SACW #1 | 20 Dec 2004

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  Dispatch #1  | 20 Dec.,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] Pakistan-India:  Courting insecurity through arms (Praful Bidwai)
[2] Pakistan-India:  All part of the safari jeep (Jawed Naqvi)
[3] Pakistan-India: Partition has failed to solve communal bias (Kuldip Nayar)
[4] India: R. Champakalakshmi talks to historian Romila Thapar
[5] India: Update on the 'Employment Guarantee Bill'
[6] India - Upcoming events :
(i) Lecture by Prof. Theodore Wright on "U.S. Intervention in South 
Asia and the Middle East" (New Delhi, 21 Dec 2004)
(ii) Second Promise of India Conference 'Making Peace with Diversity 
and Development'  (Bombay, 10 Jan, 2004)


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

[1]

The News International,
December 16, 2004

COURTING INSECURITY THROUGH ARMS

Praful Bidwai

Although it would be premature to pronounce a negative judgment on it 
yet, the India-Pakistan dialogue is running into a number of 
roadblocks and probably a phase of stagnation. The two governments 
have made little progress on the worthy 14 month-old proposal to 
launch a bus service between the two capitals of divided Kashmir. 
They also remain stuck in a conservative groove while discussing 
nuclear and conventional military confidence-building measures 
(CBMs), which will reduce the threat of a conflict in this volatile, 
now-nuclearised, region. While the hitch on the first issue concerns 
the nature of the documents to be carried, the talks on the second 
are marred by a lack of will to take the bold steps that are 
necessary in the South Asian context.

Beyond a point, it is immaterial if the blame for this stagnation 
lies with Pakistan or India. Each has its own special concerns, 
compulsions, preoccupations and anxieties. At the end of a year, 
after they agreed to re-start their first serious dialogue since the 
nuclear tests of 1998, what matters is whether they have addressed 
these or failed to do so. Unless the dialogue leads to results, India 
and Pakistan will fail in the eyes of the world.

Even worse, each of the two has launched a huge arms-buying spree. 
India is acquiring sophisticated air defence systems, new submarines 
from France and Russia (including a nuclear-powered submarine), the 
Patriot range of US anti-missile missiles, as well as new warplanes 
and an air-defence ship. It is now among the world's three largest 
arms importers. Pakistan is buying more P-3C Orion maritime 
surveillance-cum-submarine-hunter aircraft, Phalanx rapid-fire guns, 
and TOW missiles, etc.-worth a $1.2 billion from the US alone.

Washington is encouraging both to acquire new, ever-deadlier weapons. 
Indeed, selling such weaponry to them was the principal function of 
US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's recent India-Pakistan 
visit. This has created rancour and resentment in both our capitals. 
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee protests against the US argument 
that the weapon sales to Pakistan are meant "to contain terrorist 
groups like Al-Qaeda and Taliban ... Nobody uses F-16 fighter planes 
and other weapons meant for big wars to fight terrorists". He even 
warns that the sales could "jeopardise the peace process". Pakistan 
retorts that India is "paranoid" about Islamabad's arms acquisition. 
This is only meant to "restore symmetry and bring stability to the 
region" by filling up "the gap that emerged during the '90s due to US 
sanctions..."

Mukherjee is right to say that weapons like the Orion and F-16 or 
anti-tank missiles are meant "for big wars and not to fight 
terrorism". But that's hardly the point. The new deadly toys are a 
reward for Pakistan's invaluable assistance to the US in fighting 
al-Qaeda in and around Afghanistan. Similarly, Washington has 
rewarded India for its "strategic partnership": first by approving 
the sale of the US-Israeli "Green Pine" radar and the associated air 
defence system, and then by offering top-of-the-range weapons such as 
the Patriot-II missile interceptor, as well as other conventional 
materiel.

Two transformations are visible here. During the Cold War, 
particularly between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s, and then in the 
1980s, the India-Pakistan arms race was fuelled by rival powers: 
respectively, the USSR and the US. Today, the same power drives the 
race: the US. India and Pakistan both vie for its attention and 
favours. In the process, both sustain, and in the long run intensify, 
their rivalry.

Second, the US is far from even-handed. In one phase, it tilts 
towards Pakistan; in another, towards India. During the Soviet 
occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, it offered F-16s to Pakistan 
on an exclusive basis, but in the early 1990s, imposed restrictions 
under the Pressler Amendment, etc. After 2000, it suddenly warmed up 
to India and offered "strategic partnership" plus a role in Ballistic 
Missile Defence. Then a few months ago, suddenly, it designated 
Pakistan a Major non-Nato Ally. For all its rhetoric about India's 
great power "potential" and its democracy, the US does not support 
India's candidature for the permanent membership of the UN Security 
Council.

