[sacw] SACW #1 (13 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #1.
13 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. What the General is up against (Khaled Ahmed)
#2. The Unfolding Design (Achin Vanaik)
#3. Democracy, Security, and Citizenship: random thoughts on the=20
recent events. (Ravi Rajan)
#4. How do I share his pain? (Rahul Mukherji)

________________________

#1.

The Friday Times
12-18 October 2001

What the General is up against
Khaled Ahmed's A n a l y s i s

Pakistan strayed from its old strategy when it allowed the 'uniting'=20
of the Pukhtun jehad behind the Taliban. This was a deviation from=20
the past successful policy of keeping the mujahideen organisations=20
divided. The result was the coming to power of a 'pro-Pakistan'=20
government in Kabul that flouted Islamabad. Islamabad fatally shifted=20
its position to defending the Taliban intransigence and put the onus=20
of adjustment not on the Taliban but on Pakistan itself. Today it=20
opposes the replacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan with a=20
coalition including the Northern Alliance because of this reverse=20
anti-Pakistan indoctrination, forgetting that the Taliban were=20
actually the wrong kind of government to have in Kabul. The blind=20
spots of the establishment and the ISI can be traced to the general=20
increase of stringency and intolerance that has been part of=20
Pakistan's social change. It will be very difficult to undo this=20
social change and it will not be achieved in the short run, if at all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President General Pervez Musharraf gave his best interview to CNN's=20
Christiane Amanpour on 30 September, which was followed by an equally=20
astute discussion with the BBC Hard Talk ( Dawn 2 October 2001). He=20
made clear his commitment to the global drive against terrorism and=20
distanced himself from the unwise policies of the Taliban government=20
without appearing to be opposed to them. His comment was careful in=20
taking account of the fact that the Americans had not made him privy=20
to their military plans, which saved him from committing what kind of=20
support Pakistan would offer to an invasion of Afghanistan. He also=20
deflected the question about Osama bin Laden by pointing out that=20
proof about his guilt was pending with the Americans and that he had=20
not seen it.

The interviews garnered him a broad spectrum of support in Pakistan.=20
His point that Pakistan acted as a 'persuader' of the Taliban=20
government to desist from defying the world went down well with=20
Pakistanis. His repetition of the claim that the madrassas were=20
mostly non-terrorist while admitting that some of them were seats of=20
extremism allayed the clerical fear in Pakistan that their livelihood=20
would be put at risk by a new anti-madrassa drive. About the jehadi=20
groups, he was most careful, given his past stand on whether jehad in=20
Kashmir was terrorism or not. He denied that Harkatul Mujahideen was=20
present in Pakistan after the ban on the organisation. He however=20
made it clear that his government was ready to move against all those=20
who were responsible for sectarian terrorism irrespective of their=20
affiliations. The effect of the interview can be expected to be=20
positive abroad and quite favourable to his government at home. He=20
must have carried with him the consensus that is developing within=20
the civil and military establishment he is heading. It was an adroit=20
performance from someone who admits his lack of mastery over words.

Shariat politics and extremism: The religious extremism in Pakistan=20
is part of the social change in the country since the politics of=20
shariat began 20 years ago in the Zia era. The presumed stringency of=20
Islamic law gave birth to a general attitude of intolerance in civil=20
society. The postponement of shariat politics in all the big cities=20
of Sindh for 20 years by the MQM saw the MQM itself emerging as an=20
extremist and violent organisation. This means that even the=20
non-religious mind hardened in this interregnum. The organisation of=20
jehad in Kashmir stoked this extremism further with the supply of=20
arms and exemption form law for 20 years. Tackling the law and order=20
situation, the executive too became extreme in its remedies. When=20
dealing with non-Muslims the state leaned on its draconian laws and=20
acted like a religious fanatic. Law-making kept step with this trend=20
through the device of special courts which actually flouted the norms=20
of justice. More than any other institution, the judiciary hardened=20
its attitude in deference to the shariat , and the judges took to=20
posturing as more hardline bigots than even the clerics.

Nothing that Pakistan did under these conditions jibed with the=20
international code of state conduct. The result was international=20
isolation, which is what happens the moment an Islamic state moves to=20
enforce what it thinks is the shariat . Once become a part of=20
evolution, no one can roll this social phenomenon back in short=20
order. The nurturing of stringency of attitude by the state has=20
affected the minds of the people who now spend most of their waking=20
hours venting their passions on the presumed incidence of blasphemy=20
and heresy among the various sects heretofore considered orthodox.=20
Yet, the only really palpable dividend from Pakistan's latest=20
collaboration with the global anti-terrorist drive could be the=20
state's revived strength to roll the phenomenon of extremism back.

