SACW | 27-28 June 2004

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  27-28 June,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1]   A Kashmir solution (A.G. Noorani)
[2]   Re-thinking Kashmir (Beena Sarwar)
[3]  Dialogue on Kashmir in UK (Balraj Puri)
[4]   India: Ashis Nandy's foundational 
assumptions on secularism are flawed, uninformed 
(Sanjay Subrahmanyam)
[5]  India: Two extended comments on the film "Dev" (Umair Ahmed Muhajir)
[6]  Upcoming Event: Social Scientist and Sahmat 
Convention,  "India: An Economic Agenda for 2004" 
(New Delhi, July 5)
[7] Upcoming Event: Transnational Subregional 
Cooperation and Northeast India - A Conference 
organized by CENISEAS in cooperation with the 
Institute of  Chinese Studies, Centre for the 
Study of Developing Societies, Delhi ()
[8] India: Press Release by rights activists on Capital Punishment

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

[1]

The Hindustan Times
June 28, 2004
Pg 10: Edit Page 

A KASHMIR SOLUTION
by A.G. Noorani

Will the current Indo-Pak peace process end in 
recrimination, as its predecessors did, when it 
reaches the roadblock, Kashmir? That is certain 
to happen unless each side seriously begins
to consider a solution to the tangle which it can 
realistically expect the other to accept, no less 
than its own people. The prime objective of CBMs, 
trade and cultural exchanges is to create a 
climate of trust in which that one major dispute 
can be resolved; and to bring the parties to the 
point where the end game begins. That is 
precisely where previous efforts failed.

There has been no dearth of solutions to the 
Kashmir issue aired on the subcontinent or 
abroad. They were either self-serving - 
plebiscite or LoC - or harebrained 
(confederation, independence or the US Study 
Group's Report). Solutions have been bandied 
about without a thought to their acceptability, 
practicality or the political process which could 
yield them. At the minimum, the governments of 
both countries must be strong and committed to a 
solution, patient and creative in its pursuit, 
and skilful in moulding public opinion in its 
support.

India's fear that substantive negotiations will 
reopen the state's accession to India is unreal. 
President Musharraf has virtually abandoned the 
UN's plebiscite resolutions. Pakistan's fear and 
India's expectation that the dispute will fade 
away have been belied by the people of Kashmir 
who are now more assertive than ever before. The 
state's Law Minister, Muzaffar Hussain Beigh, a 
Harvard man, said on May 2, 2003: "While the 
alienation can be traced back to 1951, the 
militancy started in 1989 and even if the 
militancy was rooted out, you will have the 
problem of alienation."

A settlement must be based on both the realities 
- secession is ruled out, but secessionism 
exists. It must be reckoned with honestly and met 
in a statesmanlike manner.

There has been little understanding of the 
significance of the Abdullah duo's utterances 
during the Lok Sabha election campaign. Why did a 
Farooq who once advocated "war with Pakistan" cry 
at election rallies: "Do not trust New Delhi 
because it has always betrayed Kashmiris" and 
praise Pervez Musharraf? Sunanda K. Datta Ray 
reported from Srinagar: "No one in Kashmir's 
electoral fray would dream of condemning the 
militants." New Delhi's interlocutor, Umar 
Farooq, led the funeral prayers of Rafiq Ahmed 
Lidri, operation chief of the pro-Pakistan 
Al-Umar Mujahideen, on February 6.

The truth is that even at the best of times there 
was a pro-Pakistan constituency in Kashmir. On 
August 5, 1948 Sheikh Abdullah pleaded with the 
Maharaja, "I have got to turn the minds of 
Muslims of the state from Pakistan to the Indian 
Dominion." New Delhi's policies helped that 
constituency to expand. India cannot yield to it 
and concede secession. Nor will Pakistan accept 
in a deal what it already has. Kashmiris 
themselves reject the LoC. In 1963 Swaran Singh 
offered Z.A. Bhutto 3,000 square miles of 
territory. But the Valley is the core of this 
'core dispute'. Pakistan does not seek tourist 
right there. A Kashmir accord will soften the 
Indo-Pak boundary. A soft LoC is no concession. 
India and Pakistan must evolve the 'Elements of 
Settlement' that go beyond the status quo without 
entailing the state's secession.

That was the title of a document which the US and 
Britain presented in April 1963 during the Swaran 
Singh-Bhutto parleys. It said: "Neither India nor 
Pakistan can entirely give up its claim to the 
Kashmir Valley. Each must have a substantial 
position in the Valley." None can accept the 
obscenity of its partition. But the fundamental 
can be adopted - India cannot give Pakistan a 
territorial stake in the Valley, bar 
rationalisation of the LoC. But it can give it a 
juridical stake in the state, excluding the 
strategic Ladakh district, without affecting its 
own sovereignty. Pakistan must concede a similar 
stake to India in respect of PoK, excluding the 
Northern Areas. Parity of treatment preserves the 
state's unity. The LoC, thus modified, becomes an 
international boundary, notionally.

There are precedents of states resolving similar 
disputes with their neighbours by agreeing to 
limit the exercise of their sovereignty over a 
piece of their territory and granting its people 
autonomy, which is guaranteed by agreement with 
the neighbour, and accepting its juridical locus 
standi in respect of that guarantee. Its 
sovereignty over the area is accepted by the 
neighbour as part of the deal.

On February 20, 1948, Sheikh Abdullah told the 
Under-Secretary of State in the Commonwealth 
Relations Office, Patrick Gordon-Walker, in 
Nehru's presence, that "the solution was that 
Kashmir should accede to both DominionsŠ India 
was progressiveŠ on the other hand,  Kashmir's 
trade passed through Pakistan and a hostile 
Pakistan would be a constant danger. The 
solution, therefore, was that Kashmir should have 
its autonomy jointly guaranteed by India and 
Pakistan and it would delegate its foreign policy 
and defence to them both jointly but would look 
after its own internal affairs."

