SACW | 6 May 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | 6 May,  2005

[1]  Hiccups In The Walk To Peace (Edit., The News)
[2]  South Asia: Bol! Speak Up! (Kanak Mani Dixit)
[3]  BJP's Twenty Five Years and Communalisation 
of Indian Polity (Asghar Ali Engineer)
[4]  All India Secular Forum  Newsletter April 2005
[5]  India: The Ban and Bar Dancers | Shiv Sena's view on rape
[6]  India: Model Marriage Contract and Muslim Personal Law Board
-  The Board of No Shame!   (Arshad Alam)
-  Press Release : AIDWA Response to Muslim Personal Law Board recommendations
[7]  India: Jungle Book: Tribal Forest Rights 
Recognised For First Time (Nandini Sundar)
[8]  Announcements:
(i) The Insaf Bulletin for May 2005
(ii) Zuban Web site


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

[Subsequent to the publication of the below 
article a small group of over 10 Indian nationals 
part of the peace march have now been granted 
visas to Lahore and Multan . . . they will 
continue with their peace actions even though the 
original plan of continuing a march on foot to 
Multan has had to be abandoned]

o o o o

The News International - April 24, 2005 | Editorial

HICCUPS IN THE WALK TO PEACE

The News (Editorial): The Indian and Pakistani peace marchers camped
for days on either side of the border at Wagah are a telling
reminder of the visa regime that restricts the people of India and
Pakistan from meeting, despite the ongoing peace process and
assurances of either government about relaxations in this regime.

The peace march started on March 23 in New Delhi from the dargah of
the great Sufi saint Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia and is to end on May 11
in Multan at the tomb of another great Sufi, Bahauddin Zakaria. The
route roughly traces the footsteps of Nizamuddin Aulia's journey
circa 1257 to meet the towering Sufi saint-poet Baba Farid.

Besides reinforcing the peaceful Sufi traditions of the region, the
marchers, by walking and crossing the border on foot, want to
protest against the existing visa regime that restricts ordinary
citizens of India and Pakistan from crossing the border except by
air, by road or by rail.

Given the restrictions, the marchers have been grateful for the
small mercies, like Pakistan's Interior Ministry allowing nine
Pakistanis (out of 43) to cross the Wagah border on foot to meet
marchers in India and walk back together to Multan. However,
Pakistan's refusal on April 20 to grant visas to the Indian marchers
waiting since April 18 to cross into Pakistan, for which the
government cited its inability to provide security to so many
Indians, has caused a setback to the plan. (The prominent Indian
singer Shubha Mudgal was also mystifyingly refused a visa at this
time.)

Such refusals are particularly unexpected amid the ongoing peace
talks, and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's own assurance to the
organisers at their meeting of March 12 that the visas would be
granted. The organizers had offered to convert the march into a
caravan and use buses for reaching Multan, but obviously, the
bureaucracy still rules – or overrules.

The idea that Indians and Pakistanis could walk together on roads in
each other's countries, through villages and towns, was implemented
at least symbolically, with the nine Pakistani marchers being able
to join their Indian counterparts at Amritsar before crossing back.
They are waiting a week for their Indian colleagues to join them,
and in the event the visas are still not granted, they will continue
the walk to Multan without the Indians. Their message is clear:
their struggle will continue. They report warm receptions by
ordinary villagers.

In the larger scheme of things, the intransigence of the
bureaucracies on either side must be viewed as but a hiccup, that
will eventually be overcome with political will and developing the
necessary infrastructures to deal with the demand of people on
either side to meet.

______


[2]

The News International
May 06, 2005

BOL! SPEAK UP!

Kanak Mani Dixit

In the Southasia beyond India, Mahatma Gandhi is 
increasingly regarded as 'Indian'. For many a 
Nepali citizen, the Sakyamuni Buddha is by now a 
'Nepali'. By the same logic, Lalon Fakir would be 
restricted to being a Bangladeshi and 
Rabindranath Tagore an Indian.

Borders that delineate the countries of Southasia 
have also taken the function of assigning 
civilisational figures to individual 
nation-states, even though the personalities who 
inhabited Undivided India, for example, should be 
part of the humanistic heritage of Bangladesh, 
Pakistan, Sri Lanka as well as the post-colonial, 
present-day Bharat. Development theorist and 
practitioner Akhter Hameed Khan, who moved from 
Comilla to Karachi to organise the people of the 
Orangi slum, should be regarded as our common 
mentor. The same for Eqbal Ahmed, the great 
humanist and scholar born in Bihar and domiciled 
in Islamabad.

Noor Jahan was "the pride of Pakistan" but also 
of the rest of us. M.S. Subbulakshmi was "the 
nightingale of India" but also the songstress of 
all Southasia. When the great mystic and musical 
genius Pathaney Khan of Multan passed away a few 
years ago, the loss was of a jewel of our common 
heritage, but few in India or Bangladesh knew 
enough to mourn his passing. Pakistan today 
should be putting out postage stamps to 
commemorate the achievements of mathematician 
A.K. Ramajunam, and Bangladesh on the writing 
genius of R.K. Narayanan, and India of the 
achievements of Akhter Hameed Khan.

But that is not how things are working out, and 
as we continue to categorise people according to 
where they lived before Partition partitioned, 
there is little hope that persons who were born 
after 1947 in our increasingly polarised 
societies will be regarded as Southasian even 
while remaining citizens of their own countries.

