SACW | 20 March 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire   | 20 March,  2005
via:  www.sacw.net

[1]  Wherever religions get into society's 
driving seat, tyranny results (Salman Rushdie)
[2]  Religion and morality (Iqbal Mustafa)
[3]  Rice's trip to the Subcontinent : A season of distrust? (Praful Bidwai)
[3]  [India - Pakistan] Rediscovering Each Other (Sandeep Pandey)
[4]  US - India:  Letters on attitude of India's 
Govt and Political Elites and on Media commentry 
re Denial of  US Visa to Mr Modi
[5]  South Asian Women's Organizations In US Condemn Modi's Felicitation

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

[1]

The Telegraph - March 20, 2005

THE TROUBLE WITH RELIGION
- Wherever religions get into society's driving seat, tyranny results
Salman Rushdie

Exception to European secularism
I never thought of myself as a writer about 
religion until a religion came after me. Religion 
was a part of my subject, of course - for a 
novelist from the Indian subcontinent, how could 
it not have been? But in my opinion I also had 
many other, larger, tastier fish to fry. 
Nevertheless, when the attack came, I had to 
confront what was confronting me, and to decide 
what I wanted to stand up for in the face of what 
so vociferously, repressively and violently stood 
against me.

Now, 16 years later, religion is coming after us 
all and, even though most of us probably feel, as 
I once did, that we have other, more important 
concerns, we are all going to have to confront 
the challenge. If we fail, this particular fish 
may end up frying us.

For those of us who grew up in India in the 
aftermath of the Partition riots of 1946-1947, 
following the creation of the independent states 
of India and Pakistan, the shadow of that 
slaughter has remained as a dreadful warning of 
what men will do in the name of God. And there 
have been too many recurrences of such violence 
in India - in Meerut, in Assam and most recently 
in Gujarat. European history, too, is littered 
with proofs of the dangers of politicized 
religion: the French Wars of Religion, the bitter 
Irish troubles, the "Catholic nationalism" of the 
Spanish dictator Franco and the rival armies in 
the English Civil War going into battle, both 
singing the same hymns.

People have always turned to religion for the 
answers to the two great questions of life: Where 
did we come from? and how shall we live? But on 
the question of origins, all religions are simply 
wrong. The universe wasn't created in six days by 
a superforce that rested on the seventh. Nor was 
it churned into being by a sky god with a giant 
churn. And on the social question, the simple 
truth is that, wherever religions get into 
society's driving seat, tyranny results. The 
Inquisition results, or the taliban.

And yet religions continue to insist that they 
provide special access to ethical truths, and 
consequently deserve special treatment and 
protection. And they continue to emerge from the 
world of private life - where they belong, like 
so many other things that are acceptable when 
done in private between consenting adults but 
unacceptable in the town square - and to bid for 
power. The emergence of radical Islam needs no 
redescription here, but the resurgence of faith 
is a larger subject than that.

In today's United States, it's possible for 
almost anyone - women, gays, African-Americans, 
Jews - to run for, and be elected to, high 
office. But a professed atheist wouldn't stand a 
popcorn's chance in Hell. Hence the increasingly 
sanctimonious quality of so much American 
political discourse: the current president, 
according to Bob Woodward, sees himself as a 
"messenger" doing "the Lord's will", and "moral 
values" has become a code phrase for 
old-fashioned, anti-gay, anti-abortion bigotry. 
The defeated Democrats also seem to be scurrying 
toward this kind of low ground, perhaps 
despairing of ever winning an election any other 
way.

According to Jacques Delors, former president of 
the European Commission, "The clash between those 
who believe and those who don't believe will be a 
dominant aspect of relations between the US and 
Europe in the coming years."

In Europe the bombing of a railway station in 
Madrid and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo 
van Gogh are being seen as warnings that the 
secular principles that underlie any humanist 
democracy need to be defended and reinforced. 
Even before these atrocities occurred, the French 
decision to ban religious attire such as Islamic 
headscarves had the support of the entire 
political spectrum. Islamist demands for 
segregated classes and prayer breaks were also 
rejected. Few Europeans today call themselves 
religious - only 21 per cent, according to a 
recent European Values Study, as opposed to 59 
per cent of Americans, according to the Pew 
Forum. In Europe the Enlightenment represented an 
escape from the power of religion to place 
limiting points on thought, while in America it 
represented an escape into the religious freedom 
of the New World - a move toward faith, rather 
than away from it. Many Europeans now view the 
American combination of religion and nationalism 
as frightening.

