FARIHA PERVAIZ_GHAM E DIL KO

RTE Act and the challenges ahead. by LIFFY THOMAS MEERA & SRINIVASAN

Building Bridges: Addressing certain key issues will make the implementation of the RTE Act easier and more effective, say experts. A scene at Thiruvalluvar Nagar in Thiruvanmiyur in Chennai.

As the State government gets ready to implement the landmark Right to Education (RTE) Act, which came into force in April 2010, private schools, parents, educationists and non-governmental organisations have a number of concerns over key clauses of the legislation.

All of them have welcomed the Act, but there are challenges in the road to realising free and compulsory education to every child aged six to 14 years.

Last week, the School Education Department released the draft rules evolved by the State, which was designed by an advisory committee constituted by the government.

"The government has already passed a few orders related to the Act," says D. Jagannathan, former Director of School Education, who heads the advisory committee.

For instance, a Government Order dated July 12, 2010, states: "No child shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education in a school."

The State government, which had until then been following a 'no detention policy' till Class V in its schools made it applicable till Class VIII, following the RTE Act.

Other GOs include one that designates the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training (DTERT) as the academic authority for academic matters pertaining to the RTE Act. Another looks at teacher recruitment to meet the Teacher Pupil Ratio specifications of 1: 30 in the primary level and 1: 35 in the upper primary level.

However, there are concerns. Non-governmental organisations and educationists, who convened a meeting here last week, have criticised the State government's draft rules for adopting a "bureaucratic approach."

They say local authorities have been replaced by Local Education Authority in the State's draft rules, implying that the panchayat, municipality or Corporation has no role.

Grievance redress

The provision for a grievance redress mechanism in the model rules of the State has been deleted. Also, with the no detention scheme, maintenance of standards would be a challenge.

"Whether it is prohibiting tuitions or schools taking capitation fee, the Act and the State's draft rules are weak on penalties. We have pledged to file complaints for non implementation of the Act," says O. Fernandes of Human Rights Advocacy and Research Foundation.

On reserving 25 per cent of seats in private schools for children belonging to disadvantaged groups, parents like Anu Alagappan feels schools will have to play a crucial role to ensure that no disparity is created in the classroom.

"Will the government ensure that needs of such children are met, whether its expenses for a picnic or other extra-curricular activities?" asks the mother of a student at Sacred Heart Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Church Park.

Many other parents say abolishing tuitions is not really possible in our education system.

According to K. Shanmugavelayutham, convener, Tamilnadu Forum for Creche and Childcare Services (TN-FORCES), draft rules in various States taken into account the quality of education, appointment of school counsellors and the percentage of seats to be allocated to children coming in the disadvantaged group.

In Puducherry, for instance, the cluster resource person shall assist the head of the school to monitor quality and in case of a lapse it should be brought to the notice of the inspecting officer and block resource coordinator.

To facilitate children with disabilities in getting access to education, Andhra Pradesh draft rules state that home based education would be provided to children who cannot be transported to neighbourhood schools. Kerala draft rules talks of a Unique Identification Number and biometric identification for every child by the school.

The State government will soon constitute a State Advisory Council chaired by School Education Minister Thangam Thennarasu. It will have on board secretaries to select departments of the government and senior officials.

Its primary role will be to facilitate the effective implementation of the Act. The SSA wing will also act as a vehicle that would implement the RTE Act.

"We already have a good network in place. We are now aligning our work closer to the requirements of the RTE Act," said a senior SSA official.

What they say

D. Jagannathan, chairman of the State government's advisory committee on RTE Act: "The implementation of the Act has already begun at different stages. It is a robust exercise, which cannot be taken up by a single committee or agency. It warrants the collective effort of the Directorate of Elementary Education, the SSA wing, the other directorates within the School Education Department, schools and local authorities. We are all working in that direction."

K. Shanmugavelayutham, Convenor, TN-FORCES: "Tamil Nadu should take a cue from the draft rules of other state governments. Incorporating clauses such as quality, child tracking system and UID will ensure the Act is better enforced in every school. The current draft rules are more bureaucratic. The advisory council should have representations of the civil."

Chitra Prasad, Correspondent and Principal, NSN Matriculation School: "On one hand, private schools have been asked to reduce the fee, and on the other hand, the RTE Act mandates free education for 25 per cent of the student strength. We already cater to a heterogeneous group of students and are struggling to run the school. The principles behind the Act are laudable, but practical difficulties have to be taken into account while framing the rules. Ultimately, education has to reach the masses, not just the classes."

ulr. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article934073.ece

A Partnership for Stability? Why a Turkey-Iran axis could mean good news

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flashes the V-sign for victory as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan looks on after the Islamic republic inked a nuclear fuel swap deal in Tehran in May. The agreement was signed by the foreign ministers of Iran, Brazil and Turkey.

Turkey and Iran have over the years forged a partnership defying expectations of how two seemingly competing and bordering regional powers might interact. And in the past few months, they have pledged to deepen their ties to the bewilderment of some and to the alarm of others. Despite qualms though, their quid pro quo ties could have                a positive regional effect, starting with increased stability.

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in September urged investors to triple bilateral trade by 2015 with Iran to $30 billion annually through bilateral business ventures, precisely when US-led Western governments are trying to strangle Iran with sanctions. Turkey will also remove Iran from its “enemy list” by the end of the year, and it is currently fighting Washington’s intention to single out Iran as a target of a NATO missile defense system that Turkey will likely host in its territory. For its part, Tehran has vowed to streamline Turkish investment in Iran and it has given Ankara a de-facto intermediary role with Western countries in shuttle diplomacy over its nuclear program.

The rapprochement between the two is the result of calculated self-interest, much like Germany and France after World War II. Turkey needs Iran to fulfill its strategic goal of reclaiming the regional powerhouse stature of yore, and Iran needs Turkey to survive diplomatically and economically. What remains to be seen is whether the tradeoff is successful.

Throughout most of last century, the two former empires were introspective, struggling to find their place in the world. Ankara considered its neighbor a threat after the Islamic Revolution, a position that began to change with Turkey’s voracious natural gas thirst. In 2000, bilateral trade was $1 billion; five years later it reached $4 billion; and last year it reached $10 billion, almost entirely energy-based.

The political turnaround from suspicious to symbiotic was the result of profound geopolitical shifts—more so than trade—that triggered strategic repositioning both in Ankara and Tehran. Most notably, the US invasion of Iraq, Iran’s standoff with the Western powers over its defiant uranium enrichment program, and Europe’s snub of Turkey’s EU membership aspirations.

For Turkey, the European rebuff coincided with its economic and military resurgence and ambitions. However, Russia was also blocking its eastern geopolitical aspirations toward the Caucasus. Thus, Turkey’s only option was to turn south, to the Middle East, while gathering the maturity to compete in Russia’s sphere by becoming the main alternative energy hub transferring oil and gas into Europe. Turkey is also the only country with the credentials, and military and economic muscle to fill the vacuum that US troops will one day leave.

