SACW | 30 Aug. 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sat Aug 30 02:31:17 CDT 2003
South Asia Citizens Wire | 30 August, 2003
[1.] India-Pakistan cold war (M. B. Naqvi)
[2.] Pakistan: Sindh High Court Landmark judgement
[3.] Announcement: Domains: The Journal of the International Centre
for Ethnic Studies
[4.] Citizens Letter to the President of India defending Nafisa Ali
[5.] Historians Statement on The Archaeological Survey of India's
Report on Ayodhya (SAHMAT)
[6.] Gujarat: Saffron mob abuses Ehsan Jaffrey's family + Riots
probe: judge threatens to walk out
[7.] Letter to New York Times: Why Ask India[for the troops]? (Rajesh
Gopakumara)
[8.] Upcoming: Asian Consultations For World Social Forum 2004
--------------
[1.]
India-Pakistan cold war
M. B. Naqvi
Karachi August 29, 2003
Failure of India-Pakistan talks on restoring air links was entirely
predictable. The very fact that the talks took place so late, four
months after the Vajpayee initiative, was indicative of the fact that
the Indians had hesitated to initiate talks on the subject and left
the matter to Pakistanis because they had sensed that restoring the
air links will not be easy. Obviously the restoration of all the air
links --- and with that the restarting of the Samjhota Express
between Lahore and Attari or New Delhi --- is going to take some time
and effort.
It is the effort that seems to be shrinking on either side and there
is reluctance to accommodate the other. The Pakistani restricted
interpretation of normalisation process ---going back to the exact
situation of Dec 12, 2001--- was happily accepted by the Indians. In
which case, the restoration of road, rail and air links should have
been a simple routine matter. At most, a few weeks might have been
needed to prepare for the regular service on either side. There was,
and is, no great hindrance in the resumption of railway link that had
existed for so long or the air links that had never been sundered
before 2002. No new or major arrangements were required to be made
for the restoration of the old services, although a strong case
exists for having many more links than had been in operation in 2001.
But that is contingent on what is politically desired by the two
governments. If the purpose is no more than going back to the
position as it was on December 12, 2001, the conduct so far seems to
conform to the cold war mindsets on either side. It is however
notionally accepted that the restoration of the old air, road and
rail links is necessary. Moreover, it is necessary for both, not for
one side only. And yet there is an obvious reluctance on the part of
both the governments --- bureaucracies really, though governments
have gone along with them --- to implement the simple process of
restoration of old services. That should have been no big deal. But
apparently there are big hurdles even in the matter of simple
restoration of preexisting services, let alone creating new links.
One is fond of putting it as a case of cold war mindsets. The
question however is: are there no alternative ideas or vision. Is
there no high caliber leadership at all? Cold war was the phenomenon
that grew out of 50 years of mutual rivalry and bad blood. Although
some leaders have propagated friendship, good relations and strong
mutual cooperation between the two countries obviously based on
myriad commonalties between the two peoples of the Subcontinent. It
so happens that despite the clear enunciation from the days of
Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, whose initial speeches spoke
of India-Pakistan relations in terms of what obtains between Canada
and the US. The two governments, driven by contrary political
objectives and international intrigue, never took the path of
reconciliation, friendship and cooperation. They preferred to remain
engaged in a militaristically conceived cold war objective of
wresting Kashmir or retaining it.
What the two governments do not see is that this militaristic
approach has run its course. It is no longer viable or practical. The
year 2002 was the high watermark of the India-Pakistan cold war, more
significant than the three wars they have fought. Notionally, a great
war, appropriate to the level of the two, was fought. Details are
needless. The simple point is that the Indians meant to go to war in
order to punish Pakistan for its transgressions in Kashmir. Pakistan
was quite ready to fight back--- a war with the proviso that if the
Indians were to invade, they should expect the use of Pakistan's
nuclear devices. Great powers also intervened. In the event no war,
great or minor, took place.
The conclusion to be drawn is that India did not invade because it
could not hope to win a worthwhile victory. Let's remember that the
Presidents of both the countries, otherwise so different, confirmed
that the war did not take place because of the threat of atomic
weapons being used. The final point that can and should be made is
that that war was not needed and will be unnecessary anytime in
future. Neither can India initiate it nor Pakistan can withstand the
consequences. The Indians did their own atomic sabre rattling during
May-July period of that year. They promised Pakistan near total
obliteration of all its industrial and urban centers. Pakistanis were
impressed and drew different conclusions. The Islamabad government
does not seem to have drawn all the lessons from the 2002
experiences.
The conclusion one draws from 2002 experience is that neither side
can afford another war. If so, it is necessary for both to learn how
to keep peace --- by doing all that which will preserve peace. This
is a categorical imperative for both countries --- unless they want a
nuclear night over large parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains. This
realization should be the starting point. But this is not there,
though is a prerequisite.
Some kind of a vision of peace --- more-than-mere-coexistence ---and
cooperation mandates a people-to-people reconciliation for progress
of both sides. Sad to say, such a vision is conspicuous by its
absence.
It is obvious that Pakistani bureaucrats, on a cue from some stupid
cold war warriors, have based policies vis-à-vis air links on the
calculation that the denial of the right to overfly Pakistan
territory is hurting India far more (Rs.285 crore per year) than what
Pakistan is losing by not being able to overfly Indian air space
(Rs.25 crore per year only). Ergo, they seem to have concluded that
let the Indians not overfly Pakistan and go on suffering more losses.
