SACW | 6 Aug 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire    |  6 August,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Pakistan: Lift the ban on Indian TV channels 
and films (Edit, The Daily Times)
[2] Bangladesh: Death-threats to Intellectuals, 
activists and journalists from Islamists (Hena 
Khan)
[3] India Pakistan: Peace Process Heads For Bumps (Praful Bidwai)
[4] In India, Torture by Police Is Frequent and Often Deadly (Rama Lakshmi)
[5] India: Proposed Film on Hindu Right wing 
needs funding (Shubhradeep Chakravorty)
[6] India: Censor Board bans film on Gujarat violence (Kalpana Sharma)


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

[1]

The Daily Times
August 6, 2004
Editorial

Lift the ban on Indian TV channels and films
The Pakistan-India talks on strengthening 
cultural relations have ended. There was some 
expectation that Islamabad might take the 
decision to lift the ban on Indian TV channels 
and perhaps also allow Bollywood to come to 
Pakistan. Neither has happened. This may make the 
xenophobic jingoist happy but has disappointed 
the large majority of Pakistanis. We know how 
slothful bureaucracies can be; we also know that 
they operate on the adage that just because a 
policy is bad or has run its course is not good 
enough reason to change it. Even so, there are 
strong arguments in favour of opening up, not 
least the fact that Indian movies are available 
at every corner video shop and Pakistanis watch 
them despite the official ban. But while the 
video business has thrived on the official ban, 
cinemas and cable TV have suffered. This is wrong 
because it does not give a level playing field to 
everyone.
Second, in the age of the Internet and access to 
information, it makes no sense to try to wall 
oneself in. Similarly, even if everything is not 
hunky-dory between Pakistan and India, there is 
no reason for either to try and make it any 
worse. In fact, a contrary approach is needed to 
exploit every possible opportunity to improve 
relations. Also, improving relations does not 
mean compromising on vital interests. It simply 
means, in the case of India and Pakistan, an 
acceptance of contiguity and a desire to act as 
normal states while trying to work out 
differences. *


______

[2]

Outlookindia Web site | Aug 04, 2004

BANGLADESH: TERROR IN THE MAIL 
Intellectuals, political activists and 
journalists in Bangladesh receive death-threats 
from unknown radical Islamist groups.
by Hena Khan

Dhaka

Terror in Bangladesh has come knocking on the 
doors of intellectuals and political activists. 
In the last few weeks, they have received letters 
from unknown radical Islamist groups accusing 
them of being 'murtads', or non-believers, and 
threatening to kill them. This new wave of terror 
has compelled many professors of Dhaka University 
to organise protest marches, seek police 
protection, and opt for a relatively sequestered 
existence. Some of them have even chosen to buy 
peace, paying money to anonymous callers who 
threatened them with death.

The Dhaka University Teachers' Association staged 
its latest march a fornight back, seeking 
security for themselves and their families. The 
Association president, AAMS Arefin Siddique, told 
Outlook, "Islamist zealots are issuing death 
threats to those who practice free-thinking. 
Those who were threatened, are now under 
tremendous mental pressure and wonder how long 
they can risk taking classes. Even those who did 
not receive the threat are also worried."

The first group to send these letters was 
Mujahideen al-Islam. Signed by one Maoula 
Patowary, who claimed to be director of the 
group's "Zone B", the letter accused a group of 
10 academicians and politicians of "acting 
against Islam" and consequently being the 
"enemies of Islam." Patowary then chillingly 
added, "These sinners are the foremost among 
those the Quran ordains to kill." He further 
claimed that Islamist organisations, including 
Hizbut Tahrir and Harkatul Jihad, possess the 
photographs of the 10, and that his (Patowary's) 
target was "to hoist the flags of Islam and 
Pakistan soaked in their blood" in Bangladesh.

