SACW | 27 May 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | 27 May,  2005

[1]  Nepal: The heavy price of feudal nostalgia (Isabel Hilton)
[2]  Pakistan: Fighting rising intolerance on campus (Omar R. Quraishi)
[3]  'People-to-people initiatives': Pakistan and 
India must expand academic links
[4]  India: Confused and ambivalent on people & forests (Praful Bidwai)
[5]  India: Mullahs' propose setting up of Shariah Courts (Yoginder Sikand)
[6]  India - Gujarat: 'Demolish the poor! No 
Place For Them Here (Maja Daruwala & Navaz Kotwal)
[7]  India: 'You can't destroy AMU for narrow political gains' (Irfan Habib)
[8]  Book Review: 'Explorations in Connected 
History: Mughals and Franks By Sanjay 
Subrahmanyam'


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


[1]

The Guardian  - May 26, 2005

THE HEAVY PRICE OF FEUDAL NOSTALGIA

Nepal's king wants the world to believe that only 
he can defeat Maoist guerrillas. But the people 
think otherwise

Isabel Hilton

The government of Nepal is displeased. His 
majesty King Gyanendra, according to a foreign 
ministry official, believes that the Indian 
government, the EU and the US are offering too 
much support to the country's democratic parties. 
These are parties whose leaders the king has 
arbitrarily detained, whose movements he has 
restricted, and whose activities he has tried to 
suppress since making his bid for absolute power 
in February.

Seven leading political parties agreed earlier 
this month to oppose the king's "cruel experiment 
in outdated tyranny", to demand a restoration of 
the parliament that was disbanded on the king's 
orders in 2002, and the formation of an all-party 
government in Nepal. It was a small but welcome 
step forward. Since 1996, when a breakaway group 
of Nepali communists began a Maoist insurgency, 
the government of Nepal has lost control of 
two-thirds of its territory, and 12,000 people 
have died. Now the Maoists and the Royal Nepalese 
Army are locked in a war in which neither 
predominates. In February, Nepal lost what little 
remained of its constitutional government in the 
king's coup. In a country riven by factional 
squabbles, any unity of purpose, especially among 
the constitutional parties, is positive.

Both India and the British embassy, speaking on 
behalf of the EU, welcomed the agreement, 
observing that it offered a possible basis for a 
dialogue. On Sunday, thousands marched in support 
of it. But, according to the Kathmandu Post, a 
senior foreign ministry official was delegated to 
express the king's displeasure: Nepal did not 
want this interference in its internal affairs.

The country is teetering on the edge of being a 
failed state, a condition for which the monarchy 
and the political parties must both accept blame. 
Under these conditions external interference is 
the norm. India routinely interferes in Nepal's 
affairs. It offers a retreat for Nepali 
politicians and activists of all stripes when 
they have to absent themselves from the country; 
it provides military equipment, training and 
intelligence to the army in its war against the 
Maoists; and it supplies occasional shelter to 
those same Maoists, perhaps with an eye to 
intelligence. India's Hindu parties maintain 
close links with the monarchy, and bilateral 
treaties give India the power to veto arms 
supplies from elsewhere, while geography offers 
it the power to turn off the trade tap at will. 
Frankly, it's a little late to complain about 
interference.

What the king really objects to is not 
interference per se, but the kind he regards as 
unhelpful to his plan to let the army rip, 
without human rights scrutiny, to defenestrate 
the legitimate political parties and, if there 
must be democracy, to ensure it is the kind of 
"guided democracy" (guided by himself) that was 
judged an outdated cover for royal dictatorship 
in 1960.

There are versions of external interference that 
the king seems to mind not at all. When the US 
flew in a series of "security experts" last year 
to argue that talks with the Maoists would only 
bear fruit after the rebels had been given a 
"bloody nose", the king raised no objection. 
Indeed, when a delegation of officers from US 
Pacific command flew in to give the benefit of 
their advice to the Royal Nepalese Army, he 
seemed quite happy. When the US offered special 
forces training and the UK offered military 
supplies, the palace was content. But to 
encourage democratic political parties, he says, 
is to go too far.

Such support for democratic parties as India and 
the EU are offering comes not before time, and is 
certainly not yet enough. The king has tried to 
reduce Nepal's three-way power struggle - 
monarchy, Maoists and political parties - to a 
simpler military struggle between the monarchy 
and the Maoists, and has challenged international 
opinion to make its choice. Under this scenario, 
the legitimate political parties are out of the 
picture.

He has had some success with this ploy. The US 
sees it as a straightforward choice, not least 
because US advisers see the military defeat of 
the Maoists as feasible. But the framing of the 
choice is self-interested and misguided, and it 
ignores military reality - that the army and the 
Maoists are in a military stalemate from which 
the only exit is via negotiation. The Maoists 
have offered to negotiate, but their first demand 
is for a new constituent assembly that would 
produce a genuinely democratic constitution - one 
that would do away with the ruling Shah family's 
feudal rights and privileges. That is not 
something King Gyanendra can swallow. Nepal is 
paying a heavy price for his refusal to let go of 
feudal nostalgia.

