[sacw] SACW | 24 Sept. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 24 September 2002

__________________________

#1. India: Verdict On NCERT Textbooks - Setback to secularism (Praful Bidwa=
i)
#2. India: Political Parties and Income Tax (Mukul Dube)
#3. India: Taliban in Manipur (Hoihnu Hauzel)
#4. India: Bhopal Seethes, Pained and Poor 18 Years Later (Amy Waldman)

__________________________

#1.

The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning September 23

Verdict On NCERT Textbooks

Setback to secularism

By Praful Bidwai

All those citizens who looked up to the Supreme Court to intervene=20
and stop the loathsome campaign launched by Hindutva bigots to=20
saffronise school education and poison the minds of young children=20
will be sorely disappointed by its latest verdict. With due respect=20
to the Court, the judgment, as we see below, is illogical,=20
inconsistent with the Constitutional imperative of secularism, and=20
permissive of profound distortions of history and fundamental values=20
of citizenship in our democracy. It falls into the category of=20
retrograde recent verdicts, as in the 1996=20
"Hindutva-as-a-way-of-life" judgment, and the Narmada and Balco=20
cases. Thanks to it, patently communal textbooks can now be thrust=20
upon the whole country.

The judgment has in effect opened a can of worms. The conflict it has=20
triggered is unlikely to remain limited to a contestation between=20
secularists and Hindu communalists. It has a federal dimension too.=20
Many states are up in arms against what they see as blatant Central=20
interference in school curricula. The verdict has major implications=20
for the Rights of the Child to unbiased information, and for the=20
issue of tolerance and respect for difference in India's plural,=20
multi-cultural, multi-religious society. It raises a fundamental=20
question: do we want our children to be taught a viciously prejudiced=20
version of history which privileges India's "Hindu past" while=20
berating its "non-Hindu" periods?

India's school system primarily uses government-recommended=20
textbooks, approved by the Central Board for Secondary Education=20
through an elaborate process involving multiple-stage consultation=20
between teachers, experts and officials, and between the Centre and=20
states. The process progresses from adapting the National Education=20
Policy in force to evolve a National Curriculum Framework (NCF), and=20
then writing syllabi for different classes/courses and the books=20
themselves. Each step is derived from the previous one.

Pivotal to the process is the Central Advisory Board on Education=20
(CABE)--a 104-member body consisting largely of state representatives=20
and independent experts. CABE, established in 1920, is uniquely=20
empowered to approve the NCF, which is formulated by the National=20
Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). Although it is=20
not a statutory institution, CABE is indispensable. Without it, the=20
states' views would be excluded from the textbook process--spelling=20
dangerous overcentralisation in a one-billion population country with=20
33 states/territories.

At the centre of today's controversy is the "saffronised" NCF=20
produced by NCERT two years ago. CABE never approved it, but the=20
government arbitrarily imposed it on the CBSE. The NDA embarked on=20
the "saffronisation" agenda with single-minded determination,=20
appointing the fanatical M.M. Joshi in 1998 as HRD minister. To this=20
day, Mr Joshi remains the one minister to have pushed the Hindutva=20
agenda undeterred by considerations of consensus or decency. His=20
first attempt was to make the singing of Saraswati Vandana compulsory=20
in schools. He tried to ram this through a conference of state=20
Education Ministers (education is a Concurrent subject) in 1998. The=20
agenda was determined by a note prepared for the RSS-run Vidya=20
Bharati's own conference slightly earlier. This was to be presented=20
by a plywood dealer-cum-RSS ideologue. The Ministers were aghast. The=20
conference broke up.

Unfazed, Mr Joshi worked on the second route--of manipulating NCERT.=20
He packed it with Hindu-chauvinists, who systematically hijacked the=20
NCF by introducing the concept of "value education" centred on=20
religion. This met with stiff opposition from teachers, scholars, and=20
from one-half of India's states. In November 2000, ignoring the=20
opposition, Mr Joshi declared the NCF "approved", and proceeded to=20
thrust it down the nation's throat. This wilful sabotage of=20
democratic process is only one ground on which the government was=20
challenged in the Supreme Court by three eminent citizens, including=20
an award-winning right-to-information activist, a social scientist,=20
and a journalist-policy commentator. The group's composition? Two=20
Hindus (one married to a Muslim), and one Christian.

