[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 27 Nov. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
27 November 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)

____________________________

#1. Kashmir and Pakistan's rivers

#2. AIDWA Memorandum to Governer of Gujarat (India)

#3. Golden Gloss on Khaki Knickers (India) 

____________________________

#1.

Friday Times (Lahore)
24 November 2000

KASHMIR AND PAKISTAN'S RIVERS 

by Khaled Ahmed 

Pakistan's famous ex-civil servant columnist Inayatullah, whose wife Attiya Inayatullah is a member of General Musharraf's cabinet, in his article National Debate on Kashmir ( The News 3 October 2000) has expressed the worry that Pakistan may have lost the international leverage to get the Kashmir dispute resolved in its favour: 'Should one consider that the deeply felt views of Nawa-e-Waqt, [Lashkar-e-Tayba chief] Hafiz Saeed and [ex-ISI chief] General Hameed Gul on Kashmir are outdated? And if Occupied Kashmir is to be accepted advisedly as Indian territory, will the economy of Pakistan remain unharmed with India left free to use and divert the waters flowing from Kashmir, as it wishes, to our detriment? Already works are in hand on the Chenab river, of which little notice has been taken by Pakistan. Let us not forget that Pakistan's agriculture and economy overwhelmingly depend on these rivers.' 

Pakistan and India agreed to sign a treaty about river waters in 1960 which other regions of the world refer to as examples of success. The Indus Basin Waters Treaty bifurcated the river system as far as possible to preclude water disputes between the upper riparian (India) and the lower riparian (Pakistan). The rights of the lower riparian are safeguarded in customary international law but enforcement is possible to some extent if it is confirmed by a bilateral treaty holding both to a binding arbitration. Pakistan and India had such an agreement. After the Wullar Barrage dispute arose over Jhelum the two were not able to conclusively resolve it, but Pakistan did not go for arbitration. Nonetheless much hostile ink was spilt on both sides about the perfidy of the other and there was a time when Pakistan seriously considered going for arbitration over it. 

Water as next cause of war: Scarcity of water in the coming decades of growing population and degrading environment is going to cause disputes to erupt between nations. This would reverse the present trend of 'producing' water disputes out of an already soured relationship. The Wullar Barrage and Sir Creek disputes are an example of the latter trend. But quarrels over selfish use of river water can erupt in the future as countries exhaust their finite water resources in relation to an infinite growth of populations. Almost 45 percent of Pakistan's water is 'imported', India's ratio is 14 percent, Bangladesh's 80 percent, the last ratio applying to most o countries of Southeast Asia. Pakistan's major source, the Indus River, rises in China but passes through that part of Kashmir that is now in Indian control. In relative terms, Pakistan is less at risk as a lower riparian state than most Asian states. India's Ganges also comes from China but about 40 percent of it is !
replenished by Nepal. If Pakistan is to secure its river waters, it must prevent hostile diversions in China and India. If India is to prevent such a hostile diversion it must avoid conflict with China and Nepal. 

Regions are being discovered to be interconnected through waterways in the 21st century because of scarcity of water and the growing possibility of war over its use. China is sitting on top of the water resources of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Kazakhstan, and the whole of the Mekong Delta in Southeast Asia. China, not dependent on 'import' of water, suffers from scarcity of water and is thinking of diverting its eastern rivers by building dams over them. The question that looms over the future of Asia is: should river water be seen as an issue to be solved between amicably cooperative states or as a cause of war between already hostile states? Pakistan and India fall in the last category. Both have a tendency to see the world through the prism of the bilateral equation, both are hostile to each other and apply strategies of threat perception to each other. India has begun to see China as a source of threat since 1998 and may look at China as a power determine!
d to take over its river sources. This might lead to invading and occupying Nepal as a first step since it supplies nearly half the water of Ganges. Since China controls the South Asian rivers in Tibet, the Sino-Indian border can be made to include a challenge to China's title to Tibet. 

