SACW | 31 Aug. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  31 August,  2003

[1.] Need for UN's role in Indo-Pak impasse
[2.] 'India's civil society has failed Kashmiri society' (Parvez Imroz)
[3.] Sri Lanka: Two nations, one country: can both communities 
co-habit? (Raj Gonsalkorale)
[4.] Islam and secularism: odd couple or partners?  (Dr Iftikhar H. Malik)
[5.] Shouting At Buildings: There may yet be occasion to celebrate 
the passing of a very dark night  (Ruchir Joshi)
[6.] Bombay citizens rally against hate speech and for peace in Mumbai
[7.] 'Saffronisation' of Gandhi statue (Manas Dasgupta)
[8.] Radio Programme: On B. Premanand the rationalist gurubuster of India
[9.] 'Sue us if you wish, but sue the regulatory agencies too' (Sunita Narain)


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

[1.]

The News International [Pakistan], August 30, 2003

Need for UN's role in Indo-Pak impasse

John Connolly

The world watches India and Pakistan from afar. We applaud steps 
toward reconciliation and we fear the times of crisis. In the 21st 
century, war between these two great countries should be unimaginable 
yet responsible leaders cannot ignore the unresolved issues, 
especially Kashmir.

Given the well-known history between India and Pakistan, would it be 
beneficial to augment the negotiating process with a formal plan that 
will encourage compromise? There follows a proposal that both Indian 
and Pakistani and leaders are asked to weigh. Either side could call 
on the UN to adopt the following policy: If private negotiations 
remain stalled between India and Pakistan, the UN will encourage 
public negotiations. This plan, requiring full approval by the 
Security Council, would result in the development of a new 
international communication process by the UN

The central instrument of this process would be a short series of 
perhaps twelve to sixteen-page magazine-size "challenge documents" 
widely distributed within India and Pakistan and also to many world 
capitals via a handful of national and international newspapers 
and/or magazines. Simultaneous publication of these documents would 
take place on an authorized web site.

Terms for such public negotiations might call for each side's initial 
challenge document to include its interpretation of history, moral 
arguments, core interests and negotiating positions. If both agree in 
advance, each side's initial challenge document would be distributed 
simultaneously. (More later on how this process would unfold without 
an agreement.) Then, alternating every two weeks, each side would 
proceed with its own challenge document, responding in the prescribed 
format. Essentially, the UN would design the form of this new media, 
while both India and Pakistan would present the substance of their 
case before the world public within their own challenge document.

Should a foreign idea, especially one coming from America, be 
considered by the people of India and Pakistan? It is affirmed that 
this proposal is solely that of the author who has no involvement 
with the US government. Proposing that the UN plays a role in the 
creation of this communication structure runs entirely against 
current US policy, which seeks to ignore or marginalize all 
international institutions that are not directly controlled by the 
US. Moreover, technological advances has made the resolution of the 
dispute between India and Pakistan a world issue.

With these public talks, the majority of citizens on each side will 
see more clearly than ever the stark and difficult compromises 
necessary for an agreement. This will provide political cover for 
leaders, who can then show their constituencies the complex and 
detailed tradeoffs necessary to reach a settlement. In contrast, 
leaders emerging from secret negotiations are vulnerable to 
extremists who can portray one or two simple issues as a towering 
betrayal by the leaders who negotiated that deal.

What of India's insistence on only direct bilateral negotiations with 
Pakistan and no involvement of a third party? This is a direct 
bilateral process. Moreover, it is not proposed nor anticipated that 
the UN would be an arbiter or mediator for these public negotiations. 
To the contrary, the UN's proposed role would simply be to create a 
neutral communication structure. As a practical matter, if President 
Musharraf called on the UN to create this large-scale conflict 
resolution strategy, would it not be difficult for anyone to object 
to another form of dialogue and engagement between India and Pakistan?

Although extremists on both sides will adamantly oppose this process, 
the majority within each of these nations will see this as an 
alternative to the violence of the extremists. The negotiating 
tradeoffs will be difficult for both sides to accept but each society 
will better understand the logic and rationale of their leaders - and 
the other side's leaders - which in turn will tend to marginalize the 
extremists.

What if one side initially refuses to participate? The other side 
could proceed with its challenge documents absent any agreement. A 
key motive to engage in this process would be to favourably influence 
regional and world opinion. The motive for an adversary to respond in 
kind would not be some vague notion of goodwill, but rather, to head 
off erosion of public support. Refusal to take part in this public 
peace process would also risk worldwide acceptance of an adversary's 
interpretation of history.

Will people in the subcontinent and beyond be interested in these 
documents? This direct and unfiltered source of news will constitute 
a new media that will stand in sharp contrast to the many reports on 
conflicts we have experienced for years. This process will generate a 
wide range of media coverage including TV, newspapers,
magazines, radio and the Internet. People everywhere, recognizing the 
life and death nature of these dramatic communiques, may find this 
multifaceted perspective of enormous interest.

Encouraging both sides to make their cases in this defined format may 
tempt some to manipulate their version of events. Nevertheless, this 
direct and equal clash of opinions, in sharp contrast to propaganda, 
has the potential to yield a greater public recognition of truth than 
is otherwise possible in today's media environment.

If this public negotiating process culminates in a single document 
signed by leaders in both India and Pakistan and then distributed 
worldwide, confidence would increase that agreed-upon terms would be 
adhered to. Similarly, confidence would increase that terms of an 
agreement would not be reinterpreted in sharply divergent ways after 
the fact. Personal trust between individual leaders would also become 
less important because commitments would be spelled out for all sides 
to witness. Indeed, a peace process that is less dependent on 
personal trust between leaders would contrast sharply with all forms 
of traditional negotiations including the peace conference.

