Monday, August 20, 2007

WHO WAS CHE GUEVARA?




CompañeroDeLibertad
You've probably seen his face on t-shirts, hats, or some other piece of merchandise, but what do you really know about Che Guevara? What did he accomplish that made him the hero of oppressed people all around the world?The Russian revolutionary Vladamir Lenin once pointed out the tendency of the ruling class to “co-opt” revolutionaries after their deaths, turning them into mere “logos” which they attempt to render meaningless by separating the individual from what it is they stood for. It is in an effort to combat this that we offer this article.Of course, it is not within the scope of this article to completely detail the life of Che Guevara– that has already been attempted to varying degrees of success in numerous Che Guevara biographies – rather, we hope to to provide a general outline to those unfamiliar with the man, Che Guevara, in hopes that it will lead them to dig deeper into the story of his life, his theories, and most importantly what he fought for: the liberation of humankind.Early YearsErnesto Guevara (the 'Che' part wouldn't come until much later) was born in Rosario, Argentina, in 1928. His mother and father could be described as middle-class, with liberal inclinations.Even as a young boy, Guevara was known for his often radical perspective, but they wouldn't develop fully until later in life.He suffered from crippling asthma from birth, so much so that his family had to relocate because of it, but it didn't stop him from becoming an excellent athlete. Rugby was one of the sports that he enjoyed most. His aggressive style of play earned him the nickname 'Fuser'.In 1948, he enrolled in the University of Buenos Aires to study medicine. He was an excellent student who excelled at his studies.The Journey BeginsIn 1951, on the suggestion of his older friend, Alberto Granado, a biochemist, he decided to take a year off from school to embark on trip across South America that they had dreamed of taking for years. Guevara and his 29-year-old friend set off from their hometown of Alta Gracia on a 1939 Norton 500 cc motorcycle they called La Poderosa II (literally, “the mighty one”). As a part of their trip, they planned to spend a few weeks volunteering at the San Pablo leper colony in Peru. Guevara documented the trip in The Motorcycle Diaries, which was translated into English in 1996, and turned into a motion picture of the same name in 2004.During the trip, Ernesto witnessed first hand many things that he hadn't had much experience with before, such as the widespread poverty and oppression faced by the masses of people throughout the Latin America (and the world) under capitalism. It was through this, as well as studies of the writings of revolutionaries like Karl Marx, that he began to understand that the only remedy to these ills lay in socialist revolution.Through his trip he also began to see Latin America not as a grouping of separate nations divided by invisible, often imposed borders, but rather as a single cultural and economic entity. It was from this foundation that he began to formulate his concept of a united Ibero-America, united “from Mexico to the Magellan straits”, and bound together by a “single mestizo” culture.Upon his return to Argentina, Guevara was anxious to continuing traveling throughout Latin America, and so he completed his medical studies as quickly as possible, finishing in March of 1953.Imperialism in GuatemalaFollowing his graduation, Guevara again set out on the road, this time planning to travel through Central America. After much traveling, he finally ended up in Guatemala, where the popular reformist Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had been elected president. Arbenz was attempting to bring about a social change through various reforms – particularly land reform.It was at this time that Guevara acquired the nickname that would follow him for the rest of his life. Friends in Guatemala began to refer to him as “Che” (pronounced “chay”), after an interjection (often used to get attention, such as “hey” or “wow”, but also used like “friend” or “pal”) commonly used by Argentinians such as himself.At the time, 2% of the population of Guatemala controlled 74% of the land suitable to farming, and only used 12% of it. Arbenz planned to redistribute some of the unused land to the poor farmers of the country who made up the majority of its population, a plan that they greatly supported.The U.S.-based United Fruit Company (UFC), the largest landowner in Guatemala, fully opposed the plan, even though it was paid $600,000 (based on land values it declared for tax purposes) for unused land that was seized as the plan began to be implemented.The UFC had close ties with the U.S. government, and lobbied the CIA and the Eisenhower administration to take action. In 1954, the administration commissioned the CIA to overthrow democratically elected president Arbenz in a plan called Operation PBSUCCESS. The plan was a success and Arbenz was forced to flee the country on June 27th.Following the overthrow, Che offered to fight, but Arbenz instructed his foreign supporters to leave the country. After spending some time in the Argentine consulate, Che headed to Mexico.Witnessing the events that took place in Guatemala enabled Che to understand more than ever that the U.S. was an imperialist power that would always oppose any movements that attempted to solve problems like inequality and poverty that are endemic to Latin America and the rest of the third world. His understanding of socialism as the only answer to these problems grew even stronger.Incidentally, the U.S. sponsored military dictatorship that replaced Arbenz turned out to be one of the most brutal regimes in world history.The Cuban RevolutionIt was in Mexico City that Che would meet brothers Raul and Fidel Castro. The two were in exile from Cuba after being freed – by popular demand – from a Cuban prison to which they were sentenced after leading a failed attack on a military garrison as a part of a larger plan to overthrow U.S. sponsored dictator Fulgencio Batista. The Castro brothers and others Cubans were planning to return to Cuba as a guerrilla force named the “26th of July Movement” (after the date of the original attack on the garrison). Che immediately hit it off with Fidel and agreed to join the expedition as a medic on the first night.After a period of training, and even imprisonment by the Mexican authorities, Fidel, Che, and 80 others departed from Tuxpan, Veracruz, aboard the cabin cruiser Granma in November 1956. Che was the only non-Cuban on board.Bad weather, and other problems, delayed their arrival by two days, and so an armed uprising in Santiago, which was aimed at drawing away the attention of Batista's troops, ended up only serving to put them on alert. They finally landed, 30 miles away from the point where weapons and reinforcements awaited them.Almost immediately after pulling themselves ashore they were ambushed by the dictator's army. All but a handful of the guerrillas were killed. It was during this battle that Che made a crucial decision when, while retreating, he chose to pick up a box of ammunition instead of his medical bag. He later described the situation, “Perhaps this was the first time I was confronted with the real-life dilemma of having to choose between my devotion to medicine and my duty as a revolutionary soldier. Lying at my feet were a knapsack full of medicine and a box of ammunition. They were too heavy for me to carry both of them. I grabbed the box of ammunition, leaving the medicine behind.”Fidel, Raul, and Che were among the survivors who then made their way undetected into the rugged Sierra Maestra mountains. From here they built a strong support base amongst the region's poor farmers which would soon spread to working people across the country. The numbers of the Rebel Army grew as they continued to carry out successful attacks.Throughout the revolution, Che continually exhibited great courage, combat and leadership skills, self-discipline, and boldness. He soon rose to the highest rank in the Rebel Army, Comandante (Major). In Late 1958, he lead his column through a long and arduous march to the city of Santa Clara, where they would soon take over after derailing an armored train filled with Batista's henchmen. This proved to be the final straw and the dictator was forced to flee the country. Guevara later recorded his memories of the two year struggle in a series of articles that would later be published as a book entitled Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War.Revolutionary GovernmentOn January 1st, 1959, the 26th of July Movement called for a general strike – to serve as a final blow – which lead to the victory of the revolution. For his part in the fighting Che was declared a “Cuban citizen by birth” and was appointed Commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison. Soon after he divorced his Peruvian wife, Hilda Gadea, the mother of his first child whom he married while in Guatemala. Later he would marry Aleida March, another fighter in the Rebel Army, with whom he would have 4 children.During his six months at the prison, Che oversaw people's courts in which the Cuban people dished out revolutionary justice to brutal killers, rapists, and other war criminals that served Batista during the war.Later, Che would become an official of INRA (the National Institute of Agrarian Reform), that carried out one of the most extensive land reforms ever seen. Large plantations were seized from big (often foreign owned) businesses and given to the poor farmers that actually worked them. An Urban Reform was also carried out in which all rents were lowered so that no renter would have to spend more than 10% of their income on housing, and, after a few years, would receive ownership of it. The mansions of the rich were turned over to the servants that worked in them and the government bought up homes which weren't being used (usually because the owners had several homes) and redistributed them to people in need of housing. U.S. owned casinos and houses of prostitution (so many in fact that Cuba was referred to as 'the whore house of the Caribbean) were closed.Che would go on to become President of the National Bank of Cuba and Minister of Industries, positions from which he headed the major challenge of transforming Cuba's backwards, colonial, capitalist plantation economy into a socialist industrial economy. The U.S. government, angry that the socialist revolution had taken up the cause of the people over the interests of foreign-owned business, drastically cut back the amount of sugar that they purchased from Cuba (eventually imposing a full economic embargo, which stands to this day, even though it has been repeatedly condemned by all but 2 nations and deemed illegal by the United Nations), in an attempt to damage the Cuban economy. They also sabotaged buildings, farms, and factories, flew planes over the island dropping bombs, and attempted to assassinate Cuban leaders. Cuba however, would not be intimidated. Che negotiated a trade agreement with the Soviet Union in 1960 in which they agreed to buy all Cuban sugar at a price above the going rate. He also represented Cuba on many trade missions to nations – socialist or otherwise – in Europe, Africa, and Asia.Che played a major part in the reorganization of the Cuban economy along a socialist path, which enabled the country to eliminate homelessness, illiteracy, and unemployment in only a few years. He became well known as a hero of many for his fiery