[sacw] SACW | 20 March 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  20 March,  2003


#1. An Island of Peace? (Radhika Coomaraswamy)
#2. New 'shariah' in the NWFP (Editorial, Daily Times)
#3. Savarkar and Gandhi (A.G. Noorani)
#4. Secularists on the Firing Line (Ram Puniyani)
#5. Is Secularism Dead in India? (Asghar Ali Engineer)
#6. In Kashmir, parents fear a witch-hunt (Muzamil Jaleel)
#7. RSS - Light Another Match (Saba Naqvi Bhaumik)
#8. Rationalising Hindutva  (Ravikumar)
#9. The war as commodity (M V Ramana)
#10. An avoidable war (Najid Hussain)
#11. Seized With A Feeling Of Insecurity (Batuk Vora)


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

#1.


The New York Times
  March 19, 2003

An Island of Peace?

By RADHIKA COOMARASWAMY

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka =97 While the rest of the world seems to be marching 
to war, Sri Lanka, wearied by a military stalemate after 18 years of 
war, is walking slowly, haltingly and surprisingly toward peace.

It is a peace tempered, however, by the remembrance of the 64,000 
people who have been killed. The yearlong cease-fire between the 
government and the rebels, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has 
not generated a spirit of celebration. Mistrust between the Tamil 
minority and the Sinhalese majority remains strong, and the campaign 
by the Tigers to consolidate their control of the areas they dominate 
is making everyone uneasy.

Nonetheless, there is some reason for optimism. Both sides seem to 
have realized that a military victory is neither possible nor 
desirable =97 at least for the moment. The Tigers failed in their 
campaign to expel government forces from the north in 1997 and 1998. 
Besides, they realize that even if they had succeeded, the 
international community would have refused to recognize them as a 
separate state because of their appalling history of suicide bombings 
and assassinations. Peace gives the Tigers an opportunity to gain 
legitimacy and recognition.

The government, too, seems to recognize that war won't work. It is 
clear that without a peace a Sinhalese-dominated army will always 
face resistance in the Tigers' stronghold, the north and east; that 
the Tigers and their sympathizers will always be able to disrupt the 
rest of Sri Lanka; and that the death toll of an all-out war will not 
be internationally acceptable. For these reasons the government of 
Ranil Wickremesinghe seems committed to peace through negotiations.

In addition, the cease-fire has had tangible benefits. The economic 
growth rate for the last quarter exceeded 5 percent, up from a 1 
percent decline a year ago. With the help of international 
reconstruction money, people who fled war are returning to their 
homes, land is being cleared of mines, and commerce is reviving. This 
traffic of people and goods has opened vistas and opportunities =97 so 
much so that some commentators argue that the Sri Lankan peace 
process is unique in putting economic normality before political 
normality.

The Tigers, meanwhile, have declared that they are willing to explore 
a federalist model as an alternative to a separate state =97 an 
important shift in their thinking. And because of the work of 
Norwegian mediators, negotiators on both sides seem committed to 
resolving conflicts in the peace process through committees and 
expert groups rather than by the piecemeal efforts of earlier 
negotiations.

These successes have given peace advocates a reason for optimism. 
This optimism, however, isn't blind. Serious problems remain in the 
areas dominated by the Tigers. Political opponents have been abducted 
and killed. Members of the Muslim minority have rioted, citing 
harassment and demands for money by the Tigers, and some young 
Muslims are even seeking a separate province.

Another cause for concern is the government, in which the prime 
minister and the president are from opposing parties. Both support 
the peace process, but differ on how much to accommodate the Tigers. 
Any solution requires bipartisan support.

In many ways the conflict in Sri Lanka has been about control over 
material resources. But it has also been a question of imagination. 
Since independence in 1948, the Sinhalese have been taught that Sri 
Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist homeland. The Tamils, divided by language 
and culture from the Sinhalese, have been taught that the north and 
the east should be their traditional homeland.

If Sri Lanka is to thrive, the international community needs to 
continue to press for respect for human rights and to make sure that 
funds for reconstruction are not squandered. The Tigers will have to 
adapt, learning to respect the rights of their own people and 
embracing a democratic ethos. It is imperative that all parties in 
the negotiations sign on to a human rights agreement that would be 
monitored by international observers.

And Sri Lankans have to start imagining themselves differently, to 
accept the plurality of their heritage and the multiethnic nature of 
their society. Judging from the outpourings by both Sinhalese and the 
Tamils in the national newspapers and journals since the peace 
process began, however, that will be a long time in the making.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, director of the International Center for Ethnic 
Studies in Colombo, teaches at the New York University School of Law.

