SACW | 25 June, 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  25 June,  2003

[ E-Mailings for Peace, Democracy and Secularism from South Asia 
Citizens Web and South Asians Against Nukes completed their 5th 
anniversary on the 9th of June 2003. Thank you all for keeping tuned 
and for your encouragement to somehow keep this artisanal effort 
going. Cheers, HK. ]


#1. Sri Lanka: Women and case of Thesawalamai  (Cat's Eye)
#2. India-Pakistan: The Odd Couple (Hasan Zaidi)
#3. India: Religion and Communalism (Asghar Ali Engineer)
#4. Bush Ignores India's Pogrom (Amitabh Pal)
#5. South Asia special issue of GBER - Global Built Environment Review
#6. India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) No. 122
#7. India: Sign on Statement on Gandhian Institute

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

#1.

The Island (Sri Lanka)
25 June 2003

Cat's Eye
Women and case of Thesawalamai

Although women have become increasingly successful in creating space 
for themselves within the very masculine domain of law, it has to be 
acknowledged that their engagement with the law is vastly different 
to that of men. This is due to the fact that the law and legal 
processes are based on male norms and experiences and therefore tend 
to be exclusionary. Law also often validates the dominant discourse 
and silences alternate voices. Nivedita Menon states that "the very 
dynamic of law tends towards the fixing and universalizing of 
identity" whereby the legal discourse erases the particuliarities, 
ambiguities and contexuality. It would be useful to examine the ideal 
or typical citizen as envisaged by the law as it will enable us to 
understand why women amongst other groups are marginalized.

Who is the object of the law? Who is the "ideal citizen" envisaged by 
the law? The ideal is the Enlightenment man. Feminists put forward 
different reasons as to why the male body was chosen. Menon believes 
that it was due to the fact that the bodies of men were seen as 
"clearly bounded and solid", whereas female bodies were viewed as 
being "disorderly and penetrable and subject to cyclical changes"; 
their bodily processes were messy and challenged the idea of the 
closed and controlled body surface; and through reproduction, were 
divisible, suggesting the unlimitability of their boundaries. Thus 
they could never be the rational, indivisible, unambiguous 
individuals." The qualities that are valued in the "ideal citizen" 
are qualities traditionally associated with men- "ideal male citizens 
were rational, independent, self-directed, autonomous and cultural, 
in dramatic contrast to the dependent, emotional, natural, passive 
female". This man then was the ideal, which the law viewed as the 
standard. Behaviour, thoughts and actions of all were measured using 
this man as the ideal.

This leads us to conclude that the law is gendered as it accepts the 
construct as given. This is not to say that women have had no role to 
play in the definition of the "ideal man". In their position as the 
aberration, the deviant, they play a crucial part in shaping the 
ideal citizen as envisaged by law. Ngaire Naffine points out that the 
"characterization of public man, as a self-possessed and 
self-possessing subject, demanded the suppression of the fact that 
woman necessarily defined him (by establishing the boundaries of his 
being, by supplying the unreason to his reason, the passive to his 
active) as much as he defined her." It is therefore evident that the 
oppression of women and their relegation to the private sphere also 
serves a primary purpose without which the "ideal man/citizen" would 
be non-existent. The woman plays a powerful role as the subjugated 
that actually has the power to subvert the power and dominance of the 
subjugator.

Radhika Coomaraswamy's analysis of the Rule of Law will assist us in 
understanding the relationship between men, women and the law. She 
states that, "the Rule of Law, despite its pretensions of objectivity 
and neutrality, is, in the final analysis, also a system of power. It 
includes and excludes people, it disciplines and punishes and it 
fosters certain values and attitudes encasing them in a belief that 
they are time-honoured and eternal." This analysis is useful in 
attempting to understand the position of women within the legal 
system. Women have always been relegated to the "private sphere", 
although now writers such as Engle contest this notion. They question 
why this sphere has been tagged as "private", a label, which they 
believe contributes to the marginalization of women. The relegation 
of women to this particular sphere which is thought to be outside 
legal regulation and separate and distinct from the sphere in which 
public life takes place (the public sphere) robs women of any power 
or influence they might have in the public sphere. Their lack of 
power then excludes them from the sphere in which law is made and 
lives are regulated. They are denied the right to even make decisions 
that affect their lives. This is well illustrated by the effect of 
the law on the lives of women.

This leads us to question women's engagement with the law and legal 
processes. As our above analysis has shown that the law views the 
woman as a weak object we should question whether women will be 
successful when they engage with the law in their own right with 
their distinctive qualities and differences being taken into account. 
This will be a difficult task, as when women attempt to undertake 
such a step they will lose their legal subjectivity. Naffine points 
out "women cannot be both distinctively women and legal subjects. For 
women to be recognized as women, they must relinquish their 
subjectivity and revert to their traditional status as man's other."