That joint delegation is a constitutional 
impossibility. But Kashmiris can negotiate with 
both countries for maximum autonomy possible to 
each part of the state, including the right to 
conduct foreign trade. The issue of sovereignty 
resolved, the LoC becomes an international border 
with freedom of movement on both sides, 
guarantees to human right, etc.

Now, for the precedents. The Anglo-Afghan Treaty, 
signed at Kabul on November 22, 1921, reaffirmed 
the validity of the Durand Line. However, by a 
collateral letter given to Afghanistan at the 
same time, the British representative wrote: "As 
the conditions of the tribes of the two 
Governments are of interest to the Government of 
Afghanistan, I inform you that the British 
Government entertains feelings of good- will 
towards all the frontier tribes and has every 
intention of treating them generously, provided 
they abstain from outrages against the 
inhabitants of India."

Sweden and Finland settled their dispute over the 
predominantly Swedish Aaland Islands under the 
auspices of the League of Nations on June 27, 
1921. Finland promised "to guarantee to the 
population of the Aaland Islands the preservation 
of their language, of their culture, and of their 
local Swedish traditions". It undertook to 
enforce its Law of Autonomy of May 7, 1920. On 
September 5, 1946, Italy and Austria signed an 
agreement, under which Italy undertook to grant 
its German-speaking Bolzano province adjoining 
Austria, and the neighbouring bilingual townships 
of the Trento province "autonomous legislative 
and executive regional power", besides rights. 
The details were settled in 1992, including 
provision for international adjudication if the 
autonomy is violated.

If these models are adopted, each country will 
gain enough to sell the accord to its people; 
yet, concede enough to make it acceptable to the 
other country as well as to the people of the 
state. Kashmiris will acquire double guarantees 
of autonomy - domestic and international. 
Pakistan can claim: "We have secured azadi for 
Kashmir for which we are a guarantor." India can 
claim "Kashmir's accession is no longer in 
dispute". The peace dividends both will reap will 
be colossal.

_____



[2]

The News Internatinal
June 27, 2004

RE-THINKING KASHMIR
by Beena Sarwar

For the last few months, we have been shown 
tantalising glimpses of the possibility of peace 
between Pakistan and India - with Kashmir, the 
'core issue' lurking contentiously in the 
background, bogging down both countries in their 
own narrow notions of nationalism and threatening 
whatever progress is made towards peace. To 
emerge from this quagmire, it is necessary to put 
aside prejudices, fears and positions, and engage 
in a genuine dialogue that breaks through these 
national versions of the Kashmir story that have 
been developed on all sides of the conflict.

This is what the documentary 'Crossing The Lines: 
Kashmir, Pakistan, India' (Eqbal Ahmad 
Foundation, 2004; 45 minutes) by the well known 
academics and peace activists Pervez Hoodbhoy and 
Zia Mian courageously attempts to do. Screened at 
private venues in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad 
over the last couple of months, the film is a 
straightforward narrative presented by Hoodbhoy - 
far more effectively than in his previous 
documentary, 'Pakistan and India Under the 
Nuclear Shadow' (2001), scripted by Mian.

"Nations and nationalism, borders and boundaries 
- these are ways of separating people and land. 
These are all old ideas, ideas that have failed 
us again and again," says Mian, with reference to 
the Kashmir film. He points out that there is a 
new government in India, but no one expects 
Indian position on Kashmir to change very much. 
Similarly in Pakistan, civilian or military, 
there is no change on Kashmir. Following up on 
Gen. Musharraf's admission that Pakistan cannot 
realistically hope for a plebiscite to end the 
Kashmir dispute and, therefore, is willing to 
explore other ways, Hoodbhoy in an article last 
December had argued that for Pakistan to insist 
on plebiscite "is the surest way of guaranteeing 
that a bloody stand-off continues."

The film presents the urgent need for a dialogue 
to discuss other options, challenging the people, 
and civil and military establishments on both 
sides to break out of their own national versions 
of the Kashmir story. There are many who will 
remain trapped in these notions, and refuse to 
see the film in this spirit. They will attack 
Hoodbhoy and Mian because they present both sides 
of the story in a way that the public in either 
country never sees.

Particularly moving and difficult to watch are 
the scenes of a recent bombing, that Hoodbhoy's 
cameraman in Kashmir caught by chance, although 
one would have liked to see more on struggle of 
Kashmiri women. Conservative Indian thought will 
also resent the film's presentation of the 
disillusionment of the Kashmirs with Indian rule, 
as encapsulated through a candid interview with 
the wild-bearded Hizb commander Syed Salahuddin.

The film traces the background of the conflict, 
using interviews of key figures and ordinary 
people from all sides, rare archival footage and 
excellent computer animation. Neither Hoodbhoy 
nor Mian have ever been afraid of controversy, or 
of tackling contentious issues head on, whether 
it is to demand equal rights for religious 
minorities or contest distorted facts in our 
history textbooks. Their respective stands on 
peace with India and the nuclear issue are well 
known. In taking on Kashmir, they continue this 
tradition, of asking awkward questions that force 
people to think about issues that it is more 
comfortable to ignore.

These issues include the building of national 
identity through cultivating prejudice and hatred 
towards the other - by both India and Pakistan. 
The result is views from both sides that mirror 
each other. This in fact, is one of the strong 
points of the film - its inclusion of footage and 
interviews from India and Kashmir. Since the end 
of the Afghan war, Pakistan's continued patronage 
of religious militants has strengthened local and 
foreign militants who not only threaten the 
social fabric in Pakistan but have also upped the 
ante in Kashmir. Their conviction that Kashmir is 
part of a greater struggle, is reflected by 
radical Hindu leaders in India - a side that we 
in Pakistan don't hear about very often.

Also clear is Hoodbhoy and Mian's stand on the 
nuclear issue, as the film shows how the nuclear 
tests only served to intensify tensions between 
both countries. In the end, one is left with more 
questions than answers - but perhaps that is the 
intention of the filmmakers.

