SACW | 7 May 03
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex@mnet.fr
Wed, 7 May 2003 02:51:38 +0100
South Asia Citizens Wire | 7 May, 2003
ALERT FOR ACTION: In Defence of the Indian Historian Romila Thapar
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/Alerts/IDRT300403.html
---------------
#1. Weaklings' desperate battle in Pakistan (M.B. Naqvi)
#2. Pakistan and India - Let's Compromise (Isa Daudpota)
#3. Pakistan - India Peace Moves: Three Op-Eds.
#4. Bangladesh's 'stranded Pakistanis' recognised as citizens by court
#5. USA / India: Bhopal Hunger Strike in New York
- Holding Corporate Terrorists Accountable
Indra Sinha
- Day 5 Hunger Strike: Press Update (International Campaign for
Justice in Bhopal)
#6. India: High Court orders crack down on miracle healers but they
still do a roaring business elsewhere (an e-mail message)
#7. India: Flower Power against the peddlers of hate : Let us
distribute Triphuls (Yousuf)
#8. India: Hindutva Culture police criticised at Marathi drama meet
(Vidyadhar Date)
#9. India: Two Book Reviews of Volume on Venom n Hate Peddlers (VHP)
#10. Sri Lanka: 2 Film reviews of an important film
#11. USA: Upcoming S Asia Studies Conference: Violence, Community,
Nation, Empire (May 10-11, Berkeley)
--------------
#1.
The News International (Pakistan), 7 May 2003
WEAKLINGS' DESPERATE BATTLE
By M.B. Naqvi
All the earlier noise and running around by politicians of
power-loving kind and now their later impression of their dignity and
flexibility somehow seem odd. All that the parties want to do is a
beneficial deal with the General. That they are unable to clinch one
is not because of any high moral principle: COAS-President has thrown
the challenge; here is an LFOed Constitution, take it or leave it.
Since they can not sacrifice their valuable Assembly seats, they want
to try some more to see if President Musharraf gives them a face
saver.
There is no great mystery about LFO. It comprises 29 self-serving
changes in the Constitution which subvert its spirit and scheme.
These amendments in the Constitution have been made by one,
interested person. He says he was authorised by the Supreme Court.
Constitutions everywhere require, and this one clearly lays down,
that it can be amended by two-thirds majority of the Parliament. No
individual, whatever the shape of his nose or uniform, has this
authority. Departures from the Constitution are protected by its
Article 6. As for SC's authorisation to a successful coup maker to
amend the organic law, it is a nullity. The SC itself had no power or
authority to change the Constitution by an iota or indeed any law.
How can it authorise someone else to do so? That judgement is invalid
and needs to be decried, derided, rejected and ignored.
Unlike any democracy that establishes the supremacy of popular
representatives --- whether through a Parliament or divides it into
autonomy for various institutions, as in Presidential system --- the
LFO makes President Musharraf the Sun of the whole galaxy of
political stars: totally supreme with powers of life and death over
the whole political system. In terms of spirit it re-establishes an
absolutist Kingship. LFO should thus either stand to all our shame or
get thrown out; searching for middle course here is like mixing vice
and virtue in different proportions.
The President is said to be adamant. He has legislated the LFO; he
claims it is an integral part of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic. That is that. All have to accept that or else. What does
this 'or else' mean? The plain meaning is that if this NA does not
accept him as a legitimate President and LFO as a part of the
Constitution --- well, the NA and all the four PAs will have to go.
That's the threat. Is that really credible? One finds it less than
seriously meant.; it is pressure tactic. It is not a question of
writing a power on paper. It implies that his command as the COAS to
the rest of his fraternity to go on upholding him and damn the
Assemblies and Constitution he has himself created. Is that all there
is to Pakistan politics?
The situation is clear: There was a Constitution on October 12, 1999
and it respected the supremacy of the Parliament, though the latter
was represented by Mian Nawaz Sharif. Now, his record as the Leader
of the House is dismal, including forcing Constitutional amendments
on a hapless Parliament in minutes and physically assaulting the
Supreme Court. But such Parliament as it was --- it is widely
believed, with this writer subscribing, that all the last five
general elections were suspect because Army's intelligence services
manipulated and doctored their results --- had elected him. That made
him a legal representative of the people of Pakistan --- by default.
What happened on Oct 12 that year was that the Army Chief's
subordinates staged a coup d'etat, arrested the elected and legal
Prime Minister and seized power. Now, how do we look upon that event
largely depends on the fact that most Pakistanis, and certainly most
politicians, are now like a much-raped woman; they have become inured
to it. Suspicion has crept in that perhaps this is the norm. Perhaps
this is the way an Islamic Republic is run. Anyway, what obtained was
force majeur: a person usurped power without a legal title. All his
actions, unless indemnified by a subsequent Parliament, are illegal
as is his rule, the thumb impression of the SC notwithstanding.
General Pervez Musharraf, like several generals before him, saw the
need to get himself and those who colluded with him indemnified: the
exit strategy. But it is not as simple an affair as might seem at
first sight. A Parliament, if it is the supreme authority, can give
the dictator indemnity for his original coup and his actions during
dictatorial rule. But if he does not have a deterrent capability, the
Parliament can revoke its indemnity or attenuate it in some way. At
any rate it can impeach him on a specific charge.
