SACW | 22-23 March 2004
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Mon Mar 22 17:19:10 CST 2004
South Asia Citizens Wire | 22-23 March, 2004
via: www.sacw.net
[1] Pakistan: Setting the Record Straight (Lala Rukh)
[2] Pakistan-India: Get the message across (Harsh Mander)
[3] Bangladesh: Islamists blamed for Dhaka attack (Waliur Rahman)
[4] Pakistan's Reward Could Turn into Liability (Praful Bidwai)
[5] India: Welcome to our parlour (A.G. Noorani)
[6] Double Defeat | Liberal India on the Defensive (Ramachandra Guha)
[7] India: Letter to the Editor (Mukul Dube)
[8] India: Politicisation of history upsets city academics
[9] India: New questions raised in the European Parliament on Gujarat
[10] India: Upcoming BBC film on India's maoists
--------------
[1]
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:42:21 +0500
Setting the Record Straight
Lala Rukh
There is a controversy raging regarding textbooks
in Pakistan that produce an ultra-nationalist,
militarist and anti-Hindu, anti-India mindset
among Pakistani children. A.H. Nayyar has
defended himself against Shireen Mazari's
critique of the SDPI report, 'The Subtle
Subversion'. I would like to offer my own
critique of the report from an entirely different
angle, as my purpose is not to directly engage in
the controversy but to set the record straight.
It has to be pointed out that the report by A.H.
Nayyar and Ahmad Saleem is neither original, nor
new and does not represent entirely their own
work. This report is a duplication of well-known
work done on this subject by other scholars and
writers over the last decade. It would have been
appropriate according to the norms and
conventions of publishing to mention prior work,
which is widely known and recognized. However,
since this was not done, it is important, for the
sake of justice and fair play, to bring the
earlier work into public attention.
In the early 1990s, historian K.K. Aziz pointed
out factual errors in history textbooks in a
well-known work called 'The Murder of History'.
In 1994, educational sociologist Dr. Rubina
Saigol published a paper called 'The Boundaries
of Consciousness' in which she argued in great
detail that our social studies, civics, history
and Pakistan Studies textbooks create India as
the opposite other of Muslim Pakistan, and infuse
hatred, estrangement and animosity. In 1995, Dr.
Saigol published her PhD thesis entitled
'Knowledge and Identity' in which she discussed
the ways in which a militarist form of
nationalism is produced by our social studies
textbooks. This is intended to create a communal
identity for a communal state. She showed with
many examples, and a detailed analysis, that such
identities are created by the state to keep the
perception of threat of conflict high to
ultimately justify a massive defence budget. In
1997 an Urdu version of Rubina Saigol's book by
the name of 'Qaumiat, Taleem, Aur Shanakht'
(Nationalism, Education and Identity) was
published and was reviewed by Ahmad Saleem for
the SDPI magazine Paidaar Taraqqi (Sustainable
Development). The SDPI and Ahmad Saleem were
thus fully aware of Saigol's work. In 2000
Saigol's book 'Symbolic Violence: Curriculum,
Pedagogy and Society' was published by SAHE and
in this book one paper called 'Learning to Hate'
focused on how social knowledge textbooks create
a particular type of fundamentalist and
hate-filled mindset. In 2002, Dr. Saigol was
invited by the Library of Congress, Scholarly
Programs to present a paper on how Pakistani
textbooks create non-Muslim enemies. This paper
called 'Enemies Within and Enemies Without' was
published in 2003 in a book by Akbar Zaidi and
will appear in the journal Futures edited by
Imtiaz Ahmad. Also in 2000 Saigol wrote a paper
on Civics textbooks highlighting the ways in
which citizenship curricula create a simultaneous
hatred of India and a very narrow and confining
version of female citizenship. This paper was
subsequently published in Japan and in India.
Saigol's work on textbooks has also been
published by the Centre for Secularism run by
Asghar Ali Engineer. A whole decade of hard,
painstaking and serious work pioneered in
Pakistan by Rubina Saigol should not be negated
and appropriated by a report that is neither
analytical nor theoretically grounded.
Apart from Rubina Saigol, who has made massive
contributions to this field, the historian Dr.
