[sacw] SACW #2 (30 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
30 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

[ Interruption Notice: SACW dispatches will be interrupted between=20
the period 31st October - 7th November 2001]

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

#1. (CPJ) is extremely concerned by Pakistan government's apparent=20
refusal to process visa applications from journalists of Indian=20
descent. (Ann K. Cooper)
#2. Why this war will not work (Jason Burke)
#3. Women in Black - Italy and the eurodeputy Luisa Morgantini=20
Support campaign for the political rights of Afghan women
#4. India: one-day convention on 6th November 2001 against 'Fascist'=20
assault on history.
#5. India: Selective History: Narrow Projections
#6. India: Public lecture on attacks on Afghanistan & Implications=20
for South Asia
#7. India: Clash of stereotypes (Amar Farooqui)

________________________

#1.

October 29, 2001

Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, 12th floor
New York, NY 10001

His Excellency Gen. Pervez Musharraf
President, Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan

Via facsimile: 92-51-922-4206

Your Excellency:

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is extremely concerned by your
government's apparent refusal to process visa applications from journalists
of Indian descent.

Indian journalists, as well as journalists of Indian origin holding
citizenship from Western countries, have told CPJ that visa applications
submitted in mid-September are still awaiting approval. Officials at
Pakistan's High Commission in London have informed journalists of Indian
origin that the Information Ministry office in Islamabad must clear their
applications before they can be approved. Meanwhile, non-Indian journalists
typically receive visas within days, if not hours, of submitting their
applications.

The few journalists of Indian descent who have managed to acquire Pakistani
visas run the risk of being deported. On October 25, Aditya Sinha, a
reporter for the Hindustan Times, was ordered by security officials to leav=
e
Pakistan immediately. Sinha, who had been reporting from Peshawar for more
than a month, had obtained a 15-day visa extension from the Interior
Ministry the previous week.

Before putting him on the first available flight out of the country, a
security official told Sinha, who holds a U.S. passport, "You are a U.S.
national, but on the inside you are an Indian," according to Sinha's accoun=
t
published in the October 27 Hindustan Times.

Pakistani officials have admitted privately that Indian journalists will no=
t
be allowed into the country, according to CPJ sources. As early as Septembe=
r
25, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the "Pakistan government is
not issuing visas to Indian journalists saying that they have nothing to
report from here except anti-Pakistan stories."

This restrictive policy has seriously impeded the Indian press, as well as
international media companies including the BBC, which has a large South
Asia bureau based in Delhi.=20

As an organization of journalists dedicated to the defense of our colleague=
s
worldwide, CPJ urges Your Excellency to ensure that journalists are not
barred from Pakistan on the basis of their nationality or ethnic background=
.
Because the current crisis is one of truly global proportions, it is crucia=
l
that journalists from around the world are granted unfettered access to
countries currently on the "front lines," such as Pakistan.=20=20

CPJ respectfully reminds Your Excellency that Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the rights of all people "to seek,
receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."

We thank you for your attention to this urgent matter and look forward to
your response.

Sincerely,

Ann K. Cooper
Executive Director

*************************
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, 12th floor
New York, NY 10001
[...]

______

#2.

Why this war will not work

Jason Burke, an expert on Afghanistan, has covered the conflict since day
one. From Peshawar he warns that the Alliance strategy is fatally flawed

Sunday October 21, 2001
The Observer

Kandahar, the spiritual and administrative heart of the Taliban, was
quiet. I sat in a small office down a narrow lane not far from Mullah
Omar's house with the young assistant of a senior Taliban official and
talked - of Islam, of the West, of Afghanistan and of the blasts that, 10
days earlier, had demolished two American embassies in East Africa killing
224 people and injuring 4,500. The young Talib asked me if I thought the
Americans would attack Afghanistan. After all, he said, Osama bin Laden,
the prime suspect, was known to be hiding there. 'No,' I said, 'they
wouldn't be so stupid.'
Six hours later, 75 Tomahawk missiles had turned four empty terrorist
camps in the east of Afghanistan into piles of rubble. Within two days,
outrage had exploded throughout the Middle East and bin Laden had been
made a folk hero. My confidence in the good sense of Washington's
decision-makers looked slightly ridiculous.

