[sacw] SACW | 13 Feb. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | February 13, 2003

#1. A new referendum for Kashmir (Irfan Husain)
#2. "The Functioning of Parliament under Military: The case of=20
Pakistan" Sherry Rehman speaks at Exeter College
#3. Religion and Society (Andre Beteille)
#4. Insaaniyat meeting on Saturday 15th (Bombay) + A Candle-Light=20
Vigil against the planned war on Iraq 15 Feb, Bombay
#5. Publication Announcement : Terror Counter-Terror - Women Speak Out
Edited by Ammu Joseph & Kalpana Sharma
#6. Film on Gujarat Fascism by Suma Josson being screened in Canada on 16 F=
eb
#7. Dr Purushottam Agrawal speaking on "The Politics of Love and=20
Laughter" on 14th at
Delhi University

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

#1.

DAWN
08 February 2003

A new referendum for Kashmir
By Irfan Husain

The recent spate of tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats from the=20
Indian and Pakistani high commissions in each other's capitals shows=20
yet again the juvenile level of exchange the two countries have=20
descended to.
The Indian government has alleged (and probably not without cause)=20
that its acting high commissioner's car was deliberately cut off and=20
blocked by Pakistani intelligence operatives and its representative=20
in Islamabad had to wait for 45 minutes before he was allowed to=20
proceed to his destination.
We routinely level similar charges against the Indians. As Praful=20
Bidwai, the well-known Indian journalist, has noted recently, such=20
infantile tactics - running as they do against all civilized norms of=20
diplomatic conduct - were not used by the Americans and Soviets even=20
at the height of the cold war.
And coming as they do on the heels of the massive military build-up=20
the two countries indulged in recently, these undiplomatic and=20
unedifying manoeuvres have come as a rude awakening to those=20
perennially optimistic Indians and Pakistanis who keep hoping against=20
hope that miraculously, better sense will finally prevail and=20
relations between the two countries will improve.
Indeed, when troops were pulled back from the common border after=20
months of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, there were some faint=20
signs that over-flights would be permitted and rail traffic resumed.=20
But passengers still have to fly via Dubai if they are going from=20
Lahore to New Delhi and vice versa, taking six hours for a 45-minute=20
flight.
This kind of lunacy can be multiplied a hundred times to get an idea=20
of the kind of damage this mindless hostility is inflicting on=20
millions of people in South Asia. The entire region is hostage to the=20
unending Kashmir dispute with trade and travel at a virtual=20
standstill. The current state of affairs is enough to make any=20
rational and reasonable person despair.
Of course, we know that there are powerful elements in both countries=20
who want nothing better than for the status quo to remain unchanged:=20
the defence, intelligence and foreign office establishments in India=20
and Pakistan thrive on confrontation. Their budgets are bloated=20
beyond the capacity of both poverty-stricken nations, and yet year=20
after year, the generals and the spooks get whatever they want, plus=20
a few extras.
In Pakistan where the political class is basically an appendage of=20
the army, not a single question raised about military expenditure. As=20
a matter of fact, no details about the defence budget are provided to=20
the public or its representatives.
Even in India with its mature democracy and seasoned politicians, the=20
defence budget is a sacred cow, and the government of the day falls=20
over its own feet in its indecent haste to give the generals, the air=20
marshals and the admirals whatever new toys they want. Currently=20
around 10 billion dollars worth of arms are on order. The way the=20
whistle-blowing website Tehelka.com was shut down after it exposed=20
the corruption at the heart of the Indian military procurement system=20
was an eye-opener.
Recently I came across an article I had written in 1977 in which I=20
had waxed indignant about the pressure the Americans were exerting to=20
force Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to abandon Pakistan's fledgling nuclear=20
programme that was begun shortly after the Indian test in 1974. In my=20
immaturity, I had argued that each country had the sovereign right to=20
self-defence, and western preaching about non-proliferation was=20
hypocritical and patronizing. The assumption that only great powers=20
had the sense of responsibility needed to have nuclear arsenals was=20
rooted in colonial and racist attitudes.
In retrospect, I freely admit I was totally wrong. Judging from the=20
actions of Third World nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, as=20
well as nuclear wannabes like North Korea and Iraq, it is a fact that=20
we do not have the restraint and the mature leadership required to=20
ensure that these weapons are not launched in a fit of pique. Indeed,=20
contrary to conventional wisdom, the subcontinent has become a far=20
less stable region ever since India and Pakistan tested their bombs=20
over four years ago. In that short span of time, the two neighbours=20
have twice gone to the brink, first over Kargil, and then in the=20
aftermath of the attack on the Indian parliament.
Every time I have discussed the Kashmir dispute with the most=20
reasonable people in both India and Pakistan, we end up with a rehash=20
of the official positions the two countries have taken since the=20
early days of independence and the outbreak of the first Kashmir war.=20
This parroting of outdated arguments leaves little or no room for=20
creative thinking.
After a point, the legal rights and wrongs of a dispute are overtaken=20
by events, reality and the rights of the people who are party to the=20
quarrel. As Pakistan tries to drum up diplomatic support, it finds=20
that nobody really cares about who promised what to the UN 55 years=20
ago. It's ancient history in a fast-moving world. And when the=20
Indians talk about their rights to Kashmir, they are advised to=20
improve their human rights record there.
And so the confrontation drags on, threatening all of us in South=20
Asia with a nuclear holocaust, preventing meaningful social and=20
economic development and blocking foreign investment. For Pakistan,=20
another spin-off is the rise of jihadi culture that is destabilizing=20
the state. So what's the solution? How do we drag ourselves out of=20
the quagmire? In the original Security Council resolution, a=20
referendum was seen as the way to determine the wishes of the=20
Kashmiri people. India went back on its word, citing the change in=20
the environment after Pakistan signed a military pact with the United=20
States in 1954.
It would be pointless to go over the tired arguments that have been=20
repeated ad nauseam from both sides of the great divide. However, as=20
all the citizens of India and Pakistan have been made parties to the=20
dispute by their incompetent leaders, perhaps it is high time to ask=20
them how they feel about Kashmir. So maybe a referendum in both=20
countries is the way forward with New Delhi and Islamabad agreeing to=20
abide by the wishes of the majority. The referendum would be=20
supervised by the UN, and a single question would be put to all adult=20
citizens in India and Pakistan:
"Is Kashmir more important than jobs, education, roads, electricity=20
and medical care for you and your family?" If the majority says 'no',=20
then both governments should withdraw their forces from the parts of=20
Kashmir they control and allow the Kashmiris to decide their own=20
destiny without interference from India or Pakistan.