On Sunday, thousands braved the repression of the 
security forces and took to the streets in the 
biggest public demonstrations since the February 
coup. The rallies, organised by seven of Nepal's 
legal and constitutional parties, offered hope 
that the parties will unite to fight for the 
return of democracy. The demonstrations were a 
reminder to those who customarily interfere in 
Nepal's affairs that democracy demands that they 
should reject the king's Manichean choice.



_______


[2]

Dawn  - May 22, 2005 | Education

FIGHTING RISING INTOLERANCE ON CAMPUS
By Omar R. Quraishi

If recent reports are anything to go by, the 
country's largest and perhaps best-known 
institution of higher learning in the public 
sector seems to still be in the grip of extremist 
elements. A few weeks ago a student of Punjab 
University's physics department was beaten up by 
members of the student wing of the country's 
largest religious party for trying to take 
photographs of a female student during a sports 
event. The female student whose picture the 
physics department student was trying to take was 
his first cousin but that seemed to have no 
effect on the student wing's activists who 
threatened the student of further action if he 
repeated his deed.
Also, in recent days, members of the same student 
organization physically assaulted another student 
for constantly trying to talk to students of the 
opposite sex. Enrolled in the university's 
marketing department, the student was beaten by 
two activists after they found him sitting next 
to a female classmate "despite repeated warnings" 
not to do so. According to a report, the student 
had filed a complaint with the university 
authorities regarding his mistreatment at the 
hands of the youth wing's activists. However, 
later, due to intense pressure from the student 
wing and out of fear of further reprisal the 
student withdrew the complaint.
Also, last week, the same student wing invited to 
a lecture series that it holds regularly in the 
university's hostels a commander of the Hizbul 
Mujahideen. The speaker was a commander of the 
outfit's Azad Kashmir wing and spoke to students 
on the need for jihad.
Given the fact that India and Pakistan both seem 
to be moving towards some kind of resolution of 
most of the disputes between them, and given that 
the Hizb leader would have spoken out against 
such moves, it seems surprising that the PU 
administration allowed this event to take place. 
In fact, student participation or organization of 
political activities in colleges and universities 
is banned by the government so one would have to 
wonder how this 'lecture' managed to escape the 
scrutiny of the university administration.
A reporter of a Lahore-based newspaper did manage 
to speak to a PU official asking why the lecture 
was allowed in the first place given the 
university's ban on students indulging in 
politics or student organizations holding such 
events but he told the paper that he had no 
knowledge of the event. Given the student wing's 
past record of not hesitating to use violence 
against those who oppose its views, or to impose 
them on other students and faculty members, it 
would be fair to assume that the lecture was 
allowed to take place by the administration 
because it didn't want to confront the group.
Unfortunately, the PU authorities - and a retired 
three-star general has been heading the 
university for quite some time now - should have 
realized by now that the only way to prevent such 
intolerance and prejudice from rearing its head 
on campus would be to stand up to the student 
wing and not, as its actions seem to suggest, 
capitulate to its wishes. It is possible, in fact 
quite probable, that a good number of apolitical 
students do not like to be told who should they 
speaking to or not sitting next to but most of 
them will not have the courage to speak their 
mind, especially when they see their colleagues 
being assaulted for merely talking to a person of 
the opposite sex.
The student wing of this particular religious 
party and its activists seem to think that the 
Punjab University is not in cosmopolitan Lahore 
but in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and the tragedy 
is that they are getting away with forcibly 
imposing their obscurantist way of thinking on 
other students. Obviously, inaction and the 
absence of any moves to counter the student 
wing's activities by the PU administration serve 
to only to embolden the organization's activists.
The truth is that this is not a new development 
and phenomenon and campuses like the PU in Lahore 
have long been hijacked by student wings of 
political or religious parties who impose their 
views on the rest of the student body without any 
fear of action from the university administration 
or for that matter from any other student 
organization or group. Those who do not agree 
with their extremist views or those who do not 
quietly submit to their narrow-minded and 
prejudiced directives, like the student who did 
not heed warnings not to talk to female students, 
are taught a lesson by being beaten up.
To make matters worse the university authorities 
almost always tend to overlook the wrong and 
illegal actions of student activists with the 
result that no punishment or action is ever 
handed out to those who destroy and poison the 
institution's atmosphere by their misguided and 
perverse actions.
No wonder then that intolerance seems to rise in 
Pakistani society with every passing day because 
the very places -institutions of higher learning 
- which are supposed to provide the younger 
generation an environment in which they can 
acquire some tolerance and respect for the rights 
of others to hold different opinions are being 
held hostage by elements who have no qualms 
thrusting their narrow version of faith on the 
whole student community.
The result is that even among students in 
general, there is a dagerously high level of 
intolerance and lack of respect for the views of 
others, especially on matters related to 
religion, culture, patriotism, nationalism or how 
to lead one's life. Those who are part of the 
silent majority have to speak out against this 
rising tide of intolerance and bigotry in their 
universities and colleges, or risk being silenced 
for good. Unfortunately, it is made worse by a 
government which more often than not sits by and 
does nothing to act against the extremists. 
Obviously, President Musharraf's vision of 
enlightened moderation is not shared by many in 
the government because the latter seems to be 
continuously taking measures to placate and 
appease the religious right.


