SACW | 23 Aug. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  23 August,  2003

[1.] Pakistan : JI should rein in its student wing
[2.] Pakistan cable TV vows boycott
[3.] India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch No. 131 (23 Aug 2003)
[4.] India: Government involvement in the running of temples is 
detrimental to both politics and religion (Pratap Bhanu Mehta)
[5.] India: Poor Gujarat riots compensation shocking: Justices (Amit Mukherjee)
[6.] India: Religion, Population Growth, Fertility and Family 
Planning Practice in India
[7.] India: Muzzling Mr Bigmouth [of the Hindutva Far Right]
[8.] India: Censorship and Misplaced Priorities (Pankaj Butalia)


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

[1.]

The Daily Times
August 23, 2003 

Editorial: JI should rein in its student wing

The Islami Jamiat-e Tulaba activists at Islamabad's Islamic 
University arranged Thursday for the students and IJT cadres a speech 
by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas (Harakat 
al-Muqawama al-lslamiya - literally, Islamic Resistance Movement). In 
his speech, Sheikh Yassin warned Pakistan against recognising Israel. 
He said Pakistan would come to grief if it made such a move. The 
Sheikh also held forth on the United States and declared that the US 
would not remain all-powerful for long and that Muslims of the world 
should unite to struggle against the US and Israel.
It surprises us that the student wing of a religio-political party, 
which aspires to capture political power and rule Pakistan, should 
act so irresponsibly as to relay the speech of the chief of a 
militant Palestinian group which the elected Palestinian Authority of 
Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas wants to put down in order to get the 
space to negotiate with Tel Aviv. Sheikh Yassin and his group's 
actions within the context of the Palestinian struggle may be kosher 
and we are not about to make a judgement on that score. But clearly, 
the Pakistan government cannot deal with any Palestinian entity other 
than the PA, which is the elected government representing the 
Palestinian people and their aspirations. The PA has a president, a 
prime minister, a cabinet and a parliament. Whether or not the PA is 
effective is for the Palestinians to decide, not Pakistan. Any 
attempt by the Pakistan government or anyone else in Pakistan to deal 
with any entity or group other than the PA amounts to subversion of 
the legitimate authority of that body.
By that logic, the government of Pakistan can deal with Hamas only if 
the Palestinian people vote in that group and Hamas comes to 
represent the Palestinians as a legitimate government. Even so, the 
issue of recognising Israel, at the end of the day, is to be decided 
by Pakistan on the basis of its interests, not that of anyone else. 
If Pakistan feels that it is more important for it to keep backing 
the legitimate Palestinian government and that such backing precludes 
recognising Israel, it can take that course. Equally, it can take the 
reverse course. But either way it needs to keep its interests firmly 
in sight.
As things stand, the PA has recognised Israel and wants to move along 
the peace roadmap on the basis of that recognition; similarly, the 
issue of a Palestinian state is no more in question. The roadmap 
makes it clear that Israel has to begin with that basic reality. 
There are nettlesome issues like Israel's borders, the right of 
return to the refugees and the status of Jerusalem, but these are to 
be decided between Israel and the PA. Prime Minister Abbas has 
threatened to resign the other day if Yasser Arafat, the PA 
president, does not lend him support and use his influence with the 
militant groups to rein them in. But, leaving aside the nature of 
internal differences within the Palestinians, it is for them and 
their respective groups and bodies to work them out. Pakistan cannot 
become a party to that struggle. Until such time that the PA 
represents the Palestinians and has been brought to power through the 
ballot, Islamabad can only deal with it.
Finally, just to put the record straight, Hamas has, many times in 
the past, negotiated ceasefires with the Israelis. Also, no more does 
Hamas, in reality, call for the destruction of Israel. It's a 
difference of strategy; Hamas thinks it can use violence, just like 
Israel does, to force Tel Aviv to negotiate on equal terms. Sheikh 
Yassin, therefore, has no right to dictate to Pakistan what Islamabad 
should or should not do. He can only deal with his own government. 
The Pakistanis should also rightly expect from the JI, a legitimate 
political party, to discipline its student wing and ask IJT leaders 
to refrain from reaching out to parties and groups that do not 
legitimately represent a people or a government. The IJT must also be 
told in no uncertain terms that it cannot use such speeches to 
influence the course and direction of Pakistan's foreign policy. No 
party that seeks to capture political power and rule this country, 
which is presumably what all political parties aim to do, can link up 
with renegade groups in other countries and states and end up 
undermining not just Pakistan's interests but also the interests of 
governments abroad.
The Jama'at and other religious parties, whether inside or outside 
the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, must realise that they have a record of 
saying and doing things that run contrary to the major determinants 
on which this country's foreign policy has been formulated. There is 
a wide perception that religious parties are more enamoured of 
pan-Islamism than Pakistan itself and would be prepared, going by 
their rhetoric, to put Pakistan on the chopping block for the larger 
cause of Islam. If this is correct then they possibly cannot 
represent Pakistan. But we do not think that is the case. The MMA is 
politically Machiavellian enough to know which side of its bread is 
buttered as is obvious from its ongoing negotiations with the 
government on the LFO issue. Which of course means that its 
pan-Islamic rhetoric is merely a ploy to attract a certain kind of 
voter. That is even worse since it works to the disadvantage of 
Pakistan in the longer run. *


