[sacw] SACW | 24 Mar. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch | 24 March 2002
http://www.mnet.fr

__________________________

#1. Statement released by SAHMAT, at the programme Genocide in the=20
Land of Gandhi attended by hundreds of artists, intellectuals and=20
concerned citizens, in New Delhi
#2. The RSS and its fatwa (Kuldip Nayar)
#3. Attempts to Talibanise India (Seema Mustafa)
#4. Self-governance & citizenship (Sanjib Baruah)
#5. All India Christian Council : Press Statement: Dialogue with RSS=20
mocks the victims of Sangh genocide in Gujarat
#6. Police intrusion into SANGAMA, Bangalore

__________________________

#1.

[Statement released by SAHMAT, today at the programme Genocide in=20
the Land of Gandhi attended by hundreds of artists, intellectuals and=20
concerned citizens, in New Delhi.]

o o o o

STATEMENT
(23 March 2002)

Today we are gathered here as anguished witnesses to the continuing violenc=
e
in Gujarat. We are gathered here to express a sense of deep national shame.
We are gathered here to restate our resolve to not let this pass.

The mass killings in Gujarat represent the biggest attack launched by
communal forces on the principles of civil society, the very basis of a
democracy. The carnage in Gujarat has been sought to be presented by the
state and its apologists as an 'inevitable reaction' to the attack on
passengers of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra. We know that there has been
no ambiguity in the outright condemnation of this heinous attack by the
entire nation. Yet the state and the Hindutva forces continue to use the
perverse logic of 'retaliation' to justify the subsequent destruction of
human lives.

The violence in Gujarat, far from being spontaneous, was clearly facilitate=
d
by state complicity all through. Ministers of the state government and othe=
r
political representatives were perpetrators of mob violence; the police
professed inability to bring the situation under control; there was an
unexplained delay in bringing in the army; and the chief minister presided
over the mass murders.

The post-Godhra violence in Gujarat is not a riot therefore, but the
culmination of a long-term strategy for implementing the Hindutva agenda.
This includes economic debilitation, social ghettoisation and cultural
disintegration of the minorities. These are systematic and relentless
efforts to convert what was historically a region marked by a composite
culture, the land of Gandhi, into a laboratory of a 'Hindu rashtra'.

There was terrifying precision in the infrastructure utilised to conduct th=
e
killings, arson and looting. Listings, statistics, state records and
documents were used to identify members and business establishments of the
Muslim community. The mobs were well equipped with arms and weapons,
transport and communication facilities. The nature and scale of the violenc=
e
in Gujarat amounts to a targeted extermination of an entire community:
through slaughter, rape, burnings. We still do not know the number of those
who died.

The violence continues even as about a hundred thousand people in Gujarat
have been left homeless. They are now lodged in makeshift tents in relief
camps which are desperately ill-equipped. These are managed mostly by
voluntary organisations. There is no support from the state government for
rehabilitating the helpless people who have fled for safety. In addition,
large sections of Muslims are confined to their homes in sub-clusters,
unable to conduct day-to-day life.

While there has been widespread revulsion and anger at the events in
Gujarat, a matching relief operation is still missing.

We must join hands and coordinate with groups and organisations for
immediate relief measures in Gujarat.

We must be involved in longer-term recuperation of the civil society that
has been so brutally ruptured.

We must build up the political pressure to expose the criminal culpability
of the ruling party in both the state and the centre.

We demand the dismissal of Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat.

We demand the banning of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal.

______

#2.

