[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 24 Aug. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

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

#1. US/ Bangaldesh: The Solarz Correspondence: A Congressional Inquiry
Deliberately
Derailed?
#2. Tanvir Mokammel: Bangladesh's leading independent filmmaker
#3. Canada / India: Prof. Hari Sharma's Letter to Shastri Institute
+ Press Release from SALDA regarding the Capitualtion of Shastri Insti=
tute
#4. India: Public Statement by Prominent former judge who supports Narmada
Bachao Andolan
#5. India: Photo exhibition lends voice to Kashmiri women (New Delhi)
#6. Chingari VideoFest 2000: Call
_____________________

#1.

The Daily Star
22 August 2000
Op-Ed.

THE SOLARZ CORRESPONDENCE: A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY DELIBERATELY
DERAILED?

First of Three Parts

by Lawrence Lifschultz

IN the winter of 1980 I received a phone call from a young aide to
Congressman Stephen Solarz. He was responding to a letter I had written
Solarz summarizing the results of a two-year journalistic investigation
into the coup d'etat that had killed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. My
journalistic work had reached a formal barrier of sorts. Over two years
we had interviewed scores of people and gained a great deal of insight
into how the coup had been planned and organized.
However, there were contradictions that needed to be resolved
particularly regarding the question of possible American links to the
Mustaque network. A senior American diplomat, present at the US Embassy
in August 1975, had described in detail contacts with the group that had
planned the coup. The CIA Station Chief at the time, Phil Cherry, had
categorically denied that the United States was involved in the coup.

It had become clear that only the power to call witnesses under oath
before a Congressional Committee could possibly resolve these
conflicting claims. Solarz's aide for foreign affairs was Stanley Roth.
Today, he holds a senior position in the Clinton Administration as
Assistant Secretary of State for Asia. Twenty years ago, as a younger
and perhaps more inquisitive man, Roth asked me how I thought the issue
should be pursued. I suggested that Congressman Solarz pose a simple
"yes" or "no" question in writing to the State Department. I urged Roth
to stick forcefully to getting a "yes" or "no" response. A reply filled
with the familiar State Department language designed to dissemble and
obfuscate managed, whenever possible, to dodge the key questions.

I had written Solarz describing what my Embassy source had told me: that
American personnel from the Embassy had held meetings in the period from
November 1974 to January 1975 with representatives of a group planning a
coup d'etat against Mujib. This diplomat believed that these contacts
had continued until the coup despite the Ambassador's instructions that
they should be broken off.

I had already published a detailed article in The Guardian (London)
describing the views of this Embassy source, and the CIA Station Chief's
denials. A similar article was about to appear in The Nation in New
York. The Guardian article and other documentation had been provided to
Solarz and Roth. I urged Roth to try to achieve one simple goal. Not
ten, but one. There would still be other goals in the future to move
forward on. I suggested to Roth that he ask the following question: "Did
or did not the US Embassy have prior contact with a group planning
Mujib's overthrow in late 1974 and early 1975?" "Yes" or "No". In the
United States it is a tricky matter to lie to a staff member of a
Congressional committee. Although it is frequently done, it might create
problems. If discovered, perjury charges could potentially be framed.

The answer that came back in this instance was "yes". The State
Department affirmed that there had, in fact, been prior contact. In a
letter dated 3 June 1980, Solarz wrote to me: "With respect to the
Embassy meetings in November 1974 - January 1975 period with opponents
of the [Mujibur] Rahman regime, the State Department once again does not
deny that the meetings took place." This letter has been reproduced in
Prothom Alo for the first time. Solarz's letter represented the first
official acknowledgement by the US government that such meetings had in
fact taken place. Their existence had only previously been reported by
this writer based on US Embassy sources. We trusted our principal
sources. Finally, here was an official acknowledgement making clear that
what we had written on this critical point was absolutely accurate. "On
the crucial question of CIA involvement in the post-January 1975 period,
I have not been able to unearth any hard evidence in either direction",
continued Solarz. "I find your allegations sufficiently disturbing to
believe they merit further investigation."

