INSAF Bulletin [8]   December 1, 2002
Postal Address: Box 272, Westmount Stn., QC, Canada H3Z 2T2 (Tel. 514 937-4714)
(e-mail: insaf@insaf.net; View the old bulletins)

---

Editorial Board : Daya Varma (Montreal), Vinod Mubayi (New York), Hari Sharma (Vancouver),
Pervez Hoodbhoy (Islamabad), Vithal Rajan (Hyderabad, India).
[Edited and Produced by Daya Varma ]

---

	Editorial
	Conversion is a basic right – Oppose the move to ban it

	South Asian News in brief
	Head of Hindu militia out on bail
	Anti-War Rally in Delhi on Nov 14
	Anti-conversion Bill passed in T.N.
	Punishment for the lynching of Dalits demanded
	Lamp-lighting event for peace
	The landlord army (Ranvir Sena) kills four peasants in Bihar
	Landmines wreck lives in Rajasthan border villages
	A new low in Indian polity
	Gujarat Poll campaign sidelines real issues
	Disarray in Voters list in Gujarat
	No hope for justice in Gujarat
	Religious minorities under pressure in Pakistan
	General Musharraf assumes Presidency for another five years
	Peace endures in Sri Lanka

	International News
	World-wide protest against US war on Iraq
	Security Council Resolution on Iraq only a partial victory for the US
	Canada opposes racist guidelines for entry into the US
	Canada against US nuclear policy
	Thousands demonstrate against FTAA and globalization
	American novelist Gore Vidal implicates Bush administration in September 11 tragedy
	American atheists protest religious bias in government affairs
	Filipino Professor Sison listed as “terrorist” by the European Union
	US may be developing weapons in violation of International Treaties

	Articles
	Deliberate Confusion between Hinduism and Hindutva - Ram Puniyani
	The India-Pakistan Conflict – Towards The Failure Of Nuclear Deterrence - Pervez Hoodbhoy & Zia Mian
	Where do RSS funds come from?

Announcement - BOOK ON GUJARAT CARNAGE

Editorial

Conversion is a basic right – Oppose the move to ban it

Emboldened by the passage of the anti-conversion ordinance in Tamil Nadu championed by that arch opportunist Jayalalitha, Hindutva political forces are now aggressively seeking a ban on conversion at the national level. From a moral and legal standpoint, the issue of conversion is a matter of individual choice, the right of a person to profess a religious faith of his/her choosing. This right is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution; so moves to ban “conversion” are, in effect, unconstitutional. One hopes that the Indian Supreme Court will strike down the Tamil Nadu Ordinance on constitutional grounds.

Changing one’s religious affiliation later in life is much like changing one’s nationality. Many thousands of people born in India have now “converted” their nationality and become citizens of other countries. Should this practice be banned? What is the difference between leaving “Bharat Mata” and leaving the faith one was born in? It is an individual’s right to make that choice and government should have no role in it.

One can ask why Hindutva forces are making a big fuss about conversion now. RSS and its front organizations like the Vanvasi Kalyan Kendra brag about their “reconversion” (bringing back to the Hindu fold) efforts directed at India’s tribal population. It seems they only want to ban “conversion” out of the Hindu fold not the other way round. The social basis of conversion in India generally is the attempt by Dalits to escape the oppression of the Hindu caste system. Would anyone deny the right of the 5 Dalits in Jhajjar, Haryana, killed in caste fury last month for simply practicing their profession of skinning dead cows for the leather trade, to convert and escape the bondage of the caste system?

The move to ban conversion is an outright political power play by the Hindutva lobby to demonstrate its muscle, intimidate minorities, and stir up a controversy to energize its cadre. This move must be exposed and opposed on legal and constitutional grounds.

Back to Headlines

South Asian News in brief

From INSAF Digest number 571 (New York)

Head of Hindu militia out on bail

On November 13 the Election Commission of India (EC) banned a yatra, or religious march planned by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), or World Hindu Council--a militant Hindu organization--to be held in Godhra and end in Ahmedabad in the state of Gujarat on Dec 6, the tenth anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya by Hindu militants. The EC felt that the march was likely to fuel communal tensions and result in more violence in a state already suffering the brunt of gruesome riots and prevent free and fair state elections from taking place Dec 12. The Commission directed the Gujarat government to take "all such measures under existing laws at its disposal to prevent such a yatra, procession, etc., and [any] display and use of such images, etc., as may incite communal tension and passions and disrupt law and order." (The Times of India, Nov. 13)

Godhra was the site of the burning of a carriage of the Sabarmati Express carrying Hindu worshippers returning from Ayodhya that killed 57 passengers on February 27, 2002. The VHP, with the help of the BJP-run state government of Gujarat, meticulously orchestrated a pre-planned violent Hindu pogrom across Gujarat that cost the lives of 2,000 people, mostly Muslims and displaced 100,000 others, according to human rights organizations.

Defying the EC's ban on his organization's yatra, VHP leader Pravin Togadia called on supporters to converge at Godhra on November 17. Fifty-six people evaded police checkpoints and reached Godhra where they swung saffron flags in the air before being arrested by riot policemen and detained for several hours. Pravin Togadia and Acharya Dharmendra, leaders of the VHP, were arrested along with 45 supporters; however, they were released the same day by a court on a nominal bail of Rs.1,000 ($20 USD).

At Godhra, the VHP had set up a dais outside the Somnath Mahadev Temple where they performed a religious ceremony in honor of wooden sandals of Sant Ramdas, religious advisor of Shivaji, a 17th century Hindu king currently celebrated by votaries of Hindutva for fighting battles against the Mogul rulers of that time. The temple premises were plastered with banners proclaiming, "The answer to Godhra--today Gandhinagar, tomorrow Delhi and then Islamabad" which alluded to the possibility of future Hindu militant attacks in the afore-mentioned cities.

Togadia told the crowd that Dec 12, the day that the Gujarat state elections are expected to be held, is also his birthday asking the people of Gujarat to give the "gift of voting in a government that will establish Hindu Rashtra [Nation]." (TOI, Nov. 17)

On November 11, VHP President Ashok Singhal said that "what happened in Gujarat will happen in the whole country," making a second public statement about repeating the massacres of Gujarat in other parts of India; his first statement referred to the killing of thousands of Muslims as the "Gujarat experiment." (The Hindu, Nov. 12)

BJP hardliner and Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani said in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament, on November 18 that the Godhra massacre would not be an issue for the BJP in the Gujarat elections, echoing a statement made by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee last week. Advani made empty reassurances that India would not be converted into a Hindu nation and that the BJP would run a clean campaign in Gujarat focusing on development-related issues. Opposition members demanded that VHP International Secretary Pravin Togadia be detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). (Hindustan Times, Nov. 18)

However, the BJP stance must be understood with a grain of salt: "Mr. Togadia's arrest is nonetheless a potential watershed for the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has benefited politically from his appeals to Hindu pride even while trying to distance itself from his more extreme positions." (NYT, Nov. 18)(Subuhi Jiwani)

Back to Headlines

Anti-War Rally in Delhi on Nov 14

Several Left and democratic parties and organisations formed a 'Committee Against War on Iraq' after a joint meeting held in Delhi on Oct 26, attended by Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Prakash Karat (CPI(M)), A. B. Bardhan and D. Raja (CPI), Dipankar Bhattacharya, PV Srinivas and Swapan Mukherjee (CPI(ML)), G. Devrajan (FB), former Prime Minister V. P. Singh, Salman Khursheed (Congress), Amar Singh (SP), Kunwar Danish Ali (JD-S), Dr. Jafarul Islam Khan (All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat), Prakash Louis (Indian Social Institute), Seema Mustafa (Journalist) and many others. Representatives from trade unions and student, youth and women organisations were also present in the meeting. A demonstration was held in Delhi on November 14.