The 10 who received Patowary's letters included 
Communist Party of Bangladesh leader Mujahedul 
Islam Selim, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal President 
Hasanul Huq Inu, Awami League leaders, Tofael 
Ahmed and Abdur Razzak, and writer and human 
rights activist, Shahriar Kabir. Communist leader 
Selim says, "The coalition government (of Prime 
Minister Khaleda Zia) has instilled audacity in 
Islamist militant groups by denying their 
existence. Now after this threat, if a person is 
attacked, the entire responsibility will have to 
be shouldered by the government." He feels the 
forces behind the threat letters are those whose 
aim is to merge Bangladesh back into Pakistan. "I 
am not surprised that people who had failed to 
kill us in 1971 have returned to butcher us 
again," Salem told Outlook.

Journalists appear to have been specially 
targeted. Some 22 of them, based in Dhaka, 
northeastern Sylhet and southern Barguna 
districts, received threat letters from one Jangi 
Bhai, who said they would be killed within a 
month as they were "enemies of Islam." 
Journalists in Barguna district also received a 
letter from one "Mrittujam" who, to hammer home 
his point, sent burial clothes as well. A copy of 
the letter sent to journalists in Barguna was 
also found pasted at the local press club. It 
declared, "You are Murtad. You cannot save 
yourself by using your pen against Islamic jihadi 
powers. Prepare yourself for death..."

It seems journalists in Barguna have been 
targeted because of their extensive reporting on 
the militancy in the area, and the eventual 
arrest of 33 alleged militants from a mosque 
there. There's a feeling among journalists here 
to not buckle under pressure. As one journalist 
working for the pro-opposition newspaper Bhorer 
Kagoj told Outlook, "I am not scared. If we all 
get scared then these people will get a free hand 
and undermine the very idea of Bangladesh".

In contrast, Dhaka University professors feel 
terrorised. And those who have been provided with 
detectives find their freedom circumscribed.

Says prominent historian Muntasir Mamoon, "Our 
normal movement has been restricted, and my 
family is offering regular special prayers from 
the time the death threat was issued. You can't 
take a chance." Mamoon was jailed by the 
government for alleged "anti-state" activities 
following the cinema theatre bombings in 2002 in 
Mymensingh.

Some 25 professors, says Siddiqui, have chosen to 
pay anonymous callers demanding money. "One of 
them was asked to carry the money to Shaheed 
Minar on the campus, and a group of students came 
and took it away," he informs. Siddiqui and 
others are perplexed about the identity of those 
issuing death threats: are they militants or 
extortionists? Police in Dhaka do not rule out 
the role of militants, largely because those who 
have received threat letters are known to be 
"progressive-minded" or are inclined towards 
opposition parties, including former Prime 
Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League.

It's understandable why academicians are worried. 
As Siddiqui points out, "After the deadly attack 
on Prof Humayun Azad in February, he, along with 
others, received death threats. Thus, we think it 
can be Islamic zealots." Azad was so severely 
stabbed that the government had to fly him to to 
Basngkok for proper treatment. Back in Dhaka, he 
has repeatedly claimed that he was targeted for 
his Bengali-language novel Pak Sar Zamin Sad Bad 
[The Blessed Sacred Land]--the first line of the 
Pakistani national anthem. His book revolved 
around those who collaborated with the Pakistani 
army during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence 
that was backed by India.

A senior government official admits the role of 
militants groups behind these threats hasn't been 
ruled out, and the police have taken action in a 
number of cases. "But these groups are not major 
organisations, nor do they have much influence in 
Bangladesh's politics." All this is of little 
comfort to those professors, journalists and 
politicians who have received death threats from 
bigots.

______


[3]

The Praful Bidwai Column
August 2, 2004

PEACE PROCESS HEADS FOR BUMPS
The PM must take charge

By Praful Bidwai

The unmistakable signal from Foreign Minister 
Natwar Singh's discussions with policy-makers in 
Islamabad is that the dialogue process with 
Pakistan may be running into a rough patch. The 
euphoria and exuberance evident only weeks ago 
are yielding to anxiety and fear that the effort 
at talking peace may not yield early results. 
Talks on the only confidence-building measure 
(CBM) on the table, namely, a bus service between 
Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, are deadlocked. If 
there's no progress before Foreign Ministers 
Singh and Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri meet on 
September 5-6, the entire dialogue process could 
unravel. To prevent this, Prime Minister Manmohan 
Singh must personally take charge and give the 
process high priority and momentum.