Indo-Pak rivalry and the rivers: After the Indian occupation of Kashmir the most important Pakistani rivers have continued to flow from the Occupied Territory. For nearly fifty years India has thus 'controlled' Pakistan's rivers. This should apply especially to those rivers that fell to Pakistan's share under the Indus Basin Waters Treaty. By and large, one can say that the two countries have behaved in consonance with the stipulations of the Treaty, and Pakistan has not suffered to any considerable degree because of India's hostile management of the rivers that pass through Occupied Kashmir. The only exception has been India's construction of Wullar Barrage over Jhelum which became highlighted more because of the hostile bilateral relationship than any objective conditions. It must be remembered that under the Indus Basin Treaty, Pakistan permitted India to use Jhelum, Chenab and Indus for non-consumption purposes, that is, for purposes other than irrigation and ele!
ctricity production. In the case of Wullar Barrage, called Tulbul Navigation Project by India (because the Indus Treaty allows navigation projects on Indian-controlled Jhelum) it was mutual hostility which motivated India not to make Pakistan privy to the Barrage/Project when it was planned. The case of Chenab referred to by Inayatullah may turn out to be a similar case, but can be exacerbated by mutual distrust and hostility. It appears that the bilateral treaty has been more effective in regulating river water use than the customary international law, which safeguards the rights of the lower riparian state. On the other hand, Pakistan and India have been less successful in handling internal disputes arising out of river-water sharing. In Pakistan, Sindh, the NWFP and Balochistan are opposed to Punjab's use of the Indus waters and thwart the construction of Kalabagh Dam deemed crucial to the survival of the country. In India, a similar dispute over Kaveri between Tam!
ilnadu and Karnataka has defied central authority. There is more trust, it appears, between India and Pakistan than between Islamabad and Sindh over the use of river waters. 

The worry about the rivers has arisen in Inyatullah's article because Kashmir is a disputed territory to which Pakistan lays claim and challenges India's occupation of Kashmir on the basis of the Security Council resolutions. He thinks that if the Kashmir dispute is resolved in a manner other than the plebiscite ordained by the UN resolutions, Pakistan may forever give its rivers in hostage to India. This is a scenario of defeat: that Pakistan will be forcibly deprived of its right on Kashmir and, in the time following this, the two states will remain mutually hostile; in which case India will use the rivers to punish Pakistan. If Pakistan were to lose Kashmir to India in the course of a conflict-resolving process, then there will have to be another treaty of normalisation of relations between the two of which the Indus Basin Treaty is sure to form a continuing cornerstone. Why should India punish Pakistan if it 'wins' by gaining Kashmir and by normalising with Pakis!
tan? The time to do mischief with the rivers is now, but India is not seen as doing that. The dispute over Farraka Barrage could not be resolved because of bad relations, but India was able to settle the issue with Bangladesh to mutual satisfaction, barring certain politically partisan voices on both sides. 

The real issue: What is at issue is Pakistan's security from within. Its economy has declined over the last decade (the decade of Kashmir jehad) and nosed-dived since 1998 when it imitated India in testing its nuclear device. Over the last one year of 'inflexibility', the rupee has gone down against the dollar by 12 percent. This scenario has perhaps prompted Inayatullah to sound the tocsin of alarm. The article is encrypted in the idiom of a shaken orthodox who wants to only 'hint' at change of policy without being rebuked. The two personages he has referred to as custodians of our Kashmir policy are not the most rational of exponents of Pakistan's image: General Hameed Gul has been predicting the break-up of India when India was in the process of breaking out of its low growth rate and becoming economically strong and politically united; Hafiz Saeed, dreaded equally in India and Pakistan, has consistently opposed democracy in Pakistan and prescribed a system that i!
s sure to lead to the country's final collapse as a state. 

