Jordan: Torture in Prisons Routine and Widespread

October 9, 2008

Reforms Fail to Tackle Abuse, Impunity Persists

Human Rights Watch

(Amman, October 8, 2008) – Jordan should end routine and widespread torture in its prisons, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Human Rights Watch called on the government to overhaul mechanisms for investigating, disciplining and prosecuting abusers, and in particular to transfer prosecutor’s investigations into prison abuse from police to civilian prosecutors.

" Torture in Jordan’s prison system is widespread even two years after King Abdullah called for reforms to stop it once and for all. The mechanisms for preventing torture by holding torturers accountable are simply not working. "
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch
Contribute

Also Available in

arabic french german japanese

Related Material

“Torture and Impunity in Jordan’s Prisons: Reforms Fail to Tackle Widespread Abuse”
Report

Audio interview with Christoph Wilcke, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of the report
Audio Clip

Free Email Newsletter

The 95-page report, “Torture and Impunity in Jordan’s Prisons: Reforms Fail to Tackle Widespread Abuse,” documents credible allegations of ill-treatment, often amounting to torture, from 66 out of 110 prisoners interviewed at random in 2007 and 2008, and in each of the seven of Jordan’s 10 prisons visited. Human Rights Watch’s evidence suggests that five prison directors personally participated in torturing detainees.

“Torture in Jordan’s prison system is widespread even two years after King Abdullah called for reforms to stop it once and for all,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The mechanisms for preventing torture by holding torturers accountable are simply not working.”

The most common forms of torture include beatings with cables and sticks and the suspension by the wrists from metal grates for hours at a time, during which guards flog a defenseless prisoner. Prison guards also torture prisoners for perceived infractions of prison rules. Human Rights Watch found evidence that at times Islamists accused or convicted of crimes against national security (Tanzimat) were punished en masse.

Prison officials say beatings and other ill-treatment are isolated incidents and that a prison reform program initiated in 2006 is improving prison conditions and accountability for abuse. Human Rights Watch’s research shows that while the reform program may well be improving the chief areas of its focus – health services, overcrowding, visitation, and recreation facilities – impunity for physical abuse remains the norm.

In October 2007, an amendment to the Penal Code made torture a crime for the first time, and in early 2008, the Public Security Directorate (PSD) assigned prosecutors to investigate abuses at seven prisons. But to date there have been no prosecutions under that law.

In February 2008, the PSD allowed the National Center for Human Rights to set up an office inside Swaqa prison. However, critical reporting about a prison riot there in April 2008 led the PSD to stop its cooperation with the center.

“Jordan has made some attempts to address the problem of torture in prison, but the bottom line is that the measures have been insufficient, and torture persists as a consequence,” Whitson said.

Two separate incidents involving the torture and abuse of large groups of detainees highlight failures in accountability. Despite extensive evidence that guards in Juwaida and Swaqa prisons tortured Islamist prisoners following a successful escape by two Islamist prisoners from Juwaida in June 2007, the Jordanian authorities failed to launch any investigation. In a third incident, the PSD, which directs security agencies including the prison service, did launch an extensive investigation into events surrounding the prison riot and fire on April 14, 2008 at Muwaqqar prison that left three prisoners dead. The investigators did not prosecute a guard who prisoners alleged had tortured some of them just prior to the fire, included some who died in it. An independent non-judicial investigation by the National Center for Human Rights found ill-treatment at the heart of the prison riot. Despite this evidence, the investigation concluded that no official had done anything wrong.

Part of the problem lies in the authority of prison officials to discipline internally, which is used as way of avoiding formal prosecution of torturers. For example, in 2007, while the PSD investigated 19 allegations of torture across Jordan, referring six to court for prosecution, the directors of three prisons, Muwaqqar, Qafqafa, and Swaqa, told Human Rights Watch that they had internally disciplined six guards for abuse without involving the PSD. Prison directors in Jordan have authority to settle abuse cases as “misdemeanors,” including ill-treatment, without resorting to the Police Court.

“The PSD’s reluctance to prosecute and punish torturers within its ranks stems from a misguided desire to preserve the reputation of the prison service,” Whitson said. “Instead, protecting guards who torture from prosecution tarnishes the image of the entire profession, including those guards who fulfill their duties without resorting to torture and abuse of prisoners.”

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch pointed out that it is police prosecutors and police judges who are responsible for investigating, prosecuting and trying their fellow officers for prison abuses, including torture, in the Police Court. Grievances officials, who investigate prison abuses, referred cases for prosecutions only in a small number of cases where there was overwhelming evidence.

Even where the government has prosecuted some egregious cases of torture, the Police Court’s verdicts have been flawed. In one case, the Police Court sentenced former Swaqa prison director Majid al-Rawashda to a fine of JOD 120 (around US$180) for ordering and participating in the beating of 70 prisoners in August 2007. The court found 12 other guards who had participated in the beatings not guilty because they were “following orders.” The court sentenced prison guards who had beaten Firas Zaidan to death in Aqaba prison in May 2007 to two-and-a-half years in prison. The court also reduced to two-and-a-half years the sentence of guards who had beaten Abdullah Mashaqba to death in Juwaida prison in 2004 because they were “in the prime of their youth.”

“The police and prison service cannot credibly investigate itself,” said Whitson. “Civilian prosecutors and judges should take over all investigations of prison abuse to end impunity for torturers and begin to provide redress for victims of torture.”

Since beginning its prison reform program in 2006, Jordan has sought international advice on improving prison conditions. The New York-based Kerik Group provided training and advised on prison management, equipment, and new construction, including a super-maximum security prison with 240 solitary confinement-only cells to be opened in late 2008. Currently, Austria’s Ministry of Justice is in an EU-sponsored “twinning project” with the PSD to reform the penitentiary system.

Human Rights Watch calls on Jordan’s donors to address the widespread torture, and to condition part of their assistance on the establishment of independent investigation and prosecution mechanisms.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Human rights | Leave a Comment »

Seized in Pakistan

October 9, 2008


Two 50-Year Olds Released from Guantanamo

By ANDY WORTHINGTON | Counterpunch, Oct 8, 2008

As the US courts put pressure on the government to justify the long detention of prisoners at Guantánamo without charge or trial (following the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June, that they have constitutional habeas corpus rights, and that the government must justify their imprisonment), two of Guantánamo’s oldest prisoners have been quietly repatriated: 51-year old Sudanese prisoner Mustafa Ibrahim al-Hassan, and Mammar Ameur, a 50-year old refugee from Algeria.

