SACW | 19 June, 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex@mnet.fr
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 03:02:26 +0100
South Asia Citizens Wire | 19 June, 2003
#1. Pakistan:
- Two passengers in the van [the mullah and the fauji] (Asma Jahangir)
- Financial Times Interview with General Pervez Musharraf
#2. Sri Lanka: The murder of Thambirajah Subathiran: An assault on
democratic culture (a statement signed by over 100 Sri Lankans)
#3. Re Deployment of Indian [and Pakistani] troops in Iraq:
- Using human beings as cannon fodder (Praful Bidwai)
- Indian troops for Iraq? (I.K. Gujral)
- Indian Soldiers in Baghdad (N.D.Pancholi)
#4. Ideological twins: The far right in Europe and the BJP [in India]
(Veerappa Moily)
#5. India: UGC steps up the heat on historian K.N. Panikkar
#6. India: The (re)name game (Anil Dharker)
#7. India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch # 121 (19 June 2003)
--------------
#1.
The Daily Times, June 19, 2003
Two passengers in the van
by Asma Jahangir
Pakistan's handful of vocal liberals are feeling suffocated more
because of the political direction the regime is taking than by the
mullah's bid to Talibanise Pakistan. But the fact is that a rerun of
Talibanisation is not possible in Pakistan. Only a civil war can
bring it about. Even the full force of Pakistan's mullahs will not be
able to put Pakistan's women under the shuttlecock or beat the men
into growing unwieldy beards. Instead, the fear is of the
anarchisation of Pakistan, a kind of free-for-all in which the
democratic and secular forces are sandwiched between the "boots" and
the "beards".
That the mullah and the fauji are going for each other does not
reflect a basic dichotomy. None wants to oust the other completely;
the conflict is about making adjustments in the power-sharing
arrangement. They have common interests, a shared vision and
historical links. Their allegiance to the so-called "national
interest" starts and ends with serving their own welfare. An unending
list of their follies and foolhardiness can be recounted which has
hurt the people and the collective interest of Pakistan's society.
General Pervez Musharraf has candidly announced that he has no
stomach for gracefully transferring power. According to him his
uniform serves the national interest and unless democracy takes root,
he is here to stay. That is precisely the paradox. Democracy cannot
even begin its journey as long as the Generals stay on the political
horizon. That is clear even to freshmen of political history. General
Musharraf has warned the mullahs against imposing their brand of
Islam on the country. Denouncing his former allies, the Taliban, he
has now embarked upon a "progressive Islamic route". What that means
is yet to be spelt out. We have only been told what a progressive
Islamic system is not. It is neither Talibanisation nor Western-style
democracy, nor a Presidential system as in the United States.
Perhaps GHQ will bring out its own novel blueprint of the type of
political system it finds closest to the Musharraf doctrine of a
progressive Islamic state. But this will surely pose problems,
especially if it is being coined to please the West alone. How will
they justify any progressive thinking while a General rules the
country whimsically? How can there be a progressive state without an
independent judiciary? Can any democratic system flow from the barrel
of a gun? The self-contradictions in General Musharraf's actions and
words have confused all those who have to hear him day in and day out.
The present regime prides itself on all its policies. There is also
conceit over the faux pas and blunders it continues to make. But on
two counts the government repeatedly boasts success. Being a
frontline state against terrorism is a feather in its cap, even
though for any other state it would have been a worrisome sign - all
our neighbours are alleging that our border areas are infested with
terrorists. Afghan President Hamid Karzai provided us with a list of
terrorists that he wants rounded up in Pakistan and handed over to
Kabul. He broadly hinted that the German soldiers killed in
Afghanistan came from our side of the border. Iran has warned us to
control the movement of "undesirable" Al Qaeda members from entering
its territory through our territory. India is screaming from the
rooftop about our jihadis. Our denials are being dismissed even by
the United States. So the question is, whose frontline state are we
supposed to have become?
The excitement is not about our anti-terrorism role but about our
newfound relationship with the Bush administration. We delude
ourselves when we talk of friendship with the United States. Genuine
friendship is either among equals or because of shared values. In
that regard Pakistan and the United States can find ways to
co-operate but cannot turn that working relationship into any form of
true friendship. General Musharraf and President Bush can also not be
friends, although they both share a number of values but no President
of the US can publicly own up. The present relationship between the
two countries and their leaders is nothing but an embarrassment to
both. We are simply puppets on a string and are now overtly beginning
to look and sound like puppets.
It is often claimed that the Musharraf government has done wonders
with the economy of the country. The General defended the current
budget in the same vein as Sheikh Chilli dreamt of running a
flourishing poultry farm from a handful of eggs in his basket. At the
so-called lawyers' convention in Lahore recently, the General gave a
basic economic lesson to the nation: building houses will improve the
sale of cement, bricks and sanitary ware, which in turn will generate
employment and industrialisation. The cycle will eventually bring
prosperity to the country and we will all live happily ever after.
But if the recipe for economic revival were as simple as the lesson
learnt by our rulers, poverty would have been wiped off the face of
this earth decades ago.
The fact remains that 9/11 saved our skin but only for now. Defense
expenditures, debt servicing, government subsidies to inefficient
public corporations and administration expenses on the bureaucracy
take up most of the budget, leaving very little for ordinary people.
