SACW | 15 Sept. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire  |  15 September,  2003

[1]  Pakistan: Women's rights and the Hudood Ordinance
- Women's Commission and Hudood Ordinances (Asma Jahangir)
- Safeguarding the Women' Rights (Edit., Pakistan Facts Sheet)
- Demo held for repeal of Hudood Ordinance
[2]  Bangladesh: Disturbances in Kushtia - 
Religious fantacism must be countered vigourously 
(Edit., The Daily Star)
[3] India: Two editorials re Gujarat
[4] India: [The Ayodhya Excavation] Not A Treasure Hunt  (Nayanjot Lahiri)
[5]  India: Press Release - Call For Boycott of 
Mumbai International Film Festival 2004


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

[1.]

Daily Times [Pakistan] Sept. 12, 2003
Op-ed

Women's Commission and Hudood Ordinances

Asma Jahangir

The contradictions of the Whipping Ordinance are surpassed only
by its absurdities. It attempts to make humane what is manifestly
inhuman

The Women’s Commission has again reminded us of women’s
suffering on account of oppressive laws. The Hudood Ordinances
are the worst in this regard, though they have been equally harsh
on those who have restricted access to justice or choose to
disobey traditional values.

In practice, all criminal-legal systems discriminate against the
underprivileged. In this country such gaps are wider still because
of laws like the extremely discriminatory Hudood Ordinances. The
law, its interpretations and the procedure are all flawed in a
number of crucial areas. This results in gross injustice to the
marginalised sections of society.

It is far easier to fabricate charges of a crime like the offence of
Zina, than to cook up a story of murder or injury where the
complainant needs to at least produce the victim to be taken
seriously. Anyone can allege Zina and get his adversaries
apprehended without a convincing story. A number of people have
been arrested on secret information received by the police or on
mere unsubstantiated allegations. Most supporters of the Hudood
laws recognise the problem of false allegations against innocent
people but brush the issue aside on the plea that injustice is the
norm in our society; moreover, in the case of Zina the law of Qazf
within the Ordinance operates as a safety valve against false
accusations of Zina.

A former Chief justice of Pakistan said that in over 80% of Zina
cases, the accused victim eventually won. The statement seems
to imply that finally justice was being served. Such assertions only
show that support for the Hudood laws is either based on a poor
knowledge of the legal system and social realities or on an ill-
founded belief that all statutes made in the name of Islam must be
kept regardless of the consequences.

The Ordinances are a compilation of five separate laws: offences
of theft and armed robbery; Zina and rape; Qazf; use and sale of
alcohol; and, lastly, the procedure for whipping. It prescribes two
sets of punishments: Hadd and Tazir. The Hadd punishment
requires very specific evidence based either on the confession of
the accused or the testimony of a specified number of
eyewitnesses. In the case of Zina, the number of eyewitnesses
must be at least four. All witnesses for the Hadd sentence must be
adult male Muslims who are “truthful persons and abstain from
major sins.” If the accused is a non-Muslim the witnesses may also
be non-Muslim. The law either presumes that non-Muslims will
only rob or rape non-Muslims or the lawmakers wanted to leave
less room for non-Muslim offenders to escape the Hadd
punishment. Punishments under Hadd are severe: stoning to death
in the case of rape and Zina or amputation of hands for theft of a
particular type.

So far Hadd has never been executed, though it has been
awarded in a number of cases. A total of 26 punishments were
awarded until 1988. All of them, except one, were reversed by the
superior courts. Zahid Iqbal was convicted for stealing goods worth
Rs. 11000 and awarded amputation of his right hand [Jail Criminal
Appeal no. 163 of 1982.] He mysteriously escaped from prison
after an uproar in the international media. Hadd punishment for
theft can be awarded for stealing a clock from a mosque but not
applied to a person accused of embezzlement of millions of dollars
from the exchequer. The testimony of women is not considered for
Hadd punishment even though she may be the victim, as in cases
of rape. Since Hadd has never been executed, the obvious
discrimination in the law gives the impression that the State
considers women and non-Muslims as unreliable citizens.

It is the punishment of Tazir which practically impinges on the
lives of ordinary people. The procedure in Tazir trials is the same
as in all other punishments. Women and non-Muslims may testify.
Practically all the offences were brought from the Penal Code or
enacted on the same pattern except that additions were made in
the offences of Zina and Qazf. Prior to the Hudood Ordinances,
adultery was punishable only for the male partner and rape on a
minor wife was punishable. Post-Hudood altered the very scheme
of the law, making all forms of Zina punishable with a maximum of
ten years of imprisonment and infliction of 30 lashes. Raping a
wife was made legal and the law of Qazf was added to the list of
offences.

