SACW | 15 Sept | Indo Pak Peace / Terrorism, Non Violence
sacw
aiindex at mnet.fr
Wed Sep 14 20:16:11 CDT 2005
South Asia Citizens Wire | 15 September, 2005
[1] Indo-Pak peace process - Dialogue format inadequate (M B Naqvi)
[2] State and Missing People in Kashmir
(Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons)
[3] Between despair and hope: interrogating 'terrorism' (Dilip Simeon)
[4] India: A tale of two bags (Shabnam Hashmi)
[5] Publication announcement:
Globalizing India - Perspectives from Below
edited by Jackie Assayag, and Chris Fuller
______
[1]
Deccan Herald
September 15, 2005
INDO-PAK PEACE PROCESS - DIALOGUE FORMAT INADEQUATE
By M B Naqvi
Unless South Asia is rid of nuclear weapons and
mutual mistrust, there will be little scope for a
Kashmir solution
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are meeting in New
York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Celebrating the 60th year of the UN is important
enough. But the scheduled bilateral summit is of
far greater interest.
The two are expected to kickstart the stalled
Composite Dialogue. The latter went through two
full rounds; both failed. No agreement on any of
the eight disputes was reached. It is true a
number of CBMs, particularly the
Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, were agreed
upon. For the rest, the two-year dialogue
produced no great credit entry. Neither side
conceded anything.
What characterised the earlier summit level
agreements in 2004 is that they simply agreed to
resolve disputes without identifying common
goals. It is time to realise that a dialogue in
political vacuum cannot be sustained, much less
achieve results, despite objective conditions
being exceptionally favourable. Both the people
have unmistakably shown that they want peace and
friendship between themselves with free trade and
travel. The two sides could at least have agreed
on issues such as Siachin and Sir Creek. Only a
modicum of goodwill and some mutual trust was
required. Even the water disputes could have been
settled because neither side wants the 1960 Water
Treaty to fail.
For the Treaty to live, it is imperative that
disputes like the Kishen Ganga Project and the
Wullur Barrage are resolved. Open mind and a
measure of goodwill are needed. These were not
available. The fact is the two governments just
do not trust each other; each believes that the
other will, given a chance, do it down. This is
true of Kashmir and both their security policies.
Lack of faith
Pakistan's security doctrine is avowedly
India-specific. In India's case a good part of
its deterrent will have to be Pakistan-specific
in reply. In India's war gaming, the 'enemy'
could only be Pakistan.
India faces neither a Chinese invasion nor an
American one. No other power is likely to invade
it. Its build-up is sui genrie. It may not even
be aimed at any one power.
But Pakistan believes it is the only likely
target. It is not wholly true. India is acquiring
a blue water navy. To tackle Pakistan, India
needs no blue water navy. But the harvest of hate
and mistrust between them is the real threat. Can
India deal with Pakistan's 'unfriendliness'
without war? Doubtless Indian war preparations
are way out of proportion to tackling Pakistan.
A quick point is that Musharraf and Manmohan
Singh should not start a Third Round without
giving guidelines dictated by agreed common
purposes for their bureaucrats or ministers to
achieve. Meandering negotiations with no clear
aim will result in repeating known positions.
Each side will read its brief and that will be
the end of negotiations. Officers cannot make
political concessions. Even ministers can make
only minor concessions.
Disputes require political concessions. The
current format cannot achieve desired results.
The two leaders must find common purposes to
strive for. Without which friendship will have no
meaning. Today both countries are nuclear armed.
Since only a few minutes' time is needed for a
missile to reach India or Pakistan, the needed
preparedness for either Nuclear Deterrent during
crises and tensions, have to be instant readiness.
The only effective use of nuclear weapons by
either side is mounting an unexpected massive
nuclear attack on the other to totally decapitate
it. Short of that, use of the weapon would be
senseless. Neither side can afford the losses
inflicted by a few atomic weapons and in return
the other's response will be massive. That will
be utter disaster.
Overall, from civilisation's viewpoint it is
madness in either case. Actually atomic weapons
cannot be used as the experience of 2002
suggested. Although India was ready to take
advantage in conventional weaponry by challenging
Pakistan to use its nuclear weapons first, it was
Pakistan that wisely backed down.
Indian response would devastate everything. Next
time too, the same considerations will apply.
Such issues cannot be tackled by officials.
Cabinet and summits have to do much work. None
should expect the Foreign Office or other
officials to change a country's traditional
position. They require mandate of what to talk.
Top leaders have to give that mandate.
Agra's lesson should not be ignored. Summits are
where political concessions are made; they need
careful preparations. Officials come after that.
Officers can only be sherpas. They are told what
to say or agree to. Summiteers have to work first.
Issues need work
Summits need in depth Track II diplomacy, which,
in turn, would require a diffused but in greater
depth Track III diplomacy of intellectuals. Three
issues require this kind of sustained work: (a)
identifying common goals; (b) Kashmir's
settlement; and (c) nuclear weapons.
This writer asserts that so long as there are two
opposing Nuclear Deterrents, sitting so close to
each other, there will never be enough trust to
agree on an understanding over nuclear weapons.
Unless South Asia is rid of nuclear weapons,
there will be little scope for a Kashmir
solution. Old contenders cannot be fobbed off
with mere Confidence Building Measures. Major
problems need trust for resolution. Should there
be progress on Kashmir and nuclear matters,
Siachin, Sir Creek and Wuller Barrage and other
matters will be easy to resolve. But trust is a
tricky business.
It can come from a people-to-people
reconciliation, economic development and some
harmonisation of policies and regional economic
integration. These will be worthy goals for India
and Pakistan to pursue. Without these, there will
never be progress in Indo-Pakistan dialogue.
