the Sumanahalli Society.

"We were not even issued a notice about the move to evict us from this land. We came to know about it accidentally during a meeting with a government official. Does this mean there is no place for the poor in Bangalore?" says Fr George Kannanthanam.

The Sumanahalli Society was started as a leprosy treatment and rehabilitation project in 1977 on 63 acres of land leased by the then chief minister Devaraj Urs. In a letter to the then archbishop of Bangalore, inviting him to set up the facility, Urs had stated that "it may be difficult for a government organisation to provide this, as tasks of mercy are not generally effectively done by a bureaucratic system". The society had been tasked with 'conducting, running and administering a centre for the welfare and rehabilitation of leprosy patients and other physically destitute persons and their families'.

Widely recognised for its humanitarian service, the Sumanahalli Society, with leprosy cases on the decline, has expanded into HIV treatment, rehabilitation of the disabled and destitutes. The society won the best NGO serving the disabled in Karnataka award in 2007. A garment factory started on the campus with government support provides employment to over 100 people including HIV patients, leprosy affected people and their family members.

"Most people still identify us as a leprosy project, but we work with HIV/AIDS patients (30), differently abled (30), orphans (45), street boys (50), juvenile delinquents (40)," says Fr George Kannanthanam.

The society handed over 13 of its 63 acres to the government for building a road. In 2006, the society agreed to a proposal where 25 acres of land was to be taken by the government for creating a campus for the Visvesvaraya Technological University and the remaining 25 acres would be given as a grant to the society.

"When the 30-year lease over the property ended in 2007, government officials assured us that there will be no problems in continuing our work. We never expected this. The land has been earmarked for a social cause and if used commercially, it violates the basic principle of land use," the director said.




Sunday, July 26, 2009

Amartya Sen on "Justice!"

 
-

Amartya Sen's story of Justice

Rashmee Roshan Lall, TNN 26 July 2009, 10:14am IST
In an exclusive interview with The Times of India, the Nobel laureate speaks about his most ambitious book yet.

Who is this book for? Academics who study justice? Philosophers who explore justice? Legislators who create the system that doles out justice? The layperson who thinks about justice?

It is a book on philosophy, but it is meant for everyone. I agree with Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian political leader, that philosophy is not "a strange and difficult thing", but all the things we reason about. Of course I hope there will be some academic interest from professional philosophers, and that those concerned with policy issues will also take an interest. But the idea of justice interests us all.

The Idea of Justice has been described as your most ambitious book yet, but will you accept that its length, subject and style could limit its reach?

The reach of our ideas is always limited to some extent, and if there is some ambition in the book, it lies in my refusal to give up, without a serious effort, trying to communicate with others. In writing about any difficult but important problem, we have to try to catch the complexities involved without making our arguments obtuse, perplexing or inaccessible. I believe it is easy to underestimate the breadth and reach of the interests of the general public. There is a kind of vanity of the self-defined "intellectuals" who bend down to talk to "common people". (It is, by the way, very bad for the intellectual's back to do so much bending down!) Since some of the most insightful comments I have received throughout my long life have come from very young students and sometimes even from unknown neighbours in a train (mostly in India â€" British passengers don't like talking to strangers), I have reason to be optimistic about the interest, involvement and engagement of others.

Has the concept of justice in this century come only to mean human rights?

This is a very interesting question. The idea of human rights is much used in practice, and is very powerfully invoked by activists these days, often with admirable effect. However, the critics of the approach of human rights argue that the idea of such non-legal rights is lacking in foundation. A frequently asked question is: where do human rights come from and what gives them force? One of the aims of the book is to show in what sense - and in what way - human rights have a strong foundation through public reasoning, and how that foundation relates also to the basic analysis of social justice, which too is very dependent on the opportunity of public discussion. It is not so much that the concept of justice "has come only to mean human rights," but that the two related ideas have to be considered together.

It is also important to remember that the idea of human rights has been in use, often in very informal ways and frequently without being called human rights, for a very long time in world history - not just in the 20th and 21st centuries. For example, Ashoka's discussion of everyone's right to speak and to be heard by others, or Akbar's championing of the right to religious freedom, belongs to the subject matter of what is now called human rights. And they also relate to Ashoka's and Akbar's conceptions of social justice.

At the risk of forcing you to reduce 496 pages to a few sentences, what is justice? What should it be for us here?

Justice is a complex idea (I was not surprised that it took me 496 pages to discuss it), but it is very important to understand that justice has much to do with everyone being treated fairly. Even though that connection has been well discussed by the leading political philosopher of our time, John Rawls, I have argued that he neglects a couple of important connections. One neglect is the central recognition that a theory of justice has to be deeply concerned with systematic assessment of how to reduce injustice in the world, rather than only with the identification of what a hypothetical "perfectly just society" would look like.

