-S.S. Mahil

Although the recent Punjab Legislative Assembly's session lasted only a few hours, it certainly had its own kind of historical importance.  Not because Punjab Congress leader, Capt. Amrinder Singh, was allowed to attend the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly after the court rejected the case of suspension against him. Nor because the present dispute in the Badal family, in which the former Finance Minister, Manpreet Singh Badal, advocated that Punjab Government should accept the conditions of the Centre as the Centre would then waive off Punjab’s debt, whereas Sukhbir Singh strongly condemned all the conditions imposed by the Centre, had its beginning in this session. But this session is significant because the state’s Home Minister presented two bills which were promptly passed by the Legislative Assembly. Consequently, this session shall be considered as a dark chapter in the history of the Legislative and these bills may have disastrous implications for the future of Punjab.

The tussle between Manpreet and Sukhbir took all the coverage in the media. This tussle created a kind of environment in which it seemed as if debt on Punjab and the issue of subsidies are the sole issues of Punjab. The presentation was such that it looked as though Manpreet was in favour of withdrawing the subsidies whereas Sukhbir was for continuing them. However, the truth is that both are on the way to eliminate   subsidies. The tragedy is that the media has been portraying that Manpreet Singh's policies are anti-people whereas Sukhbir Singh's policies are pro-people. But a cursory look at the two bills makes it clear whether Sukhbir's policies are pro-people or anti-people. It is not only Manpreet who voted for the bills but even the Congress supported it by staging walk-out. The challenge of criticizing and opposing the bills is on the shoulders of revolutionary, democratic and toiling people who have to bear the brunt of these bills in everyday life.

Onslaught on Democratic Rights

Though democracy in India is formal and democratic rights are nominal but government has made preparation to smash whatever democratic rights are there. Section 19 of Indian constitution enshrines fundamental rights. Sub-section A of article 19 of constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression. But “Punjab prevention of damage to public and private property Act 2010” simply finishes off this right.

 Sub-section 1of the section 3 the above mentioned bill says "If someone wants to organize peaceful protest or demonstration, s/he should first get permission from the district Magistrate or Commissioner".  Sub-section 2 of the same section says that the district Magistrate or the Commissioner has complete authority to reject or grant this permission.  Sub-section 4 says that if the permission has been granted then the Inspector who will be in charge of monitoring the demonstration, will define the conditions of demonstration. Nobody shall be allowed to carry knives, sticks or other such “weapons”. The organizers will have to submit a written statement that the demonstration will be peaceful and will deploy their marshals at the sensitive places. Let's see the probable implications of this section.

Previously, the provision was that if there is a law & order problem, then the District Magistrate could issue an order, by imposing section 144, that not more than 5 persons are allowed to come together. In such situations, one was required to take permission from the district Magistrate to stage any kind of protest. According to this bill, no demonstration or protest can be organized unless one is permitted even if there is a peaceful environment and normal conditions prevail and even if there has been no imposition of section 144. This section does not distinguish between the characters of processions, that is, whether it is religious, political, cultural or by a mass-organization. Everyone needs to take permission first. This bill doesn't even distinguish between the organizers of the demonstrations or processions; it can be a political party, a mass-organization, an individual group, everybody needs permission.

After filing the application for permission, it is entirely the prerogative of the Magistrate whether s/he grants the permission or not. There is no mentioning of any criteria in the bill under which s/he could refuse the permission. No clearcut  grounds on the basis of which permission can be refused are specified. On the whole, it is up to the personal will of the Magistrate or the Commissioner whether s/he wants to grant the permission or not. In this way, we can see that the pomp and show of fundamental rights has been placed under the jackboot of a district Magistrate or a police Commissioner. When the district Magistrate refuses to give permission, what option is left for the organizers? According to the Bill, they can file a petition to the Punjab Government.  How much time can the Punjab Government take to respond to this appeal?  There is no time-limit in the bill. This means that if the permission has been refused, one is supposed to keep visiting the office of minister and secretaries for the rest of one’s  life. This way we can see that no demonstration or protest is possible without the blessing of a district Magistrate or Commissioner. Everybody knows that the permission by the district Magistrate depends on S.S.P.  In this way, the fundamental rights given under Article 19 are chained like a dog at the office-door of an S.S.P.

