[sacw] SACW Dispatch #2 | 31 Aug. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #2
31 August 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

[Important Notice: The SACW dispatches will be interrupted between the
period September 1- 6, and resume from the 7th September on]

#1. A formula for peace in Kashmir (Amanullah Khan)
#2. Myth of BJP's 'Moderation': Hindutva thrust continues ( Praful Bidwai)
#3. India: The World, the Flesh and the Sanyasi ( Meenakshi Jain )
#4. India: Religion is no reason to cause noise pollution: Supreme Court
#5. Letter re VHP presence at UN meet from Indian MP's handed to Kofi Anan
#6. Protest re VHP Outside Waldorf Astoria in NYC (31st September)

--------------------------------------------

#1.

The News International
31 August 2000
Op-Ed.

A FORMULA FOR PEACE IN KASHMIR

Amanullah Khan

Never before was keen and serious attention towards the Kashmir issue so
badly needed as it is today. The issue has turned into a nuclear
flash-point and, to quote President Clinton, Kashmir has become the most
dangerous place on earth. Let us first take a look at some important and
related historical facts which seem to have been pushed to the backstage
by vested interests.

Immediately after, and even before, free India and Pakistan came into
being in August 1947, their founding fathers had pledged at the national
and international level that they would let the people of Kashmir shape
their own future in accordance with their national aspirations and
freely expressed will. Mahatma Gandhi, India's godfather, on his return
from Kashmir in the first week of August 1947, declared that Kashmiris
alone could determine the future of their motherland.

The head of the Indian delegation declared at the UN Security Council on
January 15, 1948, "=8AWhether she (Kashmir) should withdraw from her
accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent
with a right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations--all
this we have recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the
people of Kashmir after normal life is restored there...."

On July 9, 1951, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister and
one of the two main founding fathers of free India, declared, "Kashmir
has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People
seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be
bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the
final arbiters of their future." There are scores of similar commitments
on record from Indian leaders.

On the Pakistani side, the father of the Pakistani nation, Quaid-i-Azam
Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared on June 16, 1947, "It is open to the states
(the princely states of the subcontinent including Kashmir) to join the
Hindustan (India) Constituent Assembly or Pakistan Constituent Assembly
or decide to remain independent. In the last case, they can either enter
into such arrangements or relationships with Hindustan or Pakistan as
they may choose=8A" He repeated this point of view on July 11 and 30, 1947
also. His statement of July 11, 1947 was specially on Kashmiris' right
to determine their own future, including opting for complete
independence of the State.

There are scores of such commitments on record from other Pakistani
leaders too. Both India and Pakistan signed the UNCIP resolutions of
August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, which provide for Kashmiris
determining their own future, although the scope of Kashmiris' choice
had been limited in the second UNCIP Resolution. It may also be
mentioned here that India, who now claims that Kashmir is her own
domestic problem, had herself internationalised it by taking it to the
United Nations.

With the passage of time, the above pledges, instead of being honoured,
changed into the question as to who should own the whole of Kashmir,
with both India and Pakistan claiming it on different grounds. India
claims proprietorship of the whole state on the basis of the Kashmir
rulers' defective and conditional accession of the state to India.
Pakistan, claims it on the basis of the two-nation theory, ignoring the
fact that the theory did not apply to princely states, including
Kashmir, as confirmed by her own founding father's stand. Pakistan had
got the Kashmiris' choice limited to choosing only between India and
Pakistan (per UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949) to make sure that
Kashmir became part of Pakistan as a result of the proposed plebiscite.
India, using her strong diplomatic muscle, got two UN Security Council
resolutions--re-iterating Kashmiris right to self-determination--vetoed
by the then Soviet Union.

It is shameful that while the western colonial powers have given freedom
to as many as 130 enthrawled nations since 1947-48, when India and
Pakistan had pledged to let Kashmiris exercise their right of
self-determination, "the biggest and the greatest democracy on earth"
and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have forgotten their solemn pledges
to let Kashmiris exercise their basic human and democratic right and are
busy bargaining on Kashmir under the cover of Simla, Lahore or Kargil,
and even under the ignominious doctrine of might is right. What a shame.