This quest for deterrent power made Ayub Khan drape a whole bogus
democracy around himself. While Yahya Khan was overtaken by events
and did not have time enough to complete his political architecture,
Gen. Zia was able to perfect an exit strategy. He retained two
deterrent powers: He decided to go on remaining COAS (and thus be
able to make another coup) and wrote extraordinary powers for the
President on the clearly specified understanding that he would be
both President and COAS. These powers included the right, in his
discretion, to dismiss all elected Assemblies and Governments
responsible to them. These powers were enshrined in a bill that
Parliament was forced to pass on pain of not being free from his
eight year old Martial Law. It is known as Eighth Amendment.
Much the same is the August 2002 LFO. Indeed, there is something it
contains more than Eighth Amendment powers for the President: it
visualises National Security Council that Zia also wanted but had to
forget about it because even that 1985 Parliament drew a line at the
NSC. Zia was careful enough to have his powers ratified by the
Parliament. Gen. Musharraf chose, perhaps rightly to avoid a bruising
parliamentary debate, not to go to the Parliament. He wrote his
desired Constitutional amendments under his own hand and, relying on
that legal fig leaf of SC authorisation, promulgated them. He now
claims that the Constitution has been duly amended and the LFO is
integral to the Constitution.
Even this Parliament finds it hard to swallow LFO, although because
of the malodour of spooks having extensively fiddled with its
processes and having doctored the results, commands a fairly low
level of esteem about its origins and credibility. While popular vote
for PPP and PML(N) was massive enough, actual results do not quite
reflect this reality. On top of this, a freshly-manufactured PML(Q)
comprising turncoats and defectors from PML(N), and MMA won a
surprising number of seats. While there were reasons for religious
parties' good showing --- due mainly to the 180 degrees switch in
Afghan policy and the way American FBI and CIA have been allowed to
operate in the country --- even so its number of seats continue to
fuel the talk about sub rosa links between the Mullahs and military.
Anyhow this impression has deepened by the recent split in the ranks
of combined opposition who had for some reason confined their noisy
opposition to objecting the Presidential election through that
ridiculous Referendum and his remaining the COAS. While PPP and
PML(N) remain opposed to LFO as a whole, or so they say, MMA has
offered to ensure Mr. Musharraf's election through the prescribed
electoral college for the Presidential polls. They only demand that
he give a date when he will retire from the Army. MMA is in a
position to enable Musharraf to become a duly elected President, with
most LFO powers, sans being COAS and a face saving change in Article
58(2)(b): Dismiss the government but not the Assemblies. But then
Gen. Musharraf simply refuses to give any concession whatever, not
even this one.
But can Musharraf go on riding roughshod, ignoring all protests with
disdain? Superficially yes, it would seem to be because he is (a) the
COAS, (b) the Army is a united and disciplined force and (c) the Army
remains his perhaps the only constituency. There is little doubt the
President's source of strength is Army and it is absolutely
trustworthy. And yet Pakistan Army as an institution knows a trick or
two to preserve its corporate interests; without compromising on its
own discipline, it knows when to effect a change of the government
even if it is headed by a COAS or C-in-C. Look at the record.
Did Ayub Khan go because of popular agitation or because Gen. Yahya
pulled the rug from under him. How did Yahya go? Not because of
military defeat or dismemberment, it was the refusal of Army officers
corps to keep him there. How did Gen. Zia go? Mystery still surrounds
regarding the military's own security arrangements. At any rate the
mystery has been allowed to remain to this day. A powerful general
remains a powerful ruler only so long as he does not acquire the
image of failure in any important respect. Once that happens he
becomes a liability for the Army and he goes.
In fact this ballyhoo about LFO is a curious tamasha. Both sides are
operating from a position of weakness. For all the previous
popularity and experience of surviving a period in the wilderness,
both PPP and PML(N) are dispirited and leaderless. They cannot shut
down the country or make the government collapse. MMA and PML Q are
not used to real struggle. At no time was the opposition so weak as
it is today. As for the General, he too is becoming weak: if his new
system were to collapse so soon or he sacks it himself, his power
should be in jeopardy. Ends.
_____
#2.
6 May 2003 15:36:46 +0500
PAKISTAN AND INDIA - LET'S COMPROMISE
Q. Isa Daudpota
A few nights ago I watched "Question Time India", a BBC program which hosts
a panel of experts. They are asked to respond to questions from the floor.
Among the more interesting persons on the panel was a government minister
from the foreign office (FO) and a representative of Shiv Sena (SS).
The program began by applauding Indian PM Vajpayee's concession to meet
Jamali, his Pakistani counter-part. Wouldn't India insist on an end to
"cross border terrorism" as a pre-condition to talks, asked the program
presenter of FO. He beat about the bush but then conceded that there would
be no benefit from such a meeting if incursion of armed 'terrorists' did not
stop.
SS added that India ought not to rush into high-level talks and that
normalization with Pakistan should take the slow route: first exchange
ambassadors and start talks at the foreign office level. This is all very
sensible. But then he blurted that Shiv Sena and the government ought to
send guerillas to Pakistan to retaliate in kind!
This released thunderous applause from the audience, prompting a reprimand
from the only lady on the panel, who said that such tit-for-tat behavior by
nuclear neighbors could only lead to a nuclear exchange. She seemed appalled
by the enthusiasm and jingoism shown by the majority in the audience.
