[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 12 Oct 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
12 October 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

*********************************
#1. Pakistan: Human Rights Watch Report
#2. India: From Pokharan to Harappa (by Amrita Abraham)
#3. India: Letter to the editor-on RSS call to banish foreign missionaries
#4. India: The Aryan-Harappan myth (by Shereen Ratnagar )
#5. India: An open letter to BJP president (byGail Omvedt)

*********************************

#1.

Pakistan Coup Anniversary: Human Rights Abuses Rampant
(New York, October 10, 2000) Human Rights Watch today accused Pakistan's
military rulers of committing widespread abuses in the name of political
"reform," and called on General Pervez Musharraf to immediately return
the country to constitutional rule.
In the twenty-page report, "Reform or Repression? Post-Coup Abuses in
Pakistan," Human Rights Watch said the Musharraf government had detained
opponents and former officials without charge, removed indepedent judges
from the higher courts, banned public rallies and demonstrations, and
rendered political parties all but powerless.
"Musharraf follows a long line of generals in Pakistan who have
claimed that a period of military rule is the path to
true democracy," said Sidney Jones, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.
"In fact, he is systematically destroying civil liberties in Pakistan."
Human Rights Watch called on the Musharraf government to:
-immediately lift the state of emergency imposed in October
1999;
-set a clear and reasonable timetable for holding national and
provincial elections;
-revoke the Provisional Constitution Order that suspends the
constitution and undermines the independence of the judiciary;
-amend the November 1999 National Accountability Ordinance,
ostensibly designed to punish corrupt officials, because it
denies detainees due process of law and invites
politically-motivated prosecutions;
-cease using the army to monitor civilian institutions;
hold judicial inquiries into allegations of custodial torture
and prosecute those responsible.

Human Rights Watch called on the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
to visit Pakistan to raise human rights concerns, and on Pakistan's
donors and trading partners to use every available opportunity to press
for implementation of the legal and administrative reforms recommended
above.
The new report begins with the immediate aftermath of the coup on
October 12, 1999 when Musharraf deposed Nawaz Sharif, and the policy
objectives that Musharraf announced for his government. It notes that
the Sharif administration had alienated much of the public with heavy
handed and increasingly authoritarian policies, and that Musharraf took
pains to portray the coup as necessary to reestablish a basis for
democratic rule. In two areas, Musharraf did take important steps to
safeguard human rights. One of these was to promulgate a juvenile
justice ordinance protecting children's rights, and the second was to
establish a National Commission on the Status of Women.
In other areas, Human Rights Watch says, the human rights situation has
noticeably deteriorated as the military has consolidated power.
Political opponents and suspected wrongdoers have been subjected to
prolonged detention without charge, custodial ill treatment, and even
torture. The report documents a particularly chilling case of
detention and torture involving Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the
suspended Punjab provincial assembly. Khan was arrested under the
sedition law for criticizing the military government in November 1999.
He was whipped, beaten, held incommunicado and interrogated for a week
in police custody before being transferred to Lahore Central Prison. He
was eventually released on bail on January 5.
Two senior Sharif administration officials who were detained on the day
of the coup, Information Minister Mushahid Hussain and Petroleum
Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, continue to be held without charge.
The report describes other arrests of political party activists and
abuses under the National Accountability Ordinance. The Ordinance
confers sweeping powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution in a
single institution, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). It permits
detainees to be held for up to ninety days without charge, and at trial
places the burden of proof on the defendant. Persons convicted under the
ordinance are automatically prohibited from holding public office for a
period of twenty-one years=97a provision that is being used to remove
leaders of major political parties from power.
Though the government has repeatedly boasted of its commitment to a free
press, a September 27 raid by armed military personnel on the offices of
the Karachi-based English daily Dawn has raised grave concerns about
freedom of speech in Pakistan. According to Dawn, the raid was preceded
by legal notices to the newspaper from the Ministry of Information to
restrict its coverage of a draft Freedom of Information Act, and by
complaints from government officials about an article in Dawn stating
that the administration was preparing new curbs on press freedom.
The report can be accessed at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/pakistan
For more information, please see:
Pakistan: A Year After the Coup, Focus on Human Rights at
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/sasia/pakistan/

______

#2.