attacks on the United States imperialists' foreign policy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.It was during this time that Che made many important theoretical contributions in his speeches, articles, letters, and essays. His book Guerrilla Warfare became highly influential, and was used as a guide by guerrilla movements throughout Latin America (unfortunately, many of the fighters, though very courageous, oversimplified the theories put forth in the book, eventually leading to their defeat). Groups like the FARC-EP, waging a decades long revolutionary struggle in Colombia, utilize many methods laid out in the book to this day. El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba (Man and Socialism in Cuba), put forth many of Che, and Cuba's, greatest contributions. In it Che pointed out that liberation of humankind could only come about after the people first evolved into 'new people', concerned with the welfare of everyone as a whole over the welfare of themselves as individuals. This 'evolution' could only occur when the material conditions for it existed, namely, under socialism. Later, when the continuing world revolution, and the economic crises inherent to capitalism destabilized it, the need for the socialist state would disappear and full liberation would finally exist in a society of equals without states or governments.Che portrayed this 'new man' in his daily life. He spent his weekends and evenings volunteering in shipyards and textile factories or cutting sugarcane. He was known for his simple lifestyle, an example of which was when he refused a pay raise when he became a member of government, choosing instead to continue receiving the much lower salary he drew as a Comandante in the Rebel Army. In another famous example, when Che was served food on expensive china while dining with high-ranking officials from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during a trip to Russia, he asked the officials, “Is this how the working class lives in Russia?”An attempted U.S. invasion, commonly known as 'the Bay of Pigs', and which was defeated in less than 72 hours, took place during Che's time in the revolutionary government. The event lead Cuba to acquire nuclear missiles from the USSR in its own defense, which resulted in the “Cuban missile crisis” in 1962.The DisappearanceAfter returning from a three-month tour of the People's Republic of China, United Arab Republic, Algeria, Ghana, Mali, Dahomey, Congo-Brazzaville, and Tanzania in March of 1965, Che dropped out of public life and was not seen for some time.Che's whereabouts were the main question in Cuba throughout the year, and many rumors began to spread – including one started by enemies of the revolution that Che and Fidel had some sort of a split. This of course was not true at all, as would be proven later.In an interview with foreign correspondents on November 1st, Castro said that he knew where Guevara was but could not disclose the location. He said that Che was “in the best of health”. Speculation however continued at the end of the year, and Che's movements would have to be kept secret for the next two years.During this time, an article written by Che was published in Tricontinental Magazine in which he called for complete support of the heroic Vietnamese people who were fighting against U.S. imperialist invaders, and urged comrades around the world to create “one, two, many Vietnams”In The CongoIn March of 1965 the decision was made that Che would lead a rebel force in support of the Marxist Simba movement in the former Belgian Congo (later Zaire and currently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in Africa.Guevara worked with guerrilla leader Laurent-Desire Kabila, who had earlier helped supporters of the murdered prime minister Patrice Lumumba lead a revolt that was suppressed by the Congolese army and a large group of white mercenaries.CIA advisors working with the Congolese army monitored Guevara's communications, arranged ambushes against the rebels and the Cubans, and interrupted their supply lines. Che had planned to teach the local Simba fighters communist ideology and the strategies and tactics of guerrilla warfare; but, due to their incompetence, superstition, and internal feuds, he was unable to, and the revolt eventually failed. After seven months, Che, who was ill and suffering from debilitating bouts of asthma, finally left the Congo with the surviving members of his Cuban column (six had died in battle). Originally, Che refused to give up and planned to send the wounded back to Cuba and then stand alone, fighting to the end as a revolutionary example; but after much debating with his comrades in arms, and Fidel, he was finally persuaded to return. Guevara documented his experiences in his Congo Diaries (later published as The African Dream).During his time in the Congo, Fidel had made public a farewell letter written to him in which Che officially severed his ties with Cuba in order to devote himself to revolutionary activities in other parts of the world. "I feel that I have fulfilled the part of my duty that tied me to the Cuban revolution in its territory," the letter says, "And I say goodbye to you, the comrades, your people, who are already mine ... Other nations of the world call for my modest efforts. I can do that which is denied you because of your responsibility as the head of Cuba, and the time has come for us to part."After spending six months living underground in Dar-es-Salaam, Prague, and the GDR, Che returned to Cuba, but only on a temporary basis for the few months needed to prepare another revolutionary effort, this time in Latin America.BoliviaThroughout 1966 and 1967 people continued to wonder where exactly Che was. Finally, in a speech at the 1967 May Day rally in Havana, Major Juan Almeida announced that Guevara was “serving the revolution somewhere in Latin America.” It would turn out that Che was leading a guerrilla army in Bolivia.Che chose Bolivia after a 1964 coup triggered an outbreak in demonstrations, protests, strike by miners, and repression against leaders of leftist and other popular movements. When he and his comrades analyzed the situation, they saw that there was an opening for a guerrilla column made up of Bolivians, some Peruvians, and a group of well trained Cubans, to launch a revolutionary offensive. The plan was to create an international rebel army, that, after achieving victory in Bolivia, would spread the struggle to the rest of Latin America.A piece of land was purchased in the jungles of the Nancahuazu by the Bolivian Communist party and turned over to Che for use as a training area. The Party originally pledged its full support and participation of its membership, but its leader, Mario Monjae, later decided against it after the struggle had already begun.The rebel army, named the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional de Bolivia (National Liberation Army of Bolivia), was made up of about 50 well equipped guerrillas. They were able to launch a number of successful attacks against the Bolivian army in the mountainous Camiri region, despite the fact that it was being trained in jungle warfare and aided by U.S. Army Special Forces.But problems, such as the refusal of the Communist Party of Bolivia to deliver expected assistance, materials, and reinforcements (the Party leadership went as far as to refuse to tell would-be volunteers how and where to join the guerrillas), eventually lead to some defeats. In September the Bolivian Army managed to eliminate two small groups of guerrillas.Additionally, with full CIA backing, counter-revolutionary Cuban exiles set up interrogation houses in which they tortured 300,000 Bolivians in search of supporters of Che and the guerrillas.Capture and AssassinationTo make matters worse a deserter betrayed the guerrillas and lead Bolivian Special Forces directly to them. On October 8th, their encampment was encircled and a shoot out took place. Che refused to surrender and was captured only after being shot in both knees and having his gun destroyed by a bullet.Che was taken to a old schoolhouse where he was held overnight. On the next afternoon he was murdered by a sergeant in the Bolivian army while he was tied by his hands to a board. Before he was executed, Che said these last words: “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot coward! You are only going to kill a man.”After a military doctor cut off Che's hands, Bolivian army officers moved his body to an undisclosed location and refused to reveal if his remains had been buried or cremated.CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, who also took part in the failed invasions of Cuba and Vietnam, took Che's watch and still displays it to this day.On October 15 Fidel Castro gave an emotional speech in which informed the world of Che's death and proclaimed three days of public mourning in Cuba. The death was considered a severe blow to the revolutionary movement and deeply saddened oppressed people around the world.The diary Che kept in Bolivia was removed when he was captured. In it, he documented the events of the guerrilla campaign. He wrote of how the guerrillas were forced to begin operation much earlier than they had planned due to discovery by the Bolivian Army. He also recorded the rift between the Bolivian Communist Party and himself, which resulted in the rebel army having far fewer soldiers than was originally expected. Che also wrote of his increasing illness towards the end of the campaign. His asthma was getting worse, and most of his last offensives were made simply in an attempt to obtain medicine which he should have been able to acquire through the Bolivian Communist Party.In 1997, Che's skeletal remains were exhumed from beneath an air strip near Vallegrande, Bolivia, positively identified by DNA matching, and returned to Cuba. On October 17, 1997, his remains were laid to rest with full military honors in a specially built mausoleum, the Plaza Comandante Ernesto Guevara, in the city of Santa Clara, where he won the decisive battle of the Cuban Revolution thirty-nine years earlier.Legacy of a Revolutionary HeroWhen Che's murder was announced protests broke out throughout the world, and articles, books, poems and songs were written about his life, death, and message. Che is especially revered because of his spirit of self-sacrifice, illustrated by his choice to reject a comfortable life and instead join, and take up the cause of the worlds poor, oppressed majority. He never gave up that cause, continuing to give his all to the revolutionary struggle until his death.The famous photo taken of Che by photographer Alberto Korda in 1960, which became one of the 20th centuries most recognizable images, has become a symbol of liberation – through socialist revolution – for millions of people.French philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte called Che “the most complete human being of our age,” and he was correct in doing so. Ernesto “Che” Guevara was one of the most important, and most dedicated revolutionaries we have ever known. But his struggle is far from over. The oppressed masses of the world must continue to fight for freedom, justice, and equality through socialist revolution – the only way it can be achieved – as Che said, “Hasta la victoria, siempre!” [Always, until the victory!] The article originally appeared in the Autumn 2005 issue of Rebel Yell!.
The original article, with links and pictures, is available at http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rya5a.html
COURTESY-Che-Lives .com.




