[sacw] SACW (12 Dec. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 12 December 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. Tariq Ali Interview (David Barsamian)
#2. Pakistan-Afghan Forum for basic human freedom, rights
#3. Pakistan: Govt may induct 'moderate' Ulema in provincial set-ups
#4. India: From Ayodhya to Dandi (Harish Khare )
#5. India: Stop building mandirs, build the nation instead! (Ratna Rajaiah)
#6. India: Women hold 'court,' pronounce state 'guilty' (Kalpana Sharma)

________________________

#1.

The Progressive | January 2002 Issue

Tariq Ali Interview
By David Barsamian

Tariq Ali was born in 1943 in Lahore, in what was then British-controlled
India. He was educated in Pakistan and then at Oxford. His opposition to th=
e
military dictatorship in Pakistan during the 1960s led to permanent exile i=
n
Britain. He was active in the anti-war movement in Europe during the late
1960s.

Ali is a longstanding editor of New Left Review and has written more than a
dozen books on history and politics. His forthcoming book is The Clash of
Fundamentalism: Crusades, Jihad, and Modernity (Verso, 2002). He also has
been working on two sets of novels. Three novels of the "Islamic Quintet"
have been published by Verso: Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree, The Book of
Saladin, and The Stone Woman. They portray Islamic civilization in a way
that he says "run counter to the standard views." His "Fall of Communism"
triology has seen the publication of Redemption and Fear of Mirrors. Ali's
creative output extends to scripts for stage and screen. A short play of hi=
s
on Iraq was recently performed at Cooper Union in New York. A veritable "al=
l
'rounder," as they say in South Asia, he is currently working on an opera o=
n
Ayatollah Khomeini.

In late October, he was detained at the Munich airport. "The inspector's
eyes fell on a slim volume in German that had been given to me by a local
publisher," he said. "It was still wrapped in cellophane. In a state of som=
e
excitement, the inspector rushed it over to an armed policeman. The
offending book was an essay by Karl Marx, On Suicide." Ali said he was
rudely instructed to repack his bag, minus the book, and was then taken to
police headquarters at the airport. The arresting officer, Ali added, "gave
me a triumphant smile and said, 'After September 11, you can't travel with
books like this.' At this point, my patience evaporated."

Ali demanded to call the mayor of Munich, who had earlier interviewed him o=
n
the current crisis at a public event in the city. The threat of the call wa=
s
sufficient, and Ali was allowed to continue on his journey.

Ali lives in London, and I spoke with him in late November by phone.

Q: A Pakistani general once told you, "Pakistan was the condom that the
Americans needed to enter Afghan-istan. We've served our purpose and they
think we can be just flushed down the toilet." That was in the 1980s, when
the United States and Pakistan funded and armed the mujahedeen to defeat th=
e
godless Soviet Union. Is the United States again using Pakistan as a condom=
?

Tariq Ali: I think the Americans fished out the same condom but found it ha=
d
too many holes in it. So they supplied a new one, and they've gone in again=
.
But this time they couldn't go in with the Pakistani army, since the
Pakistani army created the Taliban and propelled it to victory. It could
hardly be expected to kill its own offspring. The U.S. forced the Pakistani
army to withdraw its support, which it did, reluctantly. But it had to. Onc=
e
Pakistani support was withdrawn from the Taliban, they collapsed like a
house of cards, though one hardline faction will probably carry on in the
mountains for a bit.

Q: Most Americans may not know the history of Pakistani-U.S. support for th=
e
Taliban. In a talk you gave in late September, you said, "People are taught
to forget history." What did you have in mind there?

Ali: In the West, since the collapse of communism and the fall of the Sovie=
t
Union, the one discipline both the official and unofficial cultures have
united in casting aside has been history. It's somehow as if history has
become too subversive. The past has too much knowledge embedded in it, and
therefore it's best to forget it and start anew. But as everyone is
discovering, you can't do this to history; it refuses to go away. If you tr=
y
to suppress it, it reemerges in horrific fashion. That's essentially what's
been going on.

