[sacw] SACW #1 | 6 Sept. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #1 | 6 September 2002

__________________________

#1. 2002 Erwin Fischer Award for Taslima Nasrin
#2. Speech By Urvashi Butalia at 50 year IHEU, Anniversary Congress 2002
#3. Politics, Value-Oriented, Not Power-Oriented (Asghar Ali Engineer)
#4. Knowing the world through science (M V Ramana)

__________________________

#1.

http://www.ibka.org/

2002 Erwin Fischer Award for Taslima Nasrin

IBKA (International League of Non-Religious and Atheists ) will award=20
the Erwin Fischer Award for the third time on September 21st 2002,=20
20:00 at Jugendg=E4stehaus Speyer, Geibstr. 5. This year's award winner=20
is the writer Taslima Nasrin

The Erwin Fischer Award was established by the "Internationaler Bund=20
der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten e.V. (IBKA)" in memory of the=20
lawyer Erwin Fischer who always acted in favour of a separation of=20
church and state. With this award the IBKA intends to honour persons=20
who gained merits by fighting for the freedom of one's vision of the=20
world and for the separation of state and church, who supported=20
reasonable thinking and who informed about the nature, function,=20
structures and claims to power of religions.

______

#2.

50 year IHEU, Anniversary Congress 2002

SPEECH BY URVASHI BUTALIA
Noordwijkerhout [The Netherlands], 4 July 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honoured to be here and to be asked to deliver this keynote=20
address at this very important conference. I'd like to begin by=20
thanking the organizers for inviting me, and all of you for being=20
here. I had no idea that there were so many humanists, or that so=20
many of them were Indian.
I come to you from a country that has just been on the brink of war -=20
not just what is called a 'conventional' war but a nuclear war, one=20
that - had it taken place - would have destroyed an estimated 20=20
million people, and would have left future generations to carry the=20
burden of pain and suffering, the anguish and loss such violence=20
unleashes.

India and Pakistan, the two countries whose armies, till recently,=20
stood eyeball to eyeball at our borders, share a common history. We=20
speak the same language, wear the same clothes, eat the same food,=20
love the same music and poetry, and we share the burden of poverty=20
and hunger, of ethnic strife and internal divisions and sometimes we=20
are related by familial ties. All this, and more, would have gone.=20
The loss would not have been only of life and limb: much more would=20
have been lost. The loss of war is usually only measured in terms of=20
soldiers and weapons, the destruction of buildings, but as we know=20
from the many examples over the world today, in wars much more is=20
lost.

This is not the first time that India and Pakistan have been at war,=20
or close to war. Ever since the Partition of India in 1947, an event=20
that was simultaneous with India's independence from British rule,=20
and which created two countries, India and Pakistan, out of one, our=20
countries have been locked together in a relationship of fierce=20
hatred. The Partition was an event that is little talked about in=20
world history, but that represents one of the great human convulsions=20
of history. The division of one country into two on religious lines=20
led to a million deaths, more than a hundred thousand rapes of women.=20
Twelve million people became refugees overnight and were forced to=20
flee, in the greatest human migration known to history, to places=20
where they would be safer. They had to move from their homes on foot,=20
by car and train, within the space of two short months. The legacy,=20
the memory of this terrible violence which destroyed homes, ripped=20
apart families, left villages abandoned, lives on in our lives and=20
erupts from time to time as tensions escalate, as they recently did=20
in the Western Indian state of Gujarat.

The tragedy is that India and Pakistan are not the only countries=20
facing such a crisis: everywhere you look in the world today, there=20
are new and different kinds of battles being fought - battles that=20
assert ethnic, religious, cultural identities, battles that are taken=20
on by superpowers against helpless nations and are defined as 'just'=20
wars, battles that are internal to nation states, to democracies, to=20
various other political formations, battles which are directed=20
against 'outsiders' or 'immigrants', or those who are different,=20
battles which seek to establish the supremacy of the Right wing. This=20
is why, I think, it is particularly opportune that the International=20
Humanist Congress is taking place at this moment.

