Dear Sisters,
Seems Arundhati Roy's courageous words are being put into effect with
already Kalpana Sharma's article voicing our thoughts gracing the editorial
pages of today's HINDU [pasted below for the benefit of those who have yet
to read] - together with our message, quoting more of Arundhati's words, to
remind global governance that this is a future we want no part in. ENJOY
the Dolphins http://www.bluemountain.com/cards/box3539b/ar524fixkcmuzft.htm

WARMEST REGARDS ON THIS SECOND DAY OF TRAGIC REMEMBRANCE, as la luta
continua, Lynette


(Note from e-greeting provider -The card will be available for the next 60
days)
___________________________________________________________

THE HINDU, August 9, 1998

Opinion, Pg: 25 :: Col: a

              Are we really more secure

              August 6 and 9, two days that changed the world, have taken on a
              different meaning this year with India joining the nuclear
club. The bomb
              can wreak the same devastation that obliterated Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
              But does this strength contribute to our sense of security and
well-being?
              Or are we closer to confrontation with our neighbour? KALPANA
              SHARMA asks: who pays the price?

              ARUNDHATI ROY has said it all. ``There's nothing new or
original left to
              be said about nuclear weapons'', she writes. So ``let's
...speak our second
              hand lines in this sad second hand play.'' Well, so be it, for
first, second or
              third hand, these are words that must be written, spoken,
shouted out by
              many more of us.

              August 6 and August 9 - days that changed the world - have been
              routinely observed by a small group of ``peaceniks'' each year
in India to
              symbolise their opposition to nuclear weapons. But in 1998,
these two
              days have taken on a different meaning for us - for suddenly
we find
              ourselves citizens of a country that has demonstrated its
ability to wreak
              the same type of devastation that obliterated the cities of
Hiroshima and
              Nagasaki on these two days in 1945.

              Peace, war, conflict, deterrence, security - words that have
been heard
              before also mean something else today. We have been repeatedly
told
              since May 11, that the nuclear tests were aimed to make India
more
              secure. Are we really more secure today than we were before
May 11?
              Or are we justified in thinking that in fact we are closer to
confrontation
              with our neighbour, Pakistan, than we have been for the last
27 years? The
              stand-off in Colombo at the recently-concluded SAARC meeting
merely
              confirms this.

              And how do we define security? Was India not capable of
defending itself
              before May 11? Is it really stronger now with an ``enemy''
that also
              possesses a deadly weapon?

              In what way does this ``strength'' contribute to our sense of
security and
              well-being? Look at the statistics about the capital of India,
New Delhi, as
              presented in a recent magazine article. Over half the
residents of this most
              pampered of Indian cities feel unsafe. How has the country
possessing a
              nuclear weapon increased their sense of security?

              Somehow, the debate on these issues has to be redefined. It
has been
              confined to defence and security-speak which excludes the
majority of
              people - even those who are interested and normally informed
about
              politics and national affairs. It is the closed door domain of
a few experts
              who tell us how we should feel. Yet, repeatedly what they say
hides the
              reality, evades the truth. The current definition of
``security'' justifies
              secrecy and duplicity in the name of ``national interest''.
And the people
              who pay the price for this are the very people in whose name
the entire
              exercise is conducted.

              One group that has consistently challenged the terms of the
global security
              debate has been women. They have questioned the assumption that
              militarisation is essential for the security of a nation.
Director of the Peace
              Education Programme at Columbia University, New York, Ms. Betty
              Reardon has written on the subject of peace and security from
a different
              perspective in several books and papers. ``A feminist
definition of
              security'', she writes, ``is the expectation of human
well-being rather than
              the assurance of invulnerability...Authentic security is
determined by the
              degree to which the security system attends to the real
threats to
              well-being.''

              Ms. Reardon also questions how exploiting the enemy's
vulnerability is
              justified as necessary in the global security debate. Such an
approach, of
              eliminating one's own vulnerability and exploiting the
enemy's, she writes,
              undermines ``human security in general and women's security in
particular
              because it is the state, not the citizenry, for whom
invulnerability is sought.
              Indeed, the entire system is made more vulnerable as the
approach ignores
              the most fundamental principle of maintaining systems; the
weakening of
              any component weakens the entire system. Human security is not
a zero
              sum game.'' Furthermore, the price for systems of security
premised on
              ever-greater militarisation is always paid by the most
vulnerable in our
              societies. History has recorded innumerable examples of this
but some of
              those that remain the most shocking are the stories that have
emerged from
              the country that has been at the centre of the global arms
race, the United
              States of America.

              One of the most moving books on the impact of nuclear testing
by the U.S.
              military in the Nevada desert during the Fifties is by
photojournalist Carole
              Gallagher. In her book ``American Ground Zero: The Secret Nuclear
              War'' (published by MIT press, Cambridge, 1993), she records
the stories
              of some of the thousands of ``down-winders'' who died slow and
painful
              deaths because of the radiation fallout from the atmospheric
tests
              conducted by the U.S. military between 1951 and 1963. Over
these 12
              years, 126 atomic bombs were detonated in the atmosphere. The
radiation
              fallout reached as far east as northern New York and as far
north as the
              Great Lakes.

              The book reveals the complete disregard for human well-being
in those
              conducting the tests to enhance the ``security'' of the U.S.
It mentions the
              film ``The Big Picture'' which was made to instruct American
soldiers how
              they must operate in a nuclear war. In the film, a military
chaplain is shown
              telling frightened soldiers, ``Actually, there is no need to
be worried, as the
              Army has taken all of the necessary precautions to see that
we're perfectly
              safe here. First of all, one sees a very, very bright light
followed by a shock
              wave, and then you hear the sound of the blast. Then you look
up and you
              see the fireball as it ascends up into the heavens. It
contains all of the rich
              colours of the rainbow, and then as it rises up into the
atmosphere it
              assembles into the mushroom. It is a wonderful sight to
behold.'' So
              wonderful that the soldiers return to the camp bleeding from
their eyes,
              ears, nose and mouth.

              Remember the villagers of Khetolai in Rajasthan? When a
triumphant
              Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, visited Pokharan
after the tests,
              they complained to him of nose bleeds. And the Prime Minister
responded:
              ``We should learn to sacrifice, as national security is above all
              considerations.''

              Coincidentally, when President Eisenhower was told in the
Fifties about the
              health fallout of the radiation from atmospheric tests on
people near
              theNevada test site, he is reported to have said. ``We can
afford to
              sacrifice a few thousand people out there in the interest of
national
              security.''

              Gallagher's book is a devastating indictment of the American
government's
              policy of secrecy and duplicity. In the introduction to the
book, Keith
              Schneider writes: ``The Soviet Union was condemned by the
United States
              for keeping the Chernobyl disaster secret for three days and
preventing
              Ukrainians and Europeans from taking measures to protect
themselves
              from the radiation. In contrast, the leaders of the American
nuclear
              weapons industry waged a secret medical and scientific
struggle for 30
              years to cover up the contamination of vast areas of North
America from
              atomic blasts at the Nevada Test Site.''

              The true extent of the cover-up was known only after the
documents were
              declassified. Until then, the nuclear industry had denied all
evidence of
              health effects of the radiation on people. Years of litigation by
              representatives of the victims finally ended on October 15,
1990 when
              President George Bush signed the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act
              which establishes a trust fund for the victims of the tests.

              The majority of the people affected by the tests, the ``down-
winders''
              were Mormons living in Utah. Their church forbade them to
question the
              government's action as it would be disloyal and unpatriotic.
As a result,
              hundreds suffered in silence. The tests were close enough to
have thrown
              people off their beds. And yet they said nothing.

              What is worse, many of those affected by the radiation
testified that when
              they reported health problems to local government health
officials, they
              were told that they were being neurotic. Women, particularly,
were
              dismissed as being neurotic even though they had all the
symptoms of
              severe radiation illness, burned skin and falling hair. Their
condition was
              described as ``housewife syndrome''.

              Gallagher concludes that these people were ``the unwitting
casualties of an
              American nuclear jihad....each society produces its own
slaughter of
              innocents, of those who are most expendable in dangerous
times, whether
              the danger is falsely manufactured to achieve a political end
or truly exists.
              ``My country right or wrong'': the issue of blind obedience to
authority is
              germane to all societies that value abstract ideals above life
itself. The
              active or passive role of religion is as important and
powerful as the role of
              the state.''

              Gallagher also interviewed Dr. John Gofman, a member of the
Manhattan
              Project who is credited with the discovery of uranium 233 and
for having
              isolated the first milligram of plutonium for the American
bomb project. But
              Dr. Gofman was also one of the scientists who first suggested
that
              exposure to even low-levels of radiation could be deadly. For
this he was
              discredited and dismissed by the very same nuclear
establishment for
              which he had worked for years.

              He says in the interview: ``The nuclear establishment will not
tolerate that
              nuclear radiation is dangerous, and that's not limited only to
the United
              States. It's true in the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain.
At every
              opportunity you see them struggling to make it safe on paper.
I wouldn't
              give you two cents for any of them. They're the scoundrels of
the earth.''

              Strong words, but justified as repeatedly you read histories
of how in the
              name of science, the real and tragic health impacts of
radiation on people in
              country after country were either written off, minimised or
dismissed as
              exceptions to the rule.

              Even as the U.S. was conducting the tests in Nevada, uncaring
of their
              impact on its own citizens, the thousands who survived its
bombing of
              Hiroshima and Nagasaki this month 53 years ago faced similar
problems in
              getting the authorities to acknowledge that they suffered from
the impact of
              radiation.

              The stories of the `hibakusha' (literally translated as
`A-bomb received
              persons') - 370,000 of them of whom half were women - are now
fairly
              well-known. What is not common knowledge is that the US
occupation
              authorities kept all data of the health of the survivors top
secret.

              According to Sadao Kamata and Stephen Salaff in their essay on
              Nagasaki in ``The Other Japan: Postwar Realities'', even
relief measures
              for the survivors were discouraged by the occupation
authorities. They say
              that when survivors of the bomb began to show symptoms of blood
              diseases like leukaemia and cataracts, the facts were
concealed from the
              general public. The survivors were virtually treated like
criminals because
              they were the living testimony of the extent of the crime that
had been
              perpetrated on the people of Nagasaki. Their condition became
a subject
              that no one was allowed to talk about.

              So once again we must ask: Whose security?, Who pays the
price? Who
              benefits? Who are the losers? Regardless of which country you
study, the
              answers are the same.

              Keith Schneider has summed this up aptly in Gallagher's book:
``It has
              generally been true that the most destructive ideas are those
put forward
              by men who believe that extraordinary times justify
extraordinary actions.
              In the middle of the 20th Century, such thinking formed the
ideological
              foundation of the men who managed the government's nuclear arms
              industry. To them, the atomic bomb went beyond the simple
cleverness of
              science. They thought of it as the supreme scientific
achievement of the
              century, a symbol of technical virtuosity, a kind of explosive
magic bullet
              that would not only protect America and bring the Soviets to
their knees
              but also lead to a new era of secular achievement where
science would
              solve human ills.''

              How wrong they were, we know now. Or do we? What was written
              about American policy makers in the Fifties applies to ours
today. It is an
              eerie feeling to realise that the same words could be used to
describe the
              situation in the subcontinent today merely by substituting
America and the
              Soviet Union with India and Pakistan.

Maybe I'm naive - is any research being done on a contraceptive for men?

This winter, tv news announced that a new product was going to be really huge
in the stock market and earn lots of money for its manufacturers. I turned to
my husband and said - is that the new male contraceptive? No, he replied, it's
Viagra.

I am filled with such anger over the injustice of it all.

Lizzy

Lynette Dumble wrote:

>           At least 250 women claiming to have suffered
>           serious side effects from the contraceptive implant
>           Norplant are to sue the distributors, it was
>           revealed yesterday.          More than 500 women concerned about
> the
>           alleged side effects of the contraceptive which
>           ranged from depression and paranoia to weight
>           gain and hair loss have contacted a helpline set up
>           at the beginning of June by an umbrella group of
>           solicitors.
>
>

Dear Sisters,
Sad that 250-500 women have felt the Norplant sting in the UK, but that
figure pales to insignificance if "someone" was counting the side-effects -
loss of vision, migraine, permanent infertility etc., etc. - experienced by
marginalized women world-wide. Let's hope the legal proceedings attract
wide publicity, and identify the agencies promoting Norplant to politically
voiceless women in various parts of the world!!!
Stay tuned, there MUST be MORE on this, Lynette.
______________________________________________________
THE INDEPENDENT, London, August 8, 1998

Women sue over
           contraceptive

           By Glenda Cooper

           At least 250 women claiming to have suffered
           serious side effects from the contraceptive implant
           Norplant are to sue the distributors, it was
           revealed yesterday.

           Women who have used the contraceptive, which
           provides birth control cover for up to five years,
           had until yesterday to lodge their claims for
           compensation.

           More than 500 women concerned about the
           alleged side effects of the contraceptive which
           ranged from depression and paranoia to weight
           gain and hair loss have contacted a helpline set up
           at the beginning of June by an umbrella group of
           solicitors.

           Known as the "fit and forget" contraceptive,
           Norplant is used by two million women
           worldwide. It consists of six matchstick-sized
           rods worn under the skin of the upper arm which
           release the hormone levonorgestrel. They cannot
           be seen but can be felt. Doctors have to be
           trained in insertion and removal.

           Alida Coates, a solicitor with Irwin Mitchell, said
           that of the women who have come forward, a
           writ had been issued on behalf of at least 250. A
           test case of 10 women against the suppliers of
           Norplant in this country, Hoechst Marion Roussel
           Ltd, is expected to be heard early next year at the
           High Court.

           "Ten cases will be selected to go ahead to trial in
           the New Year." said Ms Coates. "These cases
           will be representative of the cases as a whole.
           Most of the issues will be dealt with in these 10
           cases and if the cases are successful, I would
           expect that the majority of the remaining cases
           will be dealt with through negotiations."