After all India banned the overflights. Let it go on paying more by
denying it the Pakistani air space. What is missed is that, supposing
PIA losses are no more than Rs.25 crores a year --- by no means
certain --- these Rs.25 crore mean a lot to the people of Pakistan
who are losing them. That the Indians are also losing money confers
no benefit on the Pakistani citizens. This seems to have been the
true rationale of why Pakistan has been reluctant to allow
overflights. It later developed a whole theory that Indians should
now commit themselves through a treaty or otherwise never to ban the
overflights again by way of justifying their obstructive conduct.
What is forgotten is that India is as much a sovereign country as
Pakistanis think theirs is. Even if it bound itself hand and foot in
50 treaties, what would these avail if politics in India leads it to
a point where it ignores all the parchments and starts fighting with
Pakistan. It is a needless point to insist on a sovereign state. A
treaty lasts as long as it remains in the interest of that country to
preserve it. Treaties, at most, might delay something but cannot
avoid. Those who are happy with the gun will always downgrade and
abuse the written word.
The point that the people of the two countries need to make to their
respective governments is that for once they should agree on a
framework of ideas that can do duty for what the word vision implies.
The rest will fall into place. Ends
_____
[2.]
The Daily Times [Pakistan] August 29, 2003
Editorial: SHC's landmark judgement
In a decision that can only be hailed as progressive by all concerned
Pakistanis, the Sindh High Court has determined that a civilian
cannot be tried by a military court under the Pakistan Army Act,
1951, for violation of the Official Secrets Act or any other law
unless such a person were subject to the 1951 law at the time of the
commission of the alleged offence. The other determination by the
SHC, both implicit in its hearing of a petition challenging a
military court's trial of a civilian under the Army Act as well as
explicitly stated in its judgement, is that a civilian court can hear
such a case and override the decision of a military court. Both
observations by the court came in response to the plea taken by law
officers appearing for the federal government that section 59 (4) of
the Army Act overrides any law and once a civilian becomes subject to
it, he can be tried by a military court and the high court is barred
from admitting his plea made under article 199 (3) of the
Constitution.
This is a landmark judgement. In many earlier cases, the higher
courts have taken a different route, refusing to touch cases
involving the army versus a civilian citizen of Pakistan. Some years
ago the Lahore High Court refused to hear a habeas corpus petition of
the chief editor of a weekly newspaper after the Attorney General
told the court the journalist was being held by the army and the
court therefore had no jurisdiction over the matter. It was only
after the army issued a statement refuting the government's
contention that the petition was taken to the Supreme Court of
Pakistan.
The army's position on arresting and trying civilians and barring the
higher courts from intervening on behalf of the accused was not only
untenable, it created huge space for violations of human and
fundamental rights. By suspending the function of article 199 (3) of
the Constitution, it also implied that the Army Act could subordinate
the Constitution in its operation. That was absurd, to say the least.
But the fact is that the position taken by the courts so far,
accepting the army's version, only served to set poor precedents in
this regard. The SHC has now gone ahead and rejected the army's
contention in a case involving human rights activist Krishan Sharma.
Mr Sharma was taken into custody by the Sindh rangers while he was
travelling from Mithi to Karachi. He was charged with trying to make
sketches of some installations. The army's judge advocate-general's
branch therefore determined that Mr Sharma be tried by a field
general court martial under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Army Act.
Mr Sharma was also held incommunicado, a common enough but
unfortunate practice in such cases and a clear violation of the
suspect's fundamental rights.
We hope that the SHC decision will go a long way in eradicating the
practice by the army of violating civilians' rights by arresting and
trying them under the Army Act. *
_____
[3.]
Domains: The Journal of the International Centre for Ethnic Studies [Sri Lanka]
ICES celebrates the inauguration of Domains -
its new, refereed, internationally published,
scholarly journal - with a US$ 1000 prize competition.
Submission deadline for papers is 15th Dec. 2003. Work
from any geographical area and orientation within the
humanities and social sciences is welcome.
For more information on Domains, and the
contest, visit www.icesdomains.org
_____
[4.]
ANHAD
4, Windsor Place, New Delhi-110001
e-mail: <mailto:anahdinfo at yahoo.co.in>anahdinfo at yahoo.co.in
Tel- 23327367 9811807558
Released to the press by
Shabnam Hashmi
On behalf of Anhad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi
August 29, 2003
Sir,
On the event of Independence Day, the Government of Gujarat slapped
charges of inciting communal hatred (under Section 153 A of the IPC)
on social worker and senior film actress Nafisa Ali. Among the
co-accused named by the state government for abetment of her alleged
offence were two daily newspapers, Indian Express and Divya Bhaskar.
Nafisa Ali visited Gujarat on a goodwill visit from 2-4 August, 2003.
She went to Godhra, Vadodara and Ahmedabad to spread the messages of
peace and justice.
Apart from the survivors of the carnage, she met a wide range of
college students, business professionals, social workers,
intellectuals and with journalists as well. She also addressed
gathering at the Ahmedabad Management Association, Mudra Institute of
Communication, Ahmedabad and Centre for Development Communication.
In her lectures and interactions, she expressed her deep love and
regard for Gujarat, and enormous anguish and concern at the carnage
and its aftermath. She continuously emphasised the imperative to
rebuild communal harmony and trust, to defend the cultural diversity,
which makes Indian civilization so rich, and to secure justice for
the survivors of the carnage.
