[sacw] SACW #2 | 30 April. 02

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:24:44 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire Dispatch #2. | 30 April 2002
http://www.mnet.fr

ANNOUNCEMENT: Please note that regular SACW dispatches will be=20
interrupted between May 1 - May 14, 2002.Ocasional postings will be=20
attempted during this period

__________________________

A. Europe - S. Asia: Le Pen bares a dirty secret (M. B. Naqvi)
B. India:
#1. Police try to stop screening of documentary on Gujarat victims
#2. In the Name of Faith A new documentary film on Gujarat
#3. The real Vajpayee (A.G. Noorani)
#4. A Hindu 'laboratory' frightens Muslims (Sunanda K. Datta-Ray)
#5. Discord Over Killing of India Muslims Deepens (Celia W. Dugger)
#6. Gujarat violence backed by state, says EU report (Edna Fernandes)
#7. If Alberuni had covered Gujarat (Jawed Naqvi)

__________________________

A:

[29 april 2002]

Le Pen bares a dirty secret

By M. B. Naqvi

Monsieur Jean-Marie le Pen, by winning over 17 per cent of national vote
on April 21 in the first round and getting into the run-off with
President M. Jacque Chirac on May 5 has shocked many. Most Europeans,
especially on the Left, are dismayed by French Presidency being fought
between a conservative and an ultra-conservative. No doubt, le Pen is
certain to lose and Chirac will return to Elysee Palace comfortably. But
the obvious lurch to the Right in an important European country,
represented by the elimination of the entire French Left and the Centre,
has distressed decent Europeans.

The personality of le Pen, the leader of a French fascist party, is also
a factor. He has built his reputation on an xenophobic (anti-immigrants
and anti-Jewish) and racist ultra-nationalism. European Jews are
alarmed. Immigrants from Northern Africa and Middle East, Arabs, Asians
and black Africans and Jews, mostly in this order, are already feeling
the heat of racist sentiment in many European countries. Le Pen, the
neo-Nazi, is bracketed with Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

That rakes up old memories of battles fought for Europe's soul between
the then ultra-Right (Nazis and Fascists) and the whole spectrum from
centre to ultra Left in the Intrerwar War period (1919-39). The Right
won. The steady rise of ultra Right in France in recent decades --- by
no means finally dominant yet --- is a wake up call to many on the Left,
especially to all who follow Second, Third and Fourth International.

Earlier the people had been lulled into believing that the defeat of
Second Worldwar's Axis Powers also destroyed the roots of Nazism and
Fascism, with the final discrediting of their ideas. New leaderships in
the defeated nations seemed having been purged of Racism,
ultra-Nationalism and Militarism; indeed their subsequent liberal or
socialistic stances were convincing. The world thought that Fascist
ideologies lie burried in the rubble of Second Great War. Events show
that the conclusion was premature.

Fascist movements in Europe arose from mass unemployment and poverty of
the Interwar period. They were seen as an alternative to the radical
iconoclasm of Russian Revolution, being Capitalism's own populist reply
to Communism. Communism had totally rejected capitalism while Fascist
movements relied on promoting strong, time-tested prejudices of local
societies: race, language, culture, religion, traditions of martial
achievements and pursuing national animosities, without touching
capitalism. Chauvinistic about the chosen race or nation, they were
xenophobic against the 'outgroup': Semetics, coloured people, Russians
or the effete white imperialists which were one up on them, as Britain
was vis-=E0-vis Germany.

But these movements, despite strong invectives against capitalists,
were basically conservative by not restricting the scope of private
capital. And they were able to win over the masses through massive
propaganda and militaristic organisations. Big Business rewarded them
with ample funds for 'dragooning' or 'rape' of the masses by shrill
propaganda of a bogus and reworked past greatness. Fascism sought the
solution of the unemployment through militarisation and massive
rearmament. That helped Big Business massively.

Generic Fascism is the revenge of old myths, quasi-history and atavistic
tribal prejudices and tendencies against liberal ideas of human rights,
equality and fraternity of man that cuts across all old belief
structures and institutions; it rejects all that has been achieved by
Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment movements: rationalism and
scientific outlook. As a social theory, Fascism firmly subordinates
human individual to a non-material collectivity. It yokes a decaying
social order and decrepit economy, to a moribund capitalism; both in
Italy (1920s) and Germany (1930s), the dictators enjoyed untrammeled
power for a while before the inevitable crash, to which this
fundamentally anti-rational and anti-liberal force irresistibly leads.

