SACW | 25 Nov. 2003

[Harsh Kapoor]

SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WIRE   |  25 November,  2003

via South Asia Citizens Web:  www.sacw.net

_______

[1] Pakistan: What should minorities do (M.B. Naqvi)
[2] Bangladesh: Secularism: Constitution, Law and 
Representation (Naeem Mohaiemen)
[3] India: War films are right up the parivar's street (Saibal Chatterjee)
[4] India: Press Statement: Protest Against Narendra Modi At The
World Economic Forum, New Delhi, November 24, 2003 + Press Reports
[5] India: Hindutva family planning : For Sena, 
the more the merrier (Amit Sharma)
[6] India: Assam's 'anti-foreigner' blood-letting (Lynn Ockersz)
[7] India: The legacy of Kamaraj (P Radhakrishnan)
[8] Upcoming conference Promise of India   (New Delhi, 7-8 Jan 2003)

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

[1]

(Posted on: communalism.blogspot.com)

Pakistan: What should minorities do

By M.B. Naqvi
[24 November 2003, Karachi]

For minorities, including smaller sects of Islam, 
should not organise themselves communally. 
Instead of being protected, they may only help 
set up a cycle of revenge violence. Their best 
chance lies in the liberals in the given majority 
being mobilised for promoting tolerance and 
peaceful conditions. Counter violence, in the 
name of either defence (deterrence) or revenge is 
to step on a slippery slope, which is sure to 
promote even greater counter mobilisation by the 
majority. When a minority organizes a militia, it 
does so at its own peril. For, the majority is 
sure to ask: they are organizing (uniting) 
against whom? Its extremists are sure to magnify 
the danger from the minority and intensify their 
mobilization, making it more effective or 
murderous.

This is an unfamiliar and unsought advice and is 
not likely to please. The dynamism that results 
from acting on common notions is generally 
ignored. Doesn't every schoolboy know that unity 
is strength or smaller numbers can be offset by 
greater commitment? And yet, what is the 
evidence? No communal mobilisation by a minority 
can prevent attacks on its members in the 
fastnesses of the country. They can only be 
brought into action for taking revenge. That sets 
up a tit for tat cycle of violence. Once that 
takes hold, no minority can win; it is bound to 
lose more often. No minority can mobilise as many 
men and material as a majority can.

The experience of late 1980s and 1990s sectarian 
violence is before us. In order to take on 
Sipah-i-Sahaba, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi etc., the Shias 
had formed their Sipah-i-Mohammad. After a decade 
it is necessary to count who had more people 
killed? There is no doubt more Shias have died in 
sectarian violence than Sunnis. Supposing the 
Shias had not had any organisation for avenging 
their losses, what would be the situation. True, 
Shias would still have suffered, losses, in the 
dead and maimed but the total on both sides, 
would have been less. By the same token, panic 
and losses among Shias would have been smaller.

In order to illustrate the point, suppose there 
was also a Muslim militia in Gujarat last year. 
Would that have meant fewer losses for the Muslim 
minority or more? Resistance in kind would surely 
have meant much greater and even more efficient 
mobilisation by the majority. Total losses of the 
Muslims would surely have been far greater, even 
if many Hindus might also have suffered. In 
Pakistan, this temptation for defensive communal 
mobilisation is pointless for religious 
minorities like Hindus and Christians; they are 
too few to register on the majority's radar. 
Sectarian minorities have occupied the place of 
religious minorities. Majority community takes 
out its accumulated spleen on the sectarian 
communities.

Historically too, it is about time to assess what 
the Muslim community lost and gained from the 
partition of the Sub-continent, the result of 
excessive communal frenzy on both sides, 
involving world's largest ethnic cleansing to 
date. The Muslims thinking they would never get a 
fair deal from the Hindu majority forced the 
issue. As is peculiar to all communalisms, the 
Muslim League had taken the vast body of Hindus 
as one undifferentiated unit that would, for all 
time to come, take just one (hostile and unfair) 
view and oppress the Muslims. Like any majority 
Hindus comprised many schools and had their full 
share of communalists (who took the Muslims as an 
undifferentiated mass of united people who will 
always make trouble). More schools of thought 
will come into being with time. Isn't this true 
of the Pakistani majority? Aren't there many 
opinions among Sunni majority about treating the 
minority sects among Muslims?

The question persists: Was the Muslim League's 
victory in 1947, with the help of the British, 
the best solution of Muslim community's 
backwardness and poverty? If a separatist and 
inimical approach had not been brought to bear on 
the situation in 1940s to worsen it, Muslims 
would now be 400 million or more in India that 
could scarcely be oppressed or seriously 
discriminated against. Undivided India would have 
offered more opportunities for development. 
Despite the short sightedness of Congress 
leadership and its hatred for Quaid-i-Azam, there 
were many schools of thought, among them, i.e. 
leftists of various hues who were genuinely 
non-communalists who were keen to eradicate the 
poverty of all Indians, Hindus, and Muslims 
alike. Moreover, there were many Hindus who 
shared a lot of cultural traits with Punjabi and 
Urdu speaking Muslims, as was the case in Bengal 
and Bihar.