Al-Hassan, a 51-year old father of four — two boys and two girls — was immediately reunited with his family after he arrived home. He was held at Guantánamo for six years and two months, even though there was no basis whatsoever for his imprisonment. Like others at Guantánamo, he had traveled to Pakistan in 2002, to study his religion and to seek out business opportunities, but was seized at a checkpoint by opportunistic Pakistani soldiers who were aware that the US authorities were offering bounty rewards for “al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects,” and that foreign visitors were easy prey.

Despite the fact that he had nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and was one of many innocent men seized in Pakistan without ever having set foot in Afghanistan, he reported that he was treated brutally in Pakistan custody. “When the investigators were interrogating me”, he said, “when I told them I went there to trade and I went there to study, they hit me, they tortured me. They were torturing us with electricity and they made us walk on sharp objects. They hit us a lot, and because of the pain we just said anything.”

Al-Hassan also suffered horribly in Guantánamo, and was beset by medical problems. For years he complained about stomach pains, but received no treatment. Then, in 2007, medical tests revealed the cause of the pain — a stomach ulcer that required immediate surgery. This was a source of great concern for Mustafa, as he had already had his spleen removed while he was a free man. Mustafa also suffered from liver pain in Guantánamo, and although his stomach surgery was successful, a blood test showed that he was also suffering from liver disease. In spite of this disturbing discovery, the authorities would not tell him how advanced his illness was.

Although al-Hassan’s health continued to deteriorate, he remained in Guantánamo, cruelly overlooked, even as his compatriots were freed. Last December, he was left behind after Adel Hamad and Salim Adem, two other innocent Sudanese prisoners seized in Pakistan, were released. Earlier this year, he was told that he would soon be released, but in May, when al-Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj and two other men — Amir Yacoub al-Amir and Walid Ali — were also released, he was, inexplicably, left behind yet again.

These disappointments, added to his grave illness and the pain of separation from his family, brought Mustafa al-Hassan to the point of despair. Zachary Katznelson, one of his lawyers at the legal action charity Reprieve, recently explained, “Mustafa is a family man, but it is almost impossible to be a father from Guantánamo Bay. Mustafa is not allowed any phone calls. Mail takes months and months to arrive. When it does arrive, it is usually heavily censored, even if it contains only family news. Still, he thinks about his children all the time. He wants to protect his children as much as possible from the reality of having their father locked up so far away.”

“My children should not have to bear these troubles,” he told Katznelson during a visit at Guantánamo. “They should not feel sadness or depression, but should be allowed to be children. But their father has been taken away.”
As Katznelson left, he said, “I am innocent. I didn’t do a thing to hurt anyone. All I want is to be home with my children.”

The other released prisoner, Mammar Ameur, had been living in Pakistan since 1990, and had been a registered UN refugee since 1996. Ameur was captured at the same time and in the same building as Adel Hamad, the Sudanese hospital administrator released last December. He and his wife and their four children lived in an apartment downstairs, and Hamad and his family lived upstairs.

In his tribunal at Guantánamo, Ameur specifically refuted an allegation that his house was “a suspected al-Qaeda house.” He pointed out that it was a small, two-roomed apartment near an airport used by the military, in an area that was “full of police stations,” and indicated, with some justification, that this was not an ideal location for al-Qaeda to operate in with any degree of safety.

The allegations against Ameur were as weak as those against Hamad, who was forced to refute groundless allegations that the Saudi charity who owned the hospital he worked for, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), was a front for terrorism. Ameur was accused of being a member of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), but he pointed out that he left Algeria before it was founded, serving as a mujahideen fighter against the Communist regime in Afghanistan from 1990-92, and stressed, “I don’t believe in this ideology because it’s against my religion. These people are criminals, like criminals everywhere.”

Unable to come up with any other allegations, the US authorities attempted to implicate him in the purported terrorist activities of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), another huge Saudi charity that mounts enormous humanitarian aid efforts, on the spurious basis that he knew someone who worked for the organization, and with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, because of his neighbor. Cutting to the heart of this entire folly, Ameur described what he was told by one of the Pakistanis who arrested him: “I was told by Pakistan intelligence when they captured us that we were innocent … but we have to do something for the Americans. We will have to give you as a gift to protect Pakistan.” He added, however, “Americans themselves have detained me here for nothing; I thought it was a Pakistani mistake, but it was the Americans. They have fabricated allegations as reasons to keep me here.”

It is to be hoped that the Algerian authorities pay attention to Ameur’s story, and do not subject him to a show trial on his return. The pity, of course, is that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees failed to help him, and that he must now endure the dangerous vagaries of the Algerian courts, who may decide to make some kind of pointless example of him.

An even greater pity, of course, is that both he and Mustafa Ibrahim al-Hassan were ever sent to Guantánamo in the first place. Like at least 120 other prisoners seized in Pakistan, their long imprisonment never had anything to do with al-Qaeda or the war in Afghanistan, and was, instead, the direct result of opportunism on the part of the Pakistani authorities and gullibility on the part of the US military and intelligence agencies, who somehow failed to understand that, if you offer substantial bounty payments for “al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects,” you end up with nothing more than innocent men — in this case a UN refugee and an economic migrant — packaged up as Osama bin Laden’s henchmen.

Andy Worthington is a British historian, and the author of ‘The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison’ (published by Pluto Press). Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk
He can be reached at: andy@andyworthington.co.uk

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, US policy | Leave a Comment »

Holy war strikes India

October 9, 2008

35 Christians killed and 50,000 forced from their homes by Hindu mobs enraged at Swami’s murder

By Andrew Buncombe in Phulbani, Orissa | The Independent, Oct 9, 2008

A woman shows her grief at the religious violence in Orissa during a gospel hymn service

AP

A woman shows her grief at the religious violence in Orissa during a gospel hymn service

Change font size: A | A | A

As she recalled her awful story, Puspanjali Panda made no attempt to halt the tears flooding down her face.

