[sacw] SACW #1 (12 Nov. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #1.
12 November 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. Pakistan: A Country Divided [A photo essay] (John Stanmeyer)
#2. Counter-Terrorism for Idiots (Farish A. Noor)
#3. Plurality Or Polarity? (Asghar Ali Engineer)
#4. Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (New Delhi, India)
invites applications for Study Visits to West Africa

________________________

#1.

Time (Asia Edition)

A Country Divided
[A photo essay] by John Stanmeyer in Pakistan

http://www.time.com/time/asia/photoessays/pakistan_stanmeyer/

______

#2.

Counter-Terrorism for Idiots

By Farish A. Noor.

The latest news from the corridors of power in Washington has done=20
little to boost the confidence of the world community as far as the=20
'global war against terror' is concerned. The news that the United=20
States will now impose new visa regulations to monitor the entry of=20
Muslim males aged between 16 to 45 by asking them to fill in a form=20
which queries them about their past and personal background-=20
ostensibly to find out if they have had any military training or=20
experience- comes straight out of the 'Counter-Terrorism For=20
Beginners' guidebook.

If Washington was looking for a way to alienate and isolate the=20
entire Muslim world and to guarantee that their search for global=20
consensus and support was scuttled, this was it. By stereotyping and=20
demonising more than a billion Muslims the world over and accusing=20
them of being potential terrorists, the United States has shown that=20
its own approach to the problem of global terrorism is based on=20
little else but hysteria, ignorance and prejudice.

A host of unanswered questions have come to the fore:

First of all, would any potential terrorist- Muslim or not- answer=20
such a silly questionnaire truthfully? Who in his right mind would=20
say "Yes, I have been a terrorist before"?

Secondly, would any American or European consent to answering such=20
questions themselves? Of course not- They would immediately protest=20
on the grounds that such questions were biased and prejudiced from=20
the start. (And rightly so, one might add.)

And thirdly, one wonders why the Muslim world alone has been singled=20
out yet again. Why haven't the same questions been asked of Israeli=20
tourists and travellers to the US, many of whom have had military=20
training as well and who may have used Arabs as target practice? And=20
why not ask the same questions of Europeans, considering that=20
practically every European country- from Britain to France, Germany=20
to Greece, Italy to Spain- has had to deal with the menace of=20
terrorism as well?

For now, all the US has achieved is to help glorify the same people=20
whom they regard as terrorists and a threat to their national=20
security. The moral high ground that one desperately needs when=20
conducting a campaign of this nature has been lost.

What is more, they have merely strengthened the cultural, political=20
and ideological boundaries between themselves and the Muslim world.=20
By blacklisting 25 Muslim countries the world over, the US has made=20
it even more difficult for Muslim states to support them in their=20
campaign. How on earth does Washington hope to invite Muslim support=20
in the campaign against terrorism when the very same campaign is=20
underwritten by racist biases and prejudices so blatantly indecent?

Just a few weeks ago I myself was invited to the United States to=20
participate in a conference on terrorism and the solutions to it.=20
Under the present circumstances I find it impossible to step foot in=20
that country, knowing that such deep-rooted prejudices lurk among its=20
leaders and administrators, who clearly have lost all sense of=20
balance and judgement and who can only think of all Muslims- myself=20
included- as potential hijackers or mass murdererers. If anyone in=20
the US were to be insensitive enough as to stereotype an African=20
American as a potential mugger or rapist, he would immediately be=20
branded a racist. But American political correctness apparently stops=20
short at the borders of the Muslim world, and it is still all right=20
for them to brand Muslims in generals a threat to their cherished way=20
of life where justice and fair play is said to prevail.

The world cannot sit by and let this happen without protest. Here is=20
a case of a country deliberately stereotyping an entire religious=20
community for purely partisan ends. The rationale behind the move=20
stinks of the worst sort of double-standards and hypocrisy that=20
sticks in the throat, reminding us of the sort of racial stereotyping=20
practiced by the Nazis and Fascists in the past.

