[sacw] SACW #2 | 25 Jan. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #2 | 25 January 2002

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

#1. What kind of Pakistan do we want? (Khaled Ahmed)
#2. India: Keep politics, religion apart: Election Commission
#3. Oh, what a lovely war (Ratna Rajaiah)
#4. India: Marching to danger
#5. A stain on Indian democracy (Rajeev Dhavan)
#6. India: 'Jang Parivar' Sets up Martyr Gallery
#7. India: 'Khakhi Chaddi walas' yatra lifeless, public indifferent=20
to their temple cause

________________________

#1.

The Friday Times
25 January 2002

What kind of Pakistan do we want?

Khaled Ahmed's A n a l y s i s

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we want a Pakistan different from the one we have? The answer is=20
no. The difficulty lies in the inability of the Muslims to mould=20
their original revealed message to modern times by applying logic and=20
rationality to the ancient case law. There was a time when this was=20
done but the era of taqleed (imitation) has been upon us since the=20
medieval period. Under colonial rule, many Muslims thought of=20
introducing reason in the science of understanding the Holy Writ, but=20
today no one in the Islamic world tolerates any deviation from=20
taqleed even when this taqleed varies in practice from state to=20
state. All Muslim states are unstable either because they have=20
enforced the shariah and are unhappy with it, like Pakistan, or have=20
not enforced it and are unhappy that it has not been enforced. For=20
Muslims the question What kind of state do we want? is a rhetorical=20
one because for them it has already been answered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 January 2002, the Concerned Citizens Forum held a seminar in=20
Lahore's Al-Hamra hall on the topic What kind of Pakistan do we want?=20
The main speaker was ex-foreign secretary Mr Iqbal Akhund. One=20
thought that the subject was not open for discussion, unless you take=20
the title of the seminar to mean improvements in the running of the=20
various state institutions. What kind of state do we want? can be=20
answered by: ideological; and what kind of ideology? can be answered=20
by Islamic; and what kind of Islamic state do we want? can be=20
answered by: that which enforces the shariah. I thought all these=20
answers were in the Constitution and no one demanded anything else in=20
Pakistan. Nor could anyone want it because there is a section in the=20
Penal Code punishing anyone who speaks against the ideology of=20
Pakistan with a long sentence behind the bars. That's probably why at=20
least one Urdu newspaper condemned what was said at seminar.

Can you improve upon ideology? Yes, but not by watering it down, but=20
by making it more hardline and stringent. When Gorbachev wanted to=20
make communism 'loose' (glasnost) and 'reconstructed' (perestroika),=20
there was a coup against him. The communist state had to collapse and=20
make way for Yeltsin's capitalist order. Ideology brooks no=20
revisionism. In Pakistan too every time it is felt that the ideology=20
is not delivering there are prescriptions for further strengthening=20
of the shariah . Therefore, it is no use recommending that we want a=20
Pakistan where the ideology is either not there or is watered down.=20
Needless to say, anyone recommending that the ideological state be=20
undone is committing heresy and could be punished under law. On the=20
other hand, there are many institutions and personalities in Pakistan=20
who answer the question What kind Pakistan do we want? by putting=20
forth concrete steps to harden the ideology.

Hardening as answer to demands of reform: The clergy is constantly=20
demanding the enforcement of the shariah in answer to the question=20
that the seminar asked. The Council for Islamic Ideology (CII) is=20
busy on a daily basis to put forth its proposals for the conversion=20
of the Pakistani state into a utopia of Islamic dreams. The Ministry=20
for Religious Affairs has already sent to the cabinet of General=20
Musharraf a full-fledged programme for converting Pakistan into an=20
ideal state. (The proposal has been shelved by a scared government.)=20
We have reached this stage in a gradual fashion, where these state=20
institutions have become directly responsible for encouraging=20
extremism even as President Musharraf takes steps to rein in the=20
extremists. In 1947, just before Pakistan came into being, the=20
founder of the state, the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, made a=20
formal statement which answered the question What kind of Pakistan do=20
we want? He told his countrymen that he wanted a secular state. If=20
earlier he had made ambivalent Islamic statements to woo the Muslim=20
community, he now wanted to put them on notice that Pakistan would=20
not be religious state. (As the seminar of the Concerned Citizens=20
opened, Pakistan's well-known nationalist historian Safdar Mahmood=20
had finished his four-part journalistic assault on those who thought=20
that Jinnah was secular.)

