[sacw] SACW (25 August 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire
25 August 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

[1.] Pakistan: Musharraf's sectarian nightmare
[2.] Resolutions Adopted at The Second Conference of International=20
South Asia Forum (Insaf)
[3.] India:
- Academics rap Joshi for `half-truths'
- Joshi misled Parliament, says Sahmat
[4.] India's Textbook Controversy- Ideologues assault pluralistic curricula
[5.] India: The tongue set free
[6.] India: VHP's temple agenda set with eye on UP polls
[7.] India: Putting conflict before cricket

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

#1.

The Friday Times
24 August 2001
Musharraf's sectarian nightmare

William Maley
says Pakistan should bite the bullet and leave the Taliban to their=20
fate if it wants to save itself from the militia's radical sectarian=20
agenda
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The banning of Lashkar-e Jhangvi by President Musharraf may=20
constitute an important turning point in Pakistan's unhappy recent=20
history of sectarian violence and political decay. Musharraf is=20
clearly aware that Pakistan's reputation as a threshold failed state=20
is doing it no good as he struggles to lay the foundation for a=20
sustainable economic revival, of the kind which is necessary if=20
Pakistan is to attract new capital investment and begin to make=20
inroads into its crushing debt burden. However, to a significant=20
extent his efforts will be hamstrung as long as Pakistan continues to=20
back the Afghan Taliban, who have not only provided hospitality to=20
Lashkar-e Jhangvi in the past, but are an increasingly radical and=20
destabilising force in Southwest Asia as a whole. It is time for=20
Pakistan to bite the bullet and leave the Taliban to their fate.

The arrest by the Taliban of a group of eight foreign aid workers=20
from the NGO Shelter Now on charges of Christian evangelism, together=20
with sixteen of their locally employed staff, has created a grave=20
sense of fear in the wider world about the direction in which the=20
Taliban are heading. The Taliban's refusal to grant the foreign=20
detainees access to consular assistance from US, German, and=20
Australian officials who travelled to Kabul for that purpose=20
constitutes a violation of customary international law, as the UN=20
Secretary-General has pointed out. Yet while the position of the=20
foreign aid workers is unenviable - and that of their Afghan staff=20
vastly more so - it may well be that they are only the first target=20
in an accelerating campaign to rid Afghanistan of Western influences.

How are we to make sense of what the Taliban have been up to lately?=20
There is one explanation which has been doing the rounds in Pakistan,=20
and it runs something like this. The Taliban are reacting to=20
isolation. The UN Security Council, through imposing sanctions=20
against the Taliban in Resolution 1267 of 1999 and Resolution 1333 of=20
2000, drove the Taliban into a corner, and weakened the position of=20
Taliban moderates. The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, and the=20
arrests of Shelter Now staff, are a result of this maladroit policy=20
driven above all by Washington's obsession with Osama Bin Laden. The=20
Taliban have been radicalised by the West itself. If only Western=20
countries would grant recognition to the Taliban, then a modus=20
vivendi could be established through which such contentious issues as=20
gender policy could be resolved. Themes such as these figure=20
prominently in the statements of official Pakistani spokesmen, and=20
also crop up in conversations with some officials of humanitarian=20
agencies within the UN system, as well as some major Western NGOs.

Here and there one can find a grain of truth in this chain of=20
reasoning. The Taliban doubtless feel aggrieved that their efforts to=20
stop the cultivation of the opium poppy have been received with=20
scepticism in Western circles, and that their proposal that Hindus in=20
Afghanistan wear yellow markings so immediately evoked the image of=20
the yellow Star of David that Jews in Nazi Germany were forced to=20
display. And the destruction of the Buddhas, and the arrests of the=20
Shelter Now staff, may indeed reflect a petulant Taliban desire to=20
force Western governments into discussion with them through whatever=20
means possible. But as a wider explanation of the radicalisation of=20
the Taliban, this reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Key elements of the Taliban's agenda were always radical. The=20
Taliban's pariah status dates not from 1998 and the Bin=20
Laden-sponsored attack on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Uganda,=20
but from 1996, when the extensive reporting of their gender policies=20
made them untouchable. Up to this point, the US had been willing to=20
see the Taliban flourish. Obsessed with the Rabbani Government's=20
contacts with Iran, Washington too easily accepted the line, marketed=20
to it by its Embassy in Islamabad, that the Taliban could represent a=20
solution to Afghanistan's problems-by removing 'warlords', permitting=20
the return of the former king, delivering nationwide 'security', and=20
opening the door to pipeline projects for American companies from=20
which resources for Afghanistan's rebuilding could be derived. This=20
sentimental scenario unravelled very rapidly, but by then the=20
Taliban, with Bin Laden's backing, had overrun Kabul.

