SACW #2 | 14 Oct 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  - Dispatch #2 |  14 October,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Limits to America's 'partnership' (Praful Bidwai)
[2] Anand Patwardhan, the 'Michael Moore of India (Kathleen Maclay)
[3] India:  News for 'Secular' activists
-  Burqa row in school (Rasheed Kidwai)
-  Dalit Leader backs Shiv Sena
- Court directive to ban animal sacrifice
- 'Loya Jirga'  tells Couple to become siblings (Gajinder Singh)
- Doordarshan to withdraw a film on Jayaprakash Narayan
[4] India: Sensing the Future: Female Literacy on the Rise in All 
Communities (Ravinder Kaur)


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

[1]

The News International
October 14, 2004

LIMITS TO AMERICA'S 'PARTNERSHIP'

Praful Bidwai

In Pakistan, it is often thought that India and the United States 
have over the past few years developed a "special relationship" or 
strategic "proximity" of a unique kind. That this is largely a myth - 
despite improved relations since the late 1990s - was recently 
demonstrated when the two states declared that the "first phase" of 
the grandiosely termed "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership" (NSSP) 
has ended. This is another way of saying that NSSP - launched less 
than a year ago - yielded very little.

Since then, US under-secretary of commerce Kenneth Juster has visited 
India to discuss the "second phase" of NSSP. But going by past 
experience, this may turn out, equally sterile. The "first phase" was 
to open up India's access to US nuclear and space exports and 
increase trade in "dual-use" goods (which have both military and 
civilian applications). But what did it achieve?

At the end of the day, Washington lifted sanctions imposed after the 
Pokharan-II blasts upon Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) 
headquarters, abolished licensing requirements for certain 
low-technology dual-use items for ISRO subsidiaries, and liberalised 
exports of some equipment intended for balance-of-plant use at Indian 
nuclear reactors already under International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA) safeguards. (Balance-of-plant refers to the non-nuclear part 
of atomic power stations, like turbines and generators.)

This adds up to very little. ISRO headquarters performs an 
administrative role. The production functions are handled by its 
seven subsidiaries, which manufacture propulsion systems, rockets, 
satellites, etc. They remain sanctioned. The low-end items which the 
subsidiaries import range from pins and clips to third-country 
products using US-made silicon chips or software. Most of these are 
easily available from alternative (including Indian domestic) 
sources. They don't contribute to high-technology trade - promoting 
which is NSSP's purpose.

Finally, what of the relaxation of export controls in regard to 
nuclear power? There are 115 items subject to such controls. Of 
these, 103 are already covered by multilateral controls under the 
Nuclear Suppliers' Group (the London Club). Only 4 of India's 14 
nuclear power reactors can possibly import the remaining 12 items 
governed by US domestic laws. Tarapur I-II and Rajasthan I-II alone 
are subject to IAEA safeguards. Of the 12 items, only two are 
relevant for balance-of-plant use: generators and special-alloy 
valves. Several Indian companies make these!

So the new "liberal" licensing regime is for the most part 
irrelevant. In addition, Washington has since imposed fresh sanctions 
on 14 "entities" on suspicion that these might have helped Iran 
develop mass-destruction weapons. They include two former chairmen of 
India's Nuclear Power Corporation, one of whom visited Iran as part 
of an IAEA delegation!

NSSP's "second phase" might maximally see some loosening of controls 
on space satellites and components, which Washington treats as 
"munitions"! But dramatic changes are unlikely. The US is bound by 
its domestic laws and its commitments to multilateral agreements like 
the NSG, Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement 
and the Australia Group.

As former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott put it: "Right 
now, the US and India may feel that they are moving in the same 
direction but their destination could be different ... There's this 
great fixation in India with NSSP, but it's going to set Indians up 
for a great disappointment.... India and the US are not opening a new 
chapter, they are merely turning over a new leaf in the same chapter."

Four points are noteworthy. First, the current discussion on NSSP is 
essentially a hangover from the Vajpayee government days. That 
government showed irrational exuberance about a "strategic 
partnership" with Washington and minimised the asymmetrical, skewed 
nature of India-US relations.