In 1948, Pakistan signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights=20
after joining the United Nations. The Declaration contains articles=20
ensuring freedom of religious worship. Therefore in 1949 when prime=20
minister Liaquat Ali Khan and his cabinet decided to table the=20
Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, they were=20
self-conscious about not infringing the rights of the non-Muslims in=20
Pakistan. This was Pakistan's second answer to the question What kind=20
of Pakistan do we want? It said that Pakistan would be an Islamic=20
state where sovereignty will belong to God Almighty (later changed to=20
Allah) but that all non-Muslims would be allowed to practise their=20
religious freely . The Hindu members of the Constituent Assembly from=20
East Pakistan (25 percent of the delegation) objected because they=20
did not want the kind of Pakistan envisaged in the Objectives=20
Resolution. They were told by the Muslim clerics outside the Assembly=20
that an Islamic state treated its non-Muslims as zimmis and did not=20
give them equal rights. Inside the Assembly Liaquat Ali Khan swore=20
that non-Muslims would be treated equally, and Zafrullah Khan (sic!)=20
told them what an excellent and progressive thing the Objectives=20
Resolution was! while Nishtar explained to them in a threatening tone=20
the real meaning of jehad. (It is unclear why he should have spoken=20
of jehad when trying to answer the question What kind of Pakistan do=20
we want? )

Objectives Resolution as answer: To make sure that the 'objective' is=20
not forgotten the Objectives Resolution was appended to the=20
Constitution as its Preamble. But then the Supreme Court on a couple=20
of occasions had to accept the argument that a Preamble was not the=20
actual body of the Constitution. It was therefore taken upon himself=20
by General Zia to insert the Preamble into the Constitution through=20
an amendment. But conscious of the fact that shariah ordained zimmi=20
-hood, he removed the word freely from the text where the non-Muslims=20
were promised freedom of worship in consonance with the Universal=20
Declaration. The sneaky thing he did was that he did not notify the=20
deletion of the word, freely . That brought in the unspoken zimmi=20
concept in line with the fulfillment of the condition implied in What=20
kind of Pakistan do we want? This ideal was reached by General Zia=20
when he put separate electorates in the Constitution through his 8th=20
Amendment. No non-Muslims could vote together with the Muslims and=20
was to be treated like a zimmi although the Constitution still did=20
not contain the word.

General Zia asked the question very directly and answered it in great=20
detail. His answer is now the grundnorm of our consciousness. If you=20
deviate an iota from his shibboleths the orthodoxy of Pakistan, both=20
political and religious, will have you by the throat. Zia asked=20
Maulana Zafar Ahmad Ansari to report on what kind of state Pakistan=20
should be in the light of the Islamic practice. The Ansari Report=20
said an Islamic state cannot have political parties and cannot have a=20
parliament with an opposition sitting in it. Hence the 1985=20
'partyless' elections. Iran got their first under the Ayatollahs by=20
having a parliament without an opposition and no political parties.=20
Afghanistan was even 'purer', it had an amirul momineen on the=20
Medinate model, which caused many visiting Pakistani ulema, including=20
Dr Israr Ahmad, to exclaim that he had created an ambience in=20
Kandahar 'just like the Prophet PBUH'. General Zia's answer was=20
therefore not complete. His Federal Shariat Court was based on the=20
'inclusive' principle, meaning that anything not repugnant to Islam=20
would be considered Islamic. While the democrats in Pakistan thought=20
the Federal Shariat Court was incorrectly legislating instead of=20
parliament, the ulema thought it fell far short of recreating the=20
utopia of Madina. Major-General Abbasi who staged his unsuccessful=20
Islamic coup in the army in 1995, was to declare himself an amirul=20
momineen according to text of the speech that was found in his office.