Mirza Ghalib was a great citizen of undivided 
India, described in a Pakistani website as "one 
of the greatest poets of South Asian history". 
Allama Iqbal was a founder of Pakistan, but he 
was also what one could be called an 'Undivided 
Indian', i.e., Southasian.

This trajectory brings us to the question of how 
to regard Faiz Ahmed Faiz, the great poet of love 
and revolution and inheritor of the legacy of 
Ghalib and Iqbal. As a passionate writer of 
ghazals and someone who fought military 
dictatorships with the weight of a great 
classical heritage, Faiz should be an icon today 
for Indians, Bangladeshis and Nepalis. His 
legacy, however, is increasingly restricted 
within the frontiers of Pakistan, where his 
protest poetry still inspires.

At a time when Nepal is rapidly 'becoming 
Pakistan' in terms of autocratic rule and the 
loss of civil liberties, some cultural activists 
decided that Faiz must be introduced to the 
Kathmandu audience. The oldest generation of 
Kathmandu's educated would have appreciated 
Ghalib and read Iqbal. But even they would not 
have known Faiz. As for the succeeding 
generations, Faiz might as well not have been 
born.

This was the logic behind the staging of the 
programme 'Faiz: Abhibyakti ko Haq' ('Faiz: The 
Right to Expression'). This being an evening in 
tribute to an Urdu great, the Persian haq was 
used in the title instead of the Sanskrit 
adhikar. The event was organised in a hall whose 
name -- Baggikhana -- again has Urdu 
associations. Nepalis, however, have lost even 
the little ability they once had to understand 
Urdu. As Bollywood films gradually relinquish 
Hindustani in favour of Hindi, that route of 
access to the Urdu labaj has evaporated. The 
organisers of the Faiz programme, hence, had to 
provide translations of the poems.

And what poems they were, played out from old 
tapes and new CDs, as sung by Iqbal Bano, Nayyara 
Noor and Tina Sani! 'Intesaab' is a poem about a 
homeland that resembles a dejected forest of 
yellowing leaves, inhabited by people in need of 
empathy, including prisoners of conscience, 
tangawallahs, railwaymen, exploited women, 
abducted children, and the peasant farmers. 'Hum 
Dekhenge', as sung by Iqbal Bano became the 
anthem against the dictatorship of Ziaul Haq, and 
tells of a time to come when the meek shall 
inherit the earth, when palaces shall crumble and 
regal headgear shall fall.

But 'Bol' as rendered by Tina Sani was the song 
of the evening (see free translation below), 
catching the fancy of the audience of writers, 
poets and journalists at a time when the cultural 
world of Kathmandu is acting strange in its 
silence. For those who understood the history of 
the country and of the neighbourhood, what Faiz 
wrote against the dictatorships in his lifetime, 
resonates in Kathmandu in the year 2005.

Speak up, for your lips are still your own
Speak, while there is still the time
Speak, while truth still lives
Speak, and say what you have to say.



_______


[3]

THE BJP'S TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND COMMUNALISATION OF INDIAN POLITY
  Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective 16th to 30th April 2005)

The BJP is celebrating silver jubilee of its 
existence. It claims it was born in 1980. The 
fact is that it changed only its name in that 
year and not its direction or ideology. For it 
the old adage 'what is there in name' applies in 
its entirety. Though it changed its name but 
continued with its Jan Sangh ideology. However, 
it made the world believe that it has discarded 
its Jan Sangh ideology and adopted 'secularism' 
and 'Gandhian socialism'. In fact when the Jan 
Sangh merged with the Janata Party in 1977 
immediately after emergency it had oath at 
Gandhiji's samadhi for secularism and Gandhian 
socialism for qualifying for merger into the 
Janata Party which was formed under the 
leadership of Shri Jai Prakash Narain.

Jan Sangh was indeed a communal party and its 
pledge to adopt secularism and Gandhian socialism 
was only a strategy, not a change of heart. The 
subsequent events proved it abundantly. Jan 
Sangh's sole aim at the time was to gain more 
acceptability and to defeat the Congress at the 
hustings. The Janata Party which included Jan 
Sangh swept the polls in 1977 inflicting crushing 
defeat on the Congress and the Janata Government 
assumed power with Morarji Desai as Prime Minster 
and Mr. Vajpayee as Foreign Minister.

The Janta Party however soon plunged into a 
crisis on the question of duel membership raised 
by socialists like Raj Narain, Fernandes (today 
of course he is ardent supporter of BJP) and 
Madhu Limaye. Though the Jan Sangh leaders like 
Vajpayee, L.K. Advani and others took oath for 
secularism and Gandhian socialism, they never 
broke their ties with the RSS. RSS was their very 
ideological raison d'etre. This itself was 
sufficient evidence to show that there was no 
change of heart and their adoption of secularism 
and Gandhian socialism was merely a matter of 
political strategy. In other words it was a 
political deceit.

Since the Jan Sangh members refused to break 
their ties with the RSS the Janta Party broke and 
Morarji Desai had to resign. The RSS made it 
clear to the Jan Sangh leaders that they cannot 
survive without it and to register this with them 
(Jan Sangh leaders) it organised riots in several 
places like Aligarh, Varanasi and Jamshedpur in 
which hundreds of innocent people were killed. 
Minorities, angry with the Congress policies 
during emergency had reposed their trust in the 
Janata party but were grossly disappointed with 
the behaviour of Jan Sangh and the riots that 
broke out taking toll of large number of Muslims.