But while banks are flush with money, there are few borrowers for
productive investment purposes. The money brought in by frightened
Pakistanis abroad is mobile and could move out as soon as safer
havens are relocated abroad. A state of uncertainty, both political
and economic, gives no reason for optimism.
On the other side of the fence are the mullahs, who have used this
opportunity to promote their own agenda. The "LFO shell-FO", as
described by General Musharraf, is only a political gimmick for the
mullahs. They are willing to swallow it all without a belch as long
as they get their own political and religious space for mischief. And
by sidelining all political forces, GHQ has left the field open for
the mullahs. Gen Ziaul Haq had already promoted them in every sphere
of life, enabling them to dig their heels deep into every institution
of state and society. A revival of democracy was a setback to them.
Post-9/11, they were momentarily demoralised but soon bounced back as
a countervailing force to the politicians. Political parties are
desperate and beholden either to the military or to the mullah. On
their own they are unable to either muster street power or seize
power.
The LFO remains a bone of contention only in theory. Courts find no
fault with it. Recent observations of the Lahore High Court make this
abundantly clear. Hence General Musharraf finds the entire debate on
LFO "unimportant". But of course it appears important enough to him
to ensure its life. The government has worked behind the scenes to
divide the lawyers and the mullahs. Gradually the religious parties
are beginning to tone down. They are willing to bargain for a price.
The army too is ready for a compromise but wants to negotiate the
terms.
They are like the only two passengers in the van - one wants the
window closed as fresh air is fatal for him and the other wants to
open it wide as he perpetually suffers from suffocation. The others
in Pakistan are the helpless bystanders who are hoping that the
window opens wide enough for the one to catch the fatal cold and then
be closed for the other to suffocate.
Asma Jahangir is a human rights activist and former chairperson of
the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
o o o
=46inancial Times (UK) June 18 2003
Military man with a political mission
General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, spoke to Victor
Mallet, Daniel Bogler and John Thornhill in London on June 18. The
following is an edited transcript of the interview.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=3DFT.com/StoryFT/FullStory=
&c=3DStoryFT&cid=3D1054966226786
______
#2.
The murder of Thambirajah Subathiran: An assault on democratic culture
We strongly condemn the assassination of Mr. Thambirajah Subathiran (known
as Robert) on Saturday, June 14th at 6:15 am at the party office of the
EPRLF (Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front) in Jaffna. Reports
indicate that he was gunned down by sniper fire.
This murder of a Tamil political leader comes off as part of a systematic
effort to eliminate perceived and real political opposition to the LTTE in
the North and East. Mr. Subathiran's assassination is one among numerous
recent murders of sympathizers of Tamil political parties, Tamil army
personnel and former LTTE members. While the LTTE has not owned up to any of
these murders, it should be noted that all those murdered were seen as
opposed to the LTTE's claim as sole and authentic representatives of the
Tamil people. Furthermore, the LTTE has a history of eliminating democratic
voices during "peace times". It is shameful that sections of the Tamil media
have been justifying these murders with the use of language such as
"informants" and "traitors". We condemn any such characterization and we see
such naming as complicit with these human rights violations.
Mr. Subathiran's murder is significant since he was one of the leaders of a
political party committed to the democratic process and opposed to the LTTE.
We remember his contribution to building a Tamil democratic alternative to a
Tamil political culture infested with violence. Needless to say, these
murders of political opponents continue to undermine the very freedom for
which many have given their lives. Yet, rather than be paralyzed by that
loss, we honor their lives and keep alive our aspirations towards freedom by
opposing repression. We appeal to the other Tamil political formations, the
democratic parties in the South and the international community to respect
the political rights of the Tamil people and to protect alternative
political voices in the North and East.
Mr. Subathiran, originally from Chavakacheri and co-founder of the EPRLF,
was a committed activist in the struggles of the Tamil peoples against state
repression and institutionalized discrimination. A socialist and a humanist,
in addition to fighting for the rights of Tamils, he was firmly committed to
fighting caste oppression and class exploitation and to sustaining a
democratic politics. He was a member of the Jaffna Municipal Council, one of
the few elected bodies that have resisted a politics based on threats and
violence. Carrying through his responsibility as an elected official, his
perseverance led to statements by the multi-party Municipal Council opposing
the arbitrary taxation by the LTTE and the rhetoric of the LTTE as sole
representative of the Tamil people. He worked ardently as one of four
members on a committee to rebuild the Jaffna Public Library. All members of
the Jaffna Municipal Council unanimously resigned when they were forced to
retreat from opening the library due to threats by the LTTE. Despite the
limited powers enjoyed by the Jaffna Municipal Council and the politics of
intimidation by the LTTE, he worked tirelessly on meeting the day-to-day
needs of the people. Such acts of courage, resilience and resistance are
rare in a political space that is dominated by the power of the gun and
threats of violence.
Ironically, Mr. Subathiran himself had issued a statement a week before his
own murder, condemning the murder of two of his fellow political activists
saying, "The cowardly leaders and misguided hit men of the LTTE have neither
the ability nor the courage to engage in political debate with the
democratic political organizations of the Tamils."
This is not only the murder of a Tamil political leader, but also a grave
violation of the political rights of the people of the North and East, and
an assault on the hope for a democratic culture in Tamil politics. We refuse
to be silenced by such assassinations and affirm our commitment to
constructing a pluralist democratic political culture.
Our condolences go out to Mr. Subathiran's mother, relatives and his many
comrades.
