SACW | 10 Sept. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  10 September,  2003

[1] Pakistan - India: Mushroom clouds still hover (M B Naqvi)
[2] Radical Islam in Pakistan (Owen Bennett-Jones_
+  Pakistan MPAs condemn Women Commission's recommendation and defend 
'divine' law
[3] Email campaign letter : Stop Child Recruitment in  Sri  Lanka - Now
[4] Consultation on Development Interventions in Kashmir (15 Sept, New Delhi)
[5] Indian party exploiting anti-Muslim views (Rahul Bedi)
[6] O Jerusalem: Two Tears for Modernity (Krishna Kumar)
[7] India: Countdown to violence in Maharashtra  - Maha-aartis are 
laying the ground
(Jyoti Punwani )
[8] The Homophobic Indian State:
- Section 377 of IPC is anachronistic and regressive. Why is the govt 
so attached to it?
- [Govt.] says being gay will remain a crime, its reason: our society 
doesn't tolerate it (Kavita Chowdhury)
[9] India: Ponga Pundit and Bad Word curries
[10] India: Protest Against Sharon's Visit (10 Sept., Bombay)
[11] India: Human Rights, protest letter to Advani, Modi by INSAF / SANSAD

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


[1.]

The News International [Pakistan]
September 10, 2003

Mushroom clouds still hover
by M B Naqvi

Mushroom clouds over Pakistan and India have not gone away with the 
return of the Indian and Pakistani soldiers from the borders. These 
clouds lower and lift and sometimes move toward the horizon. There is 
as yet no agreed basis for peace and far too much of mistrust of each 
other characterises the two government's thinking and conduct. No 
responsible Pakistani or Indian can remain unmindful of the 
possibilities. It is agreed that the use of atomic weapons by either 
or both would be utter madness. But both sides, as the 2002 military 
stand-off showed, were, and one asserts are, ready to use these 
weapons. We had better re-examine the problem.

Last week (September 3) both India and Pakistan reviewed each other's 
military plans and capabilities and evolved a strategy to meet the 
threat from the other. Here, Indian confabulations merely provide the 
context. One is really concerned with the decisions of Pakistan's 
National Command Authority. Fortunately, these are available in 
non-quantitative general terms. These are: (i) 'the nuclear programme 
has matured over the years and would continue to receive top national 
priority'; (b) "Pakistan will continue to consolidate its minimum 
deterrence needs"; (c) 'there is going to be no let up in qualitative 
upgradation of the nuclear deterrent which would fortify national 
security'; (d) 'therefore there can be no freeze or rollback of the 
nuclear programme and all talk of it has been termed by President 
Gen. Musharraf as "irrelevant, outdated and totally false"'; and (e) 
NCA reviewed progress of the strategic programme and 'expressed 
complete satisfaction with the "operational readiness of Strategic 
Forces and the pace of development work".'

There is no reason to doubt that Indian Army's ISPR-whatever its 
name-would say quite similar things with regard to India's triad of 
nuclear deterrent and in much the same terms. Indians too would say 
that they have no intention of running an arms race. They would also 
echo the Pakistani statement, virtually in these very words, about 
their 'strong non-proliferation record and would reaffirm their 
commitment to universal non-proliferation goals'. And yet it is all 
about fighting a possible nuclear war on both sides.

No point in blaming the designated authorities for preparing for war. 
After all India and Pakistan are still in a state when a hot war 
begins, not to mention 56 years of cold war. No peace has been made 
in the current 13 years' old phase of relationship. The two are not 
talking. Driven by arrogance of power India demands-and gets 
Americans to support their demand-that Pakistan should give up its 
trump card (stoppage of Jihad) before it will talk. For the rest, it 
has been ready to fight it out and remains prepared. Pakistanis 
propose to give better than they get: their doctrine for atomic 
weapons is 'First Use'. The assessment one has made of the results of 
10 months long military stand-off (2002) is that Indians were daring 
Pakistan to use its atomic weapons first-so that they can, after 
absorbing Pakistan's first strike, unleash a massive nuclear strike 
that will reduce it to stone age conditions.

Both are still improving (increasing really) their nuclear deterrent 
and call it updating or consolidating. That is what the NCA has said. 
Pakistan is not overawed by numerical superiority of India's atomic 
arsenals and is going ahead with its Kashmir policy with suitable 
changes. These will arguably absolve it (in American eyes) of the 
charge that Pakistan is sending insurgents into Kashmir, even if the 
Indians continue to cry foul.

Generally, India's gaze is fixed on 'National Greatness' (conceived 
primarily in military terms) and a role that goes with it. Pakistan 
also aims at power to lead the Islamic world. Although living in two 
different worlds, they collide every day over Kashmir's violent 
insurgency. Indians have concluded that this insurgency could not 
have been sustained except with Pakistan's help. And hence it is the 
casus belli for India. Both continue preparing for the inevitable 
war. Hence those mushroom clouds may lower again.

