[sacw] [ACT] for sacw (22 March 2000)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
22 March 2000
----------------------------------------
#1. India: What if Nehru, Jinnah & Gandhi Stayed on in the UK (By Mushirul
Hasan)
#2. Outdated U.S. Policies Shackle the Clinton Visit to South Asia (IHT)
#3. Amnesty Int'l Press Release on Killings of Sikhs in Kashmir
#4. India: More Guns Not butter is part of Hindutva's militarist project
#5. On India's defence spending hike
#6. Sri-Lanka: Secularism as a solution
----------------------------------------

#1.

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/20000322/ied22072.html
India Express
Op-Ed

Clutching at CVsby Mushirul Hasan
What if, after they had completed their education, somebody in Great
Britain had offered employment to Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and Subhash Chandra
Bose? Would they have stayed or returned home, as they eventually did, for
personal, professional or ideological reasons? You may insist that serving
the British Empire was an anathema to some of them. On the other hand,
somebody else may argue that so many Indians did, after all, journey to
London to qualify for the civil service in order to join the "heaven-born."
Long ago the "steel frame" of the Empire disappeared but other openings
forthe young and enterprising graduates grew as Western economy recovered
fromthe effects of World War II. From the early 1970s, scores of
students,trained and tutored in our highly subsidised educational system,
set theireyes on a career in the West and, more particularly, the United
States.Thus, the exodus -- call it brain drain, if you like -- of
doctors,engineers and computer scientists gathered momentum. Believe it or
not, somejobs are up for grabs even in social sciences.
So book your passage for Chicago, the venue of the Association of
AsianStudies (AAS) meeting next year. Just turn up at this grand annual
`tamasha'with your curriculum vitae and get yourself interviewed by a
selectioncommittee. I did not carry mine to San Diego this year and,
therefore,missed the golden opportunity. But I did see young historians and
political scientists flocking to the Convention Centre. Basking in the
gloriousCalifornia sunshine, they were trying their luck in this land of
milk andhoney. In the list of AAS members, I also noticed the significant
presenceof Indian social scientists occupying professorial positions in
prestigiousAmerican universities. This did something to soothe my national
pride. Ibelieve several others from the academia, including a couple of
fellow-historians, are waiting for the bell to ring from Chicago, Berkeley
and Minnesota.
=46rom this distance I can only say `bon voyage' to them. I have no problem
atall with those in search of greener pastures. Nor do I support the
move,being contemplated in some quarters, to impose curbs on their settling
inthe West. In this age, we can surely share the wisdom of Amartya Sen,
Ranajit Guha and Gyatri Spivak sitting in Ballia or Basti. There are
noconsolation prizes or bonus points for those travelling by our city buses
toaccess research libraries, drinking Kutti's tea at the Nehru Memorial
Museumand Library or eating greasy omelettes and samosas at Delhi's
NationalArchives en route to the unlikely prospect of achieving academic
stardom.But, one is still curious to learn why our young and senior
scholars leftand, more importantly, why others are still going. Why should
a professor inJawaharlal Nehru University or the Delhi School of Economics
settle for asimilar position in the US? Is it the lure of the crisp
American dollars, orthe search for a secure and vibrant academic enclave?
Is it for children'seducation or pure and simple personal career