She also made some strong comments against Chief Minister Narendra
Modi. She is quoted in the Indian Express of 5 August, 2003 to have
stated “Just like the people of Hitler's country are ashamed of him,
people will be of Modi too. Men can be good or bad, you cannot blame
an entire religion as good or bad. This isn't justice in a
democracy-the State and Centre are trying to polarize the country.
Its amazing how Narendra Modi can say that it's Pakistan behind it
all. Indeed what Britishers couldn't do Modi has done. He's divided
people on the basis of communalism."
The government of Gujarat filed 2 FIRs against Ms Ali as prime
accused on 14th August, 2003, and the reporter and editor of Indian
Express and editor and publisher of the Gujarati daily Divya Bhaskar
for reporting. The allegation against Ms. Ali was that she was
promoting enmity between different groups and acting prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony and thereby was culpable under Section 153-A
of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
It is absurd to charge Ms. Ali of fomenting communal hatred. On the
contrary, she was courageously raising her voice for justice,
pluralism, harmony and peace.
It is deeply ominous for the survival of democracy that her words of
healing and of democratic dissent, that can by no stretch of
imagination be described as communal or inflammatory, have invited
the wrath of the state government, even as those guilty of leading
mobs for slaughter, rape and plunder walk free, and leaders like Dr.
Praveen Togadia continue to openly incite communal hatred in distant
corners of the country.
We demand the immediate withdrawal of the vengeful and malafide
charges of inciting communal hatred, which have been made against
social worker Nafisa Ali by the Gujarat government. Instead, people
who actually continue to incite communal hatred should be restrained
and punished, and justice and rehabilitation ensured for the
survivors of the carnage of 2002.
Sincerely
Shabnam Hashmi
on behalf of
1. Achin Vinayak, Professor, Third World Academy
2. Admiral Ramdas, Social Activist, Retired Admiral, Indian Navy
3. Amala Akkineri, Film Actress, Hyderabad
4. Amit Sengupta, Associate Editor, Tehelka
5. Anand Patwardhan-Film Maker
6. Anant Maringanti, Minniapolis
7. Anil Nauria, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court
8. Ann Ninan, Senior Editor, Tehelka
9. Ava Bhavsar
10. Badruddin R Gowani, Writer, LA, USA
11. Bharath Sethuraman
12. Chitra Padmanabhan, Journalist
13. Damandeep Singh, Journalist, National Geographic
14. Dhruv Raina, Professor, JNU
15. Digant Oza, Senior Journalist
16. Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor, California
Institute of Integral Studies San Francisco
17. Dr. Vijaya Chandru, Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
18. Dr.Lila R.DasvermaRichland,
19. Father Cedric Prakash
20. Gauhar Raza, Scientist
21. Geeta Kapur, Art Historian
22. Geetanjali Shree, Writer
23. Githa Hariharan, Eminent Writer
24. Grish Patel, Senior Lawyer
25. Hamida Hirani
26. Harsh Kapoor
27. Harsh Mander, Social Activist
28. Huma Ghosh
29. IK Shukla, Writer, LA, USA
30. Ishaq Razaali Chinwala, Sarvodaya Activist
31. Javed Naqvi, Senior Journalist
32. John Cherian, Senior Journalist
33. John Dayal, Senior journalist
34. Jyoti Bose, Principal Springdales School
35. KG Kannabiran, President, PUCL
36. Kiran Segal, Dancer
37. Lalita Ramdas, Social Acvist
38. Mahesh Bhatt, Film Maker
39. Mihir Desai, Advocate
40. MK Venu, Senior Editor, Economic Times
41. Mohan Rao, Associate Prof. JNU
42. Nandini Sundar, Professor, JNU
43. Narsingh Rao, Film Maker, Hyderabad
44. Nishrin Hussain
45. P V Satheesh, Director, Deccan Development Society
46. Parajoy Guha Thakurta, Senior Journalist & Director School of
Convergence
47. Paul Diwakar,
48. Priyamvada Gopal, University of Cambridge
49. Purnima Joshi, Special Correspondence, Out Look
50. PVS Kumar, Scientist
51. R. Uma Maheshwari, journalist
52. Rajalakshmi, Senior Journalist
53. Rajni Kothari, Educationist, Former Member of Planning Commission
54. Rubina Husain
55. S Irfan Habib, Scientist
56. Saeeda Hamid, Social Activist and Writer
57. Sandip K.Dasverma
58. Sara Rai
59. Shabana Azmi, Social Activist and Actress
60. Shabnam Hashmi, Activist
61. Shakti Kak, Scientist
62. Shubha Mudgal, Artist
63. Sidharth Vardrajan, Deputy Editor, Times of India
64. Sohail Hashmi, Activist, Film Maker
65. Soumitra Ghosh
66. Sudhir Chandra, Writer, Academician
67. Suma Josson, Film Maker
68. Suneeta Kaul, Journalist, Business India
69. Sunil Dutt, Social Activist, Actor
70. Tarun Tejpal, Editor in Chief, Tehelka
71. TK Ramachandran, Calicut
72. Uma V. Chandru, Research consultant, Bangalore
73. Usha Uthup, Artist , Pop Singer, Calcutta
74. Vivan Sundaram, Artist
75. Zohra Segal, Actress
_____
[5.]