But the Middle Eastern front required stable neighbors and good relations, starting with Iraq, where much of the oil and gas to make Turkey an energy hub would come from. Iraq is also the recent nucleus of regional instability that includes Kurdish independence aspirations.

Iran is the kingmaker in Iraq, which serves as its security buffer. That is why Tehran has been preoccupied there for the last decade. Tehran has the power to destabilize its neighbor and by extension, to give a lifeline to Kurdish PKK rebels, thus derailing Turkish goals. If Iran delivers stability in Iraq, then Turkey can deliver influence on the diplomatic and economic fronts.

Elsewhere, Iran is on survival mode, despite all the fear mongering going on in the region. It’s not competing with Turkey or any other to country simply because it can’t. It is of course a regional power by its own right, just not one that is able to expand. It is in no economic position to do so. It’s politically unstable internally and preoccupied with internal dissent. Iran can’t exert any offensive pressure and has built its entire strategy on defense; it relies on asymmetrical warfare through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah for that. Its nuclear program is meant as a deterrent. And even if it had the will and muscle to expand outside Iraq, it would face hostility in Sunni majority countries, starting with Turkey.

Iranian and Turkish interests also collude in the Caucasus, although to a lesser degree, and only when faced with Russian encroachment. After the war with Georgia, Turkey saw its eastern plans dashed. Even if just temporary, Ankara and Tehran share objectives in the Caucasus, which is Turkey’s next target.

Of course, the opposite is also true. Iran has the power to destabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and the broader region, and could even turn to Russia, so it’s in Turkey’s interest to keep Tehran close. On the economic front, the Caucasus is also rich in oil and gas, but Turkey won’t be able to work as Europe’s connection to these resources without Iran’s help. Here lies another powerful incentive.

Perhaps the most imminent issue of contention is the Palestinian quagmire. It is in Turkey’s interest to reach a broad peaceful settlement as soon as possible, and it is in Iran’s interest to do the opposite.

With a foothold in Iraq, Turkey turned to mend ties with Syria and later failed to broker peace between Israel and Damascus. But the flotilla incident inadvertently cemented Ankara’s role as a regional power player, especially among Muslims who mistrusted Egypt’s half-hearted leadership, but were weary of Iranian intentions. Turkey’s uproar was about the killing of its nationals, more than defending Gaza, but Erdogan came out champion of the Palestinian cause.

Iran has traditionally claimed moral high ground on the Palestinian cause and Turkey has recently threatened Iran’s position, which explains why President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to the Israeli border with Lebanon during his recent visit. Still, this is secondary to both countries’ objectives. 

The priority for Turkey and Iran is a peaceful resolution to the latter’s nuclear standoff. Indeed, the biggest risk to Ankara’s hegemonic aspirations is a military flare-up that would wreak havoc in the Middle East. That is why Turkey voted against the last sanctions in the UN Security Council and why it unsuccessfully tried brokering, along with Brazil, its own solution, to the ire of its NATO allies.

Regarding the missile shield, it appears that Turkey will impose its will on its NATO allies. President Abdullah Gül said a week ahead of the recently held summit in Lisbon that "mentioning one country, Iran...is wrong and will not happen. A particular country will not be targeted...We will definitely not accept that."

Turkey has joined Tehran in betting its future on resolving this issue. Ankara is trying to avert war by simultaneously talking to Tehran and bargaining for time with its NATO allies. Tehran wants Turkey to use its position to negotiate on its behalf for security guarantees. But for the region as a whole, it could translate into stability.

Andrés Cala – Madrid-based freelance journalist. Mr. Cala contributes regularly to several publications, including TIME magazine, The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor.

Life begins at 40

The India of the 1950s was a very different world. Yet, dreams could be realised, and lives rebuilt. Even at 40…
By SILLOO MEHTA


Mine certainly did. Our son wanted to study at a good American University. In the early 1950s, if you had a dream, it remained unfulfilled unless you could afford it. Taking a loan was unthinkable. That was only for life and death matters. The first college he wrote to replied, “3,000 foreign students apply to us annually and almost all want scholarships. Sorry.” Others replied similarly. We advised our son to keep studying meanwhile and graduate well from school.

For the first time in my life I thought of taking up a job. At 40? No degrees, no business experience. Not very promising. Besides, I would hate to be cooped up in an office from nine to five. What would I like to do? I liked meeting people. That suggested travel, tourism, hotels. Although we had lived in Calcutta for years, I had never really seen the city. For the next four Sundays, my husband drove me to all the places in the Guide Book. Calcutta is an industrial city. It doesn't offer much by way of tourism. Often, businessmen who have a few hours to kill between planes, take a quick tour. The tourist season is from November to March. The rest of the year we look up at the skies for manna from heaven.

Beginning of an idea

My inspection tours showed there was good scope for an entrepreneur in city tourism. Wherever we went, touts attached themselves to us and in broken English tried to parrot what they had picked up. They were a nuisance. The TV ads say, ‘An Idea can change your life'. Mine did. Why not become a tourist guide? I was sure I could do a much better job. Then the ‘buts' set in. What will people say? Why is Silloo roaming around in taxis with strange men? Are the Mehta's so hard up? In our society, I would definitely lose caste. Could I take it? A bridge in Edinburgh has a plaque, ‘they say, what say they, let them say.' I'll follow that advice. Easier said than done.

We discussed the economics. It wouldn't require much capital. The only investment was myself. The more knowledge I acquired about the country, the better I would be at my job. I definitely liked the idea because it gave me freedom to be myself. The major travel agents in town were Thomas Cook and American Express. One morning, dressed elegantly, I went to Thomas Cook's office. Assuming me to be a customer, I was shown to the Manager's desk. I told him what I had discovered and suggested he engage me as a guide for his tourists. Mr. Roper was astonished but receptive. He said, “Mrs. Mehta, you are the answer to our prayers. Many a time we have to pull out the office staff because we have no one to accompany our VIP tourists”. Thus began Mrs. Mehta's Guide Service.

Next day I called some of my friends to coffee. I selected four ladies. Two were married with children at school, and two were single, middle aged. All were educated, intelligent and comfortable in any society. They were bored with their lives and as I expected, ready to try something new. I warned that this was a job. They would earn peanuts but learn a great deal. I prepared a slim guide book about India. My guides should know something about India's history, geography, governance, economy, population, religions, etc. I am neither a historian nor a scholar, but I was enormously interested in the evolution that was taking place in our country during the last century. I wanted my guides to answer intelligently the questions their tourists would ask.

In the early 1950s, the kind of tourist world I entered seemed tailor-made for me. The tourists were mostly rich American couples going round the world after a life time of work. They expected VIP treatment everywhere and their travel agents provided it. I planned an itinerary of two half day tours and one full day. Most chose half day in the heat. (At the end of the War there were few American cars, only Ambassadors with no ACs.) The tour lasted three and a half hours. My guides were not professionals. They spared two or three days of the week for me for my tours because they enjoyed the work. The rest of the time was their own.