Demonstration of such venom towards Pakistan, which is viewed as sponsoring
"terrorism" not just in Kashmir but in Bal Thakery country, shows how much
hatred has been generated in India even among well-educated people. I fear
similar attitudes are prevalent on this side of the border too. Let's not
begin by making one side appear more enlightened than the other.
Half a century of conflict and what do we have to show? Fat armies and
warped minds!
A year ago I lived in Pakistan's capital. Many of my neighborhood shops had
glass covered charity boxes placed near the cash register-- all asking for
the change and more. You guessed it: they belonged to one or other 'jehadi'
outfit promising to fight our wars - wars that saved our honor and protected
innocents from the wrath of the cruel neighbor. I wonder if they are still
there. In late 2001 the government issued instructions forbidding such
collection but nothing happened - the boxes kept filling up.
It is common knowledge that 'jehadi' groups trained in Pakistan and Azad
Kashmir cross over to the Indian side to fight and instigate the 'religious'
war, which has killed nearly 70 thousand persons. Our government insists
that it cannot control the 'jehadis'. No other country believes this of
course, least of all India.
Nevertheless, Pakistan's suggestion that an independent observer force be
stationed at the line of control (LOC) sounds immensely reasonable. There
could be more to it, though. Is Pakistan pushing this line, while knowing
India's foolish refusal to get other countries involved in what it regards
as an "internal conflict"? By refusing, India looks intransigent, and in
turn Pakistan feels that it has placed itself on high moral ground.
US strongman Richard Armitage will shortly visit the two countries. This
head-masterly visit has made the two countries act like good school boys.
Some good has already come of it: ambassadors will soon be exchanged and air
routes opened, hopefully followed by land traffic and free issuance of
visas.
It is unfortunate that we begin to behave decently towards each other when
prodded by a superpower. But let that not take away the positives that
could follow -- a genuine change of heart on both sides in the coming
months (years?).
Clearly, to move forward requires both sides to be gracious. India's
insistence that 'jehadi' outfits be banned and stopped from infiltration
into Kashmir is fair. So is Pakistan's suggestion that an international
force, UN preferably, be installed to patrol the LOC. Both these moves
should accompany the early removal of most of the 0.7 million Indian troops
from Kashmir to allow that beautiful part of South Asia to return to
normalcy.
If the Pakistani government cannot truly control the violent elements within
the country, international help should be sought. After all it was American
money that seeded the growth of these 'jehadis'; they were needed to fight
against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Let the US use their money again, but
now to build schools and colleges and health facilities. Those who join the
'jehad' can thus find a more peaceful and fruitful life at home. American
must pay for their original sin!
Today, confidence building measures are important and greater contact
between our people is needed to dispel the tension and anger that I saw on
the faces of the BBC audience. These are necessary first steps to solving
the big issue, which is Kashmir. It is time that cool minds in both
governments nurture the current opportunity for peace, while reminding the
headmaster that he ought to make amends this time around.
[...].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(QID a physicist in Lahore, writes on environment and science issues.)
_____
#3.
[ 3 Op-Eds. on Pakistan India Peace Moves]
The Indian Express, May 07, 2003
No room for hardliners
Husain Haqqani
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D23399
o o o
The Times of India, May 6, 2003
Editorial: A Peace Agenda
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=
=3D45506314
o o o
The Daily Times, May 6, 2003
Editorial: You have got it wrong, Mr Jamali
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_6-5-2003_pg3_1
_____
#4.
BBC News, 6 May, 2003
VOTE FOR 'STRANDED PAKISTANIS'
By Waliur Rahman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3003949.stm
o o o
The Daily Star , May 06, 2003
10 GENEVA CAMP REFUGEES GET VOTING RIGHTS
Staff Correspondent
Born and brought up here, 10 residents of the Geneva Camp for
stranded Pakistanis yesterday got voting rights when the High Court
(HC) declared them citizens of Bangladesh.
The HC order followed writ petitions by Mohammad Akib Khan and nine
others including three women, who reside as refugees in the Geneva
Camp at Mohammadpur.
This is for the first time that a legal battle has enabled some
residents of the camp to be recognised as Bangladeshi nationals.
On October 14, 2001, the HC had issued a rule on the Election
Commission asking it to explain why these 10 persons should not be
considered as Bangladeshi citizens and enlisted as voters.
On completion of the hearing yesterday, an HC bench comprising
Justice Hamidul Haq and Justice Zinat Ara made the rule absolute.
The Geneva camp now houses around 20,000 stranded Pakistanis while
their total number in 66 refugee camps in the country is around
4,00,000.
However, many of them, especially those born after independence,
believe that they are Bangladeshis but deprived of the basic rights
of citizens.
"Those born at the camp and those who have been residing in
Bangladesh since the 1947 partition of India are all citizens of
Bangladesh," said Advocate Ruhul Kuddus Babu, one of the lawyers for
the petitioners. "Their citizenship cannot be taken away just because
they live in the Geneva camp or that they opted to go to Pakistan."
Prior to the October 2001 election, the writ petitioners had applied
to the Election Commission to be included in the voter list. But the
EC did not. This prompted them to go to the HC.