Signed:
K Thambiah UK
G.D. Anandarajan Australia
S Pushparajah France
Pararajasingam Germany
Logathas Aarumugam Switzerland
Vasuki Nesiah USA
Sam Rajendran Canada
B. Balasooriyan The Netherlands
Anthony Nimal Norway
Seyed Bazeer UK
Ashok Yogan Kannamuthu France
Shanmugalingam Ponnampalam Canada
Dayapala Thiranagama UK
Noel Nadesan Australia
Ahilan Christy Canada
Aidrian Conzales UK
Chinthan de Silva UK
Chithra Conzales UK
Christian Denzil Canada
Erol Judickson Canada
Gayathri Judickson Canada
Jeyasri Davidson Canada
Leenas Gilbert Germany
Livinson Feelix UK
Ramachchandran K. Germany
Ranjith de Mel Germany
Rengan Devarajan UK
S. Balachandran UK
Sarbjit Johal UK
Savi Hensman UK
Shanthakumari Jegatharan Germany
Shanthi Denzil Canada
Subathra Christy Canada
Sujevan Christy Canada
Thambu Gajan Canada
Thevakanthasarma Jegatheeswarasarma Germany
Thuraiappa Baskaran Canada
Upali Cooray UK
V. Alagalingam Germany
Ahilan Kadirgamar USA
Saraswathy Kanagaratnam Canada
Sivakumar Kanakaratnam Germany
Ramanitharan Kandaiya Germany
Kathiresan Kathirananth Norway
Dusyananthan Kathiravelpillai UK
Kopithan Kulanathan Germany
Maniloginy Kulanathan Germany
Aaron Moore USA
Ajantha Sebastian Norway
Anton Mariampillai Canada
Arulneson Mudiappu Canada
Arunthavam R. Germany
Boniface Rayappu Norway
Chinniah Rajeshkumar UK
Davidson Mudiappu Canada
Jegatharan Parameswaran Germany
Jeyakanthan S. Germany
Jeyasingam Shanmugananthan Germany
Kamaladevi Padmanathan Germany
Kanthi Shaseetharan UK
Kevin Shimmin Canada
Kulanathan Nadarajah Germany
Kulanthaivelu Mahenthiran Canada
Monica Mudiappu Canada
Mouli Mahenthiran Canada
P. Mallika Germany
Pathmanathan Nadarajah Germany
Ram Manikkalingam USA
Srimathy Mudiappu Canada
Suseeyananthan Nadarajah Germany
Thas Mahenthiran Canada
Thavarajah Nadarajah Canada
Thayaparan Manicam Germany
Nevile Perera Germany
Nirmala Rajasingam UK
Pathmanathan Simon Norway
A. Ragulan France
A. Sathiamoorthy Germany
Amrit Wilson UK
Asokan Thamby Canada
B. Skanthakumar UK
Bala Sinnathamby Canada
Banumathy Vimalraj Norway
C. Navajothy Germany
C. Sivakumaran Germany
K. Chandran Germany
Pon Suresh Canada
Rajeswary Shanmugalingam Canada
Ramasamy Nesan Canada
Ravithas Nallaiya UK
S. Jeyaruby Germany
S. Kanakaratnam Germany
S. Nanthikesan USA
S. Ranjan Switzerland
Santhan Sundareson Canada
Sara Ponnampalam Canada
Sarathkumar Shanmugam Norway
Saravanan Padmanathan Norway
Selliah Nagarajah Australia
T. Muraleekaran France
T. Navaratnam Switzerland
T. Sivapalan Germany
Thuraivan Sivalingam UK
U. Sasikala Germany
Vanee Padmanathan Germany
Vimalraj Simon Norway
W. Mary Germany
Y. Ann Sunithra France
Yoganathan Puthra Germany
Sarves The Netherlands
Kalpana Wilson UK
Kanagaratnam Varma Canada
Murali Thamby Canada
Murally Germany
Nadaraja Suseeindiran Germany
Nadarajamoorthy Tharmakulasingam Germany
Pon Suthagar Canada
Putra Yoganathan Germany
R. Uthayakumar Germany
Rajeswaran Thirunavukkarasu Germany
Ratnam Yarl Canada
S. Tharmi Germany
S. Wijayakumar Germany
Santhush Germany
Sebastian Thomas Norway
Selliah Tharmarajah Canada
Sivalingam Visvalingam UK
Tharuniya Thampippillai Germany
Uma Germany
[ Contact: tamildemocracy@yahoo.com ]
______
#3.
The News International, June 19, 2003
Using human beings as cannon fodder
Praful Bidwai
The proposal to despatch Indian troops to Iraq under the general
command of the United States military has ballooned into a first-rate
political controversy in the country. Going by the mood of a
well-attended public meeting in New Delhi on Monday -- the very day a
Pentagon team met senior Indian officials at President Bush's behest
--, there will be fierce opposition to any military collaboration
with the occupation forces in Iraq. There may be a lesson in this for
Pakistan, which too is considering sending troops to Iraq.
Ironically, if India and Pakistan decide to collaborate militarily
with the US in Iraq, each with a view to outmanoeuvring the other,
they will end up grievously hurting and victimising themselves!
The Indian government has gone to fairly great lengths towards
agreeing on military collaboration with Washington in Iraq since
discussions began on the issue in early May. It is now looking for a
fig leaf in the form of United Nations authorisation so that Indian
troops do not overtly operate under US command and salute the
American flag, but seemingly work within a multilateral framework.