The puritanical model of the Taliban: The Taliban phenomenon was a=20
part of the dynamic of social change towards stringency in Pakistan.=20
Deobandism has been put into practice by the Taliban and the Afghan=20
people subjected to a harshness that the Pakistani mind has been=20
aspiring to from the moment General Zia began his shariat politics.=20
The Pakistani establishment, led by its cutting-edge organisation,=20
the ISI, has also been a part of this dynamic. One reason it did not=20
succeed in delivering the Taliban as a malleable party ruling=20
Afghanistan on behalf of Pakistan and in light of Pakistan's=20
self-interest, has been the ISI's reverse indoctrination. Where the=20
stringency of the shariat politics infected the Pakistani mind it=20
also penetrated the ISI operatives. Instead of imposing Pakistan's=20
self-interest on its clients, it turned around and began to see=20
Pakistan itself as a state in need of reform towards more puritanical=20
toughness. The organisations it handled began fulminating against=20
democracy itself as a Western curse that was taking the Muslims away=20
from shariat . The target were the civilian politicians impotently=20
playing musical chairs in Islamabad while the state was turning civil=20
society into an ungovernable human mass.

The tough social change is reflected in the personality of Lahore's=20
popular and well-heeled cleric Dr Israr Ahmad who has declared that=20
Islam cannot brook democracy and has welcomed Taliban as the force of=20
Imam Mehdi whose advent was imminent as a forerunner to the=20
destruction of the hostile Judaeo-Christian empire. He advocates a=20
violent revolution to enforce Islam in Pakistan and has welcomed the=20
prospect of civil war in Pakistan in 2001 'because it will facilitate=20
the revolution'. His sectarian bent was revealed when he got his son=20
married during ashura . Another powerful cleric Maulana Akram Awan of=20
Chakwal, with strong connections within the army jumped the gun in=20
the absence of 'strong signals' when he announced in March 2001 that=20
he would actually invade Islamabad and replace infidel democracy with=20
the real Islamic shariat government. Maulana Azam Tariq of Sipah=20
Sahaba declared that he would take over 20 cities of PaKistan and=20
enforce the shariat there with his own hands. The enforcement of=20
shariat invariably means punitive action against civil society in the=20
name of a more stringent Islam which is practised in its pristine=20
glory by the Taliban nextdoor 'who have gotten rid of crime and=20
brought peace to Afghanistan'.

Shariat versus democracy: Hafiz Muhammad Saeed of Lashkar-e-Tayba,=20
the most dreaded organisation in India together with the ISI, has=20
always been opposed to democracy, and was given to declaring it as=20
hostile to the shariat during the reigns of civilian rulers, Nawaz=20
Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. He knew that he enjoyed the support of the=20
ISI and the army. His fulminationsactually reflected the contempt the=20
military establishment felt for the democratic order that tended to=20
stymie the strategies of a state committed to changing the=20
neighbourhood of Pakistan through force. Hafiz Saeed has been careful=20
in not participating in some of the sectarian campaigns that have=20
embarrassed the military establishment. He has stayed away from=20
anti-Shia sectarianism even though the 'seed' money for his Muridke=20
empire comes from the anti-Shia wahabi Arabs. But his Lashkar has=20
found the anti-Barelvi politics of the state irresistible as was=20
demonstrated recently in Hyderabad ( Dawn 29 September) when the=20
Lashkar and Sunni Tehreek had a running battle in the city. His=20
Lashkar has a strong presence in many cities in Pakistan which it=20
needs for purposes of fund-raising and recruitment.

