SACW | 26 June, 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex@mnet.fr
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:52 +0100
South Asia Citizens Wire | 26 June, 2003
#1. Radical Muslims Killing Muslims (Zahir Janmohamed)
#2. No Indian troops for Iraq (Brian Cloughley)
#3. S. Asia Nukes Get a 'Pass' From Bush (Barbara Crossette)
#4. Education For All (Eduardo Faleiro)
#5. Convention "India After Gujarat - Democracy or Religious
=46anaticism" (Santa Clara, California June 28, 2003)
#6. Hedgewar and RSS [2 part article] (Sushila Ramaswamy)
#7. Aar Paar Project - Collaborative Public Art Project by Artists in
India and Pakistan
#8. In the Name of Democracy: JP Movement and the Emergency (Bipan Chandra=
)
[ Related Material]
Total revolt (Prakash Patra)
#9. Three Cs that changed Mumbai (Chandrima S. Bhattacharya)
[Related material in Audio]
- Identities, Politics and Populism: Sujata Patel, Pune University
- Satya's Mumbai: Mumbai's Satya: Sandeep Pendse, Independent Scholar
and Writer
--------------
#1.
Washington Post (USA)
June 25, 2003
Page A23
Radical Muslims Killing Muslims
By Zahir Janmohamed
When Pakistan was created, its founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah,
famously declared, "You are free, free to go to your temples, you are
free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this
state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed
-- that has nothing to do with the business of the state." Fifty-six
years later, I wonder what Jinnah would tell my family and countless
others who lost loved ones because of rising religious intolerance in
Pakistan. On April 2, 2000, my uncle, Sibtain Dossa, a doctor, was
gunned down at his medical clinic by Islamic radicals seeking to
cleanse Pakistan of its minority Shiite Muslims.
Over the past few years, extremist Islamic groups in Pakistan have
mounted a unilateral terror campaign. But Americans and Christians
have not been the only victims. Women, secular advocates and even
Muslims -- Ahmadis, dissenting Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims --
have also come under attack.
Recently two gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on a truck full of
policemen, killing 11 and wounding nine in the Pakistani town of
Quetta, near the Afghan border. Nearly all the victims belonged to
the minority sect of Shia Islam. The attack on Shiites was the third
in Quetta in less than two weeks. Speaking of the attack, Rahmat
Ullah, a Pakistani senior police official, accurately noted, "It was
sectarian terrorism."
The gruesome cycle of violence against Pakistan's minority citizens
could not have occurred without the complicity of the Pakistani
government. Consider the example of Azam Tariq, a religious cleric
and former leader of the radical, Saudi Arabia-inspired
Sipah-i-Sahaba. In an interview with the BBC in 1995, Tariq openly
praised the Taliban and endorsed attacks on Shiites in Pakistan.
Instead being brought to justice, Tariq was rewarded. Today he is a
member of Pakistan's National Assembly.
There is a tendency to view the Muslim population as a monolith,
with a uniform agenda and little dissent. This outlook on Islam has
prompted a slew of articles with titles like "Why Do They Hate Us."
But in Pakistan, many Islamic radicals hold equal (and sometimes
more) animosity toward dissenting Muslims (particularly Shiites) than
toward westerners. The Sipah-i-Sahaba have even killed many of their
own Sunni clerics, because the clerics rejected their divisive
agenda. Often, implementing a skewed understanding of Islamic sharia
(religious law) -- and not hatred of the West -- is their prime
motivation.
If the United States wishes to gain credibility in Pakistan, it
should pressure Pakistan to protect all of its residents who stand
threatened by the rise of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan -- not just
westerners and Christians.
As Muslims lobby the United States to treat its religious minorities
with respect, Muslims themselves have averted their gaze while
minority groups -- particularly Ahmadi and Shiite Muslims -- are
butchered by their "fellow" Muslims. Indeed, much of the Muslim world
looked away when Saddam Husssein was executing Shiites in Iraq and
ignored the Taliban's mass beheading of Shiites in Afghanistan.
This does not absolve Shiite Muslims of guilt. Many Shiite clerics
have irresponsibly inflamed sectarian tension by denouncing beloved
Sunni icons or, worse, endorsing retaliation. But a Muslim group that
condemns violence when Islamic radicals kill Christians, then remains
silent when Islamic radicals kill Shiite Muslims, is not a human
rights group but a PR firm.
Pakistan can curtail the rise of sectarian violence and prevent the
spread of extremist Islam by doing three things: punish (instead of
reward) those who commit unprovoked acts of aggression against
innocents of other faiths; block Saudi Arabia from flooding Pakistani
schools with textbooks that preach draconian interpretations of
Islam; and restore civil society in urban centers so that extremist
groups cannot exploit Pakistan's woes to promote their divisive
agendas.
My last memory of my uncle was sitting with him in the sprawling
garden next to the tomb of Jinnah in Karachi. I asked if Pakistanis
-- particularly Pakistani Shiites -- still respected Jinnah.
