Justice in Delhi

The eyes of the world will be on Delhi tomorrow, as six men go on trial for the barbaric rape and murder that has shaken India to its core.

Unprecedented public anger at the evil act has manifested itself in street protests across the country; those marching are directing their rage not only at the accused but at the cultural, political and law enforcement systems that have consistently failed to protect women from abuse.

It now appears inevitable that the protestors’ efforts will change India for better, at least to some extent. Chauvinistic media portrayal of women, shortcomings in the way that police handle rape cases, silence over domestic abuse and a host of other horrendous norms have been thrust into the spotlight, with politicians vowing to take action.

However, recent developments threaten a more ominous outcome when it comes to India’s justice system. There is now a growing demand for the accused to face the death penalty, a rarely-used last resort in Indian law .Prior to the only surviving perpetrator of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks being hanged amidst scenes of celebration last year, no one had been put to death in India since 2004. As Ananth Guruswamy, head of Amnesty International India pointed out in a brave article this week, executing these six men will detract attention from the underlying problems of sexual violence in Indian society whilst squandering a vital chance for the country to confine the death penalty to its history.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more worrying than the sentence itself, is the context in which the trial will be taking place. Senior parliamentarians have publicly called for hangings, a fast-track court has been set up despite the poor track record of such ventures, and lawyers following the urging of top judges have decided en-masse to refuse their services to the defence.

It is a key principle of democracy that no matter how heinous a crime, even one as barbaric as this, politicians must not interfere with the judicial process; corners must not be cut in establishing a verdict; and those standing trial must be entitled to adequate representation. Chief Justice Altamas Kabir has been amongst a minority warning that “a swift trial should not be at the cost of a fair trial”, yet such voices are being drowned out amid widespread (and understandable) public demands for retribution at the gallows.

It will be a disaster if India’s politicians and judiciary undermine the justice system in order to quell anger on the streets, not least because the precedent of doing so could ultimately lead to miscarriages of justice in the future. Giving a fair trial to people who have brutally ended a young woman’s life will be painfully uncomfortable- but it is essential.

Technorati Tags: India,Delhi,gang rape,rape,murder,protests,death penalty,execution,women,women's rights,Amnesty International,trial,fast-track court,defence,lawyer,boycott,judge,Altamas Kabir,bus,Sushma Swaraj,hang,hanged,Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab,Mumbia,gunman,mob justice

India- in the shadow of the gallows

The events of the past will always impact upon the politics of the present.  However, developments in India over the coming weeks and months will push this truism to the extreme; for it was announced last Friday that on 9th September three men will be hanged for their part in the murder of Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi twenty years ago.

The fall-out from the executions, should they go ahead, will inevitably be vast- after all this has been an utterly sordid saga from the start. 

The assassination itself was carried out by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in retaliation against the involvement of Ghandi’s forces in the Sri Lankan Civil War.  The so called Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) had been fighting battles with the LTTE since 1987, marking something of a reversal of India’s previous sympathy for the Tamil struggle, and proving dramatically counterproductive.  IPKF Massacres of Tamil Civilians including twenty-one patients and medical personnel in the Jaffna Teaching Hospital only severed to stoke violence and tensions.

Withdrawal was finally forced under strong opposition from the Sri Lankan government (which resented Indian involvement from the start) and the Indian population (many of whom supported the Tamil people in their bid for independence).  Yet the LTTE were determined to have revenge and prevent Ghandi’s proposed attempt to resumed intervention should he be re-elected.  Their suicide bombing took his life along with fourteen others.

In the aftermath twenty six people were tried under the authoritarian Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for involvement in orchestrating the atrocity.  Secret trials, coerced confessions and legal irregularities tainted the process which, in 1999, resulted in highly politicised death sentences being handed to the entire group (despite the fact that several were found to have only played minor parts).

On appeal to the Supreme Court nineteen were released- highlighting the weakness of the original convictions; three of the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment and four were upheld – one of which was then commuted at a later stage.  Now, after decades of solitary confinement and cancelled execution dates, these men are less than two weeks away from being hanged.

It is unclear what this can possibly achieve for India apart from some kind of perverse belated revenge for a handful of people.  Yet the damages that it can inflict are stark and numerous.

For one thing it will mark India’s first execution since 2004 – a sorry step backwards for a state that was well on the way towards reaching a decade without resorting to judicial murder.  It will also compound the corrupt and fallible nature of its justice system, something which has long been used a tool of politicians and is once again being used to take the lives of citizens. 

