SACW | 11 June, 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   | 11 June,  2003

#1. Regaining Lanka for Economic Democracy (Forum For Democratic Development=
)
#2. The content and teaching of history in Pakistan (Mubarak Ali)
#3. India: Gender justice (Ram Puniyani)
#4. Alif, Be, Pe of Islamists (Badruddin R. Gowani)
#5. In search of Gandhi and Godse (Harsh Mander)
#6. India: The politics of Ayodhya (Editorial, The Hindu)

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

#1.

=46rom: Forum For Democratic Development <democraticdevelopment@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:17 PM
Subject: Economic Democracy Statement

Regaining Lanka for economic democracy

The Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) has billed the Tokyo donor 
conference as a route to 'Regaining Sri Lanka' - the term for its 
vision for the economic future of the country.  Rather than returning 
(as the GOSL plan purports to do) to a path of economic promise 
disrupted by war, Lanka was always traveling a path that 
nihilistically exacerbated conditions for war and insurrection by 
deepening real and perceived social disparities between different 
members of the nation.  Yet rather than regaining Lanka to advance 
local ownership of the country's economic trajectory, the vision of 
the GOSL continues to give away Lanka to the privileged few, locally 
and internationally.  Donors have been urged to finance the 
"Regaining Sri Lanka" vision as an endorsement of the GOSL's 
commitment to the peace process.  Yet the economic program advanced 
by this vision threatens to abandon and alienate large sections of 
its citizenry and risk a potential for peace.

We regret that rather than using the peace process as an opportunity 
to build a more inclusive and democratic community, the peace process 
has been exploited by local elites and their international partners 
to steal Lanka for private gain and partisan ideological allegiances. 
The GOSL is intent on a narrow economistic vision that is 
fundamentally divorced from the political crisis that has fed this 
war, and the tragedies it has brought to all its citizens, 
particularly those communities (be they Muslim, Tamil, or Sinhalese) 
that have born the brunt of the violence and its social impact.  The 
GOSL's plans neglect the importance of economic democracy in 
advancing a meaningful political solution to the ethnic conflict on 
the basis of inter-ethnic justice.  The country's economic vision 
should be developed through a participatory process with open 
discussion and input from all Sri Lankans; moreover, it should be an 
inclusive economic program that reaches out to address the needs and 
interests of all communities.  Although "Regaining Sri Lanka" pays 
lip service to a consultative process and a pro-poor strategy, we are 
disappointed to note that it fails on both these core aspects of 
economic democracy.

"Regaining Sri Lanka" is centered on the claim that there "there is 
only one way ahead" to address the nation's ills, namely "achieving 
substantially higher growth".  Setting growth benchmarks at "8 to 10 
percent", it says its "core strategy" for "accelerating economic 
growth" is to remove "the barriers to productivity."   Undoubtedly, 
enhancing growth and productivity are critical components of any 
economic program; however, from its proposal to "remove restrictions" 
of "the 10-hour working day", to its proposal to "lower the corporate 
tax rate", a detailed study of the "barriers" that the GOSL 
identifies for "a comprehensive and sustained attack" in pursuing its 
program are not promising indicators of how it will balance growth 
with social development and other criterion of economic progress. 
Relatedly, these are not promising indicators of how it will 
distribute the costs of its program between the poor and the wealthy. 
Regrettably, the GOSL appears to be pursuing a program that will have 
many losers and few winners. 

Three broad elements of the "Regaining Sri Lanka" vision call for 
particular scrutiny:

=85 Trade and the marginalized:  The GOSL is intent on continuing and 
rapidly expanding its exposure to global markets in the name of 
"poverty reduction" through "access" to international trade and 
dependence on capricious international finance, even when the record 
of such policies has been uneven, with the frequent consequence of 
further isolating and abandoning the poor.  While we need to make 
productive use of international resources, "how" we do so is 
essential to determining economic and social consequences.  The 
GOSL's plans lift trade protections without attention to the 
structural capacity of different communities to withstand the 
pressures of global competition, such as the rural poor, female 
headed households and the informal sector.

=85 Privatization and bottom-up accountability:  The GOSL is intent on 
adopting a policy of reckless privatization in ways that compound the 
corruptions and follies of past privatization endeavors in Sri Lanka 
and around the world.  While we need to make productive use of the 
private sector, the specific terms of the public-private partnership 
is essential to determining if in fact the privatization program 
harnesses incentives for private initiative and productivity with 
public accountability to Lanka's consumers and workers.  The GOSL's 
plans to pursue privatization allows key institutions central to the 
community's economic welfare to be controlled by local elites and 
multinational companies who will have no accountability to those most 
affected by their decisions.

=85 Public Enterprise Reform and the responsibilities of governance: 
The GOSL is intent on irresponsibly gutting the state of its capacity 
to take on its mandate to service Lanka's citizens and communities in 
ways that deliver on their rights and entitlements.  While reform of 
the rigid, patronage driven state apparatus is crucial, the extent to 
which the reforms promote independent civilian oversight, right to 
information and access to state institutions, determine the extent to 
which the proposed reforms enhance citizen's democratic rights or 
abdicate the state's democratic responsibilities.  The GOSL's plans 
to follow the edicts of international financial institutions to 
minimize the role of state institutions will dismantle protections 
for its most vulnerable citizens, remove basic guarantees of labor 
rights and environmental security, erode local control of the 
nation's financial infrastructure, sacrifice delivery of essential 
public services and even undermine its ability to guide balanced 
development for its diverse communities.