______
[2]
Economic and Political Weekly
September 3, 2005
Letters
STATE AND MISSING PEOPLE IN KASHMIR
The following are extracts from the text of the
resolution adopted by the Association of Parents
of Disappeared Persons (APDP) in New Delhi on
August 30, 2005. "We who are gathered here to
commemorate the International Day of the
Disappeared are deeply concerned at the recurring
incidence of enforced or involuntary
disappearances in Jammu and Kashmir, (the) use of
doctrine of national security by the government
of India whereby no information is given about a
missing person's whereabouts and condition, the
continued trauma and suffering of their families
and friends, and the refusal of the government of
India to heed the demands of the APDP who have
been demanding an independent inquiry since 1998
into cases of enforced disappearances.
We demand: (1) That the government of India set
up an inquiry under (the) Commission of Inquiry
Act by August 30, 2006 with a mandate to look
into cases of enforced or involuntary
disappearances since 1990 and identify the
perpetrators of the same; (2) The repeal of (the)
Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, etc, because they
provide impunity to the security forces to
arrest/detain people at will; (3) Urge the
working committee of the UN Commission on Human
Rights to agree to a text of a convention against
enforced disappearances so that it can be placed
for adoption next year by the member countries of
the UN; (4) The national as well as state human
rights acts should be amended to empower NHRC and
SHRC to investigate crimes committed by the
security forces.
We call upon the democratic-minded people in
India to set up a support group as a mark of
solidarity with those aggrieved by enforced
disappearances and to work with APDP to ensure
that justice is provided."
Pervez Imroz
Srinagar, J & K, (Patron APDP)
_____
[3]
sacw.net
September 15, 2005
http://www.sacw.net/free/simeon15092005.html
BETWEEN DESPAIR AND HOPE: INTERROGATING 'TERRORISM'
by Dilip Simeon
[Published earlier as the cover story in Himal, September 2005]
"The practice of violence, like all action,
changes the world, but the most probable change
is a more violent world." - Hannah Arendt
The words 'terror' (meaning intense fear and
dread), and 'terrorism' (the systematic
employment of violence and intimidation to coerce
a government or community into acceding to
specific political demands) are steeped in
controversy. From the time of the French
Revolution, 'terrorism' has been used to describe
a range of violent political activism, including
certain forms of Russian populism; Italian,
Serbian and Irish nationalism; anarchism; and the
actions of the Ku Klux Klan. Nowadays, 'terror'
is what the 'civilised world', led by the United
States, is combating. It is identified with
Islamist funda-mentalism, the Taliban, suicide
bombers, Palestinian resistance and Maoist
revolutionaries. Even though terrorism is quite
clearly a form of political violence, mainstream
journalism today does not associate it with
aerial bombardment (although Hitler's use of the
Luftwaffe against the Spanish town of Guernica in
1936 was considered an act of terror), armed
actions by the American and Israeli defence and
special forces against their real or perceived
enemies, kidnapping, collective punishments, and
encounter killings by the apparatus of various
Southasian states.
In India, 'terrorism' is also not generally used
to describe the activities of the Bajrang Dal,
VHP, RSS, the Ranvir Sena or the Shiv Sena, even
though some of their activities would qualify
them as terrorists within the dictionary meaning
of the word. Yes, the usage of 'terror' is
heavily politicised.
Stark examples of these differentiated standards
of judgement confront us when we consider the
boundaries that religion shares with the world of
terror. Contemporary common sense does not
associate Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or
Hinduism with terror and terrorism. However,
Sinhalese Buddhist monks have been known to
participate in anti-Tamil violence in Sri Lanka.
The Zionist Stern Gang and Irgun indulged in
'communal killings' of Palestinian villagers to
enforce the evacuation of territory. Irish
nationalists and loyalists alike (Catholics and
Protestants) used terror for decades as an
integral part of their politics. And it is the
Hindu Tamil Tigers who began the latest use of
suicide bombers - Rajiv Gandhi was killed by one
in 1991. Let us not fool ourselves. Every major
religious tradition has produced theological
justifications for murder and mass killing in the
name of sacred causes. And it is clear that
terror is and has been employed by states and
anti-state activists alike.
Historically, national liberation movements and
democratic movements have often taken for granted
that violent means would be necessary for the
attainment of their ends. The French Revolution
of 1789 was the first major instance of the
marriage of terror with modern democracy. "There
is nothing which so much resembles virtue as a
great crime", said Robespierre's comrade, St
Just, one of the architects of the Reign of
Terror in 1794. Mid-nineteenth century Italian
nationalism was an inspiration for military style
patriotism in the early twentieth century, such
as the Serbian, Irish and Indian. Russian
populism, which later emerged as the Left
Socialist Revolutionary tendency, used terrorist
methods in varying degrees, as did Anarchists and
Bolsheviks. Trotsky wrote a lengthy pamphlet,
Terrorism and Communism, justifying such acts as
hostage-taking as a means of ensuring good
behaviour by 'class enemies'.
Terrorism is the quintessentially ambivalent
political deed, the place where good and evil are
mixed to the point where its proponents need to
invoke God, or a secular metaphysic such as
History or Revolutionary Destiny, as
justification. Apparently transcendental dogma
can transform great crimes into virtuous deeds.
In a situation where terror has become normalised
(virtually the entire span of the past century),
it is to be expected that rational debate aimed
at understanding political crises become next to
impossible. For example, in the post-9/11 world,
anyone putting forward a historical analysis of
the emergence of Islamist fundamentalism against
a background of Western imperialist policies in
West Asia, Arabia, Palestine, Iran and
Afghanistan, would draw suspicion in
establishment circles as an apologist for
terrorists - even if he or she vehemently denies
such sentiments. Someone who adduces the
reparations imposed upon Germany in 1918 as a
factor contributing to the rise of Nazism is not
necessarily a sympathiser of Hitler. In
considering the history of Zionism, we would have
to remember that Christian anti-Semitism provided
fertile ground for Nazi ideology and the genocide
of European Jews, which in turn fuelled the
demand for a Jewish homeland. Such an analysis
would not imply an approval of Israeli
expansionism and oppression of Palestinians.
