SACW | 13 Oct. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WIRE   |  13 October,  2003

Announcements:
a)  The South Asia Citizens Web web site is down, 
users are invited to use Google cache till 
further notice.
b) 'South Asia Counter Information Project' a 
back-up, archive area and sister site of SACW can 
be accessed at: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/
c) All  SACW and associated list members in India 
wanting to consult web sites being blocked at 
groups.yahoo.com   may openly bypass the 'ban' 
via: 
http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://groups.yahoo.com

+++++

[1] Edward Said slandered by Ibn Warraq:
  Correspondence between Pervez Hoodbhoy and Paul Kurtz
[2] Pakistan: Hudood Laws: Extremely misused (Beena Sarwar)
[3] Pakistan: Immediate arrest of Jirga members 
demanded who killed two lovers in Sindh
[4] Patents for peace and happiness (M.S. Swaminathan)
[5] India: Press Release by Jankshetra
[6] India: Yet another film earns the wrath of Hindu right culture police
[7] Book Review: 'The wheel of law: India's 
Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context
by Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn' (C.P. Bhambri)
[8] India: TV Spirituality: Bhakti Button (Harsh Kabra)
[9] India: Open letter to the IT Minister 
[posting on 'kynhun · Bri U Hynniewtrep]
[10] Resisting Censorship (Sevanti Ninan)
[11] India: Contempt of quote [The case against Advani] (MANOJ MITTA)

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

[1.]

SUBJECT: EDWARD SAID SLANDERED BY IBN WARRAQ

You will find below my correspondence with Dr. Paul Kurtz, chairman and
founder of the Council for Secular Humanism where Warraq is presently
being supported.

I believe that this exchange raises significant issues that might interest
you.

Pervez
-----------------------------------------

							6 October 2003
Prof. Paul Kurtz
Chairman and Founder
The Council for Secular Humanism
Buffalo, New York.

Dear Prof. Kurtz,

As you know, I was an invited speaker at the Council for Secular
Humanism's conference in Washington DC in April 2003. I enjoyed meeting
you and some of your colleagues at the Council, have read your books with
admiration, applaud your call for a "Planetary Humanism", and was
heartened by your principled public opposition to America's war against
Iraq. However, as I made evident in my public remarks at the Conference,
as well as to you personally, I was much distressed by speeches expressing
intense hatred and hostility against Muslims. One speaker (Armen Saganian) 
went so far as to advocate their violent elimination through ethic
cleansing. I was and remain disturbed by the Council's continued
association with -- and active promotion of -- certain individuals who
associate themselves with the extreme right-wing chorus in the United
States that bays for Muslim and Arab blood.

I am moved to write this to you now because of one such person, Ibn
Warraq, a member of your Council and a speaker at the Washington
conference. In an outrageous and disgraceful op-ed published in the Wall
Street Journal (Sept 29, 2003) Ibn Warraq attacked Professor Edward Said
of Columbia University, who passed away recently. Warraq shamelessly
accuses Professor Said of intellectual terrorism and fomenting Muslim
rage. It is hard to imagine a greater slur against a man who was among the
finest of people and a humanist to his core.

I knew Edward Said for about 15 years and considered him an exemplary
figure.  As you know, he spent much of his life advocating the right of
the Palestinian people to national self-determination. He did so while
acknowledging the reality of the Jewish people and the Holocaust. In a
1999 essay in The New York Times he wrote that "There can be no
reconciliation unless both peoples, two communities of suffering, resolve
that their existence is a secular fact, and that it has to be dealt with
as such."  In 1999 Edward, together with the Israeli citizen Daniel
Barenboim, arranged for Wagner's music to be taught to Palestinian
students in the occupied West Bank and thus created the award-winning
West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. For Edward "humanism is the only, and I
would go as far as to say the final resistance we have against the inhuman
practices and injustices that disfigure human history."

And Warraq? Best known for his book "Why I Am Not A Muslim", he has done
little more than replicate Bertrand Russell's arguments for deserting
Christianity. But he is no Russell.  Russell openly and honestly stood up
for secular politics, peace, justice, and humanism as universal
principles, applying them consistently in every situation. Thus, Russell
opposed his own country's wars and his country's nuclear weapons as well
as the wars and weapons of others. Warraq is blinded by his hate of
Muslims. Roundly condemning the use of religion in the Islamic world, he
is silent about the political uses of Christianity and Judaism as he
scurries around to gain favor with the neo-conservatives and the
Christian-Right in the White House. I hear not a squeak from him about the
United States having organized the great Global Jihad in Afghanistan to
combat the godless Soviet Union, the success of which brought to us Osama
bin Laden and his fellow jihadists. Nor do I find mention of the
systematic and deliberate subversion of secular governments in Muslim
states by the United States, or the unstinting support that it provided to
Islamic fundamentalist states such as Saudi Arabia until 9-11. I have
looked at Warraq's writings in vain to seek reference to the messianic
Judaism that drives Israel's unrelenting expansion, and the construction
of the world's largest concentration camp with an apartheid wall that is
25 feet high, five feet thick and 350 kilometers long.

This opens a larger issue the meaning of humanism in the context of
today's world, and the definition of a humanist. Surely a humanist both in
my definition and yours resolutely rejects the role of religion in public
life and affairs of the state; rejects the role of political and religious
ideology in determining personal ethics and morality; rejects the notion
of supernatural interference in determining physical phenomena;  and
affirms the right of individuals to make their own choices informed by
reason. Even as I write to you from Islamabad, I am fully aware of the
enormous import each of these carries within the context of my
environment. But, while these are necessary conditions for being a
humanist, they are surely insufficient.

