|
ARENA Former Programmes
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 24 October 2009 |
Source: http://www.sacw.net/article1184.html
The Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a national platform of adivasi
and forest dwellers’ mass organisations from ten States, unequivocally
condemns the reported plans for a military “offensive” by the
government in the country’s major forest and tribal areas. This
offensive, ostensibly targeted against the CPI (Maoist), is a smoke
screen for an assault against the people, especially adivasis, aimed at
suppressing all dissent, all resistance and engineering the takeover of
their resources. Certain facts make this clear: ‧The government tells us that this offensive will make it possible for
the “state to function” in these areas and fill the “vacuum of
governance.” This is grossly misleading. The Indian state is very, very
active in these areas, often in its most brutal and violent form. A
vivid example is the illegal eviction of more than 3,00,000 families by
the Forest Departments a few years ago. Laws have been totally
disregarded; Constitutional protections for adivasi rights blatantly
ignored and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal,
jamin) glaringly violated. Every month an increasing number of people
are jailed, beaten and killed by the police. If this is the picture of
what “absence” of the state means, people are terrified of what the
“presence” of the state will mean. It can only mean converting
brutalized governance into militarized rule, a total negation of
democracy.
- ‧This is not a war over “development.” People’s struggles in
India today are over democracy and dignity - Meaningful development
must contribute to strengthening the right of all people to their
resources and their production, and thereby to control over their own
destiny. For generations, adivasis have fought for their Constitutional
rights and entitlements. More recently, mass democratic movements have
fought for new laws and policies, such as the Panchayats (Extension to
Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), the Forest Rights Act, the right to work
and the right to food, in addition to earlier laws like the Minimum
Wages Act, the Restoration of Alienated Lands Acts, and land reform and
moneylending laws. These laws make it possible for people to fight for
greater control over their lives, their livelihoods, their lands and
their forests. However these laws are respected more in the breach; if
the government wants “development”, let it first stop the blatant
disregard of its own laws. Let people determine the path of their own
development, in accordance with their rights over their resources and
the type of infrastructure they desire. The Constitution itself
requires this kind of planning. The claim that “development” can be
provided through military force is both absurd and ridiculous.
‧This war is not about “national security”; it is about ‘securing’ the
interests of global and Indian capital and big business. Any government
worried about security would send its troops against mining mafias, the
forest mafias, violent vigilante groups like the salwa judum and
others. Rather than being curbed, these killers are in fact supported
by the police. Have the security forces ever been deployed to defend
the people struggling to protect themselves, their forests, their
livelihoods and their futures? The answer is no. The notion of
“security” being advanced by the government clearly has nothing to do
with the people. Rather, it is to enable big business to engage in
robbery and expropriation of resources, which they have decided will be
one of their main sources of accumulation. Hence, mining,
“infrastructure”, real estate, land grabbing, all aimed at
super-profits, are being projected as “development” needed by the
people. Huge amounts of international and government money are being
pumped into so-called “forestry projects” which displace people from
their lands and destroy biodiversity (even while they are trumpeted as
a strategy for climate change). The UPA is rushing into agreements with
the US and other imperial countries to throw open mining and land to
international exploitation. But where do the forests, land, water and
minerals lie? They are found in the forest and tribal areas, where
people - some organised under the CPI (Maoist), some organized under
democratic movements, some in spontaneous local struggles, some simply
fighting in whatever manner they can – are resisting the destruction of
their homes, resources and their lives. The “offensive against the
Maoists” is only a subterfuge to crush this citizens’ resistance and to
provide an excuse for more abuse of power, more brutality and more
injustice.
‧The government knows perfectly well that it cannot destroy the CPI
(Maoist), or any people’s struggle, through military action. How can
the armed forces identify who is a “Maoist” and who is not? The use of
brute military force will result in the slaughter of thousands of
people in prolonged, bloody and brutal guerrilla warfare. This has been
the result of every “security offensive” in India’s history from
Kashmir to Nagaland. So why do this? And why now? Unless the goal has
nothing to do with “wiping out the Maoists” and everything to do with
having an excuse for the permanent presence of lakhs of troops, arms
and equipment in these areas. To protect and serve whom?
‧Hence the need for fear mongering and hysteria about Maoist
“sympathisers” and their “infiltration” into “civil society.” The
government has a very long history of labeling any form of dissent as
“Naxalite” or “Maoist.” The Maoists’ politics are known; their
positions are public; the only secret aspect of their work is their
personal identities and military tactics. We who work in these areas do
not fear this bogey of “infiltration” in our groups by Maoists, for the
different stands taken by our organizations and theirs are clear, and
in some areas there are open disputes. This scaremongering is just an
excuse to justify a crackdown on all forms of dissent and democratic
protest in these areas, a crushing of all people’s resistance, and the
branding of any questioning, any demand for justice, as “Maoist.”
In the final analysis, peace and justice will only come to India’s
workers, peasants, adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections
through the mass democratic struggle of the people. A democratic
struggle requires democratic space. The conversion of a region into a
war zone, by anyone, is unacceptable. In the forest areas in
particular, there is now a need for a new peace, one that can only be
achieved through a genuine democratic dialogue between the political
forces involved. For this to happen, this horrific “offensive” must
first be called off. If the government really wishes to claim that it
is committed to protecting people and their rights, let its actions
comply with the requirements of law, justice and democracy.
- Campaign for Survival and Dignity, 12th October 2009
|
|
|
Written by Dennis Alberto Jorolan
|
|
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 |
ARENA Conducts Writers Workshop on Human Security in Bangkok Ask
an activist in the street or a trade union organizer in the factory or
an urban poor community development worker, what “human security” is…
the most likely answer? Duh?
Pose the same question to a U.N. diplomat or a New York-based human
rights practitioner and a slew of jargon would spew forth from his/her
mouth describing the term with all the required whereases, insofars and
periods in time
The gap in understanding the term between those in the upper levels of
international diplomacy and the grassroots is the reason why there is
an urgent need to come up with a common set of language and tools that
can be used by those who formulate policy and concepts and those who
enforce or project these concepts at the grassroots. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
Written by WMP Program Team
|
|
Monday, 06 March 2006 |
Rationale of the projectSecurity is about the means that states use for the maintenance of territorial integrity, internal cohesion and political order. It involves the prevention of any threats and the use of force. National security is understood as a comprehensive framework which links the needs of domestic stability, economy and ideology to a states' national interest and strategic framework. Despite the fact that states are primarily concerned with their national security and spend much of their time and budgets to enhance this, conflicts have not decreased the world over. In Asia, the nature and range of conflicts has actually increased; the numbers of civilian casualties has continuously gone up and individuals, communities and groups actually feel more insecure today.
Perception of threats is the most important starting point for a conflict between collective groups and the resulting approaches for security by them. Understanding how a threat is perceived can be much more complicated a process than usually conceived. And threats are usually more constructed than simply given as real. The social and political dynamism surrounding construction of threats involves a complex interplay among state and non-state actors, identities and interests of collective groups involved, legitimisation of those identities and interests, and competition for available resources.
At the same time, threats do not automatically escalate into violent conflicts. They do only under certain conditions. Threats undergo a process of negotiation and redefinition by different actors and for different purposes. They are also heavily affected by existing security actors, and their beliefs and customs, and also by those who want to challenge such structure and customs. Understanding the competition and negotiation surrounding the construction of threats and their link with existing and emerging security practices, will provide us better with how to handle resulting conflicts. |
|
Read more...
|
|
| |
|
|
|