           A spokesman for Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
           said the company was standing by its product

Sorry Lizzie, tried the web address you provided on Netscape - no luck.
Also tried Palestinian Women with Info Seek - not much better - FYI tho',
via
<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>http://www.pna.net//facts/pal_women.htm</col\
or>
you can reach the "Palestinian National Authority Official Website" where the
page describes the important role played by women in "Palestinian civil society"
- but alas no address!

Trust another from within GSN will contact you with information that is more
helpful!

Cheers and good luck, Lynette.

Dear GSN,
Please note there may be delays over August 7-8 with posting of messages to
GSN due to OneList being off-line for upgrades [refer to message below for
the times of OneList off-line periods during these two days]!
And may a joyful weekend be had by all, Love L.

From: ONElist Tech Support <admin@onelist.com>


Hello,

We are continuing the system-wide upgrade of ONElist. We recently added
additional mail capacity to ensure that email will not be delayed. The
next step in the upgrade will happen over two nights, Friday August 7th
and Saturday August 8th. For this part of the upgrade we will have to
take the ONElist system off-line for approximately 8 hours each night,
starting at 6pm Pacific Time. Email that is sent during this time will
be queued up and delivered once the system is back on-line.

This is the second to last step of the upgrade process. We appreciate
your patience during our upgrades.

Thanks for using ONElist.


The ONElist Team

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.

Hello Lynette,
Perhaps you can help me:  I have been trying to bring up www.pal.watc.org - the
Palestinian Women's page, on the internet, but they are not listed on any
servers
that I can find. Are you familiar with this site?
Lizzy

ljdumble@... wrote:

> Welcome to the Global Sisterhood Network list - created to circulate
information
> that is crucial to feminists from around the world working together to improve
> women's lives.
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at
> www.onelist.com, and select the User Center link from the menu bar
> on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription
> between digest and normal mode.
>
> In sisterhood,
> Lynette Dumble

Dear Lynette,

Thank you for introducing me to Global Sisterhood. Unfortunately I am
unable to continue my subscription. As I am unable to do this by going
to OneList could you please unsubscribe me. Thank you and all the best,
Zohl


ljdumble@... wrote:
>
> Welcome to the Global Sisterhood Network list - created to circulate
information
> that is crucial to feminists from around the world working together to improve
> women's lives.
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at
> www.onelist.com, and select the User Center link from the menu bar
> on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription
> between digest and normal mode.
>
> In sisterhood,
> Lynette Dumble

--

Zohl de Ishtar
Women for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific
International Peace Bureau, Oceania Representative (Female)
PO Box 172, Annandale 2038, Australia.
Tel: +61 (0)2 96603670
<pacific@...>

Eradicate Colonialism by the Year 2000!
The Pacific will never be demilitarised until it is decolonised.

Dear Sisters,
Two interesting confirmations of what many of us have "known" for yonks in
today's London Guardian. There are two important points to be made here -
[1] the research was conducted on landfill sites in Europe which have not
been exposed to the high levels of toxic materials dumped by Australia
Britain, Scandinavia, the US [to name a few] to developing regions,
particularly those in Asia and the Pacific Islands  and [2] the 33% higher
risk of women living close to these localities giving birth to babies with
defects at birth is deemed to be an underestimate by the researchers
because 25 per cent of women are estimated to move house during pregnancy.
If any would like hard-copy or email copy of the Lancet research article by
Helen Donks et al. on the link between birth defects and landfill please
let me know and I will mail.
Kindest regards, Lynette.
_________________________________________________________
THE GAURDIAN, London, August 7, 1998

Scientists link birth defects to landfill
                                       sites

                                       By Sarah Boseley, Health Correspondent
                                       Friday August 7, 1998

                                       Women who live within three
kilometres of hazardous
                                       waste landfill sites have a 33 per
cent higher risk of having
                                       babies with birth defects than those
living further away, says
                                       a study in the Lancet.

                                       The researchers, led by Helen Dolk
from the London
                                       School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, considered this
                                       increased risk to be "small but
significant".

                                       The health problems which occurred
most often in the
                                       babies born to families close to
waste dumps were neural
                                       tube defects, such as spina bifida,
holes in the heart and
                                       artery malformations. But the authors
say they cannot
                                       establish whether toxic waste is the
cause of the defects,
                                       and call for more surveillance of the
impact of dumps.

                                       Dr Dolk and colleagues looked at data
on birth
                                       malformations close to 21 toxic waste
sites in five countries.
                                       Their study included 1,089 women
whose babies had birth
                                       defects and 2,366 whose babies did
not. All the women
                                       lived within seven kilometres of a
landfill site.

                                       They found that those who lived
closest - within three
                                       kilometres - were 33 per cent more
likely to have babies
                                       with defects.

                                       But both the authors, and in a
separate commentary on the
                                       research, Goran Pershagen from the
Institute of
                                       Environmental Medicine in Stockholm,
Sweden, pointed
                                       out that there is no conclusive
evidence that the defects are
                                       caused by toxic chemicals from the
sites.

                                       Dr Dolk and colleagues say they do
not think there is a
                                       socioeconomic explanation, but there
are other possible
                                       confounding factors. There could be
other sources of
                                       toxicity nearby, or the mothers could
have jobs at industrial
                                       sites with high health risks. It is
also not possible to say
                                       what chemicals could be responsible,
because landfill sites
                                       contain a mixture and record keeping
was not always
                                       complete.

                                       But it is also possible, they say,
that the numbers of babies
                                       with defects could be underestimated,
because 25 per cent
                                       of women move house during pregnancy.

                                       Professor Pershagen says the results
are difficult to
                                       interpret. There is little
information about chemicals being
                                       emitted from sites. "It is not even
clear that the study
                                       populations are excessively exposed
to toxic agents
                                       originating from the landfills."

                                       But more studies were needed. "Most
studies on risk
                                       factors in the environment show only
modest relative risks,
                                       but these effects may still be
important from a public health
                                       perspective."

                                       Friends of the Earth called on the
Government to conduct
                                       urgent health studies around landfill
sites. "This research is
                                       extremely worrying," said Mike
Childs, senior waste
                                       campaigner. "There are thousands of
landfill sites around the
                                       country and no one has a clue what
toxic chemicals are
                                       dumped in many of them."

_____________________________________________________________________
THE GUARDIAN, August 7, 1998

Genetic crops can aid superweeds, claim
                                       scientists

                                       By Tim Radford, Science Editor
                                       Friday August 7, 1998

                                       Scientists last night confirmed the
green campaigner's worst
                                       nightmare: genetically-engineered
crops can lead to
                                       superweeds which shrug off weedkiller.

                                       In a bid to tackle the problem of
dealing with weeds using
                                       weedkiller which can also destroy
crops, genetic
                                       engineering has been used to develop
crops which can
                                       withstand one specific herbicide. In
theory, with one
                                       spraying, farmers should have
weed-free harvests.

                                       But Dr Allison Snow of Ohio state
university yesterday told
                                       the Ecological Society of America
meeting in Baltimore that
                                       she and Danish scientists had
discovered new evidence that
                                       the genes can also spread from crops
to weeds - making
                                       them just as strong as their ordinary
relatives.

                                       The scientists had crossed a
herbicide-resistant oilseed rape
                                       with a wild relative in laboratory
conditions. The theory was
                                       that although the resulting weed
would inherit the artificial
                                       gene, the weed would also produce
fewer flowers, or seeds
                                       as a result.

                                       But the only difference between the
genetically-altered
                                       weed and ordinary weeds lay in the
looks, and even that
                                       did not last. "By the third
generation, the weeds that carried
                                       the gene for herbicide resistance
looked exactly like normal
                                       weeds. The only way to tell them
apart was to expose them
                                       to herbicide or test their DNA," she
said.

                                       The report is a gift for campaigners
who want to halt the
                                       spread of genetically-altered crops
in Europe. A number of
                                       field trials in Britain have been
disrupted. A
                                       genetically-engineered maize produced
by Novartis -
                                       altered to provide its own pesticide
- has been shown to kill
                                       "useful" insects as well as crop pests.

                                       The Ohio discovery is not the first
to show that crop genes
                                       altered by humans can escape into the
wild. Cultivated crop
                                       plants cannot compete with weeds:
they need human help to
                                       eliminate the competition, or they
perish. The thinking
                                       behind genetically-engineered
resistance to one particular
                                       herbicide has been that the grower
could eliminate all the
                                       weed competition in a field by spraying.

                                       The calculation was that any
accidental hybrids would
                                       inherit the vulnerabilities of the
crop parent along with the
                                       artificial benefit. It proved wrong.
The outcome was the
                                       worst of all worlds. The laboratory
hybrids had all the
                                       aggressiveness of the weed parents with
                                       weedkiller-resistance built in.

                                       Many crops - potatoes, for instance -
do not have close
                                       relatives co-existing as weeds.
Oilseed rape is a member of
                                       the brassica family, and wild weed
brassicas often grow
                                       nearby, which would make it easy for
genes to transfer with
                                       the pollen. Experiments last year
showed that oilseed rape
                                       pollen can reach weeds more than a
mile away.

                                       "If farmers spray their crops with
the same herbicide every
                                       year, the only weeds to survive will
be the ones with the
                                       transgenes - and then the transgenes
will spread even
                                       faster," Dr Snow said. "That's why
the area of crop
                                       transgenes is so controversial."

                                       Sue Mayer of Genewatch said: "We've
been warning
                                       people about these risks and they
have been ignored by the
                                       regulators. They have continued to
license and encourage
                                       the development of these crops."

                                       Zeneca, which is pioneering
genetically-engineered crops in
                                       Britain, said such discoveries were
no reason to stop the
                                       research. "But we do believe it is
imperative that farmers
                                       continue to have a wide variety of
chemical and mechanical
                                       methods available to control weed
_______________________________________________________________________

Dear lynette,

Thanks for the posting  with Arundhati Roy's passionate writing re the world and
particularly her reminder of the nuclear winter.

from Helen

A first world dumping ground, eh? Two wrongs don't make a right, but those
living in glass houses usually can't afford to throw stones? Enuf' said, L.


THE INDEPENDENT, August 6, 1998

Waste dumped secretly on
           motorways turns Britain into
           dustbin of Europe

           By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent

           BRITAIN IS regarded as a "soft touch" by
           criminal gangs from Germany and Holland who
           are coming here to dump cocktails of toxic
           chemical waste, according to Interpol UK.

           Lorry-loads of liquid chemical waste have been
           deliberately leaked on to the M25 by drivers who
           circle the motorway at night until their tanks are
           empty, then drive back to Dover.

           Containers full of waste have been discovered
           dumped at big east coast ports, including Harwich
           and Felixstowe, where they can remain
           undetected for years, hidden among other freight.

           Paul Andrews, environmental crime specialist at
           Interpol UK, which is based at the National
           Criminal Intelligence Service, said: "British law
           enforcement in this area is not as high-profile as in
           other European countries, which all have specific
           police departments to deal with environmental
           crime. The criminals know that."

           A Government working party on Transfrontier
           Shipments of Waste has been set up, comprising
           the Environment Agency, Interpol, the Home
           Office and the Department of Environment,
           Transport and the Regions.

           The waste being dumped is typically a dark
           mixture of contaminated solvents like carbon
           tetrachloride and acetone, which cannot be
           broken down. Leaked into a sewer, the waste
           would destroy the biological activity of sewage
           treatment works, meaning that other sewage went
           untreated.

           If the chemical waste escaped into a fresh-water
           sewer it would kill fish and seep into sediment,
           causing long-term damage to river ecology.

           The criminal waste dumpers are arriving in Britain
           with false documentation declaring their load to
           be harmless "green list" waste or a legitimate
           chemical product. Customs officers face
           difficulties in distinguishing toxic waste from other
           substances and rarely call in Environment Agency
           inspectors to test the material.

           Mr Andrews said: "Very few officials would
           know if it was toxic. As Interpol, we would like
           to see people at the ports with better training on
           what to look for."

           He said that police environmental specialists in
           other European countries had told him Britain was
           the weak link in the fight against illegal dumping of
           toxic waste. "They have asked us to increase our
           efforts," he said.

           The disposal of toxic waste, particularly from the
           chemical factories of former East Germany, has
           been identified by German criminals as an
           effective method of money-laundering.

           In Britain, responsibility for policing toxic waste
           dumping falls to the Environment Agency, which
           admitted there were difficulties identifying the
           smugglers.

           Alex Tovey, international waste specialist at the
           agency, said: "Because the importers know we
           are thin on the ground and not really looking at
           environmental crime the way we should be they
           are getting away with it."

           Inspectors recently foiled some east German
           drivers who made repeated attempts to dump
           cargoes of wooden railway supports soaked with
           the pesticide DDT.

           Part of the problem is due to the difficulties of
           detecting illegal waste shipments among the traffic
           of waste that is brought to Britain to be disposed
           of lawfully.

           The Environment Agency is also concerned about
           lawful applications to import contaminated waste.
           Dutch importers have asked to bring in
           contaminated concrete for use on new
           motorways. Irish firms have applied to import soil
           contaminated with hazardous waste for use in
           Millennium projects.

           Greenpeace is concerned that PVC waste from
           Germany is being delivered legally to Britain to be
           used as a cheap surface for horse-riding schools
           or to be recycled into traffic cones.

           Independent environmental consultant Alan
           Watson said there was no need for Britain to be
           importing any chemical waste.

           "Each country has its own facilities for handling
           such material and there is no reason why we
           should have any expertise in treating it," he said.

           Dirty farmers are accused of ruining the
           landscape

           Dumping and pollution are having a devastating
           effect on soil and threatening to destroy the
           beauty of the English landscape, it was claimed
           yesterday.

           The Council for the Protection of Rural England
           produced a Soil Charter, calling for the
           Government to take urgent action to prevent the
           loss of "a vital living resource".