Mubarak Ali has also engaged in critical and
serious work on history textbooks, both in
English and Urdu. All of this earlier work has
been ignored in the SDPI report, which is being
publicized as though it is a first intervention
in this area. In all fairness to those who
pioneered this work, it should be made widely
known, and added in the final report, that it is
merely a continuation, and in many ways, a
duplication of the work done for a whole decade
against communalist teaching and curricula.
Rubina Saigol contributed heavily to the report
by examining textbooks all the way from the
primary to the Intermediate level, and conducted
the research with the idea that it would carry
the name of all the researchers. It seems to be
against the ethics of publishing that the report
came to be owned by two people when a great deal
of input came from professionals in the field.
Several sentences and ideas in the SDPI report
are direct reproductions of the work by Saigol
and Mubarak Ali, but without appropriate
attribution.
It is crucial to set the record straight, as the
production of knowledge is a fairly
underdeveloped field in Pakistan. Researchers
should be given due credit for their work so that
those who engage in research and writing are not
discouraged by their work being appropriated by
others. Rubina Saigol has not received any
remuneration for her books mentioned above and
conducted the work purely out of her interest in
her field and her subject, which is not well
developed in Pakistan. If others appropriate the
work of such people purely for funding purposes,
it violates the principles of publishing.
_____
[2]
The Hindustan Times [ India]
March 22, 2004
OFF TRACK: Get the message across
By Harsh Mander
His eyes lit up with spontaneous friendship when
he learnt that we were visitors from India. A
wayside vendor in Takshila, Pakistan, he refused
to accept payment for the roasted chana that we
had bought from him. "Take it as my gift," he
insisted.
My colleagues and I were on a visit to Pakistan.
I spoke to many audiences. Everywhere, I stressed
that, for me, the core of the idea of India is
that people of diverse faiths, castes, gender and
classes live together with peace, mutual respect,
security and equal citizenship rights. This idea
of India resolutely rejects the two-nation
theory. Despite my passionate rejection of this
idea, nowhere in my diverse audiences did I
encounter hostility.
Since K.N. Panikkar, one of India's respected
historians, was part of our delegation,
discussions drifted to distortions of our shared
history in both countries. "You are now trying to
catch up with what we in Pakistan accomplished 30
years ago," our Pakistani friends would say
satirically. Textbooks in both countries have
begun to mirror each other in their communal
prejudices and untruths. We agreed to bring
together the best historians of the subcontinent
to write a popular history, rescued before it is
too late from the lenses of sectarian prejudice.
The question we were most frequently confronted
with was why recent popular cinema in India,
films like Gadar and LoC, foment hatred against
Pakistan. We were struck by how this question
arose invariably in every single audience,
regardless of the subject of discussion, possibly
because the activist actress Nandita Das was part
of the delegation, but more so because these
films just simply wounded them so deeply. Nandita
spoke of her passionate opposition to such
cinema, and her satisfaction that several such
films have been rejected at the box-office. She
tied up plans for a subcontinental collaborative
film on the subject of recalling Partition, and a
play written and acted by artists from the two
countries. Fouzia and Khaled of ActionAid
Pakistan also committed themselves to try to
create a popular Indo-Pakistan friendship TV
channel.
Conversation would invariably shift to cricket.
Development communications expert Saumya Sen
suggested that we re-invent popular street
cricket as an instrument of bonding between the
two people. As the cricket stars rivet
cricket-lovers during the ongoing Indo-Pak
series, disadvantaged children from the two
countries will play cricket on the streets in
mixed teams.
In a country that reveres poetry, poet Gauhar
Raza was everywhere implored to recite his own
compositions. There would be many echoes in the
hearts of his audiences, when he would recite his
most recent poem Mein Chahata hun:
"I long to write a poem, A poem of a kind that
has never been written But this monsoon of fire
and blood This deluge of tears This obsession
with hatred at every step If only they would give
me a moment of respite, my friend, So that a lamp
may be lit And then I can write a poem A poem of
a kind that has never been written."
The writer is Director, ActionAid India
_____
[3]
BBC News
22 March, 2004, 17:19 GMT
Islamists blamed for Dhaka attack
By Waliur Rahman
BBC correspondent in Dhaka
A leading Bangladeshi author has blamed hardline
Islamic groups for a stabbing last month which
left him wounded in the head and neck.
