[sacw] SACW | 18 April 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  18 April,  2003

#1. Musicians unite for Asian peace : Rock band Junoon want peace 
between Pakistan and India (BBC)
#2. 245 religious parties in Pakistan (Amir Rana)
#3. The way it was: Vision of a new ummah (Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan)
#4. Progressive South Asian Voices Against War on Iraq - Series:
- To Boycott or Not to Boycott? (Aditya Nigam)
- Nonviolence as a Doctrine for Democracy (V.K.Tripathi)
- Archaeologists and historians gather  by SAHMAT to condemn 
destruction of "the world's cultural heritage"
- Deterrence is for dummies  (Praful Bidwai)
  -Bush-button Imperialism: Pax Americana is not Raj Redux (Jug Suraiya)
-The Iraq war puts the clock back to imperialism at its crudest (Ashok Mitra=
)
- Jingoism and journalism (Kuldip Nayar)
#5. Women's Bill: An open appeal to Mulayambhai (Madhu Kishwar)
#6. Invasion of Criminal Law by Religion, Custom and Family Law 
(Vasudha Dhagamwar)
#7. Abolishing the freedom of conscience - Question marks over 
Gujarat Bill (Vishal Arora)
#8. Finally, Togadia on a leash
#9. Swords distributed in Delhi as SP's Amar Singh watches on
#10. The role of Ullema in freedom struggle - Mischievous propaganda 
(Asghar Ali Engineer)

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

#1.


BBC News, 17 April, 2003, 12:01 GMT 13:01 UK 

Musicians unite for Asian peace
Rock band Junoon want peace between Pakistan and India

Top Pakistani rock band Junoon and one of India's most popular 
singers are to unite at a concert to spread a message of peace 
between the two countries.
Junoon and singer Anaida will appear at the concert in the Pakistani 
city of Karachi on Saturday, to start a "global peace" campaign.
The concert is staged amid the US's war in Iraq and the threat of 
violence between Pakistan and India over the disputed Kashmir state.
"The world has seen too much blood since 11 September, 2001 and too 
many burnings of effigies in protest rallies," Junoon's singer Ali 
Azmat said.
The concert is the first time the two acts have played together. 
Thousands of fans are expected to attend.
"Anaida will perform to negate the theory of war," Azmat said.
The band and Anaida have called for more contact between India and Pakistan.
"Singers on both sides of the borders are ready to play their role," 
Anaida said.
'Sing for peace'
"People to people contact is the best voice for peace."
The two acts will be joined by eight other Pakistani bands who will 
also promote the pro-peace message.
"They will only sing for peace and will say no to war," Azmat said.
"We will also go to Bangladesh and Dubai for similar concerts. Junoon 
would love to perform in India, if allowed."
Junoon, who formed in 1990, are regarded as Pakistan's equivalent to U2.
They have played in Europe and in the US, including the BBC's Mega 
Mela event in Birmingham last year, and outside the UN headquarters 
in New York after the 11 September attacks.
They have written songs protesting against the attacks, corruption in 
Pakistan and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in south Asia.
They have also spoken out in favour of literacy programmes and 
anti-Aids initiatives.


_____

#2.

The Daily Times, April 17, 2003 

245 religious parties in Pakistan
By Amir Rana
LAHORE: There are 245 religious parties in Pakistan, Daily Times 
research has shown. Of these, 28 openly take part in politics, 104 
claim to focus on jihad and 82 on sectarian concerns. 20 parties are 
of 'Tableeghee' proselytisation. The remaining 23 are involved in 
activities of a mixed nature.
The largest number of these parties, 48, belong to the Barelvi school 
of Sunni Islam. Ahle Hadiathparties are fewer but have well-organised 
networks and party structures. There are 44 Deobandi parties. These 
have the greatest political influence, especially in the NWFP and 
Balochistan. Shia parties have always played an important role in 
sectarian politics.
Till 1979, there were only 30 religious parties in Pakistan, of which 
7 were Deobandi, 5 Barelvi, and 3 Shia. The Jamaat-e-Islami was 
considered a non-sectarian organisation.
The Afghan war in 1980 played an important role in the growth of 
religious parties. Several new parties were formed, and several 
existing one split into factions. Religious seminaries contributed to 
the proliferation, with seminary administrations building their own 
parties. Today, the heads of 215 parties have their own seminaries.
During the days of Zia, religious seminaries started getting Zakat 
and other assistance, part of which was used to organise these 
parties. According to the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl)'s Maulana 
Hassan Mahmood, secret agencies also invested in religious parties, 
but aggravated contradictions among them to ensure they did not unite.
Between 1979 and 1990, the sectarian and jihadi parties grew in 
number. The growth rate in jihadi organisations was 100 percent and 
in sectarian parties 90 percent. The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, 
Tehrik-e-Jaffaria Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Muhammad Ahle 
HadiathYouth Force and Sunni Tehrik came into being during this 
period. Most of the Jehadi organisations also came into existence 
during the Afghan war.
The Ahle Hadiath jihadi organisations gained prominence after 1991, 
when the freedom movement in Kashmir entered a new phase; 
Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Tehrikul Mujahideen were at the forefront.
The Deobandi parties are more politically active. Seven have been 
participating in the electoral process. Three are represented in 
parliament - JUI-F, JUI-Sami and Sipah-e-Sahaba. Six Barelvi, four 
Shia, and four Ahle Hadiath parties, too, participated in the 
elections. Two Barelvi parties - the Pakistan Awami Tehrik and Jamiat 
Ulema-e-Pakistan - are represented in parliament. Two Shia parties - 
Islami Tehrik and Shia Political Party - and one Ahle Hadiath party, 
Markazi Jamait Ahle Hadiath, are also in parliament.nt.
=46ourteen jihadi organisations belong to the Barelvi school, but 
except for the Lashkar-e-Islam and Al-Barq, are not active. Three 
Ahle Hadiath jihadi organisations have been quite prominent in jihad 
participation. Five Deobandi, three Shia, four JI supported and 73 
other jihadi organisations have been established in Pakistan and Azad 
Kashmir, but only 25 remain active. Twenty two are members of the 
United Jihad Council. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal has been the only 
ever electoral alliance of religious parties in Pakistan.