_______


[3]

The Daily Times, May 27, 2005	 

'PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE INITIATIVES': PAKISTAN AND 
INDIA MUST EXPAND ACADEMIC LINKS, SAY SPEAKERS

Staff Report
LAHORE: Pakistan and India should expand 
education links and exchange teachers to boost 
higher education in both countries, said speakers 
in the education session of a four-day conference 
titled 'assessing people-to-people initiatives'.
The conference, arranged by civil society groups 
of India and Pakistan, started on May 24 at a 
local hotel. Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist and 
human rights activist, said that Pakistan's 
higher education sector was very weak and there 
was need to exchange faculty of science and 
technology from Indian universities.
Samina Rehman told the participants about Lahore 
Grammar School students' visit to India and 
Indian students' visit to Pakistan.
Rina Kashyap said that exchanges of students and 
teachers have started between Lahore Kinnaird 
College for Women and Lady Shri Ram College for 
Women, New Delhi. Jamila Verghese also spoke 
during the education session.
Earlier, Anees Haroon, Beena Sarwar, Kamla Bhasin 
and Khawar Mumtaz spoke on the role of women in 
human rights and peace movements. They said that 
active representation of women was required in 
all walks of life.


_______


[4]

Frontline  - June 3, 2005
Praful Bidwai Column: Beyond the Obvious

Praful Bidwai

CONFUSED AND AMBIVALENT ON PEOPLE & FORESTS
Praful Bidwai

The UPA's environmental record is poor, even 
ungainly in parts. It fails to put people at the 
centre of things and favours environmentally 
harmful activities, including toxic waste imports.
** ** **
Even judged by its own standards as defined in 
the National Common Minimum Programme, the United 
Progressive Alliance's first year in government 
has not been distinguished. Although the UPA 
deserves to be congratulated for promoting the 
idea of consensual governance based on pluralism 
and respect for difference, and while it is 
infinitely preferable to the National Democratic 
Alliance with its sectarian, communal politics, 
it has failed to live up to many of its promises. 
The failure is particularly glaring on the 
Employment Guarantee Act (a high priority, which 
was to be launched within 100 days), the Women's 
Reservation Bill, the Agricultural Workers' Bill, 
the Right to Information Act, and the promised 
long-overdue measure to confer rights upon 
forest-dwelling communities deprived of them for 
centuries.

It is now clear that the UPA will not pass the 
EGA or the Women's Reservation until the 
Parliament's Monsoon Session. The BJP's Kalyan 
Singh is holding up EGA deliberations in a 
Parliamentary committee. The Agricultural 
Workers' Act is badly stuck. And the Right to 
Information Act has been severely diluted. Its 
penal provisions-essential to give it teeth 
against uncooperative and secretive 
bureaucrats-are weak. As many as 18 agencies are 
exempt from it, including military and 
paramilitary forces. And the proposal to give 
forest rights to people faces stiff opposition 
from conservationists and animal lovers.

This last failure speaks of the UPA's confused 
and ambivalent position towards the environment 
and the issue of equity in access to and use of 
environmental resources, including land and 
forests. There are three broad rubrics under 
which this confusion is best understood: the 
question of people in relation to forests; equity 
in access to water, which is increasingly 
becoming a contentious issue; and the import of 
toxic wastes.

The UPA's NCMP promised to institutionalise 
forest-dwellers' rights which were snatched away 
from them during the colonial period. The 
Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) 
Bill has long been a bone of contention between 
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) and 
Ministry of Tribal Affairs. One big flaw in the 
legislation is that it restricts the conferment 
of a total of 13 forest-related rights only to 
the STs. But over a fifth of forest-dwellers are 
non-tribals, mostly dirt-poor Dalits and other 
low-caste communities which are as almost 
deprived as the Adivasis.

The non-tribals' exclusion will create serious 
conflicts between people who have lived in 
mutually beneficial ways in India's forests for 
centuries-for instance, in the Kaimur range in 
Uttar Pradesh, but also in states as diverse as 
Assam, Maharashtra, Kerala, Jharkhand, 
Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh.

