[Reader-list] Fwd: SACW | 6 Sept. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

>Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:42:28 +0100
>To: sacw at insaf.net
>From: Harsh Kapoor <aiindex at mnet.fr>
>Subject: SACW   |  6 Sept. 2003
>
>South Asia Citizens Wire  |  6 September,  2003
>
>======================================================================
>
>[1] Pakistan: A strange kind of nationalism (Aqil Shah)
>[2] India: State renames 'Women's Studies Center as 'Women's and
>Family Studies Center'  (Rochona Majumdar)
>[3] India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now (Human Rights Watch)
>+ HRW Open Letter to India's Deputy Prime Minister to Protect Human
>Rights Defenders
>[5] India: Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award For Journalism - 2003
>[6] India: PUBLIC NOTICE  - Review of Use of POTA (advertisement in
>Sunday Times of India)
>
>
>--------------
>
>[1.]
>
>
>Dawn, 05 September 2003
>
>A strange kind of nationalism
>By Aqil Shah
>
>For days, Pakistanis watched in a state of suspended disbelief as
>the government and cable operators locked horns over the ban on
>Indian channels. Even as the two sides wrangled bitterly, their
>one-upmanship was couched in calculated appeals to nationalist
>sentiments.
>The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) argued
>forcefully that it was acting in the best national interest by
>reinforcing a ban on vulgar Indian channels. Cable operators,
>initially nonplussed by the contradictory behaviour of a government
>ostensibly engaged in a normalization process with its eastern
>neighbour, fought back by saying they had always supported the
>official ban on Indian channels and were only demanding
>"international entertainment channels".
>Whether PEMRA's original motivation was financial or ideological is
>a moot point. In the tussle that ensued, an otherwise important
>debate about the legitimate need for freeing electronic media was
>once again drowned in a sea of ideological righteousness. Also sunk
>were claims by the government that it was committed to a free flow
>of information. Wholly frivolous in itself, the ban has focused
>renewed attention on the deeply controversial parameters of our
>cultural and social mores.
>Moral policing is nothing new in an authoritarian state steeped in
>the tradition of intellectual and literary inquisition. But where
>does it all end? Through frequent notifications, for instance, PEMRA
>has been instructing cable operators to block out this or that
>foreign channel because of its 'obscenity'.
>Silent on the question of the suffocating state control over
>Pakistan Television and Radio, the arbitrary Ordinance (and rules)
>that govern its conduct empower PEMRA to simply prohibit broadcasts
>that are supposedly against 'the ideology of Pakistan' or 'endanger
>national security'.
>These euphemisms for draconian censorship practically preclude
>independent news and analysis. Programmes against 'good taste or
>decency' are also proscribed. Just whose standard of decency, no one
>knows. And who is to decide? Appointed PEMRA bureaucrats now acting
>as guardians of our social morality.
>While the recent cabinet decision to allow more private media
>channels is welcome, it is hard not to be cynical. PEMRA can mandate
>private broadcasters to telecast programmes in the "public
>interest". Unless Pakistan was Alice's Wonderland, could there be a
>cruder device to recruit them for state propaganda? Ironically, the
>government doesn't really need to commission these channels. Though
>better presented and covering a wider array of issues, news
>bulletins on private channels rarely go beyond the received wisdom
>on national security issues.
>Often, they mirror state propaganda on Kashmir. While there is much
>to write home about, ideological overloading is also commonplace in
>prime time programming with self-proclaimed Islamic jurists evoking
>divine authority to settle contentions public issues. Each time,
>though, they open a new can of worms that adds to our unresolved
>cultural and ideological confusion.
>Pakistan is destined to become another Madina, proclaimed retired
>General Hameed Gul in unison with a talk show host recently,
>drowning out any hope that a reasoned debate on the origins of
>Pakistan was possible.
