[sacw] SACW #1 (06 January. 02)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 6 January 2002

------------------------------------------
#1. The dogs of war (Praful Bidwai)
#2. The right to one's identity (Amartya Sen)
#3. South Asia's Enduring Conflict - India united in distrust (Marisa Handl=
er)
#4. Proposed All Jammu & Kashmir People to People Dialogue for Peace=20
& Prosperity
#5. Legacy from the Past (Sanjay Subrahmanyam)

________________________

#1.

Frontline
Volume 19 - Issue 01, Jan. 05, - 18, 2002

THE DOGS OF WAR
by Praful Bidwai

The Vajpayee government is provoking a military confrontation which=20
could have devastating consequences for both India and Pakistan.

THE prospect of war menaces India and Pakistan as thousands of=20
troops, missiles, tanks and heavy artillery are deployed on the=20
border, and as the rhetoric of mutual hostility is ratcheted up with=20
each passing day. The military build-up is vastly larger than the=20
preparations before and during the Kargil war. Greater too is the use=20
of devious political argument and varied forms of pretence and=20
deception. This last category includes the show of injured innocence=20
by the leaders of the two countries.

Thus, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told a Bharatiya Janata=20
Yuva Morcha rally on December 25 that India "does not war"; war is=20
being "thrust" upon it. Home Minister L.K. Advani took the same line.=20
But their government is daily cranking up its belligerent=20
anti-Pakistan rhetoric. On December 27, it upped the ante for the=20
second time in a week by taking tough diplomatic measures against=20
Pakistan. There are signs that India has arbitrarily broadened its=20
agenda and now wants Pakistan to take "effective" action against all=20
terrorist groups, not just against the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the=20
Jaish-e-Mohammed. It has rejected Pakistan's December 26-27 moves,=20
including the detention of 30 militants, as "cosmetic" and insincere.

The Vajpayee government has also contemptuously dismissed the=20
suggestion that it should share with Pakistan the evidence of the=20
LeT's and the JeM's culpability for December 13. At the same time, it=20
charges Pakistan with failure to discharge its "responsibility". It=20
says Pakistan is not doing "enough" to fight terrorism, but does not=20
say what constitutes "enough". It increasingly appears unreasonable.=20
This unreasonableness goes back to September 11 and even earlier. It=20
bears recalling that India was peeved when President Bush first=20
demanded that Musharraf join the so-called "international coalition"=20
against terrorism, or face the consequences. India protested against=20
Pakistan's inclusion and proposed that a "Concert of Democracies",=20
excluding Pakistan, should be the right agency to fight terrorism.

According to highly placed sources in the defence services, the=20
Vajpayee government had made, well before September 11, a plan to=20
launch punitive attacks against Pakistan across the Line of Control.=20
The "October 20 Plan" was inspired as much by the Bharatiya Janata=20
Party's communal antipathy towards Pakistan as by its desire to=20
"teach Islamabad a lesson" for fomenting terrorism in Kashmir.=20
September 11 put paid to this scheme. Other aggressive plans were=20
also made under Vajpayee, as part of its "pro-active" Kashmir policy.

The Vajpayee government is now planning just such a misadventure=20
under Right-wing pressure related to Uttar Pradesh politics. Many=20
political commentators have long suspected this. Now there is strong=20
evidence. On December 20, Vajpayee was grilled for two hours by=20
Rajnath Singh at a meeting attended by top-ranking leaders of the BJP=20
and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh including L.K. Advani, Murli=20
Manohar Joshi, Jana Krishnamurthy and Kushabhau Thakre. (The=20
Telegraph and The Asian Age, December 22.) They reportedly told him=20
that all of Rajnath Singh's Hindutva work in Uttar Pradesh would be=20
wiped out unless India launches military strikes to show that it is=20
not a "soft state". War may be the BJP's sole vote-winning device=20
after it has lost all its trump cards. If the BJP loses Uttar=20
Pradesh, the ramshackle National Democratic Alliance could itself=20
come tumbling down.