           The CPRE said that only farmers who managed
           their soil responsibly should receive agricultural
           support payments.

           The action follows research which found that the
           over-use of inorganic fertilisers is leaving soil
           vulnerable to erosion by water and wind.

           The chemicals are also leaching into underground
           water supplies, particularly in the shallow soils of
           the Cotswolds and the sandlands of
           Nottinghamshire. In Norfolk and the Suffolk
           Valley the leaking of sulphur dioxide and
           ammonia from industrial and agricultural sources
           is causing soil to be over-acidic. And atmospheric
           pollution is responsible for damage to the soils
           underlying mosslands to the north of Liverpool.

           Alan Titchmarsh, who presents gardening
           programmes on television and radio, spoke out
           for the CPRE. "We owe much more to soil than
           many would believe. The variation in soils
           underpins the beauty and diversity of the English
           landscape. Soil also acts as a filter and reservoir
           for water, regulating flow to groundwaters and
           rivers."

           Gregor Hutcheon, CPRE's Rural Affairs Officer,
           said there were concerns that soil might be
           harmed by the practice of spreading sewage and
           paper pulp directly onto land.

           "Water and waste authorities are not able to
           dispose into the sea, so they are looking for
           alternatives," he said. "But there are concerns that
           the material could contain heavy metals."

           The CPRE wants the Government to take tough
           action against polluters and dumpers and
           introduce measures to counteract soil erosion, as
           part of a Soil Protection Strategy due to be
           published later this year.

           A litany of waste

           Chemical/Industrial

           Sometimes dumped in unidentified drums or
           leaked from tankers. Highly damaging to sewage
           treatment works and river ecology. Now being
           dumped in Britain by criminal gangs from
           Germany and Holland.

           Clinical

           Includes severed limbs and other body parts from
           hospital operations as well as syringes, swabs and
           other medical waste. The Environment Agency
           has caught unscrupulous contractors, hired by
           NHS trusts, dumping the material in warehouses.

           Asbestos/Construction

           Stripped from factories, or the results of building
           demolition it requires high-cost disposal at
           specified landfill sites, encouraging rogue firms to
           dump it in rivers, country lanes and cul-de-sacs.

           Household

           Skip companies who are reluctant to pay for
           landfill disposal empty unwanted furniture and
           other waste at fly tips. Tyres, which are unsuitable
           for landfill sites, are dumped by their thousands in
           empty warehouses.

           Farm Waste

           Silage and slurry which seeps into rivers after
           spillage. Some farmers make heavy use of
           pesticides, especially sheep-dips, and inorganic
           fertilisers which are blamed for polluting soil and
           rivers.

           CFCs

           Banned ozone-depleting gases formerly used in
           refrigeration. Linked to the death of two council
           workers who were exposed to toxic fumes in a
           sewer in south Wales in 1996.

           Radioactive

           Imported from Eastern Europe in scrap metal.
           Difficult to detect, and carriers may not realise it is
           radioactive. Some caught by Customs officers at
           ports but scrap dealers have dumped it illegally.

From: Lynette Dumble
Dear Sisters,
Many thanks to those of "us" who contended with my "experiments" to send
the Hiroshima Greeting to the List - perhaps especially to Ashoka, and
Chayanika and Shalini, who probably got the worst of it - never mind, for
Chayanika and Shalini, I promise to make up for it in some way when I get
to India in October, and for Ashoka, I trust you can wait until December to
"make me pay" at some stage during WIL!
Lotsa luv, Lynette.

Dear Sisters,

A few of Arundhati Roy's courageous words, and a peaceful scene to
distract us from what Moira Raynor appropriately describes as WORLD WAR
III - the wave of late 20th century misogyny - to be found at
<color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>http://www.marlo.com/find/217/05/0722036.htm\
l

</color>- ENJOY - WARMEST REGARDS ON THIS DAY OF TRAGIC REMEMBRANCE,
Lynette

hi antonio and all

#%@*(! is what i said out loud - i have put yr post on another womens list,
maybe u will get some reponses from there also
also have forwarded it to a dr to see is she knows anything/anyone
have u got yr info organised such that u could present it to someone?
maybe is the next step
glad to hear that u are focused - u are now climbing mental mountains, and
having climbed physical ones, u know that it is one foot in front of the
other - thats all - eventually u get there
in sisahood
susanne martain
webweave@...
http://www.isis.aust.com
PO Box 1 Annandale NSW Australia 2038
PH +61 2 9660 6859

Are there any Australian legal mailing lists you can post on to ask for legal
advice.  I don't think the American ones would do you any good.  Have you
filed a complaint against the doctor with the government?  Am I correct that
if your cancer had been diagnosed earlier you would have lost less physically?

No I am not in USA I am in Australia. I have just come back from US and
have contacted other ladies over there with same problem.

You ask how I am feeling pysically. How does a women answer that question
when all her womanhood has gone. Let me tell you I have climbed mountains.
I will never get over the physical problem however the mental one towards
those doctors I cannot let this go hence I need to let other women and
doctors to become aware of this issue.

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE TRYING TO TAKE ON THIS PROBLEM BUT MY ANGER IS MY
MOTIVATION.

Even though I talk about anger I am in control of the situation as I have
been to you name it and I have been to it to help me through. I have
several ladies around the world who are standing beside me but I need
thousands. I am a bit concerned that in ten years there may be an epidemic
if we dont watch out.

THIS IS SO BIG. Help.

DFK

----------
> From: DebbieOney@...
> To: globalsisterhood@onelist.com
> Subject: [globalsisterhood] Re: GENITAL CANCER
> Date: Thursday, 6 August 1998 9:23
>
> From: <DebbieOney@...>
>
> I am so sorry for everything you are going through.  I am suprised they
can't
> say vulva on the air on that station because people say everything else
on TV
> and radio.  Do you think it was just that station?  There is a
medical/legal
> mailng list and a medical malpractice one.  Are you in the US?  If not I
doubt
> they would help you but I'm sure there are others in other countries.  If
in
> the US I will give tell you how to sign up.  I'm suprised with your
family
> history the doctor didn't check the lump out.  How are you feelng
physically?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
> service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
> http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.

I am so sorry for everything you are going through.  I am suprised they can't
say vulva on the air on that station because people say everything else on TV
and radio.  Do you think it was just that station?  There is a medical/legal
mailng list and a medical malpractice one.  Are you in the US?  If not I doubt
they would help you but I'm sure there are others in other countries.  If in
the US I will give tell you how to sign up.  I'm suprised with your family
history the doctor didn't check the lump out.  How are you feelng physically?

I cannot thank you enough for replying to me. You are my first reply. I
have been on this long journey and I am only now ready to go out on a limb
regarding this issue.

Just a short summary.

I was 39 going thru early menopause, 3 other members of my family had had
cancer, I had been diagnosed with Human Papiloma Virus, had had abnormal
pap smears and a lump appears next to my clitoris, I went to 2 GYN and 2
Gps and all said that 1000s women have lumps in that area and not to worry.
18 months later I asked them to remove it and it was cancer.

I had to have a radical vulvectomy (removal of all exterior genitals)

I was told it is extremely rare and that it usually happens to women 70 and
over. I put an ad in a magazine and 25 other ladies wrote with similar
problems. I have searched the world and this has been happening for 20
years that I can learn of but it appears to me that it has never been
spoken of in all this time.

I just cannot just sit here and take it.

I tried to sue my doctor as he said that it was not cancer and if it
bothered me sexwise that I should go back to my local GP and have it cut
out. (he was that flipant). But the investigation by my lawyer after 3
years and $5000 later was that as the lump did not bother me it wasnt
necessary for the doctors to remove it. Now I ask you why did I go to 4
doctors in the first place. However my lawyer say that there will not be a
doctor in the world that would stand up in my defence. I am not prepared to
accept this and that is why I am appealing to any women who will help me do
something concrete with this problem.

I rang a TV station and they said they were not allowed to mention the word
vulva on their station.

A female doctor quite renowened in USA has just written a book on womens
health and she has not even mentioned the word vulva in her index.

This seems to be all over the place and I hope you can get the jist of what
I am trying to reveal. I have so much to offer but dont know where to
start.

Do you have any words of encouragement.

DFK
----------
> From: DebbieOney@...
> To: globalsisterhood@onelist.com
> Subject: [globalsisterhood] Re: GENITAL CANCER
> Date: Thursday, 6 August 1998 8:21
>
> From: <DebbieOney@...>
>
> Do you feel that removal of all that is necessary to save someone's life
or do
> you feel it is unnecessarry?  i get the impression that you feel the
latter.
> i am totally unfamiliar with the subject and so I don't know what is and
what
> isn't medically necessary.
>
> << I would like to share my information regarding women losing their
clitoris,
>  vulva and lymph glands. No this is not a hoax. You just need to look on
the
>  Internet under Vulva Cancer to see that this is actually happening and I
am
>  the only women in the world who is ready to stand up and discuss this
>  devistating problem.
>
>  I desperately need women to stand behind me to bring this out into the
>  open.
>
>  Can any women hear and help me.
>
>
>  DFK >>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
> service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
> http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.

Do you feel that removal of all that is necessary to save someone's life or do
you feel it is unnecessarry?  i get the impression that you feel the latter.
i am totally unfamiliar with the subject and so I don't know what is and what
isn't medically necessary.

<< I would like to share my information regarding women losing their clitoris,
  vulva and lymph glands. No this is not a hoax. You just need to look on the
  Internet under Vulva Cancer to see that this is actually happening and I am
  the only women in the world who is ready to stand up and discuss this
  devistating problem.

  I desperately need women to stand behind me to bring this out into the
  open.

  Can any women hear and help me.


  DFK >>

----------
> From: Antonio Mazzella <mazzella@...>
> To: globalsisterhood@onelist.com
> Subject: [globalsisterhood] GENITAL CANCER
> Date: Thursday, 6 August 1998 7:58
>
> From: "Antonio Mazzella" <mazzella@...>
>
> I would like to share my information regarding women losing their
clitoris,
> vulva and lymph glands. No this is not a hoax. You just need to look on
the
> Internet under Vulva Cancer to see that this is actually happening and I
am
> the only women in the world who is ready to stand up and discuss this
> devistating problem.
>
> I desperately need women to stand behind me to bring this out into the
> open.
>
> Can any women hear and help me.
>
>
> DFK
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
> service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
> http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.

I would like to share my information regarding women losing their clitoris,
vulva and lymph glands. No this is not a hoax. You just need to look on the
Internet under Vulva Cancer to see that this is actually happening and I am
the only women in the world who is ready to stand up and discuss this
devistating problem.

I desperately need women to stand behind me to bring this out into the
open.

Can any women hear and help me.


DFK

Dear Lynette and all others who are on the onelist,

Some small sane voices from all over.
This is also our attempt at using the onelist. Thanks for all the
wonderful articles that you have been posting on it.

Chayanika and Shalini.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 23:15:15 +0530
From: Global Reproductive Health Forum in South Asia <harvard@...>
To: bol@...
Subject: Bol!: Statement against nuclear tests from Indian and Pakistani retired
Armed Forces

This is a joint statement made by the retired fraternity of the Armed
Forces Personnel from India and Pakistan. I appeal to all those retired
Service
Personnel in both India and Pakistan who concur with it to add their
signature to this statement. The initiative for this comes from Zeba
Beena Sarwar (Pakistan) and the initial draft was done by Air Marshal
Choudhry from Pakistan.
Admiral Ramdas
[Retired Ex - Chief of the Indian Navy].
=========================================================================

JULY 1998

         JOINT STATEMENT AGAINST NUCLEAR TESTS AND WEAPONS
          BY RETIRED PAKISTANI AND INDIAN ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

Recent developments in South Asia in the field of nuclear weapons and
the means of their delivery are a serious threat to the wellbeing of
this
region. The fact that India and Pakistan have fought wars in the recent
past and do not as yet enjoy the best of relations, makes this
development all the more ominous. The signatories of this statement are
not theoreticians or arm-chair idealists; we have spent many long years
in the profession of arms and have served our countries both in
peacetime and in war.

By virtue of our experience and the positions we have held,
we have a fair understanding of the destructive parameters of
conventional and nuclear weapons. We are of the considered view that
nuclear weapons should be banished from the South Asian region, and
indeed from the entire globe. We urge India and Pakistan to take the
lead by doing away with nuclear weapons in a manifest and verifiable
manner,
and to confine nuclear research and development strictly to peaceful and
beneficient spheres.

We are convinced that the best way of resolving disputes is through
peaceful means and not through war - least of all by the threat or use
of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan need to address their real
problems
of poverty and backwardness, not waste our scarce resources on acquiring
means of greater and greater destruction.

Signed

Air Marshal Zafar A. Choudhry  (Pakistan)
Admiral L. Ramdas (India)
Lt. Gen Gurbir Mansingh (India)

More on military lunacy - but with special thanks to Arundhati Roy for
coining the term nuclear bondage - not that our plate is not sufficiently
filled with campaigns against bondage by race, gender, caste,
fundamentalism, etc., etc. - and with apologies to our sister subscribers
from India who will have already read this article in Frontline Vol. 15 ::
No. 16 :: Aug. 1 - 14, 1998. Lynette.

THE GUARDIAN, London, August 1, 1998

The end of imagination

                                       Arundhati Roy took the literary world
by storm last
                                       year with her first novel, The God of
Small Things,
                                       which won the Booker prize. In her
first piece of
                                       writing since then, she expresses her
horror at the
                                       nuclear arms race in her native India

                                       Saturday August 1, 1998

                                       "The desert shook," the Government of
India
                                       informed us (its people).

                                       "The whole mountain turned white,"
the Government
                                       of Pakistan replied.

