[sacw] SACW #3. (01 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #3.
01 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1.India: Part 2.- Mukul Kesavan in conversation with Palash Krishna=20
Mehrotra about his
new book, Secular Common Sense
#2. India: Karnataka Citizens' Initiative Against War Public Rally & statem=
ent
#3. The Moment of Global Support (Nirmalangshu Mukherji)

________________________

#1.

Courtesy: tehelka.com

Part 2.- Mukul Kesavan in conversation with Palash Krishna Mehrotra about h=
is
new book, Secular Common Sense

You say that in the case of cow slaughter, the appeal to religious=20
sentiment is fake; many other religious sensibilities have not been=20
given that much importance. Which reminds me of Jha's recent book on=20
cow slaughter. Most publishers refused to touch the book. Do we see=20
here a kind of self-censorship, which East European minds were so=20
good at? A rule of the mob seems to have already taken root.
We have seen this happen in a lot of instances. This case is=20
particularly worrying because this is a scholar's book. A scholar's=20
book has a public purpose. It would be na=EFve to deny that Prof Jha=20
has a political point that he is actually making, but all history=20
books make political points. This book makes one, perhaps more=20
starkly in the present context, than others do.

It's also a book that found it very hard to find a publisher. One of=20
the things we need to acknowledge, before we go on to speak of the=20
menace this represents for us, is that all liberal democratic=20
societies have consensuses at the margins of which people are=20
excluded. If you look at America, if you look at the current=20
conflict, people like Chomsky - extraordinary public figures - are=20
not published in the New York Times. Partly, of course, because they=20
do not wish to be published in the New York Times! The process has=20
been particularly ironic in Chomsky's case. Here's the greatest=20
linguistic theoretician in the history of the twentieth century, all=20
his academic work is mainstream in the absolute sense - stuff that=20
reconstituted the discipline - yet all his political work has been=20
published by marginal presses, most of the times presses outside=20
America. All liberal democratic polities, no matter how liberal and=20
open they see themselves, practice, as you said, without formal=20
prescription, exclusion and forms of marginalisation.

There is often a tendency within us to see these bullying unspoken=20
forms of censorship as a stigmata that represents India's absolute=20
gaya-guzaraness. The thing to do is to put this in some kind of=20
context. This happens everywhere. Except that this has been happening=20
with a worrying kind of frequency in this country. It happened to=20
Jha, it happened to movies, it happened to exhibitions. There have=20
been occasions when films have been run past Thackeray - I think it=20
was Godse and Gandhi=8A

It happened with Mani Ratnam's Bombay=8A
This is obviously dreadful. I think all of us feel this. All of us=20
are sensitive to this tug of restraint. The moment when the writer or=20
an academic or a painter decides whether to put something in or not.=20
Whether you make a certain argument or you don't. I'm trying to think=20
of whether the Nehruvian State was more tolerant of dissent than this=20
new form of State apparatuses. My common sense tells me it was. At=20
the same time I wasn't an adult in the Nehruvian world, so I wouldn't=20
know.

In the final debauch of the Nehruvian state, Mrs Gandhi was capable=20
of censorship much more undemocratic or absolute than anything that=20
we see today. The Nehruvian State could be a very repressive nanny=20
State. I remember someone telling me that we should not be too=20
nostalgic about the late 1950s and 1960s because there, the ideology=20
of the State was so completely internalised by institutions even=20
outside the State, that if you were an academic or a lecturer in a=20
college, your principal could turn the screws on you if he felt that=20
you had stepped out of line. There was a kind of informal process of=20
intellectual line-drawing which was, possibly, even more startling.

What is truly worrying about the present situation is the sanction of=20
violence. I think that's the real difference; that fear is very much=20
there. And to be fair, it's a phenomenon larger than religious=20
sectarianism. If you're in Tamil Nadu, you would think three times=20
before you write a trenchant or dramatic critique of Jayalalitha or=20
her party in some because the possibility of a fan club breaking both=20
your knees or your head is very real. So I think that sanctions=20
backed up by lumpen violence are what scare middle-class=20
intellectuals most. It's not just the danger of being arraigned in a=20
court of law. Though that is a very real form of harassment.