Furthermore, the most important indicator of the radicalisation of=20
the Taliban came in July 1999 with the assassination in Quetta of=20
Abdul Ahad Karzai, a very prominent Popalzai tribal leader from=20
Afghanistan, whose son Hamed Karzai had actually been the first=20
nominee of the Taliban to represent them at the UN should they secure=20
Afghanistan's seat. This preceded by some months the first set of UN=20
sanctions. Up to that time, the Taliban had represented an odd=20
linking of Pushtun Deobandis with tribal Pushtuns of moremoderate,=20
pro-Zahir Shah stripe who had linked up with the movement either=20
through ethnic solidarity, or out of the belief that the sentimental=20
scenario, described above, had some merit. These moderate Pushtuns=20
were of some use in generating Washington's initial acceptance of the=20
Taliban, but given that the Taliban's Pakistani backers had no desire=20
to revive Afghanistan's ancien r=E9gime (which they associated with the=20
Pushtunistan dispute), in the long run they were entirely expendable.=20
The Karzai assassination created a significant rift within the=20
movement. This did not affect its position in the tribal areas of=20
Afghanistan, where Taliban power is exercised sporadically rather=20
than ubiquitously, but it altered the pattern of advice coming to=20
Mullah Omar, which is now dominated by elderly Kandahari judges, Bin=20
Laden and his associates, Deobandi circles from which Lashkar-e=20
Jhangvi originally emerged, and officers of ISI which continue to=20
provide the Taliban with indispensable support.

But to a great extent, the question of whether the Taliban could have=20
been moderated by acceptance in their early days is purely academic.=20
Those days have passed. The agenda of the present Taliban leadership=20
may even be the expulsion of all Western agencies from Afghanistan,=20
which would then become a Deobandi social laboratory of a kind which=20
the world has never seen. This prospect might appeal to some=20
fanatical retired generals, but for Pakistan and Musharraf, it should=20
set alarm bells ringing at a screeching pitch. In such a situation,=20
sectarian violence in Pakistan would become all but impossible to=20
manage, since an Afghanistan of this type would spin out of control=20
quite quickly. Afghan refugees from the non-Pushtun spheres of Afghan=20
society would flee in all directions, Pakistan included. And more and=20
more madrassah students would make their way back to Pakistan,=20
emboldened to demand a Pakistan modelled along lines of their=20
choosing, and knowledgeable in the use of firearms. This may not yet=20
be President Musharraf's worst nightmare. But it should be.

[Dr William Maley is Associate Professor of Politics, University=20
College, University of New South Wales, Australia. His most recent=20
monograph is The Foreign Policy of the Taliban (New York: Council on=20
Foreign Relations, 2000).]

_________

2.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT THE SECOND GENERAL CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL=20
SOUTH ASIA FORUM (INSAF)
Vancouver, August 12, 2001=20

1. On the Erosion of Secularism and Democracy in India

The rise of Sangh Parivar in to a significant force poses a serious=20
threat to all democratic institutions in India and to its vibrant=20
composite culture. BJP-led government and different organizations=20
(RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and so on) controlled by Sangh=20
Parivar systematically terrorize religious minorities and vulnerable=20
sections of the society and undermine the secular democratic=20
aspirations of the people. There is a systematic attempt to control=20
educational institutions, alter text books and history and take over=20
cultural institutions in order to strengthen Hindutva ideology and=20
culture.

Recognizing the grave danger posed by the rise of Hindutva, the=20
Second Conference of INSAF demands that the Government of India:
1. Put immediate stop to all anti-minority and anti-people activities=20
of the Sangh Parivar;
2. Ensure that textbooks and history not be altered to suit Hindutva ideolo=
gy;
3. Decree that a Mandir not be constructed at the site of the=20
demolished Babri Mosque; and,
4. Fully respect secularism, the founding principle of the Indian=20
Constitution, as the guideline at all levels of governance

2. On Liberalization and Globalization
A decade of experience clearly demonstrates that liberalization and=20
globalization have led to increased privatization of public assets,=20
pauperization of the working people, degradation of environment,=20
penetration of foreign multinationals into the national economy,=20
patenting of traditional technology and foods and destruction of=20
small and medium-sized production units; as well, it has led to an=20
increase in the consumer middle class sympathetic to imperialism and=20
fundamentalism, and a compromise of the national sovereignties of our=20
countries. Recognizing the serious threat to economic, political,=20
social and cultural life of the people of South Asia, the Second=20
Conference of INSAF demands:
1. An immediate end to (a) disinvestments of public enterprises and=20
(b) take over of the economy of South Asian countries by foreign=20
capital and multinationals;
2. Reaffirmation of the policy of self reliance based on a policy of=20
solidarity, cooperation and friendship amongst each other and with=20
other developing countries;
3. That the sovereignty of South Asian countries not be compromised;
4. That countries of South Asia follow an economic policy in the=20
interest of the working masses and not the imperialists or the elite=20
of our countries; and,
5. That India desist from developing military and intelligence ties=20
with Israel.