advancement? Perhaps, the HRDMinistry will take time off its mindless
ideological crusade and considerthe long-term implications of brain drain.
Whatever the reasons, America's gain is India's loss. Nehru's temples
oflearning are located outside and not within India. The net result is
thatour educational centres are gradually losing some of our best
socialscientists and, in the process, weakening the intellectual edifice
soassiduously built in the 1950s and 1960s. In my own discipline, a number
of eminent historians have either emigrated or declared their intention to
doso in the near future. I miss them and bemoan their absence. How does
oneaccount for the loss of academic talent? I do not claim to know the
answers,but I do believe that some of our outstanding men and women are
simplydriven out by the inertia of the system and its inept administrators.
The long-awaited restructuring in our university system, which would have
improved the functioning of our universities, has not taken place.
Instead,we have diverted the already scarce resources from the universities
toresearch centres. In our universities themselves, we have
legitimised,thanks to the ill-advised "merit promotion" scheme, mediocrity
in thecorridors of knowledge. We recognize differentiation in other areas,
but wetreat, in a spirit of equanimity, good and bad teachers/researchers
alike.Such is our benevolence that we promote teachers regardless of merit
andallow them a voice in the decision-making bodies. Such is our commitment
tothe oral tradition that we appoint professors without expecting them
towrite a book. It is infuriating when such persons quote
=46rench/Germanscholars, many of whom are not read in their own countries,
and begin topontificate on how history should or should not be written.
All said and done, our system accords no recognition to merit;
consequently,delinquents get suitably rewarded with academic promotions and
the riches ofadministrative office. Diligent scholars, on the other hand,
find themselves at the receiving end. What this does to the enthusiasm of
younger scholars is anybody's guess. A case in point was the relentless
persecution of Imtiaz Ahmad, a sociologist at the JNU. He would have
contributed so much more hadhis colleagues rallied around him to isolate
his detractors. By the timethey did, he had lost years of his creative life.
=46or those accustomed to intellectual freedom during the past five
decades,barring the Emergency, the disconcerting element is the rise of
intolerance,as illustrated by the despicable attack on Asghar Ali Engineer,
resurgenceof religious bigotry, and attempts to stifle dissent in civil
society.Attacks on the minorities, notably the Christians, the bizarre ICHR
episodeand vandalism in places like Kanpur and Varanasi are symptomatic of
a deepermalady in our state and society.
Enough is enough. Somebody must draw the Lakshmanrekha and make sure that
asmall group of hoodlums do not destroy freedom and democracy. Somebody
hasto tell them that "the upsurge of ugly Hindutva" (Tavleen Singh)
willeventually destroy our rich heritage and the creative energies of
ourpeople. Somebody has to remind them of the damage they do to themselves
bytargeting the likes of M.F. Husain, Dilip Kumar, Deepa Mehta, Shabana
Azmi,and eminent social scientists. We must, instead, value such persons
andtheir contributions to our society.
If, on the other hand, the self-styled custodians of knowledge, art
andculture do not pay heed to the voice of reason and moderation, many
morescholars, aware of what happened in Nazi Germany, would seek refuge in
thesalubrious climes of the West.
Copyright =A9 2000 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
-------------------