Yesterday morning, 200 US Army Rangers, who shout: 'Rangers lead the way,
sir, yes sir' when they salute superiors, engaged Taliban soldiers about
20 miles from where I had sat chatting to the young Talib.

My overwhelming sense is of bewilderment. Like anyone who knows
Afghanistan, who has driven the long, rocky roads under that impossibly
clear blue sky, who has dropped a few notes to the urchins who shovel dirt
into the potholes to earn their dinner, who has seen the double amputee
landmine victim cheering his friends playing football, or heard the Kabul
dogs howling in the night after a rocket strike on the north of the city,
I simple cannot understand how it came to this.

Nobody can argue with the aim of the war. Justice for the 6,000 dead in
New York must be done and seen to be done and destroying bin Laden and
al-Qaeda is an integral part of that. And, if civilians have to die, then
too bad, civilians always die in war. But this war, as it is being fought,
will not make the world a better, safer place. It will make it far more
dangerous.

The Islamic militia's leaders may be bad but they are not mad. They have a
coherent ideology fusing modern, resurgent Islam, the centuries-old
customs of the Pashtoon tribes, from which they are largely drawn, and a
bizarre nostalgia for the simple, predictable village life that they
imagine existed before the Soviets forced them into a life of refugee
camps and war.

Mullah Omar, the reclusive, one-eyed cleric who leads the movement, and
his top commanders believe, with some justification, that they rescued
their country from the violent anarchy of the post-Soviet years. You
cannot bomb these men into submission. Nor will the Taliban footsoldiers
be particularly worried by the forces ranged against them. Whoever advised
the Americans to mock the Taliban's antiquated weaponry in the ludicrous,
boasting broadcasts to Afghanistan last week had not done their research.
Many of the first mujahideen fought the Soviets with muzzle-loading
muskets or First World War-vintage Lee Enfields.

Nor is threatened destruction much of a disincentive. After a revolt in
the western city of Herat in March 1979, the Soviets carpet-bombed the
city, killing between 5,000 and 25,000 people. It did nothing to deter
insurrection. This time, Taliban casualties have been almost farcically
light and the damage done has been minimal. We are told that the Americans
have knocked out the Taliban 'command and control centres'. I have seen
many of these. They largely consist of a man sitting on a rug with a
radio, an ancient, unconnected telephone and the mother of all teapots.

There are signs that the Americans - and the British Government - are
beginning to comprehend this and the near impossibility of tracking down
bin Laden. Even if the Taliban are rolled back to a rump of territory in
the southern strongholds, bin Laden would still have plenty of boltholes.

The Afghans are now falling in behind the Taliban. The strikes are swiftly
radicalising what was an essentially moderate country. That is not only
tragic but dangerous. A few days before the 1998 strikes, I asked a guard
outside the foreign ministry in Kabul about bin Laden. He did not know who
I was talking about. Nor did the men in Guldara. Two years ago, few Afghan
fighters I spoke to could point to their own country on a globe, let alone
discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now, of course, they all can
talk about the 'Amriki' and its zulm or 'tyranny' against Muslims.

So no defections, no coups against Mullah Omar, no handing over of bin
Laden are likely - just a steady rallying to the Taliban flag, mounting
civilian casualties, growing extremism and an unfolding humanitarian
disaster.

Yesterday, we got a taste of what is to come. Domestic opinion in the US
and the UK, the approach of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the
growing fragility of the coalition mean that 'a result' is needed within a
month. The Americans are likely to commit hundreds more ground troops,
probably with the SAS hanging on to their camouflaged coat-tails, in an
increasingly desperate bid to get their man. It is difficult to exaggerate
quite what a disaster for everybody that will be. The Northern Alliance
would be permanently tarred as Western stooges, the rest of the country
would take their guns and go to fight the invaders. So, as they have told
me repeatedly in recent weeks, would all the commanders currently watching
developments from Pakistan.

Zarameen is an old friend from Jalalabad. He fought the Soviets, fought
the puppet regime that Moscow left behind and fought against the Taliban
until forced into exile. Three weeks ago, he asked me if I could arrange
for him to get weapons to fight them again. Yesterday, he told me he was
getting ready to defend 'his country'.

