SACW | 22 Oct. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WIRE   |  22 October,  2003

Announcements:
a)  The South Asia Citizens Web web site 
continues to be down, users are invited to use 
Google cache till further notice.  'South Asia 
Counter Information Project' a back-up, archive 
area and sister site of SACW can be accessed at: 
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sacw/
b) All  SACW and associated list members in India 
wanting to consult web sites being blocked at 
groups.yahoo.com   may try to bypass the 'ban' 
via:
http://www.proxify.com
http://www.multiproxy.org/multiproxy.htm  [a more detailed list is given below]

+++++

[1] Hiroshima Mayor urges Pak, India to scrap nukes
[2] Pointless confrontation over Kashmir (Brian Cloughley)
[3] The unblessed of Calcutta (Sarmila Bose)
[4] Gandhi on secular law and state (Anil Nauriya)
[5] Players and Bigots: Keeping Habib Tanvir's 
Naya Theatre onstage (Githa Hariharan)
[6] Rerun in temple town - Why all this activity 
in Ayodhya seems so familiar (Kuldip Nayar)
[7] Indian Muslims and Secularism (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[8] Fascists at work in Gujarat: Riot witness battered (Basant Rawat)
[9] Announcement from the journal Conservation and Society

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

[1]

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=42373
Pak Tribune
October 21, 2003

Hiroshima Mayor urges Pak, India to scrap nukes

Tuesday October 21, 2003 (1615 PST)

ISLAMABAD: Mayor of Hiroshima, Dr. Tadatoshi 
Akiba, currently on visit of Pakistan Tuesday 
urged the leaders of Pakistan and India to take 
clear actions towards destruction of all nuclear 
weapons.

Speaking about the chronic tension between India 
and Pakistan, he said that a nuclear exchange 
between India and Pakistan could result in 
millions of deaths the innocent people.

He expressed these views while speaking at a 
function organized by Pakistan-India Peoples 
Forum for Peace and Democracy with the 
collaboration of Citizens Peace Committee here on 
Tuesday.

Dr. Tadatoshi Akiba said that a single atomic 
bomb reduced Hiroshima City to scorched earth on 
August 6, 1945 and by the end of that year, it 
had stolen away 140, 000 precious lives.

The survivors' radiation exposure still causes 
pain 58 years later. He went on to say that both 
India and Pakistan should abolish their nuclear 
bombs, as it will bring pain and misery for their 
people.

Mayor further said that US in the name of weapons 
of mass destruction has initiated war against 
terrorism which he said has been failed to find 
any positive clues about the presence of nuclear 
weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking on the occasion, Dr. Nayyar from 
Quaid-e-Azam University said that most people in 
our society are illiterate and do not know the 
consequences of use of nuclear weapons.

Addressing the participants, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy 
from Quaid-e-Azam University said that the danger 
of nuclear war between Pakistan and India was 
growing.

Other speakers also shared their views and urged 
the both countries to abolish their nuclear 
weapons.

_____


[2]

The Daily Times, October 22, 2003

Pointless confrontation over Kashmir

Brian Cloughley
The present Indo-Pakistan confrontation is 
two-sided. It isn't unilateral on the part of 
India. And it isn't proving anything, either, 
other than that representatives of both countries 
can be ill-tempered to the outer limits of 
intemperate vulgarity
Last week President Pervez Musharraf told the 
Organisation of the Islamic Conference in 
Malaysia that confrontation between India and 
Pakistan is pointless. Actually he didn't quite 
say it that way: he said Indian confrontation 
with Pakistan is pointless which is a subtly 
different thing. Does it take two to initiate 
confrontation? The answer is, not necessarily - 
witness, for example, Indonesia's 'Confrontasi' 
with Malaysia in the sixties.
In similar fashion the Kargil incursions by 
Pakistan and the movement of Indian troops to the 
border with Pakistan last year were one-sided 
affairs and decidedly more dangerous than 
Confrontasi ever was. Both confrontations 
required and received a calibrated military 
response, but neither proved anything and both 
were examples of curious machismo.
But the present Indo-Pakistan confrontation is 
two-sided. It isn't unilateral on the part of 
India. And it isn't proving anything, either, 
other than that representatives of both countries 
can be ill-tempered to the outer limits of 
intemperate vulgarity. The continuing discord is 
grievously damaging to social and economic 
development. Apart from point-scoring, what's the 
point?
According to President Musharraf the point is the 
'core Islamic cause' of Kashmir. Well, now, this 
is a new one. I have not heard it being called an 
Islamic cause before, and I hope I don't hear it 
again. It may be the core problem between 
Islamabad and Delhi, but only because it has been 
made so by both countries. It may be a Cause, but 
only for the indigenous peoples of both areas of 
Kashmir, for it is certainly not Islamic.
Jammu and Kashmir State was never entirely 
Muslim. Through no fault of their own there are 
many Hindu Kashmiris still living in the Valley, 
and thousands more have fled from terror. They 
are just as much Kashmiris as anyone else who has 
family roots in the region. The Valley had a 
Muslim majority under the Maharaja, and might 
have been expected to become part of Pakistan. 
But as Alastair Lamb wrote, years ago, the 
dispute between India and Pakistan has nothing to 
do with the welfare of Kashmiris and everything 
to do with territorial nationalism.
Let's be quite clear about the Kashmir problem. 
Mr Nehru promised a plebiscite. His radio 
broadcast from New Delhi on November 2, 1947 was 
unambiguous: "We have declared that the fate of 
Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the 
people. That pledge we have given, and the 
Maharajah has supported it, not only to the 
people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, 
and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when 
peace and law and order have been established to 
have a referendum under international auspices 
like the United Nations." Nobody can deny these 
words. Just as nobody can deny there is no peace 
along the Line of Control and within 
Indian-administered Kashmir. (And before some 
people get above themselves, let it be said that 
Pakistan-administered Kashmir is no bed of 
law-abiding roses.)
Security Council Resolution 122 (1957) has not 
been withdrawn or modified. It reminds India and 
Pakistan that: "the final disposition of the 
State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in 
accordance with the will of the people expressed 
through the democratic method of a free and 
impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices 
of the United Nations." Nothing about peace and 
law and order.
But it is wildly optimistic to imagine a 
plebiscite could be held without peace and law 
and order obtaining. Under any conditions that 
might be expected in the foreseeable future it 
would be ingenuous (or, more probably, 
disingenuous) of any plebiscite proponent to 
suggest one could or should be held. But I 
mention it to emphasise that the Kashmir issue is 
indubitably international and remains on the 
Security Council agenda. Not only that, but the 
Simla Accord of 1972 makes specific reference to 
Kashmir.
In a remarkable statement, George Fernandes, 
India's volatile defence minister, said last week 
that 'Kargil and Siachen happened [because] the 
border had not been defined clearly in the Simla 
Pact', which is a reasonable point of view, at 
least concerning Siachen. (He was promptly taken 
to task, according to India Today, by Mr 
Gopalaswami Parthasarathy, a distinguished former 
high commissioner to Pakistan who considers 
President Musharraf 'pathologically anti-India', 
which I doubt.)
But it is deeper than that, because at Simla it 
was agreed by Mrs Gandhi and Mr Bhutto that 
"representatives of the two sides will meet to 
discuss... a final settlement of Jammu and 
Kashmir". To even the most prejudiced mind this 
conveys acknowledgement by Delhi and Islamabad 
that a problem exists and that it should be 
settled peacefully. Further, the Simla Accord 
does not exclude the UN from involvement.
There is nothing to be gained by saying, as 
Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha did last month, 
that Kashmir is 'an inalienable part of India' 
because flat statements serve only to further (if 
possible) divide all concerned, not just the main 
figures. There might be a headline or two, and 
approving nods from some domestic elements, but 
such declarations don't advance matters one step 
towards rapprochement. It seems, indeed, as if Mr 
Sinha's intention by this comment (and various 
colourful references to Pakistan) was to cripple 
any approach to moderation. Likewise President 
Musharraf must have known that his evocative 
words in Malaysia would only feed the flames of 
resentment in Delhi. Are Kashmiris doomed to be 
trapped forever in the revolving door of violence 
and supercharged xenophobic rhetoric?
The Security Council is in a difficult position 
because a plebiscite involving indigenous peoples 
disturbs Russia and China, for obvious reasons. 
In fact it isn't too attractive for Pakistan and 
India, either, as NWFP and several Indian states 
might have awkward notions about that sort of 
thing. The only practicable movement towards 
peaceful settlement is through bilateral talks 
fostered by the Council. This would take discreet 
persuasion, and the UNSC is now in a position to 
become involved in this.
But there are people on both sides who are not 
interested in a solution that would end the 
hideous barbaric violence. They seem indifferent 
to human suffering, but of course it isn't they 
who suffer: it is the people of Kashmir.
It is not an indication of weakness to state that 
the other party to a disagreement might have an 
argument worth listening to. It is, indeed, a 
sign of wise maturity. So let the UN bring the 
sides together for talks, without noisy 
preconditions. And let us have an end to 
melodramatic rhetoric and pointless confrontation.
Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who 
writes on international affairs. His website is 
www.briancloughley.com

____


[3]

The Daily Times, October 20, 2003

The unblessed of Calcutta

Sarmila Bose

I hate to spoil Mother Teresa's big day - but 
then, I can't spoil it anyway. The few voices of 
dissent have been drowned out by the great 
beatification bandwagon. A handful of 
rationalists, a few doctors in a district in West 
Bengal, India, the lone voice of Christopher 
Hitchens, who penned the no-holds-barred attack 
Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. That's 
about it. Oh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have 
called Mother Teresa's 'miracle' a fraud - but 
they have their own miracles to tout.
Indeed, giving organisations like Vishwa Hindu 
Parishad another issue to go to town about might 
be added to the list of the harm laid at Mother 
Teresa's door. For she has done harm, just as she 
has done great good, and especially as a 
Calcuttan I would be failing in my duties if I 
did not speak up about it on the occasion of her 
fast-track beatification by the Pope.
Anyone who spends her life in the service of some 
of the poorest people on earth is a 'saint' 
anyway as far as I am concerned. So I appreciate 
whatever service Mother Teresa provided to the 
poor and destitute and accept her as a 
fellow-Calcuttan. How pathetic, then, that the 
Catholic Church clings to regulations that needed 
to record a 'miracle' - some kind of 
super-natural feat, to be conjured up at any cost 
- before the Vatican could officially bestow 
beatification on her.
This has forced her Order to come up with the 
story of a woman in West Bengal whose tumour was 
allegedly cured miraculously by the magical 
powers of a locket of the Mother long after 
Mother Teresa had died. The story has been called 
a hoax by the doctors who treated the woman as 
well as by her husband, tainting Mother Teresa's 
beatification with the smear of fraud.
I don't mind the Pope making Mother Teresa a 
'saint' - this is something internal to the 
Catholic Church and none of my business. But I do 
have a problem when recognition of Mother Teresa 
by her own Church has to be based on a lie. Why 
couldn't her work be enough to merit recognition? 
The very process of making her a 'saint' has 
further encouraged superstition and obscurantism. 
Perhaps many other poor people will now decide to 
go for a Mother Teresa locket when they are ill, 
instead of going to a medical clinic. That 
certainly does not serve the cause of humanity.
Perhaps the greatest harm she did to the very 
poor she said she served was her total opposition 
to both abortion and contraception, in accordance 
with her orthodox Catholic faith. She worked in a 
sea of poverty that is India, yet opposed one of 
India's most important anti-poverty policies - 
its population control programme. When I visited 
her orphanage I was grateful to her for taking in 
babies abandoned in the streets of Calcutta, but 
there would be fewer abandoned and unwanted 
babies all around if India's family planning 
programme were more successful. She had the right 
to her own faith, but her public work based on 
that faith collided with what was better for 
society.
For someone about to become a saint, Mother 
Teresa was cosy with nasty dictators like the 
Duvaliers of Haiti and notorious swindlers like 
Charles Keating of the USA. She did not hesitate 
to declare that the Duvaliers loved the poor, and 
did not care that Keating had stolen a lot of 
money from people who weren't rich, just because 
he gave her some. In fact, she received lots of 
money from lots of people and it is worrying when 
Christopher Hitchens reports that none of it is 
accounted for through any public audit. It is 
also true, as Hitchens points out, that her 
institutions offer only simple, rudimentary 
service, so the vast funds do not seem to have 
been used to upgrade and modernise the care 
provided.
Some people have criticised Mother Teresa for 
proselytising in the guise of caring for the 
dying and destitute. Frankly, if a sick man died 
with dignity in her home having technically 
become a Catholic, it is infinitely preferable to 
his dying a non-Catholic in the gutters of 
Calcutta. More important is the question, how 
many of the 'dying' would have benefited from 
modern medical care available in Calcutta?
If Mother Teresa did not provide medical care to 
those who needed it when it was readily 
available, that would be reprehensible. In her 
last years Mother Teresa herself received some of 
the best medical care in modern facilities with 
whole teams of doctors and nurses looking after 
her every time she was taken ill. Her critics say 
that the destitute who died in her institution 
were not afforded the same option.
Those who criticise Mother Teresa have been 
accused of trying to hide their embarrassment at 
the reality of a foreign woman spending her life 
caring for desperately poor people about whom so 
many of their countrymen do nothing. This is the 
most grotesquely unjust insult to the many 
individuals in Calcutta who serve the poor and 
disadvantaged throughout their lives. Some of 
them are associated with religious orders, some 
are not. Some are foreign too, but most are 
Indian.
Unlike Mother Teresa, many other social workers 
seem motivated towards helping eradicate poverty. 
Most are limited in scope, constrained by limited 
budgets. It is not necessary to put down all 
other social workers in India, and in Calcutta in 
particular, to highlight the good work done by 
Mother Teresa. Nor should it be necessary to be 
blind to the harm caused by the rigidly orthodox 
faith of Teresa, the Blessed of Calcutta.
Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar 
Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School 
of International Affairs, George Washington 
University


____


[4]

The Hindu, October 22, 2003

Gandhi on secular law and state
By Anil Nauriya

Gandhi and Nehru had differences. But they had 
strong mutual synergies on vital issues.

BEFORE THE mid-19th century, the term secular was 
sometimes used with contempt. For the clergy, in 
particular, it was almost a synonym for the 
uninitiated or "ignorant". The term was sought to 
be popularised in its political use by Charles 
Bradlaugh and Holyoake in the mid-19th century. 
It took time to be adopted. Even Lincoln uses the 
word only once and that too in a non-political 
context. Its usage lagged behind the formation of 
nation-states. When more democratic forms of 
government came to be established the political 
usage correspondingly increased.

The Motilal Nehru Committee Report on the 
Principles of the Constitution of India in 1928 
makes no reference to the word itself though the 
spirit of the Report is entirely secular. The 
Karachi Resolution in March 1931, to which 
Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were 
party, stipulates religious neutrality of the 
state. Secularism is writ large on the 
resolution. But the word is absent.

A repeated usage of the term occurs early in 
Gandhi's writings and speeches in 1933. Two Bills 
were then before the Central Legislature. One of 
these related to untouchability. Gandhi supported 
the Bill, arguing that it properly sought to 
withdraw the sanction of "secular law" from a 
"custom that is repugnant to the moral sense of 
mankind". Such a practice, he said on May 6, 
1933, "cannot and ought not to have the sanction 
of the law of a secular state". In November 1933 
he defended the Bill against the charge that it 
was an undue interference in religion, saying 
that there were many situations in which it was 
necessary for the state to interfere even with 
religion. Only "undue" interference ought to be 
avoided.

Later, on January 27, 1935, Gandhi addressed some 
members of the Central Legislature. He told them 
that "(e)ven if the whole body of Hindu opinion 
were to be against the removal of untouchability, 
still he would advise a secular legislature like 
the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude."(The 
Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi.)

On January 20, 1942 Gandhi remarked while 
discussing the Pakistan scheme: "What conflict of 
interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims 
in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, 
justice, or the use of public conveniences? The 
difference can only be in religious usage and 
observance with which a secular state has no 
concern."

Significantly, Gandhi's use of the term secular 
in relation to the state is such as may, in 
contemporary political discourse, be described as 
"Nehruvian". That is, Gandhi does not attach any 
meaning to the term secular that would have been 
unacceptable to or unintelligible to Nehru.

This point is repeated as freedom dawns and Constitution-making begins.

In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian 
missionary: "If I were a dictator, religion and 
state would be separate. I swear by my religion. 
I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. 
The state has nothing to do with it. The state 
would look after your secular welfare, health, 
communications, foreign relations, currency and 
so on, but not your or my religion. That is 
everybody's personal concern!"

Gandhi' s talk with Rev. Kellas of the Scottish 
Church College, Calcutta on August 16, 1947, the 
day after Independence, was reported in Harijan 
on August 24: "Gandhiji expressed the opinion 
that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It 
could never promote denominational education out 
of public funds. Everyone living in it should be 
entitled to profess his religion without let or 
hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the 
common law of the land. There should be no 
interference with missionary effort, but no 
mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as 
it did during the foreign regime." This 
understanding came subsequently to be reflected 
in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.

On the next day, August 17, Gandhi elaborated 
publicly on the same point in his speech at 
Narkeldanga, which Harijan reported thus: "In the 
India for whose fashioning he had worked all his 
life every man enjoyed equality of status, 
whatever his religion was. The state was bound to 
be wholly secular. He went so far as to say that 
no denominational institution in it should enjoy 
state patronage. All subjects would thus be equal 
in the eye of the law." Five days later, Gandhi 
observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park in 
Calcutta on August 22, 1947: "Religion was a 
personal matter and if we succeeded in confining 
it to the personal plane, all would be well in 
our political life... If officers of Government 
as well as members of the public undertook the 
responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the 
creation of a secular state, we could build a new 
India that would be the glory of the world."

On November 15, 1947 the AICC adopted various 
resolutions on the rights of the minorities, 
repatriation of refugees and other issues. The 
aim of the Congress was defined as a "democratic 
secular state where all citizens enjoy full 
rights". Gandhi warmly welcomed these 
resolutions, saying at a prayer meeting that they 
were so important that he wanted to explain the 
various resolutions "one by one".

Speaking on Guru Nanak's birthday on November 28, 
1947, Gandhi opposed any possibility of state 
funds being spent for the renovation of the 
Somnath temple. His reasoning was: "After all, we 
have formed the Government for all. It is a 
`secular' government, that is, it is not a 
theocratic government, rather, it does not belong 
to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend 
money on the basis of communities."

In supporting a secular state, Gandhi understood 
that such a state would have to be backed by 
society. Instinctively he saw the historical and 
social relation between a secular state and 
elements of humanism in society. The relation was 
later neglected, especially post-1969, and this 
left the field free for Hindutva forces to grow 
in society. Six days before Gandhi was shot dead 
in January 1948, he wrote: "A well-organised body 
of constructive workers will be needed. Their 
service to the people will be their sanction and 
the merit of their work will be their charter. 
The ministers will draw their inspiration from 
such a body which will advise and guide the 
secular government."

There was a creative tension in the Gandhi-Nehru 
relationship. They had differences. Gandhi's 
religiosity was not shared by Nehru. Both often 
gave expression to differences publicly, in 
private letters to one another, and, in the case 
of an incarcerated Nehru, in his diary. Some 
writers have magnified these or focussed 
primarily on these. But they had strong mutual 
synergies on vital issues when the two would 
spring to each other's side. Gandhi 's positions 
on the secular state are Nehruvian in character. 
Likewise, Nehru's positions on the definition of 
the Indian nation are the same as Gandhi's. Both 
stand for territorial nationalism, thus clearly 
demarcating themselves from those in the Hindu 
Mahasabha, the Muslim League and the 
pre-independence CPI of the 1940s which would 
define nation or nationality on the basis of 
religion. It is difficult to work together even 
for a while if differences overshadow 
commonalities. Gandhi and Nehru pulled together 
for decades. Gandhi as Congress president in 1924 
retained Nehru as general secretary. He suggested 
Nehru's name for Congress presidentship on at 
least four occasions - 1929, 1935 (for 1936), 
1938-39 (on this occasion along with the Marxist 
Socialist Narendra Deva's name) and finally in 
1946.

Nevertheless, a Gandhi-Nehru divide was projected 
from various ideological platforms, some of them 
seeking to widen it into a chasm. The Hindutva 
forces, already stained with Gandhi's blood, 
projected the divide because, separated from 
Gandhi, Nehru made for them an isolated and 
therefore easier ideological target. The 
dichotomy was further emphasised within the 
post-1969 Congress because of a perceived need to 
assert specific loyalties. This perhaps enabled 
even leaders like, for instance, Vasant Sathe, 
who had been in the RSS in 1939-41, to present 
themselves as Nehruvian. Those tied to the 
pre-Independence CPI tradition of the 1940s, (not 
necessarily or always identical with the 
contemporary Left), also `theoremised' the 
Gandhi-Nehru divide. Some of them styled 
themselves as Nehruvians in relation to Gandhi; 
but not all of them held to the Nehruvian 
position where the choice was between the 
Gandhi-Nehru view of the nation and the Muslim 
League notions of nation or nationality. Some of 
the Gandhians too promoted the separation of 
Gandhi from Nehru. They picked on specific 
differences between Gandhi and Nehru and 
converted them into their own defining 
characteristic. For several years this enabled 
many of them to wash their hands of contemporary 
developments. But the hour of reckoning now 
approaches.

_____


[5]

The Telegraph, October 22, 2003

PLAYERS AND BIGOTS
- Keeping Habib Tanvir's Naya Theatre onstage
Second Thoughts Githa Hariharan

The crowd at the JNU City Centre on Ferozeshah 
Road was mixed - there were passers-by, actors 
and theatre enthusiasts, students and teachers, a 
few toddlers, and some frail old people who had 
somehow managed to get to Central Delhi despite 
the evening traffic. Once the two actors went 
"onstage" - a small durrie that had obviously 
been laid on many muddy patches before - there 
was rapt silence, except for the occasional 
spontaneous burst of laughter. Watching all this 
from the side was theatre veteran, Habib Tanvir. 
Just before the performance, he spoke to the 
audience. He said he cannot imagine a more 
compact, effective drama form than the one we 
were going to see; and, he said, with quiet 
conviction, that he could not see anything in the 
play that should attract censorship.

Watching the play, it was not the vexed issue of 
censorship that was uppermost in my mind. It was 
the realization of a rare gift we have: an artist 
who selects the best of our traditional heritage 
and puts it to use in our own times, to take on 
our modern cultural needs, problems and 
questions. Over the years, this is what Habib 
Tanvir and his Naya Theatre have done. Habib 
Saab's plays have brought together a robust rural 
voice and a modern worldview, and he has arrived 
at this point through years of learning and 
honing his craft. From the early Agra Bazaar to 
the renowned and evergreen Mitti ki Gaadi, his 
plays have celebrated the language, humour, songs 
and stories of the Chattisgarhi peasants and 
tribals.

The result has been a wonderful vitality, to 
which Habib Saab has added his own unique modern 
Indian perspective. This means the India of his 
plays - or the world of his plays - is not 
romanticized; or parochial; or bigoted; or 
complacent; or satisfied with easy answers and 
labels. Whether the heart of the play is an idea, 
a historical episode, or certain cultural 
practices and institutions, its overwhelming 
thrust is to question, and to do this making use 
of simple, direct, energetic rural performing 
traditions.

Habib Tanvir recently turned eighty. There have 
been many tributes to his contributions to Indian 
theatre, and to his continuing work to strengthen 
the vital link between the theatre and real life; 
between the people on stage and those living in 
contemporary Indian society. The tributes are no 
more than what Habib Saab and his Naya Theatre 
deserve. It seems only a natural and logical 
response to admire and learn from such an artist 
- someone who has helped us understand our 
strengths and terrible pitfalls, in the most 
direct and lively manner possible. Indeed, this 
has been the response to his plays, not just in 
cities in India and elsewhere, but also in the 
rural India his plays draw their inspiration and 
energy from.

But there has also been another sort of reaction 
from some rather predictable quarters. Imagine 
the scene: the auditorium is full, and there is 
the usual air of anticipation that surrounds you 
just before a play begins. The Naya Theatre is 
about to perform two of their much-loved plays, 
Jamadarin urf Ponga Pandit and Lahore. Then one 
man in the audience gets up and raises his voice. 
He objects to the plays the audience is waiting 
to see. The man has seventeen supporters in the 
large audience. What happens next? Surely the 
little group of hecklers will be shown the door 
so that the play can go on? This is what should 
happen. But it doesn't. Instead, under the 
watchful eyes of the district collector, the 
police "escort" the audience out of the 
auditorium to protect them from seeing the plays. 
The actors perform to an empty auditorium.

This incredible scene is just one of those that 
have occurred in the last few months. Like their 
colleagues in the preceding scene, the goons of 
the RSS-VHP-Bajrang Dal-BJP ilk have also 
displayed their love for living Indian culture by 
throwing rotten eggs and chairs on the stage; by 
slogan-shouting during performances; by cutting 
power-supply to the auditorium; and by forcing 
audiences into leaving, or performances into 
being cancelled. It is as if our acultural 
fundoos have taken it upon themselves to 
illustrate that the bigotry Habib Saab's plays 
meet head-on is only too real. Given their 
passionate interest in culture, the attackers 
have not even seen the plays they are attacking. 
On being questioned, some of them have come up 
with reasons such as "a jamadarin being shown 
striking a Brahmin" in the play, Ponga Pandit. 
"This is a direct attack on our sanskriti." Or: 
"a man is shown entering a temple with his shoes 
on." Or: "a pandit should not be called a fraud 
(ponga)." Obviously, these self-appointed theatre 
critics do not know that we cannot write a play 
or a poem or a film or a novel with set rules 
about characters, action or ideas and beliefs. 
Even worse is the implication that "Muslim 
artists" should only portray and criticize the 
"Muslim" thread of our complex social fabric.

The play Ponga Pandit is accused of being - no 
prizes for guessing the charge - anti-Hindu. The 
play is critical, but not of Hinduism. What it 
does take on, with its combination of pure fun 
and social incisiveness, are aspects of our 
society that need critiquing as often as 
possible, and from as many points of view as 
possible. The caste system; superstition; priest 
craft; Brahmanism; and untouchability. Any 
self-respecting Hindu would be indignant if told 
that this is what constitutes Hinduism.

As always with instances of cultural vandalism, 
the timing is important. The play is by no means 
a new one that has instantly given offence. Two 
Chattisgarhi actors, Sukhram and Sitaram, put the 
play together in the Thirties, and since then, 
the play has been performed by generations of 
rural actors. Habib Tanvir's Naya Theatre, in 
fact, "inherited" the play from the rural actors 
who joined the troupe. Naya Theatre has been 
staging the play since the Sixties, and all over 
the country. No one found it objectionable or 
called it "anti-Hindu" all these years. What then 
has happened to the play since 1992 to make it 
offensive? Could it be that those who pulled down 
the Babri Masjid have since been looking for more 
and more victims in our shared cultural life to 
demolish?

Every new attack on the already shrinking spaces 
of our cultural practitioners restricts and 
falsifies their art. Equally, it deprives the 
right of our people to information, ideas, debate 
- in short, a vigorous, dynamic culture, culture 
that is not a static thing, a statue or a 
building to be worshipped; but alive, evolving, 
and always true to the questioning, seeking human 
spirit. So the most obvious issue at stake is not 
just the artist's right to create and perform; 
but also the audience's right to benefit from 
this creative performance. We, as fellow-citizens 
of Habib Tanvir, must take on his attackers in 
our work, on the stage, in the media, and on the 
streets. And we must do this in a voice as bold 
and powerful as that of Habib Tanvir's plays.

_____


[6]

The Indian Express, October 21, 2003

Rerun in temple town
Why all this activity in Ayodhya seems so familiar
KULDIP NAYAR
It is too familiar, too repetitive. Who begins 
the exercise does not matter. The BJP may do so 
and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) would join 
it. Or, maybe, it is the other way round. It all 
comes to the same thing: the convergence of the 
Sangh Parivar. And each time, the RSS is there to 
plan and guide and act. The point to note is that 
the Parivar is there when the fat is in the fire 
- all of them right up to the Bajrang Dal and the 
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarti Parishad.

If you were to recall L.K. Advani's rath yatra, 
which divided Hindus and Muslims in the 
countryside of northern India, it started the 
same way. The declaration was to collect bricks 
for the temple at Ayodhya. The entire Parivar 
chipped in. When it came to the demolition of the 
Babri Masjid, everyone lent a hand.

Similar was the pattern when the VHP began its 
campaign to have ''darshan'' at the makeshift 
temple built at the site where the Babri Masjid 
once stood. The BJP first stayed aloof lest its 
Central government be seen to be mixed up in the 
affair. Then, as the day of ''darshan'' 
approached, BJP President Venkaiah Naidu came out 
in open support. The RSS, so far content to act 
behind the scenes, then publicly joined the VHP 
with the warning that the atmosphere could turn 
foul. It even said that the best policy to tackle 
tension was to build the temple. So once again 
the Sangh Parivar converged at the same point, 
whatever the route different members took to 
reach it.

The sad part is the Central government's 
prevarication. After his return from his tour of 
Southeast Asia, the first comment Prime Minister 
Atal Bihari Vajpayee made was to ask the nation 
to trust the VHP, which he said had announced a 
peaceful agitation. The deputy prime minister, 
also the home minister, was more categorical. He 
asked Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh 
Yadav not only to allow peaceful ''darshan'' but 
also to permit a get-together outside the 
makeshift temple. In the meantime, VHP General 
Secretary Praveen Togadia carried on spouting 
poison. He said there could be communal riots if 
VHP activists were stopped from marching to 
Ayodhya. The Parishad even talked about the 
hundreds of mosques it had yet to pull down.

There was not even a whimper of protest from the 
home minister, who now has Pota in his arsenal. 
Even ugly threats by the VHP went unnoticed. If 
SIMI, a body of Muslim fanatics, can be banned, 
then what stops the government from banning the 
VHP? The difference is that the latter is part of 
the Sangh Parivar, which includes the ruling BJP.

History has strange twists. When the Babri Masjid 
was demolished, the Uttar Pradesh government was 
under the BJP. The Congress was at the Centre. 
This time when the VHP has gone berserk, the 
state is under Mulayam's Samajwadi Party and the 
Centre under the BJP-led National Democratic 
Alliance. Then the state government failed and 
the Centre looked the other way. This time the 
state stood firm but the Centre played tricks, 
thankfully without giving the VHP direct support. 
It is reported that the RSS told the VHP not to 
push things beyond repair at a time when the BJP 
is contesting four state elections and when Lok 
Sabha polls are only a year away.

The result is that the VHP's agitation did not 
take off, although it managed to have some 10,000 
workers arrested. It conveyed two things. One, if 
a state was firm and planned ahead to curb 
mischief, communal forces could be thwarted. Two, 
the temple was an overplayed card. It has ceased 
to attract people. The Sangh Parivar will be 
making a mistake if it believes that it can get 
votes in the name of the temple. The VHP's 
tantrums have only strengthened Mulayam Singh 
Yadav and weakened the Parivar.

It is comical that the makeshift temple which is 
a point of controversy was not supposed to be 
there. It was built during the night following 
the destruction of the masjid. The state was then 
under president's rule. I recall the then prime 
minister, Narasimha Rao, assuring some of us 
senior journalists that the mandir would not be 
there ''for long''. He did not explain how the 
central forces, which were already in Lucknow, 
could not manage to prevent the temple from 
coming up.

Strange, on Friday when Hindu extremists were 
trying to tear asunder the fabric of pluralism 
and legal system at Ayodhya, Muslim extremists 
were wreaking havoc in Srinagar. Coincidences can 
be telling at times.

Ayodhya is a temple town in the Hindu majority 
state of Uttar Pradesh while Srinagar is a 
picturesque city in the Muslim majority state of 
Jammu and Kashmir. Both had planned their moves 
days in advance. The message they gave was 
similar: when religion was sought to be 
politicised, the law and security forces should 
be pushed into the background.

True, the intent of extremists in Kashmir and 
Uttar Pradesh cannot be compared. The former are 
trying to wrest the Valley away from the rest of 
the country through terrorism, assisted by 
elements from across the border. The second set 
of extremists are destroying India in a different 
way, targeting its ethos of secularism. Still, 
where the two coincide is in their communal 
approach - one would do anything to Islamise 
Kashmir and the other to Hinduise India.

New Delhi is justifiably firm in fighting the 
terrorists in Kashmir because it is a low-level 
war for secession. There is no doubt that we will 
win this war, sooner or later. But I am not sure 
about how we would emerge from the war against 
bigotry and extremism. The BJP-led government at 
the Centre does not seem to be sincere about it. 
Its pronouncements may, at times, be in support 
of pluralism. But its actions betray the support 
for Hindutva through and through.

______


[7]

(Secular Perspective Oct.16-31, 2003)
INDIAN MUSLIMS AND SECULARISM

Asghar Ali Engineer

Indian Muslims are facing acute challenge today 
thanks to critical situation of communalism in 
India today. The aggressive rise of Sangh Parivar 
has made great difference to their existence. The 
history of their attitude to secularism is also 
quite zigzag and interesting. It must be, 
however, noted that no community as huge as 
Indian Muslims should or can be homogenised. The 
Indian Muslims have been immensely diverse in all 
senses - religious, ideological, cultural, 
lingual as well as political. In addition to all 
this, they have, somewhat like Hindus, caste 
diversity too, although short of untouchability.

It would thus be wrong to talk of, as we often 
do, any uniform attitude of Indian Muslims to 
secularism. We have to note one more thing about 
Indian Muslims that they are in minority and all 
minorities whether cultural, religious or 
linguistic, tend to, in the moment of crisis 
whether perceived or real, which threatens their 
existence, adopt somewhat uniform pattern of 
behaviour though this uniformity is more apparent 
than real. This apparent uniformity of behaviour 
in moments of crisis is not only taken real by 
many but also is thought to be of permanent 
nature. We will throw some light on this little 
later.

The question of secularism and Indian Muslims is 
not new. It arose as early as mid eighties when 
the Indian National Congress was formed. It was 
founders of Indian National Congress fully aware 
of multi-religious character of Indian society, 
adopted secularism as an anchor sheet of 
political policy. Indian Muslims were split even 
then in their attitude towards Indian National 
congress and its policy of secularism. Some 
Muslims led by Badruddin Tyebji not only attended 
the Bombay session of INC but they wholeheartedly 
approved of its policies. Another section of 
Muslims, on the other hand, led by Sir Syed, a 
great advocate of modern education among Muslims, 
thought it fit that Muslims should keep their 
distance from the Congress as it would anger the 
British rulers.

However, what is more interesting that the 
orthodox Ulama led by Maulana Qasim Ahmed 
Nanotvi, the founder of Darul 'Ulum Deoband, 
urged upon Muslims to join the Indian National 
congress and fight shoulder to shoulder with 
their Hindu brethren to expel Britishers from 
this country. Maulana Qasim Ahmed Nanotvi even 
issued a fatwa requiring Muslims to join Indian 
National Congress to fight against the 
Britishers. Not only this he collected 100 such 
fatwas and published them in the form of a book 
called Nusrat al-Ahrar which meant helping the 
freedom fighters.

Thus even the orthodox 'ulama did not hesitate to 
accept secular policies of Indian National 
Congress during nineteenth century. These 'ulama 
later formed an organisation 
Jami'at-ul-'Ulama-i-Hind which consistently 
remained with INC and supported all its secular 
policies. These 'ulama urged upon Mahatma Gandhi 
to take up the cause of the Khilafat movement 
which the Mahatma did and it drew large number of 
Muslims to the Congress fold. Thus the 
Jam'at-ul-'Ulama-i-Hind had the credit of 
bringing Indian Muslims to accept the dream of 
secular India.

It is also interesting to note that the Jami'at 
never compromised on its support to the concept 
of secular India and opposed two nation theory of 
Jinnah tooth and nail. The contribution of 
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani who was president of 
Jami'at when the controversial theory of two 
nation was propounded, was quite seminal. He 
urged Indian Muslims not to be misled by the 
Muslim League propaganda and throw their lot with 
composite nationalism.

Thus it would be a serious mistake to think that 
all Indian Muslims supported the Pakistan 
movement. In fact not only the 
Jami'at-ul-'Ulama-i-Hind but also the All India 
Momin conference which was the organisation of 
weaving community among Muslims opposed formation 
of Pakistan and threw its lot with the Congress 
and its secular policies. In fact all low caste 
Muslims had hardly any interest in formation of 
Pakistan as it was perceived, and rightly so, for 
the benefit of upper class Muslim elite. 
Unfortunately these Muslims had no voice as 
franchise was limited only to upper class, upper 
caste Hindus and Muslims. Thus they could not 
influence the decision for partitioning the 
country and the unfortunate thing happened. Thus 
the entire responsibility of partition rests on 
the Hindu and Muslim elite of the time. The 
masses from both the communities were left high 
and dry.

                                  II

In post independence India too Muslims had 
diverse attitude towards secularism. Now they 
were much reduced and weakened minority. The 
educated elite, especially from U.P. and Bihar, 
had migrated to Pakistan. The poor Muslim masses 
that could hardly gain anything by migration 
remained in India and saw their safety in 
clinging to the Congress ideology of secularism.

However, secularism followed a very zigzag course 
in post-independence India too. Though Jawaharlal 
Nehru was firmly committed to secularism many of 
his fellow Congressmen had, to say the least, 
highly ambiguous attitude towards secular 
philosophy. It is interesting to note that Shri 
Gobind Ballabh Pant, the then chief Minister of 
U.P. did not make any efforts to remove the idol 
of Ram Lallah which was installed inside Babri 
Masjid in 1948 despite strong letters from Nehru 
and Sardar Patel. His commitment to secularism 
was certainly not as firm as that of Jawaharlal 
Nehru. Had he firmly asserted his authority and 
got the idol removed India perhaps would not have 
faced such disaster as it did since late eighties 
when the Sangh Parivar decided to ride to power 
on Ram Lallah and seriously weaken the secular 
character of India.

Indian Muslims' faith in secularism too had 
diverse trends. The Jamat-e-Islami-i-Hind, which 
followed the guide lines laid down by Maulana 
Maududi at the time of his migration to Pakistan 
and rejected secularism as an "atheistic 
philosophy" and accepting it would amount to 
"rebellion against Allah and His messenger." 
However, the Jamat, it must be noted, was a cadre 
based party and had very little following among 
the Muslims. The Jamat too, accepted democratic 
secular political philosophy in the post-Babri 
demolition period and set up a secular democratic 
front and has been ever since making efforts for 
communal harmony along with many NGOs and Human 
Rights activists.

Many politicians and scholars see in Muslims 
'duplicity' of attitude as far as secularism and 
secular issues are concerned. Firstly, they feel, 
Indian Muslims invoke secularism for the safety 
and security of their existence but aggressively 
fight against any move for secular change or 
reform in their religious tradition. In eighties 
the Shah Bano case became the most cited example 
of this 'duplicity'.

It is undoubtedly true that a large number of 
Muslims were mobilised by the North Indian Muslim 
leadership to oppose the Supreme Court judgement 
in the Shah Bano case. But as pointed out above, 
Muslims have diverse trends among themselves and 
quite a large number of Muslims were in support 
of Shah Bano judgement but media which is more 
interested in negative reporting never covered 
these diverse trends among Muslims. In South a 
section of Muslim religious leadership also 
opposed the Shah Bano movement launched by the 
North Indian Muslim leadership. Many Muslim 
activists submitted memoranda to the then Rajiv 
Gandhi Government not to change the Shah Bano 
judgement but to no avail. The media hardly gave 
much importance to this dissenting Muslims 
viewpoint. The so-called Shahi Imam who hardly 
represents a tiny minority of Muslims, always 
hogged headlines in the media.

Secondly, the Muslims are often accused of 
keeping silent when Godhra like incident takes 
place. The Sangh Parivar even accuses the 
secularists from amongst the majority community 
of such an attitude. This is also not quite true. 
No sensible Muslim would ever approve of such 
highly condemnable incidents. Many did send their 
statements to the press but either did not find 
place in the papers or were reported on inside 
pages not very prominently. Now of course in view 
of such repeated accusations number of Muslims 
are not only issuing statements but organising 
events like protest meeting etc. in order that 
the media take notice of their condemnation. 
After the bomb blast in Mumbai on 25th August 
number of Muslims in Mumbai held a high profile 
meeting to condemn the bomb blast. The Muslims in 
Muslim areas even organised spontaneous bandh 
next day after the blast. If one moves among 
common Muslims one will find visible sentiments 
against such indiscriminate violence by some 
Muslim fanatics.

It is also not true that all Muslims are opposed 
to any reform in Muslim personal law as it 
operates in India. As education and awareness is 
increasing pressures are developing on the 
personal law board to effect the necessary 
changes. Many educated Muslim women are becoming 
articulate critic of status quo and are demanding 
certain changes. It is a matter of time that such 
changes will have to be effected.

It is also important to note that new realities 
are emerging on the social and political scene. 
One should not take static view of Muslim 
situation in India. Many changes are taking place 
among the Muslims in post-Babri demolition and 
now post-Gujarat carnage period. The trend for 
secular education is increasing most certainly 
and more and more educational institutions are 
coming up. Madrasa education is here to stay 
among poorer Muslims but trend for secular 
education is no less significant. The need for 
secular education and secular values was never 
felt so strongly among Muslims as today. The rise 
in aggressive Sangh communalism is a challenge 
that the Muslim leaders and intellectuals should 
use creatively for a healthy change. Every 
challenge also brings some hidden opportunities.