______


#2.

The Daily Times
March 20, 2003

Editorial: New 'shariah' in the NWFP

The Nifaz-e-Shariah Council in the NWFP has finalised its 
recommendations and submitted them to the chief minister of the 
province, Mr Akram Khan Durrani. The council was charged with the 
task of putting together a comprehensive roadmap for the enforcement 
of Islamic law in the province, and its guiding principle were the 
recommendations made in the past years by the federally constituted 
Council for Islamic Ideology (CII). The MMA government in the 
=46rontier decided in principle to 'Islamise' the province on the lines 
suggested by the CII. The Frontier chief minister has declined to 
reveal the contents of the Nifaz-e-Shariah Council report, but one 
can safely assume that it would contain many explosive items putting 
the province at cross-purposes with the federal government. The 
electoral rift that developed with the 2002 election now promises to 
widen and is bound to have repercussions in other provinces too where 
the MMA parties have a much enhanced appeal among the population.
Pakistan is supposed to be under a full-dress Shariah on the 
principle of "inclusion". The Federal Shariat Court and its 
provincial chapters see to it that any laws repugnant to the Quran 
and Sunna - the basic components of Shariah - are struck from the 
statute books. Anyone finding government procedures in violation of 
the Shariah can go to the Federal Shariat Court and have them 
abolished under the Constitution. Some constitutional experts think 
that the Court has a supra-constitutional writ, but that is the way 
it is. The clerical parties have never agreed with this "inclusive" 
approach and want an "exclusive" Shariah imposed on Pakistan. The 
state has not been able to enforce even the "inclusive" writ of the 
=46ederal Shariat Court in the case of the abolition of "riba" (bank 
interest). It now faces the onslaught of a more "imitative" Shariah 
as envisaged by a clerical consensus in the country.
Article 228 of the Constitution says the Council for Islamic Ideology 
(CII) should be composed of no less than eight and no more than 20 
members, one of them being a lady. Since scholars from all schools of 
thought are mandated, the President may appoint Deobandi, Ahle Hadith 
and Barelvi members. With the passage of time, the Council has become 
dominated by the hardline Ahle Hadith-Deobandi consensus enhanced by 
appointees of Jamaat-e-Islami. We don't know how the President 
fulfils the constitutional requirement that at least four members 
should be scholars of 15 years' standing. Does he lean to 
achievements in 'modern' research or does he reinforce the 
conservative outlook prevalent in the seminaries? Unfortunately, the 
CII has been sending out extremist signals, mandating compulsory 
namaz (prayer) and banning bank-notes with the picture of the Quaid 
on them. Its thinking, needless to say, has been closer to that of 
the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The NWFP has already enforced parts of an extreme Shariah while 
asking the federal government to deliver on some measures that the 
provincial government can enforce only with its consent. The 
situation is rife with possibilities of a centre-province stand-off 
in which the clergy of the other provinces will also participate. 
This new conflict will feed into the LFO-Iraq politics in which the 
political parties in the opposition have accepted a status 
subordinate to the more agitational MMA. The Shariah itself is 
different in different Islamic states: in Egypt, "riba" has been 
allowed by the clerical authority; in Iran, "rijm" (stoning to death) 
has been abolished. But in the NWFP both these provisions are top of 
the list, with an easier death under Blasphemy Law thrown in for good 
measure. *



______


#3.

=46rontline
Volume 20 - Issue 06, March 15 - 28, 2003

CONTROVERSY

Savarkar and Gandhi

A.G. NOORANI

The unveiling of SavNrkar's portrait in Parliament shows that the BJP is
prepared to stoop low to accomplish its sordid ends. It will replace the
national ideology of secularism with Hindutva and Gandhi as the Father of
the Nation, with Savarkar who, the Kapur Commission found, had conspired
to kill him.

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2006/stories/20030328003603400.htm

______



#4.