It's a total failure of the Western imagination that the only enemy they ca=
n
see is Adolph Hitler. This is something that actually started during the
Suez War of 1956, what I call the first oil war. Gamal Abdal Nasser, the
nationalist leader of Egypt, was described by British Prime Minister Anthon=
y
Eden as an Egyptian Hitler. Then it carried on like that. Saddam Hussein
became Hitler when he was no longer a friend of the West. Then Milosevic
became Hitler. Now Al Qaeda and the Taliban are portrayed as fascists. The
implication strongly is that Osama bin Laden is a Hitler, even though he ha=
s
no state power at all. It's just grotesque if you seriously think about it.
In reality, the only player in this game who was soft on the Nazis was King
Zahir Shah, who then sat on the Afghan throne. He hoped they would defeat
the British in India, and he, having collaborated, might share part of the
spoils!

But the reason they can get away with it is that history has been totally
downplayed. We have populations now in the West with a very short memory
span. One reason for this short memory span is that television over the las=
t
fifteen years has seen a big decline in the coverage of the rest of the
world. History, when they do it, is ancient history, and they sensationaliz=
e
even that. Contemporary history is virtually ignored on television. If you
see what passes as the news on the networks in the United States, there's
virtually no coverage of the rest of the world, not even of neighboring
countries like Mexico or neighboring continents like Latin America. It's
essentially a very provincial culture, and that breeds ignorance. This
ignorance is very useful in times of war because you can whip up a rapid
rage in ill-informed populations and go to war against almost any country.
That is a very frightening process.

Q: Contrast the last wars of the twentieth century with the first war of th=
e
twenty-first century.

Ali: One difference is that the previous wars were genuinely fought by
coalition. The United States was the dominant power in these coalitions, bu=
t
it had to get other people on its side. In both the Gulf War and in Kosovo,
the U.S. had to get the agreement of other people in these alliances before
it moved forward. The war in Afghanistan, the first war of the twenty-first
century, shows the United States doing what it wants to do, not caring abou=
t
who it antagonizes, not caring about the effects on neighboring regions. I
don't think it's too bothered with what happens afterwards, otherwise it
would be more worried about the Northern Alliance. The U.S. is telling the
Northern Alliance to kill Taliban prisoners. It's totally a breach of all
the known conventions of war. Western television networks aren't showing
this, but Arab networks are showing how prisoners are being killed and
what's being done to them. Instead, we're shown scenes that are deliberatel=
y
created for the West!
ern media: a few women without the veil, a woman reading the news on Kabul
television, and 150 people cheering.

All these wars are similar in the way ideology is being used. It's the
ideology of so-called humanitarian intervention. We don't want to do this,
but we're doing this for the sake of the people who live there. This is, of
course, a terrible sleight of hand because all sorts of people live there,
and, by and large, they do it to help one faction and not the other. In the
case of Afghanistan, they didn't even make that pretense. It was essentiall=
y
a crude war of revenge designed largely to appease the U.S. public. In
Canada in mid-November, I was debating Charles Krauthammer, and I said it
was a war of revenge and he said, "Yeah, it was, so what?" The more hardlin=
e
people, who are also more realistic, just accept this.

And the United States has perfected the manipulation. The media plays a ver=
y
big, big role.

Q: In what way?

Ali: During the Gulf War, journalists used to challenge government news
managers and insisted they wouldn't just accept the official version of
events. It seems that with the war in the Balkans and now this, journalists
have accepted the official version. Journalists go to press briefings at th=
e
Ministry of Defense in London or the Pentagon in Washington, and no critica=
l
questions are posed at all. It's just a news-gathering operation, and the
fact that the news is being given by governments who are waging war doesn't
seem to worry many journalists too much.

The task does really devolve to alternative networks of information and
education. The Internet has been an invaluable acquisition. I wonder how we
would do without it. Information can be sent from one country to the other
within the space of minutes, crossing channels, crossing oceans, crossing
continents. But still, we can't compete with the might and power and wealth
of those who dominate, control, and own the means of the production of
information today. These are the five or six large companies that control
and own the media, publishing houses, and the cinema.

Q: Tony Blair has occupied center stage in the war on terrorism. In many
ways he is even more visible than Bush. What accounts for Blair's enthusias=
m
for the war?

Ali: Blair does it to get attention. He does it to posture and prance aroun=
d
on the world stage, pretending that he is the leader of a big imperial powe=
r
when, in fact, he's the leader of a medium-sized country in Northern Europe=
.