Truly "Regaining Lanka" for all its citizens would mean situating our 
economic vision in a commitment to economic democracy - in regard to 
both the substance of the economic policies we pursue, and the policy 
making process through which we determine the country's priorities. 
This calls for a fundamentally different vision than that advanced by 
the GOSL.  In terms of the substance of economic policy, economic 
democracy would, at a minimum, seek to guarantee basic human security 
and opportunity for all Lankans, rather than pandering to the 
interests of the privileged few.  In terms of process, economic 
democracy would signify a commitment to local ownership of economic 
policy with a transparent, consultative and participatory process, 
rather than importing a blue print designed in Washington and peddled 
by those in Colombo who stand to share in its spoils.

None of Lanka's governments, either pre or post 1977 have 
demonstrated a commitment to this inclusive and participatory vision 
of economic democracy.  Continuing this tradition of economically 
disenfranchising the vast majority of its citizens, the GOSL has 
exploited the nation's desire for peace to railroad a deeply 
problematic economic program into the folds of the peace process - 
wrapped, however, in rhetorical gestures to poverty reduction and 
consultative policy development.  The peace process calls for an 
economic program that goes beyond this rhetoric to come to terms with 
the fundamental interdependence of the economic futures of all 
Lankans.  It requires that we address the multiple intersecting axes 
of marginalization, including ethnic identity, caste, gender, 
regional location, and relative poverty.  It is time that Lanka's 
different communities come together and "Regain Lanka" from those 
local elites who have undermined and dismantled economic democracy in 
all its facets - such an effort may indeed contribute to a 
sustainable and just peace.

=46orum For Democratizing Development

______


#2.