"We do," he told me. "Because at least Jinnah tried to create an
open Islamic country where all could flourish."
That seems to summarize the history of Pakistan: It has always tried
but never achieved Jinnah's goal.
Zahir Janmohamed is writing a book about the rise of religious
violence in South Asia.
____
#2.
The Daily Times (Pakistan)
June 25, 2003
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_25-6-2003_pg3_3
Op-ed: No Indian troops for Iraq
Brian Cloughley
India is a good internationalist country, having contributed to UN
peacekeeping over the years. But 'stabilising' Iraq is not
peacekeeping: it is weasel-speak for muscular occupation of territory
on behalf of a conquering power
There is a man of whom it can be truly said that he has contributed
more to increasing mutual suspicion and fostering hatred between
India and Pakistan than any other individual in recent years. He is
America's ambassador to Delhi, Robert Blackwill, who, mercifully, has
resigned and will be leaving India shortly to spend more time with
his self-importance.
His embassy will draw a collective sigh of relief (the State
Department was officially critical of his arrogance), but with
customary lack of finesse, tact, sensitivity and diplomatic skill he
made yet another inept statement in his final days. He announced that
if India sends troops to Iraq they would 'be under Indian command and
not be involved in combat'.
There has been much discussion between Washington and Delhi about a
possible Indian military contribution to the occupation force in Iraq
and it is apparent that US negotiators cannot guarantee that India's
(or any other) national contingent would not be answerable to an
American general. And nobody, not even the all-seeing Blackwill (who
the other day had the ludicrous temerity, the preposterous
presumption, to compare himself to JK Galbraith), can pledge that
foreign soldiers in Iraq will not be involved in combat.
Blackwill avoided serving his country in Vietnam and never wore
uniform, so perhaps his notion of combat differs from those who have
actually been shot at. For him to aver that no Indian soldier in Iraq
will ever be subject to hostile action by reason of which he will
return fire is fatuous and engenders misgivings about directives
issued at the highest levels of the US administration. Or - perhaps
more to the point - might indicate how State Department instructions
are interpreted by pompous, overblown asses.
Contrary to precise undertakings about establishment of Iraqi primacy
in government, the occupying power has assumed complete political
control and seemingly intends to wield this for the foreseeable
future. The New York Times noted that "events exposed an
uncomfortable truth of the American occupation.... American officials
are barring direct elections in Iraq and limiting free speech, two of
the very ideals the US promised to Iraqis. American officials have
said it may take up to two years for an elected Iraqi government to
take over the country." Members of the Lok Sabha might have a few
observations to make on these aspects of the proposed bilateral
military arrangement with Washington.
An Indian military contribution in Iraq could not be under the
auspices of the United Nations as there is no UN administrator, civil
or military, to whom foreign contingents would report, nor is there
intention on the part of the occupying power to permit such an
appointment. Were there to be a UN Mandate in Iraq, similar to that
of the British in Palestine from 1918 to1948, then US and other
occupation troops would be legally accountable to an
internationally-appointed commissioner. But I say categorically that
under no circumstances, at any time, anywhere in the world, in no
conceivable situation, would US forces be subordinated to a UN
appointee, no matter how competent and distinguished.
Who decides where troops of a contributing country to the
'stabilisation force' in Iraq are to operate? The UN will not have a
say in allocation of the sector in which, so Blackwill states, Indian
soldiers will be 'under Indian command'. If it is to be the Pentagon
(who else?) that allocates areas of responsibility, then to whom
would national contingents answer? There is no practical alternative
but to place them under overall American command. But why should
others take orders from the US when the US refuses to accept
stewardship by the UN?
Under which laws would an Indian soldier be authorised to return
fire? Who would decide upon - and enforce - rules of engagement? (It
appears there are no rules of engagement at the moment, and recent
catastrophic results of this omission highlight potential problems.)
In what circumstances would the laws of Iraq apply? If a driver from
a foreign contingent negligently runs over an Iraqi citizen is he to
be arraigned under Iraqi national law? What happens in Kurdish
regions, where there is a separate legal system (of sorts)? Will
deference be paid to Sharia law in Shia areas, and are body searches
of women to continue to be carried out by male soldiers? Is there to
be the equivalent of a 'Visiting Forces Act' which provides for
immunity from civil prosecution of a soldier committing an offence
against the laws of the country in which he is serving?
If an Indian soldier is killed by an Iraqi who is then arrested for
the crime, who would be responsible for legal process thereafter? Who
would provide compensation? Proceedings could not be under
international law because there is no UN Mandate. Then perhaps Indian
military law? - a possibility ; but would the jurisdictions of
contributing countries therefore be applicable outside their own
sectors? What process would apply, for example, if an Iraqi killed a
Polish soldier driving a US truck in the Indian sector? These are
serious matters, but Rumsfeld made no plans for the occupation and
last week claimed Baghdad is safer than Washington because it has
fewer murders, which is an intriguing contention.
