SACW | 2 July, 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  2 July,  2003

#1. Minorities of Bangladesh: Victims of a Nation's Failure (Mohsin Siddique=
)
#2. What Will They Do to Kashmir Now? (K Balagopal)
#3. Violence in Kashmir (edit, the Daily Times)
#4. The core issue is not Kashmir, it is mutual suspicion - Circle of 
mistrust (Kuldip Nayar)
#5. Pakistan's ideological abstract (Asma Khan Lone)
#6. Indira's Emergency vs Advani's democracy (Jawed Naqvi)
#7. India: Fixing witnesses? [in Gujarat] (Edit, The Hindu)
#8. Flimsy Foundations: Theological Roots of Israel & Pakistan (Parsa 
Venkateshwar Rao Jr)
#9. India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 123
#10. Correspondence re 'The Aryan Connection'  in SACW (July 1)

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

#1.

To: uttorshuri@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [uttorshuri] On Secularism in Bangladesh

I was invited to speak at a Seminar on Secularism in New York City (in
Astoria/Queens) organized by a group of Bangladeshis on Sunday, 6/24/03.
This is what I presented at the Seminar.

Regards.
Mohsin Siddique


Minorities of Bangladesh: Victims of a Nation's Failure

Mohsin Siddique


Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Mohsin Siddique, and I am
from Maryland. I have lived in this country for many years. Since I am not
from New York area, you do not know me. So, I would like to introduce
myself a bit. I want to let you know that I am not a member of Awami
League, or of BNP, or of Jamat, not even of the Communist Party. I am
registered to vote in this country, but I am not a Democrat or a
Republican. I am registered as an Independent in the state of Maryland.
The point of all this is that as an Independent, I support policies and
activities of any one if I agree with those, and criticize if I do not.

I want to thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this
discussion about secularism, the conditions of the minorities in
Bangladesh and what we might be able to do about it. I am not a
politician, and I have no power to do anything. Neither do I have any
original perspective to offer on the deplorable state in which the
minorities in Bangladesh find themselves, nor do I know any miracle
solution to the problem. But I do have a voice, and I offer my voice of
indignation against the poor treatment of the most vulnerable of its
citizens. I am a citizen of Bangladesh, where I was born and raised. Its
current and future state is of great concern to me and I would do what I
can to change it for the better. I want to see it full-fill the promise it
made at its birth; the promise was that we would create a secular and just
society. Today=EDs Bangladesh is neither secular nor just; we would not have
to have this seminar, if it were.

I have not been in Bangladesh for a few years, so, I do not know how it
feels to be there just now. However, it is clear from various reports that
crime and anarchy is taking over the country, and the people are becoming
increasingly powerless. I read that a few days ago, at a meeting organized
by the Center for Policy Dialog in Dhaka, leaders of both the major
parties admitted that their organizations have been taken over by the
goondas. Yet, no one=EDs life is more insecure from threat of violence and
no other community is more vulnerable than the religious minorities in
Bangladesh, including the country=EDs tribal people. The attack on the
minority community is relentless; not a single day goes by that the
rapists, arsonists, religious fanatics or some other miscreants do not
target the community. I just read about burning of yet another temple,
this time in Fardidpur. The sad fact is that this has been going on since
1947; and even sadder is the fact that though we all hoped that with the
creation of Bangladesh, the situation would improve, it has not. The
minorities were not better off under the post-liberation regimes of the
Awami League, or when the military dictators took over, or under BNP. If
one thing is constant in Bangladesh, it is the treatment of the minorities
as if they do not belong in Bangladesh; they are viewed as 'problem'; they
have never been treated as full citizens of Bangladesh in practice, and
often in law. Some well known political leaders have even questioned the
loyalty of the minority community to their motherland. And whoever speaks
the truth about their ill treatment, is accused of anti-state activities
or of creating a 'bad image' of Bangladesh, and harassed or jailed.
Remember what happened to journalist Shariar Kabir?

I have no doubt that the reason why the minorities are targeted is
precisely because they are non-Muslims, they are numerically small,
politically and economically weak. Their protection from attacks and
atrocities is of lowest priority to the government. What disturbs me the
most however is that the inferior status in which we have relegated our
minority citizens is not something that seems to trouble the national
conscience of Bangladesh. There are those who keep telling me that
Bangladeshi Muslims are not communal, that they are tolerant people. I do
not know what that means: we keep allowing atrocities to be committed
against the minorities by the politicians, government officials, local
pandas, etc., that we elect and tolerate; rape and stealing of properties,
torment and destruction of religious sites, discrimination in jobs and
opportunities, all happen with our knowledge. I think looking the other
way when atrocities are committed against the minorities is a
manifestation of communalism. Not to rise up in outrage against the
barbaric treatments of fellow human beings, not to come to the defense and
protection of our fellow citizens who happen to pray to different gods, is
support of communalism. I recognize that there are non-communal people in
Bangladesh and some political parties do protest, but they seem to have
very little impact on policies or practices and on those who are
determined to keep the minorities 'in their place'. The progressives have
not had much success in mobilizing a critical mass of public opinion that
translate into reversal of the rising tide of anti-secular sentiments and
activities in the country. I believe that the majority, by their apathy
towards the inhuman treatment of a segment of fellow citizens is playing a
role that is similar to the Germans=ED apathy towards the anti-Semitism of
the Nazis. It is not apathy without a price to the victims!