Saturday, August 18, 2007

History as a site of struggle

K.N. PANIKKAR
Historiography is a terrain of contest, reflective of different conceptions of society and ways of realising them .

The two defining features of modern Indian history can be identified in the two interrelated processes: the making of India as a nation and the evolution of modernity. All historiographies — be it the colonial, nationalist, Marxist, or post-modernist — in some way or the other, either implicitly or explicitly, address these two issues, although their reasons for doing so are vastly different. Their differences reflect the ideological struggles within the discip line, rooted in different intellectual persuasions, theoretical assumptions, political perspectives, and social commitments. These ideological struggles in a way form a force behind the changes in the nature of historiography. As such, historiography is a terrain of contest, reflective of different conceptions of society and ways of realising them. The history of ‘modern’ India is no exception, as it evolved during the last two hundred years through different thematic choices and methodological innovations, influenced as they were by different ideological considerations.
The origin and development of modernity in India was not through any organic evolution. Indians were introduced to modernity through the agency of colonialism, as a part of their subjection to the colonial power. One of the channels through which the ideas of modernity were conveyed was colonial historiography, which graphically drew the contrast between the western-modern and the traditional-feudal. Modernity was attributed to whatever the East India Company’s administration undertook in the social, economic, and political life, suggesting thereby the transformative power of the colonial rule. The colonial institutions were actively engaged in propagating these notions, which the liberal intelligentsia internalised and in turn disseminated.
The impression conveyed was that colonial history was the beginning of modernity and the source of progress. Consequently, the traditional order was rejected as obscurantist in favour of the colonial-modern. At the same time, the limitations of this modernity, which had no roots in the ‘native’ soil, could not escape notice. For, colonial modernity was essentially an importation of the ideas and practices that had originated in the west and had no connection whatsoever with the ‘indigenous’ social and intellectual experience and therefore could not be part of the larger social consciousness. Even universal ideas like humanism and rationalism did not succeed in establishing indigenous lineage.
As a result, colonialism as an agency of modernity soon came into question. However, certain aspects of colonial modernity exercised a very powerful ideological influence over the intelligentsia, which coloured its view of the past. The colonial influence continues to persist, albeit in different forms of articulation. Some recent historiographical tendencies, in their effort to focus on the fragment, underplay if not overlook altogether the devastating role that colonialism played in the country’s history. The post-colonial histories, which are engaged in redefining the impact of the colonial subjection, on the other hand, try to valorise the contribution of colonialism to social progress and economic development. That such explanations are gaining academic respectability, political legitimacy, and ‘radical’ acceptance is perhaps an indication of the new climate of intellectual domination.
A religious communitarian view of Indian society as well as of the nation is central to the colonial interpretation of history. The colonial historians conceived India as a country of communities in conflict to which a sense of unity was imparted by the operation of colonial administrative institutions. The neo-colonial historians have suggested that the formation of the nation and the emergence of nationalism were a sequel to it.
This aroused two different responses. The first put forward a concept of nation based upon a sense of modernity devoid of the colonial presence. The second was a religious- communitarian view of the nation that sought to resurrect the past uncritically. While the first view worked within the parameters of modernity, the second was essentially anti- modernist with emphasis on indigenous institutions. The advocates of the first became the champions of secular nationalism and the advocates of the second stood for religious communal identity of the nation. The conflict between these two conceptualisations is a major area of ideological struggle within the discipline.
The departures from colonial history were enmeshed in the quest for a modernity different from the one valorised by colonialism. This was mainly articulated in the nationalist and Marxist historical writings, which became influential during the post-colonial period. The liberation from colonialism was a necessary prerequisite for the construction of real modernity in the understanding of both nationalist and Marxist historiography. The nationalist, however, took a homogenous view of the nation, exclusively emphasising in the process the primary contradiction between the nation and colonialism.
The Marxist, on the other hand, conceptualised the nation as an aggregate of internally differentiated classes and underlined the contradictions between them. Consequently, the Marxist historiography drew attention to the democratic aspirations of hitherto marginalised classes like the peasants and workers, even if the importance of integrating the social categories such as Dalits, Adivasis, and women with the class analysis was not adequately realised. The nationalist and Marxist historical investigations, despite their different ideological moorings, reflected the struggle against colonial ideology, which even after the success of the national liberation movement continued to be quite influential. The ideological struggles implicit in the nationalist and Marxist historiography is conspicuous by their absence in the new tendencies like subaltern and post-modern history.
The nationalist and Marxist histories also conceptualised the nation on the basis of its secular character and explored its strengths and weaknesses as evolved during the colonial and post-colonial periods. In fact, the secular character became a defining feature of these histories. However, during the colonial and post-colonial periods, the nation was increasingly interpreted on religious-communal lines. Such a view was officially sponsored when the Hindu fundamentalist forces gained access to state power. Being based on misrepresentations and misinterpretations, communal history, however, met with strong resistance from the professional practitioners of the discipline. As a result, a discernible retreat of the communal influence is evident in historical writing, at least as of now.Broader struggles
The above tendencies in modern Indian historiography are symptomatic of broader ideological struggles within the discipline. The first is the yet incomplete struggle against the legacy of colonialism, which seems to reappear with different forms of interpretation, attempting in the process to legitimise the colonial past. Such efforts have contemporary relevance in the context of the new forms of imperialist penetration, and their ongoing rationalisation, particularly in the intellectual and cultural domains. The emergence of global history as an alternative to national histories is an indication of the power the forces of globalisation exercise. The second is the struggle against communal influence in historical interpretation. The communal interpretation has not only gained considerable adherents in the discipline but also commands legitimacy in several quarters, including some ‘radical’ schools of thought that share at least some common ground with the communal interpretation, particularly in the analysis of community, tradition, and culture.
At the same time, the influence of post-modernism of which some of these radical sections claim to be the practitioners, tends to rob history of much of its strength as a distinct discipline. It has created the doubt whether history can be written at all. The critique of post-modernism in the field of history is hence an attempt to preserve the essential character of the discipline.
Modern history is a site of ideological struggles. The shape of its future depends upon the course and content of these struggles.
Dr. K.N. Panikkar, former Professor of Modern History at Jawaharlal Nehru University, is currently Vice-Chairman of the Kerala Higher Education Council.

Courtesy-THE HINDU.

