[sacw] sacw dispatch #1 | 6 July 00

[aiindex@mnet.fr]

South Asia Citizens Web - Dispatch #1
6 July 2000

__________________________

#1. Pakistan / India: Nation-state & the media
#2. India: Skirt ban in Sikh temples
#3. India: Vajpayee asks Hindu organisations to promote education
__________________________

#1.

The News International
5 July 2000
Op-Ed.

Nation-state and the media

by Rashed Rahman

The current state of the nation-state that arose
historically along with the advent of capitalism has generated a debate
about whether this is a political form that is either already extinct or on
the verge of becoming a museum curiosity. On the one hand, the tendency
towards the formation of 'super-states' comprising many different nations
and ethnic groups is perhaps best embodied by the European Union (EU). This
'fortress Europe,' as it has been dubbed, is poised to adopt a common
currency, thus undermining one of the abiding symbols of nationalistic
pride. On the other hand, some multinational states, especially those
constituting the former socialist camp of the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe, have tended, in the aftermath of the collapse of that system, to
break up into smaller, ethnically more homogeneous entities. Of course this
development has not been without its convulsions as well as mercifully
peaceful examples (Yugoslavia fits the former, Czechoslovakia the latter).
Another form of the convergence of nation-states into non-antagonistic
groupings is the emergence in recent years of economic blocs. The path was
once again paved by the EU, but it has been followed by the successful
examples of ASEAN, NAFTA, and APEC, and the regretfully not so successful
case of SAARC. Trade and economic considerations have helped heal old
wounds and bind traditional friends and even perceived rivals in mutually
advantageous material relationships. Apart from economic compulsions,
political compromise and the turn from war and conflict towards peace has
been in the air at the dawn of the new millennium (the most prominent
examples being the Middle East and, lately, the Korean peninsula). The
Subcontinent, and particularly Pakistan and India, are the glaring
exceptions to this general trend. National sovereignty is being
re-negotiated in large parts of the globe, not, it may be added, without
resistance from historically evolved nation-states.
Do these developments mean that the pursuit by nation-states of political
ends by other means, including war, is a thing of the past? This assertion
may perhaps hold true for competition amongst countries of the developed
world, their mutual contention for global resources and markets having
provided the source of two world wars in the twentieth century. But there
are holdout areas, such as the Pakistan-India relationship, where the
exception serves to illustrate and prove the general rule.
As far as the drive by the developed world to dominate the South is
concerned, the methodology has changed with the advent of globalisation
(meaning the homogenisation along modern capitalist lines of hitherto
underdeveloped states and societies). But the underlying purposes of
seeking resources and markets, which have defined the global capitalist
paradigm historically, remain intact, albeit in altered form (economic and
financial rather than military conquest). As the cases of Iraq, Bosnia and
Kosovo tend to suggest, this does not exclude the exercise of military
power where diplomacy and other means have failed to achieve the objectives
of the most powerful countries of the world. Nor does it exclude armed
conflict between traditional foes in the South, as the Kargil crisis of
1999 between Pakistan and India dramatically highlighted.
Clausewitz, therefore, cannot be said to have become entirely redundant,
despite the peace and compromise wave. But the pursuit of politics through
war now has to take account of the changed nature of modern warfare.
Traditional notions of valour and gallantry, which informed the battlefield
ethos in past millennia, no longer appear valid in an age of highly
sophisticated, technologically extremely advanced warfare. The defining
characteristic of this new kind of warfare is that bravery and courage on
the battlefield, long considered the foundation of the profession of arms,
appear irrelevant when the enemy is engaged at vast distance through
technical means (artillery, missiles, air power, to name but a few). The
enemy may no longer be visible to the combatant with his or her finger on
the trigger, but the awesome destructiveness of modern weapon systems is
soon in evidence after the fighting has stopped, thanks to the electronic
and communications revolutions.
It is this chilling trail of blood and destruction that modern means of
killing leave in their wake which threaten to sicken even the most hardened
warrior. Even in the past, soldiers were not always left unmoved by the
sight of the havoc their own sword arms had wrought. The modern clinical
distancing of the killer from his or her victim nevertheless fails to
immunise him from the after-effects of the sight of mangled and burnt human
bodies and vapourised material objects which appear as the inevitable
concomitant of so-called 'smart' weapons. And all this is before the
results of 'collateral damage' (meaning non-combatant, civilian deaths and
destruction) are taken into account.