As tragic is the situation - and I do not by any means wish to belittle
the problems the minorities in Bangladesh face - in my opinion, it is
symptomatic of a larger problem. I believe that the Bangladesh society has
not confronted the rise of religious politics in Bangladesh, which begun
almost immediately after the liberation. Those who opposed the creation of
Bangladesh regrouped and under the cover of primacy of Islam in the
constitution, begun their assault on progressive trends that propelled the
liberation struggle. We did not learn from the Pakistan days the mistakes
of emphasizing religion in public life in a society that is composed of
people who are followers of many faiths. If we wanted an Islamic state,
there was no reason to sacrifice hundreds and thousands of lives during
the war of liberation and create Bangladesh: we already lived in an
=ECIslamic state=EE: it was called Pakistan! I have no doubt that those who
engineered the changes in the constitution did so to marginalize the
religious minorities in Bangladesh and to turn them into second-class
citizens. What else is the reason for this emphasis? There was absolutely
no impediment for the majority Muslims to practice their religion in
Bangladesh; there was no threat that any of their rights as citizens would
be lessened in a secular democracy. There was no possibility that in
electoral politics they would be relegated to minority status, even though
in a democracy religion must not be the basis of electoral politics. Why
then was this change necessary? It is clear from how politics has evolved
in Bangladesh over the last 30+ years, that the reactionary Muslim
Leaguers who created Pakistan and their more virulent incarnation, the
fundamentalist or otherwise Islamist politicians of today have gained
considerable influence in the country, and a pluralist multi-religious
secular society is not on their agenda. I am convinced of what the
ultimate goals of the extremists among them are: to steal whatever little
properties the minorities own; to convert them to Islam; and, if that does
not succeed, evict them from their ancestral homes. The emerging primacy
of these forces in Bangladesh is a national failure.

Those who sacrificed to create this country must not tolerate these
efforts to redirect the country towards the old ways of Pakistan or worse;
they cannot remain silent; they must act. People who use Islam to justify
their personal political ambitions, and pursue reactionary, even primitive
political agenda, ignore the realities of today, and refuse to see that we
do not live in the Middle East of the 6th or 7th century. It would be
wrong to assume that only those who belong to the avowedly religious
parties have these ideas; many among the politicians who claim to be
secular often justify the growing Islamization and fail to see the
consequences. I am not an expert on Islam, but it is hard for me to
believe that any religion would endorse humiliation and brutalization of
another human being in its name. These same forces relentlessly and
actively pursue or indirectly support and contribute to policies and
activities that are undemocratic, regressive, and some times savage-like
in their brutality. Their particular victims are women of Bangladesh who
are trying to break out of their shackles that have kept them enslaved for
centuries. They constantly harass the small progressive forces in the
country, including independent journalists. I have no doubt that given an
opportunity they will again annihilate the secular intellectual community
as they did in 1971. Against the minorities, they are practicing what
amounts to a form of ethnic cleansing, the way Islamists in Pakistan have
done successfully. This is proven by the steady decline of the minority
population in the country as the census reports indicate.

I submit to you that in Bangladesh, at this stage in history, that is the
fundamental struggle: between secular democracy and a religious state that
seeks to impose on a heterogeneous population the monolithic way of life a
few people think is Islamic. It diminishes the status of non-Muslims and
other oppressed segments of the population, and erodes whatever we have
left of the spirit that launched the liberation movement. How this is
resolved will determine the future of the country. I fear that without the
victory of secular democracy, in not too distant a future, the minority
community in Bangladesh will be wiped out. Without victory in this battle,
we are all doomed.

Communalism of every kind is fundamentally opposed to human rights, and
demand for the rights of the minorities is not a demand to diminish the
rights of other communities. Neither is secularism anti-religion. Our
struggle is to impress upon all segments of the society that we all,
people of all religions and ethnicity, have the right to full and
unconditional citizenship, full and unimpeded opportunity to succeed in
economic, political, cultural and social life, and must have equal
protection of the law and the state, not only in theory, but also in
practice.

Only real solution is for Bangladesh to become what it promised to be: a
truly secular democracy in constitution that de-emphasizes religion in
public life, implement the promises, and consciously learn how to be a
secular democracy. Anything less is a betrayal of the liberation struggle.
'Islamic democracy' in any form would be a tragic farce for its victims,
just as would be 'Hindu democracy' or 'Jewish democracy'! Whenever a
country takes a religion as its credo, it ceases to be democratic, because
it automatically causes the people of other faiths to be second-class
citizens. Fundamental tenet of a democracy is the equality of all its
citizens, without 'ifs' and 'buts'. Look at Israel, look at Pakistan, and
look at Bangladesh: conditional democracy is inherently discriminatory. 

I suggest that we refuse to vote for any political party that does not
commit to a secular democracy as it=EDs expressed goal and does not commit
to restoring the original constitution, because it is so fundamental to
why this country was created. They must understand that a constitution
that begins with a quotation from the holy book of one religion, and
explicitly establishes it to be its 'state religion', can not but make the
believers in other religions (and a few non-believers like myself)
unwelcome in the public life of that country. This must change if
Bangladesh wishes to be a secular, modern and progressive society. It is
only then that all its citizens will have the sense of security of equal
citizenship. We must recognize our historic political and moral failure in
allowing abandonment of the promises of a secular polity and a just
society that was the heart and sole of the bloody liberation struggle that
made Bangladesh possible. Our commitment to restoring the country into a
(secular) democracy that guarantees protection, equal rights and
opportunities for all its citizens would be the true _expression of our
non-communalism. 

