[sacw] SACW | 5 Nov. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 5 November 2002

#1. Pakistan: Reproduction of Shaheen Sehbai's Stories Banned
#2. Religious Right: Shattering all the myths, one by one (Riaz Ahmed)
#3. Testimony on Genocide in Gujarat on the Occasion of the=20
Anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and=20
Security (Teesat Setalvad)
#4. India: Excerpts From 'Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy=20
by=A0Siddharth Varadarajan'
#5. India: New Booklet "Propaganda of Communalists and the truth'

__________________________

#1.

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:40:01 +0100
<http://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=3D9&date1=3D2002-11-03>http://www.pakne=
ws.com/main.php?id=3D9&date1=3D2002-11-03

Reproduction of Shaheen Sehbai's Stories Banned

Ex-Editor in self-exile runs weekly South Asia Tribune from United States
Updated on 2002-11-03 16:25:55

KARACHI, Pakistan: Nov 3 (PNS) - The Pakistan government Saturday banned
reproduction of the news stories published in the South Asia Tribune, a
weekly wire magazine launched by senior Pakistani journalist Shaheen Sehbai
from the United States.

In an advertisement published in the largest circulated Urdu daily Jang the
government without naming the publication said these stories are baseless,
aiming at bringing bade name to Pakistan and senior officials abroad.

"The matter being published in the SAT is insulting, unjustified and the
editor of the weekly magazine has already been in self-exile in the United
States," the advertisement said.

"It is his agenda to discredit Pakistan and its senior officials and the
people of the country are fully aware of his mission that to whom he is
guiding through these fabricated stories." The newspapers and other
publications, which reproduce the SAT stories, should refrain from running
them in the local media, the advertisement said.

Those who continued reproducing the SAT stories in Pakistan will face legal
action, it said.

Shaheen Sahbai, the former editor of an English daily newspaper of the same
Jang Group, "The News", has been in the United States and has launched a
weekly wire magazine and publishing what he claimed investigative reports.

Source: SADA

______

#2.

[ 31 October 2002]

Religious Right: Shattering all the myths, one by one

Dr Riaz Ahmed

General Musharraf rigged the elections by making rules to disqualify=20
opponents, not allowing public rallies and demonstrations and=20
creating a King=B9s Party in almost every province. Despite the=20
pre-poll rigging the Muttahida Majlis Amal is now recognized as a=20
credible contender in sharing power. This has shattered the myth that=20
people of Pakistan are moderate Muslims, least interested in the=20
fundamentalist brand of Islam. The October 2002 elections have broken=20
that myth forever.

However that wishful thinking has led to yet another one of similar=20
kind. One argument is that the Mullah alliance will fragment because=20
of its contradictions and the other hope is that the Mullahs will not=20
prove to be as anti-people as their rhetoric suggest. It is argued=20
that the alliance of Mullahs in MMA is a fragile one, the eleven=20
parties that differ on fundamental issues of religion, follow=20
different sects and are supportive and opposite to the state in=20
various ways.

This is supported by yet other conceptions that the anti-terrorist=20
alliance of US-supported General Musharraf will not allow Mullahs to=20
share power; there is a fundamental clash of interest between the=20
Mullahs and military; or the liberal state which will soon fragment=20
the fundamentalist like it did in Algeria; economic condition of=20
Pakistan will force the fundamentalists to appear in direct=20
confrontation with the world powers. While none of possibilities can=20
be out-rightly denied but once again wishfulness dominates.

The rise of Islamists is a serious issue. Before it withers away it=20
will play havoc with the lives of the ordinary people and destroy=20
institutions of resistance. Thus any attempt to challenge the=20
fundamentalist rise has to be realistic about the situation today.

There is little doubt that the Islamists have gained from the=20
depoliticisation of the society under various military rules. The=20
three-year rule of General Musharraf ensured that the life of the=20
ordinary people was made more miserable and it is these people who=20
now distrust the word =8Cpolitics=B9. This situation favors the Islamists=20
as other traditional parties vacillate and compromise on all issues=20
and everyone, just to gain power, while the Islamists appears firm in=20
their stance.

The material situation in the society can generate conditions for=20
political expressions and formation of the unbelievingly intolerant=20
kind to come to power. The outgoing state and its agencies come to=20
play their role when, for them, there is no way but to join the=20
in-coming ruling class. That process can take place very rapidly.=20
During the inter-war period the fascist forces in Spain, Italy and=20
Germany grew their support from a few hundreds to millions within a=20
short span of time. Neighboring India saw a deeply divided rightwing=20
grew into a huge organized political machine such as the BJP, and=20
within a few years it came to take over power and set its own agenda=20
for exploiting the poor.

However, as is the case with the current right-wing forces in=20
Pakistan, the Indian fundamentalists did not come to power suddenly,=20
though the BJP's successes at polls in 1998 may make it look like=20
that. It was the weakening of the Indian economy, marginalisation of=20
hundreds of millions, massive poverty, which pushed the BJP to the=20
fore.

Similarly there are examples from the Muslim dominated countries=20
(Egypt, Algeria) where Islamism has shown itself to from a credible=20
alternative. At others (Iran, Sudan) they have succeeded in nasty=20
replacement of the state in other conditions. In both the cases the=20
right gave voice to the popular anger against misery and imperialist=20
domination. However in all these cases, like other challengers to the=20
capitalist world that failed to spread their revolution, the=20
Islamists also proved to be the ones either ready to play by the=20
rules set by the repression of the state or to back-track and=20
re-integrate their economy with the world system. The most recent=20
example being that of the Islamists in Indonesia who are now part of=20
a government implementing the ferocious IMF conditionalities..

