[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 19 Sept. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
19 September 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

#1. South Asia: A new track II peace initiative
#2. Pakistani Diaspora: 'Justice For 1971 Genocide Victims of Bangladesh'
#3. Myth of BJP's 'moderation'
#4. India: Respected liberal says that Muslims joining BJP will undermine
the fascist project
#5. 'Homosexual, married and Indian'
#6. RSS behind temple purification
#7. New York - Asia Society: An Afternoon Seminar with P. Sainath
#8. New York : Meet the Author - Mira Kamdar: Motiba's Tattoo's
-----------------------------------

#1.

Asian Age
19 September 2000

AMARTYA, GUJRAL JOIN TRACK II INITIATIVE 

By Seema Mustafa
New Delhi, Sept. 18 

A major Track II initiative for South Asian development and cooperation to
act as an alternative for Saarc has taken formal shape with former Prime
Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, former finance minister Manmohan Singh, Nobel
laureate Amartya Sen, former foreign minister of Pakistan Sartaj Aziz and
former diplomat Niaz Naik among its members. 

This 'group of eminent persons' will meet in early December in Kathmandu to
finalise the agenda. Mr Naik is in New Delhi to finalise the details with
his Indian counterparts. Others in the group include human rights activist
Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, well-known diplomat Farooq Sobhan from
Bangladesh along with compatriots Rehman Sobhan, Kamal Husain and Mohammed
Yunus and former foreign secretary Muchkund Dubey from India. 

The group has decided not to take up controversial issues such as
India-Pakistan dialogue or Kashmir. According to one member, "If we include
any political issue on the agenda, particularly Kashmir, then our meetings
will be completely overtaken by this." 

The idea is to review the level of cooperation between the member nations
and suggest concrete proposals to ensure that the process continues and
specific plans that have come to a standstill are pushed forward. 

The Vajpayee government has refused to give clearance for a Saarc summit
despite some efforts by Bangladesh to revive the South Asian body.
Bangladesh foreign secretary C.M. Shafi Sami who visited New Delhi and
Islamabad to lobby support for a Saarc meet went back empty handed as the
Government of India would have none of it and made it clear that it would
veto any such move. 

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has been reluctant to share a platform
with Pakistan’s Gen. Pervez Musharraf with the result that the South
Asian member nations have not been able to meet on issues of concern since
the last meeting, scheduled to be held in Kathmandu, was called off a year
ago. India has stoutly resisted all forms of persuasion to agree to a Saarc
summit leading to quiet criticism from the other member nations. 

Pakistan has been, of course, very vocal with Gen. Musharraf questioning
India's sagacity in blocking an important meeting. He has suggested that
majority consensus among member nations should become the criteria for
holding a meeting of the South Asian forum and not the dissenting vote of
any one member. 

Interestingly, the Track II group of eminent persons includes persons who
are not very close to the ruling dispensation in both India and Pakistan.
Mr Gujral and Dr Singh are Opposition leaders while Dr Sen and Mr Dubey are
not particularly close to the government in power. 

Similarly, the Pakistan team includes Ms Jahangir who is a vocal critic of
the military government and is not close to the present dispensation. Mr
Aziz was foreign minister under deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Mr
Naik had been sent by Mr Sharif as the 'secret envoy' to confer with Mr
Vajpayee during the Kargil crisis. 

He had said at the time that talks leading to a solution of Kashmir would
continue if the BJP emerged victorious in the polls. Pakistan would oppose
the process, however, if any other party came into government, he added in
a statement that was described as "highly questionable" by the Opposition
leaders in New Delhi. This was before the Sharif government fell. 

Members of the new groups admitted that future for Saarc looks bleak at the
moment. They said the meeting had been postponed indefinitely because of
India's objections to dealing with Pakistan adding, "it is unfortunate that
such an important forum has been allowed to become hostage to bilateral
problems." 

______

#2.