"We have always considered ourselves Bangladeshi citizens," said
24-year-old Mohammad Hasan, one of the 10 petitioners. "Now that I am
eligible to be a voter, I will fight to establish all my rights as a
citizen."
He went on, "The High Court order is applicable not only to me but
also to all the four lakh refugees in the country."
Bangladesh had repeatedly asked Pakistan to take back these refugees
but Pakistan avoided the issue. In 1993, Pakistan accepted only 325
refugees.
______
#5.
AlterNet (May 6, 2003)
Bhopal: Holding Corporate Terrorists Accountable
Indra Sinha
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=3D15845
o o o
DAY 5 HUNGER STRIKE: PRESS UPDATE
International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
Ste 3C, 777 UN Plaza, New York
Bhopal Hunger Strike Gathering Momentum in Lead up to Dow meeting protest
MAY 5, 2003, NEW YORK -- Five days into the indefinite fast by two
women survivors and a long-time Bhopal activist, the campaign to hold
Dow liable for pending issues in Bhopal is gathering momentum. Bhopal
survivors and their supporters will the protest at Dow's Annual
Shareholders Meeting on 8 May in Midland, Michigan. More than 71
people around the world have signed up to fast in solidarity with the
Bhopal survivors, including 11 from USA, Lebanon, India and USA, who
are on an indefinite fast. Diane Wilson, a fisherwoman from Texas,
who launched an indefinite fast says "My heart and soul is with the
Bhopal survivors. I'll fast with the women as long as it takes."
Wilson fasted for 28 days last July leading a worldwide relay hunger
strike joined by 1500 people from 10 countries.
The 1984 Bhopal disaster, caused by a poisonous gas leak from Union
Carbide's pesticide factory, killed 8000 within days. Till date, more
than 20,000 gas-affected people have died because of long-term
effects of the poison gas.
The Bhopal delegation will meet Dow Chairman William Stavropoulos
after the shareholders' meeting on 8 May. Dow, which has suffered
losses every quarter since the acquisition of Union Carbide in
=46ebruary 2001, has refused to acknowledge its liabilities in Bhopal
till date. However, there are outstanding criminal charges for
manslaughter against Union Carbide in the Bhopal court, and thousands
of tons of toxic wastes strewn around its infamous Bhopal factory. In
April, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation said that it is
investigating means to include Dow Chemical as an accused in the
ongoing criminal case.
"It is not for nothing that we've kept this fight alive for more than
18 years now," says Rashida Bee, president of the Bhopal Gas Affected
Women Stationery Workers Association. Bee is now in the United States
on her fifth day of hunger strike along with her colleague Champa
Devi and Satinath Sarangi. "If Dow thinks the world will forget
Bhopal, it is mistaken. Our fight is gathering strength by the day."
In end-April, Devi and Bee visited Plaquemine, Louisiana, where
residents of an African American community at Myrtle Grove trailer
park say that a Dow facility has poisoned their groundwater with
carcinogenic vinyl chloride. "The plight of the poor people is the
same the world over. We empathize with the Myrtle Grove residents who
have been exposed to dangerous chemicals. What they're going through
is a slow-motion Bhopal. Our fight is essentially the same," says
Champa Devi. The survivors also visited Southeast Houston, which has
one of the highest concentration of petrochemical refineries and
chemical plants. "It appears that the residents here have not heard
of Bhopal," said Bee.
The Bhopal survivors and their supporters will travel to Michigan
tomorrow. After meetings with labor unions in Detroit, and with
students at the University of Michigan, the delegation will travel to
Midland on 8 May for the shareholders meeting.
"The support from around the world will keep us going for as long as
it takes," said Satinath Sarangi of Bhopal Group for Information and
Action.
=46or more information, visit: www.bhopal.net
Contact: Nityanand Jayaraman. Cell: 520 906 5216. Email: nity68@vsnl.com
Krishnaveni G. Cell: 832 444 1731. Email: krishnaveni_g@sbcglobal.net
In the UK: Tim Edwards. Email: tim@lifecycle.demon.co.uk
_____
#6.
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:23:43 EDT
Subject: India: High Court orders crack down on miracle healers
The recent bulletin of the Rationalist International says that from
now on: An order of the Delhi High Court from 30 April 2003 has laid
the state government of Delhi under the obligation to watch out for
men and women, who claim to have miraculous healing powers, and put a
stop to their promises and practices. Base for the order is the
nearly fifty-years-old law. Prompted by a Public Interest Litigation
filed by Salek Chand Jain, the High Court has blown the dust off the
Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisements Act, 1954,
which states that promising anybody magic solutions for his problems
or magic cures of his diseases is a punishable act. No matter, if
committed in newspaper advertisements, on sign boards, wall paintings
or just by spreading the word, the fraudulent claimant can be fined
and imprisoned for six months or, in case of repetition, one year.
The High Court has asked the government to act on the base of
addresses and phone numbers given in advertisements and crack down on
spiritual frauds. There are at least 200 self-styled miracle healers
operating in Delhi and luring their victims with advertisements and
wall paintings.
I would like to bring to the attention of everyone that despite the
efforts of "Rationalist International" to close the office of "Mantra
Therapy" it continues to be in business. NOW Janak Shahi has a
roaring practice in New York, at 444 Lake Ville Road, # 103, New
Hyde Park, NY 11042 Tel:: 516 358 7905 Fax: 516 358 7904.
