[sacw] sacw dispatch #2 (30 Nov.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #2
30 November 1999
--------------------------------
#1. New Pak Foreign Policy: An integral component of National Reforms Agenda
#2. The army and transfer of power in Pakistan
#3. It may end with the closing of the Indian mind
--------------------------------
#1.
The News on Sunday
28 November 1999
Political Economy

MICHAEL KREPON'S REMARKS AT THE US SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE:
INTERPRETING PAKISTAN--FROM WASHINGTON D.C.

New Foreign Policy--An integral component of National Reforms Agenda

Once the problems are resolved, the material face of Subcontinent will
change amazingly. Indians know it more than we do. Saving of one percent on
military expenditures will mean investment of billions of dollar in
development sectors. Its multiplying effects will be enormous. Saving more
will bring much more prosperity, a social revolution that will lead to
transformation of the society. Time is running out for Subcontinent.

by Muhammad Ahsan Yatu

The remarks of Michael Krepon, President of the Henry L. Stimson Centre (a
leading Washington D.C. based think tank on international relations),
delivered before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 2, 1999
and carried by The News on November 10, 1999 are nothing short of an eye
opener--particularly for insiders lik us. A blend of individual's humanism
that concerns us and nationalism that provides thought material to fellow
Americans. He has appreciated General Pervaiz Musharraf's seven point
agenda and opined "It is doubtful that these critical tasks be tackled
effectively without a fundamental re-assessment of Pakistan's Kashmir
Policy. Pakistan's well being must be won in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan
or Kashmir." He did not elaborate the argument because he was speaking to
the experts. However, his words require probe for our own good.

Somehow we have developed perceptions that our geographical placing was
benefiting us--both politically and economically. The countries that
included former Soviet Republics, China, Gulf States, India and America
were connected to their regional strategies through us. A conception that
was partly true, but depending totally upon it, was like depending on
single commodity economy. That was where we went wrong. We not only
depended on it but also stretched it too far. We took it for granted that
enmity between China and India would prevail and our presence was essential
for America to check Russia and India from creating regional harmony.

Strategy formulated through geopolitical perspectives is usually force
dependent, military oriented and amounts to imposing undeclared emergency.
Given the size and might of the countries we had to encounter, a much
bigger army than we could afford, was required. Military aid and financial
assistance did arrive from the countries whose interests we were watching,
but that was not enough. We were also forced to rely on our own meager
resources. We tried to win Pakistan's well being from outside and remained
indifferent to questions of national integration and socioeconomic
development. This negligence finally defeated us from inside. Country got
divided and the part, we are living in, is faced with uncertainty.

Separation of East Pakistan did not teach us any lesson, perhaps we were
not ready to learn one. Instead of returning to normalcy, we turned back to
borders with a view that extension of influence beyond our borders with
Afghanistan and Kashmir would acquire us further leverage to achieve
economic and political gains. Apparently the strategy sounded perfect but
through practice it harmed us most, because regional countries and super
powers had their own policies and counter policies wiser than ours. We had
based ours on single option of military maneuvering and it lacked strong
diplomatic, material and social support. The entire planning backfired and
failed us all along. Lesson, a country empty inside cannot win prosperity
from outside. How Indians, Russians and Americans benefited from our and
their policies, is a sad tale of our poverty of thought and romance with
ignorance.

There are reasons other than "vibrant domestic politics" to India's one
track Kashmir policy. Indians are depending on continuity rather than
discontinuity of existing conditions as the basics of their policy towards
Kashmir and Pakistan, that is why they are not interested in dialogue.
Uprising in Kashmir valley has its root in disliking for Indian rule but it
would surface so abruptly no body could imagine. Non-sustainability of
affluence brought by Indian money was the immediate cause. Indians have
been spending five times more per capita in Kashmir compared to other
states that made people somewhat prosperous and much more educated. A
substantial portion of money went into the pockets of pro Indian lobby that
developed into a "Class" hatred which was fuelled further by unemployment
of thousands of educated young lot. Indian assistance helped Kashmiris in
achieving affluence but to sustain it became a problem, since capital
growth sectors were not established. A development through non-development
(out side money) finally took on the outsiders.