#2.
http://www.iht.com/IHT/TODAY/WED/ED/edpaula.html
International Herald Tribune Paris, Wednesday, March 22, 2000Op-Ed.

Outdated U.S. Policies Shackle the Clinton Visit to South Asia
By Paula R. Newberg Los Angeles Times Service
LOS ANGELES - When Washington's foreign policy gets stuck, its
emissaries take to the road. Little wonder, then, that President Bill
Clinton is now in South Asia. Few regions offer such a dazzling array of
seemingly unsolvable problems: nuclear politics, civil wars, short-lived
governments and occasionally cranky participation in the global
marketplace.
But Mr. Clinton's short week of photo opportunities - and the chance to
play suitor, umpire and confessor - is designed to reinforce America's
frustratingly short-term, reactive and backward-looking attitude toward the
Subcontinent.
Without a new South Asian agenda, Mr. Clinton's era of good feeling will
be brief.
Spectators of the itinerary jousting that occupied Washington's South
Asia hands might mistake this walk into the 21st century for a road to
1950. Then, as now, U.S. policy is captured by the same Indo-Pakistani
disputes, against which it periodically remonstrates but intermittently
encourages. Then, as now, Washington feels obliged to choose between
neighbors whose one commonality is a shared disinclination to get along.
Then, as now, stereotypes, sermons and sanctimony color political
commentary: India is the world's largest democracy and should be a natural
ally; Pakistan occupies a vital strategic space in an unstable region;
Bangladesh's plucky politics prove that social investment can arrest
poverty. Terrorism is bad, tolerance is good, and trade is best of all.
With prose so polished, why travel?
Well, these relationships have not worked so well. Fifty-three years
after gaining independence, neither India nor Pakistan can claim a healthy,
happy, durable relationship with the United States. Month by month, they
dance an intricate arabesque around the piecemeal demands that substitute
for clear U.S. policy.
Countless hours and dollars are spent avoiding sanctions: terrorism lists,
narcotics lists, nuclear lists, technology lists - the repetitive
benchmarks on the road to global engagement are the stuff of minute
negotiations, not broad cooperation. Congressional demands, publicly
derided but privately embraced by many U.S. diplomats, have made pedantry
and punishment the hallmarks of U.S. policy. Diplomacy by checklist is good
business, but only for lobbyists.
For one fleeting moment in its early years, the Clinton administration
tried to separate itself from South Asia's enmities and rise above the
pettiness that plagued post-Cold War policy. It counseled nuclear
restraint, encouraged cross-border trade and sought collaboration, within
the region and beyond it.
But it could not match the Subcontinent's adherence to habitual
one-upmanship and could not be bothered to learn how to view the world
through Asian eyes.
The United States simply did not have the patience, stamina or interest
to stick it out: The long-term was just too far away. But while Washington
was not looking, bombs proliferated, wars erupted, governments fell, and
old-fashioned U.S. hectoring rejoined South Asia's practiced rivalries.
But not entirely. India is now a player in the global information
economy, and U.S. entrepreneurs have set their sights on its rising middle
class, some 250 million strong. Indian Americans have calculated the fine
arithmetic of influence in their substantial contributions to U.S.
political coffers, and vote regularly.
So do Pakistani Americans, but their homeland is a disheartened sideshow
on this tour. Burdened by a military ruler whose strenuous efforts to bring
Mr. Clinton to the Islamabad airport transformed a gracious invitation into
a demand for undelivered validation, Pakistan's problems have become the
tacit model of failure against which the Clinton administration measures
India's successes.
Even Bangladesh, the unwitting beneficiary of frequent-flyer diplomacy, is
laying claim to an improving, export-driven economy.
Profit, not politics, is the acknowledged incentive for U.S. policy, and
rather unusually, the United States is selling itself as both consumer and
producer, like India. Washington even spiced pre-travel speeches with a
taste of pandering: Lamenting past policy differences, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright apologized to India last week for the ''unnatural and
regrettable'' estrangement of past eras.
If apologies are in order, they are not due to those who overcame past
inequities, but to those who cannot surmount current inequities. For far
too long, the yawning chasm of the Cold War swallowed South Asia's economic
resources, turning plowshares into swords and fueling wars without winners.
Cheerleaders in Washington, London, Riyadh and Beijing helped finance
battles and border skirmishes.
Almost every country in the region has had to shape its development around
threats to peace and recovery from war. Long-running conflicts in
Afghanistan and Sri Lanka still place the entire region at risk.
Americans view South Asia through a split screen: computer terminals to
the left, sectarian riots to the right. They rarely connect the dots to
draw an accurate portrait: poverty coexisting with prosperity, despair with
opportunity, dictatorship with democracy. These are not theoretical
equations, but the stuff of which daily life is made.
The human cost of progress is therefore tied to the region's political
future. South Asia is a place where schoolchildren and peasants compare the
costs of guns and textbooks without prompting from think tanks. While
bureaucrats bicker about the accumulation of small things, the region's 1.3
billion residents confront big questions: Who will find food, shelter and
water for rapidly growing populations? How can India cope with the 750
million citizens who live in poverty? Who will ensure that nuclear
playthings are locked up where they cannot frighten everyone to death? Who
can govern in such a complex environment?
These questions define South Asia's future - and the world's. They
challenge the assumptions of public policy and diplomacy. The tired old
Western models of development are irrelevant to this agenda. State
boundaries, vigilantly protected by modern armies, are hindrances in the
struggle to secure clean air and water.
Conventional development wisdom - industrialize first, clean up later -
consigns the region to a global dustbin. Having spent half a century
fighting for national sovereignty, South Asia's citizens might soon
conclude that economic imperatives will require far looser sovereignties
and more refined regional governance. Their current leaders, among them,
the products of divisive politics and praetorian pretensions, are likely to
find this agenda daunting, as well they should.
Judging by Mr. Clinton's itinerary this week, the United States is
planning to be left behind as South Asia endeavors to define its future.
=46ashioning itself as the world's protector elsewhere, the United States
might well find that in South Asia it is protecting a version of global
governance that is sadly devoid of political vision.
(Ms. Newberg, author of several books on South Asian politics, contributed
this comment to the Los Angeles Times)

-------------------

#3.

