SACW | 18-19 June 2005

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire  | 18-19 June,  2005

[1]  Jinnah's ghost haunts the Parivar (Praful Bidwai)
  -The Sangh strikes (K.N. Panikkar)
  - Ideological heresy? (Jyotirmaya Sharma)
[2] Letter to India's Human Rights Commission re VHP /Bajrang Dal 
Disruption of Orissa Tribunal Against Communalism (Angana Chatterji)
[3] Traditional perceptions of Indian history demolished - Lecture by 
Sumit Sarkar
[4]  India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch Compilation # 154
[Fifth anniversary issue of IPARMW]

______


[1]

Frontline
Volume 22 - Issue 13, Jun 04 - 17, 2005

Jinnah's ghost haunts the Parivar

Praful Bidwai

L.K. Advani's attempt at administering ideological `shock therapy' to 
the BJP has boomeranged, precipitating a serious crisis in a party 
already in disarray and schizophrenic about its identity.


IF Lal Krishna Advani thought that he would be instigating a 
"revolution from above" in the Sangh Parivar by visiting Mohammed Ali 
Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi and lavishing praise on him as "a great 
man", he seriously miscalculated. His pronouncements precipitated a 
fresh crisis in the Hindu-nationalist camp, in particular the 
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh 
(RSS).

The crisis comes on top of the BJP's defeat in the Lok Sabha 
elections 13 months ago (with which it has still not come to terms), 
its grave leadership-succession crisis, the growing difficulty of 
keeping the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) going, and 
unprecedented tensions between the top leaders of the BJP and the 
RSS, which have taken the form of ferocious attacks on Advani by RSS 
sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan, followed by exchanges of hostile and 
ugly abuse. Advani has now withdrawn his resignation as BJP 
president, largely on the RSS's terms. This is liable to plunge the 
BJP even deeper into confusion and disarray.

The issues that Advani raised in Pakistan go to the very heart of the 
ideological premises on which the Sangh Parivar is founded. These 
premises are Islamophobia, distrust of Muslims qua Muslims, hatred of 
Pakistan as India's inveterate enemy, and an aggressive assertion of 
the Hindutva identity.

Jinnah, as the prime protagonist of Muslim separatism and Pakistan's 
founding father, has been an object of intense loathing inside the 
Parivar. For Advani to have visited his mazaar and described him as a 
"great man" and a "rare individual" who "actually" created "history", 
and to whom he must pay "my respectful homage", was simply 
sacrilegious.

The fact that Advani quoted Sarojini Naidu from her 1916 
characterisation of Jinnah as an "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity" 
did not mitigate the offence. Nor did citing Swami Ranganathananda 
who advised Advani to read Jinnah's famous address to the Constituent 
Assembly of August 11, 1947 as a "classic, a forceful espousal of a 
secular state in which while every citizen would be free to pursue 
his own religion ... "

Although Advani's speech to the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, 
Economic Affairs and Law on June 5 did not explicitly describe Jinnah 
as "secular", it praised him for advocating on August 11, 1947, the 
"equality of all citizens in the eyes of the state and freedom of 
faith for all citizens" - "what we in India call a secular or a 
non-theocratic state".

This was fully in keeping with Advani's note in the visitors' book at 
Jinnah's mausoleum, in which he lauded the August 11, 1947, address, 
as well as numerous other pronouncements (for example about December 
6, 1992, being "the saddest day of my life"), and actions, including 
a meeting with Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the Taliban's spiritual father. 
At the meeting, Advani declared the peace process "irreversible". 
Advani was simply charmed out of his wits in Pakistan. As he wrote: 
"I do feel sentimental while I am in Pakistan... I am somewhat at a 
loss to articulate the totality of my feelings and thoughts."

One must situate these statements in context. They were not isolated 
observations, but part of a series of utterances, all in the same 
spirit - including his explicit rejection of the Akhand Bharat idea 
and his exultation at being asked to inaugurate the reconstruction of 
the Katas Raj temples. He told The Hindustan Times: "I realised that 
this was the first time any Indian leader had been asked to 
inaugurate [such] reconstruction since 1947." If Pakistan has taken a 
step towards Jinnah's secularism, "we should acknowledge it". He also 
added: "Perhaps, I would not have been reminded of Jinnah's historic 
speech if it was not for what they have decided to do at Katas Raj... 
"

Several questions arise: What prompted Advani to decide to question 
an RSS-BJP orthodoxy? Was this part of a larger game plan, not just 
for a personal image makeover, but a change in the BJP's strategy? Is 
Advani likely to succeed eventually in imposing his will upon the 
party in a way that makes it more autonomous of the RSS and its even 
rowdier cohorts like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)? Was Advani 
right in his laudatory characterisation of Jinnah as secular, or at 
least partly, if inconsistently, secular?

Sources "close" to Advani quoted in the media, root Advani's 
pronouncements in a larger game plan. (The Telegraph, June 8). Advani 
drew a major lesson from the BJP's rout in the 2004 elections: 
religio-political mobilisation has reached a plateau; the BJP cannot 
regain power by relying on that strategy - even if it successfully 
revives the Ayodhya temple campaign. Growing caste divisions in the 
Gangetic plain make that impossible.

Advani was also greatly dispirited by the RSS-VHP's constant sniping 
at him, in particular, Sudarshan's big snub. According to some 
acolytes, Advani had decided, before he went to Pakistan, to quit as 
party president, but only after delivering the Jinnah "shock 
therapy". His utterances in Pakistan articulated this strategy. That 
is why he took former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's 
speech-writer Sudheendra Kulkarni along.

What is amazing is not so much Advani's decision to make one last 
attempt at a strategy change or image makeover, as his choice of a 
blunt, exhausted, obsolete instrument - Jinnah. This subject does not 
evoke mass appeal or even widespread academic interest. It is not as 
if a radical reappraisal of Jinnah - which rescues him for the 
ignominy heaped upon him in much mainstream nationalist discourse, 
and is therefore worthy in itelf - will unleash huge amounts of 
creative energies with an emancipatory potential.

