|
INDIA
Essence of Urdu
Many people say Urdu is a Bharatiya language and write in support of Urdu. Are these people justified? Here are some viewpoints.
The tragedy is that Hindu intellectuals, activists, and leaders, of the day, talk of a Hindu nation, Hindu Rashtra, but forget that a nation must have a national language and that it had been decided hundred years back, early years of the 20th century, by our national leaders of the time, including Gandhi. It is a different matter that, after 1920, Gandhi resided in favor of Hindustani, i.e. Urdu written in Devanagari and Persian scripts both, to be on the right side of the Muslims.
Gandhi’s legatees got the political power, along with the power on all wings of the State, including propaganda. They used every means to demean Hindi and promote Urdu. Many among us are also the victims of that propaganda.
The origin of Urdu is a mixture of Turkish, Persian, and Hindi. In its original form, used by Amir Khusro, there was not much difference between Urdu and ‘Khari Boli’ variant of Hindi, around the 13th century. At that time, Hindi had four main branches (variants), ‘Avadhi, ‘Braj’, ‘Bundelkhandi’ and ‘Khari Boli’. ‘Avadhi’ and ‘Braj’ were the main languages of literature, because all literary compositions were then done in verses. ‘Khari Boli’ was used for prose. Since the 19th century, when press came into being and prose became more important, the Khari Boli rose in importance. In 19th century itself, for political reasons, Muslims declared ‘Urdu’ as their religious and ‘Kaumi’, meaning national language and started replacing Hindi and other indigenous words by Persian or Arabic ones. So much so, it has now become radically different from the original Urdu of Amir Khusro’s time. Just listen to Urdu news broad-cast on the Doordarshan and see that pronunciation of over 75 per cent words are un-Indian. I wonder if you know that the first poet of Khari Boli (modern Hindi) and Urdu is one, namely, Amir Khusro. Muslims’ first separatist battle was to attack introduction of Hindi, by the British government of the time, as a subsidiary official language in its own home State of United Provinces (UP) in 1901.
Urdu in its origin form was not a foreign language, but its growth since late 19th century has been Islamic and Arab centric. Now, if you write a verse in Urdu, you have to address God as “Allah” or “Khuda”, not “Ishwar” or “Parmeshwara” and praise prophet Muhammed. Otherwise, you have no place in an Urdu Mushaira. In all Islamic madrasas, from Bengal to Gujarat and from Kashmir to extreme South, Urdu is the medium of education. Here is what a distinguished Pakistani scholar, Abdul Haque, speaking on the role of Urdu in the making of Pakistan, said in Karachi on February 15, 1961:
“Pakistan was not created by Jinnah, nor was it created by Iqbal. It was Urdu that created it. For, the fundamental reason for the discord between Hindus and Muslims was the Urdu language. The entire two-nation and all other difficulties of this nature issued solely from Urdu”.
No wonder, Urdu is the official language of Pakistan and of J & K in India. Support to Urdu is support to Islam and Islamic rule.
Ravi Bakhsi:
Years ago my Father, Dr R.S. Bakhshi, attended Hindi Divas or some such function in India House, London, he was extremely aware of this constant affront to our national language and the attitude of those in power. He absolutely hated Nehru and used to call him Gaddaar and Gandhi a Bastard. Basically he called both of them such names and more and I actually learnt a lot of good swear words in Hindi from his discourses on those two characters.
Anyway he returned very angry and upset from the meeting. The Indian High Commissioner, a South Indian Moslem Gentleman, was walking around parading a copy of some Urdu newspaper in his pocket. The ‘Hindi’ poetry was in Urdu. My Father told them all off and asked the High commissioner “why Persian and Arabic vocabulary were being promoted, if you can promote those words why can’t you promote the vocabulary of Tamil, Telegu, Malayalam? Why do we treat these as step daughters? The High Commissioner and his aides said that “Hindi Ka hriday bohut vishal hai” and it can incorporate any number of words from any language to make it richer. My Father told them to call their event Urdu Divas next time and left.
What is the point being made? The point being made or asked is what point were India House and the high commissioner making? What point are Moslems making? It is sad when a language becomes a pawn in political struggles. Arabic once belonged to Pagan Arabia a country with great respect for India. Persian belongs to an ancient Indo-Aryan group with very close ties and relationship to Sanskrit and our culture. I guess in a way it is if a limb gets gangrenous, it’s sad but if you don’t cut it off, you stand the risk of dying.
My approach has been, “If I can say ‘Zaroor’ then I can Say ‘Avashya’ its a matter of habit. If I’m conditioned to think that avashya, avashak, avashakta sounds strange, then I can just as much tell myself that Zaroor sounds just as strange, it’s a matter of my conditioning. Step by step I removed as much Arabic from my Hindi as possible and if I can’t, at least I am aware of its root.
We should at least be aware of the roots and origins of words in our language. I refuse to accept this Urdu words business, there is no such thing, and the words belong to Arabic, Turkish or Persian. I have nothing against those languages but will speak them as soon as they show respect to mine.
Regarding inclusion of foreign vocabulary, ‘Le Institute Françoise’ meet every Year or so to decide which new words can be included in French, its a serious affair and its reports are published in newspapers soon after. Who are we to randomly decide which words our language should accept or not? Where is our council of Hindi scholars? If we don’t take care of our language it will soon join the “ainit” brand that English is becoming.
Finally I remember reading Urdu described as “a bastardised form of Persian”.
– Ramgopal Gupta, Agrasen Blog PAKISTAN
Hindu worker lynched for ‘blasphemy’
After reading about the Hindu workers being lynched, I thought to contribute some of my views. We need to address the root cause of the problem which is related to the minorities issues, one major issue is our education curriculum which always deplores the minorities. It is an open fact that our school books overly praise even the most incompetent and corrupt Muslim rulers (eg praising Gazni as “Buut shikan sultan” for his heinous act of destroying Somnath temple for sake of looting which Islam never allows) while we go on criticising all the mon mulsim rulers and their customers (specially the Hindus and Sikhs). We deplore the Hindu culture on the basis of caste system and practices like sati. However we never acknowledge the work of ancient Indians in medicine (Auyrveda) or any other thing. Instead of blaming the congress for problems prior partition we go on blaming the entire Hindu community (which is quite racists). Even our electronic media (till recently) loved to show Hindus as cunning evil people with a pig tail on their heads and making fun of their gods without thinking once on how it will hurt the feelings of the local hindus. We go on naming streets and parks on the names of many Muslims whom we have never even heard of but we never name a street on people like A.R Corlenius ( one of the longest serving CJ of Pak in 1960s) or Jogendra nath mendal (1st law minister of Pak), cowasjee etc.
Secondly despite tall claims of different political parties, none has ever elected even one non Muslim as a Chief Minster or Governor of any province and none has ever tried to repeal blasphemy laws or the law which bars the non Muslim Pakistanis to become the PM or president of this country (which i find to be very wrong as it allows people like Yahya Khan to become the President but not allow people like Justice Bhagwandas or Cowasjee to become the same). Thus we need to do the following things:
1. Repeal Blasphemy law.
2. Repeal the law which prohibits a non Muslim to become PM & Pres (at least PM as many would want to keep a Muslim as head of state given the fact that we are a islamic country).
3. Change the history books and show the positive sides of all religions and add a subject on different religions and services rendered by non Muslims in Pakistan so that the Muslim students can come to know what other religions are (this doesn’t means preaching other religions but only their understanding) and the contribution of the non Muslims in Pakistan, this would help in fighting religious extremism in Pakistan.