One wonders how Americans themselves would react if they were forced=20
to fill in a form that questions them about their personal histories=20
and activities of the past. Such a form might read as follows:

Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors colonised a=20
country by force and been involved in the genocide of millions of=20
native inhabitants of that land?
Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors been slave owners=
?
Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors annexed and=20
conquered other territories on the grounds that it was your 'manifest=20
destiny' to do so?
Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors used or=20
supported the use of atomic weapons against civilians in another=20
country?
Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors been=20
involved in the development of chemical, biological or nuclear=20
weapons?
Have you, or any members of your family or your ancestors been=20
involved in, or supported the effort to destabilise the government of=20
any of the following countries: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia,=20
Philippines, China, North Korea, Japan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh,=20
Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, Congo,=20
Uganda, Mozambique, Somalia, Italy, Greece, Russia, Turkey, Libya,=20
Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Cuba, El Salvador,=20
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, etc. (This=20
would include activities such as spying, covert operations, rigging=20
elections, buying politicians, assassinating political leaders,=20
fermenting social unrest, supporting coup d'etats,=20
selling/dealing/supplying arms or drugs or both.)

Such a questionnaire would indeed be repugnant and unacceptable to=20
any American citizen who is innocent of any of the accusations=20
intended or implied. So why can't the powers-that-be in Washington=20
have the common sense to see that their latest visa regulation is=20
bound to have the same effect on people who, after all, are simply=20
demanding the same rights and recognition as they do?

Any human being with dignity and self respect would be offended by=20
the new visa rules imposed by the Americans. But here lies the rub-=20
perhaps for some of those in power in the 'land of the free', Muslims=20
in their estimation still do not measure up to their standards of=20
human dignity and self-respect in the first place.

End.

______

#3.

PLURALITY OR POLARITY?

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective November 1-15, 2001)

Nation formation and nation building are two distinct
processes. Both are difficult and complex, nation- building specially
so. Nation formation generally is a period of struggle against
external challenge while nation building is a struggle against
internal one. India was, under the British rule, an administrative
unit rather than a nation. British rulers treated India as a colony
rather than a nation. It was precisely for this reason that the
highly diverse elements came together under the charismatic
leadership of Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel and
others and vowed to form a nation and challenge the British rule. We
did so successfully.

However, the process of nation formation was not without
challenges. Communal fissures did appear and in this struggle two
nation theory also surfaced and we were divided along the communal
lines. However, many of us thought that if this was the price to be
paid for our nation formation so be it and we paid the price. Our
main objective at the time was independence from the British rule,
which we achieved. Some people think that we could have avoided
partition if we had shown patience and perseverance but it is best a
debating point and rest is history.

After independence though Pakistan opted for a religious
state we did not swerve from our secular course and opted, with
wisdom and determination, for a secular polity. Partition, it must be
noted, had not reduced degree of our diversity. Hardly fifty percent
of our Muslim population went over to Pakistan. Rest remained in
India as they had great faith in secular democracy of India. And
today there are, according to some estimates, more Muslims in India
than in Pakistan thus invalidating the validity of theory of two
nations, if it was ever valid. Formation of Bangla Desh had already
dealt a death -blow earlier to that theory.

Our diversity, as pointed out above, remained intact
despite the formation of Pakistan and secular democracy was the best
creative response to our bewildering diversity. However, secular
democracy remained more of a conceptual anchor for our diversity
rather than a philosophy in action. Many of our internal challenges
stem from this. Diverse interests emerged in the process of nation
building, which posed a grave challenge to our secular democracy.

The first grave challenge was the tendency to
majoritarianism. Nehru had this fear all along. Nehru, who was
leading the process of nation building in the post-independence
India, stood by fair share for all in power including minorities.
This was the only fitting answer to two- nation theory. After all it
was fear of denial of this share that this theory came into
existence. Nehru was well aware of it and therefore his concept of
secular democracy meant justice to minorities in the process of
nation building.

However, Hindu communalism, like Muslim communalism, was
not at all happy with the concept of secular democracy and began
putting spokes in its way. Like Islamic Pakistan they wanted to
create Hindu Rashtra consigning minorities to a secondary position.
The RSS ideologues rejected the concept of plurality and opted for
polarity, polarity, which was sought to be created by two- nation
theory. Thus there are clearly two contradictory political processes
in operation during our process of nation building: those trying to
weld together diverse elements in the country to meet the internal
challenges of development and formation of civil society.