The forces of democracy and progress that organized itself to fight the
effort to dismantle the religious/undemocratic state called Pakistan must
come together and resist the rising tide of reactionary, murderous,
anti-democratic, anti-secular religious-political forces in the country.
They are consolidating their political power, have already infiltrated the
administration and the military, and are well financed by their
ideological mentors in the Middle East to carry out their program of
pogrom. Simply because the extremists may not have won the majority in the
last election does not mean they are not growing, or they are not
expanding their influence and spreading their tentacles. They have enough
allies within the so-called non-religious parties to influence policies to
steer the country towards their goals. Not exposing and taking the threat
posed by them seriously, especially in a society with a history of
communal strife, is not the way to create a secular society, or protect
democracy or ensure human rights of all its people.

What can the minority community do? I say, keep fighting. It is necessary
to assert, by all available means, and relentlessly, that the non-Muslim
population of Bangladesh has as much right as the Muslim community to full
citizenship. We have to find ways to fight public apathy. We must launch
activities that consciously confront explicit and implicit communal
feelings, intolerance of other faiths and inhumanity of treating a segment
of the society as second-class citizens. We know that political power is
something one has to earn; no one gives it away. We have to keep finding
ways, new ways, to figure out how to gain power. In politics, several
factors determine the power of a community: its number, its organization,
its ability to mobilize, its alliances, and its financial and other
resources. In each area, we must take steps to make advances. It is
essential that we continue to be part of the multi-religious secular
democratic movement in the country. Without strengthening this movement,
without success in mobilizing significant segment of the country's
population under its banner, we have no chance. To do so, we have to fight
the hopelessness that pervades the society, which I believe is the reason
for the apathy. We have to demonstrate the benefits of real democracy,
while exposing the hypocrisy and the inhumanity of a political system
based on this or that religion.

Those of us who live outside, have to do all we can to help make the
democratic movement in the country stronger. We have to unite to do so, in
Bangladesh and here, including this city. If we do not unite, if we waste
our time and resources in bickering, infighting and fractious petty
politics, we will not make any headway. Divisiveness among us will only
strengthen the hands of the communalist anti-democratic forces. I think
one of the reasons why we have failed in our goals we set out in 1971 is
that the coalition that was formed to launch and lead the liberation
struggle fell apart soon after. If we are serious about a secular
democratic society, we need to recall the spirit of the liberation
struggle, and reconstitute the kind of coalition that brought victory in
1971.

I suggest =F1 unless it is already underway - that we undertake a project,
with the help of those who are engaged in this struggle inside the
country, to document (perhaps a database) every incident of communal
discrimination and communally motivated crime. It should be used to
prepare annual reports to send to every single human rights group, heads
of international donor organizations, and make available to the people and
the lawmakers of the countries on whose charity Bangladesh depends. These
reports should highlight the plight of the minorities in Bangladesh and
demand that they donors require Bangladesh to take specific steps to
protect the minorities and provide them with equal opportunities. We must
bring every ounce of pressure we can master on the country and its
government to stop attacks on the minority community. I completely reject
the accusation that by focusing on the plight of the minorities we some
how embarrass Bangladesh. It is inhuman to try to sweep under and justify
treating minorities as second-class citizens by clinging to false
prestige. If embarrassment is what is needed, let us use it. Let us lobby
every human rights group, every politician in countries on which
Bangladesh depends, to bring pressure on it to treat the minorities with
dignity and as full citizens; to restore secular democracy; and, to
prevent the rise of fundamentalism, aided by internal apologists and
external financiers.

Washington D.C. June 2003

____

#2.

The Economic and Political Weekly (India)
June 21, 2003

What Will They Do to Kashmir Now?

The several 'formulas' for peace doing the rounds all require only 
the satisfaction of India and Pakistan and the approval of the US. 
The Kashmiris themselves have no formula to offer. It may be because 
of political fatigue, or perhaps there is a deeper reason, for, to 
Kashmiris self-determination is in terms of the whole of the old 
state of Jammu and Kashmir. But this old idea of collective 
self-determination has not been kept alive by the social and 
political leaderships of the ethnic/linguistic sub-regions. The voice 
of 'azaadi' inevitably sounds like Kashmiri particularism easily 
conflated by interested parties with Muslim communalism.

K Balagopal

What will the US, India and Pakistan do to Kashmir? That is the 
proper order, the US first, India next and Pakistan last. What do 
they aim to do to Kashmir? For this time round, there is a certain 
apprehension (one can hardly call it hope) in the Valley and 
elsewhere in the state of Jammu and Kashmir that American interest in 
snuffing out the germinating grounds of Islamic militancy - rather 
than any Indo-Pak desire for peace - may well ensure some form of 
resolution of the 'Kashmir dispute'. Indeed the newspapers a few days 
ago reported an American official as having said that the Kashmir 
dispute would be resolved by December 2004. Whether that will be 
before or after finishing off Syria, the report does not clarify.

However, even granting the sense of urgency that affects the US, 
ruled by a coterie described as Christian fundamentalists by even 
matter-of-fact analysts, whose faith teaches them to beware of the 
visits the sins they have committed are liable to pay them in time, 
and who therefore have reason to hurry and disinfect the breeding 
grounds of Islamic militancy before a few more fidayeen are sent 
westward, it may nevertheless appear that the apprehension that some 
thing is going to happen by way of resolution of the 'dispute' in the 
near future is misplaced. After all, India's offer of talks with 
Pakistan is hardly serious. Has not the union cabinet headed by Atal 
Behari Vajpayee set a record of sorts by way of double talk in the 
last few months in the matter of India's attitude towards Pakistan?

