SACW | 29 May 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | 29 May,  2005

[1]  Sri Lanka: Summary of recorded complaints 
and violations @ Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission
[2]  Pakistan - India Peace Process:
- Sense on Siachen (Edit, Dawn)
- Grasping the Kashmir nettle (Praful Bidwai)
- The crucial visit (Mubashir Hasan)
-  Report on the event "Imperatives of denuclearization and the peace process"
- Call to Purge South Asia of Nuclear Arms @ 
seminar on "Assessing people-to-people 
initiatives"
[3] India:
- Religious symbols turn handy tools in 
obscurantist agenda. Jo bole, he's gone. (Sheela 
Reddy)
- No "if' or "but", just keep your mouth shut (Ananya Vajpeyi)
- Pre-Modern Jat, Post-Modern Muddle (Madan Gopal Singh)



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


[1]

Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission

SUMMARY OF RECORDED COMPLAINTS AND VIOLATIONS FROM ALL DISTRICTS
Period listed: 01/02/2002 - 30/04/2005
http://www.slmm.lk/OperationsMatter/complaints/Accumulated.pdf

______


[2]

Dawn - May 29, 2005
Editorial

SENSE ON SIACHEN
IT IS regrettable in the extreme that 
stubbornness has again triumphed over good sense 
on Siachen. The defence secretaries of Pakistan 
and India met in Islamabad for two days of talks 
last Thursday amidst high hopes of a breakthrough 
on this issue. But at the end, a bald statement 
merely repeated the diplomatic doublespeak for 
deadlock: that the two sides held "frank and 
constructive discussions" and would continue to 
talk - without specifying any new date. In real 
terms, therefore, the position, if it has not 
actually regressed, remains the same as the one 
that prevailed when the then Indian premier, Mr 
Rajiv Gandhi, had come to Islamabad for talks 
with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in July 1989. 
At that time, there were at least signs of some 
agreement on a redeployment of forces in the 
forbidding 6,300-metre high glacier and efforts 
to determine future positions in preparation for 
a comprehensive Siachen settlement. But premature 
information leaks, coupled with the fact that Mr 
Gandhi had decided to go to the polls later that 
year, put paid to any chance of an agreement on a 
politically sensitive question.
Since India occupied the heights in 1984, a 
stalemate has prevailed, punctuated off and on by 
active hostilities. But, as has been repeated 
almost ad nauseam: more soldiers have died from 
the cold than by shooting at one another. The 
cost for both India and Pakistan has been 
frightening in both human and material terms; 
somebody pointed out the other day that bread 
that sold for two rupees in the plains cost 
almost a hundred times more by the time it got to 
the men in Siachen. It seems such a needless and 
costly standoff. It has somehow become a matter 
of prestige, and no one is prepared to blink 
first, although India went into the area 
unilaterally and the burden for an agreement 
rests on it. The issue is also of course tied up 
with Kashmir, which only complicates matters. But 
the expectation was that since Islamabad and New 
Delhi were now set on a friendly course and even 
inching towards substantive discussions on 
Kashmir, they might have wanted to get Siachen 
out of the way and provide another indication of 
their determination to put the past behind. A 
more earnest attempt should be made to at least 
agree on withdrawal to less harsh and more 
civilized positions and to pledge that no patrols 
in uncharted territory will be carried out by 
either side. This too should be seen as a 
confidence-building measure.
Meanwhile, what does one make of the Indian stand 
that leaders of the Hurriyat can travel only to 
Azad Kashmir and not go anywhere else? 
Technically, since the APHC delegation will be 
coming by the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, the 
visit will be governed by the rules laid down for 
the bus service. But, for heaven's sake, the 
Mirwaiz and his companions cannot be treated on 
the same footing as divided families or ordinary 
travellers. The whole thing has been devised as a 
political initiative, and the bus alternative, 
with its temporary permits, was decided on to 
circumvent the Kashmiri leaders having to apply 
for passports to New Delhi, with all kinds of 
implications. The visit must continue to be 
looked at politically because much is riding on 
the proposed bus journey on June 2 and 
disappointment will be acute if it falls through.

o o o o

The News International
May 28, 2005

GRASPING THE KASHMIR NETTLE

Praful Bidwai

There is an almost surreal ring to it. To many, 
it will always sound too good to be true. But 
there can be no doubt whatever that the tone and 
tenor of the conversation between Indian and 
Pakistani leaders has changed totally, 
dramatically and unrecognisably Or else, why 
would President Pervez Musharraf talk about 
having reached "complete understanding" and 
"harmony" on carrying forward the peace process 
with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a South 
Asia Free Media Association conference? Nor would 
Singh have repeatedly expressed confidence that 
the peace process has become "irreversible" and 
urged that India-Pakistan boundaries should 
become "irrelevant".

Never before has such language been used since 
the two independent states were born amidst 
bloodshed and visceral hostility. This is itself 
noteworthy, if not cause for jubilation. 
Musharraf has further elevated the level of hope 
and mutual goodwill in a newspaper interview this 
week.

On May 20, Musharraf said he did not think a 
solution to Kashmir could be based on religion. 
"We do understand India's sensitivity over their 
secular credentials and therefore it cannot be, 
maybe, on a religious basis. So therefore it 
needs to be on a people's basis, regional basis". 
He advocated "maximum self-governance" within 
identifiable regions, which should be 
demilitarised so as to "make the border 
irrelevant."

This is the first formulation ever by a top 
Pakistani leader of the need and desirability of 
severing the Kashmir issue from the "unfinished 
agenda of Partition" and looking at it through a 
fresh, modernist, contemporary, people-centred 
perspective. Only slightly less bold is 
Musharraf's agreement to rule out a re-drawing of 
the borders to resolve Kashmir. Evidently, he is 
prepared to take a high domestic political risk 
to push the peace agenda.