Indian Currents
March 16, 2003

Secularists on the Firing Line

Ram Puniyani

The secularist bashing is the order of the day. Along with popularizing
Pseudo Secularism as the most popular abuse, secularists have been
targeted in various ways. They are one sided, are pro Muslim, are western
oriented, they do not respect Indian traditions etc. have been the
commonplace criticism against the secularists. Times and over again they
are supposed to be the criticizing Hindus only and siding with Muslims.
Lately in the gush of success of Gujarat model, the secularists are being
projected as the major threat to the Nationalism and starting from Togadia
to the spokesperson of RSS, Mr. Vaidya, threats and advises are aplenty
for them. While one cannot ignore the Togadia prescription (and threat)
that the people will deal with these guilty men (secularists) on the
streets, at the same time one has to take the advice of the RSS
spokesperson a bit more seriously. One does realize that in a way Togadia
and Vaidya are two poles of the same thinking process, same attitude but
the way of putting the things is different while the kernel remains the
same.

Mr. Vaidya, RSS spokesperson in a signed piece recently argues that
secularists' juxtaposing of Hindutva and secularism is wrong, secularism
can not be the life philosophy of any individual unless he is an atheist,
Hinduism is inherently secular, secularists credentials are in doubt as
they oppose Uniform civil code, abrogation of article 370. Also they
support the concessions to Muslim minority institutions, and so the
credentials of secularist are suspect and they are on trial.

Long charge sheet. It does incorporate charges of different hues. It must
be made clear that the practice of secularism by most of the political
parties, groups and individuals has not been uniform. There are many
parties wedded to secularism but under pressure from growing
communalization of society, have been compromising in various ways. One
also will not like to take up the secular practices of parties like the
ones of George Fernandes, Sharad Yadav et. al. There are many a groups,
writers and individuals who have stood like rock as far as the practice of
secularism and its exposition is concerned. While one is not in a position
to defend the opportunistic practices of many a parties posing to be
secular, one is talking of the concept and practice of secularism. At the
same time one is aware that the post-Nehruvian practice of secularism by
Congress did give the ground to communalists to coin the word pseudo
secular.

The first argument of Mr. Vaidya is that the juxtaposition of Secularism
and Hindutva is faulty and has no substance in it. As we are aware the
concept of Secularism in Indian context was the underlying theme of
movements as diverse as the one represented by Bhagat Singh, Communists,
Ambedkar and Indian National Congress. Though these may sound a diverse
group, what brings them together is their concept and practice of
secularism. One must say that even within Congress we will restrict our
attention to Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Azad. These streams were focusing
on the concept of India as a modern democracy with all its plurality, with
religion as the private matter. The major focus was on the issues of
'this' world. In contrast the stream of Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha-RSS were talking in terms of Religion based Nationalism. The
latter stream came up with Hindutva as the signature of its politics. And
Hindutva is based on the Brahminical stream of Hinduism and incorporates
the concept of race (Aryan), language (Sanskrit) culture (Brahminical) and
the land spread from Sindhu to seas. Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Nation and Hindu
state is the goal of this politics. What is the similarity between these
two notions, Hindutva and Secularism? They are as different as chalk and
cheese. While secularism is the base of democracy, the concepts of
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in contrast Hindutva bases itself on the
concept of religious identity being the prime determinant of nationhood.
Here Secularism puts forward the concept of India as the primary identity,
the National identity and regards Hinduism and all other religions as the
private matter of the individual. In Hindutva, which is a political
construct, Indian identity is a marginal concept. The values of our Indian
nation, the principles, which emerged during the freedom struggle are the
one's which are enshrined in our constitution. Nothing can be farther from
each other.

Mr. Vaidya goes on to rubbish the point by saying that it cannot be the
life philosophy of anyone unless one is an atheist. To begin with
secularism is the policy of the state and not the life philosophy of an
individual in the sense in which Mr. Vaidya is using it. Secularism is the
principle, which keeps the state policies away from the interference of
Mullahs or Priests or the Dharnmgurus of various hues. It is not
anti-religious in any sense but just goes on to say that state will
formulate its policies based on the issues of this world only. None other
than Gandhi answered this question, "Religion and state will be separate.
I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair.
The state has nothing to with it. The state will look after your secular
welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on,
but not your or my religion. That is everybodys personal concern. (Gandhi
quoted in Madan, Indian Journal of Secularism1997, 4).

Here the projected dichotomy between secularism and religion is negated in
an apt manner and Gandhi's whole life is there for us to see this profound
truth. One can be deeply religious and believe in secular state, like
Gandhi and Maulana Azad. One can also be not so religious but believe in
state based on Religion like Jinnah and Savarkar. So the thought that we
can have a secular state only if majority is atheist has no relevance in
this debate.