Knowing that the eyes of the world will be focused directly on the 
central details of this conflict will weigh heavily on all sides. 
This precise phenomenon may exert much more pressure for the two 
sides to compromise when compared with conventional secret talks. 
Therein lies the central objection to this entire strategy - outside 
pressure. Yet isn't the alternative stalemate and the continuation of 
a dangerous confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers?

Envision the world reaction to a new series of narratives unlike any 
we have ever seen. Every couple of weeks, prior to each new challenge 
document, leaders from within India and Pakistan and also around the 
world would be urging that side to take incremental steps towards the 
position of the other. Once a momentum for peace is created by this 
deliberate, step-by-step process, it could become unstoppable. Thus, 
will Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pervez 
Musharraf call on the UN to encourage public negotiations if private 
negotiations stall?

The writer is Executive Director, The Institute for Public Dialogue, US

john at ifpdialogue.com


_____


[2.]

Communalism Combat [Bombay, India]  | August - September, 2003 (10th 
Anniversary Issue)

'India's civil society has failed Kashmiri society'

Parvez Imroz

Fourteen years ago, hundreds and thousands of Kashmiris came out on 
the streets raising slogans of Azadi (freedom), which shocked the 
government of India. Socio-political scientists started analysing the 
causes behind this unexpected and unprecedented development. 
Different reasons were put forth, such as the influence of the 
successful Afghan jihad, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 
unification of the German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of 
Germany, the Balkanisation of the Soviet Union, rigged Kashmir 
elections and the denial of democratic rights to the people of 
Kashmir, coupled with the erosion of autonomy guaranteed to them 
through the 1952 Delhi agreement.

One important reason given was the failure of secularism in India. 
Kashmiris maintained communal harmony and protected the religious 
minority in its midst even as the two communities, Hindus and 
Muslims, were butchering each other in 1947, when two dominions, 
India and Pakistan, came into being. This had prompted Mahatma Gandhi 
into saying, "I see a ray of hope from Kashmir."

Inter alia, the treatment meted out to the largest minority community 
in India did influence the Kashmiri psyche. Whenever there were 
communal riots in India, it had an impact on Kashmiris. The Nelli 
(Assam), Bhagalpur, Meerut communal riots, along with thousands of 
other communal clashes that became a routine feature of Indian 
society, became, no doubt, one of the prime factors for the armed 
uprising in Kashmir.

Kashmiris as Muslims were not responsible for the partition of India 
but were treated at par with Indian Muslims because of a common 
religion. The treatment by the central government made Kashmiris 
believe that they were being punished for not condemning the 
two-nation theory at the time of Partition. A common Kashmiri, ruled 
by regimes imposed by the government of India from time to time, had 
to repeatedly prove his loyalty to the state, central governments and 
central political parties.

The rise of extremist Hindu religious parties, which appeared on the 
Indian national scene after the demolition of the Babri mosque, 
further shook the faith of a section of Kashmiris who had reconciled 
to their fate within the Indian Union. The majority of Kashmiris, as 
a nation, were committed to the right of self-determination.

Some national political parties vied to promote the Hindutva agenda 
on the national scene and this, along with the process of 
saffronising the institutions in India, has further disillusioned the 
minds of the Kashmiri people. The demolition of the Babri mosque on 
December 6, 1992, by communal forces supported by the ruling 
government, in a bid to transform a composite civilisation to fascist 
Hindu Rashtra, was hailed not only by religious fanatics but also by 
writers of international repute such as Nirad C Choudhary and VS 
Naipaul.

Saffronisation is not confined to education alone. It has spread to 
other institutions, including the supposedly apolitical Indian army, 
as its officers now use the language of fascist Hindu nationalists.

In Kashmir Valley, the latest shock to the people was last year's 
Gujarat carnage, in which 2,000-2,500 Muslims were butchered, their 
property destroyed and extensive destruction caused to their places 
of worship.

The gruesome killing of former member of parliament, Ehsan Jaffri, 
inside his house, only conveys the message that whatever you are, you 
can't be forgiven because of your religion. Nearly one hundred 
thousand people fled their homes in the aftermath of the massacre. It 
was a communal riot with a difference, because never before had the 
administration or state machinery provided such tacit support to the 
rioters.

Besides draining the Indian economy, the Kashmir conflict has 
resulted in 34,790 Kashmiri deaths (official figures stated by 
minister of Law & Parliamentary affairs, Abdul Rehman Veeri, in the 
state assembly on June 21, 2003. Even on July 8, the Jammu & Kashmir 
police admitted that 90,000 people of Kashmir had been killed in the 
ongoing turmoil).

Thousands of youth have disappeared (official figures peg the number 
at 3,931, unofficial estimates are close to 8,000) while other forms 
of brutalisation of Kashmiris continue. The government of India has 
now "gifted" them, for the first time, with free elections in 2002. 
The elections, though free and fair, were not inclusive.

Though the politicians of India have publicly admitted that there 
were a lot of wrongdoings in Kashmir and promised to set things right 
if given a chance, nothing has changed and the public perception is 
that nothing will change in the future either. Kashmiris still 
believe that the Indian media, the federal government and the state 
government have a discriminatory attitude towards the majority 
community in the state and, despite the conflict and the suffering of 
the people of Kashmir, nothing has been done regarding the guarantee 
of political rights to them.