_____


#3.

The Daily Times, April 17, 2003

The way it was: Vision of a new ummah
Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan

"Muslim" countries pursue their own respective state interests. An 
ummah run by the clerics as a theocracy with Samuel Huntington as 
their Caliph is the last thing, which the Muslims of the world 
deserve or need
I am one of those who saw Pakistan's birth. I belong to the 
generation, which was later raised on clich=E9s and fabrications. 
Clich=E9s can sometimes be useful in communicating common ideas and 
mundane feelings. Fabrications, even small lies, are forgivable if 
frugally employed to avoid hurting a friend or encouraging someone on 
to do right. But to make lies state policy is an irredeemable 
offence. This is precisely what we have been guilty of, these 
fifty-plus years.
The clergy soon challenged Jinnah's concept of Pakistan as a secular 
state, interpreting "secular" to be "godless". The clerics who had 
opposed Pakistan's creation became its ideologues. By the time of 
President General Yahya Khan, the concept of Islamic ideology was 
introduced. General Sher Ali, then information minister, introduced 
the concept of "ideological frontiers". Defending the ideological 
frontiers was equally if not more important than defending the 
physical frontiers. This explains why governments, especially 
authoritarian government spent most of their time hounding and 
persecuting their own citizens. Any form of dissent was branded as 
the work of Indian or Russian agents.
It is one of the great ironies of our history that political forces 
that worked closely with the CIA to promote US interests, should 
today declare the US to be the principle enemy of the Muslim ummah. 
Up until the Afghan war, almost all religious parties considered it 
kosher to connive with the CIA to bring down popular nationalist 
leaders in order to replace them with suppliant pro-US governments.
The war fought by General Ziaul Haq against the Soviet Union in 
Afghanistan on behalf of the US was the ultimate folly. What have we 
gained from it, weapons, drugs and Talibanisation of Pakistan? The 
ideological fallout has been even worse. We began slaughtering each 
other in the mosques. Instead of gaining strategic depth, the 
supposed dividend of our policy, we have ended up losing control over 
what little we had. Today the US, old buddy of the rightwing, has 
become the principle enemy of Islam.
I was listening to Qazi Sahib, the Jamaat chief on one of these new 
private Pakistani channels. Qazi Sahib was holding forth against the 
Americans for violating the sanctity of the sovereign Iraqi State. I 
couldn't believe my ears. It is quite amazing how in one breath one 
can talk of the Muslim ummah and in the next breath defend the 
concept and legal sanctity of the state. I remember being asked by 
the Daily Khabrain to participate in one of its forums. The topic was 
whether or not Pakistan should sign the CTBT. Among others who had 
been invited were Mr Najam Sethi, the editor of this newspaper, and 
an amiable young information secretary of a militant Islamist 
organisation.
During the discussion, I remember, Najam interrupted the young man, 
who was insisting that the Treaty should not be signed and that to 
sign the treaty would be a violation of the tenets of the holy Quran. 
He asked the young ideologue, "Do you believe in a nation-state?" To 
which this young man without batting an eyelid replied: "No, we do 
not!" At that point, Najam requested the young man that since some of 
us, rightly or wrongly, believed in a nation-state, he should allow 
us to proceed with a matter that strictly concerned the strategy and 
welfare of the state of Pakistan.
I have met Qazi Hussain Ahmed Sahib only once and found him to be a 
warm and courteous gentleman. I have also heard his daughter, an MNA, 
expressing her views on a few occasions. I may not agree with her 
entirely, but she puts across the party line in a quiet and learned 
manner that is impressive.
I beg Qazi Sahib to resolve the contradiction because if there is an 
ummah in the traditional sense which impels Muslims to transgress 
national boarders of another country for any cause then in the words 
of Qazi Sahib that act also violates the legal sanctity of that 
state. Logically speaking, the one negates the other; you cannot have 
both. The Islamic clerics find it impossible to acknowledge that 
there are today only nation states in the world. Let us not forget 
that the allied forces launched their offensive against Iraq from 
Kuwait, a Muslim country. Kuwait was attacked a decade earlier by 
Iraq, another Muslim country that had a decade before attacked Iran, 
another Muslim country.
People from all over the world have opposed the invasion of Iraq. It 
has never happened before that people should oppose a war before it 
even began. People of different religions should oppose it. People 
representing communists, socialists and capitalist countries should 
oppose it. People of all continents should oppose it. People of 
different colour, race and ethnic backgrounds should oppose it. Even 
people of Britain and US should oppose it, whose governments have 
conducted this so-called holy war against evil. There were more 
people on the streets in London and New York than there were in 
Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Why can't we embrace all of these good 
caring people of the world as part of the ummah? Why can't we broaden 
the meaning of ummah and include in it all those who stand up against 
war, violence and injustice.
To face the vicious and predatory New World order, we have to adapt a 
new strategy. The opposition to the Iraq invasion has proved Samuel 
Huntington wrong. There is no clash of civilisations. Sardar Aseff 
Ahmed Ali pertinently pointed out the other day that since 
civilisations were interdependent they couldn't clash. There can be a 
diffusion of civilisations based on universality of knowledge and 
human experience but not a clash. The clash concept he believed was 
meant to prepare US citizens for what was to follow.
US went to war in Iraq not against Muslims but for purely political 
and economic reasons. There are of course Muslims all over the world. 
There are several states where Muslims are in a majority but there is 
also no evidence of an ummah. Is there? Most of these Muslim majority 
states are divided and have different political systems ranging from 
democracy, autocracy to monarchy. It seems that the Muslims clerics 
now want to create their hegemony by establishing a theocracy. There 
are twice the number of Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan. 
There are Muslims living in China, in the US and in scores of other 
countries in all continents. They may be in a minority but they are 
as loyal to their countries as we are loyal to our own.
It is ironic that a Muslim from Pakistan can become American, British 
and for that matter German, Swedish and Australian citizens but not 
Saudi or Kuwaiti citizen. What ummah are we talking about? The fact 
is that the "Muslim" countries pursue their own respective state 
interests. An ummah run by the clerics as a theocracy with Samuel 
Huntington as their Caliph is the last thing, which the Muslims of 
the world deserve or need.
Prof Ijaz-ul-Hassan is a painter, author and a political activist