No revisionism under ideology: Zakat and ushr were the first to be=20
enforced to make Pakistan the kind of state we liked. Zakat , since=20
its inception, has been regularly embezzled. Because of the=20
malpractice in its distribution, it has not been distributed for a=20
number of years. Its collection was always a problem because the Shia=20
community never accepted and was allowed exemption. Thewelfare state=20
envisaged in this collection was never realised. After the Sunni=20
community began ducking zakat by declaring themselves Shia, the=20
Supreme Court granted the Sunnis the same exemption as to the Shia.=20
Now as our religion minister Dr Ghazi wants to provide loans to the=20
unemployed out of the Zakat collection, he is supposed to have=20
violated the law which says it can only be given as alms, and a=20
notice to this effect has been issued by CII. American researcher=20
Grace Clark, in Pakistan 2000 (Lexington Books, 2000) discloses that=20
a federal officer had absconded to London with a billion rupees of=20
Zakat money! On other hand, ushr , not mentioned in the Quran, has=20
been levied without reinterpretation: 10 percent taxation is on the=20
rain-fed farms while the irrigated ones pay only 5 percent! The state=20
we want cannot revise out-dated provisions even if these laws that=20
are not Quranic! Needless to say, the collection of ushr in Pakistan=20
has failed.

About reinterpretation, the state we want has a clear stand. General=20
Zia rejected Allama Iqbal when he was told in 1986 by Justice Javid=20
Iqbal that his father did not think that hudood could be imposed in=20
modern times and had said so in his famous Sixth Lecture. Today we=20
have the cutting of hands on the statute book but have not cut any=20
hands so far. One argument is that in ancient times hands were cut=20
for theft because there were no prisons in Arabia. As if to answer=20
this rationalisation, the CII has recently declared that Islam=20
disallows prisons and therefore all prisons in Pakistan (the one we=20
really want) should be dismantled! Another law relating to diyat=20
(blood money) is often abused and has not been enforced with regard=20
to a murder where the killer has not been found and the locality=20
where the body is found has to collectively pay the blood money.=20
Needless to say in the state we want, no one can reinterpret ancient=20
jurisprudence when it doesn't work. Banking has to be abolished=20
because the money-lender's riba has been equated with interest, just=20
as rape has been equated with fornication and the raped woman is in=20
fact punished if she cannot produce eye-witnesses who saw her being=20
raped.

Can we want a Pakistan different from the one we have? The answer is=20
no. The difficulty lies in the inability of the Muslims to mould=20
their original revealed message to modern times by applying logic and=20
rationality to the ancient case law. There was a time when this was=20
done but the era of taqleed (imitation) has been upon us since the=20
medieval period. Under colonial rule, many Muslims thought of=20
introducing reason in the science of understanding the Holy Writ, but=20
today no one in the Islamic world tolerates any deviation from=20
taqleed even when this taqleed varies in practice from state to=20
state. All Muslim states are unstable either because they have=20
enforced the shariah and are unhappy with it, like Pakistan, or have=20
not enforced it and are unhappy that it has not been enforced. For=20
Muslims the question What kind of state do we want? is a rhetorical=20
one because for them it has already been answered.

_____

#2.

Indian Express
Friday, January 25, 2002
Keep politics, religion apart: EC
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
AMRITSAR/CHANDIGARH, JANUARY 24: The Chief Electoral Officer of=20
Punjab has written to the Election Commission to remind the Shiromani=20
Akali Dal lead by P.S. Badal that the model code of conduct does not=20
allow mixing religion and politics.
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20020125/nat5.html

_____

#3.

Indian Express
EDITORIALS & ANALYSIS
Friday, January 25, 2002

Oh, what a lovely war

Imagine you beside that photograph,TV capturing your grief

RATNA RAJAIAH

"War was return of earth to ugly earth,/ War was foundering of=20
sublimities,/ Extinction of each happy art and faith/ By which the=20
world had still kept head in air." - Robert Graves

FORTUNATELY, I'm writing this in the 21st century. After we've spent=20
the last century fighting two full-fledged world wars and many, many=20
more smaller, cozier ones which has left 80-90 million people dead,=20
about 65 million of them in the two world wars.

Along the way we have built up a global ammunition dump filled with=20
so many "deterrents" - nuclear and otherwise -of such sophisticated=20
savagery and such spectacular viciousness that we now collectively=20
have enough of this stuff to blow ourselves to oblivion several times=20
with some still left over.

I'm fortunate that I'm saying what I am going to say at this point in=20
the world's military history because if I'd said the same thing in=20
1914, when the world had just begun to wage the war which, as some=20
visionary had grandly declared, was "the war to end all wars", I=20
would've been tarred with white feathers and paraded down the streets=20
as an example of a gutless, cowardly pacifist pig who would rather=20
hand over my country to The Enemy on a white-flag lined platter than=20
suffer the necessary discomfort of fighting a war.