There are well-founded reasons behind these fears - the fear of 
demographic change, the fear of loss of identity. For example, 
according to an official census report, during last year's election, 
voter strength in Jammu was shown as having increased by 28.46% 
between '96-'02, as against an increase of 7.37% in Kashmir. This is 
in sharp contrast to census data for 2001, which shows the population 
in Kashmir Valley as having risen by 73% (1.5 million) between 1981 
to 2000, compared to 60% in Jammu (35,000) over the same period.

The discriminatory approach continues in political appointments as 
well as in the payment of relief and other rehabilitation measures. 
The Gujarat government was fair to reduce the ex-gratia relief to the 
Godhra victims, from Rs. 2 lakh to 1 lakh, to bring them on par with 
the other victims of the genocide, since it had earlier decided that 
Rs. 2 lakh would be paid to the victims of Godhra.

On the other hand, in Kashmir, Neha, one of the victims of the 
massacre of Pandits at Wenham, was paid ex-gratia to the tune of Rs. 
20 lakh by the central government, from the PM's relief fund, in 
addition to the relief paid by the state. However, in a similar case, 
that of Allaudin Sheikh (a minor girl whose entire family was wiped 
off), where the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) had recommended 
relief of Rs. 10 lakh, the amount was never paid.

In the case of Shabir Ahmad Sheikh, a student of class 12, who 
survived an attack in Surankote, Poonch, on August 3, 1998, in which 
19 members of his family were killed, even the SHRC enquiry report 
indicted the army and recommended compensation, which was never paid. 
There are innumerable such examples and people have not forgotten 
them.

The majority of Kashmiris seem convinced that even if they were to 
accept a solution such as autonomy or revert to the pre-1953 
position, there is no guarantee that this would not result in the 
dilution of the state's Muslim-majority character, keeping in view 
the conduct of Indian rulers and given the complete polarisation in 
Indian society.

India's vibrant civil society did a commendable job in Gujarat. It is 
combating Modi's communal agenda and in this Combat played a leading 
role. But they have failed Kashmiri society. They have, perhaps, 
written off Kashmir. They are quick to condemn terrorism but are 
afraid to condemn state terrorism, which is more organised and 
brutal. They often lack courage and are afraid of speaking the truth 
about Kashmir to their own people.

(The above piece was prefaced with, "I admire your struggle against 
fundamentalism and congratulate you on completion of 10 years of 
Communalism Combat").

(Parvez Imroz is president, J&K Coalition of Civil Society).

_____


[3.]

Sunday Observer [Sri Lanka], 31 August 2003

Two nations, one country: can both communities co-habit?

by Raj Gonsalkorale

As the saying goes, if we all deserve what we get, then the quality 
of what we get has to reflect our own values and our outlook to life. 
We often complain about our politicians, but we keep on electing 
representatives who seem to have gone from bad to worse over the 
years. And, to make matters worse, while one government blames the 
other, we have regularly increased the number of representatives to 
different political establishments, giving them huge benefits like 
super luxury motor vehicles, duty free cars, and a string of various 
allowances eventhough, as the pithy Sinhala saying goes, we do not 
even have finger nails to scratch our rear. Our debt levels have sky 
rocketed, and we are living beyond our means as we have never done 
before and we continue to entrust our future to politicians who have 
not added any value or provided any returns on the investment the 
country has made on them. Yet, in addition to the exponential 
increase in the number of politicians in various assemblies, we have 
continuously increased our cabinet, often with ministers who have not 
been able to shed their sub standard ratings, and questionable 
integrity.

Be that as it may, we do need to ask ourselves whether it is right to 
point our fingers entirely in the direction of these opportunists, 
who have done nothing but grabbed the opportunities that have come 
their way? We must ask why we should not point fingers at ourselves, 
and ask whether at least some of us would do differently if we were 
in similar situations. Shouldn't we therefore, individually and 
collectively take even a larger share of the blame for allowing these 
things to happen? Or, perhaps knowing what we are, and our own 
values, would it be wrong to say that we deserve what we have got? If 
not, how could one explain our implicit connivance in the denting of 
our civil society?

Armed conflict

Today, our sub standard collective, principally the politicians of 
the South as well as elected politicians of the North, are witnessing 
the disintegration of the nation State as we have known it for 
sometime, and instead of addressing the issues that have been 
responsible for this disintegration, we are negotiating the 
secessionist demands of a group of power hungry armed cadres, who, as 
it is becoming increasingly apparent, do not seem to be content with 
anything but a State within State political outcome to the armed 
conflict they have been engaged in for more than 20 years.

Here again, shouldn't we ask whether we deserve what we have got? Are 
we in a position to blame the LTTE for grabbing the opportunities 
that have come their way? Is it wrong for them to demand the maximum 
when they are in a position to do so, when we are at our weakest? 
Machiavelli would have said the LTTE are fools if they do not do what 
they are doing.

If we had acted to strengthen civil society, where the rights of 
every individual in this country were recognised for their inherent 
worth, not their ethnicity, and if we had truly recognised the 
equality of all citizens, their right to security, their right to 
dignity and their right to opportunities, we would not have had an 
LTTE to contend with, and we would not have had a war that has 
drained us so severely to leave us in the parlous economic situation 
we are in today.

Economic situation

All this may be said to be in the past, considering we have reached 
the situation we are in today because we had not acted in the manner 
described over so many years. The question that needs to be asked 
today therefore is, whether we have at least recognised now, that we 
are equals, and that one group of citizens should not have any 
preference over another on account of ones ethnicity. Have we moved 
away from the ideals of Sinhala hegemony? Can we honestly tell 
ourselves and our children that Sri Lanka belongs to all, and it is 
not a Sinhala nation? Would our Buddhist prelates accept this and 
tell this to the Nation?