Thus, Musharraf has repeatedly stressed in recent 
weeks that the Kashmir issue must be resolved at 
the level of himself and Manmohan Singh by 
seizing "fleeting moments in history". He has 
underlined the "harmony that exists between us, 
maybe it continues with the future leaders also. 
But why leave anything to doubt ... I personally 
feel it must be done within the tenure and 
presence of ... Singh and myself."

This has two major implications. One, Musharraf 
has developed a high level of comfort with Singh 
through repeated encounters. And two, he welcomes 
inputs regarding a Kashmir solution from the All 
Parties Hurriyat Conference, without insisting 
that the Hurriyat must immediately have a place 
at the dialogue table -- although, eventually, 
"there has to be a trilateral arrangement where 
Kashmiris become part of the dialogue process." 
(During his last visit to India, he also said 
that the elected Mufti Mohammed Sayeed government 
in Srinagar represents a significant current of 
opinion within Kashmir.)

Musharraf has since tentatively floated a new 
idea: "Maybe the peace process should be 
guaranteed by the international community. I 
think if we reach an agreement there should be 
something other than just bilateral guarantees. I 
think the international community should play a 
role in the guarantees. And this is a new thing 
that I am saying."

This idea, like a three-way dialogue, is unlikely 
to evoke a positive response from India. But in 
the long run, it is perfectly reasonable to 
demand international guarantees for any durable 
Kashmir solution and multilateral involvement in 
the supervision of India-Pakistan bilateral 
agreements pertaining to that issue.

Musharraf again reiterated: "Grasp the moment. We 
do not know how much time we have. So, the 
earlier the better. New leaders may have 
different perceptions altogether." In November 
too, Musharraf threw up a new idea, that of 
looking at the old state of Jammu and Kashmir 
through the prism of its seven regions, defined 
largely by ethnicity and geography, and then 
demilitarising them one by one, thus softening 
the Line of Control and making borders 
irrelevant. He has again returned to the 
demilitarisation and ceasefire theme.

All these ideas represent a big political advance 
and major departures from stated positions. India 
must respond positively to them without waiting 
on formalities. The most important of these is 
"maximum self-governance" within an agreed region 
in Kashmir, comprising parts of both Indian- and 
Pakistani-held segments of the former state.

It won't be easy to identify such a region beyond 
the Kashmir Valley and parts of Azad Kashmir. Nor 
will it be easy to work out transit, economic 
exchange and other arrangements between such a 
region and the rest of erstwhile J&K. But the 
process must begin, and soon, preferably through 
a working group or back channel talks.

India has done well to allow Hurriyat Conference 
leaders to visit Pakistan -- after a long and 
obdurate refusal, made bureaucratic 
petty-mindedness so typical of South Asia. 
However, it would be unwise for anyone to put all 
their eggs into the Hurriyat's basket. Not only 
is the Hurriyat divided between "more 
loyal-than-the-King" hardliners like Syed Ali 
Shah Geelani (who opposes the India-Pakistan 
dialogue and the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus) and 
moderate elements. Its factions taken together do 
not even command the support of all the Valley's 
separatists, leave alone the whole of India's J&K.

Elements like the People's Conference founded by 
the murdered Abdul Ghani Lone are out of it. And 
so is Shabbir Ahmad Shah's Jammu & Kashmir 
Democratic Freedom Party (although he is likely 
to visit Pakistan).

Many Hurriyat leaders are individually 
compromised through all kinds of deals with 
intelligence agencies and mainstream politicians. 
None has recently demonstrated that he has a mass 
base -- either by winning elections, or by 
staging civic resistance movements or impressive 
demonstrations. The Hurriyat leadership cannot 
even summon up the courage to meet Indian leaders 
on a no-conditions-attached basis; it has to rely 
on Islamabad to facilitate such a meeting. This 
does not speak of much self-confidence.

This highlights the importance of letting the 
Hurriyat develop its own base of support through 
hard work and popular mobilisation of the kind 
that Yaseen Malik has done through his march 
through 2,000 villages spread over two years to 
collect 1.5 million signatures on a statement 
that demands the Kashmiri people's association 
with the India-Pakistan dialogue.

The Hurriyat's visit to Pakistan is nevertheless 
welcome, indeed long overdue. Musharraf should 
encourage its leaders to interact extensively 
with other Kashmiris and explore ways of 
obtaining ideas and inputs from Kashmiri civil 
society and political groupings, which could feed 
the dialogue process. One hopes the Hurriyat's 
Pakistan visit will be fruitful.

The same may not be true, however, of the coming 
round of talks on Siachen and Sir Creek. On 
Siachen, there has been some hardening of 
postures in India, which might lead to only a 
ceasefire and "authentication" of the actually 
held ground positions along the glacier, not to a 
full-scale troop withdrawal, which is necessary.

Many hawks concede that Siachen has no strategic 
importance, but some hold that India should give 
it up only after extracting concessions from 
Pakistan, like, say, a withdrawal from Kargil. 
This is a cynical and untenable position and must 
be changed. For such a change to happen, a 
breakthrough in some other area may be necessary. 
India and Pakistan should both work towards that 
-- at least over Sir Creek. The two governments' 
sincerity is on test as never before. They must 
not fail their peoples.


o o o o

The News International
May 29, 2005

THE CRUCIAL VISIT

But now President Pervez Musharraf has to say 
more in public to the leadership as well as the 
people of the former state in order to assure 
everyone that he is not striking a secret deal 
with the APHC

Dr Mubashir Hasan

The government of India has acted correctly in 
permitting the leaders of the All Parties 
Hurriyet Conference to visit Pakistan next week. 
India badly needs to improve its image with the 
people of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir; 
therefore, the permission granted to the Hurriyet 
leadership is a step in the right direction.