Now Washington is dangling different carrots before the two states. 
President Bush has again described Pakistan as a "frontline state" 
against terrorism and called Pervez Musharraf "a world leader". 
Washington is equally effusive when describing India as an "emerging 
power, a regional power and a world power with which we want a 
growing relationship".

Washington practises double standards based on short-term 
considerations. India and Pakistan realise and resent this. 
Regrettably, they have both fallen a victim to it. All this would be 
relatively unimportant if it did not have strategic consequences. But 
the India-Pakistan rivalry is aggravated by Washington's policies and 
moves. In particular, these can vitiate the present climate and put a 
spoke in the peace process.

It is not just hypocritical, but downright foolhardy, for Washington 
both to supply new weapons to India and Pakistan and then expect them 
to negotiate an authentic peace. The logic of the first 
process-escalation of military preparations, and increased 
hostility-is sharply different from the logic of dialogue, 
reconciliation and peace.

It is even more unrealistic and foolish of India and Pakistan to 
imagine they can continue to arm themselves to the teeth against each 
other and thus make themselves insecure, and at the same time, hope 
to become secure. The hawks told us this would happen in the 1960s, 
1970s and 1980s-through the conventional route. It didn't. The sale 
of F-16s to Pakistan probably featured on the front pages of Indian 
newspapers on an average of 200 days out of 365 days in the year in 
the 1980s as a major bone of contention. But the contention didn't 
end when the planes' spares stopped reaching Pakistan. Then, said our 
Right wing "experts", nuclear weapons would provide "strategic 
balance" and stability. They didn't. India and Pakistan went to war 
within a year of their nuclear tests!

India and Pakistan have tried to talk peace without taking their foot 
off the nuclear accelerator or even stopping the conventional arms 
race. This too suits the hawks' prescription, based on the utmost 
cynicism. For instance, Indian ultraconservatives believe that the 
US's "coddling" of Pakistan to the point of it becoming, as one of 
them puts it, a US "protectorate", is a good thing. It will keep 
Pakistan on its "best behaviour"; by contrast, "whenever American 
interest flagged... [the] Pakistanis have run riot". Besides, US 
military sales to Islamabad will help New Delhi demand "parity"-new, 
yet more lethal weapons, in keeping with India's "emerging" position.

This logic is fatally flawed: seeking "balance" through arms sales 
will lead to the creation and widening of existing imbalances. These 
imbalances in turn furnish an argument for "balance" through yet more 
tilting of the sales. A tilt in one direction, followed by a tilt in 
the other, violates the interests of fairness - and peace. If you 
want peace, you must wage peace, not war. It would be suicidal for 
India (and Pakistan) to forget this great lesson of the 20th century.


_____


[2]