The exception to European secularism can be found 
in Britain, or at least in the government of the 
devoutly Christian, increasingly authoritarian 
Tony Blair, which is now trying to steamroller 
Parliament into passing a law against "incitement 
to religious hatred" in a cynical vote-getting 
attempt to placate advocates for British Muslims, 
in whose eyes almost any critique of Islam is 
offensive. Journalists, lawyers and a long list 
of public figures have warned that this law will 
dramatically hinder free speech and fail to meet 
its objective - that it would increase religious 
disturbances rather than diminish them. Blair's 
government seems to view the whole subject of 
civil liberties with disdain: what do freedoms 
matter, hard won and long cherished though they 
may be, when set against the requirements of a 
government facing re-election?

And yet the Blairite policy of appeasement must 
be defeated. Perhaps the British House of Lords 
will do what the Commons failed to do, and send 
this bad law to the scrap heap. And, though this 
is more unlikely, maybe America's Democrats will 
come to understand that in today's 50/50 America 
they may actually have more to gain by standing 
up against the Christian Coalition and its fellow 
travellers, and refusing to let a Mel Gibson view 
of the world shape American social and political 
policy. If these things do not happen, if America 
and Britain allow religious faith to control and 
dominate public discourse, then the Western 
alliance will be placed under ever-increasing 
strain, and those other religionists, the ones 
against whom we're supposed to be fighting, will 
have great cause to celebrate.

Victor Hugo wrote, "There is in every village a 
torch: the schoolmaster - and an extinguisher: 
the parson." We need more teachers and fewer 
priests in our lives because, as James Joyce once 
said, "There is no heresy or no philosophy which 
is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." 
But perhaps the great American lawyer Clarence 
Darrow put the secularist argument best of all. 
"I don't believe in God," he said, "because I 
don't believe in Mother Goose."

DISTRIBUTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE

______



[2]


The News International
March 20, 2005

RELIGION AND MORALITY

Iqbal Mustafa

"There are four classes of idols that beset men's 
minds. To these for distinction's sake I have 
assigned names -- calling the first class, Idols 
of the Tribe; the second, Idols of the Cave; the 
third, Idols of the Market-Place; the fourth, 
Idols of the Theater" -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Bacon created analogies for various myths that 
had emanated from different origins, and which 
confused rational thinking. His major 
contribution to philosophy was his application of 
induction, the approach used by modern science, 
rather than the method of medieval scholasticism.

If Francis Bacon were here today, he would add 
another category of idols to his list -- the 
idols of the mosque. There are some myths about 
religion that exist without any scrutiny. The 
reason for this is the mullah's belligerency that 
has been fostered by a naive policy of 
appeasement, and our intellectuals' moral 
cowardice in not standing up for truths. 
Religious issues are made sacrosanct by the 
intelligentsia's unwillingness to challenge the 
arbitrary signs of "no trespassing" posted by an 
illiterate clergy. These are some myths about 
religion that need dispelling.

There is a myth that religion and morality are 
synonymous. Nothing can be farther from the 
truth. In practice, religion and morality are 
neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive. You 
may have a religious person who is not 'moral'-he 
simply follows articles of faith ceremoniously. 
On the other hand, you may have an irreligious 
person who is very moral -- or vice versa. This 
myth gives rise to the belief that morality can 
only exist within a framework of faith, or that 
lack of a religious framework breeds immorality. 
A little observation of life around you will show 
that there is no truth in this supposition. On 
the contrary, it is considerably easier to mask 
immorality under a veil of religious 
ceremoniousness.

There is a similar myth about religion and 
justice. The clergy has made the common person 
develop a belief that if religious jurisprudence 
were to be imposed, there would be perfect 
justice all around. This is wrong too because 
providing justice is not the function of the law. 
Law is a passive instrument of concepts. Justice 
is delivered by the executing agencies, the 
police and the judicial system. No law in itself 
can guarantee justice if the executing machinery 
is ineffective or corrupt. Executing and 
delivering justice has more to do with 
administrative ability than conceptual or 
ideological rectitude.

There is an illusion that faith, or religion, 
enshrines static, universal and perpetual truths 
which are unalterable. Whereas, life is a kinetic 
process and nothing can be assumed to be static 
or universal. In reality, all religions take on 
local flavour wherever they go. Christianity and 
Islam, the two most popular faiths in the world, 
have adopted immense diversity in concepts, 
ceremony and practice in different parts of the 
world. A little travelling around will reveal to 
anyone how much influence local culture has on 
religious forms. Let alone distant cultures, 
Arabia and Persia adopted Islam differently in 
the light of their own historical perceptions and 
yet only a small stretch of water separates the 
two regions. Islam mutates into a sufi mold when 
it comes to India. Universality of religious form 
is a myth.

