SACW | 17 Oct 2004
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sat Oct 16 20:03:09 CDT 2004
South Asia Citizens Wire | 17 October, 2004
via: www.sacw.net
[1] Human security in Bangladesh (Zafar Sobhan)
[2] Bangladesh / Pakistan: Professor Anisuzzaman
of Dhaka University talks about literature and
secularism in Bangladesh and identifies ground
for a struggle alongside Pakistani intellectuals
[3] The sectarian conflict is an unpleasant
reality in today's Pakistan (Arif Jamal )
[4] India: Nailing RSS (D R Goyal)
[5] India: "CBFC, Kher etc." Press Release by
Campaign Against Censorship / Films For Freedom
+ Report "Documentary producers' associations welcome sacking of Anupam Kher"
[6] India: Confessions were forced in Dec. 13 Case (Nirmalangshu Mukherji)
[7] Upcoming film screening : 'DESI: South Asians in New York '
--------------
[1]
The Daily Star
October 17, 2004
HUMAN SECURITY IN BANGLADESH
Zafar Sobhan
These days security seems to be the burning issue
on everybody's lips. In the aftermath of the 8/21
grenade attack and other bomb blasts and arms
hauls that remain unresolved, no one could
seriously argue that the question of security is
not of paramount concern in Bangladesh today.
Nor do I wish to downplay the importance of
traditional security concerns, which remain
crucial to the well-being of the nation. But
today I would like to focus on a subject that I
feel is equally critical but that has been more
or less ignored within the debate on security as
a whole.
This is the subject of human security and what we
can do to counter threats to human security in
Bangladesh.
The concept of human security was developed as a
means to try to broaden the conventional security
agenda. Before the concept of human security
gained currency, traditional security concerns
addressed military threats to the state --
security threats envisaged efforts to destabilise
or overthrow a government or political system.
Gradually the idea gained acceptance that a state
can face many kinds of threats to its security
that are not military. The acknowledgement of
non-traditional security thus expanded the scope
of security concerns to encompass concepts such
as food security or energy security or
environmental security -- the idea being that
insecurity in any of these arenas could be as
much of a threat to a nation's security as a
traditional military threat. But the focus -- or
referent -- of such security threats remained the
state.
The concept of human security was developed
alongside a recognition of the fact that it is
the security of the individual more than that of
the state that should be of pre-eminent concern
to policy-makers and the administration.
The policy focus is now more on the security and
safety of the individual and not on either
traditional or non-traditional security threats
to the state -- and it is in this light that I
believe Bangladesh's security concerns must be
addressed. It is important to keep in mind that
shifting the emphasis from the state to the
individual in no way diminishes the importance of
traditional concepts of security -- traditional
security threats to the state also count as
threats to human security as ultimately it is the
individual who suffers the most.
So what do we mean by human security? There have
been many definitions coined over the years --
some more expansive than others -- but most have
concentrated on freedom from fear and freedom
from want. There has often been some tension
between the West -- which has focused more on
freedom from fear -- and Asia -- which has
focused more on freedom from want -- but it seems
to me that human security must encompass both
these freedoms, and that for many human security
threats it is neither possible nor helpful to
deconstruct them into either one or the other.
Human security is perhaps best defined as freedom
from violence (either man-made or natural), a
state that does not oppress its own people, and
conditions within which the means of livelihood
can be earned. This is what we mean when we speak
of human security and these are the indexes
according to which we need to measure human
security in Bangladesh.
Human insecurity is indivisible. It is not
possible to be secure in one of the three ways
outlined above if you are not safe in the other
two ways. If a person is not safe from threats of
violence then this diminishes or negates his or
her ability to earn a living. Freedom from
violence and state oppression is meaningless in
the absence of means of livelihood, and if one's
security is threatened by the state then one's
freedom from violence or freedom to earn a living
cannot be secured with any certainty.
Human security threats can also evolve into
threats to the state due to their suddenness,
scale, or severity. A good example of this is
HIV/Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, which began as a
public health problem, but has reached such a
scale that it constitutes a legitimate security
threat to the entire region. The destitution and
parentlessness caused by the disease have
decimated local populations, and apart from the
massive strain put on health-care resources and
facilities, the shrinking of the work-force and
near collapse of institutions and law and order
have threatened the continued functioning of the
affected states.
One human security threat can also evolve into
another due to linkages between the two, which
can eventually threaten the state as a whole.
Environmental threats such as floods are a good
example of this. Floods can cause massive
hardship for people in flood-hit communities or
countries -- as happened recently in Bangladesh
-- and this can lead to large scale migration
that in turn creates a whole host of difficulties
in the area to which the flood-affected people
converge.