While his son works from E - 256 East of Kailash, New Delhi - 65,
Tel: 26295554
I am trying one more time to get your attention to "Mantra Therapy &
Janak Shahi." Despite the fact that "Rationalist International" did
not let Janak Shahi Work in New Delhi, both he and his sons are still
working and doing the same work.
AND WHAT IS THE POINT OF CLOSING THE OFFICE OF "MANTRA THERAPY":
JANAK SHAHI IS DOING ROARING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK.
I don't think the efforts of Rationalist International can be
applauded when the same person in "Still" in business and both he and
his son are doing much better than even before. "Janak Shahi is
making fool of people and minting money and so is his son. His son
is charging from RS. 10,000.00 to One Lac per patient."
I would like all of you to please let us be fair...and then decide if
the efforts of "Rationalist International" have really fared well.
Closing shop in one place and opening another "OVERSEAS," how does
that help.
Please think again...
Regards,
Kalpana
_____
#7.
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Let us distribute Triphuls
Can we start a movement to counter Bajrang Dal's
trishul (trident) distribution drive, with a peaceful
and aesthetically appealing little souvenir for
friends or anybody on the street (who is likely to
recieve a real trishul).
What are TRIPHULs? Tri-phul is basically a bunch of
three flowers (real, or made of coloured paper), one
of each symbolizing LOVE, PEACE, and EQUALITY. One may
also add some messages of peace and communal harmony
on this if possible.
Please try to make the TRIPUHL yourself whichever way
you can (using paper, cardboard or any other
material), and send them to your friends.
Please be creative and spread a little love and peace, instead
of hatred and violence.
Yousuf
[For] very simple example of the same see:
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/DC/CommunalismCollection/triphul.html
_____
#8.
The Times of India, MAY 07, 2003
Culture police criticised at Marathi drama meet
Vidyadhar Date
MUMBAI: Self-styled defenders of the Hindu faith who have disrupted
Marathi plays came in for strong criticism at the 83rd annual Marathi
Natya Sammelan in Ahmednagar over the weekend.
Plays that have stood the test of time are being accused of hurting
Hindu sentiments, said Hari Narke, the editor of Jyotiba Phule's
collected works, published by the Maharashtra government.
A resolution passed at the drama conference also sought action
against theatre houses that have succumbed to pressure from
fundamentalist groups and declined to allow certain plays to be
performed. [...].
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=
=3D45603700
_____
#9.
[2 Book Reviews of Volume on India's Venom and Hate Peddlers]
o o o
(i)
Name of the Book: Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Indian Politics
Author: Manjari Katju
Publisher: Orient Longman, 1/24 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002
Price: Rs. 350
Pages: 186
Year: 2003
ISBN: 81-250-2476 X
Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the religious wing of the Hindu
right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is today a major actor
in Indian politics. Consisting of a motley crew of Hindu priests, the
VHP is today in the forefront of the campaign to convert India into a
Hindu state, where non-Hindus would be relegated to second-class
citizen status or worse. In order to whip up support for its agenda,
VHP leaders have instigated pogroms against Muslims and Christians,
resulting in large-scale loss of life. Despite the crucial salience
of the VHP in India today, little has been written about it. This
book provides a useful general survey of the ideology of the movement
and the history of its origins and development.
Katju traces the roots of the VHP to efforts on the part of the
'upper' caste Hindu, particularly Brahmin, minority to consolidate
and promote their interests under the garb of a monolithic 'Hindu'
identity and a homogenized 'Hinduism'. The construction of the notion
of a single =EBHindu=ED community transcending caste, sectarian and
regional barriers, she says, is itself a fairly recent phenomenon,
the roots of which can be traced to the early nineteenth century.
=46aced with the growing assertiveness of the =EBlower=ED caste majority,
threatened =EBupper=ED caste Hindus saw in a pan-Indian 'Hindu' identity
a means to preserve and promote their own privileges that were
predicated on the oppression of the =EBlower=ED castes. In order to
consolidate this identity, Muslims and Christians came in handy as
convenient scapegoats for all of India=EDs ills. The lower castes were
sought to be rallied under the =EBupper=ED caste leadership by pitting
them against Muslims and Christians, who were now depicted as
inveterate foes of Mother India. Indeed, so central has the role of
the Muslim 'Other' become to VHP ideology that Katju writes that
almost all the activists whom she interviewed 'seem to take as the
core of Hindu identity nothing but anti-Muslim feeling', apparently
convinced that a 'true Hindu' is 'bound to be opposed to the Muslim
community'.
The VHP was founded in the early 1960s by the RSS in an effort to
rope in Hindu priests for its agenda of establishing a fascist Hindu
state in India. This was a time when 'upper' caste/class hegemony was
being seriously threatened by growing waves of 'lower' caste unrest
and the emergence of radical communist movements in various parts of
the country. It received warm support from various quarters,
including traders, priests, landlords, ex-rulers of princely states,
retired government bureaucrats, almost all of these being 'upper'
caste Hindus. It adopted a number of innovative strategies to win
public support, such as setting up temples (particularly in 'lower'
caste localities and tribal areas) and organizing religious festivals
and functions. It later set up separate groups to work among women
(Durga Vahini) and the youth (Bajrang Dal), both of which have played
a major role in violence against Muslims in recent years.