It is unclear, though not impossible, if such authorisation can come
about via manipulation of the UN Security Council. But it is clear
that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government is being devious. It
is presenting the despatch of troops to Iraq as if it were some kind
of seamless continuation of the "peace-keeping" operations that India
has undertaken under UN auspices for decades. This is totally untrue.
The government is also substituting issues of secondary importance --
who would command Indian troops, how long they would stay, what
arrangements America has for eventually transferring power to Iraqis,
etc -- for the primary question: should troops ever be sent to
legitimise and assist an unjust and illegal occupation?
The government is playing down the fact that the US is pressing it to
send about 17,000 soldiers, which is nearly six times higher than the
number of troops committed by any of America's close military
partners (barring Britain) who supported the war. The maximum number
of soldiers promised by such allies is 3,000 (Italy), followed by
Spain and Poland (2,300 each).
So India is being asked to prove it is more loyal than the US's own
military partners. If the plan goes through, India will have the
second highest number of occupying soldiers in Iraq -- making it the
US's principal military partner there. India is politically useful
too. It enjoys a fair amount of goodwill in the Arab world because of
its past as a Non-Aligned Movement leader and supporter of Arab
nationalism.
America will use Indian troops as cheap cannon fodder. Even if it
"compensates" them (eventually and indirectly) at the same rate as
United Nations peacekeepers (about $1,000 pm per head), that'll cost
America five percent of what it spends on every US soldier abroad. Of
course, it would be unacceptably embarrassing for New Delhi to accept
payment from the US and risk Indian troops being branded as
mercenaries.
There is no reason why a single Indian soldier should shed blood in
support of US interests in Iraq. Indian troops aren't being invited
to "keep" or "enforce" peace. They are being asked to impose law and
(despotic) order on behalf of the occupation powers -- not in some
neutral manner, but in ways that suit those powers' interests. This
will inevitably bring them into hostile confrontation with Iraqi
civilians as they resist what they regard as their country's unjust
occupation.
The Indian troops will also be exposed to highly toxic materials like
depleted uranium, believed to have caused the "Gulf War syndrome"
among US troops since 1991.
The critical point here is simple: a military occupation, which is
itself the result of an unwarranted, unjust and illegal war, cannot
be just and legal. India rightly criticised the war through a
unanimous Parliament resolution. The criticism's rationale was that
an invasion of Iraq wouldn't be justified. There was no conclusive
evidence that Iraq had operational, deliverable, weapons of mass
destruction. Its WMD programme didn't pose a credible threat to its
neighbours, leave alone to the US. Further UN inspections could have
detected and dismantled its WMD programme, as chief inspector Hans
Blix pleaded.
A secondary point was that the US and UK bypassed the Security
Council and violated the UN Charter by unilaterally invading Iraq.
More substantively, the invasion breached every criterion of "just
war", including military necessity, non-combatant immunity,
proportionality in the use of force, etc. This rationale cannot be
negated even if the UN Security Council passes, under US pressure, a
resolution specifically requesting UN member-states to deploy troops
in Iraq along the lines of the International Security Assistance
=46orce in Afghanistan.
Yet, many within the Vajpayee government, backed by America's
apologists in the media and the foreign policy establishment, are
determined to put India on this disastrous course. They fall into
three groups.
The first group holds that in today's unipolar world, Indian and US
interests largely coincide. The two have an equal stake in putting
down "Axis of Evil" states; close collaboration including sharing of
military bases is necessary. Sending troops to Iraq is a "test":
rather than whine about hegemonism and an unequal world, and futilely
plead for multilateralism, can India "dare" show the world that it is
a major US ally and a Great Power?
The second group is obsessed with business. It believes that sending
troops to Iraq is fine so long as the US doles out generous
reconstruction contracts to India. It bandies about spectacular
figures for reconstruction programmes like $200 billion, even $500
billion, with big individual contracts in the tens of billions.
This is pure hype. The highest contract given out so far is $680
million (Bechtel). Huge contracts won't materialise unless the
Americans can pump much more oil out of Iraq. This seems virtually
impossible for a couple of years -- and dicey even later. In any
case, big contracts will first go to US giants like Halliburton and
Bechtel, and then to British firms, leaving small crumbs for bit
players like India.
The third group believes in what may be called the Advani Line:
troops despatch in exchange for a US promise to pressure Pakistan to
end its support to "cross-border terrorism". This ignores US
priorities. To smash the al-Qaeda network, America needs Pakistan as
an ally. This limits the pressure it can put on Islamabad. Besides,
it poses ticklish issues of inspection and verification.
And what if Pakistan too offers to send troops to Iraq -- as Gen
Musharraf declared he would do, on June 12? This will neutralise such
diplomatic "advantage" as India might gain.
This approach is based on trading sovereignty and policy independence
for US favours -- an idea repugnant to any self-respecting state.
This means there will be little Indian resistance to US plans for an
Empire.
The argument applies a fortiori to Pakistan, where there will be
strong popular opposition to sending troops to Iraq. It would be
suicidal for both countries to try to build "exclusive" military
alliances with the US at each other's expense and escalate their own
mutual rivalry in the process.
o o o
The Hindu, June 19, 2003
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/06/19/stories/2003061904541100.htm
Indian troops for Iraq?