It is the historian's job to suggest explanations
of major events by weighing context with cause,
structure popular moods and ideological
developments. In today's world, however, history
is rapidly being replaced by propaganda. Speaking
about terrorism in 1998, the late Eqbal Ahmad
described the official approach to it as one that
eschews causation and avoids definition, because
such concepts involve "analysis, comprehension
and adherence to some norms of consistency". He
cited a query about the causes of Palestinian
terrorism, addressed by the Yugoslavian foreign
minister to US Secretary of State George Shultz,
twenty years ago. Shultz "went a bit red in the
face. He pounded the table and told the visiting
foreign minister, there is no connection with any
cause. Period." (The New York Times, 18 December
1985). Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee told the
United Nations General Assembly that all talk of
'root causes' served only to justify terrorism.
However, his RSS soulmates routinely talk of
'root causes' when they need to defend the
demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992. Terrorism
has a 'root cause' when we identify with it, but
becomes a monstrous violation of human rights
when we don't. Such ethical contortions are as
common in the ranks of left-wing intellectuals as
they are among religious fundamentalists and the
ultra-right.
The decline of conversation
The dynamic nature of social reality implies the
need for constant theoretical reflection. Without
this, the radical imagination loses itself in the
dominant discourses of capitalism, nationalism
and identity. This is what is happening today,
even within the so-called extreme left.
Unfortunately this trend is buttressed by the
habit of denigrating critical thought to a level
inferior to so-called 'activism'. A further
complication is that nationalist ideology and
capitalist media have perverted the concept of
truth. In the first case, God or Truth (sometimes
named History) is always with Us. In the second
case, truth is substituted by credibility. This
is demonstrated by the phenomenon of advertising.
The truth-content of a message is of no
importance, what matters is whether it is
credible or incredible. This is why the concept
of 'image' dominates modern political vocabulary,
despite the obvious distinction between 'image'
and 'reality'. The war of images goes on in the
political realm as well, and affects the question
of terror. As they say, one man's terrorist is
another's freedom fighter. We owe it to ourselves
and the coming generations to pierce the imagery
and arrive at a well-considered understanding of
terror and political violence.
The dogmatism surrounding political theory in
India has reduced radical politics to a moribund
condition. The Leninist concept of "the outside"
and the Stalinist convention that "the party is
always right" imply an authoritarian notion of
truth. The comrades' habit of claiming possession
of Absolute Truth (Party Line = Param Satya) is
similar to the religious belief in divine
revelation (ilhaam). Such approaches to knowledge
are shared by organisations as far apart as the
Vatican (with its notion of papal infallibility),
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Taliban (and
its variants), and various Leninist groups and
parties. This attitude is an important causative
factor for the fractious nature of Southasian
leftism. An absolutist mentality finds
ambivalence intolerable. Faced with historical
complexity, it finds refuge in black and white
ideas about the social universe. The resulting
theoretical vacuum has left questions such as the
value of democracy and the nature of violence to
be treated as 'tactical' matters rather than as
aspects of social relations. The political
ideologies dominant in our time attach a
pragmatic or positive value to violence and to
the Nation. The word 'foreign' is too easily used
as a term of abuse. Many radical political
currents treat democracy as something to be used
rather than preserved. Where it is yet to be
achieved, its protagonists preach but do not
practice democracy within the movement - they
believe authoritarian methods can achieve
democratic goals.
Such issues need to be addressed. Unfortunately,
it has become a habit among radical activists and
intellectuals to attribute base motives to those
who criticise established doctrine. Polemic is
what passes for debate and discussion in the
Indian socialist tradition. (polemos in Greek
means strife). Our mode of debate is often
coloured by personal remarks, sarcasm and
pointless rhetoric. Indeed, there will be moments
when nasty verbal contests become unavoidable,
but the replacement of all political conversation
by polemic is symptomatic of an authoritarian
attitude to ideas. Polemic reinforces
factionalism, causes useless distraction and is a
waste of time. It also signifies mental laziness.
Instead of a careful and rigorous consideration
and/or refutation of critical ideas, we prefer to
dismiss them with contempt. Firm adherence to
dogma may be psychologically comfortable, but it
can only ensure political marginalisation.
The word 'terror' is used to distinguish between
forms of violence. In commonplace conversation,
it conveys the meaning of something other than
war, mass resistance, police action, and so on.
Closer attention will reveal that political
terror is a manifestation of militarism in the
domain of civil society - whether expressed by
left or right-wing terrorists. Actually the very
norms by which we define Left and Right need
re-definition. Right-wing neo-liberals often talk
of the need for far-reaching economic and
political reform, whereas leftists seem to be
taking a conservative position. Multinational
corporations advocate a capitalist version of
internationalism, whereas leftists appear to have
become nationalists, paying lip-service to
international working-class solidarity. Rightists
fabricate history one way, leftists do it another
way. Nobody can say whether the terms 'left' and
'right' carry any definitional meaning for ethnic
identity movements - support for or opposition to
Lankan Tamil, Kurdish, Baloch, Kashmiri, Naga or
Tibetan self-determination depends upon political
convenience or pure whim rather than consistent
principle. When it comes to positions regarding
war, militarism, nuclearism, violence,
patriarchy, democratic freedoms, human rights or
ecological degradation, it is difficult to
discern a systematic difference between left and
right. The Communist Party of China has become
(effectively) the Capitalist Party of China. It
supported Yahya Khan in 1971, and even launched a
war against Vietnam in 1979. As Orwell once said,
there is no enormity that we condemn in the
conduct of our enemies that we would not commit
ourselves. Is there a way out of this labyrinth?
There is, but only if we embark once more upon
fearless critique.
