[sacw] SACW Dispatch #1 | 18-19 Sept. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #1
18-19 September 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

#1. Bangkok Statement of Understanding on Peace Process in Sri Lanka

#2. Pakistan: The Lawless Frontier (Atlantic Monthly article by R. Kaplan)

#3. India: Saffron and green

#4. India: Invitation Public hearing - Bombay 1992-93 riot victims speak

#5. India: The 'Liberal' Bubble Bursts: Vajpayee, the swayamsevak!

=20
--------------------------------------------

#1.

=20=20
The South Asia Forum for Human Rights, Kahtmandu held an audit exercise on
the peace process in Sri Lanka in Bangkok on August 31 to September 3,
2000. The discussion focused on the following four theme areas;
=20=20
1. Review of the past peace processes
2. Humanatarian issues and humanitarian crisis=20
3. Media in peace activism=20
4. Women in conflict and peace making in Sri Lanka=20
=20=20
The peace audit exercise was attended by human rights and peace activists,
academics, political activists, constitutional experts and media persons
both from Sri Lanka and India. The meeting adopted a statement of
understanding which is ... [posted below]
=20=20
SOUTH ASIA FORUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
G.P.O Box 12855, Kathmandu, Nepal

BANGKOK STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING ON PEACE PROCESS IN SRI LANKA

We the participants at the Peace Audit Exercise on the Sri Lanka Peace
Process being deeply concerned about the prevailing situation stressed the
importance of greater democrtaisation of the pursuit of peace and the
primary role of civil society in this regard. The concentration of peace
process at the highest levels of political decision-making has restricted
the space for wider participation of the people and has been a key factor
in contributing to the lack of progress. This lack of progress in turn
further reinforces militarisation and polarisation of society and has lead
to the intense suffering of all the peoples of Sri Lanka, particularly
those living in the combat zones.

In recognition of our complete opposition to the war and the crucial need
for a viable civil society agenda for peace, we focused on four themes and
identified courses of action to further the peace process - i. Review of
the Peace Process ii. Humanitarian issues and the peace and reconciliation
process iii media and peace activism IV. Women in conflict and peace making=
.

We feel that any genuine solution to the problem must include the following
factors:
Recognition of the diversity and respect for the human rights and
democratic rights of all the peoples of Sri Lanka irrespective of their
numerical strength as communities; taking into consideration the serious
deterioration of the democratic system in Sri Lanka the reform of
institutions and processes of governance.
Proposals for devolution and power sharing must instill faith and
confidence in the democratic and non-violent forms of conflict resolution
and be just and comprehensive in addressing the root causes of conflict. =
=20
The role of the LTTE must be recognised as integral in any peace process.

The necessity of a people=92s movement for democratic reform was considere=
d
as an essential component of the peace process.
Third party assistance in the peace process was recognised as necessary
and unavoidable in ensuring constructive dialogue between the protagonists
and the role of the UN and international organisations in monitoring human
rights violations and encouraging the peace process was also recognised the
peace.

We feel that in defining humanitarian space there is need to go beyond the
stereotype of what constitutes humanitarian assistance - humanitarian
assistance should not only refer to such items as food clothing and shelter
but also the right to access to these means of existence.=20

These have to be seen in the context of the human rights of the affected
persons.=20

We deplore the weaponisation of the basic means of survival e.g. food,
medicine and shelter and stress the fundamental link between humanitarian
issues and human rights. The justification of the intensity of the conflict
cannot be used to deprive people of their basic rights and to injure the
human dignity of all persons. The state cannot abdicate its obligation to
protect and provide for the welfare of all its citizens. Obligations of the
Sri Lankan government and the LTTE as a non -state actor under
international law with regard to this need to be strongly emphasized.=20
The delivery of relief and humanitarian assistance should be handled by
civilian authorities and agencies supervised by international humanitarian
institutions; there has to be a humanitarian corridor for such supplies
supervised by these international institutions.
The way Tamils are treated by the pass system, the arbitrary detention of
youth, denial of legal redress in their own language, gravely impede the
process of reconciliation. Redress in these areas can and should be the
starting point for confidence building.=20
The humanitarian plight of the Muslim and Sinhala minorities in the combat
zones needs attention and they should not become a pawn in ethnic politics.=
=20
In the context of escalating conflict, a humanitarian corridor should be
created under the supervision of the ICRC or any other neutral organisation
to assist the civilian population to move to safe areas.=20=20=20=20
The role of Indian civil society, in particular, in raising and providing
humanitarian assistance and urging the government of Indian to provide
shelter to the fleeing population of Sri Lanka is of special importance and
will go along way in evolving norms of South Asian solidarity with the
victims.
=20
We feel that in understanding media coverage of the conflict, constraints
such as the ethnic divide, the state and non state media divide, censorship
and self censorship, as well as the lack of professionalism in the media
must be considered. As a means of overcoming these constraints the
following recommendations were made. The use of alternative channels of
communication and the crucial need for civil society peace organisations to
develop specific media strategies was emphasized.=20