They have every right not to do so and they may take refuge in their 
belief, some might say a belief based on myth rather than fact, about 
a pronouncement said to have been made by Lord Buddha that his Dhamma 
will survive, thrive and be protected by the Sinhala people, and 
therefore this is a Sinhala, Buddhist Nation. The ultra Sinhala 
nationalists also have the right to toe this line and take their 
followers down this path. They must all remember however that their 
claims could then be mirrored by another set of counter claims, 
namely the historical homeland theory promoted by the LTTE and other 
Tamil nationalists. This is the risk and the responsibility that 
proponents of a Sri Lanka/Sinhala nation must take and face the 
consequences. One could always have an endless debate over historical 
theories and try to live the present bathed in the glory of the past, 
but both sides of the divide has to remember and must wake to the 
fact that contemporary reality requires a futuristic, visionary 
approach that meets our needs today rather than what might have 
existed yesterday.

Whatever the historical perspectives are, the more moderate Tamils, 
driven by the insecurity and indignity they have had to face in 
contemporary Sri Lanka, are bound to take refuge in the factual 
situation that exists today, that is the existence of a contemporary 
Tamil homeland in the North, which fact is under no doubt, and in the 
East, a more contestable homeland due to the equal mix of Sinhala and 
Muslim people in that region.

If Sri Lanka and all its citizens are to move away from a homeland 
concept, historical or contemporary, this will have to apply equally 
to a Sinhala homeland as well as a Tamil homeland. If we are not 
prepared to shed this theory and accept that there are no homelands, 
Sinhala or Tamil, and the entire country is the homeland of all, with 
no ethnic group having any more rights than a another group, we have 
no other option but to give in to LTTE and accede to their demand to 
give them a political unit with identical powers to a separate State. 
Sinhala hegemony can continue to thrive then in the Sinhala homeland, 
as it does now, and Tamil hegemony can thrive in their homeland. If 
the communities feel that they have reached the position of oil and 
water, never be able to mix and form any kind of homogeneity, there 
is no option, but to divide on an ethnic basis.

Best brains

Our political and religious leaders, principally our Buddhist clergy, 
as well as Tamil political and community leaders, must confront this 
reality and convey their position to the country. If they wish to 
move forward as one Nation, the best brains in the country could 
begin consultations with the people, political as well as non 
political organizations and commence a process to strengthen civil 
society and arrive at a political situation which does not require 
the creation of a political unit as envisaged and demanded by the 
LTTE. They can also begin a process to develop a new Constitution 
that reflects this new thinking, and enshrine institutions that 
safeguard the rights of minorities in all parts of the country, not 
just in the North and the East.

If they do not wish to take this direction and wish to continue the 
belief in a Sinhala homeland and Sinhala supremacy, as well as a 
Tamil homeland and Tamil supremacy in their homeland, then the 
Sinhala people might as well accept the reciprocal right of the 
Tamils, and the LTTE, to claim their own homeland, and negotiate a 
political solution on this basis. The sooner this is done, the better 
and less acrimonious it will be for the two ethnic groups and the 
future of a new Sri Lanka, comprising two nations, one country. If 
this concept is to be the basis of a political solution to the ethnic 
conflict, Tamil people in particular will have to remember that there 
will be two classes of Tamils, some with more rights than others, 
assuming that the Sinhala Nation, where a majority of Tamils live 
today, will continue to claim their superiority in their homeland. 
One has to question the worth and longevity of this solution and 
wonder whether it is the beginning of another problem.

The long term, sustainable solution will arise from a change of 
attitudes and a change in thinking about Sinhala supremacy, and 
acceptance of equal ownership of this country by all ethnic groups. 
Till then, it is unlikely that there will be a solution to the ethnic 
conflict, and it is even more unlikely that meeting the demands made 
by the LTTE will provide a solution for the long suffering Tamils in 
Sri Lanka.

Devolution

Several surveys done recently have indicated the willingness of a 
majority of citizens, both Sinhala and Tamil, to have a negotiated 
political solution. What still divides the two communities is the 
concept of the solution, with a majority of Tamils indicating their 
preference for a political unit with extensive devolution, and the 
Sinhala majority probably not yet convinced about the extent of 
devolution and wishing for greater central authority over the entire 
country, with devolution limited to administrative issues. There is 
obviously a big gap between the wishes of the Tamils, which they 
believe arises from their right and the wishes of the Sinhala people, 
which they believe arises from their generosity towards the Tamils. 
More than any other reason, it is this condescending attitude of the 
Sinhala people which still arouses the suspicions amongst the Tamils, 
and their ire, and which makes any real homogeneity very difficult, 
if not impossible.

The real solution is therefore based on a change of attitudes. 
Whether both communities are willing and are able to shed centuries 
of ingrained attitudes, prejudices and their suspicions, is the 
question and the challenge for both.

_____


[4.]

  DAWN [Pakistan] 29 August 2003 (Encounter)

Islam and secularism: odd couple or partners?
By Dr Iftikhar H. Malik

Europeanization of the world since the 15th century is a mixed but 
significantly painful human experience and that is why there has been 
so much scepticism of the whole idea of progress. Interpreting 
contemporary conflicts simply as clash of cultures or contestation 
between modernity and tradition is already simplistic. For instance, 
as suggested by Edward Said and more recently by John Gray, Political 
Islam - or whatever one may call it - is, to a large extent, rooted 
in modernity and is not an entirely traditional assertion.

Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Oriana Fallaci, Ann Coulter and several 
proponents of westernized modernity, along with the other 
neo-conservatives, are not being correct in presenting Islam as a 
traditional monolith, arraigned against a modernist, value-based 
West. To Bush-Blair duo and their ideological cohorts Islam may have 
to be retrieved from its medieval time warp through an altruist 
crusade. In the same manner, several Islamicists seek West and the 
Rest lost in jahliya (ignorance) waiting to be retrieved by the 
turbaned and bearded Mujahideen.

Within the context of this heated controversy, interestingly, some 
Muslim ulema, instead of an outright dismissal of secularism, have 
quietly begun to debate the possible interface between Islam and 
secularism rather than viewing them as eternal foes. However, the 
quest is still in infancy and like several mundane scholars the 
effort is in its embryonic stage understandably due to statist and 
societal rejectionism of secularism and of any reconstructive 
discourse on Islam.

This self-questioning exhibits a growing disgust with the hijacking 
of both religion and political authority by nefarious elements at the 
expense of societal prerogatives. While Islamicists may seek Muslim 
predicament, among other factors, in the absence of Islamic law in 
the Muslim states, the fact remains that even the confessional states 
with professed Islamic order such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan or 
Taleban's Afghanistan have consistently failed to improve upon 
participatory and accountable systems.

Islam, in many of these states, simply came to be used as a 
legitimiser for sheer authoritarian, anachronistic systems and 
discretionary policies. Retrospectively, it will be safe to suggest 
that the selective and penal use of Islam by these states not only 
exacerbated the public anguish but also worsened human rights in 
those societies. The contradictions - thanks to this partisan 
intermingling of religion and politics- are more obvious if one looks 
at the state of minorities in these states along with a clear 
deterioration in the status of women.

The so-called westernised elite in the post-independence decades have 
only kow-towed to the external backers while concurrently denying 
basic rights to their own people. The religio-political elements 
within the governments and outside have equally repressed civic 
rights and their bombastic rhetoric has only exacerbated sectarian 
and inter-ethnic violence. Interestingly, both of them have often 
used the West, neighbours and even modernity as convenient foes, not 
out of some genuine conviction but simply for selective expediency.

Understandably, while there are problems within the respective 
trajectories such as Westernised modernity and politicised Islam, 
there is urgency for promoting a reconstructive debate, which could 
steer Muslim peoples towards a better understanding, peace and 
progress. Lately, unlike their other counterparts, some of the Iraqi 
and even Iranian ulema have begun to suggest a rethink on separation 
of religion from state. They are not suggesting a complete banishment 
of religion from political discourse but are being increasingly 
critical of its routine exploitation by political authorities for 
personalist or dynastic gains.

They are even using the terms such as Muslim secularism more boldly 
though such a discourse is ironically happening only after the 
Anglo-American decimation of a Muslim region and which also remains 
occupied. A similar debate is still not openly possible in any other 
Muslim state. Coming from the ulema in Najaf, Karbala, Baghdad or 
even Qum, such a quest is certainly nascent yet amazingly positive.

In an interview in Baghdad, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, an eminent Shia 
leader and the mentor of Sayyid Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of the 
late Imam Khomeini, candidly observed: "We want a secular 
constitution. That is the most important point. If we write a secular 
constitution and separate religion from state, that would be the end 
of despotism and it would liberate religion as well as the human 
being. The Islamic religion has been hijacked for 14 centuries by the 
hands of the state". (International Herald Tribune, 11 August 2003)

One may add that it is not just the political authority that has 
misused and abused Islam as a legitimiser, the religious authority 
has been equally responsible for mayhem after mayhem of ordinary 
believers. Millions of innocent Muslims have laid their lives in all 
these centuries thanks to obscurantist fatwas and uncalled-for 
exhortation to Jihad, of which many have been against fellow Muslims.

The more recent examples are of General Zia's Pakistan where Muslim 
minorities paid a huge price to a growing Sunni majoritarianism. 
According to the common parlance in Pakistan, the Mullah + Military 
axis is the bane of most of the sectarian and anti-women violence. 
The promotion of Jihadist elements in the 1980s and a nod from 
Washington and elsewhere has resulted into a whole plethora of 
outfits pursuing several hazy ideas across the region.

In the neighbouring Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia, Islam remains 
a tool both for regimes and the Mullahs to extract maximum blood from 
their marooned population. Denial of democracy and other human rights 
is a consensus point for otherwise these often hostile rival 
religious and political authorities.

Algeria, where France created a mess in league with the army, is 
another sad reminder of both religion and politics being hijacked by 
respective rent-seeking interests. Saudi and the Gulf regimes while 
kow-towing to the western elite blatantly discriminate against 
foreign workers from poor countries. They have altogether different 
policies and touchstones for the western convicts while dozens of 
poor Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Afghans are routinely executed by 
Muttaa (religious police) outside Friday mosques.

The Westerners, even after their conviction, are habitually pardoned 
for similar crimes by the Muslim kings and emirs. Not a single alim 
from the so-called Muslim heartland has ever raised his voice over 
this sheer discrimination that smacks of a rabidly racist ideology. 
No end to double standards! Though the status quo or external 
hegemony are not acceptable yet concurrently leading innocent and 
vulnerable Muslim citizens into kamikaze attacks is equally 
reprehensible.