The two have either not learnt any lesson from the military deadlock 
of 2002 or have learnt the wrong ones. Let's spell out the lessons as 
objectively as possible. But a few of one's assumptions need being 
made plain: suffering an attack by atomic weapons equals defeat; for, 
that means one or more cities destroyed with horrible human and 
material losses. Secondly, if both sides are hit with such 
weapons-almost a certainty-it is defeat for both. Now, let us assess 
the experience of 2002. India was credibly threatening to invade 
Pakistan. The latter was threatening, from day one, that it will use 
its nuclear weapons first so that Indians do not overrun a Pakistan 
that is weaker in conventional armaments.

By the middle of that year the Indians made as if they are ready to 
let Pakistan use its atomic weapons in reply to their invasion. 
Should Pakistan actually do so, the Indians said they would give a 
riposte that will send Pakistan back to the stone age; all its 
industrial-urban centres would suffer a nuclear death for God knows 
how long. None of it was empty rhetoric. At this point the US 
strongly intervened. Two things happened as a result: Indians did not 
mount the invasion. Secondly, Gen. Musharraf blinked in June and 
promised to stop the infiltration of insurgents into 
Indian-controlled Kashmir, if it is (still) taking place. By October 
Indians recalled their troops from the borders and the threat of war 
receded. By April next, Indian PM again extended a hand of friendship 
to Pakistan. This was grabbed with pleasure by Pakistan.

The two governments appear to have been greatly impressed by the fact 
that no war took place. As Gen. Musharraf claimed, and Indian 
President Abdul Kalam conceded, that the war did not take place 
because of the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides. It is 
impossible to deny a kernel of truth in the statement. But it is not 
the whole truth? India surely knew Pakistan possessed a nuclear 
deterrent when it mobilised for war and was on the brink of starting 
the war by about May, June; it was touch and go for all the world. 
India was, as noted, daring Pakistan to use its atomic weapons first. 
That would provide excuse for India to wipe it out altogether by a 
massive atomic counter strike.

Conclusions to emerge from 2002 experience are several. Some of these 
are: if both sides get to employ their nuclear deterrent, that will 
mean a defeat in human and moral terms for both. Secondly, the only 
case of victory with atomic weapons in South Asia can be if the very 
first strike should be (i) a surprise (preemptive) one; and (ii) it 
should be so massive as to totally cripple the victim so that it 
cannot retaliate in kind. One's assessment of current conditions is 
that neither side is as yet able to mount such a massive preemptive 
attack that by its massiveness will end the war. One's basis is not a 
fact that happened but it is a subjective judgement of what seems 
likely. For, if either side is able to absorb the first strike and 
remains capable of a second or even third strike through dispersal, 
all the proceedings become idiotic and both sides will suffer utterly 
unacceptable destruction. As of now neither side seems capable of 
such a massive strike. How true this statement is? It is at least as 
true as the one about peace being kept by the presence of nuclear 
weapons.

There is another conclusion. All this talk of India abstaining from 
starting an atomic war while being ready to make a terrible riposte 
is fanciful. No military commander, or his government, with nuclear 
capability, can wait patiently for the enemy to make the first 
strike-which, is a defeat by virtue of the nature and scale of 
destruction-and then he will bestir and order a counter-strike. War 
fighting is all about avoiding horrible losses on one's side and 
inflicting them on the enemy. Just as 1960s 'Flexible Response' idea 
of Robert McNamara was nonsense, this sequence of first stoically 
waiting for the other to start atomic destruction and later to cause 
much more of that destruction on the other is unrealistic. The fact 
is that real nuclear doctrines on both sides now can only be to rush 
to be the first: cripple the other at the very start by preemption, 
if possible. It is a terrifying prospect.

What of the future? Can India and Pakistan remain at peace, with 
their two nuclear deterrents being continually modernised (updated)? 
This is another name for a non-stop nuclear arms race. Atomic weapons 
on both sides are being actually increased and kept ready to destroy 
the other. Both sides remain afraid that the other might leapfrog to 
a higher level of preparedness. Hence the race. If so, where is the 
basis for peace? No government can trust its rival where such weapons 
are concerned. Being morally abhorrent, these weapons are inherently 
destabilising because they are conceived, brought into being and 
become a deterrent in secrecy, deceit and lies. Just look at the 
statements in 1980s and 1990s of both sides. Misuse of language 
apart, both are busy getting the better of the other's designs. These 
weapons begin by destroying trust and lead to continuous destability 
next.

So long as there are so many atomic weapons and missiles around-with 
both sides updating (proliferating) them upward-there can be no peace 
or cooperation between India and Pakistan. Left alone, human error, 
cupidity, communal politics or accidents will some day cause a war 
that neither side really wanted. If peace and people's material 
progress is desired, the two peoples have to get rid of these weapons 
somehow and regain each other's trust to become friends.