Forget the BJP-RSS, large numbers of secular Indians too take a dim 
view of Jinnah as the principal protagonist of the Pakistan movement. 
Advani's choice of the Jinnah theme was maladroit. It belies the 
claim that he is an extraordinarily shrewd, tactful leader who keeps 
his finger on the pulse of his own party, if not the people.

It is extremely doubtful if any of the handful of BJP leaders who 
endorsed Advani's view of Jinnah during his resignation drama did so 
out of real conviction. Not a single second-generation leader, each 
mentored by Advani, backed him on Jinnah. If Advani thought he would 
drive the party towards a new consensus, he was deluding himself. He 
only created new divisions. Even Yashwant Sinha and Kalyan Singh made 
bold to oppose him.

Murli Manohar Joshi, long an Advani opponent, threw another spanner 
in the works. Even the endorsement Advani got from Vajpayee and 
Jaswant Singh did not deter the RSS from hardening its stand. This 
highlights Advani's isolation in the party that he, more than anyone 
else, built. Advani did not evoke logic or facts when demanding 
endorsement position; he evoked power and loyalty. This speaks poorly 
of the quality of democracy in the BJP.

Advani has aggravated the ideological and organisational crisis of 
the Sangh Parivar. As argued in this Column (Frontline, May 6), the 
RSS and the BJP are locked in a new tussle or conflict which has 
become the more severe because the BJP has lost power. The BJP faces 
a tough choice. Some of its leaders say the RSS only contributes 5 to 
6 percentage-points of its national vote of 22 per cent or so. A more 
mainstream "secular" strategy, coupled with competent election 
micro-management, can obviate the need for RSS support.

But the RSS holds it was critical to the sole instance of expansion 
of the BJP's support-base after the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign - in the 
Central Indian tribal belt, comprising the only States where the BJP 
currently rules. The key to this was the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram's work.

The BJP's dependence on the RSS for ideological guidance and 
political support, especially through door-to-door canvassing during 
elections, continues to be high. That is one major reason why the BJP 
has failed to win autonomy from the RSS. The BJP could try another, 
more limited, strategy: isolate the VHP, but keep the umbilical cord 
with the RSS more or less intact while demanding a degree of 
autonomy. But even here, the RSS holds the trump-card; why should it 
oblige the BJP unless it controls some senior-level party 
appointments?

As of now, it is hard to see how the BJP can free itself from the 
RSS's stranglehold - unless it makes a radical departure from its own 
past as the political wing of the Sangh, which has been dependent on 
it in a sui generis manner, unlike any other party. In all 
probability, the RSS-BJP relationship will continue to be messy and 
fraught for a period of time - even though Advani is staying on as 
president.

THERE are few takers outside the Sangh Parivar too for Advani's 
position on Jinnah, barring mavericks like George Fernandes and Ram 
Vilas Paswan. And as ideologues, they do not count with the Parivar. 
This is wholly understandable. It is utterly, disastrously, 
fallacious to characterise Jinnah as a secular-minded leader on the 
basis of his August 11, 1947, speech. For one, this speech did not 
find much acceptance within the ruling Muslim League.

Later, historians like Ayesha Jalal and Akbar S. Ahmed called it a 
"Magna Carta" or "Gettysburg address". But others like 
Sharif-ul-Mujahid, director of the Quaid-e-Azam Academy, described it 
as "a serious lapse... " And for another, Jinnah himself soon changed 
tack, falling back upon Pakistan's identity as a "state of the 
Muslims".

More important, the very logic of the Pakistan movement and its 
1937-1947 mobilisation strategy negated the prospect of Pakistan's 
switch to a secular, non-denominational state. Upon Independence, 
Pakistan, unlike India, opted for separate electorates based on 
religion. This was considered "natural".

Jinnah was, of course, a man of many parts, a complex personality. He 
was not a practising Muslim. In personal habits and outlook, he was a 
modern, highly Westernised person (who proudly owned some 200 Saville 
Row suits), a brilliant lawyer and Constitutionalist. He had been 
secretary to Gopal Krishan Gokhale, the great liberal, and admired 
Dadabhoy Nowroji, Pherozeshah Mehta and other secularists. He married 
a Westernised Parsee. He was often impatient with Muslims who 
emphasised their identity. For instance, in the 1920s, he had an 
encounter with the young Raja of Mahmudabad, who described himself as 
a "Muslim first". Jinnah admonished him: "My boy, no, you are an 
Indian first, and then a Muslim."

However, after his return to active politics in the 1930s, Jinnah's 
conduct was largely determined by issues of minority representation, 
and eventually, the Pakistan movement. Jinnah's principal project, 
his greatest mission, was to create Pakistan. It is possible that for 
Jinnah, the Pakistan demand was originally more of a bargaining 
counter, not an objective in itself dictated by the 1940 Lahore 
Resolution or the Two-Nation Theory. But eventually, owing to a 
number of circumstances, Jinnah succumbed to the Pakistan movement. 
And that is what matters more than certain personality attributes.

It is important to comprehend secularism as a doctrine or ideology 
based on the separation of religion and politics. It is not a 
personality trait. Nobody becomes secular by reciting Urdu couplets, 
wearing a shervani or throwing iftaar parties. As veteran Communist 
Jyoti Basu says, he is not interested in Jinnah's "secular" 
lifestyle, but rather in his instigation of Direct Action in 1946, 
which led to horrific bloodshed and made Pakistan imminent.

However, Advani seems to have had a larger, more pernicious, purpose 
in portraying Jinnah the way he did. He "normalised" the use of 
ethno-religious mobilisation as a valid political strategy even to 
achieve the goal of creating a state in which all citizens enjoy 
equal rights. This amounts to sanctifying communalism - at least of 
one kind. Advani, thus, sought legitimacy for the Parivar's 
mobilisation around Ayodhya.