Back to Headlines

Anti-conversion Bill passed in T.N.

The controversial Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill was passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly on October 31, 2002 with the AIADMK and the BJP outvoting the combined opposition of the DMK, the Congress, the Pattali Makkal Katchi and the Left parties by 140 to 73.

Although the Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, maintained that the Bill was only intended to prevent forcible conversions, her arguments in the course of the three-hour debate were against conversion itself. "Conversions create resentment among several sections and also inflame religious passions, leading to communal clashes."

The opposition charged that the Bill would create communal disharmony. The disapproval motion was moved by the Congress leader, S.R. Balasubramaniam, who argued against the ordinance on forcible conversions. The DMK whip, E. Pugazhendi, stated that if conversions through the grant of "material benefits either monetary or otherwise" are illegal then the reservations and other benefits offered by the State Government to the Dalits, which ensured their continuance within the Hindu fold, could be also be construed as illegal.

The Congress member, K. Jayakumar, charged that the AIADMK regime's intention was only to "toe the Hindutva line and protect a particular community". By fixing a higher penalty for converting the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the legislation demeaned the Dalit community, the CPI MLA, G. Palanichamy, alleged.

The Bill also triggered a face-off between the DMK and the BJP — both constituents of the NDA Government at the Centre — when the BJP member, H. Raja, criticised the perceived anti-Hindu remarks made recently by the DMK president, M. Karunanidhi. (Source: Hindu Nov 1, 2002)

Back to Headlines

Punishment for the lynching of Dalits demanded

In an open letter to the President of India, the Chetna (Awakening) Society of BC, Canada has expressed “pain, sorrow, disgust and utter disbelief at the terrible and brutal lynching of innocent citizens of India in Jhajjar, Harayana, just because they were Dalits” and demanded “that the Government of India must catch and punish the perpetrators of this crime and punish them to restore the dignity of Dalit community and respect for rule of law.” “We do not want India to live in its painful past of a caste ridden society. We want India to be a strong and integral part of the world community”, the letter added. (Letter signed by Satish Aujla, Chetna Society of BC, 14315 Gladstone Drive, Surrey, BC, Canada V3R 5R8)

Back to Headlines

Lamp-lighting event for peace

Insaaniyat (Humanity) organized a lamp lighting program on November 3 in Mumbai (Bombay), coinciding with the Diwali festival, to express solidarity with many who physically risked their lives to save neighbors in the midst of a terrible communal battle in Gujarat and other places. The event was also intended to assert secularism. According to Anjum Rajabali of Insaniyaat, film directors Govind Nihalani, Prakash Jha, Mansoor Khan and Vinay Shukla, Communalism Combat editors Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand, writer Shobha De, poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar, designer Hemant Trivedi, Kersi Katrak of The Republic and several others joined at Marine Drive. Lamps were also lit at IIT Market, Powai, and Bandra.

The event honored police officer M Chudavat of Modasa Town who saved every Muslim from a howling Hindu mob, a Muslim woman of Danilimda who saved the lives of three Hindu reporters, regardless of the danger to herself, her husband and her four young daughters, Mumtaz of Juhapura, who sheltered a Buddhist monk from a violent, stone-throwing mob, Sanjana and Sanjay Kedia, who carried dozens of Muslims to safety on their scooter sidecar, activists of the Jan Sangharsh Manch who ensured that not a single life was lost in the largely Muslim locality of Salatnagar in Gomtipur, when 250 hutments were burned to the ground and many others. (Source: Harsh Kapoor’s SACW dispatch)

Back to Headlines

The landlord army (Ranvir Sena) kills four peasants in Bihar

Ranvir Sena killed four peasants including two women and a child on 25 October in Bhojpur district of Bihar, where peasants have been struggling for a number of years under the leadership of the Communist Party of India-ML (CPI-ML). Three persons were killed in the presence of police. According to reliable reports, a secret meeting of Sena criminals, the police station in-charge and some local BJP-RJD leaders was held at Sikarhatta police station just before the killings. After the heinous killings, the police ransacked the houses of the poor in the village, misbehaved with women, forcibly took away money and materials and arrested the popular Mukhiya Gauri Shankar Mahto along with 14 other supporters of CPI(ML). (Source: ML Update, October 30, 02)

Back to Headlines

Landmines wreck lives in Rajasthan border villages

Although the armed forces have been vacating areas of Rajasthan bordering Pakistan since mid-October, the human costs to border residents from landmines, which have claimed several lives, affected livelihoods and limbs of hundreds of people, have not been addressed. The mines were laid in fields along the international border after the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. Nearly 60 people who have died in landmine explosions in Rajasthan since last December and 200 people have been crippled. Compensation ranges from Rs 5,000 (US$100) to Rs. 10,000. Hundreds of cattle have also been killed or injured in mine accidents. (Rajan Mahan - NDTV, October 31, 2002 from Ganganagar, Rajasthan)

Back to Headlines

A new low in Indian polity

Soon after the announcement that 700,000 troops at the border will be demobilized and Indian Prime Minister will attend the SAARC meeting in Pakistan, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)'s international secretary Praveen Togadia descended to the gutter level by calling Sonia Gandhi "an Italian dog". Narendra Modi too termed her "Italy ki beti (Italy’s daughter)". He threatened to "wipe Pakistan off the map of the world" through "Hindu militancy" as well. The VHP President Singhal has threatened to repeat the Gujarat “experiment” all over India and the Shiv Sena's Bal Thackeray has appealed to Hindus to form terrorist suicide-squads.

Back to Headlines

Gujarat Poll campaign sidelines real issues

The election campaign for the Gujarat Assembly is relatively silent on the issue of the carnage which left more than 2,000 Muslims dead. The parties which expect to form the new government are the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Narendra Modi, which masterminded the carnage, and the Congress Party led by Shankarsingh Vaghela. While the silence of BJP on the issue is understandable, that of the Congress is a major disappointment to the victims.

Back to Headlines

Disarray in Voters list in Gujarat

The electoral rolls record 170,000 voters located at new addresses, some outside the State, but still entitled to vote. Another 220,000 names, mostly of Muslims, will be retained on the rolls though they have not been located; most of them have left in search of a safer future. There are 1,000 families in Ahmedabad alone who are unable to return to their homes.

Back to Headlines

No hope for justice in Gujarat

A young Muslim was recently killed because he asked a neighbour to return his belongings, which were stolen during the violence. In some areas, Muslim families have returned to their old houses to live side by side with Hindus who attacked them and looted their homes. Even the floor tiles from some Muslim homes now adorn the floors of Hindu homes. No cases have been filed, no claims made.

There is no hope from the legal system and that is why no one is talking about rape of many Muslim women any more. Women who spoke about rape to newspapers, television audiences and even the President do not have any hope of getting justice. None of the women who filed FIRs (First Information Report) in cases of rape has been contacted. No police investigations are under way. Lawyers who are monitoring the legal process say that the police have "investigated" very few cases and charge sheets have been filed only in bigger cases like those of the Gulmarg Society massacre in which the former Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, and 36 other persons were killed, raped, and burnt in Ahmedabad on February 28. In Ahmedabad alone, 800 FIRs were filed.