News Service 053/00 AI INDEX: ASA 20/07/00 21 March 2000

India: Human lives must not become pawns on a political chessboard

The killing of 36 Sikhs on Monday evening near Srinagar by unidentified
gunmen was probably intended to call attention to the volatile situation in
Jammu and Kashmir during the arrival of US President Bill Clinton in India,
Amnesty International said today stressing concern for the innocent lives
lost.

"Once more, human beings are being killed to score political points",
Amnesty International said. "The conflict in Kashmir has cost too many
lives already. All sides, the government and the armed groups, have
contributed to abuses which the civilian population has had to endure for
far too long. This must end," Amnesty International said.

The identity of the perpetrators remains uncertain as contradictory
accounts are reported from Jammu and Kashmir. Director General of Police,
Gurbachan Jagat, stated that some 30 Muslim rebels in Indian army uniforms
and speaking Urdu approached Chadisinghpoora village and told the mostly
Sikh inhabitants that they were carrying out a search operation. They
reportedly separated men and women and shot dead 36 men and boys.

Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani spoke of a new "deliberate design" of
armed groups to "cleanse" the state of the Sikh minority. "Till now, the
militants have targeted the Hindu community and have tried to see that the
Kashmir valley is cleansed of this particular community. Now the objective
also seems to be to see that the Sikhs also will begin a process of
migration."

No armed group has so far claimed responsibility for the deliberate and
arbitrary killing, several Kashmiri political parties have condemned the
killing. Mirvaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq, a spiritual leader in Kashmir and
spokesperson of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (a conglomerate of 23
political parties), condemned the killing, claiming that it had been
carried out by the state security agencies in order to discredit the
separatist movement.

The Indian government has blamed the attack on the Hizbul Mujahideen and
Lashkar-i-Taiba. However a spokesman for the Hizbul Mujahideen said;
"Mujahideen have nothing against the Sikh community which sympathises with
our struggle. We assure them that there never was and never will be any
danger to Sikhs form Kashmiri freedom fighters".

Amnesty International urges the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to set up
an impartial and independent judicial inquiry into the incident with a view
to identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.

Background

The human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir has been grave for over a
decade with dozens of cases of torture, deaths in custody and extrajudicial
killings reported every year. Currently the entire leadership of the All
Parties Hurriyat Conference is held in preventive detention following their
peaceful calls for an election boycott in the autumn of 1999.

Mirvais Moulvi Umar Farooq was placed under house arrest on 20 March, and
Shabir Shah, president of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party
was arrested on 19 March, as it was anticipated by the state authorities
that they would lead demonstrations during Bill Clinton's visit to India.
Amnesty International considers both men to be prisoners of conscience held
solely for the non-violence expression of their political opinion and urges
the authorities to immediately and unconditinally release them.

Armed groups have also committed numerous abuses in the state. These
include alleged killings of members of Hindu minorities particularly in the
Doda and Udhampur district in the south of the state. Amnesty International
has repeatedly urged armed groups to abide by standards of international
humanitarian law which forbid the torture, hostage-taking and killing of
unarmed civilians in areas of armed conflict. No attacks on members of the
Sikh community have previously been reported.

ENDS=8A/
-------------------

#4.

Midday (Mumbai)
16th March, 2000

Guns or Butter

by Ram Puniyani

In the recent budget, the BJP led coalition's finance minister, Mr.
Yashwant Sinha, has hiked the defense allocation by a whopping 28%, making
it a total of Rs.58587 Crores, and the very increased portion is more than
the total allocation for the social welfare sector. The much needed and
publicised compulsory primary education has been postponed sine die. As per
the Prime minister we can not have the requisite funds for the compulsory
primary education (Hindu 27th Feb.). Also the provisions for the increasing
employment possibilities and social security schemes are woefully
inadequate if not totally missing. Last two decades have witnessed a
socio-economic scenario in which the unemployment is rising by leaps and
bounds, the condition of the weaker sections is deteriorating to no end. In
the economic and political restructuration, the schemes catering to the
poor and deprived (like Public hospitals and the public distribution
system) are either being reduced in scales or being totally withdrawn
leaving the poor of the society to the wolves of the free market. President
K.R. Narayanan hit the nail on its head when he called for the
consideration of the pedestrian poor who is being trampled by the speedy
highways of newer market forces.