The bill for such a massive operation will be considerable. If India
sends an entire division will Delhi have to meet the entire costs of
transportation and for the plethora of extra operational and logistic
equipment and systems that will be required? Communications alone
would be a nightmare of non-interoperability with other contingents.
It is nonsensical that India should have to pay for an open-ended
venture undertaken solely at the behest of another country,
especially as nobody knows what costs might eventually total. Mr
Advani described domestic opponents of Indian involvement as
'uninformed' and from this it can be gathered that, like Rumsfeld, he
has not done his homework, either.
India is a good internationalist country, having contributed its fair
share and more to UN peacekeeping over the years. But 'stabilising'
Iraq is not peacekeeping: it is weasel-speak for muscular occupation
of territory on behalf of a conquering power. US political, military
and commercial activity in Iraq would be seen to be unquestioningly
endorsed by India because of the presence of its troops under the
patronage of Washington, which could have unpleasant consequences.
America and Britain got themselves into this mess in Iraq, and it is
up to them to sort it out. In present conditions, India and others
would be wise to steer clear of the whole dismal affair.
Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who writes on
international affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com
_____
#3.
Los Angeles Times (USA)
June 25, 2003
S. Asia Nukes Get a 'Pass' From Bush
By Barbara Crossette
Barbara Crossette, a former bureau chief in South Asia and the United
Nations for the New York Times, is a columnist for U.N. Wire, an
independent Internet news service about international affairs.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the self-appointed president of Pakistan, got
the full treatment in Washington on Tuesday, including a meeting with
President Bush at secluded Camp David.
When the two leaders, thrown together by the war against Al Qaeda,
met the press after their session, the mood looked good and the talk
was of more trade - in fact, a trade and investment agreement - and
the promise of a potential $3 billion in aid. It was all a way of
thanking Pakistan for its continued assistance in the worldwide war
on terror and for helping reduce tensions with India over Kashmir.
There were some nudges. Musharraf may have been urged to work a
little harder at democracy, and he was told he had to do without the
=46-16s the Pakistan air force wanted.
But, to judge by the public comments at their joint news conference,
the Pakistani president seems to have been let off the hook on the
extremely critical issue of nuclear arms - the very factor that has
made Kashmir a very dangerous issue. Both India and Pakistan claim
parts of Kashmir, a former autonomous kingdom in the Himalayas, and
both have nuclear arsenals.
At any other time, the reaction to this apparent oversight might have
been a shrug because Washington appeared to have given up any hope of
rolling back Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs a few years ago,
when President Clinton was in office.
But now, with the Bush administration obsessed with nuclear programs
in Iran and North Korea, it will look very odd to a lot of people
around the world that the U.S. seems to think that nukes don't matter
so much in South Asia, a politically volatile part of the world with
enormous social problems and hundreds of millions of people living in
poverty.
The latest figures from the Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Center in
Islamabad found that 515 million people, or about 40% of South
Asians, have seen their incomes decline in the era of globalization.
Indeed, Bush referred to this miserable situation when he said the
proposed $3 billion in economic and military aid would work toward
improving the lives of Pakistanis.
It is now an unspoken assumption that Pakistan's economic and
developmental failures have fueled Islamic militancy among young men
with no other prospects. Take this a step further. What if these
angry young men, and some women, who are pledged to fighting infidels
(starting with Hindus) actually come to power and the nuclear weapons
are theirs for the taking?
One recalls the decision of South Africa to disband its nuclear
program before the move to majority rule, when the dangers of nuclear
misuse were far less evident. This is not a course of action that
myopic Pakistan or, for that matter, Hindu nationalist India would
ever consider, even to save the world from nuclear disaster.
Pakistan and India, both of which tested weapons in 1998 - the first
Pakistani tests and the second for India, whose 1974 explosions
shattered the nuclear-free haven of South Asia - are rogues in
international terms since neither has signed the 1968 Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, or the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty.
President Bush's "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - on the
other hand, did sign the nonproliferation treaty, although North
Korea has lately renounced its participation and sent home
International Atomic Energy Agency monitors.
It has been little noticed that inspectors from the IAEA have, under
that treaty, made regular visits to both Iran and Iraq, including one
to Iraq during the period after 1998 when there were no other
international arms inspections taking place.
It was the IAEA that most recently raised the alarm about Iranian
uranium imports and the construction of new nuclear installations.
The IAEA says Iran, now under a barrage of U.S. threats, is willing
to provide whatever information the agency wants.
In South Asia, not only are the two nuclear states able to avoid
inspections by staying outside the NPT but they've been reluctant,
according to local watchdog groups and the media, to keep their
nuclear facilities, military or civilian, at international standards
of maintenance, raising fears of accidents.
What the world will see increasingly is more American double standards.
Many nations never tire of challenging Washington about Israel's
uncontrolled nuclear programs. If India and Pakistan continue to get
the same pass, many will question whether it is really nuclearization
in Iran that bothers the Bush administration. Or is that just the
excuse? Remember the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
_____
#4.