4. Increase the quotas for non Muslims to around 7% in Military, govt jobs etc to ensure their adequate representation in every field.
5. Cancel useless holidays like 5 Feb. and instead give off (At least to schools) on Diwali (1 day), Easter (1 day), Nauroz (1 day) and Guru Nanak’s birthday (1 day).
Problem doesn’t lie in criticising the mullas and extremists but in addressing the root problems of the minorities so that we can make a better country
– Saim, The Dawn Blog
BANGLADESH
Bangladesh patronising ‘terror’?
What’s going on in the tiny island named Bangladesh in South Asia? It is for obvious reason that this country does not come in global press very often because it is neither a global player nor a moderate Muslim nation actively participating in War on Terror. Whenever Bangladesh comes as a topic in Western press is because of corruption, lawlessness, military intervention or various problems. In recent months, Bangladesh is appearing in global media as it is government by a military backed interim government, which is continuing efforts in cleansing politics and politicians in the name of combating corruption. Secondly Bangladesh is in news story because of growing food crisis since last October. It is learnt from a number of dependable press reports that a silent famine is gradually spreading in the country. Initially rural population is affected by this severe food crisis. Although the military backed government is trying to tackle this situation, it is quite understood that Dhaka has failed to convince many of the influential capitals in providing rice for feeding the 150 million populations in Bangladesh.
According to latest information from Bangladesh, rice, which is the main food for Bangladeshis, is becoming expensive almost every day. Present price of rice is much beyond buying capacity of at least sixty-eight per cent of the population. But, the military backed government is trying its best in suppressing information on such acute food crisis, silent famine and even death of people due to lack of food.
Undoubtedly, such situation is no joyous for any nation. Dhaka deserves to get sympathetic attitude of the global community in salvaging lives of poor people. But, at such critical and difficult situation, a section of administration is behaving like devils, which certainly is dampening sympathetic attitude of global community towards Bangladesh. Such behaviors of certain government agencies are annoying people around the world. Let us just take the case of award winning internationally acclaimed Bangladeshi anti Jihadist journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Last Tuesday, members of Rapid Action Battalion [RAB], the most notorious Para military forces in Bangladesh, which is known for its atrocities through extra judicial killing, abduction, rape and collecting ransom stormed the Weekly Blitz office [the tabloid weekly newspaper run by Mr. Choudhury], they locked the editor including other employees of the newspaper and its sister concerns inside a room, seizing all cell phones and not allowing any communication, friends or legal counsel. Almost after an hour and a half, members of the armed men took Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and another senior member of the newspaper, Mahboob Ar Rahman with them while they looted cash and other valuables from the newspaper office. On arriving at the ground floor of the building, where Weekly Blitz office is located, RAB men blindfolded Mr. Choudhury.
Before leaving Weekly Blitz office with the editor and other journalist, RAB’s officer reportedly known to be Shahidul Islam alias Major Swapan, who is the Deputy Director of RAB-3 passed extremely offensive remarks on journalists and newspapers. Captain Shafiq, who led the armed notoriety also abused and humiliated Weekly Blitz editor and other members of the newspaper.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and Mahboob Ar Rahman were taken to RAB-3 office and were detained there for hours. RAB men verbally abused Choudhury during these hours, repeatedly calling him a “Zionist spy and agent of the Jews”. They used expletives to refer to journalists against whom RAB has a record of harassing, and the United States Congress, which passed a resolution in Shoaib’s support. The verbal assault, which included numerous threats, continued for another three hours until someone RAB described as a “high government official” telephoned and ordered them to release him.”
It is also learnt from the Weekly Blitz editor that RAB men demanded heavy ransom from him while Captain Shafiq told him [the editor] that he [Shafiq] is a notorious man, who has killed 29 people in the name of ‘encounter’, a regular practice of RAB for killing people. Shafiq and ‘Swapan’ asked Mr. Choudhury to work as ‘source’ for RAB. When Weekly Blitz editor said, it is not his job to work as any source or spy for any organization, RAB men threatened that, they would do the same thing with him in future. The matter was immediately notified with high ups of the Bangladesh government.
After this incident, Shoaib’s supporters around the world are already calling for boycotting Bangladeshi products. A Bangladeshi mission in United States is already flooded with protest mails and letters from supporters of this anti jihad Muslim journalist. Many are terming Bangladesh ‘a patron of terror’, which might not be delighting for the country at all. No doubt, Bangladeshi mission in United States, its foreign ministry, the interim government and the driving force [military] is failing to realize the impact of harassing an internationally known journalist. Former professor and human rights activist Dr. Richard L. Benkin, who is defending Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury since 2003, in their website named interfaithstrength.com has already called for boycotting Bangladeshi products. Dr. Benkin is known to be one of the most influential Jewish lobbies in United States. There are also indications of strong actions by Professor Irwin Cotler, MP [former law minister of Canada], who is Shoaib Choudhury international counsel, Australian Senate, European Parliament [which passed a resolution in favor of Choudhury], US Congress [passed resolution 64 in favor of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury], US Senate and several international human rights groups.
According to New York Times, Bangladesh is the most dangerous country for journalists. Islamic terror groups are active secretly in many part of the tiny country. In previous years, huge volume of arms and explosives were recovered from possessions of notorious Islamist group named JMB. Recently US State Department has black listed Harkatul Jihad [HUJI] another Islamist terror group in Bangladesh. It is learnt that some other extremist groups like Hizbut Tahrir are also within close scrutiny of international community. Hizbut is banned in many of the capitals in the world for its Al Qaeda and Hezbollah connections.
Under such extreme complex situation, administration in Dhaka may face serious odds in the days to come for giving immunity to Rapid Action Battalion in continuing various types of human rights abuse and broad day crimes.
– Steve Johnson, Counter Currents
NEPAL
Diary of a reporter
Many people might be curious to know how the election was conducted in the district where Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai won by the margin of more than 40 thousand votes. As soon as the voting ended in April 10 Nepali Congress and CPN UML complained to the Election Commission about voting irregularities. They refused to take part in the vote counting and because of that the counting was delayed by a day. Since representatives from other parties didn’t come, the counting began in the presence of the representatives from the Maoist and Janamorcha (Peoples’ Front). I reported about that live on Kantipur TV at 10 AM in April 11. Within hours Maoist cadre Amrit Upadhayay came to me and started debating over the report. As I was thinking there was no use in debating with them, my cell phone rang. I excused myself.
Within less than an hour, Maoist cadres forcibly took out Ramesh Bastakoti, a Nepali Congress candidate who was going to Kathmandu, from a microbus and started beating. Police intervened and took him away. In a few minutes Maoist cadres started beating another NC activist Chitra Bhatta. Police took him to hospital. They fled the hospital feeling insecure, I knew later, and were hiding in a bamboo bush near the local stadium. Maoist cadres found them and started beating again. We were taking photos of that. At that instant, Maoists started manhandling reporter Bhimlal Shrestha. They were ordering us what to shoot and what not to. We left because we felt insecure. After they beat Bhatta and Bastakoti almost near to death, Maoists handed them to the police.
Vote counting started in the night. We stayed there for whole night. The Maoist was winning by huge margin in both number 1 and number 2 constituencies. Maoist was ahead in poll results all over the country. Some Maoist cadres who were standing outside started to become arrogant about their unexpected victory. They beat up NC activist Phanindra Dhital who was in his home.
