SACW | 6 Aug. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire    |  6 August,  2003

[1.] Letter from Pakistan (M.B. Naqvi)
[2.] Hiroshima Day 2003 -  Business as usual for keepers of the S. 
Asia's Bomb  (Harsh Kapoor)
[3.] India's Dangerous Tryst With Nuclear Weapons: A Discussion 
(August 6, New Delhi)
[4.] India: History sheeters  (Vinay Lal)
[5.] India: Communal Riots: Murderers At Large (Sayantan Chakravarty, 
Sheela Raval and Farzand Ahmed)
[6.] Campaign against Censorship at the Bombay international Film 
Festival - Statement by 106 filmmakers.

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

[1.]

Letter from Pakistan
by M.B. Naqvi

Karachi August 5, 2003 

Noor Fatima continues to be the subject of much laudatory comment in 
the Pakistani press on her return from India after the hart 
operation. All comments praised the doctor and the charitable 
hospital. The kindnesses of the common people were noted with some 
surprise by way of contrast with the impression created by the inter 
state governmental relations. 

There appears to be a long queue now of young boys and girls with 
holes in their hearts who want to be treated in Banglore by Dr. 
Rajesh Sharma and his colleagues. One knows of a boy who does need 
this treatment. In due course, they will probably find their way to 
Banglore and Dr. Rajesh Sharma's hospital.

What all this indicates is that there is no shortage of what milk of 
human kindness in either India or I dare say Pakistan. There is of 
course a long established civilisational tradition among the well to 
do Hindus to do some social work toward the end of their lives. Many 
a school, college or hospital bears the name of some generous donor. 
Among the Muslims it is not said to be such a tradition, though there 
have been many cases of charitable works.

There is woeful shortage of charities in Pakistan. And yet the number 
of small charities is quite large and in one case it is one of the 
most amazing in the third world or elsewhere. There is a certain 
Maulana Abdul Sattar Edhi in Karachi. He is an institution in 
himself. He started social welfare work of looking after the stray 
dead bodies or orphans or even homeless women in Karachi. He later 
undertook the transportation of the very sick or wounded to the 
hospitals expeditiously. Hospitals in Karachi had fewer ambulances 
and were tardy. Karachi needed a more efficient system. Edhi provided 
a big enough fleet of ambulances. Today this charitable work is 
spread all over Pakistan. There is no contribution from the state 
whatever.  By now he has large fleets of small-sized ambulances of 
his organization in every major city of Pakistan. It is entirely 
funded by unnamed private donors. Edhi says there is absolutely no 
shortage of funds and he gets all he can manage.

The point of it is that there is no shortage of public-spirited 
persons, although there is greater insistence among the Pakistanis 
not to have their names flashed across. This goodwill toward other 
human being is not confined to Muslims or Pakistanis. Everyone from 
India who has visited Pakistan takes back unforgettable experiences 
of the friendly welcome and the memory of competitive hospitality of 
Pakistanis who asked him to their places for a meal, tea or 
something. It is the same in India vis-à-vis Pakistanis. The 
individuals, now divided by a political line, exude a strange longing 
to befriend people from the other side. One has amply seen it in both 
countries. That however is not true of the two governments.

Where governments are concerned, apart from bureaucratic red tape and 
general coldness, government policies are generally rigid and are not 
made in a spirit of gushing friendliness. The Indian and Pakistani 
governments, vis-à-vis each other, excel in being unhelpful and are 
frequently wooden. The kind of travel between the two countries, when 
it was permitted and was relatively free, was hedged with unheard of 
conditions.

Pakistanis permitted only three cities to an Indian visa seeker to 
visit while the Indians until they discovered Pakistan's practice 
used to allow up to eight cities. Now they too have gone back to just 
three. An ordinary visitor is required to report to the police. The 
purpose of visit has to be to meet close relatives and rarely 
friends. The police culture is similar in the two countries, though 
Pakistani version tries to outdo the other in corruption and 
haughtiness. The only other example would seem to be between North 
and South Koreas. And the Indians and Pakistanis virtually replicated 
the inter Korean situation during most of the year 2002.