The real danger is that the central State is seen to be in alliance=20
with - however tenuous- groups like the Bajrang Dal. Therein lies the=20
possibility of real demoralisation. In healthier civil societies=20
where you have more self-confident public intellectuals who have not=20
grown dependent upon the State, or dependent upon the fact that their=20
use coincides with the State, where there is a longer tradition of=20
dissent, there is also a perhaps greater courage and robustness in=20
standing up in defence of ideas and individuals. I think that one of=20
the things secular liberal people in India will have to face up to=20
increasingly is that if you have a conviction then you need to have=20
the courage to back that conviction. That's very difficult to do. We=20
all feel the fear of intimidation, of thuggery.

If you look at the tradition of radical dissent in England or the=20
Civil Rights movement in America, where again you had State=20
structures that notoriously supported racism, you had people with=20
truncheons who beat up Civil Rights activists. And I think vis-vis=20
that all of us need to be self-conscious, not just about what those=20
who savour censorship can do, but also about whether our intellectual=20
adventures with dissent are things we are willing to stand by. I'm=20
not sure we always are. Speaking for myself, I know that one tends to=20
feel the sense of tentativeness and nervousness about political=20
positions. Even though how many of us are actually, in any=20
demonstrable way, on a line or putting our money where our mouths=20
are? Where does the middle-class writer write? He writes in the=20
columns of English dailies. What's interesting is that Bal Thackeray=20
is going to break your knees if you write for the Maharashtra Times=20
but if you write for the Times of India it's fine, you don't matter.=20
So in a sense there is a species of immunity - an immunity born of=20
political irrelevance. Should a position that you take become=20
relevant electorally or politically, it needs to be seen whether a=20
whole class of publicly defensible people can stand by their=20
convictions.

The PETA campaign has put the BJP in a win-win situation=8A
Abattoirs have been shut down in Delhi. They probably needed to be.=20
The question remains that the community of people associated with=20
butchery are always Muslims. Also the fact that buffaloes are this=20
liminal category - neither sacred nor profane enough to be eaten. All=20
of this makes for a perfect circumstance where you can lead a=20
campaign against cow slaughter in terms of a secular position, which=20
is the prevention of cruelty to animals. Diabolically this also plays=20
to another constituency that wants these 'savage, bloodthirsty Muslim=20
butchers' out.

You say that Hindus are now seen as 'Khalsas in embryo'?=20
What's behind this attempt to draw Sikhs into the Hindu fold?
It's a long tradition of seeing Sikhs as being Hindu. There is a=20
pre-Guru Gobind Singh Sikhism which, in its origins, is not radically=20
different from any of the instances of Bhakti reform. There is a kind=20
of spectrum of beliefs, between say Sanatan Dharam and, on the other=20
extreme, the Sikhism of the Khalsa. So there is a historical=20
relationship. But you also have to remember that some of the most=20
critical features of Sikhism are drawn from the egalitarianism of=20
Islam. Much of its vocabulary, whether it's the Khalsa or the langar,=20
is, after all, directly borrowed from the Muslim Sufi tradition.=20
Without getting into who Sikhs belong to, there is no harm in=20
granting that historically there are strong links with a spectrum of=20
beliefs.

If you are a Dalit who has converted to Christianity, then you are=20
ineligible for affirmative action policies. Now, a religious change=20
does not take away from centuries of inequality. Surely, a fair=20
policy has to take into account one's previous caste status and=20
present material conditions. This decision seems to based on=20
assumption that religions of 'Indic' origin are basically Hindu.=20
Isn't it scary that the Constitution shares this Sangh Parivar=20
assumption?
We have to be careful here. Many of these distinctions are originally=20
procedural. Hindus and Sikhs share legal practices so the State felt=20
no need to distinguish between them for reasons of personal law.=20
Looking back, I think maybe we should have made these distinctions.=20
In their origins they are not necessarily malign, and their=20
assumptions sometimes do correspond to ideas about how Indian society=20
actually works.