I think Clinton certainly liked using him. But the Bush Administration
doesn't take him that seriously.

Q: Noam Chomsky points out that Britain did not bomb Boston and New York,
where major IRA supporters and financial networks are located.

Ali: I think Noam's right. But to just even raise the point goes to show
that Britain isn't an imperial power and the United States is. The United
States is now The Empire. There isn't an empire; there's The Empire, and
that empire is the United States. It's very interesting that this war is no=
t
being fought by the NATO high command. NATO has been totally marginalized.
The "coalition against terrorism" means the United States. It does not wish
anyone else to interfere with its strategy. When the Germans offered 2,000
soldiers, Rumsfeld said we never asked for them. Quite amazing to say this
in public.

Q: In a recent article, you cited a poem by the tenth-century secular Arab
poet al-Maarri:

And where the Prince commanded, now the shriek,
Of wind is flying through the court of state;
"Here," it proclaims, "there dwelt a potentate,
Who would not hear the sobbing of the weak."

Talk about "the sobbing of the weak."

Ali: The sobbing of the weak today is the sobbing of the victims of
neoliberal policies. They consist of billions of people all over the world.
These are the people who leave their countries. These are the people who
cling onto the belly of a plane leaving Africa for Europe, not caring if
they are killed in the process, and many of them are. This desperation is
the result of globalization. The question is, will the weak be able to
organize themselves to bring about changes or not? Will the weak develop an
internal strength and a political strength to ever challenge the rulers tha=
t
be? These are the questions posed by the world in which we live. People are
increasingly beginning to feel that democracy itself is being destroyed by
this latest phase of globalization and that politics doesn't matter because
it changes nothing. This is a very dangerous situation on the global level,
because when this happens, then you also see acts of terrorism. Terrorism
emanates from weakness, no!
t strength. It is the sign of despair.
Dear old al-Maarri was a great skeptic poet. He wrote a parody of the Koran=
,
and his friends would tease him and say, "al-Maarri, but no one says your
Koran." And he said, "Yes, but give me time. Give me time. If people recite
it for twenty years it will become as popular as the other one." It was a
good moment in Islam when people were actually challenging authority at
every level. Very different from the world we live in now, incidentally.

Q: And in this world, the United States is projecting a long war on
terrorism. They're talking about it lasting for ten or fifteen years, and
involving up to sixty countries. The Bush Administration reminds us almost
on a daily basis that the war on terrorism is still in its earliest stages.
What are the implications of that?

Ali: The main implication is a remapping of the world in line with American
policy and American interests. Natural resources are limited, and the Unite=
d
States wants to make sure that its own population is kept supplied. The
principle effect of this will be for the United States to control large
parts of the oil which the world possesses. There are some people who say
this war was fought because of oil. I honestly don't believe it. But that
doesn't mean once they have sorted out the first phase of it, the war won't
be used to assert or reassert U.S. economic hegemony in the region.
They want to do it in the Middle East, as well. A big problem in the Middle
East is that the Iraqi state and Syrian state are potential threats to
Israel just by the very fact they exist. Iraq also sits on a great deal of
oil, and as that cutthroat Kissinger once said, "Why should we let the Arab=
s
have the oil?"

Since Israel is the central ally of the United States in the region, the
U.S. would like to weaken the potential opposition. Attacking Iraq, and
possibly even Syria, is one way to do that. This is a policy fraught with
danger for those who carry it out because it totally excludes the reaction
of ordinary people. Could there be mass explosions? And if there are, then
you will see countries like Saudi Arabia going under. No one would weep if
the royal family were overthrown, but they would probably if it were
replaced by a U.S. protectorate or a U.S. colonial-type administration, or
the U.S. disguised as the U.N. Other corrupt sheikdoms, like the United Ara=
b
Emirates, would crumble, as well. Then what will the U.S. do? Have the
Israelis acting as guardians of oil in the whole region? That will mean a
permanent guerrilla warfare. Or will they have American and European troops
guarding these regions? That, too, would mean limited guerrilla warfare. Th=
e
only way they'll be able to !
rule is by killing large numbers of people who live there.

Q: What about Iraq?