Western troops in Afghanistan just wouldn't win. They would be forced,
like the Soviets, into isolated, fortified firebases. The idea of 150 US
or Royal Marines dug in on some hilltop in Nangahar facing 1,000 Zarameens
doesn't bear thinking about.

There has to be a pause in the war. Some carefully bought defections could
strengthen the Northern Alliance. That would shock the Taliban. Funds and
weapons could be channelled to those within Afghanistan, or based
currently in Pakistan, who would be happy to see the end of Taliban rule.
More pragmatic elements within the Taliban, who are concerned about the
damage Mullah Omar is doing to their country, can be wooed. The
instinctively moderate, flexible nature of the vast majority of Afghans
can be used to our advantage if we stop forcing them to take sides. We
should tell the Taliban that the bombing will stop for a set period so
that a conference, that will include them, can meet to discuss the future
of the country and of bin Laden. If they do not agree, the attacks can
start again, preferably after Ramadan. In the meantime, flood the country
with aid and talk about addressing the real causes of terrorism and
Islamic extremism: poverty, repression and skewed policies in the Middle
East.

When I think about the huddled masses of the refugees, about the small,
stone-covered graves that are appearing outside every village, about
Mohammed Ghaffar, the white-bearded waiter at Kabul's battered
Intercontinental hotel who grimly counted off the regimes that have
successively run and ruined his country on his fingers, I know we have to
halt the escalation before it is too late. But when I listen to Rumsfeld
and Bush and Blair and Straw and their macho, ignorant and fatally flawed
rhetoric it is hard to be optimistic.

______

#3.

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:43:35 +0100
From: Mujeres en Red <mujeresred@n...>

Dear Friends
We have elaborated this text for a support campaign to the political rights
of afghan women. We want that this document be sent together with the
delegation of women who will go to Pakistan (Women in Black - Italy and the
eurodeputy Luisa Morgantini are preparing an "expedition" Mujeres en Red=
=B4s
Note) and be given with the all signatures collected to the afghan women=B4=
s
associations.

We have wondered whether it was ingenuous or at least inexpedient to talk
about the political rights while the bombs are falling down over the Red
Cross and the UN warehouses. The horror of this war becomes obsolete any
political discourse. But this is precisely the danger: That horror silences
our voices.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the attempts to design a future to
Afghanistan, whether true or simulated, are dealing with solutions which
represent the afghan people as a whole, its ethnic minority groups,
regions, etc.

Nobody talks about the women, neither in Middle East nor in the West.
Nobody considers them as political subjects, nobody consults them, nodoby
believes that anything can be learnt from them.

We are convinced that this is INTOLERABLE. A crime since the the
international right standpoint and a fraud since the political viewpoint.
Both democratic men and women must not remain silent against this absurdity=
.

RAWA women=B4s words during a debate organized by the BBC, have convinced u=
s
that this is high time to organize this campaign. They have declared that
the political processes must not exclude the women=B4s representation who,
during all these years have fought against the taliban r=E9gime, both in th=
e
political as in the social arena.

We therefore propose and beg you to read and resend this text. We are
collecting signatures, but, above all, adhesions: active adhesions,
organize gatherings, informations, denounces, actions, to bring to the core
of the political debate, both in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world,
the essential topic about the women=B4s rights.

Kind regards,

Elena Laurenzi
Associazione Testarda - Italia

Women for Women
Women against fundamentalisms

CAMPAIGN FOR AFGHAN WOMEN=B4S CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

The fight for both our rights and democracy is the fight for the afghan
women=B4s rights.

During years, their associations and particularly RAWA, have offered
documents, proofs, testimonies and analysis about the situation in
Afghanistan. Toghether with democratic women from Argel, Iran and Egypt, we
have had the main source of the violation of women=B4s rights, ignoring or
suppressing any opposition democratic movement.