The Muslim residents of 300 villages have been re-housed at new sites by just one NGO. In Anand taluka, where the BJP launched its formal election campaign, 500 Muslim families have been unable to return. Another 260 families from the prosperous Odh village are scattered around the State; many cannot go back because they have filed FIRs naming their attackers and have been told that they will be killed if they return.

The Rs. 150,000 (US$ 3,000) compensation which the families of the dead were promised has gone to less than half the claimants. There are still those who are "missing" and whose relatives must first go through the bureaucratic and administrative maze of having them declared dead to claim the compensation. Damage compensation has been arbitrarily fixed and unevenly distributed. It is a handful of NGOs, particularly the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the Gujarat Sarvajanik Samiti, which have raised the funds to repair and re-build homes. Muslim families are finding it very hard to get school admissions for their children even in private schools or those run by Christian missionaries. (Based on a Report in Hindu, Nov 3, 2002 by Anjali Modi)

Back to Headlines

Religious minorities under pressure in Pakistan

In a press release just before the October 10 general elections in Pakistan, Minority Rights Group International (MRG) appealed to Pakistan government to protect religious minorities.

The killing of seven Christian charity workers in Karachi on 25 September is the latest in a number of attacks on religious minorities including Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and Shia Muslims, which have escalated in recent months. MRG's new report highlights the fact that religious minorities have long suffered from discrimination, harassment and lack of effective social, economic and political participation in Pakistan. Recent factors including Pakistan's declared support for the US 'war against terrorism' and allied action against the Taliban in Afghanistan have served to further inflame religious and anti-Western tensions and have led to outbreaks of extremist violence against both ethnic and religious minorities.

MRG documents a number of examples of attacks against religious minorities including the massacre of worshippers in Bahawalpur on 28 October 2001 and a grenade attack on a church in Islamabad on 17 March 2002 as well as numerous attacks against Ahmadis and Muslim groups including Shia Muslims and Zikris. Importantly, acts of violence against women such as rape and honour killings, both within and across religious communities, are highlighted as issues of grave concern.

Back to Headlines

General Musharraf assumes Presidency for another five years

General Musharraf used a provision in the new Constitution framed under his own leadership to continue as President of Pakistan for another term of five years.

Back to Headlines

Peace endures in Sri Lanka

The peace between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) at the initiative of Norwegian mediators, has lasted longer than was generally expected. On October 31, Sri Lanka witnessed 250 days of peace in more than 10 years. This is encouraging since all previous ceasefire agreements between the two parties were short-lasting and were used by both the parties to regroup their forces. Although the initiative was taken by the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, even the President has pledged support for the peace process. The People's Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL), which includes respected citizenry of Sri Lanka is encouraged by these developments, which could become a blue print for resolutions of conflicts in other parts of South Asia, notably Kashmir and India’s Northeast.

Back to Headlines

International News

World-wide protest against US war on Iraq

People all over the world have mounted unprecedented protests against the US plan to attack Iraq. For example, more than one-half million people marched on November 8 in Florence, Italy during the meeting of the European Social Summit to protest the US plan. The following week, nearly 100,000 people had similar protests in Brussels, the NATO headquarters. On November 17, more than 5,000 people waged a protest in Montreal despite extremely harsh weather. On the same day protests were held in all other major Canadian cities.

Back to Headlines

Security Council Resolution on Iraq only a partial victory for the US

On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted the Resolution 1441 drafted by the UK, the US and Northern Ireland, which requires Iraq to provide within 30 days “a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems”… . The resolution instructed the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resume inspection within 45 days and report to the Council within 60 days. The resolution neither explicitly stipulates that a UN sanctioned war against Iraq will be launched by the US, Britain and their allies should Iraq be judged guilty of noncompliance nor requires another resolution for such an attack. The stipulated time period of 40 plus 60 days means the second week of February, the period which the media and several governments have has speculated as the possible time period for the attack on Iraq.

Back to Headlines

Canada opposes racist guidelines for entry into the US

Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal and the Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham strongly opposed the recent US policy which requires fingerprint and photograph of Canadians of Middle Eastern origin seeking entry into the US. Dhaliwal said:” We are seeing the ugly face of America and it is simply unacceptable…for a country that speaks about human rights and democracy, it’s totally outrageous.” Bill Graham announced in the Parliament that a promise was made by the US authorities to treat all travelers to US with Canadian passports as Canadians.

Back to Headlines

Canada against US nuclear policy

Canada is the only NATO country opposed to key elements of U.S. nuclear policy including ballistic-missile defense and in support of a UN draft resolution which stipulates that the development of missile defense will be a setback to nuclear disarmament to which all the original nuclear powers – the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China- are committed.

Back to Headlines

Thousands demonstrate against FTAA and globalization

Thousands of students in Montreal and other cities left their classes to demonstrate against the FTAA (Free Trade Area of Americas) and other evils of globalization on October 31, Halloween day. They were particularly opposed to commercialization of education and health, which will be some of the effects of FTTA. The number of students marching through downtown Montreal is estimated to be 10,000.

Back to Headlines

American novelist Gore Vidal implicates Bush administration in September 11 tragedy

According to an article by Sunder Katwala (The Observer- London, October 27, 2002), the American novelist Gore Vidal has demanded an investigation into whether the Bush administration deliberately chose not to act on warnings of Al-Qaeda’s plan, which resulted in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. The article in the Observer titled “The Enemy Within” claims that the “Bush Junta” allowed the terrorist attack in order to have a pretext to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties in the US. Vidal draws comparisons with another 'day of infamy' in American history, writing that ‘The truth about Pearl Harbor is obscured to this day. But it has been much studied.’ Vidal quotes CNN reports that Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit Congressional investigation of the September 11 ostensibly on grounds of not diverting resources from the anti-terror campaign.

Back to Headlines

American atheists protest religious bias in government affairs

Approximately 3,000 atheists and their supporters demonstrated in Washington, DC, on November 2 against the increasing infringement of religion in governmental affairs. Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, which sponsored the event announced the creation of a godless political action committee and told the protesters that "God Is a Fairy Tale," "Keep Your Gods Out of Our Schools" and "Al Qaeda is a Faith-Based Initiative." She referred to a survey which found that 14 percent of the American population does not identify with any religion.

The program included a performance of "All My Idols," a song about becoming an atheist, by the Philadelphia-based pop rock group "Overlord," and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance without the words "under God," led by atheist activist Michael Newdow. (Based on a Report in The Washington Post of November 3, 2002)

Back to Headlines

Filipino Professor Sison listed as “terrorist” by the European Union

Under US pressure, the European Union added Professor Jose Maria Sison and the New People's Army of the Philippines to the European list of terrorists and terrorist organizations. Professor Sison has been living in exile in the Netherlands for the last 14 years. The new ruling by the EU has paved the way for the extradition of Professor Sison to the US, where he is likely to be tried for a role in the death of US soldiers stationed in the Philippines.

Back to Headlines

US may be developing weapons in violation of International Treaties

According to an article by Julian Borger (Guardian, October 29, 2002), there is some evidence that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare. The scientists, specialists in bio-warfare and chemical weapons, say the Pentagon, with the help of the British military, is also working on "non-lethal" weapons similar to the narcotic gas used by Russian forces to end last week's siege in Moscow.