The closing of the Pakistani mind is attributed to the dominance of=20
Deobandism in a country where the majority of the population remains=20
under the influence of a populist Barelvism. Deobandis went into=20
decline after 1947 because they sided with the All India National=20
Congress during the Pakistan Movement and opposed the Quaid and his=20
Muslim League. When the era of Islamic stringency dawned in Pakistan=20
under General Zia, it was found that barring pockets in the NWFP and=20
Balochistan most of Pakistan was dominated by the Barelvi clergy.=20
They inclined to what may be called Low Church, mixing Islam with=20
local mystical influences and ignoring the ancient Islamic schism of=20
Shia and Sunni. The Afghan jehad brought the more stringent Deobandis=20
to the fore. That the ISI was reverse-indoctrinated was proved by the=20
appointment, as head of the ISI, of General Javed Nasir, a Deobandi=20
convert from an early life of pleasure. After his retirement, the ISI=20
compounded the folly by handing over to him the department of auqaf=20
in Punjab which supervises the religious shrines of Barlevi origin.=20
The reaction came from the slowly organising Barelvis. They protested=20
against the state's handing over of the Barelvi mosques and shrines=20
to the Deobandis. The state remained blind to this change in=20
Barelvism till it was too late, and the Barelvis began to get=20
violent. Surprisingly, the Barelvism of today is no longer as benign=20
as it was in the past. It has become more narrow-minded in order to=20
compete with Deobandism for the hearts and minds of a religiously=20
toughened population over the past 20 years.

Hardening of the religious mind: General Musharraf may have staved=20
off criticism by saying that Harkatul Mujahideen was no longer=20
present inside Pakistan, but the truth of the matter is that the=20
Harkat was split in 2000 and a new Jaish-e-Muhammad was created from=20
its rib. Both Harkat and Jaish have militants of Sipah Sahaba in them=20
who move easily between the organisations. Together with=20
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, another offshoot of Sipah Sahaba, these=20
organisations do terrorism in Pakistan. The leader of Jaish is an=20
unpalatable character named Azhar Masood whom no general would like=20
to invite into his drawing room but whose violent campaigns in Held=20
Kashmir tend to endear him to the ISI. His latest achievement was the=20
suicide bombing of the state legislative assembly of Held Kashmir=20
killing 29 ( Dawn 2 October 2001). Jaish was reported first as owning=20
the suicide attack, then denying it. Islamabad may be pleased by=20
this, but the truth is that Jaish is part of the social change that=20
Pakistan will have to roll back if it wants to survive.

Pakistan strayed from its old strategy when it allowed the 'uniting'=20
of the Pukhtun jehad behind the Taliban. This was a deviation from=20
the past successful policy of keeping the mujahideen organisations=20
divided. The result was the coming to power of a 'pro-Pakistan'=20
government in Kabul that flouted Islamabad. Islamabad fatally shifted=20
its position to defending the Taliban intransigence and put the onus=20
of adjustment not on the Taliban but on Pakistan itself. Today it=20
opposes the replacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan with a=20
coalition including the Northern Alliance because of this reverse=20
anti-Pakistan indoctrination, forgetting that the Taliban were=20
actually the wrong kind of government to have in Kabul. The blind=20
spots of the establishment and the ISI can be traced to the general=20
increase of stringency and intolerance that has been part of=20
Pakistan's social change. It will be very difficult to undo this=20
social change and it will not be achieved in the short run, if at all.

_______

#2.

[The following article appeared in the Telegraph, Calcutta under a differen=
t
title on Oct. 10th, 2001]

THE UNFOLDING DESIGN
By Achin Vanaik

Beyond the common condemnation of, and horror about, the tragedies of
September 11 in New York and Washington there has emerged a serious
political divide in India concerning the American proposals and
preparations for fighting "international terrorism" through an
international coalition of states led by itself. This is not the usual
divide between Left and Right (though one can easily imagine where each
would line up) but essentially between those who are morally and
politically cynical and selective about defining the agents of
international terrorism and therefore about fighting them, and those who
insist on a moral-political universalism and impartiality. That is to say,
between those who prioritise the application of uniform principles of
international justice above other considerations, and those who prioritise
foreign policy interests, i.e. seeking 'advantage' out of current US policy
preoccupations.

The latter talk of eliminating Islamic and other terrorist groups and of
certain selected countries (like Pakistan) being terrorist states because
they sponsor cross-border terrorism. But of course, state terrorism is only
selectively identified. The Indian state's repressions in Kashmir or the
Northeast are not considered. The government which has no remote rival in
the number of civilians (in the millions) it has killed outside its own
borders, or in the scale of its use of nuclear (in Japan), chemical (in
Vietnam), biological (in Cuba) weapons, or in the frequency with which it
has flouted international norms and rulings, is the US. But since the
Indian state and its supporting chorus which make up so much of the
'foreign policy establishment' are so keen to become strategic allies of
the US how can it dare to accuse the US of terrorism? Besides, wouldn't it
be insensitive to do so at this juncture?