Advani's admiration for Jinnah is not difficult to understand. 
Communalists from different parts of the spectrum often bond 
together: the Jamaat-i-Islami and the RSS can work jointly against 
secularists. For long years, the Muslim League and the RSS-Hindu 
Mahasabha worked separately, but for the same goal - namely, 
establishing a society in which one group of people would be dominant 
by virtue of religion. Once it is asserted that Jinnah and Gandhi 
were more or less equally secular, critical distinctions between 
secularism and communalism are abolished. You can then equate a giant 
like Nehru with a political pygmy like Deen Dayal Upadhyay.

Ultimately, Advani had to eat humble pie because he dialled the wrong 
number as regards Jinnah. His moral-political authority has greatly 
eroded and is at its nadir. The "compromise" resolution of June 10 
says that the BJP rejects the Two-Nation Theory, and that Jinnah led 
a movement that caused great loss of life to establish a theocratic, 
non-secular state. The resolution was passed only after it was 
approved by the RSS. So much for distancing the BJP from the RSS!

One final point. The BJP-RSS have been speaking as if they were the 
guardians of the freedom movement - when they had no role in it. 
Advani says he wants "a debate" on Jinnah's role and the Two-Nation 
Theory. If he is honest about it, he must read about the origins of 
that Theory. They lie not in Jinnah or Iqbal, but in Hindutva 
ideologues such as Bhai Parmanand, Lala Lajpat Rai and Vinayak 
Damodar Savarkar. Parmanand advocated India's division, with the 
"territory beyond Sindh" united with Afghanistan and North-West 
Frontier Province (NWFP) into "a great Musulman Kingdom. The Hindus 
of the region should come away ... "

Rai posited a "Hindu nation" separate from the Muslim-dominated areas 
of Punjab and the NWFP. Savarkar elevated this to the level of a 
theory in his book Hindutva (1923) by distinguishing between 
Punyabhoo (holy land) and Pitrabhoo (fatherland).

The central question is this: Is the BJP, leave alone the RSS/VHP, 
prepared to jettison these Hindutva icons and their perniciously 
sectarian views? The answer is a definite no. The BJP remains mired 
in crass, crude communalism and rejects genuine pluralism. The real 
victor in the four-day Advani resignation drama has been the RSS.

o o o o

Frontline
Volume 22 - Issue 13, Jun 04 - 17, 2005

THE SANGH STRIKES

K.N. Panikkar

The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's reassertion of authority within the 
Sangh Parivar has serious implications for the future politics of the 
country.


THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

L.K. Advani during the Somnath-Ayodhya rath yatra, which made the 
demolition of the Babri Masjid possible and inflicted a deep scar on 
the Indian civilisation.


WHETHER Lal Krishna Advani's assessment of Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a 
secularist is historically accurate or not is not as much important 
as its implications for the future of Hindu communal politics as well 
as Advani's own ideological positioning. Evidently, Advani's speech 
in Pakistan was not a comprehensive evaluation of Jinnah's role in 
the politics of the subcontinent in the 20th century. He did not 
refer to the manner in which Jinnah invoked religion to mobilise 
Muslims in order to carve out an independent state. Nor did he raise 
the question as to why the theocratic state of Pakistan idealised 
Jinnah as its father figure.

Jinnah, a liberal in his early political life, was not a devout 
Muslim. Yet, like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the progenitor of the 
concept of Hindutva, he realised the potential of religion as a 
source of national identity and successfully manipulated it for 
political ends. That Advani chose to invoke only the speech delivered 
by Jinnah on August 11, 1947, to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in 
which the founder of Pakistan had envisioned the new state as secular 
is significant. And more so that he defined secularism as "equality 
of all citizens in the eyes of the state and freedom of faith for all 
citizens". This, he added, "is what we in India call a secular or 
non-theocratic state... [where] there is no place for bigotry, 
hatred, intolerance and discrimination in the name of religion".

In India, however, Advani did not call it secularism, but had coined 
the word psuedo-secularism to describe it. Since Jinnah's politics 
closely resembled his own there is some advantage in anointing Jinnah 
as a secularist. In doing so, he overlooked the fact that Jinnah's 
August statement was an aberration, revised later by Jinnah himself 
and completely consigned to oblivion in Pakistan. The meaning and 
purpose of Advani's statement, therefore, went much beyond an 
evaluation of Jinnah. Understandably, it has not only attracted 
different interpretations but has aroused strong feelings within the 
Sangh Parivar. Advani would not have been unaware of the possible 
political implications of his statement.

If so, his endorsement of Jinnah's ideas on secularism, can only be 
the result of careful deliberation. Is it possible the 
`enlightenment' that dawned on him in Pakistan was the outcome of a 
deliberate introspection about the nature of politics he had so far 
pursued and an indication of his conviction that the Bharatiya Janata 
Party (BJP) has to refashion its ideology and political practice in 
the wake of the defeat in the last general election and the 
consequent disintegration of the National Democratic alliance?

Advani and Hindutva

S. SUBRAMANIUM

Advani and A.B. Vajpayee (above, at a function in New Delhi in May 
2005) have carved out a space for themselves in Indian politics that 
is unmatched by any other Sangh Parivar leader.

Advani has been Hindutva's hard face. In the past he has not deviated 
even a wee bit from the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh 
(RSS). He was, in fact, the main RSS voice in the BJP. Unlike 
Vajpayee, he was not troubled by qualms of conscience when members of 
the Parivar overstepped the limits of civilised behaviour, which 
unfortunately has been quite frequent. He had reportedly celebrated 
the fall of the Babri Masjid and defended and supported Narendra Modi 
in Gujarat. The rise of the BJP to power is rightly attributed to his 
deft handling and manoeuvring of Hindu sentiments. He mounted a 
relentless attack on secularism, invented and propagated the notion 
of pseudo-secularism and led the rath yatra to Ayodhya, which 
appealed to the religious sentiments of Hindus. He thus gave a major 
boost to Hindu communal politics and came to be recognised as the 
architect of the BJP's rise to power. He achieved it through an 
uncompromising adherence to the ideology of the RSS. If the National 
Democratic Alliance (NDA) had won the last election he would have 
been the choice of the RSS for the post of the Prime Minister over 
the ever-vacillating Vajpayee.

