SACW | 3 Nov 2004
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Nov 3 09:08:46 CST 2004
South Asia Citizens Wire | 3 November, 2004
via: www.sacw.net
[1] US Elections: A result we know already (M B Naqvi)
[2] India - UP: "Guns for sterilization" Forced Down (Editorial, Telegraph)
[3] India's Far Right Drops Its Mask (J. Sri Raman)
[4] Religion, Identity and Democracy (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[5] India: Verdict Maharashtra: 2004 - Defeat of Communal Forces (Ram Puniyani)
[6] India: The Police and Censorship of Plays (A G Noorani)
[7] India: Ayodhya Babri Mosque Demolition Case:
- Advani may face new mosque charge
- Final hearing in Ayodhya case on Dec. 16
[8] India - Retrial of Gujarat riots cases:
- Key India riot witness backtracks
- Zaheera's charges a pack of lies, says Teesta Setalvad
[9] Publication Announcement: Gendered Violence
In South Asia: Nation And Community In The
Postcolonial Present > Cultural Dynamics, Sage
Journal. Volume 16, Issue 2 & 3
[10] Upcoming Film Screenings:
"Final Solution" / "Muslims or Heretics?" (Salt Lake City, November 6, 2004)
--------------
[1]
The News International
November 03, 2004
A RESULT WE KNOW ALREADY
M B Naqvi
It is too early to know the actual result of
American Presidential and parts of parliamentary
elections; in our parts, these results will start
coming in early this Wednesday (today). No
matter, we can be sure of, some of the results.
Whether George W. Bush retains his job or Kerry
makes to the White House, there is no difficulty
in discerning the broad thrust of policies that
will be pursued by Uncle Sam.
Thus, the Iraq war is not about to be wound up.
It will be pursued with renewed zeal. If Kerry
flies past the winning post he will try to rope
in a few other nations to share the human cost of
American occupation. Bush will muddle on and
favoured sectors of Corporate America will go on
rolling in profits. The US has meant to reshape
the Middle East; that may change marginally but
not substantially; but keeping Iraq under
occupation for larger American purposes is not
likely to be affected.
In the Arab-Israeli dispute no change need be
expected from either contender to the
Presidential gaddi. In a way, it is possible to
say that the real winner on Nov 2 will be Ariel
Sharon's Israel no matter if American President's
name on Nov 3 is Bush or Kerry. Depending upon
Israeli politics, Sharon's plans will go on being
supported by American government. The much
betrayed Palestinians had better make themselves
ready for whatever final Solution Sharon has in
mind of the Palestine Problem. The US is sure to
go along with it.
Logically, no significant change can be expected
in the US policy towards Afghanistan. Here too
this or that Karzai will be kept in 'power'.
Pakistan will continue to be asked 'to do more' -
regarding both al-Qaeda and Taliban. Islamabad
may expect more money from the US for specific
purposes like reforming religious curricula or
for better tackling of terrorism or for carrying
out CBMs with India, especially in Kashmir.
But the Afghans are unlikely to see the departure
of American troops, not that NATO can extricate
its troops easily. US cooperation is for
unlimited period, irrespective of the state of
security or stability of the political system
there. Ergo occupation of the four or more
Pakistani bases by the US will go on. The network
of American bases in the ME, the fleets in
Persian Gulf and Pakistan bases are meant to be a
solid rear for US forces in Central and other
parts of Asia, now thinly spread out.
America inevitably has a lot of business to
transact in Caucasus and Central Asia: Oil, other
minerals, chances of investments, likely military
purchases by some former Soviet republics beckon
and of course there are the strategic purposes. A
lot of possible geopolitical action would seem to
impend in Russia, China, Korean Peninsula, and
South China Sea. It is good to be well placed
with good supply lines. South Asia and
Afghanistan have an enabling role to sustain the
US while it engages in its myriad chores of a
hyper power. Bush or Kerry the work will be the
same.
One thing is also certain, no matter who wins the
US Presidency on Tuesday: either contender will
go on working hard to forge an ever expanding
military cooperation with India; that is what a
strategic relationship comprises. But the course
of love, war and strategic relations never run
smooth; hurdles and hiccups can be expected. But
no breakdown seems likely. Pakistanis, important
enough for their assigned role and location, will
have to adjust to it. The recent sense of urgency
in President Musharraf's campaign of making
Pakistanis think outside the box on Kashmir may
be related to America's own roadmap for Asia. It
will stay the same for Bush or Kerry.
Of particular interest to Pakistan is the near
certainty of the US making non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons the mainthrust of its declaratory
policies. The AQ Khan story is not dead; it will
continue to be used to keep Pakistan in line. It
is likely to prove a good lever to pressurise the
country. As for non-proliferation campaign is
concerned, it is shot through and through with
contradictions: the US is constantly engaged in
proliferation, vertical as well as horizontal:
new nuclear ammo for bunker busting and that son
of Star Wars, the anti-ballistic missile defence.
It is aggressively selling this new defence
against missiles to Tokyo, Taipei and New Delhi.
The basis of American power is the largest
stockpile of nuclear weapons, making these the
currency of power and influence. Why should other
deny themselves of what is kosher for America of
both Bush and Kerry?