______


[2.]

BBC 8 September, 2003

Radical Islam in Pakistan
By Owen Bennett-Jones
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3181815.stm

o o o

Frontier PA opposed to change in Hudood law
MPAs condemn Women Commission's recommendation
PESHAWAR: The provincial assembly on Tuesday adopted a unanimous 
resolution strongly condemning the recommendations of the Federal 
Women Commission to review the Hudood Ordinance, and demanded of the 
government to implement the ordinance in letter and spirit.
[. . .]
Senior Minister Siraj ul Haq  . . . Hudood Ordinance is not the 
decree of a Mufti, but these are the laws made by Prophet Muhammad 
(SAW) and we are not ready to change these laws or to abolish them. 
Siraj strongly condemned the role of certain women sitting in 
Islamabad who wanted to destroy the Pukhtoon and Islamic 
culture.[...].
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2003-daily/10-09-2003/national/n4.htm

______


[3.]

[ Please Email this Campaign Letter to UNICEF Colombo E mail address: 
colombo at unicef.org

   Feel free to circulate among concerned parties and friends to copy 
the fol. in order to pressurize Colombo and other UNICEF agencies. 
Thanks. ]

STOP CHILD RECRUITMENT IN  SRI  LANKA - NOW!

We are deeply concerned and disturbed about continued child 
recruitment, despite repeated assurances by the LTTE that it would be 
stopped. Recruitment and abduction of children for training in armed 
violence is a fundamental violation of child rights. It robs them of 
the choice for a childhood and rights to family and community life. 
No one has the right to take this away, however harrowing and 
difficult their circumstances maybe.

The urgency of this appeal is that at this very moment the campaign 
for child recruitment by the LTTE has escalated; particularly in the 
Mandur area, Batticaloa. An ultimatum was issued to those who 
attended the latest in a series of meetings summoning children, FOR 
EVERY FAMILY TO GIVE OVER A CHILD BY THE 25 OF SEPTEMBER, 2003. 

All this is taking place while the LTTE and the UNICEF have entered 
into an elaborate `Action Plan' for the release of children who have 
already been recruited.

Therefore the UNICEF must :

1. Do their utmost to stop the LTTE from recruiting children.
2. See that mothers/ families have access to all children who have 
already been recruited
3.Obtain a complete list of all underage recruits and claim the right 
of access to such children- being the UN Agency entrusted with this 
task.

Name of Organization/ Person:

Address:

Date:


______


[4.]

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:57:28 +0530
Subject: Kashmir

Consultation on Development Interventions in Kashmir

Dear Friend,

Jammu and Kashmir has been in turmoil for the last 56 years. Apart
from political instability, there are issues of gross under
development and deprivation further feeding to militancy and unrest
in the state. Due to the historical evolution and the prevailing
situation, the state of civil society in the region is pathetic.
There are not many civil society organisations and groups and the few
available are starved of resources and do not have exposure and
orientation in professional approaches to social activism. Hence the
effectively and impact of civil society organisations in the region
is way below the normal.

Though there are a number of organisations in the country working at
the national level and operating in different parts of the country,
not many such organisations had undertaken any interventions in Jammu
and Kashmir so far. In fact, very few organisations in the region
have FCRA approval and less than 1 % of foreign aid received by the
country goes to the region. Though the Government of India claims to
provide development aid proportionate to the population of the state,
the propriety and effectively of its usage remains in serious doubt.
As a result, the state is fast degenerating into one of the most
deprived regions in the country, which could further fuel militancy
and unrest.

In the last four to five years, some development organisations have
started making some interventions in the state and have been able to
make some significant difference to the situation. The success of
their limited interventions shows that a lot can be achieved through
consistent and appropriate involvement.

Of late a number of organisations are showing interest in undertaking
development programs in the region. All such interventions are very
welcome and would be necessary. However, working in the region is not
the same as working in most other parts of the country. Apart from
having a unique history, culture and ethos, the state is also plagued
with militancy that makes any charting of interventions difficult and
potentially dangerous. Involvement with different individuals, groups
and processes could have many different political and security
implications. Hence, before any interventions are planned or
undertaken. It is necessary to understand the diversity and nuances
of the situation in the region.

The apparent difficulties should not be an impediment for
involvement. On the contrary, the need for interventions and
involvement of all development organisations becomes imperative
precisely because of the difficulties.

In order to promote more development interventions in the region,
Indian Social Institute, Delhi and COVA, Hyderabad are planning a
half day consultation on 15th September 2003.from 10.00 a.m.to 1.00
pm at the Indian Social Institute, Lodhi Road New Delhi. A number of
Development workers and activists working in the region for many
years are being invited to make presentations on key areas for
interventions and the complexities and nuances of the region.

