SACW | 15 June 2005
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Tue Jun 14 20:47:47 CDT 2005
South Asia Citizens Wire | 15 June, 2005
[1] Pakistan: Mukhtaran Mai and National Image
- Defending untenable positions (Edit, The News)
- Mai cancels trip under govt pressure (Mohammad Kamran)
- Raped, Kidnapped and Silenced (Nicholas D. Kristof)
[2] Bangladesh; Humayun [Azad]: "No" To Oblivion (I.K.Shukla)
[3] Playing on fear, from Godhra to Guantanamo (Siddharth Varadarajan)
[4] India: Sangh Parivar activists disrupt tribunal hearing (Prafulla Das)
+ Press Note: For Immediate Release "Sangh
Parivar Derails Tribunal On Communalism In Orissa"
[5] India: Two words No. 1 on Madhya Pradesh
agenda: [Dangey] Mataram (Rohit Bhan)
[6] On Jinnah, Advani and Secularism
- How Secular was Secular Jinnah? Or how communal
was communal Jinnah? (Jawed Naqvi)
- All In The Name Of God: Jinnah, Savarkar,
Advani' birds of a feather (Ronojoy Sen)
- Secular Pundits (Jug Suraiya)
[7] Announcing a new version of the documentary:
'Ek Khoobsurat Jahaz' by Gauhar Raza'
______
[1]
The News International - June 15, 2005
Editorial
DEFENDING UNTENABLE POSITIONS
The statements in the Senate by Minister of State
for Interior Dr Wasim Shahzad and Advisor to the
Prime Minister on Women's Development Nilofer
Bakhtiar over the issue of official restrictions
on Mukhtaran Mai's movements only put the
government in the dock, rather than shore up its
position on the subject.
They should have known better than to needlessly
attack the opposition and the NGOs on a sensitive
issue that has drawn worldwide interest, with Dr
Shahzad going so far as to abuse them as
"vultures and crows."
It's clear from the remarks of the two
functionaries that the real issue for them and
the government is not the fight for justice of a
woman who was gang raped three years ago this
month; they are more interested in defending a
patently untenable position.
What the government functionaries are essentially
doing is to shout down the voices of civil
society that are demanding justice for the
victim. It was astonishing to hear Dr Shahzad
denounce the government's critics as "vultures,
crows and kites sitting on the fence to exploit
the case and get foreign funding." According to
him, opposition members and socials activists,
who oppose Mukhtaran Mai's virtual house arrest,
are simply exploiting Mukhtaran Mai's case "for a
dinner with John and Johnny Walker" -- whatever
that's supposed to mean.
Dr Shahzad's irresponsible words will not only
alienate the NGOs and the opposition parties;
they are likely to go down poorly with Western
governments which are the country's donors - talk
of "foreign funding."
Mukhtaran Mai's government-imposed "protection"
has more to do with her plans to attend
high-profile gatherings organised by Amnesty
International and other human rights groups in
the United States. This was only too clear from
what Ms Bakhtiar had to add, although,
thankfully, she was more restrained. "We do not
want to bare our wounds to the international
community. We do not want to wash our dirty linen
in public."
Now, that's old hat. What should our priority be,
to ensure justice for the wronged, or to try and
cover up the act for fear of possible disgrace?
In any case, preventing Mukhtaran Mai from going
abroad will hardly serve to cover up the burning
issue. Silencing voices for human rights and
justice in such a shoddy way can only expose the
government's charade of democracy and openness.
Contrary to what Ms Bakhtiar is so apprehensive
of, permission to Mukhtaran Mai to leave would
only have improved Pakistan's image as a state
where the oppressed rise up to become icons of
resistance, with the support not only of civil
society but also of the government.
o o o o
The Daily Times
June 15, 2005
RAPE VICTIM WANTS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, REMOVAL FROM ECL:
MAI CANCELS TRIP UNDER GOVT PRESSURE
By Mohammad Kamran
ISLAMABAD: Mukhtar Mai on Tuesday made an
announcement that she had changed her mind about
visiting the US because of her mother's illness,
but human rights groups doubted the claim, saying
it was a statement obtained under government
pressure.
"I am ready to withdraw my visa application but
the government must remove my name from the Exit
Control List (ECL) and allow me to move freely,"
Mukhtar Mai said at a press conference with
Nilofar Bakhtiar, adviser to the prime minister,
by her side.
When reporters asked Mai directly as to what
ailment her mother was suffering from, Mukhtar
opted to keep mum, and on other direct queries,
Bakhtiar spoke on Mukhtar's behalf.
Bakhtiar said that Mukhtar was free to move but
would be escorted by a police squad for her own
protection. She said the issue of putting her on
the ECL would be resolved soon as the prime
minister had directed an inquiry into the matter.
State Interior Minister Dr Shahzad Waseem also
told the Senate on Tuesday that there was no
restriction on Mukhtar's movement, and that
vested interests were unnecessarily politicising
the issue.
However, representatives of human rights groups,
who have been advocating Mukhtar's case, said the
government was pressurising her to cancel her
trip.
Asma Jehangir, Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan chairperson, said a tearful Mai had told
her she was made to sign a letter addressed to
the US Embassy, asking to withdraw her passport
from a visa application.
Jehangir denounced the alleged pressure on Mai
from the government as "shameful."
"I must say she is still in government custody
and Nilofar Bakhtiar lied on the floor of the
house when she said that Mukhtar was not under
house detention. It seems the adviser on women
development has become an inspector general of
women in Pakistan on this issue," Jahangir added.
