Set Binayak Sen free now

Alongside the arming of private militias, the jailing of a human rights defender for two years on trumped up charges is proof that there is no rule of law in Chhattisgarh...





27 April 2009
The Hindu

Set Binayak Sen free now

Siddharth Varadarajan

Alongside the arming of private militias, the jailing of a human rights defender for two years on trumped up charges is proof that there is no rule of law in Chhattisgarh.

Every criminal case is unique but there is something truly peculiar about the fate of Dr. Binayak Sen. While politicians, film stars, gangsters and businessmen accused or convicted of heinous offences like manslaughter, rioting and possession of firearms seem to have no trouble getting bail, the gentle doctor is considered such a dangerous criminal that he has been held in jail for two years on a far less serious charge.

Arraigned under Chhattisgarh’s draconian Public Security Act, Dr. Sen, who is also the national vice-president of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, has repeatedly been denied bail by the trial court and High Court. Regrettably, the Supreme Court too rejected his special leave petition for bail in December 2007. Binayak’s trial is now underway.

As per the original chargesheet, 83 witnesses were meant to depose against him. Of these, six were declared hostile by the state and 16 were dropped while the remaining 61 testified in court. However, none has corroborated the prosecution case that Dr. Sen delivered a letter from Maoist leader Narayan Sanyal, whom he used to visit in Raipur jail in his capacity as doctor and civil libertarian, to some wider Naxalite network.

Be that as it may, are there valid grounds for refusing Binayak bail? No. For one, he is not a flight risk, a fact he demonstrated at the outset by turning himself in when he heard during a visit to Kolkata that the Chhattisgarh authorities were looking for him. The second reason bail is sometimes denied is the fear that an under-trial might use his liberty to influence witnesses. But there are no more witnesses left for Dr. Sen to suborn. Of course, sensing the collapse of its flimsy case, the police say they will produce more witnesses.

But it is evident that this is just a tactic to punish the victim through process since the evidence on the basis of which the original arrest was made was clearly insufficient to sustain a conviction.

If there are no valid reasons to deny bail, the fact that Dr. Sen in a heart patient who is being deliberately denied proper medical care at a facility in which he has confidence means any delay in his release may prove fatal to his health. In February, Dr. Sen noticed the onset of symptoms of heart disease but the authorities ignored his pleas for help. His wife, Ilina Sen, then asked the court to send him for treatment to a hospital of his choice, as envisaged by the Prisoners Act. Dr. Sen conveyed that he would like to be treated at CMC Vellore, where he had studied and in whose doctors he had full faith. On February 20, the trial judge ordered the prison authorities to get the opinion of a medical board on Binayak’s heart condition.

Despite being examined at Raipur district hospital, no treatment was offered and Binayak had to move the court again. The judge subsequently ordered that he be examined in Raipur by any doctor he wanted, who, in turn, would decide on onward referral to CMC Vellore.

On March 25, Binayak was examined by a doctor of his choice in the presence of Ilina Sen. The doctor diagnosed him with Coronary Artery Disease and referred him to Vellore for an angiography to be followed by angioplasty or bypass surgery. A copy of the prescription was handed over to Ms. Sen but no action has been taken because the Jail Superintendent procured another note from the doctor in which he said angiography facilities were available in Raipur and that Vellore was mentioned only because Binayak wanted to go there. On the basis of this note, the authorities are insisting Binayak be treated in Raipur, something he is rightfully refusing since he has begun to fear the worst about the police’s intentions.

The Supreme Court is already seized with another grave matter from Chhattisgarh – the extra-legal depredations of the state-sponsored Salwa Judum in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Nandini Sundar and others. In their obiter, the learned judges have said it is not permissible for the state to arm private citizens to commit crimes like murder and arson.

More than one lakh adivasis have been displaced by the Salwa Judum.

Far from heeding the apex court’s warning, the BJP, in its election manifesto, has promised “the ‘Chhattisgarh Model’ will be used for counter-Maoist operations” elsewhere in the country.

It should come as no surprise that violence and intolerance go hand in hand. Salwa Judum is the most dangerous aspect of the ‘Chhatisgarh model’ but the persecution of Dr. Binayak Sen, the intimidation of the local media and the refusal to tolerate the opposition of adivasis to the land grabbing agenda of corporate giants are also part of this ‘model’.

When the executive is bent on subverting rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the judiciary has an obligation to act. Putting a stop to Salwa Judum and releasing Binayak are two remedies that are urgently required.

Hear me in Berlin on AfPak and India @ April 21

On April 21, I will be speaking at a panel on 'Security in South Asia: India’s role and its importance in solving the Afghanistan-Pakistan-crisis', organised by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Berlin. If any readers of this blog are in the German capital, do pop in to say hello. The event starts at 7 pm and is open to the public. Details can be accessed here.

An interview on the Indian elections

Radio Free Europe interviewed me day before yesterday on the ongoing Indian election campaign and the policy implications of a change in government when the results are declared mid-May....

17 April 2009
RFE/RL

India Vote Could Ease Tensions With Pakistan, But Change Little At Home

Siddharth Varadarajan is the associate editor of "The Hindu," India's leading English-language newspaper. In an interview with RFE/RL correspondent Abubakar Siddique, Varadarajan weighs in on India’s month-long parliamentary elections and their impact on the South Asian region.

RFE/RL: What is the atmosphere like during the first phase of the elections?

Siddharth Varadarajan: Reports indicate moderate to heavy [turnout] -- as has been the norm here in elections. In national elections, in particular, turnout tends to be around 60 percent. Today roughly a fifth of the total number of constituencies in India go to the polls -- that's about 120 or 130 [parliamentary] seats. They are spread around the country, really, but are mainly concentrated in the [northeastern] tribal forested belt as well as states like [southern] Kerala, [and] Orissa in the [east]. And it does seem that the people's engagement with this process is pretty high.

RFE/RL: According to the preelection polls, who are we going to see in office next month after the vote is over?