My argument about reservations is strictly rhetorical - that Dalit=20
reservations are Hindu reservations. If you were mounting a=20
rhetorical argument about the way the Indian State treats different=20
communities, it's perfectly possible and legitimate for Muslims and=20
Christians to work up a grievance on the score of reservations. I am=20
not necessarily saying that they have done so, nor that this is an=20
important part of their agenda, but that it's quite possible to do.=20
By doing this, I am trying to say, that very often what is used as=20
Hindu grievance is concocted in the worse sense of the term. You look=20
at instances where the State wrestles with a plural society and=20
sometimes comes up with piecemeal solutions. This should be seen as=20
part of an ongoing democratic project rather than as an absolute=20
tendency which proves to you the orphan status of Hindus in India.=20
It's absurd.

Let's talk about the Supreme Court's ruling in the Manohar Joshi vs N=20
B Patil case - that no appeal was made to religion in the election -=20
even when the candidate had clearly stated, '=8Athe first Hindu state=20
will be established in Maharashtra'. The ruling goes on to say, '=8Athe=20
word 'Hindutva' does not invariably mean Hindu religion'. You are=20
very clear on the point that the Supreme Court needs to revise its=20
current understanding of 'Hindutva'. How important is this to the=20
country's future?
I think it has great symbolic importance. As I try and say in the=20
last bit of this tract, one of the things that is absoultely crucial=20
to any political project in India is sarkari manyata - the wish to=20
see your political beliefs inscribed within the law of the land or=20
recognized by the State.

I can see the problem in front of the Supreme Court - if every time a=20
BJP guy gets elected you try and disqualify him on grounds of his=20
political platform, then you are in a situation where you could be=20
promiscuously and indiscriminately disqualifying huge numbers of=20
political candidates. The judiciary might end up getting into a=20
systematic head-on collision with the popular mandate.
So what the judiciary assumes is: look, if the Election Commission=20
has deemed you legitimate, if you have a published manifesto, then=20
you are a kosher candidate. For us to disqualify you on the grounds=20
of using religion for votes - which is a legitimate ground for=20
disqualification - the standards of proof required will be very high.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court's foray into the definition of=20
'Hindutva' is actually unnecessary and avoidable. Even, if by default=20
you come up with a definition of 'Hindutva' that corresponds with the=20
definition of an interested political party, in this case the BJP or=20
the Shiv Sena, as far as they are concerned this grants them=20
legitimacy in that their definition is now part of the law of the=20
land. As far as I can gather, this is not the Supreme Court's=20
intention but by defining 'Hindutva' in this categorical way it=20
certainly gives that impression. Now the question is: is an=20
interested party's definition the common sense understanding of the=20
term?

You certainly don't believe that the attacks on Christians are random=20
occurrences?
I think that it might be actually possible that these attacks are not=20
organised by a central node. That these attacks aren't actually part=20
of a coherent orchestrated strategy. In the book I make an analogy=20
with the position of the Congress in the pre-colonial set-up where,=20
the coming of the Congress to unfettered political power in the=20
provinces, lead many people to believe - given that the Congress is=20
at least demographically, if not ideologically, a Hindu party - that=20
this is a good time to test out the limits of what is politically=20
possible. To see how far we can push the envelope. What I am trying=20
to suggest is that if the election of a party like the Congress -=20
that is so anxious about its secular credentials - in 1937 could lead=20
to such ferment, it seems logical and wholly plausible, that=20
individuals will push the envelope without a central organising force.

The election of a party that represents a certain tendency, or is=20
seen to represent a tendency, will often encourage elements within=20
civil societies who have agendas, to see whether this dispensation=20
will become more tolerant or lenient of their dues than others. What=20
I am saying is don't look for conspiracy, that is unhistorical. Try=20
and look for the way in which the fiza has changed, the sense that=20
contestants in civil society have of whether they can win this=20
competition or not.