Press Release: JUSTICE FOR 1971 GENOCIDE VICTIMS OF BANGLADESH

September 18, 2000 For Immediate Release
The World Sindhi Institute (WSI)
605 G Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024

JUSTICE FOR 1971 GENOCIDE VICTIMS OF BANGLADESH

The World Sindhi Institute welcomes Bangladeshi Premier Hasina Wajed's
recent demand for justice for the millions of victims of Pakistani
atrocities in1971. We would like to express our solidarity with the
Bangladeshi people and we protest the insensitive remarks made by
Pakistan's military dictator suggesting that the crimes are too old to
be addressed today. Such crimes against humanity are never too old to
prosecute and even less so when victims continue to struggle with the
consequences, and the culprits go on living, often in luxury, even
more often as honorable people. Not only should the criminals be
brought to justice, but also their victims should have an opportunity
to face them in an impartial court of law. Pakistan must also
apologize on behalf of those citizens who supported the atrocities,
actively or otherwise, and on behalf of successive governments that
have lied to a whole generation of Pakistan's citizens about the
events surrounding Bangladeshi independence. Perpetrators of this
genocide are also answerable to the Pakistani masses in whose name
they committed these atrocities, and to whom they brought the
humiliation of an enormous military defeat.

Beyond its intrinsic value, justice for victims of the Bangladeshi war
of independence will also force Pakistan's racist military junta,
which has a history of committing atrocities against its own citizens,
be they the Bangalis in 1971, or the Balochs and Sindhis since, and
proudly hailing each adventure as a victory for the Islamic nation, to
face the shamefulness of their actions, and just possibly, not repeat
them in the future.

WSI appeals to all the democratic nations of the world to bring to
trial all war criminals of the 1971 military junta, including General
A.M. Yahya Khan (posthumously), General Abdul Hamid Khan, Lt. General
Gul Hassan Khan, Lt. General Tikka Khan, Lt. General A.O. Mitha,
Lt. General A.A.K. Niazi, Major General Rao Farman Ali Khan, Major
General Khadim Hussain Raja and Brigadier Z.A. Khan, for their heinous
crimes against humanity.

For more information on the World Sindhi Institute, please contact
Munawar Laghari at 202.484.0134 or email at wsihq@w...

Maqbool K. Aliani
General Secretary
The World Sindhi Institute

______

#2.

Appeared in "Frontline", September 29, 2000

Frontline Column: Beyond the Obvious

Praful Bidwai

MYTH OF BJP'S 'MODERATION'

The BJP didn't "re-invent" itself at Nagpur, nor did it make a break with
Hindutva. Its communal thrust continues with its coercive majoritarian agenda.

According to a view which is currently fashionable especially among
Vajpayee admirers, 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 is seen as signifying a major
change in the power balances within the sangh parivar, related to the
election of Bangaru Laxman, a Dalit, as party president. Proponents of this
view stress the fact that Laxman talked of expanding the party's narrow
social base and reaching out to Muslims, "the blood of our blood", quoting
Deen Dayal Upadhyay. More important, they say, the party overwhelmingly
endorsed the government's economic policy. Even on Kashmir, its hardliners
did not exactly corner the Vajpayee leadership.

All this has been taken to mean that Vajpayee has made a decisive break
with Hindutva and put the BJP on an irreversible course of "moderation".
This column argues that this view is seriously mistaken. Despite a degree
of mutual discomfort and friction, and the temporary setback to swadeshi
advocates, the RSS and the BJP have not entered into a mutually
antagonistic relationship. They are only reaching a new accommodation with
each other. 

The BJP has in no way diluted the Hindutva perspective--that distinctive
programmatic characteristic of all members of the sangh parivar to
transform Indian society to assert the primacy of just one community and
marginalise all others. There has indeed been a shift within the parivar on
economic policy, with swadeshi taking the back seat, and even K. N.
Govindacharya falling in line with messianic neo-liberalism, including
runaway globalisation, privatisation and "second-generation reform". But
this does not spell a break with Hindutva.

Hindutva's agenda has never been confined or reducible either to swadeshi
(economic pseudo-patriotism) or to the infamous trishul, viz. a Ram temple
at Ayodhya, abrogation of Article 370, and imposition of a Uniform Civil
Code. These are symptoms, not causes; they are particular instances of the
Hindutva programme. Such planks are instruments for the majoritarian
transformation of India that the sangh parivar wants to bring about. It has
deliberately decided to keep them aside for the moment. It has itself
explained the rationale for so doing--repeatedly and in unambiguous,
categorical terms: viz, the logic of power today dictates that the BJP
enters into a coalition with other parties which do not accept those three
demands. This does not mean that it has jettisoned them. It is a sign of
the moral and political insensivity of many educated Indians that they
condone such rank opportunism and abandonment of the principles the BJP
itself swears by. But let that pass.