The great merit of the Bill is that it 
acknowledges that a "historic injustice" was 
perpetrated upon forest-dwelling communities when 
the colonial state decided to vest the ownership 
of all forests in itself for commercial and 
industrial exploitation. It recognises the link 
between the health of forests and welfare of 
forest-dwellers who have a symbiotic relationship 
with their habitat and have done much to preserve 
it against the depredations of the timber mafia 
and other commercial interests-and, above all, 
the Forest Department. Only three of the proposed 
13 rights pertain to land ownership. These too 
will be limited to 2.5 hectares for each family 
which has been in actual occupation of forest 
land before 1980.

However, some self-styled wildlife interest 
groups, recently strengthened by the unfortunate 
poaching of tigers in sanctuaries like Sariska, 
have tried to drum up scary and horrifying 
scenarios of India's reserve forests being gifted 
away to tribals. If India's 80 million tribals 
are given 2.5 hectares per family, they argue, 
that will result in the parcelling out of some 50 
million of the 68 million hectares of forest 
land-the surest recipe for denudation of the mere 
22 percent of India's total area on which forests 
remain.

In reality, not a single acre of virgin forest 
will be redistributed. All that the Bill provides 
for is the recognition of existing habitations in 
forests, each limited to 2.5 hectares. It is 
known that most such land, considered 
"encroached" upon, consists of degraded or 
completely denuded forests, in whose despoliation 
the Forest Department has played an egregious 
role. Any number of studies show that 
forest-dwellers have historically-and to this 
day--contributed to the conservation and 
enrichment of forests, not their pillage.

The pillaging agencies are, typically, the timber 
mafia, the mining industry, the irrigation lobby, 
and traders in tendu leaf and other minor forest 
produce (MFA) business, all working in league 
with corrupt foresters. These predatory interests 
have comprehensively abused the Forest 
Conservation Act 1980 and other laws to displace 
people from forests with which they have an 
organic relationship. The rupture of this vital, 
living link has created conditions for the 
merciless exploitation and denudation of forests.

The conservationist lobby pays lip service to 
forest-dwellers' rights, but in reality, it is 
deeply suspicious of people, whom it sees as 
being in opposition to forests and their 
preservation and growth. Thus, its main 
prescription for conserving forests is to throw 
people out, especially from sanctuaries and 
nature parks. This has created conflicts between 
India's 600-odd protected areas and sanctuaries, 
and flesh-and-blood people. Since the people have 
no rights-even the rights of those living in 
designated "forest villages" are usually not 
codified-they are vulnerable to disgraceful forms 
of harassment, exploitation and expulsion at the 
hands of the Forest Department.

Who constitutes the conservationist lobby? It 
consists of animal lovers and wildlife 
enthusiasts who posit a contradiction between 
forests and animals, on the one hand, and 
forest-dwellers, on the other. Its leading lights 
are former princes and maharajahs, shikaris and 
hunters, who have turned into lovers of their 
prey. As a Left leader told Manmohan Singh during 
a May 12 meeting: "People whose forefathers 
killed tigers are now fighting for tribals." The 
list of former princes, from Ghorpade in 
Karnataka, to the Scindias in Madhya Pradesh, and 
numerous thikanedans in Rajasthan, is a long one.

Some of them are represented in the newly formed 
11-member Tiger and Wilderness Forum, including 
Karan Singh, Natwar Singh, Jyotiraditya Scindya, 
Manvendra Singh and B.J. Panda. Some others like 
Rahul Gandhi and Renuka Chowdhury have reportedly 
joined their ranks.

What we are witnessing is a classic contradiction 
between environmentalism and conservationism. It 
is important to understand this. For 
environmentalists, human beings are part of 
nature and can be (but not always are) in an 
integral, generally supportive, relationship with 
the environment, including land, water, forests, 
animals and birds. Conservationists exclude human 
beings from the environment and see them as 
interfering with, and inherently opposed to, 
nature. If nature is to be conserved, if precious 
species like the tiger and the elephant are to 
survive, then people must be separated from them. 
Forests are for animals. There must be no 
culling, no intervention by human "outsiders."

This view is thoroughly ahistorical and 
misunderstands nature's own processes. Human 
beings, in particular, forest-dwellers, have been 
central to forest conservation and to maintaining 
fine balances between animals and environmental 
resources. Ecologically, it is just not possible, 
nor desirable, for one species of animals to grow 
at the expense of the extinction of numerous 
other species, on some of whom they are 
dependant. This is so obviously true of the 
predator-prey relationship as to need no 
elaboration.

That is why conservation projects in different 
parts of the world, which artificially seek to 
exclude people from the environment-for instance, 
preserving elephants in Africa by banning the 
ivory trade altogether-have proved disastrous 
failures. Having wildlife electronically tagged 
in Asia and Africa so that its movements can 
monitored in Europe is just no way of ensuring 
its survival in an ecologically balanced 
environment.

We have had the same experience in India. Which 
is why tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses are 
fast disappearing, as are forests and 
forest-dwellers. The Forest Department is too 
callous, too corrupt, too compromised, and too 
hostile to people, to be able to ensure the 
survival of threatened animals.