11 October 2000

Letter to the editor-on Sudarshan's call to banish foreign missionaries

Sir/Madam
The recent utterances of RSS chief about banishing of foreign
missionaries, establishment of a Indian Church by the state and not
permitting those religions, which regard themselves as superior to others,
to preach here, should normally have been ignored as they are
anti-constitutional to the core. But unfortunately since the RSS chief has
the unspelt status of the Patron-Saint of Sangh Parivar (SP) and by
implication of the leader of the ruling coalition at the center BJP, they
can not be taken lightly.
These assertions and demands of the RSS supremo are totally against the
spirit of the Indian constitution, and this is not much of a surprise as
SP has no respect for Indian constitution and is out to revise it in the
image of the Hindu Holy scriptures. These statements violate the clauses
of religious freedom which are a fundamental right of all the citizens
including the minorities. Such a demand is against the ethos of our social
norms whose foundation is laid on the spirit of mutual tolerance and
respect for the religion of others'. It is not only Christians, some of
who owe allegiance to the Holy places and religious institutions outside,
millions of Hindus settled outside the shores of India owe the allegiance
to many a Ashrams and Gurus located in India while living the life of
loyal citizens in other countries. This also attempts to undermine the
contribution of missionaries, be they be the one's like Mother Teresa or
Pastor Stains or scores of them scattered all over and doing the quiet
work, for the Indian society.
We the following organizations and individuals urge upon the BJP led
coalition to dissociate from these assertions of the RSS chief and allay
the anxieties of Secular-Democratic citizens and the minorities all over
the country.

SIGNATORIES
Dr. Ram Puniyani (Sec. EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity)
Dr. Jalinder Adsule(Director-Salokha)
Dr. Uday Mehta (Committee for Rights for Housing)
C.J.Leeks (St. Blaise Action Committee)
Dolphy D'Souza (Voice of The Exploited)
Anand Patwardhan
Asad Bin Saif
Dr. Jesudas M.Athyl
Dilip D'Souza-
--------------------
Ram Puniyani
Secretary-EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity)
B-64, I.I T. Qutrs,Powai Mumbai 400076
Ph- (R)-5723522, 5725045 ,5768763,(O) 5767763, 5767769
-------------------------------------------

______

#3.

Indian Express
11 October 2000
Op-Ed.

>From Pokharan to Harappa
by Amrita Abraham

The National Democratic Alliance's talents as an illusionist have not been=
=20
sufficiently recognised. One year after Atal Bihari Vajpayee's return to=20
power, it is worth looking at tricks with smoke and mirrors on the food and=
=20
nuclear fronts and in rewriting history.

The government is sitting on a 45-million tonne mountain of foodgrain,=20
riches beyond imagination in a country where millions go to bed hungry=20
every day. Subsidy cuts in the annual budget have contributed to the twin=20
phenomena though the government maintains otherwise. Even as the mountain=20
threatens to rise to more spectacular heights during the current=20
procurement season, the government sits tight, doing nothing to get the=20
food to those who need it. And it is not as though effective ways of=20
delivering food are not known. Food-for-work programmes could feed the=20
undernourished and produce social and economic assets at the same time.

It has to be said, the NDA has turned its back on the poor. Why? One reason=
=20
is their existence in such huge numbers does not accord with the notion of=
=20
Indian greatness that this government has adopted and is fostering among=20
the governed. So cutting subsidies on food meant for poor people and=20
letting that food mountain grow and grow is explained as economic wisdom.

Holding twice as much grain as the country needs for emergency buffer=20
stocks is a drain on the exchequer. More is lost through corruption and to=
=20
rodents, mildew and worms than is gained by reducing the subsidy on grain=20
distributed through ration shops. Substandard rice rotting in Food=20
Corporation of India godowns alone accounts for losses close to Rs 3000=20
crore, Rs 1000 crore more than what is estimated will be saved on food=20
subsidies this year. That is not all. The new chairman of the FCI reveals=20
that he may have no choice (the implication is, political pressure) but to=
=20
procure more fast-rotting paddy this season.

It is possible to maintain all this is an example of good economic=20
management, to maintain that food subsidy cuts are reformist measures on a=
=20
par with opening up insurance or inviting private sector bids for Air=20
India, only because poverty in this country is treated as a statistical=20
illusion and a figment of the imagination.