The humanist reinterpretation of Islam and likewise of secularism can 
surely deliver Muslims from this continued monopolist exploitation by 
the political and religious authoritarianism, and also augur an 
overdue Islamic renaissance. It may also offer a unique alternative 
to an abrasive modernity in the West itself locked in collective 
violence perpetrated through institutional racism and unilateralist 
militarism. The reconstruction of long overdue Ijtiha'ad is the only 
way-out of gnawing societal and statist oppression; can offer a 
respite from suffocating conformity while halting the foreign 
denigration of a human heritage like Islam.

India's secularism, despite its severe strains and some 
contradictions due to a rather erstwhile dismissive elitism, is the 
best modus operandi for similar plural societies and could offer a 
useful parallel for a rethink among the Muslim reconstructionists. 
Its Gandhian portents appear similar to Islamic sensitivities on 
religion, as here religion is accepted as a part of collective and 
individual life without being totally divorced from the public domain.

However, while Muslims in India have felt comparatively safer under a 
secular system and are certainly apprehensive of a majoritarian 
Hindutva, their own localism, dependence upon some clerics for 
political articulation and other socio-economic handicaps have not 
allowed them to fully benefit from the systemic dynamics in the 
country. But compared to any other Muslim state, India's democracy 
still offers the best hope for coexistence and its secular system the 
viable safety valve for minorities. It is a different thing that the 
clerical versions of Islam abound Muslim India, yet secularist polity 
is the best guarantee for collective survival and welfare of Indian 
Muslims and other such minorities.

This is not to deny the fact that, to a great extent, India's own 
future and of its plural communities depends upon the policies of its 
majority population groups. If the Hindus, as egged on by Kar Sevaks 
and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, are intent upon turning the country into a 
Hinduist mould the minorities may have fewer options at their 
disposal boding a major disaster for the most plural and equally 
populous country on earth.

It is only the time and the Indian political and intellectual 
leadership who hold the key to this grave challenge. It is still 
difficult for practising and reconstructing Indian intellectuals like 
Asghar Ali Engineer or Mushirul Hasan to be able to hoist the banner 
of a tolerant, accommodative and all-encompassing Muslim secularism 
and the opposition to them mainly comes from Muslim clergy as well as 
well from Hindu fanatics.

Empirically, secularism as seen in the West, despite a paucity of 
self-professing states, emerged through a gradual separation of 
church and state but in its original form secularism stood for the 
primacy of mundane knowledge away from the monopoly of ecclesiastics. 
Secularism is not culture- or region-specific.

Thus, it is uniquely akin to Political Islam in its struggle against 
colonialism. The development of the Ummayyid literature and 
philosophy in Muslim Spain, promotion of learning and debate in 
Mughal India, pre-Safwid Persia, Central Asian and Turkish kingdoms 
-on several extended occasions- reflected a model where worldly 
knowledge and religious interaction coexisted without vetoing each 
other out. The diffusion of Greek, Hindu and Chinese learning and a 
conscious synthesis with the African and European mores and customs 
energised Islamic civilisation at all times.

Very few people may know that the Muslim metropolitan centres such as 
Constantinople, Delhi, Lahore and Baghdad stayed Muslim minority 
cities even under the Muslim rule, which reveals an amazing level of 
tolerance and co-existence at a time when most of the world suffered 
from inquisitions and pogroms. Thus, irrespective of the heuristics 
of the term itself, the practice of a humanist secularism as an 
exploitation-free, egalitarian and forward looking system-both in 
politics and education-falls in line with the Islamic heritage 
spreading over centuries.

A hasty rejection of secularism, despite its various pitfalls as a 
western construct or a modernist edifice, may not be a fair way to 
judge its merits. Muslim secularism is a possibility in the near 
future, as it has been a historic Muslim experience in the past and 
is not an alien proposition. It may prove a death knoll to the vast 
disempowerment and continued exploitation of Muslim masses both by 
the sultans and scholars. That is where intellectuals such as Syed 
Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Fazlur Rahman, Ali 
Shariati, Abdul Karim Surush, Asghar Ali Engineer and some Shia 
clerics in Iraq become more persuasive.


_____


[5.]

The Telegraph [India], August 31, 2003 | The Thin Edge

SHOUTING AT BUILDINGS
- There may yet be occasion to celebrate the passing of a very dark night

RUCHIR JOSHI

Whenever he's dragged off to a picket or a demonstration, my older 
son has a telling protest: "Why do I have to come along to watch you 
shout at buildings?" My younger son tends to copy his older brother, 
while desperately trying not to, and he sometimes comes up with a 
distillation: "Are we going to shout at buildings now?"

Finding myself as lone parent in the middle of this strangest of 
English summers, I ruthlessly took my kids off to picket Narendra 
Modi at the Wembley Conference Centre. I took them knowing full well 
that had their mother been in the country that's exactly what she too 
would have done with them. What's more I even convinced an English 
friend and his girlfriend to drive us there.

The Wembley Conference Centre is a huge building, typical of the ugly 
British architecture of the Sixties and the Seventies. When we 
reached, a long queue of worthies was filing into the building, the 
men in suits or silk kurta-pyjamas, the women in heavy saris, many of 
them worn Gujarati style. Across the road from the Centre is a small 
island of grass, and that's where the demonstrators were gathered, 
most of them behind police barriers, one or two standing outside the 
fencing, working their loud-hailers. Between the building and the 
protesters was a road peppered with several policemen making sure 
that no one crossed the invisible line. Above us, a police helicopter 
circled.

