SACW #1 | 16 Nov. 2005 | Secular space - Pakistan, India, US

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Part #1 | 16 Nov, 2005 | Dispatch No. 2173

[1] Dilemmas of secularism in India and America - Part 1 (Meera Nanda)
[2] Pakistan: Justice for all? Hit and run (Shakir Husain)
[3] India: Karnataka’s secular groups continue to foil moves to
saffronise Bababudangiri shrine (Gauri Lankesh)
[4] India: Shrinking Cultural Space in Tamil Nadu
- Moral policing (S. Viswanathan)
- Pride and Prejudice (Editorial, The Times of India)
[5] India: Christians under attack

___


[1]

[The below essay is being posted in two parts; Part one is posted below]

o o o

Axess Magazine, issue 8, 2005

THEME : ENLIGHTENMENT AND ITS DISCONTENTS

Godless States

Dilemmas of secularism in India and America. Parallels between the
Christian right in the US and Hindu nationalists in India show how
crucial it is to defend the Enlightenment idea of the secular state.
While it is important to give faith its due, faith too must give reason
its due. The postmodern deconstruction of science has, ironically, been
very hospitable to reactionary religiosity.

By Meera Nanda
Biologist and Philosopher of Science

THIS ESSAY TELLS THE TALE of two religious nationalisms: Christian
nationalism in America, that has found a welcome home in the Republican
Party and George W Bush’s two administrations, and Hindu nationalism in
India which always had a welcome home in the BJP (Bharatiya Janata
Party), the party that ruled the country, off and on, through the 1990s
until 2004. Christian nationalists declare the United States of America
to be a Christian nation, its land God’s New Jerusalem, and its destiny
to spread liberty around the world. Hindu nationalists, for their part,
proclaim India to be a Hindu nation, its land the body of the mother
goddess, and its destiny to spread spiritual enlightenment around the world.
Despite vast differences—even rivalries—in their theologies and global
ambitions, the two seek very similar goals for their own societies: to
replace the secular underpinnings of laws with religious values of their
“God Lands.”1 They may or may not have lists of “fundamentals” to
defend, but they share the religious maximalist mindset of any
card-carrying fundamentalist, that is, they insist that religion ought
to permeate all aspects of social and political life, indeed, of all
human existence. The religious maximalists are not shy about harnessing
the power of modern technologies and global capitalism to revitalise and
popularise their religious traditions with an eye on acquiring political
power and, in turn, using that political power to further religionise
their civil societies. What makes religious nationalists exceptionally
powerful—and dangerous—is their ability to transfer people’s
unconditional reverence for God to the nation, and to use people’s
religiosity to sanctify the nation’s policies, even including those
condoning violence against presumed enemies of the nation and God.2
As a secular woman of Indian origin who has called America home for many
years, I have had the unenviable experience of witnessing the slow drift
toward religious nationalism in both of my countries. Just as I was
getting ready to celebrate the unexpected defeat of Hindu extremists in
my native country in the spring of 2004, I had to contend with election
rallies that looked like revival meetings in my adopted country.
God, of course, did not have to wait until 2004 to get a starring role
in American politics. American presidents from both parties have
routinely invoked God while conducting their official duties. But this
election was different. The unabashed electioneering for George W Bush
by churches stunned even the most seasoned observers of American
politics. Evangelical leaders held weekly meetings with Bush’s
re-election committee (which was led by none other than Ralph Reed of
the Christian Coalition), and thousands of churches encouraged their
congregations to “vote their Christian values,” which Bush made a great
show of wearing on his sleeve. (In all fairness, Bush did not start this
trend. He was following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan who actively
wooed Jerry Falwell’s “moral majority” through his two terms). Bush’s
re-election in 2004 was decided by a large turn-out of born-again
Protestants who joined hands with the most conservative elements of
Catholics, Jews and other “people of faith” to wage a war against the
Islamic “evil-doers” abroad, and the godless secularist-humanists,
feminists and gays at home. Even though Bush has personally refrained
from calling America a Christian nation, he has appointed men and women
in key positions who would be only too happy to have the good book
dictate the laws of the land. Recently, he has endorsed the teaching of
intelligent design in public schools, adding to the many attempts of his
administration to let faith decide matters of science policy.3
Having only recently observed the political machinations of the Hindu
right in India, I can’t avoid a strong sense of déjà vu. Bush Jr, it
seems to me, is the genial face of Christian nationalism, just as Atal
Bihari Vajpayee, the former Indian prime minister, was the poetic face
of Hindu nationalism. The Republican Party is fast becoming a political
front of the Christian right, while the BJP has always been the
political front of the Hindu right party, RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh). The Protestant ministers and Catholic priests who actively
engaged in political campaigns form their pulpits, were no different
from the “holy” men and women who rallied for Hindutva causes in
countless political “pilgrimages.” The Christian right’s enthusiasm for
bringing intelligent design into public schools is not much different
from the Hindu right’s successful bid to introduce Vedic astrology in
colleges and universities. What is more, the slow erosion of America’s
“great wall” separating faith and politics is sowing the seeds of the
same kinds of religious strife that have festered under India’s
wall-less model of secularism: India’s dismal record of religious
discord is what lies ahead for the America of “faith-based initiatives.”
(While free from the overt Hindu nationalism of the BJP, at least for
now, India is far from free from the faith-inflected politics that even
the supposedly “secular” parties routinely indulge in. The Hindu right
lost the last election due to shifting political alliances with regional
parties, but the cultural wellsprings that feed Hindutva have not ceased
to exist and grow.)
Another commonality that troubled me was how easy it was for the
religious right to substitute faith for evidence, and to manipulate
public discourse in a manner worthy of Orwell’s 1984. In his second
inaugural address, for example, George Bush invoked “freedom” 27 times
and “liberty” 12 times, all the time turning them into God’s chosen
destiny for America and the world.4 Bush’s paean to Americans’ God-given
love for liberty hid the dismal reality of creeping curtailments of
civil liberties at home and the shameful abuses of prisoners in Abu
Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay. The situation reminded me of the flowery
rhetoric we heard in India celebrating the “innate tolerance” and
“natural secularism” of Hindus, even when Hindu mobs were tearing down
the Babri masjid in Ayodhya or killing Muslims in riots in Bombay and
Gujarat.
The blatant mixing of god and country in America woke me up from my
intellectual slumbers. I had already seen the bankruptcy of the Indian
“wheel-of-law” model of secularism. But now I had to accept that the
American “wall-of-separation” was not as sturdy as I had once imagined.