3. On militarization and nuclearization

Five decades of conflict between India and Pakistan has led to=20
uninterrupted increase in militarization to the extent of acquiring=20
nuclear weapons and delivery system and a significant increase in=20
armed forces in both countries. This has resulted in marked decrease=20
in public services, worsening of the living condition of the people,=20
increase in national chauvinism and jingoism leading to a=20
strengthening the hold of Hindutva forces in India and Jehadi groups=20
in Pakistan, worsening of the atmosphere for peaceful resolution of=20
outstanding problems between the two countries as exemplified by the=20
failure of the July 2001 Agra Summit between the Prime Minister of=20
India and the President of Pakistan, and an increase in the influence=20
in the region of imperialist powers, especially the U.S.

Recognizing the grave threat posed by the acquisition of nuclear=20
arsenal by India and Pakistan and the militaristic stand off between=20
the two countries, which undermine aspirations of the people of both=20
countries for peace and harmony, the Second Conference of INSAF=20
demands that India and Pakistan:
1. Immediately engage in talks on nuclear risk reduction measures,=20
end their covert wars and stop using terror against each other;
2. Immediately end their senseless and costly battle on the Siachen Glacier=
;
3. Start a process of reduction in military personnel and spending=20
and treat all countries of the region as equal and worthy of mutual=20
respect; and,
4. Create favorable conditions for people's initiatives for peace=20
and friendship among each other.

Recognizing the important role of the large South Asian Diaspora in=20
the implementation of the policies of the two countries, this=20
Conference further resolves:
To promote friendly interaction and dialogue among the Diaspora=20
community in order to strengthen mutual trust so that they can play=20
an active role in the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous South=20
Asia, which can make a significant contribution to developing=20
countries and world peace.

4. On Kashmir

For the past five decades, the states of India and Pakistan, in the=20
name of defending national security and territorial claims, have been=20
holding the people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir=20
(hereafter Kashmir) under virtual colonial subjugation. This dispute=20
over the territory of Kashmir has caused three wars and several=20
border clashes including the last major one in Kargil, killed=20
thousands of Kashmiris, displaced hundreds of thousands, damaged the=20
environment and has virtually destroyed the very core of the Kashmiri=20
society through permanent division of thousands of Kashmiri families=20
on the two sides of the Line of Control (LoC). The dispute over=20
Kashmir has also been a factor in nuclearization of the subcontinent.=20
Recognizing these realities, the Second Conference of INSAF:
1. Calls upon the governments of India and Pakistan to recognize that=20
Kashmir is not a territorial dispute to be settled by the two states=20
but concerns the lives and aspirations of the Kashmiri people;
2. Asserts that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved without the=20
participation of the people of Kashmir from all regions;
3. Demands an immediate end to violation of human rights;
4. Opposes division of Kashmir into different states; and,
5. Demands that the governments of India and Pakistan declare an=20
immediate ceasefire in the valley, withdraw all their armed forces,=20
end all support to non-state combatants and initiate dialogue with=20
representatives of the Kashmir people from both sides of the LoC in=20
order to solve the Kashmir problem in accordance with the wishes of=20
the people of Kashmir.=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

6. On Minorities

Ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversities are unique=20
historical features of South Asian countries; this rich pluralistic=20
heritage has come under severe attack by the undemocratic actions of=20
different governments of the region. The Bhartiya Janata Party=20
(BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has=20
intensified attack on Muslim and Christian while there is no let down=20
on attack on Dalits. The persecutions of Shias, Ahmadis, Hindus,=20
Christians and other minorities in an attempt to establish a Sunni=20
state continues in Pakistan and charges of blasphemy are frequently=20
used to persecute innocent members of minority communities, The=20
failure of the Sri Lanka government to resolve the ethnic conflict=20
and of Bangladesh government to meet the demand of indigenous people=20
and Hindus are distressing aspects of the state of affairs in South=20
Asia. Sexual minority is subjected to harassment in all countries of=20
the region. Vested interests are busy mobilizing the South Asian=20
Diaspora to support their antidemocratic policies.

Recognizing the persistence of wide-scale persecution of minorities=20
in different South Asian countries, the Second Conference of INSAF=20
resolves that:
1. South Asian governments immediately end persecutions of religious,=20
linguistic, ethnic, cultural, national and sexual minorities, and=20
accord them the same cultural, legal, economic and political rights=20
as enjoyed by the majority community;
2. Pakistan government abrogate the Blasphemy Law;
3. All government institutions recognize the contributions of=20
minorities to the vitality and richness of South Asian countries; and,
4. South Asian governments provide all facilities to members of the=20
minority communities so that they can participate at all levels of=20
governance as well as strengthen their social, political, linguistic=20
and cultural institutions.=20

6. On the Dalit Situation

Dalits, who constitute nearly 20% of the Indian population have=20
significantly contributed towards the growth of South Asian society=20
and yet have been socially, culturally and politically persecuted=20
throughout and continue to remain targets of state persecution,=20
feudal terror and social scorn. The rent murder of the=20
Parliamentarian Phoolan Devi is a glaring example of the political=20
vendetta against the dalits in India and elsewhere. In order to=20
recognize the rightful place of Dalits in South Asia, in particular=20
in India and Nepal, and support their struggles for dignity and=20
social justice, the Second Conference of INSAF:
1. Condemns the cowardly murder of Phoolan Devi, a valiant fighter=20
against caste and gender injustices, and demands that the culprits be=20
brought to justice;
2. Demands that India support the efforts of UN bodies to study the=20
impact of caste-based system in South Asian societies;
3. Demands that India implement the Constitutional Provisions for=20
SC/ST (Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes) fully in the shortest=20
period of time and empower the Commissioner for SC/ST to protect and=20
promote the human rights of Dalits;
4. Opposes the stand of the Indian government against inclusion of=20
Dalit and caste issue on the agenda of the August 2001 UN Conference=20
on racism in Durban; and,
5. Demands that India implement all existing recommendations of the=20
UN bodies which impact the lives of the Dalit people (India Report=20
CERD/C/304/Add. 13, 17 Sept, 1996; CCPR/C79/add 81, Aug 4, 1997).

7.On the Sri Lanka Civil War

The unresolved ethnic issue in Sri Lanka, which escalated into armed=20
confrontation and civil war since the early 1980s, has resulted in=20
60.000 deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands people. The=20
escalation of the conflict was largely due to the erosion of=20
democracy in the country and inappropriate constitutional provisions=20
for minority rights and protection in the context of the plural=20
character of Sri Lanka society.

Recognizing the agonizing consequences of the civil war and=20
accompanying militarization for the people of Sri Lanka, the Second=20
Conference of INSAF calls upon:
1. The Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil=20
Eelam (LTTE) who are the parties to the civil war to enter into=20
negotiations and work towards a political and peaceful settlement of=20
the conflict;
2. The Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to declare an immediate=20
ceasefire to the civil war;
3. The Sri Lanka Government to lift the economic embargo on the war=20
zones to alleviate the sufferings of the people in such zones; and
4. The Government of Sri Lanka and LTTE to ensure that no human=20
rights violations occur in the territories under their control.

8. On the Amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution

Although the recent amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution, which=20
requires that the government in power be replaced by a caretaker=20
government 90 days prior to the next election in a positive move=20
towards ensuring fair elections, important issues concerning=20
indigenous people, minorities and economy remain unresolved.=20
Therefore, the Second Conference of INSAFdemands:
1. That the Government of Bangladesh address the demands of the=20
indigenous people as well as of cultural and religious minorities;
2. That the assurance given to Chakma people to return their land be=20
implemented without delay, and the 1997 Chittagong Peace Accord be=20
respected.=20=20=20

9. On Nepal

Nepal is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. Although it had=20
maintained a partial sovereignty during the era of colonial rule in=20
the sub-continent, it's people were ruled by the high caste Hindus=20
led by the autocratic monarchy and the oligarchic Ranas. Eventually,=20
the absolute monarchy was brought to its knee by the Jan-Andolan=20
(people's movement) in 1990 and the constitution was promulgated that=20
ensured the establishment of the parliamentary democratic system.=20
Accordingly, elections were held and the government formed. That was=20
a very positive development. However, the successive governments=20
since then mainly led by the Nepali Congress Party, have failed to=20
fulfill their obligations to serve the majority of the citizens, most=20
of whom live in abject poverty. Moreover, the rampant corruption in=20
high places continues, and so do the discriminatory practices against=20
dalits, women and ethnic groups (who form the majority). No effective=20
steps have been taken against the trafficking of women to Indian=20
metropolis and other countries. In addition, the government's=20
handling of the six-year old "peoples' war" movement as "terrorists"=20
and attempting to suppress it through violent means have turned the=20
rural Nepal into killing fields. As a result, the public fear has=20
taken over the land and the country is on the verge of collapse.=20
Therefore, he Second Conference of INSAF calls on the government of=20
Nepal:
1. Carry through the proposed talks with the Communist Party of=20
Nepal (Maoist) with utmost urgency, and arrive at a negotiated=20
settlement;
2. Repeal the draconian Public Security Act immediately; and
3. Take up the democratic obligations and serve the interests of the=20
majority of the people who work on the land.

10. On Bhutan

Since 1988, the Ngalong regime (which represents less than 20 percent=20
of the population) has been carrying out policies of ethnic cleansing=20
of sections of population, particularly the Lhotshampa ( Nepali=20
speaking minority in the south). Consequently, over 100,000 Bhutanis=20
of Nepali origin have been living in refugee camps in eastern Nepal.=20
Therefore, the Second Conference of INSAF calls upon the Government=20
of Bhutan to:
1. Respect the articles in the UN Universal Declaration of Human=20
Rights, to which Bhutan is a signatory and cease persecution of=20
Lhotshampa people; and,
Grant ethnic population the right to return to their homeland and=20
their due rights to citizenship of Bhutan.

_________

3.

The Times of India, August 25, 2001

Academics rap Joshi for `half-truths'

TIMES NEWS NETWORK
EW DELHI: Debunking the claims of Union HRD minister Murli Manohar=20
Joshi, historian Romila Thapar has taken a strong public stand=20
against saffronisation of education.
Thapar, along with other eminent academicians Anil Sadgopal, Prabhat=20
Patnaik, Arjun Dev and Zoya Hassan held a press conference in the=20
Capital on Friday to refute the minister's claims in his reply in=20
Parliament earlier this week. They questioned Joshi's `facts' and=20
said a series of untruths and half-truths had been used by the=20
minister to defend the indefensible. Quoting from the National=20
Education Policy of 1986, the academics pointed to the sharp=20
departures in policy.
Thapar, who rarely engages in a public debate, accused Joshi of=20
quoting her out of context and said he appeared neither to have read=20
nor understood her. While she had written that there was no=20
archeological evidence to show that there had been an invasion by=20
Aryans, she was of the firm view that there was linguistic evidence=20
to show a pattern of migration. She as well as other historians and=20
archeologists quoted by Joshi were all of the view that the Aryans=20
were not indigenous. The only other person quoted by the minister in=20
support was a novelist.
Decrying the suggestion of continuity given by the minister, Prabhat=20
Patnaik said the UGC was playing a proactive role under the new=20
dispensation and appropriating not only the role of fomulating=20
courses and syllabi as with yogic sciences, astrology but also=20
appointing teachers in spoken sanskrit which was not its role.
Quoting from the minutes of meetings, Arjun Dev said the minister had=20
misrepresented the process of formulating the contentious national=20
curriculum framework by suggesting there had been consultation where=20
there had been none.
Anil Sadgopal said that though value educaiton had always been a part=20
of education, the government was now trying to posit religion as the=20
source of all values which was dangerous.
Zoya Hassan questioned the claims of the minister that astrology was=20
taught in western countries saying the three universities Joshi had=20
mentioned did not teach the subject. The only place where astrology=20
was taught in the west was in private institutions.
The academics said they had been forced to take a public stand since=20
the series of untruths and half-truths utterred by the minister in=20
parliament would acquire the sanctity of truth if left unchallenged.

oooooooooo

The Hindu
Saturday, August 25, 2001

Joshi misled Parliament, says Sahmat

By Our Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI, AUG. 24. Accusing the Union Human Resource Development=20
Minister, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, of misleading Parliament by giving=20
false information during the debate on ``saffronisation of=20
education'' last Thursday, academicians today alleged that the NDA=20
Government was just furthering its ``hidden agenda'' in the garb of=20
providing ``value-based'' education.

Condemning the Union Minister for giving false information on the=20
floor of the House, members of Sahmat(Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust)=20
today criticised the Government for communalising education and=20
trying to rewrite history in school books.

Reacting to the Minister's claim in Parliament that the preparatory=20
material for national curriculum framework for school education was=20
discussed with experts like Prof. Yashpal, Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr.=20
Kapila Vatsyayan, the noted historian, Ms. Romila Thapar, today said,=20
``From what most of these experts have told us, they were invited to=20
give lectures to the curriculum group and not to take part in any=20
discussion.

The Government seems not to be showing too much concern for consultation.''

Addressing a press conference organised by Sahmat here, she further=20
questioned if ``one stops merely at consulting political parties.

All we want to know is who are these so called historians and=20
academicians who are deciding what the students of this country=20
should or should not read and who seem to be literally rewriting=20
history.''

The Government's stress on providing value-based education also came=20
in for sharp criticism. Dr. Joshi had stated in Parliament that=20
``what is required today is not religious education but education=20
about religions, their basics, the values inherent therein and also a=20
comparative study of the philosophy of all religions''

Questioning this point of the Minister, Prof. Anil Sadagopal of the=20
Delhi University's Department of Education said, ``When did we teach=20
religion to our students over the last five decades. In a=20
multi-religious society like ours, where is the need.

Since when has religion become an important part of social values. It=20
is simply the notions of education that the Sangh Parivar is trying=20
to promote,'' he said.

Reacting to the Government's proposal to make Sanskrit mandatory in=20
all schools across the country, Prof. Sadagopal said ``The Government=20
may believe that Sanskrit has a universal appeal, but it seems to me=20
that Dr.Joshi's India is much smaller than my India, which also=20
includes the North-East, the Central India and places like Tamil Nadu=20
which has people speaking a language perhaps as old as Sanskrit.''

Describing the recent advertisement that the University Grants=20
Commission had given in the Employment News for the post of lecturer=20
for Spoken Sanskrit, the academics alleged that while the UGC had=20
complained about not having enough resources for supporting the=20
Elementary Education course of Delhi University, it had enough money=20
to support subjects like Astrology and Vedic Studies that were not=20
based on scientific reasoning but were just cults.

``By keeping the eligibility criteria for the lecturers as low as a=20
simple graduation, the UGC itself flouted basic guidelines. And in=20
any case, all colleges have their own selection committees, so how=20
can the UGC make the selections for them,'' another academician asked.

_________

4.

The Japan Times Online
Friday, August 24, 2001

INDIA'S TEXTBOOK CONTROVERSY
Ideologues assault pluralistic curricula

By B. GAUTAM
Special to The Japan Times
Bitter controversies over history textbooks are not limited to Japan,=20
where recent government approval of a new volume has provoked an=20
uproar in South Korea and China, and, although with a more muted=20
response, in Southeast Asia. In India, the government's effort to=20
foist Hinduism on educational institutions has engendered severe=20
criticism, too.

The 19-member coalition government in New Delhi, led by the Bharatiya=20
Janata Party (BJP), is accused of attempting to propagate Hindutva or=20
Hinduism through the corridors of learning and aiming to convert the=20
most impressionable sections of society into die-hard believers.

Admittedly, most of the boys and girls targeted are Hindus, and in=20
India, this creed has always predominated over Islam, Buddhism and=20
others. But, for some years now, religion has hardly been a potent=20
force in a nation of 1 billion people. Their immediate focus is on=20
elevating their standard of living through economic reform, education=20
and globalization -- liberal and universal concepts that the more=20
hawkish elements in the BJP reject.

These ideologues are determined to change India's National Curriculum=20
Framework for School Education. Their objective is alarming because=20
they want to push beyond cosmetic alterations and demolish a=20
curricula based on a well-researched, scientific methodology.

Their strategy envisages the propagation of ideals inimical to the=20
pluralistic and democratic norms of the country. India's singular=20
unity -- despite its mind-boggling diversity -- has been tough one to=20
preserve, and blatant steps to push thought suggesting the supremacy=20
of one religion over the rest can tear the social fabric.

Animosity and aggression can then alienate the groups from one=20
another, leading to greater tension. A consistently obstinate view=20
among a set of BJP academicians is that the Aryans were the original=20
inhabitants of India's Ganges valley, that they had not migrated from=20
elsewhere. This is pooh-poohed by historians, who have enough=20
evidence -- some gathered from the excavations at Harappa and=20
Mohenjodaro, the centers of the Indus Valley civilization -- to prove=20
the BJP's think tank wrong. It has now been established with=20
reasonable certainty that there was already a flourishing community=20
before the Aryans actually came in.

The BJP's motive is quite clear: if it can convert the myth of Aryan=20
predominance into a black-and-white reality, it would help the party=20
further its concept that Indian nationalism is essentially Hindu=20
nationalism. All other races or groups (Muslims in particular) are=20
but outsiders living on Hindu largess.

Can there be a better way of spreading this than by rewriting books=20
that the young are required to read? Unfortunately, the very essence=20
of India's spirit -- which recognizes the contribution of its various=20
sects not only in building magnificent civilizations but also in the=20
freedom movement that ultimately drove the British out -- will be=20
lost if such literature reaches the classrooms.

The nation's quest for a society based on religious tolerance and=20
harmony can be severely impeded by an uncaring pen, or computer.=20
Already, seeds of suspicion have been planted in the minds of India's=20
teeming millions of Hindus.

Many feel that the Muslims and even the Christians are plotting to=20
take over the state. There are some young men who fear that=20
interreligious marriages are one method of achieving this objective,=20
and the antagonism for such unions is fueling the simmering conflict=20
between secularism and Hindutva.

But the battle lines are still fuzzy. Most other members of the=20
ruling government coalition have been trying to keep a check on the=20
BJP. But, much as India's moderate BJP prime minister, Atal Bihari=20
Vajpayee, might want to, he has been unable to rein in the radical=20
wings of his party. They are now targeting education, after burning=20
down mosques and churches, and killing Christian priests.

An education expert says the new books "are designed to promote=20
exclusivity and chauvinist ideas, and demote science in favor of=20
religion, thus glorifying the contribution of one community while=20
belittling that of another. . . ."

Sadly, Hindu fanaticism can be as brutal as Muslim fundamentalist=20
dogma in its harshest, unthinking form, and it now remains to be seen=20
if the more mature among the BJP can persuade the rebels to give up=20
tinkering with an educational system that may not be perfect and=20
foolproof, but one which has till now resisted the temptation to=20
absorb the irrational and the illogical.

The Japan Times: Aug. 24, 2001
(C) All rights reserved

_______

5.

The Hindustan Times
Saturday, August 25, 2001=20=20

The tongue set free

Ritu Menon

Ask anyone about censorship and whether there's any in India, and=20
they'll say, no, not really. We're not like Bangladesh or Pakistan,=20
we have freedom of speech, it's a fundamental right guaranteed by the=20
Constitution.

If you remind them about Fire and Water or M.F. Husain and the Gufa=20
in Ahmedabad, or the attack on Ajeet Cour's Academy in Delhi or on=20
Sahmat in Ayodhya or even, long ago, on Mushirul Hasan, they'll say:=20
those are exceptions, it was the work of hoodlums. And anyway, all=20
these people went too far, they should have been careful.

In a way, they're right. There's very little formal censorship, that=20
is, censorship by the State in India, but if this is so, why are we=20
increasingly having to be 'careful", to be mindful of what we say? Is=20
it because street censorship has usurped the power of the State and=20
taken it upon itself to police people's expression? Or because, as=20
writer Mridula Garg says pithily, "the more regressive the State, the=20
more aggressive the mob".

Perhaps, as Nabaneeta Dev Sen puts it, free speech belongs to the=20
mainstream, and if you're on the margins or if yours is the voice of=20
dissent, your speech is censored. Could it be that a range of other=20
constraints operate in culture and society, inhibiting not only one's=20
freedom of speech, but of association and mobility as well?=20
Constraints that obviate the State's need to censor because they're=20
so effective anyway? Could it be that we need to redefine censorship=20
so that it encompasses these other myriad forms of silencing, and=20
enables us to unravel their complex workings?

Late last month, over 65 women writers from 11 languages met in=20
Hyderabad, at a most unusual gathering, to discuss not only the many=20
faces of censorship in India, but its peculiarly, and particularly,=20
gendered dimensions as well. This national colloquium was the=20
culmination of a unique process: a series of workshops over the last=20
two years with approximately 200 women, from Urdu, Telugu, Marathi,=20
Malayalam, Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada, Bangla, English and Tamil, that=20
dwelt, not on their writing, per se, but on the circumstances in=20
which they write, and are read and written about.

Across age and language, caste, creed and community, urban and rural=20
women who write prose and poetry, songs and serials, short stories=20
and novels, essays and autobiographies, talked at length about how=20
and why they write; what they write, and the form they write it in;=20
why they can't write what they'd like to or why they don't; where and=20
how they publish, and how they relate to the literary establishment=20
and the market in their particular language or regional context. And=20
how almost anything or everything they write is filtered through=20
family, community, society, culture and politics.

"A woman's writing is her gesture," said Nabaneeta Dev Sen, "and like=20
all women's gestures it is subject to all sorts of social codes." Not=20
everyone agreed. Shashi Deshpande says she's a feminist but not a=20
feminist writer: one must be gender-conscious, not gender-bound.=20
Others said they were not subjected to any kind of censorship or=20
curbs on our expression as women. We are writers, and like other=20
writers, are free to choose what we write about and how we write=20
about it. We are preoccupied with form and content; with language;=20
with meaning and metaphor; with being read and critically appraised.

And yet, when one of them said, "A woman's life is censored from=20
start to finish, and if not censored then severely edited," no one=20
thought it either incorrect or exaggerated.

Hindi writer Anamika's comment got to the heart of the matter:=20
"Scissors to cut with, a needle and thread to sew my lips with. If I=20
write my subconscious, the earth will be covered with paper." Many,=20
many women censor themselves in what must be the most powerful and=20
pervasive form of silencing we know. What is it they fear? Loss of=20
respectability? Of social acceptance? Ridicule? Or rejection by=20
family and friends, loved ones, a peer group?

The household or familial dimension impinges on women's writing in=20
ways that are deeply gendered and internalised. Although, as Telugu=20
writer Satyavathi says, "We avenge the censorship we face in reality=20
through our writing", any number of women censor themselves for fear=20
of how their families or communities will react. Censorship often=20
takes place within the home, where manuscripts may be destroyed,=20
suppressed or altered by husbands, parents, or siblings because of=20
what they reveal about "family secrets".

Fathers or husbands may also appropriate the work of their daughters=20
or wives because they do not wish them to have an independent=20
identity and feel that the work of women in their family properly=20
belongs to them. The objection is often very violent. One Tamil=20
writer told us that her ex-husband broke her right wrist for daring=20
to write a poem about their divorce, and many others spoke about the=20
physical abuse they suffered in the marital home, because of their=20
writing.

One wonders: would a meeting of 70 male writers have spoken about=20
censorship in the home by mothers, wives, sisters or daughters in=20
quite the same way? Would their poetry have been dismissed, as Volga=20
says Telugu feminist poetry was, for being "full of=20
body-consciousness but lacking social consciousness"? Would their=20
persons and personalities become an inextricable part of their texts?=20
Would they be promised publication by powerful editors in return for=20
sexual favours?

Nice girls shouldn't say such things. But the market and literary=20
establishments have their own subtle and unremarked forms of=20
censorship, and equally subtle manipulations that sometimes barely=20
conceal outright bias. More than one writer said she had been advised=20
by literary 'well-wishers' to avoid certain subjects (feminist=20
poetry, sex, politics, religion) if she wanted to be published -but=20
if she was arrogant enough to persist the attacks could be vicious.

But the opposite was also true! Writers in Kannada and Malayalam, for=20
example, said it was fine for women to write about sex, but when it=20
came to exposing sexual politics, the battlelines were clearly drawn!

Does subject-matter determine form? Is poetry preferred because it=20
allows concealment? The Urdu writers certainly thought so. But=20
Malayalam poet Sugatha Kumari thinks it may be tolerated in women=20
because "society considers poetry a harmless activity, like buying a=20
silk sari". Are novels more difficult because they need extended=20
periods of time, a luxury few of the writers present enjoyed. Could=20
humour mask pain and so, protect? If short stories are easier to=20
write, they're harder to publish.

And so the thread that ran through most of the discussions was=20
disconnection: the disconnection between what women said and what=20
they wrote; between their spoken words and their silences; between=20
their husbands', and fathers', apparent encouragement and support,=20
and their explicit, disapproving silence when a norm was violated.=20
Between women as the subject-matter of writing, and women as subjects=20
and writers. Between language, literature and social movements, and=20
the emergence of women's voices. Between language and gender, and=20
gender and genre.

But it's not all gloom and doom, or, as some would say, whine and=20
whinge. The fact that so many women persist with their writing in the=20
face of so much resistance, means something. It means, principally,=20
that the dissenting voice will not be easily crushed. That women=20
recognise that writing is a subversive activity in patriarchal=20
cultures, especially when it is gender conscious, but refuses to be=20
gender-bound.

And that censorship emanates from many sources, and is=20
chameleon-like: what was proscribed yesterday may be prescribed=20
today, but equally, what is

permitted today may be silenced tomorrow. In this time of internet=20
and electronic communication, the point of censorship - by the State,=20
street, family, community or society - is not to keep people from=20
accessing a particular work, it is to keep them from expressing or=20
creating it in the first place.

And this is why we need to redefine it, the better to be able to resist it.

(The writer is publisher, Kali for Women, and author of Borders and=20
Boundaries: Women in India's Partition)

_______

6.

The Times of India
25 August 2001

VHP's temple agenda set with eye on UP polls
AMBIKANAND SAHAY
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
UCKNOW : Contrary to the public posturing of the beleagured Vajpayee=20
and Rajnath Singh governments and the different offshoots of the=20
Sangh Parivar, the connection between the renewed war cry for the=20
construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya and the coming elections in=20
Uttar Pradesh has been established with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on=20
Friday finally unfolding the temple agenda.

http://203.199.93.7/articleshow.asp?art_id=3D1080197290

_______

7.

The Hindu
25 August 2001
Editorial

Putting conflict before cricket

THE CENTRE'S REFUSAL to allow the Indian cricket team to play the=20
Asian Test Championship in Pakistan seems driven by excessive=20
paranoia and reflexive bellicosity towards Pakistan. By way of=20
explanation, the Sports Minister, Ms. Uma Bharti, has tried to make=20
out that the principal reason for the thumbs down was concern over=20
the security of the team. By suggesting that player security was at=20
the root of the refusal, Ms. Bharti is implying that the decision was=20
made on wholly unprejudiced or non- political grounds. Why is the=20
Sports Minister's explanation a strain on credulity? The answer is=20
not far to seek. To begin with, this is the first time that the=20
``security'' issue has cropped up in the connection with the Asian=20
Test Championship, which has been dogged in controversy and a subject=20
of a dispute between the Sports Ministry and the Board of Control for=20
Cricket in India (BCCI). It was only a couple of months ago that Ms.=20
Bharti ticked off the BCCI for announcing it would participate in the=20
Championship without seeking special permission from the Government.=20
The BCCI had thought, and quite reasonably, that this was unnecessary=20
since the Government's own guidelines - which are questionable in=20
themselves - prohibited only bilateral matches with Pakistan.=20
Moreover, since the Government had expressly permitted India to play=20
Pakistan in multi-nation tournaments, the country's participation in=20
the Asian Test Championship - which was to be played among the four=20
Asian Test playing countries - clearly fell outside even the Centre's=20
restrictive guidelines.

Having adopted an irrational line against the BCCI, the Government=20
had only two choices. Revise the guidelines it had laid down (by=20
tightening them even further) or furnish a lame excuse for refusing=20
the Indian team the permission to participate. As Ms. Uma Bharti's=20
unconvincing explanation suggests, it chose the latter route. The=20
refusal reflects a mindset which treats cricket not so much as a game=20
but a political playground in which wholly extraneous issues are=20
unwarrantedly given undue heed. The very fact the final refusal came=20
after a meeting of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the=20
External Affairs Minister was held to discuss this issue is=20
reflective of the obsessive and misplaced political interest that the=20
BJP-led Government accords to the question of India playing cricket=20
with Pakistan.

Rushing to defend the refusal, Ms. Bharti has claimed that the=20
country's ``foreign policy is bigger than sports''. That may be so,=20
but what the Sports Minister and other members of the BJP Government=20
fail to recognise is that sport, in the present context, could=20
actually be a not-so-unimportant instrument to further the country's=20
foreign policy interests. At a time when India is talking about=20
confidence building measures in order to improve bilateral ties with=20
Islamabad, it is ludicrous that playing cricket with Pakistan - one=20
way of establishing greater people-to-people contact - should send=20
the persons who rule the Centre into such a tizzy. It is also=20
inexplicable why, when the two countries maintain a range of other=20
sporting contacts, the issue of playing cricket with Pakistan (which=20
the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, likened=20
unjustifiably to a ``gladiatorial'' contest) should arouse=20
unreasonable political passion. This is the third time in less than a=20
year that the Government has forced the Indian cricket team to pull=20
out from playing against Pakistan. Can people who become uneasy and=20
flustered at the thought of the two countries playing cricket ever be=20
trusted to improve relations between them?

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

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.