SACW | 19 Aug. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  19 August,  2003

[1.] Role of "the Other" in S. Asian rivalries (Lynn Ockersz)
[2.] Indian children return with warmth for Pakistan
[3.] India: Reforming Personal Laws: Uniform Code no magic wand (Praful Bidwai)
[4.] Future of Secularism in India (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[5.] Letter To The Editor  - The Guardian re: Modi reportage (Anuj 
Dawar, Susan Daruvala and Priyamvada Gopal)
[6.] Bhupen Khakhar, 69, Painter, Dies; Influenced a Generation in 
India (Holland Cotter)
[7.] `N-weaponisation falsified security, heightened tensions'
[8.] India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch Compilation # 130
[9.] August 2003 issue of Himal South Asian


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

[1.]

Daily News [Sri Lanka]
August 19, 2003

Role of "the Other" in S. Asian rivalries

by Lynn Ockersz

Questionable though the results of most public opinion surveys may 
be, a recent such finding that some 54 percent of Pakistanis saw 
"India as an enemy" could be considered a general pointer to the 
heavy toll divisive Indo-Pakistani politics have exacted over the 
years.

The opinion survey conducted by the Gallup - Business Research Bureau 
and published the Indian journal 'Outlook' also disclosed that 79 
percent of the Pakistani public believed that the Kashmir issue 
needed to be resolved for the improvement of Indo-Pakistani ties.

Rather than see these findings as dampeners, policy and 
opinion-makers in India and Pakistan need to consider them as 
prefiguring the challenges that lie ahead on the path to a 
normalization of Indo-Pakistani relations, now that a welcome thaw 
has set in, defrosting years of strained bilateral relations.

Those familiar with the dynamics of nation - building in this part of 
the world are quite aware of the role the concept of "the Other" 
could play in them; particularly in the context of the relations of 
states which are locked in competitive rivalry.

If state power is enjoyed by nationalistic parties in one such state, 
the neighbouring state or "the Other", is portrayed as an arch enemy. 
Such negative image - building is necessary for the political 
survival of nationalistically or communally-oriented political 
parties.

Fortunately, for India, the BJP-led ruling coalition has strived 
successfully to distance itself from such political forces, thereby 
salvaging its image as a secular state, although a separate public 
opinion survey reveals that the ruling coalition would lose 
considerable electoral support if a snap general election is held in 
India.

This opinion survey finding is a pointer to the damaging impact the 
ruling BJP's alliance with hardline religious forces is having on its 
current political standing. A case in point is the Vishva Hindu 
Parishad's involvement in the recent anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarat; 
the VHP being seen as an ally of the BJP.

Those political forces backing the "Two Nation Theory" in Pakistan 
could, likewise, be driving impressionable sections of Pakistani 
opinion to viewing India as the arch enemy, with whom peace is not 
achievable. In this instance, India becomes the demonized "Other".

A parallel process is observable in Sri Lanka, where some communal 
forces of Southern Sri Lanka paint the populace of the North-East as 
the irredeemable "Other", with whom peace is not possible. Most often 
than not, the demonized "Other" becomes an essential ingredient in 
the political survival plans of communalistic political forces. 
Without "the Other", there is no way in which these forces expand and 
consolidate their support bases.

As for Indo-Pakistani relations, the need seems to be great for the 
coming together of democratic forces from across the perceived divide 
to conscientize both governments and publics on the need for the 
adoption of peaceful and democratic options for the resolution of 
thorny bilateral issues.

This is already happening but this movement needs to be expanded and 
strengthened. Besides, the political actors of both countries need to 
be conscientized on the need to refrain from playing the "communal 
card", a favoured tactic of political survival.

In fact, South Asia could do with a great coming together and pooling 
of resources and ideas of region-wide progressive, non-communal, 
democratic opinion. Unless and until South Asia's publics are 
conscientized into thinking in non-communal, secular terms, social 
peace in the region would be hard to come by.