Then there are three special cases of Israel,
South Korean experiments and of what India has
been doing. Contrast American attitudes to those
three with its stance vis-à-vis the Axis of Evil:
Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Libya has done a
South Africa and has become respectable. Iraq was
severely punished for a crime it had expatiated
for under IAEA's urgings sometime ago. Israel
remains the darling of the US and its nuclear
stockpiles - thought to be larger than Britain's
or France's - apparently cause no worry to any
democratic - read white - country. The US
protection of it, despite its horrible
transgressions of Palestinians' human rights and
proliferation, remains the cornerstone of US ME
policy. Some hold that the whole US foreign
policy is being driven by concern for Israel.
Kerry has no new list of priorities that vitally
differs from Bush's.
But apparently some sins cannot be atoned for.
One such is being committed by North Korea and
another is sought to be committed by Iran. Here
the US shows a different face, though there is no
realistic likelihood of American preventive
action; its cost will be too high and success may
not be assured through a short, sharp
intervention. North Korea is too complicated a
case, in any case: nobody knows how Russia and
China will behave if the US mounted an invasion.
But an adequately rearmed Japan - an apparent
objective of US policy being propagated by US
media - can be relied upon to tackle that. What
is the difference in the approaches of Bush or
Kerry for solving these Crises?
China is a resurgent power; it largely remains an
unknown factor. Bush or Kerry, the present mix of
US policy is unlikely to change soon. Strategic
moves apart, China is to be integrated into the
world economy and US wants a share in the cake of
the huge profits to be had from the Chinese
market. The US cultivation of Taiwan and Tokyo's
going nuclear - the American media's prescription
- may be for 'just in case'. But the American
moves in Northeast Asia as well as Central Asia
are well worth watching and none of these are
likely to be affected by the Nov 2 election.
Needless to say the broad outlines of US policies
vis-à-vis the third world are likely to stay the
same; that is a near certainty. As for Pakistan,
the ruling establishment need not worry. The need
for bases in this country, thanks to its
location, will keep it in power - and money. But
its track record is not good in American eyes.
That is because of Pakistani rulers' obsession
with Kashmir; it is prone to go on squabbling
with India. Which may be the reason why Gen
Musharraf is going flat out for a permanent
settlement with India quickly. That will cement
Pak-US ties. In any case, Musharraf has some
leeway because the US need for Pakistan's
cooperation is unlikely to go away, Bush or Kerry.
What we do not know is how America's domestic
issues will fare under Bush or Kerry. Even here
there are some semi-certainties. Economic
paradigm of low taxes and pruning of social
sector expenditures is unlikely to be ended even
under Kerry, though there will be a lot of talk
about changing some aspects of Social Security,
health and education sectors. But lack of support
in Congress is likely to stymie him while Bush is
a known category. Strong continuation can be
expected on domestic security; there can be no
let up on that. Only style and rhetoric are
likely to change with Kerry. American economy's
health is being debated; so far no one seems to
have a panacea for its ills. Kerry may also show
greater awareness of the outside world.
There are also few moot issues: Kerry, if
elected, may try to make US adhere to Kyoto
accord of 1997. There may be renewed rhetoric on
the need for more anti-missile defence if Bush
returns to White House. Kerry can be suspected to
start talking of some nuclear disarmament with
Russia, though not with anyone else in Europe,
Israel or China - Pakistan may be the main
exception among known nuclear powers. But that
will be superficial - for political purposes.
They used to say Kerry would care more for the UN
and international law. But that was an unfounded
expectation. Both scions of rich families will go
on deferring to special interests that will have
helped put one of them in power.
______
[2]
The Telegraph
November 03, 2004 | Editorial
FORCED DOWN
Sterilization already carries an ugly historical
baggage in India. But in the country's largest
and most populous state, population control has
become another means of reinforcing existing
forms of social oppression. Both the sexes are
victims in different ways, and in an
inconceivably massive scale. Medical officials in
three districts of Uttar Pradesh have recently
announced a "guns for sterilization" policy.
According to this, a single-barrel shotgun could
be obtained against two men sterilized, a
revolver licence against five. Almost
immediately, this policy has become a vehicle for
feudal oppression. A rich farmer has allegedly
had five of his farm labourers forcibly
sterilized at a clinic in order to obtain a gun
licence. A range of criminal methods, from
deception to coercion, was used to sterilize
these poor and illiterate men. All five have
lodged complaints with the police and registered
a case with a lawyer, but to little avail. UP's
sterilization target this year is 930,000, and
the means of meeting this increasingly involve
practices that dispense with even the most
rudimentary elements of reproductive health as
well as human rights.
Poverty, backwardness and caste oppression,
together with political apathy, massive
corruption and a complete lack of governmental
accountability, provide the background to the
horrors of coercive sterilization in UP. A 2003
report on the state's health services, based on
government data, shows that 35,000 women were
dying every year from maternity-related causes,
without any reaction from the government. Around
40,000 women go through childbirth every year
without trained attendants; 15,000 women become
pregnant every year because of sterilization
failure. Only 3.2 per cent women had been visited
by any health-worker in a year's time, and 4.4
per cent of pregnant women received complete
check-up during pregnancy. The conditions in
which men and women are sterilized are also
uniformly appalling, and there is almost no
pre-counselling or follow-up. The concept of
reproductive choice is alien to such a scenario.