This is one painful aspect of the conduct of India and Pakistan on
Kashmir. The other aspect is that in the process of their tug of war on
the issue, they made it a matter of their national ego and stuck to
their guns going to the extent of risking their own security. Besides
sucking the blood of the economies of both countries through unbearable
regular defence expenditures, Kashmir also caused two bloody wars
between them and a third one--this time an atomic one--cannot be ruled
out if the issue is not solved at the earliest and once for all.

As for Kashmiris, they have been undergoing the worst kinds of trials
and tribulations all these years. During the last 12 years alone, over
80,000 Kashmiris have been killed, thousands of women raped and property
worth tens of billions destroyed, mainly by the armed forces of India
deployed in Kashmir numbering about 700,000. Some of the Kashmiri
'freedom fighters' and mujahids (holy warrors) have also been resorting
to activities not befitting real freedom fighters or real mujahids.

The attitude of the international community on the issue has not, on the
whole, been just and reasonable too. As the legendary human rights
champion, Dr Martin Luther King, has put it, "The ultimate tragedy is
not the oppression and cruelty by bad people but the silence over it by
the good people." It is so painful to see the world in general and the
"good people" in particular keeping quiet on the Kashmir tragedy just to
avoid annoyance of those responsible for this tragedy.

Besides the question of conceding their inherent and pledged right to
Kashmiris, this issue is also fraught with grave dangers to world peace
and to the global economic order. With two arch rivals equipped with
nuclear arsenals and tempers high on both sides, any catastrophe can
befall the world anytime. As such, it is the responsibility of the
international community to save the world from such a catastrophe and
this can be done only by solving the Kashmir problem.

The unavoidable conditions for a solution of the Kashmir issue to be
reasonably acceptable to all the three parties to the issue are that the
solution:

* should not hurt the national egos of India or Pakistan;

* should not harm their national ideologies and legitimate national
interests;

* should not cause mass-migrations, communal/ethnic disturbances,
bloodshed; and

* should be based on the national aspirations and freely expressed will
of the Kashmiri people. The formula presented by the Jammu Kashmir
Liberation Front (JKLF) fulfils all these conditions.

The JKLF formula, proposed to be implemented by an 11-member
International Kashmir Committee (IKC), is that divided Kashmir be
reunited in five peaceful phases and made a fully independent country
(initially for 15 years) with a democratic, federal and secular system
of government and having friendly relations with both India and
Pakistan. It proposes an agreement between Kashmir and the international
community to the effect that the latter, specially the immediate
neighbours of Kashmir, would not violate its frontiers nor interfere in
its internal affairs and Kashmir would undertake not to let its soil be
used against any country. Fifteen years after reunification, let there
be a UN supervised referendum in which the people of Kashmir will
determine whether Kashmir should remain independent or become part of
India or Pakistan. This popular verdict should be accepted by all
concerned as the final settlement of the Kashmir issue and be
implemented.

The proposed 11-member International Kashmir Committee (IKC), to be
formed by the UN Secretary General, and comprising one representative
each from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council,
Germany, Japan and the Islamic Conference (OIC) and two from the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), should implement the formula with the
cooperation and help, to be obtained by IKC, of the governments of India
and Pakistan and of the indigenous political parties of both parts of
Kashmir. The IKC should be helped also by the UN Military Observers
Group (UNMOGIP), already functioning in the state.It should be duly
strengthened to cater to the needs of implementation of the formula.

The five phases of implementation of the formula will be:

* formation of IKC and acceptance of the formula by India, Pakistan and
the Kashmiris;

* demilitarisation of Kashmir;

* disarming of anti and pro-India armed civilians in Kashmir;

* reunification of the divided state and formation therein of an
independent government; and

* 15 years later, a UN-supervised referendum.

The formula will solve the issue without hurting the national egos of
India and Pakistan, and not giving either of them a sense of defeat as
neither of them will have to hand over the Kashmir territory now under
its control to the other. Since the formula does not give the part of
the Muslim majority state now under India to Muslim Pakistan, it will
not disturb or harm Indian secularism. This solution does not harm the
legitimate national interests of India and Pakistan because Kashmir will
have friendly relations with both India and Pakistan and Kashmiri soil
will not be used against either of them.

