[sacw] [ACT] sacw dispatch #1 (27 March 00)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #1
27 March 2000
__________________________
#1. On South Asia Trip, Clinton Makes Clear Cold War Is Over
#2. Pakistan: 'Bad democracy better than no democracy'
#3. Victim of 1971 Bangladeshi war finds 'great joy' in the truth
#4. India: The Hindu Right & The falsification of history
#5. Statement by The Association of Indian Labour Historians
__________________________

#1.

Washington Post
27 March 2000; Page A19

ON SOUTH ASIA TRIP, CLINTON MAKES CLEAR COLD WAR IS OVER
By Pamela Constable

Washington Post Foreign Service
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 26 President Clinton's stern warning to
Pakistan during his visit here Saturday has left its military government
facing a sober new reality: The Cold War strategic alliance with the United
States is over, and Pakistan must move to restore democracy and control
terrorism in Kashmir or fend for itself in its mounting confrontation with
India.
But the choice facing Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is one he
may not be willing or able to make, according to analysts here. If he
cracks down on insurgent groups fighting in Indian Kashmir, he risks
igniting the wrath of powerful Islamic forces inside Pakistan, including
segments of the army. If he does not, he risks forfeiting Western economic
support and driving his struggling nation deeper into poverty

"Pakistan must do some very hard thinking now. It cannot sustain its
policy on Kashmir and build a viable economy at the same time," said Talaat
Massood, a former Pakistani army chief. "We cannot afford to be
marginalized, but there are those in Pakistan who want to continue the Cold
War for their own interests. I fear the message from Washington is so harsh
that it may strengthen those forces."
Before arriving in Pakistan on Saturday, Clinton paid a cordial four-day
visit to India and called for a comprehensive economic and strategic
relationship with New Delhi. His trip signaled a clear preference for
democratic India over military-ruled Pakistan as a future U.S. partner in
South Asia and marked the end of the uneasy, arm's-length approach that
dominated U.S.-India relations for decades, largely as a result of India's
tilt toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
In addition, comments by Clinton and his aides suggested that Washington
was moving closer to accepting India's position on Kashmir, the divided
Himalayan border region that both India and Pakistan claim. Indian security
forces, which control their country's portion of Kashmir, have been under
constant attack by Pakistan-based Islamic insurgents who want to "liberate"
the predominantly Muslim population there from rule by India, which is
majority Hindu.
In interviews and speeches during the week, Clinton said he believed that
"elements" of the Pakistani government were involved with the Kashmiri
insurgents, that it was "wrong" to attack across the Line of Control
separating Indian and Pakistani Kashmir, and that it would be very
difficult for the two rivals to resume dialogue as long as violence
continues in Kashmir.
Indian officials were delighted by the shift in U.S. policy, which they
saw as a long overdue acknowledgment of their country's economic ties and
political commonality with the United States. The visit promised to open
new doors for U.S.-India partnerships and technology sharing, even though
U.S. sanctions imposed after India's nuclear tests in 1998 still restrict
such transfers.
Even more important, New Delhi viewed Clinton's critical comments about
Pakistan's role in Kashmir, along with his repeated assertions that he
would not mediate the dispute, as a vindication of its tough stance on
Kashmir and proof that, at long last, Washington was finally casting off
its Cold War blinders toward Pakistan's pernicious role in the region.
"The whole purpose of his visit was to tell the Pakistani people that the
U.S. supports democracy," said K. Subrahmanyam, an Indian defense and
national security expert. "At the end, the lingering image in people's
minds will be one of Clinton dancing with village women in [India] and
slipping into Pakistan with three decoy planes. Those images will tell the
whole world what the nature of states in South Asia is."
In stark contrast to his embrace of India, Clinton's brief stop in
Islamabad was hurried, somber and marked by unusually heavy security. There
were no joint statements or even photographs of Clinton with Musharraf, and
the president's televised speech to the nation made a polite but pointed
demand: Pakistan must change or face total isolation by Washington.
Thus, his stopover here completed the shift in the American approach
toward the region: an end to the longstanding, Cold War era policy in which
military rule in Islamabad was tolerated because Pakistani collaboration
was needed to confront Soviet military designs on neighboring Afghanistan
and bolster America's security interests in the area.
Although Clinton's stop in Pakistan was controversial within his
administration, the combined impact of his visit to both countries left an
indelible impression in the region that Washington has chosen democracy
over dictatorship in South Asia, and that its willingness to bargain on a
range of thorny issues, from trade to nuclear nonproliferation, is no
longer hostage to the strategic calculus of the past.
In Pakistan, "Clinton almost behaved as if he were in enemy territory. His
visit marks the closure of the U.S.-Pakistani strategic alliance," said
Rifaat Hussain, chairman of the department of defense and strategic studies
at Quaid-I-Azam University. "Pakistan always assumed it could count on the
U.S. to bail it out in a confrontation with India. Now the message from
Washington is clear: If you are aggressive, we will side with India. If you
don't become part of our values, you are on your own."
Some military analysts suggest that Clinton's rebuff could drive Pakistan
to seek closer strategic relations with three traditional and controversial
allies in the region: China, a nuclear superpower and longtime rival of
India; Iran, a revolutionary Islamic state led by Shiite Muslim clerics;
and Afghanistan, an international pariah headed by a fundamentalist Muslim
militia.
No one predicts the chill with Washington will prompt Pakistan's military
to provoke a serious confrontation with India, let alone a nuclear war
between the two countries, both of which tested nuclear weapons in 1998.
But some analysts said it could remove any remaining constraints on
Islamabad's control over the insurgents in Kashmir, whose violent attacks
have escalated in the past several months.
"Clinton has chosen India, and we must take a deep look at the new ground
realities. It is time for Pakistan to readjust its geopolitical priorities
and rediscover its traditional friends in the region," said Aslam Mirza
Beg, a former Pakistani army chief. "We don't need to enter into an arms
race with India, but we cannot let Kashmir go. Let Kashmir become a
bleeding wound for India. The costs will be heavy on both sides, but
heavier for India."
But U.S. officials, whose principal concerns in South Asia are to reduce
the threat of terrorism and nuclear war, are betting that a chastised
Pakistan will be less likely than before to launch any new aggression
against India, and hoping that a triumphant New Delhi may be more willing
to reopen negotiations on Kashmir now that it no longer need fear an
American interventionist tilt toward Islamabad.
Some Pakistani analysts also say they hope Musharraf--who has said
repeatedly he is willing to resume negotiations with India and wants to
gradually restore democratic rule at home--will swallow his pride and
realize that his best hope to salvage his country of 140 million people
from financial ruin and political isolation lies in rescuing its longtime
friendship with Washington.
U.S. aid to Pakistan is limited, and economic sanctions have been in place
since 1998 because of the nuclear tests. But the ailing country, burdened
with $140 million in foreign debt, is heavily dependent on loans and
credits from financial institutions such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund. Those are likely to be cut off if the United
States decides to isolate Islamabad.
Some Pakistani observers say the internal threat from Islamic groups has
been exaggerated, and that despite their emotional support for the Kashmiri
cause, most Pakistanis are more concerned about their financial problems
than the abstract notion of Islamic jihad, or holy war, espoused by the
insurgent groups in Kashmir.
"Musharraf has to choose between jihad and modernization, because they
cannot coexist," said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani writer and analyst. "The
fundamentalists are ready to pounce on him, but the people are much more
worried about surviving than about Kashmir. They still trust Musharraf and
they still fear and respect the army. If he does the right thing, they will
respect it even more."
While acknowledging Musharraf's dilemma, Rashid said the general has
little alternative if he wants to keep what support he has from Washington
and prevent his reformist agenda from collapsing. After Musharraf seized
power from a democratically elected government in a coup d'etat in October,
U.S. officials gave him the benefit of the doubt because of his popularity
inside Pakistan. Now they have warned him that their patience is running
out.
"Clinton's message was that this is Musharraf's last chance," Rashid said.
"He faces a stark choice, with limited time to deliver, but he will not get
another reprieve."
=A9 2000 The Washington Post Company
_____

#2.