You write: Secularism is to the State and politics, what the MRTPA is=20
to business. Do you see secularism as having an essentially negative=20
though facilitatory role - preventing any religious group from=20
monopolizing the culture and politics of a nation and its=20
institutions? Everyone tolerates every one else.
Well, there certainly needs to be an element of tolerance built in.=20
The agenda of secular people is to achieve procedural equality as=20
much as possible. Therefore, secularism primarily needs to see itself=20
- as you say - negatively, as preventing the hijacking of the State=20
to sectarian or monopolistic or religious or communitarian ends. That=20
would be an accurate definition of my secularism.

I think, too often we make a mistake of lumbering a secular project=20
with tasks it cannot perform, that are the business of other kinds of=20
movements. Secularism to me is - though it's obviously an idea that=20
all of us are willing to fight for - not a crusading idea. What you=20
want of republican secularism is a form of restraint - a series of=20
principles and institutional restraints that prevent majorities from=20
monopolising the State. I see the secular aspect of the State as a=20
species of restraint and vigilance. I don't think of secularism as an=20
enabling philosophy that helps communities realise themselves.

In attempting to answer the question: Why the Congress is better than=20
the BJP, you write, Congress is seen as 'cynically sectarian' whereas=20
the BJP is seen as 'opportunistically secular'. Could you explain=20
that a bit?
This is a question I ask myself and so do many of my generation who=20
have lived through Congress-inspired progroms like 1984. Very little=20
the BJP has done - perhaps the Bombay riots and the Shiv Sena - has=20
ever matched the ferocity and savagery of '84.

I've no particular investment in the post-Nehruvian Congress as=20
necessarily being a bearer of secularism. The Congress's complicity=20
in inciting riots against the minorities has a very long and=20
sanctified pedigree, so you have to ask the question: is there any=20
reason why the BJP is especially awful? - and I think there is a=20
simple reason. The reason is that, as I said earlier, I would rather=20
have an inconsistently secular party which uses secular sentiment in=20
dreadful and grotesque ways but which, nonetheless, pays lip service=20
to the idea, than have a party whose resolve, actually, is sectarian=20
mobilisation.

I think secularism has been the keystone of Indian Constitutional=20
politics, Indian nationalist politics, Indian colonial politics and=20
the politics of the State. A kind of common sense meaning of this=20
term has built up over a period of time, not least because, as Sunil=20
Khilnani points out, Indian secularism has never been elaborately=20
theorised. It was a series of responses to a particular set of=20
circumstances. He points out very acutely that the Nehruvian State=20
doesn't have a very sophisticated and theorized version of=20
secularism. What it does is partly out of good feeling and chivalry,=20
and partly out of an attempt to manage an incredibly difficult and=20
fractious country. If you look at Nehru's own understanding of=20
Hinduism or Islam in The Discovery of India, there is a great deal in=20
it, which seems completely disagreeable. He sounds sentimental and=20
romantic about our classical heritage in a way, which would perhaps=20
give succour to Murli Manohar Joshi. But I think historically, the=20
proper way to see it is precisely this strategic common sense which=20
has built up over time and which is not so much a guiding=20
intellectual principle as much as a kind of a rule of thumb of=20
dealing with a plural fractious country.

I think it is important for us to defend this common sense precisely=20
because it is so untheorised. Since it is always in danger of=20
slipping into something else, you need to actually talk about the=20
initiatives and interventions that constitute this common sense. It's=20
not always possible to make it consistent or produce it as a=20
beautiful object. Still, you need to defend this as common sense. You=20
need to defend it as a way of getting on with the business of running=20
a democratic republic in an extraordinarily various country.

* Secular Common Sense (Price: Rs150) is published by Penguin India.=20
It is the first title in their Interrogating India series, which=20
promises to look 'critically at the common sense prevailing on some=20
of the most pressing issues of out times.' Mukul Kesavan is the=20
author of Looking Through Glass. He teaches history at Jamia Millia=20
Islamia, Delhi.

_______

#2.