Thesawalamai and women

Thesawalamai can be used as an example to illustrate the 
disadvantages faced by women when they engage with the law, 
especially customary law. Thesawalamai is customary law that is 
applicable to the inhabitants of the Northern province as codified in 
the Thesawalamai and Matrimonial Rights & Inheritance Ordinance No.1 
of 1911 as amended by Ordinance No.58 of 1947. According to the above 
mentioned statutes if a woman to whom Thesawalamai applies marries a 
man to whom Thesawalamai does not apply then she shall not during the 
subsistence of the marriage be subject to Thesawalamai. However, if a 
woman to whom Thesawalamai does not apply marries a man to whom 
Thesawalamai does apply then she shall during the subsistence of the 
marriage be subject to Thesawalamai. The woman does not have absolute 
power of disposition of her immovable property but requires written 
consent from her husband. The woman then is not viewed as an 
individual by the law instead her legal status is tied to that of her 
spouse. This protective and paternalistic attitude clearly 
illustrates that in the eyes of the law the woman is incapable of 
making rational decisions about the disposition of her property.

If the husband's written consent is not forthcoming, section 8 allows 
the District Court in which the woman resides or in which the 
property to be alienated is situated, to dispose of or deal with such 
property without the husband's written consent, i.e. the Court 
supplies the consent required by section 6. This is done if it is 
deemed that the husband is unreasonably withholding consent or is 
unable to give consent and the interests of the wife and children of 
the marriage require that such consent should be dispensed with. The 
husband cannot validly give general consent for future disposition as 
it is deemed that it would amount to the release of his 
protectorship, the purpose of the provision. Does this mean that in 
cases where the husband has disappeared the women have to go to 
courts to dispose of their property?

Property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage from the 
profits of the spouses is thediathetam. It is property common to both 
spouses, i.e. they are co-owners.

Thediathetam consists of:

a) property acquired for valuable consideration by either husband or 
wife during the subsistence of the marriage, such consideration not 
forming or representing any part of the separate estate of spouses

b) profits arising during the subsistence of the marriage from the 
property of husband or wife (separate property)

The husband during the subsistence of the marriage remains the 
manager of the Thediathetam property. He is regarded as the sole and 
irremovable attorney of his wife- it is thought that the wife's 
persona "is merged with that of the husband's". The husband's power 
does not extend to donation but is limited to sale, mortgage or 
lease. This makes one wonder whether thediathetam should be viewed as 
common property if the wife does not have the power to deal or 
dispense? Sons inherited post-mortem, so if all daughters were 
already dowered the property of the deceased woman would revert to 
her parents and then to her brothers, i.e. the cheedenam, which was 
the sole property of the woman was diverted away from the female line 
to the male line.

These are but a few principles of Thesawalamai law that openly 
discriminate against women and rob women of the right to make 
decisions about their life and property. It is therefore evident that 
in the eyes of Thesawalamai women are deemed weak objects in need of 
protection.

Cultural Relativism vs. Feminism

While we call for legal reform to address the discrimination faced by 
women we should also keep in mind that women from besieged 
communities who might have been subjected to extensive state controls 
due to their race, ethnicity, class or a similar factor may take 
refuge in the private sphere of their ethnic/racial/class 
communities. Their reluctance to support legal reform that impacts on 
their particular communities highlights the conflict between 
individual rights and the rights of the community. While supporting 
diversity and right of communities to protect their culture we should 
ensure that the rights of women are respected and they have the right 
to make decisions that affect their lives and families.


____


#2.

Newsline  (Pakistan)
June 2003 Issue

India-Pakistan: The Odd Couple
By Hasan Zaidi

Immediately after the failed Agra Summit of 2001, a joke did the 
rounds on the internet and on mobile SMSes in Karachi and Lahore. It 
went like this. General Musharraf, Prime Minister Atal Behari 
Vajpayee, Margaret Thatcher and Madhuri Dixit are travelling together 
in a train compartment. The train goes through a mountain tunnel and 
as everything goes dark, the sound of a kiss followed by a slap is 
heard. When the train emerges into light once again, everyone sees Mr 
Vajpayee sitting sullenly clutching his reddened cheek.

At that point, Margaret Thatcher is thinking: "These subcontinental 
people! Always unable to control their urges! Vajpayee must have 
kissed Madhuri and she slapped him." Madhuri is thinking: "Atal jee 
must have tried to kiss me =96 and who can blame him =96 but mistakenly 
kissed Lady Thatcher instead who slapped him." Mr Vajpayee is 
thinking: "Damn this Musharraf. He must have kissed Madhuri and she 
thinking it was me, slapped me instead." Meanwhile General Musharraf 
is thinking: "I can't wait for the train to go through another tunnel 
so I can make the sound of another kiss and slap Vajpayee again!"

The joke captured the spirit of Pak India relations perfectly. Like a 
divorced couple who can't get over each other or like two schoolyard 
kids, obsessed with showing each other up at every opportunity, 
Pakistan and India can't seem to live with or without each other.

One has only to look at newsstands or music shop posters to 
understand the depth of this symbiotic relationship. Shah Rukh Khan 
and Aishwarya Rai beckon from every third magazine cover and poster. 
Shan and Meera should be so lucky. Even at the height of the tensions 
on the border, video shops in Pakistan continued to do a roaring 
business in Bollywood films and the piracy of Indian music went 
equally unabated. (It's another matter that most people kept 
complaining about the quality of both over the last year. But then 
that view was shared across the border as well.) In fact, when the 
Pakistani government banned cable companies from transmitting Indian 
satellite television channels, videowallahs responded to demand by 
flooding their shelves with taped episodes of such long-running 
Indian soaps as "Kyonke Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi" and "Kahani Ghar 
Ghar Ki." Confirming, as if proof were needed, that even our 
collective lack of taste is mutual.