_____


[2.]


The News International [Pakistan]
August 18, 2003

Indian children return with warmth for Pakistan
By our correspondent

LAHORE: Indian children belonging to the Seeds of
Peace family returned home on Saturday by Dosti
Bus with tons of warmth, hospitality and sweet
memories.

There were 21 boys and girls aged between 15-17
with two delegation leaders, Monica Wahi and
Feruzun Mehta from India. The US representative
of Seeds of Peace organisation, Marieke van
Woerkom, accompanied Indian children along with
two Harvard University students, Anila
(Pakistani) and Meenakshi (Indian). All the
children hailed from Mumbai's middle and upper
society. They travelled by air to New Delhi from
where they came to Lahore by Dosti Bus.

Seeds of Peace (SOP) is an American NGO which
facilitates friendships among children of
conflicting nations of the world. The idea of SOP
was envisioned by John Wallach, a journalist who
was moved by Mideast violence. The great luminary
of world peace died of cancer in July 2002 among
his worldwide family of Seeds of Peace children.
He founded Seeds of Peace in 1993 and kept
organising their get-together sessions in the
idyllic haunts of Otisfield, Maine. In each
session, he invited about 360 children in batches
from rival nations including Pakistan and India.
The SOP is now being run by Aaron Miller, a
friend of John Wallach, who shared his vision
also.

The event of Indian children visiting Lahore was
a low-key, off-media affair mainly because of
security reasons and fear of ticklish questions
of newsmen. All Indian children lived here with
families of host children, the first ever
free-will interaction between Indian Hindu
families and Pakistani Muslim families after
partition. [...].

Full Text at: 
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2003-daily/18-08-2003/metro/l1.htm


_____


[3.]

The Praful Bidwai Column
August 18, 2003

Reforming Personal Laws: Uniform Code no magic wand
By Praful Bidwai

By exhorting Parliament to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in 
conformity with Article 44 of the Constitution, Chief Justice of 
India V.N. Khare has triggered an acrimonious debate. The debate is 
welcome-as is all robust discussion of any issue of public policy. 
But its context must be understood. Justice Khare's obiter dicta do 
not amount to a judgment or legal ruling. He has opined on a matter 
that did not arise from the case before the Court pertaining to 
certain procedures laid down by the Indian Succession Act 1925, 
applicable to Christians. More important, the other two judges 
constituting the Bench remained silent on the UCC. Thus, Justice 
Khare's pronouncements don't fulfil the majority criterion stipulated 
by Article 145(5) of the Constitution for defining a "judgment". This 
isn't the first time the Supreme Court has passed such obiter dicta 
favouring a UCC. In the Sarla Mudgal case (1995), Justice Kuldip 
Singh had done exactly that.

Justice Khare's argument is that a UCC would promote "national 
integration" and not violate the freedom of religion; it is highly 
desirable and should be enacted forthwith. This logic is deeply 
flawed. For one, it is not for the courts, as distinct from 
Parliament or Executive, to decide what would best promote "national 
integration" and then champion a particular means of doing so. And 
for another, it's wrong to contend that uniform laws about marriage, 
inheritance, etc, more than anything else, hold the key to 
"integration". In a society as powerfully plural, diverse and 
heterogeneous as India's, it's perfectly legitimate and fair to have 
diverse personal laws-so long as they all are in consonance with 
fundamental rights and the basic requirements of justice.

Both Hindu and non-Hindu social conservatives have locked horns over 
the UCC. The strongest representatives of the first group, Hindutva 
supporters, have tried to use the UCC as a stick to intimidate the 
religious minorities, especially Muslims. And the second group 
stoutly opposes any change in personal laws, fearing that equality 
before the law would lead to the imposition of uniform cultural 
practices and alien customs upon them. The first group would like a 
UCC imposed without consultation or consent; the second vetoes a 
discussion altogether. In between fall many who believe a UCC is 
desirable but India is not ready for it and it's best not to raise 
the issue today-"not yet".