_____


#4.

PROGRESSIVE SOUTH ASIAN VOICES AGAINST WAR ON IRAQ - SERIES:

South Asia Citizens Web | 17 April 2003
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/iraq/ANigam170403.html

To Boycott or Not to Boycott?

Aditya Nigam

The war is not over yet. We are now in a permanent state of war. Iraq is
only a sign of what the Empire is all about. Already, 'recalcitrant' states
are being threatened and whether or not they are attacked in the way Iraq
was, this war is going to continue by other means. In fact, it is going to
he fought by all means possible. The arrogance of Empire is truly
unprecedented. It has arrogated to itself the power to determine what the
new world order will be like and what rules of conduct will govern it.
Means, of course, have never been an issue with rulers - anything that
guarantees their continued domination is justified. Hitler did it in the
name of the supremacy of the Aryan race and the German nation; Bush does it
in the name of democracy and the freedom.
The question of fighting with all possible means is above all, a question
for those who wish to challenge the power of the Empire. We do not want
violence, for we believe that violence cannot achieve lasting peace.
Violence cannot, by itself change anything. We abhor violence because we
believe that violence creates prototypes of the oppressor within the
oppressed. And yet, will mere peaceful demonstrations yield anything? The
American answer to this question is a loud and unambiguous NO.
Even as literally millions of people around the world came out in
demonstrations, the US administration decided to go ahead with one of the
most brutal and one-sided wars in recent history. This cynical disregard
for world public opinion has forced many peace activists to think hard.
What is it that can affect these war mongers? It is in this context that
some anti-war activists in Delhi started thinking aloud about the
possibility of boycotting US goods. Some suggested a boycott of both US and
British goods. These were early days of the war and we did not really know
that already in other parts of the world people had begun to act along
these lines. In fact, even in other cities in India, antiwar activists were
thinking and acting along similar lines. The message of this moment must
not be missed, the moment when millions started thinking and acting along
similar lines: If our voices as citizens do not matter, what really matters
to capital is our so-called 'freedom of choice' as consumers. This is the
moment of recognition. This is the moment of subversion of that great
neo-liberal mantra of the sovereignty of the consumer. This sovereign
consumer of the neo-liberal utopia is and must only be a passive consumer.
This is the moment of the global citizen-consumer to say that "we will
decide what we want to consume".
And so it began. The boycott of some selected consumer goods of US
corporations is now gaining momentum. The campaign in Delhi is modestly
focussing on three cultural symbols of the US - Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's.
The idea is to leave the rest to the decision of the individual consumers,
how much and what else they will boycott. This is incidentally the position
also being advocated by the Adbusters (www.adbusters.org), one of the
frontier organisations of the counter-globalisation movement in Canada.
While their call "Boycott Brand America" is more ambitious, their decision
to leave the actual extent of the boycott to the individuals concerned is
based upon an appreciation of the intricacies of the situation.
Interestingly, it is at this precise moment that many doubts have also been
expressed about the meaning, efficacy and the point of such a move by some
who are themselves part of the antiwar movement. Is it right? After all, in
this era of global production, by doing so, are we not going to affect the
livelihoods of the poor third-world workers who are employed in these
firms? Is there a violence involved in this move - like picketing or
attacking outlets of McDonald's? More importantly, can we be so selective
as to boycott some and not all American and British goods? What about our
computer hardware and software? By being selective, are we thereby being
duplicitous? The issues are serious and call for discussion.
Let us take the last, that is the 'consistency' question first. The
struggle against the war is certainly a battle for principles and ethics
but it is also question of strategy. For, this is an unequal battle, fought
under circumstances determined almost entirely by global corporations. The
way things are, if we argue that unless we can, from the very outset,
boycott everything that is produced by these corporations, we must not even
begin to think of taking a small step, we might be abandoning the struggle
before it has begun. For the big lesson of the past is that this
all-or-nothing attitude only means nothing, because we will never have
'all'. The logic of this argument is that unless we can transform the very
conditions of capitalist production, unless that is, there is a
revolutionary transformation that overturns capitalism globally, we can
never even begin to act. Not at least in ways that are internally
consistent. For all struggle is about negotiation, about fighting on a
terrain that is determined and constituted by the Big Other. In such
conditions, we are doomed to remain prisoners of global capital and Empire.
In other words, in order to fight, we might just need to be 'opportunist'.
One of the points of the present campaign for boycott is that by doing this
we can start focussing on certain linkages that are almost non-existent in
the public mind. We might not be able, right now to start affecting the
demand and the sales of such corporations but we will certainly make a
connection between corporate globalisation, the greed for profit and the
war. We might, as a friend recently put it, make an emotional appeal to
certain sections of consumers to expunge certain items from the their
everyday. This is, in other words, a political campaign which is beginning
to tell the corporations that they cannot take their consumers for granted;
that they will have to answer in the market-place for what they do in their
