[sacw] SACW | 23 Jan. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 23 January 2003

[ Visit South Asians Against Nukes home page - updated 23 January 2003
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html ]

__________________________

#1. Pakistan - India: 'Diplomacy' by bodily harm? (Praful Bidwai)
#2. Pakistan - India: No kudos for diplomat-bashing (Editorial, The=20
Daily Times)
#3. Bangladesh: Religious group halts women's football
#4. Bangladesh: War and Woman: Tears Engraved in Stone (Meghna Guhathakurta=
)
#5. India: Ambedkar, Muslims and Partition (Asghar Ali Engineer)
#6. India: When Democracy Mocks (M H Jowher)
#7. India: Christian Council Condemns Kerala Action, demands Ban on RSS
#8. Activists take Toxic waste from Bhopal to Dow's European=20
headquarters in Switzerland
#9. Text of Arundhati Roy's acceptance speech for Lannan Foundation's=20
Prize for Cultural Freedom
+ List of orgranizations that will share the Cultural Freedom Award prize m=
oney

__________________________

#1.

The News International
January 23, 2003

'Diplomacy' by bodily harm?
by Praful Bidwai

One of the most sickening aspects of the now utterly vitiated state=20
of relations between India and Pakistan is the crass way in which the=20
two governments deal with each other's citizens, mediapersons and,=20
increasingly, even diplomats. Over the past year, they have=20
consciously fomented a sense of enmity, blocked people-to-people=20
contacts and movement, and frozen economic exchanges and physical=20
communication links.

On December 29, their mutual relations reached a new low when India's=20
Home Ministry announced, without even consulting the Foreign Office,=20
a fourfold reduction in the number of Indian cities Pakistani=20
nationals may visit. Worse was yet to come. A few days later, Home=20
Minister L K Advani personally vetoed visas for certain Pakistani=20
scholar-activists invited to the Asian Social Forum in Hyderabad from=20
January 2 to 7--after their applications had been cleared by all the=20
concerned authorities thanks to persistent lobbying by the organisers.

For many of us at the ASF, the now-on, now-off process of getting=20
successive clearances for their visas seemed to be nearing fruition=20
just when Advani struck. Among the invitees were some of Pakistan's=20
best-known public intellectuals and peace campaigners, including=20
Pervez Hoodbhoy, I A Rahman, Asma Jehangir and A H Nayyar, all of who=20
were listed to speak at this first-of-its-kind continental event with=20
eight major conferences, 160 seminars and 164 workshops, besides=20
plenaries.

Earlier, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad had arbitrarily=20
clubbed together numerous visa applications and pruned the number to=20
be approved. Thus, only about 10 of the 50-plus Pakistani invitees=20
could make it to Hyderabad--a collective loss for us all.

Since then, the two governments have been targeting top-level=20
diplomats too. Perhaps the worst instance of this kind was the charge=20
that last Saturday India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas'=20
official vehicle was blocked. According to the Indian protest note,=20
the mission car, flying the national flag, was stopped and boxed in=20
by four four-wheelers and two motorcycles. It was blockaded "with the=20
charge d'affaires and his wife inside for up to 45 minutes at a time".

Following this, the Indian government promptly ratcheted up=20
diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and announced the creation of a new=20
post: Additional Secretary (counter-terrorism). It might further=20
restrict people-to-people contact, by tightening visa norms.

Vyas was reportedly harassed on Monday too when Pakistani police=20
vehicles came "dangerously" close to his car. Three vehicles,=20
including a pick-up van, surrounded the car all the way from his=20
residence to his office.

However, there is a background to these incidents. The Pakistan High=20
Commission in New Delhi claims its officers have been systematically=20
harassed since early January. On January 7, it complained: "lately=20
the surveillance of the flag vehicle being used by the acting High=20
Commissioner has been increased to such a level that it can be simply=20
termed as harassment". For the last three days, it said "intelligence=20
vehicles are constantly following the vehicle bumper to bumper,=20
making it extremely difficult for the driver to drive". Sometimes=20
these vehicles' "dangerous manoeuvres" can "lead to a serious=20
accident..."

As these incidents get highlighted in the media, both New Delhi and=20
Islamabad accuse each other of violating the Vienna Convention of=20
1961 for the treatment of diplomats, and the bilateral Code of=20
Conduct (CoC) they signed in 1992.

Both are right. Just as both are wrong to have indulged in juvenile=20
tit-for-tat responses. But this only shows how sordid the=20
India-Pakistan situation has become.

Earlier too, middle-level diplomats, and embassy personnel suspected=20
to be spies, used to be subjected to verbal abuse, intrusive=20
surveillance and actions such as "physical harassment, disconnecting=20
of telephone lines, threatening telephone calls, pursuit in cars and=20
unauthorised entry into residences"--which the CoC explicitly=20
prohibits. People in the latter category were beaten black and blue=20
and sent home.

That was nauseating enough. But now, for the first time, Heads of=20
Mission and their official vehicles are being targeted.

Beyond a point, it is irrelevant to ask who fired the first shot or=20
provided the provocation. What matters is that both states have=20
resorted to grossly uncivilised intimidatory methods. Both accuse=20
each other in the crassest of ways: of indulging in "preposterous=20
political propaganda", "intimidation" and "wilful harassment", or of=20
concocting "motivated" and "baseless" allegations. Ironically, the=20
terms of abuse are identical or symmetrical!