Given this background, his Pakistan visit signalled a departure, 
possibly an attempt to project a new image for himself and the party. 
It appears that Advani had hoped to initiate a debate about the 
history of the subcontinental politics and about Hindutva's approach 
to it. But the RSS shut out such a possibility by insisting that the 
Parivar's existing understanding of Jinnah and his politics, which 
"led to the partition of the country and the killing of thousands of 
innocent people" is not open to debate. The RSS held that Advani's 
visit to Pakistan has undermined the ideology and practice of the 
Sangh Parivar and his commitment to the Hindu cause became so suspect 
that he was termed a traitor. This response was not limited to the 
RSS, but was widely shared by a large number of leaders and cadres of 
the BJP. For, the disapproval did not come from the lunatic fringe 
like Pravin Togadia or Ashok Singhal alone, but also from very senior 
leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi and Yaswant Sinha, who described 
Advani's statement as dilution of the ideology of the Sangh Parivar. 
And even his close associates in the party chose to maintain a 
discreet silence.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the RSS were so enraged that they 
demanded and obtained his resignation as party president. Advani had 
to retrace from his Pakistan stance in order to retain his post. The 
RSS has once again asserted as to whose fiat runs in the Parivar.

The spontaneous and strong reaction of the Sangh Parivar can be 
understood only in the light of the place Pakistan and Muslims occupy 
in its political ideology. The Hindu communal ideological formation 
drew upon the otherness of Muslims, who were not only reckoned as 
outsiders but whose fanaticism and vandalism had done incalculable 
damage to Indian civilisation. Such a view was advanced by early 
communal ideologues like V.D. Savarkar and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar 
and later adopted as central to the Parivar's political and 
intellectual practice. Muslims, according to them, did not belong to 
the nation, culturally and politically, and the creation of Pakistan 
was the culmination of their sense of separation. As a result, they 
could not come to terms with the political reality of the creation of 
the independent state of Pakistan in 1947. Pakistan was considered an 
illegitimate state and its undoing was an integral part of the 
communal agenda which the Parivar pursued relentlessly since 1947. 
Its avowed aim was to re-establish a unified Hindu state, Akhand 
Bharat, incorporating Pakistan and Bangladesh and thus undo the 
historical reality of the formation of Pakistan in 1947. They 
attributed the partition of India exclusively to the hostility of 
Muslims to the Hindu nation. And Mohammed Ali Jinnah, supported by 
the British, is considered the main architect of this tragedy that 
befell Hindus. Advani has been a consistent advocate of this line of 
argument and his volte-face in Pakistan has left the Sangh Parivar 
gasping for breath.

Although Pakistan was central to the communal propaganda, it was, in 
fact, an extension of the demonisation of Muslims within the country. 
Among the many issues invoked for this purpose, the desecration or 
demolition of Hindu temples by Muslim rulers was the most potent. The 
ideologues - or are they historians? - of the Sangh Parivar have 
listed about 1,000 temples demolished by Muslim rulers. The communal 
agenda is to reclaim these temples and thus to avenge the insult 
inflicted on Hindus by Muslim invaders.

Advani infused life into the dormant movement for the construction of 
the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, alleged to have been demolished by Mir 
Baqui, a general of Mughal emperor Babar, in order to construct a 
mosque in its place. The rath yatra led by Advani from Somnath to 
Ayodhya, which eventually made the demolition of the mosque possible, 
was a defining moment in the history of contemporary India, as it 
inflicted a deep scar on Indian civilisation. It was the most 
powerful religious mobilisation witnessed in recent times and one 
which earned the BJP considerable political dividends. Consequently, 
Advani was hailed as the leader who realised Hindu aspirations and 
thus paved the way for the political success of the BJP. After the 
defeat of the BJP in the last election, Advani was re-inducted as the 
party president with the expectation that he would, as before, 
re-energise the party.

Meaning of the visit

The pronouncements of Advani in Pakistan ran counter to the above 
fundamental tenets of the Sangh Parivar, which Advani himself had 
helped to evolve, propagate and establish. That Advani, who is 
generally perceived as a hawk in relation to Pakistan, chose to 
undertake a visit in order to further friendly relations with a 
country which the Parivar had perpetually cast in the role of enemy, 
could be interpreted as a departure from the earlier position. After 
all, he was not fulfilling a protocol as a member of the government. 
The visit, therefore, signified a willingness to recognise the 
legitimacy of the state of Pakistan and, more importantly, giving up 
the cherished goal of re-establishing Akhand Bharat. Both Pakistan 
and the Sangh Parivar were alive to this implied political meaning of 
his visit. Therefore, the Pakistani authorities played up the visit, 
despite his inimical past, and the members of the Sangh Parivar were 
upset by the body blow it had dealt to their ideological convictions.

Advani also used the visit as an opportunity to express regret over 
the demolition of the Babri Masjid of which he can be called the 
chief instigator. He confessed in Pakistan that the day of the 
demolition was the darkest day in his life. Although he had expressed 
some such sentiments before also, his statement in Pakistan carried 
an added significance. It sounded like a confession and an apology 
addressed to the Islamic world. To the Sangh Parivar, the demolition 
was not a matter of regret. They hailed it as a religious and 
patriotic act, which redeemed the Hindu national pride and 
self-esteem. Even Vajpayee had described it as an expression of 
national sentiments. The Sangh Parivar imputed to it a meaning which 
went much beyond the demolition of a mosque; it was construed as a 
symbolic act avenging a historical wrong committed by Muslims. The 
target was not the mosque but Muslims all over the world. To the 
Parivar, therefore, it appeared that Advani had destroyed the 
self-esteem that Hindus had redeemed by the demolition of the Babri 
Masjid.

Ideology undermined

ANEEL MISHRA
  At a Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram programme in Bhubaneswar. Drawing the 
tribal people into the Hindutva fold has been part of a Sangh Parivar 
strategy to realise its vision of a Hindu Rashtra.

