Ignoring International pressure, India prepares for a Burmese port deal

Ignoring International pressure, India prepares for a Burmese port deal

Nava Thakuria

Ignoring the continued international pressure to boycott the ruling military junta of Burma (Myanmar), India has geared up for signing of a deal to develop a port in western Burmese coast for the benefit of its restive Northeast, where secessionist movement had inspired a number of insurgent outfits to declare a war against New Delhi even after 60 years of India's independence.

Come April 4 and New Delhi will unfold the red carpet for the 'second man in command' of the Burmese junta, Maung Aye, who supposes to arrive in India for finalizing many business deals, primarily the Kaladan project. The project includes the development of Sittwe port in the Bay of Bengal and then connects it with the landlocked Northeast India through the Kaladan river and road transport.

The connected Indian state will be Mizoram, which is adjacent to Chin province of Burma (also known as Myanmar). Vice Senior General Maung Aye, the deputy commander-in-chief of Defence Services and a hardliner, is expected to arrive in New Delhi for signing the much discussed Kaladan Multi-Model Project.

It will be an important visit of a Burmese high profile leader to New Delhi after Senior General Than Shwe, the head of the State Peace and Development Council paid a visit four years back. The project includes the up-gradation of the seaport in Sittwe, widening and deepening of the Kaladan river that flows from Mizoram, and development of a road to connect Mizoram's capital Aizwal. Sittwe is hardly 400 km away from Aizwal, a less crowded beautiful hill city.

"The Kaladan project will include shipping, riverine and road transport," said Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Commerce. Talking to media persons during one of his recent visits to the region, Mr Ramesh also added, "New Delhi wants to connect the Northeast with the commercial sea routes. Moreover, with the development of Sittwe port and the Kaladan river as a navigation efficient, the region is expected to have another viable access to the South East Asian counties."

India is reportedly spending nearly $ 100 million for the project. The junta, though assured free land for the project, had shown reluctance to invest money in the project, which finally compels New Delhi to extend a soft loan of $ 10 million to the SPDC leaders. The Kaladan project is anticipated to be completed within four years and the project will be executed by India's public sector Rail India Technical Economic Services organization.

But the signing of the deal will not be out of repercussion, as the international communities have been raising voices against the military junta for its continued repressive policies on the pro-democracy activists including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and of course its poor human rights record in Burma. The public memory remains fresh for the political observers worldwide, where thousands of agitating monks in the streets of Rangoon were subjected to torture during last September.

The junta controlled the movement with strong hands killing nearly hundreds. While Burmese exiles irrespective of their organizations have come out heavily against New Delhi for initiating for a business deal, there are few supporters for the Kaladan project for the benefits of the Northeast. The supporters of pro-democracy movement in Burma have raised a single point that India should not invest money at this moment in Burma as the money will not reach the common people, but the pockets of the Generals.

They unanimously point out that it is not the suitable time to invest in Burma, even if one does not endorse the pro-democracy movement led by the Nobel laureate Suu Kyi. "It is not the suitable time to do business with Burma," argues Kyaw Than, the leader of All Burma Students' League (ABSL), a conglomeration of Burmese students' organizations in exile. Another Burmese exile, Dr Tayza Thuria, now based in London, debates that 'India's doing business with Burma and engaging with Burma's de-facto military government is not wrong in itself'. But the Indian government needs to be careful to maintain a balanced and ethical approach towards Burma; i.e., while engaging with Burmese government in business and security affairs, New Delhi must also try to persuade, advice and guide the junta to make the systematic democratic reforms in due course of time.

He however admitted that India needs Burma's cooperation and Burma needs India's, regardless of which party is in power in India or which regime is ruling Burma. "India's Burma friendship is good. Burma and India are neighbours, and since the colonial era Burmese and Indian national leaders maintained good relationship and close co-operations," added Tayza Thuria. But Deepak Parvatiyar, a former journalist and now based in Kuala Lumpur, comments that the mounting pressure on the military rulers of Burma 'should be maintained at a diplomatic level but not at the cost of development'.

Speaking to this correspondent from the Malaysian capital, Mr Parvatiyar stated, "Contribution to development is always welcome, even after taking consideration to the recent happenings in Burma and the continued regressive policies by its military rulers." He concluded, "By participating in the development of the port in Burma, India has shown maturity in dealing with her troublesome neighbors. Opening bilateral trade with Pakistan was the beginning that considerably helped smoothening relationship between the two countries. By participating in development of Burma, it will enhance the reputation of India as a country that cares for its neighbours irrespective of political differences.

Moreover, the Kaladan project will help the backward Northeast region to have an access to the commercial sea routes." The largest democracy in the globe earlier received brickbats following its Petroleum minister Murli Deora's visit to Burma during September, 2007, the days world media witnessed massive protests against the junta in the country. The Indian minister certainly though witnessed hundred thousand agitating people in the streets of Rangoon, did not make a single statement or observation. During his visit, three bilateral agreements for deep exploration in oil blocks were signed. Indian state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh pledged to invest nearly US$ 150 million for gas exploration in the Rakhaine coast of Burma.

"Nothing revealed better than the Burma visit of Murli Deora to sign a gas deal, just when the repression peaked," claimed Soe Myint, a Burmese political activist living in exile. This sent a terrible message, Soe Myint asserted. He added, "Democratic India won't lift its little finger to restrain the Burmese regime." The pro-democracy activist stated, "India should hold a special responsibility for Burma. The two countries share a modern legacy that of the Freedom movement, where the Burmese Independence hero Aung Sang (father of Suu Kyi) was inspired by MK Gandhi (fatter of Indian nation) and J Nehru (the first prime minister of India)".