Talbott in his Engaging India reveals that Vajpayee assigned a 
special role to Jaswant Singh just before the 1998 nuclear tests. 
Breaking protocol, Singh called on Clinton's special envoy Bill 
Richardson at the US ambassador's residence-something that senior 
Indian ministers don't usually do. He conveyed the message that "he 
was under instructions from Vajpayee to serve as a discreet - and, if 
necessary, secret - channel to Washington, to be used for anything 
sensitive that the US leadership wished to convey to the Prime 
Minister".

Neither such kowtowing, nor the 14 rounds of Talbott-Singh talks put 
India-US relations on an even keel. Even after the ice broke (with 
Clinton's March 2000 visit), the character of India-US relations 
didn't change. Washington won't share high-technology goods with 
India nor agree to build an exclusive relationship.

Second, Jaswant Singh was misguided in gushingly welcoming Bush's May 
2001 announcement of plans to deploy a Ballistic Missile Defence 
system to give the US a shield against alien missiles. BMD will 
dangerously change the rules of the global nuclear-deterrence game. 
Singh's calculation was that the US would share this extremely 
advanced, cutting-edge technology with India.

Singh made a morally and militarily untenable departure from India's 
established opposition to BMD. His calculation was downright naive. 
Washington is most unlikely to share with India - and even with its 
European allies - a cutting-edge technology such as detecting missile 
launches with satellites and then intercepting them at high speed - 
akin to hitting a bullet travelling at 24,000 kmph with another 
bullet travelling at the same speed. The US isn't sharing even the 
much smaller Theatre Missile Defence technology with a close military 
ally (Japan) for whom it is developing it. Besides, an Indian TMD 
will create regional imbalances.

Third, if Indian policy-makers really think that 
friendship/partnership with America will help India enter the Nuclear 
Club, they are deluding themselves. The US cannot dispense with the 
global non-proliferation regime. (Only India, Pakistan and Israel 
have stayed out of it). The US sees the NPT as a bulwark against the 
spread of nuclear weapons. The NPT cannot be opened up for signature 
to more nuclear weapons-states (barring the 5 which conducted nuclear 
explosions before 1967). It could be amended to permit an additional 
protocol for India's and Pakistan's signature. But such a "5+2" 
formula would oblige India and Pakistan to accept additional arms 
control measures. But that's precisely what India (and Pakistan) 
wants to avoid.

Finally, there are irreconcilable, fundamental differences between 
Indian and US views of the world. The US aspires to Empire and 
domination. It wants to reshape the world by changing the rules of 
international politics. India's interest lies in a multi-polar world 
where might is not right.

For the US, nuclear disarmament isn't a long-term goal; its' at best 
a legal and moral obligation to be defied or ducked. For India, 
disarmament was an ideal for 50 years-until the NDA violated it. It 
still remains a long-term objective, and a precondition for a 
peaceful world. The US imposes unequal trade and investment policies 
on the world through the WTO and the World Bank/IMF. India declares 
victory when it can resist these, as it did at Cancun!

There is a limit beyond which India and the US cannot be partners. 
Indeed, sometimes tensions between them become severe. Recently, an 
Indian RA&W officer (Ravinder Singh) "defected" to the US. Last week, 
India expressed its disapproval of the US ambassador's public offer 
of FBI assistance to Assam to combat militancy. Despite improved 
relations, "strategic partnership" remains an illusion.


______


[2]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/13_patwardhan.shtml

UC Berkeley News

ANAND PATWARDHAN, THE 'MICHAEL MOORE OF INDIA,' brings his 
hard-hitting documentary films to campus

By Kathleen Maclay | 13 October 2004

Anand Patwardhan


BERKELEY - Despite nearly constant efforts to censor his work, Anand 
Patwardhan continues his nearly 30-year career of making hard-hitting 
and often controversial documentary films about the nuclear danger, 
religious violence and environmental threats.