Initially concerned largely with religious and cultural issues, the
VHP came, by the end of the 1970s, to be increasingly active in the
political domain, helping to boost the fortunes of the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party through concerted campaigns to promote what it
claimed were =EBHindu=ED interests. Thus, it actively opposed Christian
missionaries, seeing their educational work among the poor as
threatening =EBupper=ED caste hegemony. It organized mass rallies against
cow slaughter, not missing any opportunity to pit Hindus against
Muslims and Christians, who were described as agents in a grand plot
to destroy India and the Hindu religion. From the 1980s onwards the
VHP has been in the forefront of country-wide mobilizational
campaigns against Muslims, leading the movement to destroy the Babri
mosque in Ayodhya, calling for the 'liberation' of several thousand
mosques and Sufi shrines that it claims to have been built on the
ruins of Hindu temples, and demanding that Muslim seminaries be
closed. It has also been actively engaged in converting to the Hindu
fold significant numbers of Christians and Muslims.
Katju devotes considerable attention to the ideology of the VHP,
which she rightly sees as representing an Indian version of fascism.
The Brahminical Hinduism that the VHP represents and seeks to promote
is rigidly hierarchical and thoroughly obscurantist. It seeks to
uphold the caste order and sanctify the oppression of women, despite
its egalitarian claims. It is also extremely intolerant of any form
of dissent, not hesitating to resort to bloodshed in its naked
pursuit of power. Like most other right-wing religious movements, the
VHP does not have a clearly articulated economic agenda, but Katju
writes that it clearly stands for the privileges of the entrenched
elite, which has allowed it to make deep inroads among the middle
classes, as well as earning it the patronage of a number of
industrialists and Hindus living abroad.
This chief merit of this book is that it provides in concise and
easily readable form a general overview of the VHP, shorn of
unnecessary academic verbiage. However, at times the discussion seems
somewhat superficial, lacking firm grounding in empirical
investigation. It suffers, in part, from a lack of 'thick detail',
the sort of anthropological description that could have made for more
in-depth analysis. This, however, should not detract from the
usefulness of the book, perhaps the first in-depth account of a
hitherto little-studied but hugely influential movement.
o o o
(ii)
The Telegraph, February 21, 2003
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE DESIGN
Bhaswati Chakravorty
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030221/asp/opinion/story_1688947.asp
_____
#10.
[ 2 Film reviews of Important film from Sri Lanka]
(i)
The Island, May 7, 2003
Cat's Eye
Her one-winged courage
It's a film women and men are talking about, even if they haven't
seen it: Thani Thatuwen Piyabanne, Flying with One Wing, has been
provoking controversial flak, much of it judgmental, and often for
the wrong reasons. Cat's Eye believes it's vital for more women's
voices to be aired on this provocative work by Asoka Handagama.
Artistes flash us glimpses through their craft into their innermost
perceptions, while also laying bare works of art to people with
varied experiences and perceptions. So all artistes, including the
best, perhaps 'fly with one wing', without a parachute, and risk
being shot down: by `cheap pot shots' to `guided missiles'.
Especially when trying to be different from the flock, it takes
courage (though some say, foolishness) to launch one's creation and
self (and here many have also focused on the director's wife, lead
actor Anoma Jinadari) as an exposed target in an open sky. We want to
start by lauding Handagama and Jinadari for their immense courage for
taking flight artistically and socially in a film that breaks through
to new vistas in Sri Lankan and even international film-making,
particularly in its spanning of gender issues.
What's all the talk about?
Many Sri Lankans have ventured out to see Thani Thatuwa out of simple
curiosity to see what people are talking about - and critics,
academics, artistes, film lovers, fans of Handagama's earlier
acclaimed Mei Mage Sandhai - all having to sit, oddly enough, with
the usual 'Adults Only' male crowd. Although some are struck rather
speechless by the 'shocking' impact, most have something to say about
it. The comments range from "you must see it", "hari shok", "unusual
subject...", "important themes", "brilliant", "disturbing", "novel
techniques", to "overuse of gimmicks and repetition", "crude",
"unrealistic", "insensitive", "clearly done by a man", "dangerous",
"made for a foreign audience", "against our culture", and "hey, was
the censor board sleeping?" - to give just a few examples.
It is interesting to observe how many men go see it (for similar
reasons as the Indian film Fire) presuming it's "a lesbian film", or
for the 'nude scenes' - and come out of it not only disappointed but
discomfited. Whereas others of both sexes come out of it immediately
defensive about their own open-minded attitudes on issues around
sexuality, while critical of the 'crude' use of nudity as well as the
treatment of lesbianism or women characters. As an opening response
to many dismissals of the film as about a 'lesbian' relationship, it
actually is not at all. It doesn't even present the option of two
women living together as 'women'. It is in fact about the suffocating
limits of gender 'roles' and social expectations, especially for
women, and the importance of breaking down those walls, through
transcending gender (or, transgendering). Taking as its base an
actual news story of a woman 'discovered' to be a man, the film has
become a very clever and powerful means for the disrobing and
unmasking of many of our unquestioned presumptions, biases, and
expectations of women, in contrast to men.