Given its visceral hostility towards Pakistan and aggressive past=20
plans, the Vajpayee government is being sanctimoniously hypocritical=20
in claiming that it "does not war". In reality, it is making all the=20
belligerent moves. It is painting itself into a corner as it takes a=20
tougher and tougher line, from which it will find it hard to climb=20
down. The logic of this position is, simply put, war.

Nothing could be more undesirable in strategic, social, political and=20
economic terms, or more unproductive as regards India's stated=20
objective of countering terrorism, than war. To demand that a=20
military attack on Pakistan, however limited in range, must be=20
averted at all costs is neither to minimise the gravity of what=20
happened on December 13, nor ignore Islamabad's overall complicity in=20
terrorist activities, especially in Kashmir. Rather, the rationale of=20
the argument is that India's diplomatic options are broader and=20
worthy of trial. It is India's duty to explore and develop them fully.

The top brass of India's armed forces is opposed to the use of=20
military force in today's circumstances. It has repeatedly expressed=20
this reluctance in the Cabinet Committee on Security and even in=20
public statements. This is also the mood among a majority of retired=20
Generals and Admirals who have publicly commented on the issue,=20
including V.P. Malik, L. Ramdas, V.N. Sharma, Shankar Roychowdhury,=20
V.R. Raghavan and Afsir Karim. The restraint they advocate contrasts=20
sharply with our political leaders' sabre-rattling.

In fact, we may be witnessing the first disconnect since Independence=20
in perceptions between the country's political and military leaders.=20
Even when Sam Maneckshaw offered to quit over pressure to attack East=20
Pakistan prematurely in early 1971, he disagreed with Indira Gandhi=20
over the timing, not the basic military strategy.

The services chiefs reportedly believe that attacks on Pakistani=20
territory will yield poor results while carrying high risks. Our=20
forces lack accurate information on the location of such few=20
"training camps" as remain after most were shifted deep into=20
Pakistan. (Most Kashmir militants do not undergo rigorous training=20
which needs elaborate and permanent facilities, as opposed to=20
temporary parade/drill grounds and firing ranges.) Given the=20
information constraints, high-altitude air strikes will be largely=20
ineffective. Low-flying planes will be vulnerable to ground fire.=20
Most suspect camps are beyond the range of heavy artillery.

That leaves the options of "pro-active" ground attacks and "hot=20
pursuit". These are fraught with high casualties. "Hot pursuit" over=20
land, as distant from the sea, is legally problematic unless it is=20
subsumed under self-defence. Any ground-troops operation is likely to=20
escalate. Today there can be no "limited war" or swift "surgical"=20
strikes between India and Pakistan. Given their relative strategic=20
parity, any military confrontation will last several weeks. This=20
might mean opening up many fronts, on some of which India is=20
vulnerable.

An Indian attack will certainly trigger Pakistani retaliatory=20
strikes. Musharraf cannot afford to be seen cowed down by India.=20
After the Taliban's defeat, and the collapse of Islamabad's=20
quarter-century-old Afghanistan policy (including its reversal by=20
him), he has no option but to hit back hard. Already he is facing=20
flak from the religious Right for "selling out" to the Americans and=20
losing the "strategic depth" supposedly offered by Afghanistan.

A PROTRACTED war will all but destroy Pakistan's fragile economy.=20
India's own economy will be set back by many years. Besides, there is=20
a likelihood that the war will escalate into a nuclear conflagration.=20
Any use of nuclear weapons is totally, absolutely, unacceptable -=20
irrespective of the circumstances. Even the threats of use must be=20
defused. Nuclear wars cannot be won. They are suicidal and genocidal=20
for all concerned. They must never be fought.

We must pause and ask what New Delhi will achieve even if, short of a=20
nuclear holocaust, it "wins" the war - leading to Musharraf's fall=20
(or assassination), a general collapse of Pakistan's state, and its=20
disintegration along ethnic lines. A failed state collapsing on one's=20
borders is disastrous enough - as Pakistan has discovered in respect=20
of Afghanistan. A nuclear power disintegrating would be catastrophic=20
for India.