Poor in India hard hit by floods

By Amelia Gentleman
International Herald Tribune
Thursday, August 16, 2007

Losing everything he owns has become a routine disaster for Shankar, 25, a landless laborer in the northeastern state of Bihar, who this month saw his home and belongings destroyed in some of the worst floods to hit north India in decades."This is the third time I've lost my house in the rains," he said, standing in water, peering into the shell of his home, hopeful of salvaging something from the ruins. "This year the rains were worse, and the waters are deeper. But in the end it's the same. I have nothing left."Only the roof of his thatch house was visible above the muddy green waters that turned his village of Malinagar into a lagoon two weeks ago. Beneath the rippling surface, the straw walls have slipped over and his stock of grain for the winter, his clothes, furniture and children's possessions are slowly rotting.The monsoon rains in India are a democratic force. When the skies open, the water pours on the homes of rich and poor alike. But after the deluge, the poor always suffer most.Bihar is the most backward state in India, barely touched by the soaring growth and new economic confidence of the major cities. Yet there are gradations within this poverty, and sub-classes of richer and poorer co-exist. The richer residents of Malinagar still have their homes, made from sturdy brick and concrete. Some managed to shelter on their flat roofs, when the flood came at the start of the month. The poorer, living in shacks without electricity, at the exposed edges of the village, had to flee to roughly made shelters on higher land.
Those with a few hundred rupees to spare were able to buy plastic sheeting from the market, which they slung between bamboo poles to protect their families against the lashing rain. Others had only the scant cover offered by saris and stitched-together sacks. The most ill-prepared huddled beneath plantain leaves. Later they witnessed their own flimsy homes sink beneath the waters, disintegrating in the currents.This week the flood began receding, replaced by a stinking, stagnating sludge, but villages remain cut off, and many of those houses that have re-emerged are uninhabitable. Hundreds of thousands of people are still sheltering beneath bed sheets along the raised highways crisscrossing the state, just inches away from the traffic, which grinds past, splattering them with mud. Life cannot yet begin again for most of the 14 million that the United Nations estimates have been affected by the crisis in Bihar.Unicef officials said Thursday that about 2,800 people in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan have died since the monsoon season began from drowning, waterborne illnesses, snakebites or hunger. But for most, the real endurance test is just beginning. With crops destroyed and fields bloated with water, there will be no agricultural work for millions of landless laborers here for many months, leaving them to rely on the sporadic support of aid agencies and government relief organizations. Unicef said it was concerned by the prospect of worsening child malnutrition.In a certain light, in the lull between the storms, Malinagar becomes a mirage of watery beauty. Beyond the shells of drowned houses, the floodwaters from the burst Bagmati River stretch as far as the eye can see. A month ago, the lake was a parched wheat field. Now village girls sit like mermaids, combing their hair, half-submerged beneath the calm lake waters, cooling themselves; children shriek with excitement as they splash by the shores.But Shankar, who goes by only one name, finds nothing to rejoice at. He is familiar with the deprivation that follows the flood. His wife and two daughters, 6 and 1, live on the wages he earns as a laborer in the fields.
Those with a few hundred rupees to spare were able to buy plastic sheeting from the market, which they slung between bamboo poles to protect their families against the lashing rain. Others had only the scant cover offered by saris and stitched-together sacks. The most ill-prepared huddled beneath plantain leaves. Later they witnessed their own flimsy homes sink beneath the waters, disintegrating in the currents.This week the flood began receding, replaced by a stinking, stagnating sludge, but villages remain cut off, and many of those houses that have re-emerged are uninhabitable. Hundreds of thousands of people are still sheltering beneath bed sheets along the raised highways crisscrossing the state, just inches away from the traffic, which grinds past, splattering them with mud. Life cannot yet begin again for most of the 14 million that the United Nations estimates have been affected by the crisis in Bihar.Unicef officials said Thursday that about 2,800 people in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan have died since the monsoon season began from drowning, waterborne illnesses, snakebites or hunger. But for most, the real endurance test is just beginning. With crops destroyed and fields bloated with water, there will be no agricultural work for millions of landless laborers here for many months, leaving them to rely on the sporadic support of aid agencies and government relief organizations. Unicef said it was concerned by the prospect of worsening child malnutrition.In a certain light, in the lull between the storms, Malinagar becomes a mirage of watery beauty. Beyond the shells of drowned houses, the floodwaters from the burst Bagmati River stretch as far as the eye can see. A month ago, the lake was a parched wheat field. Now village girls sit like mermaids, combing their hair, half-submerged beneath the calm lake waters, cooling themselves; children shriek with excitement as they splash by the shores.But Shankar, who goes by only one name, finds nothing to rejoice at. He is familiar with the deprivation that follows the flood. His wife and two daughters, 6 and 1, live on the wages he earns as a laborer in the fields.
Those with a few hundred rupees to spare were able to buy plastic sheeting from the market, which they slung between bamboo poles to protect their families against the lashing rain. Others had only the scant cover offered by saris and stitched-together sacks. The most ill-prepared huddled beneath plantain leaves. Later they witnessed their own flimsy homes sink beneath the waters, disintegrating in the currents.This week the flood began receding, replaced by a stinking, stagnating sludge, but villages remain cut off, and many of those houses that have re-emerged are uninhabitable. Hundreds of thousands of people are still sheltering beneath bed sheets along the raised highways crisscrossing the state, just inches away from the traffic, which grinds past, splattering them with mud. Life cannot yet begin again for most of the 14 million that the United Nations estimates have been affected by the crisis in Bihar.Unicef officials said Thursday that about 2,800 people in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan have died since the monsoon season began from drowning, waterborne illnesses, snakebites or hunger. But for most, the real endurance test is just beginning. With crops destroyed and fields bloated with water, there will be no agricultural work for millions of landless laborers here for many months, leaving them to rely on the sporadic support of aid agencies and government relief organizations. Unicef said it was concerned by the prospect of worsening child malnutrition.In a certain light, in the lull between the storms, Malinagar becomes a mirage of watery beauty. Beyond the shells of drowned houses, the floodwaters from the burst Bagmati River stretch as far as the eye can see. A month ago, the lake was a parched wheat field. Now village girls sit like mermaids, combing their hair, half-submerged beneath the calm lake waters, cooling themselves; children shriek with excitement as they splash by the shores.But Shankar, who goes by only one name, finds nothing to rejoice at. He is familiar with the deprivation that follows the flood. His wife and two daughters, 6 and 1, live on the wages he earns as a laborer in the fields.
