SACW | 11 Sept. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  11 September,  2003

[1] Sri Lanka: Power Dressing  (Farzana  Haniffa)
[2] A View from Pakistan: On Sharon's India Trip etc. . . (M.B. Naqvi)
[3] All  Our  Nine Elevens (fatemolla)
[4] India: Goa's Communal Harmony At Stake (Zubair Ahmed)
[5] India: Distorting History of Freedom Struggle: Modi on Shyamji Krishnavarma
(Ram Puniyani)

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

[1.]

[ Available on SACW website at: 
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/2002/Haniffa092003.html 
]

o o o

Polity [Sri Lanka]
Vol.1, No.3, July - August 2003

Power Dressing  (1)

By Farzana  Haniffa

'You don't look like a Muslim.' This has been 
told to me in the past few years by neighbours, 
shopkeepers, sales persons and  my driving 
instructor. Looking at  my jeans and T-shirt and 
my uncovered head  what they were really saying, 
of course, was that I didn't dress like a Muslim.

It is certainly true that many Muslims today look 
and dress like Muslims. The veil or the hijab, 
with its corollary of the beard and Kurtha clad 
male, has taken over the landscape and made 
Muslim identity codefiable and  identifiable 
through a particular form of dress. Since its 
introduction to this country in the early 1980s 
the hijab has mutated from an unbecoming table 
cloth like garment worn by a few zealots to an 
elegant costume with flowing lines that allows 
for endless variations of colour, shape and 
style. There are many thousands who wear it today 
and there are now  shops  dedicated  solely to 
the sale of Abhayas and  scarves. The irony of 
course is that there are hundreds and  thousands 
of Muslims who are very clear about their 
identity as Muslims that do  not subscribe to the 
new form of dress. However, they, and I think 
they are in the majority, are invisible and not 
the subject of today's exposition.

The Sinhala nationalism and Tamil separatism of 
the 1980s saw the concomitant rise of extreme 
Islam in the country. In addition, the open 
economic policies of the late 1970s caused huge 
social disruptions and upheavals, chief amongst 
them the exodus of both skilled and unskilled 
Muslim labour to the middle east. During this 
time the Iranian and Saudi Arabian embassies 
provided funding for Islamic events and gifted 
Qurans to Islamic groups and  schools. Together 
with the move to transfonm Islamic dress, people 
began to practice segregation of the sexes, 
abolish all "rituals" as unquranic and purge 
customs of "outside" influences. For instanee, 
the thali was considered Indian and no longer 
relevant to Sri Lankan Muslims. Birthdays were 
not observed. Photography was said to be haram 
and idolatrous. There were groups who would visit 
the houses of "lapsed" Muslims and advise them on 
proper Islamic conduct. Finance company owners 
were urged to seek different avenues of business. 
Muslims were discouraged from working in banks.

Internationalized Islamism

Though the fervour of the late eighties and early 
nineties has subsided somewhat,  Islamism has 
institutionalised itself in parts of  the 
community. The very real threats to Muslim life 
and limb that took place in the north and east, 
the penmanently displaced community in Puttalam 
only exacerbated many Muslims' move towards 
reasserting their own identity. Dress remains the 
most visible of its manifestations and Hijab has 
many forms. Some wear it as a signature scarf 
worn with everyday attire that cover  wrists and 
ankles. Others wear the scarf with the Abhaya or 
cloak in different colours. The most orthodox 
wear the black cloak with a black headscarf  and 
face veil. Whatever its permutation the "look" is 
very particular, the manner in which a scarf is 
worn clearly marks the Muslimness of the wearer. 
Today it has become a regular feature of Muslim 
life. Families that are otherwise quite liberal, 
or on the fence with regards to many practices of 
the new Islam, make the token gesture of having 
female members of their household wear the scarf.