Holding her daughter close, she told how a baying Hindu mob dragged her husband – a Christian pastor – from his bed, beat him to death with stones and iron rods and then threw him into a river. She found his corpse two days later, washed up on the bank. When she went to the police, they told her to go away.

Mrs Panda and thousands of others like her are victims of the worst communal violence between Hindus and Christians that India has seen for decades. For a country that boasts of its mutual religious tolerance, the long-simmering tension that has erupted in the Kandhamal district of the state of Orissa – a nun being raped, churches being burned, at least 35 people killed and thousands forced from their villages – is both a belated wake-up call and a mounting embarrassment. The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, called it a “national disgrace”.

But for Mrs Panda, sheltering in a wretched relief camp in the state capital, Bhubaneswar, it is much worse than that. The 38-year-old said she had no idea what would now happen to her and her bewildered-looking child, Mona Lisa. “I do not want to go back. They have destroyed my home,” she wailed.

The journey to the heart of the violence follows a bone-shaking road east from Bhubaneswar to the district capital, Phulbani. It was here in late August that thousands of Hindus armed with swords, sticks and primitive guns began taking matters into their own hands after the murder of an elderly religious leader, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati.

The swami, a senior member of a right-wing Hindu organisation known as the Vishswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), had reportedly been working to prevent low-caste Hindus converting to Christianity. His followers claimed he had been murdered by local Christians, though police said there was no evidence of that. Either way, in the days that followed, groups of Hindus wrought a terrible revenge on Christian families whom they had lived alongside for decades. In addition to the deaths, 140 churches and prayer halls were attacked and up to 50,000 people forced to flee. In instances the violence appears staggering in its cruelty. Rabindranath Pradhan, now a refugee, had to watch helplessly while a 300-strong mob doused his disabled brother with petrol and set him alight. “He was shouting ‘Help me, Help me.’ I could not help – there were so many of them,” he said.

Continued . . .

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, India | Leave a Comment »

Israel: wedded to war?

October 9, 2008

Far from learning the lessons of past conflict, the country’s military seem ever more willing to resort to brute force


For Israel, the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon war was all about questions. What mistakes were made, and who made them? What could be done to restore the Israeli military’s “deterrence” after a widely perceived defeat? In general, what lessons could be learned from the confrontation with Hizbullah in order that next time, there would be no question of failure?

Unfortunately, it seems that entirely the wrong kinds of conclusions are being reached, at least in the military hierarchy and among the policy shaping thinktanks. On Friday, Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper published comments made by Israeli general Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army’s northern command. Eisenkot took the opportunity to share the principles shaping plans for a future war.

The general promised “disproportionate” force to destroy entire villages identified as sources of Hizbullah rocket fire, the reasoning being that they are “not civilian villages” but rather “military bases” – the kind of reasoning that can land you in a war crimes tribunal.

Eisenkot pointed to how Israel levelled the Dahiya neighbourhood of Beirut in 2006 and confirmed that this would be the fate of “every village from which Israel is fired on”. In case there was any doubt, he added: “This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.”

The frank promise of “disproportionate” force will be chilling for the Lebanese, who even last time round were subjected to indiscriminate attack, the targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure, and carpet cluster-bombing. But what Ha’aretz dubbed the “Dahiya Doctrine” received enthusiastic support in some quarters, such as veteran Israeli TV and print journalist Yaron London.

London seemed highly pleased with Eisenkot’s determination to “destroy Lebanon”, undeterred “by the protests of the ‘world'”. London, while looking forward to Israel “pulverising” some “160 Shi’ite villages” made the implications of Eisenkot’s thinking clear: “In practical terms, the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad.” The meaning of “practical terms” did not need repeating.

The Ha’aretz report also described how similar conclusions were being reached in reports by military-academic institutions. One such paper, published by the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University, and unambiguously titled “Disproportionate Force”, details the author’s (reserve Colonel Gabriel Siboni) understanding of the lessons of 2006:

With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.

Siboni urges the Israeli military to strike disproportionately at “the enemy’s weak points”, and only afterwards to go after the missile launchers themselves. Devastating “economic interests”, “centres of civilian powers”, and “state infrastructure” will “create a lasting memory among Syrian and Lebanese decision makers” and thus increase “Israeli deterrence” and tie up “enemy” resources in reconstruction.

A further new INSS publication by a former head of the National Security Council, urges Israel to guarantee that next time around, the Lebanese army and civilian infrastructure “will be destroyed”. Or as the author pithily puts it, “People won’t be going to the beach in Beirut while Haifa residents are in shelters”.

This determination to “create a lasting memory” in the minds of the Syrian and Lebanese is reminiscent of previous Israeli declarations of intent. In 2003, the IDF’s chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya’alon, said that the war being waged in the occupied territories would “sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people”.

In 2006 in fact, the likes of Dr Reuven Erlich, head of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre at the Centre for Special Studies in Tel Aviv, also recommended “searing” into the “Lebanese consciousness” the “steep price they will pay for provoking and harassing us”.

Using brute force to “sear” certain truths into the consciousness of Arabs of varying descriptions has a certain heritage in Israeli and Zionist thought, going all the way back to Jabotinsky’s theory of the “iron wall”. In the 1920s he wrote candidly that “every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement”. The need then was for an “iron wall” of force to bring the Palestinians to the point of giving up “all hope”.

While the brutal logic of settler-colonial domination has been a guiding principle for Israeli military strategists through the decades, it has been complemented by the racist “anthropological” cliche that the “Arabs only understand force”. Interestingly, such tropes are now commonplace in US military discourse, as the Pentagon is also now in the position of directly occupying a Middle East country and facing resistance.

Thus it seems Israel is learning entirely the wrong lessons from the 2006 conflict. Wrong, of course, from a moral point of view (though that only seems to enter the picture in terms of an anticipated international backlash). The conclusion could also be seen as flawed from the perspective of the kind of response it could invite. Fundamentally though, these pledges of disproportionate devastation show that the Israeli military leadership suffers from tunnel-vision policymaking, wedded to the idea that Israel will gain acceptance in the Middle East through force of arms.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

Indian Muslims to fight vilification campaign

October 8, 2008
Listen Listen Font Size a+ a-

GK NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi, Oct 7: Anguished by the victimization of Muslims by the security agencies during investigations into the serial blasts in various Indian cities, renowned Islamic scholars and religious leaders will meet here on October 14 to draw up an action plan to fight the vilification campaign against minorities.

