[sacw] SACW #2. (24 June 01)

[aiindex@mnet.fr]

South Asia Citizens Wire
24 June 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

----------

#1. Indo-Pak relations: the high unsordid road
#2. Another =93core=94 issue for Musharraf-Vajpayee summit
#3. Hindu Students Get Communal on the Net
#4. India: killing of a dalit family in fatehpur, uttar pradesh
#5. India: Censored by hoodlums

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

#1.

"Frontline", June 22, 2001
Frontline Column: Beyond the Obvious

Praful Bidwai

INDO-PAK RELATIONS: THE HIGH UNSORDID ROAD

Whatever the motive, and however incoherent Vajpayee's foreign policy, his=
=20
invitation to Musharraf is welcome; it should lead to nuclear restraint,=20
confidence-building and a Kashmir working group.

Xxxxxxxxxx

Two lazy premises are integral to what might be called the pop=20
psychology-based realpolitik analysis that passes for much of strategic and=
=20
international relations "theorising" in India. (Astonishingly, the two are=
=20
often forcibly mixed together). One is the idea that states have no=20
permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. These in turn are=20
so obvious that they can be plucked, like ripe fruit from a tree.=20
Nation-states behave rationally in promoting these interests. The second=20
assumption is that Right-wing conservatives are better placed than Liberal=
=20
or Leftist leaders of a state to reach reconciliation with its adversaries.=
=20
Being "realists," Rightists have an inherent capacity to make such deals.=20
They needn't worry about ultra-nationalist critics who could accuse them of=
=20
"selling out" to "the enemy." A case in point is Nixon-Kissinger's=20
"ping-pong diplomacy" with China.

Commentators have seized upon the two premises either to oppose or support=
=20
A.B. Vajpayee's invitation to Gen Pervez Musharraf to visit India. The=20
opponents argue that Pakistan's long-term interests lie in maintaining=20
virulent hostility towards its "Other" (India) to the point of its=20
disintegration, or at least destabilisation and haemorrhage. Visceral=20
hatred of India is common to all Pakistani governments, especially their=20
quintessentially khaki versions. Kargil and Pakistani support to the=20
Kashmir militancy are mere instances of that hostility. Therefore, nothing=
=20
should be expected from Musharraf's visit. Indeed, Vajpayee was ill-advised=
=20
to invite him, especially when the six months-long Kashmir ceasefire has so=
=20
visibly failed.

Many who support the invitation to Musharraf claim that Vajpayee is=20
uniquely placed to reach reconciliation with Pakistan, even resolve the=20
thorny Kashmir problem, because he comes from the strongly anti-Pakistan=20
tradition of the Hindu Right. His counterpart, in turn, can reach a=20
"historic compromise" with India--because he is a military, not civilian,=20
leader, and can carry the Right with him. The present moment is propitious,=
=20
the argument runs. After all, Vajpayee may not be Prime Minister for long.=
=20
And India's strategy of isolating Pakistan has failed. What's needed now is=
=20
hard-nosed bargaining and deal-making based on the national interest,=20
however narrowly defined.

This column argues that these premises and conclusions are profoundly=20
mistaken. The first premise errs on assigning permanence to interests,=20
which actually change with ground-level economic, social, political and=20
cultural realities. "Interests" are competing entities perceived=20
divergently by different people, who give them different priorities.=20
Specifically, it may not be in Pakistan's long-term interest to maintain=20
hostility towards India, and vice versa. Admittedly, they have been locked=
=20
in hostility since birth. Many of their rulers have been tempted to foment=
=20
enmity as a means of "externalising" internal crises and counter the=20
erosion of their legitimacy caused by the failure of their own policies.=20
Yet, this is not inevitable or immutable. It is possible to radically=20
revision and reshape India-Pakistan relations. The first premise ignores th=
is.
The second premise simply misreads Cold War history. During a specific=20
conjuncture in the late 1960s/early 1970s, a breach opened up for a variety=
=20
of reasons between the former USSR and China, which the US fully exploited=
=20
by befriending China to "contain" the Soviet Union. It is this conjuncture,=
=20
not the personalities of Nixon or Kissinger--even less their "inherent"=20
capacities--that was vital to "ping-pong" diplomacy's success. Undeniably,=
=20
within domestic politics, Nixon was better placed than Lyndon Johnson or=20
Gerald Ford to drive a China bargain. But that's more a comment on the=20
nature of Cold War-era politics, than on Nixon's abilities.

The larger context here was one of relative domestic political=20
instability--no US president between Eisenhower and Reagan served two=20
terms--itself driven by the global situation, in which US power was in=20
retreat with one revolution every four years between 1945 and 1979. Added=20
to this was Republican "isolationism", which facilitated Nixon's task. The=
=20
Right's "edge" could, then, be a bit of an illusion.