_____


[2.]


BBC
22 August, 2003

Pakistan cable TV vows boycott

Foreign news channels will be among those affected

Pakistan's cable TV operators say they will refuse to broadcast 
national channels in protest at being prevented from showing Indian 
programmes.
The Cable Operators' Association of Pakistan will begin the boycott, 
which will also include foreign news channels such as the BBC and 
CNN, on Sunday, general secretary Ahsan Ali told Reuters news agency.
"Ninety-five percent of Pakistanis want to see Indian programmes," Mr 
Ali said. "The government should respect public opinion."
Pakistan banned Indian channels in March 2002 during a period of 
tense ties with its neighbour.
The association, which represents more than 900 operators, said if 
its demands were not met within the first week of the boycott, the 
cable services would shut down completely.
The association has been running a media campaign to try to raise 
public support for its position.

Ban reinforced

The government ban came during a military stand-off that followed an 
attack by Islamic militants on the Indian parliament in December 2001.
"We co-operated with the government last year because of the military 
build-up," said one operator, Khalid Arian.

But after this summer's thaw in relations, he said, some Indian 
programmes began to be broadcast again.
However, the government quickly moved to reinforce the ban.
The government wants to keep out Indian channels that have eaten into 
the advertising revenue of state-run Pakistan Television.
It is also under pressure from Islamic parties that are bitterly 
opposed to what they regard as an Indian cultural invasion.
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority has appealed to 
the operators to drop the boycott.

_____


[3.]

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) Compilation # 131
(23 Aug 2003)
URL: groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/142

_____


[4.]


The Hindu [India]
Aug 23, 2003
Opinion - Leader Page Articles    

Temple takeovers
By Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Government involvement in the running of temples is detrimental to 
both politics and religion.

IN STATES all across India, Governments are using one pretext or the 
other to take over the running of Hindu temples. The Haryana 
Government recently enacted legislation to take over dozens of 
temples in the State, following closely on the heels of the 
"Kurukshetra Shrine Bill" that allowed the State to take over the 
functioning of 75 temples in the Kurukshetra area. The Archaeological 
Survey of India recently acquired jurisdiction over the famous temple 
in Pushkar, Rajasthan. This takeover of temples by Governments 
follows the precedent set by numerous southern Governments that have 
over the years acquired a substantial stake in tens of thousands of 
temples.

In many southern States, there are full-fledged Ministries running 
temples. The Andhra Pradesh department of endowments now controls 
70,000 personnel, claims to run approximately 33,000 temples and 
religious endowments. Tamil Nadu has what amounts to a parallel civil 
service for the running of temples. The extent of state regulation of 
temples is often not confined merely to management of property 
matters. It extends to appointment of priests and regulation of 
religious routines in temples. For instance, the Andhra Pradesh 
Department of Endowments proudly announces that one of its functions 
is to "ensure the proper performance of pujas."