Kunwar Idrees, writing in Dawn ( A retreat from liberalism, 15 October 2000) speaks of Hafiz Saeed as follows: 'Hafiz Saeed does not approve of banking. His organisation, he says, spends the money as it comes and depends on Allah for more to come and spend. On assuming power he would introduce gold and silver coins to replace the currency notes. Pakistan, Hafiz Saeed advises, should now explode the hydrogen bomb to bring America to its knees'. While Inayatullah hangs on to the likes of Gul and Saeed, the people of Held Kashmir are in the process of changing their minds. In a survey conducted by the Indian weekly Outlook, 72 percent of the Muslims of the Valley wanted 'independence' while only 2 percent wanted to consider Pakistan as an option. The figure of 2 percent is down from 19 in 1995. Of course, no one wants to join India while 16 percent may accept autonomy, up from only 3 percent in 1995. 

The argument about the rivers is clearly a lingering excuse to hang on to the status quo in Pakistan. The rivers have not been diverted to any damaging extent since 1960 when the treaty on river waters was signed between India and Pakistan. Advancing the rivers argument is also in violation of Pakistan's official stance because it is the right of self-determination in Kashmir that Pakistan upholds, not a war to get the rivers freed from India's control. The change in policy will depend finally on the way Pakistan looks at the last ten years of jehad and the country's capacity to prosecute it in the face of growing internal disorder. That the governments in Pakistan are not able to develop the suppleness of response needed in these circumstances foreshadows a bigger dislocation than a diversion of rivers could bring. 

_____

#2.

ALL INDIA DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION
23, V.B.P. House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001 

22 November. 2000

To
The Honorable Governor of Gujarat
Raj Bhavan
Gandhinagar
Gujarat [India]

Sir,

We address this memorandum to you on the occasion of a historic women's unity march and rally which is being held in Ahmedabad on November 22. Women from various parts of India will be coming to Ahmedabad on that day to express their solidarity and unity with their sisters in Gujarat in the struggle for secular values, in defence of rights of minority communities and for economic and social justice for deprived and oppressed communities. Gujarat has been the "laboratory" of the sangh parivar, which consists of those oganisations which have a direct or indirect affiliation to the RSS, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, the Durga Vahini and so on. With a sympathetic BJP Government in the State and also at the Centre, experiments in this laboratory have gone on virtually unchecked in Gujarat. As women we are greatly concerned at the extremely negative if not destructive impact this has had on women's struggles for justice. Its long-term !
implications are relevant not only for women of this State but for all Indian women. We strongly believe that any attack or erosion of the rights of one section of women adversely affects all women. Our struggle for justice is indivisible. We oppose policies which divide women in the name of religion because this weakens the common struggle for equality and gender justice. In this memorandum we raise some of the issues of concern to us in the hope that you will view them with sympathy and initiate appropriate action. 

Hate campaigns,attacks on minorities,police role, compensation

Over three hundred attacks on minority communities have been registered during the last two years. Priests, nuns, members of the congregations, marginalized Adivasi communities and areas populated by the Muslim community have all been made targets of attacks. In the name of preventing forced conversions, there are cases where members of minority communities are being forced to convert to Hinduism. They are prevented from the practice and propagation of their beliefs as guaranteed by the constitution of India.

The most shocking hate campaign, full of falsehood, is being waged by sangh parivar organizations. For example a leaflet is presently in circulation to celebrate the birthday of a VHP leader. Among the lies printed in the leaflet is a claim that five lakh Hindu women have been abducted and forcibly married to Muslim men. This blatant lie is designed to arouse hatred against Muslim men and will also directly impact on the security of Muslim women since women are the worst victims of "revenge" violence which grows from such hate propaganda. The hate campaign against Christian women has already led to instances of sexual assault and violence against them such as the incidents in 1999 when acid was thrown on a young girl because she was a Christian (Anand town p.s.) and another young woman was killed and, it is suspected, raped (Ajarpura village). Thus, even where there are no direct assaults, the hostility and suspicion created leads to a constant feeling of fear !
and intimidation with grave affects on the security, health and well-being of the women of the community so targeted. .