Thin Thin Aung, a leader of Women's League of Burma, now living in exiled in New Delhi, also echoed the same views, "The people of Burma and India were together culturally, historically and politically. We fought the British together. And four states of the Northeast are bordering Burma and share associations with many ethnic groups in both the countries. We need to work and act together for lasting peace in the Northeast and Burma." Meanwhile, a recent public meeting in Aizwal resolved to appeal New Delhi to snap all ties with the military junta as 'the economic cooperation with them would never benefit the people unless democracy was restored in Burma'. Organized jointly by the Mizoram Committee for Democracy in Burma and the Campaign for Democratic Movement in Burma, the meeting also resolved that New Delhi should work with the UN to find amicable solution to the Burmese imbroglio.

Dr Tint Swe, a leader of National League for Democracy led by Suu Kyi, who is living in exile in India, was also present at the meeting and argued that dealing with Burma 'would only have a meaning after restoration of democracy' there.

Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist from North-East India

Ignoring International pressure, India prepares for a Burmese port deal

Ignoring International pressure, India prepares for a Burmese port deal

Nava Thakuria

Ignoring the continued international pressure to boycott the ruling military junta of Burma (Myanmar), India has geared up for signing of a deal to develop a port in western Burmese coast for the benefit of its restive Northeast, where secessionist movement had inspired a number of insurgent outfits to declare a war against New Delhi even after 60 years of India's independence.

Come April 4 and New Delhi will unfold the red carpet for the 'second man in command' of the Burmese junta, Maung Aye, who supposes to arrive in India for finalizing many business deals, primarily the Kaladan project. The project includes the development of Sittwe port in the Bay of Bengal and then connects it with the landlocked Northeast India through the Kaladan river and road transport.

The connected Indian state will be Mizoram, which is adjacent to Chin province of Burma (also known as Myanmar). Vice Senior General Maung Aye, the deputy commander-in-chief of Defence Services and a hardliner, is expected to arrive in New Delhi for signing the much discussed Kaladan Multi-Model Project.

It will be an important visit of a Burmese high profile leader to New Delhi after Senior General Than Shwe, the head of the State Peace and Development Council paid a visit four years back. The project includes the up-gradation of the seaport in Sittwe, widening and deepening of the Kaladan river that flows from Mizoram, and development of a road to connect Mizoram's capital Aizwal. Sittwe is hardly 400 km away from Aizwal, a less crowded beautiful hill city.

"The Kaladan project will include shipping, riverine and road transport," said Jairam Ramesh, the Minister of State for Commerce. Talking to media persons during one of his recent visits to the region, Mr Ramesh also added, "New Delhi wants to connect the Northeast with the commercial sea routes. Moreover, with the development of Sittwe port and the Kaladan river as a navigation efficient, the region is expected to have another viable access to the South East Asian counties."

India is reportedly spending nearly $ 100 million for the project. The junta, though assured free land for the project, had shown reluctance to invest money in the project, which finally compels New Delhi to extend a soft loan of $ 10 million to the SPDC leaders. The Kaladan project is anticipated to be completed within four years and the project will be executed by India's public sector Rail India Technical Economic Services organization.

But the signing of the deal will not be out of repercussion, as the international communities have been raising voices against the military junta for its continued repressive policies on the pro-democracy activists including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and of course its poor human rights record in Burma. The public memory remains fresh for the political observers worldwide, where thousands of agitating monks in the streets of Rangoon were subjected to torture during last September.

The junta controlled the movement with strong hands killing nearly hundreds. While Burmese exiles irrespective of their organizations have come out heavily against New Delhi for initiating for a business deal, there are few supporters for the Kaladan project for the benefits of the Northeast. The supporters of pro-democracy movement in Burma have raised a single point that India should not invest money at this moment in Burma as the money will not reach the common people, but the pockets of the Generals.

They unanimously point out that it is not the suitable time to invest in Burma, even if one does not endorse the pro-democracy movement led by the Nobel laureate Suu Kyi. "It is not the suitable time to do business with Burma," argues Kyaw Than, the leader of All Burma Students' League (ABSL), a conglomeration of Burmese students' organizations in exile. Another Burmese exile, Dr Tayza Thuria, now based in London, debates that 'India's doing business with Burma and engaging with Burma's de-facto military government is not wrong in itself'. But the Indian government needs to be careful to maintain a balanced and ethical approach towards Burma; i.e., while engaging with Burmese government in business and security affairs, New Delhi must also try to persuade, advice and guide the junta to make the systematic democratic reforms in due course of time.

He however admitted that India needs Burma's cooperation and Burma needs India's, regardless of which party is in power in India or which regime is ruling Burma. "India's Burma friendship is good. Burma and India are neighbours, and since the colonial era Burmese and Indian national leaders maintained good relationship and close co-operations," added Tayza Thuria. But Deepak Parvatiyar, a former journalist and now based in Kuala Lumpur, comments that the mounting pressure on the military rulers of Burma 'should be maintained at a diplomatic level but not at the cost of development'.

Speaking to this correspondent from the Malaysian capital, Mr Parvatiyar stated, "Contribution to development is always welcome, even after taking consideration to the recent happenings in Burma and the continued regressive policies by its military rulers." He concluded, "By participating in the development of the port in Burma, India has shown maturity in dealing with her troublesome neighbors. Opening bilateral trade with Pakistan was the beginning that considerably helped smoothening relationship between the two countries. By participating in development of Burma, it will enhance the reputation of India as a country that cares for its neighbours irrespective of political differences.

Moreover, the Kaladan project will help the backward Northeast region to have an access to the commercial sea routes." The largest democracy in the globe earlier received brickbats following its Petroleum minister Murli Deora's visit to Burma during September, 2007, the days world media witnessed massive protests against the junta in the country. The Indian minister certainly though witnessed hundred thousand agitating people in the streets of Rangoon, did not make a single statement or observation. During his visit, three bilateral agreements for deep exploration in oil blocks were signed. Indian state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh pledged to invest nearly US$ 150 million for gas exploration in the Rakhaine coast of Burma.

"Nothing revealed better than the Burma visit of Murli Deora to sign a gas deal, just when the repression peaked," claimed Soe Myint, a Burmese political activist living in exile. This sent a terrible message, Soe Myint asserted. He added, "Democratic India won't lift its little finger to restrain the Burmese regime." The pro-democracy activist stated, "India should hold a special responsibility for Burma. The two countries share a modern legacy that of the Freedom movement, where the Burmese Independence hero Aung Sang (father of Suu Kyi) was inspired by MK Gandhi (fatter of Indian nation) and J Nehru (the first prime minister of India)".