Human security threats cannot typically be
localised or contained and this is why, left
unchecked, they almost always metastasize into
threats to national security. Who among us would
argue that floods do not have the potential to
threaten national security every bit as much as
bombs and grenades do?
The question is, of course, who bears
responsibility for securing us from these threats
to human security and what we, as individuals,
can do to secure ourselves.
Bangladesh is a relatively young country that is
still developing both economically and
politically. Many if not most of our democratic
institutions have not been fully developed and
concepts such as citizenship or civil society are
still in their infancy. It is for these reasons
that I believe the lion's share of responsibility
for human security must fall to the state.
When we shift the focus from traditional security
to human security, we are shifting the answer to
the question "whose security?" but not to the
question "whose responsibility?" The focus may
now be on the security of the individual, but the
responsibility must remain the state's.
If Bangladesh were more developed -- economically
and politically -- and if we had a better
developed sense of civil society -- then perhaps
the state could take a back-seat role and leave
it to the people to safeguard their own security.
But this is not the case in Bangladesh. In
addition, when the state -- through its action
and inaction -- is either directly or indirectly
the cause of much of the human insecurity in the
country, then it stands to reason that no human
security solution which does not contemplate a
leading role for the state will be effective.
This is not to say that civil society has no role
or that civil society in Bangladesh has not been
astonishingly productive when it comes to
safeguarding our human security and performing
functions which should be the state's
responsibility.
It is civil society which must hold the state
accountable for its failures, it is civil society
which must organise, mobilise, and educate the
public, and influence, pressure, and educate
policy-makers. It is civil society that must
expend its energies to reform the state because
left to itself the state will never do so.
But ultimately the responsibility for
safeguarding human security must lie with the
state, and in Bangladesh, this responsibility
remains unfulfilled.
Zafar Sobhan is an Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.
______
[2]
The News on Sunday [Pakistan]
October 17, 2004
interview
'WE HAVE A COMMON CAUSE'
Professor Anisuzzaman of Dhaka University talks
about literature and secularism in Bangladesh and
identifies ground for a struggle alongside
Pakistani intellectuals
By Zaman Khan
"We conceived Bangladesh as a secular, democratic
and socialist country. But soon after, to our
misfortune, we had a military rule. Not once but
twice in a short period of time. It was then that
the secular character of the constitution was
distorted," said Professor Anisuzzaman speaking
to TNS on the sidelines of a conference in
Colombo recently.
A reputed teacher of Bengali literature,
Anisuzzaman taught at Dhaka University from where
he retired last year. He has also taught in some
prestigious universities of Europe and America.
Anisuzzaman was born in Calcutta in 1937, and his
family moved to East Pakistan in 1947. He did his
doctorate in Dhaka, and was one of the many
Bengalis who crossed over into India in 1971--
becoming a refugee a second time. He came back
after the creation of Bangladesh.
Professor Anisuzzaman is currently associated
with a couple of journals -- an English-language
art journal and a Bengali literary monthly.
The 1946 Hindu Muslim riots in Bengal left an
indelible mark on the mind of a young Anisuzzaman
and he became a committed secularist. But the
situation in his country makes him sad: "We are
not striving for a just society now. We have
become a captive to market economy. In the last
three years we have seen that the religious and
ethnic minorities in Bangladesh have been very
badly treated. There is a systematic campaign
against the Ahmadis and also in the background an
impending campaign against Shias. All this makes
me very sad because we thought that a free
Bangladesh would also be free from this sort of
sectarianism and obstructionism."
One of his earliest memories he has are that of
'Asian Writers Conference' held in Delhi in
December 1956. He attended as the youngest member
of the Pakistani delegation from East Pakistan.
The delegation was headed by Faiz Ahmed Faiz.
When the constitution of Bangladesh was being
made, Anisuzzaman was given the responsibility to
look at it from the perspective of language
(Bengali). Later on, in one of its judgements,
the Supreme Court of Bangladesh held that at the
time of interpretation, Bengali version of the
constitution should be consulted as the final
version.
Professor Anisuzzaman is a keen reader of Bengali
literature: "Bengal produced great writers like
Rabindranath Tagore and Qazi Nazrul Islam. Even
today, we have produced quite a number of
significant writers who have combined their art
work with their social responsibility. I would
say that a reasonably good literature is being
produced in Bangladesh, all of this in not world
class but some of it is. For example Waliullah's
first novel which was first published in 1948 was
translated into English and French and was
received very well. If you can make a selection
of some of Suleman's poems, perhaps it can come
up to the world standards."