>Current affairs experts are mostly right-wing generals, retired
>diplomats or pro-military intellectuals. As they generously dismiss
>the establishment's foreign and domestic blunders as minor
>miscalculations, any potential debate on the urgent need to rethink
>or re-evaluate flawed state policies is also conveniently swept
>under the carpet.
>Mindless anti-India propaganda spewed through scores of officially
>sponsored videos is relayed endlessly. Sung by the country's most
>popular rock stars, the Pakistan army's souped up bravado is mixed
>with state-of-the-art special effects to drive home the bestiality
>of the enemy who kills indiscriminately. Even if the excuse is that
>the Indians do it too, this hyper nationalism remains at odds with
>Islamabad's declared intent of normalizing relations with India.
>Equally mystifying are attempts by some military-run entities to
>make up for their gross inefficiency through appeals to the people's
>patriotic instincts.
>My favourite is a dramatic rendition extolling the war-like
>readiness of Wapda. With national flags fluttering and a stern,
>uniformed Gen Musharraf saluting in the background, the song spins
>the fiction that Wapda is about to revolutionize our lives. Who
>foots the bill for all this crude propaganda? The Pakistani
>taxpayer, of course.
>According to Antonio Gramsci, the state's hegemony rests not only on
>material and coercive power but also on a measure of "consent,
>cooperation and collaboration" that comes from cultural and
>ideological support of civil society.
>In Pakistan, civil society has been manipulated and coerced to
>extract this cultural and ideological compliance for reasons of
>state. The unsurprising result has been the subservience of all
>other priorities of civil life to the narrow national security
>concerns of an "Islamic" state pitched against a "Hindu" India.
>In adhering to the notions of an ambiguous religious ideology, the
>country's civil-military elite has projected Islam as the primary
>basis for state legitimacy. In the process, they have played with
>religion to accommodate and manipulate the religious lobby. The
>mullahs reaction, by and large, has been ever more boldly and
>violently to push their demands while refusing in most cases to
>abide by the rule of law. Just who is using whom has not always been
>clear, however. Compare the MMA's crusade against cable TV in the
>NWFP and the state's resort to regulatory mechanisms to curb what it
>deems immoral. A right-wing establishment, naturally, sits pretty at
>the table with the mullas.
>Governments around the world often concern themselves with
>manufacturing consent to protect themselves against the enemies of
>the state. As the Nazi spin-doctor Joseph Goebels had famously
>remarked: a lie told often enough ultimately becomes the truth. In
>Pakistan, principal forms of socialisation (history textbooks,
>state-run electronic media) are thus infused with an undying sense
>of militaristic nationalism.
>Despite all that, and more, why is it that over 90 per cent of cable
>TV viewers still demand Indian channels? Simple answer: They are not
>the dimwits the establishment considers them to be. Pakistanis can
>well differentiate between harmful propaganda and harmless
>entertainment. There is much that is wrong with Indian TV channels,
>and ours for that matter.
>But that is no excuse for PEMRA or any other government agency to
>resort to tactics of thought control. The unbelievable condescension
>with which some PEMRA officials have been publicly speaking for the
>"millions of illiterate and impressionable Pakistanis", who are not
>yet ready to make "free choices", is an insult to the dignity of the
>whole nation.
>Informed observers say memories of the aggressive media blitzkrieg
>by private Indian channels during the Kargil conflict was still
>fresh in Islamabad's corridors of power when the Indians slapped a
>ban on PTV in early 2002. Though localized and short-lived, that ban
>only provided the pretext for a decision the Pakistani establishment
>would have liked to make anyway.
>For some, the government's plea of "stabilizing" Pakistani private
>channels and continuing the ban on Indian channels, therefore,
>smacks of foul play. Don't blame these cynics for casting aspersions
>on the government's oft-repeated desire for regional peace. From the
>way they conduct themselves in the 21st century, the abiding motto
>of Pakistan's ruling elite could well be: Ignorance is strength.
>
>
>_____
>
>
>[2.]
