[sacw] SACW Dispatch #2 | 25 July 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #2
25 July 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

#1. Pak-India Forum Invitation to Film Screening in Bombay
#2. Pakistani Govt. cozying up to mullah-maulvi circuit
#3. The (further) closing of the Pakistani mind
#4. Bal Thackeray & the Indian state
_____________________

#1.

Dear Friend --

The PAKISTAN INDIA PEOPLES FORUM FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY (Mumbai
Chapter) is arranging a meeting, which will be presided by Admiral
Ramdas and attended by members and activists. There will be screening
of the film:

=46aiz Ahmed Faiz: Poet in Troubled Times
Directed by Faris Kirmani
Duration 1 Hour

Date : Saturday July 29th 2000
Time : 6.00 p.m
Place: Kirtan Mandir Hall, Opposite Utpal Sanghvi School, near
Chandan Cinema, Juhu, Mumbai

All are cordially invited.

Regards,

PAKISTAN INDIA PEOPLES FORUM FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY
Mumbai

______

#2.

DAWN - Magazine
23 July 2000

DOUBTS?

By Amina Jilani

IT makes no difference, it is neither here nor there, pooh-pooh members
of this military government when asked why it was found necessary to
pander to the mullah-maulvi faction and nine months down the line to
amend the Provisional Constitution Order so as to embody in it the
Islamic provisions of the practically indecipherable Zia-ul-Haq
constitution of 1985.

Well, if it makes no difference anywhere, why do it? Why send out
entirely the wrong set of messages to the many highly sceptical and
distrustful citizens of this country and to all the irritated
international observers who are fast losing patience with this
government's mounting and dismounting from its policy-making swings and
roundabouts and who are eager to pounce on anything that smacks of
fundoism? And above all, what sense does it make to do something that
makes no difference when there are hundreds of things waiting to be done
that can make enormous differences to life as suffered in the Islamic
Republic?

Another reason given for the inclusion has to do with doubts,
unspecified doubts. Now this is a strange one. Who doubts what? Did the
government fear that the mullah-maulvi faction doubt the fact that this
is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Did it fear that they doubt the
fact that this is a Muslim country? Did it fear that they doubt the fact
that they wield some magical hold over all our governments and render
them so fearful of the imaginary powers they possess? Did it fear that
the mullah-maulvi faction doubt the fact that they have so far managed
to convert all our governments into pliable bigots?

No one else has doubts on these scores. We have seen it happen since the
time of strongman Ayub Khan, who when his body and mind weakened could
no longer stand firm before the hirsute brethren of the Book. We have
seen strongman Zia-ul-Haq mould and remould his religion and play the
mullah-maulvi game purely for purposes of expedience. We have seen the
progressive democrats of the 1990s bowing and scraping to the forces of
obscurantism in the mistaken belief that it would boost their powers and
their longevity of rule. We have seen strongman Pervez Musharraf back
down, step back, backtrack, all with the intent of pacifying and
pleasing what has come to be known as the 'religious right' (right by
direction and right by conviction?). He will never live down that
retreat on the blasphemy laws amendment, he will not be allowed to
forget that one - a retreat made solely because the religious right
raised a murmur.

Who got to him soon after the end of October 1999? Who whispered what
into his ears? Who frightened him into apologizing for having mentioned
the name of Kemal Attaturk? Who was it that saw to it that never again
would the front pages of our press carry what so many here and outside
the country were delighted to see on October 19, 1999 - a group
photograph of a smiling chief executive with his wife, granddaughter and
dogs? Who persuaded him that to follow his natural instincts might prove
fatal?

The religious right should now have no doubts, after the string of
meaningful meetings our chief executive has had with its learned
leaders. Maulana Fazlur Rahman, was most complimentary about the
general's receptiveness to his and his brethren's gentle demands. In
fact, he gave us advance warning after his July 3 meeting: "The Chief
Executive has acknowledged the fundamental demand of the nation about
the Islamic clauses of the Constitution . . . ". And lo and behold on
July 15 the demand was met.

Another significant meeting was held on July 17 with Maulana Samiul Haq.
He was most complimentary about the general's agreement with his points
of view. He had made it quite clear, the Maulana told the press, that
Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider was serving the cause of the
Republic's enemies and trying to cause dissent between the Ulema and the
Army. Most unfair. Poor old Moinuddin Haider has been bending backwards
for weeks denying that he had said what he was reported to have said,
announcing that the Madressahs of the Republic were wrongly accused of
breeding terrorism, and generally saying anything that will find favour
with the Maulanas.