Opportunities for Muslims would have been 
incomparably greater in an undivided India; 
without their substantial support no government 
could run in Delhi. The very Hindus, who 
frightened the Muslim League so much had to be 
politically divided, and thus would have needed 
their votes. How long could the communalist 
politicians deny benefits to the voter? Only 
thing that would have made for fair play and 
justice for all was democracy. And there could be 
no chance for a non-democratic government in 
India then and now.

These are however might have beens of history. 
They have no direct relevance. India was 
partitioned, hopefully finally for the benefit of 
all its parts. Let us try and make Pakistan a 
success in terms of human freedoms and popular 
welfare. But Pakistan inherited the blight of a 
hollow militaristic mind that is moved by a 
shallow, indeed bogus, pan-Islamic sentiment. The 
result is the curse of military rule; power 
balance among political groups is heavily tilted 
in favour of the military. So it pre-empts 
democracy and thus subordinates human rights and 
popular welfare to its own needs and preferences.

One fact is obvious: sectarianism is a part of 
the larger phenomenon of intolerance, especially 
over religious matters. It won't go away until 
people learn to be tolerant of differing views 
and faiths of other communities, groups or 
parties. Rationalist attitude of tolerance of the 
other viewpoint and resolving differences through 
reasonable argumentation is needed. Religious 
intolerance against Hindus, Christians, Parsis 
and others is a kin of sectarianism and all such 
phenomena stand or fall together. So, if 
sectarianism is to be exterminated, people will 
need a society and state that tolerate all 
faiths, views and groups. In other words, State 
should promote a tolerant and democratic society.

There are prerequisites of social peace and 
harmony: a pluralist society cannot be achieved 
unless it is embedded in human rights that are 
truly respected - of all men and women, Muslims 
or non-Muslims. Only in such a society can Shias, 
Sunnis, Ahle Haddis, Daudi Bohras, Aga Khanis, 
Zikris, and Ahmedis can happily co-exist and make 
progress together. Such a society, to repeat, has 
to recognize the supremacy of and respect for, 
human beings, qua human beings, over every other 
value. Guarantees for freedom, primarily of faith 
and opinions are implicit in humanistic value. In 
other words, it presupposes a democracy that does 
not discriminate in favour of any particular 
faith or opinion or against any religion or sect 
or parties. For ensuring social peace and 
solidarity for all Pakistanis, the basic 
requirement is to make Pakistan strong through 
unity of all truly secular approach is vitally 
needed.

Unnecessary confusion has resulted from demands 
of an Islamic State. A 95 percent Muslim country 
like Pakistan, any democratic government would be 
Islamic. Since the ulema's 22 demands before 
Khwaja Nazimuddin in early 1950s, these have 
grown. Each time a constitution was made in 1954, 
1956, 1962, 1973, or even in the case of abortive 
one of 19th December 1971 by General Yahya Khan - 
major ulema had expressed satisfaction over its 
Islamic provisions adequately. Even in 1971 case, 
Yahya Khan shared the details of his constitution 
to the then JI chief, who termed it was 
adequately Islamic. The same was true in the case 
of 1973 Constitution. Maulanas Mufti Mahmud, Shah 
Ahmed Noorani and JI's Professor Ghafoor Ahmad 
signed it. Even so, they agreed with Zia that 
scope for more Islamisation exists.

An Islamic dispensation obviously presupposes two 
things: All Muslims must have no differences over 
what is Islam or on its rights and obligations 
for different Muslims and of course non-Muslims. 
Well, there happens to be no homogenized, simple 
Musalman; what is to be found, and thanks to 
ulema as a class, a Sunni Musalman, a Shia 
Musalman, an Ahmadi or Zikri Musalman. Iqbal, 
Jinnah or Sir Syed could ignore sectarian 
distinctions. But can the JUI, JUP, JI or other 
MMA members do the same? Mufti Mahmud's idea of 
Islamic State was the enforcement of Shariah as 
defined by his Hanafi school of thought. For JUP 
enforcement of 500 fatwas, the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, 
plus the acceptance of actual rites and practices 
of Indian Islam constituted the implementation of 
Nizam-i-Mustafa.

Who can escape defining a Muslim accurately to 
know what Islam demands from Muslims and 
non-Muslims. Jinnah wanted all Pakistanis to be 
treated equally; he asked JN Mandal to preside 
over the first session of the Pakistan 
Constituent Assembly. How can now a Hindu or 
Parsi be discriminated against? In the 
Meesaq-i-Madina, the Prophet of Islam included 
Jews into his Ummat-i-Waheda. Like Jinnah he too 
wanted a secular dispensation for the Madina's 
incipient state and there is nothing on record 
that any discrimination was ever shown towards 
non-Muslims in Islam other than paying a tax in 
lieu of compulsory Jihad.

Moreover, further efforts to Islamise Pakistan 
will stoke the fires of sectarianism among 
Muslims even, if non-Muslims get ignored. The 
ulema have achieved one thing: the 
undifferentiated Musalman of Sir Syed, Iqbal and 
Jinnah has been killed. For them a Musalman is 
either a Deobandi kind of Sunni or a Barelwi type 
of Sunni or sympathizer of JI or a Shia or Ahmadi 
or Bohra or Agha Khani or Zikri or Ahle Hadis. 
This sectarianism is a natural product of the 
efforts to capture power by orthodox leaders.

