[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 10 Aug. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
10 August 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

#1. Sri Lanka: Lights, camera, censorship
#2. Sri Lanka: Buddhist Monks warn of "Sinhala wrath" on reform bill
#3. [In New York Times] 'International Relations' by Mohsin Hamid
#4. India: Bhopal organising cyberaction for environmental justice (14/15 A=
ug.)
#5. India: Peace dividend, conflict matrix
#5. India: A Meaningless but Desperate Search for 'Glory'
#6. India: Sangh's Double Speak in the greater "National" interest
_____________________

#1.

Asia Times
August 10, 2000

LIGHTS, CAMERA, CENSORSHIP

By Feizal Samath

COLOMBO - In the stillness of the dawn, a hearse carrying the body of a
soldier killed by Sri Lankan Tamil Tiger rebels wends its way along a
village path toward the home of the slain young man.

A joyful sister runs out of a wood-and-mud-wall hut on hearing the toot of
a horn, in the mistaken belief that her brother has returned for a
long-awaited vacation from the battle front. She stops in her tracks,
stunned on seeing the hearse, and runs away with tears streaming down her
face.

This scene is enacted almost everyday in one or more of the thousands of
villages across Sri Lanka's north-central region. This part of the Indian
Ocean island nation is the home of many of the government troops battling a
17-year-old, violent campaign by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) who are demanding an independent home for Sri Lanka's minority Tamil
people.

But late in July, the government thought it fit to stop the screening of a
film on this theme by internationally-acclaimed young Sri Lankan filmmaker,
Prasanna Vithanage. The government said the film's screening would hamper
the ongoing war with the LTTE.

'Purahanda Kaluwara', which translates as 'death on a full moon day', was
withdrawn a week before its release as a film suitable for all types of
audiences. This was done even though it had earlier been cleared by the
government-appointed censor board, which also has two representatives from
the army.

The 75-minute film tells the story of a blind father - brilliantly
portrayed by veteran actor Joe Abeywickrema - who refuses to believe that
his soldier-son had died at the war front and has returned home in a
coffin.

More than 50,000 government soldiers, rebels and civilians have died in
the secessionist violence. The body parts of soldiers blown to bits by
rebel mines are not sent to the parents, who instead receive a symbolic,
sealed coffin bearing the name of the dead soldier. The climax of the
film, which is set in a village near the north-central town of
Medawachchiya, shows the father's belief proved right when the sealed
coffin is finally opened and found to contain only tree stumps.

'Purahanda Kaluwara' has won many international awards. Abeywickrema, as
the blind man, won the best actor's award at the Singapore Film Festival in
1999. Also last year, the film won the Grand Prix prize at the Amiens
International Film Festival in France and the International Film Critics
Award at the 13th Frisbourg International Film Festival in Switzerland.

Its world premiere was held in 1997 in Japan. It has since been shown in
international film festivals in India, Pakistan, Canada, Japan, South
Korea, Britain and other nations. The film was funded by Japan's NHK
television agency.

Sri Lanka's film industry, academics, media watchdogs and even journalists
in state-owned newspapers have protested the decision to stop the film's
screening. ''Any argument that justifies the hiding of some truths
regarding the war in the north and the east from the people of this
country, constitutes a violation of rights and a blatant display of
political opportunism,'' says the Free Media Movement (FMM).

Vithanage, 38, says the ''deferment'' is worse than a ban. ''A ban at
least could be lifted but we have been living with this war for almost the
past two decades and I have my doubts about the security situation
improving in the real sense,'' he says. ''If this is the case, as long as
the war lasts, my film might never be released in Sri Lanka.''

The film has been shown in Sri Lanka only on three occasions, all for
private viewing. It was banned by government censors in May, when the
country was placed on high war alert after a series of Tamil Tiger
successes. The ban was lifted when the country's apex court ruled against
the movie's censorship in June. However, Sarath Amunugama, the minister in
charge of the National Film Corporation (NFC), ordered the NFC to hold the
film's release because the country is still on a war footing.

''The producer of the film may be informed that this film will be
exhibited as soon as the security situation improves,'' Amunugama explained
in a letter to NFC Chairman Tissa Abeysekera, who was among those in the
industry who praised the film.

According to Sunila Abeysekera, a UN award-winning human rights activist,
the film is a sarcastic comment on the war and its destructive nature. ''It
would have a devastating impact on the people, showing them the ground
realities of the war. It clearly depicts how the war is sapping all our
energies, our resources,'' she said. ''How can one make a judgement on a
film without seeing it?'' she asked, responding to the government's view
that screening the film may create unrest.

The film has very little dialogue and no songs, but has spectacular shots
of the Sri Lankan countryside. ''I have not known any other film that is
composed of image and sound so silent and suppressed,'' said Vithanage's
co-producer, Makoto Ueda of NHK television.