[21 June 2003]
EDUCATION FOR ALL
by Eduardo Faleiro
Education Ministers from SAARC countries held a 3-day meeting
at Islamabad last month. The purpose of the meeting was to
co-ordinate strategies to combat illiteracy, improve quality and
eliminate gender inequality in Education. These are priority themes
in the SAARC agenda and Islamabad is the venue of the SAARC Regional
Centre for Human Resource Development. It is regrettable that
neither our Union Minister nor any of our several Ministers of State
in the Ministry of Human Resource Development could find the time to
attend this meeting. Their absence was in furtherance of the
Government decision that Ministerial contacts between the two
countries even on non-controversial subjects such as Education would
be conditional on the success of the new Indo-Pak "peace initiative"
which itself is subject to several conditions and pre-conditions.
The ineptude of the two major countries of the sub-continent to
settle their bilateral disputes hampers not merely the progress of
their own people but also of other countries of the region which are
held hostage to the quagmire of the Indo-Pak conundrum.
Last November UNESCO released the "Education for All Global
Monitoring Report 2002: Is the World on Track?" The report points
out that among the 154 countries for which data is available 28 are
not expected to attain any of the three objectives which the
international community gathered at the World Education Forum two
years ago had agreed should be achieved by all nations by the year
2015. The three goals are universal primary education, free
schooling of acceptable quality and removal of gender disparities in
Education. All the countries of South Asia with the exception of Sri
Lanka are among these 28 countries. Bangladesh has made considerable
progress in recent years but India and Pakistan continue to be high
on rethoric but low on performance. Indeed, South Asia is fast
emerging as the most illiterate, most malnourished, least gender
sensitive, the most deprived region of the world today. And yet it
continues to make more investment in arms than in education and
health of its people. India and Pakistan spend more than three times
in imports of military hardware than they spend on literacy and
education. About a year and a half ago the Union Government
introduced in Parliament and with unusual alacrity passed during the
same session the 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill to provide
universal and compulsory elementary Education. The Constitution
Amendment was in fact unnecessary inasmuch as the Supreme Court in
Unnikrishnan's case had held that the fundamental right to Education
already exists in our Constitution and is implicit in the Right to
Life (article 21). I asked the Minister of Human Resource
Development during the last session of Parliament why this
Constitutional mandate had not yet been implemented. The reply, "the
83rd Constitution Amendment is to be followed by a Central
legislation with detailed mechanism for its implementation." When
will this Central legislation be enacted and when will it be
implemented? Government is not prepared to spend the amounts
required for universalisation of primary education. Indeed, the
budget allocation this year for the Department of Elementary
Education of the Union Government is marginally lower than the budget
allocation last year before enactment of the Constitution Amendment.
The Tapas Majumdar Committee appointed by the Union Government in
1996 had assessed the demand for universalisation of elementary
education at Rs.13,700 crore each year for a period of 10 years. The
93rd Constitution Amendment Bill in its financial memorandum mentions
a much reduced requirement of Rs.9,800 crore per year and finally the
budget provides for the project Education for All, "Sarva Siksha
Abhiyan" an allocation of Rs.1,500 crore. The allocation for Sarva
Siksha Abhiyan bears no resemblance to the requirement assessed by
the Tapas Majumdar Committee and not even by the Bill passed in
Parliament. Indeed, the Minister of Human Resource Development
admitted in reply to my special mention in the Rajya Sabha "this (the
budget allocation) is less than what we had projected and we have
taken up the issue of enhancing our allocation with the Finance
Ministry and the Planning Commission". The Finance Ministry and the
Planning Commission are unlikely to respond favourably to the pleas
of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Our economic reforms
and the globalisation process have focused on integrating markets but
have neglected the development of Human Resources; yet the emergence
of the "knowledge society" in the new millennium where knowledge is
the primary source of wealth rather than capital or labour makes
universal literacy a must.
70 percent of the expenditure on universalisation of Primary
Education is to be borne by the State Governments. The State
Governments, however, are not likely to do so as they are markedly
short of resources. Furthermore, the States are not being consulted
either on this or other policy matters regarding Education. The
Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) which is the forum
specifically intended for such consultations has not met for the last
several years. In the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in the
Aruna Roy Case a three judge bench emphasized the importance of CABE
and two judges, J.J. Dharmadhikari and Sema directed the Union
Government to consider convening this forum. Justice Sema elaborated
the point and held : "While it is true that the CABE is a
non-statutory body, one cannot overlook the fact that it has been in
existence since 1935. It has also been accepted as an effective
instrument of meaningful partnership between the States and the
Centre, particularly in evolving a consensus on major policy issues
in the field of Human Resource Development. I am, therefore, of the
view that the importance of the role played by CABE cannot be side
tracked on the plea that the body is non-statutory, particularly when
it has been playing an important role in the past for evolving a
consensus on the major policy decisions involving national policy on
education=8A There is yet another reason as to why consultation of
this Board is highly essential in the issues like relating to the
State and Central co-ordination in evolving a national consensus
pertaining to national policy on education which require
implementation in all the States, as the education has now been
brought to the concurrent list by the 42nd amendment to the
Constitution. This would dispel the lurking suspicion in the minds
of the people and also will project transparency and purity in the
decision making process of the government=8A The Union of India is,
therefore, directed to consider the filling up of the vacancies of
the nominated members of CABE and convene a meeting of CABE for
seeking its opinion on National Curriculum Framework for School
Education (NCFSE) as expeditiously as possible and in any case before
the next academic session".