I would introduce myself and the tour would begin. For me it was like taking friends out. Some people were more knowledgeable, more interested in the country and its people. My favourite place in the tour was Calcutta's Jain Temple. There are many Jain temples in the city but this one was unique. Set in a little garden with a pond in the centre, this temple was like a little jewel box. Completely set with pieces of coloured glass it was an enchanting mosaic of reflecting light. In the place of honour was a Jain Tirthankara made of marble. Jainism has 24 Tirthankaras, Mahavira being the last. They were great souls who attained perfection of spiritual knowledge and were a role model for those seeking spiritual guidance. Jainism believes in absolute non-violence.

Next we drove to the Victoria Memorial, the only museum of British rule in India. This marble monument was Lord Curzon's enduring homage to his Queen. It contains wonderful miniatures of Mughal art and calligraphy and an interesting history of the Raj in India.

Personal rapport

We spend a large part of the time driving around and talking. By the end of the tour we have usually established good rapport. Mass tourism of the present day has destroyed this kind of rapport. When I read some of the letters tourists have written to me, I feel a glow in my heart even now. I don't remember their faces but they must have been nice people to take time from their busy lives to say ‘thank you' to a guide so far away. Here are some of the nicest letters. “You are the best guide I've ever had in all my lengthy travels. You contributed more to my understanding of India than several dozens of other people. I am truly grateful. Kenneth Strobel, Alaska”. “You showed us Calcutta and spent your time with us and since then your country has all our sympathy. We shall not forget you. Mathias Seitz, Germany”. “You will not remember us but you were our guide in Calcutta on April 28, 1957. We not only enjoyed our trip but enjoyed you and remember you as one of the loveliest personalities it has been our privilege to meet. Mrs. K. C. Kaiser, USA”. “Thank you for making our visit to Calcutta so enjoyable. The very delicious tea in your home and the stimulating conversation is one of the highlights of our trip. Margaret and Jerry Kendall, San Jose, California.” What more can one want, I chose the right career. Sometimes it could be boring and tiring but that happens in any job. One just carries on.

Slowly, as the business grew, Thomas Cook and Amex Co. began entrusting their cruise ship tourists to me. Once every year, the cruise ships come to Bombasy in March and from there, groups of tourists would fan out to visit different parts of India. Calcutta was the base for the east. Travel agents spared no effort or expense to cater to these VIP tourists. Sixty years ago only the very rich could afford these luxurious round the world cruises. Lavish cocktail parties were held in five star hotels. Now we really came into our own. Suddenly, everyone wanted to be one of Mrs. Mehta's guides. Those who had taken a dim view of my career choice began calling me up. (Meow, Meow). But, there was a snag. The Agents didn't want to invite our husbands. I said, then you can count us out. Reluctantly they agreed. Incredibly, it was the husbands who made a hit. The tourists had seen plenty of pretty women but they were eager to talk business with the men. Business opportunities in India, foreign investments, eager to supply anything that this huge country might need. Unfortunately, we had very little foreign exchange. As I told Mr. Phillip Pillsbury, “we drool over your cake mix ads. Why don't you send them to us?” He said, “I have been trying for years. I understand your foreign exchange difficulties, but mark my words, Mrs. Mehta, one day every store in India will carry the Pillsbury Brand.” Today it has come true.

The Government of India, aware of India's tourist potential, was busy establishing tourist offices all over the country. Preparing advertisements, recruiting staff, training guides, etc. It was bound to affect my business. Reluctantly, my supporters Thomas Cook and Amex Co. started using government guides. They said, “we need the tourist office for their help in many ways and we cannot ignore them, even though we know how much better your service is.” I understood. I also knew that this David and Goliath battle could end only in one way. One morning, I received a letter from the Director of the Government Tourist Office, Calcutta which sent my BP plummeting. He ordered me to employ only authorised government guides. I showed it to my husband. He said, “I'll take you to Fowler tomorrow”. Fowler and Co. were one of the oldest British law firms of Calcutta. As we entered, Mr. Fowler joked, “Your husband said, it was a personal matter. I hope he hasn't been a naughty boy”. “I wish he had been”, I answered, and gave him the letter. Mr. Fowler was a small, old man with wispy hair and twinkly eyes. “Hmm, what does he mean by authorised government guides only? Doesn't he know this is a democracy where you can start any business and employ whoever you wish?” Mr. Fowler dictated a three line letter in superb English which demolished their case completely. A pyrrhic victory, I thought sadly. My days in tourism were numbered. I was wrong. Fate had other plans for me.

Changing destinies

In the meantime my son's stars were bright, he got a scholarship to Cornell through an influential alumnus. Of course, his grades had to be first class. At Cornell he met and fell in love with Louise. After he got his drama degree, he returned to Calcutta and landed a good job. He joined amateur theatre groups and produced plays in his spare time. His fiancée Louise came out and soon there was a happy wedding. They found a comfortable annexe, made a host of friends, and Louise taught in the American International School. By this time our daughter Shernaz was in her final year of school. One morning, I fell ill. A group tour had been booked for that day. All the guides were busy but someone had to replace me. I asked Shernaz. She quickly changed into a sari and left on the tour. She must have done a good job because one of her tourists, who was a geology professor, told her that if she graduated well from school and did her SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) equally well, she should write to him. So fate shaped her destiny also.

The writer (age 93) is a freelance contributor to national newspapers and magazines. She can be contacted at: silloo.mehta@yahoo.co.in

source . The hindu

WikiLeaks: “Crass political opportunism” of Cong. leaders. NARAYAN LAKSHMAN

Unites States embassy officials in New Delhi described as “crass political opportunism” the statements made by senior Congress party leaders such as Digvijay Singh and A.R. Antulay, in the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008.

The comments were revealed this week by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website, which is publishing thousands of private diplomatic cables that it obtained from the U.S. State Department.

The cable in question, which contained a candid and sharply critical review of Congress party politics following the Mumbai attacks, was authored by the U.S. embassy on December 23, 2008 and sent to the Secretary of State in Washington.

In the cable, U.S. officials said that the willingness of Congress leaders to support “outrageous” comments by erstwhile Minority Affairs Minister Mr. Antulay, propounding a conspiracy theory behind the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, reflected a cynical political calculation by the party that proved once again that many party leaders were “still wedded to the old identity politics.”

The context of the U.S. diplomats’ criticism was that Mr. Antulay sparked controversy on December 17 with comments insinuating that the killing of Mr. Karkare by the Mumbai terrorists was somehow linked to Mr. Karkare’s investigation of “Hindu terrorists” in the September 2008 Malegaon blasts case.

In that case authorities had arrested eleven Hindus, including an Indian Army Lieutenant Colonel, of whom police had identified five as having ties to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and two others as having ties to Sangh Parivar organisations.

Following Mr. Karkare’s killing, which U.S. officials termed a “remarkable coincidence,” the cable noted that Mr. Antulay had fanned the flames of controversy when he said, “Superficially speaking they had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something, I do not know.”