A half century is in many ways an arbitrary figure, but it also=20
offers a moment to sit back and take stock, to reflect and think=20
about the past and the future. The moment before us today is one in=20
which we must ask ourselves the central question that concerns human=20
beings across the globe: why is it that violence is becoming=20
increasingly acceptable to so many of our societies? Why is it that=20
the violent histories of our pasts are coming back to haunt us=20
afresh? What is it in the conditions of our world today that makes it=20
possible, indeed that makes it conducive for such violence to survive=20
and flourish? And, most importantly, how and why have we allowed=20
violence to become a way of both asserting difference and of=20
suppressing it?

The theme of this conference is: all equal, all different. And yet,=20
it seems to me that as more and more people fight to assert their=20
difference all over the world, to have it recognized, there are=20
increasing attempts to wipe this difference out. We need to look no=20
further than the statement of President Bush after the September 11=20
attacks when the United States decided to attack Afghanistan. He=20
looked to the world for support and told everyone: 'You are either=20
with us or against us'. There was no middle position, no possibility=20
of questioning what gave him the right to make these rules for, if=20
you did, you would be punished.

No one knows better what it means to live with violence than women.=20
All our lives we have lived with the silences society has imposed on=20
this dimension of our lives. We are told that, in most places in the=20
world, domestic violence results in more deaths than murder. And yet=20
it is hardly ever talked about publicly, and would not usually find a=20
place in this kind of meeting. It is considered a private matter even=20
in the most progressive of countries. This is because, in many ways,=20
and in many countries, women are still not recognized as human=20
beings, people deserving of the rights and privileges that=20
progressive countries recognize are the due of every human being,=20
rights and privileges that lie at the heart of humanism.

Domestic violence is not the only form of violence women face, nor is=20
India the only country in which such violence takes place. We are all=20
aware of the reality of women's lives in Afghanistan, not only under=20
the Taliban but also in previous regimes which were supposedly more=20
'progressive' than the Taliban. We know of the rape of nuns in=20
Indonesia in the midst of ethnic strife, we know of the thousands of=20
rapes that took place in Bosnia Herzegovina, in Sri Lanka, in Gujarat=20
in India; we know of the Japanese history of sexual slavery, and many=20
other such histories. It is my belief - a conclusion I have come to=20
after many years of working on women's issues and within women's=20
movements, that every society in the world finds its own level of=20
violence towards its women, and that those levels are in line with=20
the cultural mores of that society. Whether it is domestic violence=20
within the home, or the commodification of women in the media, or the=20
violence caused by diseases like anorexia nervosa, these different=20
forms continue to keep women in a state of subjugation and oppression.

In India, the North-Western state of Kashmir has, for more than a=20
decade now, been caught in a battle over its ownership between India=20
and Pakistan. Some of you are no doubt familiar with this history,=20
and I will not go into it here. But, looking at Kashmir today, the=20
consequences of this conflict, this violence, are there for all to=20
see: the law and order systems have almost completely broken down,=20
hospitals and educational institutions have mostly been abandoned or=20
forced to close down; many, many women have lost their husbands and=20
have been forced to take on the burden of running the family; they=20
have had to pull their children out of school in order to keep them=20
safe and, at home, have been forced to put them to work to augment=20
the family income, thereby adding to the rise in child labour; for=20
thousands of other women, their family members, mostly men, have=20
disappeared, taken away by the security forces or by militant groups=20
and they do not know whether they are alive or dead. They cannot=20
mourn, and they cannot hope.

As the violence of the outside world enters the home, levels of=20
domestic violence go up, but in the hierarchy of violence that 'war'=20
or 'civil strife' sets up, the 'external' violence of conflict seems=20
to be much more important than the 'internal' violence of the home,=20
and therefore an even deeper silence builds up around this. Human=20
rights are a thing of the past, and there are no mechanisms, social=20
or psychological, to deal with the enormous stress and trauma such=20
violence creates. Tragically, all they want is peace and all they are=20
given is war. I have often thought that if we put twenty or a hundred=20
people from different places in a room together and ask them how they=20
imagine their future, somewhere central to everyone's dream there=20
will be a desire for peace. What is it then that makes us so=20
fervently desire peace on the one hand, while espousing violence on=20
the other? This, I think, is an important question for humanists to=20
consider.