"The past almost sixty years have brought war and 
hate, big armies, nuclear weapons and mass 
poverty. The past can be no guide to show us the 
way to the future," says Mian. "It's time to make 
a break with the old ways and the old dreams. We 
need to search for new ideas, and find the 
courage to take a step forward."

This can happen if a genuine, open-minded 
dialogue is initiated, possibly catalysed by this 
film through screenings at joint meetings of 
parliamentarians, foreign offices and military 
establishments. Most importantly it needs to be 
brought out of private halls, and onto television 
in both countries as well as in Kashmir.

The writer is a staff member


_____


[3]

The Deccan Herald
June 28, 2004

DIALOGUE ON KASHMIR IN UK
Religion, ethnicity and goodwill
There was a healthy respect for religious, 
cultural and ethnic diversity at two conferences 
on Kashmir held in the UK
By Balraj Puri

Two parallel international conferences on the 
Kashmir issue held in London and Birmingham 
recently by the organisations based in Britain 
provided an opportunity to know their latest 
thinking on the subject as also of those who 
attended them from both sides of the LoC. The 
London conference was organised by the 
International Kashmir Alliance and attended by 
the Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto 
and the Muslim League leader

and former minister Shafqat Mehmood from 
Pakistan, Justice Abdul Majid Malik, former chief 
justice of Azad Kashmir High Court from the 
Pak-held part of the state, Mirza Wajahat Hasan 
from Gilgit and Baltistan, a large contingent 
from Kashmir Valley which included National 
Conference delegation led by Farooq Abdullah and 
representatives of the PDP, a group from Jammu 
which included official spokesperson of the BJP, 
four members of the Panthers Party and one each 
from Leh and Kargil districts of Ladakh region, 
apart from expatriates from the state settled in 
the UK, including a few Kashmiri Pandits and a 
large number of Mirpuris from the Pak part of the 
state.

The Birmingham conference held, barely a week 
later on 6-7 June, had a nominal representation 
from the Indian part of the state but a larger 
representation from the other side and from 
Kashmiris settled abroad. Whosoever sponsored 
these conferences and whatever be their motives, 
one could discern realisation of new realities in 
the state amidst the usual rhetoric. Firstly, the 
fact that it is a plural, multi-ethnic, 
multi-regional and multi-religious state. At 
least five regions were clearly identified by 
most of the speakers, namely Kashmir valley, 
Jammu, Ladakh, "Azad Kashmir" and Gilgit 
Baltistan. The demand of each region for 
recognition of its identity received sympathetic 
attention. In particular the plight of Gilgit - 
Baltistan, which had lost its identity and was 
renamed as Northern Area was highlighted by 
Wajahat Hasan. The region where the state subject 
law has been repealed and which has no 
representation in the National Assembly of 
Pakistan; nor any democratic institution at local 
level was, according to Hasan, worse off than it 
was during the Maharaja's time.

Need for internal dialogue

The conference stressed the need for internal 
dialogue between people on either side of the LoC 
and belonging to various regional and ethnic 
identities to evolve a consensus on the future of 
the state. The idea was also mooted that before a 
discussion on the future of the state, the future 
of each region within the state should also be 
discussed. A plea was made for a democratic 
federal and decentralised set-up to reconcile 
divergent aspirations of different regions and 
communities and help in evolving a harmonious 
nature of the state which alone could aspire for 
a stable and satisfactory status. Otherwise a 
decision of the majority of various groups with 
conflicting urges and interests could not be 
called valid. For majoritarianism is a negation 
of democracy. The final declaration at the 
Birmingham Conference, too, assured protection to 
all ethnic, regional and religious communities of 
the state.

Secondly, the impact of 9/11 was widely 
recognised. The British MP from a constituency of 
predominantly Pakistani expatriates in the UK, 
Khalid Mehmood, urged the audience at Birmingham 
to realise that the world opinion no longer 
sympathises with the use of violence by the 
freedom movements.

He therefore advised the supporters of the 
Kashmir movement to highlight human rights 
violations by the Indian security forces to 
regain world sympathy. Many participants in that 
conference quoted figures from eighty thousand to 
one lakh Kashmiris who were allegedly massacred 
by the Indian forces. As a person who has been 
monitoring human rights violations on either 
side, I could also cite a series of incidents of 
mass killings by the militants of Hindus or 
Sikhs. There was obviously not much awareness 
about other incidents of mass killings by the 
militants. But none contradicted my suggestion to 
isolate the incidents of killing of unarmed and 
uninvolved innocent civilians whatever be their 
religious or political beliefs and raise a voice 
of protest jointly against that.

At the London conference where there were more 
persons who had first hand experience of the 
ongoing violence, its rejection was categoric. 
Even those who believed in an independent state 
had come to the conclusion that the role of the 
gun - and that too a borrowed one - to achieve 
their objective was over.
The proposed opening of the Srinagar-Rawalpindi 
road was welcomed in this context. But the 
Mirpuri audience, in both the conferences, was 
more enthusiastic about my proposal to also open 
a road between Nowshera (on the Indian side) and 
Mirpur (on the Pakistan side), a distance of 25 
miles, to enable people of the same ethnic stock 
on both sides of the LoC to meet each other.

Religious divisions opposed
Both the conferences opposed division of the 
state on religious or ethnic grounds. In fact the 
factor of religion was downplayed in the 
discussion on the Kashmir problem; except for the 
issue of Kashmiri Pandits, whose right to return 
to their homes with full security was conceded.

However those who pleaded for a unified state did 
not spell out what would be its status vis a vis 
India and Pakistan. On the whole, there was a 
greater emphasis on starting a process than on 
final goals.

Those who claim to be better representatives of 
the people and suspect the bonafides of the 
sponsors of British conferences owe it to 
themselves and to the people of the state to 
initiate internal dialogue, at least on its 
Indian side, between different regions, 
communities and viewpoints. For nobody can claim 
to represent all the diversities of the state.