''It is a stunning film...It gives a totally different perspective of the
war from the way it is portrayed by the media and by the politicians,''
says Ravindra Randeniya, a veteran actor and president of the Sri Lanka's
Film Actors' Guild. He says there is simply no rationale for the
government to stop the film from being released. ''If there is no rationale
for banning the movie, then is there a political motive?'' he wonders.

(Inter Press Service)
______

#2.

PTI
9 august 2000

MONKS WARN OF "SINHALA WRATH" ON REFORM BILL

Colombo,Wednesday, August 09, 2000: Heads of four influential Sri
Lankan Buddhist sects today issued a decree asking the government to
completely withdraw the controversial reform bill even as the latter
maintained it had not withdrawan the measure aimed at ending bloody ethnic
war in the country.=20=20=20

"The Mahanayake (high priests) have now issued a (religious)
decree that the President (Chandrika Kumaratunga) must roll back the bill,"
leading monk Madihe Pannaseeha told a large gathering here today.
The monk also warned Members of Parliament of the wrath of Sinhala
Buddhists if they voted for the reform bill.
The Lankan government yesterday deferred voting on the bill pending
discussions on the 40 odd amendments suggested by various political parties
but strongly maintained that it was not withdrawing the controversial bill.
Meanwhile, the 30-year-old Buddhist monk Hedigalle Wimalasara Thra,
who had been on a fast unto death since Monday in protest against the
bill, today ended his fast.
The government yesterday deferred the scheduled voting on the bill
at the end of its second reading in parliament after it failed to mobilise
the required two thirds majority.
(PTI)
13:36 IST

______

#3.

Posted on the FOIL List

(From the 'Lives' section of The New York Times Magazine, August 6, 2000)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

By Mohsin Hamid

The passport I hand through the slit in her glass shield runs suspiciously
backward, the right-hand cover its front, and above the curved swords of it=
s
Urdu lettering she reads, "Islamic Republic of Pakistan." Words to make a
visa officer tremble. The scene is the Italian Consulate in New York, the
back entrance, a subterranean room staffed by three polite sentries. They
are charged with the defense of a wall that runs around wealthy democracies=
,
and their post is less tense than many because it lies inside the
fortifications of an ally.
I am well dressed. A navy suit, pinstriped, three-buttoned. White
shirt,
blue tie, brown face, brown eyes. I shaved this morning but missed a patch
beside my chin. The stubble there, though short, is dense. Fundamentalist
stubble. Ayatollah, Hezbollah stubble. Fighting in the heights of Kashmir
stubble. But just a hint.
In uncalloused hands, marred only by cuticles in need of a lesson,
I hold
my remaining documents: letter from my employer, bank statement, proof of
insurance, recent pay stub, airline ticket, hotel booking. A mother could
arrange a marriage with less information than I am asked to present. My eye=
s
are shadowed with stress or lack of sleep. I am sweating slightly, despite
the coolness of this day, and my scalp glistens where the hair has forsaken=
it.
My smile is dishonest, the smile of a man who hopes his smile will
make it
easier for him, insincere as attempts at sincerity tend to be. She is almos=
t
friendly in return. We are both young, after all, healthy members of the
same species and of breeding age.
There are only 101 points to the inspection a Pakistani must pass to be
deemed travel-worthy. I fail - because I have succeeded in the past. I have
traveled to Italy too often.
Why so many trips over so short a period? she asks.
Love, I say. My girlfriend is Italian.
She pauses, not eager to do this. But she must: it is here duty.
The wall
is only as strong as its weakest gate.
Yes, that is a very good reason, she says. But I am afraid we will need
proof: a notarized letter and a copy of her passport.
You need a letter from a woman saying she is my lover? I ask.
The visa officer is human. Humane. She blushes. I am afraid so, she
says.
But I will approve your application now so you do not have to make an extra
trip. Just bring the letter with you when you come to pick up your visa.
Please do not forget: you will be asked for it.
I know I am fortunate. She could, at her discretion, have turned me
down.
Other visa officers in other consulates, especially in American consulates,
regularly reject my kind for far less. Still, I am not pleased.
My colleagues in our business-casual office were amused that I wore
a suit
that day, but I was ashamed. It tacitly acknowledged an accusation I would
have liked proudly to ignore. But what exactly is the accusation?
Race has become to clumsy a shorthand for the legal boundaries that
divide
liberal democracies like the United States. Nationality, unless overcome be
wealth, is a far more acceptable proxy. Nations deemed prone to poverty and
violence are walled off to consume themselves, to fester. And national
discrimination has taken its place alongside racial discrimination, denying
both our common humanity and our unbelievably varied individuality as it
frisks us at the border.
Here, in cosmopolitan New York, I am able to reside only at the
sufferance
of my employer, halfway through a six-year H-1B work visa, which binds the
legality of my presence in the United States to my job. The Labor Departmen=
t
and the I.N.S. are kept so understaffed that it currently takes several
years for most green card applications to be processed. I could face
eventual deportation even if I submit my petition today. Like much of the
indentured work force, I feel insecure. I must produce notarized love
letters at checkpoints. My category is not a desirable one.
But I do as I am told, and I am given my Italian visa.
I get into a cab and head back to my office. My driver looks like a
terrorist: steady eyes, thick beard, the reserved watchfulness of the
devout. A verse of the Koran dangles beneath his rearview. He could be my
uncle.
Where are you coming from? he asks me in Urdu.
I was applying for a visa, I tell him.
You have had a hard morning, brother, he says, turning off the
meter. This
ride is on me.

