[sacw] sacw dispatch #1 (26-27 Nov)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #1.
26-27 Nov.1999
-----------------------------
#1. A senior Indian ex-official's view on events in Pakistan
#2. Book Review: Making Sense of Ascendant Hindutva
#3. Condolence Message / Statement for Begum Sufia Kamal
#4. Indian Citizens' Forum flays BJP's dismissal of historian & writer
#5. Solidarity Message to participants in the Delhi March on Dec.6
-----------------------------
#1.

Rediff On The NeT
November 19, 1999
NEWS INTERVIEW

The Rediff Interview/Salman Haidar

'The support for the army is widespread'

Ever since Delhi-born General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharief and
seized the reins of power, Indians have been watching the situation
closely. While somewhat surprised at the alacrity with which most
Pakistanis have welcomed the coup d'etat, New Delhi remains apprehensive
about the impact on future Indo-Pak ties with the army at the helm in
Islamabad.

Former foreign secretary Salman Haidar visited Pakistan earlier this
month. In a free-wheeling interview to Amberish K Diwanji, he records his
impressions about the turn of events in Pakistan and its likely
implications.

Let us start with the reason for your visit to Pakistan.

I had gone to Pakistan as part of the ongoing Track 2 diplomatic effort.
This process was started by Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a lady of Indo-Pak origin
-originally from India, then in Pakistan-and who then moved to the United
States, where she worked for the National Security Council. She has an
abiding interest in South Asian affairs and decided to seriously address
Indo-Pak issues by arranging discussions on a Track 2 effort.

One has to be cautious when talking about Track 2 diplomacy. It is not
part of the government's effort to promote cultural or people-to-people
ties. It is a sort of a self-generated effort involving talks between
groups comprising eminent citizens from both sides.

In this meeting, the first after Kargil and after army rule was imposed,
we held forthright discussions in an open atmosphere. As part of the
understanding, we don't attribute the statements made. But the fact that we
did meet was refreshing, to see how India and Pakistan could once again
engage each other and understand each other's views.

The Indian side made it clear that given the way in which the Pakistani
establishment was involved in Kargil and that the military takeover had had
a deep impact on India the possibility of restarting contact was more
difficult. We felt that certain initiatives were necessary from the
Pakistani side.

Also, considering the stage where we are right now, it is not very clear
how stable the present regime in Pakistan will be and whether it can
address policies concerning the country.

Let us now come to that. You were in Pakistan for over a week (November 2
to 9). What is your assessment of the situation there? There have been
reports that army rule has actually been welcomed by the Pakistanis.

We go with our own biases, which I believe are the biases of history in
favour of democracy. So it is very curious for us as Indians to find among
the Pakistanis-or at least among the section that we were in contact with-a
genuine welcome for the army. And this seemed to reflect the complete lack
of credibility and authority to which the Nawaz Sharief regime had sunk.
The sense was-at least at the kind of elite level that we were talking
to-that the institutions of Pakistan had been debased and that the only
institution intact, that remained unviolated was the army. Thus there was
this broad support for the army.

Now if one looks deeper into this alleged process of misuse and decay of
institutions, I don't think all of us would have been convinced that this
had actually happened. But this was the sentiment that we encountered.

Did this sentiment cut across the different sections of Pakistani society?

Yes, it did. The support for the army is widespread. There was genuine
satisfaction that the army had taken over and it continues to enjoy
prestige. That is quite visible. Of course, there is the fact that when we
were there, the new regime had not yet shown its true colours. Hence,
people saw in the new regime and its statements what they wished to see.
The new regime till then had not been obliged to take steps that would
create antagonisms or enter into awkward choices, which are inevitable.

There was considerable interest among the elite there about the new
appointments being made, whether of ambassadors or provincial governors. To
us it just appeared to be a reshuffle, made by chance or choice.

What really was intriguing was the sort of collective amnesia that had
taken place. It was almost like having turned the page from the Nawaz
Sharief era, all that which happened during his rule was expunged, as if it
had never happened. That was not something for us Indians who happened to
be there to take quite in the same spirit. The lingering impact of Kargil
and questions about democracy were much stronger with us.

Pakistan faces many challenges ahead on various fronts. Did you get the
perception that the Pakistani establishment is aware of the tasks ahead?

Certainly, the Pakistani establishment was well aware of the tasks that
lie ahead. They also realise that the focus of the challenge is not so much
external as internal, in formulating coherent policies for economic
development and addressing other issues that the earlier government had not
addressed sufficiently.

Do you see democracy returning to Pakistan?