The legitimate purpose of any anti-terrorist operation cannot be=20
Pakistan's disintegration, but effective action to rein in militant=20
groups and put Pakistan on the road to moderation. By embarking on an=20
open-ended confrontation, New Delhi will have pushed Pakistan's=20
extremists further down the terrorist path. This would be=20
self-defeating. One cardinal lesson of September 11 is that all=20
states, no matter how powerful, are vulnerable to terrorist attacks=20
on their homeland.

We must acknowledge that our military options against Pakistan are=20
limited, fraught with grave danger, or ineffectual. Instead of=20
discouraging terrorism, they will, at minimum, encourage extremist,=20
irresponsible conduct on the part of an embittered neighbour.=20
Tragically, India's rulers are contemplating such a course. Their=20
motivation is profoundly irrational and vengeful. It is to teach=20
Islamabad a U.S.-style or Israeli-style "lesson". But Pakistan is not=20
Gaza. And India's ability militarily to bend Musharraf to its=20
dictates is limited.

More important, Indian leaders know that Musharraf probably did not=20
order the attack on Parliament House. He would have to be insane to=20
do so when he is under watch or attack, both externally and=20
internally. On the one hand, he is under close, probably intrusive,=20
American scrutiny, and under pressure to deliver on his premise to=20
act against terrorists. On the other hand, he is targeted by=20
religious extremists. His Interior Minister's brother was recently=20
killed by them. They describe him as a "traitor" and a "sellout". In=20
all probability, December 13 was an amateurish operation by a group=20
acting independently of Musharraf. Even assuming that some rogue=20
elements of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind it, a=20
military confrontation would only strengthen them.

Vajpayee capitulated to Right-wing pressure when he took harsh=20
diplomatic measures against Pakistan on December 21 and 27. He is now=20
under even greater pressure to ratchet up hostility till war becomes=20
likely, even inevitable. Besides cancelling Pakistan's=20
most-favoured-nation trade status, the government is considering=20
abrogating the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, an act that could lead to=20
starving Pakistan of much-needed water.

Such measures will erode India's diplomatic leverage, and inflict=20
heavy punishment upon Pakistan, thus breeding more resentment -=20
without encouraging moderate, reasonable conduct on its part. They=20
will also weaken secular Pakistani opinion which stands for=20
moderation. Abrogating something like the Indus Treaty would be=20
tantamount to laying economic siege to a country, which is=20
impermissible under international law. (India once almost invited=20
stiff Security Council sanctions for choking off the flow of the=20
Ganga to Bangladesh.) The Treaty pertains to the Indus Basin (26=20
million hectares), the largest irrigated area of any one river system=20
in the world. It comprises the eastern rivers, the Sutlej, the Beas=20
and the Ravi, and the western Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The Treaty=20
basically allots the waters of the eastern rivers to India and most=20
of the flows of the western rivers to Pakistan. Much of Pakistan's=20
agriculture is critically dependent on these flows. Killing the=20
Treaty will cause it irreversible damage.

The Indus Treaty is one of the few abiding stories of success among=20
many failures and disasters in the history of Indo-Pakistan=20
relations. It was brokered by the World Bank by means of tortuous=20
negotiations. If India abrogates it, renegotiating it will be an=20
extremely difficult task.

THERE is a sane, rational, cool-headed, low-risk alternative to such=20
destructive measures. India should take the December 13 terrorist=20
issue to the wider world, in particular to the Security Council on=20
the basis of solid evidence. It should invoke Security Council=20
Resolution 1373, mandating all states to take effective action=20
against terrorism - on pain of sanctions. This will generate the=20
right kind of pressure on Musharraf to take verifiable measures,=20
including the arrest of extremist leaders, a clamp-down on their=20
facilities and assets, and destruction of their ISI links.

This course has the merit of winning - and retaining - the support of=20
the international community on a transparent multilateral basis and=20
of impelling Musharraf to fight a menace for which Pakistan has paid=20
heavily. This will also help New Delhi build upon today's favourable=20
situation in Kashmir. The Taliban's defeat has had a huge impact on=20
the Valley. This creates a big opening to revitalise the political=20
process and get the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference to participate in=20
the next Assembly elections. War will close that opening. Good=20
diplomacy will expand it and create conditions in which terrorism=20
gets thoroughly discredited and foreign militants get isolated.