______

#4.

8 August 2000

[The following document was recieved with attached documents which are not
being posted below; Those of you who wish to recieve these shouldsend a
note to <aiindex@m...>]

A FORWARDED MESSAGE FROM ACTIVISTS IN BHOPAL:

Dear friends,

On August 15, Greenpeace and two Bhopal based survivors
organisations, Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sanghatan
(BGPMUS) and Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery
Karmachari Sanghatan (BGPMSKS), will organise one of
India's first cyberaction for environmental justice.

Through this message we would like to brief you on the
cyberaction and ask for your cooperation in promoting this
cyberaction either through your website or distribution
list(s).

WHY?
In December 1999, Greenpeace findings revealed severe
poisoning of groundwater in and around the Union Carbide=EDs
factory site in Bhopal, India. On August 14th, 2000, we return
to Bhopal, the site of one of the world=EDs worst industrial
disasters, with a cyber-action that will deliver a renewed call for
action to US multinational Union Carbide and the Goverrnment of
India demanding:

1. Clean Drinking Water for the communities around the factory
site
2. Clean up of the Factory site
3. Environmental Justice.

HOW and WHEN?
The cyberaction will start on the ground in Bhopal on August
14th. On this date, there will be a cyberbooth station in the
affected communities' locality. From here, the victims, after
having seen a briefing, will click a button and send an email-
letter to Union Carbide and the Government of India.

On August 15th, the action will be thrown open to activists
around the world through websites and listserves. This is the
date when we would like you to take action. Through
postings on your websites and cyberalerts, urge your activists to
visit

www.greenpeaceindia.org

>From this site they can take immediate action by sending an
email-letter to Union Carbide and the Government of India, joining
the people of Bhopal in their struggle for environmental justice.

TOOLS
1. Textfor cyberalert (see attached)
2. Longer, four-page, briefing backgrounder (see attached)
3. The Bhopal Legacy, Greenpeace, 1999 (downloadable through

www.greenpeace.org/~toxics/toxfreeasia/bhopal.pdf)

If you have any question, don't hesitate to contact me.
Thanking you in advance for your co-operation.
PatriciaVens

Greenpeace
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sanghatan
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationary Karmachari Sanghatan

--------------------------------------
Patricia Vens
Greenpeace India
Tel/fax: 91 11 431 06 51
Email: pvens@a...

_______

#5.

The Hindu
10 August 2000
Op-Ed.

PEACE DIVIDEND, CONFLICT MATRIX

By Harish Khare

DURING THE anxious days of the prolonged Hazaratbal Mosque siege in
October/November 1993 the Sangh Parivar partisans made much of Mr. Lal
Krishna Advani's lament of ``Biryani for the secessionists, bullets for
the Rambhaktas''. This one-liner was touted by the BJP drum-beaters as a
brilliant summation of the enfeebled response of an effete leadership of
a soft state. The unstated assumption was that only if strong-willed
leaders, infused with deshbakti of the most stout Hindutva variety, were
at the helm would the Indian state's enemies run for cover, just as its
instruments would stand automatically reforged and rejuvenated.

This 1993 one-liner is recalled partly as a context of the shabby
contrariness that has been on display in the last few days in the two
Houses of Parliament; but essentially it is recalled to contrast that
seven years later as the Union Home Minister the same Mr. Advani feels
enjoined to send his seniormost officer to talk to a group of
secessionists who come to the negotiating table, to quote the Prime
Minister, with their faces masked. Galling as this sight of the Union
Home Secretary standing uncomfortably with the masked secessionists must
have been to Mr. Advani and every other self-anointed super-deshbhakta
in the Sangh Parivar stable, the very fact that such a face-to-masked-
face encounter took place underlines the obligation to explore
reconciliation and peace. Nor does the fact that the Syed Salauddin
faction has terminated its ceasefire lessen the obligation. It is only
the first of the many setbacks that will have to be endured in the long
and ardous search for peace.