secret chambers of power.
This is not the first time that such an assertion of 'consumer sovereignty'
is taking place. India might in fact be one of the first countries in the
world where the boycott of foreign goods became a crucial part of its
political, nationalist struggle, in the early decades of the last century.
That was a different context and a different time. No nationalist boycott
will or can work in today's world. But more recently we have the experience
of the boycott of South African goods in the apartheid era. In a different
way, even there the troubled question had to be faced: will the boycott not
affect the poor, black workers if it becomes effective? The same question
is coming up now in relation to the impact on third world workers. Here
again, the question must be turned around. Can we take up any campaign
today - against use of plastic bags, against fire-crackers, against the
environmental degradation wrought by the present model of development,
against nuclear power, for cuts in military expenditure etc - that will not
involve some dislocation of current employment? Can we merely sit and await
the never-to-arrive millennial transformations when alone we can rearrange
priorities such that nobody will be hurt? On the other hand, if millions of
opponents of the war and of the US decide to boycott certain goods, and if
they can really affect their demand, then they can spur the demand of
alternative products as well. After all, this is not a call to boycott 'all
foreign products' but a call to make the corporations hear the only sound
they do - the sound of cash. It is to make them realize that they have to
have some accountability and if governments and political parties can be
bought over, not everybody can.
=46inally, the question of violence. Certainly, there have been incidents of
violence in picketing and such other activities and many of us are not very
comfortable with such methods. One friend from Nepal has raised the
question of this kind of violence and has counter-posed it to Gandhi's
non-violent movement. This is indeed a serious question for us to ponder
over. Many of us are certainly uncomfortable with the organised violence of
picketing that is often undertaken by many left-wing groups during strikes
and bandhs as well as in such boycott campaigns. Such violence can often be
self-defeating in that it just put off people who might otherwise like to
join such a movement. But we also probably need to distinguish between such
organised violence and acts that are undertaken by social groups under
extreme conditions of desperation. We also need to remember, it seems to
me, that even Gandhi's movement was not always in Gandhi's control and
there was considerable violence - often in his name. Such acts of violence
cannot always be ruled out and we certainly need to make allowances for the
fact that the antiwar movement today emerges out of a confluence of
different currents, of people with different beliefs and we cannot decree
any specific kind of approach as legitimate and others as illegitimate. We
are moving in uncharted waters and not all issues between us can be
resolved at the outset. Maybe they can never be resolved to everybody's
satisfaction. This is both the strength and the weakness of this moment.
When millions of people across the globe raise their voice, disagreements
and differences are inevitable and have to be respected. That is why, in
the final analysis, the decision of what each of us will boycott and how
has to be left to the discretion of the individuals/groups concerned.

(Aditya Nigam, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
29 Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054)

o o o

South Asia Citizens Web | 16 April 2003
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/iraq/VKTripathi160403.html

Nonviolence as a Doctrine for Democracy

V.K.Tripathi

Never before in recent history, the contradiction between the masses of
the world and their rulers has been so stark as in the last four
weeks. The masses felt strongly against the war while their governments,
even in democratic countries, remained passive. This contradiction needs
to be resolved so that united efforts could made to safegurad freedom of
nations against the doctrine of might is right. Let me begin with a
comment on democracy as its facade is often used to wage war.

Democracy is a system of governance where people exercise their vote to
form a government. By contrast there is no such right in a dictatorship or
monarchy. This distinction is important, however, it alone does not make
democracy a supreme model. There are three fundamental ingradients of
democracy:

1) People's ownership over national resources and their utilization
to provide education, employment and equal opportunities for growth to all.

2) People's participation in planning and implementation.

3) Rule of law to ensure security and freedom of all.

The first two elements are missing in all the democracies of the world to
a large extent. The resources are controlled by a few who use them for
profit rather than providing employment to the masses. Even the resources
owned by the State, e g., land, forest, mines, factories and money, are
not fully utilized in the interests of the people. Similar is the
situation in dictatorial regimes. However, it is better than slavery where
extrnal power and alien economic elite control the resources and political
power and frame laws forcing outward flow of national wealth. India, for
instance, was slave of Britain before 1947. Its markets were open for
forein goods but there were restriction on national goods. Raw materials
went out of the country for cheap and finished products were brought in at
high prices, rendering artisans unemployed and the country poorer. Similar
was the fate of many nations. They gained their freedom after World War
II. From the struggle for freedom evolved democracy. Infact all the
democracies, new or old, that exist in the world today have evolved
through mass struggles, mostly mass movements for freedom. It never
happened that one country exported democracy to the other as a gift. It
surely can not be transported through guns and bombs.