Ali: If they attack Iraq in the next phase, it could create big problems fo=
r
them. I'm sure that in Europe the anti-war movement would just mushroom. Th=
e
Arab world could really explode. That is what their close allies in Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are telling them: Do not attack Iraq. The coalition will
break up, and even Turkey is saying that it will not be party to an attack
on Iraq. Probably the plan is to create an independent state in a corner of
Iraq, and then use that as a base to destroy Saddam Hussein. If they go dow=
n
that route, the world then becomes a very unpredictable and very dangerous
place. The one thing that it will not do is curb terrorism. It will increas=
e
terrorism, because the more governments you destroy, the more the people
will seek revenge.

After flirting with neoisolationism, the U.S. is now deciding it wants to
run the world. The U.S. should come out openly and say to the world, "We ar=
e
the only imperial power, and we're going to rule you, and if you don't like
it you can lump it." American imperialism has always been the imperialism
that has been frightened of speaking its name. Now it's beginning to do so.
In a way, it's better. We know where we kneel.

-- David Barsamian is the director of Alternative Radio in Boulder,
Colorado. He interviewed Edward W. Said in the November issue.

______

#2.

DAWN | 11 December 2001 Tuesday
Pakistan-Afghan Forum for basic human freedom, rights
By A Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Dec 10: The following declaration was adopted at a joint=20
meeting of around 300 representatives of Afghanistan and Pakistan=20
civil societies organized by Human Rights Commission of Pakistan here=20
on Monday.
Reaffirming its faith in the inviolable dignity of all human beings=20
and their equal entitlement to all basic human freedoms and rights,=20
the meeting appreciated the urgency of learning appropriate lessons=20
from the recent events which had caused heavy losses in life and=20
property to the Afghan people and total devastation of their land and=20
subjected their civil society to extraordinary strains.
''Taking cognizance of the assurances by the international coalition=20
to let the people of Afghanistan rebuild their political and=20
socio-economic structures without hindrance, interference or=20
dictation from outside.
''Realizing that one of the major causes of the over two decades long=20
ordeal suffered by the people of Afghanistan was not only the=20
exclusion of their civil society from public affairs but also=20
deliberate attempts to suppress it, and that the civil society in=20
Pakistan too has greatly suffered as a result of similar=20
marginalization; and ''conscious of the need for strengthening the=20
global human rights movement, especially to arrest the trend towards=20
using measures against terrorism to underline the rule of law and=20
erode guarantees of civil liberties.''
It declares: "That the people of Afghanistan have an unqualified=20
right to reconstruct their state and social organizations on the=20
universally acknowledged principles of democracy, pluralism, justice,=20
equity and gender equality; in this struggle the civil society=20
elements in Afghanistan must be allowed their due role; the Afghan=20
people deserve the widest possible support from all people of=20
goodwill in addressing the challenges confronting them."
It further declared that "the people of Pakistan have a duty to=20
render their neighbours in Afghanistan whatever assistance is=20
possible; and the civil society institutions and organizations in=20
both Afghanistan and Pakistan have to fight for establishing=20
genuinely democratic order and against militarism, terrorism,=20
communalism, social injustice, oppression of women and vulnerable=20
minority groups."
The meeting welcomed the UN resolution 137 and initiatives such as=20
the Bonn Accord and hoped that these processes would be pursued to=20
their logical end, prevent fresh outbreaks among armed forces and=20
lead to the establishment of a regime capable of guaranteeing rule of=20
law, protection against discrimination, respect for basic rights=20
education health, food and shelter, due space to women and the=20
marginalised sections of society.
It called upon the interim government of Afghanistan to guarantee all=20
its people security of life and equal share in relief and=20
rehabilitation regardless of belief, ethnicity, social status or=20
gender.
The meeting "believes it is necessary to continue requisite=20
humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees, especially women,=20
children and the sick and infirm among them, whether they are in=20
camps or out of them. Forced repatriation of refugees should be=20
avoided and they should be enabled to go home only after arrangements=20
for their peaceful rehabilitation have been made."
The meeting called on the UN Commission on Human Rights to set up an=20
experts' body to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and=20
violation of Geneva Conventions, committed by any party over the past=20
many years and take steps to bring all offenders to justice.
The meeting asked the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to=20
ratify the charter of International Criminal Court.
The defenders of human rights in Pakistan pledge themselves to=20
struggle for the publication of a white paper by the forthcoming=20
democratic government on the role of Pakistan's institutions in=20
fuelling militancy in the region and promoting abuse of religion.
The meeting resolved to form a Pak-Afghan Friendship Forum to strive=20
for the realization of the above-mentioned objectives, and entrusted=20
the task of working out the Forums organizational framework and its=20
programme to a four-member committee comprising, Prof Rasul Amin, Ms=20
Fakhria Assad, Afrasiab Khattak and Ms Jamila Jilani.
The meeting, presided over by HRCP Chairman Afrasiab Khattak, was=20
addressed among others by Ms Irene Khan, secretary-general of Amnesty=20
International, Prof Rasul Ameen the newly-appointed Minister in the=20
interim Afghan Government, Mahmud Khan Achakzai, Ms Wida, Ms Sara=20
Hanifee, Ms Fakhria Assad, Dr Abdul Ghais Mukammal, Babrak Shinwari,=20
Ms Hamida Nisar and Abdul Majeed Kanjoo.
______

