TASLIMA IN `HIDING'
By Manuwant Choudhary
Taslima in `Hiding' resembles a pre-independence newspaper headline Subhash in `Hiding'.
My father would recall those early years when people would believe every word written in the newspapers as the truth and with a poor understanding of the English language one person actually came up to my father with an Atlas. He was looking for a place called `Hiding'!
But that was colonial India. Those who fought for India's freedom, not even Subhash Chandra Bose, would have imagined that in free India anyone needs to be in `Hiding'. But India's secular central government and the Congress Party have decided this is the best way to `protect' Taslima Nasreen, whom the West Bengal CPI (M) government has thrown out from their state.
If the CPI (M) cannot protect Taslima in West Bengal then it is another sure proof that law and order has failed in West Bengal and President's rule should be imposed in the state. Only then can Taslima and the rest of Bengal can be protected.
Its an irony that a communal Narendra Modi has promised Taslima asylum and protection in Gujarat - a state where ordinary Muslims do not feel safe.
Why Bengal look at Assam where protesting tribals were brutally assaulted and their women paraded naked in front of the camera's and no word from the Congress high command Sonia Gandhi. The police do nothing to stop the assault on tribals.
So its not surprising that top cop Kiran Bedi announces her decision to quit to dedicate the rest of her life in the service of India, something she could not do within the police establishment. Again no word from the politicians at a time when India needs tough officers to restore the people's faith in the system.
But India's politicians are very busy. Busy organising mass rallies. First it was Laloo's Chetawani (Warning) Rally, then Nationalist Congress Party's Pol Khol (Expose) rally and finally Ram Vilas Paswan's `Sankalp (Pledge) rally. Pledging not to make India free or to help the downtrodden but pledging to become India's Prime Minister at any cost, anyhow.
Crores are spent on such rallies and in todays India setting up a political party is perhaps a better business venture than starting a manufacturing unit.
Politicians do not manufacture products, they manufacture dreams and lies.
Not to be left behind Nitish Kumar's Janata Dal United celebrated their two years in office. Celebrating what I do not know.
People in Bihar are just about trying to make ends meet after a real bad flood season, there is no electricity in any part of Bihar except Patna.
Forget ordinary people who have no access to the politicians, Nitish Kumar may have been in power for two years but my home does not have a transformer for a year now and three meetings with Bihar's minister of electricity and his orders to the electricity department has not yielded results.
Earlier I thought the government moves slowly but now I wonder if it moves at all.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Commonwealth
Commonwealth Human Rights Forum Recommends suspension of Pakistan from Commonwealth
After two days the Commonwealth Human Rights Forum came out with a Concluding Statement and Recommendation. Find pasted below some of the key recommendations of the forum. To read the whole statement and recommendations of the Commonwealth Human Rights Forum, please read the document in pdf format attached with this mail.
SOME OF THE IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:
· The immediate suspension of Pakistan from the councils of the Commonwealth, investigation into The Gambia, and Commonwealth engagement with the people of Zimbabwe.
· Commonwealth governments should recommend that CMAG remain seized with the situation in Fiji and engage with all political parties to ensure early elections and the restoration of the independence of the judiciary and fundamental freedoms.
· An Expert Group on Policing should be established to develop best practice guidelines on all aspects of policing, training and in order to monitor police practices across the Commonwealth.
· Commonwealth governments must comply with past human rights commitments and, in order to ensure such compliance, establish a formal mechanism to monitor compliance with such commitments.
· The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) should devise a formal system for consulting with civil society.
· Ensuring that the procedure the UNHRC adopts for Universal Peer Review should be independent and meaningful, with appropriate participation of experts (and not merely by other member states).
· Commonwealth governments should work actively to ensure the adoption of and effective implementation of Access to Information laws in order to enable democratic participation.
· Commonwealth governments should revisit the Commonwealth’s election monitoring role, including the examination of ways to strengthen such a role via civil society consultations.
· Commonwealth governments must ensure the independence of National Human Rights Institutions, and accord them due recognition including adequate resources, ensuring strict conformity with the Paris Principles.