In Pakistan the amalgamation of the right knows that it will have to=20
follow the rules of the system. The system which is dominated by the=20
accumulation of wealth by the powerful multinationals in combination=20
with the local military, industrialists and the landed masters. The=20
main core of the right has been and is deeply rooted in various=20
sections of these forces and it is next to impossible for it to=20
challenge the interests of these without risking its own survival.=20
The history of Islamism in 20th century shows that it will side with=20
the state in order to protect its own interests and it is only when=20
the state, for various reasons, is internally weak that the right can=20
impose itself as an alternative.

The examples of Islamists in Egypt and Algeria show that while the=20
Islamists attempted to become a legal opposition they campaigned for=20
the existing regime to incorporate Shariat laws into the legal=20
system. And in doing so the Islamists were faced with their own=20
contradictions. The more powerful the fundamentalists become the more=20
they are caught between =8Crespectability and insurrection=B9. In 1991=20
the FIS in Algeria were against strike by factory workers and a few=20
months later they were calling for an overthrow of the state. They=20
failed in Algeria but were successful in Iran because the weak ruling=20
class had little organized workers opposition allowing the=20
fundamentalists to make bid for power.

Now where can we place the Pakistani MMA? They will side by the=20
military and the state and would rather like the state to reform laws=20
to comply with Sharia rather than taking over the state. This=20
conclusion is based on the following argument. Its recent history=20
shows that the jihadi element in it tactically did not confront the=20
Pakistani military while it was hunting for terrorists within the=20
jihadis. This is clear from the reactions of the jihadis against the=20
raids and arrests within Pakistan before and after 9/11. The jihadi=20
fundamentalists may have targeted the US interests but have not=20
confronted the Pakistani establishment. The jihadis know that the=20
roots of the Pakistani military are in the landed class which forms=20
the core of the military and the military is against a section of the=20
jihadis as long as US wishes so. That is why the military regime has=20
refrained from attacking those supporting Taliban within MMA even=20
though it has carried out intrigues against PML-N and PPP=20
vociferously.

The non-jihadi element in MMA is more obviously pro-state and=20
pro-military. How these Islamists will cobble together with the state=20
can be seen in the recently elected local governments in Pakistani=20
cities. The Karachi City Nazim (mayor) Naimatullah is a staunch=20
fundamentalist from the Jamat-e-Islami which is similar in class=20
character to that of the Egyptian Ikwans and the Algerian FIS. Mayor=20
Naimatullah came to power just a few months before 9/11 when the=20
Jamaat was gifted the city by the military. It forced the dominant=20
ethnic nationalists to abstain from elections and ditched its own=20
pampered liberal and military supporting groups at the last minute to=20
install the Jamaat Mayor in exchange for the Jamaat moving its jihadi=20
outfits from the Kashmir border back inside Pakistan. Throughout the=20
last 14 months in office the fundamentalist Mayor was never in=20
conflict with either the military or the provincial government run by=20
the military with a civilian face.

After 9/11 Islamists have shown their disdain to independent working=20
class action. In Algeria, where they won the local elections in 1991,=20
the FIS opposed strike of workers for higher wages. Before its local=20
governments were overthrown, while it was facing opposition from the=20
military, they opposed strikes by dust workers, civil servants and=20
other general strikes. Chirs Harman writes that Madani justified=20
breaking the dust workers=B9 strike complaining that it was forcing=20
respectable people like doctors and professional engineers to sweep=20
up. But when the FIS was attacked by the military it called on mass=20
insurrection. Similarly City Nazim, Naimatullah threatened to break=20
the strike of sanitary workers with his Town Nazims (own supporters=20
heading offices in the local government) but supported protests from=20
Jamaat supporting students opposing restructuring of varsities.

The Jamaat Nazim proved to take sides with the establishment and the=20
city industrialists when it came to workers strikes and struggles for=20
better conditions or pay. Recently when the entire sanitary staff of=20
the maintenance department of the municipality headed by the Nazim=20
went on strike, he ignored it for 8 days as junk remained trash was=20
not picked up in vast areas of the city. However when 45 students=20
belonging to the student organization of Jamaat were arrested after=20
clashing with the police in a protest against reforms in varsities=20
and colleges, the Nazim rushed to the scene, got the students=20
released within hours and made headlines for his consideration of=20
welfare of the students. The incident happened only days before the=20
parliamentary elections and added to create an image that the=20
fundamentalists are actively involved in struggles of independent=20
teaches and students. No other political party lent its support to=20
the teachers and student=B9s struggle against restructuring of=20
universities.

There is little doubt that the Islamists will find no problems in=20
coexisting with the military regime of state-bureaucracy. However,=20
there is a real danger that the rise of the right is going to hit=20
back at the weakest sections of the society, the working class in its=20
dormant state being the chief target. The right will surely replace=20
the repression of the state in various ways. When the state acts=20
violently then any resistance against the state should not provide=20
the right to force its will against the weak sections of the society.=20
In those situations the rightists in power usually find it difficult=20
to satisfy the basic needs of the masses which expect elimination of=20
poverty, unemployment and disparity. The rightist will implement the=20
agenda of the IMF and World Bank as much as the military regime of=20
today. Hence it will face criticism and eventual resistance from the=20
people. In that situation the fundamentalists would attack the=20
weakest sections of the society.