>
>http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030905&fname=rochona&sid=1&pn=3
>outlookindia.com
>Web | Sep 05, 2003
>OPINION
>
>What's In A Name?
>Recently the 'Women's Studies Center' at the University of Pune was
>renamed as the 'Women's and Family Studies Center'. So what's the
>big deal about it all? A critical look.
>
>ROCHONA MAJUMDAR
>
>In the wake of the textbook controversy that is still roiling
>academic circles countrywide, comes another significant intervention
>into national academia by the Union minister for Human Resource
>Development, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi. Recently Mr. Joshi renamed the
>Women's Studies Center at the University of Pune as the "Women's and
>Family Studies Center." The renaming of the Pune center, according
>to the UGC, which comes under Mr. Joshi's sphere of influence, will
>be followed by the same move for the twenty or so centers across the
>country.
>
>This latest move by one of more visible faces of the BJP leadership
>has evoked strong protests from feminist academics all over the
>country. Petitions have been sent to the University Grants
>Commission urging for a reversal of the decision and feminist
>scholars have been extremely vocal in expressing consternation about
>the said proposal. Yet, in a country torn apart by bomb blasts,
>natural disasters and terrorist threats, such disquiet over the mere
>renaming of a handful of women's studies units may well seem to the
>ordinary citizen as an exercise in academic vanity.
>
>Before we write off the significance of this seemingly
>inconsequential gesture by the state, let us take a moment's pause
>and ask ourselves a few questions. Why, for instance, was it
>important for the government to introduce the words 'family studies'
>into the nomenclature of the women's studies units? Assuming that no
>such decision is made without the back up of a professional thinking
>machinery, we may well wonder as to who/what will henceforth be
>excluded from the arena of scholarship when the site where this
>scholarship is conducted has been renamed through a rather
>restrictive qualifier. And finally what are the implications of such
>exclusion(s)?
>
>At the risk of being accused of idealistic mind reading or, worse
>still, of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist who smells disaster
>at small gestures made by the government, let me say that my fear
>about actions such as Mr. Joshi's are confirmed as I look back into
>the present government's records on gender issues. It is crucial
>that we contextualize the renaming of the women's studies units
>countrywide. For only then will the regressive implications of
>Joshi's maneuver become clear and it will be apparent that what at
>the outset seemed insignificant is actually a deed with boundless
>ideological potential. But, first a background on what constitutes
>women's studies and a brief history of this kind of institution
>building in India.
>
>Women's Studies
>
>The 1960s were a tumultuous decade in the history of human rights
>that globally inspired a series of social movements. From this
>period onward, social scientists and humanists became interested in
>the role played by socially marginalized groups in the histories of
>nation building and sought to incorporate peoples that had hitherto
>been excluded from the realm of social science research into the
>ambit of their studies. The legacy of these movements and the
>awareness they generated may be found in the "histories from below"
>written by historians like E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm who
>turned the focus of historical research on industrial workers, urban
>laborers, and peasants.
>
>In a similar move there were efforts made in the United States to
>understand the historical causes behind the inferior social position
>accorded to African Americans in social and political life. And it
>was as part of this general awareness and questioning about human
>rights that feminists all over the world became vocal in what came
>to be known as "second wave" feminism. They queried the reasons
>behind women's absence from most histories written about the
>formation of nation-states and their subjugation to men in both the
>private and public spheres.
>In a report published by the Government of India in 1975 entitled
>Towards Equality, feminist social scientists laid down the results
>of their investigation on the position of women in Indian society.
>The report prepared by a committee chaired by Phulrenu Guha was part
>of a project undertaken by the ministry of education and social
>welfare. It documented in detail the slights and humiliation that
>are part and parcel of a woman's everyday existence in this country.