On Dec 6, 2010 five agreements at $25 billion for two nuclear reactors to be supplied to India by France were inked in the presence of Sarkozy and Manmohan Singh, two more are to be supplied in the future. Sarkozy stated that he wants to make civilian nuclear cooperation the cornerstone of France’s ties with India. Sarkozy offered several titbits and bribes to the Indian PM who willingly accepted them, some of the choicest offerings were a permanent UNSC seat, membership to the Nuclear Supply Group and cooperation with France on their space program.

Two days earlier, on December 04, 2010 while Manmohan Singh was busy cozing up to French President Sarkozy, villagers and activists in several villages of Ratnagiri in Maharashtra came together to launch a campaign opposing what is supposed to be the first big benefit of the Indo-US nuclear deal - two 1,000 MW plants proposed to be built by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) in Jaitapur. The actual plant site is situated at Madban, a village besides Jaitapur, however the project has been named after Jaitapur, as it the port for the project. The plants and the technological knowhow will be supplied by France Conglomerate AREVA.

Fearing a public protest, that the people might seek to exert their democratic right to protest, the state clamped curfew in Jaitapur, despite which villagers defied section 144 to form a human chain at the proposed nuclear plant site. Demanding that there should not be any nuclear plant in that region, the protestors carried banners and shouting slogans such as “Stop Anti People Nuclear Project !” “Scrap Jaitapur Nuclear Project which will destroy the economy and ecology of the Konkan!” “No Nuclear Plant in Jaitapur” “Scrap all Nuclear Projects in India” in English, French, Marathi and Hindi. The peaceful protesters were lathi charged and about 1500 people and practically all the leaders were detained by the police, of whom former Justice of Mumbai High Court, Justice Kolse Patil of Janhit Seva Samiti and Madhu Moite of Konkan Bachao Samiti were still under detention.

The people are united in their contention, that having nuclear plants in their neighbourhood is risky and therefore they will not allow the state government to acquire land even as a deadline looms to complete the acquisition process in this financial year for the first phase of the project. The government has long-term plans of expanding the project into a nuclear power park and pushing the production up to 10,000 MW. Villagers fear that radiation from the reactors will trigger health problems and hurt future generations, fishermen believe that their livelihood will be hit as the water from the plants will be released into the sea and will affect their catch. Nuclear power plants generate massive amounts of heat and in this case the AREVA European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) will be using sea water as a coolant. This process results in a sharp rise in the temperature where the super heated water from the plant is discharged into the sea, which is obviously going to adversely affect the 5000 large fishing community in this coastal area.

Surrounding hamlets and villages also saw huge protests, around 2,000 fishermen gathered in Nate at early noon, a village located just 2 km away from the proposed nuclear plant site and in Madban, the village closest to the proposed site, around 3,000 people were protesting. The protestors demanded a reassessment of the EIA report and insisted that the threat of building a nuclear plant on an earthquake prone zone must be addressed. According to the seismic survey of India, Jaitapur region has a high risk of earthquake damage, ranked as Zone IV on a five-grade scale. Several farmers also highlighted the major omissions of negative impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment report (EIA).

The Jaitapur nuclear power project needs 968 hectares of land in five adjoining villages - Madban, Niveli, Karel, Mithgavane and Varliwada - which together have a population of 4,000. The mood of the peasantry and the affected fishermen is upbeat and positive and they are quite clear as to not wanting to engage with the government or NGOs on parting with their land and in refusing to ask for compensation. In 2008 various progressive groups organised themselves under the banner of “Konkan Bachao Samiti” which was the first organisation to undertake a campaign against the proposed nuclear plant as early as in 2008. The primary task was to build a people's movement against the project. From the very beginning Mumbai IFTU Committee was an active member of the Samiti and other than providing the movement with support, it also undertook an awareness campaign about the project while highlighting the dangers of radioactive waste. Currently a large part of the protest is organised by two other protest coalitions, “Konkan Vinashkari Prakalp Virodhi Kruti Samiti” and “Jan Hit Seva Samiti” while several other political groups, NGOs, Gandhians, CITU, Prerana, CRBS, Janvadi Mahila Sangathana have also lent their support to the movement.