Western Fascism thrives on emigration from third world as a consequence
of communications=92 revolution. That has revived the emaciated fringe of
xenophobic European nationalisms. Tirades against coloured immigrants
have promoted political careers in England, France, many European
countries, not excluding Italy, Germany and Austria. That immigrants
were vital to war-shattered economies=92 rebuilding is obscured by the
colour of their skins: white hosts find the coloureds hard to accept,
with rights equal to their own.

The fact is racist feelings are actually widespread in Europe. It is an
illusion that 1939-45 anti-Fascist war's havoc made simple nationalism
and racial sentiment unpopular. The support base for nationalistic
politics did not entirely disappear. Mr. Pen has reminded that the
earlier impression were misleading. He has a point, even if the
ultra-Right remains a minority. Since the supply of economic refugees
and asylum seekers may remain steady, and the World Bank's poverty
alleviation programmes not going beyond cosmetic, the likely basis for
European Fascisms to flourish exists.

At any rate, le Pen is by no means alone. Revived neo-Nazis are still
fringes in Britain, Germany, Italy, Austria and of course France. In
France, the le Pen challenge is still containable by what is the Postwar
Consensus in Europe about democracy, capitalism and American leadership.
But winds of change may soon become stronger, with variable direction.
In Italy Mussolini's grand daughter having popularised her grand pa's
ideas caused the Burlesconi phenomenon's rise. The latter is more than
simple rightwing politics, with an umbilical connection to generic
Fascists of yore. Italy's Left appears to be alarmed anyway and is
gearing up for a fight reminiscent of early 1920s. Austria's Haider
party is also a reminder that neo-Nazism may no longer remain a mere
fringes. Ultra-Right fringes even in UK and Germany are not entirely
harmless. So throughout most of Europe, colour of the skin and
nationalistic ideas still matter. Happily many oppose Fascisms. A big
fight thus impends.

Fascism is not confined to Europe. It succeeds in underdeveloped
countries more easily. If basic elements that comprise European Fascism
are present in a poor country, it is Fascism. Who can deny that the
Afghan Taliban were Fascists or, for that matter, the Gujarat pogroms
can only be comprehended if their underlying ideology is understood: It
is the inferior people being subordinated by a superior group, the Hindu
Rashtra in this case. Since all Fascist ideologies are locally evolved,
it takes many forms. But if their essentials are similar with Fascism's
basic tenets, it is just that. It has to be fought. An inescapable case
exists for a broad coalition of democrats and anti-Fascists --- i.e.
humanists and forward-looking progressives --- the world over.

Nearer home in South Asia, the situation is far more dangerous. The area
is being swept with gale-force winds that multiply divisions and strife.
This is not a recent phenomenon, however. English language started the
mischief by familiarising Indians with ideas of liberty, nationalism,
economic progress and exploitation of colonialism. While Muslims were
held back by their clerics from learning the English tongue for a
generation, the Hindus eagerly learnt it. That gave birth to a basically
backward-looking Hindu Revivalism along with a secular Indian Nationalism
that was mainly Hindu in prepossessions. Today's movement for Hindu
Rashtra led by the Sangh Parivar is a misbegotten child of these.

There is also its Muslim counterpart, originally pan-Islamism with the
ideology of Ghalba-e-Islam --- albeit originally through moral
persuasion. The interplay of these two revivalisms generated the
political consciousness of being Hindu or Muslim. That was the age-old
Hindu-Muslim Problem. It later caused the division of British Indian
Empire and the subsequent feuding between India and Pakistan through
emphasis on rival religious identities. The two are now nuclear powers
and are still feuding, with three wars behind them. These religious
identities are sustained by elaborate mythologies, masquerading as
philosophies that define Fascist populism. South Asians had better
ponder over some of these particulars and possibilities.

o o o

B: India

#1.

Police try to stop screening of documentary on Gujarat victims
>From Indo-Asian News Service

New Delhi, Apr 29 (IANS) Delhi Police Monday tried to stop a private
screening of a documentary on the Gujarat sectarian violence but withdrew
after journalists intervened.

An hour and a half hours before "In the Name of Faith" was screened at the
Press Club here, two police officials tried to persuade director Pankaj
Shankar not to screen the 24-minute movie.