It is nobody's argument that Hindu is anti secular. Most of the Hindus,
rather huge majority of Hindus, who participated in the freedom struggle,
in the movement led by Mahatma and also movements running parallel to it,
were having the vision of secular state. Most of the Muslims also who were
part of this movement had the same belief and vision. While the one's
claiming to be the representatives of Hindus like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS
did not share this belief so they kept aloof from this movement. The same
applies to the minority of Muslims who toed the Muslim League and like
their counterparts, RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, kept aloof from the movement
for democratic, plural and secular India. Here the fact that people regard
religion as private matter and state policy to transcend the individual's
religion is more than manifest.

Than comes the charge that Secularists are opposing common civil code ands
abolition of article 370. Both these questions are fairly vexed and to
think that this tantamount to appeasement of the minorities etc. has been
popularized beyond limits. What is the real case? Why Indian constitution
in the first place kept safeguards for dalits and minorities? Democracy is
not just about being aloof to the mosaic identies and problems of weaker
sections. It is an affirmative action to guarantee theses sections that
their disadvantage of being a minority will be offset by state protection
for a period of time. Unfortunately the way majoritarian politics ha been
intimidating the minorities and situations could not be created to do away
with these safeguards regarding Dalits and minorities both. The question
of removing these safeguards being postphoned time and over again has more
to do with the domination of majoritaran politics, which is the more
dominant cause of communal violence, intimidation and ghettoisation of
minorities.

  Religious communities can overcome the adverse situation only if they
feel secure and homely. With the type of Hindutva getting transformed into
the Moditva the feeling of security for minorities is a far-fetched dream.
No threatened community can undertake or accept the reforms. We do need a
gender just uniform civil code, it is what we should strive for. In a
country where Muslims are 11.9%, but amongst the riot victims they
constitute 80%, the feeling of insecurity is paramount in the minorities
and it is bit too much to impose the reforms in such a state of mind. We
need a breathing space; we need a time where the violence in the name of
religion, violence in this or the other pretext is checked, guilty of
crime punished and law implemented in an honest fashion. We need a space
where the language of revenge and the rivers of blood of minorities do not
constitute the pride of a particular religion. If we can have such a state
of society removal of the privileges to minority institutions and
implementation of Uniform gender just civil code will be the agenda of the
day and all those struggling for human Rights of weaker sections of
society will lead the way for these codes and provisions on the priority
basis.

Again abrogation of article 370 has more to do with restoration of
democratic spirit in the concerned areas. This article and 'Do Vidhan Do
Pradhan' (Two constitutions-Two chiefs) was the basis on which Kashmir
acceded to India. The impositions of integration clauses in a hurry and
curtailing of democratic spirit led to a situation where militancy could
grow and Pakistan trained terrorists could get the ground for the nasty
situation to be created. It is nobody's case to have different clauses for
an area just because of Muslim majority. It is a question of bringing in
the spirit of democracy and winning over the confidence of local
population, which alone can lead us to greater integration of different
parts of the country.

Congress times and over again did compromise with the fundamentalist
sections of Muslim and Hindu communalists both. Congress practice did
appease the Mullas (Shah Bano case) on one hand and VHP (opening the locks
in Ayodhya) on the other. The criticism of secularists on these issues is
that Congress failed to practice secularism in a principled way. To call
it pseudo secularism was a brilliant stroke. The corrective was to
practice the same in an uncompromising way, but the alternative asserted
was that of a blatant Hindu communalism.

Secularism is on trial but not in the court of Indian constitution but in
the court of forces which have nothing to do with the values emerging from
India's freedom struggle, Indian constitution and those who have nothing
to share in common with the type of values which Gandhi's Hinduism
represented.

_____


#5.

Secular Perspective
March 16-31,2003

IS SECULARISM DEAD IN INDIA?

Asghar Ali Engineer

Secularism had evoked certain controversies in India from very 
beginning but nevertheless it was accepted by all baring few 
exceptions. Since the concept of secularism did not exist in India 
its equivalent was also not found in Indian languages. It had to be 
translated. In Hindi it was translated as dharm nirpekshta and in 
Urdu it was rendered as la diniyyatI. Both these translations were 
not correct as they implied neutrality towards religion and being 
non-religious respectively.

Even in the west it did not mean being non-religious. It implied 
neutrality of state towards religion. West had ushered in democracy 
much before India did and secularism is quite important for 
democratic functioning and particularly if society as in India 
happens to be multi-religious. A multi-religious society cannot 
function democratically without secularism.

