The New Nation - Internet Edition

Masalit and Zaghawa also speak Arabic, are also Muslims and are hardly distinguishable from the so-called "Arabs". The charges against Al Bashir are grave. They sh

Dinesh Kumar Mishra

The foundation stone of the Kosi Project was laid on January 14, 1955 amidst fanfare, jubilation and victory. Dr. Shrikrishna Sinha, thgen Chief Minister of Bihar, laid the foundation stone near Bhutaha village close to Nirmali, in Saharsa (now Supaul) district with the chanting of mantras by Pt. Mahabir Jha of Jhitki village and shouting of slogans like '*Aadhi Roti Khayengein, Kosi Bandh Banaayengein*.' (We will eat only half a chapati but we will surely build the Kosi embankments). A majority of people lost the other half of the bread too on the 18th August 2008 when the Kosi embankment breached on that day.

Col. Townsend of the US Army while deliberating in a seminar organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers to discuss the Mississippi floods of 1927 had said that even the best designed and carefully constructed embankments remain at the mercy of burrowing animals like rats, foxes, muskrats who can create a hole in the finest levee that has been devised, which if not closed within a few moments will ensure its destruction. The Mississippi River of the United States broke loose in 1927 inundating an area of 51,200 sq. kilometer and damaging property to an estimated extent of two hundred million to a billion dollars. The breaches drove nearly three quarters of a million people from their homes and six hundred thousand of them were dependant on Red Cross. The wealth and power of the United States enabled much to be done for the sufferers, still they suffered. He further added a 'careless supervisor and dark nights' to the list destroyers of embankments. His observations remain valid till date as the Kosi comes out of its shackles in Kusaha in Nepal some 13 kilometers upstream of the Kosi Barrage. All the eight breaches that have occurred so far can be brought under these categories.

Col. Townsend gave benefit of doubt to the planners and engineers when he prefixed 'best designed and carefully constructed' adjectives to the embankments. The Kosi has breached its embankment eighth time and it is for the first time that the 'disaster' has generated so much of interest. These embankments are spaced at an average distance of 9 to 10 kilometers below the barrage with a maximum width of 16 kilometres between Kisunipatti and Bhaptiahi and minimum width of nearly 3 kilometres at the barrage itself. The spacing of the embankments is only 8 kilometres at the tail end, between Baluaha Ghat and Ghonghepur. In Nepal portion the spacing between them is restricted to between 3 to 6 kilometers. Common sense suggests that the spacing between the embankments should increase as the river advances further as more and more streams join the river from western side. This simple common sense was kicked around when these embankments were constructed in late 1950s. There were 304 villages with a population of 192,000 (1951 census) going to be trapped between the embankments and each one of them was trying to be located outside the embankments. Later the embankments were extended and 380 villages of Bihar and 34 villages of Nepal came within them. Their current population is nearly 1.2 million. The village locations were fixed and it was the embankment on either side of the river that could be moved. So did it happen. Now the embankment alignment is a caricature of what it was designed, if there was any design.

Chinese Deputy Prime Minister Teng Tse Hui discussing the floods in the Hwang Ho had once said in 1955 that according to historical records, there have been inundations and breaches on 1500 or more occasions on the lower reaches of the river and there were 26 important changes of course, nine of them major…..The terrible floods of 1933 caused more than 50 breaches of the dykes and brought disaster to more than 11,000sq. km. Over 3,640,000 people were affected and over 18,000 killed. Property worth some 230 million Yuans was lost. In 1938, Chiang Kai Shek Government opened the dykes on the south bank of the river at Huayuan Kou near Cheng Chow in Honan province. This led to a major change in the course of the river affecting 54,000 sq. km. with a population of 12,500,000 and 890,000 people died….In a hundred years, from 1855 till 1955, the dykes had breached on 200 occasions. According to an on the spot survey in the river bed in lower reaches was found to be rising by one to ten centimeters every year in the middle of this century. In some cases the existing river bank was found even ten meters higher than the surrounding country level. Such rapid silting cannot be dealt with simply by piling up and reinforcing dykes. In a sense, higher and stronger the dykes, the quicker is the silt deposited because it has no way of getting out. The Kosi embankments were constructed citing the wonderful performance of these two rivers.

Had Col. Townsend been living today, he must have amended his statement saying that the embankments could be ill-conceived, ill-designed and poorly constructed too. Capt. G.F. Hall, former Chief Engineer of Bihar was of the opinion that the embankments can only postpone the day of retribution and will be a store of disaster for the future generation. A status paper prepared by Government of Bihar in 2003 suggests that those who subscribe to such views are the people of colonial mindset.