The involvement of the state in the regulation of temple affairs was, 
to some extent, inevitable. Issues such as temple entry and 
appointment of priests were at the heart of debates over social 
reform. In many other temples, the vast sums of money collected and 
properties owned seem to cry out for some regulation. The logistics 
of many religious activities impinge upon the state. In some rare 
instances, the state stepped in to preserve monuments of national 
importance. But these plausible justifications for occasional state 
intervention in the affairs of temples have now become pretexts for 
the state to indiscriminately take over temples.

The practical takeover of thousands of temples has been facilitated 
by the thrust of The Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments 
Commission that recommended that legislation be used to treat all 
`maths' as if they were public. A series of judicial pronouncements 
have greatly facilitated this trend. The Courts tried to confine 
regulation to the secular aspects of an endowment and not its 
religious affairs, but this distinction has proven to be elusive. As 
Rajeev Dhavan and Fali Nariman wrote, "in this process both the 
government and the judiciary tend to overlook the simple fact that 
under the guise of regulatory control, religious endowments are, and 
have been, nationalised on a massive scale."

The "nationalisation" of temples has implications for politics. This 
issue has fuelled the politics of resentment amongst many Hindu 
organisations. They argue that it is vastly easier for the state to 
take over Hindu temples and endowments whereas minority institutions 
are protected from such takeovers. On the other hand, it also allows 
state support for maintaining and subsidising temples. There is some 
irony in the fact that often members of the Sangh Parivar object to 
this kind of state entanglement in religious affairs, whereas 
defenders of secularism have been turning a blind eye to an 
increasing material entanglement of state and religion.

State takeover of temples violates the freedom of communities to 
manage their religious endowments. But it is also an imprudent 
policy. State involvement in the running of temple trusts politicises 
religious endowments. It is often claimed that religious endowments 
are corrupt and need regulation. This argument is fallacious. It is 
not clear that the state will be any less corrupt than the current 
managers of these endowments. There is good evidence that Governments 
are taking over temples in order to control the resources of these 
temples. Besides, if the "corruption" is not at taxpayers expense 
there is no reason for the state to intervene. Who says it is the 
state's business to correct every folly in society, or to decide even 
that the ways devotees or trustees spend their money is indeed a 
folly?

The ASI, which relishes taking over temples and mosques claiming that 
these national monuments need to protected, is often not the best 
agency to preserve these monuments. Government takeovers of temple 
management often disrupt historical patterns of use that have allowed 
temples to flourish for centuries. Government involvement in the 
running of temples is detrimental to both politics and religion.

There is something amiss when the state gets into the business of 
appointing priests, regulating pujas and taking over temples. Temple 
takeover legitimises Hindutva in two contradictory ways: on the one 
hand, it fuels claims that Hindu endowments are discriminated against 
and not given enough autonomy; on the other hand, these takeovers 
make it appear but natural that the state should be in the business 
of running things like temples. The day is not far where we may need 
a Union Public Service Commission for appointments of priests, a 
minister for religious affairs and a financial regulator for 
religious endowments! The future of secularism is being put at risk 
by the machinations of Governments, of all ideological stripes, that 
cannot keep their hands off religious institutions. We need to return 
to the banal truism: the state should leave religion alone.

(The writer is Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU.)


_____


[5.]


The Times of India, August 23, 2003

Poor Gujarat riots compensation shocking: Justices
AMIT MUKHERJEE
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 2003 04:41:55 PM ]

AHMEDABAD: Justice Nanavati and Justice Shah, who are hearing 
complaints from victims of last year's Gujarat riots, expressed 
surprise and shock on Friday when a woman resident of Shahpur 
complained that she had been handed over a cheque of only Rs 100 by 
the state government as compensation for property losses, as against 
actual losses of around Rs 4 lakh.
 