There may be no agreement on the shape of perfect justice (and also perfect justice will hardly be achievable even if people did agree about what would be immaculately just), but we can still have reasoned agreement on many removable cases of manifest injustice, for example, slavery, or subjugation of women, or widespread hunger and deprivation, or the lack of schooling of children, or absence of available and affordable health care. Second, analysis of justice has to pay attention to the lives that people are actually able to lead, rather than exclusively concentrating only on the nature of "just institutions". In India, as anywhere else, we have to concentrate on removing injustices that are identifiable and that can be remedied.

Is justice essential for democracy to flourish?

One of the main arguments of the book is the role of open public discussion for our understanding of the demands of justice, and particularly of the removal of injustice. Indeed, democracy can be seen as "government by discussion" (an approach made famous by John Stuart Mill), and the pursuit of justice can be much enhanced by good democratic practice - not just well-fought elections but also open and well-aimed public discussion, with a free and vigorous media. In an earlier book, I discussed a remark of a very poor and nearly illiterate peasant, who lived in a village close to Santiniketan (where I come from). "It is not difficult to silence us," he said, "but this is not because we cannot speak." In that quiet confidence there are reasons of hope for the future of justice and democracy in India.

Lord Meghnad Desai once said that you "prefer to be subversive in a technical way". Might he have meant that you are not a 'doer' but seek change through technical argument? Do you see yourself as an activist?

I see myself as an activist - through writing, speaking and arguing. I've done my share of demonstrations when I was young, when I was a student in Calcutta. Do I believe that causes that activists take up could be helped by reasoning? Yes. But perhaps Meghnad's comment about my being subversive in a technical way relates to the fact that I don't take the view that technical or mathematical arguments are useless and distractive. I still don't know why I was given the Nobel Prize, but whether that was deserved or not, the works of mine they cited were all quite technical - many of them also mathematical.

If I could just get you to comment on an unfolding matter here. Would it be just to give Ajmal Kasab the death penalty? We're often criticized for continuing with capital punishment.

I'm opposed to the death penalty in general and wouldn't want it given to Ajmal Kasab or anyone else. But this, of course, is not a subject matter of my book - it is not an engineer's handbook. I do discuss the need for prevailing practices, including capital punishment, to be scrutinized by public reasoning, and note the fact that capital punishment is most used in countries with relatively little public discussion, the three biggest users being China, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Next comes the US, and I discuss why I disagree with those judges in the US Supreme Court who think that arguments coming from elsewhere (like Europe) are of no relevance in America.

Is justice culturally specific?

No, because there is an obligation to engage in argument no matter where it comes from - far or near.
- - - - - - -     - - - - - - - -    - - - - - - -   - - - - -
PRASHANT   (A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace)
Street Address : Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India
Postal Address : P B 4050, Navrangpura PO, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat, India
 
Phone : 91  79   27455913,  66522333
Fax : 91  79  27489018
Email: sjprashant@gmail.com     www.humanrightsindia.in


Monday, July 20, 2009

The Pope's Road Map

 

The Pope's Road Map 
-   Fr. Cedric Prakash sj *
 

The Pope has done it!  This time, however, in a way far different, with which he is generally characterized.  In a stand, which is bound to have far reaching implications on the global moral, social, economic and political order, Benedict XVI made public on July 7th, 2009, his latest Encyclical letter entitled "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth). 
 
The document aims to delve more deeply into certain aspects of the integral development of our age in the light of charity and truth.  In the very opening para, the Holy Father emphasizes that, "love – caritas - is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace".  Further, in the introductory remarks, the Pope considers two important criteria which are of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalised society and these are justice and the common good.  Justice, for him, is the primary way of charity; and "to desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity". 
 
He underlines the indispensable importance to build a society according to freedom and justice and he emphatically states that "it is necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination".
 
In a blunt reference to globalization and the current economic crisis, the Pope asserts "that traditional principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be ignored or attenuated" and further, "that justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity because this is always concerned with man and his needs".
 
World leaders at the G-8 Summit in Italy will surely pay close attention to the Chapter devoted to the cooperation of the human family, where he calls upon the rich nations "to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid".  He makes no bones of the fact that the United Nations Organization needs to be reformed with "real teeth" and "would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice and respect for rights".  It is also imperative for him that "poor nations have an important voice in shared decision making on issues of global importance".
 
With this major Charter, Pope Benedict has truly provided not only the Christians, but "all people of goodwill" with a road map for the challenges ahead.  In his concluding para, he reiterates that "as we contemplate the vast amount of work to be done, we are sustained by our faith that God is present alongside all those who come together in his name to work for justice".
 
