[sacw] sacw dispatch (April 00)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
20 April 2000
__________________________
#1. New Delhi hotels refuse to give Pak journalists rooms
#2. India: Nasty, Brutish, Middle Class
#3. Silence of the [India-Pakistan] Hawks
__________________________

#1.
The Hindustan Times
17 April 2000

PAHARGANJ HOTELS REFUSE TO GIVE PAK JOURNALISTS ROOMS

New Delhi, April 16 (HT Correspondent)
Several Journalists from Pakistan received a rude shock today when some
guesthouses in the Capital reportedly refused accommodation to them just
because they were Pakistanis. According to the visiting journalists, the
managers of the guesthouses refused accommodation to them on the plea
that the police would harass them if they came to know.

Among the group of Pakistani media-persons was Mr Rahat Ali Dar, the
Pakistani photographer who is currently holding an exhibition of his
photographs in the Capital, Mr Muhammad Akram, staff correspondent with
"The News", Lahore, and Mr Mohammed Tanveer, executive director of the
Lahore-based Journalists' Resource Centre. They are here as members of a
peace delegation from Pakistan that is visiting the country.

The group members went to a guesthouse in the Paharganj locality first
where they were refused accommodation. "If the policemen come to know
that Pakistanis are staying here, it would mean trouble for us," one of
the employees told them. Recounted Akram, "We saw an official notice
pasted outside about foreigners having to report to the police station.
We even assured the staff that we, being journalists, had a
'non-reporting visa" which meant that we did not have to report at
police stations. But they were adamant."

The group then hastened towards another hotel at Karol Bagh, which
directed them to their branch at Paharganj. "Again, we received the same
replies at Paharganj. We were simply asked to leave," said Tanveer. A
couple of policemen then arrived on the scene and demanded that the
group members show their passports.

"The policemen looked on amused and merely told us that they had nothing
to do with the refusal of accommodation," recalls a disgusted Dar. "They
then asked us to go to some other place," he added. Says Tanveer:
"Nowhere is it stated that Pakistanis will be refused accommodation. The
hotel-owners are simply afraid of the police. What is going on is
completely illegal," he added.

"The incident has left us with a bitter taste. It is unfortunate that it
had to happen at the end of a wonderful visit here," said Muhammad
Akram. He added that when he had visited Delhi last in January 1999,
there was no such problem.

"In the post-Kargil phase, the situation seems to have worsened. I just
hope that people of both the countries don't continue to face such
harassment in future while on a visit," he sighed.
_________

#2.
The Telegraph
20 April 2000
Op-Ed.

NASTY, BRUTISH, MIDDLE CLASS 

BY ACHIN VANAIK

The great success story of Indian democracy is that a political system
the Indian elite (including its sub-category of professionals) did so
much to promote and sustain during the pre-independence and early
post-independence years, is now capable of withstanding the moral and
political degeneration of that very elite. The fact of such degeneration
stares us in the face. It is revealed in the shameless euphoria with
which the United States president, Bill Clinton, was received, oblivious
of the evil that the US government has perpetrated globally over the
last 50 years. It is shown in the sanctimoniousness about cricket
scandals elsewhere. At least the cricket boards of Pakistan, Australia
and South Africa have been forced to acknowledge, however reluctantly
and half-heartedly, the corruption among their top cricketers. Here a
Y.V. Chandrachud report, content with the most superficial of
investigations, gave a clean chit to our top cricketers.
But these are only minor indicators. There is much stronger evidence of
the sickness lying at the heart of our elite "class" of professionals -
those who occupy the upper echelons of our educational, scientific and
bureaucratic systems, our corporate and media worlds, and prosper as
self-employed businessmen, lawyers, doctors, etc. The new and much
greater acceptability of the sangh parivar and its political ideology
among this professional elite when compared to its substantial isolation
in the same circles some twenty five years ago, is itself a striking
testimony to the changes that have taken place in India.

If we analyse the reasons for this shift in the character of Indian
professionals we will detect a combination of both general and specific
reasons. The more general ones have to do with wider changes related to
modernization processes, the more specific ones to changes in India's
socio-political climate.

In an earlier phase of modernity, even as recently as the early and
mid-19th century, the average member of the intelligentsia - by and
large those who made a living overwhelmingly through mind work rather
than muscle work - was almost by nature a social critic, a dissident
against authority and established power. Indeed, for the most part it
had to be so. To think independently required one to be independent of
the main authority systems of the time, such as religious power and
state-monarchical power. In such a context, the practice of much of the
intelligentsia was the pursuit of a holistic understanding of social
reality, precisely to change it for the better. In such a context, the
role of the intelligentsia was to speak truth to power.

By the late 19th and early 20th century, this had already begun to
change and no one registered this change more perceptively than Max
Weber. A developing modernity was characterized by the emergence of
multiple authority systems. What was now emerging were distinctive
"expert" knowledge systems which at their apex also represented a newer,
more diffuse system of distribution of social power. Such numerous and
segregated systems of knowledge and authority required a more routinized
form of expertise - the kind brought about by a simultaneous
specialization of knowledge and bureaucratization of function.