The award-winning filmmaker from India will visit the University of 
California, Berkeley's Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive (PFA) 
Oct. 21-24 as part of "Documentary Voices," a project bringing 
international documentary-makers to the PFA as resident artists.

After a Thursday, Oct. 21, screening of his film, "In the Name of 
God," and of a short, "We are Not Your Monkeys," Patwardhan will talk 
about film and activism. On Friday, he will address the audience 
after the showing of "Father, Son and Holy War." Patwardhan will talk 
on Saturday, Oct. 23, after the screening of "War and Peace," and on 
Sunday, Oct. 24, after the showing of "Bombay: Our City" and a short, 
"Occupation: Mill Worker."

Before he arrives on campus, his films "A Narmada Diary" and 
"Fishing: In the Sea of Greed" will be shown at the PFA on Thursday, 
Oct. 14.

For more information, call the PFA at (510) 642-1412 or visit the PFA website.

In the question-and-answer session below, Patwardhan shared with UC 
Berkeley Media Relations some of his thoughts about filmmaking and 
the current state of the world.

Q: Documentary films have generated increasing attention of late, at 
least in the United States. Is there a similar surge in other parts 
of the world, such as India? If so, to what do you attribute it?

A: Important documentaries were made in the U.S. even in the 60's. 
Later films like "Hearts and Minds" and "Harlan County U.S.A" won 
Oscars and by the 80's, several documentaries got theatrical release. 
But it was not until the phenomenon of Michael Moore that 
documentaries became box office super hits and actually began to 
shape mass opinion.

In India, the early documentary scene was dominated by government 
propaganda made by the Films Division of India, which produced 
newsreels and documentaries that were compulsorily shown before every 
commercial film. People either arrived deliberately late or walked 
out for a smoke during these films, and the tag of "boring" became 
inescapably attached to the documentary. It has taken several decades 
of sustained independent work to break this tag.

Today with the DVD revolution making the means of production 
accessible, the documentary has come of age, and public interest is 
rising, stoked by several ham-handed attempts by the state (India) to 
curtail the documentary filmmaker's right to freedom of expression.

Poster for "Father, Son, and Holy War" film, to be screened at UC 
Berkeley's PF on Friday, Oct. 22


Q: You've called yourself "a non-serious person forced by 
circumstance to make serious films." What circumstances drove you 
into the documentary business, and what keeps you there?

A: As it turned out, all my films were driven by political events. I 
discovered early the joys of mixing my "art" with the desire to speak 
out about issues I was involved with. In the beginning, I saw 
filmmaking more in utilitarian terms, as a means towards an end, as a 
pamphlet that would be more exciting than the usual fare and would 
overcome the shackles of illiteracy. In time, I was seduced by the 
medium itself and began to take more interest and pay more attention 
to the craft of filmmaking and the ways of storytelling. But I don't 
think my original motivation ever left me, nor has the yardstick by 
which I judge whether a film has been able to communicate with people 
widely or not.

As a "non-serious" person, I would like to have made more playful 
films, but there is so little time left over from making and 
screening films about serious issues that I am usually too mentally 
exhausted. Sometimes, of course, the playful peeps through even in 
films of import.

Q: Do you think you make a difference in terms of the many issues 
relating to environmental and social justice, war and peace?

A: This may be wishful thinking, but the honest answer is yes, at 
least at the micro level. If I didn't think this, it would have been 
hard to sustain my own levels of engagement.

Where is the evidence? It comes in small ways, from individuals who 
speak out at screenings, from letters from viewers, from essays 
written by school and college kids, from a movie star who decided to 
become an activist, from a fundamentalist who questioned his own 
belief system, from an usher at a posh club where the film was 
screened who bicycled for miles to track me down and get a Hindi 
version of the film.

The list, fortunately, is very long and has always saved me from 
sinking into doubt and despair, no matter how hard the circumstances. 
Even the fact that the state and the fundamentalists have tried to 
suppress my work proved to me that they found the work threatening, 
i.e., effective.