The initiative to bring the leaders under one banner to end alienation of Muslims was taken by the Shahi Imam of Jamia Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, who had urged them to take serious note of anti-Muslim campaign and fight it out.

Hurriyat Conference (M) chairman, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has been also invited to participate in the meeting to express his views on problems of Muslims and economic blockade of Kashmir by extremists during the Amarnath land agitation in Jammu.

Over 150 Muslims religious leaders and scholars, besides heads of madrassas have confirmed their participation in the meet, where fake encounters, bomb blasts in Kanpur, Malagoan, Nanded and anti-Muslim violence in Assam and Maharashtra will come up for extensive discussion.
Maulana Rabi Nadvi, president of the Muslim Personal Law Board, Maulana Arshad Madni, president of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind, Maulana Salim Qasimi, Rector of Darul Uloom Deoband, Maulana Baduruddin Ajmal, leader of Muslim United Democratic Front of Assam, Maulana Asghar Imam Mehdi Salfi of Jamiat Ahele Hadith, Maulana Fuzalur Rehman of Markazi Jamiat Ulema Hind, Maulana Tauqeer Reza Khan, chief of the Barellevi sect, Maulana Muhammad Iqbal, Rector of Jamia Warsia Lucknow, Maulana Mehmood Daraibadi, Ulema Council Mumbai, and Maulana Nizamuddin, Amarat Sharia Bihar are some prominent persons to participate in the meet.

The hate campaign of Sangh parivar against Muslims will be debated by the leaders, who are unhappy with the role of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his Home Minister Shivraj Patil in dealing with the communal groups.

Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari had met Prime Minister last month to take up the case of Abu Bashar, a resident of Azamgarh who police claims is the the mastermind of Ahmedabad blasts. It was after the Delhi encounter that the Imam got in touch with Muslim leaders to seek their support for galvanizing support against selective approach of the government, which targets only Muslims and ignores acts of arson, killing and loot by the likes of Bajrang Dal.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, India, Islam and Muslims | Leave a Comment »

Nader’s Message Brings Maine Voters To Their Feet

October 8, 2008

The presidential candidate blasts the powers in Washington for the recent financial crisis.

Portland Press Herald (Maine),  Oct 7 2008

October 7, 2008

Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
enlarge Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
Ralph Nader gave little relief to the major players in the current Wall Street financial crisis during a speech in Portland on Monday. “If you’re not indignant, you’re not a citizen,” Nader said.
Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
enlarge Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
Ralph Nader speaks to about 250 people gathered at First Parish Church of Portland on Monday night. He is on the ballot as an independent candidate for president.

Ralph Nader brought a Portland audience to its feet Monday night with his signature call to fight Wall Street greed, corporate crime and the military industrial complex.

“If you’re not indignant, you’re not a citizen,” Nader said to about 250 people gathered at First Parish Church in Portland.

Nader, who’s on the Nov. 4 ballot as an independent presidential candidate, skewered last week’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

He said Congress approved the unprecedented taxpayer-backed rescue even though many Americans believe it will benefit executives who caused the mortgage-related financial crisis without holding them accountable.

“That means your representatives in Congress shut you down,” Nader said. “Wall Street stuffed Washington into a barrel and rolled it.”

Nader said he’s running for president again because the United States is drowning in debt and Americans have surrendered control of their lives to corporations that are running the country.

Regarding corporate influence in government, Nader said the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is “the speed at which their knees hit the floor” when corporations knock on the door.

He said he wants to reform the tax system, in part because the government has reverted to the days of taxation without representation that led to the Revolution. “We’re back to 1775,” he said.

Nader noted that about half of the nation’s annual operating budget is spent on defense and corporations that make up the so-called military industrial complex.

He said the true sign of courage in leadership is having the ability to wage peace and diplomacy.

Nader said he wants to improve workplace health and safety, continue fighting for consumer rights and provide universal health care for Americans.

Nader criticized the energy policies of the presidential candidates representing the major political parties, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain and Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

He said both support a banquet of fuel options, including oil, coal and nuclear power, that aren’t good for consumers or the environment.

Nader supports clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and wants to put a stop to oil, nuclear, electric and coal subsidies.

“Some forms of energy are better than others,” said Nader.

Nader, who’s on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia, also complained that third-party candidates are excluded from the presidential debates.

“I looked at that stage the other night,” Nader said. “It really had a lot of space, didn’t it?”

The audience at the Congress Street church included people of all ages and political persuasion.

Nader is “a Connecticut Yankee with a very high order of intellect,” said Tom Little, an independent voter from Connecticut who is working as an apple picker at a local orchard. “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he represents a legal, law-enforcement response to a criminal government.”

“I’ve voted for Ralph every time he’s been on the ballot,” said Claudine Grange, a Democrat who is a nurse practitioner and lives in Portland.

Grange disputed the notion that she’s throwing away her vote in what is basically a two-way race.

“I vote my conscience,” she said. “Whether he wins or not isn’t important. He’s educating the public and he’s telling the truth and that’s what matters.”

Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:

kbouchard@pressherald.com

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, USA | Leave a Comment »

Faith. Belief. Trust. This economic orthodoxy was built on superstition

October 8, 2008

There is no alternative, went the mantra. Now this corrupt mythology lies in tatters, the crisis of conviction is profound


Over morning newspapers with the Today programme in my ear, I eye my garden nervously. If I ripped up the roses and the lavender, how many rows of potatoes could I fit in? Enough to feed a family? Is this madness or not? And why is it that I no longer trust the economists and policymakers to give me a straight answer to that question?

There is a strange air of suspense. Everyone agrees that things could get grim, but what does that mean? Grim, as in a bit of nasty unemployment, or grim, as in total economic breakdown with queues for soup kitchens and millions living off their allotments? If the latter sounds fanciful, there are countries like Argentina and Russia who can tell you from bitter recent experience what happens when economies collapse.

Gordon Brown, fearful of “self-fulfilling prophecies”, instead offers a tinny upbeat message. Everyone knows now that it is all about confidence: will savers panic and move their money to Ireland, crippling British banks? The circumspection of the wise men becomes sinister. On the Today programme, John Humphrys pressed Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, for his forecast. Lambert hesitated, replying with, “my hope is …”. “No, no,” interrupted Humphrys, “what is your forecast?” There was another hesitation before Lambert nervously “forecast” a grim 18 months before life resumed as normal. It sounded like a hope. No one has any idea what is going to happen.