Nevertheless, the best golden gift of the formula is that it will change
Kashmir from being the bone of contention into a bridge of friendship
between India and Pakistan. This change will, on the one hand, save
South Asia from the horrors of a nuclear or a conventional war and rid
the two countries of the heavy defence budgets. On the other hand, it
will herald the dawn of a peaceful, prosperous and dignified future for
India, Pakistan and Kashmir. It will also benefit the entire world by
helping to maintain world peace and by facilitating large scale
investments in these two countries and Kashmir, which are inhabited by
over one fifth of the world's population. All that India and Pakistan
have to do for these colossal gains is to part with the territories of J
ammu Kashmir state now under their respective control.

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, His Exellency Kofi Annan, the
UN Secretary General, and the Security Council members owe it to their
undertaking (to try to remove tension between India and Pakistan) under
the unanimous Security Council Resolution No 1172 of June 7, 1998, to
take concrete steps towards the formation of the proposed International
Kashmir Committee (IKC) and to facilitate it to do its job. The people,
the political parties and the governments of India, Pakistan and Kashmir
(on both sides of the LoC) owe it to their own future generations to
accept the formula and cooperate with IKC in its implementation.

Freedom-loving, humanist and judicious governments, individuals and
organisations the world over, also owe it to their principles to
persuade the UN Secretary General, India and Pakistan to accept and
implement the formula. The world leaders assembling in New York for the
UN Millennium Summit also owe it to world peace and the overall
interests of humanity to accept the aforementioned solution of Kashmir
issue and to persuade the leaders of India and Pakistan also to do so
and to facilitate its implementation.

Let us hope all these people realise their responsibilities. This will
rid 15 million Kashmiris of the agony they have been in for over half a
century; guarantee a peaceful and prosperous future for one and a
quarter billion people of South Asia; strengthen world peace and ensure
a smooth functioning of the World Economic Order.

______

#2.

Praful Bidwai Column
4 September 2000

MYTH OF BJP'S 'MODERATION': HINDUTVA THRUST CONTINUES

By Praful Bidwai

On the currently fashionable view, the Bharatiya Janata Party
"re-invented" itself at its national council meeting in Nagpur. Its
"moderates" asserted themselves, while RSS hardliners beat a retreat. This
has been seen by some as signifying a major change in power balances within
the sangh parivar, related to the election of Mr Bangaru Laxman, a Dalit,
as party president. They emphasise that Mr Laxman talked of expanding the
party's social base and reaching out to Muslims. More important, the party
overwhelmingly endorsed the NDA's economic policy. Even on Kashmir, the
hardliners did not exactly corner the leadership. The party's government
wing generally prevailed over the organisational bosses.

All this has been taken to mean that Mr Vajpayee has made a break with
Hindutva and put the BJP on an irreversible course of "moderation". This
view is profoundly mistaken. Despite some mutual discomfort and friction,
and a temporary setback to swadeshi, the RSS and the BJP have not got into
an antagonistic relationship. They are only reaching a new accommodation
with each other. The BJP has in no way diluted the Hindutva
perspective--the distinctive programmatic characteristic of all members of
the sangh parivar. It still wants to transform Indian society in order to
assert the primacy of just one community. There has indeed been a shift
within the parivar on economic policy, with even Mr K. N. Govindacharya
falling in line with messianic neo-liberalism, including runaway
globalisation and privatisation. But this is not a break with Hindutva.

Hindutva's agenda has never been reducible either to swadeshi (economic
pseudo-patriotism) or to the infamous trishul, viz. a Ram temple at
Ayodhya, abrogation of Article 370, and a Uniform Civil Code. These are
symptoms, or particular instances, of the Hindutva programme. They are
instruments for India's majoritarian transformation. The sangh parivar has
deliberately decided to keep them aside for the moment. It has itself
explained the rationale--repeatedly and in unambiguous, categorical terms.
This is simply that the logic of power today dictates that the BJP enters
into a coalition with parties which do not accept those demands. This does
not mean that it has jettisoned them.

The point is, the BJP has fashioned three other approaches or instruments
to advance the same Hindutva agenda. And it has succeeded in imposing these
upon its allies without effective resistance, even protest. These
instruments could well turn out to be more potent in the long run than the
crude and overtly sectarian trishul which frightens not just the religious
minorities, but the vast majority of Hindus. The three approaches are:
goon-style violence against vulnerable targets, viz. Christians; coercive
censorship of dissent and "disciplining" of social behaviour; and promotion
of virulent "cultural nationalism", especially in education and the media.