But "Indian" culture permeates other aspects of Pakistani lives as 
well. Paan shops at every street corner flaunt packaged paan masalas 
with unreadable Hindi lettering while many shops now carry smuggled 
Hajmola digestive tablets and ayurvedic medicines. Traditional 
weddings songs have been all but replaced by popular Indian film 
songs in most Pakistani mehndi functions. Benarsi silk is still a 
coveted item. And no matter how much the thunder-squads of the Jamaat 
may fume, young men in Federal B. Area dream of the time when open 
trade with India will allow them to purchase cheaper motorbikes.

As long as you don't raise the issue of Kashmir, Pakistanis it seems 
are quite happy to lap up whatever India throws at them.

On the other side of the border, the love-hate relationship with 
Pakistan exists in equally strong measure. Most of the time, the 
Indian establishment speaks of Pakistan with an almost dismissive 
tone. India is the "world power", Pakistan is too inconsequential to 
be taken seriously and at worst is a thorn in the side of the giant. 
But pick up any Indian newspaper and the obsession with this 
inconsequential thorn is astounding. There is almost a morbid 
fascination with all that is wrong in Pakistan, from the role of the 
military, to the statements of the jehadis to the status of women. 
News from or about Pakistan, even tangentially, usually makes front 
page headlines.

When Lady Nadira of Bahawalpur and Naipaul, attending a jamboree in 
Delhi in January for Non-Resident Indians, was attacked in print by 
the editor of the Shiv Sena's mouthpiece as a "Non-Resident 
Pakistani", her response made the front page of the Times of India. 
"I Feel Like I Am In Pakistan" the 3-column headline quoted her as 
saying.  Of course, she was speaking not out of nostalgia, but out of 
anguish, likening the personal attack on her with her "persecution" 
in Pakistan.

More than any other single person, however, India is obsessed with 
General Musharraf, the hated architect of Kargil, the blunt charmer 
of Agra. His every word and action is analysed and commented upon in 
the Indian press. And when needed, as in the Gujarat elections, he is 
trotted out as the ultimate bogey-man. If Narendra Modi lost, the BJP 
electioneering implied, the general from Pakistan would be the 
state's ruler.

On the cultural front, despite all antagonisms and an 
almost-Orientalist ignorance of life in Pakistan =96 the press is 
muzzled, women can't work, Hindus and Christians have all fled =96 
there is also a fascination in India with anything Pakistani. 
Pakistani cotton is envied, the "salwar kameez" is in vogue despite 
the impression given by Zee TV. The success of artists such as Nusrat 
=46ateh Ali Khan and Adnan Sami across the border is common knowledge. 
But pop bands that have managed to visit India, such as Junoon and 
Strings, have also received a response beyond their wildest 
expectations. While Gulzar waxes lyrical about the beauty of Urdu, 
Pakistani poets are regularly feted when they do manage to go across, 
although their slightly less than glamorous status means their names 
are usually quickly forgotten.

Indian music composers regularly pick up Pakistani hits from 
yesteryear =96 including classics from Mehdi Hasan =96 to rehash as 
originals. Witness the current Bollywoodization of Reshma's mournful 
Lambi Judai. And as popsters such as Hasan Jahangir and Raheem Shah 
can attest, even more recent melodies can find their way on to the 
albums of the likes of Altaf Raja. It may not have sounded too 
elegant, but someone actually sang Dil Dil Hindustan as well.

Bollywood too just can't seem to shake its Pakistan fixation ever 
since the success of films like "Sarfarosh" and "Border" which set 
new standards in demonizing Pakistani soldiers and ghazal singers. 
And now a whole slew of films are under production with Kargil as the 
backdrop, raising the question: what will Indian film producers do if 
relations improve? Perhaps take a cue from what veteran director 
Mahesh Bhatt plans to do: make a "Schindler's List" set in Pakistan.

The fact of the matter is, like a divorced couple, Pakistan and India 
need to accept their shared history and move on. We need to realize 
that we still have some common friends, some common likes and 
dislikes and even some household items we never returned. That we 
will continue to bump into each other at social gatherings and rather 
than pretend as if the other did not exist, it may be better to treat 
each other as human beings once again. And yes, definitely stop 
trying to slap each other in dark tunnels.



_____

#3.

Secular Perspective (India)
June 16-30, 2003

RELIGION AND COMMUNALISM
by Asghar Ali Engineer

This is an ongoing debate among the scholars whether religion is the 
main cause of communalism. Often many scholars maintain that main 
'culprit' is religion and some even go to the extent of saying that 
if there is no religion there will be no communalism. Of course it is 
quite hypothetical formulation. Human beings cannot live without 
religion or some kind of ideology which gives human life a meaning 
and direction and whatever the nature of ideology or thought or value 
system it creates its own 'other'. And some form of struggle starts 
between followers of one or the other ideology.