Apparently, now India has come to believe that 
the discussion the Hurriyet leaders may have with 
the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad will help 
towards the resolution of the Kashmir issue. What 
Pakistani leadership tells the visitors may also 
help in opening a dialogue between New Delhi and 
Hurriyet.

Further, India will be most interested in 
discovering what the Pakistanis say, in 
confidence, to the Hurriyet. Ultimately nothing 
will remain confidential and India will be better 
able to assess Islamabad's intentions by what 
they learn from the talks there. This is the best 
India can hope for from the visit.

Much will depend upon how the Hurriyet leadership 
assesses what the president of Pakistan tells 
them during his talks with the Indian leaders. He 
can merely repeat what the Indians have told him 
and his own interpretation of it, but cannot 
offer any assurances. The Hurriyet leaders, 
seasoned by experience and huge sacrifices, may 
consider themselves to be the better judge of the 
Indian approach.

President Pervez Musharraf has done well to 
invite the leadership of the APHC to visit 
Pakistan. The visit must be a total success. 
There is no doubt that the Hurriyet has to be the 
most vital part of the consensus towards the 
solution of the Kashmir dispute.

However, there are other political elements on 
the two sides of the Line of Control whose 
support has to be won by New Delhi and Islamabad. 
For a lasting solution, India and Pakistan have 
to win the hearts and minds of the peoples of the 
entire former state of Jammu and Kashmir and also 
get the approval of the peoples and parliaments 
of both the countries.

The governments in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad will 
also have to give the green signal for the 
proposed solution of the dispute. Further, the 
leaderships of the political forces in 
opposition, militant and non-militant, have their 
own constituencies to be won over. Even a 
military commander has his limitations; where he 
can and where he cannot order his troops to 
follow him. The political objectives which stir 
the populace to the depth reached at present 
cannot be achieved only through dialogue with 
leaders behind closed doors.

Pakistan's objective, like that of India, to win 
the hearts and minds of the people of the former 
state, is not an easy one to achieve. So far 
General Pervez Musharraf has done splendidly by 
candidly and forthrightly stating that Pakistan 
will not agree either to independence or the 
division of the former state along the line of 
control. But now he has to say more in public to 
the leadership as well as the people of the 
former state in order to assure everyone that he 
is not striking a secret deal with the APHC.

Pakistan must begin to put its cards on the 
table, as many as it can, particularly those 
which will increase its general support among the 
masses and classes in the former state. Pakistan 
should make the following recommendations:

(a) The people of the entire state should be free 
to travel and trade throughout Pakistan and India 
without any let and hindrance or tariff 
restrictions.

(b) Pakistanis and Indians should be free to 
travel and trade throughout the former state.

(c) Pakistan is all for touching the "sky", as 
Prime Minister Narashima Rao had declared, in 
agreeing to the fullest autonomy for the former 
state.

(d) Pakistan along with India is committed to the 
fullest defence of the former state against any 
non-regional power. Further, India should 
continue to maintain its troops along the Ladakh 
border and Pakistan along the Khunjrab border 
with China.

(e) Pakistan stands for the withdrawal of 
Pakistani and Indian forces from the interior of 
the former state as soon as the latter can raise 
a special force to come to the aid of civil power 
whenever called to do so.

(f) Since the former state is a multi-ethnic, 
multi-religious, multi-racial and 
multi-linguistic polity, its people should evolve 
a workable constitution of a decentralised state 
where power is devolved to the level of the 
grassroots.

o o o o

Dawn
May 28, 2005

PEACE ACTIVISTS URGED TO PLAY ROLE

By Our Staff Reporter

KARACHI, May 27: Speakers at a discussion on 
Friday urged the peace activists of India and 
Pakistan to continue to put pressure on their 
respective governments regarding on-going peace 
process so that a sustainable peace could prevail 
in the subcontinent. Speaking at the discussion 
on "Imperatives of denuclearization and the peace 
process", organized jointly by the Pakistan India 
People's Forum for Peace and Democracy and the 
Aurat Foundation at the Rafia Chaudhry 
Auditorium, they stressed that if there was no 
pressure, peace process might derail.
The discussion was organized on the eve of 7th 
anniversary of the Pakistan's nuclear testing 
carried out on May 28, 1998. Brig A. R. Siddiqui, 
columnist M. B. Naqvi, journalist Zubaidah 
Mustafa, cartoonist Mohammad Rafiq "Feica", 
teachers of Karachi University Jaffer Ahmad and 
Nausheen Wasi, Anis Haroon and others also spoke.
They pointed out that no home work had been done 
prior to starting the peace process, as one could 
remember that emotions were running high just 
before this process began, but then all of a 
sudden some specific international conditions 
persuaded both the governments to start the peace 
process, so it was feared that if the situation 
changed, there was a possibility that the peace 
process could be reversed by the vested interest.
They said a large number of textbooks of both the 
countries were infested with material fanning 
hatred, and it is high time that both the 
governments should evolve a policy to review and 
revise syllabus so that the younger generations 
in the region grow up with a clean mind.
They said that the government should know that 
the weapons do not provide sustainable security, 
which could only be achieved by strengthening 
human resources. They suggested that the nuclear 
armament level between both the countries be 
lowered.
They said with the bomb the country has become 
even more vulnerable. They said at present the 
world powers needed Pakistan in their war against 
terror, what guarantee was there that there would 
not be a repeat action of the 1984 Baghdad attack 
when Israeli air force, with surgical precision, 
wiped out Iraq's nuclear facility.
They said that confidence among the masses of 
both the countries could not be built up by 
keeping nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems, 
which were being updated and improved every now 
and then. They said that the jehadis and the 
religious extremists parties in both the 
countries were a serious threat to peace.
They said bulk of the resources of both the 
countries were being spent on non developmental 
sectors like defence, while the social sectors 
like health, education etc were not given due 
priority.
They said that efforts be made to improve the 
economic conditions of the masses so that they 
could get the basic amenities, and their human 
rights were not violated.
They said that cities and urban centres in both 
the countries were so near to the border that 
nuclear bombs could not be used as, with the 
change in the wind direction, the fall-out could 
affect the areas and human settlements across the 
border, so the claim that nuclear weapons acted 
as a deterrent was not correct.
They also expressed doubts on the statements that 
nuclear assets were safe and secure, and said 
only a few days back some parts had been stolen 
from the KANUPP, which is also a nuclear facility.
A brief question-answer session also followed the speeches.
The peace activists after the discussion also 
organized a candle-lit peace vigil and the 
participants marched from the auditorium to the 
Press Club.