The government s own response to public interest litigations filed by representatives of the victims, shows that in the majority of the cases, the Government admits that the attackers are members of the sangh parivar associated organizations. Yet, the divisive work of these organizations continues unhindered. There are over 15 such cases pending in the courts dealing with over 160 incidents. In Gujarat there is a paralysis or rather withdrawal of due processes of justice by the Government, adminstration and law enforcement agencies which should be constitutionally available to all citizens of the country . In fact, it is only through the pressure of concerned organizations and PILS that the perpetrators of violence against minorities have, in some cases, been arrested. But, even then, the cases filed are minor in nature and the criminals are soon out on bail.
In many cases the communal bias of the police force and sections of the administration have been pointed out in representations to the Government yet no action has been taken. 

In most of the cases compensation has not been paid to the victims. For example in the attacks on the Muslim community in Guptanagar, Ahmedabad in 1999 not a single paisa has been paid to any of the victims whose homes and property were vandalised and burnt. In the particular case of Patangiya Yasin Wala who died in March 2000 after being stabbed 25 times, his widow has had to make a representation to the National Human Rights Commission because the Government has only given her Rs. 40,000 as compensation. There is documentation of numerous such cases. The victims of the arson and violence in the wake of the August 3 planned attacks on Muslims have also not received any compensation. 

This impunity enjoyed by the members and activities of the Sangh Parivar is only possible because of the patronage of the Government and administration.We therefore appeal to you to use your office to ensure: 

* that all such hate literature is banned* * that action be taken against any police personnel who refuse or delay in filing cases of communal assaults or attempt to delay them * * ,that perpetrators are arrested and that the public prosecution* ensures that they do not get bail

* and that adequate compensation is paid without delay to the victims or their families.* * That the Government set up Government set up officially recognized monitoring committees comprising of local women's organizations, NGOs and representatives of the minority communities who would be mandated to assist the adminstration to fulfil the above mentioned tasks to ensure the restoration of the constitutional rights of minorities.* 

Homogenising patriarchal cultures, caste and communal bias in Government schools

An area of deep concern are the steps being taken to homogenise and impose cultural practices associated with elite caste Hindus on other communities. For example the Gujarat Government has made budgetary provisions for a scheme to distribute free mangalsutras to Dalit communities. Mangalsutras in the communities where they are used are supposed to be given by husbands to their wives. Why should the Government use public money to subsidise the husbands family on what is clearly a matter of personal choice. Dalit communities and in particular Dalit women, have priorities connected to livelihood issues. The Government should be fulfilling those needs instead of using public money to distribute mangalsutras. Secondly, Dalit communities do not traditionally use the mangalsutra. This is thus clearly a scheme towards fulfilling the sangh parivar agenda of imposing homogenised upper caste Hindu rituals on Dalit communities in the name of Hindutva.This is also aimed at!
dividing Dalit communities and isolating Dalit Christians. At the same time the whole scheme is questionable because it is based on religious belief. If mangalsutras are to be distributed to poor families then logically, symbols of marriage for other religious communities should also be distributed among the poor of those communities. Then what about those families where women choose to remain single? Why should they be punished for it by being deprived of the financial subsidy available. Thus, on several counts, the scheme is objectionable and should be scrapped. 

It is shocking that in Government schools, including in Ahmedabad, Hindu religious rituals are being introduced for the students. In some cases, saffron boards with the name Saraswati Mandir have been put up outside the schools thus converting the property of the people into the private property of the Sangh Parivar. 

The communal and patriarchal bias which is being introduced into text books in Gujarat has been documented well by independent research organizations. They will surely result in bringing up a whole generation with a false and distorted understanding of history as well as a set of social values which is opposed to the traditions of this state and of the country. 