The petitioners' second substantial ground was that the NCF militates=20
against the principles of secularism, equality, the rights to=20
education and to development, all embedded in India's Constitution.=20
Under the Constitution, the state cannot favour religion, nor support=20
religious instruction. Article 28 prohibits "religious instruction"=20
in educational institutions fully managed out of state funds.=20
NCF-2000 has numerous formulations which, however subtly, favour=20
religions and spirituality. It roots its own philosophy in the view=20
that religion is "a major source" of "universal" or "essential"=20
values to be inculcated though education. Thus, "what is required=20
today is =85 education about religions, their basics, the values=20
inherent therein and also a comparative study of the philosophy of=20
all religions=85. Students have to be given the awareness (sic) that=20
the essence of every religion is common, only the practices differ."

This is a major departure from the National Policy on Education 1986,=20
from which the NCF must be legitimately derived, which endorses=20
"universal" values without mentioning religion. The Supreme Court has=20
itself held in any number of cases that "religion cannot be mixed=20
with any secular activity of the State. In fact, the encroachment of=20
religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited. When the=20
State allows citizens to practise =85 religions, it does not =85 allow=20
them to introduce religion into non-religious and secular activities=20
of the State".

However, unmoved by criticism from established scholars, NCERT=20
ruthlessly insinuated religion into the secular activity of education=20
by censoring existing textbooks, especially in history, social=20
science and languages. This was done by sanghi ideologues and=20
pamphleteers--secretly, without consultation with teachers or social=20
scientists. Strong Hindutva biases are evident in NCERT's syllabi and=20
doctored textbooks. They deplorably depict Hinduism as the "essence"=20
of Indian culture and other religions as "alien" or "invading"=20
faiths. They glorify history through falsehood and distortion,=20
presenting ancient India as the world's "master" civilisation and=20
culture, denying the validity and value of other great civilisations.=20
Portions of them exclude Islam and Sikhism from the list of "Major=20
Religions", and present medieval wars between different kings as=20
"national" wars fought by Hindus against Muslims. They depict Rama=20
and Krishna not as mythological, but historical, figures. They censor=20
out the social construct of caste and its corrosive influence=20
altogether. In place of sexual equality, they talk of taking the=20
"best" about each "gender" from tradition.

The doctored textbooks are grotesque: Vedic culture is made=20
contemporary with Harappan civilisation, although it comes much after=20
the Bronze Age; history is presented as a succession of dynasties;=20
Mughal history is severely downsized; 20th century communalism is=20
reduced to the Muslim League (as if Savarkar did not father the=20
Two-Nation Theory!), there is no mention of the Hindu Mahasabha's=20
collaborationist opposition to "Quit India".

Such communal claptrap made for a compelling case for ruling against=20
the existing NCF--and for its reformulation on a democratic and=20
secular basis. The Supreme Court refused to order this. It simply=20
ducked the issue of the NCF's communal slant. The judgment is equally=20
flawed because it quotes documents selectively. For instance, in=20
supporting "value education", it relies largely on the report of a=20
Parliamentary (S.B. Chavan) Committee, but it picks those parts which=20
suit NCERT--e.g. "This country has a long tradition. Here, from=20
ancient times, there have been great saints and thinkers from=20
different religions and sects who have talked about some eternal=20
values".

However, the judgment omits to mention the same Committee's key=20
recommendations of 2001directing NCERT/MHRD to take the NCF to CABE.=20
It also turns a blind eye to the fact that the Committee's=20
recommendations are not binding on the government, but the NPE is.=20
NPE'86 is explicit on CABE' centrality: it "will play a pivotal role=20
in reviewing educational development, determining the changes=20
required to improve the system and monitoring implementation",=20
including the NCF. The Programme of Action 1992, based on the NPE,=20
says CABE is "the historic forum for forging a national consensus on=20
educational issues".