Shankar's production has captured the trauma of the victims of Gujarat,
where 910 people have died since February 27 in unending sectarian violence
blamed on Hindu rightwing mobs linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

The Gujarat Sarvajanik Relief Committee, formed by 12 NGOs, had organised
the Monday meet for journalists. They also brought a few victims to New
Delhi so that they could narrate their pathetic tales to the national media=
.

"My movie was about these people and their emotions. Suddenly these cops
started questioning me. After media persons intervened, they left," Shankar
told IANS.

He said the policemen wanted to know why he was screening the movie and
whether he had the government's approval.

"I told them that I had not broken any rules and I had been showing
documentaries at private places earlier too. I could not understand what
their (policemen's) problem was.

"I told them that I am a member of the club and was showing the documentary
to a few friends. Since this is not a public place, I did not need any
permission."

He said he would donate the money he earns from the documentary for the
children in Gujarat who lost their parents in the carnage.

--Indo-Asian News Service

_____

#2.

The Hindu, Tuesday, Apr 30, 2002

Carnage caught live
By Our Special Correspondent
Noor Jehan, one of the riot victims from Gujarat, watching a=20
documentary on the communal violence at a ``meet the press'' in New=20
Delhi on Monday. - Photo: Rajeev Bhatt

NEW DELHI APRIL. 29. The full horror of the violence in Gujarat was=20
brought to the capital in a video documentary `In the name of Faith'.=20
The film made over one and a half months of the continuing carnage=20
records the destruction in a State where one young girl asked the=20
film maker, Pankaj Shankar ''is this government only yours .. is it=20
not ours' because we are Muslim ''

The film tells the brutal truth of mass burials of unrecognisably=20
charred and dismembered bodies, the desperate stories of children who=20
bore witness to the inhuman acts of violence that have left them=20
orphaned, the use of fire as a weapon of obliteration.

It is a story that has already been told a hundred times. A story=20
that is heard over and over again but seems to evoke no response.=20
This lack of response, said the film-maker Mahesh Bhatt makes us all,=20
and not just the government and the people who killed and murdered,=20
complicity in the carnage that continues in the State. ''All of us,=20
because of our silence and indifference, are responsible for the=20
genocide in Gujarat''.

In Delhi are some of the many survivors whose testimonies the film=20
records. Present, according to director Pankaj Shankar, so that even=20
the most cynical person in the audience would be forced to believe=20
that his camera does not lie.

They have come from refugee camps, unwilling to return to the=20
villages which are their families graveyards.

Sulaiman bhai, sarpanch of Kediagam, in Sabarkantha district, who has=20
been forced to live in the Muqdoom relief camp in Modasa since March=20
2, said that they seem to be there for ever since the Government=20
``wants to do nothing about rehabilitating us.''

The groups which includes survivors from all the major massacres _=20
which the NHRC recommended should be investigated by the CBI _ has=20
asked for a meeting with the Home Minister, L K Advani.

_____

#3.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/300402/detide01.asp
The Hindustan Times, Tuesday, April 30, 2002=20=20

The real Vajpayee
A.G. Noorani

No prime minister in living memory has treated eaten words as his=20
staple diet as Atal Bihari Vajpayee has. A scripted 'clarification'=20
of the crie de coeur follows - in most cases, after 48 hours.

A Sangh parivar gathering in New York on September 9, 2000 was told:=20
"My right to remain a swayamsewak cannot be taken away." This was=20
explained away to mean that he was a swayamsewak of the country. The=20
Lok Sabha was told on December 6, 2000 that "the project for=20
constructing a Ram temple in Ayodhya was the expression of=20
nationalist feelings". The Kumarakom Musings sought to water down=20
this formulation.

On August 26, last year, Vajpayee said in Lucknow apropos George=20
Fernandes: "There is no question of his return to the government=8A.=20
till all allegations against him are cleared." He also claimed:=20
"Talks are going on at various levels" to find a solution to the=20
Ayodhya issue before March 2002. Fernandes was reinducted shortly;=20
the Ayodhya claim was denied the very next day by both the Muslim=20
Personal Law Board and the VHP.

On February 7, he said of Sonia Gandhi: "She is a woman and that too=20
a foreign woman." Muslims were warned on February 19, that the BJP=20
could win the UP assembly polls without their support, but would like=20
to secure it. 'Clarifications' followed in both cases.