In the tribal areas the imposition of patriarchal upper caste Hindu cultures and practices has a very negative impact on Adivasi women who, in many areas, enjoy more personal liberty and freedom within their communities than their counterparts in other communities. Adivasi festivals are downgraded and their observance discouraged. School holidays and work holidays are never on the days of Adivasi festivals and therefore it becomes difficult for the community to observe their own festivals. This is part of the insiduous process of eroding the independent identity and cultures of adivasi ommunities. Another example is the official attempt to replace the word Adivasi  with the word Vanvasi . When adivasis want to get the caste certifcates they are asked to fill up the word Vanvasi  on the forms. This is not a semantic difference but a clear attempt to impose the Sangh Parivar s Aryan -centric view of history in which Adivasi ommunities are not considere!
d the original inhabitants of the land. 

Therefore we appeal to you to prevail upon the Government to act immediately 

· to reverse its policies of destroying the myriad cultures among different sections of the people by imposing a State backed uniform culture based on upper caste patriarchal traditions and practices inimical to women's rights. 

· to take appropriate steps in this direction would include replacing the SC

mangal sutra scheme with a scheme for economic rights for Dalit women . 

· to withdrawal of textbooks with a communal and gender bias

· to end to all attempts to convert Government schools into RSS schools

· to protect Adivasi identities, encouragement to development of Adivasi languages.

Economic rights

The current neo liberalisation policies being followed by the Government of India are fully supported by the Gujarat Government which has implemented such policies on its own initiative with disastrous consequences to the working people of this State. The dismantling of the public distribution system and the unavailablity of rations at subsidised prices to the poor have gravely eroded food security affecting the living standards of millions of families.The huge increases in the prices of essential commodities have played havoc with family budgets. You are aware that because of prevailing inequalities, women bear the heaviest burden of Government-created poverty. Given the generally pro-rich orientation of the government, it is not surprising that the terrible drought situation in large parts of the Shate has also met with an extremely inadequate Government response. Peasant families have faced destitution. There is widespread sale of livestock. Rural women as well !
as urban women living in the poorer areas of towns and cities face a terrible problem of drinking water .Private suppliers charge exorbitant rates for one litre of water. Whereas the Government boasted that it would set up model "Gokul" villages, in today's Gujarat, leave alone milk, even the minimum conditions for survival--water and food-- are unavailable. 

Instead of tackling the drought situation on a war footing, instead of meeting the minimum economic needs of the people, it would appear that the Government of Gujarat is more committed to its narrow agenda of establishing a "Hindu rashtra." 

Women in Gujarat have been protesting and fighting these polices along with sympathetic organizations re[resenting different sections of the people, groups and individuals. On November 22, women from all over India will come to Ahmedabad to express their solidarity with their sisters in Gujarat and to protest against Government polices as well as the dangerously unconstitutional experiments of the sangh parivar. 

We appeal to you as the Governor of this State to give voice to our concern and to take up the demands we have raised in this memorandum. 

Thanking you, 

Yours sincerely, 

Bindra Karat
General Secretary
AIDWA

Suvarna
Movement for Secular Democracy

Jyotsna macwan
Behavioural Science Centre

Sister Meena, Sister Elsie
Diocesan Women's Desk

Mehroonissa Desai
Muslim Women's Action Group

Sister Vijaya
St. Xavier's Social Service Society

Saraben
Aawaz

Roshanben Shaikh
Mahila Patchwork Cooperative Society

Sunanda Amarti Gamit

Capt. Laxmi Sahgal, Kalindi Deshpande, Iva Mehta, Samli Gupta
AIDWA 

______

#3. 