The conditions of the lives of women and children in Kashmir are not=20
unique: we can find parallels in all countries that are riven by=20
conflict, whether it is Indonesia, Mozambique, Somalia, or any other.=20
Before I came here, a Dutch journalist put a question to me about=20
whether societies that have so much difference within them, whether=20
class or caste or religion or ethnicity (like ours), need to=20
establish standards of uniformity if they are to reach their desired=20
levels of humanity, or humanism.

My answer to that would be that uniformity is not always the answer,=20
for uniformity does not necessarily bring justice, it does not=20
necessarily ensure respect for human rights, it does not necessarily=20
mean humanism. Often it can mean the opposite. While we have to=20
acknowledge that the political manipulation of difference has led to=20
much violence all over the world, it is also true that it is this=20
very difference that enriches our societies, that makes them complex,=20
many-layered, that gives them nuances, that makes them diverse and=20
plural - all things that we would agree are desirable rather than=20
otherwise.

How then can we ensure that we retain our complex and multi-layered=20
societies and ensure that the 'difference' that we value so much does=20
not become a cause for conflict. This, to me is one of the most=20
important questions we need to pose today. I have no answers to this=20
question - I wish I did. But I do feel that one possible answer could=20
lie in what we call culture. Culture is the way we live, an ever=20
changing, ever evolving mix of ritual, practice, literature, arts,=20
music, dance, food and so many other things. None of these is fixed,=20
and all of them are subject to change and development.

It is the culture of virtually every society in the world to=20
recognize the essential humanity of human beings and to take that as=20
the starting point of everything. And yet, if our governments and=20
politicians are to be believed, it is precisely this culture that is=20
inimical to so-called 'modern' developments such as human rights. So=20
many governments across the world - including the Indian - will have=20
ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of=20
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) but they will have reserved=20
certain clauses because of what they call 'cultural constraints'. In=20
other words, they reserve certain clauses that ensure total freedom=20
and equality for women because they feel the men of those societies=20
are not yet ready to accept these. The excuse is culture - that=20
certain societies are culturally unwilling or unable to accept total=20
equality for women. Or, violence against women, wife beating, or=20
simply using language to belittle women is culturally acceptable in=20
some societies. Women in Afghanistan and Kashmir are told they must=20
wear the veil because that is their 'culture'. Yet women are not=20
fooled by this surplus black cloth.

Culture - combined with politics - is also what enables one nation,=20
one culture, to feel superior to the other, whether it is on the=20
basis of colour, or wealth or anything else. No matter how liberal=20
European countries believe themselves to be, no matter how open they=20
believe their culture to be, the truth is that even today, in the=20
21st century, a black or a brown face is assumed to be inferior in=20
intelligence, inferior in upbringing. I cannot tell you how many=20
times I am told - told, not asked - how difficult it must be to be a=20
feminist in India. The assumption behind that statement is, of=20
course, that for such an oppressive society like India, such a=20
backward society like India, feminism must be something of a Western=20
import and therefore unwelcome. Nothing could be further from the=20
truth: India is a country that is open, democratic, and rich in many=20
things. It is a country in which, if you are middle class and=20
educated like me, the sky is the limit. It is a country that has=20
progressive laws, that has had to fight enormous problems, it is a=20
country with one of the strongest women's movements in the world. It=20
is a country that is different - not inferior - to the Netherlands,=20
or to any other country in the Western world.

Perceiving countries like India or Afghanistan or Pakistan to be=20
'different' should mean respecting that difference rather than=20
measuring it against a norm defined by the west. In this presentation=20
I have been speaking of the violence of war and conflict in our parts=20
of the world, of the ways in which women are targeted in such=20
violence. Whenever I speak on this subject in a Western country, I am=20
always hesitant to do so because in some ways it is only too easy for=20
people in the west to distance themselves from such violence and tell=20
themselves that this is not their problem, that this is a problem=20
unique to societies that are still 'developing', that it is being=20
played out somewhere far away. And yet, when you look closely, the=20
violence is not so far away after all as the attacks of September 11=20
have conclusively proved. It is not so far away as the assassination=20
of the key right wing leader here in the Netherlands showed. It is=20
not so far away as the innumerable murderous attacks on young=20
children in schools by other young men have shown. It is around you,=20
around us, everywhere. Now more than ever, the democratic state,=20
something we have all valued and treasured, the concept of human=20
rights, something we have all fought for, is under threat everywhere=20
and is changing into something unrecognizable.