It is true that nation-states remain wedded to their inherent nature of
pursuit of national interests by any and all available means, including
(admittedly more and more by way of exception) military means. However, the
changed nature of modern methods of killing on the battlefield, and their
unprecedented capacity for spreading mayhem and havoc, dictate the
necessity to remove the 'enemy' from the category of human flesh and blood,
in order to shield the nation-state's own combatants from the deadly
effects of their professional endeavours. This can only be done by
dehumanising, nay demonising, the 'other', portraying him as the
personification of evil, in order to justify the brutality of the means
employed to bring about his defeat and subjection. Without such
demonisation (a la Saddam Hussein or Milosevic, their own contribution to
making this effort easy and successful notwithstanding), it may not be
possible to keep up the morale of professional soldiers when they are
confronted with the results of their 'clinical' strikes.
This is where the media of the nation-state acquires a new importance and
role. In this age of instant information gratification, it is the national
media which often lends itself to the role of a cat's-paw or tool in the
hands of the nation-state. It thereby contributes to the demonising of the
'other', the 'enemy', depriving him of all semblance of humanity, and in
the process justifying the most callous horrors that modern warfare can
inflict on humankind. For examples one does not have to travel further than
the cases quoted above of Iraq, Bosnia (both during the civil war and after
NATO intervened), and Kosovo. Closer to home, the role played by the media
of Pakistan and India during the Kargil crisis, honourable exceptions
apart, falls by and large into the category of the media lending itself to
the purposes of the nation-state in pursuing its political goals through
war. Whether the respective position of either side on the Kashmir issue,
the right of self-determination versus the notion of territorial integrity,
justify the resort to arms, is an open question when weighed against the
backdrop of the new wave of global post-cold war conflict resolution by
less costly means, in terms of lives and resources. Placed at the centre of
such methods is diplomacy, talks, negotiations.
What the media, especially in Pakistan and India, can contribute to this
effort is to create the informed public opinion about the 'other' in both
countries, which would make the task of the diplomats that much easier,
rather than help whip up the kind of chauvinism and jingoism that was on
display on either side during the Kargil episode. Only when the national
media remains true to the pursuit of the unvarnished truth, no matter how
painful or bitter, can it be said to have fulfilled its duty to itself, its
people, and to history.

(The above is the gist of a presentation made at The News South Asian Media
Conference in Islamabad on July 1-2, 2000)

______

#2.

BBC News Online: World: South Asia

Wednesday, 5 July, 2000, 19:33 GMT 20:33 UK

Skirt ban in Sikh temples

By Jyotsna Singh in Delhi

The committee which manages Sikh temples in the Indian capital Delhi has
banned girls from wearing skirts and jeans inside the temples or
gurudwaras.

The ban is part of a new series of guidelines by Delhi Gurudwara Management
Committee to reinforce what it says are traditional values in young Sikhs.

Priests in most Delhi gurudwaras have already begun asking young Sikhs to
follow the traditional values of their faith.

Dress code

Young Sikh girls are being asked to wear only the traditional Punjabi
outfit, the shalwar kameez, to gurudwaras.

Boys over the age of 14 have been asked to cover their head with turbans,
instead of caps and
handkerchiefs.

The general secretary of the management committee, Kulmohan Singh, says the
move is essential to maintain the decorum and sanctity of gurudwaras.

But sections within the Sikh community are opposing the move.

They say enforcing a strict code of conduct on Sikhs is a move similar to
the Taleban's approach to Islam in Afghanistan.

However, attempts to safeguard Sikhism are not limited to the dress code onl=
y.

The youth wing of the prominent Akali Dal group in Delhi has come up with
its own set of guidelines.

Ban pop video

These include demanding a ban on the latest pop video of Sikh singer Daler
Mehandi.

The group says the video makes a mockery of young Sikh children and is an
insult to their religion.

The song, Ek Dana, is already a chartbuster.

The Sikh committee says it has written to Mr Mehandi and his company and
will wait until 15 July for their response.

But a debate has already started within the Sikh community, as to how rigid
the restrictions upon followers can be.

______

#3.

Vajpayee asks Hindu organisations to promote education

by Papri Sri Raman, India Abroad News Service

Chennai, July 5 - Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has asked Hindu
organisations to play a greater role in promoting education in India,
saying inadequacies in the Hindu system had let Christian missionary
education to gain a foothold in the country.

Attending the silver jubilee function of a school in the city during his
one-day visit to the city, the prime minister spoke of the insufficiencies
of the Hindu education system and urged "Hindu organisations" to reach out
to the "deprived sections of society".

The role of these organisations in educating the deprived had been
inadequate, he said, stressing the need of both "quality and quantity" in
education.

Much significance was attached to the school function as the Jai Gopal
Garodia Hindu Vidyalaya is a Hindi-medium school established 25 years ago
at the height of Dravidian politics in the state.

Vajpayee met the 'jeeyar' (saint) of the Ahobila Math, Sri Narayana
Yatreendra Mahadesikan, at the function and praised the school for
imparting value-based education. The school is patronised by the Ahobila Mat=
h.

"There are many posh schools which burden students with costly
paraphernalia but leave the child's soul empty," Vajpayee said.

"We need an education system that fosters a natural inclination to rise
above caste, class and communal divisions. We need an education that
strengthens the bonds of national unity," he added.

--India Abroad News Service

______________________________________________
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