Disliking, stagnant affluence, "class" hatred, Afghan war and its
"success", Iranian revolution, our material and moral support turned a soft
movement first into a rebellion and then into a full scale war of
resistance (Michael Krepon calls it insurgency). How Indians countered, is
significant because an understanding of Indians counter insurgency plans
will help us in reshaping our future policies. Their political and military
strategy aims at inviting Pakistan's involvement to a level on time scale
where its meager resources are detracted and spent on military rather than
on economic well being of the people. A policy, which will exhaust its poor
resources in the long run and weaken it from inside to incurable limits.
Indians are with absorbable shocks inflicting major unmanageable losses on
Pakistan. Their casualties and financial losses are not that high as we are
made to believe by our media. Their military expenditure is currently less
than 3% of GNP which is not within desired limits for a poor country but in
answering it we are keeping ours to 6% to maintain a proportional balance
of I: 2. It is a security achievement at an exuberant cost that is
translating into immense poverty with the passage of time.

This Indian strategy has more sinister application towards Kashmiris.
Having failed in winning them through reforms, they have resorted to
destruction by allowing the continuation of resistance to humble the people
through deformation. They are making sure that as many youngsters between
the age of sixteen to thirty as possible perish so that more and more
families mourn on a never-ending struggle. This is shock treatment to
subjugate the people at intellectual level to make them surrender due to
awe some depression born out of sense of loss. They have actually turned to
historical methods used by Mughal, Afghan and Dogras who ruled Kashmir for
centuries through tyranny and coercion and aggravated the miseries of
Kashmiris to a degree where they broke and surrendered their souls and
bodies to become slaves. The topography of valley, might of Indian Army and
population distribution did not allow the expansion of militant struggle to
such limits as presented by Indian and our media. If the Indians could
silence another movement like this in Punjab through ruthless aggressive
speedy actions, why didn't they apply the same tactics in Kashmir. Quashing
the struggle much earlier was possible for Indians but that would have kept
the flames of resistance burning in the hearts of Kashmiris. Because unlike
Punjabis who had deep rooted cultural and economic affinity with Indians,
Kashmiris had no such bond with them. A speedy action which was a success
in Punjab would have failed in Kashmir valley. Attacking the soul and
spirit of the struggle needed time, Indians intentionally preferred that.

Now ten years of militant struggle are over. Almost every home in Kashmir
valley suffered, thousand of youth were killed and millions mourned. A
generation has fallen into depression, another is in the waiting. The hope
is turning into despair. The light at the end of tunnel is diminishing.
There are no results within sight. Frustration is replacing action and
indifference is over-ruling the intellect. Confusion has started dominating
and the symptoms of slavery are surfacing. The Indians will enter 21st
century to conquer the valley inhabited by slaves without souls. A shame to
otherwise the most tolerant society and by now one of the most charming
democracies in the world.

How Indians will suffer socially, most probably they do not know.
Continuation of conflicts and their solution through destruction will
disturb the rhythm and symmetry of Sub-Continent's civilization. It has
nourished through millenniums and has in its kind lap splendor of art and
architecture, beauty of dance forms and melodious music, spirit of divinity
of mosques and mandirs. Sub-continental civilization is flowered with such
harmony from temples of Khunjrao to Taxila, from Manjo Daro to caves of
Elora, from Lord Buddah to Guru Nanak, from Ghalib to Bullay Shah, from
Ajmair Sharif to Sehwan Sharif, from Nuashad to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. We
the people of Sub-continent are joint custodian of gift of God, the living
miracle, the civilization of Sub-continent. We better not disturb its
symmetry, its beauty, its rhythm and its longevity.

However, alongside social harmony there are grey areas as well, which have
become the constants of our collective psyche. These are the impressions of
thousands of invasions, the people of subcontinent faced since the time
immemorial. The invaders for security and entrenchment invaded the social
bonds also. Once the links became loose, all segments of the society, from
self to state stood divided. Loyalty to one, meant opposition to other and
suspicion involved dependence on outsiders. The division of mind, the
imposed reflex, thus became conditioned to inanity. We do not talk,
dialogue or debate. If at all we do so, it is time pass and purposeless.
The subcontinent society is behaving like the society of the dumb and deaf.

We must shed the impressions of the past, imposed by the invaders. We must
reconcile to live like good neighbors, otherwise the erosion of a part will
erode the whole (Subcontinent). If Siachin and Kargil actions are wise, so
can be a nuclear option. If madness means wisdom then destruction becomes
unstoppable. Slow or sudden, through decay or demolition, we ought to
parish unless we behave. If we do not then Sind Sagar, Barhmaputra and the
waters flowing in between will be left to mourn the demise of the gift of
God the living miracle, the civilization of the Subcontinent. Let us turn
to sanity. Let us behave to save ourselves.

