SACW | 24 April 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  24 April,  2003

#1. Scared of peace? (Mubashir Hasan)
#2. Take him at his word (Praful Bidwai)
#3. Would Vajpayee Be Third Time Lucky? (Bharat Bhushan)
#4. Battle between 'Islam' and 'kufr'
#5. India: Interview with Githa Hariharan the author of  In Times of 
Siege (Vaishna Roy)
#6. Time Magazine Asian Heroes 2003
- Good Women of Gujarat (Meenakshi Ganguly Bhavnagar)
- Asma Jahangir: The pocket protector (Tim McGirk)
#7. Indo-Pak border mines pose risk to millions
#8. Conference on The Indian Diaspora and Its Cultural Politics (2-3 
May 2003, UCLA)


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


#1.

DAWN, 23 April 2003

Scared of peace?
By Dr Mubashir Hasan

The partition of the subcontinent into Pakistan and India in 1947 was 
accompanied by a very large traumatic exchange of population and 
horrible massacres. That these events should cast long shadows over 
the attitudes of the peoples of the new countries towards each other 
was only natural. Not natural, however, was that the two governments 
should have confronted each other for more than a few years. 
Countries go to war but with signatures on a peace treaty, normal 
intercourse at government level is quickly resumed.
Today, over fifty-five years after independence, the governments of 
India and Pakistan can still be quite articulate in justifying the 
uninterrupted hard policy stand they adopt to confront each other. At 
times, each government's logic may seem unassailable, but considering 
the opportunities they have missed of ushering in peace and progress 
in their respective lands, their policies appear nothing short of 
tragic. They have gone to wars but peace has eluded them. They have 
remained in a state of no war, no peace.
After fourteen years of promoting peace and friendship between the 
two countries, I have come to conclude that both the ruling elites 
are genuinely scared of peace breaking out between them. They seem to 
recognize enormous dangers that peace in the subcontinent may bring 
to their political power and the flow of wealth that comes with 
power. Strong vested interests for the two elites have developed to 
maintain the status quo.
In India, politicians, the civil apparatus of the state, its army 
protectors, big traders and businessmen make up the elites. The 
Pakistani elites comprise the officers of the military and civil 
services, their client politicos and supporting feudal and business 
classes.
Internally, by using the authoritative administrative structure built 
by the British to deny democratic governance at the grassroots level, 
the elites have maintained their political hegemony. No social 
contract between the state and the people has emerged. Governance is 
based on arbitrary use of coercive power. The elites have legislated 
draconian laws giving wide powers to the police, paramilitary legions 
and armed forces in the name of maintaining law and order.
Externally, by adopting a policy of confrontation with the 
neighbouring country, the two elites have indulged in an open-ended 
arms race and recruited division after division of armed personnel. 
Large armies, paramilitary legions and huge intelligence apparatuses 
have immensely helped the elites to maintain their political power, 
simultaneously threatening their neighbour. They have built weapons 
of mass destruction along with delivery systems by spending vast 
amounts from national budgets.
By maintaining confrontation towards each other and building massive 
armed power and often violating the rule of law and sanctity of basic 
human rights, both elites have done fabulously well for themselves 
during the last half a century. They have amassed riches through 
legal and illegal means which will be the envy of the Mughal princes 
should they come to life. Their vested interests have vastly grown in 
size, exacting an enormous amount of wealth from poor farmers, 
industrial workers and other labouring classes - all in the name of 
national security, irredentist ventures and a deliberately distorted 
view of history.
To maintain their hegemony and to secure the support of the masses, 
the two elites have stoked the fires of communal hatred and 
intolerance to intensify the gulf between communities and nations. 
They have failed to settle disputes such as that of the transfer of 
assets relating to partition, Kashmir and Siachin among others. They 
would do all they can to widen existing cleavages and to create new 
ones by reneging on settled issues such as that of the division of 
the Indus Basin waters. They have gone to wars and now claim the 
right to pre-emptive military action against their sovereign 
neighbour.
However, there are elements among the two elites who, time and again, 
have made unsuccessful efforts at bridging the gulf. Towards the end 
of the eighties, foreign secretaries - Rasgotra of India and Niaz 
Naik of Pakistan - had agreed on the draft of a peace deal. The 
Indian side blames Pakistan for going to sleep over it. India and 
Pakistan had come to an agreement on ending the confrontation over 
the Siachen glacier. Pakistan blames India for not solemnizing the 
agreement.
During his first term as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif desperately 
wanted to start negotiations but Prime Minister Narsimha Rao would 
not agree. As soon as Benazir took over as prime minister, Narsimha 
Rao greeted her assumption of office but she would have none of the 
talks that the Indian wanted. After a meeting with the Indian prime 
minister, when this writer approached Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto 
for an interview, she loudly said in the presence of press reporters 
and photographers: "Dr Sahib, come and talk to me on any issue but 
not about relations with India. They will think that I had sent you 
to India".
A mysterious unwritten understanding seems to exist between the 
permanent establishments of the two countries to discourage taking 
any measure that will bring the two nations nearer. I learnt on good 
authority that on one occasion Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif speaking 
to a high-level Indian diplomat, said that visa restrictions between 
India and Pakistan should be removed. The diplomat politely responded 
that it was a good idea but also pointed out the difficulties in the 
way. When the Indian diplomat told a high-level Pakistani diplomat 
what was in the mind of the Pakistani prime minister, the Pakistani 
responded to the Indian, "I hope you tried to dissuade him".
At a Commonwealth Conference, prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and 
Chandrashekar had verbally agreed to do away with visa formalities 
for travel between the two countries. Pakistan is alleged to have 
gone back on the idea.
When they met in Edinburgh, Scotland, Prime Minister I K Gujral asked 
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif about progress on the Pakistani proposal 
to sell electricity to India. Nawaz Sharif confirmed that Pakistan 
was agreeable. Right there, in the presence of the Indian prime 
minister, the senior Pakistani diplomat present there told the two 
prime ministers that the sale could not take place. Mr Gujral was 
dumbfounded at the daring shown by the Pakistani bureaucrat in 
contradicting his prime minister.
It is a curious state of relations between the two countries. When 
India is ready to talk, Pakistan is not willing and when Pakistan is 
ready, it is India which refuses to talk and most of the time both 
sides indulge in confrontational rhetoric. On occasions the two sides 
seem to reach the brink of a deal or an agreement. However, at the 
last minute, as two senior Indian diplomats confided to me, something 
or the other happens to thwart the deal - an act of sabotage, an 
armed incursion, a murderous attack, an artillery duel on the border, 
an irresponsible statement by a leader or an arms deal with another 
country.
These days it happens to be India's turn to close all doors and 
windows of negotiations between the two countries. Rail, road, and 
air communications have been suspended. Representation at ambassador 
level stands withdrawn. The high commissions' strength is badly 
denuded. They do not allow their citizens to read the newspapers of 
the other country.
It takes only one government to refuse to negotiate at a particular 
time but the refusal serves the traditional interests of both the 
elites. It serves to preserve the status quo. The severity of the 
present-day restrictions on normal intercourse is indicative of the 
severity of internal and external pressures on the government placing 
such restrictions.
In the past, confrontation and a semblance of normality could exist 
simultaneously. For the moment, the Indian stance has allowed 
Pakistan to yield to the internal and external pressures on it and 
show its all-out readiness for unconditional negotiations.
The present situation cannot last long. Opportunities for genuine 
peace negotiations can arise sooner than later. The forces of 
confrontation are at their weakest in both countries. It is important 
that personages of high profile and peace activists in both the 
countries join together to mobilize their people for peace. The 
billion-plus peoples of the subcontinent are ready to learn and be 
convinced that confrontation only serves the interests of the two 
elites and is against the interests of the overwhelming majority.