However, as a precondition, the government must abandon its=20
military-adventurist approach. The Left has been pushing for this=20
change. Now Centrist parties such as the Congress(I), Samajwadi,=20
Bahujan Samaj and the NDA's "secular" components must join in. They=20
must not lend uncritical, unconditional support to the government's=20
"anti-terrorist" fight. Such life-and-death issues are too precious=20
to be left to any one group, especially the sectarian-communal=20
BJP-RSS.

The time has also come for citizens to act. They must firmly say no=20
to war. It has never been more imperative to give peace a chance.

_____

#2.

Frontline
Volume 19 - Issue 01, Jan. 05, - 18, 2002
PERSPECTIVE

THE RIGHT TO ONE'S IDENTITY
The main hope of harmony in the contemporary world lies not in any=20
imagined uniformity, but in the plurality of our identities, which=20
cut across each other and work against sharp divisions around one=20
uniquely hardened line of impenetrable division.

AMARTYA SEN

THE basic weakness of the thesis of a "clash of civilisations," which=20
has been much championed recently, lies in its programme of=20
categorising people of the world according to a unique, allegedly=20
commanding, system of classification. This is deeply problematic=20
because the civilisational categories are crude and inconsistent, and=20
also because there are many other ways of seeing people (linked to=20
politics, language, literature, class, occupation and other=20
affiliations).

SUBIR ROY
At the Tile Wali mosque in Lucknow on December 14, the last Friday of=20
the month of Ramzan. India has many more Muslims than any other=20
country in the world, with the exception of Indonesia and marginally=20
Pakistan.

The inadequacy of the thesis of clashing civilisations, thus, begins=20
well before we get to the point of asking whether civilisations must=20
clash. No matter what answer is given to this question, addressing it=20
in this coarse form tends, in itself, to push us into an illusive way=20
of thinking about the people of the world. The befuddling influence=20
of a singular classification traps those who (like many senior=20
statesmen in Europe and America) dispute the thesis of a clash, but=20
respond within its pre-specified terms of reference. To talk about=20
"the Islamic world" or "the Western world" (as is increasingly=20
common, in line with Samuel Huntington's categories) is already to=20
reduce people into this one dimension. The same impoverished vision=20
of the world - divided into boxes of civilisations - is shared by=20
those who preach amity among civilisations and those who see them=20
clashing.

In fact, civilisations are hard to partition in this way, given the=20
diversities within each society as well as the historical linkages=20
between different countries and cultures. For example, in describing=20
India as a "Hindu civilisation," Samuel Huntington's exposition of=20
the alleged clash of civilisations has to downplay the fact that=20
India has many more Muslims (about 125 million, more than the entire=20
British and French populations put together) than any other country=20
in the world with the exception of Indonesia and marginally Pakistan.=20
Also, it is futile to try to have an understanding of the nature and=20
range of Indian art, literature, music, food or politics without=20
seeing the extensive interactions across barriers of religious=20
communities. This includes Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists, Jains,=20
Sikhs, Parsees, Christians (who have been in India since at least the=20
fourth century, before there was a single Christian in Britain), Jews=20
(present in South India since the fall of Jerusalem), and even=20
atheists and agnostics. Sanskrit has a larger atheistic literature=20
than exists in any other classical language. Huntington's=20
categorisation may be comforting to the Hindu fundamentalist, but it=20
is an odd reading of India.

A similar coarseness can be seen in the other categories invoked. How=20
homogeneous should the "Islamic" box be? Consider Akbar and=20
Aurangzeb, two Muslim emperors of the Mughal dynasty in India.=20
Aurangzeb tried hard to convert Hindus into Muslims and instituted=20
various policies in that direction, of which taxing non-Muslims was=20
only one example. In contrast, Akbar revelled in his multi-ethnic=20
court and pluralist laws, and issued official proclamations insisting=20
that no one "should be interfered with on account of religion, and=20
anyone is to be allowed to go over to a religion that pleases him."=20
If a homogeneous view of Islam were to be taken, then only one of=20
them could count as a true Muslim. The Islamic fundamentalist would=20
have no time for Akbar; and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, given=20
his insistence that tolerance is a defining characteristic of Islam,=20
would have to consider excommunicating Aurangzeb from the community=20
of Muslims. I expect both Akbar and Aurangzeb would protest, and so=20
would I.