No sooner do economists or government ministers make a pronouncement using words such as “impossibility”, “unlikely” or “never”, than they are having to eat them. If these are uncharted waters then perhaps we are at the moment when the tsunami is visible on the horizon, and the tide has suddenly retreated, and fish are stranded, gasping for oxygen all over the beach.

But don’t get too bogged down in seed catalogues (and forget trying to get your head around collateralised debt obligations – even the Financial Times’s banking correspondents admit it is “fiendishly complicated”), the average citizen has a far more important plot to unravel: how did we get in this mess, and how do we make sure it doesn’t happen again?

Answering these two questions does not require a crash course in City finance and economics, because this crisis is as much about politics and ideology as anything. If you’re pressed for time, the reading list can be very short. Key is Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, published in 1944, an economic history which sets out to explain 1929, the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. Polanyi’s book came out the same year as another influential Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, brought out the central text of neoliberalism, The Road to Serfdom.

Hayek became the founding father of a model of economic management which has brought us to the current crisis; Polanyi, with extraordinary prescience, warned that the crisis would come; he rejected the idea that the market is a “self-regulating” mechanism which can correct itself. There is no “invisible hand” such as the neoliberals maintain, so there is nothing inevitable or “natural” about the way markets work: they are always shaped by political decisions.

At the time Polanyi was writing, there were many who agreed with him that free-market capitalism was chronically and destructively unstable, with terrible political consequences. But in the 70s and 80s, Hayek’s neoliberalism began to take hold on the US ruling elite, Margaret Thatcher was recruited – and in due course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. “Roll back the state, leave the economy to run itself” has held sway ever since. As Ann Pettifor points out on her website, debtonation.org, Alan Greenspan wrote enthusiastically in August that “the past decade has seen mounting global forces (the international version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand) quietly displacing government control of economic affairs”. He blithely continued that the greatest danger facing the economy was that “some governments, bedevilled by emerging inflationary forces, will endeavour to reassert their grip on economic affairs”. Last week, Greenspan did a gigantic volte-face as he pleaded for government to do just that – reassert its grip in the form of the bail-out.

We are now learning what countries across the developing world have experienced over three decades: unstable and inequitable neoliberal economics leads to unacceptable levels of social disruption and hardship that can only be contained by brutal repression. Add that to the two other central charges against deregulated capitalism: first, it may create wealth but it does not distribute it effectively; and second, that it takes no account of what it cannot commodify – neither the social relationships of family and community nor the environment, which are vital to human wellbeing, and indeed to the functioning of the market itself. Ultimately, neoliberal capitalism is self-destructive.

We are now witnessing the collapse of this absurd economic orthodoxy that has dominated politics for nearly 30 years. Its triumphalist arrogance, its insistence on orthodoxy, has been comparable to Soviet communism in its scale. For two decades, we’ve been told “Tina” – “There is no alternative”.

Economists talk of trust, belief, faith; we now understand that all along neoliberal capitalism was a form of mythology. That’s why the triumphalism was necessary – you could not afford to have anyone challenge the system or we might all realise we were gawping at the emperor’s nakedness. Rowan Williams was right to quote Marx, that “unbridled capitalism becomes a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that have no life in themselves”. Richard Dawkins should be critiquing this superstitious belief system.

Fortunately Thomas Frank did so in his brilliant book, One Market Under God (2001). This is the second book on the reading list, because it explains how neoliberalism entrenched its triumphalism into the political system of the US; how it marginalised and delegitimised all challenge and established hegemony in the so-called free world.

Now, as it all totters, we can take stock. We can ask how and why the critique – of which Frank was a part and Polanyi the bible – which was emerging in the late 90s was crippled. The anti-globalisation movement argued that neoliberal capitalism was unjust, unstable and destructive to human and environmental wellbeing. Sounds sensible now, but at the time it mysteriously got smeared by association with anarchists with a penchant for smashing Starbucks’ windows. The broad network of social grassroots movements – US unions, Mexican peasants, Indian farmers – were misnamed, misunderstood, ridiculed and ignored. There is no alternative, the politicians intoned mantra-like.

Then 9/11 and for the next seven years a sideshow was offered as a distraction with caricature villains and thriller drama. While eyes were on the absurd charade of the “threat of Islamist terrorism to western civilisation”, the real doomsday scenario that poses a far greater threat to western civilisation (whatever that is) was gathering pace right next to Ground Zero, in Wall Street.

As in all mythologies, the only option, according to Timothy Garton Ash (not noted for his religious faith) on these pages recently, is to pray. What makes me frightened is that this is a corrupt mythology which, like that of the Aztecs, may require a lot of human sacrifice.

m.bunting@guardian.co.uk

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Commentary | Leave a Comment »

Raina: India’s Failed Secularism

October 8, 2008

A recipe for disintegration

By Badri Raina | ZNet, Oct 7, 2008

Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

I

As I suggested in my previous column (“Sweet Time for the Left in India”, ZNet, Sept. 2, 2008) events on Wall Street have shown what a fortuitous circumstance it was that the Indian Prime Minister, in his own words, remained a “bonded slave” to the supporting Left parties until the other day.

Had he had unfettered freedom in matters economic, India would be sinking today faster than a tanker.

Likewise, how fortuitous for India’s beleaguered Christians that the good Prime Minister had to suffer “embarrassment” while traveling Christian lands recently. Think that in France, the spunky Sarkozy called the Kandhamal mayhem a “massacre” to his face.

Thus, superseding the travails of the Christians in Orissa, it was the rebuke to India’s “image” that registered powerfully. A circumstance that makes you think how much “nationalism” is often a matter of image and how little of any actual concern for the people who inhabit the nation.

That “embarrassment” has at least yielded some concrete threats to the BJP/BJD government in Orissa after the many politic secular noises about the arson, rape, and murder there. Will it lead to a constitutional dismissal of the government, though? Think again; elections are round the corner in many states. And, as always, the Constitution must give way to canny political considerations. Remember that Modi was allowed to carry on despite the total and proven complicity of the state in the butcheries in Gujarat in 2002

Speaking of which, how unfortunate for India’s Muslims that no country in the world that the Indian Prime Minister has visited or is likely to visit should want to embarrass him about the excesses committed against Indian Muslims. Something that suggests the colossal helplessness that has become their lot.