#3.
The News International | Wednesday December 12, 2001

Govt may induct 'moderate' Ulema in provincial set-ups
By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: The government is considering induction of 'moderate'=20
Ulemain each provincial set-up as part of its multifaceted measures=20
to address the issues of religious extremism in the country.

Sources told The News that the government was considering the=20
induction of at least one religious scholar in each provincial set-up=20
as adviser to the provincial government. The authorities are=20
considering different names for these appointments but, according to=20
sources, these advisers will preferably be Ulema belonging to the=20
Barelvi school of thought.[...] .

more at : http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/

______

#4.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2001121200621000.htm
The Hindu | Wednesday, Dec 12, 2001

>From Ayodhya to Dandi
By Harish Khare

When Mr. Advani invokes the Dandi March symbolism for his rath yatra=20
he is seeking moral acceptability and historic endorsement for a=20
blatantly divisive political ploy.

AN EXTRAORDINARY claim was made a few days ago in the Lok Sabha. The=20
claim was that a parallel could be drawn between the ``Ayodhya=20
movement'' and Mahatma Gandhi's many movements during the freedom=20
struggle. The sacred word ``Dandi'' was invoked; and, it was=20
suggested that just as the Mahatma had used the symbolism of ``salt''=20
to underline the British oppression, the ``Ayodhya movement'' too was=20
meant to protest the unjustness of the arrangements in=20
post-Independence India.

And no prizes for guessing as to who made the blasphemous claim: our=20
very own Mr. Lal Kishen Advani, the man who sought to imitate=20
Gandhi's Dandi March in 1990. Replying to a debate the other day in=20
the Lok Sabha, a man who has come to occupy the office of the Union=20
Home Minister took further unholy liberties with the Mahatma's=20
movement. Mr. Advani equated the bloody events of December 6, 1992=20
with the Chauri Chaura violence in 1922, and argued that just as the=20
Chauri Chaura violence did not invalidate the Mahatma's freedom=20
struggle movement, the December 6, 1992 vandalism was not all that=20
there was - or, is - to the ``Ayodhya movement''.

These thoughts could be dismissed as of no consequence; after all,=20
like anyone else, Mr. Advani too is entitled to a bit of his own=20
loony history. That is why perhaps not many were bothered by Mr.=20
Advani's ludicrous attempt to elevate himself into the Mahatma's=20
company. It is also not inconsequential that at no point have Mr.=20
Advani and his party, the BJP, managed to get the endorsement for the=20
so-called ``movement'' from even the majority of the majority=20
community. The party had to make the most amoral adjustments with=20
groups and individuals - ranging from criminals to crooks - to cobble=20
together a majority in order to come to power at the Centre.

Yet, Mr. Advani had the gumption to claim that the ``Ayodhya=20
movement'' changed the ``ways of Indian politics, the Indian thinking=20
and the Indian mindset''; this, too, can be allowed to pass. If the=20
last three years' pitiable record of misgovernance, corruption and=20
crookedness is to be dignified with the ``changed ways of Indian=20
politics'', Mr. Advani is entitled to this bit of delusion as well.=20
To the extent the country has a fairly good measure of the competence=20
and calibre of our new rulers, Mr. Advani and the rest of the=20
Nagpur-inspired renaissance men can be dismissed as too incapable of=20
improving over the last three years' ignoble record.