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 much resistance, event protest. These instruments
could well turn out to be more potent in the long run than the crude and
overly sectarian trishul which frightens not just the religious minorities,
but the vast majority of Hindus opposed to belligerent majoritarianism.

The three approaches are: systematic goon-style violence against vulnerable
targets, viz. Christians; coercive censorship of dissenting views and
"disciplining" of social behaviour; and promotion of virulent "cultural
nationalism", especially in education and the media We have never before
seen such a purposive pursuit of multiple coercive methods. But this
coercion is also laced with a sweetener for the upper class elite: viz.
shamelessly plutocratic right-wing economic and social policies that
discriminate against the poor and blatantly favour the rich while
integrating the economy into a skewed and unjust process of globalisation.
This is calculated to create an artificial, false, "feel-good" sense of
fulfilment, achievement and euphoria within the elite.

The attacks on the Christian community 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 dreadful
humiliation of a Protestant deacon in Surendranagar in Gujarat. On August
22, he was stripped, beaten and paraded naked merely for distributing
copies of the Bible. Such degrading treatment of Christians started in
south Gujarat in 1998, but has spread to the centre and the north. Once
focused primarily on Adivasis, it now extends to other social strata.

The relentless violence against Christians finds three kinds of
legitimisers. The first are the known perpetrators-lumpen elements of the
Bajrang Dal and Hindu Suraksha Dal variety. They sometimes even own up
their attacks-as Dara Singh did-as "nationalist" resistance to "foreign"
missionaries.. Next in line come the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Sanskriti
Samrakshana Samiti or the RSS, which use Doublespeak. They deny their
followers carry out the attacks, but rationalise them as a "spontaneous" or
"natural" reaction to Church functionaries who are presented as villains
out to subvert India's unity through illegitimate proselytisation. On the
ground, however, this group is extremely provocative, as independent
inquiries have documented.

Only slightly less crude is the third group--BJP functionaries. They don't
deny the Christians' major contributions to education, healthcare and
culture. Some even admit that the freedom of religion includes the right to
"propagate" i.e. to convert. But they oppose what they paternalistically
call "forcible" conversion and even justify violence against it. They too
believe there is something foul about conversion itself because
Christianity is "essentially" a foreign religion in "Hindu" India. As this
column has repeatedly argued, this is a horrendously mistaken belief.

With varying degrees of intolerance and devotion to violence, all three
components of the parivar converge on the minorities. So enormous is the
pressure generated that influential members of the Christian community now
think it might be safer to declare a voluntary moratorium on conversions.
One such individual, John Joseph, close to certain BJP politicians, was
deliberately chosen--over the much stronger claims of the major
churches--as the sole representative of the community on the National
Minorities Commission. Yet another--the once well-regarded Rev Valsan
Thampu--too favours a moratorium. But a moratorium will unreasonably
restrict a fundamental right. It will be seen as admission that forcible
conversion is widespread. 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 forcibly put teekas on the foreheads of
little schoolgirls or impose Saraswati vandana upon non-believers. These
are the agitators against Water and Fire, and vicious opponents of MF
Husain's Saraswati. Those self-appointed vigilantes aim to "expose" and
"expel" whoever they suspect to be a "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 to the seniors in the party and to the
concerned authorities". Such attempts to "fight increasing lawlessness" are
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 "right" attire, for "wayward" morality, or merely for
being "suspicious".

Hyper-nationalist fanatics can use anything as a weapon, even the National
Flag. Tomorrow, if the rules are relaxed and the Flag can be hoisted at
will by private citizens, demonstration of "loyalty" to it could become a
test of "citizenship" and fidelity to India itself--just like Vande
Mataram. Such censorship can use public symbols. It can easily demand that
a member of a minority community condemn that very community. Censors will
then 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, social censors are unlikely to be deterred.

The third Hindutva plank is even more "respectable". This is promotion of
an exclusivist, anti-pluralist nationalism with arrogant claims to India's
cultural "superiority". This involves the forceful denial of the pluralist
and syncretic nature of India and a communal construction of its history.
Such ideas have made deep inroads into the education system and the mass
media. They operate at many levels: from an almost mythical belief in the
cultural and scientific achievements of ancient India (e.g. Vedic
mathematics) to the inherently superior intelligence of Indians (read
Hindus), to India's "manifest destiny" as the leader of the coming century,
no less. 

