[sacw] SACW | 5 Dec. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WIRE
5 December 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)

____________________________

#1. Pakistan: Concept of secularism
#2. Bangladesh: War Veterans of Bangladesh
#3. Bangladesh: The Constitution and its amendments
#4. Bangladesh: Muslim Right observes day for establishing Islamic rule
#5. India: Communalism & History writing: Lectures by Romila Thapar /
Tanika Sarkar
(5 Dec.00, Delhi University)
#6. India: Christian Youth Speak out against the Hindu supremacists
#7. India: Nasari (Gujarat) hit by Communal clashes
#8. India: [The Politics of ] 'Hindi Nationalism' by Alok Rai

____________________________

#1.

DAWN
02 December 2000
Mazdak

CONCEPT OF SECULARISM

By Irfan Husain

FOR the rich, the first thing that comes to mind when they are
contemplating Ramazan is not renunciation of material things and prayer:
they are more concerned about pulling their money out of their savings
accounts so that zakat is not deducted on the first day of the holy month.

But this applies only to the Sunni majority as the Shias fought to get
exempted from this religious levy when it was first imposed by Zia in the
early eighties. Indeed, thousands of Sunnis have declared themselves Shias
to escape this tax. Non-Muslims are already exempt. Indeed, this is one of
the few advantages of being a member of a minority in this country; the
other being able to legally buy booze. Unless, of course, you are an
Ahmadi, in which case prohibition laws apply. So the poor Ahmadis have all
the problems of being declared a minority without being able to benefit
from their status.

I bring up these exceptions in the legal system as an example of the
confusion caused by trying to frame laws in accordance with a religious
faith that is not followed by all the citizens of Pakistan. Under such a
dispensation, it is inevitable that every law does not apply to every
citizen, and this is the essence of a civilized, democratic order. In a
society like ours, all citizens cannot be equal, and for people like me who
maintain that everybody must be equal in the eyes of the law, this is an
unacceptable situation that has led to many of the contortions and
distortions our legal system has been prone to.

By definition, democracy implies equality, and yet by basing laws on a
faith that is not universal, we are excluding people from the ambit of the
democratic order we are trying to create. In both Israel and Pakistan, the
two states created in the name of religion in modern times, citizens who do
not subscribe to the faith of the majority have been marginalized. In
Israel, non-Jewish Arabs cannot buy property in certain areas. But while
they suffer from discrimination in many more subtle ways, they do not face
persecution to the degree Pakistan's minorities do. They do not, for
instance, face the consequences of the iniquitous blasphemy law, and nor do
they have to contend with the divisive system of separate electorates.

In Pakistan, secularism has been a pejorative word because of the
unfortunate (and inaccurate) translation of this concept into Urdu:
'Ladinyat' or irreligiousness. Yet my Webster's Third New International
Dictionary defines secularism thus: "...a system of social ethics based
upon a doctrine that ethical standards and conduct should be determined
exclusively with reference to present life and social well-being without
reference to religion." No mention of godless heathens here.

In the recent book 'Confronting Empire' containing interviews with the
late and much-missed Eqbal Ahmad, the interviewer, David Barsamian, asked
the famous teacher, activist and columnist about his views on religion.
Eqbal replied: "I am very harshly secularist. But let's be clear about what
'secularism' means to me, and ought to mean generally to everybody else. In
its original meaning it doesn't mean that you are irreligious or that you
are opposed to religion. Secular to me means that the laws of the state,
the laws of society, will not be enacted in accordance with some divine
injunction; they will be enacted in response to the needs of society. Law
treats everybody equally - be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Muslims -
and is made for everyone equally. That's secular to me. It's in that sense
that to me Israel is not a secular state, nor is Pakistan, but the United
States is."

There is a general misconception in Pakistan that only religion keeps the
tidal wave of immorality from inundating Pakistan, and if we were to become
secular, we would be swamped by obscenity and all kinds of evil western
influences. We tend to forget that most Muslim countries are secular and
the standards of morality are generally far higher there. Indeed, nations
like Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria have smaller non-Muslim
minorities than we do. Granted that they are not all shining examples of
democracy, but their laws do not distinguish between one faith and another.
We need to reflect on the universality of values: the aim of all major
religions and value systems is to promote harmony, honesty and equality.
There is thus no basic contradiction between secularism and religion: the
former only suggests that faith is a private matter between the individual
and his Maker. Edmund Burke, in his opening speech at the impeachment of
Warren Hastings in 1788, makes this point very well:

"The laws of morality are the same everywhere, and... there is no action
which would pass for an act of extortion, of peculation, of bribery, and of
oppression in England, that is not an act of extortion, of peculation, of
bribery and oppression in Europe, Asia, Africa, and all the world over."

