[sacw] SACW | 25 Feb. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch | 25 February 2002

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

#1. How Pakistan responds to Pearl's death will determine the=20
country's future (Mansoor Ijaz)
#2. Pakistan: Book review - ' Achchay andaz-i-hukmerani ki khoj' [in=20
search of Good Governance]
#3. India: Incremental militarism (Editorial, The Hindu)
#4. India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 70 |=20
24 Feb 2002
#5. Indian Diaspora: American Museum Urged To Screen Patwardhan=20
Films, Uphold Freedom of Speech
#6. India: History Joshi wants to censor
#7. India: HRDline propaganda
#8. India: VHP in brief: The Sangh's right fist
#9. South Asian Popular Culture Conference

________________________

#1.

Los Angeles Times
Sunday, February 24, 2002
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000014042feb24.story

MORE THAN PEARL WAS LOST
How Pakistan responds to his death will determine the country's future
by Mansoor Ijaz

Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistani origin who worked with Mujahedeen
leaders to bring about the 2000 ceasefire in Kashmir, first introduced
Daniel Pearl to Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan after September 11.

The loss of Daniel Pearl at the hands of his inhuman captors represents
much more than the loss of a husband, father, son and friend. His death
represents the defamation of a country trying hard to pull back from the
brink of failure at the hands of extremists who are prepared to go to
any length to project their insanity. And it puts another black mark on
a great religion, Islam.

The strategic consequences of this heinous crime are no less than the
future of Pakistani society itself; for any Pakistani -- military or
civilian -- to say otherwise is to dishonor the cause for which Pearl's
life was taken from him.

Pearl was not a just a journalist working for The Wall Street Journal.
He was a symbol of American intellectual and financial power. His
kidnapping was not a hostage drama, it was a message to Gen. Pervez
Musharraf, Pakistan's president, that much more than eloquent speeches
threatening the fanatics with doom would be needed to stop them. His
brutal videotaped execution was a message to the families of Americans
and Westerners everywhere who would dare enter the lair of Islam's
fanatics of what awaited them if they continued to challenge Islamist
mendacity and arrogance.

And for now, the message has put a screeching halt to the restructuring
of Pakistan's foundations. Pakistan cannot rebuild without a lot of
help in reconstructing its corroded economy. Most, if not all, of that
help will come from the U.S. as reward for Islamabad's staunch support
of the effort to eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But it won't
happen if American CEOs who seek to invest there or U.S. lawmakers who
have to consider aid grants come to the conclusion that internal forces
struggling for control over Pakistan's future course are pulling in such
divergent directions that private American citizens trying to help
rebuild the country are not safe.

Musharraf has much to explain to the U.S. before we can commit our
intellectual, financial and legislative resources to his restructuring
proposal.

His first act must be to allow the U.S. to extradite without delay Omar
Saeed, the man believed to be the mastermind of the Pearl kidnapping. A
trial of those responsible is essential for the American people and for
the Pearl family=92s closure.

Musharraf must also seriously crack down on the fanatics in his midst.
Cleaning up Pakistan's notoriously corrupt police and intelligence
bureaus should be the highest priorities. Without their connivance, the
Pearl kidnapping may have been resolved much earlier and without the
damaging political consequences it has now sewn. Merely rounding up
assorted hucksters and gangsters is little more than media manipulation
and it has to stop. The American people are not naive.

Musharraf has to then crack down on the illicit black market economy
that funds militancy and extremism. If need be, use the army to take
the guns and drugs off Pakistan's streets. The risk of civil war is
minimal because Pakistan's militants are cowards. They can only hide in
dark alleys at night for their prey.

Musharraf has to lead the way, walking the streets himself with baton in
hand if necessary, to demonstrate to Pakistan's silent majority that he
is dead serious about taking on those who would destroy their country.
Musharraf wants to leave a legacy; well, here is his chance.

The extremists who are believed to have murdered Pearl are men who know
not even the first verses of the Koran, whose word they so desperately
seek to spread with their violence and hatred. They seek only political
gain from their acts of violence in the name of a religion they know
nothing about.

It is time for the Islamic world =96 particularly the large numbers of
moderates in Pakistan =96 to rise up against them and stop their criminal
hypocrisy.

Daniel Pearl will live on as a symbol of the hope that men and women of
good will have in trying to understand each other's human deficiencies.
May almighty Allah rest his soul in peace for the good work he did on
this Earth.

______

#2.

DAWN
23 February 2002

REVIEW (URDU & REGIONAL): In search of good governance
Reviewed by Hasan Abidi

'Power to the people', a popular slogan in pro-democracy struggles,=20
lost much of its lustre during the democratic dispensation we have=20
had in the last few years in Pakistan before the military took over.=20
No devolution of power to the people at the grassroots level has=20
taken place. Participatory government is still at an experimental=20
stage and does not inspire much hope as the rusty and obsolete=20
bureaucratic machinery and processes remain unchanged.
The Liberal Forum (Pakistan) undertook a research project to=20
determine the areas where people generally face serious problems on=20
account of the lengthy and cumbersome procedures in the functioning=20
of the government machinery which also provide enough room for=20
corruption at all level. The four sectors specially specified which=20
involve 23 services are a) acquisition of basic documents like birth=20
certificates, national identity card, etc; b) seeking copies of=20
judicial orders and other papers from the courts; c) obtaining basic=20
amenities, like water and power connections; and lastly d) seeking=20
economic assistance from the official agencies.
The researchers have compiled first-hand experiences of people who=20
sought a birth certificate or applied for a passport and went through=20
the rigours of official routine.
In quest of good governance, the researchers have prescribed two=20
remedies, namely, the elimination of many processes of working, with=20
less file work, and a fewer number of offices with smaller office=20
staff. Information technology should make the task of keeping records=20
and retrieving them easier. Furthermore, an enhancement of the fee=20
for different services will add to the state revenue, leaving no room=20
for corruption.
The second suggestion may be no more than a pious wish, since without=20
a drastic change in the working of the offices, it would be difficult=20
to eliminate corrupt practices. Thus the people will continue to=20
doubly suffer with additional fee and added corruption. However, the=20
researchers have called on all people who care to act, as the idea of=20
the empowerment of the people will be fulfilled only when they assert=20
themselves for their basic civic rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Achchay andaz-i-hukmerani ki khoj
Compiled by Zafrullah Khan
Liberal Forum Pakistan, P.O. Box 1368, Islamabad.
Email: forum-liberal@h...
64pp. Rs20

______

#3.

The Hindu
Feb 25, 2002
Opinion

Incremental militarism

THE UNTENABLE ESCALATION of clearly militaristic strategy by the=20
Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and his `brains trust' is=20
pushing India inexorably towards a qualitatively new crisis in its=20
dangerously estranged relationship with Pakistan. It is indeed=20
amazing that New Delhi hardly cites a convincing reason why it cannot=20
take steps that could de-escalate the current tensions. The Vajpayee=20
administration has consistently ignored all sensible calls for a=20
pullback of the Indian military units which were deployed within=20
striking distance of Pakistan in the context of the heinous terrorist=20
attack on Parliament House in New Delhi on December 13. Not only=20
that. The Prime Minister's growing penchant for polemical=20
anti-Pakistan rhetoric has only managed to scale up the temperature=20
on the bilateral front without actually advancing India's anti-terror=20
cause. The forward-deployment of India's military personnel and=20
assets along the border with Pakistan was portrayed as the prime=20
element of pressure-diplomacy. If the political logic of that=20
deployment in a strike-threatening formation was to unnerve=20
Islamabad, the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, appears to have=20
neatly turned the tables on New Delhi. Gen. Musharraf has banned two=20
key Pakistan-based terrorist organisations - the Jaish-e-Mohammad and=20
the Lashkar-e-Taiba, both `jehadi' outfits - which were implicated in=20
the attack on India's Parliament. Now, Gen. Musharraf argues that his=20
action has had nothing to do with any external pressure (from either=20
the U.S. or India) and that he has acted solely in Pakistan's own=20
enlightened self-interest. New Delhi itself does not openly=20
acknowledge the ban on the two networks as a beneficial spin-off=20
effect of its ``coercive diplomacy''. Is it not unwise of India to=20
disregard the ban and portray it as a dubious step or as a matter of=20
peripheral implications?

Mr. Vajpayee has indeed locked himself in a posture of incremental=20
militarism by ratcheting up his rhetoric and by appearing to take=20
little note of the dangerous drift implicit in a fierce standoff on=20
the India-Pakistan frontier. He has voiced some dark hints about New=20
Delhi's own capabilities to foment ``internal trouble'' for Pakistan=20
even while asserting that any interference of this order in the=20
domestic affairs of Pakistan ``is not our policy, not our style''.=20
Yet, the overall militant language, even if devoid of any intended=20
policy thrust, is patently absurd on two major counts. First, India=20
may now become a focal point of the needless attention of some=20
terror-watch activists on the international stage. Second, the Prime=20
Minister's political bluster will further fracture India's already=20
fragile relationship with Pakistan.

Having failed to draw up a meaningful exit strategy even at the time=20
of massing India's troops on the border with Pakistan - a step that=20
prompted Islamabad to act in a similar fashion - the Vajpayee=20
administration now finds itself at odds with serious international=20
opinion. New Delhi's ostensible strategic purpose and political=20
objective were to induce Pakistan to extradite or deport 20=20
identified terrorists/criminals and to end cross-border terrorism=20
that has been of deep concern to India. Of these, cross-border=20
terrorism is an issue that can only be monitored over a relatively=20
long timeframe, while Gen. Musharraf is now reported to have offered=20
to discuss the 20 names as part of a renewable India-Pakistan=20
dialogue on a range of issues. If New Delhi's plan all along has been=20
to avoid a war with Pakistan despite the forward-deployment, it is=20
high time for de-escalation. There is no place for simplistic=20
assertions of the kind being made by the Defence Minister, George=20
Fernandes, that India can easily cope with the uncertainties on the=20
border.

_____

#4.

India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 70
24 February 2002
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/81

_____

#5.

Joint Press Release

EKTA (Bay Area)
Friends of South Asia (FOSA) - Bay Area
International South Asian Forum (INSAF)

For Immediate Release

AMERICAN MUSEUM URGED TO SCREEN PATWARDHAN FILMS, UPHOLD FREEDOM OF SPEECH

February 21st, 2002

Several groups in North America, Europe and South Asia, along with an=20
impressive list of over one thousand individuals, have appealed to=20
the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York to stand=20
firm on its commitment to screen Anand Patwardhan's films, and to not=20
cave in to censorship demands made by some groups and individuals in=20
the US claiming to represent Hindu interests.

The American Museum of Natural History had planned to screen two of=20
Patwardhan's films on February 9th, 2002, to accompany its on-going=20
exhibition on Hinduism, 'Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion.'=20
However, some rightwing Hindu groups, including the Vishwa Hindu=20
Parishad of America, (World Hindu Organization of America, VHPA) have=20
demanded that the museum cancel the screenings of the films which=20
they claim are 'anti-Hindu' and 'irrelevant to an exhibit on=20
Hinduism.' Ekta, a San Francisco based organization seeking to bridge=20
the "South Asian community through artistic statement, sociopolitical=20
dialogue, activism, and community building," launched a counter=20
petition drive in support of the Patwardhan documentaries, urging the=20
museum to screen the films. 'We believe that religion and politics=20
should remain open to public debate and scrutiny, and that=20
Patwardhan's films serve a valuable function in fostering that debate=20
and deserve to be screened,' reads the petition.

However, on January 31st, after Ekta's petition had been submitted to=20
the museum with a list of 461 signatures, Ms Laurel Kendall of the=20
AMNH informed Raj Barot of Ekta that the screenings of Patwardhan's=20
films at AMNH had been "cancelled, owing to threats of violence." The=20
next day, Ms Kendall retracted her statement and explained that the=20
"screenings have been postponed owing to capacity issues," and that=20
films would be screened at a location outside the museum, presumably=20
due to concerns of safety for museum visitors. Paradoxically, a TV=20
version of the Hindu epic 'Ramayan,' which by some accounts is the=20
most popular TV serial ever in India, was screened at the museum as=20
scheduled on February 10th, without any similar concerns about=20
'capacity.' On Feb. 21st, Ms. Melanie Kent of the AMNH confirmed=20
plans to screen the films on February 24th at a venue outside the=20
museum, due to "security concerns", they are yet to update the=20
information on the museum website.

The films under consideration at the museum are 'We Are Not Your=20
Monkeys' and 'In the Name of God'-two films by India's most=20
celebrated documentary-maker Anand Patwardhan. 'We Are Not Your=20
Monkeys' is a short 5 minute music video based on a song by the late=20
Daya Pawar, a renowned Dalit ('untouchable' caste) poet and activist=20
from the western Indian state of Maharashtra. The film offers a=20
critique of the Ramayana, and focuses on the gender and caste=20
oppression implicit in the popular versions of the story.

'In the Name of God' is a 1992 film that documents the rise of Hindu=20
fundamentalism in India and, according to the museum website, 'it=20
details the campaign waged in the late 1980s and early 1990s by the=20
militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Organization) to destroy=20
the 16th-century Babri Mosque and build a temple to Rama.' The=20
documentary examines the motivations behind these and other religious=20
fanatics who are intent on causing carnage and destruction, and also=20
highlights attempts by other ordinary Indians, many of whom are=20
Hindu, who struggle to combat religious intolerance and promote=20
communal harmony.

Particularly poignant is the story it tells of Pujari Laldas, the=20
Hindu priest of the contested Ram Janmabhoomi site, who is the voice=20
of reason and tolerance in the documentary as he asserts that the=20
demolition of the mosque was not in the interest of Hindus but was=20
being advocated for political and financial gain. As an epilogue to=20
this documentary, Patwardhan recalls, "Two years later his voice=20
proved prophetic when fanatic mobs succeeded in demolishing the Babri=20
Mosque in December 1992. In the riots that followed across the whole=20
sub-continent, thousands lost their lives. =8A" (After the historical=20
structure was demolished, riding on a wave of Hindu nationalism, the=20
BJP-the Hindu nationalist party-won the state elections.) "=8A Pujari=20
Laldas was removed from his post as head priest of the Ram temple. A=20
year later Pujari Laldas was murdered."

'In the Name of God' is considered a landmark documentary on the=20
topic of religious fundamentalism and went on to win the National=20
Award for the Best Investigative Documentary in India in 1993. The=20
Indian state-owned television channel, Doordarshan, initially refused=20
to screen the documentary, but following a lengthy 6-year legal=20
battle, it was eventually televised at prime time in 1997 by order of=20
the Bombay High Court. Both films, 'We Are Not Your Monkeys' and 'In=20
the Name of God' have been included in the Human Rights Watch Film=20
Festivals, and have won numerous accolades in film festivals around=20
the world.

The main group opposed to screening the films at the AMNH is the=20
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America-whose parent organization in India=20
was the one calling for destruction of the 400 year old mosque, which=20
was finally leveled by Hindu extremists in December 1992 and which=20
led to months of savage communal riots not only in India, but also in=20
the neighboring countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh. "What is=20
surprising in the whole episode is not that the VHP of America is=20
opposed to the screenings, but that a respected national institution=20
like the AMNH, with a century-long history of intellectual=20
independence and excellence, would give in to pressure from=20
reactionary fundamentalists," said Girish Agrawal of the Friends of=20
South Asia, a Stanford based group which is one of many South Asian=20
groups supporting Ekta's petition to the museum. Adds Barot of Ekta,=20
"We believe that a prestigious museum such as the AMNH should not=20
succumb to "threats of violence" as that would mean giving in to=20
terrorism and fundamentalism."

This sentiment is echoed in many of the individual comments written=20
by the signatories to the petition. Susan Susman, a law professor=20
from New York writes, "With democracy so recently threatened by=20
terrorism, we [have] learned that the response must be to celebrate=20
our principles-not to yield." Suketu Mehta, a writer from Brooklyn=20
comments, "If anticipated 'threats of violence' had been accepted as=20
sufficient justification for stifling free expression, the Gettysburg=20
Address and Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream' speech would have=20
been banned." Professor Steven Wallace from UCLA adds, "Freedom of=20
speech is a hollow right if extremists prevent the showing of films=20
such as these."

According to Anand Patwardhan, he was completely taken by surprise=20
when he came to know of the controversy over the screening of his=20
films at the AMNH, as he was unaware of the program in the first=20
place. "Only when opponents and later, proponents, began to use the=20
internet did it come to my notice in India that my films had sparked=20
such heated debate in America," he said in a written statement to the=20
museum. He goes on to say that "it is amusing to note that the Hindu=20
fundamentalists' chief strategy in challenging the decision to screen=20
my work was to brand me a 'self-proclaimed leftist' =8A Obviously the=20
fundamentalists calculated that a strategy of red baiting would work=20
best with the American Museum of Natural History. Sadly they may well=20
have gloated over the accuracy of their calculations when the AMNH=20
seemed to cave in to pressure as it postponed the original=20
screenings. The fact that these screenings were not cancelled but=20
re-scheduled is of course a redeeming feature but it should not=20
prevent soul searching about why re-scheduling was resorted to in the=20
first place. History teaches us that compromising with fundamentalist=20
forces, no matter what their particular hue, only encourages them to=20
become more extreme."

The museum's stated reasons of 'capacity issues' and 'crowd control'=20
are also without merit, claims Barot. "We believe that the issue=20
should be handled by a simple "first-come, first-serve" basis rather=20
than pushing the venue outside the museum =8A We believe that the=20
museum's plans to reschedule the screening of Anand Patwardhan's=20
films to a venue outside the museum would effectively deter members=20
of the public from viewing the films." Barot adds that on Feb 21st,=20
the museum confirmed plans to screen the films on February 24th at a=20
venue outside the museum. He fears that such short notice allows=20
insufficient time for good publicity. Ekta has requested the museum=20
to provide a well publicized and well protected screening of the=20
films inside the museum premises.

Ekta's petition to the museum has so far accumulated more than a=20
thousand signatures and continues to gather more every day. Among the=20
groups supporting Ekta is Friends of South Asia, a San Francisco Bay=20
Area group that promotes peace in South Asia, DRUM (Desis Rising Up=20
and Moving), a New York based social justice organization working for=20
the rights of low-income South Asian immigrants, INSAF (International=20
South Asian Forum) with chapters in several cities in North America,=20
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD) in=20
Vancouver, CERAS (South Asian Research and Resource Center) in=20
Montreal, Progressive South Asian Forum in Chapel Hill in NC, South=20
Asian Left and Democratic Alliance(SALDA) in Toronto, EKTA-New York=20
and the Ambedkar Mission Society in Bedford, UK. The list of=20
individual signatures is also impressive, including names such as=20
Admiral L. Ramdas, the former Chief of Indian Navy, Mira Nair, the=20
well-known Indo-American film maker whose most recent film 'Monsoon=20
Wedding' won the Golden Lion prize at the Venice International Film=20
Festival, Karamatullah K. Ghori, a former Pakistani Ambassador, and=20
over 50 academics from institutions in the US, UK, Canada, India,=20
Italy, the Philippines and South Africa.

Many signatories to the petition highlight the importance of=20
upholding democratic values by encouraging free speech, especially in=20
public institutions such as the AMNH. Himanshu Thakkar, a well-known=20
environmentalist from India writes "It will be a sad day if such=20
anti-democratic attempts [to block film screenings] succeed," and=20
Raja Harish asks, "Since when do museums decide their programming=20
based on threats from cowards who want to block and trash the very=20
principles that made museums such as yours possible? Such excuses are=20
pathetic, especially for a museum located in New York City (not=20
Kandahar)."

Others speak of the value of screening Patwardhan's films which are=20
described as thought-provoking, intelligent documentaries encouraging=20
debate, discussion and introspection. Linda Hess, a Stanford based=20
scholar of Hinduism who is currently in India, writes "Patwardhan is=20
a courageous and internationally acclaimed filmmaker whose films have=20
been very valuable to me as an educator =8A The self-appointed thought=20
police of the right seek to suppress the art and literature that they=20
disapprove of and to control access to information. India stands for=20
democracy. It will be truly against India's interests and image in=20
the world if such forces succeed in suppressing free speech, academic=20
and artistic expression." Dr. Joseph Gerson, the Director of Programs=20
for the American Friends Service Committee [The Quakers], New England=20
Regional Office adds, "Anand is among the world's most important film=20
makers. For the sake of our collective survival and the ability of=20
people to live their lives with freedom and dignity, Anand's films=20
must be widely shown and easily accessible."

Yet others remind the museum that the organizations asking for=20
canceling Patwardhan's films do not voice sentiments representative=20
of all Hindus, or even a majority of Hindus. Writes Melliyal=20
Annamalai, "The view expressed in the forces that postponed/stopped=20
the screening does not represent the view of the Hindus living in the=20
U.S. Nor is it the view of the majority of the Hindus in India. It is=20
a view of just those who subscribe to a sectarian and divisive=20
platform of political Hinduism that is extremist (even=20
fundamentalist) in action and ideology and is intolerant of=20
dissenting voice."

For ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, contact:
Raj Barot : 510-898-0535
Shalini Gera: 408-586-9004
Akhila Raman: 510-649-8719
Hari Sharma: (604) 420-2972

_____

#6.

The Times of India
History Joshi wants to censor
AKSHAYA MUKUL
TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2002 1:42:46 AM ]
NEW DELHI: An embarrassing clutch of documents betraying the=20
pro-British instincts of two Hindutva icons is the reason historian K=20
N Pannikar's volume in the Towards Freedom series has been scrapped=20
by the Indian Council of Historical Research, The Times of India has=20
learned.
http://203.199.93.7/Articleshow.asp?art_id=3D1907135

_____

#7.

The Hindustan Times
Monday, February 25, 2002
Editorial
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/250202/detedi02.asp
=09=20
HRDline propaganda

It is now becoming increasingly clear that under the pretext of=20
ridding the history establishment of communists, Human Resource=20
Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi is packing history bodies=20
with non-historians, political pamphleteers and uncouth propagandists.

The latest instance of Dr Joshi's determination to destroy India's=20
historical tradition is the decision to appoint a computer scientist=20
called N.S. Rajaram to the Indian Council for Historical Research. Mr=20
Rajaram is not a historian in any meaningful sense. His computer=20
background has led to accusations that he manipulated Indus Valley=20
seals to create images of horses where none existed. And the=20
credential that he is so proud of - that he was once some kind of=20
advisor to NASA, the US space body - suggests that he might be more=20
suited to helping with India's space programme or writing a sequel to=20
the works of Erich Von Daniken than sitting on a historical body.

Most worrying are Mr Rajaram's own views. He has every right to=20
propagate his own version of history as a private citizen, no matter=20
how bizarre serious historians may find it. But should the Government=20
of India afford official recognition to a man who is on record=20
abusing the Prophet Moham-mad, the Vatican, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sonia=20
Gandhi and Indian secularism? It is one thing for Dr Joshi to invite=20
Mr Rajaram to lecture his shakha; quite another to place him on a=20
body concerned with historical research. Experience has demonstrated=20
that Dr Joshi is now past caring. Like some bejewelled Joe McCarthy=20
clone, he keeps parroting the same line about the imminent expulsion=20
of Reds from under every historical bed and refuses to concede that=20
even those who disapprove of what some Marxists have done to Indian=20
history are profoundly disturbed by the HRD ministry's actions.

When this government took office, we were given to understand that Dr=20
Joshi and his hardline friends would not call the shots. Moderate=20
Atal Bihari Vajpayee would keep them in check. Such secularists as=20
George Fernandes, Jaswant Singh, Sharad Yadav, Chandrababu Naidu and=20
Yashwant Sinha would guard India's pluralistic heritage. Those=20
promises, it now seems, were worthless.

_____

#8.

Indian Express
Sunday, February 24, 2002
http://www.indian-express.com/ie20020224/op2.html

VHP in brief: The Sangh's right fist

Born as a response to a perceived threat from proselytising=20
religions, the VHP is again set to push the country to the brink with=20
its Ram Temple campaign. VANDITA MISHRA traces the Parishad's long=20
trek to spotlight.

UTTAR Pradesh is going to demand all our attention today. The nation=20
must track not just every heave and turn of the power equations at=20
Lucknow as the Assembly election results pour in, it must also keep=20
an eye on Ayodhya. After prolonged threat-making, February 24 is the=20
date highlighted on the VHP calendar - the day the 'Ram bhakts' are=20
scheduled to march into Ayodhya from all over the country, to begin=20
temple construction after March 14.

For the VHP, it's been a long trek to national spotlight. Its=20
biography will most certainly be read in two parts - before 1984 and=20
after. It was in 1984 that its first Dharma Sansad unanimously=20
adopted the resolution demanding the 'liberation' of the=20
Ramjanmabhoomi at Ayodhya.

Founded in August 1964 by RSS leaders, the Vishwa Hind Parishad was=20
mainly a response to a perceived threat from proselytising religions=20
in India. The ''enemy's'' strength was seen to come from its=20
organisational solidity and transnational character. So the attempt=20
to equip Hinduism with a multinational ecclesiastical body of its=20
own. So, the effort to use the adversary's own weapons against it.

''The declared object of Christianity is to turn the whole world into=20
Christendom - as that of Islam is to make it 'Pak','' warned Shiv=20
Shankar Apte, who had joined the RSS in 1939 and who became the first=20
man to head the VHP in 1964. ''Besides...there has arisen a third=20
religion, communism...and all these three consider the Hindu society=20
a very fine rich food on which to feast and fatten themselves. It is=20
therefore necessary in this age of competition and conflict to think=20
of, and organise, the Hindu world, to save itself from the evil eyes=20
of all three.''

The three enemies were not to be looked upon as equally evil, though.=20
The principal example cited by Apte in support of his argument was=20
the autonomist movement of Naga tribes in the North-East, who were=20
seen as Christianised, and to whom a separate Nagaland had been=20
granted in 1963. The RSS attributed this fact to their=20
''denationalisation'' by the missions.

The collaboration in those early years between Apte and=20
Chinmayananda, a journalist turned swami and founder of the Sandipany=20
Academy in Bombay, to provide training to Hindu preachers symbolised=20
the association of pracharaks and 'modern gurus', which has remained=20
the VHP's USP since.

In his classic study on the Hindu nationalist movement, French=20
academic Christophe Jaffrelot points to Chinmayananda as being=20
representative of the 'modern guru' active in the VHP. His spiritual=20
practice is based on discourses in English - both language and=20
message are adapted to the urban middle class.

He accords the guru-shishya relationship less importance than that of=20
mass contact. He attends conferences all over the world.
It soon became obvious the VHP had great political potential. It had=20
a core of cadres formed in the RSS. Influential notables with large=20
landholdings and personal wealth, traditional patrons of Hindu=20
institutions had gravitated to it. Add to that a huge religious=20
network of sadhus and leaders of sects, and the VHP was the prime=20
agent for a Hindu mobilisation. The Jana Sangh could see this too.

Analysts have pointed out that the political moment was also ripe for=20
a mobilisation of this kind. Nehru's death in May 1964 had opened up=20
some space for Hindu activism. The Centre seemed less certain than=20
before to repress it. Indira Gandhi who became prime minister in=20
January 1966 was too inexperienced and too busy fending off the=20
Congress 'bosses', many of them Hindu traditionalists themselves, to=20
counter it.

In 1966, the VHP first tested the political waters. It became one of=20
the main protagonists in the campaign aginst cow slaughter, which the=20
Jana Sangh tried to exploit to cobble a 'Hindu vote' in the run-up to=20
the February 1967 elections. The slogan, in many places, was 'Vote=20
Jana Sangh to protect the cow'.

But it was in the early '80s that it really began to succeed. The=20
conversion of Dalits to Islam in Meenakshipuram, the Shah Bano affair=20
and the development of Sikh separatism came together to provide the=20
backdrop to a renewed Hindu activism, read militancy. And the VHP=20
became its spearhead. It was no coincidence that this phase also=20
marked the launch of a new strategy by the BJP in pursuit of the=20
'Hindu vote'.

Once again, the VHP proposed a ''minimum code of conduct for the=20
daily life of every Hindu'', something it had spoken of in the late=20
'60s (see box). Hindus were to be given a sacred book and a sacred=20
church on the model of semitic religions. A series of Hindu=20
conferences were held. The objective on every occasion: to call for=20
''Jan Jagran'' and solidarity among Hindus against the ''threatening=20
Others''.

In 1982, it formed a Central Margdarshak Mandal whose members would=20
''direct and guide the religious ceremonies, morals and ethics of=20
Hindu society''. Its 39 members represented different sects of=20
Hinduism. Alongside, almost like an executive committee, a Sadhu=20
Sansad came up, whose 17 sadhus would enable the ''shakti of the=20
sadhus to play an enlarged role in the activities of=20
nation-building''.

By the '90s, the Central Margdarshak Mandal had grown into a=20
permanent institution, a twice a year gathering of around 200=20
members. The Sadhu Sansad became a Dharam Sansad in 1984, with=20
hundreds, thousands, of participants who meet at irregular intervals=20
to deliberate on ''vital problems''.

Cleverly playing upon the two symbols of Ganga and Bharat Mata, the=20
Ekatmata Yatra in 1983 was the first campaign of the resurgent VHP.=20
Three processions - from Kathmandu in Nepal to Rameshwaram in Tamil=20
Nadu, from Gangasagar in Bengal to Somnath in Gujarat, and from=20
Hardwar in Uttar Pradesh to Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu - distributed=20
water from the Ganga (50 centilitres for Rs 10). Jaffrelot points out=20
that the yatra represented a tactical innovation: till then, the only=20
symbol that had been manipulated for political purposes was the cow.

Then, the first Dharma Sansad unanimously adopted the resolution=20
demanding the 'liberation' of the Ramjanmabhoomi at Ayodhya in 1984=20
and there was no looking back for the VHP, and the BJP. The Bajrang=20
Dal was formed under the leadership of Vinay Katiyar, organisational=20
secretary of ABVP in 1970-74 and RSS pracharak since 1980. Ram Janaki=20
Raths toured Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in November-December 1985.

The gates to the Babri Masjid were thrown open in February 1986 to=20
facilitate 'puja' and 'darshan' in the presence of a crowd of VHP=20
supporters and a DD crew. The VHP organised Ram Shila Pujans in 1986.=20
The Congress government permitted it to conduct the shilanyas in=20
1989. BJP leader L.K. Advani led the Rath Yatra. And from two seats=20
and 7.68 per cent of the votes in the 1984 Lok Sabha elections, the=20
BJP had climbed to 86 seats and 11.5 per cent votes in the 1989 Lok=20
Sabha elections.

Then came December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished at=20
Ayodhya in the presence of senior BJP and VHP leaders.

_____

#9.

South Asian Popular Culture Conference
Call for Papers
4 - 5 April 2002
University of Portsmouth, UK

The conference celebrates the launch of the forthcoming journal South=20
Asian Popular Culture. Papers accepted for presentation at this=20
conference will be invited to be submitted as articles for the=20
journal's launch issue in April 2003.

The journal South Asian Popular Culture is a peer reviewed=20
interdisciplinary publication designed to respond to the growing=20
interest in South Asian popular culture within the different=20
disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. 'South Asian=20
popular culture' is defined in a broad and inclusive way to=20
incorporate textual, lived and performative cultures, the mass media,=20
ways of life, and discursive modes of representation.

The journal of South Asian Popular Culture seeks to serve as an=20
innovative and informative venue to discuss and debate the emergence=20
and vibrancy of new forms of social, cultural and political=20
strategies and representations in film, music, radio, television,=20
visual cultures, fashion, and sexuality. These forms, in fact, pose a=20
challenge that need to be understood within a context of culture that=20
allows a transnational focus and open attitude towards difference and=20
diversity.

South Asian Popular Culture will also feature a regular section=20
entitled 'Working Notes' that will include contributions from=20
cultural practitioners within South Asian popular culture (film-,=20
radio-, and television-makers, musicians, artists, personnel cultural=20
activists, fashion designers, and sexuality campaigners). Dialogues,=20
interviews, diary notes, short essays, visual images and discussions=20
that offer original insights into such cultural productions is the=20
envisioned format for this section.

The conference organisers invite the submission of papers that=20
address the above topics in the following areas:
* History of South Asian Popular Culture
* Film and Photography
* Music
* Television
* Radio
* Popular Literatures
* Print Media
* Visual Cultures
* Fashion and Commodity Cultures
* Gender and Sexuality
* Art and Culture
* Culture and Politics
* Diaspora and Globalisation
* Working Notes
Please send paper abstracts of up to 400 words by no later than 18th=20
January 2002 to: Dr Rajinder K Dudrah, University of Portsmouth,=20
School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, Milldam, Burnaby=20
Road, Portsmouth, PO1 3AS, UK. Email: rajinder.kumar@p...

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20