Varadarajan: This is actually a very difficult election to read, primarily because of the shifting nature of alliances and coalitions. We have a multiparty system. We have a number of political players, all of whom have considerable national or regional influence. And as of now it certainly looks as if parliament itself will be hung. No one party or existing alliance is going to win a majority. Perhaps the [Indian National] Congress-led coalition may emerge at the top of the pile. But it would still need to attract political parties who are currently ranged against it in order to form the government. And the same is true for the [opposition] BJP -- Bharatiya Janata Party.

RFE/RL: What are the major elections issues? Has the threat of terrorism been played up as a major issue confronting India?

Varadarajan: The right-wing opposition party -- the Bharatiya Janata Party -- tried in the initial phases of this election to make terrorism and the government's supposedly weak handling of the threat a major campaign issue. But that doesn't seem to have excited the country as a whole, or even areas where these kinds of incidents have happened. I think this election is being fought largely on the basis of broad national issues including the economic crisis [and] the government's handling of the economic hardship. Plus, of course, a host of regional local issues that are specific to particular constituencies.

RFE/RL: What regional implications do you see for these elections? In particular, where do you see the troubled India-Pakistan relationship moving after the elections?

Varadarajan: A considerable amount of continuity from party to party [is expected]. India- Pakistan, India-U.S., India-China relations have tended to follow a well-established routine. There has been some change over the last decade, primarily the drawing closer together of India and the United States, which is opposed by the left -- by the communist parties. In a government where the left has a greater role than they had in the past, I would expect the first major foreign-policy implication of a change of regime here to be a slight dampening of the Indo-U.S. relationship.

But on the India-Pakistan front, I think, if the Congress or the Third Front do well, I would expect an easing of the tensions after the elections; provided, of course, Pakistan maintains its current level of cooperation in the antiterror fight. If the Bharatiya Janata Party wins...even there it is hard to see what avenues for escalation exist. Perhaps it will take longer to deescalate the current tenseness. But eventually relations between India and Pakistan will settle along a golden mean of limited engagement or rather calibrated engagement on the basis of the extent to which the Indian state feel Pakistan is serious about fighting terrorist groups.

RFE/RL: How will the elections play out in the disputed Kashmir region, given that one separatist leader, Sajjad Lone, is running for office?

Varadarajan: I think [this depends] on how successful the boycott calls [are], because you have other pro-separatist politicians who stand for a boycott. And if they are successful in getting their supporters to stay away, then the more conventional New Delhi-oriented Kashmir parties like the National Conference or the PDP -- the Peoples Democratic Party -- may win. But if not, I think Mr. Sajjad Lone stands a good chance of winning.

I think his victory would not alter the fundamental politics of Kashmir and the relationship between Kashmir and India. But, I think, it will certainly open up a very promising pathway for India to engage anew with the Kashmir problem; dealing with elected leaders, dealing with people who have demonstrated that they have the confidence of their own people behind them.

RFE/RL: Islamabad accuses New Delhi of using its influence in post-9/11 Afghanistan to harm Afghan interests. How do you see the Indian role in Afghanistan, given that U.S. President Barack Obama's new regional strategy recognizes such a role?

Varadarajan: I think any expansion of India's otherwise quite limited role in Afghanistan would depend on a number of factors [such as] the success of the “Af-Pak” policy of President Obama [and] the extent to which regional powers like Iran, Russia, China get involved. And also, I think, the extent to which India and Pakistan are able to resolve some of their hostility and suspicion.

I think one of the saddest aspects of the decades-long crisis in Afghanistan has been that both New Delhi and Islamabad look at the country as an arena for strategic competition. The Pakistanis are looking for what they call “strategic depth” in their confrontation or conflict with India. And the Indians look at Afghanistan as a country which could in some sense create problems for Pakistan and hence weaken it.

If some kind of understanding can be reached, ideally between the two of them, this could pave the way for a more fruitful and more effective engagement by India and, I think, by Pakistan as well. This is not a question that depends on which party wins the elections. I think Indian diplomacy vis-à-vis Afghanistan is pretty well entrenched.

RFE/RL: The image of India in the 21st century is that of the world's largest democracy, but one with deep-seated problems, such as poverty, an entrenched caste system, and various insurgencies across the country. Do you see India overcoming some of these problems in the near future?

Varadarajan: Moving on, converting what is clearly a very effective procedural democratic system into a more meaningful, effective, substantive democracy is really the fundamental challenge that Indian lawmakers, Indian politicians, and Indian parties have to deal with. The fact that you have insurgencies, the fact that you have alienation, the fact that you have dissatisfaction, which gets reflected in a variety of ways including violence and armed struggle, is surely proof that the Indian system, although effective in some regards, does not really deliver what it is meant to for those who are really at the bottom of the pile.

I think that the last 65 years’ experience of parliamentary democracy highlights a number of ways in which the existing system is deficient. And the sooner we innovate means for citizens to more effectively govern the country directly, rather than being beholden to elected representatives over whom they have little control, the better it will be.

Obama pick for India has ear of White House

A strong contender for head of the CIA until Leon Panetta pipped him to the post, Tim Roemer, the new American ambassador-designate for India, is influential back home and appears to share many of India's perceptions about Pakistan. But that doesn't mean it will be smooth sailing for New Delhi and Washington...


18 April 2009
The Hindu

Obama pick for India has ear of White House

Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi: A senior Democrat politician and former Congressman who helped deliver the crucial state of Indiana to Barack Obama in the American presidential race is likely to be named the next U.S. ambassador to India.

Tim Roemer, currently head of the Center for National Policy, a Washington think-tank, was identified by Foreign Policy magazine’s normally reliable beltway affairs blog, 'The Cable', as President Obama’s pick for New Delhi. If confirmed, he would have beaten veteran India hands Karl Inderfurth and Marshall Bouton to the job despite not having much of a South Asia connection of his own.

Given his proximity to Obama and his Chief of Staff, Roemer certainly will have a line to the White House, a former U.S. State Department official told The Hindu from Washington, something Robert Blackwill and David Mulford, the previous two U.S. envoys in Delhi had. “But I think the problem for India this time will be not lack of access but lack of interest, given the preoccupation of everybody here with AfPak,” the former official added.