Demystification of IT and capacity building of NGO in employing IT in
their lobbying and dissemination programmes.=20
The creative use of multi media and the dissemination of programmes
promoting peace on radio and TV both private and state owned, was stressed.
Training programmes for sensitising journalists to issues of social
justice and =93what is news=94 in conflict situations. Better professional
training could be a first step in countering the problem of self-censorship=
.=20
The need for a Right to Information law was emphasized. The use of
draconian, emergency and censorship laws to restrict freedom of expression
and the right to information was condemned and their immediate removal was
called for. Free access of journalists to the military zone was also called
for.

We feel that women throughout Sri Lanka should be singled out as being
adversely affected by war both directly and indirectly. Women constitute
50 % of the population, which has been displaced, and the war experience
has affected both their self-perception and the dynamics of gender
relationships within communities. In some cases conflict is forcing the
revival of hitherto discarded social practices, which undermine women=92s
autonomy e.g. veiling of Muslim women. The phenomenon of women headed
households has imposed an additional burden on women but it has also opened
up ambivalent spaces of empowerment.=20
Conflict has forced women to think and act in terms of their ethnicity and
this polarisation has made it difficult for civil society women activists
to work together let alone bringing together the women of the various
communities.=20

Whilst there has to be a search for common ground on the basis of shared
experiences and values, there needs to be a plurality of approach in
organising women from the three communities taking into account the
different ground situation in which they are placed and the specific needs
of their respective communities.
Humanitarian relief and economic empowerment, by themselves will not
alleviate the situation of women in conflict: the centrality of political
empowerment was emphasized.
Once more the primacy of democratisating the peace process was emphasized
as an indispensable condition for the participation of women. It will
provide women their due space in society and strengthen their role in the
peace building process.=20=20

The agony that all the peoples of Sri Lanka are currently enduring demands
a comprehensive and vibrant discourse on democratisation on the one hand
and devolution and power sharing on the other. This situation creates an
enormous obligation on civil society and its organisations. It also casts a
duty on the civil society in South Asia to support the Sri Lankans at this
crucial hour.=20

______

#2.

Atlantic Monthly=20
September 2000=20

THE LAWLESS FRONTIER

The tribal lands of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border reveal the future of
conflict in the Subcontinent, along with the dark side of globalization=20

by Robert D. Kaplan

(Full text of the above article is available on request. Should you require
a copy send a message to <aiindex@m...> for a copy)
______

#3.

The Hindustan Times
18 September 2000
Op-Ed

SAFFRON AND GREEN=20
by Amulya Ganguli

Bal Thackeray has every reason to be upset. After all, the hype about
Ramjanmabhoomi, the rath yatra and subsequent riots, masjid demolition and
subsequent riots, the targeting of more mosques for demolition, the
=91reawakening=92 of Hindus after a thousand years of slavery, what does th=
e
BJP do but to reinvent the wheel of =91pseudo-secularism=92 to woo the Musl=
ims.

So, will it be back to square one again, the Shiv Sena supremo may have
wondered. Will the Muslims no longer be regarded as the children of Babur
who must atone for the sins of their fore-fathers? Will the history books
be re-rewritten by Murli Manohar Joshi to erase the saffron slant? Will the
National Commission of Women produce fresh =91studies=92 saying that the
subjugation of women did not after all begin with the Muslim invasion? Will
the Khans continue to reign unchallenged in Bollywood?