The point is, are those in governance actually listening?
 
8th July, 2009
 
 
(* Fr. Cedric Prakash sj, is the Director of PRASHANT, the Jesuit Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace, Ahmedabad)
 

' PRASHANT ',
Post Box  4050,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad 380 009,
Gujarat
Tel:   079 66522333 / 27455913
Fax:  079 27489018
Email:  sjprashant@gmail.com
www.humanrightsindia.in

 

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

UN INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF HUMAN RIGHTS LEARING, 2009

 

UN INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF HUMAN RIGHTS LEARING, 2009
-   Fr. Cedric Prakash sj *
 
 
 
On the occasion of  the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  the United Nations decided that "the year commencing on 10th December 2008 shall be proclaimed the International Year of Human Rights Learning, to be devoted to activities undertaken to broaden and deepen human rights learning on the basis of the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependency, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, bearing in mind the duty of the State, regardless of the political, economic and cultural system, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds"(A/RES/62/171).
 
Very significantly, the proclamation of this year, also coincides with the sixtieth year of the promulgation of the Indian Constitution with its core principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. 
 
We have just completed a tumultuous phase in the history of Indian democracy, when in the run up to the General Elections, political parties of all shades and across the board, vied with each other, in highlighting almost  every other issue but on the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
 
 Most of the election manifestos, the campaigns, the posturing, the speeches have revolved around the personal, the mundane  and the venomous, but not on   critical issues of  "roti, kapda aur makaan", clean drinking water, primary health care and education,  the freedom of religion and the general welfare of the people.
 
At this juncture, it is anybody's guess who will form the next Government, but the UPA Government did bring in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), the Right to Information Act (RTI); got the Forest Bill approved in favour of the Adivasis, and even made efforts to pass the Women's Reservation Bill and the Compulsory Primary Education Bill.  However, one can also not deny, that keeping the reality in perspective, the UPA Government has not done enough on several counts, very specially in passing the law against communal violence, in providing adequate compensation for relief and rehabilitation for the victims of communal riots, and very specially for the protection of minorities in the country – be it Gujarat, Orissa or Karnataka.  
 
 It is in this scenario, the International Year of Human Rights Learning (IYHRL) comes as an important and significant intervention.  Many of those involved in education seem to be ignorant about it or have just ignored it.   The fact however  remains,  that the UN is "convinced that human rights learning should contribute to the fulfillment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a way of life for people everywhere". 
 
It is therefore appropriate that even if we have to be waking up at this late hour, we need to make a sincere attempt at every possible level,  to seriously and systematically mainstream Human Rights Learning.
 
There are several ways by which we can  do so.  These could  include :
 
 to make Human Rights Education a mandatory subject in all our educational institutions.  (This learning process could begin in Std. V and could / should continue even upto graduate level)
to foster a culture of Human Rights Learning in Church organizations, Parish / Diocesan Councils, in Mahila Mandals, Self-Help Groups (SHG)  etc.
to make the Sunday Liturgy / Homilies focus on the realities of the people around with a clear understanding of what Jesus would  do if he was in our place, as a response to these realities
to network / collaborate with all men and women of goodwill, very specially with peoples' movements and those struggling for the rights of the poor, marginalized and other vulnerable sections of society.
to engage in social analysis, research, programmes / projects, in think-tanks which seek to understand  the realities in society and to advocate on behalf of those whose rights are denied or exploited.
to make the defense and promotion of Human Rights an  integral dimension of way of proceeding, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Indian Constitution.
 
The above are some of the ways by which we can truly observe this international year.  Some initiatives are already in place:  in the Diocese of  Shimoga, Karnataka, Bishop Gerald Lobo has made Human Rights Education  a mandatory subject in all Catholic Schools.  The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been organizing programmes on Rights Based Approach (RBA),  and Catholic Social Teaching (CST), for Diocesan Social Work Directors; the Jesuit Education Association (JEA) of Gujarat has decided that the Calendar (handbook) for the year 2009 – 2010 will have pages containing the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. 
 
Such steps will surely go a long way in actualising the conviction that the UN holds "that every woman, man and child in order to realize his or her full human potential must be made aware of all his / her human rights and fundamental freedoms" .
 
The Catholic Church has a great opportunity to help set the tone and direction for this International Year.   We truly need to celebrate  Human Rights Learning !  The only way by which we can do so is to get into action…..NOW !!!
 
 
(* Fr. Cedric Prakash sj is the Director of PRASHANT, the Ahmedabad based Jesuit  Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace)
 
 
5th May  2009
 
 
' PRASHANT ', 
Post Box  4050, 
Navrangpura,  
Ahmedabad  380 009,  Gujarat
Tel: 079 66522333,  27455913  
Fax:  27489018