II

I have suggested elsewhere that the secular protestations and pretensions of the Republic of India have remained a paper-provision through the years of India’s existence as a sovereign nation-state primarily owing to the failure of the Congress party to honestly and fearlessly embrace and enforce the Republican principle of citizenship.

All its rhetoric notwithstanding, the Congress remains reluctant to transcend the denominational identity of Indians in political and governmental practice.

From day one, its electoral traditions have tended to be guided by considerations of the social identity of candidates—as much as of any other party—with scant effort made to transform the given and inherited biases of the polity.

Just as the Congress incorporated rather than confronted feudal social practices and formations through the “freedom movement,” it has sought to cater to rather than educate out of existence those formations in the electoral career of independent India.

Not surprisingly, this social and intellectual failure has coloured the ways in which India’s law-enforcement and investigative agencies, indeed often its juridical institutions, at lower levels especially, have operated in approaching the culpabilities of the “majority” and “minority” communities variously.

Consider, for example, that the bail plea of under-trials in the matter of the Godhra train burning of 2002 locked away under the draconian POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) was heard by the highest court in the land in February-March of this year, but the judgement remains in abeyance. In the meanwhile, one more under-trial, Hussein Mohammed Dhobi, age 65, has died there in custody—the fourth fatality in the matter. Nothing has appeared in public as to how those detainees are treated.

Think also that only the other day a CNN-IBN/Hindustan Times countrywide Poll revealed that 87% of Indians think that the police force is communal (read sectarian on the side of the “majority”). As well as an Amnesty International finding that the most corrupt institutions in India are the Police, the Politicians, and the Lower Judiciary! Why Amnesty should either have not looked into the bureaucracy and the corporate sector, or found nothing there remains a surprise.

These facts taken together help explain why it is that the Congress party which never tires of tom-tomming its role in formulating a secular-democratic republic has never yet given a nation-wide call for mobilization on behalf of the secular principle. Something that contrasts rather tellingly with the preparedness of people in Turkey to congregate in the millions whenever that principle is there seen to be in jeopardy. One would have imagined that,learning from Gujarat, and witness to the “majoritarian” rage now in evidence state after state, now would be a good time.

III

Thus it is that when the local head of the Bajrang Dal in Uttar Pradesh makes the public pronouncement that the strategic objective of this terrorizing arm of the RSS is to transform the secular republic into a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu theocratic state; see The Hindu, Thursday, October 2nd,’08) no cognizable offence is seen to have been committed. Not to speak of treason against the state as by law established.

Imagine, on the other hand, a call coming from some Muslim organization that they mean to turn India into an Islamic state. Within seconds, the organization would be banned and its members locked up as jehadi “terrorists.”

The crude and abiding fact is that the Congress party never really internalized the fatal truth of the insight that Jawahar Lal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, had voiced as far back as 1937.

Writing on “Hindu and Muslim Communalism,” Nehru had warned that whereas the communalism of the “minority” is patently what it is—sectarian banding together of a defensive nature—that of the Hindu “majority” is always likely to masquerade as “nationalism.” (See Nehru On Communalism, ed. N.L. Gupta, published by Sampradayikta Virodhi Committee, 1965, p.9). And, needless to say, that is then but a short step to fascism.

It is ofcourse a well-recorded fact that within the Congress leadership of those times, more than a few were not only members of the communal Hindu Mahasabha, but believed at heart that Indian social pluralism of centuries notwithstanding, India was at bottom a Hindu nation.

The penetration of the communal virus of those times must suggest something of the quality of the intellectual, cultural, and political battle that Nehru and a few others that notably included Muslim leaders (Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Saifuddin Kitchlu, Asaf Ali, to name but a handful) and organisastions (Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Hind) put up against sectarian obscurantisms that disfigured both communities to ensure the founding of a secular republic.

It is to be noted that secularism was subsequently to be designated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India as one of the “basic” features of the Constitution not amenable to amendment by parliament.

Indeed, in an interesting book titled Nehru’s Hero, Lord Meghnad Desai records how during the Nehruvian phase of Independent India, the Nehruvian emphasis on progressive secularism and social pluralism was constantly reflected in the cinematic products of the Bombay Film Industry.

Continued . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, India, Islam and Muslims | Leave a Comment »

Iran, Syria and Uncle Sam

October 8, 2008

Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal

Only USA has the right to categorize people and nations according to its imperialist formula. Thousands and thousands of Muslims have been killed so far by the US terror forces in the company of other “democratic” nations of the “secular” West. Declared by the USA, Uncle Sam, as the rogue states or axis of evils, Iran and Syrian have been under the Washington’s close watch. Condemned by Israel, Iran is on its final stage of developing nuclear facility and has declared it would share the technology with all Islamic nations interested in the nuclear technology. USA-led UNSC has slapped three rounds of sanctions and a “final warning” to drop its nuclear ambitions.

The US administration suspects Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and there are a number of competing views in Washington about what President Bush should do. Some Republican hawks are in favor of taking military action against the Islamic state. Iran denies that it has ambitions to build a nuclear bomb and says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. There has been much speculation that the US or Israel may try to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. But why is unnecessarily Washington concerned about Iran?

In this nuclear era, Tehran considers its right to have nuclear facility and other advanced technology and warned the USA against any attempts to deny Iran the benefits of advanced scientific and technological progress. USA and it western allied have been coercing Iran to fall in line and stay away from nuclear weapons. Iran says it will continue enriching uranium, which it says is for civilian purposes only, despite the latest UN resolution calling on it to stop.

As a usual stunt to bully the weak nations that disobey the dictates of the USA, the Bush administration also accuses Syria of sponsoring terrorism, by supporting the Palestinian elected Hamas and Islamic Jihad and letting “Islamic militants” enter Iraq from its territory. It also accuses Syria of backing the Lebanese Shia’s militant group Hezbollah, which fought Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon and is still involved in border conflicts with Israel.

Many political leaders in the 1990s accepted the continued Syrian presence as a necessary counter-weight to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Syrian involvement in its neighbor was formalized by two treaties signed in 1991. Once the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, pressure grew for the Syrians to pull out. Opinion in Lebanon is divided between those who support Syria ‘s presence in their country and those who do not. However, threat of Israel to Lebanon has been a major issue.