Mr. Roemer served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2003. He was a member of the bipartisan commission established by the Congress to look into the events leading up to 9/11. More recently, he served on the bipartisan Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, whose alarming report, The World at Risk, released last year, spoke of the danger of WMDs being used in a terrorist attack by 2013 unless the world community acted decisively now. Pakistan was singled out by the commission as the weakest link in world security. “Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report stated. On India, the commission endorsed the July 2005 agreement with the U.S. but warned that bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation must not be allowed to become the catalyst of a nuclear arms race in Asia.”

Indian officials wary of the Obama administration’s approach to the region are likely to take some comfort from Mr. Roemer’s forthright views on terrorism emanating from Pakistan. In an op-ed last year, he cited reports of Pakistani complicity in the terrorist bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul to argue that U.S. military aid to Pakistan must be “results oriented” and not open-ended.

In an interview to The Atlantic in January on the appointment of Leon Panetta as CIA chief, Mr. Roemer said the most difficult issue America’s top spy would have to confront was “the rapidly expanding terrorist network that is metastasizing and growing around the world, not just in Afghanistan but rebuilding in Pakistan, associating with groups like that that can strike into Mumbai.” [Alternative link to interview can be found here]

In another op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, however, he also argued that America “must address the tension between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. For generations, this issue has fueled extremism and served as a central source of friction between two nuclear states. Resolving this dispute would allow them to focus more on sustainable development and less on armed conflict.”

Haris Gazdar on Pakistan: One step forward, marching to the brink

The Economic and Political Weekly (April 11, 2009) and Dawn (April 13, 2009) carry an insightful analysis of the current situation in Pakistan by the Karachi-based economist and political analyst, Haris Gazdar. After a broad brush survey of what's been happening there over the past two years, he offers a compelling if contrarian assessment of the 'revolutionary movement' led by the lawyers and Nawaz Sharif, its implications and consequences for the power of the military and the growing threat posed by the Taliban, an assessment I totally share.

While much of Pakistan’s “civil society” celebrated a famous victory in the restoration of judges sacked by Pervez Musharraf in November 2007, it continues to display an indifference bordering upon negligence to the existential threat to itself. President Zardari’s bungling and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif’s irrational ambitions brought a welcome relief to the jihadi apparatus at the precise moment when the noose around it looked like tightening.

The EPW article was edited down from a longer piece, which Haris has sent me. You can read the full version here...


One Step Forward, Marching to the Brink

Haris Gazdar

While much of Pakistan’s civil society celebrated a famous victory in the restoration of judges sacked by General Musharraf in November 2007, it continued to display indifference to the existential threat to itself. President Zardari’s bungling and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif’s ambitions brought welcome relief to the jihad apparatus at the precise moment when the noose looked like tightening. Just as the route map to the democratic transition was obscured the contours of the abyss became a little clearer. Extraordinary acts of leadership are now needed, but it is not clear if they will be forthcoming or sufficient.

The long March

The “lawyers’ movement” has been a remarkable phenomenon. Triggered by General Musharraf’s sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March 2007, the bar associations mobilized civil and political society to their cause. The movement opposed elections held in February 2008, but then found allies in Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N). The PML-N made cooperation with the leading Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) conditional on the judges’ restoration. The PPP entered public agreements to this effect but balked at restoring Chaudhry, fearing he would come in the way of an already delicate transition.

Most of the other sixty sacked judges were “reappointed” but the lawyers were not impressed. The fine line between their demand of “restoration” and “reappointment” was lost on most, but Chaudhry’s case became cause celebre. Matters came to a head when the lawyers announced a long march on Islamabad and indefinite protest until Chaudhry’s restoration.

On 22 February Sharif declared that his party, which controlled the Punjab provincial government, backed the long march. Within three days the Supreme Court ruled against Sharif and his brother Shahbaz, the Punjab Chief Minister, in a petition challenging their eligibility for public office. Governor’s rule was imposed confirming suspicions of Zardari’s hand. The PPP governor launched a crack down. On 15 March, Sharif defied house arrest, and led a swelling crowd through hastily-removed police barricades making his way along the Grand Trunk Road towards Islamabad. As the demonstration gathered strength Prime Minister Gilani came on national television to announce the restoration of the judges. Sharif called off the protest. Zardari had bungled his way to surrender. Chaudhry was restored, and the PML-N was back running Punjab.

Not quite the revolution

Despite claims of national mobilization, the long march was a PML-N show. Lawyers were outnumbered by activists of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), who were in turn dwarfed by PML-N contingents. The electronic media constructed an image of a national rising, but the mobilisation was confined to north-central Punjab, a region accounting for a third of the population. The congruence between the PML-N support base and the long march was exact. In the 2008 elections Sharif’s party won 16 per cent of the national vote, most of it in north-central Punjab. Southern Punjab, NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh were virtually absent from the long march and for parties representing voters in these regions the finer distinction between “reappointment” and “restoration” was not a top priority in the face of worries such as civil war and economic survival.

The richer segment of the most powerful region in Pakistan had spoken and claimed to speak for the nation. Battle-hardened political activists elsewhere were left wondering how long their own mass protests would have lasted before facing police batons, military bullets, and suicide bombers. A minority had bent the will of the majority and jubilant cries of “national triumph” simply rubbed salt in the wounds.

This was no people’s revolution. Revolutions are about challenging power and they face real power – not policemen who melt away. Pakistan’s central pole of power – the military – was not mentioned except in admiration for its help. An elected civilian government already under fire from a recalcitrant military was the main target. This government could be rightly accused of ineptitude, but scarcely of being powerful. The military emerged as the main intermediary between the two biggest democratic parties.

The other revolution

International commentary chastised Pakistani leaders for getting distracted from the urgent task of dealing with jihadi militancy. A victory for the militants will render Zardari’s political insecurities and Sharif’s ambitions irrelevant, let alone allow an “independent judiciary”. But momentary distraction was not the only implication of the long march for the struggle against jihadi militancy.

The long march changed the balance of power within Pakistan. At first viewing the political fortunes of Nawaz Sharif rose, while those of Zardari declined. While PPP obituaries are premature its battering is not good news. It is the largest secular party with representation across regions and ethnic segments. Nawaz Sharif’s emergence is seen by some as grounds for hope. His past connections with Sunni extremists and relations with Saudi Arabia, Jamaat-e-Islami and other right-wing groups might be assets which could be used to tame the jihadis, if taming were possible.