In the India-Pakistan context, such an edge hardly exists. Vajpayee leads a=
=20
rag-tag coalition, and is himself vulnerable to hardcore elements in his=20
own sangh parivar. And Musharraf won't exactly have a cakewalk so far as=20
"his" religious Right goes. Neither of them can be credited with "inherent"=
=20
capacity or superiority in deal-making which derives from conservatism. For=
=20
instance, I.K. Gujral has done ten times more for reconciliation and=20
"one-more-chance" peace in India's neighbourhood than Vajpayee.

The road to peace, then, isn't paved with stones of hawkish national=20
interest, as the Right interprets it. However, there is a strong argument=20
for an India-Pakistan dialogue, which overcomes the weaknesses and=20
limitations of the rather poorly stated official case. Some of these=20
weaknesses should be obvious. The invitation to Musharraf can't be=20
reconciled with New Delhi's refusal to engage, in fact even recognise, him=
=20
fully, which persisted till the very morning of May 23. Nor is the=20
decision-taken over a Vajpayee-Singh-Advani luncheon meeting-part of a=20
larger game-plan rooted in a coherent foreign policy. It is a clever tactic=
=20
unconnected to a strategy.

In this, it resembles the ceasefire that failed because it was a prelude=20
to-nothing. At the same time, it is meant to "compensate" for the calling=20
off of the ceasefire under hardline pressure from Advani. This speaks of an=
=20
awkward balancing act, not a mature, confident, strategy on Vajpayee's part=
.

Then, there is the Washington Factor too. There has doubtless been some=20
gradual nudging by the US to talk to Pakistan. But more important, New=20
Delhi is itself keen to please the US and ward off future international=20
pressure on Kashmir by appearing "reasonable". This is part of its craving=
=20
for acceptance as a "responsible" nuclear weapons-state.

Another potential "negative" is the Kashmir issue: What can New Delhi offer=
=20
Islamabad on this? How can their positions be reconciled in the short run?=
=20
If nothing is achieved on Kashmir, the opponents say, the talks would fail.=
=20
And a failure today could be disastrous, especially because the situation=20
in the Kashmir Valley has deteriorated with growing popular frustration and=
=20
rampant human rights violations by the Army, the BSF and the state police's=
=20
Special Operations Group.

It is largely for this mix of political reasons, and with an eye on the=20
coming Assembly elections, especially in Uttar Pradesh, that Vajpayee=20
played the Pakistan gambit. These arguments can serve as qualifications,=20
caveats or warnings. But they do not constitute a persuasive reason for=20
opposing the Vajpayee-Musharraf meeting--despite the questionable=20
calculations of all concerned. It is overwhelmingly important that India=20
and Pakistan resume their dialogue. As this column has repeatedly argued,=20
it was bad policy and unspeakably poor diplomacy on India's part to seek to=
=20
isolate Musharraf's government in the first place. The intrinsic merit of=20
reconciliation and peace with this neighbour far outweighs any short-term,=
=20
temporary, tactical advantages available from point-scoring. "Cross-border"=
=20
terrorism has increasingly become a self-inflicted delusion, viz. that=20
popular alienation and militant violence in Kashmir would go away only if=20
Pakistan changed its policy. Pakistan has indeed compounded the problem by=
=20
fomenting and legitimising jehadi violence, but the problem is essentially=
=20
internal.

The case for an India-Pakistan dialogue becomes stronger, not weaker,=20
because they both possess weapons that can cause mass destruction. They=20
repeatedly threatened directly or indirectly to use them in the Kargil=20
war--history's most serious conventional conflict between two nuclear=20
weapons-states. India-Pakistan rivalry is one of the greatest obstacles to=
=20
combating poverty ("our greatest common enemy", Vajpayee says) and=20
promoting the "welfare of our people"--in all of South Asia.

Anything that defuses or de-escalates that rivalry deserves unconditional=20
support. The parochialism that afflicts Indian and Pakistani thinking on a=
=20
range of issues cannot be fought unless there is a new d=E9tente. The growi=
ng=20
momentum of a d=E9tente from below, involving citizens' initiatives, only=20
underscores the need for reconciliation at the apex level, which has lagged=
=20
behind civil society initiatives. There are some 20 of these encompassing=20
artistes, scholars, trade unionists, journalists, politicians, even former=
=20
soldiers. And they have grown rapidly over the past three years. The latest=
=20
in this series are religious-level Track-II efforts and a FICCI high-level=
=20
delegation visit to Pakistan.

Put simply, large numbers of Indians and Pakistanis are simply fed up with=
=20
mutual hostility and the rhetoric that goes with it. They include=20
enlightened liberal elements in both societies. They seriously want to give=
=20
peace a chance. That's where the "high road" that Vajpayee proposes comes=20
in. This involves pursuing "the path of reconciliation... engaging in=20
productive dialogue," "building trust and confidence."