DAWN
27 March 2000

'BAD DEMOCRACY BETTER THAN NO DEMOCRACY'
By Our Reporter
LAHORE, March 26: Speakers at the annual general meeting of the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan have called upon all active elements of civil
society to work for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. The meeting
was held on Saturday at the HRCP head office with its president Afrasiab
Khattak in the chair. It reviewed the events occurred during the past one
year in different fields of national activity and discussed in detail the
human rights situation in various provinces of the country. Former HRCP
chairperson Asma Jahangir regretted that the political parties which
claimed to be the champion of democracy remained a silent spectator to the
action taken by the army against democracy. She said that the political
parties should rise and start working for restoration of democratic order.
She said she was not defending the Nawaz Sharif government but she believed
that bad democracy was better than to have no democracy at all. She
revealed that human rights activists had decided to form a South Asia Human
Rights Commission to watch the human rights developments in the region.
They would hold a convention in June next at Sri Lanka and draw the final
framework in December next. Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan emphasized the need for
normalization of Pakistan's relations with India and other countries of
South Asia to make economic progress. He also favoured the signing of CTBT
as he thought that it would not have any negative impact on the country's
nuclear capability. Former federal minister Iqbal Haider warned against
the danger of increasing sectarian violence and said that strict vigilance
should be kept on the activities of religious seminaries as he alleged that
some of them were engaged in imparting military training to young men. He
said that the government had decided to ban the display of arms but it had
taken no steps for the purpose as the people were continuing to display
arms. Mr Khattak said that no true democracy ever existed in the country.
He said that the fall of democracy had begun when the army had started
interfering in the democratic process by imposing martial law or taking
part in governance in one way or the other. He also criticized the
proposed local bodies setup and said that it would not help in bringing
back democracy. LB SETUP: The annual general meeting adopted various
resolutions. It endorsed the resolution adopted by the HRCP Council on the
proposed local bodies setup. It agreed that the plan had serious flaws and
that the military regime did not enjoy any mandate to undertake any such
initiative. It should instead work towards an early return to democratic
rule. JIRGAS: The meeting showed concern over the reports of the
administration's recourse to ad hoc jirgas in Sindh, Balochistan and the
NWFP to try and award punishments. It said that in the presence of
established judiciary, such extra-judicial methods violated the citizens'
right to the due process. Mohmand Agency: It said though 25 villages in
Mohmand Agency have been declared a settled area, the FCR continued to be
applied there to punish those who raised questions of fundamental rights.
RELIGIOUS SEMINARIES: The meeting pointed out that several of the religious
seminaries imparted military training to children. All this was having an
impact on young minds, and was a factor in the spread of violence in
society. It said that the government's bid to deweaponize society would
prove an exercise in futile if it was not rigorously pursued with curbs on
militant seminaries and organizations. THAR: The meeting showed concern
over the recent spread of a virus in drought-affected areas of Thar in
Sindh and Balochistan which claimed a large number of lives. It demanded
investigation into the failure of the administration and appropriate
punishments for those found responsible. ENCROACHMENTS: It said the
bulldozing of encroachments and decades-old unauthorized settlements, like
railway colonies, had in most instances been indiscriminate, hasty, and
insensitive to the hardship caused to the poor families. The meeting also
passed resolutions on bonded labour, restrictions on trade unionism, and
the mushroom growth of private colleges and universities.
_____

#3.
[Recieved from Sandeep Das Verma]
27 Mar 2000 00:44:18 EST

VICTIM OF 1971 BANGLADESHI WAR FINDS 'GREAT JOY' IN THE TRUTH

DHAKA,
March 26 (AFP) -

As Bangladesh celebrated the 29th anniversary of its independence on Sunday,
the first woman to go public about the torture she suffered at the hands of
the Pakistani army says she has found "great joy" in facing the truth.

"There is a great joy in coming to terms with the truth, but the pain and
sorrow would never go away," Ferdousy Priyabhashini, a celebrated sculptor
who was among the at least 250,000 women raped during the war, told AFP in a=
n
interview on Saturday.

Priyabhashini explained she had reconciled herself to the fact she was a
"victim of circumstance" and needed to tell a new generation about the bad
months.

Collaborators and Islamic fundamentalists who helped the Pakistani army now
want to downplay those events, she said.

"I want to be alone when the melancholic winds of March (the month of
independence) start blowing, which at one time made me romantic and now take=
s
me back to those horrific days of pain and anguish," she said.

"I can only say I was trapped to my fate."