When the greatest superpower in the world can decide, without any=20
conclusive proof, that a group of people identified by their=20
religion, are terrorists, and responsible for the attack on their=20
home ground, and can go to war against a poor and defenseless people=20
in whose country the accused terrorist is hiding, and when this move=20
- called euphemistically a 'just war' - can be supported by very many=20
progressive countries in the world, there is little left to say.=20
Yesterday it was Osama Bin Laden and the Muslim, tomorrow it will be=20
the gays and lesbians, the next day it will be women, then it will be=20
Marxists and, who knows, even humanists, and after that anyone of a=20
different political persuasion and gradually we will find ourselves=20
moving towards uniformity - a way of life defined by one power, and=20
dictated by that power. Is this really what we want?

It is time, I think, to reflect on where we have been in the past and=20
to think about where we want to go tomorrow. It is time to confront=20
our past, to imagine our future, to learn to value difference, to=20
learn to value humanity. How can we do this? To me, the answer to=20
this question is simple: recognizing every other person as a human=20
being who has the right to live and who has his/her needs and desires=20
is the point at which we need to begin. And a further answer is to=20
refuse to sanction and condone violence - whether it is the violence=20
of men against women, the violence of war, the violence of the super=20
powers against less powerful nations. Unfortunately, in the world of=20
real politics this kind of thing seems like an unrealistic pipe=20
dream. And yet, it can be done.

Before I came to this Congress I was asked if I was a humanist. I=20
responded by saying that I was - and am - a feminist, To me feminism=20
means recognizing the right of every human being to live with dignity=20
and security. As a woman, I have always done this, and have always=20
expected it in return. If this is humanism, then feminism and=20
humanism are close cousins. Together we can create a world which=20
rejects violence and works for peace. I would like to end this=20
presentation with two small stories. Some months ago I was in a=20
meeting with women from the strife torn state of Kashmir. A young=20
woman, describing the rape of a friend of hers at the hands of both=20
the security forces (the army) and the militants, posed this question=20
to us all: 'I want to ask,' she said, 'how the cause of the=20
militant's fight for freedom, for autonomy, was advanced by the=20
violation of this woman's body? I want to ask how the security=20
forces' defense of the nation was in any way advanced by the=20
violation of this woman's body?' This young woman's question cannot,=20
it must not, be ignored. Months later, watching a film on the rape of=20
women in the former Yugoslavia, I listened to a Croatian woman,=20
Jadranvka, describe her rape thus: 'When they were killing and raping=20
older women, they were killing history, when they were raping younger=20
women, they were destroying our future.' It is this history and=20
future that we must fight to preserve.

The violence of war destroys our essential humanity. Each time young=20
men are sent out to kill and maim, it becomes easier for them to do=20
the same thing the next time round. Each time one of the countries of=20
the so-called developed world takes up arms against the people of=20
less developed countries, they drive those countries further into=20
hunger and poverty, they help to reinforce stereotypes. The handful=20
of Muslim men who were responsible for the September 11 attacks have=20
come to symbolize the entire Muslim population of the world and their=20
religion has come to be seen as a fundamentalist, fanatical religion.=20
And yet things do not always work in the same way or follow the same=20
logic. For the Oklahoma bomber or the young men who take to arms and=20
kill their fellow students in American schools do not become symbols=20
of Christian religion.
All over the world, women know what it is to live with the=20
consequences of war and violence. For the most part, they do not=20
create wars, but they are the ones who have to live with the=20
consequences of war - the loss of income, the break-up of everyday=20
life, the trauma of mass rape, to name only a few. That is why, when=20
President Bush was considering attacking Afghanistan, one of the=20
first groups to appeal to him and to the rest of the world, was the=20
women of Kosovo. We know what it is like to live with the=20
consequences of war, they told him, we know how violence destroys the=20
very fabric of society, and they urged him to rethink.

Thank you very much

______

#3.

POLITICS, VALUE-ORIENTED, NOT POWER-ORIENTED

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective, September 1-15, 2002)

Our politics today is purely power-oriented and values are thrown=20
aside as if values are shell and power the core. Politics without=20
values become monstrosity as Gujrat has proved. Gandhiji, in early=20
twenties, had felt this danger and had then written that politics=20
without religion (read values) is like breathing without nose.=20
Gandhiji later modified the word religion as he realised its use=20
could be misunderstood. He was quite clear that state should remain=20
secular.