The 'nationalist' embankment builders had a last laugh when they succeeded in bringing Dr. Rajendra Prasad, then President of India' to Bihar between 17th to 22nd October 1954 and made him request the people to participate in the '*yagna*' of nation building by constructing the Kosi embankments. His views in the Patna Flood Conference (1937) were diagonally opposite to what he was made to say in 1954. One can imagine the stress the President might have undergone during that trip of his home state of Bihar.

Embankments prevent a river from overflowing its banks during floods but they also prevent the entry of floodwater. This leads to a major problem as the embanked river is no longer able to fulfill its primary function -draining out excess water. With the tributaries prevented from discharging into the river and accumulated rainwater finding no way out, the surrounding areas quickly become flooded. The situation is aggravated by seepage from under the embankments. The areas outside the levees remain waterlogged for months after the rainy season because this water has no way of flowing out to the sea. Theoretically, sluice gates located at these junctions should solve the problem but, in practice, such gates quickly become useless; as the bed level of the main river rises above the surrounding land, operating the gates lets water out instead of allowing outside water in. When the sluice gates have failed, the only option left is to also embank the tributary. This results, then, in water being locked up between the embankments. Moreover, no embankment has yet been built or can be built in future that will not breach. When a breach occurs, there is a deluge. This is what happened at Kusaha this year on the 18th August 2008.

Proponents of embankments have tried to rationalize the jacketing of rivers thus: Forcing the same quantity of water through a narrow area, as happens in case of an embanked river, increase the water velocity thereby increasing its eroding capacity. The increased velocity of water dredges the river bottom and transports the sediment out preventing the rise of riverbed levels, increasing the carrying capacity of the river and reducing the extent of flooding. These were the arguments put forward by engineers in independent India when they resorted to massive embanking of rivers in the Ganga and the Brahmaputra basin. Unfortunately, there has been little evidence to date that this theory is actually being substantiated anywhere on Indian rivers. The technical debate, however, continues at that level.

At the field level in the flooded areas of Bihar, there is a continuing debate on polythene sheets, rice, vegetables, salt, candle and match-boxes etc. How strategic is this deflection of debate that the people discuss keep discussing about sattu (ground gram), chura (flattened rice) candles and matchboxes. This is what precisely the politicians want and if they are not brought to the real issues of dealing with the sediments, floodwaters, accountability and an informed debate; the event would simply pass of as the earlier ones.

(Dinesh Mishra is an water expert and the convener of the Barh Mukti Andolan, Bihar, India)

Darfur: Is indicting Al-Bashir the solution? Chandra Muzaffar The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ( ICC) has alleged that the President of the Republic of the Sudan,

Chandra Muzaffar

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ( ICC) has alleged that the President of the Republic of the Sudan, Omar Al Bashir, has committed the crime of genocide (Article 6 (a) ) of the Rome Statute ( the statute under which the ICC was established) ; crimes against humanity ( Article 7 (1) ) of the Statute ; and war crimes ( Article 8 (2) (e) (i) ) under the same law, in the territory of Darfur.

The allegations are based upon statements from eyewitnesses and victims of attacks in Darfur, recorded interviews with Government of Sudan officials, statements from individuals who possess knowledge of the activities of the government linked militia, the Janjaweed, in Darfur, and documents from various other sources including the United Nations.

If there is a central argument that runs through all the allegations it is that President Al Bashir is determined to eliminate three socially and politically dominant ethnic groups in Darfur, namely, Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. They are viewed as a threat to his power. It should be emphasized that though in terms of their ethnic origin, these groups are different from the tribes aligned to the Al Bashir government who are labeled "Arabs" , the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa also speak Arabic, are also Muslims and are hardly distinguishable from the so-called "Arabs".

The charges against Al Bashir are grave. They should be investigated in an honest and impartial manner. If Al Bashir is guilty, he should be punished severely, in accordance with the law.

However, is a warrant of arrest from the ICC the best way of dealing with Al Bashir? Will arresting him at this stage serve the larger interest of the people of Darfur and the Sudan?

Quite apart from the fact that Sudan is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, indicting Al Bashir will make it even more difficult to revive the stalled peace process in Darfur. It is feared that a sizeable segment of the Sudanese population that supports Al Bashir will become even more antagonistic towards the targeted ethnic groups in Darfur. The chasm that separates them from the rest of the population in Darfur and the Sudan will become wider.

Charging Al Bashir could also affect the recently concluded peace agreement between the government in Khartoum and the South which brought to an end a 50 year civil war. If Al Bashir feels that he is under siege, he or his followers could scuttle the agreement.