                                       By afternoon the wind had fallen
silent over Pokhran.
                                       At 3.45pm, the timer detonated the
three devices.
                                       Around 200 to 300m deep in the earth,
the heat
                                       generated was equivalent to a million
degrees
                                       centigrade - as hot as temperatures
on the sun.
                                       Instantly, rocks weighing around a
thousand tons, a
                                       mini mountain underground,
vapourised… shockwaves
                                       from the blast began to lift a mound
of earth the size of
                                       a football field by several metres.
One scientist on
                                       seeing it said, "I can now believe
stories of Lord
                                       Krishna lifting a hill."

                                       India Today

                                       May 1998. It'll go down in history
books, provided of
                                       course we have history books to go
down in. Provided, of
                                       course, we have a future.

                                       There's nothing new or original left
to be said about nuclear
                                       weapons. There can be nothing more
humiliating for a writer
                                       of fiction to have to do than restate
a case that has, over the
                                       years, already been made by other
people in other parts of
                                       the world, and made passionately,
eloquently and
                                       knowledgeably.

                                       I am prepared to grovel. To humiliate
myself abjectly,
                                       because, in the circumstances,
silence would be
                                       indefensible. So those of you who are
willing: let's pick our
                                       parts, put on these discarded
costumes and speak our
                                       second-hand lines in this sad
second-hand play. But let's
                                       not forget that the stakes we're
playing for are huge. Our
                                       fatigue and our shame could mean the
end of us. The end of
                                       our children and our children's
children. Of everything we
                                       love. We have to reach within
ourselves and find the
                                       strength to think. To fight.

                                       Once again we are pitifully behind
the times - not just
                                       scientifically and technologically
(ignore the hollow claims)
                                       but more pertinently in our ability
to grasp the true nature of
                                       nuclear weapons. Our Comprehension of
the Horror
                                       Department is hopelessly obsolete.
Here we are, all of us in
                                       India and in Pakistan, discussing the
finer points of politics
                                       and foreign policy, behaving for all
the world as though our
                                       governments have just devised a
newer, bigger bomb, a
                                       sort of immense hand grenade with
which they will annihilate
                                       the enemy (each other) and protect us
from all harm.

                                       How desperately we want to believe
that. What wonderful,
                                       willing, well-behaved, gullible
subjects we have turned out
                                       to be. The rest of humanity may not
forgive us, but then the
                                       rest of the rest of humanity,
depending on who fashions its
                                       views, may not know what a tired,
dejected, heart-broken
                                       people we are. Perhaps it doesn't
realise how urgently we
                                       need a miracle. How deeply we yearn
for magic.

                                       If only, if only nuclear war was just
another kind of war. If
                                       only it was about the usual things -
nations and territories,
                                       gods and histories. If only those of
us who dread it are
                                       worthless moral cowards who are not
prepared to die in
                                       defence of our beliefs. If only
nuclear war was the kind of
                                       war in which countries battle
countries, and men battle men.
                                       But it isn't. If there is a nuclear
war, our foes will not be
                                       China or America or even each other.
Our foe will be the
                                       earth herself.

                                       Our cities and forests, our fields
and villages will burn for
                                       days. Rivers will turn to poison. The
air will become fire.
                                       The wind will spread the flames. When
everything there is
                                       to burn has burned and the fires die,
smoke will rise and
                                       shut out the sun. The earth will be
enveloped in darkness.
                                       There will be no day - only
interminable night.

                                       What shall we do then, those of us
who are still alive?
                                       Burned and blind and bald and ill,
carrying the cancerous
                                       carcasses of our children in our
arms, where shall we go?
                                       What shall we eat? What shall we
drink? What shall we
                                       breathe?

                                       The Head of the Health, Environment
and Safety Group of
                                       the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
Bombay has a plan.
                                       He declared that India could survive
nuclear war. His
                                       advice is that in the event of
nuclear war we take the same
                                       safety measures as the ones that
scientists have
                                       recommended in the event of accidents
at nuclear plants.

                                       Take iodine pills, he suggests. And
other steps such as
                                       remaining indoors, consuming only
stored water and food
                                       and avoiding milk. Infants should be
given powdered milk.
                                       "People in the danger zone should
immediately go to the
                                       ground floor and if possible to the
basement."

                                       What do you do with these levels of
lunacy? What do you
                                       do if you're trapped in an asylum and
the doctors are all
                                       dangerously deranged?

                                       Ignore it, it's just a novelist's
naiveté, they'll tell you,
                                       Doomsday Prophet hyperbole. It'll
never come to that.
                                       There will be no war. Nuclear weapons
are about peace,
                                       not war. "Deterrence" is the buzz
word of the people who
                                       like to think of themselves as hawks.
(Nice birds, those.
                                       Cool. Stylish. Predatory. Pity there
won't be many of them
                                       around after the war. Extinction is a
word we must try to
                                       get used to.) Deterrence is an old
thesis that has been
                                       resurrected and is being recycled
with added local flavour.
                                       The Theory of Deterrence cornered the
credit for having
                                       prevented the cold war from turning
into a third world war.
                                       The only immutable fact about the
third world war is that, if
                                       there's going to be one, it will be
fought after the second
                                       world war. In other words, there's no
fixed schedule.

                                       The Theory of Deterrence has some
fundamental flaws.
                                       Flaw Number One is that it presumes a
complete,
                                       sophisticated understanding of the
psychology of your
                                       enemy. It assumes that what deters
you (the fear of
                                       annihilation) will deter them. What
about those who are not
                                       deterred by that? The suicide bomber
psyche - the "We'll
                                       take you with us" school - is that an
outlandish thought?
                                       How did Rajiv Gandhi die?

                                       In any case who's the "you" and who's
the "enemy"? Both
                                       are only governments. Governments
change. They wear
                                       masks within masks. They moult and
re-invent themselves
                                       all the time. The one we have at the
moment, for instance,
                                       does not even have enough seats to
last a full term in office,
                                       but demands that we trust it to do
pirouettes and party
                                       tricks with nuclear bombs even as it
scrabbles around for a
                                       foothold to maintain a simple
majority in Parliament.

                                       Flaw Number Two is that deterrence is
premised on fear.
                                       But fear is premised on knowledge. On
an understanding of
                                       the true extent and scale of the
devastation that nuclear war
                                       will wreak. It is not some inherent,
mystical attribute of
                                       nuclear bombs that they automatically
inspire thoughts of
                                       peace. On the contrary, it is the
endless, tireless,
                                       confrontational work of people who
have had the courage
                                       to openly denounce them, the marches,
the demonstrations,
                                       the films, the outrage - that is what
has averted, or perhaps
                                       only postponed, nuclear war.
Deterrence will not and
                                       cannot work given the levels of
ignorance and illiteracy that
                                       hang over our two countries like
dense, impenetrable veils.

                                       India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs
now and feel
                                       entirely justified in having them.
Soon others will too. Israel,
                                       Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Norway,
Nepal (I'm trying to be
                                       eclectic here), Denmark, Germany,
Bhutan, Mexico,
                                       Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bosnia,
Singapore, North
                                       Korea, Sweden, South Korea, Vietnam,
Cuba,
                                       Afghanistan, Uzbekistan… and why not?
Every country in
                                       the world has a special case to make.
Everybody has
                                       borders and beliefs.

                                       And when all our larders are bursting
with shiny bombs and
                                       our bellies are empty (deterrence is
an exorbitant beast), we
                                       can trade bombs for food. And when
nuclear technology
                                       goes on the market, when it gets
truly competitive and
                                       prices fall, not just governments but
anybody who can
                                       afford it can have their own private
arsenal - businessmen,
                                       terrorists, perhaps even the
occasional rich writer (like me).
                                       Our planet will bristle with
beautiful missiles. There will be a
                                       new world order. The dictatorship of
the pro-nuke elite.

                                       But let us pause to give credit where
it's due. Who must we
                                       thank for all this? The men who made
it happen. The
                                       Masters of the Universe. Ladies and
gentlemen, the United
                                       States of America! Come on up here
folks, stand up and
                                       take a bow. Thank you for doing this
to the world. Thank
                                       you for making a difference. Thank
you for showing us the
                                       way. Thank you for altering the very
meaning of life.

                                       From now on it is not dying we must
fear, but living.

                                       All I can say to every man, woman and
sentient child in
                                       India, and over there, just a little
way away in Pakistan, is:
                                       take it personally. Whoever you are -
Hindu, Muslim,
                                       urban, agrarian - it doesn't matter.
The only good thing
                                       about nuclear war is that it is the
single most egalitarian idea
                                       that man has ever had. On the day of
reckoning, you will
                                       not be asked to present your
credentials. The devastation
                                       will be indiscriminate. The bomb
isn't in your backyard. It's
                                       in your body. And mine. Nobody, no
nation, no
                                       government, no man, no god has the
right to put it there.
                                       We're radioactive already, and the
war hasn't even begun.
                                       So stand up and say something. Never
mind if it's been said
                                       before. Speak up on your own behalf.
Take it very
                                       personally.

                                       In early May (before the bomb), I
left home for three
                                       weeks. I thought I would return. I
had every intention of
                                       returning. Of course things haven't
worked out quite the
                                       way I had planned.

                                       While I was away, I met a friend whom
I have always loved
                                       for, among other things, her ability
to combine deep
                                       affection with a frankness that
borders on savagery. "I've
                                       been thinking about you," she said,
"about The God of
                                       Small Things - what's in it, what's
over it, under it, around it,
                                       above it…"

                                       She fell silent for a while. I was
uneasy and not at all sure
                                       that I wanted to hear the rest of
what she had to say. She,
                                       however, was sure that she was going
to say it. "In this last
                                       year - less than a year actually -
you've had too much of
                                       everything - fame, money, prizes,
adulation, criticism,
                                       condemnation, ridicule, love, hate,
anger, envy, generosity -
                                       everything. In some ways it's a
perfect story. Perfectly
                                       baroque in its excess. The trouble is
that it has, or can have,
                                       only one perfect ending."

                                       Her eyes were on me, bright with a
slanting, probing
                                       brilliance. She knew that I knew what
she was going to say.
                                       She was insane. She was going to say
that nothing that
                                       happened to me in the future could
ever match the buzz of
                                       this. That the whole of the rest of
my life was going to be
                                       vaguely unsatisfying. And, therefore,
the only perfect ending
                                       to the story would be death. My death.

                                       The thought had occurred to me too.
Of course it had. The
                                       fact that all this, this global
dazzle - these lights in my eyes,
                                       the applause, the flowers, the
photographers, the journalists
                                       feigning a deep interest in my life
(yet struggling to get a
                                       single fact straight), the men in
suits fawning over me, the
                                       shiny hotel bathrooms with endless
towels - none of it was
                                       likely to happen again. Would I miss
it? Had I grown to
                                       need it? Was I a fame-junkie? Would I
have withdrawal
                                       symptoms?

                                       The more I thought about it, the
clearer it became to me
                                       that if fame was going to be my
permanent condition it
                                       would kill me. Club me to death with
its good manners and
                                       hygiene. I'll admit that I've enjoyed
my own five minutes of
                                       it immensely, but primarily because
it was just five minutes.
                                       Because I knew (or thought I knew)
that I could go home
                                       when I was bored and giggle about it.
Grow old and
                                       irresponsible. Eat mangoes in the
moonlight. Maybe write a
                                       couple of failed books - worstsellers
- to see what it felt
                                       like. For a whole year I've
cartwheeled across the world,
                                       anchored always to thoughts of home
and the life I would
                                       go back to.

                                       Contrary to all the enquiries and
predictions about my
                                       impending emigration, that was the
well I dipped into. That
                                       was my sustenance. My strength. I
told my friend there was
                                       no such thing as a perfect story. I
said that in any case hers
                                       was an external view of things, this
assumption that the
                                       trajectory of a person's happiness,
or let's say fulfilment,
                                       had peaked (and now must trough)
because she had
                                       accidentally stumbled upon "success".
It was premised on
                                       the unimaginative belief that wealth
and fame were the
                                       mandatory stuff of everybody's dreams.

                                       You've lived too long in New York, I
told her. There are
                                       other worlds. Other kinds of dreams.
Dreams in which
                                       failure is feasible, honourable,
sometimes even worth
                                       striving for. Worlds in which
recognition is not the only
                                       barometer of brilliance or human
worth. There are plenty of
                                       warriors I know and love, people far
more valuable than
                                       myself, who go to war each day,
knowing in advance that
                                       they will fail. True, they are less
"successful" in the most
                                       vulgar sense of the word, but by no
means less fulfilled.

                                       The only dream worth having, I told
her, is to dream that
                                       you will live while you're alive and
die only when you're
                                       dead. (Prescience? Perhaps.)

                                       "Which means exactly what?" (Arched
eyebrows, a little
                                       annoyed.)

                                       I tried to explain, but didn't do a
very good job of it.
                                       Sometimes I need to write to think.
So I wrote it down for
                                       her on a paper napkin. This is what I
wrote: To love. To be
                                       loved. To never forget your own
insignificance. To never
                                       get used to the unspeakable violence
and the vulgar
                                       disparity of life around you. To seek
joy in the saddest
                                       places. To pursue beauty to its lair.
To never simplify what
                                       is complicated or complicate what is
simple. To respect
                                       strength, never power. Above all, to
watch. To try and
                                       understand. To never look away. And
never, never to
                                       forget.

                                       I've known her for many years, this
friend of mine. She's an
                                       architect too. She looked dubious,
somewhat unconvinced
                                       by my paper napkin speech. I could
tell that structurally,
                                       just in terms of the sleek, narrative
symmetry of things, and
                                       because she loves me, her thrill at
my "success" was so
                                       keen, so generous, that it weighed in
evenly with her
                                       (anticipated) horror at the idea of
my death. I understood
                                       that it was nothing personal… Just a
design thing.

                                       Anyhow, two weeks after that
conversation, I returned to
                                       India. To what I think/thought of as
home. Something had
                                       died but it wasn't me. It was
infinitely more precious. It was
                                       a world that has been ailing for a
while, and has finally
                                       breathed its last. It's been cremated
now. The air is thick
                                       with ugliness and there's the
unmistakable stench of fascism
                                       on the breeze.