There is a grave illusion that beleaguers the 
Muslims of the subcontinent. It is that religion 
can form a basis for a modern nation state. In 
'India Wins Freedom', Maulana Abul Kalaam Azad 
wrote, "Mr. Jinnah and his followers do not seem 
to realise that geography was against them. 
Muslims in undivided India were distributed in a 
way, which made it impossible to form a separate 
state in a consolidated area. The Muslim majority 
areas were in the North West and in the North 
East. These two areas have no point of physical 
contact. People in these areas are completely 
different from one another in every respect 
except only in religion. It is one of the 
greatest frauds on the people to suggest that 
religious affinity can unite areas, which are 
geographically, economically, linguistically and 
culturally different. It is true that Islam 
sought to establish a society, which transcends 
racial, linguistic, economic and political 
frontiers. History has, however, proved that 
after the first few decades, or at the most after 
the first century, Islam was not able to unite 
all the Muslim countries into one state on the 
basis of Islam alone."

Time has proven the Maulana correct. Pakistan 
desperately needs to redefine its existence, 
aside from religion, before the centrifugal 
forces working on it shatter the religious bind 
that is supposed to be holding it together.

General Zia reinforced the myth that Pakistan 
cannot exist without religious motifs, and 
contemporary politicians dare not tread on that 
sacred domain. It is true that most people in 
Pakistan would uphold the notion of an Islamic 
order in the country but there is a subtle 
symbolism here that escapes general observation. 
The common person in Pakistan is frustrated with 
the 'system', which has let him down in terms of 
economic, social and legal security. He pines for 
these securities and for that, his point of 
reference is Islamic history, not western 
democracy. He is not familiar with the concepts 
of Locke or Rousseau, or the contribution of John 
Adam, Lincoln and the likes in the evolution of 
democratic systems. He relates social justice to 
Caliph Hazrat Omar, Caliph Hazrat Ali, Allaudin 
Khilji because that is what he is familiar with. 
So the common man in Pakistan, in effect, is not 
endorsing a theocratic order. He is simply 
expressing a need for relief from the uncertain 
misery of his existence. His psychological need 
lends itself readily for the 'salesmen of the 
religious supermarkets' to con him into a myth 
that a religious order will deliver prosperity 
and justice.

Finally, there is that lethal and debilitating 
myth aggressively held by the clergy that 
imposition of religion (or a particular brand of 
it) is an end in itself, above all else. It need 
not be measured in terms of human betterment or 
service. It is ordained from the heavens and that 
is it. Then they take it upon themselves to 
become the executioners of God's will in imposing 
a tyrannical order that is neither efficient nor 
kind. They forget that all religions and 
particularly Islam were revolutions in their own 
times, and had descended to relieve human misery 
and elevate society to a higher plateau of 
civilisation. If religion cannot deliver these 
basic objectives, it is a mockery of faith. Faith 
cannot be an end in itself.

Enlightened moderation doesn't challenge these 
myths at a perceptual level; in fact it endorses 
them and therefore will never take root in the 
public psyche, especially without the tangible 
support of equity, security and justice in 
society. General Musharraf will need much more 
than syllogisms at rallies to contain the hold of 
religious extremism on society


The writer is a consultant for agro-economy and 
organisational management to public and private 
sectors

_______


[3]


The News International
March 19, 2005

A SEASON OF DISTRUST?

Praful Bidwai

If proof were needed for the proposition that the 
United States more often than not destabilises a 
regional situation marked by a history of 
hostility, rather than help pacify and stabilise 
it, then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's 
maiden visit to South Asia has provided it in 
ample measure. While welcoming the India-Pakistan 
dialogue for peace, and pledging Washington's 
support to a sustained improvement in their 
bilateral relations, Rice may have ended up 
reviving old rivalries and stoking mutual 
suspicions.

This again follows the pattern of America's 
pursuit of short-term parochial interests having 
unintended, yet largely predictable, consequences.

Even before Rice began her visit, numerous 
"strategic experts" in New Delhi and Islamabad 
were ready with their wish lists: India must 
"voice its fears" and "doubts about Pakistan". 
Pakistan must explain why the sale of Patriot-II 
anti-missile missiles to India will destabilise 
the subcontinent's delicate "strategic balance". 
India must lobby against the likely sale of F-16s 
to Pakistan, while demanding access to US nuclear 
power technology, etc.

Some experts vented their spleen. A former Indian 
diplomat wrote: "Pakistan is run by the same 
elements that have, for decades, used all 
possible means to destabilise India. Undermining 
India's sovereignty over J&K remains their 
agenda. They did their worst in Punjab, 
perpetrated Kargil, turned Afghanistan into a 
base for terror ... in short, they have shown 
they believe anything is justified if it weakens 
India."