Thus, headlines routinely 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 individual non-residents as if it were a more authentic
representation of this society than its miserable social indicators and its
persistent inequities.
School textbooks, already full of patriotic hubris, are being re-written to
make even more boastful claims. The National Council of Education Research
and Training now wants "value education" and samskaras-a thinly disguised
name for upper-caste Hindu morals, customs and values universalised as
Indian values. Even within "Hindu" scriptural discourse, this means
de-valuing the "little" traditions (e.g. Shramanic, Adivasi or
"vernacular") while privileging the "great" traditions.

This exercise is deeply disrespectful of other civilisations and cultures,
whether ancient or medieval, and sees everything worthy as having
originated in India. (An example is Francois Gautier in The Indian Express,
May 28). It glorifies Indianness as something great in itself: We are the
Big Boys on the Block (the caption of an editorial in a national daily,
which demands that hegemonic India must settle the Sri Lanka crisis).

The discourse of hegemonism extends to everyday life. Underlying it is the
equation of the new arrogance of the upper-crust elite (which today enjoys
an unprecedented consumerist boom) with an India "coming into its own".
This is premised upon Social Darwinism--the belief that society, like
nature (in a crude, distorted view of evolution) is bound to be
hierarchical and unequal. The rich and powerful are rich and powerful
because of "natural selection". The poor are inherently inferior or lack
virtue. Social Darwinism places faith in macho competition, contest and
rivalry, in "meritocracy" and opposition to affirmative action. It has
contempt for the underprivileged. It glorifies our hideously unequal social
order. It sees the success of every Indian IT enterprise as an affirmation
of this ideology and the "feel-good" sentiment the media promotes day in
and day out. 

The elite tells itself it has arrived. We are the Big Boys on the Block; no
one can ignore us. Even the Americans (out of Sinophobia and shrewdly
eyeing India as a cheap source of skilled labour?) are finally recognising
India's "greatness". The Bomb has done us proud, never mind the swollen
bellies of our malnourished children, millions of our underweight women,
explosive regional disparities, or grinding poverty...

Such dangerously anti-poor ideas run counter to values of human compassion,
social cohesion and caring and sharing, ultimately, democracy. 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 can have no place. That terrible future stares us in the
face.--end--

_____

#4. 

The Hindu
19 September 2000
Op-Ed.

JEHAD, ILLUSIONS & LAXMAN 

By Pran Chopra 

MANY COUNTRIES have experienced violence which is related to Islam, whether
committed by supporters or opponents of Jehad, and irrespective of whether
Jehad means peaceful service of the faith, as supporters, quoting texts,
insist it does; or it means service with the sword, as opponents, quoting
history, insist it becomes. The violence has recently occurred in the
Philippines in the east, in Indonesia and Malaysia in the south, in
Kashmir, Xinjiang, Chechnya in the north, Algeria in the west. It has
flared up most within and between the core countries of the faith, some of
them its cradle and the scene of its greatest achievements, such as Iran,
Iraq, Egypt.

The consequences affect the future of Islam. On the one hand the world has
become more aware of Islam, adherence to it has become harder where it used
to mild, as among Malays, its codes have become stricter, as in Iran for
some time and more recently in Afghanistan. It has probably struck deeper
roots in tribal Africa, where a more systematic Islam has gained ground. On
the other hand, it has stopped making the inroads it made among Black
Americans in the days when Cassius Clay became Mohammed Ali and Malcolm X a
media mystery. What is more important, its growth path has been affected.

In the past, Islam had moved forward on two legs: on the appeal of the
principles of the faith, which are robustly progressive and just; and on
the organised politico-military power of many Muslim majority countries.
But both legs have grown weaker. The appeal of the principles has been
clouded by the manner in which they have been practiced by the fratricidal
fanatic, who pitted Muslim against Muslim and swept many of them out of the
mansions of the faith with the broom of narrow doctrines. In Afghanistan,
they have crossed all limits of reason, and they have aroused suspicion and
resistance in the Central Asian states, which were once seen as its most
promising new pasture. The phrase ``Islamic fundamentalist'' has become
associated with something ``Inquisitorial''.

Its internal feuds have taken a heavier toll of Islam than the opposition
of ``infidels''. For a time, this fact was obscured by the mountain of
petro dollars which was counted as part of Islamic power. But the mountain
was soon eroded by conflicts between some of the most prominent Islamic
countries, which converted their oil wealth into a goldmine for the arms
industry of non-Islamic countries, including the ``Great Satan'', as
America was called by the fanatic. In some other Islamic countries the
legendary profligacy of the rulers made paupers out of princes and crass
policies drained away much of the political and military prowess they had
once added to Islam.