On the nuclear front, the illusion is that Pokharan put India into the=20
league of nuclear powers. But as the Vajpayee government firms up its=20
commitment to a moratorium on testing and a former chairman of the Atomic=20
Energy Commission publicly urges more tests in order to put the credibility=
=20
back into the `minimum credible deterrent', the illusion is becoming=20
increasingly hard to maintain.

During the prime minister's visit to Washington, the government's=20
commitment to a moratorium was reiterated and carried apace further by=20
asserting that the moratorium would hold until the comprehensive test ban=20
treaty came into force. Since it has been said more than once that India=20
will not block entry into force of the CTBT, the assumption is that when=20
other roadblocks (US and Chinese failure to ratify the treaty) are out of=20
the way, India will be ready to sign. So the purpose of that additional=20
phrase this September in Washington -- that India will continue its=20
moratorium until the CTBT comes into effect -- and the fact that it came in=
=20
a joint statement with the Americans, was to lock India more firmly into=20
its promise not to test.

A moratorium accords with the confidence of India's scientists in 1998 when=
=20
they pronounced themselves completely satisfied with the results obtained=20
from five tests at Pokharan. It was said then that ``full weaponsiation''=20
was possible. Therefore, no more tests were needed for the development of a=
=20
nuclear arsenal and the moratorium would hold.

However, as the months went by it emerged that the tests had not been an=20
unqualified success and that the thermonuclear device (the big bomb=20
Vajpayee called it in an unguarded moment), at least, did not perform as=20
well as expected. This latter fact has now been confirmed by Dr P K=20
Iyengar, former chairman of the AEC, who calls for more tests before India=
=20
signs the CTBT.

The claim that five tests were sufficient to prove the reliability of=20
several weapon designs, weapons for delivery from the ground, air and sea=20
as the draft nuclear doctrine requires, has always strained credibility.=20
But for two years the public has been encouraged to cling to the illusion=20
that satisfactory results were achieved in 1998, that India could move=20
smoothly from there to weaponisation.

Now that position is crumbling publicly. What does the government propose=20
to do? It is committed abroad to bringing about a political consensus on=20
the CTBT and it is committed at home to fashioning a credible minimum=20
deterrent (against China, Pakistan or anyone else). What trick mirrors will=
=20
make these two irreconcilable positions look like one and the same?

The mother of all illusions, surely, is what the government, or important=20
members of it, are encouraging with regard to Harappa. Through a fog of=20
bogus scholarship it is made out that the Indus Valley civilization was an=
=20
Aryan civilization complete with horse-chariots and the Vedic Sanskrit=20
language; the date of the Rigveda is pushed back two thousand years and the=
=20
Harappan script is newly discovered to be written from left to right.

There is no rigorous analysis here, just myth-making parading as=20
scholarship. Inconvenient archaeological evidence is tossed out, impossible=
=20
claims are made and still other evidence is distorted, all in the effort to=
=20
establish that the Aryans were an indigenous people. It is the magician's=20
art. Why the National Museum in New Delhi and the Archaeological Survey of=
=20
India have allowed themselves to become the butt of jokes in universities=20
in India and abroad by associating themselves with this shabby enterprise=20
is hard to understand. But it seems any claptrap is good enough for these=20
premier institutions as long as it has the blessings of the NDA government=
=20
as appears to be the case.

A notion of greatness that requires poor people to be forgotten, nuclear=20
weapons to be rattled and the support of bogus scholarship should be firmly=
=20
rejected.

Copyright =A9 2000 Indian Express Newspaper=
s=20
(Bombay) Ltd.

______

#4.

The Hindustan Times
11 October 2000
Op-Ed.

Aryan-Harappan myth

By Shereen Ratnagar

It is well known that current controversies about the past are being argued=
=20
across an ideological divide. It would be of little use to condemn this,=20
for in all societies and through history, the past has been of relevance to=
=20
existing social relationships, political ambitions, and one or other=20
current practice. And social science research is built around problems that=
=20
can only be structured in an ideological framework, explicit or assumed.=20
Moreover, it is useful to investigate why importance is given to this=20
evidence and not that. The more we investigate the =91why=92 of the debate,=
the=20
less easy it will be for one or the other =91side=92 to delude us, through =
the=20
agency of an ill-informed and gullible (or, indeed, biased) press, into=20
accepting =91scientific truths=92.