Three points are relevant. First, the very fact that Foreign=20
Secretaries of India and Pakistan had to negotiate a 12-point Code of=20
Conduct in 1992 despite the existence of numerous international=20
conventions on the treatment and the rights of accredited diplomats,=20
tells its own story. It shows the two governments often act out of an=20
intention to harass and cause bodily harm to each other's diplomats.

This kind of diplomacy-by-bodily-harm probably has no parallel in the=20
post-War era. Even in the worst phase of the Cold War, US and Soviet=20
embassy staff did not have to fear for their physical safety. But in=20
India and Pakistan, the notions of dignity and personal inviolability=20
of diplomats stand threatened.

Second, what is more shameful, India and Pakistan have repeatedly=20
breached their own agreed Code, including provision (vi), which says=20
their Foreign Office/Mission would, "in the first instance, look into=20
the circumstances of (a) complaint (of breach) before lodging a=20
formal protest". This violation speaks of despicably puerile mindsets=20
and deplorable conduct.

Third, these incidents are bound to leave deep wounds on a critical=20
section of our policy-makers long after relations are normalised.=20
Most diplomats who have served in each other's country are bitter=20
about their experience and harbour terrible prejudices. They get to=20
see (and suffer) the worst aspects of Pakistan's and India's domestic=20
life.

If powerful functionaries are treated this way, the gruesome reality=20
of what India and Pakistan do to lesser mortals can only be imagined.=20
Take the latest case in which an innocent Pakistani youth was set=20
free by a Delhi court after finding that the Directorate of Revenue=20
Intelligence, which booked him, had "mistaken his identity" for a=20
drug smuggler's. Like the 182 fisherfolk detained for years, there=20
are literally hundreds of such cases, which violate and waste human=20
beings.

Fighting with bare knuckles puts India and Pakistan in the worst=20
possible light. We can carry on this level of confrontation only at=20
an enormous risk to our security, safety, prospect of mutual=20
coexistence, and our human dignity. Our leaders seem to think they=20
wield, and have the right to wield, the power to jeopardise all=20
this--to the point of threatening to exterminate millions of people=20
with nuclear weapons.

Underlying this is not just visceral, incurable, enmity and mutual=20
hatred, but the two governments' contempt for their own peoples. They=20
simply don't care whether their people's lives, human lives, are=20
successful, or they are wasted or sacrificed to their states'=20
coercive powers.

Postscript: As if India's suspension of rail services between Wagah=20
and Attari wasn't vengeful enough, Pakistan has physically ripped up=20
and carried away the rail tracks on its side, according to The Asian=20
Age. It will be a long, arduous process to restart the Samjhauta=20
Express if and when the two states someday agree to do so.

______

#2.

The Daily Times (Lahore)
January 22, 2003

Editorial: No kudos for diplomat-bashing

Once again, Pakistan and India have resorted to harassing each=20
other's diplomats. Pakistani diplomats complained to the Indian=20
authorities about being followed around by secret agents, after which=20
the acting Indian high commissioner duly complained that he had been=20
tailed by Pakistani intelligence agents. Pakistan lodged a formal=20
complaint through the Indian acting high commissioner in Islamabad;=20
then India did the same in New Delhi. This is familiar. It means that=20
India and Pakistan have got into another clinch they can't resolve=20
till they have inflicted some damage to each other. This shows the=20
low point their bilateral relations have reached. Missiles have been=20
test-fired on both sides and leaders have painted verbal scenarios=20
about how they will destroy each other's country in case of war. When=20
the temperature is allowed to rise as high as that, the snoops notch=20
up their obnoxious business of chiding and threatening the diplomats.
This has happened many times before. Accounts of this very base mode=20
of "diplomatic exchange" have been recorded in the memoirs of=20
intelligence agents, which makes no one proud of the level of=20
civilisation India and Pakistan enjoy when it comes to treating each=20
other's diplomats under the Geneva conventions. Indians have caught=20
our officers in "sting" operations and given them a thrashing against=20
all norms of international law. Invariably the beatings have been so=20
severe that the officers have been brought home on stretchers. But if=20
India thought these beatings would have any chastening effect on=20
Pakistani diplomats, it was proved wrong when Major-General Zaheerul=20
Islam Abbasi tried to stage a coup in Islamabad in 1995 "in order to=20
better fight India in Kashmir" in revenge for the thrashing he had=20
received at the hands of official Indian thugs while serving as an=20
attach=E9 in our mission in New Delhi. Our current foreign secretary in=20
Islamabad should know what this kind of tit-for-tat activity of the=20
sleuths means. When he was our high commissioner in New Delhi, his=20
car was set on fire once and he was nearly killed in a road=20
"accident" organised by Indian agents.
But it would be wrong to take sides in this madness. Pakistani spies=20
have also boasted in their books about how they blackmailed and=20
subverted Indian officials in Islamabad. It is obvious that=20
diplomat-bashing expresses the dark side of the two states. They=20
behave like abnormal human individuals and subject each other's=20
diplomats to humiliation and bodily harm merely to let off bilateral=20
steam. The fact that this never works has no effect on them. Indeed,=20
when the trouble escalates beyond control then the two are obliged to=20
resort to expelling each other's officers on "cover" posts. This=20
means that the secret agents enjoying luxury postings abroad are=20
returned to their hardship routines at home. But when bilateral=20
expulsions reach a peak, the sleuths start to cringe and want to get=20
out of their tit-for-tat game. It is all very primitive and very=20
counterproductive. India and Pakistan should leash their intelligence=20
agents and become civilised adversaries. *

______

#3.

