[sacw] SACW (5 Dec. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

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

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

#1. What does Chomsky mean to Pakistan? ( Foqia Sadiq Khan)
#2. India: The textbook controversy (Achin Vanaik)
#3. India: Right to food and public accountability (Jean Dreze)
#4. Whose Iqbal - Ours or Theirs? (Zafar H. Anjum)
#5. Censorship with a difference (Ram Puniyani)
#6. Photo Exhibition On 'Women & Work In Rural India'
#7. India: Our Diary 2002 unfolds the movement story ...
________________________

#1.

The News International , Decemer 2, 2001

WHAT DOES CHOMSKY MEAN TO PAKISTAN?
DOES HIS COURAGE MEAN MORE THAN HIS MESSAGE TO US?
By Foqia Sadiq Khan

One of the most distinguished progressive writers and linguists of our
times, Noam Chomsky, gave lectures in Lahore and Islamabad on November 24th
and 26th respectively to pay tribute to his remarkable comrade Dr Eqbal
Ahmad. He criticised the past and present US policies-be it the systemic
white American extermination of indigenous people; exploitation of African
slaves; or the unprincipled US military involvement in Vietnam, Nicaragua,
Haiti and Guatemala; or its equally unethical support of Israel's occupatio=
n
of Arab lands; the apartheid in South Africa; Chilean dictatorship; and
Turkey's ethnic cleansing of Kurds. He talked about the silence over
terrorism by strong powers and the threat to the existence of human species=
.

Many participants, in one of the most well attended lectures in Pakistan's
contemporary history, deeply appreciated Chomsky's strong criticism of the
US policies. They honoured his intellect and gave him a standing ovation at
his methodic exposure of the contradictions, double standards and
hypocrisies of the US and other dominant powers' foreign policy. It is
understandable to appreciate when someone as academically radical as Chomsk=
y
is critical of the world's super-power. But is that all what Chomsky means
to Pakistanis who attended his talks and/or read his work?

Chomsky is Jewish by birth and yet he is one of the harshest critics of
Israel's occupation of Palestine. He is a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT)--and, again, one of the most consistent and
fierce opponents of unjust US policies. Does it ring any bell? Does his
courage mean more than his message?

Most of us who attended his talks and/or read his publications are men and
women of distinguished careers. Some of us have been affiliated with the
Foreign Office; served in the civil and military bureaucracy; taught at
public and private universities in the country; worked as journalists;
hosted and directed Radio/Television shows; represented people in the
National or Provincial Assemblies; undertaken assignments at
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs); and written articles and books.

How many times have we been able to pick up the courage to criticise the
oppressive face of Islam in Pakistan and around the world? Were we able to
take the military and intelligence agencies' establishment on by condemning
the perpetual hegemony of the institution of military in the Pakistani
state? Did we write or speak against Pakistan's Kashmir and Afghan policy?
Did we try to voice concern at incessant government borrowing that has
trapped us under a huge debt burden? Were we able to show our concern at
Pakistan's high defense expenditure at the cost of education, health,
employment and social development? What about sectarian violence, religious
extremism, discrimination against the poor, women and minorities? What abou=
t
deterioration of institutions of the judiciary, academia, and electronic
media among others?

The US should be vociferously condemned for its crimes against humanity.
However, it does not mean that we need not be critical of ourselves, our
state, governments, religious doctrines, and socio-political culture. It
does not mean that we forsake a deeper analysis, criticism and a personal
commitment for change of our own unjust state and society. If we really lik=
e
Chomsky, we may want to go beyond his expressed message and try to apply hi=
s
vision to our own society, religion and country.

We need more courage to speak the truth in a post-colonial country like
Pakistan than people in the US. It is a tribute to academic freedom in the
US that it has allowed a scholar like Professor Noam Chomsky to function.
Professors in Pakistani universities need a No-Objection Certificate from
the Foreign Office to travel abroad. Chomsky is not printed in the New York
Times and Washington Post and is not interviewed by CNN and other satellite
channels. However, he is able to speak, write, and travel all around the
world. Our electronic media has remained under governmental control for the
past 52 years. It is much more difficult to cultivate critical thinking and
air one's voice of conscience here. One cannot do it without risking
physical, mental and material well being.