It is possible to catalogue, even recriminate over, any number of
tactical mistakes that were committed by both sides before a breakdown
in the dialogue with the Hizbul Mujahideen came about; in particular the
Vajpayee foreign policy establishment can be faulted for needlessly
allowing the Prime Minister's American visit time-table to dictate its
negotiation pace. Even if Mr. Jaswant Singh is sure of the U.S.
President, Mr. Clinton's willingness to jog the Pakistani military junta
to be reasonable, the many players, in and out of Kashmir - not all of
whom are beholden or answerable to the Americans - cannot be faulted for
believing in the terminal end of the Clinton administration. And not all
of these players can be expected to believe that the State Department
bureaucracy and the Republican crowd subscribe to Mr. Clinton's
peace-making ambitions.

Irrespective of the imponderables at the American end, and irrespective
of Syed Salahuddin's latest intransigence, the challenge now is to build
on the idea of peace and reconciliation. We have to grasp the
significance of the euphoria and the relief that was felt throughout the
Valley after the July 24 Hizbul Mujahideen announcement of a ceasefire;
the fundamental reality is the Kashmiri people's desire for an end to
the decade- long bloodshed. If the assumption is correct that the
Kashmiri people must have by now realised as to who has developed a
vested interest in the insurgency, then we are obliged to summon the
necessary imagination to convey to them that collectively the Indian
people and its Government stand for peace with honour. If the Lahore
Journey was undertaken on a presumption that peace was desirable, then
peace in the Valley must be explored doubly vigorously on a similar
presumption. While the security forces would have to necessarily keep on
dealing with the vendors of death and jehadi violence, the greatest
challenge is to isolate all those who are against peace as well as to
convince all those who chose to be skeptical of our sincerity. In other
words we have to mobilise the popular sentiment, in and outside the
Valley, for a politics of forgiveness.

To begin with, the Vajpayee regime has to sort out the in-built conflict
between the 30-year-old demonology manufactured by the Sangh Parivar and
the requirements of peace. If the terrorists kill Hindu pilgrims in
Pahalgam, we cannot be seen as responding by killing Muslims in Surat
and desecrating dargahs in Ahmedabad. In fact, this is only part of the
larger existential crisis the Sangh Parivar cadres are experiencing;
since over the years they have felt most at home when burning buses,
enforcing bandhs, stoking communal hatred, they find it difficult to
adjust to rituals of restraints and responsibility in ministerial
chambers. For example, Mr. Advani was scheduled to attend last Sunday a
``Garima Rally'' (self-pride rally) in Ahmedabad, but someone had the
sense to tell him at the last minute that the Home Minister's
participation in such a show would inevitably be seen as endorsement of
all those men and impulses who had gone about intimidating the Muslims
as a retaliation for the Amarnath carnage.

In the immediate future, Mr. Vajpayee will have to sort out the
incompatibility between the role of a reluctant peacemaker, responding
to American arms-twisting, and a reluctant Jana Sanghi, trapped in the
theology of Hindu-Muslim differences. Admittedly it cannot be all that
easy for Mr. Vajpayee to debunk the company he has kept these many
years. At the very first opportunity, the likes of Mr. Venkaiah Naidu
are ready to slip back into the Hindu Mahasabha mindset. Nor can Mr.
Vajpayee ensure overnight that his flock disabuses itself of its
collective itch for partisan pettiness, a mental habit that has kept the
Sangh cadres locked in contested versions of recent national
afflictions. But success of the Vajpayee regime's peace- making efforts
hinges on the Prime Minister's willingness - more than his ability - to
break himself free from the Hindutva demonology.

It requires no imagination to fall prey to the hostile images of the
ISI-Jehad-Musharraf trinity; nothing would suit the unenlightened minds
in Islamabad better than India becoming like Pakistan. It calls for
greater imagination not to let the Pakistani regime's insecurities and
insincerity brutalise our collective decency and harmony. And there is
no inherent contradiction between firmness of the Indian state and the
requirements of tolerance and peace at home. No Government in New Delhi
can overlook its obligation to do its best to defeat armed challenges;
appeasement is not peace. Yet it needs to be understood that our
minorities are neither our enemy, nor fifth columnists; rather our fight
is against all those who chose to take up arms to question the legit
imacy and sovereignty of the Indian state.