The appeal that women personally feel towards the 
hijab is formidable. Several women I spoke to 
felt that, by wearing hijab they were 
contributing to the maintenance of Muslim 
society's moral order. They also felt they were 
making a great personal sacrifice by cloistering 
their bodies for the sake of Islam.2 Many 
conservative commentators on Islam have been very 
emphatic that hijab is in place to circumvent the 
possible damage to society posed by rampant 
sexuality. To the women who wear the Hijab this 
is a perfectly legitimate justification of their 
practice. One woman, Homa, an accounts assistant, 
told me that women were responsible for 
preserving the morality of the social order and 
that therefore it was up to them to refrain from 
throwing temptation in the way of men. Nisa, a 
teacher, stated that in matters of the body men 
are the weaker sex and that it was the women's 
social responsibility to wear the hijab. In fact, 
Nisa also stated that seeing women dressed 
provocatively, she thinks not of the women but of 
the men, and how they must be dealing with such 
spectacles. However Nisa, the mother of three 
sons, also said that there was much about today's 
practices of segregation that was troubling. Her 
boys rarely socialised with their girl cousins. 
She said she remembered her own childhood, 
playing cricket in the open and spoke of the 
close connection that she still feels with her 
cousins. She felt that the younger generation was 
missing out on something valuable about family 
life. But to Homa, a younger, more strident voice 
for the new Islam, this was a small price to pay. 
"Better safe than sorry," she said. When I asked 
Nisa if she would feel the same way if she'd had 
girls, she smiled and admitted that she probably 
would not. Marina Rifai, an ophthalmologist 
stated that she believed in the segregation of 
the sexes. She said that human beings were wont 
to stray and that it was best to avoid practices 
that could lead to "improper" behaviour.

Stereotypes

The stereotypical rendition of Muslims as backward seem to
have found their realization in the rigidity of 
some communities. "Fundamentalist" Islam, 
wherever it is practised, often becomes a 
textbook example of institutionalised subjugation 
of women. The simplistic rhetoric of "liberation" 
used by the west in the case of Afghan women and 
the Taliban is a telling example of this 
confluence.3 It was even used as a part 
justification of the bombing of Afghanistan in 
the wake of the September 11th attack on the 
United States.  Such analyses are often dangerous 
and capture little of the complexities of women's 
lives.4 When speaking with so many women, the 
sense of purpose that they felt when choosing to 
wear the hijab was inescapable. In addition to 
the social responsibility that they seemed to 
feel was theirs, there was also the feeling of 
martyrdom that goes with the belief that one is 
making the supreme sacrifice for God. There was 
never at any moment a claim that wearing the 
hijab was a pleasure. Shahila, a thirty-year old 
mother of two who was not wearing hijab, said 
quite fervently that she admired those who did 
but that she, unfortunately, did not yet have the 
strength to make that sacrifice. Her feeling was 
that she would eventually do so. When I asked 
women how they felt to be wearing hijab they 
usually said, "I haven't had any problems," "I 
always thought I should get into it," or "l 
didn't find it too difficult." There was no 
positive response, no embracing of the garb with 
any feeling of pleasure. Marina Rifai in fact 
said that "if Allah was to say, tomorrow, that 
hijab was no longer necessary, I would be the 
happiest."

Dr. Marina Rifai is an ophthalmologist who is 
also a founder member of Al Muslimath, an Islamic 
educational institution for women. She is also 
the community's most diligent proponent of the 
new dress. Her position on Hijab was unequivocal. 
"Hijab is a Wajib,5 a Farl," she told me. "It is 
an obligatory duty that nobody has questioned. I 
know there are some people who question saying 
interpretations are different and so on... If so 
there must have been some  ulema who said 
something ...(but) for the past 1500 years there 
hasn't been a single ulema or for that matter a 
female ulema who has said that hijab is not 
(required) because it is a direct straight 
forward very clear order from Allah."5

Hijab

Disputing my claim that hijab was a recent introduction to
the country, Rifai insisted that the hijab had 
always been a part of the garb of Muslim women 
and  was  lost only because of colonialism, 
modernisation and the historically more recent 
moves towards female education. She says that 
there was only about 30 years or so (from the 50s 
to the 80s) during which Sri Lanka saw a lapse in 
the practice. Today with the refocusing on the 
Quran it has re-emerged. And this, she said, is 
happening all over the world.

There are a great many practical benefits to 
wearing the hijab. At the level of class there is 
a certain solidarity that the uniform garb, and 
the sentiment of martyrdom brings about among 
women. Further, for lower middle and 
working-class women the hijab makes sound 
economic sense. One woman, Zakiya, said that she 
sews her own hijabs for roughly about Rs.500.00. 
This is less than the cost of a saree. She also 
said "I don't have to worry about what to wear to 
weddings." Zakiya also claimed that the Hijab 
gave women a certain feeling of safety. "Men 
don't press against you in buses like they used 
to," she told me.