Farzana Bari of Pattan Development Organisation
told Daily Times: "The government has made
Mukhtar Mai a hostage. Her mobile phone has been
taken away by authorities and is not responding.
The statement she made today is a made-up
statement obtained through coercion."
Nageen Hayat, Women Action Forum convener,
expressed surprise as to how a woman could change
her mind overnight. "Muktar was determined to
fight against evil forces. I suspect some foul
play. The government should facilitate her visit
instead of blocking her way. This is very
deplorable," Hayat said.
Shahnaz Bokhari, Progressive Women Association
chief, said: "This is very shocking because I
could not have expected such a move from Nilofar
Bakhtiar". She said the whole case was being
mishandled and becoming a source of defamation
for Pakistan in the comity of nations.
o o o o
New York Times
June 14, 2005
RAPED, KIDNAPPED AND SILENCED
by Nicholas D. Kristof
No wonder the Pakistan government can't catch
Osama bin Laden. It is too busy harassing,
detaining - and now kidnapping - a gang-rape
victim for daring to protest and for planning a
visit to the United States.
Last fall I wrote about Mukhtaran Bibi, a woman
who was sentenced by a tribal council in Pakistan
to be gang-raped because of an infraction
supposedly committed by her brother. Four men
raped Ms. Mukhtaran, then village leaders forced
her to walk home nearly naked in front of a
jeering crowd of 300.
Ms. Mukhtaran was supposed to have committed
suicide. Instead, with the backing of a local
Islamic leader, she fought back and testified
against her persecutors. Six were convicted.
Then Ms. Mukhtaran, who believed that the best
way to overcome such abuses was through better
education, used her compensation money to start
two schools in her village, one for boys and the
other for girls. She went out of her way to
enroll the children of her attackers in the
schools, showing that she bore no grudges.
Readers of my column sent in more than $133,000
for her. Mercy Corps, a U.S. aid organization,
has helped her administer the money, and she has
expanded the schools, started a shelter for
abused women and bought a van that is used as an
ambulance for the area. She has also emerged as a
ferocious spokeswoman against honor killings,
rapes and acid attacks on women. (If you want to
help her, please don't send checks to me but to
Mercy Corps, with "Mukhtaran Bibi" in the memo
line: 3015 S.W. First, Portland, Ore. 97201.)
A group of Pakistani-Americans invited Ms.
Mukhtaran to visit the U.S. starting this
Saturday (see www.4anaa.org). Then a few days
ago, the Pakistani government went berserk.
On Thursday, the authorities put Ms. Mukhtaran
under house arrest - to stop her from speaking
out. In phone conversations in the last few days,
she said that when she tried to step outside,
police pointed their guns at her. To silence her,
the police cut off her land line.
After she had been detained, a court ordered her
attackers released, putting her life in jeopardy.
That happened on a Friday afternoon, when the
courts do not normally operate, and apparently
was a warning to Ms. Mukhtaran to shut up.
Instead, Ms. Mukhtaran continued her protests by
cellphone. But at dawn yesterday the police
bustled her off, and there's been no word from
her since. Her cellphone doesn't answer.
Asma Jahangir, a Pakistani lawyer who is head of
the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said she
had learned that Ms. Mukhtaran was taken to
Islamabad, furiously berated and told that
President Pervez Musharraf was very angry with
her. She was led sobbing to detention at a secret
location. She is barred from contacting anyone,
including her lawyer.
"She's in their custody, in illegal custody," Ms.
Jahangir said. "They have gone completely crazy."
Even if Ms. Mukhtaran were released, airports
have been alerted to bar her from leaving the
country. According to Dawn, a Karachi newspaper,
the government took this step, "fearing that she
might malign Pakistan's image."
Excuse me, but Ms. Mukhtaran, a symbol of courage
and altruism, is the best hope for Pakistan's
image. The threat to Pakistan's image comes from
President Musharraf for all this thuggish
behavior.
I've been sympathetic to Mr. Musharraf till now,
despite his nuclear negligence, partly because
he's cooperated in the war on terrorism and
partly because he has done a good job nurturing
Pakistan's economic growth, which in the long run
is probably the best way to fight fundamentalism.
So even when Mr. Musharraf denied me visas all
this year, to block me from visiting Ms.
Mukhtaran again and writing a follow-up column, I
bit my tongue.
But now President Musharraf has gone nuts.
"This is all because they think they have the
support of the U.S. and can get away with
murder," Ms. Jahangir said. Indeed, on Friday,
just as all this was happening, President Bush
received Pakistan's foreign minister in the White
House and praised President Musharraf's "bold
leadership."
So, Mr. Bush, how about asking Mr. Musharraf to
focus on finding Osama, instead of kidnapping
rape victims who speak out? And invite Ms.
Mukhtaran to the Oval Office - to show that
Americans stand not only with generals who seize
power, but also with ordinary people of
extraordinary courage.
______
[2]
sacw.net | 15 June 2005
HUMAYUN [AZAD]: "NO" TO OBLIVION
by I.K.Shukla
Modernity, as twentieth-century German Jewish
philosophers Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno
argued, is marked by a superstitious worship of
oppressive
force and by a concomitant reliance on oblivion.
Such forgetfulness, they argue, is willful and
isolating: it drives wedges between the
individual and the collective fate to which he or
she is forced to submit.
In an age of atrocity, witness becomes an
imperative and a problem: how does one bear
witness to suffering and before what court of law?
The resistance to terror is what makes the world
habitable: the protest against violence will not
be forgotten and this insistent memory renders
life possible in communal situations.
- Carolyn Forche:
Introduction to Against Forgetting, 1993.
