[sacw] SACW | 21 Oct. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 21 October 2002

__________________________

#1. Women break boundaries for peace (Kalpana Sharma)
#2. Interview / I A Rehman
#3. Democracy and tolerance in South Asia (Paula R Newberg)
#4. 'Talibanisation' begins in the Frontier (B. Muralidhar Reddy)
#5. ... The =8CBangla=B9 connection (Sanjoy Hazarika)
#6. I speak, for my survival - When they attack a Muslim, they attack=20
me (Mukul Dube)

__________________________

#1.

The Hindu
Sunday, Oct 20, 2002

Women break boundaries for peace

By Kalpana Sharma

BHUBANESWAR OCT. 19. Even as India and Pakistan move towards=20
de-escalating tension along the international border, women from=20
South Asia broke all boundaries to come together on a common platform=20
today. On the penultimate day of the 10th conference of the Indian=20
Association for Women's Studies (IAWS), women from Pakistan,=20
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and India spoke out strongly for peace=20
and an end to conflict in the region.

The conference, which has brought together women scholars and=20
activists from around India and from several South Asian and other=20
countries, has focussed on the theme "Sustaining democracy:=20
challenges in a new millennium". But perhaps the discussion that had=20
the greatest resonance in the face of the continuous state of=20
"simultaneous war and peace" in the region, as described by Ritu=20
Menon of Kali for Women, was the one on South Asia.

Khawar Mumtaz, a leading women's rights activist, from Pakistan spoke=20
of the increasing challenges and difficult choices that the still=20
embryonic peace movement faces in her country.

She said that it represented a coalition of a variety of emerging=20
social movements ranging from the women's movement to organisations=20
of peasants, of fisher folk and of trade unions.

"The State in Pakistan always colluded with the religious right and=20
this has pitched us in conflict with the State and the religious=20
right," she said. After the recent elections, and the victory of the=20
fundamentalists in the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan,=20
social movements faced an even bigger challenge.

Ms. Mumtaz said the first targets of the fundamentalist groups were=20
civil society organisations. For example, when the U.S. began bombing=20
Afghanistan last year, eight offices of groups working with women and=20
on education in the NWFP were attacked and razed to the ground. There=20
have also been attacks on schools run by women's organisations.=20
Despite these threats, the peace movement in Pakistan, which stands=20
for separation of religion from politics and is opposed to all forms=20
of violence, continues to grow.

>From Sri Lanka, anthropologist and feminist scholar, Dr. Malathi de=20
Alwis spoke about the dilemmas facing groups that had argued for a=20
political settlement to the violent conflict in their country but now=20
had doubts about the process. "Peace is about compromise, it's a=20
contract, it's about negotiation. Feminists have always asked for a=20
political solution to the ethnic conflict but we must have peace with=20
justice," she argued.

She suggested that even as peace negotiations were proceeding, there=20
were violations of the rights of individuals and minorities that were=20
being ignored.

Meghana Guha Thakurta from Bangladesh emphasised that no country in=20
the region was an island and that what happened in one inevitably=20
affected the other. She said that the minorities in Bangladesh had=20
become increasingly insecure in the last year and had been targeted=20
each time Muslims were attacked in India or Ahmadis were attacked in=20
Pakistan.

For the Hindu minority, problems began after December 6, 1992 and the=20
demolition of the Babri Masjid in India. Since then, each communal=20
conflagration in India had its fallout on these communities in=20
Bangladesh.

Kamla Bhasin, well-known women's activist, ended the deliberations by=20
stating that we did not need "Bush-ful thinking =8B where you don't=20
need dialogue, don't need to talk, but just decide who to kill."

The day ended with a special session on Gujarat, where activists=20
narrated their firsthand experiences of the last months in the State=20
following the communal carnage, and a silent, candle-lit peace march=20
through Bhubaneswar.

_____

#2.