Q: Your film "War and Peace" explored issues surrounding the nuclear 
tests conducted in India and Pakistan in 1998. Has the situation 
gotten better or worse since then?

A: We went through a period for about a year - after the Indian 
Parliament was attacked by armed gunmen allegedly sent by Pakistan - 
when Indian and Pakistani troops were eyeball to eyeball on the "line 
of control." Anything could have happened then, fingers were 
tightened on the nuclear trigger.

Since that time, there has been a palpable thaw. Peace talks have 
taken place, as have cultural exchanges. Perhaps more importantly for 
the masses in both countries, cricket and hockey matches have been 
played in an atmosphere of great cordiality, something we never 
expected would happen so fast. It seems clear that people on both 
sides want peace, but in both countries, fundamentalists continue 
their campaign of hate, and the balance could easily be tilted with a 
few well chosen terror strikes, so one can never breathe easy.

Q: What do you make of Iran's interest in nuclear weapons, and North 
Korea's nuclear capabilities? Do you have ideas of how these 
situations might be resolved peacefully?

A: I see the militarism of the U.S. as the single biggest threat to 
world peace. North Korea and Iran pale in comparison. When was the 
last time they invaded a virtually disarmed country? Is there a 
single terrorist whom we fear today who does not have a long history 
of being trained, armed or supported in the past by the U.S.?
We have to rethink the words we use, our core beliefs, if we are to 
come close to the reality of what is happening in the world.

Q: You wrote an essay, "How We Came to Love the Bomb." Can you give a 
short summary?

A: I wrote that article in despair over the fact that my country had 
abandoned the non-violent legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and embraced the 
path to nuclear disaster shown to us by our super power Big Brother. 
I also made a film, "War and Peace," documenting the mad euphoria 
that we saw in the streets as Indians and Pakistanis celebrated their 
newfound powers of mass destruction.

A few years later, when my film "War and Peace" was shown in the 
U.S., A. Hamrah of the Boston Globe wrote a perceptive piece 
comparing the jingoism seen in "War and Peace" with the recorded 
jingoism that greeted the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 
1945 and the development of nukes in the U.S. in the 50's. A whole 
bomb culture had evolved then with pop songs, T-shirts, the works.

Q: You protested the Vietnam War while living in the U.S. in the 
'60s. How do you feel about the Iraq war, and are there similarities 
between the two?

A: Both wars were illegitimate, immoral, but I think the reasons for 
the Iraq war are even more transparently venal. If there is less 
public protest this time than there was during Vietnam, I attribute 
it to the fact that there is no draft.

A majority of the young Americans being killed in Iraq are from low 
income groups and minorities. Sadly, it is only when rich kids die 
that America seems to really wake up. Perhaps only when those who 
vote for war are forced to commit a loved one into battle will wars 
come to an end.

Q: During your career, you've dealt with attempts by the Indian 
government to censor your films, and with Hindu activists who 
pressured the American Museum for Natural History in 2002 to postpone 
screening some of your films. Who are your biggest allies in trying 
to fight censorship?

A: Where the enemy has been state censorship, my biggest ally has 
been a healthy Indian Constitution that guarantees "freedom of 
expression" and dedicated civil liberties lawyers like P.A. Sebastian 
and Nitya Ramakrishnan, who have successfully defended my films. To 
date, despite repeated bans and attempted deletions, not a single 
frame of any of my films has been sacrificed. Although the official 
release of many films was delayed, in the end we were always able to 
win in court and through public pressure generated by a sympathetic 
press.
Where my opponents have been religious fundamentalists, my allies 
have been secular Indians of all faiths, all those who are 
marginalized by caste and creed, and the many Hindus who have always 
taken pride from the inclusivity and tolerance of their belief system.

Of the many attempts made by fundamentalists to shut down our 
screenings, very few have succeeded. In Kerala (India) last year, "In 
the Name of God" was banned by a district officer who gave in to 
threats by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. But a month-long agitation that 
included street marches by secular Keralites forced the ban to be 
withdrawn. Even the Museum of Natural History in New York, facing an 
e-mail barrage by secular Indians, reversed its ban on the film. 
Unfortunately, it did not get up the guts to keep the screening on 
its own premises, but relocated it to New York University.

