[sacw] SACW #2 (02 January. 02)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #2 | 2 January 2002
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. India and Pakistan - Running Naked (Anwar Iqbal)
#2. Pakistan Is Said to Order an End to Support for Militant Groups=20
(JOHN F. BURNS)
#3. India and Pakistan : Towards a mutual knockout? (Ahmed Sadik)
#4. South Asia Foundation Press Communiqu=E9
#5. Pakistan : HRCP urges crackdown on 'unlawful groups'
#6. Pakistan : CPC urges Pakistan, India to show restraint
#7. India: The Enveloping Danger (Romila Thapar)
#8. India: History and community sentiment (Rajeev Bhargava)

________________________

#1.

Running Naked
by Anwar Iqbal

"Two or three years after the partition, it occurred
to the governments of India and Pakistan that
lunatics, like prisoners, should also be exchanged --
Muslim lunatics should be sent to Pakistan, and Hindus
and Sikhs be transferred to India," writes Urdu short
story writer Saadat Hasan Manto.

Published in the early 1950s, it is considered so far
the best story on the human tragedy that accompanied
the partition of the Subcontinent in 1947. Parts of
the story, still read and enacted in schools and
colleges on both sides of the dividing line, aptly
describe the madness that has plagued both the nations
during the last 53 years.

Three wars and countless skirmishes have failed to
resolve their disputes. Equally useless have been
dozens of meetings and conferences arranged by the
international community to let the two neighbors
resolve their differences.
They are still at each other's throats. At least once
in a decade, their madness gets out of control and
they dash at each other with whatever weapons they can
lay their hands on. Exhausted, they pause and wait
another decade to build up enough hatred to dash at
each other again.

The Muslim majority Himalayan valley of Kashmir is the
main dispute that caused two of the three wars India
and Pakistan have fought. But any issue, even a
friendly cricket match, can turn ugly and stir their
madness. Kashmir also is in the center of the current
crisis stirred by an attack on the Indian parliament
by a group of armed men last week. India says the
attackers were Pakistan-backed Kashmiri fighters.
Islamabad denies the charge and says they could have
been Indian agents who attacked the parliament to
justify an armed Indian incursion against Pakistan.

"One inmate had got so badly caught up in this
India-Pakistan-India rigmarole that one day, while
sweeping the floor, he dropped everything, climbed the
nearest tree and installed himself on a branch. From
this vantage point, he spoke for two hours on the
delicate problem of India and Pakistan. The guards
asked him to get down; instead he went a branch
higher, and when threatened with punishment, declared:
'I wish to live neither in India nor in Pakistan, I
wish to live in this tree,'" writes Manto.

Unfortunately, unlike Manto's lunatics, today's
Indians and Pakistanis do not have this option. They
have no tree to climb. They have to live through this
insanity and suffer. And now that their leaders have
nuclear toys to play with, their sense of insecurity
has increased. The theory of nuclear deterrence that
Indian and Pakistani leaders invoked to justify their
nuclear tests in 1998 does not make them feel better.

"There are enough crazy people on both sides of the
border. Besides, the chance of an accidental nuclear
war is greater here than it was between the United
States and the former Soviet Union, who coined the
theory of nuclear deterrence," says Pervez Hoodbhoy, a
Pakistani scientist. Hoodbhoy, a Ph.D. in nuclear
physics from MIT, is an anti-nuclear lobbyist and a
campaigner for peace between India and Pakistan.

"We share a long border, and it will take a
nuclear-tipped missile less than a minute to hit its
target on either side of the border. There's no room
for correcting an error as it was between the United
States and the Soviet Union," said Hoodbhoy.

Rulers on both sides of the border, however, assure
that their insanity will not lead to a nuclear war.
"We are talking about precise attacks on terrorist
targets, not an all-out war against Pakistan," India's
minister of state for foreign affairs, Omar Abdullah,
told journalists in New Delhi on Tuesday. He, however,
did not say what will prevent Pakistan from going for
an all-out war if attacked.

Similarly, Pakistani rulers have long defended their
open and hidden support to Kashmiri militants as a
reminder to India, and the rest of the world, that the
Kashmir dispute needs to be resolved. They also fail
to explain why should India continue to suffer these
hit-and-run attacks by Kashmiri militants without
engaging Pakistan in a war.

"We are sitting on a powder keg which can explode any
moment," says N.H. Nayyar, another anti-nuclear
lobbyist in Islamabad, Pakistan. Authorities on both
sides of the border describe such people as alarmists,
arguing that "both India and Pakistan are mature
enough to understand the repercussions of a war
between two nuclear neighbors," as a spokesman for the
Foreign Ministry in Islamabad said. "They do not want
to commit suicide."

But to ordinary observers it seems that suicide is
what the two governments want to commit. "People who
understand what a nuclear weapon can do, live under
great stress," says Nayyar.