These issues around gender are especially important in terms of
children and the future, not just for Sri Lanka but relevant
everywhere. The film is framed with powerful images, easier to miss
at the beginning, as Sunila Abeysekera points out: first, of the
little girl neighbour unable to get a kite from her brother who
climbs up a pole; and ends with the same girl drawing a moustache on
her own face and smiling conspiratorially to the 'man'/woman, and
finally managing to scale the pole to look down at the mob scene
below. It's this young girl we are left thinking about, needing to
ask as a society what choices in life are being presented to our
children. How do we build a society where women are both free and
respected?
Some argue sexuality is an important issue in the film, and that the
script does not make full writ of the available celluloid to address
it meaningfully. It may be a weakness or missed opportunity, but then
perhaps its hands are full dealing with the complex gender theme.
The film was ingenious in some of the ways it got across the message
that 'husband/male' and 'wife/female' are mere roles, and that
gendered power games exist irrespective of whether the players are
men or women. 'Roles' we all too easily slip into that get hold of us
and control us, while we also use them to control others. We can more
easily shed masks and transcend gender once we better understand
these as roles slipped on: housework, makeup and jewellery, quiet
submission, tears, etc., being considered exclusively 'feminine';
smoking, drinking, fighting, most kinds of outside work, etc., seen
as 'masculine'. Men who cross these gender lines are called 'ponna',
'pansy', while 'transgressing' females are subject to the kind of
social violence seen at the end of the film.
Congrats, Anoma!
Anoma Jinadari's amazing portrayal of the 'transgressing' man/woman
deservedly garnered the Best Actress award at last week's Singapore
International Film Festival. This versatile actress overcame the
challenge of acting as a woman acting as a man, whether in more
subtle intimate scenes, such as where she secretly admires herself in
the mirror dressed again as a 'woman', or the overall power of her
portrayal of an individual trapped in an unravelling dream, the odds
against her, and her suffering on venturing out into a more and more
super-real man's world, growing ever weary of the pressing fragility
of dissimulation. The strength of the acting along with the
profoundly shattering gendered theme undermine accusations that the
film was merely trying to 'shock'.
Popular Sinhala writer Sunethra Rajakaru-nayake praises this
"documentary-like" movie most of all for Jinadari's "most powerful
portrayal of the most difficult character a Sri Lankan actress has
ever done." "Yet most of our self-appointed 'cultural guardians' are
so blind to the international quality of her acting. They also miss
the point: it's a film about identity that exposes the nakedness of
accepted norms of collective hypocrisy-that while the main character
pretends to be a man, most of the other characters are also
pretenders with different masks. Anoma was faithful to the character.
Why can't we congratulate her and accept the naked truth about our
society?"
In contrast to Thani Thatuwa's ground-breaking focus on the
transgressing of gender lines, it weakens in its insensitive
treatment of the likewise difficult issue of abortion. First is the
overdone parody of the stream of young women as hapless victims (e.g.
na`EFvely seeing four pairs of underwear as protection), weeping or
giggling excessively as they tell their unlikely stories to the
cartoonesque thumb-sucking doctor. The only un-mocking cameo was the
last: an older overstressed woman begging the doctor for an
"injection to turn a woman into a man". Unfortunately, she was the
only sympathetic character among the disturbing cardboard cut-outs of
women portrayed in the clinic scenes. Another problem is, where
deep-rooted religious and social taboos along with the predominant
legal situation is against women's choice, this film somehow makes
this hard issue even more uncomfortable, rather than treating it with
more depth, nuance and sensitivity. It is unfortunate that an
otherwise progressive film may end up reinforcing negative
perceptions and phobias around this vital issue.
Perils of parody
But it is important to appreciate the director/writer's deliberate
use of parody, while recognizing that successful satire can be
extremely difficult to get off the ground-too easily ending up with
shallow exaggerated caricatures, overused gimmicks, and overdone
implausible scenes, such as the secretary who gets under the desk to
turn the tables on the harassing boss responsible for a poisonous
work atmosphere. The film takes flight when it moves away from satire
to the often touching domestic and neighbourhood scenes, which are
more realistic, and full of human touches that allow one to relate to
the characters and share the simple joy of the couple and neighbours
dancing spontaneously. The story jumps too much between contrived
repeated scenes of 'victimized women' in the abortion clinic or the
brutish garage owner's office, and the poignant home scenes.
The visuals are provocative, in the use of stark contrasts rather
than a fluid lyricism, though the haunting frames of colonized
Galle's Fort provide vistas of beauty, through light and darkness,
sea and history. (The choice of the fort is telling also because much
of our sexual mores, ironically now defended by right-wing
'culturalists', were inflicted on us from the outside.) The economy
of language and some techniques render it less flowing as a story,
giving more a sense of frame following frame. The camera is always on
the listener rather than speaker-a striking, sometimes powerful,
technique that emphasizes a concern more with the effect of words
rather than the words themselves, yet difficult to sustain and at
times jarring for the viewer. The hypothetical question is how much
smoother, more coherent and profound the film could have been if it
had had the kind of budget, time and editing Hollywood films like
Boys Don't Cry gather. Though TT has still managed to impress
international audiences all over the world.
Many have expressed outrage that Thani Thatuwa is somehow an 'attack
on Sri Lankan culture', while others have been more circumspect yet
express concern that the international-award-winning film would harm
the image of Sri Lankans as perceived by outsiders. Not everyone
agrees the country needs the ' tactics that Handagama employs to be
jolted out of an imagined deep sleep - that, although the issues may
not be lime-lighted in such public detail as say in North America,
sexuality here is not all 'in the closet', but discussed and also
accommodated in different ways.