But there is hardly any dialogue not only among 
these diversities but also among the same ethnic 
and religious community. Unless a culture for 
dialogue and respect for dissent and diversity is 
restored, there is little scope for any headway 
towards a solution of the Kashmir problem.


_____



[4]


Outlook
Jul 05, 2004

Our Only Colonial Thinker
Ashis Nandy's foundational assumptions on secularism are flawed, uninformed
Sanjay Subrahmanyam
The essay by Ashis Nandy, A Billion Gandhis (June 
21), demonstrates once more that this celebrated 
Indian psychologist and maverick thinker is 
exactly as dazzlingly clever as he is tiresomely 
repetitive and profoundly ill-informed. And he is 
as innocent of the facts about India and her past 
as he is of Europe and hers. Armed with this 
blissful innocence, he can then brilliantly 
develop paradox after paradox. The fact that none 
of them has any basis in reality has rarely fazed 
him. So let us begin with his view of the history 
of concepts.

Nandy claims that "the concept of secularism 
emerged in a Europe torn by inter-religious 
strife, warfare and pogroms". When and where did 
this happen? In the France of Charles IX and 
Henri IV? During the Thirty Years' War? Can he 
give us some specific periods and societies? No. 
Because Nandy's Europe does not exist except in 
his own imagination. It is a non-place that only 
exists to be an 'anti-India' and he believes
he can attribute anything he wants to it just because it tickles his fancy.
In point of fact, the term 'secularism' has very 
little purchase in most European or indeed other 
western societies as a part of normal political 
vocabulary. Even today, no one in the political 
sphere much talks about 'secularism' in the 
United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, Spain or 
Portugal or in the United States, Argentina, or 
Brazil. Neither Tony Blair nor Mrs Thatcher has 
ever used the word in a speech that I can 
remember. The only Europeans who use some sort of 
term like that are the French, with their idea of 
laïcité. But the French did not mean this term to 
be one that mediated between religious groups. 
Rather, it had to do with separating the state 
from one particular religion, Catholicism, in the 
French Revolution and its aftermath, leading up 
to the well-known Separation Act of 1905. This is 
not quite the same thing as 'secularism'. 
Europeans do talk of 'secularisation', but this 
simply means the turning away from religion, the 
fact that churches are less and less attended and 
so on.
The idea of 'secularism' propagated in 
nineteenth-century Britain by George Holyoake and 
then Charles Bradlaugh (who founded the National 
Secular Society in 1866) was for the most part 
one linked to promoting rationalism in education 
rather than education through religious schools.
It is therefore a profound error to assume that 'secularism' is a


	Secularism has acquired a deep meaning 
and significance in India that many Europeans 
simply don't understand. Thus, 'secularism' has 
become almost as Indian a word as 'preponed' or 
'denting' (for removing a dent in a car).


common word in political use in the West that has 
simply been transferred to India as an 'imported 
idea'. In reality, the term has a political 
weight in India that it has never had in the 
West, and it has acquired a deep meaning and 
significance in India that many Europeans simply 
don't understand. Thus, 'secularism' has become 
almost as Indian a word as 'preponed' or 
'denting' (for removing a dent in a car).
This said, one can only applaud Nandy on one 
point: when he suggests that one should look to 
traditions and political concepts that have long 
existed in India for notions of tolerance. But 
one equally wishes he practiced what he preached. 
What is Nandy's own record on this matter over 
the years? He has never deigned to study Indian 
history. He has no idea what took place or what 
people thought or wrote in India before colonial 
rule. When pressed, he refers to the Ramayana and 
the Mahabharata as if this were the sum total of 
India's past. His own knowledge of colonial 
history is essentially limited to the British 
themselves and Bengali authors living under 
colonial rule. What sort of intellectual 
resources are these, if not those of "the 
dominant, colonial culture of India's knowledge 
industry"? Not only has Nandy never read a single 
work from the fifteenth or sixteenth century, he 
does not even read those who write about these 
texts.

Truly, to be a 'great thinker', one must first be 
a great innocent, one who can blithely claim-as 
Nandy does-that India never had historians before 
colonial rule. Apparently Abu'l Fazl came from 
Mars.
Nandy appears at his worst when he wishes 
pompously to hand out lessons. He wants others to 
learn from "the concept of convivencia that 
apparently existed in medieval Islamic Spain. Did 
anybody in Islamic Spain ever use this "concept"? 
So far as I know-and I have studied the history 
of Spain in that period unlike him-no one did. 
This idea was imposed on the Spain of that period 
by romantic modern historians, and it is no more 
indigenous to it than 'secularism' is to Mughal India.

And the idea that Spain in this epoch was "the 
only truly plural polity Europe has produced in 
the last one thousand years" is simply another 
example of what passes for scholarship in some 
circles. It is just another case of the Golden 
Age syndrome.
So perhaps Nandy should begin by reflecting on 
the rather widespread of forms of "obscene 
arrogance", and not hand out lessons before doing 
his homework. If he does so, I am sure he will 
find plenty of examples of tolerance not just in 
the villages that his rather tired populist 
rhetoric wants to hold up as an example, but in 
other parts of Indian society in both the past 
and present. But it may involve harder work than 
producing the cotton candy that passes for 
cleverness in 'indigenist' circles.
And it may also involve the sad admission that in 
his romantic adulation of India's Hindu past, his 
desire to preserve indigenous 'purity', his 
mythification of an ahistorical Europe, and his 
links to the lachrymose tradition of the romantic 
underside of the so-called Bengal Renaissance, 
Ashis Nandy is today our only true colonial 
thinker-now that Nirad Chaudhuri has passed on. 
He may be a colonial romantic, but that does not 
make him any less colonial in his mentality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Subrahmanyam is Professor of Indian 
History and Culture at Oxford University, and 
author of Mughals and Franks and From the Tagus 
to Ganges, both to appear with OUP in 2004

_____


[5]

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 01:14:31 GMT


Dear Mr. Kapoor.