                                       Day after day, in newspaper
editorials, on the radio, on TV
                                       chat shows, on MTV for heaven's sake,
people whose
                                       instincts one thought one could trust
- writers, painters,
                                       journalists - make the crossing. The
chill seeps into my
                                       bones as it becomes painfully
apparent from the lessons of
                                       everyday life that what you read in
history books is true.
                                       That fascism is indeed as much about
people as about
                                       governments. That it begins at home.
In drawing rooms. In
                                       bedrooms. In beds.

                                       "Explosion of self-esteem", "Road to
Resurgence", "A
                                       Moment of Pride", these were
headlines in the papers in the
                                       days following the nuclear tests. "We
have proved that we
                                       are not eunuchs any more," said Mr
Thackeray of the Shiv
                                       Sena (Whoever said we were? True, a
good number of us
                                       are women, but that, as far as I
know, isn't the same thing.)
                                       Reading the papers, it was often hard
to tell when people
                                       were referring to Viagra (which was
competing for second
                                       place on the front pages) and when
they were talking about
                                       the bomb - "We have superior strength
and potency." (This
                                       was our Minister for Defence after
Pakistan completed its
                                       tests.)

                                       "These are not just nuclear tests,
they are nationalism tests,"
                                       we were repeatedly told.

                                       This has been hammered home, over and
over again. The
                                       bomb is India. India is the bomb. Not
just India, Hindu
                                       India. Therefore, be warned, any
criticism of it is not just
                                       ant-national but anti-Hindu. (Of
course in Pakistan the
                                       bomb is Islamic. Other than that,
politically, the same
                                       physics applies.) This is one of the
unexpected perks of
                                       having a nuclear bomb. Not only can
the government use it
                                       to threaten the Enemy, they can use
it to declare war on
                                       their own people. Us.

                                       When I told my friends that I was
writing this piece, they
                                       cautioned me. "Go ahead," they said,
"but first make sure
                                       you're not vulnerable. Make sure your
papers are in order.
                                       Make sure your taxes are paid."

                                       My papers are in order. My taxes are
paid. But how can
                                       one not be vulnerable in a climate
like this? Everyone is
                                       vulnerable. Accidents happen. There's
safety only in
                                       acquiescence. As I write, I am filled
with foreboding. In this
                                       country, I have truly known what it
means for a writer to
                                       feel loved (and, to some degree,
hated too). Last year I
                                       was one of the items being paraded in
the media's
                                       end-of-the-year National Pride
Parade. Among the others,
                                       much to my mortification, were a
bomb-maker and an
                                       international beauty queen. Each time
a beaming person
                                       stopped me on the street and said
"You have made India
                                       proud" (referring to the prize I won,
not the book I wrote),
                                       I felt a little uneasy. It frightened
me then and it terrifies me
                                       now, because I know how easily that
swell, that tide of
                                       emotion, can turn against me. Perhaps
the time for that has
                                       come. I'm going to step out from
under the fairy lights and
                                       say what's on my mind.

                                       It's this:

                                       If protesting against having a
nuclear bomb implanted in my
                                       brain is anti-Hindu and
anti-national, then I secede. I hereby
                                       declare myself an independent, mobile
republic. I am a
                                       citizen of the earth. I own no
territory. I have no flag. I'm
                                       female, but have nothing against
eunuchs. My policies are
                                       simple. I'm willing to sign any
nuclear non-proliferation
                                       treaty or nuclear test ban treaty
that's going. Immigrants are
                                       welcome. You can help me design our
flag.

                                       My world has died. And I write to
mourn its passing.

                                       India's nuclear tests, the manner in
which they were
                                       conducted, the euphoria with which
they have been greeted
                                       (by us) is indefensible. To me, it
signifies dreadful things.
                                       The end of imagination.

                                       On the 15th of August last year we
celebrated the 50th
                                       anniversary of India's independence.
Next May we can
                                       mark our first anniversary in nuclear
bondage.

                                       Why did they do it? Political
expediency is the obvious,
                                       cynical answer, except that it only
raises another, more
                                       basic question: Why should it have
been politically
                                       expedient? The three Official Reasons
given are: China,
                                       Pakistan and Exposing Western Hypocrisy.

                                       Taken at face value, and examined
individually, they're
                                       somewhat baffling. I'm not for a
moment suggesting that
                                       these are not real issues. Merely
that they aren't new. The
                                       only new thing on the old horizon is
the Indian government.
                                       In his appallingly cavalier letter to
the US president our
                                       prime minister says India's decision
to go ahead with the
                                       nuclear tests was due to a
"deteriorating security
                                       environment". He goes on to mention
the war with China in
                                       1962 and the "three aggressions we
have suffered in the last
                                       50 years [from Pakistan]. And for the
last 10 years we have
                                       been the victim of unremitting
terrorism and militancy
                                       sponsored by it . . . especially in
Jammu and Kashmir."

                                       The war with China is 35 years old.
Unless there's some
                                       vital state secret that we don't know
about, it certainly
                                       seemed as though matters had improved
slightly between
                                       us. The most recent war with Pakistan
was fought 27 years
                                       ago. Admittedly Kashmir continues to
be a deeply troubled
                                       region and no doubt Pakistan is
gleefully fanning the flames.
                                       But surely there must be flames to
fan in the first place?

                                       As for the third Official Reason:
Exposing Western
                                       Hypocrisy - how much more exposed can
they be? Which
                                       decent human being on earth harbours
any illusions about it?
                                       These are people whose histories are
spongy with the blood
                                       of others. Colonialism, apartheid,
slavery, ethnic cleansing,
                                       germ warfare, chemical weapons, they
virtually invented it
                                       all. They have plundered nations,
snuffed out civilisations,
                                       exterminated entire populations. They
stand on the world's
                                       stage stark naked but entirely
unembarrassed, because they
                                       know that they have more money, more
food and bigger
                                       bombs than anybody else. They know
they can wipe us out
                                       in the course of an ordinary working
day. Personally, I'd
                                       say it is arrogance more than hypocrisy.

                                       We have less money, less food and
smaller bombs.
                                       However, we have, or had, all kinds
of other wealth.
                                       Delightful, unquantifiable. What
we've done with it is the
                                       opposite of what we think we've done.
We've pawned it all.
                                       We've traded it in. For what? In
order to enter into a
                                       contract with the very people we
claim to despise.

                                       All in all, I think it is fair to say
that we're the hypocrites.
                                       We're the ones who've abandoned what
was arguably a
                                       moral position - ie. We have the
technology, we can make
                                       bombs if we want to, but we won't. We
don't believe in
                                       them.

                                       We're the ones who have now set up
this craven clamouring
                                       to be admitted into the club of
superpowers. For India to
                                       demand the status of a superpower is
as ridiculous as
                                       demanding to play in the World Cup
finals simply because
                                       we have a ball. Never mind that we
haven't qualified, or that
                                       we don't play much soccer and haven't
got a team.

                                       We are a nation of nearly a billion
people. In development
                                       terms we rank No 138 out of the 175
countries listed in the
                                       UNDP's Human Development Index (even
Ghana and Sri
                                       Lanka rank above us). More than 400
million of our people
                                       are illiterate and live in absolute
poverty, more than 600
                                       million lack even basic sanitation
and more than 200 million
                                       have no safe drinking water.

                                       The nuclear bomb and the demolition
of the Barbi Masjid in
                                       Ayodhya are both part of the same
political process. They
                                       are hideous byproducts for a nation's
search for herself. Of
                                       India's efforts to forge a national
identity. The poorer the
                                       nation, the larger the numbers of
illiterate people and the
                                       more morally bankrupt her leaders,
the cruder and more
                                       dangerous the notion of what that
identity is or should be.

                                       The jeering, hooting young men who
battered down the
                                       Babri Masjid are the same ones whose
pictures appeared in
                                       the papers in the days that followed
the nuclear tests. They
                                       were on the streets, celebrating
India's nuclear bomb and
                                       simultaneously "condemning Western
Culture" by emptying
                                       crates of Coke and Pepsi into public
drains. I'm a little
                                       baffled by their logic: Coke is
Western Culture, but the
                                       nuclear bomb is an old Indian tradition?

                                       Yes, I've heard - the bomb is in the
Vedas [ancient Hindu
                                       scriptures]. It might be, but if you
look hard enough you'll
                                       find Coke in the Vedas too. That's
the great thing about all
                                       religious texts. You can find
anything you want in them - as
                                       long as you know what you're looking
for.

                                       But returning to the subject of the
non-vedic 1990s: we
                                       storm the heart of whiteness, we
embrace the most
                                       diabolical creation of western
science and call it our own.
                                       But we protest against their music,
their food, their clothes,
                                       their cinema and their literature.
That's not hypocrisy. That's
                                       humour.

                                       It's funny enough to make a skull smile.

                                       We're back on the old ship. The SS
Authenticity &
                                       Indianness.

                                       If there is going to be a
pro-authenticity/anti-national drive,
                                       perhaps the government ought to get
its history straight and
                                       its facts right. If they're going to
do it, they may as well do it
                                       properly.

                                       First of all, the original
inhabitants of this land were not
                                       Hindu. Ancient though it is, there
were human beings on
                                       earth before there was Hinduism.
India's tribal people have
                                       a greater claim to being indigenous
to this land than
                                       anybody else, and how are they
treated by the state and its
                                       minions? Oppressed, cheated, robbed
of their lands,
                                       shunted around like surplus goods.
Perhaps a good place to
                                       start would be to restore to them the
dignity that was once
                                       theirs. Perhaps the government could
make a public
                                       undertaking that more dams of this
kind will not be built,
                                       that more people will not be displaced.

                                       But of course that would be
inconceivable, wouldn't it?
                                       Why? Because it's impractical.
Because tribal people don't
                                       really matter. Their histories, their
customs, their deities are
                                       dispensable. They must learn to
sacrifice these things for the
                                       greater good of the Nation (that has
snatched from them
                                       everything they ever had).

                                       Okay, so that's out.

                                       For the rest, I could compile a
practical list of things to ban
                                       and buildings to break. It'll need
some research, but off the
                                       top of my head here are a few
suggestions.

                                       They could begin by banning a number
of ingredients from
                                       our cuisine: chillies (Mexico),
tomatoes (Peru), potatoes
                                       (Bolivia), coffee (Morocco), tea,
white sugar, cinnamon
                                       (China) . . . they could then move
into recipes. Tea with
                                       milk and sugar, for instance (Britain).

                                       Smoking will be out of the question.
Tobacco came from
                                       North America. Cricket, English and
Democracy should be
                                       forbidden. Either kabaddi or kho-kho
could replace
                                       cricket. I don't want to start a
riot, so I hesitate to suggest a
                                       replacement for English. (Italian? It
has found its way to us
                                       via a kinder route: marriage, not
imperialism.)

                                       All hospitals in which western
medicine is practised or
                                       prescribed should be shut down. All
national newspapers
                                       discontinued. The railways
dismantled. Airports closed.
                                       And what about our newest toy - the
mobile phone? Can
                                       we live without it, or shall I
suggest that they make an
                                       exception there? They could put it
down in the column
                                       marked "Universal"? (Only essential
commodities will be
                                       included here. No music, art or
literature.)

                                       Needless to say, sending your
children to university in the
                                       US, and rushing there yourself to
have your prostate
                                       operated upon will be a cognisable
offence.

                                       It will be a long, long list. It
would take years of work. I
                                       could not use a computer because that
wouldn't be very
                                       authentic of me, would it?

                                       I don't mean to be facetious, merely
to point out that this is
                                       surely the short cut to hell. There's
no such thing as an
                                       Authentic India or a Real Indian.
There is no Divine
                                       Committee that has the right to
sanction one single,
                                       authorised version of what India is
or should be.

                                       Railing against the past will not
heal us. History has
                                       happened. It's over and done with.
All we can do is to
                                       change its course by encouraging what
we love instead of
                                       destroying what we don't. There is
beauty yet in this brutal,
                                       damaged world of ours. Hidden,
fierce, immense. Beauty
                                       that is uniquely ours and beauty that
we have received with
                                       grace from others, enhanced,
re-invented and made our
                                       own. We have to seek it out, nurture
it, love it. Making
                                       bombs will only destroy us. It
doesn't matter whether we
                                       use them or not. They will destroy us
either way.

                                       India's nuclear bomb is the final act
of betrayal by a ruling
                                       class that has failed its people.

                                       However many garlands we heap on our
scientists,
                                       however many medals we pin to their
chests, the truth is
                                       that it's far easier to make a bomb
than to educate four
                                       hundred million people.

                                       According to opinion polls, we're
expected to believe that
                                       there's a national consensus on the
issue. It's official now.
                                       Everybody loves the bomb. (Therefore
the bomb is good.)

                                       Is it possible for a man who cannot
write his own name to
                                       understand even the basic, elementary
facts about the
                                       nature of nuclear weapons? Has
anybody told him that
                                       nuclear war has nothing at all to do
with his received notions
                                       of war? Nothing to do with honour,
nothing to do with
                                       pride. Has anybody bothered to
explain to him about
                                       thermal blasts, radioactive fallout
and the nuclear winter?
                                       Are there even words in his language
to describe the
                                       concepts of enriched uranium, fissile
material and critical
                                       mass? Or has his language itself
become obsolete? Is he
                                       trapped in a time capsule, watching
the world pass him by,
                                       unable to understand or communicate
with it because his
                                       language never took into account the
horrors that the human
                                       race would dream up? Does he not
matter at all, this man?