[26 November 2000]

GOLDEN GLOSS ON KHAKI KNICKERS

Ram Puniyani

In October 2000 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh completed seventy-five Years
of its existence. This occasion is being used in many a ways by the
leadership of RSS. On one hand it reiterated its Hindutva line and gave
different advises and intimidation's to the minorities like the they
should regard Ram and Krishna as their icons, they should break their
religious affiliations to the 'foreign' Churches and go in for swadeshi
churches, should accept the Hindu culture, should Indianise themselves,
and that Christianity is more of a politics rather than a religion. On the
other hand it started a Direct To Home campaign in order to improve its
image in people's eyes. In last three years its image has got sullied (or
is it that its REAL image has come to surface?) due to the blatant role of
its progeny in the anti- Christian violence. As such also RSS activities
against the minorities and the creation of anti-Minority atmosphere is
linked to its actions and a large section of people are realizing the
anti-minority character of this organization. In order to reassert its
retrograde ideology it has decided to go from house with the leaflets
glorifying its 'nationalism' 'patriotism' and what not. 
Even a cursory glance at the leaflet makes it clear that it has no remorse
for the outcome of its 'Hate Campaign', on the contrary by falsifying the
facts and projecting its non-existing relationship to the Freedom
fighters, leaders of Anti-Brahmin movements like Dr. Ambedkar, it is
trying to put a respectable gloss on its despicable ideology and actions.
The leaflet is an excise in the falsification of events, manufacture of
non-events in to its foundations and also to get certification from those
who are really respectable today and who not only refused to identify with
this organization but also criticized its ideology and actions in subtle
and overt ways.

To begin with it glorifies its founder Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar as an
important leader of freedom struggle who was imprisoned due to his
participation in different agitation's for freedom. This is just the
beginning of lessons as to how to surpass Gobbles in a game, which he
invented in the service of Fascist politics. Hedgewar is projected to have
actively participated in the different agitations launched by Congress.
As a matter of fact he participate only in a single agitation (1930) and
his motives were to wean away the activists of Congress for the communal
politics which he was espousing. We don't have to look at any outside
source for this basic fact. One the biographies of his published by his
follower, C.P.Bhishikar, (Sanghvriksha ke Bij, The Seeds of RSS). Says
this swayamsevak Bhishikar; "[In 1930] Mahatma Gandhi had called upon the
people to break different laws of Govt. Gandhi himself launched Salt
Satyagrah by undertaking Dandi March. Dr. Saheb (Hedgewar) sent message
everywhere that Sangh will not participate in the Satyagrah...This meant
that any responsible worker of Sangh could not participate in satyagrah.
(P.20), and again "Dr. Saheb had the confidence that with the freedom
loving, self sacrificing and reputed group inside with him there, he would
discuss the Sangh with them and win them over for its work". Thus it is
clear that neither did RSS participate in this struggle nor Dr. Hedgewar
went to jail in this last instance to further the cause of
Non-cooperation, the aim of Congress leadership. 
Congress leadership in due course realized the disruptive nature of the
activities of RSS (and also of course its twin Hindu Mahasabha and its
opposite parallel the Muslim League) and its agenda of sowing the seeds of
discord between different communities and passed a resolution forbidding
Congress members from becoming the members of these organizations.