Intellectual professionalism was now becoming increasingly inseparable
from niche-based careerism, where careerism itself required a new form
of acceptance and subordination to segregated hierarchies of power.
Increasingly, the intelligentsia were a category of people most of whose
occupants knew more and more about less and less. Moreover, this
diminution of, and unconcern with, a holistic outlook combined with the
imperatives of careerism to produce a new relationship to power.

Modern professionals were no longer characterized as those most likely
to speak truth to power but to put meaning and thought in the service of
power. For, only by doing so could professionals themselves hope to
climb the career-ladder to exercise whatever power they might hope to
enjoy as the new servitors to those who still exercised far more power
through economic wealth and political supremacy.

India's modernization process really accelerated after independence.
These general mechanisms of bureaucratization and specialization have
really developed over the last 30 years during a period when the
political milieu in India also underwent decisive change. The legacy of
the national movement was carried over into the first two decades of
Indian independence and acted as a partial counter to these
bureaucratizing processes, leaving a significantly humanizing imprint on
the Indian elite in general, and on its professionals in particular. But
with the collapse of the Nehruvian consensus and its replacement by a
more self-centred economic ideology of neo-liberalism, and with the
steady growth of an aggressive Hindutva, the "social personality", by
and large, of Indian professionals has been transformed.

Professionals are often seen as the epitome of what is also called the
"middle class" about which Karl Marx had something very important and
accurate to say. He called this social category a vacillating class
incapable, by its very nature, of the kind of moral and political
courage, right or wrong, which only the classes above and below it
could, at crucial junctures, display. As such, it would follow the lead
of the class which seemed to have most power. Sections of this middle
class could at times play a progressive, dynamic and leading role, but
in general, it was a class destined to follow. Professionals never set
the pace or direction of society, but they certainly can legitimize and
endorse a direction and pace set by others more powerful and socially
determined.

In post-independence India, there have been four decisive political
landmark events. And of course, all such political turning points also
present profound moral choices which unavoidably reflect the choosers'
social personality. How has India's professional "class" fared in these
tests? The first was the Emergency. How easy it is to forget that, by
and large, India's urban professionals welcomed it, lauding the new
discipline and order that would make "their" India prosper. Because the
Emergency fell so quickly and comprehensively, most former supporters -
from bureaucrats to diplomats to media-people to corporate executives
and so on - were able to quietly discard their earlier positions and
anonymously join the swell of those who rejoiced in the downfall of
Emergency.

The second great test was Mandal. And the hatred of the professionals of
it had to be seen to be believed. Today, with the Mandalization of
Indian politics an accomplished fact, there has had to be a resentful
accommodation to the new reality. But opposition to Mandal spoke volumes
about the nature of the commitment (or rather the lack of it) of India's
professionals to fundamental principles of equality and how they must be
promoted in a deeply unegalitarian society. The third landmark was the
demolition of the Babri Masjid. Here it must be said that the
professional "class" was more divided. A large number was shocked and
horrified, but only temporarily. It has not prevented most of them from
eventually accommodating themselves in greater or lesser fashion to the
forces of Hindutva and to its politics and ideology. Principled
opposition to evil is not the hallmark of India's professionals.

Finally, there was Pokhran II. Sure enough, India's professionals in the
main have come round not only to accepting nuclear weapons but feeling
pride in their acquisition. Nuclear weapons are the closest thing to an
absolute evil. To endorse their possession, let alone to feel proud
about them, is to make a profoundly revealing statement about one's own
moral and social personality. Of course, all nuclear elites justify
their positions in the name of nationalism and the competitive global
power game. But then, once upon a time, supporters of colonialism
justified their nation's pursuit of such status also in the name of an
unavoidable competitive global power game. In short, if India is to
progress towards a more decent, humane and morally respectful future, it
can only do so in spite of, not because of, its professionals and
"middle class".

The author has recently co-authored the book, South Asia on a Short
Fuse: Politics and the Future of Global Disarmament 

_________

#3.
Rediff.com
15 April 2000

SILENCE OF THE HAWKS

By Dilip D'Souza

The sheer childishness of it all is a wonder to me. Two grown men --
they know each other and have undoubtedly spoken numerous times -- find
themselves on the same long flight, sitting a few feet apart. Both know
the other is there. But they don't exchange a word, even pretend not to
have noticed each other. This happens not once, but twice in the space
of a few days, the second time with another pair of grown men on another
long flight.

Now these are more than just your everyday men; they are senior leaders
in their respective countries. Yet their behaviour must cause onlookers
to ask: Are these adults or overgrown children? Ministers or playground
runabouts? Statesmen or half-men?

The first pair was Jaswant Singh and Abdul Sattar, foreign ministers of
India and Pakistan respectively. Heading for the recent meeting of the
Non-Aligned Movement, they took the same flight last Saturday from Miami
to Cartagena, Colombia. Sattar was already seated in the plane as it
waited at the gate in Miami. Singh arrived late and hurried on board.
Reports tell us that he "studiously" avoided eye contact with his
Pakistani counterpart as he made his way down the aisle to his seat
three rows behind. For the several hours to Cartagena, they sat just
like that. "The deep freeze in Indo-Pak ties," PTI reported, "was
evident" on that flight.