Vital here is the spirit of trust, of generosity, of wanting to do=20
something unsordid, unlike what India and Pakistan have done to each other=
=20
for a long time. It is easy to recount their bitter history, replete with=20
betrayed promises, mutual stalking, puerile, unrestrained abuse, and worse.=
=20
That's the laziest option. What is less lazy but more rewarding is to=20
realise the potential for a new endeavour, for a South Asian New Deal.

We must attempt this--sincerely and without pettiness. That's why we must=20
resist the temptation to pick holes in the Vajpayee-Musharraf letters and=20
read "preconditions" into what each is saying about the "core issue" or=20
"composite dialogue." Indian and Pakistani leaders are both at fault for=20
overstating their case and specifying "the destination" before "the=20
journey" (the dialogue) begins. If Musharraf has explicitly talked of=20
Kashmir, so has Jaswant Singh: "an integral part of India" which "is at the=
=20
core of [India's] nationhood"--just as it is of Pakistan's. But such=20
exchanges should not detract from the spirit of reconciliation.

This emphasis on good faith is not meant to suggest that the=20
Vajpayee-Musharraf dialogue is doomed to remain at the level of lofty=20
rhetoric and declarations of intent. Unlike Lahore, where there was very=20
little preparation, the two sides now have a reasonable interval in which=20
to prepare the ground for some procedural and some substantive agreements.=
=20
At Lahore, they missed a historic opportunity to reach an agreement on=20
nuclear or missile restraint. Today, they have a renewed chance to pledge a=
=20
freeze on nuclear weapons development and missile test-flights.

This can take many forms: reiterated commitments to global elimination of=20
nuclear weapons and preventing an nuclear arms race in South Asia; an=20
agreement not to deploy nuclear weapons for three years, coupled with a=20
bilateral agreement on no further nuclear tests and on a freeze on=20
weaponisation; a commitment to exploring a nuclear weapons-free zone in=20
South Asia. Such a zone would radicalise the original concept--from=20
non-proliferation to active disarmament. Equally in order is a formal=20
agreement not to deploy short-range missiles or test-fly any missiles.

Some of these commitments can be verified through cooperative monitoring=20
technologies. They will help defuse tension, without legitimising=20
accelerated nuclear and missile development. In their content and spirit,=20
they are wholly different from Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures, which=20
presuppose deployment and merely make nuclear weapons "safe" and hence more=
=20
usable.

A nuclear and missile freeze will have a dramatic impact upon the regional,=
=20
indeed the global, environment. If such a confidence-boosting accord is=20
initialled, India and Pakistan could put aside some long-standing=20
irrational irritants like Siachen, Sir Creek, and Wular Barrage--on which=20
an agreement was all but reached in the past. Another substantive area of=20
agreement is relaxation of visa restrictions, freer movement of tourists=20
and scholars, exchange of periodicals and literature, visits by Track-II=20
and Track-III delegates, and by professional groups such as trade=20
unionists, journalists, feminist activists and academics.

On Kashmir, New Delhi and Islamabad will be hard put to reach a=20
comprehensive agreement. But a beginning can be made in three ways. First,=
=20
a long-term negotiating group which meets frequently (once a week or=20
fortnight) should be set up. This could institutionalise the process of=20
dialogue open to the people of Jammu & Kashmir. Second, a bus service could=
=20
be started between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, like Delhi-Lahore. And third,=
=20
a "soft corridor" could be created along the LoC, where people from both=20
sides of the border freely move and trade without visas.

It bears stating that much more radical proposals were exchanged two years=
=20
ago during the repeated visits of R.K. Mishra to Pakistan. These must be=20
revived in a spirit of accommodation and generosity. India and Pakistan=20
must try to take the high road. And try hard. They might not succeed. But=20
the only alternative to that would be a return to the sickening routine of=
=20
mutual hate-mongering, more hostility, more self-inflicted injury... Their=
=20
peoples deserve better.--end--

________

#2.

The Friday Times
22 June 2001

ANOTHER =93CORE=94 ISSUE FOR MUSHARRAF-VAJPAYEE SUMMIT

S. P. Udayakumar

The Current Science article says such accidents have indeed happened, for=20
instance, at Palomares in Spain in 1966 and at Thule in Greenland in 1968.=
=20
In both cases, aircraft carrying nuclear weapons had crashed, detonating=20
the high-explosive in the weapons. The article models the spread of=20
plutonium in the event of such an accident, the winds carrying it, the=20
possible extent of inhalation by people and the resulting fatalities=20
through cancer

As General President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee=20
prepare to meet in the second week of July, a serious debate rages in India=
=20
over whether or not Kashmir should be treated as the core issue between our=
=20
two countries. While most Indians and all Pakistanis would readily accept=20
that Kashmir is the most serious issue that threatens the peace and=20
development of not just the citizens of these two countries but the entire=
=20
South Asia, scepticism regarding any breakthrough emanates from Islamabad=20
and New Delhi=92s mutually exclusive approaches to the issue. While the=20
former insists that Kashmir is the =93core issue=94 and should take precede=
nce,=20
the latter looks at Kashmir as one of many many outstanding issues, such as=
=20
bilateral trade, etc.