And this must be compounded by the failure of
literacy programmes in the state in which
literacy among women is 42.98 per cent, and in
some places as low as 21 per cent. In the absence
of all mechanisms of accountability, invasive and
potentially coercive methods of birth control
become particularly dangerous means of oppression.
______
[3]
www.truthout.org
3 November 2004
INDIA'S FAR RIGHT DROPS ITS MASK
By J. Sri Raman
What does the far right do, when the people
reject it in an election? The question may be of
current interest to curious - and optimistic -
Americans. Very distant and vastly different,
India may still suggest an answer.
The larger answer from India is that the far
right takes from its trouncing exactly the
opposite of the lesson the people sought to teach
it. It becomes more assertive and aggressive. It
opts to assert its unmasked identity. It does so
on the assumption that this will pave the way for
its return to power.
The answer, of course, has taken an Indian
form. No one ever considered George W. Bush a
mask that concealed the US establishment's
megalomania and militarism.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the
political front of the far-right 'family' (or
'parivar'), on the other hand, has dropped its
'mask' by dumping former Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee as its decorative head. Former
party ideologue N. Govindacharya, in a moment of
clarity and candor, once called Vajpayee 'our
mask,' and the label has stuck. Former Deputy
Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani is the face -
real, revealing and reassuring, according to the
party - that has replaced the 'mask.'
Vajpayee has served as the mask the party
puts on, in power or in proximity to it. He has
played to near-perfection the pretended role of a
consensus-seeking politician in a coalition
regime or a broad alliance bidding for power.
Ever a loyal member of the parivar, he has still
acquired a liberal image thanks to persistent
efforts by powerful interests. The efforts have
aimed at deceiving India into believing that,
with him at the helm, the BJP and the motley
combine it headed presented a safe bet for the
country, including its minorities.
They have continued to call him 'the right
man in the wrong party,' though he has been fully
at home in it for four decades now. As Prime
Minister, he proclaimed India a nuclear-weapon
state, but they have continued to praise him as
an apostle of peace. He presided over the parivar
offensives against Muslim and Christian
minorities. He watched on benignly as Gujarat
chief minister Narendra Modi waded through blood
to the State-level throne. And still they hail
Vajpayee as the voice of sanity and even
secularism in the BJP.
The media came to believe in his
plaster-saint image, one largely of its own
making. It succeeded in selling the image to a
section of the middle class. The masses as a
whole, however, have preferred to judge Vajpayee
by his deeds rather than by his verbal jugglery.
Advani, in contrast, has for two decades been
assigned the function of the party's true face,
to be revealed whenever the 'mask' is needed no
more. Whenever, indeed, as now, the party feels
the need to doff the 'mask.' He acquired his
image as the spearhead of the Ayodhya agitation,
which culminated in the crumbling of the Babri
Mosque in 1992, and its bloody aftermath. The
revanchist campaign yielded the party rich
political returns, making it the main opposition
in India's parliament.
Advani was declared the BJP president, for
the third time in his political career, on
October 19. The event has raised expectations in
the party of a repetition of the post-Ayodhya
reversal of the BJP's fortunes. In almost all
other quarters, it has also raised apprehensions
of more Ayodhyas, in the sense of socially
divisive and destructive agitations.
Advani may have led the rabble-to-rubble
Ayodhya agitation, but he enjoys the backing of
BJP intellectuals, including editors and
journalists of dubious eminence. While venting
scorn at vandal campaigns of the kind, they have
always voiced unabashed admiration for the master
tactician who can thus mobilize mass support for
militarism along with 'market reforms.' The same
opinion-makers can be counted on to lend a
similar legitimacy to the coming Advani campaigns.
Advani has announced no campaign so far. He
is, however, trying to rake up the Ayodhya issue
again, promising a Hindu temple in the place of
the razed mosque if the BJP returns to power. It
may take a while for the party to revive the
issue. A more immediate threat, meanwhile, is an
incendiary campaign against 'demographic
invasion' from neighboring Bangladesh (coupled
with a 'jihad' against Indian Muslims allegedly
conspiring to outgrow the Hindu population!).
Sections of the populace do see the need to
counter such campaigns, but they lack political
support. If the Congress Party, heading the
coalition government in New Delhi, feels any
concern over the coming far-right offensive, it
is a closely guarded secret.
It is not only the BJP that would seem to
have drawn the wrong lesson from the election
results. The Congress has also, apparently, drawn
the conclusion that it fended off the far right
only by avoiding an ideological fight. It will be
for the people to drive home the lesson that both
the parties are anxious to disregard.
______
[4]
Secular Perspective
Nov. 1-15, 2004
RELIGION, IDENTITY AND DEMOCRACY
Asghar Ali Engineer
Most of the countries of the world are now
becoming multi-religious thanks to faster means
of transportation and employment opportunities in
western countries and oil rich Middle Eastern
countries. The western countries were mostly
mono-religious until early twentieth century. It
was in the post-colonial society that migration
from former colonies began towards metropolitan
countries that these countries became
multi-religious. Most of the European countries
were Christian (Catholic or Protestant) in
medieval ages. Only languages were different.
Later on the nation states came into existence on
the basis of languages and most of the countries
with few exceptions became monolingual as well in
Europe. Thus the European nation states were
quite homogenous. The USA was mainly populated
by the Europeans and had common religion i.e.
