[sacw] SACW | 12 April 03
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex@mnet.fr
Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:14:33 +0100
South Asia Citizens Wire | 12 April, 2003
[ Announcing Volume 2 of the compilation 'PROGRESSIVE SOUTH ASIAN
VOICES AGAINST WAR ON IRAQ': Selected articles & reports [April 6 -
April 12, 2003]
compiled by The South Asia Citizens Web [ copies of the electronic
full text will be available from the 13 April onwards; for copies
write to <aiindex@mnet.fr>]
#1. Kashmir compulsions (M.B. Naqvi)
#2. Taking a cue from America's book (M.H. Askari)
#3. Adieu! Dear friend (I.A. Rehman)
#4. India: (April 12, N Delhi) National Street Theatre Day / Anti
war protests (Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust)
#5. India: Press Statement by Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery
Karmchari Sangh and
Bhopal Group for Information and Action
#6. Book review: Remembering Partition Gyanendra Pandey (Tapan Raychaudhuri)
#7. India: V.D. Savarkar's Portrait As Mirror (Anil Nauriya)
#8. India: Gujarat Loksangharsh Samiti public hearing programme (13th
April, Ahmedabad)
--------------
#1.
[ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:13:30 +0500]
Defence Journal, April 2003
Kashmir compulsions
By M.B. Naqvi
A former Indian Naval Chief, Admiral Ramu Ramdas, was on a visit to
Pakistan and had advised the two countries, India and Pakistan, to
resume dialogue on the basis of the documents that India's PM Atal
Behari Vajpayee signed with an elected Pakistani PM in Lahore in
=46ebruary 1999. He thought that insisting on UN resolutions of 1940s
will only harden New Delhi's refusal to talk. But by demanding a
return to Lahore Process, a commitment made by both governments, it
will be hard for New Delhi to refuse. The suggestion has merit. It
underlines the 1999 readiness of Indian government to solve all
problems, including Kashmir, through amicable negotiations.
As it happens, the sequel to the Lahore Summit was the political
disaster of Kargil war that cost Pakistan much in prestige and
involved a humiliating withdrawal under July 4, 1999 Agreement ---
with the US. If there was an opportunity at Agra --- a not
necessarily foredoomed or too hopeful an encounter --- it was not
seized. After the terrorist attacks on Srinagar and New Delhi
Assemblies, India refused to talk at all and has been threatening
war, Pakistan's nuclear deterrent notwithstanding.
It is a year and quarter that there has been a total deadlock between
the two countries, with no communication links or travel between them
while war is still more than a mere possibility. Indian ruling
elites, or a sizeable part of it, has convinced itself that making
war is preferable to negotiating on the basis of maximum Pakistani
demands. Now, a war needs to be ruled out altogether --- not because
Pakistan Army cannot fight bravely. But bravery of troops is all but
irrelevant in modern warfare; nature of armaments, level and nature
of training and morale are what count. Not preventing the all too
possible war by what it takes amounts to an actual preference for the
war. Some perceived it to be inevitable for the sake of the Kashmir
solution 'on our terms' in the here and now --- i.e. given the ample
Indian indications of readiness for war rather than make any real
concession.
Pakistan cannot prefer war because (a) it cannot bring India to its
knees so as to force it to accept the plebiscite in the State; and
(b) one way or another, war is sure to escalate to a nuclear
exchange. And that means a mutually assured defeat. Ergo, war must be
avoided at all costs.
What about Kashmir, some would ask. Should Pakistanis forget about
it? Not necessarily. Only, not all Pakistan's wishes can materialise,
war or no war. Pakistanis will have to think of new peaceful ways of
waging the struggle for the self-determination right of Kashmiris,
supposing it is for them to do so. Commonsense tells that anything
that provokes war needs to be avoided. Why? because there are two
good reasons: One, nuclear weapons have altered everything and
secondly, nuclear weapons' use now would be worse than simple
military defeat of yore.
Mischief of nuclear weapons does not stop here. There can be no trust
between nuclear rivals who live cheek by jowl. The kind of d=E9tente
that the US and Soviets could agree upon is not available to India
and Pakistan. Their mutual proximity gives no warning or time to
decision-makers. Both have to stay on a hair-trigger alert for a
launch on whatever evidence might be available. This mistrust is all
too profound to afford diplomacy any chance. Stable peace and normal
friendly relations are impossible until some understanding and
acceptance of each other's weapons are attained.
The main cost for Pakistan of accepting these realities--- and quite
painful too --- is to give up illusions and stop believing the
nonsense pedalled by the socalled nuclear theorisers who will only
graciously concede a strictly minimal nuclear d=E9tente to India. This
will supposedly still enable Pakistan to sustain the Jihad in Kashmir
behind Pakistan's nuclear shield. It is true that the Indian nuclear
theoreticians accepted this much for almost a decade and did not
threaten war after 1987, except briefly toying with the idea of
taking out Pakistan's nuclear 'assets' with the Israeli aid twice in
199s. But by the end of the decade, with the failure of diplomacy
(Lahore Process), they have evolved an audacious and aggressive
posture: threaten Pakistan with a conventional war and dare it to
make the first nuclear strike (and wait for a far bigger nuclear
riposte). Which is where both countries are.