THESE CONCERNS led me to undertake this rather unusual comparative study
of secularism, secularisation and enlightenment in the United States and
India. Why is it, I began to ask, that secular constitutions in both
countries have been unable to prevent overt religionisation of the
public sphere? Why is it that all the forces of modernisation, notably
the growth of scientific education and research—India, after all, boasts
the third largest scientific work force in the world—have not led to a
commensurate growth of secular cultures in these societies, as compared
to others at similar levels of development? Is it even realistic to
expect elected representatives to keep religion out of the public sphere
where large majorities of citizens profess fairly high levels of
conventional, super-naturalistic religiosity? These are some of the
questions I try to answer in this essay.
I admit that comparing India and America is a bit like comparing apples
and oranges: the two societies are at different levels of economic and
technological development, and their cultures, religions and histories
are entirely different. America was born new, without any history of
feudalism: respect for individual liberties and civic egalitarianism
have deep roots in the religious and cultural heritage of American
society, even though ideologies of racism and “manifest destiny”
prevented the extension of liberty and equality to Black slaves and
Native Americans. India, on the other hand, has had to contend with a
heavy burden of caste, feudal and colonial hierarchies, overlaid on each
other: even the most professionalised, contract-based, technologically
modern sectors of Indian society continue to exhibit caste-like
master-servant relations.5 And then there are the obvious differences in
socio-economic development. While India is fast becoming a major player
in the global economy, 83 per cent of its people still make a living in
the informal sector, where work and social relations are largely
regulated through customary laws of caste and gender.6
But, despite these very substantial differences, religious nationalism
has come to play a significant role in the politics of both the
countries. American nationalism can be, and often is, incredibly ugly in
its self-righteous belief in its own innocence and nobility in serving
the cause of “freedom.” But it is also incredibly attractive in its
ability to assimilate people from all over the world into an American
creed of individual liberties, democracy, rule of law and
cultural-political (but not economic) egalitarianism. The Christian
Coalition and other like-minded groups do not reject the American creed
but attribute its greatness and exceptionalism to Judeo-Christian
values. Unlike the old racist, anti-catholic WASP American nationalists
such as the Ku Klux Klan, today’s Christian nationalists welcome Black,
Hispanic and Asian Christians, Catholics, Jews and even people of other
faiths who are willing to stand with them against modern, secular and
humanistic ideals. What is more, they attribute the cultural malaise in
America to the godless-secularist cabal of Darwinists and
multiculturalists who have imposed their supposedly hedonistic and
immoral values on the rest of the society. They want to “take back”
America for Christianity in order to restore its greatness.7
In comparison to the universalistic, melting-pot image of the American
creed, Hindu nationalism may appear as too parochial and too driven by
ancient ethnic and religious rivalries. But under the surface of
religious hatreds—which are real—there is another dimension of the
cultural war in India which is not very different from the Christian
undercurrents in America. Hindu nationalists want to defend the invented
myth of India as the cradle of democracy, tolerance, science and
spiritualism, and they are committed to the view that this “Indian
exceptionalism” is due to Vedic-“Aryan” Hindu culture and values.
Conversely, they ascribe all the many problems of backwardness of Indian
society to the non-Vedic, “Semitic monotheistic” religions (Islam and
Christianity) which came to India from outside. To that end, they
stridently declare that “the Hindu society is the national society of
India… Any culture that is not prepared to come to terms with Hindu
culture has to go… There is no place for Islam or Christianity… Indian
Muslims and Christians will have to be rescued from the prison-house of
Islam and Christianity, form the dark dungeons of deadening fanaticism…
and brought back into the Hindu fold.”8 The monotheistic “outsiders” can
live in India if they accept Hindu culture as their own: thus, Hindu
fanatics are willing to accept those Muslims and Christians who adopt
upper-caste Hindu cultural tastes in vegetarianism, yoga, classical
music and such. Like their Christian counterparts in America, moreover,
Hindu nationalists want to “take back” India for Hinduism from a cabal
of “colonised minds,” of secularists, liberals and Marxists who they see
as traitors to the Hindu nation.