>
>Between the 1970s - 90s a number of research units were established
>all over India, which devoted their energies into studying the
>condition of Indian women, inquiring into the historical roots of
>their subservient position in society and devising programs for
>improving the status and condition of women. Collectively, one of
>the most significant outcomes of research by women's studies units
>has been to demonstrate that not only were women significant actors
>in national history, but their roles spanned as widely as men's.
>
>Even recognizing these facts entailed throwing a certain challenge
>to male power. Power became an extremely important category in
>understanding and eventually ameliorating women's conditions in
>various arenas of social life. Since the 1970s, there have been
>innumerable studies on the condition of women workers in the jute
>and cotton textile industries from the colonial period onward, into
>the role played by female labor in the unorganized agricultural
>sector, in politics, medicine, the performing arts, the birth
>control movement, and sports.
>
>Clearly then, the scope of women's studies spilled over from the
>domain of the family into the world at large.
>
>The Family
>
>The family no doubt remained, and still remains, an important unit
>of study. Comprehending the dynamic of the family is essential to
>any project that seeks to understand not only women but men too. To
>imagine otherwise would be both naïve and ahistorical. This
>awareness has led to scholarly inquiries into the study and
>constitution of "masculinity" and "childhood." Feminist historians,
>sociologists and anthropologists have written and debated
>extensively on why certain familial norms in this country have
>endured/ changed and what implications these have had for the social
>position of men and women.
>
>The joint family system, polygamy, female feticide, sati, widow
>remarriage, child marriage, dowry have been the subject of numerous
>historical monographs all of which have focused on the comparative
>position of both sexes within the family. But to say that these
>studies have been concerned with the family and family alone is
>ridiculous. In fact the point behind most of these studies have been
>to demonstrate the ways in which larger social forces alter or are
>themselves shaped by the family and to point in directions of
>progressive social change.
>
>So Why This Move?
>
>Against this background it remains puzzling as to why a man of Mr.
>Joshi's perspicacity would resort to renaming "Women's Studies"
>centers as "Women's and Family Studies". Especially when feminists
>themselves are now questioning the categorizing of their discipline
>as "women's" studies and are increasingly resorting to terms such as
>"gender" or "queer" studies to designate their disciplinary
>affiliation.
>
>Their reason for doing so was adumbrated above - for how can women
>be studied in isolation from men? Many have questioned the efficacy
>of the label woman arguing that womanhood itself is a variegated
>entity where sexual preference, social factors and finally biology
>play a part.
>
>Given the complexity of the subject matter of what constitutes the
>field of "women's studies" what then are the ramifications of Mr.
>Joshi's pronouncement? As the feminist historian Tanika Sarkar
>succinctly put it, "it re-embeds women within the family," ignoring
>their role in vast web of complex social relations.
>
>Eunuchs and Sex-Workers
>
>Let us close this discussion by considering the impact of such
>renaming upon studies that are conducted on two important social
>groups in India - eunuchs and sex-workers. In what University
>department do we now shift ongoing research on eunuchs in India?
>Surely there is no doubt that socially and politically they
>constitute an important section of the country's population. And I
>am sure it would be irresponsible and unethical to subsume this
>important social group under the category "women" for that would be
>simplifying the complexities of the gender experiences of this
>varied social group.
>
>Second, what do we do with women whose professional identity as sex
>workers is at odds with the norm of a family? It is unclear what
>vision of family was envisaged in the renaming decision. Unless we
>seek to radically redefine the scope of what we mean by family, such
>renaming, as the above examples demonstrate, runs the risk of
>becoming an exclusionary move.
>
>To take a few examples, we have to acknowledge single
>mothers/fathers bringing up children as family, our notion of family
>cannot remain heteronormative, nor can marriage be the sole basis of
>a familial unit. While such redefining can be undertaken under the
>aegis of the numerous women's studies units countrywide, it will
>require a degree of autonomy.
>
>One of the preconditions of good research is an atmosphere of
>openness and debate. Will the decision to rename be accompanied or
>followed by a solid guarantee of such autonomy? Can the renaming be
>debated? Will women's studies centers have the right to reject the
>new name?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Rochona Majumdar is Collegiate Assistant Professor and Harper
>Fellow, University of Chicago.