The risk of failure of the first India-Pakistan 
round of comprehensive talks in more than 30 
years is completely unacceptable. If the two were 
to resume their rivalry—suspended since Prime 
Minister Vajpayee held out the "hand of 
friendship" to Pakistan in April last year—it is 
liable to be more bitter and vicious than in the 
past, driven by rancour and resentment at foiled 
hopes. This would deliver a heavy blow to the two 
peoples' interests. India and Pakistan will then 
have missed a handsome peace dividend. They will 
also have torpedoed their own capacity to do 
justice by their citizens.

This warning might sound alarmist today. But 
going by the accounts of close observers of 
recent India-Pakistan interactions, it isn't. 
Indeed, for the first time since they broke the 
ice on January 6, a jarring tone is detectable in 
their official statements. India's Ministry of 
External Affairs on July 24 voiced its 
"disappointment" over the "tone and substance" of 
some comments made by Pakistan's Foreign Office 
about Mr Natwar Singh's discussion with Gen 
Musharraf. It said they don't "reflect the 
comprehensive nature of the discussions". It 
expressed discomfort with Gen Musharraf's demand 
that "a final settlement" of Kashmir in 
accordance with "the legitimate aspirations of 
the Kashmiris" must be reached "within a 
reasonable timeframe". Two days later, Gen 
Musharraf declared an "endless" dialogue with 
India would be neither "wise nor desirable". He 
wants India to reciprocate Pakistan's 
"flexibility, sincerity, and courage" on Kashmir.

In private briefings, Indian diplomats express 
consternation at the "timeframe" demand, saying a 
57 year-old problem can't be resolved within 
weeks; in any case, Kashmir wasn't an active 
issue for Pakistan between 1972 and 1989. They 
say Pakistan's emphasis on "legitimate 
aspirations" sits ill with the fact that it 
hasn't allowed elected assemblies in the Northern 
Areas of "Azad Kashmir". This is the language of 
suspicion and rancour, not trust. There has been 
no progress on any issue since the Foreign 
Secretaries' June 27-28 meeting. Despite bonhomie 
with Mr Kasuri, Mr Singh did not reach any new 
understanding with Pakistani officials—despite 
trying hard and waiting for two days for Gen 
Musharraf to give him an appointment.

Islamabad has turned apprehensive about the talks 
and negative about simultaneous progress on both 
the "2+6" formula issues and CBMs. It wants to 
see progress on Kashmir first. Gen Musharraf 
recently told his army officers: "While we are 
working both on dialogue and CBMs with India, 
Kashmir is the main dispute 
 Until there is 
progress towards its resolution, there can be no 
headway on CBMs or other issues." The 
Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, then, is not around 
the corner. Indeed, even "technical" discussions 
on it aren't scheduled until September. No other 
CBMs are likely.

Three factors help explain this stiffening of the 
Pakistani stance. First, the official perception 
of how far India is willing to go to resolve the 
Kashmir issue has changed. Many Pakistani 
policy-makers feel uneasy about the change of 
government in India. They fear Dr Manmohan Singh 
isn't as committed to the peace process as was Mr 
Vajpayee, whom they regard as a "tall leader", "a 
man of peace" uniquely committed to 
reconciliation with Pakistan. They have a 
negative perception of the Congress, which they 
associate with Partition, soft-Hindutva, 
anti-Muslim violence, and a hard line on Kashmir 
in the early 1990s.

This perception is largely mistaken. True, Mr 
Vajpayee invested a lot of energy into the 
dialogue process. But just two years ago, he was 
speaking a different language—that of aar-paar ki 
ladai (battle to the finish)—as he mobilised 7 
lakh troops at the border. Besides, the BJP 
believes not in "soft-Hindutva", but hard-boiled, 
aggressive, Islamophobic communalism. This is 
integral to Mr Vajpayee's politics. So to depict 
him as a "man of peace" while burdening Dr Singh 
with all the baggage from the Congress's past is 
wrong.