Nearer home is the interesting case of Pakistan. Its late President,
Zia-ul-Haq, dreamt of building an Islamic empire stretching from its
borders with India to the Russian border. The dream became a bitter
illusion as Afghanistan, the first stepping stone to that empire, was
reduced to rubble by wars between zealots. Instead, Pakistan became a
wounded battleground for clashes between different brands of warriors of
the faith, and Zia's domestic dream, ``Nizam-e-Mustafa'', became an
embarrassment for the more forward-looking Muslims.

This is the troubled background against which the Muslims of India have to
work out their own destiny as the world's largest population of Muslims who
are a minority in their country, and also the second largest population of
Muslims in any country. History has not made life easy for them, neither
the earlier history, before India became independent; nor the history of
independent India; nor the history of the future as it is emerging from the
womb of the present. Every community, whether it is in a majority or a
minority, rightly cherishes its ``golden age''. But the trouble is that
memories of the past become a liability if they delay viable settlements in
the present. India is in danger of proving this to be true though the
golden ages of both Hindus and Muslims are equally unrelated to the present
condition and prospects of both. Similarly irrelevant, though too recent to
forget easily, is the more painful reality that in the eyes of the majority
of Muslims in what later became Pakistan, and in the eyes of the majority
of Hindus of what continued to be India, the other became the ``other
nation'' of the two-nation theory which hijacked history in the 1940s.

It would have been easier for the Hindus and the Muslims of independent
India to see the irrelevance of this whole chain of earlier events if
Indian politics had retained the secular temper of the first two decades of
Independence under the umbrella of the Congress. But on account of yet
another chain of events, which climaxed during the Emergency but lingered
for long afterwards, the Congress went into a steep and now all- but-
irreversible decline. The next two decades, the 1970s and 1980s, had a
strong strand of secular politics, the protest of the lower and poorer
castes and classes. But although it was a secular strand, and although the
poor and deprived are at least as high a proportion of the Muslim totality
as of the Hindu, the strand failed to evoke as strong a Muslim
participation as it should have. If Muslims joined Dalit movements at all
it was more because these were opposed to Hindu orthodoxy than because they
demanded economic justice.

In the 1990s, the BJP became a major force among Hindus, and that, of
course, was anathema to the Muslims. Therefore, for close upon 30 years,
Hindus and Muslims reached out to each other only minimally across the
communal divide. That helped Pakistan to score the only success it can
claim over the last few decades, that it was able to add a stronger
communal twist to the Kashmir issue by giving it the face of Jehad, and
thereby succeeded in making the chill in Hindu- Muslim relations that much
deeper throughout the country.

What is the future of that success? It depends upon how the two newest
factors in Indian politics play out. On the one hand, we have certain
positive factors. First, a realisation within the BJP that it can broaden
and improve its parliamentary role only by widening its base among the
Dalits and the Muslims. Hence, the first ever election of a Dalit, Mr.
Bangaru Laxman, to the highest office of the BJP, its President. In its own
way and at its own level this is as novel and creative an experience for
the BJP as such as the election of Mr. K. R. Narayanan of the Scheduled
Castes as the President of the Republic is for India as a whole. Second, a
conspicuous reaching out to Muslims by Mr. Laxman. Realising the importance
of this development, unprecedented in recent times, at least one notable
Muslim, Maulana Wahiduddin, has called it ``the biggest opportunity for
Muslims'', and a Muslim scholar and commentator, Mr. Mashirul Hasan, has
argued that the opportunity should be given a chance. His reasoning has the
obvious background that if Mr. Laxman gets sandwiched between opposition by
the BJP's traditionalists and a frosty response by Muslims, his initiative
might peter out. Third, if the emerging thaw in Kashmir succeeds it could
undo the damage done by the Jehadi twist.

But on the other hand, there is also the dismal fact that, by and large,
the Muslim response has been sceptical if not outright negative, and
amounts to saying that Mr. Laxman's first step may be all right but we
cannot welcome it until he takes the tenth, or that we cannot support him
since that would help the BJP gain the support of liberal Hindus, never
mind the good it might do to relations between the majority and the
minority communities. Therefore it cannot be ruled out that the sceptical
Muslim and the orthodox Hindu may jointly nip ``the biggest opportunity''
in the bud. How that will benefit the world's largest Muslim minority
remains to be seen.