All these positions are open to question. The case for a common set 
of laws on marriage, divorce, maintenance, succession, and adoption 
arises not from the requirements of "national integration", but from 
two other considerations: social justice, in particular, gender 
equality; and legal universality-the principle that a country's 
citizens should be governed by common laws as far as possible. Yet, 
the framers of the Constitution recognised the difficulty of issuing 
an absolute, unqualified, mandate regarding the UCC. That's why they 
used soft language: "the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC Š" 
They also placed Article 44 within the Directive Principles of State 
Policy, which by definition are not enforceable by the courts, unlike 
fundamental rights. The Directive Principles substantively comprise 
Articles 38 to 51, including worthy goals like creating a welfare 
state and the right to adequate means of livelihood, raising the 
level of nutrition, improving public health, providing free 
education, guaranteeing the "right to work", under "just and humane 
conditions", workers' participation in management, and promotion of a 
scientific temper and of international peace. It is ludicrous to 
privilege just one Article over the other 13, some of which are more 
important for citizens.

The second criterion, of gender equality, is more important and 
derives from Article 13 of the Constitution which invalidates all 
laws which are "inconsistent with" fundamental rights. All bar none 
of our personal laws are patriarchal and heavily biased against 
women. Thus, a Hindu woman can rule India, but she cannot become the 
karta or head of the Hindu undivided family. She cannot claim equal 
inheritance or a matrimonial home. The law keeps property with the 
male line of descent. A Parsi woman who marries a non-Parsi is 
severely discriminated against: her children are considered 
non-Parsi, cannot enter a Fire Temple or receive grants from Parsi 
trusts. But a Parsi man marrying a non-Parsi is treated differently.

The existing Muslim personal law, traceable to the Shariat Act of 
1937, allows for polygamy and doesn't demand a fair procedure for 
divorce nor obligates maintenance. Until recently, a Christian 
husband could only get divorce by proving adultery on the wife's part 
in addition to another cause, but the reverse wasn't true. Christians 
seeking divorce through mutual consent must still suffer a longer 
separation period than non-Christians.

These laws violate both the requirements of elementary justice and 
Article 14 of the Constitution which prohibits discrimination on 
grounds of class, race, gender, language, etc. They cry out to be 
reformed so that men and women have equal rights and duties. The 
equality and justice consideration is of paramount importance. It 
must override custom, religious tradition or practice-although 
religion often doesn't really sanction such discrimination. For 
instance, Islam gives no sanction to the obnoxious practice of 
divorcing a wife by merely pronouncing the word talaq three times.

This underscores the importance of reforming all our diverse personal 
laws, while actively promoting the religion-neutral Special Marriage 
Act 1954. Yet, all religious communities have had mixed reactions to 
such reform attempts. For instance, in the early 20th century, Hindu 
leaders including Lokmanya Tilak opposed laws raising the minimum age 
of marriage for girls and allowing widow remarriage. In the 1930s, 
enlightened Hindus took the initiative to codify and homogenise Hindu 
personal laws which resulted in new marriage, succession and adoption 
Acts in the mid-1950s.

This led to an unseemly confrontation between Nehru and President 
Rajendra Prasad who threatened to hold up the Hindu Code Bill.  The 
reform process ground to a halt. Yet, many Hindus harbour the 
illusion that they already have a uniform code, and there's no need 
for further reform. This is untrue. As the great legal luminary H.M. 
Seervai held, "there is no common [Hindu] civil code". But the 
momentum for reform has unfortunately run out.