o o o o

Dawn
May 28, 2005

CALL FOR PURGING SOUTH ASIA OF NUCLEAR ARMS
By Our Staff Reporter

LAHORE, May 27: The four-day seminar on 
"Assessing people-to-people initiatives" 
concluded here on Friday with an emphasis on the 
need for making South Asia a nuclear weapon-free 
zone to ensure safety of its people. In a 
declaration read out after its conclusion, the 
seminar proposed joint opposition to the US bases 
in South Asia, and solidarity in the region with 
struggle against occupation of Palestine and Iraq.
The declaration was read out by Ms Kamla Bhasin 
and Mr Smitu Kothari from India and Mr A.H. 
Nayyar and Mr Muhammad Tehseen of Pakistan. 
Around 50 peace and rights activists from 
Pakistan and India attended the moot.
According to the speakers, the seminar proposed 
protection of shared ecosystems in the region and 
widening of its people-centred economic and trade 
activities. A museum of partition should be 
established to let the coming generations know 
about its painful impact on the peoples, they 
said.
The moot also demanded decolonization of the 
regional countries' legal and institutional 
fabric, creation of a South Asian news service 
and a popular magazine.
The participants pledged to publish a book and 
produce CDs in Urdu, Hindi and English containing 
a comprehensive history of initiatives in order 
to acknowledge, document and disseminate this 
important aspect of peoples' history. The moot, 
they said, further pointed to many challenges 
that needed to be addressed in future for the 
betterment of the peoples of the region.
These included difficult and humiliating visa 
situation, abject poverty, religious 
fundamentalism, vested interests, civil-military 
bureaucracy, military-industrial complex, 
repressive and discriminatory laws, prejudice and 
stereotypes, extra-regional influences, adverse 
impacts of neo-liberal economic globalization, 
and state-centred security conceptions.
They said the workshop was held to critically 
assess 40 years of the people-to-people 
initiatives for peace, justice and democracy that 
had been taken by groups in India and Pakistan.
This assessment was made possible by the 
concerted efforts of organizations in both 
countries, including the South Asia Partnership 
(Pakistan), Shirkatgah, Intercultural Resources, 
Lokayan and the Sangat South Asia. The gathering 
was supported by the Princeton Institute for 
International and Regional Studies.
The context within which these initiatives had 
taken place had been the progressive breakdown, 
since independence, of political relations 
between the two governments, which had critically 
affected a free flow of people and information.
The shared civilization history of the region had 
been fragmented by nationalism framed by 
antagonistic attitudes, they said.
They further read out that there had been efforts 
by political actors on both sides of the borders 
to deepen rift by stoking distrust and hatred. 
The people of the two countries had also faced 
adverse impacts of gradual militarization (of the 
region) and with the advent of nuclearization in 
1998, a climate of tension and distrust had 
further compounded the situation.
They said Pakistan and India also shared endemic 
social and economic problems ranging from 
polarization of wealth and power to bonded and 
child workers, from discrimination and violence 
against women to marginalization of minorities 
and other vulnerable groups, from harsh living 
conditions for a majority of urban dwellers to 
growing displacement and dispossession of rural 
dwellers from their sources of subsistence.
Economic policies increasingly directed by 
non-national interests and an exponential growth 
in defence and nuclear expenditure at the direct 
expense of basic social programmes are among 
other ills the two neighbours had shared.
Numerous groups and movement had taken root in 
both societies to these challenges. Many of the 
groups felt strong need to exchange and share 
energies to collaboratively address these issues, 
they said.
The seminar participants shared a widening belief 
that the real security of the subcontinent lay 
not only in reduction and resolution of political 
issues, but also in a firm democratic process.
Thousands of initiatives had been taken over the 
past four decades not only by transnational 
organizations like the Pakistan-India Forum for 
Peace and Democracy, but also by theatre groups, 
women, students and professionals.


_______


[3]


Outlook Magazine | Jun 06, 2005

INTOLERANCE
SACRED COWS, THEIR HORNS
RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS TURN HANDY TOOLS IN OBSCURANTIST AGENDA. JO BOLE, HE'S GONE.

Sheela Reddy

Pramod Kumar, Institute for Development & Communication, Chandigarh
"It's a desperate means to keep the flock 
together. Ordinary Sikhs are not listening to 
their dictates, shedding external symbols."

Swami Agnivesh, Arya Samaj Leader
"I have great respect for their Gurus but I can 
also ask why they cover their Guru Granth in 
silks and quilts instead of reading it."

S.S. Boparai V-C, Punjabi University
"Sikhism is a modern religion and has no reason 
to be defensive. The SGPC is limiting the 
definition of Sikhism."

Rev Valsan Thampu, Member, National Integration Council
"It's because of the media that they (the 
Christians) stage such protests. TV and 
newspapers give them space. "

Mushirul Hasan, Historian
"Religious stridency can't exist without 
political ideologies. Else, why would the 
protests over Valentine's Day stop all of a 
sudden?"

T.N. Madan, Sociologist
"In a country which needs religious education 
more than any country in the world, religion is 
not taught in any school or college here."

