UN on Extra Judicial killings

UN independent expert on extrajudicial killings urges action on reported incidents

28 March 2007 – A United Nations independent human rights expert on extrajudicial killings today called for action in response to reported incidents in the United States, Iran, the Russian Federation, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Indonesia.

“In recent years the United States has consistently argued that the UN Human Rights Council, and all other international human rights accountability mechanisms, have no legitimate role to play when individuals are intentionally killed, so long as it is claimed that the actions were part of the ‘war on terror,’” said Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

“While this argument is convenient because it enables the US to effectively exempt itself from scrutiny, if accepted it would constitute a huge step backwards in the struggle to promote human rights.”

In a separate statement, he urged Iran to stop executing juvenile offenders, calling the practice “unacceptable.”

“It is time for Iran to demonstrate that its commitment to international law involves concrete action, not just empty words,” said Mr. Alston, calling on the country’s Government to “immediately commute all death sentences imposed for crimes individuals committed before the age of 18.”

In a statement directed at the Russian Federation, he called for an end to extrajudicial killings of journalists. “Murders are always tragic, but when journalists are being murdered to cover up human rights abuses, the stakes for the society are even higher than usual,” he said.

“The Government of Russia must bring to an end what appears to be a consistent pattern of failing to prosecute those responsible for these murders and of failing to take the measures required to prevent furthers assassinations of journalists.”

Egypt must instruct its police to stop using firearms to disperse crowds, he said in another statement. “Even if a country makes some demonstrations illegal, and even if the demonstrators ignore the law, that does not mean that the police are allowed to shoot at the demonstrators.”

In a report including several allegations he has received regarding Egypt, Mr. Alston expressed his appreciation for the detailed responses that the Government had made to his requests for further information regarding these incidents, but noted that his dialogue with the Government had revealed serious legal misunderstandings that required immediate reforms.

Bangladesh must stop the Rapid Action Battalion and other elite security forces “from using murder as a policing technique,” said the expert in a separate statement.

His report covers a series of allegations he has received regarding Bangladesh, “none of which were effectively addressed by the Government.”

He also called on Nigeria to “make good on its commitment to end extrajudicial executions by the police” but added in a separate statement that “unfortunately, it seems like business as usual with the Nigerian police continuing to get away with murder.”

In a letter to Nigeria Mr. Alston called for the Government “to underscore the fact that the imposition of the death penalty for offences such as sodomy is unconstitutional.” But his report indicated that the Government ignored his letter.

Indonesia should investigate all those implicated by the report into the murder of Munir Said Thalib, a leading human rights activist, said the expert said in another statement.

In a letter earlier this year, the Government responded to Mr. Alston’s inquiries in a manner that he characterized as “cooperative but incomplete.”

Also today, the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council heard reports from the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.

-------------------------------------

HIGH TIME THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ADDRESSES ISSUES LIKE NANDIGRAM.

MIRANDA RIGHTS IN INDIA (part II-)

Chapter III - POLICE AND THE LAW

The above chapters are indirectly related to a greater issue of accountability and responsibility on the part of the government on the part of the government to educate the citizens about the law and not abuse the powers in the hands of the state machinery. In this chapter we shall discuss mainly about the attitude of the police towards the poor and the treatment meted out to them. This will later lead us to conclude the need for checks in the police functioning today.

3.1 The fallacy of Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Legal systems all over have been based upon the common maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat, that is ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’. The principle, the had first originated in the Code of Justinian [1], was used as a defence by the government when people said they did not know about the law. The reason then was that it was simple to understand and not complex in nature.

With time, law became more and more complex in nature and so did the excuse of the government for using this principle. Now, they said, “it was a small evil in exchange for a greater good”[2]. If this was removed then everyone would claim that they did not know the law which would then become difficult to prove. What it then did become was a manner by which the government shed the responsibility for educating its citizens about the law. It removes any trace of accountability on the part of the government and places the burden on the common man to know the law.