Left-wing terrorists, including certain
left-nationalists and communists, display a
self-conscious attempt to convert social
democratic protest and struggle into a form of
warfare ('social democracy' is used here in its
broadest and pristine meaning, as the original
name of the socialist movement). The capitulation
of Europe's major social democratic parties to
war hysteria and patriotism in August 1914 was
arguably the greatest political disaster in the
history of international socialism. It is a
complex and tragic tale, but the nature of
twentieth century communism was unalterably
coloured by warfare and the warrior cult. In
fact, the century gone by has been the bloodiest
period in the life of humanity. One result has
been the appearance of Bonapartism, the
domination of the communist movement by men of
military stature - warlords like Stalin and Mao.
Another was the erosion of any respect for human
life - mass slaughter came to be accepted as the
natural price to pay for 'victory'.
This mixture of socialism, nationalism and
militarism has produced many political hybrids.
Subhas Chandra Bose was one of them. In India
today, it is not a good idea to criticise Subhas,
a popular icon for many leftists, even though he
allied himself with Hitler's imperial war aims
and bemoaned the defeat of the Axis. Although it
takes off from a conservative standpoint,
fascism, too, is one of these hybrids - and
religion-based communalism is Southasia's brand
of fascism. In summary definition, communal
politics are projects for the militarisation of
civil society. The ultra-left programme of
'people's war' feeds upon the same mentality. The
utilitarian morality expressed by the phrase "the
end justifies the means" has cast its effect on
Left and Right alike. Quite apart from the matter
of political ethics, it is remarkable that the
Maoist world-view finds 'people's war' as
relevant in India as it does in Nepal, despite
the obvious differences in the constitutions of
the two countries.
Among some comrades, it would appear that
strategies are decided upon first, and doctrinal
justifications invented later. It is also
significant that, on the whole, the ultra-left
and the ultra-right avoid confrontation with one
another. Thus, in its declaration of October
2004, the newly formed Communist Party of India
(Maoist) stated that armed struggle would "remain
the highest and main form of struggle and the
army the main form of organisation of this
revolution". The main purpose of mass
organisations would be "to serve the war". The
declaration makes a passing reference to "Hindu
fascist forces", but makes it clear that it would
keep "the edge of the people's struggles directed
against the new Congress rulers in Delhi along
with the CPI/CPM and their imperialist
chieftains". On 15 August, the CPI-Maoist
(allegedly) carried out an armed action in Andhra
Pradesh, gunning down an MLA, his son, driver,
some local Congress activists and a municipal
employee. The ideology that can cast such
ordinary people for the role of "class enemies",
deserving extra-judicial execution, reflects a
mentality closer to fascism rather than
socialism. These 'revolutionaries' have not even
publicly challenged the mass murderers
responsible for pogroms in India during 1984
(Delhi) and 2002 (Gujarat), let alone call them
to account. Yet they constantly direct scornful
polemic at all kinds of moderate democratic
politics. Apparently radical rhetoric establishes
one's commitment to the public good; and
proposing violent solutions provides proof of
one's admirable character.
A callous disregard for human life is apparent
among 'revolutionary' groups in Southasia. In
August 2004, 13 people were killed (including
nine children) and 20 injured due to a bomb
planted by the United Liberation Front of Assam
(ULFA) at an Independence Day function in upper
Assam. In June 2005, 40 or more bus passengers,
mostly peasants and working people, were killed
in an ambush set off by Maoists in the Chitwan
district of Nepal. The ULFA call themselves
Marxists, as do the Nepali comrades. Marxist
revolutionaries perceive themselves as guardians
of human rights, democracy and justice. We need
to ask them - what is the ground for your claim
to represent the poor? Who gave you the authority
to be judge and executioner and kill people
without even the pretence of a consensual
procedure to decide guilt and award punishment?
Why do you complain about extra-judicial killings
by the state when you have no qualms about
carrying out such killings yourselves? Is there
any human rights body that the victims of your
cruelty (or your bloody 'mistakes') could
approach for justice? Why do you talk about the
"murder of democracy" (this is how the Indian
Maoist party described the ban imposed upon it
after their 'action' on August 15) when you have
no respect for the lives of children and poor
people, let alone for democratic values and norms?
With honourable exceptions, human rights
activists remain silent or defensive about
atrocities committed by proponents of revolution
and self-determination. This strengthens the
impression among the general public that
'preferred' victims qualify as human beings, but
if they happen to belong to the wrong caste or
religion or profession, or simply be in the wrong
place at the wrong time, their lives are
dispensable. Sensitive observers the world over
have rightly protested the atrocious principle of
'collateral damage' invoked by the Pentagon when
its soldiers and pilots kill people they say were
not targeted. It is equally infuriating when
successive US presidents talk about 'American
lives' as if Arabs and Rwandans and Vietnamese
belonged to an insect species. But is it not
apparent that revolutionaries of various kinds
function with their own version of 'collateral
damage'? And what of situations where civilians
are deliberately targeted? World War II abolished
the distinction between combatants and civilians.
We, who dreamt of a better life for humanity,
have descended to the point where the deliberate
slaughter of bystanders and bus passengers by
'our' side barely causes us to raise an eyebrow.
Even to point to this selective and
self-righteous morality causes intense irritation
among the ranks of the politically correct. For
socialists to 'normalise' the commission of mass
murder, is nothing short of an ethical-political
catastrophe. And it lends a poignantly different
meaning to Marx's warning that the choice before
humanity is either socialism or barbarism.