At a time of mass street protests against official corruption, putting people to death on the basis of a twenty-year process that was flawed at every stage is hardly a confidence building measure.  Protests by law students have already taken place against the sentences – and were quickly broken up by police, a sorry situation for the ‘world’s largest democracy.’  

The executions will also mark another bitter blow to relations between the Indian political class and the Tamil people.  Whilst Ghandi’s assassination all those years ago was barbaric and utterly unacceptable, many had genuine grievances surrounding the action of his forces against their countrymen.  Yet, in the intervening period very little has been done to rebuild lost trust – a matter underscored by the silence and even tacit endorsement of the Indian government as Mahinda Rajapaksa orchestrated War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity against Tamil civilians in his 2008/2009 push to destroy the LTTE – an in the aftermath.

Many Tamils in India will now rightly question why the authorities are making little if any noise about the on-going torture and arbitrary arrests across the water in Tamil Eelam, yet are determined to kill three imprisoned Tamils for their part in a crime two decades ago.

Of course there is no time limit on justice – but just is not what these executions represent.  Rather, they represent an unsound and politically driven sentence that will set-back India’s democratic and judicial progress whilst striking at chances of reconciliation with one of Asia’s most maligned communities.  While a reassessment of the men’s cases and a fresh engagement with the Tamil people could move India forward, the gallows can only bring more suffering. 

Technorati Tags: India,execution,death penalty,Rajiv Ghani,assasination,Tamil Tigers,LTTE,Tamil Eelam,Sri Lanka,Mahind Rajapaksa,war crimes,crimes against huamnity,Tamil Nadu,protests

The debate on international aid–why now is not the time

Somewhat strangely for a 21st century world, where people are more aware than ever of the suffering faced by their fellow human beings, criticisms of international aid are numerous, frequent and come from all sides of the political spectrum.

There are those who complain that public money should be spent “at home”, constantly questioning why developed states should be helping the developing world, when they themselves are facing fiscal belt-tightening and often hard hitting cutbacks.

Of course the people levelling such arguments conveniently disregard the fact that the UN Millennium Development Project asks rich states to dedicate just 0.7% of their GDP to fighting international poverty and that the actual average given is far lower. They also overlook cataclysmic gulf between the nature and scale of poverty in states that give aid and states that receive it. Of course domestic poverty should never be ignored or belittled, especially when it comes to critical issues such as rising home repossessions, cuts to disability allowances and malnutrition; but neither should these issues distract from the even more staggering facts that one in eight people do not have access to clean water, one billion do not have enough to eat and nearly nine million children do not live to their fifth birthday. The “charity begins at home” lobby’s perverse opposition to developed states spending even one hundredth of their GDP on such issues, risks bordering on inhumanity and racism.

Somewhat more rational – though still often fallible arguments hinge on the premise that it is the current distribution of international aid which is wrong, particularly when it comes to states such as India with its rapidly increasing GDP, nuclear weapons and space programme. Again, those making such cases generally overlook the bigger picture: that in India and other states like it, millions still face crippling poverty and starvation. They should not be neglected by developed states because of their government’s misappropriation of funds to weapons or space research, any more than those in Burma, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should be denied aid because of their governments squandering of national finance on internal oppression.

The increasingly vocal (though still distinctly minority) school of thought that aid does not work at all presents more nuanced arguments around the potential of assistance programmes to prevent market-based economic development, encourage corruption and create a culture of dependence. However, these too face severe criticism of being grounded in specific anecdotal cases rather than a thorough global overview, placing too much emphasis on the free market and running contrary to the expertise of the majority of those involved in the field.

Still- despite their flaws, all of these positions must be noted, addressed and discussed. Only through respecting and analysing all points of view can we dispel cynicism over international aid and improve the systems which, whilst essential, no one suggests are anywhere near perfect. Debate over the nature, effects and basis of international aid are certainly necessary.

But not now.

Because right now the Horn of Africa is facing its worst drought in six decades; the water sources have dried up, the refugee camps have filled up, the cattle have died, the crops have withered, eleven million people across four states are in need of urgent food and children arriving into the UN’s care are already so weak that they are dying within 24 hours. Many families are now choosing whether to eat or drink, many more have no choice, many others never will – ever again. Hundreds of thousands have crossed borders, political instability will certainly ensue- the only variable is how bad it will be and how much it will affect the aid effort.

This is not the time to debate international aid. This is the time to dig deep, donate to the charities and intergovernmental agencies on the ground and support the practical work they are doing in providing water, food and medicine to a people who are no longer on the brink of disaster – but in the midst of one.