Two pieces on "Dev" follow, one that I had 
written prior to Farah Naqvi's piece, and one 
that I wrote after reading her piece.  Please 
include them in South Asia Citizens' Wire.  Thank 
you.


Umair Ahmed Muhajir

1.

In recent years, the films produced by the Bombay industry have become
synonymous to many with dewy love stories/NRI fantasies, with all the depth and
grace of a Hallmark greeting card; combined with the (welcome) decline of what
used to pass as parallel cinema in the Hindi film 
industry (welcome because much
parallel cinema simply confused realism and angst with high art, and ended up
boring everyone in the audience), this has meant 
that for those not in school or
those not simply desirous of remembering the motherland as if through a cartoon
prism, there has been precious little to cheer about where Hindi cinema is
concerned, the exceptions that prove the rule notwithstanding.

None can accuse Govind Nihalani's "Dev," of either the sort of addled
lovesickness or pointless bellowing that has 
plagued Hindi cinema in years past.
  In constructing a tale of two senior police officers set against a backdrop of
communal violence (a tale that should have become stale by now; that it has not
is sad testimony to our propensity to slaughter each other), Nihalani is
scrupulous, grief-stricken, and quite clever.  But that is not all; he has that
rarest of qualities in a film that bills itself as a "commercial"
film: unexpectedness.

    What makes "Dev" unexpected is its refusal to succumb to the easy

secularism/liberalism of "Hindu-Muslim bhai bhai" ("Hindus and
Muslims are brothers"), or of the notion that "the people are
basically good, no matter of what community."  I stress that these are not
mean or contemptible notions by any means (indeed I would argue that the notion
of the fraternity of Indians, of whatever religious affiliation, and even of
none, is the very essence of citizenship), merely 
that these are rather banal or
unremarkable ones (to the extent they would be particularly welcome, it speaks
volumes on the pass we have come to). 

     "Dev" gives us something far more rich and strange than Dev
(played by Amitabh Bachchan) the Nehruvian secularist  versus Tejinder Khosla
the hard-core adherent of Hindutva (Om Puri); "Dev" offers a
meditation on ethical obligation and responsibility, from within the Hindu
tradition.  Bachchan's character is no card-carrying secularist: at the film's
outset, he is quite aggrieved by what he sees as the politics of
"minorityism," and his demeanor when meeting with certain Muslim
clerics, combined with a stray remark during the interrogation of a Muslim
suspect, and his lack of vehement protest at the 
extreme views articulated by Om
Puri's Khosla (a close friend) all confirm the 
impression.  Indeed his strongest
disagreement with Khosla in the first half of the film is with the drastic
nature of Khosla's methods, Om Puri's grizzled senior police officer being of
the
"get rid of them all" persuasion.  Nihalani appears to have cast his
lot in with the Khoslas of the world in the first half of the film, replete as
it is with anti-national politicians, a bitter Farhan Ali (played with
unsurprising ineptitude by Fardeen Khan) determined to assassinate DCP Dev to
avenge the death of his father, and even a Muslim 
Gandhian who we learn has been
tormented for decades by his murder (during the 1969 Ahmedabad violence) of an
unarmed Hindu, and by the fact that his life is ultimately saved by yet other
Hindus.  In short, Nihalani constructs the first half of the film so as to air
just about every stereotype about Muslim Indians currently prevalent-- yet all
this is, in a sense, sleight of hand: Nihalani attempts to seduce the viewer,
all the better to startle him/her.

     The second half of the film is occupied by depictions of communal violence,
led by prominent members of the state's ruling party, and by Dev's inability to
prevent some of the worst outrages.  By way of background, Dev reports to
Khosla, who has been especially appointed by the ruling party, and part of his
job description apparently includes ensuring that the "people's
sentiments" are respected when Muslims are massacred after a bomb explosion
at a temple of Ganesh, although the massacres are 
committed by the cadres of the
ruling party.  Dev's report on the burning of a basti (reminiscent of Naroda
Patiya) threatens to embarrass the government, and he is slain by his friend
Khosla as he is ascending the steps of the courthouse to hand his report in. 
Khosla himself ultimately commits suicide, haunted by his betrayal of his
one-time friend.

     What is one to make of this film, specifically of the juxtaposition of its
two halves? One way of reading the film would be to interpret its first half as
presenting "the Muslim" as a "problem," or perhaps more
accuartely, as "problematic."  For Khosla, this definitional issue
settles the entire debate: he sees a problem to 
be solved, indeed a problem with
only one solution.  The film's second half, 
however, jolts the viewer out of any
uncritical acceptance of Khosla's views, and does so by illustrating the
enormous gap between the "problem" and Khosla's proffered solution. 
To put it another way, whereas for Khosla there is no ethical issue to be
considered once he has settled the definitional one in his mind, for Dev it is
precisely the opposite.  From the first half of the film he does not appear to
be the standard left-liberal secularist, and it would be a mistake to read the
second as inverting this; for Dev it is simply the case that the definitional
issue does not settle the ethical question.  Indeed, for the film as for its
lead protagonist, it is only when the definitional issue is deemed settled that
the ethical conundrum begins.