This deserved claim to uniqueness is now fortified for yet another=20
reason. No prime minister has ever spoken publicly in disparagement=20
of a section of his own people and of the faith to which they=20
subscribe as Vajpayee did on April 12. That he did so while defending=20
Narendra Modi, the man responsible for the carnage that engulfed=20
Gujarat since February 28, and while a lakh of Muslims lie forlorn in=20
relief camps, only aggravates an offence which is grave enough even=20
on a textual reading of his remarks.

Three explicit assertions reveal Vajpayee in his true colours. First,=20
"what happened after the Godhra incident is reprehensible, but the=20
issue is, who started it?" This was communal linkage in its grossest=20
form. Not the identified criminals of Godhra, but the Muslim=20
community "started it" and bears responsibility for what it suffered.=20
Victims of a carnage are taunted; not consoled, still less succoured.

Second, the community was attacked en bloc globally. "Wherever there=20
are Muslims they do not want to live with others. Instead of living=20
peacefully, they want to preach and propagate their religion by=20
creating fear and terror in the minds of others." There were problems=20
even in Indonesia and Malaysia which have large Muslim populations.=20
"Islamic fundamentalists are spreading terror and intimidation. This=20
is opposite the culture of Hinduism."

The arrest of Al-Qaeda activists in Singapore inspired this from=20
Vajpayee: "Wherever Muslims live in large numbers, the rulers=20
apprehend that Islam could take an aggressive turn."

Third, 'we' are different from and superior to the 'later arrivals'.=20
"We were secular even in the early days when Muslims and Christians=20
were not here. We have allowed them to do their prayers and follow=20
their religion."

It is necessary to set out these propositions for two reasons. An=20
attempt was made through sanitised texts to refute reports in reputed=20
dailies and even in television coverage citing his clarification. "I=20
had said Islam (sic) has two forms. One is that which tolerates=20
others.=8A But these days militancy in the name (sic) of Islam leaves=20
no room for tolerance." What he had actually said was: "Once Islam=20
meant toleration, truth and compassion. From what I see now, it has=20
come to mean forcing their opinion through terror and fear. Islam=20
(sic) is run on jehad."

Vajpayee knows that every faith preaches compassion but has followers=20
who practise terror in its name. That he overlooked the VHP-Bajrang=20
Dal's doings and contrasted Islam with Hinduism throughout was=20
significant. Second, the PM's remarks have grave constitutional=20
implications for our secular polity.

How does he reconcile his comment about Islam and Christianity as=20
later arrivals - who are 'allowed' to practise their religion - with=20
his address to the Iranian Majlis on April 11, 2001? He had stated in=20
Teheran: "We do not consider any religion foreign to us. For nearly a=20
thousand years, Islam has been part and parcel of our national life."

On April 4, the PM had asked "with what face" would he go abroad=20
"after what all has happened here". He might well ask himself the=20
same question after his speech on April 12.

Is Vajpayee merely what Disraeli called Gladstone, "A sophisticated=20
rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity", or=20
a calculating manipulator? His projection of a liberal image was=20
calculated. "I never miss an opportunity to pay tribute to Jawaharlal=20
Nehru," he said in a press interview in March 1979. In February 1991,=20
he said, "I had my reservations when Advaniji spoke to me on the=20
telephone about the rath yatra.=8A I said total identification of the=20
BJP with a religious and cultural matter was not advisable." He fell=20
in line, all the same.

Not surprisingly. For he shared the parivar's outlook. Sample these=20
cameos: "We have called for a Bharatiya Rashtra; the name Hindu=20
Rashtra is given by those who feel that all Indians, including=20
Muslims, are, culturally speaking, Hindus. Let them remain Muslims as=20
far as their religion is concerned but otherwise let them not=20
abdicate their identity as Hindus."

He added: "If somebody calls for a Hindu Rashtra we don't quarrel=20
with it=8A. Hinduism is a pluralistic religion. So the question of=20
imposing anything on anybody does not arise. The question is how=20
Muslims should feel culturally." (1991). It is always 'we' and 'they'.

The BJP was only the Jan Sangh reincarnate. "When did we get away=20
from Jan Sangh?" Vajpayee asked on July 20, 1985. His article in the=20
Organiser (May 7, 1995), The Sangh is my soul, bared it all.

It was proposed that the Babri masjid be made a national monument=20
under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,=20
1958. Vajpayee rejected the proposal in Mumbai

on April 6, 1989. "Hindus were the rightful claimants of the site,"=20
adding that he spoke as an RSS swayamsewak and a Hindu. We know what=20
he meant when he spoke of a Ram temple in fulfilment of=20
"nationalistic aspirations".