There is a deep sense of desperation in France and Sarkozy to ensure that this deal for the proposed nuclear power projects must come through.

(An analysis of defeat of LTTE in civil war in Sri Lanka by S K Mohan is being given here. Besides human suffering in the war between LTTE and Sri Lankan Govt. and historical context of this war, the analysis deals with the strategic and tactical mistakes by the LTTE leadership. We invite opinions on author’s views on different aspects of the war and the milieu in which it was fought and also on the conclusions drawn by the author.)  

‘You have buried us on our land. Oh enemy, where will you bury our land’

-Kasi Anandan, Tamil Eelam Poet

A dead body with staring eyes lying near the Nanthikadal (sea of conches) in Mullaiteevu marks the end of a quarter century of war in Sri Lanka. The incidents leading to the death remind one of the scene from Ernest Hemingway’s novel ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’ where El Sordo and his comrades die in their valiant fight till their last on top of a hill.

As the guns have fallen silent, one can hazard any number of reviews and analyses. One is at liberty to praise or ridicule those who are no more. Poignant questions can be raised on the responsibility for the great defeat that has pushed the Sri Lankan Tamils thirty years back in to the history. Yehudi Menuhin brilliantly captures the mood about the twentieth century as ‘that it raised the greatest hopes ever conceived by humanity, and destroyed all illusions and ideals’[1]. Is it true for the twenty first century too? History starts with a great beginning that ends as a tragedy. Yet it is something that does not end with vain proclamations.

History tells us that Emperor Asoka turned to Buddhism after watching the great devastation in the Kalinga war where a hundred thousand perished and another hundred and fifty thousand were taken prisoners. That was more than two thousand years ago. Now the whole world witnessed the Buddhist President of Sri Lanka kissing the blood soaked land strewn with destruction. Hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDP) are held captive in the squalor called refugee camps. Many of refugees in the camps wouldn’t know which of their family members are alive. On the other side the chauvinist triumphalism ruled the streets in its boisterous celebration of the victory. History is a narrative that thrives in the clutches of the victor. It is also the incessant wailing of the vanquished.

The Sri Lankan President states that over a hundred thousand people have died in the twenty five year old civil war. Between April 27^th and May 19^th, during those last days of the war, it is estimated that twenty thousand have been killed averaging a thousand every day. Three hundred and fifty thousand are now in the refugee camps resembling an open prison. Thirty thousand amongst these are wounded and need medical care. The government declares that they would not send these people to their homes until they get hold of every single ‘terrorist’ within the camps. Women, children and the elderly – everyone is a ‘suspect’ in the eyes of the government. Theverajah Kajenthini, lost her parents and sister and is currently sheltered in Sivananda Thapovanam orphanage. Listen to her - ‘Like the other children in here we don't talk about the past. I am old enough to know my parents are gone but the younger children laugh and play and tell us their mums and dads are coming back ---- I saw my mother's body. She was on fire after the shelling and died of burns to her face and neck. Her head was black, it was the last I saw of her" [2]. Look at the devastation! Chinese weapons aid in one year was $ 10 billion. Military aid from Pakistan, amounted for $ 100 million. The aid from India is yet to be calculated. With armed forces of over 200,000 in a country of less than 20 million, Lanka is among the most militarized countries in the world. In the Tear Drop island the impoverished soldiers returned home in flower bedecked coffins with death on a full moon day[3]. What price is the victory? Cemeteries flood the dreamland of Eelam. What is the cost of the defeat? History is a ruthless soul. It is an edifice standing tall on the devastation and dead bodies. It gets rebuilt through the course of people’s struggles too.

Nearly two years after being elected US President, Barak Obama is reaching India today. His visit is starting after he and his party received a drubbing in the US Congressional elections and hence some of the rhetoric surrounding the visit bears its mark on his claim that his visit is aimed at creating jobs in US, as rising joblessness in US threatens to cut short his job tenure.