Dawn, 8 June 2003

The content and teaching of history in Pakistan
By Mubarak Ali

When we discuss the state of history as a subject in our educational 
institutions, people ask a number of questions: What is the use of 
history in the technological age? How far is it relevant to our 
present problems? And if it fails to create any political and social 
consciousness in the society, then what is the use of studying it?
Some people go ahead and raise quite different questions: Is it a 
market-oriented subject? If not, then why should students waste their 
time and money to study it? These are valid questions, especially in 
a time when there is unemployment and every young man and woman wants 
to have a successful career. These questions are also valid because 
our historians have failed to correct the falsification and 
distortion of colonial history and failed to give any effective 
response to modern challenges. Neither has the history of the past 
been reconstructed objectively and nor has the history of the present 
and of the civilization of humankind been studied with an open mind. 
Not a single history department in any university has specialized in 
any particular aspect of history. In addition, nor have our higher 
educational institutions provided any new interpretation that could 
lead to a formation of historical ideas and philosophy.
If we analyze the discipline of history in the light of the above 
questions we reach the conclusion that history as we teach in our 
schools, colleges and universities is defective and deformed. Those 
who are responsible for the history curriculum are not aware that the 
subject has changed radically. It is no more confined to politics but 
has broadened itself to social and cultural aspects of society. There 
are different schools of historical studies that have enriched the 
subject such as 'history from below' or the approach of the 'annals 
school' to construct a history of sensibilities. If the subject is 
taught with such a broad perspective only then it can be useful to 
society.
It is very sad that the Pakistani state uses the subject for its own 
interests. As it is claimed that the country came into being as a 
result of ideological struggle, the purpose of history is to 
legitimize the ideology and write the history within a framework that 
suits the ruling classes. This is manifest especially in history 
textbooks in which selective and classified information is given to 
students with a motive to make them chauvinistic, nationalistic and 
religiously conservative.
Because of ideological considerations, the subject suffered 
immensely. Therefore, so far agreement has not been reached on how to 
treat the ancient past? Should we ignore ancient history because it 
is pre-Islamic? Or, how do we deal with the medieval period when 
Muslim dynasties were ruling India, and Delhi and Agra were the 
centres of power while the present territories of Pakistan were on 
periphery of their kingdoms? Some historians have tried to solve this 
problem by arguing that the history of Pakistan should begin from 
711-12, the date of the Arab invasion of Sindh. Another approach is 
that the starting point should be 1947, the year of birth of Pakistan.
Moreover, there are other problems, like how to treat the Sikh rule 
in the Punjab. And there is confusion on how deal with the colonial 
period. The only period that is emphasized is the freedom movement or 
the struggle for Pakistan, and that also from the official point of 
view, completely ignoring other interpretations.
We can very well understand such a mutilated and distorted history 
cannot create any broader perspective in the mind of our young 
generation. And such study or knowledge of such a history cannot be 
useful in finding a job in the market. In its present state, the 
subject is dull, repetitive, and unattractive to students.
Teaching of history
The quality of teaching any subject depends on the quality and 
calibre of those who teach it. In the case of Pakistan, those 
teachers who undertook the job of reaching in colleges and 
universities in the early stage of partition were so much involved in 
internal politics and intrigues that they could not give enough time 
and attention to their academic responsibilities. In universities in 
Sindh and Karachi in particular, the history department was divided 
into general history and Muslim history just to accommodate two 
professors as heads of each department. The result was that no new 
curriculum or system of examination was ever introduced in these 
institutions for students. No attention was given to the young 
teachers to train them in research methodology or teaching. Some of 
the teachers were lucky to get scholarships to study abroad. A few 
came back and some did not. Those who could not go abroad remained 
stuck to their hackneyed routine of teaching and could find no 
opportunity to improve their qualifications.
At the time of partition we the only university that we inherited was 
Punjab University. The Sindh, Karachi, Peshawar, and Quaid-i-Azam 
universities were founded later on. Because of partition, the 
non-Muslim teachers migrated and left a vacuum that was filled by 
those scholars who came to Pakistan as immigrants. In the discipline 
of history, those historians who took the responsibility of teaching 
had mostly specialized in medieval India or Muslim history. Since 
they were trained in colonial institutions, they retained the old 
outdated and traditional outlook of history. They adopted the 
colonial syllabus that dealt with political history of the successive 
ruling dynasties. Students doing their master's were asked to read 
Rushbrook William, Ishwari Prasad, Beni Prasad and Jadunath Sarkar. 
Most professors in our universities and affiliated colleges 
recommended the same books that they had studied as students. 
Interestingly, the works of famous historians from the Aligarh school 
of history like Irfan Habib, Athar Ali, Harbans Mukhia, Muzaffar 
Alam, Iqtidar Alam Khan and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami were never included 
in this reading list.
Attempts have been several times to revise the history curriculum but 
since teachers are not well aware of new publications and research 
work, they recommend retaining the same syllabus with minor changes. 
The result is that a teacher teaches the same topics repeatedly for 
the whole of his career without adding anything. Continuous 
repetition of a subject makes a teacher dull and he himself loses 
interest. The other result of this repetition worth detailing is that 
in the annual examination, the examiner also repeats the same 
question over and over again.
Based on this recurring pattern, students evolve a study formula that 
involves taking the past five years question papers, selecting 15 
questions from them and learning up their answers. Those who do this 
are not disappointed and usually find that the questions asked of 
them in the exam come from the 15 that they selected. For example, in 
medieval history questions such as 'Who was the real founder of the 
Islamic sate in India: Qutbuddin Aibak or Altumash?', 'What was 
Balban's theory of kingship?' or 'What Alauddin's economic reforms?'
In the case of the Mughal period, the usual questions relate to the 
condition of India before the invasion of Babur, the "blunders" of 
Humayun, Akbar and his Rajput or religious policies, Nurjahan and her 
role, Shahjahan and the golden period of the Mughals, or the war of 
succession between Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh. Since this period is 
taught with an ideological perspective, so Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah 
Waliullah are added and regarded important from the examination point 
of view.
In Muslim history, the syllabus is very simple. It begins with the 
life of the holy Prophet (PBUH), the Caliphs, and the Umayyad and 
Abbasid dynasties. The same courses are taught repeatedly at the 
school level, then in college and again in university. The pattern 
for European and American history, or the history of civilization is 
similar. It has to be said that this clearly suits both teachers and 
students and encourages both to use cheap textbooks and guides. For 
example, there was a time when someone called Mukherjee was popular 
among students in India. His books on Indian, American, European, 
Greek and Roman histories were a sure guarantee for passing the 
examination. Now, his place has been taken by a certain Mahajan whose 
books on all fields of history are very popular. Their counterpart in 
Pakistan is K. Ali whose books on Indian and Muslim history are 
recommended by teachers. Students of Muslim history use Dr A Hamid's 
book on Islamic history.
Students at higher levels of study are not required to consult or 
read original sources. Because of this they depend heavily on 
secondary sources and cheap textbooks and not on recent research. 
Moreover, there is no tradition of inter-disciplinary discussion and 
consultation in our universities. Students are rarely asked to write 
assignments and if they do submit something, the teachers do not 
check them properly. The students are also not taught how to write a 
research paper and there is no tradition that enables them to make 
presentations in the classroom for discussion and debate. In the 
absence of any discussion, students and teachers are not trained to 
respond to criticism. The reading list provided to students is 
inadequate. Those who prepare bibliographies are not trained. 
Sometimes there is no mention of the publisher, the year and place of 
publication, or even the full name of the author. The list is 
generally short and does not contain recent research works.
Moreover, the ideological approach of teaching history further makes 
it dull and uninteresting. Since Pakistan has been deemed an 
ideological state, it has become incumbent upon teachers to keep that 
in mind when they teach. History is used by the state to defend its 
ideological boundaries rather than to create awareness among 
students. All those events or individuals that do not suit the 
ideological framework are excluded .For example, Akbar as a ruler is 
condemned while Ahmad Sirhindi is extolled as the champion of Islam.
The change of medium of instruction from English to Urdu and Sindhi 
rapidly deteriorated the standard of education apart from creating 
and strengthening a dual-class system in our society. Since there are 
no standard textbooks in Urdu or Sindhi, students have no alternative 
except to rely on the third-rate guides or cheap textbooks to pass 
examinations. These textbooks provide an unsystematic and faulty 
account of history which is faithfully is reproduced by students.
The result is obvious to everyone. Those who graduate and acquire 
higher degrees in history find no other job than to teach. As 
teachers, they reproduce the same knowledge that they swallowed when 
they were students. Moreover, there are few opportunities for history 
graduates to adopt other professions because of the limitation of 
their academic study. Some of them take it as an optional subject in 
competitive examinations; some use their knowledge of history in the 
media. The fact is that there is no market for history degree holders.
History teaching at the school level was particularly bad right after 
partition. The old system of education, in which history and 
geography were independent subjects, continued. The syllabus had old 
history textbooks which contained chapters on ancient Indian history 
and a brief survey of world civilizations. They provided a basic 
knowledge of history. The change came during the period of Ayub Khan 
when in the 1960s the government that implemented a new education 
policy prepared on the recommendations of experts from the US. In the 
new report, both history and geography were excluded from school 
syllabus and instead a new subject 'social studies', incorporating 
both, was introduced. The history content in this new subject further 
suffered because of unfriendly relations with India. Anti-Indian 
material is included in not only history textbooks but also in other 
subjects such as Urdu and English literature.
Then, the role played by the provincial and federal textbook boards 
also was extremely negative. They have monopoly in publishing 
textbooks on all subjects and this greatly damages the quality of the 
books they produce. Unqualified writers who are not well versed in 
history write most of their books. Ignorant of recent research and 
findings, they repeat the same old version of history. As Engels once 
pointed out: "He who writes history textbooks writes history." 
Keeping this in view, authoritarian and orthodox governments 
monitored writing of textbooks to propagate their ideology. This gave 
students no opportunity to know of and learn about any other 
alternative version. Most history textbooks give political accounts 
of different periods and rarely mention their social and cultural 
conditions.
By emphasizing the role of individuals, many more heroes than needed 
or necessary are created. There are different categories of heroes: 
politicians, freedom fighters and rulers. And then there are sufi 
saints, ulema and literary persons. After the 1965 war we also had 
people from the army. All history textbooks are now heavily loaded 
with anti-Indian writings. The logical outcome of reading these 
textbooks is that generation after generation is being polluted with 
hatred, prejudice, and intolerance.
(To be concluded)