However, there are some brave Pakistanis who have spoken the truth in very
difficult circumstances at the cost of their freedom and well-being: Mazhar
Ali Khan, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Zamir Niazi, Nisar Osmani, Habib Jalib, Justice
Dorab Patel, Asma Jahangir and many more less-known political activists,
trade unionists, journalists and writers. There are a few judges, academics
and generals who resigned for the sake of their principles.

We can emulate Chomsky in our own ways. It is necessary to be critical of
the West, but it is even more important and urgent to be critical of our ow=
n
state ideology, government policies, socio-political culture and of
ourselves. It is crucial to publicly express our voices of dissent so that
they are heard loud and clear.

Some of us have been and will be called "traitors" in this endeavour.
However, such threats have not stopped Chomsky from speaking the truth.
Similarly, such threats cannot mute our voices if we are not afraid to take
risks with the full knowledge that our prime loyalty lies with the well
being of people, particularly the poor and the marginalised, of Pakistan an=
d
not with its proclaimed "national interest" formulated by military-civilian
bureaucracy with the support of landed, industrial and other dominant
classes.

______

#2.

The Hindu Wednesday, Dec 05, 2001
Opinion http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2001120500471000.htm

THE TEXTBOOK CONTROVERSY
By Achin Vanaik

THAT THE BJP-RSS can do what it is doing to school textbooks and=20
garner support for this from some professionals, and from a much=20
larger section of the ordinary `middle class', is indicative of how=20
dramatically changed are the parameters of elite nationalism in India=20
today. In 1977, when the Jan Sangh component of the Janata Party=20
tried to alter history textbooks it had hardly any support. But elite=20
nationalism now is much more aggressive and belligerent. Besides, in=20
the immediate aftermath of the Emergency, anti-democratic values and=20
attitudes were much more strongly contested and could not gain ground=20
by hiding behind the banner of patriotism. Today, it is much easier=20
to pretend that elite self-interest is actually national=20
self-interest. That growing economic inequalities between the elite=20
and the masses is actually a good, prosperity enhancing development.=20
That acquisition of nuclear weapons enhances security, so the BJP-RSS=20
was right all along on this score. That there is something to be said=20
in favour of the Hindutva brigade's attack on pseudo-secularism and=20
its demand for a culturally strong and, therefore, united India.

So why should there be any surprise at the Hindutva brigade's ability=20
to gather more support for its history-rewriting project? Indeed, we=20
should be grateful that on issues such as secularism and history-=20
teaching at least, there continues to be significant resistance from=20
large sections of society. It is, after all, extraordinary that the=20
NCERT under this Government's control and its appointed caretaker can=20
undertake major deletions from school textbooks not because of=20
inaccuracies but on the grounds that the presence of such portions=20
hurts the sentiments of selected (religious) communities, or because=20
it weakens national self-confidence and self-respect! Furthermore,=20
such deletions are made without referring to the authors, in=20
violation of established norms regarding the procedure of making=20
changes/updating of texts.

In doing this, the Human Resource Development Ministry has adopted=20
two lines of argument. The first is to attack the politics of=20
academic patronage in the past carried out by those in power who were=20
close to the ideologies of the Congress and, worse, who were=20
Leftists-Marxists of some sort or the other. But this is of limited=20
value since the present lot of administrators are themselves=20
vulnerable to the charge of indulging in politics of patronage in=20
even more blatant, ruthless and academically contemptuous ways. The=20
second line of defence claims that since there can be no complete=20
objectivity in history writing, there is nothing wrong in the new=20
dispensation having its turn in shaping history texts, research and=20
teaching in the light of current, more `nationalist' values and=20
attitudes. That this argument can sway a large number of people shows=20
how much confusion there is about the relationship between history=20
and politics.

Can history writing and interpretation be separated from politics? To=20
this the only honest answer is ambiguous - both yes and no. Yes,=20
there are such things as truer and better histories; more accurate=20
accounts which better respect the controls provided by evidence and=20
plausibility of interpretation. Historical accounts can never be=20
bias-free but all biases are not equal. Some accounts and approaches=20
are worse and more error-filled than others. Indeed, too much of=20
history influenced as it has been by a `feel-good nationalism'=20
contains myths, half-truths, outright lies, and inventions because=20
the construction of modern nationalist self- images almost always=20
involves ``getting history wrong'' at least some of the time. It is=20
when earlier nationalist passions die down that it becomes possible=20
to write better histories.