Indians are sitting at the giving end, they should come forward and start
the dialogue. We should not repeat the mistakes of past, when the Quaid
proposed joint defence, Nehru refused. Ayub proposed joint defence, Nehru
rebutted "against whom." Sawarn Singh came with excellent proposals, Ayub
refused. Bhutto tried to solve the Kashmir problem, Lahorites opposed.
Refusals must now be replaced by response. If Indians could agree to
partition, they should agree to another reality, the problem of Kashmir
valley requires a resolution. The collective wisdom of Indian people should
also come into play to force their politicians to change their rigid
policies towards Kashmir and Pakistan. Display of political maturity by the
people of India particularly that of UP, Punjab and Maharashtra in recently
held elections defy the notion of "Vibrant domestic politics" as pointed by
Michael Krepon. These areas should have given a landslide victory to BJP
because of Kargil war. Instead people behaved differently and voted for
Socialists and Congress. A wise message to us because we started Kargil and
to BJP who tried to dramatize its effects to create war hysteria.
--------------------------------
#2.
The Nation
November 30, 1999
Op-Ed.

THE ARMY AND TRANSFER OF POWER
by Dr Mubashir Hasan

Pakistan's armed forces, once again in power, have defined the objectives
of the takeover. In his speech on October 17, the Chief Executive stated
that rebuilding national confidence and morale, strengthening federation,
reviving economy, ensuring law and order, devolution of power to the grass
roots level, and ensuring accountability were his major aims. He also said:
"In the past, our governments have ruled the people. It is time now for the
governments to serve the people." History is witness that those who ruled
over Pakistan during the last 52 years served themselves hugely while
proclaiming that they were serving the people. That is how it has always
been and shall continue to be with the rulers of that particular class
combination. In order that a people can serve itself, it has to rule
itself. To aim at this condition, social, political, and economic power
needs to be decentralised and devolved as promised by General Pervez
Musharraf. In the past, under the protection of the armed forces, members
of salaried civil establishment, their collaborating feudals,
industrialists, big traders and their colluding foreign patrons, in brief,
the Permanent Ruling Establishment of Pakistan (PREP) has occupied the
legal and social positions of exercising authority over the people. But for
that protection, the people had always been in a position to challenge
(with what PREP would term acts of lawlessness) the oppressive behaviour of
the police and magistracy and other exploiters, extorters and that of
corrupt members of bureaucracy. The big question is why should the PREP
cooperate with the General and his colleagues in decentralising and
devolving, indeed, abdicating their own social and economic power? Today,
hundreds of thousands of government officials serving in districts wield
power over the people. Why should they willingly accept a new set of
masters in the form of peoples' elected representatives to replace their
superiors from their own class of salaried rulers? Again it is too much to
expect from provincial and divisional level officers to abdicate their
authority and privileges bestowed by Queen Victoria in favour of the masses
they look down upon and consider fit only to be ruled like hapless sheep
and cattle. Because the Generals so order is not enough for the
implementation of the military's stated desire to usher "true democracy,"
that is decentralisation and devolution of authority to the elected
representatives of the people. The PREP is much too strong. The Generals
and the military is not strong enough. The balance of power is in favour of
the former who is armed with the experience of frustrating much milder,
almost innocuous, designs in the past such as the Quaid's exhortations and
=46ield Marshal Ayub Khan's "basic democracy". Volumes can written on how th=
e
laws promulgated and reliefs granted for the people which in no time were
distorted and turned around to boost further the clout of the PREP. The
arena of the impending battle for the intended transfer of political,
social and economic power is purely political in nature. It involves
political warfare for which military, ipso facto, is neither trained nor
equipped. The strategy and tactics of this operation in our political arena
are quite different from those needed to dethrone political governments.
Removing Prime Ministers is only removing the mirages of power for which
support and cooperation of the PREP is fully assured. On the other hand the
waging of war against PREP is a genuine coup d'etat, an entirely different
operation. In this war of dis-empowering the PREP the military stands
unarmed, unprepared and alone. The assumption that honest and good
governance would automatically win the support of the people is largely, if
not wholly, false. The people is a political commodity which can only be
won by political means and that victory is not possible for the army single
handed. General Pervez Musharraf and his colleagues should be desperately
needing the active support of the people in winning the war of the transfer
of power to the people at grass roots level, the best service that military
can do to Pakistan. Such support cannot be had if Rawalpindi and Islamabad
side or are perceived to be siding with the PREP. It is the most crucial
issue of far reaching implications for all concerned. The gulf between the
people and the armed force has greatly widened during the last forty years.
General Ziaul Haq and Yahya Khan and to a lesser extent self-appointed
=46ield Marshal Ayub Khan may be justly accused of it. Nothing significant
has taken place since then to narrow the gap, the medal of democracy
bestowed by Benazir to the armed forces, notwithstanding. The need of the
hour is to narrow this vital gulf for achieving success in devolving power
to the people. This can only be done if Rawalpindi and Islamabad, by deeds
and words, encourage the people to challenge in a lawful manner the
oppression of the thana, tehsil, patwari, bijliwalas and paniwalas, clerks
behind the official counters, readers of courts, municipal inspectors and
tax collectors. The people should be advised to protest against the
perpetrators of evil and for that Section 144 should be lifted for its
mobilisation.
--------------------------------
#3.
Outlook
6 December 1999
INTERVIEW