The problem with states created in the name of religion is that
politicians and bigots tend to justify the existence of their countries
with an excessive outward show of religiosity. Thus, Israeli rabbis try to
block all transport on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, while our mullahs are
on the verge of declaring interest illegal, thus precipitating a major
financial crisis. In both cases, the zealots do not have the education or
the sophistication to grasp the requirements of modern states plugged into
a global economy.

As experience has taught us (or should have done by now), democracy and
bigotry are incompatible, whether this ideological fervour stems from
religious belief or a blind commitment to any other kind of dogma. These
positions lead followers to assume an attitude of righteousness that is the
very anti-thesis of democracy. Dogma teaches that only one point of view
can be correct; and if this is so, all those who have not seen the light
are wrong, and therefore deserve to be treated as second class citizens, if
not as actual enemies of the ideological state.

In 1947, there was a famous case in the United States (Emerson versus the
Board of Education) in which the plaintiff pleaded that the government
should permit the teaching of Christian dogma in public schools. Mindful of
the fact that many non-Christians were enrolled in the school system, and
that one kind of religious instruction may offend certain sects, the court
threw out the plea. In his ruling, the judge, Hugo La Fayette Black, said:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That
wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest
breach."

_____

#2.

WAR VETERANS OF BANGLADESH
http://www.drik.net/warvet1971/

"You remember us for only two or three days in a year. The rest of
our time is spent on this floor in turmoil and illness" - Mogai, a
veteran of the independence war of Bangladesh, now a resident of the
rehabilitation centre for the war veterans.

The life of the wounded and maimed war veterans, who took part in the
independence war of Bangladesh against the Pakistani army in 1971, is
very different from that of others. The hopes and dreams that led
them to go to the war, risking their lives, have all gone in vain.
Before the war, there was dependence and ignorance. However, the
expense during the war itself has added uncertainties, and the
trouble of food, clothing and shelter.

Twenty-nine years after independence, our war veterans are exploited
and uncared for. They live on, hidden from mainstream society, all
alone - without a friend, without a job and without a future.

Abir Abdullah/Drik

(Abir Abdullah, a student of Pathshala, the South Asian Institute of
Photography (www.drik.net/pathshala), is one of a group of young,
socially committed photographers emerging from Bangladesh who are
producing challenging and sensitive work.)

_____

#3.

Dhaka Courier
10 November 2000

[Bangladeshi] CONSTITUTION AND ITS AMENDMENTS

By Barrister Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed

A Constitution is a sacred document of a nation. The thoughts and
conscience of the people and the basic philosophy of a nation are reflected
in the Constitution. After the War of Liberation the task of framing a new
Constitution for independent Bangladesh was taken up. The Constitution of
our country was framed and adopted in the Constituent Assembly on 4
November 1972, and came into effect on 16 December of the same year. The
framing of such a Constitution in a short span of time post-revolution is a
glorious chapter in the history of our country. The basic principles of
governance and state policy were reflected in the preamble to the
Constitution. While on the one hand the philosophy and ideals reflected our
revolutionary tradition, on the other hand, it also reflected the bitter
past experiences of the infamous period of despotic, undemocratic and
authoritarian rule. The Members of Parliament, with idealism, with
commitment to democracy and the rule of law and pledged to the good of the
country and people, endeavoured to frame our Constitution reflecting these
ideals and experiences in the substantive provisions of the Constitution.

Subsequently, as ill luck would have it, we slowly began to return to the
undemocratic, despotic authoritarianism of the past. The Constitution began
to be mauled. This began with the addition of the provisions for preventive
detention, and by incorporating a power to declare emergency. Till today
these ignominious provisions are continuing, and have created a state of
affairs in the governance of the country which is not only against the
public interest, but is gradually becoming intolerable and dangerous. These
amendments were made not in the interest of the country or the good of the
people but for the sole purpose of the protection and perpetuation of the
government in power. Constitutional amendments are made to improve a
Constitution, to add what is not provided but is required, and to overcome
possible constitutional crises. I have already said that a Constitution is
a sacred document of a State, and therefore it is never desirable to amend
it in the interest of individuals or the government in power. Yet several
of the amendments to our Constitution are such as have been made sometimes
in the interest of the individual and sometimes merely to keep a government
in power. The amendments have been made simply in the party-political
interest, and not with any consideration of whether or not these would
address the welfare of the nation and the people. However, the last three
amendments were exceptions to this.