______


#3.

The Hindu, June 11, 2003

Gender justice
By Ram Puniyani

The proper campaign has to be for gender-just civil codes, and this 
has to be implemented through social reform.

TWO CASES of dowry harassment came to light recently, though in 
contrasting backdrops. Nisha Sharma, a Hindu girl, refused to marry 
because of last-minute demands for additional dowry. Farzana, a 
Muslim girl, refused to accompany her husband because he demanded 
dowry at the time of leaving the bridal home. The RSS' publications 
Organiser and Panchajanya compare these two incidents and bring in 
their usual anti-Muslim projection to the events. While the Organiser 
commends Nisha who has "become a role model" and received other 
marriage offers, according to Panchjanya, Farzana has still to find a 
way out of the stifling tentacles of Islamic practices perpetuated by 
the medieval-minded clergy. And it revives the demand for a uniform 
civil code as the panacea for this ailment of "Islamic society".

Are these comparable situations? Is it that so far all was quiet on 
the dowry front and these two cases have come as a reminder of this 
abominable practice? An anti-dowry campaign has not been on the 
agenda of the RSS, which has more "serious" issues such as 
temple-building at Ayodhya and "Hindu pride" to address. Is the RSS 
family serious about the issues of gender justice as such or is it a 
convenient stick to beat the minority community with?

Most of the civil codes are gender unjust and so merely parroting 
uniformity has no meaning. The proper campaign has to be for 
gender-just civil codes, and this has to be implemented through 
social reform. Also, though needs to go into what the social 
conditions are under which communities can accept reforms for gender 
justice.

The demand for a uniform civil code emerged from women's liberation 
movements, and it was soon realised that gender justice rather than 
uniformity was the nucleus around which the laws should be 
formulated. As far as suppression of women's rights was concerned, 
the clergy in all the religions were more are less equally guilty. 
Where do matters differ in different religious communities? One need 
not go into the fate of the Hindu Code drafted by B.R. Ambedkar but 
it has to be conceded that in the first three decades after India 
became a republic, a good deal of progress was made by the Hindu 
community in its struggle for gender justice. It is no one's case 
that all is well amongst Hindus as far as the treatment of the girl 
child and equality of women are concerned. But the last two decades 
have, in general, seen an intimidation of rights movements due to the 
rise of fundamentalism of different hues.

The rise of Hindu fundamentalism has also been accompanied by the 
ghettoisation of the minorities. The pitch and intensity of communal 
riots have gone up in the last two decades and in the process, the 
Muslim community has suffered the most. Estimates show that 80 per 
cent of the Gujarat riot victims belonged to the Muslim community, 
which formed 11.6 per cent of the State's population. The minority 
psyche is greatly shaped by this insecurity and it affects the social 
norms of even those who are not directly affected by the violence. 
Added to this is the international phenomenon where American 
imperialism is out to demonise Islam and Muslims by all means 
possible so that it can gobble up the world's oil resources.

Muslim women have been struggling for reforms in their civil code for 
many decades. Every cycle of violence is a big setback to their 
movement. Communal violence has been blatantly intimidating the 
minorities and the communalised state apparatus has been aiding the 
Sangh Parivar in conducting pogroms. Can such an intimidated 
community go in for reforms? There are contradictory tendencies in 
every community and society. The same Muslim community, which is 
associated with burqa-clad women, has girls riding two-wheelers, 
trying to make their living as teachers or journalists.

How does communal violence affect the social psychology? By now, the 
likes of Bal Thackeray and Narendra Modi have perfected the art of 
portraying the victim community as the one that started the riots and 
the soldiers of Hindutva, the Hindu hriday samrats, as merely rushing 
to the "defence" of the majority community and thus conveniently 
becoming the victors in the elections which follow.