Malcolm Dando, professor of international security at the University of Bradford, and Mark Wheelis, a lecturer in microbiology at the University of California, say that the US is encouraging a breakdown in arms control by its research into biological cluster bombs, anthrax and non-lethal weapons for use against hostile crowds, and by the secrecy under which these programs are being conducted. The two academics focus on recent US actions that have served to undermine the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In a move that stunned the international community last July, the US blocked an attempt to give the convention some teeth with inspections, so that member countries could check if others were keeping the agreement. (Supplied by Rana Bose)

Back to Headlines

Articles

Deliberate Confusion between Hinduism and Hindutva

Ram Puniyani

While the Supreme Court judgment, Hindutva: A Way of life, is awaiting review by a larger bench, the interpretation of Hindutva as a religion, as a synonym for Hinduism, is playing havoc in the society. On one hand the practitioners of a communal agenda are using it for communal mobilization and on the other the foot soldiers of Hindu Rashtra are stifling the democratic ethos at every available opportunity.

Recently (Oct.25, 2002), a Principal of a school at Vashi, near Mumbai, was charged with the crime of understanding Hindutva as it is, a politics, a variant of Fascism, Religious Fascism to be more precise. The question set in his school was apt, Hindutva philosophy and its disastrous effect on secular India. But for the clear understanding of the school about this term, the local Shiv Sena volunteers complained and Principal was made to run for cover. As such this word has hogged the limelight for wrong reasons in recent past. Most of the communal actions have been deriving their legitimacy from this word and its supplement, Hindu Rashtra. The former denotes politics while the latter is its goal. And since both words have Hindu as an integral part of their construction, they give the impression that both these words have something to do with the Hindu Religion. And it is this misconception which helps in a mass mobilization for this politics.

Even the Supreme Court judgement, which came in handy to Sangh Parivar to have legitimacy for its politics is mercifully slated for a review. Even if Hidnutva is a religion, which it is not, can any religion be called as a way of life? There are followers of the same religion whose life has multiple inputs from non-religious aspects. Then there are followers of the same religion whose way of life has nothing in common with each other. There are umpteen examples for this in practically every religion and society. Then, can Hindutva be seen only as a substitute word for Hindu religion, which is asserted by the followers of this politics?

Just before having a look at Hindutva we can have a brief understanding of the word Hindu and Hinduism. Word Hindu began as a geographical description of people living in this area. Arabs who could not pronounce S, started using the word Hindu, for those living on the east side of Sindhu (Indus river). Over a period of time the religious traditions developing in this region started getting this name. These traditions were/are as varied as possible. From the most dominant Brahmanism to the humblest of this, Bhakti, all came in the gambit of Hinduism. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum Charvak, Tantra, Shaiva, Siddhanta occupied the available ground. Brahmanism took its base from Vedas, Shrutis, and Smritis. The hallmark of this was the belief in caste system. It was exclusionary in its basic principles. While non-Brahminic Hindu traditions were open to all and were universal. Here many religions based on the teachings of Prophets do have similar Universal content in their teaching.

The word Hindutva came into being much later and its clearest articulation came in 'Who is a Hindu' by Savarkar. Savarkar articulated the goal of Hindu Rashtra (nation) and formulated the politics of Hindutva, "the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus... Hindus are bound together not only by the tie of the love they bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood that courses through their veins and keeps our hearts throbbing and our affection warm but also by the tie of the common homage we pay to our great civilization, our Hindu culture."(Savarkar; Who is Hindu,1923). Hindutva according to him rests on three pillars: geographical unity, racial features and common culture. This development of the concept of Hindutva came in succession to the construction of Brahminism as Hinduism and this Brahminical Hinduism then formed the base for Hindutva politics. Savarkar began to articulate the ideology of the Hindu elite (zamindars, Brahmins, kings) by integrating Brahminical Hinduism with nationalism, calling it Hindutva, which showed the way for building the Hindu Rashtra.

This was the time when National movement was articulating Indian-ness as the core identity and the base of the movement. This was the time when most of the Indians rejected the Religion based nationalism, of Jinnah (Islamism, Pakistan) and Savarkar, Golwalkar (Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra). Interestingly most of the Muslims and Hindus did not support either the notion of Pakistan or that of Hindu Rashtra. These streams were marginal streams, supported mainly by elite. By the use of religion-based identity as the core of their political projects, these tendencies were able to mobilize middle sections of society, but that was insignificant.

The best way to perceive the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva is to see the contrasting profiles of Gandhi and most Indians on one side and Savarkar-Godse on the other. Gandhi expressed the sentiments of most of the Hindu Indians when he said, "in India for whose fashioning I have worked all my life, every man enjoys equality of status whatever his religion is. ", "religion is not the test of nationality but is a personal matter between man and God", "religion is a personal affair of each individual, it must not be mixed up with politics or national affairs","I do not believe in `state religion "even though the whole community has one religion. And finally, "Religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair; the state has nothing to do with it. The state will look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on but not your and my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern (Gandhi and Communal Harmony, CSSS 1994,Mumbai).

While Jinnah harped on an Islam based nation, Pakistan, Savarkar, Golwalkar and company harped on this being a Hindu Rashtra, there being no question in their minds of creating Pakistan or a secular India in this land. The overall support of Indian people to Gandhi's project of a Secular India and a composite nationalism ensured the partial success of the goals of the national movement, of driving away the British rule. Hindutva stream did get marginalized due to industrialization and secularization, which accompanied it, though not to the full measure. The reaction to this "slow revolution" has been a revival of the politics of Hindutva. And this aggressive politics has subdued the basic agenda of Indian democracy, the basic goals of India's freedom struggle, the goals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, which are being denigrated as being western values by the proponents of Hindutva politics.

The confusion about Hindutva and Hinduism is a deliberate one. It helps immensely to win over the gullible sections to the hysterical cry of Save Hindutva. It ensures that mass of the people does not care to look at the foundations of India, which is the Indian-ness and not Hindutva. This confusion gets expressed in various forms. When Mr. Vajpayee said that Vivekananda's Hindutva was different than the one being practiced by his fellow swayamsevak, Modi, in Gujarat he exhibited the same confusion, as Swami Vivekananda was unaware of the politics of Hindutva. Today the same confusion is deliberately put to use by most of the members of Sangh parivar, in their effort to consolidate their political base. Hindutva is no religion by any stretch of imagination. What Modi, Singhal and Thackeray practice is no religion, it is Hindutva, a political movement. The saints of VHP are a blot to the Hindu saint tradition. The saints of the spiritual stature of Kabir, Tukaram and Gyaneshwar acted as bridges between different communities. They spread the message of love. Today the mobile wielding saints, traveling in air-conditioned Marutis, are the one's who spread hatred, something a saint cannot do by the basic definition of the word saint. But of course politics is not played by definitions. It operates on the principle of using all the mechanisms to grab power and that is what Hindutva is all about. The Vashi schoolteachers do need to be complimented for understanding it in a clear form. But of course they have to pay a price for being politically correct in times when Wrong is Right and vice versa. They have to pay a price for understanding the threats of rising religious fascism in the name of Hindutva since the same movement has 'succeeded' in selling the political word as a new word for a religion. (Writer is a member of EKTA (Unity), Mumbai, Source: Harsh Kapoor, SACW Nov 9).