The argument of the BJP, which has been made the part of 'common sense' of
the large chunk of the elite is that our defense needs have increased
especially in the post Kargil scenario and the defense has to be made more
effective for the National security. As a matter fact the present
projections are more a making of the drastic change in the regional and
defense policies brought in by the BJP rather then being the product
regional geo-political reality.

Defense scene in the pre BJP phase-

Prior to the BJP's coming to power at the center for 13 days the overall
tenor of the relations with the neighbors and the defense policy was to try
to ease the tensions so that country has to spend minimum of the funds in
the defense so that a large chunk of the resources can be spent for the
social welfare of different varieties. One is not arguing that it was
totally achieved but the trend was to minimise the tensions. The relations
with China showed signs of improvement and the relations with Pakistan
though were vexing and waning the effort by and large was not to do
anything which will worsen it on India's count. It is in this context that
Gujral doctrine was reaping some measure of success and the SAARC
experiment was being seen as great amount of hope.

Enter BJP: Adventurist offensives-

BJP after coming to power in 1998 began to 'unfold' its real militaristic
agenda. On 11th May Mr. Vajpeyee declared the 'successful' explosion of the
nuclear devices. The reason offered for this nuclear blasts was that
India's security atmosphere has worsened. Actually this nuclear explosion
was the event, that has worsened the security atmosphere. If one notices
the last war in which India was involved was in 1971. The relations with
China were shaping well notwithstanding the border dispute. This Govt.
started shouting from the housetops that China is our enemy No.1. With the
nuclear explosion the prominent ministers of the Govt. started threatening
Pakistan that in the changed equations, Pakistan will have to rethink on
the solutions to Kashmir issue. One of them went on to dare Pakistan to
have a war at the place of its choosing. Following this Pakistan went on
for explosions and also deflated the pumped up machismo built up by the
Sangh Parivar. The Pakistani explosions in a way brought India and Pakistan
on parity and in due course our wily neighbor started infiltrating in
Kargil and even built solid bunkers right under the nose of this govt.

Hindutva and Militarism-

In a way the Pokharan II was the major marker for the Hindutva mindset,
which is not only expansionist (The concept of Akhand Bharat etc.) but is
based on the ideology of blind militarism and martial glory. Possessing
nuclear weapons has always been on the agenda of RSS's political progenies.
The previous avatar of BJP, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh right in its first
election manifesto in 1952 called going for Nuclear weapons. Even in 1996
when the BJP came to power for 13 days it had planned for the nuclear
explosion. As per Mr. Sheshadri, the then General Secretary of RSS, quoted
in RSS mouthpiece Organiser, the BJP govt. was planning for the nuclear
blasts and as the US govt. got the whip of it, it manipulated the fall the
BJP govt. Thus in any situation and every situation, irrespective of the
security compulsions this Hindutva political outfit either demanded it or
planned it or executed it. This militarism is in-built into the very
ideology of religion or race based politics. It is this blind adventurism
which feeds in to the pseudo nationalist hysteria generated by different
wings of Sangh Parivar. BJP as the political arm of RSS is the executioner
of the politics of Hindutva aiming towards Hindu Rashtra. It is in this
context that it has triggered the arms race in the subcontinent by taking
India on the Nuclear path.

The Future trends-

Left to itself RSS and its politics as implemented through the BJP will
take the aggressive postures towards neighbors and all and sundry. As it
has already done it will further project the 'evil enemy' image of the
neighbors. The Fascist-Fundamentalist ideologies need to 'construct' the
inner and outer enemy images to sustain their politics of hatred. For
Hitler it was Jews as inner and Poland as the outer enemy. For the vehicle
of Fascism-Fundamentalism in India-the RSS it is Muslims (and now even
Christians) as the inner and Pakistan as the outer enemy. One does not deny
that Pakistani rulers, to divert the attention of their people from the
real problems facing that society are a constant source of nagging
pinpricks but surely India is too strong a country to be really affected by
such nuisances. One also does not deny that India generally had
not-so-pleasant relations with Pakistan even before the BJP's advent to
power. The point however is that there is a qualitative difference in the
hatred based approach towards Pakistan as being pursued by the present
Govt. and the efforts to deal with these issues in a more rational way
earlier. There is a difference between nuisance and the threat. Projecting
the farmer, as the latter has been the favorite pastime of RSS and its
progeny, as this helps it to consolidate its grip on the society.