It is dangerous. Muslims are divided in over a 
hundred sects. Each sect believes it is the true 
and the only Islam there is. In matters of faith 
no compromise is possible. Think of the 
consequences of religious leaders making politics 
the means of acquiring more support, influence, 
money and eventuallypower. If sectarianism 
spreads, Pakistan as a state would collapse. What 
will then happen is not foreign invasion or 
intervention. Jealousies among great and 
neighbouring powers will prevent that. But once 
sectarian passions flare up, the next stops will 
be Somalia or Bosnia. Do we want that?

_____


[2]

The Daily Star, November 25, 2003

[Bangladesh] Secularism: Constitution, Law and Representation
By Naeem Mohaiemen [Shobak.Org]

In his 11/19 response to my letter dated 11/14, 
Mr. Shibly Azad defends Bangladesh's record on 
secularism: "more than a dozen MPs from minority 
communities in the current parliament as well as 
the presence of minority cabinet members."

As far as I know, there are six minority MPs, not 
a "dozen". Dhirendranath Saha, Gautam 
Chakrabarty, Moni Swapan Dewan (CHT) from BNP; 
Suranjit Sengupta, Panchanan Biswas and Bir 
Bahadur (CHT) from AL. This makes a total of 6 
out of 330. Direct demographic representation 
would be around 36.

There are no minority Ministers, only Junior 
Ministers. Chakrabarty is Junior Minister for 
Water Resources and Swapan is Junior Minister for 
CHT and Tribal affairs. Although CHT is 70% 
tribal (Pahari), a Pahari was given Junior 
portfolio, while the full portfolio went to a 
non-Pahari-- hardly anything to brag about.

Mr. Azad also writes, "Constitution of Bangladesh 
does not allow superiority of one religion at the 
expense of others, but grants equal status to all 
creeds"

In the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh, this was 
indeed the case. However, in 1977, Zia government 
amended the Constitution, replacing "Socialism" 
and "Secularism" with, respectively, "Social 
Justice" and "Absolute faith in God Almighty." 
They also inserted "In the name of Allah, the 
Beneficent, the Merciful" (in Arabic) into the 
preamble to the Constitution. Finally, the 1972 
ban on religion-based political parties was 
lifted.

In 1988, the Ershad government passed the 8th 
Amendment to the Constitution, making Islam the 
"State Religion". Although a general protest 
strike paralyzed Dhaka, the Jatiya 
Party-dominated Parliament (most of the 
opposition had boycotted elections) easily passed 
the measure.

At present, the Bangladesh Constitution reads as 
follows: "8. Fundamental principles of State 
Policy: The principles of absolute trust and 
faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, 
democracy and socialism meaning economic and 
social justice, together with the principles 
derived from them as set out in this Part, shall 
constitute the fundamental principles of state 
policy. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty 
Allah shall be the basis of all actions. 
"(http://www.bangladeshgov.org/pmo/constitution/consti2.htm#2A)

Finally, do not forget the "Vested (Enemy) 
Property Act" (set up during '65 Indo-Pak war), 
which has yet to be repealed after four decades. 
According to "An inquiry into causes and 
consequences of deprivation of Hindu minorities 
in Bangladesh through the Vested Property Act" 
(Abul Barkat, ed.., PRIP Trust, 2000), 2.1 
million acres of land were confiscated from Hindu 
families (by GOB and individuals) since the VPA 
was enacted.


_____



[3]

The Hindustan Times, November 20, 2003

War films are right up the parivar's street
Saibal Chatterjee
New Delhi, November 20

The steady rise of the rightwing on the Indian 
political stage over the past decade has impacted 
popular Hindi cinema in two crucial ways. One, it 
has fuelled a plethora of feel-good "model Hindu" 
family dramas. The other is panning out before 
our eyes at this precise moment. The next 12 
months or so will witness the release of a larger 
number of war films than the Mumbai movie machine 
has cranked out in its entire history.

It is no coincidence that all these films deal, 
in one way or another, with the perfidies of 
Pakistan while singing paeans to the courage and 
commitment of India's brave young soldiers. No 
wonder the current rulers of India simply adore 
Bollywood. An influential section of the film 
industry has willingly accepted the onus of 
furthering the one cause that is central to the 
perpetuation of the might of the rightwing - 
kindling and sustaining the fire of patriotism in 
the hearts of the masses. Hasn't anybody around 
here heard the old adage about patriotism being 
the last resort of the scoundrel?

The grateful government is dying to hand over one 
of the last bastions of meaningful Indian cinema 
- the country's official international film 
festival - to the mainstream Mumbai industry by 
shifting the annual event to its backyard, Goa. 
It is obviously a reward for a job well done. 
From Sooraj Barjatya's sugarcoated odes to the 
pure, selfless Hindu way of life, Maine Pyar Kiya 
and Hum Aapke Hain Koun, to the 
all-is-hale-and-hearty-in-good-old-India 
melodramas produced by the Yash Chopra school of 
escapist filmmaking to the brazen jingoism of 
Anil Sharma's Gadar - Ek Prem Katha to the 
upcoming spate of films designed to fan 
neo-nationalistic fervour, Bollywood has kept the 
saffron flag flying - overtly and covertly.