It is regrettable, therefore, that the UPA seems 
to be succumbing to the pressure of lobbies such 
as the Tiger and Wilderness Forum. It is courting 
trouble by ignoring the pleas of a rival, larger 
group of MPs representing mainly STs, but also 
other underprivileged people, which demands 
recognition of tribal rights in its true spirit. 
The UPA risks alienating the STs further. 
Already, the Bharatiya Janata Party has 
established its pre-eminence in 37 out of 41 ST 
constituents in MP and 15 out of 24 in Rajasthan.

Equally unfortunate is the UPA's continuation of 
policies on water which encourage privatisation 
of supply, as well as rampant exploitation of 
groundwater. India is rapidly becoming a major 
target of predatory water multinationals like 
Veolia (formerly Vivendi), Suez, RWE and Thames 
Water. The Sarita Vihar water plant in Delhi is a 
first-rate scandal. It is the principal cause of 
a three-to-five-fold increase in water rates. 
This is only one example of the disastrous 
effects of water privatisation.

Experience from any number of countries, 
discussed in the remarkable book, Blue Gold: The 
Battle Against Corporate Theft of the World's 
Water by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, (Toronto, 
2002), proves the point with a vengeance. It 
should serve as a dire warning. The UPA would 
commit a colossal blunder in resorting to 
privatisation merely because municipal bodies and 
state governments cannot manage urban water well. 
The answer is their democratisation and reform, 
not privatisation.

Of a piece with this is the UPA's policy of 
condoning and even encouraging patently unsafe 
and illegal practices like toxic waste imports by 
permitting ship-breaking at sites like Alang in 
Gujarat. Alang remains and flourishes (if that 
term can be used at all) as the world's biggest 
yard where discarded ships are dismantled. An old 
ship, at the end of its useful economic life, is 
a veritable store of extremely hazardous 
chemicals, plastics, electrical circuits, paints, 
oil sludge and other material which cannot be 
safely dispersed of.

Alang is a sordid case of ultra-hazardous 
activity where workers are subjected to horrible 
injuries. They work with their bare hands 
wielding hammers and metal-cutters on tilted and 
wobbly surfaces, where a whole deck or a big 
boiler might crash over their heads.

Such ship-breaking must be banned outright. It is 
illegal under the Basel Convention on 
transboundary movements of waste, which 
explicitly outlaws the import of toxic ships for 
final disposal. Yet, on April 23, a fugitive 
toxic ship "Kong Frederik IX", now renamed 
"Riky", arrived from Denmark and beached at Alang.

The Danish authorities warned their Indian 
counterparts and asked them to send it back. 
Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard wrote: "I 
believe our interests are joint-and I call on 
your to cooperate in this case by denying the 
ship to be dismantled in India-and refer the ship 
to be returned to Denmark in order to be stripped 
of the hazardous waste. By this we can send a 
strong signal that neither India nor Denmark will 
accept export of environmental problems that 
could be solved locally, and that we-as 
governments will not accept this kind of foul 
play which results in lasting damage to the 
environment."

India is legally obliged under the Basel 
Convention to consider the "Ricky" as hazardous 
waste-because Denmark considers it as such. The 
Convention has a built-in safeguard whereby an 
exporting country can declare a transboundary 
movement to be outside of the scope of the 
Convention. India is in breach of Article 1.1.b, 
Article 6 (Transboundary Movement between 
Parties) and Article 9 (Illegal Traffic) of the 
Convention.

However, the Indian Ministry of Environment and 
Forests have refused to heed the Danish request. 
Minister A Raja wrote to Hedegaard: "We have 
determined that the ship cannot be classified as 
"Wastes" within the scope of Act 2.1 of the Basel 
Convention. I would like to assure you that India 
has adequate capacity to ensure environmentally 
sound disposal of the said ship."

This is a blatant lie. No country, leave alone 
India, has the technology to handle such toxic 
waste safely by manually breaking up a ship. It 
is an absolute disgrace that India during the 
UPA's first year should wilfully inflict grave 
damage upon its environment and people under the 
toxic-waste importer lobby's pressure. "Riky" 
will go down as a dark chapter in India's 
environmental history.-end-

______


[5]


Outlookindia.com
Web | May 26, 2005    

AN OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSAL
AIMPLB's recently-held eighteenth national 
conference in Bhopal received some commentary on 
its anti-reform stand on the triple-talaq issue 
and the model nikahnama, but the more 
controversial revival of talk of establishing a 
separate system of 'Islamic courts' in the 
country. hasn't received the attention it 
deserves.

Yoginder Sikand
At its recently-held eighteenth national 
conference in Bhopal, the All-India Muslim 
Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) reiterated its 
long-standing demand that Muslims, particularly 
the 'ulama and heads of various Muslim community 
organizations, must work towards establishing a 
'vast network' of dar ul qazas or shariah courts 
covering the entire length and breadth of the 
country. Such courts, it insisted, were 'an 
Islamic necessity' and a principle means to 
combat what it saw as a 'conspiracy' to destroy 
the separate religious identity of the country's 
Muslims.