The Pakistanis we spoke to did not expect democracy back in Pakistan for
at least three years or so. They are giving it a long span. Even the
political parties are behaving very cautiously. They may make statements,
but they do not see any occasion for coming out in opposition to the
present rulers.

You mentioned the political parties keeping quiet. Yet, it is now apparent
that the political leadership across the spectrum stands extremely
discredited in Pakistan, being seen as thoroughly corrupt.

You are quite right. But then there is the inherent difficulty in coping
with the massive corruption, the huge defrauding of the state that exists
in Pakistan. In fact, even as we are speaking, the deadline for the big
borrowers and creditors to return their loans is lapsing. I was told-I
don't know if it is true and I was not told this in Pakistan-that the total
outstanding credit of Pakistan is around Rs 20 billion, and of that, Rs 15
billion has already left the country! Getting this money back is not easy.

An article that I read while in Pakistan said that the government had
planned to go after the big borrowers but will be forced to lower its
sights since all the big borrowers had left the country. Only the small
borrowers remain behind.

Why is the government of India so obsessed with democracy in Pakistan,
especially this time round? New Delhi was not so bothered with General
Zia-ul Haq's coup.

I can't really speak on behalf of the government. But I can understand
that to a considerable extent, our concerns are forced. If there is a
military takeover in Pakistan, Indian instincts are against it. But this
time there is a certain animus. We have asked that the South Asian summit
be postponed and at the Commonwealth meet we put Pakistan in the dock.

Is it justified? You can argue in favour of India's position. After all,
the chief personalities in the new regime have been responsible for the
misadventure in Kargil which hurt India and took bilateral relations to a
new low. There is a kind of longer memory on our side of the border, unlike
in Pakistan where Sharief seems to be forgotten.

Where do you see Indo-Pakistan relations now?

I see it in a state of suspension for quite some time. There is also the
fact, as reported in the newspapers, that India's position is that we will
talk only after the infiltration in Kashmir and cross-border terrorism is
stopped, and verified that it is stopped.

If we take too hard a line, it might suggest that we will talk only when
Kashmir is settled on our terms, which would suggest that some individuals
or groups on our side feel that we are in a position where we can dictate
terms. On the Pakistani side, the view is that it is business as usual and
the two sides must engage in talks as they had earlier.

So as we can see, both sides have different views regarding the legitimacy
of the regime, its longevity and the issues at stake. Given the difference,
I don't see much progress in Indo-Pak talks. In fact, in some of their most
recent statements, one sees a certain hardening of attitude.

What is the Pakistani view of their own economic situation?

One very interesting development was the realisation among the Pakistani
establishment that the country needed to do things differently to tackle
its economic difficulties, that it needed a fresh view to overhaul the
economy.

One view, which may have existed earlier but is being expressed more
openly now is that trade with India was a positive factor that could only
benefit Pakistan. I am not too sure whether this rather radical revision of
traditional views will be welcomed, but the fact is that it is there and
has been expressed by some of them.

Anything else that you noticed of particular interest during your
discussions in Pakistan?

One point I would like to make is that there was this visible impatience
with the country's Afghanistan policy. In the sense that, encouragement for
the fundamentalists-the Taliban-was seen as not being conducive for
Pakistan's well being.

Talking of fundamentalists, do you think the religious parties will gain
under army rule?

The religious parties do have street strength. In fact, even as we were
there, the Lashkar-e-Toiba had a meeting where their leaders made some
bloodcurdling remarks about India and vowed to fight on against India.
There was also a very big meeting of the Tablighi Jamaat, which is a very
different sort of organisation. We should not confuse the Tablighi with the
Lashkar, the former being a religious group that has its headquarters in
Delhi, but also a fundamentalist group that harks back to the fundamentals
of the religion while the Lashkar-e-Toiba is really a militant group.

But the fact that both these groups had huge meetings in Lahore do tell a
story about the religious sentiments in Pakistan, distorted or not, but
certainly with a militant cutting edge. There was no attempt to disguise
the militancy in their speeches.

Do you see the army also coming under the fundamentalists' influence or
will it be able to stay clear?

I think the army will stay as it is. Which means that they will use the
fundamentalists as and when it suits them, but will not permit these
sentiments to infiltrate the ranks. The army has its own structure that has
not been corroded so far as I can see. The army does give the impression of
being securely under the control of its senior officers, the army hierarchy
still rules.
-----------------------------
#2.

The Hindustan Times Online
Sunday, 21 November 1999

Making Sense Of Ascendant Hindutva
by Urvashi Butalia

[The Concerned Indian's Guide to Communalism
Ed. by K.N. Pannikar
Penguin India
1999, 252 pp.]
Six people - a lawyer, an economist, a journalist and four historians -
have put their thoughts on the subject of communalism together in this
important book. I note this development with both hope and regret: hope
that there are still a few who think it important enough to speak out
against this most corrosive phenomenon, and regret that their number is
actually so few.