As we got to the protesters, I clocked one or two small groups I knew 
from secular organizations, and people from the Dawood campaign, a 
family which has lost two brothers in the Gujarat carnage. The rest 
of the picketers were from Islamic organizations, the few women in 
hijab, the men bearded. The loud-hailers were obviously in the hands 
of young men from these organizations. The chants of "What do we 
want? Justice!" and "Modi is a murderer, murderer, murderer!" were 
frequently interrupted by shouts of "Takdeer! Allah ho Akbar!" I had 
no quarrel with the first two chants, but I had major problems with 
the last one.

First of all, what happened and is still happening in Gujarat is a 
tragedy which has to be taken on not just by Muslims, and certainly 
not just by militant Islamists, but by anyone who believes in any 
sense of humanity. Secondly, when you see the whole thing fully 
unfurled, like the aftermath of an earthquake, you see that it has 
taken not only the lives and trust of Gujaratis who happened to be 
Muslim but, among many other things, also the whole world-view, the 
whole frame of assurance around which secular, Hindu-backgrounded, 
Gujjus like myself built their identities.

What I wished I'd had the courage to do was to take the loud-hailer 
from one of the men shouting themselves hoarse and talk to the queue 
of the "Friends of the BJP", talk to them in Gujarati, to ask them 
how their Gita-paath and prayers to Mataji jelled with gang-rape, to 
ask them which Hindu text gave them the licence to fund the 
butchering of small children, to say to them that, if they really 
believed in another janma, should they not be then terrified of the 
maha-paap they had just reaped? To point out to them that what they 
were all dressed up to participate in was not a Gaurav Yatra but a 
Kaurav Yatra.

Instead, I stood silently as the Islamists carried on screaming 
"Allah Ho Akbar". I watched as the stream of Mercedes and Toyotas 
went past the banners and into the Centre's car-park, drivers showing 
us the finger every now and then, their gold watches and rakhis 
flashing in the sunlight as their wrists jerked up. I looked on as 
the cops gave hard looks in our direction, sometimes walking up with 
a terse "This is the last time I'm warning you sir, please stay 
behind the barrier!"

After I'd seen enough, I gathered my kids and our friends and we made 
our way back to the car. "How come you weren't shouting at the 
building today, pappa?" one of my boys may well have wisecracked, but 
thankfully neither one did.

********

A couple of days later, I read about the death in Baroda of my 
friend, the painter Bhupen Khakhar. The news came, as it does 
nowadays, on the net. And, even though a passing away at the age of 
69 shouldn't come as a huge shock, it sent a jolt of sadness through 
me. The sense of loss that I would normally have felt at the death of 
a friend, a man who was one of the most vibrant artists India has 
ever produced, was compounded by the fact that it is at this moment 
that he left us.

Bhupen was deeply, religiously, irreverent. He mixed a sharp, 
ruthless observation with the most gentle warmth. He was, equally, a 
wonderful singer of bhajans and a writer of ribald prose, he was a 
chartered accountant and a poet, he was the quintessential small-town 
man and supremely urbane. He was as gay as they come, and in the 
latter part of his life as open about it as anyone in the world. He 
was the kind of person many people on both sides of the Wembley 
picket hate, because his basic creed in life was to de-stabilize 
accepted notions, whether these ideas be of morality or sexuality or 
of line and colour.

Even through this blood-heavy shambles of Gujarat, there has always 
been the hope that we would all, like-minded Gujarati friends, 
artists, writers, poets, actors, film-makers, all somehow survive 
this pestilence and be around to contribute to its inevitable 
destruction. There was, and still is, a hope that one day we will 
witness the successful criminal trials of the murderous people who 
are in power today, see the culpable policemen in handcuffs, see any 
bent benchmen defrocked, participate in a genuine redressal for the 
victims, and then, like the Gujjus we are, eat ganthias and phaphdas 
and drink vodka to celebrate, if not some great new dawn, then at 
least the passing of a horrendously dark night.

In this imaginary gathering in my head, Bhupen always sits at the 
centre, chortling with laughter, poking little pins into any balloon 
of pomposity he can find. Even as I talk about this future party I 
can hear him saying to me: "Ei you, vagina-worshipper! Painter turned 
film-maker turned writer! You can become a caterer later. First go do 
your work properly. Shout at buildings if you must, but do your 
work!" And I take his point.


_____


[6.]

The Times of India, August 30 2003

Eminent citizens rally for peace in Mumbai
Times News Network[ Saturday, August 30, 2003 10:16:39 Pm ]

MUMBAI: Is the Maharashtra government doing enough to curb hate 
speech and writing at a time of growing communal tension?

Communal harmony groups and concerned citizens who believe that 
enforcing anti-hate speech laws will help promote peace say the state 
government is reluctant to crack down on rabble rousers. In a meeting 
with chief minister Sushilkumar Shinde on Wednesday, several 
prominent citizens pressed for vigorous enforcement of laws like 
Section 153-A and 295 of the Indian Penal Code, which provide for 
punishment against inflammatory speeches and writings.

"The real aim of a terrorist is to polarise society," lyricist Javed 
Akthar reasoned. "Such writings also polarise society, and aid 
terrorists." Akthar's views were echoed by Mumbai University 
vice-chancellor B L Mungekar, who said: "Since 1993, the political 
process in the city has been based on hatred because of communal 
propaganda and poison spread through various publications. We need to 
stop it." Additional chief secretary (home) U Mukhopadhyay said the 
state government would consider the citizens' demands. "But will 
wielding a big stick stop communal hatred? In the name of pursuing 
action, we should not create more conflict," he said. While it is the 
recent bomb blasts that have spurred citizens' groups to lobby for 
greater enforcement of Section 153-A, momentum on this demand has 
been building since the Gujarat communal riots last year.


_____


[7.]