Q: You've been called the "Indian Michael Moore." Your thoughts about 
that description, and about the work of the American filmmaker?

A: It is an honor to be compared with Michael Moore. But my own films 
have never gotten into the mainstream. So I'm thrilled as much by 
Moore's work as the impact he has had. My heart went out to him on 
Oscar night. He stood up and was counted.

With his films, I've loved much of what he has done, although I'm not 
sure how exactly his work is understood by those who do not already 
agree with him. There is a nagging doubt about whether 
middle-of-the-road Americans take kindly to him.

I do not mean to be critical because I think those who like Moore see 
through the lies that the U.S. and the Bush administration have told 
the world, and their morale needs to be lifted. Moore does this 
brilliantly, but perhaps a less personal attack would have served 
better to bring out the systemic problems in the U.S.

At times I have also been accused of mocking my "enemies" and I 
always defended myself by saying that one needed a sharp instrument 
to cut through the layers of deceit and disguise. I think Moore's 
technique is legitimate, but sometimes he is guilty of striking too 
many blows even after his opponent is down for the count. That is 
what happened the second time he talked to Charlton Heston in 
"Bowling for Columbine." And "Fahrenheit 9/11" would have been better 
if it was less Bush-centric.

But nothing I say takes away from the sheer chutzpah of Mike. He is 
the best thing that has happened to America since (linguist and 
activist Noam) Chomsky.

Q: What are you working on now?

A: Doing screenings and fighting court cases. "Father, Son and Holy 
War" (1995) won two national awards in 1996 on the basis of which I 
approached state-controlled Doordarshan national TV to broadcast the 
film. When they, as usual, refused, l went to court and won. Then 
they went to Supreme Court, which is where the matter now stands.
I do have some half-finished films on the back burner, but it's too 
early to talk about them.

Q: What are your plans while at UC Berkeley?

A: Just doing the screenings, meeting with friends, recharging my batteries.


______


[3]

The Telegraph
October 13, 2004

BURQA ROW IN SCHOOL

Rasheed Kidwai
Betul (Madhya Pradesh), Oct. 12: A 15-year-old schoolgirl here has 
become the public face of a radical group's campaign for an "Islamic" 
dress code in a controversy similar to the one sparked by the recent 
French ban on headscarves in classrooms.

The row started after Shabnam, a ninth standard student of a co-ed 
government higher secondary school, arrived in a burqa but was turned 
back by the teachers.

She returned the next day, the "net curtain" in place that allowed 
her to see but prevented others from seeing her eyes. She was not 
alone - one of her classmates, too, was in a burqa.

Realising that the row could soon take a political turn in BJP-ruled 
Madhya Pradesh, principal Pushpalata Chowdhury shot off a letter to 
district authorities seeking guidelines on "violation" of the school 
dress code. She also called parents requesting them to give up the 
"burqa campaign". Chowdhury said burqas could pose a threat as 
miscreants could use it as disguise to sneak into the school.

Soon the word was out that Muslim girls were being prevented from 
fulfilling their religious obligations. Local muftis, maulvis and 
religious outfits joined in. The radical Anjuman Islamia Committee 
took charge, asking the authorities of the Garg Colony school on the 
bank of the Machna to "see reason".

Mohammad Islamil of the Anjuman told the authorities that Islam 
impresses upon women to "lower their gaze and guard their modesty" 
and hijab was definitely established as obligatory dress code in the 
Shariat.

Privately, however, not many Muslims here favour the Anjuman's "back 
to basics" approach. Abdul Rahim, whose daughter is among 56 girls 
supporting the burqa campaign, said almost in a whisper that while he 
acknowledged that Islam outlined a code of modesty, it did not 
commend a certain style.

Asked why he was not protesting, Rahim said as the father of two 
girls, he did not want to become an "outcast". Some others said it 
was important to note that Islamic values of modesty applied to both 
men and women.