***

It's a Laxman-rekha few dare to cross, and Rahul 
Rawail, director of Jo Bole So Nihaal, was going 
to take no chances. For fear of offending 
"religious sentiment"-those two words that strike 
more terror than any others these days- Rawail 
prudently had his film cleared by two censor 
boards. There was the official one in Mumbai, and 
the unofficial one in the Akal Takht, Amritsar. 
But it was of little use: angry protests in 
Punjab preceded his worst nightmare-bomb blasts 
in two theatres showing his film in Delhi, 
killing one and injuring over 50, prompting his 
distributors to withdraw the film from many 
cinema halls across the country.
How could this happen, the crushed filmmakers are 
now wondering, despite all their precautions. The 
trouble, according to many who are in the 
business of keeping a wary eye out for the 
minefield of religious sentiment, is there's no 
knowing when or where it will blow up in your 
face.

Just how quickly and mystifyingly the bar can be 
raised was illustrated by the SGPC's (the Sikh 
top decision-making body) new demands on the 
filmmakers: the title of the film must be 
changed, it declared, because it is a religious 
slogan; words from the Gurbani, it decided as an 
afterthought, have been distorted; and some 
characters enter a gurudwara without removing 
their shoes and covering their heads. As a final 
straw came the assertion that none but Amritdhari 
(baptised) Sikhs play Sikhs in any film.
But this is not the first sign of Sikh 
institutions like the SGPC getting more 
assertive-some would say aggressive-about their 
religious identity. Last month, for instance, 
when a Sikh student was jailed by a Danish court 
for carrying a six-inch dagger, it was the SGPC 
which sprung to his aid, claiming his religious 
right to carry a kirpan. Similarly, Sikhs in 
Punjab, led again by the SGPC, are campaigning 
against the French government's ban on turbans. 
At home, too, religious identity is being 
redefined. The Sikhs' holiest shrine at Amritsar 
has shed its 'British-inspired' name of Golden 
Temple. It will henceforth be known by its 
"original" names: Harmandir Sahib or Darbar 
Sahib. The Bikrami and the Christian calendar, 
too, are being dropped in favour of a new 
calendar, the Nanakshahi, invented by a Canadian 
Sikh. Names of Hindu gods and goddesses are being 
exorcised from SGPC documents like the one 
submitted to UNESCO for World Heritage status.

It's a desperate means, according to Pramod 
Kumar, director of Chandigarh's Institute for 
Development and Communications, "to keep the 
flock together".

Even as the SGPC is trying to go global, says 
Kumar, "ordinary Sikhs are not listening to their 
dictates, and are beginning to shed the outward 
symbols of their religion such as long hair and 
the kirpan".
"One reason why Sikhs are hypersensitive about 
their identity," explains Reverend Valsan Thampu, 
a member of the National Integration Council, "is 
because their religion lays too much emphasis on 
external symbols. There is an inherent problem in 
defining your identity in external symbols."
But it's not the Sikhs alone who are using 
religious symbols to keep their people from 
straying in these transnational times.

Hindus in over 50 countries across the world, 
ably aided by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, are 
discovering a brand new feeling: the emotional 
distress people of other faiths cause them by 
putting their gods and goddesses in books, on 
T-shirts, on bikinis, shoes and toilet seats.
This fortnight, a Hindu activist in the
US, with the VHP's support, sued a California 
brewery for daring to show Ganesh, a mug of beer 
in one of his four hands, on the label of its 
bottle. The damages he is claiming for this 
offence: one billion dollars. As Gopal Vyas, a 
retired engineer now in charge of the VHP's 
global operation from Delhi, says, "We're 
surrounded by intolerant faiths and if you want 
to live honourably, we must get organised and 
fight back.This is the only way to stop this kind 
of disrespect. Otherwise, we keep protesting, 
they keep apologising, but nothing changes 
because they know we will go on tolerating."
And it's not just abroad: Hindu activists, led 
again by the VHP, went on the warpath recently to 
protest against a Tamil film called Geethai 
because it was named after the holy text of the 
Hindus.
The film's producers prudently averted a 
confrontation by renaming the film Pudhiya 
Geethai (The New Geeta).
"It's the competitive spirit," explains Arya 
Samaj leader Swami Agnivesh. "The VHP gets a 
handle because other religious leaders are doing 
the same thing." Even Christian groups, not 
especially known for their prickliness, are 
beginning to take the cue from others. Three 
months ago, yet another film, Sins, raised the 
hackles of a Catholic group in Mumbai for 
portraying a priest in love with a nurse. The 
till-then-unknown Catholic Secular Forum went to 
the Bombay High Court to stall its release on the 
familiar ground of offending the religious 
sentiment. The judgement went against them but 
what was perhaps more offensive was the Sangh 
parivar's enthusiastic support for what was, 
after all, a B-grade film. "The film," according 
to an editorial in the Organiser, "tries to 
artistically present the intricate complexities 
of passion and sex." It adds: "There's nothing 
which shows Christianity in a poor light. In 
fact, it could be the story of a Muslim, Hindu or 
Jain priest."
It's competition, according to Dr Jasbir Singh 
Ahluwalia, former vice-chancellor of Punjabi 
University and head of the Guru Gobind Singh 
Foundation, that is at the heart of the Sikhs' 
new assertiveness. "Whether Christian 
missionaries and the RSS in Punjab or the need 
for the Sikh diaspora to assert their identity 
vis-a-vis the US, it invariably leads to a 
reaction."
"The sense of competition," agrees historian 
Mushirul Hasan, "is tremendous. It's even 
transforming the architecture of our cities and 
towns-these contesting symbols, this feeling that 
my temple/gurudwara/mosque has to be bigger than 
yours. It comes from the way 'religious leaders' 
are chipping away at their communities' 
self-confidence, with rallying cries like 
Islam/Hinduism/Sikhism is in danger."
The voice of sanity doesn't stand a chance. As 
S.S. Boparai, present vice-chancellor of Punjabi 
University, says: "Sikhism is a modern religion 
and has no need for a defensive attitude.