I will take the case of the Harappan civilisation (named after the type=20
site, Harappa). What makes it such a specially controversial subject, in=20
contrast to, say, the megalith-building cultures of peninsular and south=20
India? The remains of Harappan sites represent the first flowering of=20
civilisation in South Asia. We all know about the grand geographic sweep of=
=20
this civilisation. There was also its outward reach, overseas to=20
Mesopotamia and the Gulf for the trade, and across high mountains for lapis=
=20
lazuli. There is an undeniable grandeur in the extensively excavated=20
remains of Mohenjo-daro, a city so well built that its house remains still=
=20
create a stupendous visual impact.

Also relevant are the water harvesting facilities at Dholavira, formal=20
styles of Harappan stone sculpture, highly skilled seal carving, the use of=
=20
multiple mineral resources, and the famous street drains and town planning.=
=20
Most important, there was city life and writing. There is a glory in the=20
Harappan period, and we like to participate in that glory. One way in which=
=20
we do so is by building a tourism industry around it, as happens in many=20
countries. But matters do not rest there.

A past glory is not relevant unless people identify with it. And=20
identification occurs only when people see their =91roots=92 in that period=
.=20
This in turn is logical only if we are convinced that we can draw=20
continuities from that old Harappan culture to the present day.

This glory-continuity-roots paradigm is conceptually loaded, complex, and=20
confused. Whose roots are we speaking of? It can=92t strictly be =91the roo=
ts=20
of Pakistan-India=92, because the latter have had reality as entities only =
in=20
our time. Before that, political, cultural and economic boundaries=20
periodically shifted, and the ethnic/cultural identities of social groups=20
in the region were varied and changing.

The Harappan civilisation is archaeologically attested from Punjab to=20
Gujarat and Baluchistan to Haryana and over a certain period (2600-1800 BC)=
=20
by specific kinds of pottery, weights, seals, and tool types and ornaments=
=20
occurring together at many sites. Civilisation means, in this=20
archaeological context, a stage (with urbanism, writing and ruling elites)=
=20
of social evolution and something more than a local culture. Social=20
organisation had reached a level of complexity beyond that of tribal life=20
(which lacks socio-political hierarchies, the division of labour, and=20
economic specialisation across regions).

But if we were to confuse roots and identity, and the well-springs of our=20
cultural specificity, with our perception of this archaeological phenomenon=
=20
=97 if we see our religious identity in the Harappan culture, or find its=20
cities =91typically Indian=92 (or =91Pakistani=92) =97 we are appropriating=
a past=20
that does not fit into a present. Simply put, Oriya people are as Indian as=
=20
Gujaratis, but there are certainly no Harappan remains in eastern India.

In the matter of who can validly identify with the Harappan past, there are=
=20
other problems too. Today Dalits, who see themselves as descendants of the=
=20
autochthonous population of India, claim a Harappan ancestry, in=20
contradistinction to the oppressive Brahmans who, they allege, invaded=20
India. On the other hand, in the saffron politics of the upper castes and=20
traders, it is imperative to establish that Aryans originated in India. A=20
movement that needs =91enemies of foreign origin within=92 to sustain itsel=
f=20
would not accept that its own earliest gods/rituals, or the Sanskrit=20
language, or its cultural elite, had a remote ancestry far away in the=20
steppes of Eurasia! The logic of minority exclusion would collapse.

To establish the local origins of Vedic Aryans, therefore, professional=20
archaeologists (not politicians alone) have taken pains to link them with=20
the Harappan civilisation. Several strategies have been devised to try and=
=20
establish such an identity. Remains of =91Vedic altars=92, the horse, writi=
ng=20
in a language related to Vedic Sanskrit, have all been claimed at various=20
times.

The argument is that the civilisation lay in the valley of the Sarasvati=20
and not the Indus. The saffron movement identifies the Sarasvati with the=20
(now dry) Ghaggar-Drsadvati channels that flow from the Shivaliks southwest=
=20
through Punjab-Haryana and Rajasthan, and form what is known as the Hakra=20
(a wide and dry river channel) in Pakistan. As the Sarasvati is an=20
important river in the Rgveda (though by no means the only important one)=20
the Vedic Aryan identity of the Harappan civilisation is sought to be thus=
=20
established.