In democracy citizenship and citizens' rights are most central. While 
in a non-secular state religion becomes central and citizenship 
becomes secondary. India was from very beginning of its known history 
a multi-religious and multi-cultural society. Democracy in such a 
society cannot function without secularism as in democracy 
citizenship has priority over religion. In democracy all are equal 
citizens though they may not follow same religion or may not follow 
any religion at all.

Thus when the Britishers left and India chose to be democracy it had 
no recourse but to opt for secularism as well. Only a secular 
democracy can ensure equal rights for all citizens. The argument that 
since Pakistan chose to be Islamic nation India too has right to 
become a Hindu Rashtra is not valid one. Pakistan was based on two- 
nation theory and was primarily a Muslim nation it could choose to be 
Islamic nation (though a modern nation-state and a religious state 
are anomalous) but this course was certainly not available for India, 
it being a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-lingual country.

Thus India rightly chose to be a secular country in the sense that 
Indian state shall not privilege any religion and that followers of 
majority religion shall not have more privileges than the followers 
of minority religions in terms of citizenship. Also that state shall 
protect all religions equally without any distinction.

This came to be known as Nehruvian model of secularism and a broad 
consensus was evolved around it. Only the Jansangh, which had very 
narrow political base until then rejected any concept of secularism 
and stood for Hindu Rashtra. However, even Jansangh while merging 
into the Janta Party in post-emergency period in 1977 accepted 
secularism and Gandhian socialism and took pledge to this effect on 
Gandhiji's samadhi in Delhi. However, for Jansangh it was more a 
tactical move than a principled stand.

Though in its new avtar as BJP it continued to swear by secularism 
but began to promote most militant Hindu nationalism in mid-eighties. 
One of the members of Sangh Parivar the Vishwa Hindu Parishad adopted 
Hindu militancy without any restraint. In the post-Minakshipuram 
conversion period the Vishwa Hindu Parishad came to the forefront and 
got involved in most militant propaganda of Hindutva. There were open 
assaults on Nehruvian model of secularism and even secularism as such 
was dubbed as a western concept quite alien to Indian culture.

But for the BJP there were certain restraints and it could not reject 
secularism openly without drawing criticism. So it adopted a new 
tactics; it began to talk of positive secularism and denounced 
Nehruvian secularism as 'pseudo-secularism'. According to the BJP 
Nehruvian secularism was based on what it called 'appeasement of 
minorities' and it defined appeasement as allowing minorities to 
follow their personal law and allowing their men to take four wives.

This assault on Nehruvian secularism, which ultimately meant assault 
on constitutional secularism, became sharper and sharper with passage 
of time. The BJP ultimately adopted what it called the 'Hindutva 
agenda' and this agenda, as is well known, included abolition of 
personal laws (enforcing common civil code), Article 370 (special 
status for Kashmir) and building Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

Obviously a secular state cannot undertake construction of temples 
and mosques and BJP's Hindutva agenda was a direct blow to the 
Constitutional concept of secularism in India. The BJP government and 
its other Parivar members are openly attacking a concept of 
secularism around, for which there was a broad consensus, as pointed 
out above.

The BJP was somewhat restrained at the Centre as it is a coalition 
government but it had no such restraint in Gujarat where it was in 
power of its own. And it was in Gujarat that one could understand to 
what extent it would go if it ever came to power at the Centre. 
Gujarat was often described as a 'laboratory of Hindutva' and it 
became a mini-Hindu Rashtra. And after the horrible Gujarat riots, 
which shamed the country and winning the elections with two-third 
majority the BJP leaders began to say that we will repeat the Gujarat 
model in other states of India.

Thus it has become more than obvious that the BJP in principle 
rejects secularism and only adopts it tactically while in power as 
part of NDA alliance. Not only this it has been systematically 
carrying out campaign for Hindutva politics. Even the Prime Minister 
Shri Vajpayee is on record to have said in USA that RSS is 'my soul' 
and RSS, as everyone knows stands for Hindu Rashtra.

It is unfortunate that this aggressive propaganda has affected even 
the principal opposition party the Congress. It has also wilted under 
pressure and has adopted what is being described as softer variety of 
Hindutva. Even in late eighties and early nineties some of the 
Congress members had begun to talk of secularism being unsuitable for 
India and under pressure from aggressive BJP propaganda sought to 
redefine secularism. Mr. Narsimha Rao, the then Prime Minister also 
adopted policy of soft Hindutva and even refused to take any action 
while the Babri Masjid was being demolished. He was almost under awe 
of the BJP propaganda.