Recognizing and acknowledging the major contributions of your
organisation to the field of development, we invite you to this
consultation with the hope that your involvement will make a
difference to the region and its people.

Programme

Venue: Indian Social Institute, Lodhi Road New Delhi [near Saibaba
temple]
Date: 15th Monday September 2003
Time: 10.00 am to 1.00 pm.

The Tentative Programme Schedule

10.00 Introducing the Topic and Presentation
	Need for Development Interventions and the Possible Political
Challenges
	Strategies for Establishing Linkages for Development Interventions
	Status of Civil Society and Possible Prospects for the Future
10.45 Discussion
11.15 Tea
11.30	Presentation of Kashmir study
Working with Students, Youth and Women
Mental Health
12.15	Discussion
12. 45 	Summing up

Prakash Louis				 	    Mazher Hussain
Indian Social Institute, New Delhi                          COVA,
Hyderabad

Note: If you know anyone who has been and interested in working in
Kashmir please invite them also for this consultation
HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
Documentation Section
Indian Social Institute,
(A Centre for Research, Training and Action for Social and  Economic
Development)
10, Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003 (INDIA)

______


[5.]

The New Zealand Herald, September 10, 2003
 
Indian party exploiting anti-Muslim views
By RAHUL BEDI

MUMBAI - The twin car bomb explosions that ripped through India's 
financial capital Mumbai late last month, killing 52 people, resulted 
not only in igniting simmering tensions between the country's 
majority Hindu and minority Muslim community, but also in adversely 
impinging on the fledgling peace process with nuclear rival Pakistan.

India blamed a Pakistan-backed insurgent group for the Mumbai blasts.

A few days later Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee ruled out any 
"consequential" talks with Islamabad until it ended "sponsoring 
cross-border terrorism, especially in northern, disputed Kashmir 
state".

Vajpayee's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP, that 
heads the federal coalition, appears to be having second thoughts 
about peace talks as it faces polls in five crucial states this year 
and general elections in 2004.

Having achieved little of worth over the past five years in social, 
economic and political matters or in settling the innumerable 
security issues and insurgencies afflicting India, the BJP seems to 
be resorting to its customary fall-back option of exploiting communal 
fault lines and consolidating the Hindu vote on an anti-Muslim 
platform.

And in the complex and cynical maze of Indian politics, the issue of 
Hindu-Muslim relations are linked closely to the complicated web of 
Delhi-Islamabad relations, which the BJP cleverly exploits.

Internally, BJP leaders project India's large Muslim population, 
second only to Indonesia's, as the enemy; and stresses Pakistan's 
role in fomenting terrorism in an attempt to draw them closer to the 
BJP.

Muslims constitute about 13 per cent of India's population of more 
than one billion and Hindus form about 83 per cent.

The BJP's rise from obscurity in the late 1980s to heading the 
federal coalition in 1998 and again in 1999 has principally been on 
an anti-Muslim campaign.

Its leaders such as Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani launched 
a nationwide crusade to build a temple in place of the 16th century 
Babri mosque in northern Ayodhya to commemorate the birthplace of the 
Hindu god Rama, a movement that struck a sympathetic chord among the 
majority community.

In 1992 BJP supporters and their allies demolished the mosque built 
by the first Mughal emperor Babar, triggering countrywide communal 
rioting, especially in Mumbai, where more than 1500 people died.

Six years later the BJP was in power and ever since has raised the 
temple construction issue whenever faced with elections.

Last year, BJP politics hit its nadir after it swept the polls in 
western Gujarat state following the three-month long pogrom of 
Muslims that left more than 1000 dead.

The National Human Rights Commission, the Opposition and independent 
activists have blamed the BJP-led state Government for aiding rioters 
who killed Muslims and ravaged their homes and businesses in an orgy 
of looting and pillaging.

But it had the desired result - the BJP swept Gujarat in December, 
far exceeding even its own expectations.

Many BJP leaders privately admit that Gujarat was the "laboratory 
where the communal experiment was tested for its efficacy, before it 
is transported across the country".

"The BJP is set on an election campaign that will play on the fears 
of the Hindus," declared a columnist in the widely circulated Indian 
Express newspaper.

Events such as the blasts in Mumbai and peace overtures to Pakistan 
merely muddy the political climate for the Hindu nationalists, an 
independent MP said.

Security officials fear Pakistan is fully exploiting the volatile 
communal situation brought about by the BJP's electoral politics and 
blind desire to remain in office much to India's detriment.

"If militant Muslim groups decide to strike back in any significant 
and co-ordinated manner then India faces a grave, almost apocalyptic 
situation," a senior counter-intelligence official said.

The only saving grace, for the moment, is that India's Muslims lack 
any coherent leadership to organise themselves, but that ability 
might just be provided from outside, the official added.

Other intelligence officers concede that Muslim killings in Gujarat 
had created hundreds if not thousands of potential terrorists with 
which India simply does not have the ability to cope.