                                       I'm not talking about one man, of
course, I'm talking about
                                       millions and millions of people who
live in this country. This
                                       is their land too, you know. They
have the right to make an
                                       informed decision about its fate and,
as far as I can tell,
                                       nobody has informed them about
anything. The tragedy is
                                       that nobody could, even if they
wanted to. Truly, literally,
                                       there's no language to do it in. This
is the real horror of
                                       India. The orbits of the powerful and
the powerless spinning
                                       further and further apart from each
other, never intersecting,
                                       sharing nothing. Not a language. Not
even a country.

                                       Who the hell conducted those opinion
polls? Who the hell is
                                       the prime minister to decide whose
finger will be on the
                                       nuclear button that could turn
everything we love - our
                                       earth, our skies, our mountains, our
plains, our rivers, our
                                       cities and villages - to ash in an
instant? Who the hell is he
                                       to reassure us that there will be no
accidents? How does he
                                       know? Why should we trust him? What
has he ever done to
                                       make us trust him? What have any of
them ever done to
                                       make us trust them?

                                       The nuclear bomb is the most
anti-democratic, anti-national,
                                       anti-human, outright evil thing that
man has ever made. If
                                       you are religious, then remember that
this bomb is Man's
                                       challenge to God. It's worded quite
simply: We have the
                                       power to destroy everything that You
have created.

                                       If you're not religious, then look at
it this way. This world of
                                       ours is four thousand, six hundred
million years old.

                                       It could end in an afternoon

CORRECTION:
Contrary to The Guardian's Footnote which I regurgitated, Arundhati Roy's
article is from the latest issue of FRONTLINE, Vol. 15 :: No. 16 :: Aug. 1
- 14, 1998, not the previous - and to think I was questioning "How did I
miss that?", Cheers, Lynette.

More on military lunacy - but with special thanks to Arundhati Roy for
coining the term nuclear bondage - not that our plate is not sufficiently
filled with campaigns against bondage by race, gender, caste,
fundamentalism, etc., etc. - and with apologies to our sister subscribers
from India who will have already read this article s in last week's
Frontline. Lynette.

THE GUARDIAN, London, August 1, 1998

The end of imagination

                                       Arundhati Roy took the literary world
by storm last
                                       year with her first novel, The God of
Small Things,
                                       which won the Booker prize. In her
first piece of
                                       writing since then, she expresses her
horror at the
                                       nuclear arms race in her native India

                                       Saturday August 1, 1998

                                       "The desert shook," the Government of
India
                                       informed us (its people).

                                       "The whole mountain turned white,"
the Government
                                       of Pakistan replied.

                                       By afternoon the wind had fallen
silent over Pokhran.
                                       At 3.45pm, the timer detonated the
three devices.
                                       Around 200 to 300m deep in the earth,
the heat
                                       generated was equivalent to a million
degrees
                                       centigrade - as hot as temperatures
on the sun.
                                       Instantly, rocks weighing around a
thousand tons, a
                                       mini mountain underground,
vapourised… shockwaves
                                       from the blast began to lift a mound
of earth the size of
                                       a football field by several metres.
One scientist on
                                       seeing it said, "I can now believe
stories of Lord
                                       Krishna lifting a hill."

                                       India Today

                                       May 1998. It'll go down in history
books, provided of
                                       course we have history books to go
down in. Provided, of
                                       course, we have a future.

                                       There's nothing new or original left
to be said about nuclear
                                       weapons. There can be nothing more
humiliating for a writer
                                       of fiction to have to do than restate
a case that has, over the
                                       years, already been made by other
people in other parts of
                                       the world, and made passionately,
eloquently and
                                       knowledgeably.

                                       I am prepared to grovel. To humiliate
myself abjectly,
                                       because, in the circumstances,
silence would be
                                       indefensible. So those of you who are
willing: let's pick our
                                       parts, put on these discarded
costumes and speak our
                                       second-hand lines in this sad
second-hand play. But let's
                                       not forget that the stakes we're
playing for are huge. Our
                                       fatigue and our shame could mean the
end of us. The end of
                                       our children and our children's
children. Of everything we
                                       love. We have to reach within
ourselves and find the
                                       strength to think. To fight.

                                       Once again we are pitifully behind
the times - not just
                                       scientifically and technologically
(ignore the hollow claims)
                                       but more pertinently in our ability
to grasp the true nature of
                                       nuclear weapons. Our Comprehension of
the Horror
                                       Department is hopelessly obsolete.
Here we are, all of us in
                                       India and in Pakistan, discussing the
finer points of politics
                                       and foreign policy, behaving for all
the world as though our
                                       governments have just devised a
newer, bigger bomb, a
                                       sort of immense hand grenade with
which they will annihilate
                                       the enemy (each other) and protect us
from all harm.

                                       How desperately we want to believe
that. What wonderful,
                                       willing, well-behaved, gullible
subjects we have turned out
                                       to be. The rest of humanity may not
forgive us, but then the
                                       rest of the rest of humanity,
depending on who fashions its
                                       views, may not know what a tired,
dejected, heart-broken
                                       people we are. Perhaps it doesn't
realise how urgently we
                                       need a miracle. How deeply we yearn
for magic.

                                       If only, if only nuclear war was just
another kind of war. If
                                       only it was about the usual things -
nations and territories,
                                       gods and histories. If only those of
us who dread it are
                                       worthless moral cowards who are not
prepared to die in
                                       defence of our beliefs. If only
nuclear war was the kind of
                                       war in which countries battle
countries, and men battle men.
                                       But it isn't. If there is a nuclear
war, our foes will not be
                                       China or America or even each other.
Our foe will be the
                                       earth herself.

                                       Our cities and forests, our fields
and villages will burn for
                                       days. Rivers will turn to poison. The
air will become fire.
                                       The wind will spread the flames. When
everything there is
                                       to burn has burned and the fires die,
smoke will rise and
                                       shut out the sun. The earth will be
enveloped in darkness.
                                       There will be no day - only
interminable night.

                                       What shall we do then, those of us
who are still alive?
                                       Burned and blind and bald and ill,
carrying the cancerous
                                       carcasses of our children in our
arms, where shall we go?
                                       What shall we eat? What shall we
drink? What shall we
                                       breathe?

                                       The Head of the Health, Environment
and Safety Group of
                                       the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
Bombay has a plan.
                                       He declared that India could survive
nuclear war. His
                                       advice is that in the event of
nuclear war we take the same
                                       safety measures as the ones that
scientists have
                                       recommended in the event of accidents
at nuclear plants.

                                       Take iodine pills, he suggests. And
other steps such as
                                       remaining indoors, consuming only
stored water and food
                                       and avoiding milk. Infants should be
given powdered milk.
                                       "People in the danger zone should
immediately go to the
                                       ground floor and if possible to the
basement."

                                       What do you do with these levels of
lunacy? What do you
                                       do if you're trapped in an asylum and
the doctors are all
                                       dangerously deranged?

                                       Ignore it, it's just a novelist's
naiveté, they'll tell you,
                                       Doomsday Prophet hyperbole. It'll
never come to that.
                                       There will be no war. Nuclear weapons
are about peace,
                                       not war. "Deterrence" is the buzz
word of the people who
                                       like to think of themselves as hawks.
(Nice birds, those.
                                       Cool. Stylish. Predatory. Pity there
won't be many of them
                                       around after the war. Extinction is a
word we must try to
                                       get used to.) Deterrence is an old
thesis that has been
                                       resurrected and is being recycled
with added local flavour.
                                       The Theory of Deterrence cornered the
credit for having
                                       prevented the cold war from turning
into a third world war.
                                       The only immutable fact about the
third world war is that, if
                                       there's going to be one, it will be
fought after the second
                                       world war. In other words, there's no
fixed schedule.

                                       The Theory of Deterrence has some
fundamental flaws.
                                       Flaw Number One is that it presumes a
complete,
                                       sophisticated understanding of the
psychology of your
                                       enemy. It assumes that what deters
you (the fear of
                                       annihilation) will deter them. What
about those who are not
                                       deterred by that? The suicide bomber
psyche - the "We'll
                                       take you with us" school - is that an
outlandish thought?
                                       How did Rajiv Gandhi die?

                                       In any case who's the "you" and who's
the "enemy"? Both
                                       are only governments. Governments
change. They wear
                                       masks within masks. They moult and
re-invent themselves
                                       all the time. The one we have at the
moment, for instance,
                                       does not even have enough seats to
last a full term in office,
                                       but demands that we trust it to do
pirouettes and party
                                       tricks with nuclear bombs even as it
scrabbles around for a
                                       foothold to maintain a simple
majority in Parliament.

                                       Flaw Number Two is that deterrence is
premised on fear.
                                       But fear is premised on knowledge. On
an understanding of
                                       the true extent and scale of the
devastation that nuclear war
                                       will wreak. It is not some inherent,
mystical attribute of
                                       nuclear bombs that they automatically
inspire thoughts of
                                       peace. On the contrary, it is the
endless, tireless,
                                       confrontational work of people who
have had the courage
                                       to openly denounce them, the marches,
the demonstrations,
                                       the films, the outrage - that is what
has averted, or perhaps
                                       only postponed, nuclear war.
Deterrence will not and
                                       cannot work given the levels of
ignorance and illiteracy that
                                       hang over our two countries like
dense, impenetrable veils.

                                       India and Pakistan have nuclear bombs
now and feel
                                       entirely justified in having them.
Soon others will too. Israel,
                                       Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Norway,
Nepal (I'm trying to be
                                       eclectic here), Denmark, Germany,
Bhutan, Mexico,
                                       Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Burma, Bosnia,
Singapore, North
                                       Korea, Sweden, South Korea, Vietnam,
Cuba,
                                       Afghanistan, Uzbekistan… and why not?
Every country in
                                       the world has a special case to make.
Everybody has
                                       borders and beliefs.

                                       And when all our larders are bursting
with shiny bombs and
                                       our bellies are empty (deterrence is
an exorbitant beast), we
                                       can trade bombs for food. And when
nuclear technology
                                       goes on the market, when it gets
truly competitive and
                                       prices fall, not just governments but
anybody who can
                                       afford it can have their own private
arsenal - businessmen,
                                       terrorists, perhaps even the
occasional rich writer (like me).
                                       Our planet will bristle with
beautiful missiles. There will be a
                                       new world order. The dictatorship of
the pro-nuke elite.

                                       But let us pause to give credit where
it's due. Who must we
                                       thank for all this? The men who made
it happen. The
                                       Masters of the Universe. Ladies and
gentlemen, the United
                                       States of America! Come on up here
folks, stand up and
                                       take a bow. Thank you for doing this
to the world. Thank
                                       you for making a difference. Thank
you for showing us the
                                       way. Thank you for altering the very
meaning of life.

                                       From now on it is not dying we must
fear, but living.

                                       All I can say to every man, woman and
sentient child in
                                       India, and over there, just a little
way away in Pakistan, is:
                                       take it personally. Whoever you are -
Hindu, Muslim,
                                       urban, agrarian - it doesn't matter.
The only good thing
                                       about nuclear war is that it is the
single most egalitarian idea
                                       that man has ever had. On the day of
reckoning, you will
                                       not be asked to present your
credentials. The devastation
                                       will be indiscriminate. The bomb
isn't in your backyard. It's
                                       in your body. And mine. Nobody, no
nation, no
                                       government, no man, no god has the
right to put it there.
                                       We're radioactive already, and the
war hasn't even begun.
                                       So stand up and say something. Never
mind if it's been said
                                       before. Speak up on your own behalf.
Take it very
                                       personally.

                                       In early May (before the bomb), I
left home for three
                                       weeks. I thought I would return. I
had every intention of
                                       returning. Of course things haven't
worked out quite the
                                       way I had planned.

                                       While I was away, I met a friend whom
I have always loved
                                       for, among other things, her ability
to combine deep
                                       affection with a frankness that
borders on savagery. "I've
                                       been thinking about you," she said,
"about The God of
                                       Small Things - what's in it, what's
over it, under it, around it,
                                       above it…"

                                       She fell silent for a while. I was
uneasy and not at all sure
                                       that I wanted to hear the rest of
what she had to say. She,
                                       however, was sure that she was going
to say it. "In this last
                                       year - less than a year actually -
you've had too much of
                                       everything - fame, money, prizes,
adulation, criticism,
                                       condemnation, ridicule, love, hate,
anger, envy, generosity -
                                       everything. In some ways it's a
perfect story. Perfectly
                                       baroque in its excess. The trouble is
that it has, or can have,
                                       only one perfect ending."

                                       Her eyes were on me, bright with a
slanting, probing
                                       brilliance. She knew that I knew what
she was going to say.
                                       She was insane. She was going to say
that nothing that
                                       happened to me in the future could
ever match the buzz of
                                       this. That the whole of the rest of
my life was going to be
                                       vaguely unsatisfying. And, therefore,
the only perfect ending
                                       to the story would be death. My death.

                                       The thought had occurred to me too.
Of course it had. The
                                       fact that all this, this global
dazzle - these lights in my eyes,
                                       the applause, the flowers, the
photographers, the journalists
                                       feigning a deep interest in my life
(yet struggling to get a
                                       single fact straight), the men in
suits fawning over me, the
                                       shiny hotel bathrooms with endless
towels - none of it was
                                       likely to happen again. Would I miss
it? Had I grown to
                                       need it? Was I a fame-junkie? Would I
have withdrawal
                                       symptoms?

                                       The more I thought about it, the
clearer it became to me
                                       that if fame was going to be my
permanent condition it
                                       would kill me. Club me to death with
its good manners and
                                       hygiene. I'll admit that I've enjoyed
my own five minutes of
                                       it immensely, but primarily because
it was just five minutes.
                                       Because I knew (or thought I knew)
that I could go home
                                       when I was bored and giggle about it.
Grow old and
                                       irresponsible. Eat mangoes in the
moonlight. Maybe write a
                                       couple of failed books - worstsellers
- to see what it felt
                                       like. For a whole year I've
cartwheeled across the world,
                                       anchored always to thoughts of home
and the life I would
                                       go back to.