Afghan women have fiercely resisted against the terror r=E9gimens of
Muhajeddin, of the North Alliance, first, and the Taliban, afterwards.
During years they have fought for a democratic and secular project of
society, thus defying the norms which deny them the right to be persons,
even with life risk. We all know, and the UN papers document it, that both
in Afghanistan as in the refugees camps there are women associations and
networks who have thousands of adhesions and that are
fostering clandestine schools, offer medical assistance, organize literary
teaching courses for women, and further microeconomy projects.

In a women population affected by severe depression problems, the
statistics show a rate of nearly 98%, who have kept alive the knowledge of
their rights and the hope of a change. Against the taliban sistematic
destruction of every expression of a civil society, they have kept on
building the possibility of a future.

Today, the women association working in Afghanistan and Pakistan condemn
the USA and its allies=B4war, which only aggravates the already desperatin=
g
condition of millons of civils and particularly of women who now, are even
more exposed to misery, violence, abuses, and death. And we declare that
the fight against the terrorist taliban r=E9gime should not be the bombing=
s
but the support to women=B4s rights and the afghan people=B4s resistance.

The diplomatic maneuvres to design the future political government in
Afghanistan are being carried out and it is known that there would be
negotiations with the North Alliance and the "moderated" talibans. These
negotiations would pretend to represent all the people=B4s sectors. But the=
se
talks only took place among men. Women=B4s representation is not even
mentioned here.

They are evidently seen only as victims of the fundamentalis =B4r=E9gime or=
as
one of the regrettable "collateral damages" produced by the USA war, never
as political subjects.

All the signataries of this campaign back up the afghan women in their
solicitude to participate with full rights and in all levels to the
political processes which interest and will interest to the country. We all
state that there no exist international right if the women=B4s rights are n=
ot
protected and that no political solution may be considered legitimate if
women=B4s consensus and direct participation are not obtained.

We all ask that women associations who are working in the territory be
called to join the political negotiations with full rights to define the
composition of the future government in Afghanistan, as well as to be
considered as fundamental interlocutors and active counterparts of the
international organisms both in the humnitarin help measures to overcome
the actual emergency situation as in the country reconstruction processes.

Since the UN report "Special Rapporteur about violence against women, its
causes and consequences", by Mrs. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in mission in
Afghanistan and pakistan, in 1999, we solicitate:

. That any future government in Afghanistan will commit in the first
instance, to abolish every sort of discrimination towards women as well as
to guarantee women=B4s participation in the civil, cultural, political,
economic and social life.

. That the international organisms involved in humanitarian aid and in the
reconstuction assume as their first and unavoidable aim to empower afghan
women and that use women whereas possible to build up their projects.

. That the governments commit themselves to give asylum and formal status
of political refugees to all women who are victims of fundamentalists
r=E9gimens which systematically violate their human rights and risk their
security and life.

In Spain, the Support Platform to Afghan Women has already launched this
campaign which the Socialist Parliamentary Group has echoed in a
parliamentary summon.

We invite to all women associations and other associations, political
parties, trade unions that fight for democracy and the human rights defense
to suscribe to this campaign, to lobby over the governmental organisms to
formally commit themselves to accept and promote these petitions and to
further information and support iniciatives to the afghan women
associations with the object that the support to their fight becomes the
aim of a great international mobilization for the civil and human rights.

Proposal promoted by:
Associazione Testarda - Italia
Associazione Casa della Donna di Pisa - Italia
Backed up by Mujeres en Red - http://www.nodo50.org/mujeresred/

Send the support to the text of associations and individuals to this email
address: testarda@d...

______

#4.

SAHMAT
8 Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001
Tel.: 3711276 / 3351424
e-mail: sahmat @vsnl.com

Dear Friend,

The National Convention Against Communalisation of Education held in=20
Delhi from 4 to 6 August 2001 had expressed its grave concern at the=20
communalisation of education that the BJP-led government had been=20
pursuing since it came to power. In spite of country-wide protests=20
and opposition, including by several State governments, the Union=20
Minister of Human Resource Development and various bodies that his=20
ministry controls have gone ahead in implementing their communal=20
agenda in the country=92s educational system. A major object of this=20
agenda has been a systematic attempt to subvert the study and=20
teaching of history as an academic discipline by withdrawing major=20
works of historical scholarship from publication , seeking to impose=20
a ban on writings based on historical research and replacing secular=20
history textbooks for schools written by eminent historians by books=20
which present a distorted and communalised version of the past . A=20
systematic campaign to denigrate secular historical writings has been=20
launched by distorting and misrepresenting their contents.