"Peace campaigners and anti-nuclear lobbyists are too
weak to affect decision making in India or Pakistan.
All we can do is to sit and pray," said Rashid Khalid,
another anti-nuclear lobbyist who teaches defense and
strategic studies at Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam
University.

In Manto's story, characters at the Lahore asylum,
where lunatics were being divided on the basis of
their religion, reacted differently to the stress of
the partition. "A Muslim radio engineer ... who never
mixed with anyone ... was so affected by the current
debate that one day he took all his clothes off, gave
the bundle to one of the guards and ran into the
garden stark naked."

Maybe this is what peace lovers in India and Pakistan
ought to do: Run stark naked in the streets to force
their leaders to give peace a chance.

---

About the author: A Washington-based journalist
working for an international news agency. This article
appeared in Chowk.com

_____

#2.

The New York Times
January 2, 2002

Pakistan Is Said to Order an End to Support for Militant Groups
By JOHN F. BURNS

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 1 - Senior officials said today that=20
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had ordered the=20
country's military intelligence agency to cut off backing for Islamic=20
militant groups fighting in the disputed territory of Kashmir. They=20
said future support would go only to groups with local roots that are=20
not part of the Islamic holy war movement that has its most notorious=20
expression in Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/02/international/asia/02STAN.html

_____

#3.

DAWN
2 January 2002
http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/02/op.htm#2

Towards a mutual knockout?