URL: http://india.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7192&group=webcast
SAHMAT
8, Vithalbhai Patel House
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001 [India]
29.8.2003
Statement on THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA'S REPORT ON AYODHYA
The report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted to
the Ramajanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Bench of the Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow, on 22 September and released on 25 September 2003, is an
absolutely unprofessional document, full of gross omissions,
one-sided presentations of evidence, fraudulent falsifications and
motivated inferences. Its only aim is to so ignore and twist the
evidence as to make it suit its 'conclusions' tailored to support
the fictions of the Sangh Parivar about the previous existence of a
temple. The following is a list of the ASI's major acts of omission
and commission:
FORGETTING THE BONES One decisive piece of evidence, which entirely
negates the possibility of a temple, is that of animal bones. Bone
fragments with cut marks are a sure sign of animals being eaten at
the site, and, therefore, rule out a temple existing at the site at
the time. The Report in its 'Summary of Results' admits that
'animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different
periods' (Report, p.270). Any serious archaeological report would
have tabulated the bones, by periods, levels and trenches, and
identified the species of the animals (which in bulk seem to be of
sheep and goats). There should, indeed, have been a chapter devoted
to animal remains. But despite the statement in its 'Summary', there
is no word about the animal bones in the main text. This
astonishing omission is patently due to the ASI's fear of the fatal
implications held out by the animal bone evidence for the temple
theory. GLAZED WARE The glazed ware, often called 'Muslim' glazed
ware, constitutes an equally definite piece of evidence, which
militates against the presence or construction of a temple, since
such glazed ware was not at all used in temples. The ware is
all-pervasive till much below the level of 'Floor No.4', that is
falsely ascribed in the Report to the 'huge' structure of a temple
allegedly built in the 11th-12th centuries. The Report tells us
that the glazed ware sherds only 'make their appearance' 'in the
last phase of the (sic) period VII' (p.270). Here we directly
encounter the 'Period Fraud' of the Report (see below). On this
page (270), Period VII is called 'Medieval Sultanate', dated
12th-16th century A.D. But on
1 p.40 'Medieval-Sultanate' is the name for Period VI, dated 10th
and 11th centuries. In Chapter V (Pottery), there is no statement
made at all to the effect that the glazed ware appears in 'the last
phase of Period VII' as is asserted in the Summary. Rather, it is
there definitely stated that 'the pottery of Medieval-Sultanate,
Mughal and Late-and-Post Mughal period (Periods VII to IX)Š
indicates that there is not much difference in pottery wares and
shapes' and that 'the distinctive pottery of the periods is glazed
ware' (p.108). How the 'Summary' obtained its 'last phase' can only
be guessed at: perhaps at some stage it had been conceded that the
glazed ware was also found in Period VI (also 'Medieval-Sultanate')
and was then prudently put in its 'last phase', because otherwise
it would militate against a temple being built in that period. All
this gross manipulation has been possible because not a single item
of glazed pottery is attributed to its trench and stratum in the
select list of 21 (out of hundreds of items actually obtained) items
of glazed ware on pages 109-111. Seeing the importance of glazed
ware as a factor for elementary dating (pre-or post-Muslim
habitation at the site), a tabulation of all recorded glazed-ware
sherds according to trench and stratum was essential. That this has
been entirely disregarded shows that the glazed-ware evidence being
totally incompatible with any temple construction activity in Period
VI, could not simply be provided. Even as the Report stands (going
not by its 'Summary', but by the description in the main text,
p.108), the presence of Glazed Ware throughout Period VII
(Medieval, 12th-16th centuries) rules out what is asserted on page
41, that a 'column-based structure' ó the alleged 50-pillar temple
ó was built in this period. How could Muslims have been using glazed
ware inside a temple?
THE 'PERIOD' FRAUD The ASI's Report is so lacking in elementary
integrity that it tries to achieve its object by manipulating
nomenclature. In Chapter III, 'Stratigraphy and Chronology' it has
names for Periods VI and VII that are coolly altered in the other
Chapters in order simply to transfer inconvenient material of Period
VI to Period VII and thus make Period VI levels purely 'Hindu'. On
pages 30-41, the nomenclature for Periods V, VI and VII is given as
follows: Period V: Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th to 10th Century Period
VI: Medieval-Sultanate, 11th-12th Century Period VII: Medieval,
12th-16th Century Now let us turn to 'Summary of Results'
(pp.268-9). Here the nomenclature is altered as follows:- Period V:
Post-Gupta-Rajput, 7th-10th century AD Period VI: Early medieval,
11th-12th century Period VII: Medieval-Sultanate, 12th-16th century
This transference of 'Medieval-Sultanate' from Period VI to Period
VII has the advantage of ignoring Islamic-period materials like
Glazed ware or lime-mortar bonding by removing them arbitrarily
from Period VI levels to those of Period VII so that their actual
presence in those levels need not embarrass the ASI in its
2 placing the construction of a 'massive' or 'huge' temple in
Period VI. The device is nothing but a manipulative fraud.
THE 'MASSIVE' FANTASY While digging up the Babri Masjid, the
excavators found four floors were found, numbered, upper to lower,
as Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, Floor No.4 being the lowest and so the oldest.
Floor No.3 is linked to the foundation walls of the Babri Masjid ó
the ASI's 'demolished' or 'disputed structure' ó built in 1528.