Humayan Azad was speaking shortly before leaving
Dhaka to go to Thailand for further treatment.
The Bangladeshi authorities say they will not
jump to conclusions before the police
investigation is over.
At least 60 people were injured in clashes
between students and police following the attack.
Severely criticised
The Dhaka University professor said that he
believed the attack on him was carried out by
those people "who believe in the ideas of
fundamentalism".
Such a phrase is used to refer to Islamic hard line groups.
"I do not think it was a personal matter," he
told reporters before leaving for Bangkok.
He pointed out that two daily newspapers seen as
the mouthpieces of hardline Islamic groups had
written articles against him, and an MP had
severely criticised him following the publication
of his latest book.
Entitled Pak Sar Zamin Sad Bad - the first line
of the Pakistan national anthem - it strongly
criticised the rise of Islamic extremism in
Bangladeshi society in recent years.
Several Islamic groups quickly denounced the
novel after its publication and demanded that it
should be banned immediately.
The professor said that he could have been the
first and most famous victim of an extreme form
of Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh.
"This time they failed," he said, "but do not
rule out the possibility that they will not pass
up on another opportunity."
Coalition 'embarrassed'
There was no immediate comment from the
government to the allegations made by the author.
But ministers maintain that they will not jump to
any conclusion until the investigation is over.
Observers say that the allegations made by Dr
Azad will embarrass Bangladesh's four-party
coalition which includes two Islamic parties.
The attack on Humayun Azad saw a series of
protests across Bangladesh, and many believe that
he survived only because he was given the best
available treatment at the military hospital in
Dhaka.
_____
[4]
Inter Press Service
March 20, 2004
Pakistan's Reward Could Turn into Liability
Commentary - By Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI, Mar 20 (IPS) - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's major
surprise this week -- making Pakistan a major non-North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) ally of Washington -- was greeted with enthusiasm in
Islamabad, but with stony silence here in New Delhi.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri exulted that with the
new status, relations between Washington and Islamabad would get a boost in
the future. Pakistan would be elevated to the same high level as U.S. close
allies such as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
It will become the fourth Muslim-majority country to join the league of
major non-NATO allies, after Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain.
The status is meant to reward President Gen Pervez Musharraf for his
"positive" role in the 'war against terrorism' and to bolster his position
domestically. As Powell put it: "President Bush and the American people
appreciate the sacrifices Pakistan has already made to keep us all safer
from terrorism.''
The U.S. government is particularly pleased that Pakistan has cooperated
with it in the latest campaign to round up key al-Qaeda leaders, reportedly
including the Number Two man, Ayman al-Zawahri, in South Waziristan near
the Afghanistan border.
However, the move has all the characteristics of yet another
short-sighted manoeuvre by the U.S. government, made for essentially
short-term reasons, including President George W Bush's election campaign.
It will create new imbalances in the complex and skewed triangular
relationship between Washington, New Delhi and Islamabad. Imbalances will
not promote stability or parity so much as instability and greater
insecurity in South Asia.
Above all, Pakistan's gains from the non-NATO ally status could prove
illusory. They are liable to be negated by mounting pressure from the U.S.
government to intensify "mutual cooperation" against terrorism by signing
agreements which give immunity to U.S. troops from prosecution on Pakistani
soil.
In terms of India-Pakistan relations, this is yet another swing of the
pendulum from one extreme of favouring India to another, a pro-Pakistan
tilt.
The non-NATO ally designation has dismayed and unnerved Indian
policymakers. Although they did not react immediately to the announcement,
"there was a 'feel bad' mood in the government" and the U.S. embassy sent
deputy ambassador Robert Blake "to do some firefighting" in the Indian
foreign office, reported 'The Times of India' newspaper.
Indian officials believe that this ally status has a "strong political
significance" in Pakistan. It will help the U.S. administration's secure
military hardware for Islamabad. "All told, this is a label that Pakistan
will wear proudly," an official has been quoted as saying.
India is likely to see Pakistan's elevation in the U.S. scheme of things
as a setback to its own efforts to build an exclusive "strategic
partnership" with Washington. India has gone out of its way to offer itself
as a reliable, loyal, post-Cold War ally, one which supports the U.S.
government even on controversial questions like ballistic missile defence,
on which Washington's close allies have reservations.