The ideological cohesion of the Hindu communal forces built around 
the concept of Hindu Rashtra has been under strain for quite some 
time. The RSS, the VHP and the BJP have been speaking in different 
voices on issues central to the Hindu communal agenda. Constrained by 
coalition politics, the BJP agreed to freeze the issues of Ram 
Mandir, Article 370 and the common civil code in order to gain access 
to power and thus to promote its political fortunes. The other wings 
of the Sangh Parivar were none too happy with the reluctance of the 
BJP leadership to pursue an undiluted communal course. A commonly 
shared notion around which their influence and following were built 
over the years was the rejection of secularism as a political 
practice.

So long as it remained in the Opposition, the BJP could project 
itself as an advocate of the Hindutva agenda. But once it entered the 
murky realm of coalition politics it could not but succumb to 
compromises, even on core issues of Hindutva, in order to gain the 
support of the `secular' parties. As a result, although the BJP-led 
government pursued a Hindu communal agenda it was not able to 
implement completely the Hindutva programme, particularly the 
construction of the Ram temple, introduction of a uniform civil code 
and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.

Consequently, considerable strain developed between the BJP and the 
other members of the Parivar. Vajpayee's `liberalism' was anathema to 
the Parivar and it had expected Advani to be more loyal to their 
demands. But in order to work the coalition, both Vajpayee and Advani 
were forced to tread the ground carefully and to assume a semblance 
of independence from the RSS and the VHP. In doing so, they had hoped 
to expand the coalition and to carve out some independent space for 
the party without unduly straining the relationship with the other 
members of the Parivar. This, however, created considerable disquiet 
within the RSS and the VHP. Consequently, they became critical of 
senior leaders like Vajpayee and Advani. When the NDA lost the 
elections, both the VHP and the RSS had attributed the defeat to the 
reluctance of the BJP leadership to pursue Hindu interests.

The defeat in the elections increased the rift between the RSS and a 
section of the BJP. The RSS believed that a more fundamentalist 
stance would have to be taken and that only rallying Hindus on the 
basis of the ideology of Hindutva would enable the party to regain 
power. Both the RSS and the VHP had initiated steps in this direction 
by expanding their activities to `Hinduise' the Adivasis and Dalits. 
In contrast, a section of the BJP leadership headed by Vajpayee and 
Advani and supported by the modernist second generation, realised 
that the party's prospects lay in creating a right-of- centre image, 
without sacrificing its religious support base, but without depending 
entirely on it either.

Given the influence of caste-based parties in different regions of 
the country, the steady increase in the following of the Left parties 
and the new-found energy and enthusiasm of the Congress under Sonia 
Gandhi, this section within the BJP realised that Hindutva was not 
likely to shine in the future to the extent necessary to regain 
power. Hence, it preferred a revisionist policy that would appeal to 
a larger section of the population. Advani's pronouncements in 
Pakistan were a precursor to this possible change of track. It 
misfired because it was premature and without adequate preparation.

The RSS was conscious that the Vajpayee-Advani duo was trying to 
carve out an independent space for the BJP in the political domain 
during the NDA regime. It could not come out openly at that time 
because of its interest to maintain `Hindu rule'. Moreover, both 
Vajpayee and Advani had earned a niche for themselves in Indian 
politics, which no other leader in the Parivar could match. 
Consequently, they could exercise a certain lattitude and could also 
manage to prevaricate when pressure was exerted by the RSS and the 
VHP. It is on record that both the RSS and the VHP resented this 
attempt at independence and conveyed it privately to the leaders.

The VHP often threatened to form a new Hindu party and the RSS 
summoned the leaders for occasional couselling. The RSS 
Sarsanghchalak, K.S. Sudarshan's demand that both Advani and Vajpayee 
give way to a younger leadership is the culmination of this rift. 
Sudarshan was looking for leaders of lesser stature who would be 
amenable to the dictates of the Sangh. That was a friendly advice 
before the lethal strike.

Strike it did by using Advani's Pakistan pronouncements as an 
occasion. Nonetheless, the reasons for the strike were far more 
serious than the departure from the Parivar ideology that Advani's 
speech represented. The RSS used the occasion to reaffirm its 
dominant position in the Parivar and to remind the BJP leaders that 
their party was not an independent political formation but only a 
subordinate political arm of the RSS. If during the last five years 
the freedom enjoyed by the BJP in the realm of governance had created 
a different impression, it was high time to correct it. The Advani 
episode leaves no doubt about who wields the whip. If the iron man 
could be humbled in this manner, what about the lesser mortals in the 
party? The serious implications this assertion by the RSS holds for 
the future politics of the country can hardly be overlooked. For the 
assertion by the RSS means that the BJP is likely to move towards a 
more fundamentalist and obscurantist politics.


o o o o

Magazine Section | The Hindu
Sunday, Jun 19, 2005

IDEOLOGICAL HERESY?

by Jyotirmaya Sharma

WEATHERING A STORM: Lal Krishna Advani. PHOTO: V. SUDHARSHAN

THE events following Mr. Lal Krishna Advani's visit to Pakistan would 
give the impression that the entire controversy was a result of his 
remarks about Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's secular credentials. 
While these remarks have, indeed, upset the Sangh Parivar, including 
sections within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the real reasons 
for the Sangh Parivar's ire against Mr. Advani lie elsewhere. During 
his trip to Pakistan, the BJP President commented on two important 
issues in a manner that repudiates and challenges the very 
ideological foundation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and 
its auxilliary organisations.

Speaking at a reception hosted by the South Asian Free Media 
Association in Lahore, Mr. Advani told his audience that Partition 
was an inevitable fact of history and could not be undone. "The 
creation of India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign nations 
is an unalterable reality of history," he said, and added that 
despite this immutability, "some of the follies of Partition can be 
undone, and they must be undone". Indeed, he went further. Speaking 
at a dinner hosted by the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mr. Advani 
mooted the idea of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh jointly celebrating 
the 150th anniversary of the 1857 uprising "in remembrance of a joint 
struggle against a common adversary".