>
>
>
>_____
>
>[3.]
>
>
>http://hrw.org/press/2003/09/india090503.htm
>Human Rights Watch
>
>India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now
>(New York, Sept. 5, 2003) - The Indian government must protect three
>activists harassed and intimidated for their efforts to protect
>witnesses to last year's massacres in Gujarat, Human Rights Watch
>wrote in a letter to the Indian government today.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"The Indian government must demonstrate that it's on the side of
>justice, not those who organized this massacre. These three
>activists are trying to stand up to a state government that has done
>little to bring about accountability for thousands of victims and
>now they themselves are targets."
>
>Brad Adams
>Executive Director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	 "The Indian government must demonstrate that it's on the
>side of justice, not those who organized this massacre," said Brad
>Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights
>Watch. "These three activists are trying to stand up to a state
>government that has done little to bring about accountability for
>thousands of victims and now they themselves are targets."
>
>Teesta Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan and Suhel Tirmizi have
>received anonymous telephone calls threatening their lives if they
>continue their work. On August 29, Pathan was threatened by a group
>of Hindu nationalists as he escorted witnesses to an official
>inquiry into the massacres.
>
>The communal violence in Gujarat began on February 27, 2002, over
>allegations that a Muslim mob in the town of Godhra had attacked and
>set fire to two carriages of a train carrying Hindu activists.
>Fifty-eight people were killed.
>
>Over the next three days, a retaliatory killing spree by Hindus left
>hundreds dead and tens of thousands homeless in Gujarat. A Human
>Rights Watch report on the violence (We Have No Orders to Save You)
>concluded that Gujarat state officials were directly involved in the
>killings and engaged in a massive cover-up.
>
>A follow-up report by Human Rights Watch (Compounding Injustice: The
>Government's Failure to Redress Massacres in Gujarat), published in
>July 2003, concluded that the massacre's ringleaders were still at
>large. Human Rights Watch has asked the Indian federal government to
>take over investigations in cases where the state government has
>hampered litigation.
>
>Although the Indian government initially boasted of thousands of
>arrests following the attacks, most of those arrested have since
>been acquitted, released on bail with no further action taken, or
>simply let go. Even when cases have reached trial, Muslim victims
>faced biased prosecutors and judges, harassment and intimidation. In
>one case, 14 people were set on fire and killed in the Best Bakery
>in Vadodara, Gujarat. A Gujarat state court acquitted 21 people
>accused of the killings after witnesses withdrew statements they had
>given to the police identifying the attackers.
>
>A prime witness in that case, Zahira Sheikh, told India's National
>Human Rights Commission she was forced to change her testimony as a
>result of threats against her during the trial. Setalvad, Pathan,
>and Tirmizi have provided protection and legal assistance to Sheikh
>and her family members, including moving them to a secure location
>in Mumbai.
>
>On August 20, the three human rights defenders requested police
>protection from Gujarat's chief secretary and director general of
>police and the police commissioner of Ahmedabad. There has been no
>response to date. The defenders also filed an application for
>protection before the Supreme Court of India on September 1.
>
>In the letter, addressed to Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, Human
>Rights Watch called on the Indian government to:
>
>o Immediately provide proper and adequate protection to Teesta
>Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel Tirmizi;
>
>o Ensure a retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat and
>provide adequate protection for witnesses in the case;
>
>o Direct federal authorities to take over cases of serious,
>large-scale human rights violations where the state government has
>hampered investigations, including the Godhra, Naroda Patia, and
>Gulbarg Society massacre cases.