     Thus the central question "Dev" grapples with is not who "the
other" is or how this "other" is to be defined, categorized,
characterized, not, that is, a metaphysical 
question, but an ethical one: how is
one to be with respect to one who has been marked out as "other"? 
What is one's obligation and responsibility in 
such a situation?  Through all of
this, the Gita casts a long shadow over "Dev" (indeed the film begins
with a sloka from the Gita), and more 
particularly with a certain interpretation
of the famous Krishna-Arjun dialogue at the text's core.  When Dev thinks of
exposing those who perpetrated or were complicit in atrocities, he begins to
write a report-- presumably he thinks (at least at that point) that submitting
such a report will make a difference.  Certainly 
that appears to be at one point
Furhan Ali's primary concern-- towards the end of the film he asks Dev if the
latter really feels that writing such reports will make a difference; Dev says
that it will make a difference, though he does not seem to say this with any
great conviction, almost as if he himself were in need of such consolation. 
Shortly thereafter, however, all such doubt has melted away for Dev: in a scene
reminiscent of the Krishna-Arjun dialogue in the Gita, Dev explains to Furhan
that the crucial thing for a warrior is not that the letter live or die, but
that he fight; likewise, as a police officer his 
dharma, his infinite obligation
in a sense, is to do his duty and serve the constitution.  Dev does not serve
the constitution because he seems to have analyzed it and found it to be a good
document, but because as a police officer it is his dharma to do so.  Implied
here is a gentle rebuke of Furhan in the previous scene, who seems to be
suggesting that struggling in this manner and writing such a report would only
be worthwhile if it "made a difference"; Furhan, in short, subscribes
to an instrumental logic that is quite alien to Dev's worldview in the next
scene.  DCP Dev does what he does because he cannot do otherwise and yet be DCP
Dev.  Furhan, I would argue, takes the lesson to heart, and the last scene of
the film shows him ascending the courthouse steps to practice as the lawyer he
had trained to be, but had never actually been, 
preferring more violent modes of
being.

    The dharma of Dev is not the dharma of Khosla; indeed it seems doubtful that
"dharma" is a word that would have much resonance to Khosla, for all
the latter's obsession with "Hinduness."  Nihalani's barb at Hindutva
cannot be missed: for all the talk of affirming the "Hindu-ness" of
India, the political ideology Khosla subscribes to is really quite uninterested
in Hinduism or Hindu philosophy, preferring to mortgage them at the altar of
nineteenth century Western-style nationalism, dreaming of an India co-extensive
with a spirit, the spirit in turn animating the volk, in the image of dutiful
German, French, and other nationalists of eras 
gone by.  Dev, who is depicted as
far more devoutly Hindu than his friend, is by the end of the film a
"traitor" to "his own" according to Khosla-- a dialogue that
reveals how little Khosla has to do with Dev's Gita.  "Meri Gita shakti ki
Gita hai" ("My Gita is the Gita of Strength) Khosla says at one point
early in the film; we are never told what Dev's Gita is.  That it is
irremediably other than Khosla's own is revealed to him when Furhan confronts
him after Dev's death; Khosla asks Furhan to come to his apartment to collect
certain of Dev's things.  Once there, Furhan accuses Khosla of having killed
Dev, and refers to the latter as his "roohani pita" ("spiritual
father").  Bewildered by this, Khosla finally sends Furhan away, telling
him that he (i.e. Khosla) has nothing of Dev's with him; when Furhan's back is
turned, Khosla shoots himself. 
     The logic of Nihalani's film brings one to 
this pass: Khosla has done all he
has in the name of "the Hindu," yet in the course of doing his all he
feels compelled to murder the most classically Hindu of all the film's
characters, indeed one who is at different points 
Arjuna and Krishna in the film
(and indeed who is even named "Dev" ("god")).  I would argue
that Khosla does not realize until the instant he shoots himself that he has
horribly compromised his ultimate referent--Hindu/Hinduism--while claiming to
serve its cause, and has ended by killing Dev, thereby symbolically destroying
the referent.  Once this has happened, there is no ground left for Khosla
himself to stand on, who prefers to end his life rather than make his way
through the dark realization that he has betrayed that which he claimed to
serve.

Umair A. Muhajir

2.

Ms. Naqvi's is not a fair review. It is patently false that "Dev"
depicts communal violence as between two equals: the unequal nature
of the contest is illustrated by the fact that whereas the
unscrupulous Muslim politician/gangster is ultimately taken away by
the police, Milind Gunaji's Hindutvawaadi has to be released in a few
hours, and returns home to loud cheers; more graphically, the scenes
of Muslims burning and attacking Hindu-owned shops last for barely a
minute, a fraction of the footage devoted to Sanghi hordes ravaging
a Muslim mohalla. Nor is it only a question of footage, but of the
KIND of images shown: the Muslim goons are shown ransacking shops and
assaulting people, the Sanghi goons are shown stabbing, burning,
raping, etc. To put it another way, Ms. Naqvi's problem is not
with "Dev" so much as with the Ahmedabad audience. That the latter
buys into Khosla's ideology does not make the film communal in some
ultimate sense.

Ms. Naqvi is criticizing the film for not being secular in the
liberal sense, but that is simply not Nihalani's concern; HIS focus
seems to be: "EVEN IF you dislike/fear/despise the Muslim, what
then?" It is not that Nihalani is propagating the sort of
patronising secularism that has become the hallmark of India today
(as Ms. Naqvi claims), it is that secularism is not the subject
of "Dev" at all! It speaks volumes about how much the discourse
of "secularism" (read: good) has colonized the political space that
anything that is not secular is dismissed as "bad" or even sinister.
Now, the reaction in the Ahmedabad cinema hall Ms. Naqvi is talking
about IS sinister, but that is not because the people who were
tittering were not secular, but because they appear to be viciously
bigoted, and seem to be unable to regard difference as anything other
threatening. To impose a "secularist" framework on what is patently
a meditation on what happens to Hinduism in the face of Hindutva, and
then to complain if the clothes don't fit, is hardly fair.

In the world of "Dev," there will be no Hindu dharma left if the
Khoslas of the age hold sway-- the targeting of Muslims in "Dev" is
thus not just the killing of innocents (thought it is manifestly
that), it is ALSO the losing of one's soul, a fratricide that ends in
a suicide.