Solarz went on to state: "I believe that such an investigation can
really only be carried out by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, which has the best chance of obtaining access both to CIA
cable traffic and to the relevant figures in the intelligence
community." Solarz reported that he was forwarding "the materials you
sent to me to Congressman [Les] Aspin, along with a letter urging him to
look into the matter." At that time Aspin was Chairman of the
Intelligence Committee. Aspin would later become Secretary of Defence in
the first Clinton Administration.

In his letter to Aspin, Solarz wrote that he was forwarding Aspin
materials "which contain disturbing allegations about CIA involvement in
the 1975 coup which deposed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh."
Solarz's letter to Aspin continued:

"Although I have made formal inquiries about Lifschultz's various
charges with the State Department, I am not fully satisfied with all of
the answers I received. In particular, on the crucial question of CIA
contacts with the coup perpetrators in the January 1975 through August
1975 period, I have been unable to unearth any hard evidence either to
confirm or refute the allegations. I quite agree with Lifschultz's
statement that 'whether or not the United States had prior knowledge of
these plans cannot be conclusively settled without congressional
subpoena power'. Since a thorough investigation of CIA activities in
Bangladesh is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence rather than the Foreign Affairs Committee, I
am turning over Lifschultz's material to you, in the hope that you will
take appropriate action."

However, a curious twist in the story, also emerged from Solarz's
correspondence. While he reported that the State Department had admitted
the 1974-75 "Embassy meetings.... with opponents of the [Mujibur] Rahman
regime," Solarz also noted that "the Department does claim that it
notified [Mujibur] Rahman about the meetings, including the possibility
of a coup." Solarz suggested that if Mujib had been "notified", then
"this would seem to put these meetings in a less conspiratorial light."
Certainly, the State Department while admitting the meetings had
happened sought to portray them in quite an innocent light. The trouble
was that our source, who had been in the Embassy and reported the
contacts to us, hardly regarded them as innocent either at the time they
occurred or on the day Mujib was killed.

After receiving the Solarz letter I did some further checking on my own.
I replied to Solarz on 8 October 1980. I wrote him the following:
"Unlike the persons, who framed the Department's response to you, I
believe there is something disturbing about the manner, style, and
persons these contacts were made with. And I know for certain that there
are silent officials in the State Department who are also disturbed not
only about the way and with whom the 1971 contacts were made, but the
fact that new contacts were again secretly maintained four years later
with the identical group right up to the time they executed the coup
against Mujib. Why, (they ask), did we have these links? To what
purpose?"

"The State Department now confirms the Embassy meetings in the
November-January 1975 period. I have earlier underscored what I regard
as the significance of this admission. In your letter you add: "However,
the Department does claim that it notified [Mujibur] Rahman about the
meetings, including the possibility of a coup". This does not tally with
what our sources have told us and I would urge you to inquire more
deeply into this. I have recontacted a number of people since receiving
your letter and on this point they all seem to agree. You are either
being deceived or the very language of the reply is meant to obfuscate
the main point. Who, indeed, in the Mujib government was informed by our
Embassy about the possibility of a coup? Was Rahman notified directly of
these meetings, by whom, and on what occasion(s)? If the Mujib
government was so well informed about the coup, is it not strange that
Mujib and his entire family were so easily killed and suffered so many
casualties? (His complete family died from machine gun bullets except
for two daughters who were abroad.)"

My letter to Solarz raised another point: "Are we being presented with
an intelligence community tautology here? Does the State Department
response mean the US government informed certain members of the Mujib
government about the possibility of the coup? If so, what does this
mean, when in fact the coup itself was organized by a faction of the
government itself. The coup was an inside job by conservative elements
within Mujib's own party, his own Cabinet, and his own national
intelligence service - all with unusual past associations with the
United States. Now does the State Department mean the Embassy informed
one of these individuals of the possibility of a coup? It reminds me of
the old story about the United States warning the Diem government in
broad terms that there might be trouble, when in fact Colonel
Landsdale's unit had a liaison officer at the headquarters of the
generals planning the coup. The days we could or might like to be naive
about such matters have long past."