For the time being, district authorities are trying to settle the 
issue at the local level. District education officer S.S. Thakur said 
he was "applying his mind" and has asked for guidelines from the 
capital, Bhopal. "Prima facie, it appears to be a case of a violation 
of dress code," he said.

Not many in Betul, which is about 200 km from Bhopal, have heard 
about the controversy in France that erupted in the wake of an 
amendment in the code of education banning students from wearing 
conspicuous religious symbols to state schools.

The ban also covers Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, to 
ensure that secular rules are applied evenly. The ban does not apply 
in Catholic and other private schools.

o o o o

http://in.rediff.com/election/2004/oct/13sena.htm

AMBEDKAR BACKS SHIV SENA
October 13, 2004 19:02 IST

The Shiv Sena on Wednesday received support from unexpected quarters 
with Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh leader and Dr B R Ambedkar's grandson, 
Prakash Ambedkar, hinting at "issue-based association" with the 
saffron party.
"Political rivalry is one thing but on certain issues we are not 
averse to working with the Sena," Ambedkar said, coming down heavily 
on the Bharatiya Janata Party as well Congress for "alienating" the 
middle class and working class through their economic policies.
Ambedkar, whose party had three MLAs in the 1999 assembly polls, 
however, was all praise for the Sena for its criticism of the 
privatisation policy of the National Democratic Alliance government 
that rendered many jobless.
The Sena leadership may come out with its solution to ward off the 
ill-effects of privatisation, Ambedkar hoped.
The Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh, a splinter Republican Party of India 
group, is contesting 83 seats and was an former ally of the Congress 
before the three of its MLAs switched loyalties to the latter.

o o o o

Deccan Herald, October 14, 2004

HC DIRECTIVE TO BAN ANIMAL SACRIFICE
The Khurda district administration has given a green signal to the 
gory tradition this year too, where animals are butchered during the 
Durga puja, in violation of the cruelty to animals act.
BHUBANESWAR, DHNS:

The Orissa High Court has directed the local administration of a 
coastal district to initiate steps to prevent animal sacrifice in a 
major Hindu temples during the upcoming Durga Puja. The week long 
festival is scheduled to begin in different shrines next week.

Responding to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by T K 
Maharana and nine others, a two member bench of the High Court, 
directed the Collector and Superintendent of Police(SP) of Khurda 
district, to take strong action to prevent animal sacrifice during 
the festival at the shrine of Goddess Bhagabati in Banpur.

The PIL stated that large numbers of animals are brutally butchered 
during the Durga puja in the shrine every year, which violates the 
cruelty to animals act.

The Khurda district administration has not been able to end the 
tradition of animal sacrifice at the Bhagabati temple during Durga 
puja, mainly due to pressure from local people, particularly from the 
priests of the shrine. In fact, this year the district administration 
has already given a green signal to the gory tradition, after a 
meeting convened by the deputy Collector of Khurda to discuss the 
issue failed to each a consensus. The meeting was attended by the 
temple priests and representatives from local villages.

However, the HC directive is expected to help the district 
administration to ban animal sacrifice at the shrine this year. The 
order has also brought relief to animal rights activists in the state 
who have been fighting to end the age old brutal tradition of animal 
sacrifice in different shrines during different festivals, 
particularly during Durga puja. However, they are still worried 
because the HC order is confined to one shrine only and large number 
of animals are likely to be axed in other temples. The state 
government too has not been able to end the cruel tradition, though 
the issue was discussed in the floor of the assembly on several 
occasions.

o o o o

The Telegraph
October 14, 2004

COUPLE TOLD TO BECOME SIBLINGS

Gajinder Singh
Chandigarh, Oct. 13: Couple yesterday, siblings today.

A happily married couple in Haryana has been told to regard each 
other as brother and sister by a council of similar caste villages 
which decreed their marriage was unacceptable on social grounds.

In Sunday's bizarre ruling in Asanda, Jhajjar, near Delhi, a Rathee 
khap panchayat ordered Rampal and Sonia, who is three-months 
pregnant, to terminate their marriage of one-and-a-half years.