Right since its inception in 1973, the Board has 
been consistently demanding the setting up of dar 
ul qazas in order to administer what it describes 
as 'Islamic justice'. This effort has gained 
considerable momentum in recent years. The 
Board's ambitious project is outlined in its 
recently published two-part Urdu booklet, 
'Nizam-e Qaza Ka Qayyam' ('The Establishment for 
a System of Islamic Justice'), which lays out a 
grand plan of establishing a separate system of 
'Islamic courts' in the country.

The booklet describes the need for such courts as 
an Islamic imperative, arguing that Muslims are 
bound to govern their lives in accordance with 
the laws of the shariah if they are to remain 
true to the dictates of their faith. True justice 
can be had only by following God's laws, which 
the booklet equates with the traditional 
understanding of the shariah upheld by the 
'ulama. Not to follow these laws is described as 
a 'great crime', which the Qur'an is said to 
condemn as 'infidelity' (kufr) and 'oppression' 
(zulm).

Although for the 'ulama, such as those associated 
with the Board, ideally the whole gamut of 
Islamic laws, including criminal and civil laws, 
should be enforced, they are realistic enough to 
make concessions for Muslims living as minorities 
in non-Islamic states such as India. Hence, the 
booklet restricts its advocacy of shariah laws to 
the personal sphere covering family matters, such 
as marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Indian 
Constitution recognizes Muslim Personal Law and 
Indian courts are empowered to deal with cases 
under this law, the booklet demands that Muslims 
should set up their own courts headed by trained 
'ulama to solve their own disputes instead of 
taking them to the state courts. It insists that 
to do so is an 'Islamic duty' and claims that 
willingly abiding by the decisions of these 
courts is a means to 'win Allah's pleasure as 
well as welfare in the Hereafter'. It also argues 
that parallel dar ul qazas would be a quicker and 
easier form of justice than secular courts, and 
that these would be particularly beneficial for 
'oppressed groups, including women'.

The rationale for establishing separate shariah 
courts is elaborated upon at considerable length 
in the second booklet, whose sub-title describes 
this effort as 'The Religious and Communitarian 
Duty [of the Muslims] and the Only Solution to 
Social Problems in Accordance With the Shariah'. 
It consists of an essay penned several decades 
ago by the rector of the Deoband madrasa, the 
late Qari Muhammad Tayyeb, who served as the 
first president of the AIMPLB from its inception 
in 1973 till his death a decade later.

Tayyeb begins his essay by claiming that the 
'Islamic justice system' is an important and 
indispensable pillar of the shariah. Setting up 
separate dar ul qazas, headed by trained 'ulama, 
is thus 'a religious duty', not something that 
Muslims can choose to ignore. The establishment 
of dar ul qazas is 'the biggest issue' 
confronting Muslims today, Tayyeb claims.

______

[6]

The Telegraph
May 27, 2005


NO PLACE FOR THEM HERE

Maja Daruwala & Navaz Kotwal
This year is being celebrated as the "Year of 
Urban Development" in Gujarat. The government is 
busy with a beautification drive, which has also 
reached Godhra, the epicentre of the communal 
violence of 2002. Part of the drive to change the 
image of the city is to rid it of illegal 
encroachments occupying pavements and spilling 
over into the roads.

Demolitions have come early to the predominantly 
Muslim areas of Rani Masjid, Maulana Azad Road, 
Polan Bazaar, Vejalpur and Satpul, as well the 
Hindu localities at Nava Bazaar, Civil Lines and 
Gidwani Road. Scrap vendors, cycle-repair shops, 
food vendors and the like have been badly 
affected. The livelihood of close to 3,000 
families, some Hindu but a large majority Muslim, 
have been destroyed.

Demolitions are always hard, but are made more 
unbearable when laced with seeming bias. Shops on 
one side of the road have been done away with, 
but those on the opposite side and a little ahead 
lie untouched. Here they belong to the majority 
community or are owned by people with the means 
to bribe the authorities. Muslim vendors complain 
that government officials go around in targeted 
areas in rickshaws with a loudspeaker, announcing 
that all encroachments will be removed on a given 
date but in their area, no effort was made to 
forewarn them. The authorities counter that the 
Muslim community is rowdy and admit they dispense 
with giving notice of the demolition, as it would 
only create problems. Also, alternate 
arrangements have been offered to Hindu vendors, 
but nothing to Muslims.

Uneasy peace

The absence of conflict since the 2002 communal 
violence does not mean that Gujarat is at peace 
with itself. People are polarized and defensive 
and the Muslim community feels vulnerable.