"You say that since Mujib was allegedly informed by our Embassy of the
meetings with his opponents, 'including the possibility of a coup', then
these meetings may now be seen in a less conspiratorial light. Our State
Department sources question the veracity of this official explanation
and it now remains the duty of Congress to get to the bottom of this
conflicting testimony. Can you provide us proof of this contention, i.e.
documents? We have been denied the documents under the Freedom of
Information Act that would resolve the issue. We also fear certain
agencies and personalities concerned may have already destroyed
important documentary material. But the only possibility to gain access
to still extant material is by Congress concerning itself with the
matter. On the question of seeing things in a less or more
'conspiratorial light', as you put it, I would simply like to see
everything in the open rather than in the shadows of shallow answers.
Precise answers to precise questions are required. I also unfortunately
do not happen to know any coup which has ever taken place which did not
involve some element of conspiracy... Indeed, if more coups could only
be 'organized' in a more above board manner, we might in fact not have
so many and a few more democratic rights might be intact around the
globe..."

"I believe the State Department response raises more questions than it
answers. But the first step towards a fuller and more accurate picture
of this affair would be a precise (as opposed to totally vague) answer
as to whom informed the Mujib government from the US side, when (dates),
and who in the Mujib government was informed. I dare say - having been
brought to the lip of the cup - we will now be told the water is
'classified' and not for drinking."

I also informed Solarz that in September 1978 I had interviewed Philip
Cherry who had been the CIA Station Chief in Dhaka at the time of the
coup. Cherry had categorically denied that any meetings had taken place
at the Embassy with opponents of the regime who had been planning the
coup. "The State Department has now confirmed the existence of these
meetings," I wrote Solarz. "Mr. Cherry may be sincere in his remarks.
But, I submit that there may also be a contradiction here worthy of
further Congressional inquiry."

I concluded my letter to Solarz by addressing issues of prejudice and
objectivity. "As far as there being any axe to grind on the issue of
'conspiratorial light' is concerned, I might make one statement. In 1975
while reporting the coup d'etat as the Far Eastern Economic Review's
South Asia Correspondent, I rightly dismissed Indira Gandhi's innuendoes
and the unspecific talk of the Moscow oriented Communist parties of
India and Bangladesh about foreign involvement in Mujib's assassination
as specious propaganda."

"But when new information was provided us by senior US officials present
at the American Embassy in Dhaka and from well-informed Bengali sources,
both civilian and military, it became necessary to completely re-examine
our earlier reports and conclusions. So, we might confess that we were
the first to reject 'conspiratorial lights' in 1975, and to describe the
coup as the unilateral action of six junior officers and the 300 men
under their command. We were wrong."

"One last point. Let another misunderstanding not arise which could
deflect from the fundamental issues concerned here. Our inquiries have
nothing to do with an ex-post facto vindication of Mujibur Rahman's
regime - that we leave to his various hagiographers. In 1974 while I was
Bangladesh correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review, the
magazine was banned on three occasions by the Mujib government for
articles considered too critical for circulation. Furthermore, my editor
was virtually told by high officials in the Mujib government during a
visit to Dhaka in late 1974 that he should consider replacing his
correspondent."

The writer is working as a Research Associate at the Yale Centre for
International and Area Studies, Yale University. He was recently named a
Fulbright Scholar for South Asia.

The second instalment appears tomorrow.

______

#2.

THIS BANGLA FILM-MAKER BELIEVES IN BEING DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS

Author: Press Trust Of India
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: August 21, 2000

NEW DELHI, AUG 20: Controversy is virtually the second name of film-maker
Tanvir Mokammel. As a leading director of documentary and feature films in
the parallel cinema circuit of Bangladesh, he has taken up subjects in a
manner few others in his country have done.

Tanvir's first documentary is yet to see the light of day in the absence of
Government clearance even a decade after its making. His first feature
film was objected to by the Bangladesh censor board on the ground of its
containing certain ``unIslamic'' shots. A portion of the shooting of his
latest work was disrupted by fundamentalists.