The situation is however not so neat. The Indian theoreticians seem
far too audacious. They have not considered all the scenarios
realistically. Their theory is born out of the arrogance of power
that overwhelming Indian superiority in conventional armaments is all
that matters. The idea is to defeat Pakistan in conventional warfare
and threaten it with a mega nuclear riposte so that it does not make
the first nuclear strike. Thus India will get what it wants, viz.
victory in a conventional war and the chance to keep the Kashmir
Valley more securely under control. QED for them. What they forget is
the human factor vis-=E0-vis the necessarily widely-spread-out nuclear
forces of both countries. Would not one of Pakistani decision making
generals, in the dark hour of a possible defeat when they will fear
rack and ruin, throw caution to the winds and make the strike? Indian
generals are all too aware of this 'after me deluge' mentality that
is not confined to any one nation.
Now hold on to this proposition: What it means is that Indian general
staff would expect the first Pakistani nuclear strike. We are now
nearing the crunch: No general can go on waiting for the enemy to
vaporise him, his troops and a large chunk of the area he is
commanding first and then someone from his side will retaliate.
Think. That is nonsense. No one can willingly accept that kind of
loss first. What maybe more likely is that the Indian general staff
will opt for a sudden blitzkrieg with both nuclear and conventional
weapons. Now, it is to be assumed that Pakistani general staff knows
that, or ought to. Their only chance of survival and not being
engulfed in a nuclear night is to preempt the Indians with as massive
a strike as would cripple India. This may be highly unlikely but this
is the only logical option. Anyway, it is all too dreadful for both.
Therefore, it is necessary for India not to try to create a situation
where a Pakistan hothead presses the red button. But it is equally
imperative for Pakistan not to provoke war. Not even Kashmir is worth
the cost of an India-Pakistan war now: Kashmiris will be much farther
away from their goal, should there be another war between the old
rivals. Let both countries therefore pay the real price for avoiding
war: it is for India to be flexible and work for creating mutual
trust and for Pakistan the requirement is to evolve a new India
policy. The suggestion by India's peace-promoting Admiral offers a
convenient way to begin talking. But what should the Pakistanis and
Indians now aim at?
In simple words, Pakistan can only aim at stable peace. For Pakistan
and India it is necessary to mentally and militarily disengage with
each other. Let Pakistanis ignore what India seems to be ultimately
aiming at. Its main aim is for India to emerge as a great military
power which is capable of lording it over all of South Asia at the
very least. Doubtless the Indian elites entertain even higher
capabilities: to be able to successfully compete with China in
dominating the South East Asia. Pakistan is, however, actually in a
position to thwart Indian hegemony over itself. If this is kept in
mind, Pakistanis can confidently forget what some power-crazy Indians
may be trying to achieve. It should be none of Pakistan's business as
to what the Indian authorities are dreaming or planning.
Pakistan's overriding concern should be to get out of the arms race
in both conventional and nuclear fields. Let all the resources that
Pakistani state can mobilise be spent on developing Pakistan's
infrastructure --- railways, roads, bridges, communications,
transport and of course rural and urban industries --- for the
purpose of drastically reducing unemployment and eradicating poverty
and hunger among the bottom 50 to 60 percent of the population by
introducing a legally binding social security system. That should be
the first priority. Even debt servicing and defence should have a
lower priority. Let the people be trusted to stay free of all foreign
domination, attacks or snares. Only national security, as hitherto
understood, should be made subordinate to people's security. The
state then need not fear the Indians or the Americans or anyone else.
Even so, a way out of the current Crisis in the India-Pakistan
relationship has to be sought. For a start, the Jamaat-i-Islami Chief
Qazi Hussain Ahmed's suggestion is logically sound. His context and
purpose is different, of course; he wanted Pakistan to oppose the US
line on Iraq. And the way he suggested it was to strengthen
Pakistan's position vis-=E0-vis America by making up with India.
Whether Qazi Saheb can go as far as one would suggest or not, his
approach gives a strong pointer that tallies with what the Indian
Admiral has suggested. There was more in Qazi Saheb's recent lecture
in which he told the Pakistan Foreign Office than meets the eye. A
minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, also dropped an ambiguous hint when he
told the Lahore press that there might be a solution of Kashmir
problem within three years on a basis that may not fully satisfy
either the Indians or the Pakistanis.
What these worthies seem to be talking about is the widely rumoured
American solution to the Kashmir Problem: an understanding on the
future of Kashmir Valley while status quo stays in other parts of the
State. That understanding is to be about the degree of autonomy to
the Valley within the Indian state for a given long period --- 10, 15
or 20 years --- after which some kind of referendum will ascertain
the Kashmiris' wishes. For the rest, the two states of India and
Pakistan may keep what they hold. It is doubtful if the two
governments can, on present indications, clinch such a settlement
given their respective orientations.
