[sacw] sacw dispatch (21 Sept.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

<fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>South
Asia Citizens Web Dispatch

21 Sept.1999

__________________________

#1. </color>Hindu Zealots Sought in Killings of Christians in India

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>#2. </color>First they spike Husain
art, now they splash it all over

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>#3. </color>India's N-doctrine and
our options<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param> [A Pakistani View]

#4. Book review of Riding the nuclear Tiger

#5. </color>Report on recent Asian Parliamentarians Conference held in
Dhaka

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>__________________________

#1.

</color>Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, September 20, 1999; Page A01 

Holy Warriors, Hateful Violence:

Hindu Zealots Sought in Killings of Christians in India

By Pamela Constable

LABEDEPUR, India-The young Roman Catholic priest died with eight arrows

piercing his stomach, lungs and right eye. He had been asleep in a mud

hut used for prayer services in Jamubani, a village about 12 miles from

here, when a group of men wearing loincloths burst in, brandishing 

torches and heavy sticks called lathis.

"I heard someone shouting, 'Where is that sala [cursed] priest!' " and

then they started beating us," recounted Kate Singh Khuntia, 27, a 

catechism teacher who was sleeping in the same hut. "Father got up and

ran out. I heard him screaming, 'Ama,' for his mother. Then someone hit

me from behind. As I passed out, all I could hear was the sound of 

lathis."

The grisly killing of the Rev. Arul Doss, a 35-year-old diocesan priest

from southern India, on the night of Sept. 1, was neither an isolated 

nor inexplicable incident. On the contrary, it fit into a pattern of 

threats, arson and murder that has stalked this remote tribal region of

Orissa state since January, when an Australian Baptist missionary and 

his two young sons were burned to death in a village not far from
here.

The identity of Doss's killers remains a mystery, but there is little 

doubt they were fanatical Hindus angered by the spread of Christian 

conversions among impoverished tribal peoples, known as adivasis. 

Christians in Orissa are convinced that, like the mob that attacked 

missionary Graham Staines and his children, the priest's killers were 

encouraged and possibly organized by a national fundamentalist Hindu 

youth group called the Bajrang Dal.

The Doss killing has brought ill-timed embarrassment to the Indian 

government, which is proud of presiding over a mammoth secular
democracy 

and is currently involved in nationwide elections. Two weeks ago, the 

State Department issued a report on religious freedom worldwide that 

criticized India's failure to prevent and prosecute such crimes. The 

Clinton administration announced it would send a special envoy on 

religious issues to India, but officials in New Delhi replied that they

would not receive him.

The Indian government recently released a report on the Staines 

slayings, but it has been widely condemned as a whitewash. The report,

based on a lengthy investigation by a special commission, concluded
that 

one man -- a renegade Hindu vigilante named Dara Singh -- orchestrated

the attack and that no larger group or movement was behind it.

In the days since Doss's death, Orissa police have launched a highly 

publicized manhunt for Dara Singh, sealing off large tribal areas and 

combing the jungles where Singh, a mystical hero to many local people,

is said to be hiding. But the killing has also highlighted cultural, 

economic and political conflicts in rural areas inhabited by adivasis,

conflicts that have been exacerbated by the competition between
Hinduism 

and Christianity.

"This has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of
self-interest," 

said the Rev. Thomas Chellan, a Catholic priest in Orissa's capital, 

Bhubaneshwar. "Christians bring education, economic opportunity and new

social status to the adivasis. I have heard that some upper caste
Hindus 

say, 'The foreigners come and ruin them. . . . Who will be left to plow

the fields?' "

Christians are not the only victims of recent attacks by Hindu zealots

in Orissa. Several Muslim cattle traders have been assaulted, and their

animals have been freed. In late August, a cattle trader named Sheik 

Rehman was mutilated and burned to death in a village only a few miles

from where Doss was killed. Hindus view cows as sacred and their 

slaughter for meat as an abomination.