______


#2.

The News International, April 24, 2003

Take him at his word

Praful Bidwai

Despite the dampening qualifications and conditions that followed it, 
there is simply no doubt that Atal Behari Vajpayee's public address 
in Srinagar last Saturday represents something of a landmark. He 
became India's first Prime Minister to address a public meeting in 
the Kashmir Valley after the "azadi" movement broke out in 1989. And 
what he said, especially its tone and tenor -- themselves suffused 
with human empathy -- has impressed the Kashmiris and kindled new 
hopes. His peace overture must be heartily welcomed -- and 
purposively followed up.

I say this despite being an uncompromising and trenchant critic of 
the ideology and politics of the party Vajpayee leads, and despite 
past experience of his lack of assertiveness against his colleagues 
to his own Right. Islamabad should respond to Vajpayee by taking him 
at his word and returning his gesture of friendship imaginatively.

In Srinagar, Vajpayee attempted a "double whammy". He held out the 
"hand of friendship" to Pakistan and offered a dialogue with 
different currents of opinion in Jammu & Kashmir. Of the two 
initiatives, the first is both more important and likelier to succeed 
far more quickly than the second. There are three reasons for this. 
=46irst, Pakistan has responded positively to India's offer of a 
dialogue. Foreign Minister Kasuri has said: "Vajpayee is welcome in 
Pakistan." Islamabad hopes to work out specific dates for 
negotiations "within days". This is not true of J&K, where the 
political response to Vajpayee has been mixed.

Second, there is growing recognition within both governments that 
they cannot indefinitely sustain their mutual hostility. They are 
under growing pressure from the Major Powers to defuse it -- and the 
potential for nuclear escalation. Only six months ago, India and 
Pakistan were all ready to go to war. The reasons why they didn't, 
basically continue to hold today. The global situation emerging after 
the Iraq war has discomfited both by highlighting their own 
vulnerability owing to the Kashmir and nuclear issues.

Washington, in its most aggressively unilateralist and expansionist 
phase today, has threatened to extend the Iraq conflict and also turn 
its attention to South Asia. Colin Powell stressed this to the New 
York Times (March 31). Russia, France and Britain too have called for 
an India-Pakistan dialogue.

And third, a certain momentum favouring a short time-frame for an 
India-Pakistan meeting has been created, with the planned visit here 
of US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in May. It is likely 
that both India and Pakistan will make positive moves just ahead of 
that visit. More important, Armitage will probably mediate informally 
and "facilitate" a future summit -- just as he brokered peace between 
the two twice last year.

This doesn't argue that a Vajpayee-Musharraf meeting will necessarily 
happen or succeed. After all, even one terrorist act in India, 
whether or not sponsored by Pakistan, can scuttle it altogether. Yet, 
today's circumstances are especially conducive to such a meeting. Its 
success will depend on how far the two governments are prepared to 
move away from their stated "first positions" and explore a new 
d=C8tente.