In the past few decades, some Courts in the world are trying to do away with this maxim in the area of ‘rights education’. They seek to place the burden on the government to educate the citizen[3]. It all started in 1966 with Miranda[4] and similar instances in the United Kingdom[5] and other European nations[6]. In the USA, this issue was recently upheld in Dickerson v. United States[7]. As regards to the situation in India, the Courts have always sought to apply and interpret the maxim in its strict sen.[8]se without any exceptions In this way, DK Basu was a relief to the poor. But the fact remains that the government does not have any responsibility to educate the poor in this country. All mechanisms of accountability seem a distant dream.

I argue that the rights of the poor would be secured only if the government takes upon itself the responsibility to protect them. Such responsibility does not seem to exist in India. It is then imperative that if this country must develop, the rights of a 250 million people must be secured.

3.2 The Police and Implementation of the Law

I would like to approach the aspect of police accountability by showing how the police is presently implementing the law. The data presented is based on the research that was conducted by myself in the month of December in the city of Mumbai.

The DK Basu judgment says that the rights laid down in para 36 must be placed in a conspicuous place in every police station. In the eight police stations that were visited, only three of them were in a place that could be well seen. The rest five were in the office of the inspector which is visited only by a few of them. These five police stations were in the slum areas of Mumbai that included the Dharavi, Sion and Chembur areas of Mumbai. On questioning a few police constables, I learnt they knew about the procedure and the way it was to be followed.

On enquiring as to how many cases are reported to the Control room within 24 hrs, three persons reported by myself were not known to the control room for the next 48 hours. One of them by the name of Walekar was placed in a police locker for 2 days and there was no record of his arrest.

3.3 Police Brutalities in India

The issue of police brutalities and custodial violence and no surprise in this system of ours. According to the statistics of the National Human Rights Commission alone, in the year 1999, there were 193 custodial deaths in the country.[9] Every day violence in the police station is not a new phenomenon. Sadly, there is no law in the Country to protect the citizens from torture specifically. Such brutalities have been read into the normal sections of assault[10] and hurt[11] in the Indian Penal Code. The Courts have also at numerous instances discussed the issue of custodial violence [12] and condemned the same.

In the Survey conducted by the researcher, around 41 % of the people interviewed had been subjected to some form of violence or the other at the hands of the police. Some of them also included lathi beatings and slaps. One of them, a juvenile, was even paraded around the police station in his underwear. If this is just an analysis of 25 odd people in the city of Mumbai, we can only imagine what would be happenning in the whole of India. I again get down to the same argument that there is a great need for police accountability in the country to stop such acts of violence against the poor and illiterate.

3.4 Reforms in the Police Act

We today have a 146 year old Police Act[13]. The first comprehensive review at the national level of the police system after independence was undertaken in 1977, when the Government of India appointed the National Police Commission. In its first report[14], the Commission dealt with the modalities for inquiry into complaints of police misconduct in a manner which will carry credibility and satisfaction to the public regarding their fairness and impartiality and rectification of serious deficiencies in the system. Various Committees that have been set up after this period like the Dharma Vira Commission, Julio Roberto Committee, Soli Sorabjee Committee and the Padmanabiah Panel have zeroed in on the maladies of the Police Act and called for drastic changes in the functioning of the system.[15] I argue that the issue at hand is not ‘police reform’ that these committees and judgments propose but that of ‘police accountability’. Our country has not taken a serious stance on the issue of Police accountability and the status of such investigations.

In the United States of America, the rights of individuals have always received supremacy over the investigation process.[16] This is to the extent that, if the rights of arrested persons are affected, then the investigation to that extent will be declared invalid.[17] In this manner, some degree of responsibility to follow the law is placed on the Police. Similar situations must be applied in India too so that the rights of the poor are protected in this country. The accused must have full knowledge of his rights at the time of the investigation and if he is not aware of them, the state must remind him of them.

---

[3] JW Meeker and John Dombrink, “ Access to Civil Courts for those of Low and Moderate Means”, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 2217.

[4] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

[5] Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 (United Kingdom).

[6] § 136 Strafprozessordnung (German Criminal Procedure Code) : Letter of Rights (European Union)

[7] Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428.

[8] State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

[9]“Right to Free Legal Aid: Cause to Despair, Reason to Hope”, A Report of the Centre for Social Justice, 1^st ed. 1998, p. 4.

[10] Section 324, Indian Penal Code.