The panchayat, comprising elders from three villages, said there was 
"bhaichara" (brotherhood) between members of Rampal's gotra Dahiya (a 
sub-caste in the Jat community) and Sonia's Rathee gotra.

The unwritten social code in the state forbids them from marrying 
each other, the elders ruled. The "sin" could be undone only if they 
accepted each other as siblings. That Sonia was happily married to 
Rampal and was even carrying his child had no effect on the elders, 
who said they delayed the decision because of "confusion" over 
Sonia's gotra.

Sonia has reportedly said she would prefer death to accepting her 
husband as a brother. She claims she belongs to the Hooda clan - a 
sub-caste whose members can tie the knot with a Dahiya - as her 
father, Satvir Singh, used the surname. She has also refused to 
accept a Rs 10 note from Rampal as acceptance of the decree.

But Rampal, whose gotra is in a minority in the village, has buckled 
under pressure. "I have no choice. I am with the panchayat as of 
now," he said. But his three sisters support Sonia, who has left the 
village to stay with one of them till a solution is thrashed out.

Sonia's father said he would approach the court. "We are not living 
in the age of cannibals. They cannot wreck my daughter's life," 
Satvir, a policeman, said.

Sources said the state could not intervene as no FIR had been lodged.

Four years ago, a similar khap panchayat in Jaundhi village had 
ordered a woman to tie a rakhi on her husband, though the couple had 
an 18-month-old son. Their sin was they had married in the same 
sub-caste. The couple fled the village. They have not returned.

o o o o


The Tribune, October 14, 2004


It amounts to censorship
DD has faulted in blocking JP film

Although the government has tried to wash its hands off the 
controversy over the decision of Doordarshan to withdraw a film on 
Jayaprakash Narayan which was to be telecast on his birthday on 
Monday, doubts linger. The Opposition is not the only one accusing 
the government of being partisan and biased. The Congress has a 
record of being less than fair in such matters, considering that 
similar crude attempts have been made in the past to scuttle "Aandhi" 
and "Aaj Ka MLA". Prasar Bharati CEO K.S. Sarma has even justified 
the decision not to show the film on the ground that its treatment of 
the Emergency was not "balanced". That gives the game away. How 
autonomous Prasar Bharati happens to be is known to everybody. 
Apparently, it has either got its orders from the high-ups or knows 
how to please the political bosses. So, it has played it safe by 
refusing to telecast the film. What it does not seem to realise is 
that such kneejerk reaction amounts to censorship, which happened to 
be a hallmark of the Emergency days.

Prakash Jha's film on JP was commissioned by the previous government. 
It was jointly sponsored by the Ministries of Culture and Information 
and Broadcasting. The portrayal of JP's role in the resistance 
against the Emergency is indeed central to the film, as former I and 
B Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has pointed out. Trying to excise 
these portions does no credit to the current dispensation.

What must be borne in mind is that speaking openly about an event 
happens to be the best catharsis. Take Gulzar's film "Maachis" for 
example. It freely mentioned the excesses committed by the police 
during the terrorism days in Punjab. There was a hue and cry by a 
certain section but it was rightly ignored. The film went on to win 
many awards. It did not cause any social upheaval either. In a 
democratic setup, everyone needs to be given certain leeway, artistes 
all the more so - and also the people who enjoy the Right to Know.

______


[4]


The Times of India - October 14, 2004

SENSING THE FUTURE: FEMALE LITERACY ON THE RISE IN ALL COMMUNITIES
Ravinder Kaur

The census is a modern tool of 'governmentality'. Modern states 
cannot be governed without numbers and statistics. As the French 
scholar Foucault told us in his famous essay on 'Governmentality', 
statistics has to do with the 'science of the state' which turns 
people into populations and produces numbers necessary for 
governance. He, however, went on to point to a more insidious use of 
such statistics - to classify and organise populations into handy 
categories in order to 'discipline' or 'manage' them easily. Below 
Poverty Line (BPL) is such a created social category of 
governmentality.