They voted Indira Gandhi back to power. The Jan 
Sangh now re-christened itself as Bhartiya Janata 
Party (BJP) in 1980 and again reiterated its 
commitment to 'secularism' and 'Gandhian 
socialism' and elected A.B. Vajpayee as its 
president as Vajpayee is supposedly Sangh 
Parivar's 'liberal face'. However, as usual its 
integral relationship with the RSS continued and 
its new avtar did not convince anyone, much less 
the voters and it lost 1984 parliamentary 
elections very badly. It could win only two seats 
in Parliament.

With this new avtar it could neither win secular 
votes and also lost its traditional supporters 
too. Thus soon it went back to the basics and now 
with vengeance to recover the lost ground. It not 
only removed its secular mask (mukhota) but began 
to attack it with all ferocity it could command. 
It dubbed it as a western ideology not suited to 
India and Indian culture. It also attacked the 
Congress secularism as 'pseudo-secularism' and 
accused it of 'appeasing' the minorities.

This was the new strategy adopted by the BJP 
leaders to win over the Hindu middle classes who 
were disillusioned with the Congress performance 
and were looking for viable political 
alternative. The decade of eighties was a decade 
of complex challenges for Indian democracy. 
Ethnic movements had assumed serious proportions 
throughout North East and Punjab. The Assam 
Students Union (ASU) movement was at its height 
and militancy in the Punjab was claiming several 
lives every day. Communal violence too was 
recurring now and then. The Bihar Sharif riots of 
1981, the Meerut and Baroda riots of 1982, Neli 
(Assam) riots of 1983 had claimed several 
thousand lives and then anti-Sikh riots broke out 
after the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi in 
November 1984.

Then came the Shah Bano movement, which 
heightened the communal feelings among Hindu 
middle classes. The BJP had not only caste away 
its secular mask but was trying to exacerbate 
communal feelings to regain the Hindu votes. In 
these circumstances disillusionment with the 
Congress role grew and then V.P. Singh also 
launched Bofors movement against Rajiv Gandhi 
which further discredited the Congress. In these 
circumstances the BJP grew stronger and stronger 
and then came the Ramjanambhoomi movement which 
it encashed unashamedly for its politics.

It is interesting to note that the BJP accused 
the Congress of 'vote-bank politics i.e. 
'appeasing' Muslims to reduce it to its vote-bank 
but itself played similar politics and tried to 
create its own vote-bank among upper caste Hindus 
by placating them through issues like the 
Ramjanambhoomi and also by arousing their 
anti-Muslim sentiments. It exploited the 
Ramjanambhoomi issue to the hilt to arouse 
communal sentiments and blatantly distorting 
Indian history.

Unfortunately Mr. V.P. Singh entered into 
alliance with BJP in 1989 elections and gave new 
respectability to it forgetting the lessons of 
1977 Janta Party experiment. This adjustment 
enabled the BJP to increase its Parliamentary 
share from 2 to 89 seats in 1989 parliamentary 
seats. The BJP then never saw back until the 
Parliamentary elections of 2004 in which it lost 
power. The BJP again repeated its performance in 
Janta Party Government by withdrawing support to 
the V.P. Singh Government on the question of 
Ramjanambhoomi and toppling it.

Also, the BJP had projected itself as the 'party 
with a difference' and quite a disciplined and 
non-corrupt party. As long as it was in 
opposition this myth could wash but once it came 
to power it proved to be as corrupt as the 
Congress whom it never tired of accusing of 
corruption and as indisciplined as any other 
party in power. Groupism emerged and now we see 
how it is faction-ridden in the states where it 
is in power like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and 
Rajasthan. However, in late eighties and nineties 
the upper caste Hindu middle classes swallowed 
the BJP propaganda uncritically and a section of 
them still continues to accept it without 
questioning.

The BJP while claiming it is most principled 
party, never displayed respect for any principle 
throughout its existence of 25 years (or 55 years 
if we add its Jan Sangh days?) of existence. It 
displayed grossest opportunism whenever it suited 
its politics. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, its most 
respected leader, had given solemn assurance in 
the National Integration Council in 1992 that kar 
seva on 6th December 1992 will not mean harming 
Babri Masjid but it will be confined to 
bhajan-kirtan (singing devotional songs) but it 
is now history that what happened in Ayodhya on 
6th December 1992 plunging whole nation into 
dance of destruction and communal mayhem. Now the 
CBI has also exposed that Mr. Vajpayee himself 
was involved in this conspiracy. He had delivered 
a speech in Lucknow on 5th December 1992, which 
clearly indicates his involvement in the 
conspiracy.

The BJP which had talked of being secular in its 
new avtar ended up adopting the Hindutva agenda 
again to win more and more seats by playing up 
communal sentiments. It adopted rapidly 
anti-minority postures time and again to increase 
its vote-share. However, when it formed alliance 
with other 'secular' parties to form the ruling 
alliance (National Democratic Alliance) it again 
pretended to push its Hindutva agenda to the 
background. Again it was nothing more than a 
political stratagem.