The US war on Iraq demolishes the first axiom of democracy and freedom by
capturing Iraqi oil fields that are the sole property of Iraqi people.
It devastated an unarmed nation, destroying its entire security system,
law and order machinery, and infrastructure, besides killing innumerable
innocent people and ruining their homes. The Shia, Sunni, Kurds communal
conflicts are feared to grow to catastrophic proportions. In the past,
intelligence agencies were employed to overthrow governments, installing
puppet regimes and exploiting resources. Now it has been done in broad day
light by dropping two hundred ton bombs. It is sad that media is ignoring
this truth. It is busy inumerating crimes of Saddam Hussain, who had
practically died twelve years ago. After the 1991 war Iraqi regime had
become very weak. It had no freedom to use its own national resources. A
country that lost half a million children and lakhs other people due to
hard economic sanctions imposed by US and allies, and that did not pose
any threat even to Iran, was projected as a threat to super power and now
has been razed to dust.

This blatant new doctrine is a very serious threat to third world
countries. They may be targetted to gain control over their resources and
markets. The present governments of these countries could not muster
courage to denounce war in real terms, hence, how could they defend their
freedom from this new danger? There is only one ray of hope. The masses,
who demonstrated unprecedented unity of purpose in opposing the war,
cutting accross religious and national lines, can awaken governments in
their respective countries to develop national non-cooperation as a
doctrine against onslaught on freedom. All the countries must demand
immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and evacuation of oil
fields. This will bring back life to UN and establish the rule of law in
the world.

Peace movements may consider working on three planes. 1) Peace movements
outside US should urge their governments to demand total withdrawal of US
forces and oil companies from Iraq and payment of compensation for the
loss of life and property in Iraq. Until this happens, joint military
exercises with US should be suspended. 2) The peace movements in USA
should urge the Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and mayors to force this
issue. They give memoranda to oil companies not to control Iraqi oil. If
they do not listen then they may think of cutting down their oil
consumption to half. American oil companies sell oil to all the countries
but more than one third of world oil consumption is by US. A reduction in
sale of oil will affect oil companies. Even otherwise too the reduction of
misuse of oil will be a big service to the masses of the world. 3) Peace
movements must grow in Oil rich countries. Their resources and governments
have long been subjected to excessive external interference. Now they must
assert their freedom. From this struggle will emerge democracy.

Poor countries must see the danger at their doorsteps and refrain
aggravating their mutual conflicts. India Pakistan can create an example
in this regard. Both are suffering from the after effects of slavery
when British masters had plunged the nation into massive communal strife
by supporting Hindu and Muslim communalists. Kashmir issue is a ramnant
of slavery. Both countries must resolve it displaying magnanimity.
o o o


The Hindu, Apr 18, 2003

'Civilisation stripped of history'
By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI APRIL 17. On a day when UNESCO met in Paris to moot 
measures to salvage what remains of Iraq's cultural treasures, 
archaeologists and historians gathered here today to condemn the 
destruction of "the world's cultural heritage'' in the wake of the 
occupation of Baghdad by the coalition forces.

Brought together by SAHMAT, they issued an appeal; stating that "if 
there are no courts yet to punish the real perpetrators of this 
crime, let us all so act that the criminals will remain ever bound to 
the pillory in the eyes of the civilised world despite all the 
state-of-the-art weaponry that they might possess''.

The desecration of antiquities in Iraq, according to the ancient 
Indian historian, D. N. Jha, was tantamount to obliterating the 
history of humanity. "Iraq is often called the cradle of 
civilisation'', and the coalition forces, he said, turned a Nelson's 
eye to large-scale looting of the very institutions housing some of 
the most valued treasures of humankind.

Also, according to Prof. Jha, the coalition forces had not only 
damaged the history of humanity, but also struck at various religions 
by attacking Uruk - one of the oldest cities of the world - as it was 
the birthplace of Abraham who is revered by Christians, Muslims and 
Jews alike.

Of the view that humanity - irrespective of national identities - 
should protect history and protest such pillaging of world heritage, 
the former Secretary to the Union Department of Culture, Kapila 
Vatsayayan, wondered why international conventions providing for the 
protection of the patrimony of humanity had not been invoked in 
anticipation of such plunder.

Stating that the National Museum of Antiquities, Baghdad, was one of 
the biggest repositories of culture, Ms. Vatsayayan warned against 
the artefacts disappearing from circulation for a while and 
resurfacing in the market for smuggled antiquities years later. To 
prevent this from happening, she suggested that instead of penalising 
the marauders, they should be encouraged to return them and assured 
amnesty.

While Ms. Vatsayayan maintained that the plunder of the National 
Museum, the National Archives and the National Library did not appear 
to be a spontaneous response to the overthrow of the Saddam regime, 
the former Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, M. 
C. Joshi, went a step further and said the looting could have been 
the conspiracy of antique dealers.

Chipping in, the contemporary artist, Vivan Sundaram, said the 
cultural institutions were such monolithic structures that the 
coalition forces could have easily protected them had they the will 
to do so. Evidently, the archaeologists and historians argued, the 
coalition forces were intent upon stripping the ancient civilisation 
of its history.

o o o

The Hindustan Times (India)
=46riday, April 18, 2003  

Deterrence is for dummies
By Praful Bidwai

  As if the gross injustice of war and the blowing off of the brains 
and limbs of innocent civilians were not enough, invading 
Anglo-American troops have heaped further iniquity, injury and insult 
upon the Iraqi people through rank deceit, disinformation and 
outright plunder.