· Commonwealth governments should work to develop Commonwealth best practices around freedom of information.
· The Commonwealth should uphold previous commitments to enabling space for civil society participation.
· The Commonwealth should call on Uganda to exercise special leadership as it takes the chair of the Commonwealth to improve its human rights record including the protection of civil society space,
· Commonwealth governments should sign, ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities to realise their potential.
After two days the Commonwealth Human Rights Forum came out with a Concluding Statement and Recommendation. Find pasted below some of the key recommendations of the forum. To read the whole statement and recommendations of the Commonwealth Human Rights Forum, please read the document in pdf format attached with this mail.
SOME OF THE IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:
· The immediate suspension of Pakistan from the councils of the Commonwealth, investigation into The Gambia, and Commonwealth engagement with the people of Zimbabwe.
· Commonwealth governments should recommend that CMAG remain seized with the situation in Fiji and engage with all political parties to ensure early elections and the restoration of the independence of the judiciary and fundamental freedoms.
· An Expert Group on Policing should be established to develop best practice guidelines on all aspects of policing, training and in order to monitor police practices across the Commonwealth.
· Commonwealth governments must comply with past human rights commitments and, in order to ensure such compliance, establish a formal mechanism to monitor compliance with such commitments.
· The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) should devise a formal system for consulting with civil society.
· Ensuring that the procedure the UNHRC adopts for Universal Peer Review should be independent and meaningful, with appropriate participation of experts (and not merely by other member states).
· Commonwealth governments should work actively to ensure the adoption of and effective implementation of Access to Information laws in order to enable democratic participation.
· Commonwealth governments should revisit the Commonwealth’s election monitoring role, including the examination of ways to strengthen such a role via civil society consultations.
· Commonwealth governments must ensure the independence of National Human Rights Institutions, and accord them due recognition including adequate resources, ensuring strict conformity with the Paris Principles.
· Commonwealth governments should work to develop Commonwealth best practices around freedom of information.
· The Commonwealth should uphold previous commitments to enabling space for civil society participation.
· The Commonwealth should call on Uganda to exercise special leadership as it takes the chair of the Commonwealth to improve its human rights record including the protection of civil society space,
· Commonwealth governments should sign, ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities to realise their potential.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Relevance of a Swatantra Party Today
To Save freedom
From, "Why Swatantra," 1960, by C. Rajagopalachari
The Swatantra Party stands for the protection of the individual citizen against the increasing trespasses of the State. It is an answer to the challenge of the so-called Socialism of the Indian Congress party. It is founded on the conviction that social justice and welfare can be attained through the fostering of individual interest and individual enterprise in all fields better than through State ownership and Government control. It is based on the truth that bureaucratic management leads to loss of incentive and waste of resources. When the State trespasses beyond what is legitimately within its province, it just hands over the management from those who are interested in frugal and efficient management to bureaucracy which is untrained and uninterested except in its own survival.
The Swatantra Party is founded on the claim that individual citizens should be free to hold their property and carry on their professions freely and through binding mutual agreements among themselves and that the State should assist and encourage in every possible way the individual in this freedom, but not seek to replace him.
The new party seeks to oppose the trend of the ruling Congress Party to adopt the ways and ideals of the Communists in its eagerness to prevent the Communists from going forward. The Swatantra party believes that going over to the enemy is not defence, but surrender.
The Swatantra Party, apart from the ideology here explained, hopes to furnish a real opposition to the Congress Party so that parliamentary democracy may be properly balanced. The absence of a true opposition has led to the rapid deterioration of democracy into a kind of totalitarianism. Voices have been heard from all quarters calling for a strong opposition and the new party is supplying a felt want.
This party of freedom is further making a novel experiment in restricting disciplinary control over party members to essential issues, giving freedom in all other matters to vote according to individual opinion. This is not mere strategy to "net in" discordant miscellaneous elements as at first might appear. It is really an answer to the constantly expressed sense of dissatisfaction with party rigidity, and to the complaint that it often amounts to suppression of opinion and rule by a minority in the name of a majority. A majority in the ruling caucus can always, under present conditions, impose their views on all and every issue in the Parliament of the nation.