Yet the director has not shied away from dealing with sensitive subjects in
his films. His last feature film Chitra Nadir Parey (And Quiet Flows the
Chitra), the first Bangladeshi film on the theme of Partition, is an
example of this.

After starting his career in 1984 with an experimental film, based on a
poem by Nirmalendu Goon, one of Bangladesh's front-ranking poets, Tanvir
made his first documentary Smriti Ekattor (Remembrance of 1971) on the
killings of Bangladesh's leading intellectuals by Pak troops during the
liberation war.

The documentary is yet to be released by the Government, says the director
adding no reason has been given for its non-clearance.

Tanvir's first feature film Nadir Nam Madhumati, made in 1994-95, was based
on the atrocities by Pakistani troops during Bangladesh's independence
war. The censor board insisted on cuts of some of its sequences saying
they were ``unIslamic''. The director had refused to comply and moved the
high court which later cleared it. The film won three National awards for
1996 -- Best Script, Best Story and Best Music.

Why does Tanvir choose sensitive subjects for his films? ``The war of
liberation and Partition and their fall-outs raise important issues
relating to the values like secularism. I consider the Partition at the
root of all political and economic problems,'' he said here recently.

Referring to Chitra Nadir Parey, he said, ``As a committed artiste, I would
like to highlight the problems of minorities in Bangladesh. Minorities are
at the receiving-end almost all over the world.''

The film ``offended those who benefited from the Partition and Hindus'
exodus from the then East Pakistan,'' said Tanvir. Although its shooting
had once come under attack, the screening of the film did not elicit
negative response from viewers, he added. The reason? ``I think people
accept your views if they are presented honestly,'' he said.

Based on this belief, Tanvir is working on his next project, Lal Shalu, a
political novel, written by eminent Bangladeshi author, Syed Waliullah.=20
The script is ready and he plans to start shooting the film, early next
year.

[...] .

______

#3.

23 August 2000

To:
Prof. Hugh Johnston
President, Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute.

Dear Hugh:

It was very shocking to know that the Canadian side of the Shastri
Institute establishment has totally succumbed to the pressures of the
Government of India, and has compromised on the principles of
academic and intellectual integrity, at least as we know it in Canada.

Attached here is a Press Release dated yesterday, August 22, coming
out of Toronto, as well as a back-grounder on the "Dust on the Road"
exhibition, a collaborative effort between artists from India and
Canada, and supported by the University of Western Ontario, among
others. You, as President of the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute,
capitulated under the pressure mounted by the High Commissioner of
India and wrote to the University of Western Ontario withdrawing
Shastri's support to the exhibition.

It isn't just the shock I felt. I was angered and I felt horribly
embarrassed: embarrassed for the long time association I have had
with you as a colleague at Simon Fraser University, embarrassed for
the fact that I have worked for over three decades at a university
(and whose Professor Emeritus title I carry) which is associated with
the Shastri Institute and is thus put in a most awkward position to
having to live with the stigma this episode has undoubtedly created,
and embarrassed also for the many years of my many involvements with
the Shastri Institute's functioning. I will return to this personal
involvement a bit later.

Let me ask you to examine this scenario: suppose a Shastri-sponsored
scholar from India gave lectures here denouncing globalization, the
World Bank and the IMF agenda, and the complicity of the Canadian
state in all this. We both know that such things have happened. Would
the Government of Canada put pressure on the Shastri Institute to
un-sponsor such visitors, and publicly disassociate the Institute's
name from the events. Very unlikely; but, maybe, not an
impossibility. The key question is: would the Shastri Institute
succumb to such demands from the Canadian government? You know what
would happen. The whole of Canadian academia would be up in arms.

You are a distinguished academic, a historian. Among other things you
authored a most important book on the infamous Komagata Maru
incident of 1914, and exposed the hugely racist and discriminatory
policies of the Canadian establishment of the day. How would you feel
if you were to be put under governmental pressure to not print the
book? I know and we all know that you would scream "academic
freedom". The entire academic world would come to support you.

What then were the compulsions you felt that you could not tell the
agents of the Government of India that it was none of their business
to interfere in the academic and intellectual commitments of the
Shastri Institute? What remains of your own personal integrity on
these matters?