Despite the peace process, he holds, "Pakistan 
supports, if not instigates, mischief from 
Bangladesh, and has deliberately decided to 
complicate our position in Nepal. It prevaricates 
about the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, and the 
infrastructure for cross-border terrorism remains 
intact..."

Similar, if somewhat defensive and less hawkish, 
sentiments were expressed in Pakistan. But the 
thrust was identical -- persuade and lobby the US 
to obtain the best possible arms bargain and 
fortify yourself against "the adversary".

The tone of most such curtain raisers or review 
pieces was a throwback to the pre-January 2004 
SAARC summit in Islamabad, which broke the ice. 
It's as if a dialogue had never begun, a border 
ceasefire hadn't occurred, relations severed 
during the hair-raising tension of 1999 and 2002 
hadn't been restored, and no agreement was signed 
to start a bus service between Srinagar and 
Muzaffarabad.

This disconnect arises not so much because many 
of our self-styled "experts" live in a time-warp 
(some indeed do), but because of the very nature 
of the skewed, and unequal, triangular 
relationship between the US, India and Pakistan 
and the conventional framework within which it is 
viewed and understood.

Within the triangular context, the US 
compulsively "hyphenates" India and Pakistan -- 
to use the pompous-sounding phrase of former 
foreign minister Jaswant Singh. It cannot even 
conceive of building or transforming relations 
with either state without altering its 
relationship with the other.

Equally, many Indian and Pakistani policy-makers 
see a visit by a high US essentially as the 
beginning of a zero-sum game, at which each tries 
to nullify the other's advantage. The keener set 
of policy-makers is to establish a "special 
relationship" with Washington, the longer their 
wish-lists -- both the "positive" one, of what 
they want from the US for their own state, and 
the "negative" list of what Washington must not 
do for "the other", their rival.

Rivalry is built into the very core of the 
US-dominated triangular relationship. The 
response of the two South Asian establishments to 
a visiting US dignitary is almost Pavlovian. 
Typically, it intensifies their mutual rivalry, 
and accelerates the subcontinental arms race. In 
the past, US sales of sophisticated arms to 
Pakistan would impel India to shop for weaponry 
from the USSR/Russia or from France and Sweden. 
In turn, Indian purchases of new weapons would 
impel Pakistan to procure armaments from the US, 
China and North Korea.

In recent years, however, the US has emerged as a 
major source of arms to both. This is especially 
the case after it sanctioned arms assistance of 
$1.3 billion to Pakistan and made offers of 
missile defence systems and warplanes to India.

Rice's visit seems to have taken the process 
further -- official-level denials not 
withstanding. Indian policy-makers are keen to 
lure US weapons manufacturers to sell armaments 
and enter into licensed production. They would 
like to use their leverage acquired through 
business process outsourcing and increased trade 
to drive favourable bargains. Similarly, Pakistan 
can use its "war against terrorism" card to 
extract concessions from Washington.

In the process, both Pakistan and India are 
getting drawn into an intensified conventional 
arms race, even as they continue to stockpile 
fissile material, nuclear weapons and ballistic 
missiles -- independently of the US.

However, our policy-makers would be ill-advised 
to sacrifice the potential for cooperation, 
especially economic cooperation, at the altar of 
illusory military security -- illusory because an 
arms race will degrade, not enhance, their 
security.

The starkest instance of a possible clash between 
economic cooperation and an arms build-up is the 
proposal for an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, 
which has now reached an advanced stage. This is 
without doubt the single biggest project of its 
kind, with tangible benefits to all three parties.

Washington's Iran policy will almost certainly 
put a spoke in this wheel. The US has grave 
reservations about any such project with Iran, 
which it regards as a hostile "rogue state" which 
pursues an active anti-Israel policy. According 
to Teresita Schaffer, Director, South Asia 
Programme, Centre for Strategic and International 
Studies, Washington, and former US ambassador, 
Washington is "bound by its domestic laws" to 
prevent any international venture that helps Iran 
build its infrastructure.

She says US opposition to the pipeline is 
independent of Iran's nuclear programme: "Under 
the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, the US is 
required to take action against anyone who is 
helping to build up [the] economic infrastructure 
of Iran. It should handicap the economic 
development of Iran unless the latter changes its 
policy of terrorism."

It is far from clear that the advantage that 
India enjoys -- owing to its "strategic 
partnership" with the US, its own economic 
growth, with its Information Technology success 
and its utility to the US --, and Pakistan's 
leverage over Washington -- attributable to the 
war against terrorism and the hunt for Osama bin 
Laden, -- can overcome the obstacles posed by 
numerous US Congress legislations and 
resolutions, which call for "regime change" in 
Iran.