______


[8]

The Telegraph, October 22, 2003

Riot witness battered

BASANT RAWAT
Ahmedabad, Oct. 21: Rehman Shakoorbhai Saiyed 
dared to name his children's killers and got 
battered black and blue for it.

A group of 20 hoodlums, armed with hockey sticks 
and swords, last night descended on Faizal Park 
Society and thrashed him for having told the 
Nanavati Commission the names of the culprits who 
burnt three of his children alive in Naroda-Patia 
during the Godhra riots.

All his terrified fellow residents could do was 
switch off lights, bolt doors and pray for their 
lives as the goons attacked and bludgeoned the 
40-year-old. Done, they brandished their swords 
and did the rounds of the society in Vatva where 
nearly 45 riot-stricken families of Naroda-Patia 
have been rehabilitated.

Saiyed is one of the four key witnesses of the 
carnage who deposed before the commission probing 
the riots earlier this month. Having seen his 
children burn alive, he named one Bhawani Sinh 
and Goodu as the main culprits and also slammed 
police for instigating trouble during the riots.

Saiyed said Akram - the leader of the gang that 
targeted him 20 days after his deposition - was a 
local goon.

"Ever since I came to stay here 14 months ago, I 
have never had any problem with him. So, he must 
have been hired by someone to attack me - someone 
who is not happy with my statements," he said.

A Faizal Park resident, Khan Mohammed, who saw 
last night's attack, said the goons showed up 
only after ensuring that the constable who 
protects Saiyed had left for dinner around 7.30. 
First, the three persons sitting with Saiyed were 
told to scoot. Then the hoodlums began beating 
him up, screaming that he was paying for having 
dared to name names.

"I was too scared, so I left and went to my home 
and switched off the lights. But I could see 
Akram, Salim, Firoz and Imran dragging him and 
then attacking him. Saiyed has several injuries 
with swords and hockey sticks," Khan, who later 
took Saiyed to hospital and the police station, 
said.

Khan said the goons had made arrangements to 
ensure that Saiyed did not reach Vatva police 
station to file a first information report. They 
were seen loitering around on the main road for 
quite a while after they finished with Saiyed, he 
said.

Having sensed their motive, Khan took Saiyed on 
his scooter to Haveli police station, nearly 15 
km from Faizal Park. But they were told they 
could file an FIR only at Vatva police station. 
Even 24 hours after the incident, no arrests have 
been made. Investigating officer B.R. Machi said: 
"Investigations are on. Senior officers are 
discussing the matter.''

Sheba George, a social activist working with 
Naroda-Patia riot victims, said the attack on 
Rehman was an attempt to terrorise witnesses 
against speaking up. "This is a new tactic by the 
police to deter witnesses from exposing their 
questionable role during the riots," she said.


______


[9]

New in 2003!
CONSERVATION AND SOCIETY
Editor: KAMAL BAWA, University of Massachusetts, 
Boston and Ashoka Trust for Ecology and the 
Environment, Bangalore

This journal is dedicated to the theory and 
practice of the conservation of natural 
resources, particularly as mediated by the 
conflicts and tensions that accompany societal 
claims on these resources. A unique feature of 
the journal is its interdisciplinary focus since 
the scientific dimensions of conservation are 
inextricably linked to the politics and economics 
of effective conservation. It draws upon both the 
natural and social sciences, particularly the 
disciplines of anthropology, history, sociology 
and biology.

A peer-reviewed journal, Conservation and Society 
explores and debates contemporary issues 
concerning the environment. To this end, it 
covers basic and applied research in areas such 
as political ecology, human-wildlife conflicts, 
decentralized conservation, the structure and 
functioning of ecosystems, the ecology of species 
and communities, animal behavior and behavioral 
ecology, and conservation biology. Perspectives 
from the grassroots and from voluntary action 
groups are also included. Conservation and 
Society regularly features both submitted and 
commissioned articles, debates and discussions, 
and book reviews. On occasion, issues will be 
devoted to special themes.

Highlights of Volume 1 Number 2 (2003)

Kings as Wardens and Wardens as Kings: Post-Rana 
Ties  between Nepali Royalty and National Park 
Staff. Nina Bhatt

The Role of Local Taboos in Conservation: The 
Radiated Tortoise in Southern Madagascar. Marlene 
Lingard, Nivo Raharison, Elisabeth 
Rabakonandrianina, Jean-Aimé Rakotoarisoa and 
Thomas Elmqvist

Community, Class, and Conservation: Development 
Politics on the Kanyakumari Coast. Ajantha 
Subramanian

The Response of Agamid Lizards to Rainforest 
Fragmentation in the Southern Western Ghats, 
India. N M Ishwar, Ravi Chellam, Ajith Kumar and 
B R Noon

The 'Problem' of Shifting Cultivation in the Garo 
Hills, North-East India, 1860-1970. Bela Malik

Nature, Conservation and Environmental  History: 
A Review of Some Recent Environmental Writings on 
South Asia. Rohan D'Souza

Biannual: March, October
ISSN: 0972-4923


EDITORIAL BOARD
Chief Editor: KAMALJIT S BAWA, University of 
Massachusetts, Boston and Ashoka Trust for 
Research in Ecology and Environment, Bangalore
Executive Editor:
VASANT SABERWAL, Moving Images, New Delhi
Associate Editors:
AMITA BAVISKAR, University of California, Berkeley
R UMA SHAANKER, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
K SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, University of Washington, Seattle

Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages 
between society, environment and development
C/o Moving Images, 310 Qutab View Apartments, 
Jain Mandir Dada Bari Road, Mehrauli, New Dellhi 
110 030, India
Tel: +91 11 26524940/26601751; email: 
editor at conservationandsociety.org; 
http://conservationandsociety.org

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

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.

--