=46irst, we would like to define what is religion? Do different 
religion clash with each other? Is the clash between religions or 
between human communities and why? These are important questions, 
which need to be answered for this debate to be meaningful.

Religion can be defined as a system of beliefs and values with 
associated rituals to give these beliefs and values a concrete form. 
When these beliefs and values are held in common and rituals are 
performed in congregation it gives rise to a sense of commonality and 
a religious community comes into existence. This community is also 
product of a pre-existing social structure and this social structure 
deeply influences the religious community and its practices. No 
religious community can totally transcend this pre-existing social 
structure.

A religious community induces a sense of belonging in its members 
what we call identity in modern political discourse. This identity, 
for its members, in course of time, becomes more important than the 
beliefs and values. And it is this sense of identity, which creates 
problems rather than religion per se. It is important to keep this in 
mind in the whole debate. It is equally important to note that a 
community exists in this world and hence represents worldly (or 
secular?) interests of its members. These worldly interests become as 
important, if not more, as religious beliefs, rituals and values.

One more thing we need to state in this debate. A religion must be 
understood on different levels =96 ritual, social and cultural and on 
level of values. There are often marked differences on ritual and 
partially on social and cultural levels between religions but much 
commonality on the level of values. When many reformers and those 
advocating inter-religious dialogue assert commonality, it is on this 
level of values. Thus all religions teach to be truthful, 
compassionate, honest etc. It is this commonality of values, which is 
often asserted to promote communal harmony.

But, as pointed out above, there are marked differences between 
religions in terms of rituals and cultural practices. Those who wish 
to promote their agenda of creating conflict between communities they 
assert these ritual, social and cultural differences. Over assertion 
on these differences often lead to social or political confrontation.

Now the main question of this article: Is religion main cause of 
communalism has to be seen in the light of above discussion. Firstly 
it is important to note that we often refer to communal conflict, and 
not to 'religious conflict'. There is obvious difference between the 
two. The conflict is between two communities and not between two 
religions. Then the question arises: Is there difference between the 
two? Yes there is. The religious conflict would mean conflict between 
theologies and rituals and conflict between two communities indicate 
conflict between worldly interests of two communities.

However, many people use these words religious and communal quite 
loosely as if there is no difference between the two and confusion 
arises. Strictly speaking they are not interchangeable. There is 
problem with our social discourse. In fact today the media uses 
communalism, religious fanaticism and fundamentalism as if they are 
one and the same. A rigorous social scientist would always take care 
to make proper distinction.

Of course one can find something in common between religious 
fundamentalism, fanaticism and communalism. The feeling of hostility 
towards the other is the common link between them. However, hostility 
can also be passive or active. Passive hostility, though not 
desirable, does not express itself violently. However, active 
hostility is often violent. Active hostility needs external push and 
tis external push often comes from political and not religious 
motives.

In fact there is no direct relationship between religion and 
communalism, if we understand religion in its proper sense and not 
use it very loosely. Even a firm believer in religion or an orthodox 
believer may not necessarily be communal. And even one who does not 
care for his/her religion or might not have ever practised it may be 
communal. Many of our orthodox leaders in freedom struggle were quite 
supportive of secular democratic India and many otherwise liberal 
modernistic leaders tended to be communal or separatist. One can cite 
examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Savarkar on one hand, and, of Maulana 
Azad and Jinnah, on the other.

Whereas Gandhiji and Maulana Azad were orthodox believers in their 
respective religions yet both were strongly supportive of secular 
democratic India and both fought communalism with great vigour. 
Savarkar and Jinnah, on the other hand, were quite modern and liberal 
in matters of religion and yet both believed in Hindus and Muslims 
being separate nations. It is also interesting to note that the 
Deobandi Ulama, quite orthodox believers in Islam, opposed two- 
nation theory and firmly stood by the concept of composite 
nationalism.

These examples clearly show that there is no direct and relationship 
between religion and communalism or religion and political 
separatism. It would thus not be wrong to say that fundamental cause 
of communalism is not religion but political. How? And what is then 
relationship between religion and communalism, if any?

As pointed out above, communalism is something related to religious 
community, not to religion itself. A religious community or its 
members have their own worldly interests and politics is based on 
these worldly interests. Hinduism and Islam had survived in India for 
thousand years peacefully. There were no serious problems, no 
inter-religious clashes or no communal riots. But we see that in 
modern India i.e. from nineteenth century onwards there were serious 
clashes between the two communities. What went wrong? While in 
medieval India there was no political or economic competition between 
the two communities, in nineteenth century there was both political 
and economic competition between the elite of two communities. The 
medieval politics was feudal and non-competitive. Power was wielded 
through sword, not through ballot. In modern society, on the other 
hand, power was wielded through ballot.