Floor No.4 is described by the Report as 'a floor of lime mixed with
fine clay and brick crush', i.e. a typically Muslim style surkhi and
lime-mortar bonded floor. It is obviously the floor of an earlier
mosque (qanati or open mosque or an idgah); and a mihrab and taq
were also found in the associated foundation wall (not, of course,
mentioned in the ASI's report). Such a floor, totally Muslim on
'stylistic grounds' (a favourite formula in the Report), is turned
by the ASI into a temple floor, 'over which a column-based
structure was built'. (On this latter assertion, see below:
'Pillar-less Pillar Bases.') No single example is offered by the
ASI of any temple of pre-Mughal times having such a lime-mortar
surkhi floor, though one would think that this is an essential
requirement when a purely Muslim structure is being appropriated as
a Hindu one. Once this appropriation has occurred (page 41), we are
then asked to imagine a 'Massive Structure Below the Disputed
Structure', the massive structure being a temple. It is supposed to
have stood upon 50 pillars, and by fanciful drawings (Figures 23,
23A and 23B), it has been 'reconstructed'. (Though one may still
feel that it was hardly 'massive' when one compares Figure 23
(showing Babri Masjid before demolition) and Figure 23B (showing the
reconstructed temple with 50 imaginary pillars!) Now, according to
the ASI's Report, this massive structure with 46 of its alleged 50
pillars was built in Period VII, the Period of the Delhi Sultans,
Sharqi rulers and Lodi Sultans (1206-1526): This attribution of the
Grand Temple, to the 'Muslim' period is not by choice, but because
of the presence of 'Muslim' style materials and techniques all
through. This, given the Sangh's view of medieval Indian history,
must have been a bitter pill for the ASI's mentors to accept; and,
therefore, there is all the more reason for them to imagine a still
earlier structure assignable to an earlier time. Of this structure,
however, only four alleged 'pillar bases', with 'foundations' below
Floor 4, have been found; and it is astonishing that this should be
sufficient to ascribe them to 10th-11th century and to assume that
they all belong to one structure. That structure is proclaimed as
'huge', extending nearly 50 metres separate the pillar-bases at the
extremes. Four 'pillar bases' can hardly have held such a long roof;
and if any one tried it on them it is not surprising that the
result was 'short-lived' (p.269). All of this seems a part of the
VHP kind of propagandist archaeology than a report from a body
called the Archaeological Survey of India. Before we leave this
matter, a small point. The four alleged pillar bases dated to
11th-12th centuries are said 'to belong to this level with a brick
crush floor'.
3 Really! Surkhi in Gahadavala times! Any examples, please? None!
Now one can see why it had been necessary to call this period
(Period V) 'Medieval -Sultanate' (p.40) though it is actually
pre-Sultanate, being dated 11th-12th century. By clubbing together
the Gahadavalas with the Sultanate, the surkhi is sought to be
explained; but if so, the 'huge' structure too must come to a time
after 1206, for, apparently unknown to ASI, the Delhi Sultanate was
only established in that year. And so the earlier allegedly 'huge'
temple too must have been built when the Sultans ruled! Since the
entire basis of the supposed 'huge' and 'massive' temple-structures
preceding the demolished mosque lies in the alleged 'pillar bases'
it is time to consider what these really are and what they imply.
PILLAR-LESS 'PILLAR BASES' One must first remember that what are
said by the ASI to be pillar bases are one or more calcrete stones
resting upon brickbats, bonded with mud or just heaped up. In many
the calcrete stones are not found at all. As one can see from the
descriptive table on pages 56-67 of the Report not a single one of
these supposed 'pillar bases' has been found in association with
any pillar or even a fragment of it; and there are no marks or
indentation or hollows on any of the calcrete stones to show that
any pillar had rested on them. The ASI Report nowhere attempts to
answer the questions (1) why brickbats and not bricks were used at
the base, and (2) how mud-bonded brickbats could have possibly
withstood the weight of roof-supporting pillars without themselves
falling apart. Despite the claims of these 'pillar bases' being in
alignment and their being so shown in fancy drawings (Figures 23,
23A and 23B), the Report is curiously chary of giving a detailed
grided plan showing each base in relation to a set of others on a
scale sufficient for one to check whether their positions are in
alignment. This was especially important since there were
objections raised that the ASI was ignoring calcrete-topped
brickbat heaps where these were not found in appropriate positions
and selected only such brickbat heaps as were not too far-off from
its imaginary grids. But the most astonishing thing that the ASI so
casually brushes aside relates to the varying levels at which the
'pillar-bases' stand. Even if we go by the ASI's own descriptive
table, as many as seven of these 50 'bases' are definitely above
Floor 2, and one is level with it. At least six rest on Floor 3,
and one rests partly on Floor 3 and 4. Since these are undisputedly
floors of the Mosque, how come that so many pillars were erected
after they had been laid out --in order to sustain a temple
structure over them! More, as many as nine 'pillar bases' are shown
as cutting through Floor No.3. So, are we to understand that when
the Mosque floor was laid out, the pillar bases were not floored
over? It is thus clear that what we have are simply not 'pillar
bases' at all, but some kind of loosely-bonded brickbat deposits,
which continued to be laid right from Floors 4 to Floor 1. Dr Ashok
Dutta of Kolkata University, an archaeologist, who was among those
who volunteered to watch the doings of the ASI during the
excavations, has given
4 an explanation for these brick-bat deposits, which offers a
clear and elegant explanation. When the surkhi-lime mortar bonded
Floor No.4 was being laid out over the mound sometime during the
Sultanate period, its builders must have had to level the mound
properly. The hollows and depressions then had to be filled by
brickbats topped by calcrete stones (often bonded with lime mortar)
to fill them and enable the floor to be laid. When in time Floor 4
went out of repair, its holes had similarly to be filled up in
order to lay out Floor 3. And so again when Floor 3 decayed, similar
deposits of brickbats had to be made to fill the holes in order to
lay out Floor 2 (or, indeed, just to have a level surface). This
explains why the 'pillar bases' appear to 'cut through' both Floors
3 and 4, at some places, and at others 'cut through' Floor 3 or
Floor 4 only. They are mere deposits to fill up holes in the floors.