Priyabhashini, a mother of six, said that when she decided to go public in
Bangladesh's conservative Muslim society she told her husband she was
"responsible for everything and I have nothing to lose whether the society
accepts or rejects me."

A mere 22-years-old in 1971, she went public in November 10, 1999, when her
story was published in "Tormenting '71," a book by prominent
anti-fundamentalist Ekkaturer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee.

At least three million Bengalis were killed in Bangladesh's 1971 independenc=
e
war against Pakistan, and 250,000 women were raped during those nine months,
according to official estimates.

Priyabhashini, then a divorced mother of three, fell into a trap set by
Urdu-speaking Pakistani collaborators in May of that year after failing to
run away and returning to her job at the privately owned Crescent Jute
Mills in
southwestern Khulna district.

She was alone as the Pakistani army launched its military crackdown
code-named "Operation Searchlight" to silence the independence movement.

"I can never say or give the real picture of my horrific days in captivity
and the killings I saw at that time," she said, suddenly becoming silent.

Priyabhashini came face-to-face with her first horror as soon as she stepped
into the place she thought would be her "shelter" -- the home of her
Urdu-speaking boss.

She fell victim to the man, who she said once treated her as a younger
sister, immediately on entering the house. Between May and Bangladesh's
Victory Day on December 16 she was tortured and raped by Pakistani army
officers
based in Khulna and Jessore.

"In that house, owned by the jute mill owners, I saw whisky on the table and
I still wondered why was this man who I saw always as my elder brother
behaving like that with me ... I was so naive I did not even understand
that a war of
such great magnitude had broken out," she said.

"My boss made me a prisoner and before going to inform his military officers
he told me 'don't go anywhere, army officers will come here'," she said,
still seething with bitterness.

"I was supposed to be killed and often wonder why I am alive. Maybe I feared
death and learned to survive during those tormenting days.

"I saw truckloads of Bengalis being brought to the mill and beheaded by a
machine at the factory before being thrown into the adjacent river."

Asked about her experiences after going public, Priyabhashini said "it was m=
y
life's greatest gift when my fried, and now my husband, accepted me along
with my children despite my tragedy."

"I never want any sympathy from anyone."

Her husband Ahsan Ullah Ahmed, employed in a private company, said his wife'=
s
decision to publicize her case "has not changed our life."

"I think how helpless one can be in her own country and I could not help her=
,
besides there are so many more women who even suffered more than my wife," h=
e
said.
_____

#4.

=46rontline
Volume 17 - Issue 06, Mar. 18 - 31, 2000

THE FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY

The latest ICHR-sponsored assault on academic freedom is just one of
several official actions under BJP rule in the realm of education and
research that are aimed to disseminate the Hindutva version of history.