You very well know that lately there has been tremendous interference
from the high circles of the Government of India in the day to day
functioning of the Shastri Institute. I am aware of your personal
frustrations as reflected in the Presidential Updates you have been
kindly sending out to some of us. The five-year Memorandum of
Understanding has not been signed by the Government of India, even
though more than eighteen months have elapsed. The Rupee allocation
has not been made. The scholars who have won fellowships to go to
India this month may not be able to go.

A most blatant interference made by the Government of India was in
the case of the workshop jointly planned by the University of
Waterloo, the University of Guelph and Jawaharlal Nehru University of
New Delhi, on the topic of "Accommodating Diversity: Learning from
Indian and Canadian Experiences". A very noble venture, indeed.
Canada could certainly learn a lot from the centuries-old composite
civilization India has inherited, with eighteen different languages
spoken and differently written, and practically every religion of the
world followed by its citizens. But given the present-day character
of the rulers of India, they are certainly afraid to open the
learning process of what little Canada could teach them. They are not
interested in honoring and enriching diversity; they are interested
in homogenizing the whole of India under their rubric of Hindutava.
And so, predictably, came down the letter from the High Commissioner
of India, to Shastri, that the proposed workshop on "accommodating
diversity" was "beyond the scope and mandate of the Shastri
Institure"! And the Shastri Institute promptly obliged the High
Commissioner by refusing funding for the workshop. It was shameful,
to put it mildly.

I firmly believe that it is futile, and escapism of the worst kind,
to take cover under the technicalities, under the so-called framework
of a Memorandum of Understanding. I havn't seen the MoU, and I do not
care. If the MoU contains guidelines which prevents a workshop of the
kind mentioned above, or forces you to withdraw support from the
"Dust on the Road' exhibition, I think that the MoU needs to be
thoroughly trashed.

It is not that you are not aware of what has been happening in India
over the last few years. You and I have talked about it, from time to
time. As a professional historian you should be especially aware of
the onslaught the present government has been making on the academic
world. The national body "Indian Council of Historical Research" has
been restructured to suit the particular vision of India's past. An
important book by the noted historian, Dr. K. M. Panikkar, was forced
to be withdrawn from the publisher (Oxford University Press) -
because it painstakingly showed the facts of history which does not
jive with the fascistic agenda of the present day rulers. Incidently,
Dr. Panikkar has been a guest of Canada, on Shastri funding. Can you
dare sponsor a visit by him now?

I can give you a whole bag of examples of how the present Hindutava
government is systematically destroying all the basic tenets of
academic pursuit and intellectual discourse. But that would not be
necessary, because I am absolutely sure that you know of them.

It is absolute necessary, and time has come, that the Canadian
component of the Shastri Institute bring out the on-going problems it
is confronting, and relate them to the larger academic and
intellectual (artists, journalists, writers) community - here in
Canada and globally.

There are more fundamental principles at stake than the question of
making an institution work. The choice has to be made, even though
there may very well be powerful vested interests in Canada which
would rather not face the ugly realities of present-day India.

I am making my choice. I hereby declare that I sever my ties with the
Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. It is my very modest protest.

Over the years I have actively, and enthusiastically, helped to the
best of my ability in the functioning of the Institute. I have acted
as a referee/assessor for Shastri's fellowship applications. I have
participated in orientation sessions for the Canadian students who go
to India to study. I have encouraged my students to avail of the
Shastri fellowships to pursue their studies in India. I have hosted
very many Shastri scholars from India - at times even providing them
accommodation in our home. I have accepted the responsibility of
providing guidance/supervision, for almost a whole year, to a JNU
Ph.D student, and facilitated her field work in the Shuswap First
Nation of BC's interior - with whom I had been working as the
university-side Co-Chair in the Partnership program.

And over the years, I have been principally, if not exclusively,
instrumental in having renowned scholars and academics, writers, film
makers, Theatre artists, Feminist activists, journalists, and even
Members of Parliament from India to come to Vancouver under Shastri
sponsorships, and enrich the academic and public discourse in this
city. The number (just off the cough) runs in over a dozen people.
Maybe there are more I cannot quickly remember. I do not have to name
them; but they are people with outstanding records in their
respective fields.