Dawn
20 December 2004

ALL PART OF THE SAFARI JEEP
By Jawed Naqvi

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Indian Held Kashmir are ugly phrases 
because they smack of official patronage, of government-inspired 
positions and not even-handed journalism. Why can't we say 
Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir and 
wait for the issue to be resolved before assigning a name it 
eventually chooses for itself?
It is strange that we in India and Pakistan have learnt to pour scorn 
on embedded American and British journalists who we believe are adept 
at endorsing the occupation of Iraq by subtle and, where it works 
better, crude methods.
Using the same argument, how can we ignore that most of us in the 
subcontinent have been assiduously practising a similar embedded 
journalism for half a century or more?
We do this by using a vocabulary that is insidious in intent and 
which creates an enemy in our neighbourhood instead of an organically 
structured nation peopled by the same kind of ideological jostling 
that we find in our own respective national boundaries.
Actually, we in India like to proclaim our love or contempt for 
Pakistan and Pakistanis depending on the season of the year. Even the 
movies change their story lines according to the season - Border or 
Mission Kashmir goes with the season of warmongering and Veer Zara, 
etc., reflect our maudlin love for the "other" side in less vitiated 
days.
In Pakistan it has been pretty much the same pattern. Like George 
Orwell's sheep the media in both countries by and large bleats "Four 
legs good, two legs bad" and vice versa, depending on the mood in the 
prime minister's office in our capitals as also, in Pakistan's case, 
at the General HQ in Rawalpindi.
Those who love or hate Pakistan and Pakistanis care little about the 
finer points of the problem. They suffer from the deception of the 
tiger in a wildlife sanctuary. If you stay in the open jeep the 
lurking tiger is likely to mistake you to be part of the jeep and not 
attack you as it would any other easy prey.
Indians and Pakistanis who care to concern themselves with each other 
appear to perceive the other side like the deceived tiger. It is 
scarcely part of a normal discourse in India, for instance, that 
there are at least four types of political Pakistanis that we are 
looking at.
The army, the mullahs, the followers of Benazir Bhutto and the 
followers of Nawaz Sharif represent the four corners. To an untrained 
Indian mind, they are all part of the safari jeep called Pakistan.
That's how a Hindutva rabble-rouser like Narendra Modi could get away 
by painting all Pakistanis as children of General Pervez Musharraf! 
Which of course is not very different from the description given by 
Mr Modi's Hindu fanatics to Indian Muslims - that they are all 
children of Mughal emperor Babur who kept Hindu slaves and who built 
the Babri Masjid after razing their scared temple in Ayodhya, as the 
Hindutva mythmaking has it.
It eventually would take an educated Indian leader like Arif Mohammed 
Khan to object to Mr Modi. And he did, proclaim even if somewhat 
impishly: "We are Pathans, we had fought the Mughals. Please do not 
abuse us."
Last week a large group of Pakistani journalists arrived in India. We 
are told the Indian government had sponsored the trip. How this media 
trip was going to be any different from the recent ones organized by 
some media NGOs is difficult to divine.
Some of these journalists were quoted last week as saying how keen 
they were to meet former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. General 
Musharraf had asked them to meet Mr. Vajpayee, one of them said. They 
would also meet Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. But Mr. Vajpayee 
appeared to be someone special.
Is there nothing else in India for Pakistanis, more so their 
journalists, to be interested in? Have they ever tried to meet the 
ordinary people, people in the villages, in small towns, in the 
discotheque? How about meeting the Naxalites, the only people, as far 
as one can remember, who came out in droves in the streets against 
the war hysteria that was whipped up by Mr. Vajpayee and tacitly 
endorsed by Ms Gandhi's party through much of 2002?
These orchestrated visits of journalists reminds me of the time when 
I was under the impression that I was allowed to travel alone in Iran 
during the Khomeini era. I went to to the Davamand mountain resort 
north of where the Imam lived in Teheran's Farmaniyeh district.
There I found on the snow-laden slopes of the mountains the most 
amazing sight - scores of women bereft of the hijab were skiing 
across the picturesque hills. Rock music was blaring from all corners.
And the revellers - men and women - were using their skis to write 
large love messages in the snow to each other, some so large that 
they could be read from an aeroplane. It was a completely different 
world to the one we were tutored to believe in.
Click, click, click went my camera. I hadn't of course noticed the 
'shadow' that was tailing me, not until the next morning when the 
camera mysteriously disappeared from the locker in my hotel room.
Never mind that. The memories of the Davamand experience are still 
fresh in my mind. The day this experience becomes possible for 
Indians and Pakistanis to savour freely in each other's country, 
small bits of the Orwellian nightmare might begin to wane.

_____


[3]

Gulf News
December 18, 2004

PARTITION HAS FAILED TO SOLVE COMMUNAL BIAS
by Kuldip Nayar

A former Chief of Air Staff of the Pakistan Air Force made a poignant 
remark at a farewell party in New Delhi.

Leading a delegation of retired military officers to India a few days 
ago, he said he wished those who had left Pakistan after its 
formation had not done so because his country missed the texture of 
society it intended to have.

Probably he did not realise that theirs was not an easy choice. They 
had to leave because they were non-Muslims. When they locked their 
houses behind they thought they would return after things had settled 
down.

There was no going back and this realisation came to them only when 
they saw two streams of human beings on the main Grand Trunk Road, 
one flowing towards India and the other towards Pakistan. Muslims 
went through the same traumatic experience.

However, thousands of them have come back to the state, not Punjabis 
but others. In contrast, there are hardly any Hindus in West Punjab. 
This is what makes India different despite all the onslaughts of 
Hindutva. Non-Muslims would have stayed back in Pakistan if Mohammad 
Ali Jinnah's reinterpretation of the two-nation theory had been 
carried out.

Its ethos became secularism, not religion. He said that Muslims 
ceased to be Muslims and Hindus ceased to be Hindus; they were either 
Pakistanis or Indians.