It was once again exposed in Gujarat when it 
fully backed up Narendra Modi in his massacre of 
Muslim minority. It is said that Mr. Vajpayee 
wanted to remove Narendra Modi but gave in to 
younger militant leadership led by persons like 
Arun Jaitly and backed him up instead by 
condemning Muslim role in Godhra in the Party 
session in Goa. Again Mr. Vajpayee patted 
Narendra Modi on the back when he won two-third 
majority in the Gujarat elections of December 
2002 by organising massacre of Muslims and said, 
"I am your advocate".

The BJP not only described Gujarat as the 
'Hindutva laboratory' but also its younger 
leadership boasted that they would repeat the 
Gujarat model in other states. It is different 
story that it badly lost the Himachal Pradesh 
elections soon after and Narendra Modi had to be 
withdrawn from election campaign there. It is 
great tribute to Indian democracy and diversity. 
In fact the Gujarat massacre instead of 
increasing the BJP popularity as it expected it 
was beginning of its decline. Mr. Vajpayee 
himself admitted that we lost 2004 Parliamentary 
elections because of Gujarat. The people of India 
rejected BJP's politics of anti-minorityism and 
reposed its faith in religious pluralism.

Thus it will be seen from above account that the 
BJP's history of last 25 years has been quite 
chequered and there is hardly anything to 
celebrate silver jubilee of its coming into 
existence. It is historically not correct to say 
that a new party came into existence in 1980 but 
an old party changed its colour temporarily to 
suit its convenience. The fact is that the Jan 
Sangh (BJP from 1980) did not show consistency 
even in following its communal ideology and lost 
confidence of its traditional constituency too.


Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Web site-  www.csss-isla.com

_______


[4]

ALL INDIA SECULAR FORUM NEWSLETTER APRIL 2005-II

This fortnight saw a very positive development in the Indo Pak
relations. The joint declaration by the two heads gives many a
positive leads. This peace process can be intensified by increasing
people to people contacts across the borders. Needless to say this has
already played an important role in bringing about a situation where
the peace process got a big boost.

Ambedkar Jayanti (anniversary) came in as a very important occasion
for reminding social groups about the need for secular and democratic
values in society. That this Jayanti can act as a cementing factor in
bringing together Dalits and Muslims, goes without saying. It was best
exemplified at Anand in Gujarat where the day was celebrated by
different sections of society with dalits and Muslims being prominent
amongst organisers and taking the pledge for forging a platform, which
will bring these marginalised communities together.

The Supreme Court ruling permitting discrimination in housing colonies
on the grounds of religion has come as a bit of a set back as it may
strengthen the polarization between Hindu and Muslim communities at
various places more so in Gujarat where this is creating emotional and
physical barriers amongst Hindus and Muslims.

The proposed Communal Violence (suppression) Bill, 2005 brought
forward by UPA government is an important step to ensure that the
ghastly riots are dealt with properly. But as we realise law is a
small part of the process for preventing riots. The other efforts at
the level of preventing hate propaganda, promotion of values of
communal harmony, strengthening of democratic movements is something
which the committed social groups will have to keep undertaking on
sustained basis. The law should ensure an early control, punishment of
the guilty and rehabilitation of the victims if it has to add on to
the existing laws. As some researchers have pointed out no violence
can go on beyond some hours unless there is the complicity of the
state administration in the same, and that is where we will have to
focus our attention on.

Ram Puniyani
(Editor)

Resources against Communalism
Communalism: What is false what is true? (Revised and expanded
edition. Are you a Secularist? - The Answers to the questions posed by
VHP, prepared by Khalid Azam has been added) This is a small booklet
answering to the myths propagated against minorities. Price Rs. 20.
For copies Pradeep Deshpande<proton54 at gmail.com>

_______


[5]  [The Ban and Bar Dancers | Shiv Sena's view on rape]


22 April 2005

STATEMENT OF WOMEN'S GROUPS IN MUMBAI AND FROM ALL OVER INDIA

Women's groups in Mumbai and from all over India 
strongly oppose the arbitrary ban on dance bars 
in the state, which appears to have been made 
without considering the imminent and enormous 
implications on the lives and livelihoods of 
thousands of women employed in the bars.

  The alleged motive of the present repressive 
State measures, headed by Home Minister of the 
state Mr. R.R. Patil is that of `culture' and the 
bad influence these bars are on the `culture' of 
Maharashtra. This is an attempt yet again, only 
this time from centrist rather than rightist 
forces, to subsume the diversity of cultures that 
form this country, into a monolithic idea of 
society. When the State began to issue licenses 
to the bar girls in the city around thirty years 
ago, many women who were traditionally dancers or 
women needing to earn a livelihood sought work in 
these bars legitimately as dancers. Many of these 
women belong to communities, which have 
traditionally been dancers such as Bhedia, Chari, 
Bhatu, Rajnat, Dhanawat, Gandharva, and see this 
profession as a more recent form of their own 
tradition.

Recent reports have indicated that the US may 
impose sanctions on India for not taking 
effective action to stop trafficking in women and 
children. This threat has prompted the State to 
ban dance bars only to make a statement 
internationally that `effective action' has been 
taken to curb trafficking while in reality no 
action has been taken against traffickers.

  It is apparent that the agenda of the State is 
to cleanse the city of its poor - be it slum 
dwellers, workers and or women working in dance 
bars. On the issue of women working in bars, the 
State is even resorting to contradictory stands, 
on the one hand of `sexual exploitation' of women 
working in bars and on the other of accusing 
these very women of `morally corrupting', the 
youth and society at large. Morality cannot be 
determined only by the dominant and privileged 
section of society.