It is when the nationalism of a country and of its dominant elite is=20
relaxed, confident, generous, humane, and democratic (everything that=20
today's elite Indian nationalism is not) that the chances of writing=20
one's own history better becomes more likely. Since history is always=20
a dialogue between the present and the past, it cannot be isolated=20
from the concerns, political or otherwise, of today. So, new=20
questions are constantly being posed and new ways of connecting the=20
past and the present regularly need to be uncovered. This is neither=20
problematic nor undesirable provided the primary purpose of such=20
reinvestigations-reinterpretations is to produce better and more=20
accurate histories. All this is far removed from the preoccupations=20
of the Sangh and the present Government. Though one cannot avoid the=20
instrumentalist dimension of history writing and teaching, a=20
history-telling which is reduced to, or dominated by, this=20
instrumentalism cannot be meaningful though it can certainly be=20
meaningful politics, precisely the ambition of the Sangh!

History writing cannot be fully insulated from today's=20
nation-building politics but this does not mean that either an=20
anything-goes-relativism or myth-making should be promoted. A number=20
of liberal critics of what the Sangh and the NCERT are doing today=20
have understood that developing a decent, liberal, humane society in=20
the present will also tend to promote decent, ecumenical, humane=20
approaches to uncovering and understanding history, and vice versa.=20
But some have fallen into the trap of too easily dismissing the value=20
of the kind of history-writing that India has had since Independence,=20
because they are keen on taking a ``plague-on-both-your houses''=20
stance, decrying the `Congress/leftist' past as well as current Sangh=20
attempts at distortion. Elite nationalism before 1947 and for decades=20
afterwards was informed by a greater measure of such democratic=20
attitudes and values. That is why the Sangh was so marginal a force=20
then. As a result, India had an enormous flowering of history writing=20
and research that, for all its pro-Congress and nationalist biases=20
and weaknesses, was not only far superior to colonialist histories=20
but in its range, depth and general quality the envy of all=20
post-colonial countries and many an advanced one as well. In all this=20
the contribution of historians-scholars-ideologues aligned with, or=20
influenced by the Hindutva forces, has been negligible. But the=20
influence of Marxists and leftists has been greater though never near=20
as much as made out by the Hindutva brigade. Marxism's influence on=20
history writing has been much more than that of Marxists because=20
honest, serious and dedicated non-Marxist historians have had no=20
problem recognising the value and power that various insights=20
originating in, or emphasised by, the Marxist tradition, have had for=20
their craft and discipline. In this respect, mid-20th century history=20
writing in India echoed what was happening worldwide except,=20
ironically, in countries ruled by regimes claiming to be Marxist,=20
which like today's Sangh, promoted a shameful instrumentalism of=20
their own, all too often subordinating scientific endeavour,=20
objectivity and truth to state ideology.

What Marxist influence did was to bring in the study of the material=20
conditions of existence, and thus of everyday life and ordinary human=20
beings to the forefront of history writing, teaching and=20
interpretation. This helped displace from eminence 19th and early=20
20th century historical approaches such as political narratives about=20
`great leaders', and religious-cultural-ideational approaches that=20
stressed the trans-historical powers of enduring mentalities,=20
spirit-ethos, and so on. The positive impact has been enormous and=20
enduring. Great macro-histories (and many a micro-one) can no longer=20
be written without paying some kind of debt to Marx and Marxism=20
though it no longer seems a debt, only common sense.

No one should claim there is no space for newer and better approaches=20
to history writing. But it has to be better! Sangh ideologists, far=20
from being able to do this can only promote a regression towards the=20
older kinds of cultural histories where a Western paternalist=20
Orientalism obsessed about `civilisational essences' and `essential=20
differences' actually promoted a Brahmanical-philosophical centred=20
view of Hinduism, Indian society and culture. The irony is complete!=20
The Sangh Parivar, self- proclaimed defender of indigenous=20
`authenticity', is the most faithful offspring of Western paternalism=20
in historical research, understanding and writing.

______

#3.