It is a difficult time for the Islamic community world over. At the 
global level, Samuel Huntington's thesis has come in handy for the 
imperialistic ambitions of the United States, and at home the RSS has 
been developing expertise in Muslim demonisation for decades. It is 
interesting that the RSS progeny are subservient to the U.S. 
imperialists.

While it is unfair to compare Farzana and Nisha, the incidents do 
have many lessons. While Nisha boldly stands to defy patriarchy and 
its manifestation in the form of dowry, Farzana is no less when she 
refuses to join her husband on the same ground. These acts of 
individual valour reflect the stirrings amongst the young to break 
the shackles of male domination. But the comparison ends here. Both 
the girls have to live in different milieus. While Nisha's milieu is 
not adorable in the least, Farzana is a double victim, that of 
patriarchy and of minority-bashing and the resultant ghettoisation.

While condemning the force of mullahs, one must also recognise the 
challenges faced by the liberals among Muslims. On one hand, there is 
tremendous pressure on them to withstand the onslaught of a crippling 
anti-Muslim propaganda, which has become part of "normal" social 
discourse, and, on the other, they are stretching all their strength 
to battle the obscurantism promoted by the mullahs and their ilk.

The practices of the Muslim community have been shaped by a world 
dominated by the colonialists of the past and imperialists of the 
present. They have suppressed the democratic aspirations of Islamic 
societies. Beginning from the formation of Israel, the overthrow of 
the Mossadeq regime in Iran and the training of jehadi youth through 
the conduit of Pakistan, the world's big powers have created a 
situation wherein popular dissent gets expressed though the worst 
form of Islamic obscurantism.

Where does the Muslim community go from here? Can it bear the dual 
burden of Hindutva attack from outside and the grip of mullahs from 
within? Farzana has to be nurtured and supported in her decision to 
boycott the marriage cemented by dowry. It is difficult to think of 
reforms in a ghetto and it is difficult to bring in reforms in a 
community, the religion of which is demonised not only nationally but 
internationally as well. Come what may, against all odds, Farzana has 
to be nurtured.

The goal of bogus defenders of women's rights has to be understood in 
its proper perspective. As an ideology, which is deeply seeped in 
patriarchy, Hindutva has no place for women's rights. Time and again, 
its ideologues have defended the violation of the "being" of the 
women of the "other" community. It has no interest in protecting the 
rights of minority women, but we have to do it, irrespective of who 
raises the issue. One of the major needs in the direction is to 
ensure that ghettoisation is checked.

The Muslim community has to rise to the occasion and against all 
external and internal odds, choose the direction of progress and 
justice. It has to join the progressive elements of other communities 
and close ranks with them to ensure that the Hindutva onslaught from 
outside and the mullahs from inside are not able to intimidate its 
dynamics of progress and reform.

______


#4.

[June 5, 2003]

Alif, Be, Pe of Islamists*
(for my dearest little buddy)

Badruddin R. Gowani

alif for amricA, in its name we begin; who gave us a second but 
meaningful birth
be for but, is to be smashed, which has snatched our day's rest and 
night's sleep
pe for Pakistan, former International Asylum Center for screwed up 
Muslim fanatics
te for tabligh, to gain new converts because current mess and number 
is not enough
Te for TVs, which houses devilish and sinful forces, and so are to be 
burned at stake
se for sAlis salAsA, of secularists, Shias, and Sunnis different from 
us; so has to go
jIm for Jihad, against art, culture, paleontology, archaeology, 
science, education, . . .
che for chehlum, some or other performs daily for our justices served
He for HalAl, are all humans and animals, except the one we 
discriminate against
khe for KhudA, there is none, but there is one and only one and that is AllA=
h
dAl for dAr-ul-Harb, which we are desperately trying to turn into dAr-ul-Isl=
Am
DAl for DA'rhi, nobody shaves when we rule, because we practice facial ahims=
A
zAl for zimmis, all non-Muslims will become, once AllAh and violence 
gives us power
re for RamadAn, when we become mini US and impose, at least, daytime 
food embargo
ze for zAniya, we put behind bars or stone to death to protect her 
from more rapes
zhe for zharfnigAhi, we have and it reaches to the 7th century of the 
common era
seen for sarAb, of heaven and houris we sell to simpletons in lieu of 
their lives
sheen for sharia, our answer to the unemployment problem: cut off 
hands and feet
suAd for sUfIs, can't pray directly but needs our intervention and goodwill
zuAd for ZiyA, who held out ziyA so we can defuse whatever 
enlightenment there was
to'e for tAlibAn, the UoJ graduates who are out to thoroughly purify the wor=
ld
zo'e for zAhir honA, which one day, inshAllAh, Osama and MullAh Omar will
ain for aurat, a temptress good for procreation, stones, chAdar, and 
chAr-diwAri
ghain for ghAzi, "a martyr if killed, a ghazi if he kills," an old 
proverb, is our motto
fe for fatwA, is our weapon, like the US weapons of "democracy" and 
"human rights"
qAf for KorAn, has known/unknown secrets, cosmos to computer, Bushler 
to Bajrangi
kAf for Kashmir, a place where we play our bloody Holi and fiery Diwali
gAf for gIt, the only one we sing is AllAh Akbar, victory is near and ours
lAm for lashkar, always on alert to eradicate all the environmental obscenit=
ies
mIm for madrasAs, our cost-saving universities which issue Doctorate of JahA=
lat
nUn for nashA, we permit the only one prescribed by the great 
"Prophet" Carl Marx
vAo for WahhAbi, every Muslim would become with our terror and royal 
Saudi riyals
hae for HindustAn, a land of infidels we want to turn into a great IslamistA=
n
ye for yaum-ul-hisAb, is conferred daily on all those who in our eyes 
are sinners


*Rest of the contents
Thanking Harsh Kapoor and SACW
Neelima Sharma's suggestion
Clarification on excluding the Islamists' conflict with the US and Israel
Tragic state of Muslim countries and the widespread ignorance
Notes to Alif Be Pe
[...].