On the other hand, if the agreement holds and leads to a more permanent peace, both the government and the ethnic groups that are under attack in Darfur, may be persuaded to absorb some of its features such as power sharing between different communities, and decentralized administrative arrangements, into a future deal between them.

Indeed, all those who cherish peace in Darfur and would like to see justice and democracy prevail in the Sudan should help the country move in the direction of greater autonomy for tribes and provinces within the framework of a decentralized federation. Sudan's fellow members in the Arab League, the African Union and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in particular should encourage Al Bashir to take the necessary steps towards devolution of power. China which reportedly buys almost two-thirds of Sudan's oil should also be asked to coax Sudan to transform its political and administrative structure.

Of course, it is not going to be easy. Dictators don't relish sharing power. But what is the alternative? Isn't it significant that the very threat of arresting Al Bashir has already strengthened his hold upon his people? This is why one should try to overcome the Darfur tragedy through a different route. Reviving the peace process should take precedence over everything else. Together with the Khartoum-South peace accord, it could- as we have suggested- lead to other fundamental political and administrative changes. At the same time, one of the other major causes of the Darfur tragedy- the conflict between subsistence farmers ( mainly non-Arab ethnic groups) and nomadic herders ( mainly Arab groups) over water and land brought about to a great extent by the encroaching Sahara Desert-should be addressed urgently. Irrigation of the land, rather than indictment of the President, is what Darfur needs.

Unfortunately, the centres of power in the West have a different view of the situation. They have given the impression to the world that their conscience has been savaged by the alleged genocide in Darfur. Can we believe them? If genocide is what distresses Washington and its allies, how does one explain their lack of concern over what is happening in another African state, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where " as many as five million have died since 1994 in overlapping convulsions of ethnic and state-sponsored massacre?"

As Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report asks, "Why is mass death the cause of indignation and confrontation in Sudan, but exponentially more massive carnage in Congo unworthy of mention? The answer is simple: in Sudan, the US has a geopolitical nemesis to confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners. In the Congo, it is US allies and European and American corporate interests that benefit from the slaughter.

Therefore, despite five million skeletons lying in the ground, there is no call to arms from the American government."

It is not just the Congo. What has been the response of Washington and European capitals to the ethnic cleansing that has been going on in Palestine since 1948? The ethnic cleansing that has appalled and angered Israeli intellectuals like Illan Pappe. And if there are heads of state or heads of government who should be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, what about the US's George Bush or Britain's Tony Blair in connection with the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, borne of deceit and duplicity, and the subsequent carnage that has already claimed a million lives?

So it is not genocide or war crimes that move the centres of power in the West. Sudan has huge reserves of oil and gas. It also possesses one of the largest deposits of high purity uranium and copper in the world. Besides, it is strategically located on the Red Sea and borders eight other African states. Since the late eighties, Sudan has sought to assert its political independence and refuses to yield to Washington's hegemony.

What makes Sudan more of an adversary in Washington's eyes, is its close relationship to China and China's dominant role in its oil industry. China also sells arms to Sudan. For some hawkish policy analysts, the Sudan-China tie fits in neatly with Huntington's discredited thesis of a Muslim-Confucian collusion to confront Western civilization! In this regard, is the targeting of China in relation to Darfur in the mainstream Western media part of a larger agenda that is aimed at tarnishing China on the eve of the Beijing Olympics?

The Darfur conflict has provided the centres of power in the West with yet another opening. Since there is - though grossly exaggerated and distorted-an Arab-non-Arab dimension to the conflict, the media and a lot of Western NGOs present Darfur as an example of Arabs slaughtering non-Arabs, specifically, Africans. The conflict serves the interests of those who are set on whipping up anti-Arab and even anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Darfur thus feeds into Islamophobia. It has become a magnet for right-wing Zionists and the Christian Right who play a pivotal role in the Darfur campaign in the US.

This is yet another reason why we have to approach the Darfur conflict with circumspection. It is so inextricably intertwined with the complexities of global culture, economics and politics, at the kernel of which is the relationship between the centres of power in the West and the rest of the world. However, in taking cognizance of the global scenario, one should not, as the respected Sudanese intellectual, Muddathir Abdel Rahim reminds us, minimize the culpability of Al Bashir and the Khartoum government. The failure to put one's own house in order has contributed in no small measure to the tragedy that is Darfur.