The counting was going on. As the noise outside increased the Chief District Officer Jeevan Oli, Deputy Superintendent of Police Gita Uprieti and I were going towards the noise. Lawyer Mohan Pokharel suddenly came out of the crowd. “Save me,” he was screaming. Maoist cadres were attacking him saying that they would take revenge of the ‘blood of our 13 thousand martyrs’. He was going to Kathmandu and Maoist cadres had followed his microbus up to 13 kilometers saying that he was ‘suspicious’ they needed to ‘investigate’ him. He was severely beaten up by the Maoist’s YCL cadres. “Damodar ji they beat me,” he was telling me. “Could this be done just because I voted a different political party? Can’t a person with an opinion different [than that of the Maoist] live? Thanks to the police who were near and I was saved.”
We were outside the vote counting station. A colleague called me. “Sir, you don’t come outside.” I didn’t ask a question. A few minutes later I heard a threat in my phone: “Now journalist’s turn.” The atmosphere was tense. The YCL activists who had spread around the villages during the election had come to the district headquarter. They were armed with sticks and iron rods. We were feeling very insecure. I called Kishore Jung Thapa, president of the Gorkha district branch of the Federation of Nepali Journalists. He also said that the situation was very tense.
He also said that he had talked to FNJ president Bishnu Nishturi. Nishturi had assured him that he himself would come to Gorkha should there be any problem. YCL cadres were stopping people at different places and searching their bodies, bags and wallets. Some Nepali Congress cadres were complaining that their money and mobile phones were confiscated. Maoists were searching for NC cadres and beating whoever they found. Some groups belonging to NC and UML had gone underground. I wasn’t in a position to write news about the development. Other journalist friends also felt insecure and we all decided not to write anything. Police wasn’t in a position to control the YCL crowd. NC activists were beaten up in front of the police. It seemed like there was no presence of the state.
Meanwhile threats were coming in one after another. I didn’t publicize the problem immediately thinking partly that they could be solved in couple of hours. I thought for a long. There was no way that I could get out of the circle created by the Maoists. I talked to the regional bureau in Pokhara, central district bureau in Kathmandu of Kantipur Publications and also to Kantipur TV. They told me to be safe. Colleagues went to their homes in the evening. I stayed there. I told Maoist lawmaker Parashuram Ramtel about the circumstances. He assured me that nothign would happen to journalist. I also reminded him of the reporting that I had done until then. He said that I was free to write and report the facts.
Maoist distirct in charge Krishna Dhital and Secretary Chudamani Khadka also said that such was not the party policy. They also said that there might be infeltration of those elements who are willing to beat journalists. That statement made us even more suspicious. That meant in the event of attacks the Maoist wouldn’t take responsibility.
I had to face Maoist threat as the election campaign started. Maoists had prevented NC candidates Chiranjivi Wagle and Chinkaji Shresta from going to many villages. They had thrown boulders in Ashrang village targetting a bus that was carrying journalists, candidates and human rights activists. When we wrote news about such incidents Maoists used to complain that we were anti-Maoist. They used to humiliate us in various ways saying that media was working to defeat them in the polls. They had mobilized their cadres in the village against journalists. Maoist district secretary Chudamani used to say even before the poll campaigns that “since Kantipur was a capitalist newspaper there battle from now onwards would be against Kantipur.” He used to indirectly threaten me that I was “a good person so he had no complain again” me but with the newspaper that I was working for. There is a long list of Maoist cadres manhandling but we had taken them as a temporary arrogance.
I have always followed Maoist programs and reported their events be that Dr Bhattarai’s door to door campaign or other campaign-related events. I had tried my best to write balanced and impartial news. But Maoists take any news as the one against them.
The situation was tense until three days after the vote. Amrit Upadhayay was mainly responsible to create such situation. I am not sure about his exact responsibility in the Maoist party but he was my classmate in the college. After finishing BA, I joined MA and he went underground. He used to complain about my ‘anti-Maoist news’ in our occasional meetings. The same guy was heating the mass by passing negative comments on news filed by me.
I continued reporting despite the fact that I wasn’t able to use my laptop and Maoists continued beating up NC cadres. News came in that some of the NC cadres were airlifted by a chopper.
Maoist leader Dr. Bhattarai won my huge margin. All three constituencies went to the Maoist. A victory rally was slated for Baishak 3. We heard that Maoists would chase away reporters who want to pariticpate in the rally like dogs. We requested the Maoist leadership to create an atmosphere in which we could attend the rally and cover it. Maoist Secretary Khadka said that we would have to walk inside the YCL security ring. We went to the rally and left a few minutes before it ended fearing that it uncontrolled people would turn violently against us.
After a few days of no activities of the Maoist we thought normalcy had returned. We went to Manakamana along with CDO, DSP and polling officer. After we returned to the headquarter Maoists started giving mental torture. “We will analyze what a reporter has written until now,” they told, according to a colleague. District-level leaders have gone to village but their cadres who were in the headquarters didn’t stop spreading rumors to intimidate us. The final results of the proportional election had also come. I decided to escape from this torture and go home for a few days. I don’t know what information they received; Police came today and drove me to my home in Kathmandu.
– Damodar Neupane, Kantipur,
translated by United We Blog! for a Democratic Nepal
TIBET
Comment on the current Tibetan-Chinese conflict
Excerpted from Gelek Rimpoche’s Sunday Talk
Let’s try to understand the current situation in Tibet. This has been going on for fifty years. The Communist Chinese have always been suspicious of monasteries and Buddhism. For example, in Drepung, the monastery where I was educated in Tibet, the Communists openly set up government-sanctioned committees, organizing people to spy on each other. You couldn’t trust anybody - your teachers, friends, students, not even your parents. Kids were spying on their parents, students on their teachers, and disciplinary monk officials on their abbots. That is how it has been functioning for fifty years.
Close to two years ago, communist officials had the idea to ensure that the monks there didn’t respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama. They made up a document that basically said: “The Dalai Lama is evil” and wanted everybody to agree by signing it. The monks refused to sign.They said their refusal had nothing to do with politics, but was purely for spiritual reasons.
The authorities arrested the monks who refused to sign and put them in jail and never released them. A few days ago, some Drepung monastery monks went into the market place to demonstrate their request for these monks to be released. They were beaten, tear gased and jailed. Turn by turn, each day following, monks from Sera, then Ganden monasteries also demonstrated, were beaten and jailed as well as nuns from various monasteries. The sound of their cries and screams were heard all over Lhasa. Everybody was crying. Eventually, some people got angry and started to throw molotow cocktails into Chinese owned shops, so there was a huge amount of destruction. The central government of China declared martial law at three am on March 14. The whole city of Lhasa is now completely filled with soldiers and para-military that were trucked in and the Chinese government said they would violently suppress any demonstrations. The Chinese claim 10 people were killed. Tibetan sources say that more than 200 were killed – quite a different picture.
It is very clear that the Chinese authorities have had complete control over Tibet for 50 years but failed to win the heart of the people. That is because their policies are not helping the people much. In particular the local government of Tibet is run by lesser educated officials, many of whom are relics of the Cultural Revolution. They are confused and don’t understand the true situation. Their reports to the Central government in Beijing are confused and incorrect and that is why the Chinese authorities were taken by surprise by the events of the last weeks.
The local Chinese authorities also can never understand the relationship between the Dalai Lama and Buddhism. They can neither separate the two nor put them together. They are completely confused about the role of the Dalai Lama. Vilifying statements like “The Dalai Lama is nothing but a wolf covered by monk’s robes, a demon with human face” clearly show the limit of knowledge and character of those making such statements.
This situation is indeed very, very sad. It really calls for international support. This can be done by people expressing their sympathy and feelings and also urging their representatives, senators and house representatives, as well as journalists in national and local media, to pay attention and try to find out the true situation.