The cable further quoted Mr. Antulay as saying, “Unfortunately his end came. It may be a separate inquiry how his end came... There is more than what meets the eyes.”

While U.S. officials praised some segments of Congress leadership, including Home Minister P. Chidambaram, for officially dismissing Mr. Antulay’s comments and distancing the party from them, they attacked Mr. Digvijay Singh’s comments on December 21, when he said, “I don’t think Antulay made a mistake. What he asked for is a probe. What is objectionable in his statement?”

The U.S. embassy noted that the BJP had reacted to Mr. Singh’s statements by shouting slogans, and staging a walkout in Parliament three days in a row, and demanding a formal clarification from the government.

Further U.S. officials noted that emboldened by the equivocation, Mr. Antulay had refused to apologise or retract his statements and instead went on to argue that they reflected the views of a large segment of the Muslim population.

Overall, the U.S. diplomats said, while cooler heads eventually prevailed within the Congress leadership, it chose to pander to Muslims’ fears and the episode demonstrated that the party would readily stoop to the old caste (and) religious-based politics if it feels it is in its interest.

They can file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too: Arundhati Roy

My reaction to today's court order directing the Delhi Police to file an FIR against me for waging war against the state: Perhaps they should posthumously file a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too. Here is what he said about Kashmir:

1. In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.” (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

2. In other telegram to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir's accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja's government and the most numerously representative popular organization in the state which is predominantly Muslim. Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.” (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947).

Accession issue

3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.”

4. In another broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

5. In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations.”

U.N. supervision

6.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.”

7.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March, 1948, Pandit Nehru said, “Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir.”

Referendum or plebiscite

8.In his press-conference in London on 16th January, 1951, as reported by the daily ‘Statesman' on 18th January, 1951, Pandit Nehru stated, “India has repeatedly offered to work with the United Nations reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will and is always ready to do so. We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was our proposal long before the United Nations came into the picture. Ultimately the final decision of the settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir and secondly, as between Pakistan and India directly. Of course it must be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) have reached a great deal of agreement already. What I mean is that many basic features have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that even without our agreement no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris.”

9.In his report to All Indian Congress Committee on 6th July, 1951 as published in the Statesman, New Delhi on 9th July, 1951, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men.”

10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N. representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, “The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.”

Word of honour

11.As reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji's question in the Indian Legislature as to what the Congress Government going to do about one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

12.In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, Pandit Nehru said, “Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.”

Kashmir's soul

13.In his statement in the Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as published in Hindustan Times New Delhi on Ist April, 1955, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir is perhaps the most difficult of all these problems between India and Pakistan. We should also remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.”

14.In his statement in the Security Council while taking part in debate on Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on 24th January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon said, “So far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the statements that I have made in this council which can be interpreted to mean that we will not honour international obligations. I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.”

Source ulr. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article918002.ece?homepage=true

Memories and maps keep alive Palestinian hopes of return

Ian Black

A Palestinian girl at a refugee camp in Jordan. 1948 is a key date in Palestinian collective memory. Photograph: Ali Jarekji/Reuters

The end of multiculturalism, Islamophobia and the role of NATO by CAN ERİMTAN*

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was re-elected last year with a larger majority, which allowed her to form a coalition with the free-market party Free Democratic Party (FDP), or Freie Demokratische Partei in German, more in line with her own conservative political values.