In fact the Congress commitment to secularism began to weaken in the 
last phase of Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she tried to utilise VHP for 
her survival and to compensate for loss of Muslim votes. Mr. Rajiv 
Gandhi too did not show any strong commitment to secularism and his 
notorious reversal of the Shah Bano judgement and laying the 
foundation of Ramjanambhumi and call for Ramrajya on the eve of 1989 
parliamentary elections also delivered a great blow to Nehruvian 
concept of secularism.

The Gujarat carnage in February-March last year further struck fear 
in the minds of Congress politicians and except for few exceptions 
the Congress leaders are adopting soft variety of Hindutva. Though 
the 'Gujarat model' did not work in Himachal Pradesh and the BJP lost 
elections there the fear of alienation from Hindu voters is very much 
there in the minds of the Congress leaders.

Even during the Gujarat election campaign in post-Gujarat carnage the 
congress leaders, particularly Mr. Kamalnath who was in charge of 
elections in Gujarat, did not allow any Muslim congress leaders like 
Mohsina Kidwai or Ahmed Patel to campaign for the Congress. Not only 
this he did not allow even leaders like Arjun Singh to campaign for 
election as Arjun Singh has pro-Muslim image.

The Congress openly played pro-soft Hindutva card by making Waghela 
as the Congress chief of Gujarat as he was an ex-RSS man and it was 
thought that he will be better able to attract the Hindu votes in 
Gujarat. However, the soft Hindutva did not work in favour of the 
Congress and BJP won with two-third majority in Gujarat elections.

But instead of learning any lesson from the Gujarat defeat the 
Congress leaders want to play the soft Hindutva card in other states 
like the Madhya Pradesh. Even a person like Digvijay Singh who has 
been known for his commitment to secularism is now playing this card 
and is demanding ban on cow slaughter throughout India. He did this 
to embarrass the BJP and to woo the upper caste Hindu voters.

The ban on cow slaughter should be discussed on its own merit as 
Gandhiji also maintained. Gandhiji even refused to take up cow 
slaughter issue to win over the Hindu support for Khilafat movement. 
He maintained that both Khilafat movement and ban on cow slaughter 
should be taken up on their own merits and not to trade one with the 
other. Even our Constitution in Article 48 says that "State shall 
endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and 
scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving 
the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and 
other milch and draught cattle."

Thus it will be seen that the Constitution also does not talk of 
banning cow slaughter on religious grounds but on modern scientific 
lines. It is regrettable that leaders of Nehru's Congress are 
indulging in such sensitive issues just to win elections. It is 
certainly weakening commitment to secularism. It can be said without 
fear of contradiction that Nehruvian concept of secularism is as good 
as dead and we are left with cheap tactics to win elections. It has 
serious implications for future of our democracy in a pluralist 
society like India. There is great need to revive Nehruvian concept 
of secularism, which is based on cultural and political wisdom. It 
can perhaps be done only by a leader of Nehru's stature as it 
requires courage of conviction and not simply lust for power.

(Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai:- 400 055)

______


#6.


The Indian Express
  March 19, 2003

In Kashmir, parents fear a witch-hunt
Muzamil Jaleel
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D20471

______


#7.

Outlook Magazine | Mar 24, 2003    

RSS
Light Another Match
A more supportive RSS is all set to shed its image as a 'cabal of 
geriatrics' and get some young turks on board
SABA NAQVI BHAUMIK
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=3D20030324&fname=3DRSS+%28F%29&=
sid=3D1

_____


#8.

The Hindu, Mar 20, 2003

Rationalising Hindutva
By Ravikumar
http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2003032002421300.htm

_____


#9.

The Daily Times
March 20, 2003 Op-ed.

The war as commodity

M V Ramana

As President George W Bush gets ready to give the final order for the 
anticipated carnage in Iraq, US media outlets, especially TV 
channels, have been having a field day with numerous reports and 
interviews on the upcoming war. Once the bombing starts, all major 
television channels in the US are expected to switch to covering the 
war. Mainstream channels like NBC and CBS have reportedly delayed 
scheduled comedy shows till April in anticipation of the war.
The Pentagon, for its part, has tried to ensure that all this media 
coverage will be favourable by introducing a new process called 
embedding under which media personnel will be allowed to live and 
travel with the troops. As part of the bargain, journalists promise 
not to report certain categories of information and agree to honour 
news embargoes. About 500 journalists have chosen to get embedded. 
Already, prior to the start of war, the investment has paid off; 
these journalists have been filing the kind of "human interest" 
stories that the Pentagon likes.[...].
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_20-3-2003_pg3_2

_____


#10.