It is for Pakistan to really extricate itself from the current morass
in which its relations with India are. What one recommends is to stop
running the various arms races by actually stopping, without waiting
for India to show appreciation of it or reciprocation. Let the Indian
state do what it will, Pakistan must enunciate and impose a new peace
policy that looks forward to an actual reconciliation among the
peoples of Pakistan and India --- indeed the people of South Asia as
a whole --- from the grassroots up. It is for the Indian state to
fall in line for such a rapprochement to succeed. Pakistan needs to
change its national priorities and security policy in favour of the
people-based ones, as indicated here. India's matching stance may
take a long time in coming because of its current orientation that
ignores the poverty of the bottom 50 to 60 per cent of Indians and is
going flat out in the power game. Maybe it is the economic and social
success of Pakistan's new line that eventually will force India to
reciprocate the hand of friendship. Maybe new forces come to power in
India and will change the policy orientation. But that is not for
Pakistan to do anything about.
Meantime, the task for Pakistanis is to deal with Pakistan's own
elites. They know that these elites have landed the country in a
hopeless quandary after 50 years of misrule: they had distorted the
history, politics and economy of Pakistan in order to defeat India.
In the event, it is India which, suffering from an arrogance of
power, is threatening to smash up Pakistan. Pakistan cannot now,
happily, respond in kind. Nor it should. Islamabad today alternates
between tough talk and bleating like a lost sheep: please talk and do
not make war. Well, the only way out is to get out of this foolish
power game and to acquire a new kind of power is to let the people of
Pakistan be made more prosperous, happily exercising all freedoms
including one from poverty, working for peace. Make the common Indian
envy the freedoms and prosperity of Pakistanis. That Pakistan will be
truly invincible. And that will stump the war mongers in India ---
and elsewhere.
______
#2.
DAWN, 11 April 2003
Taking a cue from America's book
By M.H. Askari
Ironically, the participation of a delegation from India in the
recent peace convention in Karachi organized by the Sindh chapter of
India-Pakistan People's Forum for Peace and Democracy coincided with
some of the most acrimonious exchanges between the leaders of the two
countries.
It all started with the Indian foreign minister's statement claiming
the right of a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan and citing
America's so-called pre-emptive war against Iraq as a precedent.
In a statement issued jointly with the Pakistan Peace Coalition on
Tuesday, the India-Pakistan Forum for Peace and Democracy, warned
that the ties between the two countries were currently at an all-time
low and any aggravation would seriously threaten peace and stability
in the region.
The forum has held four peace conventions jointly with its Indian
counterpart since 1995 and they have been attended by some eminent
figures from both sides. Associated with the forum's Pakistan chapter
have been former finance minister Dr Mubashir Hasan, Air Marshal
(retd) Zafar Chowdhry, former chief of the Pakistan air force,
besides several leading writers, doctors, artists and members of the
academic profession.
=46rom the Indian side, the conventions have been attended by former
civil servant, Mr Nirmal Mukherji, former Indian naval chief, Admiral
Ramdas, newspaper editors, including Rita Manchanda, members of
parliament, including Kuldip Nayar, besides leading artists, writers
and authors.
The conventions have invariably adopted resolutions urging close
cultural, educational trade and communication ties between India and
Pakistan, and the resolution of all outstanding disputes, including
Kashmir, by peaceful means. The recent Sindh Convention condemned the
growing trend of religious extremism in both countries and the
anti-Muslim riots in the Indian state of Gujarat. However, official
policies and actions on either side of the border have hardly ever
been influenced by such recommendations or opinions expressed at such
forums. As a senior Pakistani official once told this writer, no
Track-II diplomacy can produce any worthwhile results unless and
until the official-level Track-I process owns it up and treats its
deliberations as a vital input.
Since policy-making in Pakistan is generally the monopoly of the
higher bureaucracy not always responsive to public opinion, the
deliberations of non-official organizations such as the
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace cannot expect to exercise
much influence over it.
Even the political leadership usually has to confine itself to
day-to-day governance and any major initiative in sensitive areas
such as foreign policy or defence usually remains a non-starter
unless endorsed by the civil or military establishment.
Policy making in Pakistan is generally the monopoly of the higher
echelons of the (civil or military) bureaucracy which is not always
responsive to public opinion. The deliberations of the People's Forum
cannot therefore expect to have much of impact on policy-making.
Ideas thrown up by non-official 'think tanks', normally remain only
of academic interest to researchers or political writers.
In India, initially, the situation was quite different until some
years ago. Because of a strong political tradition there and the
presence of strong political parties and a powerful and assertive
national intelligentsia, think tanks and other intellectual forums
had a fair chance of being heard and heeded in policy-making circles
and their views reflected in policy formulation.