There are worries in New Delhi that the non-NATO ally status will enable
Pakistan to buy new weapons like P-3C Orion maritime surveillance planes
and Harpoon missiles, and perhaps even F-16 fighter jets.
Many Indian policymakers believe that the non-NATO ally label is a
reward for Musharraf's cooperation on the issue of Abdul Qadeer Khan's
admission in February of having sold nuclear technology to Libya, North
Korea and Iran. Powell tried to minimise this by saying, it "was something
we have been working on for months and months and months à It's not a
reward for A Q Khan. (It's) the same relationship we want to have with
India''.
Such even-handedness "as an afterthought" may not mollify New Delhi
enough. India may try to extract some new assurances or arms from
Washington, in turn impelling Pakistan to do the same. This could spell an
accelerated South Asian arms race.
The Pakistan government stands to make two short-term gains from its
major non-NATO ally status. Musharraf will benefit because after a long
time, he will have something to show his critics, who accuse him of having
conceded too much sovereignty and independence to the U.S. government,
without getting enough in return.
He might be able to disprove the widespread view prevalent in the
Pakistani establishment, society and the press, that Washington has always
"dumped Pakistan after its strategic goals are met" and it is not genuinely
interested in a multi-dimensional, long-term relationship.
Secondly, Pakistani officials believe that the new status would greatly
improve the prospect for arms purchases from Washington. They could have
access to advanced weapons for the first time since 1990.
Since defence cooperation between Washington and Islamabad was resumed
after Sep. 11, 2001, Pakistan has identified and asked for a number of
high-technology weapons from the U.S. government. But major non-NATO ally
status does not open the doors to unlimited arms purchases. It gives the
ally soft loans for leasing weapons and equipment for research and
development purposes. It speeds up export licensing. It allows for U.S.
military training on easy financial terms.
However, the real downside is that Washington will probably insist on
one condition for substantial arms purchase - that Pakistan sign a Status
of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that
redefines the status of U.S. personnel and property on the territory of
another nation.
SOFAs exempt U.S. personnel from matters like criminal and civil
jurisdiction, wearing the uniform, carrying arms, tax and customs relief,
entry and exit of personnel and property, and resolving damage claims.
Their basic purpose is to give immunity to U.S. soldiers.
SOFAs have been extremely controversial in Japan, South Korea, the
Philippines and Bangladesh, where the U.S. government insisted on a SOFA
before providing relief to the victims of a major cyclone in 1991). Civil
society campaigns and peace movements regard SOFAs as serious, humiliating
assaults on national sovereignty.
This was especially the case in Japan after a schoolgirl was raped by
U.S. soldiers in Okinawa in 1995, and in South Korea after young girls were
killed by a U.S. armoured vehicle in 2002.
The United States has signed SOFAs with more than 90 countries, or
almost half the world--up from 40 at the end of the Cold War. After winding
up certain military bases under popular opposition -- for example, Clark
and Subic Bay in the Philippines -- the United States has used SOFAs as the
preferred instrument of maintaining military dominance in "allied" countries.
The SOFA issue is bound to become ultra-sensitive in Pakistan given
existing suspicions about Musharraf's pro-U.S. proclivities. The "reward"
or "promotion" could soon become a liability. (END/IPS/AP/IP/PB/JS/04)
_____
[5]
The Hindustan Times [ India]
March 23, 2004
Welcome to our parlour
By A.G. Noorani
Electoral compulsions lead even opponents of
'appeasement' of Muslims to seek their votes; but
the line which the top brass of the Sangh
parivar, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and
his deputy L.K. Advani have adopted gives them
away.
Even half a century after Partition, they simply
cannot talk to or of Muslims of India without
dragging in Pakistan. On February 25, at a
'minorities' rally, Vajpayee dilated at length on
his policy towards Pakistan instead of addressing
the perceived grievances of Muslims. His
government's policies have aggravated those
grievances.