By I.K. Gujral
I appreciate the Prime Minister's search for a national consensus on
the response India should give to Washington's request for deputing
Indian troops to be sent to Iraq under American occupation. Happily
the debate is not confined to the political parties, it involves the
NGOs, intelligentsia and lay citizens. This is a sign of the good
health of our democratic polity that such vital issues are not
entirely left to the governments. Of course, the final word will rest
with the Government. But this, I hope, will not be contrary to the
public opinion.
=46or a proper and meaningful national debate, there should be
conceptual clarity. Some interlocutors have suggested that Indian
troops may go to Iraq as peacekeepers. In the classical sense,
peacekeeping implies the insertion of alien army units between two
clashing groups of a country that may agree to stop fighting.
Obviously, that is not the case in Iraq. It is argued that Indian
troops will form part of the `stabilisation' force. Here again, there
is some confusion. `Stabilisation' of what? Of occupation? The fact
of the matter is that Iraq is under Anglo-American occupation and the
people of Iraq have not accepted it. Nor is there an influential
Iraqi elite able or willing to `collaborate' with the occupiers as
was the case in Vichy France during the German occupation of France.
Therefore, the purpose of sending Indian troops to Iraq, if at all,
will be to assist the Pentagon in maintaining the occupation. As
occupation was begotten by aggression, assisting in the occupation is
tantamount to endorsing the aggression.
We may also understand why mighty America is asking for our
assistance. The felling of the Saddam Hussein regime was the easier
part. The Pentagon is eminently qualified to undertake such tasks. To
pacify and to administer Iraq is not a task America is particularly
competent to undertake. As of now, the situation in Iraq is fast
deteriorating. The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (The
ICG) has a credible team of observers in Iraq. They found that
"Baghdad is a city in distress, chaos and ferment. It is on issues
Baghdadis care about most - security and welfare - that the occupying
forces have done the least". In order to facilitate a national debate
with a proper knowledge base, the Government of India should come out
with a paper on its own assessment of the situation in Iraq, the
progress or lack thereof towards the creation of an interim Iraqi
authority and related matters. Our political parties do not have
access to reliable information on what is happening in Iraq.
Some interlocutors have argued that we should send our troops so that
we might get contracts as part of the reconstruction of Iraq. Such
`contractomania' has assumed even illogical proportions. Recently,
the media reported that the FICCI's estimate was that over a period
of eight years the reconstruction package would amount to $500
billion. MEES (the Middle East Economic Survey) and others
knowledgeable about Iraq have estimated that if everything goes well
in the next five years, Iraq will have about $100 billion from oil
exports. Obviously, not the whole amount can be set apart for
reconstruction contracts. More than half the amount will be required
for import of food and other essential materials, not to speak of the
investment required to restore the oil industry.
In any case, there is something un-Indian and undignified in becoming
a subcontractor to the Pentagon in order to become a subcontractor to
American multinationals. Our decision must never smack of
`mercenaryism'.
It has been argued by some that if there were a U.N. cover, it would
be perfectly in order for India to send troops to Iraq. The argument
is not flawless. The fact of the matter is that under Security
Council Resolution 1483, all personnel sent by governments such as
India that are not part of the occupying powers will, all the same,
be under the authority of the occupying powers. Washington might
agree to some cosmetic arrangements by dividing Iraq into various
zones under the control of Indians, Poles and others. But such
cosmetic operations would not dodge the underlying reality.
Some with influence in the corridors of power argue that we should
send our troops to Iraq as a quid pro quo to America's pressure on
Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism and even come to a settlement
on the question of Kashmir. The argument is extended further to say
that by sending troops to Iraq India would be enhancing its
credentials to be a permanent member of the Security Council. Such
illusions need careful examination. First, it is rather na=EFve to
expect America to make a radical change in its policy towards
Pakistan for the sake of getting some battalions of Indian troops to
Iraq. The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, will be George Bush's
guest at Camp David next week. It is possible that they might agree
to enact a drama and make noises giving the impression that as a
result of American pressure Pakistan will cease to promote
cross-border terrorism. Having watched Musharraf's recent TV
interview, it would be credulous on our part to be taken in for such
a ride. In any case, the question whether Indian troops should be
sent to Iraq or not should be examined on its own merits.
A fact of history may be worth recalling. The British rulers had sent
Indian troops to Iraq after the first great war to suppress a widely
spread Iraqi revolt there. It ultimately ended in the Baathist
revolution and dethroning of an imposed King and emergence of Saddam
Hussein.
It is now becoming clear that ill-perceived American plans for Iraq
may end in dismay. This seems to be the assessment of many world
powers. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igov Ivanov, was in Delhi this
week. As a friendly power, he has advised his interlocutors here to
be cautious since within six preceding weeks the U.S. policy
objectives have changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation
Desert Scorpion" that has unleashed a reign of terror on Shias and
Sunnis alike. The Christian Science Monitor says, "The U.S. Army has
changed from being a liberator to an offensive occupier... "
According to the Lexington Institute of Washington, the situation has
taken this ugly turn because "we have been operating on two
assumptions: that once the war was over the Iraqis would rapidly move
into peaceful mode; and second, that there would be a new political
and economic spirit in the country. We discovered neither of these
assumptions is true".
It should be clear to our policy makers that the neo-conservatives'
agenda is eager to expand the `war on terrorism in various directions
that may drag us along unless we are careful.
