[sacw] SACW | 10 Dec. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 10 December 2002

__________________________

#1. Why Jinnah's Pakistan ended (M.B. Naqvi)
#2. A talent for flogging dead horses in Pakistan (Ayaz Amir)
#3. [Indian] PM Should Visit Pakistan - Break the ice now! (Praful Bidwai)
#4. India: The Jashn that became a celebration of struggle (Aman Ekta Manch=
)
#5. India: The Politics of Violence of Sangh Parivar Converting=20
into a Tyranny (Sandeep Pandey)
#6. India: Sangh Parivar Should Not Disturb The Peace of Ayodhya
#7. India: New enemy brings Gandhians back to the battlefield (Bharat Bhush=
an)
#8. India: Hindutva=B9s Willing Executioners (Sarmila Bose)

__________________________

#1.

Why Jinnah's Pakistan ended

By M.B. Naqvi

[ 9 Dec. 2002, Karachi ]

The way Mohammad Ali Jinnah=B9s Pakistan ended in December 1971 still=20
astonishes. Majority of Pakistanis had become so exasperated that=20
they wanted to severe links with their Western Wing brethren and=20
justifiably so. Governing class, mostly Punjabi and Urdu-speaking,=20
had always cheated East Pakistanis: a Constitution could not be made=20
because West Pakistani elites were not prepared to be a permanent=20
minority, to be always ruled by East Bengalees. In economics the=20
deception was breath taking. Foreign exchange from jute exports was=20
spent on West Pakistan=B9s industrial development. And when East=20
Pakistanis woke up to being shortchanged and became obstreperous, the=20
C-in-C of Pakistan Army ordered a punitive military crackdown. The=20
rest is history.

The writer having witnessed the enthusiasm that Muslim Bengalees=20
showed for Pakistan in the 1940s =8B-and the way Muslim League was=20
voted in, en masse, in 1946 =8B-the denouement in 1971 was history=B9s=20
tragic irony. Very large conclusions flow.

Pre-independence leadership of Muslim League and Congress did not=20
quite know what forces they were unleashing. Dormant historic forces,=20
and events caused unwittingly, were too big for them. In Pakistan,=20
for all the rhetoric of Islamic brotherhood and Muslim Nationalism,=20
ethnicity=B9s differences proved stronger than Islamic solidarity. It=20
stands as a proven fact but sans explanation. It has been explained=20
away by the perfidy or caprice of individuals. Truth is ethnic=20
differences always defined all politics and governance from the start.

Muslim League emphasised from 1940 onward that there was nothing in=20
common between Hindus and Muslims; it rejected the idea that=20
coexistence of so many centuries produced no commonalties which were=20
emphasised by Nehru and leftists. Anyhow Bharat Mata broke up and=20
Muslims had their Pakistan. But none guaged the strength of dark=20
subterranean forces of communal hatred in masses=B9 minds aroused by=20
myopic use of religious symbolism. Once partition neared, no one=20
could control massive communal clashes. The 1947-related riots were a=20
misnomer. What areas in both India and Pakistan witnessed was=20
genocide and world=B9s largest ethnic cleansing that displaced some 15=20
million people. Communal zealots perpetrated unspeakable atrocities=20
on both sides. Both sides should still hang their heads in shame for=20
this massive display of barbaric proclivities.

Throughout the quarter century of united Pakistan, politicians and=20
common people were vaguely aware of what was coming and talked about=20
it. In 1969 one received a Bengalee friend. First thing he said was:=20
make the most of me now; next time I may require a visa. Who can say=20
that Pakistanis sleepwalked to disaster; they were awake and=20
conscious all along. It seems the god Ethnos was contemptuously=20
ignored and he took his revenge all too soon. Geography too was=20
disregarded and it therefore created difficulties for Pakistanis.

After March 25, 1971 what barbarity was not displayed by Muslims=20
against =8Cother=B9 Muslims! In some respects we Pakistani Muslims left=20
the 1947 genocide in the shade. For all the rhetoric of the same God=20
and same Book, the reality was that an armed rebellion was war of=20
liberation for Bengalees and was a secessionist attempt, with Indian=20
assistance; with passions at white heat, only murder and mayhem could=20
result. But one side was a supposedly disciplined armed force. For it=20
to go berserk against its own =8Cmisguided=B9 citizens was inexcusable;=20
its rapine and pillage in East Pakistan, which historically came=20
first, cannot be explained away by what the nationalistic rebels did.=20
Rawalpindi should have known what would be the reaction to what it=20
had ordered. The Bengalee reaction could not be otherwise. The=20
soldiers=B9 atrocities could only be understood as a deeper and=20
elemental rejection and animosity.

What is worse, most West Pakistanis tacitly approved of what the Army=20
did. That rejection of Bengalees was widely shared in West Pakistan,=20
mainly in Punjab. The fib is that because of censorship people in the=20
western wing did not know what was going on in East Pakistan. It is=20
partly true. But by and large everyone was aware of what the=20
international media was projecting. The second partition too was=20
preceded by a parting of ways in the mind. The telltale self amnesia=20
among Pakistanis about atrocities in the east has led to few having=20
extensively analysed the tragedy of 1971 with a view to learning=20
lessons. Everyone wants to forget and ignore the unpleasant facts=20
because they do not want to acknowledge the harsh truth.

One emphasises a narrower reason for the earliest power struggle=20
between the Punjab and Bengal Groups in the first Constituent=20
Assembly in 1949=AD48. East Bengalees had opened their account with the=20
expropriation of all intermediary landed interests between the state=20
and the cultivator. This without compensation reform frightened the=20
social elites in West Pakistan, almost all of whom landlords.=20
Bengalees acquiring the central power seemed to them like encouraging=20
the new Bolsheviks to repeat that enormity here also. So they were=20
determined to deny the Bengalees their due share of power and entered=20
into an open conspiracy: they sought help from the bureaucracy and=20
got it. With West Pakistan landowning MPs help, they cornered all=20
power.

The bureaucrats coterie, the locus of power, is well identified: it=20
was headed by a soon-to-be paralysed Ghulam Muhammad who was ably=20
assisted by Defence Secretary Col. Iskandar Mirza (who was thought to=20
have C-in-C Gen. Ayub Khan in his pocket), Chaudhry Mohammad Ali and=20
other senior bureaucrats. By overthrowing Khawaja Nazimuddin=B9s=20
government, Ghulam Muhammad had become an autocratic dictator as far=20
back as April 1953, while his clique-building could be seen from=20
Liaquat Ali Khan=B9s days.

After Bogra=B9s Mohammad Ali became the PM, Ghulam Muhammad and=20
Iskandar Mirza began manipulating both the government and parliament;=20
the making and unmaking of governments became a pastime of Iskandar=20
Mirza who acted as a king-maker =8B-until Gen. Ayub Khan got tired of=20
providing Army=B9s support to mere civilians while he had all the real=20
wherewithal of being a King-like ruler himself by imposing Martial=20
Law in 1958. He finally shut the door on all civilian politicians=20
ever acquiring power =8B-and even in the post 1971 Pakistan there have=20
been nominally civilian interludes but the supremacy of the Generals=20
has been an unchanging reality.