Both countries are now supposed to be opening up and are working for 
normalisation of relations as a result of Indian Prime Minister Atal 
Behari Vajpayee's April 18 speech in Srinagar. Pakistan government 
responded warmly enough. But the small print said that they would 
normalize only to the level of relationship that obtained on December 
12, 2001 --- a day before the attack on Indian Parliament by 
terrorists.

In the nitty gritty of the way in which the two huge bureaucracies 
are proceeding in this normalisation task leaves a clear impression 
that they are being asked to do something they do not wish to do. It 
is said from the Indian side that it is better to proceed prudently 
at a slow pace so as to avoid the possibility of pitfalls and 
disillusionment. That is unexceptionable insofar as prudence and 
forethought are concerned. But does prudence always require a very 
slow pace. One is not accusing the Indian bureaucracy of 
insubordination of political authority. One is talking of both 
vis-à-vis each other. Their very approach starts with suspicion and 
disbelief in the good intentions of the other. They conceive their 
job to require this approach.

Even if there is no decision to go beyond farther back than the 
December 2001, some of the normalization measures would seem to be 
routine and relatively simple matters because both bureaucracies have 
adequate experience. Not much prudence and forethought of various 
possibilities was required in restoring the road, rail and air links. 
If they had been there for 55 years, why cannot they be restored 
forthwith. The two governments were happy to snap the links so as to 
prevent the contacts between not themselves but among the common 
people of Pakistan and India. It is the people-to-people contact that 
was not desired; the governments could always meet in third countries 
and have been doing so. It is the common people who cannot afford a 
circuitous route to each other's country, even if they could somehow 
obtain a visa on compassionate or other urgent grounds. Normally no 
visas were available for the asking from either country. The reason 
for this kind of slowness has to be discovered. Other countries would 
not take so long in restoring simple communication links. There must 
be some other reason.

One reason could be that the politics of the two governments happily 
meshed with bad relations between the two countries. Both governments 
have gained popular support in demonizing each other. The Indian 
media, especially the electronic, has enthusiastically demonized 
Pakistan, while the Pakistanis were at it for a long time. The 
Indians have done it in recent years and in a big way; that has 
helped promote a certain kind of politics. So long as this symbiosis 
of accusations against the other of evil intent which was expected to 
promote the prospects of popular vote lasts, the pattern of politics 
may not change. And it is clearly a two-way traffic. The government 
in Islamabad is not at all pushed if the millions of divided families 
cannot have any reunion on major occasions. Nor is New Delhi 
similarly pushed.

  The major reason why the process of normalization is being 
deliberately kept slow by both sides is the absence of any vision of 
what normalization should mean and where should it lead. There is no 
real desire for friendship and closer cooperation in any worthwhile 
field on either side, not even mutually beneficial economic 
cooperation. True, the Indian officials want free trade and probably 
implementation of SAFTA --- a SAARC agreement --- but that is somehow 
regarded as very difficult for Pakistan to accede to. And this is 
despite the knowledge that Pakistan is committed to totally freeing 
the economy by January 2005. Pakistan is also under legal obligation 
to accord MFN status to India. But it continues to dilly dally, 
occasionally hinting that we are doing so and frequently saying that 
it is conditional on satisfactory negotiations over Kashmir. There is 
a mental blockage here. It is somehow believed that running a trade 
deficit with the rest of the world is kosher but not with India, 
supposing there will necessary be an adverse balance in that trade. 
And so the India-Pakistan kaleidoscope goes on showing the same old 
pictures over and over again.

______

[2,]


Hiroshima Day 2003 -  Business as usual for keepers of the S. Asia's Bomb(s)

Dear Friends.

On this 6th of August 2003 as the world marks 58th anniversary of the 
tragic events at Hiroshima, relations between India and Pakistan 
continue remain very fragile and icy. There are still those routine 
daily firings at the India Pakistan border in Kashmir, despite the 
cold peace. Private hate mongers on both sides fire up their daily 
quota of hateful venom. Thanks to the vendors of arms and nuclear 
wares from 'International Community' the two neighbors continue their 
slow and steady arms race.