One is reminded of Nehru's admonition on January 5, 1961: "When the=20
minority communities are communal, you can see that and understand=20
it. But the communalism of a majority community is apt to be taken=20
for nationalism." Vajpayee knows that communalism cannot win him=20
national acceptance unless dressed in the garb of nationalism, in the=20
colours of moderation. The effort won him some support from the=20
intelligentsia. It also created doubts among those without whose=20
support he cannot survive.

He has tried to fend off challenges by rhetoric - "insaniyat" in=20
Kashmir and "rajdharma" in Gujarat. It is, however, not possible to=20
break from a past which he consistently accused Muslims of inciting=20
riots; most notably on the Bhiwandi riots in May 1970 when Indira=20
Gandhi tore him apart in the Lok Sabha. The Madon Commission proved=20
his charges to be false.

Now 30 years later, Vajpayee bared himself to the enthusiastic dupes=20
among the intelligentsia without, however, gaining much credit from=20
the parivar and sceptics. Those who took him to be a secularist at=20
heart - constrained by expediency to play with the parivar - will now=20
speak of him in the past tense. His credibility is gone. No one will=20
believe him hereafter.

It is a deserved finale to a career of manipulation by one who spoke=20
of the high road when convenient, but was ever ready to act low when=20
necessary. In Meredith's immortal words, "We are betrayed by what is=20
false within."

_____

#4.

International Herald Tribune
Monday, April 29, 2002

A Hindu 'laboratory' frightens Muslims
Sunanda K. Datta-Ray

Modi in Gujarat

CALCUTTA When the British high commissioner, Sir Rob Young, reminded=20
Indian television watchers that there are nearly 600,000 Gujaratis in=20
Britain, it was seen as a warning of possible international legal=20
action against Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, which has=20
been convulsed by violence against Muslims for the last two months.
.
India has known hundreds of religious riots since independence in=20
1947, but never before has a government been accused, as Modi's is,=20
of what India's press, social workers and human rights activists call=20
a pogrom.
.
Significantly, Gujarat is the only one of India's 26 states to be=20
ruled by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Hindu nationalist=20
Bharatiya Janata Party. Hindu zealots call it the laboratory of the=20
future, meaning the Hindu rashtra (state) of their dreams.
.
Officials say 840 people have been killed in retaliatory violence=20
since Muslims burned alive 59 Hindu men, women and children on Feb.=20
27, but the Communist Party estimates more than 2,000 deaths. Modi=20
defends the backlash by citing Newton's third law - every action=20
provokes a reaction.
.
Muslim homes and shops have been destroyed, women raped and shrines=20
attacked. With an indifferent if not hostile police, the thousands of=20
Muslims who have taken refuge in hastily constructed camps feel=20
unsafe even there. Aggressive Hindus push back those who try to=20
return to their old homes and businesses.
.
Vajpayee will not hear a word against his prot?g? Modi. He has given=20
short shrift to opposition and media demands for the chief minister's=20
removal, and to respected organizations like India's National Human=20
Rights Commission and National Minorities Commission, which accuse=20
the Modi government of encouraging violence. People fear a bloodbath=20
if he gives in further to the chief minister and withdraws the army=20
from Gujarat.
.
Meanwhile, the psychological pressure is mounting. The Rashtriya=20
Swayamsevak Sangh (National Social Welfare Organization), which is=20
the BJP's parent body, demands that all Indians "should be called=20
Hindus." The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (Universal Hindu Society), with=20
nearly 2 million members, warns that minority security depends on the=20
majority's goodwill. Both are urging Hindus to boycott Muslims=20
economically. Several states have voted against the BJP and its=20
allies since Vajpayee became prime minister in 1998. But party=20
strategists say the BJP would win hands down if elections were held=20
in today's inflamed atmosphere. "Kill Muslims and win the Hindu vote"=20
was a leftist intellectual's despairing comment.
.
There is middle-class distaste for Hindu folk cults dominated by=20
superstition, ritual and "holy men" with matted locks daubed in ash=20
and vermilion that bear no relation to the profundity of the Vedas,=20
the sacred hymns of Hinduism's ancient Aryan founders. But the virus=20
of cultural animosity is spreading. Many Hindus see Muslims as a=20
pampered lot governed by their own divorce and inheritance laws and=20
enjoying their own religious schools.
.
"Scratch a Muslim and find a Pakistani" just about sums up the=20
sentiment of many Hindus.
.
Muslims are dangerously preparing to fight back, warns a senior=20
Indian police official, Julio Ribeiro, a Catholic who has studied=20
conditions in Gujarat. They have lost all faith in the administration=20
and in their own moderate leaders, and have nowhere to run to.
.
The murder of three British Muslims in Gujarat has incensed Indian=20
Muslim settlers in Britain who are preparing to move the British=20
courts, as well as the International Court of Justice at The Hague,=20
against Modi. Hence New Delhi's wrath against the British, Canadian,=20
Finnish, Swiss and German governments and the European Union, which=20
have deplored the Gujarat riots. India, like the United States,=20
opposes the proposed International Criminal Court.
.
As it happens, the danger of serious religious carnage has surfaced=20
in a state that gave birth in the eighth century to the Jain sect,=20
which holds all life sacred and carries ahimsa (nonviolence) to the=20
extent that Gujarati Jains wear gauze gags so that they do not=20
inadvertently swallow even an insect.
.
The writer, a former editor of the Indian newspaper The Statesman,=20
contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