Now three Indian and Pakistani scientists have identified another =93core=
=94=20
issue that threatens the very survival of our people and has to be dealt=20
with rather urgently at the Summit-level talks. In a paper that has just=20
been published in the latest issue of an Indian journal, Current Science,=20
Drs Zia Mian and M V Ramana of Princeton University and Dr R. Rajaraman of=
=20
the School of Physical Sciences at the Jawaharlal Nehru University point=20
out that nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles contain highly=20
combustible, explosive and hazardous components and in the event of an=20
accident involving one of them on the outskirts of a large metropolis such=
=20
as Delhi or Lahore, several thousand people could die of plutonium inhalati=
on.

One can easily identify at least six different problems from three=20
different sources with regards to nuclear weapons (or any nuclear facility=
=20
for that matter). While the sources are generally the enemy, Nature, and=20
self, the problems could include over-indulgence, war hits, terrorist=20
attacks, accidents/incidents, natural disasters and negligence. The fact=20
that both India and Pakistan have been squandering scarce resources on=20
wasteful nuclear weapons programmes is a case of over-indulgence. To=20
exacerbate things, India has just decided to spend a whopping sum of $95=20
billion on arms over the next 15 years. Out of this a staggering $20=20
billion will be spent for nuclear weapons research and development and=20
command and control structures. In a related development, the Indian=20
Defence Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, has said that the Agni-II missile with=
=20
a range of more than 2,000 kilometers is likely to be inducted into the=20
armed forces =93during 2001-2002.=94 All this in a country that has 450 mil=
lion=20
desperately poor people!

The threat of actual use of a nuclear weapon in a war by either India or=20
Pakistan or both countries is quite high given the intractability of our=20
bilateral issues and the myths and traumas we have so carefully fostered.=20
The chances of a terrorist attack on a nuclear installation is equally=20
significant, given the number and the veracity of disgruntled outfits that=
=20
operate in our countries. Similarly, natural disasters can befall any such=
=20
facility in our region that is prone to incessant earthquakes, cyclones,=20
floods and so forth.

Negligence is unfortunately a hallmark of our societies where even fatally=
=20
wounded national leaders =96 Indira Gandhi is a case in point =97 can be=20
shunted in the back seat of an ordinary car, airplanes collide mid-air,=20
train accidents occur so often and have no emergency policy or programme=20
etc. In March 1988, there was an accidental fire at the Jabalpur ordnance=20
factory and ammunition depot in India that led to the explosion of=20
ammunition for several days, evacuation of nearby villages, and the closure=
=20
of an airport some 45 km away. The disaster, involving the destruction of=20
munitions reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars, was attributed=
=20
to =93negligence=94 on the part of the commandant. Another fire in May 2001=
at=20
the Suratgarh depot in Rajasthan, which serves as the Indian Army's forward=
=20
ammunition stores, consumed 8,000 tons of tank and artillery ammunition.=20
The explanation offered by Vice Chief of Army Staff was that it was a =93pu=
re=20
accident=94, an =93act of God=94. Such =93crises of casualness=94 are not u=
nknown in=20
Pakistan, either. In the Ojhri camp disaster of April 1988 just outside the=
=20
twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, over 100 people were killed and a=
=20
thousand injured. Unofficial tallies put the number of casualties even=20
higher. It was claimed later that the Ojhri accident happened because=20
=93orders and instructions were grossly violated.=94

The =93core=94 of the present Indian and Pakistani scientists=92 joint-stud=
y=20
relates to accidents. After all, at least 230 accidents involving nuclear=20
weapons are believed to have occurred between 1950 and 1980 in the United=20
States, the erstwhile Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. The present=20
study examines the consequences of an accident to a civilian population=20
resulting in the detonation of the conventional high-explosive in a nuclear=
=20
weapon, which is used to compress the core of nuclear material (without,=20
however, triggering a nuclear explosion). In such accidents, all the=20
plutonium would be oxidised into plutonium oxide and converted into fine=20
particles, which could be breathed in. The explosion would send these=20
plutonium oxide aerosols high into the atmosphere, where they would mix and=
=20
be carried further by prevailing winds.

According to the Current Science article, such accidents have indeed=20
happened, for instance, at Palomares in Spain in 1966 and at Thule in=20
Greenland in 1968. In both cases, aircraft carrying nuclear weapons had=20
crashed, detonating the high-explosive in the weapons. The article models=20
the spread of plutonium in the event of such an accident, the winds=20
carrying it, the possible extent of inhalation by people and the resulting=
=20
fatalities through cancer. The authors conclude that if such an accident=20
were to happen at some air force base or cantonment in the vicinity of a=20
major city such as Delhi, Karachi or Lahore, thousands of people could die=
=20
of cancer from inhaling plutonium. The authors contend that these thousands=
=20
of deaths would occur over a few decades and that these deaths would form=20
only a small fraction of all cancer fatalities during that period due to=20
other causes.