The Hindu Wednesday, Dec 05, 2001
Opinion
RIGHT TO FOOD AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
By Jean Dreze

IN THE month of October, Surguja district in Chhatisgarh looks like a=20
land of milk and honey. Endless waves of green fields, lush forests=20
and clear streams give an impression of natural abundance. These=20
delightful surroundings, however, hide a harsh struggle for survival.=20
Yields are low in Surguja, and most farmers are unable to grow enough=20
food to cover their subsistence needs. When food runs out, they have=20
to migrate in search of work. Those who are unable to migrate try to=20
make ends meet by keeping a few animals, selling wood or collecting=20
tendu and other minor forest products. Hunger is widespread, and so=20
are basic diseases such as gastro-enteritis, which caused hundreds of=20
deaths in Wadroffnagar block last August. [...] .

Full text at:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2001120500461000.htm

_____

#4.

WHOSE IQBAL - OURS OR THEIRS?
(A report on the literary evening on poet Iqbal, held at Sahitya=20
Akademi, Delhi, on 9th Nov.)

Zafar H. Anjum

Flicking though the television channels last Friday, I happened to pause at
PTV for a few moments, as a newscaster was announcing the celebration of th=
e
birth anniversary of "their" national poet, Allama Iqbal, across Pakistan.
It was being discussed how Iqbal was really the originator of the idea of
Pakistan. At that moment, I found myself humming the tune of "lub pay aati
hai dua ban kay tamanna meri" a prayer song composed by Iqbal that I used t=
o
sing when I was a school kid. And then I wondered how Iqbal could be the
originator of Pakistan when I always have thought of him to be ours.

As I came to attend the literary evening on Iqbal that day, I heard a
similar story. A few years ago, reminisced Professor Naseer Ahmad Khan (of
the Department of Urdu, Jawaharlal Nehru University), when he invited a
Pakistani scholar to participate in a seminar on Ghalib, he received a
curious reply. The Pakistani scholar wrote back that since Ghalib was an
Indian poet, he would not be able to speak on him. However, he expressed hi=
s
desire to come over to India any way to hear what Indians had to say on thi=
s
great "Indian" poet. Later, on telephone, Dr. Khan asked him who was "their=
"
poet. "Iqbal," said the erudite voice from the other side.

With the partition of India, India's cultural heritage was partitioned too.
Ghalib apparently fell on India's side, and. Iqbal was tossed across to
Pakistan. When Iqbal died, his grave was in India. After 1947, it became th=
e
property of Pakistan.

"If Iqbal belongs to Pakistan just because his grave falls within their
geographical boundaries, then what about the Harappan civilization of which
the largest number of sites fall on the other side of the border? Does it
make Harrapa a Pakistani heritage only?" asked Dr. Khawaja Ikramuddin of JN=
U
's Department of Urdu. How can a Iqbal who vouchsafed for Hindu-Muslim unit=
y
and targeted the exploitative religious figures, be labeled as a Muslim
communalist -, good enough to be exported to Pakistan? How can a Iqbal who
said "Khak-e watan ka mujh ko har zarra devta hai" [Each dust particle of m=
y
motherland is god to me], be considered a poet of the Muslims?

Iqbal has described his dream of a new India in these words:

Sach keh doon aye Brahmin gar tu bura na mane
Tere sanam-qadon ke b'ut ho gaye purane
Sooni padi huyi hai muddat se dil ki basti
Aa ek naya shiwali hum phir se yan bana de'n
Shakti bhi shanty bhi bhakto ke geet me hai
Dharti ke waasiyon ki mukti preet me hai

Mullahs had issued a fatwa on Iqbal for daring to see this dream for a new
India. Yet, after his death, Iqbal was reviled as an Islamic poet. This was
Iqbal's tragedy. "It is wrong to assume that Iqbal is the poet of Muslims o=
r
he belongs to Urdu literature alone. No. Iqbal transcends all boundaries.
You cannot put him in any category. Like all great poets, he belongs to the
whole mankind," said Professor Abdul Haq.

Allama Iqbaal was born in Sialkot in1877. He learned Arabic and traditional
eastern education under the guidance of famous scholar Meer Hasan. After
M.A. in Philosophy, he received Ph. D. from Cambridge and German University=
.
Passing the examination of Barrister, for some time he became professor of
Arabic in London University. In 1908, he returned to India and became
professor in Lahore. One and half years later he started practicing law.
British government bestowed the title of "Sir" on him in 1922. In 1926, on
the invitation of Madras University, he delivered series of 6 lectures on
Islam. He was appointed as a member of Punjab Legislative Council. He
presided over All India Muslim League in 1930. In 1931, he represented Indi=
a
in second "Round Table Conference". In 1932, on Shaah of Afghanistan's
invitation he participated in welcome celebration in Kabul, along with Syed
Sulaiman Nadwi and Sir Ross Masood. He died on April 21, 1938.