The Nuclear lobby in the two countries carries on its business as 
usual of developing for deployment of their weapons of mass 
destruction and pushing their accident proof 'peace' exuding nuclear 
power plants. It is a shame indeed that millions remain 
undernourished and hungry in the two countries while blooming 
national security  - and defence sectors aim for a bigger pie. The 
bomb and missile scientists and engineers, the bureaucrats of 
'Defence' all seem to have a stake in the reproduction of the system. 
With out the bomb these folks would be out  of business. Politicians 
and lobbyists also seem to have a big stake, in both countries they 
have gained votes and business by demonising  the other country. So 
long as this deadly cycle holds sway on decision-makers in both 
countries, there is scant hope for peace and reconciliation.  On this 
coming 14th and 15th August 2003 tanks and latest missiles will be on 
display and as thousands of soldiers who serve as cannon fodder will 
march by in Islamabad and Delhi in this spectacle of 'National 
Pride'. What a massive waste of public money this.

Make no mistake, the nightmarish prospect of a possible nuclear 
exchange in a future war [or that of an accidental launch of nuclear 
weapons] will continue to hang over the heads of the inhabitants of 
India and Pakistan, as long as the two countries possess these 
weapons.

In their own self interest all right thinking Pakistanis, Indian 
citizens should do their bit, to raise their voices in efforts to 
push govt.s of India and Pakistan to help make the two countries a 
nuclear weapons free zone.

Please light a candle in your homes tonight in the memory of victims 
of Hiroshima.

For a fuller understanding of how things stand for in the Indo 
Pakistan context the all are invited to read:
"The nuclear confrontation in South Asia"
by M. V. Ramana and Zia Mian
(Cha.5 in: SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and 
International Security
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
The document in PDF format is downloadable on the web at: 
http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/SIPRI-03-Ramana-Mian.pdf


Harsh Kapoor
(South Asians Against Nukes)
www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html

______


[3.]

Invitation to a panel discussion in New Delhi on August 6

INDIA'S DANGEROUS TRYST WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

A Discussion on Wednesday, August 6, Hiroshima Day

PANELISTS:

R. Rajaraman, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Satyajit Rath, National Institute of Immunology
Jean Dreze, Centre for Development Economics
C. Rammanohar Reddy, 'The Hindu'

VENUE: Conference Room III, India International Centre ANNEXE, New Delhi

TIME: 6 pm

Organised by ORIENT LONGMAN, publishers of

Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream
(ed by M.V. Ramana and C. Rammanohar Reddy)

______


[4.]

The Hindustan Times
August 6, 2003  
	 
History sheeters
Vinay Lal

  The attraction to history among the advocates of the temple theory 
has not gone unnoticed by scholars. One historian who interviewed kar 
sevaks in Ayodhya drawn from western Uttar Pradesh has noted that 
they display a "preoccupation with history": "Many of them 
specifically mentioned historical dates, notably the birth of Ram 
(nine lakh years ago), Babur's invasion (1528), the installation of 
the deity (1949)."

Yet this invocation of purported historical 'facts' has not 
precluded, among the ideologues of the movement, a disavowal of 
history when it has appeared to them as an insubstantial mode of 
defending their position.

"The facts of history," we find stated in one issue of the Organiser, 
the organ of the RSS, "appear fiction only to a person suffering from 
Historologia [sic!] and not to a balanced mind who is not afraid of 
any unpalatable fact whether it is for or against"; and yet in the 
same journal it is averred, in another article on the dispute over 
Ayodhya, that "The belief of million in such matters is enough to 
bestow upon them the sanctity more than History can... The very fact 
that Ram is worshiped from far east to Arabian Sea, from Himalayas to 
Kanyakumari, and tradition passing from father to son believes him to 
be a living person of a prehistoric era is proof enough that a person 
of that name existed and was born in a city called Ayodhya."