The Daily Star (Dhaka)
23 January 2003

Religious group halts women's football

Sports Reporter
A religious group yesterday forced cancellation of a women's=20
exhibition football match in Netrokona saying 'women playing football=20
is degrading and obscene.'

The Towhidi Janata, a little known group, kicked off its hate=20
campaign on Tuesday and threatened to stage a sit-in outside the=20
Netrokona playground if the match between the visiting West Bengal=20
team and the Netrokona XI was not called off. [...]
http://www.dailystarnews.com/200301/23/n3012301.htm#BODY9

_____

#4.

Meghbarta (Dhaka)
December 2003

War and Woman: Tears Engraved in Stone

This is a film review but it speaks for more than that. The film=20
Shilalipi is a fictionalized version of the of the life story of=20
Shahid Selina Parveen, a writer, poet and magazine editor who was=20
picked up, tortured and killed by collaborators,=20
Al-Badr-Al-shams-Razakar, of the occupying Pakistan army during the=20
war of 1971. Her name therefore shines as one of the Martyrs of the=20
Bangladesh Liberation War. Shilalipi is a film, which captures both=20
the milieu in which the voices of protest were being articulated by=20
the Bengalis of East Pakistan as well as the intensely personal life=20
struggles of a woman who was fighting for her individuality. It is=20
therefore a deeply political film attempting to link the personal=20
with the political.

Meghna Guhathakurta

The film Shilalipi is a fictionalized version of the of the life=20
story of Shahid Selina Parveen, a writer, poet and magazine editor=20
who was picked up, tortured and killed by collaborators of the=20
occupying Pakistan army during the war of 1971. Her name therefore=20
shines as one of the Martyrs of the Bangladesh Liberation War.=20
Shilalipi is a film, which captures both the milieu in which the=20
voices of protest were being articulated by the Bengalis of East=20
Pakistan against the ruling military junta of Pakistan as well as the=20
intensely personal life struggles of a woman who was fighting for her=20
individuality. It is therefore a deeply political film attempting to=20
link the personal with the political.

Selina Parveen (screen name: Nasrin) is shown as a middle-class woman=20
separated from her husband and striving hard to eke out an income for=20
herself and her eight-year old son Sumon (screen name: Suborno). In=20
her day to day struggle she takes up proof reading for publishing=20
firm, takes shelter in a rambling old building in old Dhaka where she=20
and her son receives the fatherly love and care of Asad Bhai, and the=20
intimate mothering of their Muslim and Hindu co-tenants. The gaunt=20
graying stones of the massive house are filled with the sights,=20
sounds and smells of warmth, comfort and good cheer. But the distant=20
thunder rumbles deep forecasting stormy weather. The voices of=20
anti-Ayub protesters spill over the high walls, sometimes lightening=20
the faces of the inhabitants of the house with anticipation and hope,=20
sometimes spreading shadows of doubt and fear of the ominous.

The onset of the Pakistani military crackdown changed the situation=20
almost overnight from the careless breezy gaits of the inhabitants to=20
the measured stealth of their steps and the lowered voices. Ominous=20
changes took place. Some tenants left for safer shelters, others were=20
forced to leave for fear of being identified as 'Indian infiltrators'=20
a nomenclature commonly reserved by the Pakistan state for those not=20
identifying themselves with the defense of the structural integrity=20
of the Pakistan state. Ultimately Nasrin was left alone with her=20
eight old year son, resisting pleas to go elsewhere. On top of it she=20
was sheltering freedom fighters in her house thus putting herself in=20
dangerous position, but having lost a brother in the war, these were=20
her brothers whom she could not forsake. As one tenant after another=20
left the house they left behind their presence in the minds of=20
eight-year old Suborno, a boy who had learnt to bid farewell too=20
early in life.

In an early December morning, the chilling event came that was to=20
tear his mother away from Suborno. Suborno was out in the roof=20
imitating the fighters that was to be seen commonly amidst the blue=20
hazy clouds over Dhaka. The Indians had joined the war against=20
Pakistan and had already taken command over the skies. Pakistani=20
troops were surrendering to the joint command in outlying areas and=20
total surrender of the Pakistan Forces was imminent. It was during=20
this time that bands of collaborators carried out Gestapo-like raids=20
in targeted houses and blindfolded bound and took away noted=20
intellectuals and professionals of the country to camps where they=20
were tortured and then taken to their deaths. Their decomposed bodies=20
were later to be found in the brickfields outlying Dhaka city. But=20
Selina Parveen alias Nasrin had not not thought she had done anything=20
great to warrant her such fate. She had been writing against the=20
Pakistan state in her magazine and had been sheltering young=20
Muktijoddhas (freedom fighters) at great risk, but she took these=20
activities in her stride, thinking it to be her duty to her homeland.=20
Separated from a husband who believed that the Party dictates all,=20
Selina Parveen's personal life was a struggle to attain her own=20
selfhood. She therefore understood the sufferings of a nation=20
experiencing that same pain and humiliation and hence helping it to=20
stand on its own feet was a way in which she was helping herself too.=20
Her sacrifice for the nation was not that she gave up her own life,=20
but that she gave up the very things which had been at the root of=20
her creativity; being a mother to her eight year old son and editing=20
her own journal. The scene in which she was picked up by the=20
collaborators as viewed through the eyes of eight-year old Sumon=20
alias Suborno is therefore spine-chilling. As she is led down the=20
stairs by the collaborators, her son calls out to her. Her only reply=20
is a tense and urgent "Ghorey Jao!" (Go inside). She repeats the=20
phrase as they blindfold her and tie her hands behind her back, but=20
her head held back looking at where her son must be at the top of the=20
stairs, she tries to prolong her 'gaze' through her blindfold as she=20
is finally dragged away. This memory is etched into the hearts of=20
every viewer as it must be in the heart of Sumon .