The brief Z. A. Bhutto interval (1971=AD1977) was the result of defeat=20
and dismemberment, for Pakistan Army had become in its own eyes too=20
discredited. But Bhutto blew up his chances of disciplining it by=20
working hard to restore its morale and prestige. He proved himself to=20
be a true Army creature. The Army resumed power and has continued to=20
call all the shots in Pakistan ever since. There is recent tub=20
thumping that the Army is going back to barracks after restoring a=20
=8Creal=B9 or =8Csustainable=B9 democracy. The reality however is that the=
=20
lord and master of all elected governments will remain the Army Chief=20
who is firm in refusing to separate the offices of Army Chief and the=20
President by remaining both. This democracy will live or die as he=20
wills it.

Like Pakistan, Bangladesh is also impaled on the horns of a basic=20
dilemma: whether Islam comes first or the state=B9s democratic purposes=20
are more urgent. Islam in its hardline interpretations is a=20
pervasive, if not totalitarian, ideology. Rationale of Bangladesh was=20
Bengali language and culture and Bengal=B9s historical links with the=20
rest of India (South Asia). Which linkage had made sense for being a=20
part of Jinnah=B9s Pakistan. Ideological confusion about the precise=20
place of Islam and its coexistence with basically secular purposes of=20
the modern state is a conundrum shared by both Pakistan and=20
Bangladesh.

Neither can be stable, much less make progress, and deliver freedoms=20
and material welfare to the people until it reverts to the Islam as=20
it was originally spread in the Subcontinent, able and willing to=20
happily coexist with non-Muslims. Either has to allow the rulers to=20
concentrate on politics while piety was the common goal of individual=20
Muslims. A subcontinental link and better relations of both with a=20
largely non-Muslim India are vital for both peace, progress and=20
security of all in South Asia. Left severely alone, all these states=20
are incomplete in a large historical sense. Unless they cooperate and=20
constantly interact in response to =8B-and to enrich =8B-the thousand and=20
one commonalties of the Subcontinent in the ambience of human=20
freedoms, with national frontiers not being barriers to human and=20
artistic exchanges.

For progress, material and cultural, to be made that can improve the=20
material level of common folks in all South Asian states and enrich=20
their cultural lives, these states will have to adopt common secular=20
strands and suppress divisive tendencies cooperatively. Would they=20
not make SAARC a richer and livelier reality?

______

#2.

DAWN
06 December 2002

A talent for flogging dead horses
By Ayaz Amir

For 24 years after partition vice and virtue coexisted happily in=20
what were then the two wings of Pakistan. There was of course no=20
shortage of devout people who grew beards and zealously observed all=20
the rituals of the faith. But in those days (how distant they seem)=20
even the very religious wore their religion lightly without making=20
too great a fuss over it. [...].
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

______

#3.

[ Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning Dec 9, 2002]

[Indian] PM Should Visit Pakistan
Break the ice now!

By Praful Bidwai

If Mr L.K. Advani wanted to further lower the quality of the BJP=B9s=20
gutter-level election campaign in Gujarat, he could not have done so=20
more effectively than by challenging Pakistan to fight a =B3fourth war=B2=20
with India. On November 30, in Bhuj, the Deputy PM said: =B3I dare=20
Pakistan to fight a direct war with India instead of engaging in a=20
proxy war =8A Let us fight it out face to face. We have fought thrice,=20
let there be a fourth war. Of course, that would be the final war=B2.=20
Mr Advani linked his vituperation against Pakistan to Gujarat=B9s=20
asnita (pride), and lavished praise on Mr Narendra Modi for his=20
=B3exemplary=B2 handling of the anti-Muslim violence=8B Independent India=
=B9s=20
most shameful state-sponsored pogrom.

It is important to ask who gave Mr Advani the authority to sacrifice=20
millions of Indians in this =B3final war=B2, which will inevitably lead=20
to a nuclear holocaust. The main casualties won=B9t be soldiers or=20
paramilitary troops, but non-combatant unarmed citizens. The Deputy=20
PM was speaking much like a street-level or mohalla bully, emulating=20
the sordid example set by Delhi BJP rabble-rouser Madanlal Khurana=20
just after the Indian nuclear tests of May 1998, but before the=20
Pakistani blasts, when he challenged Islamabad to war =B3at a place and=20
time of its choosing=B2.

A day later, in Solan and Shimla, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee refused to=20
temper down Mr Advani=B9s shocking remarks. Instead, he relaxed his own=20
earlier stipulation that the Godhra massacre should not be made a=20
Gujarat election issue. More pertinently, he linked his going to=20
Islamabad for the proposed SAARC (South Asian Association for=20
Regional Cooperation) summit to Pakistan =B3completely=B2 ending its=20
support to =B3cross-border=B2 terrorism. The possibility of this visit is=20
already slender because New Delhi has made Mr Vajpayee=B9s=20
participation conditional upon Pakistan granting India =B3Most Favoured=20
Nation=B2 (MFN) status under a World Trade Organisation agreement=8Bi.e.=20
putting India on a par with its other trading partners. Now, the=20
possibility may be reduced to zero.

Mr Vajpayee would be ill-advised to lay down any such conditions for=20
his participation in the summit which is due on January 11 to 13. His=20
participation, and the resumption of a bilateral India-Pakistan=20
dialogue, are both necessary and in India=B9s own interest. If even one=20
head of government fails to attend a SAARC summit, it has to be=20
cancelled=8Bto the detriment of the region as a whole. A lesson from=20
the cancelled summits of the past, including that in 1999 following=20
Kargil, is that the annulment ill-serves the cause for which SAARC=20
was set up. The progress, peace and prosperity of the 1.3 billion=20
people of South Asia is bound up with regional cooperation. This will=20
be jeopardised if the planned Islamabad summit does not materialise.=20
That will serve nobody=B9s interests.

The official Indian position on the summit is inconsistent and=20
varying. For instance, in October, New Delhi denied that the summit=20
dates were even communicated to it. The truth is that the Foreign=20
Ministers of all the seven SAARC states met in New York three months=20
ago and agreed to confirm the proposed dates by September 23. All=20
barring India did so. India baulked and stalled, and later linked its=20
participation to =B3progress on economic cooperation=B2, itself to be=20
determined at the Committee on Economic Cooperation, meeting in=20
Kathmandu on October 26-27. This reviewed how far the seven have=20
moved towards creating a South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) by=20
the end of 2002. India believes Pakistan is dragging its feet on=20
this; therefore a summit would serve no purpose because =B3economic=20
cooperation is the heart of SAARC=B2.