By Ahmed Sadik

In the aftermath of the Afghanistan affair and the shooting events of=20
December 13 in the outer precincts of the Indian parliament, both=20
Pakistan and India are gravitating once again in the direction of an=20
acute confrontation with each other in Kashmir as well as on their=20
common international borders. India has not only moved troops up but=20
Pakistan has done likewise and we are fast approaching an eyeball to=20
eyeball situation. This is indeed now and here a major threat to=20
world peace that we are faced with in our own backyards.
Both countries will only have themselves to blame if the situation=20
gets out of control and the subcontinent of South Asia goes up in the=20
flames of conventional and/or nuclear war. History will of course=20
condemn the leaderships of both countries in all sorts of ways but=20
that would just about be a 'post facto' academic exercise of no use=20
to anyone.
An old adage says that wisdom lies in acting well in advance before=20
the event and not afterwards. Both countries need to immediately=20
return to the dialogue table in searching for an immediate 'modus=20
vivendi' that can eventually be enlarged into a lasting peace in=20
South Asia. India being the larger country, of course, has a=20
double-duty to contribute towards peace and reduce tension in the=20
South Asian region.
Many people in Pakistan talk about the need to have an international=20
third party mediator for sorting out the Pakistan-India relationship=20
as if there is some magic attached to mediation. The history of=20
mediations is that they only complicate matters and also worsen the=20
situations that are already bad on the ground. The case of the=20
Palestinian-Israeli mediations is a vivid example of how much bad=20
blood can take place between parties which subject themselves to the=20
mediation process and that too after having signed an international=20
agreement to have a peaceful settlement i.e. the Oslo Agreement.
Every one who turned up as a mediator in the Middle East has only=20
made matters worse between the Palestinians and the Israelis - the=20
latest of them being the luckless retired US Marine General Anthony=20
Zinni.
If anything can and should bring peace to the South Asian region it=20
is through a compact between the countries that constitute this=20
region. It is therefore essential that instead of debunking the Simla=20
Pact of 1972 we ought to be invoking it to seek a meeting with India=20
under its umbrella. It is an agreement which India has consistently=20
upheld and which in effect is also what the western powers have been=20
publicly urging us to act upon.
In fact that is the only possible respectable recourse we have=20
available to us in a rapidly worsening international situation. This=20
will not be pussyfooting on our part by any means. We are signatories=20
to the Simla Agreement as is India. And the great thing about this=20
agreement is that it is bilateral and does not ruffle the=20
sensitivities of any of the interested parties. All that it says is=20
that differences between Pakistan and India must be ironed out=20
between them without any outside third party interventions.
Both countries have enough statecraft and maturity available at their=20
disposal to be able to rise to the occasion. The Lahore Agreement of=20
1999 and the starting of the Lahore process by the top leaders of=20
Pakistan and India provides enough evidence of the possibilities of=20
establishing good relations between the two countries.
But what do we have facing us today - a confrontation with very=20
disastrous possibilities. The lesson that we need to learn from the=20
recent happenings in Afghanistan and the cumulative effects of our=20
past mistakes is that we were unable even in the record time of 20=20
years available to us to work out a regional settlement of the Afghan=20
problem. Instead of working out some sort of a condominium settlement=20
over there in cooperation with Iran the other significant neighbour=20
of Afghanistan, we let things drift for years altogether and instead=20
attempted a shabby writ on the Pakhtun part of Afghanistan via the=20
Taliban whom we failed to effectively control and who created any=20
number of problems for us. Is it not therefore quite paradoxical that=20
the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Iran could only get together=20
and discuss cooperation among themselves after both countries had=20
been effectively pushed out from positions of being able to influence=20
events in Afghanistan.
That indeed is the story of the recent past. Now that the focus after=20
Afghanistan having shifted to Kashmir in a broader Pakistan-India=20
situation on the issue of cross-border terrorism what can we=20
reasonably expect to happen in the future? Our track record has not=20
been very impressive as we have in the past displayed a lot of=20
ineptitude that is evidence of a gross lack of anticipation of=20
international events and an inability to manage ourselves from being=20
taken by surprise.
Both countries have already moved their troops and other ancillary=20
forces right up to the border. The slightest false move from either=20
side can trigger full-scale war with all its attendant effects. The=20
Indians have indeed been acting a lot cockier this time and it is=20
difficult to know as to how much international support they may be=20
having in making their current moves.
The situation is thus perfectly poised for the arrival of foreign=20
emissaries in the subcontinent as peace-brokers. One must not forget=20
that each such envoy carries with him a tight brief that he must=20
follow and that brief will not necesssarily be for the benefit of the=20
peoples of the subcontinent. It would therefore be advisable that=20
both countries should, before this starts to happen, open up their=20
own direct diplomatic channels and start cooling off things before we=20
make a laughing stock of ourselves before the world.
The paradox is that we happen to be abysmally poor nations and we=20
also seem to have a high propensity of waging war against each other=20
at a time when we are heavily indebted. We only have to take a look=20
at the Middle East elsewhere where mediations by third parties have=20
played such havoc with the local issues. We must settle our=20
subcontinental squabbles among ourselves without running from pillar=20
to post. No wonder Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first and most=20
revered prime minister, was extremely averse to outside mediation in=20
the disputes between Pakistan and India. The same has been the line=20
taken by Prime Minister Vajpayee and it is surprising that he should=20
be cosying up so much to the outside world of late in the wake of the=20
September 2001 happenings.
Pakistan needs to engage India actively as part of a long-range=20
policy. If we have to get anything out of each other it will have to=20
be through the conduct of civilized modes of diplomacy, good manners=20
and politeness towards each other. The cultures of the subcontinent=20
call for a raising of the quality as well as the quantity of the=20
Pakistan-India interaction. Both peoples expect it and we owe it to=20
them that the respective power elite's of the two countries take the=20
lead in developing a very special relationship between themselves.
Both countries have indeed made mistakes in the past. But that does=20
not mean that corrective steps cannot be taken now prospectively. If=20
we do not heed the requirements and the demands of the people and=20
continue to play in the hands of the more powerful international=20
players, we may only be inviting catastrophes in South Asia. Pakistan=20
and India should try to avoid mediations in their 'inter se'=20
relationship because these will be the forerunners of foreign=20
interventions and re-establish a permanent foreign presence on our=20
soils. This must never be allowed to happen. After all, both=20
countries are philosophically committed to never allowing another=20
East India Company in the subcontinent.
Our respective founders struggled to rid the subcontinent of foreign=20
hegemony. Pakistan's Founder Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was=20
always committed to a healthy and robust Pakistan-India relationship.=20
Kashmir is an important issue between the two countries but that is=20
not the only problem between us. There are many urgent and burning=20
issues that need to be addressed simultaneously by both countries in=20
cooperation with each other as well as individually.
We must therefore return to the Simla Agreement of 1972 and the=20
Lahore process of 1999 and take regular and frequent steps of=20
engaging each other. We are not novice countries that we should be=20
needing mediators, advisers and tutors. We must behave maturely and=20
responsibly within our respective countries as well as abroad. In the=20
instant case of Kashmir and the connected cross-border terrorism=20
issue we need to calm each other rather than cause undue excitement.=20
Think of the thousands of people on both sides of the Pakistan-India=20
border who are right now in the process of being displaced from their=20
villages and homes to provide the space for troop movements and=20
possible hostilities.
If the two countries are not careful in the current situation that=20
has arisen in the region there is the very real danger of both=20
finding themselves totally ousted from the Kashmir jigsaw to their=20
utter surprise and long-term discomfort. A repeat of how Afghanistan=20
has gone cannot be ruled out in Kashmir unless Pakistan and India are=20
able to collect themselves. Because right now Pakistan and India in=20
their current war-like mood are only hurtling towards finding=20
themselves mutually knocked out of Kashmir specifically to the=20
benefit of third parties.

_____

#4.

[ 2nd January 2002]

SAF Press Communiqu=E9

The South Asia Foundation, a non-official organization for promoting
regional cooperation is deeply concerned with the escalating war-like
tension between the Governments of India and Pakistan as its disastrous
consequences would further aggravate not only the suffering of their own
people but of the poverty-stricken masses in other South Asian countries.
War could hardly penalize the dastardly terrorist attack against India's
most sacred and secular democratic institution - the Parliament. On the
contrary, horrors of wars are terrorism's ultimate reward. Terrorists are
warmongers no matter the causes or ideologies they propound.