{ Full text of the above article is available on the web at: 
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/2002/gowani11062003.html }

______


#5.

=46RONTLINE
Volume 20 - Issue 12, June 07 - 20, 2003

In search of Gandhi and Godse
HARSH MANDER
The communalisation process under way in India clearly has an impact on
people of Indian origin around the world.

DURING a hectic schedule of speaking engagements that recently buffeted me
across the length and breadth of the United States, I witnessed a diaspora
in tumult, even more polarised, divided and wounded, than the middle classes
in India today. With battle lines drawn everywhere, courageous, secular and
progressive elements sometimes seemed under siege. Muslims of Indian origin
were in the throes of anguish, often internalising their anger as an
intensely personal sense of hurt and loss. I saw recurring signs, during my
travels, of the heart-breaking near death of faith and hope.

The Gujarat carnage - the stunning brutality of the mass violence, the
impunity of the state authorities, the depths of the social divide, the
success of the economic boycott and above all the electoral endorsement of
the massacre - has convinced many living in the prosperity of their adopted
country, of the threat of the imminent death of Gandhi's India; and of the
fact that minorities in the India of the future will have to come to terms
with second-class citizenship. Their dark sense of despair and alienation is
clouded further by the post-9/11 scenario in the U.S., with the swirling
winds of public prejudice, militarisation, brutal and unethical wars and
racial profiling of all Asian Muslims by the government.

Zahir Janmohammed, a 25-year-old graduate and third-generation expatriate
from India, poignantly evoked this sense of bewildered loss: "I have been
searching for Gandhi for several years. But after spending months in
Gandhi's homeland, Gujarat, I fear he may be dead".

His grandparents migrated from Gujarat to East Africa in the 1920s. His
father, expelled by Idi Amin's regime in Uganda in 1971, made a fresh start
in California, where Zahir was born. He was a vegetarian and revered Gandhi.
It was natural that he encouraged Zahir to return for a year to Gujarat to
reclaim his legacy. Zahir volunteered to work with a non-governmental
organisation (NGO) in a slum in Ahmedabad. Weeks after his arrival, the city
and much of Gujarat was convulsed by the most brutal sectarian blood-letting
after Partition, following the torching of a railway compartment in Godhra.

Zahir volunteered to work in the relief camps for the battered survivors of
the pogrom, where he tried to share with them a little of their agony. But
he encountered bigotry everywhere, even among friends. No one restrained the
members of the NGO with which he worked, when they openly taunted
minorities. The mother of his host family, a hospitable and affectionate
Hindu, said to him: "Well you know beta, those Muslims go to the relief
camps because they get free food there". His stomach heaved at the memories
of the relief camps, with their pervading stench of human excreta, urine and
crowded tents.

Returning months later to his home in California, a shaken Zahir found
himself frozen when a shop-keeper asked him his name. A year afterwards, he
joked bitterly when he saw me off at the airport, "Be careful, your air
ticket has been booked on the Internet by a Muslim."

Zahir, a sensitive, reflective young man still struggling with the unhealed
wounds of his trauma in Gujarat told me: "The Gujarat carnage has changed my
life" - a refrain I heard echoed over and over again in many parts of the
U.S. Among those whose lives were altered irrevocably were a large number of
deeply idealistic young American Indian Muslim men and women, trying to come
to terms with the situation in which their community finds itself. Many were
trying to contribute by raising money for relief and rehabilitation, or
lobbying with both the U.S. and Indian governments, or building networks
with secular, progressive groups. I was touched by the way they dealt with
their intense internalised sense of personal tribulation and privation, by
constructively working with resolutely preserved resources of faith and
hope, for reclaiming and defending pluralism and democracy both in India and
the U.S.

In New York, Ubaid Shaik, a neurophysician with gentle manners and a passion
for justice, was engaged for many years after he migrated to the U.S. in the
African American civil rights movement. He was so wrenched by the Gujarat
massacre that he launched the Indian Muslim Council to promote values of
pluralism and tolerance with particular focus on the Indian diaspora in the
U.S. He barely sleeps a few hours each night, so that he can find time for
this work even after a punishing schedule in the hospital besides commuting
for four hours daily, and taking care of a large and loved family. He has
been joined in this enterprise by young professionals from cities across the
U.S.

In Seattle, I was drawn to Javed, a software engineer who, after Gujarat,
tirelessly collects money for relief as a volunteer for the Indian Muslim
Relief Committee, which was formed in 1983 following the Nellie massacre by
a compassioned and energetic biochemist Manzoor Ghauri. After Gujarat, an
energetic elderly nuclear engineer in Chicago, Imtiaz Uddin, pulled himself
out of retirement to establish a forum for the defence of secularism.