Government of India has shown no inclination to comply with
this directive of the Supreme Court. Education is a subject in the
Concurrent List of the Constitution and no policy on education can be
deemed to be a National Policy without the concurrence of the States.
The Supreme Court in the aforesaid Aruna Roy Case cautioned
Government about the danger of religious education being perverted.
The National Steering Committee on Textbook Evaluation was
constituted in 1991 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
The Committee submitted two reports which indicted several textbooks
and organizations for using material of a sectarian character. On
April 6, 2001 in reply to questions in Parliament, Government stated
"the two reports of the Committee were circulated to the State
Governments by the NCERT for necessary follow up action. No feedback
has been received from the States." Two years have now elapsed but
subsequent queries elicited no further information. A secular and
liberal education is pivotal to the agenda of Peace and Tolerance,
the two essentials of an enlightened and forward looking society.
(The writer is a Member of Parliament and a former Union Minister)
_____
#5.
IMC-USA to hold first ever convention of its kind on India-related issues
=46or Immediate Release
Washington D.C., June 23, 2003
The Indian Muslim Council - USA, a Washington D.C. based advocacy
group formally launched less than an year ago, is all set to host the
first ever convention of its type on India-related issues, in Santa
Clara, California on June 28th, 2003. The theme of the convention is
"India After Gujarat - Democracy or Religious Fanaticism".
The convention is unique is a number of ways. It comes at a time of
widespread concern across the world about the changing nature of
Indian society due to the rise of a divisive and hate-based ideology
called Hindutva. IMC-USA is emphasizing the significance of this
timing and the context of the convention, by making it the closure
point of its campaign to commemorate the events in Gujarat, India,
last year.
=46or the first time, such an impressive array of speakers from vastly
diverse backgrounds will assemble to discuss issues related to the
current situation in India. The speakers include prominent religious
/ community leaders, social activists, social scientists and
researchers, columnists and authors. While some speakers would
converge from different parts of the United States, others are
especially arriving from India to take part in the event.
This would be the first event to bring the developments in India into
focus in the United States on such a large scale. This is an
appropriate and much-needed development, since, as reported by human
rights and advocacy groups, the battle for ideology in India is
increasingly being fought within the Indian Diaspora in the United
States. Human rights groups and media have highlighted the increasing
financial, political, and intellectual support that the hate-based
ideology of Hindutva is gathering in the United States.
The IMC-USA Convention thus provides the perfect platform for those
concerned about the rise of divisive and hate-based ideologies such
as Hindutva, and the repercussions this holds for secular democracies
such as India and the United States. "Anyone with a specific interest
in India-related issues, or with a broader interest in understanding
the siege of democratic and secular societies by divisive and
hate-based ideologies, will find this convention stimulating," said
IMC-USA President, Dr. Shaik Ubaid, sending a warm note of welcome to
all.
Some prominent speakers attending the convention are:
=46r. Cedric Prakash, a Jesuit priest, working for human rights and
harmony in India for over 30 years
Praful Bidwai, one of India's most widely read columnists
Lise McKean, prominent scholar and researcher on 'Hindutva'
Angana Chatterji, researcher and activist on social issues
Smita Narula, senior researcher for Asia Division of Human Rights Watch
Dr. K.P.Singh, Convener of the International Association for the
Advancement of Dalit People
Nishrin Hussain, daughter of slain ex-M.P., Ahsan Jafri, in the
violence in Gujarat last year
=8Aand many more.
IMC-USA Website: www.imc-usa.org
Convention Website: www.imc-usa.org/convention/
____
#6.
The Statesman (Calcutta / India)
23 June 2003
Editorial
HEDGEWAR AND RSS-I
Revising History In The Light Of BJP Perception
By SUSHILA RAMASWAMY
(The author is Reader in Political Science, Jesus and Mary College,
New Delhi. )
Voltaire once remarked that history is just the tricks we play with
the dead. This is amply vindicated by a book release on Dr Keshav
Baliram Hedgewar (1889-1940) as part of Builders of Modern India by
the Prime Minister. The book written in Hindi does not either have
references or a bibliography. Obviously the felt need of bringing out
such a volume is to revise history in the light of the BJP
perception. This is reflected by the fact that even two decades ago
no scholarly work on Modern Indian History or the nationalist
movement ever included references either to Dr Hedgewar or the RSS.