"There is no work, so there is no money," he said. "I\'m worried about how the children will eat. Even now we are eating dry bread with salt. It\'s very sad for the children to live like that."The village leader, Vijay Sharma, said those with the least to lose had lost the most. "The richer villagers have ways of working things out. The poorest will not get any work for months more. I don\'t know how they are going to survive," he said.At a national level, the plight of these flood victims attracts little compassion. Early this month, when the United Nations declared these floods the worst in living memory, the miserable condition of the 31 million affected in India was widely covered internationally but was neither front-page news in Delhi newspapers nor featured on national news channels. Instead, bulletins were dominated by the sentencing of a Bollywood star to jail. In one paper, flood coverage was restricted to a short piece on animals being evacuated from a wildlife park.Such apathy is not unusual. English-language newspapers in India often neglect the suffering of the rural poor, more preoccupied with the triumphs of the emerging India than the familiar stories of extreme hardship experienced by hundreds of millions of Indians living on the land.Even within the government, attempts to implement a national flood prevention policy have been half-hearted. The official Web site for the Water Resources Ministry states that a National Flood Commission was established in 1976 to draw up a "coordinated" and "scientific" approach to the problem, but added: "Though the report was submitted in 1980 and accepted by government, not much progress has been made in the implementation of its recommendations."Saifuddin Soz, the Indian water resources minister, said that the suggestions of a more recent 2004 task force on flood prevention had also not been implemented because of funding shortages. He said he was hopeful that more resources might be granted as a result of the severe flooding this year. "Once the crisis is over I will be calling on the cabinet to create a national commission for flood management," he said."There is no work, so there is no money," he said. "I'm worried about how the children will eat. Even now we are eating dry bread with salt. It's very sad for the children to live like that."The village leader, Vijay Sharma, said those with the least to lose had lost the most. "The richer villagers have ways of working things out. The poorest will not get any work for months more. I don't know how they are going to survive," he said.At a national level, the plight of these flood victims attracts little compassion. Early this month, when the United Nations declared these floods the worst in living memory, the miserable condition of the 31 million affected in India was widely covered internationally but was neither front-page news in Delhi newspapers nor featured on national news channels. Instead, bulletins were dominated by the sentencing of a Bollywood star to jail. In one paper, flood coverage was restricted to a short piece on animals being evacuated from a wildlife park.Such apathy is not unusual. English-language newspapers in India often neglect the suffering of the rural poor, more preoccupied with the triumphs of the emerging India than the familiar stories of extreme hardship experienced by hundreds of millions of Indians living on the land.Even within the government, attempts to implement a national flood prevention policy have been half-hearted. The official Web site for the Water Resources Ministry states that a National Flood Commission was established in 1976 to draw up a "coordinated" and "scientific" approach to the problem, but added: "Though the report was submitted in 1980 and accepted by government, not much progress has been made in the implementation of its recommendations."Saifuddin Soz, the Indian water resources minister, said that the suggestions of a more recent 2004 task force on flood prevention had also not been implemented because of funding shortages. He said he was hopeful that more resources might be granted as a result of the severe flooding this year. "Once the crisis is over I will be calling on the cabinet to create a national commission for flood management," he said.
Among the homeless, waiting for the waters to dry up, there was less optimism.Across Bihar, memories remain fresh of Gautam Goswami, a government official named as one of "Asia's heroes" by Time magazine for his "brilliant" coordination relief operations after the 2004 floods, who later was accused of embezzling $2 million in flood relief money. The state's reputation for official corruption is well-entrenched, and local journalists question whether money allocated for repairing the river banks was ever spent.Victims say the government response this year was slow. When the floods broke, the Bihar chief minister, Nitish Kumar, was touring Mauritius. When he returned a week later he was pelted with stones by flood victims, furious at his extended absence. This week there was rioting at two distribution camps in Bihar as the homeless fought for food aid. The police beat one flood survivor to death.Manohar Paswan, 45, stared across the water at the rubble that used to be his house, his head shaven out of respect for the youngest of his seven children, a 6-month-old boy, Nitish, who died a week ago.Thursday after being bitten by one of the poisonous snakes that thrive in the floodwaters. Marooned, there was no way of getting help and Nitish soon died. Now, with no prospect of work, Paswan is concerned at how his family will eat in the months to come."Government help is nowhere to be seen," he said Among the homeless, waiting for the waters to dry up, there was less optimism.Across Bihar, memories remain fresh of Gautam Goswami, a government official named as one of "Asia's heroes" by Time magazine for his "brilliant" coordination relief operations after the 2004 floods, who later was accused of embezzling $2 million in flood relief money. The state's reputation for official corruption is well-entrenched, and local journalists question whether money allocated for repairing the river banks was ever spent.Victims say the government response this year was slow. When the floods broke, the Bihar chief minister, Nitish Kumar, was touring Mauritius. When he returned a week later he was pelted with stones by flood victims, furious at his extended absence. This week there was rioting at two distribution camps in Bihar as the homeless fought for food aid. The police beat one flood survivor to death.Manohar Paswan, 45, stared across the water at the rubble that used to be his house, his head shaven out of respect for the youngest of his seven children, a 6-month-old boy, Nitish, who died a week ago Thursday after being bitten by one of the poisonous snakes that thrive in the floodwaters. Marooned, there was no way of getting help and Nitish soon died. Now, with no prospect of work, Paswan is concerned at how his family will eat in the months to come."Government help is nowhere to be seen," he said.