Poetry, he thinks, has been a productive area in
Bengali literature and he counts the names of
Jaswanti, Shamsul Khan, Al Mamoon and others.
Novel has touched the popularity of poetry in
Bangladesh. "Syed Waliullah was the first to
introduce the 'stream of consciousness' theme in
our novels. Then Abu Ishaq wrote very realistic
novels with countryside as the background.
Shaukat Usman who has been writing since before
the partition continued with his novels of social
reality. Shaeedullah Qaiser, based his novels
both in the countryside and cities like Calcutta
and Dhaka and it represents the Bengal of modern
Muslim middle class and its psyche. The prolific
and popular Humayun Ahmed is among the new crop
of novelists," he said.
One of Humayun's first novels '1971' was about a
village where the Pakistan army committed
atrocities. His last novel published this year
also on war of liberation. "It is a comparatively
voluminous book because he usually writes shorter
novel. It portrays not only about atrocities but
goes deep into the human psyche and the emotions
of the people bringing out different sentiments
and reactions in times of crisis. In some cases
there is unexpected heroism, in other cases there
is fear. He has done very well. His novel '1971'
has been translated into English and made into a
movie," said Professor Anisuzzaman.
After Bangladesh's creation, playwrights have
produced original plays and also good
adaptations, mainly of European originals. "From
1972 onwards, we have had a people's theatre or
group theatre. These are amateur artists but
fully devoted. They have done very well," he
said. Among playwrights he mentions the names of
Abdullah Almamoon and Saleemuddin. Munir Chaudhry
and Syed Ali Hasan he rates as good critics and
Badruddin Omar, Sirajuzzaman Chaudhry and
Jalil-ur-Rehman Siddique as worthy essayists.
Professor Anisuzzaman does not rate Tasleema
Nasreen as a very good novelist: "Persecution of
religious minorities is a very strong theme for a
novel, but she could not do justice to it. Her
treatment was not good. Her poetry is good and so
are the literary columns she has contributed to
Bengali journals. She has since devoted herself
to writing autobiographical narratives, which
have also become a centre of controversy."
Professor Anisuzzaman, however, says that Nasreen
has the courage to write what she believes in,
being "a feminist of sorts writing against male
domination and against very oppressive society."
And he thinks the circumstance in which she was
forced to leave the country was very unfortunate.
"Even if one does not agree with one's writings,
one cannot deny one's right to live. One must
defend her/his right to life," he said.
Pakistani literature does not find an audience in
Bangladesh because there are very few translators
who can translate from Urdu. "I don't think even
they can translate any contemporary Pakistani
literature and as for English translations, the
readers do not receive much," he said. "Faiz has
been translated into Bengali since 1950s. Faiz is
very well known."
About the role of Pakistani writers in 1971, he
said: "There was an information gap on both
sides. We know that it was problem for the
writers from Pakistan to respond to facts. There
were general expectations that writers, artists,
intellectuals would rise in protest. But we think
that still we have common problems to fight
against and a common cause."
Professor Anisuzzaman thinks that the situation
is very bad in Bangladesh with particular
reference to minorities. "If those belonging to a
minority group call themselves Muslims, as do the
Ahmadis, who are we to declare them non-Muslims?"
he asked.
And the hope for the revival of secularism in
Bangladesh is fading. "Secular forces came to
power again in 1996 but they did not revive
secularism. At the moment the possibility is
remote because anti-secular forces are united and
the secular forces are not. This revival can
happen if there is a large coalition of secular
force. For example the recent incident of attack
on Hasina has united secular forces," he
concluded.
______
[3]
News on Sunday, October 17, 2004
Now, more intense
THE SECTARIAN CONFLICT IS AN UNPLEASANT REALITY IN TODAY'S PAKISTAN.
It cannot be overcome with administrative
measures alone -- most of which have been
cosmetic so far
By Arif Jamal
The current wave of sectarian violence shows that
the government has failed to curb the activities
of the banned jihadi and sectarian groups with
strict administrative measures.
The first ten days of October have been
particularly bloody. The month of October started
with a suicide attack on a Shia mosque in Sialkot
on October 1. More than 30 Shia worshippers died
in the attack. The attack was followed by a car
bomb at the Millat-i-Islamia (formerly
Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan) convention on the
occasion of the first death anniversary of
Maulana Azam Tariq on October 7 in Multan. More
than 40 participants died in the explosion.