– From Jewel Heart
‘I was arbitrarily arrested’
There have been 40 days of regular Tibetan protests in Kathmandu since 10 March. As a Tibetan journalist and human rights observer I did my duty and never interfered, obstructed or came in the way of police performing their duty.
Today, as usual, I went to Hattisar Street and waited across the street with fellow Tibetan, Nepali and foreign journalists for Tibetan protestors to appear in front of the Chinese Consulate building. The protestors arrived at 2.45 p.m. in three public micro buses and one big bus. At 3.04 p.m. three vans and one bus full of Tibetan protestors arrived from Kamal Pokhari side.
There were police already inside the bus not allowing people to go out, the bus doors were locked. Those in the vans didn’t come out for one minute but suddenly all jumped out and started shouting and demonstrating as usual. They carried banners and flags and wore t-shirts and bandanas with slogans like Free Tibet, stop killing in Tibet, human rights in Tibet, UN send fact finding delegation to Tibet etc. but today they also brought a flex photo of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and a flex banner of photos of some of those who have died in Tibet recently.
Within two minutes, police started arresting them as usual and the Tibetans tried to avoid the grabbing hands of the policemen. A tug of war would start between the two side and often the rope would be the body of one of protestors. The ‘body’ would eventually fall on the ground and police would drag him or carry him and push and shove him into the police truck or van or pick-up. It depends very much on individual policemen how they want to treat the protestors. While most of them were dragging, pushing and shoving protestors, some of policemen were punching and kicking. Some other policemen would actually stop them, even inspectors and the commanding officers were telling junior officers not to physically hit Tibetan protestors. But some officers really didn’t care and pounded on protestors. The pulling, dragging and shoving continued for 13 minutes and all those who came in three vans and some in taxis were taken away. Then police opened the bus and took out everyone and transferred them into police van. Some were dragged and carried, the funny part in meanwhile was that the driver of the rented local bus was saying that if he knew this was going to happen he would have never come here. The arrests continued and all were taken away. Then, after about two minutes four Tibetans protested in front of the consular gate of the embassy and they were arrested within two minutes and taken away; then two minutes later another 4-5 Tibetans protested in front of the consular gate, they were arrested within two minutes, they were put in a truck and then transferred to a pick up then taken away, all within 8 minutes. At 3.40 p.m. all the protestors were taken away and there were no more protestors left.
So as usual we took a break along with police. Then me, Lumbum, Thupten and three other Tibetan journalists were sitting there and drinking water in front of the Nepal SBI Bank Corporate Office at Hattisar. We were just sitting there, there were many policemen standing there as usual. Then at 3.48 p.m. an inspectors asked his junior officers to arrest me, Thubten and Lumbum, several officer started pulling us. The inspector told the officers to let go of Lumbum, he said, “Let the guy with long hair go, arrest the two others”. We asked why we are getting arrested, we told that we were journalist but the inspector did not listen and we did not resist arrest. An officer was trying to push me, I told him not to push as I was going inside the police van. There were about 6-7 policemen inside the van. They took us to the Kamal Pokhari police station. There they kept us on the sofa in front of the reception desk and the policeman there with two star asked us to wait, we asked the reason for our arrest but he said he don’t know and have to ask his senior, then after few minutes he asked our journalist ID and then we kept waiting. I called some of my friends immediately.
At 4.19 PM, a police van with full of police, about a dozen, arrived outside the police station. An inspector, a big man about 6.2 ft tall came out and asked us to come into the van, so we squeezed into the crowded van. I asked where we are being taken and he said we would know soon, so they drove the van via Naxal, Nagpokhari, Lazimpat, Lainchaur and Sorahkhutte, then they took the van inside the Metropolitan Police Station, Lainchaur, we got down; I asked the inspector why we have been arrested, he said, “don’t worry, you stay here till evening and you will be released, it might be because if there are many Tibetan journalists, there will be more Tibetan protestors coming to demonstrate”. Then he went away, handing us over to the duty officer there with two star. He was nice to offer us tea or anything we need to eat and he sent two officers to get our motorbikes from Hattisar. Officer in charge politely asked for our IDs and registered our names and contacts. I heard someone on radio saying don’t allow those journalist to take pictures inside the police station, so I didn’t. Then we had tea and water.
Then after about one hour, the lady inspector in charge of the station came and asked her junior to release us immediately, we asked her why we were arrested. She said, “I don’t know the reason, I was on duty, I asked my superior why are two journalist kept at my station, so my senior told me to release them immediately.”. We kept asking her the reason but she told us to go to Kamal Pokhari and ask the in charge there to give reason. Then I called my friend and a lawyer to help me, but there is no charge on us or nothing, no reason was given for arrest. I did not understand why we are particularly targeted and arrested among all the journalists who always come their regularly with us like AFP, AP, Reuters, EP, Kantipur, foreign journalists etc.
So at 6 PM a friend had to sign for us and we were allowed to go free. Then I went to Kamal Pokhari police station and tried to get an answer, my lawyer called the inspector in charge, who obviously did not know the reason why I was arrested. So nobody replied our questions and nobody gave any answer to why I me and Thubten were arrested. I called AFP and they said that an officer have told them that we were mistakenly arrested. I don’t understand why they made a mistake when we clearly showed our press ID to the duty inspector and told them we were journalists. In the first place, he did not listen to us, he knew very well that we were Tibetan journalists and many duty officers knew us very well as they have been coming to duty since many days. We see them often and they see us often, so there cannot be a mistake that they don’t know us. They deliberately targeted and arrested us, we were easy targets.
Today, for first time in my life I was arrested by police and detained for about 2 hours for no reason. They obviously have some reasons but I don’t know. One of our fellow journalist overheard on radio while we were getting arrested that someone was commanding to arrest us and the duty inspector said he knows who to arrest, so they definitely knows us very well. There was no mistake about us not being journalists. Being born a Tibetan refugee in exile is a sad situation but getting bullied by people in a free country for no reason is a joke to democracy and I shall fight for my right to write and express what I see in front of my eyes.
Today a total of 117 Tibetans including me and Thubten were arrested, we were released at 6 p.m. and the rest were released around 9.30 p.m. 38 were detained at Kamal Pokhari, 37 at Anamnagar, 2 at Gausala Police Station and 38 at MAPF Barrack 2. 4 people were injured, 2 women were taken to Om Hospital, 1 nun were taken to a hospital somewhere in Anamnagar and another nun was taken to a hospital in Balaju, all returned home after receiving treatment.
– Tenzin Choephel, Kathmandu, by e-mail
THE MALDIVES
MDP candidacy: The final interviews
Members of the largest opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) go to the polls tomorrow to choose a presidential candidate ahead of the country’s first ever multi-party elections. After two months of campaigning, candidates Dr Mohamed Munavvar and Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) gave exclusive interviews to Minivan News about their policies, personalities and campaigns. Read them below – plus a compendium of speeches from contender Reeko Moosa Manik MP, who was unavailable for interview due to campaign commitments.
DR MOHAMED MUNAVVAR: A lawyer and former attorney general, Dr Munavvar worked in the Gayoom administration until 2003 before joining the opposition.
Minivan News: Why did you decide to run, and why are you the best candidate?
Since at the moment I hold the senior-most political position in the party, I think it is my obligation to offer my services to the party and to the nation. I have also said, among the candidates, look at the qualifications and experience as to what is needed, given the situation of the party and of the country.
What in your record shows you would make the best president?