The charge of causing religious hurt is being levelled against these=20
writings in order to mislead the people and to hide their objective=20
of converting history into a handmaiden of disseminating communal=20
propaganda. A new dimension has been added to the communal onslaught=20
on history by a policy decision that history books would be subjected=20
to vetting (pre-censorship) by religious leaders before they are sent=20
for publication.

It may be recalled that a similar attack on history had been launched=20
by the Jan Sangh-RSS elements in the Janata Party government during=20
1977-79. The attack was foiled by country wide protest by academics=20
and other secular forces. To defeat the present communal onslaught on=20
history, a movement more powerful than the one that grew during=20
1977-79 is called for.

We are holding a one-day convention on 6th November 2001, as a step=20
towards launching a country-wide movement to meet the new communal=20
onslaught. The Convention will be addressed by eminent historians,=20
including Prof.KN Panikkar, Prof. Satish Chandra , Prof. Bipan=20
Chandra, Prof. Irfan Habib, Prof. Arjun Dev and Prof. Amiya K. Bagchi.

You are invited to attend the Convention and join other scholars and=20
teachers of history and academics from other disciplines to raise=20
your voice against this assault on history.

The programme is enclosed.

Yours sincerely

Shabnam Hashmi
Secretary

Communalism & History
Tuesday 6th November , 2001
VENUE: SPEAKER HALL,
CONSTITUTION CLUB,
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-110001

SESSION I : Communalist Subversion of History

10AM-1PM [Tea Break 11.30am]

Myths as history; promotion of the irrational; Destruction of reason

Prof. Bipan Chandra
Prof. Amiya Bagchi
Prof. Irfan Habib

Discussion

LUNCH BREAK: 1.00PM-2.00PM
SESSION II : Communal Onslaught on History: Teaching and Textbooks

2PM-5PM [Tea Break 3.30pm]

New Syllabus; NCERT Curriculum and Syllabuses; Censorship; Rewriting=20
of history textbooks

Prof. Arjun Dev
Prof. Satish Chandra
Prof. KN Panikkar

Discussion
______

#5.

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001

Selective History: Narrow Projections

Ram Puniyani

The annual Vijaydashmi address by the Sarsanghchalak, the supreme
dictator, of RSS is an occasion to give the annual directions to the cadre
of this organization. It generally includes the events of the year past
and the guidelines for the future. For the volunteers of Hindutva, it is
of great significance as it gives them the ideas for the coming year in
their agenda of building a Hindu Rashtra. This Vijayadashmi RSS chief, Mr.
K. S. Sudarshan, preferred to give the 'advice' to the minorities as to
what they need to be doing to be the good citizen's of this Hindu Rashtra
in the making. He asked both Muslims and Christians to ``re- interpret''
their scriptures and change their leadership which had remained in the
hands of ``conflict-mongers''. The history of Islam and Christianity was
``soaked in blood'' and this was because their leaders had opted for the
``path of conflict,'' instead of paying attention to those verses in there
scriptures, which preached tolerance and goodwill. Mr. Sudarshan also
asked Muslims and Christians to ``snatch the initiative from the
fundamentalists in their communities'' and ``re-interpret'' their
scriptures in keeping with the modern world.

To begin with one must thank the supremo for recognizing that there are
verses in other scriptures also, which preach tolerance and goodwill. Also
one has to gratefully acknowledge that unlike his revered predecessor, who
called that Muslims and Christians are an internal threat to the Nation,
he did not say it overtly.