THERE IS ONE FEATURE of the polity of both countries that can explain
the emergence and the appeal of religious nationalism: both are deeply
religious societies with secular constitutions that forbid the state
from adopting any official religion. If America is “India governed by
Sweden,”9 well, then, so is India! How the “god-gap” between the
political doctrine and the worldview, the constitutional laws and the
cultural mores, has allowed religious nationalism to flourish is what I
have tried to explain in this essay.
All available data clearly show that the citizens in both countries
remain literally awash in faith. A recent World Values Survey reported
an identical proportion—94 per cent—of those surveyed in both countries
professing belief in God.10 As countless travelers will attest, the
first thing that strikes visitors to both countries is the large number
of places of worship dotting the landscape. The recent census in India
reports 2.4 million places of worship, against only 1.5 million schools
and half as many hospitals.11 Thanks to constitutional freedoms,
moreover, both countries have thriving spiritual marketplaces, where all
kinds of new religious movements continue to blossom. India now has a
new generation of “tele-yogis” who can more than match American
televangelists in their sales pitch for god and country.
But, for all these exceptionally high indicators of popular religiosity,
the state is supposed to be indifferent to religion altogether (as in
the US) or to any one religion over others (as in India). The
Jeffersonian wall of separation promised in the first amendment of the
American constitution is well known. But what is less well known is that
India provides a competing model of secularism which also promises
complete freedom of religion and conscience to all citizens, but does
that without erecting a wall of separation between religion and the
state. The Indian constitution allows the state to promote and interfere
with the secular aspects of religious laws, practices and institutions,
as long as it does not play favourites among different religious faiths.
(More on the Indian model in the next section).
This well-known god-gap between the citizens and the state is largely
treated as a non-issue in the social science literature. The
conventional wisdom is that secular states can emerge, and even thrive,
in deeply religious societies. A secular state, we have been told,
should not be confused with secularisation of civil society and the
consciousness of citizens. According to a much-cited definition by
Donald E Smith, the state is considered secular so long as it
“guarantees individual and corporate freedoms of religion, deals with
the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion, is not
constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor seeks either to
promote or interfere with religion.”12 As long as a state is
constitutionally committed to these ideals, and has legal and political
safeguards to enforce them, it is technically a secular state.
Religiosity among citizens in their private lives is taken to be
irrelevant to the functioning of such states. What is more, classical
sociologists of religion, from Max Weber, (the early) Peter Berger to
Steve Bruce, have suggested that once a state in a modern industrial
society (capitalist or socialist) adopts a secular constitution, the
social significance of religion begins to decline which, in turn, erodes
the plausibility of the supernatural in the minds of individuals. The
infrastructure of modernity is supposed to create, pretty much by its
own accord, as Peter Berger put it in his classic, the Sacred Canopy, “a
liberated territory” populated by “an increasing number of individuals
who look upon their world and their own lives without the benefit of
religious interpretation.”13
I find this neat and tidy distinction between secularism as a
constitutional principle and secularisation of the worldview
unsatisfying. Yes, I can see that deeply religious people can agree to
give themselves godless constitutions for purely strategic-political
reasons: indeed, creation of modern democratic nation-states which
respect the equality of all citizens before the law requires a
privatisation of faith. I can also agree that societies with deeply
religious people need not necessarily become authoritarian theocracies:
religious beliefs can help sustain a regard for justice, human rights
and democracy. In itself, religiosity is not the enemy of good,
peaceable and just societies.
But while religious beliefs do not necessarily breed theocracies,
religious maximalist movements do seem to have a better chance of taking
root in societies with high levels of popular religiosity. Societies
where significant majorities (as in our two cases) claim to derive their
sense of rights and wrongs from their conceptions of God can be more
easily mobilised to support the religious maximalist agendas of true
believers who want to solve the perceived problems of their societies by
bringing this higher power to bear on the laws and policies of the land.
For example, would such a large proportion of the American public have
supported Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” or voted for public referenda
barring gay marriages without a faith-based view of society and personal
relationships? Would so many middle-class Indians have supported state
funding for astrology, religious ceremonies in public places, temple
building and such if they did not believe in the religious merit of such
rituals? As long as divine revelations or spiritual laws continue to be
invoked as the basis for morality in the private sphere, it is
unreasonable to expect a diminution of God-talk from the public sphere.
In other words, the care and maintenance of secular states requires
secularisation of culture. Without deep enough roots in secular civic
cultures, secular states will remain at a risk of being hijacked by
traditionalist and nationalist forces.