If all this is in the interests of forward movement and national
consensus, so be it. Nobody has any doubts that this country was founded
primarily for the Muslims of the subcontinent, and later proclaimed to
have come into existence in the name of Islam. Now, since Islam is its
raison d'etre, one would expect that if there were to be but one true
national consensus it would be on the nature of Islam. But that is not
so. So how can there possibly be a consensus on matters such as the CTBT
or the Kalabagh Dam when there is not even a consensus on the basic
beliefs of the country? Riven with sectarian differences, two Muslims
can barely agree on the fundamentals of their religion. Talk to one
learned practitioner of his religion, and one will be given one set of
Islamic facts and beliefs. Talk to another practitioner, equally learned
and equally zealous, and one is given a second set of opposing facts and
beliefs. The incorporation into the general's PCO of Islamic provisions
which, during their constitutional existence of 15 years in the Islamic
Republic, have but managed to spread the opposite of serenity, peace and
brotherly love can hardly be termed a step forwards.

______

#3.

DAWN
21 July 2000

THE (FURTHER) CLOSING OF THE PAKISTANI MIND

By Ayaz Amir

A few evenings ago, driven by a desire that I can now see as insane, I
happened to flick over to my favourite TV channel, Pakistan Television,
which, if there be any justice in this world, will be compulsory
entertainment for every confirmed sinner when he arrives at the outer
gates of hell.

There I saw a bizarre sight: three high-toned pontiffs - a bishop of the
cloth, an ex-law professor and someone who looked an outright rogue -
singing the praises of 'the removal of doubts ordinance', a piece of
legal gimmickry whereby all the Islamic provisions of Pakistan's
moribund Constitution have been included in the Provisional Constitution
Order. Leaving nothing to chance, these experts were hammering the point
home that this was another bold step (every step in Pakistan being a
bold one) towards Islamization.

I am sure these professors of the airwaves were not the only experts
hauled up by PTV for special duty on this subject. But their enthusiasm
was a reminder of how PTV has regularly insulted the intelligence, or
what there is of it, of the Pakistani people. No matter what folly a
government (any government) purveys, PTV is programmed to hail it as an
act of the highest statesmanship. Resurrect Hitler from his ashes and
provided you bring him to Pakistan, PTV will hail him as mankind's
saviour. Although it was only one programme I happened to watch, that
too in passing, I am sure the pattern is being repeated and PTV's
captive audience, helpless in the matter, is being made sick with the
hidden virtues of this ordinance.

And what is this earth-breaking ordinance about? It takes the Islamic
provisions of the Constitution - the Objectives Resolution, the
principles of policy, the other articles which refer to the Quran and
Sunnah - and makes them part of the PCO. By doing this it has earned the
plaudits of the many clerical armies in Pakistan which somehow succeed
in fooling every ruler even though, as every blighted election in this
land has shown, their sound and fury are worse than their bite. In other
words, the Islamic provisions have been saved as if, without this timely
action, they stood in danger of being extinguished. By such momentous
undertakings is life in Pakistan defined. The received wisdom is that
the military regime has succumbed to the pressure of the clerical
brigade. This is far from the truth. From the clerical brigade noises
were being made about protecting the Islamic provisions of the
Constitution. But there was no pressure, if by pressure something
tangible or real is meant, which could deflect the military regime from
its chosen path. There was only a chorus of ill-trained voices raising
the bogey of Islam in danger. Against such a threat there was no need to
be clever. Or even to be brave. The religious lobby has always sought to
draw attention to its existence, and its nuisance value, by such
tactics. It is for governments to read such situations correctly. If
they cannot, and if they see danger or opportunity where none exists,
who is to blame?

The clerical armies are of course crowing with delight but why should
they not when they see a tough-sounding military government, the
commando motif written all over it, retreating twice in quick
succession? First over the anti-blasphemy law, now over this false play
of shadows on a distant wall. What will become of the liberati who were
pinning such hopes on what they fondly believed was a Kemalist
revolution?

In referring to 'the removal of doubts' ordinance I was not inventing
anything. The language of the ordinance contains this gem: "The
Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2000, has been deemed
necessary for removal of doubts and to reaffirm the continuity and
enforcement of the Islamic provisions contained in Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is considered expedient in the public
interest to remove all such doubts." What does this reveal, a guilty
conscience or an over-clever attitude? What doubts and in whose minds?
Certainly not in the minds of the people of Pakistan who, if they have
reacted at all to this sorry business, have done so with a weary yawn.
What if this ordinance had not been issued? Was there, in that case, a
lurking threat of paganism creeping into the suspended articles of the
1973 Constitution? Was there any danger that once democracy was restored
- a distant prospect, given the experiments General Naqvi seems intent
on carrying out in its name - the Islamic provisions of the Constitution
would disappear? Whence the fear that without timely action Pakistan
stood in danger of being declared a secular state? The Pakistani clergy
can stand anything: the ignorance and poverty of the people, the
country's involvement in dubious foreign adventures, the country's
entrapment in humiliation at the hands of outsiders. The nation's iron
begging bowl moves it not. But show it the rag of secularism and all
hell breaks loose.