The Court uncritically accepts the government's argument that CABE is=20
not a statutory body and was not convened (thanks to the government's=20
own blunder) since 1994. Then, it adds its own obiter dicta--namely,=20
religion was invented to control man's "wild animal instinct", that=20
all religions are the same in essence. This imposes a false=20
homogeneity upon different faiths. It trivialises the fundamental=20
right of a citizen to practise any faith of her/his=20
choice--irrespective of whether it conforms to one "essentialist"=20
interpretation. It is doubtful if any Court--or for that matter,=20
religious leader or theologian--has the authority to make such an=20
interpretation. It is certainly not a democratic or secular=20
interpretation. By making it, the Supreme Court has allowed itself to=20
be seen as partisan towards those who drew up the NCF. This is yet=20
another cruel blow to Indian secularism--barely six months after the=20
Gujarat pogrom.

The Supreme Court verdict must not go unchallenged. More than=20
one-half of Indian states are ruled by non-BJP parties. They must=20
collectively demand its review. Meanwhile, they--and concerned=20
citizens--must launch a renewed agitation against NCERT and its vile=20
textbooks, persistently chasing them in Parliament till CABE is=20
convened and the NCF thoroughly rewritten. Too much is at stake--not=20
least, the future of whole generations, and of Secular India=20
itself.--end--

_____

#2

Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay)
vol. 37, no. 38, September 21-27, 2002, p.3894.

Political Parties and Income Tax

by Mukul Dube

The Bharatiya Janata Party is an organisation recognised as a=20
political party, in light of which the Election Commission of India=20
has allotted a distinctive and exclusive symbol to it. As a major=20
political party it has the benefit of several other privileges and=20
concessions which are not accorded to other associations of=20
individuals. It now appears to believe that it may exercise, for the=20
purpose of avoiding the payment of income tax, even the rights of a=20
commercial organisation.

For some time now, the BJP has been trying to persuade the income tax=20
department to permit it to set off its losses in publishing=20
activities against its income from other sources. The latest act in=20
this drama was the recent decision of the Delhi Bench "C" of the=20
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Bharatiya Janata Party vs. Deputy=20
Commissioner of Income-Tax =AD CIT (2002) 80 ITD (Delhi) (TM)). This=20
was discussed by T.N. Pandey in "Taxing Matters", Business Standard,=20
Delhi, 12 August 2002.

The BJP's publishing activities are not commercial in nature. In the=20
forty or so years for which he has been visiting bookshops, this=20
commentator has not seen in them any publication of the BJP or its=20
predecessor, the Jan Sangh. Before the assessing officer, the BJP=20
stated that its journals were sold either directly to subscribers or=20
through its party outlets. It described this as a business activity=20
and asked that all expenditure related to it be allowed to be=20
deducted from the sale proceeds of the journals. As the expenditure=20
cited was very much larger than the sale proceeds, it was in fact a=20
loss, and the BJP claimed that this loss could legitimately be set=20
off against its income from other sources.

The Assessing Officer observed that since a political party was not=20
formed with the objective of earning profits, none of its earnings=20
could be considered to derive from the usual sources, business or=20
profession; and that the journals in question comprised the party=B9s=20
political literature. The claim was rejected, and later this order=20
was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

According to the figures submitted by the BJP, in the thirteen=20
assessment years from 1986-87 to 1998-99, cost of publication was=20
Rs.43,708,043 and sale proceeds were Rs.3,722,568. The tribunal held=20
that no prudent businessman would do a business which entailed losses=20
of this magnitude. It had earlier observed that in order to be=20
regarded as a business, an activity should have an expectation to=20
earn profits over a reasonable period. Since in its publishing=20
activities the BJP had over a span of years only incurred losses, the=20
expectation of profit could not be said to be apparent.