It was this competition for power between the elite of two 
communities, which created communal consciousness among some members 
of both the communities. As pointed out above, religion creates a 
sense of belonging and sense of identity and it is this sense of 
identity, which is appealed to by the politicians for gathering their 
political support. The politicians cleverly mix up political 
discourse with religious discourse to mobilise support of their 
fellow religionists. Thus the question of Ramjanambhoomi temple, 
basically a religious issue, was cleverly exploited by the BJP 
politicians to gather Hindu votes. Also, recently Narendra Modi, with 
the active support of top BJP leaders, provoked communal violence, 
mixing religious discourse with political one and won the Gujarat 
elections with overwhelming majority.

Thus from this it can be easily seen that it is politics which uses 
religion than religion using the politics. Thus we can argue that in 
a democracy, politicians exploit religious identity for political 
power. They, by clever mix of religious beliefs and worldly 
interests, win the hearts and minds of people. Here it is important 
to note that these politicians who evolve this clever but highly 
explosive mix of religion and political power, do not represent 
interests of entire community but only its elite. The masses who are 
really religious are left high and dry.

Some liberals and atheists believe that the antidote of communal 
politics is anti-religious political discourse. This is in correct 
approach. One can be atheist, if atheism appeals to him/her but the 
real antidote of communalism is not anti-religious discourse. It will 
only strengthen communalists. One can hardly disregard religious 
feelings of millions of people in the society.

There are two alternatives for fighting communal politics. One 
alternative is to evolve carefully a secular discourse around real 
developmental issues and mobilise people around these secular issues. 
The other alternative is to use religious discourse in a creative 
manner making religion an option for the poor rather than for the 
powerful elite. Every religion has certain traditions, which can be 
used for empowering the poor. The vested interests exploit certain 
problematic traditions for their own interests. Why can't then those 
traditions, which empower people be used for pro-poor and pro-people 
politics?

Of course there is no cut and dried solution but with creativity and 
imagination either of the alternatives can be used for countering 
communal and separatist politics. Our social reality is very complex 
so our response also has to be as complex. Religion is not only part 
of problem it can also be part of solution, if handled imaginatively. 
As far as our society is concerned religion has not outlived its 
utility. Of course I do not maintain that religion is the only 
response but it could certainly be one of the responses.

*******************************
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Website: <http://www.csss-isla.com>www.csss-isla.com


_____

#4.


The Progressive (USA)
July 2003 Issue

Bush Ignores India's Pogrom
by Amitabh Pal

I VISITED GANDHI'S HOME STATE OF GUJARAT in mid-December for my
brother-in-law's wedding. Coincidentally, it was the day of elections to
decide the fate of a rightwing state government. According to Human Rights
Watch, that government was complicit in the massacre of at least 2,000
Muslims early last year, the highest toll in Hindu-Muslim violence since
India's independence.

The election results caused my stomach to churn. The Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) government headed by Chief Minister Narendra Modi returned to power.
It successfully capitalized on Hindu animosity toward Muslims and harped on
local pride, claiming to defend the honor of the state against attacks by
secularist outsiders. Gandhi wouldn't have been too happy.

The events in Gujarat are only the most obvious expression of how the
growth of rightwing Hindu fundamentalism since the late 1980s has
undermined Gandhi's legacy. This trend is not just confined to Gandhi's
home state. A coalition headed by the BJP, the same party that governs
Gujarat, currently governs all of India.

The United States has been, at best, equivocal in its response to the
Gujarat anti-Muslim campaign. And it has been half-hearted in trying to
stem the flow of funds from the United States to Hindu extremist groups in
India.

The BJP's militant, hard-line attitude apparently does not trouble the Bush
Administration, which has drawn closer since September 11 to the Indian
government (even while maintaining an alliance with the BJP's bugbear,
General Pervez Musharraf's regime in Pakistan). The BJP has used the
post-September 11 climate as a cover for harsh internal measures, such as
passing stiff anti-terrorism laws and, as Gujarat shows, targeting Muslims.
The Indian government has reciprocated U.S. friendship by strongly
supporting the Bush Administration's campaign in Afghanistan and by being
reticent about the Iraq War.

According to The New York Times, the only public remarks about Gujarat that
the U.S. ambassador, Robert Blackwill, made in the aftermath of the
violence was: "All our hearts go out to the people who were affected by
this tragedy. I don't have anything more to say than that." In contrast,
after terrorists killed twenty-four Kashmiris in late March this year,
Blackwill was quick to issue a statement condemning "the ghastly murder of
innocent men, women, and children." Blackwill did not even visit Gujarat
subsequent to the pogrom.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked by The Hindu, a
leading national paper, about "why the United States has not been
forthcoming in its criticism." She responded that the BJP "government is
leading India well, and it will do the right thing."

Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca did
term the events in Gujarat "really horrible," but she neglected to assign
any blame.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell visited India last July, he made no
mention of Gujarat, as Mira Kamdar pointed out in World Policy Journal. The
furthest that the Bush Administration went was to raise the matter
privately with the Indian government, warning that it was harming India's
image, according to the Bombay-based Economic Times. By contrast, the
European Union likened the Gujarat situation to apartheid and said that it
had similarities with Nazi Germany of the 1930s.

Apparently, the U.S. government has deemed it more important to keep India
on its side in the "war on terrorism" than to risk a row over even
grotesque human rights violations.