The Swatantra Party intends to initiate a departure from the usual practice of political parties and, true to its name, give Swatantra or freedom to its members to vote according to their own convictions and conscience on all but the party's fundamentals so that the decisions of Parliament may on those issues truly reflect the prevailing opinion, and not be just, a replica of the majority opinion of the ruling party or the fads of the ruling clique.
Without the inconveniences resulting from proportional representation and, in particular, the instability of governments formed under such a system, the reduction of voting in accordance with whips to the barest minimum, as proposed by the Swatantra Party would be a healthy example for all parties. If followed generally or even by the more important ones among the various parties, the freedom given to members on all but essential issues would result in government more in accordance with the ideals of those who conceived the system of proportional representation and laid high hopes thereon. In this matter, the new party may claim to have initiated a great democratic advance worthy of trial in all countries really believing in democracy, and not willing to be subjected to a form of dictatorship in the name of party discipline which often serves only the ambition of individuals or groups.
The new party does not believe that legislative compulsion, any more than the violence that preceded and enthroned Communism in certain countries, can contribute to true or lasting human happiness. We must depend on the moral sense of the people in order to equalise without destroying freedom.
It may be that there are a large number of people in our ancient land who have now lost the capacity to respond to moral appeals, who are impervious to the call of dharma. There have been causes that have brought about this state of things. But this large number of bad and successful men of the world should not blind us to the fact that in the large mass, dharma still rules and supports our society. The millions that make up our nation are still moved and guided by their sense of dharma and the voice of their conscience. If the cynics who deny this were right, our society would have broken down long ago and perished. We should have been hearing of starvation deaths in thousands every day. If we take a survey of the numerous charitable foundations and trusts that work as a matter of routine in the country and which were born of a sense of dharma, without any kind of State compulsion, we can cure our cynicism with irrefutable and abundant facts. The charitable motives and compulsions of the heart which prevailed in the days when these trusts and charitable institutions were founded can prevail today, for we are the same people after all.
"There is no need for charity when there is an obligation; let the State compel". This is the slogan of the Socialists. But it is forgotten that this will lead irresistibly to total serfdom.
The cynics are not right. Our society is still maintained by the inner law. The outer laws can touch but the fringe of life. They deal with criminals and keep order going. Normal life 'does hot depend on the laws. It depends on the moral consciousness of people. This moral sense has not been effaced whatever changes may have taken place in the rituals and observances of forms. It is by dharma that society is sustained, Lokah dhriyate. It is on dharma we must build, and not on the sands of material motives and our capacity to satisfy them quickly and get votes to be in power. The good seed is not lost. It is still there. We must not ignore its availability. The soil also is good and God will send us the rains. Let us not fail to look after it.
From, "Why Swatantra," 1960, by C. Rajagopalachari
The Swatantra Party stands for the protection of the individual citizen against the increasing trespasses of the State. It is an answer to the challenge of the so-called Socialism of the Indian Congress party. It is founded on the conviction that social justice and welfare can be attained through the fostering of individual interest and individual enterprise in all fields better than through State ownership and Government control. It is based on the truth that bureaucratic management leads to loss of incentive and waste of resources. When the State trespasses beyond what is legitimately within its province, it just hands over the management from those who are interested in frugal and efficient management to bureaucracy which is untrained and uninterested except in its own survival.
The Swatantra Party is founded on the claim that individual citizens should be free to hold their property and carry on their professions freely and through binding mutual agreements among themselves and that the State should assist and encourage in every possible way the individual in this freedom, but not seek to replace him.
The new party seeks to oppose the trend of the ruling Congress Party to adopt the ways and ideals of the Communists in its eagerness to prevent the Communists from going forward. The Swatantra party believes that going over to the enemy is not defence, but surrender.