At the beginning I have mentioned about ignominious amendments, but the
most dreadful surgery performed on the Constitution was by the Fourth
Amendment. The Fourth Amendment struck at the roots of democracy by
establishing a one-party system of government. The fundamental rights of
the people were turned into mere mockery. The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to enforce these rights was taken away. Through this, the
independence and basic structures of the Supreme Court was destroyed. This
disgraceful document was a cause of much satisfaction for the
anti-liberation forces. It was a rare example of establishing an
undemocratic system through democratic means. It's dreadfulness was
far-reaching.

After this, for a long time political authority was concentrated in the
hands of ambitious and anti-people men. Even before the Fifth Amendment,
one by one the basic assumptions and principles of the Constitution were
destroyed during the first Martial Law. A Constitution is a document of a
democratic system of government. Democracy is not a matter of religion or
non-religion. It is such a doctrine which is naturally secular. If a
Constitution is framed on the basis of any religious credo, modern notions
of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law are not likely to be a
part of it. In successive ages rulers have attempted to fulfil their
designs, taking advantage of the religious sentiments of the people of our
country who are simple, straightforward and god-fearing, yet poor and
distressed. Our first period of military rule is such an example. The
practice of amending the Constitution by military dictat was current during
all periods of military rule. The main distinguishing feature of such
amendments during the first Martial Law era was firstly to add the name of
Allah, the Beneficent and Merciful. If that was all then perhaps there
would be nothing more to say; but the intention was to put in place a new
paragraph in place of the second paragraph to the preamble, which is still
in force. The second paragraph of the preamble to the original Constitution
contained our pledge to those great ideals which inspired our heroic people
to dedicate themselves to, and our brave martyrs to sacrifice their lives,
in the historic struggle for national liberation. These were nationalism,
socialism, democracy and secularism. These were declared to be the basic
principals of the Constitution. During Martial Law, the main and
fundamental basic principle of secularism was replaced by the words
"Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah". The historic struggle for
national liberation was also termed the war of national independence.
Thereafter during the long period of this government the Constitution was
freely amended through military dictat without any apparent good cause
except for the cause of the military regime. Who will say these amendments
were necessary for the good of the people, in the interest of the nation or
for overcoming some constitutional crisis? These were done only because
they were necessary for the perpetuation of the ruling junta.

At the end of the Martial Law period the Fifth Amendment was enacted to
reinstate the Constitution and ratify the imposition of Martial Law prior
to the so-called reestablishment of democracy. The so-called constitutional
step of revival of the Constitution and ratification through such an
amendment was a Bangladeshi invention, not to be found anywhere else.
Thereafter the Sixth Amendment was brought purely in the interest of a
person and party; in the interest of Justice Abdus Sattar, and of BNP's
rule. There was a constitutional bar in the way of Justice Sattar's taking
part in the presidential election as the incumbent Vice-President. That bar
was removed by this amendment. As a result Justice Sattar was later elected
President. The purpose of the Seventh Amendment was to ratify Martial Law
and to protect those who overthrew the Constitution from charges of
treason. Where is the interest of the state or the people in these
amendments?

A military dictatorship by definition does not care about religion,
principles or ideals, yet they declared Islam to be the state religion by
the Eighth Amendment. There was no religious crisis in the country. There
was no constitutional crisis. Neither was there a demand for this from the
people. Apart from declaring the state religion, everything else that the
authoritarian rulers of the 1980s did was sacrilege, oppression, deception,
plunder of national wealth and unbridled corruption. Anarchy and misrule
together created such a situation that for nine long years people of all
walks of life and professions fought and made sacrifices to end that
authoritarianism. Shoulder to shoulder with the people, the entire
community of lawyers in the country stood at the forefront of this struggle
and made sacrifices.

By the Eighth Amendment an attempt was made to destroy the Supreme Court
and replace it with a kind of ineffective and subservient judicial system.
The historic judgment of the Supreme Court has declared this amendment
ultra vires the Constitution. By this judgment a glorious chapter has been
added to the constitutional law of the country, which through successive
ages, for as long as the Constitution will be in existence, will not allow
the basic structure of the Constitution to be destroyed by any amendment
whatsoever. Thereafter during this period of authoritarian rule the Ninth
and Tenth Amendments were enacted, mainly to create constitutional
impediments in the way of establishing a caretaker government if the
revolution succeeded and the government fell. In whose interest were these
amendments brought? These were weapons against the revolutionary people
engaged in the struggle on the streets. Yet, these weapons could not stop
the second successful revolution on 4 December 1990. Subsequently, the
Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments were framed, for the first time, in the
interest of the people, to preserve the revolutionary changes and to meet
the constitutional crisis. Parliamentary democracy was reestablished by
deleting several amendments which had been enacted in the past. The
Thirteenth Amendment was passed to meet another constitutional crisis. It
was inserted in the Constitution to provide for the establishment of the
caretaker government. Other than the First, Third, Eleventh, Twelfth and
Thirteenth Amendments, no other amendment to the Constitution was made in
the interest of the people, the country, the nation or to overcome any
constitutional crisis.