The whole story is narrated through the eyes of Sumon who has grown=20
into a young man who carries the pain of losing both his father and=20
mother ( he claims that his mother was both to him) at a tender age.=20
His friend encourages him to research and write about his mother.=20
They begin to visit old friends and acquaintances of his mother,=20
exhibitions of 1971, and the story unfurls itself through flashbacks.=20
As an introduction, the real Sumon speaks a few word about his mother=20
and his memories about her and states that this film is way of paying=20
homage to Selina Parveen, who is not only his individual mother but=20
whose life and struggle is part of the creation of Bangladesh. The=20
film ends with Suborno (the fictionalized version of Sumon) and his=20
friend viewing the monument for the martyred intellectuals in the=20
killing fields of Rayer Bazaar, where Selina Parveen's body was=20
found. The foundation stone laid by Projonmo '71 throws up a question=20
to all who visit there: "Tomra ja bolecchiley. bolcchey ki ta=20
Bangladesh? " (Does Bangladesh say what you had said?) The song in=20
the background written by Shamim Akhter and sung and lyricized by=20
Moushumi, accentuates the loss, struggle and the sacrifice of=20
individuals such as Selina Parveen and lends to the visual imagery a=20
grace which can only be compared to that of a flute playing amidst=20
the swaying green rice-field of Bengal. It is a scene whose sights=20
and sounds linger in the memory of a viewer long after the film is=20
over.

The effectiveness of the film lies much in the creative imagination=20
of the director and the sincere and hard work of most of the actors.=20
The film being Shamim Akhter's second (the first being Itihash=20
Konnya: Daughters of History), shows signs of the maturity of the=20
director in laying out her story with ingenuity. Her flashbacks are=20
cleverly interwoven so that they do not jar the viewers' space-time=20
continuum. The pace is slow but retains a tension, which is ever=20
imminent either as a theme, or as an emotion or in the interplay of=20
the characters. It is this tension, which slowly but surely pulls in=20
the viewers' attention to the story being told, to the scenes being=20
unfolded, to the drama being enacted, mostly within the walls of a=20
rambling old house in the old quarters of Dhaka. When words are=20
inadequate to express emotions, Shamim Akhter has quite effectively=20
used the 'silences' to express the inexpressible, for example the=20
scene of the dilapidated building and the incense sticks burning in=20
the verandah after the news of her death was received or her fingers=20
tightly clenching the iron bars of the window as a fellow freedom=20
fighter informs her about her brother's death in battle.

Needless to mention the contribution of actors to the whole film has=20
been immense. The acting of Sara Zaker as Selina Parveen, Asaduzzaman=20
Nur, her friend, Manosh Chowdhury as the grown up version of Sumon=20
and Jishnu Brahmaputra as the young version of Sumon has been=20
exemplary. They have given their all to portray what must have been=20
for them a singular opportunity to give vent to those sublime=20
emotions which goes beyond any rhetorical understanding of 1971. From=20
fear to elation, from outrage to suppressed anger, from pain to the=20
practicality of survival, from courage to sheer desperation, the=20
whole spectrum of emotions have flitted to and fro across the=20
celluloid realities of Shilalipi, therefore making it not only a=20
story of a nation or an individual but rather of the human situation.

Like any human situation, no doubt the film has its share of=20
technical flaws and limitations, but that is not what is topmost in=20
the minds of the viewer after watching the film. As in any work of=20
art it takes one down to the pith of human emotions, while at the=20
same time elevating the soul to a plane where one feels one can see=20
eternity or rather things eternal, like love, pain, beauty and=20
understanding. Shamim Akhter has taken bold and courageous steps in=20
this direction and one looks forward to seeing more of her works in=20
the near future.

Name of the Film: Shilalipi
Director: Shamim Akhter

_____

#5.

Secular Perspective [Bombay]
Jan. 16-31, 2002

AMBEDKAR, MUSLIMS AND PARTITION

by Asghar Ali Engineer

The Sangh Parivar keeps on raking up caste and communal issues since=20
it has pro-people programmes. It thrives only on casteism and=20
communalism and raking up issues pertaining to caste and communal=20
controversies. After Gujarat carnage in which entire Sangh Parivar=20
was involved now Mr. Katiyar of Bajrang Dal and president of U.P. BJP=20
has raked up issue of Ambedkar and Muslims and that Ambedkar was=20
anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan.