Since such repairs were needed in time all over the floors, these
brickbat deposits are widely dispersed. Had not the ASI been so
struck by the necessity of finding pillars and 'pillar bases' to
please its masters, which had to be in a proper alignment, it could
have found scattered over the ground not just fifty but perhaps
over a hundred or more such deposits of brickbats. A real
embarrassment of riches of 'pillar bases', that is ó only they are
not pillar bases.
THE CIRCULAR ILLUSION Much is made in the ASI's Report of the
'Circular Shrine' (pages 70-71), again with fanciful figured
interpretations of the existing debris (Figs.24 and 24A).
Comparisons with circular Shaivite and Vaishnavite shrines (Fig.18)
are immediately made. The ASI had no thought, of course, of
comparing it with circular walls and buildings of Muslim
construction ó a very suggestive omission. The surviving wall, even
in ASI's own drawing makes only a quarter of circle, and such shapes
are fairly popular in walls of Muslim construction. And then there
are Muslim-built domed circular buildings. But even if we forget the
curiously one-eyed nature of ASI's investigations, let us first
consider the size of the alleged 'shrine'. Though there is no reason
to complete the circle as the ASI does, the circular shrine, given
the scale of the Plan (Figure 17 in the Report), would have an
internal diameter of just160 cms. or barely 5‡ feet! Such a small
'shrine' can hardly be worth writing home about. It goes without
saying that, as admitted by the ASI itself, nothing has been found
in the structure that can justify it being called a shrine.
STRAY 'TEMPLE' FINDS No Vaishnavite images have been found. All
finds are stray ones or, as with the black schist pillar, visible
within it when the Masjid had stood but broken by the Karsevaks
(who says they love temple remains!) and buried in the Masjid
debris in 1992. Whatever little in stone has come out (as one
decorated stone or inscribed slab-used in a wall), like stones with
'foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapadi door jamb with semi-circular
pilaster, lotus motif,' (p.271), are in total very few, and all
easily explicable as belonging to ruins elsewhere and
5 brought for re-use. The extremely short list that the ASI is
able to compile shows that they did not come from any 'massive'
temple at the site, but brought randomly from different earlier
ruins.
SAFFRONISED ARCHAEOLOGY The bias, partisanship and saffronised
outlook of the ASI's Report takes one's breath away. In almost
everything the lack of elementary archaeological controls is
manifest. The one-page carbon-date report, without any description
of material, strata and comments by the laboratory, is meaningless,
and open to much misuse. There has been no thermoluminescence (TL)
dating of the pottery; no carbon-dating of the animal or human
bones. No care has been exercised in chronology, and Period I
'Northern Black Polished Ware' has been pushed back to 1000 BC in
the 'Summary of Results' (page 268), when even in Chapter II
'Stratigraphy and Chronology', the earlier limit of the period is
rightly placed at 6th century B.C. (page 38). The urge is obviously
to provide the maximum antiquity to habitation at Ayodhya, however
absurd the claim. Quite obviously saffronization and professional
integrity cannot go together. What all well-wishers of Indian
Archaeology have to consider is how, with a Report of the calibre we
have examined, there can be any credibility left in the
Archaeological Survey of India, an organisation that has had such a
distinguished past. Today there is no professional head of the ASI;
a civil servant, completely subject to the desires of the Government
of the day is in charge as Director-General. It cannot be overlooked
that the occupant of the office of Director-General was changed
almost simultaneously with the High Court's direction to the ASI to
begin the excavations in early March. The signal given thereby was
obvious; and the present Report should come as no surprise.
Politicians gloating over it are precisely those who have got it
written.
National honour was deeply compromised when the Babri Masjid was
demolished. Now the good repute of the Archaeological Survey of
India has also suffered an irremediable blow. When will the list of
Saffronization's victims end?
6. The excavation was ordered to find out if there existed any
Hindu temple below the BabriMasjid. The GPR survey was also ordered
to help find if there were anomalies indicating the possibility of
architectural remains below the mosque. The GPR survey could have
made the excavation economical both in time and money. But the
excavation undertaken from 12th March, 2003 came out to be an area
excavation. The excavation has distorted the Mughal levels allover
leaving no scope for cross checking the evidence collected by the
present excavation or for taking up excavation in future with
improved techniques and with better perspective. To that extent it
is a loss to our cultural heritage.
The report on the present excavation has also been submitted. It is
infact a report on the total data collected and not specific to the
problem at hand. It practically abides by the perspective of
'Rewriting of history' School. In doing so the date of the NBPW
Period ( Early historic era) has been pushed back to at least 1000
B.C., (three to four centuries earlier than the established date).
Secondly, it has tried to highlight in its attempt at periodisation
the Sunga Period, Rajput Period etc. for no sound reason. Besides
this, it has used the data selectively and ignored some crucial
facts relating to the Babri masjid complex, the massive burnt brick
structure found below the mosque (assumed to be a temple of the
10th-11th centuries) and the base (for woodenposts) having bearing
on the problem.