At a superficial level these changes may appear to promote
morality but in reality have only given unscrupulous elements in
society and the law enforcement agencies a handle to exploit
women’s vulnerability. Under the old law women could not be
convicted of adultery. Since the law made women culpable,
thousands have been imprisoned under the Hudood laws.

A very large number of women have been tortured, molested and
raped by the police with impunity. From 1980 to 1987 the Federal
Shariat Court alone heard 3399 appeals of Zina involving female
prisoners. This is only the tip of the iceberg, given the number of
women arrested and released before reaching the appeal stage.
Once a woman is accused of Zina she stands stigmatised
regardless of subsequent acquittals. Apart from a couple of
isolated women prisoners, the majority of them come from
extremely disadvantaged sections of society. These figures beg
some compelling questions: Was there less Zina before the
promulgation of the Hudood law? How is it that once women are
made punishable under the law thousands of complaints are filed
as against hardly any under the old law which protected women?
Why are nearly all women accused of Zina poor and illiterate? Are
they more promiscuous than the rich and the famous living in our
society?

In many cases, women alleging rape have been arrested and
convicted of Zina. The accused men are given benefit of the doubt
and acquitted by the Federal Shariat Court. The present trend is to
arrest all married couples who contract a nikah without the
blessings of their families. The female is pressurised by the police
and by some judges to abandon her husband. She stays in a bind.
Denial exposes her to the risk of being prosecuted for Zina and
acceptance keeps her from securing bail.

The defenders of the Hudood Ordinances argue that such
miscarriages of justice are relatively low. That is incorrect.
Secondly the relief comes too late and only after the woman has
been imprisoned and humiliated. Also, the judiciary only
reluctantly and partially accepted the gender viewpoint and that
too after years of struggle by women activists.

False charges of Zina are hardly prosecuted. Only one percent of
victims dare to enter the legal maze again. In all such cases, they
have had to face innumerable legal hurdles in prosecuting anyone
on the charge of Qazf. Allegations of Qazf need to be overly
precise. A former husband alleged that his wife was abducted by
her second husband for the purpose of committing Zina. His
former wife and husband were apprehended on charges of Zina
but the complainant was given benefit of the doubt on the grounds
of not having actually witnessed the marriage. A husband cannot
be awarded Qazf even if he falsely accuses his wife of adultery
before a court of law.

A number of Pakistani couples perform Nikkah without a formal
“rukhsati”. In recent years many incidents have been reported
where the parties fell apart before rukhsati but the groom raped
the bride to seek vengeance. Under Pakistani law it is no offence.

The contradictions of the Whipping Ordinance are surpassed only
by its absurdities. It attempts to make humane what is manifestly
inhuman in terms of who can administer the punishment, how it is
to be administered, what weather conditions must prevail, how
must the convict be dressed and so on. In short, a Mediterranean
climate, with a made-to-order whip, Victorian courtesies and a
special dress code are needed for the execution of whipping!

Women have argued their case well for the repeal of the Hudood
Ordinances. They still face a formidable opposition but a principled
position eventually does triumph. The Women’s Commission must
continue to press for the repeal of this law.

Asma Jahangir is a human rights activist and former chairperson
of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan


o o o

PAKISTAN FACTS SHEET
Issue No.50  (September 14, 2003)

Editorial Note: 
Safeguarding the Women' Rights

It is heartening that we have fair-minded 
elements in Pakistan who are able to analyze the 
situation of women objectively and make sensible 
suggestions. That can be said about the committee 
set up by the National Commission on the Status 
of Women (NCSW) to look into the Hudood 
Ordinances.

On the basis of the committee's study, the NCSW 
has recommended to the government to repeal the 
Hudood Ordinances and draft a new law in their 
place. This is not the first time such a proposal 
has been made. But the commission's report 
certainly carries more weight. It has not been 
made off the cuff in a fit of emotionalism. It is 
based on the deliberations of 18 members who are 
legal experts and also have an understanding of 
the problems women face in our society.

Since General Ziaul Haq promulgated the highly 
controversial Hudood Ordinances in 1979 this law 
has operated in a one-sided way against women. 
The number of female prisoners in Pakistan's jail 
suddenly shot up in the years following the 
introduction of the Hudood law and more than half 
of these were on zina charges.  The widespread 
abuse of this law was apparent even then from the 
high rate of acquittal. But no government that 
followed made a serious attempt to change the 
law. So strong was the propaganda describing the 
law as an integral part of religious 
jurisprudence and so powerful were the vested 
interests defending Hudood that the country 
continued to be burdened with legislation that 
was patently unjust, with enormous potential for 
abuse. A simple example of how the Hudood law has 
provided an opportunity to men to use it to 
oppress women is the fact that the Qazf provision 
has generally not been invoked though it requires 
a man bringing false charges against a woman to 
be prosecuted.