These are similar to the Iraq Liberation Act of 
1998, which proclaimed: "It should be the policy 
of the United States to support efforts to remove 
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in 
Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic 
government..." The invasion of Iraq followed less 
than five years later.

Iran is not Iraq, and a European effort to 
negotiate a compromise with Iran on the nuclear 
issue is under way. Yet, it would be foolhardy 
for Indian and Pakistani policy-makers to ignore 
the potential complications that the US could 
introduce in any deal involving Iran. They must 
not let short-term considerations of arms 
procurement and illusory security get the better 
of the prospect of fruitful cooperation The 
pipeline must be pursued.

______


[4]

sacw.net  | March 20, 2005
URL:
www.sacw.net/peace/Sandeep_Pandey19032005.html


[INDIA - PAKISTAN] REDISCOVERING EACH OTHER
by Sandeep Pandey

[Published earlier in Hindustan Times, 19 March 2005]

             I am hearing stories from people 
returning from India who went there to see the 
cricket game in Chandigarh of the tremendous 
response they got from Indians. They did not have 
to pay for their stay or food. Indian families 
were competing with each other in inviting 
Pakistanis over to their place for dinner. The 
Pakistanis were having difficulty in deciding 
which invitation to accept and which to leave. 
Indians were welcoming Pakistanis with warmth as 
they probably do not welcome their own fellow 
citizens from other parts of India. Similarly 
when weíre in Pakistan we get a response so 
overwhelming which probably the Pakistanis would 
not offer to their own fellow citizens. How 
strange this is? First we hated each other for 
over 50 years and then all floodgates of emotions 
open. Which of the two feelings is real?

             At least we have advanced from 
putting our youth in battle fields against each 
other to putting them in cricket fields. Cricket 
fields also used to be like battle fields once. 
Now we have improved. There is bonhomie which has 
replaced the feeling of revenge. Victory and loss 
are no longer a matter of prestige. Our 
politicians are telling our cricketers to play 
for diplomacy. Cricket has moved from second last 
page of newspapers when we were children to the 
front pages now. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 
has also highlighted the role of cricket and 
bollywood in improving India-Pakistan relations. 
It is unfortunate that because of failure of 
resolution of issues politically we have to 
resort to a detour using cricket. However, that 
weíre moving towards the right goal is important.

             There are contentious issues between 
India and Pakistan which need resolution. Prime 
Minister Saukat Aziz rightly pointed out in a 
discussion, when I went to see him in Islamabad 
in connection with our proposed Delhi to Multan 
Indian Pakistan Peace March scheduled to begin on 
23rd March, 2005 from the dargah of Nizamuddin 
Auliya, unless the issue of Kashmir is resolved 
we cannot hope to have a durable peace between 
India and Pakistan. He expressed his unhappiness 
over the way things have unfolded in Baglihar dam 
talks and admitted that Pakistan was ëhurtí. 
These and a number of contentious issues will 
keep propping up whenever things would start to 
look bright. However, we have to decide whether 
weíll choose to co-exist living with these issues 
or will perish together bombing each other with 
state of the art weaponry.

             After all, in India we have water 
disputes between the states of Karnataka and 
Tamil Nadu over Cauvery river. The emotions 
between the people of two states run as high  as 
between Indian and Pakistanis whenever a 
contentious issue is discussed. The problem has 
existed since independence and will probably 
remain unresolved for a long time to come. But 
that doesnít take Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to the 
brink of bombing each other with nuclear weapons. 
So, why cannot India and Pakistan peacefully 
co-exist even if the problems remain unresolved 
for some time to come?

             It is heartening to hear Shaukat Aziz 
that his Government is interested in resolving 
the disputes rather than just containing them. 
His governmentís commitment to peace and harmony 
was amply clear from his confident attitude when 
he was discussing various contentious issues in a 
forthright manner. He demonstrated an openness 
which has not been the hallmark of India Pakistan 
relations over our independent history.

             The decision by governments of India 
and Pakistan to allow a bus service between 
Muzaffarabad and Srinagar without the requirement 
of passports is a truly commendable one. Frankly, 
we had not expected that governments would take 
such a bold move so soon. If they continue on 
this path and free Kashmir from the grip of 
tension and violence by withdrawing their armed 
forces and helping life return to normalcy, they 
will do a great service to the people of Kashmir. 
India and Pakistan can jointly ensure the 
normalization process in Kashmir. How does lack 
of resolution of the Kashmir dispute come in the 
way of ensuring peace in Kashmir? For the people 
of Kashmir restoration of peace is the most 
important priority.