IT MAY END WITH THE CLOSING OF THE INDIAN MIND

Professor Romila Thapar, member of the Prasar Bharati board till last week
when she was "retired" by the Vajpayee government, is counted among India=92=
s
most outstanding historians and is an internationally-acclaimed social
scientist. Her work on ancient Indian history and the origins of Indian
civilisation has been read by generations of school and college students.
She has also taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies,
Jawarharlal Nehru University, apart from Delhi University and other leading
universities the world over.

Professor Romila Thapar

In an in-depth conversation with Ishan Joshi on November 23, Thapar puts
forward an extensive critique of the current dispensation and its attitude
towards autonomy, education, liberal traditions and democratic
institutions-for her, the vital issues concerning India=92s past, present an=
d
future. Excerpts:

When were you informed about your "retirement" from the Prasar Bharati
board? The letter arrived last night. Just the bare bones-that under
section so-and-so of the act, two people have to be retired at the end of
every two years and the schedule is as follows: 99, Rajendra Yadav and
myself; 2001, Abid Hussain and U.R. Rao and 2003, George Verghese. I
thought to myself, how crude can they be? Even normal courtesy demands that
you at least say thank you=8A But nothing of the sort. And this about 72
hours after you first leak it to the media.

"To start off by restricting everything to 'those who think like us'
nullifies the very function of government. To see dissent as 'anti-us' is a
mindset. Making demons out of those who dissent reduces thinking to black
and white."

But it surely wasn=92t unexpected? It certainly wasn=92t. When the BJP firs=
t
came to power, everybody said your days are numbered (laughs). I=92m
surprised we lasted this long.

"Clearly, the government is changing its position daily and one is waiting
to see where it all ends. The question is whether the government wants to
change the basic charter of the Prasar Bharati. Or get rid of those who are
perceived as liberals."

The method in which the two of you were asked to leave and the apparent
lack of courtesy was one aspect of the controversy. But do you also see
this decision as motivated? Oh, absolutely. It=92s very clear from the
simple reason that the explanation given as to why these two names were
selected keeps varying from day to day. First the minister-I should say
ministry-said it was looking for professionals and therefore didn=92t want
=91other kind=92 of people-academics, litterateurs, whatever. One pointed ou=
t
that the Prasar Bharati Bill itself talked about the importance of having
programmes on education, healthcare and various other aspects of life in
India. Therefore, obviously, you need people other than just media
professionals. You need those familiar with other aspects as well. Now they
contradict themselves saying that actually what they want is a board which
is very broadbased! Clearly, they are changing their position daily and one
is waiting to see where it all ends up. Also, the question which needs to
be asked is whether the government wants to change the basic charter of the
Prasar Bharati. Or just get rid of those perceived and labelled as liberals.

"First, the minister-I should say ministry-said it didn=92t want =91other ki=
nd=92
of people on the board. Now they contradict themselves."

So all this talk of autonomy is actually=8A The codeword for government
control. You see, some of us were genuinely interested in the question of
autonomy. Take me personally. Why did I get into this? It was after long
conversations with Romesh (Thapar) who first filed the case asking for
autonomy for the state-run media and then, after he died, some of us
continued with this commitment. Born out of a concern that there be in this
country a public broadcast system. Now that=92s something these people (the
government) don=92t understand. I should imagine any administration would be
unhappy to see this happen because then the question of accountability is
not to 22 MPs. That is no accountability; it=92s simply a body of MPs sittin=
g
on your head. And it=92s a very reductionist logic to use vis-a-vis definin=
g
accountability. Accountability is not even to Parliament; it is to the
people, if you are a public broadcaster. And those on the board are
representing the people. As for the legality (of the government action),
they keep on saying under clause so-and-so endlessly and they=92ve checked
with the attorney general which obviously indicates they were worried about
the legal position. Jaipal Reddy (who has since asserted that the
government action is "outrageously improper and clearly illegal") rang me
up to say this was totally illegal and that the government was playing
games. Various lawyers have called to say that they would happy to support
me if I decided to go in for litigation.