Priorities of Hindu Rashtra vs. Indian priorities

Already lot of damage has been done by the nuclear and aggressive foreign
policy pursued by the BJP. Kargil intrusion and the consequent loss of
lives of Indian soldiers is the big price which the country has paid for
the mistaken notions of power pursued by this govt.. India being the major
power in the South Asia should be pursuing the policies, which encourage
peace and tranquility in the region. Be it the solution of Kashmir problem
or the other nagging irritants, reason has to prevail if India has to
prosper, if the poor and deprived of the country are to be taken care of.
Sinha's budget, in pursuance of the ideology of Hindutva aiming for Hindu
Rashtra is totally cut off from the needs of Indian people. What we need
today is a heavy investment in food, clothing, and shelter for all. What we
need is the compulsory free primary education and the conditions making it
possible for all. What we need is to evolve an employment policy where all
can get employment. What we need is the social welfare in the area of
health, sanitation and drinking water for all. Basically there is a need to
cultivate the atmosphere in the subcontinent, to which India's attitude is
a big determinant. What we need is to attempt to pursue peace in the world
in general and in South Asia in particular. The goal should be to address
the real needs of the people rather than to focus towards the constructed
deviations for the false glories. No Nation can be strong if its people are
suffering from the very basics of survival. In nutshell what makes the
Nation strong is not Guns but Butter.
-------------------

#5.

Business Standard, New Delhi
=46ebruary 25

Report moots 3.5% of GDP as defence spending
(Friday, February 25, 2000)

Aditi Phadnis in New Delhi

A top secret report on defence outlays, commissioned by the 11th Finance
Commission, says the government should aim to eventually spend 3.5 per cent
of gross domestic product on defence.

Of this, the report adds, 0.5 per cent should be used to develop the
nuclear strategic force. However, this expenditure should be gradual so as
to allow the defence services time to absorb and sustain this level of
spending.

The report, which suggests farreaching reforms in the defence planning and
spending system, has been considered by cabinet and approved. For the next
five year plan (2000-2005), the report has recommended a total outlay of Rs
240,350 crore for the army, Rs 57,000 crore for the navy and Rs 134,250
crore for the air force. This adds up to Rs 531,600 crore for the entire
defence forces over the next five years-a 178 per cent increase over the
10th finance commission's Rs 191,197 crore allocated for the last five
years.

The report criticises previous governments which allowed defence spending
to decline in real terms. Between 1988 and 1998 defence spending was at its
lowest since independence.

The report also noted that during this period, the army had just enough
money to pay salaries and allowances. The allocation left nothing for
preparedness and equipment efficiency.

This was one reason for Kargil. The report notes the inherent lacuna in the
defence allocation and spending system. It suggests reforms in the
procurement procedure. Though the defence ministry has a mechanism called a
planning and procurement board , headed by a defence secretary level
bureaucrat with senior representatives of all three services, it is
ineffective because it has no financial powers.

The report suggests that funds in new schemes left unspent by services in a
financial year should be put aside in a special fund called the defence
reserve fund. Savings under the revenue head should be credited to the
capital budget of the service as an incentive.

The report says the air force has suffered monetary neglect. But the navy
suffered the most serious damage. Its force levels will deplete to half by
the next decade, because of insufficient funding.

Even if funds are sanctioned immediately, the navy's strength will drop to
80 ships from the current 134 ships by 2007.

---------------

#6.

Secularism as a solution

By J.S. Tissainayagam

Among the matters discussed by the PA government with the Tamil parties in
the meetings on the proposed new constitution, was secularism and state
patronage of Buddhism. The state patronage of Buddhism was introduced to
Sri Lanka in the first republican constitution of 1972 and retained in the
second republican constitution (1978).

If there is any matter that rekindles the embers of a bitter past into
angry flames, it is that of secularism and the State. Tamils, Muslims and
Christians have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the state
protection of Buddhism. Even Sinhala Christians who are indifferent to the
fate of the other minorities, sing a different tune when the matter of
state patronage of Buddhism comes up.

At a meeting with the Tamil parties, a representative of the government had
attempted to persuade the Tamil parties that state patronage of Buddhism
would continue. The argument had been totted out that since the government
had been amenable enough to retain the quasi-federal nature of the state in
the form of a union of regions, the Tamil parties in turn should take a
conciliatory stand on the question of Buddhism.