This, in the first place, means they must accept war is simply NOT an 
option. Neither side can win it. According to an official report, 
India's conventional superiority over Pakistan has steadily eroded 
from 1.75:1 (in the Bangladesh war) to 1.56:1 in 1990, to barely 
1.22:1 now. (The winning combat ratio is normally 2:1 or higher). And 
their nuclear capability is a "great leveller". Nuclear wars cannot 
be won; they must never be fought.

To make the summit successful, Islamabad will have to drop its 
conventional emphasis on a plebiscite in Kashmir and on 50-year-old 
UN Security Council resolutions. More important, it must verifiably 
give up supporting militant violence in Kashmir as an instrument to 
coerce India to the negotiating table. Its support to jihadi 
militants has done nothing to advance the cause of Kashmir. On the 
contrary, it is widely seen to be behaving irresponsibly and 
jeopardising its own interests. For instance, State Department head 
of policy planning Richard Haass says the US is "disappointed and 
frustrated" over Pakistan's failure to stop "cross-border" 
infiltration of militants. He warned that Pakistan-US relations "will 
never improve beyond a certain point unless this issue is adequately 
addressed."

Equally, New Delhi must drop its stated position that Jammu & Kashmir 
is "an inalienable part of India". The Kashmiri people must be 
involved in deciding how they reshape their status vis-=FD-vis India 
and Pakistan. India must take the Simla agreement of 1972 seriously, 
under which all bilateral issues are to be resolved through peaceful 
discussion. So far, New Delhi has cited the Simla accord to oppose a 
multilateral dialogue -- but never once discussed Kashmir bilaterally 
with Pakistan.

Changing old stances won't be easy. But if a robust beginning is made 
on the basis of some mutually accepted principles, the process of 
reconciliation could get rolling. At times like these, process is 
everything.

The biggest obstacles are likely to be the hawkish lobbies in both 
countries, which have a stake in perpetrating a state of mutual 
hostility. In Pakistan, such elements have long influenced the 
Afghanistan and Kashmir policies, and sustained support to jihadi 
militants. In India, they comprise the BJP's extreme Right wing, 
which is hostile to India-Pakistan reconciliation.

Besides its ideological antipathy to Pakistan, this is an important 
election year for the BJP, which will see four crucial state Assembly 
elections. Rather than embark on a new, uncertain, Kashmir and 
Pakistan policy, it might be tempted to fall back upon its familiar 
hawkish line which sells well among the urban upper caste elite.

Piloting a peace process through Hindutva's snake pits will need 
statesmanship. Even more difficult will be India's Kashmir 
reconciliation agenda. Here, the government has no clarity 
whatsoever, although people like Vajpayee sense that J&K today offers 
a great opportunity because of its relatively credible election, and 
the installation of a state government which has generated hope with 
its "healing touch" -- despite the impediments created by a 
constantly carping BJP and an uncooperative Central home ministry.

However, they are fumbling at the level of strategy and remain 
undecided about inviting the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference to 
talks. But the government should know that there is little political 
sense in talking only to the people's "elected representatives", most 
of whom have accepted that J&K's integration with India is 
unproblematic. It is the others it must talk to and win over.

The pertinent issue is what Islamabad can do to speed up progress 
towards reconciliation and an India-Pakistan summit. Any number of 
"negative" arguments can be constructed for holding an early summit, 
including warding off international pressure on "cross-border 
terrorism" and preventing Pakistan's further marginalisation in the 
context of burgeoning India-US economic relations, etc. However, the 
truly powerful and yet worthy arguments are "positive" ones, rooted 
in the value of peace and long-term d=C8tente, and the building of an 
authentic South Asian social, economic and political community.

It is in this spirit that Islamabad should make a solemn commitment 
to ending support to jihadi militants in Kashmir -- in ways that are 
transparent and verifiable. That's an offer New Delhi can't refuse.

______


#3.

The Telegraph, April 24, 2003

WOULD VAJPAYEE BE THIRD TIME LUCKY?

TWENTY-TWENTY BHARAT BHUSHAN
As the snows melt in Kashmir, would a thaw also set in the 
India-Pakistan relationship? Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has 
offered to re-engage Islamabad. If Pakistan were to say that it would 
stop cross-border terrorism, Vajpayee has promised to restart the 
dialogue process the very next day.

Will Pakistan make such a statement? Pakistan's president, General 
Pervez Musharraf, has expressed happiness at the "positive 
indications from India which could be pursued to greater interactive 
process". But he has stopped short of committing Islamabad to 
stopping cross-border terrorism.

On the face of it, Vajpayee's offer of talks is bound to be seen in 
Pakistan as nothing more than playing to the gallery and as a 
pre-emptive move in the context of the impending visits of the United 
States of America's deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, to 
New Delhi in May and of the deputy prime minister, L.K. Advani, to 
Washington later this summer. However, the Vajpayee move may be all 
this and more. It may, therefore, be worth taking a closer and less 
cynical look at Vajpayee's statement.

His formulation in Srinagar represents a slight shift in the Indian 
position - from a verifiable end to cross-border terrorism to one 
where a declaration of intent itself would be enough to trigger the 
dialogue process. This is a movement forward.

Vajpayee's objectives in making the new peace offer seem to be 
three-fold: attempting to loosen the grid-lock in the India-Pakistan 
relationship, preparing the Indian public for the peace talks and 
taking the initiative for regional peace before being subjected to 
external pressure.