Christianity. But they were speakers of the
different languages. However, Anglo-Saxon group
was dominant and English became the national
language and other linguistic groups from Europe
adopted English and America became linguistically
also homogenous. Thus the problems of religious
and linguistic identities did not arise in most
of the western countries.
However, Asia in general and South Asia in
particular was always multi-religious and
multi-lingual. As the politics in the medieval
ages was based on feudal system and feudal system
depends on monarchical and dynastic power and
hence non-competitive, no problems arose. All
religious and linguistic groups were loyal to one
or the other dynasty. The politics in colonial
South Asia with consolidation of the British rule
became competitive. Different religious and
linguistic groups, and particularly religious
groups began to compete with each other for share
in political power and government jobs.
Thus religion became a source of identity for
political mobilisation and hence became a source
of conflict. The power elites of Hindus and
Muslims began to assert religious identities of
their followers so that they may bargain for
power on the basis of their respective numerical
strength. Many groups among Hindus and Muslims
had no clear religious identities being halfway
between Hindus and Muslims. Hence purificatory
movements like Shuddhi and Tablighi movements
were launched to establish ‘proper identities’.
The electoral system introduced by the colonial
powers proved more divisive. Political leaders
began to generate religious identities to bargain
for share in power. The South Asians stressed
caste and regional identities before such as
Bengali, Rajput, Pathan and so on. But the
electoral politics in colonial India changed all
this and Indians began to assert their religious
identities such as Hindu, Muslim, Christian or
Sikh.
On one hand, our freedom fighters were trying to
forge a sense of common nationhood and unite
various religious and linguistic groups for
common struggle against colonial powers and on
the other, the power elite from these religious
groups were trying to divide on the basis of
religious identities. Thus the efforts to form a
common nationhood in a multi-religious society
was quite challenging. The British rulers, on the
other hand, were creating more fissures between
Hindus and Muslims so as to consolidate their
colonial rule. The British rulers and the Indian
political elites thus reinforced each other in
widening the gap between the two communities.
Thus it will be seen that communal politics was
borne not on account of religion per se but by
use of religion for political ends. Both Hindu
and Muslim political elites invoked religious
sentiments to further their own political
interests. As the Hindus were in majority the
Hindu communal leaders began to exploit
majoritarian sentiments for creating Hindu
Rashtra and a section of the Muslim leaders began
to invoke minoritism and that led to two-nation
theory.
Thus religious identities became powerful force
in democratic politics and religious identities
are posing a great challenge even today in all
the South Asian nations. Our sub-continent was
divided into three countries thanks to politics
played by the power elites on the basis of
religion and language. All the three countries
have religious majorities and religious
minorities and despite the division the problem
continues.
In fact religion and democracy are not
incompatible with each other if both function in
their well -defined spheres. Religion is a
spiritual force and democracy a political one.
But serious problems arise when religion
transgresses its limits to interfere with
politics and democracy transgresses its limits to
use religion for political ends. Religion should
be used for spiritual growth and for inner needs
of the soul.
Democracy should address the problems of the
people and solve their worldly issues in a
participative spirit. Both can benefit from each
other in a positive sense. Democracy can infuse
into itself the moral values provided by religion
and religion can imbibe democratic spirit as
religious leaders also tend to be quite
authoritative. However, our experience shows
that when religion is used only for identity
politics and democracy only for power politics.
It results in confrontation between the religious
communities.
In the modern globalised world one cannot have
mono-religious societies and one has to live with
multi-religious and multi-lingual nations. Thus
religion as a basis of nationhood will never
create a peaceful society. It would lead to
confrontation between different religious
communities real people’s problems will always be
sidelines. It should also be noted that
majoritarianism is very negation of democratic
spirit.
A true democratic country would ensure equal
rights to all irrespective of religion, caste and
creed. Religion, ethnicity or linguistic origin
should not come in the way of fundamental rights.
The rightist forces in all countries try to
create religious chauvinism and equate
majoritarianism with democracy. Majoritarianism,
as pointed out above, is very negation of
democracy. Not only that democracy has no place
for majoritarianism but, on the contrary, a true
democracy ensures additional rights to religious
and linguistic minorities to protect their
religious and cultural traditions. The Indian
Constitution, for example, ensures these rights
to minorities through articles from 25 to 30.
However, the communal and majoritarian forces
call enactment of such provisions in the
constitutions as ‘appeasement’ of minorities and
try to incite religious feelings of the majority
community. The BJP in India is wedded to the
concept of Hindu Rashtra and through its
chauvinistic propaganda creates basis for
removing these articles from the Constitution.
And makes minorities feel quite insecure. It is
as a result of such aggressive majoritarian
politics that Gujarat like situations arise.
Gujarat carnage is a great shame for a liberal
democracy like that of India.
India was the first liberal democracy in whole of
Asia and it produced a model constitution
ensuring rights to all sections of society
despite well-entrenched social hierarchies and
age -old horizontal differentiations. But the
Jansangh now renamed as the BJP closely wedded to
the RSS ideology is bent upon destroying the very
spirit of liberal democracy. Religion, in a
liberal democracy, cannot become the basis of
governance. In fact majoritarianism does not
benefit entire majority community; far from it.
It benefits only a section of the community.
Aggressive majoritarianism also leads to minority
communalism and then both feed each other.