>
>______
>
>[RELATED MATERIAL]
>http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/india090503-ltr.htm
>HRW Open Letter, September 05, 2003
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Advani: Protect Human Rights Defenders
>(September 05, 2003)
>
>Dear Deputy Prime Minister Shri L.K. Advani,
>
>We write to express our serious concern about the safety of three
>human rights defenders facing escalating intimidation because they
>have tried to ensure accountability for the communal violence in
>Gujarat. Teesta Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel
>Tirmizi have faced increasing verbal and physical threats in
>response to their efforts to protect witnesses and preserve evidence
>about the massacres that took place in Gujarat in February and March
>2002.
>
>As members of the civil-society organization Citizens for Justice
>and Peace, the three defenders have helped document and expose the
>participation of the police and other government officials during
>the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat. They have also assisted the
>National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its inquiry into the
>massacres, in particular the so-called "Best Bakery" case. As you
>are aware, in that incident fourteen people were set on fire and
>killed in a bakery in Vadodara, Gujarat at the height of the
>violence.
>
>In the ensuing litigation, a Gujarat state court acquitted
>twenty-one people accused of the killings after witnesses withdrew
>statements they had given to the police identifying the attackers. A
>prime witness in the case, Zahira Sheikh, has detailed how she was
>forced to change her testimony as a result of threats against her
>during the trial. She spoke before the NHRC on July 11, 2003,
>accompanied by Teesta Setalvad. Following Sheikh's testimony, the
>NHRC filed a special petition before the Supreme Court asking for a
>retrial of the Best Bakery case outside of Gujarat, and for a
>transfer of nine other key cases arising from the massacres to
>venues outside Gujarat.
>
>Setalvad, Pathan, and Tirmizi have provided protection and legal
>assistance to Sheikh and her family members, including moving them
>to a secure location in Mumbai. In response, they have received a
>number of threats by telephone from anonymous callers threatening
>their lives if they continue their work. On August 29, Pathan was
>surrounded and physically threatened by a group of Hindu nationalist
>supporters while he was escorting witnesses of the Gulbarg Society
>massacre to a hearing of the Commission of Inquiry into the violence
>in Gujarat.
>
>The three human rights defenders requested police protection from
>the chief secretary, the director general of police, and the
>commissioner of police in Ahmedabad, on August 20. To date, there
>has been no response from the Gujarat government. On September 1 the
>three human rights defenders filed an application for protection
>before the Supreme Court of India.
>
>We call on the Indian government to:
>
>o Immediately provide proper and adequate protection to Teesta
>Setalvad, Rais Khan Azeezkhan Pathan, and Suhel Tirmizi;
>
>o Ensure a retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat and
>provide adequate protection for witnesses in the case;
>
>o Direct federal authorities to take over cases of serious,
>large-scale human rights violations where the state government has
>hampered investigations, including the Godhra, Naroda Patia, and
>Gulbarg Society massacre cases.
>
>The increasingly strident tone of those attempting to obstruct the
>course of justice in Gujarat requires an immediate and strong
>response from the Indian government. We look forward to your
>leadership on this important matter.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>
>Brad Adams
>Executive Director
>Asia Division
>Human Rights Watch
>
>
>cc:
>Shri Narendra Modi
>Chief Minister of Gujarat
>
>Justice A.S. Anand
>Chairperson
>National Human Rights Commission
>
>
>______
>
>
>[...]
>
>______
>
>
>[5.]
>
>Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award For Journalism - 2003
>
>The Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha in collaboration with Chhattisgarh
>Labour Institute has set up the Shaheed Niyogi Memorial Award for
>Journalism for writings on labour issues & worker's movement.
>Com. Shaheed Shankar Guha Niyogi was a fire brand labour leader who
>made a unique contribution to the people's struggles by successfully
>combining the trade union movement with social reforms. He not only
>organized the workers of Chhattisgarh, but also played a positive
>role in the movement for the creation of a New Chhattisgarh for a
>New India based on socialism, secularism and democracy. He generated
>an ideological basis of 'Sangarsh & Nirman' (Struggles &
>Reconstruction), which has over the years acted as catalyst &
>guiding force for both the industrial workers and peasants in the
>country. Unfortunately, he was assassinated on 28th September 1991
>by the industrial mafia.