At this critical crossroads of history, the people of South Asia either
continue to follow the politicians and military dictators who are misleadin=
g
them in the direction of fratricidal conflicts and nuclear holocaust, or go
the way of Mahatma Gandhi by taking the peaceful path of communal harmony
and regional cooperation - as recently reiterated by the Foundation at its
Conference, 11-12 December 2001, in Kathmandu on the eve of the 11th SAARC
Summit.

The Foundation of which the UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador Madanjeet Singh is
the Founder, proposes to step up the campaign against the sentiment for war=
.
Among the measures taken, the biannual "UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize for th=
e
Promotion of Tolerance and Non-Violence" has now been raised to US$
100,000.00 from the previous amount of US$ 40,000.00. The award was
established to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi by
the UNESCO Executive Board at its 146th session at Paris and Fez on 16 May-=
4
June 1995. Among the laureates, the 1998 Prize was jointly won by Indian an=
d
Pakistani anti-nuclear activists - Mr. Narayan Desai and his Shanti Sena
(Peace Brigade) for promoting education and youth training camps and Ms.
Shahtaj Kizilbash, representing thirty NGOs in Pakistan that are working
against all odds for women's rights and religious tolerance.

_____

#5.

DAWN
25 December 2001
HRCP urges crackdown on 'unlawful groups'
Bureau Report

PESHAWAR, Dec 24: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has=20
said that the escalation of tension between India and Pakistan is=20
harming the fundamental human rights in both the countries.
In a press release, issued here on Monday, HRCP Chairperson Afrasiab=20
Khattak said development over the recent weeks had caused a grave=20
setback to the efforts the civil society had been making for=20
establishing peaceful and good neighbourly relations between the two=20
South Asian states.
He believed that reports of jingoist slogans and loose references to=20
the possibility of a war between them could only cause alarm because=20
in the event of war not only the rights of people, but also their=20
very existence would be gravely threatened.
It was much to hope that saner council would prevent any armed=20
conflict because the people of the subcontinent needed peace and=20
mutual goodwill more than ever, he added.
Mr Khattak stated: "While New Delhi's feeling of outrage at the=20
dastardly raid on its parliament house is understandable and no words=20
are strong enough to condemn this act of unpardonable terrorism,=20
India is urged to realize that armed conflict does not guarantee=20
solution of any problem, nor is it a civilised mode of redress."
The HRCP called upon the authorities in India and Pakistan to meet at=20
the highest possible level and earnestly seek a peaceful resolution=20
of all the disputes and disagreements, including terrorism in Kashmir.
Mr Khattak said the HRCP was convinced that regardless of themerits=20
of official statements issued in New Delhi and Islamabad, Pakistan=20
must avoid the stubbornness for which it blamed the Taliban.
He added that the country must realize that the militant groups in it=20
were only defying the constitutional bar and laws of the land, and=20
that they posed a grave threat to the security of the state and the=20
rights of the people.
He urged the government to firmly suppress the groups in accordance=20
with the law and taken effective steps to ensure that they were=20
rendered incapable of playing with innocent people's lives and their=20
liberty anywhere and in any form.
Mr Khattak remarked that the lives, rights and interests of the=20
people of Pakistan could not be sacrificed for the sake of a few=20
unlawful militant groups. He called upon political parties, trade=20
unions, human rights activists in both countries to play their due=20
role in defusing tension in the region and redouble their effort for=20
peace.

_____

#6.
DAWN
25 December 2001

CPC urges Pakistan, India to show restraint
By Our Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Dec 24: The Citizen's Peace Committee Rawalpindi=20
/Islamabad (CPC) has urged both India and Pakistan to show restraint=20
in the interests of over one billion people living in the two=20
countries.
At a meeting held on Monday, the CPC discussed the alarming increase=20
in tensions over the past few days between India and Pakistan.
The meeting was attended by the CPC members from across the twin=20
cities and included students and a number of social and political=20
activists.
The participants of the meeting expressed their concern at the=20
unfolding events in the region.
Under some declarations, the CPC regretted that the Indian government=20
had deemed it necessary to recall its high commissioner from Pakistan=20
and simultaneously discontinued the bus and train service.
The committee also expressed concerned at the prospect of the=20
cancellation of the Indus Water Treaty, as some Indian officials had=20
suggested. It demanded of the Pakistani government to take necessary=20
steps to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate further. They=20
reiterated that violence was no response to any problem. In this=20
regard, the CPC once again condemns the attack on the Indian=20
parliament, and other such incidents in the past, the speakers said.
However, they said the CPC did not believe that such attacks could be=20
stopped permanently by the use of retaliatory violence by any=20
individual, group or country.
"This is as true for India in the present situation, as it was for=20
the United States in its unparalleled destruction of Afghanistan,"=20
they added.
The CPC urged that all sides should consider the root causes of=20
violence and take thoughtful and peaceful steps to address these=20
problems.
The CPC demanded of India to recognize Kashmiris' right to=20
self-determination and allow them to realize this right.
The committee said state-sponsored violence such as that be carried=20
out in Kashmir and Palestine should be stopped at once.
"Partial definition of terrorism by states like India and Israel are=20
not censured, which adds to the sense of deprivation and injustice=20
among the people and draw them to extremist groups," the participants=20
said.