The challenge, then, is to signal a national commitment to exploring the
peace dividend in Kashmir. It means not letting the peace sentiment
sabotaged by all those in and out of the Kashmir Valley who wallow in
small cleverness and bureaucratic turf battles - the Abdullah dynasty
that would not permit any other political force to set up shop in
Kashmir, the Hurriyat cabal that cannot free itself from its
pay-masters, the BJP's Jammu crowd that cannot look beyond the `Hindu'
constituency, the security forces who have got used to having their way,
and the Congress(I) which has elevated nitpicking to a fine-art of
political stupidity; all these interests and habits have to be ignored,
if these cannot be altogether curbed, in the interest of peace.

Above all, the onus is on Mr. Vajpayee to send unmixed signals to the
groups and people in Kashmir that he can mobilise the Indian public
opinion in favour of peace on terms the average Kashmiri will find
honourable. A statesman does not allow himself to get bogged down in
tactics; he has to summon strategic vision. In the current context it
means making a historic attempt to dissolve animosities, to goad the
nation to reexamine our beliefs and attitudes. That should be Mr.
Vajpayee's endeavour when he occupies the grandest national pulpit at
the Red Fort in a few days from now.

_______

#6.

Published in The Telegraph on July 14, 2000 under the title "Shadows of
Glory" was the following article;

A MEANINGLESS BUT DESPERATE SEARCH

By Achin Vanaik

If India were suddenly to be given a Security Council seat in the UN it is
doubtful if any national newspaper or strategic affairs think tank or
politician of whatever party would do anything else but welcome such news.
The welcome would be more qualified if the terms of membership were
different from those of the existing five. However, this is what is most
likely to happen as Japan and Germany are very likely to become the first
new members of the Security Council but unlikely to have the same power of
veto as the five current members thus setting the precedent for further
membership. In this case, there will be complaints in India about unfair
discrimination within the Security Council but there will be no complaints
about the unfairness of the whole UN set up and the discrimination between
the Security Council and the General Assembly. After all, one doesn't
criticise as totally objectionable the very organisation that one is so
desperate to become a member of!

The first question is whether Indian membership of the Security Council is
feasible or imminent? Certainly, there has been such a flood of reports in
the newspapers in recent months about this or that country willing to
support India's candidature for the Security Council that the more cynical
among us might suspect a concerted campaign on India's part to solicit such
public declarations of support from various heads of state during their
visits here or during the PM's and President's official visits abroad. In
short, the government and South Block have decided that this effort at
membership constitutes a major foreign policy initiative. This itself says
much about the poverty-stricken character of Indian foreign policy thinking
but more about that later.

Anybody who read or heard only the Indian media during the Clinton visit
could be forgiven for thinking that the US was carrying out a dramatic
shift in its foreign policy alignments away from Pakistan towards India.
But in the US both the media and the strategic community not only were much
less concerned about the trip but also saw no such dramatic realignments
signalled. Much the same applies to the current hype about Indian
self-importance and its imminent or likely eventual entry into the Security
Council. This remains highly uncertain and is in any case a long way off.
Moreover, Pokharan II, despite Indian disclaimers to the contrary, has made
matters more, not less, difficult. The first stage in the possible
extension of the Security Council is the entry of Japan and Germany and the
establishment of the terms of their membership.

Indian entry, if it ever takes place will only be part of a more general
package involving consideration of other major, large, and highly populated
countries in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico), Africa (Nigeria, South Africa)
and Asia (Indonesia). Japanese and German membership will not be held up by
such considerations and therefore any possibility of Indian entry will
figure only when a third stage of expansion of the Security Council is on
the anvil. There are also certain other specific factors. The US is using
Indian desperation to be considered for membership as a lever to push New
Delhi in the direction it wants. Washington has made no bones about this.
The US government is tying its possibility of endorsing any Indian bid in
the future to various directions that it wants Indian policy-making to
take. This applies not only to the area of nuclear non-proliferation (such
as signing the CTBT, accepting missile control regimes, etc) but also in
respect of its future trade and financial-economic policies.

But not only is Indian entry in spite of all this a very long-term affair,
it still isn't certain. There is the huge problem of China. Beijing knows
that India's nuclear arsenal is being developed with it in mind. It knows
that its veto power concerning expansion of the Security Council can be
decisive. And it has a powerful formal argument for opposing Indian entry
that can pass muster with any number of countries both inside and outside
this body. Why on earth should India be 'rewarded' for Pokharan II by being
allowed entry into the Security Council? But the more important question is
not how long it might take India to get an entry or even whether its
efforts will succeed. The more important issues concern the value of such
an outcome and therefore the usefulness of such an effort? Moreover, what
does the pursuit of this objective say about Indian foreign policy
perspectives generally?