The backdrop of Mr. Obama’s visit is different from those of his two immediate predecessors- Bush and Clinton. Defeat is staring at the US forces in their war of occupation of Afghanistan even as it drains resources at increasing rate; US is trying to forge a camp of Asian countries to contain the  rising power of China after the decline of US led unipolar world; and in US people’s anger against effects on them of the explosion of world financial-economic crisis has turned against Mr. Obama and his party. All these factors, though interconnected, have fashioned the agenda of Mr. Obama’s visit. While first two form the basis of efforts of US imperialism to save its hegemony in the changing world situation and balance of forces; the third is the reason for overcoming the problems of US economy by increasing its share in the world market. Both these drives are part of stuttering drive of US imperialism to secure its world hegemony. Obama’s visit is taking place at a time when the position of US imperialism in the world and of Obama and his party in US is shaking. As the backdrop of Obama’s visit is different from those of his predecessors, obviously the direction and urgency of his efforts is also somewhat different.

In the backdrop of resounding defeat of Democrats in US Congressional elections, there is talk of hopes on Obama being belied. But the real point is whether such hopes were not misplaced to begin with. Obama had championed Change We Can to usurp the change yearned for by common people in America after disastrous years of Bush presidency which embroiled US in wars and led to sharp decline of their economy. Bush years marked an effort by US imperialists to secure  world hegemony at a time of military hegemony and economic decline and their “war on terror” was aimed at that. It could not and did not reverse the trend, rather got US embroiled in wars of occupation challenged by the national wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In their eagerness to secure the realm, US imperialists grossly underestimated the resolve of the people to fight against foreign occupation. These wars no longer to be watched on TV sets, started undermining American people’s support to these wars of aggression, particularly the one in Iraq. Obama capitalized on that discontent of the people, and channelized it into his bid for presidency. But he carefully worded his message to cater to the anti-war sentiments of the people as well as pro-war designs of the ruling circles; to endear himself to working masses suffering under the neo-liberal economic regime as well as to corporate and bank magnates, beneficiaries of the same. He became a darling of the big business and hope of the toilers. It is pertinent to note that Obama had outraised his opponents before outpolling them. Such is the character of what is called US liberalism, a fashionable epithet of US imperialism without its ugly features, a phenomenon which painlessly gives way to its opposite. It is not Obama who betrayed the people, it is people who allowed themselves to be betrayed by him. Even as a candidate, Obama had favoured intensifying war in Afghanistan besides ‘responsible withdrawal’ from Iraq and bailout of banks at the cost of the people. He was not in power then, an outsider to power structure of Washington, and hence people allowed themselves to believe that once in power, he would somehow behave differently. He planned to change little while people hoped for change much.

It is well known that US war of occupation of Afghanistan is stuck in the quagmire of rising national war of Afghan people, and defeat is staring at the foreign invaders. Despite trebling the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan and making this war as ‘Obama’s War”, Obama has not been able to change the trajectory of the war there. With the national war of Afghans making territorial gains, increasing number of casualties of the foreign forces and the war entering tenth year, there is much disquiet in the countries participating in this war and many of them have withdrawn their forces or announced such withdrawal. While increasing US troops in Afghanistan Obama had announced that from July 2011 US forces would begin withdrawing from there. Though Obama Admn. officials and US commanders have been putting question marks over this time frame, but the real question is not of this time frame but of any time frame. Ground situation would not change with an increase of a few months. On the other hand, support for the war has sharply declined in US and nearly two third people there want that troops be brought back.

Condition of war, declining support of the people and increasing problems of US economy are prompting US rulers to bring this war to an end. For some time, US and West European imperialist countries have been talking of accommodation with ‘moderate talibans’ and they had allotted US$ 500 million for purchasing such elements. But these efforts could not and did not bear fruit. Karzai too is engaged in talking to Taliban and other resistance leaders but these organizations are insisting on withdrawal of foreign forces which would end the very existence of Karzai regime, a situation for which US Admn. is not ready. US Admn. wants to  end this war without losing it so that US forces would remain in this strategic centre of Asia.