They said the civil law enforcement structure - the police and the 
paramilitary - was either too weak, "aligned with the majority Hindu 
community or too battle-fatigued to ensure peace". Analysts and even 
police officers admit that if justification were needed for the 
Muslims to hit back, then last year's events in Guajrat provided it. 
In a parliamentary debate on the riots former Prime Minister Chandra 
Shekhar compared the Government's defence on Gujarat to statements 
made by Hitler's Nazi Party.

"One should remember how in Germany Hitler used Parliament," Shekhar 
said. The speeches of the BJP leaders (in parliament) show that Hindu 
hegemony is ingrained in their minds, he added.

But the BJP is unlikely to change its tactics, "controlled" as it is 
by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or National Volunteer Corps, 
which provides its spiritual guidance.

The founding principle of the 78-year old RSS, an organisation 
likened to Italy's Fascist Party and similarly fashioned, is to 
defend Hinduism by keeping it "pure from outside influences such as 
Islam and Christianity".

Vajpayee, Advani and at least 15 cabinet ministers are RSS members.

The RSS daily imparts basic military drill to its cadres.

______


[6.]

The Times of India, September 10, 2003

O Jerusalem: Two Tears for Modernity
KRISHNA KUMAR

The old part of Jerusalem is like no other place in the world. 
Sharply divided into four quarters "named the Jewish, the Arab, the 
Christian, and the Armenian quarters" it reminds you how weak the 
force of modernity has proved.
 
Walking down the ancient lanes, one feels humbled, emotio- nally 
exhausted, and insecure. Densely surrounded by historic sites, you 
don't know where to look for seeking relief from the oppressive 
burden of the past. That was also the moot question for the workshop 
on education and cultural pluralism I had gone to attend. Three years 
later I am still debating whether education should actively build 
cultural identity.
 
In Israel it does. There are three kinds of schools: Secular, 
religious, and extremely religious or orthodox. I got a chance to 
know about each category, and none looked secular in the sense our 
mainstream schools are. The Jewish sense of an irreparably injured 
collective self impels the system of education to reinforce the 
divisive aspect of identity. For the children of Arab, Christian, 
Druze and Bedouin minorities, there seems little scope to avoid a 
sense of alienation. A visit to an Arab school in the old city was 
arranged as part of the workshop, but the risks of getting there were 
judged to be far too serious, so that headmaster and one of the 
teachers from that school came to the university where the workshop 
was being held. The stories they told us of life in that school 
suggested a sub-world of poverty, neglect and confusion.
 
The library of the University of Jerusalem carries a plaque reminding 
the visitor that Sigmund Freud, Martin Buber and Albert Einstein were 
present at its inaugural ceremony. I was particularly struck by the 
mention of Buber, whose principle of inclusion of the 'other' I 
annually explain to my students as the primary basis of any 
meaningful dialogue. Why hasn't Buber's idea worked in West Asia is 
like asking how Gandhi's Gujarat got to be so violent. As far as 
education is concerned, it seems no force at all except as a social 
filter to legitimately select a few for coveted roles. Israel is 
among the few modern nations today to have a policy of early 
streaming. I was able to visit one such school which only the 
brightest attend.
 
My hotel kept its emergency exit stairs open all night. In the middle 
of my third night, I was woken up by screaming ambulances rushing to 
the site of a suicide bombing. Two suicide bomb attacks took place 
during that week; one very close to the university. I can hardly 
convey what it meant to know that one could be a potential victim of 
such an incident, but the message of the suicide bombers was clear to 
my foreign mind. The nagging question was why the message was read so 
remarkably differently by the government and its supporters. The 
suffering of the Palestinians is known; so is their militarily far 
weaker position, yet the view prevails that violence must be answered 
by violence. The point that violence necessarily forms a cycle 
arouses surprisingly little interest or worry and the ethos does not 
inspire the hope for peace. If anything, it inspires a sense of 
waiting for the inevitable and ultimate war. A vast mural in the main 
library of the university portraying an all-out conflagration conveys 
precisely that message. An exhibition of Einstein's photographs was 
on display nearby, and it brought me a great sense of recognition to 
find Gandhi in one of the frames, though he looked out of place.
 
Israeli liberals must be greatly disappointed today with India's 
warmth towards Ariel Sharon who symbolises the odious record of 
callous conservatism. It has been a difficult period for secular, 
humanist forces. Far from fulfilling its promise of reinforcing 
reason, modernisation has given Israel the dubious status of being an 
exporter of high-class weaponry. Each time it acts in blind revenge 
against a weak and hapless adversary, Israel blurs the terrible 
universal memory of the Holocaust. Israel's dependence on the US 
makes a mockery of its tradition of meticulous hard work and 
self-reliance - characteristics that we associate with Gandhi's 
personality, which were undoubtedly reinforced by his many Jewish 
friends.
 