One is wonderstruck by the language, tone and tenor of this assertion.
Religion as an institution has multiple facets and communities have lived
according to their social situations. Many an acts of people have been
attributed to originating from religions. Kings and despots in particular
have used the name of religion for extension of their empires and wealth.
Today's communal view of History selectively looks at those aspects of
other's religions and characterizes the 'other's religions according to
this selective projection. History has 'Dharmayuddha's', launched by Hindu
Kings to extend their empires. Many a Hindu kings have ruled in the name
of Hindu religion. Similarly Christian kings have used 'holy crusades' in
their battles against the Muslim kings. Muslim kings have used Jihad,
destruction of idols and projected their deeds as a part of religion, to
usurp the wealth of Temples. This phenomenon cuts across different
religions. Can the acts of Kings undertaken for the expansion of their
empires be taken as the markers of those religions? Can Pushyamitra
Shung's brutal killings of Buddhist monks be used to tar the whole of
Hinduism as a violent religion? Can Ashoka's Kalinga war in which
thousands lost their lives be used as a point to prove Hinduism's
violence? Or can the war of cousins of Mahabharat be an index of the blood
shed wrought by Hindus against their own kith and kin. Can Hindu King
Shashank's cutting of Bodhi tree be attributed to his devotion to Hindu
values?

The selective Historiography practiced by Hindutva warriors is in tune
with the similar exercise done by Muslim Communalists. Christian rulers
had also projected Islam in the same light. The problem is Sudarshan,
while playing the communal game presumes that his is the politics of
Dharma, which is a shades different than the 'ordinary Din' (Islamic
ethical values) and ethical values from other religions. While as a matter
of fact it is Sudarshan's ilk, which has resorted to the violence and
bloodshed in the name of Hindu religion during last two decades. The whole
Ayodhya campaign starting from Advani's Rath Yatra culminating in the
Mumbai riots left hundreds dead. The communal politics unleashed in the
name of Hindu religion has caused regular outbreak of violence in our
post-independence period.

Today one is horrified by the terrorist violence, probably in its worst
form. The attack on WTC has no parallel. Islam is being blamed for having
'something in its teachings, which gives rise to violence. It is being
projected as a violent religion. It breeds terrorism etc. Interestingly
here the double standards are more than visible. A Christian did the
Oklahoma bombing. A Jew did the bombing on a Hotel in Cairo. The IRA type
of terrorism comes from those who call themselves as followers of Jesus.
The live bomb, Dhanu, who killed Rajiv Gandhi, was a Hindu. The bodyguards
who killed Indira Gandhi were Sikhs. Buddhists have done similar type of
violence in Shrilanka, Cambodia etc. President Bush in his unguarded
moments called the launching of attack on Afghanistan as a crusade. So
where does religion end and politics begin. Should we blame particular
religions (the one's belonging to 'other's) or the material interests or
frustrations of the group of people for such violence and bloodshed? How
to understand the political undercurrents, which use religion as a cover
for their assertive aggressive politics or a politics, which emerges from
the frustration of different social groups? In Mr. Sudarshan's scheme of
things Religion of other's is responsible for all the ills of the World,
while His own religion is the epitome of peace and Harmony!

Clearly two types of people have resorted to religion as cover for their
politics. The Kings of yesteryears usually in alliance with the clergy
derived the legitimacy of their rule and acts straight from god and
sanctified by religion. In current times the communal politics like that
of Muslim League on one hand and Hindu Maha Sabha/RSS on the other,
derived its legitimacy from Islamic state or Hindu Rahstra. These concepts
were more a cover for the interests of Feudal lords. The current Islamic
terrorism is a concentrated outburst of the dissatisfactions due to
injustices done on the large sections of Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyan and
many more by the "Emperor (Uncle) Sam". Islam does not condone bloodshed,
neither any attack on the innocent people. But taking advantage of the
World-wide 'doctored mass consciousness' by the Media at the service of
the imperialists, Mr. Sudarshan has a cheek to suggest the relationship
between Islam and bloodshed. He is generous in advising Muslims and
Christians to reinterpret their scriptures! It will be better for Mr.
Sudarshan to put his own house in order before pontificating to those
belonging to other religions. And every religion has people who are
conflict mongers and those who are for peace. If we have Mahatam Gandhi,
who called himself a staunch Hindu, we also have Nathuram Godse, calling
himself a staunch Hindu. If we have Osama bin-Laden we also have Khan
Abdul Gaffar Khan, if we have Martin Luther King Jr., we also have the
Okalhama bomber. History has its own balancing mechanisms.