A number of committed secular academics in universities across North
America, including Biju Mathew, Shalini Gera, Vinay Lal, Angana Chatterjee,
Abha Singhal and many others came together in the wake of the Gujarat
massacre, to put together the Stop Funding Hate Campaign, which
painstakingly collected extremely damaging evidence on the funding of
organisations belonging to the Sangh Parivar by Indian Americans.

In many universities I also met young members of secular development
organisations such as Asha (founded by Sandeep Pandey) and the Association
for India's Development. Many of them shared the grave disquiet about the
assaults on pluralism in India, and wanted to contribute to efforts to
defend secularism. But among some members, I also did find ideological
confusion, reflected in their sympathy to parts of the Hindutva ideology or
claims that many NGOs in India were `neutral' to the turbulent communal
divide.

=46or Jayashree and Ashok, a young couple in Seattle, a major segment of the=
ir
daily life is devoted to volunteer work for Asha. Ashok spends many evenings
and week-ends away from his work in a computer company, singing old Kishore
Kumar songs in a band cobbled together to raise funds for development work
in India. Stirred by accounts of the continuing distress of families in
rural Gujarat, the couple has resolved to raise funds for them. Both dream
of abandoning their well-paid positions and returning soon to India, to work
for advancing the cause of education. In most cities, mainly
first-generation young Indian Americans, many of them engineers, attempt to
engage constructively with development organisations and social movements in
India.

MEETING these two groups of young people of Indian origin, those belonging
to the Muslim organisations and those with organisations like AID and Asha,
I was struck by how similar many of them were - idealistic, impassioned and
sincere. They were also of the same professional profile - software
professionals, university students, social science researchers, and so on.
Yet, they rarely met and worked together. The claims by AID and Asha that
they never consciously kept youth from the minority communities out and that
it just happened, mirrored arguments a few years ago about why most
development groups `just happened' to have mainly men.

Also, with both sets of groups of socially committed young Indians of
American origin, I observed their remarkable insularity from social justice
movements in the U.S. Except for Ubaid, the remarkable doctor who founded
the Indian Muslim Council and a young physics teacher in Detroit, I rarely
encountered any young people of Indian origin - first or second generation -
who were involved in civil rights causes of African Americans, or those who
volunteered to work for causes of deprivation and injustice in the U.S. like
homelessness. For Ubaid, it was only the state complicity in the Gujarat
bloodbath that persuaded him to pull back from his work in the cause of
human rights in the U.S., and, instead involve himself in efforts to
safeguard these rights in the deeply loved country of his birth.

Many Indian Americans involve themselves in political events in India with
an immediacy and passion, to an extent that it is sometimes difficult to
remember that one is not in India, but on the other side of the planet.
During my visit, for instance, people followed and analysed every reported
word of hate speeches by Praveen Togadia and the confused, unsteady
responses to these by state authorities in India, with greater concern than
in many bylanes of India itself. A multiplicity of deep emotional chords
continue to bind millions of people of Indian origin who choose to live and
work in the most powerful nation in the world, to the ancient land in which
they and their parents were born.

Many Indian Americans spoke about how precious the pluralism of the Indian
tradition and their identity as Indian Muslims were to them. Quaid Saifee, a
young computer executive in Detroit, spoke of his days in an engineering
college in Indore. "I was the only Muslim in my entire class. My friends
always used to adjust their plans, when we went out to see films, or for
dinner, so that I could offer namaz at the prescribed hours. When any
vegetarian friends came home for food, my mother would wash out the entire
kitchen in advance, so that their food could not be touched by meat. There
was so much love between us. Where has all of this gone?"

The visit confirmed to me how closely the turbulent recent history of the
dramatic rise of right-wing religious fundamentalism and the politics of
hatred in India, is related to and nourished by the Indian diaspora in the
U.S. An influential segment of this diaspora is ideologically committed to
the politics of Hindutva, and shares its irrational malevolent hostility
towards minorities, and uncompromising opposition to the vision of a
pluralistic, democratic India with genuinely equal citizenship for people of
all faiths, caste and gender.

Going beyond its enormous financial support, exposed by the Stop Funding
Hate Campaign, is its ideological nourishment from the U.S., in the form of
minority bashing literature, web sites and propaganda. The temples are one
of the only spaces where the majority of Hindu Indian Americans meet on a
regular basis, and these are reportedly increasingly controlled by Hindutva
elements that actively promote their divisive ideology. Youth summer camps
to assist second generation Indians to learn about their `culture' are also
used as powerful vehicles to propagate their intensely partisan vision of
Indian culture, history, society and politics. There were many Indian
Americans who believe that the U.S. is growing into the most influential
fortress for the rallying of the forces of Hindutva after the Indian state
of Gujarat.

There is also evidence of influential political alliances with powerful
sections of the U.S. ruling political establishment. Especially in the
aftermath of 9/11, and the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.
government and major segments of the media and public opinion are actively
engaged in the demonisation of the Islamic world. This has led to a growing
opportunistic alliance between the domestic and global policies of the U.S.
government and the domestic politics of the Indian government. Hardline
Israeli elements and the government of Israel are also joining this axis.

The impact of all of this on the Indian diaspora is to create an
uncompromising, unprecedented divide between people of Indian origin who are
born into the Hindu and Muslim faiths. This spills into even second and
third generation Indian Americans, and increasingly characterises social
relations even in universities, with increasingly strident organisations of
students owing open allegiance to Hindutva playing an active role in most
U.S. universities.