Given the situation in the country, economically and socially, it is a question of finding the right solutions for the problems that we are facing today. And I have a record of making new legislation for a better economy. Look at the various pieces of legislation that were drafted under my attorney generalship – the Companies Act, the Securities At, the Tourism Act, the Land Act, and so on. All you need to do is look at the statute book from 1993 to 2003. For example, the Companies Act paved the way for public companies in the country.
What are the key ways you would put MDP policy into practice?
I think we have to a lot of work to do in developing our policies. As now we only have a framework. Before the elections, we’ll need to meet with people, meet with all the stakeholders, and work out policy details plus mechanisms to implement those policies. We can only finalise them after due consultation with the people.
What aspects of your campaign have met with the best response from voters?
There have been many things. We have been trying to talk to the members, and trying to communicate our message to the members – that is, look at all the candidates and see who has the best chance of winning the election, and in case we win the election, who can run the country.
People have been very concerned about the status of the party, the administrative aspects of the party – the fact that we’ve not been able to get the party organised in the islands and atolls, for which the secretariat is responsible.
The chairperson is responsible for mobilising the mechanisms of the party, whereas I am responsible for the political side. People are saying they see deficiencies in the way the party has been governed. In most atolls, the offices, the branches are not functioning – the list of members is not complete.
People also have concerns on development issues, on economic and social issues which most of the people in this country share.
What would be your priorities for your first six months in power?
That would be for the party to decide.
What is your position on offering financial help to party members? Have you been asked to buy votes and what was your response?
As a party we are concerned with the broader issues. We may not be in a position to offer assistance to the general public as the government, the president does.
So is there a risk of vote buying in Maldives?
In general elections obviously there is, but I believe in MDP elections we should not resort to such practices. Our party started out by trying to bring an end to such practices.
Hassan Saeed has said he wouldn’t appoint any family members to top government positions. What do you think of this and would you consider making a similar commitment?
I think Hassan Saeed’s record shows that as the attorney general, an influential member of Gayoom’s regime, he resorted to appointing his brother as atoll chief in Addu atoll.
But if you look at the recent shadow cabinet that I selected for this party, I did not appoint any family members or anyone that worked on my campaign.
How would life change for the business community if you were President?
I have made statements with regard to the economy, saying ours is a centre-right policy. The MDP’s policy is directed towards establishing a dynamic, very strong private sector, with more economic opportunities.
We would make the necessary, required reforms to the financial sector, so that economic opportunities open up. We are talking about getting more financial resources to the people, and getting people more access to the funds that are needed to start economic activities.
The MDP is saying both that Gayoom can’t stand again, and that they will beat him. Isn’t this contradictory?
Even if President Gayoom runs for the position of president we are certain that we’ll be able to defeat him in an election. But this does not mean we believe he is eligible to run.
There is a constitutional bar on him standing. We are not concerned about his chances of winning an election, that is not the reason for us stating that he cannot run. It is a matter of stating what is already written in the constitution.
Do you believe the election can be free and fair, given that the opposition has not secured the interim arrangements it campaigned for?
When we started with our recommendations for an interim arrangements, obviously we were calling for the ideal situation. We have got some of the things that we were working for, such as a representative elections commission and a supreme court. But that doesn’t mean that we’ve got everything we asked for.
Given the situation, and given the possibility that we might go into an election with the current government in power, there would be steps we as a political party should take to ensure we have a free and fair election. For instance, political parties should have a more significant role in organising and monitoring the elections.
Some have criticised you for the number of people who were jailed when you were attorney general. What is your response to this?
I was not in charge of putting people into jail. I think people who are my political opponents would make that argument, but I think if one looks at the reality most of the people who are in the government are actually performing a public service.
Looking at the record, I was responsible for prosecution on criminal matters, and for providing a legal opinion. I think the record speaks for itself.
So is it true that as attorney general, you opposed the formation of political parties?
The opinion I gave was very clear: that is, during the current constitution political parties will not be able to function smoothly. My opinion has been proved correct in the past three years. We are still arguing that there should be no pres appointees in the Majlis, that the chief justice should be independent, and so on. I said parties would not be able to function smoothly, and I think my opinion has been proven correct.
MOHAMED NASHEED (ANNI): A renowned activist and former parliamentarian, Anni was chairperson of the party until he stood down in March to run for the presidential candidacy.
Why did you decide to run, and why are you the best candidate?
One reason is that after the form of government...referendum, it was fairly obvious that for a free and fair vote we would have to have an alliance of all opposition parties. I strongly believe in this – I want to promote the idea of a single candidate.
Of of our main objectives during the last three years, one was a parliamentary form of government, which was denied by ballot rigging. As you know, a parliamentary form of government would give political parties a greater central role in government, and we have always believed political parties are central to good governance. Because [we now have a] presidential system, I want to be able to maneuver the party to a safe position within the polity.
If we do not have a form of government with the characteristics of a transitional government, there is a danger of sinking backwards. An alliance government would be similar to a transitional arrangement anyway, whilst being a duly elected, constitutionally elected government.
We are talking [about] both legislating affairs and economic affairs as much as political changes; there is also the question of a transition of thinking, and a transition of tolerance so we can transfer ourselves to become a democratic society.
What in your record shows you would make the best president?
I know this country, perhaps probably more than any other candidate. I know minute details of families on most of the islands; I have met them more than any other candidate, and I have served time with many of the victims of this regime.
The underdog is my referent, and here you have a country of underdogs. I think whoever becomes the president or the government should be able to understand the people, to have lived with the people.
Do you mean that you’ve spent time with the people on the campaign trail?
Not only on the campaign trail. Whilst campaigning I’ve visited 60 islands in two months – I’ve never traveled as much as this [before].
But I’ve traveled to every single [inhabited] island in the Maldives, plus many of the uninhabited islands. I’m aware of the genealogical makeup of the islands, and of the feudal composition of these islands – plus the fault lines in that composition. It is through these fault lines that we are witnessing the emergence of pluralistic society.
I’ve studied the Maldives polity, I’ve written about it, I’ve published many books on it – I have a solid understanding of this country.
[In addition I have] a better understanding of the economics of this country. I’m qualified to talk about monetarism and fiscal policy; I am close to entrepreneurship. A leader should be able to read a balance of payments sheet; if you are baffled by it then you are of course no better than Gayoom.
What are the key ways you would put MDP policy into practice?
The next government must be seen by the public as practicing the rule of law, and not allowing people to do things in a short-term fashion, through patronage. And devolution would see government taking decisions at the lowest practical level. My personal dream is that Maldives has potential to practice something close to direct democracy.
I would introduce a welfare policy for those who haven’t got anyone to care for them, and we would also look at the distribution of wealth – including the provision of housing that can be paid for with long term loans, and making land available for real estate.
Pensions and a minimum wage are also key; a public transport system, tackling housing and health and drug abuse. Juvenile delinquency, in fact – taking care of young people, and reducing demand and supply of drugs.
On the economy, I would diversify, take away dependence on tourism, and take away regulations preventing people from experimenting. We would get rid of protectionism, but introduce safety nets for young entrepreneurs.
Direct taxation would include corporate tax and business profit tax; I would get rid of import duty and assist small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Only through SMEs can we create jobs. I would emphasise SMEs in the early stages – with few mega projects.
We would also have the huge task of enabling police to be seen as friends of the people, not oppressors of the people. The police must be 100 per cent depoliticised, and develop their capacity to collect credible evidence rather than relying on confessions.
What aspects of your campaign have met with the best response from voters?