However, many Pakistani policy-makers hold this 
view. They point to Mr Natwar Singh's very first 
pronouncement: that the dialogue with Pakistan 
would be conducted within the framework of the 
Shimla Agreement of 1972. Now, Shimla is a like a 
red rag to the Pakistani bull—a reminder of its 
humiliation in Bangladesh. With January 6, the 
two nations have gone beyond Shimla and even 
Lahore. In deference to Pakistani sensitivities, 
Mr Singh didn't utter the S-word in Islamabad. 
But that didn't reverse the earlier damage.

Second, Pakistani policy-makers prefer to deal 
with one authority or power-centre—preferably, 
one individual. They find nobody who fits that 
description in post-NDA India. Is Dr Singh really 
in charge? Or is Ms Sonia Gandhi? Where does Mr 
Natwar Singh stand? Who can take a high-level 
political decision on Kashmir? This view 
underestimates the strong consensus in India on 
improving relations with Pakistan and the 
existence of multiple sources of decision-making 
in its more institutionalised democracy.

Another negative Pakistani perception is that Dr 
Singh is a "technocrat", an economic 
administrator—not a politician who can take bold, 
tough decisions on sensitive issues on which he 
might be vulnerable to the charge of "selling 
out" India's interests. This is an unfair 
characterisation. It underestimates Dr Singh's 
tenacity. Whatever one's view of his 1991 
neo-liberal policy turn—and I admit to a largely 
negative view—the shift polarised opinion in 
India and brought charges of "selling out" (even 
from the BJP). But that didn't deter Dr Singh. 
Besides, his political personality is still 
evolving. Nostalgia for Mr Vajpayee means little. 
He is gone and may never come back.

Implicit in this view is the idea, rooted in the 
strategic understanding of the early 1970s 
between Washington and Beijing, that only the 
Right can take controversial decisions, because 
the Left or Centre-Left cannot summon up the 
courage to do so and face the flak. This is a 
simplistic view. President Nixon's Right-wing 
proclivities and Mr Kissinger's diplomatic 
deviousness cannot explain the deal with China, 
which became possible mainly because of Beijing's 
tensions with Moscow over the sharing of military 
technologies and other issues. The analogy 
doesn't apply to the India-Pakistan or 
BJP-Congress case.

A third, recent, irritant for Pakistanis was the 
statement by visiting US deputy secretary of 
state Richard Armitage that Pakistan must do more 
to combat terrorism, in particular dismantle the 
supporting physical and financial infrastructure. 
Mr Armitage refused to modify this remark in 
Islamabad the day after he made it in New Delhi. 
Pakistani observers believe it was made at 
India's behest and bears little relationship to 
reality: Pakistan has cooperated with the US in 
anti-al-Qaeda operations and lost 400 troops. 
Indian officials admit there has been little 
cross-border infiltration since November (except 
in July).

These factors explain the reluctance among 
Islamabad's policy-makers to move forward on CBMs 
until here are signs of progress on Kashmir. 
Their fear is two-fold. If they agree to India's 
insistence that passengers should carry national 
passports, as distinct from United Nations 
documents or special "for-Kashmiris-only" permits 
(like those issued between 1947 and 1952 by 
district officials under the rahidari system), 
they would implicitly accept the LoC as the 
international border, without proper negotiations.

Secondly, once the bus starts rolling, it will 
further legitimise perceptions of the LoC as the 
international border, thus narrowing the range of 
possible solutions to Kashmir to those tilted in 
India's favour. So Pakistan even objects to the 
inclusion of personnel from Indian Kashmir into 
the delegation for "technical discussions" on the 
bus although such officials are practically best 
qualified to conduct nuts-and-bolts talks on its 
routing and scheduling. Such apprehensions must 
be addressed if the dialogue process is to move 
forward.

As the dialogue enters a bumpy patch, neither 
side has done enough homework to evolve its 
respective policy on Kashmir which it can take to 
the talks. It is imperative that both governments 
start this effort right now. Such policies must 
be acceptable to political parties and the larger 
domestic public—and above all, to the Kashmiri 
people. India has too big a stake in peace for 
the present opportunity to be squandered.