I did this with a firm conviction that India needs to be understood by the
Canadian people; that a free flow of ideas, as well as exchange
between peoples of different cultures, can only enrich the two
societies.

Not anymore. I cannot be a part of an outfit which succumbs to
pressures of the kind the present day fascist rulers of India,
determined to turn India into a Hindu Nation, makes.

And I wish to raise this whole matter with the larger community at
Simon Fraser University - so that they examine if the university
should be a party to such blatant governmental pressures. A copy of
this is going to Dr. Bruce Clayman, Vice-President, Research and to
Dr. John Munro, Vice-President, Academic of SFU.

We here at this university could at least get some inspiration from
the people at the University of Western Ontario who made a decision
to forgo the grant rather than accede to the demands of the Indian
Government. Said Arlene Kennedy, director of the McIntosh Gallery and
Visual Arts Department of that university: "in my view the request is
a violation of two fundamental tenets that are central to any
university and all public art galleries including the University of
Western Ontario and the McIntosh Gallery: the principles of academic
freedom and arms-length relationship". Very well done, indeed.

And please note that I will be widely broadcasting this to concerned
people here and in India. On your part, I hope, you will circulate it
to the Shastri Board.

With warm regards and best of wishes

hari sharma
-----
Hari P. Sharma, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
Simon Fraser University
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

PRESS RELEASE FROM SALDA

SAHMAT, whose name means "agreement" in Hindi, has produced contemporary
art exhibitions, mobile educational and history projects, interventions,
performances, posters, postcards and books. Founded in the memory of writer
and street theatre activist Safdar Hashmi following his politically
motivated murder on the streets of Delhi in 1989, SAHMAT has documented and
protested the vicious assault launched by the rising tide of sectarianism
and religious fundamentalism on the basic rights of minorities, women and
lower caste people in India.

The Canadian curatorial team of Hoopoe Curatorial - Jamelie Hassan (London,
Ontario-based artist and activist), Peter White (Montreal-based curator and
former director of the Dunlop Art Gallery, Regina) and Phinder Dulai
(Vancouver-based author of Ragas from Peripheries, Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp
Press, 1995 and Basmati Brown, Roberts Creek, BC: Nightwood Editions, 2000)
- seeks to cut across differences in language and location and to present
an active dialogue of global citizenship and civil society in a visual arts
exhibition. In addition to the work of SAHMAT, Dust on the Road features
the work of Canadian artists Stephen Andrews, Shelly Bahl, Michael Belmore,
Carole Cond=C8 and Karl Beveridge, Millie Chen, Stan Denniston, Richard Fun=
g,
Amelia Jim=C8nez and Arthur Renwick. Their work addresses similar themes of
human rights and freedom of expression. The exhibition, also supported by
Raj Palta: Toronto's South Asian Youth Magazine, the A-Space Community Arts
Biennial 2000 and the London Community Foundation, plans to tour to London,
Montreal and Vancouver, incorporating contributions from artists in each
Canadian community in which it is shown, before travelling to India.

To date over 8000 people have visited the Toronto exhibition. The guest
book is filled with positive comments that suggest a Canadian public eager
to discuss and debate the issues raised in the exhibit: "It's wonderful to
see artists connecting with the so-called lay persons and reminding Indians
of their secular tradition and reality" and "As a West Indian / Canadian I
take a lot of things for granted like freedom. Thank you for making me more
socially conscious about this matter."

However, since its opening, some Indian diplomats have been anything but
positive about the exhibit. The Consul General of India, Mr. C.M. Bhandari,
was present for the inaugural talk by SAHMAT representative, photographer
Ram Rahman. Mr. Bhandari was not present in his official capacity nor did
he identify himself to curators and artists. After the talk he had a
discussion with Ram Rahman and others around him in which he expressed his
displeasure about reference in the talk to attacks on artists and
journalists in India and the threat to democracy represented by such
actions. He expressed his position in an interview with NOW Magazine (NOW,
June 29-July 5, 2000), in which he declared himself "totally astonished" by
the political nature of the work, claiming that "this kind of complaint,
which is against one political party, is propaganda."