[. . .]

[The second and remaing part of the above essay continued in - SACW # 2
| 16 November 2005]

___


[2]

The News International
16 November 2005

JUSTICE FOR ALL?
Hit and run

by Shakir Husain

On Saturday night a violent mob burnt down churches, homes, a hostel,
and a school in Sangla Hills -- a town merely 100 kilometres away from
Lahore. The incident occurred after a fire at the Quran Mahal library,
and an individual by the name of Kalu Suniara alleged that he had seen a
Christian by the name of Yusuf Masih setting off the fire. News reports
state that Shahbaz Bhatti, the Chairman of the All-Pakistan Minorities
Alliance, alleges that the accusation came after Suniara lost money to
Masih in a series of gambling sessions. Bhatti goes on to state that two
Muslim and two Christian witnesses has told this to a crowd of locals as
well as the police, yet the mob had been incited to such a point by
neighbouring mosques that the rampage went on. Sadly this is not an
isolated incident, it is not the first, and until the government decides
to do something about it, it won't be the last.

Anyone who is connected to reality in Pakistan knows how badly our
minorities have been treated since the early 1970s. The trend was
started by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto when he declared Ahmadis to be
non-Muslims and to date every citizen has to declare them as non-Muslims
before they are issued a passport -- whether they believe it or not. No
light needs to be shed on the horrific Zia years where he brought the
hugely undemocratic and unfair Hudood Ordinances into place, and
systematically weeded out any trace of religious diversity from the
armed forces and government. Pakistan's loss in terms of net migration
among the minorities was the gain of nations like Canada, the United
States, Australia, and England -- who welcomed some of the greatest
minds that this country had ever produced. These people didn't
particularly want to leave what they considered their motherland, but
were forced to by the abysmal way the government of Pakistan treated them.