The Indian view is contested by all other SAARC members. The=20
consensus at Kathmandu was that =B3considerable work=B2 needs to be done=20
before the SAFTA framework matures. For instance, it had been earlier=20
agreed that an in-depth study must be done on the likely effects of a=20
transition to SAFTA. Yet, no consultant has been appointed to=20
undertake it. Pakistan insists that the MFN issue must be delinked=20
from the SAARC process; MFN pertains to requirements under the WTO,=20
and should be discussed bilaterally. The WTO agreement contains=20
certain exceptional provisions, based on which a state can delay=20
granting another MFN status. Bangladesh, a =B3least developed country=B2,=20
also wants more time.

India is thus forcing the pace of trade liberalisation. It risks=20
losing the regional cooperation forum itself. For its part, Pakistan=20
is reluctant to give India MFN status. This is because its trade and=20
industry chambers are apprehensive of Indian goods flooding their=20
market. Other SAARC states too have similar fears. India would do=20
well to address those and opt for a slower pace of trade=20
liberalisation within SAARC, while negotiating voluntary fast-track=20
agreements with individual countries, as it did with Sri Lanka.

All this can be negotiated and discussed. But for that to happen, a=20
summit must take place. India (or Pakistan) cannot make SAARC a=20
hostage to particularistic individual concerns, or bilateral=20
disputes. Nor should India cancel a summit citing =B3cross-border=20
terrorism=B2. If this was a valid argument, especially after December=20
13 last, why did Mr Vajpayee attend the Kathmandu summit in January=20
this year (when he reluctantly shook hands with General Musharraf)?=20
Why did he go to Lahore in February 1999, even though there had been=20
no let-up in militant violence in Kashmir in a year?

India did not break off diplomatic relations with Pakistan when=20
militancy erupted in Kashmir in 1989, which Pakistan aided; the two=20
states negotiated military confidence-building measures over two=20
years. Throughout the 1990s, India held talks with different=20
Pakistani regimes. The Agra Summit too took place=8Bwithout a change in=20
the border situation. This changed after 9/11, when India adopted a=20
macho, US-style =B3tough=B2 stance.

Given the range of reasons and excuses New Delhi has cited=8Bincluding=20
the argument that it does not know whom to talk to in Pakistan=8Bit=20
seems loath to let the summit happen. Mr Vajpayee has further=20
confirmed this by asking: =B3What=B9s the use of going for a SAARC=20
meeting when [Pakistan] is not prepared to talk on any issue except=20
Kashmir=B2 (Shimla, Dec 1). This is extraordinary. The SAARC summit is=20
not, cannot be, about Kashmir. The Association=B9s charter forbids a=20
discussion of contentious bilateral issues.

Yet, there is every reason why India should reopen a dialogue with=20
Pakistan, following the welcome dismantlement of the 10-months-long=20
massive mobilisation at the border. There is a new civilian=20
government in Islamabad. Although all power does not vest in it, and=20
it is a hotchpotch put together by dubious means, it is not a=20
hardline regime; and it excludes the pro-Taliban Muttahida=20
Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). Gen Musharraf was manipulative and undemocratic,=20
but he did succeed in keeping the fanatics out. The new Prime=20
Minister, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, is supposed to be a liberal. He=20
was associated with a progressive students=B9 organisation in=20
Baluchistan. There is no reason to suppose that he will function as a=20
puppet of the military. Pakistan=B9s recent history shows that even=20
those who enter office as stooges of the army (e.g. M.K. Junejo and=20
Nawaz Sharif) can end up fighting it=8Bonce a struggle for control=20
breaks out.

The new Foreign Minister, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, has an even more=20
positive image=8Bon account of his distinguished lawyer-father, his=20
education, and his membership of Mr Asghar Khan=B9s principled=20
Tehriq-i-Istiqlal party. He is associated with informal Track-II=20
diplomacy and favours better relations with India. His first=20
statement on being sworn in emphasised improved relations as his=20
topmost priority. Mani Shankar Aiyar, himself a former diplomat who=20
has served in Pakistan, and who has known Mr Kasuri from his college=20
days in England, thinks highly of him. Mr Aiyar believes he will=20
treat =B3our negotiators in an honest, straightforward way, without=20
resorting to wile or guile=B2.

It is possible that Mr Jamali and Mr Kasuri won=B9t be allowed to=20
improve relations with India. But India must give them a chance. It=20
must not prejudge the issue by declaring that the new government=20
cannot change policies. Freezing diplomatic contacts with Pakistan=20
has not helped India on the counter-terrorism front or on economic=20
and political agendas. Indeed, it has caused suffering to ordinary=20
people, strengthened communal perceptions and forces in both=20
countries, and intensified stasis and stagnation in the entire region.

There is an urgent case for resuming negotiations on all issues,=20
including terrorism and Kashmir. And it is imperative to restore=20
people-to-people contacts as well as diplomatic links. At the end of=20
the day, Pakistan must be persuaded that it is futile to try to wrest=20
Kashmir by force or even bring India to the negotiating table by=20
supporting terrorism. This can only happen if the ground-situation in=20
Kashmir improves, and if New Delhi follows a principled, equitable,=20
policy vis-=E0-vis all its neighbours. India has nothing to gain by=20
pursuing devious agendas and hegemonic plans. Its security and=20
prosperity lies primarily in improving relations with its neighbours.=20
Despite problems, that category includes Pakistan, with which India=B9s=20
destiny is tied, one way or other.=8Bend---

______

#4.