The Swatantra Party, apart from the ideology here explained, hopes to furnish a real opposition to the Congress Party so that parliamentary democracy may be properly balanced. The absence of a true opposition has led to the rapid deterioration of democracy into a kind of totalitarianism. Voices have been heard from all quarters calling for a strong opposition and the new party is supplying a felt want.
This party of freedom is further making a novel experiment in restricting disciplinary control over party members to essential issues, giving freedom in all other matters to vote according to individual opinion. This is not mere strategy to "net in" discordant miscellaneous elements as at first might appear. It is really an answer to the constantly expressed sense of dissatisfaction with party rigidity, and to the complaint that it often amounts to suppression of opinion and rule by a minority in the name of a majority. A majority in the ruling caucus can always, under present conditions, impose their views on all and every issue in the Parliament of the nation.
The Swatantra Party intends to initiate a departure from the usual practice of political parties and, true to its name, give Swatantra or freedom to its members to vote according to their own convictions and conscience on all but the party's fundamentals so that the decisions of Parliament may on those issues truly reflect the prevailing opinion, and not be just, a replica of the majority opinion of the ruling party or the fads of the ruling clique.
Without the inconveniences resulting from proportional representation and, in particular, the instability of governments formed under such a system, the reduction of voting in accordance with whips to the barest minimum, as proposed by the Swatantra Party would be a healthy example for all parties. If followed generally or even by the more important ones among the various parties, the freedom given to members on all but essential issues would result in government more in accordance with the ideals of those who conceived the system of proportional representation and laid high hopes thereon. In this matter, the new party may claim to have initiated a great democratic advance worthy of trial in all countries really believing in democracy, and not willing to be subjected to a form of dictatorship in the name of party discipline which often serves only the ambition of individuals or groups.
The new party does not believe that legislative compulsion, any more than the violence that preceded and enthroned Communism in certain countries, can contribute to true or lasting human happiness. We must depend on the moral sense of the people in order to equalise without destroying freedom.
It may be that there are a large number of people in our ancient land who have now lost the capacity to respond to moral appeals, who are impervious to the call of dharma. There have been causes that have brought about this state of things. But this large number of bad and successful men of the world should not blind us to the fact that in the large mass, dharma still rules and supports our society. The millions that make up our nation are still moved and guided by their sense of dharma and the voice of their conscience. If the cynics who deny this were right, our society would have broken down long ago and perished. We should have been hearing of starvation deaths in thousands every day. If we take a survey of the numerous charitable foundations and trusts that work as a matter of routine in the country and which were born of a sense of dharma, without any kind of State compulsion, we can cure our cynicism with irrefutable and abundant facts. The charitable motives and compulsions of the heart which prevailed in the days when these trusts and charitable institutions were founded can prevail today, for we are the same people after all.
"There is no need for charity when there is an obligation; let the State compel". This is the slogan of the Socialists. But it is forgotten that this will lead irresistibly to total serfdom.
The cynics are not right. Our society is still maintained by the inner law. The outer laws can touch but the fringe of life. They deal with criminals and keep order going. Normal life 'does hot depend on the laws. It depends on the moral consciousness of people. This moral sense has not been effaced whatever changes may have taken place in the rituals and observances of forms. It is by dharma that society is sustained, Lokah dhriyate. It is on dharma we must build, and not on the sands of material motives and our capacity to satisfy them quickly and get votes to be in power. The good seed is not lost. It is still there. We must not ignore its availability. The soil also is good and God will send us the rains. Let us not fail to look after it.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Nandigram
UNDECLARED EMERGENCY IN WEST BENGAL
IMPOSE PRESIDENT'S RULE
By Manuwant Choudhary
The past year has seen largescale violence in West Bengal's Nandigram over the Special Economic Zone issue where farmers refuse to give up their land for SEZs but the past week has seen violence unimaginable in democratic India and if ever President's Rule can be justified its for cases like this and Narendra Modi's Gujarat.
Yet, we see the centre falter once again. The media says `Congress reacts strongly to Nandigram' but we don't hear even a whimper instead a dignified Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi (a real Gandhi descendant) going to buy peace from Marxist veteran Jyoti Basu.