At the heart of our collective existence resides a strange
contradiction. On the one hand, corruption and a readiness to break
every rule in the book. On the other, a positive mania for Islamic
affirmation. It is not enough to pass the Objectives Resolution. It must
also be included in the constitution. Official stationary must be
inscribed with the kalima. The framework of government may be on the
verge of collapse but every pretence at work must begin with a
recitation from the Holy Quran. We'll do nothing to improve PIA but
before every flight an appropriate prayer must be recited. This is not
piety. This is not even hypocrisy for hypocrisy is a conscious act meant
to fool others. This is plain self-deception. Unable to fight the real
world on its terms, we seek refuge in a moral superiority and a higher
sanctity which are figments of our imagination.

Islam is not a fragile vessel although to hear the good and great of
Pakistan talk it seems as if Islam stands in need of constant
protection. In the subcontinent it has been around for a thousand years
and, like other religions, will remain till the end of time. Its
existence and safety can never be in doubt. What is in doubt is our
ability to create a polity in line with the injunctions of Islam.
What does Islam command? What does it stand for? The creation of a
polity, in the here and now, based upon justice and egalitarianism,
freedom from fear, freedom from want and hunger, tolerance towards all.
In an Islamic state a dog must not go hungry even by the banks of a
faraway river. This cry of the Caliph Omar (one which I can never stop
quoting) is the true essence of the faith rather than empty ritual,
meaningless gestures or doctors of the faith splitting hairs on
television.

In the whole of the Islamic canon there is no denunciation more severe
than that directed at the Pharisee, the self-righteous person who has
pretensions to superior sanctity. Since independence we have done
nothing so much as to turn this into a nation of Pharisees. Listen to
our words and look at our actions. A profounder gulf between two
separate notions could not be drawn.

If we cannot create a state based upon justice and fair play a hundred
Objectives Resolutions will avail us nothing. If the poor live in misery
and want, if there is one law for the powerful and another for the weak,
what does it matter if we call Pakistan an Islamic or a secular
republic? The form of things is important but not as important as their
substance.

______

#4.

The Hindu
25 July 2000
Opinion

THACKERAY & THE INDIAN STATE

By Badri Raina

IN MARCH 1922, Mahatma Gandhi was arrested at Sabarmati on charges of
sedition against the colonial Government. The charge was based on the
substance of three articles he had written in Young India (September 29,
December 15, 1921, and February 1922). After the promulgation of the
Rowlatt Act, the Jalianwalla massacre, the imposition of the Crawling
order and the betrayal by the British of the commitments made to Turkey
at the end of the first world war, Gandhi in these articles for the
first time expressed himself, with characteristic integrity and candour,
as `disaffected' towards the exploitative and brutalised colonial rule
which he now wrote he wished to see the back of.

At the Ahmedabad Court, Gandhi pleaded guilty to all charges before
Judge Broomfield. Further, he put it to the Judge that the latter had
only two options: either to accept that British colonial rule was `evil'
or to award Gandhi the severest punishment under the law which he
recognised to be for the time being the instrument of a legitimate
government. Indeed, Gandhi made the point that his defiance and plea of
guilty had meaning only because of his recognition of the Government's
legitimacy.

Since then we have indeed travelled far. During 1992/93 the Shiv Sena
supremo, Mr. Bal Thackeray, wrote several inflammatory articles in
Saamna - articles which became a major input into the communal killings
that followed in Mumbai and Gujarat. For long years through BJP/Shiv
Sena rule in Maharashtra, no action was initiated by the State, except,
if anything, to withdraw all charges barring those pertaining to the
Saamna articles. It is widely believed that this was one way in which
the BJP ensured that it held a card against Mr. Thackeray's penchant for
unbridled sway.

Now that the current Congress(I)-NCP Government in Maharashtra has
accorded permission to the State police to proceed with the charges
against Mr. Thackeray, the latter has the following to say: ``Bhujbal
has tried to ignite a dynamite stick. He will have to face the
consequences. If this leads to a poisonous state of affairs in the
state, then the entire responsibility would be laid on the shoulders of
Deputy Chief Minister Chagan Bhujbal.'' If Gandhi in 1922 accepted the
legitimacy of the then colonial government, Mr. Thackeray in the year
2000 does not merely refuse to recognise the free Indian state but
announces his own supervening right to set the state and its rule by law
on fire.