[11] Section 321, Indian Penal Code.

[12] Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 : Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889 : Sube Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1117.

[13] Indian Police Act, 1861.

[14] Report of the National Police Commission, February 1979.

[15] Poonam Kaushish, “Police Reform: Who Should Control the Police”, Central Chronicle, October 25, 2006.

[16] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436.

[17] Ibid.

Restoring Habeas Corpus !!

The University of Chicago Law School's Blog is by far the best blog Ive ever read on law and HR issues. Imagine people like Posner, Straus and Stone writing! THE BLOG HERE
The following post was posted on the blog .....

PS: The article below is also related to my project/post on Terrorism and the Rule of Law. It would give the reader a good understanding of the Indian Situation.

............................................................................................................

RESTORING HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS ELIMINATED BY THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT

The Constitution Project released the following statement today. Richard Epstein and I helped draft the statement:

We, the undersigned members of the Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee and the Project’s Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances, are deeply troubled by the recent legislation eliminating habeas corpus for certain non-citizens detained by the United States. We recommend that Congress vote to restore federal court jurisdiction to hear these habeas corpus petitions.
Habeas corpus has for centuries served as the preeminent safeguard of individual liberty and the separation of powers by providing meaningful judicial review of executive action. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of Guantanamo detainees to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge the lawfulness of their indefinite detentions.

Nevertheless, in October 2006, Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act (“MCA”) eliminating habeas corpus for certain aliens held by the United States as “enemy combatants.” While we recognize the need to detain foreign terrorists to protect national security, we do not believe repealing federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus serves that goal. On the contrary, habeas corpus is crucial to ensure that the government’s detention power is exercised wisely, lawfully, and consistently with American values.

The protections of habeas corpus have always been most critical in cases of executive detention without charge. In these circumstances, habeas corpus proceedings afford prisoners a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decisionmaker.

The unconventional nature of the current “war on terrorism” makes habeas corpus more, not less, important. Unlike in traditional conflicts, there is no clearly defined enemy, no identifiable battlefield, and no foreseeable end. The administration claims the power to imprison individuals without charge indefinitely, potentially forever. For that reason, it is essential that there be a meaningful process to prevent the United States from detaining people without legal authority or mistakenly depriving innocent people of their liberty. Habeas corpus provides that process.

Habeas corpus is particularly important because of the way in which many detainees at Guantanamo came into U.S. custody. Most detainees were captured far from an active battlefield; many were sold for bounty by Afghani warlords to the Northern Alliance before being handed over to American forces. And, unlike in previous conflicts, the U.S. military did not provide a prompt hearing to determine a detainee’s status, as the Geneva Conventions and U.S. army regulations require. As the Supreme Court has made clear, in the absence of such process habeas corpus is necessary to ensure that legal and factual errors are corrected and detention decisions are viewed as legitimate.

We recognize that the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 provide detainees at Guantanamo with hearings before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (“CSRT”), and that the CSRT decisions may be reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But we believe that this review scheme cannot replace habeas corpus for two principal reasons.

First, the CSRT process lacks the basic hallmarks of due process. Among other problems, it relies on secret evidence, denies detainees the chance to present evidence in their favor, and prohibits the assistance of counsel. In addition, the process permits the tribunal to rely on evidence obtained by coercion. Second, the D.C. Circuit’s review is limited to what will inevitably be an inherently flawed record created by the CSRT. Unlike a U.S. district court judge hearing a habeas corpus petition, the D.C. Circuit cannot consider evidence or make its own findings of fact, and, therefore, it cannot rectify the CSRT’s inherent procedural flaws.

The result does not provide these prisoners the process which they are due. The government has detained prisoners for more than five years without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and has failed to create an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

Restoring habeas corpus is also important to protecting Americans overseas. The United States cannot expect other nations to afford our citizens the basic guarantees provided by habeas corpus unless we provide those guarantees to others.