[And lest I be accused of playing fast and loose with the film, I
submit that my reading is firmly grounded in the film's text.
Consider the following:

i. The film begins with a sloka from the Gita, explicitly evokes the
Gita at numerous points, and in the pivotal scene between Dev and
Furhan towards the end, Bachchan's dialogues seem to be paraphrases
of Krishna's words to Arjun.

ii. Dev is the most devout person in the film (Furhan's father
probably comes in second); Dev is regularly shown praying, Khosla not
even once. Furhan himself, who takes it upon himself to avenge his
father's death by killing Dev, is the arch-secularist, not
religiously inclined at all, his face "un-marked" by beard, etc., but
most importantly he is "secular" in his desire for retribution in the
world, the political sign of which is that he cares more for
his "qaum" than his God (whom he never mentions or involkes at any
point in the film);

iii. The most memorable instance of prayer in the film belongs to
Mangal Rao (played by Milind Gunaji), right before he embarks on his
pogrom, when he TURNS HIS BACK ON GOD after completing his prayer--]

iv. As for the point about Muslims needing "broad minded" Hindus
like Dev to make their case for them, let us accept certain facts: if
the opposition to Hindutva were coming only from the 10-12% of the
population classified as Muslim, and the 2-3% classified as
Christian, then the game would have been lost a long time ago. The
fact is that there are plenty of non-Muslims and non-Christians in
India who are also resisting Hindutva. It is also sad but true that
ABSENT Hindutva-resisting-Hindus, the anti-Hindutva struggle would
take on simply a communal hue (this helps to explain how and why,
when confronted with Hindus who are opposed to Hindutva, the Sangh
resorts to outlandish theories of how such people are really anti-
Hindu Marxists, that they are "self-loathers" or "Macaulayputras" or
what not). Indeed I submit that the day opposition to Hindutva
simply becomes a question of whether is Hindu or not, that is the day
Hindutva will have triumphed in its long-term goal: of
defining "Hindu" and "Hinduism" so that it is co-extensive
with "Hindutva" and with the ideology of the Sangh

There is yet another reason why Dev speaks "for" Muslims in a
sense, and Nihalani makes it explicit in the film, when Mangal Rao
threatens Latif (the Muslim gangster/politician) that post-violence,
if he and "his people" want to stay in "this country and this town,"
they will have to observe certain rules: (i) No-one is to complain
about ill-treatment by Hindus; (ii) No-one is to file complaints
against any Hindu who participated in the violence; (iii) No-one is
to cooperate with any policy inquiry, media person, etc. Dev "speaks
for" the Muslims in the film not because Nihalani has made a
patronizing film, but because, as we are reminded everyday from
Gujarat, the position of Muslims has become very tenuous where
Hindutva reigns supreme.

v. Ms. Naqvi ignores the very last scene of the film, when it is
Furhan Ali who is ascending the steps of the courthouse, with Dev's
report in hand. At that point no-one is speaking "for" him,
certainly not Dev. Ultimately this is an optimistic end no doubt
(the embittered Furhan Ali decides to take up the cause in a legal
way, abandoning the path of the gun), and perhaps this is unpalatably
reassuring to Ms. Naqvi. Fine, one could certainly read it that way,
but I think it is difficult to square that resolution (the Furhan
Alis of Bombay setting aside their alienation and using the
Constitution as their bulwark to speak for themselves and demand
justice) with the notion that Muslims in the film can be spoken-form
by the likes of Dev. One may critique the former for being too re-
assuring, but not for being the latter.]

Umair Ahmed Muhajir

______


[6]

Sahmat, Convention on July 5, at 10 a.m.on the 
theme "India: An Economic Agenda for 2004"


Subject: Sahmat, Convention on July 5, at 10 
a.m.on the theme "India: An Economic Agenda for 
2004".

Social Scientist
35A/1,Shahpur Jat
Near Asiad Village ,New Delhi-110049

SAHMAT 8, Vithalbhai Patel House, Rafi Marg,New Delhi-110001
e-mail-sahmat@ vsnl.com

24.6.2004

Dear  friend,

The vote against the NDA government in the recent 
elections was also a rejection of the neo-liberal 
economic policies which have been in vogue for 
the last thirteen years and which the NDA in 
particular was pursuing relentlessly. The 
peoples’ verdict against neo-liberalism was 
scarcely surprising: the pursuit of these 
policies has led to a severe deflation of the 
economy, reducing the purchasing power in the 
hands of the rural population in particular; it 
has reduced per capita foodgrain absorption to 
levels prevailing at the beginning of the second 
world war; it has played havoc with the agrarian 
economy with extreme tangible consequences by way 
of mass suicides by farmers; it has aggravated 
greatly the problem of unemployment in both rural 
and urban India; and it has not only accentuated 
income inequalities but also handed over public 
assets to favoured private individuals at 
throwaway prices.

The people’s preference for an alternative 
trajectory of development has found recognition 
in the Common Minimum Programme adopted by the 
UPA and supported by the Left. The basic feature 
of this Programme is an acceptance of the 
proposition that improving the living condition 
of the people is the responsibility of the State 
which has to start discharging it with immediate 
effect. If the State enfeebles itself by pursuing 
neo-liberal policies, then its culpability does 
not in any way get reduced. The Programme 
promises increased bank credit for rural areas, 
and an Employment Guarantee Scheme which is part 
of an alternative trajectory of development 
giving pride of place to agriculture.

If this Programme is to be translated into some 
real achievements for the people, then it is 
necessary to keep asserting its relevance against 
the predictable attacks on it by financial 
interests, by the other beneficiaries of the NDA 
dispensation, and by the votaries of 
neo-liberalism, especially those owing allegiance 
to the Fund-Bank ideology. It is also necessary 
to make concrete suggestions for the realization 
of the objectives of the Programme.