On March 3, Advani was more explicit: the "origin
of all problems between Hindus and Muslims lies
in the partition of the country". Ergo, the "most
effective way of reducing tensions between Hindus
and Muslims is by reducing tension between India
and Pakistan". As if the Constitution of India
makes fair treatment of any minority contingent
on good relations with a foreign country. Trust
Advani to betray his real self. On January 13, he
mentioned Indo-Pak détente but only to add,
"similarly both the communities could start
talks" on the Ram temple. The analogy is as
revealing as it is bizarre.
The temple agenda is promoted despite denials and
along with the wooing of Muslims. Vajpayee began
the election campaign on February 7 by seeking
"five more years" to "fulfil my promise" to build
the temple. The next day, Advani called it one of
the "unfinished tasks" of the NDA. It will
happen, he said, "with the consent of both
parties". The manner in which he has gone about
trying to obtain Muslim consent by the withdrawal
of the suits pending in courts, provides a clue
to the overall strategy of the parivar and also
reveals its mindset. On January 9, Advani said
that his solution would "correct the wrong trends
in the relations between the two communities
which are a residue of the past". That is the
problem. Advani can never forget his imagined
past, which is why he cannot shed his rancour
against Muslims.
He held out a bait: "If Muslims come forward to
cooperate with Hindus in fulfilling their
aspiration of building a Ram temple at the Ram
janmasthan, Hindus should also step forward to
remove the concerns of Muslims." At his hands,
Muslims can expect no redressal of their
grievances unless they submit to this blackmail.
Advani, indeed, thinks that they are in a
compliant mood. Hence the repeated assurances of
a 'settlement' in a short time. He said in an
interview on December 7, 2003; "After 9/11,
Muslims throughout the world have started feeling
cornered, and they want to come out of it. In
India, this (according their consent to the
construction of a temple on the Babri masjid site
by the very persons who demolished it) is the
simplest way of doing it." The cruel irony apart,
he clearly sees Indian Muslims as part of a
Muslim monolith "throughout the world", sharing
its depression ("feeling cornered"), and wants to
exploit it.
Truly, Advani has 'a thing' about Muslims. Around
the 50th anniversary of our independence, he
wrote out his thoughts and feelings in the
party's organ, BJP Today. It concerned Muslims
alone. He asked them to accept "the symbols and
inspirational sources of our national culture,
such as Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak and
numerous other personalities". It is demands such
as these that pit the Sangh parivar and its
political outfit, the BJP, against the national
credo of secularism and makes it a 'party with a
difference'.
He wrote: "I solemnly assure our Muslim brethren
that it will be our firmest resolve to create a
riot-free, violence-free and discrimination-free
India when the BJP comes to power at the Centre."
Five years later, the Gujarat pogrom exposed the
worth of his word. Of what avail are the PM and
the DPM's belated election-eve promises to
"punish the guilty" if VHP activists are
appointed public prosecutors in cases arising out
of the pogrom. Last October, in an interview to
the BBC, Advani justified these appointments.
Harsh Mander points out that all the 240 cases of
Pota in Gujarat have been filed against
minorities, and all but one of these has been
filed against Muslims.
When, on March 8, Advani called the pogroms a
"blot" on the NDA's record, it was only a replay
of the familiar tune of retaliation for Godhra,
as if anyone else can be held responsible for
Godhra except those who perpetrated that horrible
crime.
This has been Vajpayee's plea as well and his
mindset is no different. Witness the famous Goa
speech on April 12, 2002 when Gujarat was still
simmering. "Wherever there are Muslims they do
not want to live with others. Instead of living
peacefully, they want to preach and propagate
their religion by creating fear and terror in the
minds of others." It would be hard to find a
precedent for a chief executive of a nation
attacking a whole section of it in breach of his
oath of office. Subsequent doctoring of the
transcript helped little.
The Pakistan factor is not a new obsession.
Addressing a meeting of Muslim women organised by
the Mahila Morcha of the BJP, on October 4, 1998,
the PM waxed eloquent on Indo-Pak friendship. It
is a hangover of their Jan Sangh days when
Vajpayee and Advani's party accused Muslims of
harbouring loyalty to Pakistan. Vajpayee angrily
denies that the BJP is a communal party and said
on February 25, "If we wanted we could have
floated a party of only Hindus." On February 19,
2002, he warned Muslims that the BJP could win
the UP assembly polls without their support, but
would like to support it. In short, their vote is
dispensable; but desirable for the BJP to pass
off as a 'national' party.