However, this coercion is also laced with a sweetener for the upper-class
elite: viz. shamelessly right-wing economic policies which discriminate
against the poor and blatantly favour the rich while integrating India's
economy into skewed and unjust globalisation. This creates a false sense of
fulfilment, achievement and euphoria within the elite.

To take the first approach, the attacks on Christians are so numerous (57
this year at last count, a total of 400 since January 1998) and so
synchronised that it is impossible not to see a pattern. The latest
instance is the humiliation of a Protestant deacon in Surendranagar in
Gujarat. On August 22, he was beaten and paraded naked for distributing
copies of the Bible--perfectly legally. Such degrading treatment of
Christians started in south Gujarat, but has spread to the centre and the
north.

The relentless violence against Christians all over the country, and its
legitimation by different parivar components, has generated so much
pressure and fear that influential members of the community now think it
might be safer to declare a voluntary moratorium on conversions. One such
individual, Mr John Joseph, close to certain BJP politicians, was
deliberately chosen--over the much stronger claims of the major
churches--as the sole Christian representative on the National Minorities
Commission. The once well-regarded Rev Valsan Thampu too favours a
moratorium on conversion. But a moratorium will unreasonably restrict a
fundamental right. It will be seen as admission of forcible conversion.
This will further stoke Hindutva prejudice and make Christians more
insecure.

The second ("social censorship") approach has become increasingly visible
in recent years. Its advocates are the new culture police: book- and
exhibition-burners, the kind who enter convent schools and put teekas on
the foreheads of little girls, or impose Saraswati vandana upon
non-believers. Those self-appointed vigilantes want to "expose" and "expel"
whoever they suspect to be or name "Bangladeshi". The BJP actively
practises such vigilantism in the name of "patriotism".

Now, reports The Statesman, "the BJP has begun intruding into citizens'
privacy... The Delhi BJP has appointed its own lieutenants in every area to
maintain a close watch on everything that's happening in private homes and
the community... unit workers have been told to maintain tabs on 250
families each. Details of the activities of each family in Delhi are being
maintained in a register." This is fully owned up by BJP Delhi president
Mange Ram Garg who says the vigilantes "will keep an update on all the
families in the area and will report any noteworthy activity..."

Such vigilantism, under the guise of fighting "increasing lawlessness", is
liable to degenerate into serious victimisation of people who do not
conform to BJP-prescribed behaviour. They could be attacked or "reported"
for not wearing the specified dress, for "wayward" morality, or merely for
being "suspicious". Hyper-nationalist fanatics can use even the National
Flag as a tool. Tomorrow, demonstration of "loyalty" to it could become a
test of "citizenship"--just as Vande Mataram did in 1998. Such censorship
can use public symbols. Censors can bestow "patriotic" credentials only
upon those who publicly take rabidly hyper-nationalistic positions. Today,
when even maniacal attacks on the freedom of thought and expression--e.g.
the Water episode and the Sahmat-co-sponsored exhibition in Canada--do not
provoke strong condemnation, such censorship is unlikely to be discouraged.

The third Hindutva plank is even more "respectable". This promotes an
exclusivist, anti-pluralist nationalism with arrogant cultural
"superiority". This involves denial of the pluralist and syncretic nature
of India and a communal construction of its history. This has made deep
inroads into the education system and mass media. It operates at many
levels: from an almost mythical belief in the cultural and scientific
achievements of ancient India to the inherently superior intelligence of
Indians (read Hindus), to India's "manifest destiny" as the leader of the
coming century. Thus, headlines declare that India is already an
"Information Technology Superpower" (although its share of the global
software market is under one percent). There is wild celebration of every
minor commercial achievement of NRIs as if it were a more authentic
representation of this society than its miserable social indicators.

School textbooks, already full of patriotic hubris, are being re-written
to spew more communal prejudice. The National Council of Educational
Research and Training promotes "value education"--a thinly disguised name
for savarna or upper caste Hindu morals, customs and values. Even within
"Hindu" scriptural discourse, it means de-valuing the "little" traditions
(e.g. Shramanic, Adivasi or "vernacular") in favour of the "great" ones.
This exercise is deeply disrespectful of other civilisations and cultures,
and sees everything worthy as having originated in India. (An example is
Francois Gautier in The Indian Express, May 28). The underlying sentiment:
We are the Big Boys on the Block (the caption of an editorial in a national
daily, which celebrates hegemonic India).