However, in recent years all this is changing for the worse. This is
because of the neo-fascistic nature of the political parties which
have come to the top in recent years and which have an iron grip on
policy-making, sometimes even out of proportion to their real
political or electoral strength. Quite often these parties can get
away with their strong-arm tactics in the name of national security.
Although India has a strong and uninterrupted democratic tradition
all its official actions are not always the outcome of democratic
decision-making. The resolutions adopted in various peace conferences
and conventions sponsored by organizations such as the India-Pakistan
People's Forum thus frequently remain sidelined.
The prevailing state of affairs is particularly deplorable even
though the festering issue of Kashmir, which is at the heart of the
bitterness between India and Pakistan, has received a great deal of
attention at the peace conventions.
Both the Pakistani and the Indian participants have stressed that the
dispute needs to be resolved peacefully, with due consideration for
the wishes of the people of the disputed state. At any rate, the
issue should not be allowed to hold up normalization of relations
between the two countries in other areas.
The concern expressed at the India-Pakistan Peace Forum over the
state of India-Pakistan relations is timely. The threat of a
pre-emptive strike against Pakistan by responsible Indian leaders,
including External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, after the killing
of 24 Hindu Pandits in occupied Kashmir has sinister implications.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, while addressing the officers of
the Special Protection Group (SPG) in New Delhi on Monday, also held
Pakistan responsible for the killing of the pandits, although
Pakistan has categorically denied the allegations and even called for
an independent inquiry to ascertain the truth.
Despite Pakistan's disclaimer, Yashwant Sinha has once again chosen
to make yet another statement concerning the killings, insisting that
New Delhi has "a better case to launch a pre-emptive strike than the
US had over Iraq." It is utterances such as that "Pakistan is at the
epicentre of terrorism" can only aggravate tensions and lead to a new
level of brinkmanship between the two countries, preventing the
prospect of peace and normalization in South Asia.
______
#3.
DAWN, 11 April 2003
Adieu! Dear friend
By I.A. Rehman
Abdullah Malik has closed his diary and put aside the pen that had
little rest for six decades or more. With his departure, we have lost
another member of the post-first-war generation that played a
decisive role in shaping the political destiny not only of South Asia
but the entire humankind and taught the voiceless million the values
of freedom, social justice, culture and literature.
That was the generation of such great people as Pablo Neruda, Lorca,
Hemingway, and Nazim Hikmet, Iqbal, Premchand, Sajjad Zaheer, Josh
and Faiz. That was the generation that fought fascism in Spain,
Nazism across the globe, and apartheid in South Africa. And that was
the generation that defined the meaning of the South Asian peoples'
struggle for independence. The world witnessed a great wave of
awakening during the period between the two great world wars and it
inspired a galaxy of intrepid warriors of truth. Whatever place
history may assign Abdullah Malik among the legendary figures of this
generation, his identification with it cannot be denied.
Abdullah Malik was never shy of writing about himself and sometimes
he put down on paper what many would have preferred to leave unsaid.
Whether this was due to an exaggerated view of one's own self or to
an exceptionally strong commitment to transparency, one good result
is that his entire life is on record. The readers of his writings
know all about his childhood in a deeply religious family, the
affection of an indulgent grandfather, his adolescent fancies, and
his eventual graduation into the ranks of socialist campaigners.
Ahrariat was in his blood, but he accepted the discipline of the
Communist Party and also joined the Muslim League's fight for
Pakistan.
After independence, party labels lost their attraction for him and he
devoted himself to a struggle for a life of reason, justice and
egalitarianism without being bounded to a particular group. He
enjoyed eminence as a journalist for decades and became an elder
politician to politicians.
He came into journalism via the Progressive Writers Movement, and the
conviction bred by the latter significantly influenced, both
positively and negatively, his work as a journalist. Professionalism
could not suppress his partisanship for the cause he believed in.
Trade unionism was the means of change and for long years Abdullah
Malik was a pillar of strength to the journalists' trade union. He
was not a great professional reporter but a good one, and his main
contribution to the brood of reporters was the dignity he earned for
his calling.
He was a compulsive writer. He maintained a daily diary for nearly
the whole of his adult life, and authored scores of books. Sometimes
in his impatience to communicate what he had to say he ignored the
arrows the purists shot at him, regarding the liberties with
language, expression and style he took or the long quotes with which
he laced his narrative. But as Faiz once remarked, those who do not
write must salute all those who do, and Abdullah Malik wrote and
wrote and was keen to dictate a column even when death was knocking
at the door. The books he has left us are a treasure of knowledge
about Pakistani people's past and their present. Even the long
extracts he used offer us access to chapters of history that have
been consigned to oblivion.
He was an equally compulsive reader and was quite capable of
snatching from your hands the book you had just bought and reading it
before you had a chance to open it. This enabled him to keep abreast
of not only time but also ideas. He was distinguished among his peers
by his robust scepticism. Each theory, each viewpoint was liable to
be challenged and scrutinized. He enjoyed the role of a cat among the
pigeons and of an iconoclast among conformists. His motto was: "Never
withhold your rejoinders." The same was his attitude in whatever
association he formed. The closer the fight ("ghurmas"), the better
he relished it.