Consider: its foreign minister begins by declaring quite out of the 
blue one day that Pakistan is a good candidate for pre-emptive 
strikes and India should do an Iraq on Pakistan. Its defence minister 
defends him, while cautioning that it is not yet official to say so. 
The prime minister keeps mum, but suddenly goes to Srinagar and makes 
a speech offering a mouthful of what the Kashmir press has described 
as boons, including offer of a hand of friendship and talks with 
Pakistan without any preconditions. And for good measure he adds that 
if this effort fails there will be no further efforts. That could 
either be taken as an index of his determination to make the talks a 
success, or else as a threat that there will be just one effort and 
then the Sinha-Fernandes formula will take over. The ambiguity just 
adds variety to the confusion.

But as soon as the prime minister leaves the Valley for Hindustan, he 
adds the usual precondition to the offer of talks: that Pakistan 
should put an end to cross-border terrorism. That really takes it 
back to zero. But soon thereafter he gives an interview to Der 
Spiegel in which he dedicates himself to the success of the talks 
with such passion that he says he will quit if he fails. Just as one 
thought he was at last serious, he clarifies that quit does not mean 
quit and he will not say what it really means. A few days later, back 
in India again, he reduces the offer to an absurdity: we have talked 
of Kashmir in the past, so why not talk of Azad Kashmir this time? 
Musharraf can respond by suggesting that we discuss the future of the 
Vaishno Devi shrine thereafter. Seriously, does Vajpayee want the 
people of this country to believe that he expects Azad Kashmir to 
join India? It is believed in the 'shakhas' of the RSS, we know, but 
nobody outside those benighted places thinks so.

So why should anybody hope/apprehend that anything at all is going to 
come of this offer of talks that vacillates between a nullity and a 
farce?

Other things being the same, nobody would. In the past, Kashmiris 
have expressed scepticism with their intellect and hope with their 
hearts every time talks have been proposed between the two countries. 
They greeted Agra with scepticism, but when Musharraf finally came 
over, 'glued to the TV' is how they describe themselves. In the end, 
the scepticism was justified, but the hope will probably never die.

But after September 11, 2001, things are no more the same. The US, 
for a variety of reasons, wants peace between India and Pakistan. 
Some of the reasons have to do with both the real and imaginary fears 
of the hatred it has wantonly fostered in the hearts of Muslim 
peoples all over the world and the monsters that have arisen 
therefrom, and the others stem from plain old fashioned economic 
rationality. In fact, from the time of the rise of militancy in 
Kashmir, a section of its political representatives, more 
particularly those in the Hurriyat Conference inclined to Pakistan, 
have believed that economic rationality will impel the US to solve 
the Kashmir dispute. The logic (in my language, not that of any 
Hurriyat leader) goes as follows: the US wants free access to Central 
Asian mineral wealth which, in the face of an unfriendly Iran and a 
backward Afghanistan, requires the sea ports that Pakistan offers. 
Effective utilisation of this facility requires that Pakistan be a 
stable and peaceful society and economy. And that can never be 
guaranteed until Kashmir becomes quiet and India becomes irrelevant 
so that the clerics and the mujahideen who have used Kashmir to 
impose their rule on the minds and the streets (respectively) of 
Pakistan are rendered dispensable. The logic is persuasive, but it is 
remarkable that this rationality had to be supplemented by the dread 
of the Al Qaida to realise itself.

All this adds up to the apprehension that the Americans may force 
some solution this time round. With some, to be frank, the 
apprehension is in fact a hope because a sizeable section of 
Kashmiris have reached the stage where they feel it does not matter 
how the dispute is resolved so long as the guns fall silent and they 
can stop dreading each dawn for the dead bodies it may bring home. 
But only some. If India has hoped that it has by now reduced all 
Kashmiris to this state, it is mistaken. For many, the apprehension 
is not a hope, it is the negation of hope. They do not want any 
solution that will cheat the memory of the thousands who have died 
these 13 years. In particular they do not want any resolution that 
has not heard them and has not sought their approval.

But it is evident that the fixers who are active devising solutions 
are working with rulers and pencils drawing lines straight or crooked 
on the map partitioning the land one way or other to the mutual 
satisfaction of India and Pakistan, their proverbial rigidity 
rendered malleable under the weighty glare of America's eyes. 
'Formulas' are already doing the rounds, and there are rumours that 
India and Pakistan have already come to an understanding on making 
the LoC the border. Nobody knows how true this is, but this is indeed 
the favourite solution of what these days is being described as the 
'civil society' of both the countries. Whether one sees it as a just 
idea or not depends on what one is looking for. The well-meaning 
individuals who compose what is being called civil society are 
looking for peace and friendship between India and Pakistan. They are 
doing so for the sake of India and Pakistan. They are not looking for 
anything in particular for the Kashmiris, and are therefore 
unwittingly perhaps joining with the two governments in treating the 
region as a piece of mere territory. Nobody has as yet suggested 
putting this formula to vote in the affected region. On the contrary, 
Brijesh Mishra has been quoted as saying that 'when India and 
Pakistan sit down to talk there will be no third chair'. He is 
lying, of course, there will be an invisible third chair for George 
Bush or his appointee, but what that arrogant representative of 
India's Sangh parivar rulers means is that Kashmiris will have no 
place at the talks nor will their approval be sought for any proposed 
resolution of the territorial dispute that their lives have been 
reduced to by the two countries.