The BJP wants to secure the Muslim vote without
yielding on its Hindutva ideology. Vajpayee knows
why he cannot get it. Advani himself told the
BBC, to quote Organiser of August 5, 1989: "It
would not be wrong to call the BJP a Hindu
party." On October 1, 1990, he said, "When
Muslims, Sikhs and other communities practise
their religion, we call them secular, but if
parties like the BJP and Shiv Sena practice
Hinduism, then they are branded as communal."
Hindus in secular parties 'practise Hinduism'
without inviting reproach. It is not the practice
of this ancient and noble faith but the pursuit
of Hindutva, a modern credo of hate, for which
the BJP is distrusted and despised.
In April 1998, less than a month after he became
Union home minister, Advani sent down officials
to Chennai to build up case for dismissing the
DMK ministry. Narendra Modi was protected despite
the Gujarat pogrom. In November 1998 the
Archbishop of Delhi, Alan de Lastic, said, "Ever
since this government came to power at the
Centre, the attacks on Christians and Christian
missionaries have increased." The US State
Department noted in its Report on Human Rights
(February 2004): "The leading party in the
government coalition is the BJP, a Hindu
nationalist political party with links to the
Hindu extremist group that were implicated in
violent acts against Christians and Muslims."
Not content with fouling the atmosphere at home,
Advani is out to communalise foreign policy and
wreck the national consensus as well. He said on
March 13: "The BJP alone can find a solution to
our problems with Pakistan because Hindus will
never think that whatever we have done can be a
sell-off. The Congress can never do this because
Hindus will not trust it." This is itself a proud
avowal of being a communal party.
Vajpayee and Advani must have a profound contempt
for Muslims if they expect them to ignore their
record and vote for the BJP. De Gaulle's remark
apropos a former envoy who ran down France is
apt: "The American ambassador has judged France
by the Frenchmen with whom he used to dine."
Vajpayee and Advani must not judge Muslims by the
flotsam and jetsam that have floated to their
shores.
_____
[6]
The Times of India
March 23, 2004
Double Defeat | Liberal India on the Defensive
By Ramachandra Guha
Nearly 40 years ago, Marathi writer Hamid Dalwai
wrote a fascinating series of essays on the lack
of a liberal movement among Indian Muslims.
The leaders of the community, he argued, were
incapable of critical introspection. As he put
it, "When they find faults, the faults are
invariably those of other people. They do not
have the capacity to understand their own
mistakes...".
If progressive Muslims could not create a wider
movement, it was because "the moment they became
liberals they lost the confidence of their
backward and orthodox community".
By contrast, there was a large and influential
class of Hindu liberals. Here there was a "vast
gulf that separates the intelligentsia of the two
communities".
Compared to the Hindus, "the Muslims today are
culturally backward. They ought to be brought on
a level with the Hindus. This would imply the
creation of a liberal class in the Muslim commu-
nity. The Indian Muslims today need, most
urgently, a liberal movement".
Indian Muslims, wrote Hamid Dalwai, needed an
"avant garde liberal elite to lead them".
Otherwise, the consequences were dire, and not
just for Muslims. For "unless a Muslim liberal
intellec-tual class emerges, Indian Muslims will
continue to cling to obscurantist mediaevalism,
communalism, and will eventually perish both
socially and culturally. A worse possibility is
that of Hindu revivalism destroying even Hindu
liberalism, for the latter can succeed only with
the support of Muslim liberals who would
modernise Muslims and try to impress upon these
secular democratic ideals".
The prediction has come chillingly true. In 2004,
as in 1968, Muslim liberals exercise little
influence. There are indeed exemplary
individuals, such as Asghar Ali Engineer and
Mushirul Hasan.
Yet, these thinkers are treated with suspicion or
indifference by the vast bulk of their
co-religionists. To be a liberal Muslim still
implies that you do not have the confidence of
your community.
Historically, a major blow to a reform movement
among Indian Muslims was the migration of many of
their number to Pakistan.
Those who left were the cream of the professional
class â¤" lawyers, doctors, professors. Had they
remained they might just possibly have led a
movement for liberalism.