Apart from the deaths, such an accident would cause panic and flight,=20
creating an unprecedented disaster in its own right. Moreover, it is not=20
quite feasible to decontaminate or evacuate a major South Asian city, which=
=20
could easily cost billions of rupees. Worse, if such an explosion were to=20
happen at a time of crisis, it might be assumed to be a nuclear attack by=20
the enemy and lead to a nuclear response.

The authors recommend that India and Pakistan should not deploy nuclear=20
weapons. They also suggest that nuclear weapons should be stored far away=20
from missiles and aircraft carrying potentially explosive fuel. It would=20
also be prudent to keep the nuclear weapons disassembled so that the=20
high-explosives are not close to fissile material. The authors contend that=
=20
all these steps would not only reduce the danger of accidental explosions,=
=20
but also reduce the risk of a nuclear weapon being launched through error,=
=20
panic or miscalculation. Let us hope the upcoming Summit deals with this=20
=93core=94 issue also.

_______

#3.

rediff.com US edition:

HINDU STUDENTS GET COMMUNAL ON THE NET

June 22, 2001 US city pages
The Rediff US Special/ Arun Venugopal

An Internet message board hosted by a chapter of the Hindu Students Council=
=20
at the University of California at Irvine has for some time been a popular=
=20
discussion venue for issues relating to Hinduism. But with a preponderance=
=20
of racist and profanity-laced messages, many of which are in violation of=20
university policy, it remains to be seen what action university=20
administrators will take against the organization. 'I am a Hindu,' reads=20
one posting, a response to an online essay about Hindu-Muslim unity. 'I=20
hate Muslims. I'm a youngster & brought up in US. I don't know how the hell=
=20
anyone can think of uniting with those animals (Muslims aren't worthy of=20
being called people).' 'Instead of uniting,' continues the message,=20
submitted by 'Raj', 'we should have pure Hindu execution squads killing any=
=20
fanatic Muslims (just as they do to us behind everyone's backs). If you ask=
=20
Hindus anywhere, they feel oppressed by Muslims who are much more=20
aggressive.' "That's making a threat," says Diane Kim, director of judicial=
=20
affairs at the University of California at Irvine, "which is grounds for=20
discipline. We would probably at least want to talk to club officials and=20
get a sense of what they are doing about the situation." The university has=
=20
posted its rules regarding network usage, including the following: 'Using=20
computers or electronic mail to act abusively toward others or to provoke a=
=20
violent reaction, such as stalking, acts of bigotry, threats of violence,=20
or other hostile or "intimidating fighting words". Such words include those=
=20
terms widely recognized to victimize or stigmatize individuals on the basis=
=20
of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc.'=20
Another posting, a reprint of an essay on South-Asian Americans, seems more=
=20
innocuous, until you see the ID of the submitter: 'I Choke Muslim Scum.'=20
Finally: 'you claim that you don't care about who you associate with?? ha.=
=20
you're full of shit. sellout. Personally, I am proud to say that I don't=20
hang out with Muslim scum.' There are others, of course. The message board=
=20
is replete with anonymously posted messages. While some messages are=20
religiously motivated, others are of a more personal nature, often=20
involving caustic exchanges between various respondents. Sunita Patel, a=20
fourth-year student and outgoing president of the UCI chapter, notes that=20
the messages have become increasingly aggressive of late. "From the very=20
first year of implementation -- we are entering our fourth year as a=20
student organisation at UC Irvine -- you can see a trend from discussion to=
=20
degeneration of topics," she says. The Hindu Students Council was formed in=
=20
1990 by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America. It has since=20
become the largest Hindu student and youth group, with over 50 college and=
=20
school chapters across the US and Canada. In addition to sponsoring=20
discussions and retreats related to Hindu culture, the organisation is=20
actively involved with a number of charitable causes. Several=20
national-level members of the Hindu Students Council did not respond to=20
emails or phone messages regarding the message board. Rishi Bhutada, a=20
student at the University of Pennsylvania, feels the message board is=20
susceptible to hostile postings. "In cyberspace, since people are replying=
=20
to faceless entities, there is sometimes a loss of civility in the reply,=20
as evidenced by the postings all across the board," says Bhutada, who=20
recently participated in an HSC summer camp. "I actually think the=20
statements are more indicative of a problem occurring [among] Hindu youth=20
today as to if and how they should associate with Muslim youth," he adds.=20
"That's where the major arguments on the board seem to lie." But the=20
organisation does not seem to have made inter-faith dialogue a priority.=20
"The HSC as a whole has not embarked on a goal of achieving Hindu-Muslim=20
unity," says Bhutada, "but nor has the HSC tried to discourage it. I know=20
individual chapters have undertaken interfaith activities with Muslims,=20
with varying degrees of success or failure." Sohail Shakeri, president of=20
the Muslim Students Union at UCI, expresses remorse over the postings, but=
=20
says his organisation will not take up the matter. "It is only acts of hate=
=20
and arrogance that we should, as committed Muslims, oppose," he argues.=20
Imam Sa'dullah Khan of the Islamic Centre of Southern California notes that=
=20
the problem is not restricted to Hindu Web sites. "It's nothing new," he=20
says. "I am sure there are many Muslims doing the same things against Jews=
=20
and Buddhists and others. Fortunately, people have the right to say what=20
they want, but I am surprised how misinformed people are about the rest of=
=20
the world." Khan points out that there is no end of activist causes in the=
=20
Islamic community, a trend he finds counter-productive. "Everything that=20
seems to be anti-Islamic becomes cause for action," he remarks. "We should=
=20
be more finicky about it." Sunita Patel points out that forum guidelines=20
have been posted on the message board, but "the freedom accompanying a=20
nameless forum often has people putting those guidelines aside during=20
heated [debates]. For the next year, it has been proposed that there will=20
be forum moderation taking place. I am not sure how this will go, but=20
hopefully, it will keep my original goal of educating through presentation=
=20
of ideas."