Friday, August 17, 2007

भारत को एनपीटी जैसी ही शर्तों का पालन करना होगा : हावर्ड

मेलबर्न (भाषा)। आस्ट्रेलिया के प्रधानमंत्री जान हावर्ड ने आज कहा कि भारत ने हालांकि परमाणु अप्रसार संधि (एनपीटी) पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं किए हैं लेकिन कैनबरा से यूरेनियम हासिल करने के लिए उसे इस संधि जैसी ही शर्तों का पालन करना होगा।हावर्ड ने आज एबीसी रेडियो से कहा मैं आपके श्रोताओं को आश्वस्त कर सकता हूं कि समझौते पर एनपीटी जैसे ही सुरक्षा मानकों का पालन होगा। यह भारत को परमाणु हथियारों के विकास में ईंधन के प्रयोग से रोकेगा। भारत एनपीटी पर हस्ताक्षर न करने वाले चार देशों में से एक है लेकिन इसके बावजूद हावर्ड कल रात अपने भारतीय समकक्ष मनमोहन सिंह के साथ एक सैद्धांतिक समझौते पर पहुंच गए।हावर्ड ने कहा यह एक अलग मामला है और भारत ने एनपीटी पर दस्तखत नहीं किए हैं लेकिन हमारा विश्वास है कि यह व्यवस्था एनपीटी जैसे मानकों वाली ही होगी। उन्होंने कहा कि दोनों देश द्विपक्षीय सुरक्षा मानक समझौते में प्रवेश करेंगे और भारत को ऐसा ही समझौता अंतरराष्ट्रीय परमाणु ऊर्जा एजेंसी (आईएईए) के साथ करना होगा।हावर्ड ने कहा भारत पर ठीक वैसी ही शर्तें लगने जा रही हैं जैसी कि रूस और चीन पर लगी हैं तथा मेरा मानना है कि फ्रांस पर भी और हम फ्रांस को सालों से यूरेनियम बेच रहे हैं। आस्ट्रेलियाई प्रधानमंत्री ने कहा मैंने कल रात भारतीय प्रधानमंत्री से बातचीत की और मैंने उन्हें सभी शर्तों से अवगत कराया। मैं आगामी कुछ दिनों में उन्हें लिखित रूप से यह पुष्टि करने जा रहा हूं कि समझौते के लिए सभी शर्तों का पालन किया जाए।उल्लेखनीय है कि आस्ट्रेलिया यूरेनियम का एक बहुत बड़ा उत्पादक देश है और इसके दक्षिणी क्षेत्र में विश्व के सबसे बड़े माने जाने वाले कुछ भंडारण केंद्र हैं।
Last Updated[ 8/17/2007 11:18:06 AM]
राष्ट्रीय सहारा से साभार