In my childhood at the end of the first great war, I had heard a
Punjabi folk song: "Darling please don't go to Basra, let us live
happily at home."
o o o
[ June 16, 2003]
INDIAN SOLDIER IN BAGHDAD
by N.D.Pancholi
'Bhartiya Sainik' (Indian soldier) in Baghdad must appear to be
a fascinating idea to the BJP and other members of the Sangh Parivar,
especially to Mr. Advani. After all, they were the Caliphs of
Baghdad who had played major role in the spread of Islam -the
bete-noire of the Sangh Pariwar. The presence of Indian soldier, in
the company of the victorious American & British soldier, may
compensate them for the sense of humiliation and dejection which they
daily feel about the centuries old Muslim invasion of India.
The values of modern civilization i.e. liberty, equality,
fraternity and democracy owes their origin to the period of
Renaissance in the history of Europe. The rich spiritual legacy of
the glorious civilization of ancient Greece was almost buried under
the dreary ruins of the Roman Empire and lost in the darkness of
Christian superstition. The grand mission of rescuing the invaludable
patrimony, and preserving it for the humanity, which eventually
enabled the peoples of Europe to emerge from the depressing gloom of
the holy middle ages and build the marvellous monument of modern
civilisation, belonged to the Sarcens, especially the Abbasids of
Baghdad, the longest ruling dynasty in the history of Islam. In this
context M.N.Roy, in his book 'Historical Role of Islam'(1939), wrote
: "Learning from Muslims, Europe became the leader of modern
civilisation. Even today, her best sons are not ashamed of the past
indebtedness."
It is ironical that this past indebtedness was repaid recently by
the US and British soldiers by burning the Central Library of Baghdad
which housed precious ancient and medieval literature ,besides
perpetrating other war crimes during the present war on Iraq.
Now the US has requested India to assist it by sending Indian
troops to Iraq. It cannot be believed that this offer could have been
issued by the US without prior consultation with Indian leaders.
Though the ruling alliance appears to be charmed by this offer, they
seem to be reluctant to express their wholehearted acceptance in open
for fear of the possible public outcry.
After having passed a unanimous resolution in Indian Parliament
calling for withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq, and keeping
in view the clear-cut proof that the present war against Iraq was
totally unjust, arbitrary, and was in violations of the international
law and international institutions, the Indian government should have
straight away replied with a polite but firm 'NO'. But the temptation
to be a partner of a Great Power in its 'Crusades' is keeping the
ruling Indian alliance spellbound. Hence their efforts to materialise
their dreams by building up a national consensus.
The main opposition party, the Congress, is taking shelter under
the principle of the 'UN Mandate' i.e. that the troops can be
deployed only under the UN Mandate.
However, the issue is not whether the troops should be sent
under UN Mandate or without it. The issue is whether in the given
situation, the sending of Indian troops is consistent with the
principles of peace, justice and international law as well as in
accordance with the Indian Constitution. The US had no right to start
Iraq war in utter disregard of the UN Charter. Only the Security
Council was competent to take a decision with respect to Iraq for any
kind of preventive or enforcement action.
Article 51 of the Indian Constitution provides guidelines with
respect to the kind of foreign policy to be followed. It states,"
State shall endeavour to (a) promote international peace and
security;(b) maintain just and honourable relations between
nations;(c) foster respect for international law and treaty
obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another; and
(d) encourage settlement of internation disputes by arbitration.
The sending of Indian troops to Iraq will not be in consonance
with any of the aforesaid mandates of the Indian Constitution. It
will in fact be their betrayel.The strategem of evolving the socalled
national consensus, whether under UN Mandate or without it, will be
only a ruse to deceive the people. No amount of consensus over the
issue can provide legal cover to a totally unjust, immoral and
illegal offer. It must be rejected outright.
______
#4.
Sify News, 18 June , 2003
Ideological twins: The far right in Europe and the BJP
By Veerappa Moily, Former Chief Minister of Karnataka
The murder of one Pim Fortuyn, leader of 'List Fortuyn' and the
movement for 'Habitable Holland, at Rotterdam, Holland in May 2002,
gave rise to the new populist 'right', which shocked Europe's
political elite out of its complacency.
Days after Pim Fortuyn was gunned down, his 3-month-old right wing
party scored a major triumph in the Dutch polls to become the second
largest party in parliament.
He was considered to be part of a new populist ultra-right movement
spouting all over Europe. In France, there is Le Pen and the Front
National; in Italy, the Alleanza Nazionale. In Belgium there is
Vlaams Blok and in Germany the 'Party of the Rule-of-Law Offensive',
led by Ronald Schill. In Austria, Jorg Haider's Freedom Party, like
the Alleanza in Italy, shares government power.
In Denmark, Pia Kjaersgaard's Danske Folkeparti holds the
parliamentary balance, while in Norway, the Progress Party under Carl
Ivar Hagen won over 15 per cent of the vote in 1997. The Swiss
'center Democratic Union', under Christoph Blocher, won 22.6 percent
of the vote in 1999. In England, the BNP is emerging and won a few
seats in the local elections in May 2002.
The people considered this as the first phase, the formulation of
embryo of a new European fascism. These groups stated to have been
emerging after the end of the Cold War, new populism is said to have
emerged from the following factors.