Let us hope that the NCSW will be forceful in 
following up its recommendations to repeal the 
ordinances. The commission does not appear to be 
very optimistic about its recommendation being 
accepted given the political equations that exist 
in the corridors of power today. But it needs to 
show greater commitment in this matter. The 
chairperson is right when she says the 
commission's mandate is to make recommendations 
on certain issues. But she is wrong when she 
claims that what happens next is not the 
commission's business.

The commission was set up in 2000 in response to 
a long-standing demand of the women of Pakistan. 
The idea was to have a watchdog body to monitor 
the government's policies and the laws enacted to 
ensure that they did not hurt the interests of 
women.  The commission may not have judicial 
powers but it can play a moral role in 
safeguarding the rights of women. In other 
countries where such bodies have been set up and 
their commitment and motivation have been strong, 
they have used pressure on the government to get 
a law changed. Why should the NCSW not enhance 
its own stature and display the courage to uphold 
what it believes to be right?

o o o

Dawn [ Pakistan]
12 September 2003

Demo held for repeal of Hudood Ordinance
By Our Staff Reporter

KARACHI, Sept 11: A demonstration was organized 
by the Joint Action Committee for People's Rights 
(JACPR) for the repeal of Hudood Ordinance and 
certain other laws regarded as discriminatory 
against women , minorities and marginalized 
sections of the society.
Addressing the participants of the demonstration, 
held in front of the Karachi Press Club on 
Thursday, speakers claimed that the Hudood 
Ordinance was being misused by vested interests, 
In this regard, they observed that the number of 
women prisoners had increased manifold since the 
promulgation of the ordinance.
The speakers demanded an immediate repeal of the 
ordinances and other discriminatory laws as well 
as an unconditional release of all women 
prisoners convicted/arrested under them.
They spoke of the agonies and ordeals a woman 
faces after being accused of violating Hudood 
Ordinance and pointed out that such women could 
never regain their grace, dignity and prestige in 
the society even if they are exonerated from the 
charge.
They regretted that political parties, including 
the PPP, PML and Muttahida, did support women's 
rights groups and also kept criticizing the 
Hudood Ordinance and discriminatory laws, but 
none of them came out with some practical 
measures that could lead to their abolishment.
The speakers pointed out that even a resolution 
calling for the repeal of Hudood Ordinance could 
not be moved in the parliament or any of the 
provincial assemblies. To the contrary, they 
added, the NWFP Assembly had adopted a resolution 
in favour of it.
They alleged that the women belonging to lower 
class were being targeted by the vested interests 
who were out to exploit the laws.
The speakers vowed to mobilize masses and put up 
strong resistance against the ordinance and the 
laws in order to "prevent spread of fanaticism".
They were of the view that the laws had been 
promulgated by a military dictator who didn't 
have public support. He, they alleged, had 
misguided people and misused religion to 
perpetuate his illegal rule.
They observed that various commissions and 
committees, set up by successive governments, had 
found the ordinance and laws ill-intentioned, 
badly conceived and badly drafted.
Two religious scholars, who are members of the 
sitting review committee of the National 
Commission on Status of Women, have also 
expressed their reservations against the laws and 
endorsed the ideas of certain other eminent 
religious scholars that the laws needed to be 
amended, they said.


______

[2.]


The Daily Star [ Bangladesh]
September 15, 2003
Editorial

Disturbances in Kushtia

Religious fantacism must be countered vigourously
The incident in Kushtia in which local people 
clashed with the members of the Hizbut Towhid is 
an indication of religious fanaticism trying to 
rear its head. It is also a pointer to the 
resistance being put up at the popular level.

It appears from the reports that members of the 
Hizbut Towhid were trying to distribute leaflets 
containing its own interpretation of Islam. The 
locals tried to resist the move and the clashes 
that ensued left at least one person dead and 
many others injured. This was clearly a case of 
excesses committed in the name of religion.

Bangladesh is known as a moderate Muslim country 
having a long tradition of religious tolerance. 
This tradition is something that we can duly be 
proud of. Hence, we cannot allow the fanatic 
forces to subvert it. The equanimity that we have 
in regard to all other religions is part of our 
fundamental ethos.

The ethos are rooted in history and primarily 
oriented towards maintaining inter-communal 
harmony. So the fanatic forces which are trying 
to disrupt this balance through means violent are 
actually showing an utter disrespect for the 
values and norms that form the very basis of our 
society. Besides, they are also threatening to 
upset social equilibrium.

The question is: how should we deal with the 
problem. Have we taken the right stance to 
counter it? The government stand on the issue 
should be clear and unequivocal-- religious 
fanaticism cannot be entertained. We should learn 
from the experience of other countries and avoid 
underestimating the extremists who may have the 
strategy of transforming society according to 
their own agenda. The Kushtia incident could well 
be the tip of an iceberg.