The Jashn That Became A Celebration of Struggle
Aman Ekta Manch

Delhi, 6 December, 2002. As you approached 35 Ferozeshah Road, Mandi=20
House [New Delhi],
the festive mood became apparent. Colourful banners proclaimed,
"Manaate rahenge jashne-mohabbat, qayam rakhenge sajhi virasat" (We will
continue this celebration of love/ We will preserve our common heritage)
and "Hum andhera jeet lenge/ Qayam rakhenge sajhi virasat" ("We will
triumph over the darkness/ We will preserve our collective legacy").
Banners for peace and against war, banners against the carnage in Gujarat,
banners against the oppression of women and Dalits - all these proclaimed
the coming together of different currents in the common struggle. As you
entered the venue of the Jashn, one colourful banner read: "Don't die for
your religion, Live upto it".
This was the day of renewing our pledge to continue the struggle=85the
struggle against fascist forces, the struggle in defence of democracy and
our shared heritage. It became a celebration of the common struggle.
Different energies came together to make the programme a success that went
beyond all expectations of the organisers. From 1.00 p.m. to 7.30, over
about 2000 people from different walks of life, of different political
persuasions, joined the event. (Many could not join and many others had to
leave early due to the festival of Id that fell on this day, this year.)
They came with their plays and songs, their own banners and leaflets and
contributed their bit to making this a truly common event.
Over 150 children from different bastis (low-income settlements) of the
city sat and painted on different aspects relating to the main themes of
the day, in one-half of on the lawn outside. In the other half, different
street theatre groups performed plays they had prepared over the past few
months. Performing these plays were groups like The Players (Kirori Mal
College), Jugnu (JNU), IPTA (JNU), Jana Natya Manch, Hind Naujawan Ekta
Sabha, the Aman Ekta Manch team, Nishant Natya Manch and artiste
Indersalim. And while all this was going on outside, in the auditorium
inside, there were music performances by Vidya Rao, Parvez Imam, Kajal
Ghosh, Dhruv Sangari, Madan Gopal Singh, Shubhendu Ghosh, the students of
Lady Shri Ram College and the Aman Ekta Manch team. Along with songs and
music, there were poetry recitations by Kedarnath Singh, Ashok Vajpayee,
Anamika, Vishnu Nagar, Devi Pd. Mishra, Sanjay Kundan, Sarita Singh, Ali
Javed and Javed Naqvi among others. Prof Rooprekha Verma of Lucknow
University and Prof Tulsi Ram of Jawahar Lal Nehru University addressed the
gathering. Such was the participation that eventually some of the scheduled
artistes could not perform as the march had to begin by 6.00 p.m.
Bookstalls were also put up by many alternative, non-commercial publishers
and political groups.
An idea of the range of range of political groups that participated in the
event can be had from the fact that there were Gandhians, Non-governmental
organizations, Socialists, and the whole spectrum of left groups from the
CPI-affiliated NFIW, to the CPI-M affiliated Jana Natya Manch, SAHMAT,
Leftword publishers, the Stree Adhikar Sangathan and Progressive Students
Organization linked to the Communist League of India, and other ML parties
and groups like the CPI(ML) Liberation, and the AIPRF. One particularly
notable and significant moment of the day was when The Players' performance
was going on outside and Prof Rooprekha Verma was speaking inside the
auditorium, and a large procession of the CPI(ML) Liberation, led by their
all-India leaders Dipankar Bhattacharya and Swadesh Bhattacharya joined the
programme.
The programme culminated with a candle-light procession that marched from
the venue to Ferozeshah Kotla grounds, where it ended with a number of
songs sung by different groups.
It needs to be underlined that this programme was initially scheduled to be
held in front of Red Fort but the police denied permission after keeping
the matter hanging for over three weeks, on the pretext that it is a
sensitive area. In this same period, however, the RSS-front Akhil Bharatiya
Vidyarthi Parishad was allowed to pitch their tents in the very same
grounds and put up the participants of their rally, for three days.
The media too, contributed its bit in completely ignoring this event whose
significance is likely to grow with time, as the common bonds of struggle
forge ahead. As days go by and fascist mobs go on the rampage, this very
media is going to be more and more under attack. It is our experience that
all their self-righteous anger only surfaces on such occasions when they
themselves are under attack. And yet, it is only by defending the freedom
of everybody that we can hope to safeguard our own freedom. That is the
spirit of this day's pledge. Let those in the media who value their own
freedom of expression beyond petty sectional interests, join us in this
struggle.

______

#5.

Mon, 9 Dec 2002

THE POLITICS OF VIOLENCE OF SANGH PARIVAR CONVERTING INTO A TYRANN=
Y

Sandeep Pandey

The district administration of Faizabad after banning a=20
workshop on =EBChallenges of Communalism=ED organized by National=20
Alliance of Peoples Movements on 25th-26th September, 2002, arrested=20
75 of us and put us in Faizabad jail on the evening of 25th after=20
making us sit in the police lines for the entire day. Immidiately=20
following this programme Swami Agnivesh was going to initiate a =EBMil=20
ke Chalo=ED yatra from Ayodhya on 27th of September. However, the=20
administration had banned this yatra too in the Faizabad district.=20
The administration said that these programmes, which were being=20
organized with a view of strengthening communal harmony, were a=20
threat to the communal amity of the area. The District Magistrate of=20
Faizabad also told the local press that NAPM was banned in Allahabad=20
and Pune districts. Now it is quite interesting that the government=20
fears the people who are working for communal harmony and allows=20
freedom to the organizations which are actually a threat to harmony=20
and leaders of which are spreading communal hatred. Such=20
organizations are free to do whatever programme they feel like and=20
their leaders are free to say anything.

Anybody is welcome to check our background. Committed to=20
values of truth and non-violence we have a history of facing any=20
incidents of attack on us peacefully but with determination. In 1999=20
during the Global Peace March from the Indian nuclear test site=20
Khetolai to Sarnath we faced stiff resistance from workers of=20
RSS-BJP-Shiv Sena in Pokaran, Ram Deora and Phalodi because we were=20
questioning the nuclear weapons test which the BJP was claiming to be=20
its single biggest achievement. In Pokaran and Phalodi we were=20
accused of being anti-national, foreign agents and sponsored by some=20
agency abroad and our path was obstructed by fierce slogan shouting=20
pro-hindutva and pro-bomb workers. In the pilgrimage city of Ram=20
Deora stones were thrown at us in which our friend from the=20
Internationalist Democratic Party Parasram Rana got hurt. However, we=20
didn=EDt react. We kept singing peace songs. In the end the hindutva=20
organizations seeing our strong determination to continue with the=20
march decided to withdrew their protest after a week. On 11th=20
September, 2002, the workers of BJP led by their local corporator=20
Anil Shirode attacked our meeting in Pune and assaulted our friend=20
and senior journalist from Maharashtra Sanjay Sangwai. However, even=20
on this occasion we didn=EDt react. We just offered passive resistance.=20
We lived upto the famous slogan of JP movement =EBhowsoever may be the=20
attack on us, we will not raise our hands=ED. We are totally committed=20
to the values of truth and non-violence.

When our =EBpeace and harmony march=ED taken out in May-June,=
=20
2002, from Chitrakoot to Ayodhya reached Allahabad the Sangh Parivar=20
organizations forced the local administration to ban the then current=20
issue of our newspaper =EBSachchi-Muchchi=ED. This issue based on=20
interviews conducted of residents of Ayodhya showed how most of the=20
population there, including some prominent Hindu pujaris and mahants=20
were opposed to the Ram temple construction movement of the VHP. This=20
issue essentially exposed the designs of hindutva organizations by=20
carrying a number of material on the history of Ram Janam Bhumi-Babri=20
Masjid dispute, the efforts to seek a solution to the dispute,=20
stories of communal harmony, etc. Now we had never heard of any=20
banning of litrature which is ciculated by RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal=20
which spreads the poison of communal hatred. In the abovmentioned=20
paticular issue of Sachchi-Muchchi we had merely reported the facts=20
about Ayodhya without saying anything ourselves. Why then only=20
Sachchi-Muchchi was banned? Quite clearly the administration is=20
partisan. Rather than any action being taken against the organization=20
which attacked us in Pune, we are told that we, who were attacked,=20
have been banned. Inspite of my having given assurance to the=20
Faizabad district administration that we would fully cooperate with=20
him and would not let the law and order situation deteriorate, he=20
banned an internal meeting of our Alliance which was going to take=20
place indoor without any publicity and arrested us. One may enquire=20
from the district administrations of Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Pune,=20
Allahabad, Lucknow, Barabanki, Faizabad, etc., where we have had=20
encounters with them over the last 3-4 years, whether they have faced=20
any problems due to our behaviour? Inspite of this if the=20
administration constrains our activities instead of taking any action=20
against the organizations which have been the cause of violence and=20
disturbance, it goes to show that the administration under the BJP=20
rule has become a puppet in the hands of the hindutva organizations.=20
This bodes ill for the democratic values and democratic polity of our=20
country.

The manner in which the hindutva organizations have=20
started using violence as a political tool is dangerous for the=20
future of this society. It is a matter of shame for us and a blot on=20
our democracy that the VHP president Ashok Singhal terms Gujarat as a=20
laboratory and that after so much violence the Chief Minister=20
Narendra Modi takes out a =EBGaurav Yatra.=ED Some organizations in our=20
society, like the Naxalites and terrorists, are known to use violence=20
to achieve their objectives. It is also quite well known that most of=20
the political parties and candidates resort to using money and muscle=20
power to win elections. However, once an organization assumes=20
constitutional responsibility then the minimum that is expected of it=20
is that it=EDll play a fair role in maintaining the law and order=20
situation. In the history of democratic India we have never witnessed=20
a case where an elected government has allowed violence to go on for=20
such a long time and not intervened. Afterall, isn=EDt the experiment=20
in Gujarat all about inciting Hindu communal feelings which may be=20
converted into return to power for the BJP. This signals a threat to=20
the Indian democracy. As big a threat as was posed by Indira Gandhi=20
when she had clamped a state of emergency on India. Because the BJP=20
led government at the center, after the Gujarat incidents, has=20
decided to brazenly impose its agenda on the people of this country.=20
The alliance partners are maintaining surprise silence in such times=20
and the voice of dissent is either not being paid heed to or merely=20
being subdued.

The manner in which the Sangh Parivar has glorified=20
violence for establishing and maintaining a political hold, it has=20
posed a serious cultural challenge to the Indian society. In 1992=20
they exploited the sentiments of the Hindus of the country, brought=20
them to Ayodhya and got the Babri masjid demolished. In 1998 they=20
carried out the test for nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction=20
and claimed that it had enhanced the security of the country. They=20
honoured the scientist who created these weapons, which have the=20
capacity to kill lakhs at one go, first with Bharat Ratna and then=20
with the Presidentship of this country. Ashok Singhal described the=20
massacres of muslim and rape of their women in Gujarat as Hindu=20
awakening. To try to inject aggressiveness, by even inventing an=20
enemy if need be, into a culture which is known for its value of=20
tolerance and is not even alive but vibrant because a majority of its=20
people still continue to live in the original stream, is=20
self-destructing. The Hindu culture has never been aggressive. It has=20
never attacked any other culture. It has infact always welcomed any=20
external culture or person. The foreigners who came here to rule had=20
to ultimately leave. And this was made possible not because of=20
physical force but because of moral power of our society. If somebody=20
talks of awakening a civilization, which has had a long history of=20
tolerance and patience, by using violence it is not merely ridiculous=20
but also dangerous. These so-called hindutva organizations do not=20
even have any qualms about tampering with the Hindu religion for=20
attaining their political objectives. Imitating other fundamentalist=20
organizations they are projecting an aggressive image of Hindu=20
religion which also has a scope for breeding terrorism. The recent=20
statement of Bal Thackrey calling for formation of Hindu suicide=20
squads should be seen in this light. In their zeal to present an=20
aggressive image of the Hindu religion the hindutva organizations=20
have not even spared Lord Ram. The Maryada Purushottam who used to=20
epitomize the values of forgiveness and kindness and is known to use=20
weapons against adversaries only when all other means have failed,=20
and used to appear with his bow hung from his shoulder with wife Sita=20
and brother Laxman in popular photographs before the Ram temple=20
movement of the hindutva organizations was launched, is now being=20
repeatedly portrayed by these organizations in an aggressive posture=20
ready to shoot an arrow from his bow, for the last ten years. Is this=20
the Ram one would picture after going through the Ramayana or the Ram=20
Charit Manas? This is a deliberate distortion of the character of=20
Lord Ram and an affront to the Hindu religion. The larger Hindu=20
society should ask these so-called hindutva organizations as to who=20
has given them the right to play with the image of Hindu religion? In=20
the long cultural history of India it is probably for the first time=20
that to assert our cultural identity we have to invent an enemy=20
within, to counter whom we need the aggressive posture of Ram ready=20
to shoot his arrow from the bow, and after committing large scale=20
violence in Gujarat we claim that Hindus have been awakened and on=20
the other hand we have to invent an enemy outside for whom we have=20
made nuclear weapons and had to create a Abdul Kalam and repeatedly=20
try to prove that somehow our prestige has gone up because of=20
possessing this dangerous weapon. That we have to define our identity=20
against an enemy is something new in our cultural history. Now to=20
outdo our enemy we need to establish our hegemony and hence the=20
necessity to glorify violence at the abovementioned two levels. The=20
hindutva organizations have brought us to a point of insecurity from=20
where the way ahead is only full of violence and destruction.

The combination of Sangh Parivar shamelessly using=20
institutionalized violence as part of a parochial ideology to push=20
their political agenda and surfacing of its tyrannical tendencies is=20
a lethal one. If this =EBexperiment=ED is not urgently halted it could=20
become a threat to the existence of our country, society as well as=20
culture. From the three years=ED rule of the BJP it is quite clear that=20
the slogans of Sangh Parivar are quite hollow =F1 be it their concept=20
of =EBswadeshi=ED or Indian culture, patriotism or clean administration.=20
Since they have become the victim of opportunistic politics they=20
cannot be taken seriously any longer. But nobody had imagined that=20
for the sake of political power they will go to the extent of harming=20
the sovereignty of the nation, the social fabric and the basic values=20
of our culture. It has become necessary now to get rid of the Sangh=20
Parivar and the politics that it propagates. The people of the=20
country must unite for this purpose lest we=EDll have to pay a heavy=20
price for the activities of the Sangh Parivar.

_____

#6.

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002

SANGH PARIVAR SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE PEACE OF AYODHYA

"Equal respect for all religions has been Ayodhya=EDs=20
culture. This is the reason that important religious institutions of=20
Hindu, Islam, Jain, Baudh and Sikh religion are located here. Ayodhya=20
has been largely free from the communal tension seen in other parts=20
of the country. But some people want to convert Ayodhya into a place=20
of religious intolerance which the local sadhus, saints, maulvis,=20
fakirs, sufis and intellectuals are opposed to. The country can=20
progress only when there is harmony. The basic problems of the=20
country are starvation, poverty, unemployment and corruption. These=20
can be tackled only in an environment of peace and harmony. That is=20
why we have to oppose the forces responsible for creating religious=20
intolerance."

This statement has recently been collectively signed by a=20
number of Hindu saints, people=EDs representatives, organizations and=20
intellectuals of Ayodhya-Faizabad. Among the people who have signed=20
this statement include Sardar Mahendra Singh, Chairperson of the=20
Ayodhya Town Area, Acharya Satyendra Das, the head priest of Ram=20
Janam Bhumi, Mahant Gyan Das of Hanuman Gadhi, Mahant Kaushal Kishore=20
Sharan alias Phalahari Baba of Rajgopal Mandir, Corporators Maduwan=20
Das (of Ram Janam Bhumi ward), Anil Srivastava and Rajesh Kumar,=20
Sheetla Singh, Editor of popular local daily Jan Morcha, Khalik=20
Ahmed, Convenor of Helal Committee, Sadiq Ali of Ayodhya Muslim=20
Welfare Society, Gautam Kumar, President of Lord Buddha Club,=20
Faizabad and former M.P., Nirmal Khatri.

Why do the people of Ayodhya have to issue a statement=20
like this? Because they are fed up of Sangh Parivar organizations=20
using the Ram Janam Bhumi issue in Ayodhya for their political=20
purposes. They do not want the activists of VHP, in the name of Kar=20
Sewa and or Ram Sewa, to invade Ayodhya and disturb its peace.=20
=EBAyodhya=ED literally means a place free of any struggle. Ayodhya has a=20
long history of communal harmony. In 1992 the violence which took=20
place was done by Hindus who had come from outside for demolishing=20
the mosque. Inspite of Sangh Parivar=EDs sustained attempts to convert=20
the Babri Masjid-Ram Janam Bhuni dispute into a political one and=20
thereby vitiate the communal atmosphere, even this day there is a=20
ward in Ayodhya with a majority 80% Hindu population which elects a=20
Muslim Asad Ahmed as their Corporator. The Chairperson of the Ayodhya=20
town Area is a Sikh. Sangh Parivar has left no stone unturned to=20
spoil the communal atmosphere of Ayodhya but the people of Ayodhya=20
refuse to give up their culture of harmony. People from other parts=20
of the country need to learn from the Ayodhya example. We should not=20
allow organizations like VHP and Bajrang Dal to exploit our religious=20
sentiments. If we allow ourselves to be carried away by their=20
rhetoric then it will result in more hatred and violence. We have to=20
learn to be patient like the people of Ayodhya. It is quite shameful=20
that the Sangh Parivar has exploited a dispute in peaceful Ayodhya=20
for its political ends and spread communal hatred throughout the=20
country. The violence which took place in Gujarat was justied by=20
everybody in the Sangh Parivar including Atal Behari Vajpayee by=20
saying that it was a reaction to Godhra. But the crucial question is=20
why did Godhra take place? What was the need for VHP and Bajrang Dal=20
to invite their =EBRam Sewaks=ED to Ayodhya for the declared objective of=20
Ram temple construction when the court had not even delivered a=20
judgement in favour of construction of the temple and when the people=20
of Ayodhya-Faizabad do not welcome any outside intervention of this=20
nature which almost always results in long curfews imposed on Ayodhya=20
disturbing the normal routine life of its citizens? The behaviour of=20
the so-called Ram Sewaks in Sabarmati Express on 24th February, three=20
days before Godhra incident, with Muslims and vendors on the Railway=20
platforms was a blot in the name of Hindu religion and Lord Ram. In=20
fact, the kind of activities that these so-called Hindtuva=20
organizations indulge in are now creating a situation in which either=20
the larger liberal Hindu society will have to dissociate from them or=20
will have to boycott these organizations.

On 23rd June, 2002, a historic meeting took place in the=20
Bhagvatacharya Smarak Sadan of Ayodhya which was addressed by=20
prominent citizens like Mahant Gyan Das, Jagganath Das of Nirmohi=20
Akhara, Swami Haryacharya, Dharam Das, who not till long ago was with=20
the Ram Janam Bhuni Trust, Mohammed Yunus of Babri Masjid Action=20
Committee, Khalik Ahmed, Hashim Ansari and Mahendra Singh. Almost=20
everybody emphasized the need for preserving the communal harmony of=20
Ayodhya and declared that they were perfectly capable of solving the=20
Babri Masjid-Ram Janam Bhumi dispute on their own which in their=20
opinion was a local problem. Mahant Gyan Das announced the expulsion=20
of Ram Chandra Paramhans Das, the Mahant with a criminal background,=20
who is still supporting the VHP movement, from the community of=20
Sadhus and Sants of Ayodhya. Ashok Singhal was warned not to enter=20
Ayodhya and VHP was advised to stay out of the Ayodhya dispute. Two=20
days later the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh leaders of Ayodhya met in=20
Hanuman Gadhi and formed a =EBSarva Dharam Sambhav Parishad=ED and took=20
upon themselves the responsibility of finding a solution to the=20
Ayodhya dispute. This important development has exposed the VHP=EDs=20
design in which it has advertised to the entire world that it is the=20
sole authority which can construct a temple in Ayodhya.

The ground reality today is that if the VHP was not=20
offered protection by the local administration upon instructions from=20
the Prime Minister=EDs Office everytime, it cannot conduct any of its=20
programmes in Ayodhya. We saw on 15th March, 2002, the ridiculous=20
situation in which after the Shila Pujan none of the over 50 Mandirs=20
and Maths in Ayodhya were willing to keep the Shilas. The VHP took=20
advantage of the absence of Mahant of Dashrath Mahal and forcibly=20
kept the Shilas there. When Mahant Devendraprasadacharya returned=20
from his Chattisgarh visit he was quite furious and the Shilas had to=20
be handed over to a Government receiver called from New Delhi. Why=20
are the Hindu Mahants, Sadhus, Sants and local Hindu population=20
refusing to cooperate with the VHP=EDs temple construction exercise in=20
the name of their beloved Lord Ram? Because they are sick of the=20
politics behind the temple construction. The Hindu community of=20
Ayodhya is against the VHP=EDs Ram temple construction movement.

On top of it now the former Trustee of Ram Janam Bhumi=20
Trust, Dharam Das is accusing the VHP of embezzlement of funds.=20
According to him the VHP has not even deposited a large amount of=20
money in its account that it collected from Hindus all over the world=20
for the purpose of Ram temple construction. Their office bearers,=20
past and present, have invested it in various businesses. The VHP=20
has exploited the sentiments of gullible larger Hindu society and it=20
cannot be pardoned for this. The common Hindu has now understood the=20
game where the VHP starts talking about the temple issue whenever=20
some elections are around the corner and its actions result in=20
communal tension and violence. The common human being doesn=EDt like a=20
prolonged state of struggle and violence. He/she would like to live=20
in an environment of peace and harmony. People who have participated=20
in VHP=EDs earlier programmes in Ayodhya of mosque demolition exercise=20
or still want a Ram temple built in Ayodhya are no longer responding=20
to the calls given by VHP. This time on 15th March, the Shila Pujan=20
day, there was nobody from Ayodhay, Faizabad or even other parts of=20
UP. =EBRam Sewaks=ED had to be brought in from Rajasthan, Gujarat,=20
Maharashtra and far away places. When Ashok Singhal led a procession=20
in Ayodhya on 2nd June, 2002, upon completion of the Purnahuti Yagya,=20
there were hardly a hundred people following him. Even that would not=20
have been possible without the security provided by the=20
administration. VHP has been exposed in Ayodhya.

The VHP and Sangh Parivar have to realize that no organization=20
can sustain merely by resorting to hate campaigns, instilling fear in=20
the minds of people, creating trouble and violence. These means will=20
only encourage terrorism. The common people will sooner or later=20
reject such programmes. The Sangh Parivar should desist from=20
disturbing the peace of Ayodhya and the country.

By Sandeep
Address: A-893, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016, U.P.
Telephone: (0522) 347365
E-mail: ashaashram@y...

_____

The Telegraph
December 10, 2002

New enemy brings Gandhians back to the battlefield

BHARAT BHUSHAN
Vadodara, Dec. 9: A rare phenomenon of this election in Gujarat is=20
the political activism of the Gandhians. Used to shunning politics in=20
favour of =B3constructive action=B2 and some well past their sixties,=20
they have come together to oppose the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in=20
Gujarat, claiming that this is their aapad dharma (duty during a=20
crisis).

The Mahatma, the Gandhians say, believed that if only the differences=20
of caste and religion were set aside could India become a civilised=20
society. =B3They (the Hindutva forces) murdered Gandhi once and now=20
they are murdering what he stood for,=B2 they say.

The Gandhian activists are refusing to share a platform with the=20
Congress. Nonetheless, they are canvassing support for the Congress=20
by addressing small gatherings.

Chunibhai Vaidya, Indubhai Jani and Prakash Shah in Ahmedabad,=20
Narayan Desai in Vedachi, Jhinabhai Darji in Vyara, Govind Rawal in=20
Sabarkantha, Uttam Parmar in Keem, Bipin Desai in Surat and Jagdish=20
Shah in Vadodara and many others like them spread in different parts=20
of the state are busy advising people to exercise their franchise to=20
defeat the BJP.

They have created the Gujarat Lok Sangharsh Samiti for this purpose.=20
They bring out leaflets and have joined hands with several other=20
secular groups to educate the people about the socially disruptive=20
forces that Narendra Modi and the BJP represent. Indubhai Jani,=20
Prakash Shah, Jayendra Pandya, eminent journalist Diggant Oza and=20
former Communist Batuk Vora are addressing anti-BJP meetings in=20
Ahmedabad. Those in the regions are also doing their bit.

Narayan Desai is addressing political meetings of Congress rebels who=20
he thinks ought to win because they are honest and deserving of=20
victory. He has made them sign four pledges at a public meeting =8B=20
that if elected they will not support any communal political party in=20
the legislature; that they will declare their property and income on=20
election; that they would do so every year till they are in the=20
legislature; and that every three months they would come back to the=20
constituency to give an account of the legislative proceedings and=20
answer questions from the public. =B3Communalism and fascism is=20
something that we cannot accept,=B2 he says explaining his activism.

Jhinabhai Darji is the grand old man of the Congress who organised=20
the adivasis of south Gujarat but then left active politics. He is=20
out again campaigning for a rebel Congress candidate in Vyara and for=20
the Congress candidate against Narendra Modi in Maninagar.

Jagdishbhai Shah runs the Vinoba Ashram in Vadodara. He has also been=20
addressing informal meetings and advising his supporters to vote for=20
the Congress. =B3I tell them clearly to vote for the Congress as I do=20
not want the anti-BJP vote to be divided. The strongest Opposition=20
candidate should be given the vote and the Congress is the strongest.=B2

This is remarkable for someone who says that he often does not even=20
vote in the elections. =B3Vinoba used to say in Bengali that rajneeti=20
rakshsher shashtra (politics is the science of the demons). But we=20
came out against the personal dictatorship of Indira Gandhi during=20
the Emergency. Twenty-four years later we are being forced to give a=20
call to oust a political party because once again we consider it our=20
aapad dharma (duty during a crisis) to do so,=B2 Shah explains.

When the Gandhians met to discuss the situation among them, some=20
expressed the view that the BJP ought to lose this election. =B3It was=20
as if such a wish would come true on its own. But what prevailed was=20
the feeling that the BJP should be actively defeated. This required=20
using our political energy to do so,=B2 says Jagdishbhai Shah.

There were communal riots even during the Congress regime, Shah=20
admits, =B3but never before had a government and a party turned against=20
a community as the BJP has turned against the Muslims.=B2

=B3Is the language that Praveen Togadia and Narendra Modi use, the=20
language of dharma? Does Hinduism teach people to hate others and=20
indulge in violence against them? No. And people understand this.=20
That is why they will not get votes in the name of religion,=B2 he=20
declares.

How effective did he think the Gandhians were? =B3People know that we=20
have normally kept out of politics. That is perhaps why we retain=20
some influence in society. Besides lakhs of workers are engaged in=20
the khadi (handloom) industry, we run hostels for students. We have a=20
link with the community and we tell them what we think. What impact=20
do we have? That depends on the regard that people have for our=20
work,=B2 Shah explains.

_____

The Telegraph
Tuesday, December 10, 2002

HINDUTVA=B9S WILLING EXECUTIONERS

Sarmila Bose argues that like the Nazis, the sangh parivar seems to=20
have succeeded in harnessing deep-rooted communal prejudices for its=20
political project

Fair game
=B3Eight hundred fewer of them. So much the better.=B2 The IT=20
entrepreneur in Vadodara was referring to the official count of=20
Muslim dead in the post-Godhra Gujarat carnage. =B3Is wakt thoda zyada=20
ho gaya=B2, admitted the bank officer from Anand, =B3Lekin zaroorat thi.=B2=
=20
(=B3This time it was a little too much, but it was necessary.=B2) =B3They=20
are not like you and me,=B2 the woman MP from the ruling Bharatiya=20
Janata Party was emphatic, =B3They (the Muslims) want to be in camps=20
just for show.=B2 She was visiting women victims in refugee camps.=20
=B3=8Acertain kinds of dehumanizing beliefs about people, or the=20
attribution of extreme malevolence to them, are necessary and can be=20
sufficient to induce others to take part in the genocidal slaughter=20
of the dehumanized people, if they are given proper opportunity and=20
coordination, typically by a state.=B2 Such is the considered view of=20
Daniel Goldhagen in Hitler=B9s Willing Executioners, his seminal work=20
on ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. The parallels with ordinary=20
Hindus are disquieting.

Gujarat=B9s assembly election is meant to finally provide the answer to=20
the question, =B3Does killing innocent Muslims win votes in India?=B2 It=20
is a watershed moment in India=B9s history of democratic politics. The=20
last such moment in living memory was the national election of 1977,=20
which, ironically, addressed the question, =B3Is dictatorship=20
acceptable to the people of India?=B2 Then, as now, the answer was=20
going to impact the very foundations of India as a political entity.=20
Mercifully, despite longstanding huffing and puffing among Indian=20
urban elites about how all India needed to sort out its deep-seated=20
indiscipline and resultant failures was a dose of good old=20
authoritarianism, India=B9s dynastic dictatorship got turfed out by the=20
electorate and the country continued to muddle along the path of=20
democracy.

Another moment that comes to mind in conjunction with Gujarat 2002 is=20
Delhi 1984. However, in that instance the question of whether=20
slaughtering Sikhs gained votes in India was fudged by the=20
simultaneity of the =B3sympathy wave=B2 in the wake of Indira Gandhi=B9s=20
assassination. Perhaps it addressed a different question =8B =B3Does=20
slaughtering Sikhs earn its perpetrators electoral punishment?=B2 The=20
chilling answer was, =B3no=B2. It was an answer that also got lost in the=20
tidal wave of the Congress victory and in the rhetoric of falling=20
trees and shaking earth. We did nothing with the lesson it delivered,=20
that the Indian voter did not see it fit to punish the killers of=20
innocent citizens belonging to an identifiable minority group.

Narendra Modi and the media have together succeeded in personalizing=20
the battle in Gujarat to such an extent that we are in danger of=20
missing the woods for the =B3Modi-fication=B2. If Modi wins, it may be=20
victory for the politics of hate and mass murder. However, if Modi=20
loses, it would not signify a new dawn of liberal humanism in India.=20
The reality is that the BJP=B9s rise to power and Modi=B9s defiant=20
confidence both ride on the widespread and deep-rooted prejudice=20
against Muslims in the majority community in India, which has found=20
expression in the aggressive new Hindu nationalism promoted and=20
harnessed diligently by the sangh parivar. The entire political=20
discourse in India has shifted in the last two decades. Hindutva=20
politics has spawned a new consciousness, of which Modi is merely the=20
latest crude manifestation.

It has long been known that one merely needed to scratch the surface=20
of Hindu India to reveal =B3communal=B2 animosity towards Muslims. It is=20
hardly unique to Gujarat, being present in a fairly virulent form=20
among the educated middle classes in Bengal. Reference to Muslims by=20
derogatory slang is routine in Calcutta drawing-rooms. I recall a=20
sweet little aunt once explaining a typical appalling remark about=20
Muslims by complaining that Muslims were always doing everything in=20
opposition to Hindus =8B =B3We fold our hands in prayer, they open them=20
out=B2, she offered as example. While one-sided memories of past riots=20
are common, hers was typical of middle-class Hindu objection to the=20
mere fact of difference =8B Professor Higgins-like, =B3Why can=B9t they be=
=20
more like us?=B2

In Hitler=B9s Willing Executioners, Daniel Goldhagen writes of the=20
evolution of the =B3eliminationist=B2 ideology in Germany, that there too=20
=B3the revolution was primarily the transformation of consciousness=B2,=20
obtained without coercion. European anti-semitism had been a=20
=B3corollary of Christianity=B2 from the very beginning. The legacy of=20
the medieval period was one of profound hatred and attribution of all=20
malfeasance, though ultimately the church wanted not to kill Jews but=20
to convert them. Goldhagen shows how, in the 19th century, the entire=20
discourse about Jews was held within the cognitive model of the Jew=20
as different from the German, as the binary opposite of the German,=20
and not benignly different but malevolently so. Such views were not=20
restricted to anti-semite polemicists, but formed the dominant view=20
in society. Even =B3liberals=B2, who defended the Jews=B9 right of=20
residence, subscribed to this underlying model.

Just as the Jew was seen as a Fremdkoerper, an alien body within=20
Germany, so the sangh parivar=B9s conception of the Muslim as an alien=20
in India finds wide resonance. =B3Jews became conceived more as a=20
nation instead of a religious community=8Athe very notion of =8CGerman=B9=20
included in it a Christian element.=B2 Replace the terms with=20
=B3Muslims=B2, =B3Indian=B2, =B3Hindu=B2, and Goldhagen=B9s chilling accoun=
t of the=20
harnessing of deep-rooted prejudices for the Nazis=B9 political project=20
exhibits disquieting similarities, despite the many historical=20
differences.

Indeed, while Goldhagen contrasts other genocides with the Nazi=20
German one, his study also carries pointers to recognizing the signs=20
of the deadly process of dehumanization of =B3the other=B2 as an integral=20
part of an aggressive nationalist consciousness. The sangh parivar=20
has of course long found inspiration in Nazi ideology. It is the=20
response of ordinary Hindus that is now the crux of the matter.

Louder than the clamour of the national media during the Gujarat=20
carnage was the deafening silence of the absence of outrage in the=20
wider society. The indifference of the majority community was one of=20
the main differences of this round of violence observed by social=20
workers in Gujarat. This is why Father Moses of Citizens=B9 Initiative=20
said to me with a wry smile in the middle of the =B3troubles=B2, that=20
what Gujarat needed most in this crisis was not food, clothes or=20
funds, but =B3political opposition=B2. This is also why by =B3political=20
opposition=B2 one does not mean the Congress in Gujarat. It is the need=20
for a political movement to counter the Hindutva political movement.=20
But there is no sign of such a movement yet. Political opposition in=20
Gujarat has been reduced to Shankersinh Vaghela opposing Narendra=20
Modi =8B a case of BJP A-team versus BJP B-team. Pick a thorn with a=20
thorn, say some. Perhaps, but it leaves the contest as a =B3family=20
affair=B2.

=B3Had the Nazis been faced with a German populace who saw Jews as=20
ordinary human beings, and German Jews as their brothers and sisters,=20
then it is hard to imagine that the Nazis would have proceeded, or=20
would have been able to proceed, with the extermination of Jews=B2,=20
writes Goldhagen. Indeed, if the sangh parivar is faced with a Hindu=20
population that sees Muslims as ordinary human beings, and Indian=20
Muslims as their brothers and sisters, then it too will stop in its=20
track. The reality is different.

India today shadows Germany of the past, where =B3Even liberal=20
newspapers took to printing all manner of rumours and accusations=20
(against Jews)=8Aas if they had been proven facts=B2. =B3Also striking was=
=20
the frequent broaching of the topic of sexuality=8Aparticularly=20
charging the Jews with defiling unsuspecting German virgins.=B2 Very=20
few Germans defied the boycott of Jewish businesses. Rather, small=20
businesses, the medical and legal professions, universities, all=20
seemed eager to purge their institutions of Jewish influence. As in=20
Nazi Germany, once Muslims were seen as Vogelfrei =8B fair game =8B local=20
people joined willingly in their persecution. Like Germans, many=20
today abhor the public violence, the damage to business, but do not=20
challenge the fundamentals. As ordinary Germans even after=20
Kristallnacht, after the Gujarat carnage, ordinary Hindus failed to=20
exhibit outrage, while the perpetrators openly displayed their gaurav=20
(pride).

Where is the evidence, Goldhagen asks, of the later proposition that=20
the majority of Germans disapproved? India can show the evidence in=20
Gujarat. A close-run race will not suffice. Only a massive defeat for=20
the BJP, with a precipitous fall in vote share, would indicate a real=20
rejection of the eliminationist ideology of the sangh parivar. The=20
rejection, moreover, has to be based, not on concern for the=20
pocketbook, but on a profound moral revulsion for the politics of=20
persecution and murder.

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (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