In saying that there are lessons to be learnt from the Iraq war, 
Vajpayee is telling the Indian masses that if a nation refuses to 
address issues that impinge on regional and global peace, then it 
should be prepared for external intervention. Wary of US pressure, he 
wants to seize the initiative while there is still time.

His statement in Parliament on Wednesday seeks to re-emphasize the 
seriousness of his peace initiative and attempts to mould 
parliamentary and public opinion for peace. This is necessary because 
the communal atmosphere within the country is extremely adverse. A 
recent opinion poll by a television channel has shown that people are 
not jumping with joy at the prospect of dealing with Islamabad again.

However, Vajpayee seems to believe that India has made several 
mistakes in relation to Kashmir in the past. Perhaps he also realizes 
that successfully settling the intractable Kashmir issue is the only 
way he can earn a place in history - otherwise in the last two 
decades, prime ministers in India have almost been a dime a dozen.

Several factors would determine a Pakistani decision to disavow 
cross-border terrorism. In fact, there are good reasons for Islamabad 
not to end cross-border terrorism. The machinery to do so has been 
put together painstakingly over the years and from Islamabad's point 
of view, promoting cross-border terrorism has worked very well. Even 
more importantly, Pakistanis believe that by ending cross-border 
terrorism, they would lose the only effective lever for persuading 
India to negotiate.

Also, if Pakistan wants to continue to meddle in the internal affairs 
of Afghanistan through its proxies - the mullahs and the jihadis, it 
needs to keep them and their seminaries alive. After 9/11, it is only 
the struggle for Kashmir which provides it the excuse for keeping the 
Islamic terrorist factories going. Not too long ago, those fighting 
in Afghanistan under the taliban were turned towards Kashmir after 
the fall of Kabul. Those who are ostensibly being trained for 
"liberating" Kashmir can also be used to tighten the screws on 
Afghanistan when the need arises. To demobilize this "irregular army" 
of jihadis would mean losing this flexibility.

The Pakistan army also may not want to give up its Kashmir policy. 
The anti-India stance fuelled by the Kashmir issue helps it to 
maintain both its privileges and its primary importance in Pakistani 
polity. The military in Pakistan is the largest employer, the biggest 
contractor and the number one business corporation. Why should it 
give up its primacy for the sake of peace with India when to maintain 
it in the past it has not hesitated to muzzle democracy within?

However, the most important factor in determining the outcome of 
Vajpayee's peace offer would be Washington's attitude to it. Despite 
the US refusal to link the political turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir 
with cross-border terrorism, it is nevertheless interested in 
bringing about an India-Pakistan settlement - as it sees Kashmir as a 
nuclear flashpoint. But the point is that the US does not see 
Pakistan-sponsored terrorism lending Kashmir this potential.

As long as Washington makes a distinction between terrorism aimed at 
America and that which is aimed at others, Pakistan will not decide 
to end cross-border terrorism. It is true that the outgoing US 
ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, has said that "the fight 
against international terrorism could not be over until terrorism 
against India ends permanently. There could be no US compromise 
whatsoever on this." This, however, is more an expression of American 
sentiment than of the US policy.

Washington is making the same miscalculation as it did in Afghanistan 
- it supported the mujahedin to oust the Soviets and expected them to 
continue to do its bidding. The result was the birth of the most 
potent anti-American force in recent times - a politicized, 
obscurantist and militant Islam.

In Pakistan too, Washington seems to think that it can induce the 
military-run establishment to act on its command by keeping it afloat 
through various means - bailing out the Pakistani economy, 
legitimizing the hobbled democracy that the army has introduced and 
buying the argument that Islamabad is doing its best to curb 
cross-border terrorism. General Musharraf paints a picture of an 
Islamic fundamentalist deluge after him, and the US willingly gets 
frightened.

It would be tragic if Washington were to wake up to the dangers of 
its South Asia policy only when a nuclear Pakistan is ruled by 
avowedly fundamentalist mullahs. They are getting there - they are a 
significant presence in Parliament and rule two out of the four 
Pakistani provinces.

Pakistan has not as yet become unmanageable, General Musharraf has 
not become too big for his boots, and the Islamic fundamentalists can 
still be forced to retreat. A change towards peace which would 
strengthen the Pakistani democratic forces in the long run - and 
settling Kashmir will do just that - can still be induced. There is 
no logical reason to wait till the situation becomes hopelessly 
irretrievable.

If wise counsel prevails in Washington, then it is likely that 
Islamabad may be nudged to settle with India. As for its choices in 
India, the US can do little but to support the Vajpayee initiative 
and strengthen him politically - all the other significant political 
forces are anti-American. At a time when anti-Americanism is 
spreading, the US would not like India to end up leading the pack. So 
there could be pressure on both Pakistan and India to settle their 
disputes and make the region a safer place for everyone who resides 
here. Who knows, having failed after Lahore and at Agra, Vajpayee may 
yet prove to be third time lucky.


_____


#4.