Rediff.com
October 20, 2002

The Rediff Interview / I A Rehman

I A Rehman is director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and=20
an organising committee member of the Pakistan Peace Coalition, a=20
national body formed after the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of=20
May 1998. Rehman was editor-in-chief of the Pakistan Observer, a=20
daily newspaper. He resigned in the 1970s during the military=20
dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq and started an independent=20
newspaper. He later became editor of View Point, an independent=20
weekly published from Lahore.

Rehman is a leading crusader for human rights, a prominent art=20
critic, and a well-known columnist. He is also a founder member of=20
the Pakistan-India Peoples' Forum for Peace and Democracy.

Rehman, who spoke to Mohammad Shehzad in Islamabad about the October=20
12 general election in Pakistan, pointed out that elections ought not=20
only to be free and fair, but democratic too. Excerpts:

Why is the state of human rights so bad in Pakistan?

For the development and protection of human rights, people's=20
participation in decision-making is vital. Where people have no role=20
in governance, the state of human rights will remain abominable.=20
Also, 'human rights' is not one indicator. Human rights cover a broad=20
range of concerns. Sometimes you may see improvement in one sector=20
and deterioration in another. On the whole, the main issue in=20
Pakistan is, unless the people get due say in running the affairs of=20
the state, the condition of human rights cannot be improved.

Why is it so that whenever you release a report on any issue, it is=20
immediately denied by the government?

The problem is that the government takes our observations as an=20
assault on its status or standing. We are not an opposition party. We=20
are not concerned with who is wielding power. We point out an issue.=20
That issue needs to be understood. But when we say that in some areas=20
of Pakistan people are getting poorer, we are accused of bringing a=20
bad name to the country. So, instead of understanding poverty and its=20
extent, they start defending the status quo.

Similarly, when we raised the question of child labour for instance,=20
the government tried to defend it saying there was no child labour.=20
Therefore, we landed ourselves into a lot of complications. It took=20
them quite a few years to realize that denying the existence of=20
problem was not good. Now they recognize it. And we have lost many=20
years in that process.

Does it not mean that the government and organisations like yours=20
need to have better understanding?

Naturally, there are different points of views in society. We may be=20
wrong. But we have a point to make. Our point of view must be heard=20
and addressed. Understanding does not necessarily mean agreement.=20
Understanding means we respect each other's motive, that we respect=20
each other's sense of responsibility, and do not care who is saying=20
what, but what is being said by somebody.

Just two days before the October 10 polls, you released a detailed=20
report on the accusations of pre-poll rigging. The government=20
rejected it downright. Yesterday [October 17], at the Sustainable=20
Development Policy Institute, you vehemently decried the polling-day=20
rigging and post-poll rigging. That has also been denied. How can the=20
citizens of Pakistan decide who is correct, the HRCP or the state?

Every citizen has the right to demand an explanation for whatever is=20
being said. When we say that before the elections were held, the=20
government manipulated the state of affairs, we give concrete=20
arguments. We give an argument, for instance, when we say that you=20
made the president all powerful and you are moving towards an=20
over-centralised state structure. And an over-centralised state=20
structure violates the principle of federalism. This is an open=20
question. Let the government say an over-centralised state structure=20
does not violate the principle of federalism. Then the people can=20
judge! But they don't say that!

Secondly, so many changes have been made in the constitution. Now the=20
government says they are within the limits prescribed by the supreme=20
court. We maintain that the supreme court too cannot change the=20
constitution, and cannot authorise anyone to change the constitution.=20
So, if you are respectful to the constitution, then you follow the=20
principles.

How difficult is it for a human rights activist to work in a country=20
like Pakistan?

Since this was election time, people were free to move around and=20
see. We also acknowledge where some help is given. For instance, the=20
election commission allowed our volunteers to observe the election=20
and I think this is a good practice. But we must agree on the=20
principles.