Dr Singh must set up both formal and 
informal-level contacts with Gen Musharraf and 
demonstrate a strong commitment to the dialogue, 
including a willingness to move away from stated 
positions. He must appoint high-level 
interlocutors who enjoy his trust, who can start 
exploratory talks on Kashmir. Dr Singh must 
personally take charge of the peace process. He 
must be seen to own it. An impasse would be 
disastrous.—end—


______



[4]


Washington Post
August 5, 2004; Page A11

In India, Torture by Police Is Frequent and Often Deadly

By Rama Lakshmi
Special to The Washington Post

MEERUT, India -- Rajeev Sharma, a young 
electrician, was sleeping when police barged into 
his house a month ago and dragged him out of bed 
on suspicion of a burglary in the neighborhood, 
his family recalled.

When his young wife and brother protested, the 
police, who did not show them an arrest warrant, 
said they were taking Sharma to the police 
station for "routine questioning."


[PHOTO]: The widow of Rajeev Sharma, an alleged 
victim of police torture, holds his photo as the 
family sits outside their home in Meerut, India. 
Next to her is Sunil Sharma, who says police had 
beaten his younger brother "very badly." (Rama 
Lakshmi For The Washington Post)

"Little did we know that we would lose him 
forever," said Sunil Sharma, Rajeev's brother, 
recounting how he died while in police custody. 
"Their routine questioning proved fatal," he 
added, sitting beside his brother's grieving 
widow.

Rajeev Sharma, 28, died at the police station 
within a day of his detention. Police said he 
committed suicide, but his family charges that he 
was beaten and killed.

The case highlights the frequent use of torture 
and deadly force at local police stations in 
India, a practice decried by human rights 
activists and the Indian Supreme Court. A little 
more than a decade after Parliament established 
the National Human Rights Commission to deal with 
such abuses, police torture continues unabated, 
according to human rights groups and the Supreme 
Court. According to the latest available 
government data, there were 1,307 reported deaths 
in police and judicial custody in India in 2002.

"India has the highest number of cases of police 
torture and custodial deaths among the world's 
democracies and the weakest law against torture," 
said Ravi Nair, who heads the South Asia Human 
Rights Documentation Center. "The police often 
operate in a climate of impunity, where torture 
is seen as routine police behavior to extract 
confessions from small pickpockets to political 
suspects." He said that laws governing police 
functions were framed under British colonial rule 
in 1861 "as an oppressive force designed to keep 
the population under control."

Police records show that, two weeks before his 
detention, Rajeev Sharma made a electrician's 
service call at the home of a wealthy 
businessman. On that day, the man reported that 
$500 worth of gold jewelry and about $100 in cash 
were missing, police said.

After Sharma's detention, his brother called the 
police station and was told that Sharma had 
confessed to the theft, he said. The brother said 
he and other family members rushed to the station 
and were able to see Sharma briefly.

"His eyes were red, his mouth was bleeding and he 
could hardly walk. They had beaten him very 
badly. That was the last glimpse we had," said 
Sunil Sharma, 35. "By the evening, the police 
informed us that he had committed suicide in the 
lockup by hanging himself with a blanket. The 
suicide story is a coverup; my brother died of 
police torture."

The death in police custody sparked two days of 
rioting and protests in Meerut, about 45 miles 
from New Delhi, in the northern state of Uttar 
Pradesh. Angry residents surrounded and threw 
stones at the police station, burned police 
vehicles and blocked traffic.

Thousands participated in Sharma's funeral 
procession; protesters demanded an open inquest 
by a panel of physicians and the immediate 
arrests of those responsible.

Police conducted an autopsy in private, lawyers 
close to the case said. But authorities did issue 
arrest warrants for the man who said he had been 
robbed and for six police officers, an apparent 
reaction to the unusual popular outcry, family 
members and lawyers said. The merchant is in 
jail, alleged to have participated in beating 
Sharma, but the police officers apparently have 
fled, authorities said.

Although the Indian government signed the 
international Convention Against Torture in 1997, 
it has not ratified the document. Some members of 
Parliament have argued against ratification, 
saying they oppose international scrutiny and 
asserting that Indian laws have adequate 
provisions to prevent torture. Human rights 
advocates said Uttar Pradesh ranks highest among 
Indian states in the incidence of police torture 
and custodial deaths.