If anyone could have understood the BJP=92s change of line, however, it is
Mumbai=92s Citizen No. 1. He, too, had once abruptly changed track. Recalli=
ng
his earlier phase, a letter writer in The Indian Express recently recounted
how travelling in a suburban train in the Bombay of the late Sixties he had
learnt about how the Shiv Sainiks were creating mayhem, stopping people at
random and asking them to speak in Marathi. If they couldn=92t, they were
soundly thrashed.

Their targets were south Indians, or Madrasis, as they were called. But
that particular period of Mr Thackeray=92s politics was short-lived because=
,
as a sociologist pointed out, the Madrasis refused to be good enemies, for
they quickly learnt how to speak fluent Marathi. If the enemy cannot be
identified, a battle cannot be fought. So Mr Thackeray switched track,
targeting another =91M=92 for cheering Pakistan during cricket matches.

This new venture had the BJP=92s whole-hearted support, for the Muslims not
only tended to cheer Pakistan but also bred furiously with their four
wives, threatening to overwhelm the Hindus demographically since the latter
could have no more than one wife under the secular dispensation.

The two Hindutva warriors carried on nicely till the unfortunate democratic
practice of periodic elections (no wonder Mr Thackeray does not approve of
democracy) brought home a harsh fact to the BJP. The party suddenly
realised that its share of vote was stagnating. Earlier, RSS chief K.S.
Sudarshan had acknowledged that attendance at the organisation=92s shakhas
was falling. Clearly, at both the political and organisational levels,
something was going wrong. There is nothing unusual, of course, with a
party changing its line.

Tony Blair has ushered in a new Labour which, his critics say, is
indistinguishable from the old Conservative Party. George W. Bush is
favouring compassionate conservatism. The Chinese have abandoned Marx and
Mao for the market. The Grand Old Party of India, the Congress, is changing
all the time =97 from socialism to market economy to socialism again.

But these are all parties which are independent entities. The BJP, however,
does not stand alone. It is part of a parivar. Not only that, it isn=92t ev=
en
the head of the parivar. The head is the RSS. Unless the BJP wants to break
with the RSS, it cannot follow a policy which is diametrically opposed to
what is favoured by the RSS. True, it can influence the RSS to moderate,
even change, its stance. Or at least not to oppose the BJP too vociferously
for a time. But the two following different lines and yet remaining in the
same parivar is out of the question.

The reason is that the RSS world-view has no place for Muslims and other
minorities. As Golwalkar pointed out with disarming candour, the Muslim is
Internal Enemy No. 1 and the Christian is Internal Enemy No. 2. The
feverish rewriting of history which Murli Manohar Joshi has undertaken is
based on this premise. He wants to change the standard historical view
which has been treating the Muslim invasion of India on a par with other
invasions, including that of Aryans, as a part of worldwide migrations.

It wasn=92t seen by historians and sociologists as a disaster but as an eve=
nt
which initiated the process of synthesis of various cultures and produced a
rich heritage. The emphasis on assimilation was deliberate, for the
objective was to encourage all the communities =97 invaders and natives =97=
to
bury the past and build a common future.

The RSS wants, however, to focus only on the dissonance of the past and see
it as a conflict which will not end till the Internal Enemies are defeated
and Hindu rashtra is established. If the BJP went merrily along with this
view, it is not only because the party subscribes to it, but also because
it believed that the strong communal feelings generated by its hampioning
of the Hindu cause will obliterate the social, political and other
differences among the Hindus and bring them under the saffron banner.

But it read the Indian mind wrong. Not all Indians want to continue
fighting the battles of the old against the =91children of Babur=92. Nor do=
es
the devotion of the Hindus to their faith mean that they regard other
religions with disfavour and approve of the intimidation of their
followers. And, above all, the political purpose of the saffron campaign
has been exposed. The realisation has also dawned that, for all their
sanctimonious pretences, the BJP stalwarts are really no different from the
other politicians and are probably a lot worse.

Indeed, the BJP=92s latest ploy is typical of grasping politicians with
nothing on their minds but power. Having realised that an overall Hindu
unity is not possible, they have decided to reach out to the Muslims in the
same manner in which they earlier spoke of starting a process of =91social
engineering=92 by stitching together the votes of the upper and lower caste=
s.
But voters cannot be gathered like sheep in a pen. While herding some in,
others may escape. While the intermediate castes are parting company with
the BJP, its latest move may cause consternation among the party=92s upper
caste supporters as well.