Humayun Azad, 57, found dead on 12 August 2004 in
his apartment in Munich, signaled the
diabolically planned culmination of the murderous
27 Feb. attack on him in Dhaka, on the road
across Bangla Academy, on his way back from the
annual Dhaka Book Fair. Everything in the murder
of this widely respected, versatile and prolific
writer and erudite scholar of Bangladesh was so
riddled with political mayhem and pervasive
mystery that all of Bangladesh was shaken to its
roots and engulfed in massive national mourning
as never before. In his death both hope and
history seemed entombed as planned by the
assassins.
This comes out brilliantly in the ten essays
constituting his last book, published
posthumously, Amar Natun Janmo (My New Birth),
Agamee Prakashani, Dhaka, Feb. 2005. The writer
of over sixty books in various genres seems to
have left, perhaps presciently, his manifesto and
testament in these essays, written on various
burning issues from time to time, and included in
this slim volume of 96 pages. Analytical and
perspicacious, these essays would remain relevant
for long and for all of the Indian sub-continent,
and quite as tenaciously pertinent to the present
and future of Bangladesh as a nation state. Those
who love Bangladesh as Humayun Azad did, would
find this ineffable work an indispensable guide,
and a clarion call to thwart the demolition squad
of traitors, theo-terrorists, and thugs rampaging
all over Bangladesh today.
The essays are titled: 1. My New Birth, 2.Open
Letter to Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and
Fellow Citizens, 3. Banning the Publications of
Ahmadiya Muslim Jamat: Has Bangladesh Become
Talibani Afghanistan?, 4. My First Book, 5. State
Terror: From Democracy to Nationalist Repression,
6. New York Journal, 7. Poet's Struggle, 8. Me,
9. Scrutinize the Source of the Taliban, 10.
Human Rights and Writer's Freedom: Perspective
Bangladesh.
The titles represent Azad's universal vision, his
humanist philosophy, and his ideal of a
democratic and egalitarian society
comprehensively [. . . ]
[Full Text at:
www.sacw.net/Bangladesh/ikShukla15062005.html ]
_______
[3]
The Hindu
13 June 2005
PLAYING ON FEAR, FROM GODHRA TO GUANTANAMO
by Siddharth Varadarajan
As governments across the world realise that the
fear of terrorism can be made to serve a
political purpose, the distinction between
`ordinary' crime and terrorism is being
deliberately blurred.
FIFTY-NINE train passengers - all Hindus - were
burnt or asphyxiated to death on board the
Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002
in a mysterious fire the cause of which is still
unknown. Despite the absence of proper
information or evidence, the Bharatiya Janata
Party Government in Gujarat decided the fire was
an act of jihadi terrorism and set in motion,
facilitated and allowed a cycle of `retaliatory'
violence that went on to claim the lives of some
2,000 Muslims across the State. The existence of
a BJP-led government at the Centre allowed the
Narendra Modi regime to get away with this.
In the immediate aftermath of Godhra, the
`terrorist' tag was used to create a siege
mentality amongst the Hindus of Gujarat and India
and help legitimise the genocidal violence
unleashed. The police, however, correctly assumed
the charge of `terrorism' to be largely driven by
political imperatives and did not bother to refer
to the Godhra incident as a terrorist act in the
first chargesheet filed on May 22, 2002. Indeed,
formal charges were laid in the case under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) only on
September 20, 2002, nearly seven months after the
original crime. The number of persons charged
under the Act - since repealed under public
pressure - was more than 100.
Despite this, the police remained unsure about
the applicability of POTA to the Godhra case. On
March 5, 2003, the investigating officer filed an
affidavit before the Gujarat High Court stating
that "having realised that there is not
sufficient evidence and material to attract the
provisions of Pota, the same came to be dropped."
However, this affidavit was subsequently
withdrawn and POTA reapplied - on the basis of a
confession one of the accused is alleged to have
made in custody on February 5, 2003, i.e. a whole
month earlier.
So peculiar is this sequence of events that it is
evident factors other than logic, forensics, and
common sense were operating. The Narendra Modi
Government in Gujarat had made a political
determination that the Godhra incident had to be
treated as a case of terrorism. The reasons were
two-fold. First, to present the train fire as a
pre-planned jihadi conspiracy, and second, to use
the provisions of POTA to secure convictions on
the basis of evidence that might not stand up to
judicial scrutiny in a regular court of law.
No case for POTA
On May 15 this year, this whole shabby exercise
was brought to an end by Justice (retd.) S.C.
Jain in his capacity as chairman of the Central
Review Committee (CRC) on POTA. After examining
the prosecution's case, Mr. Justice Jain ruled
that the Godhra incident did not occur as part of
a conspiracy envisaged under the provisions of
Pota. There was no evidence to suggest the mob
was privy to the alleged conspiracy and even for
the alleged ringleaders, he noted, "this theory
of conspiracy does not seem probable on the case
of the prosecution itself... The cause of the
incident is a quarrel of one of the [passengers]
with the tea vendor of Muslim community at the
platform itself when the train halted."
The retired judge accepted that the incident
occurred at the date, time and place stated by
the police but said the accused persons may be
tried under the ordinary provisions of criminal
law and not under the special provisions of POTA.
The immediate effect of this ruling is that the
Godhra detenus must now be freed of the POTA
charges. In an April 13, 2005, ruling upholding
the validity of the CRC, the Gujarat High Court
stipulated that if the CRC so recommends, the
public prosecutor must apply for withdrawal of
prosecution under POTA "without any delay."