Be that as it may, it is necessary to go beyond census figures to 
grasp certain nuanced social changes. Based on NSS data, I compare 
how the most disadvantaged group, women, has progressed in 
educational attainment over the last two decades. The comparison is 
done in both absolute terms, and relative to men. The data are for 
two periods, 1983 and 1999. The figures have been deliberately 
processed for the age group 8-24, to represent youth literacy, with 
literacy defined as having had at least two years of schooling rather 
than the proverbial 'signature' literate.

The results from this exercise are startling, and rather encouraging. 
The data show that most communities (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian 
and SC/ST) are progressing at a near equal rate from their initial 
positions. In fact, the more worse off the women in a community were 
in 1983, the faster was their rate of progress. Thus, SC/ST young 
women show the greatest increase in their literacy levels, from 27.9 
per cent in 1983 to 59.6 per cent in 1999, showing a gain of 31.7 per 
cent. Hindu and Muslim young women are progressing at a slower, but 
equal pace - an increase in literacy levels of 22.6 per cent and 23.3 
per cent, respectively. The latter statistic - a larger increase in 
female literacy among Muslim women - might shock those who bemoan the 
lack of progress among the minorities. The only correct way of 
interpreting this fast and surprising improvement in female education 
levels is via the understanding that the hunger for education knows 
no barriers, whether of religion, caste, or gender. With all the 
caveats, education still spells the surest route to improving one's 
life chances. And today, far fewer women wish to be governed by 
customs that have curbed their progress.

People who cry discrimination at the mere smell of vote banks may 
also need the reality check provided by these figures. These youth 
literacy and educational attainment figures for women of Muslim and 
SC/ST communities show that they may no longer be facing some of the 
religion and caste barriers which kept them (and the men of their 
communities) down earlier. If the government can claim some benefit 
for having furthered the cause of the SC/ST women, it cannot do the 
same in the case of Muslim women. Minority schools and colleges have 
helped somewhat but the real reason for this change appears to be the 
demand for education by communities which appear to have accepted it 
as a condition of life in the modern world.

A recent study of Muslim women by Ritu Menon and Zoya Hasan states 
that parental opposition to the education of girl children is a 
disappearing variable, except in some rural pockets. In fact, their 
study finds that there is not much opposition by younger Muslim 
parents to even co-education.

To get back to the results: As expected, Christian women are at the 
top with a literacy rate of 95.9 per cent, showing an increase of 
only 8.1 per cent because they don't have much catching up to do. 
Surprisingly, the Sikhs, who are justifiably receiving the short end 
of the stick where the sex ratio is concerned, are not far behind the 
Christians. They have progressed by 19.8 per cent points from a youth 
literacy level of 72 per cent in 1983 to 91.8 per cent in 1999. If 
female literacy is linked to fertility decline, the question in the 
case of the Sikhs (the Punjabis and Haryanvis, more correctly) is - 
why do they still not like girl children? National Family Health 
Survey data for 1998-99 indicates that this too may be changing but 
is not on the radar screen - yet. In addition to absolute 
improvements, closure of the gender gap, or the gap between male and 
female literacy, is also in evidence. Sikh and Christian women are 
snapping closely at the heels of their men - here the gender gap in 
1999 was only 9 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively.

The narrowing of the gender gap in educational attainment can have 
good and bad consequences for women and families. On the positive 
side, women will have less children and participate in the workforce 
in larger numbers. This will hopefully increase their participation 
in intra-household decision-making as well. Empowered women will be 
role models for both sons and daughters - again, hopefully, leading 
to a breakdown of strict gender roles.

On the negative side, girls seen as over-educated may not find 
spouses or companions easily. Women who outstrip men in education are 
likely to find less educated local grooms unacceptable. Husbands with 
less education than their wives may feel threatened and take it out 
on them by being physically violent. The increases in domestic 
violence appear to be in direct proportion with women's enablement. 
The latter is a scenario society needs to avoid.


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

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.