Dawn
23 March 2002

The RSS and its fatwa

By Kuldip Nayar

There is little that is new in the latest resolution of the Rashtriya=20
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) at its Bangalore conclave. The anti-Muslim=20
bias of the organization, which calls itself a cultural body, is well=20
known. And its threat to build a temple at the Babri masjid site has=20
become a cliche now.
What is new is the warning to the Muslims that "their real safety=20
lies in the goodwill of the majority". In other words, it matters=20
little whether they are good citizens, wedded to the soil, or whether=20
they abide by the Constitution and the laws of the land. But if they=20
want to be secure, they have to be in the good books of Hindus.
For the RSS, there is nothing called safety per se for the Muslims.=20
They must be at the mercy of the majority. This smacks of not only=20
communalism but of gross racialism. And who will decide if Muslims=20
have come up to the standard required? Obviously, it is the RSS.
The organization's arrogance gets more pathetic when it touches upon=20
the Supreme Court's recent judgement not to allow the puja at the=20
undisputed land around the destroyed masjid. Of course, the Solomon=20
is the RSS. The RSS pronounces its own judgement and says that the=20
Supreme Court has "hurt the sentiments of Hindus". Why? Because the=20
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was not allowed to take the law into its=20
own hands. Once again, there is a veiled warning - this time=20
administered to the highest judicial body in the land - not to=20
deliver such judgements because they may "hurt the sentiments of=20
Hindus". Who will decide that? Obviously, the RSS.
The point of warning is clear for the title suit of the disputed land=20
is pending before the court. Then why to have law courts at all if=20
they have to watch that their verdict does not hurt the majority=20
community? And what kind of polity is the RSS selling to the country?
The most disturbing aspect of the resolution is its timing. It has=20
been passed when the riots in Gujarat have taken a toll of 800=20
Muslims and uprooted thousands of them. There are also persistent=20
demands for the dismissal of Gujarat chief minister Narender Modi and=20
for banning the VHP. The RSS tried to put an end to these demands.
What is significant is that the RSS has expressed is unhappiness with=20
the Atal Behari Vajpayee-led government. For a long time, it has been=20
wanting to put L K Advani in the saddle but has failed to do so=20
because Advani does not represent the consensus as Vajpayee does. For=20
the RSS to stoke the fires of difference between the two at this time=20
can be dangerous.
It is strange that Vajpayee should say in the Rajya Sabha, while=20
winding up the debate on the president's address, that he was so=20
tired and angry that it would not matter even if he sat in the=20
opposition. He was also visibly hurt by the VHP's vandalism at the=20
Orissa assembly. The RSS did not even mention it in the resolution.=20
The resolution justifies the genocide in Gujarat and characterizes it=20
as "spontaneous and natural reaction" to the Godhara happening. None=20
has minced words in condemning what the Muslims did there.
But if the argument of the RSS is taken to its logical end, it means=20
that the killing of innocent Muslims is justified because some bad=20
elements from among them have killed Hindus. This is a new=20
jurisprudence of the RSS.
The same kind of crooked logic has led the RSS to ask the government=20
to apply economic sanctions against Bangladesh for "the atrocities on=20
Hindus". True, the Khaleda Zia government has failed to provide the=20
kind of protection which the Hasina government had offered. But many=20
Muslims in Bangladesh have felt this and so has the media. They are=20
fighting against the fundamentalists who are harassing the minorities.
But how are the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, which thrive under the=20
protection of the RSS, different from the fundamentalists in=20
Bangladesh? Should Bangladesh or, for that matter, other Muslims=20
countries stop import of Indian goods because of Gujarat? The RSS,=20
soaked in communalism, can think of measures only on communal lines.
In India, the problem is that the prime minister has given the RSS=20
respectability by holding talks with its leaders and consulting them=20
on certain matters like the Ayodhya. What is the status of the RSS=20
leaders? They do not represent the Hindu community, nor have they=20
fought any election to prove their credentials. The PM can consult=20
anyone. But the question is not whether he can do so or not but=20
whether he should consult people who undermine the basic philosophy=20
of pluralism. I would have understood the consultations if the PM was=20
trying to change the Hindu face of the RSS and making it secular.
The unfortunate fact is that the PM belongs to the BJP, which is a=20
political wing of the RSS. Only the other day he said that he was a=20
swayamsevak. If this is his stand, then he has no business to be the=20
country's prime minister. He must sever his relations with the RSS=20
and should explain his government's position in the light of the=20
Bangalore resolution. Home Minister Vallabhai Patel wrote in=20
September 1948 in a letter to RSS chief Golwalkar: "... It was not=20
necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and=20
organize for their protection.
As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the=20
sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the=20
sympathy of the government or of the people no more remained for the=20
RSS. In fact, opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when=20
the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji's=20
death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the government=20
to take action against the RSS..."
Jayaprakash Narayan, who allowed the Jana Sangh, the predecessor of=20
the BJP, to join the Janata Party in 1977, was a disillusioned=20
person. He wrote to Prime Minister Morarji Desai in March 1979: "Some=20
friends have repeatedly complained that the RSS is trying to capture=20
leadership in the government. The RSS, like other political parties,=20
is free to influence politics and is doing that too. My only=20
objection is that the RSS people are trying to influence politics=20
with the camouflage of being a cultural organization. I have advised=20
the leaders of the RSS to merge with other like-minded organizations=20
or the Sangh should get affiliated to Janata Party.
They, however, refuse to accept my views in the belief that they have=20
a separate cultural identity and they have nothing to do with=20
politics. I totally disagree with this argument of the RSS leaders.=20
Even now I feel that the RSS should merge into organizations=20
supporting Janata Party. But if they are determined to retaining=20
their separate identity I would again say that they should open their=20
doors to non-Hindus like Muslims and Christians."
The RSS has a long-term plan. It wants to convert India into a Hindu=20
Rashtra. Its ideology of Hindu rashtravad runs counter to our ideal=20
of a composite nation. The national struggle, which the country=20
fought to oust the British, drew members from all communities. The=20
RSS was nowhere in the picture. Nor were the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.=20
All thinking persons should combat their efforts to disrupt the=20
secular basis of our nation. Aggressiveness of minorities is bad. But=20
it can be fought efficiently. Aggressiveness of the majority is=20
worse. For it ends in fascism.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.