But while tensions between Muslims and Hindus have flared repeatedly
for 

decades, attacks on Christians are a new and perplexing phenomenon. 

Christian missionaries have been present in India at least since the 

sixth century, and major missions were established in a number of
states 

during British rule. Generations of status-conscious Indians have sent

their children to Christian-run schools. But only 2 percent of the 

population is Christian, and Hinduism has dominated society so 

thoroughly that Christianity was never considered a threat.

In the past few years, however, a surge in Hindu fundamentalism has 

coincided with new efforts by Christian groups to reach out to ever
more 

remote and neglected areas. In dozens of Orissa villages -- villages 

like Labedepur, where Doss worked for four years among members of a 

local ethnic strain called the Ho people -- thousands of inhabitants 

have converted to Christianity.

Tensions have inevitably resulted, especially when the converts refuse

to participate in Hindu festivals or insist on plowing during an annual

three-day ritual of Earth-mother worship, when most peasants avoid 

touching their fields. Even more controversial are what Hindu activists

call fraudulent conversions, the alleged practice of luring poor, 

unsophisticated adivasis to Christianity by promising health and
wealth.

"These people are insecure and vulnerable," asserted Patrap Kumar 

Sarengi, a Hindu who heads the Bajrang Dal in Orissa. "They may have
TB, 

and they are told if they pray to Jesus Christ, he will cure them. This

is conversion by fraud and allurement, and it is dangerous and
illegal." 

He said he condemned Doss's killing but added that the government and 

the church are partly to blame. "They should put a stop to illegal 

conversions, because they are the root cause of these murders," he
said.

There are political overtones to the conflict as well, because
pro-Hindu 

parties are afraid of losing votes as Christianity spreads, according
to 

some observers. Ironically, though, it is only since the killings of
the 

Staines family and Doss that church officials here and in New Delhi
have 

begun calling openly on their followers to vote for secular candidates.

This should largely benefit the Congress party, which opposes the
ruling 

pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party.

Several priests and pastors in Orissa, including those who worked with

Doss, insist they never deceive adivasis or press them to convert but 

merely offer free medicine, literacy classes and home visits. Some 

villagers eventually feel called to convert out of gratitude or 

inspiration, they said; others do not. The clergymen said they had 

worked in villages where some families were Hindus, some were 

Christians, and others worshiped nature spirits.

"We would only go to homes where we were invited. We would tell them
the 

story of Jesus and pray with them," said Singh Khuntia, the catechism 

teacher. "We would tell them they did not have to sacrifice goats and 

hens any more to be cured of diseases. We never forced anyone."

Singh Khuntia said there had been some tensions in Jamubani, largely 

spurred by a local Hindu priest who resented the Catholics' inroads and

threatened both him and Doss several times. Since the killings, Singh 

Khuntia said, he has received two telephone threats and has been afraid

to return to the village area. 

But here in Labedepur, a hamlet of thatched huts where people farm
small 

plots of rice and make dishes to sell from the round, rubbery leaves of

sal trees, everyone remembered Doss as a simple, outgoing man who owned

few clothes, learned their native dialect and walked miles to inquire 

about their children and health.

In one compound of six Christian and six non-Christian families, all 

said they respected each other's customs and beliefs. The Christians 

said they took a break from plowing during the annual Earth festival, 

and the other Ho people said they picked up free medicine at the 

Catholic dispensary while continuing to sacrifice hens or meditate
under 

a sal tree when they fell sick. All spoke well of Doss.

"He was a good man; I cannot understand why anyone would kill him,"
said 

Singhray Melgandi, 40, a Ho farmer who rushed to Jamubani on foot when

he heard of the killing and helped carry the mortally wounded Doss for

miles to the nearest hospital. 

Melgandi's wife Veronica, 35, shook her head angrily when asked if 

anyone had pressured the family to become Christian. "The reason why we

liked Father Doss," she said, "was that he gave us so much love."