One is that we’ve never fallen into negative campaigning. We’ve always promoted our own agenda our own program; it’s a forward-moving campaign. We have the party manifesto, and all three candidates are supposed to give their own interpretation of the manifesto.
What would be your priorities for your first six months in power?
The first six months would be reorganising the government. Basically that would mean dissolving ministries, creating new ones, rationalising the structure of government. The structural changes would involve mainly decentralisation policies and legislation. But I would also prioritise the establishment of a new transport system.
We also want to help ordinary families resolve debt. Our estimate is that out of the 40,000 households in this country, more than 60 per cent are in debt to the corner store, ranging from Rf 800 to 1000. We want to give some space to the people so they have at least one clear month - a fresh breath.
What is your position on offering financial help to party members? Have you been asked to buy votes and what was your response?
I’ve never been asked to buy votes. But I think it’s a problem in the Maldives and to get over that problem you have to prosecute when necessary.
So have you been asked for financial help?
Throughout generations people have always asked for assistance and we’ve always assisted them whenever we could, as a family.
Hassan Saeed has said he wouldn’t appoint any family members to top government positions. What do you think of this and would you consider making a similar commitment?
I definitely would do the same. I unfortunately have very loud people in my family so none of them would be anywhere near government. Definitely no appointments – and I would advise others who may be in other positions not to appoint anyone in my family either.
How would life change for the business community if you were President?
They wouldn’t have to go around bribing people to get permits. They would have a straightforward life, in that they would know what they would have to do to achieve something. Life would be bliss actually – for existing and new business people.
The MDP is saying both that Gayoom can’t stand again, and that they will beat him. Isn’t this contradictory?
Well no, there is no contradiction whatsoever. We know President Gayoom; he has consistently gone against the constitution. So in real politik, we will have to face him. There is no reason he should become a saint tomorrow.
Do you believe the election can be free and fair, given that the opposition has not secured the interim arrangements it campaigned for?
The election will not be free and fair – well, it will be by and large free and fair. In some cases we might have to go into re-voting or...direct action, in certain areas I can see the likelihood of that. We may need a second round of voting because of irregularities.
That will derail the kind of calmness that might exist at that time, it would create a fairly chaotic situation to have for a week, and during this week we might have to go into another round of voting. During that time we might find Gayoom is no more.
We saw this in Serbia: there was a vote, Milosevic rigged it, people came out, they took hold of the ballot boxes, threw them away, got rid of Milosevic and had another vote.
People have said you previously pledged not to run for president. Is this true and what’s your response to this?
I have always said that I am not doing this for power. Whatever I do is not for power and glory, but for reform. I am still in the same crusade.
So did you ever say you would not run?
I’m saying what I have always been stressing: this is not for power and glory. But I have consistently said I will contest Gayoom, since I was about 12. Since 1982.
– Judith Evans, at Minivan News
AFGHANISTAN
Kidnapping and strikes
It seems kidnapping is on the rise in Herat, recently a doctor’s son was kidnapped and kidnappers demanded $ 300,000 in ransom.
In response to worsening security situation the doctors and related health professionals declared an indefinite strike in Herat city, they demand to have better security and request the government and police to do more in protecting their families and relatives from kidnappers.
I believe this is a very bold and one of a kind action taken by the health professionals in Herat, albeit the troubles it will cause for the sick and the health sector.
Kidnapping is one of the biggest security concerns in Afghanistan apart from the usual Taliban and Al Qaeda threats. In Kabul which is considered the centre of kidnappers, a day does not go by when you hear that some prominent businessman has been kidnapped for ransom.
According to Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA) last year foreign direct investment halved in Afghanistan compared to the year 2006, one of the reasons kidnapping.
This problem is on the rise since the last 3 years and it seems that Government is doing
nothing to counter the threat of kidnapers who are mostly criminals and not Taliban or Al Qaeda.
I am not sure how to solve this problem but what the Heratis are doing is a start and maybe, and I say maybe, it will take a bold move from ordinary people like the people of Herat to rise and do not accept to live in fear and tyranny.
– From Kabul Journal
BHUTAN
An interview with Chief Justice Sonam Tobgye
Sonam Tobgye was appointed Chief Justice of Bhutan by Jigme Singye Wangchuk, the Fourth King of Bhutan, in 1991. Born in 1949, Tobgye completed his primary education in Bhutan and joined Dr. Graham’s Homes in Kalimpong, West Bengal, India, in 1964, and later the National Legal Course in the High Court, Bhutan. He was appointed the Solpon (Chamberlain) in 1974 and honoured with the Red Scarf, an honour similar to knighthood. In 1980 he was appointed Justice of the High Court. From 1986 to 1991, he served as both the Auditor General of Bhutan and the Secretary of the Royal Civil Service Commission. During the period, he drafted and adopted the Bhutan Civil Service Rules and Regulations of 1990 and Royal Audit Rules and Regulations. In 1998, the King awarded him the Orange Scarf, with the rank of the Minister. He was also presented a Medaille d’Honneur “in recognition of outstanding contribution for the cause of justice and as a gesture of goodwill to the judiciary of Bhutan” by Louis Joinet, on behalf of the President of the Court de Cassation of France in 2001.
On November 2001, became the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee of Bhutan, and is widely considered as the architect of the modern Bhutanese Draft Constitution.
In an extensive interview to Frontline, Sonam Tobgye discussed at length the various provisions of the Draft Constitution, the role of the soon-to-be operational Supreme Court of Bhutan, and the judiciary, as well as the functions of the monarch in the brand new parliamentary democracy of the country.
Excerpts:
Bhutan is now in the midst of historical changes. From monarchy it is moving towards democracy. A Draft Constitution has been framed and a Supreme Court formed. What will be the changes in the judicial system in the new order of things?
Sonam Tobgye: First, Bhutan has always been proactive in its attitude and we were always ready to embrace change so that change does not overtake us. For the last 100 years under the five monarchs there have been many progressive steps in the country; so changes are not new to the Bhutanese people. However, the recent changes seemingly appear to be drastic. But over the last four to five years, His Majesty the Fourth King has nurtured this idea and created awareness among the people.
We already had judicial institutions ready in Bhutan. The separation of powers was in principle enshrined in the charter of 1652 by the first theocratic ruler. Based on that, successive rulers, particularly the monarchs, have been working very effectively and within the defined separation of powers. So that concept is not new; it is now only being re-strengthened.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary had a clearly defined role. We have been functioning strictly within that. In short, the judiciary was there to interpret the laws and not to make them. One of the most important principles of the judiciary is judicial review. It was not clearly mentioned in words, but the principle of judicial review was always with the judiciary. But since we did not have a Constitution, we did not have the writs, but we could always grant stay orders and intervene; the judicial review was there in our system for a very long time.
From a three-tier system, we now have a four-tier system, for the purpose of taking justice nearer to the people to cut down on delay and harassment. Wherever there was a large concentration of population, subdivisional courts were set up. This is the lowest in the strata of the judicial hierarchy. Secondly, we had courts in every district. In fact, with the creation of any new district, there would automatically be a district court. Appeals from the district court go to the High court. The district courts were there from 1961, and in 1968 the High Court was established. But decisions like reprieve and pardon lay with the king. On adoption of the Constitution, much of the power will go to the Supreme Court. If there is a change, it is a change in the mindset of the people that the king was always accessible for redress from the judgment of the court. Now the final appeal will lie only in the Supreme Court.
This imposes greater responsibility on the judges of the Supreme Court to step into the big shoes of His Majesty, on whom the people of Bhutan had lavished their trust for so long. They will have to discharge their responsibilities in an honourable and just way. That will be the change. Otherwise, there will not be too much of change through this Constitution.