Thin Thin Aung, a leader of Women's League of Burma, now living in exiled in New Delhi, also echoed the same views, "The people of Burma and India were together culturally, historically and politically. We fought the British together. And four states of the Northeast are bordering Burma and share associations with many ethnic groups in both the countries. We need to work and act together for lasting peace in the Northeast and Burma." Meanwhile, a recent public meeting in Aizwal resolved to appeal New Delhi to snap all ties with the military junta as 'the economic cooperation with them would never benefit the people unless democracy was restored in Burma'. Organized jointly by the Mizoram Committee for Democracy in Burma and the Campaign for Democratic Movement in Burma, the meeting also resolved that New Delhi should work with the UN to find amicable solution to the Burmese imbroglio.

Dr Tint Swe, a leader of National League for Democracy led by Suu Kyi, who is living in exile in India, was also present at the meeting and argued that dealing with Burma 'would only have a meaning after restoration of democracy' there.

Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist from North-East India

North-East India: Where Army Generals become Governors

North-East India: Where Army Generals become Governors

Nava Thakuria

The appointment of the former Indian Army chief General Joginder Jaswant Singh (retired) as the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh state on 24 January 2008 has raised some vital questions in the minds of the conscious citizens of the Northeast.

The former Indian Army chief, Mr Singh retired last year and has now been sworn in as Arunachal Pradesh's Governor by the Indian President Ms Pratibha Patil.

Mr Singh, who was honoured with Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM), Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM) and Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) during his four decades service in Indian Army, has joined two serving Governors in the insurgency stricken Northeast India, who are also from the Indian Army background.

Lieutenant General (retired) Ajai Singh, PVSM, AVSM took over the responsibility as the Governor of Assam state from another Lieutenant General (retired) four years back. The former Assam Governor Mr SK Sinha was transferred to Jammu and Kashmir. Another Lieutenant General (retired), who has been serving Mizoram state is MM Lakhera, PVSM, AVSM, VSM. On the other hand, the state of Tripura has a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) official Dinesh Nandan Sahaya as its Governor.

Thus four States (out of eight) in Northeast have their Governors from the background of 'Man in Uniform' – the Indian Army or Police!

A chief minister in India is identified as the head of a State government and the Governors are recognized as the Constitutional heads of the State. The Indian Constitution has given most of the political power to the chief minister, but the Governors are also empowered with some special powers under various provisions of the Constitution. While, a chief minister (with his council of ministers) of a State is directly accountable to its citizens, the Governors are normally made accountable to the President of the country only.

The Governor, under the provisions of the Indian Constitution, enjoys the right to be kept informed of all major decisions adopted by the State government. Moreover, the governor appoints the chief minister and also appoints the council of ministers of the State following the advice of the chief minister. In fact, every minister in the state cabinet takes oath from the Governor. Similarly, the governor summons the state legislature and also dissolves the legislative assembly. He addresses the legislature. Each and every bill passed by the state legislature must be endorsed by the governor before it turns out to be a state law. In a particular situation, the governor can send a report to the President of India that may invite President's rule after dissolving the State Legislative Assembly.

However, there are plentiful examples in India, where the difference of opinions between a chief minister and Governor has made the political equation sour. The Governors are usually kept above the public sphere. But at times, the Governors virtually shed negative influence in the socio-political development of a state. In reality, those Governors serve the vested interest of some strong lobby of the Union Government, which is against the spirit of the constitution.

The repeated appointment of the Army Generals as the Governors of many Northeastern States raises the vital question, whether New Delhi prefers to maintain a second epicenter of power in the States, notwithstanding for the interest of the Nation.

The Northeast has a volatile stew of militant organizations, most of them ethnically based. According to some counts, there are as many as 35 such groups in the region, some of them Islamist. Armed groups use the jungles of southern Bangladesh and northern Burma as their hideouts and training camps. The land-locked region has slowly turned into a land of extortion, explosions and assassinations by the militants. New Delhi is definitely worried with the development and many times it has gone trouncing the elected State governments of the region, whenever the question of territory has emerged.

One classic example that reflects the attitude of New Delhi towards the people of Northeast is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) which has been in affect in the region for five decades now.

The AFSPA empowers the security forces to arrest people without warrant, and use excessive force (including shooting or killing, even if the lives of the members of the security force are not at imminent risk). It facilitates impunity because no person can initiate legal action against any member of the armed forces for anything done under the Act, without permission of the central government.

It will be a very difficult task to find an example anywhere in the democratic world, where a draconian law like AFSPA could continue for such a long period even after mass uprising against it.

New Delhi had earlier ignored the recommendations of a recent committee to repeal the black law. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission (2004), which organized public hearings in various parts of Northeast, recommended the repeal of AFSPA, but the government was not convinced.

So whenever there is news of the appointment of a retired General as a Governor in Northeast, the pertinent question that arises is whether New Delhi always prefers to treat the region as a war zone?

As in a battlefield, the central government seems to make it a habit not to take the State governments into confidence in case of counter insurgency operations. And hence, the region has been poured with the ex 'Man in Uniform' as the constitutional heads of the States, so that New Delhi continues to enjoy the last say in managing the troubled zone, where larger section of conscious population still nurture anti-New Delhi sentiment even after 60 years of India's Independence.

Nava Thakuria

(The author is a Guwahati (Northeast India) based independent journalist and can be contacted at navathakuria@yahoo.com)

Published in:

The Seoul Times, Seoul, South Korea (18 February 2008)

News Blaze

North-East India: Where Army Generals become Governors

North-East India: Where Army Generals become Governors

Nava Thakuria

The appointment of the former Indian Army chief General Joginder Jaswant Singh (retired) as the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh state on 24 January 2008 has raised some vital questions in the minds of the conscious citizens of the Northeast.