Autumn of the Patriarchs
After the overthrow of the doctrine of the Divine
Right of Kings and the rise of democratic
politics, the process of governing became
impossible without some degree of popular
legitimation. That is why even empires and
dictators talk of freedom and the will of the
peoples. But these developments, associated with
modern capitalism, cannot occlude the fact that
the state is the institutionalised crystal of
centuries of warfare. At its core are the armies
that (in 19th century Europe), countered
universal adult suffrage with universal male
conscription; and the ideals of equality, reason
and compassion with hierarchy, faith and the
glory of war. We may judge for ourselves which
set of values conquered the 20th century. The
Great War of 1914-18 ended with the overthrow of
four medieval autocracies. But alongside the
establishment of Weimar democracy, the defeated
German army of 1918 set in motion a political
process that culminated in the conquest of the
state by Nazism. It is the greatest historical
irony that it was democracy that enabled
ex-corporal Hitler to become Reich Chancellor,
and that his actions led not only to the
overthrow of democracy but to the complete
destruction of the German Army. Fifty-five
million people paid the ultimate price. Hitler's
regime was the historical acme of state terrorism
- those who use these words frequently ought to
study it - and the most glaring feature of the
political mobilisation that preceded it was the
binary dynamic of fear and revenge.
Contrary to their self-understanding, the
political paramilitaries and revolutionary
warriors of all kinds are the loyal opposition of
capitalist modernity. They share its fascination
and structural use of revenge, martyrdom, heroism
and patriarchal codes of honour, that invariably
imply mysogyny. Hence they are the last refuge of
patriarchy. Each of their 'heroic' actions
strengthen the state, as each side counters war
with more war, terror with counter-terror,
revolutionary militarism with statist militarism.
The link between state violence and the violence
of left-right radicalism has become seamless -
each feeds upon the other. This process is
unfolding before our eyes. With 9/11 and, indeed,
with every act of murderous resistance, hard won
democratic rights are further eroded, and the
state gathers legitimacy to impose draconian
laws. With the growth of a universal climate of
fear, the bonds between governments and the
ordinary public are strengthened, rather than
dissipated. This takes place, not on the basis of
class interests, but on account of the dreadful
fear of the murder of innocent people. What
happens then is an unending spiral of violence,
driven by the lust for revenge and very difficult
to control. As Hannah Arendt said, all this
bloodshed will indeed change the world, probably
for the worse.
It is impossible to achieve democracy by
authoritarian means. A new dispensation may be
realised, by such methods, but it will carry with
it the whiff of tyranny. Those who survive such a
revolution will be a brutalised and damaged
people. Undoubtedly the Nepali establishment, an
outdated remnant of arrangements made between
Nepali feudal potentates and the British during
the heyday of imperialism, has managed to survive
by maintaining the sheer poverty and educational
backwardness of the population. Their decision to
impose customs duty on educational books is only
the latest example of their investment in
ignorance. The government has also been assisted
by cynical neighbours. The monarchy is not a
'pillar of stability', as its Indian well-wishers
like to portray it, but the reverse. The Nepali
state's brutal aversion to democratic governance
perpetuates instability. But the sad state of
affairs has been worsened by the ruthless and
destructive policies of the revolutionaries
(including the recruitment of children and
disruption of education); and the bankruptcy of
the moderate democratic opposition, who found it
impossible, especially during the troubled decade
of the 1990s, to construct a responsible united
front. Constant factional fighting and egotism
are also symptoms of authoritarianism.
The politics and practice of revolutionary terror
are detrimental to socialist ideals. They
represent and reproduce desperation, cynicism,
organisational autocracy and doctrinal dogma. As
such, they generate fear and paranoia in the
ranks of the revolutionary cadre themselves, as
well as among the very people they seek to
liberate. Most persons drawn towards terrorist
politics are undoubtedly sincere in their vision
and aspiration for a humane socio-economic order.
But how easy it is to commit atrocities for the
sake of kindness! To interpret our primeval lust
for revenge as a source of 'modernisation', and
'progress'! Nearly 30 years ago, in 1976, this
writer had the privilege of participating in a
conversation (along with some close friends),
with the great Marxist historian and peace
activist E P Thompson. It was the year of the
Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, a development
that had forced us to think seriously about the
value of democratic rights. He made the acute
observation that the use of the prefix
'bourgeois' before 'democracy' was the most
self-defeating practice of communists the world
over. Democracy, said Thompson, was a hard-won
institutional gain of the international labour
movement and in the Indian case, of the struggle
for Independence. Rather than dismiss it as
'bourgeois', we ought to work for its
preservation and extension into social life -
that was what was meant by social democracy.
Many of us in India have realised the truth of
this approach as we have traversed the difficult
and painful quarter-century from the 1980's till
today - a period that has seen the rampage of
communalism and the politics of mass murder. It
is significant that the Indian Left took a very
long time to recognise the fascist nature of
communalism. Even today, the relative weakness of
our democracy is reflected in the fact that no
party dares place a resolution in Parliament
condoling the death of thousands of victims of
communal violence. Nonetheless, despite its
terrible flaws, certain democratic norms,
institutions and practices remain alive in the
Indian polity. Groups that support the politics
of secession or armed revolution still manage to
openly propagate their ideas. Would it be
possible, say, for a Tibetan version of the
Hurriyat Conference to function in China, before
or after Mao's death? Or for Baloch or Sindhi
secessionists to advocate separation from
Pakistan, and conduct meetings with a visiting
Indian dignitary? How much democratic freedom of
expression and organisation could political
opponents expect under a People's War regime?
An urgent political issue confronts those of us
who identify with the civil liberties movement of
the 1970's. The revolutionary movement of that
time aimed at the violent overthrow of the
constitutional polity, and the Indian ruling
elite took refuge behind the rule of law. A
quarter of a century later, significant sections
of the radical left and its well-wishers became
staunch defenders of the democratic rights and
liberties enshrined in the Constitution, while
the Indian establishment repeatedly showed its
discomfort with constitutional proprieties. In
fact, the most massive violations of law (witness
the carnages of 1984 and 2002), have been
practiced by establishment parties and
politicians. This should make leftists think
about their attitude to democracy - is it merely
a tactic, or do democratic norms and institutions
deserve a deeper philosophical commitment?