We have also fixed the number of judges to nine in the High Court – excluding the Chief Justice. In the Draft Constitution, we have specified that, so that the government and politicians cannot manipulate the judiciary. In the Supreme Court, there will be five judges.
How will the appointment of judges take place?
Sonam Tobgye: Three years ago, His Majesty the Fourth King, in his wisdom, issued a decree stating that the appointment of the judges, particularly to the High Court and the Supreme Court, will be done through the National Judicial Commission. This topic has been discussed at length in your [Indian] Parliament and media.
The Chief Justice will be the ex-officio chairman. He along with the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court will screen the appointees, their proven track record and their eligibility. There will also be representation of the other organs of the government. In the new scenario, one of the four members will be the Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National Assembly, representing the legislature. Our draft proposes to appoint the Attorney General to represent the Prime Minister (that is, the Chief executive) in the Commission.
There are two methods of appointing judges to the Supreme Court; first, through promotion. Currently most of our lawyers are in government service. A candidate will be promoted from the post of a registrar to that of a district judge, to the High Court and Supreme Court. The reason: they will have enough exposure through experience in the judicial workings, and also they will have been trained in that line. This is when his track record will be looked into. We will be going through their judgments – whether he has a liberal view, legal realism, and legal philosophy manifested in his judgment.
The other system is appointment of an eminent jurist. Even in India in the last few years no eminent jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court, but there is a provision for that. We also want to keep that option. There is a provision of appointing a very renowned and senior advocate to the High Court; but to the Supreme Court, only an eminent jurist.
Do you see any changes in your role as Chief Justice of Bhutan?
Sonam Tobgye: A Chief Justice of any country must have the confidence of not only the people of the country, but also the legal professionals – other judges, lawyers, and so on – for his impartiality and professionalism. The Chief Justice of Bhutan must respond to the changing situations of time, not to aggravate the situation, but to address it, so that justice, truth and, to a great extent, good governance will prevail. This is the dream and vision of the Fourth King, this is the aspiration of our people, and this is our collective desire.
What will be the tenure of a Supreme Court Judge?
Sonam Tobgye: We had marathon debates on this, and looked into various systems in other countries and their experiences, so we could profit from their wisdom and also learn from their mistakes. We finally decided that for judges of the High Court, either 10 years of service or the age of 65, whichever comes earlier; and the same is the case with the Supreme Court. The reason for keeping the 10 years’ clause is very important. Sometimes, the appointment of a wrong judge must not continue for too long. There should be stability in the judiciary, but not one that continues endlessly.
How can a judge be removed?
Sonam Tobgye: There are two processes. For minor administrative lapses, the National Judicial Commission will look into it – censuring and other things. But for an impeachable offence, by either a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge, there will have to be impeachment proceedings in Parliament. For misconducts that don’t warrant impeachment, a judge should not be exonerated completely, and administrative powers have been given to the National Judicial Commission
You are the chairman of the panel that drafted the new Constitution of Bhutan. Can you tell us some of the salient features of the Constitution?
Sonam Tobgye: First of all, I want to make one thing clear that though I was the chairman of the Drafting Committee, I did not single-handedly draft it. The 39 members of the Committee worked extremely hard to produce the first draft in 10 months. Mr. K.K. Venugopal [senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of India] helped us immensely. He worked almost a whole year with us.
As for the salient features of the Constitution, the first Article, the Doctrine of Sovereignty, in our case, specifies that it belongs to the people. Secondly, taking cognisance of the experiences of your country and other countries, judicial review is explicitly mentioned in our Constitution; the Supreme Courts of other countries did it through interpretation and through implied rights. The Doctrine of Separation of powers is mentioned in the First Article.
The second part of the Constitution specifies that the form of government is Democratic Constitutional Monarchy. There is no other country that says Democratic Constitutional Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy is democratic per se. But we had used the word Democracy, because the principle of democracy could be later interpreted in various phases in the future history of our country. His Majesty wanted that word Democratic specifically and so we kept it there.
The most important feature under Article 2 is that conventionally, “the King never dies”, but in Bhutan the King will now have to abdicate at the age of 65. This was an unpopular provision that His Majesty himself inserted as he felt it was necessary.
The second unique feature of this Democratic Constitutional Monarchy is, that there can be a vote of confidence against the king for violation of the Constitution forcing him to abdicate. This goes against our popular concept that the “King can do no wrong”, but now it will change.
The political system
Sonam Tobgye: As Khruschev said, “as a witness of the past, we must address the future”. We felt this was the time to do the political engineering. So what we did is, and again, this is His Majesty’s vision, he felt, there should be a multi-party system at the primary level, and thereafter, the two parties getting the maximum votes will contest the general elections to the National Assembly. So we will have a stable government in Parliament, and also have a multi-party system at the primary level. The tyranny of two-party system will be avoided, and the perpetuation of certain rules will not continue. This is perhaps unique in our Constitution. Political party structure is probably not mentioned in any other Constitution.
The selection of the constitutional heads will be done by the Prime Minister, Speaker, the Opposition leader and the Chief Justice.
We have provision for an interim government, before every election; they will have no power to decide on policies, but will be there for day-to-day running.
In Articles 13 and 14, under the commerce policy, a salient feature is that the government will have a certain percentage for debt management. Another provision is that under local government, like your panchayat, they will get a certain percentage of the national revenue, besides other budgetary support. So political parties cannot twist and turn local governments.
Another unique feature of our Constitution is the Environment, it is in your Constitution also under Article 52, but that is under Directive Principles. But here in our Constitution, we have said 60 per cent of the country must have forest cover, and it is a Fundamental Duty to protect the forest cover, so we can appreciate the past, enjoy the present and bequeath what we have inherited to the future.
What about Fundamental Rights, and can they be enforceable in a Court of Law?
Sonam Tobgye: Without Fundamental Rights, there cannot be a Constitution, and we have very comprehensive provisions for Fundamental Rights; and we also have Fundamental Duties. But unlike the Indian Constitution, we do not have Directive Principles; we have State Policies instead.
The rights without being enforceable in a court of law are no rights at all. We don’t want a paper tiger. For basic violation of a fundamental right one can move the High Court and the Supreme Court for redress, but not the lower Courts.
We have 21 fundamental rights, which also include freedom of religion and right to information. As one of the Justices said, religion is a personal matter and the state shall not get into it and there cannot be any coercion or inducement to conversion.
So what will be the role of the monarch?
Sonam Tobgye: His role will be as the Head of State, he will be the fountain of justice, the symbol of unity for the country, the protector of all the regions, like any constitutional powers. As in the case of the Indian Parliament, there are the two Houses and the President, similarly, here also we have the National Council, the National Assembly and His Majesty.
Can he stop the passage of a Bill in Parliament?
Sonam Tobgye: If a normal Bill is passed in the two houses of the Parliament, despite His Majesty’s reservation, that Bill is automatically passed. But if, particularly in the case of a Constitutional Bill, His Majesty considers it to be of national interest and of paramount importance, he cannot stop it; but he has the power to refer that to a referendum. In short, our Constitution has two principles of democracy – the indirect democracy, that is through a representative government, in which any act which is not of great importance, even if his Majesty does not give his assent, will be passed like it had recently happened in India; but if it is of national importance, His Majesty can refer it to a referendum. If a government has an overriding majority in a Parliament, like there is in Bhutan now, we may need another safeguard.
How do the people of Bhutan view the King’s divestment of power?