The argument goes that many sites lie along the Sarasvati, more than on the=
=20
Indus. But archaeologists should know that ancient sites have a far greater=
=20
chance of survival by defunct streams like the =91Sarasvati=92 than on the=
=20
banks of swift and flooding rivers like the Indus. Also, many of the mounds=
=20
in the =91Sarasvati valley=92 attest to a local culture and are not=20
full-fledged Harappan sites. And last, we have no means of proving that a=20
certain channel was a particular Vedic river. This change-the-name exercise=
=20
is pathetic in itself, but more so when we recall that the hymns of the=20
Rgveda say nothing about tall brick buildings, the sealing of packages,=20
city life, the beauty of long red carnelian beads, sailing overseas, or=20
dozens of other cultural elements that go to characterise the Harappa cultu=
re.

We expect that the Vedic sacrificial altar was an elaborately built=20
structure, not a simple cooking place, and not represented by scatters of=20
ash and charcoal =97 found by the dozen at most residential sites if we dig=
=20
carefully =97 and so far no hearth or fire place at Harappan sites is=20
convincing as a Vedic structure. Fire rituals may have been conducted, but=
=20
not in the Vedic manner.

It was also claimed that bones of the horse have been found at Harappan=20
sites. The horse is the animal of the early Indo-Europeans =97 of whom the=
=20
Vedic Aryans were a branch. Domesticated and bred in large numbers in the=20
grasslands of southern Europe-Central Asia, the horse was of ritual=20
importance to many Indo-European groups who migrated to new lands. Once=20
archaeozoologists entered the debate, the claim to identification shifted=20
from bones to depiction on Harappan seals (recently exposed as a fraud).

And then there are claims about the decipherment of Harappan writing. It is=
=20
said that it is the writing of an Aryan language. But a decisive=20
decipherment would be possible only if we were to find bilingual=20
inscriptions, in the Harappan and another known language, that too,=20
bilinguals in which names of persons/places occur, so that we could tell=20
how some signs were vocalised. In other words, internal evidence is not=20
sufficient basis for decipherment, because the link between written=20
(visual) symbols and spoken sounds in any language is arbitrary. Internal=20
evidence can only tell us that Harappan writing was from right to left,=20
logographic, and used suffixes.

I have said that it is archaeologists who have been at the forefront of=20
this saffron movement. It is important for the public to know that the same=
=20
archaeologists =97 and they are a minority =97 who spun the tale about an =
=9184=20
pillar temple=92 under the Babri masjid have created this =91Aryan Harappan=
s=92 myth.

They are preoccupied with matters like the identification of rivers and=20
linguistic identity, about which archaeology has nothing definitive to say.=
=20
Their rubric =91Harappan=92 is all-encompassing and actually includes sites=
of=20
several other cultures. Ill at ease with concepts, they think the Aryan=20
issue is about invasions rather than language replacement, which requires=20
neither invasions nor massive migrations. Instead of initiating research on=
=20
settlement patterns, technology, why it is that wild animals are carved on=
=20
the seals, or house form and social groupings, they embroil the academic=20
world in demeaning issues that are of little intellectual consequence.=20
Worse, they are indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people=
=20
during the mandir-masjid movement.

It is useful to understand why people need to establish the remote origins=
=20
of present day cultural practices, to be discussed in the next section.

(To be concluded)

*****Professor Ratnagar is a senior historian, associated with the Centre=20
for Historical Studies, JNU, for several years.

______

#5.

[The below op-ed piece appeared on 10 and 11 October 2000, in the Hindu]

An open letter to Bangaru Laxman-I

By Gail Omvedt

DEAR SIRI-SAMI Bangaru Laxman,

I would like to congratulate you on becoming the president of the BJP. (I=
=20
should also preface this by explaining why I address you as Siri: Shri is=20
Sankskritised and north Indian; most Maharashtrian Dalits prefer Ayushaman.=
=20
Tamils, on the other hand, prefer Thiru. You, I understand, are from Andhra=
=20
and so may not mind if I address you by the term used by the Satavahanas in=
=20
their inscriptions. They were the greatest rulers in India after Ashoka and=
=20
may be considered both an Andhra and a Maharashtrian kingdom. They used=20
nothing but Prakrit in their inscriptions though their names get=20
Sanskritised by unheeding historians and invariably their kings prefaced=20
their names simply with Siri and occasionally with Siri-Sami. So it seems=20
appropriate.