He gave his youth to the promotion of socialist ideals. The collapse
of the Soviet Union therefore affected him grievously, perhaps
dangerously too. He shed copious tears - none of his friends had a
comparable command over the lachrymal glands - on what to him was the
loss of many years of his own life. He was deeply affected in the
sense that lack of clarity about the future pushed him deeper into
the past, his own as well as of his people.
Like most people, Abdullah Malik had his weaknesses, especially a
weakness for friends that gave him the title of a dharaband
(factionalist). The dhara he chose to join was of the people who made
difficult pledges to themselves to struggle for fellow beings and had
the strength to remain true to their salt.
No tears need be shed for Abdullah Malik for he lived by his
conviction, the way he wanted. The real cause of grief is the
realization that the breed to which he belonged is threatened with
extinction.
______
#4.
April 12, the birthday of Safdar Hashmi-political
activist, playwright, actor and poet has been observed
as the National Street Theatre Day for the last 15
years. Safdar Hashmi was fatally attacked in broad
daylight during the performance of a street play in a
working class area just outside Delhi on January 1,
1989. The National Street Theatre day each year
focuses on a theme of current concern for the creative
community. Each year, SAHMAT, The Safdar Hashmi
Memorial Trust makes a poster which is used by groups
across India for their local plays and observances.
This year on April 12th, the performances of hundreds
of street theatre groups all over the country will
express the widespread condemnation of the unjust and
criminal war on Iraq. This will coincide with
international observance of April 12th as a day to
condemn US and British imperialist designs.
In Delhi a cultural protest will be observed by SAHMAT
at the Vithal Bhai Patel House Lawns at New Delhi on
April 12 from 5pm onwards. The two street plays will
be performed by Act one and Jan Natya Manch. Anti-war
poetry will be sung by Susmit Bose, Madan Gopal Singh,
Vidya Shah and Dhruv Sangari. Participating poets
include Asad Zaidi, Ikram Khawar, Nirmala Garg, Kaseel
Azar, Kedar Nath Singh, Manglesh Dabral and Zaheer
Rahmati. Two bands Anand and Vishnu run by young
professionals will also perform. Artists, designers
and photographers including Vivan Sundaram, Jatin Das,
Arpana Caur, Enas M.J., Ram Rahman, Shamshad, Veer
Munshi, Gulam Sheikh will also make art works which
will be on display at the venue. Students from Iraq in
New Delhi are also participating.
Sahmat, 8 VP House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001
Tel: 2371 1276, 2335 1424. E Mail: sahmat@vsnl.com
______
#5.
Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh
Bhopal Group for Information and Action
Press Statement April 7, 2003
On April 4, 2003, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union
Government to submit a detailed reply to the issues raised by survivors of
the December '84 Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal regarding the balance of
compensation funds. Addressing a press conference today, leaders of Bhopal
Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh [BGPMSKS] stated that a writ
petition was filed on March 5, 2003 on behalf of 36 survivors representing
the 36 municipal wards declared to be gas affected by the government. The
petition alleges that the fundamental constitutional rights of equality
before law and right to life of the victims of the disaster have been
violated due to non-payment of interest on the compensation amount to the
claimants.
According to information supplied by the office of the Welfare Commissioner
in March 2002, a balance of Rs. 1360 Crores remains of the settlement fund
meant for disbursement of compensation to over half million claimants.
According to the writ petition, argued by Supreme Court lawyer Mr. S.
Muralidhar, the survivors of the disaster have a legal right to the balance
of settlement fund. The petition argues that the balance remains because
claimants were paid paltry sums of compensation and were not paid the
interest due to them. The petition alleges that non-payment of interest to
Bhopal claimants violates the provisions under the Indian Interest Act
[1978].
In June 2002, the Central government's Group of Ministers on Bhopal
announced that the balance of settlement fund would be distributed to
residents of non-affected wards in Bhopal. Following the 19-day hunger
strike in New Delhi by leaders of the survivors organizations, the
government was forced to withdraw this announcement. Both the Central and
State governments have also announced, on different occasions, that the
balance of funds would be used to clean-up the contamination in and around
the abandoned Union Carbide factory. This too was opposed by the survivors
organizations who argued that the cost of clean-up must be borne by Dow
Chemical Company the new owners of Union Carbide. The State government, in
its turn, proposed that the balance of funds be used to bring water from
river Narmada to Bhopal.
"Both the Central and State governments are intent on grabbing what morally
and legally belongs to us Bhopal victims," said Rashida Bi, President of
BGPMSKS. "We will fight these evil designs and ensure that victims receive
the interest due to them" she said. "We are entitled to this money on
humanitarian grounds to cover the costs of our continuing medical expenses,"
said Mrs. Champa Devi, Secretary of the organization.