Twelve civilians have been killed in an unprovoked firing into a 
crowd in Mosul protesting a pro-US speech by the newly appointed 
governor. New disclosures suggest that the 'turning-point' incident 
on Day 21 of the war, in which Iraqis were shown rapturously 
welcoming the US military and toppling a bronze statue of Saddam 
Hussein at Baghdad's Firdos Square, was stage-managed.

Photographs available at www.informationclearinghouse.info show that 
the original wide-angle shot of Firdos Square covering its entire 
expanse was deliberately cropped to hide the small numbers of Iraqis 
(a few dozen), and the surrounding Abrams tanks. The statue was 
pulled down using an armoured vehicle by American troops (who draped 
its head in the US flag), and not by Iraqis.

This was not a 'spontaneous' incident, unlike the fall of the Berlin 
Wall. The leading Iraqis involved are linked to Pentagon favourite 
and hitherto-exiled financial double-dealer, Ahmed Chalabi.

This deception is of a piece with stories about the 'fall' of Umm 
Qasr (reported nine times before it happened), the first week's 
non-existent Basra 'insurrection' and 'discovery' of a chemical 
factory, and the 'non-use' of cluster bombs, etc. Its purpose was to 
announce the collapse of the Hussein regime.

However, what's even worse is the US responsibility for, and 
complicity in, the pillage of priceless antiquities and irreplaceable 
books and manuscripts from Iraq's National Museum and National 
Library. In the latter case, says The Independent's Robert Fisk, US 
troops merely watched as mobs ransacked and thieved at will. The 
Museum, West Asia's greatest trove of historical artefacts and the 
world's richest record of the cradle of human civilisation, was 
picked clean by looters and professional smugglers.

Sweden's Dagens Nyheter (April 11) quotes an eyewitness, who says US 
troops actively exhorted Iraqis to loot State buildings and 
facilitated the plunder. Earlier, by prematurely opening two Tigris 
bridges to civilian traffic, they allowed looters to race into 
Baghdad's centre and extend "their plundering to the planning 
ministry and other buildings=8A" (Washington Post).

Top US leaders have rationalised this criminal pillage as an 'untidy' 
consequence of the worthy cause of 'liberation'. This 'untidiness' 
contrasts sharply with the strict vigil over Iraq's oil and interior 
ministry records. America's priorities have less to do with the Iraqi 
people's urgent needs than with winning super-profitable corporate 
contracts and establishing puppet regimes.

Amidst this comes UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's assertion 
that the US and Britain 'planned' this war 'well in advance' - 
irrespective of what inspections would reveal about Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction (WMD). The WMD was a mere pretext. So, 
unsurprisingly, none have been found in four weeks.

Even if some are 'discovered', their provenance will remain suspect 
for the global public. Worse, says Blix, the war is sending out 
'wrong signals', like those North Korea has picked up: if you don't 
have WMD, but 'let in the inspectors,=8A you get attacked'.

So shocking is the spectacle unfolding in Iraq and so awful the US's 
imperiousness - since extended through threats to Syria and Iran - 
that some people have started desperately looking for virtue in, of 
all things, WMD!

Their proposition goes thus: if Iraq really had powerful WMD, the US 
wouldn't have risked attacking it. However evil, WMD can be 
instruments of national defence against empire. Nuclear weapons alone 
could guarantee that India or Pakistan won't be targeted next by the 
US. We must keep and upgrade our nukes. Doesn't North Korea, which 
has 'successfully' defied the US with 'nuclear hardball' tactics, 
prove that nuclear deterrence works?

New Delhi's hawks have taken the cue and started mounting pressure to 
be allowed to conduct a new round of three nuclear tests, especially 
of the hydrogen bomb (which probably proved a dud in 1998). The 
usually reliable trade journal Nuclear Fuel reports this, citing US 
and Indian sources including the Department of Atomic Energy, Bhabha 
Atomic Research Centre, and Defence Research & Development 
Organisation.

The argument is based on speculative 'what-if' logic. It is spurious 
and dangerously wrong. Weapons, however important, don't exclusively 
or primarily determine whether or not States go to war. Thus, the 
US's nuclear weapons didn't prevent China from entering the Korean 
War in 1950. Non-nuclear Vietnam gave nuclear China a bloody nose in 
1979. And Argentina wasn't deterred from fighting nuclear Britain in 
the Eighties. Equally, war outcomes are often settled by factors 
other than weapons superiority - as in Suez, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

North Korea isn't quite 'playing nuclear hardball'. It has no nuclear 
weapons, only nuclear spent fuel. It is threatening to restart a 
reactor closed under a 1994 agreement with the US - in a reckless 
attempt to drive a bargain (for a no-hostilities pact and money). 
Despite brink-manship, it is probably many months away from a 
first-generation nuclear weapon.

It is Pyongyang's conventional weapons that worry the US: they can 
strike 30,000-plus American troops in the region. They can also 
target lakhs of civilians of key ally-States Japan and South Korea. 
Washington, preoccupied with Iraq, is willing to engage Pyongyang in 
talks (scheduled for next week). But it's not hard to construct a 
scenario in which Washington coercively 'takes out' North Korea's 
suspected WMD. These are no real deterrents.