It is also important to note that communalism is not only
negation of pluralism but also opposed to modernity and the concept
of civil society and its political freedoms. If for one Islam is the
core of political discourse for the other it is dharma which is
central to its polity. For them there is no space for modern
political discourse at all. The supremacy of dharma is the essence of
their politics. And if religion or dharma is the essence of politics
non-believers can hardly have any place.

Thus in the course of our process of nation building all
these internal challenges have emerged and with the passage of time
these challenges are becoming graver and graver. The emergence of
Ramjanmabhoomi politics was not accidental or even an exception. It
was result of continuous and systematic challenge to secular
democratic polity as enshrined in our Constitution. The secular
forces must take this grave challenge to the concept of modern
secular polity very seriously. It is the most serious challenge
modern democratic India is facing today. It negates the very
fundamentals of our political philosophy.

Nothing can be more valued than our diversity. Our
diversity is the core of our democracy. Freedom becomes meaningless
without respect for this diversity. Fundamentalism and fanaticism are
becoming stronger in all the countries of Indian subcontinent or
South Asia, particularly in India and Pakistan. Forces of fanaticism
are gaining upper hand. In my opinion this is as grave a challenge as
the challenge of freeing our country from the British rule. It
requires mass mobilisation once again on the scale our leaders of
freedom struggle did during the British rule.

It was easier however, to mobilise the masses against
British rule; it is much more difficult to do so against our own
internal enemy. There were clearly defined sentiments against the
British rule; there are no such sentiments against fundamentalism and
religious fanaticism, which is eating into the vitals of our politics
of secular democracy and democratic freedoms. I, therefore, consider
this internal challenge as much more serious than the struggle
against colonial rule.

No political party in India is prepared to face this
challenge and defend secular democracy with full vigour and
untarnished commitment with honourable exception of parties on the
left. But the parties on the left do not have all India presence to
take up this challenge. There is violence in the air everywhere. Our
plurality and diversity are being threatened. The RSS chief has even
given a call to Hindus to acquire arms. Thus an attempt is being made
to make majority feel insecure.

Thus secular forces have to meet this challenge by
strengthening our plurality and diversity. Polarity is the enemy of
our unity. Even in medireview ages such a polarity never existed as
is sought to be created today. Our culture is a pluralist culture and
we have deeply influenced each other in practically every field. We
have several communities, which can neither be characterised as
Muslim or Hindu. They profess mixed religions. In the People of India
published by Anthropological Survey of India we find that there are
87 communities which profess Hinduism and Sikkhism, 116 communities
which adhere to Hinduism and Christianity, 35 communities which
follow Hinduism and Islam and 94 communities which practise
Christianity and Tribal religions.

The caste scenario is no less interesting. There are
twelve communities among Muslims who profess to be Brahmins, 24
communities who declare themselves as Kshatriyas, 6 as Vaishyas and
11 Muslim communities as Sudras. Among Christians too we have such
caste groups, 8 professing to be Brahmins and 48 as Sudras.

This plurality of caste and communities makes India as
the most interesting as well as challenging country as far as the
process of nation building is concerned. The purists among Hindus,
Christians and Muslims try to purify their respective communities but
it has hardly ever succeeded. There is constant attempt going on to
re-write our history to polarise communities. Such re-writing of
history is clearly aimed at polarisation through creating false
consciousness.

The process of polarisation before independence resulted
in partition. Now there is no question of partition but it creates
tension, which often burst into communal violence. Each bout of
violence results in greater polarisation between communities and this
polarisation helps secure votes of polarised communities. This
internal challenge can be met only if sense of unity born of our
composite culture and sharing common historical bonds is
strengthened. This shared historical bonds will create plural rather
than polarised identity.

Without shared historical bonds and sense of composite
culture a sense of nationhood cannot be induced among the people. In
fact religion can never be a basis of nationhood. Cultural and
historical bonds are far more viable for secular politics than common
religious bonds. Common religious bonds are valuable on a different
plane. A religious community is different from a political community.
A nation is a multi-layered community. It has several layers
political, social, historical and cultural. Thus many people feel
today that partition of Indian sub-continent was not a sound
political decision. Despite religious differences our common cultural
and historical bonds are far stronger. It was for this reason that
great Islamic scholars like Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani and Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad cautioned Indian Muslims against religious
nationalism.