_____

#7.

Mainstream
January 2, 2002
The Enveloping Danger
ROMILA THAPAR

In a democratic society and in an educational system that is financed=20
by the state, there is bound to be the intervention of politics. But=20
we cannot accept the intervention of any kind of politics. We have to=20
differentiate between the minimal, benign kind and what we are faced=20
with today-a maximal, disturbing politics that is trying to erode=20
both democratic society and the legitimacy of the educational system.

What is being referred to as the saffronisation of education is, in=20
effect, the de-intellectualising of education in such a severe way=20
that little of academic value will be left in what comes to be taught=20
in the next few years. Totalitarian ideologies are built on cynicism=20
and the new national curriculum is immensely cynical.

The cynicism lies in projection of the idea that education is meant=20
to produce a generation that will think and behave uniformly and that=20
too as dictated by a particular ideology. It will accept without=20
question what it is taught and not even be allowed to discuss what it=20
is thinking.

The move of a few days ago of deleting passages and forbidding their=20
discussion has given the game away.

The end result will not be a generation of educated Indians,=20
exploring knowledge, but a generation of young people merely=20
repeating what is taught to them.
The assualt on history is part of the assault on knowledge. It will=20
not stop with history. But history is one of the easier subjects for=20
starting such a campaign since everyone thinks they know history and=20
there is nothing new in it. However, the undermining of history is=20
also essentially the undermining of the social sciences and the=20
danger is not limited to history but to all the social sciences.

This is clear from the new school curriculum where History will not=20
be taught from Class VI to Class X and then suddenly it will be=20
started up in Classes XI and XII. Since there will no graduated=20
teaching of history, moving from the simple to the complex from class=20
to class, what will be taught in high school will have to be fairly=20
elementary and of a diluted form. History will be replaced by social=20
studies consisting of geography, civics and a few general notions=20
about nationalism and patriotism. Civics will presumably discuss,=20
among other things, India as a society organised around caste, and=20
will also have to discuss the policy of affirmative action and=20
reservations for Dalits. Presumably it will also have to answer=20
questions of a complex kind such as the ones that have recently=20
arisen in the public debate on caste and race. And how will teachers=20
teach such subjects if they are forbidden from discussing the=20
formulation of varna in history-how did it come about, and when, and=20
what was the structure and the ideology that gave rise to it, and who=20
were the groups that manipulated it to their advantage? Is the state=20
assuming that if any OBC and Dalit children raise any questions, they=20
will forcibly be made to shut up?

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

THE recent act of deleting passages from History textbooks is=20
motivated by a short-term and a long-term programme. The short term=20
is the attempt to use this act as part of political propaganda in the=20
coming elections in UP and Punjab. Voters will be told that the=20
government has upheld the sensitivities of the upper castes over the=20
references to beef-eating, and the historicity of Rama and the=20
Janmabhoomi temple; the sensitivities of the Jats by refusing to=20
acknowledge that their ancestors sometimes plundered the countryside,=20
and of the Sikhs by refusing to concede that some of their leaders=20
may also have plundered the land to build up their power. Who cares=20
about the facts in these issues-that in many cases plunder was seen=20
as a recognised way to establish power or that almost forty per cent=20
of the Indian population has been, and still is, beef-eating and this=20
includes the Scheduled Tribes, the Dalits, the OBCs, the Christians=20
and the Muslims. Only the habits of the upper castes are to be=20
endorsed.
The long-term project is to impose the pattern of the Shishu Mandir=20
type of teaching on state schools. This is reflected in the kinds of=20
subjects that are proposed in the new curriculum. Children will have=20
to learn Vedic Mathematics, despite mathematicians saying that there=20
is nothing Vedic about this kind of maths and that it is simply an=20
alternative way of making fast calculations. It is unlikely that this=20
in itself will provide the kind of mathematical foundation that=20
school children require for subjects such as econometrics, or=20
technologies and sciences of various kinds. Sanskrit will be=20
compulsary and one does not object to this if it is taught as a=20
foundation to understanding the structure of languages used today in=20
India, as and where relevent. And of course an appreciation of its=20
literature. But more likely children will have to memorise endless=20
amounts of grammer instead of approaching it through the logical=20
structure of the language, and the study of the language will be made=20
into yet another channel for propagating communal Hindu theories=20
rather than the humanism of a civilisation.