Terror techniques
Dr Hedgewar, an Andhra Brahmin settled in Maharashtra, a discipline
of Balkrishna Shivram Moonje and a close friend of Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar, established the Rashtriya Swamyamsevak Singh in 1925 in
Nagpur. Hedgewar was sent to Kolkata by Moonje in 1910 to pursue his
medical studies and unofficially learn the techniques of terror from
the secret revolutionary organisations like the Anushilan Samiti and
Jugantar in Bengal. He became a part of the inner circle of the
Anushilan Samiti to which very few had access. In 1915 after
returning to Nagpur he joined the Indian National Congress and
engaged in anti-British activities through the Kranti Dal. He was
also a member of the Hindu Mahasabha till 1929. Such dual membership
was common at that time. He was imprisoned for sedition in 1921 for
one year and again for nine months in 1930.
The anti-Muslim feeling following the riots in Nagpur in 1923 and in
the aftermath of the suspension of the non-cooperation struggle the
dissension within the Congress over the issue of boycott of councils
were the background to the formation of the RSS. During Gandhi's
stewardship there was constant stress on Hindu-Muslim unity as
evident in the support lent to the Khilafat movement. But certain
sections of the Hindu intelligentsia felt threatened by the Muslim
mobilisation for the Khilafat movement and invented like Scottish
nationalism a sense of Hindu identity through organisations like the
Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. In response to the shuddhi and sangathan
movements following the suspension of the non-cooperation movement in
1922 with the aim of fostering unity among the Hindus were the tanzim
and tabliqh among the Muslims.
Hindu interests
Many Congress leaders were distressed and considered the growing
Hindu-Muslim animosity as a set back for creating a climate for
swaraj. The 1923 December convention of the Congress tried to review
the activities of the shuddhi and tabliqh movements but felt helpless
in bridging the Hindu Muslim gulf. Interestingly many prominent
Congress leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya and NG
Kelkar became spokesmen of Hindu interests and espoused a form of
Hindu nationalism by identifying with the Hindu Mahasabha but they
did not, like Hedgewar, sever ties with either the Congress or the
Hindu Mahasabha.
The continued domination of India by a handful of British officials
led to a lot of soul-searching among the nationalist leaders. The
weakness of the nationalist movement allowed the British to increase
repression during World War I. Hedgewar attributed it to our inherent
weakness and lack of discipline. He was disturbed by the fact that
the British could rule a huge territory like India with such ease
with the help of a few administrators.
However, in spite of his anti-British sentiments he instructed the
RSS to remain aloof from political activities including the salt
satyagraha (1930), Quit India movement (1942) and the Naval mutiny
(1946) in Mumbai and continue mainly as a social organisation.
Despite this, Seshadri strangely considered Hedgewar as a major
activist in the national movement and a vigorous and indefatigable
fighter for India's freedom colonial rule, indeed at the "forefront
of the freedom movement".
Hedgewar, through the RSS, tried to dedicate himself to introducing
into the Hindu society elements of cohesion and strength, features
that he considered the positive side of the British. The purpose was
to dispel the British perception of Hindu as weak and effeminate. He
emphasised character building and arousing pride among Hindus in
their culture. Character building was through physical exercises,
bodybuilding, sports mainly wrestling and weight lifting. Hedgewar
assigned protection of pilgrims during the Ramnavami celebrations in
Ramtek (near Nagpur) in 1926 as the first public task for the RSS.
Once again in 1927 the martial nature of the organisation became
clear when Hedgewar led the Ganesh procession playing music while
going through the mosque road in Nagpur. Both the events were
directed against the Muslims.
Sacrifice
Organisationally, the RSS since its inception emphasised vigorously
the need for renunciation and sacrifice incorporating the sentiments
of an influential stream of the Indian nationalist discourse. Ever
since Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's Anandamath (1882) emphasised
Bhakti, Dayananda, Vivekananda and Aurobindo reiterated it with
renewed stress. This total devotion of the RSS celibate workers
attracts considerable number of people. In 1927, Hedgewar organised
an officers' training camp with the tack of forming a corps of
pracharaks to establish the backbone of the RSS. He called upon the
pracharak to become sadhus first.
Since then, even today its cadres renounce their professions and
remain celibate with the intention of rejuvenating the Hindu
community. They lead an austere life with complete dedication to a
cause without any personal gain. Its pracharaks symbolise the revered
karmayogis of India's glorious past.
The Statesman (Calcutta / India)
24 June 2003
Editorial
HEDGEWAR AND RSS-II
A Minor Prophet With A Narrow Base
By SUSHILA RAMASWAMY
Hedgewar's call to his followers to become sadhus had two aims.
=46irst, it enabled them to devote wholeheartedly and completely for
the cause of Hindu nationalism and second, the emphasis on asceticism
introduced elements of Hindu sect in the RSS. Like the Arya Samaj,
the RSS differs from "traditional Hindu sectarian lineages" for it
adapted "traditional ideas of guruhood and wedded it to a larger
leadership organisation that has acquired a sanctity of its own".