In fact, this precisely is the time when the US must be so reminded and
criticized for its own atrocious record of terrorism; when it must be
declared that the fight against terrorism must include the indictment of
all states as well of sub-state agencies which are guilty. At a time when
the US along with selected allies is making itself an international
anti-terrorist task force, it must be announced as widely as possible that
the elementary principles of justice are flouted when agencies of terrorism
themselves unpunished and unrepentant are not only allowed to become the
judges and policers of terrorism but actually hailed and legitimized for
playing this role. Any commitment to principles of moral and legal
impartiality has to insist that the task of adjudicating on and enforcing
any sentence regarding the international crime committed on September 11
must fall on an international mechanism like the International Criminal
Court (whose setting up has been opposed by US and India) and through
appropriate procedures involving an unmanipulated UN.

Opposing the US effort to set up an international concert of nations behind
it to justify its waging war on Afghanistan is all the more imperative
because there is a much deeper design behind it all. In declaring that when
it comes to retaliation there will be no distinction between the specific
agency of terrorism and the country harbouring such agents, and that the
USA's response to what is effectively an international crime must be a long
term war, Washington has calculatedly sought to massively extend the scope
of its reaction in keeping with its much larger strategy for furthering its
global aims behind the mask of 'fighting international terrorism'. It is
extraordinary that so many in India have failed to understand this. The US
is demanding through its unfolded "long term programme of 8-10 years to
fight terrorism" an effective carte blanche to militarily-politically
intervene in any country which it deems to be providing a "safe haven" for
any 'terrorists' identified as such by the US alone. Washington has also
put the world on warning that it feels free to topple regimes it considers
to be supporting the "worldwide network of terrorism". Indeed, toppling the
Taliban regime establishes a vital precedent for the US's longer term
perspectives.

What the US is doing is thus another systematic step forward in a longer
game plan that has unfolded since the end of the Cold War. In 1991, quite
unexpectedly the US found itself dominant in the system of nation states in
a way that has never existed for any single country in over a century.
During the first half of the twentieth century the eminence of Britain was
being challenged by the US, Germany and Japan. After the Second World War
the USSR challenged the US. After 1991, in the beginning uncertainly, later
on more clearly and determinedly, the US has gone about extending and
consolidating this unique situation of its uncontested global pre-eminence
on all fronts - economic, cultural, political and military. The 1992 Gulf
War became the excuse for Washington to reinforce control over the Middle
East and its oil. Afghanistan and Central Asia has been throughout the
nineties an arena in which the US has sought an increasing influence for
itself and for its multinationals, given the oil-gas potential of the
region. This has required wooing the Central Asian Republics away from
Russian dominance and considering ways of expanding its influence in
Afghanistan itself. Thus on three occasions the US considered recognizing
the Taliban regime in return for concessions concerning the building of oil
and gas pipelines from Central Asia to more amenable seaboards. They have
by no means lost sight of this issue of strengthening American control of
energy resources in this region in this current 'war against terrorism'.

In Europe, the central issue posed after the Cold War was what would be the
shape of the new security architecture? Here there were three alternatives
- strengthening the EU's Western European Union's (WEU) independent defence
force or the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OCSE) or
NATO. The first two approaches would have involved the diminution of
American and the expansion of German and Russian influence in Europe. The
sub-text of the Balkans conflict (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) was the
emergence of the US as principal arbiter of European affairs. Along with
the consolidation and expansion of NATO, the preeminence of the US in
Europe was thereby established. The ascendancy of the distinctively
Anglo-American form of contemporary capitalist globalisation called
neo-liberalism reflects the success of the US in clawing back part of the
economic ground lost earlier to Germany and Japan. The National Missile
Defence programme represents the US search for nuclear dominance and
eventual control of space so as to establish a unilateral military
supremacy over the globe. The one big US failure in the post-Cold War era
was its inability to drive a wedge between the Ukraine and Russia, the two
most powerful countries to emerge from the wreckage of the former USSR.

The Balkans also provided precedents for American expansion through
manipulation of the universal human rights discourse. And now in this "war
against terrorism", once again through a manipulation of a crucial human
rights issue, the US seeks to establish a flexibility and freedom for
conventional military intervention (including the right to topple regimes)
throughout the world that is truly unprecedented. And any number of
countries for parochial and shortsighted gains are even prepared to be part
of a coalition legitimizing this effort! That the Indian government backed
by its usual set of factotums, courtiers and salespersons (i.e. the
'foreign policy establishment') is desperate to join this coalition is
testimony not only to its moral hypocrisy in the fight against
international terrorism but also to its incredible political naivety
regarding the larger scheme of things.