Shri Katiyar maintains that his contention is based on Dr. Ambedkar's=20
book on Pakistan entitled Pakistan or Partition of India. As all=20
communalists basically perpetrate lies and falsehood and spread=20
disinformation in order to establish their case, Katiyar is no=20
exception. In fact Dr.Ambedkar was in no way against Muslims or=20
Islam. But anyone can be quoted out of context to prove what one=20
wants to. Ambedkar was no Muslim baiter as he was a very meticulous=20
and careful scholar and would not indulge, like members of the Sangh=20
Parivar, into community baiting.

Ambedkar's book on Pakistan is a work of great scholarship. I have=20
reprint of its 1946 edition constituting the 8th volume of his=20
writings and speeches published by Education Department of Government=20
of Maharashtra. The plea of the book is such that one can easily=20
extract some statements to suit ones purpose. But an honest scholar=20
has to read the book in totality to understand Ambedkar's views on=20
Muslims and on Pakistan.

Ambedkar has divided his above book into five parts. The first part=20
deals with "Muslim case for Pakistan". Second part deals with "Hindu=20
case for Pakistan". Third part talks about "What If Not Pakistan".=20
Part four deals with "Pakistan and the Malaise" and part fifth=20
discusses with issues like "Must There be Pakistan", "The Problem of=20
Pakistan" and "Who can Decide?"

It can thus be seen that if one quotes Dr. Ambedkar say from first=20
section in which he gives Muslim point of view on Pakistan one can=20
prove that Ambedkar totally favoured creation of Pakistan and if one=20
quotes Ambedkar from second section i.e. "Hindu Case Against=20
Pakistan" one can prove that Ambedkar was against Muslims. What=20
Katiyar is doing is quoting Ambedkar from second section of his book=20
to prove that Dr. Ambedkar was against Muslims.

It is interesting to note here that Ambedkar maintains in the third=20
section, chapter VII that "Strange as it may appear Mr. Savarkar and=20
Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation=20
versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both=20
agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India=20
- one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation." Further he=20
says, "They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which=20
the two nations should be. Jinnah says India should be cut up into=20
two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and=20
the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand=20
insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall=20
not be divided into two parts, one for the Muslims and the other for=20
Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall=20
live under the mantle of one single constitution: that the=20
constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to=20
occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation=20
to made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the=20
Hindu nation."

Thus it will be seen that Dr. Ambedkar has very fairly stated=20
position of both the parties. He is not stating his own views in=20
these two sections of his book. In fact Ambedkar is so fair and=20
objective that he feels that one should not describe all invasions of=20
India by Muslims as invasions against infidels or against India only.=20
He says, "These invasions of India by Muslims were as much invasions=20
of India as they were wars among Muslims themselves." "This fact has=20
remained hidden", Ambedkar says, "because the invaders are all lumped=20
together as Muslims without distinction. But as a matter of fact,=20
they were Tartars, Afghans and Mongols. Muhammad (Mahmud?) of Ghazni=20
was a Tartar, Mahommed of Ghori was an Afghan, Taimur was a Mongol,=20
Babar was Tartar, while Nadirshah and Ahmadshah Abadali were Afghans."

Continuing this line of argument Dr. Ambedkar says, "In invading=20
India, the Afghan was out to destroy the Tartar and the Mongol was=20
out to destroy the Tartar as well as the Afghan. They were not a=20
loving family cemented by the feeling of Islamic brotherhood. They=20
were deadly rivals of one another and their wars were often wars of=20
mutual extermination." This is very objective understanding of=20
history and is not inspired by any communal attitude. However, one=20
may differ from Ambedkar when he says, "What is, however, important=20
to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they=20
were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the=20
Hindu faith."

But here Ambedkar is clearly contradicting himself. When Tartars and=20
Mongols and Afghans were out to exterminate with each other and were=20
not bound by the feeling of Islamic brotherhood how could they be=20
united by any common objective to "destroy Hindu faith". In fact=20
these Muslim invaders had no such objective despite their rhetoric to=20
the contrary. In fact many of them invaded at the invitation of Hindu=20
rulers of India. But it must be said that Dr. Ambedkar is, on the=20
whole, quite objective in assessing the history of Muslim rulers.

Dr. Ambedkar did not even support the Gandhian position that let the=20
British quit India and then Indians would settle the matter among=20
them and would sort out communal question. In fact in his=20
introduction to the book Ambedkar says, "The British cannot consent=20
to settle power upon an aggressive Hindu majority and make it its=20
heir, leaving it to deal with the minorities at its sweet pleasure.=20
That would not be ending imperialism. It would be creating another=20
imperialism.The Hindus, therefore, cannot avoid coming to grips with=20
Pakistan, much as they would like to do."

Thus Ambedkar is quite categorical in his assertion that the communal=20
or minority question should be properly settled before the British=20
leave India. He feels that the minorities cannot be left to the mercy=20
of "aggressive majority" as he puts it. Ambedkar has thoroughly=20
examined the Muslim (or rather Muslim League) point of view in the=20
first section of his book "Muslim Case for Pakistan". Explaining=20
Muslim League view he says, "=8Ais it or is it not a fact that Muslims=20
of India are an exclusive group? Is it or is it not a fact that they=20
have consciousness of kind? Is it or is it not a fact that every=20
Muslim is possessed by a longing to his own group and not to any=20
no-Muslim group?"

And then he goes on to say, "if the answer to these questions is in=20
the affirmative, then the controversy must end and the Muslim claim=20
that they are a nation must be accepted without cavil." Can one=20
quote this passage from Ambedkar to maintain that he was advocating=20
the cause of Pakistan? Oh, certainly not. Ambedkar is explaining=20
Muslim League's point of view, not his own.

Ambedkar had his own view of Muslims and Pakistan. He was totally=20
opposed to the concept of Hindu Raj as well. In the section "Must=20
There Be Pakistan" he says, If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will,=20
no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what=20
the Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to the liberty, equality and=20
fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu=20
Raj must be prevented at any cost."

Still Ambedkar did not want partition. He says, "How have the French,=20
the English, and the Italians succeeded in preventing the Raj of the=20
majority community being established in their country? Surely, not by=20
partition: What is their method? Their method is to put a ban on=20
communal parties in politics. No community in Canada, South Africa or=20
Switzerland ever thinks of starting a separate communal party."

Ambedkar makes a very pertinent point in this respect and Indian=20
Muslims should coolly deliberate over this. Ambedkar says, What is=20
important to note is that it is the minority nations, which have=20
taken the lead in opposing the formation of a communal party. For=20
they know that if they form a communal party the major community will=20
also form a communal party and the majority community will thereby=20
find it easy to establish communal Raj. It is vicious method of=20
self-protection."

Thus it is very clear that Ambedkar was certainly not anti-Muslim nor=20
in favour of Pakistan. He wanted a just solution to the minority=20
problem in India. He gives his suggestions in the last section of his=20
book i.e. part v. On page 359 of his book Ambedkar says that "Is not=20
a fact that under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms in most provinces,=20
if not in all, the Muslims, the non-Brahmins and Depressed Classes=20
united together and worked the reforms as members of one team from=20
1920 to 1937? Herein lay the most fruitful method of achieving=20
communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims and of destroying the=20
danger of Hindu Raj. Mr. Jinnah could have easily pursued this line.=20
Nor was it difficult for Mr. Jinnah to succeed in it."

And Ambedkar was convinced that "..Mr. Jinnah is the one person who=20
has all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form=20
such a united no-communal party. He has ability to organize. He had=20
the reputation of a nationalist."

Thus a careful study of Ambedkar on the question of Pakistan makes it=20
clear that he was far from being anti-Muslim as Shri Katiyar of BJP=20
would like to project him. He was very balanced and just in his=20
attitude towards Muslim question and suggested very constructive way=20
out. One must read the full text of the book to understand Ambedkar's=20
attitude towards the communal question in pre-independence India.=20
Likes of Katiyar have neither ability nor honesty to study Ambedkar's=20
writings before making public statements. He does so only to derive=20
political mileage and polarise Hindus and Muslims on one hand, and=20
Muslims and dalits, on the other, to monopolise Hindu votes.

_____

#6.

The Times of India (New Delhi)
January 21, 2003

When Democracy Mocks
[Ayub, Vinod and Shankar]

M H Jowher

Justice Delivered! People's court punishes the guilty. Dharma and
secularism win as BJP suffers humiliating defeat in Gujarat elections.
The killings of the innocent avenged. Hindus show solidarity with Muslim
victims.

On 15th December, 2002 Ayub Mansuri was amongst the many who were hoping
against hope to hear such a verdict from the people's court. That the
reverse happened with BJP winning a landslide victory unnerved him
raising some fundamental questions. Serious questions not just for the
thousands of Mansuris but for every thinking Indian.

Ayub is a weaver, or rather was. He lost a hand to the sword of a face
covered with saffron. Before that he had clothed many an Indian. With
his rudimentary knowledge and business sense he wonders if Muslims are
Indians alright. Do they enjoy the same privileges at law as any other
Indian does. If so, how come the 2000 plus Muslims killed or burned to
death [and often both] did not merit even a mention in the entire
election campaign that revolved around the 58 Hindus brutally massacred
in Sabarmati Express.

The irony that Ayub finds difficult to comprehend is that the verdict of
over 50% Gujarati voters virtually rewards the accused. Most of those
guilty of heinous crimes, including the accused of the infamous Naroda
Patia carnage, won handsomely. The BJP swept Central Gujarat where
maximum killings took place. Its victory margins receded away from the
epicentre of violence. Frightened at the implication, Ayub asks, if it
was a popular endorsement of the carnage?

Most political pundits were carried away by the fact that BJP was losing
most elections during preceding three years in Gujarat including
Municipalities and Panchayats. Modi's predecessor, Keshubhai Patel was
replaced after four year's of non-performance. Within weeks Godhra and
post Godhra violence ensued. So BJP was unable to showcase anything by
its own admission. Except, of course, the Muslim killings conveyed
triumphantly through Gaurav Yatras with a masterly crafted strategy
based on allusion and innuendo. Gaurav of teaching "them" a lesson,
most knew.

As I brood over Ayub's dilemma, Shankarbhai and Vinodbhai of the Vinoba
Bhave Ashram walk in my office. In Mehsana district, in villages around
Idar Taluka, Muslims who lost all they had, are still not allowed to
return, they complain. They have resided and worked there for decades
and must return to their home, insist these two Gujaratis. Clearly they
have not understood the election verdict. They also show me a list of
some 24 names, of people who have lost their homes, shops, everything
but received no compensation at all. Their fault? Like hundreds others,
they had not checked into relief camps and, therefore, did not form part
of victims' statistics.