Special correspondent Rama Lakshmi contributed to this report. 

© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>___________________________________

#2.

India Express

Tuesday, September 21, 1999 

</color>First they spike Husain art, now they splash it all over 

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>by Santwana Bhattacharya 

NEW DELHI, SEPT 20: The Sangh Parivar has come full circle. The images

of M F Husain that raised the hackles of the Bajrang Dal activists are

now being recycled on propaganda posters and pamphlets by another wing

of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vivekanand Vichar Manch
(VMM).

An RSS think-tank, VVM is responsible for organising seminars and 

debates in universities across the country.

As part of its know-your-glorious-past programme, VVM is circulating a

rather innovative version of the man of India.

The VVM map stretches the Indian boundaries far beyond Kargil -- to 

Karakoram on one end and Myanmar on the other. And, this `Vision of 

India' (as the map is titled) is filled with icons lifted from various

Husain paintings -- the very same that got the painter into trouble
with 

RSS and VHP not so many months ago.

Bajrang Dal activists had mutilated his paintings in Ahmedabad and 

ransacked his apartment in Mumbai. Also, an annotation to the
paintings, 

which questioned Husain's right to draw upon Hindu mythology, was 

printed and widely circulated. Now all that is buried for good.

Instead, at the heart of the Hamara-Bharat-Mahaan map is a replica of 

Husain's dancing Ganesha. The Western Ghats take the form of the 

`half-clad' mythological goddess for which the saffron brigade refuse
to 

forgive Husain. His famous peace dove is shown flying over the eastern

horizon.

AVVM activist from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where a copy of 

this map has been put up, categorically stated that the images had not

been lifted from Husain.

``This map has been conceived by a young boy from a village in Bihar. 

What does he know of Husain? It came from his own heart,'' said 

Krishnand Maharaj, a student of JNU's School of International studies.

On being shown a print of the Husain original, another VMM activist 

Ashok Sharma acknowledges, ``So, it was Husain inspired. But what's 

wrong in that? After all he is an important artist, the young can get 

influenced.''

Asked why then was their sister organisation accusing the artist of 

distorting traditional Indian images? ``That was a religious issue.
Here 

we are talking about history. We are trying to remind people of our 

glorious past. The map depicts Ashokan India''.

Responding to the issue of recycling of Husain's art by the same 

organisation, art historian Geeta Kapur said, ``It is politically 

ironical at one level and naive at another. Husain's handling of our 

mythology is so much part of the contemporary visual vocabulary. We use

these without realising that it's his. It's almost like a language''.

Describing as mischievous earlier attempts to debunk Husain's work as 

objectionable, Kapur said that he is one artist who is provided us with

contemporary mythology.

VVM activists, however, refuse to give Husain any special place. They 

drop names of senior professors in School of Languages and School
Social 

Sciences who are members of VVM and say, ``They would have told us if
we 

were wrong.''

Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. 

________________________

#3.

</color>DAWN

20 September 1999 

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>Op-Ed.

</color>India's N-doctrine and our options

By M.B. Naqvi

THE publication of the draft of India's nuclear doctrine, prepared by 

National Security Council, some time ago has concentrated many minds in

Pakistan and elsewhere. The document is not really Pakistan-specific.
It 

points to the road India is going to take in relation to its nuclear 

capability. 

In so far as it can be ascertained, India has reluctantly published it,

presumably under American pressure for more specific information on
what 

India intends to do. This pressure was exerted at the eight or so
rounds 

of Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks. Even so, most Pakistanis will 

feel that the aim of India's nuclear effort would remain largely
focused 

on them. 

India has couched its nuclear doctrine in terms that are pleasing to
the 

ear: it is only a minimal nuclear deterrent that it aims at. But the 

qualification that the documents adds make it anything but minimum. It

has to be 'credible', 'effective', 'survivable', 'safe' and 'secure'. 