In congratulating you, I would like to add an observation that I hope you=20
won't take amiss: it is really nice to see, for once, a dark south Indian=20
face on television up there with all those light-skinned politicians! (Not=
=20
to mention the Hindi cinemas and the serials, where everyone seems not only=
=20
to be light-skinned but also to live in fancy bungalows or multi-storey fla=
ts).

I worry that you may take this amiss because India has never had an=20
effective black is beautiful movement, and the result is that all=20
dark-skinned Indians seem to feel a bit diffident. My husband, for=20
instance, who's often called black, is constantly told by photographers not=
=20
to wear bright or dark colors, and I have been made very sad to hear=20
nice-looking young girls refuse to buy bright-colored clothes, saying Oh, I=
=20
can't wear these colors, I'm too dark. I hope you can provide a role model=
=20
to break this racist idea of beauty.

So, you deserve congratulations, and I have to say that your party does=20
too. I am sure that you are not simply a figurehead, which means that the=20
party must have done something to recruit, train and bring forward bright=20
people of low-caste background.

That this is not so easy is seen by the situation of almost all parties in=
=20
this country, except of course those based on Dalits. As a=20
left-liberal-secularist, I am naturally disheartened that the BJP is the=20
first major national party to have a Dalit president. Leave aside the=20
communists, why couldn't even any of the socialists, who have been talking=
=20
about representation and Mandal ever since the time of Lohia, have found a=
=20
Dalit to head their party? We don't even need to mention the Congress,=20
which has not had an effective Dalit leader at the top level since Jagjivan=
=20
Ram, where even the near-Dalit Sitaram Kesri had to run away in the face of=
=20
the Dynasty. So, congratulations all around. Nevertheless, I do think there=
=20
are some issues you should consider in regard to your party, especially=20
those volunteers and cultural ideologists within it. I am not simply=20
talking about the recent atrocities against Christians by people you would=
=20
undoubtedly call simple gangsters or even provocateurs, but rather about=20
issues of principle, of philosophy and history.

Let me start with the question of Muslims. You have said: ``They are flesh=
=20
of our flesh and blood of our blood''. Well, of course, that is simply a=20
statement of fact. Everyone knows that the vast majority of Indian Muslims=
=20
are converts, almost all from the so- called low castes.

The real question is that they owe religious allegiance to what many of=20
your ideologists consider a foreign religion. The grounds for objecting to=
=20
this are expressed in what I understand to be the heart of Hindutva=20
thinking: that a Hindu is someone who considers India to be both his/her=20
holy land and fatherland. I would like to examine what this means. It=20
means, among other things, that Hindus by this definition are in a class=20
with only one other people/country in the world - orthodox Jews living in=20
Israel.

You see, for all other religious believers, their holy land and their=20
nation are separate, have to be separate. No American Christian that I=20
know, to take one example, would consider anything but the land of=20
Jerusalem and Bethlehem to be the holy land; more, if they are truly=20
Christians, they would have to say that in the end, my God is above my=20
nation. This does not make them less patriotic Americans; it cannot. Yet=20
somehow your party wants to say that Christian Indians, or Muslim Indians,=
=20
are disloyal to India if they should say the same thing as any patriotic=20
Christian in the U.S. would say!

You should think deeply about this equation of holy land- fatherland, since=
=20
the identification of one's people with a particular religion and the=20
identification of a religion with a particular section of the earth's=20
geography is basically a tribal characteristic. And I don't mean tribal in=
=20
the sense of Adivasis (Bhils, Santhals and all are not tribals in this=20
sense) but in terms of an early stage of human history. I hope the religion=
=20
that you owe allegiance to is more than tribal.

Then, there is the question of what really India is. Is it after all a=20
Hindu country? Of course we may say that it is in the simple sense that=20
Hindu is after all a geographical term deriving from the river Sind, whose=
=20
S sound could not be pronounced by outsider-Iranians and so became Hindu=20
(just as Asura in the Vedas became Ahura for the Zorastrians). That is=20
simple enough. But the adherents of Hindutva say more than this. They want=
=20
to have it both ways, they want to say both that this is a geographical=20
identification and that it is a religious one: a Hindu must take Ram,=20
Krishna etc. as divine in some way or another. This is where many, many=20
Indians take objection. I have some objections from my knowledge of history=
=20
and sociology.