Thus in 1942 he clarified when he said "Religion is a personal matter=20
which should have no place in politics." He even went further and=20
told a missionary: "If I were a dictator, religion and State would be=20
separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my=20
personal affair. The State has nothing do with it."
However, our politicians have completely reversed this approach. They=20
mix religion with politics with vengeance and throw away values in=20
the air. Religion without values like justice, equality, compassion,=20
love, non-violence, truth and sensitivity to others suffering is mere=20
dead ritual and if such empty rituals, and not values, are associated=20
with religion, which our politicians do, it can be very deadly. This=20
is what we have been witnessing since independence.

Not that power is not important in politics; it is. But the question=20
is power is a means to achieve certain goal. Power should to be a=20
goal but a means to an end. But for our present day politician's=20
power has become the goal and outright foul or unethical means are=20
employed to achieve this goal. And all this is done quite=20
unabashedly. Also, the struggle for power has become quite ruthless.

Such struggle existed in medieval ages too as power has terrible=20
attraction for some people. It often leads to patricide or fratricide=20
too. But then we do not approve of medieval methods of seizing power.=20
Democracy is important both for means employed and goals to be=20
achieved. But it appears our medieval mindset has hardly changed and=20
our methods of achieving power have even worsened.

I do not want to idealise the freedom fighters. They were also human=20
beings and had their own weaknesses and had also faltered at times=20
but at least those who were at the helm of affairs and were leading=20
the fight for freedom made great sacrifices and avoided wrong means=20
and did care for values. They made mistakes but did not play foul.=20
They kept certain ideals before them and secular democracy was one=20
among them. Also, Gandhiji felt strongly and practised non-violence=20
so much so that when in 1922 some policemen were burnt in Chorichora=20
he withdrew the movement. Although the movement was at its height he=20
did not compromise on the doctrine of non-violence. For Gandhiji even=20
movement was not an end, only means to achieve certain ideals.

Gandhiji knew if violence is not controlled at this stage whole=20
freedom movement will become violent and the ideal of non-violence=20
will be seriously injured. Thus Gandhiji sacrificed the momentum of=20
the movement for the sake of values he stood for.

Today the politicians do not mind inciting communal violence if it=20
helps them in achieving power. Our freedom leaders had even believed=20
that there will be no communal violence in post-independence India=20
and when the Jabalpur riot took place in 1962 it shook Jawaharlal=20
Nehru. The Congress swore by secularism and never compromised with it=20
theoretically but never practiced it satisfactorily. Most of the=20
Congressmen have had communal attitude. When Jawaharlal Nehru sent=20
Subhdra Joshi to Jabalpur in 1962 as his own emissary to M.P.=20
Congressmen did not co-operate with her. The then Congress Government=20
did hardly anything to stop the riots.

Apart from the fact that many Congressmen have communal attitude they=20
do not act for fear of antagonising the 'majority community'. And=20
this for fear of loosing power. Secular values are not important,=20
power is. When the BJP began questioning the Nehruvian secularism as=20
'pseudo-secularism' and 'appeasement of minorities', there was hardly=20
any hard-hitting reply from the Congressmen. They took totally=20
defensive posture. Mr. Gadgil, a Congress leader from Maharashtra,=20
even said that there is some thing wrong with the Congress secularism=20
as it is alienating the majority from us. Though Shri. Gadgil=92s view=20
did not prevail in the Congress Working Committee but the very fact=20
that this question was raised was disturbing enough.

This attitude of the Congress is being reflected in Gujrat again. The=20
Congress leaders, for fear of antagonising the majority community=20
failed to take strong stand against communal violence in Gujrat. They=20
were even afraid of speaking out. When the Dargah (mausoleum) of Vali=20
Gujrati was bull-dosed and levelled and replaced with road the=20
Congress Mayor of Ahmedabad refused to intervene.

And when Mrs. Sonia Gandhi wanted to visit the widow of Ahsan Jafri,=20
the former Congress member of Parliament from Ahmedabad who was=20
brutally killed and burnt in the communal carnage, she was advised by=20
the Gujrat Congressmen not to do so as it would alienate the majority=20
community and the Congress would loose in the forthcoming election.=20
The Congress in Gujrat is very much shy of fighting the BJP for fear=20
of loosing the elections. Thus ultimately power is more important=20
than ideology.