Subhas
Satyagraha
The left could begin to rejuvenate itself if it
gave up its revelatory approach to truth, its
dogmatic approach to knowledge, its metaphysical
attitude to politics, and its addiction to the
warrior cult- society's oldest and most powerful
preserve of authoritarianism. The comrades should
examine their conscience and consider the social
consequences of children being denied an
education and made accustomed to bloodshed and
cruelty, and of armed groups and individuals
functioning with the same kind of impunity that
the army and police display. A mature course of
action would be to agitate non-violently for a
programme of political and social democracy and
demilitarisation, and engage in constructive work
to better the lot of the people. This would gain
them wider credibility and respect than they will
ever get via armed struggle. It will also gain
them the gratitude of people whose lives are too
full of violence and uncertainty. A close friend
took a photograph of a slogan on the wall of a
building in the village of Ghandruk in central
Nepal after an armed clash between the army and
the Maoists: "Maobaadi + Shahi Sena suniyojit
daman banda gara." Addressing both the the
Maoists and 'royal army', the graffiti asks them
to desist from bloodshed and 'deliberate
suppression'. Whatever the support base of the
Nepali comrades, there are also those who are
tired and fearful of the bloodletting. Whatever
the romance of extremism may once have been,
freedom from fear has become a major political
aspiration. Terror is no longer a means to an end
- it has become an end in itself, autonomous of
social and political control. It is no longer
merely a symptom but the disease par excellence
of capitalist modernity. Socialists should
remember that respect for life and liberation
from fear must be the foremost ideal and goal of
socialism. Or else they will make themselves
instruments of the system they claim to be
combating.
The recruitment of women cadre and soldiers by
paramilitaries is hailed by some comrades as a
symbol of female 'empowerment'. Actually, this
should be characterised as yet another
manifestation of the oppression of women by
entrenched patriarchy. Would it not seem
ridiculous to view child-soldiers as liberated
children? Warfare empowers neither men nor women,
it imprisons all of humanity in an endless
spiral. Since 1914, we have never had peace -
more than 200 million people were violently done
to death in the 20th century - and it is clear
that 'modern civilisation' is structurally
dependent upon war. That it is now recruiting
women and children in the name of 'empowerment'
is a travesty. The struggle for the complete
equality of the sexes continues to be opposed
bitterly by patriarchal structures and
politicians. (The fate of India's Women's
Reservation Bill is proof of this fact).
Subjugation by fear is a common experience for
women from all classes across the globe. Feminism
is hence (implicitly) a struggle against
militarism and terror.
The abolition of state terror and its twin
brother requires the collaboration of all groups
and movements working to end the grip of caste
oppression, patriarchy, racism and the
exploitation of labour. Wide-ranging campaigns
are necessary against all forms of oppressive
institutions, including militarist ones, in order
to defang the enemy-producing killing-machine
that the 'West' has become. But ambivalence about
brutality as a means of resistance must cease.
Millions of Europeans and Americans are opposed
to war. The imperial system can only be
encouraged to implode, as did the USSR. It cannot
be destroyed by military means without exacting a
merciless price that no revolutionary could wish
on the common people. Terrorist attacks will only
increase fear and feed conservative ideologies,
which is the aim of the rulers.
Badshah Khan
Is it possible to combine a radical programme
with non-violence? Indeed it is. Undermining the
British Empire was the most radical programme in
Southasia in the first half of the last century.
In a time that identifies Pathans with religious
fundamentalism, we may yet learn something from
the work of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan of the North
West Frontier Province, aka Badshah Khan and the
Frontier Gandhi, and the Khudai Khidmatgar
('servants of god') movement of the 1930's, whose
commitment to non-violence was based on
Pukhtunwali culture and Islam. The Khudai
Khidmatgar's alliance with the national movement
as a whole, its popular constructive projects and
openness to non-Pathans and non-Muslims alarmed
the colonial rulers, who subsidised the clergy to
denounce its members (popularly known as the Red
Shirts), as Bolsheviks and enemies of Islam.
Confronting massacres, torture and repression,
the Khudai Khidmatgar emerged as one of the
staunchest Gandhian movements in the history of
Southasian nationalism.
The Frontier Gandhi instructed his followers:
"abstain from violence and do not defame your
nation, because the world will say how could such
a barbarous nation observe patience". Even as the
'civilising' Englishmen behaved like mad dogs,
the 'volatile' Pathans were teaching their rulers
a lesson in restraint. A Turkish scholar who
visited the Frontier in the 1930s suggested that
the Pathans had developed a new interpretation of
force. In her words, "non-violence is the only
form of force which can have a lasting effect on
the life of society... And this, coming from
strong and fearless men, is worthy of study".
Badshah Khan was the last of those Gandhian
stalwarts who could walk across four
international boundaries in post-1947 Southasia
and be treated by the citizens of each country as
one of their own. His life work exemplified the
compassionate spirit that stayed alive during the
bleakest period of the twentieth century, proof
that the self-assertion of the oppressed need not
always be strident and narrow-minded. That he was
an Indian national leader even after he became a
Pakistani citizen ought to give chauvinists of
all colours some food for thought. Not for
nothing was it written of him, that "people
brought him food and sat him down in the shade of
trees".
Let us also spare a thought for Chander Singh
Garhwali, a platoon commander in the Garhwal
Rifles, Hindu soldiers facing a Muslim crowd in
Peshawar in 1930. He was court-martialled for
refusing to order firing on his
fellow-countrymen. Somewhere, somehow, Chander
Singh and his troops too had been affected by the
spirit of ahimsa. Decades before, so had the
ordinary Russian soldiers who refused to shoot
women demonstrators on International Women's Day
in St Petersburg in 1917, thus heralding the
overthrow of Tsarism and the advent of the
Russian Revolution. Would it not be truly radical
for the revolutionaries to prevail over the
soldiers and policemen via their conscience
rather than through fear? Did not Gandhi speak
profoundly when he said that what is obtained by
fear can be retained only as long as the fear
lasts? The radicalism of satyagraha consists in
this, that it (potentially) abolishes the
distinction between method and goal. 'Overcoming'
ceases to be a military concept and social
democracy transcends its hysterical tension over
ends and means.