The Daily Times (Pakistan), April 23, 2003

EDITORIAL: Battle between 'Islam' and 'kufr'

General Pervez Musharraf told an international conference at the 
Aiwan-e-Iqbal in Lahore that, despite the fact that Pakistan was 98 
percent Muslim, certain quarters had unleashed a battle between Islam 
and "kufr" (non-belief). He said in reality there was no conflict of 
the believer and the infidel in the country and those who fanned it 
simply sought to restrict the meaning of Islam. He said such elements 
monopolised the religion and wanted to block any advance in modern 
knowledge. He was no doubt referring to the clerical high tide in the 
country represented by the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) which 
threatens to sweep him from power by rejecting the Legal Framework 
Order (LFO).
It would only be fair to General Musharraf to recall that he began 
objecting to the aggressive politics of the clerics in 2000 when he 
saw the national strategy on Afghanistan and India falling apart. He 
had earlier scared the religious leaders by announcing his "secular" 
credentials, putting together "a government of the NGOs", publicly 
praising Kemal Ataturk and being photographed with his pet dogs. The 
clerics responded by threatening to march on Islamabad and enforcing 
their version of "true Islam". He showed patience but hit back after 
9/11 by clearing the decks within the army, sidelining the so-called 
"Islamist" generals among his corps commanders. The religious 
leaders, thinking that "sympathetic" officers within the army might 
still react in their favour, tested him further, but were despatched 
to house arrest one by one.
But the cruel war in Afghanistan after 9/11, coupled with his 
hostility to the mainstream parties, also upset General Musharraf's 
expectations of the "engineered" 2002 general election. The religious 
parties, united for the first time in the country's history, won a 
remarkable number of seats in the assemblies and were able to form 
their government in the NWFP. His own "chosen" party, the PML-Q, 
managed, with much help from the army, to win only a paper-thin 
majority in the National Assembly. The struggle with the clergy was 
on.
It is hard to say who spawned whom. The power of the clergy and the 
paramountcy of the military were established almost simultaneously 
when the Pakistani politician decided that the new republic had to be 
Islamic and that India had to be taken on as the country's eternal 
enemy. Both were opposed to the fundamental spirit of democracy but 
the army got its chance of ruling Pakistan first. In fact, when it 
was time for General Zia to rule Pakistan, he united the army and the 
clergy under the banner of "shariat". The political party he 
fathered, the PML, doffed its secular vestments and became 
semi-ecclesiastical. The PPP was persecuted for being an ideological 
"security risk" and the nation was subjected to massive 
indoctrination. More clearly, the army spawned the jihadi militias to 
fight its deniable wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The militias in 
turn empowered the religious parties who then threatened the army 
itself when General Musharraf came on the scene. Tragically, however, 
after the war in Iraq, the nation seems to be thinking more on the 
lines dictated by the clergy than ever before in the past.
The army is now witnessing the whirlwind it sowed. The battle between 
Islam and "kufr" in Pakistan is manifest in many areas. A bad law and 
order situation and insipient sectarianism are two aspects of it. The 
madrasa culture is daily increasing the number of those who make 
intolerance a way of life. The minorities are under threat and there 
are terrorist actions that an indoctrinated state machinery is unable 
to cope with. In Karachi today, two entities created by the army are 
at each other's throat. After an unprecedented outbreak of violence 
between the students wings of the Jama'at-e-Islami and the MQM, 
almost all the colleges and universities of the city have closed down.
Therefore General Musharraf is right when he bemoans the environment 
of religious intolerance in Pakistan and the violence that takes 
place in it. Indeed, no one can deny that Pakistan needs to improve 
its secular and pluralist credentials and climb out of poverty by 
shunning aggression of all variety. But General Musharraf must see it 
all in perspective.
General Musharraf behaved tentatively when he had the nation fully 
behind him. He did not disarm the militias and he gave up half way 
after beginning a drive against the Kalashnikov culture of the 
religious leaders. He also shrank from the madrasas after beginning a 
drive to register and monitor them for sectarianism and illegal 
funding. He allowed the loud-mouthed leaders of the defunct jihadi 
militias to fulminate in public for too long. They undermined his 
credibility and lured the public opinion away from his "reforms". 
Today, we have the spectacle of a small PML-N leader bad-mouthing 
General Musharraf and getting mysteriously roughed up while the 
banned jihadi leaders are on the rampage saying unprintable things 
about General Musharraf with impunity. He willy-nilly continues to be 
a part of the theory in sections of the army that wants to boost 
religion in order to postpone democracy and fight wars that no longer 
suit the people. Now the army is on the verge of being upstaged. And 
all General Musharraf can do is wail about the misplaced battle 
between Islam and "kufr" and continue to remain aloof from the 
liberal and secular elements that should have been his proper 
constituency. *

_____


#5.

Outlookindia.com
Web | Apr 23, 2003    

INTERVIEW
'The Siege Of The Mind'
The author of In Times of Siege on its contemporary theme, its 
relevance, inspiration and how a 'writerly slogan' is necessarily 
nuanced, complex, structured, and does not remain on the street or 
even in the living room of the house.
VAISHNA ROY

Githa Hariharan's latest offering In Times of Siege is a stark story 
of a history professor whose warts-and-all portrayal of the 12th 
century Basavanna earns the wrath of self-appointed protectors of 
history. The contemporary relevance is obvious and the book reflects 
the claustrophobic sense of oppression as ordinary lives are besieged 
by all-pervasive hatred.  Hariharan talks here to Vaishna Roy about 
her book's attempt to tackle our own times of siege.

Has fundamentalism been reduced to just an 'obvious' plot line?

When we have to identify and grapple with an enemy I don't think you 
can stop in the middle of the grappling and say 'is this subtle 
enough?' or 'Is my view of the enemy complex enough?' You just 
grapple. And that's what the novel is doing.