The Gujrat Congress is planning not to campaign in the forthcoming=20
election on the issue of communal carnage for fear of alienating the=20
majority community. It plans to focus only on developmental issues=20
and failure of the BJP to govern. It is shocking to say the least.=20
Such a carnage has shamed India in the comity of nations and the=20
congress strategists do not want to take it up even as an election=20
issue.

Thus it will be seen that democracy is being used not for transparent=20
governance but as a means for coming to power by using religious=20
sentiments. The Sangh Parivar is doing it most unabashedly. It is=20
quite ironical that on one hand it talks of moral conduct and lays=20
emphasis on Hindu religion for character building, particularly the=20
RSS, but it kills thousands of persons belonging to minority, on the=20
other hand, without batting an eyelid. The Sangh Parivar has been=20
guilty of inciting raw passions of Hindus throughout the period of=20
independence but it crossed all limits in butchering them in Gujrat=20
in most cruel ways. It incited most brutal violence in the name of=20
Hindu nationalism. But all available evidence shows that it did so=20
only to grab power by monopolising the Hindu votes.

The communalists, it must be remembered, use religion and culture=20
most cynically and ruthlessly for seizing power in democracy. If we=20
go by religious values, not rhetoric, they are most anti-religious=20
people. Only a communalist will use religion for inciting violence.=20
The communalists trample upon all religious and human values and=20
instrumentalise it for power politics.

A democracy can work successfully only if it remains secular and=20
keeps off all religious controversies. We declared India to be a=20
secular democracy immediately after we became free from the British=20
rule but even today are unable to practice modicum of secularism. In=20
more than fifty years we should have consolidated secularism and=20
should have freed our politics of all traces of religious=20
controversies and communal trappings. But fact is that our secularism=20
today after fifty-three years of our independence is much weaker than=20
it was in early fifties. In fact it was never so weak as it is today.

Our leaders never tried to disseminate secular values, much less=20
practice secular politics. Power, at an cost, was the obsession of=20
these leaders. They had no spirit of true nationalism, not to talk of=20
humanism. Our whole political discourse is unsecular and we, as a=20
people of India, have not risen above sectarian controversies. While=20
describing ourselves as a modern secular nation, we unhesitatingly=20
employ communal discourse in our politics. The extent and intensity=20
of communal discourse has been continuously on increase.

The gap between secular democracy and communal politics is ever=20
widening and we are heading for great disaster, if we continue to=20
regress into past with such consistency. Modern secular politics=20
should have made us look to the future and our political discourse=20
ought to have been future-oriented it has become, particularly since=20
mid-eighties, consistently past-oriented.

If our secular democracy has to survive, all efforts should be made=20
to eradicate communalism from political arena. To ensure minority=20
rights, is not appeasement of minorities, it is test of real=20
democracy. Minority rights are part of human rights and no democracy=20
is worth its worth without ensuring minority rights and human rights.=20
Unfortunately the Sangh Parivar dubbed minority rights as=20
'appeasement of minorities' and communalised the whole political=20
discourse since mid eighties to exploit sentiments of majority=20
community.

All secular parties, particularly the Congress, should do every thing=20
possible to cleanse our political system of communalism and communal=20
discourse and prepare the Indian masses for value-oriented secular=20
democratic politics. Political opportunism of some 'secular parties'=20
has already considerably weakened our democratic fabric. Let us not=20
tear it apart any further.

(Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai- 400 055.)

______

#4.

The Daily Times
Thursday, September 05, 2002

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_5-9-2002_pg3_2

Knowing the world through science

M V Ramana

About three decades ago, a group of young science graduates started a
programme to improve the teaching of science in rural areas in the
Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh. Eventually calling themselves
Ekalavya, the name of a mythological lower caste archery expert, the group
emphasised the importance of making science interesting and relevant to
rural children. In response to this initiative, the state government at tha=
t
time allowed them to try out their curriculum at government schools. Thus
emerged the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme (HSTP).

Despite many successes and widespread praise, on July 3 of this year the
current state government closed down the HSTP and stopped the teaching of
the HSTP curriculum in government schools. The decision appears to be based
on rather superficial reasons and has come in for much criticism from
intellectuals around the country, but so far there has been no change in th=
e
government's position.