The leading lights of the mainstream film 
industry have clung to political patronage for 
dear life. A pliant mass media is exactly what 
purveyors of Hindutva - or any intolerant, 
exclusivist line of thinking - need to propagate 
their worldview and keep hatred and distrust of 
Pakistan on the boil.

In all these years of its existence, the Hindi 
film industry had made only four major films that 
had war in the backdrop - Haqeeqat, Hindustan Ki 
Kasam, both helmed by Chetan Anand, Upkar, actor 
Manoj Kumar's directorial debut, and the 
defiantly kitschy Lalkar, produced by Ramanand 
Sagar, the man who went on to contribute 
television's Ramayan  and Shri Krishna to the 
increasing religiosity of the nation's popular 
culture.

Why have Hindi war films been so few and far 
between? The primary reason for the reluctance of 
Mumbai filmmakers to tackle the genre is the 
demand for realism that it necessarily makes on 
them. Bollywood has rarely been comfortable with 
anything other than escapist fare. That perhaps 
explains why even the few war films that have 
been made in Mumbai have allowed, with perhaps 
the exception of Haqeeqat, concessions to 
established narrative conventions and 
incorporated songs and comic interludes. Will we 
ever get to see a no-frills, gritty war film in 
Hindi? Highly unlikely unless a Ramgopal Varma 
rises above his obsession with the underworld and 
the twilight zone.

Significantly, the war movies that Mumbai has 
produced over the years have all followed a major 
military face-off. Haqeeqat  was released in 
1964, two years after the 1962 war with China. It 
pulled no punches when it came to its anti-China 
stance.

After the 1965 war with Pakistan, Manoj Kumar 
unleashed the ultra-nationalistic Upkar, about an 
upright farmer who gives up his land and joins 
the Indian Army. The box office success of the 
film emboldened the actor-producer-director 
enough for him to recycle the formula all through 
his career, often with great success.

Chetan Anand was back with another war film after 
the 1971 Indo-Pak military confrontation over 
Bangladesh, Hindustan Ki Kasam (1973), but this 
time around, he failed to make much headway at 
the box office. A year earlier, Ramanand Sagar 
had made Lalkar, a film that extolled the courage 
of soldiers in the face of extreme adversity but 
had little to deliver by way of cinematic 
excellence. J.P. Dutta's LOC - Kargil promises to 
be a super-refined version of the Lalkar  formula.

While the technical attributes of Hindi cinema 
may have improved beyond recognition in the 
intervening years, the avowed intention of the 
war films lined up for release in 2003-04 is no 
different from what it was when Ramanand Sagar 
made Lalkaar. It would be particularly 
interesting to see how Anil Sharma's 
under-production Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan 
Saathiyon shapes up. Will the bitter harvest he 
reaped with the Rs 55-crore Gadar  sequel, Hero, 
about a bellicose Indian spy who single-handedly 
thwarts a Pakistani bid to acquire an Islamic 
Bomb, force him to tone down the shrillness of 
his pop patriotic rhetoric a touch or will he 
push for an even higher decibel level?

It won't be surprising if he opts for the latter 
course. The climate is just right for stepping up 
the Pakistan-bashing exercise a few notches. For 
the men in power, the situation is ideal - while 
one section of the industry churns out cinematic 
opium for the masses in the form of designer love 
stories, another reminds the people how crucial 
it is to be ready to lay down one's life for the 
motherland even as - this, of course, remains 
unsaid on the screen -- the politicians cynically 
and with impunity exploit the system to feather 
their own nests.

Until well into the 1990s, one important film 
censorship guideline barred the mention of the 
"enemy nation". Once that long-standing 
restriction was lifted - again, it wasn't just a 
stray administrative decision but a cold, 
calculated political chessboard move - Gadar 
struck. And now, there is no stopping the 
you-have-to-hate-Pakistan-if-you-love-India 
juggernaut.

The suspicion with which the censors (and by 
extension the Information and Broadcasting 
Ministry) and the Sangh Parivar view independent 
documentaries and music videos is of a piece with 
the overall attitudinal shift that has occurred 
in the corridors of power since the early 1990s. 
Anybody who nurtures fascistic tendencies has an 
innate impatience with truth and independent 
documentary filmmakers are an evil he can do 
without. So he will clamp down on Anand 
Patwardhan's War and Peace, but merrily let Gadar 
slip through the sieve.

The incipient governmental drive against 
"raunchy" music videos - granted that some of 
them are indeed nakedly exploitative - is another 
manifestation of the growing intolerance for any 
form of counter-culture. Counter-cultures exist 
beyond the pale of official control and that's a 
situation that a rightist government can never 
countenance.

The dramatic increase in the production of war 
films is a clear sign that the battle for 
creative freedom may have been lost. The war, 
however, remains to be fought.