And then there are the mysterious subjects that have no pedagogy and=20
remain guarded secrets such as Yoga and Consciousness or the concern=20
with the Spirituality Quotient.
The method of teaching in the Shishu Mandirs is through a variant on=20
a kind of catechism-questions and answers only with no context to=20
either. This is a convenient technique since it is possible to=20
fabricate both questions and answers, which are then implicitly=20
believed since the students are not taught to discuss alternate ways=20
of looking at a subject.

This approach to education will be the death of the social sciences,=20
where the emphasis is on testing the reliability of data, observing=20
methods of analyses and arguing logically. The links between the=20
social sciences have frequently led to expanding the frontiers of a=20
subject.
To take the example of beef-eating. Comparative studies of cattle=20
economies such as those of the Nuer analysed by the anthrpologist=20
Evans-Pritchard, or the picture that emerges from ancient texts such=20
as the Avesta and the Rigveda, provide many insights into these=20
societies. Cattle are not eaten indiscriminately but they are killed=20
on special occasions as, for example, to honour guests, kings,=20
priests and this becomes a mark of status. When such references begin=20
to decline and eventually a prohibition is also introduced, then the=20
historian has to ask the question as to why this happened. And often=20
the answers come from related disciplines. Was it a matter of belief=20
that the cow came to be seen as 'the mother'? Or was there an=20
environmental change with a decline of grazing grounds, or did=20
agriculture supersede cattle-raising so that livestock got reduced?=20
And what would have been the effect of all this particularly on rural=20
society?

To disallow such questions is to limit history in a ridiculous way.

Similarly, if history is to be vetted by religious organisations and=20
each one permitted to delete what hurts its sensitivities, then, in a=20
multi-religious society with an infinite number of religious sects=20
such as ours, there will be no end to paring down a history textbook,=20
until we might be left with virtually nothing at all.

But this also raises another fundamental issue. Who should write the=20
history used in schools-historians or a collection of pandits,=20
mullahs, granthis and priests? The legitimacy of the latter is their=20
own self-proclaimed assertion that they represent a particular=20
religious community. And it makes no difference that they don't=20
understand the first thing about history.

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

THE battle today is not between Marxist historians and other=20
historians. It is between historians and non-historians where the=20
latter do not understand the discipline of history and the change it=20
has undergone in the last half-a-century. There was a time when=20
history was a support to a certain kind of anti-colonial nationalism=20
and the support was effective in the national movement. It was also=20
embedded in Indology-culling information from sources and laying it=20
out in an orderly fashion. Analysing the information with different=20
methods of analyses and integrating the analyses was not what=20
Indologists did. Over the years, from the 1960s onwards, history=20
moved from being a part of Indology to acquiring its own methods of=20
critical enquiry and in the last two decades has emerged not only as=20
a sophisticated intellectual discipline but also capable of providing=20
insights into the past which have helped us understand our past.=20
History is now part of the social and human sciences and demands=20
rigorous ways of looking at the past. This change seems to have gone=20
unnoticed by those who are now controlling our institutions and=20
writing our textbooks. They still assume that it is a story which can=20
be a fantasy or a myth dictated by anyone's whim and channelled into=20
whatever propa-ganda the politicians and their minions choose to=20
support.

This is not a situation that we can live with quietly and hope that=20
it will pass. It is a situation that needs to be opposed and the=20
opposition has to be visible. I would like to suggest three ways in=20
which this visibility could be made apparent.

We have to assert the academic foundations of the discipline of=20
history and insist that these be prominent and be encouraged wherever=20
history is taught or historical matters are under discussion.

We also have to watch out for attempts to erode other social science=20
disciplines.
Archaeology, which was beginning to provide evidence on material=20
culture and which sometimes raised doubts about statements in texts=20
and sometimes corroborated these statements, is now being distorted=20
in various ways. Questions of origins and identity determining who is=20
indigenous and who is alien, cannot be answered by archaeology, yet=20
archaeological data is being forced into supporting political=20
theories.
A spurious sociology and social anthropology are likely to be the=20
next disciplines to be falsified, since they are both concerned with=20
concepts of caste.

Secondly, I think that we have to take the initiative and start=20
investigating what is taught in the Shishu Mandirs and the madrassas=20
and other similar institutions. Are they all motivated by the same=20
philosophy or are there differences and if so what are these and why.=20
These institutions are becoming the articulation of large groups of=20
people. We should investigate their courses and methods of teaching=20
and possibly even reach out to the students by presenting alternative=20
ways of looking at a subject. The latter may be too ambitious. But=20
the absurdity of the way many of the subjects are taught in such=20
schools, as for example their question-answer format on geography,=20
needs to be critiqued more publicly. People need to be made aware of=20
the fact that a school education is concerned as much with the=20
contents of what is taught as with the obtaining of marks: and=20
further that the content of education is what goes towards the=20
creation of the future society. There seems to be an increasing=20
disinterest in these matters. The obsession with marks will have to=20
give way to content if there is to be a quality education.