______

#4.

Subject: killing of a dalit family in fatehpur, uttar pradesh
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:48:15 +0530

MASSACRE OF FIVE DALIT WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN FATEHPUR

Five members of a dalit family in Hasnapur village, Dsst. Fatehpur, were=20
brutally killed in broad daylight on 17th June. Tejania aged about 50=20
years, her daughter-in-law, Jagpatiya, Jagpatiya' s two children, Pooja (8=
=20
years old) and Ashish (one and a half years) and her daughter Kamla's=20
daughter, Lalita (10 yrs) were battered to death with a lathi by Devideen=20
Singh. On the 18th, Seema Katiyar, State Committee member of the AIDWA, UP,=
=20
Comrades Bajpai, Narottam Singh and Misra, Dsst. Sectt. members of the=20
CPI(M) Fatehpur and Jagrup Bhargava, Secy. Fatehpur Dsst. AIAWU and=20
Subhashini Ali visited the village. Tejania's husband, Kallu and son, Babu=
=20
(Jagpatiya's husband) had gone to the city but Jagpatiya's father, brother=
=20
and other relatives were there at Tejania's home. They were in a state of=20
shock and had only heard reports of what happened. Other people in the=20
village at first pretended to know nothing. They all claimed to have been=20
at work when the incident occurred. It was only after persistent=20
questioning that the ghastly events of the previous day unfolded. Later on,=
=20
the members of the fact-finding team went to Kamla's house in Fatehpur and=
=20
talked to her and, when they went to meet the District Magistrate and SP,=20
they men Babu and Kallu. It was only after talking to all these people in=20
great detail that the following report has been prepared.

Kamla's husband is in the BSF and posted in J&K so she and her children=20
spent much of their time with Tejania and Kallu in the village. Her=20
daughter, Lalita and Devideen's nephew studied together in the village=20
school and, in the third week of March, they quarrelled. Later in the day,=
=20
Devideen's wife came to Tejania's hut and slapped Lalita and her sister,=20
Mamta and abused them. When Tejania found out, she complained to Devideen=20
who dragged her out of her hut by her hair and, beating her with a lathi,=20
dragged her more than 100 yards, abusing her all the while. Tejania and=20
Kallu went to the thana at Husainganj but the SO refused to register a=20
case. On the 23rd of March, they met the SP at Fatehpur and, on his=20
intervention, a case under the SC/ST Act was registered and sent to the CO=
=20
for further enquries. No arrests were made. Meanwhile, Devideen used his=20
close associates in the Congress Party and BJP to plead his case. A thakur=
=20
family in the village that the team spoke to said that Devideen was a=20
gambler and a hoodlum who used to roam around with armed thugs. Since he=20
was useful to local politicians, both the Congress and BJP leaders used=20
their influence to prevent his arrest. This state of affairs, however,=20
could not go on forever and the local police told Devideen that he would=20
have to surrender in the court with the other accused otherwise he would be=
=20
arrested. The 18th of June was the last date for his surrender. As the 18th=
=20
approached, Devideen made frantic efforts to pressurize Tejania to withdraw=
=20
her case. He approached her lawyer and also collected many of the villagers=
=20
but she refused. Finally, he offered to pay her 20,000 rupees but she was=20
adamant. On the 16th he renewed his offer and when she turned him down, he=
=20
threatened her with dire consequences.