_____


[4]

  ANHAD,
4, Windsor Place, New Delhi-10001
Tel-23327366/ 23327367
e-mail: <anhadinfo at yahoo.co.in>

PRESS STATEMENT: PROTEST AGAINST NARENDRA MODI AT THE
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24, 2003

  There was a massive protest organized by Anhad ( 
Act Now for Harmony and Democracy) at Taj Palace 
Hotel in Delhi, the venue for the World Economic 
Forum summit against Gujarat chief minister 
Narendra Modi and the state-sponsored genocide in 
Gujarat. The summit had just about begun and 
while the delegates were waiting for Modi, there 
was a sudden and huge upsurge of activists from 
various organizations who assembled at the foyer 
and blocked the escalator and the main entrance 
to the summit hall. They were shouting slogans 
against Modi and the killings in Gujarat, 
including the crude manner justice has been 
denied to thousands of victims by the BJP-led 
Modi government. Modi is shielding the killers, 
they said.

The slogans included: Mass Murderer of Gujarat Go 
Back, World Economic Summit and Narendra Modi 
Down Down, CII and Corporate India Shame Shame, 
Brand India, Genocide India. The peaceful protest 
went on for more than an hour with the protestors 
singing songs at the main entrance to the summit 
hall, despite the police and security presence.

“How can the World Economic Summit entertain a 
man and give him a platform who openly flaunted 
and celebrated the mass murder of hundreds of 
innocent people and the rapes of women after the 
tragic Godhra killing,” shouted the protestors. 
“Has corporate India become totally blind to such 
blatant injustice?” “Money  + Murder = Modi, said 
a placard. Other placards compared Hitler with 
Modi.

The protestors included Harsh Mander, Nafisa Ali, 
Shabnam Hashmi, John Dayal, Apoorvanand and 
others.

o o o

The Hindustan Times
November 25, 2003  

Protests greet Modi at CII meet venue
HT Corporate Bureau
(New Delhi, November 24)

Social activist Nafisa Ali along with 
representatives from the Safdar Hashmi Trust, 
Action India, Ahad and Basix raised slogans 
against the decision of Confederation of Indian 
Industry (CII) and World Economic Forum (WEF) to 
invite Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi to 
speak on The Competitiveness of States: Sharing 
Best Practices.

About 40 activists trooped into the lobby of the 
Taj Palace hotel just before Modi was to address 
the meeting and sang, "We shall overcome". 
Shouting slogans like "Modi go back", "Khooni" 
and "Man who instigated the communal riots", the 
activists alleged that Modi was responsible for 
the communal violence and killings in Gujarat 
last year.

The main demand of the protesters was that Modi 
should not have been invited. They also said that 
progress in Gujarat was a sham. Nafisa Ali 
criticised the CII for inviting Modi. Coming as 
this episode does after CII director general 
Tarun Das apologising to Modi earlier this year, 
the CII-Gujarat CM relationship remains strained.

Later, answering queries from the participants, 
Modi refuted the charges that there was any 
victimisation in Gujarat and referred to the fact 
that Muslims in the state had the highest per 
capita income. He, however, admitted, "Whatever 
happened in Gujarat one-and-a-half years ago 
should not have happened in a civilised society."

Earlier, the chief minster told the conference 
that Gujarat was the best destination for 
investment that gave unlimited opportunities to 
industrial houses.


_____


[5]

The Indian Express
November 25, 2003
www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=35975

For Sena, the more the merrier
AMIT SHARMA
LUCKNOW, NOVEMBER 24: Shiv Sena leaders in UP are 
virtually knocking on every door to encourage 
Hindu couples to have at least four children. 
Throwing family-planning caution to the wind, the 
Shiv Sena has launched a ''produce more 
children'' campaign for Hindus to counter, what 
it claims to be the growing population of Muslims.


''Members of the minority community are producing 
more children. But we have launched a campaign to 
encourage Hindus to follow the Muslim pattern on 
the issue,'' state Shiv Sena chief Vijay Tiwari 
told The Indian Express. He to have Shiv Sena 
chief Bal Thackeray's go-ahead on the issue.

''The more the better but four in each family is 
a must,'' Tiwari says. The Shiv Sena will hold a 
felicitation programme on December 18 in the 
state capital for parents with four or more 
children. The title of ''awakened Hindu family'' 
will be conferred on these parents.

_____


[6]

Daily News
25 November 2003	 

Assam's 'anti-foreigner' blood-letting

by Lynn Ockersz

Increasingly bloody anti-immigrant violence in 
India's trouble - hit North-Eastern state of 
Assam could be considered a scathing indictment 
of successive state governments' inept handling 
of ethnic relations in the state.

Recent reports indicated that militant violence 
unleashed by the United Liberation Front of Asom 
had targeted migrant settlers from the 
neighbouring state of Bihar in particular, 
prompting them to vacate their homesteads in the 
multitudes.

While brutal, "anti-foreigner" violence of this 
kind is nothing new to Assam, which is considered 
a hotbed of tensions arising from an 
uninterrupted influx to the state of varied 
ethnic groups from neighbouring states and even 
countries, such as Nepal, the fact that hardly 
any progress has been made over the decades in 
defusing these destructive conflicts points to an 
abysmal inability on the part of state 
governments to come to grips with the 
inflammatory issues which Assam has been 
throwing-up.

However, not all state governments have made 
multiculturalism and the establishment of 
peaceful co-existence among communities a 
principal platform of governance. In fact, the 
Asom Gana Parishad which ruled Assam 
intermittently since the mid-Eighties, initially 
came to power on an anti-immigrant platform but 
failed to make any decisive moves against the 
"foreigner presence" which was projected as the 
root cause of the woes of ethnic Assamese.