Women's groups have continuously highlighted and 
fought against the sexual exploitation of women 
in patriarchal structures and institutions. The 
State today with the banning of the dance bars is 
using the language of the women's movement 
without sharing either our concerns or 
understanding women's realities. We the women's 
groups strongly oppose the State's rhetoric of 
exploitation of women. .

Instead of creating spaces and conditions that 
ensure that women are not sexually harassed and 
that their rights are respected, the State has 
targeted the very livelihood of women which might 
have lent their lives independence and autonomy 
and thereby their freedom. By rendering women 
jobless and without financial resources the State 
is making them much more vulnerable to abuse and 
exploitation.

The State in the past has never effectively 
rehabilitated dispossessed persons. In case of 
dance bar girls it is lack of opportunities have 
forced them to take this traditional occupation. 
And so the State's half hearted offer of 
rehabilitation without any serious research and 
study of women who are forced to lose on their 
livelihood options without issuing any warning or 
notice. This offer is neither believable nor 
viable because it is already disallowing 
non-Maharashtrian dance girls.

  Banning dance bars will compel women to resort 
to activities where there is even greater sexual 
exploitation and the government will not be in a 
position to either monitor or regulate these 
activities. A government that is genuinely 
interested in the welfare of its women will not 
resort to such mindless activities of revoking 
the licenses of `dance bars'.

WE THEREFORE DEMAND THAT:

THE PROPOSED BAN ON DANCEBARS BE REVOKED.
RIGHT TO WORK OF WOMEN WORKING IN BARS BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED.
RIGHT OF WOMEN WORKING IN BARS TO A SAFE WORKING 
ENVIRONMENT BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED.
Signed by:

Forum Against Oppression of Women, Majlis, LABIA, 
Aawaaz-e-Niswan, Vacha, Akshara, Women's 
Centre, Women's Research and Action 
Group, Research Centre for Women's Studies (SNDT 
Women's University), Sophia Centre for Women's 
Studies and Development (Sophiya College), 
Sakhya, CEHAT, Explorations, Jan Swasthya 
Abhiyan, Lawyers' Collective, Dilaasa

Saheli, Sama, Swayam, Jagori, Nirantar, Anandi, 
Ekta, Rahi, Vimochana, Vividha & others

o o o o

The Times of India
April 21, 2005
Editorial

DRUNK ON MORALITY

Culture commissars are once again patrolling 
Mumbai streets. The target this time is the 
city's dance bars. Deputy chief minister R R 
Patil, who also holds the home portfolio, is 
leading the moral police on the specious claim 
that the bars are a corrupting influence on young 
people and, believe it or not, a 'security 
threat'.

Patil told the Maharashtra assembly that a 
majority of the women employed in these bars are 
from outside the state, many being from countries 
like Bangladesh. So what? The 1,500 licensed bars 
in Maharashtra, half of which are in Mumbai, 
employ over a lakh of people and pay lakhs in 
taxes every year. In fact, the ban stems from a 
male-centric view of morality and goes against 
the essence of a liberal society. Sunil Dutt, 
Congress MP from Mumbai and Union minister for 
youth affairs, has correctly pointed out that the 
state should leave it to the people to decide 
whether to visit a dance bar or not. The dance 
bars display no more obscenity than do acrobatic 
and sparsely-clad actors in Bollywood films. The 
girls generally dance to filmi numbers, which 
have already passed a screen test from the mother 
of all cultural guardians - the film Censor 
Board. The state must not unilaterally dictate 
what is desirable or not for the community. This 
should be determined by people themselves and 
they have been doing so admirably all along, 
adjusting mores in step with the march of time.

The Democratic Front government in Mumbai 
actually wants to model itself on the previous 
Shiv Sena-BJP regime and thereby gain brownie 
points from the sainiks' constituency. Culture 
and morality are pet themes of Bal Thackeray's 
boys. When the Sena-BJP government held office in 
Mumbai in the late 1990s, sainiks targeted 
everything from M F Husain's paintings to 
Valentine's Day cards. Much of the vocabulary 
that was part of the political discourse then is 
back in circulation. In an echo of the Sena's 
battle cry, the Democratic Front government of 
the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party 
has been blaming the city's migrant underclass 
for Mumbai's ills. The slum demolition overdrive 
that left over a lakh of people homeless and made 
the Congress a divided house, was overtly 
supported by the Sena in the name of keeping out 
'outsiders'. Mumbai's politicians have to realise 
that the city, like all great metropolises, is 
founded on the free and hardworking spirit of 
people who come from far and near in search of a 
better future. Mumbai's legendary cosmopolitanism 
allowed their talents to flourish. No government 
should try to stifle that spirit.

o o o o

The Times of India
April 29, 2005 | Interview

OUT OF TUNE
Varsha Kale is president of the Bharatiya Bar 
Girls' Union. She has worked for several NGOs and 
is founder of the Womanist Party of India. Back 
from meeting Sonia Gandhi and between addressing 
a press conference and strategising with bar 
owners, she talks to Jyoti Punwani about the 
Maharashtra government's decision to ban dance 
bars:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1092497.cms

o o o o

Indian Express  - April 26, 2005

MUMBAI'S MORALITY CON
Sena wisdom on rape: girls are asking for it

After rape of minor by Mumbai cop, Sena 
mouthpiece says 'low-waist jeans and mini skirts' 
inciting men

EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

MUMBAI, APRIL 25 The Shiv Sena and the Congress 
may agree on moral policing and banning dance 
bars but it's still not known what the Vilasrao 
Deshmukh government makes of Sena's latest wisdom 
on rape.