The question that is faced by those opposed to the policies of=20
fundamentalists and their appeasement by the traditional parties and=20
the state is that of resistance. While the fundamentalists gain=20
ascendancy, resistance against the military regime and the=20
globalization has gained spread as well. The fundamentalists may have=20
become the =8Csole proprietor=B9 of protests against the US led war but=20
they are far from being the resistors against other effects of world=20
institutions such as WB, WTO etc. The working class in Pakistan is a=20
small minority but the post 9/11 scenario has seen greater levels of=20
resistance to the globalization policies led by the Pakistani state.=20
Formation of government of national consensus or any other with=20
representation from the fundamentalists will ensure continuation of=20
policies of multi-lateral institutions and thus the continuation of=20
the struggles against them, This struggle has been peculiar for its=20
defensive nature.

The problems of ordinary Pakistani are unemployment, rising prices,=20
absence of education and health care. The struggle of the working=20
class has been about retaining jobs and land. Thus teachers are=20
fighting to retain jobs in schools, colleges and universities which=20
are being denationalized, restructured and privatized by the state.=20
The doctors and nurses are resisting the privatization of hospitals=20
and medical colleges to protect their job-security. The port-workers=20
are protesting against imminent downsizing and privatization. The=20
peasants are waging a huge resistance against their displacement from=20
lands they tilled for centuries. Their resistance at state farms,=20
military farms against the government leasing out their land to the=20
military bosses and finally to multinational companies has been=20
phenomenal. The right wing is present in some of these struggles for=20
their anti-US stance but not for its opposition to the whole process=20
of liberalization.

Transformation of the role of a political entity in or out of power=20
has never been an act enacted in a day or week or even months. This=20
applies both to the working class and the fundamentalists. For a=20
change from below, by and for the masses, it takes a long, hard,=20
united and fighting working class to organize, strike and capture=20
power -- in all these acts the working class shows for itself that in=20
its day to day activity, of organization, demonstration and strike,=20
it acquires and resists power. The traditional parties have lost=20
touch with the masses while the Islamists have gotten involved with=20
campaigns against liberalization, restructuring and war and that is=20
the source of their ascendancy. The greater the organization of=20
working people against the atrocities of the world institutions and=20
state repression the greater are the possibilities of halting the=20
rise of the Islamists.

The writer is a Professor at the Department of Applied Chemistry,=20
University of Karachi.

_____

#3.

WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM
1325 PEACEWOMEN E-NEWS: 12th Edition, November 1st, 2002
A SPECIAL 1325 ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security was=20
passed on October 31st, 2000. For the text of the resolution please=20
visit: http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/1325.html

4. STATEMENTS BY PEACEWOMEN FROM WAR-TORN COUNTRIES

Teesta Setalvad, a senior journalist and women=B9s rights activist from=20
India, was not able to come to New York for the anniversary events,=20
although her statement was included in a press kit. Vahida Nainar, of=20
Bombay=B9s Voice of Women, Women=B9s Caucus for Gender Justice and the=20
Solidarity Network of Women Living Under Muslim Laws, came in her=20
place to raise awareness about the violence in Gujarat. For Teesta=B9s=20
full statement, go to:=20
http://www.peacewomen.org/resources/voices/speech/Teesta.html

______

#4.

Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy
by=A0Siddharth Varadarajan
http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/Books/aspBookDetail.asp?ID=3D5014

Penguin India
[ E-mail: sales@p... ]
Paperback ISBN : =A00143029010
472=A0pages =A0=A0=A0|=A0=A0 Rs:=A0295
Published : 9/15/2002

o o o

EXCERPTS FROM 'Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy
by=A0Siddharth Varadarajan'

An Agenda of Pseudo-Hindu Separatism

In its essence, the ideology of the RSS and BJP is based on the=20
negation of both Indian statecraft=8Bwhich holds that the State must=20
provide security and prosperity to all=8Band the idea that in a modern=20
polity, a citizen is defined not by his or her religion, race or=20
ethnicity but by the political and economic rights=8Band civic=20
duties=8Bhe or she shares with other citizens. Heavily influenced by=20
German race-based conceptions of nationalism,=A0the RSS ideologue, M.S.=20
Golwalkar, argued in his 1939 tract, We, or Our Nationhood Defined ,=20
that only Hindus are true Indians and that Muslims, Christians, Jews=20
and Parsis are all foreigners who should be allowed to stay in India=20
only on terms set by the Hindus.=A0=8CEver since that evil day when=20
Moslems first landed in Hindusthan, right up to the present moment,=B9=20
says Golwalkar, =8Cthe Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to=20
shake off the despoilers . . .=B9 Lamenting the fact that the Indian=20
freedom struggle=8Bwhich from the 1857 War of Independence onwards had=20
begun to advance the notion of rights-based citizenship=8Bdid not=20
distinguish between Hindus and others, Golwalkar wrote, =8CWrong=20
notions of democracy (have) strengthened the view (that a Nation=20
naturally was composed of all those who happened to reside therein)=20
and we began to class ourselves with our old invaders and foes under=20
the outlandish name=8BIndian=8Band tried to win them over to join hands=20
with us in our struggle.=B9

At a time when the national movement was trying to overcome the=20
communal policies of British colonialism by defining nationhood in a=20
politically inclusive manner and pushing forward the common struggle=20
for rights, the RSS felt that the very term Indian was =8Coutlandish=B9=20
and inappropriate. Golwalkar argued that Muslim, Christian and other=20
non-Hindu Indians were not really Indians: =8CAll those not belonging=20
to the national, i.e. Hindu race, Religion, Culture and Language,=20
naturally fall out of the pale of real =B3National=B2 life. We repeat: in=20
Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus, lives and should live the Hindu=20
Nation.=B945 And what of the non-Hindus? Golwalkar answers:

the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture=20
and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu=20
religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of=20
the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose=20
their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in=20
the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming=20
nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential=20
treatment=8Bnot even citizen=B9s rights. There is, at least should be, no=20
other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let us deal, as=20
old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races who have=20
chosen to live in our country.

Elsewhere in the same tract, Golwalkar provides an example of how an=20
=8Cold nation=B9 deals with =8Cforeign races=B9:

To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked=20
the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races=8Bthe Jews.=20
Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also=20
shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having=20
differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united=20
whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.

Golwalkar=B9s formulations proved too extreme even for the man he chose=20
to write a foreword for his book, M.S. Aney, of the Hindu Mahasabha.=20
=8CI find that the author in dealing with the problem of the=20
Mohmeddans=B9 (sic) place has not always borne in mind the distinction=20
between the Hindu nationality and Hindu sovereign State=B9, Aney wrote.=20
=8CNo modern State has denied the resident minorities of different=20
nationalities rights of citizenship of the State if they are once=20
naturalized either automatically or under the operation of a Statute=20
. . . No modern jurist or political philosopher or student of=20
constitutional law can subscribe to the proposition which the author=20
has laid down in Chapter V.=B9 48 In subsequent editions of We , an=20
unrepentant Golwalkar dropped Aney=B9s inconvenient =8CForeword=B9.

In Bunch of Thoughts , published in 1966, Golwalkar returns to the=20
same theme of Muslims and other non-Hindus being foreigners. Indeed,=20
=8CThe Muslims=B9 and =8CThe Christians=B9 figure as chapter titles under=
=20
the section =8CInternal Threats=B9. Attacking the basic premise of those=20
who took part in the freedom struggle, he wrote: =8CThey forgot that=20
here was already a full-fledged ancient nation of the Hindus and the=20
various communities which were living in the country were here either=20
as guests, the Jews and Parsis, or as invaders, the Muslims and=20
Christians. They never faced the question of how all such=20
heterogeneous groups could be called as the children of the soil=20
merely because, by an accident, they happened to reside in a common=20
territory under the rule of a common enemy.=B9 (p 142) However,=20
Golwalkar=B9s preoccupation was not so much with questions of history=20
as with contemporary politics. At stake was not some academic point=20
about the indigeneity of the religious beliefs of Indians but the=20
=8Cunfortunate=B9 notion that all citizens should have equal rights:=20
=8CUnfortunately in our country=B9, he wrote, =8Cour Constitution has=20
equated the children of the soil with the aggressor, and given equal=20
rights to everybody . . .=B9

Interestingly, the official Gujarat high school textbook on Social=20
Studies for Class IX says in the first paragraph of the chapter=20
=8CProblems of the Country and their Solution=B9 that =8Capart from the=20
Muslims, even the Christians, Parsees and other foreigners are also=20
recognized as the minority communities=B9 (emphasis added). The=20
textbook also makes the curious claim that =8CIn most of the states the=20
Hindus are in a minority and Muslims, Christians and Shikhs (sic) are=20
in a majority in these respective states.=B9

Though BJP leaders have attempted to distance themselves somewhat=20
from Golwalkar=B9s We because of the embarrassing reference to the=20
Nazis=8Band the RSS no longer openly distributes the 1939 book=8Bthe=20
outlook it promotes is deeply ingrained in the ideology and politics=20
of the party. In any case, BJP leaders continue wholeheartedly to=20
identify themselves with Veer Savarkar, another ideologue of=20
Hindutva, who subscribed to the same Germanic racial-religious=20
conception of nationhood as Golwalkar did. Savarkar may have been a=20
leader of the Hindu Mahasabha=8Ban organization distinct from the=20
RSS=8Bbut he is equally an iconic figure and ideologue of the Sangh=20
Parivar. In May 2002, even as Gujarat continued to burn, Advani=20
renamed the airport at Port Blair in the Andamans and Nicobar Islands=20
after Savarkar and reaffirmed his personal admiration for the=20
chauvinist leader. In his book, Hindutva, Savarkar also describes=20
=8CHindusthan=B9 as the homeland of the Hindus. For Savarkar, Hindus are=20
the only true Indians because the country is =8Cat once a Pitrabhu and=20
a Punyabhu=8Bfatherland and a holy land=B9:

That is why in the case of some of our Mohammedan or Christian=20
countrymen who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu=20
religion and who consequently have inherited along with Hindus, a=20
common Fatherland and a greater part of the wealth of a common=20
culture . . . are not and cannot be recognised as Hindus. For though=20
Hindusthan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu yet it is not=20
to them a Holyland too.

Their holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and=20
Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil.=20
Consequently, their names and their outlook smack of a foreign origin.

This ahistorical theory, which ignored the fact that religious ideas=20
not only entered India from abroad but also spread from India to the=20
farthest reaches of Asia, was, in reality, a crude attempt by=20
Savarkar to negate the right to conscience=8Bthe right of citizens to=20
believe in whatever religion or creed they like. To endorse this=20
notion today=8Bas Advani implicitly did when he said at Port Blair,=20
=8CThere is no need to feel shy of Hindutva, propounded at great length=20
by Veer Savarkar=B9=8Bis tantamount to saying that Hindu citizens of the=20
United States or Britain can never be loyal to those countries=20
because their =8Cpunyabhu=B9 is India.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the thesis of Golwalkar and Savarkar=20
was that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations. Indeed, in his=20
presidential address to the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, Savarkar=20
explicitly referred to the idea of two nations: =8CIndia cannot be=20
assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the=20
contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the=20
Muslims.=B9 Donald Eugene Smith, who quotes this line in his book India=20
as a Secular State , adds wryly: =8CM.A. Jinnah could have constructed=20
his two-nation theory, which led to the demand for Pakistan, on the=20
basis of Savarkar=B9s speech!=B9.

Savarkar=B9s reference to two nations was not accidental, for in its=20
essence, the ideology of Hindutva is nothing other than a credo of=20
pseudo-Hindu separatism. Ashis Nandy is not off the mark when he=20
describes it is an ideology for those whose Hinduism has worn off.=20
Like the Muslim League=B9s separatism, the separatism of the Hindutva=20
advocates was also patronized by the British colonialists as a way of=20
splitting and disorienting the freedom struggle. In turn, =8CHindu=B9=20
separatists like the RSS and Savarkar (once he was was released from=20
Andamans Jail) kept well away from the struggle for independence. If=20
the separatism of the Muslim League was territorial in nature and=20
emphasized the need for physical distance between a =8CHindu India=B9 and=20
a =8CMuslim Pakistan=B9, the separatism of the Sangh Parivar aims to=20
break away from the philosophical, cultural and civilizational mores=20
of the country, including Hinduism itself.

The ideology of Hindutva separatism seeks to distance itself from the=20
idea of India, to reject what Golwalkar called the =8Coutlandish=B9=20
notion of an Indian, to secede from everything healthy and=20
enlightened that this country has produced in the struggle for the=20
emancipation of its people. As Nandy et al. have argued, the Sangh=20
Parivar=B9s concept of =8CHindu Rashtra=B9 is =8Cculturally hollow: it is=20
nothing more than the post-seventeenth century European concepts of=20
nationality and nation-state projected back into the Indian past=B9. 54=20
The RSS and its leaders and fronts, Nandy et al . continue, have=20
=8Cshown (not) the slightest sensitivity to the traditional Indian=20
concepts of statecraft or village technology or artisan skills . . .=20
There is a complete rejection of not only the pre-British Islamic=20
concept of state in India . . . even the traditional Hindu experience=20
of running large states in India is seen as entirely irrelevant.=B9

Apart from rejecting India=B9s syncretic culture, the Sangh Parivar=20
tries to negate the achievements of Indian philosophy over the=20
centuries=8Bfrom the earliest metaphysical and pantheistic speculations=20
of the Rgveda, the development of different schools of Vedanta, the=20
struggle against Brahminism, the democratic, humanist spirit of the=20
Bhaktas and Sufis=8Band pushes an ahistorical worldview aimed at=20
mystifying rather than clarifying the problems of society. Rejecting=20
the key principle of Indian statecraft as it has evolved from the=20
period of the Mahabharata through to the Mughal era, the 1857 War of=20
Independence and the freedom movement=8Bthat the State derives its=20
legitimacy and mandate from its ability to provide security and=20
prosperity to all regardless of religion or class=8Bthe RSS operates on=20
a plagiarized European definition of nationalism whose foundation=20
lies in the denial of the very possibility of equality of rights for=20
all citizens.

>From Golwalkar to Newton

When one examines the politics of the RSS and BJP today, it is=20
striking to see the manner in which the arguments of Golwalkar and=20
Savarkar about Muslims and Christians as =8Cforeigners=B9 and =8Cenemies=B9=
=20
resonate in the pronouncements and activities of these organizations.=20
There is a clear line which connects the founding principles of the=20
RSS to the mass killing of Muslims in Gujarat. Golwalkar=B9s obsession=20
with a purely Hindu nation in which non-Hindus would have no rights,=20
the =8CNewtonian=B9 rationalizations of genocidal violence provided by=20
Narendra Modi, and Prime Minister Vajpayee=B9s sweeping attack on=20
Muslims in his speech to a BJP meeting in Goa in April are all part=20
of the same chauvinist discourse.

At its Akhil Bharatiya Karykari Mandal meeting in Bangalore in=20
mid-March, 2002, the RSS adopted a controversial resolution titled=20
=8CGodhra and After=B9 in which Muslims were cautioned that they would=20
only be safe in India if they won the =8Cgoodwill=B9 of Hindus. By=20
=8CHindus=B9, of course, was meant the RSS. =8CLet Muslims realise that=20
their real safety lies in the goodwill of the majority=B9, the=20
resolution stated. It added, =8CThe reaction of this murderous incident=20
in Gujarat was natural and spontaneous. The entire Hindu society=20
cutting across all divisions of party, caste and social status=20
reacted.=B956 Elaborating on the resolution, RSS joint general=20
secretary Madan Das Devi told the press, =8CHindus live and let live.=20
This does not mean Hindus can tolerate insults. They (Muslims) are=20
safe if they win our goodwill . . . respect us and we will respect=20
you.=B9 Asked to explain the real meaning of what he was trying to say,=20
Devi said, =8CAny killing is unjustifiable but at the same time there=20
will be reaction to any action.=B9 57 In similar vein, BJP president=20
Jana Krishnamurthy told the press during the party conclave in Goa,=20
=8CIn any communal strife, there is always one who provokes and another=20
(who is) provoked.=B9 Strongly implying that the attacks on Muslims=20
were provoked, he criticized the media and others for =8Cadvising and=20
attacking the provoked. This has given rise to a psychology amidst=20
the provoked that it is the victim in every sense=B9.

The first use of this morally perverse =8CNewtonian=B9 logic of action=20
and reaction to justify the killing of Muslims after Godhra was made=20
by Modi in an interview to Zee Television on 1 March, even as the=20
violence was at its peak. And ironically, it wasn=B9t so much a=20
reference to the burning of the Sabarmati Express as to press reports=20
that former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri=8Bwho was lynched by a Sangh=20
Parivar-led mob at his residence in Chamanpura, Ahmedabad on 28=20
February=8Bhad fired at the mob in order to try and disperse them. Modi=20
said that Jafri=B9s =8Caction=B9 of firing had infuriated the mob and that=
=20
the massacre which followed was a =8Creaction=B9. Since his remark=20
generated a huge controversy59 and led the Gujarat information=20
department to deny that he had said any such thing, it is worth=20
reproducing his exact quote: =8C Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi=20
hai. Hum chahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya. (What is=20
happening is a chain of action and reaction. What I want is that=20
there should be no action and no reaction).=B9 Asked about the violence=20
which erupted throughout Gujarat on the day of the VHP-sponsored=20
bandh, he said:

Godhra mein jo parson hua, jahan par chalees mahilaon aur bacchon ko=20
zinda jala diya, is mein desh mein aur videsh mein sadma pahunchna=20
swabhavik tha. Godhra ke is ilake ke logon ki criminal tendencies=20
rahi hain. In logon ne pahele mahila teachers ka khoon kiya. Aur ab=20
yeh jaghanya apraadh kiya hai jiski pratikria ho rahi hai. (It is=20
natural that what happened in Godhra day before yesterday, where=20
forty women and children were burnt alive, has shocked the country=20
and the world. The people in that part of Godhra have had criminal=20
tendencies. Earlier, these people had murdered women teachers. And=20
now they have done this terrible crime for which a reaction is going=20
on).

Apart from being a crude attempt to deflect criticism of his failures=20
as chief minister, Modi=B9s =8Caction-reaction=B9 theory is also morally=20
repugnant. As Vir Sanghvi has argued, =8CWhat Mr Modi and his ilk are=20
really saying is this: Because the riots were a response to a=20
horrific and immoral act at Godhra, they are somehow less morally=20
reprehensible . . . But cause-and-effect cannot be a moral=20
philosophy. You cannot whitewash an event, wipe away somebody=B9s guilt=20
or provide moral justification by pointing to the cause of their=20
behaviour.'

Steeped in the RSS teachings of historical enmity between Hindus and=20
Muslims and unencumbered by the formal trappings of political office,=20
VHP leader Ashok Singhal took Modi=B9s Newtonian logic one step=20
further. For him, the situation in Gujarat was =8Ca matter of pride.=B9=20
=8CIt is a befitting reply to what has been perpetrated on the Hindus=20
in the last 1,000 years . . . Gujarat has shown the way and our=20
journey of victory will begin and end on the same path.=B9 The VHP=B9s=20
Pravin Togadia held out another direct threat. =8CWherever there is=20
Godhra, there will be Gujarat=B9, he said. =8CIn Gujarat, for the first=20
time there has been a Hindu awakening and Muslims have been turned=20
into refugees. This is a welcome sign and Gujarat has shown the way=20
to the country.=B963 Togadia=B9s inflammatory statement was formalized by=20
the VHP later in a resolution adopted at a conference in Hardwar at=20
the end of June where Muslims throughout India were warned that=20
Gujarat could be repeated and that they could all be driven into=20
refugee camps.=A0=A0

In 1939, Golwalkar had argued that =8Conly those movements are truly=20
=B3National=B2 as aim at re-building, revitalising and emancipating from=20
its present stupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalist=20
patriots, who, with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and=20
Nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to=20
achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the=20
national cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots.=B9 It was left=20
for senior BJP leader and spokesman J.P. Mathur to take this logic=20
forward and describe the killing of Muslims in Gujarat as a=20
=8Cpatriotic reaction=B9 to what happened at Godhra. =8CI don=B9t know why=
=20
the people and the media have been calling the violence in Gujarat=20
riots. These are not riots, but the reaction of nationalist forces to=20
the Godhra carnage . . . The so-called secular leaders like I. K.=20
Gujral, Chandrashekhar, Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav are also in=20
league with the anti-national forces. Whenever nationalist forces=20
come out to challenge the anti-national elements, these people come=20
to the rescue of the Muslims,=B9 Mathur said. 66 There is no ambiguity=20
in Mathur=B9s statement, nothing is left to chance: Muslims are=20
anti-national, those who attack them are nationalists.

When the Mask Slipped

Perhaps the most significant elaboration of the Golwalkar-Savarkar=20
thesis of India as a Hindu nation beset by Muslim trouble-makers in=20
recent times was that provided by Prime Minister Vajpayee in his=20
speech to the BJP national executive meeting in Goa on 12 April=20
2002.67 The speech is remarkable for the manner in which it attempts=20
to justify the murder of Muslim citizens in Gujarat by referring to=20
Godhra and contrasting the supposed =8Ctraditional tolerance=B9 of Hindus=20
with the alleged =8Cintolerance=B9 of Muslims.

Like Golwalkar, who believed only Hindus were true Indians, Vajpayee=20
uses =8Cus=B9, =8Cour=B9, =8CHindus=B9 and =8CIndians=B9 interchangeably th=
roughout=20
his speech. He begins by making an observation about Hindu kingdoms=20
in ancient Cambodia. =8CNo king destroyed a temple or damaged the=20
deities=B9 idols at the time of attacking another king. This is our=20
culture. This is our outlook, which treats all faiths equally.=B9=20
India, he said, was secular before Muslims and Christians set foot on=20
her soil. Once they came, they had freedom of worship. =8CNo one=20
thought of converting them with force, because this is not practiced=20
in our religion; and in our culture, there is no use for it.=B9 Here,=20
the Prime Minister was trying to contrast the =8Ctolerance=B9 of Hindus=20
and Hinduism, which he described as =8Cour religion=B9, with the supposed=20
intolerance of Muslims and Christians. The reference to the=20
destruction of idols and conversion =8Cwith force=B9 is a standard part=20
of the RSS arsenal. At the root of major incidents of violence, he=20
said, was =8Cgrowing intolerance=B9. Since Hindus are, by definition,=20
tolerant, the obvious inference is that this =8Cgrowing intolerance=B9 is=20
on the part of the Muslims. Turning immediately to the burning issue=20
of the day, he asked:

What happened in Gujarat? If a conspiracy had not been hatched to=20
burn alive the innocent passengers of the Sabarmati Express, then the=20
subsequent tragedy in Gujarat could have been averted. But this did=20
not happen. People were torched alive. Who were those culprits? The=20
government is investigating into this. Intelligence agencies are=20
collecting all the information. But we should not forget how the=20
tragedy of Gujarat started. The subsequent developments were no doubt=20
condemnable, but who lit the fire? How did the fire spread?

Here, in as unsophisticated a fashion as Modi had stated it, we find=20
Vajpayee presenting his own version of Newton=B9s Third Law. There is=20
no remorse about the killing of hundreds of innocent people, no=20
apologies for the failure of the government to protect its citizens.=20
He makes no attempt to distinguish between the criminal perpetrators=20
of the Godhra attack and the innocent victims of the =8Csubsequent=20
tragedy in Gujarat=B9. For him, Muslims are an amorphous,=20
undifferentiated lot who collectively =8Clit the fire=B9. They were to=20
blame, not his party men who took part in the =8Csubsequent=20
developments=B9.

Going from the specific to the general, Vajpayee then launched a=20
frontal attack on Muslims. He asserts that =8CFor us, the soil of India=20
from Goa to Guwahati is the same, all the people living on this land=20
are the same. We do not believe in religious extremism. Today, the=20
threat to our nation comes from terrorism=B9. Who is this we and where=20
exactly does this =8Cthreat to our nation=B9 come from? The Hindi text=20
provides a clue. Vajpayee deliberately uses the Urdu word mazhabi for=20
=8Creligious=B9 (rather than the Hindi word dharmik) when he says=20
=8Creligious extremism=B9.68 We do not believe in religious extremism; it=20
is the Muslims. And terrorism, of course, is synonymous with Islam,=20
or =8Cmilitant Islam=B9, as Vajpayee chose to put it. But having first=20
made a distinction between militant Islam and tolerant Islam, he then=20
makes a sweeping generalization about all Muslims:

Wherever Muslims live, they don=B9t like to live in co-existence with=20
others, they don=B9t like to mingle with others; and instead of=20
propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread=20
their faith by resorting to terror and threats. The world has become=20
alert to this danger.

The statement is classic hate speech, but after it generated a huge=20
controversy, Vajpayee claimed his remarks were aimed not at all=20
Muslims but only =8Cmilitant Muslims=B9. The Prime Minister=B9s Office=20
subsequently issued a doctored version of the speech in which the=20
word =8Csuch=B9 was inserted between =8CWherever=B9 and =8CMuslims live=B9.=
Many=20
newspapers subsequently printed this version. It was not until a=20
privilege motion was raised in Parliament=8Bfor Vajpayee had made the=20
mistake of claiming on the floor of the House on May 1 that the=20
doctored version of the speech was the true version=8Bthat he was=20
forced to admit the word =8Csuch=B9 had been deliberately interpolated.=20
However, he reiterated that =8Cno one who reads my entire speech and=20
takes note of the tribute I have paid to the tolerant and=20
compassionate teachings of Islam, can be in any doubt that my=20
reference . . . is only to the followers of militant Islam=B9.

The allegation of Muslims not living in co-existence with others and=20
not mingling with others is such a standard trope in RSS propaganda=20
that Vajpayee=B9s claim of intending to refer only to militant Muslims=20
does not seem very convincing. Earlier in his speech, he had equated=20
militant Islam with terrorism. =8CNot mingling with others=B9 is a=20
peculiar charge to level against terrorists. In any case, it was a=20
bit odd for the prime minister to talk about terrorism and militancy=20
as if they were the preserve of the adherents of Islam=8Bespecially at=20
a time when his own Sangh Parivar was heavily involved in acts of=20
terror in Gujarat. But there was a deeper level of dishonesty in the=20
charge against Muslims, for it is precisely the policy of the RSS to=20
ghettoize and isolate the Muslim community. As sociologist Dhirubhai=20
Sheth has argued, it was not accidental that the Muslims who bore the=20
brunt of the Sangh Parivar=B9s violence in Gujarat were those who chose=20
to live in Hindu-majority areas. The communal killings in the state,=20
he says, have exposed the dishonesty of the =8CHindutvavadis=B9 who=20
reproach Muslims for not entering the =8Cnational mainstream=B9 but then=20
beat them back into their ghettos whenever they do emerge.

In another attempt to soften the impact of his Goa remarks, Vajpayee=20
told Parliament that he was as opposed to militant Hinduism as he was=20
to militant Islam. =8CI accept the Hindutva of Swami Vivekananda but=20
the type of Hindutva being propagated now is wrong and one should be=20
wary of it.=B9 Having said this, however, he went back to square one by=20
adding that although there were laws to deal with such an=20
eventuality, he was confident no Hindu organization would become a=20
danger to the country=B9s unity.=A0In other words, only Muslim (or=20
Christian or Sikh) organizations have the potential of endangering=20
the country=B9s unity. After maligning Vivekananda=8Bwho never spoke of=20
Hindutva but of Hinduism=8BVajpayee went straight back to the teachings=20
of Golwalkar and Savarkar.

Apart from reverting to the usual chauvinist line of the Sangh=20
Parivar, Vajpayee was also diverting the debate into a dead end. The=20
issue is not whether he personally opposes militant Islam or Hinduism=20
but whether, as prime minister, he is prepared to defend the=20
constitutional rights of all Indians. Regardless of his own views and=20
beliefs, a prime minister cannot speak for only a section of=20
citizens. Do the Muslims of Gujarat have the right to physical=20
security? Is he prepared to punish those who have committed crimes=20
regardless of their political or ideological affiliation? Rather than=20
dealing with these questions, Vajpayee is trying to cover up his own=20
political failure and culpability.

It is remarkable that Vajpayee=B9s first televised address to the=20
country was only on 2 March=8Bafter the seventy-two hours of apparent=20
freedom enjoyed by the Sangh Parivar in Gujarat expired=8Band even=20
then, all he could do was appeal for calm and tolerance.72 In fact,=20
his attempt to blame the ordinary people of Gujarat=8Band their=20
supposed lack of =8Charmony=B9=8Bfor the mass killings in their state was a=
=20
disingenuous manoeuvre aimed at absolving himself, his party=20
colleagues and the state machinery they control, of any=20
responsibility for the crimes. Like Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984 and=20
Narasimha Rao in January 1993, Vajpayee will go down in history as a=20
prime minister who preached the virtues of tolerance even as he=20
turned a blind eye to the massacre of innocent citizens. Instead of=20
using national television to tell the people of Gujarat that the=20
genocidal mobs would be put down with a firm hand=8Band that policemen=20
failing to protect the life and liberty of all would be=20
punished=8BVajpayee delivered a sermon on the need for religious=20
sadbhavna.

There was little passion or feeling in what he said, no words of=20
succour for the victims, no anger or opprobrium for the killers. He=20
said the violence was a =8Cblack mark on the nation=B9s forehead=B9 but he=
=20
couldn=B9t bring himself to say that retaliatory attacks on Muslims for=20
what happened at Godhra would attract the same punishment as the=20
burning of the train. Here was a violent disturbance that had made a=20
mockery of State power as it is supposed to operate yet the prime=20
minister issued no dire warnings to those who were challenging his=20
authority and power as chief executive. In the US, President George=20
W. Bush and his senior aides publicly warned citizens against=20
attacking Muslims, Arabs and other immigrants following the World=20
Trade Centre terrorist strike. In less than a year since 9/11, a man=20
in Texas has been sentenced to death for the =8Cretaliatory=B9 murder of=20
a Sikh immigrant. To date, however, Vajpayee has yet to even publicly=20
acknowledge that Muslim citizens of India were victimized in Gujarat=20
or to threaten the attackers with the severest consequences.

Indeed, Vajpayee was later to demonstrate that he was so loyal to his=20
party and Parivar that he didn=B9t mind undermining the majesty of the=20
State and his own office. On 17 April, he said that if only=20
Parliament had condemned Godhra, the subsequent massacres would not=20
have happened. The fact is that he is leader of the House and could=20
have ordered a discussion and condemnation of Godhra on the day it=20
happened=8Binstead of the scheduled presentation of the Budget. In=20
early May, he made another curious statement, this time on the floor=20
of the Rajya Sabha: That he had decided to remove Modi in April but=20
didn=B9t act fearing a backlash in Gujarat. =8CI had gone to Goa making=20
up my mind on changing the ruler in Gujarat but according to my own=20
assessment, I felt that the change in leadership will only worsen the=20
situation.=B9=A0At the time, the only people opposed to a change in=20
leadership were the RSS and VHP. Removing Modi may or may not have=20
provided temporary relief for Gujarat=B9s beleaguered Muslims but it=20
was odd for the prime minister to admit being held hostage to the=20
threats of criminals and goons. =8CVajpayee,=B9 wrote B.G. Verghese,=20
=8Cplaced the diktat of the mob above his oath of office . . . the=20
emperor has no clothes, stripped of the last shred of moral=20
authority.=B9

______

#5.

Booklet "Propaganda of Communalists and the truth'

Friends

The communal venom spread by communal outfits is one of the reasons due to
which the atmosphere of hatred is created and the violence finds its
fertile ground. EKTA has prepared a small booklet, which answers the
following questions/Myths

1. Muslims Kings destroyed Hindu temples to humiliate them
2. Islam spread in India on the strength of sword
3. Muslims and Hindu kings fought with each other on religious
grounds
4. Muslims marry four number of times and produce more children (!20)
5. Partition took place due to Gandhi's policies
6. Muslim and Hindu Nationalism are an alternative to secular
nationalism
7. All terrorists are Muslims etc. etc.

This small booklet is based on a set of two interactive lectures dealing
with the most frequently asked questions about minorities, communalism
etc.

Sartodaya Mandal is publishing the booklet in Hindi. This book (pages 26)
is priced at Rs. 5 only to ensure broader dissipation of the ideas.

a. Please help in selling the copies as much in number. Place the
order for bulk copies, (Send the money-No. of copies x Rs 5 + postage
around Rs. 50. This can be sent as a draft drawn in favor of EKTA, Mumbai
and Sent to
Ram Puniyani, B 64, IIT Qutrs, Powai, Mumbai 400076

The book is being translated into English and Gujarati. The Gujarati
and English books should be out in a two week's time. Marathi is beig
slated for December. The advanced orders-( Payments will help us in the
production process-) for this will be accepted on the same charging
pattern.

I do look forward for your orders and the payments for the same, at the
earliest.

With best wishes

Ram Puniyani

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

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