18 Mar 2003

An avoidable war

War is inevitable, not because the mother of all
evils- Saddam Hussein- is refusing to disarm, or
because Collin Powell, the dove-converted-hawk, has
convinced us of the dangers Iraq poses to the world,
or because one man=EDs longing for revenge has consumed
our entire nation, or because the administration is
eying the post war oil revenue from Iraq, which can be
used to pay for all the costs of the war including tax
cuts to the Americans and handsome handouts promised
to our supporters for the war. It is not even because
we believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein will rid the
world of terrorism and that we will all live happily
ever after. On the contrary, we know it may only fuel
further terrorism, anarchy, uncertainty, and lives
full of fear for we Americans.

War will now be fought for one reason and one reason
alone- that is the administration=EDs recklessness in
taking the country on the warpath to a stage of no
return. If we return leaving Saddam Hussein still in
charge, we will have to foot the entire bill of tens
of billion dollars in war preparations all by
ourselves. That will push the country deeper into
recession, jeopardizing re-election chances of this
government in 2004.

What really hurts in this shrewd planning is that we
think the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent
men, women and children who will be killed in this
war, for no fault of their own, are expendable, or
that it's a fair price to pay for taking us out of the
recession, or getting our government back into office.

There are other consequences of going ahead with this
avoidable war against the collective wisdom of the UN.
Defying the UN Security Council by the US will further
embolden many other countries to follow the suit.
Israel on Palestine, India on Pakistan, China on
Taiwan will all be encouraged in their power pursuits.
And then countries like Iraq, which are being forced
to comply with the UN Resolutions by those who defy
the UN themselves, will feel victimized and will be
lead to attribute their humiliation only to their
weakness. Such a feeling will inevitably produce a
desire in these countries to acquire power which could
start a new global arms race, nuclear proliferation
and terrorism by those who fail to join the pool of
the mighty. Overall, this war would be a total
disaster! It will lead to further global instability
and anarchy, everything we want to see reduced, if not
eliminated.

Is there any way, other than war and consequent
control of Iraqi oil, to compensate us for our
reckless misadventure?

Najid Hussain


_____


#11.

19 March 2003

SEIZED WITH A FEELING OF INSECURITY
By BATUK VORA

Washington DC: By the time President George Bush
issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq, I returned to
India after a month-long travel to the West and East
coast cities of America. One predominant impression I
carried was that common Americans were seized with a
feeling of insecurity - nourished and nurtured by the
corporate-military combine. Never before had I
witnessed such an intense war hysteria run by the
ruling politicians during my earlier decade long stay
here as a journalist-writer.

Besides, I will also not forget how President Bush
appeared lost. He created an image of a man staring
blankly into the space while talking to the press in
the White House in the first week of March, after a
gap of 17 months. Bush was correctly described by
Washington Post as simply 'foggy' and his train of
thoughts  'jumping the tracks' when he tried to evade
replies to many questions.

Why? Was he not considered a 'determined fanatic' or a
modern day 'emperor'? Was he not a 'world-cop' holding
the torch of 'democracy' and 'freedom'? Why then did
he fumble for words?

        Obviously he might try to brush aside all the
anti-war protests, but Bush in himself could not take
it and in the process, he becomes blank.

=46or the first time, I found, at least 19 of the
anti-war NGOs and lobbies were full fledged out in the
open, including on the Web, rallying millions of
common masses into more than 130 cities of the United
States. That included Rooting Out Evil, Vote No War,
Not in Our Name, Voices in Wilderness, Peace Action,
Move On, Waging Peace, End the War, War Times,
Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq, Contact US
Representatives, etc.  Opposition to war resembled
more or less their anti-Vietnam war protest movement
of 'Sixties and 'Seventies.

On the other hand, never before in American history
were some of the Rightwing think tanks so active in
favor of such a war. Many outsiders don?t know that
America has, in the world of London Economist, a
hardcore conservative 'army of intellectuals.' Leave
alone the war in Iraq, this army has even plans for
the transformation of the entire Middle-East. Should
we call it as capitalism running rampant? These people
have a blueprint for bringing free enterprise to even
outer space.