The former Indian Army chief, Mr Singh retired last year and has now been sworn in as Arunachal Pradesh's Governor by the Indian President Ms Pratibha Patil.

Mr Singh, who was honoured with Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM), Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM) and Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) during his four decades service in Indian Army, has joined two serving Governors in the insurgency stricken Northeast India, who are also from the Indian Army background.

Lieutenant General (retired) Ajai Singh, PVSM, AVSM took over the responsibility as the Governor of Assam state from another Lieutenant General (retired) four years back. The former Assam Governor Mr SK Sinha was transferred to Jammu and Kashmir. Another Lieutenant General (retired), who has been serving Mizoram state is MM Lakhera, PVSM, AVSM, VSM. On the other hand, the state of Tripura has a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) official Dinesh Nandan Sahaya as its Governor.

Thus four States (out of eight) in Northeast have their Governors from the background of 'Man in Uniform' – the Indian Army or Police!

A chief minister in India is identified as the head of a State government and the Governors are recognized as the Constitutional heads of the State. The Indian Constitution has given most of the political power to the chief minister, but the Governors are also empowered with some special powers under various provisions of the Constitution. While, a chief minister (with his council of ministers) of a State is directly accountable to its citizens, the Governors are normally made accountable to the President of the country only.

The Governor, under the provisions of the Indian Constitution, enjoys the right to be kept informed of all major decisions adopted by the State government. Moreover, the governor appoints the chief minister and also appoints the council of ministers of the State following the advice of the chief minister. In fact, every minister in the state cabinet takes oath from the Governor. Similarly, the governor summons the state legislature and also dissolves the legislative assembly. He addresses the legislature. Each and every bill passed by the state legislature must be endorsed by the governor before it turns out to be a state law. In a particular situation, the governor can send a report to the President of India that may invite President's rule after dissolving the State Legislative Assembly.

However, there are plentiful examples in India, where the difference of opinions between a chief minister and Governor has made the political equation sour. The Governors are usually kept above the public sphere. But at times, the Governors virtually shed negative influence in the socio-political development of a state. In reality, those Governors serve the vested interest of some strong lobby of the Union Government, which is against the spirit of the constitution.

The repeated appointment of the Army Generals as the Governors of many Northeastern States raises the vital question, whether New Delhi prefers to maintain a second epicenter of power in the States, notwithstanding for the interest of the Nation.

The Northeast has a volatile stew of militant organizations, most of them ethnically based. According to some counts, there are as many as 35 such groups in the region, some of them Islamist. Armed groups use the jungles of southern Bangladesh and northern Burma as their hideouts and training camps. The land-locked region has slowly turned into a land of extortion, explosions and assassinations by the militants. New Delhi is definitely worried with the development and many times it has gone trouncing the elected State governments of the region, whenever the question of territory has emerged.

One classic example that reflects the attitude of New Delhi towards the people of Northeast is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) which has been in affect in the region for five decades now.

The AFSPA empowers the security forces to arrest people without warrant, and use excessive force (including shooting or killing, even if the lives of the members of the security force are not at imminent risk). It facilitates impunity because no person can initiate legal action against any member of the armed forces for anything done under the Act, without permission of the central government.

It will be a very difficult task to find an example anywhere in the democratic world, where a draconian law like AFSPA could continue for such a long period even after mass uprising against it.

New Delhi had earlier ignored the recommendations of a recent committee to repeal the black law. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission (2004), which organized public hearings in various parts of Northeast, recommended the repeal of AFSPA, but the government was not convinced.

So whenever there is news of the appointment of a retired General as a Governor in Northeast, the pertinent question that arises is whether New Delhi always prefers to treat the region as a war zone?

As in a battlefield, the central government seems to make it a habit not to take the State governments into confidence in case of counter insurgency operations. And hence, the region has been poured with the ex 'Man in Uniform' as the constitutional heads of the States, so that New Delhi continues to enjoy the last say in managing the troubled zone, where larger section of conscious population still nurture anti-New Delhi sentiment even after 60 years of India's Independence.

Nava Thakuria

(The author is a Guwahati (Northeast India) based independent journalist and can be contacted at navathakuria@yahoo.com)

Published in:

The Seoul Times, Seoul, South Korea (18 February 2008)

News Blaze

Assam journalists to defy militants diktat on R-Day

Assam journalists to defy militants diktat on R-Day

Nava Thakuria

If it becomes a ritual for a section of the armed outfits to impose a boycott call on the celebration of Republic Day and Independence Day in many parts of the northeast India, the rising counter-reactions against such diktats turned equally true to the term. The 59th Republic Day also witnessed a boycott call from four outlawed outfits and as usual it has been hit back by a group of journalists of Assam with advance announcement that they would hoist Tricolour in the city press club on January 26. They have also made an appeal to the people of the region to celebrate the auspicious day with fanfare.

In a statement, the group of working journalists and writers including noted author Nirupama Bargohain and veteran journalist Dhirendranath Chakrabarty had made the appeal to hoist the Indian National Flag atop their houses and in their own localities on the occasion of 59th Republic Day of the country.

"The Republic Day of the country should be celebrated by the citizens in recognition to the sacrifices made by the martyrs, who accepted martyrdom to wrest liberty for their compatriots. Many of their colleagues also under underwent tremendous hardship to free the country from the colonial yoke," said in the statement adding, "The people of the region should remember those martyrs and freedom fighters on occasions like Independence Day and the Republic Day by hoisting the Tricolour in a befitting manner."

Earlier four insurgent groups of Northeast comprising the banned United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (KLO), Manipur People's Liberation Front (MPLF) and Tripura People's Democratic Front (TPDF) issued a joint call to boycott of the R-Day registering their protest against the Indian colonial occupation on the region.

In a joint statement, signed by the ULFA chief Arabinda Rajkhowa and sent to the journalists, the armed groups had also called for a general strike beginning from the midnight of January 25 till 6 pm next day and made plea to the revolutionary people of the region to prevent celebrations of the day.