More than ever, at this time, when the forces of Hindutva are in the
ascendant, when their legitimisation as "moderate" has acquired greater
currency, when their rhetoric against "conversions" and their unceasing
attempts to turn this country into a Hindu nation (such that anyone who
questions this is labelled "anti-national"), it is important to raise
questions. But there are precious few who do it. As all the authors in
this volume point out, we fall too easily into the many skillful traps
that are laid for us by the Hindutva 'parivar'.

Why else have we never really noted, as Siddharth Vardarajan does, the
role that the media play in the communalisation of society? Why have we
not been more aware of the fact that in the media today, it is political
parties which set the agenda, and the terms of the debate, and the media
just go along? That, given the nature of rapidly changing media
technologies, there is greater interest in small bits of news - creatively
labelled News McNuggets - and less interest in a narrative structure, in
news that tries to show the complexity and nuances of a particular issue.
This would explain why there has been so little reference in the media to
the complex nature of the question of conversions. As Sumit Sarkar points
out in an important essay, one of the worrying things about this issue is
the confusion that it evokes, even among well-intentioned and progressive
people. Most people would condemn the murder of Graham Staines, but it is
not unusual to find the condemnation qualified - if he were converting
people, then somehow he was doing something wrong and called the violence
upon itself. (Although not many will admit it, this kind of assumption is
no different from excusing rape by saying that if a woman was
"provocatively" dressed, she must have "asked for it".)

Sarkar's essay shows how conversions really begin to become an issue only
when the boundaries of community identities become crystallised - as
happened when communities began to be enumerated. In the normal course,
relationships often cross these somewhat fuzzy boundaries. When such
crossings are associated with being anti-patriotic, something which
happens when only one religion is identified as the basis for patriotism,
the sense of outrage is much greater. In India, this outrage is given
added legitimacy by the propagation of the myth that Hinduism is not a
proselytising religion. Yet, if this were true, perhaps we should ask
ourselves where all the hundreds of thousands of Buddhists of ancient
India went, or, indeed, how Hinduism managed to spread its tenta cles all
across South-East Asia, or to bring into its ambit large numbers of people
and communities who did not define themselves as Hindu.

The question of definitions is dealt with in detail by Romila Thapar in an
essay titled 'The Tyranny Of Labels', where she differentiates between the
Mughals and the British as "outsiders" or foreigners, describing the
former as people who settled in India and the latter as those who remained
outsiders. If we are to really look at our history, as she points out,
instead of letting it fall into the hands of self-styled historians who
have no background in the discipline, we would find a very different and
complex picture. For example, can we really say that the period from A. D.
1000 to the present day was a period of "foreign rule" if the territorial
boundaries of India as we know them today did not exist then? How then
could the clans and dynasties that lived in what we now call the
Indo-Iranian borderlands and Afghanistan, or the Arabian peninsula, be
called foreign once they settled in the subcontinent? Thapar also
questions how the notion of Hindus and Muslims as monolithic (and
opposing) communities comes to acquire currency in a situation where there
were, in actuality, numerous sects and tribal groups in both categories. I
am reminded of the definition of the word "Hindu" in the Hindu Marriage
Act. It goes in ever-widening circles: a Hindu first is a person belonging
to the shaivite, or lingayat, or other similar communities (some of whom
consciously denied this Hinduness), and next is a Buddhist, or Jain, or
Sikh, or Hindu, and is, finally, anyone else who is not Muslim or
Christian or Parsi, or =8A a very convenient exclusion and inclusion that
takes in religion, sect, community, the whole lot.

Once you have defined the Hindu (and Muslim) thus, and in doing so have
wiped out the memory of a rich and complex past, you are in the world of a
memoryless history, a memoryless media where any talk of plurality and
difference threatens the very basis of the "security" and "stability" that
is being sought to be established. This "sameness" ties in very well with
the agenda of the new, supposedly progressive force on our horizon, that
of globalisation. As economist Jayati Ghosh describes in a perceptive
essay, the agenda of the new "McWorld" and "Jihad" (as described by
Benjamin Barber) is not so very different. The one legitimises the other:
in the face of the onslaught of cultural sameness that McWorld brings with
it, comes the response of an assertion of the "true" cultural identity,
and proponents of this identity make an easy leap by making such an
identity the market, too, of national sovereignty.