The real balance of power

Beyond the Sharif-Zardari tussle, political parties collectively lost ground to other forces. The most obvious gainer is the military which as guarantor occupied a dominant position with respect to both parties. We wait to see what its pound of flesh will be. The lawyers and the “restored” judges too might feel that they have emerged as an autonomous power centre. But for all the talk of the rule of law the judges are unlikely to challenge the de facto power of the military.

The “independent” electronic media which continued its denial chorus, emerged as another power centre. Regardless of whether the rightwing domination of the electronic media is choreographed or genuine, the effect is the same. A minority opinion, if measured in terms of electoral arithmetic, is projected as the national view. This view is defensive about jihadi militancy, hostile to good relations with Afghanistan and India, and prickly about any discussion of nuclear proliferation -- all the elements that led Pakistan to be labelled “the world’s migraine”.

Meanwhile, unnoticed at home, the federal police won international accolades. According to the head of Interpol, “Pakistani authorities’ co-operation following the Mumbai attacks has been no less than extraordinary. I would like to commend them [....] for setting an example for the international police community.”1 Special praise was reserved for Rehman Malik, the head of the Interior Ministry, for pursuing leads against jihadi networks. Malik, however, is the target of a persistent campaign by rightwing opinion-makers, and was singled out for attack by the PML-N during the long march. If there is to be a pound of flesh, it may well be Malik.

Contours of failure or acts of leadership

Despite statements of goodwill between the PPP and PML-N after the long march, it is unlikely that hostilities have ended. Sharif may persist with his ambitions of becoming prime minister – though he cannot succeed without help from the military. Zardari might continue to nurture his political insecurity, and get trapped into yet another defeat – this time on the issue of reducing presidential powers in the constitution. Chaudhry will play a role in the ensuing squabble, and the military may succeed in stalling efforts at confronting the jihadi threat. Denial will get its own regime.

Things have changed since the 1990s, however, when the parties, the military and the judges last went on a merry-go-around. Political society has become further disarticulated. Fragmentation along regional and ethnic lines is a reality, and coercion is a less feasible alternative to negotiated cohabitation. Moreover, Pakistan is in the midst of an international intervention, and the military has underestimated the stamina of foreign forces this time round. The world “came out” on Pakistan in an unprecedented way in the last few weeks. US officials publicly pointed the finger at operational links between Pakistani military agencies and jihadi militants. They spoke of radical solutions such as the overhaul of intelligence agencies and the strengthening of civilian security forces including the police.

A retreat from the struggle against jihadi militancy is no longer a costless option – and unwillingness to act will draw further intrusive responses from foreign powers. And the “world’s migraine” has acquired an address. The political constituency for all of the factors that the world sees as problematic is now restricted to a specific region. In the absence of a will to reform, that region’s claim to speak for “the nation” will be challenged – with or without help from external powers.

Stepping back from the brink will require extraordinary leadership on the part of Pakistani politicians – but only they and not the military, judiciary or the media can lead the change. Zardari will have to invest in his party in Punjab, allow other leaders to emerge, and accept that Benazir’s unquestioned authority died with her. Sharif must understand that he cannot become prime minister without an ultimately suicidal Faustian bargain with the military. He could lead the rightwing and north-central Punjab to a consensus against jihadi militancy, and instead of isolating the likes of Malik the PML-N will have to find effective Malik counterparts in Lahore. Plan A is the present government completing its term, PML-N getting on board as a strong opposition supporting the war against jihdadi militancy, and the two parties cooperating in the gradual reduction of the domination of the military.

It is not certain that the leadership will be forthcoming, or that it will succeed. Foreign powers pressure Pakistani politicians to rethink their priorities. But foreigners will respond to their own domestic expediencies first and the needs of the Pakistani society second, which means that the time needed to see Plan A through might run out sooner than we think.

Less dictation, more questions

A 26/11 scoop sourced from Indian officials is contradicted by a Pakistani news report, quoting the country’s interior minister. Was the Hindustan Times taken for a ride? [Cross-posted on The Hoot]

16 April 2009
The Hoot

The pursuit of an exclusive is exhilarating but every reporter needs to be aware of the motivation of the source and the larger background. Otherwise she or he risks being taken for a ride, or missing the real story. The Hindustan Times of April 15 carried an exclusive lead 'On eve of trial, 26/11 breakthrough in Europe'. The story tells us:

60-day global covert operation by Indian intelligence agencies leads to Pak Lashkar operative's detention in Europe.

A secret, determined global effort by India to track down those involved in the
November 26 Mumbai attacks has borne fruit. Shahid Jamil Riaz, a key
Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) operative who handled financial transactions and was
among the core group of 26/11 conspirators, has been detained in a European
country, top officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs have told Hindustan
Times.

Riaz is likely to be brought to India by the end of this week, where he will be officially charged and arrested.

The breakthrough, indicating the global reach of the conspirators, comes on a day
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India had given "enough evidence" to
Pakistan.

Riaz's arrest will further strengthen the 26/11 case trial, which begins in a special court inside the high-security Arthur Road jail on Wednesday. The arrest will also validate India's stand that Pakistani nationals were involved in the attack, which left 173 dead and more than 300 injured.

I had a sense of deja vu when I read the story in the morning and asked myself where I had come across the name of Riaz before. It turns out his name, or more precisely, his arrest, was announced by Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, at a press conference on April 13. The Hindu of 14 April quotes him as saying: "He said Pakistan's probe into the Mumbai incident was continuing and another suspect, Shahid Jamil Riaz, had been arrested for facilitating monetary transactions in Karachi and planning the attacks.

Mr. Malik went on to say Riaz had been arrested from Karachi and was in Pakistani custody. The Daily Times of April 15 notes that he is from Bahawalpur and that the Anti-Terrorism Court II of Rawalpindi sent him to 14 days remand on April 14.

Even if the Ministry of Home Affairs in India wants to boast about "their" catch, the HT should have at least mentioned Rehman Malik's statement. Better still, the reporter ought to have asked the Home Ministry 'sleuths' what the full story was.