If anything, it's more prepared to meet modern 
times than other religions as it has no 
unreasonable ideas to defend. Sadly, religion 
today has come to mean money, power and 
influence.The SGPC is making rules which limit 
the definition of Sikhism".
Another reason why religious stridency is 
increasing, Hasan says, is because all of India's 
many religious communities have gone global. 
"Boundaries are crumbling, both within the 
country and outside. The speed and access, in 
terms of funds, information, publication, is 
unimaginable. All thanks to electronic media and 
the internet." He adds: "I strongly believe they 
are orchestrated-religious stridency can't exist 
without political ideologies. Else, why have the 
protests about Valentine's Day stopped all of a 
sudden?"

But the real problem, as Agnivesh points out, is 
there is no healthy public debate on where to 
draw the line on religious sentiment. "The domain 
of theology," he says, "has been left in the 
hands of those least able to handle it-the 
priests. Religious leaders treat the faithful 
like sheep and religious sentiment becomes in 
their hands a powder keg, ready to go off at any 
time. No one dares, for instance, to question the 
jathedars on why the slogan Jo bole so nihal is 
so sacrosanct. Do they have a patent on it? 
Everyone's afraid that if they say anything the 
jathedars will catch them by their throats."
Agnivesh insists the only way to free religion 
from the shackles of "religious obscurantists who 
exploit it for their own agenda" is to start a 
public debate on these subjects. "I have great 
respect for their Gurus but I can also stand up 
to them and ask why they cover their Guru Granth 
in silks and quilts instead of reading it." Even 
50 years ago, he says, religious leaders of all 
faiths were able to sit together and debate 
fiercely for hours, questioning each other's 
faiths and superstitions. "Now, even with so many 
religious TV channels, no one's willing to host 
such a debate."
Sociologist and author of several books on 
religion, T.N. Madan, agrees. "While religious 
identities are becoming sharper and protests 
against offending religious sentiment getting 
more visible and audible, there is absolutely no 
debate in this country on theological subjects," 
he says. "There is no openness of mind as far as 
religion is concerned, it's neither encouraged 
nor taught. In a country which needs instruction 
in religions more than any other country in the 
world, religion is not taught at any school or 
college here." Instead, he says, "religious 
intolerance turns a handy tool for political 
combat. The recent uproar over reservation of 
seats for Muslims in the Aligarh Muslim 
University-is it promoting a religious minority 
or politics?"
But others say that religion and debate are 
mutually exclusive. "Religious intolerance," says 
Rev Thampu, "is of two kinds: one very blatant, 
virulent and dramatic, the other more subtle, but 
equally intense. They both have one thing in 
common: intolerance is integral to a religious 
community."

One reason why Christian assertion of their 
religious identity is relatively low-key, says 
Thampu, is because of "the hundreds of 
denominations that have hardly anything in 
common". For him, the only words for the recent 
raising of Christian hackles over Sins is 
"unbearably silly and puerile. It's because of 
the media that they stage these kind of protests. 
They are getting TV and newspaper space".
As Madan says, the educational level of leaders 
in a religious community is crucial. "If Syed 
Shahabuddin had not got into the controversy over 
banning Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, other 
educated Muslims may not have fallen in line. " 
While that is an episode Shahabuddin does not 
want to reopen, he is still ready to defend a 
community's right to be indignant about what they 
hold dear. "All groups," he says, "whether 
linguistic, ethnic or religious, are touchy about 
infringement."

Does the State, in its anxiety to preserve law 
and order, sometimes end up pandering to this 
extreme touchiness? Opinions differ.Ask people 
like Sujato Bhadra, president of the Association 
for the Protection of Democratic Rights, which is 
contesting the West Bengal government's ban on 
Taslima Nasreen's Dwikhandita (Split in Two) for 
its allegedly un-Islamic content, and the answer 
is a resounding yes. "The Left Front government 
is clearly trying to appease the minorities and 
play votebank politics," she says. And goes on to 
add: "There is no justification for the ban. 
Taslima's views are her own, based on some 
historical account. How can they possibly offend 
a minority community? The government is behaving 
just like an Islamic state."
Others, like Madan, insist that the State has to 
be prudent and cannot afford to take risks. 
Hasan, who himself has felt the heat of 
overruling religious sentiment during the great 
Rushdie divide, feels it cuts both ways. "We all 
make concessions to religious stridency, but at 
the same time, religious protests have their own 
autonomy and energy," he says.
So, whether it's a state or its intellectuals who 
are doing the pussy-footing on religious 
questions, one thing is quite clear: it's time to 
let the gods be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sheela Reddy with Chander Suta Dogra in 
Chandigarh, Smruti Koppikar in Mumbai, Labonita 
Ghosh in Calcutta and S. Anand in Chennai


o o o o

Outlook Magazine | Jun 06, 2005

NO "IF' OR "BUT", JUST KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT

Ananya Vajpeyi

Whoever says this, is blessed:
"That One outside of Time
Is Truth."

The film Jo bole so nihal opens with these words 
appearing on the screen: "This is not a religious 
film". My companion in the theatre leans over to 
me, and says, "We never thought it was. Why the 
disclaimer?" I whisper to him in the silent hall, 
"It's the way things are, now, in this country. 
You can never be too careful." Seconds later, the 
audience erupts into laughter. For the next three 
hours, we can't stop laughing. At some points, 
spectators clap their hands, they whistle, they 
stand up and applaud - the lines are so funny, 
the situations so absurd. Before property was 
damaged, people got injured, and lives were lost 
in a fresh spate of the intolerance that has 
become a permanent threat to creative freedom in 
India, Jo bole was just another comedy. In a film 
industry that is always low on comic relief, a 
movie that actually manages to amuse ought to get 
a special prize. Instead, inevitably, the 
producers have had to withdraw it from 
circulation in the face of censorship that can, 
at any moment, turn violent, endangering the life 
and safety of actors and viewers alike.