"The imposed Indian constitution has undermined the basic unity of the region by fragmenting it on ethnic lines as part of India's colonial policy of divide and rule", the statement added, "We have reiterated time and again that the destiny of the region lies only in interdependent unity and coexistence with sovereign independence among the fraternal peoples of the region."

However, the group of Guwahati based brave journalists insisted on the celebration of the R-Day and appealed the citizen of Guwahati to take part in their function on the Guwahati Press Club campus in the morning of January 26 on the occasion. The other signatories of the appeal include Rupam Baruah, Ajit Patowary, Nava Thakuria, Hiten Mahanta, Ranen Kr Goswami, Bhupen Bargohain, Pramod Kalita, Girin Karji, Kumud Das, Manish Goswami, Sabita Lahkar and Mukul Kalita.

(Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist based in North-east India)

Published in:
Scoop Independent News, New ज़अलंद
Media for Freedom

Assam journalists to defy militants diktat on R-Day

Assam journalists to defy militants diktat on R-Day

Nava Thakuria

If it becomes a ritual for a section of the armed outfits to impose a boycott call on the celebration of Republic Day and Independence Day in many parts of the northeast India, the rising counter-reactions against such diktats turned equally true to the term. The 59th Republic Day also witnessed a boycott call from four outlawed outfits and as usual it has been hit back by a group of journalists of Assam with advance announcement that they would hoist Tricolour in the city press club on January 26. They have also made an appeal to the people of the region to celebrate the auspicious day with fanfare.

In a statement, the group of working journalists and writers including noted author Nirupama Bargohain and veteran journalist Dhirendranath Chakrabarty had made the appeal to hoist the Indian National Flag atop their houses and in their own localities on the occasion of 59th Republic Day of the country.

"The Republic Day of the country should be celebrated by the citizens in recognition to the sacrifices made by the martyrs, who accepted martyrdom to wrest liberty for their compatriots. Many of their colleagues also under underwent tremendous hardship to free the country from the colonial yoke," said in the statement adding, "The people of the region should remember those martyrs and freedom fighters on occasions like Independence Day and the Republic Day by hoisting the Tricolour in a befitting manner."

Earlier four insurgent groups of Northeast comprising the banned United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (KLO), Manipur People's Liberation Front (MPLF) and Tripura People's Democratic Front (TPDF) issued a joint call to boycott of the R-Day registering their protest against the Indian colonial occupation on the region.

In a joint statement, signed by the ULFA chief Arabinda Rajkhowa and sent to the journalists, the armed groups had also called for a general strike beginning from the midnight of January 25 till 6 pm next day and made plea to the revolutionary people of the region to prevent celebrations of the day.

"The imposed Indian constitution has undermined the basic unity of the region by fragmenting it on ethnic lines as part of India's colonial policy of divide and rule", the statement added, "We have reiterated time and again that the destiny of the region lies only in interdependent unity and coexistence with sovereign independence among the fraternal peoples of the region."

However, the group of Guwahati based brave journalists insisted on the celebration of the R-Day and appealed the citizen of Guwahati to take part in their function on the Guwahati Press Club campus in the morning of January 26 on the occasion. The other signatories of the appeal include Rupam Baruah, Ajit Patowary, Nava Thakuria, Hiten Mahanta, Ranen Kr Goswami, Bhupen Bargohain, Pramod Kalita, Girin Karji, Kumud Das, Manish Goswami, Sabita Lahkar and Mukul Kalita.

(Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist based in North-east India)

Published in:
Scoop Independent News, New ज़अलंद
Media for Freedom

Empowering Judiciary in Bangladesh

Empowering Judiciary in Bangladesh

Nava Thakuria

Bangladesh, though witnessed an eventful 2007 amidst the emergency, postponement of general election, human rights violation and the arrest of some senior most political leader, had ended the year with some positive initiatives for empowering judiciary in the poverty stricken country. Waiting for the general election within this year, the South Asian country had attracted international media attention, while its interim government separated the judiciary from the administrative clutches.

In fact, it was a big leap in search of quality democracy for Bangladesh, which had emerged as a sovereign country in 1971. Amidst apprehension against the military backed caretaker government, which took control over the country on January 12, the great news broke from the land of Bengalis. The populous country, surrounded by India, Burma and the Bay of Bengal, was in global media on November 1, the day its interim government announced the formal separation of its judiciary. And the declaration came from none other than Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, the chief adviser to the caretaker government in a function held in the capital city Dhaka.

Inaugurating the Dhaka District Judicial Magistracy and Dhaka Metropolitan Magistracy, the chief of the government flagged off the journey of an independent judiciary in Bangladesh. "It is a great day for the nation," said Dr Ahmed, a former World Bank official, turned the head of the interim government, adding, "The judiciary is fully independent of the executive from today and from now the courts and the judges will establish rule of law without the interference of the executives."

The ceremony in the capital city coincided with the celebrations in 64 district judicial magistracies and three metropolitan magistracies of Bangladesh as well. The government has already created a total of 4,273 posts for the judicial magistracy (including 655 posts of judicial magistrate) to facilitate an effective and independent judiciary system in the country.

The civil society, media and the political parties of Bangladesh welcome the development. Haroon Habib, a Dhaka based freedom fighter turned journalist said, "The separation of judiciary was an epoch-making step, and should be considered a major milestone in Bangladesh's judicial history despite the fact that it was done when there is no political government." Appreciations came from its development partner countries like the US, UK and Germany saying that was as an important step towards strengthening democracy in Bangladesh.

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled in favour of separation of the judiciary (from the executive) eight years back, but it was implemented by neither the government of Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) nor that of Begum Khaleda Zia (2001-2006). The Awami League government of Ms Hasina had reportedly initiated a few positive steps to honour the directives of the apex court (though failed to complete the process), but the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led government of Begum Zia did nothing in this direction.