Neeladri Bhattacharya has put together these and numerous other 
citations from the writings emanating from the VHP/RSS camp to point 
to both the appeal that the rhetoric of history has among the 
advocates of the temple theory and their inability to have a command 
over this rhetoric. He has characterised the approach of VHP 
ideologues as the "mythification of history". Several narratives of 
the story of the Ram Janmabhoomi are possible; the particular 
narrative chosen by the proponents of the temple theory includes a 
certain modicum of verifiable general historical facts, because on 
the basis of this 'concretisation' it is rather easier to induce in 
people the belief that the entire narrative has a certain 
credibility. "Once the reader is made to identify with such familiar 
facts," which have less to do with Ayodhya or the status of the Ram 
Janmabhoomi, but more with widely accepted circumstances pertaining 
to the reigns of Akbar, Aurangzeb, and others, "he is persuaded to 
believe in the authenticity of the narrative"....

....History - that is to say, historical facts, the resort and appeal 
to historical evidence, the historical sensibility, and 
historicisation - remains the terrain on which the battle is sought 
to be fought and, it would not be too much to say, brought to a 
decisive finish. As we have seen, the enterprise on both sides has 
revolved around a series of questions, to wit: was there or was there 
not a temple at the site on which the mosque was built in 1528? If 
so, was the temple brought down at the orders of Babur? What does 
archaeology have to say in this matter? What, if any, kind of 
concrete testimony do the pillars in the now-demolished mosque offer 
to the student of history and archaeology? These questions could, as 
long as we are confined to questions of 'fact', easily be multiplied.

What is equally arresting is the easy separation between myth and 
history, and the almost naïve invocation of positivism, that we find 
in the critiques which secular and left historians have offered of 
the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Bhattacharya writes as though there 
could be a 'true' history of Ayodhya, as though this history could, 
by the mere sifting of evidence at the hands of a skilled, detached, 
and dedicated historian, be made available to us. He writes as if 
history and myth, or even history and historiography, could be 
separated, as though the historian could be like the proverbial swan, 
the Param-hansa, that can separate the water from the milk in the 
tumbler. Thus we hear the constant reprimand: stories circulated by 
VHP ideologues and historians "have no support in any historical 
evidence", and "it is easy to demonstrate that many of the records 
referred to do not exist": myths and history become 
indistinguishable....

....Though no one can doubt that secular historians have by far the 
better 'evidence' than their proponents, they fail to recognise that 
the writers of the pamphlets and books emanating from the Hindu Right 
conform to a very old tradition which makes no distinction between 
history and myth.

Nor is Bhattacharya alone, let us be certain, in attempting to 
demarcate myths from history. In the special 'Black Sunday' issue of 
their newsletter Manas, the Sampradayikta Virodhi Andolan (Movement 
Against Communalism), a small organisation comprised mainly of 
Left-wing activists, historians, and other scholars, enumerates 
various myths propagated by the BJP, and then goes on to provide a 
contradiction of each of these myths....

....The authors of 'Black Sunday' are entirely right in insisting 
that the actions of warriors, leaders, and invaders in the pre-modern 
period might be better understood within a framework of the politics 
of conquest, and that is also the productive path pursued by Romila 
Thapar in her interpretation of Mahmud of Ghazni's raid in 1206 on 
the fabled Hindu temple at Somnath. We may well wish to commend the 
authors of 'Black Sunday' for their efforts to secure communal 
harmony and peace through the articulation, in a tone of moderation, 
of generally acceptable views, but their analysis brings forth fresh 
problems.

If their suggestion that in 'medieval' times the separation between 
religion and politics was inconceivable is to be pursued to its 
logical conclusion, then naturally Hindu rulers were just as likely 
to be implicated in that unholy marriage of religion and politics as 
Babur or any other Muslim ruler. Not surprisingly, then, the reader 
is informed that destruction of "places of worship was not done 
exclusively by Muslim rulers".

A number of instances of Hindu kings engaging in the plunder and 
destruction of religious edifices are then furnished, and at least 
one example is offered of a temple built at the site of a Buddhist 
vihara.