The discourse of hegemonism extends to culture and everyday life.
Underlying it is the equation of the new self-confidence and arrogance of
the upper crust (which today enjoys an unprecedented consumerist boom) with
India "coming into its own." This is premised upon Social Darwinism--the
belief that society, like nature (in a distorted view of Evolution) is
bound to be hierarchical and unequal. The rich are rich because of "natural
selection". The poor are inherently inferior or lack virtue. Social
Darwinism involves faith in macho contests and rivalry and in
"meritocracy", besides contempt for the underprivileged. It glorifies our
hideously unequal social order. The success of every Indian IT enterprise
in Silicon Valley is seen as its affirmation and validation.

The elite tells itself "our India" has arrived. No one can ignore it. Even
the Americans (in reality out of Sinophobia and shrewdly eyeing India as a
cheap source of skilled labour) are finally "recognising" our greatness.
The Bomb has done us proud, never mind the swollen bellies of our
malnourished children, our underweight women, explosive disparities and
growing poverty... Such dangerously anti-poor ideas violate the values of
freedom, tolerance, social cohesion and pluralism. Yet, precisely because
this malignant ideology wears a nationalist garb, not many progressive
people criticise it. This must change. Or we'll soon be swamped by
hyper-nationalism in which reason, tolerance and respect for difference
have no place. That terrible future stares us in the face.--end--

______

#3.

The Telegraph
31 August 2000
Op-Ed.

THE WORLD, THE FLESH AND THE SANYASI=20
=20=20=09=20
by Meenakshi Jain
=20
In an action reminiscent of an ancient rivalry, certain Hindu groups
have protested against the construction of a Jain prayer hall at the
holy site of Badrinath. So vehement has been their opposition that they
have even threatened to use force to drive the Jains out of the area. In
defence of their action, these zealots have argued that the Jains are
not Hindus since they venerate their tirthankaras and oppose rituals,
which are the lifeline of sanatani Hinduism and the means of livelihood
of its priests.
According to press reports, the sadhus are envious of the wealth of the
Jain community and the high renunciatory capacity of Jain monks who
journey on foot, never touch money, nor store or cook food, all of which
make them anathema to their Hindu counterparts.

Critics of Hinduism would regard this as one more instance of the
religion's allegedly growing intolerance of other faiths. In the wake of
contests with Muslim and Christian activists, this episode is bound to
revive controversy over Hinduism's supposedly hegemonic agenda. A deeper
reading of history, however, presents a distinctly less alarmist
explanation of this apparent Hindu-Jain face-off. The rivalry between
the Brahmin ritualist and the renouncer has in fact, been inherent in
the Indic tradition from the very outset, with the sanyasi consistently
scoring over the priest in terms of both social status and prestige.

One of the paradoxes of the Indic situation was that though the sanyasi
had renounced the world, in reality it was he who dominated the society,
rather than the Brahmin householder-ritualist. As Louis Dumont pointed
out several decades ago, the sanyasi was the real agent of change and
development in Indian religion and spirituality. He was an innovator,
the creator of values, unlike the Brahmin who mainly preserved,
aggregated and combined.

The Brahmin householder-ritualist was defined and limited by his social
existence and the constraints of the caste system, whereas the sanyasi
had freed himself of societal roles and obligations to concentrate
instead on universal and personal goals. The value systems he created
were so powerful and all-pervading that they influenced and reshaped the
brahminical householder tradition.

So overwhelming was the persona of the sanyasi that key features of the
world-negation of the renouncer became integral to the world-affirming
view of the Brahmin householder as well. So much so that the "good"
Brahmin finally became one who was the splitting image of the
world-renouncer.

The overlap was so complete that there was little difference left
between the ideal Brahmin and the ideal renouncer, except one of degree.
Like the renouncer, the Brahmin made it incumbent upon himself to
control his senses, cultivate abstinence and detachment, and practice
non-violence. Renunciation even became the final, liberating phase in
the four-fold stages of the life of a householder.

The total identification of the Brahmin with the renunciation ideal had
other equally significant consequences. Brahmins who functioned as
priests and thereby performed their castes' most characteristic
professional activity, lost status. They were considered demeaned and
degraded by their caste men.