Bangladesh has now two sets of magistrates namely judicial and executive. According to the amended criteria (Code of Criminal Procedure), the judicial magistrates, primarily the judicial officers will run the courts hereafter in the country. They will be appointed by the Supreme Court and also be liable to the apex court of the country. The executive magistrates, including the deputy commissioners have been stripped of judicial powers and will exercise only executive powers.

As Bangladesh does not have provinces (thus avoiding power sharing with the province chief ministers), the deputy commissioners emerge as the most powerful executives after the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. They were however overburdened and those executive magistrates had to perform their duties in a complex structure. While their primary responsibilities remain as revenue collectors, they have to play the role of administrators too. In addition, the executive magistrates had to deliver justice, though most of them lacked credible knowledge of law.

The challenges now lay ahead of the judges and other judicial officials. Barrister Mainul Hosein, the Adviser for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to the caretaker government described, "We (the government) have separated the judiciary from the interference of the executive not as a favour to the judges, but to assign them with the heavy responsibility of upholding justice and contributing to good governance as contemplated by the Constitution."

The initiative to get the judiciary separated in Bangladesh received momentum following the Supreme Court directive that came after a writ petition filed by Masder Hossain (who was then a sub-judge in Dhaka) with hundreds of other colleagues in 1995. The High Court on May 7, 1997 delivered the verdict in favour of the separation of judicial services from other services in Bangladesh. The country's finance ministry appealed against the verdict in the Supreme Court. But the apex court dismissed the appeal and pronounced its judgment on December 2, 1999 detailing a 12-point directive.

The British during their colonial rule in the Indian sub continent (comprising today's India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Burma) introduced the magistracy, where collectors were empowered with judiciary authority. It was in fact with an inherent aim to maintain direct control over the magistracy by the colonial government.

The demand for separation of judiciary started gaining momentum in the time of colonial rule itself. Awami League, since its inception in 1949 raised a voice for separation of power and it continued even after Bangladesh was created. The provision for separation of judiciary was introduced in Bangladesh's constitution saying, "The state shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the state."

Soon after the government declaration (of separation of judiciary in Bangladesh), a satisfied Masder Hossain asserted that the initiative would prove a success in due course of time. Answering queries of local reporters, Masder Hossain (now a judge) added, "Oppressed people suffered a lot of harassment on way to get justice. I only wish with the separation of judiciary, justice seekers get fair justice swiftly without spending much."

But the suspicion and confusion about the new legal system are still paddling in the minds of the people. Mustafa Kamal Majumder, the editor of The New Nation, a Dhaka based daily says, "It is definitely a long felt demand met. But the question arises, how efficiently the sufficient number of judges (more precisely to talk about the quality) are appointed to fill the void left by administrative officers."

Statistics reveal that 484,832 cases (as of February 28) are pending with the courts of magistrates across Bangladesh that has a population of over 140 million. Moreover, for a layman, justice delayed is always understood as justice denied. The amazing trial of strength of the independent judiciary in Bangladesh will lie on how it deals with the trials of some very prominent politicians including the two former premiers (Begum Zia and Ms Hasina), who are presently serving jail terms for corruption and misuse of power during their respective reigns.

Nava Thakuria is an independent journalist based in Northeast India

Published in:

Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (14 January 2008)

Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (16 January 2008)

Empowering Judiciary in Bangladesh

Empowering Judiciary in Bangladesh

Nava Thakuria

Bangladesh, though witnessed an eventful 2007 amidst the emergency, postponement of general election, human rights violation and the arrest of some senior most political leader, had ended the year with some positive initiatives for empowering judiciary in the poverty stricken country. Waiting for the general election within this year, the South Asian country had attracted international media attention, while its interim government separated the judiciary from the administrative clutches.

In fact, it was a big leap in search of quality democracy for Bangladesh, which had emerged as a sovereign country in 1971. Amidst apprehension against the military backed caretaker government, which took control over the country on January 12, the great news broke from the land of Bengalis. The populous country, surrounded by India, Burma and the Bay of Bengal, was in global media on November 1, the day its interim government announced the formal separation of its judiciary. And the declaration came from none other than Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed, the chief adviser to the caretaker government in a function held in the capital city Dhaka.

Inaugurating the Dhaka District Judicial Magistracy and Dhaka Metropolitan Magistracy, the chief of the government flagged off the journey of an independent judiciary in Bangladesh. "It is a great day for the nation," said Dr Ahmed, a former World Bank official, turned the head of the interim government, adding, "The judiciary is fully independent of the executive from today and from now the courts and the judges will establish rule of law without the interference of the executives."

The ceremony in the capital city coincided with the celebrations in 64 district judicial magistracies and three metropolitan magistracies of Bangladesh as well. The government has already created a total of 4,273 posts for the judicial magistracy (including 655 posts of judicial magistrate) to facilitate an effective and independent judiciary system in the country.

The civil society, media and the political parties of Bangladesh welcome the development. Haroon Habib, a Dhaka based freedom fighter turned journalist said, "The separation of judiciary was an epoch-making step, and should be considered a major milestone in Bangladesh's judicial history despite the fact that it was done when there is no political government." Appreciations came from its development partner countries like the US, UK and Germany saying that was as an important step towards strengthening democracy in Bangladesh.

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled in favour of separation of the judiciary (from the executive) eight years back, but it was implemented by neither the government of Sheikh Hasina (1996-2001) nor that of Begum Khaleda Zia (2001-2006). The Awami League government of Ms Hasina had reportedly initiated a few positive steps to honour the directives of the apex court (though failed to complete the process), but the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led government of Begum Zia did nothing in this direction.

Bangladesh has now two sets of magistrates namely judicial and executive. According to the amended criteria (Code of Criminal Procedure), the judicial magistrates, primarily the judicial officers will run the courts hereafter in the country. They will be appointed by the Supreme Court and also be liable to the apex court of the country. The executive magistrates, including the deputy commissioners have been stripped of judicial powers and will exercise only executive powers.