On the 17th morning, Tejania went to an 'urad' dal field belonging to=20
farmers of the barber community about one kilometer away from the where she=
=20
was working on daily wages. Some time later at about 9.00 a.m., her=20
grandchildren, Lalita and Munna, came with her food and stayed with her in=
=20
the field. Soon after this, Devideen came to her hut in the village. Her=20
son, Ramesh, who works in Delhi was there with his wife and baby and=20
Devideen asked him to go and call his mother from the field. He did as he=20
was told but Tejania sent him back saying that she would not come. After=20
Ramesh gave him this message, Devideen left. He came back after less than=20
an hour in an inebriated condition and told Ramesh to leave for Delhi=20
immediately with his family. Ramesh panicked and, with his wife and child,=
=20
left the hut and went to the field. Here he found the battered bodies of=20
his dead mother and niece. Devideen had beaten them to death. The little=20
boy, Munna, escaped their fate only because he ran away and was hidden by=20
the people who owned the land. In a state of complete terror, Ramesh and=20
his family ran to the nearest tempo stand and fled to Fatehpur to Kamla's=20
house. Meanwhile, after Ramesh and his family left the village, Devideen=20
attacked Jagpatiya who was bathing her children at the hand-pump in front=20
of their hut. Not satisfied with beating her to death, he picked up the two=
=20
little children, Pooja and Ashish, and killed them by smashing their heads=
=20
to pulp on the brick lane next to the hand-pump.

After this, he snatched a motor-cycle from one of the villagers and raced=20
away.

In a few hours, the police had registered the case and the traumatised=20
family members were taken with the bodies to the mortuary in Fatehpur.=20
After the post-mortem, the bodies were hurriedly disposed of.

The members of the team spent a long time with Tejania's family. It became=
=20
apparent that she was a very self-respecting and strong woman. People in=20
the village said that she never took insults lying down. They also said=20
that this was very rare because everyone else went in fear of the thakus=20
who owned all the land in the village. Tejania's family is the only Chamar=
=20
family in the village but even this fact did not cow her down. The other=20
dalits in the village are Koris. All of them are landless. A few of them=20
have been given pattas to less than one bigha of land each. One of the=20
Koris who showed the team Devideen's house pointed out that his family had=
=20
encroached on the patch of land that had been earmarked for house-sites for=
=20
dalits. The team members were told that the poor, landless families were=20
completely dependent on the thakurs for their livelihood and performing=20
begar, forced labour, being abused, having their homes burned down and=20
watching their womenfolk be humiliated were not uncommon occurrences for=20
them. It was only Tejania who had dared to file a complaint under the SC/ST=
=20
Act in the history of the village.

Fatehpur, like many other districts of Uttar Pradesh, is dominated by=20
feudal landed interests. In the last few years, shocking incidents of=20
brutal killings and rapes of dalits have often come to light. Most cases,=20
however, are never reported and, if those who are influential have their=20
way, even fewer will be. Even as leaders of all major political parties are=
=20
converging on the little village of Hasnapur, Tejania's husband, sons,=20
daughter and grand-children are conscious of little sympathy and much=20
terror. Whether it is newspaper reports or gossip in the courts or the=20
attitude of the administration, a common thread is "She brought it upon=20
herself". Tejania crossed the 'laxman rekha' of correct behaviour expected=
=20
of a poor, landless dalit woman with regard to an uppercaste landlord. She=
=20
should have submitted to humiliated and physical abuse, she should never=20
have dared to file a criminal case. In any case, once the accused=20
approached her for a settlement, she should have surrendered. After all,=20
the self-respect of a poor, dalit woman can always be purchased or assuaged=
=20
with some money. It was her stubborn and insulting behaviour that was=20
responsible for her sad end. What else could Devideen have done when his=20
honour was at stake? For him to have gone to jail and, more than that, for=
=20
his wife to have gone to jail, for only doing what their kind had alway=20
done, was too much for him to swallow and, therefore, in a fit of rage, he=
=20
did what any self-respecting, upper-caste, land-owning male would have done=
.

Already, a man who brutally beat two defenceless women and three children,=
=20
two of whom were infants, to death is being transformed into a hero. After=
=20
his arrest on the 19th, the SP and DM produced Devideen before the press=20
and allowed him his moment of glory in which he said that he had only done=
=20
what he had to to protect his honour.

To protest not only against this ghastly incident but against the=20
callousness of the district administration, the total protection being=20
given by the State Govt. to perpetrators of atrocities and against a=20
mindset that finds excuses for the inexcusable and unforgiveable, a joint=20
demonstration by the CPI(M), AIDWA and the AIAWA has been planned for the=20
27th June. While major political parties are using this tragedy in their=20
own ways for caste-based votes in the coming elections, it has become all=20
the more essential to focus democratic attention and anger on the basic=20
issue of caste and class injustice.

Subhashini Ali

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

#5.