The Security Council is not a serious global actor. All it can be is a body
that can legitimise serious initiatives established and decided upon
elsewhere. Therefore, it has only a very limited political-diplomatic
worth. But for most of its period of existence (up to the end of the Cold
War) it could not even play this role because of the rivalry between the
former USSR and USA and therefore the obstructive veto power of either.
>From 1946 onwards the Security Council could neither collectively condemn
nor praise the most dramatic political events of its time and simply could
not agree on any common initiative or form of political intervention in
regard to those events. But at least the rivalry prevented the Council from
becoming the naked legitimising tool of any one member, subordinated
repeatedly to its foreign policy.

After the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union, the
Council really has only two options to choose from. Either it is
ineffectual because of occasional disagreements between the US and Russia.
Or the US pushes hard and gets its way. China has never come close to
possessing the authority and resistance power of the former USSR. It often
gives in either by acquiescing or abstaining from some resolution proposed
by the US. During the 1991 Gulf War, Beijing (nuclear weapons and all) was
firmly told that the US needed the Security Council resolution to
legitimise its attack on Iraq and if China wanted the USA's conferral of
MFN status to continue, it should abstain from the vote; which it dutifully
did.

Whether it is the WTO arrangements or a US-directed NATO decision to bomb
Serbia or the Star Wars Programme or any action of major global and
regional import, it is decided outside the forums of the UN in general and
the Security Council in particular. Then, according to the circumstances
and the issue at hand, one country, the US, assesses whether it can or is
interested in using the Council as a rubber-stamp. When half-a-million
Rwandans were being butchered, the West did not want to interfere because
the region was of no 'strategic importance' to it. So the Council did
nothing to stop the bloodshed while the relief agencies of the UN did what
little they could to help the suffering victims. Clearly, what is most
needed is to transform the functioning of the UN so it can become a more
impartial, democratic and humane instrument of international political
intervention. That would require, to begin with, the subordination of the
Security Council to the General Assembly, even in its role as a
legitimising body.

But this is not what today's India - either its government or its dominant
opinion-making and opinion-shaping elite - is interested in. In its
attitude to the UN India has joined the arrogant anti-democrats of the
Security Council. Except that its arrogance is backed by no real authority
or power on the ground which is why the illusion of power, namely the
inconsequential 'prestige' associated with permanent membership of the
Council has become so fundamental a foreign policy goal for India. Can
there be a starker expression of the general impasse of Indian foreign
policy thinking than the fact that this quest has become so important to
New Delhi?

_______

#7.

[9 August 2000]

SANGH'S DOUBLE SPEAK IN THE GREATER "NATIONAL" INTEREST

By V.B.Rawat

Just when the nationalist's of Sangh Parivar and other political outfits
were celebrating the "Kargil Vijay Diwas", on the first anniversary of
Kargil war, a
news which not many in our media have highlighted, came from Lucknow that
the wife of a
soldier Ram Nihor, who sacrificed his life during Kargil operation, Shiv
Kumari, was killed by her in-laws in district Sultanpur, the
constituency of Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Shiv Kumari's fault lies in the money
that both the central and the state government doled out to her in the
aftermath of Kargil operation. It is nobody's secret that to hide the
grave failure of its misadventure in Kargil, the Hindutva government in
New Delhi wanted to go in a full-fledged offensive to ensure its victory
in the Lok-Sabha election held last year in October. The government
definitely got support from a very large number of people, especially,
the ex-servicemen, for handling the situation. But the most important
factor responsible for this kind of opinion was the compensation package
of the government. The difference between the earlier government and the
Vajpayee led government was that the conditions of soldiers remained
unchanged even after the war of 1965 and 1971, no proper rehabilitation
and compensation was granted to the soldiers. But today, every soldier
in the army feels proud that the government of the day cares for him.
Definitely, this compensation added by the nationalistic rehetoric of
Vajapyee has been one of the reasons.

Last year, when the Kargil operation was on, I had penned down an
article saying that war is always discriminatory against women. That the
young widows would not be able to get married again since the nature of
Brahmanical system is as such that even if she tried to do so, her
parents as well as in laws would be against that. Indian system is not
strong enough allow such feminism to grow. Our Hindutva zealots would
not mind communalising the situation and vitiating the atmosphere. And
that is why that government announced package for the rehabilitation of
the war widows but did not have the guts to challenge the status quo by
suggesting that those youngsters who would marry these widows will get
preferential treatment. Such kind of policies are never made in India.
Neither in the case of disabled girls or scheduled castes and tribes,
which could have served the purpose of social integration among the
communities and respect for all those who do not matter for us today.