At the Broomfield trial, Gandhi had gone on to say ``I wish to endorse
all the blame that the learned Advocate-General has thrown on my
shoulders in connection with the Bombay occurrences, Madras occurrences,
and the Chauri Chaura occurrences.'' The allusion here was to instances
of violence during the non- cooperation period in breach of Gandhi's
repeated injunctions to his people to remain non-violent. Consequently,
Gandhi submitted ``it is impossible for me to dissociate myself from the
diabolical crimes of Chauri Chaura or the mad outrages of Bombay.'' Now,
in the same Mumbai, however, in our day Mr. Thackeray makes open
declaration that mad outrages cannot but occur if the Government of the
day - legitimate by any definition - were to arrest him. Mr. Raj T
hackeray, his nephew, in the meanwhile, is busy laying the grounds for
the violence that must follow such arrest. As he comments on the lumpen
depredation already under way in Mumbai, his argument is the familiar
one that stipulates that at such times `nature' simply takes its course:
``this is bound to happen. The common man and Shiv Sainiks are reacting
spontaneously. The Government is digging its own grave''. This well-worn
argument, one recalls, was pressed into service as an explanation for
the anti-Sikh frenzy in 1984 after Indira Gandhi's murder, and then
again in 1992 when the Babri mosque was razed to the ground, except that
the Congress(I) and the Sangh Parivar do not seem to agree on a
definition of spontaneity, since they were to offer differing views of
the phenomenon in 1984 and 1992. Each felt that what had gone for them
was spontaneous and what had gone against them diabolical and sponsored.
=46rom the pronouncements now made by Mr. Thackeray and his stout nephew,
it seems we may be on the threshold of yet another `spontaneous'
occurrence in Mumbai.

The contrast - as between Gandhi and Thackeray - sought to be underlined
above may well seem wholly gratuitous and suggestive indeed of this
writer's imaginative collapse. After all, gods and false gods hardly
bear comparison. It is, nevertheless, instructive that in the
contemporary moment itself two other powerful regional leaders, thought
by some also to be false gods, have behaved very differently from Mr.
Thackeray in compatible circumstance. I refer to Mr. Laloo Yadav and Ms.
Jayalalitha. Despite the fact that both are embroiled in a long list of
court actions, viewed by them and their very considerable number of
supporters, indeed exceeding the numbers that Mr. Thackeray may count on
his side, as instances of vendetta, neither of them nor any of their se
cond-rung satraps has thus far issued threats to the state. They have,
to their credit, consistently maintained that their belief in the
judicial system and, by inference, the state as legitimately established
remains in place. Let the law take its course, they have said.

An argument, however, has been floated in the years after the Babri
event that defiances of the rule of law and of constitutional sanctity
issuing from ideological/political conviction must be classed apart from
`normal' criminal activity, such as, for example, corruption. It is on
such grounds that Mr. L. K. Advani, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi and others
charge-sheeted in the Babri masjid demolition court action perhaps feel
that there is no call on them to accord recognition to judicial
prerogatives and to attend court when summoned, which has, indeed, been
many times. This notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Advani may not agree
that naxalite activity, also attributable to ideological predilections,
be also viewed as falling outside the due ambit and jurisdiction of the
state, or comparable with the miraculously `spontaneous combustion' of
the Babri Masjid. The state might nonetheless hold the view that
precisely because criminal activity can happen in diverse shapes,
colours and forms, the Indian Penal Code provides discrete articles for
discrete offences.

Perhaps the most telling contrast at the present moment is furnished by
the stated position of Mr. Thackeray's fellow- accused, Mr. Abu Azmi.
Mr. Azmi has said that he has already been arrested in the same case
once and is prepared to go to jail again. Furthermore, he has urged his
community and his supporters not to precipitate any tension. Consider,
for a moment, the situation were Mr. Azmi, who must after all be
understood to feel as wronged as Mr. Thackeray feels, to have made the
statements that Mr. Thackeray has made. All hell might then have broken
loose, and Mr. Thackeray and his ilk might conceivably had been the
first to urge the state to go for Mr. Azmi's jugular. Such are the
quirks of politics where political forces either accord or deny
legitimacy to the State and its institutions only as it suits them.

What of the BJP-led Government at the Centre? The refrain is that the
Maharashtra Government has mischievously raked up an issue so belatedly
purely for sectarian reasons, and that, therefore, any talk of the
operation of the majesty of the law is extraneous. In other words, we
are to understand that it was alright to rake up the Babri Masjid issue
- and other plethora of ancient issues, real or imagined - some four
centuries or more after settled dust, but that it is pernicious to seek
to bring Mr. Thackeray to book eight years after the dastardly Mumbai
slaughters. Some logic there that, nonetheless, is unlikely to fool
many.

The simple point is that the Thackeray case puts the Indian state on
test. It remains the Indian problem that the state consistently fails to
rise above the fractious pulls of civil society. Were the Thackeray case
to be muffed, the state credibility will not but be impaired grievously,
even as civil society will be further riven and disaffected.

(The writer teaches English literature at the Delhi University).

______________________________________________
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)
since 1996. 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>
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL