[sacw] SACW #1 | 29 Dec. 02

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:59:32 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire #1 | 29 December 2002

__________________________

#1. How is Jinnah now seen in retrospect by historians? Claude Markovits
#2. Hindutva mobilization in Karnataka
#3. Protest to the Rajasthan Governor for compromising the secular=20
spirit of the Constitution
#4. Gujarat Congress: Same Old Chinks in It's Armor (Batuk Vora)

__________________________

#1.

DAWN
22 December 2002

EXCERPTS: Voice of the Muslim nation
By Claude Markovits

How is Jinnah now seen in retrospect by historians? Claude Markovits=20
gives an insightful analysis.
When detailed attention was paid to the question of Muslim separatism=20
by Indian historians, the dominant theme was that of missed=20
opportunities, of an outcome which had been the result of an=20
accumulation of human errors, rather than of structural factors. That=20
the use by the Congress, including by Gandhi, of Hindu symbols=20
facilitated the mobilization of Muslims by the Muslim League was a=20
point generally missed by Indian authors.
There were, however, dissenting voices, mostly outside academics:=20
some Marxists, taking a leaf from CPI ideologue Adikhari's synthesis=20
of Stalin and Jinnah, and influenced by W. Cantwell Smith's views,=20
believed the Pakistan movement was a genuine bourgeois nationalist=20
movement; on the other hand, those who were close to a Hindu=20
nationalist point of view saw in it the continuation of a deep-seated=20
Muslim conspiracy against Hinduism and Mother India.
For the left-leaning 'secular' historians who dominated the field in=20
India in the 1970s and 1980s, there was, however, an added element:=20
Muslim communalism, far from being either an authentic bourgeois=20
movement or the mere result of an imperialist conspiracy, was an=20
expression of false consciousness and basically reflected the class=20
hegemony exercised over the Muslim masses by a narrow elite of landed=20
magnates and big traders who feared that the development of a unitary=20
mass movement of Hindu and Muslim peasants and workers would endanger=20
their material interests.
Sumit Sarkar, in his authoritative Modern India, tended to take this=20
view and to dismiss the League's claim to represent the entire Muslim=20
community. But to these authors also, the Pakistan movement and=20
partition were a diversion from the main struggle against=20
imperialism. They seemed to think that it was the weakness of the=20
Left in India which had allowed the diversionary forces of=20
communalism to move in.
What I want to stress, however, is that, in spite of wide differences=20
of opinion between Indian and Pakistani historians, and even within=20
the academic communities of each country, a kind of basic consensus=20
could be identified, around a few key points, such as the crucial=20
role given to the dynamics of Muslim politics and to Jinnah's=20
personal intervention.In 1983, R.J. Moore, an Australian historian,=20
could still write: "In an age sceptical of the historic role of great=20
men there is universal agreement that Jinnah was central to the=20
Muslim League's emergence after 1937 as the voice of a Muslim nation;=20
to its articulation in March 1940 of the Pakistan demand for separate=20
statehood for the Muslim majority provinces of north-western and=20
eastern India; and to its achievement in August 1947 of the separate=20
but truncated state of Pakistan by the partition of India."
The emphasis in Pakistan on Jinnah's historical role had nothing=20
surprising about it, but even in Indian accounts he occupied a=20
prominent place. Apart from divergent appreciation on the personality=20
of Jinnah, there was a high degree of consensus on the fact that the=20
creation of Pakistan as a separate state was basically his work, even=20
if the idea of Pakistan was known to be somebody else's brainchild=20
(and here accounts diverged, some singling out Iqbal, others Chaudhri=20
Rahmat Ali). A Pakistani historian expressed a widely-held view when=20
he stated:
"After March 1940, Jinnah's course became clear. The Muslim League=20
had adopted the conferment of independent status on contiguous Muslim=20
majority areas, i.e., Pakistan, as its goal, and he strove for its=20
achievement with the same tenacity of purpose and single-mindedness=20
with which, some years earlier, he had pursued his dream of=20
Hindu-Muslim unity. All his efforts after that day, his interviews,=20
his speeches, his negotiations, and his strategic moves were inspired=20
by one idea - to achieve this end."
By contrast with Jinnah's relentless pursuit of a definite goal, all=20
other actors, be they British statesmen or Congress leaders, appeared=20
to have been fumbling, unclear about the objectives they sought. In=20
particular, the role of the Congress was seen as largely reactive.=20
Although Pakistani indictments of Nehru's intransigent attitude=20
towards the Muslim League at the time of the formation of the=20
Congress provincial governments in 1937 were not totally without=20
echoes in India (and received partial confirmation from the=20
publication in 1988 of the expunged passages in Maulana Abul Kalam=20
Azad's memoirs, India wins freedom, first published in 1958), nobody=20
in India dared yet blame Nehru for the increasing gap which opened up=20
between the Congress and the League after 1937.
In Pakistan, a lot of criticism was also directed at Sardar Patel,=20
whose strong hostility to the Muslim League got particular notice.=20
Indian historians were not at ease with the attitude of the Congress=20
leadership in 1947, particularly with the open divide between Gandhi=20
on the one hand, and Nehru and Patel on the other, but by=20
concentrating heavily on Jinnah, they managed to largely avoid the=20
issue.
The part played by the British was one of the most controversial=20
points. Both Pakistani and Indian authors were very critical of=20
British attitudes and policies, but they directed their criticisms at=20
different aspects. Indian authors, taking a long-term view, stressed=20
the fateful consequences of the 'divide and rule' policy followed by=20
the Raj and in particular of the institution of separate electorates=20
in the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909. But they did not gloss much over=20
Mountbatten's crucial role in expediting things.
Pakistani historians, wary of recalling the Muslim League's friendly=20
attitude to the British between 1940 and 1946, preferred on the one=20
hand to evoke the role of Muslims in the 1857 uprising and on the=20
other hand to concentrate on the attitude of Mountbatten at the time=20
of partition and on his indubitable pro-Congress bias. While=20
Mountbatten was generally acknowledged as the midwife of the=20
partition (Jinnah being its putative father), he nevertheless got a=20
better press in India than in Pakistan.
This appears paradoxical, but can be explained in part by the=20
adversarial relationship he had with Jinnah during the last=20
negotiations which led to the actual partition of the Indian Empire.=20
Some also stressed the crucial role played by V.P. Menon, Patel's=20
close adviser, in framing the actual partition plan.
But beyond the endless squabbles about precise responsibilities,=20
there was a deeper consensus between Indian and Pakistani historians=20
about the fact that the division of British India was the result of=20
the growth of a specific political movement amongst the Muslims of=20
the subcontinent. Whether labelled as Muslim 'nationalism' by=20
Pakistani authors, or by Indian authors as 'communalism',=20
'separatism' being interestingly used both by supporters and=20
adversaries of the movement, the fact is that Muslim political self=20
assertion was seen as the key factor in the whole chain of events.
Divergences existed as to the causes but not as to the fact.=20
Pakistani historians, trying to give substance to the 'two nation=20
theory' formulated by Jinnah, sought to muster all possible evidence=20
on the existence over a long period of a sense of cultural and=20
political separateness among India's Muslims. Indian historians, less=20
preoccupied with cultural arguments beyond general statements about=20
the existence of a 'composite' culture in the subcontinent, preferred=20
to locate the origins of Muslim 'separatism' in the machinations of a=20
Raj on the decline, a position which was supported by a lot of the=20
evidence available.
Outside the subcontinent, the few historians who dared tackle the=20
Pakistan movement and the partition, being less preoccupied with=20
matters of state and of political legitimacy, focused particularly on=20
the role played by religion.
Some, of whom Paul Brass was the most outspoken, stressed how=20
religion had been instrumentalized by elites, both Hindu and Muslim;=20
to give legitimation to a fight over positions and power, especially=20
in the context of Northern India. Others, while taking more seriously=20
the claim of a struggle for Islam raised by the Muslim League,=20
stressed the existence of a complex combination of factor.
* * * * *
Paradoxically, it was from within this elitist historiography that=20
the most effective challenge came. Although (Ayesha) Jalal's=20
preoccupations were strictly with the haute politique of the=20
partition, her iconoclastic study of Jinnah helped nail the coffin on=20
the elitist historiographical project. Jalal located herself firmly=20
in the camp of those who took the view that, in the story of the=20
Pakistan movement, religion had been instrumentalized.
She concentrated entirely on Jinnah's political activities, paying=20
little attention to his attitude towards religion, which remains a=20
very controversial subject, particularly in Pakistan, and more=20
generally to the question of his 'Muslimness'. Her considerable=20
critical faculties, supported by a great deal of research in still=20
partly closed archives, helped her make hash, in particular, of the=20
widely held and somewhat self-evident notion that Partition was=20
Jinnah's original goal.
Jalal argued that Jinnah was actually aiming at a federal India in=20
which the League would have shared power with the Congress, and that=20
it was the frustration of that aim which led him to accept partition=20
as the only way to avoid Hindu domination over the whole of undivided=20
India. Jalal put the onus of partition squarely on the refusal by the=20
Congress, with British implicit support, to make the concessions=20
which could have satisfied Jinnah's demands.
Jalal's book got a mixed critical response, but it undoubtedly helped=20
change the terms of the debate. Both Pakistani and Indian historians=20
saw some of their most cherished myths challenged. Jinnah, although=20
portrayed rather sympathetically, was shown as having had feet of=20
clay. He had often miscalculated, had relied too much on the British=20
remaining as arbiters, and when faced with the evidence of their=20
decision to depart quickly, had seen his weakness exposed.
This had led him, the most constitutionalist of all Indian=20
politicians, to go for 'mass action', an exercise for which he had no=20
skill, and in which he was outmanoeuvred by the wily Suhrawardy,=20
whose intervention at the time of the great Calcutta killings had had=20
disastrous consequences. Eventually, he had been forced to accept in=20
1947 the 'moth-eaten' Pakistan, from which East Punjab and West=20
Bengal had been carved out, that he had so contemptuously rejected in=20
July 1944 on the eve of his inconclusive conversations with=20
Gandhi.Jalal's Jinnah was not the supreme politician of earlier=20
accounts, but a man who had gambled and partly failed and had no=20
choice but to collect his gains to avoid complete defeat. He had to=20
constantly battle on three fronts, against regional Muslim leaders=20
pursuing their own agendas, against the Congress leadership, and=20
against the British, in particular the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten,=20
and in spite of his considerable intellectual powers, had not always=20
proved equal to the task.
But, if Jinnah came out somewhat diminished from Jalal's account, as=20
a tragic and pathetic figure, the Congress leaders, including Gandhi,=20
emerged in a frankly unfavourable light. Jalal's view was that they=20
were the ones who had actually chosen partition by their refusal to=20
accept the prospect of a diminished centre, which alone could have=20
been the basis of a compromise with the Muslim League. By lashing out=20
equally at all the major actors (Mountbatten was not better treated=20
by her), Jalal helped discredit the approach 'from above' which had=20
dominated the field in the previous period.
Claude Markovits is senior fellow, Centre for the Study of India and=20
South Asia, Paris.
Soofia Mumtaz is chief of research, Pakistan Institute of Development=20
Economics, Islamabad.
Jean-Luc Racine is senior fellow, Centre for the Study of India and=20
South Asia, Paris.
Imran Anwar Ali is Dean, Lahore University of Management Sciences.
The Preface, a lengthy Introduction and 13 papers in this volume were=20
prepared for a Pakistan-French seminar in Paris. They focus on=20
diverse issues pertaining to Pakistan. These include the=20
historiography of partition, the ongoing sectarian and ethnic strife,=20
the constricted role of political parties, the women's movement,=20
economic strategies, and relations with Afghanistan and India.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted with permission from Pakistan: the contours of state and society
Edited by Soofia Mumtaz, Jean-Luc Racine and Imran Anwar Ali
Oxford University Press, 5 Bangalore Town, Sharae Faisal, Karachi-75350
Tel: 021-4529025.
Email: ouppak@t...
ISBN 0-19-579780-9
275pp. Rs425

_____

#2.

28 Dec 2002

Dear all,
Most of us have probably seen this email before, but=20
given the urgency of the issue we believe it is vital that this be=20
taken up on a wide scale. As a first step, please send emails to=20
<mailto:cm@k...>cm@k... protesting this mobilization and=20
asking that he take action to stop this.
Thanks
Shankar
State Office
PUCL (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry)

Dear friends,
The campaign for the 29th december souharda samavesha at chikmagalur has
started. It started simultaneously at various places in the state, like
Bangalore, Davangere, Chikmagalur. The response that we have getting from
various sections of the society has been very encouraging everywhere. In
fact, Janavahini, the kannada daily, has started a column which will carry
responses and articles in favour of the convention.

However, the response from the local administration has been very
alarming. In Chikmagalur, the local police initially refused to give
permission for the programme to launch the campaign in the district.
Also, they said that the covention will have to be postponed by 15 days as
the convention will be "provocative". After a lot of dialogue, the police
gave the permission for the inaugaration of the campaign in the district.
It was held on Monday, 23rd December.

Today, a senior police officer in the SP office at Chikmagalur said that
our procession will not be allowed on 29th December since some miscreants
may misuse this procession to create provocation. Later when our
delegation met the District Commissioner, he also reiterated the same
thing - only the convention will be allowed, no procession.

Compare this with the following -
The Sangh Parivar didn't follow any instructions of the police, district
administration or the administrative council of the babaubudangiri
dattatreya peetha, during the recent Datta Jayanti celebrations. They
conducted 'shobha yatra', used crackers during the procession, conducted a
public meeting at Bababudangiri on the Datta Jayanthi day in which many of
sangh parivar people spoke and all along used highly provocative slogans,
banners, statements. And all these were 'officially restricted'. In fact,
the local MLA & minister Sagir Ahmed gave a statement to the press
regarding the violation of law by the Sangh Parivar. On the day of Datta
Jayanthi, Praveen Togadia, VHP's international general secretary made the
statement "Datta Peetha is Karnataka's Ayodhya"(Times of India, Dec 20).
His speech at the public meeting was highly provocative. Pramod Mutalik
(South India Bajrang Dal chief) and Sunil Kumar (Karnataka Bajrang Dal
chief) made equally provocative speeches during the meeting. Although the
state government is currently saying that it is considering the ban of
Praveen Togadia's entry to the state, during his presence here, Togadia
was provided with VVIP security. Also, many members of the district
administration took part in the 'shobha yatra'.

The local administration today is trying to put all sorts of hurdles in
the way of a convention that wishes to keep intact the communal harmony.
On the contrary, it went all out to see that the Sangh Parivar drama went
on without a hitch. Is this what we expect from the administartion ?

The Sangh Parivar has already started to obstruct our campaign. On Monday,
in Mudigere, a taluk center in Chikmagalur, few young men in the leadrship
of local BJP leader Prashanth picked up a quarrel with our campaign team.
Their argument was 'you are blaming only Hindus and are in favour of
Muslims'. Our stand was clarified, but they continue to argue. A sub
inspector arrived there asked the 'campaign team' to report to the police
station and give their addresses. Just imagine ! Our team, howerver,
decided to continue their campaign and also decided that they will be
meeting the police later.

We request all of you to write to the Chief Minister of Karnataka,
(cm@k...) condemning the attitude of the state government and also
urging him to allow the convention & its campaign continue unhampered.

We will continue sending you the updates. Please pass this information to
all your friends.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Bababudangiri Souharda Samavesha Co-ordination Committee

_____

#3.

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:14:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Neelabh Mishra
Subject: Re: [india-rights] Hindutva mobilization in Karnataka

Dear friends,

After winning elections in Gujarat the saffron brigade
has its eyes on Rajasthan. The tactic of silencing all
dissent by carrying out a misinformation campaign has
already started in Rajasthan and this time we are the
target. In the name of raising funds for the drought
affected the Governor of Rajasthan has decided to hold
a ram katha by Morari Bapu. Posters and cut outs of
Morari Bapu and the Governor too, announcing the event
as a Rajbhawan sponsored event have flooded the city.
Since some of us took up this matter opposing the
association of the Constitutional Office of the
Governor with a public religious function as violative
of the secular nature of the Constitution, the entire
local Hindi press has gone to town misinforming the
people that we are opposing ramkatha itself. Of course
the usual groups, Shiv Sena, VHP and the state BJP
have all announced programmes against us, which
includes the burning of our effigies, dharna against
us and threats of attacking some of us personally. We
are sending you a brief fact sheet of what is
happening and we feel that the time has come to plan
for Rajasthan.As of now, we want you to e mail your
protest to the Rajasthan Governor for compromising the
secular spirit of the Constitution.

Please e-mail it to: Anshuman Singh, Governor,
Rajasthan, at governor@r...

Regards

Kavita, Neelabh, Prem Krishan, Sri Prakash, Mamta and
Ashish

Fact sheet on Rajasthan Governor's Ramkatha

o Rajasthan Governor Anshuman Singh announced in the
first week of December, 2002 his intention to organise
a Ramkatha ( Recital of Lord Rama's story) by godman
Murari Bapu in Jaipur from Jan.4 to Jan. 12, 2003 in
aid of Rajasthan's drought hit people.
o Dec. 10, 2002 onwards Jaipur is flooded with
posters, banners and cutouts announcing the upcoming
Ramkatha event being organised by the Governor. They
clearly say that Morari Bapu's Ramkatha is being
organised by the 'Rajbhavan'. Some of these posters
show the map of Rajasthan, painted in saffron,
enclosing Governor Anshuman Singh's photograph within
it. Some of the cutouts show Ram, Hanuman and Murari
Bapu blessing governor Anshuman Singh. Big
advertisements start appearing in local newspapers
announcing the Rajbhavan's intention to hold Morari
Bapu's Ramkatha.
o In the 2nd fortnight of December, The Governor's
Secretary VS Singh releases a giant balloon to
publicise the upcoming event. Publicity on the city
walls and in the newspapers intensifies after Dec. 20.
The district collector and other government officials
start supervising the arrangements for the upcoming
event.

Objection by the PUCL and Other Secular Organisations
=20=20=20=20

o On Dec 22, 2002 the Rajasthan unit of the People's
Union for Civil Liberties and 10 other secular
organisations write to the President of India,
Governor Anshuman Singh himself, the Prime Minister of
India and the Chief Minister of Rajasthan protesting
against Governor Anshuman Singh's action on the ground
that it compromises the secular character of the
Constitution and the republic that it enshrines. The
letter argued that a secular State can not hold or
sponsor a public religious function. The Governor's is
a constitutional office and the governor holding a
public religious function tantamounts to the religious
function being sponsored by the State itself. The
letter made it clear that the organisations concerned
were neither opposing Lord Rama, nor the Ramkatha or
Morari Bapu. They were just objecting to the
constitutional office of the Governor being associated
with a public religious function. The letter also
expressed the apprehension that the Governor's action
would only add to the saffronisation of public
discourse fostered by the belligerent Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh family in the wake of the Ayodhya
agitation and the Gujarat events. The letter exhorted
the Governor to be serious about the drought
prevailing in the state and raise funds for drought
relief through either an appeal to the people or
through a Padyatra and not through gimmicks like a
Ramkatha on which lakhs of Rupees were being spent in
the time of drought. These organisations also released
their letter to the press.
o In the next couple of days, the press, especially
the local dailies like the Hindustan Times, the
Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Bhaskar, carries the
objection of these organisations and also the
Governor's reply. The Indian Express also brings to
light the fact that CP Joshi, a senior minister in
Rajasthan's Congress government, is also closely
associated with one of the organisers of the event.To
the Indian Express correspondent, Joshi admits his
association with the event and sees nothing wrong in
it.

The Governor's Stand=20=20

The Governor justified his action on the following
grounds:
o His motive was philanthropic.
o The state exchequer was not bearing the cost of the
event (a questionable assertion).
o Nobody objected when the Rajbhavan organised events
like Iftar parties, Id milan, Quawwali (a musical
genre), mushaira ( poetry recital function) or an all
religion poet's gathering.
o He was even prepared to organise a bible reading
session or a biblical sermon for charity.

Reply to the Governor=20
=20=20=20=20=20
The objecting organisations sent a press release to
the newspapers replying to the Governor as follows:
o The motive of philanthropy did not justify the
constitutional impropriety of a Constitutional
authority sponsoring a public religious function
thereby compromising the secular character of the
Constitution, so clearly spelled out in its Preamble.
o Even if the public exchequer was not bearing the
cost of the event ( though informed sources hold
otherwise), it did not belittle the significance of
the public proclamation that the Governor, a
Constitutional authority, was sponsoring a religious
event. The objection is to the constitutional
impropriety of this public act.
o Festivals like Diwali, Holi, Dussehra, Id or
Christmas, despite their religious base, are
traditional cultural manifestations of people's
lifecycle. Therefore, Holi-Diwali-Dussehra-Id milans
or Iftar and Christmas parties are expressions of
people to people cultural exchange. Similarly, musical
concerts =F1 call them quawwalis or Khayal or Dhrupad or
whatever =F1 and poetry recitals (mushairas or kavi
sammelans) are cultural events and not religious like
Ramkatha or Iztama. By trying to equate cultural and
religious events, the Governor was deliberately trying
to blur the issue and mischievously play a communal
card.
o Organising a public religious event - not a private
one - remains improper for a Constitutional authority
- be it a Ramkatha or a biblical sermon.

Reaction to the Debate and the Role of the local Hindi
Press=20=20=20

Organisations of the saffron family and local Hindi
newspapers launched a campaign of slander and
vilification against the organisations that had
objected to the Governor's action, especially the
People's Union for Civil Liberties. Organisations like
the BJP, the Shiv Sena, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad etc.
slandered the objectors as opponents of Ramkatha and
Lord Rama, deliberating the fact the objectors had
objected to the Governor's act and not Ram, Ramkatha
or Morari Bapu. Dainik Bhaskar, a prominent local
Hindi Daily, devoted very large column spaces to their
outbursts. It even put out a screaming headline saying
"Supporters of Traitors are opposing Ramkatha". This
expression 'supporters of traitors', as the intro of
the news report spelled out, referred to the fact that
the PUCL was opposed to the draconian and anti
democratic POTA. The news item intro cleverly twisted
this to make the false argument that by opposing POTA,
the PUCL became a supporter of terrorism. It also
cleverly twisted PUCL's opposition to death penalty in
general to an attempt to save terrorists from death
sentence. The news item then went on to elicit
reactions from a person each from the Christian,
Muslim, Hindu (this included a prominent VHP leader)
and Sikh communities to denounce the PUCL's so called
'opposition to Ramkatha' and 'support for terrorism'.

Though the other prominent local Hindi daily did not
go to this manipulative extent, it too devoted umpteen
times more column space to saffron organisations
denouncing the so called 'opponents of Ram and
Ramkatha', than to the original objections to the
Governor's action which had not got more than three or
four lines in the briefs column. The other big local
Hindi dailies followed more or less the same pattern.
As for the saffron organisations, they went to town
announcing their plans for dharna against objecting
organisations and burning their effigies. Senior BJP
leaders like Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi, a former
minister and Kalicharan Sarraf, its state Vice
President, added their prominent voices to this
cacophony day in and day out, demanding inquiry
against the objecting organisation, especially PUCL.

_____

#3.

Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 05:49:04 +0000
Special to Mainstream...

GUJARAT CONGRESS: SAME OLD CHINKS IN IT'S ARMOR
By Batuk Vora

-Riding on its high pedestal on an elephant, as usual, ruling out=20
any coalition or understanding with other like minded parties or=20
persons and refusing to listen to any advice offered by the non-party=20
intellectuals and veteran secular activists during the election=20
period, Gujarat Congress (GPCC) miserably failed to correctly=20
evaluate the situation, meet the challenge frontally and defeat the=20
fascist forces.

It perhaps even now thinks of itself as born to rule without=20
compromise with any of its traditional planks. In reality, it is time=20
for it to be reborn. Power in 14 states and a wishful thinking of=20
extending it to all other states and the Centre without any dynamic=20
change in its organizational or political pattern ditched it in=20
Gujarat. They could never visualize Gujarat middle class and even OBC=20
in an absolutely new mode of behaviour. Congress was insistently=20
painted as a pro-muslim and anti-Hindu party. Soniaji did describe=20
such a campaign as 'venomous' but could not counter it without=20
diluting its commitment to secularism.

Shankersingh Vaghela?s evaluation of the defeat vindicates such a=20
weakness. He says ?It was most unexpected for us that an undercurrent=20
of fear and insecurity had gripped the minds of at least 15 to 20% of=20
fence-sitting voters who perhaps came out to vote for BJP at the last=20
moment. It was entirely due to a fear psychosis spread through=20
deceitful tricks and lies about Muslims allegedly out to destroy=20
Hindus that the Sangh Parivar won 'No other factor could explain our=20
defeat'.

When asked whether an advertisement issued within last two days by=20
one muslim Baba Saheb appealing all the muslim voters to come out in=20
hundred percent to vote for the Congress had boomeranged, Vaghela=20
said "no, I don't believe in such a conclusion. Same Baba had come=20
out in favour of the BJP leader Keshubhai Patel in the 1998 election,=20
having his protograph taken with the latter." There are people in=20
Gujarat who blame BJP for manufacturing such a 'dirty trap' for Hindu=20
voters.

But the non-Congress secular forces - NGOs, Sarvodayaites and liberal=20
or leftist elements who rallied consciously or inadvertently behind=20
the Congress (GPCC)- as an only alternative available in a given=20
situation- to fight the Sangh Parivar are found to be highly=20
distraught at GPCC for either not adopting a correct strategy or for=20
showing its terrible faction-ridden character during the elections.

"We found the GPCC rather hopelessly dithered in facing the fascist=20
forces", summed up Chunibhai Vaidya, one of the veteral Gandhians,=20
leading an independent body of NGOs and Sarvodyaites called Lok=20
Sangharsha Samiti which laid down a one point agenda to 'remove the=20
BJP from power' and which picked up the Sangh Parivar gauntlet on an=20
ideological plane. No surprise, it was the English media and those=20
secular forces of Gujarat who became second target of the Sangh=20
Parivar after the minorities as 'pseudo secular enemies of Hindus'.

We come back to the Congress party. Obviously, Vaghela is wrong in=20
blaming only the 'undercurrent of Hindutva' for the Congress defeat.=20
He would not say this in public, but it is no secret that GPCC was=20
ridden into four clearly visible factions, despite his claim that all=20
factions had forged unity. Factions are led by Madhavsingh Solanki,=20
Amarsingh Chaudhary, Shankersingh Vaghela and Urmila Patel.=20
Nomination of appropriate candidates was the first test of their=20
unity. High Command was at its authority best to keep the flock=20
together and nominate the best of the lot. But they failed in this=20
task on more than two dozen crucial seats.

But it would be better for them now at least to confess that the=20
factions played disastrous role. High Command failed in its job to=20
completely overrule pressures and counter-pressures from money bags=20
and factional heads. At least a dozen rebel candidates filed their=20
nomination forms against official ones.

Vaghela is believed to have snatched tickets for his loyal followers,=20
including his son Mahendrasingh, totally new to politics. At least 8=20
of them were ministers of his cabinet during his rule. Amarsingh=20
Chaudhary got 31 of his men chosen, including his son- who was too=20
new to politics. Urmila Patel got her share with 15 and Madhavsingh=20
with 20.

Quite a few of Madhavsingh men who were refused, worked openly or=20
secretly against the official candidates in Rajkot, Junagadh,=20
Porbandar districts of Saurashtra. Quite a few sitting MLAs, in=20
Mandvi (Surat district) and Vyara were rejected just because of the=20
faction-factor. Question of choosing of candidates exposed its=20
undemocratic character. No importance was given to many of those who=20
commanded a following of cadres, so much so that in majority of=20
seats, Congress poorly lagged behind Sangh Parivar in trained cadres.

Vaghela says no other third party commanded any strength in Gujarat=20
for them to be equal partner of the Congress. It is true, a party=20
formed at the last moment by such veteran old congress-socialist war=20
horses as Sanat Mehta and Chhabildas Mehta, failed to garner any=20
respectable vote for their Nationalist Congress Party despite=20
fielding 79 candidates out of 182 " mainly because of a scenario of=20
two elephants clashing against each other and no third force even=20
visible to share their battle, NCP did manage to divide the Congress=20
votes on as many as 18 seats where the BJP could have been trounced=20
if their votes were added to the Congress." At no point of time,=20
neither at the top or at state level the Congress came out to share a=20
few seats with NCP ' All their declarations to that effect were fake=20
and deceptive' bitterly complained Sanat Mehta.

Even a couple of seats for independent public figures such as Prof.=20
Bandukwala at Vadodara or Prakash Shah ( of Movement for Secular=20
Democracy) at Ahmedabad were not spared by the Congress. This was a=20
part of its miserable failure to build a strong secular force to=20
fight the BJP.

Secondly, right or wrong, a large section of Hindu middle class=20
voters were led to believe that the Congress viewed minorities as=20
more equal than the majority. Such a feeling was built up over the=20
years, without any grassroots ideological training to the Congress=20
mass following. Congress could not properly mobilize its vast network=20
of rural power ? 80% of panchayats, 70% of taluka and district=20
panchayat membership ? as a solid fighting machine. Unlike Sangh=20
Parivar cadres, Congressmen hardly work in peace time for the=20
downtrodden masses with a mission.

Building a second line of leadership at state level instead of=20
imposing some leader from outside and leaving all the vital=20
organizational matters to High Command's power became a bane for the=20
party. It could face the same downfall in other states ripe for=20
elections, if it did not make some drastic change to its mode of=20
functioning.

Congress president Soniaji herself was put to an acid test in=20
Gujarat, looking at a virulently hostile propaganda unleashed=20
personally against her origin. Had she visited Gujarat soon after the=20
burning alive of Congress's former MP Ehsan Jafri, picked up a battle=20
for civil rights and justice during all those dark months, Congress=20
perhaps could have effectively countered the wild card of Hindutva.

Instead, it remained largely confused, silent, inactive during those=20
months of carnage, so much so that large mass of people outside=20
non-riot regions remained unaware of the carnage truth or inhuman=20
slaughtering of innocent men, women and children in carnage hit=20
areas. Modi was entirely in the docks at that time.

The perception of the Hindus as Hindu was a complex one caused not=20
only by the loss of power of upper castes, but by the chaotic=20
urbanization, growth of a lumpen class of migrants in every city and=20
town ready to be used by any kind of politics (like what Shiv Sena=20
did in Mumbai).

"I am sure a time is coming fast in Gujarat now for such a politics=20
when a few gangs and groups of Gujarati youth would exactly follow=20
the Shiv Sena mode of extortions and compulsory collections of funds=20
in the name of Rama and Ganesh in every nook and corner of the state"=20
remarked Prof. Siddharth Bhatt, a veteran academician and political=20
observer.

Sadly, no Congress programme could match such a poisonous, militant,=20
terrorist or fascist functioning of the Sangh Parivar cadres. A=20
number of journalists writing for the English media received vulgar=20
and threatening letters even after the carnage period. Modi himself=20
once openly threatened 'pseudo secular' elements by saying 'I am=20
going to count each one of them and take appropriate revenge if I am=20
returned to power.'

In short, Congress will have to keep its flock united at all time to=20
come, to keep them battle ready, will have to condemn acts of=20
terrorism indulged in by misguided muslims. In a polarized situation,=20
it will have to move away from a secular versus communal formulation,=20
which immensely benefited the BJP. It will have to reorient the=20
entire struggle not for just power, but for civil rights and justice.=20
Soniaji herself will have to emerge more as a grassroots fighter than=20
a person sitting in a high dome commanding all her subordinates. THE=20
END

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

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