India also makes a pleasant sounding declaration: it will not be the 

first to make a nuclear strike. But the effect of that has to be seen
in 

the context of what the doctrine is all about. Any nuclear attack - or
a 

perception of it - will entail a 'punitive retaliatory strike.' 

>From the original concession of forgoing the right to be the first to 

strike, India goes on to attach other qualifications to its deterrence:

thus its nuclear forces have to be "sufficient, survivable and 

operationally prepared nuclear forces"; they would have a "robust 

command and control system"; "effective intelligence and early warning

capabilities"; 'comprehensive planning and training for operations in 

line with the strategy"; and "the will to employ nuclear forces and 

weapons." These are not the only qualifications. There is another and 

perhaps far more important: "highly effective conventional military 

capability shall be maintained to raise the threshold of outbreak of 

conventional military conflict as well as that of threat or use of 

nuclear weapons." 

There is much emphasis on two qualifications of the minimal nuclear 

deterrent. It has to be credible, meaning thereby "any adversary will 

have to know that India can and will retaliate with sufficient nuclear

weapons to inflict destruction and punishment that the aggressor will 

find unacceptable if nuclear weapons are used against India and its 

forces". Secondly, it has to be effective, meaning thereby being 

'reliable, timely, accurate and the weight of the attack will be 

unacceptably heavy for the aggressor.' 

Even more importantly, it has to be survivable: "India's nuclear forces

and their command and control shall be organized for very high 

survivability against surprise attacks and for rapid punitive response.

They shall be designed and deployed to ensure survival against a first

strike and to endure repetitive attrition attempts with adequate 

retaliatory capability for a punishing strike which would be 

unacceptable to the aggressor." This is a prescription for a level of 

nuclear preparedness that would equal perhaps America's and Russia's. 

There are two pleasant sounding declarations in the document. One is 

about the control and command structure: the elected prime minister
will 

preside over the control and command structure. Another is India will 

not be the first to use the nuclear weapons in any conflict. The effect

of the first is that no trigger-happy general will decide when to nuke

an enemy (one can safely read an innuendo about Pakistan here). 

On the whole, the draft of nuclear doctrine prescribes a course of 

action which will be an unending nuclearization and militarization of 

India because the nuclear deterrence is claimed to be: "a dynamic 

concept related to the strategic environment, technological imperatives

and the need of national security. The actual size, components, 

deployment and employment of nuclear forces will be decided in the
light 

of these factors." In the hands of hawks, these conditions will 

transform the minimum into the maximal (for both the quantum and
quality 

of the proposed Indian nuclear forces). 

Pakistani reaction, on the whole, can only take note of the fact that 

this is an open-ended militarization programme in the nuclear and 

missile fields. The kind of second-strike capability that India is 

aiming at is a far cry from what one has heard and understood so far.
To 

achieve all this, so much of India's resources will have to be devoted

mainly to this military purpose that very little will be left for other

purposes. But the hardliners' job will be facilitated by such PR 

terminology as 'minimal deterrence' and calling it in a facile manner a

'national security imperative.' All neighbours of India, chiefly 

Pakistan and China, will have to take note of this unending 

nuclearization of India - and on a platform of the high plateau of 

conventional military capability, kept modernized. China doubtless will

try and take it in its stride and may not give vent to shrieking 

reactions, though its articulation and actions are likely to be firmly

adverse. 

In so far as Pakistan is concerned, it would range from a quick 

off-the-mark reaction of 'let us do the same' to a generalized regret 

and reiteration basically of pacifist positions. The reaction of the 

hawks will be to follow suit and soon. But as one of the aides of the 

Pakistan PM has indicated, Pakistan ought to pause and think whether
the 

Indians are not doing a local variant of Star Wars the way Americans
did 

on the Russians for making them wholly bankrupt. The Russians lost all

their economic and political superstructure in trying to keep up with 

the Americans. Pakistan has to keep in mind the relative scarcity and 

smallness of its resource base in mind while deciding upon how to
react. 