People I met in many cities recognised, especially, the need to work with
young people of Indian origin in the U.S., including those of second and
third generation, in order to strengthen their commitment to pluralism,
peace and justice. Spaces like places of worship need to be reclaimed from
fundamentalist elements; young people need authentic humanistic teachings of
their respective faiths. Secular avenues also need to be built to enable
them to acquire an undistorted picture of what constitutes Indian culture,
its syncretic, pluralist, tolerant character, but also its traditional
injustices of caste and gender. They also need to be brought in touch with
the social justice issues of the adopted country, which is now home for them
and their children.

Everywhere, there was great enthusiasm for building an Aman Parivar, or
family of peace, as an alternative to the Sangh Parivar. This is envisaged
as a very loose and broad platform of people and organisations that are
committed to join hands to fight the mounting poison of communal hatred and
divide, and to defend to reclaim and to strengthen pluralism, secularism,
justice, humanism and democracy. It would bring together anti-communal
religious, cultural and professional organisations with a range of liberal,
left, democratic and development organisations.

ON May 19, 2003, the day I returned to India, a call was given by Hindu
Unity, the U.S.-based wing of the Bajrang Dal, which is the youth front of
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and by the Hindu Mahasabha to celebrate
Nathuram Godse's birth on May 19 "to send a message to the enemies of
humanity that we will fight and even die to protect the basic principle of
Hinduism". It further denigrated Gandhi by saying: "Gandhi was a downright
pacifist, without guts and scruples. His constant preaching to his fellow
Hindus, to be non-violent at all times, even in the face of aggression,
paralysed the manhood of India, mentally and physically..'

The undisguised poison of this appeal, and the outrage of many groups of
Indian Americans that followed, symbolises the struggle that convulses the
Indian diaspora in the U.S. The struggle is to find its soul, whether in the
message of love and tolerance of Mahatma Gandhi, or in the twisted legacy of
his assassin Nathuram Godse.

In the dark storms of bigotry, of wars of collective vengeance that sweep
our world today, does anyone in the U.S. or India have an answer to the
question that young Zahir Janmohammed asks each of us, both as a challenge
and a plea:

"Could Gandhi still be alive? Somewhere, in someone?"

_____


#6.

The Hindu, June 10, 2003
Editorials

The politics of Ayodhya

ON THE FACE of it, the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's 
formulation that a solution to the vexed Ayodhya dispute lies in 
depoliticising it and letting the contentious issues be settled 
amicably by the religious leaders of the Hindu and Muslim communities 
does make eminent sense. But then, the irony is that the one who is 
rooting for "freeing" Ayodhya from politics is none other than the 
patriarch and officially acknowledged No. 1 leader of the very party 
that is primarily responsible for pushing it into the quagmire of 
partisan politics. It was the BJP that used the Ram temple issue as a 
vehicle for political mobilisation and capturing power. For all the 
image of a `moderate' (in relation to the Sangh Parivar's ideology) 
that attaches to him, Mr. Vajpayee has never been found wanting, when 
it came to the crunch, in playing the partisan political game, 
although he did make it a point to come out, off and on, with 
statesman-like observations. So frequent has been the switch between 
contradictory approaches on Ayodhya (and this goes also for several 
other issues that have a bearing on the BJP's core ideology) by the 
Prime Minister and other leading lights of the party that one is left 
with the inescapable impression that they are but a part of a grand 
strategy to concretise the majoritarian communal agenda. If Mr. 
Vajpayee is really serious about his `depoliticisation' proposition, 
he could, for a start, get his own party to remove `construction of 
Ram temple at Ayodhya' from its agenda, an objective which it has 
only kept in abeyance to sustain itself in power.

As a general rule, negotiation is undoubtedly the best method of 
resolving conflicts. But, given the context of the twists and turns 
the decades-long Ayodhya dispute has taken, not to speak of the 
national outrage perpetrated by the frenzied mob on December 6, 1992, 
when it pulled down the Babri Masjid, the very suggestion of it by 
the protagonists of Hindutva becomes suspect. First of all, in a 
milieu where the VHP and other forces are relentlessly running their 
campaign for the building of the temple in open defiance of 
authority, there can be absolutely no scope for any fair negotiation 
or display of true give-and-take and the representatives of the 
Muslim community cannot be expected to be able to negotiate on a 
level field. Secondly, for the BJP or any of its ideological 
affiliates, there is invariably a non-negotiable factor, even if not 
spelt out, whenever they talk of negotiation, and that is: the Ram 
temple must be built on the site where the mosque had stood, since it 
is a matter of `faith'. What according to them is open to negotiation 
are issues that are in the nature of the `price' the Muslim community 
is willing to settle for. And this clearly is a position that seeks 
to add insult to the injury caused to the minority community and 
legitimise the brazen misdeed of revanchist forces.

More fundamentally, there are some disturbing questions about the 
religious leaders who are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of the 
two communities. Given the fact that there are any number of 
spiritual leaders, quite a few of them self-styled, on either side 
and that the writ of no single religious leader runs through the 
entire community, be it Hindu or Muslim, the question arises: what 
sanctity will attach to whatever settlement is reached - if at all - 
by those who have assumed the role of interlocutors? In the 
circumstances, the `negotiations' route, despite its undoubted 
theoretical merits, stands little chance of producing a durable 
solution and the judicial route being pursued by way of title suits 
appears to be the best bet, something that has found favour with 
major political parties.


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

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.
--