Partition and after

The RSS has never reconciled to Partition and has always been a 
proponent of the ideal of Akhand Bharat (unified India), which would 
also be a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). The only "common enemy" that 
the RSS has ever recognised is Pakistan and Islam. The rejection of 
Partition was clearly spelt out by the founding fathers of the RSS. 
In his Bunch of Thoughts, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar says: "Our 
leaders who were a party to the creation of Pakistan may try to 
whitewash the tragedy by saying that it was a brotherly division of 
the country and so on. But the naked fact remains that an aggressive 
Muslim State has been carved out of our own motherland. From the day 
the so-called Pakistan came into being, we in the Sangh have been 
declaring that it is a clear case of continued Muslim aggression." 
Elsewhere in the book, Golwalkar calls Pakistan a "self-declared 
theocratic Islamic State".

The clearest statement against recognising Pakistan as a sovereign 
nation comes from a statement issued by the RSS in 1965, which 
states: "So long as Pakistan exists as at present, she will continue 
to be hostile and aggressive towards Bharat. Pakistan was born in 
hatred of Bharat. It was carved out artificially by disrupting the 
natural, national integrity of Bharat. The K.K.M (Kendriya Karyakari 
Mandal or central working committee) is, therefore, of the firm 
opinion that peace and normalcy are inconceivable without the 
establishment of Akhand Bharat."

Against this background, Mr. Advani's recognition of Pakistan as a 
sovereign nation is nothing short of heresy for the Sangh.

`Saddest day'

Talking to the press in Islamabad, Mr. Advani unambiguously termed 
the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, as the 
"saddest day" in his life. Further, in an interview to Hamid Mir of 
Geo TV, Mr. Advani restated this point even more forcefully: "As I 
said earlier, the demolition of the Babri Mosque was the saddest day 
of my life. The issue of the Ram Temple must be addressed through 
democratic ways, through political means. Nobody should be allowed to 
take law into his hands." This is the same Advani who called the 
Babri Masjid "an ocular demonstration against the Hindus" in 1997 and 
rejoiced in the fact that since the provocation was not there any 
longer, it was not a matter of regret. On November 30, 1992, Mr. 
Advani had asserted that he could not "give any guarantees at the 
moment on what will happen on 6 December", and added that he did not 
"rule out anything". Asked if he would violate court orders in 
Ayodhya on December 6, Mr. Advani had said that as a political 
worker, he had violated laws in the past and listed the number of 
times he had disregarded Section 144.

The RSS has always held the Babri Masjid as a symbol of Muslim 
aggression and domination over the Hindus. Articulating this idea, 
the leader of the Sangh, Mr. H.V. Seshadri, has this to say in his 
book, RSS: A Vision in Action: "Since the day Babar, the Mughal 
aggressor, first demolished the temple in 1528 and put a mosque at 
the hallowed spot of Shri Rama Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Shri 
Rama in Ayodhya, its liberation and restoration has been a constant 
point of struggle in vindication of national honour ... Since then, 
76 fierce battles have been fought breaking down all barriers of 
caste, creed, language or region and lakhs have sacrificed their 
lives in the cause of redeeming that common point of national 
veneration. In a way, it has symbolised the fight for the country's 
freedom from the enemy's subjugation"(p.348). Mr. Seshadri goes on to 
describe with unconcealed pride the way "the history of Bharat turned 
a new and effulgent page on the morning of that day when the 
obnoxious stain on the holy site of Sri Ram's birthplace standing 
there for over 400 years was erased as if in a lightening stroke by 
the fiery Karsevaks." (p.351)

Elaborating the point, Mr. K.P. Sudarshan, the current Sarsanghchalak 
of the RSS, in a speech in Lucknow in October 2000, castigated 
sections of the Muslims in India for identifying themselves with 
Babar. He chides them for calling the structure in Ayodhya as Babri 
Masjid and blaming the Sangh Parivar for its demolition. The felling 
of the Mosque was inevitable, says Sudarshan, because a large number 
of karsevaks had gathered there, and in the absence of an early court 
order, their fury resulted in the felling of the structure (pp. 
14-15, in Sangh Ki Saphalta Ka Rahasya).

After having led the Ram Janmabhoomi movement during the 1980s and 
the 1990s, Mr. Advani's contrition about the demolition of the Babri 
Masjid in Ayodhya is nothing short of apostasy in the eyes of the 
Sangh Parivar.

Apart from these two compelling reasons, the Sangh also saw Mr. 
Advani's visit to Pakistan and his pronouncements as a unilateral 
privileging of politics above ideology. The Sangh has always shown 
great disdain and distrust for politics as the vehicle for achieving 
its goal of the Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Bharat. Mr. Sudarshan's 
recent likening of politicians to commercial sex workers is only an 
extreme restatement of the traditional RSS position on politics as 
the least desirable way to their professed mission of uniting India.

Mr. Advani's remarks on Jinnah, therefore, are merely an instance of 
interpolating a contemporary debate on secularism and communalism to 
a period where these terms did not have the same fraught connotations 
as today. The debates leading up to Partition centred around the 
question of representation, and whether this representation was to be 
based on a "communal" basis, where communal implied community, or on 
the basis of a unified idea of all communities.

The current debate on whether Jinnah was secular or not is, then, 
merely a smokescreen behind which the larger ideological debates 
within the Sangh Parivar are being fought.