The world in In Times of Siege is all too real. How difficult was it 
not to be able to escape into a world of imagination; where you could 
find your own solutions?

As a writer, because I have in my earlier novels used invented 
landscapes and magic and so on, to look at very real things or 
problems of real men and women it was a temptation (to look into 
imagination). But I was absolutely determined that I would have a 
hard-hitting, straightforward narrative strategy.

How afraid are you really of Hindu fundamentalism, about it growing 
out of hand?

I don't know that I would use the word 'afraid'. I think that we need 
as many warnings as possible, in all kinds of ways possible. Whether 
it is through art or literature, or journalism or in the classroom or 
courtroom. To say that any kind of prejudice, bigotry, warspeak, 
fundamentalism, obscurantism is going to diminish our lives, 
impoverish our lives. And this applies to a range of fundamentalism, 
whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim=8A

You have said earlier that writing this book was like 'shouting a 
slogan'. How effective are slogans against real problems?

That's why I said a 'writerly' slogan. Which is not to belittle the 
kind of slogans shouted on the streets. That does one sort of thing. 
Everything can't be solved on the streets. Similarly, everything 
can't be solved in the courtroom. Every monster has to be taken on in 
a variety of settings -- classrooms, homes, books, literature, 
Parliament. But a writerly slogan is necessarily nuanced, complex, 
structured, and most of all it does not remain on the street or even 
in the living room of the house. It goes to the most personal part of 
an ordinary life. Whether in a workplace or in the bedroom or into 
the mind.

So the state of siege I am talking of - of course there is a typical 
siege and all the kind of problems we know only too well whether it's 
mobs or violence or hatred or murder, or Gujarat or so on. But there 
is the siege of the mind as well. So, the siege in the mind that the 
novel is actually shouting a slogan about is this: That if even in a 
university minds are not safe against fundamentalism -- just as we 
say that even Ehsan Jaffrey and others were not safe in Gujarat -- 
then that's a measure of how horribly unsafe the ordinary mortal is.

How did you feel when Modi came back to power in Gujarat?

Deeply depressed. Deeply frustrated. I think this is going to be a 
long haul. We cannot be carried away by romantic woolly-headed 
notions of how neatly the Modis of the world will be got rid of with 
one election. It would have been wonderful but they won't. Because 
there is a whole history there. Gujarat has been worked on for long 
enough and while the voices of dissent are necessarily patchy, there 
are lots of different voices. We are celebrating the differences and 
coming together and saying that you cannot have this sort of thing. 
So it's going to be difficult but I think it is happening in a modest 
way and will continue to happen.

In that sense, fundamentalism cannot ever have a neat solution, right?

Most of us, as we're growing up, without our awareness, we pick up a 
little baggage of prejudice, most of it received wisdom. But as you 
grow, as you are exposed to different ideas, meet people, as you 
read, learn, as you live, experience teaches you that some of those 
prejudices are false. So what is the answer? The answer is to get to 
know each other better. The answer is to fight prejudice at all 
levels, certainly starting with the youngest minds.

Rewriting history has always been the prerogative of the victors in 
any war. What's really so surprising about a resurgent Hindu 
nationalist movement wanting to rewrite or colour history?

You are absolutely right. Whoever is in power wants to put out a kind 
of authorised version. In our Indian case=8A you have people saying the 
Left has also put in its historians in cartels and universities and 
so on. But I must counter that with a question of my own.

Maybe some historians can be accused of being high-handed or 
authoritarian but the point is that it's very difficult to think of a 
whole breed of historians who are not equipped as historians. You 
might have people disagreeing with historians but you cannot say they 
were ill equipped as historians. Whereas if you have the likes of 
someone like P. N. Oak who says the Taj is really a Hindu monument... 
it's very difficult to fathom what the qualifications of a lot of 
these historians are--those who have been put into councils like ICHR 
etc.

As you know, the British imperialists did their own spot of rewriting 
our history, but they were hardly challenged. Is our intelligentsia 
now more on its guard against this sort of fictionalisation of 
history?

I think there have always been layers of narratives. It's not as if 
only the official, big-stage version exists in splendid isolation. I 
think there have always been voices of dissent who have been heard=8A 
Basavva in the novel sounds so contemporary and he wrote in the 12th 
century. That's your answer.
[...].

______


#6.

Time Magazine, April 28, 2003 / Vol. 161 No. 16
Asian Heroes 2003

Good Women of Gujarat
A sisterhood nurses the wounds of a battered state
By Meenakshi Ganguly Bhavnagar

When the slaughter of Muslims in India's Gujarat state began last 
year, murderous Hindu mobs descended on Muslim neighborhoods with 
torches, swords and tridents. Only after four days and the calling in 
of the army did the brutal pogrom cease.

But even after the violence had ebbed, most aid workers were 
reluctant to visit the remote villages of central Gujarat. The 
exceptions were four remarkable women: Jahnvi Andharia, Sejal Dand, 
Nita Hardikar and Sumitra Thacker. Together, these four run Area 
Networking and Development Initiative (ANANDI), a voluntary group 
whose main mission is to bring education, health care and microcredit 
schemes to small hamlets. Initially, just after the riots, ANANDI was 
the only crusader for justice for the rural victims of the Gujarat 
massacres. "These girls were incredible," says Jaya Srivastava, a New 
Delhi-based activist who organizes relief for Gujarat's victims. 
"They took any vehicle they could, sometimes even walking, to reach 
isolated areas."