The Hindustan Times
24 June 2001

CENSORED BY HOODLUMS
Poornima Joshi
New Delhi

<Image>JUST BEFORE he started narrating the =93politically correct=94 fairy=
=20
tales of Three Little contemporary Pigs, the modern Red Riding Hood, the=20
feminist Snow White and a host of other legends from traditional bedtime=20
stories, author James Finn Garner wrote a long clarification. He stressed=20
that his book was free of racial, gender, political, linguistic, cultural=20
and hundreds of other biases that any writer could possibly be accused of.

In Garner=92s case, the clarification was deliberate. It was written for th=
e=20
specific purpose of adding to the satirization of classic fairy tales that=
=20
soon became legend in satirical writing. Compare this to the humiliating=20
clarifications a group of vandals forced film-maker Deepa Mehta to issue=20
about her film Fire in the winter of 1999. Or the helpless query of Anil=20
Sharma, the Director of Gadar: Ek Prem Katha after petrol bombs were thrown=
=20
inside a cinema hall in Bhopal recently.

=93I don=92t even know what they are protesting against. I am willing to ma=
ke=20
changes provided I know what precisely has offended them,=94 he said in an=
=20
interview to a TV channel.

Though their mode of protest could only be categorised as comical, these=20
violent protestors hardly meant to be funny when they burnt posters and=20
attacked cinema theatres screening Ms Mehta=92s film or terrorised cine-goe=
rs=20
in Bhopal this week.

The scariest part is that this phenomenon is not just routinely repeated,=20
it has become an anticipated and largely acceptable pattern of protest=20
against any creative product =97 be it Salman Rushdie=92s Satanic Verses, M=
F=20
Hussain=92s paintings of Hindu goddesses or Dilip Kumar=92s acceptance of a=
n=20
award in Pakistan.

So do we assume that the rational, liberal, thinking majority in India=20
remains silent because it is either indifferent, or tacitly supportive of=20
such trends? =93No,=94 says the irrepressible Mahesh Bhatt, =93These hoolig=
ans=20
who attack a popular medium like cinema to publicise and articulate their=20
political beliefs have to be stopped and condemned by all.=94

Though Bhatt agrees that such attacks have intensified in the recent past,=
=20
he firmly believes that it is not the voice of the majority in India.

=93I don=92t care which colour flag they are waving; green or saffron. They=
=20
need to be stopped. I am sure there is no God, no Almighty that needs these=
=20
delinquents to save them from defilement. Anyone with a little bit of sense=
=20
understands this. Any creative product is open to criticism. But such=20
behaviour cannot and should not be allowed to be acceptable in civilised=20
society.=94

The reality, however, is that despite creative individuals like Bhatt=20
frequently articulating such views, the critical space has largely been=20
appropriated by a lunatic fringe in India that has different political=20
affiliations depending on what a creative product is perceived to be=20
projecting.

If it was the self-proclaimed protectors of the dignity of Hindu widows who=
=20
traumatised Mehta and her two stylishly shorn actresses in Varanasi where=20
they went to shoot the third part of their much-touted cinematic triology,=
=20
Water, in Bhopal, it was Youth Congress activists who went on rampage about=
=20
Gadar.

=93Isn=92t it true that very little has been written or said about whether =
or=20
not Fire was a good film. What precisely was wrong with it; the screenplay,=
=20
the script or the acting? The only thing anyone remembers about the film is=
=20
the controversy surrounding its screening,=94 says a film-maker.

According to renowned lyricist and script-writer Javed Akhtar, the only=20
reason for vandals totally capturing critical space in India is that they=20
have =93political patronage=94.

=93Manohar Joshi actually congratulated those who attacked cinema theatres =
in=20
Mumbai where Fire was being screened. And don=92t forget, the script of Wat=
er=20
had been =91approved=92 by the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry.=
The=20
film-maker had agreed to make the necessary cuts. Despite that the cultural=
=20
police in Uttar Pradesh ensured that the film unit was packed off even=20
before the shooting could start,=94 says Akhtar.

According to him, it would have been impossible for any miscreant to burn=20
paintings or scare off Mehta=92s unit if the local administration in Varana=
si=20
and the UP Government had not been openly supportive of the protestors.

=93I don=92t think the thinking majority in India supports such juvenile=20
patterns of protest. But with political forces aligning themselves with=20
such people, it becomes difficult to counter them. After all, creative=20
people can never be as organised as political parties,=94 he adds.

Actor Ashish Vidyarthi believes that the Bhopal episode is a reflection of=
=20
the =93political reality=94 in India.

=93These incidents cannot be viewed in isolation. The fact is that the beli=
ef=20
that unless you take to arms or turn violent, nobody pays any heed to your=
=20
protest has gained firm ground in India. Look at what has happened in=20
Manipur or in Delhi during the anti-CNG movement. The rational, peaceful=20
mode of protest has become passe,=94 Vidyarthi says.

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

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.

[ All interested and concerned by the dangers of Nuclearisation of South
Asia are invited to join South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List. =3D> send=
a
blank e-mail message to : <saan-subscribe@l...> ]