While it is unquestionable and imperative to establish that the 
adherents of no one faith have a monopoly on evil and barbarism, the 
pamphlet gives the inescapable feeling that the argument stems from 
the logic of quid pro quo: if, that is, it is conceded that the Ram 
temple was demolished to make way for the Babri masjid, then let us 
concede, on the basis of historical evidence, that the Hindus 
themselves were guilty of similarly heinous acts many times over.

The veracity of such an argument apart, its morality, whereby 
equivalencies of evil are established, is exceedingly questionable, 
and even more uncertain must be the socio-cultural and political 
effects of this mode of historicisation and recall of historical 
memory. By way of analogy, no one expects that abuse of a person 
within her or his own family makes abuse by an outsider any more 
tolerable.

Secondly, one cannot object too strongly to the unqualified 
valorisation of modernity in 'Black Sunday' and indeed other 
like-minded literature. The attack on the mosque, argue the authors 
of 'Black Sunday', "is an act which utilises the destruction of 
religious places for political power. Therefore, it is reminiscent of 
the barbaric politics of ancient and medieval rulers that defies all 
modern, democratic and civilised institutions of our society"....

....One could begin with asking how, considering India's recent 
admission to the community of 'modern' nations, the Babri masjid was 
able to stand for nearly 500 years, and why it had to be knocked down 
at the very moment when India has been eager to demonstrate to the 
world its renunciation of tradition, archaic customs, and other 
vestiges of 'backwardness'.... If anything, it is the modern world 
which has had an acute difficulty in living with multiple identities, 
and its mode of dealing with this difficulty has been to freeze, 
demarcate, and isolate identities....

....Is the homogenisation of Hinduism, a project that the 
'liberators' of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple are sworn to uphold, 
characteristic of the 'medieval' period, over a long duration of 
which India was swept by the Bhakti movement and renditions of the 
Ramayana appeared in the 'vernacular' Indian languages, or is it not 
rather a sign of the modern?

(The writer is Associate Professor of History, University of 
California, Los Angeles. This is an edited extract from the book The 
History of History: Politics and Scholarship in Modern India (OUP) )


______


[5.]

India Today
July 21, 2003
SECTION: The Nation; Pg.38

Communal Riots: Murderers At Large
by Sayantan Chakravarty, Sheela Raval and Farzand Ahmed