The state-sponsored violence in Gujarat came in retaliation for the actions
of a Muslim mob, which, on February 27 last year, burned alive nearly sixty
Hindus on a train in the city of Godhra. The train was returning from
Ayodhya in Northern India, where many of the train's occupants had gone as
part of a mobilization to build a temple to Lord Ram, a Hindu deity, on the
site of a mosque. The retaliation against Muslims started the next morning,
with the worst incidents happening over the next three days. In addition to
those killed, the violence forced more than 100,000 Muslims into becoming
refugees and destroyed 360 Muslim places of worship. Numerous women were
raped, sometimes gang-raped. "I have never known a riot which has used the
sexual subjugation of women so widely as an instrument of violence as the
recent barbarity in Gujarat," wrote Harsh Mander, a government official who
resigned in disgust. "This was not a riot," one senior police official told
The New York Times. "It was a state-sponsored pogrom."

India's National Human Rights Commission faulted the state government for
"failure of intelligence and action." The commission named senior BJP
officials as among the accused. "These are grave matters, indeed, that must
not be allowed to be forgiven or forgotten," the commission said.

Human Rights Watch issued a report on the massacres, entitled "We Have No
Orders to Save You." It detailed the extensive complicity of the
authorities in the violence. "In many cases, the police led the charge,
using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs' way," the report states.
"A key BJP state minister is reported to have taken over police control
rooms in Ahmedabad on the first day of the carnage, issuing orders to
disregard pleas for assistance from Muslims." Police also "participated
directly in the burning and looting of Muslim shops and homes and the
killing and mutilation of Muslims. In many cases, under the guise of
offering assistance, the police led the victims directly into the hands of
their killers."

Ahsan Jafri, a former member of parliament, lived in the Gulmarg Society
neighborhood in -Ahmedabad, the largest city in Gujarat and the site of the
worst violence. Jafri tried to use his home as a shelter for Muslims. But
then a Hindu mob approached his house.

"On February 28, we went to Ahsan Jafri's home for safety," says Mehboob
Mansoori, in testimony to Human Rights Watch. Jafri "was holding the door
closed. Then the door broke down. They pulled him out and hit him with a
sword across the forehead, then across the stomach, then on his legs. . . .
They then took him on the road, poured kerosene on him, and burned him.
There was no police at all."

Mansoori managed to survive. However, his family was all but wiped out.
"Eighteen people from my family died," he told Human Rights Watch. "All the
women died. My brother, my three sons, one girl, my wife's mother, they all
died. . . . Other girls were raped, cut, and burned. . . . Sixty-five to
seventy people were killed inside."

Jafri's daughter, Nishrin Hussain, who lives in Delaware, remains outraged.

"It was prepared and preplanned with government blessing all along," she
says. "The police and the government connived with the rioters."

After the riots, Nishrin returned to Gujarat to see what happened. She was
not welcome. During her visit, people circulated posters that contained
veiled threats on her life, she says. And when she went to one village, a
mob told her if she dared to come back, she'd be killed.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body set up by
Congress, denounced the violence in Gujarat and has even named India as a
"country of particular concern," thus placing it in the company of such
nations as China, Saudi Arabia, and Burma. Under the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the President is required to take diplomatic
or economic actions against countries on the list.

=46elice D. Gaer, chair of the commission, is critical of the Bush
Administration's response to the Gujarat violence. "There's been no public
comment by the Administration on Gujarat other than in response to a direct
question," Gaer says. "The ambassador hasn't visited the region. Senior
officials are not interested in holding anyone responsible for the
violence."

Assistant Secretary of State Rocca claimed on March 22 at a Senate hearing
on South Asia that "much action" has been taken by the Indian government.
"The legal system in India is agonizingly slow and that gives the
impression that nothing is happening," she said. "But the fact of the
matter is that they did take action and they are continuing to take
action," she said. The "United States has spoken out loudly and often on
the terrible events of Gujarat, and it did not in any way get a pass from
anywhere in the world, much less from the Bush Administration."

Sunil Lal, press officer at the Indian Embassy in Washington, is happy with
the Bush Administration's approach to Gujarat. "The U.S. Administration is
aware of the efforts made by the government of India, and you must have
heard Christina Rocca's recent testimony on this subject," he says.

Others rebut the State Department's claims. As Smita Narula of Human Rights
Watch pointed out in an op-ed in The Asian Wall Street Journal on the first
anniversary of the pogrom, "There have been no convictions of those
responsible." In contrast, the government charged 131 Muslims under the
harsh Prevention of Terrorism Act for the train burning. Between July and
October, the government closed the Muslim refugee camps.

The response in the U.S. Congress was also, for the most part, mild. Jim
McDermott, a liberal Democrat from Washington, spoke very carefully about
Gujarat last April before an audience of Indian Americans in an event
co-sponsored by the Overseas Friends of Bharatiya Janata Party. He said
that while some members of Congress were concerned about the situation, he
appreciated the Indian government's response.

"Prime Minister Vajpayee has done a remarkable job in trying to balance the
forces that make up a country as diverse as India," he said. McDermott was,
however, more critical of the BJP in a phone interview, saying the party
was "wrong to inject religion into politics" and that this "just won't
work."