It is difficult to understand why the BJP made such an unthinking move, for
it will probably hurt the party more than help it. While the minorities are
unlikely to be fooled, given the seven decades of propaganda against them
by the RSS, the saffron camp=92s own supporters will be confused and aliena=
ted.

Not only Mr Thackeray, but a host of others =97 Ashok Singhal, Acharya
Giriraj Kishore, et al =97 will shudder at the idea of supping with a
community whose disinclination to sing Vande Mataram made the VHP call for
its disenfranchisement.

_____

#4.=20

September 17, 2000=20

INVITATION PUBLIC HEARING:

SURVIVORS OF THE 1992-93 MUMBAI TO SPEAK OUT ON HOW AFTER EIGHT YEARS
JUSTICE HAS STILL NOT BEEN DONE

Survivors of the Mumbai riots (1992-1993) have spent the last eight years
grappling with an insensitive and uncaring administration that has not even
honoured it's commitment for monetary compensation for the lives brutally
lost, let alone emotional and psychological rehabilitation.

The present Maharashtra government =13 headed by political parties which on=
ly
a year ago gained political mileage promising the reports=19 implementation
has broken its promise by agreeing nearly word for word with the Shiv
Sena-BJP government=19s ATR rejecting most of the findings of a High Court
Judge.=20

To protest against the cavalier attitude of the state government,
Communalism Combat is organising a=20

PUBLIC HEARING on Sunday, September 24 2000

At 10 a.m. at K.C. College Hall, Churchgate, Bombay, India=20

where survivors of the 1992-93 riots will recall their nightmarish
experiences before a jury of prominent citizens of Mumbai.

We urge you to attend and give solidarity to the survivors in their
relentless struggle for justice. Can there ever be reconciliation without
justice?

A month ago, the Supreme Court directed the Government of Maharashtra to
file an affidavit on the action being taken on the recommendations of the
Srikrishna Commission. Concerned citizens are shocked to find that the
affidavit filed the state government is a nothing short of a mockery of the
principal recommendations of Justice BN Srikrishna.=20

It may be recalled that the major findings and recommendations of a
citizen=19s report (People=19s Verdict) brought out in 1993 itself are simi=
lar
to those suggested by the officially-appointed Srikrishna Commission. Thus,
for all practical purposes, a committee of IAS bureaucrats and IPS officers
appointed by the Maharashtra government has effectively OVERRULED the
findings and recommendations of three prominent judges of the Mumbai high
court.=20

1. The Srikrishna Commission had recommended the criminal prosecution
of 31 police personnel -- including the then joint commissioner of police,
RD Tyagi =13 for their biased conduct during the riots. The Committee had
recommended action against 18 of the 31 police personnel but the state
government affidavit mentions that action will be taken only against 15 of
them.

2. The Commission had indicted several politicians, including Shiv Sena
chief, Bal Thackeray, former chief minister, Manohar Joshi and others. The
government's affidavit is totally silent on whether it proposes any action
in this connection.

3. The Commission had recommended the re-opening of 1,148 riot-related
cases which the Mumbai police had quietly and illegally buried under 'A'
category (which means that though the crimes were committed, police has=20
closed the cases, ostensibly for lack of any evidence). But the government
=20=20=20=20
has decided that only 112 of these cases are worthy of being re-opened.

4. Besides recommending the criminal prosecution of 31 policemen, the
Commission had passed severe strictures against the role of the Mumbai
police during the riots and had suggested long term reforms to ensure that
such biased police conducted is not repeated in future. But the government
committee has chosen to give a good character certificate to the same
police force. R.S. Negi, principal secretary, department of home,
Maharashtra government, repudiates the Judge's observations on the blatant
bias witnessed in police conduct by stating: "I say and submit that State
Government feels that barring some stray exceptions, the police force is by
and large secular, impartial and free from bias. The impartial way in which
the Mumbai police handled the communal riots for many years have proved
their secular and impartial character."

All groups who have been concerned with, and agitating on the issue of
implementation of the Srikrishna Commission's report will be lending
solidarity to the public hearing.

Teesta Setalvad & Javed Anand

Editors, Communalism Combat, Bombay, India

_____

#5.

Praful Bidwai Column
18 September 2000

THE 'LIBERAL' BUBBLE BURSTS: VAJPAYEE, THE SWAYAMSEVAK!