Similarly, 20 years ago, Muslims strongly protested against the Shah 
Bano judgment. But they have since accepted pro-reform judicial 
verdicts. These include a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court 
against the practice of "triple talaq". Even more important is the 
support for two Supreme Court judgments during the past year in the 
Shamim Ara and Danial Latifi cases concerning inheritance and "triple 
talaq". One of these mandates payment of alimony to the divorced wife 
for life. Men from no other community are required to do this. 
According to progressive groups like Majlis and Awaz-e-Niswaan, the 
vast majority of Muslim women "want a change of laws which violate 
their rights".

This should finally settle the dishonest argument that unlike Hindu, 
Christian and Parsi personal laws, Muslim personal law has never been 
updated following wide consultation, and that Muslims are uniquely 
resistant to reform. In fact, there are stirrings of modernising, 
secularising, progressive change among India's Muslims. A recent 
large-sample survey of (nearly 10,000) Muslim women, conducted by JNU 
political scientist Zoya Hasan and feminist publisher Ritu Menon 
shows that differences in women's status-educational, social-economic 
or as regarding decision-making-are attributable more to income, 
class or region than to religion. A Muslim woman is more likely to be 
illiterate because she is poor, not because she is Muslim. Muslim 
women are less subject to domestic violence than Hindu women. They 
are more independent and mobile and have a greater say in decisions 
about housing, loans or family size. They vote in larger numbers than 
Hindu women.

Another study shows that Muslim girls perform better than boys in 
school-leaving examinations, and are increasingly becoming aware of 
their rights-and of reforms in Muslim-majority countries like 
Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh, including a ban on polygamy. They 
are "intruding" into exclusive male preserves like the armed forces 
and theology. It is noteworthy that Chamravattom, India's first 
village to become fully computer-literate is in Malappuram district 
on Kerala's Malabar coast, where Muslims form 40 percent of the 
population. The first-ever woman driver of a Chennai city bus is 
Hameeda Banu (27), the daughter of a schoolteacher couple, who holds 
a diploma in mechanical engineering.

A modern professional middle class is crystallising among Indian 
Muslims which stands for progress, equality and integration and 
resists the conservative Mullah-Maulvi leadership. If the Hindutva 
champions of personal law reform were really serious, they would have 
worked with this group and progressive Muslim women's organisations, 
rather than use the UCC as an instrument of chiding, coercion and 
intimidation. They shed crocodile tears over the plight of "hapless 
Muslim women", but are blind to the growing oppression of Hindu 
women, through increasing bride-burning, female foeticide, and spread 
of customs like purdah. This only means their real agenda is far, far 
removed from reform or justice. Yet, it's not enough to criticise the 
Hindutva lobby for its hypocrisy. Pro-reform secularists must launch 
a movement for personal law reform among all communities.-end-

______


[4.]

(Secular Perspective Aug. 16-31, 2003)

Future of Secularism in India
Asghar Ali Engineer

The question of future of secularism in India is very important 
particularly at this juncture. The fundamentalist forces are raising 
their head in India as in other countries of the world. No religion 
is exception to this. There are many reasons for this. In India Hindu 
fundamentalism has become much more aggressive than say Muslim 
fundamentalism. Secularism today is in much greater danger than ever 
before due to Hindutva militancy.

Secularism is highly necessary if India has to survive as a nation. 
But apart from survival of Indian nationalism and Indian unity, 
secularism is necessary for modern democratic polity. And this need 
for secular polity becomes much greater if the country happens to be 
as diverse and plural as India. Secularism is a great need for 
democratic pluralism.

Our leaders and freedom fighters were well aware of need for secular 
and modern democratic polity for India. They also knew that India is 
highly religious country and that secularism in the sense of 
hostility or indifference to religion will never be acceptable to 
people of India. Secularism was never meant to be indifference to 
religion by India leaders. It is for this reason that even most 
orthodox among Hindus and Muslims accepted it as a viable ideology 
for Indian unity and integrity.