Making the LoC the permanent border would have the consequence of 
forcing the Kashmiris of the Valley to reconcile themselves to India, 
in spite of the repeated expression of their unwillingness to accept 
that status. It would also mean permanently dividing the 
Pahari-speaking people between the Muzaffarabad region of Azad 
Kashmir and the Rajouri-Poonch region of India. That, surely, cannot 
be done behind their backs?

Another formula under discussion is that proposed by Sardar Sikander 
Hayat Khan, the prime minister of Azad Kashmir. Until recently a 
support of the official Pakistani position that the whole of the 
(old) J and K belongs to Pakistan, he has now come up with the idea 
of making the river Chenab rather than the LoC the dividing line. The 
right bank of the Chenab will go to Pakistan and the left bank to 
India. It is evident that he is mainly concerned with ensuring that 
all people of his own community - Paharis of Muzaffarabad as well as 
Rajouri-Poonch - get into Pakistan, and his plan assures that. But in 
the process it forces the Valley into Pakistan, whereas it is 
doubtful that more than a minority would prefer joining Pakistan 
unless the third option of independence is closed to them. And 
moreover, the right bank of the Chenab includes also the almost 
totally Hindu Akhnoor tehsil of Jammu, whereas the left bank houses 
the Muslim-majority Kishtwar and Bhaderwah tehsils of Doda. These 
people cannot be thrown into Pakistan and India respectively without 
taking their view in the matter, merely because the Chenab happens to 
be a ready-made line that nature has already drawn on the map.

Then there is another 'formula' credited to Bill Clinton, among whose 
unsuspected assets was, apparently, this ability to solve problems at 
a distance. This formula hands over to each country the pound of 
flesh it demands, excepting the Valley which is made self-governing 
under the joint supervision of the friends-to-be: Pakistan and India, 
with Uncle Sam looking over the shoulders, of course. Poor Kashmiris! 
is all one can say.

Everybody has a 'formula', the common point of all the formulas being 
that they require only the satisfaction of India and Pakistan and the 
approval of the US. The Kashmiris alone have none. In a 10 days' tour 
of the state one was unable to elicit anything more specific from the 
Kashmiris than a determined reiteration that their right to 
self-determination shall be assured. One can put it down to fatigue, 
but it is also a fact that the Kashmiris have come to look to the 
Hurriyat Conference for all political responses on the supposition 
that it represents all shades of opinion that dispute their accession 
to India; the Hurriyat in turn, being in fact dominated by a few 
shades of opinion, has lent its political support to Pakistan's 
manoeuvres and is perforce tongue-tied when Pakistan is in a fix; and 
Pakistan is truly in a fix not knowing how to simultaneously please 
George Bush and the armed and unarmed clerics who have established a 
hold on its society by dint of their disruptive capacity if not 
actual mass following.

There is another and a deeper reason too. The Kashmiris, when they 
talk of self-determination are inclined to think in terms of the 
whole of the old state of Jammu and Kashmir ruled by the heirs of 
Gulab Singh. So long as the discussion is centred on the UN 
resolutions, it is bound to be so. But after 55 years, that region 
has not remained what it was on October 26, 1947. And it cannot be 
said that the social and political leadership of any of the 
ethnic/linguistic sub-regions of that very diverse state (including 
the Kashmiri leadership) has striven to reach out to the others and 
keep alive the old idea of the right of collective self-determination 
for all of them. As a consequence, there is a certain ambiguity today 
regarding the meaning and indeed the very referent of that right. 
When Kashmiris talk of 'azaadi', the referent easily and 
unconsciously slides from the whole of the old J and K to the Valley 
and then to the Valley plus Muzaffarabad and back again to the whole 
of the old J and K. And the other regions are either indifferent or 
suspicious of the Kashmiris. Among those who still regard the old 
state of J and K as a meaningful political entity, Balraj Puri has 
been almost alone in pointing out to the intellectual and political 
leadership of the regions their failure to reach out to the other 
linguistic and ethnic groups in a spirit of mutuality and equity 
leading to the structuring of a federal and secular order that can 
help keep alive the historical sense of oneness of the state. This 
failure has meant that the voice of azaadi inevitably sounds like 
Kashmiri particularism, easily conflated by interested parties with 
Muslim communalism and separatism.

Not that the Kashmiris carry upon themselves the moral burden of 
cajoling everybody else to join the movement for self-determination 
and thereby disprove the abuse of communalism thrown at them. They 
are under no such obligation, and their demand for 
self-determination, even if reduced to the Valley, makes perfect 
sense, but without such an effort from all sides the old state of J 
and K can no longer be a single collective referent for the demand of 
self-determination. As things stand today, why should anyone expect 
the people of Baltistan and Kathua to see themselves as co-citizens 
of a single state?

A proposal suggested by the JKLF leader Amanullah Khan of Islamabad 
is significant in this background. Writing in the Kashmir Times, May 
6, 2003, he has suggested letting the whole of the old J and K area 
be a self-governing entity of a democratic, secular and federal 
character for 15 years, at the end of which a plebiscite may be held 
to decide whether they would like to join India or Pakistan or be 
independent. Perhaps the period of 15 years is meant for recreating 
the lost links between the regions and ethnic groups and recover the 
almost lost identity. As well as try out the experiment of 
coexistence within a single state of diverse ethnic/linguistic groups 
on the bais of a secular, democratic and federal polity. It is an 
attractive idea, especially coming at a time when such inclusivist 
idealism has become old fashioned and the narrowest exclusivism is 
the most rebellious attitude. Even so, it is doubtful that the 
Kathua-Jammu area will ever want to leave India, or the Mirpur area 
Pakistan. A one-point plebiscite to be determined by an overall 
majority may not be able to do justice to all. Too much has changed 
in the last 55 years for that. Amanullah Khan's proposal would 
however carry genuine meaning for Rajouri-Poonch, Muzaffarabad, the 
Valley and probably Doda as well.