If the United States is going to establish a system of indefinite detention without charge, it must at least ensure there is a meaningful process to determine it is holding the right people. When no such process has been provided, as in the case of Guantanamo detainees, habeas corpus supplies the critical fail-safe procedure to ensure that the executive has complied with the Constitution and laws of the United States. We also believe that in our constitutional system of checks and balances, it is unwise for the legislative branch to limit an established and traditional avenue of judicial review.
America's detention policy has undermined its reputation in the international community and weakened support for the fight against terrorism, particularly in the Arab world. Restoring habeas corpus would help repair the damage and demonstrate America's commitment to a tough, but rights-respecting counter-terrorism policy. Therefore, we urge Congress to restore the habeas corpus rights that were eliminated by the Military Commissions Act.

Members of the Constitution Project’s
Liberty and Security Committee &
Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances
Endorsing the Statement on Restoring Habeas Corpus Rights Eliminated by the Military Commissions Act*

Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Azizah al-Hibri, Professor, The T.C. Williams School of Law, University of Richmond; President, Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights

Bob Barr, Former Member of Congress (R-GA); CEO, Liberty Strategies, LLC; the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union; Chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances; Practicing Attorney; Consultant on Privacy Matters for the ACLU

David Birenbaum, Of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Senior Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; US Ambassador to the UN for UN Management and Reform, 1994-96

Christopher Bryant, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati; Assistant to the Senate Legal Counsel, 1997-99

David Cole, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

Phillip J. Cooper, Professor, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University

John J. Curtin, Jr., Bingham McCutchen LLP; former President, American Bar Association

John W. Dean, Counsel to President Richard Nixon

Mickey Edwards, Lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University; former Member of Congress (R-OK) and Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee

Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution

Bruce Fein, Constitutional Lawyer and International Consultant at Bruce Fein & Associates and
The Lichfield Group; Associate Deputy Attorney General, Reagan Administration

Eugene R. Fidell, President, National Institute of Military Justice; Partner, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP

Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library, Library of Congress

Melvin A. Goodman, Senior Fellow, Director of the National Security Project, Center for International Policy

Morton H. Halperin, Director of U.S. Advocacy, Open Society Policy Center; Senior Vice President, Center for American Progress; Director of the Policy Planning Staff, Department of State, Clinton Administration

Philip Heymann, James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Deputy Attorney General, Clinton Administration

Robert E. Hunter, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1993-98

David Kay, Former Head of the Iraq Survey Group and Special Adviser on the Search for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Director of Central Intelligence

David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Christopher S. Kelley, Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, Miami University (OH)

Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School; Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 1998-2001

David Lawrence, Jr., President, Early Childhood Initiative Foundation; former Publisher, Miami Herald and Detroit Free Press

Thomas Mann, Senior Fellow and W. Averell Harriman Chair, Governance Studies Program, the Brookings Institution

Joseph Margulies, Deputy Director, MacArthur Justice Center; Associate Clinical Professor, Northwestern University School of Law

Alberto Mora, Former General Counsel, Department of the Navy

Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar, the American Enterprise Institute

Thomas R. Pickering, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs 1997-2000; United States Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, 1989-1992

Jack Rakove, W. R. Coe Professor of History and American Studies and Professor of Political Science, Stanford University

Peter Raven-Hansen, Professor, Glen Earl Weston Research Professor, George Washington Law School

L. Michael Seidman, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

William S. Sessions, Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; former Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Jerome J. Shestack, Partner, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP; former President, American Bar Association

John Shore, Founder and President, noborg LLC; former Senior Advisor for Science and Technology to Senator Patrick Leahy

Neal Sonnett, Chair, American Bar Association Task Force on Treatment of
Enemy Combatants and Task Force on Domestic Surveillance in the Fight Against Terrorism

Suzanne E. Spaulding, Principal, Bingham Consulting Group; former Chief Counsel for Senate and House Intelligence Committees; former Executive Director of National Terrorism Commission; former Assistant General Counsel of CIA

Geoffrey Stone, Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law, the University of Chicago

Jane Stromseth, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

William H. Taft, IV, Of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; former Legal Advisor, Department of State, George W. Bush Administration; Deputy Secretary of Defense, Reagan Administration

John Terzano, Vice President, Veterans for America

James A. Thurber, Director and Distinguished Professor, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University

Charles Tiefer, General Counsel (Acting), 1993-94, Solicitor and Deputy General Counsel, 1984-95, U.S. House of Representatives