The lack of a stronger response may be due to the increasing visibility and
financial clout of the prosperous Indian American community, currently 1.7
million in number, with Gujaratis comprising 40 percent of the total.
"Intensive lobbying by members of the Indian American community prevented
introduction of a resolution in the U.S. Congress condemning the violence,"
states Human Rights Watch. In the 2000 election cycle, Indian Americans
contributed at least $13 million, according to Federal Election Commission
data. Plus, growing U.S. business interests in India (notably in software,
telemarketing, and the arms industry) have fostered a pro-India climate on
the Hill. As a result, about 130 members of Congress are members of the
Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans. McDermott is a past
chair of the caucus. Congressmen Frank Pallone, Democrat of New Jersey, and
Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, both founders of the caucus, were last
year awarded the Padma Bhushan, a top Indian civilian honor.

Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and Senator Thomas Carper,
Democrat of Delaware, have been more outspoken. They called up family
members of the murdered ex-parliamentarian, Ahsan Jafri, to express their
sympathy. Biden also addressed the issue publicly, saying that the killings
were "just plain wrong" and that "nothing justifies the slaughter of
innocent women and children." "About 2,000 people have been slaughtered in
mob violence there, often--whether you like to hear it or not--with the
collusion of local officials," he said at a conference hosted by an Indian
business group.

But Biden took some heat for his stance from members of the Indian American
community. "The very next day, his office was bombarded with calls and
e-mails saying, 'You stay out of this; this is an internal Indian matter.'
He backed off," says Najid Hussain, Jafri's son-in-law.

=46unds from charities in the United States flow to Hindu extremist groups i=
n
India, some of which may have been involved in the Gujarat violence. The
Bush Administration has done little about this, in marked contrast to its
vigorous attempts to investigate money allegedly going to Al Qaeda.

Vijay Prashad, author of The Karma of Brown Folk, a study of the Indian
diaspora, estimates that Hindu extremist groups in this country raise at
least $10 million a year, of which perhaps 10 percent goes to India.

One of the most notable Indian charitable organizations in the United
States is the India Development and Relief Fund, which, according to The
=46inancial Times, raised more than $10 million between 1997 and 2001 and
sent $3.2 million to India between 1994 and 2000.

An ad hoc coalition of Indian Americans, the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate,
issued a report a few months ago alleging that the relief fund supports
Hindu hate groups in India. One of these groups is the Vanvasi Kalyan
Parishad (Tribals Welfare Organization), says Shalini Gera, a spokesperson
for the campaign. The organization was involved in anti-Christian violence
in the late 1990s in Gujarat, according to The Times of India, and in the
anti-Muslim campaign, according to Frontline magazine. The Vanvasi Kalyan
Parishad "directed violence against Muslims" during the Gujarat killings,
reports Frontline. (Attempts to reach the organization for comment were
unsuccessful.)

The Financial Times reports that the Justice Department may be
investigating the fund. Vinod Prakash, the founder and president of the
India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF), vehemently denies that his
organization has received any sort of communication from the Bush
Administration.

"It will prove to be an uphill battle for the U.S. to properly investigate
and scrutinize these organizations because of their links to India's ruling
party, the BJP," says Narula of Human Rights Watch in The Financial Times.
"The U.S. needs India as an ally right now."

Prakash also says that his organization doesn't fund any Hindu rightwing
groups, such as the Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad. (The website of the group does
name Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad among the list of "IDRF-supported groups in
Gujarat.") He does not, however, deny ideological affiliations. "I have
every right as a person to be close to this or that organization," he says.
"But the IDRF has never discriminated. As a proud Hindu, I will never
discriminate in my humanitarian service."

By the time the Gujarat election results were announced, I had left the
state. But I was appalled by the reaction I was hearing from Hindus in
other parts of the country. While some opposed the Modi government, others
were unabashedly supportive, and a whole lot of people were ambivalent. It
is this reaction--both inside India and outside--that the BJP is counting
on to forge ahead with its sectarian and violent agenda for the country.

"The Bush Administration and Congress should tell the Indian government
that justice must be done," says Najid Hussain. "The propagation of such an
ideology has to stop."

-- Amitabh Pal is Managing Editor of The Progressive.


____


#5.

The current South Asia special issue of GBER - Global Built 
Environment Review, Vol 3 Issue 1 2003 - is now on line at 
<http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/gber>www.edgehill.ac.uk/gber

____


#6.

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) No. 122
25 June 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/133

____


#7.