It is well known that the temples are characterised by its
architectural type i.e. its plan and the superstructure, etc. , the
objects associated with its function and placed in their original
position inside the temple. Important temples in the past were
known for their styles. The Nagar style as known form the famous
Khajuraho temples,became popular in North India between the 9th and
12th centuries.
The excavation report has come out with a thesis that there have
been found remains of an Early Medieval temple constructed in the
11th-12th century which continued to exist until the early 16th
century (when the Babri Masjid was constructed over this complex).
This thesis is based on the following assumptions:
1. that the 'massive' burnt brick structure was constructed in the
11th-12th centuries.
2. that there have been found at least 50 Pillar-bases associated
with this structure, particularly with its last floor.
3. that a circular depression ( Ghata shaped), in due east of the
centre of the central dome of the Babri Masjid and the central point
of the western wall of the preceding 'massive' burnt brick
structure, was cut into a brick pavement.
4. that the site excavated was not inhabited after the Gupta
period. It was put to public use only, thereby implying its use for
religious purposes.
The ASI has claimed the existence of a 'massive' burnt brick
structure below the Babri Masjid complex or the existence of some
genuine circular, rectangular or squarish constructions of brickbats
or of stones termed in the report as 'pillar bases'. But the report
has willfully ignored crucial evidence from the Ayodhya excavation.
This is briefly discussed as under :
1. The alleged alleged 'massive' burnt brick structure belongs to
the Sultanate Period and not to the early medieval period (
11th-12th centuries) as its floor as well as the plaster on the
wall, are made of lime and surkhi mortar, used in the Sultanate and
Mughal Periods. Lime mortar has also been used in the construction
of the so called pillar bases assumed to be associated only with
this structure. Moreover, an arch, 'Mehrab' so typical of the
medieval period, was noticed by me on the inner face of the
'massive' burnt brick structure to the south of the make-shift
temple when I visited the site in June.
2. The plan of the alleged 'massive' burnt brick structure tallies
with that of the Babri Masjid complex in its extent and construction
of the central dome exactly over the central point of the western
wall of the former and not with Burnt brick structure of the
Post-Gupta period. Secondly the southern chamber of the Babri Masjid
overlies the remnants of this pre-Babri Masjid burnt brick structure.
3. The 'massive' burnt brick structure was not a Hindu temple
complex is clear from the fact that it does not correspond with the
typical by Hindu Nagar style of temple of the early medieval period.
Secondly, the foundation of the western wall of the 'massive' burnt
brick structure has in it sculptured stones (like those found used
in the temples) The Hindus immerse the temple remains ( when out of
use) in water. They do not bury these under the earth or in the
foundation walls. The southern hall of this 'massive' structure is
nearly as large as that of the mosque. Temples of the past neither
had such large square halls nor a plan similar to it. No artifacts
used in the temples such as the icons, conch shell, Aarti lamps,
dhoopdan etc. were found inside this chamber or in any other context
within the alleged massive structure. The above facts clearly
points out that the 'massive' burnt brick structure belonged to the
Sultanate period ( 1206-1526) and not to the 11th-12th centuries:
Secondly, its plan and architectural features exposed so far helps
to infer that it was a mosque and not a temple. It is unfortunate
that the report has not made us wiser on the problem. Rather it has
stood behind the Hindutava viewpoint.
Prof. Suraj Bhan
o o o
The Times of India
Historians debunk dig report
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 2003 09:59:26 PM ]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=153340
_____
[6.]
The Hindustan Times, August 30, 2003
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/300803/detNAT03.shtml
Saffron mob abuses Ehsan Jaffrey's family
HT Correspondent
(Ahmedabad, August 29)
The saffron mob that had killed former member of Parliament Ehsan
Jaffrey 18 months ago, returned to haunt his wife, Zakia, at the
Circuit House Annexe here.
No sooner had she deposed before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on
Friday, Sangh Parivar activists, who usually hang around the venue,
mobbed the widow and some electronic mediapersons who were recording
her statement after the commission had wound up its day's proceedings.
The Sangh Parivar activists demanded from the reporters that they too
be interviewed and accused the media of being biased towards the
minorities. In the argument that ensued, some reporters, including a
woman correspondent of a news channel, were manhandled by the saffron
mob.
The VHP and Bajrang Dal activists then followed Zakia and her son,
Tanvir, abused them and shouted slogans like 'Jai Sri Ram' and
'Bharat Mata ki jai'. The mob even kicked the car in which the former
MP's widow and son were travelling. All the while, policemen posted
at the venue remained mute spectators.
Earlier, a tearful Zakia recounted to the commission how her husband
was killed by a mob during the Gujarat riots. She told the commission
that after the mob had attacked their colony, a policeman exclaimed:
"So much violence since morning, yet so many women are alive!"
"The mob broke open our doors, spread some chemical on the floor and
set it on fire," Zakia said. They pulled her husband out of the
house, undressed him and cut off his limbs before throwing him into
the bonfire, she said. They later looted the colony's shops.
She said she witnessed all this from a corner of their first floor
room. She alleged that the police did not come till 5.30 in the
evening, although the mob had attacked them in the morning. "We came
down after 5.30 p.m., only to see dead bodies all around", a weeping
Zakia told the two-member panel.
o o o
Deccan Herald [India], August 30, 2003
Gujarat riots probe: judge threatens to walk out
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug30/i4.asp
_____
[7.]