As Bangladesh does not have provinces (thus avoiding power sharing with the province chief ministers), the deputy commissioners emerge as the most powerful executives after the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. They were however overburdened and those executive magistrates had to perform their duties in a complex structure. While their primary responsibilities remain as revenue collectors, they have to play the role of administrators too. In addition, the executive magistrates had to deliver justice, though most of them lacked credible knowledge of law.

The challenges now lay ahead of the judges and other judicial officials. Barrister Mainul Hosein, the Adviser for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs to the caretaker government described, "We (the government) have separated the judiciary from the interference of the executive not as a favour to the judges, but to assign them with the heavy responsibility of upholding justice and contributing to good governance as contemplated by the Constitution."

The initiative to get the judiciary separated in Bangladesh received momentum following the Supreme Court directive that came after a writ petition filed by Masder Hossain (who was then a sub-judge in Dhaka) with hundreds of other colleagues in 1995. The High Court on May 7, 1997 delivered the verdict in favour of the separation of judicial services from other services in Bangladesh. The country's finance ministry appealed against the verdict in the Supreme Court. But the apex court dismissed the appeal and pronounced its judgment on December 2, 1999 detailing a 12-point directive.

The British during their colonial rule in the Indian sub continent (comprising today's India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Burma) introduced the magistracy, where collectors were empowered with judiciary authority. It was in fact with an inherent aim to maintain direct control over the magistracy by the colonial government.

The demand for separation of judiciary started gaining momentum in the time of colonial rule itself. Awami League, since its inception in 1949 raised a voice for separation of power and it continued even after Bangladesh was created. The provision for separation of judiciary was introduced in Bangladesh's constitution saying, "The state shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the state."

Soon after the government declaration (of separation of judiciary in Bangladesh), a satisfied Masder Hossain asserted that the initiative would prove a success in due course of time. Answering queries of local reporters, Masder Hossain (now a judge) added, "Oppressed people suffered a lot of harassment on way to get justice. I only wish with the separation of judiciary, justice seekers get fair justice swiftly without spending much."

But the suspicion and confusion about the new legal system are still paddling in the minds of the people. Mustafa Kamal Majumder, the editor of The New Nation, a Dhaka based daily says, "It is definitely a long felt demand met. But the question arises, how efficiently the sufficient number of judges (more precisely to talk about the quality) are appointed to fill the void left by administrative officers."

Statistics reveal that 484,832 cases (as of February 28) are pending with the courts of magistrates across Bangladesh that has a population of over 140 million. Moreover, for a layman, justice delayed is always understood as justice denied. The amazing trial of strength of the independent judiciary in Bangladesh will lie on how it deals with the trials of some very prominent politicians including the two former premiers (Begum Zia and Ms Hasina), who are presently serving jail terms for corruption and misuse of power during their respective reigns.

Nava Thakuria is an independent journalist based in Northeast India

Published in:

Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (14 January 2008)

Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (16 January 2008)

Democracy in Bhutan is not for 108,000 refugees

Democracy in Bhutan is not for 108,000 refugees

Nava Thakuria

On 1 January 2008, Bhutan, a kingdom of nearly seven hundred thousand people, got its first elected National Council.

When Pakistan, Burma and Nepal are bleeding on their ways to achieve a democratic regime in their countries, the ‘Shangri-la’ has shown a different picture, where a monarch comes out for a democratic set up in his kingdom. The initiative is depicted as a path-breaking attempt for the Buddhist kingdom to transform Bhutan from a hundred years old absolute monarchy to a multi-party democracy.

But the challenges of the new democratic regime in Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, will lie in dealing with various national concerns, more precisely resolving the Bhutanese refugee issue that is haunting the government for the last 17 years, even though many western countries including the US had stepped in to support those Nepali speaking refugees.

The Bhutanese refugees (mostly Nepali-speaking) are taking shelter in western Nepal and still craving to go back to their native villages in Bhutan. They were driven out after they protested the passage of a law in the 1980s that arbitrarily cancelled their citizenship. As many as a sixth of the Bhutanese population, most of them living in the south of the country, fled Bhutan in 1990. They have been living in refugee camps in Nepal since then.

The Nepal government raised the issue with Bhutanese authorities in 15 rounds of unsuccessful and inconclusive diplomatic-talks. Not a single refugee has returned to Bhutan so far. India, being the friendliest neighbour and biggest aid donor to Bhutan, has kept out of the dispute, arguing that it was a bilateral matter between Nepal and Bhutan.

The landlocked kingdom of Bhutan, surrounded by Tibet (now under Chinese territory) and Indian states of Sikkim, West Bengal, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, went for its first polls on 31 December 2007 to form the upper house of Parliament.

The chief election commissioner Dasho Kunzang Wangdi called a successful attempt to transform their kingdom to a democracy.

Unlike India, there were no election posters or noisy public rallies in the constituencies before the election.

The security was a major concern for the kingdom during the polls. The Bhutan government sealed the border with India for 36 hours to prevent unwanted elements from outside. The Electronic Voting Machines, supported by India, were used in the poll process and observers from India, the US and few other countries including a team of UNDP (based in Thimphu) monitored the election.

Currently there are two political parties in the fray. The People's Democratic Party, headed by the former agriculture minister, Sangay Ngedup, and the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, led by the former home minister, Jigmi Y Thinley.

Significant enough, the offer of transformation from monarchy to democracy came form the Dragon King Jigme Singye Wangchuk himself and that too not because of any popular uprising.

After the general election paves way for an elected Prime Minister (with a council of ministers) in 2008, the Bhutan king would become the ceremonial head of state, where the parliament will possess the power to impeach even the king by the support of two-thirds majority in the Assembly.

"But the new Druk democracy will find it difficult to resolve the 100,000 Bhutanese refugees issue, who have been denied to access the poll process," argued a Thimphu based journalist.

Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Antonio Guterres admitted that 'it was difficult to see any immediate solution' to the Bhutanese refugee issue. The UNHCR Representative in Nepal said that 'UNHCR prefers to help refugees go back to their home countries when they can do so in safety and dignity, however, in this case, the only option currently available is that for resettlement in a third country for those refugees who wish to make this choice'.