Recently, Frau Merkel has managed to get noticed beyond Germany’s borders and occupy the internatifonal headlines -- Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, a senior director at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, even spoke of a “global media tsunami.” In a speech she gave at a meeting of younger members of her party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Frau Merkel namely said the unthinkable: “At the start of the ‘60s we invited the guest-workers to Germany. We kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn’t stay, that one day they’d go home. That isn’t what happened. And, of course, the tendency was to say let’s be ‘multikulti’ and live next to each other and enjoy being together, [but] this concept has failed, failed utterly.” In spite of the fact that she tried to balance these harsh words with subsequent statements stressing Germany’s openness and its willingness to give people “opportunities,” overnight Frau Merkel’s shrill condemnation of the multicultural experiment became an international sensation. Her words came in the wake of the controversy surrounding former Bundesbank board member Thilo Sarrazin. His book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (“Germany Does Away With Itself”), appearing at the end of August 2010, caused indignation nationally and internationally. At the time, the BBC reported that in his book “Mr Sarrazin has criticised German Muslims, suggested the existence of a Jewish gene, and warned of ethnic Germans being outnumbered by [Muslim] migrants.” These two high-profile outrages indicate that the guest-workers (gastarbeiter) of yesteryear, who used to do all the heavy and unpleasant jobs unfit for locals, have now assumed an altogether different identity. Whereas previously these immigrants were primarily seen as foreign nationals, mostly from Turkey, but also hailing from Morocco and Algeria, they have now become an altogether different group: They are now seen first and foremost as Muslims. Foreigners in Germany So, how did these foreigners end up in Germany? Following the end of World War II in Europe (May 8, 1945) and the promulgation of the Marshall Plan (April 3, 1948), West Germany went through a time of bustling economic activity. In the ’50s and ’60s, Germany witnessed the so-called “Wirtschaftswunder” (economic miracle) which transformed the war-ravaged country into an economic powerhouse. In order to dispose of sufficient labor forces, the then-West German government signed a number of bilateral recruitment agreements with countries that could supply some much-needed workers to do the job. In 1955 Germany signed a deal with Italy; in 1960 with Greece; in 1961 with Turkey, and two years later with Morocco. But the reality was such that after 1961, Turkish citizens (largely from rural areas) soon became the largest group of gastarbeiter in West Germany. These Turks had at first arrived on their own, single men willing to work and eager to return home laden with money and luxury goods. But, as indicated by Frau Merkel in her notorious speech, these men were soon joined by their wives, established families and subsequently struck deep roots in German soil. Second and third-generation Turkish immigrants grew up in Germany facing racism and discrimination. These German-born Turks met with prejudice and intolerance, based upon their status as foreigners, foreigners from the backward East, speaking a different language and practicing a different religion. But the locals saw them primarily as “Turks,” as individuals belonging to a different ethnic or national group. Back in those good old days of overt xenophobia, brave investigative journalists like Günter Wallraff were able to report on the racism Turks were bound to encounter in the German workplace. In his 1985 book “Ganz unten” (“Lowest of the Low”) Wallraff describes how Turkish workers were routinely mistreated by employers, landlords and the German government. Back then, the racism encountered by the Turkish gastarbeiter was the plain and simple kind that discriminated against the outsider on account of his or her ethnic or national background. Nowadays, however, commentators and politicians alike tend to forget national or ethnic identifiers, instead opting for religious markers, and thus speaking about the Muslim other present in Germany (and by extension, Europe), the Muslim other whose presence and actions are incompatible with Western civilization and alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition which provides the framework for much, if not all, of Europe’s culture and identity. The professor of sociology, scholar and expert in Islamic matters, Stefano Allievi rightly remarks that the “immigrant … has progressively become ‘Muslim,’ both in his/her perception by the host societies and in his/her self-perception.” Nowadays, Europeans express their dislike of the “other” in religious and/or cultural terms. This has led to the creation of a new term that is oftentimes not even associated with racist sentiments and/or reflexes: Islamophobia. But we should be clear about this: Islamophobia is nothing but a new name given to the age-old reflex of racism. I can already hear some people objecting and uttering the phrase, “But Islam is not a race.” In fact, some scientists have argued over the past years that the mere concept of race as a distinguishing factor between humans does not really exist. Scientists like C. Loring Brace, Steve Jones, Nina Jablonski and Norman Sauer have made their case on more than one occasion. Rather than claiming racial differences between individual humans, they suggest that the criterion of race is as much a cultural artifact and a social construct as it is reflective of real differences between individuals and/or social groups. In that sense, racism is the term we use to describe the act of discriminating against an individual or a group of people based on certain traits (held in common) that are seen as undesirable, unwelcome and alien. On the BBC World Service, Professor Jones declared that “races are really in the eye of the beholder” and not necessarily a biological reality. As a result, the term Islamophobia suggests that the trait held in common by the people deserving discrimination and exclusion is their religious affiliation rather than their skin color or physiology, and thus we could term Islamophobia a clear form of “cultural racism.” ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All’ In 1997, the Runnymede Trust, “the UK’s leading independent race equality think tank,” issued an influential report in this respect: “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All.” In the report one can read that the term Islamophobia is “the shorthand way of referring to the dread and hatred of Islam -- and, therefore, the fear or dislike of all, or most Muslims.” Additionally, the report claims that this “fear or dislike of all, or most Muslims” first appeared in the mid-’70s. Today, Islamophobia as a social phenomenon is all but commonplace all over Europe: in the UK, the racist British National Party (BNP) is steadily gaining in force and popularity; in the Netherlands, the Islamophobic hate-monger Geert Wilders has booked an expected electoral victory for his Party For Freedom (PVV), or Partij voor de Vrijheid; neighboring Belgium also recently saw a good showing for the separatist and xenophobic Flemish Interest (VB), or Vlaams Belang, while in Sweden, prior to last September’s elections, Björn Söder, a member of the far-right Sweden Democrats (SD), or Sverigedemokraterna, claimed that an “Islamic revolution akin to the one that swept through Iran in 1979 could easily take place in Sweden.” Söder’s statement is particularly revealing of the current mood not just in Sweden but in the whole of Europe. Let us put his statement into a bit of context. In 2009, a report on migration in Sweden established that there were about 450,000 to 500,000 Muslims in Sweden, which translates to around 5 percent of the total population. Yet Söder felt completely at ease to warn his fellow Swedes of impending doom and gloom, as these 5 percent of the total population were about to unleash an “Islamic revolution akin to the one that swept through Iran” in Scandinavia. Southern European countries are not immune, either. In Italy, the Northern League (LG), or Lega Nord, is particularly vociferous in its condemnation of Muslim immigrants. And now Germany’s centrist Christian-Democrat Angela Merkel also seems to be pandering to populist Islamophobic sentiment by declaring the death of multiculturalism. How did this happen? The continent of Europe had in the post-World War II era decisively moved towards a secular society, a society where one’s religious beliefs and cultural preferences were increasingly confined to one’s private life and where multiculturalism was thus allowed to bloom and prosper. Racism, xenophobia and sheer chauvinism were supposed to be traits of the past in Europe. In reality, however, the population of Europe has never really been able to suppress its covert “racist” instincts and distrust of the “other.” But nowadays these atavistic sentiments receive a religious label, which is no doubt linked with 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror.” In fact, ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall religion has been making a comeback in Europe -- at first in the former communist countries and now also in Western Europe. In Europe, more and more people appear to rediscover their Christian roots. The present pope, Benedict XVI, is currently cunningly tapping into that well of resurgent Christianity and has openly declared his hostility towards “aggressive forms of secularism” and “atheist extremism.” These trends feed into the age-old rivalry between Islam and Christianity. On a political level, such a development had been sanctioned as long ago as February 1995. Then, Willy Claes, NATO secretary-general from 1994-95, said, “Islamic militancy has emerged as perhaps the single gravest threat to the NATO alliance and to Western security” in the aftermath of the fall of communism. Claes added that extremist Muslims oppose “the basic principles of civilization that bind North America and Western Europe.” The then-NATO secretary-general was nevertheless diplomatic enough to remark that his declaration should not be seen as a call for “a crusade against Islam.” Nevertheless, Claes had let the genie out of the bottle, and here we are today, in a world where racism in the form of Islamophobia is rampant and on the rise. The situation has become even more volatile and combustible now, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the US-led “war on terror,” which some see as a thinly veiled “war on Islam.” Is it any wonder that Claes’ words have turned out to be prophetic? In view of Europe’s now sizeable Muslim population, it is imperative that the multicultural experiment be continued to achieve a future of peace and prosperity. But the fact that Germany’s chancellor can now recklessly declare the failure of multiculturalism in Germany (and Europe) appears to indicate the absence of the political will to oppose the creeping trend towards open hostility against Islam and Muslims. Instead, politicians increasingly pander to the whims of an electorate that has been manipulated into viewing Islam as a threat and danger to the “basic principles of civilization.” Will the future see a revival of open hostility between Islam and Christianity? Will Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” become a political and possibly even military reality in years to come? Only time will tell… *Dr. Can Erimtan is an independent scholar residing in İstanbul with a wide interest in the politics, history and culture of the Balkans and the wider Middle East. Source

http://www.todayszaman.com

Muslim candidates in Bihar election, Who won Who lost

1 Valmiki Nagar-----Irshad Hussain------------------------Cong--------- Lost

3 Narkatiaganj------ Mazhar Alam------------RJD---Lost

7 Chanpatia---------- Sheikh Sarfuddin------- LJP---Lost

9 Sikta---------------- Faiyazul Azam----------Cong------Lost
Sikta--------------- Khurshid @ Firoz Ahmed---JDU---Lost

11 Sugauli---------- Omer Saifullah Khan----- Cong----Lost

12 Narkatia--------- Yasmin Sabir Ali-------- LJP------Lost

16 Kalyanpur-------- Razia Khatoon---- JDU----Won
Kalyanpur--------Anwar Alam Ansari---Cong---Lost

21 Dhaka----------- Nek Mohammad--- LJP--------Lost
Dhaka----------Abdul Hamid Ansari--- Cong----Lost
Dhaka--------Faisal Rehman---- JDU-------------Lost