His advice to shun the conflict mongers may sound god at the face of it.
But probably he is unaware that majority of the people have shunned the
conflict mongers and followed by those who talked of peace, harmony and
unity. That's why more people followed the path of Gandhi, Maulana Azad,
Annie Beasant and Ferozshah Mehta rather then that of Savarkar, Jinnah,
Godse and Suhravardy. But since all this relates to the freedom struggle
of our country, those who remained aloof from it like the tribe of
Sudarshan, are not expected to know it.

It will be an interesting exercise to watch MR. Sudarshan reinterpret the
Manusmriti or Garud Puran or The Purushsukta from the Rig Veda, all of
which are upholders of the caste system and whose derogatory and abusive
references to shudras and women are too well known to be recounted here.
It will be interesting to watch Mr. Sudarshan to reinterpret Ramayana and
explain the murder of Shambuk by Ram, murder of Bali from the back by Ram
or Lord Krishna's having 16000 wives!

(Writer is with EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Mumbai)

______

#6.

Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of=20
Stockholm, Sweden
renowned peace, secular and human rights activist
will talk on
ATTACKS ON AFGHANISTAN AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUTH ASIA
AT SHAHEED GANESHSHANKS VIDYARTHI BHAVAN, QAUMI EKTA TRUST BUILDING
31, BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, NEAR GOLE MARKET [ Delhi, India]
ON NOVEMBER 1, 2001 AT 4.00 PM
U AND FRIENDS ARE CORDIALLY INVITED
JANHASTAKSHEP

______

#7.

Hindustan Times
30 October 2001

Clash of stereotypes
Amar Farooqui

Vir Sanghvi's Waiting for the Hindu backlash (Counterpoint, October=20
14), has some disturbing implications. The sum and substance of his=20
argument seems to be that if there is a backlash against Indian=20
Muslims they will only have themselves to blame. It is well-known=20
that in the Indian context 'backlash' is a euphemism for a pogrom.=20
The term became current against the backdrop of militancy in Punjab=20
during the early Eighties.

By its extensive, uncritical and irresponsible usage of this term at=20
that time, the media contributed towards moulding the mindset which=20
gave rise to the November 1984 massacre of Sikhs. This was by and=20
large unintended. But then that is what the interface between the=20
ideological and the material is all about.

One wonders whether Sanghvi is really serious about what he is=20
saying. First, his stereotyping is all too familiar. Muslims are=20
either liberal or fanatic. However, as with the followers of any=20
religion, social reality is much more complex. Leaving aside=20
questions of class, linguistic and cultural diversity, conflicting=20
political affiliations and sectarian divisions, one would like to=20
suggest that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims go about their=20
daily business without taking an explicit ideological/political=20
position on a specific issue, particularly if they are not directly=20
involved in it.

Given the low level of literacy in our country and the very limited=20
reach of the media in rural areas, can one assume that poor=20
agricultural labourers (Muslim or otherwise) in remote villages are=20
even aware of what is going on in the world - let alone take a=20
position?

Second, there could be any number of ideological positions and shades=20
of opinion between a liberal and a fanatic. A person could, for=20
instance, be anti-America and at the same time anti-Taliban.=20
Incidentally, most Left-wing and liberal Muslims were anti-Taliban=20
long before the US political elite turned against the present regime=20
in Afghanistan. Besides, just as 'liberal Muslim' is a very vague=20
term, so too is the label 'fanatic Muslim'.

Someone could adhere to religious rituals fanatically, though=20
sincerely, without being sympathetic to any militant cause. On the=20
other hand, a person might be totally insincere with regard to the=20
basic tenets of a religion while at the same time demonstrating a=20
fanatical attachment to some of the symbols associated with that=20
religion in order to pursue a terrorist agenda. The latter is=20
precisely what Osama bin Laden has been doing. The Taliban too have=20
simply appropriated various religious symbols to create a fascist=20
State.

The real precursors of the Taliban State are Mussolini's Italy,=20
Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Tojo's Japan, Ian Smith's=20
Rhodesia, the apartheid State of South Africa, and above all Hitler's=20
Germany. The Taliban are as ruthless and undemocratic in their=20
pursuit of absolute power as the Nazis were. What distinguishes the=20
two is that Germany was an advanced and highly industrialised=20
capitalist country while Afghanistan is an underdeveloped and=20
backward third world nation. The Taliban are as much a product of the=20
modern capitalist world as German fascism was.