by PARVATHI MENON
AEVEN Saket Ram, the Hindutva protagonist of the 'Hey! Ram', who builds a
dangerously sympathetic case for Mahatma Gandhi's assassin through the
greater part of the much-publicised film, is shaken by anger and revulsion
when Nathuram Godse, a Hindu fasci st, shoots the peace-loving and trusting
mass leader at point blank range. However, for the Publications Division
that functions under the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
one of the most dastardly assassinations of our times could have be en
carried out by anybody. Or nobody. Why else would a compact disk (CD-ROM)
on the life of Mahatma Gandhi produced in 1999 by a private software
company for the Publications Division choose not to mention the name, and
the philosophy which inspired, Ga ndhi's assassin? (The CD-ROM was reviewed
in Frontline, February 18, 2000). Who killed Mahatma Gandhi? The answer,
quite simply, does not qualify as history.
Both in its Introduction, which is a multimedia run-through of the life of
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and in a section called Landmark Events, a
sound-and-image treat which offers the user 40 landmark events of Gandhi's
life to browse through, the CD-RO M's narrative offers the information that
Gandhi was assassinated on January 30, 1948. It then proceeds to discuss
the reactions to his death with images of his funeral. There is no naming
Godse; there is not even an allusion to the political forces of t he Hindu
Right that were arraigned against Gandhi or why they opposed him.
There could be two reasons for this glaring omission. The first is that
commercial logic prompted the creators of the CD-ROM to keep on the right
ideological side of the sponsors of the project; the second is that the
Ministry itself planned the project choosing to delete this uncomfortable
piece of history. After all, Gandhi was murdered for his unshakable faith
in the secular and pluralist basis of the Indian nation. His assassin
Nathuram Godse was a Hindutva fundamentalist and a one-time member of th e
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (as his only living brother Gopal Godse has
proudly testified to several times in the recent and not-so-recent past).
The political and ideological forebears of the Bharatiya Janata Party, in
power today at the Centre, kille d Gandhi. It is therefore logical to
assume that the absence of an important piece of historical information in
the CD-ROM could hardly have been oversight.
The whitewash job on Gandhi performed by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting is of a piece with a string of actions taken by the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development in the direction of officialising
history. In their justification of th e official withdrawal of two
manuscripts of the "Towards Freedom" project of the Indian Council of
Historical Research (ICHR), BJP spokespersons have repeatedly alleged in
the media and in Parliament that Gandhi has been given a raw deal in the
manuscrip ts, that a great Indian has been relegated to the footnotes of
history by 'leftist' historians. Their own version just cleanses him away.
It is significant that the CD-ROM, at Rs. 2,500, is affordable only to
schools, libraries and institutions - which a re now the targets of
Hindutva organisations and governments for the dissemination of their
version of Indian history.
History, history teaching and historical research have together become an
arena where a political battle for a nation's identity and future is being
waged. In this battle zone, two historical traditions face each other. On
the one side is a historical tr adition- by far the more influential and
robust - of critical, rational historical enquiry that draws upon an
expanding base of historical evidence, which affirms the composite nature
of India's culture and heritage, and which is itself a product of the
diverse nationalist streams within the freedom movement. On the other side
is a historical tradition exemplified by the Hindutva view of history
(after Partition its Muslim counterpart found a 'national' homeland in
Pakistan). In this perspective, religi ous communities are distinct
political entities, even nations. That India's heritage is Hindu is the
premise, and in its effort to 'prove' this thesis and deny the plurality of
India's past, it resorts to every subterfuge - falsification of history,
doct oring of historical data, and now, the suppression of historical
research through official channels. Thus must today's Hindutva-ite see the
remains of a temple in every mosque, historicise myth in various ways
including underwater explorations in quest o f a supposed Golden Age of
Hinduism, stop publications that would reveal uncomfortable truths of the
past, terrorise "enemies" for the alleged historical wrongdoings of their
forebears, seek changes in democratic instruments such as the Indian
Constituti on, itself the product of the nation's diversity and
multi-facetedness which Hindutva seeks to deny and suppress, and so on.