Perhaps. But the great danger is that the limited minds are unwilling=20
or incapable of coming to terms with their own limitedness. During=20
the December 3 debate, Mr. Advani was insistent that he remained=20
impressed with the correctness of his ``Ayodhya movement'' and that=20
he was not prepared to disown either the ``movement'' or its raison=20
d'etre. ``I am not one of those who say that just because we are in=20
Government, we should stop talking of Ayodhya. Who says that I have=20
abandoned the Ramjanmabhoomi issue, just because I had to form a=20
Government?''

What is more galling in these formulations is the attempt to invest=20
the so-called ``Ayodhya movement'' with the moral respectability of=20
the Mahatma's crusade against the most entrenched colonial empire.=20
The Dandi March, whose symbolism Mr. Advani seeks for his own rath=20
yatra, was the most morally uplifting exercise in mass mobilisation;=20
the Mahatma had used the iniquitous Salt Tax to arouse the poorest=20
among the Indians, cutting across religious, ethnic and regional=20
divides. In the Mahatma's calculation, the ``them and us'' dichotomy=20
was clear, unambiguous and unconfused; on one side were the poor,=20
wretched masses of India and on the other were the British empire and=20
its local collaborators. And, as the Mahatma wrote to Lord Irwin,=20
Viceroy, the objectives were entirely noble: ``My ambition is no less=20
than to convert the British people through non-violence, and thus=20
make them see the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek to=20
harm your people. I want to serve them even as I want to serve my=20
own...''

In sharp contrast, there was nothing noble about the so-called=20
Ayodhya movement. It was intended to tap the visceral hatreds in=20
Hindu community. In particular, the movement provided a licence to=20
the lumpens in cities and semi-rural areas to indulge their violent=20
impulses. Whereas the Dandi March brought together an entire nation,=20
the ``Ayodhya movement'' deliberately pitted the Hindus against the=20
Muslims. Those who authored the Ayodhya movement had cynically=20
scripted violence on a large scale. Whereas the Dandi March was meant=20
to convince and convert an alien empire, the Advani rath yatra was=20
intended from day one as an exercise in intimidation and exclusion.=20
The comparison, even a very remote one, with the Dandi March is not=20
available to Mr. Advani for his rath yatra, which instigated only=20
violence, bitterness, divisiveness and exclusion.

Above all, the Ayodhya movement was and remains about ``votes'', an=20
exercise in a very ordinary and petty electoral duplicity; but, to=20
Mr. Advani's embarrassment the likes of Mr. Ashok Singhal and Acharya=20
Giriraj Kishore refuse to see the duplicity and persist with the=20
``movement'' and its unacceptable divisive agenda. If the Ashok=20
Singhals and other worthies of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad feel they=20
have been inveigled by the BJP's strategists into lending Lord Rama=20
for a handful of parliamentary seats, and if these ``revered saints''=20
are unwilling to let go of the Ramjanmabhoomi trophy, it is a mess to=20
be sorted out between them and Mr. Advani. Maybe both are cynically=20
posturing, with the Uttar Pradesh elections in mind. The electorate=20
has seen through this game, though that in itself is not going to=20
deter the Sangh Parivar from persisting with it.

Nonetheless, the impending electoral rebuffs are not going to deter=20
Mr. Advani and the rest of the Sangh Parivar from insisting that=20
their ``movement'' be accorded a kind of retrospective respectability=20
that it never deserved. After all, the Vajpayee Government has=20
convinced itself that history, as we have known so far, has to be=20
rewritten in conformity with ``facts'' as remembered or interpreted=20
by the narrow minds from the saffron stable. The very logic of=20
``correcting'' the so-called misperceptions or misunderstanding in=20
ancient history textbooks would, sooner or later, be extended to=20
accounts of the recent times. The country is being treated to nuggets=20
of this quasi-intellectual thuggery almost every day. A petty=20
politician facing a Commission of Inquiry blackmails his way back=20
into the Union Cabinet but the official chroniclers justify this=20
foray into immorality on the entirely dubious ground that ``he is the=20
best Defence Minister since Independence''. Another Minister, a=20
neighbour in South Bloc, claims his Ministry has had no foreign=20
policy perspective in the last 50 years. Who knows, in a few years=20
there may be enough ``historians'' to re-write recent history to=20
elevate Mr. George Fernandes into a Saint George and Mr. L. K. Advani=20
into a Mahatma Advani.