My best personal memory is of my young tourist guide. While walking 
through the old city, he showed me a Roman map and explained why its 
top must face the east. That is what the word 'orientation' means, he 
said, reminding us that once upon a time the world looked to the East 
for guidance. He had heard of the Buddha and he asked me if I could 
summarise his main message. I muttered something about the need to 
concentrate on the present, leaving the past behind.
My guide looked as if he had been stopped in his tracks. If only we 
could learn that, he said, we would be fine here in West Asia. I 
often wonder if the Buddha's message has the same attraction for the 
hundreds of Israeli youngsters who spend their first holiday, after 
serving the draft, in Dharamshala. In a list made according to 
nationality of persons who took the Vipassna meditation course at 
Macleodganj, Israel was on top. History is often shaped by casual, 
even trivial things. The daily plane load of draft-drained youth 
arriving in Mumbai have a fair chance of nudging the going trend.

______


[7.]

The Indian Express, September 10, 2003

Countdown to violence
But the Maharashtra government isn't keeping watch
Jyoti Punwani

Sudhakar Naik or Sushil Kumar Shinde, Chhagan Bhujbal or Babanrao 
Pachpute, 1993 or 2003 - the only difference is in names and dates. 
Otherwise, it's the same old Congress culture of 
''leave-things-alone-till-they-explode''. The BJP has started a 
systematic programme of maha-aartis in Mumbai as per its announcement 
immediately after the August 25 bomb blasts. These public ceremonies 
are achieving their declared aims: Organising Hindus against the 
ruling Congress-NCP government and against ''terrorism'' (read 
''Muslims''). Maha-aartis are laying the ground for violence.

So is the Maharashtra government doing anything to prevent this 
threat to law and order? Has it banned maha-aartis? Has the police 
arrested any of the organisers under Section 153 A (promoting 
communal enmity)? Mumbai's citizens know only too well what 
maha-aartis are all about. Barely had their city emerged from six 
days of the worst communal violence it had ever seen, in the wake of 
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, that the RSS decided the 
situation was ripe to start its campaign of ''maha-aartis''. These 
were aartis performed on the road outside (never inside) temples, 
accompanied by anti-Muslim speeches. They were ostensibly meant to 
pressurise the then Congress government into stopping Friday 
afternoon namaaz on the roads which allegedly blocked traffic, and 
stopping the calling out of azaan on loudspeakers. The RSS roped in 
the Shiv Sena for the campaign.

The first maha-aarti was held on December 26, 1992, at Kalachowkie, a 
Shiv Sena stronghold, where namaaz was never performed on the roads, 
because the existing mosques could easily accommodate the few Muslims 
in this Hindu-dominated area. Assistant Commissioner of Police K.L. 
Bishnoi told the Srikrishna Commission that the local senior 
inspector had apprised him about the political nature of the 
maha-aarti, but Bishnoi considered it ''only indirect political 
activity''. An anti-Muslim pamphlet was distributed by the Hindu Jan 
Jagran Abhiyan.

Within eight days, violence again broke out in Mumbai, but the 
maha-aartis went on in full swing because the police classified them 
as ''religious functions'', exempt from ban orders. The Srikrishna 
Commission was told that by January 7 1993, a Confidential Source 
Report had alerted the police about the possibility of ''Shiv Sainiks 
returning from maha-aartis attacking Muslim properties''. As the 
commission found out, even Muslim lives were lost as a direct result 
of this campaign led by heavyweights Ram Naik, Manohar Joshi, Kirit 
Somaiya, Pramod Navalkar.

Today, as Somaiya with Gopinath Munde, Uddhav Thackeray and Narayan 
Rane leads a political campaign, the government cannot even hide 
behind the fig leaf of ''religious function'' to explain its 
inactivity. The explanation is obvious. Can Shinde forget that the 
Shiv Sena chose not to oppose him in his crucial by-election to 
qualify as CM? Can Bhujbal forget his Sena roots?


______


[8.]

http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=31231
The Indian Express
September 10, 2003
Editorial

Nanny state
Section 377 of IPC is anachronistic and regressive. Why is the govt 
so attached to it?

The government has just spoken for all of us. It has argued before 
the Delhi high court that homosexuality cannot be legitimised in 
India because "Indian society is intolerant to the practice of 
homosexuality/lesbianism". It has also reiterated the need for 
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that punishes such 
behaviour. There are at least four important reasons why we must 
reject, out of hand, this outrage expressed on our behalf.