A. International chaos and insecurity;
B. Population movement;
C. Global Free Trade;
The reason for the rising of such 'ultra-right' parties is due to the
deep concern about what they see as a flood of immigrants crowding
their country. Consequently the people feel alienated either because
they belong to a immigrant minority or because they are living
alongside an immigrant minority which they identify, wrongly, with
increased crime and social problems.
Every country should heal the sense of alienation, because any vacuum
left will make the problem too complex to resolve. A country's vision
should be shared by a common understanding of the future. The
nostalgic viewing of the past will pull down the country at any stage.
India is now becoming part of the web of communal and alienation
chord of the international politics. There is a striking similarity
in the platform's used by the 'Far Right' parties of Europe and the
BJP and in its pattern of growth. The BJP started off its first phase
by securing two seats in parliament and they have now reached the II
phase by capturing power in the center through a makeshift
arrangement.
Having marched faster than 'Far Right' of Europe, the BJP is not
making any efforts to comform to the democratic ethos enshrined in
the Indian Constitution even after capturing power. Even though the
Constitution of India has, for decades, held on to the secular
framework, it is becoming weak with the political defenders of
secularism seeking the politics of expediency.
Except Indian National Congress or Communist Parties of the country,
national parties, for one reason or other have taken shelter under
the larger umbrella of communal politics. Whether it is Ayodhya issue
or Gujarat issue, the fabric of secularism is eroded. Gujarat is the
real climax wherein the State has reached the level of arbitrariness
and partisanship and the civil administration has become so incapable
of protecting the rights of ordinary citizens.
India should restore its history of being a nation that offers the
highest form of security to all sections of people. In the early
years after independence, secular ethos of national struggle
continued despite the traumatic experience of partition. Accounting
for 82% of the India's population in the early decades, the Hindus
could have established Hindu Raj. But the entire approach and
thinking moulded by Gandhiji was not to mix religion with politics or
state.
He said "Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in
politics". Because of such liberal policy on secularism nurtured by
Jawaharlal Nehru and many other leaders, the time-tested pluralism
was woven into the warp and weft of Indian society. But after 1977,
when the so called secular and communal political parties except
Indian National Congress and Communists joined hands with political
expediency against one political leader Indira Gandhi, the frame work
was sought to be destroyed and the principle of equality between
Hindus, Muslims and many other communities who have lived side by
side in villages for centuries was put into the cauldron of
communalism.
The political divide created by any one community and stubborn
refusal to protect the life, property and dignity of its citizens and
the State government's efforts to cover up its complicity in the
violence will get sharpened and result in a deadly blend of abrasive
Nationalism, Militarism and anti-minoritism. Gujarat event is only a
sample for the things to come in the future.
The recent appointment of Governors and Chief Ministers came as a
result of the RSS resolution on minorities stating that the
minorities especially the Muslims "safety depends on the goodwill of
the 'majority' community", served as a veiled threat. They forget for
a while that these rights accorded to the Muslim and other minorities
in Indian Constitution are in no way conditional on goodwill of any
community. These rights are absolute in safe sense of the word. There
is a trend to combine the issue of religious majority and religious
minority with the concept of political majority and political
minority.
Having rejected a separate electorate for the same reason, the same
concept was sought to be brought from hind doors, which has to be
taken seriously by any thinking public of India.
With the kind of pro-active global new fascist environment throwing
up new challenges and the stern warnings from every part of the
globe, the country may have to be guarded to keep its head above
shoulders on a matter of communal volcano.
We cannot allow our democracy to divide on account of caste, religion
and language to destroy our democratic ethos. Unless these demonic
manifestations are buried in the country, India will be one such
country wherein the time tested civilization may be swept away.
Tyranny of majority or the tyranny of minority may have to be halted
in India for our nation to survive. We cannot remain as one country
if a highly communalised citizenry takes the law into their own hands
or if the State machinery is converted into an instrument of tyranny.
The revolution of the rising frustration resulting in such upsurge,
which is seen in the surface of the globe, requires immediate
attention. The mutual hatred among the race, communities, castes may
ultimately engulf world civilization into a deluge. India with its
great heritage of tolerance may have to open up its heart with
sanctity and purity to the entire globe as the inspiring sentinel to
herald a new era to resolve this psychological crisis. But with the
kind of act of barbarism, which is often found in the soil of Gujarat
or UP, even the flickering light of civilization is being dimmed.
The lesson of history is that the unity of India is not a modern
exotic growth but one which is evolved by ancient, deep and profound
conception of sentiments to exigency of situation between extremely
differing goals, but reared on the same foundation. This kind of
foundation can be resurrected or preserved not merely by
constitutional change, but psychological one with political realism.
_____
#5.
rediff.com, June 18, 2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jun/18iype.htm
UGC steps up the heat on historian Panikkar
George Iype in Kochi
The University Grants Commission seems to be in agreement with
various Sangh Parivar outfits demanding the ouster of noted historian
Dr K N Panikkar as the vice-chancellor of the Sree Shankaracharya
University of Sanskrit in Kalady, Kerala.
A UGC sub-committee, which studied the functioning of the country's
premier centre for Sanskrit studies, has recommended that only
Sanskrit scholars be appointed as the vice-chancellor of the
university.
But Dr Panikkar told rediff.com that the UGC sub-committee does not
have any such authority. "Knowledge of Sanskrit is not essential to
run a university," he said. "The role of the sub-committee was to
look into the functioning of the infrastructure and academic
facilities of the university."