Acceptance of gifts was widely believed to lower the prestige of
Brahmins for it meant that the evils (paap) of the king-patron were
thereby transferred to the receiver. Brahmins who presided over
life-cycle ceremonies, specially funeral rites, were considered so
tarnished that they were known as "untouchable" Brahmins. Only those
Brahmins inspired respect who were not dependent on the patronage of
jajmans and who cultivated the image of learned ascetics.

What bears mention in the present context is that Jainism was among the
earliest of the ascetic traditions in the subcontinent. The practice of
asceticism in fact reached its acme in the Jain religion, and Jain monks
were throughout renowned for the rigours of their asceticism. The acute
physical hardships they continually subjected themselves to aroused the
deepest awe in the wider society.

However, it may be noted that the contrast was not between them and
Brahmins as a caste, since several Jain monks were themselves Brahmins.
Rather, it was a debate between the man-in-the-world concept and that of
the renouncer.

The seemingly wide divergence between Jain monks and Brahmin
householders created an impression in some quarters that Jainism was a
movement outside and opposed to the Vedic tradition. This was reinforced
by Jainism's apparent refusal to accept the finality of the Veda s, a
trait they shared with the Buddhists, the Carvakas and several other
groups categorized as nastikas (non-believers in the Veda s).

In actual fact, however, Jainism was not a rejection of the Vedic path.
Jain cosmology saw itself as a movement beyond this path when the Hindu
accumulation of merit and demerit had been exhausted. Impartial scholars
have conceded that all Indic religions present a socio-religious
continuum that defies textual labels and categories.

Other scholars have argued that the concepts of asceticism and
renunciation were implicit in classical Hindu thought and did not enter
the Brahminical tradition from outside. The Rig Veda Samhita mentions
long-haired ascetics (kesins) and silent ones (munis) who either moved
around naked ("clothed in wind") or dressed in red rags.

This, of course, is not to say that the renouncer tradition was a direct
follow-up of theRig Vedic ascetic culture. Rather, it is to say that the
theory of renunciation as it eventually developed in the Upanishads.
Jainism and Buddhism rested on a shared heritage of asceticism as
practised by renouncers with varying affiliations, since at least the
Rig Vedic times. It is not without significance that the Upanishads,
Buddhism and Jainism all arrived almost simultaneously on the Indian
scene, and were all associated with forests, the warrior class and the
internalization of ritual.

In view of the present rigidity of Hindu monks at Badrinath, it would be
in order to point out that Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religious structures
have historically always existed side by side, throughout the length and
breadth of the land. The Ajanta and Ellora caves are the most famous,
but by no means the sole, instance of this Indic truth.

The fact that the news report in question mentions the intense longing
of the Jains to visit Badrinath is adequate testimony to the shared
sacred geography and unity of spiritual culture. In contemporary times,
too, Jains have been intimately linked with Hinduism. They have been in
the forefront of the Hindutva movement, providing invaluable
intellectual resources and physical support. Those intent upon ousting
them from Badrinath are needlessly creating fissures within the wider
Hindu family at a time when this family is under severe stress from
monotheistic creeds.=20=20=20
_____

#4.

The Hindustan Times
31st August 2000

Religion is no reason to cause noise pollution: SC
HT Correspondent

(New Delhi, August 30)
Can noise pollution be permitted on grounds of religion? No, says the
Supreme Court. In a significant judgement today, it termed all such
claims as unjustifiable.

The Court's observation came in response to its own query whether the
beating of drums or use of microphones at religious gatherings and
prayer meetings be allowed to disturb peace and tranquillity of a
neighbourhood?

"In our view, in a civilised society, in the name of religion,
activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or
children...cannot be permitted," noted a Division Bench comprising
Justice M.B. Shah and Justice S.N. Phukan.

The Bench said: "It should not be forgotten that young babies in the
neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping
in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his examination is
entitled to concentrate on his studies..." The Court, while dismissing
an appeal by the Church of God against a Madras High Court order,
observed that apart from a lack of awareness among citizens the
authorities too failed to implement rules prescribing permissible limits
for noise pollution.

"Noise polluting activities are rampant and yet for one reason or the
other...rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced,"
the Bench said.

In 1996, the Chennai-based Majestic Colony Welfare Association had
complained to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board that a Church used
loudspeakers and drums during prayer time. But the Board's survey found
that noise in the Church's vicinity was due to vehicular traffic.

Agitated over the Board's findings, the Association moved the High Court
for a direction to the authorities to take action against the Church for
causing noise pollution.