Two days later, unknown gunmen killed Mufti
Mohammad Jamil Khan and Maulana Nazeer Taunsavi,
two leaders of the Almi Majlis Khatme Nabuwat, in
Karachi. Next day, an unrecognised person carried
out a suicide attack in a Shia mosque in Lahore.
The assassin blew himself up and the guards when
they intercepted him. At least four people
including the attacker died.
The current wave of sectarian violence appears to
be the continuation of the 20-year old conflict
with all its brutality. General Ziaul Haq's
support to the jihadi and sectarian groups, which
supported his military rule at home during the
Afghan jihad has created unmanageable monsters.
The creators no longer appear in control of the
situation.
The sectarian groups used to carry out sectarian
violence on the pattern of non-sectarian violence
in the country before the 9/11 attacks in the
United States. The sectarian violence became
intense and brutal after the jihadis had to leave
Afghanistan after the US attack. The sectarian
terrorists started using suicide attacks to
perpetuate sectarian violence in Pakistan in the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York and
Washington. Suicide attacks were unknown in
Pakistan in the pre-9/11 period and were largely
associated with the al-Qaeda network. Although
the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups never used them in
Pakistan.
A new mode of violence has been introduced during
the current wave of sectarian conflict: a car
bomb. It is for the first time that the
terrorists have used a car bomb in Pakistan. In
the past, they once used motorcycle bomb in the
mid-1990s against the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan
leaders. If past is any guide, they are likely to
used this mode of violence more frequently in the
future.
The government first tried to explain the suicide
attack on the Shia mosque in terms of a reaction
to the death of Amjad Farooqi, who was allegedly
involved in the suicide attacks on General Pervez
Musharraf in December 2003, in an encounter with
security agencies in the town of Nawabshah a few
days earlier. Farooqi was allegedly involved in
the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl
also. Thus he was a most wanted terrorist. Later,
when the attacks and suicide attacks became
frequent and intense, the government took some
administrative measures by banning the ijtimas of
the already banned groups. Currently, the
security agencies are also arresting real or
potential terrorists from the banned jihadi and
sectarian groups.
The intense sectarian conflict has once again
shown that the government has miserably failed to
stop the banned groups from functioning under
different names. All the banned jihadi and
sectarian groups have been functioning under
different names without much difficulty since
General Musharraf banned them on 12 January 2002.
So far, the administration has hardly taken any
measures to implement the ban except arresting
and later releasing some of the cadres of these
groups. The police start arresting some of the
cadres of these groups every time there is an
escalation in the sectarian conflict. They are
mostly released after the sectarian violence
subsides.
The organisational infrastructures of the banned
groups, which now function under new names, have
mostly remained intact. They have mostly the same
office bearers. None of them has gone underground
after the January 12 ban. There are two
exceptions though -- both Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and
Sipah-i-Mohammad remain underground. Other banned
groups are still operating mostly out of their
old office premises. Some of them have shifted to
new premises. They are still bringing out the
same periodical publications, mostly under the
old names. They are discreetly raising funds and
holding ijtimas without any fear.
The administrative measures to implement the ban
have mostly been cosmetic. The huge rally on the
occasion of the first death anniversary of
Maulana Azam Tariq in Multan is one such example.
This was first shown when Maulana Azam Tariq
contested and won the general elections in 2002
despite a ban on his party. Later, he also had
the unique honour of helping former Prime
Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to win the prime
ministerial race with his vote.
The government has tried to make a scapegoat out
of the nazim of Multan for allowing the
Millat-i-Islamia to hold its convention on the
first death anniversary of Maulana Azam Tariq.
The nazim must have given the permission to the
Millat-i-Islamia in view of the fact that the
dead leader of the party was a member of the
incumbent National Assembly and the party was
freely functioning in the country. The
Millat-i-Islamia ran a publicity campaign
throughout the country before the convention but
the government did not move to ban the
convention. The banned groups have not stopped
holding public rallies under new names even after
another ban on their rallies. They rarely seek
permission from the local administration.
The sectarian conflict and violence is an
unpleasant reality in today's Pakistan. The other
reality is that it is becoming more and more
intense. Yet another reality is that the
administrative measures have so far failed to
eliminate this threat. Unless the government
accepts these realities, it cannot remove the
threat of sectarian violence. The problem of
sectarianism cannot be overcome with
administrative measures alone while the state is
in an alliance with some of them. The government
needs a very strong political will to eliminate
the threat of sectarianism.