The problem with looking at this problem in religious terms is that=20
one overlooks the close ideological affinity between the Taliban and=20
the Nazis. Sanghvi seems surprised that there is some amount of=20
support for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in several countries=20
extending from Britain to Indonesia. This is not very difficult to=20
explain.

A number of Right-wing groups/movements throughout the world are now=20
using Bin Laden as a symbol to mobilise support among some Muslims to=20
carry forward their own agenda. Does not the Sangh parivar attract an=20
audience by playing on religious sentiments in order to promote its=20
politics? Then why should the use of Bin Laden as a symbol by=20
Right-wing groups in India and elsewhere be found inexplicable? After=20
all, Hitler inspired many ideologues of the ultra-Right (both Hindu=20
and Muslim) in India during the Thirties and Forties.

One is not sure as to how Sanghvi would like to define a 'liberal=20
Muslim'. There could be Left-wing liberals, middle-of-the-road=20
liberals or Right-wing liberals. A large number of urban upper=20
middle-class liberal Muslims are extremely pro-American in their=20
outlook and are appalled at the kind of State that the Taliban have=20
created. Left-wing liberal Muslims often tend to be anti-American.=20
However much one might like to have a neat categorisation (which is=20
what the creation of stereotypes ultimately aims at), this is not=20
always possible.

A Right-wing liberal Muslim like Salman Khurshid could in a given=20
situation be as Rightist in his political outlook as a K.R. Malkani.=20
And then what about those whose ideological/political positions lie=20
further to the Left? Most of those who belong to the Left and happen=20
to be Muslims prefer to articulate their positions in political=20
rather than religious terms. For them the struggle against=20
communalism is a political one and has to be carried forward as part=20
of the democratic struggle of which electoral processes is an=20
integral part.

All those (and this includes 'liberal Muslims') who have been=20
consistently championing the cause of secularism, individually and/or=20
through Left and other political organisations, are doing exactly=20
what Sanghvi exhorts 'liberal Muslims' to do - to "fight their own=20
fanatics". What they have been engaged in is a broad-based political=20
campaign, a campaign which never gets adequate exposure in the media.

This brings us to the third problem which needs to be posed. One=20
would like to draw attention to the complicity of the media in=20
promoting Right-wing religious politics. Is it not true that during=20
the election campaign of 1977, it was the media which systematically=20
built up the image of the imam of Jama Masjid as the spokesperson of=20
Indian Muslims? In this it went along with the leadership of the=20
Janata Party.

This leadership, it should be recalled, included Atal Bihari Vajpayee=20
and L.K. Advani, both of whom actively involved the imam in the=20
Janata election campaign at that time and shared the dais with him on=20
several occasions. Today, the speeches of the present imam compete=20
with the utterances of the minuscule Delhi unit of the Shiv Sena for=20
space in the media.

Besides, hardly any space is made available to those who have=20
dedicated themselves to combating communal politics of all brands.=20
Once in a while a high profile 'liberal Muslim' like Shabana Azmi may=20
get prominent coverage. (One is not sure whether Azmi would prefer=20
the label 'liberal Muslim' to that of 'Left-wing activist'.) But=20
otherwise, it is only the rabble-rousers who make it to the headlines.

Where and how would Sanghvi like the 'liberal Muslims' to speak up?=20
Issue individual press statements which will be ignored if the person=20
concerned is not high profile? Organise protest marches and signature=20
campaigns which will rarely get reported? Write letters to the editor=20
which will seldom be published? Or send in articles/rejoinders which=20
might not even be acknowledged? All this and more are being done, if=20
only the media would care to have a look.

Yet, in the long run, only a sustained political movement against=20
communalism, intolerance and obscurantism is the answer. This=20
movement could do with a little support from the media.

Nevertheless, one would like to assure Sanghvi, the struggle for a=20
secular India will continue even if that support is not forthcoming.

The writer teaches history at Hans Raj College, University of Delhi,=20
and is Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library

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

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