Attitude of RSS towards the movement for freedom struggle becomes clearer
in the writings of M.S. Golwalkar, the Second Supremo. (Shri Guruji Samgra
Darshan, Vol. IV, P39-40). Mr. Golwalkar points out that RSS volunteers
should not participate in the struggle, he approvingly quotes his mentor
Dr. Hedgewar here, stating that going to jail will disturb the family life
and will also cause disruption in the routine activities of RSS. He goes
on to state (P.41), "In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the
hearts of many at that time too but the routine work of Sangh continued.
Sangh did not to do anything directly." Bhishikar's book also makes it
clear that Hedgewar did not comment anything against British rule. This
non-participation was even ideologically formulated by MS Golwalkar, as
per whom fighting against British is reactionary and he accused the
Congress for reducing the national struggle to 'mere' anti-British
movement. Golwalkar writes, "Being anti British was equated with
patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view had disastrous effect
upon the entire course of the independence struggle, its leaders and the
common people" (Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts 1939). "Golwalkar believed
that the British not be given any excuse to ban the RSS. On April 29,
1943 Golwalkar distributed a circular that 'We discontinue practice
included in the governments order on military drill and uniforms to keep
our work clearly within bounds of law, as every law abiding institution
should'..." (Quoted in A G Noorani, Frontline, Dec. 1, 1995). Obviously,
with this ideological formulation the Sangh Parivar did not and could not
fight against the British. 
The RSS equated its nationalism with being against Muslims and hence its
constant harps against the national leadership for 'appeasement of
Muslims'. Lajpat Rai one of the columnists in a letter to Times of India
(Jan 18, 94) points out "RSS kept away even from Naval revolt because they
(mutineers) used guns against the British and the RSS considered fighting
against British as "disastrous" and "reactionary". 
It is just 'fortunate' this leaflet steers clear of the role of present
Prime Minister, the proud Swayasmsevak's role in the Quit India movement
as very recently his role was exposed in an in depth investigation in
Frontline Feb 20, 1998. (Manini Chatterjee and V K Ramchandran.). Mr.
Vajapayee in one of the articles had claimed that he participated in the
Quit India Movement and was jailed. This investigation nails the lie of
his participation in Quit India Movement in 1942. The controversy around
his role in the Bateshwar incident comes out very well here. He had given
a confessional statement in the court which helped in his release from the
jail for his being just the onlooker of the assembly which went on to
damage the government property. At that time he was a dedicated and
active member of RSS. In his confession he wriggles out of active
participation. " I along with my brother followed the crowd, I did not
cause any damage. I did not render any assistance in demolishing the
government buildings". His statement provided an accurate description of
the events on which prosecution could build its case very well.
But all these facts do not matter as far as RSS is concerned. Through the
vast reach of its Shakhas and section of communalised media it can gloat
over its non-existing role in freedom struggle and patriotic and
nationalist credentials, which are totally false and baseless.

Though RSS leaflet gives credit to RSS for saving Kashmir, saving
democracy in India it also reminds its followers that it is none else than
RSS which spearheaded the Ramjanmbhumi campaign (which eventually led to
Babri demolition and massive anti- Muslim pogroms), it also reminds its
obsession with cow as the symbol of cultural nationalism (another name for
North Indian upper caste culture), it also gives the signals of its
anti-Minority thrust by equating the colonial rule with the invasion by
Muslim kings in India (both have entirely different characteristics, the
British powers coming here for establishing markets and for plunder of raw
materials while the invasion of Muslim kings and Mughal rule was the
fight between different kings for the hegemony of the territories and they
settled here and became the integral part of society and its dynamics),
it does go on to remind that the insurgency in North-East is due to the
conversions, also it states that strength of the Nation is Hindu unity
etc. This fist hitting the minorities in this document is covered with
velvet gloves. But the accusations of all the same there, the accusations
which have formed the base of anti-minority myth, hatred and violence.

The most manipulative part comes when it tries to extract 'certificates'
of good conduct by being associated with Bhagat Singh, Dr. Ambedkar and
Mahatma Gandhi, who himself happened to fall to the bullets of a follower
of Hindutva ideology, an ideology which RSS is propagating with gusto. One
fails to understand why RSS is so desperate to put the certificates from
these National heroes who had nothing in common with the goals and agenda
of RSS. 