______
[4]
sify.com
Friday, 08 October , 2004, 20:32
NAILING RSS
By D R Goyal
Inside information by a former RSS swayamsewak
proves that the militantly anti-secularist
organisation was directly complicit in planning
one of the most heinous assassinations in human
history.
That the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) is a
past-master at lying brazenly to defend its
conspiratorial past has been proved by its
repeated denial of any association or
responsibility for the crime of having supported,
in either form or intent, the killing of Mahatma
Gandhi. Its good fortune - and the nation's
misfortune - is that the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), an RSS affiliate, is suffering from such
amnesia, or complacency, that when the issue is
even lightly touched on by one of its senior
leaders, the bulk of the party prefers to
dissociate itself from the issue, thus allowing
the outfit to mislead the public by loud
protestations and by threatening to file a
defamation suit. I am not sure that this is not
an empty threat - there is so much evidence that
proves that Nathuram Godse was actively
associated with the organisation and was inspired
to do the dirty deed by the ideology that gave
birth to the RSS. The organisation's lies have
been nailed by no less a person than Nathuram's
own brother, Gopal Godse.
In an interview to Frontline magazine (January
28, 1994), he said, "All the brothers were in the
RSS. Nathuram, Dattatreya, myself and Govind. You
can say we grew up in RSS rather than in our
home. It was like a family to us. Nathuram had
become a baudhik karyavah (intellectual teacher)
in the RSS. He had said in his statement that he
had left RSS. He said this because Golwalkar and
the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder
of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS."
When confronted with Advani's claim that Nathuram
had nothing to do with RSS, he replied that he
had countered Advani by saying, "It is cowardice
to say that. You can say that RSS did not pass a
resolution saying 'go and assassinate Gandhi'."
Apart from denying his association with Nathuram,
the outfit has been using the time-tested
technique of all liars. Selective quotations from
the correspondence of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
are cited to suggest that the then home minister
did not believe that the RSS had committed the
crime. Patel's letter had been addressed to Nehru
in February 1948. But in a letter to RSS founder,
Dr Shyamaprasad Mookerjee, written in July that
year, when more facts were probably unearthed, he
squarely blamed the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha,
saying, "Asthe case relating to Gandhiji's
murder is sub judice I would not like to say
anything about the participation of these two
organisations, but our reports do confirm that,
as a result of the activities of these two
bodies, particularly by the former (i.e., RSS),
an atmosphere was created in the country in which
such a ghastly tragedy became possible."
He went on to write, "The activities of the RSS
constituted a clear threat to the existence of
the Government and the state."
Neither this letter nor one from Patel to Madhav
Sadashiv Golwalkar himself, in which the ban on
the RSS was justified, is talked about. Golwalkar
was told that the speeches of the RSS men "were
full of communal poison. It was not necessary to
spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and
organise for their protection. As a final result
of the poison, the country had to suffer the
sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji." In
the same letter, Patel pointed out that popular
opposition to the RSS turned serious "when the
RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets
after Gandhiji's death".
Rather than being penitent, asserting that it was
not the RSS but Nathuram, on his own, who had
fired the shots, is like saying that it wasn't
Nathuram but a pistol that had killed Gandhi.
After all, the man who risks his life to take
somebody else's is motivated by ideas; in this
case, Nathuram had imbibed them from the RSS.
Nathuram was the instrument of that ideology,
just as the pistol was Nathuram's instrument. It
should, therefore, be examined whether RSS
training could have inspired his intense hatred
against Gandhi.
Godse's strongest claim to innocence is based on
the court judgment, which had held only Godse
guilty and not any organisation. That was because
the Indian Penal Code then in force had no
provision for proceeding against organisations
spreading hatred. The lacuna was removed in 1972
through an amendment. Therefore, a court
judgement based on the old IPC should not be
treated as a valid alibi.
Vinayak Damodar "Veer" Savarkar had been arrested
and punished not because he had killed Curzon
Wylie, but because he had incited and inspired
the killer, Madan Lal Dhingra. British law did
not suffer from the handicap that the IPC did,
particularly because there is enough evidence.
In this regard, I find my own experience
significant. I had become an RSS activist as a
teenager way back in 1940-41 as a reaction to the
Muslim League's Pakistan resolution. The Congress
had no children's wing and for the nascent
political consciousness of a teenager, the RSS
provided the only expression.
The intellectual food that I had got till 1948
was such that I was averse to seeing Gandhi's
face. I was then working in a Hindi daily, Milap,
and was assigned the duty to report Gandhi's
speeches at the prayer meetings. Instead of going
to Birla House, I would report his speech with
the aid of the radio broadcast. The only day I
decided to go to a prayer meeting was the day
Madan Lal Pahwa hurled a bomb, which missed its
target. I had gone because the RSS crowd was
circulating the news that something of high
importance was expected to occur.