Under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, a political party need not=20
pay tax on "income from house property", "income from other sources"=20
or income which comes in the form of voluntary contributions. Nothing=20
resembling "income from business" is included in the forms of income=20
exempted, which means that if there were any such income, it would be=20
subject to income tax.

It is interesting that at first the BJP did not speak at all of=20
business income. It claimed a business loss only when its case came=20
up before the Income-Tax Commissioner (Assessment). It seems to have=20
thought earlier that it would be allowed to set off against long-term=20
capital gain the expenditure it had incurred in publishing.=20
Publishing activity, thus, began to be treated as a business when it=20
was seen that that might bring a tax advantage.

The president of the three-member tribunal did not agree with the=20
majority view, holding that the BJP was indeed engaged in business=20
activity. Acceptance of this dissenting view might have meant that a=20
political party could legitimately carry on business activity and=20
that losses in such activity could be written off against tax due.=20
This would imply a radical change in the present understanding of the=20
purpose for which political parties are formed.

[Post Script not included in the original EPW version] :

Considering that the Sangh Parivar does not recognise the=20
Constitution or the Supreme Court or any wing of government, or any=20
other earthly institution =AD barring itself as it may be from time to=20
time =AD as holding any form of authority other than the most=20
transitory, to be followed only when doing that is not inconvenient,=20
we must assume that its accounts are submitted each year at the=20
Ayodhya Tax Havan in non-material form. It may be assumed further=20
that in these Ultimate Accounts, Income Tax itself is a deductible=20
expense to be set off against the income from Holy Laddus and Divine=20
Payasam.

_____

#3.

HindustanTimes.com (India)
September 21, 2002 =A0

Taliban in Manipur
Hoihnu Hauzel

The happenings in my home state (Manipur) never cease to amaze me. In=20
some strange way, the diktat laid down by the self-styled armed=20
outfits only reminds me of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

About a year ago during one of my many visits, I got my biggest=20
surprise in the form of a blank television screen. When I sat down to=20
watch a popular Hindi soap on Star Plus, I was told that =B3Hindi=20
channels and movies are banned in the state=B2.

It was one of those =8Cunchallengeable=B9 rules that came from the barrel=20
of the gun. The banning was a symbol of protest by a certain militant=20
outfit over the death of their colleague during an encounter with the=20
central forces. How are ordinary citizens and film fans responsible=20
for the State=B9s repression?

In a bizarre move, the outfit members raided all the local video=20
parlours and confiscated Hindi films. The raid was followed by a=20
bonfire of Hindi movies. No doubt, it was a big loss for the local=20
traders. Now movie theatres were virtually empty and video parlour=20
owners have to find alternative sources of income. The end result of=20
this frenzy was the loss inflicted on local people for no fault of=20
theirs.

Anyway, in spite of the ban, diehard Hindi movie buffs still had=20
their way. Not everyone could do it, but those who had easy cash=20
bribed parlour owners and paid double the price for renting Hindi=20
movies. Customers and traders had their own terms. A new code=20
language was created, as they did in Kabul under the Taliban. You=20
could find the originals of Dil to Pagal Hai, etc., neatly packed=20
inside an unsuspecting Bruce Lee or a Jackie Chan movie.

All this proved a point: that the people of Manipur still connect to=20
the rest of India. That the voice from the barrel of the gun did not=20
represent the majority=B9s sentiments. Also, that these factions of the=20
various ultra groups don=B9t seem to have any problem with firangi=20
films from Hollywood.

It=B9s been more than two years and the ban is still there. If there=20
are no protests against the ban, it could be for two reasons: fear,=20
or Bollywood addicts are happy with the code-word arrangement with=20
local traders who get them the latest Hindi movies on the sly.=20
However, once they are tired of paying double the price for a film,=20
they might just have the courage to say =B3enough is enough=B2.