DONATE VIA OXFAM

DONATE VIA UNICEF

Technorati Tags: aid,international development,drought,East Africa,Kenya,Somalia,Ehtiopia,Djibouti,India,Oxfam,UNICEF,UN

Aid to India - the bigger picture

After months of lobbying and negative press from elements of the political right, the UK government has announced its intention to cut or terminate aid to India. International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell's announcement this week that the Indian part of the UK's programme has been frozen and that he could not see it continuing "for very much longer" drew gloating cheers from those who argue that a nation with a space programme, nuclear weapons and a growing number of millionaires should not receive handouts from the developed world.

Their simplistic celebrations however, overlook the bigger picture - which is far more nuanced that they appear to comprehend. India has a chronic poverty problem -with more impoverished people than the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa. And the fact that successive governments have failed to adequately address this should not prevent other states seeking to improve the lives of those suffering.

After all international aid is not dependent on the financial sense of governments in those states receiving it. Much of the time it is about direct assistance to those suffering precisely because their own governments are too wasteful, corrupt or selfish to do so. If aid to impoverished Indians is cut on the grounds that the Indian government wastes resources on space flights or nuclear warheads, then most other UK aid programmes must join it on the scrap-heap. After all Mugabe's government wastes money of killing democratic dissidents, Thein Sein's government wastes money on slaughtering members of ethnic minority groups and Mahinda Rajapaksa's government wastes money on war crimes in Tamil Eelam.

The important thing is to ensure that direct aid reaches those in need (whilst of course pursuing political change) rather than write off any potential of helping the most unfortunate people on the basis that a domestic political elite practicing good governance would be able to sort the problems 'in house'.

Beyond this, the language used by those who endorse cutting aid to India reveals a startling amount about their true motives and risks even more dangerous precedent-setting. Increasingly the apparent injustice of giving aid to "rich" India, is mentioned in the same breath as financial cuts and poverty "at home". This implies an "us-and-them" or "charity begins at home" mindset, threatening popular support for the government commitment to continue international aid spending at 0.7% of GDP and to the admirable campaigns to increase this measly figure to 1%. Ultimately India and its wasteful space programme are being used as poster boys for people who would like to see a roll back of the progress made over previous decades and have international aid once again relegated to an afterthought.

Here too they miss the real picture: the importance of international aid for global security, the horror of people starving to death or dying of easily preventable diseases, the pain felt by children who have not drunk water for days or of mothers who inadvertently infect their young with HIV through their breast milk. We are facing huge issues relating to homelessness, debt, child poverty and inadequate housing in the UK -but earmarking 70p of every £100 in the national coffers for the entirety of the developing world is very little indeed: even £1 in every £100 barely seems enough.

India -like many nations- has a wasteful government. And India- like many nations - has millions of people whose living standards are so low, those of us lucky enough to live in the UK could barely imagine them. We need to make sure UK development programmes work - that they aren't hampered by corruption, that they reach those in need, and that they are targeted and efficient enough to make a real difference. But beyond anything else we need to help those in poverty - by enhancing or improving our aid - not by cutting it.

Silence and opportunity in the Red Corridor

When you consider the tremendous volatility of Indian-controlled Kashmir, the communal violence that has broken out between Hindus and Christians in Orissa over previous years, and the explosive political and religious tensions that exist in Punjab; you get some idea of just how seriously India’s government views the country’s Maoist insurgency when they deem it the "greatest internal security challenge".

In many ways this is understandable.  For over forty years the Maoists (known as Naxalites after the village of Naxalbari where their rebellion began) have been fighting to establish Communist rule.  During this time tens of thousands of fighters have passed through their ranks and over six thousand people (a mix of rebels, government troops and civilians) have lost their lives.  Perhaps of even greater significance to the government, is the size of the territory that the Naxalites affect, control or disrupt; their ‘Red Corridor’ of influence covering sizeable parts of no less than eight states and stretching almost the entire length of India.  However, although the severity of the insurgency is clear, the authorities’ response has been far from logical. 

Whilst Naxalite actions are indefensibly brutal, as underscored by incidents such as the violent slaughter of seventy-five government troops in a single ambush at Chattissgarah last year; the grievances of their support base are at least partly justified.  Endemic poverty, illiteracy and poor health in Eastern India, combined with a longstanding neglect of indigenous tribes by successive central governments have given the Naxalites and their leader Koteshwar Rao undeniably substantive backing amongst local civilians – the very reason why the insurgency has been able to continue for so long.  Tellingly, the ‘Orissa Gap’ –a sizeable break in the ‘Red Corridor’ where the Naxalites have virtually no influence– comes in the part of the East where the economy is strongest  and the quality of life is highest. 