Anyone who is familiar with Pakistan and how minorities, especially,
Hindus and Christians, are treated, will realise that no Christian in
his/her right mind would ever dare to even imagine, let alone perform an
act as is alleged in the Sangla Hills incident. Such incidents usually
result when petty rivalries, jealousies, land-disputes, business
disputes occur. At times the Hudood Ordinances are used as Damocles'
Sword to threaten and blackmail minorities in Pakistan. As shocking as
it may sound to readers but this is the reality we live in today. For
the government to sit back and watch this happen is nothing short of
being shameful. Were it not for Christian missionaries in this country,
the top leadership of this country would not have had the education that
they had. General Musharraf, Pervaiz Ellahi and Shaukat Aziz are a few
of the leaders who attended schools run by Christian missionaries. These
schools set the foundations of the positions they enjoy today --
positions they should be using to protect the minorities of this country.

For all those brainless 'consultants' hired to protect the 'image' of
Pakistan, this should be on top of their agendas. Nothing hurts the
image of this country like women and minorities being burnt at the stake
by frothing mobs incited by half-literate mullahs who can barely read.
At this point, our smug banker-turned prime minister should be in Sangla
Hills reassuring the Christian community that they will get justice. The
chief minister of the Punjab, himself educated at FC College, should be
at the site of the school, which was burnt down. If not for the sake of
leadership or genuine humanity, then they should do so because of the
enormous photo opportunity their visits will bring them.

The government of the Punjab and the Federal Government should also
launch an inquiry as to what the police was doing when these mobs were
on a rampage. After the incident the police has reassured Christian
residents they will be protected. If that is the case then where was the
police when they were needed the most? Either the police were involved
in this incident and turned a blind eye or were they too ill trained and
scared to take on the mob? Either way changes have to be made to the
police structure and the laws which allow such incidents to occur. This
is an opportunity for the government to take a stand and to punish all
parties who incited and carried out this riot. It should be a clear
message to future rioters that religious intolerance will not go
unpunished unlike in the past. Until there are consequences for
targeting minorities and walking all over their rights, this downward
slide will continue. As leaders, our political/military stalwarts have a
responsibility to provide each and every citizen of this country,
regardless of his/her religion, security and safety in his/her home.
While they may live behind ten-foot walls and travel with a security
detail, the real citizens of this country seem to be living in an
increasingly Hobbesian world. If only our leaders spent more time in the
real Pakistan rather than their magical secluded capitals.


The writer is an entrepreneur and business consultant


___


[3]

Communalism Combat
November 2005

SAFEGUARDING OUR SHRINES
Karnataka’s secular groups continue to foil the state’s veiled attempts
to saffronise Bababudangiri shrine

By Gauri Lankesh

The winter is never cold at Bababudangiri shrine in Karanataka’s
Chikmagalur district. Blame not the weather, which is freezing almost
throughout the year. It is the hate campaign of the saffron forces that
raises the mercury of the political barometer. But as CC readers know,
after secular forces in the state took up the challenge to restore peace
and a non-communal people’s culture at Bababudangiri and facing
determined efforts from the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum (Karnataka
Komu Souharda Vedike), communal forces were put on the defensive. It was
concerted efforts by the Forum and other secular forces in the state
that foiled the sangh parivar’s attempts to make Bababudangiri into
another Ayodhya. Due to mounting pressure and protests by secular
forces, which outmatched the pressure exerted by the sangh parivar, the
state government – whose coalition is attributed to secularism – had to
enforce strict prohibitory orders against the parivar and ban the Shobha
Yatra, a communal congregation organised in the name of Dattatreya at
Chikmagalur in December 2004.

Although secular forces in the state had won the battle, it was soon
realised that the restoration of people’s culture and revamping of
communalised practices was no easy task. And this time it was the state
government that was speaking in a saffron voice. In the name of banning
‘both saffron and green’, Rajendra Katharia, the district commissioner
of Chikmagalur who had played such an important role in enforcing the
government order against the sangh parivar in December 2004, began
subsequently to implement unilateral measures that violated the spirit
of the court orders. In the process, the district administration with
the tacit approval of the state government initiated some so-called
developmental and non-religious activities intended to destroy the very
Sufi nature of the shrine.