The most Orthodox Muslim 'Ulama of Deobandi school preferred secular 
India to Muslim homeland or theocratic Pakistan. They outright 
rejected the idea of Pakistan when mooted by Jinnah. They denounced 
two nation theory on the basis of religion. Nehru, though personally 
agnostic, but never imposed agnostic or atheistic secularism. He was 
too much of a democrat to attempt that. He said in his answer to a 
query by an Indian student at Oxford University in fifties that in 
U.K. state has a religion (Anglican Christianity) but people of 
England are quite indifferent to religion but in India state has no 
religion but people are very religious. Therefore, in Indian 
situation secularism means equal protection to all religions.

Nehru was greatly committed, more than anyone else in 
post-independence India, to the concept of secularism. He never 
compromised on this question. He was well aware of the fact that 
secularism is a great cementing force for the diverse people of 
India. He, as an idealist, thought that with spread of modern 
scientific and technological education secularism would spread and 
find greater and greater acceptability. However, not only it that did 
not happen that way but communalism and obscurantism spread with more 
intensity than secularism.

There are several reasons for this all of which we cannot analyse 
here. Some of them of course must be mentioned. Like Nehru very few 
people were genuinely committed to secularism in the Congress. Many 
eminent Congress leaders were opposed to it in their heart of heart. 
They tried to sabotage Nehruvian vision in his own lifetime and they 
became much more active after his death. Nehru could not pay much 
attention to educational system in his lifetime. It could not be 
reformed. The old textbooks with communal approach introduced during 
the British period were never changed. The Congress leaders 
themselves approved of them. Those who did not, could not show enough 
courage to demand essential changes in history textbooks. Thus most 
of the Indians grew with subtle or pronounced communal mindset.

In fact the educated were thus more affected with communal virus than 
the illiterate masses who never studied in schools and colleges. 
Similarly urban areas were more affected with communal virus than 
rural areas. Formation of Pakistan also greatly affected thinking of 
educated middle class Hindus and they looked upon Muslims as 
responsible for creation of Pakistan. They were never explained the 
complex political factors which brought about existence of Pakistan 
and that it was small percentage of elite Muslims who were more 
responsible for creation of Pakistan than the Muslim masses who did 
not even migrate to that country. Jinnah, in his struggle for power 
with the congress leaders never cared to understand what would be the 
impact of creation of Pakistan on the Muslim minority, which would 
remain in India.

Thus the education system did not cultivate secular outlook and 
conservative political outlook continued to strengthen communal 
mindset among the educated middle classes. The Muslim leaders in 
independent India, after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and 
Zakir Husain, could not provide moderate and wise leadership to 
Muslim masses. They also remained not only extremely cautious in 
their approach but never prepared Muslim masses for modern secular 
polity in India. They were more insistent on minority rights than on 
necessity for change.

This attitude was further strengthened among these leaders due to 
frequent occurrences of communal riots. The Jabalpur riot of 1961 
shook Nehru as much as Indian Muslims to the core. For the first time 
they became greatly apprehensive of their security and began to 
withdraw in their shell. This further reinforced conservatism and 
began hurdle in developing secular outlook among Muslims. The 
Jabalpur riots were followed by more intense communal violence in 
Ahmedabad in 1969 and Bhivandi-Jalgaon in 1970.

The end of seventies and early eighties witnessed number of; major 
communal riots in which hundreds were killed brutally. The RSS 
propaganda, on the other hand, was bringing more and more Hindus in 
the fold of Hindutva. All these developments were sure prescription 
for increasingly weakening secular forces in the country.

The decade of eighties saw rise of religious militancy among Hindus, 
Sikhs and Muslims. This decade also witnessed horrendous communal 
violence in North India. It was again during this decade that 
Khalistan movement came to the fore on one hand, and the Shah Banu 
and Ramjanambhoomi movement; on the other. Mandal commission was 
implemented by V.P.Singh towards the end of eighties, which further 
gave boost to Hindutva forces. The caste stratification became much 
more pronounced and led to Hindu militancy apprehensive of division 
of Hindu votes.