Today Islamism's initial fervour has abated. 
Those that feel they have a personal relationship 
to God continue to wear the hijab, consider 
themselves especially blessed, as "true" Muslims 
and fear for the after-life of those who don't. 
Those who refuse the hijab embrace the conviction 
that theirs is a kind God, who has better things 
to do than constantly police potential lapses. 
They speak of the "Spirit" of the religion and 
find it ridiculous that it has been reduced to a 
puritanical preoccupation with sex. The less kind 
amongst them make fun of the cloaked "heebie 
jeebies" and wonder about the personal hygiene of 
wearing black layers in the Colombo heat. The 
most zealous Islamists still take it upon 
themselves to tell others that they should reform 
or suffer in the hereafter. These others are now 
less embarrassed about sticking to their skirts 
and blouses, jeans and t-shirts or sarees and 
salwar kamis.

However, to appear in public as a Muslim woman it 
has become necessary that one should cover one's 
head.7 In some instances it is necessary that 
women are veiled.8 Further, the 
institutionalisation of the veil as uniform in 
Muslim schools has helped spawn a generation for 
whom hijab is the norm. This generation is not 
aware of the fact that their parents made a 
conscious choice to practise their religion in 
this manner. The fact that there are multiple 
ways in which one can have a relationship to ones 
faith, that there are enormous and  perhaps 
unnecessary sacrifices that women are called upon 
to make in the pursuit of piety is not something 
that the new generation is aware of. The freedom 
of movement and of enjoyment of their bodies that 
women in Hijab deprive themselves of has 
completely fallen out of the equation. For many 
today things are as they should be, and always 
have been. There is a flowering of madrasas, the 
practice of Jamaath or teaching pilgrimages on 
which men go for days has  become a popular 
pastime amongst young  Muslim men. Muslim women 
find recourse to women's study circles like those 
organized  by Marina Rifai's Al Muslimath. 
Thereby a wide religious education is being 
imparted to the community as a whole.

However, there is little room for criticism, and 
debate takes place only in relation to different 
details and levels of practice. These debates are 
often very emotional and sometimes turn violent. 
As a result of this resurgence in activity social 
life within these sections of the Muslim 
community becomes inevitably segregated and women 
become relegated  to a role inside the household. 
Recently a rule regarding women's travel, where 
they should not travel anywhere for more than 
three days unless accompanied by a father, son or 
a husband has been discussed. In this day and age 
it is distressing to think of what such practices 
will augur for women's future access to rights 
and resources if unmediated by men. It is also a 
telling comment on the division of communities. 
The interaction between many of these Muslim 
women and women of other communities is becoming 
minimal. Unfortunately the more liberal sections 
of the community offer no real public challenge 
to these developments and a level of polarisation 
is taking place. Today, Muslims subscribing to 
different dress codes hardly recognise each other.

A friend of mine recently related the following 
story to me. While relaxing at a hotel down south 
one afternoon my friend encounters a little 
Muslim girl and her father on the beach. The 
little girl in her long pants, kurtha and scarf 
is  allowed to play in the surf while her Veiled 
female relatives hover by the pool side sipping 
cool drinks and tending their bables. She gets 
into conversation with my friend relaxing  on the 
beach in her bathing suit and after a little 
while asks her what her name is.

"Zainub," my friend tells her. The little girl is 
shocked. "That's a Muslim name no! That's one of 
our names, that can't be your name!" "Yes it is," 
Zainub replies. "But you are not a Muslim!
"But I am " my friend tells her.

Notes

1 A version of this piece appeared in Options No 31. 3rd Quarter 2002,
Women and Media Collective, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
2  I spoke to several veiled and non-veiled Muslim women about Hijab.
They included professionals, housewives, women of different ages and
class backgrounds, those who were clearly against wearing the hijab and
those who were proponents of the dress.
3 It is well known today that it was not just the 
Taliban that was the problem in Afghanistan. The 
Northern Alliance according to the Afghan
women's group RAWA was said to be as bad if not worse.

4 It is In fact worth asking If Muslim regimes 
of various sorts derive  any, rhetorical value 
from positing themselves in such oppositional 
terms.
5 A farl or a wajib is a term used to indicate practices that are required of
Muslims. Sunnah indicates actions taken by the prophet and those that are
therefore recommended for all Muslims and haram indicates those that
are forbidden.
6 Interview with author 11th March 2002.
7 Prominent non-veiled Muslim Women, Ms. Jezima Ismail, Chancellor
of the Eastem Universi~ and Ms. Ferial Ashraff, MP both stated that
they consider covering their head a necessary part of their public persona.
8 A comment had been made recently that the two Muslim representatives
on the Women's Committee, Faizun Zakaria and Fazeela Riyaz were both
unveiled.


______


[2.]

On Sharon's India Trip etc. . .