             Infact, the arms race between India 
and Pakistan which is often linked to the Kashmir 
dispute is an independent phenomenon which is 
based on threat perception of each other. If we 
can have a relationship based on trust there will 
be no need for keeping any arms. And in due 
course of time the outstanding contentious issues 
will be resolved through the process of dialogue. 
If making of nuclear weapons has done any good it 
is that it has made us realize that there can be 
no military solution to the problem of Kashmir. 
The Kashmir issue will have to be resolved 
through a dialogue and that too involving the 
people of Kashmir, according to their 
aspirations. This may take some time. The common 
people of India and Pakistan cannot wait until 
then. They want the normalization process to 
continue. When the people donít feel threatened 
by each other, as is amply clear by the warmth 
and bonhomie generated during all exchange visits 
between citizens of two countries without 
exception, why should the governments live in 
suspicion of each other? Is it not the people 
that comprise any nation? Of course, there are 
the fundamentalists on both sides. But do they 
represent the feelings of common people?

             Let us not force our youth to put on 
uniforms and make them face each other with guns 
in their hands at the border. After all, it is 
only a difference of few kilometers which 
determines which side theyíll fight for. It is 
only a matter of few kilometers which determines 
whether theyíll be indoctrinated in Indian 
nationalism or Pakistani nationalism. The outer 
coat of ideology in the name of nation or 
religion is what we received only after we were 
born. The nature did not ordain us to fight. We 
have more in common than we have differences. The 
cultural and emotional and more importantly human 
bondings are much deeper. Let us respect them, 
rediscover ourselves as peace loving people and 
learn to live peacefully with our differences.


______


[5]

[ Letters re attitude of India's Govt and 
Political Elites and on Media commentry on Denial 
of  US Visa to Mr Modi ]

March 19, 2005

For more information contact:
Dr. Ashwini Rao: ash at insaf.net
Ms. Sapna Gupta: sapna_m_g at yahoo.com

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

Shri Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister
Government of India
South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi - 110 011


Dear Prime Minister,

We at the Coalition Against Genocide, representing a wide
spectrum of over 35 organizations representing thousands of
NRIs, urge you to not contest the U.S. State's denial of a
diplomatic visa to Mr. Narendra Modi and the cancellation of
his existing tourist/business visa. CAG considers the denial
of visa to Mr. Modi as a clear victory for all Indians and
for supporters of human rights and justice in the U.S. and
in India. Claims made by Mr. Modi and the Sangh Parivar that
this represents an "insult to India and the [Indian]
Constitution" are laughable, coming as it does from people
who have stained the Indian constitution with the blood of
thousands of its citizens.

Given that your government had recommended to the American
embassy that Mr. Modi be given a multi-entry visa, we can
understand your discomfiture at the new turn of events.
However, we urge you to look at this not through a
nationalistic lens or as a violation of protocol, but to
consider the larger issues involved. The complicity of Mr.
Modi's government in the February-March 2002 Gujarat pogrom
is now public knowledge. Not only was Mr. Modi delinquent in
his duties as Chief Minister of Gujarat, but he also
effectively de-mobilized the state apparatus and gave a
free hand to his ideological brethren (from the Sangh
Parivar) to carry out the killings. This has been affirmed
by numerous national and international civil rights
organizations and women's groups.

It is also known that Mr. Modi unleashed a virulent campaign
against Muslims even after the pogroms and particularly
during the campaigning for the December 2002 assembly
elections. That the Sangh Parivar's campaign of hate
contributed to a stark polarization of the Gujarati civil
society along communal lines and eventually resulted in Mr.
Modi's electoral victory is also well accepted. (We will be
glad to share with you video footage of the divisive
ideology of the Sangh at work before the December 2002
assembly elections.) One newspaper aptly called Mr. Modi's
victory a "harvest of hatred."

In short, we assert that while accepting that Mr. Modi was
elected to power, we also need to remind ourselves of the
willful flouting of constitutional and election commission
norms in the run up to the assembly elections, the
circumstances under which the elections were held, and the
human costs of Mr. Modi's electoral victory.

The issue is not simply of Mr. Modi's devious rise to power.
After storming back to power in December 2002, his
government has played an active role in shielding the
culprits and harassing the survivors, witnesses and social
justice groups. In a scathing indictment of Mr. Modi, the
Indian Supreme Court pronounced: "The modern day Neros (a
reference to the Gujarat Government) were looking elsewhere
when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were
burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators
of the crime can be saved or protected." The Supreme Court
also castigated the Gujarat government for shielding the
guilty and ordered the re-opening of 2,000-odd riot cases
that had been closed in a hurry. Perceiving danger to the
victims and witnesses, the Court -- in an unprecedented
move - also shifted some cases outside Gujarat. The Supreme
Court's not-so-implicit message was that Mr. Modi cannot be
relied upon to discharge his duties.