Back to Headlines

The India-Pakistan Conflict – Towards The Failure Of Nuclear Deterrence

Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian

Back to Headlines

Introduction

These are dismal times for peace. Since the tests of May 1998 and their overt nuclearization, Pakistan-India relations have visibly deteriorated. Crisis has followed crisis and nuclear weapons have played an increasingly prominent role. The massive military mobilisation and threat of war in spring of 2002 exposed several important features of the dynamics shaping nuclear South Asia, especially the repeated use of nuclear threats and the apparent fearlessness of policy makers and the public when faced with the prospect of nuclear war.

The context for these developments is a growing unwillingness among political and military leaders in South Asia to confront changed realties (but as Einstein famously remarked, the bomb has changed everything except our way of thinking). An arms race is growing, in fits and starts, as best as the two states can manage. Military doctrines are inter-linked in ways that lead inexorably to nuclear war. The poor are uneducated, uninformed and powerless. The well-to-do are uninformed or possessed by the religious fundamentalism – Islamic and Hindu – that is rapidly changing both countries. These forces are now being wedded to nationalism in ways that suggest restraints that were at work in previous India-Pakistan wars and crises may increasingly be over-ridden or suppressed. We are moving down a steep slippery slope whose bottom we have yet to see.

The efficacy of nuclear deterrence is predicated on the ability of these weapons to induce terror. It presupposes a rational calculus, as well as actors who, at the height of tension, will put logic before emotion. Recent events in South Asia have put all these into question. We therefore fear that perhaps a new chapter may someday have to written in textbooks dealing with the theory of nuclear deterrence.

Time is short. The role of the United States is key. It has begun to worry more about the spectre of nuclear-armed Islamic terrorism than the prospect of a South Asian nuclear war. But the Bush administration’s unconstrained, unilateral, imperial vision has little space for restraint, treaties, and undermines the possibility of peace and disarmament for all.

There are a few steps that may begin to take us down the path to safety.

Crisis after Crisis

There is a fundamental link between crises and nuclear weapons in South Asia. Soon after the defeat of Pakistan by India in the 1971 war, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto called a meeting of Pakistani nuclear scientists in the city of Multan to map out a nuclear weapons program. Pakistan was pushed further into the nuclear arena by the Indian test of May 1974, seen as a means to further consolidate Indian power in South Asia.

Challenged again in May 1998 by a series of 5 Indian nuclear tests, Pakistan was initially reluctant to test its own weapons out of fear of international sanctions. Belligerent statements by Indian leaders after the tests succeeded in forcing it over the hill. But success brought change. Pakistan saw nuclear weapons as a talisman, able to ward off all dangers. Countering India's nuclear weapons became secondary. Instead, Pakistani nuclear weapons became the means for neutralizing India’s far larger conventional land, air, and sea forces.

In the minds of Pakistani generals, nuclear weapons now became tools for achieving foreign policy objectives. The notion of a nuclear shield led them to breath-taking adventurism in Kashmir. Led by Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan sent troops out of uniform along with Islamist militant fighters across the Line of Control to seize strategic positions in the high mountains of the Kargil area. The subsequent Kargil war of 1999 may be recorded by historians as the first actually caused by nuclear weapons.

As India counter-attacked and Pakistan stood diplomatically isolated, a deeply worried Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif flew to Washington on 4 July 1999, where he was bluntly told to withdraw Pakistani forces or be prepared for full-scale war with India. Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to President Clinton, writes that he was present in person when Clinton informed Nawaz Sharif that the Pakistan Army had mobilized its nuclear-tipped missile fleet . (If this is true, then the preparations for nuclear deployment and possible use could only have been ordered by General Pervez Musharraf at either his own initiative or in consultation with the army leadership.) Unnerved by this revelation and the closeness to disaster, Nawaz Sharif agreed to immediate withdrawal, shedding all earlier pretensions that Pakistan’s army had no control over the attackers.

Despite the defeat in the Kargil War, Pakistan political and military leaders insisted that Pakistan had prevailed in the conflict and that its nuclear weapons had deterred India from crossing the Line of Control or the international border. This belief may be especially strong in the military who would otherwise have to accept that their prized weapons were of no military utility.

Back to the Brink

On 13 December 2001, Islamic militants struck at the Indian parliament in Delhi sparking off a crisis that has yet to end. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee exhorted his troops in Kashmir to prepare for sacrifices and “decisive victory”, setting off widespread alarm. It seemed plausible that India was preparing for a “limited war” to flush out Islamic militant camps in Pakistan administered Kashmir.

Sensing a global climate now deeply hostile to Islamic militancy, India’s ruling BJP have sought to echo the U.S. “war on terror” slogan as a way to garner international support for their military campaign in Kashmir. Although an embattled Musharraf probably had little to do with the attack on the Indian Parliament, India cut off communications with Pakistan. The Indian ambassador in Islamabad was recalled to Delhi, road and rail links were broken off, and flights by Pakistani airlines over Indian territory were disallowed.

Such Indian reactions have played into the hands of jihadists in Kashmir who now operate as a third force almost autonomous of the Pakistani state (this operational autonomy is typical of such large scale covert operations, where there is a political need for the state patron to be able to plausibly deny responsibility for any particular action taken by such forces – the U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s were classic examples of this relationship). There is a real possibility that jihadists will commit some huge atrocity – such as a mass murder of Indian civilians. Indeed, their goal is to provoke full-scale war between India and Pakistan, destabilize Musharraf, and settle scores with America.

Nuclear threats started flying in all directions. In May 2002, as fighter aircraft circled Islamabad, in a public debate with one of us (PH), General Mirza Aslam Beg, the former chief of Pakistan’s army, declared: "We can make a first strike, and a second strike, or even a third." The lethality of nuclear war left him unmoved. “You can die crossing the street,” he observed, “or you could die in a nuclear war. You've got to die some day anyway.” Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Munir Akram, reiterated Pakistan’s refusal of a no-first-use policy.

Across the border, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes told the International Herald Tribune “India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot.” Indian Defence Secretary Yogendra Narain took things a step further in an interview with Outlook Magazine: “A surgical strike is the answer,” adding that if this failed to resolve things, “We must be prepared for total mutual destruction.” Indian security analyst, Brahma Chellaney, claimed "India can hit any nook and corner of Pakistan and is fully prepared to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff."

Nuclear Denial

As India began to seriously consider cross-border strikes on militant camps on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, it became convenient for those urging action to deny Pakistan's nuclear weapons by challenging its willingness and ability to use them. This is not the first time this notion has been exercised, but it has now gained astonishingly wide currency in Indian ruling circles and carries increasingly grave risks of a misjudgment that could lead to nuclear war.

Two months before the May 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, a delegation from Pugwash met in Delhi with Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral. As a member of the delegation, one of us (PH) expressed worries about a nuclear catastrophe on the Subcontinent. Gujral repeatedly assured PH – both in public and in private – that Pakistan was not capable of making atomic bombs. The Prime Minister was not alone. Senior Indian defense analysts like P. R. Chari had also published articles before May 1998 arguing this point, as had the former head of the Indian Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Raja Ramana.

Although Pakistan's nuclear tests had dispelled this scepticism, senior Indian military and political leaders continue to express doubts on the operational capability and usability of the Pakistani arsenal. Still more seriously, many Indians believe that, as a client state of the US, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are under the control of the US. The assumption is that, in case of extreme crisis, the US would either restrain their use by Pakistan or, if need be, destroy them. At a meeting in Dubai this year in January, senior Indian analysts said they were “bored” with Pakistan's nuclear threats and no longer believed them. K. Subrahmanyam, an influential Indian hawk who has advocated overt Indian nuclearization for more than a decade, believes that India can “sleep in peace.”