During the last Datta Jayanti period itself in December last, the
district administration had invited three seers of avowed anti-Muslim
theology to perform inside the shrine. The Muzavar, who is traditionally
entitled to offer prayers, was moved out of Bababudangiri. The
khalichaas or green covers laid over the tombs were removed and the
tombs were left bare, something that has not been restored to date.
Under the guise of developing the area into a tourist centre, old
religious structures were razed to the ground, showing less than scant
respect for the religious sentiments of devotees. The Langarkhana, which
provided food to devotees who come from as far as Ajmer and elsewhere,
was stopped and the Fakirkhana, which provided shelter, was closed down.
Hotel rates were hiked to prohibitive levels ostensibly to raise
institutional revenues. For the first time in Bababudangiri’s history,
fees were fixed for many services provided to devotees. Also for the
first time, the eating of non-vegetarian food was prohibited at the
shrine. Keeping in mind the poor, Dalit, Muslim and Backward Caste
background of Bababudangiri devotees, one can only imagine the enormous
difficulties that the new measures caused. But more than the physical
inconveniences, it is the assault on their religious beliefs and food
practices as well as the administration’s attempts to convert this
historic Sufi shrine into a commercial tourist centre that has enraged
people in the state.

The Forum was the first to raise its voice against these measures. The
steps taken by the administration are in complete violation of the court
order, which directs the government unambiguously to maintain pre-’75
status at the shrine and thus pre-empts measures such as those taken by
the government recently. The Vedike also believed that the
administration would attempt to fulfil the saffron agenda in disguise
thereby disrespecting the hitherto multi-religious culture and practices
of the shrine. The Vedike sent two fact-finding teams to Bababudangiri
and also held negotiations with representatives of the district
administration, attempting to explain how its measures contravened court
orders; the authorities were regrettably uncooperative. When all else
failed, the Vedike launched protest activities at Chikmagalur and
elsewhere until the government was finally forced to heed the protests
and all steps taken by the administration were temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, this year too sangh parivar forces have declared that they
will continue with the Dattamala and Datta Jayanti programmes and have
reiterated their resolve to liberate the shrine from the hold of Muslims
and convert it into a full-fledged Dattatreya temple. In October 2005
the sangh parivar conducted a two-week long Dattamala Abhiyan, but this
time their strength was considerably reduced. There are many reasons for
this. Consistent activities by the Vedike have exposed the communal and
political designs of parivar forces behind these so-called religious
activities. Secondly, the parivar’s strength has dwindled. The falling
out of firebrand Pramod Mutalik, former South India convener and state
leader of the Bajrang Dal who now heads the state unit of the Shiv Sena,
is but a reflection of this process, as the parivar’s wider communal
appeal begins to wane. And by and large, the state government and
district administration seem inclined to curb activities that are
overtly defiant. Nevertheless, last December it was the district
administration that had itself countered the court order to invite its
choice of seers to the shrine, a fact that is especially alarming.

The Karnataka Komu Souharda Vedike has taken note of all these
developments and has called upon all its state units to be extremely
vigilant and not get complacent about the steps taken by the ‘secular’
coalition government in Karnataka. The Vedike, with the help of other
secular forces, is launching a campaign to liberate Bababudangiri from
the sangh parivar. It has already come out with several books, pamphlets
and other literature to expose both the state government and the sangh
parivar’s designs. It is only concerted and vigilant peoples’ actions
that can be the sole guarantee for secularism in this country and not
state policies. This is once again being proved in the case of
Bababudangiri.

(Gauri Lankesh is editor of the Kannada tabloid, Lankesh, and member of
the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum.)


___


[4]

Frontline
Nov. 04, 2005

MORAL POLICING

by S. Viswanathan

A dress code and a ban on mobile phones by Anna University of Technology
and a noisy controversy over an actor's remark on women and sex are seen
as evidence of conservatism making a strong bid to reassert itself in
Tamil Nadu.

SHAJU JOHN

Anna University Vice-Chancellor Dr. D. Viswanathan.

EVEN before the thousands of students in Tamil Nadu's 200-odd
engineering colleges could settle down to studies after getting over the
usual admission-related tension, further accentuated this year by the
Supreme Court ruling on reservation, Anna University of Technology added
to their problems by imposing on them certain stringent, non-academic
restrictions. The university sent out letters to its four constituent
colleges and 227 affiliates, directing enforcement of a dress code and a
blanket ban on the use of mobile phones on their campuses with effect
from September 1. The dress code proscribes jeans, T-shirts, skirts,
sleeveless tops and tight outfits.