First, it does not stand the test of history. As an erudite work on 
the subject, Same Sex Love in India, has pointed out, "at most times 
and places in pre-19th century India, love between women and between 
men, even when disapproved of, was not actively persecuted". So why 
is the government so anxious to prove that it is even more medieval 
in its attitudes than the medieval rulers of this land? Secondly, 
such a stance goes contrary to significant changes in social 
attitudes toward gay practices and rights the world over. In June, 
the US supreme court struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law, which had 
criminalised sexual practices between same-sex couples. Also in 
Canada around the same time, two provinces - British Columbia and 
Ontario - have ratified same-sex marriages and the federal government 
has come up with a proposed law that would legalise such marriages 
across the country. In Britain, homosexual couples will soon be 
offered a civil partnership, conferring upon them the same legal 
rights as that of heterosexual couples. Third, the government's 
position will only drive the practice underground with seriously 
negative consequences in an age when HIV/AIDS is set to assume 
pandemic proportions. Finally, this attempt to "nanny" the people and 
control adult behaviour, goes against the grain of the libertarianism 
that is an essential part of Indian democracy.

Section 377 of the IPC, which punishes anyone who "voluntarily has 
sex against the order of nature" is clearly anachronistic and 
regressive in both language and intent and should, in fact, have been 
excised from the statute books a good while ago. The government 
argues that it is useful while dealing with paedophilia and rape. But 
why doesn't it come up with more more up-to-date legislation to 
tackle these crimes rather than cling to a law that reeks of 
Victorian England?


o o o

http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=31224
The Indian Express
September 09, 2003

Centre says being gay will remain a crime, its reason: our society 
doesn't tolerate it
Kavita Chowdhury
New Delhi, September 8: The Central Government has informed the Delhi 
High Court that homosexuality cannot be legalised in India as the 
''Indian society is intolerant to the practice of 
homosexuality/lesbianism.''

Quoting the 42nd report of the Law Commission, it claims the 
society's disapproval was ''strong enough to justify it being treated 
as a criminal offence even where the adults indulge in it in 
private.''

The Centre was replying to a petition challenging the constitutional 
validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this, 
''whoever voluntarily has sex against the order of nature with any 
man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, 
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 
extend to ten years.''

The Government claimed that Section 377 of IPC has been basically 
used to punish child sexual abuse and to complement lacunae in rape 
laws. It has rarely been used to punish homosexual behaviour.

Deleting this, the Centre said in its affidavit submitted to the 
court today, ''can well open the flood gates of delinquent behaviour 
and be construed as providing unbridled licence for the same''.

The petition filed by New Delhi-based Naz Foundation, an NGO working 
for the welfare of HIV positive and AIDS patients, challenged the 
validity of this provision and urged that homosexuality be legalised. 
It argued that due to fear of police action, consenting adult males 
having sexual relations were not coming out thereby hampering medical 
intervention.

Replying to the petitioner's allegations that Section 377 violated 
the right to equality (Article 14), right to freedom (Art 19) and 
right to personal liberty (Art 21), the Centre said ''none of these 
rights were infringed'' and that each of them were subject to 
reasonable restrictions. Ironically, the Centre also claimed that it 
was not for Naz to file the PIL. Only those ''whose rights are 
directly affected by the law can raise the question of its 
constutionality,'' it said.

The division bench of Chief Justice B C Patel and Justice AK Sikri 
fixed December 10 for further hearing after Naz asked for time to 
prepare a rejoinder to the government affidavit.

Citing examples of UK and the USA, where such sexual preferences are 
respected, the Centre has pointed out however that ''it is not the 
universally accepted behaviour.''

The petition was filed way back in 2001 and the court had taken a 
serious view of the Union Governement's inability to spell out its 
stand on homosexuality and asked the Attorney General to give his 
opinion. The court had observed that the issue could not be just 
brushed aside on the grounds of social morality.


______


[8]


Business Standard [India]
Published : September 2, 2003

SPEAKING VOLUMES
Ponga Pundit and Bad Word curries

We were left with the touchy business of having to get final approval 
for the film from [Bhaskar Ghose's] successor, Shiv Sharma (called 
'Shivering Sharma' for his alleged cravenness towards his political 
bosses).

Fortunately there were only a couple of hitches - we had to remove 
'fuck' and 'screw'. But 'screwed' and 'shit' and 'balls' were allowed 
to pass. ('Han yaar, 'balls' chalega, voh toh hum bhi college mein 
bolte thhe,' Shivering Sharma said to us.)"

Arundhati Roy brought the house down when she came to this particular 
episode in the making of In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones, screened 
last week at the India Habitat Centre in Delhi. All of us sitting in 
those chairs got the humour, even the ones who squirmed out of polite 
discomfort at hearing "those words".

And I loved the thought of a craven-hearted bureaucrat sorting 
through a mental lexicon: screw as in not the kind you get in a 
hardware shop -Verboten! No! Nahi!; screwed as in the past tense 
thereof, diluted by automatic overuse - okay, we can stamp that in 
accordance to regulation 3.ii (a).

Last week, an equally bizarre debate erupted over Habib Tanvir's 
performance of two plays - Jis Lahore Nahi Dekhya and Ponga Pundit. 
Both these plays have been performed before by Tanvir and other 
troupes without raising more than the discomfort that the playwrights 
intended. Ponga Pundit was written in the 1930s by two Chattisgarhi 
folk artists, Sitaram and Sukhram and has been performed many times 
since then.

So there was considerable surprise when the Sangh Parivar's monkey 
brigade decided to picket performances of the plays, claiming (here 
we go again) that Hindu culture was being attacked, even desecrated, 
by these plays.

The Sangh Parivar tends to recruit people given to deep emotional 
outbursts, and in Bhopal, they expressed their deep sense of 
injustice and hurt by throwing rotten eggs at the stage, breaking 
chairs and engaging in other time-honoured forms of intellectual 
debate and argument.

It should be explained that Ponga Pundit is a classic that plays well 
among most audiences and especially among the Dalit community and has 
often been performed by members of the scheduled castes. It's a 
takedown of organised religion, a pithy jab at the corruption and 
insecurity of certain priests, an indictment of untouchability.

The plot includes a corrupt priest - the "ponga pundit" of the title 
and the rituals he sets up, all intended to exclude his sweeper from 
participation. I saw it years ago at a college theatre festival and 
was touched by its broad humour and its pointed critique of organised 
religion.

Not only have members of the Sangh Parivar directly involved in the 
protests not seen the play, they appear to be completely unaware that 
Habib Tanvir is not the author. Part of the campaign launched 
attacking the troupe last week was based on misinformation - Habib 
Tanvir, a Muslim, had written this play that criticised Hindu 
priests, said some members of the Sangh.

I'd object to this anyway, on the grounds that any Indian should be 
free to critique or comment on any aspect of his country, including a 
religion that he didn't belong to, but the fact remains that they're 
plain wrong.

Ponga Pundit has always caused some discomfort among the more 
backward members of the supposedly high castes - a play written by 
folk artists, written for the Dalit community, overturns assumptions 
about who in our society is entitled to a voice, or is allowed to use 
a language, or may have a platform.

They are also completely unaware of what the plays are about, as is 
evident from news reports. "State BJP organising general secretary 
Kaptan Singh Solanki said: 'Ponga Pandit aur Jamadarin are two 
separate plays through which bhartiya sanskriti pe hamla hua hai.'"

I loved this quote. It used precisely the same kind of Hinglish that 
Arundhati Roy and her friends were attempting to lay claim to in 
Annie, at a time when, unlike today, nothing else in the culture 
reflected the reality of our hybrid tongue.

It's exactly like the bit Roy quotes from Annie where Lekha Saxena 
says, "Hai sir, I'm so confused, pata nehi kuch samajh nehi aa raha 
what to do," - much as Kaptan Singh Solanki might dislike being 
compared to a character in a film that just escaped being dubbed 
profane thanks to the bureaucratic ruling over acceptable and 
unacceptable slang.

I also loved the fact that he knew so little about the play that he 
had made two plays out of one; I loved the fact that Solanki squarely 
equates Bhartiya Sanskriti with the culture of the priests at the 
high table, and not (heaven forbid!) with anything as low as the 
feelings of the Dalit community.

Even better than Solanki was former leader of the Opposition Gauri 
Shankar Shejwar, who said that he had not seen the play and continued 
undaunted: "I object to the name. It clearly shows a desire to drive 
a wedge based on caste. Panditon ko Ponga nahin kehna chahiye 
(Pandits should not be called Ponga)."

I visualise a present-day equivalent to Shivering Sharma whose job 
will be much the same, with a slight shift in definition. What, 
presumably, made Shivering Sharma uncomfortable was the taint of 
"Westernisation", which made his task of sifting out Good Language in 
its neat party frock from Bad Language in its ripped jeans and tight 
T-shirt that much more difficult.

(I wonder how he would have felt if someone had offered him the 
example of the Anglo-Indian Ball Curry, also known as Bad Word curry? 
Perhaps "balls" would have then been banned, along with that 
forbidden Eff Word.)

Today's Shivering Sharmas will have a different mandate: no plays 
allowed that insult Religion (defined presumably strictly as Hindu), 
no plays allowed that question Religion (ditto), no references to 
Ponga Pundits, even if the phrase itself is part of popular dialect.

It may even become a criminal offense to call a pundit ponga, in 
print or verbally, and then we will have to do unto that phrase what 
for years squeamish editors did with the f*** word: "P**** Pundit", 
news reports will say carefully.

And the debate will continue to grow ever more hysterical, until 
someone finally loses their patience and tells this bunch of 
philistine barbarians to just Ponga off.

_____


10.

Protest Against Sharon's Visit Today at:

Hutatma Chowk
Bombay
4pm, Sept 10

Please spread the word

_____


11.

India: Human Rights, protest letter to Advani, Modi by INSAF / SANSAD
http://india.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7803&group=webcast

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

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.

--