A supporting argument had been that despite the constitution guaranteeing
state patronage of Buddhism for 20 years, no substantial erosion of the
rights and privileges of the minority religious groups had taken place.

The stand of the Tamil parties has traditionally been one of no compromise
regarding the secular character of the state. They have insisted on this at
the meetings with representatives of the Sri Lanka government even before
the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord. As recently as in 1997, when the
constitutional reforms came up last for discussion, they spoke in favour of
a secular state. Their stand was echoed by important sections of other
minority religions.

Religion-be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other form of
organised worship-when it enters the public sphere, becomes a part of
culture. It has more to do with identity formation than on saving souls or
attaining nirvana. And the religious group professing a certain faith also
uses it as a weapon to further its influence and interests.

There are basically two conceptions of secularism that dominate the
thinking of South Asians. One is the western conception of secularism- a
product of post-Renaissance thinking that gained popularity during the
European enlightenment and has taken root in most western liberal
democracies. This version of secularism is where there is a strict
separation between church and state. Religious belief is a strictly
personal affair.

The other type of secularism is what is (or was) practiced in India.
Nehruvian idealism was to see in a country where organised religion plays a
big part, that all the major religions are respected equally by the state,
or in other words, no one religion is bestowed special favours by the state.

Now the Indian example might be one where theory differs from practice. But
despite the BJP having ridden on the wave of Hindu fundamentalism- the
destruction of the Babri Masjid, the Rath Yatra as well as the anti-Muslim
riots and persistent killing of Christians in parts of India-there has been
no concerted move on the part of the minorities to amend or reformulate the
sections of the Indian constitution dealing with religious freedom.

But consider Sri Lanka. A host of examples disprove the PA's argument that
state patronage of Buddhism has not eroded the privileges of other
religions is disingenuous.

=46irst is the place that Buddhist rituals and ceremonies enjoy in State
functions. The Buddhist ceremonies always take precedence over others and
in the 50 years of post-colonial Sri Lanka have become so much part and
parcel of the rituals that are associated with the state, that we have even
stopped questioning it. Why is it that Rupavahini, the state-owned TV
station, will show Buddhist rituals for a longer time at state functions,
but only glimpses of the other religious ceremonies?

Why is it that senior government officials who are not Buddhists, have to
seek the blessings of a Buddhist prelate? The usual argument is that there
is no compulsion for them to do this. But in a country where the state and
Buddhism are so inextricably intertwined and the weight of custom sits so
heavily on the individual, it is only a brave man who will violate this
custom.

The second consideration is the amount of funding that goes into state
institution for the advancement of Buddhism. We are not talking here of the
disparities in the funding received by Buddha Sasana ministry with the
ministry of Hindu Culture. What we are talking about are ministries that
should be strictly neutral like ministry of cultural affairs, or the
department of archaeology or the tourist board and funding they receive to
be specifically spent on Buddhism related projects to the detriment of
other religions.

=46inally, there is the immunity from the law. Today, if there is a Bo tree
in one's garden there is every possibility that it will attract the
attention of someone who would want to build a shrine by it. Sometimes the
tree is on the street, but abutting on private property. Despite the
inconvenience caused to householders, the area is 'nationalised' and
transformed into a place of worship. And there is nothing that any law
enforcement authority can do about it.

The usual argument is that the majority of Sri Lankans are Buddhist and
therefore greater emphasis should be laid of fostering Buddhism as a state
religion. The fact is that this has nothing to do with percentages. It has
all to do with intentions. The state that promotes all religions equally
will earn the name of a secular state, while all others are all theocracies
called by other names.

Therefore the Tamil parties should not look upon secularism as a good to be
bartered in the give and take of political negotiation. Secularism has to
be guaranteed by the state if Sri Lanka is to emerge from its present
turmoil and then join the committee of nations as a free, modern state.

The UNP on the other hand, has repeatedly spoken about maximum power at the
centre. If it can guarantee that the state will be truly secular, it will
be a bait hard to resist for the minorities.

Sunday Leader
_________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH (SACW) is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996. Dispatch archive from 1998
can be accessed by joining the ACT list run by SACW.
To subscribe send a message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D