Iran’s pro-Islamic move

Not only Iran had a revolution to revitalize Islamic way of life, it has also made strenuous efforts to reach out to Islamic world, particularly the Arab nations in the “terrorism” era and under threats from the US-led anti-Islamic nations. After the fall of Saddam’s government in Iraq, it is Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad who has been keeping the Islamic torch up against the anti-Islamic looters, challenging in the process the world most important power, though currently under serious economic crisis.

Iran has been making efforts to make up with its Islamic neighbors and chart out an Islamic program for all Muslim nations so that the anti-Islamic block of nations cannot try to invade any of the Muslim nations in future. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board comprises of 35 members elected annually by the body’s highest policy-making body, the General Conference of all member states. Syria and Iran had both been competing for the seat reserved for a Middle Eastern and South Asian country. Iran and Syria have both been accused by some countries of engaging in clandestine nuclear activity.

Recently, Damascus allowed IAEA inspectors to visit the site at al-Kibar in June but has refused any follow-up trips. Iran, also accused by some countries of clandestine nuclear activity, dropped its bid for a seat on the IAEA board, saying it wanted to make way for regional ally Syria to join instead. On Oct 03 Friday, Syria dropped its bid for a place on the IAEA board, leaving the post open to Western-backed Afghanistan. Both had been vying for the same seat on the board, representing the Middle East and South Asia (Mesa) group. The body had been facing a divisive and unprecedented vote on the issue.

Iran was keen to make Syria a member of IEAE, but opposed by Uncle Sam. “The Islamic Republic has officially refrained from pursuing its right to be nominated to the board to pave the way for the membership of Syria,” Tehran has dropped its bid for a seat on the board of the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. Iran wanted to make way for its regional ally Syria to become a board member instead. Syria has the backing of the Arab League, which makes up a significant proportion of the regional group.

World moves according to US whims and fancies only. Only Russia opposes this nasty global pro-US and pro-imperialist trend. USA got Afghanistan into the IAEA, finally. Earlier, USA made Ban Ki-moon the UN Secretary General. Opposition to Syria’s election – and Iran’s before its withdrawal – is led by the US, which wants the seat to go to its close ally Afghanistan.

Iran and Syria have announced that they have formed a mutual self-defense pact to confront “threats” now facing them. Tension increased after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who had called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country, was killed in a bomb attack in Beirut on 14 February. Iran is under pressure from the US over its nuclear program, while Syria has come back into sharp focus after the apparent assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. USA and many in the West accuse Syria of involvement in the attack, a charge Damascus denies.

What is Syria’s involvement in Lebanon? The Syrian troop presence in Lebanon dates back to 1976, when it intervened in Lebanon’s civil war to protect the Christian minority against what looked like the imminent victory of radical Palestinians and pan-Arabists. Syria saw that as a threat to its stability.

Syria

US-Israel combine has indeed taken the Iranian whistle quite uncomfortably and of late does not even give out any ultimatum to Iran scrapping its nuclear mission. The US has already imposed a number of sanctions against Syria as well. Last year, it banned US exports to Syria, apart from food and medicine. It also stopped Syrian aircraft from flying to and from the US and froze the assets of Syrians suspected of violating a law designed to “halt Syrian support for terrorism” passed in 2003.

USA has forced the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to probe Syria’s nuclear sites.  Syria has denied the allegations as “ridiculous and the government was “co-operating with the agency in full transparency. IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said Syria’s co-operation had been “good”, but it needed to show “maximum co-operation” for the agency to draw any conclusions. A Syrian officer reported to have been in charge of facilitating the IAEA probe was killed in unexplained circumstances last summer, further delaying the proceedings.

The IAEA investigation follows US allegations that Damascus was close to completing a nuclear reactor at a secret location, which was bombed by Israel last year. The head of Syria’s nuclear program has said that the country’s military sites will remain off-limits to international nuclear inspectors. Damascus said it would co-operate with IAEA inquiry only if it did not threaten its national security. The watchdog is investigating claims of a secret Syrian nuclear program.

Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor site in an air strike in 2007. Syria denies any nuclear proliferation or hiding any activities from the watchdog. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been investigating Syria over US intelligence allegations that it was building a secret, plutonium-producing reactor. Preliminary inspections by an IAEA team have shown no evidence of the US allegations.

Syria is the power the USA sees behind the scenes in neighboring Lebanon and has some 15,000 troops stationed in the country. The US, supported by the UN Security Council, has for years demanded that those troops be withdrawn. Last year, the Security Council passed resolution 1559, which called for their withdrawal, and concern has been building in Washington over what it sees as Damascus’s foot-dragging in response to the resolution.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has said recently it would be a catastrophe if a peaceful solution could not be found to the Iranian nuclear row. Assad was speaking after a meeting in Damascus with French President Nicolas Sarkozy aimed at improving bilateral ties. The leaders also held discussions on Syria’s relations with Israel.

In the 1980s, there was much animosity between the two rival Baathist leaders, President Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The US, while not blaming Syria directly for the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has recalled its ambassador for consultations. This is a common way of displaying diplomatic displeasure. Syria was the only Arab country to support Tehran during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Syria and Iran also both provide support for Hezbollah.

France and Syria

At the beginning of February, President Bush showed support for the negotiations in his State of the Union speech. He also indicated that he would be working for regime change in Iran but not by force. On the other hand, Britain, France and Germany have been leading the international effort to negotiate with Iran.

Of late France has taken interest in resolving the crises in the region, on Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. French President Sarkozy’s two-day visit to Syria – which was formerly ruled by France under a mandate of the League of Nations – is the first by a Western head of state in five years. He hosted Assad in July and he appears determined to bring Syria, a long-time foe of the US and Israel, back into the international fold. Relations between Paris and Damascus had plummeted after the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri in 2005. Syria’s critics accuse Damascus of being behind the assassination.