Today, ANANDI is helping pursue court cases against alleged killers 
and rapists, and rebuilding destroyed homes. But Gujarat's religious 
violence has so scarred psyches and twisted political life that 
nationalists have branded ANANDI anti-Hindu, even though all four 
founders are from Hindu backgrounds. "For years," mourns Andharia, 
"we were sure in the knowledge that as Hindus, as Gujratis, we don't 
do this sort of thing. After the riots, that idea has been 
shattered." Their state has been torn apart; they are part of a very 
small minority trying to pull it back together.

0 0 0

Asma Jahangir
The pocket protector
By Tim McGirk Islamabad

At 152 centimeters tall, Asma Jahangir is a mere sparrow of a woman. 
But she's got a big voice, which she isn't afraid to use. Jahangir 
and her colleagues at the Lahore-based Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan, an independent body of lawyers and activists, defend 
Christians and Muslims sentenced to death by stoning under harsh and 
capricious blasphemy laws. She shelters women whose families want to 
murder them-only because they deserted cruel husbands. She 
investigates the fate of prisoners who vanish in police custody and 
battles for their release through the courts and in the press. In 
short, Jahangir rails against the myriad injustices that plague her 
homeland, a type of cage rattling that doesn't always get popular 
support. "People aren't willing to believe that these injustices 
happen in our society," says Jahangir, 51. "But it's all going on 
next door."

Jahangir's father, Malik Jilani, was a politician who spent years in 
jail and under house arrest for opposing a string of military 
dictatorships, so his daughter grew up in Lahore with secret 
policemen at the garden gate. "Asma was always charging off against 
bullies," says Seema Iftikhar, a childhood friend, "or challenging 
the school's silly rules." She earned a law degree in 1978 and 
managed in the mid-1980s to overturn a death sentence against a blind 
woman who was gang-raped and then, grotesquely, charged with 
adultery. Since then, she and I.A. Rehman, director of the Human 
Rights Commission, have defended thousands of hopeless cases.

Yet many Pakistanis wish Jahangir would just shut up. President 
Pervez Musharraf occasionally explodes into fury against her, saying 
she is unpatriotic. Eight years back, five gunmen burst into her 
house, searching for her and her young son; fortunately, neither were 
home. Five years ago, a policeman was caught creeping up to her house 
with a dagger.

Today, in addition to her work for the Human Rights Commission, 
Jahangir serves as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on 
extrajudicial killings, a job that has taken her to Afghanistan, 
Central America and Colombia. "There have to be principles, justice," 
she insists. "Otherwise, we fall into a cycle of revenge." And back 
home, people are starting to recognize that a voice capable of 
challenging authority is invaluable. Checking in at the Lahore 
airport recently, she was asked by fellow passengers to confront an 
immigration official who was harassing passengers for bribes. She 
did, and the official swiftly backed down. "I couldn't resist," 
Jahangir says with a laugh. She's a small lady-with a large job.

_____


#7.

Kashmir Times

Indo-Pak border mines pose risk to millions
KT NEWS SERVICE
SRINAGAR, Apr 20 : The laying of landmines on the 1800-mile long 
Indo-Pak border during the recent heightened tensions in the 
sub-continent has put at risk the lives of millions of people. Even 
the complete de-mining would still leave around two lakh uncleared 
mines.
Leading experts on the issue today came out with these startling 
revelations and resolved to initiate a public compaign to pressurise 
India and Pakistan for signing the particular treaty banning the 
landmines.
They were speaking at a seminar entitled "Landmines - Challenges to 
Humanity and Environment" organised by Global Green Peace, Kashmir, a 
non governmental organisation.
Some of the dignitories who delivered their speeches included Dr B K 
Kurvey, president Indian Institute of Peace Disarmament & 
Environmental Protection & national coordinator Indian Campaign to 
Ban Landmines (ICBL), Louis Simard, Counselor Canadian High 
Commission, New Delhi, Lt General (rtd) G Mann Singh from 
International Red Cross, Benon, incharge ICRC, J&K. Muzaffar Hussain 
Beig, state finance minister, presided over the function.
During his speech Dr Kurvey said more than one million mines were 
planted on this side of the border during the recent Indo-Pak crisis. 
"They have and will take heavy toll of civilians. Even after 
de-mining, some 20 percent mines would remain there", he said.
With a purpose to increase awarenwess in the field, he said, they are 
unveling a three point programme. "In every such affected village, we 
will start this programme where people would be educated not to touch 
such suspicious elements and inform police if they find any. We would 
also start collecting and documenting data of civilian casualties of 
landmines and then rehabilitation and income generation of the 
landmine victims. The programme would help in minimising losses and 
providing the much needed help to the affected people", he said.
The finance minister, in his speech, said these weapons cause 
considerable damage to the life and property of people particularly 
those poor innocents living near border. He regretted that 
materialistic approach has gained ground, the reason that people who 
enjoy power or are behind the production of these weapons are 
respected more than those who project human values.
Beig said landmines are such a big menace that they cause destruction 
even of peace times. "When these mines are dispersed, more and more 
civilians fall in the trap even during peace times", he said.
Louis Simard, counsullor Canadian High Commission, said that he finds 
the problem of landmines, in several states of country, larger than 
he thought.
Simard referred to Ottawa (Canada) International treaty (1997) which 
makes it mandatory for member states to stop using, transferring, 
producing these landmines and subsequent destruction of stock piles. 
He urged both India and Pakistan to be signitories of the treaty.
He said there is a long history of hostility between India and 
Pakistan and thus the reluctance to do away with such weapons. "But 
inspiration can be gotten from other parts of the world", he said.
Others who spoke on the occassion included L K Dadhich, 
environmentalist from Rajasthan, Dr Abhdesh Gangwar, coordinator CEE 
Himaliya, Shujaat Bukhari from The Hindu and Dr Abdus Salam, director 
Regional Composite Centre.
The speakers said these weapons are taking heavy toll of innocent 
lives and they stressed to initiate a public compaign and pressurise 
India and Pakistan to sign the treaty banning landmines.