At the seminar mentioned earlier, you remarked that General Pervez=20
Musharraf had surpassed his military predecessors in his avarice to=20
cling to power. Don't you think his regime is better than the=20
draconian era of General Zia-ul-Haq, who had arrested you and=20
subjected you to severe mental and physical torture when you were an=20
active journalist in the late 1970s?

This is not the issue. Journalists fared very badly under General=20
Zia-ul-Haq. Each age is different from the other. What was done by=20
General Yahya Khan in 1970 cannot be repeated today. The difference=20
in eras makes comparison almost impossible.

We are looking at the institutional framework. No military ruler=20
before the present one had made so many changes in the institutional=20
framework for the elections as now. Zia-ul-Haq increased the=20
disqualifications. They have now been increased further. We have gone=20
back to the pre-colonial period. Also, the restrictions on the=20
election campaigns were unprecedented. So these are the institutional=20
arrangements that we think were of a far-reaching nature.

This time, the graduation condition --- how could you impose such a=20
condition, which means that you are disfranchising a majority in=20
Pakistan? We maintain that elections should not only be free and=20
fair, but they should also be democratic. We can give you so many=20
examples of dictatorship where elections are free and the turnout is=20
90 per cent. But they are not democratic. So the democratic basis of=20
the elections was badly undermined this time.

Do you see the victory of the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal as engineered?=20
Their claim is that the people have brought them into power.

It will not be fair to say that it was all engineered. Nothing is=20
completely engineered. The religious parties were better. They=20
mobilized themselves better. They have a natural/traditional base in=20
those areas. They seized on public discontent, the change in=20
Afghanistan policy. They were also opposed to the US involvement in=20
Pakistan and Afghanistan. So they raised real issues and they also=20
raised issues of the common people like the soaring cost of living,=20
corruption, etc.

[But] I would like to say that when the government tried to block the=20
other parties, the religious parties were not blocked. In fact, by=20
allowing madrassa (Islamic seminary) degrees to be accepted as a=20
"graduate degree", the government provided an opening to the=20
religious parties.

What impact will their victory have on the working of NGOs, civil=20
society institutions, the peace initiative between India and=20
Pakistan, and human rights issues such as the hudood laws=20
(discriminatory laws against women for crimes such as adultery and=20
fornication), blasphemy laws, rights of minorities, rijam (death by=20
stoning for adultery), honour killings, and so on.

The MMA will create its own NGOs. So there will be more NGOs than at=20
present and there will be some kind of competition. Just as we have=20
"true democracy" and "not democracy", we will have "true development"=20
and "not development". This will be in the long run.

About the hudood laws and other issues, everything will be frozen.=20
Even this government was not keen on changing these laws. As far as=20
the blasphemy laws are concerned, I don't see any respite. The peace=20
process between India and Pakistan will be totally shattered. The MMA=20
and the military have a consensus on policies relating to Kashmir,=20
nuclear weapons, and Pakistan-India relations. Therefore, we will be=20
back to square one!

Maulana Azam Tariq, who is said to be involved in more than 25 cases=20
of sectarian killings, was allowed to contest the national assembly=20
election from Jhang. And he won. Isn't it a matter of concern for=20
your organisation?

I don't know why the government allowed him to contest the election.=20
There have been so many instances in which the candidates'=20
disqualification was blinked at. Not only the government, but the=20
people too will pay for such follies.

But did you protest against it formally?

We do not protest against individual candidates. But when we will=20
complete our report, and see how the people who should not have been=20
allowed were allowed, we will mention this too.