In any case, reacting in the like manner would involve massive expen

diture that Pakistan economy is simply not capable of bearing. That 

ought to make us think logically and in a dispassionate manner. 

That the general world reaction to the Indian doctrine is adverse is 

plain. Led by the Americans and the British, they have lost no time in

saying that it is a negative development and that the document does not

meet all the requirements that they had demanded, especially about the

quantifying of India's minimal deterrent. The Indians have instead 

talked about that minimal deterrent size and its nature being a dynamic

concept related to the changing strategic environment, state of 

technology and so forth, including a subjective interpretation of the 

imperatives of national security. 

This is tantamount to saying that 'we do not put any upper limit on our

nuclear forces and we propose to keep the rest of the world guessing 

about the quantum, make-up and deadliness of our nuclear arsenal under

the new doctrine.' What effect will that have on the western 

policy-making is anybody's guess and how India will react to outside 

reactions is also uncertain. But initial indications of about 400 

nuclear warheads will rival China's and France's nuclear armouries. 

As for Pakistan, even if peaceable approaches of the pacifists are not

accepted by the government, there is no call for rushing headlong into
a 

mainly reactive policy formulation: doing much the same as the Indians

propose to do. It may be appropriate for Islamabad to keep cool, remain

balanced and relatively quiet during which all aspects of the matter
can 

be thrashed out. At any rate, there is no call for resiling from the 

decision of signing the CTBT by September, as was indicated by Foreign

Minister Sartaj Aziz the other day. The main point to decide, and 

irrespective of what the Americans and the others think, is whether 

Pakistan should continue to adhere to its long-held view that South
Asia 

should be a nuclear weapons-free zone. 

We can remain attached to that objective and could take the more 

peaceable road of not following in the footsteps of India. We can 

embrace the CTBT, good faith cooperation in FMCT formulation and
signing 

with a view eventually to adhering to the NPT. This means Pakistan 

taking its place with the rest of the non-nuclear world and following 

the South African example. There is the UN and a large number of 

non-nuclear countries and the world of the nuclear haves standing up
for 

the right of non-nuclear people to stay nuclear free. As long as 

Pakistan does not spring other Kargils on India, its basic security 

would remain inviolate. 

Taking the peaceable road requires a degree of moral courage and 

conviction that are not easy to muster. For the present set of rulers
it 

is vitally important to know where to stop and how far to go in
matching 

India's so-called minimal but credible deterrent with Pakistan's own 

'minimal deterrent.' There are no real limits other than arbitrary ones

where a nation stops in preparedness for its national security. It is a

matter of good sense. The Indian formulations are so vague that they
can 

take their nuclear weaponization programme to the very limit, so that 

others should hesitate even to think of using nuclear weapons against 

that country. 

On economic, political and social grounds, Pakistan has to get out of 

the reactive mode of policy-making - of doing its tit for every India's

tat. The moot point is: without opting out of the arms race, there is 

unlikely to be a point where arms race can be halted. The alternatives

are stark indeed. What Islamabad's choice would be is anyone's guess. 

But the old idea was of muddling through somehow, trying to match 

India's capability without actually going the whole hog. That uncertain

option may no longer be available now. More radical choices may be 

unavoidable.

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>____________________________

#3.

</color>Date: 20 Sept. 1999

Friends,

If you are interested in a landmark book on the nuclear regime in
South

Asia, I recommend for you N. Ram's new Riding the Nuclear Tiger
(LeftWord,

1999). You can read my review at

http://www.south-asian-initiative.org/epw/previous/rev2.htm. I have the
book

for sale, in hardback, for U. S. $10 (postage free). If you are
interested,

please send me an email at vijay.prashad@t...

Best Wishes,

Vijay Prashad.

<color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>____________________________

#4. 

</color>20 September 199

Report on The Asian Parliamentarian Conference for Peace and
Co-Operation

Held in Dhaka

by Amit Chakraborty

The Asian Parliamentarian Conference for peace and Co-operation

was held in Dhaka --the capital of Bangladesh ,an old, beautiful and

historic city-- from 1 to 4 Sept.'99.