22 Sheohar--------Sarfuddin---- JDU-----------------Won

25 Parihar-------------Parvez Alam Ansari---Cong---Lost

26 Sursand------------Shahid Ali Khan---JDU--------Won

27 Bajpatti------------Md Anwarul Haque--- RJD---Lost

30 Belsand------------Md Tahir Anees Khan---Cong--Lost

31 Harlakhi-----------Md Shabbir----Cong----Lost

35 Bisfi---------------Faiyaz Ahmed-----RJD-----Won
Bisfi---------Ahmer Hussain Dulare---Cong---Lost

36 Madhubani-------Nayer Azam----RJD----------Lost

45 Chhatapur-----------Akil Ahmed----RJD---Lost
Chhatapur----------Shah Jamal-----Cong---Lost

49 Araria------------Zakir Hussain----LJP----Won
Araria----------Moidur Rehman---Cong---Lost

50 Jokihat-----------Md Ayub Alam---Cong---Lost
Jokihat----------Sarfaraz Alam----JDU-----Won

51 Sikti--------------Shagufta Azim----Cong----Lost

52 Bahadurganj-----Md Anzar Naimi---RJD—Lost
Bahadurganj-----Tausif Alam----Cong------Won
Bahadurganj----Md Maswar Alam---JDU---Lost

53 Thakurganj--------Naushad Alam---LJP----Won
Thakurganj------Ziyadur Rehman---Cong--Lost

54 Kishanganj--------Tasiruddin---RJD----Lost
Kishanganj------Dr Md Javed Azad---Cong---Won

55 Kochadhaman----Akhtarul Iman---RJD---Won
Kochadhaman----Sadiq Samdani---Cong--Lost
Kochadhaman----Mujahid Alam---JDU---Lost

56 Amour-------------Saba Zafar---BJP---Won
Amour-------------Abdul Jalil Mastan---Cong---Lost
Amour-------------Babar Azam---RJD---Lost

57 Baisi--------------- Abdus Subhan---RJD---Lost
Baisi---------------Nisar Ahmed---Cong---Lost

58 Kasba-------------Md Shahnawaz Alam---LJP---Lost
Kasba-------------Md Afaque Alam---Cong---Won

60 Rupauli-------------Md Asif Anwar---Cong---Lost

61 Dhamdaha--------- Irshad Ahmed Khan---Cong---Lost

64 Kadwa------------Khwaja Bahauddin Ahmed---RJD--Lost

65 Balrampur--------Md Adil Hassan Azad---LJP---Lost
Balrampur------- Md Shaukat Hussain---Cong---Lost
Balrampur-------Md Siddiqui---JDU----Lost

66 Pranpur-----------Abdul Jalil---Cong---Lost

68 Barari-------------Mansoor Alam---RJD---Lost

76 Simri Bakhtiarpur----Mahboob Ali Qaiser---Cong---Lost

77 Mahishi----------------Abdul Gafoor---RJD---Won

79 Gaura Bauram--------------Izhar Ahmed---JDU---Won

81 Alinagar---------------------Abdul Bari Siddqui—RJD--Won

82 Darbhanga Rural----------Abdul Hadi Siddiqui—Cong---Lost
Darbhanga Rural----------Ashraf Hussain---JDU---Lost

83 Darbhanga-----------------Sultan Ahmed---RJD---Lost
Darbhanga-------------Dr Qamrul Hasan---Cong---Lost

84 Hayaghat-------------Dr Shahnawaz Ahmad Kaifi—LJP---Lost

86 Keoti---------------------- Faraz Fatmi---RJD---Lost
Keoti----------------------Prof Md Mohsin---Cong--Lost

87 Jale--------------------Aftab Alam---Cong---Lost

89 Aurai--------Asghar Hussain @Bhulan Babu---Cong--Lost

94 Muzaffarpur-------Md Jamal---LJP---Lost

95 Kanti---------------Md Israel---RJD---Lost
Kanti--------------Shahid Iqbal---Cong---Lost

100 Barauli-----------M Nematulla---RJD--- Lost
Barauli-----------Asif Gafoor----Cong----Lost

101 Gopalganj------Reyazul Haq @Raju---RJD--Lost

104 Hathua---------Babuddin Khan---Cong---Lost

108 Raghunathpur---Hamid Raza Khan---RJD--Lost

110 Barharia----------Md Mobin---RJD--- Lost
Barharia---------SS Fazle Haque---Cong---Lost

117 Marhaura------Shafi Ahmed---Cong---Lost

126 Mahua-------Mashadul Haque---Cong---Lost

133 Samastipur--------Akhtarul Islam Shaheen---RJD---Won

140 Hasanpur-----------Arif Raza----Cong----Lost

143 Teghra-------------Jamshed Ashraf---Cong---Lost

145 Sahebpur Kamal—--Praveen Amanullah--- JDU---Won

155 Kahalgaon------Kahkashan Parveen---JDU---Lost

158 Nathnagar-------Abu Kaiser----RJD---Lost
Nathnagar------- Perwez Jamal----Cong---Lost

161 Banka------------Javed Eqbal Ansari----RJD---Won
Banka-----------Nilofer Nahid ---Cong---Lost

165 Munger---------Shabnam Parween---RJD---Lost

172 Biharsharif--- Md Haider Alam---Cong---Lost
Biharsharif----Aafrin Sultana---RJD----Lost

183 Kumhrar------Kamal Pervez ---LJP---Lost

184 Patna Sahib---Pervez Ahmad---Cong---Lost

193 Barhara----------Md Javed Iqbal---Cong---Lost

196 Tarari------------ Adib Rizvi--- RJD---Lost

201 Dumraon---------Daud Ali Ansari---JDU---Won

206 Chainpur--------Zama Khan----Cong---Lost

212 Dehri-------------Md Ilyas Husain---RJD---Lost
Dehri-------------Zahid Parvez------Cong----Lost

219 Goh-------------------Kaukab Qadri---Cong---Lost

224 Rafiganj--------------Md Nehaluddin---RJD---Lost

226 Sherghati-------------Shakeel Ahmed Khan---RJD---Lost

232 Belagunj-------------Azmi Bari---Cong--- Lost
Belagunj------------Amjad Hasan---JDU---Lost

238 Gobindpur------- Asadullah----Cong---Lost

242 Jhajha------------Md Irfan---Cong---Lost

Irom And The Iron In India’s Soul

IROM SHARMILA’S STORY SHOULD BE PART OF UNIVERSAL FOLKLORE. IN THE TENTH YEAR OF HER EPIC FAST, SHOMA CHAUDHURY TELLS YOU WHY

SOMETIMES, TO accentuate the intransigence of the present, one must revisit the past. So first, a flashback.

The year is 2006. An ordinary November evening in Delhi. A slow, halting voice breaks into your consciousness. “How shall I explain? It is not a punishment, but my bounden duty…” A haunting phrase in a haunting voice, made slow with pain yet magnetic in its moral force. “My bounden duty.” What could be “bounden duty” in an India bursting with the excitements of its economic boom?

You are tempted to walk away. You are busy and the voice is not violent in its beckoning. But then an image starts to take shape. A frail, fair woman on a hospital bed. A tousled head of jet black curls. A plastic tube thrust into the nose. Slim, clean hands. Intent, almond eyes. And the halting, haunting voice. Speaking of bounden duty.