However, beyond the petty ruler's itch to square the history books,=20
Mr. Advani's historical delusions carry with them a serious danger=20
for the civil covenant enshrined in our Republic. The Ayodhya=20
movement may have been a political response to the Congress' equally=20
cynical use of the minorities' existential dilemmas, but it=20
nonetheless posited a dichotomy between the Hindus and the Muslims.=20
And, when Mr. Advani invokes the Dandi March symbolism for his rath=20
yatra he is seeking moral acceptability and historic endorsement for=20
a blatantly divisive political ploy. A Sangh Parivar pamphleteer can=20
be allowed this fraudulent claim but not the Home Minister of India.

______

#5.

Chalomumbai.com=20
Tuesday, December 11, 2001

Stop building mandirs, build the nation instead!
By: Ratna Rajaiah

December 10,2001
The central objective of planning in India is to raise the standard=20
of living of the people and to open opportunities for a richer and=20
more varied life.

- First Five Year Plan (1951-56).
Half a century (or so) later over a third of India still lives below=20
the poverty line. (In Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, those shining examples=20
of Ram Rajya and home to a third of Indians, the figure is over 50=20
per cent.) Almost half of India is illiterate, its women even more so.
India is a land of bounty where 30 per cent of its fruit and=20
vegetables (equal to the annual consumption of Britain) is allowed to=20
rot along with 60 million tonnes of grain while 50 million of its=20
people teeter "on the brink of starvation". (Of the remaining, some=20
pig out on mango kernels and many others, just get tired of teetering=20
and topple over and die.)
More than half of India's children below the age of 5 suffer from=20
malnutrition and 6 million die of it every year. 25 per cent of the=20
world's child labourers live in India along with 1 million child=20
prostitutes. 80 million children are out of schools and of the ones=20
who are in, less than two-thirds reach class V, many of them not even=20
being able to read or write a simple sentence.
Many of India's 400 million children live on its streets (30 million?=20
100 million? Who knows? Who cares?). Of which more than half are=20
alcoholics and/or drug addicts. In a country where over Rs 8,000=20
crore worth of electricity gets stolen every year, 60 per cent of the=20
population still spends every night at home in darkness.
Over 20 per cent of urban Indians live in slums. (In Mumbai, roughly=20
half of 15 million people live on just 6 per cent of its land, which=20
means that your average Mumbai family of 4.8 persons has roughly 160=20
sq ft of space to sleep, eat, make love, have babies, shit, study,=20
bathe, cook, quarrel, marry and die in.) Our cities are stinking,=20
choking wastelands, gagging and choking in their own sewage, where=20
less than 30 per cent of their citizens have access to any form of=20
sanitation and many get drinking water so contaminated, it's often=20
laced with their own excreta.
The land of Sita is one of the few countries in the world where there=20
are fewer women than men - 924 women to every 1,000 men. (In=20
Chandigarh this figure is 763, in Delhi 813 and in Haryana, 869; both=20
Haryana and Chandigarh are some of India's richest areas.) In the=20
land of Shakti, 5,400 female foetus are aborted every day, a woman=20
raped every 54 minutes and a bride burnt to death every 2 hours. A=20
woman dies every five minutes from a pregnancy-related cause. 60 per=20
cent of these deaths occur after delivery yet less than 17 per cent=20
of women in India receive any postpartum care. Nearly seven million=20
abortions take place in India annually. For each legal abortion,=20
there are at least 10 illegal induced abortions.
India loses 1.5 million hectares of forests per year. The resulting=20
deforestation causes losses of Rs 10,000 crore every year in the form=20
of damage by floods. One of the world's richest areas of=20
biodiversity, India accounts for nearly 10 per cent of the world's=20
plant species and 7.31 per cent of the world's fauna (89,451 animal=20
species). Yet, we rank second in terms of the country with the most=20
number of threatened mammals (80), and sixth in terms of the most=20
threatened birds (74).
Amongst 162 countries rated by the UNDP for human development, India=20
rates 115, just a notch above Mongolia. We do better on corruption.=20
Out of 99 countries, we rate 71 - or to put it a little differently,=20
we are the 18th most corrupt country in the world.
Last week, on the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, the Lok=20
Sabha was adjourned amidst total pandemonium. Not because our elected=20
representatives were horrified at the abysmal state of things in the=20
land of Ram. But because the RSS have declared that they will build=20
the temple at Ayodhya. At any cost. Even at the cost of the fall of=20
the current government. Ashok Singhal has said, "The temple not=20
coming up there (Ayodhya) is a great insult to the Hindus." A bigger=20
insult than the way this country is being run? When are we going to=20
stop building mandirs and build our nation instead?
"Na bhookon ki bheed hogi,
Na dukhon ka raaj hoga,
Badlega zamana,
Yeh sitaron pe likha hai
Nanhe munne bacchey teri muththi mein kya hai?"