_______


[2]

Communalism Watch
18 June 2005


Letter to India's Human Rights Commission re VHP /Bajrang Dal 
Disruption of Orissa Tribunal Against Communalism
[URL: 
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2005/06/letter-to-indias-human-rights.html 
]

To: Mr. Nirmal Singh
Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission
Address: National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001, India
Phone: 91-11-23384856; Fax: 91-11-23073876; E-mail: covdnhrc at nic.in

18 June 2005

Dear Mr. Singh,
I am writing to request that the National Human Rights Commission 
investigate an incident, and its follow-up, characterised by 
dangerously antagonistic and violent conduct on part of certain 
persons connected to Hindu nationalist organizations, especially the 
Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, toward the Indian People's 
Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa.
I am co-convening and serving on the Indian People's Tribunal on 
Communalism in Orissa organized by the Indian People's Tribunal on 
Environment and Human Rights (IPT). Members of the Tribunal have been 
travelling 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. Persons from Hindu nationalist 
organizations disrupted and wrought havoc at a meeting held by the 
Tribunal on 14 June (for details, please see the appended letter to 
the Superintendent of Police). It is of urgent concern that persons 
connected to the Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Sevika 
Samiti (RSS-W), the women's wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, 
and the Bharatiya Janata Party intervened to derail the Tribunal 
process. It is of significant concern that these persons threatened 
to rape, and parade naked, women associated with the Tribunal, 
jeopardising the safety and security of women members. It is 
reprehensible that these persons undermined the Indian People's 
Tribunal, which was founded on 05 June 1993, based on a people's 
mandate, to conduct principled investigations that focus on issues of 
human rights and social and environmental justice.
The Hindu nationalist organizations named above have maligned and 
targeted the Tribunal and its members. They have threatened 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, who are heading the Tribunal. 
That senior and respected retired members of the Indian judiciary, 
one of whom is a woman, could be so humiliated and endangered is an 
outrage. They have also threatened other women members, and IPT 
staff. Especially, they have continued to directly intimidate and 
verbally attack me since the incident, as I remain in Orissa for a 
few days to continue the Tribunal's work.
After the incident, on the evening of 16 June 2005, the Bajrang Dal 
held a press conference at Hotel Kesari in Bhubaneswar. Through press 
reportage I am aware that at the meeting, Mr. Subash Chouhan, the 
State Convenor of the Bajrang Dal, questioned my right to be in 
Orissa, alleging that I have been working against Hindu 
organizations. It was also stated that my involvement with IPT 
suggests that foreign funds from sources in the United States bent on 
destabilizing the country (India) are coming into Orissa. This is 
defamatory and libellous. I would like to clarify that the Indian 
People's Tribunal has provided funding for costs related to the 
Tribunal in Orissa. Mr. Chouhan also stated that if I continue, the 
Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad would strongly challenge 
and repress me. Some of his statements have since appeared in the 
Oriya press and has been televised (in Dharitri, Anupam Bharat and 
Sambad newspapers, 17 June 2005; and on O-TV on 17 June 2005).
It is ironic that while non-resident Indians are being encouraged to 
participate in the well-being of the Indian nation, I am being 
targeted for doing so. I am a citizen of India and a non-resident 
Indian/resident alien of the United States who is an associate 
professor of anthropology and teaches in an accredited institution of 
higher learning. I am an academic and receive a salary from the 
university where I teach in San Francisco. I have also received 
support to conduct and oversee advocacy, policy and action research 
from credible institutions, including the Planning Commission of 
India. I am married to a Jewish-American man, who is also an academic 
and anthropologist and who identifies as secular. I travel to India 
regularly, at least twice each year, to continue my research work and 
visit family and friends. My work has been focused on the human 
rights of dalits, adivasis, women, as well as other disenfranchised 
and minority groups across religion, caste and class, inclusive of 
numerous people who self-define in some way as Hindu. I would also 
like to clarify that I am a secular person of Hindu descent and that 
my taking a position opposing Hindutva and Hindu nationalism is in no 
way in opposition to Hindus or Hinduism.
Various individuals, groups and political parties in Orissa have 
condemned the attack on the Indian People's Tribunal. The All India 
Democratic Women's Association-Orissa (AIDWA-Orissa) held a protest 
outside the Superintendent's Office on the morning of 16 June 2005 
demanding that an investigation be conducted into the incident 
against the Indian People's Tribunal and these perpetrators be 
brought to justice. In addition, thus far the Communist Party of 
India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India and the Samajwadi Party 
(Women's Wing) have condemned the incident. This incident and its 
aftermath compromise the basic safety of citizens and endanger the 
law and order situation in the state. I am also aware that if the 
Indian People's Tribunal is threatened and violated in Orissa for 
undertaking an inquiry in the state capital, marginalized people's 
and groups will be made far more vulnerable if they speak up.
I am writing to plead that the National Human Rights Commission 
undertake an investigation into the above, and into matters and 
circumstances in Orissa that pose a threat to the sanctity and 
security of human rights in the state, particularly of religious 
minorities, disenfranchised adivasi and caste groups, and other 
vulnerable groups such as women and secular organizations, and active 
individuals.
Various incidents have occurred and continue in the State of Orissa 
instigated by Hindu nationalists that communalize society and create 
communal violence. As you are aware, in January 1999, Australian 
missionary Graham Staines and his two sons, Philip and Timothy, were 
murdered. On 16 March 2002, the Orissa State Assembly was attacked 
days after the horrific targeting of minorities in Gujarat, as a few 
hundred Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal activists burst into 
the Orissa Assembly and ransacked the complex, demanding the 
construction of the temple in Ayodhya and objecting to alleged 
remarks made against the two organizations by House Members. In 
February 2004, in Jagatsinghpur District, seven Christian women and a 
male pastor were forcibly tonsured and a social boycott is in place 
against them even to this day. In August 2004, a church in Phulbani 
District was attacked. Poor Muslims who trade in cows, leather and 
meat are intimidated and threatened on a regular basis in the state. 
Adivasis have been forcibly converted to Hinduism. Dalits in Orissa 
are being mobilized to serve the Hindu Rashtra. Violence against 
women continues. Hindu nationalist organizations are mobilizing one 
of the largest volunteer bases in Orissa, creating, and infiltrating 
into, political, governmental, developmental, educational and 
charitable institutions.
The State Government of Orissa has been incapable of dealing with, or 
responding appropriately to, these issues and the serious concerns 
they pose to democratic governance in the state, and of ensuring the 
security and sanctity of peoples and groups made vulnerable through 
majoritarian communalism as perpetrated by Hindu nationalist 
organisations in the state.
I am hopeful that you will mobilize the considerable expertise and 
experience of the Commission to effectively respond to these issues 
and take preventative action to ascertain rule of law, freedom of 
speech, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of inquiry, 
and the right to information in Orissa.
Enclosed, please find the following documents pertaining to the above:
1. IPT press release of 14 June 2005 [*]
2. My statement to the Superintendent of Police of 15 June 2005
If you should need to contact me, please do not hesitate to do so at 
the following address(es).
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Angana Chatterji
Associate Professor, Social and Cultural Anthropology
California Institute of Integral Studies
[ . . . ]
Cc: Mr. Mihir Desai
Indian People's Tribunal and Advocate, Mumbai High Court and Supreme 
Court of India, and co-convenor of the Indian People's Tribunal on 
Communalism in Orissa.