In Pakistan (as one might have foretold) they
were marginalised. In this respect, Hindus were
luckier. For one thing, there was no single holy
book they had constantly to make obeisance to. If
the Shastras sanction untouchability, said
Mahatma Gandhi, then we must reject them. (By
contrast, even the most emancipated Muslim has to
take recourse to the Quran.)
This freedom from dogma allowed the Hindus to
develop a robust and self-confident liberal
class. This was the class represented by Gandhi
and Nehru, by the Congress party, by the
Constituent Assembly, and, for decades, by the
government of India.
Hamid Dalwai could write with awe, and perhaps a
little envy, of the extraordinary influence of a
man like Jawaharlal Nehru.
He recalled that when anti-Muslim riots broke out
in Bihar in 1946, "Nehru threatened to bomb the
rioting Hindus if they would not stop their
violence; and yet the Hindus continued to accept
Nehru as their leader. In spite of Partition,
Nehru gave this nation a secular Constitution; he
gave Muslims equal rights; and yet a large
majority of Hindus accepted him as a leader".
The great German writer, Friedrich Schiller, once
remarked that "the first law of decency is to
preserve the liberty of others".
This is a law that Gandhi and Nehru made their
own. They were male, upper caste, and Hindu, yet
worked ceaselessly to safeguard the rights of
Indians different from themselves â¤" women, low
castes, and minorities.
And they successfully converted other Hindus to
their point of view. Thus we came to be governed
by a secular, democratic, and egalitarian
Constitution, rather than by the Laws of Manu.
In recent decades, this tradition of Hindu
liberalism has come under grave threat. Consider
thus the increasing presence of sants and sadhus
in our political life. In his 17 years as prime
minister, Nehru never entered a temple or mosque
or church.
The domains of statecraft and spiritualism were
kept separate, as is proper in a civilised
society. But with the Bharatiya Janata Party it
is hard to tell where governance begins and
religion ends.
Chief ministers are sworn in before a row of
saffron sadhus; prime ministers ask
Shankaracharyas to solve matters that should not
be within their purview at all.
For the moment, at least, Hindu revivalism is
triumphant. Its triumph is reflected in the
mimicry of its methods by its opponents, by the
desperate attempts of the Congress to present
itself as Hindutva's B-team.
It is also reflected in the sense of siege that
has overcome the progressive Hindu thinker and
writer. I write here from experience.
To speak of secularism and mo-dernity, or even of
tolerance and dialogue, is to be dismissed as a
'deracinated intellectual'. The more liberal a
Hindu is now, the less of a Hindu he is said to
have become.
The cause of Indian liberalism has thus suffered
a double defeat. There is still no credible
liberal movement among Indian Muslims. And Hindu
liberalism, too, has been pushed into retreat by
the advancing forces of revivalism.
_____
[7]
D-504 Purvasha
Mayur Vihar 1
Delhi 110091
21 March 2004
Dear Editor,
Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee is reported to have said that the central
government will back Maharashtra if it takes action against the
"foreign author" who wrote a "controversial book" about Shivaji --
and, further, that if Maharashtra took no action, the central
government would act on its own. Maharashtra had said that it
banned the book by James Laine because it feared law and order
problems: but our worthy Prime Minister has elevated the banning of
books to State policy. What action will he take? Will he raise the
matter in the United Nations? Or, far better, will he stage a pre-
emptive strike in imitation of the world's leading bully? Perhaps
a saffron-clad assassin moving stealthily in a quiet university
campus in the US?
Mukul Dube
_____
[8]
The Times of India
Politicisation of history upsets city academics
Times News Network [ Monday, March 22, 2004 02:04:48 AM ]
MUMBAI: Reacting to the misinformed ban call on
Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India, Mumbai
academics have criticised the way in which
history and historical icons are being used as
political football.
"The current politics is so denigrated that
events are being raked up from the dustbins of
history for political mileage", bemoans veteran
socialist and former state education minister
Sadanand Varde, who feels that to ask for such
bans goes against the very spirit of tolerance
that marked Shivaji's reign.
The state BJP had called for a ban on the book
last week, alleging that it contained derogatory
remarks about Shivaji, but on Sunday this
newspaper had pointed out that the book does not
actually contain any such remarks.
Despite several attempts to contact BJP leader
Gopinath Munde, he was not available for comment
nor were other BJP office-bearers willing to
comment.