Despite this clear-cut guideline, however, the
Modi Government decided last week not to seek the
withdrawal of POTA charges.
Apart from holding out the promise of relief to
the Godhra detenus, most of whom have been held
without bail for more than two years, Mr. Justice
Jain's ruling has a wider relevance for the
manner in which the so-called `war on terror' is
being prosecuted around the world. Stressing that
a difference has to be made between a terrorist
and an ordinary criminal, he said, "every
`terrorist' may be a criminal but every criminal
cannot be given the label of a `terrorist' only
to set in motion the more stringent provisions"
of anti-terrorism legislation.
A similar argument in the international context
was made last year by Professor Kalliopi K.
Koufa, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Terrorism
and Human Rights, in a path-breaking report to
the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights. Prof. Koufa, a leading
Greek expert on international law, has produced a
scholarly analysis of the complex legal interplay
between the war on terror and the protection of
human rights. Though she has made a number of
observations and recommendations that every
country should sit up and take note of, the
report has hardly received any media attention.
Last month, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights
voted to publish her report for wider
dissemination. The United States was one of the
few countries to oppose the move.
Production of panic
The reasons for this are not hard to find. Prof.
Koufa notes that a number of States have national
counter-terrorism laws, measures or practices
"that unduly [and on occasion severely] violate
human rights and humanitarian law norms as well
as long-established principles of criminal law."
Among these is nullum crimen sine lege, the
principle that `there is no crime without a law.'
In keeping with U.N. practice, Prof. Koufa takes
no names but the reference to the indefinite
detention without charge of suspected terrorists
by the U.S. in Guantanamo is obvious. Apart from
being used to curtail the rights of persons
accused of ordinary crimes unrelated to
terrorism, she points out that some of these
measures "have also been shown to be ineffective
in countering terrorism."
Where Prof. Koufa breaks new ground is in her
argument that "the fear of terrorism out of
proportion to its actual risk ... can have
undesirable consequences such as being exploited
to make people willing to accept
counter-terrorism measures that unduly curtail
human rights and humanitarian law." Noting in
particular that the fear of terrorism "is
heightened by repeated and often exaggerated if
not unlikely references to weapons of mass
destruction potential in the hands of terrorist
groups or certain States," she recommends that
states' responses to terrorism should accurately
reflect real risk and "refrain from generating
undue fear of terrorism."
The orchestration of fear though colour-coded
alerts and other means is what allowed the Bush
administration to pass the USA Patriot Act soon
after 9/11. Today, the Senate Intelligence
Committee is considering the Patriot
Reauthorisation Act, which will further expand
the power of the authorities to go through the
private records of people who are not even
terrorist suspects. Fear is what allows the
alarming slippage that has taken place in the
U.S. on the question of torture and indefinite
detention without charge. Fear is what makes the
U.S. courts, which once prided themselves on
their independence, shy away from confronting
this abuse of civilised norms by the executive.
Fear is what allowed the Blair Government to
overturn the Law Lords' landmark December 2004
ruling on the unconstitutionality of the British
Prevention of Terrorism Act. In India, one
example of the political use of fear was the
manipulation of public sentiments following
Godhra. The killing of alleged te
rrorists in "encounters" that almost always
occur in the heart of the city - in a shopping
mall like Ansal Plaza or outside Pragati Maidan,
with the policemen involved never getting injured
- is another way in which the production of fear
takes place.
Prof. Koufa's report also points out that a
number of crimes not related directly or
indirectly to terrorism have been included in
national counter-terrorist laws. "Sometimes acts,
merely symbolic ones or vandalism at the most,
targeting economic entities, are being considered
as terrorist acts. Addressing these merely
criminal problems, while necessary, is not
countering terrorism and the national or
international public is not made any safer from
terrorist risks." Finally, she calls on
governments to ensure that there is no "undue
investigative or prosecutorial advantage" in
ordinary criminal cases "due to improper
confusion with terrorist cases." In Godhra, this
is precisely what the Narendra Modi Government is
trying to do by pushing ahead with POTA charges
when the evidence simply does not warrant it.
When ordinary crime is talked up to the level of
terrorism, the definitional dilution allows real
terrorists to lose themselves in the overgrown
thicket of those whom the state regards as
suspects. The price, of course, is paid twice
over by ordinary citizens, who must put up with
restrictions on their rights that do not in fact
enhance their security in any meaningful sense.
_______
[4]
The Hindu - June 15, 2005
Sangh Parivar activists disrupt tribunal hearing
Prafulla Das
"Activists threatened to rape and parade us naked," says member
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tuesday's hearing was the final session
* Incident "shocking, outrageous and highly deplorable"
* Fax message from VHP office-bearer to some activists not to depose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BHUBANESWAR T: he hearing by the Indian People's
Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights on the
communal situation in Orissa was disrupted by
Sangh Parivar workers here on Tuesday.
The tribunal members, including two retired
judges, were allegedly harassed and threatened
with dire consequences.
"The Parivar activists threatened to rape us and
parade us," said Angana Chatterji, a member.
The public hearings, intended to find out whether
there was any communal tension in the State and,
if so, the causes leading to such a situation,
were held in Phulbani, Keonjhar, Bhadrak and
Jagatsinghpur districts during the last few days.
Tuesday's hearing was the final session.
`Highly deplorable'
Justice K.K. Usha, former Chief Justice of the
Kerala High Court, and Justice R.A. Mehta, former
Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court,
who were among the four members conducting the
hearing at Red Cross Bhavan, termed the incident
as "shocking, outrageous and highly deplorable."