The Hindu [India], Aug 31, 2003

'Saffronisation' of Gandhi statue
By Manas Dasgupta

AHMEDABAD Aug. 30. The "saffronisation'' of Mahatma Gandhi's statue 
on the busy Ashram road in Ahmedabad city has created a fresh 
controversy over the ruling BJP's "hijacking'' of the national 
leaders.

The entire route of the `Veeranjali yatra' carrying the urns 
containing ashes of the revolutionary freedom fighter, Shyamji 
Krishna Varma, and his wife Bhanumati, which entered Ahmedabad from 
north Gujarat this evening, was painted saffron by the BJP workers. 
BJP flags were seen hanging from every corner, treetops, the street 
lamp posts and every other convenient spot and in their 
over-enthusiasm, they also decorated Gandhi's statue by tying a few 
saffron bands on hands and neck.

Some of the Gandhian leaders in the city while strongly objecting to 
the "saffronisation'' of the father of the nation called it a 
sacrilege while some others felt it be "too childish'' on the part of 
the ruling party to "try to mislead the younger generation by 
projecting the Mahatma as a member of the saffron brigade. The BJP 
leaders, however, instead of regretting the over-enthusiasm of the 
party workers, tried to dismiss it as a non-issue. "What is wrong, 
after all saffron colour is there in the national flag too,'' the 
BJP's city unit president, Mayaben Kodnani, said with a wry smile. 
But despite her defence, some better sense later prevailed upon the 
party leadership and the statue later in the evening was found to be 
"liberated'' of the saffron scarfs.

Even otherwise, the BJP organising the Veeranjali yatra itself has 
created a controversy as many of the non-political voluntary 
organisations including the social centre associated with Shyamji 
Krishna Varma have taken objection to the "politicisation'' of the 
revolutionary leader from the Kutch. While the Gujarat Congress, 
apparently for political reasons, has decided to boycott all the 
ceremony connected with the yatra till it end at Kutch-Mandvi, the 
birthplace of Shyamji Varma, on September 4, some social 
organisations viewed it as an attempt by the BJP to carve out a 
"niche'' for the Sangh Parivar in the country's history of the 
freedom movement where even its oldest outfit, the RSS, figure 
nowhere.

While the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, had brought the urns from 
Geneva and the Governor, Kailashpati Mishra, received the urns at 
Umbergaon on the Maharashtra-Gujarat border for its onward journey 
within the State, the "yatra'' was completely taken over by the BJP 
even though it fully used the government machinery for its success. 
Almost in every city and towns through the yatra is scheduled to 
pass, the district education officer concerned had been asked by the 
Government to issue circulars to all the schools and colleges to send 
compulsorily the students to receive the "yatra''.

The circulars turned out to be the saving grace for the BJP for its 
show in Ahmedabad this evening which otherwise would have flopped in 
the absence of the people. In fact, the 3,000 odd gathering at the 
function where the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, received the 
urns from Mr. Modi in the presence of the Union Minister of State for 
Home, Harin Pathak, were mostly made of schoolchildren, NCC and NSS 
cadets and some college students. Though the Congress had boycotted 
the public functions related to the "Veeranjali yatra'', the school 
and colleges run by the family members of the former Chief Minister, 
Chimanbhai Patel, had to send volunteers to the function because of 
the government circular.

An official spokesman of the State Government, however, claimed the 
yatra had been receiving "overwhelming response'' from the people 
wherever it went in south, central and north Gujarat.

_____


[8.]

[ Listen to this 30 minute programme on B. Premanand who the BBC 
describes as a rationalist gurubuster of India. ]

o o o

BBC Radio 4 (UK)
Thursday 28 August 2003 8.00-8.30pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/thu2002.ram

'Its My Story: The Indian Sceptic'

A voyage into the weird and wonderful world of Mr B Premanand and a 
fanatical rationalist.

The irreverant Mr Premanand, India's leading guru buster, is a man 
with two missions. The first is to expose any charlatan who pretends 
his magic tricks are miracles; the second is to dispel the curse of 
gullibility blighting his country and to replace it instead with the 
gospel of rationalism.

To that end, this sprightly septuagenarian has spent the last 25 
years touring Indian villages and schools demonstrating the fallacy 
of so-called 'miracles'. His crusade has ensured his own mastery over 
magic and at the age of 73 he is the oldest member of India's 
International Brotherhood of Magicians, with a knowledge of over 
1,500 tricks. He is also convenor of the Federation of Indian 
Rationalists, head of the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the 
Paranormal and editor of a monthly journal.

Tanya Dutta catches up with Mr Premanand on a rollercoaster trip 
around India. With him, she encounters a cosmic healer who can 
diagnose colour hunger, tries out meditation under a pyramid and 
witnesses the bizarre case of a statue growing hair.

But catching fraudulent godmen is not plain sailing. As Tanya and Mr 
Premanand go on the trail of a guru who claims he can heal, they are 
stalled, spied on and ultimately given the slip.

At a time when Indian politics has become more and more coloured by 
religion, Mr Premanand is determined to smash the stranglehold of 
superstition wherever he sees it. Some people think he's going too 
far. He's survived several vicious beatings and even murder attempts 
but, despite the risks, he remains undeterred, convinced that his 
vision for India is the only way forward.


_____


[9.]

[Director of India's Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi 
which recently caught both Pepsi and Coca Cola with their pants down 
responds to questions ]

o o o

The Indian Express [India] , August 31, 2003
	 
FIRING LINE / SUNITA NARAIN

'Sue us if you wish, but sue the regulatory agencies too'
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=30612


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

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.