By Praful Bidwai

Whichever way one looks at it, and flimsy "clarifications" notwithstanding,
Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee's Staten Island speech, in which he declared
himself an RSS swayamsevak, was an utter disgrace. India's Prime Minister
had simply no business to participate in a narrowly partisan VHP-BJP
gathering defined by a divisive agenda when he was on an official,
"institutional" visit to the United States (coupled with a medical
check-up). Indeed, the rationale of accepting the invitation of Mr
Clinton's lame-duck government was that the visit would be limited to
institutional non-party activities.

The vitiation of this rationale was compounded by the presence in Mr
Vajpayee's audience of 108 sadhus, as well as functionaries of the
"Overseas Friends of the BJP", including hardcore RSS members. The fact
that the dais also featured two other Indian ministers, including the
foreign minister, and the ambassador to the U.S., only means the Prime
Minister illegitimately mixed official and party agendas. Worse, he failed
to dissociate himself from the Ayodhya temple demand. His description of
the construction of a Ram temple as part of the "India of our dreams"
further compounds the offence: his government is formally committed to
opposing the construction unless the issue is legally settled.

Mr Vajpayee was fully aware of the gross impropriety he was committing. He
measured and honed his words to suit his audience and its location. The
only logical explanation for this is that he was publicly repaying a debt
to the RSS and VHP-USA. These organisations have collected billions for the
BJP-VHP-RSS in India. Thus, although the Staten Island speech was shocking,
it was not surprising. Mr Vajpayee declared that his status as a
swayamsevak ("a right no one can ever take away from me") is dearer to him
than even the Prime Ministership, a dispensable job. The same theme was
played in his statement that India's politicians sorely need the "guidance"
of the sadhus on the platform.

Mr Vajpayee's performance in New York, five years after the infamous "The
Sangh is my Soul" in Organiser, should lay to rest--conclusively and once
and for all--one myth self-servingly cultivated by BJP sympathisers,
especially those with a liberal or secular past. The myth is that the BJP
has finally cut its umbilical cord to the RSS and virtually reinvented
itself to become a "normal" party which is no longer obsessed with
Hindutva. Central to this myth is Mr Vajpayee's larger-than-life figure, no
longer presented just as the sangh parivar's "soft face", nor even as "the
right man in the wrong party," but as a modern liberal, a decent,
compassionate leader wedded to humane ideas. Didn't he force the BJP to
abandon its rusty old trishul: viz. Ram temple, Article 370, and Uniform
Civil Code? We are told he has all but caused a decisive rupture between
the BJP and RSS. Many "factoids" are cited in support, the latest being his
selection of the BJP national executive and vetoing of RSS "hardcore"
members. As we see below, these claims are rather dubious.

To start with, the BJP never even set out to break with Hindutva or the
RSS--whether in in Bangalore and Madras in 1998 and 1999 or in Nagpur this
last August. It merely sought accommodation with the RSS under the latter's
tutelage in keeping with changes in the sangh. After all, the equation
between Mr Vajpayee and the sarsanghachalaks (Deoras or Rajju Bhaiyya)
couldn't remain unaltered once they gave way to the much less experienced
Mr KS Sudarshan.=A0 The BJP's rapid post-1985 growth--until recently, that
is--allowed it in some instances to somewhat reduce its dependence on RSS
pracharaks (although that no longer holds as elections approach, as is in
Uttar Pradesh). However, such minor changes could not alter the RSS's role
as the BJP's ideological mentor, organisational gatekeeper and political
hegemon.

The BJP remains firmly attached to Hindutva alias "Cultural Nationalism".
This doctrine of Hindu primacy asserts that India is quintessentially
Hindu, and that this Hindu identity must underlie any endeavour to build a
"great nation". Jana Sangh-BJP leaders have always clung to this doctrine
with minor variations of emphasis. There have been periods of friction or
tension between the BJP and the RSS (e.g. the early 1950s or mid-1980s).
But Hindutva has never been questioned. No one in the Saffron Brotherhood
has contested it.=20

There is no evidence whatever that Mr Vajpayee disagrees with Hindutva's
foundational premises. His visceral prejudice against Christians (whom he
evidently regards as "converts"--remember his call for a "national debate
on conversion" after the 1998 anti-Christian attacks in Gujarat?) testifies
to this. And his love of the Bomb is in line with Hindutva militarism. The
RSS was privy to his 1998 test decision, which was hidden even from the
home and defence ministers until the morning of May 11.