Secular nationalism can be an effective antidote to
religious fanaticism if our political processes are guided and
controlled by political philosophy of secularism. It is only when
communal forces seize control of political processes that fanaticism
raises its head. It is unfortunate that this seems to be happening
today in our country. Or is it weakness of secular forces that has
become strength of communalism?

______

#4.

Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (New Delhi, India)
invites applications for Study Visits to West Africa

The Centre for Democracy and Development (Lagos) and the Centre for=20
the Study of Developing Societies (Delhi) in partnership with the=20
Ford Foundation invite applications from eligible scholars to=20
participate in their ongoing programme "Democracy and diversity in a=20
comparative perspective: Exchange programme between South Asian and=20
West African scholars".

The Programme aims at institutionalising mutual learning between=20
scholars from the two regions. It aims at assisting an informed and=20
carefully formulated intervention from the South in the global=20
discourse on democracy and strengthening the existing networks within=20
the two regions
.
Themes: The programme is focused on formal and non-formal political=20
arrangements that help accommodate social diversities within a=20
democratic framework. While the focus of this programme is=20
comparative, scholars participating in it will not be required to=20
carry out research on the other region or take up directly=20
comparative research as in the sub-discipline of `comparative=20
politics'. We would like to be flexible in interpreting what can be=20
covered under the rubric of 'democracy and diversity'. It could=20
include the following sub-themes:

Ethnicity and Politics: The role of politics in forging ethnic=20
identities; plasticity or otherwise of politically salient social=20
cleavages; institutional logic of crosscutting or reinforcing=20
cleavages; can social cleavages be deployed for deepening democracy?

Federalism: Power sharing arrangements for accommodating diversities=20
with geographical expression; the problem of non-correspondence=20
between the legal-political and the social-cultural boundaries;=20
challenges and prospects of constitutionalism and the dynamics of=20
party system in operation.

Minorities: Political competition and the logic of manufacturing=20
majority and minorities; the situation of the religious and ethnic=20
minorities; participation of women in democratic processes;=20
affirmative action for deprived sections.

Institutional design and reform: `Consociational' arrangements in and=20
outside the constitution; electoral system; the structure of party=20
system and its alignment with social divisions; specific innovations=20
versus universal solutions.

Politics of Economic Liberalization: Political consequences of SAP;=20
differential impact on various social segments; a retreat of politics?
Civil-Military Relations: Army rule as sectarian politics by=20
non-democratic means; security sector transformation, ethnicization=20
of the army. Ways to prevent social differences from taking the=20
military intervention route.

Study Visit terms: Under the conditions of the exchange=20
programme, three scholars will be selected for study visits for three=20
months each. The selected scholars will be required to give a seminar=20
at the host institution and submit a publishable output based on the=20
study visit.
The selected scholars will be paid international air-fare to and from=20
West Africa. They will also be entitled to free accommodation besides=20
living expenses of US $1,000 or its equivalent in local currency per=20
month. The study visits shall ordinarily be completed in year 2002.

Eligibility: The programme is open to all the scholars who have a=20
proven ability for independent research and innovative work. Young=20
and women scholars are particularly encouraged to apply. Eligible=20
scholars must be based in South Asia and may come from universities=20
or other organisational settings. The programme may also support=20
independent researchers working outside of institutional contexts.

Application Procedure: Interested persons should send their=20
Curriculum Vitae with a Statement of Purpose and a sample of=20
published work to the address below. The application may be routed,=20
if the institution requires so, through the head of the institution=20
where the candidate works or studies.
The applications shall be reviewed by a selection board and final=20
results communicated to all the applicants. Short-listed applicants=20
may be called for an interview.

Statements of Purpose (about 1,000 words) should contain:
=B7 Title and overview of the proposed research work
=B7 Description of its expected output
=B7 A Statement of how a visit to West Africa could help.

Deadline for receiving applications:
November 15, 2001
E Mail applications shall not be entertained.

Send applications and inquiries to:
South-South Exchange Fellowship Co-ordinator
Lokniti: Institute for Comparative Democracy,
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies,
29, Rajpur Road, Delhi, 110054, INDIA
Tel.: +91 11 3951190; 3971151, 3942199
Email ( enquiries only) : lokniti@v...

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

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