Some police officers justify the use of torture 
to extract confessions and instill fear.


"The police in India are under tremendous 
pressure, as people need quick results. So we 
have to pick up and interrogate a lot of people. 
Sometimes things get out of control," said 
Raghuraj Singh Chauhan, a newly assigned officer 
at the station where Rajeev Sharma died. "After 
all, confessions cannot be extracted with love. 
The fear of the police has to be kept alive -- 
how else would you reduce crime?" he added, 
fanning himself with a police file folder.

A senior police officer in Meerut, on condition 
of anonymity, openly discussed torture methods 
with a visiting reporter. One technique, he said, 
involves a two-foot-long rubber belt attached to 
a wooden handle.

"We call this thing samaj sudharak," the officer 
said, smiling, using the Hindi phrase for social 
reformer. "When we hit with this, there are no 
fractures, no blood, no major peeling of the 
skin. It is safe for us, as nothing shows up in 
the postmortem report. But the pain is such that 
the person can only appeal to God. He will 
confess to anything."

Last September, in a written ruling in a case of 
police misconduct, the Supreme Court criticized 
the use of torture. "The dehumanizing torture, 
assault and death in custody which have assumed 
alarming proportions raise serious questions 
about the credibility of the rule of law and 
administration of the criminal justice system," 
the court said. "The cry for justice becomes 
louder and warrants immediate remedial measure."

In addition, the severity of the torture problem 
is probably worse than statistics indicate, 
because victims, fearing reprisals, rarely report 
cases against the police, human rights advocates 
said.

"About 40 percent of custodial torture cases are 
not even reported. They are just grateful for 
God's mercy that they are alive and free," said 
Pradeep Kumar, a human rights lawyer who has 
represented police torture victims in Uttar 
Pradesh. "Torture sometimes leads to permanent 
disability, psychological trauma, loss of 
faculties."

The National Human Rights Commission, led by a 
retired Supreme Court justice, has faced 
criticism that it is too dependent on the 
government and lacks enforcement power.

"We have not been able to build a human rights 
culture in the police force," said Shankar Sen, a 
former police officer and an ex-member of the 
commission. "It is not only individual aberration 
but a matter of systemic failure."

The commission has ordered that cameras be 
installed in police stations to monitor and deter 
police brutality.

"In the past year we have spent about $600,000 to 
equip most of the police stations in New Delhi 
with a camera. This will make police functioning 
transparent and have a big impact on torture," 
said Maxwell Pereira, a senior police official in 
the capital.

But critics and families of victims said they had 
not seen changes. In a much-publicized case in 
New Delhi last fall, five policemen were charged 
with beating and killing Sushil Kumar Nama at a 
police station.

Nama had been detained on suspicion that he was 
working with neighborhood gamblers. Four of the 
police officers were arrested in April, but one 
remains at large, authorities said. Police 
officials denied that Nama was tortured, saying 
he died of a heart attack after he was released 
from custody.

"My two children are so traumatized that now they 
run home scared every time they see a policeman 
on the street," said Nama's wife, Rekha, 29. 
"They know that danger lurks behind that uniform. 
They are not policemen, they are wolves."



______



[5]

From: "shubhradeep chakravorty" <shubhradeep at rediffmail.com
Date: 5 Aug 2004 17:16:54-0000