The current ULFA - spurred violence, however, is 
a gauge of the militant group's dwindling 
patience with state governments and the political 
process.

There are lessons here for the South Asian 
region. Multi-ethnicity is a socio-political fait 
accompli of the most decisive kind in most states 
in this region. The deeply-entrenched 
multi-ethnic composition of these states makes a 
reversion to the nation-state project of 
yesteryear impossible.

Attempts to perpetuate state-centric, 
majoritarian rule in the states of South Asia 
invariably draw stiff resistance from ethnic 
minorities, whose presence in these states are as 
"long" as that of "majority" communities. In 
fact, the "majority-minority" and 
"native-foreigner" issues which figure 
prominently in popular political debate are 
increasingly revealing themselves to be 
red-herrings which detract from the urgent and 
immediate task of building truly democratic 
societies where equality of opportunity and 
condition would reign, regardless of the 
so-called antiquity of individual communities.

In other words, the foundation needs to be laid 
for multicultural polities and Assam should serve 
as a warning to those states which wish to evade 
this historic undertaking. Foot-dragging on this 
undertaking would only be a spur to separatist 
violence and on this score too Assam could be 
viewed as an object lesson. As could be seen the 
ULFA is desperately trying to wrest the 
initiative from the state government.

In Assam, as in most states of South Asia, lack 
of foresight on the part of governments and 
political elites, in dealing with minority 
issues, could turn these polities into hotbeds of 
terror.

Assam's population grew phenomenally over the 
decades and this growth was spurred mainly by a 
steady migrant inflow. In fact Assam's population 
is said to have swelled from 3.3 million in 1901 
to 15 million in 1971, a fourfold increase. 
Migrants seeking livelihoods flowed in from 
several neighbouring states, Rajasthan, Punjab, 
Bihar and Bengal, being some of these.

However, corresponding to this migrant inflow, 
poverty and landlessness among the ethnic 
Assamese is believed to have also grown 
alarmingly. In fact, by the Eighties, 77 percent 
of the local peasantry was believed to have been 
landless or occupying uneconomical land holdings. 
This led to ethnic antagonisms.

There was, therefore, a steady build-up to the 
current strife. State governments had no choice 
but to work towards a common, shared future for 
all of Assam's communities. This task, however, 
was neglected.

_____


[7]

sify.com
Nov 24, 2003

The legacy of Kamaraj
By P Radhakrishnan
In a country where gods and goddesses are about 
one-fourth (330 million) of its human population, 
the superabundance of myths can be euphoric.

For instance, the belief that - as a social 
anthropologist recorded - to gaze on the phallic 
emblem of Shiva standing in his temple is as 
beneficial as a vision of every god and goddess 
separately.

One such myth is about Mahabali, a legendary 
human king. Folklore has it that his rule was so 
rich and noble that the jealous gods plotted 
against him.

They sent Vamana, a little Brahmin, for a boon. 
Vamana asked for land, which he could cover with 
three steps. When the king agreed Vamana turned 
gigantic, covered the earth with one step, the 
skies with the second and asked the king where he 
should place his third step. The king offered his 
head. When Vamana stepped on his head Mahabali 
was pushed into the netherworld.

Before he vanished he promised his people that he 
would visit them once a year, and Onam, the most 
important festival of Kerala, is the occasion of 
his mythical visit.

While myths of this kind are also galore in the 
rest of the country, there is no instance 
whatever that before K. Kamaraj - the legendary 
Congress leader of Tamil Nadu - died; he made any 
promise to bring back his rule.

G.K. Moopanar, a long time Congress leader, a 
staunch Nehru-Gandhi loyalist and a loyal 
follower of Kamaraj, was the pied piper of the 
Kamaraj rule pipe dream. As his innocuous, and in 
some sense insensate incantation has of late led 
to much hype and hoopla, a close look at the 
Kamaraj rule in the context of Moopanar's dream, 
and the ongoing hullabaloo about it will be in 
order.

Moopanar and others founded the Tamil Maanila 
Congress (TMC) in April 1996, in protest against 
the Congress (I) president and Prime Minister 
P.V. Narasimha Rao's decision to align the party 
with the AIADMK. In the May 1996 Assembly 
elections the nascent TMC, in alliance with the 
DMK, scored a big victory.

When Moopanar formed the TMC, he swore to usher 
in Kamaraj rule by fighting the rotten regime of 
the AIADMK leader, J. Jayalalitha, which was 
notorious for corruption and Fascism. That was 
probably the first time one heard of Kamaraj 
rule, long after Kamaraj's death.

However, Moopanar himself dashed all hopes of any 
such rule. In December 1997, rumour mills had it 
that the TMC alliance with the DMK was in 
jeopardy, as it happened shortly thence. Moopanar 
justified it by the DMK's alliance with the 
communal BJP.

When Jayalalitha announced that she would welcome 
any overture from the TMC for political alliance 
with the AIADMK, Moopanar commented that it was 
on the anti-AIADMK plank that the TMC was formed 
and the situation had not changed. In a related 
context, he declared that he had snapped his 
links with the Congress and he was not a 
Congressman.