Jamelie Hassan, co-curator of the exhibit, has lodged an official complaint
about the Indian Consul General's behaviour with External Affairs Minister
Lloyd Axworthy.

On July 23, the Indian High Commissioner came to Toronto to visit the
exhibition. According to gallery staff, he was accompanied by the Consul
General. India Abroad, a community newspaper, quotes his response: "Indian
High Commissioner Rajnikant Verma told India Abroad that the exhibition was
devoid of artistic, literary or cultural merit. He called it a work of
fiction rooted in jaundiced imagination." (India Abroad, August 4, 2000)

In the following days, Mr. Verma brought pressure to bear on the Shastri
Indo-Canadian Institute. On July 27, Prof. Hugh Johnston, President of the
Institute, wrote to the University of Western Ontario, through whom the
money for the SAHMAT exhibit had been given:

"Through a direct communication to the Shastri Institute from Mr.
Rajanikanta Verma, High Commissioner of India, the Government of India has
objected to this exhibition and to the association of the Shastri
Indo-Canadian Institute with it....In response to the objection on the part
of the Government of India, the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute is
requesting you to ensure that its name be disassociated from this
exhibition. Please ensure that no funds provided to the University of
Western Ontario for the Seed Grant for India Studies are used in connection
with this exhibition. Please also ensure that the Shastri Indo-Canadian
Institute's name is not noted as a supporter in connection with any future
showings of this exhibition. Please advise the organizers of the "Dust on
the Road - SAHMAT" exhibition of the same."

On August 10, the McIntosh Gallery and the Visual Arts Department at the
University of Western Ontario made a decision to forgo the grant rather
than accede to the demands of the Indian Government. "In my view the
request is a violation of two fundamental tenets that are central to any
university and all public art galleries including the University of Western
Ontario and the McIntosh Gallery: ...the principles of academic freedom and
arms-length relationship," said Arlene Kennedy, Director of the McIntosh
Gallery and the Visual Arts Department.

The Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute is a bilateral institution funded not
only by the government of India but also by the Canadian government. The
Board of Directors is made up largely of distinguished Canadian academics.
Discussions between Hoopoe Curatorial, the McIntosh Gallery and the Visual
Arts Department at the University of Western Ontario, and the Shastri
Institute have been ongoing since 1998. In 1999, Hoopoe Curatorial, as part
of their project in India, donated a significant collection of 300 books of
contemporary Canadian cultural material to the Shastri Institute's library
in New Delhi. The Institute's funding for the exhibition was based on
knowledge of the involvement of SAHMAT in the exhibition. Withdrawal of
support at this late stage without any substantive explanation sets a
dangerous precedent for norms of accountability and due process within
Canadian public institutions.

[The South Asia Left Democratic Alliance (SALDA) is a Toronto-based
collective formed with the aim of defending and extending a democratic
public culture in India and Canada. It is concerned that this interference
by the Indian High Commissioner extends to Canada the growing trend within
India of suppressing dissenting voices. It is drawn by its commitment to
social justice, democracy and secularism to support Hoopoe Curatorial in
its protest.]

______

#4.

Rajindar Sachar,
Chief Justice (Retd.),
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
UN Special Rappoertuer on Housing
Member, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (Ex.)
President, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) India (Ex.)

23rd August 2000

Public Statement

I have come here today on the invitation of Medha Patkar and others on
behalf of the Narmada Bachao Andolan. I have been invited to attend the
"Saga of Narmada" organized by activists and victims of displacement, due
to the Sardar Sarovar Dam, on August 24 morning at Domkhedi (Maharashtra),
to share their agony and pain of the inhuman displacement violating the
internationally recognized Human Rights Covenants and to which India is a
ratifying party.