Later, at a press conference, the tribunal
members said that several activists of the
Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had
come to depose responding to the invitations sent
to their State offices earlier. Four of them,
including two women, deposed without any
hesitation and their submissions were taped with
their consent.
Trouble started when the activists received a fax
message from the organising secretary of the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad's State unit, asking them
not to participate.
Activists' threat
The Parivar workers then allegedly demanded that
they be given the audiotapes containing the
submissions.
When the tribunal members said that the Sangh
Parivar testimonial was necessary to the
tribunal's work, the activists threatened that
they would use any means to take possession of
the tapes, Dr. Chatterji said.
Tapes destroyed
With tension building up, Dr. Chatterji destroyed
the tapes in front of the Parivar members as
demanded by them.
The hearing ended and the tribunal members decided to leave the venue.
As they were proceeding towards their vehicle,
the Parivar members, comprising nine men and two
women, said the tribunal was funded by foreign
agencies, she said.
They threatened to rape the women members and parade them naked.
o o o o
INDIAN PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL (IPT)
On Environment and Human Rights
14 June 2005
PRESS NOTE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SANGH PARIVAR DERAILS TRIBUNAL ON COMMUNALISM IN
ORISSA, THREATENS WOMEN MEMBERS
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and
Human Rights (IPT) has been traveling throughout
the state as part of its investigations on
communalism in Orissa. The primary investigations
of the Tribunal took place from June 11-14, 2005.
While conducting a hearing with Hindu nationalist
organizations on June 14th, at 11 am, at the Red
Cross Bhavan in Bhubaneswar, Sangh Parivar
members verbally attacked Tribunal members, made
false, defamatory, and inflammatory statements,
sought to seize information gathered during the
investigations, and shouted threats, including
the promise to rape attending female members of
the Tribunal.
The event began without incident. Invited
representatives of the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP) came to offer testimonies.
The first person to depose was Mr. Ramachandra
Behera, a journalist representing the Media News
Agency and also a supporter of the Bajrang Dal.
Tribunal members had taken his consent for
tape-recording the testimony. Sangh Parivar
members Mr. Bansidhar Pradhan, Mrs. Padmaja and
Ms. Mamta Mallik also deposed. During the
depositions these persons received a fax from the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Orissa. The fax was given
to Tribunal members by Sangh Parivar members.
The fax made allegations against the Tribunal,
its conduct, and against persons associated with
it. The note stated that that IPT was, "[a]
self-appointed body composed wholly of leftists,
fellow travellers, all known Hindu baiters." The
note of the VHP was signed by the Organizing
Secretary, and included allegations against Dr.
Angana Chatterji, a professor of anthropology,
who has been working with advocacy research in
Orissa since 1995, and teaches in San Francisco,
stating that "the inclusion of an NRI well known
for anti-Hindu activities in the US suggests
foreign funds from sources bent on destabilizing
the country." There is no merit to these
allegations. The Indian People's Tribunal has
provided all funding for costs related to the
Tribunal in Orissa. No private funds or grants
were solicited, and participation by all members
is on a voluntary basis and in their capacity as
individuals. ITP and the individuals
participating on the Tribunal are all highly
respected, and of immense credibility.
After receiving the fax, Sangh Parivar members
demanded that Tribunal members give them the two
micro cassettes recording their session. Tribunal
members attempted to reason with them and
persuade them to leave the tapes in the
Tribunal's custody, stating that the Sangh
Parivar testimonial was necessary to the
Tribunal's work and that the Sangh Parivar
members who deposed had done so with informed
consent. Sangh Parivar members aggressively
responded to Justice Usha and Justice Metha. To
Dr. Chatterji, Sangh Parivar members said that
they know of her "vicious activities". Sangh
Parivar members insisted menacingly and
threateningly that the tapes with information
gathered by the Tribunal be returned. If the
tapes were not given to them, they stated that
they would ensure their possession by using any
means necessary. Dr. Chatterji, who had custody
of the tapes, destroyed them in front of Parivar
members. At this time, approximately 9 Sangh
Parivar members gheraoed the Tribunal members
present and the IPT staff. At that time, barring
Justice Mehta, all the other Tribunal members
(Justice Usha, Dr. Chatterji, Dr. Hans) and staff
(Ms. Sameena Dalwai, Ms. Priyanka Josson and Ms.
Maya Nair) in the room were women.
The Tribunal members present took a decision,
given the escalated and tense situation, to leave
the hearings and cancel the meetings scheduled
for the rest of the day.
Outside, Sangh Parivar members became
increasingly abusive and violent in their speech,
shouting, "this is an IPT funded by the foreign
funding agencies to tarnish the image of the
Hindu Rashtra and we will rape those women". When
the Tribunal staff was leaving, one of the Sangh
Parivar members said that: "We will parade them
naked". Ms. Mallik of the Sangh Parivar also
forcibly took a picture on her mobile phone of
Dr. Chatterji, saying that: "we will make sure
that everybody knows your face". The Parivar
members also took down the vehicle numbers of the
Tribunal.
Tribunal members regret and would like to
strongly deplore the high-handed and aggressive
actions of the Sangh Parivar that has now
derailed the Tribunal process.
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and
Human Rights was constituted by a people's
mandate in 1993 to investigate human rights
violations and cases of environmental
degradation. The IPT is particularly concerned
about cases that affect the lives and livelihood
of a vast majority of urban and rural poor. The
IPT process endeavours to inquire into the exact
nature of a problem, and provide a true picture
by providing a space for all the concerned
parties to present their views.