Sonam Tobgye: The Kings of Bhutan were always proactive. His Majesty, the fourth King in particular felt that democracy was very important, so he introduced it stage by stage. He believed in action and reality. At the beginning, we never knew of his intentions because he never spoke in a loud voice, nor did he ever say anything in public proclamation. As soon as he ascended the throne in 1972, a young man of 16 years, he said, people’s participation is a very important thing, and will be a component in his administration. Without our even knowing it at that time, he was laying the first principles of democracy.
The second thing he did was decentralisation, this very important and very progressive; it makes people accountable and responsible. This was introduced in the late seventies and early eighties. He encouraged privatisation, and in 1981, he introduced the district development committee, giving districts power in the planning and decision-making processes. He then, pushed it to the country level, or the Block level as in India.
Then he decided that the time had come for devolution of his powers. He made the people select Ministers, which he would nominate; some were rejected too. He introduced adult franchise. On September 4, 2001, he came up with the idea that Bhutan would have a Constitution. Over the years he has built the infrastructure and the apparatus necessary for the establishment of democracy. At that time people didn’t like it. Often new ideas are not accepted and people are always apprehensive about change, being more comfortable with a known situation than unknown promises; so we, including myself, did not want the monarch to be just a constitutional head. It was emotionally against us.
A hundred years ago, the people of Bhutan, through social contract, told His Majesty to please govern us. Today, after 100 years he says, I have done my duty, now I give back to you a much more prosperous stable, sovereign nation. It is true at first people did not accept it, but His Majesty thought it to be necessary. ‘Don’t trust one man, but trust the people; don’t trust the person who is born, trust the person who is selected and elected through merit’. He has been drilling this idea into us consistently with repetition. In the end, people were resigned to the inevitability of the situation. Finally he is the man we trusted, a man we love, and he can never betray us. We trust his judgment.
In the end, and this is something the Western press will not understand, the red button which the people pressed in the machine to vote, became associated with a precious jewel. Voting was associated with a precious jewel given by his majesty not to be misused and abused, but to justify his confidence in us.
I think we still find it difficult to come to terms with the whole situation, but as Lord Buddha said: “O Ananda, do not weep, do not cry, from all that he loves man must part. How can it be that things have beginning and no end. Don’t say that the teacher is not there. My teaching is your master.”
We have His Majesty’s gift of the Constitution as a guide and his wisdom.
– From APFA News
REGION The greatest genocide in history (part I)
It is estimated by historians that about 72 million people were killed during the second World War. Of this number 25 million died in combat, as much as 11 million were killed in the Nazi Holocaust and another 20 million perished in war induced famine. But this is not the single event with the largest killing of human beings in history.
Demographers and economists estimate that today over a 100 million women have been killed globally by societies which prefer sons over daughters. While guns, bombs and Zyklon B (the gas agent in the Nazi gas chambers) were used to kill during World War II, the present genocide against women is carried out by abortions, drowning, strangulation and nutritional and medical neglect. Unlike during a war where the combatants are known and kill only the enemy, in this genocide of women, it is the girl child’s most trusted and loved ones who kill her. It is important to understand that these 100 million women should have been alive and living today if not for the fact that they were killed, often directly in the form of abortion, killing after birth and death due to medical negligence and discrimination over food. It is important to understand that unlike in war where State institutions and politics is responsible for the deaths, here parents and close relatives of the unborn girl and the girl child are responsible for the deaths.
The blood of these 100 million dead women and girls is on all our hands as our hallowed families, which are meant to nurture and protect, have turned into killers of their own girls. Unfortunately, this problem seems to be concentrated in the countries of South Asia, East Asia and China.
The economist Amartya Sen gave the term “missing women” to this phenomenon of fewer women in populations than there should be and estimated that there are at present 44 million women missing in China and 39 million in India. Others have estimated that there are close to 6 million missing women in Pakistan, 3 million in Bangladesh and one million in Afghanistan. This implies that there are actually more women who are killed and missing in South Asia than anywhere else in the world. In India and China there are 107 men to 100 women, in Pakistan there are 108 men to 100 women. Truly a dubious distinction for a region which prides itself on its culture, history and civilisation!
To say that South Asian cultures are biased against women would be an understatement. Historically, some of the most devious, cruel and humiliating forms of female oppression have emerged in South Asia, China and the Arab world. From discriminating the girl child with food, medicine and education, from forcing subservience to male commands, from burning widows and enforcing purdah, from honor killings to female feticide, Asia and the Arab world have led the world in sexual apartheid.
Therefore it is not surprising that an overwhelming number of women reported missing – killed in action on the frontlines of patriarchy’s war on women – are from South Asia, China and its neighboring countries. What is interesting to note that differences of religion, culture, climate, ideology, social system or economic growth have no influence on this killing of women. Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist, Democracy or dictatorship, feudal, capitalist or socialist, poor or rich, cold or tropical, all over the swathe of Asia, millions of parents are willfully killing their children who are girls.
While it is important to recognise its wide-spread prevalence, it is also important to identify the causes for its existence, the variations of its practice and the implications of its prevalence if we are to try and end this unprecedented genocide.
Historically, girl children were often killed at birth by the mid-wife by feeding her poison, drowning her, strangulating her with her own umbilical cord or stuffing her mouth with salt. All these practices are reported from different parts of the British Indian Empire by the Firangi civil servants. Even those girls who escaped this death at birth, faced a childhood of neglect in the family with regard to food, medical care and education. Women were married off very early in life, often before they even attained puberty and became mothers in early teenage. Millions more were martyred on the altar of motherhood as the demands of repeated childbirth led to high mortality too. Many were killed when their husbands died, either by the religious practice of Sati or by the more prevalent custom of branding widows as “witches” and “dayens” and then lynching them.
Today, some of these more explicitly cruel forms of killing women may have become rare (though not entirely ended) but these have been replaced by the cold medical technology of the ultra-sound scan of the mother’s womb and the abortion of the female fetus. This brings us to the first of the main variations in the spread of missing women. It is the urban, educated, high income groups which display the maximum number of missing women! This means that the more educated, well-off and urban based a family, the more the chances of girl children being killed.
Men carry the family line and name, property is in the name of men who also wield political and military power (often the same thing), while it is men who are able to attain social status. Therefore if families have had to protect their property, pass it on to their progeny and acquire power in society, they have had to have sons. This feature has been called “son-preference” and is seen as the main cause for the killing of women But this is a necessity common to all forms of patriarchy, and as any Marxist would tell you, the history of all societies is the history of class struggle and the history of all class divided societies is also the history of patriarchy. So the importance of men to own private property, carry on the family line, hold power and control in society has been universal to all human history. But the killing of women, and that too on a scale where a 100 million of them are missing today, is a specific feature of Asian societies (and some North African ones which are influenced by Arab culture).
Some women activists and experts identify a social-psychological pathology which they term “son preference” which fuels this murderous desire for sons at the cost of killing their daughters. They argue that the existence of daughters implies a major loss of property and wealth in the form of dowry which has to be given at her marriage and also entails investments in her education and upbringing which develops her “human capital” which is “lost” to the family which invests but is a net gain for the family which “gains” her in marriage. This has been identified as the main cause of continuation of female feticide and infanticide, specially in South Asia. Daughters are also a drag on the family’s ability to project themselves socially as economic and human resources have to be invested in protecting their honour and bodies.
While these are surely important causes for the continuation and increase in the killing of women, these do not fully explain this genocide. Next week, this column will explore some other possible reasons as well as look at the consequences of this genocide.
(to be continued)
– Aniket Alam, at Leftwrite Blog
|