If Mahatma Gandhi were alive he would be walking the paddy fields of Nandigram and perhaps in todays India he would be attacked by the Marxists just as they are killing ordinary people, undermining the judiciary and attacking the press and Governor.
Yet, there is no President's Rule in West Bengal.
And no President's Rule in Gujarat.
Article 356 when used in India is mostly for political reasons and now when its not used also its for political reasons only.
So if this constitutional provision cannot be used for the right reasons by our elected representatives then it just needs to be scrapped.
Let the people of India defend themselves from the political parties.
IMPOSE PRESIDENT'S RULE
By Manuwant Choudhary
The past year has seen largescale violence in West Bengal's Nandigram over the Special Economic Zone issue where farmers refuse to give up their land for SEZs but the past week has seen violence unimaginable in democratic India and if ever President's Rule can be justified its for cases like this and Narendra Modi's Gujarat.
Yet, we see the centre falter once again. The media says `Congress reacts strongly to Nandigram' but we don't hear even a whimper instead a dignified Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi (a real Gandhi descendant) going to buy peace from Marxist veteran Jyoti Basu.
If Mahatma Gandhi were alive he would be walking the paddy fields of Nandigram and perhaps in todays India he would be attacked by the Marxists just as they are killing ordinary people, undermining the judiciary and attacking the press and Governor.
Yet, there is no President's Rule in West Bengal.
And no President's Rule in Gujarat.
Article 356 when used in India is mostly for political reasons and now when its not used also its for political reasons only.
So if this constitutional provision cannot be used for the right reasons by our elected representatives then it just needs to be scrapped.
Let the people of India defend themselves from the political parties.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Emergency in Pakistan
It’s just not cricket:
Commonwealth must suspend Pakistan
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Says Musharraf Fails To Keep His Promise to Restore Democracy in Pakistan
Things have gone very wrong in Pakistan.
Its journey towards democracy was further derailed last Saturday, when General Musharraf, the head of army, declared a state of emergency that suspended the Constitution, sacked members of the Supreme Court and suppressed all dissent across the country.
The declaration came days before the Supreme Court was due to hand down a decision that may have stripped the General of the presidency, on the basis that it was illegal for him to head both the army and the Government.
The response of the global community has ranged between outright condemnation of a virtual coup to reserved comments based in alliance, rather than recognition of the absolute disregard for democracy, the rule of law and judicial independence.
Next Monday – the 12th of November – a little known mechanism, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, or CMAG, will meet to consider the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. The Group will look at whether the declaration of emergency represents such a strong blow against the commitments to democracy and human rights underpinning Commonwealth membership that Pakistan should be suspended.
This is a critical moment, both to confirm the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth, but also for the world, as CMAG is one of the few mechanisms that has the power to sanction a government treading so far from globally accepted standards of good governance. The United Nations doesn’t have this power – and its actions are moderated by eternal deliberation.
No one – least of all its South Asian neighbours – want an unstable, fragmented and ungovernable Pakistan. General Musharraf claims that the emergency is a move to ensure stability – and uses the threat of terrorism to justify the suppression of political opposition. The reality is that the emergency is creating exactly the environment that it seeks to prevent, and is putting regional security, democratic governance and the wellbeing of Pakistani communities at grave risk.
CMAG is the opportunity for the Commonwealth to reaffirm unequivocally that democracy, democratic processes and institutions, the rule of law and just and honest government are the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth (as set out in the Harare Declaration, the set of principles that CMAG is mandated to protect). Swift action signalling total disapproval of the General’s actions will reinforce that membership of the Commonwealth is predicated on an absolute promise to protect and promote these values. CMAG has taken action before – in Nigeria following the imposition of military rule in 1995 and in Fiji late last year, after Commodore Bainarama overthrew the democratically elected government.