_____

#3

The Daily Times (Lahore, Pakistan)
October 21, 2002=A0

Democracy and tolerance in South Asia

Paula R Newberg
Today, more than ever, government should matter in Pakistan.=20
Otherwise, every important issue will be left to soldiers and=20
foreigners to adjudicate according to calculations that rarely=20
benefit millions of rural poor. It matters in India, where ruling=20
ideologues countenance the slaughter of unarmed Muslims by Hindu mobs=20
and then blame neighbouring Pakistan
Pakistan=B9s politics often sets the world on edge, and this month=B9s=20
fundamentally flawed and predictably fragmented elections are likely=20
to annoy its allies and enemies for years to come. By crassly=20
manipulating the polling, General Pervez Musharraf mocked the value=20
of elections, risked regional security, and set back transition to=20
civilian government. This shameful episode has made it much harder=20
for Pakistanis to redeem the ideas of democracy and tolerance in a=20
region already struggling with social tension and terror.
Since the coup d=B9etat that brought him to power three years ago,=20
Musharraf has routinely disparaged politics and the politicians who=20
practice it. He agreed to elections this year only because Pakistan=B9s=20
courts and the international community demanded them, but then set=20
electoral rules to divide an already fractious polity to ensure that=20
he would retain pre-eminent power. The European Union, the=20
Commonwealth, human rights and democracy organisations in Pakistan=20
and outside it =8B indeed almost everyone but the US government =8B=20
condemned his manoeuvrings long before polling day. Nonetheless,=20
Musharraf=B9s ploy worked: no party secured a majority, and the=20
resulting, rancorous coalition that will soon emerge will undoubtedly=20
diminish parliament=B9s future role.
That=B9s the bad news. But the sheer orneriness of Pakistan=B9s politics=20
also sent some interesting, mixed messages.
First: many Pakistanis stayed home rather than vote, a clear slap in=20
the general=B9s face.
Second: local politics matters, even if not to Musharraf. If the new=20
government strays too far from basic concerns =8B poverty, education,=20
or the effects of bombing campaigns and anti-terrorism actions on=20
ordinary Pakistanis =8B resistance is possible. By removing traditional=20
and tribal leaders from their accustomed perches, where they could=20
pick and choose their fights with the military, Musharraf opened the=20
door to trans-national Islamic parties with little stake in familiar=20
on electoral politics.
That=B9s the third message: a newly empowered group of religiously=20
based parties now rivals traditional secular leaders and will figure=20
prominently in any new government. It=B9s already set teeth grinding in=20
Kabul, Delhi and Washington, where these parties are seen as Taliban=20
look-alikes that will compromise the global war on terrorism and=20
reinforce religious stricture in a society desperate to modernise.
To some voters, however, these parties effectively challenged the=20
military in the borrowed language of democracy. In a political season=20
notable for the absence of substantive discussion, the religious=20
parties raised issues of foreign and domestic policy, and stood firm=20
on a return to constitutional rule. This doesn=B9t make them democrats,=20
but for the disenfranchised, it doesn=B9t necessarily mean they=B9re=20
dictators, either.
Not that there=B9s much democracy going around in Pakistan these days:=20
no one was completely clean and open in this election. While some=20
parties have laboured for decades to win religion a place in=20
politics, others have spent recent times in criminal pursuits,=20
including murder and sectarian assassinations, setting fire to=20
Christian villages and communities of Muslim minority sects; and=20
implicating innocent citizens in trumped up blasphemy charges that=20
carry mandatory death sentences. In so doing, they have exposed the=20
hypocrisies of Pakistani political life. After all, every government=20
for the past thirty years has tolerated or been complicit in such=20
behaviour, and few politicians have lifted a hand to prevent the=20
awful constitutional mess that now confronts Pakistan.
Who rules whom, and how and why, is a problem that Pakistan=B9s leaders=20
have been notably loathe to solving. While an impoverish, victimised=20
population has borne the burdens of bad governance, almost no one has=20
made an effort to solve the disputes about secularism and religious=20
representation, democracy and dictatorship, and economic equity and=20
political equality that challenge the political system so deeply. The=20
rise of the religious right today signals everything that is wrong=20
with Pakistan=B9s electoral environment =8B not because it was left out,=20
as happened in Algeria, or because its ideas about constitutional=20
rule are always dangerous, or it will ineluctably work their way=20
round to renewed terrorism in the shadow of the Hindu Kush =8B or=20
because it unexpectedly won so many seats. Rather, the rise of the=20
right echoes down the misrule that has plagued Pakistan for so long.
Today, more than even, government should matter in Pakistan.=20
Otherwise, every important issue will be left to soldiers and=20
foreigners to adjudicate according to calculations that rarely=20
benefit millions of rural poor. It matters in India, where ruling=20
ideologues countenance the slaughter of unarmed Muslims by Hindu mobs=20
and then blame neighbouring Pakistan for the ignorance and=20
desperation of poor Indians and the increasing absence of compassion=20
in the Indian state. It matters in the sharply disputed regions of=20
Kashmir where India and Pakistan battle in the name of religion and=20
ideology, and in Afghanistan, which now fears that Pakistan=B9s=20
religious militants will try to fight their way back to Kabul.=20
Government in South Asia today rests on beds of token, broken=20
promises; only governments can fix them, and then only by respecting=20
the electoral rights of its citizens.
This election offered a chance to set a positive context for future=20
governance =8B to change systematically the ways that Pakistanis=20
encountered elections =8B but Musharraf chose instead to turn away. He=20
acted on the fundamental misconception that the Pakistani state is=20
simply a place and its people only an inconvenient afterthought, and=20
then treated this election as if it were only about tiny slips of=20
ballot paper rather than a symbol of sovereignty and human value.
Musharraf acted as if he were irreplaceable. His opponents, some soon=20
to be found down the road in Parliament House, are likely to think=20
differently. Let us hope that when they do, they act democratically.