After partition, Iqbal was claimed by Pakistan, so the argument goes,
because he is credited to have originated the idea of Pakistan, a holy land
for the Muslims. "This is not the whole Truth," said Professor Abdul Haq, a=
n
eminent Urdu critic. "Iqbal foresaw a federal structure for a free India, i=
n
which a Muslim-dominated north-western region could be a cultural unit like
many others," he said. As far as the idea of Pakistan is concerned, Iqbal
denied that he was the originator of this idea. "Iqbal has clearly denied
this in his letters to Raghib Hussain. People don't talk about these letter=
s
since they don't favour their point of view," said Dr. Haq.

"When nations begin to diminish in stature and gallop back to their
annihilation, they begin to put things in categories: this is Hindu, this i=
s
Muslim, this is this and this is that," said Dr. Naseer Ahmad Khan of JNU's
Department of Urdu. Iqbal's being dubbed as a Pakistani or a Muslim poet is
a reflection of our intellectual poverty. It is not Iqbal's personal loss
but reflective of our own inadequacies, Dr. Khan added.

"I'm not bothered whether Iqbal originated the idea of Pakistan. What
matters to me, and should matter to everybody, is how far Iqbal is relevant
to us today," said Professor Mohammad Hasan, an eminent expert on Iqbal. He
said that Iqbal's greatness, as a poet is undoubted. Along with Ghalib, he
is the only poet in any Indian literature who had equal command over two
languages: Urdu and Persian.

Dr. Abdul Haq said that Iqbal is the most misunderstood poet of the 20th
century. "We must look at Iqbal in totality if we want to understand him,"
he said. Iqbal's tragedy was that his poetry was used by different groups t=
o
serve their own interests. His poetry had so many facets that he seemed to
assume different roles in different phases of his poetry: he was a staunch
nationalist, a vocal communist, an advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity, a
humanist, a believer in Islamic revivalism, a freedom fighter, and an
advocate of international brotherhood. "No poet in Urdu, and I'm sure in an=
y
other Indian language too, has shed as many tears on India's misery and
colonial captivity as Iqbal," said Dr. Haq.

Iqbal warned his countrymen by these words:

Watan ki fikr kar nadan musibat aane wali hai
Teri barbadiyon ke mashware hain aasmano me

Professor Haq said that in order to understand Iqbal, we must see him at
three levels: as an Indian, as a Muslim, and as a humanist advocating
universal brotherhood. As an Indian, Iqbal's patriotism is undoutable.
"Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara," said Iqbal so blatantly. His poetr=
y
is full of patriotic fervor and a pride for India's ancient civilization. I=
n
one of his couplets, Iqbal extolled Ram as the leader of the East. Professo=
r
Hasan quoted from his most mature work, Hayat-e Jawaid a couplet where he
was travelling in the heavens and saw Prophet Mohammad, Jesus Christ, and
Gautam Budhha seated side by side before the Lord God. "From a Muslim point
of view, what Iqbal says in this couplet is sheer apostasy; yet, Iqbal is
unfortunately understood as a communalist," said Professor Hasan.

Iqbal also seems to be sympathizing with communism. He apparently believed
that if you simply add God to the communist philosophy, it becomes Islam.
Professor Haq said that Iqbal had the gall to put Marx on the pedestal of
prophethood. He quoted a line from Iqbal wherein he had said that though
Marx was not a prophet, but he had the book (Das Kapital) like the revealed
ones. No wonder then, the Russian Revolution of 1917 prepared the backgroun=
d
for themes of capitalist system and jostling of labor class in his poem
"Khidr Raah". He presented revolutionary views before moderate leaders. He
conveyed the message to class of laborers to get organized and unified.

Uth ke ab daore jahan ka aur hi andaz hai
Mashroq-o-maghrib me tere daur ka aghaz hai

["Get up now that the style of the world has changed
It is the beginning of your age in the East and West."]

Iqbal, while attaining a philosophical height in his poetry, was also
writing "Decree of God to Angels" for the youths.