The Orissa Tribunal on Communalism is headed by
Justice K.K. Usha, Former Chief Justice, Kerala
High Court, and Justice R.A. Mehta, Former Acting
Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court, and Former
Director, Gujarat Judicial Academy.
The Orissa Tribunal on Communalism is convened by
Dr. Angana Chatterji, Associate Professor,
Anthropology, California Institute of Integral
Studies, and Mr. Mihir Desai, Indian People's
Tribunal and Advocate, Mumbai High Court and
Supreme Court of India.
Other Tribunal Members are Dr. Chetan Bhatt,
Reader, Sociology, Goldsmiths College, University
of London; Dr. Asha Hans, Professor, Women's
Studies, Utkal University; Ms. Lalita Missal,
National Alliance of Women-Orissa Chapter; Dr.
Shaheen Nilofer, Scholar-activist from Orissa;
Mr. Sudhir Patnaik, Scholar-activist from Orissa;
Dr. Ram Puniyani, EKTA, Committee for Communal
Amity.
In case you have any further inquiries about the
process or you wish to communicate to us your
decision to depose before the panel then you may
contact me (contact information below), or the
co-convenors of the Indian People's Tribunal on
Communalism in Orissa, Dr. Angana Chatterji at
9937413370 or achatterji at ciis.edu and/or Mr.
Mihir Desai at iptindia at vsnl.net.
Yours sincerely,
Deepika D'Souza, National Coordinator
Indian People's Tribunal
4th Floor, CVOD, Jain High School, 84, Samuel Street, Dongri, Mumbai - 400009
Phone : 00-91-22-23439651 / 23436692 Fax: 00-91-22-23433698
Email : iptindia at vsnl.net
_______
[5]
Indian Express
June 15, 2005
TWO WORDS NO. 1 ON MADHYA PRADESH AGENDA: VANDE MATARAM
Gaur unstoppable in his zeal to promote the song
everywhere, from Cabinet meetings to govt
offices, schools
Rohit Bhan
Bhopal, JUNE 14: Strains of Vande Mataram move
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Babulal Gaur. For,
stirred by the song, the former sangh pracharak
has quickly moved to make it compulsory in
Cabinet meetings, government offices and schools.
Unmoved, the Opposition sees a hidden Hindutva agenda behind all this.
At a recent cabinet meeting, Gaur cleared the
decision to make rendering of the song compulsory
before the meeting commenced.
Brushing aside protests from the Opposition, Gaur
issued instructions that the government employees
should chant 'Vande Mataram' on every first
working day of the month.
Unstoppable in his zeal to promote the song, he
chaired a high-level meeting on Monday to discuss
how it should be sung in chorus in government
offices.
The general administration department was asked
to issue instructions in this regard, stressing
that it should be sung with honour and dignity
since it constitutionally held the status of a
national song.
When schools open in July, the students will have
to sing the song daily. That's how Gaur plans to
catch them young.
At a programme organised by Gehlot Mewada Rajput
Samaj a few days back, he even announced a cash
reward of Rs 5001 for a music troupe because it
had made a ''mesmerizing'' presentation of Vande
Mataram.
The Opposition Congress is not humming the tune.
Leader of the Opposition Jamuna Devi alleged the
state government was only trying to push forward
its Hindutva agenda.
''At a time when Gaur needs to focus on important
issues, like financial discipline, Vande Mataram
before a cabinet meeting will not do any good,"
she said. There is some discord in the Congress
camp too.
Devi has also criticised former chief minister
Digvijay Singh who reportedly approved of the
singing of the song in government offices. She
has even dashed off a letter to Singh.
Gaur remains unfazed. ''There is nothing wrong in
introducing it in government offices. It's a
national song and everybody should respect it.
There is no hidden agenda,'' he said.
The Sangh is, of course, backing the CM on the
issue. Kshetra Pracharak of the RSS Vinod Kumar:
''The song symbolizes patriotism and national
pride.''
_______
[6]
Tehelka.com
How Secular was Secular Jinnah?
Or how communal was communal Jinnah? It's a riddle of history
By Jawed Naqvi
The controversy around Mohammad Ali Jinnah's
secular credentials stoked recently by Hindutva
leader Lal Krishna Advani is as old as India's
Partition. The debate finds expression in the
post-Partition (and later) approaches of the two
main parties - the BJP (earlier Jana Sangh) and
Congress - towards India's Muslim and Hindu
masses.
The fact is not too widely known that India's
Partition was opposed by not only the RSS but
also by the Jamaat-i-Islami, the subcontinent's
two main religious, zealot groups. Both have
abused Jinnah and thereby hangs a tale. One
advocated Hindu rashtra for a post-British
dispensation, the other an Islamic State of the
kind that even medieval rulers would shy away
from. What did Jinnah advocate? On August 11,
1947, three days before he realised his dream of
Pakistan, Jinnah told his new nation's
Constituent Assembly: "If you change your past
and work together in a spirit that everyone of
you, no matter to what community he belongs, no
matter what relations he had with you in the
past, no matter what is his colour, caste or
creed, is first, second and last a citizen of
this State with equal rights, privileges and
obligations, there will be no end to the progress
you will makeŠ I cannot emphasise it too much. We
should begin to work in that spirit and in course
of time all these angularities of the majority
and minority communities, the Hindu community and
the Muslim community, because even as regards
Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis
and so on, and among the Hindus you have
Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis,
Madrasis and so on, will vanish."
But what happened with Pakistan soon after his
death was the opposite of Jinnah's dream. The
Justice Munir Commission was soon investigating
anti-Ahmadiya violence inspired by Muslim
extremists. The Jamaat-i-Islami chief Maulana Abu
Ala Maudoodi, said non-Muslims, which he claimed
the minority Ahmadiyas to be, should be declared
zimmis or second class citizens. What about
Muslims in non-Islamic states, namely India, he
was asked.