Four days after the rape of a 16-year-old by a 
police constable shocked Mumbai, the Shiv Sena 
today blamed the city's ''page three'' culture 
for the incident in a front-page article in its 
mouthpiece Saamna.

An article in the Marathi daily described the 
attacked as ''inhuman'' but cautioned youngsters 
against bold fashion trends, saying ''low-waist 
jeans and mini skirts'' are symptomatic of the 
breakdown of Indian culture and tradition.

''There seems to be a competition among 
youngsters to show their undergarments in the 
name of 'below-waist' fashion,'' says the 
article. ''It is no longer feasible for a family 
to roam on Chowpatty. To see girls dangle a 
cigarette openly is worrisome. If a man is 
incited by such clothes, who can one blame?''

Opposition leader and former Chief Minister 
Narayan Rane, the first Sena leader to express a 
comment on the issue, faithfully echoed the 
paper's view.

Another senior leader, Pramod Navalkar, said, 
''We are compromising with our culture. The 
manner in which girls behave and socialise today 
is exceeding all limits. In the good old days, 
girls from Ghatkopar would not venture to 
Chowpatty.''

Unlike the Shiv Sena though, its saffron ally, 
the BJP, has been in the forefront condemning the 
rape. Legislators Mangal Prabhat Lodha and Raj 
Purohit have supported residents' protests and 
BJP Mahila Aghadi held a morcha on Friday.

Now, Raj Purohit, the BJP MLA from Mumbadevi, has 
offered Rs 5 lakh to construct a ''big, open and 
transparent chowky'' at Marine Drive.

Meanwhile, Police Commissioner A N Roy promised a 
speedy trial in the alleged rape of the 
16-year-old by police constable Sunil Atmaram 
More.

''We are trying to complete the investigation as 
soon as possible and we will submit the 
chargesheet before the stipulated time,'' he 
said. ''We have even sent a proposal asking the 
government for a speedy trial.''

Roy also said that the police would ensure there 
were no loopholes in their case and see to it 
that More was convicted with maximum punishment.


______


[6]

Outlook | Web | May 04, 2005

THE BOARD OF NO SHAME! 
It is time to take the matter to the state and 
argue for some form of state protection which 
would be equally applicable to all women in 
vulnerable positions, irrespective of religious 
affiliations. 
[http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050504&fname=aimplb&sid=1]

Arshad Alam

The All India Muslim Personal law Boardís 
'chintan baithak' at Bhopal has failed to ban the 
reprehensible Muslim tradition of 'triple talaq' 
(divorce given in one sitting) as contrary to 
Islamic principles. Demanded by various womenís 
organization, the abrogation of triple talaq was 
to form part of the 'model nikahnama' prepared by 
the AIMPLB. The 'Bhopal Declaration', as it has 
come to be known, falls woefully short of such 
demands.

In trying to attenuate the affects of the Muslim 
demand for abrogation of 'triple talaq', the 
Board mildly condemns it as not desirable. Now 
there is a near universal consensus that such a 
form of divorce is indeed not desirable. Some 
commentators have even termed the clause as 
un-Islamic and therefore it should have no place 
within Islamic sharia. What was expected of the 
Board was to take the criticism of the various 
sections of the Muslims and promulgate a model 
which would be forward looking.

In its present shape the adopted 'model' 
nikahnama is actually out of tune of the wishes 
of large number of Indian Muslims.

It would be naive to believe that the members of 
the Board are blissfully unaware of the changes 
occurring within the Indian Muslim society. 
However, such changes are mostly confined to the 
aware and largely urban metropolitan Muslims 
which are perhaps not the target audience of the 
Board. Constituting, as it does, largely of 
religious scholars trained in traditional 
seminaries, the custodians of the Board respond 
largely to those Muslims who are primarily living 
in rural areas or the small qasbas. Changes in 
this sector are quite slow and halting, old 
stereotypes about women still hold sway and the 
ulama are still considered the custodians of 
Islam.

It is against this backdrop that the Boardís 
recent position on triple talaq should be 
understood. Through the model nikahnama, they are 
appealing to these sections of primarily 
non-urban semi literate male Muslims, who are 
their clientele. Social change in the urban 
sector has, in a sense, led to a gradual 
contestation of the authority of the ulama, in 
the sense that their understanding of Islam is no 
longer considered the only valid one. Muslims in 
urban areas are therefore much better placed 
through access to religious books and other means 
to not only challenge the authority of the ulama 
but also to have their version of personal Islam.

So much so that the demand for the abrogation of 
the 'triple talaq' has largely been the work of 
Muslims living in urban areas. In arguing against 
a ban on triple talaq, the Board in this sense 
emerges as a fortress of traditionalism as 
opposed to the reformist demands of the sections 
of Indian Muslims. Clearly then, putting pressure 
on the Board to reform is of no help, since in 
this case it has given an unambiguous judgment 
that, if anything, is anti-reform.