Every riotous fury in India comes to the same grinding, and 
predictable, halt. The innocent people who lose their loved ones 
battle endlessly-with fading hope-for justice. The guilty are almost 
never brought to book. A study by the Bureau of Police Research and 
Development, a Union Home Ministry body, says that between 1954 and 
1996, almost 16,000 people lost their lives in 21,000 incidents of 
rioting, while over one lakh were injured. Only a handful have been 
held accountable. With gut-wrenching frequency, the story is repeated 
in Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Gujarat.
Over 20 commissions of inquiry have studied major riots in the 
country, four of which are documented here. Each has, more or less, 
drawn the same conclusions: the police failed to act with 
impartiality in every case; the brass rarely acted on its own and 
almost always looked to the political leadership for direction; the 
miscreants exploited every such delay in action by indulging in 
looting and arson. Not a single politician has gone to jail because 
the government of the day has always found a way to exonerate or drop 
charges against them.
As the accused go free and justice is mauled after every rabid 
session of rioting, the victims will continue to hope-and face 
betrayal yet again.
Delhi Dead: 2,733
The assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 
sparked riots that lasted 15 days. Several inquiry panels later, 8 
people were convicted. The politicians and police got away.
The mayhem began at about 6 p.m. shortly after the death of prime 
minister Indira Gandhi was announced at the iron gates of the All 
India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. The news set the tone for 
a communal massacre that India hadn't quite witnessed since 
Independence. Chaos reigned on the streets and locality after 
locality in the capital echoed with the shrieks of the dying and 
burning people. A fortnight of carnage saw over 2,700 dead and many 
thousands injured.
"President Zail Singh wanted the army to act, but it didn't. The then 
prime minister and home minister did not take his calls," recalls 
Tarlochan Singh, who was Zail Singh's press secretary. Today, he 
chairs the National Minorities Commission.
The worst affected areas were the ones that had elected Congressmen 
H.K.L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar to the Lok Sabha. Yet the police could 
do nothing to lay their hands on them. Says Supreme Court advocate 
H.S. Phoolka, who contested numerous cases in the Delhi High Court on 
behalf of the victims' families: "Even after 19 years, the images of 
the state-sponsored terrorism scar the mind. All the leaders have got 
away with murder. Who can have confidence in such a democratic 
system?"
Meerut Dead: 350
The riots began on May 21, 1987 and continued for two months. The 
state police conducted a probe but all cases were later withdrawn by 
the state. The armed personnel accused went scot free.
As with most riots, there are conflicting versions on what set this 
one off: burning of mills or a reaction to the carnage by the 
Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel. A majority claim it 
was the armed police. The pac men wanted to arrest a man from the 
Hashimpura area but were stopped by a mob. When the uniformed men 
tried to force their way in, the crowd became violent. The PAC called 
in reinforcements and retaliated instantly. About 40 bodies were 
later found floating in the canal near Maliana village. This ignited 
communal passions and Meerut was soon on fire. Within hours, over 350 
shops in the city and three petrol pumps had been burnt. In the 
following two months, 350 people were killed, among them prominent 
residents including a doctor from Hapur and an army captain. 
Rationality took the backseat as one set of residents instigated 
massacres against another. It took several weeks for a 13,000-strong 
army detachment to restore sanity on Meerut's streets.
Says Meerut Bar Association President Anil Bakshi, who took up the 
cases of over 30 accused: "Innocent people were framed by the state 
administration to save the policemen guilty of the massacre." The 
Uttar Pradesh government, under pressure from the Rajiv Gandhi 
government, withdrew hundreds of cases from district courts in 
Meerut. As a result, there were no convictions. The PAC, having 
terrorised a large section of Meerut, was the biggest gainer-and 
justice the biggest loser.
Bhagalpur Dead: 1,000
On October 23, 1989 began the month-long riots triggered by police 
atrocities. Of the 864 cases filed by the police, 535 were closed and 
most accused acquitted for lack of evidence.
Following police atrocities in 1989, the silk city of Bhagalpur saw 
massacre and arson in which over 1,000 people died, nearly 50,000 
were displaced and 11,500 houses torched. In the carnage, an army 
major herded 100 men, women and children to a house at Chanderi 
village and posted the local police for their protection. The next 
morning, however, he found the house empty. Four days later, 61 
mutilated bodies were found in a nearby pond, among them a live 
Malika Bano whose right leg had been chopped off.
Bano narrated a story that continues to haunt Bhagalpur. On the night 
of October 27, a frenzied mob took over the house from the police, 
slaughtered the people hiding inside and tossed their bodies in the 
pond.
Of the 864 cases registered by the Bihar Police, chargesheets were 
filed in only 329 cases. In 100 of these, the accused were acquitted 
for want of evidence. Chanderi was no different. Of the 38 accused, 
only 16 were convicted andsentenced to rigorous life terms, while 22 
were acquitted.
Mumbai Dead: 1,788
The Babri masjid demolition set off riots between December 1992 and 
January 1993. The Sri Krishna panel examined 502 witnesses, but no 
police officer has yet been punished.
Hours after the demolition of the Babri masjid, Mumbai erupted. For 
five days in December 1992 and then again for a fortnight in January, 
the city witnessed unprecedented riots. As many as 1,788 people were 
killed and property worth crores of rupees destroyed.
On January 25, 1993, the Maharashtra government set up the Sri 
Krishna Commission of Inquiry, which recorded the evidence of 502 
witnesses and examined 2,903 exhibits. But three years later, on 
January 23, 1996, the BJP-Shiv Sena government wound up the 
commission, only to reinstate it later under public pressure. The 
commission finally submitted its report on February 16, 1998. Of the 
17 police officers who were formally charged in mid-2001, not one has 
been arrested so far. Even departmental action has not been initiated 
against them. In April this year, former city police commissioner 
R.D. Tyagi and eight serving police officers accused of killing nine 
people, were discharged by a Mumbai sessions court.
-compiled by Sayantan Chakravarty, Sheela Raval and Farzand Ahmed

______


[6.]