Hedgewar initiated the young recruits to weekly sessions where they
were acquainted with matters relating to the Hindu nation, its
history and heroes.
Troubled egalitarianism
He insisted that the members pay true obeisance to the saffron flag
of Shivaji when the shakhas open, a custom that is followed till
today and offer guru dakshina which finances the movement. This
ceremony takes place six times a year - the Hindu New Year,
coronation of Shivaji, guru dakshina, Raksha Bandhan, Dasahara, and
Makarasankraman. In 1926, Hedgewar introduced a uniform consisting of
khaki shorts, khaki shirts and black forage caps.
A shortcoming of the RSS in the early years, despite its espousal of
cultural nationalism was the absence of any critical dissection of
some of moribund Hindu practices and customs. Nor was there a charter
of how to recast the Hindu society to meet the twin challenges of
western education and scientific-technological developments. The
emphasis was on a golden past and the RSS was essentially revivalist
in nature.
=46urthermore, an important objective of the RSS was to unite Hindus
above and beyond caste divisions and make Hindus equal in view of the
rise of a non-Brahmin movement led by Jyotiba Phule in the early
1920s. Hedgewar in his last speech in 1940 described the RSS as "the
Hindu Rasthra in miniature" regarding it as a kind of egalitarian,
alternative version of society, a great "family" or fraternity.
Malkani points out that the practice of having meals in common
irrespective of caste unnerved some Brahmins who were troubled about
sitting together with low caste Hindus, but Hedgewar insisted that
the practice should be followed.
Dhooria mentions how at the RSS everyone "played together, sang
together and ate together". Despite its efforts to acquire an
egalitarian image the RSS for long has been associated with high
castes. In Maharashtra, the Brahmins were attracted to the RSS mainly
because it embodied a synthesis of brahminical and martial values and
that was the reason why these segments of Maharashtra society
rejected Gandhiji's political style and leadership.
Premodern organisation
Hedgewar was a Telugu Brahmin. Golwalkar was a Karhada Brahmin
Moonje, a Deshastha Brahmin who in his diary described the early
swayamsevaks as "Brahmin youths" or "Brahmin lads". Regardless of its
commitment to egalitarianism, its vision of the ideal society is
organic based on a reinterpretation of the varna system. Jaffrelot
attributes the "pervasiveness of the Brahminical ethic in the
ideology and practices of the RSS" as the "main reason why it failed
to attract support from the low castes. The Sanskritised Hindu
culture which the RSS championed was that of high tradition, and even
its techniques bore the marks of Brahminical culture".
This is because Hedgewar spoke of samskars or good things by which he
hoped to refurbish the Hindu character to make it nationalistic and
defend itself against the "threatening others", namely the British
and the Muslims.
The RSS as an organisation is hierarchical. At the apex is the
sarsanghchalak or the spiritual head entitled to complete and
implicit obedience. In 1927 Hedgewar became a guru to his disciples
much against his wishes, notes Andersen and Damle, and assumed the
title of sarsanghchalak in 1929. His mausoleum is still a place of
pilgrimage for the RSS members.
However, this did not affect the decentralised nature of the RSS for,
as Jaffrelot pointed out, charisma is not considered the basic
quality of any leader. No leader is projected as indispensable as is
the case with most other political and social organisations in India.
It is the office and the particular incumbent who is revered. It is
the sarsanghchalak who appoints his successor.
On the death of Hedgewar in 1940, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar became
the unquestioned guru. There is institutional secrecy that masks the
internal working of the organisation and conflict and dissension
within it. The RSS organisation, coming in the wake of the
post-Gandhi Congress, seems a pre-modern organisation. It did not
have a constitution, four-annas membership, an all-India presence
with offices in every district and election to its highest office as
was the case with the Congress under Gandhi's stewardship.
Myopic world view
Not only with regard to organisation and its principles but even in
vision Hedgewar's cultural nationalism with accent on Hinduism was
just the opposite of Gandhi's composite nationalism, which was in
tune with the pluralistic nature of Indian society. Gandhi as a
moderniser of tradition identified what he called as the three
pillars of swaraj, namely Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of
untouchability and bridging the gap between the city and the village.
In comparison to Gandhi's constructive programme aimed at realising
swaraj there is nothing comparable in the RSS scheme of things. In
the light of these observations, Seshadri's official biography of RSS
entitled Dr Hedgewar: the Epochmaker depicted Dr Hedgewar as one of
the most significant personalities of the 20th century, whose
historical significance is rivalled only by Gandhi. This seems
far-fetched and intellectually flawed.