This process became ever more purposeful and directed once the BJP-led
coalition came to power. The takeover of the ICHR is a case in point. It is
clear from the growing evidence that is now in the public realm, including
what Frontline has publis hed, that the demand to recall the manuscripts of
K.N. Panikkar and Sumit Sarkar was made by B.R. Grover, Chairman of the
ICHR, as early as August 1998 in the first Council meeting after the
reconstitution of the ICHR with historians sympathetic to the B JP. We know
now that following the reconstitution, pressures were almost immediately
applied on the then Chairman of the ICHR, S. Settar, to give in on two
issues. These were the recall of the manuscripts (which neither Grover nor
any of his group had re ad), and the withdrawal of the annual ICHR grant to
the Indian History Congress (IHC), an organisation which meets annually and
which has an impressive record of scholarship in its over seven decades of
existence. The antipathy of Grover and his fellow h istorians in the
Hindutva camp to the IHC stems from its fiercely independent stand on
issues of historical and political importance (including a spirited
opposition to the use and abuse of history by the Sangh Parivar), and its
promotion of rational and scientific academic research.
The text of two annexures (except a section giving the budgetary
details) is given below.
I
Ever since the Indian History Congress was established in AD 1935, being
an autonomous unregistered Society of the historions, it remained
self-financed body. Of course, the host State Universities helped in the
arrangement of the annual sessions of the Congress. Even the University
Grants Commission has been giving some financial assistance to the host
University for academic purpose. It was only in AD 1973-74 when late
Professor S. Nurul Hasan was the Hon'ble Minister of Education that for the
first t ime, the Ministry of Education gave financial subsidy of Rupees Ten
thousand only for holding the annual session as well as for publication of
the proceedings of the Congress. However, in the meantime, the Indian
Council of Historical Research was establ ished by the Government of India
in AD 1972-73 and it started functioning effectively only thereafter. As
the Council was fully financed (with cent per cent grant) by the Government
of India, it was decided by the Government around AD 1974 that hencefort h
all grant/ financial assistance to the Indian History Congress would be
given by the ICHR and not directly by the Central Government, a practice
which continued till AD 1990. It was only in AD 1990-91 when Shri Arjun
Singh was the Hon'ble Minister of E ducation that purely out of political
consideration, the Ministry gave financial grant of Rupees three lakhs to
the Indian History Congress for holding its session in Delhi. In fact, the
Congress Session in December, 1990 had to be held at Ujjain (Madhya
Pradesh) but the Indian History Congress on the pretext of not having
received the financial assistance from the local host/ Madhya Pradesh
Government in time shifted its venue later to March, 199- at New Delhi. As
a matter of fact, the real reason for shifting the venue in an arbitrary
and unpresented manner, and even against the Rules of the Congress, was the
fear of challenge to its left-ideological supremacy by the other Group of
independent and scientific historians at Ujjian who might over-throw their
supremacy in the election. Ever since then, the Indian History Congress has
been getting annual grants from the Ministry of Human Resource and
Development, Government of India, regularly till date. At the same time, as
before, it has also been gett ing annual grants from the ICHR both for
holding sessions and publication of the proceedings. Moreover, it has also
been getting financial assistance from the host University/ State
Government for the local hospitality.
The host University gets some financial assistance from the UGC as well.
Of course, the delegates attending the Congress also pay registration as
well as delegation fees for local hospitality. It was only in AD 1991-92
that the Indian History Congress go t itself registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860), as the registration of the
Society was essential for getting annual grant from the Government of India
which would equally insist on the submission of audited accounts by a
registered Society through a Chartered Accountant/ Company.
For the 59th sessions of the Indian History Congress held in December,
1998, the Congress got grant from the ICHR; Rupees three lakhs from the
Punjab State Government and as per announcement by the Organisers, it is
likely to get Rupees two lakhs from th e Ministry of Human Resource and
Development, Government of India. It was also announced at the Business
Session Meeting (30 December, 1998) that the grant of Rupees three lakhs to
be received from the Punjab Government would be shared half-each by the h
ost University and the Central office of the Indian History Congress. This
is rather unprecedented. Apart from this, the Congress would, as usual
receive considerable grant from the ICHR. A close look at the Statement of
Receipts and Payments from 1-4-98 to 30-11-98 and more especially at the
Budget (Estimated Income and Expenditure) 1988-99 (enclosed for perusal)