=46rom: lokniti <lokniti@del3.vsnl.net.in>
Subject: STATEMENT ON GANDHIAN INSTITUTE

Dear friends
I am forwarding below a statement drafted by some concerned acdemics
expressing solidarity with the satyagraha concerning the Gandhian Institute
for Studies. Since the struggle is on, it would be useful if the statement
could be released to the press as soon as possible. If you would like to
sign the statement, may I request you to indicate your consent by tomorrow,
the 25th. Please do mention your institutional affiliation (although all of
us will be signing in our personal capacity) in your reply. Please feel
free to circulate it to other academic/social scientists and solicit their
signatures.
Yours
Yogendra


PRESS RELEASE

June 25, 2003

We the members of the academic community of India are greatly anguished by
the reports coming from Varanasi about the undemocratic and unwarranted
attack on the Gandhian Institute of Studies, Varanasi orchestrated jointly
by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and the Govt. of
U.P. This take-over bid rings an alarm bell for all the autonomous
institutions in the country, for it is quite clear that this attack is
taking place at the behest of the Minister of Human Resource Development
Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi himself. This witch-hunt is a punishment for not
towing the minister's line and for the refusal to hand over the institute
to ministers' favourite persons. Disregarding its own norms and Memorandum,
the ICSSR is acting as an extended arm of the ministry. Far from being an
umbrella to protect the autonomy of research, the ICSSR is inviting the UP
Government and the district administration to intervene in the matter.
=46alse information is being officially supplied by the ICSSR to support
those very elements who have disrupted the functioning of the Gandhian
Institute.
The Gandhian Institute was established in 1960 by the leading Gandhians of
the time including Jayaprakash Narayan as an 'attempt to link Gandhian
movement with Social Science.'  An autonomous institution registered under
The Societies Registration Act 1860, the Gandhian Institute received its
initial funding from Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and was established on land
provided by the Sarva Sewa Sangh in Rajghat, Varanasi on the banks of
Ganges.  The buildings in which the Institute is located was built with
funds raised personally by Jayaprakash Narayan from the public.  The ICSSR
came into the picture only in 1977 by agreeing to give a maintenance grant
on annual basis, with a matching grant coming from the Govt. of U.P. Taking
advantage of some internal differences and confusion, the current regime
demanded in 1999 that one faculty member favoured by the Minister be made
the Director of the Institute. The institute's Board of Management, headed
by the venerable Gandhian Acharya Ramamurti, refused to accept the
Minister's dictat. A series of vindictive measures were unleashed thereafter=
=2E
In 1999, the ICSSR and the Government of U.P. stopped the grant of the
Institute under direction of the Ministry of HRD ostensibly on charges of
financial irregularity. However, no independent and external inquiry was
instituted. In a written response to Question No. 505 dated 2.5.2000 raised
in Lok Sabha, the HRD Minister promised to pay the salary of the staff of
the Gandhian Institute but the promise has not been fulfilled so far.  The
Institute and its employees moved the High Court for the release of
illegally stopped grants of the Institute.  The High Court issued an
interim mandamus order to pay the salaries of the staff which was not
complied to date. All the points raised by the auditor of societies have
since been cleared and the registration of the Society renewed since
January 2003. But instead of resuming the grant, the government tried to
get the registration cancelled but this was stayed by the Uttar Pradesh
High Court 23.05.2003 (Writ No 23650 of 2003). The ICSSR grant has not been
released, though there is no formal justification left for withholding the
grant.
We are shocked at the role of the ICSSR in this episode. We are
particularly disturbed by the extra-ordinary move by the Director General
of ICSSR. He wrote in February 2003 to the Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P. and to the district administration, claiming that since the Institute
is located on Central government land and that all its assets including the
building have been created out of government's funds, the state government
should be prepared to take control of the institution's property in case it
is dissolved. The same letter went on to describe Ms. Kusum Lata Kedia as
"our Acting Director" notwithstanding the fact that the Board of
Management, had never appointed her to this position and had in fact
dismissed Ms. Kedia from the institute for indiscipline and lack of
academic contribution. Besides being factually untrue and bad in law, this
action of the ICSSR violated the very purpose of the ICSSR.
We extend our full moral support to the peaceful satyagrah that has been
started on June 16, 2003 by various people's organisations under the
leadership of Dr. Sandeep Pandey, Magsaysay Awardee, and also a member of
the Board of Management of the Institute to protest against all these
illegal and undemocratic acts of the government. We condemn the action of
the local police that has insulted, abused and threatened Dr. Sandeep
Pandey and other social activists on dharna on the midnight of 20.06.2003.
We demand that the Ministry of Human Resource Development put an immediate
halt to its sinister attempt to misuse the ICSSR and Government of U.P. to
take over Institute's land and buildings and foist a dismissed staff as its
Acting Director. We also demand that the ICSSR must respect intellectual
freedom and the tradition of non-interference in the autonomous research
institutions that it funds.
This bid to take over the Gandhian Institute and manipulate the ICSSR fits
in with the existing regime's earlier attempts to control prestigious
national academic bodies like the UGC, NCERT, ICHR and ICPR and eventually
destroy their academic credibility.  This poses severe threat to the
tradition of intellectual freedom that the country has built over the last
five decades and also challenges the composite and plural heritage of
India. We strongly deplore this illegal and undemocratic intervention in
the affairs of the Gandhian Institute and appeal to the people of India to
save the dream of Jayaprakash Narayan from this onslaught.

Yogendra Yadav
Director, Lokniti: Institute for Comparative Democracy
a research programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 INDIA
Phone/Fax: (11)23981012, 23942199
=46ax(attention: Yogendra Yadav): 23943450


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

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service 
run since 1998 by
the 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.

--