Hedgewar's RSS was a restricted and local enterprise without any
broad national vision reflecting the major contradictions that India
faced in the 20th century. Compared to Gandhi's elaborate and
inclusive plank that included every single Indian, Hedgewar was a
minor prophet whose prescriptions reflected a myopic world view
resulting in a narrow social base for the RSS. Even this enormous
state patronage to resurrect a minor figure who never tried to
broaden the base of the organisation, democratise it and make the
organisational and financial matters transparent, will not hide the
narrow localism and pre-modernity of the founder of the RSS.
_____
#7.
Aar Paar Project
Collaborative Public Art Project by Artists in India and Pakistan
http://www.members.tripod.com/aarpaar2/02.htm
_____
#8.
In the Name of Democracy: JP Movement and the Emergency
by Bipan Chandra
Penguin India
ISBN 0143029673 (Paperback)
384 pages
Published : 6/15/2003
http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/Books/aspBookDetail.asp?Id=3D5250
o o o
[ Related article]
The Hindustan Times (India), 26 June 2003
Total revolt by Prakash Patra
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/260603/detIDE01.shtml
_____
#9.
The Telegraph (India) June 26, 2003
Three Cs that changed Mumbai
CHANDRIMA S. BHATTACHARYA
Mumbai, June 25: As the Shiv Sena pushes for an exclusivist Mumbai, a
recently published book blames the city's changing character on
deep-seated maladies.
One of the essays in Bombay and Mumbai, The City in Transition -
edited by Sujata Patel and Jim Masselos - uses Ram Gopal Varma's
Satya to show the city's transformation in the past 15 years. In
Satya's Mumbai: Mumbai's Satya, Sandeep Pendse says the changes
occurred most rapidly during the BJP-Sena government's reign between
1995 and 1999.
Contemporary Mumbai is marked by the glitter of shops and lavish
lifestyle, changes in livelihood, severe lack of living space, and a
growing communal divide.
Changed by the three Cs of criminalisation, consumerism and
communalism, the city is made up of "millions of atomised and
isolated individuals" like Satya, says Pendse.
The film's protagonist, Satya, who arrives from an "unspecified
place" and "never (faces) a casual, curious inquiry about his past"
grows from crime to crime and power to power.
"His alien and alienated character is accepted by his beloved, his
colleagues, and friends who would risk their lives for him, without
question or curiosity," says Pendse.
The film takes his life as the natural state of existence in today's
Mumbai, he says. "It is now known that a large number of killings
masterminded by the ganglords in Mumbai are actually carried out by
non-professionals, young men with no criminal record or past,
recruited for a particular 'hit'."
Gangsters who were earlier drug-pushers or smugglers - remember the
films of the 1970s and '80s - moved on to real estate, a sector that,
too, suffered a downturn.
Gangs made up of individuals who have come from across the country
have now shifted to extortion and supari (contract) killings, the
milieu of Satya.
Reflecting deep-seated changes in society, Mumbai's transformation
can be traced to the collapse over the past two decades of the city's
manufacture-based economy, particularly the textile industry, which
roughly coincided with the trade union movement's downfall here.
Mumbai has thus shifted to a culture and industry based on services,
says Sujata Patel who writes on the transition in her essay, Bombay
and Mumbai: Identities, Politics and Populism.
Satya, says Pendse, reflects these changes. "The only occupations it
(the film) notes relate to activities in the entertainment industry
(film-making, singing, working in a restaurant), construction, crime,
politics and the police force," he says.
The lifestyle that goes with some of these occupations is marked by
liquor, expensive restaurants and cellphones.
As the new service-based economy has increasingly focused on
lifestyle, glitz and fanfare, the city's culture has moved from
artistic production to consumption, says Patel.
The Sena, she says, actively encourages such a lifestyle. "Look at
the way a Ganesh Puja or the Garba festival is celebrated today."
According to Patel, all this is bound to communalism. Leaders, she
says, use the glitter of festivities to seduce the unemployed,
insecure youth who, in the absence of any ideology, can then be
organised on the basis of dubious identity politics about an enemy
next door.
As poverty, unemployment and lack of housing became more pressing,
communal forces have tried to hold the attention of the masses by
organising festivities, historical leaders' birthdays and riots.
Though the book does not mention this, Satya reflects this reality.
The film shows the killing of Bhau, a local leader to whom the
gangsters kow-tow, at the culmination of the Ganesh festival he has
organised.
It was at the instance of communal forces that the riots of 1992-93
happened, says Jyoti Punwani in her article, My Area, Your Area: How
Riots Changed the City.
Around 900 people were killed in the riots and the city was divided
into separate "safe" zones for the majority and minority communities,
Punwani writes.
o o o
[Related Material in Audio]
Bombay and Mumbai: The City in Transition
Identities, Politics and Populism: Sujata Patel, Pune University
http://www.sarai.net/cityone/mp3/010-CO1D2-A/02_Talk-SujataPatel.mp3
Satya's Mumbai: Mumbai's Satya: Sandeep Pendse, Independent Scholar and Writ=
er
http://www.sarai.net/cityone/mp3/010-CO1D2-A/06_Talk-SandeepPendse.mp3
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
--