A similar motivation impelled me to proceed in
that direction on January 30, but before I could
enter Birla House, I found people running and
screaming that Gandhi had been killed. I ran back
and entered the bungalow of Dr N B Khare, the
prime minister of Alwar state who was then a
member of the Constituent Assembly: I was aware
of his sympathies for the RSS.
My experience is corroborated by the experience
of another disillusioned swayamsewak who had
written a letter to Sardar Patel after the
assassination and which has been referred to by
Gandhiji's private secretary Pyarelal in his
book, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, and quoted
by Justice J L Kapoor, who reviewed the case in
1966. In that letter, the swayamsewak had asked
"members of the RSS at some places to tune in the
radio sets on the fateful Friday for the 'good
news'."
Pyarelal has also mentioned an aborted attempt at
assassination by these people in Poona in order
to punish Gandhi for his campaign against
untouchability. He said, "Their plans this time
were far more systematic and thorough and
included such refinements as conditioning the
mind of youth for their prospective task by
making them wear, as part of their training,
photos of Congress leaders like Pandit Nehru and
others, besides Gandhiji, inside their shoes, and
using the same for target practice with fire-arms
etc."
What kind of intellectual diet were the
swayamsewaks fed? It is there in Bunch of
Thoughts, a compilation of Golwalkar's
ruminations, officially published in 1966. To
give a comprehensive idea, one has to quote at
length, especially to avoid being accused of the
selectivity which the RSS itself indulges in.
Accusing the Gandhi-Nehru leadership of "Muslim
appeasement" in order to achieve Hindu-Muslim
unity, he says, "The Hindu was asked to ignore,
even submit meekly to the vandalism and
atrocities of Muslims. In effect, he was told:
Forget all that the Muslims have done in the past
and all that they are now doing to you. If your
worshipping in the temple, your taking out gods
in procession in the streets irritates the
Muslims don't do it. If they carry away your
wives and daughters, let them. Do not obstruct
them.
"Once a notable Hindu personality of those days,
in a largely attended public meeting, declared:
'There is no swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unityIn
other words, the Hindu was told that he was
imbecile, that he had no spirit, no stamina to
stand on his own legs and fight for the
independence of his motherland and all this had
to be injected into him in the form of Muslim
blood. What a shame, what a misfortune that our
own leaders should have come forward to knock out
the indomitable faith in ourselves and destroy
our spirit of self-confidence and self-reliance,
which is the very life-breath of a people! Those
who declared 'No swaraj without Hindu-Muslim
unity' have thus perpetrated the greatest treason
to our society. They have committed the most
heinous crime of killing the life-spirit of a
great nation."
It is not difficult to imagine the effect of such
propaganda on listeners who treat Golwalkar's
words as no less than divine. Although Gandhiji's
name has been included in the pratah-smarn
(morning prayer), the attitude, in practice,
remains unaltered. An editorial in 1961 in the
Organiser, the RSS mouthpiece, commented that
Gandhi's assassination was the result of anger
caused by his insistence on stopping anti-Muslim
killings and paying RS 55 crore to Pakistan as
that new nation's post-Partition due share of the
treasury. More recently, former RSS chief
Rajendra Singh said that Godse's opposition to
Gandhi was not wrong, only that his method was
not right. The entire Sangh Parivar is still
adamant on its refusal to accept Gandhi as the
"Father of the Nation."
In 1948, they physically killed Gandhi. Since
then, they have been systematically trying to
kill his moral-political legacy, recent evidence
of which was shamelessly brandished in Gandhi's
home state of Gujarat under the dispensation of
the brutal Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who is
being treated as a sacred cow by the RSS
establishment. But metahistory will eventually
prove the RSS in the wrong and complicit in one
of the most heinous assassinations in human
history.
Courtesy: Hardnews Syndication Service
______
[5]
[October 16, 2004]
PRESS RELEASE
CAMPAIGN AGAINST CENSORSHIP / FILMS FOR FREEDOM [India]
The last few days have seen much heat generated
by the removal of Anupam Kher as Chairman of the
CBFC.
The Campaign Against Censorship/Films for Freedom
would like to draw attention to the fact that the
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in the
last few years had become a political tool in the
hands of the BJP and its allies to stifle dissent
and prevent the right of film makers to reach out
to the public with stories of critical importance.