Mr. Modi has time and again revealed his utter incapability
for discharging his constitutional duties, but that hasn't
stopped him from loudly proclaiming his constitutional
rights as head of state. We aren't the least bit surprised
at Mr. Modi's reaction to his visa snub, but we're appalled
that the Indian government has lodged a strong protest to
the American embassy and asked for an "urgent
reconsideration." At this moment, we urge you to think of
the valiant struggle for justice waged by the pogrom
survivors and human rights activists in Gujarat, and the
constant harassment they have faced from Mr. Modi's
government and his swayamsevak friends.

Mr. Modi's criminal conduct in India ought to have been the
real basis for censure and legal redress. It is unfortunate
that the issue had to come down to the U.S. revoking his
visa, when the UPA government itself should have acted
against Mr. Modi's criminal misrule after it came to power
on behalf of the Indian people almost a full year ago. In
keeping with your common minimum program, we urge you to
take immediate action to ensure speedy justice for the
victims of the Gujarat pogrom, and bring the perpetrators to
book. We also urge you to curtail the fund-raising
activities in the US of hate groups such as the one Mr. Modi
belongs to.

On our part, we hope to build on the long tradition of human
rights activism in India and the U.S. particularly the awe-
inspiring legacies of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., and seek to continue working towards a truly
secular and harmonious India - a country without hatred,
where people are not persecuted because of their faith or
political beliefs, but where (in the immortal words of the
great Rabindranath Tagore) the mind is without fear and the
head held high.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. George Abraham, Non Resident Indians for a Secular and
Harmonious India
Dr. Angana Chatterji, Professor of Anthropology, California
Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco
Ms. Sapna Gupta, South Asian Progressive Action Collective
Dr. Ashwini Rao, Campaign to Stop Funding Hate
Dr. Shaik Ubaid, Indian Muslim Council
Dr. Usha Zacharias, Professor of Communications, Westfield
State College, Massachusetts


o o o o

[Shabnam Hashmi's letter following Indian Prime 
Ministers remarks in the Parliament re US denial 
of the Visa to Mr Modi]


March 19, 2005

Dear Prime Minister,

                 I have just now down loaded these 
words from your official website: "we do not 
believe that it is appropriate to use allegations 
or anything less than due process to make a 
subjective judgment to question a constitutional 
authority in India. . . "’

Thank you very much for saving Modi. In joining 
hands with the killer in pronouncing that 
thousands of activists , that all NGOs, that all 
fact finding teams of Human Rights Groups both 
from within India and other countries are lying.

Thank you Prime Minister for acknowledging that 
thousands of innocent people were not butchered 
in Gujarat under his leadership, that hundreds of 
women were not gang raped, that innocent children 
were not thrown in fire.

Thank you Prime Minister for acknowledging that 
Kausar Bano is just a myth. That she never 
existed. That her womb was never cut open by the 
Vishwa Hindu Parishad's goons, that her unborn 
child was never held on the tip of a spear, that 
the unborn child was never thrown in the fire.

Thank you Prime Minister for acknowledging that 
over 2 lakh people were not rendered homeless.

Thank you Prime Minister for acknowledging that 
thousands of activists and millions of ordinary 
people who voted the killers out of power were 
fools.

Thank you Prime Minister for telling us that you are a great patriot.

I will remain indebted to you for opening my 
eyes. I can sleep peacefully now. Gangraped , 
brutalized women, their breasts cut off, iron 
rods and wood inserted into their vaginas, blood 
oozing out from their bodies will never disturb 
me in my sleep. I will forget that I ever saw all 
that in those remote villages of Gujarat. I will 
forget Naroda Patia. I will forget everything.

You are so nice Prime Minister. I wish I was also nice and clean like you.

What can I do? I was not brought up to be so 
nice. My father unfortunately decided to fight 
the British. Unfortunately I was told in my 
childhood about the values that the Mahatma stood 
for. Unfortunately my mother also did not teach 
me the nice things. She was so wrong to teach me 
the difference between Hitler and any other 
elected leader.

If I was also as nice as you are Prime Minister, 
I would not constantly feel ashamed at having 
voted for your government.

Please do throw this in the dustbin so that you can also sleep peacefully.