During the Paris summit, Syria and Lebanon, an important ally of France, agreed to open embassies in each other’s capitals for the first time since the 1940s. In a joint news conference with Sarkozy, Syrian President Assad said that any attack on Iran over its nuclear program would be a catastrophe. He said it was clear there was no trust between Iran and other countries but that Syria would continue to work towards a solution through conversations with both Iran and France. In a newspaper interview earlier, Sarkozy said that Syria could “provide an irreplaceable contribution to solving Middle East issues and it is important that Syria plays a positive role in the region, adding that peace in the Middle East “passes through” Syria and France.

Sarkozy has offered French support for direct peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, when the time was right. Assad said his country was “in the process of building foundations for the peace talks” and would need help from the US and others for direct negotiations to take place. Both parties have talked about a new era in relations but that Sarkozy will be under pressure from his Western allies to show that engagement with Syria can work. And Syria must decide how flexible they can be on the key contentious issues.

The two presidents will be joined by top officials from Turkey and Qatar for talks on Lebanon and Syria’s indirect peace talks with Israel. Ankara has been mediating for several months in the Israeli-Syrian talks, while Qatar brokered a deal in May to resolve Lebanon’s prolonged political crisis.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials have warned that Europe should be “very careful in its relationship with Syria “. Tel Aviv is unhappy over any better understanding among the West and Islamic world. “Except for a slight change in tone, Syrian policies have not changed,” said foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor, criticizing Syria’s connections with the Palestinian movement Hamas and the Lebanese Shia’s “militant” group Hezbollah. On the strength of US support and armament, Israel wants to dictate its own term to Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs.

US game of Sunni vs. Shia

USA has been capitalizing the divide between Sunni and Shia. Western experts say the leaders of several Sunni countries in the region are worried about the rising influence of Shiite Iran. The two nations kept their wary relations until the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 made them both nervous. Syria, feeling particularly vulnerable, pushed for a mutual defense pact with Iran that included parts of Lebanon, then under Syrian control.

USA is also keen to split the support from Islamic world for Iran. As if to appease Tehran, Washington has recently given rare approval for a research body to open an office in Iran, although it stressed United States policy had not changed. The American Iranian Council was given a license to establish a presence in Tehran by the US Treasury Department. The US state department, which guides the policy for issuing non-governmental organization (NGO) licenses to places under US sanctions, like Iran, Sudan and Cuba, said the move did not signal any change in policy. Iran also did not see any positive thinking in Washington, either.

Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal has been a university teacher, and has worked in various Indian institutions like JNU, Mysore University, Central Institute of English FL, etc. He is also a political commentator, researcher, and columnist. He has widely published in India and abroad, and has written about state terrorism.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, imperialism, US policy | Leave a Comment »

Kashmiri leader: Resume normal life

October 7, 2008

Listen Listen Font Size a+ a-
Coordination Committee Would Meet On Oct 8 To Decide Future Course Of Action; ‘Curfew Is A Moral Victory Of People’

GOWHAR BHAT | Greater Kashmir

Srinagar, Oct 6: Urging people to resume normal activities from Tuesday if the curfew restrictions are lifted, Hurriyat (M) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq Monday said  the “Indian response to the Lal Chowk march has conveyed to the world how even the peaceful protests are crushed in Kashmir.”

Mirwaiz, who is senior member of the Coordination Committee (CC) spearheading the present pro-independence struggle in the Kashmir Valley, said the Committee is meeting on October 8 to discuss the future course of action.

Mirwaiz told Greater Kashmir that the stringent curfew imposed by the authorities ahead of October 6 march was a “moral victory of the people.” He said the CC had urged people to demonstrate peacefully and not to shout any provocative slogan.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq termed the imposition of curfew as “Martial Law” and “sheer frustration of the government.”

“We were going to hold the peaceful protest at Lal-Chowk but it was thwarted by the imposition of curfew. These restrictions ahead of our march are unjustified and undemocratic,” Mirwaiz told Greater Kashmir by phone.
He said the pro-freedom leaders were either arrested or kept under house arrest. “Even people all across the valley were subjected to house arrest.”

Mirwaiz said that rally was a mere means of registering protests and demanding our right to self-determination. “It was not going to be a referendum. People have already shown what they want in huge rallies in August,” he said.

The Hurriyat chairman said that it was the moral victory of people as they made themselves heard at the international level. “On one hand India calls itself a democratic country but on another hand there is no room for expressing one’s views,” he said.

He condemned the imposition of harassment and restrictions on the movement of journalists in Srinagar and elsewhere.

Mirwaiz said Co-ordination Committee will meet on October 8 to decide the future course of action. The Hurriyat members are later expected to welcome a 15-member AJK chamber of commerce and Industry delegation on Thursday.

Hurriyat (G) chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani also condemned the clamping of curfew in Valley ahead of the march.

“The protests were going to be peaceful so the administration’s decision to impose restrictions is unjustified and uncalled for,” Geelani told Greater Kashmir by phone.

He said it was not the protesters but the police and CRPF troopers that resorted to violence and used brute force against the unarmed civilians in the past three months which resulted in the death of more than 60 persons.

Terming the curfew “as an act of state terrorism”, Geelani said, “Even those who possessed curfew passes issued by the state administration were not honored by the troopers.”

Geelani said the coordination committee was aware of the problems faced by traders, students, and therefore has decided to call off the strike from Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the Hurriyat Conference Provincial President Nayeem Ahmad Khan while condemning the detention and arrests of the Hurriyat leaders said India cannot suppress the ongoing struggle use force or placing restrictions.

“India has intensified atrocities on Kashmiri people and dozens of innocent peaceful marchers including senior Hurriyat leader, Sheikh Abdul Aziz were killed in indiscriminate firing by troops in last two months,” Khan said.

Khan said that people were going to hold the peaceful demonstrations at Lal Chowk as was done earlier. “India does not want Kashmiris to be heard at international level. But the issue has already caught the international attention and the Indian literate class was now opening supporting the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination,” he said.

Meanwhile, a CC spokesman said despite curfew restrictions, people in different areas staged peaceful demonstrations.

He said the call for Lal Chowk chalo was given as on this very place first Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had promised the people of the Jammu and Kashmir that they would be given the right to choose their destination. ‘’We just want the world to know that we are demanding what we were promised by the first Prime Minister,’’ he said.

He also condemned the house-arrest of senior Hurriyat leaders, including Mirwaiz Moulvi Omar Farooq, Syed Ali Shah Geelani and others, besides detaining more than 100 senior and other leaders.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, India, Kashmir | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »