[sacw] SACW (28 August 01)

Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:57:58 +0100

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

[ Interruption Notice: The SACW Posts will be interrupted between the=20
period 31st August to 7th of September 2001]

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

[1.] Pakistan: Will the succession of coups continue?
[2.] Appeal from the Anti Rape Movement of Janhagirnagar University, Bangla=
desh
[3.] India/Pakistan Wars are easy to win on the silver screen
[4.] India: Crime and Problems of Punishing the Guilty
[5.] India: Does Doordarshan Televsion Network have a saffron [Hindu=20
Right] agenda?
[6.] Participating at the Durban conference with Demons in their mind

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

#1.

27 Aug 2001 11:12:38 +0500
From: mbnaqvi
Article appearing in the The News International (Pakistan)

Will the succession of coups continue?

By M.B. Naqvi

As one sat listening to CE-President Gen. Pervez Musharraf announcing
his road map to 'real' democracy on the telly, one's mind began playing
truant. How is it that men on horseback keep coming as saviours and
always promising to make a new beginning? How Pakistani politicians
always make a mess by their maladministration and corruption? Across a
few hundred kilometres, there are those Indians --- quite like us in
civilisational attitudes, traditions and outlook --- who can work at
least a passable democracy that permits rule of law for the most part.
Is it in our stars that we be ruled by military dictators? Or is there
some special genius among Muslims or in the genes who need to be kicked
around by masters, always craving privileges that others enjoy as
rights?

One saw with the mind's eye the initially unsure figure of Gen. Ziaul
Haq in 1977 promising truly free and fair elections within 90 days that
the opposition PNA had wanted under cast-iron constitutional guarantees.
He would also keep law and order and prevent the civil war that was
supposedly ready to break out, although few thought it was at all
likely. One briefly reviewed the subsequent events and saw how those 90
days stretched to 11 years and not once did that kind of polls take
place that the PNA and Bhutto government had negotiated --- and actually
agreed.

There were the other saviours in Khaki: Gen. Yahya Khan promised to do
all that the discredited Field Marshal had agreed to do: restore one man
one vote, allow the press to be free and hold normal free polls to a new
Assembly to frame a new constitution in 120 days --- a task that two
constituent Assemblies could not perform in 9 years in 1950s and with so
much travail. Pakistanis could only get a representative government
after the Assembly had performed its assigned task to the satisfaction
of --- Gen. Yahya; such as the proviso. And how did he fulfil his
promises? Everyone talks of the subsequent tragedy, trauma, defeat and
dismemberment.

Earlier the archetypal Pakistani general, Ayub Khan, had promised to
clean up the Augean stables in 1958. He held forth on politicians
incompetence and corruption. Building on what his guru, Col. Iskandar
Mirza, had taught, he waxed eloquent on democracy not being suited to
the genius of Pakistanis and how they could understand only grassroots
level democracy. They needed a friend and firm guide at the top. Thus he
delivered a Basic Democracy and a constitution tailored around his own
needs and the greed of cornering all power.

Weren=92t there some common elements in all the military coups d'etat? The
background to the first coup was quite complex and it covered much of
the fierce struggle for power between the Punjab and Bengal Groups of
the first Constituent Assembly that had continued in the second. The
Punjab Group was hell-bent on preventing the emergence of Bengalees as
the newly elected dominant group in Parliament after a new election.
Afterward the West Pakistanis would then remain a permanent minority
sans power. Bengalees would keep all power to themselves for all time to
come. So, first they prevented a constitution coming into force so as to
prevent an election and later, when a constitution was made, they kept
postponing the election. Ayub Khan and Iskandar Mirza represented this
basically Punjabi Group's sensibility and their coup of 1958 was aimed
primarily at preventing the scheduled (Feb =9259) elections under the 1956
constitution.

There was also an international dimension. As a recipient of American
aid and a member of two pacts --- SEATO and the Baghdad one --- not to
mention the all-important bilateral security treaty with the US, America
enjoyed extraordinary influence in Pakistan of the 1950s. Little
happened here without their involvement. Even today the US envoy is all
but a Viceroy. Ayub had convinced John Foster Dulles that East Pakistan
was teeming with subversive Commies and an election might destabilise
this whole bastion of the freedom. There are many indications and some
recorded evidence that it was no less a person than Dulles who gave a
green signal to Ayub for staging a coup --- perhaps as far back as
July-August of 1958 in Ankara.

Yahya=92s coup was also staged to preempt the implementation of the
agreement that had emerged from the All Parties Conference: viz. general
election on one-man-one-vote basis to a third Constitution-making
Assembly. He, by taking over, postponed the polls for a long while and
when held them nearly two years later, he did so under impossible rules
and after a lot of manipulation to influence the results. And when the
polls returned an unexpected verdict, he rejected it and refused to
convene the Assembly. He cracked down on --- who? The same elected
Bengalees, of course. The net result of his labours was Pakistan=92s
military defeat and the country's dismemberment.

The US was of course on board --- haven't we heard of Yahya=92s role in
Sino-US rapprochement? --- until he cracked down on East Bengal. The
Americans by then had other irons in the fire, among them Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, apart from not having the stomach for so much blood letting in
the domestic sphere of an ally.

Gen. Zia intervened primarily to prevent an agreed and scheduled free
re-election in October 1977. Bhutto was anyhow expected to be returned.
Who does not know Bhutto=92s falling out with his American friends in 1976
over the nuclear reprocessing plant deal with France? Who also does not
know the sighs of relief by Americans when Zia had overthrown Bhutto ---
and later hanged him?

Did the pattern hold in 1999 also? There is no evidence. What is known
is that Nawaz Sharif had certainly disappointed the IMF-WB community in
Washington; the latter was disenchanted by both democratic leaders ---
Nawaz and Benazir Bhutto --- each of whom had been tried twice and had
been found wanting in the crucial test of implementing the IMF
conditionalities in full. These experts should certainly have welcomed
the Musharraf regime's 'competence' and as a result are now loosening
their pursestrings gradually --- lest the regime lapses into old habits
of eschewing hard options.

But it is fair to say the State Department and White House did not seem
to be on board insofar as this particular military coup was concerned.
Indeed they seemed to have been somewhat rattled because Nawaz's India
policies appeared to them to be positive; his action in the Kargil
Crisis could only have endeared him to Clinton government. Even so, what
was this coup about? Wasn't it to break the cycle of Benazir and Nawaz
taking turns to rule after an election? It would seem from the
proceedings of the last 22 months that the next election will be
different in kind; they look like being calculated to achieving
pre-conceived 'positive results' through the political engineering now
underway. But attempting such a thing so late in the process might seem
foolhardy even for this Army (most political enterprises of which have
fallen flat on their faces). Anyhow Americans are beginning to accept
(approve?) the regime's domestic policies, may be after the event.

The question about Army's role during the period 1986 to 1999 remains?
It was certainly active and clearly aimed at preserving its own power
and privileges. Civilian governments, in addition to its agencies=92
rumoured role in the successive polls --- some of which is on court
record while a lot more is being commonly discussed --- were kept
confined to inconsequential subjects: foreign policy vis-=E0-vis crucially
important countries --- India, China, US, Afghanistan --- was the Army's
preserve as also the Finances, for which a person acceptable to or
cleared by WB-IMF experts was forced on the Prime Minister. The Army
certainly played a role in all the changes of governments. Roles of Gen.
Aslam Beg and Gen. Abdul Waheed were brash and quite open. Was Benazir
dismissed in Nov. 1996 solely by her own nominee off his own bat? How
could a Farooq Leghari do that unless the COAS had not pressed him to?

Except for ZA Bhutto=92s less than six years --- which is a special case
--- the Army has either ruled directly after 1958 or has supervised
civilian governments as overlords. In an important sense the Army
generals had merely resumed their direct rule in 1977 as also in 1999,
all with American concurrence. Insofar as the 1988 decision of the
generals to abstain from direct rule after 11 years of Zia and his
having accumulated a lot of ill will for the Army in Sindh and
Balochistan, the credit for allowing some democracy is strenuously
claimed. But this credit is for a tightly controlled democracy.
Remember the dinner at Army House on Dec. 1, =9288 at which all corps
commanders were present who virtually interviewed Benazir Bhutto who was
alone except for her husband who had driven her. Weren=92t the terms of
the "job" settled: the exact size of her turf settled, two major
Ministers and two special assistants to guide were foisted on her. As
for Nawaz Sharif, the claims of Gen. Aslam Beg and a few affidavits in
SC are on record about IJI=92s origins. Let no one conclude that there
ever was democracy after 1958; it has always been Army ruling directly
or indirectly.

Pre 1958 and Bhutto periods require more qualifications and references
to circumstances; those are stories for another time. But the conclusion
to emerge from this recital is that Army does not trust Pakistani
people; it preempts, directly or through backseat driving, the right of
the common citizens to govern themselves without any hindrance. It
reserves the right to be overlords of all the systems.

In short, no one can now be palmed off with a controlled or guided
democracy in 2002. No doubt, the effort is on and probably will be
carried through; right now no one can stop it if the Army is so
determined. Its compulsion to find a safe exit for Gen. Musharraf ---
i.e. to make him an effective and long lasting President, a la Ziaul Haq
in 1986 --- may be conceded. But history is not so kind. Unending
military rule and Pakistan cannot long coexist; the enterprise is too
risky for both. Let the Army not persist. A gentleman is one who knows
when to count his chips and go home.

_________

#2.

From: "Joan_of_Arc Woman" <Demons in their mind>
Subject: Appeal from the Anti Rape Movement of Janhagirnagar=20
University, Bangladesh
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:53:15 +0000

Appeal from the Students of Jahangirnagar University, from the Anti=20
Rape Movement

Raise Your Voice
Brutal Attack on Female students of Students Unity for Rapist's=20
Resistance (SURR)
Expelled Seven activists of SURR from the University

Since 1998 the students of Jahangirnagar University is struggling for=20
the punishment of the identified rapists. All the rapists are from=20
Bangladesh Students League (BSL), the student's wings of Bangladesh=20
Awami League, which was the political party in Government that time.=20
The Anti Rape movement forced the authority to identify the rapists,=20
but the punishment was minimal. The university authority took=20
different action for the student rapists, who were guilty for the=20
criminal offense, rape. There are godfathers of the rapist within=20
the University administration and teachers' community, and there is a=20
strong pro-rape lobby in action in university campus, rapist tried to=20
enter and took over the control of the male students' dormitory. But=20
the Students Unity for Rapist's Resistance (SURR) always protested=20
their entry and knocks them down from the university. The main=20
demands of the anti rape movement are: 1) Establishing the Sexual=20
Harassment Policy and putting a sexual harassment acquisition cell,=20
2) Expulsion of all identified rapists and cancellation the academic=20
certificates of the rapists.

This year one of the rapists, Anisur Rahman Anis, tried to take part=20
in the honors examination. The female students felt insecure to sit=20
with a known rapist and entire students' community along with the=20
students of English Department strongly protested the matter. The=20
students felt serious threat to the academic environment of the=20
campus, when a rapist is joining their campus life. They boycotts the=20
rapist socially, and declared, no students the can sit with rapists,=20
it's nothing but insult of their studentship. But the pro-rapists=20
administration does not bother what the general students felt, they=20
only concern about the armed rapists, because they can serve in the=20
university teachers politics. This has nothing to do with the=20
anti-rape spirit of the movement. They are more than steady to fight=20
like. The pressure of the movement made them bar to take the=20
examination of rapist Anis, but for this year only. Alas it is great=20
loss for the administration. Revenge came towards the activist of the=20
movement, female students got the rape threat, male students are=20
terrorize not to got the dorm's. At last on 23rd August 2001 SURR=20
students were at strike in front of the registers building demanding=20
expulsion of all identified rapists and nullifying the academic=20
certificates of the rapists. But at the end of the academic council=20
meeting, the students of SURR ask the Vice Chancellor, about the=20
decision regarding their demand. But the VC tried to avoid declaring=20
the decision, hit the students. A student activist was taking picture=20
of the VC's unwanted act upon the students got marked along with the=20
other organizer of the movements. At once in meeting of disciplinary=20
committee executing his autocratic power as a vice chancellor,=20
temporarily expelled seven students activist of the anti-rape=20
movement. On protest of such an un-democratic expulsion SURR called=20
student strike today (25th August 2001). But in front of the police,=20
some students of the Bangladesh Chatra League attacked the students=20
gathering on strike at the Social Science Building. Their main target=20
were female students, they hit female students, many were injured=20
including two female and several other male students. To disregard=20
the demand of SURR, the pro-rapist administration and the students=20
are continuously threatening the activists, an armed cadre of the BCL=20
rally was screaming at female student pronouncing the rape threat. A=20
hit list being made to beat the male students in the halls. The=20
campus life of the anti rape movement activists are insecure.

We appeal to all-
Join the anti rape movement of Jahangirnagar University
Join the demand of Sexual Harassment Policy
Raise you voice against such an autocratic pro-rapist administration=20
of Jahangirnagar
Act to nullify the expulsion of the SURR activists.

Please protest at
Abdul Bayes
Vice-chancellor
Jahnagirnagar University
Savar Dhaka
vc@j...
bayes@j...

_________

#3.

The Asian Wall Street Journal
Aug. 3, 2001

Wars are easy to win on the silver screen
By Salil Tripathi

Even a Bollywood scriptwriter with an overactive imagination could=20
not have thought of a plot like this: A boy is born in India and at=20
the tender age of four finds the country torn apart. He moves with=20
his family to the new nation of Pakistan, and after many years rises=20
to become the chief of its armed forces.

Cut to 1999, as he cunningly deploys his troops into Indian Kashmir=20
risking a nuclear war, even as his elected prime minister is hosting=20
his Indian counterpart in Lahore. Months later he stages a coup and=20
takes over as the leader of his country.

First he becomes chief executive but later settles for the more=20
conventional title of president. Towards the climax, he embarks on a=20
make-or-break summit meeting with the same Indian prime minister in=20
Agra, the romantic city of Taj Mahal, home of the famous marble=20
mausoleum built by a Muslim emperor for his dead wife.

The Taj Mahal's symbolism is important. Princess Diana, that astute=20
judge of tabloid sensibilities, understood that when she posed=20
looking forlorn and brooding at the monument, sending home the=20
message that her marriage with Prince Charles was faltering. As the=20
leaders of India and Pakistan sat down to discuss their differences=20
in the glow of the Taj, they wanted some of its romantic symbolism to=20
rub off on them. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and=20
Pakistan's self-appointed President Gen. Pervez Musharaff (the=20
four-year-old boy who left India and rose to lead Pakistan in our=20
story), wanted to send a different message to their people: that they=20
can work together.

Political pundits analyzed each gesture and nuance, and dissected=20
each word said and unsaid at the summit. But if matters had been left=20
in the hands of Bollywood, perhaps the only business loved by-and=20
financed by-the people of both countries, the two leaders would have=20
found that they were long-lost brothers and broken into a melodious=20
song with the Taj as the backdrop amid hugs, tears and smiles.

The reality, as the bloody history of the two countries shows, is=20
sadder, incomplete and more complicated. But since when has Bollywood=20
had anything to do with reality? Bollywood is popular cinema at its=20
best, and it is remarkably accurate in measuring the mood of the=20
subcontinent's masses. In fact it is no stranger in exploiting the=20
emotive appeal of the Taj Mahal. In the current superhit running to=20
packed houses in India, "Gadar Ek Prem Katha," set during the=20
tumultuous period of the Partition, a small model of the Taj Mahal=20
unites the star-crossed lovers, a Sikh driver named Tara Singh and a=20
Muslim girl called Sakina.

The Partition is the burden the two countries must carry; it is the=20
period of madness in which about a million people may have died and=20
another 12 million displaced. It tore apart neighborhoods,=20
communities, relationships and families, including those of Gen.=20
Musharaff and India's hawkish home minister, Lal Krishna Advani, who=20
found themselves on the wrong side of the border. A way of life ended.

Over the past half century, textbooks in Pakistan have emphasized the=20
impossibility of Muslims living peacefully in a Hindu-dominated=20
India. Textbooks in India glossed over India's admittedly poor record=20
of protecting the minorities. In the last four years, in that vacuum,=20
where many uncomfortable truths remained unsaid, Bollywood has=20
stepped in. Since 1997, the year India and Pakistan celebrated their=20
50th anniversary, Bollywood's producers have consciously turned to=20
films dealing with Pakistan.

"Refugee" dealt with lovers caught on the wrong side of the fence.=20
"Border" was about a war in which, naturally, a small platoon of=20
Indian soldiers pushed back a massive force of Pakistani aggressors,=20
and won. In "Mission Kashmir," Indian security forces battled=20
hardened, cynical extremist forces bent upon destroying India's=20
unity. "Sarfarosh" tackled the growing problem of arms smuggling from=20
Pakistan and the ensuing terrorism in India, and how an honest police=20
officer dealt with the mayhem. "Hey Ram!" was about the communal=20
violence around the Partition and the assassination of India's=20
founding father, Mohandas Gandhi.

In each of these films, Pakistan, the politicians that championed its=20
creation, and the political class that now rules that country are=20
demonized. Aamer Husain, a London-based, Pakistan-born novelist who=20
recently saw "Gadar Ek Prem Katha," hoping to see sensitive treatment=20
of the Partition, came away disappointed. He said: "It has actually=20
got about as much to do with history as the Indiana Jones movies."

But the masses that throng the cinema halls in India don't seem to=20
care. Shobha De, the popular Bombay-based novelist and social=20
commentator, points out: "After Kargil the mood is definitely=20
belligerent; the period of bhai-bhai (brotherhood) is over." The=20
zeitgeist in India, in fact, is arrogant and assertive, proud and=20
nationalistic, thumping to a loud, jingoistic beat. And the films=20
present unidimensional caricatures and a comic-book version of a far=20
more complicated reality. Suketu Mehta, a New York-based author who=20
co-wrote "Mission Kashmir," acknowledged as one of the subtler films,=20
says, "Bollywood has a very keen barometer of the national mood. It=20
follows the headlines. When there is hope in the air between the two=20
countries, when Vajpayee has just hopped on a bus to Lahore or=20
Musharaff is about to return to the havel (mansion) where he was=20
born, you'll see filmmakers rushing to put out products that can tap=20
into the great nostalgia all of us have for an undivided India. But=20
when there are terrorist outrages, when the normal border clashes=20
escalate into war, the theaters show films like `Sarfarosh.'"

Such jingoistic films were simply not possible a generation ago, even=20
though the Partition, and the emotions it aroused were more fresh in=20
the 1950s and 1960s. Popular films from that era dealt with the=20
communal situation only by mouthing platitudes of Hindu-Muslim unity,=20
often scripted by leftist screenwriters. Many of the filmmakers were=20
refugees themselves but they were unwilling or unable to articulate=20
their feelings about the horrors they had experienced.

Partition brought memories of shame and stirred recent wounds which=20
hadn't yet healed. The communal issue was suppressed as India fought=20
three wars with India in its first 25 years. Some Muslim actors who=20
remained in India-Dilip Kumar and Jayant are the most famous=20
examples- changed their names to Hindu names to gain wider acceptance=20
in India.

The filmmakers in the early years of India's independence sought the=20
romance of love stories and family dramas. As Urvashi Butalia, the=20
social historian, notes in "The Other Side of Silence," an excellent=20
collection of memories of that period, most of those who suffered=20
during the Partition found it impossible to confront their feelings.=20
Few mainstream films dealt with any of that.

One reason the older filmmakers could not take on the Partition was=20
because they were too close to the events, according to Bapsi Sidhwa,=20
the Pakistan-born American writer whose novel "The Ice-Candy Man"=20
(published as "Cracking India" in America) inspired the film "Earth"=20
by the Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta. Mr. Sidhwa explains that, "The=20
older filmmakers were too awed by the events to feel they could do=20
justice. Many of them were directly affected by the massive=20
migrations and loss of property. The events surrounding Partition,=20
the greed, the kidnapping of women and the terrible vendettas it=20
unleashed, were food for much soul-searching and debate. Partition=20
affected them too deeply to subject to simplistic and partisan=20
Bollywood representations."

But Bollywood has changed with India. The new generation is confident=20
and assertive; its swagger comes from India's relative economic=20
success and its emergence as a nuclear power. Indians are able to=20
face up to their multicultural reality. Muslim actors now don't hide=20
their names. In fact, three of the biggest heartthrobs on the silver=20
screen are Muslims: Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan.

As this new post-independent Indian identity gains confidence, it=20
wants to win back what was lost. Mr. Mehta adds: "Perhaps the younger=20
generation wants to explore their parents' trauma, redress historical=20
wrongs, take back the land that was lost." It is much harder to do so=20
in real life, as the negotiations between Gen. Musharaff and Mr.=20
Vajpayee have shown. So why not win the war clearly, simply and=20
decisively on the silver screen?
---
Mr. Tripathi, a former Southeast Asia correspondent at the Far Eastern
Economic Review, writes from
London.

_________

#4.

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:55:17 +0530 (IST)
From: "R.R.Punyani" <>

Crime and Problems of Punishing the Guilty

Ram Puniyani

BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists (Sangh Parivar) are currently (August
2001) campaigning against the arrest of Mr. R.D.Tyagi, an ex-police
commissioner and a member of Shiv Sena, who has been arrested by the
Special Task Force set up by Govt. of Maharashtra to implement the
recommendations of Shrikrishna Commission report. Their arguments are,
that this is an act of vindictive politics on the part of DF govt., all
nationalists are with Mr. Tyagi, (as he is a nationalist), he is an
upright police officer who only performed his duties during 92-93 riots,
it will be a set back to the morale of police force, and now anti-national
forces will feel free to spread terror.

Just to recall Mr. Tyagi had supervised the killing of nine workers and
other innocent people who were in the Suleman Bakery during 92-93 Mumbai
riots. It was projected that there are terrorists hiding in the bakery,
and that they have AK-47 and other lethal arms and ammunition. The area
was cordoned off and the police force entered the bakery and killed these
victims, many of them being shot point blank. As there were no marks of
firing and other 'terrorist activity' in and around bakery Mr. Tyagi came
forward with the defense that terrorists flew away from the back door,
Incidentally the whole area was well 'cordoned off' and surrounded by the
police. Since this was too blatant a lie, it could not hold any water and
accepting it was out of question by the inquiry commission.

The arguments of the Hindutva followers defy all the democratic logic and
are totally against the spirit of law and Indian constitution. The duly
appointed Shrikrishna commission came to the conclusion that the grounds
on which nine people were killed in Suleman bakery are totally false, as
there was no evidence of the firing by the one's in the bakery and no arms
and ammunition could be seized from the place and that some of the victims
were shot point blank.

In this case it is more than clear that Mr. Tyagi, a supporter of Shiv
Sena politics was guided more by the agenda of Shiv Sena than by the rules
of conduct of an officer on Govt. duty. Can the officer's conduct blinded
by communal bias be called as 'nationalist', 'upright' etc? All the public
servants have powers but these have to be exercised in consonance with the
law of the land. As per all indications Mr. Tyagi violated all of them. It
is most unfortunate trajectory of our democracy that communalism has been
growing as a festering wound on our body politic. And the bias of police
force against minorities has been more then obvious.

Before coming to the arguments of Hindutva forces let us just have a birds
eye view of the communal violence in India. After the partition riots
there was a lull in the violence for more than a decade when the violence
erupted in Jabalpur. Since then around 13000 communal riots have taken
place. In these riots 80% of the victims are Muslim and close to 100%
victims are poor. In these riots the property loss of Minorities is number
of times more. As per one survey 48% of police personnel themselves feel
that the police force is heavily biased against the minorities. The
communal violence at another level can be more aptly termed as
anti-minority violence. It has been the major reason for the ghettoisation
of the Muslim minority.

The latest and most devastating in the series has been the post Babri
demolition riot in which close to 1000 lives were lost and property worth
10,000 crores was gutted. Shrikrishna commission was instituted to inquire
in to these riots. With coming into power of ShivSena-BJP govt. it started
creating all obstacles in the final completion of the report and its
release. First it refused to give extension to the commission on the
ground that nothing comes out of these commissions, so it was scrapped. As
popular anger against this move was too great to swallow the then Prime
Minister, Mr. Vajapayee prevailed upon the Maharashtra govt. to revive it.
The state Govt. revived it with the additional provision that it should
also investigate the Mumbai blasts, which followed the riots.
Interestingly the same govt. later told the commission that since the
blast accused are already being tried in the special TADA court so it is
not in a position to produce the papers relevant to bomb blast to the
commission.

Once the report started coming close to completion Shiv Sena govt. started
the campaign that the commission report will not be tabled in the assembly
as it will reopen the wounds (? it knew well that who inflicted the wounds
and who are likely to be named in the report). Once this argument did not
carry the day, as per the requirement it had to place the report in the
assembly. And this time as a escape from the responsibility and the likely
punishment the guilty who, they knew are part of their own 'family', the
SS-BJP govt. rejected the recommendations of the commission by saying that
the report is anti-Hindu (so Anti national?) so this Nationalist (i.e. in
their concept, Hindu Govt) has no option but rejecting its
recommendations.

In the subsequent elections the DF govt. fought on the promise of
implementing the recommendations of the Shrikrishna Commission. After
coming to power it kept sleeping on the issue. Number of popular
agitations, campaigns and delegations of prominent citizens kept the
pressure on the Govt. In response the govt. slowly woke up to set up STF,
which moved with snails pace. But even that was not effective enough to
bring the culprits to the book. Finally the two petitions filed by
citizens in the Supreme Court came as clinchers. And the apex court in no
uncertain terms asked the state govt. to take the action and also to keep
reporting to the court about its actions. It is that which finally caught
up with the crimes of the likes of Tyagi et al.

The whole story gave number of lessons to the defenders of Human rights
and democratic values. For the Hindutva govt., i.e. BJP-Shiv Sena an act
of crime against the minorities is implicitly an act of 'nationalism'. And
any report or judgment, which tries to point towards the guilty,
automatically becomes anti-Hindu so anti national. For the other, the
Congress like formations taking action against the guilty of communal
violence is an act, which they will not do so on their own despite
promises, unless and until citizen's pressure is sufficient enough to
force them out of their 'opportunist paralysis'. Police, as has been
proved by many commissions of inquiries, is sufficiently communalized by
now, to perpetrate the crimes against the minorities and to soft peddle
the crimes of their own peers.

The Human rights movement cannot rest on the constitutional provisions
alone. At every instance it has to struggle and use all the democratic
space to ensure the punishment of the guilty. At least that's how the
matters stand as of now. But surely the pressure of Human rights and other
civic groups in sustaining pressure to implement the recommendations have
probably, for the first time, been 'successful' in breaking the inertia of
the state machinery to bring about a semblance of action against the
guilty of the communal violence. Arguments of Sangh Parivar outfits apart
it is likely that this example will set a trend for the future crimes of
the communal forces and the police machinery. While one feels a bit
dejected at the state of affairs of deliverance of justice, one also
realizes that with BJP: Shiv Sena type formations the justice for
minorities is totally ruled out. Even with other parties there is a
possibility that citizens resistance and pressure and use of democratic
avenues may begin to deliver some fragments of justice. We have a long way
to go for the proper implementation of the law and the constitutional
norms of the society.

And it is here that the communal outfits are crying hoarse. For them any
semblance of justice to minorities and punishment to the guilty who belong
and are sympathetic to their agenda of Hindu Rashtra is automatically
anti-national as though not formally but at practical level they do
believe and act as if it is a Hindu Rahstra. For them Indian Constitution
is a mere attractive wrapper till it can be done away once these communal
outfits come to majority on their own in center.

(Ram Puniyani is associated with EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity,
Mumbai)

_________

#5.

The Times of India
27 August 2001

Does DD have a saffron agenda?

RASHME SEHGAL

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NEW DELHI: Is Doordarshan [India's State Owned Public Television=20
Network] turning saffron? A 52-part serial on the life of Vinayak=20
Damodar Savarkar, one of the key proponents of militant Hinduism, is=20
going to be telecast on the national channel from September 16.

Surprisingly, the bigwigs at Prasar Bharati are unaware of the=20
impending telecast. Anil Baijal, Prasar Bharati CEO, denied any=20
knowledge of it. Asked why a pro-Hindutva serial was being telecast=20
by DD, he replied, ``Savarkar is a famous freedom fighter who was=20
incarcerated twice in the Andaman Islands."

B G Verghese, Prasar Bharati member, was equally at sea. ``I am only=20
consulted over important policy matters. I have no idea about serials=20
being shown or not shown over the network."

The serial is being produced by a Pune-based trust, Janaseva Nyas,=20
and Mumbai-based Savarkar Samarak. Both are reported to have close=20
links with the RSS.

Eknath Satpurkar, project-in-charge, concedes: ``Savarkar's ideology=20
is the ideology of Hindutva, but our aim is to bring out every=20
detail of his life. He was the first person who described the 1857=20
Mutiny as the First War of Independence. It is important for such=20
leaders to be brought before the general public as they had earlier=20
been sidelined by the Congress."

He said 10 episodes had already been filmed, at a cost of Rs 3.5=20
lakh each. An additional telecast fee of Rs 3.5 lakh for each=20
episode will be paid to Doordarshan.

Satpurkar points out that the serial will focus not only on=20
Savarkar's life but on those who influenced him. These include Dr=20
Hedgewar, Shyamaprasad Mookerjee, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,=20
Lokmanya Tilak, Damodar Chapekar and a host of other freedom=20
fighters.

The names of some of these leaders have been misspelt in the=20
expensively-brought out brochure. Bhagat Singh is `Sing' and Dadabhai=20
Naroji is `Nauroji'.

Doordarshan had earlier shown serials on the life of Chhatrapati=20
Shivaji and Mahatma Gandhi but both were withdrawn midway due to=20
lack of sponsorship.

Baijal explains: ``For the serial on Mahatma Gandhi, we even waived=20
the telecast fee but the producer was not able to raise money to=20
complete the serial. Therefore, we had no choice but to take it off."

The producer of the Shivaji serial is trying to raise money to=20
complete it. It will be telecast again if the producer manages to=20
complete it. NEW DELHI: Is Doordarshan turning saffron? A 52-part=20
serial on the life of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one of the key=20
proponents of militant Hinduism, is going to be telecast on the=20
national channel from September 16.