The complaint was made by Mehrunnissa Shaikh, a resident of Shahpur 
Darwaza during a hearing on Friday. She said that she was not given 
even an explanation as to why the compensation was so 
disproportionate to actual losses.
 
The two judges expressed shock and surprise over the complaint and 
directed the district collector to inquire into the matter and report 
on how such pittance could be given as compensation when the 
complainant said the losses were much higher.
 
Another victim, Ghulam Moinuddin Saiyed, a resident of Mirzapur said 
that while the riots began in late February, his locality was 
completely quiet till April 22 when a new police inspector, who was 
posted in the area, started inciting trouble.
 
Saiyed said that police resorted to indiscriminate firing without 
provocation and booked false cases against the residents.
 
He added that after he complained to police commissioner K R Kaushik 
and then security adviser to the chief minister, K P S Gill, the 
police booked him in false cases despite the fact that his son and 
son-in-law were themselves injured in police firing.
 
Saiyed alleged that the police acted in vengeance because of his 
complaint and even had him externed from the district.
 
About 70 people turned up on Friday from Shahpur and Madhopura police 
station areas to depose before the commission as their statements 
could not be recorded during the first two phases due to time 
constraint.

_____


[6.]

The Economic and Political Weekly [India]
August 16 , 2003

Religion, Population Growth, Fertility and Family Planning Practice in India
Based on five national-level surveys conducted between 1970 and 1998, 
analysis of the differential population growth rates of Hindus and 
Muslims in India, their fertility levels and adoption of family 
planning practices.

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2003&leaf=08&filename=6162&filetype=pdf

_____


[7.]

The Hindustan Times [India]  |  Editorial
August 22

Muzzling Mr Bigmouth

With the likes of Praveen Togadia spewing venom against the 
minorities, the VHP had spun a miasma of fear as it went about 
militarising its cadre.

The spell was broken when the Ashok Gehlot government in Rajasthan 
decided to bell the cat and arrest Mr Togadia on the ground of 
apprehension of the breach of peace. The trouble-makers were exposed 
as having feet of clay as the big bad boy of Hindutva rushed about 
making appropriate noises about being a dutiful citizen before a 
court. Since then, as Bihar and UP have shown, other state 
governments are learning the 'technology' of taming Mr Togadia.

It is really not so difficult. Once a government makes it plain that 
it will give no quarter to those intent on mischief, the potential 
for mischief usually ceases to exist. Not so long ago, the 
Maharashtra government had permitted the high-profile VHP leader to 
enter the state on the condition that he would address no public 
meetings. Nothing further was heard on the subject from the Hindutva 
body. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh government had proscribed VHP 
rallies when Gujarat was burning last year. On none of these 
occasions has the VHP had the better of the law.

The lesson is that the potential for harm from outfits like the VHP 
ceases to exist when governments do not acquiesce in their aims or 
activities. The Centre could have nipped the whole thing in the bud 
long ago if it had issued an advisory to all state governments to 
contain the VHP's rabble-rousing antics. It needed to show the same 
resolve in grounding the VHP as it did in the case of SIMI, the 
disruptionists who make trouble in the name of protecting supposedly 
Muslim interests. Political parties supporting the BJP at the Centre 
- such as the TDP and the BSP - have shown little hesitation in 
curbing irresponsible conduct by the VHP. The BJP's lone government 
in Gujarat stands out as an exception in this regard.

______


[8.]

The Times of India
AUGUST 23, 2003
Op.Ed.

Hocus Focus: Censorship and Misplaced Priorities
PANKAJ BUTALIA

This may be an imaginary sequence or it may be true but a rather 
strange thing supposedly happened last year. A review committee of 
the Mumbai documentary festival met to discuss routine affairs. 
During the course of this, a senior bureaucrat revealed that some 
women's groups had complained of the increasing trend towards 
obscenity in the media and the urgent need to do something about it. 
It was thus decided that, in future, documentaries submitted for the 
festival would have to possess censor certificates.