Quoting from a survey on compensation in gas-affected Jaiprakash Nagar, Mr.
Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action said that
91% of the claimants in this worst affected community were paid the minimum
compensation of Rs. 25, 000. The majority of claimants were paid
compensation more than eight years after filing their claims. "The survey
shows that claimants in Jaiprakash Nagar are entitled to payment of interest
in the range of Rs. 34 thousand to Rs 117 thousand, which has to come from
the balance of settlement funds", said Mr. Sarangi.
Mrs. Rashida Bi, Mrs. Champa Devi Shukla Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery
Karmchari Sangh
Satinath Sarangi Bhopal Group for Information and Action
House No. 12, Gali No. 2, Near Naseer Masjid, Bag Umrao Dulha, Bhopal Tel:
9827238637
_____
#6.
The Hindu (Chennai) / Literary Review
Sunday, Mar 02, 2003
Perceptions of the past
Remembering Partition [*] draws upon written testimony, archival
material and the memories of those who actually underwent the
violence of Partition, and has a bearing on our understanding of the
methodology of disciplinary historiography, says TAPAN RAYCHAUDHURI.
PROFESSOR PANDEY'S latest monograph is in line with his earlier work
on the construction of communalism and more recent studies by other
writers like Urvashi Butalia trying to recover the experience of the
violence/ Partition which accompanied the emergence of two
independent states in the subcontinent in 1947. It draws upon written
testimony, archival material and, above all, on the memories of those
whose experience is the central concern of this volume. The material
is analysed in the light of certain theoretical understandings of
historical memory and evidence. The said analysis is of profound
significance for all students , both the "non-disciplinary" (to quote
the author's description) and the academic varieties, of the subject.
Pandey focuses on the inadequacy of academic historiography of modern
south Asia, its obsessive focus on the origins of the two nation
states and the political movements which produced those end results,
the preoccupation with the causes which produced the phenomenon of
Partition, the story ending in 1947. The misery which accompanied
that event for vast numbers of men and women is barely mentioned in
the literature. Their experience is treated as almost peripheral to
the central story of nation/ state formation, an aberration, which at
most merits an explanation qua aberration. The disciplinary history
does not recognise that for the people affected, Partition and
independence were equivalent to violence, the tearing apart of their
lives, their share, hisse, of the grand events.
The author speaks of three Partitions, of the dependency, of two of
its provinces and then in the lives of those who were butchered,
maimed, uprooted or simply reduced to the status of second-class
citizens in their own homeland, watan. It is the third Partition
which constitutes the subject matter of this volume. For those caught
up in it, the author suggests, the events of August 1947 and related
developments had no other meaning. The study focuses on certain
episodes, - in Punjab, Garhmukteswar and Delhi, case studies, as one
would describe the exercise in academic history - to recover the pain
and complexity of the experience.
One major contribution of this book is to nail the claim to
authenticity of different varieties of sources of information, very
much including the sacrosanct official records, eyewitness accounts
and the memories of the high and mighty who were in charge. The
estimates of death toll, it is pointed out, ranges from 2,00,000 to
two million. Not one of these is based on any dependable calculation.
The eyewitness accounts are often no better than rumours, honed and
streamlined through constant repetition. When explored in any depth
by an interrogator, the firm surface of the stories splinter and the
"truth" looks very different from the received and widely accepted
version. General Tuker, writing when his memory served, spoke of the
women of Garhmukteswar cheering when their devilish men were busy
butchering Muslim women. Historians of Pakistan have invariably cited
this authoritative evidence as the basic truth concerning Hindu
villainy. Tuker nowhere mentions the source of his information,
probably because there was none. He writes that there was no British
police officer in U.P. at the time. He forgets that the D.I.G. of
police was an Englishman, Robinson. The heroic accounts of Hindus/
Sikhs suffering martyrdom rather than accept conversion and multiple
humiliations give way when pushed, to reveal very human failures of
courage and anxious efforts to escape, anyway, anyhow. Martyrdom,
especially of women, are often imposed against their will or accepted
with uncertainty and hesitation.
The construction put upon the violence also varied. Sometimes it is
heroic revenge against a community guilty of savagery against one's
own in some far away place; Bihar avenging Noakhali, western Punjab
avenging Bihar, Garhmukteswar avenging Western Punjab and so on. At
other times there is a sense of shame: it is really the
responsibility of the other community, or of criminal or bigoted
elements in one's own or innocent villagers misled by vicious
fanatics. Sometimes it is outsiders who commit the crime, not the
residents of one's own village. Sometimes it is the innate perfidy of
Hindus or violence built into the Muslim psyche. Most spectacularly,
there is the grand colonial perception. It is the monstrous Biharis
whom the wise white rulers had expelled from the army after the
horrors of 1857. But then one has to explain the Jats, loyal sepoys
of the British Indian army. But it is not really that difficult:
their natural savagery, kept in control under the iron discipline of
British rulers, would break through whenever that discipline
slackened. All is explained. One's perception of the past -
imperialist, nationalist or communal - determined the interpretation
of the violence.