HSTP focuses on science education for students from classes six to eight. I=
t
involves learning "by discovery, through activities and from the
environment" rather than "by rote". Students and teachers are encouraged =
to
ask questions rather than taking what is written in books for granted.
Ekalavya also brings out a monthly children's science magazine, a weekly
news feature service that supplies newspapers with articles on
science-society issues as well as a teachers' magazine focused on the needs
of elementary school teachers.

HSTP solved two problems for schools in rural areas - poor educational
standards and widespread student and teacher disinterest in science, the
latter being largely the result of the course content and uncreative
pedagogical methods. Due to their emphasis on making the subject relevant t=
o
children and the utilisation of local means, HSTP managed to evade these in
a creative fashion. The effort attracted the interest of many scientists an=
d
professors from institutions like the Tata Institute of Fundamental Researc=
h
and the Indian Institutes of Technology. HSTP eventually covered hundreds o=
f
schools and tens of thousands of students.

Ekalavya is part of a larger people's science movement (PSM) in India and
around the world. Groups that are part of this movement try to use science
for social change and empowerment. Science is seen not just as the
collection or dissemination of "scientific facts" but as a way to make sens=
e
of the world we live in.

The world, however, does not consist of only inanimate objects and thus
their purview naturally extends to social sciences as well. As K P Kannan o=
f
the KSSP (Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad; literally, Science Writers' Forum
of Kerala), an early and prominent group in the movement, put it:
"Experience showed a natural science content in every social issue and a
social science content in 'science and technology'. Imbibing and inculcatin=
g
the method of science to understand not only the physical reality but the
social reality as well and attempting to raise relevant questions in order
to find solutions to social problems is what gives science an activist
role."

As part of their work, groups belonging to the PSM have conducted important
campaigns on environmental and developmental issues. A significant
intervention was in the case of the 1984 Bhopal disaster when lethal methyl
isocynate (MIC) gas leaked from a Union Carbide plant into the densely
populated city. Hundreds of thousands of people were seriously affected; th=
e
number of deaths so far is estimated at several thousands.

At that time a number of people's science groups came together to support
the victims through technical, medical and scientific information.
Challenging the government's efforts at concealing the extent of the damage=
,
Eklavya, for example, commissioned independent scientists to monitor Bhopal=
'
s fields, gardens and water supplies for MIC breakdown products and
published a "people's report" on public health concerns in the city.

The combination of being involved in both constructive activities like
education and in confrontational activities like documenting the damage due
to the Bhopal disaster is typical of the philosophy of PSM groups as well a=
s
several other social movements. By engaging in both sunghursh (struggle) an=
d
nirman (constructive action), these try to posit a vision of an alternative
to the present social, political and economic order that is more just and
democratic.

Given the interest of PSM groups in altering the social order in a more
democratic and progressive direction, it should not be surprising that they
have faced much opposition from rightwing religious groups. In October 1988=
,
for example, the KSSP had organised a series of events all over the state o=
f
Kerala as part of a Children's Festival. This drew the ire of a variety of
religious political groups - the ABVP (the student wing of the BJP), the
Muslim League and Christian Church managements. A group of KSSP activists
were even physically attacked by uniformed members of the RSS.

Such examples are by no means limited to Kerala or even India. In the US,
for example, fundamentalist Christian groups have tried to prevent the
teaching of the theory of evolution. Based on his long experience with such
matters in Pakistan, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Physics at Quaid-e-Azam
University, has observed that "The 'trouble' with science...is that it is
predicated on the primacy of reason on the one hand, and experimental
verification on the other. It recognizes no authority except its own
internal logic, has no sages or prophets, and its truths transcend
geographical boundaries, cultural divides, and faiths. Finding these facts
distasteful, some have insisted on pursuing the chimera of 'Islamic science=
'
even at the end of this millennium."

The cancellation of the Hoshangabad Science Teaching Programme and the
undermining of a rare example of a success story in primary education is
another instance of the onslaught of religious, rightwing forces. What is
unfortunate is that the administrative decision was actually taken not by
the BJP but by a Congress government; it demonstrates how widespread these
ideas have become and the danger they pose.

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

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