The globalisation has played a great role in 'transforming' Indian
society, with money flowing in and becoming the only thing to gain
respect in the society. Our media, our people want it by using 'Sam'
Dam, Dand and Bhed=92. And it seems that Indian society and I would say
'great Indian society as far as Sangh and other socalled upper castes
are concerned' is 'transforming' itself. The recent transformation came in
the form of proposals for marriage to these widows who had been sitting
as outcaste with the sole photograph of her late husbands. Shiv Kumari
was staying with her in laws and finally got a total compensation of
about 32 lakhs as well as various other benefits including the ownership
of a Petrol pump. Right from the Sub-District Magistrate to city Kotwal
( Police chief) all courted her, purposed her to get married to them
which she firmly turned down. Every one of these gentlemen did not
transformed all of a sudden but the money, the bank balance and
of-course the ownership of Petrol Pump had its own role. Her in- laws
knew this that since she has been challenging them, it would be
difficult for them to claim the money unless they kill her and hence one
fine morning, they killed her.

And knowing fully well, during the last one year, how the Indian social
system has exposed itself, the Punjab and Haryana government earlier
this year, made separate arrangement for pension and compensation for
the parents of the 'Shaheeds', since there were reports that the widows
were asserting for their money. Many news-papers reported that the
widows has left their in laws house for ever after getting money.

It is reported that such 'social transformation' is visible in other
parts of the country where a large of youths who are fascinated towards
a good lifestyle coming forward for a good cause to marry the widows as
well as those who are physically disabled. So India has traveled a long
way of this radicalization process where money matters everything. I
could remember an incident just a few years back in October 1994, when a
bus full of peaceful Uttarakhand activists were coming to Delhi for a
rally, was surrounded by PAC. A number of people were killed, women
molested and raped. But strangely enough, when some people visited to
these women they flatly denied having been even touched by the PAC. The
reason was that most of the young girls felt isolated after returning
home. They had visualised their bleak future. Some the marriage
proposals were turned down and hence such lie to save the 'honour' of a
Hindu woman.

All those soldiers who died in Kargil came from the poor family
background. It was the only job option left for them, to feed themselves
and they happily joined that. But after the money involved in it, every
young fellow was aspiring to join the arm forces thinking it will ensure
his family a good finance even after his death.

Recently, the National Commission for Women, came out with a 'research'
study on women, in which the author some Poornima Advani, proclaimed
that women's had a very high status in the Indian society which
denigrated only after Mughal invasion. One does not know whether Manu
existed before Mughal came to India or not. Certainly, every historian
will verify that Manu's treatise were written thousands of years before
Mughal came and those treatise are not meant for either women or
schedule castes. If women's condition worsened due to Mughal rule in
India why is it still there after the English rule in India and later on
fifty years of Brahmanical empire in independent India. We all know that
in the fifty years of India's freedom, it is this brahmindom which got
strengthened. Who has stopped our nationalistic friends to reform their
society? But the matter of fact is the maximum dowry deaths would be
reported among the Banias, Punjabis, Marwadis, Brahmins.. And we all
know that a majority of these groups forms the core of Sangh Parivar in
India, ofcourse, there might be some aberrations.

In its long history after 1925, the Sangh's chitpawan Brahmin never
thought of ' what ails the Hindu society'. There only concern was how to
retain the brahmanical hegemony which was already there in the form of
Congress Party with Gandhi at the helm of affair behaving as a pope of
Hindu upper castes. The Sangh Parivar continued with its Chitpawan
agenda even when Gandhi, very cleverly tried to assimilate other minor
identities in his Congress Party. Till, 1989, Sangh stood no where,
despite some of our so-called secular did not hesitate in certifying
them. After the mandalisation process of Indian society completed, it
gave a jolt to Sangh Parivar and its bramanical hegemony. Backwards were
a dominating community unlike Dalits who were minorities in villages as
well as easily be subjugated by the upper castes. Most of the peasantry
in India was backward classes and now firmly behind their community
leaders which clearly endangered the brahmanical domination in Indian
politics. Rajju Bhaiya, a Thakur from Allahabad, was the first example
of this shift but soon he too has been replaced by a Karnnada Brahmin.
There has been no response by RSS which call itself as the mouthpiece of
Hindus. Its leaders, some of our other political leaders including those
masquerading as secular leaders and activists, say that Hindus cannot do
any thing wrong. They are holy people. They cannot even kill a bird=85
they do not drink. They are always God fearing and so on and on. RSS has
now been saying that the Hindus should now become violent.. and many of
our secular activists, writers, have been making noise about RSS that
Hinduism has never been violent and RSS is doing absolutely antithesis
of what our great Granthas have been preaching.

Should be continue with this hypocrisy? Why do we continue to cheat our
selves that violence is an aberration to Hinduism? Do we have any
answer as why the number of violence on women in India, the dowry
deaths, the attacks and assault on Dalits increasing? We find little
about Muslim burning their bride or Christians throwing their daughter=92s
to orphanage but ofcourse we find Hindus doing the same. But no words
from RSS on this.. That is not their concern. Their only concern is that
Muslims should not be given equal rights. Muslim question make Ashok
Singhal, a Bania, leader of Hindu community while had he been speaking
on the caste term, the other castes like Rajputs, backwards and Dalits
would never have accepted him. The fact is, he is not accepted by other
communities but anti-Muslim statement give him a status of Hindu leader
in the media, where he has his own=92 biradar=92, taking care of his
interests.