Thursday, August 16, 2007

भारत अमेरिका परमाणु करार का सच

The truth behind the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Global Research, July 29, 2005
The Hindu
In opening the door to nuclear commerce with India, Washington has confirmed how much an alliance with New Delhi is worth to it. But is anybody on the Indian side doing the math?IN THE fullness of time, last week's nuclear agreement between India and the United States will be seen as one of those decisive moments in international politics when two powers who have been courting each other for some time decide finally to cross the point of no return. The U.S. and India have `come out', so to speak, and the world will never be the same again.Every world order needs rules in order to sustain itself but sometimes the rules can become a hindrance to the hegemonic strength of the power that underpins that order. Following India's nuclear tests in 1998, the U.S. had two options: continuing to believe the Indian nuclear genie could be put back, or harnessing India's evident strategic weight for its own geopolitical aims before that power grows too immense or is harnessed by others like Europe or China. The U.S. has chosen the latter option, and the joint statement released by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18 is the most dramatic textual manifestation of what Washington is attempting to do.India too, had a choice. It could use its nuclear weapons status as a lever to push for a multipolar world system as well as for global restraints on the development of weapons of mass destruction. Or it could use its status as an instrument to help perpetuate an order based on the production of insecurity and violence in which it eventually hoped to be accommodated as a junior partner. The erstwhile Vajpayee Government was never interested in the former option and longed desperately for the latter. The fact that Dr. Singh has managed this is the real source of the BJP's bitterness, not the fact that India's nuclear weapons capability is to be capped (which it is not). Those in India who marvel at how Mr. Bush could blithely walk away from 40 years of non-proliferation policy do not understand the tectonic shift that is taking place in the bilateral relationship as a result of increasing fears in U.S. business and strategic circles about China. Giving India anything less, or insisting that it cap or scrap its nuclear weapons, is seen by Washington's neo-conservatives as tantamount to strengthening China in the emerging balance of power in Asia. "By integrating India into the non-proliferation order at the cost of capping the size of its eventual nuclear deterrent," Ashley Tellis argued in a recent monograph, "[the U.S. would] threaten to place New Delhi at a severe disadvantage vis-à-vis Beijing, a situation that could not only undermine Indian security but also U.S. interests in Asia in the face of the prospective rise of Chinese power over the long term" (India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005). This, then, is the real value of the deal in American eyes and the Indian public should be aware of it.Predictably, critics in the U.S. have raised objections of one type or another. The non-proliferation lobby argues that President Bush's decision to sell nuclear technology and equipment to India will encourage other countries to go down the nuclear path. Not so say the advocates. Mr. Tellis — a former RAND Corporation analyst who served as an advisor to Robert Blackwill when he was U.S. Ambassador to India — is most forthright. He acknowledges the contradiction between the two goals of U.S. foreign policy — building India up as a counter to China and upholding the non-proliferation regime — but says the circle can be squared. His solution: don't jettison the regime "but, rather, selectively [apply] it in practice." In other words, different countries should be treated differently "based on their friendship and value to the U.S." With one stroke of the Presidential pen, India has become something more than a `major non-Nato ally' of the U.S. It has joined the Free World. It has gone from being a victim of nuclear discrimination to a beneficiary. India is not alone. Israel is already there to give it company.From a strategic perspective, one of the most puzzling aspects of the joint statement was the inclusion of a reiteration by India of its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing without the U.S. making an explicit reciprocal commitment to abide by its own 1992 moratorium. At stake is not a formal question of protocol but the very real danger that the U.S. might go down the path of testing at some point in the future.The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review was quite explicit on this point: "The United States has not conducted nuclear tests since 1992 and supports the continued observance of the testing moratorium. While the U.S. is making every effort to maintain the stockpile without additional nuclear testing, this may not be possible for the indefinite future." Stockpile safety is, of course, a ruse, given the fact that the U.S. is running active research programmes on a new generation of smaller and `smarter' nuclear weapons like `mini-nukes' and deep earth penetrators. Earlier this month, in fact, the U.S. Senate voted to keep alive the bunker-buster programme in the face of demands that it be scrapped.The development of deadly new nuclear weapons by the U.S. should be a matter of great concern to India for their eventual deployment will degrade the security environment in the world and Asia. The same is true of the U.S. missile defence programme, which India, regrettably, will continue to remain engaged with. The Pentagon's goal in developing a missile shield is 'full-spectrum dominance,' including the weaponisation of space. Preventing this has been a major goal of most countries at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), with China insisting that a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) is as important as the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) , which would place no effective constraint on the U.S. or Russian arsenal because of their huge stockpiles of fissile material. In agreeing to "work with the U.S." on an FMCT, India has accorded primacy to this treaty over PAROS and other long-standing Indian goals at the CD such as negative security assurances and comprehensive disarmament where the U.S. is dragging its feet.Hidden costsOf all the misgivings present in the public mind, it is the fear of a quid pro quo on some other front that the Prime Minister most needs to dispel. Mr. Tellis, whose report on India-U.S. relations formed a valuable input to the Bush administration's thinking, argued, inter alia, that allowing India access to U.S. nuclear material and equipment would make New Delhi more likely to help further American strategic goals in the region. "[It] would buttress [India's] potential utility as a hedge against a rising China, encourage it to pursue economic and strategic policies aligned with U.S. interests, and shape its choices in regard to global energy stability... "When it comes to "global energy stability" are India's interests in alignment with those of the U.S.? Clearly not. It is not a coincidence that the two "American concerns" a Wall Street Journal editorial demanded the Prime Minister address during his visit were India's relations with Myanmar and Iran. Both these countries have gas reserves that are vital for our energy security. Addressing the Africa-Asia summit in Jakarta in April this year, the Prime Minister had said : "While our continents include both major producers and consumers of energy, the framework within which we produce and consume energy is determined elsewhere. We must end this anomaly." And yet, in baldly stating that no international bank would want to underwrite the Iran gas pipeline, Dr. Singh would appear to have strengthened the very outside "framework" he once spoke against.In addition to facing pressure on Iran, India is likely to be asked to let its Navy operate more frequently alongside the U.S. Navy in Asia. The purpose of these joint operations is essentially military and the U.S. wants India to also sign up for the Proliferation Security Initiative. Mr. Tellis's report had predicted that a nuclear deal would "increase [India's] enthusiasm for taking part in counter-proliferation activity in the Indian Ocean." The joint statement makes no direct mention of such cooperation though it speaks of a new "U.S.-India Disaster Relief Initiative that builds on the experience of the Tsunami core group." The real purpose of this initiative is revealed by the apparently inappropriate sub-heading under which it finds mention: `For Non-Proliferation and Security.'All told, the deal signed in Washington raises a number of questions about the Manmohan Singh Government's policies in the field of nuclear energy, disarmament, `promotion of democracy,' energy security and strategic stability in Asia. No doubt the Government has answers. Spinning euphoric reports in the mass media is not the way of providing them. The Government owes it to the people to provide a detailed account of its nuclear policy in the form of a White Paper. Let the details of the Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh negotiations be made public. Let the Government place on record its estimate of how much the proposed separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities will cost and what the benefits of last week's agreement will be. And let it say openly that nuclear deal or not, India will continue to work for global disarmament and has no desire to play the role of a `hedge', fence or `tether' in the U.S. plan to contain China.

Global Research Articles by Siddharth Varadarajan

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

भारत की नयी फॉरेस्ट पॉलिसी

India’s lagging forest reform
China’s forest cover has increased dramatically whereas India’s has remained stagnant
Their View
The world worries about the global environmental and social consequences of the policies of China and India, the world’s largest population and fastest growing economies. Comparisons of reforms and outcomes between China and India are ubiquitous in manufacturing, trade, agriculture and information technology. Less well known are the bold policy and institutional reforms China has initiated in the forest sector, with potentially far-reaching environmental and socio-economic consequences.
In both countries, forest land is the second largest use of land after agriculture. Critics allege that China’s rapid growth in demand for forest products has caused deforestation in the neighbouring South-East Asian countries and Russia. India’s import growth of forest products has been slower than China’s but also a cause of international concern.
Forest degradation has contributed to soil erosion, loss of watersheds and flooding, starting in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers in China and from the upper reaches of the Ganga and Brahmaputra rivers in South Asia. Deforestation is also a culprit. Improving forest cover is increasingly seen as a way of trading in carbon. Millions of poor make a living out of forests. Biodiversity and the medicinal value of many indigenous plants offer huge potential to increase the value of forest products and services.
Chinese forestry is ahead of India’s in the race for poverty reduction, productivity growth, and environmental sustainability.
Its forest plantations on state and collective forest lands have increased forest cover by 35 million hectares since the 1970s to address consumer demand.
The programme of natural forest protection is achieving ecological objectives.
The sloping land conversion programme, known as the “Grain for Green Programme”, is creating alternative livelihoods for rural households engaged in marginal agriculture on mountainous lands. It provides cash and grain subsidies to households to move out of farming. Some 15 million farmers and four municipalities are participating, reaching half of the declared target of 14.8 million hectares.
China is seeking global experience in moving from state-owned and state-managed forests to privately-managed ones while maintaining state ownership of land. It recently gave long-term user rights to households of collectivized forest lands. Introduced as a pilot in the Fujian and Jiangxi provinces, the forest tenure reform is giving authority to households in forest management, while making trees collateral and assuring land transferability. Individual workers and managers of forest enterprises have been given user rights and management responsibility for some of China’s largest and richest forests.
But there are weaknesses in the Grain for Green Programme. Households have been poorly targeted, there is insufficient adherence to the sloping and degraded lands standards, the planting material distributed is of poor quality, and farmers have not been fully compensated to develop an alternative livelihood. And there has been political pressure to expand the programme even though local and provincial governments lack the capacity for implementation.
Preliminary survey results of the tenure reform in the provinces show positive results. Increased reliance on households to manage forests has led to increased planting, improved management and increased harvests.
India’s reforms, in contrast, have been timid and halting. When India introduced Joint Forest Management (JFM) of degraded forest lands in 1988, it was at the forefront. It involved communities in forest management in return for a greater share of forest produce. JFM covers 17.3 million hectares of forest land in 27 Indian states involving 85,000 villages, but implementation has been slow.
Policy pronouncements have not corrected the erosion of land rights of forest communities or assured their role in forest management. India is moving slowly in the areas of forest replanting on public lands, increased the voice of people in forest management, and in the privatization of forest industries.
Not surprisingly, outcome indicators are sharply different in the two countries. China’s forest cover has increased whereas India’s has remained stagnant. China’s productivity per unit of forest land has increased more rapidly than India’s. With vastly increasing income choices available to rural households, China has developed a thriving domestic market for timber and other forest products. By enhancing, clarifying and securing land rights, the proposed tenure reform of forest lands is meant to encourage intensifying forest production. The government will scale back and play a strategic role in fine-tuning policies and implementing them, and offering technical advice to increase forest productivity.
Uma Lele, a Ph।D. from Cornell University, retired as senior adviser in the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group and co-chaired a task force of the China Council on Environment and Development on Chinese Forestry. Professor Xu Jintao has a Ph.D. from Virginia Tech and is at Beijing University.
लाइव मिंट .कॉम से साभार