                                       Contrary to all the enquiries and
predictions about my
                                       impending emigration, that was the
well I dipped into. That
                                       was my sustenance. My strength. I
told my friend there was
                                       no such thing as a perfect story. I
said that in any case hers
                                       was an external view of things, this
assumption that the
                                       trajectory of a person's happiness,
or let's say fulfilment,
                                       had peaked (and now must trough)
because she had
                                       accidentally stumbled upon "success".
It was premised on
                                       the unimaginative belief that wealth
and fame were the
                                       mandatory stuff of everybody's dreams.

                                       You've lived too long in New York, I
told her. There are
                                       other worlds. Other kinds of dreams.
Dreams in which
                                       failure is feasible, honourable,
sometimes even worth
                                       striving for. Worlds in which
recognition is not the only
                                       barometer of brilliance or human
worth. There are plenty of
                                       warriors I know and love, people far
more valuable than
                                       myself, who go to war each day,
knowing in advance that
                                       they will fail. True, they are less
"successful" in the most
                                       vulgar sense of the word, but by no
means less fulfilled.

                                       The only dream worth having, I told
her, is to dream that
                                       you will live while you're alive and
die only when you're
                                       dead. (Prescience? Perhaps.)

                                       "Which means exactly what?" (Arched
eyebrows, a little
                                       annoyed.)

                                       I tried to explain, but didn't do a
very good job of it.
                                       Sometimes I need to write to think.
So I wrote it down for
                                       her on a paper napkin. This is what I
wrote: To love. To be
                                       loved. To never forget your own
insignificance. To never
                                       get used to the unspeakable violence
and the vulgar
                                       disparity of life around you. To seek
joy in the saddest
                                       places. To pursue beauty to its lair.
To never simplify what
                                       is complicated or complicate what is
simple. To respect
                                       strength, never power. Above all, to
watch. To try and
                                       understand. To never look away. And
never, never to
                                       forget.

                                       I've known her for many years, this
friend of mine. She's an
                                       architect too. She looked dubious,
somewhat unconvinced
                                       by my paper napkin speech. I could
tell that structurally,
                                       just in terms of the sleek, narrative
symmetry of things, and
                                       because she loves me, her thrill at
my "success" was so
                                       keen, so generous, that it weighed in
evenly with her
                                       (anticipated) horror at the idea of
my death. I understood
                                       that it was nothing personal… Just a
design thing.

                                       Anyhow, two weeks after that
conversation, I returned to
                                       India. To what I think/thought of as
home. Something had
                                       died but it wasn't me. It was
infinitely more precious. It was
                                       a world that has been ailing for a
while, and has finally
                                       breathed its last. It's been cremated
now. The air is thick
                                       with ugliness and there's the
unmistakable stench of fascism
                                       on the breeze.

                                       Day after day, in newspaper
editorials, on the radio, on TV
                                       chat shows, on MTV for heaven's sake,
people whose
                                       instincts one thought one could trust
- writers, painters,
                                       journalists - make the crossing. The
chill seeps into my
                                       bones as it becomes painfully
apparent from the lessons of
                                       everyday life that what you read in
history books is true.
                                       That fascism is indeed as much about
people as about
                                       governments. That it begins at home.
In drawing rooms. In
                                       bedrooms. In beds.

                                       "Explosion of self-esteem", "Road to
Resurgence", "A
                                       Moment of Pride", these were
headlines in the papers in the
                                       days following the nuclear tests. "We
have proved that we
                                       are not eunuchs any more," said Mr
Thackeray of the Shiv
                                       Sena (Whoever said we were? True, a
good number of us
                                       are women, but that, as far as I
know, isn't the same thing.)
                                       Reading the papers, it was often hard
to tell when people
                                       were referring to Viagra (which was
competing for second
                                       place on the front pages) and when
they were talking about
                                       the bomb - "We have superior strength
and potency." (This
                                       was our Minister for Defence after
Pakistan completed its
                                       tests.)

                                       "These are not just nuclear tests,
they are nationalism tests,"
                                       we were repeatedly told.

                                       This has been hammered home, over and
over again. The
                                       bomb is India. India is the bomb. Not
just India, Hindu
                                       India. Therefore, be warned, any
criticism of it is not just
                                       ant-national but anti-Hindu. (Of
course in Pakistan the
                                       bomb is Islamic. Other than that,
politically, the same
                                       physics applies.) This is one of the
unexpected perks of
                                       having a nuclear bomb. Not only can
the government use it
                                       to threaten the Enemy, they can use
it to declare war on
                                       their own people. Us.

                                       When I told my friends that I was
writing this piece, they
                                       cautioned me. "Go ahead," they said,
"but first make sure
                                       you're not vulnerable. Make sure your
papers are in order.
                                       Make sure your taxes are paid."

                                       My papers are in order. My taxes are
paid. But how can
                                       one not be vulnerable in a climate
like this? Everyone is
                                       vulnerable. Accidents happen. There's
safety only in
                                       acquiescence. As I write, I am filled
with foreboding. In this
                                       country, I have truly known what it
means for a writer to
                                       feel loved (and, to some degree,
hated too). Last year I
                                       was one of the items being paraded in
the media's
                                       end-of-the-year National Pride
Parade. Among the others,
                                       much to my mortification, were a
bomb-maker and an
                                       international beauty queen. Each time
a beaming person
                                       stopped me on the street and said
"You have made India
                                       proud" (referring to the prize I won,
not the book I wrote),
                                       I felt a little uneasy. It frightened
me then and it terrifies me
                                       now, because I know how easily that
swell, that tide of
                                       emotion, can turn against me. Perhaps
the time for that has
                                       come. I'm going to step out from
under the fairy lights and
                                       say what's on my mind.

                                       It's this:

                                       If protesting against having a
nuclear bomb implanted in my
                                       brain is anti-Hindu and
anti-national, then I secede. I hereby
                                       declare myself an independent, mobile
republic. I am a
                                       citizen of the earth. I own no
territory. I have no flag. I'm
                                       female, but have nothing against
eunuchs. My policies are
                                       simple. I'm willing to sign any
nuclear non-proliferation
                                       treaty or nuclear test ban treaty
that's going. Immigrants are
                                       welcome. You can help me design our
flag.

                                       My world has died. And I write to
mourn its passing.

                                       India's nuclear tests, the manner in
which they were
                                       conducted, the euphoria with which
they have been greeted
                                       (by us) is indefensible. To me, it
signifies dreadful things.
                                       The end of imagination.

                                       On the 15th of August last year we
celebrated the 50th
                                       anniversary of India's independence.
Next May we can
                                       mark our first anniversary in nuclear
bondage.

                                       Why did they do it? Political
expediency is the obvious,
                                       cynical answer, except that it only
raises another, more
                                       basic question: Why should it have
been politically
                                       expedient? The three Official Reasons
given are: China,
                                       Pakistan and Exposing Western Hypocrisy.

                                       Taken at face value, and examined
individually, they're
                                       somewhat baffling. I'm not for a
moment suggesting that
                                       these are not real issues. Merely
that they aren't new. The
                                       only new thing on the old horizon is
the Indian government.
                                       In his appallingly cavalier letter to
the US president our
                                       prime minister says India's decision
to go ahead with the
                                       nuclear tests was due to a
"deteriorating security
                                       environment". He goes on to mention
the war with China in
                                       1962 and the "three aggressions we
have suffered in the last
                                       50 years [from Pakistan]. And for the
last 10 years we have
                                       been the victim of unremitting
terrorism and militancy
                                       sponsored by it . . . especially in
Jammu and Kashmir."

                                       The war with China is 35 years old.
Unless there's some
                                       vital state secret that we don't know
about, it certainly
                                       seemed as though matters had improved
slightly between
                                       us. The most recent war with Pakistan
was fought 27 years
                                       ago. Admittedly Kashmir continues to
be a deeply troubled
                                       region and no doubt Pakistan is
gleefully fanning the flames.
                                       But surely there must be flames to
fan in the first place?

                                       As for the third Official Reason:
Exposing Western
                                       Hypocrisy - how much more exposed can
they be? Which
                                       decent human being on earth harbours
any illusions about it?
                                       These are people whose histories are
spongy with the blood
                                       of others. Colonialism, apartheid,
slavery, ethnic cleansing,
                                       germ warfare, chemical weapons, they
virtually invented it
                                       all. They have plundered nations,
snuffed out civilisations,
                                       exterminated entire populations. They
stand on the world's
                                       stage stark naked but entirely
unembarrassed, because they
                                       know that they have more money, more
food and bigger
                                       bombs than anybody else. They know
they can wipe us out
                                       in the course of an ordinary working
day. Personally, I'd
                                       say it is arrogance more than hypocrisy.

                                       We have less money, less food and
smaller bombs.
                                       However, we have, or had, all kinds
of other wealth.
                                       Delightful, unquantifiable. What
we've done with it is the
                                       opposite of what we think we've done.
We've pawned it all.
                                       We've traded it in. For what? In
order to enter into a
                                       contract with the very people we
claim to despise.

                                       All in all, I think it is fair to say
that we're the hypocrites.
                                       We're the ones who've abandoned what
was arguably a
                                       moral position - ie. We have the
technology, we can make
                                       bombs if we want to, but we won't. We
don't believe in
                                       them.

                                       We're the ones who have now set up
this craven clamouring
                                       to be admitted into the club of
superpowers. For India to
                                       demand the status of a superpower is
as ridiculous as
                                       demanding to play in the World Cup
finals simply because
                                       we have a ball. Never mind that we
haven't qualified, or that
                                       we don't play much soccer and haven't
got a team.

                                       We are a nation of nearly a billion
people. In development
                                       terms we rank No 138 out of the 175
countries listed in the
                                       UNDP's Human Development Index (even
Ghana and Sri
                                       Lanka rank above us). More than 400
million of our people
                                       are illiterate and live in absolute
poverty, more than 600
                                       million lack even basic sanitation
and more than 200 million
                                       have no safe drinking water.

                                       The nuclear bomb and the demolition
of the Barbi Masjid in
                                       Ayodhya are both part of the same
political process. They
                                       are hideous byproducts for a nation's
search for herself. Of
                                       India's efforts to forge a national
identity. The poorer the
                                       nation, the larger the numbers of
illiterate people and the
                                       more morally bankrupt her leaders,
the cruder and more
                                       dangerous the notion of what that
identity is or should be.

                                       The jeering, hooting young men who
battered down the
                                       Babri Masjid are the same ones whose
pictures appeared in
                                       the papers in the days that followed
the nuclear tests. They
                                       were on the streets, celebrating
India's nuclear bomb and
                                       simultaneously "condemning Western
Culture" by emptying
                                       crates of Coke and Pepsi into public
drains. I'm a little
                                       baffled by their logic: Coke is
Western Culture, but the
                                       nuclear bomb is an old Indian tradition?

                                       Yes, I've heard - the bomb is in the
Vedas [ancient Hindu
                                       scriptures]. It might be, but if you
look hard enough you'll
                                       find Coke in the Vedas too. That's
the great thing about all
                                       religious texts. You can find
anything you want in them - as
                                       long as you know what you're looking
for.

                                       But returning to the subject of the
non-vedic 1990s: we
                                       storm the heart of whiteness, we
embrace the most
                                       diabolical creation of western
science and call it our own.
                                       But we protest against their music,
their food, their clothes,
                                       their cinema and their literature.
That's not hypocrisy. That's
                                       humour.

                                       It's funny enough to make a skull smile.

                                       We're back on the old ship. The SS
Authenticity &
                                       Indianness.

                                       If there is going to be a
pro-authenticity/anti-national drive,
                                       perhaps the government ought to get
its history straight and
                                       its facts right. If they're going to
do it, they may as well do it
                                       properly.

                                       First of all, the original
inhabitants of this land were not
                                       Hindu. Ancient though it is, there
were human beings on
                                       earth before there was Hinduism.
India's tribal people have
                                       a greater claim to being indigenous
to this land than
                                       anybody else, and how are they
treated by the state and its
                                       minions? Oppressed, cheated, robbed
of their lands,
                                       shunted around like surplus goods.
Perhaps a good place to
                                       start would be to restore to them the
dignity that was once
                                       theirs. Perhaps the government could
make a public
                                       undertaking that more dams of this
kind will not be built,
                                       that more people will not be displaced.

                                       But of course that would be
inconceivable, wouldn't it?
                                       Why? Because it's impractical.
Because tribal people don't
                                       really matter. Their histories, their
customs, their deities are
                                       dispensable. They must learn to
sacrifice these things for the
                                       greater good of the Nation (that has
snatched from them
                                       everything they ever had).

                                       Okay, so that's out.

                                       For the rest, I could compile a
practical list of things to ban
                                       and buildings to break. It'll need
some research, but off the
                                       top of my head here are a few
suggestions.

                                       They could begin by banning a number
of ingredients from
                                       our cuisine: chillies (Mexico),
tomatoes (Peru), potatoes
                                       (Bolivia), coffee (Morocco), tea,
white sugar, cinnamon
                                       (China) . . . they could then move
into recipes. Tea with
                                       milk and sugar, for instance (Britain).

                                       Smoking will be out of the question.
Tobacco came from
                                       North America. Cricket, English and
Democracy should be
                                       forbidden. Either kabaddi or kho-kho
could replace
                                       cricket. I don't want to start a
riot, so I hesitate to suggest a
                                       replacement for English. (Italian? It
has found its way to us
                                       via a kinder route: marriage, not
imperialism.)

                                       All hospitals in which western
medicine is practised or
                                       prescribed should be shut down. All
national newspapers
                                       discontinued. The railways
dismantled. Airports closed.
                                       And what about our newest toy - the
mobile phone? Can
                                       we live without it, or shall I
suggest that they make an
                                       exception there? They could put it
down in the column
                                       marked "Universal"? (Only essential
commodities will be
                                       included here. No music, art or
literature.)