KARNATAKA CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AGAINST WAR
Bangalore, 29th September, 2001

PUBLIC RALLY AND MEETING TO PROTEST AND CONDEMN
AMERICAN WAR ON AFGHANISTAN

More than 200 people including 36 citizen organisations, human rights
groups and various individuals united under the banner of 'Karnataka
Citizens' Initiative Against War' to protest and condemn the American call
for war against Afghanistan. The Initiative termed this American 'crusade'
as a terrorist action against the civilians of Afghanistan. The ready suppo=
rt
and participation of the Indian Government for the American war plans was
also condemned.

The protest rally started from Banappa Park, Hudson Circle at 3:30 p.m.
and reached Town Hall via Mysore Bank Circle and K.R. Circle.
Representatives of various organisations expressed their dissent at the
public meeting held at Town Hall.

'Karnataka Citizens' Initiative Against War' unanimously passed the
following resolutions:

1. American war against Afghanistan has to be condemned and opposed.

2. Indian Government's endorsement and participation in this 'crusade'
against people of Afghanistan has to be withdrawn immediately.

3. Racism and communalism in the name of war cannot be tolerated.

4. America's imperialist policies have to be strongly opposed.

Karnataka Citizens' Initiative Against War also stressed the need to initia=
te
farther actions to enforce the resolutions passed.

Karnataka Citizens' Initiative Against War includes the following=20
groups: People's Union for Civil Liberties-Karnataka, People's=20
Democratic Forum, Vimochana, Narmada Solidarity Forum, Manasa,=20
Sabrang, Sangama, Mahila Jagruti, Stree Jagruthi Samithi, Samvada,=20
Visthar, National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM)- Karnataka,=20
Pedestrian Pictures, Karnataka Vimochana Ranga, Karnataka Slum=20
Dwellers' Joint Action Committee, Bangalore Contract Pourakarmika=20
Workers' Association, Concern-Indian Institute of Science, Sichrem,=20
Preethi Mahilodaya, Karnataka Domestic Workers' Movement,=20
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy-Kamataka,=20
Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangha, Development Initiatives for Social Concern=20
(DISC), Alternative Law Forum, Dalitha Sangharsha Samithi, Muslim=20
Mahila Organisation, Students of Raman Research Centre, Students of=20
Indian Institute of Science, Centre for Informal Education and=20
Development Studies (CIEDS), Asian Women's Human Rights Council=20
(AWHRC), Jaati Vinaasha Vedike, Communist Party of India (CPI),=20
Communist Party of India-Marxist [CPI(M)]. Students Federation of=20
India (SFI), Federation of Bangalore Muslim Women's Organisation, All=20
India People's Resistance Forum (AIPRF)

Here are the contents of the leaflet distributed
during the rally
------------------

KARNATAKA CITIZENS INITIATIVE AGAINST WAR
AMERICA'S WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN MUST BE STOPPED

The attacks on of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in New York=20
have brought terrorism to the centre of the world's stage. This=20
attack on the most visible symbols of America's financial and=20
military might has roused the wrath of President Bush who has talked=20
of launching a 'crusade, the first "war of the millennium" between=20
civilization and barbarians and has vowed to "smoke" the latter" out=20
of their holes".

His words undeniably strike a resonating chord in most nation states=20
across the world almost all of who, including India, have pledged=20
support to this global war against terrorism. It has also struck a=20
resonating chord among most urban middle class Indians and perhaps=20
citizens around the world, who have all assumed the status of Non=20
Resident Americans who think that when America is wounded, the whole=20
world also should feel hurt. Undoubtedly this meaningless and=20
horrifying deaths of thousands of innocent women and men on September=20
11,2001 cannot be condoned and needs to be mourned.

And mourn we must. But we must mourn too for the equally horrifying=20
deaths of those thousands of innocent women, men and children who are=20
also dying as victims of other terrorist acts of violence; The=20
thousands dying every day in Iraq, most of them children starved by=20
unjust sanctions imposed by USA, or killed slowly by the depleted=20
uranium used in its carpet bombing of the country in 1991; children,=20
women and men dying of hunger and starvation and suffering under the=20
repressive regime of Taliban that was created and nurtured by the USA=20
in the period of the cold war. Thousands of families disintegrated=20
and destroyed in Palestine by a brutal war of occupation that had the=20
total support and sanction by global powers like USA and Britain.