The concoction that it helped in the work of Bhagat Singh will probably go
down as the most blatant lie, which RSS can ever manufacture. RSS was
formed in 1925, and for a long time its poison was restricted to
Maharashtra. Bhagat Singh embraced the gallows in 1931 and his group was
more active in North India. While RSS was propagating Hindu Rashtra and
Hindu unity, singing praises of Hindu Kings and supporting the Jamindars,
Bhagat Singh was talking of a socialist India, he was banking on workers
and peasants, he staked his life in anti-British activity, while RSS,
initially a Brahmin- Bania outfit hid behind the curtains of
'Organizational work' whenever there was a need to confront the British
might. It sheepishly or on deliberate purpose never opposed the British
rule in practice and even in theory. It aimed all its guns against
Muslims, eulogized the Hindu Princes of Riyasats and drew heavy support
from the landed aristocracy. There is a polar contrast between Bhagat
Singh and his colleagues' mission who formed Hindustan Socialist Republic
army and were deeply influenced by Marxism while for RSS even today
Marxism and Socialism rank as the biggest dangers to the Hindu Rashtra,
their secret and open agenda.

As far as Ambedkar commenting that Swayamsevaks don't believe in caste is
just a small part of the story. One has to see the Ambedkar and RSS
relationship, I mean the lack of it in totality. Ambedkar humiliated by
the Brahminical Hinduism vowed that he was born a Hindu but he will not
die a Hindu. He went on to burn Manu Smiriti as a symbol of subjugation of
Shudras and women. Same time Mr. Golwalkar wrote in praise of Manu as the
first ever lawgiver of the human race whose laws are valid eternally. The
contrast between Dr. Ambedkar and the present RSS supremo Mr. Sudarshan is
something totally revealing. Dr. Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti and went in to
be Chairman of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution. Mr.
Sudarshan states that Indian constitution should be scrapped and be
replaced by the one based on Hindu Holy Scriptures. And the Hindu Holy
Scripture, which lays down the laws, is of course Manusmiriti itself. But
still RSS does need to be 'complemented' for its shrewd use its retrograde
ideology to its advantage.

About Mahatmaji's comments about RSS there is much more to it than
presented by this leaflet. Pyarelal, Mahatmaji's Secretary recalls an
interesting episode throwing light on this. Gandhi's attitude towards RSS
in 1934 may have been non-committal but against this we need to place his
unqualified denunciation of the organization some years later, which have
been recorded by him. In the wake of 1946 riots, a member of Gandhi's
entourage had praised the efficiency, discipline, courage and capacity for
hard work shown by RSS cadres Wagah, a major transit camp for Punjab
refugees. 'But don't forget', answered Gandhiji, even so had Hitler's
Nazis and the Fascists under Mussolini.' He went on to characterize the
RSS as a 'communal body with a totalitarian outlook'. (Pyarelal, Mahatma
Gandhi: The Last Phase, Ahmadabad, p 440). Gandhi categorically declared
that 'the way (to national independence) does not lie through akharas...if
they are meant as a preparation for self defence in Hindu-Muslim
conflicts, they are fore-doomed to failure. Muslims can play the same
game, and such preparations, covert or overt, do cause suspicion and
irritation. They can provide no remedy. (G.D. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol.
III, Bombay, 1945 p.130-134)
The propagation that it is because of the efforts of Hindus that India has
gained the status of Jagat Guru, Teacher of the world, defies all the
logic. Now the wisdom of the world is a collective effort of different
communities and no one nation or community has got such a status a 'world
teacher'. The knowledge, understanding and culture is a multifactorial,
multi-centered process and any one group claiming such a status is either
suffering from a genuine inferiority complex or is out of its mind, there
cant be a third explanation for this raving assertion of the RSS and its
progeny. This type of statement becomes much more painful today when we
realize that at most stages in the history, India was not free from caste
oppression, at most known times in history women did not have an equal
status, at no time was it a land of milk and honey for all as claimed by
the leaflet. On second thought probably it all sounds a deliberate
glorification to distract the attention from the glaring poverty, hunger,
disease and misery prevalent in our country today. And RSS as an upholder
of the ideology of 'status quo' needs all the arguments to lull the
demands for justice and Human rights and so these fabrications of the
glorious past and the status as world leaders.

(Dr. Ram Puniyani is Secretary of EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity)

______________________________________________
SACW dispatch 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
at http://www.egroups.com/messages/act/
////////////////////////////////////