To fearlessly challenge a nuclear Pakistan requires a denial of reality, which some Indians seem prepared to make. It is an enormous leap of faith to presume that the United States would have either the intention – or the capability – to destroy Pakistani nukes. Tracking and destroying even a handful of mobile nuclear-armed missiles would be no easy feat. During the Cuban missile crisis, the U.S. Air Force had aerial photos of the Soviet missile locations and its planes were only minutes away, yet it would not assure that a surprise attack would be more than 90 percent effective. More recently, in Iraq, U.S. efforts to destroy Iraqi Scuds had limited success. No country has ever tried to take out another’s nuclear bombs. It would be fantastically dangerous because one needs 100 percent success. Nonetheless, there are signs that India is boosting its military capability to where it might feel able to overwhelm Pakistan.

Pushing The Arms Race

Since the 1998 nuclear tests, there have been very large increases in Indian military spending. The Indian defence budget for 2001-2002 was set at 630 billion rupees ($13 billion). This is nearly three times Pakistan’s and follows an earlier increase of 28%, which was larger than Pakistan’s entire military budget. A further increase of 4.8% is intended for purchases of fighter planes, submarines, advanced surveillance systems (including Phalcon airborne early warning systems from Israel), and a second aircraft carrier.

In a paper entitled “Vision 2020”, the Indian Air Force has laid out its requirements – it proposes increasing the number of squadrons from 39 to 60 by 2020 and replacing the aged MiG-21 planes with more modern fighters, such as the Russian Sukhoi-30s, or the Mirage-2000 or Rafael fighters from France. This Indian air force internal document is reported also to advocate the creation of a first-strike capability.

A missile regiment to handle the nuclear-capable Agni missile is being raised. Military officers are being trained to handle nuclear weapons and there have been statements by senior officials about Agni being mated with nuclear warheads. All of this is consistent with eventual deployment.

Pakistan’s generals would like to keep up with India in this effort but the economy is faltering and cannot stand the strain. A recent World Bank report is worth quoting at length :

“The 1990s were a decade of lost opportunities for Pakistan. From independence to the late 1980s, Pakistan outperformed the rest of South Asia. Then in the 1990s progress ground to a halt. Poverty remained stuck at high levels, economic growth slowed, institutions functioned badly, and a serious macroeconomic crisis erupted.”

As and when the economy begins to revive, Pakistan’s military leaders will no doubt resume the race.

Towards War

Pakistani generals know why they want nuclear weapons. They anticipate that in the event of hostilities, India is likely to take losses in a terrain unsuitable for heavy armor or strike aircraft. So it could shift the theatre of war – escalating horizontally but without attacking nuclear facilities. Thereafter India would have several options available to it:

· Push into lower Punjab or Upper Sindh to sever Pakistan’s vital road and rail links.

· Destroy the infrastructure of the Pakistan military (communication networks, oil supplies, army bases, railway yards, air bases through the use of runway busting bombs).

· Blockade Karachi, and perhaps also Gwadur, Pakistan’s other port, currently under construction.

Pakistan’s generals have sought to make it impossible for India to achieve these goals. They have articulated a set of conditions under which they will use their nuclear weapons. Pakistani nuclear weapons will be used, according to General Kidwai of Pakistan’s Strategic Planning Division, only “if the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at stake” and this, he specified, meant:

1. India attacks Pakistan and takes a large part of its territory

2. India destroys a large part of Pakistan armed forces

3. India imposes an economic blockade on Pakistan

4. India creates political destabilization or large scale internal subversion in Pakistan

India, in turn, has started to prepare its military to be attacked by nuclear weapons on the battlefield and to continue the war. The major Indian war game Poorna Vijay (Complete Victory) in May 2001, the biggest in over a decade, was reported to center on training the army and airforce to fight in a nuclear conflict. Taken together, Indian military options and Pakistani planning would seem to ensure that that any major India-Pakistan conflict would lead inexorably to the use of nuclear weapons.

Fearless Nuclear Gambling

In early 2002, with a million troops mobilised and leaders in both India and Pakistan threatening nuclear war, world opinion responded fearfully, seeing a fierce and possibly suicidal struggle up ahead. Foreign nationals streamed out of both countries, and many are yet to return. But even at the peak of the crisis, few Indians or Pakistanis lost much sleep. Stock markets flickered, but there was no run on the banks or panic buying. Schools and colleges, which generally close at the first hint of crisis, functioned normally. What explains the astonishing indifference to nuclear annihilation?

In part, the answer has to do with the fact that India and Pakistan are still largely traditional, rural societies, albeit going through a great economic and social transformation at a furious pace. The fundamental belief structures of such societies (which may well be the last things to change), reflecting the realities of agriculture dependent on rains and good weather, encourage a surrender to larger forces. Conversations and discussions often end with the remark that “what will be, will be,” after which people shrug their shoulders and move on to something else. Because they feel they are at the mercy of unseen forces, the level of risk-taking is extraordinary. But other reasons may be more important.

In India and Pakistan, most people lack basic information about nuclear dangers. A 1996 poll of elite opinion showed that about 80% of those wanting to support Pakistan acquiring ready-to-use nuclear weapons found it “difficult” or “almost impossible” to get information, while about 25% of those opposed to nuclear weapons had the same concern. In India, a November 1999 post-election national opinion poll survey found just over half of the population had not even heard of the May 1998 nuclear tests. In the middle of the spring 2002 crisis, the BBC reported the level of awareness of the nuclear risk among the Pakistani public was “abysmally low”. In India, it found “for many, the terror of a nuclear conflict is hard to imagine.”

First hand evidence bears out these judgments. Even educated people seem unable to grasp basic nuclear realities. Some students at the university in Islamabad where one of us teaches (PH), when asked, believed that a nuclear war would be the end of the world. Others thought of nuclear weapons as just bigger bombs. Many said it was not their concern, but the army's. Almost none knew about the possibility of a nuclear firestorm, about residual radioactivity, or damage to the gene pool. In Pakistan's public squares and at crossroads stand missiles and fiberglass replicas of the nuclear test site. For the masses, they are symbols of national glory and achievement, not of death and destruction.

Previous crises have also seen such lack of fear about the threat and use of nuclear weapons. With each crisis, there seems to be a lessening of political restraints and greater nuclear brinksmanship. A key factor is the absence of an informed and organized public opinion able to keep political and military leaders in check and restrain them from brandishing nuclear weapons. Close government control over national television, especially in Pakistan, has ensured that critical discussion of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is not aired. It is harder to understand the absence of such critical debate in India.

Because nuclear war is considered a distant abstraction, civil defense in both countries is non-existent. As India's Admiral Ramu Ramdas, now retired and a leading peace activist, caustically remarked, “There are no air raid shelters in this city of Delhi, because in this country people are considered expendable.” Islamabad's civil defense budget is a laughable $40,000 and the current year's allocation has yet to be disbursed. No serious contingency plans have been devised--plans that might save millions of lives by providing timely information about escape routes, sources of non-radioactive food and drinking water.