Here=B9s the latest command again from an armed outfit: dress code for=20
college-going young women starting September. This strict rule will=20
see women in phanek (a traditional dress wrapped around like a=20
sarong) and simple blouses. The explanation offered is to =8Csafeguard=20
the Manipuri culture=B9. For a state that once allowed outfits to ban=20
women from wearing salwar kameez and sarees, this comes as no=20
surprise. Only that this time, the similarity between the Taliban=B9s=20
Afghanistan and Manipur becomes even more stark.

_______

#4.

The New York Times
September 21, 2002=A0=A0

Bhopal Seethes, Pained and Poor 18 Years Later
By AMY WALDMAN

HOPAL, India =8B Eighteen years after thousands of people died here in=20
a cloud of gas, the only monument to their memory is a rain-worn=20
statue of a mother holding a baby and covering her face as another=20
child hides behind her skirts.

No one knows for sure what caused the lethal leak of methyl=20
isocyanate from a Union Carbide pesticide plant in October 1984, and=20
no one knows for sure how many people died.
Advertisement

Shamshad Begum, however, thinks she knows who is responsible. She=20
lost her 6-year-old son, Raja, on Dec. 3, 1984, and says of the man=20
she blames, "If I see him, I'll physically crush him."

That man is Warren Anderson, the former chief executive of Union=20
Carbide Corporation, now a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company.=20
Mr. Anderson has been living a low-profile retirement on Long Island=20
and in Florida. But on a Bhopal wall, across the street from the=20
plant site, he is remembered with neatly painted words: "Hang=20
Anderson."

When Mr. Anderson came to Bhopal just after the disaster in 1984, he=20
was detained by Indian authorities, then released on bail. He left=20
the country and has not returned. For nearly two decades, a group of=20
victims has pursued him with the relentlessness of the Furies. They=20
have helped keep alive a court case that the Indian government would=20
happily have seen die.

The government sought to downgrade the charges against Mr. Anderson,=20
now 81, from culpable homicide to a nonextraditable offense, but last=20
month a court refused. The government then said it would pursue=20
extradition, but few think it will succeed. Beyond the legal hurdles,=20
India's fear of discouraging foreign investment must also be overcome.

Defending Mr. Anderson's response to the gas leak, his lawyer,=20
William Krohley, said: "He went to India when he first heard about=20
the disaster to help. There's absolutely no connection between=20
anything he did personally and the events that took place in Bhopal=20
18 years ago."

That view was echoed recently by Mr. Anderson's wife, Lillian, who=20
answered the door at the couple's home in Bridgehampton, N.Y. Saying=20
events had been "all misrepresented in the press," Mrs. Anderson told=20
a reporter, "This is something that happened 20 years ago and was=20
taken care of."

But here in Bhopal, Mr. Anderson remains a foil, a prism of sorts=20
through which to view the evolution of the victims. For some of the=20
victims, compensation is the issue; for others, vengeance. Some have=20
moved on; some seem frozen in 1984.

The victims were sleeping through a winter's night when the gas=20
infiltrated their homes =8B and lungs and eyes. Within days, some 3,000=20
people were dead. The official cause was "poisoning by irrespirable=20
gases."

About 2,000 more deaths were directly attributed over the next few=20
years to the leak, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief=20
Department. By the official reckoning, 578,000 people were affected.=20
That was the number finally awarded compensation by specially created=20
claims tribunals.

Long before the antiglobalization movement gained prominence, and=20
before chief executives in handcuffs became a news staple, Union=20
Carbide became, for many, an emblem of the evils of multinationalism.

The company has always claimed that the leak was a result of=20
sabotage, but no one has been charged. Instead, even as recently as=20
the hearings on whether to downgrade the charges against Mr.=20
Anderson, the evidence has pointed to poor safety procedures and=20
maintenance. And the site, which still has not been cleaned up, may=20
be leaking contaminants into local groundwater.

So to some, like Mrs. Begum, Mr. Anderson is an unforgivable loose=20
end, a callous corporate criminal whose shoddily built plant poisoned=20
loved ones as they slept.

But to others, Mr. Anderson is irrelevant. Akbar Khan Bundela, 52,=20
said he had no interest in bringing back "Andersonji," using a term=20
of respect. "We will not get anything out of him being punished," he=20
said.