However, who is listening to Amanullah Khan? Or to anyone from the 
'disputed area'? It is this and not the correctness of any formula 
for resolving the 'dispute' that is primarily at issue today. Those 
who would resolve it do not even accept that the real 'dispute' is 
not between India and Pakistan. It began as a dispute between the 
people of Jammu and Kashmir and the contending states of India and 
Pakistan. Time may have reconciled some of the people to the disputed 
situation - the accession and its aftermath - but not all are 
reconciled to it, and the dispute today remains between those who 
disagree with it and the two beneficiary states. By pretending that 
the dispute is between them, the two states are able to ignore the 
people and talk of settling it between themselves. And now they have 
the assistance of the world's primary rogue state which believes in 
no democratic principles beyond its shores. This is today's problem 
in Kashmir: and we have no solution in sight.

_____


#3.

The Daily Times (Pakistan)
July 01, 2003
Editorial

Violence in Kashmir

The recent upswing in violence in Indian-held Kashmir is unfortunate. 
But it needs to be put in a context. Despite the peace initiative and 
some moves along the path to normalisation, it does not seem that 
India and Pakistan are prepared for a basic review of their policies 
relating to each other. This is how the land lies.
India says it is ready for a peace dialogue with Pakistan. But the 
fact is that it has shown no inclination so far to take any bold 
steps in addressing the basic issues. Indeed, with the dust settling 
down on Mr Vajpayee's hand-of-friendship speech, it appears that New 
Delhi is merely interested in offsetting the costs of non-engagement. 
The old mantra of 'cross-border terrorism' is again being voiced even 
as the two sides have begun to recover lost ground. This hardly 
portends well for any serious peace efforts. Pakistan, too, cannot be 
absolved of its share of blame. General Pervez Musharraf had made a 
commitment to curb infiltration but not enough has been done on this 
score. Now we have to deal with the blowback effect of jihadi attacks 
on activists of Mufti Sayeed's ruling party in Indian-held Kashmir. 
The Mufti won the elections and is trying his best to convince New 
Delhi of the need to streamline its policy on Kashmir. The APHC, too, 
while staying out of the electoral process, has called for a 
political dialogue. Thus there is absolutely no need for anyone in 
Pakistan - officially or otherwise - to muddy the waters. And this is 
regardless of whether New Delhi is prepared to make a move on Kashmir 
or not at this stage.
Peace is too important for the region to be sacrificed at the altar 
of immediate tactical moves. Policies always run their course and 
latching on to them well after they have been exhausted shows an 
inability to perceive the correct exit point. There was some sense 
that Pakistan was coming round to appreciating the logic of working 
around the problem. That would have involved engaging India on 
multiple fronts, including trade and other exchanges, rather than 
simply focusing on Kashmir. But if violence is to continue or show an 
upswing, as it has done in the last two days in Indian-held Kashmir 
at the behest of the jihadis, the whole exercise could fall by the 
wayside.
This is the catch 22. Both states seem to be caught in the dynamics 
of their own making. The only way out of this cycle is to 
fundamentally alter perceptions on both sides. India being the bigger 
of the two should have been bold enough to alter the paradigm but 
despite its desire to be accepted as a big power it has failed so far 
to get rid of the pathology of a small power. In South Asia we seem 
to think that conceding ground to an adversary shows weakness. 
Nothing could be further from truth. Yet, both sides think that the 
other is merely buying time even as both ultimately fail to review 
policies substantively.
The reality in Kashmir may also be changing. There is clear 
indication that Kashmiris are sick of the way the two countries have 
treated them. The Indian security forces have acted shamelessly and 
there is absolutely no doubt in any Indian's mind that the Kashmiris 
have had to bear the full brunt of India's military might and its 
excesses. Yet, there should also be no doubt in any Pakistani's mind 
that the Kashmiris equally abhor the extremist Islamist groups whose 
cadres say they are fighting for Kashmir's independence from India 
but want to chain the state in a literalist exegesis of Islam that is 
anathema to the Kashmiris and does not jibe with the traditional 
moderation of Kashmiri Muslims. *

_____


#4.

The Indian Express
July 01, 2003

The core issue is not Kashmir, it is mutual suspicion
Circle of mistrust
Kuldip Nayar
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D26742

_____


#5.

The Hindu (India)
July 02, 2003

Pakistan's ideological abstract
By Asma Khan Lone

Pakistan's slide towards fundamentalism is in reality a reaction to 
class discrimination...
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/07/02/stories/2003070201241000.htm 

_____

#6.