_______

#6.

The Hindu
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2001

Women hold 'court,' pronounce state 'guilty'
By Kalpana Sharma

LUCKNOW, DEC. 11. Over two thousand women from all parts of Uttar=20
Pradesh gathered in the freezing weather in an open ground here on=20
December 10 - Human Rights Day. They came to participate in a `Jan=20
Adalat' (People's Court) on violence against women. Over a dozen of=20
them testified in public. They spoke of dowry abuse, torture, rape=20
and caste atrocities. And all of them emphasised the inaction of=20
police and the State.

The women who testified included the 68-year-old Kareshani Devi from=20
Nathmalpur village in Saharanpur district. She was raped by a=20
27-year-old man who stifled her and forced her at knife point.=20
Kamala, daughter of the 51-year-old Dalit, Tejania, narrated the=20
experience of her mother who belonged to Hasanpur village in Fatehpur=20
district. Tejania was beaten to death for complaining against a=20
Thakur who assaulted her children. Her 11-year-old grand-daughter,=20
working in the fields with her, was also killed. The Thakur then=20
proceeded to their home and beat to death Tejania's 32-year-old=20
daughter-in-law and her two young children.

These stories illustrate the National Crimes Records Bureau=20
statistics which placed Uttar Pradesh first in 1998 for crimes=20
against women, including rape, kidnapping, dowry deaths, mental and=20
physical torture, molestation, sexual harassment and trafficking.

The `Jan Adalat' was the culmination of the year-long campaign,=20
Hisaab, - Hinsa sahna band (Stop Tolerating Violence) - by a network=20
of women's groups who have come together under the common banner of=20
the Women's Association for Mobilisation and Action. Ms. Huma Khan of=20
WAMA said in the last 10 years, caste and communal divisions had=20
increased in Uttar Pradesh. And women had borne the brunt of the=20
violent outcome.

The State's response to the increasing and documented evidence of=20
violence against women was far from satisfactory. Ms. Khan cited the=20
instance of women police stations that had been put up in 13=20
districts. Instead of helping women, they were more bureaucratic as=20
they had no clear jurisdiction.

The members of WAMA also pointed out that while the Uttar Pradesh=20
Government had supported the Centre's Prevention Of Terrorism=20
Ordinance, it refused to endorse the proposed legislation on domestic=20
violence. Given that the majority of crimes against women took place=20
within the home, this was a clear indication of its lack of=20
seriousness.

Indeed, despite the impressive gathering of over 2000 women, not one=20
member of the Government took the time to attend the function. And=20
when a representative group from the meeting went in the evening to=20
meet the Chief Minister, Mr. Rajnath Singh, he could not spare time=20
to talk to the women despite promising earlier to do so.

The Supreme Court advocate, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, one of the=20
``judges'' at the `Adalat,' spoke strongly against police and the=20
judiciary for not responding to women's issues. ``We pay judges their=20
salaries through our taxes. Their job is to give justice. But if they=20
are not doing their job, if they don't give justice, then they must=20
go. The days when we sat back quietly are over. Now we say, give us=20
justice or leave your chairs.''

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

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

--=20