	Growing up with a Sikh mother and a Hindu 
father, I got to see the famous clash of 
civilizations between Punjabis and UP-wallahs 
from both sides of the imaginary fence. From 
Lahore and from Lucknow, driven by forces of 
history larger than us all, my parents came to 
Delhi more than half a century ago. Like so many 
of my generation in this city, my experience of 
the linguistic environment was a grating, head-on 
collision of Punjabi and Urdu; depending on the 
season's fashion, the bottom-half of a kurta suit 
invariably alternated between a salwar and a 
churidar pajama, and the seasoning in the food, 
while always tasty, kept switching between the 
wholesome tadka and the spicy chhaunk. Passing by 
the mandir one folded one's hands and raised them 
to one's brows, closing one's eyes and bowing 
one's head momentarily; passing by the gurudwara 
one muttered, quickly, under one's breath: "Jo 
bole so nihal, Sat Sri Akal". It wasn't necessary 
to actually stop and go into either house of 
worship - gods and gurus are easily appeased by 
gestures of respect made from a safe distance. In 
Delhi's social gatherings, the rule for jokes was 
that they were always about sardars, but the 
other rule was that it was usually sardars who 
told them with the greatest glee. Everybody could 
laugh at these jokes, because they never rose 
above the lowest common denominator of silliness 
- the real trick, however, was to tell them with 
the right Punjabi accent. Even at the height of 
the militancy in Punjab, sardar jokes 
proliferated, only then they were fine-tuned for 
a while to take pot shots at the idea of 
Khalistan.

In 1984, my mother and the entire family on my 
mother's side suddenly became the targets of the 
most gruesome anti-Sikh violence; for days of 
curfew that horrible November, we stood on our 
rooftop, my parents and I, watching fires burn in 
all directions on the near horizon. We knew - 
even I, as a child, could tell - that a composite 
way of life had ended forever, charred to a 
handful of ashes along with the turbans, beards, 
holy books, homes and dreams of thousands of 
innocents. But immigrant and refugee cultures are 
the most resilient. Despite the slaughter of 
Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's 
assassination, in the following two decades, 
Delhi's dominant temper became more aggressively 
Punjabi than ever before. Justice may not have 
come to the Sikhs, but they have had their 
revenge all right. Gentility, refinement, 
politeness, delicacy, reticence, literacy, 
sophistication - all the residues of Nawabi high 
culture from the Gangetic plains, lingering in 
Dilli after Partition, disappeared without a 
trace, leaving behind a rough-and-tough city, 
loud, in your face, upwardly mobile, not for the 
ninnies. Why only the capital of India - its main 
repositories and representatives of popular 
culture, Bollywood and the music industry, have, 
in the last twenty years, completely abandoned 
the niceties of Urdu speech and verse, and gone 
Punjabi with a vengeance.

  Once again today, with the unseemly agitation 
about a quintessentially Pujnabi film, a film 
that is really only a completely silly and 
therefore by-definition hilarious sardar joke 
stretched over a couple of hours, it is the 
Punjabi, and especially the Sikh capacity to get 
on top of every adversity, that is under attack. 
Even more alarming, the Sikh genius for 
self-deprecation is in danger of being replaced 
by that familiar absence of irony that 
characterises any culture when it begins to lose 
confidence in itself. In our country, fewer and 
fewer communities now retain the slightest 
capacity to laugh at themselves, which actually 
betrays their inability to believe that others 
will take them seriously. 
    
Jo bole takes every cliché about the Sikh 
temperament, and plays it out to its funniest 
limit. Sunny Deol, in the role of the protagonist 
Nihal Singh, is proud, patriotic, emotional, 
devout, simple-minded, trusting, brave, gullible, 
sincere, pious, virile, child-like and energetic. 
He worships his mother and his country. He 
doesn't smoke, but he does drink. He swears by 
the medicinal properties of the red onion. He 
loves his babe with a curious mixture of coyness, 
docility and unreconstructed machismo. His 
attitude to sex achieves an impossible (but 
endearing) synthesis between the ascetic and the 
animal. He travels superbly, but is eternally 
homesick. He works hard at being a rural cop from 
the Punjab, but can teach the FBI a trick or two 
in homeland security. If Nihal were put in charge 
of the War on Terror, Osama would have 
surrendered long ago his leadership of the Evil 
Empire, and been rehabilitated as the sarpanch of 
some god-fearing Afghan village, a bearded and 
benign leader of his band of ex-jihadis, atoning 
for his sins by raising crops and cattle (or 
whatever it is they raise in lands not blessed by 
the Green Revolution).

"You are all idiots," Nihal Singh says to the 
law-enforcement officers of the United States of 
America, looking the uniformed and bewildered 
Americans in the eye. "Some chaps you brought to 
your country and trained to be pilots, took your 
planes and crashed them into your buildings. Now 
you're crying about it." Country-bumpkin he may 
be, but the sardar has a point. Fancy 
surveillance cameras and pretty Apple PowerBooks 
cannot achieve for the hapless Americans what 
Nihal Singh can do with bare hands, with a little 
help from his baton: bring the bad guy to his 
knees, clad, in a somewhat macabre reference to 
Guantanamo Bay, in an orange jumpsuit, his hands 
and feet in chains.