DAWN
July 1, 2003

Indira's Emergency vs Advani's democracy
By Jawed Naqvi

Mrs Indira Gandhi locked up India's so-called strongman, Mr Lal 
Krishan Advani, on June 26, 1975, the day she declared her 
controversial Emergency rule. He was picked up in Bangalore and later 
lodged in the Rohtak Jail in Haryana, a veritable hellhole, for much 
of his imprisonment.
Mr Advani was one of several opposition leaders who spent all or most 
of the 19 months of Mrs Gandhi's authoritarian rule in different 
prisons across the country. Every year since then, Mr Advani has 
found a ruse to remind us of his undemocratic ordeal. This year too, 
on June 26, he visited the Rohtak Jail with the usual media ensemble 
in attendance. He also got state TV to narrate the sequence of events 
that led to the suspension of civil liberties by Mrs Gandhi. The 
programme lasted an entire day. It's election time and these things 
count.
After he was freed from prison, Mr Advani became information and 
broadcasting minister in the Janata Party government that removed Mrs 
Gandhi from power. She had miscalculated the national mood and called 
elections in mid-1977. She lost. It was a big day for Indian 
democracy. It had narrowly survived what could have been a close 
call. But what did Mr Advani do next? He promptly did as a democrat 
what Mrs Gandhi hesitated to do as a dictator. Within days of its 
inauguration, his government banned four school textbooks that were 
written by world acclaimed professors, including Messrs Bipan 
Chandra, R.S. Sharma and Romila Thapar.
Hindutva is an ideology that equates the demolition of desolate 
mosques with national awakening. But in some ways Mr Advani came to 
practise his ideology years before his fanatical followers tore down 
the Babri Mosque in Dec 1992. Banning the books was one such.
Before he became a politician Mr Advani was a film critic. He seemed 
to know his subject when as information minister he chose to show on 
Doordarshan one of the most brazenly communal films made in Hindi 
cinema, Swayam Siddha.
It is a 1950s film about a Hindu woman's zeal to drive out Christian 
missionaries from her village to purify her motherland. As bonus, in 
the process of her exorcism, her deaf and mute husband is cured. The 
issue became one of several that drove a wedge between Mr Advani's 
loyalty to his ideology and his commitment to democracy via the 
Janata Party experiment. He chose the former. The government 
collapsed.
How do Mr Advani's democratic precepts that he always takes care to 
wear on his sleeves compare with Mrs Gandhi's straight from the 
heart, unpretentious fling with dictatorship? Mrs Gandhi overrode 
parliament and jailed her foes. She then used her contrived majority 
in parliament to shape the constitution to suit her purposes such as 
they were. It is rumoured that she also influenced the Supreme Court 
to vacate her indictment by the Allahabad High Court, which had set 
aside her election from Rae Bareily, an issue that prompted the 
Emergency.
Mrs Gandhi had used a cocktail of draconian laws to hunt her 
quarries. They included MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act), 
COFEPOSA, a law ostensibly to track and check smuggling, and the 
Defence of India Rules. Of these MISA was the most notorious. Mr 
Advani in his turn had no need for the multiplicity of laws, so he 
reduced them to just one, POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act). Mrs 
Gandhi had manipulated the provisions of parliamentary democracy to 
push her way past the opposition. Mr Advani used parliamentary 
loopholes to reach there. He got Prime Minister Vajpayee to summon a 
joint session of parliament after the Congress blocked the passage of 
POTA in the Rajya Sabha. Mr Advani got the bill passed.
Nowadays, Mr Advani's allies are using POTA freely to fix their 
rivals. The chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are prime 
examples of this abuse, not to speak of Gujarat. If Mrs Gandhi used 
her political power to tame the Supreme Court, Mr Advani used the 
street power of his hordes to reduce the apex court to a helpless 
bystander. That is how the mosque was demolished in Ayodhya. Of 
course there is not a trick in the legal armoury that he has not 
apparently used to delay and deny justice in the matter. He is one of 
the accused in the demolition trial.
Mrs Gandhi's minions used the Emergency to harass their rivals. Mr 
Advani's cohorts are so brazen they do not need the cover of an 
emergency. Nor do they stop at mere harassment. They rape, burn, kill 
in the name of saving democracy as they did in Gujarat. They then 
seek shelter under the law of the land. That is how a day after Mr 
Advani took his ritual walk down memory lane inside a jail, a local 
court in Baroda allowed 21 men accused of mass murder inside a bakery 
during the February-March pogroms in Gujarat last year to walk free. 
The reason? The key witness, a Muslim woman, had turned hostile 
because she was reportedly too frightened to stand by her charge. 
This was the first case among several that are dealing with the 
carnage. They are all hanging fire. The outcome is cynically known.
When Mr Advani was imprisoned, he had been a leading participant in a 
nationwide campaign to topple Mrs Gandhi. She accused the press also 
of collusion against her and therefore jailed several journalists and 
imposed strict censorship. But Mr Advani says he believes in 
democracy. So he allows two hapless journalists, Iftikhar Gilani and 
Kumar Badal, to rot in prison over allegations that they had abused 
their privilege as free citizens under his dispensation to harm the 
interests of the state. Iftikhar was picked up in June last year on 
fake charges of espionage and Kumar was next in July for allegedly 
poaching animals. They were freed earlier this year.
Mr Advani's experiment with his peculiar form of democracy is not 
over yet. His government has caused the closure of the Tehelka 
website, the only news medium that dared to expose the government's 
corrupt ways with hard evidence. Offices of the Outlook magazine were 
raided ostensibly to discipline the editor. And so the experiment 
trundles on. And it has lasted more than Mrs Gandhi's 19 months.

_____


#7.

The Hindu (India)
July 01, 2003

=46ixing witnesses?

THE ACQUITTAL OF all the 21 accused in the Best Bakery fire, which 
was part of the post-Godhra Gujarat carnage, is the culmination of a 
sloppy prosecution marred by interference from members of the ruling 
establishment. After crucial witnesses turned hostile during the 
trial in the fast-track court in Vadodara, the Best Bakery case was 
perhaps fated to fail. But the intervention of a BJP member of the 
Assembly, Madhu Shrivastava, who escorted the main complainant, 
Zahira Sheikh, to the court on the day she went back on her charges, 
raises apprehensions about intimidation of witnesses having played a 
decisive role in the outcome of the trial. Mr. Shrivastava, who 
claimed he was only "protecting" Zahira Sheikh and her family from 
anti-social elements, was present in the court through the trial. 
Indeed, he showed a more than ordinary interest in clearing the 
accused of the charges originally made by those in his "protection". 
The trial took on a farcical character with some of the witnesses 
describing as "saviours" the very same persons whom they had 
initially identified as the perpetrators of the crime. The facts and 
circumstances of the fire, which claimed at least 12 human lives, 
were well documented with the survivors recounting their ordeal 
before the National Human Rights Commission, the Government-appointed 
Commission of Inquiry, the Concerned Citizens Tribunal and the 
national media. However, everything changed the moment Mr. 
Shrivastava came on the scene and took the witnesses in his 
"protective" custody.

The acquittal aside, what is disconcerting is that the sessions 
judge, H.U. Mahida, made no comment about the conduct of the 
witnesses. The prosecution was faulted, not for its inability to fix 
the charges on the accused, but for "fabricating" the accounts of the 
witnesses. Investigation of any riot case is difficult, as the police 
have to rely almost entirely on the accounts of the witnesses. In the 
Bakery case, Zahira Sheikh had voluntarily deposed against the 
accused in several public fora before retracting her deposition in 
court. That should have been sufficient cause for suspecting 
manipulation of the judicial process. To add to the intrigue, Zahira 
Sheikh was not immediately traceable after the verdict. In an already 
terrorised atmosphere, as in post-Godhra Gujarat, the witnesses are 
no doubt susceptible to intimidation and influence. Unfortunately, 
this aspect does not appear to have received the required attention 
during the trial stage.

If such a high-profile case can collapse so easily, there is reason 
to believe that other cases registered in connection with the Gujarat 
riots might go the same way. If anything, the interference of the 
ruling establishment would be more in cases on the Naroda-Patiya and 
Gulmarg Society incidents, in which ruling party MLAs and VHP and 
Bajrang Dal leaders have been listed as accused. As the former Union 
Minister and National Conference leader, Omar Abdullah, has pointed 
out, the acquittal contrasts sharply with the detention, under the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, of the accused in the Godhra 
train-burning case. In the end, the verdict in the Bakery case has 
only contributed to scepticism about a free investigation of the 
riots followed by a fair trial of the accused. Thus, it is imperative 
for the Government legal department to take steps to appeal against 
the acquittal. Otherwise, allegations of State complicity in the 
post-Godhra pogroms will stand confirmed, and the Bakery case will be 
a dangerous precedent for witnesses and investigators.

_____


#8.

The Times of India, July 2, 2003
=46limsy Foundations: Theological Roots of Israel & Pakistan
PARSA VENKATESHWAR RAO JR
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=
=3D54056

_____


#9.

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 123
2 July 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/134

____


#10.  [Correspondence]
Subject: Re: SACW   |  1 July, 2003

>From Brian Cloughley

In His article  'The Aryan Connection' (1 July)  Mr Satya Sagar 
states  "I know all about the Balfour declaration of 1917 (who the 
hell were the British to 'promise' Palestine to a handful of 
Zionists) . . . " 

Alas Mr Sagar does not know all about the Balfour Declaration, which 
was sent in letter form to Lord Rothschild, dated 2 November 1917, 
and stated:

"Her Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in 
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . . . "

This was not a promise, as the British government could not make such 
a promise.  Neither could any other government.  The British 
government was asked to make clear its stance and did so.

The support offered concerning the 'national home' was dependent on 
"it being clearly understood that nothing may be done which shall 
prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish community 
=2E . . "

SACW is an admirable organisation with total credibility.  I hope 
that this error may be publicised.

Best wishes,
Brian Cloughley

o o o

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 04:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
=46rom: Satya Sagar
Subject: Re: Response to Aryan Connection - Fwd: Re: SACW   |  1 July, 2003

Mr Cloughley is 'technically' correct regarding his point that the 
Balfour Declaration does not mention the word 'promise' anywhere and 
that the 'British government nor any other government could not make 
such a promise'.

  But first can I ask please what does it amount to, if not a 
'promise', when Britain, the world's only superpower in 1917,:

a)      Becomes the first major country to recognize in principle 
even the idea of a 'national home for the Jewish people'?

b)      Says explicitly in the Balfour declaration that Her Majesty's 
government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a 
national home for the Jewish people.

c)      Galvanizes the Zionists at that time to fight for a Jewish 
homeland. Balfour=EDs letter to Lord Rothschild clearly refers to the 
Declaration as a 'declaration of our sympathy with Jewish Zionist 
aspirations'. The Zionists definitely understood the Balfour 
declaration as almost complete British support for their cause leave 
alone being a mere promise.

The fact that the British did not have the 'right' to make such a 
promise is irrelevant because that is not the way real history 
happens and besides imperialism has never been about rule of law or 
'rights' of any kind anyway. The fork-tongued British Imperialists 
reshaped the maps of the entire world in their own interests all the 
time while always being very 'proper' in their use of the English 
language. 

As for the 'civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish community' 
let me quote from Lord Arthur Balfour talking about Palestine a mere 
two years after his famous Declaration  'The four great powers are 
committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, 
is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, 
of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 
700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land' ( via Noam Chomsky 
in the Fateful Triangle, pg.90, South End Press)

Hope this settles Mr Cloughley's semantic confusion and undoes his 
perception that my article in any way has harmed SACW's credibility.

Yours truly

Satya Sagar


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

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