However, it cannot be denied, that the Board 
still has much moral capital, which it can use to 
bring about reform in key sectors like the 
position of women among Indian Muslims. The ulama 
are perhaps the most well networked class of 
people with immense capital to mobilize and mould 
public opinion. The Shah Bano agitation serves as 
an obvious example. If they want they can, 
through the widespread network of mosques and 
madrasas percolate their message and create a 
favorable opinion against the practice of 'triple 
talaq' and other such evils.

Yet the model nikahnama clearly tells us that 
they are not interested in doing so. Rather, it 
is much more interested in reinstating the 
authority of traditional structures of power 
based on sex and age.

An obvious example of the way in which this is 
sought to be done can be seen in the clause of 
the model nakahnama which clearly stipulates that 
without the presence of 'guardians', the nikah 
will not be valid. Now Islam gives freedom to 
adult Muslims to choose their own spouses. This 
is valid both for adult men as well as women. 
This argument has come in handy to many Muslims 
who married out of their volition, because they 
liked someone or for some other reason.

This is a clause which has made them marry the 
partner of their own choice without feeling 
guilty about losing their religion or the 
validity of their marriage. If current trends are 
any marker, then such marriages are only going to 
increase in the future. The clause of having a 
guardian to validate the marriage will be used 
with impunity against those young Muslims who 
want to marry out of personal choice rather than 
being dictated by the norms of the family and 
caste. In seeking to arrest such changes 
therefore the Board has shown, once again, its 
reactionary ideology and its desire to control 
the Muslims.

It is increasingly becoming clear that appeals to 
such bodies of power as the Board are bound to be 
defeated time and again. The womenís groups 
demanding the Board to see the plight of Muslim 
women would do much better to highlight this 
plight in front of the state and argue for some 
form of state protection which would be equally 
applicable to all women in vulnerable positions, 
irrespective of religious affiliations.

Arshad Alam is International Ford Fellow, 
Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural 
History, University of Erfurt, Germany.

o o o o

PRESS RELEASE
5TH May, 2005

AIDWA RESPONSE TO MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS

The Secretariat of the All India Democratic
Women's Association (AIDWA), after a careful
study of the  Model Nikahnama finalized by the All
India Muslim Personal Law Board, has noted that the
Board has made recommendations which have started the
process of  discussions, change, codification and
reform in Muslim Personal Laws. While the document
falls short of the democratic demands made by the
reformist sections within the community as well as
democratic organizations including women's
organisations, undoubtedly it is a step in forward.
The Board has also made amendments to its earlier
draft including exclusion of its outrageous sanction
to child marriage. It has rightly demanded that no
State Government deprive Muslim women of their equal
right to agricultural land. However its insistence on
the demand for official constitution of Sharia courts
has to be rejected outright. The Board has condemned
the practice of triple talaq at one sitting. It has
recommended that after the first talaq a minimum time
period of three months is required before the second
talaq. The Board has made it incumbent on those who
are having their marriage conducted on the basis of
this Nikahnama to go in for arbitration and discussion
While this falls far short of the democratic demand
for the banning of triple talaq it is a small step
forward. 
As far as payment of Meher is concerned, the Board has
included an unambiguous statement that it has to be
made.  Only a part of the payment can be deferred at
the time of marriage.  Of course, it would have been
even better if the entire payment was made compulsory
at that time. 
It is extremely unfortunate that the Board has not
made an outright ban on polygamy. Polygamy is not
acceptable in any circumstances. However in contrast
to the earlier draft the Board has made minor
concessions to this demand by preventing the
untrammeled right to more than one marriage by
instructions to the Kazi performing the marriage that
in the case of a second marriage whether after a
divorce or a polygamous marriage, if the husband is
not fulfilling the responsibilities and just behaviour
enjoined upon him i.e. with regard to his children and
to his first wife, then he should refuse to proceed
with the ceremony.
AIDWA had demanded that the woman's right to ask
for a divorce (Khula) and to include the right to
deferred divorce; Talaz-e-Tafwiz; be
included in the Nikahnama.  Unfortunately, this has
not been done but members of the Board have made a
categorical statement that if any women want to
include this right it is in keeping with Shariat and
they must be allowed to do so. It is essential that
the recommendations are not accepted as the last word.
Using the space provided by the discussions,
reformists in the community and women's
organizations will have to build a strong movement to
force the MPLB for further reform. AIDWA will be
writing to the AIMPLB about its response.

Subhashini Ali (Pres.),  Brinda Karat (Vice-Pres),
S.Sudha (Gen.Secy) Anwara (Member)


______


[7]

The Times of India
May 4, 2005

JUNGLE BOOK: TRIBAL FOREST RIGHTS RECOGNISED FOR FIRST TIME
by Nandini Sundar

The Draft Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest 
Rights) Bill 2005, finally recognises the debt of 
the Indian state to its tribal peoples. As 
against the paternalism of earlier tribal 
legislations like the Fifth Schedule, this Bill 
is based on an admission that 'historical 
injustice' has been done to adivasis.

In taking away their land in order to reserve 
forests for imperial and commercial purposes, the 
colonial and post-colonial states literally stole 
from the poor in order to give to the rich. But 
in cloaking their own actions under the 
'legality' of the Indian Forest Act, and making 
the subsistence activities of adivasis illegal, 
the state introduced a problem of 'law and 
order'. For the government, this problem is 
manifested by villagers' violations of forest 
law. The real law and order problem, however, is 
that the forest law was part of a coercive order, 
which independent India inherited and did little 
to change.