In my opinion the very first, and most fundamental, premise for a humanist
is to accept that all human life whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or
of whichever nationality and race is equally valuable. This must be
accompanied by the belief that rational critical thought is the essence to
living a civilized, human, existence. These two premises, if taken
seriously, do not allow humanists to join the ranks marching in the insane
war of civilizations being fomented equally by some in the US and in the
Muslim world.  Rather, humanists must follow the lead given by Edward
Said, when he invited us and challenged us to "concentrate on the slow
working together of cultures that overlap, borrow from each other, and
live together."

If your conference and Ibn Warraq are any indications, American humanism
is facing a growing crisis. In these difficult times, reflection, rational
argument and moral principles appears to be too heavy a burden for some. 
They prefer the easy refuge of American exceptionalism and, for their own
narrow and selfish reasons, they are eager to help make people into demons
and support the use of force and violence. I urge you and your colleagues
to begin a wide ranging and sustained public reflection about what you
understand humanism to be, to consider carefully who your Council embraces
a humanist, and to confront those whose actions undermine the foundations
of humanism.


Sincerely yours.

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor of Physics
Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad 45320, Pakistan.

------------------------
KURTZ REPLIES:

October 9, 2003

Dear Pervez Hoodbhoy:

May I thank you for your letter about Ibn Warraq. We always take your
views very seriously. We appreciate your fine efforts on behalf of
understanding between Islamic countries and the Western world. Permit me,
then, to lay your fears to rest. First of all, Ibn Warraq's letter was to
the Wall Street Journal, not Free Inquiry or some other outlet sponsored
by the Council for Secular Humanism. We cannot be held responsible for the
views of somebody in another journal. Whether we agree or disagree with
Ibn Warraq on the issue of Edward Said, surely, he is at liberty to
advance his argument. Ibn Warraq's role as a Research Fellow of the Center
for Inquiry does not require him to submit all his material for approval
before publication. No reputable research institute operates like that.

Regarding the expression of different opinions at the Washington
conference panel, surely this is what panels are for. It is generally
understood that the host organization is not to be held responsible for
all the opinions expressed at a forum they organize. Conference panels are
designed to provide a range of opinions on any particular issue, have them
articulated effectively and for the audience to leave the panel better
informed as a result. In this, the panel was a success. That some opinions
expressed were unhelpful is an integral part of the process. In any case,
Armen Saginian's points were criticized at the time by Bill Cooke, the
Center's International Director. It is also important to note that Ibn
Warraq's views were among the more moderate on that panel. Concerning the
Iraq war, it is true that editors of Free Inquiry came out strongly
against the preemptive strike by the USA in Iraq. We did, however, allow
dissenting op-ed points of view. And Christopher Hitchins and Edward
Tabash, for example, supported the war.

You offer a pretty comprehensive, indeed ad hominem, attack on Ibn Warraq. 
You only mention Why I am Not A Muslim, accusing him of fomenting hatred
against Muslims. If this were true, it is inconceivable that he would have
been able to secure permission to use the works of widely respected
scholars for the four edited works which followed Why I am Not a Muslim
(which you don't mention). This includes What the Koran Really Says, The
Origins of the Koran, and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. And
surely, if his work was based on malevolence as you claim, this would have
been mentioned in the recent Times Literary Supplement article by Oxford
University's Chase Robinson. In fact, this does not happen, and Warraq's
work is praised for the positive contribution to Islamic renewal we
believe it is. Mr. Warraq has every right to reject his former Muslim
beliefs and to express his dissenting views. Surely Christians, Hindus,
and Jews have the right to believe or not-in democratic societies. Why
should not Muslims be permitted freedom of conscience, a human right?

Surely it is unfair to look for condemnations of American foreign policy,
or Christian and Jewish triumphalism in Warraq's work. His books are about
the foundations of Islam, a different subject entirely. We would seek in
vain for observations on the aesthetic trends of German art in your
professional writing, but only because we would be looking in the wrong
place for such material. And incidentally, much of the material you say
you can't find in Warraq's work is dealt with elsewhere. For instance the
issue of secularism in Malaysia was aired in Free Inquiry, (Vol. 23, No. 
3, p. 54), as are many strong criticisms of the United States' foreign
policy.

The work Ibn Warraq is doing, just like the work you are doing, is
invaluable to the ongoing project of encouraging a reformation of Islam. 
Ibn Warraq is no more motivated by a hatred of Islam than you are. And if
you disagree with him on his assessment of Edward Said, well take the
issue up with our blessing. But we see no reason to "consider carefully
who [the] Council embraces as a humanist" or to "confront those whose
actions undermine the foundations of humanism." Humanism is about
encouraging the spirit of inquiry, not shutting it down. Hopefully this
dispute can run its course as a legitimate academic dispute over a
thinker's legacy and not descend into a series of personal animosities.

Sincerely yours,

-Paul Kurtz
Chairman
___________________
Paul Kurtz, Chairman
Center for Inquiry
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, NY  14226
(716) 636-1425 ext. 201

____


[2]

The News on Sunday
October 12, 2003

HUDOOD LAWS: Extremely misused

In line with the NCSW's recommendation that 
Hudood laws be repealed, many legal and religious 
experts hold that these laws do not fulfil the 
criteria for providing justice under national, 
international or religious law

By Beena Sarwar

"This law is used mostly for revenge," says 
Parveen Parvez, a lawyer at Karachi's City 
Courts, talking about Pakistan's Zina, or 
adultery, laws that are part of the Hudood 
Ordinance of 1979. "Most cases are registered by 
parents against their daughters who have married 
of their own choice, or husbands whose wives 
re-marry after divorce."

Although overall, the number of women booked 
under this law hasdecreased compared to when it 
was first enforced in 1980, Parveen says she has 
only seen zina cases increase in the last ten or 
twelve years that she has been practicing.

In 1979, there were only 70 women in prisons all 
over Pakistan. By 1988, this figure was an 
astounding 6,000 (six thousand). The number of 
prosecutions under the Zina Ordinance not only 
multiplied, they became the majority of the cases 
against women being dealt with.

In three years (1994-96), the Women Police 
Station Karachi South, registered 113 cases 
against women, 94 out of which ((80 %), were 
registered under the Zina Ordinance. In 1988, 47 
per cent of the women in Punjab prisons had been 
charged with zina.

Besides the two kinds of cases that Parveen 
identifies as being predominantly booked under 
Zina, three other categories of women are 
adversely affected by these laws, notes Dr Farida 
Akhtar, president of the JUP's women wing in 
Karachi and a Member of the National Assembly 
representing the MMA.

"Girls who are raped are also imprisoned in our 
jails under the zina laws. Then there are the 
prostitutes - but some 'dalal' or other always 
gets them out. And fifth, there are those girls 
who are forced into this profession by their 
fathers and brothers, I have met such girls in 
jail myself, who say they were forced, and 
arrested during a police raid."

So shouldn't these laws be repealed, considering 
that they have led to thousands of women being 
unjustly accused of adultery, and then 
imprisoned? "But all these thousands of women 
have only been imprisoned," retorts Dr Akhtar. 
"None of them have been punished under the Hudood 
laws so far, because of the condition requiring 
four witnesses. That is what has saved them."

The argument that every law can be misused may be 
correct to some extent. But, thus stated, it 
addresses the wrong question. Certainly, the 
strict condition for four adult Muslim males who 
are truthful and abstain from major sins to bear 
witness against anyone accused of Zina, has led 
to most such cases being acquitted -- eventually, 
anyway -- 95 per cent, according to a statement 
by former Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat 
Court M. Afzal Zullah.

But conversely, this condition has also been 
inverted so that a woman who has been raped is 
also required under this law, to provide these 
four 'tazkiat-uz-shahood' -- or else risk being 
accused of adultery herself. Lower courts have 
pronounced severe sentences under the Hudood laws 
in several such cases.

Some such high profile cases of the 1980s include 
13-year old Jehan Mina, raped and made pregnant 
by an uncle and his son, and sentenced to a 
hundred lashes, reduced to 15 in view of her 
tender age. The blind maid servant Safia Bibi was 
sentenced to a similar punishment. In both cases, 
the fact that the raped girls had become pregnant 
was used against them, as proof of the sex act 
having been committed. The men were acquitted on 
benefit of doubt in both cases.

Besides sentences of whipping and imprisonment, 
several women have also undergone the trauma of 
being sentenced to death by stoning, the most 
recent case being that of Zafran Bibi in Kohat 
last year.

In all these cases, there was a huge public 
outcry by Pakistan's women's rights activists, 
and much unwanted international attention to the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And in all these 
cases, as in most zina cases, the higher courts 
of appeal acquitted the women. In August 2002, 
the Federal Shariat Court finally established the 
principle in the Zafran Bibi case that a woman's 
pregnancy was not proof of adultery. A similar 
principle was established by an Islamic court in 
Nigeria recently, when Amina Lawal was acquitted 
of adultery and the sentence of stoning to death 
awarded by a lower court overturned.

But in Pakistan, besides imprisonment, at least 
some women have undergone the pain and 
humiliation of being whipped, like Lal Mai, 
administered 15 lashes in public in Bahawalpur on 
Sept 30, 1983, and Rukhsana Yusuf, 15 lashes in 
Karachi Central Jail, on July 18, 1987.

The reason for such injustices, believes Farida 
Ahmed, are our flawed 'administrative and 
procedural' measures. As a member of the Special 
Committee constituted by the present National 
Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) to 
review laws relating to women, her's was one of 
the two dissenting votes against Committee's 
recent recommendation that the Hudood laws be 
repealed. The other dissenting vote came from Dr 
Sher Zaman, Chairman of the Council of Islamic 
Ideology.

The 17-member Committee was headed by retired 
High Court Judge Majida Rizvi, who also headed 
the now defunct NCSW; besides the members 
mentioned above, it included members of the 
Council of Islamic Ideology and religious 
scholars, in addition to lawyers and retired 
judges. The majority upheld the Committee's 
recommendation that the Hudood laws be repealed.

As expected, the recommendation once again 
ignited the ongoing 20-year old debate about the 
Hudood laws. Veiled Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) 
women demonstrated in Islamabad against the NCSW 
recommendation, and in favour of retaining the 
Hudood laws. The NWFP Assembly passed a unanimous 
resolution condemning the NCSW recommendation as 
part of the 'conspiracy against Islam'. Men and 
women activist groups demonstrated in Islamabad 
and Karachi in support of the NCSW, and against 
the Hudood laws.

Such demonstrations have been taking place on and 
off for years. But until now, the related 
reportage and debate was limited mostly to the 
print media -- especially English and Sindhi 
publications. Now, for the first time television 
in Pakistan covered the issue, thanks to the 
private channels that have recently emerged.

But two decades of a lack of public debate has 
contributed to the continuing misconceptions 
about these laws. People often assume that they 
are Islamic, and therefore justified. But, as the 
women's rights activist Nasreen Azhar boldly 
stated on a talk show recently, "Unfortunately, 
when anything that is done in the name of Islam, 
people keep quiet and are afraid to say 
anything." (Capital Talk, Geo).

Many legal and religious experts are clear that 
in any case, these laws do not fulfil the 
criteria for providing justice under national, 
international or religious law.

"If there are only administrative problems, it is 
another matter," says retired Sindh High Court 
judge Shaiq Usmani. "But there are flaws in the 
very drafting and enactment of these laws."

His belief that the driving principle in the 
religion of Islam is the provision of justice, 
and therefore, any law which leads to injustice 
cannot be in conformity with Islam, is shared by 
many, including Justice Majida Rizvi.

"We studied each line, each word, of the Zina 
Ordinance, to see whether those who drafted these 
laws correctly interpreted religion, and applied 
its principles," she says. "The majority of the 
members were of the view that there are so many 
flaws in these laws, that it would be impossible 
to correct them. Therefore, we came to the 
conclusion that these laws should be repealed, 
and if the government really wants to enact 
Hudood Laws, this should be done after a thorough 
study, and after there is a debate in parliament 
and in public to ensure that any such law is 
actually in conformity with the injunctions of 
Islam."

Like many others, she brushes aside the 
suggestion that this is God's law, and cannot be 
tampered with. "This is a man-made law, it was 
brought in by presidential ordinance, without any 
parliamentary debate," she asserts.

Dr Aslam Khaki, a Supreme Court lawyer and 
honorary counsel to the Federal Shariat Court, 
agrees. A product of madrassah education himself, 
he unhesitatingly cites the relevant Quranic 
verse or hadith when crossing swords with the 
self-appointed custodians of Islam. "The motive 
behind these laws was political, not religious," 
he states. "Gen. Ziaul Haq had come into power 
after toppling a popularly elected government, 
and he had to justify his act. The slogan of 
Islamisation was convenient for this purpose."

Groundwork for this step had already been laid. 
In a bid to pander to the religious lobby, Prime 
Minister Z.A. Bhutto had already outlawed 
gambling, horse-racing and the sale of alcohol to 
non-Muslims, instituted Friday as the weekly 
holiday instead of Sunday and allowed the Ahmedis 
to be constitutionally declared as non-Muslims. 
Rather than achieving support from the 
conservatives, each step only encouraged them to 
demand more -- rather like the camel who started 
out by putting a hoof in the tent, and ending up 
by ousting the tent's owner and taking over the 
entire tent.

The 'elections in 90 days' promised to the nation 
by the initially obsequious Gen. Zia turned into 
eleven long years. The war against Communist USSR 
in neighbouring Afghanistan provided yet more 
fodder for the 'Islamisation' plan, and extending 
the general's stint in power with Washington's 
blessings.

It was against this backdrop, with political 
opposition decimated by repressive policies 
against activists that included whipping, 
torture, and executions, and the religious lobby 
firmly by his side, that Gen Zia played havoc 
with the constitution -- in the name of Islam.

This havoc included the Hudood laws, introduced 
by presidential ordinance in 1979, and enforced 
in 1980. They deal with four kinds of offences 
that would from now be liable to 'hadd' (extreme) 
punishment, while the fifth part pertains to the 
punishment to be administered for these offences.

The offences, as defined by the new law, are 
Offences against Property (crimes of theft and 
armed robbery); Offence of Qazf (bearing false 
witness or making false accusations); Prohibition 
(drug trafficking and alcohol consumption); and 
Offence of Zina (rape, abduction of women and 
zina or adultery).

The fifth part of Ordinance, dealing with the 
punishment, is Execution of the Punishment of the 
Whipping Ordinance.

Two sets of punishments are provided by these 
laws, hadd and tazir. Hadd punishment can only be 
administered on confession of the accused or if 
the act has been witnessed by four adult Muslim 
males who are truthful and abstain from major 
sins. Non-Muslims can only bear witness where the 
accused is also a non-Muslim, and the testimony 
of women is thus excluded by default.

"So if a crime is committed in a place where 
there are only women, the rapist or thief can't 
be brought to justice, because the only witnesses 
are women. What kind of justice is that?" asks 
Justice Majida Rizvi. "Are they trying to say 
that Islam does not recognise women as witnesses, 
when the murderers of Hazrat Usman were caught on 
the evidence of just one woman?"

Recommendations of the 1997 report

The NCSW's recommendation to repeal the Hudood 
laws made echoes the recommendation by another 
government-instituted commission, the 1997 Report 
of the then Commission of Inquiry for Women, 
chaired by Supreme Court Judge, Nasir Aslam Zahid 
-- who was also on the recent Committee.

While the present Commission's report is yet to 
be made public, the 1997 Report notes that 
earlier, under the Pakistan Penal Code, adultery 
was a personal crime -- complaints could only be 
made by the husband of the adulteress, but 
females could not be punished under this law. The 
offence was compoundable and bailable, and if the 
complainant dropped the charges, criminal 
proceedings were automatically dropped. The 
punishment was five years or a fine, or both. The 
state could not be a party.

The Report summarises the reasoning behind this 
leniency: the authors of the PPC argued that 
within the prevalent feudal and patriarchal 
social structures, women were rarely in total 
control of their lives and actions.

"Making them liable to willing adultery in such 
unequal circumstances, where even the false hint 
of it would doom the women to life, would 
frequently amount to injustice. Besides, the very 
criminal liability of a woman would have the 
effect of enlarging the circumstances of her 
victimization, since she would then be open to 
blackmail, to threats of her implication in 
willing acts of zina. Finally, it was thought 
that such a provision would lead to the 
traditional rules and norms being made even more 
inhibiting for women and raise the level of their 
social oppression and of familial control of 
their lives. Thus the writers of the Penal Code 
concluded that they would not throw into a scale 
already loaded against women, the additional 
weight of the penal law.

"Their apprehensions proved only too true after 
the Ordinance came in. In the pre-Zina Ordinance 
period, there were only a handful of reported 
cases of adultery. As soon as the law was changed 
to include women within the scope of its 
punishment, allegations of zina started to run 
into thousands. This clearly indicates that as 
long as it was only the male who could be 
punished for adultery, there was a reluctance to 
prosecute. The Ordinance became a tool in the 
hands of those who wished to exploit women." 
(1997 Report of the Commission of Inquiry for 
Women, p. 65-66).


_____



[3.]

From: "Ansar Burney Welfare Trust International"
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:54:04 +0000

IMMEDIATE ARREST OF JIRGA MEMBERS DEMANDED WHO KILLED TWO LOVERS IN SINDH:

KARACHI:   The Pakistan's human and civil rights 
group Ansar Burney Welfare Trust International 
has demanded for an immediate arrest of the 
killers of humanity including members of Jirga, 
who ordered and  brutally murdered of two 
innocent lovers in Sanghar. According to the 
sources decision to kill Shazia and her husband 
Mohammad Hassan Solangi was made at a Jirga of 
Khaskheli clan in Sanghar, Sindh.

Ansar Burney, Advocate the renowned human and 
civil rights crusader and Chairman Ansar Burney 
Welfare Trust International has demanded for the 
immediate arrest to bring the Jirga members to 
Justice who ordered to kill two innocent human 
beings a husband and his wife on doing love 
marriage in Sanghar, Sindh.

According to sources, a Jirga was held at the 
house of the girl's father that decided to carry 
out the execution of the couple, and the 
innocents were brutally murdered by a firing 
squad on Wednesday, 8th October, for marrying of 
their own choice, which was considered by the 
Khaskheli clansmen as a stigma on so-called 
honour of their clan.

Reliable sources informed Ansar Burney Welfare 
Trust International that when the couple was 
caught near the DPO office, innocent Shazia was 
offered pardon, if she gave a statement against 
Hassan, but Shazia a true lover refused to give 
any statement against her husband. Then the 
innocent couple was taken to Nizamani Mohalla 
where Hasan was already confined in an Otaq of a 
landlord, where he was severely tortured before 
killing him along with Shazia.

Reportedly when the girl was picked up for 
execution by the firing squad, her father 
resisted, saying that he had pardoned her 
daughter, and pleaded for her life, but in vain.

“When the execution party brought the couple to 
where the execution was to be carried out, the 
girl reportedly tried to save her husband by 
coming in front of him. Both were shot in the 
head and died as the bullets pierced through 
their bodies”. Ansar Burney said.

Burney said both were shot dead in the head and 
the bullets went through them. They died on the 
spot and now their souls are asking and urging 
for justice. “No action has so far been taken 
against the killers and Jirga members”. Ansar 
Burney added.

The Ansar Burney Welfare Trust International in 
the greater interest of Justice, Humanity and 
Human Rights ask the Government and demands for 
an immediate arrest of the killers of humanity 
including the members of so-called Jirga. “If 
government failed to take any action for their 
political reasons, we will raise this issue on 
international platforms to safeguard the human 
dignity in Pakistan”. Said Ansar Burney.


_____


[4]

The Hindu, Oct 13, 2003

PATENTS FOR PEACE AND HAPPINESS
By M.S. Swaminathan

Indian scientists should be encouraged to assign 
their patents to a bank to be used for the common 
good.
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/10/13/stories/2003101302021000.htm

______


[5]

October 12, 2003

PRESS RELEASE

Faizabad, 12 October. Jankshetra, a group of 
intellectuals, writers and cultural activists, 
made an appeal to the peace loving people of 
Ayodhya and Faizabad to discourage the activities 
of the karsevaks coming to take part in the 
program organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on 
the 17th of the month. The appeal reminded them 
of the killings, looting and arson following the 
previous Shilapoojan program of the VHP.The 
activities of the Hinduttva forces has always 
played a great havoc on the common people. Women 
and children have suffered the most in the 
repercussion of such communal activities. The 
appeal asserted that only the discouragement of 
these activities by the general public could 
bring these antisocial programs to an end.


______


[6]

[The latest film under attack by the Hindu right ]

BAJRANG UP IN ARMS OVER 'VULGAR' MOVIE

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SUNDAY, OCTOBER 05, 2003 12:53:38 AM ]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=216487

AMRITSAR: The Bajrang Dal is demanding a ban on 
the ongoing filming here for Gurinder Chadha's 
Indo-British movie, Bride and Prejudice. They 
burnt her effigy on Saturday and petitioned the 
deputy commissioner.

The film, they alleged, denigrates Indian culture 
and values, by the filming of sensual scenes of 
our actresses with foreign actors. Their state 
convenor, Rakesh Madan, told journalists Bride 
and Prejudice was misrepresenting Indian culture

o  o  o

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031005/punjab1.htm
PROTESTS MARK SHOOTING OF 'BRIDE AND PREJUDICE'
Aishwarya shoots in 'old house' amid security
Rashmi Talwar

Amritsar, October 4
Protests marked the first day of shooting by 
Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai on the sets of 
Indo-British production "Bride and Prejudice" 
here today.

Activists of the Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu 
Parishad (VHP) burnt the effigy and shouted 
slogans against film director Gurinder Chadda in 
the busy Hall Bazaar area, protesting against the 
shooting here. They alleged that the film would 
exhibit "improper and vulgar" scenes that were 
against Indian and Punjabi cultural values and 
would adversely affect the perception of the Holy 
City the world over.

Mr Rakesh Madaan, state activist of the dal, gave 
a memorandum to the Amritsar Deputy Commissioner 
demanding a halt to the shooting of the film. 
They also demanded that the Censor Board of India 
should ban the movie.

[...]
PHOTO: Activists of the Bajrang Dal and the VHP 
burn the effigy of film director Gurinder Chadda 
in Amritsar on Saturday. - Photo by Rajiv Sharma.



______


[7]

[BOOK REVIEW]
Business Standard, October 13, 2003

A clash of civilisations

by C P Bhambhri

A secular state is always involved in conflicts 
and disputes with religious believers who 
constantly contest the actions of a secular state 
on the plea that their religious rights, as 
guaranteed under the Constitution, have been 
violated.

In the United States of America, the courts have 
been involved in resolving disputes between 
believers and the state from as early as 1803 
till today; in India such disputes began with 
launching of the Constitution in 1952.

The first Amendment of the American Constitution 
created a wall of separation between religion and 
State, but the 14th Amendment provided for the 
'principle of equality'.

Since then, all kinds of disputes have come 
before the courts about the meaning of the first 
amendment and its reconciliation with the 
principle guaranteed by the 14th.

THE WHEEL OF LAW
India's Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context
Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn
Oxford University Press: 2003, New Delhi
Pages: 324
Price: Rs 695

Problems have arisen both from the interpretation 
of the American Religious Freedom Act and the 
Indian Civil Rights Act, 1968.

A society like America, where mainstream opinion 
is formally 'religious,' is witnessing attacks on 
the secular credentials of the American state.

In India, where religion is considered a 
foundational principle of human existence, the 
fate of secular state is always on the edge of 
controversy.

Jacobsohn shows that the US Supreme Court can be 
'accommodationist' and give concessions to 
communities because American society, unlike 
India, is not burdened with the complexity of a 
religious heritage.

He also alerts secularists to the need of making 
a distinction between the 'neutrality' of a 
secular state in dealing with disputes arising 
out of religious beliefs and the impartiality of 
the state functionaries in upholding the 
principle of equality.

For instance, the US Supreme Court was able to 
pronounce that Mormons of America, a fringe 
religious group, could not indulge in polygamy 
because religion is not above the law of the land.

But in India Jacobsohn has shown that, beginning 
with the Shah Bano case, the whole issue of a 
uniform civil code is tied in with the complex 
web of Hindu-Muslim relations and the courts 
cannot ignore this reality of politics.

Jacobsohn has highlighted the tightrope that the 
courts in India have to walk by focusing 
attention on the decade of 1990s where they were 
asked to decide cases deeply linked with religion 
in politics - of the Sangh Parivar, S R Bommai 
versus Union of India (1994), Ayodhya, Dr. M. 
Ismail Faruqui and Others versus Union of India 
and Others (1994) and so on.

The Supreme Court not only had to adjudicate, it 
was also expected to defend secularism which, 
according to the judges, is "the basic structure" 
of the Indian Constitution.

This is not the only difficulty that Indian 
judges have faced. Unlike American secularism, 
which Jacobsohn describes as "assimilative or 
accommodative," Indian secularism is linked with 
the "ameliorative aspirations" of the state as 
enshrined in the constitution.

At every step in India, religious belief or 
practice is cited by some religious group, sect 
or sub-sect to challenge the state's efforts to 
reform society of its inherited ills.

The law of the state is considered an 
infringement of the right to practice and 
propagate religion. The priestly class is 
directly involved in every issue of social reform 
because it makes believers think their religion 
is in danger.

The worst is that, as the author has shown, the 
political class also takes refuge in the 
judiciary to escape its responsibility in 
resolving inter-religious community disputes.

In such a situation, even judges have become a 
part of the problem instead of providing 
solutions. On the Hindutva cases, for instance, 
Justice J S Varma took it upon himself to define 
the Hindu religion.

He said, "When we think of the Hindu religion, we 
find it difficult if not impossible, to define 
Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. 
Hence Hinduism is a way of life."

Who asked the judges to define and interpret 
Hinduism? Judicial over-enthusiasm can be 
dangerous for the cause of the secular and 
democratic constitution of India.

The book, which consists of nine chapters, begins 
with the 'Model of Secular Constitutional Design 
to Constitutional Perspectives on the Challenge 
to Secularism in India'.

While the chapters on India and comparisons with 
America have been competently done, the 
description of the Israeli state's experience 
with secularism is an intrusion and a dubious 
academic effort.

Jacobsohn tells us that Zionism is the core of 
the identity of the Israeli state and Judaism is 
a total religion and constitutive of Jewish 
identity even for the unbeliever.

Given this, to describe Israel as a secular state 
is to do violence to the meaning of secularism. 
The pillar of a secular state is neutrality and 
impartiality in dealing with multiple religious 
communities, groups and sects.

The Jewish state cannot be a candidate for such a 
role because it can neither be neutral nor 
impartial.

Hindutva has caused enough damage to Indian 
secularism; let scholars not complicate the 
secular struggle by bringing in a secular 
narrative from a Zionist state.

Religious fanaticism of majority communities is 
the greatest threat to a secular state, either 
for Hindus in India or Jews in Israel.

Jacobsohn would have enriched his narration if he 
had devoted attention to Indian constitutional 
law and politics regarding the rights of the 
minority community institutions because the real 
test of a secular state comes when minority 
rights are threatened by the majoritarian 
politics like that of the Sangh Parivar.

He has missed a great opportunity by wasting time 
on polygamy cases and not focusing attention on 
secular rights and the judiciary.

______


[8]

Outlook Magazine | October 20, 2003

TV SPIRITUALITY: Bhakti Button
God rides the ether as his angels, in many flavours, reach for sofa-bound souls
by Harsh Kabra
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20031020&fname=Spirituality&sid=1

______


[9]

[Reproduced below are excerpts from posting on 
'kynhun · Bri U Hynniewtrep' the web site 
currently banned by the Indian Authorities. ]

o o  o

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kynhun/message/39
From:   "tamilmalayalee" <gankai at s...>
Date:  Tue Sep 23, 2003  11:56 pm
SUBJECT:  OPEN LETTER TO THE IT MINISTER

Integrity and Sovereignty of the nation cannot be maintained by
censoring information.
It is not the government's prerogative to tell me what I should think
and what I should talk and discuss. It is unfortunate that not
everyone will have the opportunity to make his or her own viewing
decisions.
[...]
Does the government thinks that by banning an online group the people
would disappear? They would just form the group elsewhere.
And BJP should know that. How many times where the RSS and VHP banned
and how quickly they morphed into different forms and then
amalgamated to come back alive and healthy to carry on their
thamashas?
Do you actually believe that by closing one yahoo group others would
be scared??? Mr. IT minister you are wrong, Thousands would mushroom.
Thanks to you MR.IT Minister this yahoo group with just 25 members
now have 96 members in just 12 hours.
We are Indians and we were taught to fight back, not simply nod and
fall in line with your autocratic ideas and beliefs

Don't you (the government) see this as an opportunity to actually
have an insight, to read and to understand that group of peoples mind?
Don't discard this as a group of mere 26 people, these are just 26
who have the comfort of an internet access; there must be thousands
of people who share the same feeling. What are you going to do about
them? Gas them? Nuke them and Kill them?
If a group of people is happy that an Indian army officer is killed,
then that is surely a problem. It's really sad. Instead of banning
the groups try to learn why they would think like that, what forced
them to? Why being an Indian they feel like that or why they don't
feel they are Indian at all?
I plead to the government to send a representative to understand the
core of this problem, and not sit thousand miles away and ban a yahoo
group.
It is easy to press the delete key and remember if you keep shutting
peoples views and opinion then we the people will delete you too.
We will do just the way we threw Indira Gandhi away after the
emergency. Aren't you the guys who make fun of the emergency at any
given opportunity?
Isn't freedom of speech my fundamental right? Aren't you being a
dictator by snatching my fundamental right?

I have been a strong supporter of the BJP for years and I am terribly
ashamed that I supported them.
Banning yahoo group, banning condom from AIDS campaign??? I don't
need you to tell me what to think and please STOP teaching me my
culture my values packaged in your narrow views.
Do you (BJP) really care for us?
They promised "Ram Rajya" if THIS is Ram Rajya...then my vote next
time is for Ravan Rajya. (even if its an Italian Ravan)
No more Ram Rajya please we are (liberal) Indians.

The Central government has to wake up and smell the salt, before the
North East becomes a bigger Kashmir.
Kudos to Sify, Indian express and Times of India, for publishing the
news and complete URL for this website.
Shame on you BJP.
Mr. IT minister if you have nothing to do please go clean a computer
or take a yatra. Stop meddling with my affairs, my freedom, and my
speech. Its NOT yours for Grab.


______


[10]

Magazine / The Hindu
Oct 12, 2003

MEDIA MATTERS
Resisting censorship

SEVANTI NINAN

Censorship does stay quiet in this country ... 
nor does it achieve its objective.

ARE we proving to be a fairly 
censorship-resistant society? If recent 
experience is anything to go by the answer is 
both yes and no. The Government often has to 
retreat with egg on its face when it tries to get 
repressive, but it does not give up trying. And 
the vocal opposition comes from a small, 
media-promoted minority, while Indian society at 
large remains passive. However, the bottom line 
is that India has far less censorship than many 
other societies across the world, and it offers 
very energetic resistance to each attempt at 
silencing.

Take the recent attempt to censor documentaries 
being submitted for the International Film 
Festival in Mumbai, "Miff2004". It was 
unprecedented, asking that Indian entries obtain 
a censor certificate while refraining from 
applying that requirement to foreign entries. The 
stipulation was aimed at keeping out films on the 
Gujarat riots that would have embarrassed the 
Government. It had documentary film makers up in 
arms, they got a good press for the boycott by 
175 film makers they announced, and embarrassed, 
the Government quickly withdrew the new 
requirement.

Then came the attempt at Internet censorship 
through the blocking of a discussion group on the 
Web. It turned out to be a clumsily executed 
affair because the Internet Service Providers 
went beyond the targetted blocking they were 
asked to do. And it achieved the opposite of what 
it set out to do because it sent the curious 
rushing to a little-visited discussion group. 
Despite being blocked, the page could be accessed 
through an anonymizer site on the Net whose 
express purpose is to allow people to circumvent 
blocks.

An organisation in Meghalaya which advocates 
seccession had set up this group, and the request 
for blocking it came from the Central Bureau of 
Investigation (CBI). The incident served to 
advertise that the Government has now got its act 
together on the issue of blocking websites. There 
is a procedure in place, with a single authority 
which will issue instructions. There is a 
specified list of individuals and organisations 
from whom the request can come, and a chain of 
command thereafter. The single authority notified 
for the purpose is the Computer Emergency 
Response Team (Cert-In), which was created about 
a year ago, primarily to promote security in 
cyberspace for government organisations as well 
as private sector websites. This is its first 
brush with publicity and it is mortified that it 
is negative. It sees the blocking chore as a 
small, peripheral part of its work, which 
involves issuing advisories on security 
preparedness, and responding to emergency 
incidents in cyberspace involving hacking or 
major virus attacks.

The chain of command is that officials from the 
rank of joint secretary upwards in specified 
departments and ministries can request Cert-In to 
block a site, and the latter has to satisfy 
itself that a complaint is authentic and the 
action essential. Then it tells the Department of 
Telecommunications (DoT) to block the website, 
which in turn issues instructions to all the 
Internet service providers in the country.

Had the latter quietly blocked this one 
discussion group, nobody might have noticed. But 
they had never received such a request before and 
three of them (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, 
Data Access and Sify) wrote back immediately to 
DoT to say that since their infrastructure made 
it technically impossible to block just one group 
they had ("as per your directive") blocked all of 
Yahoo Groups, thousands of them. Eager compliance 
that triggered howls of protests, mostly on the 
Net. Internet service providers (ISP) after all, 
are more concerned about not losing their 
licences than about protecting free speech. (For 
instance, the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) 
took a day-and-a-half to figure out the precise 
modification that would be required for the proxy 
server based server settings for that page.)

Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which 
is a great thing. Nor does it achieve its 
objective. See what this attempt did for 
Kynhun.BriU Hynniewtrep, the Meghalaya discussion 
group, seeking a separate state for the Khasis. 
Its membership grew from 25 or so before the 
censorship, to 214 after it. The year-old group 
had meandered along unnoticed, with an average of 
three postings a month. Post ban, it got 23 in 
four days.

Last week the Department of Information 
Technology summoned the ISPs for a meeting to ask 
them to make sure that they would not goof up 
similarly in the future. It said it wanted to see 
that harrassment to Net users was reduced. 
Meanwhile a debate has erupted in the press over 
whether the sections of the IT Act, being cited, 
actually empower an organisation like Cert-in to 
impose censorship by blocking. They don't. But 
the Government claims inherent powers. Though 
protest has subsided, the ban on all Yahoo groups 
continues in some ISPs at the time of writing. 
BSNL for one, was continuing to block all Yahoo 
groups. Media vigilance on this issue needs to be 
revived.

One suspects that Cert-in will be more squeamish 
about compliance the next time it gets a request 
to block a site. As it is, this is the first of 
about 10 blocking requests that it has complied 
with. Not out of a desire to resist blocking: the 
others either did not come from the parties 
specified in the gazette notification, or they 
concerned cyber squatting, which does not fall 
within its domain. And the Government needs to 
review what is the most effective response to 
rogue sites: there is plenty of advice on this on 
the Net.

Despite some potentially harsh provisions in the 
Information Technology Act, 2000, India has not 
see much Internet surveillance or censorship 
compared to other countries which require ISPs to 
restrict access to certain kinds of content. 
Silenced, a new report on Internet censorship, is 
illuminating for what it tells you about 
censorship elsewhere. Australia requires Internet 
service providers by law to block access to 
material deemed harmful to minors. That includes 
not just pornography, but also information 
relating to crime, violence and drugs. In Myanmar 
it is illegal to own a modem without a licence. 
Internet access there is restricted to 800 
specified international sites, and a few local 
ones. The United States, some countries in 
Europe, China, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa all 
practice a greater degree of Internet 
surveillance and/or censorship than India does, 
though American courts keep striking down 
restrictive laws that the U.S. Government comes 
up with.

Our government may well aspire to compete. But 
vigilant Net users, an abundance of 
sensation-seeking media and government 
sensitivity to criticism will hopefully ensure 
that we will never be as efficient in our 
censorship as more organised societies are.

_____


[11]

The Indian Express, October 12, 2003
	 
CONTEMPT OF QUOTE
She was in charge of Advani's security on the day 
Babri fell. Her testimony is the most damning 
against him. And yet, Rae Bareli magistrate 
quotes her to discharge Advani
[by] Manoj Mitta

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 11: Anju Gupta, an IPS 
officer, was barely two months into her job when 
she was asked to take charge of L K Advani's 
security on December 6, 1992. Her testimony to 
the police, to the CBI and to the Liberhan 
Commission, is perhaps the most damning against 
Advani. So much so that the Centre has named her 
as the main witness against Advani. And BJP 
lawyers have, on record, pilloried her-even 
brought up the issue of her marriage to a Muslim 
IPS officer. [...].
http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=33280


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

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). [Please 
note the SACW web site has gone down, you will 
have to for the time being search google cache 
for materials]
The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net
South Asia Counter Information Project a sister 
initiative provides a partial back -up and 
archive for SACW.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--