______

#3.

DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND CITIZENSHIP: RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT EVENTS.

Ravi Rajan
University of California, Santa Cruz.

"Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the
present, control the past."
- George Orwell.

I am not a security expert, nor do I claim the remotest knowledge of the
dynamics underlying the present crisis. I speak as a human being, shocked,
shaken and numbed by the barbaric brutality on display during the past
month. I also speak as a citizen in a democracy. As a citizen, I have lots
of questions - about the causes of the recent tragic events, about justice
and accountability, but perhaps most important, about my own
responsibilities in this dark hour.

At the outset, I believe it is a great tribute to the spirit of liberalism
and tolerance here in the Bay Area that the prevailing climate is not one o=
f
a lynch mob. Indeed, events such as the one here today, with multiple views
presented and heard, are exemplary of the moral heights that the spirit of
democracy can attain. I have no doubt in my mind that it is such committed
engagement that holds the key to peace and security for citizens worldwide.

Opinions differ on who the perpetrators of the September catastrophe
actually are. Yet, the mocking malice of the former Saudi millionaire on
television two days ago leaves even the most skeptical observer of
international news with a certain moral certitude. That television
performance, justifying the events of September 11, and threatening future
hell was, for me at least, proof enough that what the world is dealing with
here is a genocidal criminal. Regardless of how one spins it, I can not
accept that any genuine lover of god, or of freedom, could contemplate,
leave alone execute, such an atrocity. As an ex-colonial subject, I can not
help but notice that if anyone has genuine cause for grievance, for
economies plundered, for cultures destroyed, for freedoms extinguished, it
is the people of the third world. Yet, none of the anti-colonial struggles
attempted to annihilate their oppressors. My own country, for example, in
breaking the yoke of colonialism, taught the British, and the West in
general, the meaning of civilization. The same can be said for contemporary
South Africa, and for many other regions of the world.

It is true that many a freedom movement has used violence as a part of its
strategy. Indeed, there is room, even in the many pacifist doctrines, for
the concept of just war. Yet, I believe that it is an insult to the
revolutionary anti-colonial freedom movements to compare them with the
perpetrators of the recent atrocities. The words, holy war, and the deeds -
attacks on thousands of innocent people - do not constitute a revolutionary
struggle, but a nihilistic, genocidal attitude. It is an attitude stemming
from supreme arrogance and hubris, a lack of introspection, a disavowal of
responsibility, and an anti-ideological certitude that justifies mass
murder. It is also a mentality that promotes the hijacking of not just
aircraft, but god, religion, culture, language, science, and art - all for
its nefarious ends. It is, moreover, a mindset that brooks no debate or
dissent, one that thrives by suppressing free expression.

It is a tribute to the liberal spirit that the events of September 11 are
being sought to be explained with reference to history and context. I salut=
e
this spirit. At the same time, I have no doubt in my mind that the
perpetrators, whoever they are, are not heroes, or freedom fighters or
advocates of justice, but egotistical, maniacal, killers, like the Hitlers
and the Stalins and the countless other demagogues produced by Europe durin=
g
much of the twentieth century. Any true lover of freedom has a moral duty t=
o
resist these demagogues.

All this having been said, I can not, as a citizen, also help but notice th=
e
systematic perversion of the emancipatory ideals that underlay the
anti-colonial struggles of the peoples of the United States and the third
world. I refer to the erosion of the principles of democracy and freedom,
and to the deliberate narrowing of the idea of security. From my non-expert
vantage point, there seem to be five trends that characterize world history
during the past two centuries. Each of these trends, I believe, is every bi=
t
as scary as the acute catastrophe of 9-11, and in some respects, frame it -
even though I can not, for the reasons expressed earlier, accept them as
explanations of the recent events. Let me elaborate.