Meanwhile, the US government has shown interest to resettle approximately 60,000 refugees from the camps. Similarly, Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway have also come forward expressing their wish to take a share of refugees for resettlement.

Suhas Chakma, the Director of the Asian Human Rights Centre, stressed that the international community must be mindful of the implications of any resettlement process without any written commitment from Bhutan. It would be tantamount to supporting ethnic cleansing policies by the Bhutan government. He warned that if Bhutan can get away with 108,000 refugees, the situation of the remaining ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan could be untenable as they might also be forced to renounce their citizenship or leave Bhutan.

Kuldeep Nayar, a senior Indian journalist expressed his concern over the apathy towards the Bhutanese refugees. He had a word for the King of Bhutan: 'he is really taking honest steps for a democratic system in Bhutan, he should call all those citizens of Bhutan who are staying in refugee camps since last 17 years, back to the country before the scheduled election in 2008'.

In a time, when the international communities are crying against the tyrannical rule under the present regimes in Burma, Pakistan and the pro-democratic activists have stepped up their voices in Thailand, Nepal, Tibet and also in Bangladesh, the development in Bhutan came as a positive reassurance for various democratic organizations and political analysts of the globe.

(Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist based in Assam, India)

Published in:

The Seoul Times, South Korea (7 January 2008)

Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (9 January 2008)

Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (11 January 2008)

Democracy in Bhutan is not for 108,000 refugees

Democracy in Bhutan is not for 108,000 refugees

Nava Thakuria

On 1 January 2008, Bhutan, a kingdom of nearly seven hundred thousand people, got its first elected National Council.

When Pakistan, Burma and Nepal are bleeding on their ways to achieve a democratic regime in their countries, the ‘Shangri-la’ has shown a different picture, where a monarch comes out for a democratic set up in his kingdom. The initiative is depicted as a path-breaking attempt for the Buddhist kingdom to transform Bhutan from a hundred years old absolute monarchy to a multi-party democracy.

But the challenges of the new democratic regime in Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, will lie in dealing with various national concerns, more precisely resolving the Bhutanese refugee issue that is haunting the government for the last 17 years, even though many western countries including the US had stepped in to support those Nepali speaking refugees.

The Bhutanese refugees (mostly Nepali-speaking) are taking shelter in western Nepal and still craving to go back to their native villages in Bhutan. They were driven out after they protested the passage of a law in the 1980s that arbitrarily cancelled their citizenship. As many as a sixth of the Bhutanese population, most of them living in the south of the country, fled Bhutan in 1990. They have been living in refugee camps in Nepal since then.

The Nepal government raised the issue with Bhutanese authorities in 15 rounds of unsuccessful and inconclusive diplomatic-talks. Not a single refugee has returned to Bhutan so far. India, being the friendliest neighbour and biggest aid donor to Bhutan, has kept out of the dispute, arguing that it was a bilateral matter between Nepal and Bhutan.

The landlocked kingdom of Bhutan, surrounded by Tibet (now under Chinese territory) and Indian states of Sikkim, West Bengal, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, went for its first polls on 31 December 2007 to form the upper house of Parliament.

The chief election commissioner Dasho Kunzang Wangdi called a successful attempt to transform their kingdom to a democracy.

Unlike India, there were no election posters or noisy public rallies in the constituencies before the election.

The security was a major concern for the kingdom during the polls. The Bhutan government sealed the border with India for 36 hours to prevent unwanted elements from outside. The Electronic Voting Machines, supported by India, were used in the poll process and observers from India, the US and few other countries including a team of UNDP (based in Thimphu) monitored the election.

Currently there are two political parties in the fray. The People's Democratic Party, headed by the former agriculture minister, Sangay Ngedup, and the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, led by the former home minister, Jigmi Y Thinley.

Significant enough, the offer of transformation from monarchy to democracy came form the Dragon King Jigme Singye Wangchuk himself and that too not because of any popular uprising.

After the general election paves way for an elected Prime Minister (with a council of ministers) in 2008, the Bhutan king would become the ceremonial head of state, where the parliament will possess the power to impeach even the king by the support of two-thirds majority in the Assembly.

"But the new Druk democracy will find it difficult to resolve the 100,000 Bhutanese refugees issue, who have been denied to access the poll process," argued a Thimphu based journalist.

Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Antonio Guterres admitted that 'it was difficult to see any immediate solution' to the Bhutanese refugee issue. The UNHCR Representative in Nepal said that 'UNHCR prefers to help refugees go back to their home countries when they can do so in safety and dignity, however, in this case, the only option currently available is that for resettlement in a third country for those refugees who wish to make this choice'.

Meanwhile, the US government has shown interest to resettle approximately 60,000 refugees from the camps. Similarly, Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway have also come forward expressing their wish to take a share of refugees for resettlement.

Suhas Chakma, the Director of the Asian Human Rights Centre, stressed that the international community must be mindful of the implications of any resettlement process without any written commitment from Bhutan. It would be tantamount to supporting ethnic cleansing policies by the Bhutan government. He warned that if Bhutan can get away with 108,000 refugees, the situation of the remaining ethnic Nepalis in southern Bhutan could be untenable as they might also be forced to renounce their citizenship or leave Bhutan.

Kuldeep Nayar, a senior Indian journalist expressed his concern over the apathy towards the Bhutanese refugees. He had a word for the King of Bhutan: 'he is really taking honest steps for a democratic system in Bhutan, he should call all those citizens of Bhutan who are staying in refugee camps since last 17 years, back to the country before the scheduled election in 2008'.

In a time, when the international communities are crying against the tyrannical rule under the present regimes in Burma, Pakistan and the pro-democratic activists have stepped up their voices in Thailand, Nepal, Tibet and also in Bangladesh, the development in Bhutan came as a positive reassurance for various democratic organizations and political analysts of the globe.

(Nava Thakuria is a senior journalist based in Assam, India)

Published in:

The Seoul Times, South Korea (7 January 2008)

Scoop Independent News, New Zealand (9 January 2008)

Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, India (11 January 2008)