The Bill, if passed, however, will begin to 
unpack some of this colonial baggage. It lists 
duties as well as rights, making the obvious, but 
hitherto unacknowledged, connection between the 
security of forest dwellers and the health of the 
forest. Many villages protect their local 
forests, even without any legal right to them. In 
some instances, that I have personally witnessed, 
the thieves are forest officials themselves. The 
Bill says that forest right holders "shall ensure 
that no activity shall be carried out that 
adversely affects the wildlife, forest and 
biodiversity in the local areas" and that any 
such destructive activities are reported to the 
gram sabha and stopped by it. And unlike previous 
joint forest management resolutions, this law 
would actually give the gram sabhas powers to 
fine people or derecognise forest rights. Given 
the authority, there is so much that these 
currently informal forest protection committees 
could do.

The Bill makes the gram sabha responsible for 
identifying both land under long-term cultivation 
and who is entitled to tenure on it on the 
eminently sensible assumption that villagers know 
more about their own locality than a distant 
bureaucracy. Where written records are lacking, 
oral history, traditional symbols of use, and 
other such evidence can be adduced. Information 
about forest rights is to be widely publicised, 
using local methods and adivasi languages, so 
that no forest rights holder is denied a chance 
to be heard. Earlier Acts (like the Land 
Acquisition Act) simply require that information 
be published in an official gazette or, at most, 
some local newspapers. For the first time, the 
government has recognised that few adivasis can 
access newspapers, leave alone official gazettes, 
and file objections or claims in time. Hence, the 
Bill vests these forest rights in people, and 
puts the onus of recognising them on the state.

Failure by the authorities to follow due process 
is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. This 
will, hopefully, put an end to the kind of forced 
evictions that characterised the last century.

Of course, the rich may dominate gram sabhas and 
get land registered in their names. But simply 
because Indian democracy at large is faced with 
criminality and subverted by money, no one argues 
that elections should not be held. I see no 
reason why millions of gram sabha members 
exercising their democratic rights should do any 
worse at protecting their forests, on which they 
are dependent for life, than a centralised forest 
bureaucracy.

The ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) 
has been painting a picture of impending chaos if 
the Bill is passed, but it is hard to see what 
its precise problem is, other than a loss of turf 
to the ministry of tribal affairs (MoTA). On 
February 5, 2004, the MoEF passed an order 
regularising tribal encroachments up to 1993. 
That was clearly an election stunt and was 
subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court. But in 
a sworn affidavit to the Supreme Court in July 
2004, seeking a vacation of the stay, the MoEF 
argued that their February 5 guidelines were 
"based on the recognition that the historical 
injustice done to the tribal forest dwellers 
through non-recognition of their traditional 
rights must be finally rectified. It should be 
understood clearly that the lands occupied by the 
tribals in forest areas do not have any forest 
vegetation". The conservationists have failed to 
provide an alternative political vision beyond 
relocating villages out of national parks and 
retaining control within the forest department - 
an approach that has failed.

Land pattas are not the only 'forest rights' 
covered by the Bill. These include the ownership 
of minor forest produce (MFP), pastoralist 
rights, and intellectual property rights. Each of 
these is critically important: MFP, for example, 
is often the only source of cash income for 
adivasis.

The major problem with the Bill is that it 
excludes equally poor and forest dependent 
non-adivasis, some of whom have lived in the area 
for long. The original draft of the technical 
committee included "other forest dwellers" in its 
ambit. Perhaps, an attempt could be made to draw 
up a schedule of such eligible categories. The 
institutional gain, however, is that MoTA's right 
to look at everything that affects adivasis is 
finally being recognised.

We have tried forest departmentmanaged 
conservation long enough and the tigers have 
vanished, the trees have vanished. Perhaps it is 
now time to give people a chance.

The writer is Professor of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics.



______


[8]

[Announcements: ]

(i)

The Insaf Bulletin for May 2005 is online at:
http://insaf.net/central/bulletins/200505bull.html


(ii)

Zubaan is an independent feminist publishing 
house based in New Delhi, India, with a strong 
academic and general list. It was set up as an 
imprint of the well known feminist house Kali for 
Women, and carries forward Kali's tradition of 
publishing world quality books to high editorial 
and production standards. "Zubaan" means tongue, 
voice, language, speech in Hindustani. Zubaan is 
a non-profit publisher, working in the areas of 
the humanities, social sciences, as well as in 
fiction, general non-fiction, and books for young 
adults that celebrate difference, diversity and 
equality, especially for and about the children 
of India and South Asia under its imprint - Young 
Zubaan.

The website is going to be quite vast, however, 
we've got a landing page up today. There are a 
few news snippets to give you a glimpse into some 
of Zubaan's exciting work and a sneak preview of 
the home page. Please visit www.zubaanbooks.com

Please subscribe to the mailing list, we have a 
series of exciting downloads and announcements 
being introduced in the following weeks and we 
would like to keep you informed.

With best wishes,

Jaya Bhattacharji
For ZUBAAN
PS Apologies, if some of you receive multiple copies of this email.


Zubaan,
An imprint of Kali for Women,
K-92, FF,
Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi - 110016
Tel: +91-11-26521008, 26864497 and 26514772
Email: contacts at zubaanbooks.com and zubaanwbooks at vsnl.net
Website: www.zubaanbooks.com


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

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.