Yet instead of recognising this situation and tackling the social grievances at the insurgency’s heart, Indian administrations have overwhelmingly chosen to fight fire with fire and flooded the ‘Red Corridor’ with troops, exacerbating the violence.  This ill-fated approach was ratcheted up with the launch of Operation Green Hunt in November 2009- a vast offensive which has so far seen over fifty thousands troops and tens of thousands more police channelled into Eastern regions to take on the Naxalites at a huge financial and human cost.  Human rights abuses by the government forces involved have only increased local support for the insurgency.

Last week however, some tenuous but nonetheless positive signs emerged, suggesting that a new tact may be on the horizon.  After two local government officials were abducted by the Naxalites, government guns fell silent and the authorities opted for negotiation.  Quickly the initial Friday deadline given for the government to meet demands (including the release of Naxalite prisoners in return for the officials’ freedom) was extended and the prospect of further “detailed talks” was floated.  Whilst some will argue that negotiations on the back of kidnapping and coercion mean little, the channels of discussion that have been opened are virtually unprecedented in this conflict and mark a shift from over forty years of counter-productive brute force.  If – and it is a huge “if” – the unofficial ceasefire of the past week can hold and the officials are released unharmed, then trust between the two camps will be immeasurably bolstered and an opportunity for discussions on long-term compromises may arise.

Of course ultimately the future stability of Eastern India will require huge changes including a renunciation of violence by the Naxalites and a commitment to regional development by the government – two factors currently not even close to realisation.  But if negotiations this week are positive, both sides will have the biggest chance in years to, step-by-step, genuinely improve the lives of those they claim to represent: the Indian people.   

South East Asia: Ignore it at your peril

To anyone who's interested in foreign affairs last week's leaders debate was a let-down. Instead of ninety minutes of questions on the UK's place in the world, we were treated to 45 minutes on Afghanistan, Europe, climate change and (bizarrely, though not quite unexpectedly) the Pope - before the topic of conversation turned back to deficits, duck islands and the like.

Personally I'd been hoping for at least one question relating to South East Asia. Not just because it's a personal interest of mine but because it's a region that, over the next decade, is going to shape the world - and inevitably affect the UK - in ways that our politicians don't seem to head or even comprehend. Take the following scenarios....

1. The year is 2012- the political situation in Thailand has totally broken down, leaving the country in violent disarray. Next door in Burma civil war is raging between the ruling junta and ethnic rebel groups which were forced into conflict ahead of the 2010 election. This has left the Golden Triangle (one of the worlds largest heroin producing regions, spanning the Thai-Burma border) completely outside the control of any government and run by various militias. The inevitable price-wars that follow result in a flood of cheap heroin into the UK and Europe....

2. The year is 2015 -a continuing increase of ethnic and rural protests in China has begun to threaten the government's position. In a bid to generate national unity they order an invasion of the Senkaku Islands -an uninhabited territory of which both China and Japan claim ownership. Japan responds by pumping funds into its minimalist military and deploying war ships. Vietnam- which has its own island disputes with China - also deploys vessels. The US is more worried about Taiwan and puts its navy -currently stationed in the Taiwan straits - on high alert. India- which had fought several border wars with China and still disputes inland territory- mobilises its army. China responds in kind. Tension mounts....

3. The year is 2020 - Burma's nuclear programme (supported by Russia and North Korea) has come to fruition. Isolated and impoverished the erratic regime opts to sell the plutonium it produces to the highest bidder. The world reacts with panic as rumours of contact with terrorist groups spread. The solution is not clear- Burma is firmly within China's sphere of influence and any military action would surely antagonise the Chinese government. But Beijing seems to have little control over the regime's next move....

4. The year is 2025 - the effects of climate change, exacerbated by the Chinese government's damming projects in Tibet, have led to major water shortages in Bangladesh. Thousands of refugees head across the border into India- now one of the world's economic power houses - generating ethnic tensions and threatening the state's stability. Foreign businesses begin to withdraw a rate that threatens to trigger global economic chaos...

These aren't scare-stories: they are all very possible, even (in some cases according to some commentators) likely. The world's engagement with China, approach to the ongoing crisis in Burma, reaction to increasing violence in Thailand and stance on the occupation of Tibet is not just important because of the human costs today - but because of the huge political effects (for the whole world) tomorrow. Often it seems that Western government leaders ignore South East Asia....they do so at their peril.