would clearly show the unnecessary huge expenditure involved in Travel and
Expenditure, Establishment and Office Equipment which could be con
siderably cut. This is true of any another item. But despite the savings,
lavish budget is prepared only because the Indian History Congress is
getting lavish grants from the ICHR, Government of India and the hosting
State Government. II
Resolution 3
The Indian History Congress from its very inception has supported the
cause of a scientific and secular approach to History and the vision of a
comprehensive history. It has held firm positions on free enquiry, and was
the only academic body to criticise its suppression under Emergency; and
it has also opposed the tendency to introduce unscientific and parochial
concepts in text books and syllabi.
Since the 58th session, there have been some controversial measures
adopted by the Central Government, which are the cause of some disquiet.
The new composition of the Council of the ICHR especially has led to fears
that an attempt to impose a disturbing ly one-sided view of Indian history
is in the making. Certain State Governments have similarly introduced
changes in text books and syllabi which tend to impose unhistorical cults
and concepts through official fiats.
The Indian History Congress calls upon all authorities to refrain from
acts of such interference, and to so conduct themselves that the study and
teaching of History is pursued on independent and scientific lines.
Failing in their attempt to pressure Settar in what has been described as
a "stormy" two-day session of the Council in August-September 1998, the
group then bided its time till his term finished, all the while preparing
the ground for the next strike. Se ttar's interview points to what is
likely to be next on the agenda of the ICHR, which is to render ineffective
the IHC by choking it of funds.
A confidential letter written by Grover to P.R. Dasgupta, Secretary in the
HRD Ministry, a copy of which is in Frontline's possession, supports this
contention. The undated letter of Grover's was written in mid-March 1999
(as the date of receipt o f the letter by the HRD Ministry suggests). In it
Grover, who is still only a member of the ICHR, makes a case to stop funds
to the IHC. He questions the logic and necessity of funding an organisation
that bites the hand that feeds it. "...Despite the fa ct that it receives
considerable grants from the ICHR and the Ministry of Human Resources and
Development, it has been moving resolutions and even condemning their
policies on one count or another." Here is an organisation, he says, which
has passed reso lutions "purely on left-oriented political and ideological
considerations relating to lack of adequate environmental protection to Taj
Mahal (Agra); assumed wasteful expenditure on the under sea excavations at
Dwarka by Prof. S.R. Rao for unearthing the Mahabharata antiquity; the
Hazrat Bal Incident at Srinagar (J & K); the collapse of the disputed
structure at Ayodhya (December 1992); the school level text books on
history and various other political matters from time to time." Grover's
own political s ympathies are made abundantly clear in his indignant
outburst against the "dominant group" in the IHC who carry out "malicious
propaganda against the present 'BJP' Government in the media all over
India..." Once he became Chairman and with the support of the HRD Ministry
and a majority of Council members, Grover was free to act. He recalled two
manuscripts of the "Towards Freedom" series which were in the press with
Oxford University Press on the grounds that they had to be reviewed.
Explanation for thi s is provided in the Minutes of the 43rd Council
meeting held in December 1999 under Item 11. It states, "Regarding the
manuscripts of the two "Towards Freedom" volumes being edited by Professor
K.N. Panikkar and Professor Sumit Sarkar of the years 1940 and 1946
respectively sent for publication in 1998, it was decided that if the ICHR
have not received all the proofs thereof, the publications of the same
should also be temporarily stopped and the manuscripts of the said volumes
be sent to the Council/R eview Committee for their perusal." At least one
member of the Council who was present at the meeting, Pratipal Bhatia, has
contested the veracity of the Minutes. In a statement to the press, she has
denied that the Council ever took a collective decisio n to withdraw the
manuscripts. To Frontline Settar described as "shocking" the very idea of
redrawing the Minutes of previous Council meetings by the present Chairman.
Item 1 and and a supplementary item to Item 2 of the Minutes of the 43rd
Meetin g authorise Grover to "redraw" the Minutes of the 42nd, 39th and
38th Council Meetings.
The ICHR-sponsored assault on academic freedom is just one of several
official actions in the realm of education and research both at the Centre
and in States ruled by BJP governments. Of even greater concern is the
penetration of a communalised and warp ed notion of history into school
textbooks, a project that the various organisations of the Sangh Parivar
have been successful in promoting, and which, unfortunately, the high
calibre historians who constitute a majority have been largely ineffective
in countering.
_____

