[sacw] SACW | 21 Feb. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | February 21, 2003

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

SACW dispatches are being interrupted from today on. There will be no=20
posts from 22nd of February, 2003 onwards till the 13/14th of March=20
2003.

____________________

Contents:

#1. Companies Face Quandaries Over Matching-Gift Programs (David Bank)
#2. An India of their dreams
India's Muslims should no longer see themselves only as victims (Mukul Dube=
)
#3. Auctioning Ayodhya: communal complicity and breach of trust by=20
the BJP led Government (Rajeev Dhavan)
#4. Countering communalism: a seminar at the Calcutta Press Club
#5. Two Books by Yoginder Sikand
#6. Call For Submissions by South Asian poets in America

-----------------------------------

#1.

The Wall Street Journal
February 18, 2003

Companies Face Quandaries
Over Matching-Gift Programs

By DAVID BANK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The massive earthquake that killed thousands of people in the Indian=20
state of Gujarat two years ago hit home in Silicon Valley, where=20
Indian-born engineers make up a sizable chunk of the work force.=20
Technology companies moved quickly to support the disaster-relief=20
efforts.

Perhaps too quickly, some companies say now.

<""""'"http://online.wsj.com/mds/companyresearch-quote.cgi?route=3DBOEH&tem=
plate=3Dcompany-research&ambiguous-purchase-template=3Dcompany-research-sym=
bol-ambiguity&profile-name=3DPortfolio1&profile-version=3D3.0&profile-type=
=3DPortfolio&profile-format-action=3Dinclude&p>Cisco=20
Systems Inc.,=20
<""""'"http://online.wsj.com/mds/companyresearch-quote.cgi?route=3DBOEH&tem=
plate=3Dcompany-research&ambiguous-purchase-template=3Dcompany-research-sym=
bol-ambiguity&profile-name=3DPortfolio1&profile-version=3D3.0&profile-type=
=3DPortfolio&profile-format-action=3Dinclude&p>Oracle=20
Corp. and=20
<""""'"http://online.wsj.com/mds/companyresearch-quote.cgi?route=3DBOEH&tem=
plate=3Dcompany-research&ambiguous-purchase-template=3Dcompany-research-sym=
bol-ambiguity&profile-name=3DPortfolio1&profile-version=3D3.0&profile-type=
=3DPortfolio&profile-format-action=3Dinclude&p>Sun=20
Microsystems Inc. have suspended matching grants to the India=20
Development and Relief Fund, of North Bethesda, Md., after receiving=20
reports from critics both here and in India that some of the money=20
may have gone to Hindu extremists linked to violence against Muslims=20
during bloody riots in Gujarat last year.

A report published in November by activists in Bombay, India, accuses=20
the IDRF of providing support to groups linked to sectarian violence.=20
Critics of the IDRF have been spearheaded in the U.S. by the Campaign=20
to Stop Funding Hate. "We felt a lot of people did not know what they=20
were giving money to," says Shalini Gera, a spokeswoman for the=20
loose-knit group whose address is a post office box in Stanford,=20
Calif.

The IDRF, which has raised more than $10 million since 1997, says it=20
funds only humanitarian relief and economic-development projects in=20
India. In denouncing the report, supporters of the IDRF have attacked=20
its critics variously as "leftists," "communists," or "pan-Islamists"=20
who have little knowledge of IDRF's relief work. The accusations are=20
"falsehoods packaged by propagandists masquerading as concerned=20
citizens of the world," said Vijay Pallod, an IDRF spokesman.

Amid a murky political landscape of charge and counter-charge about a=20
charitable group's activities abroad, what are administrators of=20
corporate matching-gift programs supposed to do? Their difficulties=20
in sorting out the issue demonstrates the complexities companies face=20
in disbursing hundreds of millions of charitable dollars each year.

"This has the potential to scare companies from doing this as 'too=20
controversial,' " says Rosalie Gann, who directs Oracle's=20
matching-gifts program. "There's no way you want any kind of=20
controversy around philanthropy and volunteers."

A survey in 2000 of more than 1,000 companies by the Council for=20
Advancement and Support of Education found that nearly one-quarter of=20
companies match gifts to any group with tax-exempt status as=20
determined by the Internal Revenue Service.

But an organization's tax status says little about its activities.=20
Benevolence International Foundation, based in Chicago, earned=20
tax-exempt status and qualified for matching funds from several=20
companies until the U.S. Treasury Department put it on its list of=20
terrorist-linked organizations last fall. The head of Benevolence=20
International, Enaam Arnaout, this month pleaded guilty to defrauding=20
donors by illegally buying boots and uniforms for rebel fighters in=20
Bosnia and Chechnya. (The U.S. government dropped more serious=20
charges that the charity had funded Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda=20
organization.)

<""""'"http://online.wsj.com/mds/companyresearch-quote.cgi?route=3DBOEH&tem=
plate=3Dcompany-research&ambiguous-purchase-template=3Dcompany-research-sym=
bol-ambiguity&profile-name=3DPortfolio1&profile-version=3D3.0&profile-type=
=3DPortfolio&profile-format-action=3Dinclude&p>Microsoft=20
Corp., which last year matched $19.8 million in employee=20
contributions, sent about $20,000 to Benevolence International over=20
several years, says Bruce Brooks, its director of community affairs.=20
Compaq, now part of=20
<""""'"http://online.wsj.com/mds/companyresearch-quote.cgi?route=3DBOEH&tem=
plate=3Dcompany-research&ambiguous-purchase-template=3Dcompany-research-sym=
bol-ambiguity&profile-name=3DPortfolio1&profile-version=3D3.0&profile-type=
=3DPortfolio&profile-format-action=3Dinclude&p>Hewlett-Packard=20
Co., matched $2,400 in gifts to Benevolence International between=20
1999 and 2001, an H-P spokeswoman said.

As for the IDRF, Microsoft has provided the group $55,000 since 1999.=20
Microsoft hasn't moved to suspend the organization's eligibility=20
because it isn't explicitly political or religious, says Mr. Brooks.=20
"We have not gone down the path of making value judgments about our=20
employees' choices," he says.

It isn't feasible to investigate the activities of every=20
organization, says Roy Kaplan, president of JK Group Inc., a=20
Princeton, N.J., service that runs matching-gift programs for many=20
corporations. "With matching gifts of $25 or $35, how much can you=20
invest in vetting that agency, versus just making the donation?"

Mr. Kaplan, acknowledges, however, that some companies do sometimes=20
veto matching donations to some groups. Cisco, for example, is among=20
many companies that don't match gifts to the Boy Scouts of America,=20
citing their policy excluding openly gay scouts and scoutmasters.=20
Some companies block gifts to Planned Parenthood to avoid any=20
association with abortion; some also block funds to antiabortion=20
groups, Mr. Kaplan says. Some companies won't match gifts to either=20
the National Rifle Association or to pro-gun control organizations.

Watchdog organizations say charities need closer scrutiny. "If the=20
only steps you're taking is to see whether they've been given=20
[nonprofit] status by the IRS and to see whether they're on the=20
terrorist list, you're not taking as many steps as you probably=20
should," says Kyle Waide, deputy director of Charity Navigator, a=20
nonprofit ranking service in Mahwah, N.J.

Charity Navigator=20
(<http://www.charitynavigator.org/>www.charitynavigator.org) lists=20
more than 2,100 charities but hasn't ranked IDRF because the group's=20
tax returns raised questions, Mr. Waide says. For example, the group=20
raised $3.8 million in 2001 while spending only $15,000 on fund=20
raising and incurring almost no other overhead fees. "There may be an=20
affiliate organization they have not named that serves as the=20
operating arm for that organization." he says.

A spokesman for the IDRF says the group's overhead is low because it=20
is run by volunteers who pay their own expenses. The spokesman also=20
said, "We are very definite in our response that we have never funded=20
[organizations] that have used funds for anything other than=20
development and relief. We are not religious. We are not a sectarian=20
organization. We are not in the business of spreading hate."

The Financial Times reported that the U.S. State Department has=20
referred the report alleging ties between the IDRF and extremist=20
Hindu groups to the Justice Department for investigation. A State=20
Department official confirmed the report has been forwarded to the=20
Justice Department for review.

The debate over the IDRF has divided Indian employees in Silicon=20
Valley. Although Cisco has sent IDRF at least $70,000 since 1999, its=20
own India-born employees reflect the split over the IDRF debate. On=20
the company's internal "Masala" e-mail discussion list, some=20
criticize the group's political links, while one employee railed=20
against "Indians trying [to] block Indians helping Indians."

Shyam Palleti, an engineer who helped form Volunteers for India=20
Development and Empowerment, worries that suspension of matching=20
funds might harm future fund-raising efforts for disaster relief in=20
India.

In 1999, when a cyclone caused major flooding, Cisco employees=20
quickly raised nearly $129,000, including company matching, most of=20
which went to the IDRF. When the earthquake struck Gujarat in January=20
2001, Cisco employees quickly raised about $750,000. Only a small=20
amount went to IDRF because Mr. Palleti's group had developed its own=20
network of contacts in India, though the IDRF remained a partner in=20
the effort. "All the money went to the right projects," Mr. Palleti=20
says.

At Oracle, some employees who donated to the IDRF after the=20
earthquake back the company's decision to suspend matching grants.=20
Bhaskar Ghosh, a software developer, said he gave $300. "Everybody=20
assumed the money would go to the right place," he says. But if the=20
IDRF did back violence in Gujarat, he says, "I don't want to support=20
it and I would be happy if my company doesn't support it."

Write to David Bank at <mailto:david.bank@w...>david.bank@w...

Updated February 18, 2003

______

#2.

The Indian Express,
20 February 2003
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D18722

INTERVENTION

An India of their dreams
India's Muslims should no longer see themselves only as victims

Mukul Dube

Some months after the World Trade Center attack and the Gujarat=20
massacre, a Muslim friend told me that he was concerned that many of=20
his Muslim friends had sunk into a state of resentment and despair.=20
He said they went on endlessly about how the whole world had turned=20
against Islam, how Muslims were being blamed for every crime under=20
the sun, and how no one had come to their defence even after the=20
horrors of Gujarat. What worried him, he said, was that these people=20
thought of no positive response: they only sat still and fumed and=20
lamented. He saw in this a psychological state which would lead=20
inevitably to disaster.

He feared, in particular, a violent reaction. On the one hand, this=20
fear was based on the fact that a man pushed to the wall has no=20
option other than to beat his way to freedom with his fists. But, at=20
the same time, a violent reaction would only play into the hands of=20
the Sangh Parivar, who would claim that they had been right all along=20
and would then go about engineering a massacre infinitely larger than=20
the one they accomplished in Gujarat. It would work like a=20
self-fulfilling prophecy.

I asked what was the alternative. His answer was at once starkly=20
simple and stunningly profound. In no rational form of social=20
organisation, he said, could rights be divorced from duties. None=20
could hope to get something for nothing. You had to work for what you=20
wanted.

If this argument were to be acted upon, India's Muslims would no=20
longer crouch in a dark well of hopelessness, they would no longer=20
see themselves only as victims. Instead, they would see India as=20
their country, to which they owed their all - and they would work to=20
make the India of their dreams, the India of every Indian's dreams.=20
All Indians, working shoulder to shoulder.

Like the rest of us, Muslims in India must fight for their rights-=20
but for their rights as citizens of a democratic nation, not just for=20
their religious rights. A struggle which uses religion as its=20
justification will only antagonise other religious communities,=20
especially the majority, which will see it as a challenge. This will=20
also be a distortion of the only struggle which is valid today - the=20
struggle for every citizen's rights, upon which alone a nation can=20
stand.

If India's Muslims claim only that which is guaranteed to every=20
citizen by our Constitution, the Vedic Taliban - whose offensive is=20
based on religious bigotry and is anti-democratic in a fundamental=20
way - will be left with no leg to stand on. Their arguments, relying=20
as they do on a travesty of religion, will count for nothing against=20
a stand which has nothing to do with religion. They cannot then=20
shriek about a mythical "appeasement" of those who contribute far=20
more to the country than they themselves do or ever have done.

______

#3.

The Hindu
Feb 21, 2003
Op-Ed.
http://www.hindu.com/stories/2003022100251000.htm

Auctioning Ayodhya

By Rajeev Dhavan

What we are faced with is a game of legal cowardice, communal=20
complicity and breach of trust by the Union Government.

THE VAJPAYEE regime's intervention in Ayodhya constitutes a grievous=20
breach of trust of the legal confidence reposed in the Union=20
Government by both the Supreme Court and Parliament. Following the=20
destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, an unequal=20
status quo in favour of the Hindus was imposed on the disputed site=20
and surrounding areas by permitting prayers at the makeshift temple=20
constructed on the ruins of the mosque. By section 3 of the=20
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993, all these lands were=20
transferred to and vested in the Union Government. Without=20
distinguishing between the `disputed and undisputed' areas, the=20
statute preserved the status quo on both.

But once this land was acquired, what was the Union Government to do=20
with it? The answer to this lay in section 6, which empowered the=20
Government to vest the land in some other authority or trust subject=20
to such conditions which the Government might lay down. Taken to its=20
logical conclusion, this was an awesome provision. I distinctly=20
remember when I was arguing the Babri Masjid case in 1994, Chief=20
Justice Venkatachaliah - then presiding over the Constitution Bench=20
hearing the case - asked me what I thought of this massive=20
empowerment in the Central Government to do what it liked. I replied:=20
"If this power is taken literally, it empowers the Government to=20
conduct a political auction to give the land to the highest political=20
purchaser whom the Government wanted to favour". Could the Union=20
Government convert its trusteeship over the acquired land into a=20
political auction? The Chief Justice's response to me is now firmly=20
in the judgment.

The position of the Union Government was that of a statutory=20
receiver. No political auctions were countenanced. The Union as=20
`receiver' could not play to the political gallery. As far as the=20
disputed site was concerned, the Government had simply to wait for=20
the decision of the legal dispute. For the rest of the area the=20
Government's ownership was absolute. To use the Court's own words,=20
"The status of the Central Government as a result of the vesting...=20
is, therefore, that of a statutory receiver in relation to the=20
disputed area, coupled with a duty to manage it and administer the=20
disputed area maintaining status quo therein till the final outcome=20
of adjudication of the long standing dispute relating to the disputed=20
structure at Ayodhya. Vesting in the Central Government of the area=20
in excess of the disputed area is, however, absolute". The words are=20
clear. The Government's ownership of the disputed area is=20
transitional and subject to the final determination. However,=20
contrary to what is being argued now, the Government's ownership of=20
undisputed area is - and I repeat - absolute.

An impression has gained ground that the undisputed area can be=20
returned any time on the basis of the kind of political auction that=20
the Vajpayee Government wants to be free to conduct. In actual fact,=20
the `Hindu' owners of the undisputed areas failed in their argument=20
that the acquisition of their lands was not necessary. Justifying the=20
acquisition of the undisputed land that belonged to the Hindus, the=20
Court accepted that this was "...to ensure that the final outcome of=20
the adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the existence=20
of properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the disputed=20
structure in the case Muslims are found entitled to the disputed=20
site. This obviously means that in the event of the Muslims=20
succeeding... their success should not be thwarted by denial of=20
proper access to, and enjoyment of rights in, the disputed areas by=20
exercise of rights of ownership of Hindu owners of the adjacent=20
properties". Nothing could be clearer. The acquisition of the=20
undisputed properties was necessary and had to wait the resolution of=20
the legal dispute. In fact, the Court made it even clearer still that=20
even the acquisition of the `Manas Bhawan' and the `Sita ki rasoi'=20
was legal and proper. Any other course of action would be unfair to=20
the trust reposed in the Union Government.

The idea that the undisputed land could somehow be released in=20
advance of the legal dispute being resolved is a complete misnomer.=20
In fact, the Court clearly indicated that the Hindu owners of the=20
undisputed land could stake a claim for its return only after it had=20
been found to be superfluous and, therefore, "unrelated to the=20
purpose of the acquisition". That stage can only be reached once the=20
legal dispute is resolved. On March 13-14, 2002, it was argued that a=20
premature transfer of the undisputed `Hindu' owned lands could be=20
made. Never was an interpretation so hopelessly misplaced. In fact,=20
in the very sentence that was relied upon, the Court reiterated that=20
the acquisition of these excess lands was absolute "subject to the=20
duty to restore it to the owner if its retention is found to be=20
unnecessary, as indicated". And, what had been indicated is clear. No=20
land can be returned until the dispute is resolved so that the=20
victory of either party is not thwarted by pre-emptive action.

What remains a matter for concern is not the letter and spirit of a=20
judgment that leaves little room for mischief. On his retirement from=20
the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Chief Justice Verma not=20
only made it clear that his `Hindutva' judgment was misused but also=20
that his Babri Masjid judgment did not permit the undisputed lands to=20
be transferred to the Hindus prematurely. No doubt, this=20
clarification has no authoritative value. But, at the same time, it=20
cannot be ignored.

Both the Ayodhya Act of 1993 and the Babri Masjid judgment expect the=20
Union Government to act in a fair and just manner. From 1994 to 2002,=20
there was no dispute whatsoever on the meaning of the Supreme Court's=20
verdict. It was at the Kumbh Mela at Allahabad in January 2001 that=20
the Sants and VHP made an unequivocal threat to build by March 2002=20
on the site itself. As a neutral `trustee', Mr. Vajpayee's Government=20
should simply have declared that no question arose at all of either=20
returning any of the acquired land or building on any or all of it.=20
Instead, the Union Government played with the issue and let it=20
develop into a full-blown crisis in March 2002. In the hearings of=20
March 13-14, 2002, the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabji, batted for the=20
Government while supposedly acting as the amicus curiae of the Court=20
in his own right. Having allowed the crisis to be created, the Union=20
Government dragged the Court into resolving it. The Court stepped=20
into the fray to once again impose the unequivocal status quo=20
intended by both Parliament and the Supreme Court. A year later, the=20
Government has allowed - even encouraged - another crisis. Now, it is=20
acting in an even more obscure manner. It has not filed an=20
application which states its own views. It wishes to exploit a=20
pending case and pass on the problem once again to the Court. In its=20
application, the Government says: "...(T)he continuing state of=20
uncertainty is not in the public interest". But, there is no=20
uncertainty other than that created by the Government itself, the VHP=20
and other members of the Sangh Parivar. Nothing prevents the=20
Government from saying that there is no uncertainty and solemnly=20
promising to preserve the status quo.

The Government has simply caved in to its fundamentalist political=20
support. What we are faced with is a game of legal cowardice,=20
communal complicity and breach of trust by the Union Government. It=20
seems to have forgotten that the trust reposed in the Union=20
Government over Ayodhya is not a political toy to incite communalism=20
but a sacral duty to be fair to all.

______

#4.

The Hindu
Friday, Feb 21, 2003
http://www.hindu.com/stories/2003022105321300.htm

`Counter communalism'

By Our Special Correspondent

KOLKATA FEB. 20. A panel of media personalities today urged the media=20
to come forward and play the role of a counter to communalism which=20
has emerged as a major challenge to the polity.

There was a convergence of views on the issue of combating=20
communalism which was the central theme of a seminar organised by the=20
Kolkata Press Club. Among the participants were N. Ram, Editor,=20
Frontline, Teesta Setalvad, Editor, Combat Communalism, C.R. Irani,=20
Editor, The Statesman, and Uttam Sengupta, Resident Editor, The Times=20
of India, Kolkata.

Talking about the media's role in reporting communalism, Mr. Ram said=20
that some sections of the Hindi language press had turned "kar=20
sevaks'' while reporting the demolition of the Babri masjid. In=20
Gujarat, the national press was honest and humane. "It actually blew=20
the whistle on the Gujarat carnage when it reported the plans and the=20
players behind it.''

Mr. Irani said the RSS, the Shiv Sena and the VHP leaders should not=20
be kept off the front pages. "It is important to give them prominence=20
so that the people get the opportunity to mock them, ridicule them=20
and ultimately push them out of circulation.''

Rudrangshu Sengupta, a senior journalist with The Telegraph, who was=20
the moderator, said a section of the media instigated communal=20
violence by spreading disinformation. "It continues to demonise=20
Muslims and Christians. What we are witnessing today is junk food=20
journalism.''

Ms. Setalvad said the media should find out the forces behind events=20
that ultimately led to communal violence.

______

The Times of India
EDITORIAL

Political Beef
If proof were needed that the Congress was re-positioning itself as=20
the B-team of the BJP, then it has come from Digvijay Singh's Madhya=20
Pradesh.
[ 12:01:15 AM Friday, February 21, 2003 ]
http://203.199.93.7/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=3D38087030

______

#5.

Two Books by Yoginder Sikand

1. 'The Origins and Development of the Tablighi Jama=92at=20
(1920s-2000): A Cross-Country Comparative Study'
Publisher: Orient Longman, New Delhi
Year: 2002
Pages: 310
ISBN: 81-250-2298-8
Price: Rs. 595.

The Tablighi Jama'at is arguably the most widely followed movement in=20
the Islamic world. Emerging from the socio-economic and historical=20
context of the Mewat region near Delhi in the 1920s, it has now=20
established itself in over a hundred and fifty countries. It draws=20
its inspiration from the Deobandi traditions of Islamic reform, and=20
focuses on its aim of creating good Muslims. Along with its emphasis=20
on simple living, a lack of enthusiasm for science and technology,=20
face-to-face communication, rather than official publications or=20
written material, the Jama'at also eschews an involvement in=20
politics. Partly for these reasons, that make it somewhat=20
inaccessible, the Tablighi-Jama'at, despite its importance, has=20
received little academic interest. This book examines the Tablighi=20
Jama'at in three very different contexts=97Mewat (India), Bangladesh=20
and Britain.
Contents: 1. Muslim missionary activism in early twentieth century=20
North India. 2. Tablighi Jama'at: concepts, principles and=20
strategies. 4. Tablighi Jama'at in Mewat. 5. Tablighi Jama'at in=20
Bangladesh. 6. Tablighi Jama 'at in Britain. 7. Conclusion.

2. SACRED SPACES: EXPLORING TRADITIONS OF SHARED FAITH IN INDIA
Publisher: Penguin (India),New Delhi
Year: 2003
Pages: 288
Price: Rs. 250

This travelogue describes places of worship in India, from Kerala to=20
Kashmir, where people of different faiths come together in common=20
worship. It discusses various aspects of religious syncretism and=20
liminality in the lived religious traditions of India, pointing to=20
alternate ways of understanding religion and the notion of community=20
identity.

______

#6.

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

"Writing the Lines of Our Hands"

<http://www.writingthelines.com>http://www.writingthelines.com

Postmark deadline: March 15, 2003

Creative Arts Books Company announces "Writing the Lines of Our Hands",
an anthology aiming to capture the diversity of aesthetic expressions,
forms and content currently being explored by South Asian poets in
America

"Writing the Lines of Our Hands" is the first anthology to focus
purely on the poetry of South Asian Americans. To that end, the present
collection seeks to embrace the diversity of genres extant in our
poetry community today, whether slam, sonnet, limerick or lyric poetry.

"Writing the Lines of Our Hands" will present voices drawn from all
stages of experience with a special focus on the emerging voices of the
present generation. Furthermore, the current collection seeks to
anthologize the myriad, diverse voices that constitute our notion of
the South Asian diaspora in America, including poets who trace their
cultural roots back to Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldive Islands,
Nepal, Pakistan or Sri Lanka.

CREATIVE ARTS BOOK COMPANY has a long history of publishing such
seminal poets as Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Allen Ginsberg and Gertrude
Stein. "Writing the Lines of Our Hands" is due to be published early in
2004.
For more information,, check website:
<http://www.writingthelines.com>http://www.writingthelines.com

SUBMISSIONS

ELIGIBILITY:

South Asian poets whose permanent residence is in the US. We strongly
encourage submissions by writers from traditionally underrepresented
regions such as Bhutan, Maldive Islands and Nepal and are particularly
interested in the work of new and emerging poets.

FORMAT OF POEMS:

Applicants may submit up to a total of ten pages of poetry.
=20=20=20=20=20=20
Each poem should be formatted in the following way:
i) 8" x 11' inch white paper
ii) submissions should be on one side of the page only
iii) if work is longer than one page please head each page with
writer's name, poem title, page number and total number of pages for
that poem
iv) use only paper-clips to secure manuscripts (no binders/staples
etc)
v) 3 copies of each poem

COVER LETTER:

Each application must include a cover letter, detailing the following
applicant information:

i) full name
ii) postal address
iii) contact telephone number
iv) contact email address
v) titles of submitted poems together with page length of each
poem
vi) nationality
vii) town and country of birth
viii) the region(s) in South Asia with which you identify
ix) current place of permanent residence
x) details of where and when each poem has been appeared if
previously published
xi) OPTIONAL: please include a self-addressed stamped postcard if you
wish to have the receipt of your application confirmed.

Please send all applications (postmark deadline MARCH 15, 2003) to:

South Asian American Anthology Committee
Creative Arts Books
833 Bancroft Way,
Berkeley, CA 94710

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

NEELA BANERJEE
Neela Banerjee was born and raised in the MidWest, where she attended
Oberlin College. She has worked as a journalist for the past three
years and is the editor-in-chief of AsianWeek newspaper, the nation's
only
pan-Asian Pacific American news weekly. Her poetry has been published
in A Room of One's Own, Nimrod and the Asian Pacific American Journal.

SUMMI KAIPA
Summi Kaipa received her MFA in Creative Writing at the University of
Iowa. In 1998, Kaipa founded Interlope (www.interlope.org), a journal
devoted to innovative work by emerging and established Asian
American writers, and her first chapbook, The Epics, was published by
Leroy Press in 1999. She is currently working on a book-length prose
piece titled Was.Or.Am, which explores the making of an Indian
American nation state as its relates to a young woman's identity.

PIREENI SUNDARALINGAM
Pireeni Sundaralingam was born in Sri Lanka and educated at the
University of Oxford, England. Her forthcoming collection of poetry
("Margin Lands") details the loss of land and language experienced by
exiled communities throughout the world. Her work has been featured in
The Oxford & Cambridge Anthology of Poetry and the Tebot Bach Anthology
of Californian Poetry and she was recently awarded an "Emerging Voices"
Rosenthal Fellowship by PEN USA. In her spare time, she is a professor
of cognitive science.

For more information,, please check website:
<http://www.writingthelines.com>http://www.writingthelines.com
Email: editors@w...
Postmark deadline: MARCH 15, 2003

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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex).
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