It is unimaginable to think of providing adequate protection against nuclear attack to the many millions in South Asia’s mega-cities. We have not been able to provide homes, food, water and health care to so many even in peace time. There is, nonetheless, something to be said for having credible plans to save as many as possible from the folly of their leaders. The development of and debate over such plans, in itself, may serve to convince some people of the horrors of what may be in store and motivate them to protest to survive.

The US and South Asian Nuclear Weapons

During the Cold War, to all intents and purposes, the super-powers were able to ignore the rest of the world. The fears and entreaties of other countries counted for little in super power strategic planning and policy. In South Asia, the United States and to a lesser extent the international community loom large. This is an important difference and as the Kargil war and the 2001-2002 crisis showed, it can be crucial.

Following India’s 1974 nuclear test, perceiving the threat of proliferation and the consequences of India-Pakistan nuclear rivalry, the United States tried unsuccessfully to block the development of a Pakistani nuclear weapons capability through the use of sanctions of various kinds. By the early 1990s, President Bill Clinton was fruitlessly engaged in a campaign to persuade both countries to cap, and then ultimately roll-back their programs.

After the 1998 nuclear tests, the hope was that the two states could be made to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In early 2000, this was on the verge of being signed by Pakistan and India. However, Clinton’s efforts were undermined by the refusal of the Republican controlled Senate to ratify the Treaty. The treaty died, leaving open the possibility of a resumption of nuclear testing by the U.S. and inevitably by the other nuclear weapons states, including in South Asia. This possibility has grown because of the policies of the Bush Administration.

Under President George. W. Bush, the U.S. seems set to undo any and all arms control treaties, except those that clearly favor the US. The CTBT was the first victim. The Biological Weapons Convention followed. The U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is the first withdrawal from any arms control treaty by a state, creating a possibly terrible precedent. These steps have cleared the way for a more aggressive set of nuclear policies.

The Bush Administration’s January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for development of operational strategies that would allow use of nuclear weapons by the US even against those states that do not possess nuclear, chemical, biological or other weapons of mass destruction; it proposes that U.S. military forces, including nuclear forces, will be used to “dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends.” [emphasis added]. New special-purpose nuclear weapons such as deep penetration weapons (bunker busters) are already being developed.

As the U.S. has focused on further developing its military capacity to achieve its goals it the post-Cold War world, it has worried less about what India and Pakistan may do to each other. With both India and Pakistan seeking to woo the United States over to their side, the U.S. has little to fear from either. Although it seems to have taken out insurance, The Nuclear Posture Review recommends “requirements for nuclear strike capabilities” might include “a sudden regime change by which an existing nuclear arsenal comes into the hands of a new, hostile leadership group.” Events since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 suggest Pakistan may be a particular concern for the U.S. in this regard.

Pakistan’s Loose Nukes

Immediately after the September 11 attack, although Pakistan’s military government insisted that there was no danger of any of its 25-40 nuclear weapons being taking for a ride, it wasn’t taking any chances. Several weapons were reportedly airlifted to various safer, isolated, locations within the country. This nervousness was not unjustified – two strongly Islamist generals of the Pakistan Army (the head of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency, Lt. General Mehmood Ahmed, and Deputy Chief of Army Staff, General Muzaffar Hussain Usmani), close associates of General Musharraf, had just been removed. Dissatisfaction within the army on Pakistan’s betrayal of the Taliban was (and is) deep – almost overnight, under intense American pressure, the Pakistan government had disowned its progeny.

Fears about Pakistan’s nukes were subsequently compounded by revelations that two highly placed members of the nuclear establishment, Syed Bashiruddin Mahmood and Chaudhry Majid, had journeyed several times into Afghanistan during the last year. Both scientists are well known to espouse radical Islamic views.

It is not impossible that the two Pakistanis could have provided significant nuclear information or materials potentially useful to Al-Qaeda’s allies and subsidiaries in other parts of the world. If it turns so out, this will scarcely be the first instance of nuclear leakage. In 1966, sympathizers of Israel working in the U.S. Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation were instrumental in diverting more than 100 kilograms of highly enriched uranium for the Israeli nuclear weapons program, material which was reported by the CIA to most likely have “been used by the Israelis in fabricating weapons.”

Pakistan’s loose nuke problem underscores a global danger that may already be out of control. The fissile materials present in the thousands of ex-Soviet bombs marked for disassembly, the vast amounts of radioactive materials present in nuclear reactors and storage sites the world over, and the abundance of nuclear knowledge, make it only a matter of time before some catastrophic use is made of them.

The Way Ahead – Necessary Shifts

Those who profit from war are in the driving seat in Washington, Delhi and Islamabad. If South Asia is to hope for better times, then fundamental shifts in all three countries will be absolutely necessary: –

Pakistan : For five decades school children have been taught that Kashmir is the “jugular vein” of Pakistan, the unfinished business of Partition without which the country will remain incomplete. This national obsession must be dropped; it has supported three wars and is an invitation to unending conflict and ultimate disaster. As a first step, Pakistan must visibly demonstrate that it has severed all links with the militant groups it formerly supported and shut down all the militant camps it set up for them. Pakistan must find more positive ways to show its solidarity with the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination.

India : New Delhi's sustained subversion of the democratic process and iron fist policy in Kashmir has produced a moral isolation of India from the Kashmiri people that may be total and irreversible. The brutality of Indian forces, typical of state counter-insurgency efforts to deal with separatists and independence movements, is well-documented by human rights groups. India’s rigid refusal to deal with Kashmir’s reality must go. A first step would be to withdraw Indian troops and allow democracy and normal economic life to resume and for Kashmiri civil society to begin to repair the profound damage done to that community. This could be done by restoring to Kashmir the autonomy granted it under Article 370 of the Indian constitution pending a permanent solution.

United States : Indian and Pakistani leaders seem to have abdicated their own responsibility and have entrusted disaster prevention to US diplomats and officials, as well occasionally to those from Britain. There is no doubt that the US is interested in preventing a South Asian nuclear disaster. But this is only a peripheral interest, the United States’ main interest in South Asian nuclear issues is now driven largely by fear of Al-Qaida, or affiliated groups, and a possible nuclear connection. This is a valid concern, and as a first step tight policing and monitoring of nuclear materials and knowledge is essential. But this is far from sufficient. If nuclear weapons continue to be accepted by nuclear weapon states as legitimate, for either deterrence or war, their global proliferation – whether by other states or non-state actors – can only be slowed down at best. By what moral argument can others be persuaded not to follow suit? Humanity’s best chance of survival lies in moving rapidly toward the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The US, as the world’s only superpower, must take the lead.

Reducing Nuclear Risks in South Asia

The gravity of the situation in South Asia is such that commonsense dictates the need for urgent transitional measures to reduce the nuclear risks while seeking a path to nuclear disarmament. An important set of proposals for nuclear risk reduction measures between India and Pakistan was released by the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND) in Delhi on June 18, 2002.

There are many technical steps that can quickly be taken in South Asia, including ensuring that nuclear weapons are not kept assembled or mated with their delivery systems, ending production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and closing down nuclear tests sites. Again, none of these is a substitute for nuclear disarmament.

There also steps that might be helpful at the level of nuclear diplomacy, education, policy and doctrine, for example:

Establish India-Pakistan nuclear risk reduction dialogues. Such dialogues need to be completely separated from the Kashmir issue, a point of view that Pakistan must be brought around to. Shared understandings are vital to underpin nuclear crisis management by adversaries. There are interdependent expectations – I act in a manner that depends on what I expect you to do, which in turn depends on what you think I plan to do.