A similar crudity is present in the characterisation of what is=20
called "the Western civilisation." Samuel Huntington gives good=20
examples of the importance of tolerance and individual freedom in=20
European history, and insists that the "West was West long before it=20
was modern." But there is no dearth of diversity here either. For=20
example, when Akbar was making his pronouncements on religious=20
tolerance in Agra, in the 1590s, the Inquisitions were still going=20
on; in 1600, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake, for heresy, in=20
Campo dei Fiori in Rome.

THIERRY FALISE/GAMMA
An anti-globalisation rally in Bangkok. The anti-globalisation=20
movement's programme goes firmly against religious, national or=20
"civilisational" lines of division.

The first problem with reliance on civilisational partitioning is,=20
thus, its extraordinary crudity. This is supplemented by a second=20
problem, namely the absurdity of the implicit presumption that this=20
partitioning is natural and necessary and must overwhelm all other=20
ways of identifying people. That imperious view goes not only against=20
the old-fashioned belief that "we human beings are all much the=20
same," but also against the more plausible understanding that we are=20
diversely different. For example, Bangladesh's split from Pakistan=20
was not connected with religion, but with language, literature, and=20
politics. Each of us has many features in our self-conception. Our=20
religion, important as it may be, cannot be an all-engulfing=20
identity. Even a shared poverty can be a source of solidarity across=20
the borders. The kind of division highlighted by, say, the so-called=20
"anti-globalisation" protesters - whose movement is, incidentally,=20
one of the most globalised in the world - tries to unite the=20
underdogs of the world economy. Its programme goes firmly against=20
religious, national or "civilisational" lines of division.

The main hope of harmony in the contemporary world lies not in any=20
imagined uniformity, but in the plurality of our identities, which=20
cut across each other and work against sharp divisions around one=20
uniquely hardened line of impenetrable division. The political=20
leaders who dispute the clash of civilisations, but think and act in=20
terms of a unique partitioning of humanity into "the Western world,"=20
"the Muslim world," "the Hindu world," and so on, make the world not=20
only more divisive, but also much more flammable. They also end up=20
privileging the voice of religious authorities (who become the ex=20
officio spokesmen), while muffling other voices and silencing other=20
concerns.

The robbing of our plural identities not only reduces us, but also=20
impoverishes the world.

Based on a speech in New Delhi on November 12, 2001, at the inaugural=20
meeting of "South Asians for Human Rights," a new non-governmental=20
forum for discussion, co-chaired by Asma Jahangir (Pakistan) and I.K.=20
Gujral (India).

_____

#3.

San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, January 4, 2002, Page A - 3
SOUTH ASIA'S ENDURING CONFLICT
India united in distrust
Billion-strong democracy agrees on little except enmity for Pakistan

Marisa Handler, Chronicle Foreign Service
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=3D/c/a/2002/01/04/MN197222.DTL

_____

#4.

PROPOSED ALL JAMMU & KASHMIR PEOPLE TO PEOPLE DIALOGUE FOR PEACE & PROSPER=
ITY

from Tuesday February 12th to Friday 15th 2002
A Residential Programme
At Asia Plateau
Panchgani 412 805, Maharashtra, ( India )

Pragati Foundation
301, Beaver Grandeur,
Top Floor, above United Western Bank,
New Baner, Pune-411045, India.
Tel: 91-20-7290134, 7290173, 7291217, Fax: 7292246
Email : pragatifoundation@v...

" When I think of the horizon about us,
My heart becomes sick and weary.=20
And when I listen to the still small voice within,
I derive hope and smile
In spite of the conflagration raging around me. "
... Mahatma Gandhi

There is a need for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to come together=20
around our deepest spiritual values and glorious common heritage,=20
listen to the guidance of love in our hearts and come up with=20
inspired and practical proposals for lasting Peace and Prosperity in=20
J & K.

Our Vision :
Peace and Prosperity for All, Inspired by Love.