And in the beginning of nineties Babri Masjid was demolished which 
pushed Indian secularism to the brink. It was greatest disaster and 
was followed by Bombay riots, which shocked whole world.

Thus we see Indian secularism has followed a tortuous course all 
through in the post-independence period. It is not surprising in a 
underdeveloped country like India with its immense poverty, 
insurmountable levels of unemployment and widespread illiteracy. The 
BJP, which came to power using its Hindutva card is not likely to 
give it up in near future. With every election it intensifies its 
Hindutva agenda. The other members of the Sangh Parivar, specially 
the Vishva Hindu Parishad, tend to be more irresponsible as it does 
not have to govern. It assumes extremist postures and threatens 
minorities. It is this irresponsible extremism which resulted in the 
Gujarat carnage which again shook the world. The BJP Government tends 
to be buffeted between the VHP extremism and National Democratic 
Coalition compulsions. It thus fails to adopt consistent policies.

In the given political circumstances the future of secularism does 
not seem to be bright. However, one should not take short- term view 
based only on given context. Human beings have always struggled to 
transcend their given situation. A purely contextual view tends to be 
realistic but also restricted one. A vision, on the other hand, may 
not always be realistic but has a much broader sweep. And it is this 
broader sweep which shapes new realities and these new realities 
enables us to shape our future.

Though religion will never cease to be a force in human life 
secularism will not loose its relevance either. The modern democratic 
polity cannot be sustained without the state being neutral to all 
religions or equally protective for all religions as Nehru put it. 
And it is in this sense that secularism in India will become more and 
more relevant. It should also be noted that we should not pose 
secularism and religious orthodoxy as binary opposites, as some 
rationalists tend to do.

Faith will always remain an important component of human behaviour 
and there will always remain an element of orthodoxy in faith 
behaviour. Rational faith is certainly not an impossibility but it 
tends to be an elitist phenomenon. On the level of masses orthodoxy 
reigns rather than rationality, even in advanced societies. Also, 
economic advancement and reduction in levels of poverty and 
illiteracy will ultimately sideline communal bigotry and enhance 
forces of secularism. Religious orthodoxy, if not challenged by the 
other's threats, would not yield to communalism. There is a Laxman 
Rekha between religious orthodoxy and communal discourse.

India has stupendous challenges to meet due to its economic 
backwardness and unemployment, which sharpen communal struggle. 
Unemployed and frustrated youth can easily be induces to think and 
act communally as he thinks his unemployment is due more to his caste 
or community than economic backwardness. Thus chances of secularism 
will certainly brighten with more economic progress and reduced 
levels of unemployment, particularly educated unemployment.

Indian democracy, which is here to stay, is in itself a guaranty for 
future of secularism. A pluralist country like India needs secularism 
like life-blood. India has been pluralist not since post-modernism 
but for centuries and no one can wish away its bewildering pluralism 
and this pluralism can be sustained only with religiously neutral 
polity. India has been passing through very critical phase now but 
there is nothing to despair. The present communal turmoil is not here 
to stay. It would certainly yield to more stable secular polity.

(Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai.)


_____


[5.]

18 August 2003

LETTER TO THE EDITOR  TO THE GUARDIAN (UK).

Your coverage of the protests again Narendra Modi, the
"butcher of Gujarat," at Wembley ('So why is Narendra Modi in
Wembley?', August 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1020856,00.html
and  'Profile: Narendra Modi', August 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1020823,00.html)

is timely and welcome.