There is no sense in which what is called Hinduism today is the oldest=20
religion of India. (Americans also get this wrong; even supposedly=20
sophisticated American sociologists tend to accept the idea that Hinduism=20
is a 5000-year-old religion. Japanese scholars in this way are a little=20
smarter on this issue. Indians would do well at many points to pay=20
attention to the Japanese instead of to England or the U.S. as a model).

Hinduism is not a 5000-year-old religion. If anything is 5000 years old in=
=20
this country, it is the Indus valley civilisation, and contemporary=20
scholarship in archaeology and even history tells us that its language was=
=20
most likely Dravidian and its religion was more likely similar to that of=20
the Jains or Buddhists or perhaps the Saivites than to anything found in=20
the Vedas. The main components of what is today considered Hinduism were=20
brought together during the first millennium BC, in conflict and dialogue=20
with the anti-Vedic shramana tradition.

Furthermore, if India had a golden age before the coming of the Muslims, it=
=20
was a Buddhist age. From Ashoka to the Satavahanas to the Kushans to Orissa=
=20
and Bengal to the Tamils before the Brahmanic revival of the 7th-8th=20
centuries, Buddhism and Jainism were dominant religions in most parts of=20
the subcontinent. And yet, those who identify themselves with Hindutva see=
=20
the Vedas and Sanskrit as the source of their thinking, and would like to=20
think of themselves as Aryan rather than Dravidian, Austro- Asiatic or=20
anything else.

If Buddhists, Jains etc. are called a part of Hinduism their tradition is=20
nevertheless treated as an inferior part, while the great contributions of=
=20
Islam to Indian culture are looked on with hostility. This has been the=20
major barrier to India's unity and India's greatness.

=3D=3D=3D

An open letter to Bangaru Laxman - II

By Gail Omvedt

WHY, I wonder, is there so much fixation on the Vedas anyway? And why do so=
=20
many of those connected with your party seem to feel the need to claim that=
=20
the Aryans originated in India? To take the second question first,=20
originally Lokmanya Tilak and all other elite thinkers of the nineteenth=20
and early twentieth centuries were quite happy to agree that Aryans came=20
from outside of India, even claiming that their original home was in the=20
Arctic. However, since the 1930s - note that this was after dalit movements=
=20
throughout India claimed an identity as original inhabitants (Adi-Dravida,=
=20
Adi-Andhra, Adi-Hindu and so on) - Golwalker and his followers began to say=
=20
that the Aryans also originated in India. However, that they came from=20
outside is hardly challenged by any objective scholars. The Dravidians=20
themselves quite possibly also came from outside.

The fact is that in most countries the main sections of the population have=
=20
come ``from outside'' within the period of thousands of years. Staying=20
settled was never a particularly human characteristic; ever since homo=20
sapiens originated in Africa, we have migrated everywhere. My own ancestors=
=20
went from Scandinavian countries to the U.S. a few generations back, and=20
now I have come to India to settle. I am proud to belong to a world of=20
migrants.

As for the Vedas, they are impressive books, especially the Rg Veda. I can=
=20
only say this only from translations, but I am glad that the ban on women=20
and shudras reading them has been broken, and that good translations by=20
women and shudras themselves are available. But to take them as something=20
holy? Read them for yourself! Most of the hymns are for success in war,=20
cattle- stealing, love-making and the like. They celebrate conquest; the=20
hymns about Indra and Vrtra sound suspiciously as if the Aryans were=20
responsible for smashing dams built by the Indus valley people; though=20
archeologists tell us there is no evidence for direct destruction by=20
``Aryan invasion'', the Rg Veda gives evidence of enmity between the Aryans=
=20
and those they called dasyus, panis and the like. Some of the hymns are=20
positively pornographic. Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, for example, would be=20
horrified by the hymn on Indra and the monkey Vrishakapi, and newspapers=20
would probably be banned from printing it. Actually the Vedas can be fun=20
(including the Artharva Veda, with its fascinating spells for winning=20
lovers, preventing childbirth and so on), if people would drop the fixation=
=20
about them being something sacred.