=46or instance, conservative think tank Heritage
=46oundation, turning thirty-year old this week, hands
out its economic data to the media on why France,
Russia, Germany and China were against such a war on
Iraq, showing their connections with gas and oil
interests of Iraq. They are conspicuously silent over
US?s own oil connections, or Bush family?s oil
interests  in the Middle-East.

Manhatten Institute in New York is 25 and the American
Enterprise Institute(AEI) is 60. Hoover Institute
inside California?s Stanford University is already an
octogenarian. AEI was talking about ?rogue states?
long before anybody had heard of Osama bin Laden.
Donald Rumsfield, the controversial defence secretary
and national security advisor Condalizza Rice are both
Hoover veterans, besides having their big pie in oil
companies.

One fact rather very little known came out recently
when that veteran historian and writer Gore Vidal
exposed senior George Bush having close connection
with bin Laden family members working in various oil
companies?Vidal, in his latest book ?Dreaming War-
Blood for Oil and Cheney-Bush Junta? tells us that
?Back of the junior Bush, senior Bush, is gainfully
employed by the Carlyle Group, which has an ownership
of at least 164 companies worldwide.

Wall Street Journal wrote after 9/11 that ?if the US
boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin
Laden?s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one
unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden?s family?the well
heeled Saudi clan, big investor in a fund established
by Carlyle Group, a well connected Washington merchant
bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace
companies?Osama is one of the more than 50 children of
Mohammed bin Laden who built the family?s $5 billion
business??

Wall Street Journal avoided saying, however, that
another major beneficiary of the oil wars would be, as
Judicial Watch put it, George H.W.Bush, the father of
President Bush, working for bin Laden family business
in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an
international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met
with the bib Laden family at least twice. ?The idea of
senior Bush doing business with a company under
investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of 9/11
is horrible,? according to the Judicial Watch chairman
Larry Clayman.

=46urther more on the Bush-Cheney junta: The Defence
Policy Board is headed by Richard Perle, the hawk from
AEI and quarter of its board members come from Hoover.
It is a known fact of politics in America that both
the ruling Republicans and Democrats are hardly
anything more than vehicles for raising and
distributing campaign contributions. They have no
ability to generate any major policy idea of their
own. All their policy lines are drawn out day in and
day out by these think tanks. Rightwing think tanks in
America are more vibrant than Leftwing- partly because
of huge funds made available by the corporate sector
to the Rightwingers.

What are their thrusts on US government?s policy
front? Go ahead vigorously for war on any nation that
dares challenge the United States; make the UNO
totally irrelevant; privatize social security reforms;
make pre-emptive strikes with nuclear arms on not only
non-nuclear states but on those who are suspected of
having biological weapons. Bush administration has now
adopted it as a state policy. It will be no surprise
if during their present war on Iraq, they plant some
biological weapons in some desert trenches of Iraq and
later claim to have found it out in Saddam?s Iraq so
as to nullify the UN inspectors and other opponents of
war, according to B. Raman, former Indian intelligence
organization RAW?s counter-terrorism chief, writing in
Rediff.com.

Incidentally, the corporate world here seems to be
badly divided; one section crying hoarse about likely
breakdown of entire globalization process due to such
wars and the other section building company alliances
with British and other countries to produce and sell
more and more lethal weapons. Democrats too were so
badly divided in the beginning of the crisis that
their anti-war faction?s belated outcry against Bush
policy went almost non-effective.

A knowledgeable American journalist at New York told
me that entire Bush policy of ?regime change? in Iraq
and may in other countries tomorrow misses one salient
feature of history: Of the 18 regime changes forced by
the nited States in the 20th century , only 5 resulted
in democracy, and in wars fought unilaterally, the
number goes down to one- Panama.?

I could not but agree with a caustic comment of
another journalist at Los Angeles that ?To the
acolytes of American empire, the invasion of Iraq is
but Act 1 in the exhilarating unfolding drama of the
21st century. ?

All this is happening in the background of
unprecedented oil price hike in this country. Some
people fear that during the war and afterwards, the
price per gallon may rise to 3 to 4 dollars from 2.37
at present (it was just cents 86 per gallon when I
landed first to San Francisco in 1985. Life here is
becoming a nightmare with Orange alert and three more
levels of homeland security on line?Long settled Asian
immigrants, particularly those from Pakistan, India
and other countries, face an onslaught of security
check everywhere. I was told by a Pakistani friend at
Berkeley that out of 30,000 pakistani immigrants, at
least 8000 have been interrogated and many more have
just fled away to Canada. THE END


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

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.
--