Mahatma Gandhi, in turn, declared that he would live in Pakistan and 
seek no visa to enter. Gandhi was shot dead by the extremists and 
Jinnah was abandoned by similar elements and left dying as a 
disillusioned man.

Both leaders who were at the helm of political affairs then did not 
envisage that the minorities would have to quit because of their 
religion in the country to which they belonged. Both were dejected 
when the migration began.

I recall the talk I had with Jinnah in 1946 when he addressed the Law 
College at Lahore. I was then in the final year. I asked him what 
would happen in the subcontinent after the departure of the British 
because the hatred between Hindus and Muslims had reached a boiling 
point.

He said: "Some nations have killed millions of each others and yet an 
enemy of today is a friend of tomorrow."

That is history. Look at France and Germany which have fought each 
other for hundreds of years. I wish that had come true in the 
subcontinent.

We have fought three and a half wars and killed thousands. Retired 
military officers who came here and some of ours who went there were 
then in the forefront. The problem between the two countries has got 
more aggravated over the years.

Fires of prejudice

What was once a Hindu-Muslim hiatus has now become the confrontation 
between India and Pakistan which is laced with nuclear missiles. 
Partition has failed to solve the basic problem of communal bias.

I see the same fires of prejudice burning in the two countries. 
Misinformation, misunderstanding or misinterpretation of religion is 
grist to the hatred mill which is working all the time.

The common man wants to bury the hatchet while keeping his identity 
intact. But fundamentalists on either side sabotage even the most 
altruistic initiative to span the distance between the two.

It is strange that the Pakistan government should want to take credit 
for its campaign against prejudice when the history it teaches in 
schools and colleges is partisan and begins with the advent of Muslim 
rule in India.

What about the civilisation of Mohenjodaro and Taxila? They do not 
figure anywhere because they are related to Hinduism. This is how 
bias is sown. Revising history books should be one step to judge how 
serious President General Pervez Musharraf is about fostering 
secularism and Jinnah's legacy.

People-to-people contact has busted the walls of prejudice and 
suspicion to some extent. Religious parties wield great influence and 
they run state governments in the North Western Frontier Province on 
their own and in Baluchistan with the support of Musharraf.

Even otherwise, he has a close understanding with the religious 
elements which first approved of his presidency and now give empty 
threats that they will not tolerate his uniform beyond December 31.

The process of people meeting from the different fields in India and 
Pakistan has diluted religious fanaticism. But when Musharraf says: 
"I am giving bilateralism a final chance in Kashmir" and when Indian 
Foreign Minister Natwar Singh declares "all is not well", the 
atmosphere becomes heavy.

It means that the two governments are beginning to build a case to 
restrict the contact.

This necessitates the implementation of decisions reached on some of 
the confidence building measures. Another round of composite talks 
that has begun now should see to it. Kashmir is a symptom. The 
disease is bias.

Our priority should be to establish secularism on both sides. India 
has been lucky because leaders even after Nehru made no compromise 
with communalism.

The BJP which did was ousted lock, stock and barrel. In Pakistan no 
leader after Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan has pursued secularism. The 
result is that ideologically the two countries stand poles apart.

Musharraf says he is fighting fundamentalists. But he is also seeking 
their assistance for political purposes. His other problem is the 
jihadi elements in the military. In truth, fundamentalists in both 
the countries are vitiating the atmosphere and stoking the fires of 
prejudice. The eruption in India is met with eruption in Pakistan.

The demolition of Babri masjid is one example. What happened in its 
wake in Pakistan was equally vindictive when practically all the 
Hindu temples were damaged in retaliation.

Relations between New Delhi and Islamabad will not improve until 
fundamentalists are out of the reckoning. If Kashmir is the be-all 
and end-all for Pakistan, it can be solved only up to the point which 
has the support of the BJP.

True, former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee deserves all the 
credit for having set the ball rolling in January this year. Yet how 
far he would have conceded to Pakistan would never be known. The 
Manmohan Singh government, I am sure, must be keeping the BJP in the 
picture behind the scenes. But the stage of assessing how far it is 
willing to concede on Kashmir is yet to come.

What people on both sides should meanwhile do is to deepen contacts 
at every level so as to make it difficult for the governments to 
impose restrictions even when they want to. People should not be 
dependent on their whims.

In fact, they should be debating the South Asian economic zone, from 
Afghanistan to Myanmar, to push relations beyond nationalities, 
borders and religions. It is a pity that the persons who rule the 
region are pygmies, not visionaries.