Campaign against Censorship at the Bombay international Film Festival.

[106 filmmakers from all over India have signed the statement protesting the
decision by the Indian government to introduce censorship 
requirements for Indian
entries to festival.]

o o o

New Delhi
4, August 2003

Dear Friends,
Please find below the latest development on the campaign against censorship
at MIFF as also our thoughts in Delhi about future action:
The Joint Secretary (films), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of
India has called for a meeting with representatives of the Campaign. The
meeting has been fixed for 7 August, 4:00 PM. We would request you to send in
points/issues that should be raised in the meeting.
A press conference has been organised at the Press Club, New Delhi on 5,
August at 3:00 PM. We plan to release the protest letter signed by 106
documentary film makers from all over the country. Our sincere apologies for
the omission of some names in the earlier signatories list. Hopefully all the
names have been included in the updated list. At the press conference we also
plan to issue a statement, based on responses received by the Campaign,
enumerating the possible course of action in case the Ministry does not
remove the repugnant clause from the entry form of MIFF. As per our
discussions in Delhi we are suggesting the following plan of action –
An international signature campaign of film makers and festival organisers
protesting against censorship at MIFF.
An international campaign of film makers to boycott the festival.
A parallel film festival in Mumbai that will screen Indian and foreign
documentaries.
Legal action. Here we suggest that this should be a collective and considered
action because that would provide us with an opportunity to raise several
issues regarding censorship besides the immediate goal of changing the MIFF
entry rules. We would like to quote from a recent High Court judgement in the
Anand Patwardhan case where he went to court against the 21 cuts imposed by
the CBFC on his film, War And Peace. The Mumbai High Court had this to say
while deciding in favour of Anand’s petition: "
That apart, the freedom of
speech and expression is important not merely for the consequences that ensue
in the absence thereof but since the negation of it runs as an anti-thesis to
basic human values, instincts and creativity. It is high time that the
persons in authority realize the significance of freedom of speech and
expression rather than make and allow such attempts to stifle it." We feel
this judgement has important implications for all of us collectively and we
should put ourselves in a position where the full potential of the statements
of the Mumbai High Court can be utilised to garner support for the
independent documentary. We are of the opinion that we should wait for the
response from the Ministry before jumping into any legal redressal. This
option needs to be well planned and thought out so as to to strengthen the
community in the long run vis a vis censorship. The current rise of
authoritarianism and conservatism in the country is fairly clear given the
extreme intolerance to any criticism. We the documentary film makers might be
the new targets of this authoritarian streak but friends from other media
including national magazines, newspapers, the regional press as well as
people’s movements across the country have been under vicious attack for some
time now. The attempt to gag films at MIFF are clearly part of a larger
emerging scenario where the documentary is being recognised as a medium that
has the potential of revealing ‘truths’ that are uncomfortable to those in
power or seeking power. In the coming years we will probably witness many
more attacks on documentary film makers and therefore if ever, this is the
time for us to respond to these challenges as a community. The Press has
fought a bitter and hard battle from the 1950s to the 1960s to free itself of
censorship and the time has come for us to defend our right to freedom of
expression.
As a follow up to the earlier point we propose a major symposium in Mumbai
during the festival on documentaries and censorship regardless of our
participation or boycott.
3. We request film makers to get together on an urgent basis in their
respective cities and form campaign committees on this issue.
We will keep you posted about the developments as they emerge at this end.
Please find below the updated signatory list of 106 film makers supporting
this Campaign across the country.
In Solidarity,
Amar Kanwar
Pankaj Butalia
Rahul Roy
Saba Dewan
Sameera Jain
Sanjay Kak