_____

#5.

RAVI ALLEGES RSS BEHIND TEMPLE PURIFICATION

by Liz Mathew, India Abroad News Service

New Delhi, Sep 18 - Senior Congress leader and former Kerala home minister
Vayalar Ravi has alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is
behind the purification rites performed at the Guruvayur temple after a
visit by his son, Ravikrishna on September 9.

Ravi, who is a former member of the Rajya Sabha, has charged the RSS with
hatching a "conspiracy" to defame him and his family by performing the
"Punyaham" or purification rites. Ravikrishna had visited the temple with
his bride Nisha soon after their marriage.

Ravi belongs to the Ezhava or scheduled caste (socially underprivileged)
community. His wife Mercy is a Christian. Ravi and his son, who is an
advocate, say they will file a criminal petition against the temple
authorities in the High Court, alleging defamation.

"The thantri (priest) at the temple had taken Rs. 1,500 for purifying the
temple after my son went there, saying that he was not a Hindu but a
Christian as his mother was born a Christian. How could Vayalar Ravi's son
Ravikrishna be a Christian when he was never baptised?" Ravi queried while
speaking to IANS. Mercy Ravi is a former member of the legislative
Assembly.

Ravi said his son was a practicing Hindu who used to go to the Guruvayur
temple every month. "I think they have done the (purification) rites because
we are Ezhavas. Unni (as Ravikrishna is also known), being a Hindu does not
need anybody's certificate to enter into the temple. My wife, who is
Christian by birth, never entered a temple on any occasion, though she
practices Hinduism," he said. Non-Hindus are strictly prohibited from
entering the Guruvayur temple.

The temple ranks second only to Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh in terms of its
collections and number of devotees that visit it.

Ravi has written a letter to the Guruvayur Devaswam Board that administers
the temple, seeking an explanation from the thantri, Chenas Divakaran
Namboodiripad, who performed the rites. "He should apologise for this mean
act," Ravi said.

The Devaswam finalised its reply to Ravi at a meeting of its managing
committee Sunday. Devaswam chairman M. Venugopala Kurup told newsmen later
that the thantri had said at the meeting that the onus of proving the Hindu
credentials of Ravikrishna lay on Ravi. After that, he said, Ravikrishna
would face no problems in offering prayers in the temple. "The reply to Ravi
would be posted at the earliest", Kurup said.

Ravi has pointed out that 'Janmabhoomi', the mouthpiece of the Bharatiya
Janata Party in Kerala had reported that Ravikrishna had "sneaked into the
temple" and thereby, "defiled" it. "Throughout the report, it refers to Unni
as Mercy's son. He is the son of Ravi, who is a Hindu, though he was an
untouchable earlier," Ravi said.

Ravi said the thantri had told former Devaswam board president P. T.
Mohanakrishnan that the prayers in the temple would be stopped if he did not
pay the money for the purification rites. He said chief priest who performed
the rites is the local leader of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS, the
labour wing of the RSS).

_____

#6.

News Today
19 September 2000
GENERAL 

Posted September 19, 2000

'HOMOSEXUAL, MARRIED AND INDIAN' 

NEWS TODAY EXCLUSIVE
By Praveen K Singh

New Delhi, September 19: 

"I am male, 28-yrs-old Indian Muslim and gay by sexual orientation.
Indian social structure dictates that I marry a girl. That's why; I am
looking to get married to a gay/bisexual Muslim girl of preferably Indian
origin. I wish to have children through this marriage. I don`t want
physical intimacy, except that what is necessary for bearing children. I am
looking for an honest, outgoing person having similar tastes and ideas and
who would like to bear children through the marriage. I am looking for a
marriage-of-convenience as soon as possible." 

This matrimonial puts in a nutshell the predicament of being gay and Indian. 

Being a homosexual in India means living a double life, at home and
outside. While you have to be a husband to your wife, you have also to
present the face of a family man to society. 

Most gay men in India do this balancing act, but there are a handful others
who espouse a more radical view. "This is ultimately cowardice, since a
politically correct gay identity meant leaving behind the baggage of
tradition, family. One has to rid oneself of the brainwashing by
heterosexual society," says Shaleen Rakesh, a member of Naz Foundation, an
NGO working to create awareness about AIDS. 