Aggressive majoritarianism strengthens
religion-based identity and mobilisation among
the minority communities as well and both
together seriously weaken foundations of liberal
democracy. Religion becomes a powerful source of
political mobilisation among majority as well as
minority communities.
Since late eighties Ramjanambhoomi, a religious
symbol, became a powerful tool for mobilising the
Hindu masses in the hands of the Sangh Parivar
and it exploited it to the hilt to come to power.
The Sangh Parivar politics has also weakened
traditional toleration found in Indian society.
Modern democracies cannot work effectively
without tolerance. One can say that tolerance is
the very foundation of modern liberal democracy.
The Sangh Parivar, using religious issues like
the Ramjanambhoomi has systematically cultivated
intolerance towards minority communities in India.
Common nationhood in a multi-religious society is
not possible if Hindu Rashtra or Islamic or
Khalistani states are made the basis of politics.
In a democracy, religion should never become the
basis of politics. If religion becomes the basis
of politics it would lead to worst of both the
worlds. Religion will become more and more
sectarian than spiritual and democracy will tend
to be vehicle of majoritarian rule. The common
people will be the ultimate losers in this game
of political power.
Those who have real regard for the sanctity of
religion would never allow it to be politicised
or ideologised. Religion then ceases to be a
morally and spiritually guiding force but becomes
a powerful tool of power politics. As a result of
this power politics Hinduism becomes Hindutva and
Islam becomes a source of jihadi violence. Both
Islam and Hinduism are sources of peace and
non-violence.
Thus we should not allow religion to be
politicised at any cost and democracy should
remain a source of people’s participation in
decision making and for welfare of common masses.
One must understand the difference between
religion as a faith and religion as a political
ideology.
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai:- 400 055
Website:- <http://www.csss-isla.com/>www.csss-isla.com
______
[5]
[November 3, 2004]
Verdict Maharashtra: 2004
Defeat of Communal Forces
Ram Puniyani
Close on the heals Lok sabha (Parliament)
elections, the results of Maharshtra elections
have come as a big blow to BJP and its allies,
Shiv Sena in case of Maharashtra. In the keenly
contested elections in Maharashtra, BJP coalition
initially tried to test the waters of emotive
issues. Tiranga, Savarkar, Bangladeshi immigrants
and to its dismay found that these issues are no
longer able to rouse the passions of average
people the way similar issues did few years ago.
Than they were left with no option but to talk of
worldly issues of the people but as average
people have already seen their performance during
the period of 94-99 it did not wash and they were
trounced at the hustings. It is also to be
remembered that the ëMumbai chauvinismí displayed
by Shiv Sena, like the attitude towards, Non
Marathi speaking could not be forgotten by the
electorate. The campaign of Mee Mumbaikar with
its xenophobic tone, the beating up of Non
Maharashtiran boys by Shiv Sainiks was too fresh
in the minds of people.
As far BJP, the Gujarat has been a big blow to
the sensibilities of the ëaam adamií (common
man), the whole carnage on the pretext of Godhra
and the post carnage humiliation and intimidation
of minorities and the Supreme Court injunctions
against Gujarat Government have an indelible
impression on the minds of people. The
dis-investment of the major properties in Mumbai,
Centaur Hotel, at throw away price and the petrol
pump allotment to the RSS coterie by previous
govt., revealed a lot about this political outfit.
During Lok Sabha elections (mid 2004) also the
emotive issues failed to click, the high fi
ëshining Indiaí campaign was perceived as an
insult by the deprived masses and the highly
confidant BJP electoral machine had to bite the
dust. It seems, gradually the electorate has
realized over a period of last one decade that
the divisive politics promoted in the garb of
religion is dangerous to societyís amity and the
poor and marginalized suffer much worse during
BJP regimes. It is their concerns, which get
pushed back to promote the interests of the
handful of elite and ëshining Indiansí of the
society. It is the Adivasis, dalits, workers,
minorities and women who suffer much worse during
such Governments.
So is it that it is the end of road for the BJP
type religion based politics, the Shiv Sena type
sectarianism? Is it the end of the cycle of
ascendance, which began with Advaniís Rath Yatra
in the year 1990, the campaign which was meant to
distract the social attention for the Mandal, the
need for addressing the issues related to social
justice? One Recalls that these parties
propagating their politics in the garb of
religion Were able to create a mass hysteria
around Ram Temple to begin with. This increased
their electoral strength by and by to the extent
that they could come to power in the Center. When
this emotive appeal began to decline, the Godhra
happened and the clever projection of threat of
terrorism did the trick and Gujarat could be won
back with bigger majority by BJPís Narendra Modi,
under whose supervision the biggest massacre of
21st Century has taken place. While this helped
the BJP to have immediate gains, in the medium
term it has become and albatross in BJPís neck
and has been working against its political
ambitions.
So is it the end of road for communal politics?
Is it that we can Breathe easy and ignore the
threat of RSS and its progeny? It will be
suicidal For democratic values to think in those
terms. The votes-polled in favor of these parties
is substantial. One has to know that the communal
poison sown by this outfit has reached far and
wide. One should know that RSS trained
swayamsevaks have infiltrated in most of the
walks of our society, educational, cultural and
media. Its penetration into bureaucracy and other
wings of state structures has been phenomenal. By
now it must have hundreds of front organizations
which are spreading hate against minorities in
particular and against weaker sections of society
in general. Its funding by the NRIs must be
incalculable.