I am given to understand that the police here have been given orders to
detain my colleagues and me when we leave Baroda for Domkhedi tomorrow
morning. No law has been shown under which this action is proposed. We are
not breaking any law. We are only exercising our fundamental right of
movement and free speech, inspite of the police warning not to do so. If
inspite of our wanting to exercise our basic rights peacefully and within
law, any of us are detained, arrested or prevented from moving, it will
amount to criminal offence of restraint and wrongful confinement. In that
case we make it clear that we shall bring criminal complaint against the
highest of political personnel and of the police administration in a Court
of Law.

Threat of arrest will not deter us. That strength we reiterate, more so in
the state of father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi.

Rajindar Sachar

______

#5.

Hindustan Times
24 August 2000

PHOTO EXHIBITION LENDS VOICE TO KASHMIRI WOMEN

HT Correspondent
(New Delhi, August 23)
Parveen is a Kashmiri businesswoman who struggles to survive, to
maintain sanity and basic human values in the midst of war. The way she
sees it, the situation in Kashmir involves more than two sides.

"Here it is the militants against the army, the army against anyone it
feels is a militant, the Hizbul Muhjahideen against the Jammu and
Kashmir Liberation Front and Ikhwan (militants brought over by the
government and used in counter insurgency) against the Hizbul. In the
middle of all this innocent people are getting killed."

And bringing her perception of the strife-torn state, from where we are
used to seeing images of violence, is a photo installation by Sheba
Chhachhi and Sonia Jabbar - Women's Initiative on Kashmir. The
exhibition being held at the India Habitat Centre attempts to give space
to women of Kashmir, whose voices have been obscured by the clamour of
war and contention all these years.

The voices culled from interviews and testimonies gathered over a period
of six years by the artists, are voices of reason, compassion and hope.
Voices that could, perhaps, prove to be the seeds for a solution to the
present crisis.

For the two artists who began their work in Kashmir in 1994, it was the
need to explore the affects of armed militancy on women. "We wanted to
find out what was happening to the women in Kashmir. How they were
coping with an atmosphere where violence had become the order of the
day," said Sheba Chhachhi. "At a time when media representation was
overtaken by men, militants, security personnel and politicians, we
wanted women to tell their story."

Sonia Jabbar felt the need to change people's perception of Kashmir. "We
need to go beyond looking at land as territory and people as
dispensable." Its time that graveyards do not exceed villages in the
Kashmir valley.

______

#6.

* * CALL FOR ENTRIES * * CALL FOR ENTRIES * * CALL
FOR ENTRIES * * CALL FOR ENTRIES * *

F o u r t h A n n u a l
C h i n g a r i V i d e o F e s t

S o u t h A s i a n
V i d e o F e s t i v a l

University of Wisconsin-Madison,
October 13 - 14, 2000

Chingari Forum announces the Fourth Annual Chingari South
Asian Video Festival at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Chingari VideoFest 2000 coincides with the Annual Conference
on South Asia organized by UW-Madison Center for South Asia.
The VideoFest provides an opportunity for independent
filmmakers to showcase their work during this international
conference.

Documentary works related to South Asia and its diaspora are
invited. We seek politically progressive projects that deal
with such issues as labor movements; social justice
movements; religious fundamentalism; economic globalization
and market fundamentalism and its impact on the poor;
patriarchy and gender politics; the location and
construction of social identities; lesbian, gay, and
bisexual struggles; racism; political and economic human
rights; and environmental degradation.

Entries should have been released in or after 1997, and must
be submitted on video (only NTSC, standard VHS 1/2 inch
please). English language subtitles are desirable to
facilitate a wider viewing audience, but are not necessary.

All entries will be returned, unless instructed otherwise.

Submissions must be received by Friday, September 15, 2000.

Entry Form and more information about Chingari VideoFest
2000 is available at: http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~chingari

Entry Form and more information can also be obtained by
sending us an email at: chingari@m...

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chingari is a progressive
South Asian and South Asian-American
students' collective at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.

************************************************************
Please visit the Links section on our website for over
150 useful Weblinks.
************************************************************

______________________________
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 blank message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||=
|||||
[Disclaimer : Opinions carried in the dispatches
are not representative of views of SACW compilers]