Uthho meri duniya ke gharibon ko jaga do
Kakhe umara ke daro deewar hila do
Jis khet se dehqan ko mayassar na ho rozi
Us khet ke har khosha-ye gandum ko jala do

Iqbal was unhappy with the situation of the Muslims in the world. Everywher=
e
they were lorded over by the colonialists. In one of his poem, depicting th=
e
political situation of a particular period, he addresses Muslims and says
that Allah has bestowed upon you with all qualities, you are the best
people, you have to lead the whole world. So, regenerate the qualities of
valor, justice, and truth in yourself.

"Read the lesson again of valor, of justice, of truth
You will be required to lead the world."

Talking about Iqbal being branded a communalist, Professor Haq said, "It is
unjust to label Iqbal a communalist. Every thinker, philosopher and creativ=
e
artist turns to spiritual resources in his later live. The same also
happened with Iqbal. Do we talk about the communalism of Aurobindo? Being
religious does not mean being a communalist. You are communal only when you
talk about harming the people of other communities. How can you put Iqbal i=
n
that category when he dreamt of building a 'Naya Shivala' and establishing
universal brotherhood?"

Appreciating Iqbal, Dr. Haq said that Iqbal was the only Urdu poet, and
perhaps the only poet in any other Indian literature, who linked the native
literature to the world events. He made the events around the world the cor=
e
of his poetry. Dr. Hasan said that if we look at his verses, we find them
reflecting all the major events of the world of his times.

Dr. Hasan said that Iqbal was not without flaws. For example, he did not
agree with his views vis a vis women. Iqbal does not allow much room for
action to women. However, his poetry and his farsightedness cannot be
flawed, he urged.

Dr. Hasan said that Iqbal's entire philosophy can be summed up in one word:
Khudi (which have meanings much deeper than simply, "self"). It is not an
Islamic word or Islamic philosophy. It is a mantra of action and struggle
for any individual or nation to survive and succeed. That is his message to
the world. Iqbal believed in action and continuous struggle. He quoted one
of his Persian couplets which means:

Someone (supposedly a divine voice) asked me,
Are you happy with the way this world is?
I said no,
The answer came,
"Then go smash it up and make it the way you wish (it to be)"

Iqbal favours Iblees (Devil) over Adam for his action and his daring to def=
y
Allah's command. Iqbal's concept of the Shaitan (devil) is that he is the
leader of those who count their destiny responsible for their evil deeds an=
d
count their punishment already destined. He complaints to Allah:

Harf-e istakbar tere saamne mumkin na tha
Haan magar teri mushiyat me na tha mera sajood

When he is put a question:

Kab khula tujh par ye raaz? inkaar se pehle ke baad

He answers:

Baad! Aye teri tajalli se kamalat-e wajood

Then he realizes that he has understood it after having denied it and he
dared to do it because of his weak nature. When you take it forward, we fin=
d
out that he has envy and jealousy that is why he dislikes man to sit as the
viceroy of God. It means that he considers man superior to himself because
he complaints in Javednama that man easily becomes a prey in his web. This
is despite the hope from man that he fights him and tries to dominate him.
Therefore, Iqbal sees in Iblees a power which helps in the development of
man and his world; he alone brings out his best in real life through the
struggle of good vs. evil. Iblees' invitation--"defeat me"- is a clear
evidence that establishes that he wants to be the prey of a Mard-e Kamil
(Perfect man). Professor Al-e Ahmad Suroor has explained it this way: Iblee=
s
was in search of the perfect man as he refused to bow before a newborn Adam=
.
It seemed as if Iqbal gained freedom from the devil by interpreting him in
this fashion. He had achieved the power of action, faith in truth,
self-respect, self-dependence and self-defense.

Teri zindagi isi se teri aabro isi se
Jo rahi khudi to shahi na rahi to ru-siyahi

That Khudi is Iqbal's universal message. It is not only for the Indians or
the Pakistanis but for the whole mankind to adopt and learn from. People ma=
y
keep on fighting about Iqbal being our heritage or theirs. In his own
lifetime, Iqbal had outgrown all categories. He is a shared heritage for th=
e
whole world.

Dhoondta phirta hoon aye Iqbal apne aapko
Aap hi goya musafir aap hi manzil hun mein

(I keep looking, Oh Iqbal, for myself,
As if I am the traveler as well as the destination itself)

-------------------------
(With additional inputs by Yousuf Saeed)

____

#5.