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Professor Shivji Panikkar's Mistreatment by the Sangh Parivar and the Gujrat Government's inaction

For your information and support.
SANSAD
*****************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 28, 2007
***************************************
Press Contacts:
George Abraham: +1-917-544-4137
Dr. Hari Sharma: +1-604-420-2972
Saeed Patel: +1-201-315-2874
***************************************
We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the continued targeting of Professor Shivji Panikkar of Maharaja Sayajirao University, and his allies. The Sangh Parivar's actions constitute an attack on civil liberties and academic freedom, and violate the right to freedom of movement and the right to freedom of information.
The Sangh Parivar attacked and disrupted the 'National Student's Festival for Peace Communal Harmony and Justice' on July 6, 2007. The organizers at Anhad, Act Now for Harmony and Democracy, had invited Professor Shivji Panikkar to inaugurate an exhibition of student artworks. On his arrival, a Hindutva (Hindu nationalist/extremist) mob surrounded Professor Panikkar's car, shouting slogans. When Professor Panikkar stepped out of the car, he was physically assaulted. The mob proceeded to throw bricks and an iron drum at the car, injuring the driver and smashing the windshield. Police intelligence, it has been made known, was involved and informed the crowd of the arrival of uniformed police, which allowed the mob to disperse.
On July 8, Deepak Kanna, Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at Maharaja Sayajirao University resigned in protest of the attack on Professor Panikkar. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has called for Professor Panikkar's exile from Gujarat, and the Akhil Bharthiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) began a signature campaign on the Maharaja Sayajirao University campus on July 11 in protest of Professor Panikkar's alleged comments on Hindu bhajans (devotional songs).
Earlier this year, on May 11, 2007, Shivji Panikkar, Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at Maharaja Sayajirao University, was suspended by the university administration from his appointment, for upholding a student's academic right to freedom of expression. Sangh Parivar groups had attacked student Chandra Mohan's works, displayed as part of an examination procedure, and had the artist arrested on May 9, 2007. Other students protested Chandra Mohan's arrest by exhibiting erotic works from the school's archives on the faculty porch, which the administration ordered to be shut down, which Professor Panikkar refused. The attacks against them had forced both Professor Panikkar and Chandra Mohan into seclusion out of fear for their lives.
We also condemn that such targeting has become indicative of the culture of fear and repression that is allowed to continue in Gujarat, where, following the genocide against Muslims in February-March of 2002, insufficient and negligent action has been taken to bring restorative justice to the survivors of the brutal, gendered and sexualized, violence. Failure to apprehend and bring to trial the perpetrators of criminal acts on the part of the Gujarat state administration has continued to subject minority and disenfranchised communities to a reign of terror. These acts of violence and repression are produced in particular by the complicity of state and national governments. The Government of India has failed to restore democracy by holding accountable the perpetrators, including the Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other government and law enforcement officials for the state's proven complicity in aiding and abetting the violence of 2002. The Government of India has also faile d to hold accountable the perpetrators among the cadre of Sangh Parivar groups for inflicting the violence, and, as applicable, refused to revoke their charitable status.
OUR DEMANDS:
o We call for an immediate inquiry into the events that targeted Professor Shivji Panikkar.
o We demand that the as yet outstanding case against Chandra Mohan be dismissed.
o We ask that suitable action be taken against the perpetrators.
o We demand that the police take official cognizance of the documentation produced by ANHAD, Act Now for Democracy and Harmony, regarding the identity of the perpetrators, rather than restricting its actions to filing a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown assailants.
o We call for the restoration of Professor Panikkar's appointment.
o We call for the restoration of law and order, and academic freedom, on the Maharaja Sayajirao University campus. In this regard, we demand accountability from the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Manoj Saini, who has direct responsibility for maintaining academic freedom on campus.
o We call for an independent inquiry into the activities of Sangh Parivar organizations that are involved in this case, such as the Akhil Bharthiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the Bharatiya Janata Party.
o We call for an independent and impartial judicial enquiry into the government's repeated inability or refusal to maintain law and order.
SIGNATORIES:
Organizations:
1. GMAA, Gujarati Muslim Association of America
2. AIM, Association of Indian Muslims of America
3. CSDI, Coalition for a Secular and Democratic India
4. CSFH, Campaign To Stop Funding Hate
5. Dharma Megha
6. Educational Subscription Service
7. FIACONA, Federation of Indian American Organizations of North America
8. Friends of South Asia
9. India Development Society
10. India Foundation
11. IACP, Indian American Coalition for Pluralism
12. ICF, Indian Christian Forum
13. Indian Muslim Council-USA
14. IMEFNA, Indian Muslim Education Foundation of North America International Service Society
15. INSAF, International South Asia Forum Bulletin
16. Non-Resident Indians Coalition for Justice
17. Non-Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India
18. SANSAD, South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy
19. Seva International
20. Supporters of Human Rights in India
21. Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment
22. Vedanata Society of East Lansing
23. Washington Watch
Individuals:
(Note: Organizational affiliations for individuals are listed for identification purposes only)
1. George Abraham
2. Rasheed Ahmed
3. Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor, Anthropology, California Institute of Integral Studies
4. Rebecca Kurian
5. Dr. Khursheed Mallick
6. Saeed Patel, Non-Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India
7. Devesh Poddar, Director, Washington Watch Incorporated, East Lansing, Michigan
8. Mayurika Poddar, Director, India Foundation of Michigan
9. Shrikumar Poddar, President, Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, Okemos, Michigan
10. Raju Rajagopal
11. Dr. K. S. Sripada Raju, Director, International Service Society, East Lansing, Michigan
12. Dr. Hari Sharma, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Simon Fraser University
13. Amin Tejani, President, Shanti International, East Lansing, Michigan
14. Dr. Shaik Ubaid, Indian American Coalition for Pluralism
15. Sandeep Vaidya