#5.

March 18, 2000

The Association of Indian Labour Historians

RESOLUTION ON THE RECENT CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE REVIEW OF ICHR ARCHIVAL
COLLECTIONS

The AILH notes with dismay the recent decision by the Indian Council of
Historical Research (ICHR) to recall for review the archival collection on
the freedom movement edited by Professors Sumit Sarkar and KM Pannikar. It
also notes that the Government of India has taken a direct interest in
endorsing this dubious and untimely intervention.

We affirm that differences of opinion in editorial selections and
commentaries are to be expected in historical scholarship and should have
been left to the academic community and the reading public after the
publication of the said volumes. The ICHR=EDs decision has dishonoured the
editors, dragged the historian=EDs discipline into an unseemly dispute with
persons who possess no credentials as historians of modern India, and
undermined our long-standing tradition of academic autonomy and
intellectual freedom.

The AILH urges the ICHR even at this late stage, to rescind its decision
and allow the matter of the worth of these volumes to be decided in the
appropriate way, ie., in academic debates and in discussions among the
reading public.

The AILH also takes this opportunity to underline the need for a respectful
preservation of India=EDs archival materials of all varieties and sources;
and for their protection from any possible tampering. Insofar as the
Government of India is in charge of such materials, we wish to remind the
concerned officials that archival documents are a crucial resource for
future generations of Indian citizens, and must be maintained in a
completely non-partisan manner.

Professor Sabyasachi Bhattacharya; President, AILH
Dr Prabhu Mohapatra; Secretary

_________________________________________
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