Letters to the Editor
New York Times, August 28, 2003
Why Ask India?
To the Editor:
I am puzzled by persistent demands from Washington that other
countries should do more in Iraq ("U.S. Wants U.N. to Press Members
to Send Troops to Iraq," news article, Aug. 21).
I thought it was a rule taught early on to children that if you
create a mess, you clean it up. It is surely a bit excessive when
countries like India are being pressured to shoulder responsibility
for an action taken in utter disregard of international law and world
opinion.
I wonder if Americans realize how brazen their government's demands
appear to the rest of the world.
RAJESH GOPAKUMARA
Allahabad, India, Aug. 21, 2003
_____
[8.]
ASIAN CONSULTATIONS FOR WORLD SOCIAL FORUM 2004
We are writing to extend an invitation to the next round of the Asia
Consultations for the WSF 2004. The Asian Solidarity Group meeting is to be
held in Chennai, India on the 24th and 25th of September.
We are all aware of the unprecedented horror that the West Asian region has
seen in the face of imperialist domination. They have endured an illegal and
immoral war, beginning last year in Afghanistan and continuing into
occupation of Iraq and the war against its people and the continuing
deprivation of the right to self-determination of the people of Palestine.
The people of Asia have also been victims of contagion and viruses, economic
and others, which have destroyed life and decimated communities. In every
sense, therefore, this has been a period of intense strife and pain for
the people of Asia, which should encourage us to join forces in dreaming
about and making Another World Possible with renewed fervour.
In this consultation, we would like to put forward proposals from the India
Program Committee for your consideration.
The format of the program is to provide a larger space for the
self-organised activities.
It is envisaged that two conferences will be organised everyday by the WSF
organisers. The one in the morning would be for about 8,000 participants and
the one in the evening would be for about 20,000. The WSF organisers will
also organise three panel discussions in the course of the WSF 2004
event.
=20
The proposals for the topics of the conference are:
=B7 Gender and Patriarchy
=B7 Exclusions, Discrimination and Oppression: Racism and Casteism
=B7 Labour and World of Work
=B7 Sustainable Development : Land, Water and Food Sovereignty
=B7 Militarisation, War and Peace
=B7 Religious, Ethnic and Linguistic Exclusion and Oppression
=B7 Globalisation, Economic and Social Security
=B7 Media, Culture and Knowledge
The topics for the panels are:
=B7 Political Parties and Social movements
=B7 Globalisation and its Alternatives
=B7 Globalisation, Global Governance and the Nation State
The themes reflect discussions in the Mumbai consultations, meetings of the
WSF process in India, W
SF International Council meeting in Miami and in several other gatherings.
In some of the themes, w
e focus on the issue of war and US hegemony, in particular the recent war
and occupation of Iraq. T
his focus may be extended in other discussions as well while ensuring that
core concerns about glob
alisation and its impact on people are also retained.
The Asian Solidarity Group could help us with the following:
=B7 Suggest improvements and changes in the topics for conferences and
panel discussions.
=B7 Suggest changes to the programme registration pages that are current=
ly
on the web site.
=B7 Arrangements have been made for translation into English, French,
Spanish and Hindi. Please make
proposals for the provision of translation into Asian languages
addressing the following issues:
1. How many translators would be required in halls accommodating
4,000/8,000/20,000 delegates
2. Whether you can provide the translators
3. Help with some resources for providing the translation.
=B7 Coordinating the speakers for the WSF organised conferences and
identify criteria for the selecti
on of panels and seminars.
=B7 To form a WSF Solidarity Committee for Asia.
=B7 Mobilisation in Asia and Pacific regions.
=B7 Self-organised events
VENUE=20
Inter Church Service Agency (ICSA) -"Jeevan Jothi" -
Opposite STATE ART GALLERY
104, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
Phone: 044 2826 1905 / 2826 9244.
ACCOMMODATION
Please indicate the exact dates of arrival and departure well in advance.
Available at the Venue:
Non A/C beds Rs.150 / day + tax ( 49 beds)
A/C beds Rs.250/ day +tax (14 beds)
Available outside the venue
a) World University Service Centre (10 minutes walking distance from ICSA)
Non A/C beds Rs.85 / bed + tax ( 50 beds)
A/C beds Rs.300/ bed +tax (4 beds)
b) Hotel Kanchi ( 10 minutes walking distance from ICSA)
Non A/C Rs700 / day for double room +tax
A/C Rs.900/day for double room +tax
c) Hotel Ashoka ( 10 minutes walking distance from ICSA)
Non A/C Rs.935 for double room +tax
A/C Rs.1100 for double room +tax
For assistance in accommodation, please write to
Sheelu
Tamil Nadu Women's Collective
E-53, 15th Street, 2nd Cross,
Periyar Nagar, Chennai 82, Tamil Nadu, India
Tel: 00 91 44 2550 5853
E-mail: sheelu1 at vsnl.com
VISA
For visa letters and any other assistance please write to wsfindia at vsnl.net
Satyarupa Shekhar
for WSF India
WSF INDIA
Bhupesh Gupta Bhawan, III Floor
Leningrad Chowk
85, Sayani Road
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025
India
Tel: +91 22 2421 6249/ 2421 6251
Fax: +91 22 2421 6382
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
--
More information about the Sacw
mailing list