However, in suggesting that the protesters were Muslims, you
inadvertently reinforce the polarising notion that this is simply a 
Hindu-Muslim
issue. In point of fact, while Muslim groups were represented, the
call for the protests was given by the secular organisation, South
Asia Solidarity, and supported by other secular groups such as
Awaaz-South Asia Watch and the Cambridge South Asia Forum who are
working for religious tolerance in the subcontinent and among
immigrant Asians in the UK. Independent studies conducted
by several organisations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International and the National Human Rights Commission clearly indicate
that Narendra Modi and his government abetted genocidal attacks that
resulted in the deaths of two thousand men, women and children and
are obstructing attempts to bring those responsible to justice.  The
demand that a man with this record be brought to book is surely in the
interests of justice, a human rights issue rather than a religious one?
Many of us present at the protests were Hindus, Parsis, Christians and
other non-Muslims, people who have watched the secular and multifaith
heritage of South Asia  being sytematically dismembered by religious
extremists of various hues.  Narendra Modi is today one of the most
monstrous manifestations of hatred and violence practised in the name
of Hinduism.  Those of us who value human life and freedom must remain
committed to opposing these murderous ideologies and their heroes,
whatever the religious identity in which they cloak themselves.

Dr Anuj Dawar, Dr Susan Daruvala and Dr Priyamvada Gopal (University of
Cambridge)


Postal address:

c/o  P Gopal
Churchill College
Cambridge CB3 0DS
[UK]

_____


[6.]

The New York Times
August 18, 2003
Obituaries

Bhupen Khakhar, 69, Painter, Dies; Influenced a Generation in India
By HOLLAND COTTER

Bhupen Khakhar, a painter of social and personal narratives who was 
one of the most influential artists of his generation in India, died 
on Aug. 8 in Baroda, India. He was 69.

The cause was prostate cancer, said a spokesman at Bose Pacia Modern, 
a Manhattan gallery that has shown his work.

Mr. Khakhar studied accounting and explored art in his spare time. 
After meeting the painter Gulammohammed Sheikh in 1958, he decided to 
attend art school in Baroda, where he joined a circle of 
contemporaries who were shaping a new Indian art, among them Mr. 
Sheikh, Nilima Sheikh, Nalina Malani, Vivan Sundaran and the critic 
Geeta Kapur.

In 1962 Mr. Khakhar was introduced to Pop Art. It, as well as the 
work of Henri Rousseau, David Hockney and early Italian Renaissance 
painting, had a lasting effect on him, as did earlier Indian 
modernism, Rajput miniature painting, popular religious art and his 
own observation of urban street life.

Largely self-taught, Mr. Khakhar developed a cleanly executed, richly 
colored style in oil, watercolor and gouache. His focus on 
narratives, which combined daily life and fantasy, stood in contrast 
to the abstraction and expressive figuration that prevailed among 
progressive artists of an older generation. He set himself further 
apart from the earlier generation in the 1980's when he made his 
homosexuality a chief subject of his art.

This move, which was particularly audacious in a conservative South 
Asian context, coincided with the rise of identity politics as a 
defining feature of a multicultural art world. His work began to be 
included in big international exhibitions. In 1986 he had a solo show 
at the Pompidou Center in Paris. A career retrospective was organized 
by the Reina Sofía National Art Center in Madrid last summer and 
traveled to Britain.

Mr. Khakhar, who published short stories and a play, was the subject 
of a book by the British artist Timothy Hyman and a film by Judy 
Marle. Among his friends he was known for his self-deprecating 
attitude toward his art. He had so little confidence in its value 
that he maintained a full-time job as an accountant until he was well 
into his 50's.

His companion, Vallarbhai Shah, died on July 30. Mr. Khakhar has no 
immediate survivors.


_____


[7.]

The South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List
Message 598
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/message/598


`N-weaponisation falsified security, heightened tensions'

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI AUG. 17. While security was the principal argument for nuclear
weaponisation in both India and Pakistan, the process only spelt increasing
insecurity and heightened tensions in the region, panellists at a discussion
said here recently.

The concept of deterrence too was falsified after the Kargil war and two
other occasions, because the two countries came close to conflict, they
maintained at a discussion on `India's Dangerous Tryst with Nuclear
Weapons'. Besides reorienting the national expenditure, it made a privileged
group more powerful than the others.