                                       Needless to say, sending your
children to university in the
                                       US, and rushing there yourself to
have your prostate
                                       operated upon will be a cognisable
offence.

                                       It will be a long, long list. It
would take years of work. I
                                       could not use a computer because that
wouldn't be very
                                       authentic of me, would it?

                                       I don't mean to be facetious, merely
to point out that this is
                                       surely the short cut to hell. There's
no such thing as an
                                       Authentic India or a Real Indian.
There is no Divine
                                       Committee that has the right to
sanction one single,
                                       authorised version of what India is
or should be.

                                       Railing against the past will not
heal us. History has
                                       happened. It's over and done with.
All we can do is to
                                       change its course by encouraging what
we love instead of
                                       destroying what we don't. There is
beauty yet in this brutal,
                                       damaged world of ours. Hidden,
fierce, immense. Beauty
                                       that is uniquely ours and beauty that
we have received with
                                       grace from others, enhanced,
re-invented and made our
                                       own. We have to seek it out, nurture
it, love it. Making
                                       bombs will only destroy us. It
doesn't matter whether we
                                       use them or not. They will destroy us
either way.

                                       India's nuclear bomb is the final act
of betrayal by a ruling
                                       class that has failed its people.

                                       However many garlands we heap on our
scientists,
                                       however many medals we pin to their
chests, the truth is
                                       that it's far easier to make a bomb
than to educate four
                                       hundred million people.

                                       According to opinion polls, we're
expected to believe that
                                       there's a national consensus on the
issue. It's official now.
                                       Everybody loves the bomb. (Therefore
the bomb is good.)

                                       Is it possible for a man who cannot
write his own name to
                                       understand even the basic, elementary
facts about the
                                       nature of nuclear weapons? Has
anybody told him that
                                       nuclear war has nothing at all to do
with his received notions
                                       of war? Nothing to do with honour,
nothing to do with
                                       pride. Has anybody bothered to
explain to him about
                                       thermal blasts, radioactive fallout
and the nuclear winter?
                                       Are there even words in his language
to describe the
                                       concepts of enriched uranium, fissile
material and critical
                                       mass? Or has his language itself
become obsolete? Is he
                                       trapped in a time capsule, watching
the world pass him by,
                                       unable to understand or communicate
with it because his
                                       language never took into account the
horrors that the human
                                       race would dream up? Does he not
matter at all, this man?

                                       I'm not talking about one man, of
course, I'm talking about
                                       millions and millions of people who
live in this country. This
                                       is their land too, you know. They
have the right to make an
                                       informed decision about its fate and,
as far as I can tell,
                                       nobody has informed them about
anything. The tragedy is
                                       that nobody could, even if they
wanted to. Truly, literally,
                                       there's no language to do it in. This
is the real horror of
                                       India. The orbits of the powerful and
the powerless spinning
                                       further and further apart from each
other, never intersecting,
                                       sharing nothing. Not a language. Not
even a country.

                                       Who the hell conducted those opinion
polls? Who the hell is
                                       the prime minister to decide whose
finger will be on the
                                       nuclear button that could turn
everything we love - our
                                       earth, our skies, our mountains, our
plains, our rivers, our
                                       cities and villages - to ash in an
instant? Who the hell is he
                                       to reassure us that there will be no
accidents? How does he
                                       know? Why should we trust him? What
has he ever done to
                                       make us trust him? What have any of
them ever done to
                                       make us trust them?

                                       The nuclear bomb is the most
anti-democratic, anti-national,
                                       anti-human, outright evil thing that
man has ever made. If
                                       you are religious, then remember that
this bomb is Man's
                                       challenge to God. It's worded quite
simply: We have the
                                       power to destroy everything that You
have created.

                                       If you're not religious, then look at
it this way. This world of
                                       ours is four thousand, six hundred
million years old.

                                       It could end in an afternoon

If this is the "moral decision" of which Britain [and their cronies from
the miltary economy] is so proud, why does it require an Act of Westminster
to bring an end to landmine terror, and why introduce a bill with a known
loophole? Lynette [left speechless by this one!!!]

THE GUARDIAN, London, August 1, 1998

Landmine ban has 'loophole'

                                       By Richard Norton-Taylor
                                       Saturday August 1, 1998

                                       George Robertson, the Defence
Secretary, yesterday
                                       announced an immediate and total ban
on the use of
                                       anti-personnel landmines by British
forces as the
                                       Government ratified an international
convention outlawing
                                       the indiscriminate weapon estimated
to kill or maim 2,000
                                       people a month.

                                       The move follows the Government's
decision earlier this
                                       month to bow to intense public
pressure and rush through a
                                       Landmines Act in time for the first
anniversary of the death
                                       of Diana, Princess of Wales, who
campaigned against the
                                       weapon.

                                       Until yesterday, a loophole allowed
ministers to deploy
                                       mines in "exceptional circumstances".
"The most
                                       professional army in the world now
has said that this is not a
                                       system that is morally correct or
militarily useful," Mr
                                       Robertson said.

                                       The largely symbolic decision - a
British moratorium on the
                                       use of mines has been in place for a
year - was welcomed
                                       by the British Red Cross and the
Mines Advisory Group
                                       (MAG), the mine clearance
organisation. Lou McGrath,
                                       director of MAG, said Britain had
taken a moral stand of
                                       which it should be proud.

                                       However, Mr McGrath said a
significant loophole
                                       remained. "British troops can still
take part in landmine use
                                       whilst working with Nato," he said.
"They would not be
                                       able to lay mines but they would be
able to help others to
                                       lay mines. This should not be allowed
to happen." The
                                       loophole is designed to give British
forces legal protection
                                       when working in combined operations,
notably with the
                                       United States, which has said it will
not sign the Ottawa
                                       Convention until 2006 and even then
not without conditions
                                       attached. The US and Turkey are the
only Nato countries
                                       which have not signed the convention.

                                       Responding to opposition criticism
that the loophole was in
                                       breach of the Ottawa Convention, or
at least its intention,
                                       Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary,
told the Commons on
                                       July 10 that it would "protect
British troops from being
                                       criminalised by the action of
American troops who may be
                                       taking part in the same operation".

                                       Yesterday, junior foreign minister,
Baroness Symons, told
                                       peers that, in the Government's view,
the Ottawa
                                       Convention did not prevent British
troops working with
                                       other countries' forces that were
using landmines.

                                       "The mere participation in the
planning or execution of
                                       operations, exercises or other
military activity by the UK's
                                       armed forces . . . in combination
with the armed forces of
                                       states not party to the Ottawa
Convention, which engage in
                                       activity that is prohibited under the
Convention, is not, by
                                       itself, assistance, encouragement or
inducement," she said.

                                       Liberal Democrat foreign affairs
spokesman, Menzies
                                       Campbell, described Mr Robertson's
announcement as "yet
                                       another case of news management for
political advantage".

hi all
i am putting together a directory of office for the status of women's
resources for oz women - and including a 'wish list' of items also - this
is part of the australian women's intra network (awin) project of indexing
the oz web in a useful way for women to speed up the process of improving
our lives.

cedaw is the global convention on elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women

sample content of directory:organised under the 12 cedaw arenas

Webspace address
Email
Info Service
Publications
Diary
IWD Week for Women Events
RTN Week Against Violence Events
Eletters - open email lists for women of oz to dialogue with osw women - a
party line in the old sense with a web interface and non web technology
interface facility
Grants - past, present, future - plus how to, who did
Ezine - online newsletter - feed national broadsheet
Media Releases
Submissions
Links
Search - whole site searchable
CEDAW Report Card - inform country statement to convention, from lived
experience

additions, edits, etc welcome - what do we want from osws, and what is the
most useful form to get it in?

don't forget - it is a wish list also!

cheers
susanne martain

webweave@...
http://www.isis.aust.com
PO Box 1 Annandale NSW Australia 2038
PH +61 2 9660 6859

Dear Sisters,
Dear Sisters,
Great news - Grameen has terminated its partnership with Monsanto -
celebrations are in order, and with the overwhelming proportion of the
credit belonging to Vandana Shiva for her indisputable energy and
scholarship. "MONOCULTURES, MONOPOLIES, MYTHS AND THE MASCULINISATION OF
AGRICULTURE" , together with Vandana's open letter to Muhammad Yunus, now
assume pride of place amongst feminist classics.

Interesting to read that the proposed teleconference between ourselves and
Professor Yunus is still on!!!!! Let's hope he and colleagues at Grameen
don't expect to find that we are well-heeled into the bargain!!!

Heartiest of congratulations, in sisterhood, and with kindest regards to
all, Lynette.
______________________________________________________________________________

>Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:28:24 +1000 (EST)
>From: Shan Ali <shan@...>
>Subject: Monsanto
>To: Lynette Dumble <l.dumble@...>
>Reply-to: Shan Ali <shan@...>
>
>Dear Lynette,
>
>Perhaps you have already heard that Grameen has taken the advice
>of the green movement worldwide and decided to terminate the
>proposed study/research project with Monsanto. The proposed
>centre will now be called Grameen Centre for Environment-Friendly
>Technology.
>
>Grameen Bank's agricultural project, Grameen Krishi, has made a
>loss every year since its inception in 1987. Due to low yield,
>lack of technology, and reasons that need to be uncovered,
>Grameen Krishi has not been able to sustain itself and is a
>constant drain on the rest of the Grameen operation.
>
>Will the green movement who has been so vocal and active about
>Grameen-Monsanto partnership be willing to make intellectual and
>practical contribution to the Grameen Centre and help to turn
>the Grameen Krishi around ?
>
>We are still interested in the idea of a teleconference between
>Yunus and world's leading environmentalists that you named in
>your previous email.
>
>Best regards,
>
>// SHAN.
>
>
>

What's unfair or incorrect about the accusation that Third World payments
of interest on interest account for the larger part of the $23 billion WB
capital Wolfensohn speaks about. Or is there another brand of economics
which explains the feminine face of globalized poverty?


THE INDEPENDENT, July 28, 1998

Podium - Don't blame the
           bankers for poverty

           Jim Wolfensohn

           From a speech given by the President of the
           World Bank to the Lambeth Conference

           I'm upset. I'm upset because some people paint a
           picture of our institution which is quite simply
           wrong. I work with 10,000 people in the Bank
           who are committed to poverty eradication. We
           do not get up every morning and think what we
           can do to ruin the world. We have a problem of
           three hundred million people who do not have
           clean water. We have a problem of a billion and
           half people who do not have access to any form
           of housing. I have been to 83 countries. I do not
           go to the beaches as has been suggested. I go to
           the slums and I go to the villages. And I yield
           moral superiority to nobody. And nor do my
           people. My people care. We work to try to make
           the world a better place. And the characterisation
           of the World Bank as the epicentre of debt
           problems which create all the problems of the
           world is neither fair nor correct.

           I spend an enormous amount of my time trying to
           convince governments that their responsibility to
           the poor of the world is not just a moral
           responsibility, but it is a responsibility to
           themselves in terms of interdependence with a
           world which has 4.7 billion people in
           development out of the total of 5.6 billion.

           We are losing the battle. I can tell you from my
           visits to over 80 countries harrowing stories.
           Stories that I have seen with my own eyes that
           have caused me to break down, not because I am
           a banker who has no feelings but because I care.

           The highest item on our agenda on which we're
           putting $3 billion is education and health. We are
           the leaders in education, in health care. No one
           talks about River Blindness. We've eradicated or
           nearly eradicated River Blindness in Africa for 30
           million people. We have managed to clean up the
           water, kill the mosquitoes and restore people to
           arable land. We're the major fighter in the world
           against Aids. We're the major fighter in the world
           against malaria. And we at the Bank this year will
           put $18 billion into activities against poverty.

           That is why I get anxious. That is why I may
           sound defensive. I do not feel defensive. I feel
           that what we should get out of this conference is
           not a sense of confrontation because I am doing
           many of the things that the church wishes to do
           and should do itself.

           The debt issue is a very critical issue.There is no
           doubt that in many countries the payment of debt
           is a principal reason why social and other services
           could not be provided. In the highly indebted
           countries the amount of debt is around $215
           billion on present data, that is today's value of the
           future debt. The total debt of the developing
           countries is $2 trillion, $2 thousand billion. Let me
           just say to you that of the $215 billion worth of
           debt, the World Bank has less than nine per cent.
           The International Monetary Fund has less than
           five per cent. Between 55 and 60 per cent of the
           debt comes from individual creditor countries.
           The United Kingdom, the United States,
           European countries have 55 per cent of the debt
           and the rest are banks and various assorted
           creditors.

           Let us take the point in terms of this debt
           problem. We have said that we're prepared to
           bear our full share. And we've done it on the
           basis of a very simple proposition. If someone
           comes and says, "Jim, I'm in trouble. I've got all
           these debts and I can't send my kids to school
           and I can't do lots of things. Will you lend me or
           give me ten thousand dollars?" If the guy's a
           gambler or a womaniser or whatever or on drugs
           or has no sense of money the chances are you'll
           say, "Look, I'll try and do something for your
           kids, but until you improve your ways I'm surely
           not going to give you ten thousand because it will
           just go out the window." Countries are the same.
           Corruption exists. Bad management exists.
           Inadequate assessment of social responsibilities
           exists. I have said on many occasions, if my
           owners who are the 180 countries want me to
           forgive debt at the World Bank which has a
           balance sheet of $150 billion I can forgive only
           $23 billion. Why? Because the only capital I have
           is $23 billion. I have to borrow the other $130
           billion so I can repay the pension funds, the
           church commissioners, others who have invested.
           And governments depend on the earnings of the
           Bank and the repayment of debt for between 50
           and 60 per cent of the funding of future
           international development programmes. Before
           you level your accusations, look at the
           economics.

           I believe that our children will have a better
           chance of living in peace and prosperity if we
           work together. That is the reason I flew over.
           And I very much hope that you will recognise that
           I believe in God, that I care and that our
           objectives are the same.