_______

#3.

Deccan Chronicle
Saturday, March 23, 2002

Attempts to Talibanise India
By Seema Mustafa

The communal fires are being regularly stoked by the Hindutva brigade=20
which has decided to keep the country on razor's edge. Impervious to=20
the ugly and almost frightening images of India being flashed the=20
world over these people have made it their business to wound and maim=20
the nation while their government looks on impassively as fellow=20
citizens are killed in the name of religion.

The fires deliberately started, are not being allowed to die out. A=20
war has been declared, not on the Muslims or the Christians but on=20
the Constitution and the Indian state.=20

The religious minorities are merely the means to hasten the=20
Talibanisation of India, and turn it back from the path of progress=20
and modernisation that had been so carefully thought out and=20
formulated by the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution when=20
the country gained independence.

We are witnessing today a battle between those who want to destroy=20
the unity and integrity of India and those who are determined not to=20
allow India to be pushed back into the medieval ages. The first side=20
is represented by the RSS, the BJP, VHP and all their various=20
affiliates.=20

On the other side is civil society that is still waiting to be=20
strengthened by the Opposition parties and the NDA allies, but is=20
putting up a resistance that has made it decidedly difficult for the=20
RSS and its offshoots to pursue the one- point agenda of=20
destabilising India.

The arguments being used are strikingly familiar. And have been heard=20
many times in this country from the same quarters. From Union Home=20
Minister L K Advani to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to RSS=20
chief Sudershan to VHP leader Singhal the refrain has been: Action=20
(Godhra killings) justifies the re-action. Does it? Those who have=20
given up their ability to think to the doctrine of hate a long time=20
ago might buy the argument. But can the thinking person honestly=20
sanctify the murder of 700 odd Indian citizens for the death of 60=20
citizens? Or should not the thinking person call upon the State to=20
ensure that those responsible for the ghastly murder of the 60 are=20
caught and executed if the law so ordains, and simultaneously ensure=20
that not a single Indian life is lost from then on?

After all those who teach us to differentiate between Indian=20
citizens, all born and brought up on this land, on grounds of=20
religion and caste are also those who do not want to see a united,=20
strong India. And are preaching hate and divisiveness to further=20
narrow ends and a dangerous agenda that can never take India forward,=20
only backwards towards chaos and disintegration.=20

Was it not the responsibility of the State to step in before the=20
Godhra carnage to ensure that communal sentiments were not allowed to=20
run riot in the area? Was it not the responsibility of the State to=20
ensure that rumours were stilled and anti-social elements arrested=20
before more damage could be done?=20

Was it not the responsibility of the State after the Sabarmati=20
passengers were set on fire, to step in with the message that one, it=20
was in charge; two, it would take full action against the guilty and=20
three, it would not allow a single innocent citizen to suffer in=20
retaliation of the Godhra carnage?