By this time Moopanar's incantation became grist 
to the news hungry media. In October 2000 a 
section of the press reported that a joke making 
the rounds in Chennai was that Moopanar was 
seeing visions of the late Kamaraj in Jayalalitha.

In less than six months, the TMC contested the 
May 2001 Assembly elections as an ally of the 
AIADMK and the Congress (I). As the AIADMK won 
enough seats on its own, Jayalalitha dumped her 
allies, including the TMC, and on August 30, 
Moopanar died, bidding adieu to his pipe dream.

Seen against the above background, Moopanar's 
boasting of reviving Kamaraj rule was 
mumbo-jumbo, and even an affront to Kamaraj. All 
the same, now that Moopanar is also gone, others 
find in this mumbo-jumbo political mileage.

That should take the curious readers to an 
overview of Kamaraj the man, Kamaraj the 
politician, and the present political chicanery 
centring on his rule. In fact, any reference to 
Kamaraj merely in terms of his rule, without 
placing him in the larger national context does 
not do him any honour. So, first on to Kamaraj 
the man, then Kamaraj the politician, and finally 
the ongoing politicking on his rule.

A school drop out of the sixth grade from the 
Nadar, a traditionally depressed caste, Kamaraj 
(1903-1975) became the most prominent member of 
his community, and one of the most powerful and 
dynamic leaders in Indian public life.

At the age of 16 or 17 he took part in the Vaikom 
Satyagraha against the exclusion of polluting 
castes from the temples. He also enrolled himself 
as a full-time Congress worker, and totally 
involved in Congress work and the freedom 
movement. From then on till his death he remained 
a Gandhian by conviction and practice.

The reference to Kamaraj rule is to his 
administration since 1954 as Chief Minister of 
Tamil Nadu. He held that position until he 
resigned in 1963 to become president of the 
All-India Congress Committee. Kamaraj's rise as 
Chief Minister was unparalleled. His predecessors 
were all educated, fluent in English, and 
belonged to the upper castes, while his 
successors, all from the Dravidian parties who 
had nothing to do with the freedom movement, came 
to power by beguiling the masses through 
celluloid chicanery.

After Kamaraj became Chief Minister, Periyar E.V. 
Ramasamy Naicker called him a pukka [or pachchai] 
Tamizhan (pure Tamilian), and applauded him for 
the lack of a Brahmin in his cabinet, which was 
probably in the fitness of the then 
socio-political scenario of the state.

It may sound a bit hagiographic; but Kamaraj rule 
has to be seen against his successors' rule. As 
Chief Minister, he advised his cabinet colleagues 
to face the problem, not to evade it; and find a 
solution, however small. He ruthlessly cut the 
bureaucratic red tape and his watchwords were 
action and result.

Under his dispensation the Tamil Nadu 
administration became a model for other States 
and no less a person than Prime Minister 
Jawaharlal Nehru openly acknowledged it.

Kamaraj visualised and executed an infrastructure 
that was essential to the needs of ordinary folk; 
made education free up to the high school; 
provided mid-day meals for school-going children 
to prevent dropouts on account of poverty; 
established schools for every village of a 
thousand people; had roads laid connecting rural 
areas to urban centres, creating easy access for 
village produce to reach town and city markets; 
paid special attention to power generation so as 
to ensure that electricity reached almost all 
villages, and helped many industrial estates to 
come up and grow, starting in earnest the 
industrialisation of the state.

If Kamaraj's rule in Tamil Nadu was edifying, his 
legacy as a national leader was even more so. At 
the instance of Nehru he became President of the 
All-India Congress Committee. Considering that 
Tamil Nadu had not had many leaders of national 
stature, particularly after Rajaji, this was a 
well-deserved accolade.

Probably the most notable contribution of Kamaraj 
to national politics was 'The Kamaraj Plan' to 
invigorate the Congress Party with new blood, and 
clip the wings of those with vaulting ambitions 
that might have destabilised the party. In 
keeping with this Plan several important central 
ministers and state chief ministers belonging to 
the Congress Party resigned from office and 
engaged in grassroots work in the villages.

How a school drop out from a traditionally 
disprivileged caste at the bottom of a rigid 
social hierarchy, with hardly any knowledge of 
any language other than Tamil, participated in 
nationalist agitations much against the will of 
his family and community, strategically focussed 
on party (Congress) building, participated in 
elections and governments, became Chief Minister 
thrice; ruled the state well as no one else did 
before and after him; became President of the 
All-India Congress Committee; as a strong 
organisation man and master of manipulative 
politics, saved the Congress from disintegration 
caused by leadership squabbles after Nehru's 
death; and turned a 'king maker' by virtually 
appointing two Prime Ministers, Lal Bahadur 
Shastri and Indira Gandhi, is still a marvel.

There were several reasons for this. He rose from 
the grassroots level, learning in the schools of 
hard knocks and in the treadmill of experience. 
Hailed as 'a sanyasi in white clothes,' he was a 
man of simple tastes, and self-effacing nature.

Honesty, integrity, conspicuous absence of 
self-aggrandisement, high moral standards, and 
political sagacity, were his other qualities. As 
a man of the people, with a clean and rustic 
public image he merged well with the identity of 
the masses.