That’s when the enormous story of Irom Sharmila first begins to seep in. You are in the presence of someone historic. Someone absolutely unparalleled in the history of political protest anywhere in the world, ever. Yet you have been oblivious of her. A hundred TV channels. An unprecedented age of media. Yet you have been oblivious of her.

In 2006, Irom Sharmila had not eaten anything, or drunk a single drop of water for six years. She was being forcibly kept alive by a drip thrust down her nose by the Indian State. For six years, nothing solid had entered her body; not a drop of water had touched her lips. She had stopped combing her hair. She cleaned her teeth with dry cotton and her lips with dry spirit so she would not sully her fast. Her body was wasted inside. Her menstrual cycles had stopped. Yet she was resolute. Whenever she could, she removed the tube from her nose. It was her bounden duty, she said, to make her voice heard in “the most reasonable and peaceful way”.

Yet both Indian citizens and the Indian State were oblivious to her.


That was three years ago. On November 5 this year, Irom Sharmila entered the tenth year of her superhuman fast — protesting the indefensible Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) that has been imposed in Manipur and most of the Northeast since 1980. The Act allows the army to use force, arrest or shoot anyone on the mere suspicion that someone has committed or was about to commit a cognisable offence. The Act further prohibits any legal or judicial proceedings against army personnel without the sanction of the Central Government.

Draconian in letter, the Act has been even more draconian in spirit. Since it was imposed, by official admission, thousands of people have been killed by State forces in Manipur. (In just 2009, the officially admitted number stands at 265. Human rights activists say it is above 300, which averages out at one or two extrajudicial killings every day.) Rather than curb insurgent groups, the Act has engendered a seething resentment across the land, and fostered new militancies. When the Act came into force in 1980, there were only four insurgent groups in Manipur. Today, there are 40. And Manipur has become a macabre society, a mess of corruptions: insurgents, cops and politicians all hand in glove, and innocent citizens in between.

A FEW YEARs ago, an unedited CD began doing the rounds in civil society circles. It showed footage of humiliating army brutality and public rage. Images of young children, students, working-class mothers and grandmothers taking to the streets, being teargassed and shot at. Images of men made to lie down while the army shot at the ground inches above their heads. With each passing day, the stories gathered fury. Disappeared boys, raped women. Human life stripped of its most essential commodity: dignity.

For young Irom Sharmila, things came to a head on November 2, 2000. A day earlier, an insurgent group had bombed an Assam Rifles column. The enraged battalion retaliated by gunning down 10 innocent civilians at a bus-stand in Malom. The local papers published brutal pictures of the bodies the next day, including one of a 62-year old woman, Leisangbam Ibetomi, and 18-year old Sinam Chandramani, a 1988 National Child Bravery Award winner. Extraordinarily stirred, on November 4, Sharmila, then only 28, began her fast.

Sprawled in an icy white hospital corridor that cold November evening in Delhi three years ago, Singhajit, Sharmila’s 48-year-old elder brother, had said half-laughing, “How we reach here?” In the echo chamber of that plangent question had lain the incredible story of Sharmila and her journey. Much of that story needed to be intuited. Its tensile strength, its intense, almost preternatural act of imagination were not on easy display. The faraway hut in Imphal where it began. The capital city now and the might of the State ranged against them. The sister jailed inside her tiny hospital room, the brother outside with nothing but the clothes on his back, neither versed in English or Hindi. The posse of policemen at the door.

“Menghaobi”, the people of Manipur call her, “The Fair One”. Youngest daughter of an illiterate Grade IV worker in a veterinary hospital in Imphal, Sharmila was always a solitary child, the backbencher, the listener. Eight siblings had come before her. By the time she was born, her mother Irom Shakhi, 44, was dry. When dusk fell, and Manipur lay in darkness, Sharmila used to start to cry. The mother Shakhi had to tend to their tiny provision store, so Singhajit would cradle his baby sister in his arms and take her to any mother he could find to suckle her. “She has always had extraordinary will. Maybe that is what made her different,” Singhajit says. “Maybe this is her service to all her mothers.”

There was something achingly poignant about this wise, rugged man on the sidelines – loyal co-warrior who gives the fight invisible breath, middle-aged brother who gave up his job to “look after his sister outside the door”, family man who relies on the Rs 120 a day his wife makes from weaving so he can stand steadfast by his sister.

Ten years on, her fast is unparalleled in the history of political protest. If this will not make us pause, nothing will
It was a month and a half since Singhajit had managed to smuggle Sharmila out of Manipur with the help of two activist friends, Babloo Loitangbam and Kangleipal. For six years, Sharmila had been under arrest, isolated in a single room in JN Hospital in Imphal. Each time she was released, she would yank the tube out of her nose and continue her fast. Three days later, on the verge of death, she would be arrested again for “attempt to commit suicide”. And the cycle would begin again. But six years of jail and fasting and forced nasal feeds had yielded little in Manipur. The war needed to be shifted to Delhi.

ARRIVING IN DELHI on October 3, 2006, brother and sister camped in Jantar Mantar for three days – that hopeful altar of Indian democracy. Typically, the media responded with cynical disinterest. Then the State swooped down in a midnight raid and arrested her for attempting suicide and whisked her off to AIIMS. She wrote three passionate letters to the Prime Minister, President, and Home Minister. She got no answer. If she had hijacked a plane, perhaps the State would have responded with quicker concession.


Tehelka expose The killing of Sanjit in a fake encounter by commandos, caught on camera
“We are in the middle of the battle now,” Singhajit had said in that hospital corridor. “We have to face trouble, we have to fight to the end even if it means my sister’s death. But if she had told me before she began, I would never have let her start on this fast. I would never have let her do this to her body. We had to learn so much first. How to talk; how to negotiate — we knew nothing. We were just poor people.”

But, in a sense, the humbling power of Sharmila’s story lies in her untutored beginnings. She is not a front for any large, coordinated political movement. And if you were looking for charismatic rhetoric or the clichéd heat of heroism, you would have been disappointed by the quiet woman in Room 57 in the New Private Ward of AIIMS in New Delhi. That 34-yearold’s satyagraha was not an intellectual construct. It was a deep human response to the cycle of death and violence she saw around her — almost a spiritual intuition. “I was shocked by the dead bodies of Malom on the front page,” Sharmila had said in her clear, halting voice. “I was on my way to a peace rally but I realised there was no means to stop further violations by the armed forces. So I decided to fast.”



On November 4, 2000, Sharmila had sought her mother, Irom Shakhi’s blessing. “You will win your goal,” Shakhi had said, then stoically turned away. Since then, though Sharmila has been incarcerated in Imphal within walking distance of her mother, the two have never met.