Pandey's marvellous insights have a bearing on our understanding and
the methodology of more wide-ranging historiography, including what
he calls the disciplinary. He has shown new and significant ways of
assessing data, which no one should ignore. But there are points
where one feels constrained to raise questions. Delhi's population
after Partition is neatly divided into two groups, the elite who
rejoiced at independence and the refugees who did not. Any one who
was in the city on the fateful night of August 15 and seen the
outburst of joy among the poorest would not agree. Nor would those
who witnessed in Calcutta the poorest segments of the population,
Hindus and Muslims, fighting one another for over a year, pouring
into the Raj Bhavan. No, for millions, privileged and not so
privileged, the end of colonial rule was a moment of joy. Surely not
for all and indeed not for the millions whose lives were shattered by
the Partition. But, arguably, for the majority it was.
The nation-state in some intellectual circles is the source of all
our misery, especially for the dispossessed. It is at best, a highly
questionable proposition. I recently reviewed a book by an author,
post-modernist in outlook and persuasion, on the people of a small
state in Rajasthan remembering their days of sorrow under the local
petty maharaja. Then the sorrows come to an end and there is an age
of happiness. Who are the harbingers of this new ,unexpected, good
fortune? The sarkar, i.e., the government of independent India, the
much-maligned nation state in other words. A simple dichotomy between
the elite and the non-beneficiaries of independence does not work.
* Remembering Partition, Gyanendra Pandey, Cambridge University
Press, 2001, p. xiv + 218.
_____
#7.
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:40:24 +0530 (IST)
=46riends,
Mr. Anil Nauriya, a Supreme Court advocate and a close friend, has written
the following note that generated considerable debate.
Best regards
Vipin Tripathi
Portrait As Mirror
Anil Nauriya
A portrait of V.D. Savarkar has been unveiled in Parliament by President
Kalam on February 26. On the face of it, the matter may seem confined to
=ECpo have ended. In fact, the problems of the ruling party, of the
Central Government and of the Constitutional functionaries involved in
the episode may have just begun.The implications touch upon the future
course of government in India. The issue has a bearing also on the role
of certain sections of the print and electronic media, for the portrait
episode has acted as a mirror to them as well.
After the facts relating to Savarkar=EDs involvement in the Mahatma
Gandhi=EDs assassination and on certain other issues were once again
brought into the public domain, the authorities had three options. The
first was to apologise and turn back from the course on which they had
embarked. The second was to postpone the ceremony and verify the
facts. The third was to brazen it out. They chose the
third.
This was facilitated by the existence of sections of the electronic
and print media which live for the moment and thrive on party
handouts rather than on painstaking and independent investigation.
The tradition of closely scrutinizing claims made by ruling parties,
whichever these parties may be, seemed to have been forgotten.
In view of the political ineffectivess of the NDA allies, it is the
BJP- RSS and the Shiv Sena, which together comprise the effective
ruling combine. Spokesmen of the the BJP and RSS asserted that they
did not need testimonials from the Congress, the principal opposition
party or from any other quarter. They went on, however, to cite
statements made on Savarkar=EDs death in 1966 by Mrs Indira Gandhi, Mr
C. Rajagopalachari and a famous communist from Maharashtra.
The fact is that Sardar Patel=EDs letter dated February 27, 1948 to
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru became public knowledge only in May
1973 when Volume 6 of Sardar Patel=EDs Correspondence (edited by Durga
Das) was published. In this letter Patel, who was Deputy Prime
Minister and Home Minister, wrote about the plot to kill Gandhi:
=ECIt was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar
and saw it through.=EE (page 56 of the volume).
The position now is that Dr Kalam has, at the behest of the ruling
combine, unveiled in the Central Hall of the largest democracy in the
world a portrait of this very individual. And this has been done to
the applause of the ruling alliance. It is surprising that large
sections of the media have yet to acknowledge the meaning of the
event.Some sections of the electronic media even offered Savarkar's
claimed position in Maharashtra as justification enough.
Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel was privy to the intelligence
reports. Many intelligence reports are also referred to by the Kapur
Commission of Inquiry into the Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi.
This Commission submitted its report in 1969. At page 318 of Part II
of the Commission=EDs report Savarkar=EDs involvement with the assassins
is clearly recorded.
Though Savarkar was not convicted in the murder trial, this had
little to do with his political responsibility for the murder. Even
as regards Savarkar=EDs legal responsibility for conspiracy, it was not
a case of =ECno evidence=EE.The approver Digambar Badge, had implicated
Savarkar. The trial court took the view, as the distinguished
barrister, K.L. Gauba, records at pages 220-221 of his book =EC
Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi=EE, that the approver=EDs evidence
required corroboration.
Savarkar was thus clearly implicated in the Gandhi murder case.