Two questions are critically relevant to understanding deterrence. 
Does a WMD adversary have an assured means of delivering the weapons? 
And does nuclear deterrence provide genuine security? The first 
demands that we follow the authentic logic of historical 
reconstruction. Delivery ability depends on a society's overall 
technological capability, as well as its military preparedness.

In Iraq, the answer is simple: it had no delivery capability, even if 
it at maximum had some crude chemical or biological weapons (probably 
too unstable to kill massively), although no nuclear arms. Its 
airpower was decimated and its missiles too primitive to count. Its 
WMD could not have deterred America.

India and Pakistan admittedly possess mass-annihilation-capable 
nuclear weapons, but they belong to the same league as Iraq in 
respect of delivering them to the US. Even China has barely a dozen 
missiles that can reach continental America - never mind their 
accuracy. This doesn't add up to an assured second-strike capability.

Even if it did - and even if India tests Agni-3, as it might this 
month - it would be foolhardy to rely on nuclear deterrence for 
security. This is a profoundly flawed doctrine. It assumes 100 per 
cent rational, cool-headed behaviour in panic-causing situations, and 
a total absence of misperception, misunderstanding or accidents in 
all circumstances.

Security through nuclear deterrence is a delusion. We know deterrence 
all but collapsed hundreds of times during the Cold War. It's even 
more Ram bharose and unreliable in the India-Pakistan case. It would 
be suicidal to rely upon it.

India's best interests - and the world's - lie in fighting for 
universal, global WMD abolition, in conformity with international law 
spelt out by the World Court in 1996, and with commitments by the 
nuclear States in the 2000-NPT Review Conference. The only safe world 
is one without WMD, even in the hands of those who seek to disarm 
others, but not themselves. That's the only antidote to imperial 
double standards.

India must test no more nuclear weapons or missiles. It should return 
to disarmament - and sanity.

o o o

The Times of India , APRIL 18, 2003 | Editorial
Bush-button Imperialism: Pax Americana is not Raj Redux
JUG SURAIYA
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=
=3D43684735

o o o

The Telegraph, April 18, 2003
POWER AND THE GLORY
- The Iraq war puts the clock back to imperialism at its crudest
ASHOK MITRA
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030418/asp/opinion/story_1882662.asp

o o o

The Island (Sri Lanka)
Jingoism and journalism
By Kuldip Nayar
http://www.island.lk/2003/04/18/featur01.html


______


#5.

The Indian Express, April 18, 2003
Women's Bill: An open appeal to Mulayambhai
Madhu Kishwar
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D22201

______

#6.

The Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay) April 12, 2003

Invasion of Criminal Law by Religion, Custom and Family Law

=46amily law, that decides on matters of social conduct and occupies 
the space demarcated by religion and custom largely makes up the 
'non-formal' aspect of the dual legal system in the country. The 
widespread and often insidious influence of family law, however, has 
been evident even in aspects of criminal law, which constitutes the 
formal legal system. This 'criminalisation' of family law, the 
enduring presence of caste panchayats and the encroachment of 
religion and custom into criminal law has, this paper argues, led to 
a diminishing of the space and protection granted to women under the 
formal system. Its unfortunate consequences have also perpetuated 
certain ambiguities in the legal system and in some instances, even 
led to the denial of justice.

Vasudha Dhagamwar

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which directs the state to 
enact a uniform civil code for all citizens, has been both a 
perennial as well as a source of permanent embarrassment ever since 
the Constitution was adopted. Some are annoyed because the article is 
still in cold storage. Others are embarrassed because the article 
continues to exist. The individuals in the first category give 
supreme consideration to fundamental rights guaranteed to all 
citizens, particularly the right to equality before law and the right 
to life. The second group feel equally strongly that family law is or 
should be outside the purview of the Constitution. Somehow the debate 
has contrived to hide a basic truth. A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) may 
solve constitutional tangles but would not solve all problems, unless 
the UCC eschewed all dependence upon religion and custom.

There is a third lobby of individuals who would like to please both 
sides. They want an optional UCC. By that some of them mean right to 
choose personal law, or be automatically bound by UCC; others mean 
the reverse. This confusion inbuilt into such a choice, and 
particularly for an illiterate and ill-informed country, is plainly 
nightmarish. The role of religion and custom would be blown up beyond 
imagination. Mercifully there are not many supporters of this 
viewpoint.

Over the years this author has realised that personal laws or family 
laws are not only to do with the constitutional space. They also 
invade the space provided by criminal law. This paper focuses on 
India, although much of what is said here may apply to other 
communities, to other countries in the region, or even elsewhere. 
[...].

[ FULL TEXT AT: 
http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=3D2003&leaf=3D04&filename=3D5697=
&filetype=3Dhtml 
]

_____


#7.

The Indian Express, April 17, 2003

INTERVENTION

Abolishing the freedom of conscience
Question marks over Gujarat Bill
Vishal Arora
When the Gujarat home minister tabled the controversial 'Freedom of 
Religion' Bill in the Gujarat Assembly on March 22, it was said that 
the bill would be taken up for discussion on March 26. However, the 
assembly was unable to hold the discussion because on that day Haren 
Pandya was murdered. But why was the Gujarat government in such a 
hurry that it didn't wait to allow the discussion on the bill some 
other day?