"The home ministry doesn=92t seem much concerned about Christians. So the
whole attitude to minorities is given a direction."

Are you? No, because I don=92t think litigation-individual
litigation-helps. And I certainly don=92t want to be back on the board! Some
are suggesting the filing of a pil, but let=92s see. The real stumbling bloc=
k
with the Prasar Bharati is funding. There is an assumption in government
that if they are funding, then they call the shots and this is true of all
autonomous institutions. Look at what happened during the elections. You
had people from the ministry coming along, picking up tapes, fiddling
around with programmes and generally being on the premises, even if in a
casual manner. It got to the point where the board passed a resolution
saying that political interference would not be tolerated, which certainly
wouldn=92t have pleased the government. It was made very clear to us that
certain people were regarded as biased and that they shouldn=92t be invited
on the various panels. We had to take a stand against the government trying
to lay down who was suitable.

"This attempt to tutor the child of tomorrow is to validate the two-nation
theory, to ensure that any other perspective is lost on them."

Members of this government are known to hold the view that liberals and
Marxists-all those "anti-BJP"-are up in arms because the party is in power=
=8A
It is the particular mindset of the current dispensation which sees any
dissent as "anti-us"-hence the labelling-and thus not valid. To start off
by saying we will restrict ourselves to only those who think like us is in
a sense nullifying the very function of government. This is an issue which
is perhaps not fully understood; that governance is not just putting a
party into power, it is in fact trying to explore the best way of
governance. So I think it is in the nature of governance that there should
be greater openness to ideological positions. Whatever one may say of
previous governments, there was this relative openness-apart from the
Emergency period. Not completely; there were periods when, for example, the
RSS was banned but by and large there was a much larger range of opinion
being accommodated, heard and brought into discussion. Whether it was the
Congress, the Janata Party or the coalitions of the past decade. But now,
with the BJP in power, the trend seems to be to try and push everybody
aside except for the hardcore, those who are committed to the Sangh parivar
ideology. Look at what=92s happening to the educational institutions, school
textbooks, ICHR, ICSSR, NCERT=8A

A systemised "cleansing" of the stables? Well, it=92s beginning to happen.
School teachers I=92ve been in touch with, those teaching history, are very
concerned about what to teach the children. Because if they teach from the
textbooks we have written, the kids will be penalised in the exams. This is
not to suggest that textbooks should not be changed; I=92m in favour of a
review of all textbooks every few years because new data and
interpretations keep coming in fast. Provided they are updated for this
purpose. Not in order to bring in an ideological position. I think a part
of the problem, actually, is a historical one. After independence, there
were two broad interpretations of history-the colonial and the
nationalist-which all of us of my generation were brought up on. What
happened in the =9160s was there was a paradigm shift. In that history all
over the world came to be treated not as information laid out in a
chronological order but an exploration and analysis of society and the
past, all of which was deeply influenced by a range of ideologies. A lot
of these interacted and it was a rich intellectual period. In India, we
started looking at our data rather differently from the way the
nationalists were doing. So at that time you had groups of social
scientists developing who would treat the data differently from the
traditional nationalist, religious-nationalist perspective. For example, in
the older perspective, you read a text and took it literally-it said so in
the Arthashastra and so the student learns it. We started this business of
who says so, why do they say so, what is the function and purpose? You
start treating the text as something that has to be analysed. That's a
very basic difference (from) this approach they (the Sangh parivar) are
trying to push, one in which they first select the texts very carefully,
what the texts say is more or less taken as a statement of fact you don't
question. Tied into all this is their whole self-consciousness as a result
of not having been exposed to the intellectual range of the 20th century.
I'm not being intellectually arrogant but intellectual sophistication is
something that never entered this stream of thinking. Consequently, there
is this fallback position-this is what the texts say and that's enough!
There is, therefore, a tendency for them to use a lot of the views of the
Orientalists and the colonial historians. The discussion, for example, of
the origins of Indian civilisation are straight out of Orientalist writing,
and the discussion of the Hindu-Muslim interaction in the medieval period
is straight out of colonial writing. It=92s as if for them, historical
writing stood still in the year 1905 and didn=92t move on from there.