All their means of livelihood seem to be getting 
choked off. Since the communal killings, the 
areas have been starved of electricity to such an 
extent that these hard-pressed communities have 
had to battle in court for three years just to 
get an order for the supply of electricity. But 
there has been little change on the ground as 
cables continue to be cut and generators 
mysteriously get broken and cannot be repaired. 
But right next door in the non-Muslim areas there 
is no problem with electricity at all.

At Vejalpur road, shops and houses on 
private-owned land have also been demolished. To 
prove that the land belongs to them, the 
residents have shown the authorities maps, site 
plans and titles but that made no difference when 
the bulldozers came anyway.

Deliberate targeting

The Muslims' sense of exclusion is heightened by 
their experiences in dealing with the 
administration. Anyone making a query or 
complaint is openly called thief and traitor. The 
answer to any request or complaint about civic 
amenities is often: "if you don't like it here go 
to Pakistan." Coincidentally, the localities of 
the demolition are the same as those of the 
battle over electricity. The combination of power 
cuts and demolition has landed them in severe 
debt or a state of utmost penury.

This is just one story. In Godhra, there are 
hundreds more about how people are being 
deliberately targeted.

People know what is being done and why. They 
believe there is no fair hearing to be had 
anywhere up or down the line. Nevertheless, in 
the face of so much evidence, that the very 
people entrusted with assuring them their rights 
are denying them the same, a few soldier on. They 
believe that this is their home, and a thousand 
people saying otherwise will not change that. 
They believe that someday they will get the 
respect and equality that every citizen of our 
democracy is entitled to.


______


[7]

Tehelka.com - June 04 , 2005

'You can't destroy AMU for narrow political gains'

Aligarh Muslim University has a strong secular 
character since Sir Syed Ahmad Khan originally 
founded it. A communal quota will demolish its 
basic ethos, says eminent historian Irfan Habib

At a time when even the 'secularists' in what is 
now the ruling coalition dithered, there was one 
frail historian who stood up relentlessly against 
former hrd Minister Murli Manohar Joshi's 
blatantly communal agenda in education. Despite 
changed circumstances, the man is again at the 
barricades. The indomitable Prof. Irfan Habib of 
the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has raised 
the banner of protest again. This time against 
the upa regime's inverted communal tactics, clear 
in the decision to categorise 50 percent 
reservation for Muslims in amu, once famous for 
its modernist, secular and enlightened view of 
leaning. Prof. Habib spoke to Poornima Joshi 
about why he is opposed to this controversial 
move.

People are surprised by your reaction to the 
proposal for a Muslim quota in amu. Why are you 
opposing it?

For several reasons, prime among which is the 
basic question of how fair and reasonable the 
decision is. When a university establishes its 
admission policy, it has to ensure that there is 
no discrimination against students on religious 
grounds. Because of what has been done, amu would 
now have two kinds of students divided on 
religious lines - one set would feel less 
privileged than the other. To my mind, this goes 
against the basic cultural ethos of the 
university. There has never been any such 
discrimination on this campus and I see no reason 
why amu's basic commitment to fairness should be 
suddenly altered.

The other point is that with this action the 
authorities have lowered the prestige of the 
university and unnecessarily tarnished the value 
of its degrees by selecting students on the basis 
of their religion. Unlike other minority 
institutions which are colleges affiliated to 
universities so that their students carry the 
degrees of their universities - that are not 
minority institutions - the amu gives its own 
degrees. Now these degrees will lose some of 
their repute because everybody would know that 
admissions here have been made under a communal 
quota.

You have called it a communal decision.

I actually called the quota communal quota 
because the quota is communal. amu is a national 
university. It is not a private, parochial place. 
This move would vitiate the atmosphere. This goes 
against the basic cultural ethos of amu. The 
university has had a strong secular character 
right from the time its parent institution (MAO 
College) was established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. 
The university was always open to all. The 
present decision is undermining the basic 
character of the university.

But besides the ethical issues, there is no law 
barring the government from going ahead with it. 
It is a fait accompli.

To some extent. Though, I believe, the matter is 
in the court. There are several legal objections. 
Since it has now become clear that the Union hrd 
Ministry is behind the move, one can point out 
that they should have first taken measures to 
amend the amu Act. It is an Act passed by 
Parliament and there is no provision in the Act 
that says that the university is to be 
administered by minorities. That is, the 
university should have a Muslim management. In 
fact, Section 8 of the Act clearly says that the 
university would be open to all, irrespective of 
faith. The university is thus barred by its own 
charter from creating religious quotas. In fact, 
the government should have first amended Section 
8 if they were in such a hurry to introduce 
quotas.

You seem to have joined cause with the bjp. They 
are also making the same objections.

How can one prevent anyone else from opposing 
what the amu has done, though I understand that 
the bjp too had offered a 50 percent Muslim quota 
at amu. Whatever anyone says, one should say what 
one feels is right. You cannot destroy a 
university for narrow political gains. We have to 
restore the sanctity of our educational 
institutions and this cannot be done by taking 
such a thoughtless step just to score a political 
point of dubious value.