Ayub seems to have reconciled to the fact that the guilty will never be
punished since some of them now sit in the Assembly. He seems to have
learned his lessons that Hindutva wanted to teach. But Shanker and Vinod
clearly have not. We must pursue them till the end, they say. I remind
them that Ashok Bhat the Gujarat Minister of Law, co-accused in a
communal murder, with the central Minister of State for Defense, Haren
Pathak, will now appoint his prosecutor. A God fearing man, Shankar
firmly believes: Bhagwan ke yahan der hai, andher nahin [God might
delay, but will not deny justice]. As this trio reminisced, our staff
had no doubt who the most hated Chief Minister of India is. Ironic
contradictions of democracy, one might feel.

Sometime ago Jug Suraiya painted in this column an alarming scenario
involving Crowd India and Mob India. If Shankar, Vinod and Ayub had read
it they might spell democracy as democ(k)racy. Or perhaps demo(b)cracy.

But is Ayub's plight entirely due to the saffron excesses? Hasn't the
Indian Muslim leadership contributed to his dispensability
significantly? In 52 long years they gave him not one university, not
one national newspaper; neither a scheduled commercial bank nor a TV
channel. They did not bother to explain to the Hindu majority the true
Islam, the true character of the Somnath plunderer or to dispel the
myths that Muslims marry more and breed much. They could not even
explain Kashmiri atrocities as more political than communal violence,
that in Kashmir far more Muslims died than Hindus. Not even one percent
Hindus were asked to ponder why every other Act of our legislature
excludes J&K from its purview, why it has its own flag and constitution
or why its CM was until recently called the Prime Minister.

Sadly the Muslim political leadership generally engaged with
obscurantism and tokenism: Shah Bano, Haj subsidy, Republic Day
boycott.. Even as the Muslim share in employment, industry, banking,
defence and security services kept declining to abysmal depths, the
community got branded with "appeasement". The clergy on its part
woefully failed to clarify controversial concepts like Kafir and Jihad
in the Indian context. They were busy meddling with matters temporal.
Despite losing Babri Masjid - and hundreds of other mosques and
thousands of innocent lives - they will not account for their bankruptcy
of vision and mismanagement. And crores of Ayub Mansuris continue to be
crushed between militant Hindutva and irresponsible leadership.

Vinod and Shankar could return none of Ayub's dead relatives, burnt
property or lost livelihood. But they give him something more important.
A hope. Faith that truth will triumph one day and justice will be done.
Somehow Ayub knows that as long as there are Hindus like them he has a
future in India. Citing the essence of dharma, the duo assures him
further that the Gujarat experiment cannot be repeated elsewhere in
India. As Ayub rises to leave he hopes that his community will not be
held hostage to the misdeeds of some mad Muslims ever again. Vinod
angrily interrupts him, "are you sure who did Godhra?".

M H Jowher runs a voluntary organization, SPRAT, and is accessible at
info@m...

_____

#7.

ALL INDIA CHRISTIAN COUNCIL
President: Dr Joseph D' Souza Secretary General: Dr. John Dayal

Please correspond with Secretary General at:
Phone (91 11) 22722262 Mobile 09811021072
Email: <mailto:johndayal@v...>johndayal@v...
PRESS STATEMENT
22 JANUARY 2003

Kerala Police action condones RSS murderous assault on Christian Pastors

Religious intolerance visible in expulsion of Pastor Cooper

International community must investigate Sangh Parivar as Religious=20
Terrorist group

The following statement has been issued by All Indian Christian=20
Council President Dr Joseph D Souza and Secretary general Dr John=20
Dayal following the Kerala police decision to expel visiting 67 year=20
old American pastor Joseph Cooper who was critically injured in a=20
murderous assault by the RSS while coming back from a religious=20
meeting in Killimanoor near Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala on 13=20
January 2003.. His Indian host, Pastor Benson K Sam, and his family=20
were also seriously injured in the attack in which the assailants=20
used knives, iron rods and explosives in a well planned conspiracy.=20
Persons arrested by the police have been positively identified as=20
members of the local RSS unit. The press statement also commemorates=20
the fourth anniversary of the gruesome murder of graham Stuart=20
Staines and his sons Timothy and Phillips in Orissa on 21-22 January=20
1999.

The All India Christian Council has once again called upon the=20
international community to investigate the Rashtriya Swayamsevak=20
Sangh, RSS and its Sangh parivar associates as violent religious=20
fundamentalist terrorist organisations which need to be banned in the=20
interest of global peace, regional stability and the unity and=20
integrity of the Indian republic. The murderous assault by identified=20
RSS workers on visiting American churchman Joseph Cooper and Kerala=20
Pastor Benson Sam and his wife and children near the capital city of=20
Thiruvananthapuram, has now been exposed as part of a well laid=20
conspiracy to terrorise, and polarise, the Dalit and Tribal=20
villagers in a state otherwise known for its inter religious harmony.