Today, when Southasia is engulfed in civil strife
and civil war, it is time to consider again
whether the pursuit of truth and non-violent
resistance are not the only radical social
procedures left for the survival of the
biosphere. The movement must be the germ of its
goal. Social-democracy's associative principles
and active ethos must prefigure those of the
society it wishes to create. Ahimsa is not a
tactic but the ethos of respect for life. That
which claims to be new must stand on its own feet.
Speak the truth
Stop the killing
This article includes material extracted from the
writer's earlier publications including a lecture
in Patna delivered in 2000, entitled The End of
History or the Beginning of Transformation?; the
seminar paper, The Brains of the Living: A
Discussion on Political Violence (Patna, April
2003); and the articles The Enemy System
(Hindustan Times, December 6, 2002); The Threads
of Conscience (Biblio, March-April 2002); and Out
of the Shadow (Communalism Combat, February 2003).
_____
[4]
The Asianage
12 September 2005
A TALE OF TWO BAGS
by Shabnam Hashmi
I take out a notebook from the open bag. I read
the name Akash. A few books are lying on the
floor and sketch pens of various colours are
strewn all over the old sofa. Adjacent to the
sofa is a divan with the remnants of a few more
books which have turned into ash.
On the wall is a big Ambedkar portrait, it
survived the loot and the carnage. I imagine
Akash being dragged outside the house by his
parents to survive the attack. He did not get
time to put his sketch pens away, which his
parents must have bought from their hard earned
money. I move to the next house, the owner Raja
has just come back. He is crying inconsolably.
There is nothing left in his house, except a
broken washing machine and black soot. Raja asks
me to see his kitchen. The gas cylinder is lying
horizontally, there is stench in the kitchen. In
one corner a hen is sitting dazed. I am amazed at
her will to live and survive. The whole house was
burning, she was sitting in a corner on ten eggs,
she did not move, she still does not move.
She survived for the sake of her future chicks.
The other ten hens, cloth worth thousands of
rupees, the furniture, happiness, laughter,
everything has perished. So far only five
families dared to come back to look at the
losses. The stories that we hear are the same.
The pattern is the same. My mind keeps flashing
back to the pattern of the carnage in Gujarat.
The attackers were well equipped with petrol,
kerosene, spears, lathis. They first looted and
then smashed everything else which they did not
want to carry with them, opened the gas cylinders
and once there was enough gas inside the houses,
threw burning sticks inside, or in other cases
threw petrol and then lit it. Everyone in Gohana
was talking about it. The panchayat had declared
that they were going to burn the Balmiki Basti on
31st morning at 11.30.
Pushpa and her husband decided not to leave the
Basti. After all, they were state government
employees, how could anyone attack them was their
simple logic. According to Pushpa the police came
and threatened them: "Leetar lagenge tab nikloge
kya (Would you leave when we beat you up with
shoes)?"
A strong contingent of 200 policemen could not
stop 1,600 attackers. How could they? They were
busy in guiding them — which house to burn and
which to spare. Khurana Sahab’s STD booth was
saved in time by the timely intervention of the
policeman on duty: "Arey yeh Dalit ki nahi hai
bhai, ise kyon jala rahe ho (This does not belong
to a Dalit, why are you burning it)?"
The senior police officers turn a blind eye. It
took only 15 minutes for the miscreants, we
couldn’t stop in time say the DSP and SP both.
The DC goes a step further — they want
compensation that is why they are exaggerating. I
suggested to Mr Goel, the DC, if he would also
like to do the same — burn his house and demand
compensation.
The timing almost coincided. August 31, 2005.
Vigyan Bhavan. The National Integration Council
has been reconstituted after 13 years and the
meeting is in progress. After Prakash Karat reads
out his speech, which has a strong reference to
Gujarat, the home minister in all his wisdom
immediately gives the floor to Narendra Modi.
By then the proceedings have already been
interrupted twice, first by me to demand the
withdrawal of the formal agenda papers and the
second time by Udit Raj to raise the question of
Dalit atrocities. Not too happy with my demand of
withdrawing the agenda papers, which are highly
communal, the home minister first says treat it
as a scrap of paper, just discard it; and then
says the meeting is going on very well, please,
let it proceed, we will give you time to speak. I
relent only after registering a strong protest
and wonder how the home ministry could distribute
"just a scrap of paper" to the members of the
National Integration Council.
The mob enters the Balmiki Basti, everything is set on fire.
Narendra Modi is happy to have got the mike. From
the liberal amount of time that he gets as
compared to others, one can take out two
important things said in typical Modi style full
of venom: one, strong relation between minorities
and terrorism, two, the importance of preserving
a caste-based society.
The members are agitated. The chair doesn’t think
there is anything to be refuted. We have
democracy, democracy to kill, democracy to burn,
democracy to stifle those who resist, democracy
to hide the facts.
Towards almost the end of the meeting and after
sending several reminders and raising my hand
many times, breaking the protocol, the home
minister finally relents and calls my name.
Many co-fighters who have spent last 10-15 years
fighting against communalism — Harsh Mander,
Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani — are not included
in the NIC.
Probably the combination would have been too
lethal. If you look at the NIC list and the way
people are seated it runs in sequence except for
three names, Naved Hamid, John Dayal and Shabnam
Hashmi. Three people who wrote strong letters to
the Prime Minister objecting to the agenda
papers. These are times when we learn to manage
things and manage people, and I hear that this
was an exercise in managing the meeting, not to
put the troublemakers close to each other.
Unfortunately, with my street
theatre-demonstration-dharna background I have a
loud voice, loud enough to be heard even without
a mike.