"Most people talk about Nehru without actually
reading the material about him", says Nehru
Centre head Satish Sahney, adding that before
criticising any book, one should actually quote
the page number, paragraph".
Historians said that while Nehru had indeed been
known to havemade less than complimentary remarks
about Shivaji, these were in Glimpses of
WorldHistorywhich was first published in 1934,
and Nehru had apologised for them subsequently.
"I remember the incident when Nehru came down to
unveil the statue of Shivaji at Pratapgarh in
1957 amid protests", says Varde, adding "He
apologised and reiterated his belief in Shivaji
as a great leader. That was a long time ago, why
are we bringing it up now?".
Adds film maker Shyam Benegal, who made the
televisions series on Discovery of India,
"Politicians can say anything they want. But its
pathetic that they should take up subjects like
this during the elections".
Aroon Tikekar, scholar and journalist, points out
that even if there is something objectionable,
"there should be a more civilised way of
protesting". "At this rate, every history book
will have a problem," he says.
Academics note that whileNehru did indeedmake
some remarks connected to the way in which
Shivaji killedBijapur generalAfzalKhanin Glimpses
of WorldHistory, that book was never meant to be
an authoritative history but a compilation of
letters to his daughter while he was in prison in
the early 1930s.
Nehru's opinion at that time was largely
dependent on British andMogul sources, but he
gradually changed his mind on the incident.
"Consistence is the quality of the mule, of the
little mind" points out J V Naik, former head of
the Mumbai university's history department, "We
all evolve, and it is our final impression that
is most important".
"While Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, a member of VHP think
tank, refused to comment on this particular
incident, he claimed the Jan Sangh had always
opposed the 'ban culture'.
_____
[9]
[ new questions by Max van den Berg (vice-president Development
Co-operation Committee) in the European Parliament on the
situation in Gujarat]
o o o
Written question - 16 March 2004
By: Max van den Berg
Regarding: religious minorities in Gujarat
After the answers given by the Commission on May
15th, 2003 on questions raised by me and some
colleagues on April 9th, 2003, the situation in
Gujarat with regard to the trial of the
perpetrators of the massacre in February 2002 and
the rehabilitation of victims and/or their next
of kin has hardly improved.
In November 2003 Amnesty International reported
about the illegal detention of Muslims in
Gujarat. Before that Human Rights Watch published
a report about the threatening of human rights
activits in Gujarat.
AWAAZ South Asia Watch recently concluded in
their report 'In Bad Faith? British Charity &
Hindu Extremism' that front organisations of the
Hindu extremist RSS have, under false pretences,
raised millions of pounds that are channelled to
organisations involved in large scale violence
and fanning of religious hatred against
minorities.
Lastly, there are several reports about
discrimination of Muslims on the labour market.
1. Has the Commission taken notice of the above
mentioned reports of Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch and AWAAZ?
2. Has the Commission taken any action on this?
3. If so, what is the result? If not, why not?
4. Has the present situation in Gujarat
consequences for the actual implementation of the
non-discrimination principle as far as employment
policies of European companies is concerned?
Related information (not part of questions themselves):
Amnesty International: Abuse of the law in
Gujarat: Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad
web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200292003
Amnesty International - India, Gujarat - Denial
of Justice for Victims (26-2-2004):
web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200032004?open&of=ENG-IND
Human Rights Watch: India: Protect Gujarat Activists Now (5 September 2003)
www.hrw.org/press/2003/09/india090503.htm
'In Bad Faith - British Charity & Hindu Extremism:
www.awaazsaw.org/ibf/index.htm
_____
[10]
This is Shubhranshu Choudhary from India. I am a freelance TV producer.
I worked on a film on Indian Naxalites for BBC which goes out on following
times on BBC World-
23rd March 22:30G TUESDAY - Asia Opts out
24th March 02:30G WEDNESDAY - Asia Opts out
24th March 09:30G WEDNESDAY - Global
24th march 17:30G WEDNESDAY - Global
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.sacw.net/
The complete SACW archive is available at:
bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
South Asia Counter Information Project a sister
initiative, provides a partial back -up and
archive for SACW: snipurl.com/sacip
See also associated site: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
--
More information about the Sacw
mailing list