To this end the journal Social Scientist, in 
collaboration with Sahmat, is organizing a 
one-day Convention on July 5, starting at 10 
a.m., at the Speaker's Hall, Constitution Club, 
New Delhi, on the theme "India: An Economic 
Agenda for 2004". The provisional list of 
speakers at the Convention includes Ashok Mitra, 
Amiya Bagchi,  Utsa Patnaik, Madhura Swaminathan, 
Jayati Ghosh, C.P.Chandrasekhar, Ashok Rao, 
Sukhdeo Thorat and others. We shall be very 
grateful if you could attend the Convention and 
enrich it with your presence and participation.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

Prabhat Patnaik    Rajen Prasad
______


[7]

The Centre for Northeast India,
South and Southeast Asia Studies
[CENISEAS] OKD Institute,
39 Sapta Sahid Path, Guwahati 781006,
Assam,
India

http://www.ceniseas.org
        
Transnational Subregional Cooperation and Northeast India         

A Conference organized by CENISEAS in cooperation 
with the Institute of  Chinese Studies, Centre 
for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi 
       

Guwahati, Assam, September 10th and 11th 2004

        Northeast India has been described 
metaphorically as one of South Asia's three most 
landlocked "states" along with Bhutan and Nepal. 
Recent efforts at promoting transnational 
subregional cooperation might be able to remove 
some of the inefficiencies in trade and other 
disadvantages faced by the region. Two sets of 
subregional cooperation projects are relevant:

1. Those involving India and the South Asian 
countries of Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Among 
these projects are the South Asia Growth 
Quadrangle [SADQ] supported by SAARC and the 
South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation 
program (SASEC) supported by the Asian 
Development Bank.        
2. Those that promote cooperation between South 
Asian countries and countries across Northeast 
India's eastern and northern borders. Among them 
are the Mekong-Ganga Sub-region, the Bangladesh, 
India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand Economic 
Cooperation [BIMST-EC] and the 
Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Regional Economic 
Forum [BCIM Forum].        

Emerging informal trade links as well as the 
pattern of population movements point towards an 
embryonic new transnational region in the making. 
The people of Northeast India have significant 
stakes in the transnational subregional projects. 
With the interests of Northeast India as its 
primary concern, the conference will examine the 
opportunities and risks presented by this 
reconfiguration of economic space. Those 
interested in making a presentation - a paper, a 
power-point presentation or some sort of 
creative/artistic intervention - may contact 
Sanjib Baruah at baruah at ceniseas.org

______


[7]

  PRESS RELEASE

DATE: 27 JUNE 2004


·  A serious deficiency of almost all public 
opinion polls regarding capital punishment is 
that they generally ask too simple a question: 
whether the subject is in favour of the death 
penalty or not. They rarely offer any real 
alternatives to execution in their polling 
questionnaires. ·  Actually the real deterrence 
is a function not only of a punishment's 
severity, but also of its certainty and 
frequency. Which in turn is a function of 
conviction rates and expeditious judicial 
processes. ·  We must not allow ourselves to be 
caught up in the spiral of violence. Violence 
begets violence. Capital Punishment is really no 
answer.

The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers 
to a person's head. In the past, people were 
often executed by severing their head from their 
body.

To speak out against capital punishment in 
today's emotionally charged environment is to 
invite misunderstanding. A quick succession of 
horribly violent crimes has rendered us numb, 
frustrated and angry. To call for capital 
punishment in such a climate is understandable. 
But we need serious thoughtful discussion in the 
society.

Let us clarify that those of us who oppose 
capital punishment are not soft on heinous crimes 
like rape, murder, terrorism, etc.. However, 
capital punishment is not the only way for a 
society to be protected from such heinous crimes.

How should we deal with the rape and violence or 
murder in our society? First, we should recognize 
that it is wrong in itself. It is not wrong 
because it is discovered or proved. How can we as 
a society effectively address the epidemic of 
sexual crimes and of domestic violence? The 
answers to these and similar questions are not to 
be found in developing a list of capital offenses.

We must not allow ourselves to be caught up in 
the spiral of violence. Violence begets violence. 
Capital punishment is really no answer.

A serious deficiency of almost all public opinion 
polls is that they generally ask too simple a 
question: whether the subject is in favour of the 
death penalty or not. They rarely offer any real 
alternatives to execution in their polling 
questionnaires. Public support for capital 
punishment declines greatly when alternatives to 
the death penalty are considered.   From the 
utilitarian perspective, capital punishment is 
justified as it (1) prevents the criminal from 
repeating his crime; and/or (2) deters crime by 
discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of 
these contribute to a greater balance of 
happiness in society. There are several immediate 
problems with this line of reasoning.   The 
retributive notion of punishment in general is 
that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, 
criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment 
should be equal to the harm done.

The first argument that we shall contend with is 
that capital punishment does not deter crime. We 
strongly feel that capital punishment is not 
necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is 
a more powerful deterrent since execution is 
transient. We think that making the prisoner 
suffer by rotting in jail for the rest of his/her 
life is more torturous then the capital 
punishment. Actually the real deterrence is a 
function not only of a punishment's severity, but 
also of its certainty and frequency. This is very 
important for us to note particularly in case of 
sexual crimes like rape. It is a proved fact that 
in case of rape the rate of conviction goes down 
as punishment increases. As such very few cases 
of sexual crime come to light due to social 
stigma attached to the victim instead of 
perpetrator. In cases which can reach up to court 
it is very difficult to prove it. If the 
punishment is more sever than the expectation to 
prove it ‘beyond doubt’ is much stronger which 
leads to acquittal in most cases. Thus capital 
punishment for rape is mostly used by politicians 
to show their “pro-women” stand to raise emotions 
but in reality it remain slogan-mongering and 
does not result in actual punishment to the 
rapist.   We strongly feel that the capital 
punishment should be abolished since it is 
undignified, inhumane. The capital punishment is 
a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized society. It 
is immoral in principle, and unfair and 
discriminatory in practice. The death penalty is 
irrevocable. In case of a mistake, the executed 
prisoner cannot be given another chance. Justice 
can miscarry.
However strongly you may support capital 
punishment two wrongs do not make one right. 
There may be a brutalising effect upon society by 
carrying out executions.   If we are however 
really serious in our desire to reduce crime 
through harsher punishments alone, we must be 
prepared to punish every criminal who commits a 
capital crime.

Trupti Shah
Rohit Prajapati
S. Srinivasan
Renu Khanna
Nandini Manjrekar
Deeptha Achar

Human Rights Activists of Gujarat

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

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.

--