As for the female characters - the hero's old 
mother, his thin unmarried sister back home, his 
fat married sister in America, and his FBI agent 
NRI girl-friend who starts out as his colleague 
and ends up as his wife - together they exemplify 
every proverbial virtue of the sikhni: kindness, 
intelligence, vigilance, sweetness, fearlessness, 
oomph, resourcefulness, tomboyish vigour, 
unimpeachable honour, ability to live with 
pizzazz at home or abroad, and of course, long 
silky hair to die for. Between them, jatt Nihal 
and his gorgeous kudi, with a chorus of local cab 
drivers, rule the streets of New York City. Who 
says Empire is American? Empire is Punjabi, and 
it's time the world woke up to smell the lassi. 
Didn't Shah Rukh, Preity and Saif, cavorting in 
Manhattan and running across the Brooklyn Bridge 
just as effortlessly as Sunny and co., already 
tell us that last year, in the block-busting Kal 
ho na ho?

Which is why the fuss about Jo bole in India, 
coming from Sikh quarters, is even more 
distressing. Instead of feeling Sikh sentiments 
to be injured by this assertively sardar movie, 
Sikhs ought to revel in it, enjoying its gutsy 
take on American powerlessness in a world full of 
wily others, its celebration of Sikh culture in 
mostly inhospitable foreign climes, its 
glorification of the core Sikh value of loyalty 
(to partner, family, friend, community and 
nation), and most of all, its ability to laugh 
equally at the foibles of sardars as well as at 
the stereotypes about them that abound in Indian 
public life.

If anything, we need to be critical about the 
film's portrayal of Catholicism as sanctified s 
and m, its depiction of Muslim women as 
burqa-clad two-timers who might be carrying bombs 
under their veils, its uncomfortable scene of 
taking a black FBI agent as a dummy criminal and 
beating him to a pulp for torture training, and 
other such moments when it fails to be careful 
about addressing not just one but two - Indian 
and American - multicultural audiences. For the 
rest, since Jo bole does us the favour of 
exposing identity discourse to be the joke that 
it is, and making us laugh about fundamentalisms, 
we should all insist that we be allowed to watch 
it. This one time, to the censor, official or 
self-appointed, we have to say, with the right 
Punjabi accent: "Oy, chak de phatte!"

And please, stop killing people for going to the 
movies on a Sunday afternoon.          


o o o o

Outlook magazine | Jun 06, 2005

PRE-MODERN JAT, POST-MODERN MUDDLE
It was a bad film, period. Why did it have to 
become a threat to the collective Sikh soul?
Madan Gopal Singh

I exhume the film scholar in me from the debris 
of cultural identities. I am, after all, not any 
old film scholar. I am a Sikh film scholar which 
makes my very existence somewhat special. I adorn 
a turban and I have an undyed flowing beard. My 
services are quite appropriately invoked in 
critical times such as these. Theoretically, I 
carry the burden of 'emmassification'. If I do 
not intervene, I am touchingly reminded, who 
will? Mercifully, such critical times are rare 
and therefore my interventions, if ever 
commissioned, equally rare and possibly even 
rarefied. There is a larger and related question 
here, though I am not sure if this is the space 
to challenge the theoretic pundits who choose not 
to recognise the burial ground they tread upon 
with supercilious nonchalance.

As of now, the link between the (Sikh?) 
terrorists and the reprehensible bomb blasts that 
resulted in at least one death and serious 
injuries to scores of spectators has not been 
established. The question, however, relates to 
inflammatory protests that preceded the eventual 
tragedy and inevitable closure of the theatres 
screening Jo Bole So Nihaal. Despite not being a 
devout Sikh, I still use "Sat Sri Akal" as a 
natural form of greeting whenever I meet fellow 
Sikhs. I am suddenly reminded that it forms part 
of a traditional war cry. Who am I fighting each 
time I greet someone from my 'own community', I 
wonder. How do I negotiate my creative self 
within the larger cultural history that expects 
me to approach Baba Farid with the same deference 
and intimacy as it does Kabir and Namdev? The 
Holy Book, the Guru Granth, appears to me to be 
about the new, compassionate, tolerant human 
kind. It recreates culturally a syncretic and 
vibrant space. It allows me to stand within that 
space and to articulate myself, freely and 
without fear. But suddenly I am scared. There are 
too many exegetes out there interpreting the 
texts with messianic authority. As a singer, I 
shall sing the holy text at home. I shall remain 
unheard. Outside, I shall sing "What do I know 
who I am, O Bulla". Or, was that Mevlana Rumi? 
Only that. There are too many rats crawling in 
the dark holding plastic in their claws, 
furtively moving under your seats.

Jo Bole So Nihaal is an act of terrible cinematic 
attrition. One feels like reverting to the 
halcyon days of the now-forgotten and 
anachronised film aesthetics. For, Mr Rawail 
thrives in tacky and very definitely obsolete 
mode of filmmaking. One can only think of the 
untiring Dev Anand as his genuine competitor when 
it comes to highly misplaced cinematic 
self-belief. It is a sad day that one has to 
write about such utterly inconsequential, 
boneless wonders. JBSN thrives on the crass 
stereotypes that we have lived with for many, 
many decades now. It has an unrelentingly boring, 
simplistic, gullible, pre-modern Sikh and a Jat 
to boot. The village community is likewise 
singularly sadistic. The mother-played by the 
unfortunate Surekha Sikri-is in a state of 
perpetual orgasmic telepathic communication with 
her offshore son. The agony is aggravated when 
the 'pre-modern Sikh and a Jat to boot' runs into 
a disaligned relationship with an equally 
pre-modern mimicry of a post-modern state.

The film was sinking without a trace. And then 
suddenly it was made to look like a major threat 
to the collective Sikh conscience. Why does the 
Sikh identity have to be so fragile? Why don't 
the zealots look inwards for a change? Why do we 
not look at how viciously our semi-literate 
leadership controls and runs our educational, 
cultural bodies? Why do we not self-critically 
review the insensitivity with which they are 
creating an intractable mess around our religious 
institutions? Why don't we ever wake up to the 
alarming drop in the sex-ratio and overall gender 
insensitivity? It is time we moved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The writer is a singer, cultural activist and teaches literature and cinema. )



______


[4]



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

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.