And while I still may be thus pilloried, fortunately for me, it's a=20
more liberal world now, where we're forced to make place not just for=20
disgusting things like alternative sexuality and animal-fetus soup=20
but also alternative perspectives on going to war.

So what I have to say is this. Stop it. Stop talking about war as if=20
it's just some particularly nasty medicine that we have to swallow or=20
a rather painful vaccine that we'll have to suffer in order to rid=20
our system of some persistent pestilence. Or worse still, stop making=20
it the stuff of TV talk show where everyone gets their 30 seconds of=20
fame and glory by tom-toming their individual war damrus.

And just before you sound the bugle and raise the standard, proudly=20
sending off India's brave sons to defend her sullied honour, take a=20
few minutes off to dwell on this little phrase. "Collateral damage".=20
It's a term coined by generals and military strategists who don't=20
want to scare off the public, unlettered in the ways of doing battle,=20
into saying forget it, we don't want a war. Now before we figure out=20
how this phrase works, consider a similar one thought up by the Nazis.

"The Final Solution" - the term given to the brutal, systematic and=20
ruthlessly efficient obliteration of whatever was left of the world's=20
10 million Jews who hadn't being already killed by starvation, slave=20
labour and concentration camps.

You see, Hitler being the wise man that he was, didn't want to scare=20
off his countrymen and get them all squeamish about killing a few=20
million Jews by telling them that's exactly what they'd be doing.=20
Killing a few million Jews at the end of which there'd be messy,=20
nasty things like dead bodies and stuff. So, he and his clever=20
propagandists came up with "The Final Solution".

A neat little turn of phrase, pretty make-up for genocide, making it=20
all nicely sanitised and palatable to a country that finally=20
decimated 67 per cent of the world's Jewish population.

"Collateral damage" works in a similar clever fashion. By using this=20
phrase, they would have you believe that nobody actually dies in a=20
war or gets hurt. All that happens is a spot of "collateral damage"=20
and if you focus on those words for long enough, the dead and the=20
wounded will magically transform into heroes (and/or pretty=20
flag-draped coffins), many of them crisply uniformed and blazingly=20
medalled at the next Republic Day Parade.

Well, what can you expect from a lily-livered peacenik and anyway, we=20
give a milksop's backside for such cowardly codswallop. We're all=20
true Indians here - ready to make The Supreme Sacrifice. And you can=20
call it collateral damage or whatever other rubbish, but for us, it's=20
Supreme Sacrifice. We're ready to lay down our lives (through the=20
lives of our soldiers, naturally for the country and the flag). And=20
aren't you ashamed to talk the way you do after having being born in=20
the land of Bhagat Singh?

Before I blush with shame - or with pride at the selfless courage of=20
my fellow countrymen - may I remind us all of a small matter of a=20
hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane in December 1999? When 155=20
Indians was the price we had to pay to hang on to five of the world's=20
most savage and virulent terrorists, were we ready then to make the=20
Supreme Sacrifice? Or, does anyone remember the scenes outside the=20
Prime Minister's house, of the relatives, of screaming and howling=20
for the lives of their loved ones and asking the government to pay=20
whatever it was needed to get their families back? And if we had=20
stuck to our guns and not given to the hijackers' demands and if=20
those 155 people had died, what would it have been? Collateral=20
damage? The inevitable price of saying 'no' to the bullying of=20
terrorism? Or, because we weren't officially at war and those weren't=20
professional soldiers but our beloved families, it would be "the=20
needless death of innocent civilians"?

Point is, it's easy to send off somebody else's son to war. It's easy=20
to sacrifice someone else's husband on the altar of Desh Bhakti. But=20
just shut your eyes and imagine that the long, still lump under the=20
tri-coloured shroud is your son. Just imagine it is you sitting=20
beside that garlanded photograph of a smiling, bright-eyed young man,=20
your brother, as the TV cameras capture your dazed grief.

Just imagine that the posthumous Vir Chakra being gently handed over=20
is the one that you accept for the war hero who was once your=20
husband. And then see if your hand lifts to pound those drums as=20
hard, as loud and as proud.

And then think how willingly you are ready to go to war. Over the=20
last few weeks, I have watched with acute distress the display of=20
what they've called "the mood of the nation". And then, a few days=20
ago, I happened to watch a film called Rhapsody in August.