Sincerely

Shabnam Hashmi
4, Windsor Place
New Delhi
Tel-9811807558

Cc:1. Mrs Sonia Gandhi
2. To All Media


o o o o

Letter to the Editor - The Hindu

D-504 Purvasha
Mayur Vihar 1
Delhi 110091

19 March 2005

It is unfortunate that in your editorial today "A Slap in Mr.
Modi's Face" (the *Hindu*), you speak of "the Godhra massacre".
While it has not been conclusively established why the railway
carriage burnt, the interim report of the Banerjee Committee said
that the fire was an accident. Your choice of phrase is no different
from the use of "Godhra" to refer to all that happened in Gujarat
starting on the last day of February 2002. By every canon of
civilised justice, the butchering of an entire community as "revenge"
for an earlier crime really or supposedly committed by some members
of that community, is a criminal act. If we forget the law and go
merely by reason, there can be no revenge for nothing: and nothing is
precisely what has been established so far.

Mukul Dube

______


[5]

SOUTH ASIAN WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS IN US CONDEMN MODI'S FELICITATION

Coalition Against Genocide's campaign leads to revocation of Modi's Visa to
US


We, the undersigned women's organizations, protest the decision of the Asian
American Hotel Owner Association (AAHOA) and Association of Indian Americans
of North America to felicitate Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of the
Indian state of Gujarat. The Gujarat government under Mr. Modi had actively
and covertly encouraged violence against women during the Gujarat pogroms
when sexual mutilation and rapes of women and children were used as an
ethnic cleansing tool.

In Gujarat, during February 28-March 02, 2002, under Narendra Modis
leadership, more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed, aided and
abetted by the state. In the aftermath, 200,000 people have been rendered
homeless and internally displaced. Mr. Modi's government has not fulfilled
its obligations to protect fundamental rights guaranteed in Indias
constitution or in international treaties to which India is a party. The
state machinery under Mr. Modi has encouraged rape and sexual assault by
frustrating the victim's attempts at legal redress. Mr. Modi was criticized
by the Supreme Court of India as a modern day Nero for his actions during
the 2002 massacres and has two cases lodged against him in the State of
Gujarat. The former President of India, KR Narayanan, has also asserted that
the pogroms were planned by Mr. Modi's BJP Party. The International
Initiative for Justice and Amnesty International's Stop Violence Against
Women report on Gujarat criticized the failure of Mr. Modis government in
acknowledging and taking action against the sexual victimization of women
from minority communities.

Mr. Modi not only failed to take preventative measures against those who
were planning the violence with his knowledge, but undertook a series of
actions which either tacitly or explicitly condoned the rapes and massacres.
Women and girls were beaten, thrown into wells, targeted for rape, gang
rape, and collective rape, sexually mutilated and burnt. Mobs participated
in the severing of womens breasts, the tearing open of womens vaginas and
wombs, forcing the abortion of fetuses and their display on spears. The
elderly and children, even unborn children, were not spared. In the
aftermath of the violence, Mr. Modi ordered that the refugee camps in
Gujarat be shut down even as thousands of people had nowhere to go.  In a
public meeting, he further mocked the victims of the genocide labeling the
refugee camps "baby making factories."

The ultra nationalist Hindu formation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS), to which Mr. Modi pledges allegiance, glorifies Hitler and his
genocidal policies, and has been instrumental in terrorizing Christian and
Muslim minorities in Gujarat.  In the last few years, Gujarat has witnessed
burning of churches and intimidation of many non-governmental organizations
working in the rural and tribal areas of Gujarat. Under Mr. Modi, Gujarat
school text books have been rewritten to exalt Nazism and Fascism.

Propaganda of the RSS and its allies exhort their members to defile,
violate, and destroy minority women and girls as they are seen as
repositories of Muslim and Christian religion and culture.  The State police
and task force under Narendra Modi did not provide protection to women and
children from rape during the pogroms and in many cases refused to allow
them to file reports. Mr. Modi's government has taken no action to
rehabilitate or provide medical relief to the victims of sexual violence.

AAHOA's decision to invite and honor Narendra Modi displays an
unconscionable tolerance of the misogynist nature of Mr. Modis BJP party
and his Hindutva allies. It lends legitimacy to a man who is in violation of
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and other international
laws.

We strongly denounce the Association of Indian Americans for North America
and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association for dishonoring the victims
of the Gujarat pogrom, and insulting the moral dignity of us all. The
undersigned organizations support the Coalition Against Genocide's (CAG)
campaign to protest Narendra Modi's arrival in US and congratulate CAG for
their campaign's success in getting Mr. Modi's visa to US revoked.


Signed,

SAHELI for Asian Families
Narika for South Asian Women
Sakhi for South Asian Women
Manavi, An Organization for South Asian Women
Daya Inc. for South Asian Families
Tulane Amnesty International Stop Violence Against Women Committee



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

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.