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001

CENSORSHIP WITH A DIFFERENCE
by Ram Puniyani

The newspapers are abuzz with the champions of correcting 'left
distortions' in History, defending the deletion of different passages from
the History text books produced by NCERT currently in use in the CBSE
schools. Pending the introduction of new history books in the schools and
pending the policy not to teach History as a separate subject in schools,
the Govt. could not tolerate the 'insult' to National Hero, Guru Tegh
Bahadur, it was upset by the insulting mention of beef eating in Vedic
times etc., so this job of censorship. So incensed was the Govt. that it
did not even have the patience to wait for the 'new' History books or the
Social studies book, which are going to put portions of History, as the
separate teaching of History is going to stopped in coming times. It was
so morally incensed that it had to undertake the unethical act of
violating the contract with the writers of these books, who were not
consulted in this matter. Anyway ethics are the last to be considered in
the battle for doctoring people's mind for Hindu Rashtra, the cherished
goal of RSS-BJP. The Govt. has similarly broken the understanding earlier
also in the case of the two volumes of "Towards Freedom' by canceling the
books which were in the advanced stage of production.

History is so important as a communal tool that the upholders of Dharma
etc. are caring little about the agreement of the Govt. with authors,
especially if they do not conform to the world view of the present Govt.
for whom the Brahminical Hinduism based Nationalism is the be all and end
all of their journey in the reverse gear.

The parliamentary affairs minister, Pramod Mahajan, while defending this
move to selectively delete parts of the comprehensive whole went on first
to distort the parts of the book to gain sympathy of sections of society.
The book says 'plunder and rapine' and the honorable minister on purpose
distorted the word rapine to raping, to give an impression that the said
history book alleges that Guru Tegh Bahadur was alleged with this crime.
It is not for nothing that Gobbles, the champion of race based nationalism
is 'dancing with joy' in his grave with the further enhancement of his art
by the followers of 'Religion based Nationalism' a close cousin of his own
variety of Nationalism. The argument has been put forward that mentioning
that some Kings plundered is an insult to the King and the community to
which he belonged. It is interesting to note that while so much is being
made of plunder, it is being forgotten, on purpose, that plunder into
territories of other kings was ' normal' during those times. One remembers
as to how Shivaji's armies used to plunder the areas in Surat, as to how
the daughter-in-law of the Nawab of Kalyan was brought in as a part of the
plunder and Shivji rose beyond the accepted norms of the times in
respectfully sent her back to her home with due honor.

It is being alleged that national Heroes have been insulted in these
textbooks. A whole look at the deleted passages gives us enough idea as
to what lies behind the deletion game. Much is being made of the Guru Tegh
Bahadur part, one does not know which Sikh representative body objected to
this passage, which has been deleted ``The Guru, while being a religious
leader, had also begun to be a rallying point for all those fighting
against injustice and oppression... for the Sikhs, the Guru gave up his
life in defense of cherished principles.'' In what way does it tantamount
to insult to the Heroes of communities one fails understand.

Interestingly the other deleted portions give the real reasons of this
exercise away. There are three major themes around with this censorship is
applied. First relates to the distinction of mythology and History,
mention that there were no human settlements around Ayodhya in the times
when Lord Ram was living. This scientific truth breaks the back of the
whole Ram Janmbhoomi assault, which went in to demolish Babri Masjid and
in turn consolidate the BJP from a marginal outfit to the major player on
the political chessboard. Second is the mention of cultural and dietary
practice of eating beef. There are innumerable passages in different
treatises which mention about the beef eating practices, Taittiriya
Brahman categorically tells us: 'Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via
gauh). Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the
cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for
eating beef. Manusmiriti also did not prohibit the consumption of beef.
One wonders if there is a move to take back Bharat Ratna from one of the
tallest Vedic scholars, Mahamahopadhya P.V.Kane, who in his History of
Dharma Shastra categorically states about the beef eating practices based
on impeccable Vedic and other sources of that time. Cow, projected, as
equivalent to Mother, is central to the Hindutva politics. Any mention of
beef eating is dangerous to this politics. That is one of the reasons of
Prof. D.N.Jha going through the nightmares of suppression and persecution
for the crime of writing a scholarly book, 'Holy Cow, Beef in Indian
Dietary Tradition'.