Dr Panikkar added that he has not yet got any intimation from the UGC
on the matter.
The university, located at the birthplace of Jagadguru Adi Sankara,
is the country's biggest learning centre imparting higher education
in Sanskrit, Indology, Indian philosophy and Indian languages.
The previous Left Democratic Front government in Kerala, two years
ago, had appointed Dr Panikkar, one of the leading Marxist historians
in the country, as the head of the university.
A number of Sangh Parivar organisations had then objected to Dr
Panikkar's appointment arguing that he is not fit to be the vice
chancellor, as he does not have any knowledge of Sanskrit.
But despite opposition from the Sangh Parivar, Dr Panikkar has
continued as the vice-chancellor.
Last year, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had petitioned the Kerala
government to remove Dr Panikkar.
The VHP alleges that Dr Panikkar does not have any respect for the
culture of Sanskrit.
The UGC is yet to give official approval to the university. The
recommendations of the sub-committee are said to be crucial in the
granting of a full-fledged university status to the institution.
The committee has made various recommendations, including a
suggestion that only students with basic knowledge of Sanskrit be
admitted for the various courses in the university.
_____
#6.
Mid-Day (Bombay)
June 18, 2003
The (re)name game
By: Anil Dharker
If you want to take something to its absurd conclusion, this must be
it: the Nationalist Congress Party wants to rename the Gateway of
India. Sharad Pawar's break-away Congress, has sent off a letter to
Maharashtra's governor on this.
"The state government," the letter bellows, "must wipe out insulting
memories of the British era and honour the Maratha king who pioneered
the formation of Maharashtra=8A"
Since the letter wasn't written on April 1, and also since political
parties are not known for their sense of humour, we must take this
proposal with the seriousness it doesn't deserve.
If you really want to look at everything in the perspective of the
letter, viz "wipe out insulting memories of the British era", then
surely renaming isn't enough?
The only way, the only real way, is to wipe out the thing itself as
the Taliban did with the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan and the Shiv
Sena/VHP/Bajrang Dal did with Babri Masjid.
You could set up a national committee, draw up a list of monuments
which insult us, and tear them down. In their place we could then put
up statues of the current PM Number One or the local Patriot Number
One. And tiring of that, construct gleaming skyscrapers made of steel
and glass.
There may not be too much patriotism in the latter, but there sure is
a lot of money. We will then have very little of the shameful past
with us.
The only problem with that is that we will have virtually no past
left to us at all. We will have one of the world's most ancient
civilisations without any indication of its history or its heritage
or its heterogeneous culture.
We will have a very large history book from which a particularly
severe censor will have blacked out chapter after chapter so that we
will have a history and a heritage and a culture which is
uni-dimensional and bland. And completely untrue to what we are as a
nation.
Go to a place like Vienna in Austria. By most accounts, it is one of
the best wonderful cities in the world.
Round any corner and you will see the most wonderful buildings placed
in the most elegant of squares, each of which date back to a
particular era in the city's history.
As with old buildings built on the grand scale, there is a lot of
statuary around, some of it purely decorative, but much of it
commemorative. And what they commemorate is the city's past, when
different empires ruled at different times in the past.
What you see through all this is the incredible kaleidoscope of
history, and the imprint of different dynasties.
You see the impact of a medley of cultures, the influence (and the
occasional confluence) of variegated traditions. You see, in short,
history. History in all its splendour and variety.
The inhabitants of Vienna - or more pertinently, the politicians of
Austria - aren't ashamed of this or that aspect of their city.
They are more mature about these things: they know that history
happens. It happens to all of us, and we are all products of history.
In our super-patriotism - or more pertinently, the super-patriotism
of our politicians - we are wiping out our history. When the Sena
government named Sahar as the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
International Airport, the rot began.
I am second to none in my admiration for Shivaji; I have been brought
up - as most of us in Maharashtra were brought up - on stories of his
bravery, his battlefield exploits and the brilliance of his battle
strategies.
But he had nothing to do with aviation, having been born well before
the time of flying. So why call Sahar after him? Wouldn't JRD Tata
have been more appropriate?
=46rom then on, absurdity upon absurdity has followed, with the
Congress party joining in a game of competitive super-patriotism. So
the Prince of Wales Museum became Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu
Sangrahalaya, Victoria Terminus became Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.
And if the NCP, not wishing to be left out has its way, the Gateway
of India will also become a Shivaji monument. Since this particular
edifice isn't even named after a colonial, the name change makes no
sense. But, then, which politician makes any sense?
There are proposals to call the J J flyover after the Sufi saint
Khwaja Monuddin Chisti or Dhirubhai Ambani. Murli Manohar Joshi has
decided to name the Indian Institute of Information Technology and
Management (IIITM) after Atal Behari Vajpayee (who neither started
it, studied in it or taught in it). In Uttar Pradesh, in the
meantime, Mayawati is on a name changing spree, because of which
Amethi will soon be called Shahuji Maharaj Nagari=8A.
Where will it stop? Should we change the name of every city and
state? Should Mumbai become Shivaji Nagar and Kolkata Bose Nagar?
Chennai can become Anna Nagar and Delhi Indira Gandhi Nagari. Soon
only India will remain India. And then super-patriots can work on
that too.
______
#7.
India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 121
19 June 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/132
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
--