_____

#4.

The Hindu
Oct 20, 2002

'Talibanisation' begins in the Frontier

By B. Muralidhar Reddy

ISLAMABAD Oct. 19. Cinema hall owners and cable operators in the=20
North West Frontier Province (NWFP) are in a state of panic,=20
following the victory of the alliance of six religious parties,=20
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in the provincial assembly. A ban on=20
cable networks and stoppage of screening of `obscene' films in the=20
cinemas is on top of the agenda of the religious parties. In 2000 a=20
religious right-wing group in the Frontier, not directly connected to=20
MMA, had threatened to burn down the cables and destroy television=20
sets.

Thanks to the firm steps taken by the law enforcement agencies the=20
outfit was forced to abandon its plans. But now with the emergence of=20
the MMA as a ruling party in the province and as a `king maker' at=20
the national level, it appears cinema hall owners and cable operators=20
have already began to take precautionary measures.

Reports in the local media suggest that cable operators and video=20
owners are keeping a low profile. A report in the English daily, The=20
News said that ``activists of the religious parties have already=20
passed on the message to the video centres and cable networks in=20
different cities to switch to other business before it is too late=20
for them''.

It said that stepping into the Taliban shoes some of the hard-liners=20
among the MMA fold had already launched a campaign in the tribal belt=20
as well cities like Bannu, Mardan and even Peshawar to destroy=20
television sets and other electronic gadgets which according to them=20
are `forbidden in Islam'.

There are a number of commentaries in the Pakistani media on the=20
impact MMA could make on the social and cultural front. Most of the=20
analysts are counselling MMA leaders to learn to live with the rest=20
of the world or be prepared to lose popular support.

A columnist, Mir Jamilur Rahman, in a write-up titled `Who is afriad=20
of MMA?' laments that so far signals coming from the MMA are not very=20
encouraging. ``It seems that in the NWFP, where it will form the=20
government, its major stress would mainly be on rituals and not on=20
basic issues like unemployment, education, health and poverty=20
eradication.''

He has listed its priorities on the basis of statements of the MMA=20
leaders. They want Friday to replace Sunday as weekly holiday. Mr.=20
Rahman says that such an action would hurt the business and commerce=20
of the country, especially in NWFP, because elsewhere Sunday would=20
remain the weekly off.