At the outset, it is clear that for all the media illusion to the contrary,
imperialism, as a practice, is alive and well. It may not quite be practice=
d
as it once was, with colonial powers carving out Africa amongst themselves
in a conference at a European capital - though it often gets quite close.
But little has changed in the foreign policies of the governments of the
Western world. The game is still about controlling the world's resources -
oil, cash-commodities, and access to warm sea ports. Even third world aid
and international development are but tools toward this end. The story was
and is one of unbridled greed, supplanted by ever sophisticated instruments
of thought control. Twentieth century history is rife with examples of the
overthrow of democracies that do not serve the interests of Western imperia=
l
hegemony. Indeed, those who proclaim the virtues of democracy and freedom
the loudest have been among its worst abusers. It is nothing but a joke to
watch the BLAIRisconi's of the world talk about emancipation and freedom.
For all the propaganda effect they have in their home countries, the net
moral effect they have on the rest of the world is of less worth than the
dropping of a bull.

A related trend stems from the fact that for every Bin Ladin, there is a
story of a Western governmental backer. I hardly need to belabor the fact
that Bin Ladin himself drew a great deal of his early power from Western
assistance, and this is true for the Taliban, to some extent, Saddam
Hussain, and countless others the world over through out the past eight
decades. (It must be said here, though that each of these people equally
used the West for their own ends). Each of these cases is a story of short
term opportunism, to gain access to resources in a region, or to put out of
action governments, often democratically elected, whose policies are too
nationalistic for the interests of the West. Each of these cases is also a
story of the West turning the Nelson's eye when their protagonists abuse
every civil liberty in the books. Moreover, each of these cases is about
doubly punishing innocent citizens of these lands - first in the hands of
tyrants and despots who serve the short term interests of the West, and the=
n
in the hands of ever more evil bombs that reduce innocent souls to
mincemeat. Indeed, each of these cases teaches us that it is foolish to
imagine that one can chop off the left hand and cherish the right. Also,
ultimately, the means do come to haunt the ends.

A third trend in recent world history is that of universalisms. They come i=
n
various forms. Some come in assumptions of civilizational superiority,
whether religious, or cultural. The Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's
recent remarks, as well as several recent opinion editorials in the Wall
Street Journal are, quite frankly, at the same level of despicable arroganc=
e
as the pronouncements of the Taliban. Other types of universalisms dictate
how personal lives are to be led. The assaults on the woman's right to
choose and on the rights of gays in the United States are no better than by
those in Afghanistan that seek to wrap women in the burkha. Yet other types
of universalisms dictate how societies run their economies. The post-cold
war world era has produced a new evangelism, headquartered in the IMF and
the World Bank, whose high priests dictate policies to sovereign states
without as much as an attempt at a decent field visit. The result:
unprecedented starvation amidst a glut in food production, and growing
destitution the world over. Indeed, for most people in the world, security
is about basic access to food and water - security that is denied them
despite the abundance of food. Again, it is those who shout freedom the
loudest who refuse to acknowledge that access to food is a basic human
right. In the meanwhile, entire intellectual traditions of political
economy, such as the German ethical school, and several varieties of
socialism, have been systematically erased from the academia and policy
think tanks, while at the same time, those disciplines, such as anthropolog=
y
and geography, that offer insight, on the basis of grounded studies, are
marginalized by policy makers. Little wonder that the new deal, which was
constructed on the advice of experts from a diversity of humanistic
disciplines was dismantled in one rhetorical flourish by smart mathematical
modelers disguised by economists - suits who perhaps never bothered to
venture into the rough side of DC.

The fourth trend has been the steady diluting of democracy. At the outset,
this exalted concept has been reduced to the problem of representation, at
the expense of serving as a crucible to nurture various forms of diversity.
The very idea of a melting pot, as opposed to a concept of unity amidst
diversity, and, the huge fuss over the teaching of Spanish, as though a
language would somehow challenge our spirit of citizenship of nationalism,
are recent examples of how democracy has become increasingly monochromatic.
Moreover, in the wake of Bhopal, an accident that killed as many as the
September 11 disaster and left more destitute, it is also evident that our
existent notion of democracy leaves little institutional space for popular
worries - over issues such as nuclear risk and bio-safety - to be
systemically addressed. And to add injury to the insult, the very oligarchs
who are responsible for our foreign policy conspired to deny the popular
vote during the last presidential election. Indeed, our very pride, as a
democracy, has been scoffed at, and opportunistically abused.