M.B. Naqvi

Karachi September 10:

Pakistani reactions to the shortened visit of the 
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India were 
predictable. The government has been fearful of 
Israel’s selling sophisticated military hardware 
to India that will act as force multipliers. 
Fundamentally all Pakistani reactions are 
characterized by a fear complex, particularly 
because Sharon is widely seen as a sort of stand- 
in for America. And American government was 
represented by Christina Rocca in New Delhi just 
about the time. The non-official reactions are 
more clearly based on conscious and subconscious 
fear. It all contributes to the pervasive 
anti-Americanism.

In part Sharon’s image in Pakistan is that of a 
master killer whose own country found him 
involved in the murder of over a 1000 
Palestinians 20 years ago. Currently the way 
Israelis are treating the conquered and occupied 
Palestinians strengthens the image of a ruthless 
ruler to whom revenge murders of innocent 
Palestinians comes naturally, almost as a reflex 
reaction.

Few could have forgotten the dozens of UN General 
Assembly Resolutions against Israel, passed year 
after year, in which it was equated with the 
racist South Africa. Its much-hyped democracy 
condones the violent human rights of the 
Palestinians and in fact treats those 
Palestinians who are Israeli citizens in a way 
that is different from other Israelis, 
particularly Ashk-e-Nazis. Ironically it was 
India which was then among the main sponsors of 
those Resolutions. But times change. Now Israel 
and India are close allies in the War against 
Terror as well as have the common link of facing 
terrorisms that are characterized by Islamic 
extremism. This appears to be the latest bonding 
element, apart from India’s strategic need to 
cement what is called core alliance with the US 
and Israel.

What Pakistanis do forget is that India is a 
sovereign country and has the right to befriend 
whomsoever it likes. Insofar as the military 
hardware is concerned, it is an ongoing arms race 
between Pakistan and India that largely forces 
India closer to Israel and the US so as to obtain 
ultra modern hardware and ensure support. 
Nevertheless the moral quality of the new friends 
of India does come as a shock to many.

Pakistanis, instead of pointless cribbing, should 
cool-mindedly analyse the motivations of both 
India and Israel. Whatever view one has of the 
Israelis’ way of dealing with Palestinians, it 
has to be realized that both India and Israel do 
face the problem of semi- insurgency in Kashmir 
and in the occupied territories. Moreover, 
Israel’s hatred of Islamic extremism is, 
well-reciprocated as it is, is on a somewhat 
different basis. Nevertheless Israel also faces 
the problem of Islamic extremism, although much 
of it has been created by its own actions.

One aspect of the complex reaction in Pakistan 
and Bangladesh to Sharon’s visit has to be noted 
and in fact discounted. The Muslims of the 
Subcontinent have had a heavy dose of pan-Islamic 
propaganda in the 1910s and 1920s, when it mainly 
benefited the British. That has left a legacy. 
The Palestinian problems are seen through the 
prism of pan Islamism. That Palestinians include 
a significant Christian minority that is 
well-integrated with the majority is somehow not 
noted. Indeed all Palestinian movements, except 
of course the purely Islamic ones, have been led 
by leaders who are Christians and most of the 
followers are Muslims and no one finds it 
strange. Palestinian problem is of course more 
complex than anything in the Subcontinent. If the 
present government of India finds a lot to learn 
from Sharon and its likes, it probably hides 
geo-strategic purposes.

Insofar as Islamic extremism is concerned, it is 
a subject that requires understanding and 
suitable ways of tackling it need to be devised. 
Whatever has to be done has to be done with the 
help and cooperation of modernized Muslims. 
Islamic extremism cannot be fought by 
non-Muslims. It has to be realized that wherever 
extremism becomes pronounced in a Muslim country 
it gets badly polarized and decays.

The first to suffer as a result of extremism are 
the Muslims themselves and if a country is 
predominantly Muslim, it is vital that Muslim 
intelligentsia has to find a way deny sustenance 
to extremist ideas. Unless intellectual bases are 
found for some kind of a democracy that permits 
pluralism and human freedoms there will be no 
basis of keeping extremism at bay. The antidote 
of extremism is of course tolerance. The 
tolerance has to characterize the vast majority 
of Muslims. Happily it is so in most cases.

But the rise of fanaticism can be rapid as well 
as extensive, as the experience of Algeria, 
Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia and of course 
Pakistan shows. Indeed, Pakistan occupies a 
special position where Islamic extremism is 
concerned. It is the storm centre of extremist 
thinkers and leaders. It has had a peculiar 
history in which it is not possible to go into 
here.

Extremism is a major worry for liberal and modern 
Muslims in Pakistan as well as in many parts of 
the world. It is one of the major problems of 
today. A communal or antagonistic approach, such 
as Sharon brings to bear can only make matters 
worse. Insofar as the Subcontinent is concerned, 
this problem cannot be resolved unless Indians 
and Pakistanis can somehow reconcile themselves, 
make friends and cooperate in building free and 
plural societies. It is not widely realized that 
a Muslim state needs pluralism and democracy far 
more than any other state. Countering Islamic 
terrorism with counter terrorism, whether of 
state or of others, would only fuel the fires.

The problem has to be attacked at its roots --- 
where it germinates. This is a job for the 
Muslims only. Non-Muslims can certainly help. But 
they cannot be the main actors. The rough 
strategy is no mystery. A thousand years history 
has provided many bases for tolerance to prevail 
among Muslims whether they are in a majority or 
in a minority in any state. In the first 100 or 
200 years of Muslim history, they learned to 
shake down into relaxed co-existence over vast 
stretches of Middle East and elsewhere. Most 
Muslim societies were basically tolerant, even if 
they cannot be called free by today’s standards, 
wherein a lot of psychological and intellectual 
bases can be found. Looked at a little closely, 
it has to be noted that Islamic extremism has 
arisen as a reaction to impossible living 
conditions. Pakistan is a subject that need not 
be considered here. The basic strategy must be to 
change the conditions in which the people do not 
feel so aggrieved as to take up the cudgels. And 
for the rest, the state policies have to allow a 
thousand flowers to bloom, especially in the 
Muslim countries. Rule of law and democratic 
institutions can or should ensure a tolerant 
society, if there is no hanky panky about the 
rule of law. Ends.


______


[3.]


Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:07:18 -0600


ALL  OUR  NINE ELEVENS.

By-fatemolla
(fatemolla at hotmail.com)

	Since long all our Bush-Blares have been 
playing a game dangerous to humankind, a game of 
making and breaking Political Islam (henceforth 
PI) whenever and wherever suitable. When it 
backfired on 9-11, they became the toys of the 
fateful game. Bush-Blare (henceforth BB) totally 
failed to identify the real target. With its 
constitution Sharia it is none but the 
institution of Political Islam, which has 
launched an informal war against the West long 
ago. It sells West’s unjust Middle-Eastern 
politics as an all-out war on Islam. It poses as 
the only resistance to every evil of the world, 
including the West. It portrays all commoners of 
the West to be responsible and punishable for the 
actions of their governments. It declares the UN 
as the legitimate target. Due to BB’s blunders, 
PI the root of terrorism has progressed worth a 
hundred years in last three years.

You eliminate all terrorists today, PI will give 
birth to hundred terrorists tomorrow. Actually it 
already did. You eliminate PI today, there will 
be no more Nine-Eleven expected from Muslims. 
Muslims will be expected to address social evils 
socially, politics politically, technology 
technologically, economics economically.

The horror happened at around 9 AM, killing more 
than 3000 innocent people. The killers couldn’t 
have done it in the darkness of night. But they 
could easily have planned and executed the same 
action after 11 AM, killing about 50,000 people. 
With such carefully tailored strategy of timing, 
what the killers really wanted to accomplish, at 
the cost of what?

	We can only guess.

BB committed the blunder of the century by 
fighting the essential wars with extreme 
political incorrectness. They were aware of their 
resentful image to most of 1.3 billion Muslims as 
the illegitimate fathers of Israel. They knew 
that due to continuous failures of secular 
democratic governments in the third world, PI has 
already strengthened itself in millions of 
Muslim-minds. Without proven link of Bin Laden 
with 9-11, BB jumped onto a sovereign 
Afghanistan. PI was quick and efficient to prove 
BB as criminals, as the oil-pipeline through 
Afghan’s Caspian Sea the sole motive of the 
Afghan war. The “Liberated” Afghanistan again 
went to back Sharia-culture with the same 
violations of human rights. BB’s lack of interest 
in establishing human right was evident and 
frustrating.

On that hopeless background of political and 
moral failure (albeit military success), BB again 
jumped on Iraq ignoring the unprecedented 
protesting millions on the world-roads and the 
uncomfortable wind in the UN. A wiser BB were to 
respect and reconcile the world-opinion, at least 
to show the effort.  PI, once again, was quick 
and efficient to expose all of BB’s excuses to 
the fullest extent. None of BB’s slogans of WMD, 
Regime Change, Liberation Iraq bla bla bla stood 
the test of any sensible equation. Liberation 
cannot be a gift; it has to be achieved. Western 
secular notable Iraqis could be activated to form 
an exile Iraqi government, the government could 
be politically recognized by BB and other 
nations, and then BB’s mighty war machine could 
be put behind the exile Iraqi govt. The “Iraqi 
Liberation War” led by Iraqis could legitimize 
the war. We did it that way.

But power made them overconfident and politically 
incorrect. They commit blunders and we suffer. We 
still remember a thousand nine-elevens a day on 
the 6th and 9th August 1945 on Japan, AFTER her 
surrender-proposal at least twice. We didn’t 
forget the oceans of blood and screams of pain in 
all those Mai Lais, Sabras, Satilas, and BDs.

The quicksand of the mysterious Middle East is 
now engulfing BB into a war unexpected by and 
unknown to them in the shapes of commandos and 
Sharia. Everyday soldiers are knocked down, 
American parents are getting increasingly 
outraged, and American commoners started 
realizing the false terror-alarm of Bush. 
CAIR-ICNA-ISNA-MAS and the likes are sharpening 
their arrows and waiting for the moment. The days 
of American Government fighting American Muslim’s 
citizen-rights in American courts may not be too 
far.  Bridge-TV is on our way, a sad, violent and 
deep cultural civil war within the US is certain 
to take place. A deep cultural civil war between 
Muslims and non-Muslims already set in throughout 
the world.

BB are fighting loosing stands to their own 
people, and struggling in and out of the UN for 
International support to share its liabilities. 
From Morocco to Indonesia a huge and deep cloud 
of PI is condensing. It is throwing its lightning 
here and there. The final blows are yet to come; 
no amount of BBs guns can even match it. The 
unfortunate sad world, the unfortunate families 
of the unfortunate victims are still around. In 
front of them in London PI is celebrating 9-11; 
British Law cannot even touch it.

The dangerous trend of solving problems by force 
is reflected everywhere including BB’s wars, PI’s 
violation of human rights, simple personal 
conflicts resulting in killing, rejected Romeos 
throwing acid on unwilling Juliets and outraged 
housewives throwing boiling-hot soup on the 
little maids. In last two years a scary eleven 
thousand people were killed only in BD. Millions 
are killed in the world in last few decades. The 
self-declared polices of the world proved total 
failure. They have committed too many 9-11s in 
the past, received only one. They have resources, 
for their own benefit and for the benefit of 
humankind they have to do much better. They 
cannot fool the world any more. They have no way 
out but to be honest in their international 
politics. They have to reconcile the millions of 
non-political followers of all religions to 
combat PI’s Sharia-based systemic and systematic 
violence shown its ugly face in beating their 
women on the road, in denying natural rights to 
women and non-Muslims and in that fateful morning 
of 9-11.

That is the real War on real Terrorism. Without 
that, 9-11 is certain to be repeated on BBs and 
by BBs. No one is safe anymore.


______


[3.]

http://www.oherald.com/newherald/newsEDN.asp?qId=1146&qSec=EDN&qNType=R

Goa's Communal Harmony At Stake

By Zubair Ahmed

Forty years after the Portuguese left, the 
western Indian state of Goa hangs on to an 
unusual legacy of imperial rule. It is Indiaís 
only State with a Uniform Civil Code. This means 
that the Hindus, who make up 60 per cent of the 
population, the Catholics, who account for 35 per 
cent, and its tiny minority of Muslims are 
governed by just one, uniform, set of family 
laws.The code has worked well enough for 
centuries - but now there are fears for Goa's 
fabled communal harmony. Despite its strong 
Catholic cultural roots, Goa currently has a 
right-wing Hindu nationalist government. For 
Goans, Christianity has long been a fact of life. 
But sections of the Hindu community have begun 
making increasingly bold - some say dangerous - 
statements expressing the view that Christianity 
is an alien faith, imposed on Indians during the 
colonial era.
A Hindu cab driver told me; "All Goans were 
Hindus before the Portuguese came here"
He had a simple explanation for why the Stateís 
Catholic population was increasing: "You know, 
when children are born into Catholic families, 
they are converted to Christianity after a week 
or so."
Father George of Candolim church in north Goa is 
worried: "There is that impression that Catholics 
are pro-Portuguese and anti-national, which is 
not true. We are very much for our motherland. We 
are not Portuguese. Nothing should divide us."
It is a defensive plea for calm. And many say 
itís a vain attempt to head off the gathering 
storm.
Goaís Hindu nationalist Chief Minister, Manohar 
Parrikar of the Bharatiya Janata Party, is often 
accused of marginalising Christians when it comes 
to key government jobs.
Rajan Narayan, Editor of the English-language 
Herald newspaper, believes Mr Parrikar has 
launched a campaign to promote Hindus to high 
places in the State."After Parrikar came to 
office, he's been making systematic attempts to 
saffronise the education system, to put people in 
key areas of cultural, intellectual penetration, 
like heads of libraries, heads of educational 
institutions, heads of cultural bodies."Some also 
allege that the Catholics were ignored during the 
recent recruitment of 6,000 policemen - as much 
as one-third of Goa's police force. But Mr 
Parrikar denies this. He insists that Goan 
Catholics traditionally don't apply for low-level 
jobs in the police force.He accuses his critics 
of spreading lies about him. "It's almost three 
years now and nothing of what was told to them 
[Catholics] is happening. They were told that 
your churches will be burnt down, crosses will be 
burnt, but nothing has happened"
Normal service worshippers leaving church in 
north Goa on a bright Sunday morning are serene 
about whether they see the BJP as a threat.A 
Catholic woman said: "Everything is quite 
peaceful here. Somehow everybody is very strong 
in their faith here" But many, including Goa's 
best-known cartoonist Mario Miranda, believe 
far-reaching changes are underway and the Goan 
Christian is simply giving ground. "I blame the 
Catholic Goans themselves because most of them 
are emigrating. They are leaving Goa," says Mr 
Miranda.For the moment though, it is Sunday 
service as usual in the hundreds of ancient, 
white- washed churches dotted across 
Goa.Tensions, if any, have yet to break through 
the tranquil surface.( The author is the BBC's 
correspondent in Goa)

______


[5.]

From Indian Currents- 14th Sept. 2003)

Distorting History of Freedom Struggle:

Modi on Shyamji Krishnavarma

Ram Puniyani

Shyamji Krishnavarma is very much in the news. Mr. Narendra Modi, who
brought the urn containing his ashes, went on to say that Krishnavarmas
contribution is next only to Subhashchandra Bose. At the same time, BJP
ally, George Fernandes lamented that barring Nehru family all other
freedom fighters are being ignored. As such the way freedom fighters are
given emphasis or are ignored gives an idea of the politics of those
currently projecting them. How come suddenly the swayamsevak Modi has
started remembering the freedom movement, with which his ideology and his
alma mater RSS had nothing what so ever to do with.

To begin with, Fernandess lament that barring Nehru family all others have
been forgotten does not hold any water since one knows that people pay
homage to Bhagat Singh, Subhashchandra Bose, Gandhi and Patel with deep
reverence. It is true that the state may not be having official functions
on the anniversaries of all the freedom fighters but the Nation does
fondly remember these contributors to our Nation building. Mr. Modis
ranking of Subhaschandra Bose and Krishnavarma as first and the second in
the list is a bit puzzling. Can the freedom fighters be ranked in such an
order?

Indias freedom struggle was a complex process in which many a tendencies
participated. The major stream, which spearheads the movement, was the one
led by Mahatma Gandhi, the movement of Indian National Congress. Theirs
was a broad platform in which many a tendencies were present. From
Socialists like Nehru on one side to soft Hindutva elements on the other
side were a part of this. The streams, which kept aloof from freedom
movement, were the ones which based their politics on the Religion. The
declining classes-Landlords, Kings and the ideologues representing the
feudal social relationships, initiated these streams. They were together
in the United India Patriotic Association and later this association and
this ideology of Religion based nationalism gave way to Muslim League on
one side and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other. Muslim League called for an
Islamic country since Muslims are a separate Nation, while the Hindutva
ideologues stated that since this is a Hindu Nation, the foreign races
have to accept this Hindu Nation and accept the norms of Hindu Nation.
Since at deeper social level the landlords-Kings survived in alliance with
the British rule there was no question of these ideologies struggling
against the British rule.

To criticize Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS for not participating
in freedom struggle is unwarranted. They did not aim for democratic
nationalism, they did not aim to struggle against British rule so why
should they be criticized for something which was not their goal at all.
These ideologies represented social groups who survived on the land
revenue, which they shared with the British. Merrily this stream survived,
at no time being the subject of British repression.

Amongst the streams, which stood for Indian nationalism and the
accompanying values of Liberty, Equality, Community and Justice, mainly
three groups can be identified. The first and the major one was that of
the one led by Gandhi. He converted this movement into a mass movement in
which all the sections of society could participate. It could transcend
the religion, caste and region to integrate whole of the country into a
single Nation. It was the biggest mass movement of the twentieth century.
Its three major goals were to throw away the British rule, to build a
modern India. Its accompanying values were support to equality of caste
and gender. Innumerable leaders contributed to this stream. From W.C.
Bonnerjee, Annie Beasant, Phirozshah Mehta, Jawaharlala Nehru, Vallabhbhai
Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai
and a host of people coming from all religions came forward in this
movement. While some claim that Hindus mainly fought the struggle, an
analysis of those who participated in this cuts across all the religions
in equal proportion.

The second group is that of revolutionaries who struggled to put pressure
on the British to leave India. In this group most of them were inspired by
the Socialist ideals and the biggest revolutionary organization was
Hindustan socialist republican army. Bhagat Singh, Chadrashekhar Azad,
Ashfaqulla, Surya Sen were prominent in this group. Pre 1923, Savarkar was
also anti British but after giving undertaking to British to get released
from Andamans he practically capitulated and remained aloof from Anti
British struggles.

Role of Subhashchandra Bose was remarkable. After he left Congress he
formed Azad Hind Fauz (Free Indias Army) and took up the battle against
British. Nehru donned his lawyers robes to protect those from Azad Hind
Fauz, who were charged with sedition against the British rule. People like
Shyamji Krishnavarma are in a unique category. Inspired by Russian
revolution and the principles of modern plural democracy they served the
struggle from abroad. And one has to understand their principles and role
while paying eulogy to them. Hindutva ideologue like Shourie have thrown
mud on Dr. Ambedkar and dalit movement in pre Independence India for being
Pro-British. As a matter of fact Ambedkar and his movement were the
backbone of the for social transformation, which was the base, on which
the freedom movement stood. The total picture is very revealing and one
has to see the diverse pieces falling to make the whole, which constituted
the totality.

It is true that Gandhi stood tall and being the unquestioned leader of the
mass movement, which was at the center of the struggle, is the father of
Indian Nation. Nehru because of his vision and foresight built the modern
state despite being riddled with the odds of society in the grip of feudal
norms and in the grip of Brahminical values.

Today when the Hindu right is on the offensive, it wants to erase the
Gandhis legacy. This has become easier for this movement as Gandhi has
been reduced to an icon bereft of his values and principles. Nehru is
currently on the firing line as Hindu Right wants to do away with. Since
RSS itself has nothing in the form of contribution to freedom it tries to
project Savarkar. As Savarkars 1923 undertaking and the post 1923 attitude
does not help the matters much. So in order search for icons, which can
serve its purpose, revolutionaries like Krishnavarma, who are totally for
secularism, socialism are being propped up. In case of Varma the advantage
is that people at large do not know much about him so he can just be
presented as an icon. As such Shyamji Krishnavarma was close to Communist
Gadar party and was for pluralist society. But how does that matter? His
principles can be hidden under the garlands since any way they are not
known to the people. So this clever move by the shrewdest Hindu Right
swayamsevak serves the Hindutva politics very well. This also can kill
many birds in one stone. Ranking of revolutiories and freedom fighters is
being done deliberately. It is too well known that Gandhis place, as
Father of the Nation and the foremost contributors to freedom could not be
questioned. Up until now it was only in RSS shakhas that a whispering
campaign against Gandhi was on and one of the ex Pracharks of RSS, Godse
went on to kill Gandhi. That was also the time when RSS followers
distributed sweets to celebrate his murder. Now with the new found
confidence in the wake of Gujarat carnage where RSS progeny BJP could win
the elections despite the blood on its hands, its confidence is growing by
leaps and bounds and Modi and his ilk can gradually create a new Father,
and series of new figures who can be shown as the real ones in contrast to
Gandhi and Nehru.

In case of Krishnavarma, one cannot underestimate his contribution.
Krishnavarma lived in London and for his campaign for Home rule he got
into trouble with British authorities and had to shift to Paris. He was
running a magazine, Indian Sociologist and set up an India House to
support Independence struggle. Later he moved on to Geneva, where he lived
till his death. One is personally uncomfortable with ranking of the
freedom fighters and the misuse of such occasions to play the politics for
ones agenda. All those who contributed in their own way must be given
respect and honor. But to use such occasions to subtly downplay those like
Gandhi and Nehru who were at the forefront of this struggle is something
one abhors.

Remembering  freedom fighters and their contributions is something which a
grateful Nation should do. Their values and principles are a bacon light
for us. The way Modi, Advani and company are projecting Shyamvarma, Patel
etc. is more to down play the legacy of Gandhi and Nehru, the central
figures of our movement. Advani and co. also wants to suppress the fact
that people like Krishnavarma and Patel had nothing whatsoever in common
with the Hindutva ideology in whose name they are trying this political
game.

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

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.

--