Wearing of hejab (veil) would be made compulsory for women. The=20
author says presently only the women of Jama'at-i-Islami are active=20
in politics. They strictly observe hejab, which covers the whole body=20
except the eyes. ``Adoption of this measure will be a retrogressive=20
and unwelcome step. It is bound to frighten the womenfolk. The better=20
alternative would be to persuade women to wear hejab without making=20
it mandatory''.

Another priority is to end vulgarity and obscenity from PTV. The MMA=20
considers sleeveless shirt, jeans and dopatta-less head as vulgar.=20
Presently, the MMA would not be able to impose its policy of virtue=20
on the PTV because the Centre controls it. But it will have the power=20
to impose its policies on the cable TV and may also ban dish antenna=20
as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and maulvis are doing in Iran. It=20
may also discourage the use of Internet because it is perceived to=20
purvey obscenity too.

Mr. Rehman says co-education would be abolished dealing a blow to=20
women's higher education. The MMA could also go in for separate=20
commuting transport system for women. ``This will also be an=20
unnecessary measure and would lead to farcical outcome like separate=20
airplanes for women. This is tantamount to apartheid. While the=20
original apartheid theory divided a nation on racial and colour=20
basis, the MMA's apartheid theory would divide the nation on gender=20
basis''.

_____

#5.

The Statesman
19 October 2002
Editorial and Perspective

On the road to Sariska, The =8CBangla=B9 connection
NORTH by NORTH EAST
SANJOY HAZARIKA

[...]
There was a major conference on border management and migration last=20
week in Shillong organised by the Border Security Force. One will=20
dwell on the issue at some length next week. But here, one must warn=20
against the hysteria that seems to set in when the words illegal=20
migration, Al-Qaeda, the ISI and other forces which we regard as evil=20
and malignant, are mentioned. The media is classically uninformed on=20
this issue and repeatedly jumps the gun, without understanding the=20
facts, fanning more hysteria and in the light of the facts, makes=20
itself look quite stupid.
A newspaper in Assam asked, after noting as had other media in the=20
region that an Al-Qaeda camp in Bangladesh had been video =B3captured=B2=20
on a tape which the CNN had managed to get its hands on, that if our=20
border security forces could not prevent unarmed intruders from=20
coming into the country, what chances were there anyway of them=20
stopping a few thousand armed intruders from crossing the border and=20
taking over Assam. This, unfortunately, is totally unfounded and=20
incorrect.
It is neither based on sound judgment or facts and questions the=20
integrity and capacity of the armed forces to deal with such bands.=20
Such an aspersion is unwarranted: enough security forces personnel=20
have shed their blood in our region, Kashmir, Punjab, the=20
Indo-Pakistani and India-China wars and in Sri Lanka.
Let me explain further, for there is a security drill involved here.=20
If there is even a hint =8B and despite the public feeling, fuelled by=20
easy talk in the media about repeated =B3intelligence failures=B2 =8B that=
=20
armed intruders in groups are moving for an organised armed incursion=20
that endangers the security of India, the army takes over the=20
security of the borders. The BSF and other paramilitary and police=20
organisations then form the second line of defence. And I think all=20
of us know what the Indian army is capable of doing to an enemy. So=20
don=B9t go ballistic without knowing the details.
That=B9s point one.
Point two: Yes, the American jihadi did tell his US interrogators=20
that the languages spoken at the Al-Qaeda training camp in=20
Afghanistan were Arabic, Urdu and Bengali. That was disclosed at a=20
lecture-discussion at Delhi on 5 October, which I had helped=20
organise, by the main speaker, E Rammohan, former BSF chief. What Mr=20
Rammohan added and this has been missed, deliberately or otherwise,=20
is that the Bengali-speakers were not Bangladeshi but Rohingya. Or=20
Bengali-speaking Muslims of the Arakan region of Myanmar, with a long=20
relationship with the Chittagong region of Bangladesh, through=20
migration, marriage and trade.
Point three: the Al-Qaeda camp =B3in Bangladesh=B2 was not training=20
Bangladeshis but Rohingyas of the HUJI group of the Arakan in=20
Myanmar! So, now will the media correct itself? Of course,=20
Bangladeshis have trained in Afghanistan, they=B9ve been picked up from=20
construction sites in the Middle East and sent as cannon fodder to=20
Chechnya and Croatia. Some have made it back safely home.
Perhaps the media will now turn around and see a threat of thousands=20
of armed intruders of Rohingya descent rushing in from Bangladesh.=20
This is truly absurd and the media should know when to stop being=20
hysterical. This attitude feeds the ignorance and prejudice of the=20
uninformed, the very opposite of what newspapers and media are=20
supposed to do. There is a more dangerous side to all this: distorted=20
facts and opinions play to a right-wing, conservative and=20
near-fascist political group which will use them to harass ordinary=20
people of the Muslim faith. They=B9re not interested in deportations,=20
only is instilling fear and enforcing a medieval mindset on society.