Last, but by no means the least, there is the trend of institutionalized
forgetting. In the world of media spin, in a context in which all our
sources of information are controlled by four corporations, there is indeed
little scope for we the citizens to learn the truth about anything. Indeed,
the very manner in which a small TV station from Qatar has trumped the grea=
t
American networks, while accommodating diverse views, however unpalatable
some of those might be, in contrast to the often undisguised and unilateral
racism of the BBC and the CNN, speaks volumes on the state of affairs.
Needless to say, few Americans have to this day seen the suffering wrought
by the waywardness of the "smart" bombs in Iraq. On the other side of the
coin, we have all lost the ability to listen, to reason, to negotiate with
empathy. Gone is the fireside story, the parable, the village tribunal. All
we have instead are variants of Aarnie in the various Hollywoods of the
world, celebrating blood and gore, imploring even small children to take up
arms and massacre. Sadly, we as a society have forgotten the simple, time
tested technologies of disciplining our own children, and find it expedient
to send them off in droves to prisons where they do not belong.

In conclusion, I unequivocally condemn the perpetrators of the September 11
massacre. I feel it is important for me to introspect and search. This even=
t
is not about Islam versus Christianity or the East versus the West. Instead=
,
this is about citizens versus insatiable demogogic and oligarchic appetites=
.
It is about we, the people, about our rights, our sovereignty, our
democratic aspirations. Our ideals have been appropriated, our goodwill
abused by those who represent us - regardless of where we are from, East or
West, or what faith we espouse, Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or
Buddhism. If there is one thing we need to do, it is to take back our
rights, and carefully nourish our ideals of freedom and democracy and
justice for all. Moreover, we need to do this in partnership with our
brothers and sisters from every race and nation in this world, build
bridges, re-learn the ancient art of listening. For, at the end of the day,
the world is round, and what goes around, comes around. Whatever we do, let
us not enter into a holy war - whatever the provocation. Instead, let us
brandish our humanity and grace, and turn the other cheek in the hope that
one day, it will result in a kiss.

S. RAVI RAJAN
Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Phone: 1 831 459-4158 "Don't Get Even - Get Odd!"
Fax: 1 561 382-0878 - Bumper sticker in Berkeley, CA
Email: srrajan@c...
URL: http://people.ucsc.edu/~srrajan/

______

#4.

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:32:09 +0000

How do I share his pain?

I have a Kashmiri friend whose web pages are full of nostalgic=20
memories of his once beautiful, now bloody valley. His small brother=20
stares in wonder when he points out his land, in old Hindi movies.

He too has many friends from Kashmir. There is no religion online.=20
There are Sikhs, Hindu Brahmins and Muslims who ran away from=20
terrorism.

They all have one thing in common: there is no place they can call home.
How do I console my friend, whose eyes well up when he talks about=20
the friends left behind, his fears when he was there? Should I take=20
India's side or Pakistan's? How do I tell him I really do not=20
understand his pain?

I do not.

I know and have a place I can call home. I know I can show my kids my=20
great grandfather's house. I know I will swell with pride when I show=20
my kids my school, my playground, my trees=85

I take for granted my kids would always know the land I come from,=20
the culture, the language, the festivals, the smell of my place=85

I do not know the pain of not having a home. I have not lost any of=20
my close friends to terrorism. I have not felt the fear when you=20
don't have a place to go.
Well, then, how do I share his pain? With what words do I console my friend=
?

Should I tell him it is getting better: See Pervez Mushraff and Atal=20
Bihari Vajpayee are talking now, see Vajpayee visited Lahore, see=20
Mushraff visit Agra and wants to talk to Hurriyat...
How do I make sure he doesn't see it's all a political game? What=20
words do I search for when he tells me none understands his pain? No=20
politician, no journalist, no soldier, no militant, no other Indian=20
other than they themselves who lost their everything? Should I be=20
cruel and tell him to thank God for saving his life?
Can I tell him with sincerity that one day he will be able to show=20
his kids the apple trees, the snow-covered mountains and the=20
beautiful Dal Lake of his valley?
When I see the pain in his eyes, I somehow feel I am at fault.

I feel guilty of having that false pride, the false patriotism I=20
share. Does patriotism mean I have to hate someone? I am not sure.=20
But that's the way it is in India and Pakistan.

I hope I can find some words to console my friend.

Rahul...

Rahul Mukherji
Webster University Thailand
143 Moo 5, Tambon Sampraya
Cha-Am, Petchaburi 76120 Thailand
Tel 66 (032) 456 161 thru 167 (Ext 106)
Fax 66 (032) 456 169
www.webster.edu
www.webster.ac.th

300 Jodhpur Park
Kolkata700068.
West Bengal
Tel 91 (033) 472-9494

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20