_____

#4.

The Daily Star
4 December 2000

KHELAFAT ANDOLAN EXPRESSES MORAL SUPPORT TO LADEN, TALIBAN

By Staff Correspondent

Bangladesh Khelafat Andolon has expressed its full moral support to
Taleban and Osama bin Laden with a view to establishing Islamic rule in the
world.

This is the first organisation in the country that has openly expressed its
support to the Taleban movement and controversial Muslim leader Osama bin
Laden.

The announcement was made at a discussion organised by Khelafat Andolon on
the occasion of the first Friday of the holy month of Ramadan, observing it
as a day for establishing Islamic rule.

Despite unfavourable situation prevailing in Bangladesh regarding the
Afghan Talebans and the radical Saudi businessman, Khelafat Andolon has
expressed its full moral support to Taleban and Osama bin Laden with a view
to establishing Islamic Hukumat (rule) in the world, speakers at the
meeting said.

The meeting also expressed support for Baitul Mokkadas, Kashmir, Arakan and
Chechan movement. Speakers said human development and peace is not possible
without establishing Islamic rule in the world.

The meeting was addressed among others by Ameer-e-Shariat Hazrat Maulana
Shah Ahmedullah Ashraf Ibne Haffezi Huzur, General Secretary Zaforullah
Khan, International Affairs Secretary Alhaj Anisur Rahman Jinnah and Dhaka
City Ameer Abu Zafor Quashemi.

_____

#5.

[Noted Historians] Romila Thapar and Tanika Sarkar

will speak on - COMMUNALISM AND THE WRITING OF INDIAN HISTORY

Venue: Ramjas College Auditorium, Ramjas College, Delhi University Campus

Date: 5 December 2000

Time: 11 am

[Lunch will be served to all]

Musical performance by celebrated singer & radical critic Madan Gopal
Singh from 3 pm onwards at the Ramjas auditorium

Sponsors: Orient Longman Limited, Hyderabad, India
Organisors : History Society of Ramjas College and Delhi University Forum
for Democracy

_____

#6.

The Times of India
4 December 2000

CHRISTIAN YOUTH SPEAK OUT AGAINST SANGH PARIVAR

HYDERABAD: The National Congress of Indian Christians' (NCIC) youth wing
on Sunday appealed to Prime Minister A B Vajpayee and Home Minister L K
Advani to stop Sangh Parivar activists from entering Ayodhya, where the
Parivar was planning to celebrate Sankalp Divas on December 6, the eighth
anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid.

In a press release, they said, ''It is ridiculous that on the one hand BJP
President Bangaru Laxman is inviting the minorities into the party and on
the other hand the Sangh Parivar persists in fomenting communal disharmony
by making provocative statements and continuing the hate campaign against
Christians."

''The proposed Sankalp Divas could be viewed only as a move to terrorise
the minorities and cause communal violence in the country in the name of
religion,'' it said.

They urged Vajpayee, Advani and Laxman to intervene immediately and stop
the Divas as well as the "hate campaign" against Christians in the
north-eastern states. ''This will ensure the continuance of religious
harmony and allow the Muslim and Christian minorities to celebrate their
main holy festivals-- Ramzan and Christmas-- in a secular way. (UNI)

_____

#7.

Rediff.com

COMMUNAL CLASHES IN NAVSARI (Gujarat, India)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/04navs.htm

_____

#8.

Tracts for the Times / 13

HINDI NATIONALISM

by

Alok Rai

129 pages / Published in 2001 by Orient Longman Limited

This tract by Alok Rai looks at the politics of language in India through a
study of the history of one language - Hindi. It traces the tragic
metamorphasis of this language over the last century, from a creative,
dynamic, popular language to a dead, Sanskritised, dePersianised language
manufactured by a self serving upper caste North Indian elite, nurturing
hegemonic ambitions. From being a symbol of collective imagination its has
become a signifier of narrow sectarianism and regional chauvinism. This
tract shows how this transformation of language was tied up with the
politics of communalism and regionalism.

Rs. 150.

ISBN: 81-20-1979-0

Orient Longman
3-6-272 Himayatnagar
Hyderabad 500 029 (AP)
India

______________________________________________
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
at http://www.egroups.com/messages/act/
////////////////////////////////////

Disclaimer: opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily correspond to views of SACW compilers.