Kamaraj was, in the words of Nehru, a man 'with 
extraordinary capacity, ability, and devotion to 
his task.' Nehru was against unveiling statues of 
living persons. But he made an exemption for 
Kamaraj as a notable example of a new type of 
leader.

With Kamaraj dead and gone as early as in 1975, 
and Moopanar, probably the only living loyal 
follower of him also dead and gone, one may ask 
why all this fuss now about reviving Kamaraj rule.

The first occasion for the fuss was a merger mela 
on August 13, 2002, at a venue christened 
'Moopanar Thidal' on the outskirts of Madurai, 
when the TMC rejoined (after Moopanar's death!) 
the Congress (I).

On that occasion, when Sonia Gandhi said, let us 
bring back Kamaraj rule, and the best tribute to 
Kamaraj in his birth centenary year is 'to 
re-establish' his rule in the state, she was 
preparing a wish-list. What she meant by Kamaraj 
rule was 're-establishing' Congress rule in Tamil 
Nadu.

The TNCC president, E.V.K.S. Elangovan, and TMC 
president, Vasan, joined the chorus, and added to 
her wish list banishing Dravidian rule from the 
State.

Elangovan's wish list also contained his party 
highlighting the misdeeds of the Dravidian rule 
for over 35 years, though he did not say which 
investigative agency he would engage for his 
mission.

P. Chidambaram, a follower of Moopanar till the 
TMC struck an alliance with the AIADMK for the 
May 2001 elections, added more by projecting an 
alternative to the AIADMK and the DMK, and wanted 
the Congress high command to initiate steps for 
forming the Third Front. In the Sattankulam 
bye-election in February this year, the Congress 
again made a song and dance of ushering in 
Kamaraj rule.

Important among the dramatis personae speaking, 
if not working, for Kamaraj rule have been Sonia 
Gandhi and Kamal Nath from Delhi; and 
Chidambaram, Elangovan, and Vasan from Tamil 
Nadu. But one might wonder if any of them with 
the probable exception of Chidambaram, ever knew 
Kamaraj, leave alone his rule and legacy.

Given this scenario, and given the fact that the 
Congress (I) in different parts of the country 
has been on a rapid downhill journey, the merger 
mela did not add up, and in the Shakespearean 
idiom, was `much of muchness for nothing very 
much'.

More so, when after Kamaraj switched to the 
national politics and resigned as Chief Minister 
the Congress Party did not win a single election 
again on its own, and the strong Dravidian 
current swept even Kamaraj, president of the 
Congress Party, off his feet in the 1967 
Virudhunagar assembly elections in which he was 
defeated.

In this sense, Jayalalitha is right in dismissing 
Sonia Gandhi's claim of reviving Kamaraj rule as 
a 'pet dream'. As Tamil Nadu continues to be in 
the strong grip of one Dravida Kazhagam or 
another, whether they do well or badly, it will 
continue to be ruled by one or more of them, 
either singly or in alliance.

So, all that the Congress (I) can do is, as in 
the case of Onam, celebrate the Kamaraj rule once 
a year and even deify him for facilitating his 
mythical annual visit of his people.


______


[8]

[Please visit:  www.promiseorindia.org]

PROMISE OF INDIA

On October 2 , 2003 Mahatma Gandhi's birthday in Milpitas ,CA POI was
founded and the following accepted as its guiding principles.

The idea of India as a secular ,pluralistic ,united India is now
under duress.POI hopes to provide a platform for the silent majority
of Indians to speak up against terrorist acts and communal violence
and speak for  communal harmony.

The time has come for Indians across the globe to show their
solidarity with individuals ,organizations,public servants and the
judiciary who have been working hard to maintain peace and harmony
.Together , we must redouble our efforts to reestablish communal
harmony,bring development and education for all Indians , and
transparency in governance .

OUTCOME.(1)We wish to present our views to  senior leaders in the
government and in the opposition .(2) We wish to educate all on the
critical linkages between economic development , social justice and
communal peace .(3)We hope to fashion long-term plans to prevent
communal violence , strengthen civil society , explore all avenues of
social justice and economic development that enrich all segnents of
the society .

We need advice and active support from all concerned persons as to
how to reach out to all and sundry ,irrespective of religion , caste
and creed .

You will be pleased to know in six weeks 120 organizations world wide
, with a large diversity of interest , including grass roots
activists, NGOs ,global business activists and entrepreneurs have
endorsed POI	.The total number of supporters ,if you include the
membership of the organizations , will run over several thousands.

Please visit the web  www.promiseofindia.org for all details
including how to sign in both as a group and/or as an individual .

POI will hold its first convention at the India Habitat Centre ,
Delhi January 7-8. On January 7, a series of cultural events will be
held . Mallika Sarabhai will give performance .All day January 8 a
series of panels will discuss the issues and strategize POI
implementation plans .

If you are going to be in Delhi , please join us on both days .Again,
you will find program details on our website . It is being upgraded
daily.

[for]
Dilip Basu
Department of History
University of California
Santa Cruz, Ca 95064


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

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 http://www.sacw.net/
The complete SACW archive is available at: 
http://bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
[The earlier URL for SACW web site 
<www.mnet.fr/aiindex>, is now longer valid, you 
can search google cache for materials on the old 
location]
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.

--