Why does the world not weep for these innocents? Why is there no=20
global consensus against terrorism that in Nation States like America=20
masquerades as foreign policy. Thanks however to this current global=20
consensus on terrorism orchestrated by a wounded America that has=20
commandeered the rest of the world to legitimize its sense of outrage=20
and righteous indignation, we stand poised at the brink of a war; a=20
war that is criminal, unethical and unjust. For not only has it been=20
launched without providing to the rest of the world concrete and=20
credible evidence of the involvement of Osama Bin Laden but it also=20
being launched based on an act of absolute amnesia. For the world=20
cannot forget that Osama Bin Laden was on the payroll of the CIA and=20
was trained to be a terrorist by the very same country that now wants=20
to hunt him down and smoke him out. And it is not for the first time=20
that America has arrogated to itself the right to be victim,=20
prosecutor and judge.

And so remember we must. For otherwise we will all stand indicted of=20
legitimizing and sanctioning a war that in the name of freedom and=20
justice will perpetuate our own enslavement by a Nation blinded by=20
its search for global hegemony and control. America is at war with=20
itself-in a war of its own making; through the technology it has=20
deified, through the weapons and patterns of militarisation it has=20
patented, through the trails of terrorism that can be traced back to=20
itself.

George Bush talks of the war of America against terrorism as that of=20
good against evil. But the wars that America has fought have always=20
been between good and evil. The face of good has ofcourse remained=20
unchanged through the centuries; Good embodied in the values of=20
European Enlightenment that brought in the rational light of=20
civilization to drive away the darkness that blinded all other=20
civilizations; values today being single handedly protected and=20
promoted by America that carries the burden of being the worlds only=20
surviving superpower and therefore on whom the mantle of global=20
leadership falls not too lightly. The face of evil has undergone=20
transformation depending on the politics of the time.

In the first phase of the European occupation of the Americas after=20
it finished with exterminating Native Americans and the indigenous=20
peoples of Central America, enslaved the Blacks and civilized whoever=20
was left in its own image-it turned its attention to the new form of=20
evil and barbarism-the ideology of communism. In this righteous=20
battle, few regions of the world were left untouched-Central and=20
Latin America, Africa, Asia..

Its invasion of South Vietnam and its experiment with Agent Orange=20
that killed a few million and maimed generations to come; its=20
extensive terror operations against Cuba from the early 1960s that=20
continue till today through the sanctions; its operations against the=20
Sandinistas in Nicaragua through the 1980's; its support of the=20
racist rulers of South Africa and the Zionist rulers of Israel whose=20
genocidal policies against the Palestinians it continues to condone;=20
it's installation of puppet regimes in Iran, Indonesia, Nigeria and=20
Somalia-all of who killed thousands of innocent civilians; 200,000=20
Mayan Indians were massacred by the puppet regime the CIA installed=20
in Guatemala; the assassination of Nasser in Egypt and of Patrick=20
Lumumba in the Congo by the CIA; its slaughter of hundreds and=20
thousands of Filipinos at the turn of the century, of millions of=20
Indo Chinese; its role in the Balkanisation of former Yugoslavia.

These are but a few instances that give an indication of the human=20
cost of such just wars that America has waged over the past century.=20
This ofcourse does not take into consideration the horror of a=20
Hiroshima when the Atom bomb was dropped by America not only to crush=20
Japan but also to conduct an experiment using humans as guinea=20
pigs-as it did when it tested nuclear weapons against the indigenous=20
people of the Pacific in 1957. Remember the jelly babies of=20
Micronesia who had no voice and no form; and who could therefore not=20
speak out or gather global consensus on America's inhumanity and=20
barbarism? The killings of two and a half crore civilian people all=20
over the world since 1947 in overt and covert operations of the CIA=20
is perhaps the price worth paying by the world's only surviving super=20
power to maintain global domination. And this is a track record of=20
terror that no terrorist network today can even begin to equal.