It is sure to come up with more aggressive
intimidating strategies in Due course of time.
Already one of its progeny VHP is asserting that
return To Hindutva is called far if they have to
win elections. In the past we Have seen that
communal violence, orchestrated in a very clever
manner, so That it looks to have been initiated
by the ëothersí, has been the major Weapon of
consolidation of RSS ideology. One cannot take it
easy that so much subjective power bend upon
destroying the concept of Democratic Secular
India and to bring in Hindu Nation is scattered
all over. The need Today is to combat this
poisonous ideology. The very notion of fraternity
(community) has been mauled by the hate ideology
dished out through shakhas and other outlets of
RSS. We are witnessing the ëmini Pakistansí and
ëbordersí right in our cities and small towns.
Surely no society Can progress under these
circumstances. The need is that we try to build
bridges between our communities at social level.
The need is to celebrate our diversity, to have
mutual respect for different traditions of the
country. The defeat of BJP. Shiv Sena should not
lull us into slumber. We can only think that this
has given the secular democratic forces space And
time to bring together communities, to bring back
the social issues Back as the major concerns of
our social and political polices.
______
[6]
Economic and Political Weekly
October 30, 2004
THE POLICE AND CENSORSHIP OF PLAYS
The Indian Constitution assigns matters of
legislation related to 'theatres and dramatic
performances' exclusively to state governments;
this function, in some instances, has been
delegated to the police with the enactment of
several police acts. It is time that a separate
statute is enacted establishing an independent
machinery for censorship of plays.
A G Noorani
It is all to the good that the archaic and
illiberal system of film censorship has begun to
exercise the public mind. Few know, however, that
the system of censorship of plays and dramas is
far worse. Plays have an enormous impact on the
public mind and require as much talent as films
do. The veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah prefers
plays. But how many know that censorship of plays
is very much a police affair? This is because
while "sanctioning of cinematograph films for
exhibition" falls in the union list of matters
for legislation by parliament alone, the
Constitution assigns to the states exclusively
'theatres and dramatic performances'. And how do
the states deal with this power? By delegating
the function of censorship to the police, as the
Bombay Police Act, 1951 does; for instance in
October last year the Delhi police denied
permission for the staging of a play entitled
Budhe Bajpayee ki Love Story (the love story of
old Bajpayee). The PMO had raised no objection.
But the Delhi police alleged that it cast
aspersions on the then prime minister Atal Behari
Vajpayee's character, a charge which the play's
director Parmanand Panda, denied. But, the deputy
commissioner of police, New Delhi district, M K
Meena was not convinced. The Delhi government too
had no objection to the play.
In Delhi, the DCPs go through the script and
clear it for performance. Three officials are
involved - the DCP, licensing department, DCP
traffic and the DCP of the area in which the play
is to be staged (The Statesman, October 24, 2003).
Earlier, on August 25, 2003, a theatre group,
Sanlap Kolkata, was denied permission by the
Chennai police to stage its play Hey Ram based on
the Gujarat riots. It had been invited by the
Madras Cultural Association. The police rejected
the script. The play had won praise after its
performance in 50 shows in various parts of the
country, and had just been staged in Kolkata on
August 18, 2002.
In 1972, in the case of Pandurang Sawalaram
Dhurat vs C P Godse (77 Bombay Law Reporter p13),
the Bombay High Court struck down as void Rules
138 and 139 of the Rules for Licensing and
Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other
than cinemas) and Performance for Public
Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960
because they did not provide for a hearing before
the Stage Performance Scrutiny Board orders for
cuts nor for an appeal against the Board's
decisions. The Rules were made under the Bombay
Police Act, 1951, and absence of the two rights -
of hearing and of appeal - made Rules 138 and 139
unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of India. The case concerned the
famous play Sakharam Binder.
The court's decision was based on the Supreme
Court's ruling in Khuraja Ahmad Abbas vs Union of
India (AIR 1960 Supreme Court 554). The Supreme
Court ruled that the fundamental right to freedom
of speech and expression applied also to
cinematograph films. More, it held that
censorship rules must contain a positive
direction for the presentation and promotion of
art. There was no such direction in Rules 138 and
139.
It is true, of course, that some states like
Maharashtra, do provide for censorship by a board
or an advisory committee appointed by the
commissioner of police or the district
magistrate. But why on earth are plays at all
assigned to the police authorities? The police
are a law enforcement agency and their duty to
quell disorders extends to cinema theatres as
much as to ones where plays are staged. The
ambience matters. How many of the police acts
enacted by states provide for safeguards
stipulated in the ruling of the Bombay High
Court. The Bombay Police Act, 1951 makes the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay the
licensing authority.
It is time that a separate statute is enacted by
each state establishing an independent machinery
for censorship of plays. It should make a
qualified civil servant of rank as a licensing
authority, lay down the qualifications of members
of the scrutiny board and provide for appeal to
an independent tribunal.
Here is a matter on which playwrights, producers
and actors all over the country should come
together, draft a sound model statute and agitate
for its enactment by state legislatures.
______
[7]
BBC News
2 November, 2004, 17:29 GMT
ADVANI MAY FACE NEW MOSQUE CHARGE
The Indian opposition leader, LK Advani, could
face criminal charges following a court ruling in
the state of Uttar Pradesh.