_____

#5.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/29/international/asia/29INDI.html
The New York Times
April 29, 2002

Discord Over Killing of India Muslims Deepens
By CELIA W. DUGGER

NEW DELHI, April 28 - Leaders of the Hindu nationalist-led government=20
have warned Western nations in recent days to stop lecturing India=20
about the official failure to prevent Hindu mobs from killing=20
hundreds of Muslims. But the issue refuses to die.

In the last week, more than 40 people have perished in the continuing=20
violence, in the western state of Gujarat. The official death toll in=20
the last two months has risen to 900. More than 100,000 people,=20
mostly Muslims, are estimated to have fled to relief camps.

On Tuesday, Parliament will debate whether the Hindu nationalist=20
Bharatiya Janata Party - which has led a national coalition=20
government for most of the last four years and controls the state of=20
Gujarat, its last major state stronghold - has been complicit in the=20
carnage.

Though the government is expected to defeat a motion critical of its=20
role, the party's leaders are on the defensive. The issue has=20
eclipsed all others, even India's military buildup along its border=20
with Pakistan and the still real possibility of armed conflict=20
between the two countries.

Bharatiya Janata, which has prided itself on raising India's prestige=20
in the world beginning with the decision to test nuclear weapons in=20
1998, is now clearly worried that the nation's good name is being=20
besmirched.

"Let no one use this tragedy to make such sweeping generalizations=20
about the happenings in India that they demoralize Indians and=20
present a wrong picture of India abroad," Prime Minister Atal Behari=20
Vajpayee said on Saturday.

A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman accused European countries on=20
Wednesday of interfering in India's internal affairs by deliberately=20
leaking critical evaluations of events in Gujarat and publicly=20
voicing concern about the violence there.

Indian officials were particularly stung by the leak of a=20
confidential assessment by British diplomats who estimated the death=20
toll at 2,000, more than twice the official tally, and said the=20
anti-Muslim violence had been planned and carried out with the state=20
government's support.

The sharpness of India's diplomatic rebuke was surprising, since=20
public comments by officials from other governments have generally=20
been limited to expressions of concern about the violence that echo=20
those of India's own leaders.

In his only public remarks about Gujarat, the American ambassador,=20
Robert Blackwill, said on April 17: "All our hearts go out to the=20
people who were affected by this tragedy. I don't have anything more=20
to say than that."

The Foreign Ministry and party officials contend that state officials=20
acted quickly to control outraged Hindu mobs seeking vengeance after=20
Muslims firebombed a trainload of Hindu activists on Feb. 27, killing=20
58.

I. D. Swami, a Bharatiya Janata member of Parliament and minister in=20
the government, noted in an interview that the party's state leaders=20
asked the central government to send in the army to help keep the=20
peace on Feb. 28, the night of the first and worst day of violence.=20
"When a reaction takes place in such a big dimension, it is not=20
possible for any state authority to control it," he said.

But in the last month a stream of damning reports by Indian human=20
rights groups, citizens' committees and the press have charged that=20
the party's most senior leaders in Gujarat let Hindu mobs go on the=20
rampage, raping Muslim girls and women, looting and bombing Muslim=20
homes and businesses and burning men, women and children alive.