Commission nuclear weapons use and consequences studies. There is a need to increase understanding among policy makers and the public of nuclear weapons effects through commissioning public and private studies that will assess impacts of nuclear attacks made by the other on city centers, military bases, nuclear reactors, dams, targets of economic value etc. This will help in making clear the catastrophe that would be caused by a nuclear war and create stronger restraints against the use of nuclear weapons, as well as removing the commonly held, but false, belief that nuclear war is as an apocalypse after which neither country will exist. This quintessential feature of nuclear war was best captured by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev when he said that “In the event of a nuclear war, the living will envy the dead.”

Arrive at a mutual understanding that it is not in either state’s interest to target and destroy the leadership of the other and to keep nuclear weapons command centers from urban centers. Attacking political and military leadership with a view to destroying nuclear command and control is likely to be a strong incentive in early use of nuclear weapons. Given the likelihood of pre-delegation of authority to retaliate, it is most probable that such an attack will not succeed in preventing a return strike. Attacks on leadership also make it very difficult to negotiate and institute an early end to nuclear war after it has started (it might end only when all functional weapons have been used by both sides). Therefore, nuclear command centers should not only be far from civilian populations but also from nuclear weapons storage or deployment sites.

Declare a policy of not targeting cities. Nothing can ever justify the deliberate targeting of a civilian population, especially with a nuclear weapon. The population densities of the mega-cities of India and Pakistan ensure that any nuclear attack would lead to hundreds of thousands of immediate fatalities. It should be avoided at all costs.

Back to Headlines

Where do RSS funds come from?

Times News Network [November 20, 2002]

NEW DELHI: For the last 13 years, the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), a US-based charity has reportedly misused American corporate philanthropy to fund RSS-affiliated organisations here. For instance, the IDRF obtained vast sums from CISCO, a leading technology company in the US with a substantial number of NRIs on its rolls by saying its activities are "secular" since company rules explicitly prohibit donations to organisations of a "religious" nature.

These are some of the findings presented in a 91-page report by The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (TCTSFH), a coalition of professionals, students, workers, artists and intellectuals. In the first phase of its campaign, "Project Saffron Dollar", the TCTSFH plans to write to large American corporates to guard against funding the IDRF, Biju Mathew, a spokesman for the TCTSFH said.

The report, explaining the dynamics of IDRF's corporate funding, says that as professional Indian migration to the US boomed over the last decade, especially in the software sector, Sangh operatives in large hi-tech firms with liberal giving policies worked to put IDRF on the corporations' list of grantees. They then pushed IDRF as the best and only way to provide funding for development and relief work in India, resulting in other unsuspecting employees, as well as the corporation itself to fund the Sangh in India.

RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav, when contacted, said: "There is no specific organisation which collects funds for the RSS. However, certain projects run by RSS-affiliated organisations do get money from NRIs for specific projects such as the Ekal Vidyalaya scheme (one-teacher schools run in tribal areas). This organisation (that you have mentioned) may have given some money, too. I have not heard much about it."

The TCTSFH report says that though the IDRF claims to be a non-sectarian, non-political charity that funds development and relief work in India, the IDRF filed a tax document (at its inception in 1989) with the Internal Revenue Service of the US Federal government, identifying nine organisations as a representative sample of organisations it would support. All nine were Sangh organisations.

The report also says that 82 per cent of IDRF's funds go to Sangh organisations. It documents the fact that 70 per cent of the monies are used for "hinduisation/tribal/education" work, largely with the view to spreading the Hindutva idealogy among tribals. Less than 20 per cent is used in "development and relief" activities, but the report concludes that since there is a sectarian slant to how the relief money is disbursed, these are sectarian funds, too. (Supplied by Arunab Ghose)

Back to Headlines

Announcement

Please circulate....

Available now in bookshops across India...

Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy (Ed.) Siddharth Varadarajan

Penguin, 2002, pp 472, Rs 295/-

The events at Godhra and the ensuing communal carnage in Gujarat, like the Babri Masjid demolition and the 1984 massacres, constitute an ugly chapter of our contemporary history. For the sheer brutality, persistence and widespread nature of the violence, especially against women and children, the complicity of the State, the ghettoization of communities, and the indifference of civil society, Gujarat has surpassed anything we have experienced in recent times. That this happened in one of India’s most ‘well off’ and ‘progressive’ states, the home of the Mahatma, is all the more alarming.

This book is intended to be a permanent public archive of the tragedy that is Gujarat. Drawing upon eyewitness reports from the English, Hindi and regional media, citizens’ and official fact-finding commissions – and articles by leading public figures and intellectuals – it provides a chilling account of how and why the state was allowed to burn.

With an overview by the editor, the reader covers the circumstances leading up to Godhra and the violence in Ahmedabad, Baroda and rural Gujarat. Separate sections deal with the role of the police, Sangh Parivar, media and the tribals, the international implications of the violence, the problems of relief and rehabilitation of the victims, and, above all, their quest for justice. The picture that emerges is deeply disturbing, for Gujarat has exposed the ease with which the rights of citizens, and especially minorities, can be violated with official sanction. The lessons of the violence ought to be heeded and acted upon by the public. For, in the absence of this, can another Gujarat be prevented from happening elsewhere?

BOOK ON GUJARAT CARNAGE

On the web: www.firstandsecond.com/store/books/info/bookinfo.asp?blnCall=1&txtSearch=2167460

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: Chronicle of a Tragedy Foretold Siddharth Varadarajan

THE VIOLENCE: The Carnage at Godhra Jyoti Punwani * A License to Kill: Patterns of Violence in Gujarat Nandini Sundar * Narratives from the Killing Fields * When Guardians Betray: The Role of the Police Teesta Setalvad * An Open Letter to My Fellow Police Officers Vibhuti Narain Rai * ‘Nothing New?’: Women as Victims Barkha Dutt, Women’s Panel, PUCL-Vadodara and Shanti Abhiyan * Tribal Voice and Violence G.! N. Devy * The Violence in Gujarat and the Dalits Mohandas Namishray * The Truth Hurts: Gujarat and the Role of the Media Siddharth Varadarajan, Rajdeep Sardesai, PUCL-Vadodara and Shanti Abhiyan, Anil Chamaria

THE AFTERMATH: Little Relief, No Rehabilitation People’s Union for Democratic Rights * Apart, Yet a Part: Ghettoisation, Trauma—and Some Rays of Hope * The Elusive Quest for Justice: Delhi 1984 to Gujarat 2002 Vrinda Grover * India’s Reaction to International Concern A.G. Noorani

ESSAYS AND ANALYSES: The Dialogue of Vali Gujarati and Hanumanji Ranjana Argade * Genocide of the Idea of Gujarat Shail Mayaram * The Pathology of Gujarat Achyut Yagnik * Caste, Hindutva and the Making of Mob Culture Ghanshyam Shah * The VHP Needs to Hear the Condemnation of the Hindu Middle Ground Ramachandra Guha * Where Will it End? Mahasweta Devi * Modi and Kalinga? Thrice Impossible, Brother Gill Prakash N. Shah * Just Another Day in Ahmedabad Gurpal Singh * I Salute You Geetaben, From the Bottom of My Heart Siddharth Varadarajan

APPENDICES: Prime Minister Vajpayee’s speech at Goa/A Brief Chronology of Events/Akshardham and After

In bookstores across India now

Back to Headlines