Dear Sir/ Madam

I am an independent documentary filmmaker based 
in New Delhi, India. Recently I made a film 
Godhra Tak: The Terror Trail based on the 
train-burning incident of Feb 2002 at Godhra 
railway station. This is the only film available 
on this incident. Godhra incident was used in 
inciting violence against Muslim in Gujarat and 
for its justification also. My film focuses on 
the Godhra incident only and tries to find out 
the truth behind the scene. The film was widely 
appreciated for its impartial depiction of the 
incident and for its investigative nature. The 
film is now in use by investigative agency 
engaged in probing the incident. I met Laloo 
Prasad Yadev, the railway minister, and convinced 
him to order a probe. Now I want to make a film 
on Hindu Right wing in India. It is going to be a 
one and half-hours long film and will be useful 
to expose these organisations real nature. We, by 
exposing them, can then demand a ban on them. We 
will disseminate it with the help of a 
distribution network of non-governmental and 
voluntary organisations in India as well as in 
West. Copies of the film will be available at low 
rate and we will do every thing possible for its 
wider reach. It is a massive project and we will 
try to project an all India picture. We need at 
least one year to complete it and estimated cost 
of production will be around 12 lakh Indian 
rupees. As you know it is very difficult for big 
institutional funders to support this kind of 
projects due to the politics involved so I am 
pressed for funds. I have 2 lakh Indian rupees of 
my own which I will put in this film. I am in a 
position to rais around 3 lakh Indian rupees from 
various NGO’s in cash or kind. But for rest 7 
lakh Indian rupees I have no clue. If you or your 
organisation can help me in this regard then it 
will be very nice. PEACE, a New Delhi based NGO 
having FCRA will be accountable to donors and can 
receive funds for this project. Shrikumar Poddar 
and Maharaj Kaul in USA are raising funds for 
this project. They can receive funds on my behalf 
for forwarding them to me. Suggestions and 
information on the subject are welcome. Looking 
forward to hear from you soon.
Regards Shubhradeep Chakravorty
91-11-20530323, 91-11-25086613
Note-Copies of the film Godhra Tak are available for sale.


FILM ON HINDU RIGHT WING

Hindu right wing fundamentalist forces are 
growing in strength in India for last couple of 
decades now. Their influence is increasing in 
socio-economic and political spheres but the 
common understanding about them and their 
capability to block the growth of Indian 
democracy is still poor. To develop this 
understanding we need a detailed empirical study 
and documentation of these forces at work. The 
proposed project will try to do this through a 
one and half hour long documentary film.

We propose to make this as a voice driven 
documentary interspersed with interviews. This 90 
minutes documentary will be made of three broad 
sections, each will be interlinked with the 
voiceover maintaining the continuous flow 
throughout.

The documentation of the developments in 
approximately ten to twelve new potential centers 
of conflicts emerged all around India in last 
five years would be the basic structure of the 
film. Although our main focus in this film would 
be on the activities of VHP, Bajrang Dal and 
Durga Vahini but we will also document the 
resistance they are facing from secular as well 
as minority community groups. The film would also 
try to document the history of right wing 
fundamentalist forces in India and will analyze 
it in the context of the rise of similar forces 
in other parts of the world.

The film will start with a section on the history 
of Hindu right wing fundamentalist forces in 
India and our main focus would be on RSS and its 
“cultural work”. Here we will try to show how RSS 
actually works and for what ends. We will also 
try to show how they influence and train young 
minds and bodies and how it runs and controls a 
whole family of affiliated organizations without 
getting involved in their day to day activities.

After this, in this section itself, we will try 
to document the changes taken place in RSS family 
in eighties when it entered its mass movement 
phase with Ram temple movement. In this phase VHP 
and Bajrang Dal started getting more importance 
then other affiliated organizations in RSS scheme 
of things. To understand the reasons behind their 
phenomenal growth and the tactics and strategies 
adopted by them during this period we will do a 
documentation of Ram temple movement. Here we 
will show how VHP had actually created a new 
history of Ayodhya and what they did to get a 
foothold in the holy city and to enter the local 
Sadhu Samaj. We will also try to find out what is 
really behind the large scale land purchase by 
VHP in Ayodhya and what their master plan is. We 
will also show how they run Ram temple movement 
and who plays important role in it and what they 
did to magnify this issue of local importance to 
create an all India communal divide. We will also 
document the resistance they faced from secular 
as well as minority community organisations 
during Ram temple movement. In this section we 
will also show the activities of VHP and other 
organizations abroad. This section will give us a 
background of the recent rise of Hindu right wing 
fundamentalist forces in India and the ways and 
means adopted by it.

After this brief introductory section, we will 
come to the second section. In this section of 
the film we will document the developments taking 
place in approximately ten to twelve new 
potential centers of conflict emerging all around 
India and will document the role Hindu right wing 
fundamentalist forces are playing there. Here we 
will cover Asind, Dhar, Hubli, Malad etc. We will 
also show the resistance they are facing from 
secular as well as minority community groups in 
these centers. We will try to see these 
developments in the light of history of Ram 
temple movement and will draw conclusions from 
it. This section will help us in understanding 
the real organisational structure of these 
organizations and their strategies, tactics, 
training and indoctrination process, way of 
functioning and the real aims and goals.