The BNP and the Awami League, which could have 
been a force in countering the threat, are busy 
playing their favourite blame-game. The fanatic 
forces are actually capitalising on the major 
parties' failure to address this common threat to 
society and polity.

People in general are showing due sensitivity to 
the problem. Now, the government must adopt a 
vigorous strategy to prevent religion being 
exploited for obscurantist political purposes.

______

[3.] 


The Hindustan Times [ India]
September 15, 2003  | Editorial

And now, Mr Modi?

When Narendra Modi presided over the collapse of 
law and order in Gujarat for one-and-a-half 
months from the end of April last year, he could 
not have imagined the extent of his future 
infamy. As the riots raged while the chief 
minister and the governor, both belonging to the 
BJP, remained virtual spectators, they presumably 
had no idea how India's other institutions will 
ultimately prove to be the standard-bearers of 
justice and castigate the Modi government in no 
uncertain terms.

This realisation may not have dawned on Mr Modi 
even after the riots had ended. As the Best 
Bakery case showed, witnesses were threatened 
into retracting their initial statements against 
the rioters. These acts of intimidation could not 
have taken place without the blessings of the 
police.

Mr Modi's initial response to any criticism was 
to trash the critic. He crossed all limits of 
decency when he charged the Chief Election 
Commissioner with bias on account of being a 
Christian, and Mr Modi's admirers in the BJP had 
no hesitation in calling the National Human 
Rights Commission "anti-Hindu" when it took up 
the cases of the hapless witnesses of the Best 
Bakery case. Even now, the counsel for Mr Modi 
had the temerity to insinuate before the Supreme 
Court that his master's shortcomings be forgiven 
since he had been democratically elected. Little 
wonder, the judiciary's riposté was that the 
suggestion did not mean that the guilty could not 
be prosecuted.

Mr Modi's must be the only government whose 
malfeasance has attracted criticism from so many 
institutions - the Election Commission, the NHRC, 
the National Commission for Women and now the 
Supreme Court. The last has been the most 
stinging in its indictment, literally asking the 
chief minister to resign. "You quit if you cannot 
prosecute the guilty," Chief Justice V.N. Khare 
has said. The basis of his displeasure is the 
same aspect of governance in which Mr Modi has 
been found wanting - the observance of raj 
dharma, which was pointed out to him by Atal 
Bihari Vajpayee during his visit to the state 
after the riots. In all these months, Mr Modi has 
shown no inclination to abide by this basic 
doctrine of fairness in administration. Because 
of him, Gujarat's otherwise bright image is 
beginning to suffer.


o o o


The Statesman [ India]
September 15 2003
Editorial

Stop Modi!

Gujarat has introduced a unique amendment to the 
CrPC which translates as a tool to abuse and 
harass the beleaguered minorities of the state 
further. The amendment allowing the police to 
bypass the provisions of section 167 of the CrPC 
that make it mandatory for them to produce a 
detainee in person before a magistrate within 24 
hours, was passed in the assembly after loud 
protests from the Opposition. The situation in 
the state is far from normal since the 
anti-Muslim pogrom engineered by the ruling party 
and abetted by the administration. There are 
already complaints from the minorities of police 
harassment. Muslim youths are indiscriminately 
picked up and often kept in the lock up, beaten 
and not produced before a magistrate or formally 
charged. The excuse is that they are being 
"questioned'' about the Godhra carnage, or the 
Akshardham incident or the murder of Haren 
Pandya. More often they don't even need an 
excuse. Relatives are then forced to pay huge 
bribes just to get them out of jail. Thanks to 
the amendment, what was until now illegal 
detention is sought to be given legal sanction. 
Until now the police terrorised minorities by 
invoking Pota, now they don't even need to do 
that.
Narendra Modi's Gujarat is becoming more and more 
fascist - a place where minorities have no rights 
- and more importantly no one stops him. What was 
the need for such an amendment? No one attempts 
an answer. Pandya's father has been shouting that 
his son was killed as part of a political 
vendetta pointing the finger in Modi's direction 
but he is ignored. The Jammu and Kashmir police 
have claimed that the mastermind behind the 
Akshardham attack was caught by them, but Modi 
says it was Gujarati Muslims who did it and 
arrested five people, two of whom are well-known 
local citizens who ran relief camps during last 
year's violence. Everyone knows what Modi feels 
about relief considering he did not visit a 
single camp until obliged to accompany the Prime 
Minister. He had called the camps baby-making 
factories. Giving such sweeping powers to a 
police force which has not exactly shown itself 
to be either non-partisan or above political 
manipulation is dangerous. Human rights activists 
have spoken out against the amendment as a tool 
to harass and oppress the minorities. On the 
evidence we extend them our full support. Modi 
may not be listening; the country is!

______

[4.]

Hindustan Times [India] September 2, 2003

NOT A TREASURE HUNT

Nayanjot Lahiri

Archaeology can be made to serve many masters. 
Most of us  use it  to satisfy our curiosity 
about crumbling cultures and mysterious 
monuments. But there are others who see the 
exercise of digging into dead ruins only as a 
means to an end. 

For one thing, a judge of the Allahabad High 
Court wanted to use archaeology as a means to 
adjudicate upon a dispute concerning property 
rights. Archaeology, he believed, would be able 
to throw light on whether there was a temple or 
structure below the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya whose 
demolition by a well armed mob, I shamefacedly 
saw on a television screen on December 6th 1992.  

Other occasions have generated similar anguish. 
But the reason why Babri Masjid  remains sharply 
etched is because as one who teaches archaeology, 
I had scarcely imagined that I would witness such 
a willful wanton destruction of the defenceless 
past, presided over by powerful politicians and 
perverse persons pretending to be 'pious' 
protectors of Hinduism. 

But coming back to the question in hand, my own 
understanding is that the archaeological issue of 
the previous existence or nonexistence of a 
temple of any kind at the Babri Masjid site is 
irrelevant to the judicial dispute. The logic of 
why an excavation was ordered, thus, eludes me. 
The fact, though, is that it was ordered and 
following judicial orders (and not because they 
were "in desperate search" of evidence of a 
temple), the Archaeological Survey of India dug 
ninety trenches in five months and submitted its 
report three weeks after the excavations ended. 
As the report observes, "this is an unprecedented 
event in the history of one hundred and forty two 
years of the existence of the Survey". The 
ramifications of doing archaeology under court 
directions are likely to be troublesome and wide 
ranging. My competence, however, is only limited 
to professionally examining the findings in 
'Ayodhya: 2002-03', the report of the 
Archaeological Survey.

But, first, let me say that it would be wise to 
take some of the criticism that has appeared in 
newspapers with a large pinch of salt. We've been 
told that the report has neither provided 
interpretations of the structural activities nor 
has it identified excavated animal bones. The 
interpretation of results can take a pretty long 
time and it is unfair to imagine that any 
organization or individual can make detailed 
inferences in the three weeks that the High Court 
gave them to submit their report. Now that the 
basic report has been submitted, I seriously hope 
that in due course, such interpretations and 
analysis of animal remains, soil samples etc. 
will appear.

Again, I am surprised  that the Survey's critics 
think that it is with the establishment of the 
Sultanate that what they call "Muslim" glazed 
tiles and pottery came to be used. As early as 
1864, in the section sunk by Alexander Cunningham 
within the Multan fort,  glazed tiles were found 
from the eleventh century onwards. More recently, 
a pre-Sultanate familiarity with glazed ware has 
been demonstrated for Tulamba by Tanvir Hasan.

As for the excavations, by taking apart segments 
of the Babri Masjid mound, from top to bottom, 
the remains of human activities, going back to 
three thousand years or so, have been revealed. 
Just as today, in the past, a great deal of 
rubbish was generated by the mundane activities 
of everyday existence. Pots got broken, bones 
were thrown away after the meat on them was 
consumed and structures collapsed or were 
demolished to make way for newer constructions. 
Such debris, over the centuries, tend to 
accumulate and form artificial mounds of the kind 
which has now been dug. 

But what can they  tell us about the character of 
life and beliefs, especially those which connect 
up with religion, in this part of Ayodhya? My 
reading of the report shows that those who are 
claiming that the excavations have 'proved' the 
existence of a Hindu temple, are claiming more 
'proof' than the evidence justifies. 

To begin with, there is nothing in this report 
which would allow an early or a specific 
association of this spot with the hero of the 
Ramayana. Rama is a much loved god but, as with 
other such figures, his historicity cannot be 
archaeologically established. But since the epic 
where his exploits are described is considered by 
many to have been composed in the first 
millennium BC, we can certainly ask if there was 
any structure or icon in the excavated levels 
which would suggest that people then associated 
this spot, in some way, with him.

There are two cultural periods that fall in that 
time range but, what to say of a religious 
structure, there is barely any structural 
evidence at all. Some of the excavated artefacts 
can indeed have a religious meaning such as 
female figurines and votive tanks but these are 
ubiquitous objects that are frequently 
encountered in the arena of folk worship. There 
is nothing specifically 'Hindu' or 'Buddhist' or 
'Jaina' about them. Such worship could also exist 
alongside the worship of higher deities of the 
pantheon but, in archaeology this can only be 
clarified by the context in which they occur. So, 
for instance, excavations at ancient Bhita near 
Allahabad, revealed a shrine area in a house with 
a cluster of objects that included  a votive 
tank,  terracotta statuettes of seated women and 
an image of Siva and Parvati. In the case of 
Ayodhya though, there is no such  contextual 
association.

In the later centuries, some of the structures at 
the excavated site appear to have had religious 
functions. The circular brick structure (7th-10th 
centuries AD) which was damaged by subsequent 
constructional activities, can be described as a 
shrine because it is provided with a pranala or 
waterchute from where the water used for the 
abhisheka of the presiding deity/deities used to 
drain out. The absence of any images, though, 
prevents us from saying who was worshipped here. 
Worship areas where the deities have disappeared 
have been found in excavations but their specific 
identification has only been possible where there 
is an accompanying inscription. That Narayana was 
worshipped in a stone enclosure in  Nagari in 
eastern Rajasthan is known to us because this is 
stated in an inscription of c. first century BC 
from there.

What about the ruins of the pillared complex 
which lie beneath the Babri Masjid ruins? The 
Report tells us that what has survived of this 
structure is a 50 m long wall and a large number 
of pillar bases. The seventeen rows of pillars 
appear to add up to one or two pillared halls. 
Here too, there can be no specific religious 
identification.

In medieval north India, there were pillared 
mosques and pillared temples - not just Hindu 
structures but Buddhist and Jaina temples as 
well. The criteria for archaeologically 
demonstrating a mosque is simple - a wall 
correctly oriented towards the qiblah or Black 
Stone within the Ka'bah in Mecca. For example, at 
Mansura in Sind, all the remains of the mosques, 
one of which is pillared,  have mihrabs in this 
position. No such evidence has been mentioned in 
the report on Ayodhya.

If this is a temple, how do we, archaeologically 
speaking, understand its affiliation?  There can 
be epigraphs that mention this. In a Hindu 
temple, there can also be images that were 
presumably installed there just as in a Buddhist 
temple, there should be Buddhist imagery and in a 
Jaina shrine, representations of tirthankaras. 
The excavations have not found any such images or 
identifying inscriptions. This does not surprise 
archaeologists because they generally work with 
fragments from the past but would be highly 
unsatisfactory to those in search of proof. The 
symbols on the architectural fragments are not 
unambiguous in their associations either. 
Fragments with floral decorations like lotus 
petal motifs and the lotus medallion, are found 
in various religious structures including 
Buddhist ones. One square slab has a Srivatsa 
motif which is a symbol that is frequently found 
on the chest of a Jaina tirthankara. 

For those of us who wish to satisfy our curiosity 
about the material culture of the various groups 
who occupied this spot at Ayodhya, there is lot 
to be learnt from the report. But   for those who 
are trying to 'fit' archaeological data with the 
requirements of 'proving' or 'disproving' the 
historicity of religious figures and of temples 
constructed in their honour, the report is not 
likely to as 'useful' as the current public 
posturing around it suggests.   


Nayanjot Lahiri is Reader, Department of History, Delhi University.

______

[5.]

CAMPAIGN AGAINST CENSORSHIP AT MIFF

PRESS RELEASE - MOST URGENT - 15 SEPTEMBER 2003

CALL FOR BOYCOTT OF MIFF 2004


One hundred and seventy five of the leading 
documentary filmmakers of the country, having 
come together under the banner of a campaign 
against censorship at Miff2004, hereby announce a 
boycott of the Mumbai International Film Festival 
to be held in Mumbai in February 2004.

This follows a decision by the organisers of the 
festival, Films Division, Ministry of Information 
and Broadcasting to introduce a clause which 
requires Indian documentaries entered for the 
festival to be censored. It should be noted that 
foreign films entered at the festival do not need 
to be censored.

Since giving notice to Films Division and the 
Ministry over a month ago, the Campaign has tried 
it's best to keep channels of communications open 
with them. However, except for one meeting of 
filmmakers with the Joint Secretary (films) and a 
few stray remarks by the Minister, there has 
neither been any progress on this nor any 
communication to us.

As such, we have no choice but to boycott 
Miff2004. This is a shame because the festival 
was meant to promote the best of Indian 
documentaries and it can hardly claim to do this 
while it is simultaneously trying to muzzle the 
voice of the Indian documentary.

It is an accepted practice world-wide that film 
festivals are arenas of uninhibited and creative 
expression. No international festival of repute 
censors films. It is strange that Miff 2004 now 
wants to do this while it managed seven previous 
editions of MIFF without this regulation. It is 
even stranger that the Minster for Information 
and Broadcasting, Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad 
inaugurated the recently concluded PSBT-UNESCO 
film festival at Delhi where Indian as well as 
foreign films were screened without censorship 
certificates (or censorship exemptions), but the 
same terms cannot be applied to MIFF.

A question was also raised in the Parliament 
following which many parliamentarians have also 
protested the Miff regulations to the Ministry. 
However, the Ministry has not acted even on their 
representation.

As a follow up to the boycott call, we will undertake the following steps:

We will write immediately to leading 
international filmmakers worldwide asking them 
not to participate in the festival. Since this is 
a cause they all support, we see no problem in 
their supporting the campaign.

1.	We will also write to all the 
international film festivals abroad asking for 
their support in condemning the Miff action.
2.	We will seek support from different 
sections of civil society. Women's groups from 
all over the country are supporting our campaign 
and we will release a joint statement of these 
groups in the coming days. We are also in the 
process of gathering support from media 
organisations, civil liberties and democratic 
rights groups.

We will soon also announce many other measures to 
promote the screening of documentaries in the 
country, and to encourage the growth of a 
healthier culture of public screenings.

We request you to please give due coverage to this release.

Yours sincerely,

Pankaj Butalia and Saba Dewan
with Amar Kanwar
Rahul Roy
Sameera Jain
Sanjay Kak

on behalf of Campaign Against Censorship At MIFF

B-26 Gulmohar Park
New Delhi 110049 [India]

Email: <miff_campaign at rediffmail.com>


List of Signatories

1.	Aanchal Kapur, New Delhi
2.	Aarti Bhasin, Mumbai
3.	Abir Bazaz, Noida
4.	Aditya Seth, Mumbai
5.	Ajay Bhardwaj, Delhi
6.	Ajay Noronha, Mumbai
7.	Ajay Raina, Mumbai (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
8.	Amar Kanwar, New Delhi. (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
9.	Ambarien Al Qadar, New Delhi
10.	Anand Patwardhan, Mumbai (Golden Conch winner at MIFF)
11.	Ananya Chatterjee, Kolkata
12.	Anjali Gupta, New Delhi
13.	Anjali Monterio, Mumbai (Certificate of Merit at two MIFF's)
14.	Anjali Panjabi, Mumbai. (Silver Conch winner at MIFF)
15.	Anupama Srinivasan, New Delhi
16.	Anuradha Chandra, New Delhi
17.	Aparna Sanyal, New Delhi
18.	Arvind Sinha, Kolkata
19.	Arun Chadha, New Delhi
20.	Asheesh Pandya, Gurgaon, Haryana
21.	Ashok Maridas, Bangalore
22.	Ashwini Malik, Mumbai.
23.	Batul Mukhtiar, Mumbai
24.	Bela Negi, Mumbai
25.	Berkley Sanjay, Los Angeles, California, USA
26.	Bishakha Datta, Mumbai
27.	Chandita Mukherjee, Mumbai
28.	Charu Gargi, Mumbai.
29.	Charudutt Acharya, Mumbai
30.	Christopher Rego
31.	Daisy Hasan, Shillong
32.	Daljit Ami, Chandigarh
33.	Darshan Trivedi, Ahmedabad
34.	Deepa Dhanraj, Bangalore
35.	Deepti Seshadri, Bangalore
36.	Deepu, Bangalore
37.	Deepanjali D Pandey, Manila, Phillipines
38.	Dhiraj Kumar, New Delhi
39.	Dilip Varma, Paris, France
40.	E.K. Santha, Chennai
41.	Eddy Singh
42.	Gargi Sen, New Delhi
43.	Gauhar Raza, New Delhi
44.	Gautam Sonti, Bangalore
45.	Hansa Thapliyal, Mumbai
46.	I.K. Shukla, Delhi
47.	Jabeen Merchant, Mumbai
48.	Jeebesh Bagchi, Delhi
49.	Jyotsna Murthy, Bangalore
50.	KP Sasi, Bangalore
51.	Kapil Suravaram, Hyderabad
52.	Kavita Joshi, Delhi
53.	Kirtana Kumar, Bangalore
54.	Konarak Reddy, Bangalore
55.	KP Jayshankar, Mumbai. (Certificates of Merit at MIFF)
56.	Kuttyrevathy, Chennai
57.	Lalit Vachani, New Delhi
58.	Leena Manimekalai, Chennai
59.	Lille, Paris, France
60.	Lokesh Jain, Delhi
61.	Manjira Datta, New Delhi
62.	Meenu Gaur, Noida
63.	Meghnath, Ranchi
64.	Merajur Rahman Baruah, New Delhi
65.	Miriam Chandy Menacherry, Mumbai
66.	Monica Bhasin, New Delhi
67.	Monica Narula, Delhi
68.	Namarata Tandon, New Delhi
69.	Nandan Kudhyadi, Pune
70.	Nandini Bedi, Mumbai,
71.	Navroze Contracter, Bangalore
72.	Nina Subramani, Delhi
73.	Nirmal Chander
74.	Oisika Chakrabarti, New York, USA
75.	Pankaj Butalia, New Delhi. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
76.	Pankaj Rishi Kumar, Mumbai
77.	Paromita Vohra, Mumbai
78.	Parvez Imam, Bangalore
79.	Pawan Sony, New Delhi
80.	Prem Aman, Hyderabad
81.	Preeti Chandriani, Mumbai
82.	Priya Sen, New Delhi
83.	Radhika Menon, Delhi
84.	Rahman M A, Kerala
85.	Rahul Ranadive, Delhi
86.	Rahul Roy, New Delhi
87.	Rajashree
88.	Rajul Mehta, Mumbai
89.	Rajiv Mehrotra, New Delhi
90.	Rakesh S Katarey, Manipal
91.	Rakesh Sharma, Mumbai
92.	Rajani Mani, Delhi
93.	Ramachandra Babu, Trivandrum
94.	Ranjan De, New Delhi
95.	Ranjan Palit, Kolkata. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
96.	Ranjani Mazumdar, Delhi
97.	Rappai Poothokaren
98.	Raza Haider, New Delhi
99.	Reena Mohan, New Delhi (Best First Film Award at MIFF)
100.	Rita Banerjee, Delhi
101.	Ritu Kapur, New Delhi
102.	Rosa Basanti, Delhi
103.	RR Srinivasan, Chennai
104.	Ruchir Joshi, Calcutta
105.	Rupashree Nanda, Jaipur
106.	RV Ramani, Chennai
107.	S.K.Das Mollick,
108.	Saba Dewan, New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
109.	Sabeena Gadihoke, Delhi (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
110.	Sabina Kidwai, New Delhi
111.	Sachin Singh, Delhi
112.	Sagari Chhabra, Delhi
113.	Sahir Raza, New Delhi
114.	Sameera Jain. New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF)
115.	Samina Mishra, New Delhi
116.	Sanjana , Bangalore
117.	Sanjay Kak. New Delhi
118.	Sanjit Narwekar, Mumbai
119.	Sanjiv Shah, Ahmedabad
120.	Santosh Samuel , Delhi
121.	Sarada Vishnubhatla, New Delhi
122.	Satyajit Pande, Mumbai
123.	Sehjo Singh, New Delhi (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
124.	Shabnam Sukhdev
125.	Shabnam Virmani, Bangalore
126.	Shammi Nanda, Jaipur
127.	Shashin Tiwari
128.	Shikha Jhingan, Delh
129.	Shilpi Sharma, Delhi
130.	Shohini Ghosh, Delhi
131.	Shoma Chatterjee, Kolkata
132.	Shriprakash Prakash, Ranchi
133.	Shrish Dobhal, New Delhi
134.	Shuddhabrata Sengupta., Delhi
135.	Simantini Dhuru, Mumbai
136.	Smriti Nevatia, Mumbai
137.	Sridala Swami, Hyderabad
138.	Sridhar Rangayan
139.	Stalin K., Ahmedabad (Silver Conch Winner at MIFF)
140.	Subasri Krishnan, Delhi
141.	Subhamoy Sengupta, Mumbai
142.	Sudheer Gupta, New Delhi
143.	Sudhir Aggarwal , Delhi
144.	Sudheer Palsane, Mumbai
145.	Sujit Ghosh, Lucknow
146.	Sulekh, New Delhi
147.	Suma Josson, Mumbai
148.	Sumit Kumar
149.	Sunanda Bhat, Bangalore
150.	Sunil Bhatia, Mumbai , (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF)
151.	Sunil Shanbag, Mumbai
152.	Supavitra Babul, New Delhi
153.	Supriyo Sen , Kolkata
154.	Surabhi Sharma, Bangalore
155.	Surajit Sarkar, New Delhi
156.	Swagat Sen, Delhi
157.	Uma Magal, Bangalore
158.	Uma Devi Tanaku, Pune
159.	Usha , Bangalore
160.	Uvraj, Bangalore
161.	V.Krishna Ananth, Chennai
162.	Vandana Mohindra, New Delhi
163.	Vani Subramanian, New Delhi
164.	Vasudha Joshi, Kolkata (Golden and Silver Conch Winner at MIFF)
165.	Veena Bakshi, Mumbai
166.	Vijay , Bangalore
167.	Vijay S. Jodha, New Delhi
168.	Vijay Shanker, Hyderabad
169.	Vinod Ganatra, Mumbai
170.	Vinod Raja, Bangalore
171.	Vipin Vijay, Trivandrum (Jury Award Winner at MIFF)
172.	Virender Grewal
173.	Yirmiyan Arthur, New Delhi
174.	Yousuf Saeed, New Delhi
175.	Zaheer A Bagh, Ladakh

______

[8.]



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

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.

--