Then the other major irritants for the present controllers of levers of
power in the Education Dept. can not swallow the mention of caste, its
rigidification by Brahmins as again it gives away the game of trying to
present Brahminical Hinduism as THE Hinduism at the cost of Shramanic
traditions of Hinduism (Charvak, Tantra, Kabir etc.), many of which had no
problem with beef etc and which had larger following amongst the low
caste. Then again there are portion which mention the Brahminical reaction
to Ashoka's edict "prohibiting the killing of animals and birds and
superfluous rituals", the stopping of which was to cause enormous material
loss to Brahmins. Incidentally this was the time of rise of agricultural
production, which needed cattle wealth for economic reasons.

What being objected is those parts of History, which give a glimpse of our
society of that time. Today when the reason and logic is aimed to be
removed from the education system (introduction of Astrology, Karmakand,
Paurohitya etc) these passages are an eye sore to the proponents of
retrograde fundamentalist politics. In a way Dr. Joshi is paying the
compliments to the communal Historians of Pakistan, who have succeeded in
bringing in such type of changes in their system. In Pakistan, History
teaching has been done away with (Dr. Joshi has taken the cue and is
following those footsteps), and glimpses from History are part of a
subject called as Pakistan Studies. These Studies have parts of History,
which begins with Harappa and then jump to occupation of Sind by Muhhamad
Bin Kasim. The Pakistani secular scholars like Mubarak Ali and Pervez
Hoodbhoy are distraught with this selective uncritical omission of
non-Islamic portions of History and also by the blind glorification of the
past. As the counterparts of Dr. Joshi, the Muslim Communalists, are
having an upper hand, the Secular Historians have been marginalized, so
everything in the past is milk and honey and a bouquet of roses bereft of
thorns. If BJP has its way the Glorious Hindu period will be painted at
least through our books, where there was no caste system, these was no
Sati, the virtuous Brahmins were carrying the society on the shoulders of
their spirituality. So moral of the story, vote for BJP for bringing back
the glorious past.

Can we take the History as a blind glorification of 'our selective' past?
Should we not accept the methods of modern historiography in our History
writing as has been done in the current NCERT books? Should we not accept
the present books based on genuine sources of History, the traveler's
chronicles, the messages in between the lines and the other interpretation
to understand our past. Should not make the average Shudra and average
woman, as the important part of our History? The points need to be
addressed in serious fashion. The policy makers today are trying to encash
on the sentiments of sections of communities to impose the understanding,
which suits their politics. In this scheme of things a la Pakistan truth
does no matter, scholarship is not needed. Hindutva Politics (not
Hinduism) sitting on the driver's wheel is ready to plunge us in the dark
era of communal politics.

(The writer works with EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Mumbai)

_____

#6.

PHOTO EXHIBITION ON 'WOMEN & WORK IN RURAL INDIA'
DATES: DECEMBER 4 & 5, 2001
VENUE: CONSTITUTION CLUB (Dy. Speaker=92s Hall), Rafi Marg, New Delhi 1100=
01
TIME: December 4 from 12 noon to 9 pm December 5 from 10 am to 9 pm

The exhibition, consisting of about 70 black and white photographs,=20
is on =93Women & Work in Rural India.=94 The pictures, shot in ten states=20
across the country by journalist P. Sainath, show the astonishing=20
labour that poor women put in every day of their lives and the=20
gigantic - yet unacknowledged - contribution they make to the=20
national economy. Their contribution is, literally, worth several=20
thousands of crores of rupees.

The photos record that labour as it unfolds daily from the fields of=20
Kalahandi and Rayagada in Orissa to the brick kilns of Vizianagaram=20
in Andhra Pradesh, from the forests of Chattisgarh to the quarries of=20
south Tamil Nadu. From the night soil workers of Rajasthan to women=20
keeping the local economy going in Jharkhand.

The exhibition consists of ten panels, each with a theme. For=20
instance, there are three on agriculture-related activity. One on=20
livestock and cattle care, another on gathering forest produce, and=20
so on. Each panel also has a brief text that explains the basics of=20
its particular theme. For instance, one shows how a seemingly simple=20
activity like collecting cow dung, saves the country a fortune in=20
foreign exchange.

The Exhibition has been organised by AIDWA.

P. Sainath is this year=92s winner of the United Nations Food &=20
Agriculture Organisation=92s (FAO) Boerma Award for writings that have=20
helped focus public attention on important aspects of the world food=20
problem. He is also the first ever winner of Amnesty International=92s=20
Global Human Rights Journalism Prize.

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

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