If there is any morally and spiritually impressive literature in India, it=
=20
begins with the Jains and the Buddhists, and the Upanishads, all coming=20
around the same centuries in the first millennium BC. I am mentioning the=20
Upanisads here, though I am not impressed with the ethical qualities of any=
=20
philosophical- religious speculation that accepts the authority of a birth-=
=20
defined elite. Manu and the later Dharmashastras are simply morally=20
repugnant. This may mean applying today's standards of equality and social=
=20
justice, but I have no hesitation about making such value judgments.

Similarly, it can be said about the epics that they were wonderful stories.=
=20
All Indians should treasure them. But why should they be forced to regard=20
as divine a hero who cast his wife aside because of slander that affected=20
his prestige, who slaughtered a Shudra for daring to try tapascharya? Why=20
should Shambuk not be the hero? Was Sita greater for pleading the cause of=
=20
the rakshasas slaughtered by Rama, or was Rama greater for killing them?=20
Was Ravana, who did not lay a hand on Sita, more noble or was Rama? Who was=
=20
the greater archer, Arjuna or Ekalavya whose thumb was cut off so that he=20
could not compete? And who stood on the side of justice when, as the=20
Mahabharata tells us, Carvak was murdered in assembly for protesting=20
against a war in which so many kin were slaughtered Yudhishtara or Carvak=20
himself?

There are many other questions regarding culture and education in India=20
that I wish you would take up with Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, who recently=20
had the audacity in a television interview to praise ``our traditional=20
education'' by saying that Bihar before the time of the British had ``six=20
lakh schools in six lakh villages''. There were indeed many traditional=20
Brahmanic schools, but you know as well as I do who was excluded from them,=
=20
and who was considered worthy of being taught the ``higher'' subjects.=20
While he was talking about Bihar, why didn't he mention Nalanda? Why don't=
=20
the educationists in your party take as their example the world-famous=20
universities of ancient India, which were all Buddhist? It seems as if the=
=20
followers of Hindutva like to say that ``Buddhism is part of Hinduism'' but=
=20
would prefer to mention it as little as possible!

Finally, a few words about politics. There is much important political=20
theory in the ancient Indian tradition. But there are also crucial=20
differences between that of the brahmanic tradition and the shramanic=20
tradition. Jainism presents us the ideal of the king renouncing his throne,=
=20
as Bahubali renounced his for Bharat. Buddhist kings were to follow the=20
model of the chakravartin universal emperor who was responsible for=20
providing protection to the householders who worked and accumulated wealth=
=20
in righteous ways, and for preventing poverty.

In fact a very famous sutra, which is cited by Babasaheb Ambedkar and made=
=20
a central part of his book ``The Buddha and His Dhamma'', tells of how=20
disaster strikes a kingdom in which the ruler fails to provide wealth to=20
the destitute. In contrast, we find that Manu begins his chapter on kings=20
by emphasising their divinity and then stresses danda, the role of violence=
=20
and punishment as central to the state. In the more liberal Arthashastra,=20
Kautilya talks much of the strategy of war, but little of the strategies of=
=20
welfare. There is much of taxing irrigation, little about how to build=20
dams. I know of no brahmanic text where kings are urged to provide wealth=20
to the destitute, as in the Buddhist story, but it is fair to say that in=20
every brahmanic text the duty of a king is to protect varnashrama dharma.

Your party is now in the position of rulership. You are the kings. The=20
question now is which model of kingship you are to follow. Most of my=20
friends are afraid that the BJP is at heart a follower of the Manusmriti=20
model. They fear that there will be protection not for the people but for=20
varnashrama dharma, and punishment for those who oppose it, rather than for=
=20
those who murder dissenters and Dalits. They fear that liberalisation will=
=20
mean not lead to wealth for the destitute but more exploitation. I hope,=20
for India's sake, that you can prove them wrong.

_____________________________________________

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch (SACW) is an informal, independent &=20
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web=20
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be=
=20
accessed by joining the ACT list run by SACW. To subscribe send a blank=20
message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Disclaimer : Opinions carried in the dispatches are not necessarily=20
representative of views of SACW compilers]