Yes, September 11, 2001 was a dark day in American history. But=20
perhaps no more darker than September 11, 1973, twenty seven years=20
ago when CIA killed Allende the democratically elected representative=20
of Chile who sought to nationalise all those mining interests held by=20
the USA.

No more darker than the future being faced by Afghanistan today-a=20
people and a country already reeling under a war ravaged economy. 50%=20
living below the poverty line; 5 lakh handicapped; 7.5 million=20
potential refugees waiting to be ravaged by the coming winter months=20
if humanitarian help is not extended immediately.

Unfortunately America today lives in the shadow of its own dark history.

Osama Bin Laden the latest man America loves to hate, is a child of=20
this very same, ruthless, racist opportunistic political history. And=20
the other face of the New World Order being orchestrated by global=20
powers like the USA. State terror breeds terrorisms. And modern day=20
terrorism is not only a product of cold war politics but also of=20
State Terrorism gone global, patented by the USA and franchised to=20
all modern day Nation States the World over including India.

Which is why India today has jumped on the bandwagon and shamelessly=20
pledged uninvited support and assistance to the US in this unethical=20
war. For ofcourse it suits their immediate short term gains of=20
controlling Pakistan, regaining lost ground in Kashmir-and gaining=20
international legitimacy for its communalised politics within the=20
country. And never mind if in the process has to cover up its own=20
terrorist operations launched in the name of National Security in=20
Bangladesh, Kashmir or, Sind. And never mind if by externalizing the=20
enemy as the terrorist, it deflects attention away from the hate=20
filled politics of Hindutva subscribed to by the ruling BJP=20
Government that is perpetuating blatant acts of violence not only=20
against the minorities like Muslims and Christians but also against=20
the Dalits who it seeks to domesticate and control; it deflects=20
attention away also from the increasing impoverishment of a majority=20
of the people by the policies of globalisation and liberalization=20
that is making the poor, the marginalized, the women, more vulnerable=20
to violence and exploitation.

Fundamentalist or terrorist violence of any kind cannot of course be=20
justified under any circumstance, particularly when the danger is=20
that of hegemonic political interests perverting civilisational=20
imperatives in the name of a Crusade, Jehad or a Dharma Yudh. And=20
this is the hypocrisy all true believers or rational humanists should=20
strive to expose, if we have to seek the way of recovering lost=20
faiths and regenerating compassionate politics.

The wise but controversial Gandhi once said an eye for an eye will=20
turn the whole world blind. America must be stopped from turning the=20
whole world blind.

OUR DEMANDS:
1. We the concerned people and citizens of India call upon the=20
Government of India and the community of nations to refuse any form=20
of assistance to this US initiated war that we condemn as being=20
essentially racist and imperialist, with the potential to create=20
permanent insecurity for the people of South Asia
2. We call upon USA to desist immediately from any war or efforts to=20
militarise the region of South Asia. While urging for an=20
international enquiry that can help bring to justice, those who have=20
caused the tragic deaths of innocent American people, we demand that=20
the State of America be brought to book for all the war crimes it has=20
perpetrated over that past decades.
3. While being with them in their movement of grief we appeal to the=20
people of the USA not to be swayed by the rhetoric of their=20
Government, which they must see has bred violence and terror among=20
different communities and regions of the world. We affirm and support=20
those voices of sanity and peace within America who are not=20
supporting the proposed war.
4. We call upon the people of South Asia particularly to rebuild=20
those civilisational links that have nurtured us for centuries=20
without building up walls of paranoia, intolerance and mistrust that=20
fuels exploitative contemporary geopolitical interests and=20
perpetuates the dominant militarized political culture.

_______

#3.
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:03:20 +0530

The Moment of Global Support

Two students from a local university stood near the Times Square in=20
New York on a recent rainy day. Both were women in their early=20
twenties, very white, very American. Each wore a poster that read 'We=20
want peace, not war'. A television journalist from India, Ms. Barkha=20
Dutt, approached them. The day before, another poll had confirmed=20
that an overwhelming majority of Americans want quick military=20
action. So, the journalist asked these students about the point of=20
their vigil when they knew that they were in a hopeless minority. The=20
women instantly replied that they had the support of the global=20
community.