Patricia Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit

Don Wallace, Jr., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Chairman, International Law Institute, Washington, DC

John W. Whitehead, President, the Rutherford Institute

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Col, USA (Ret), Visiting Pamela C. Harriman Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary; Professorial Lecturer in the University Honors Program at the George Washington University; former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Roger Wilkins, Clarence J. Robinson Professor of History and American Culture, George Mason University; Director of U. S. Community Relations Service, Johnson Administration

*Affiliations Listed for Identification Purposes Only

FIVE YEARS OF GUJARAT CARNAGE: AN OVERVIEW

Asghar Ali Engineer *Article here

ive years have past since the Gujarat carnage of February 28 2002 which lasted over six months. The carnage followed the burning of S-6 at Godhra on 27th February. It is great mystery as to who set fire to S-6 or was it an accidental fire? Before even news spread all over India of this ghastly incident at Godhra in which 59 persons were burnt, Ahmedabad city started burning on the morning of 28th February. In the post-Godhra carnage in central and north Gujarat more than 2000 persons, mostly of minority origin, were killed most brutally. Several women were raped and weapons inserted in their private parts.

The then NDA Government at the Centre and Modi in Gujarat maintained that S-6 was set afire as a result of conspiracy hatched by the ISI of Pakistan with the help of some Muslims in Godhra. The Modi Government arrested about 100 persons under POTA which was then in force. However, during last five years the Modi Government has not been able to produce an iota of proof against the accused in the 'Godhra conspiracy case.'

The POTA review committee opined last year that there are no substantial grounds for keeping the accused under the POTA but even then the Modi Government refused to release these accused.

It is real mystery as to who set fire to the coach S-6 or was it an accidental fire. The Banerjee Commission set up by Shri Lalu Prasad, the Railway Minister in the UPA Government concluded that the fire was result of short circuit inside S-6 and there is no evidence for setting fire from outside. Mr. Mukul Sinha, the defense lawyer thinks that fire was result of bursting of cooking stove carried by karsevaks had gone on long tour to Ayodhya. The Shah-Nanvati Commission, which is also probing in the train burning at Godhra has still not published its report. One wonders what conclusion it would draw.

Before even the cause of fire was known Modi pronounced the theory of 'equal and opposite reaction' and justified the carnage in Gujarat on the very first day the carnage began. Modi also insisted on carrying the dead bodies of Godhra train tragedy in procession in Ahmedabad thus providing direct provocation for the carnage. No administration, let alone a chief minister, would permit dead bodies of those killed in any sensitive communal incident to be taken out in procession as it acts as direct provocation for more violence. But Modi wanted precisely that.

The Gujarat carnage of 2002 was very different from other riots in post-independence India for following reasons:

1. In no other riot in post-independence period chief minister directly provided justification for massacre as Modi himself did. There have been instances of chief minister not effectively quelling the riots but never of justifying them.
2. In no other riot ministers and police officers led the marauding mob. In case of Gujarat carnage many eye witnesses named two ministers including Mr. Zadaphiya, the then Minister of state for Home involved in directing the marauding mobs. He even entered the police control room and directed the police what to do. His cell numbers also have been recorded. No outsider is ever allowed in police control rooms.
3. In no other riots police officers have been transferred for effectively controlling communal violence. In Gujarat 2002 several honest and committed police officers were transferred on this ground and soon after their transfer riots broke out in that region.
4. In no other riots refugee camps were suddenly closed without providing either alternate accommodation or allowing the refugees to return to their homes and hearth. Modi Government closed the camps without any justification and without providing refugees any alternate accommodation or making arrangements to return to their homes and hearths. Modi while closing down the camps even derisively remarked that I cannot allow 'baby-producing factories' to go on, simply because few Muslim women who were pregnant at the time of riots gave birth to babies in refugee camps.

Not only that the refugee camps were closed down even today i.e. five years after the carnage more than 5000 families are rotting in horrifying conditions in various refugee camps. Not only this Modi recently returned more than Rs.19 crore to Central Government saying funds are no more needed as all have been 'settled'. The victims of Gujarat carnage are unable to return to their original homes as they are still threatened by the VHP activists of the affected villages.