No real alternatives for gay ‘couples’

However, the alternative of a same sex marriage sadly does not exist in
India. “Lesbian and gay families today do not even have any recognition,
let alone the rights that are taken for granted in heterosexual couples,”
says Professor Radhika Chopra, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of
Economics. 

The reason for this Professor Chopra explains is due to the fact that
homosexuals and bisexuals, like other sexual minorities (transgender,
hijras, prostitutes) challenge the norms of the traditional families that
are constructed on the premises of heterosexuality, patriarchy, monogamy,
and the control of women’s sexuality. Inherent in this challenge, is the
recognition of other kinds of families - single parent families and
same-sex domestic partnerships. 

These are some things that traditional Indian society can never tolerate.
The law also remains very conventional, principally, in the area of human
relationships. It officially identifies only one form of biological and
physical intimacy, which helps in procreation. The law is not likely to
modernize in the near future because society is based on religious
traditions where procreation is a compulsion for the performance of various
religious rituals. 

Family is the unit of Indian society and the institution of marriage
strengthens it. Since the concept of a family is united in disposition, it
doesn’t promote individualism. In India, homosexuality is considered as an
attempt of relinquishing traditions and replacing it with individualism and
related freedoms, thereby, threatening the norms of the Indian society.

It’s a question of fighting for rights

However, Shaleen, unreservedly homosexual himself, is not one to accept
such a status quo. “Homosexuals should come out and become politicised to
fight for their rights in India. Only when your homosexuality becomes a
passionate identity can a gay movement become a success in this country,"
he says. 

Conversely, the movement should not stop at just gaining social recognition
for gays and lesbian families. The acknowledgment towards homosexuals is
very much associated to the place one lives. In big cities, it’s more
crucial than in small towns. Bisexuality outside marriage is not tolerable,
and can be a felony even with in the marriage, if it falls with in the
definition of unnatural act. 

However, the degree of its offensiveness would again depend upon the
location, with which such the behaviour is linked. In big cosmopolitan
cities, it may go more as an individual concern than of public but in small
place, it can lead to social ostracising. 

As Prof Chopra says, “Other than the social admission, homosexuals in India
should get the rights and privileges to put their relationships at par with
heterosexuals. Therefore any discussion on family laws should include the
rights of lesbians and gays to form families of their own choice and to be
accepted as such.” (AB)

_____

#7.

ASIAN SOCIAL ISSUES PROGRAM (ASIP): AN AFTERNOON SEMINAR WITH P. SAINATH,
EISENHOWER EXCHANGE FELLOW

September 27, 2000, 4:00 - 5:00 P.M. Asia Society Conference Room, 502
Park Avenue (59th Street), New York City. P. Sainath will talk on Dalits
in India 2000: The Scheduled Castes more than a Half Century after
Independence.
It will look at the living conditions of the Dalits (the former
untouchables who constitute over 16% of the population of India or
approximately 160 million people), detailing the contentious issues, their
battles, ideas and aspirations half a century after the adoption of the
Indian Constitution. P. Sainath is the recipient of Amnesty
International's Global Award for Human Rights Journalism this year for his
outstanding piece A
Dalit Goes to Court. This is the sixth award he has received while working
on the dalits - one
of the ten poorest communities in India that he has written reports about
over the past seven years. His book Everybody Loves a Good Drought: Stories
from India's Poorest Districts is a result of his writing about India's
poor and remained a No. 1 nonfiction
bestseller currently in its eight printing in India and multiple editions
in Europe and elsewhere. His other awards, among others, include the
European Commission's Journalism Prize, the Statesman Rural Reporting
Prize, the Times of India Journalism Award, the B.D. Goenka Prize for
Excellence in Journalism, and the Jawaharlal Nehru Fellowship.

_____

#8.

MEET THE AUTHOR - MIRA KAMDAR: MOTIBA'S TATTOO'S

September 26, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Dialectia Gallery, 415 West Broadway at
Spring St, New York, NY. Tel: 212-288-6400. Mira Kamdar tells the
colorful, poignant and humorous story of the Indian diaspora by retracing
her family’s footsteps from her grandmother’s home in a tiny feudal village
in Kathiawar, through colonial Rangoon, post-independence Bombay and
finally to the U.S. Book signing and reception follow. Co-sponsored
by Dialectica Gallery. Free admission

_____________________________________________
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]