It ruled that an earlier order which exonerated
Mr Advani for his role in the destruction of a
mosque at Ayodhya by a mob in 1992 should be
reviewed. [...]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3975563.stm
o o o
The Hindu, November 3, 2004
FINAL HEARING IN AYODHYA CASE ON DEC. 16
LUCKNOW, NOV 2. In an Ayodhya-related case lying
dormant for a few years now, the BJP president,
L.K. Advani, and some other senior party leaders
were issued notices today by the Lucknow Bench of
the Allahabad High Court.
The notices were issued on a Central Bureau of
Investigation revision petition challenging the
dropping of proceedings against them by a Special
Court in May, 2001.
Admitting the CBI's petition for hearing, Justice
M.A. Khan issued notices to Murli Manohar Joshi,
Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh, the former Uttar
Pradesh BJP president, Vinay Katiyar, and 14
other accused, including the Shiv Sena supremo,
Bal Thackeray, and the VHP leader, Ashok Singhal.
The court fixed December 16 for the final hearing.
The CBI has prayed for setting aside the order of
the then Special Judge (Ayodhya), S.K. Shukla,
dropping the proceedings against the accused
after the Lucknow Bench quashed the Uttar Pradesh
Government's notification constituting the
special court to try the case (crime number
198/92). It was registered at the Ram Janambhoomi
police station against Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi, Ms.
Bharti, Mr. Katiyar and five others in connection
with the Babri Masjid demolition.
If the court accepts the CBI's plea, the trial of
Mr. Advani and other accused would start in the
court of Special Judge (Ayodhya).
Though the CBI had filed the revision petition in
2001, it was admitted only today.
The investigating agency has also sought
direction to the Special Court for proceedings
against all the 46 accused in the case.
No change in stance: SP
The Samajwadi Party said there was no change in
its stand on the Ayodhya dispute and all parties
should abide by the court verdict.
The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mulayam Singh
Yadav, said he could not comment on the Lucknow
Bench decision "unless I go through its details."
- PTI, UNI
`No order pronounced'
Our New Delhi Special Correspondent writes:
The Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson, Arun
Jaitley, said that the Lucknow Bench had not
passed any order and that what happened in the
court today was a "procedural matter." The party
would respond legally.
Mr. Jaitley added that during the tenure of the
Vajpayee Government no effort had been made to
interfere with the judicial process (the revision
petition of the CBI was filed during the Vajpayee
Government's tenure) or influence the CBI.
______
[8]
BBC News
3 November, 2004, 12:23 GMT
KEY INDIA RIOT WITNESS BACKTRACKS
Zahira Sheikh again says she fears for her life
The most high profile trial following the
Hindu-Muslim riots in the Indian state of Gujarat
two years ago has again been thrown into
confusion.
A key witness in what is known as the Best Bakery
trial says human rights workers threatened her
into making false statements to the Supreme Court.
The case centres on accusations that a Hindu mob
killed 12 Muslims when they set a bakery on fire.
After the original trial, the witness, Zahira Sheikh, admitted lying in court.
More than 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, were killed during the Gujarat riots.
Walking free
The Best Bakery trial has been mired in controversy since its outset.
In the original trial, Zahira Sheikh was one of
several Muslim witnesses who were expected to
testify against 21 Hindus accused of attacking
the bakery.
But in court they all retracted earlier
statements to the police, saying they did not
recognise the accused.
The Muslims were burnt alive inside the bakery
The case collapsed and the 21 men walked free.
But she later appeared in Mumbai, in the neighbouring state of Maharashtra.
There she said she had lied in court because she
had been threatened with her life by leading
members of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party in Gujarat if she testified against the 21
Hindu accused.
India's Supreme Court then reviewed the case and
ordered a retrial in Mumbai after heavily
chastising the judicial authorities in Gujarat
for their handling of cases arising out of the
riots.
Now the retrial has been thrown into confusion as
Zahira Sheikh has for a second time said she has
come under intimidation.
This time she has pointed the finger at the human
rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace which
has been giving her legal assistance.
Ms Sheikh, now back in her home town of Baroda in
Gujarat, said on Wednesday that she had lied to
the Supreme Court.
She had done so, she said, because she had been
threatened by one of the staff of Citizens for
Justice and Peace, Teesta Setalvad.
The group has angrily denied the charge.
Ms Sheikh alleged she had been forced to sign
statements written in English, a language that
she did not understand.
She also asked for police protection, saying she faced a threat to her life.
The BBC's Zubair Ahmed in Mumbai says it is not
clear why she has suddenly gone back on her
statements submitted to the court.
She was due to make her first appearance in the retrial in the coming days.
High-profile case
The Best Bakery case has often been cited by
human rights groups as evidence that victims of
the Gujarat riots had gained little justice.
Some of Zahira Sheikh's family owned and ran the
bakery, and were among those killed.
The 2002 riots deeply divided Hindus and Muslims
living in Gujarat and left a deep scar on the
Muslim minority, many of whom still say they live
in fear.
o o o o o
The Hindu - November 3, 2004 : 1900 Hrs
ZAHEERA'S CHARGES A PACK OF LIES, SAYS TEESTA SETALVAD
Mumbai, Nov. 3 (PTI): Teesta Setalvad, the head
of an NGO which helped key witness in the Best
bakery case Zaheera Sheikh, today dismissed as a
"pack of lies" the charges made by Zaheera of
being "pressured" (by Setalvad) to make
statements and "naming innocent persons as
accused during the ongoing retrial".