The Conference, jointly sponsored by Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad (

Parliament ) and UNDP was unique in a sense that -- this is the first
time

the parliamentarians, supposed to deliver valuable speeches on Peace
etc.,

assembled in the Conference for doing something more -- to find out
ways

for real Peace in the Asia Pacific Region.

The Conference was also unique in the sense that here the Civil

Society Organisations were allowed officially to interact directly
with

the parliamentarians to share their experience on peace building

initiatives and activities.

All most all the Asia- Pacific countries having parliamentary

system participated in the Conference. Noted absentee was Indian

Parliamentary Delegation, since India does not have a sitting
parliament

at present. It was reported that quite a good no.of Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs) from Asia Pacific countries and also from other
parts of the

world and many eminent personalities working for peace were supposed
to

participate in the conference. The total no. of such non-parliamentary

delegates, as estimated by the organisers, was 86. But the presence
of

representatives of the following CSOs only were felt during the four
days

of conference. CSOs so referred were : The Hague Appeal for Peace,

Centre for Policy Alternatives (Srilanka) Women's Caucus for Gender
Justice,

Concililation Resources (UK) , Pakistan India Peoples'Forum for Peace
and Democracy, 

Mahanirvan Calcutta Research Group, Mind ( India ), South Asian Forum
for Human

Rights (Nepal), Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association, Peace Boat
(Japan), 

Coalition of Environmental NGOs ( Bangladesh ), Stockholm

International Peace Research Institute. 

Eminent personalities like Kuldip Nyre, Rajmohan Gandhi (

journalists ); Justice Leila Seth from India also were present in the

Conference. Ex-Premier of India Shri I.K.Gujral attended the
conference

as a CSO representative.

Other than colourful inauguration marked with laudable speeches

from the digniatries and luminaries and music and dance programmes in

between speeches, there were two plenary sessions, five working group

discussions and two draft committee sessions in the conference. Out
of

the two, the first plenary session was for introduction of 
Conference

documents and fixing up of other technical necessaries. The 2nd
plenary

was the concluding one held for finalisation & adoption of the said

documents and the Charter of the Conference. The subject matters 
for

four of the Working group discussions were selected in the line of 
four

cardinal points on peace question as was decided in the convention of

Hague Appeal for Peace, held in last June. The subject matter for the
5th

working group discussion was - ' Parliamentary Democracy -- Asian Way
'.

The CSO Delegates did not have much scope to interact in the

plenaries. But they participated in the working group discussions

very effectively. In fact many points raised by the CSOs in this

group discussions were included in the official resolutions and the

Charter of the Conference. Article 1, clause ( v ) of the Charter
accepted

by the conference mentions the following as one of it's aims and

objectives : 

" Provide forum at regional and national level for interaction

between Parliamentarians on the one hand and the Civil

Society Organisations and Peace workers on the other for

promotion of peace and for enhancing the awareness of the

need for peace among the peoples...... " 

The Charter signed by the heads of the Parliamentary Delegations

present in the Conference ( barring one or two)

vowed to "establish an organisation to be known as ASSOCIATION OF 
ASIAN

PARLIAMENTS FOR PEACE."

The representatives of the CSOs held a separate Press

Conference on 3rd Sept.'99 at the conference venue to air their views
on

the proceedings of the conference . The representatives of the CSOs
felt

it ".....important that CSOs are able to participate in a substantive

manner in the proceedings of the proposed Association of Asian

Parliamentarians for Peace ( AAPP ) . In order to achieve this ,
we

need to continue the process of dialogue initiated by this conference
in a

constructive way. The role of the CSOs and the manner of their

participation should be decided upon through a consultative process
that

is open, transparent and democratic."