This is an agenda that is built on all kinds of exclusions - those of
minorities, those of any voices that articulate difference and, most
significantly, those of women. Women become important, too, at such times
as markers of the culture that is sought to be preserved, as Tanika Sarkar
points out, predicting that Hindutva's women "will be the living pattern
for the Hindu rashtra of the future." Even as the cultural mantle is again
thrust on them, women simultaneously acquire an agency and legitimacy in
the public sphere, while relinquishing, in line with the overall agenda,
their hard-won status as rights-bearing individuals. If there is any
development that so sharply points to the pernicious agenda of the Sangh,
it is this. And yet, too little attention has been paid to it.

Just as we have found it too easy to deflect our understanding of the
Hindu Right and its attitude to women, so too have we found it too easy to
put the entire onus for preserving secularism on the State. Rajeev Dhawan
argues that it is not enough for the State to adopt a secular approach,
for secularism is "not just concerned with the triumphs and failures of
the political State, but also of civil society." Thus, it is little use
having a secular State and intolerant people. It is in India's rich
diversity that he sees the potential success of her search for secularism,
and hope for the future.

Hopeful words these, and to be valued. For, as K. N. Panikkar, the editor
of this excellent collection warns us at the end, the rise of Hindu
communalism to a position strong enough to control the government is a
reflection of the weakness and discomfiture of the secular forces, even
though their strength is far greater than that of the communal forces.
What does the rise of communalism mean for the future of the ideal we have
most cherished and become addicted to, that of democracy ? This book will
go a considerable way in making us reflect on these important issues.
--------------------------
#3.
25 Nov 1999
CONDOLENCE MESSAGE

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Before her Death, Poet Sufia Kamal had requested that no alleged war
criminals be allowed to participate in her last rites.

The legendary Bengali poet, and leader of the women's and peace movements,
know as Bangladesh's "Lady of Light", Begum Sufia Kamal has passed away on
20th November. The end came at the age of 88 after a life lived with those
who fought for freedom, democracy, peace, justice and human rights. Until
her death, Poet Sufia Kamal was the Chairperson of the Bangladesh National
Public Enquiry Commission on War Criminal of 1971 established in 1994 to
investigate the alleged crimes committed by the then Pakistani Military
forces and their local collaborators during the Bangladesh Liberation War
of 1971. Since 1994 under the leadership of Poet Sufia Kamal two reports
were published documenting the heinous war crimes and genocide conducted in
1971. In the report, she urged the Bangladesh government to established a
War Crimes Tribunals under the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973.

Begum Sufia Kamal was a personality who was dauntless, incorruptible and
respected by all. She had been president of the Bangladesh Mahila Parishad
(Bangladesh Women Council), a leading women's rights organisation in
Bangladesh, and wasa member organisation of Bangladesh Coalition for an
International Criminal Court (BCICC).

In a message, the President of Bangladesh Justice Shabuddin Ahmed said,
"=8A=8A=8A=8A the death of Sufia Kamal has created an irreparable loss to=
the all
progressive movements". Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in her message said
the nation had lost a courageous matriarch who fought lifelong for
establishing truth, justice and democracy.

The eminent poet was also involved in the Language Movement in 1952. She
led different women processions and rallies in Dhaka in 1952 and 1969
during the mass movement against the then autocratic government and in
March 1971 during non-cooperation movement against the then Pakistani
Military Government.

She worked for the freedom fighters and in particular for women subjected
to violence and the oppressed women even after threat and repression by the
occupation force during the Liberation War of 1971.

The noted poet received many awards for her works both nationally and
internationally. She was awarded the 'Tamghaye Imtiaz' in 1960 by the then
Pakistan Government, which she denounced during the mass movement against
the military regime of Pakistan in 1969. She won the anti-fascist movement
award of Checkoslovakia in 1986. She was president of the Bangladesh-Soviet
=46riendship Soceiety, and also active member of World Peace Council.

The Bangladesh Coalition for International Criminal Court (BCICC) deeply
shocked on her death, and pledges that each coalition member should
continue their movement and campaign for the causes of justice and human
rights. It urges the government to establish the War Crimes Tribunals under
the Act 1973 to try the war criminals of 1973, in respect of the demands
made by Sufua Kamal and her followers- millions citizens of Bangladesh. One
of her last wishes was to urge that not no war criminal should go
unpunished.

The Country's most respected poet, Begum Sufia Kamal, was laid to her
eternal rest with state honour at the on Wednesday.

BCICC kindly requests you to sign the following statements. We strongly
believe that your support would be a valuable asset to fulfil the dream of
Bengali Legendary Women Poet Sufia Kamal.

To sign the statement, please send your details (name, organisation,
address etc.) to zavson1@y...