Background :
A growing mass of well-meaning people, in India and Pakistan, believe=20
that the time has come to positively & consciously bring about a=20
shift in mind-sets, which alone can lead to outer changes and=20
long-term friendship between the two countries.

A group of such people, led by the Pragati Foundation in Pune, India,=20
and the Foundation for Human and Economic Development, USA, had a=20
very inspiring and energising Indo-Pak dialogue at Panchgani in the=20
summer of 2001 ( 8th -11th August 2001 ). It was probably for the=20
first time since 1947, that Pakistanis and Indians, including=20
Kashmiris, sat together at one table, in a spirit of Friendship,=20
Amity and Dialogue and came up with a shared understanding of what we=20
need to do, to bring about permanent Peace.

One of the resolutions adopted at Panchgani was that another dialogue=20
should be held, in which the people of undivided J & K could share=20
their authentic heritage and voice their true collective aspirations.=20
It was agreed that the true voice of the people of J & K needs to be=20
heard and their deepest aspirations need to guide actions on the=20
future of the state.

This proposed dialogue is intended to create an inspired and=20
practical atmosphere, in which creative alternatives can be developed=20
from a deeper space, for the collective good. The resolutions and=20
action plans, which emerge, would be shared with the public and with=20
the leaders of our nations. This would mobilise constructive action=20
for a glorious future for Jammu and Kashmir.

About the Dialogue
The forthcoming dialogue is aimed at bringing together seriously=20
committed people, from the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, in a very=20
inspiring setting. We will seek the guidance of Love in silence,=20
besides dialoguing, to come up with practical solutions and proposals=20
for lasting Peace and Prosperity for the people of J & K as a whole.

In this dialogue, the purpose is to get together, listen to each=20
other and re-connect back with the rich and glorious Spiritual,=20
Aesthetic, Intellectual and Universal heritage (including=20
Kashmiriyat) of J&K=8A=8A one that has a tremendous relevance in today's=20
times. We intend to work together for
Peace and Prosperity for all, inspired by the Universal Spirit,=20
which has guided us all through the ages. This dialogue and=20
reconnection, would give the world a chance to hear of the Underlying=20
Values that forge the Kashmiri Spirit, and how deeply it draws from=20
the Human Principles of Love, Brotherhood and the Universal Oneness=20
of all humankind. It was also felt that a solution to the problem of=20
poor Indo-Pak relations, and to the Kashmir issue, can be found=20
within these values.

Methodology & Guiding Principles :
We will use tools like Open Space Technology to structure the=20
proceedings, while at the same time giving space for Inner Guidance=20
and spontaneous meetings. The guiding principles we will follow are :

1. Awaken to, and Trust, the power of Love.
2. Listen, Reflect and Dialogue.
3. Initiate Loving Action, now.
4. Joyfully Expand the circles of Love.
5. Remember that we are One

This dialogue is the outcome of a deep longing for healing, peace and=20
prosperity in Jammu & Kashmir.

We wholeheartedly invite you to join us in this inspired endeavour.

" When I dream alone, it is just a dream.
When we dream together, it is the beginning of reality.
When we work together, following our dream, it is the
Creation of Heaven on Earth "
=8A.. Adapted Brazilian Proverb
Proposed Agenda : All dates are in February 2002

Tuesday 12th 3 P.M. Delegates arrive at Asia=20
Plateau, Panchgani
6 - 8 P.M. Introductions
Wednesday 13th 9. 00 - 10 A.M. Opening comments by Moti Dar, other Conveno=
rs
Key Note address by a Spiritual Leader
10.00 -10.45 A.M. Audio Visual Presentation on the Universal=20
Heritage of Jammu and Kashmir
11 A. M. Onwards Rules for dialogue and General Meeting
Break out sessions using Open Space Technology
6. 00 P. M. Closing Circle.
8.30 P.M. Cultural Programme
Thursday 14th 9 A. M. Onwards General Meeting - Open Space continues
4 P.M. Onwards Beginning of Action Planning
Friday 15th 6. 30 - 7. 30 A. M. Multi-faith Prayers
9.00- 12.30 P.M. Next Steps ( Action Plans ) & Closing Ceremony
Saturday 16th 4. 00 - 8. 00 P. M. Public Meeting at Ganesh=20
Krida Mandal Pune, jointly
organised by Sanjay Nahar and team of Sarhad, and Pragati Foundation.=20
Details will follow.
Registration :

Please send the enclosed Registration Form with Rs. 2,500/- per=20
participant by Demand Draft payable to Pragati Foundation, drawn on a=20
bank in Pune.