Speaking of restoring sanctity of educational 
institutions, are you happy with Arjun Singh's 
de-saffronisation drive?

I am not familiar with the way the government 
works though I know of certain good steps that 
the minister has taken. But if we have to 
strengthen the autonomy of educational 
institutions then what Arjun Singh has done in 
amu is most unfortunate. The government should 
have refrained from interfering in matters such 
as the admission policy. The government should be 
really careful with institutions. You can destroy 
in a day what has been built painstakingly over 
the years.

But there is a positive side to it. The ncert, 
for instance, is revamping syllabi, introducing 
new booksŠ

Well, all of us welcome the withdrawal of the 
obnoxious history textbooks introduced by the 
bjp. But the syllabus set by the 'curriculum 
framework' still remains unaltered with all its 
emphasis on religious 'values'. I do not 
understand why the older curricular framework 
abolished by the bjp cannot be restored rather 
than talking about a new one with promises of 
still lower burden and new textbooks.

I am sure if there are improvements desired in 
the older textbooks the authors can be consulted 
and the books accordingly amended. For instance a 
lot of work on gender history has been done that 
can be incorporated in history textbooks. But we 
are going for a total rehaul with a much lighter 
syllabus. What does it mean? It may mean that we 
will now have students with much less 
intellectual ability entering the university 
system. This may have serious repercussions on 
the university system which has already had 
troubles enough.


______


[8] [Book Reviews]

The Telegraph - May 27, 2005

IT TAKES TWO TO BATTLE

Alien enemies
EXPLORATIONS IN CONNECTED HISTORY: MUGHALS AND FRANKS
By Sanjay Subrahmanyam,
Oxford, Rs 575

Sanjay Subrahmanyam is one of the few Indian 
historians who have overtaken the Western 
scholars in their own game of production and 
dissemination of historical knowledge. In 
Explorations in Connected History, which includes 
six of his articles published in journals not 
easily available in India, Subrahmanyam explores 
the tortuous relationship between the Mughals and 
the Europeans between 1500 and 1700.

In order to compare and contrast the fluctuating 
East-West relationship, Subrahmanyam introduces 
the concept of "connected history" - to link the 
disparate historical actors scattered over a wide 
area and construct a coherent narrative. It is 
distinct from comparative analysis which tends to 
emphasize why one party succeeded at the cost of 
the other. In the period which the book covers, 
neither the feranghis nor the Mughals managed to 
achieve their objectives. It was what in modern 
terminology is known as "limited war" and what 
Subrahmanyam calls a "contained conflict".

The Mughals acknowledged the maritime supremacy 
of the European trading companies, and had to 
give concessions to the Franks to ensure the 
safety of the hajj pilgrims. On the other hand, 
the European companies, in order to break out 
from the narrow coastal enclaves, had to keep the 
Mughals in good humour.

The struggle between the Mughals and the Franks 
was multifarious and spanned a wide geographical 
base. The Portuguese were aware that if the 
Mughals were able to dominate India, then the 
balance of power on land would tilt in favour of 
the "Mogors". So, the Portuguese tried to aid the 
Deccani sultanates to stop Mughal expansionism 
south of the Narmada. At times, they also toyed 
with the idea of supporting those Mughal princes 
who had rebelled against the reigning Padshah. In 
reacting, the Mughals were able to bring pressure 
on the Portuguese pockets both on the east and 
Malabar coasts.

The Mughal state's capability to conduct this 
kind of limited conflict declined from the first 
decade of the 18th century. And this ultimately 
paved the way for British colonialism in India. 
The last essay of the book is a brilliant 
counter-factual reconstruction of India under 
Persian domination. Subrahmanyam is obviously 
influenced by the "What might have been if" type 
of history writing of Robert Cowley and other 
American historians. He argues that if, after the 
victory at Karnal, Nadir Shah had stayed in 
India, he could have been able to construct a 
strong centralized polity extending from the Fars 
to the Ganges. Such a mammoth state would have 
been able to resist the British till the mid-19th 
century. A protracted defence would have been 
very costly to the East India Company. In such a 
scenario, the Company might have taken the 
decision not to annex India.

Empirically and methodologically, Subrahmanyam's 
collection makes a landmark contribution to 
Eurasian history. Through his masterly handling 
of non-Persian sources, he shows the complexities 
of Mughal commercial and foreign policies. He 
challenges M.N. Pearson's view that the 
pre-colonial Indian polities were not interested 
in maritime affairs. Subrahmanyam also shows why 
the era before colonialism in South Asia cannot 
be called an "age of collaboration". Like 
Ptolemy, who linked the history of the 
Mediterranean with Central Asia, Subrahmanyam 
widens our horizon regarding the many links 
between Asia and Europe before the onset of 
colonialism.

KAUSHIK ROY


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

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.