"I should have no objection even if the Muslims
of India are treated in that form of government
as shudras and mlechhas and Manu's laws are
applied to them, depriving them of all share in
the government and the rights of a citizen," the
Jamaat chief told Justice Munir.
This was in the 1950s, almost two decades after
RSS chief Guru Golwalkar had prescribed a similar
treatment for India's Muslims in his book, We or
Our Nationhood Defined. Said Golwalkar of India's
Muslims, they will be "wholly subordinated to the
Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment,
not even citizen's rights". It would be good to
know Mr LK Advani's thoughts on this.
Partition Man: Jinnah
There is some controversy about whether Jinnah,
who became a Muslim rabblerouser, was essentially
a secular leader. But before we look at Jinnah's
private and public persona, it would be useful to
understand that Congress leaders like Gandhi, who
differed with Jinnah on Partition, had proffered
communal amity as a solution for Hindu-Muslim
mistrust, something that Jinnah's Muslim League
rejected.
Take the example of Gandhi's leadership of the
Khilafat movement. He used it to galvanise
Muslims simply because the British had dethroned
the Caliph in Turkey. He also dreamt of a vaguely
secular Ram Rajya. We can well imagine the
strange amalgam of Gandhi's dream, if it bonded
with the Muslim votaries of Khilafat. But
elements of this hotchpotch obscurantism can be
seen in the Congress's practices even today, in
preference to Nehru's rationally assembled
secularist vision. The Ayodhya locks episode, the
Shah Bano case and more recently the religious
quota for Muslims in Aligarh Muslim University
testify to the Congress's aloofness from Nehru's
aversion to religious obscurantism.
Some people even today mistake Gandhi's Khilafat
movement to be a synonym for mukhalifat or
opposition to British rule. But Khilafat was a
movement to restore the Caliph's title, a status
for an individual which was going to be
short-lived even in orthodox Muslim nations.
Jinnah opposed Khilafat because of its communal
appeal.
We have heard from well meaning secular
historians ad nauseum that Gandhi and Maulana
Azad were deeply religious but secular people
while Jinnah and Savarkar were atheists but
communal. It was true that the slogans of Muslim
separatism that Jinnah espoused were stoked by
communal passions of the time. Here was a man,
according to a communist eyewitness in Kanpur who
watched him at a rally, "who couldn't utter a
simple sentence in Urdu, while fighting for a
homeland where Urdu would be the national
language". As per this account, Jinnah saluted
the audience with his index finger before
proclaiming in his Anglicised accent: "Islam
Katrey Main Haai (Islam is in danger)".
When it came to practicing the Islam whose cause
he espoused, Jinnah was a rank outsider. A story
told by someone who saw him goes thus: Jinnah was
urged by (Pakistani) PM Liaquat Ali Khan to come
for an Eid prayer, his first in independent
Pakistan. Jinnah protested because he did not
know how to pray, but Liaquat encouraged him to
follow his movements at the prayer grounds. As he
went into ruku, a half-bending position in namaaz
holding his knees with his hands, Jinnah muttered
to his friend: "Liaquat, what next?"
Clearly Jinnah had forced the division of the
subcontinent by religious categories he was
vehemently opposed to. Did that make him
communal, querulous or just confused?
The writer is a Delhi-based journalist
June 18 ,2005
o o o o
The Times of India
JUNE 13, 2005
ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD: JINNAH, SAVARKAR, ADVANI' BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Ronojoy Sen
The curtain has come down for the time being on
the high drama within the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The BJP has passed a resolution that it does not
endorse the two-nation theory or Jinnah's
communal politics. But the controversy around L K
Advani's speech in Pakistan is unlikely to die
out soon. Questions will remain as to what
motivated Advani's statement. Did it mark a
repudiation of Hindutva politics? Was it intended
to bolster his quest to occupy a more centrist
position in the political landscape? Was it a
case of a stray remark being blown out of
proportion by the media? The answer is a little
bit of all of the above. The larger point,
how-ever, is that though Advani's statement
rocked the sangh parivar, it was consistent with
the ideology and politics of Hindu nationalists.
All that Advani did in Karachi was quote from
Jinnah's speech in Pakistan's constituent
assembly on August 11, 1947, where Jinnah
predicted that in course of time the "Hindus will
cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be
Muslims". Advani held this up as the classic
exposition of a secular state where all citizens
were equal and had full freedom to practise their
religion. This was no great turnaround or an
error of judgment on his part. It was in keeping
with the mani-pulative politics of religious
revivalism practised by Advani and his ilk.
Both Jinnah and Advani were speaking the language
of secularism after having practised communal
politics for most of their lives. While Jinnah
spearheaded the movement for a Muslim nation in
the Indian subcontinent, among Advani's greatest
triumphs was the Ram rath yatra which mobilised
Hindus and fomented unrest across northern India.
So how is it that Jinnah and Advani were turning
their back on the ideology that nourished them?
The answer lies in the nature of communal
politics: Its purveyors use religion as an
instrumental tool to achieve political ends.
Religion is seen as something that can be used or
discarded as and when needed.
Jinnah's life clearly illustrates his
instrumental use of religion. The man who loved
pork sausages and Savile Row suits was hardly
your typical Muslim fundamentalist. Indeed he
began his career as a moderate nationalist and
had no patience for sectarian politics. But this
is the same man who used Islam to mobilise
Muslims and successfully bargain for the creation
of Pakistan. Much has been written over the last
few days on Jinnah and his ideological
somersaults. But few have noted the similarities
between the practitioners of Hindutva and Jinnah
in their strategic use of religion.