After this section, in the third and final 
section of the documentary we will try to 
understand the Indian developments in the context 
of world wide rise of right wing forces, 
particularly neo-Nazi forces in Europe. At macro 
level we will try to show the socio-economic and 
geo-political aspect of this rise and at micro 
level we will try to find out the structural, 
tactical and operational similarities between 
Hindu right wing fundamentalist forces and 
neo-Nazi movements in Europe. By this, we feel 
that the documentary will cover almost 
comprehensively the subject under question.

Shubhradeep Chakravorty
New Stream Media 91-11-20530323

______


[6]

The Hindu
August 06, 2004

National
CENSOR BOARD BANS FILM ON GUJARAT VIOLENCE

By Kalpana Sharma

MUMBAI, AUG. 5. The Central Board of Film 
Certification (CBFC) has refused to pass Rakesh 
Sharma's award-winning film on the Gujarat 
violence. Final Solution, the three-and-a-half 
hour documentary, was rejected by the Board on 
the grounds that it "promotes communal disharmony 
among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the 
picture of Gujarat riots in a way that it may 
arouse communal feelings and clashes among Hindu 
Muslim groups."

The letter from the CBFC also said that the film 
"attacks the basic concept of our Republic i.e. 
National Integrity and Unity. Certain dialogues 
involve defamation of individuals or body of 
individuals. Entire picturisation is highly 
provocative and may trigger off unrest and 
communal violence. State security is jeopardised 
and public order is endangered if this film is 
shown.... When it is judged in its entirety from 
the point of view of its overall impact, it is 
not advisable to be exhibited. Hence refused 
under Section 5(b) 1 of the Cinematograph Act, 
1952."

No surprise

Speaking to The Hindu , Mr. Sharma said: "There 
is no shock or surprise at this decision. But I 
thought they would be more clever in the way they 
rejected it."

According to him the Board had `violated' many 
censorship rules, including time limit and 
procedural matters. He said he planned to explore 
legal remedies as "I don't expect a free and fair 
hearing from within the CBFC." he said.

Since it was released in February this year, the 
film has been shown at a number of international 
film festivals and has won several awards 
including the Wolfgang Staudte award at the 
Berlin International film festival, the 
Humanitarian Award for Outstanding Documentary at 
the Hong Kong International Film Festival and the 
Silver Dhow at the Zanzibar Film Festival. The 
film is due for commercial release in Germany 
next month.

`Rules are rules'

The Regional Officer at the CBFC in Mumbai, V. K. 
Singla, suggested that Mr. Sharma had many levels 
of appeal within the Censor Board, which he can 
use. "Rules are rules," he said and films have to 
go through the process of certification before 
being screened in public.

"But if a person feels he can show his film 
everywhere and get awards, then why does he need 
a certificate?" he asked. Although he has not 
seen the film, he said that the Board adhered to 
guidelines laid down under the Cinematograph Act.

A committee of four people, "including a Muslim 
gentleman", viewed Rakesh Sharma's film, he said. 
Asked on what basis the viewing committee was 
selected, Mr. Singla said that this depended on 
the availability of members of the Board. "I know 
people are not happy," he said. "But what can we 
do. Sometimes we are termed liberal, sometimes 
very harsh."

Mr. Sharma complained that the Board saw his film 
on a day when he was not available to answer 
questions by the screening committee. Mr. Singla 
countered that a filmmaker's convenience cannot 
determine the timing of a screening. "We have so 
many films to review. We cannot keep them 
pending."

Mr. Sharma, however, has complained, in 
particular, about the manner in which his film 
was previewed.

In a letter to the CBFC Chairman, Anupam Kher, he 
has said that the preview panel managed to see 
his three-and-a-half-hour film and reach a 
decision to ban it in less than three hours.


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

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/
SACW archive is available at:  bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project :  snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/

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