For example, was Riaz arrested in Europe or in Pakistan, as Malik claimed?

If Riaz is in Pakistani custody, how could the MHA say he was going to be brought to India within the week? Until now, Pakistan has refused to extradite any of its citizens to India. So if the MHA says he is going to be sent across, that ought to have been the most important angle of the story, not his arrest, which was already old news.

It could well be that Riaz's arrest is the result not of Indian sleuthing and pressure but Pakistani sleuthing. If that is so, it might suggest that something more complex is underway on the Pakistan side than most Indians are aware of.

Or it could be that Malik was lying, though that seems unlikely since Riaz has been remanded to custody.

Either way, the story was a wasted opportunity to ask a bunch of interesting questions to normally secretive officials who knew something more. All in pursuit of that elusive exclusive...

The story is a good example of poor anchoring, a standard malaise in India when an "exclusive" arrives on the desk. Since most "exclusives" take the form of a leak to a lucky reporter, the reporter herself cannot be blamed for not having the big picture. Ideally, such a story needs to be carefully parsed and examined by the reporters/editors who deal with the bigger picture subjects involved.

A campaign where hate is integral

Visiting a local BJP office in election mode reveals more about the true nature of the party’s politics than the dissembling of its national leadership...





16 April 2009
The Hindu

A campaign where hate is integral

Visiting a local BJP office in election mode reveals more about the true nature of the party’s politics than the dissembling of its national leadership.

Siddharth Varadarajan

In a constituency which tops the infant mortality and malnutrition charts in the country, why would a political party which claims to be young, forward-looking and dynamic wage an election campaign focused solely on the politics of hate and fear? For all its supposed emphasis on good governance, the Bharatiya Janata Party campaign in Kandhamal, Orissa offers a chilling snapshot of the values that lie at the core of the sangh parivar’s worldview and which animate its footsoldiers.

During a visit to the constituency last week, I had the opportunity to interact with a large cross-section of BJP and RSS activists at the party’s election office in Raikia town. I began my conversation by asking them what the BJP, if elected, would do to restore normalcy in the district so that the Christians who fled their ancestral villages in the wake of last year’s violence could safely return home. More than 40 Christians were killed and two Christian women raped in mob attacks that were staged on minority homes in and around Raikia last August. The violence erupted soon after the assassination by Maoists of Lakshmananda Saraswati, an RSS missionary who had been proselytising in the district, and eight months on, thousands remain displaced, too scared to return home.

Socio-economic factors

A number of socio-economic factors account for the historically fraught relationship between the adivasi Kondhas and the mainly Christian Panos in Kandhamal. Today, Kondha grievances revolve around the fear of land grabbing, the use of fake Scheduled Tribe certificates and the demand by some Pano organisations for the community to be reclassified as ST because it speaks the same Kui language as the Kondhas. But violence was never a part of the equation until the RSS, which entered the district in 1969, stepped up its work in the 1990s.

Duryodhan Lenka, who introduced himself as a representative of the BJP’s panchayat samiti, shook his head and said it was false propaganda that his party had been responsible for the arson and killing. The riots took place because of the murder of swamiji, he said. “He stood for the protection of Hindu culture and society so the Christians killed him.” Regardless of who might be responsible for the violence, I said, surely the party has a strategy to bring peace so that the pressing issues of development could be addressed. Lenka and the other activists looked at me as if I was a mad person. Vinayak Panda, president of the BJP’s district youth wing, shrugged his shoulders. “What can we do? We have no strategy.” The main issue, said another activist, was that the “false cases” that had been filed against 10,000 “innocent people” for the violence should be withdrawn and that swamiji’s killers be caught. Among the men he described as innocent was Manoj Kumar Pradhan, the BJP candidate for the G. Udaygiri Assembly seat, who the administration alleges was the chief executioner of the anti-Christian violence.

As the BJP activists warmed to the discussion, one young leader told me that the scale of the violence had been exaggerated and that many Christians had burnt their own “toota-phoota.” or dilapidated, homes in order to get government compensation. “You have to understand that they are lazy,” he said. “If they stay in camp instead of going home, they get free food and relief. They don’t have to work. And then they know the money they are getting from America will stop the minute they leave the camps.”

Ashok Sahu, a young RSS activist (not to be confused with the BJP candidate currently in jail for hate speech) then listed out a number of sins that he said the Christians were guilty of. These included falsely accusing Hindus of committing crimes, abducting Hindu girls, grabbing adivasi land and reservation quotas, and, of course, engaging in religious conversion. And now “they” had joined hands with the Maoists to kill Lakhsmananda Saraswati. I turned the discussion back to the late swami’s work. Some scholars have written that he also tried to influence the religious practices of the adivasis so that they were more in line with the Hindu mainstream, I said. He wanted the Kondhas to give up traditional practices like ‘dhangda dhangdi,’ for example, in favour of more brahminised Hindu rituals. “Definitely swamiji tried to promote good sanskaras among the adivasis,” an activist replied. But doesn’t that amount to the same kind of religious conversion you accuse the Christians of doing, I asked. They bristled at the suggestion and turned to an older adivasi supporter who was sitting among us for support. “Did the swamiji try to get the adivasis to change their religion?” someone asked him. To their surprise and horror, the adivasi, G. Pradhan, said yes. It was also dharmantaran, or conversion. A bitter argument followed, but Pradhan stuck to his guns. Panda, the BJP youth leader, quickly brought the discussion back to the violence. “If swamiji had not been killed, this would not have happened,” he said, adding in English, for effect: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

I wanted to say there was at least one Christian, Newton, he seemed to approve of but resisted the urge. The discussion had come full circle and it was time to leave.

Dateline Orissa: In Kalahandi, battle for livelihood trumps war for votes

An open challenge to those who speak of development as an inclusive process...





