HomeAbout ARENAFellowsPublicationsSupport ARENA
 
 
Arena News
ARENA News
ARENA Critical Thinking
Mails & Talks
Themes
Peace and Conflict
Women and Gender
Globalization
Migration
Democracy
Social Movements
Alternatives
ARENA Programmes
Inter-Asia Univ.- MAINS
Marriage Migration in Asia
Human Rights to Peace
Asia and Latin America
Race and Hegemony in Asia
Democracy in Asia
ARENA Former Programmes
New Book Introduction




ARENA Former Programmes
Print
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



Print
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...
Print
Written by WMP Program Team   
Monday, 06 March 2006
Rationale of the project
Security 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...