Like Jinnah, the father of the ideology of
Hindutva, V D Savarkar, was an agnostic. But this
did not stop him from using Hinduism as a
political ideology. This was quite clear in
Savarkar's formulation of Hindutva, which he
clearly distinguished from Hinduism the religion.
According to him, Hindutva had nothing to do with
"any particular theocratic or religious dogma or
creed". It was instead founded on principles - a
common nation, race and civilisation - that could
plausibly be the basis for any nationalist
movement.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh uses religion in
an equally instrumental, as well as exclusivist,
way. The RSS's founding principles are heavily
borrowed from fascism, specifically Nazism, as
against anything in Hinduism. It is well known
that M S Golwalkar, the pre-eminent ideologue of
the RSS, was inspired by the purge of Jews in
Hitler's Germany. Referring to Nazi Germany,
Golwalkar wrote that it was impossible "for races
and cultures, having differences to the root, to
be assimilated into one united whole, a good
lesson for use in Hindustan to learn and profit
by".
It is noteworthy that Advani quoted Jinnah on the
citizen shedding his religious or community
markers when dealing with the state: "Hindus will
cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be
Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that
is the personal faith of each individual, but in
the political sense as citizens of the state".
Ironically, that logic has been used by BJP
whenever it has suited them particularly when
they have pressed for a uniform civil code. One
of the more sophisticated BJP ideologues, Arun
Shourie, has argued that nothing should be
"conceded to a group or organisation of one
religion which is denied to or not made available
to groups or organisations of other religions".
Thus, there is much in common between the BJP's
and Jinnah's instrumental use of religion. It
might be apt to end with a story on a visit by
Mahatma Gandhi - whose politics were deeply
influenced by religion and vice versa - to a RSS
shakha. Gandhi found that the walls of the shakha
had pictures of martial heroes like Rana Pratap
and Shivaji. So he asked why there was no picture
of Ram. The RSS leader showing him around
reportedly answered that Ram was too effeminate
to serve their purpose.
o o o
The Times of India
Secular Pundits
Jug Suraiya
[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005 12:00:00 AM ]
L K Advani has something in common with Lewis
Carroll's Humpty Dumpty whose boast was that when
he used a word it meant what he chose it to mean.
Advani's endorsement of Jinnah's secularism has
created a storm in tea cups both political and
etymological. Indeed, the word 'secular' has long
been a bone of contention in ideological and
linguistic circles. So much so that it has become
a Humpty Dumptyism: It means just about anything
that the person who uses it chooses to make it
mean. The dictionary defines secular as "Not
religious, sacred or spiritual; not subject to or
bound by religious rule". So, according to this
definition, was Jinnah, the chief practitioner if
not the originator of the two-nation theory based
on religion, a secularist? Or, for that matter,
is Advani, propagator of Hindutva and cheerleader
of the demolition crew which razed the Babri
masjid, secular? Surelynot. Yet Jinnah was not,
as has often been pointed out, an overtly
religious individual in personal observances. He
apparently had no qualms about drinking alcohol
or eating pork, both proscribed by Islam. And in
his speech to Pakistan's constituent assembly,
approvingly cited by Advani, Jinnah envisioned
his fledgling nation as a polity which, though
predominantly Islamic, would include citizens of
all creeds.
Advani's secularism, based on the premise of
cultural nationalism, is very similar. Proponents
of cultural nationalism would like to see India
emerge as a Hindu rashtra which would subsume
minority groups under its protective wing.
Deconstructed, this Humpty Dumpty version of
secularism really means benevolent
majoritarianism. It implies a polity dominated by
a particular community which would tolerate
minority identity in so far as this did not
conflict with majority sentiment. Such a
formulation may or may not be secular. But it is
certainly not democratic. True democracy is
founded not on majority rule but on the rights
autonomously enjoyed by minorities, as distinct
from hand-me-down liberties bestowed on them by a
hegemonistic state. Genuine democracy begins not
from the majority inwards but from the individual
- the ultimate minority - outwards. By this
token, neither the founder of Pakistan nor the
advocate of Hindutva can be deemed to be
democratic. Not even in Humpty Dumpty's inventive
lexicon.
______
[5]
______
[7]
6th August 2005, marks the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
CNDP, PEACE, ANHAD in collaboration with a large
number of other organizations would be doing a
campaign for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. For
the campaign we have reworked on the documentary
'Ek Khoobsurat Jahaz' by Gauhar Raza.
This film tells about the forty lakhs of life
forms that exist on this planet we live in. In
the past few million years they have all boarded
the planet one by one. Human beings were the last
to board it. If one sees the life of earth as one
year, the presence of human beings has been only
for 48 minutes and our civilisation is only 28
seconds old. In this backdrop the film examines
how human beings, who boarded the jahaz is
threatening the existence of jahaz itself. The
film was made after India and Pakistan conducted
the nuclear tests. It also shows how war and
arsenal have become the greatest threat to
humanity and the planet. In this context it
elaborates the holocaust that a nuclear war can
create. The film deals at length about the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki massacre along with
scientific information about the bomb.
Duration of the film is 19mins and is in Hindi.
The cost is Rs. 60 + actual courier charges. To
get a copy of this Film, please send drafts in
favour of
"Anhad"
To Anhad, 4, Windsor Place,
New Delhi-110001
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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.
More information about the Sacw
mailing list