Is this not what the governments are elected for: to protect their=20
people? Yes, the ordinary man might nurture hate in his heart after a=20
particularly grisly incident. He might lose sight of reason and=20
justice, and turn towards the gun. Is it then not the duty of the=20
State to ensure that this hate is mellowed through timely action, and=20
a secular campaign where the difference between the guilty and the=20
innocent is maintained? And that no one is allowed to take law into=20
his own hands, and like the primitive warriors mete out justice=20
according to their own distorted thinking.

But what did our leaders do? The unthinkable. They allowed an orgy of=20
hate and destruction to overtake our country. They facilitated the=20
division of India into Hindu and Muslim, bringing back visions of a=20
partition that generations here had virtually overcome. Or at least=20
tried very hard to.=20

They allowed the State to become partisan. They put the entire=20
country on the edge of the communal precipice, from where the choice=20
is only to go hurtling down or very painfully and slowly haul oneself=20
up. The last requires commitment, dedication and a political will=20
that unfortunately, has been eroded substantially over the last few=20
years.

Prime Minister of secular, democratic India (the Constitution has=20
still not been changed) Atal Behari Vajpayee watched. He spoke on=20
occasions but for the most part he sat back and watched the carnage=20
in Gujarat, the developments in Ayodhya.=20

He is now watching the Vishwa Hindu Parishad prepare to carry the=20
ashes of the Godhra carnage victims through out the country leaving,=20
no doubt, the blood of many more innocent citizens in the yatra's=20
wake.

Home Minister of India L K Advani went a step further. He visited=20
Gujarat to give a gentle pat on the back to Narendra Modi who has=20
presided over the worst violence in this country since 1947.=20

He returned to the capital of India and opened the campaign for the=20
Delhi civic elections not with a reference to the pitiable state of=20
the city, but with a detailed reference to Godhra as if there had=20
been no Ahmedabad, no Baroda, no Rajkot.=20

Indian citizens have been butchered in Godhra and in the rest of=20
Gujarat. One by a mob. The other by the State. It is extremely=20
dangerous for a country when the Home Minister cannot see citizens,=20
and only sees religious communities and castes. And then uses this=20
partisanship based on hate and divisiveness to further divide the=20
nation by introducing it as entirely unnecessary element in a civic=20
election.

One can go down the line. But the long and short of it is that this=20
hatred will be fought. Not by religious communities but by secular=20
society. In fact although the intention is to isolate the Muslims, it=20
is the Hindutva brigade that is in danger of isolation. Because the=20
rest of the country wants peace to progress.=20

The young people want to be part of the developed world of=20
opportunities. Not consumed by hate as an ideology they see violence=20
as a major obstacle in their path. It is significant that in most=20
television shows the resistance to the VHP and the RSS is being=20
voiced by the young generation that wonders how death and destruction=20
can make for a cohesive, strong nation.

There has not been a word of support for the VHP, except from its own=20
mentors in and outside government, through the entire Ayodhya crisis.=20
In fact the common citizen heaved a sigh of relief when the Supreme=20
Court intervened to stay the threat that had been holding India=20
hostage for weeks.=20

There has not been a word of support for Narendra Modi, except from a=20
few misguided elements and his own affiliates. The people of this=20
country, just before the Gujarat carnage, actually defeated the BJP=20
in four States, including its breeding ground Uttar Pradesh. Terror,=20
Pakistan, ISI, Muslim were slogans that were completely rejected by=20
voters looking for governance and not rhetoric.

Vajpayee's days are numbered. Advani's dreams of succeeding him are=20
also diminishing. Or should be diminishing as he has lost much of his=20
charm in recent days. For his rhetoric while strident for secular=20
India, has not been strong enough to win over the VHP cadres=20
mesmerised by the hate-language of the Giriraj Kishores and the Vinay=20
Katiyars.=20

These "strong men" in turn have been cut to pathetically small size=20
by their inability to begin the construction of the Ram mandir at=20
Ayodhya despite threats to flout the court verdict, to respect the=20
divine laws visible only to them, to commit suicide, to bring down=20
the government.

The RSS has tried to flex a muscle or two in Bangalore by targeting=20
Muslims in a resolution. Muslims will not leave India. Nor will they=20
live as second class citizens dogged by fear and apprehension. This=20
is a country of choice not compulsion.=20

Besides the RSS does not represent the Hindus. It represents only a=20
fanatical fringe element that has risen to power through=20
manipulations and machinations. And will go out of power as speedily=20
for it does not have the support of Hindu society which is aghast and=20
repulsed by the recent orgy of violence.=20

A change in government is called for. For this government has lost=20
its right to rule. Civil society cannot allow India to be=20
Talibanised. Where people are killed, where dissent is muzzled, where=20
minorities are targeted, where the poor are oppressed, where women=20
are shackled, where heritage is destroyed.=20

It has to be steered back to the path of modernity and development.=20
Towards equality and justice. Towards secularism and democracy.

__________________________

#4.

<http://thestatesman.net/page.editorial.php3?id=3D5242&theme=3DA>http://the=
statesman.net/page.editorial.php3?id=3D5242&theme=3DA

The Statesman (Delhi and Calcutta) March 23 2002

Self-governance & citizenship

By Sanjib Baruah

Leaders of many ethnic movements in India have been attracted by the=20
North-eastern model of tribal self-governance - the Sixth Schedule=20
and tribal-majority states. Nor is the discovery of the virtues of=20
the North-eastern model limited to these ethnic leaders.=20
Policy-makers, too, have endorsed such proposals. The Commission=20
reviewing the Constitution, for instance, has in a recent paper=20
endorsed the extension of the Sixth Schedule to new groups.
This enthusiasm for the North-eastern model avoids an important=20
question: why did the Constitution-makers limit the Sixth Schedule to=20
a few select areas? Why did they go through the trouble of creating a=20
Sixth Schedule for those areas, a Fifth Schedule for tribal areas in=20
the rest of the country and then making provisions outside these two=20
Schedules for other tribal groups?
The historical answer to the question is that (a) the=20
Constitution-makers did not start from scratch, they worked in the=20
context of an existing policy framework, and (b) they considered the=20
situation in the areas for which they recommended the Sixth Schedule=20
to be special because their integration into the post-colonial=20
dispensation was uncertain.
The idea of designing separate administrative arrangements for some=20
tribal areas goes back to the colonial idea of protecting=20
"aborigines" in their pristine habitats where they could pursue their=20
"customary practices", including kinship and clan-based rules, of=20
land allocation.
But the fact that such protection, no matter how desirable, was=20
impossible to extend - or may even be of questionable use - in areas=20
where there was significant economic change and the demographic=20
picture was mixed, was part of the common sense of colonial policy-=20
makers and our Constitution-makers.
Since Independence, the process of economic and social transformation=20
has brought about even more demographic changes to these areas. It is=20
ironical that instead of attending to the implications of the=20
increasing dissonance between the existing political economy of the=20
tribal areas and the premises of the model of self-governance, we are=20
engaged in further extending the Sixth Schedule to other areas,=20
obliterating the distinctions that colonial policy-makers and our=20
Constitution-makers had made.
The most serious consequence of this dissonance is on ethnic=20
relations. It is hardly accidental that the relations between tribals=20
and non-tribals, as well as between indigenous tribals and=20
non-indigenous tribals in Sixth Schedule areas like Meghalaya, and in=20
areas where proposals for extending the Sixth Schedule are under=20
consideration, such as the Kokrajhar district of Assam, are marked by=20
sporadic violence.
The demographic mix in these areas has typically been seen only from=20
the perspective of what scholars of migration call "push factors".=20
This has obscured the role that the process of economic=20
transformation and the emerging pattern of class differentiation has=20
played in "pulling" immigrants to these areas.
It is not difficult these days to come across a Naga, or an=20
Arunachali owning 1,000 acres. Such concentration of land is, of=20
course, not "customary". The economic transformation of the region=20
has produced a generation of tribal plantation owners, absentee=20
landlords, peasants, sharecroppers and landless workers. Official=20
development policies encouraging plantation crop, for instance, have=20
propelled the grabbing of once customary land by influential tribals.=20
It should come as no surprise then that the other side of the=20
privatisation of clan-held land is the emergence of a poorer group of=20
people eking out a living by working as agricultural workers,=20
sharecroppers, construction labourers or by whatever other means=20
possible.
While many of them are local tribals, there are also a large number=20
of "outsiders" - non-tribals and tribals who may not have Scheduled=20
Tribe status in the particular district - occupying these marginal=20
economic niches. The Sixth Schedule and the laws constituting the=20
tribal states have created a dissonance between these political=20
economic and demographic trends and the de facto citizenship regime=20
on the ground. The rights of non-tribals to hold and exchange landed=20
property and business and trade licences are restricted. As a result,=20
numerous informal arrangements have emerged in the ownership and=20
control of agricultural land and in business practices.
While instances of the outsider exploiting the tribal are many, in=20
some areas the problem may be of the non-tribal "outsider" being=20
susceptible to exploitation because of the informal nature of his=20
cultivating arrangement.
Since the vast majority of seats in the state legislatures - indeed=20
all but one seat in the case of three legislatures - are reserved for=20
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, without the right to=20
contest elections, the non-tribal "outsiders" and their descendants=20
arguably have less than full citizenship rights in the=20
tribal-majority states.
This regime of differentiated citizenship is not viable in the long=20
run. There is a secular trend for Scheduled Tribes as a proportion of=20
the total population to decline in most tribal areas. Policy-makers=20
have sought to manage the political problems that this dissonance is=20
likely to create by a constitutional amendment that has frozen the=20
balance between reserved and unreserved seats in the legislative=20
assemblies of a number of North-eastern states.
Such stop-gap arrangements can only postpone the smouldering crisis=20
of citizenship. But sooner or later, our policy-makers would have to=20
confront the fact that questions of social justice in the North-east=20
are significantly more complex today than what the framework of=20
excluded areas and the Sixth Schedule were designed to accomplish.

(Sanjib Baruah, author of India against Itself, is Professor of=20
Political Studies at Bard College, Annandale on Hudson, New York.)

_______

# 5.

ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCIL
79/B I&II Floors, Street 8, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh
President: Dr Joseph D' Souza Secretary General: Dr. John Dayal

Phone (91 11) 2722262 Fax 2726582 Mobile 09811021072
Email: johndayal@v...

PRESS STATEMENT
23 March 2002

Dialogue with RSS mocks the victims of Sangh genocide in Gujarat

Civil society in general, and the Christian Community in particular, is
deeply distressed at media reports of a so-called dialogue on 22nd March
2002 between some Christians in Bangalore city and the head of the RSS,
Kupahalli Sudershan. Any dialogue with members of the Sangh Parivar at this
stage mocks at the thousands dead in the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat, an=
d
encourages the murderous cadres of the RSS militant wings VHP and Bajrang
Dal to continue with their reign of terror in various parts of the country,
All India Christian Council President Dr Joseph D Souza and Secretary
general Dr John Dayal have said in a statement. The statement says further:

It is a tragedy that a handful of Christians have been misled by National
Commission for Minorities Member John Joseph to engage in another session o=
f
a monologue with Kupahalli Sudershan, the fuehrer of the RSS and author of
such statements as "Minorities must earn the goodwill of the majority
community for the security of their life and property," and "Christians and
Muslims must rewrite their Scriptures."

We congratulate the senior Bishops and Pastors of Bangalore and most Church
leaders who saw through the political game and refused to attend the meetin=
g
in Bangalore. Those who attended this meeting are apparently living in a
cocoon, which insulates them from the deathly reality of Gujarat and other
parts of the country, or have a vested interest in the patronage of the
government or the Sangh Parivar, which overwhelms their Christian
conscience, even in the days of Lent.

The Council has consistently welcomed dialogue with all people of goodwill
which will further religious freedom and democratic traditions of India in
keeping with the country's historical plural cultural identity. The Council
was among the first to denounce the brutal burning of the Kar sevaks
traveling in a train at Godhhra.

But the Council has always opposed any truck with the Sangh Parivar, which
is now in a position to impose with weapons and fire its diktact of One
nation, One People, One Culture. But while some earlier `dialogues" or
`talks' may have been out of genuine Christian goodwill of senior Bishops,
they were held while there was comparative calm in the country. The
viciousness of the violence by the Sangh parivar in Gujarat, aided and
abetted in full measure by the State government ruled by a senior activist
of the RSS, Chief Minister Narendra Modi who was present in the first so
called dialogue between Sudershan and Christians, should have opened the
eyes of even those blinded by greed or coerced and frightened in to a corne=
r
by a member of the National Commission for Minorities.

NCM Member John Joseph can learn a lesson from his own colleague Mr
Tarlochan Singh who has had the decency of calling on the RSS to withdraw
its remarks, which make Sikhs, together with Muslims, Christians and
Buddhists, into second grade citizens in thier own homeland. It is time the
Minorities commission and its members stop paying homage to the political
masters who appointed them and take courage ton fulfill their constitutiona=
l
obligations.

Mr Justice JS Verma, chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, has
shown the path of how statutory commissions created to safeguard the
innocent citizens of this land, must behave. His visit to Gujarat has
brought solace to the victims, even though in the process, Mr Verma has
himself had to brave the violent behaviour of the Sangh parivar. Indeed,
senior judges of the Gujarat High Court, Muslim officers of the State polic=
e
and media persons have faced the terror of the Sangh and experienced its
brutal arrogance.

Gujarat continues to reel under relentless violence. There are deaths every
day, persons killed in the most heinous ways. The Hindutva programmes in th=
e
tribal areas have resulted in the communalisation of the people and a fresh
wave of violence in these areas of the state.

Christians in Gujarat and throughout the country are in the forefront of th=
e
Human rights movement. The names of Fr Cedric Prakash and Mr Samson
Christian are among scores of priests, nuns and lay persons who have risked
life and limb to investigate and document the violence, bring succour to
victims and take care of refugees. Elsewhere in the country, the Christian
community, as part of civil society, has been taking part in daily protests=
,
peace marches, relay hunger strikes and peace vigils. The council salutes
these brave men and women of peace.

The talks in Bangalore are a slur on the work of all these people and
countless others from civil society, a large proportion of them Hindus, who
have come together to challenge and combat the terror of the Sangh parivar
and to restore peace in our motherland.
Released for favour of publication

______

#6.

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:45:55 +0530
Subject: Police intrusion into SANGAMA, Bangalore

Dear friends

We have been working with hijras, kothis, and homosexual/bisexual
men from the poor and non-English speaking backgrounds for the last
2 years. Recently (1 month ago) we have started a drop-in/meeting
space every Sunday from 3 p.m to 6 p.m in our office. Our office is in
the Flat 13 (3rd Floor) of the 'Royal Park' Apartments. There are only
two residences (out of 16 flats) in the 'Royal Park' apartments, which
are situated on the first and second floors. The rest are offices, which
remain closed on Sundays.=20

On the 17th of March 2002 (Sunday) one of the residents, Mr. Ashok
Kattimani an ex-MLC sent for one of Sangama's office staff at 3:00 p.m
who was present at the meeting. He stated that since there were
families present in the building, we shouldn't allow hijras (most people
including Mr. Kattimani and Police don't differentiate between kothis
and hijras, at times they even call gay/homosexual/bisexual men
'hijras') to come there. He also alleged that hijras were having late
night dance parties in our office. This is an absolute lie. Some of the
other people present at the meeting on that day were Shakun of
Vimochana, Dr. Ramdas Rao of People's Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) - Karnataka, Prof. N. Babbiah and Sridhar of People's
Democratic Forum,
Arvind Narrain of Alternative Law Forum, Muddappa
from Development Initiatives for Social Concerns,
who were part of a fact-finding report on the
Police harassment faced by street-based
male/kothi/hijra sex-workers.

At 5 p.m the fact-finding report team left and 3
police men in plainclothes walked into Sangama's
office and demanded to know of the nature of our
work. Two of them were from Shivajinagar police
station and one of them from the Commercial street
police station (our office comes under this police
station). They spoke to some of us in the
library, where they checked a few books and left
after fifteen minutes with a copy of Sangama's
registration documents and a list of Sangama's
Governing Body members along with phone numbers of
its President Dr. Shyama Narang, its Secretary
Elavarthi Manohar (who is also the program co-
ordinator of Sangama) and two others, Arvind
Narrain and Dr. Shekhar Seshadri (Child
Psychiatrist in NIMHANS).

They also told Sangama staff that an Inspector
would be visiting the office and within 15
minutes, the Sub Inspector from Commercial Street
police station, came with 3 plainclothes police
men. They again took the details of Sangama's
office, copies of registration documents and aims
and objectives of Sangama. The other policemen did
a thorough search of the office while the
Inspector was speaking to two of us. The Inspector
said that hijras cannot have a meeting in the
residential locality, which according to him
'humiliated' the people. He advised us not to have
the Sunday meetings any more in the office and to
have it in the out-skirts of the city. The
Inspector also inspected a few CDs, which were
software program CDs by asking Sangama staff
members to run these CDs on the computer. They
also insisted that the meeting be closed
immediately and said that the complaint was from
the local residents. The meeting continued
despite this intrusion for the next 30 minutes. We
closed the meeting/drop-in space for that day at
6:00 p.m.

The next day, we spoke to the owner of our flat.
He was extremely supportive and continues to be
so. We heard from him that Mr. Ashok Kattimani was
busy rallying support from other flat owners (many
of whom were not even aware of our Sunday meetings
in spite of us being there since 1/1/2002). Some
of Mr. Kattimani's romours include: 200
hijras/homosexuals visit Sangama on Sundays, where
they consume alcohol/drugs and have sex. He even
alleged that the 'whole building smells of drugs'
(sic) on Sundays. We also heard about the comments
of another flat owner, a reputed real-estate
lawyer who said that 'we can't legally do anything
but if these people continue to be here, I may
loose my image and loose some of my clients too.
If you don't get them out soon, the commercial
value of this building will go down'.

We had meeting with some of our supporters on the
19th (Tuesday) where it was decided that we
approach Police Officials and to start a dialogue
with Mr. Kattimani and other flat owners.

Representatives of PUCL, Manasa and Sangama met
Mr. K. L. Sudhir (Deputy Commissioner of Police -
Administration, who is a representative of the
City Police Commissioner) on March 22, Friday and
handed over a letter signed by Peoples Union for
Civil Liberties - Karnataka (PUCL-K), Vimochana,
Manasa, AITUC - All India Trade Union Congress,
Peoples Democratic Forum (PDF), Centre for Workers
Management (CWM), Alternative Law Forum (ALF),
Development Initiatives for Social Concerns
(DISC), Pedestrian Pictures, Slum Jagattu,
Sangama, Swabhava, Samvada, Nele, and Jaarbande.=20

We demanded for an end to this kind of Police
harassment. He (the DCP) immediately spoke to the
Commercial Street and Shivajinagar Police Stations
and asked them to stop this. He informed us that
apparently Mr. Kattimani had gone to the
Commercial Street Police Station with 15 women and
complained that 'hijras are a threat to the
security of women'.

We are planning to meet the Inspector General of
Police (Human Rights) soon. We have decided
against going to the media at this point of time.
We are strengthened by the support and concern of
many individuals and groups in Bangalore and
elsewhere. Sangama is functioning as usual and
will continue with its Sunday meetings (tomorrow).
We don't expect any harassment from the Police. We
will let you know of future developments.

In Solidarity

Chandru, Famila, Kumar, Lakshmi, Manohar, Nithin,
Revathi, Roshan, Sharada, Sumathi

--=20
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

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.