In which Akira Kurosawa presents two generations of a Japanese family=20
dealing with the Nagasaki holocaust. One represented by four young=20
children for whom war is a distant, wondrous thing. They could not=20
even remotely comprehend its horror. The other represented by their=20
grandmother who actually witnessed the hideous thing that in an=20
apocalyptic flash swallowed 40,000 of Nagasaki's two=20
million-population including her husband and her brothers.

When her grandchildren ask her if she hates the Americans, her=20
reaction is only a sad puzzlement. "They said they dropped the bomb,"=20
she says,"to stop the war." "That was 45 years ago and wars are still=20
killing people."

So, before you get carried away by mesmeric sound of the war drums=20
beating on the streets, just stop and think. If we go to war, tens of=20
thousands of young Indians will be happily be ready to become=20
"collateral damage". And many of them will.

While that may, for many, be no reason not to fight a war, remember=20
that war is not something that someone else will fight on your behalf=20
and you will watch excitedly on the 9 o'clock news and you'll get=20
away by donating to the Prime Minister's War Relief Fund.

______

#4.

Indian Express
Editorial
Friday, January 25, 2002

Marching to danger

BJP should do more than appear to distance itself from VHP

AS the Sant Chetavani Yatra from Ayodhya draws closer to Delhi, a=20
question has reared its tired head once again. Will the VHP succeed=20
in raising the pitch on the Ayodhya issue another time? And then, can=20
the clamour build into a triumphant crescendo for the BJP in time for=20
the elections to Uttar Pradesh? The VHP's programme would seem=20
carefully choreographed to help consolidate the 'Hindu vote', if such=20
a monolith indeed exists in UP or elsewhere, before the people of the=20
state go to the hustings. The attempts to resuscitate the issue at=20
this strategic moment, along with the laboured rhetoric that tries to=20
tie it up with the War against Terror ('terrorist Babur', Babri=20
masjid as a 'symbol of Islamic terrorism'), point to the=20
long-festering issue being stitched into a cynical election plan=20
designed by the VHP, for the BJP. At the very least, the march to=20
Delhi is the VHP's attempt to get a measure of its own continuing=20
relevance, or the lack of it, a decade after the vandalism at Ayodhya.

The patterns on the ground already hint at the answers to those=20
questions. Indications are that the VHP may have overestimated the=20
returns from flogging the old issue. So far, the VHP's yatra has=20
steamed ahead more on the macho rhetoric and vain bravado of its=20
leading lights, than on any real wave of popular support. Indications=20
are that international working president Ashok Singhal's bluff and=20
bluster - the contemptuous dismissal of the March 12 deadline, the=20
threat to begin construction of a temple at the disputed site,=20
whenever, no matter what - is only bluff and bluster, the=20
marginalised rabblerouser's desperate attempts to gain centrestage.=20
Do we even need to bother, then, with the loud demands that the=20
Centre hand over the disputed 67 acres or so to the VHP-controlled=20
trust, or else? Must we take Singhal's 'plan of action' seriously?=20
The answer cannot be an outright 'no'. While it is true that the=20
absence of any significant popular response may well confront the VHP=20
with the truth of its own marginalisation, the VHP's Ayodhya Yatra=20
requires a more alert response. Yes, rabble rousing on the temple may=20
not help the BJP win UP, but it can certainly poison the atmosphere=20
in which the elections are fought in the state. It can still disturb=20
the often tenuous peace that stretches between communities in many=20
areas.

The communal frenzy that trailed L.K. Advani's rath yatra may=20
mercifully be a thing of the past, but the irresponsible, hate-filled=20
rhetoric the VHP-Bajrang Dal specialise in can still take its toll.=20
No, the option to simply ignore the VHP is fraught with dangers.
The onus, most of all, is on the BJP. Not just because it is the=20
party in power in the state and at the Centre and therefore=20
accountable for maintaining law and order, but also because of its=20
intimacy with the VHP. Truth is, the BJP's protestations of innocence=20
don't ring credible, nor its feeble attempts to distance itself from=20
the VHP's frantic exertions. Far too often in the past has the party=20
been caught trying to manipulate this fine balance - now separate=20
from the VHP-Bajrang Dal, and then entwined with it. When the VHP=20
delegation from the Ayodhya Yatra goes to meet the Prime Minister on=20
January 27, Vajpayee cannot just play the genial host.

______

#5.

The Hindu
Jan 25, 2002
Opinion
A stain on Indian democracy

By Rajeev Dhavan

Good constitutional practices include the duty of political parties=20
and their leaders to ensure that chargesheeted and communal persons=20
are not permitted to stand for election on their party ticket.

THREE YEARS ago, on January 23, 1999, Graham Staines and his two=20
sons, Timothy and Philip, were murdered as they slept in their jeep.=20
It was a ghastly incident. It needs to be remembered. Indian society=20
is the greatest multicultural and multi-religious society that has=20
ever graced human history. This is India's strength and uniqueness.=20
Like the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the murder of a=20
missionary in 1999 must give us pause. Communal history, now being=20
officially written into children's textbooks, is being reinforced by=20
intrigue, murder and mayhem. An effort is being made to redesign=20
India as a powder keg to blow up its unique and unparalleled history.=20
But, India's electoral politics knows no limits. Those accused of=20
committing ghastly communal crimes are being rewarded as politicians.

How do we honour Staines' memory? One way is to remember his death as=20
a ghastly monument of contemporary history. The other way is to=20
reward the alleged goondas and goons by inducting them as=20
politicians. After the Staines' murder, the Justice Wadhwa Committee=20
examined these events and expressed anguish, but refused to take a=20
conclusive view on the political links between the alleged=20
perpetrators of the murder and the various communal outfits, which=20
are friends of the BJP. Justice Wadhwa's report has been criticised.=20
But the story does not end there. After the Staines' murder, Dara=20
Singh and others were accused of the crime. But humility does not=20
come easily to those accused of communal crimes and a new=20
organisation called the Dara Sena (Dara's Army) was created to=20
protect the faith. Dara Singh himself has been socially elevated as a=20
Dharma Rakshak (defender of the faith). Even though in custody, his=20
message is clear. He wants to make a transition from rabid=20
communalism into politics to stand for elections in Uttar Pradesh.=20
Some members of the VHP applaud this. The script of the link between=20
politics and the murder, which had eluded Justice Wadhwa, is now=20
being written as future communal history.

Where do these political links take us? Why Dara Singh? Why Uttar=20
Pradesh? The battle for Uttar Pradesh is the biggest electoral war in=20
the Assembly elections. With over 140 million people, the State is=20
greater in demographic size than most countries of the world. The BJP=20
desperately needs to win there because it rules only in the smaller=20
States such as Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh.

The trump card of the BJP and its allies in the State is Ayodhya. At=20
the Kumbh Mela in 2001, the Ayodhya campaign to build a temple on the=20
site of the Babri Masjid was reinforced following Mr. Vajpayee's=20
"Musings from Kumarakom". Since then, there have been vast=20
preparations amidst weak protests. The VHP says it wants 45.77 per=20
cent of the 67 acres of the Babri Masjid, which it says is=20
"unencumbered". Even law is twisted to fan politics.

The construction of the proposed Ayodhya temple will commence on=20
March 12. By clever interpolations, it is made out that Mr. Vajpayee=20
opposes what the VHP proposes to dispose. Into this enters Dara Singh=20
- the dharma rakshak.. His proposed presence in this election=20
underlines the worst of Indian politics. It has both political and=20
social implications. Politically, the communal factor is set ablaze.=20
Socially, people like Dara Singh are set up as an example to ordinary=20
people as the heroes of our times. This is done unashamedly.

The Uttar Pradesh elections are bringing out the worst in Indian=20
democracy. The BJP combine plays the Ayodhya card. The Congress(I)=20
replies with secular affront rather than a secular front and combined=20
strategy.

The Congress(I) pride has still not learnt the value of devising the=20
kind of coalition strategies that have got the BJP in power. But=20
while upholding secularism, the Congress(I) is not averse to goonda=20
politics. There are reports that it may field Jai Narayan Tewari - an=20
alleged mafia don - in the elections. This is after Sonia Gandhi gave=20
a strong speech in Kanpur against the criminalisation of politics.=20
But this is not reflected in the party's distribution of seats.

Promoting goondas has become a regular feature of, and has been=20
inbuilt into, Indian politics. This is disconcerting - all the more=20
so because nominations are distributed centrally. Why do parties give=20
tickets to self-avowed communalists and persons chargesheeted in=20
criminal cases who are increasingly filling up India's legislatures?=20
How is this rot to be stopped? By politicians themselves? By the=20
Constitution? Or by the law? This is the crucial question.

Politicians claim refuge in the law. Their effective defence is that=20
the law permits them to nominate communal thugs and goondas as=20
candidates for elections as long as such thugs and goondas have not=20
been convicted of a disqualificatory crime. No doubt Section 8 of the=20
Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies those guilty of=20
listed socio-economic crimes and offences punished with more than 2=20
years imprisonment. This means that a person may be accused of=20
hundreds of murders and even chargesheeted for them, but he will not=20
be disqualified as long as he has not been convicted of the crime. An=20
anguished Law Commission's report on electoral reforms (1999) says=20
that those chargesheeted by a court should also be disqualified. This=20
solution is not perfect but may merit consideration in the face of=20
the rising tide of the criminalisation of politics.

But what if the law permits accused goondas, thugs and murderers to=20
fight elections? Surely the high command in India's political parties=20
should not be looking at legal loopholes but for opportunities to=20
develop and sustain healthy constitutional practices. There is a=20
distinction between mere legality, constitutional validity and=20
constitutional practice. The law may permit certain things, which=20
though constitutionally valid are nevertheless not sound as=20
constitutional practice. Take the case of anti-defection. Even after=20
the Anti-defection Amendment (1985), both the law and the=20
Constitution permit defection within limits.

Since 1985, many Governments have been toppled by unscrupulous=20
defections. Though legal, these are unsavoury constitutional=20
practices. Ministers accused of policy failures used to accept=20
responsibility by resigning - such as Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1956 and=20
Krishna Menon in 1962. But, now Ministers do not resign even when=20
accused of serious crimes. A healthy constitutional practice has not=20
been developed because the law does not require ministers to resign=20
in these situations. Similarly, giving seats to persons accused of=20
serious crimes or of communal dispositions is not strictly illegal or=20
unconstitutional, but is a wrong constitutional practice.

Amidst crisis, the strength of English parliamentary democracy is the=20
existence of constitutional practices to govern political behaviour.=20
Elsewhere in Asia and Africa, the parliamentary system has either=20
failed or sustained dictatorial rule. Without good constitutional=20
practices as part of day-to-day policies no Constitution can be=20
sustained or survive.

Good constitutional practises include the duty of political parties=20
and their leaders to ensure that chargesheeted and communal persons=20
are not permitted to stand for election on their party ticket. There=20
is nothing in the law or Constitution which forbids them from doing=20
this. But the sad tragedy is that political parties prefer to have=20
musclemen and communalists as part of their electoral armies.

Now let us return to Dara Singh and the memory of Staines. Dara Singh=20
and Ayodhya are earmarked for Uttar Pradesh's elections. Outwardly,=20
Mr. Vajpayee is lukewarm on Ayodhya. But with the implicit nod of Mr.=20
Vajpayee, the BJP and its allies wish to exploit Ayodhya to the hilt.=20
Mr. Vajpayee's foreign policy espouses secularism for India and=20
Kashmir.

But the BJP's electoral policies espouses communal fundamentalism.=20
That secularism is not just the basic structure of our Constitution=20
but binds India together is ruthlessly forgotten.

______

#6.

The Telegraph
25 January 2002

SANGH SETS UP MARTYR GALLERY

FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, Jan. 24:
The RSS sought to make up for the lack of a political iconography by=20
creating its own "gallery" of "martyrs" who were slain in the=20
post-Independent era for their "dedication to nationalism".

Struggle Against National Splitters: Martyrdom of Swa-yamsevaks by=20
BJP's Andhra Pradesh vice-president S.V. Seshagiri Rao was released=20
today by home minister L.K. Advani in the presence of RSS joint=20
general secretary Madan Das Devi.

The book, published by the Sangh-affiliated Martyrs' Mem-orial=20
Research Institute, lists 429 martyrs killed by the=20
"nation-splitters" in the past 30 years.

Heading the list of "nation-splitters" is the CPM, which, the book=20
alleges, was responsible for the assassination of 205 swayamsevaks.

"Cross-border terrorists (Punjab)" come a distant second with 78=20
alleged killings. "Islamic outfits" follow with 72, Naxalites with=20
42, Jammu and Kashmir "jihadis" 17, United Liberation Front of Asom=20
eight, National Liberation Front of Tripura four, "church elements"=20
two and Manipur insurgents one.

For Advani, the function - not characteristically RSS as it was held=20
at the India Habitat Centre instead of its Jhandewalan headquarters -=20
was an appropriate occasion to reconnect with the Sangh and reiterate=20
his credentials as an "Iron Man" as well as to wax eloquent on=20
India's spirit of tolerance.

It was his first public appearance with the RSS in a long time. So=20
far, it was Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had shared public=20
space with the RSS brass, despite the occasional bouts of tension. If=20
anything, the Sangh was reportedly unhappy with the home minister=20
after the abduction and killing of four of its activists in Tripura=20
last year.

RSS functionaries were believed to have conveyed their sentiments to=20
Advani when he went to its headquarters for a condolence meeting.

The genesis of the book lies in Advani's trip to Hyderabad in April=20
1997 to pay homage to an activist of the RSS students' wing, Akhil=20
Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), who was allegedly murdered by=20
ultra-Left activists.

"When I went to the ABVP office, I was surprised to see the walls=20
covered with photos of activists slain by the Naxalites. So many=20
pictures in just one office! I remarked it looks like a martyrs'=20
gallery," Advani recalled.

The home minister attributed the killings to the culture of=20
intolerance. Recollecting an interview he had given to a Canadian=20
news channel in 1989, he said he told them the most striking feature=20
of the Indian democracy was its "respect for all shades of opinion".

This spirit of tolerance, Advani said, was also manifest in the=20
sphere of religion "in which people normally say there can be no=20
compromise with one's religious beliefs".

Advani took a broadside against the CPM and said there were "parties=20
which do not believe in tolerance. Not surprisingly, we lost most of=20
our swayamsevaks in West Bengal and Kerala".

For the hard-core swayamsevaks' consumption, he said the Kashmir=20
issue should not be seen through the western prism as an=20
"Indo-Pakistan dispute" because "Kashmir is an integral part of=20
India".

"It came to us through a proper constitutional and legal process.=20
During the accession period, people there said they will not accept=20
the two-nation theory."

Advani also warned that if "somehow" Jammu and Kashmir seceded from=20
India, it would have a "domino effect" all over the country.
______

#7.

Indian Express
Friday, January 25, 2002
Sant yatra lifeless, public indifferent to their temple cause

KOTA NEELIMA

AGRA, JANUARY 24: ON THE road from Ferozabad to Agra, a group of men=20
sit waiting in their jeeps. With their revolvers and lathis they look=20
menacing. Their faces are covered with shawls, but the dark look in=20
their eyes can't be missed.

''We expect some violence today. It happened during Advani's rath=20
yatra, didn't it? So this time we are prepared,'' says Hari Singh.
He is one among the two dozen armed men who, along with supporters,=20
waited for the VHP-sponsored yatra to come to Tundla, a village 30 km=20
from Agra.

Right on dot, some 60 vehicles including the sant chetna rath coming=20
all the way from Nepal, reached Tundla. Moving in formations, with=20
ten mobikes in front and beside cars of senior VHP leaders at the=20
head.

When the yatra reached Tundla at 3 pm, the supporters sprung into=20
action. Vehicles were stopped, there's a cordon of security around=20
the sants who blessed supporters. The villagers rushed to offer=20
flowers to the saffron-clad leaders. One villager, Arun Singh, says,=20
''They are holy men. I want their blessings so I offered them=20
flowers.'' And the Ram mandir? ''It should be built in Ayodhya, who=20
can say it shouldn't be? We believe the BJP can build a temple there=20
if it comes back to power,'' he says.

There were others too who just stood and watched the rally pass by.=20
Says Giridhar Singh, who runs a shop in Tundla, ''I was working in a=20
factory, earning twice I make now. In the name of pollution, it was=20
shut and I lost my job. First give jobs, then build as many temples=20
as you want.''

The yatra stayed there for 10 minutes, lectured villagers, pledged to=20
build the temple and proceeded towards Agra. Among others was a=20
saffron-painted tempo-van with a man playing Hanuman sitting atop,=20
carrying VHP members from Janakpuri in Nepal. ''It's sad help should=20
come from the place of Ram's in-laws (Nepal) for building the=20
temple,'' VHP leader from Nepal Pawan Kumar Shastri said.

The moment the yatra leaves Tundla, the gunmen jump into their jeeps.=20
The yatra reaches Agra at 4 p.m. Some 30-odd people are waiting=20
there. Locals slow down to find out what the rath is all about, but=20
walk on.

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

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.