Of deluge, candles and matchboxes

UK varsities to scream Al-Qaeda

Sanen Marshall

Why were Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza arrested? The UK's Terrorism Act 2006 makes a person liable to criminal prosecution if the person 'distributes or circulates a terrorist publication,' which might indicate that the person is involved in plotting terror attacks. Rizwaan, a student at the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham, had downloaded an 'Al-Qaeda training manual' from the Internet and sent it to his friend, Hicham, a university clerk at the School of Modern Languages, for printing. The discovery of the document by other staff at the School caused alarm. The university authorities responded by calling in the police and this led to the arrests. The curious thing about the above scenario was that the so-called manual was downloaded from the US Department of Justice website. Rizwaan was in fact researching terrorism for his postgraduate dissertation on radical Islam. The manual can also be purchased on Amazon.com.

An article by three Nottingham academics in the Times Higher Education Supplement thus questioned 'whether UK universities will stand up and defend academic freedom in the face of the potentially draconian ramifications of anti-terror legislation.' The University authorities responded by reminding the public that above all "the incident was triggered by the discovery of an 'al Qaeda Training Manual' on the computer of an individual [Hicham] who was neither an academic member of staff, nor a student and in a School where one would not expect to find such material being used for research purposes." The university authorities also emphasised that "there is no 'right' to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities."

Rizwaan was released without being charged after six days. His friend Hicham, who is an Algerian national, was likewise released but swiftly rearrested under an immigration charge. Hicham was incidently a former student of the University of Nottingham before eventually becoming a member of staff. Staff and students of Nottingham's university community who were indignant at the treatment of the two men, rallied to their cause.

Labour MP for Nottingham Alan Simpson remonstrated that the incident at the university had its roots in the fiercely opposed legislation against terrorism which was a 'gift to al-Qaeda. Because we would turn a pluralist, multiracial, inclusive society into a society where your neighbour became the terrorist you no longer knew.' Hicham told the UK's Guardian newspaper that 'someone could be forgiven, in this current climate, for panicking at this type of document. But I would have appreciated had I been given five minutes simply to answer the questions relevant to the document. Once the procedure was launched it was quickly out of the university's hands.'

The 'current climate' is one of heightened fear and suspicion. In the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, the UK's Independent newspaper reported chairman of the UK Bar Council human rights committee Peter Clarke's evaluation that even possessing the 'A-Z of London' travel guide could now be considered as 'possessing items that were of potential use to a terrorist.' Barely a year ago, the UK's security services were at the highest level of terrorism alert after two car bombs were discovered in London and a flaming vehicle was driven into a Glasgow airport terminal. Earlier this year, MI5 indicated that it wanted full access to the Oyster (swipe) card database that contain the travel habits of millions of passengers on London's rail and bus services. The average Londoner must already be one of the most heavily watched persons in the world, getting caught on cctv 300 times a day.

But at the university level, it is the prospect of profiling in the surveillance that has raised the most controversy. A leaked document obtained by the Guardian reported in late 2006 that under guidelines drawn up by the Department of Education and Skills 'ministers are to ask staff to spy on "Asian looking" or Muslim students, informing special branch of anyone they suspect of being involved in Islamic extremism.' The Guardian at the time reported joint general secretary of the University and College Union Paul Mackney's 'concern that we were being sucked into a kind of Islamic McCarthyism which has major implications for academic freedom, civil liberties, and blurring of the boundaries between the illegal and the possibly undesirable." The Independent likewise noted recently that some academics are 'now talking of the pressure they face to become "police informers" on their students.'

This police-university interface has persisted through the changeover from the Blair administration to the Brown administration. Soon after coming to power, Prime Minister Gordon Brown convened a meeting involving key Government officials and university representatives. The result was the guidelines on 'promoting good campus relations, fostering shared values and preventing violent extremism.' While the guidelines aspire to some noble ideals of 'maintaining academic freedom whilst ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate or impose their views,' it also asks UK universities to 'think about the implications for staff and other students, how they should be supported and how best to work with the Police.'

In a wider social context, Brown had also risked a major revolt from members of the Labour Party when he tried and narrowly succeeded in extending the maximum period of preliminary detention of those arrested under the Terrorism Act from 28 days to 42 days. Interestingly, the support from the Democratic Unionist Party played a crucial role in voting in the amendment. Many unionists will surely remember the days when 'internment' was used in Northern Ireland, mainly against their republican rivals. But even at the height of the Irish Republican Army's (IRA) bombings in London and other cities in England, this practice of internment without trial was never applied to the UK as a whole. Rizwaan, speaking to the Guardian shortly before the passing of the amended bill, claimed that '42 days is a sentence in itself.'

Recalling his experience, Rizwaan declared that 'a minute goes like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can't cry, you can't laugh…Six days felt like six years. I dread to think what 42 days would feel like….'

(Source: Just)