Unfortunately, our strategy has always been always dangerously narrow
and chauvinistic. Response to Babri demolition came in the form of a
bigger exhibition on greatness of Ram by a secular group in Ayodhya.
Nobody, could question the heroic work of Rama in banishing Sita as well
as killing of Shambook, a shudra. Nobody, had the courage that RamRaj
was a brahmin Raj and it should be opposed tooth and nail. Similarly,
some of our human rights activist could not see the problem of Kashmir
without involving themselves in the niceties of 'National integration'.
We are told that terrorists are also violating the human rights of the
people=92 just to be on the safer side from an assault from Sangh Parivar
and likes of Thackreys who always blames the human rights activist for
not condmning the terrorist violence in Kashmir and Punjab. This is a
dangerous policy. While condemning the terrorist violence we cannot
forget the state has a duty to protect its citizens, fulfull its
obligations and honour the promises it made. Should we forget these
things just because the Sangh Parivar and other 'nationalistic' group
may charge us being 'anti-national'. Who the hell are they talking of
nationalism. After putting our country to Trans-national corporations
and US of A, they have no right to ask any question on this issue. We
will have to take them head on. We will have to be careful of the issues
they are raising to get socio-political legitimacy.

Now they have decided to take up the issue of 'Ganga Mata'. According to
them, "Tehri Dam is a global conspiracy against Hindus ( not against
India or Uttarakhand) and we must oppose it." The likes of Singhal's are
not opposed to Hindu festivals and idiocies
which pollutes the Ganga and other rivers in India. They would never
ask for cleaning of Ganga and withdrawing of all such activities like
throwing the dead bodies, Mundan etc on the bank of Ganges because it
would reduce the monopoly of Brahmins and Banias as well as their
economy will severely be effected, whose representatives are VHP, RSS
and all their rubbish allied You can only find Jains, Goels, Chawalas,
Singhals, Sharmas, Mittals, Gargs, Dubeys and other Hindu upper castes,
predominantly brahmins and banias, representing Hindus in these
organisations. They all have their huge business empires and if anything
is affected they would play the communal card to exploit it for their
political purposes.

After, some of them have raised the issue of Tehri Dam, a 'great'
brahmin activist Sunder Lal Bahuguna may be feeling relieved, so may be
the likes of Justice Krishna Iyer, Chandra Shekhar, who don=92t feel shame
in addressing them from their platform as the 'issues' are of utmost to
'national interest'. One does not know what exactly is 'national'
interest. The National interest is that we must protect the likes of
Tatas, Ambanis, Birlas, Nandas from the onslaught of multi-nationals so
that they can exploit our people more than the alien Europeans and
Americans..The national interest is that the Sangh must destroy the
economic backbone of those Muslims who can throw a challenge to them.
The national interest is that the Sangh must rake up such issues which
will legitimise them and indeed it has happened. The national interest
is that the Sangh must question Christian missionaries for their work
among the Dalits and tribals but should not do any thing for their
education and health. And the national interest is that we must speak
the =91double meaning=92 dialogue of Dada Kondke style. The Narmada people
were first to circulate an email about Sangh=92s opposition to Tehri Dam..
What a great thing..They want to oppose Tehri Dam but support Sardar
Sarovar. Why don't Narmada people think that.. Just because the Sardar
Sarovar is uprooting millions of tribals who are just a tool for them
while the Tehri Dam will uproot their upper caste brotherns in Tehri.
What ever is the outcome of these things, those who thinks that they are
fighting their battle San political ideology are living in a fools
paradise. The issues are not just dams.. They are the issues of life of
people and our responses to them and hence if Narmada movement has
conspicuously kept quiet on the issue on the rights of tribal,
reservations ( they have never spoken on the atrocities on Dalits, on
the reservation issue and others issues related to Dalits and tribals)
in the government services and elsewhere, it would hamper their
credibility but more dangerous would be the approach that "we are a non
political organisations and for us issues are more important than
anything else=92 and hence we do not mind if the VHP/ Bajrangis are
supporting our cause."

Don=92t think these issues in isolation.. they are cleverly planted by the
upper caste Hindu mindset which Sangh is now espousing and sharing their
platform and supporting them in any of such ' so-called cause' will only
legitimise them and strengthen them.

___________________________________
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>
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=
IIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
[Disclaimer :
Opinions carried in the dispatches are not representative
of views of SACW compilers]