Those who to see a "secular liberal" in Mr Vajpayee confuse softness of
appearance with principled, hard-nosed commitment to pluralist tolerance.
They equate familiarity with Urdu with devotion to secularism, and confuse
a somewhat unconventional lifestyle with radical morals. Mr Vajpayee has
never advocated radical pluralism--not even in his poetry, which,
significantly, never refers to the human condition, only to India's ancient
glory. He has never accepted the liberal notion of freedom of the
individual or universal citizenship. His Sangh is my Soul only talks of the
RSS's two tasks. "One is to organise the Hindus. The other is to assimilate
the non-Hindus...in the mainstream. They can follow the faith of their own
conviction... But they must have a feeling of patriotism..." Mr Vajpayee
casts aspersions on Muslims who, he tendentiously claims, have "yet to
learn the art of existing and flourishing in a country where (they) are in
a minority". Such a paternalistic view seeks to "assimilate" the
unintegrated, "them" into the "mainstream".=20

However, secularism is not about assimilating "them", those "others". It is
about recognising that India has always been a multi-religious,
multi-ethnic society; it never was "essentially" Hindu. "Us" and "Them"
can't be defined on the basis of religion; adherence to faith doesn't
define a political community. Politics and religion must be separated. The
BJP, like the pre-Partition Muslim League, rejects this and privileges one
community alone. It is this, and not its devotion to violent riots, that
makes it communal (which is not to say it hasn't instigated, condoned or
used riots).

The BJP is also strongly pro-rich and anti-poor. It has mindlessly promoted
LPG (liberalisation, privatisation, globalisation), undermined public
services, and greatly widened income and regional inequalities. No other
party has even attempted such wholesale transfer of public wealth into
private hands or been so callous towards the poor. None of this speaks of
liberalism. Indeed, these policies politically weaken and disenfranchise
the vast majority, especially the underprivileged, thus undermining their
rights. In all this, Mr Vajpayee is as conservative as the RSS hardcore.=20

Apart from these structural links, there is an even stronger reason why the
BJP won't break its RSS bond. The BJP has failed to build a truly popular
or plebeian base. Its national vote peaked at 26 percent and is now down to
23. If U.P. is any indication, its OBC base will shrink, and it will fall
back upon its traditional "Brahmin-Bania" base. That's why Mr Vajpayee
replaced Mr Kalyan Singh (whom he sacked) with a non-descript Bania, not
another OBC leader. As BJP political mobilisation flounders, it could move
closer to the RSS. Mr Vajpayee's swayamsevak speech, then, may serve a
politico-electoral purpose. BJP leaders have interpreted it in precisely
those terms.

The context of the swayamsevak episode is a vigorous power struggle inside
the sangh parivar. It is difficult, given the BJP's nature, to speak of
factions based on ideological, regional or programmatic differences.
Rather, there are clientelist relationships between "wise" leaders and
"disciplined" followers. Even so, some rivalries are clearly discernible,
the most intense being that between Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani. Mr Vajpayee
has ruthlessly co-opted or sacked most Advani loyalists.

Thus, various former pro-Advani heavyweights from Messers Pramod Mahajan
and Yashwant Sinha to Arun Jaitley and Arun Shourie have gone over to Mr
Vajpayee. (At a much lower level, these defectors include Sudheendra
Kulkarni and Kanchan Gupta). Those still close to Mr Advani, like Mr
Govindacharya, Ms Uma Bharati and Sushma Swaraj, are out in the cold. Even
Mr Narendra Modi may be worming his way into the Vajpayee camp. Mr Vajpayee
has used all means to achieve this, including the lure of office, and often
threats to abdicate altogether...

None of this means Mr Vajpayee is distancing himself from Hindutva
hardliners. He is busy building his own power base and interfering with the
party organisation. After 7 p.m., it is strictly Party Time in the PMO.
Never before has Mr Vajpayee taken such a close interest in organisational
matters. This has little to do with competing with or marginalising the
RSS. Mr Vajpayee needs the RSS, just as it needs him. The sangh, after all,
is his Soul.--end-=20

_____________________________________________
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 necessarily representative of views of SACW compilers]