They urged upon the parliamentarians .. " to back up their

profound statements ( on peace ) with implementation on the ground.
War

in the form of inter and intra - state violence, social and economic

injustice and lack of protection for basic human rights is something
that

people can no longer wait to have addressed. It is critical that this

conference identify implementation mechanisms."

Some of the major issues of actions as envisaged by the CSOs

include :

1. Legislation for introduction of Peace Education

2. National legislation to move beyond ratification into

application of international treaties and covenants.

Labour and economic rights are human rights and 

need to be protected and promoted as such.

3. Complete and total nuclear disarmament in Asia and the rest

of the world since human security must replace 

national and military security.

4. Ratification and implementation of the resolutions of the Convention
on the Rights of of the Child and prohibit the use of children in
armed conflict.

5. Inclusion of the CSOs in all peace processes at the negotiating
tables as full partmers wherever the fate of humanity is being
discussed.

6. Ensure legislation for the preservation and protection of the
environment , while ensuring sustainable development for the people.

As a representative of Pakistan India Peoples' Forum for Peace

and Demmocracy I participated in the Conference. While discussing in
the

group discussion on the subject "' Root Cause of War -- Culture of 
Peace

' held on 2nd September I presented my views in the form of a paper.
The

paper follows . My views on religion as a root cause of war attracted

lot of debates from the parliamentary delegates from Pakistan and 
Iran.

However, use of religion for inciting social violence was criticised
and

condemned in no ambiguous term in the official documents of the

Conference. 

etc,. It is also said that the religion united the common people
fighting

each other for individual interest, to stand for common interest and

thereby paved the way for social progress. Even if it was true in the

ancient times we do not find any semblance of this truth in the
present

day's institutionalised religion. Instead of uniting the people it

disintegrates the society more and more now. 

Present day religion is the weapon in the hands of the ruling

minority to masquerade its rule of exploitation and oppression. In
the

name of fetishism and heavenly abode after death, religion
naturalises

all sorts of social vices that victimise 

the vast majority of people. Religion also stands for total
subjugation

of the women in this patriarchal society.

Whoever believes in a particular religion, considers his or her

religion to be the best of the lot. And as such he would like his
belief

to be shared by others around. If it does not happen he becomes
intolerant

about others and tries to convert others to his own religion. In this
way

communal disharmony is generated. In the process the religion of the

majority tries to dominate over the religion of the minority. In our

subcontinent this is the scenario and we find many communal wars.

When we see a spurt of religious fundamentalism now-a-days in this

part of the world we possibly forget to remember 'Dulles Doctrine'. In
the

fifties, to combat advent of Communism, John Foster Dulles
prescribed

for encouraging religion in Asian and Pacific countries.

Interestingly, he theorised his proposition in a book titled "War or
Peace

" published by Macmillan, Newyork. A quote from his book, I believe,
will

not be out of context here. 

" The religions of the East are deeply rooted and have many

precious values. There spiritual belief can not be reconciled

with communist ethism and materialism. That creates a

common bond between us, and our task is to find it and

develop it . "

How far the religion was successful in combating advent of

communism in Asia Pacific countries may be the subject matter of
research

for the scholars. But it can be said without attracting any tenable

opposition from the scholars of all shades that religion could not and
can

not solve any of the material problems faced by the people of Asia
Pacific

countries. On the contrary, it is generating disharmony and
intolerance,

in this part of the world, to the extent of bloody vendetta amongst
the

followers of the same religion even. 

While probing on ' Root causes of War -- Culture of Peace ' we

can not escape addressing the issues discussed above. And it has to be

more detailed one and part of a systematic study on the subject.

In conclusion, I would like to add that the peace that we long

for is not the peace found in graveyards, the peace found in a curfew

ridden area, the peace identified in the reticence of the vanquished,
in

the general lull that follows a devastating earthquake or some other

natural calamity. The peace that we demand must ensure freedom 
from

hunger, disease, unemployment, illiteracy, exploitation, oppression,

deprivation, subjugation and above all freedom from war. 
</fontfamily>