The National Human Rights Commission, an independent group set up by=20
Parliament, scoffed at the state's contention that the crisis had=20
been brought under control within 72 hours and noted "the widespread=20
lack of faith in the integrity of the investigating process."

On Friday and Saturday, dozens of Muslim victims came to New Delhi,=20
the capital, at the behest of Sahamat, a nonprofit group, and=20
publicly told their stories. Many of these people echoed others who=20
spoke out earlier, testifying that the mobs were led by people from=20
the Bharatiya Janata Party and other organizations in its Hindu=20
nationalist family, particularly the World Hindu Congress and its=20
youth wing, the Bajrang Dal.

Eleven-year-old Raja Bundubhai told of hiding behind a door as he=20
watched his mother and sister skewered with swords and burned alive.=20
Ibrahim Bhai Ismail Bhai Ganchi told in a choked voice about the=20
murder of his father, uncle, brother, sister and cousin.

Arif Bhai Pathan, 13, watched as his parents and grandfather were=20
slaughtered. Before his father was killed, Arif said his father was=20
ordered to say, "Jai Shri Ram" - meaning "Hail Ram," the Hindu god.=20
"He refused and he was hacked to death," Arif said.

Despite the demand by the political opposition and several of the=20
Bharatiya Janata Party's largest allies for the resignation of=20
Narendra Modi, Gujarat's chief minister, the party has backed him to=20
the hilt.

While the issue is not expected to threaten the government's=20
survival, Bharatiya Janata is under fire not just from the opposition=20
and the left wing, but also from the staid judiciary and civil=20
service.

At a meeting on Friday at the India International Center, A. M.=20
Ahmadi, a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court, condemned the=20
government's attempt to silence its critics abroad. "It's the duty of=20
the international community to raise its voice," he said.

Harsh Mander, a civil servant who resigned to protest what happened=20
in Gujarat, declared: "I would like to testify that no riot can go on=20
for more than a few hours without active state complicity. It's a=20
crime which is difficult to describe."

_____

#6.

Financial Times | Published: April 29 2002 18:15 | Last Updated:=20
April 29 2002 18:27

Gujarat violence backed by state, says EU report
By Edna Fernandes in New Delhi

A European Union investigation into India's worst race riots in a=20
decade has concluded that the violence was not spontaneous but a=20
pre-planned policy involving state ministers to "purge" Muslims and=20
destroy their economy, according to an internal report by EU=20
embassies in Delhi.

The report provides one of the most damning indictments yet on the=20
Gujarat riots, which have killed almost 900 people, mostly Muslims,=20
in a matter of weeks. One EU source said the report pointed to=20
"ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in the state and that there was clear=20
evidence of complicity by state ministers.

The report has been submitted to the 15 EU governments who will=20
decide what action to take and how to raise their concerns at next=20
week's EU-India summit in Delhi.

"Gujarat is one of the items on the summit agenda. I imagine we will=20
express concern about everything in our report, including evidence of=20
a purge," said the EU source. If that fails to yield a dialogue,=20
further measures will have to be considered, he said.

The disclosure is sure to put further pressure on India's Hindu=20
nationalist BJP-led government, which faces an opposition censure=20
motion in parliament today over its handling of the riots. [...]

[full text at:=20
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=3DView&c=3DArticle&cid=3DFT3362IL=
M0D&live=3Dtrue&tagid=3DZZZC19QUA0C&subheading=3Dasia%20pacific=20
]

_____

#7.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/300402/detpla01.asp
The Hindustan Times
Tuesday, April 30, 2002=20=20

If Alberuni had covered Gujarat
Jawed Naqvi

In December 2000, the French rap singer Stomy Bugsy was fined 1,000=20
francs by a court for calling Far-Right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen an=20
ass during a clash on board a flight from Paris to Strasbourg.

Two fellow musicians were also fined 1,000 francs each. The three,=20
all black, had argued in vain before the court that Le Pen's=20
complaint was unfounded considering his party's stand towards Jews,=20
black people and immigrants. Now that the results have come in of Le=20
Pen's crushing victory, most of Europe is up in arms, calling the=20
presidential candidate of France a fascist, nothing less.

The moral of the story - and there seems to be at least one - is that=20
you can call a fascist a fascist, but not an ass.

A key function of journalists covering Gujarat these days is to bear=20
the subtle difference in mind. Working with a foreign news agency=20
some years ago was instructive: political pressure from the host=20
government in Mumbai and pragmatic business interests of financial=20
journalism had forced a compromise description of the Shiv Sena from=20
being called a "fanatical Hindu group" to a "Hindu nationalist party".