13 April 2009
The Hindu

ELECTIONS 2009
In Kalahandi, battle for livelihood trumps war for votes

Siddharth Varadarajan

Of all the disconnects between the economic ‘base’ and political ‘superstructure’ of Indian electoral alliances, none is more glaring than the tie-up between the Biju Janata Dal of Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and the Left-inspired Third Front. For even as the Left has made the anti-people neo-liberal policies of the Manmohan Singh government at the Centre the target of its nationwide campaign, Mr. Patnaik remains firmly wedded to one of the most predatory forms of extractive capitalism anywhere in India.

Three-cornered fight

Here in Kalahandi, all the promises and pitfalls of this model are on open display, dividing its victims and hope-filled beneficiaries, suborning the institutions of the state and throwing an open challenge to those who speak of development as an inclusive process. Lanjigarh is today frontier country and what happens here tomorrow, after the elections and beyond, will likely determine the direction India takes. The election is essentially a three-cornered fight between the sitting BJP MP, Bikram Keshari Deo, Congress stalwart and former MP Bhakta Charan Das and Subhas Chandra Nayak of the BJD. But the polls mask a more bitter and fundamental contest. On one side is the political clout and financial muscle of a powerful business house — the Indian-owned MNC, Vedanta — which established a massive aluminum refinery here in 2006 and is pushing for the immediate commencement of bauxite mining in the picturesque and ecologically-fragile Niyamgiri hills which ring this small town. And on the other, thousands of local tribals and non-tribals, who say the mining project will completely destroy their lives.

In Chhatarpur and Bandiguda right next to the refinery, and villages elsewhere, local residents openly express their preference for the ‘haath’ of the Congress. Mr. Das has been vocal in his opposition to Vedanta and his supporters have actively taken part in the struggles of the villagers and were also involved in a major case against the mining project in the Supreme Court. Despite the court-mandated Centrally Empowered Commission coming out against the Niyamgiri project on environmental grounds, the SC gave the green signal last year, overturning a plea by the Dongria Kondhas who live on the hill that their livelihood and religious rights would be destroyed once mining begins. It is not just the Dongrias who say the hill is sacred. “Niyamgiri belongs to Niyam raja,” Bhima Majhi of Turiguda, a Kondha, told The Hindu. “We worship him up there and in our village. And because of him, the hill gives all of us everything we need — food, water, forest products.” These sentiments appear to be shared by virtually everyone cutting across caste, tribe and even class lines. “Niyamgiri is our life”, Niranjan Acharya, an Ayurvedic doctor and activist said. Once it is gone, we will have nothing”.

With both the BJD and BJP strongly defending Vedanta, the fight, at least around Lanjigarh, seems to favour Congress. But Kalahandi is a large constituency. In the district headquarters of Bhawanipatna, opinion is divided on the bauxite project but most people this reporter spoke to said they expected the region to benefit in the long run. Local traders said sales had increased since the refinery was set up but also said the endless stream of trucks running into and out of Lanjigarh had ruined the local highway. Even in town, though, many seemed inclined to vote for Bhakta Charan Das in spite of his opposition to Vedanta, mostly out of fatigue towards having the same MP representing them since 1998. But for the Assembly, urban residents spoke highly of Mr. Patnaik and the BJD.

Vedanta claims that its project will bring benefits to the population around Lanjigarh, a claim belied by the absence of employment for locals and mounting environment-related problems the refinery itself has generated. As part of its contribution to local welfare, the company built a 20-bed ward for the local government hospital. When this correspondent visited it, the ward seemed unused. Dr. Debashish Ray said Vedanta had built the ward but neither it nor the government had provided any extra staff or facilities like quarters. “I would say Vedanta has made no contribution here,” said Dr. Nagendra Rajsamukh, another resident physician. Both doctors said the refinery had led to an increase in the incidence of skin and respiratory diseases because of water and dust pollution. “From afar, everything seems OK,” said Dr. Ray. “But only those who live here know what it is like.”

Even before the mining has started — a process the locals say will lead to water streams from the hill getting choked — the large red mud pond Vedanta has built near its plant has already cut off water to dozens of acres of farm land. And in village after village, this reporter saw residents with skin ailments and heard of an increase in TB. Govind Majhi, a 15-year-old boy in Bandiguda, held out a blistered hand that he said was caused by bathing in a polluted nali. “If a neta’s son falls ill, Vedanta will even fly him by helicopter,” said a villager. “But for us, there is nothing.”

Asked about the promised jobs, Mukta Harijan, a wisened but sprightly Dalit woman in Chhatrapur pointed to the scores of young men standing around. “Most of the work is being done by people from outside. When our youth ask for work, the security guards demand a gate-pass and turn them away.” Villagers said that whenever they try to protest, the police quickly move in. In Bellamba, locals said three villagers — Manglu Majhi, Hari Majhi and Dhanurjay Patra — were still in jail three months after being arrested for taking part in a peaceful dharna.

“Vedanta tells people in Delhi, ‘we have given everything — electricity, roads clinics,’ but they have done nothing,” said Doisingh Majhi of Bellamba. In Kendu Bardia, Kumti Majhi, a local leader of the anti-Vedanta movement, told me about how villagers last week managed to stop the construction of a conveyor belt that will be used to bring bauxite down from Niyamgiri once the mining starts. “They will try again after the elections and the police and administration will back them,” he said, “but we will continue to resist.” Niyamgiri, he said, was not the property of the government and the courts had no power to hand it over to Vedanta. “The hills belong to the adivasis and we are not going to let go.”

Dateline Orissa: Fear still stalks Kandhamal

The BJP hopes to capitalise on polarisation, insecurity by turning the focus on minorities

11 April 2009
The Hindu

ELECTIONS 2009
Fear still stalks Kandhamal
The BJP hopes to capitalise on polarisation, insecurity by turning the focus on minorities

Siddharth Varadarajan

G. Udaygiri: Months after Kandhamal was rocked by a wave of anti-Christian violence orchestrated by activists and leaders of the Sangh Parivar, the Bharatiya Janata Party is hoping to capitalise on the polarisation and insecurity here with an electoral campaign dwelling more on the alleged sins of the minorities than on the district’s terrible record of poverty and underdevelopment.

The contest in the district is triangular, with the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and Congress enjoying a slight edge over the BJP, whose pockets of support are limited to those blocks where the RSS has been active for decades. But the manner in which its campaign is highlighting the salience of religious conflict does not augur well for the long-term stability of Kandhamal or indeed Orissa.