>This award was started a few years back to recognize the
>contribution of journalists in upholding the legacy of Shaheed
>Niyogi. Mr. Anand Swaroop Verma, a senior human right journalist
>associated with the Samkaleen Teesri Duniya, was the first recipient
>of this award. Due to financial and organizational constraints, this
>award could not be continued. But it is being revived this year on
>the Shaheed Niyogi Diwas to be observed on 28th September 2003 in
>Chhattisgarh.
>Journalists, individuals and organizations can nominate journalists
>who have been consistently writing on labour issues and worker's
>movement. The last day for submitting the nominations along with the
>select writings is 20th September 2003 at the following addresses -
>
>Mr. Anand Swaroop Verma Mr. Akshay Sail
>Q-63, Chhattisgarh Labour Institute
>SECTOR - 12, N-7 Anupam Nagar, Raipur
>NOIDA - 201301 Chhattisgarh
>e-mail: award2003 at rediffmail.com
>
>If the articles are in a language other than Hindi or English then
>either translation or summary of the articles in English or Hindi
>must also be submitted. The winners will be announced on 25th
>September 2003 and the award will be given on 28th September 2003 in
>Chhattisgarh (the exact venue to be announced later). The award
>consists of first prize of Rs.25, 000, second prize of Rs. 15,000
>and 5 prizes of Rs.5,000 each.
>Mr. Kuldeep Nayar, senior journalist & Ex-MP, New Delhi, Mr. Anand
>Swaroop Verma, Editor of Samkaleen Teesri Duniya, New Delhi and Ms.
>Meena Menon, free lance journalist, Mumbai have kindly consented to
>be on the Panel of Judges for this year's Award.
>We expect your help and co-operation in our venture to pay tribute
>to Shaheed Shankar Guha Niyogi, whose life and works have motivated
>many to face the challenges of creating a new society based on
>justice, freedom, peace, equality, and human dignity.
>
>______
>
>
>[6.]
>
>REVIEW OF USE OF POTA
>
>PUBLIC NOTICE
>
>Government of India has constituted a Review Committee under Section
>60 of  the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) headed by Mr
>Justice Arun B  Saharya, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
>High Court with Dr M U  Rahman, former Secretary to the Government
>of India and Shri Arvind S  Imandar, former Advisor to the
>Government of Uttar Pradesh as its members  vide notification
>No.S.O.404(E) dated 04.04.2003. The terms of reference  of the
>Review Committee are as under:
>
>i) The Review Committee shall take a comprehensive view of the use
>of the  said Act in various States and shall be empowered to
>entertain complaints  or grievances with regard and suggestions for
>removing the shortcomings,  if any, in the implementation of the
>said Act, and
>
>ii) The Review Committee shall suggest measures to ensure that the
>provisions of the said Act are invoked for combating terrorism only.
>
>In order to examine the enforcement/implementation of POTA, and give
>suggestions to the Government for removal of shortcomings, if any,
>the  Review Committee hereby invites the public at large and such
>Organizations  as may be interested in the subject, to send
>complaints, grievances and  suggestions, if any, with material in
>support, if available. The same may  be sent by post at an early
>date latest by 22nd of September, 2003 to the  Secretariat of the
>Review Committee in Room No. 246, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe,  New Delhi
>or by E.mail at <mailto:potacommittee at nic.in>potacommittee at nic.in
>
>V P Bhatia
>Secretary to the Review Committee
>August, 2003
>
>REVIEW COMMITTEE ON POTA
>(Constituted under Section 60 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002)
>Room No. 246, Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi
>
>This advertisement appeared in Sunday Times of India, August 24, 2003, pg.
>
>
>_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace
>and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent &
>non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia
>Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex).
>The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net
>
>DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
>necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
>
>--
>


--