What Mr. Bundela and other victims want, he said, is the rest of the=20
money awarded by Union Carbide. The company paid the government $470=20
million to settle the victims' claims. Yet only about half of it has=20
been distributed, in most cases at $550 per recipient. Quite=20
literally adding insult to injury, some tribunal officials extracted=20
bribes from victims for processing their claims.

Other efforts, too, have fallen short. The Indian government has=20
spent nearly $70 million on rehabilitation, much of it on 200 new=20
buildings to help with the victims' medical and economic=20
rehabilitation.

But a number of the buildings are shuttered or underused. Industrial=20
estates and work sheds meant to provide employment have mostly been=20
closed or given over to other uses. Fewer than 100 victims have been=20
given jobs through government efforts, victims' advocates say.

Mr. Bundela and Mrs. Begum both live in a "gas victims' colony" built=20
by the government. With 1,500 conjoined houses, archways and=20
rough-hewn brick streets, it has the feel of a medieval village where=20
survivors are eternally stitched together in a community of loss,=20
isolated from the city and therefore from work.

For 18 frustrating years, they have watched an enormous=20
medical-industrial complex, including six government hospitals, being=20
created in their name. Along the way there have been allegations of=20
malfeasance and corruption, and windfalls for contractors.

"This incident was a tragedy for some people, and an opportunity for=20
others," said Abdul Jabbar, who runs the Bhopal Women Gas Victims'=20
Industrial Association.

Union Carbide, too, built a hospital, at a cost of over $40 million,=20
selling off its Indian assets to do so. Opened two years ago, it is a=20
gleaming white elephant on 87 acres on the city's outskirts, filled=20
with the latest medical equipment but rarely more than half full.

The hospital's doctors and consultants had homes built on the=20
grounds, along with a swimming pool. Over two years, the head of the=20
trust overseeing the hospital's construction spent an average of=20
$1,250 a day =8B double the compensation most victims received =8B on=20
administration, including his own fees.

While costing a lot, the new hospitals have helped only a little.=20
Many victims say they spent their compensation money on private=20
doctors.

"This gas has reduced us to beggars," Amran Khan, a 45-year-old=20
welder, said, as he lay in a bed in the Kamla Nehru Hospital.=20
"Whatever we had, we sold to survive."

One difficulty for health care providers is the fact that long-term=20
effects of the gas exposure remain unclear. A 1987 study of 370,000=20
people found that 30,000 had solid evidence of long-term injury,=20
whether lung damage or neurological problems, but no study has been=20
conducted since. The Indian government stopped recording=20
disaster-related deaths in 1992, and ended long-term medical studies=20
two years later.

Union Carbide, meanwhile, has never released the composition of the=20
gas, citing trade secrets, which doctors said made understanding its=20
effects more difficult.

Victims invoke the disaster just about every time they have an=20
ailment, from heart disease to breathing trouble to Parkinson's=20
disease. Bureaucrats and doctors have tended to be more skeptical,=20
saying they believe victims have their eye on more compensation. They=20
point out that more than a million people applied for compensation =8B=20
far more people than lived in Bhopal at the time of the leak.

Some doctors say the victims' ailments have as much to do with=20
poverty as with gas. One criticized groups like Mr. Jabbar's for=20
focusing on Mr. Anderson's extradition when victims fall prey to=20
diarrhea because they lack clean water.

But Mr. Jabbar, who lost his father and brother, said he had no=20
intention of letting the Anderson case die.

He said that in years of activism he had discovered that even gas=20
clouds can have silver linings. Activism around Bhopal's disaster had=20
transformed women and brought them out of their houses.

Indeed, if Mr. Anderson's departure nags at Mrs. Begum, it energizes=20
her, too. She travels to Delhi for protests, pumps her fist in the=20
air and chants "Hang Anderson!"

Keeping the "Hang Anderson" campaign alive, Mr. Jabbar said, kept the=20
women's voices alive, too.

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

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.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|