Sincerely,

Zaved Hasan Mahmood Bangladesh Coalition for International criminal Court
c/o Ain O Salish Kendra Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
email: zavson1@y...
llxzhm@b...
=8A=8A=8A=8A=8A=8A=8A=8A

November, 1999
CONDOLENCE STATEMENT

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY URGES BANGLADESH GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH WAR
CRIMES TRIBUNAL TO SHOW TRUE RESPECT TO THE LEGENDRAY BENGALI WOMEN LATE
SUFIA KAMAL

We, the following organisations,, are deeply shocked at the death of Poet
Sufial Kamal, who was the Chairperson of Bangladesh National Enquiry
Commission on War Criminals of 1971; and President of Bangladesh Mahila
Parishad (Bangladesh Women Council) a Women's Rights organisation
supporting the campaign for establishing the International Criminal Court.

We strongly believe that her death is an irreparable loss of Bangladesh,
and also for all progressive movements of the World. We hope that Poet's
loving Country-Bangladesh and her citizens would continue their support to
the international community for establishing justice and peace, which was a
true and just dream of her. And help to realise one of Sufia Kamal's Dreams.

Before her death Poet Sufia Kamal satted her wish that no alleged war
criminals be allowed to participate in her last rites. This demonostrated
her strong belief in the cause for which she fought through her whole life.

To show true respect to the departed soul of Poet Sufia Kamal, we strongly
urge Bangladesh Government to establish War Crimes Tribunals under the
Bangladesh's Law, specifically, the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973,
as demanded by Begum Sufia Kamal.t. We hope that by doing so, Bangladesh
would be able to establish a positive example, which could be followed by
other nations where crime against humanity, war crimes and genocide were
conducted.
Sincerely,

Name / Organisation
=2E................................
=2E................................
-------------------------------
#4.

Rediff On The NeT
November 25, 1999
NEWS | REPORT

BJP DRAWS FLAK FOR DROPPING THAPAR, YADAV FROM PRASAR BHARTI BOARD
Academics, writers and artistes have criticised the removal of historian
Romila Thapar and Hindi author Rajendra Yadav from the board of the Prasar
Bharti saying this ''unique way of silencing the views of people clearly
brings out the hidden agenda of the Sangh Parivar that is to violate all
democratic norms in governance.''

In a joint statement, the Citizens' Forum said the removal of these two
eminent personalities once again brought to the surface how the Bharatiya
Janata Party dealt with individuals known for views different from the
ruling partners.

''This is not the first time that the BJP has had problems with the bill.
Before the exit of Professor Thapar and Mr Yadav, one saw the ouster of
Prasar Bharti's first chief executive S S Gill. The only crime of Mr Gill
was that the then minister for information and broadcasting Sushma Swaraj
somehow convinced herself that he was a Marxist and thus had to go. Further
the BJP shamelessly contradicts itself by not bringing the Prasar Bharti
bill in the Rajya Sabha while speaking all the time about autonomy and
freedom of speech,'' the statement said. The group of writers, academics
and artistes said the dismissal of Thapar and Yadav should not be seen in
isolation from the overall design of the BJP.

It had once again proved that the party had no respect for the fundamental
rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Citizens' Forum urged all
the secular forces within the National Democratic Alliance to raise their
voice against the ''illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic arbitrary
action'' to drop Thapar and Yadav.

The signatories to the statement included freedom fighters Abani Lahri and
V N Mathur, Dr Achin Vanaik, Dr Ambrose Pinto, Dr Amar Farooqui, Prof C P
Chandrasekhar, Prof B S Chimni, Geetha Hariharan, Dr Jayati Ghosh, John
Dayal, Dr Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Praful Bidwai, Vivan Sundaram and Prof K N
Panikkar.

UNI
--------------------------
#
26 Nov.1999

All strength to the elbow of Citizens for Secularism marching on Dec.6 from
the Red Fort in Delhi to commemorate the demolition of the Babri Mosque in
Ayodhya in 1992. By some quirk of democracy so-called its very butchers are
in saddle in New Delhi today. With their agenda of hatred and division
darkening the national horizon there can be no let up in the orchestrated
crimes against Indian humanity which they have decreed to be patriotism.
They are bloodily re-writing a new history all over India. They must be
stopped in their tracksforthwith ,lest they should tear apart the great
nation to smithereens. Massive popular mobilizations against the strident
fascism stalking the land alone can stymie and smash it. We hope this
march begins that process, launches that drive.
I.K.Shukla
COALITION FOR EGALITARIAN & PLURALISTIC INDIA, Los Angeles, USA

__________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996.