_____


#8.

The Asian American Studies Center and the
Asian American Studies Graduate Student Association
(AASGSA)

are pleased to invite you to a conference on
The Indian Diaspora and Its Cultural Politics
on Friday-Saturday, 2-3 May 2003
at Ackerman Grand Salon,
UCLA Campus.

Admission is Free and Open to the Public.
The first 100 participants to pre-register for
Saturday, May 3rd, will receive a complimentary boxed
lunch.  Please pre-register via email at
aascrsvp@aasc.ucla.edu or call (310) 825-2974 during
normal business hours.  Please specify if you would
like a vegetarian meal.

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

The Indian population in the United States has
witnessed a tremendous growth since 1965, and the
global Indian diaspora has now become an important
part of world culture.   There are now 1.8 million
Indians residing in the United States, and in
countries as diverse as Fiji, Mauritius, Trinidad,
South Africa, and Malaysia Indians account for
a significant portion of the population, even, in some
cases, constituting the majority of the population.
Though many commentators have spoken of the
globalization of India, others prefer to call
attention to the Indianization of the globe,
pointing to India's export of its samosas, gurus,
sitar music, even beauty queens.   Bollywood,
always popular in the Middle East, North and East
Africa, Russia, and elsewhere, is now becoming
globally known.  This conference is dedicated, in
particular, to the exploration of the cultural
politics of the Indian diaspora, and though the bulk
of the papers will be riveted on the Indian diaspora
in the US, it is hoped that some of the insights might
be instructive in understanding the complexity of the
diaspora worldwide.

How are questions of race and color negotiated?  How
are the animosities of the Indian sub-continent
reflected in the diaspora, and what are the
anxieties of a largely middle-class, professional
Indian diaspora in the US?  Do notions of Indian
"culture" get reified, contested, transmuted, and in
what ways? Does the Indian nation-state live in its
diaspora as well, does it indeed receive succor
from the diaspora, or can the diaspora become a site
from where the politics of the nation-state can be
productively challenged?  These are some of
the many questions that will be explored in this
two-day conference.  There will also be poetry and
fiction readings on both evenings.


May 2 (Friday), Ackerman Grand Salon
9 - 9:30 AM
Registration & Introduction to the Conference
Vinay Lal (Associate Professor, History, UCLA)

9:30 - 10:45 AM
Susan Koshy (Associate Professor, Asian American
Studies, UC-Santa
Barbara)
The White Atlantic: Postcolonial Reinscriptions of
Race & Nation

10:45 AM - noon
Inderpal Grewal (Professor, and Chair, Women's
Studies, UC-Irvine)
Thinking Diaspora in Transnationality

1:15 - 2:30 PM
R. Radhakrishnan (Professor, English, Univ. of
Massachusetts-Amherst)
Diaspora, Hybridity, Pedagogy

2:30 - 3:45 PM
Sudesh Mishra (Senior Lecturer, English, Deakin
University, Melbourne)
Time and Girmit: The Indian Diaspora in Fiji

4 - 5:15 PM
=46iction Readings
Kirin Narayan (Professor, Anthropology, Univ. of
Wisconsin-Madison)
and Amitava Kumar (Associate Professor, English, Penn
State) will read
from their works.


May 3 (Saturday), Ackerman Grand Salon
9 - 10:30 AM
Kirin Narayan (Professor, Anthropology, Univ. of
Wisconsin-Madison)
Haunting Stories:  Narrative Transmissions of South
Asian Identities
in Diaspora

10:30 AM - noon
Ravi Rajan (Assistant Professor, Environmental
Studies, UC-Santa Cruz)
Cricket and the South Asian Diaspora: Some
Observations in Northern
California and Trinidad

1:15 - 2:30 PM
Ketu Katrak (Professor, and Chair, Asian-American
Studies, UC-Irvine)
'Cultural Translation' and Cultural Politics in
Diasporic Location:
South Asian Americans and the Practice of Bharat
Natyam

2:30 - 3:45 PM
Vinay Lal (Associate Professor, History, UCLA)
Diaspora Purana:  India in the World and the Anxiety
of Influence

3:45 - 5 PM
Amitava Kumar (Associate Professor, English, Penn
State)
The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Nationalist

5:15-6:15 PM
Poetry Readings:  Sudesh Mishra & R. Radhakrishnan

CONFERENCE is funded by Asian American Studies Center,
UCLA, and
ASUCLA Waiver Pool.

Conference organized by Vinay Lal, History Department,
UCLA
[vlal@history.ucla.edu]



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

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.
--