The discussion was organised by Orient Longman on the occasion of release of
a book, Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream, edited by M. V. Ramana, physicist,
and C. Rammanohar Reddy, Deputy Editor, The Hindu.

Dr. Reddy, who chaired the session, said the book was an attempt to fill the
vacuum in literature that argued against possession of nuclear arms. It was
a collection of writings by scientists, activists, strategic affairs
analysts, economists, defence personnel and analysts.

Dismissing the theory of deterrence, J. Sriraman, convener, Movement Against
Nuclear Weapons, Chennai, said possessing nuclear weapons only heightened
tensions between nuclear weapons states, as was witnessed between the U.S.
and the erstwhile USSR during the cold war. Citing examples of the Cuban
War, the Indo-China War, the Falklands War between Argentina and the United
Kingdom, and the Kargil war, he emphasised that nuclear arms did not come
with an assurance of stability and peace.

V. Krishna Ananth, Senior Assistant Editor, The Hindu, pointed out that
Pokhran-I and II were made possible by a political consensus to keep the
nuclear option open. Almost all parties played a role in India's nuclear
programme, failing to openly criticise the tests. "It was the inability to
understand the value of human life" that translated into support for the
bomb, he said.

Quoting statistics from his study on polydactyl children at and around
Kalpakkam, V. Pugazhendi, member, Doctors for a Safer Environment, said most
of the cases were found within a 16-km radius of the reactor there. Prawn
and crabs off the coast of Kalpakkam also showed higher levels of polonium
concentration.

Speaking about the anti-nuclear weaponisation campaign, D. Indumathi,
member, Indian Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons and Tamil Nadu Science
Forum, said a slide show highlighting the impact of a nuclear bomb was being
screened at schools and colleges.

Later, responding to queries, the panellists pointed out that though opinion
on nuclear energy was divided within the movement, concerns over safety
standards and transparency were raised at various points of time.

© Copyright 2000 - 2003 The Hindu
 
_____


[8.]


India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) Compilation # 130
18 August 2003
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/141

_____


[9.]

In the August 2003 issue of Himal South Asian
(www.himalmag.com)

Hydro-hubris
What does the Government of India's proposal to link rivers
across the landmass mean not just to India but also to South
Asia's waters. A detailed inquiry by three eminent water experts
from India.
Ramaswamy R Iyer on The Making of a Subcontinental Fiasco
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/essay.htm)
Himanshu Thakkar on Flood of Nonsense
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/perspective.htm)
Sudhirendar Sharma on Suresh Prabhu and the Art of Selling
Delusions
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/perspective_2.htm)

'71 once again
A battle soldier reminisces about the India-Bangladesh war of
1971. Subtle and evocative, the story hints at the futility of war
with its share of lighter moments.
Bahauddins' War by Ishrat Firdousi
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/reflections_1.htm)

Afghanistan's manhandled economy
Where is the Afghan economy heading under the care of donors?
Economist CP Chandrashekar takes a close look in Aid,
Expatriates and the Afghan Economy
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/analysis.htm)

Chennai underbelly
Read about the inner dynamics of the Chennai sex trade.
Sex Work in the South by Syed Ali Mujtaba
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/report.htm)

'Supreme' courts?
A critical look at the judicial system in India that has set up legal
barricades around itself to ward off scrutiny. Contemptible Justice by
Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
  (http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/commentary_in.htm)

Review of Basic Water Science
A comprehensive critique of hydraulic orthodoxy authored by the
Kathmandu water engineer, Ajaya Dixit.
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/review_2.htm)

Review of Unbecoming Citizens
A reviewer, Bhim Subba, once labeled a criminal by the
Government of Bhutan for fleeing the country, gives a thumbs up
to SOAS author Michael Hutt's book on the Lhotshampa refugees.
(http://www.himalmag.com/2003/august/review.htm)


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

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.