They say that victims would be allowed to return only if they agree to withdraw all cases against the perpetrators of carnage in the village and on condition that they will live in separate quarters like the apartheid and would not give azan on loud speakers. Naturally many victims have refused to agree to these humiliating conditions and are living in most despicable conditions.

What is most shocking is that the Gujarat society is still completely polarised and one sees no signs of repentance among those who indulged in most brutal violence against fellow human beings. They still feel the violence against Muslims was justified. The Sangh Parivar has been carrying on high-pitched hate campaign against minorities even today. Modi needs this campaign to go on as it be used a s political capital in coming assembly elections.

In fact the Gujarat carnage, as it is well known was carried out with the sole purpose of winning the 2002 assembly elections in Gujarat. When the Modi Government won the elections with two-third majority the BJP functionaries celebrated the victory by saying we have found a 'model' to win the elections and we will repeat it in other states. Even Mr.Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister of India when asked for his reaction as to the winning model, he replied 'will Muslims burn train in other place?' In other words even Vajpayee found the 'model' acceptable.

However, the BJP lost general elections of 2004 and Mr. Vajpayee accepted that NDA Government was defeated mainly because of Gujarat carnage. The people of India who are basically peace-loving and secular rejected the BJP-led NDA Government lest other states should experience such carnage. The BJP is in disarray ever since and has not been able to find yet its political bearings. The BJP and Shiv Sena are the two political parties which, thrive on anti-minority hate campaign. They want to base their victory in elections on hatred against minorities. The Sena Chief Bal Thackaray again made sharp attack on Muslims during the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections.

Is there any way out? In Gujarat one does not find any way out as of now. What Gujarat needs in healing touch and only civil society can provide it. But as pointed out above, the civil society itself is deeply polarised on communal lines. In South Africa the blacks and coloured had suffered immensely under the White Government. When Nelson Mandela could establish government of people of African origin, he did not seek any revenge and instead set up a truth and justice commission. Bishop Desmond Tutu played very vital role in functioning of the commission. It provided the healing touch.

But one does not see any Desmond Tutu in Gujarat. The civil society is badly divided. In democracy civil a vibrant society can play very important role but when it is itself polarised on communal lines how can it intervene to set things right? Harsh Mandar, who himself is not from Gujarat, but is extremely sensitive soul, is trying his best to bring about some reconciliation is few villages of Gujarat. But it is only a lonely battle of an outsider.

Why the Gujarat society is so polarised today? The BJP has won over dalits, backwards and tribals in its political fold and thus Hindus, despite deep internal cleavages appear to be united. There has never been a strong dalit movement in Gujarat emphasising their own separate identity like in Maharashtra and other states. There has been no reform movement either. Thus in absence of such a movement dalits, backwards and tribals find it politically beneficial to be part of Hindutva parivar.

Only in 1985 the then chief minister of Gujarat Mr. Solanki had made a feeble attempt to unite weaker sections of Gujarat society by forming a KHAM alliance. KHAM stood for kshatriya, harijans, adivasis and Muslims. He gave them reservations as per Bakhshi Commission recommendations and won 1985 assembly elections with two-third majority. However, the BJP saw the red and launched an aggressive movement against KHAM alliance and succeeded in toppling Solanki Government. Solanki also unfortunately did not stand up firmly with the alliance and suspended reservations to save his government.

However, that knocked the ground off the KHAM alliance and except Muslims, other weaker sections sought refuge under the Sangh Parivar. That is the main reason why Sangh parivar has been able to successfully create the illusion of 'Hindu unity' and Hindu rashtra. The Congress after Solanki could not stand up and almost willingly conceded ground to the Sangh Parivar. Most of the Congressmen themselves subscribe to Hindutva ideology in Gujarat. It has rightly been described the B-party of BJP.

The BJP has been further helped by the identity crisis among the Gujarati NRIs living in U.K. and USA. They help the Hindutva movement in Gujarat generously through their financial contributions to compensate for their identity crisis. Most of the Gujaratis have struck it rich in USA and satisfy their conscience by supporting the Hindutva movement back home. Taking all this into account there is very little hope in Gujarat for the time being. Let us hope for better days in future.

..........................................................................

Destroying our Future!!!