Much like the famed sleight of hand, one hand did the distracting 
while the other did the trick. Nobody bothered to ask whether the 
so-called complaint made any reference to any film screened at the 
Mumbai festival or what censoring a documentary could do to remove 
obscenity in the media or in people's minds. A problem was pointed 
out and some action had to be taken. End of matter.

For almost a century, there has been a phobia about what is loosely 
termed the mass media. It is almost as if cinema, and by extension 
television, video and now the Internet, are objects of fear and 
hatred, which are experienced as dangerous and malevolent and, 
there-fore, necessary to put away. Society's inability to understand 
why violence takes place or what underlies the bestiality in man 
makes it imperative to have a scapegoat. What better scapegoat than 
the mirror, the medium?

Ironically, even the most scissor-happy activist is completely 
ignorant about the way in which cinema works or impacts the human 
psyche. Is the content the medium or the message? Is there a 
seditious possibility in cinema (et al) and if so, does it lie in the 
overt text or in some subliminal space? In the absence of any clarity 
on this, who can possibly know what to censor and what to let be?

Does the evidence of censorship over the last century make us any 
wiser? How many examples are there of films and videos which have 
inflamed passions or led to outbreaks of anarchic violence? What 
possible harm could films like The Last Temptation of Christ, Hair, 
The Tin Drum, Gone With the Wind, Birth of a Nation, Clockwork 
Orange, Pink Flamingos, Midnight Cowboy, The Exorcist or Woodstock do 
to society?

In any case, if one looks over time, one finds today's banned films 
become tomorrow's mainstream ones. Violence does not originate in 
cinema. Most incidents of mass violence, of oppression against weaker 
sections of society, of annihilation of different tribes and 
communities have either been done directly by the state (Soviet Union 
in the '30s, Nazi Germany, China during the Cultural Revolution, Idi 
Amin's Uganda, Chile, Argentina, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the list is 
endless) or by powerful sections of society with active support or 
connivance of the state. This does not include the millions of 
pointless deaths that have been caused throughout the century by 
legitimised violence called war. Nor are rape, moles-tation, 
attitudes towards women a product of the media.

That would allow patriarchy to escape responsibility for all its 
ills. Interestingly, none of those who constantly point fingers at 
the media for society's ills, ever speak out strongly enough against 
those very ills. No proponent of censorship openly acknowledges that 
there are problems in our society which need to be addressed. There 
is no criticism of the regularity with which rapes occur, no 
criticism of the lynchings of couples that seek to marry against the 
wishes of the village, of oppressions against Dalits, of sati, dowry 
deaths or female infanticide.

Neither is there criticism of the systematic harassment of women in 
schools, colleges, work places. The list is endless. Yet it is 
believed that the mere screening of a film or television programme 
has the potential to send society hurtling down a moral abyss. Does 
that imply that a society must not have any control over the images, 
ideas and messages that circulate in its midst? Ideas which could, at 
some stage, interact with the violence present in our own personas 
and exacerbate inherent tendencies? Not at all. Nor is it suggested 
that gratuitous violence, child pornography, secessionist 
provocations, terrorist ideology or certain kinds of hate speeches 
need to be tolerated, though it must be pointed out that a society 
which encourages violence in the form of war, oppression of women in 
the form of patriarchy, child abuse and familial sexual abuse, state 
terrorism and violence against its weaker sections can hardly pretend 
that the mere use of a censor's scissors will promote harmonious 
development.

This is not the place to detail how this can be done but there are 
countless examples of other societies where such controls have been 
implemented reasonably successfully. The use of a society's criminal 
laws against any such act ought to be enough where there is a genuine 
desire to curb anti-social activities and where there is a consensus 
on what constitutes such an activity. The censor's scissors are not 
necessary for this purpose. After all, censorship is strict in India 
but no one could succeed in stopping the circulation of the VHP's 
hate tapes.

Strangely, this has not been considered secessionist, seditious, 
inflammatory or provocative. However, a documentary reporting this 
could be considered secessionist and would be censored. Strange logic 
this and a strange sleight of hand.

(The author is a Delhi-based film-maker)

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

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.