"I am astounded and shocked to hear what Zaheera
has to say this about me. But I will not comment
further as the case is sub-judice," she told
reporters here.
Zaheera had yesterday filed an affidavit before
Vadodara Collector seeking police protection and
alleging that she was being forced by Setalvad to
falsely identify innocent persons as accused in
the re-trial being conducted in a Mumbai court.
Reacting to Zaheera's allegations, Setalvad said
"I believe that the case in Mumbai court is still
very strong and the prosecution has built up its
case on the accounts of eye witnesses who have
deposed till now."
To a query whether this development would have
any bearing on the ongoing retrial of the case in
Mumbai court, she said "Of course it may have
some effect but I am confident that the case is
still very strong."
Asked whether Zaheera and her mother had demanded
money from her, as was being claimed by
prosecutor Manjula Rao, Setalvad said she would
not comment on this.
Earlier, Rao, who is conducting the retrial in
Mumbai court, had told reporters that Zaheera had
demanded money from Setalvad but did not
elaborate further.
On Zaheera's plea that she had falsely deposed in
the trial court in Gujarat due to fear, the
Supreme Court had ordered retrial of the case in
Mumbai. Setalvad had then stood behind Zaheera
and helped her in moving the apex court.
_______
[9]
Announcement:
GENDERED VIOLENCE IN SOUTH ASIA: NATION AND
COMMUNITY IN THE POSTCOLONIAL PRESENT
Cultural Dynamics, Sage Journal. Volume 16, Issue 2 & 3
Guest Editors: Angana P. Chatterji and Lubna Nazir Chaudhry
(http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalIssue.aspx?pid=105512&jiid=506463)
"This volume addresses how borders violently mark
women's bodies in wars of direct and indirect
conquest, and how women's agency is constituted
in these times. How is gendered violence
inscribed through the spectacular and in everyday
life? What is the role of war or armed conflict
in transforming women's spheres of agency? As we
write about this issue, we are struck by the
historical paradox that we women in/from South
Asia inhabit. Anti-colonial struggles that
achieved independence and formed postcolonial
nation-states have consolidated themselves
through prodigious violence that defined and
divided communities, memories and futures.
Promises betrayed reverberate across the very
borders such violation enshrines. This violence
was inscribed upon women's bodies in very
specific ways, as they became, to borrow from
Gayle Rubin, the "vile and precious merchandise"
that was literally and figuratively exchanged as
boundaries were imposed and enforced. Following
911, the war in Afghanistan, and subsequently the
invasion of Iraq by Empire, signified the
rapidity with which violent events are
encompassing women globally. As feminist
scholar-activists, we have elaborated on the role
of gendered and sexualized violence within South
Asia in this collection, entering into disputed
representations of gendered violence with small
hope that knowledge itself, always partial and
shifting, might act as an intervention to
suffering."
ARTICLES:
ENGENDERING VIOLENCE: Boundaries, Histories and the Everyday by
Sukanya Banerjee, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Angana P. Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies
Lubna Nazir Chaudhry, State University of New York at Binghamton
Manali Desai, University of California at Riverside and University of Reading
Saadia Toor, Cornell University
Kamala Visweswaran, University of Texas at Austin
BETWEEN REALITY AND REPRESENTATION: Women's
Agency in War and Post-Conflict Sri Lanka
by Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake , Social Scientists' Association, Sri Lanka
INTELLIGIBLE VIOLENCE: Media Scripts,
Hindu/Muslim Women, and the Battle for
Citizenship in Kerala
by Usha Zacharias, Westfield State College, United States
WOMEN NEGOTIATING CHANGE: The Structure and
Transformation of Gendered Violence in Bangladesh
by Meghna Guhathakurta, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
ADVERSARIAL DISCOURSES, ANALOGOUS OBJECTIVES: Afghan Women's Control
Saba Gul Khattak, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Pakistan
MAOIST INSURGENCY IN NEPAL: Radicalizing Gendered Narratives
by Rita Manchanda, South Asia Forum for Human Rights, Nepal
RECONSTITUTING SELVES IN THE KARACHI CONFLICT:
Mohajir Women Survivors and Structural Violence
by Lubna Nazir Chaudhry, State University of New
York at Binghamton, United States
DEMOCRATIZING BANGLADESH: State, NGOs and Militant Islam
by Lamia Karim, University of Oregon at Eugene, United States
THE BIOPOLITICS OF HINDU NATIONALISM: Mournings
Angana P. Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies, United States
______
[10]
http://www.amnestyusa.org/filmfest/slc/
Amnesty International Film Festival
Salt Lake City, November 3-7, 2004
Salt Lake City Public Library Auditorium
210 East 400 South
Osh Auditorium At The University Of Utah
Saturday 11/06
1:30pm, Salt Lake City Public Library Auditorium
FINAL SOLUTION
5pm, Osh Auditorium At The University Of Utah
AFGHANISTAN UNVEILED
MUSLIMS OR HERETICS?
Followed by a Questions and Answers Session with Naeem Mohaiemen.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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