The second pair was General Perveiz Musharraf and India's Human
Resources Development Minister, Murli Manohar Joshi. They took the same
flight to Havana for a meeting of 77 developing countries. Joshi
followed the example Singh had set. Edged his way past the general. Sat
in silence the rest of the trip. Was whisked away on arrival in Havana,
separately from the general.

Here's the fruit of hostility between India and Pakistan: Childish
pettiness from our most senior leaders.

Now I met several Pakistanis last week. Some of them, I had met before.
Curiously, we didn't turn up our noses at each other. We didn't look
"studiously" past each other. We didn't maintain haughty silences. No,
we sat down, chugged a beer or two together, talked. I say this with no
particular desire to show off. Nor do I feel ashamed of our familiarity.
It just happened that way, is all. We behaved just as anyone -- you and
I, for example -- might at a gathering. Some small talk, some gossip,
some arguments, even heated ones. Normal stuff from normal people.

But apparently when you get to be a minister in our part of the world,
you can't be normal any more. You have to play-act a kiddie way through
life.

I can see it already. Here in an India Today article by Swapan Dasgupta
I'm looking at, for example. Those Pakistanis I mentioned, and those of
us who met them, are all soft, goody-goody "leftists" and "peaceniks",
thus to be dismissed. We "bleeding-hearts" are entirely out of touch
with reality. Meanwhile, it's the "hawks" who have a monopoly on a true
understanding of the realpolitik of Indo-Pak relations. Peace between
our countries will come not from the naivete of the "peaceniks", but via
the hard-nosed realism of the "hawks."

All very well. Except when hawks play their games on international
flights, you have to wonder who's truly out of touch with reality. Us,
doing what comes naturally? Or the hawks, with their silly playschool
play-acting? When 60-year-old men behave like five-year-olds, are they
being hard-nosed?

Of course, Jaswant Singh went on to win India a "major diplomatic
triumph" in Cartagena. He persuaded NAM that military-ruled states
should be debarred from membership. Though a final decision will be
taken only next year, Singh made the case that NAM should take a
"principled stand" against "countries which subverted democratic
principles." (Apart from anything else, let's remember that this is the
same NAM that once had Castro's Cuba as its chair. That watched Cuba try
to introduce a resolution saying the Soviet Union was the "natural ally"
of the NAM. In NAM-space, principles mean little).

He spoke easily of a "principled stand", but Master Singh really only
wanted to make digs at Pakistan. That phrase he used, "countries which
subverted democratic principles," is mere code for "Pakistan". As Seema
Guha points out in the Times of India, "The purpose of the entire
exercise was not so much respect for democracy as to nail ... Musharraf.
If democracy was the hallmark, India could have been just as cool
towards its eastern neighbour, Myanmar. Yet New Delhi, in its eagerness
to woo the military junta in Myanmar, has steadily ignored the cause of
the democratic movement [there]."

Or, the only reason Master J Singh went to this NAM meeting was to find
ways to embarrass Pakistan. These days, it seems that's the only reason
any of our Ministers go to any international meeting. But oddly enough,
Master Singh was in excellent company as he went about his embarrassing
endeavours. Master A Sattar was busy finding ways to embarrass India,
chiefly by what, in Indian circles, is always described as "raking up
the Kashmir issue."

They did not care to speak to each other, these two overgrown kids, but
they worked overtime trying to score brownie points off each other. More
delicious fruit of the hostility between India and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, we leftist bleeding-heart Indian and Pakistani peaceniks
spent most of a day together in Mumbai. Three memories from that day, if
I may.

One: We had a small squad of policemen with us, to ward off any
hawk-inspired hostility. One cop stood with our one-woman reception
committee near the immigration counter at the airport, watching the
Pakistanis emerge. "Arre," he whispered to her wonderingly, "these
fellows look just like us!"

It should be no surprise, but the tragedy is that it is -- that people
from across the border do look just like us. What the cop said is
certainly a cliche, but it bears being repeated. Over and over, if it
helps break down stupidity.

Two: When we rounded up everybody after lunch to head for Juhu Beach,
two of the Pakistanis were missing. Consternation for a while. Then we
remembered the five Mumbai constables sitting outside. A couple of hours
earlier, the missing pair had been seen talking to them. Now, we rushed
out to check.

The two were still there, chatting with the havaldars like old chums.
Smiles and handshakes as they reluctantly parted company.

Three: At Juhu Beach, the Pakistanis traipsed off in all directions.
Some took rides, some munched coconuts and corn, some ran down to the
water's edge to wade in the waves. Within seconds, not one was visible
among the crowd on the beach. Until I saw three, some distance away.
They were surrounded by several unknown locals and the whole group was
caught up in an animated discussion. My heart skipped a beat. After all,
in the climate our hard-nosed hawks and sawdust supremos have built up,
especially in Mumbai, who knows what might happen to a few Pakistanis
left to themselves on a crowded beach?

I needn't have worried. Suddenly, they were all exchanging hugs. Try
that on for size, you silly little hawks.

____________________________________________
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>
===========================================