The other aspect of this attempt to control education is to tutor the child
of tomorrow. To provide a validation of the two-nation theory now that
=91Muslims rule in Pakistan and Hindus in India=92. This is the only
perspective sought to be created for the future child. So they will ensure
that even if they are out of power after five years, the mindset of the
next generation is changed and any other perspective lost on them.

How would you define this approach? I think there is a kind of closing in.
I go back to the period of nationalism-the old-fashioned, anti-colonial
nationalism which was inclusive. Though there were priorities and
hierarchies, the attempt was to accommodate. But when you start getting
nationalism based on religion it is, ipso facto, exclusive. And it being
quite narrowly defined. In a sense, what is a bit disturbing is that it
seems to be a sort of package deal. That the three ministries that are
crucial to furthering the policies and worldview of the Sangh parivar are
the ones moving ahead and making major changes: home, HRD and information
and broadcasting.

The home ministry doesn't seem too concerned about what=92s happening to
Christians-the noises are being made but beyond that, nothing. So the whole
attitude towards minorities is given a particular direction. The HRD
ministry has brought its own brand of focus to bear on education and
institutions and now you have the i&b ministry going the same way. I see no
chance of change in a group so committed, in such a rooted fashion. And
what=92s disturbing a lot of people is that these are the ministries which
are crucial to any plans for social engineering. Perhaps I should say some
people, because unfortunately not enough are concerned.

So, where's it all heading? It's heading towards a confrontation, one
hopes of an intellectual kind but one doesn=92t know. There hasn't really
been all that much of a reaction from the younger generation. One can only
hope that the limitations of this kind of approach will be understood and
there will be a reaction. Not demanding that there should be a return to
the kind of history we, of my generation, have been writing-for goodness=92
sake, we have to move on in historical analysis-but a demand that we open
up the writing of history to a variety of analyses.

As you say, it=92s not happening. Isn=92t one of the reasons that there is a
process of appropriation at work? Something all governments and ideologies
engage in and is in a sense perfectly valid? And the more people are
willing to be appropriated the more chances of any confrontation gets
limited=8A It not only limits but closes the options for many if this
appropriation happens in a concerted way. This is the worry, that at the
end of the day you may well have the closing of the Indian mind. Which at
the moment may seem exaggerated but then this is the way it begins. So,
what you have at the moment is small groups of people getting together and
holding discussions. But by and large there is increasingly a feeling that
they don=92t want to express themselves in the media because who wants to ge=
t
into a situation of confrontation with the government? And this feeling
will increase.

Which reminds me, I haven't heard of any of your colleagues on the board
planning to resign in solidarity=8A I haven't either. I suppose it happens
everywhere. It=92s a case of=8Awell=8A I mean, all of us who are members of =
the
middle class are always, sort of, on the make (laughs). It's a case of if
government policy changes, we go along with it because we will get bigger
and better jobs if we do. It's taking a decision, really, to come to terms
with the change. So what will happen is that a majority will, for good or
bad reasons, come to terms with the changes and the few who will be
resisting it will be constantly pointed at and described as anti-national
and a demonology of sorts be built around them. For example, if today you
speak analytically about nuclear policy, the average person turns around
and says you are anti-national. And the government is promoting this
attitude. So you are really reducing thinking to black and white.

But even if there is the kind of resistance you are talking about, the fact
is if the larger mass of people-whatever the method used to mobilise
them-are not in consonance with this view, you paint yourself into a corner
because the government can justifiably claim that public opinion is with
it. Yes, and that=92s been our fault as an independent nation. For not
having paid enough attention to education-especially primary education-on a
mass scale. The only way I believe this exclusivist mindset can now, in a
post-Mandal India, be countered is, at least initially, raising the
consciousness of Dalits, obcs and lower caste groups. To take on the Sangh
parivar's mobilisation of the middle class (which is now spreading to other
segments as well) on the basis of the Hindu religion. In fact, the attempt
by the current dispensation to control education is to make sure that by
the time primary education really opens up and nearly all of India is going
to school, it will not be for a rational, secular education. It will be for
a reiteration of a conservative attitude-the great inheritance=92 of India i=
s
going to be spiritualism, the Vedas, Manu and the like, sugar-coated to
make it palatable. We have thought that the control over education has been
to build a middle class or Indian identity but it's more subtle than that.
It is definitely to try and act as a lever of control over those who
haven't had the opportunity to think this thing through yet.
__________________________________________
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.