Joseph Cooper and the Sam family would certainly have been killed -=20
as were the Graham Stuart Staines family in Orissa in January 1999 -=20
but for their luck. Instead of vigorously pursuing the conspiracy and=20
arraigning the arrested RSS cadres on attempted murder and other=20
charges, the Kerala police has sought it fit to evoke a vicious Visa=20
regulation and expel Joseph Cooper. Whatever be the intention of the=20
Congress party coalition government of Chief Minister AK Anthony, the=20
action of the district authorities is widely seen as condoning the=20
killers and punishing the victim.

The State government has not shown the same haste on taking action -=20
including a possible ban - on the Sangh outfits at least in that=20
district, if not in the state. The RSS has been involved in several=20
actions of violence and hate mongering in other districts specially=20
since the Gujarat genocide of 2002. It is for Mr Anthony to consider=20
if this partisanship puts a big question mark on the credibility of=20
his government, and particularly of the police.

The Central government's instant support of the expulsion orders=20
against Joseph Cooper are quite in line with its naked support to the=20
fascist Sangh Parivar. Minister of State for Home Ch. Vidyasagar Rao=20
and the puppet National Minorities Commission are bent on proving=20
that the Atal Behari Government fully supports religious bigotry and=20
Sangh violence whether it is in Gujarat, Orissa or Kerala. It has=20
been widely noted that while the case against those allegedly=20
involved in the attack on Parliament has been correctly brought to a=20
speedy conclusion in less than a year, and those found guilty=20
punished awarded the death penalty, the cases against those involved=20
in genocide in Gujarat and the violence against Christians in several=20
states are either yet to begin, or are far from concluded.

It also seems futile to ask Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to=20
recall the notorious regulation on Visa which is directed almost=20
entirely against the Christian community. It seems strange that this=20
country with a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of faith denies=20
this freedom to visitors, including students. India, as newspaper=20
editorials have noted, has been known through the centuries for its=20
export of faith and philosophy, and there is hardly a country in the=20
world, which does not proudly host temples and welcomes visiting=20
Hindu evangelists and religious propagators. India has not given=20
religious Visas to Christians since 1957, and has since the coming of=20
the BJP government expelled scored of Catholic and Protestant priests=20
- among them scholars with a life long dedicated service to India.

By enforcing such Visa regulations, it allows itself to be counted=20
amongst those religiously fanatical and tyrannical theocratic states=20
against which it itself quite rightly fulminates. It is time India=20
shed this mentality and showed itself as a mature republic with=20
committed to international covenants of Freedom and Human Dignity.

Released to the Press by Dr John Dayal, Secretary General, All India=20
Christian Council

____

#8.

[Greenpeace activists have taken 18 barrels of toxic waste from=20
Bhopal to Switzerland to force Dow Chemical rid the Indian city of=20
its chemical wastes and pay compensation to the survivors of the gas=20
tragedy. This action comes on the heels of a similar protest in the=20
Netherlands. ]

o o o

Greenpeace.org
Dow talks about trust but refuses to act
Toxic waste from Bhopal returned to Europe

Tue 21 January 2003
SWITZERLAND/Geneva
While Dow executives chatted with fellow business leaders at the=20
World Economic Forum's 'Building Trust' annual meeting, we delivered=20
a reality check. Thirty Greenpeace activists representing the=20
International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB) transferred=20
eighteen barrels of poisonous waste to Dow's European headquarters in=20
Horgen, Switzerland. Others beat drums urging the US chemical giant=20
to stop poisoning people and clean up its toxic mess in India.
The 300 kg of poisonous waste is only a fraction of hundreds of=20
tonnes that have been strewn around the derelict pesticide plant in=20
Bhopal since 1984 when Union Carbide, which is now owned by Dow, fled=20
the city after a gas leak at the plant killed 8,000 people and=20
injured half a million.
Each of the eighteen barrels of delivered waste represents a year that
it has been left to leak into the soil and ground water around the=20
factory site and poison people who survived the gas leak. The death=20
toll currently stands at 20,000 and is rising every day. Children=20
born to survivors are suffering health problems and 150,000 people=20
are in urgent need of medical attention.
Dow's audacity to discuss matters of trust while refusing to accept=20
responsibility for the pollution they caused is sickening. Meanwhile,=20
confidential internal Union Carbide documents recently released by US=20
courts show that the company knew about the problems in Bhopal but=20
misled the public and the Indian authorities by saying the site was=20
clean.
We join the ICJB in calling on Dow to clean up the site, as well as=20
provide people with clean drinking water, long-term medical care and=20
full compensation. International legislation should be put in place=20
to make sure companies such as Dow are held responsible for pollution=20
or accidents their operations cause, wherever they occur.

____

#9.

Lannan Foundation
313 Read Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2628 [USA}

22 January 2003

Lannan Foundation Announces Its Fourth Annual Prize for Cultural Freedom
Writer Arundhati Roy to Receive $350,000 Prize

Santa Fe, NM-- Lannan Foundation announced that it has awarded its=20
fourth annual Prize for Cultural Freedom to the writer Arundhati Roy=20
of Delhi, India.
[...].

Text of Roy's acceptance speech.
http://www.lannan.org/CF/roy_acceptance.pdf

List of orgranizations that will share the Cultural Freedom Award prize mon=
ey
http://www.lannan.org/CF/roy_recipients.pdf

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996.
To subscribe send a blank message to:
<act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|
--=20