______



[4]

The Hindu - Dec 19, 2004
Magazine


IN CONVERSATION

Forgotten themes

R. CHAMPAKALAKSHMI talks to historian Romila Thapar.


Romila Thapar ... "Historical writing is not a free-for-all in which 
anyone can claim to be writing history."


Professor Romila Thapar was recently in Chennai at the invitation of 
the Prakriti Foundation, known to bring to the city the best among 
scholars and artists for an enlightened audience. She gave two 
lectures at the Museum Theatre on two unusual but important themes - 
"Perceiving the Forests: Early India" and " Somanatha: The many 
Voices of a History". They made Thapar's lectures almost dramatic in 
their presentation with a rich artistic background to the stage, but 
the scholar performer had members of the audience glued to their 
seats with her highly academic and lucid presentation, which needed 
no setting or backdrop.

The two lectures were highly illuminating and were marked by the 
historiographical advance of recent scholarship, which has 
revolutionised our understanding of the nature of the discipline and 
our vision of the past. What was of interest to the audience was that 
they demonstrated the kind of historiographical changes that have 
taken place in both the handling of new themes and in the 
re-interpretation of existing theories. The first lecture on the 
forest was undoubtedly a new theme and the subject of the forest in 
history may have been puzzling to some, but the intention of the 
lecture was not only to show that such non-conventional subjects are 
relevant to the study of history but also to narrate changes that 
have taken place during a long span of time - Fifth Century B.C. to 
Seventh Century A.D. The choice of the theme is noteworthy. It 
indicates the importance to historians today of themes that had been 
neglected in the past or not even recognised as important in 
historical processes which would extend to societies such as 
pastoralists and forest dwellers and their contribution to mainstream 
history, and also those who had been at the lower end of society or 
had been marginalised.

Professor R. Champakalakshmi spoke to Professor Thapar on the 
significance of the choice of themes.


R. CHAMPAKALAKSHMI

HOW important is the study of the forest for the present, especially in India?

ROMILA THAPAR

Its relevance to the present is in the form of two aspects. One is 
the varied symbolism of the forest in Indian literature and culture, 
which has not really been investigated or fully explored, e.g., in 
the epics, exile is into the forest and the forest becomes a central 
space for the activities of the heroes. The question of why the 
forest was chosen relates to the early views in some North Indian 
texts, of the dichotomy between the forest and the settlement (aranya 
and grama or vana and kshetra). The interface between the two 
concepts is played out in many later texts. The second is the 
attitude of our present day society to the forest. There is a 
tendency to almost ignore the centrality of the forest and the people 
who live in it because their culture and living pattern is regarded 
as different if not inferior.

Has this attitude always existed?

Attitudes to the forest have changed in time and space. In some texts 
there was a dichotomy posed between the settlement and the forest. 
The forest was initially regarded as an unfamiliar space, a 
wilderness hosting people whose culture was alien. Sometimes the 
descriptions of such people are projected as realistic as in the 
description of, for example, the Nishada and Sabara, although even 
this supposed realism becomes a stereotype. At the other end the 
question may be asked as to whether the references to the Rakshasa, 
the Preta and the Daitya, demons and ghosts of various kinds could 
have been a reference to the alien people of the forest. Demonising 
the "other" is sometimes a technique to justify holding such people 
in contempt and even attacking them.

Was the relationship between the settlement and the forest always a 
contested relationship?

No. This was not always the case. There are other texts in which the 
relationship is depicted as distinct but harmonious or symbiotic, as 
in the Tinai ecologies of the Tamil Sangam texts, a concept that is 
just beginning to acquire importance in environmental history and 
needs to be discussed further. There is also the romanticising of the 
forest, as for example in the plays of Kalidasa. The forest is 
symbolic of nature and although there is some tension between the 
settlement and the forest, the forest is not a wilderness or an 
unknown place and is not associated with evil. In fact these changes 
in attitudes come about in different kinds of societies in different 
periods.

If the subject is relevant today, then what was the attitude of the 
state to the forest in the early past?


ORIENTAL SCENERY/TIMELESS BOOKS 1998



One major difference between the depiction of the forest in creative 
literature and the concern of state policy is the example of 
Kautilya's Arthasasatra. The forest here is a resource from which the 
state derived revenue. The products of the forest such as timber, 
gemstones and elephants contribute to revenue as also does the 
clearing of the forest and converting the land to cultivation. From 
mid-first millennium A.D. onwards, the state increasingly made grants 
of land to religious authorities and institutions and to a lesser 
extent to those who served the state. Where such grants were of waste 
land or in the forested area they entailed the conversion of forest 
land to cultivation. Doubtless such activities would in some areas 
have been resisted by those who habitually derived their livelihood 
from the forest.