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to raise the issue of=20
transparency in procedures and the right of any state institution to=20
appropriate and reconfigure the texts of authors.
For many state activities in India, procedures have been established=20
even though they may not be closely followed. In the sixties when the=20
NCERT textbooks were written there was a procedure : a committee of=20
historians selected the authors, the drafts of the books were vetted=20
by the committee and discussed in considerable detail, the drafts=20
were sent to other historians, if thought necessary, to get an=20
opinion and were then printed. Even after publication if any changes=20
were suggested by any organisation or historian, these were discussed=20
with the author by the committee and a decision taken on whether or=20
not to make a change.

This basic procedure of getting historians with acceptable=20
credentials to write the books and then put them through peer group=20
review was fundamental to the writing of these books. This was also a=20
great source of strength to the author.

None of these procedures are now being observed. Passages are deleted=20
at the whim of the Minister, the NCERT, the CBSE. There is no=20
reference to other historians but only to some representatives of=20
religious organisations. The authors of the new books that are being=20
written to replace ours are unknown to anyone. They are writing in=20
hideouts and with a secrecy that would be envied even by Osama bin=20
Laden. Where is the need for all this secrecy? The books will in any=20
case be judged by historians once they are published. Or is it the=20
intention that however good or bad the books may be they will rapidly=20
be put into circulation and that will be a fait accompli which no one=20
can oppose. Do we have to have all this infantile cloak-and-dagger=20
stuff when it comes to the responsibility of writing textbooks for=20
schools?

That the state should take it upon iself to delete passages without=20
review and disallow disucssion, is perhaps the most odious aspect of=20
what has been happening. This is a matter that does not concern=20
textbooks alone, although it has been projected as an assault on=20
history. Once a state gets infected with totalitarianism, it will not=20
stop at excising textbooks but will excise all manner of rights and=20
principles essential to civil liberties. This is the greater and more=20
enveloping danger and it requires of us that we be alert to even more=20
major deletions of other kinds.

[Keynote Address delivered at the National Consultation on=20
Communalisation of School Education organised by the Education=20
Discussion Group (New Delhi, December 13, 2001)]

_____

#8.

The Hindu
Wednesday, Jan 02, 2002
Opinion
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002010201261000.htm

History and community sentiment
By Rajeev Bhargava

The history textbooks from which selected portions are deleted do not=20
condemn the way of life of any community... They do, however,=20
discourage a deferential attitude... This is how it should be.

IS THE decision of the NCERT to remove sections it deems=20
objectionable justified? Can a particular section of a school=20
textbook be deleted on the sole ground that it hurts the sentiment of=20
any community?

To answer this, I identify at least three assumptions that underlie=20
this decision. First, that the communal identity of persons is the=20
only one they have. Second, that sentiments are naturally given,=20
unalterable and cannot be morally evaluated. Third, that respecting a=20
person or community always implies overlooking defects, refraining=20
from being critical. Since each of these assumptions can be=20
challenged, the decision of the NCERT is unwarranted.

British colonial writing never conceived India as a nation but=20
instead saw it as an adhoc conglomeration of several discrete=20
communities. In addition, these communities were seen not as rational=20
agents but only as subjects of feelings. Individuals, on this view,=20
saw themselves solely as members of sentimental communities, with no=20
reflective powers to distance themselves from their community or be=20
able to challenge practices they found unbearable. The NCERT=20
replicates this Orientalist view and simply grafts it on to modern=20
India today. It thereby perpetuates a deeply offensive picture of=20
India self-consciously and painstakingly fought against by the=20
movement for Independence. More importantly, this picture is plainly=20
wrong. I doubt that a society has ever existed in which all its=20
members defined themselves exclusively in terms of the community to=20
which they were attached. Almost always, at least some people in=20
society possess the capacity to reflectively endorse or challenge the=20
practices of their community. This is true too of India in the 18th=20
and 19th centuries. Could our great social reformers such as Gandhi=20
or Phule have achieved anything if they had always worried about the=20
sentiments of religious communities? Could improvements in the life=20
of religious communities have been possible if religious reformers=20
such as Guru Nanak, Dayanand or Vivekananda looked over their=20
shoulders to see how their actions distressed the feelings of=20
orthodox religious leadership?

The decision-makers at the NCERT may respond to this by saying that=20
they are not making mutually exclusive claims. Individuals can belong=20
to a particular community and yet see themselves independent of it.=20
Likewise, individuals can simultaneously be rational and emotional.=20
The point, they might say, is that even rational individuals have=20
feelings. Though mostly rational, Hindus have sentiments too which=20
are hurt when told that their ancestors ate beef. So do Sikhs when=20
they read that Guru Tegh Bahadur indulged in plunder.