When a similar bill was passed in Tamil Nadu, there were nation-wide 
protests by minority communities. And this bill was drafted even more 
stringently than the one in Tamil Nadu, knowing well that it would 
disturb minorities in Gujarat. In this bill it is mandatory for any 
person converting to another religion to take government's 
permission. Imagine you could be fined Rs. 1,000 with an imprisonment 
of one year for exercising your freedom of conscience because it is 
the government that is supposed to decide for you! One wonders how 
this bill, which clearly violates one's constitutional rights, was 
not only passed in the assembly but has also been given consent by 
the governor despite the National Commission for Minorities' plea to 
delete Clause-5 (1)?

Besides this clause, the wordings and their definitions in the bill 
are likely to be open to misinterpretation. Even opening Christian 
schools and giving scholarships could be seen as 'allurement'. Social 
relief and development work done by Christians in the state could 
also be termed as 'allurement'. This raises another question. Is 
conversion by unfair means the real issue or social work done by 
Christians among the poor and downtrodden that empowers and educates 
them? According to the statistics of the National Crime Records 
Bureau, Gujarat ranks third in the country in crimes against dalits. 
In the year 1998 alone, 8,894 cases of atrocities against dalits were 
registered in the state.

Not only this, the arguments advanced in favour the bill fall flat on 
their face when one analyses the evidence available.The Census says 
there were 0.43 per cent Christians in 1991, while in 2001 there were 
only 0.42 per cent Christians. What then does the government want to 
restrict? Aren't there already enough provisions in the Indian Penal 
Code to restrict conversion by unfair means? Moreover, this law-which 
obviously targets minority communities, Christians and Muslims in 
particular-is being enacted in a state like Gujarat that has already 
witnessed killings of those belonging to minority communities in the 
past. Keeping this in mind, who will not doubt the motives of the 
government?


______


#8.

Hindustan Times | 18 April / Edit

=46inally, Togadia on a leash
  At last, a state government has found the courage to put a venomous 
rabble-rouser behind bars. For far too long, the VHP's so-called 
international secretary, Praveen Togadia, has been allowed to indulge 
in his poisonous anti-minority propaganda without any let or 
hindrance. It wasn't only him. The Centre, run by a fraternal ally of 
the VHP, chose to look on with a kindly eye as stalwarts of the 
organisation like Ashok Singhal barged into the Ayodhya temple or 
Bajrang Dal activists behaved execrably at the Taj Mahal. In Gujarat, 
Mr Togadia had no compunctions in using abusive terms against Sonia 
Gandhi and Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh. The fact that he 
faced no legal restraints must have emboldened him to carry his 
vicious diatribes into Rajasthan.

But the authorities in this Congress-ruled state found his vitriolic 
speeches and open display of the currently banned tridents far too 
dangerous for social peace. There is little doubt that the 
'trishul-deeksha' functions organised by the VHP, where these sharp 
weapons were handed out to followers, were intended to foment 
communal tension. With Rajasthan due to go the polls at the end of 
the year, these are brazen attempts by the VHP and the Sangh parivar 
to whip up communal sentiments in order to polarise the voters on 
sectarian lines, as was done by these outfits in Gujarat. But what 
they failed to anticipate was that the government of Ashok Gehlot 
wouldn't allow itself to be held to ransom by these heinous tactics.

By first banning the open display of tridents and then arresting Mr 
Togadia, Mr Gehlot has sent a clear message that blatant attempts to 
disturb the social harmony will not be tolerated. The chief minister 
may also have taken a leaf out of his Madhya Pradesh counterpart 
Digvijay Singh's book by incarcerating the VHP leader, for Mr Singh, 
too, had sent another VHP leader, Acharya Dharmendra, to jail. After 
the arrests in Rajasthan, the VHP tried to disrupt normal life by 
calling a bandh, but the fact that it evoked lukewarm response 
confirmed that these self-appointed champions of the Hindu 'cause' 
have little public support. Had the states acted against them 
earlier, their potential for creating trouble could have been 
severely curbed.


______


#9.

[ Like Tagodia of VHP these castiest thugs should also be arrested. 
It is important that peace activists who defend a secular India 
pursue this vigourously]

o o o

The Indian Express, April 17, 2003

Swords distributed in Delhi as SP's Amar Singh watches on
Press Trust of India
New Delhi, April 16: As the controversy over distribution of tridents 
by VHP leaders rages, thousands of swords were distributed in New 
Delhi on Wednesday at a conclave in the presence of Samajwadi Party 
General Secretary Amar Singh.

The swords about two feet in length were distributed among all the 
3000-odd people who attended the 'kshatriya' conclave at Talkatora 
indoor stadium.

Many of the participants were seen raising the swords both outside 
and inside the stadium during the five-hour event. Several people 
were seen carrying more than one sword.

Police were taken by surprise at the distribution of swords in such a 
large number and have decided to "look into the matter".

"The organisers had informed us that they would make symbolic 
distribution of swords to a few respected leaders of the kshatriya 
community saying it was a part of their custom. But it turned out 
that more than 3000 swords were distributed at the event," a senior 
police officer told

"We will seek an explanation from the organisers," he said.

The 'kshatriya maha sammelan' was organised with the objective of 
inviting the members of the community to "fight the battle for 
existence" in the backdrop of slapping of POTA against independent 
MLA from UP Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya "by the Mayawati 
government with the help of BJP."

"Kshatriyas are being humiliated," the invitation pamphlet said.

_____


#10.

Deccan Herald, 18 April 2003

The role of Ullema in freedom struggle
Mischievous propaganda

VHP's brand of communal politics fail to understand that majority of 
muslims were against the creation of Pakistan
By Asghar Ali Engineer
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr18/top.asp



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

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.