The real issue before us is the urgent need to
review the Censorship laws under the
Cinematograph Act as well as the functioning of
the CBFC to prevent political parties and their
appointees from harassing and attacking film
makers who could be politically opposed to their
ideology.
Mr. Anupam Kher led one of the most repressive
censorship regimes of recent times . Under the
short one year tenure of Anupam Kher as Chairman,
the CBFC already mired in controversy, has gone
through one of its darkest periods. The targeting
of films that dealt with the Gujarat massacres of
2002, which the previous government had in
particular a vested interest in stopping, exposed
the partisan, authoritarian, and irresponsible
use of the powers given to the CBFC. Mr. Kher and
other officials of CBFC were directly responsible
for the harassment faced by Rakesh Sharma (dir.
of Final Solution). Final Solution went through a
bizarre process of preview by CBFC. To begin with
it was not even being accepted for preview on
various pretexts; then it was denied a
certificate for public exhibition with Mr. Kher
making statements to the media defending the
denial of certification and asserting that the
film could not be publicly exhibited. The film
was finally reviewed under immense public
pressure and a certificate with no cuts was
granted and now Mr. Kher claims it was his
intervention that got the film a certificate!
There are many other films that are still stuck
with the CBFC.
The process began when the Regional Panels of the
CBFC were stacked with political appointees with
direct political links to the party in power (and
mostly with no connection/interest in cinema).
There was harassment of filmmakers at the censor
board, and eventually the unprecedented step of
the CBFC taking an aggressive and proactive stand
in stopping screenings of "uncensored" films,
often in collusion with right-wing political
fronts. All of this happened with the knowledge
of Shri Kher, if not at his behest. Mr. Kher was
personally involved in attempting to disrupt the
Films For Freedom festival in Bangalore earlier
this year. He was aided in this attempt by
members of the Hindu Jagran Manch who also
claimed to be members of the regional board of
the CBFC.
We also condemn the political censorship being
imposed by Prasar Bharati on film-maker Prakash
Jhas' recent film on Jayaprakash Narain
(especially regarding those sections in the film
that have critical references to the Emergency
that was imposed by the Congress government).
This clearly reiterates our belief that important
public institutions like the CBFC and Prasar
Bharati have been stripped of their independence
and continue to be used by political parties to
simply further their narrow agendas.
To ensure freedom of expression and to strengthen
democratic institutions there is therefore an
urgent need to totally review the censorship laws
under the Cinematograph Act as well as the
functioning of the CBFC.
The Campaign against Censorship calls on all film
makers, journalists, members of the media,
democratic institutions and human rights
organisations to join us in our demand to review
and change the Cinematograph Act and all
censorship laws and to create a certification
mechanism that is based on the principles of
freedom of expression and justice, and which
prevents political, moral and cultural policing
of the media by all governments and political
parties.
For further information (in Delhi) contact:
Amar Kanwar: 98102 16088 / 26516088;
Rahul Roy: 98103 95589 / 26515161;
Saba Dewan: 26515161/9810395589;
Shohini Ghosh: 98180 88378 / 22720703;
Sanjay Kak: 98112 29952 / 26893893;
Ranjani Mazumdar: 98180 89519 / 22723764
o o o
[See also a related news report ]
http://news.newkerala.com/
Documentary producers' associations welcome sacking of Anupam Kher:
[India News]: Mumbai, Oct 16 : The controversy
over removal of Anupam Kher as chairman of
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) took a
new turn today, with two documentary producers'
bodies welcoming the move and one of them
admitting it had lodged its protest against the
actor with the centre.
Ironically, the discontent over Anupam was voiced
at a meeting organised by the film fraternity to
garner support against the sacking of Kher, who
they claim was victimised, citing irrelevant
political connections.
Indian Documentary Producers' Association and
Vikalp, representative bodies of short
film-makers in the country, said they welcomed
the move as the actor has misused the powers of
the Censor Board and "harassed the film
fratenity".
"Removal of CBFC chairman Anupam Kher and Censor
Board Organisation's regional officer in Mumbai,
is necessary but not sufficient step,"
documentary film-maker and Vikalp member Anand
Patwardhan told reporters here.
Vikalp, along with Campaign Against
Censorship/Films for Freedom (CAC/FFF), "welcomes
the removal of non-liberal, pro- active Censor
Board officials as a step towards redressing the
regressive role played by CBFC in stifling all
political dissent", Patwardhan read out from a
statement.
The statement was signed by members of the Vikalp
and CAC/FFF, including Rakesh Sharma, Sanjiv Shah
and Anjali Monteiro among others.