Although legal responsibility was apparently not proved according to
the evidentiary process, his political responsibility is patent. That
is why even in the course of the murder investigation, Savarkar
pleaded illness and gave, as was his wont, an undertaking. He said
in a statement to the Commissioner of Police on February 22, 1948 :
=ECConsequently in order to disarm all suspicion and to back up heart
representation I wish to express my willingness to give an
undertaking to the government that I shall refrain from taking part
in any communal or political activity for any period the Government
may require in ca
on that condition.=EE ( K.L. Gauba, page 209). Clearly, the giver of
the undertaking was apprehensive about the evidence against him.
The ruling combine=EDs spokesmen have tried to suggest that
the Congress, in its protest in regard to the portrait, has been
misled by people who are dismissively described as some =ECLeftists=EE
and =EChistorians from Jawaharlal Nehru University=EE. However, R.C.
Majumdar did not come under either category. It is R.C. Majumdar=EDs
work, =ECPenal Settlement In the Andamans=EE which shows that Savarkar=EDs
earlier record which led to his incarceration in the Cellular Jail
in Port Blair, Andaman Islands is sullied. From jail he addressed
mercy petitions to the British Raj. His mercy petition dated November
14, 1913 is published in R.C. Majumdar=EDs book at pages 211-214. In
his mercy petition Savarkar wrote: =EC Now no man having the good of
India and humanity at heart will blindly step on the thorny paths
which in the excited and hopeless situation of India in 1906-1907
beguiled us from the path of peace and progress. Therefore if the
government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me I for
one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional
progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost
condition of that progress.=EE In accordance with this undertaking
Savarkar never thereafter took part in the freedom movement. It is
significant that this mercy petition also entered the public domain
only in 1975 when R. C. Majumdar=EDs book was published by the
Government of India. The earlier mercy petition which Savarkar
addressed in 1911 is yet to come to light but is referred to in the
1913 petition.
As has already been repeatedly stressed by the opposition parties,
Savarkar was out of sync with the idea of nationhood which lay at
the heart of the freedom movement and which underlies India=EDs
constitution. For example, on August 15, 1943 Savarka
e no quarrel with Mr Jinnah=EDs two-nation theory. We Hindus are a
nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and
Muslims are two nations.=EE (Indian Annual Register, 1943, Vol II,
P.10). He had made a similar statement in 1939, seeking to define
Hindus by themselves as a nation. He is thus a proponent of the
irrational two-nation theory which resulted in India's partition in
1947. It is not the task of the Indian nation to confer special
honours upon those who do not subscribe even to its basic values.
Where do we go from here?
So far as the ruling combine is concerned, it has drawn a perfect
picture of itself. For the first time since the present government
came to power at the Centre, and perhaps for the first time since the
Jana Sangh and then the BJP were founded, Savarkarism has been
enshrined as the defining characteristic of Hindu communalism. Given
the self-portrait of itself that the BJP combine has given the
country and the world, its NDA allies need to consider how far they
are willing to take their flirtation with it. It has been a costly
dalliance. Savarkarism was, as Patel had noted, only the ideology of
the =ECfanatical wing=EE of the Hindu Mahasabha. A year after Gujarat
2002, this has become official.
The Constitutional authorities who have facilitated this and have
lent their office for the purpose are answerable before the world.
It is not as if they had not been apprised of the facts. They were
warned, though, to be fair, the warning did not come early enough. We
should perhaps have been prepared for this outrage when a Shiv Sena
nominee was elected Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It has
also been clear for sometime that political parties alone cannot be
relied upon to be alert to all challenges to Indian nationhood. It
may be too much to expect an apology from all the individuals
concerned. Mr Somnath Chatterjee is an honourable exception.
marks recorded by Sardar Patel and the other materials, all the
constitutional authorities involved, whoever they may be and no
matter how high the position they may hold, need to face their
conscience and ask hard questions about their fitness to hold the
offices they occupy. They are the custodians not merely of their own
reputation but of the Republic=EDs prestige. Indeed, all of us need to
ask the same questions about the roles we claim to perform. It is
time for the country, its media and its people to pause and ponder.
Capitulationalism, sectarianism and the glorification of the
politics of assassination cannot be part of the Indian
self-definition.
_____
#8.
Dear Friend,
Gujarat Loksangharsh Samiti has organized a public hearing programme
on 13th April, 2003 from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM at Sheth Shri Chinubhai
Chimanbhai Sabhagruh, H. K. Arts College, Opp. Nataraj Cinema, Ashram
Road. Ahmedabad-9 for the victims of
1. Gujarat Earthquake who haven't yet got adequate compensation
2. Problems of Gujarat Communal riot victims
3. Atrocities on the marginalized communities of our society
specially on schedule castes and Schedule tribes.
The Jury panel of the hearing includes Mr. T.U Mehta ex. justice of
the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Ms. Ilaben Pathak of AWAG and Mr.
Balawant Shah, a renowned journalist.
You are invited to attend this Public Hearing and thus express your
concern towards the sufferings of our brethrens.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
--