This is all very well but embedded in the NCERT response are three=20
further assumptions. First, that emotions, quite like sensations, are=20
biological perturbations that occur within us, not collectively=20
generated entities for which we are responsible. Second, once=20
triggered, there is no easy way to control them. All counter=20
strategies to deal with powerful emotions are therefore impotent.=20
Even the persuasive powers of reason are annulled. An emotion is like=20
pain. It cannot be expunged by rational talk. Third, what is beyond=20
our control is also outside the ambit of rational or moral=20
evaluation. If we, conscious agents, are mere receptors of feelings=20
that just happen to us and that spring from sources outside reason,=20
then they can neither be rational nor irrational, neither be good nor=20
bad. Does it make sense to say that our inability to fly is=20
irrational or that our mortality is immoral? We may regret that we=20
are finite creatures, but surely we cannot say that there is=20
something wrong about it. These are just plain facts about us, beyond=20
reason, beyond good and evil. It is the same with feelings. We cannot=20
rationally assess or morally evaluate them. Because they overwhelm=20
us, we are entirely passive in relation to them. It is best then to=20
give in to emotions and bow before the much stronger sentiment of=20
collectivities.

This conclusion is false because the assumptions from which it flows=20
are mistaken. Most human emotions are socially constructed. We are=20
not biologically programmed to be indignant about injustice. Many,=20
such as shame and guilt, are culturally specific. Almost all emotions=20
are amenable to rational assessment. If someone says he had a pang of=20
regret, it is perfectly legitimate to ask if he was justified in=20
having it. If someone is angry, it is entirely appropriate to ask if=20
that anger is reasonable. This is so because like beliefs and unlike=20
sensations, emotions have an intentional content. They are always=20
about something. As with any mental entity with a content, it is=20
always legitimate to ask if emotions fit or cohere with the world.=20
Emotions, like beliefs, can be shown to be false or unreasonable.

Take an example. Suppose that I am angry because I believe my low=20
grades are due to a deep bias against my caste. If, on closer=20
examination, a bias shows up in the pattern of marking, for instance,=20
if other members of the same caste have secured poor marks, then my=20
anger seems to be justified. If not, then it is unfounded. Surely,=20
others can expect me to shed my anger and to accept my just desserts.=20
Emotions can change by rational persuasion.

Just as emotions are rational or irrational, they can be moral or=20
immoral too. It is not exactly moral to feel bad about the legitimate=20
success of others. It is certainly morally wrong to gloat at the=20
misery of others. We discourage children from being jealous or=20
envious because such emotions harm them as well as others. Emotions=20
then are not mere eruptions independent of our beliefs, judgments and=20
appraisals. It is legitimate to ask if resentment is rationally=20
endorsed and morally justified. If it is not, it is best to drop it,=20
even if difficult.

However, those who favour these deletions may reply that Hindus and=20
Sikhs have good reason to be offended, that their resentment is=20
morally justified because these statements are unambiguously false.=20
And who will decide the truth and falsity of these statements? The=20
community, of course, they would answer, and Truth is what the=20
community says it is. This relativist position is plainly=20
unconvincing. Though there are no absolute, final, unrevisable=20
truths, it is humanly possible to arrive at beliefs which, given=20
available information, it is most reasonable to hold. This is so in=20
social science and history as much as in the natural sciences.

The cognitive content of feelings of hurt and resentment must then be=20
assessed by procedures of sound and valid arguments and broadly=20
acceptable standards among historians by which good from bad=20
interpretations of available historical evidence can be=20
distinguished. If so, what is included or jettisoned from history=20
textbooks must be decided by or be consistent with the judgments of=20
professional historians. Has the NCERT consulted relevant historians?=20
If the moral legitimacy of sentiments depends, as far as is=20
reasonably possible, on the best available interpretation of=20
evidence, the validity of arguments and on the plausibility of=20
historical accounts, then the judgment of historians is relevant to=20
whether or not feelings of hurt and resentment are justified.

The NCERT can furnish a further, desperate argument: some statements,=20
even if true, must be removed if they offend the self-esteem of any=20
community. Is it not the case that sometimes truth hurts, lowers=20
self- respect or our respect for others? Will our respect for a=20
person not be diminished when we hear something true but=20
disagreeable, distasteful or nasty about him? Not necessarily. We do=20
not lose respect for parents or friends even when we recognise their=20
failings. This, primarily because we also know of their strengths and=20
virtues that far outweigh their known faults.

Respect is consistent with criticism, and with a recognition of some=20
defects. So is love. Criticism, however, is incompatible with blind=20
submission, subordination and deference. The acknowledgement that our=20
ancestors did something of which we now disapprove should not=20
necessarily diminish our respect for them. We lose respect only when=20
nothing worthwhile is found in their way of life. Similarly,=20
disrespect towards religious communities is shown only when their=20
entire way of life is condemned, not when a few of their practices=20
are criticised. To my knowledge, history textbooks from which=20
selected portions are deleted do not condemn the way of life of any=20
community. Therefore, they show no disrespect for religion. They do,=20
however, discourage a deferential attitude. Because good critical=20
education is incompatible with deference, this is how it should be.

(The writer is Professor, Political Theory, Delhi University.)

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

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.