“What’s the use? I’m weak-hearted. If I see her, I will cry,” Shakhi says in a film on Sharmila made by Delhi-based filmmaker Kavita Joshi, tears streaming down her face. “I have decided that until her wish is fulfilled, I won’t meet her because that will weaken her resolve… If we don’t get food, how we toss and turn in bed, unable to sleep. With the little fluid they inject into her, how hard must her days and nights be… If this Act could just be removed even for five days, I would feed her rice water spoon by spoon. After that, even if she dies, we will be content, for my Sharmila will have fulfilled her wish.”

This brave, illiterate woman is the closest Sharmila comes to an intimation of god. It is the shrine from which she draws strength. Ask her how hard it is for her not to meet her mother and she says, “Not very hard,” and pauses. “Because, how shall I explain it, we all come here with a task to do. And we come here alone.”

For the rest, she practices four to five hours of yoga a day — self-taught — “to help maintain the balance between my body and mind”. Doctors will tell you Sharmila’s fast is a medical miracle. It is humbling to even approximate her condition. But Sharmila never concedes any bodily discomfort. “I am normal. I am normal,” she smiles. “I am not inflicting anything on my body. It is not a punishment. It is my bounden duty. I don’t know what lies in my future; that is God’s will. I have only learnt from my experience that punctuality, discipline and great enthusiasm can make you achieve a lot.” The words — easy to dismiss as uninspiring clichés — take on a heroic charge when she utters them.

For three long years later, nothing has changed. The trip to Delhi yielded nothing. As Sharmila enters the tenth year of her fast, she still lies incarcerated like some petty criminal in a filthy room in an Imphal hospital. The State allows her no casual visitors, except occasionally, her brother — even though there is no legal rationale for this. (Even Mahasweta Devi was not allowed to see her a few weeks ago.) She craves company and books – the biographies of Gandhi and Mandela; the illusion of a brotherhood. Yet, her great — almost inhuman — hope and optimism continues undiminished.

But the brother’s frustration is as potent. The failure of the nation to recognise Irom Sharmila’s historic satyagraha is a symptom of every lethargy that is eroding the Northeast. She had already been fasting against AFSPA for four years when the Assam Rifles arrested Thangjam Manorama Devi, a 32-year-old woman, allegedly a member of the banned People’s Liberation Army. Her body was found dumped in Imphal a day later, marked with terrible signs of torture and rape. Manipur came to a spontaneous boil. Five days later, on July 15, 2004, pushing the boundaries of human expression, 30 ordinary women demonstrated naked in front of the Assam Rifles headquarters at Kangla Fort. Ordinary mothers and grandmothers eking out a hard life. “Indian Army, rape us too”, they screamed. The State responded by jailing all of them for three months.

Every commission set up by the government since then has added to these injuries. The report of the Justice Upendra Commission, instituted after the Manorama killing, was never made public. In November 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee to review the AFSPA. Its recommendations came in a dangerously forked tongue. While it suggested the repeal of the AFSPA, it also suggested transfering its most draconian powers to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Every official response is marked with this determination to be uncreative. The then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee had rejected the withdrawal or significant dilution of the Act on the grounds that “it is not possible for the armed forces to function” in “disturbed areas” without such powers.


Manorama mothers Manipuri women pushed to the brink after the horrific rape of Manorama Devi
Photo: UB PHOTO
Curiously, it took Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi to raise proportionate heat on Irom Sharmila, on a trip to India in 2006. “If Sharmila dies, Parliament is directly responsible,” she thundered at a gathering of journalists. “If she dies, courts and judiciary are responsible, the military is responsible… If she dies, the executive, the PM and President are responsible for doing nothing… If she dies, each one of you journalists is responsible because you did not do your duty…”

Yet, three years later, nothing has changed. After the boundless, despairing anger of the ‘Manorama Mothers’, the government did roll back the AFSPA from some districts of Imphal city. But the viral has transmitted itself elsewhere. Today, the Manipur police commandoes have taken off where the army left off: the brutal provisions of AFSPA have become accepted State culture. There is a phrase for it: “the culture of impunity”. On July 23 this year, Sanjit, a young former insurgent was shot dead by the police in a crowded market, in broad daylight, in one of Imphal’s busiest markets. An innocent by-stander Rabina Devi, five months pregnant, caught a bullet in her head and fell down dead as well. Her two-year old son, Russell was with her. Several others were wounded.

But for an anonymous photographer who captured the sequence of Sanjit’s murder, both these deaths would have become just another statistic: two of the 265 killed this year. But the photographs – published in TEHELKA – offered damning proof. Manipur came to a boil again.

Four months later, people’s anger refuses to subside. With typical ham-handedness, Chief Minister Ibobi Singh first tried to brazen his way through. On the day of Sanjit’s murder, he claimed in the Assembly that his cops had shot an insurgent in a cross-fire. Later, confronted by TEHELKA’S story, he admitted he had been misled by his officers and was forced to set up a judicial enquiry. However, both he and Manipur DGP Joy Kumar continue to claim that TEHELKA’s story is a fabrication.

Still, hope sputters in small measure. Over the past few months, as protests have raged across the state, dozens of civil rights activ ists have been frivolously arrested under the draconian National Security Act. Among these was a reputed environmental activist, Jiten Yumnam. On November 23, an independent Citizens’ Fact Finding Team released a report called Democracy ‘Encountered’: Rights’ Violations in Manipur and made a presentation to the Central Home Ministry. A day later, Home Secretary Gopal Pillai informed KS Subramanian, a former IPS officer and a member of the fact-finding team, that the ministry had revoked detention under the NSA for ten people, including Jiten. In another tenuously hopeful sign, Home Minister P Chidambaram has said on record in another TEHELKA interview that he has recommended several amendments in AFSPA to make it more humane and accountable. These amendments are waiting Cabinet approval.

IN A COMPLEX world, often the solution to a problem lies in an inspired, unilateral act of leadership. An act that intuits the moral heart of a question and proceeds to do what is right — without precondition. Sharmila Irom’s epic fast is such an act. It reaffirms the idea of a just and civilized society. It refuses to be brutalized in the face of grave and relentless brutality. Her plea is simple: repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. It is unworthy of the idea of the Indian State the founding fathers bequeathed us. It is anti-human.

It is true Manipur is a fractured and violent society today. But the solution to that can only lie in another inspired, unilateral act of leadership: this time on the part of the State. Eschew pragmatism, embrace the moral act: repeal AFSPA. There will be space beyond to untangle the rest.

But unfortunately, even as the entire country laces up to mark the first anniversary of Mumbai 26/11 – a horrific act of extreme violence and retaliation, we continue to be oblivious of the young woman who responded to extreme violence with extreme peace.

It is a parable for our times. If the story of Irom Sharmila does not make us pause, nothing will. It is a story of extraordinariness. Extraordinary will. Extraordinary simplicity. Extraordinary hope. It is impossible to get yourself heard in our busy age of information overload. But if the story of Irom Sharmila will not make us pause, nothing will.


WRITER’S EMAIL
shoma@tehelka.com

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 48, Dated December 05, 2009

Print this story Feedback Add to favorites Email this story