List of Signatories
Aditya Seth
Ajay Bhardwaj, Delhi
Ajay Noronha, Mumbai
Ajay Raina, New Delhi (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
Amar Kanwar, Delhi. (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
Anand Patwardhan, Mumbai (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
Ananya Chatterjee, Kolkata
Anjali Gupta, New Delhi
Anjali Monterio, Mumbai (Certificate of Merit at two MIFF’s)
Anjali Panjabi, Mumbai. (Silver Conch winner at MIFF)
Anuradha Chandra, New Delhi
Aparna Sanyal, New Delhi
Arvind Sinha, Kolkata
Asheesh Pandya, Gurgaon, Haryana
Ashok Maridas, Bangalore
Ashwini Malik, Mumbai.
Batul Mukhtiar, Mumbai
Bishakha Datta, Mumbai
Chandita Mukherjee, Mumbai
Charu Gargi, Mumbai.
Christopher Rego
Daljit Ami, Chandigarh
Deepa Dhanraj, Bangalore
Deepu, Bangalore
Eddy Singh
Gargi Sen, New Delhi
I.K. Shukla, Delhi
Jabeen Merchant, Mumbai
Jeebesh Bagchi, Delhi
Jyotsna Murthy, Bangalore
Kapil Suravaram, Hyderabad
Kavita Joshi, Delhi
Kirtana Kumar, Bangalore
Konarak Reddy, Bangalore
KP Jayshankar, Mumbai. (Certificates of Merit at MIFF)
Kuttyrevathy, Kerala
Lalit Vachani, New Delhi
Manjira Datta, New Delhi
Meghnath, Ranchi
Monica Narula, Delhi
Nandan Kudhyadi, Pune
Navroze Contracter, Bangalore
Pankaj Butalia, New Delhi. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
Pankaj Rishi Kumar, Mumbai
Paromita Vohra, Mumbai
Parvez Imam, Bangalore
Pawan Sony, New Delhi
Preeti Chandriani, Mumbai
Rahul Ranadive, Delhi
Rahul Roy, New Delhi
Rajashree
Rajul Mehta, Mumbai
Rakesh S Katarey, Manipal
Rakesh Sharma, Mumbai
Ranjan De, New Delhi
Ranjan Palit, Kolkata. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
Ranjani Mazumdar, Delhi
Rappai Poothokaren
Reena Mohan, New Delhi (Best First Film Award at MIFF)
Ritu Kapur, New Delhi
RR Srinivasan, Chennai
Ruchir Joshi, London, UK
Rupashree Nanda, Jaipur
RV Ramani, Chennai
S.K.Das Mollick,
Saba Dewan, New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
Sabeena Gadihoke, Delhi (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
Sabina Kidwai
Sameera Jain. New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
Samina Mishra, New Delhi
Sanjana , Bangalore
Sanjay Kak. New Delhi
Sanjit Narwekar, Mumbai
Sehjo Singh, New Delhi (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
Shabnam Virmani, Bangalore
Shashin Tiwari
Shohini Ghosh, Delhi
Shoma Chatterjee, Kolkata
Shriprakash Prakash, Ranchi
Shuddhabrata Sengupta., Delhi
Simantini Dhuru, Mumbai
Sridhar Rangayan
Stalin K., Ahmedabad (Silver Conch Winner at MIFF)
Sudheer Gupta, New Delhi
Sudheer Palsane, Mumbai
Sujit Ghosh, Lucknow
Sumit Kumar
Sunanda Bhat, Bangalore
Sunil Bhatia, Mumbai , (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
Sunil Shanbag, Mumbai
Supavitra Babul, New Delhi
Supriyo Sen , Kolkata
Surabhi Sharma, Bangalore
Surajit Sarkar, New Delhi
Swagat Sen, Delhi
Usha , Bangalore
Uvraj, Bangalore
Vani Subramanian, New Delhi
Vasudha Joshi, Kolkata (Golden and Silver Conch Winner at MIFF)
Veena Bakshi, Mumbai
Vijay , Bangalore
Vinod Ganatra
Vinod Raja, Bangalore
Vipin Vijay, Trivandrum (Jury Award Winner at MIFF)
Yousuf Saeed, New Delhi
Zaheer A Bagh, Ladakh


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

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace 
and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an 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.

--