Sharma's film `Final Solution', a documentary on
Godhra carnage was alleged to have been delayed
by Kher by not providing a certificate and also
by not permitting to show the film in the country.
______
[6]
SACW | Oct. 17, 2004
INDIA: CONFESSIONS WERE FORCED IN DEC. 13 CASE
by Nirmalangshu Mukherji *
In his submission before the Supreme Court in the
Parliament attack case, the senior counsel Mr.
Shanti Bhusan argued on Thursday that the
confessions made by the accused Mohammad Afzal
and Shaukat Hussain Guru were extracted from them
by the Special Cell of the Delhi police under
torture. Afzal and Shaukat were given death
sentences by the High Court in its judgment of 29
October, 2003. Their confessions formed a crucial
evidence against them. In fact, Afzal's
confessional statement is the only evidence for
the identity of the terrorists who died in the
attack, the names of organizations they belonged
to, the hatching of the conspiracy from Pakistan,
and the details of arms and ammunition brought
from Kashmir.
The appeal against the High Court judgment by the
defence is currently being heard by Justice Reddy
and Justice Naolekar at the Supreme Court. On the
fifth day of his submissions in defence of
Shaukat Hussain Guru, Mr. Shanti Bhusan focused
mostly on the validity of the confessions. He
pointed out that the disclosure statement of the
accused recorded by the police on 16 December
2001 soon after their arrest already contained
all the details of the official confession made
later under POTA on 21 December 2001. If the
disclosure statements were voluntarily made, they
clearly showed that the accused were eager to
confess to their alleged crime. Hence the accused
could have been produced before a judicial
magistrate on the 17th itself for a recording of
the confession under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Instead of taking this course, the police waited
till the 19th when the POTA clauses were
officially introduced in the case, and the
confessions were recorded befor a police officer
on 21 December. This suggests that the police
wanted to use the convenience of POTA, and avoid
the safegurds against forced confessions provided
in the Code. So the possibility that both the
disclosure statements and the confessions were
extracted under torture can not be ruled out.
Mr. Shanti Bhusan also pointed out that the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, who was empowered
to record the confessions, gave a written order
to his subordinate Assistant Commisioner of
Police to produce the accused before the DCP at
11.30 A.M. on 21 December 2001. As such, Mohammad
Afzal, Shaukat Guru and SAR Geelani were produced
at the appointed time. However, Geelani refused
to make a confessional statement, and his
statement to this effect was recorded by 11.55
A.M. Then, instead of producing the next accused
before the DCP for the confessions, they were
taken away and brought back over three hours
later when the recording of Shaukat's confession
started at 3.30 P.M.; recording of Afzal's
confession started at 7.30 P.M. The only
explanation, according to Shanti Bhusan, is that,
after Geelani refused to confess, the other two
accused were subjected to further torture so that
they fell in line before the recordings were
resumed.
In view of these and other infirmities in the
said confessions, and the long series of legal
pronouncements that discouraged the use of
confessions before the police, the bench asked if
there was an explanation as to why such a
confession was allowed under POTA. Interestingly,
the bench itself reflected that this method could
be needed only in those exceptional
circumstances, such as operations in remote
areas, in which a judicial magistrate may not be
easily available. The case under discussion, in
contrast, was handled in New Delhi.
Earlier, Mr. Shanti Bhusan had already pointed
out that many individual statements in these
confessions were in contradiction with other
evidence produced by the prosecution. Mr. Shanti
Bhusan's submission will resume on 26 October
after the autumn recess.
(* Department of Philosophy, Delhi University)
______
[7]
Malcolm X Library proudly presents:
DESI: South Asians in New York
Monday, October 18, 2004 6:00-8:00 pm
This documentary film is a groundbreaking
tribute to the diversity and dynamism of South
Asians living in New York City and the U.S. A
Hindi word meaning "countryman" or "people of
the soil," desi refers to a broad,
multicultural spectrum of South Asians-
Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans,
Nepalese and others-who have become an integral
part of many regions in the United States
including California. Illustrating the growing
sense of shared identity here in America,
Pakistani and Indian cab drivers are seen
uniting in a New York taxi strike as nuclear
tests explode on their native subcontinent,
threatening the outbreak of war.
Directed by Allen Glazeb & Shebana Coelho, 58 minutes, 2000, USA
Dr. Huma Ahmed-Ghosh of the Women's Studies Dept
at San Diego State University will facilitate a
post screening discussion after the film.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the Sacw
mailing list