Children are no doubt the future of our country. The Government took 55 years to realise that before they started programmes for the benefit for children. 52% of the children (below 14yrs) are below the poverty line which makes it around 180 million of them. Shattering!! is all I can say.

I'd like to put forward a recent example of how we, as 'responsible' Indians treat our children. On the 28th of February, the Finance Minister came and presented the union Budget from which 7800 Crores ($1.5 Billion) was allocated for the midday meal scheme for the children. If I were to put it straight forward, the Government spends Rs 8/- on every poor child in a year. That indirectly will get him nothing more than a cup of rice for one day. Now what exactly does a kid get under this scheme; a bowl of rice and spiced water. Little does he know that in the garb of free food, the government is treating him like a dirt bag.
In 2002, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a petition in the Supreme Court regarding the right to food. Something that has not been recognised in India till date. While the case is still going on, the Court passed interim orders regarding the Midday Meal scheme and the Integrated Child Dev. Scheme (ICDS). These two are to be monitored by commissioners appointed by the Court. It seems that the Government treated this order like a jolt in its functioning and formally launched the 'midday meal prog'. It would be more of an understatement to say that today the scheme is nothing more than a way to fill the pockets of the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
We claim to be a democratic welfare state. Theoretically it means that the Government shall secure the rights of all its citizens and aim for the promotion and upbringing. In a country with 300 million below the poverty line, this remains to be seen. One still finds it hard to believe that it has taken more than 50 years for the Gov. to make welfare programs for its children. The irony is that amidst all this we pride ourselves in our misery. We show that we are a booming economy despite the fact that millions are dying of hunger. At times, we are made to believe that the democracy that we call ourselves to be does not consist of the poor and those who are denied rights. The gov measures to do alleviate this situation are nothing but a farce. Its high time the gov pulls up its socks and does something concrete. Most of these schemes fail in their implementation and there is no authority/procedure to check their abuse. Democracies thrive on the welfare of their people and not on growth figures which is what is happening.

The above picture is nothing but a representation of the discussion in the post. While on one side the Gov prides itself in growth rates, the poor suffer. We have poor children with no clothes to wear coming about and holding a WLL telephone. !!!!!
For more about the budget and society, read;
Brinda Karat - Priorities are Wrong (Times of India, March 1, 2007)

The Search for Accountability in securing justice.

Primo Levi, the Auschwitz survivor wrote in 'The Drowned and the Saved";

“And there is another, vaster shame, the shame of the world. … And yet there are those who, faced by the crime of others or their own, turn their backs so as not to see it and not feel touched by it … deluding themselves that not seeing was a way of not knowing, and that not knowing relieved them of their share of complicity. … Never again could it be cleansed; it would prove that man, the human species – we, in short – had the potential to construct an infinite enormity of pain, and that pain is the only force created from nothing, without cost and without effort.”

The above is a piece that was written after Levi saw the Holocaust repeating itself in Cambodia. Accountability, as a word, doesnt seem to be in existence when it comes to crimes against humanity. More than half of the world today is victimised by international crimes while the international community sits in the UN and passes resolutions that seem to have no effect.
The other day I read on DAILY DARFUR that the US non intervention in the matter is because of Kharatoum's support and giving information to the US about Osama. Powerful governments dont seem to value life of the people in other parts of the world (ps: the death toll in darfur crosses 300,000). Gone are the days when Woodrow Wilson gave his fourteen points and pledged for the safety of the international order.
While international crimes are occurring there seems to be lack of action on the part of the international community to prevent them. The answer then lies in making the Governments responsible for the protection of the international order. The International Criminal Court (ICC) then is one step in furtherance of this effort. The first cases have been taken up by the Prosector against the Lords Resistance Army and the world is waiting to see what happens next. Can the Court stand up to the very principles it was meant to protect?
However, its not just governments that are playing a role in ensuring international justice. NGOs and activists have been very supportive and played an important part. More info can be found at the NGO Coalition Site. In India for instance, ICC - India is conducting awareness workshops about the International Criminal Court and mass crimes situations in India. Similar initiatives are seen in other countries.
There can be no justice without accountability. Accountability happens when the governments feel more responsible towards the lives of people.
(End of part I..............)