o o o

[*] 
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2005/06/sangh-parivar-derails-tribunal-on.html

_______


[3]


The Hindu - June 19, 2005

TRADITIONAL PERCEPTIONS OF INDIAN HISTORY DEMOLISHED

Staff Reporter

Prof. Sarkar outlines contesting identities rooted in society


NEW DELHI: Mahatma Gandhi's manifesto for non-violent action, Hind 
Swaraj - directed against Imperialism and promptly banned by the 
British - was not the product of either his experiences in South 
Africa or with the British. It was instead the outcome of his 
encounter with Hindu extremism in London and designed to contain 
nationalist Hindu sentiment.This was just one of many penetrating 
insights that formed the basis of the eminent historian Sumit 
Sarkar's thesis, "Meanings of Nationalism in India'', presented as 
this year's Nehru Memorial Lecture here over the weekend. Prof. 
Sarkar demolished traditional perceptions of Indian history as simply 
a struggle with the British.

"Indian history and nationalism are not just a reaction to Britain. 
Neither are India and the West bipolar opposites,'' said Prof. 
Sarkar. "Long before the British came there were a number of local 
ideas and identities rooted in local society and history. The British 
intermixed with these longstanding influences.''

Instead, Prof. Sarkar - son of the famous historian Susobhan Sarkar 
and nephew of the father of Indian planning, P.C. Mahalanobis - 
outlined a theory of multiple, contesting and inter-penetrating 
identities that has led to a multitude of differing Indian 
nationalisms.

Taking Gandhi as an example, Prof. Sarkar said "Gandhi's nationalism 
- and he himself - was constantly changing. That was his greatness''. 
Gandhi was able to shift dynamically to ever changing political and 
social situations. Similarly Nehru too was not just an Anglicised 
democrat. "Nehru was smitten by the apparent success of Russian 
central planning. As for democracy, he only embraced the idea of 
universal franchise when he realised that a mass movement could be - 
by and large - controlled,'' explained Prof. Sarkar.

Prof. Sarkar's third example was Rabindranath Tagore. "The author of 
India's national anthem was opposed not just to communalism but to 
the endless bullfight between states'', said Prof. Sarkar. "Opposing 
states meant that there was no room for Western-style nationalism 
within Tagore's oeuvre.''

These historical examples remain relevant today. Prof. Sarkar pointed 
to the dramatic changes in the BJP leader's rhetoric as an example of 
contesting identities within one man.

History - the theme of the lecture - was made when Prof. Narayani 
Gupta - who chaired the lecture - broke with established procedure 
and allowed questions to be asked at the close of the lecture.



_______


[6]

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch Compilation # 154
(19 June,  2005)

[Fifth Anniversary Issue]

=========================================

1  Pakistan - India must reverse the nuclear arms race: Press Release 
by Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
2  Pakistan: Peace dividend? Forget it (Ayaz Amir )
3  U.S. to give Pakistan to get 150 mln dollars arms aid
4  Pakistan hikes defence spending by over 15pc: for 2005-2006
5  The successes and failures of Pakistan's nukes (M B Naqvi)
6  Who will gain the most from the arms transfer deals promised to 
the region - India, Pakistan, or the US? (Umer Farooq)
7  Pakistan: Army's role in civilian affairs slammed
8  Pakistan: Fauji Foundation must explain its conduct to the Senate 
Standing Committee (edit, Daily Times)
9  UK to boost arms sales to Pakistan (Richard Norton-Taylor)
10 Pakistan: Proliferation of illegal arms (edit., Dawn)
11 Pakistan seeks as many as 75 new F-16 warplanes
12 Pakistan: 75 F-16s For $3 Billion! (Farrukh Saleem)
13  Fauji Foundation not beyond parliamentary purview: PPP
14 Washington Opens Up Its Military Hardware Shop to Both India and 
Pakistan (M.M. Ali)
15 Pakistan's military-militant link  (Zaffar Abbas)
16 Turkey, Pakistan to boost defence ties
17 India: Pokhran Was a Mistake (P R Chari)
18 Intelligence Bureau, Home Ministry and Indian Politics (K S Subramanian)
19 India: Poor Bangladeshi entrants are rather different from 
extremists (Ashok Mitra)
20 India: Democracy Betrayed - Horror Unleashed - Armed Forces 
Special Powers Act Review Committee should reject this draconian law 
(Mihir Srivastava)
21 India: Bofors case collapses after running up big bill (R. Venkataraman)
22 India test-fires medium-range surface-to-air missile
23 India Opens Giant Naval Base in Arabian Sea [Cost 8.13 billion Dollars]
24 India - Assam: The Shadow of The Foreigner (Sanjib Baruah)
25 Foreign arms-makers must invest 30% in India
26 India: Defence budget leaves out Rs 26,000 crores (Pavan Nair)
27 US clears sale of latest Patriot anti-missile system to India 
(Shishir Gupta)
28 India: Future defence deals to contain no-bribe clause
29 India: Big shopper Delhi fuels arms race (Sujan Dutta)
30 [India's defence budget hike] shows armed forces a priority (Girja 
Shankar Kaura)
31 'Ek Khoobsurat Jahaz' by Gauhar Raza
32  Nepal:
(i) Explosive Devices Take Their Toll on Children (Akhilesh Upadhyay)
(ii) Concern Grows Over Nepal's Child Fighters (John Lancaster)
33  Sri Lanka: No Peace, No War (Alan Keenan)

[ available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/165 ]

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

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.