Nothing to hide
Many have also attacked TT for being 'crude'-some less out of any
offended prudery (like others who have argued often without seeing
it) than a feeling that full-frontal nudity was used 'unnecessarily'
or without 'artistic finesse'. On the topic of nudity, the cynosure
of many critics: it must be pointed out 'equal time' is given to
men's bodies, with the scales in film time actually tipping
(unusually) towards the male side. The horseplay of the mechanics,
while seen by some as overdone 'vulgar' behaviour, or stereotyping of
working-class behaviour (though they do end up more 'humane' and
'refined' than doctor or boss toward the revealed heroine), could
also be viewed as standard behaviour in an all-male environment. It
is not quite fair to accuse the film of using nudity as a
crowd-puller.
The contentious scene where the 'hero/ine' played by Anoma Jinadari
faces the 'mob' with her 'body', is one of the most powerful moments
of the film. It makes a very definite statement that, in the end, it
is she who has nothing to hide, in stark contrast to the name-callers
and attackers whose shocked shame is reflected in the expressions on
their faces and slinking retreating movements. Pushed and exposed to
such extremes, perhaps the only response can be choosing extreme self
exposure-in an ultimately defiant act of courage to silence and
shatter cowardly name-calling and bricks through windows.
Along with nudity, 'crude language' has also been a much-discussed
issue. The Sinhala employed in the film is real, a reflection of the
urban and class setting of the film, yet shocked some critics who are
perhaps less exposed to everyday street life and speech. In 'casual'
talk do we use high-flown baasha, or is that only the costumed agenda
of certain forces to 'establish' an unreal classical 'purity', let
alone an falsified asexuality? The simple economy and 'rawness' of
language in the film is also quite Sri Lankan, and not always
translatable in nuance and idiom into English-perhaps refuting the
theories that Thani Thatuwen was somehow just a 'Western' project. In
fact, the language makes it close to the heart, while the visuals may
sometimes distance the viewer in what may be a Brechtian sleight of
the director.
The lengthiest monologue or speech is from the 'wife' after her
'husband' has been unmasked. This had the potential to be the most
powerful verbal scene, to carry the whole essence of the film,
leaving less room for any misconceptions. However, while critics and
especially women focus positively on this part of the film, it failed
to give a strong enough message, that women do not after all hanker
for 'machismo' as much as for love, understanding and humaneness in
their male partners. The wife's disappointing declaration ends up
adding to the weaknesses of the film, adding to its suggestion that
'feminine' characters are passive victims, while somehow leaving the
impression that a woman can attain some power only by switching roles
or being the other extreme, like the 'aggressive' secretary. Granted
such scenes expose power relations underlying sexuality, as well as
the fact that bullies are the real cowards, but the film falls in
these contrived scenes where it had the greatest potential for
flight-to become a powerful call for both men and women to transcend
gender (rather than just try to transgress the boundaries), towards a
better society that brings out the core of humanity in us all.
Thani Tatuwen Piyabanne is a film full of symbolism and unsettling
images, and different people disagree about how well it works in
different instances. And although the film may fail to completely
soar, especially from a women's perspective, in successfully
generating a great deal of lively discussion on important social
issues, it has certainly taken flight on one wing at least! And now
maybe it's up to women and men to get together to try and fly with
both wings, in this aerially explosive 'man's' world.
o o o
(ii)
The Sunday Times
Handagama attempts the impossible
By Susitha R. Fernando
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/030202/tv/6.html
_____
#11.
Sponsor: Center for South Asia Studies, International and Area Studies
University of California, Berkeley
3rd New Directions in South Asia Studies Conference: Violence,
Community, Nation, Empire
http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/southasia/newdirections.html
May 10, 2003 9:00 AM - 4:45 PM
May 11, 2003 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Lipman Room, Barrows Hall, 8th floor, UC Berkeley campus
Saturday, May 10th: 9am-5pm
Panel 1: Imagining Justice
Anupama Rao, Postcolonial Damage: Hurt, Injury, and Restitution from a
Constitutional Perspective
Ajay Skaria, Justice and the Question of Minority
Discussants: Lawrence Cohen and Radhika Mongia
Panel 2: New Subjects/New Subjections
Srimati Basu, Regulating Domestic Order: Family Courts
Amita Baviskar, Blood and Soil ?Violence and the Environment
Discussants: Parama Roy and Bishnupriya Ghosh
Panel 3: Sexual Deployments and Excisions
Anjali Arondekar, Hey Ram: The Sex of Partition
Paola Bacchetta, Deployments of Sexuality in Hindu Nationalism
Discussants: Rosemary George and Gayatri Gopinath
Panel 4: Spectacular Violence
Arvind Rajagopal, Gujarat as an Experiment in Hindu National Realism
Kamala Visweswaran, A Thousand Genocides Now: On post 9/11 South Asian
Ethnography
Discussants: Paula Chakravartty and Raka Ray
Sunday, May 11th: 9-11am
Roundtable Discussion on "Gujarat and Beyond"
Angana Chatterjee, Shalini Gera, Girish Agarwal, Kamala Visweswaran and
others.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex).
The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
--