For the Assembly segment of G. Udaygiri — elections to the Orissa Assembly are being held simultaneously with the Lok Sabha elections — the party has fielded an RSS pracharak named Manoj Kumar Pradhan despite the fact he is in jail charged with several offences, including murder, during last year’s riots.

“He was the chief executioner,” Dr. Krishna Kumar, the District Collector, told The Hindu. “We have a solid case against him.” The BJP’s candidate for the Lok Sabha seat, Ashok Sahu, a former police officer, has been spewing venom against Christians. In the wake of the Varun Gandhi controversy and persistent complaints about the use of inflammatory language, Dr. Kumar ordered 24-hour video tracking of Mr. Sahu. On Thursday night, an FIR was finally lodged in Phulbani against him for a hate speech during a rally on April 5 at Raikia.

Raikia is a sensitive town lying at the epicentre of the violence, which took the lives of more than 40 Christians last year in the surrounding countryside following the assassination by Maoists of Lakshmananda Saraswati, a well-known RSS leader. As one drives away from the town towards the villages which radiate out, scores of burnt and destroyed Christian homes line the roads and by lanes. Almost every other structure flies a saffron flag, as pamphlets had instructed Hindus to do last year in order to ensure their own dwellings remained untouched.

In his speech, Mr. Sahu blamed the Christians and the Church for the assassination of Lakhsmananda Saraswathi. Wherever there were insurgencies, he said, whether in the North-East or Jharkhand or Orissa, these were being fuelled by Christians. He referred to a non-Hindu whose evidence had led to the recent arrest of a Hindu involved in the riots as a ‘samaj shatru,’ or enemy of the community, and said the enemy would have to bear the consequences.

What those consequences might be are not lost on the district’s beleaguered Christian population. More than 3,000 of them still live in official relief camps, while several hundred more are scattered around market places and elsewhere, bereft of official support and too scared to return to their villages. At the ‘hata’ just outside town, 40 families from Betikola have been living in the open for the past two months, after the relief camp they were in was shut down.

Ratnakar Naik, whose family has been Christian for two generations, said that when he went back to his village last week, he was warned not to return unless he agreed to abide by Hindu customs. This threat, he said, was delivered by Pradyumna Pradhan, whom he described as owing allegiance to the BJP. According to the police, Mr. Pradhan, wanted in connection with arson cases in his village, is absconding.

All the displaced are daily wage labourers below the poverty line. Many lost their NREGA cards when their homes were burnt down and are still in the process of acquiring fresh identification. None of those living in camps expressed an interest in returning to their villages to vote on April 16, despite the promise of transportation and police protection. Most are reluctant to speak about their own political preferences. “Of course, if Manoj Pradhan or Sahu win, it will be very bad,” said Naresh Nayak at the Mandakya camp, home to more than 400 families. “We don’t trust any party. None of them did anything for us when we were attacked,” said another man. When pressed, however, many said the Congress might be best, despite the fact that the BJD has fielded a Christian candidate against Mr. Pradhan for the Assembly.

According to the Collector, elaborate arrangements have been made to allow every displaced Christian the chance to vote in a free and fair manner. New voter ID cards are being hurriedly issued and transportation arranged to ferry any of the 20,000 Christians who have fled the district to their polling stations should they so desire.

Immunity for mobs in the ‘war on terror’

Within weeks of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, a new anti-terror law was hurriedly passed. But seven years after Gujarat, the promised law to deal with communal violence is nowhere in sight...








7 April 2009
The Hindu

Immunity for mobs in the ‘war on terror’

Siddharth Varadarajan

Despite the arrest of Gujarat minister and BJP leader Mayaben Kodnani for her role in the 2002 mass killing of Muslims in Ahmedabad, the Congress party’s decision to give tickets to Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler is a reminder of the impunity that is built into the very edifice of Indian politics and law.

Even before the Central Bureau of Investigation gave its predictable “clean chit” to Mr. Tytler and declared there was no evidence to prove his involvement in the November 1984 massacre of Sikhs, the Congress party high command had no qualms about fielding him and Mr. Kumar for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections from Delhi. The relentless passage of time and the willful sabotage of criminal cases at the investigation stage have done for Mr. Tytler what all the perfumes of Arabia could not do for the Macbeths. But for a politician who wants to stand for public office, this is hardly much of an exoneration. It matters not a farthing that 25 years later, the CBI sends detectives across half the world to interview and then discredit a sole surviving witness. What matters is that CBI and Delhi Police investigators were nowhere in sight in the days and weeks following the killing of 3,000 Sikhs in the national capital when the relief camps were full of survivors willing to testify to the involvement of top party bosses. That was the original act of erasure which even the most persistent of criminal investigations will find difficult to undo.

At the same time, it is a measure of how low we have sunk as a nation that we are supposed to feel relieved that a man who might be minister again was apparently not involved in genocide. I do not care how many innocent people might have died as a result of the actions Mr. Tytler is alleged to have committed. The answer to that question involves a burden of proof which is beyond the ken of an average person. The question I want an answer to is this: How many people did you save, Mr. Tytler? You were an important leader of the ruling party at the time and your clout is such that the Congress even today feels obligated to give you a ticket. “If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world,” the Talmud says. Bearing silent witness to injustice, as Bhishma and Dronacharya did, makes one morally culpable. Modern jurisprudence tells us that allowing the commission of a heinous crime that one was in a position to prevent makes one as guilty of the offence as the actual perpetrator. Throwing a stone at a gurudwara or emptying a jerry can of petrol on a helpless man or inciting others to do these terrible things are not the only ways of committing a crime. Walking away when all of this is happening or about to happen makes a leader or police officer just as guilty. And no matter what the CBI says, Mr. Tytler, the whole world knows that that is what you and your senior colleagues did during those fateful days in November 1984.

In any civilized society, that act of walking away would itself render a politician unfit for elected office. In India, however, every party, barring the Left, sees some political benefit from inciting communal hatred or violence and then deploying mob ringleaders as candidates. If the Congress has its favourites, the Bharatiya Janata Party has no problem fielding Varun Gandhi or Manoj Kumar Pradhan, accused of being one of the ringleaders of the anti-Christian violence in Orissa last year.