Registration charges include both lodging and boarding at Asia=20
Plateau, Panchgani.

For our friends from Pakistan, you are our honoured guests. Your=20
hospitality at Panchgani will be taken care of by us. You only need=20
to make your own travel arrangements. But you are requested to fill=20
in the registration form and email it to Pragati Foundation.

Last date for receiving a hard copy your registration form with=20
payment : Jan 25, 2002.

The Venue : The Venue of the dialogue is Asia Plateau, Panchgani Tel=20
: 91-2168 40241/40242 Fax : 91-2168 40004. E-mail :=20
asiaplateau@v...

Asia Plateau is a zone, free of alcohol, and tobacco. The=20
participants are requested to respect the rules and norms of the=20
venue, in letter and spirit. Panchgani in winter can be quite cold.=20
You are advised to equip yourself accordingly.

Arriving at the Venue :
Panchgani is 100 kms from Pune. It can be easily reached by road from=20
Pune or Mumbai. Kindly reach Asia Plateau by 3 P. M. on 12Th Feb.,=20
2002.

We can receive you in Pune / Mumbai and make arrangements for your=20
transport to Panchgani provided your travel plans and arrival details=20
are intimated to the Co-ordinator by Feb 05, 2002. Alternatively,=20
you are also welcome to reach Panchgani on your own. Kindly keep the=20
Co-ordinator informed of your travel plans through emails / faxes.

Information and Queries :
For any information and queries about the dialogue, please do not=20
hesitate to email or call the following people in India for=20
assistance :

New Delhi Vivek and Nivedita Sharma
(O/R) 91-11-6091061, 6070976, 6070983 Fax : 91-11- 6090593
E-mail : nivedita@f...

Pune Ramesh Pathak ( Co-ordinator )
(O) 91-20-7290134, 7291217, 7290173 Fax : 91-20-7292246.
( R ) 91-20-5440738
E-mail : rameshpathak@v...

With warm regards and all good wishes,
Yours truly,
Moti Dar Ramesh Pathak Arun Wakhlu

[Pragati Foundation is registered under the societies Registration=20
Act 1860 ( Regn. No.- 6514-92) and the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 (=20
Regn. No. F-7629 ). Donations and contributions are exempted from=20
income tax vide section 80 G of Income Tax Act 1961]

_____

#5.