______

#2.

"The Functioning of Parliament under Military: The case of Pakistan"

SHERRY REHMAN
Current member of parliament (Pakistan)
& former editor, "Herald"

Time: 7.00 pm
Date: Wednesday 12th February, 2003
Venue: Saskatchewan Room, Exeter College

ORGANISED BY THE PAKISTAN DISCUSSION FORUM

International political developments since 9/11 have had a huge=20
impact on Pakistani politics. While affording Gen. Musharraf's=20
military regime an opportunity to win American favour in exchange for=20
cooperation in the "War on Terror", they allowed right wing religious=20
parties to capitalise on anti-US sentiments and obtain substantial=20
representation in Parliament, in October 2002 elections, for the=20
first time in Pakistan's history. The military establishment, backed=20
by international lobbies, succeeded, however, in keeping power away=20
both from the religious right and the moderate parties of exiled=20
former premiers, B Bhutto and N Sharif. Now, with an elected=20
government of his choosing in office, and a divided opposition=20
struggling to reassert the Parliament's legislative sovereignty.

Against this backdrop of lingering civil-military tensions, Sherry=20
Rehman, reputed journalist, now MP, shares her views on the prospects=20
of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan.

______

#3.

The Telegraph
Thursday, February 13, 2003
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030213/asp/opinion/story_1656090.asp

RELIGION AND SOCIETY
- In Hinduism, the principle of hierarchy clashes with that of tolerance
ANDR=C9 B=C9TEILLE

The author is chairman, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

Just over 50 years ago, M.N. Srinivas, who was to emerge as India's=20
leading sociologist, published his book Religion and Society among=20
the Coorgs of South India. The book introduced a new approach to the=20
understanding of Hinduism, and it established its author's reputation=20
as a sociologist of the first rank. In it he used the distinction=20
between the book-view and the field-view of society and the contrast=20
between the Indological and the sociological approaches to religion.=20
It may appear in retrospect that the contrast was overdrawn; but it=20
expressed an insight of great significance.

Srinivas became the leading advocate of the field-view and the=20
sociological approach, by which he meant an approach based on a=20
careful and methodical examination of observed or observable facts.=20
It does not treat religion as being either completely autonomous or=20
as invariant, eternal and unchanging. Religious beliefs and practices=20
vary and change, and this has to be examined in relation to variation=20
and change in the structure of society. No religion operates=20
independently of specific social arrangements, and Srinivas set out=20
to show the two-way relationship between religion and social=20
structure. This approach does not always find favour with religious=20
believers who are inclined to re- gard religion as pure and society=20
as corrupt.

The believer seeks out what he sees as the invariant and unchanging=20
core of religion, and when he does not find it, he tends to put the=20
blame on external material and historical forces for it. The Hindus=20
in particular have lived with the idea of Kaliyuga since time=20
immemorial, and that has helped them to explain many things away. The=20
sociologist, on the other hand, recognizes that religious beliefs and=20
practices are embedded in the social order, and tries to see how they=20
are refracted by it. For him, Hinduism is not single and indivisible.=20
Thus, Srinivas spoke of local Hinduism, regional Hinduism, peninsular=20
Hinduism and all-India Hinduism. He also showed how religious beliefs=20
and practices were refracted by the structures of joint family, caste=20
and village.

Srinivas drew pointed attention to the limitations of the book-view=20
of Hinduism which was the view accepted by most educated Hindus at=20
the time. By the book-view of Hinduism he meant that view of it which=20
was based on an understanding of ancient and medieval texts. He=20
believed that those texts were remote from the current reality and=20
that they gave a false sense of unity and harmony whereas the actual=20
beliefs and practices of the Hindus were full of ambiguity and=20
inconsistency. This was true not only of religion but also of major=20
social institutions such as caste and joint family. The field-view=20
would bring the reality closer to the understanding of educated=20
Indians.

Historically speaking, the sociological approach to religion=20
advocated by Srinivas is an offspring of religious scepticism rather=20
than religious faith. Moreover, it is of relatively recent origin.=20
Even in the West, it is scarcely a hundred years old. Today the=20
sociology of religion is a well-established discipline in the West,=20
but, despite the lead given by Srinivas more than 50 years ago, it is=20
not so in India.

In the Western countries the sociology of religion faced stiff=20
opposition at first from the practitioners of established disciplines=20
such as theology and the philosophy of religion. The theologians=20
mistrusted the moral detachment with which the sociologists sought to=20
approach their subject. When they examined Christianity on the same=20
plane of observation and analysis as other religions such as Hinduism=20
or even Animism, they were denounced for denigrating the true faith.=20
The sociology of religion, on the other hand, is concerned with=20
neither the denigration nor the adulation of any particular religion=20
but with examining the varieties of religious beliefs and practices=20
in their specific social contexts.

For the believer, religion is the most important part of social life.=20
For the sociologist, there are also other important features of it,=20
such as kinship, economics and politics, and he tries to show how=20
religion is related to them. Not only is the sociologist reluctant to=20
assign a privileged place to religion among the various institutions=20
of society, he is also reluctant to assign a privileged place to any=20
one religion as against the rest.

When Srinivas published his study of the Coorgs shortly after=20
independence, he did not have to face the kind of opposition from=20
established religious positions that his predecessors in the West had=20
had to face 50 years or so before him. The climate of opinion in=20
Nehru's India was more tolerant of religious scepticism and even=20
religious dissent. At the same time, the lead given by Srinivas in=20
the objective and empirical study of Hinduism was not followed by=20
many sociologists in India. Where it comes to religion, the approach=20
of the moralist prevails over that of the sociologist, at least among=20
Indians, including Indian sociologists. The moralist tends either to=20
extol religion - true religion as he perceives it - as the cure for=20
every ill, or to condemn it as false consciousness or the opium of=20
the masses.

It is a difficult thing for believing and practising Hindus to=20
examine their own religion objectively and dispassionately. But=20
unless this is done we will not be able to see clearly the inner=20
contradictions of Hinduism that a changing social and political order=20
is bringing to the surface. Hindu intellectuals responded better to=20
the challenge that their religion faced in the early phase of=20
colonial rule than their counterparts are doing today.

A distinction is now being increasingly made between Hindutva and=20
Hinduism. Hindutva has adopted an aggressive posture and its=20
proponents wish to create a Hindu state, presumably along lines=20
similar to the Islamic republic of Pakistan. Liberal Hindus are=20
appalled by the aggressiveness, but their intellectual response can=20
hardly be regarded as adequate. They reject Hindutva, but they cannot=20
turn their backs on Hinduism. They invoke a tolerant and benevolent=20
form of Hinduism which is presumed to have prevailed before it was=20
appropriated by evil and vengeful persons for their own nefarious=20
ends.

It is true that, on a certain plane, Hinduism has a remarkable=20
tradition of tolerance. It is no less true that it has a remarkable=20
tradition of hierarchy. The tradition of tolerance included the=20
tolerance of untouchability and the perpetual tutelage of women. It=20
is easy enough, while talking about Hinduism, to move on to the lofty=20
plane of pluralistic values and to ignore the social consequences of=20
the hierarchical structure of those values.

The hierarchy operated, and to some extent continues to operate,=20
through the most elaborate and comprehensive forms of social=20
exclusion known to human history. Social exclusion was maintained=20
through the rules of purity and pollution which have deep roots in=20
Hindu religion. It is to Srinivas's credit that he explained the=20
operation of these mechanisms and their central place in the=20
religious life of the Hindus. He always described himself as a Hindu,=20
and it was far from his intention to denigrate his own religion. But=20
as a sociologist, he sought to present a balanced account of it. A=20
balanced account of Hinduism cannot sweep under the carpet the=20
contradiction inherent in it between the principle of accommodation=20
and the principle of hierarchy.

______

#4.

Subject: Insaaniyat meeting on Saturday 15th
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:45:13 +0530

Dear Friend

After the Gujarat carnage, almost everyone who wants peace and=20
harmony in this world, and especially in our own country, felt=20
shocked and depressed that people could inflict such inhuman=20
brutality on innocent human beings. These feelings bordered on panic=20
- that this was a precursor to a savage wave that would=20
eventually sweep this country. And, all of us felt strongly enough=20
about it to want to DO SOMETHING as a response. Something that would=20
contribute to rooting out this communal poison, and to eventually=20
stopping this terrible political violence that has become the trend=20
around us.

Well, for any response to be effective, one has to be prepared for a=20
long haul. Change, especially in this atmosphere of intense hatred=20
and deep-seated prejudices, is a long and arduous process. But, it is=20
possible. It needs us to formulate long-term strategies for=20
action. And it needs for us to not lapse into apathy and cynicism;=20
because hatred flourishes on the indifference and inaction of good=20
people.

Insaaniyat was formed as a spontaneous response to the Gujarat=20
genocide. It became a platform on which individuals who wanted to do=20
something about communalism and violence - anything in their own=20
way - could coalesce and strengthen their actions in tandem with=20
others. Several long-term strategies for action were worked=20
out collectively, and work has been going on within the several=20
sub-groups that were formed.

It is time to take stock of how far Insaaniyat and all of us have=20
come, of what couldn't be done, how it can be done. Time to see if we=20
need to reorient our approach. And it is time to see how we can be=20
more effective, include more people.

Carried below is the announcement for a meeting that we've organised=20
for this purpose. There is little doubt that it is imperative that=20
all of us, including you, should be there to take this movement=20
forward. It is only our constant efforts and collective actions that=20
will make any difference in this world. If we remain together and=20
active, there is a hope for peace, harmony and sanity around us.

Anjum Rajabali

Dear friends,

This is to remind you about the Insaaniyat meeting
on

SATURDAY 15 FEBRUARY, 3-6.00 P.M., NIRMALA NIKETAN
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK, NEW MARINE LINES, NEAR
CHURCHGATE STATION. [Bombay]

At the end of the previous meeting on January 11th,
we agreed that we would try to meet once a month, in
order to preserve some sense of continuity and
discuss issues on which we need to have clarity if we are to combat
the communal onslaught, so this can be
considered the first of these. The proposed agenda
is as follows:

1. A time-limited (perhaps 1 hour?) discussion on:
What do we mean by secularism? What should our attitude
be to religion? (In case anyone thinks these issues are
simple and straightforward, just consider the
following questions: Are religious personal laws
compatible with a secular state? Are secularism and
communalism mutually exclusive, or can individuals
be secular in some respects and communal in others?
What is our attitude to the issue of religious
conversions? It is our lack of clarity on these questions that has
provided space for the outrageous claim that Hindutva is secularism!)
We may not end up agreeing on all these issues, but at least we
should discuss them. At the end of an hour, we can decide whether to
continue the discussion next time or take up something else.

2. Our future activities and how we should organise
them. The task we have undertaken is huge and
multifarious, we need to attract many more people,
bring them together, and find ways in which they can
contribute. Is the work group structure we adopted
at the beginning the best way to do this? Some groups
have worked very well, but others have not been so
successful - for example, the cultural activities
group made a good start but later ceased to be active,
the media group never really took off, etc. We didn't
have time to discuss this properly at the last meeting, so we need to
do it now.

3. New issues and proposals for new activities keep
coming up. For example, Geeta has suggested that we have a solidarity
week starting February 28th and culminating on March 8th
(International Women's Day); we won't be able to have activites every
day (though maybe we can do something small every day, like wear a
black ribbon or arm band), but we could have, say, one public
meeting, an exhibition at Hutatma Chowk, and a joint action with the
women's groups on March 8th. How can we organise ourselves so that we
can respond to a rapidly changing situation?

PLEASE COME, MAKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS, AND PARTICIPATE
IN THE DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION-MAKING!

In solidarity and hoping to see you there!
Rohini

Dear friends,

15 February has been selected as a worldwide day of protest against
the planned war on Iraq. According to the website providing
information about the protests,

'Globally, February 15 will likely be the single largest day of
protest in world history.'

The protest movement is growing rapidly, with trade unionists in
Britain even threatening a general strike if Blair decides to go to
war. For once there is a chance that public action could actually
stop the war.

We are planning an event in Bombay as part of the global protest:

A CANDLE-LIGHT VIGIL FROM 6.30 TO 7.30 P.M. IN FRONT OF CHURCHGATE
STATION. [Bombay]

Before that, at around 5.30 p.m. at our meeting in Nirmala Niketan,
we will make banners/placards, and decide if we want to do anything
else, such as march to the Kala Goda festival.

PLEASE DO COME IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN. REMEMBER: WORLD PEACE DEPENDS ON
THE EFFORTS OF PEOPLE LIKE US!

In solidarity,
Rohini

_____

#5.

TERROR COUNTER-TERROR

Women Speak Out

Edited by Ammu Joseph & Kalpana Sharma

Published by Kali for Women (2003)

Terror is a matter of fact. Globally

Long before the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11,=20
2001, large parts of the world had lived with and resisted terrorisms=20
that often masqueraded as liberation struggles: Sri Lanka, Bosnia,=20
Rwanda, Northern Ireland, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India,=20
Palestine/Israel...

Women across the world have spoken out against terrorism, militarism=20
and violence of all kinds as an unacceptable strategy for resolving=20
differences and conflict. As women, they have spoken from an=20
experience of all three that is both personal and political, and have=20
analysed the links between agressive masculinity, fundamentalism,=20
war, global capitalism, politicized religion and ethnic nationalism.

This anthology, ranging over the last decade, is a powerful statement=20
against all terrorism, as well as any counter-terrorism that uses the=20
same violence to deal with it.

Some of the writers featured in the anthology:

Susan Sontag, Anisa Darwish,Rohini Hensman, Barbara Kingsolver,=20
Barbara Ehrenreich, Sunera Thobani, Dubravka Ugresic, Amira Hass,=20
Nelofer Pazira. Robin Morgan, Rosalind Petchesky, Sonia Jabbar,=20
Vandana Shiva, Martha Nussbaum, Madeline Bunting, Kamila Shamsie,=20
Suheir Hammad, Ayesha Khan.

______

#6.

Film on Gujarat Fascism by Suma Josson

GUJARAT: A LABORATORY OF HINDU RASHTRA, OF FASCISM

"Shot many months after the genocidal killings and destruction, and=20
focussing on certain towns and villages in Gujarat, the film explores=20
the extent to which the fascist ideology has penetrated the=20
consciousness and behavior of ordinary Gujarati Hindus.
- The film examines the caste and class factors underlying the growth=20
of fascism in Gujarat.
- Besides interviews with trade unionists, human rights activists and=20
other specialists, the film also features VHP leaders and explores=20
their views on democracy, Hindu Rashtra, the Constitution, the=20
position of women, etc.
- The film argues that if fascist forces are not urgently checked,=20
future India will look like Gujarat today."
- Suma Josson

Born in Kerala, a graduate of College of St. Teresa in Minnesota,=20
Suma Josson has made two feature films (Janmadinam and Saree) and=20
several documentary films, including "Bombay, the Blood Yatra", on=20
the 1993 massacre of Muslims in the city of Bombay. Her feature films=20
have gone to International Film Festivals in Berlin, Korea, Fort=20
Lauderdale, Trivandrum, Mumbai, Calicut, and most recently in=20
Wurzeburg in Germany. Her feature films as well as documentaries have=20
also been shown at a number of universities in Europe and North=20
America.
Screening on Feb.16 in Canada organised by SANSAD (South Asian=20
Network for Secularism and Democracy)

_____

#7.

Dr Purushottam Agrawal from JNU will be speaking (in Hindi) on "The
Politics of Love and Laughter" on Friday the 14th at 12-30 pm at the
Delhi School of Economics, [Delhi] university campus. Students have arrange=
d an
exhibition and event to celebrate love. All are welcome.

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

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

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
--=20