____

#6.

Indian Express
Saturday, October 19, 2002
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D11542

TIME OUT

I speak, for my survival
When they attack a Muslim, they attack me
Mukul Dube

Last Independence Day, a friend was anxious to end our conversation=20
over the phone. He said he had to get to the flag-hoisting ceremony=20
of his housing society. I told him that a few minutes=B9 delay wouldn=B9t=20
make a difference, but he answered: =8C=8CWhen one has a name like=20
Salman, it matters a great deal. You wouldn=B9t know.=B9=B9

And in truth I did not know. To me, an ordinary citizen, a=20
flag-hoisting was a ritual to which one could reach late or not go to=20
at all. Why should anyone bother what one did? But I saw immediately=20
that I had not taken into account the considerations important to the=20
second-class citizen, the pariah, the man constantly under=20
observation, the man with no rights, the man assumed to be guilty=20
unless he proves otherwise every waking moment.

I must now accept that this man, a friend for 32 years, together with=20
whom I have put away gallons of tea, with whom I have argued=20
endlessly but never exchanged a word of anger, whose children I look=20
on as my own =8B this being seemingly no different from me =8B indeed is=20
very different: for I can breathe freely while he cannot.

My friend, like me, is not the flag-waving kind of patriot. He merely=20
chose long ago, again like me, to return to India rather than make a=20
home in the West. His love of things Indian, of his own little corner=20
of his own country, was decisively greater than the attractions of an=20
alien land.

But, according to the rootless nationalism that Sangh Hindutva would=20
force on us, he is an enemy, a born outsider. India Equals Hindu is=20
the spurious equation which these enemies of reason seek to make us=20
accept. No one who is not a Hindu can be an Indian, they shout.

Who taught me =8CJana Gana Mana=B9 when our republic was just seven years=20
old? It was Professor Syed Muzaffar Ali, the geographer. In the=20
evenings we kids would recite the words after him. When we had learnt=20
them, he taught us to sing them. With great patience, he explained=20
their meaning. We could not have imagined that nearly half a century=20
later, there would be people who could howl, =8C=8CAli? A Muslim? Why did=20
he not go to Pakistan?=B9=B9 Can this species have any notion of what=20
love of one=B9s land is? Are they capable of rising even to the lowest=20
abstractions? No, they are not: ideas like nation and patriotism are=20
entirely out of their reach.

What is my interest in speaking of this? I do not wish the rest of=20
the world to think ill of my country, to see it as a primitive land=20
whose ideas belong to a time before the mediaeval. Thus my interest=20
is patriotic. I do not wish my Muslim friends, whose intelligence and=20
company I have long valued, to become so habituated to looking over=20
their shoulder, that they cease to speak freely even to me. Our=20
conversations then would be empty, without meaning and I would gain=20
nothing. Thus my interest is selfish.

Finally, if my friends are suspect, their friends too will be=20
suspect. I am their friend =8B and I do not wish to be treated with=20
suspicion in my own land. My prime concern, thus, is with my survival=20
as a free human being. I can see and feel it being threatened. Bare=20
survival.

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

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