Pakistan itself was suspended from the Commonwealth following General Musharraf’s military coup in 1999. It was readmitted as a member of the Commonwealth in 2004, on the basis of a promise to entrench democratic governance. General Musharraf also promised to hang up his army uniform, in recognition of the clear breach of democratic standards that comes with a leader heading up both the army and the government. General Musharraf has not kept this promise, despite further prodding from the Commonwealth Heads of Government in late 2005, international pressure, and the latest rounds of legal action inside Pakistan that precipitated the declaration of emergency. Pakistan has remained on CMAGs agenda since it rejoined the Commonwealth, in recognition of the tenuous state of democracy and human rights in the country.
CMAG must suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth on Monday. It is a particularly significant moment, as the Commonwealth Heads of Government come together in a little over a fortnight for their biennial meeting, to discuss issues of concern in the Commonwealth and to set policy for the next two years. Pakistan’s attendance at this meeting as a member of the Commonwealth would make an absolute mockery of the very basis of Commonwealth membership. It would also be the loss of a real chance for the world to demonstrate that internationally accepted principles of good governance and democracy are true standards and not just comforting words.
Commonwealth must suspend Pakistan
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Says Musharraf Fails To Keep His Promise to Restore Democracy in Pakistan
Things have gone very wrong in Pakistan.
Its journey towards democracy was further derailed last Saturday, when General Musharraf, the head of army, declared a state of emergency that suspended the Constitution, sacked members of the Supreme Court and suppressed all dissent across the country.
The declaration came days before the Supreme Court was due to hand down a decision that may have stripped the General of the presidency, on the basis that it was illegal for him to head both the army and the Government.
The response of the global community has ranged between outright condemnation of a virtual coup to reserved comments based in alliance, rather than recognition of the absolute disregard for democracy, the rule of law and judicial independence.
Next Monday – the 12th of November – a little known mechanism, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, or CMAG, will meet to consider the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. The Group will look at whether the declaration of emergency represents such a strong blow against the commitments to democracy and human rights underpinning Commonwealth membership that Pakistan should be suspended.
This is a critical moment, both to confirm the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth, but also for the world, as CMAG is one of the few mechanisms that has the power to sanction a government treading so far from globally accepted standards of good governance. The United Nations doesn’t have this power – and its actions are moderated by eternal deliberation.
No one – least of all its South Asian neighbours – want an unstable, fragmented and ungovernable Pakistan. General Musharraf claims that the emergency is a move to ensure stability – and uses the threat of terrorism to justify the suppression of political opposition. The reality is that the emergency is creating exactly the environment that it seeks to prevent, and is putting regional security, democratic governance and the wellbeing of Pakistani communities at grave risk.
CMAG is the opportunity for the Commonwealth to reaffirm unequivocally that democracy, democratic processes and institutions, the rule of law and just and honest government are the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth (as set out in the Harare Declaration, the set of principles that CMAG is mandated to protect). Swift action signalling total disapproval of the General’s actions will reinforce that membership of the Commonwealth is predicated on an absolute promise to protect and promote these values. CMAG has taken action before – in Nigeria following the imposition of military rule in 1995 and in Fiji late last year, after Commodore Bainarama overthrew the democratically elected government.
Pakistan itself was suspended from the Commonwealth following General Musharraf’s military coup in 1999. It was readmitted as a member of the Commonwealth in 2004, on the basis of a promise to entrench democratic governance. General Musharraf also promised to hang up his army uniform, in recognition of the clear breach of democratic standards that comes with a leader heading up both the army and the government. General Musharraf has not kept this promise, despite further prodding from the Commonwealth Heads of Government in late 2005, international pressure, and the latest rounds of legal action inside Pakistan that precipitated the declaration of emergency. Pakistan has remained on CMAGs agenda since it rejoined the Commonwealth, in recognition of the tenuous state of democracy and human rights in the country.
CMAG must suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth on Monday. It is a particularly significant moment, as the Commonwealth Heads of Government come together in a little over a fortnight for their biennial meeting, to discuss issues of concern in the Commonwealth and to set policy for the next two years. Pakistan’s attendance at this meeting as a member of the Commonwealth would make an absolute mockery of the very basis of Commonwealth membership. It would also be the loss of a real chance for the world to demonstrate that internationally accepted principles of good governance and democracy are true standards and not just comforting words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)