The reason our political parties are able to get away with this is because communal violence, or mob terrorism, is not treated by our mass media or civil society as a crime as shocking and monstrous as terrorism perpetrated through bomb blasts and suicide squads. When it comes to terrorism of the latter variety, public sentiment runs so high that lawyers refuse to defend individuals accused of such offences. Within weeks of the November 26-29 terrorist incidents in Mumbai, a media-orchestrated clamour led to the reintroduction of anti-terror laws in India. But individuals accused of instigating and orchestrating the mass murder of religious minorities through the use of mob terror enjoy effective impunity.

Last year, while appointing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the hundreds of cases of communal violence that still remain unpunished in Gujarat, the Supreme Court made the following observation: “Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy… If in the name of religion people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and blot on the society governed by the rule of law… Religious fanatics really do not belong to any religion. They are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason.” These remarks were reiterated by the Gujarat High Court recently in its landmark judgment cancelling the anticipatory bail of Mayaben Kodnani.

But if the judiciary is clear about the equivalence of mob terrorism and bomb terrorism, why is there a double standard in both statute and public discourse? In the 2004 elections, the Congress promised to redress this legal lacuna by enacting a new law to deal with communal violence. The draft Bill the Union Home Ministry came up with was so useless that the very activists who earlier wanted the law and who fought hard but unsuccessfully to improve its provisions ended up lobbying the government to kill it. And now, in its latest manifesto, the Congress has completely resiled from its original promise, offering instead “a law that empowers the National Human Rights Commission to monitor investigation and trial in all cases of communal and caste violence.” Such a proposal would be laughable if the lives of our citizens and minorities were not at stake. The NHRC already enjoys enormous powers which it refuses to exercise. On the rare occasions when it acts, the government finds ways to sidestep its orders or recommendations.

The draft communal violence Bill which the United Progressive Alliance government introduced in the Rajya Sabha a few years ago has many infirmities but its single biggest weakness was the non-incorporation of a norm that is today considered an essential part of international humanitarian law – the doctrine of command responsibility. Police officers and politicians either incite violence or walk away from the scene of a crime because they know they will never be held accountable for criminal dereliction of duty. The statute of the International Criminal Court works around this problem by equating the failure to prevent mass crimes with the actual execution of those crimes. In law, then, officials who don’t lift a finger to save the lives of innocent people cannot claim to be innocent. All that is required is that the prosecution be able to prove that the concerned official had reason to assume a crime which he was in a position to prevent was about to occur. Had such a provision been on the Indian statute books in 2002 or 1984, the senior police officer who walked away from Ehsan Jaffrey’s house in Ahmedabad would be in prison rather than lobbying for a comfortable sinecure. And the Member of Parliament who came and saw a mob in 1984 but refused to conquer it by using every bit of influence at his disposal would not be eligible for elected office.

India in dilemma over North Korean satellite launch news analysis

Officials say New Delhi is still awaiting details of the launch before taking a firm view...

6 April 2009
The Hindu

NEWS ANALYSIS
India in dilemma over North Korean satellite launch news analysis

Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi: India on Sunday chose not to directly react to North Korea’s launch of a satellite with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee offering a non sequitur by declaring that all countries should abide by their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In fact, the NPT prohibits all but five states from possessing nuclear weapons but has nothing to say about satellite or even missile launches. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), or North Korea — which first signed but then withdrew from the NPT as the treaty itself provides for — tested a nuclear device in 2006. Though the United Nations Security Council condemned Pyongyang for the test and imposed sanctions on it, Resolution 1718 did not accuse the country of violating the NPT. Instead, it called on North Korea to “immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the Treaty,” something the Kim Jong Il regime eventually agreed to do in the framework of a broader set of confidence-building measures envisaged by the Six Party Talks process.

Indian officials said New Delhi was still awaiting details of the launch before taking a firm view but that Mr. Mukherjee’s reference to the NPT was because of Indian concerns about the “known proliferation links” between North Korea and Pakistan.

Among the demands UNSCR 1718 made — under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter which provides for mandatory implementation — were that the DPRK “not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile” and that it “suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching.” It is these provisions which the U.S. now accuses North Korea of violating with Sunday’s launch of a rocket from Musudan-ri. The DPRK said the rocket launch was aimed at putting a satellite into orbit.

Washington, however, says missile and satellite-launch technologies are indistinguishable and insists on calling what was launched a Taepo-dong 2 missile.

In legal terms, North Korea is likely to make three inter-related arguments in justification of Sunday’s launch. First, that it is obliged to implement only those resolutions of the Security Council which are in accordance with the UN Charter and that those sections of UNSCR 1718 which seek to restrain its pursuit of peaceful technology are ultra vires of the Charter. Second, that its satellite launch is not an activity “related to its ballistic missile programme.” And third, that Pyongyang has the unfettered right under the 1966 Outer Space Treaty to launch a satellite. Article I of the treaty declares: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.”

While laying emphasis on the importance of countries following through on their NPT obligations, Mr. Mukherjee stressed that the only body competent to pass judgment on this matter was the International Atomic Energy Agency. Though the IAEA has no competence or locus standi on matters related to rocket launches, the Indian statement is a reflection of New Delhi’s reluctance to let the Security Council be the arbiter of matters which do not directly concern it. Even on Iran, India voted to send the Iran file to the SC but has since been emphasising the centrality of the IAEA in finding a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear issue.

India’s dilemma is heightened by the fact that it has itself been the victim of Security Council over-reach in the past. UNSC resolution 1172, passed in the wake of India’s Pokhran II nuclear tests in 1998, called, inter alia, on both Delhi and Islamabad to “cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” Unlike 1718, however, that resolution was not passed under the UN Charter’s Chapter VII authority and was, thus, not binding. Nevertheless, India at the time rejected the resolution as prescriptive and violative of its sovereignty, something Pyongyang has also said about 1718.

On the wider nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, Indian officials told The Hindu that New Delhi remained firmly in support of a negotiated settlement via the Six Party Talks process.