The story of similar professional hazards confronting journalists is=20
rooted in the way we see our intermingling as either a salad bowl or=20
a cultural melting pot. The overwhelming evidence is that we have not=20
changed much from our past. There were tolerant, curious, inquisitive=20
minds among us as they are today. And there were the intolerant lot,=20
as they exist today. But as far as India is concerned, there has been=20
a marginal increase in the decibels of bigotry.

Several centuries before BBC's Mark Tully was thrown out from Delhi=20
for his acid description of the then prime minister's fading=20
democratic persona, a prototype of the modern foreign correspondent=20
had roamed the streets of this sprawling country, then not yet a=20
Nation-State. In some ways (not unlike an Amnesty report, which is=20
debunked by the Indian foreign office when it concerns Kashmir, and=20
touted as gospel truth when it slams the ethnic upsurge in Karachi),=20
the compelling observations of Alberuni, literally meaning 'the=20
foreigner', have traditionally invited two diverse responses.

The 11th century chronicler had praised India for some truly=20
scientific achievements and its amazing architecture, but he also=20
trashed our bigotry. As a witness to Mahmud Ghaznavi's marauding=20
hordes that sacked the temples of Mathura and several more, his=20
writings are full of unalloyed scorn for the foreign armies and their=20
brutal ways with the Hindus.

This bit of Alberuni's writings are used by Hindu communalist=20
campaigners to illustrate Muslim atrocities in this country which was=20
otherwise deemed to be a repository of scientific temper,=20
architectural marvels and good humour. But like a good foreign=20
correspondent that he was, Alberuni also tickled the fancy of the=20
less jingoistic historians, among them Nehru.

About the Indians, Alberuni speaks up: "They are haughty, foolishly=20
vain, self-contained and stolid. They believe there is no country=20
like theirs, no nation like theirs, no science like theirs, no=20
religion like theirs." How did Nehru respond to the criticism years=20
later? In the Discovery of India, Nehru describes Alberuni's views as=20
"probably a correct enough description of the temper of the people".

Times have changed since then, and how. Imagine a post-Goa Vajpayee=20
exposed to the 11th century chronicler's slings and arrows about us!=20
What would he do? Banish him, cancel his visa, ask the MEA=20
spokesperson to trash him?

Alberuni continues: "According to their belief, there is no race on=20
earth like theirs, and no created being besides them have any=20
knowledge or science like theirs whatsoever. Their haughtiness is=20
such that if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khorasan or=20
Persia, they will think you to be either an ignoramus or a liar. If,=20
however, they had travelled and mixed with other nations, they would=20
soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded=20
as the present generation is."

The last line is instructive coming from a man who celebrated India's=20
diversity, something that wouldn't have escaped the attention of a=20
Mark Tully or a James Cameron or the chroniclers/journalists who=20
thronged to this land of myriad magical facets. So, was Alberuni=20
exaggerating the perceived shallowness of his contemporary Indians?=20
For the jingoist, it would be tempting to dismiss his views as a=20
prejudiced foreigner's gripe against India.

Fortunately, we have evidence to suggest that Alberuni's perceptions=20
were, and still are, widely shared by Indians, illustrating yet=20
another abiding facet of our varied polity. From our own homegrown=20
sources, the mystically-minded Kabir comes to mind. He too liked to=20
speak his mind near the ghats of Varanasi. There was no government=20
spokesman those days to trash Kabir Das. If anything, Hindus and=20
Muslims grappled with each other to claim his legacy, such was his=20
spiritual hold on both.

The Hindus, avers Kabir tartly, would fondly fall asleep at the feet=20
of a prostitute, but they would not allow the lower castes to touch=20
their kitchen vessels. As for the Muslims, Kabir says: "Their noisy=20
mullah climbs the mosque's parapet to crow aloud. For what? Has Allah=20
gone deaf?" But don't try out these simple routines in today's=20
Jhandewalan or Jama Masjid - or you might attract dangerous=20
attention. That's how intolerant we have become.

The PM may wish to dismiss Alberuni's perspectives on India - as he=20
has done with western criticism on Gujarat - on the myopic ground=20
that they come from foreigners. Then, he should listen to the=20
homegrown Kabir.

The writer is a freelance journalist who has worked with Reuters,=20
Khaleej Times and The Dawn