On its part, the Church took the plea that the petition was filed to
prevent a religious minority institution from pursuing its activities.

_____

#5.

[ 30 August 2000 | Email from Shabnam Hashmi ]

A letter signed by Indian Members of Parliament was given to Kofi Anan
today to protest against the VHP's presence at the Peace Summit. We also
distributed leaflets and plan to distribute more tomorrow morning i.e. on
August 31, 8.30-10.30 am New York Times.. Anyone who might be interested
in joining the protest can contact me or Biju Mathew or Ramrahman..

COPY OFTHE LETTER TO KOFI ANNAN

The Secretary General
United Nations
New York

28 August 2000

We,the undersigned, representing India's democratic and secular parties,
wouldlike to express our deepest concern that members of the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad (VHP - World Hindu Council) have been invited to a UN hosted
millennium peace summit. The VHP is an international body which organized
and funded the demolition of the Babri Mosque in India and the consequent
rioting and killings of Indian minorities. The VHP has most recently
publicly defended the burnings and killing of Christian missionaries in
India.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an RSS outfit, today stated that the recent
incidents of violence against the Christian missionaries in Jhabua and
Baghpat were the result of 'anger of patriotic Hindu youth against
anti=1Enational forces'. Virtually justifying the attacks, the VHP has
demanded that these missionaries be asked ''to pack up and leave the
country". (The Hindu, Sept. 29, 1998)

We would also like to express our utmost disappointment that the UN, which
was formed after World War II and Hitler's destructive policies should allo=
w
the VHP to hold a reception in the UN building.The Vishwa Hindu Parishad is
a front organization of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh - National
Volunteer Corps, a fascist body created in 1924) started by Guru Golwalkar
who has based his writings on Hitler's philosophy on the supremacy of the
"Aryan race." A member of an affiliate organization, the Hindu Mahasabha wa=
s
responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, whose very life stood
for non-violence and peace.

We, understand, that the members of this organization are also distributing
anti-minority literature in the UN lobbies as this summit goes on. This is =
a
mockery of the entire UN system. We request your personal intervention on
this matter.

Sincerely

Buta Singh Congress I 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament
HannanMollah CPM 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament
Rama ChandraKhuntia Congress I 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament
Raghuvansh Prasad Singh SP 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament
PM Sayeed Congress I 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament
Amar Singh SP 30.8.2000
Member of Parliament

COPY OF THE LEAFLET

STOP THE VHP FROM ENTERING THE UN

We, representing India's democratic and secular tradition are deeply
concerned that members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP - World Hindu
Council) have been invited to a UN hosted millennium peace summit. The VHP
is an international body which organized and funded the demolition of the
Babri Mosque in India and the consequent rioting and killings of Indian
minorities. The VHP has most recently publicly defended the burnings and
killing of Christian missionaries in India.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an RSS outfit, today stated that the recent
incidents of violence against the Christian missionaries in Jhabua and
Baghpat were the result of 'anger of patriotic Hindu youth against
anti=1Enational forces'. Virtually justifying the attacks, the VHP has
demanded that these missionaries be asked ''to pack up and leave the
country". (The Hindu, Sept. 29, 1998)

We would also like to express our utmost disappointment that the UN, which
was formed after World War II and Hitler's destructive policies should allo=
w
the VHP to hold a reception in the UN building.The Vishwa Hindu Parishad is
a front organization of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh - National
Volunteer Corps, a fascist body created in 1924) started by Guru Golwalkar
who has based his writings on Hitler's philosophy on the supremacy of the
"Aryan race." A member of an affiliate organization, the Hindu Mahasabha wa=
s
responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, whose very life stood
for non-violence and peace.

We, understand, that the members of this organization are also distributing
anti-minority literature in the UN lobbies as this summit goes on. This is =
a
mockery of the entire UN system. We request your personal intervention on
this matter.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: S.HASHMI AT shabhashmi@h... OR B.
MATHEW AT 212 781 2673

______

#6.

[Message from Biju Mathew]

Protest the VHP Outside Waldorf Astoria in NYC Tomorrow Morning
(Thursday - 31st September)

Please show up to flyer at the WALDORF ASTORIA at 8:30 AM. The Waldorf
Astoria is located at 301 Park Av (at Park and 50th Street).

______________________________
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]