It is of utmost importance to examine the content of this global=20
support and the moment which gave rise to it. In their youthful=20
defiance of popular opinion, these women expressed an alternative=20
whose understanding and dissemination may be the only real option=20
left for the survival of the human race. There are reasons to believe=20
that the moment may already be slipping away.

The post-War history of the world is such that it would not have been=20
surprising at all if the rest of the world broke into frenzied=20
celebrations of the massacre in America. Celebration of masacre is=20
never a valid moral act. Yet, large masses of people can be driven to=20
such moral failure when subjected to massive repression for decades=20
by the perceived representatives of the victims of the massacre. To=20
use Robert Fisk's oft-cited remark, such celebrations would have been=20
another way in which 'a crushed, humiliated population' strikes back=20
with 'wickedness and awesome cruelty'.

These humiliated populations, which by now cover most parts of the=20
globe, do not need any authoritative documentation of the wickedness=20
and awsome cruelty of the US-based military-industrial complex which=20
has ruled the world for many decades. They have lived with it. From=20
their habitat of rubbles, refugee camps, and other wastelands, it=20
would have been perfectly easy for them to identify the whole of=20
America and much of the Western world with the napalms that=20
incinerate whole villages and the missiles that crash into hospitals.=20
In fact, sections of American people have often been filmed as=20
dancing in macabre glee as Vietnam and Iraq were subjected to=20
saturation bombing. These were prominently displayed as patriotic=20
acts as the rest of the world watched in horror.

Yet, somehow, the gruesome image of burning people jumping out of=20
collapsing towers did not evoke similar reactions. Even those=20
directly affected by US-sponsored terror just shook their heads in=20
disbelief and grieved. During that moment of madness in America, the=20
rest of the world embraced the common people of America as fellow=20
victims of violence themselves. It was a spontaneous act of global=20
dimensions prompted neither by instruction from above nor out of fear=20
of reprisals. For once, this singular act in solidarity brought all=20
the victims of the world together in silent condemnation of terrorism=20
of all forms. There was no wide coverage of this act in America as=20
the corporate media busied itself with hair-splitting calculations of=20
strategies and costs. Yet from whatever little was aired, the message=20
reached the two students in New York.

It is obvious that the message hasn't reached the leaders of the=20
military-industrial complex. In fact, Washington and some of its=20
allies in Europe have raised the only voice of terror since Black=20
Tuesday. Yet again, an enemy has been identified and characterized as=20
an evil and a scourge. The greatest military combine in the history=20
of humanity has vowed to smoke out these faceless cowards and set=20
them running until they are grabbed dead or alive. The US will=20
provide the list of whom it wants, and they have to be handed over.=20
These conditions are non-negotiable, and any individual, group of=20
people, or state that questions these conditions, say, by asking for=20
evidence, will be treated as terrorists themselves. Those who submit=20
are to be rewarded with money and military equipment even if they are=20
known to be dictators and mass murderers. It is pronounced as a=20
dirty, mean, long-drawn war that will be fought in the ravines and=20
shadows. The humanity is required to stand by and watch in complete=20
obedience. Nothing changes.

As weeks pass by and warships, planes, spies and troops are amassed=20
on their soils, and as children and their destitute parents flee for=20
food and safety, the grief that united humanity in that moment will=20
turn into anger. When that anger turns into outright articulated=20
hatred of the West once again, the terrorist's fervent prayers will=20
be finally answered.

At the moment, the two students are standing between the terrorist=20
and the counter-terrorist. There are scattered but hopeful reports of=20
impressive campaigns for peace in some campuses. Thousands marched in=20
Washinton on Saturday. There is then some attempt to stretch the=20
moment. The doomed people are watching with hope. If the effort=20
fails, they will finally snap off the link.

NIRMALANGSHU MUKHERJI
Delhi University, 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://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To 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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]