Where the relationship was not confrontational, what form could it have taken?

This is actually a very important area which has been discussed by 
social scientists working on recent history in relation to the 
conversion of non-caste groups to castes. It is one aspect of what 
some sociologists have referred to as the process of change from jana 
to jati. This process can be recognised in some sources of the early 
period but needs more detailed investigation. The argument that is 
sometimes made is that when caste society comes into juxtaposition 
with the peoples of the forest, there is a process of what might be 
called osmosis, where the conversion of the forest people to caste 
can take place, although frequently they continue to observe their 
kinship patterns, customary laws and religious beliefs and practices. 
As has often been stated by historians working on the history of 
religion, new forms of deities and new rituals were possibly 
contributed through this osmosis. The osmosis could be an end product 
of confrontation or of juxtaposition, depending on the particular 
circumstances.

Does this not suggest that it is entirely ahistorical to maintain 
that Indian tradition goes back to a single source and is monolithic? 
What you are suggesting is that there has to be a study of the 
multiplicity of sources and contexts that went into the making of 
Indian religious tradition.

Yes. I agree entirely.

For environmental history, your approach would seem to be a 
preliminary but necessary step towards further analysis of past 
attitudes to environment, man-nature relationship and ecological 
changes.

Yes. It is. One hopes that such subjects are taken up and analysed further.

Taking the lecture on Somanatha, it was in many ways a demonstration 
of a methodologically significant analysis of one of the most 
challenging of historical events - the raid of Mahmud of Ghazni on 
Somanatha in A.D. 1026. What is of value in this analysis is that the 
sources have all been well known to all historians in the past but 
their inter-relationships have not been probed and the event has been 
repeatedly misrepresented and abused for political ends. Your 
re-appraisal of a wide range of sources (six categories), situating 
them in their historical contexts reveals varied perspectives, 
diverse and even contradictory perceptions even in a single category 
of sources viz., the Turko-Persian chronicles and narratives, in 
projecting the raid as a crusade and Mahmud as a champion of Islam, 
the ideal Islamic ruler who founded Muslim rule in India, which is 
historically an inaccurate statement. You rightly attribute it to the 
erroneous periodisation of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and 
British, which made it into a national event, as also the languages 
of their major sources viz., Sanskrit, Persian (especially for the 
Medieval period) and English, ignoring all other contemporary and 
later sources in other languages of other regions, particularly the 
contemporary Sanskrit inscriptions and Jain biographies and 
chronicles, apart from trade and mutually supportive agreements 
between traders and local big men regarding land and property for 
religious purposes. The colonial interpretations, which made it a 
national event, constructed the memory of a trauma among the Hindus, 
depicting Muslims as uniformly tyrannical and oppressive causing a 
deep Hindu-Muslim divide. Thus an event which had a restricted local 
significance and a political motive was blown out of proportion and 
constructed as the social memory of a traumatic national disaster. 
Equally important is the fact that what comes through in the lecture 
is the centrality of the context of the sources to the historian. The 
method followed in this lecture reveals the need to see the interface 
between various sources and not rely uncritically on just one 
category. What made you turn to the range of sources that others had 
not done so far?

If one is studying the history of an event or a location, one 
inevitably has to consider all the sources and their many voices. 
Unfortunately in the past, priority was given to the Turko-Persian 
chronicles, without considering a comparative study with Sanskrit 
sources and the Jain chronicles of the same period, the Rajput epics 
and popular traditions of the Nathpanthis and the Tantric texts, all 
of which have a relevance to the history of Somanatha and thereby a 
perception or otherwise of Mahmud's raids.

Essentially this was an event that concerned a specific region, i.e. 
Gujarat and parts of North India and there appears to be no awareness 
of such an event in other regions and other sources of that period. 
What was a local event was projected as a national event and a 
traumatic one at that. Why was a local event projected as a national 
event?

The absence of reference to the raid of Mahmud in other sources other 
than the Turko-Persian chronicles remains an enigma. The wider 
coverage was initially in the Turko-Persian chronicles. But it was 
after the colonial endorsement of the event that the larger dimension 
came into the picture. This was then taken up by some sections among 
the Indian nationalists who treated it as a national event.

If you are using such a wide range of sources, can there be a single 
criterion for assessing their reliability?