The Times of India
SATURDAY, JANUARY 05, 2002

LEGACY FROM THE PAST
SANJAY SUBRAHMANYAM
[ SATURDAY, JANUARY 05, 2002 12:10:06 AM ]
INTER in academic India brings forth its characteristic rituals, and=20
amongst these is the Indian History Congress, a sort of Republic Day=20
parade for historians, where they may demonstrate their patriotism=20
and also give a very brief glimpse of their craft (usually about ten=20
minutes per head).
The inauguration of this year's congress seems to have provided an=20
unlikely occasion for a variety of dignitaries from Dr Karan Singh=20
(of the Virat Hindu Sammelan, and perhaps a future president of this=20
country) to Professor Irfan Habib (of Aligarh Muslim University, and=20
past president of the history congress), to share a platform.
As was inevitable on such an occasion, the vexed question of history=20
text-books came up, and Dr Karan Singh decried the manipulation of=20
history, while at the same time praising one of his ancestors among=20
others. What Professor Habib had to say of this view of Kashmiri=20
history does not form a part of the journalistic chronicle.
Politics, the cliche goes, makes unlikely bed-follows. This is=20
especially true of Manichaean politics, where only two options (those=20
of good and evil) are available.
Moreover, the history of the Indian history establishment itself=20
cannot comfortably fit this mould. The fact is that the procedures=20
followed by the NCERT in 'revising' (or more bluntly, censoring)=20
existing history text-books without adequate reference to the authors=20
cannot be condoned. But we cannot reduce the discussion on the kind=20
of history that is taught in schools today to a choice between Messrs=20
Rajput and Murli Manohar Joshi on the one hand, and Professors Irfan=20
Habib, Satish Chandra and R S Sharma on the other.
If we were to do this, we would be hard put to know where to place=20
Professor M G S Narayanan and the late B R Grover, both appointed by=20
the BJP government to preside over the fortunes of the Indian Council=20
of Historical Research. Are they on the side of the angels, or like=20
Satan, are they former angels who have fallen from grace? Besides, if=20
the choice is the one presented above, the contest is really a=20
walkover.
On the one hand, we have professional historians who are subject to=20
the criticisms of their peers, and on the other hand dabblers,=20
bureaucrats or (as when Arun Shourie ventures into what he fondly=20
imagines is history) mere muck-rakers. This is about as compelling a=20
contest as what the World Wrestling Federation has to offer on=20
television.
The real problems are located elsewhere. Let me enumerate three of=20
them, and then attempt to develop an argument around these themes.=20
First, while it is true that the Hindu right today does not have=20
historians worth the name, the real problem lies not with the writers=20
of today but with the ghosts of yesteryears.
The left establishment, despite about a quarter-century of control=20
over the commanding heights of history writing has still not laid to=20
rest the spirits of Sir Jadunath Sarkar, or of a whole series of=20
historians who sang the praises of Rana Pratap and Shivaji while at=20
the same time demonstrating a capacity to write quite competent=20
positivistic history.
Second, this sort of history is still deeply anchored outside the=20
academic sphere. It is enough to visit any major historical monument=20
in India and listen to the explanations by local chowkidars and self-=20
appointed guides to see how little 'secular' history has penetrated=20
these spheres. The same is true of the vast majority of local savants=20
who produce the same sort of 'patriotic' history as Dr Karan Singh.
In sum, the gap between professional history and popular conceptions=20
of history remains vast. Third, as has been pointed out recently by=20
Ramachandra Guha in The Economic and Political Weekly, the=20
established left itself was notoriously intolerant in the years when=20
it ruled the academic roost.
Let alone historians of a liberal or right-wing persuasion, it did=20
not even tolerate deviations within the leftist fold. So, even today,=20
much of the most vicious polemics are reserved for imagined=20
'imperialists', Maoists, and a recent paper in the history congress=20
even denounced the present writer as part of a pro-Pakistani view of=20
Mughal history!
This is another of the unfortunate habits of the left establishment,=20
namely to constantly harp on patriotism, its own, and the lack=20
thereof in others. What this has to do with the quality of one's=20
history is of course quite unclear.
The result of this intolerance is that there is much to disagree with=20
in the existing text-books, which do not represent discussions=20
amongst a wide spectrum of historians but rather the views of a=20
limited group.
No obvious solution exists to this problem, and clearly the resort to=20
ad hoc censorship as a response to political pressure is nonsense.=20
But it may not be too late to adopt one of two other solutions. The=20
first would be to propose a systematic revision of the books with=20
groups composed of competent professional historians, but=20
representing a variety of views.
Some sort of limited consensus would then have to be thrashed out,=20
with an emphasis on showing students how historians reason, and what=20
the limits of their knowledge are. Most practising historians today=20
would be quite wary of boasting of the 'scientific' history they=20
write; even scientists have grown rather more cautious in their=20
absolute truth-claims after all.
A second solution would be to loosen the grip of the NCERT on=20
text-book production, and allow the emergence of a variety of=20
text-books on the market, with schools then choosing amongst these=20
(say three or four).
This is not an ideal solution of course, no more than any other=20
market-based solution. But in view of the fact that politics in India=20
is currently unstable, it may be unavoidable, to avoid fresh=20
'text-book purges' each time a government changes.
But the real problem would still need to be addressed - namely the=20
gap between the history of schools and colleges, and history as it is=20
perceived outside these spheres. It is illusory to imagine (as some=20
self-styled 'subalternist' historians do) that it is in the latter=20
sphere that the 'truth' resides. But a professional history that=20
ignores the existence of other competing visions of the past also=20
does so at its own peril.

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

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.