But this time I was given a mike officially. And
also the voices of the people, who fight for a
dream, for a better world, cannot be stifled by
merely wishing them away. I raise, very
inconveniently, questions about the subversion of
justice in Gujarat, the condition of the 2002
carnage victims. Quoting from Gagan Sethi’s
recent report I remind the house that even today
there are 10,000 internally displaced families in
Gujarat, the fact that Orissa is being turned
speedily into the second laboratory of Hindutva,
the deadline being 2006 to coincide with
Golwalkar’s centenary.
I demand a relief package for the victims of 2002
carnage, a committee to look into the present
communal situation in the country as it is very
clear from the agenda papers that the home
ministry has no clue of what is happening or has
deliberately distributed the RSS version of the
communal situation.
The Prime Minister is visibly moved by the
interventions of the civil society members and
advises the home minister in his concluding
speech to look into the rehabilitation package
for Gujarat, to have a committee to assess the
communal situation and to relook at the
relationship with the Northeast.
The media was made to leave Vigyan Bhavan right
in the morning and the official briefing does not
carry any of even the Prime Minister’s
suggestions, leave aside the fact that the agenda
papers had to be officially discarded.
I am standing in front of Balmiki Basti exhausted
with what I have just witnessed. Zee TV wants to
talk to me. I receive a call from a senior
Congress member — were you at the NIC till the
end? Yes, I was. Modi is saying that the Prime
Minister praised the rehabilitation work. It is
an absolute lie.
A day after the NIC, the Gujarat media called me
and also sent me the copy of the SMS which was
being sent out from Modi’s office. I had
immediately forwarded it to senior people in the
PMO and other Congress members. I wonder why they
did not refute it till actually the media started
reporting it.
After talking to Zee I go back inside the Basti.
Akash’s open bag and the colours haunt me. He
must have been planning to draw an open sky with
singing birds, or maybe the picture of his little
sister. There must be so many other children who
have also lost their bags and school books.
I come out of the Basti and decide to issue an
appeal: Dear NIC members, could you please donate
your fancy Samsung briefcases that the home
ministry sent you two days before the NIC
meeting? I would find buyers, sell the briefcases
and raise the money to buy school bags for
Gohana’s Dalit children.
"Man’s dearest possession is life. It is given to
him but once, and he must live it so as to feel
no torturing regrets for wasted years, never know
the burning shame of a mean and petty past; so
live that, dying he might say: all my life, all
my strength were given to the finest cause in all
the world — the fight for the liberation of
mankind."
Nikolai Ostrovsky
Shabnam Hashmi is a well-known social activist
______
[5]
GLOBALIZING INDIA
Perspectives from Below
Jackie Assayag, and Chris Fuller
Format ISBN Price
Hardback 1 84331 194 1 £45.00
Paperback 1 84331 195 X £16.99
Publication Date: July 2005
288 pages 234×156mm
Quantity:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Series:
Anthem South Asian Studies
Description
This book is one of the first to present a collection of writings on the
effects of globalization on India and Indian society.
The concept of globalization itself needs critical examination, and one
productive approach is to focus specifically on the local impacts of
globalization in its various guises through comparative ethnographic
investigations. Such research also permits examination of the relative
significance of globalization, as opposed to national, regional or local
factors of change that may actually be more salient.
Assayag and Fuller have assembled a team of eminent academics, who present
a series of critical discussions about important issues of economy and
agriculture, education and language, and culture and religion, based on
ethnographic case-studies from different localities in India. This
challenging collection also includes a major study of the history of
globalization and India that sets current trends in perspective.
Globalizing India is a major contribution to South Asian Studies,
interrogating a topic of contemporary importance – both within the region
and internationally.
About Authors, Editors, and Contributors
Jackie Assayag is Director of Research in the CNRS. His publications
include At the Confluence of Two Rivers: Muslims and Hindus in South India
(Manohar, 2004) and La Mondialisation vue d’ailleurs: L’Inde désorientée
(Seuil, 2005).
Chris Fuller is Professor of Anthropology at London School of Economics.
His publications include The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and
Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple (Princeton University Press, 2003)
and The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Indian Society (Princeton
University Press, 2004).
Table of Contents
List of Contributors vii
Acknowledgements ix
1 Introduction 1
Jackie Assayag and C. J. Fuller
Part One: Economy and Agriculture
2 On the History of Globalization and India: Concepts, Measures and
Debates 17
G. Balachandran and Sanjay Subrahmanyam
3 In Search of 'Basmatisthan': Agro-nationalism and Globalization 47
Denis Vidal
4 Seeds of Wrath: Agriculture, Biotechnology and Globalization 65
Jackie Assayag
5 Weaving for IKEA in South India: Subcontracting, Labour Markets and
Gender Relations in a Global Value Chain 89 Geert De Neve
Part Two: Education and Language
6 ‘Children are Capital, Grandchildren are Interest’: Changing Educational
Strategies and Parenting in Calcutta's Middle-class Families 119
Henrike Donner
7 Of Languages, Passions and Interests: Education, Regionalism and
Globalization in Maharashtra, 1800–2000 141 Véronique Bénéï
Part Three: Culture and Religion
8 Maps of Audiences: Bombay Films, the French Territory and the Making of
an 'Oblique' Market 165 Emmanuel Grimaud
9 Malabar Gods, Nation-Building and World Culture: On Perceptions of the
Local and the Global 185 Gilles Tarabout
10 Globalizing Hinduism: A 'Traditional' Guru and Modern Businessmen in
Chennai 211
C. J. Fuller and John Harriss
Anthem
75-76 Blackfriars Road | London SE1 8HA | United Kingdom | Tel : +44 (0)20
7401 4200 | Fax : +44 (0)20 7401 4201
info at wpcpress.com
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/
Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project : snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
More information about the Sacw
mailing list