The evaluation of the reliability of each category of sources is 
crucial because each has what would today be called an ideological 
context. These contexts have to be recognised as different from one 
another. Court chronicles, whether of the Sultanate or of the 
Chaulukya (Solankis of Gujarat) court carry their own biases as do 
the statements of traders and of popular preachers or for that matter 
the use made of Indian history as part of colonial policy as much as 
subsequently by religious nationalism.

Would you then say that this historiographical advance makes it 
imperative that historians realise that history is as rigorous a 
discipline as any other science and that teaching and research have 
to be constantly updated, both in content and methodology? And that 
students are made aware of the importance of multiple and diverse 
perspectives of historical processes and events, which cannot have a 
mono-causal explanation?

As you know, we have all been arguing for many years now that the 
writing of history has to be based on what historians now call "the 
Historical Method". Stated briefly this requires ensuring the 
reliability of the evidence that is used (and this requires 
wind-ranging training in handling sources), the critical analyses of 
the evidence, assessing the priorities among multiple causes and the 
logical basis of the historical arguments that follow. Historical 
writing is not a free-for-all in which anyone can claim to be writing 
history. The use of the Historical method has primacy in historical 
writing.

Yes, it is a rigorous discipline. It is the same with the more 
intellectually challenging writing in all subjects. It is this kind 
of change that encourages advances in knowledge.

The advances are also dependent, as you rightly say, on constantly 
updating the content and methodology of the discipline. In the case 
of history, an awareness of the method and the changes also come 
through historiography - that is, the history of ideas relating to 
historical explanation. Inevitably this becomes a component of 
historical method.

R. Champakalakshmi is former professor of history, Jawaharlal Nehru 
University, Delhi.

______


[5]


UPDATE 36: DEMONSTRATION  FOR EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
(21 DECEMBER)

Dear friends,

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill 2004 was cleared by the 
Cabinet on 15 December, but the relief was shortlived. Indeed this 
"employment guarantee" Bill has been diluted beyond recognition. 
Aside from the sabotage mentioned in earlier updates, it is now 
learnt that the latest version of the Bill restricts both the 
employment guarantee and the unemployment allowance to "poor" 
households (read BPL households).  This amounts to a neat last-minute 
spiking of the Act, which was meant to be based on universal 
entitlement and self-selection.  In the light of these developments, 
the demonstration on 21 December in Delhi (see below) will be not 
just a display of banners but also a protest against this sabotage.

We are trying to keep track of the latest developments and post as 
much information as possible on the campaign website 
(www.righttofoodindia.org), in the "Employment Guarantee" section. 
The "official" version of the Bill is still under wraps, but it is 
expected to be tabled in Parliament sometime during the next 2-3 
days.  As soon as the official version is available the website will 
be updated again.

DISPLAY OF BANNERS ON 21 DECEMBER

As mentioned in earlier updates, a massive signature campaign has 
been taking place all over the country during the last few weeks. 
Signatures demanding the immediate adoption of a full-fledged 
Employment Guarantee Act have been collected on large banners, which 
are now on their way to Delhi.  The public display of banners - about 
3,000 of them - will be taking place at Jantar Mantar (Parliament 
Street) on 21 December.  We shall be assembling from 10 am onwards 
and the demonstration will start at 11 am.

Approximately 1000 participants, representing more than 200 
organisations, are expected from various parts of the country.  There 
will be a reception team at Jantar Mantar from 8 am onwards to assist 
participants coming from outside Delhi.  If you are bringing banners, 
please reach Jantar Mantar well before 10 am (the sooner the better), 
as the arrangement of banners is likely to be a major task.

Participants are requested to help with stitching small sized banners 
(less than 5m wide) on either side so that they can be supported by a 
stick for display.  Longer banners are expected to be erected on 
trees, railings and other available spaces.  Since we have to erect a 
large number of banners in quick time, it would be of help if 
participants can tie their banners with a "sutli" and keep them ready 
for display.  Efforts are on to erect as many banners as possible, if 
required by extending it up to Connaught Place.

The display of banners at Jantar Mantar will end at 2 pm.  From there 
we shall go to 4 Ashoka Road (about 1 km from Jantar Mantar) for a 
follow-up cultural programme and informal meeting.  This will also be 
an opportunity to discuss further mobilisation for a full-fledged 
Employment Guarantee Act during the next few months.

If you require any help or information at any time please contact 
Navjyoti (9811087811), Annie (9811553633), Somanathan (9810994611), 
Subhash (9810810365), or Vivek (3091 7116, 9350530150).

FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON 22 DECEMBER

A follow-up meeting will be held on 22 December, from 10 am to 1 pm, 
to review the situation and plan further activities.  This meeting is 
likely to take place at the Indian Social Institute (Lodi Road), but 
the venue remains to be confirmed.  The agenda will be decided 
collectively on 21 December itself.  The contact persons listed above 
will be able to provide confirmed details of this meeting on 21 
December.

FLAWS OF THE EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE BILL 2004

By way of update on the flaws of the Employment Guarantee Bill to be 
tabled in Parliament in a few days, we copy below the relevant 
portion of a recent "communique" on this from the Communist Party of 
India (Marxist), issued soon after the Cabinet meeting on 15 December.


>From "Communist Party of India (Marxist)"
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:19 am
Subject: Polit Bureau Communique



The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) met on 
December 17 and 18, 2004 at New Delhi. It has issued the following 
statement:
...

Employment Guarantee Act

The bill to enact a rural employment guarantee Act has been 
introduced in parliament. This is to fulfill a commitment made in the 
Common Minimum Programme. However, it is unfortunate that the present 
bill represents a dilution of the provision made in the CMP. Instead 
of providing for a hundred days minimum work for one adult in every 
rural household, the bill seeks to target "poor households" whereby 
only those who are below poverty line (BPL) beneficiaries can avail 
of the scheme. There is no provision for payment of the statutory 
minimum wage decreed by the state governments. Nor is there any time 
period prescribed for extending the coverage of the act to the whole 
country.
There is no provision for ensuring employment of women in the scheme 
either through the nature of the work specified or by providing that 
40 per cent of the jobs should go to women.
There is also no provision for the Centre providing hundred per cent 
of the funding and the states have to bear a share of the burden.
All these defects need to be removed if the National Employment 
Guarantee Act has to serve the needs of minimum employment for a vast 
section of the people in the rural areas.
The Polit Bureau expects the UPA government to rectify these defects 
in the process of the parliamentary discussions so that a more 
comprehensive and effective legislation can be adopted.

______

[6]  ANNOUNCEMENTS

(i)

Invitation

Lecture by Prof. Theodore Wright on "U.S. Intervention in South Asia 
and the Middle East"
Date: 21st December (Tuesday)
Venue: Board Room, Near VC's office, Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard 
University), New Delhi

Time: 3 pm.

o o o o

(ii)

Promise of India

Speaking Up for Peace and Communal Harmony
Seeking Common Ground on Education, Development, and Social Justice

Cordially Invites You to its Second Annual Conference

'Making Peace with Diversity and Development'

Organized by a Global Community of Indians Rededicating Themselves to a
Democratic, Secular, Pluralistic, and United India

'Globalization and the Human Imagination'
Keynote Address by Dr. Shashi Tharoor,
Author and U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Communications & Public 
Information,

followed by
a public debate/dialogue, with distinguished community leaders and 
audience participation, on the two critical issues dominating the 
news:

Globalization/Rural Development and Secularism/Communal Harmony

Venue: National Center for Performing Arts, NCPA, Nariman Point, Mumbai
Monday, January 10, 2005, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Program

Breakfast & Registration 8:00 a.m. Program Commences at 9:00 a.m.
Welcome and Introduction to Promise of India
Keynote Address by Dr. Shashi Tharoor

Theme One: Growth Rates or Livelihoods?

Globalization with a Human Face: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality
Rural Development: The Bumpy Road from Budgets to Panchayats
The Bottom of the Pyramid: Communities in Distress, or Markets for 
Fair & Lovely?

With Prof. Ramachandra Guha, Dr. Syeda Hameed, Madhu Kishwar, Ganesh 
Natarajan, Medha Patkar, and Stan Thekaekara.

Moderated by Prof. Babu Mathew, ActionAid

Theme Two: Secularism - Elusive Ideal or A Ground Reality?

Past Wrongs, Future Rights: What Agitates the Fence Sitters?
Re-Re-Writing History: Quick Fix or Opportunity to De-Politicize Education?
Curbing Hate Speech: More Laws and Censorship, or Public Education and Action?

With Javed Akhtar, Maulana Madani, Rajiv Malhotra, Renuka Narayanan, 
Nitya Ramakrishnan, Dr. Mallika Sarabhai, and Rev. Valson Thampu. 
Moderated by Prof. Rajeev Bhargava, Delhi University

You may register for this conference on line by going to
https://www.PromiseOfIndia.Org/conference.cfm or by sending an e-mail 
to info at promiseofindia.org

Hosted by: Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA), Mumbai
www.yuvaindia.org


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

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.