Explaining why the university thought it necessary to impose a dress
code, Vice-Chancellor D. Viswanathan argued that certain forms of attire
detracted from the seriousness of academic pursuits. However, he assured
the students that there would be no "military-like strictness" in
implementing the dress code and that the colleges had been asked to
enforce it "in a phased manner". He said cell phones, particularly those
with cameras, ate into valuable lecture hours. He also said that the
university would take a serious view of any attempt in the colleges to
organise "film-based" cultural programmes.

The university's orders drew instant protests from students,
educationists and activists of students' and women's organisations. G.
Selva, secretary, State unit of the Students Federation of India (SFI),
told Frontline that the dress code clearly targeted girl students,
although the university claimed that it was meant for both boys and
girls. He did not accept that tight-fitting dresses worn by girls
distracted boys and faculty members, or that the ban was needed to
control eve-teasing. Describing the ban as "undemocratic" and based on a
"male chauvinist approach", Selva said that such bans were "unnecessary,
particularly in the case of institutions of higher learning such as Anna
University, which deal with responsible and mature students". He
wondered why "these boys and girls, most of whom are aged 18 and so have
the right to vote", should be denied the right to choose their clothes.
He said that students of professional colleges, who had to do a lot of
laboratory work, had found by experience that they were more comfortable
in jeans and T-shirts than in any formal wear. He complained that in
imposing the dress code the university had only acted at the behest of
the managements of many self-financing colleges, which, he said, had
their own dress codes which they used as money-spinners. "They levy
hefty fines on students for any violation of the code," he said.

R. RAGHUNATHAN

A Dalit Panthers of India demonstration in Chennai against the actor
Kushboo.

"Many of these colleges fine their students if they are seen talking to
classmates of the opposite sex. What the university has now done will
only legitimise such actions by the self-financing colleges," Selva
said. He said the ban on the use of mobile phones was even more
irritating. "Reasonable restrictions on the use of mobile phones on the
campus might be all right, but a total ban on the use of one of the
greatest technological innovations would present the premier institution
of technology in the wrong light."

Questioning the sense of priority of the university, a student wondered
why it should meddle with personal choices when there were far more
serious problems crying out for attention, such as the shortage of
qualified teaching staff in many self-financing colleges.

Although Anna University introduced the dress code only in September,
its Vice-Chancellor had set the ball rolling much earlier by voicing his
puritanical sentiments. Perhaps taking their cue from him, many arts and
science colleges in Chennai imposed in July "an informal ban" or
"restrictions" on wearing "indecent attire", including low-waist jeans,
short tops, mini-skirts, sleeveless shirts and so on. The subtext was
obvious: "If eve-teasing happens, it is because the girls dress
provocatively". It is an attitude that puts the blame squarely on the
victims instead of the offenders. "This presumption is baseless," said
Selva, citing a university study.

But then, it is not just Chennai academics that enforce this kind of
moral code. Only a few weeks earlier, Mumbai University Vice-Chancellor
Vijay Cole had reportedly announced that he would talk to the principals
of affiliated colleges about ensuring that the girls' dresses did not
distract students from their studies. The proposal, however, did not
take off. The rape of a college girl by a policeman in Mumbai is said to
be the reason for the Vice-Chancellor's proposal.

An article in the Shiv Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, condemned the rape but
blamed women for wearing revealing clothes.

Another controversy raged in Tamil Nadu in the last week of September.
This was over certain observations made by film actor Kushboo, published
in a Tamil-language magazine with the findings of a survey on
sex-related issues, including pre-marital sex. The controversy exposed
the intolerance, gender bias and hypocrisy of sections of the State's
media and the political class which, however, lose no opportunity to
assert their reformist zeal and progressive spirit.

BIJOY GHOSH

The actor Kushboo.

The magazine's survey was about the sexual attitude of women and it
covered women in the age group of 18-30 across 11 cities in India.
Kushboo begins her article with the observation that women in Chennai,
who so far had been behind those in Bangalore in the matter of
expressing their sexual desires, were now overcoming sex-related mental
blocks. She, however, says that this openness also raises the question
whether this is a healthy trend in a largely orthodox Indian society.
She says that parents, if not teachers, should teach the basics of sex
to children. Expressing herself against "changing boyfriends every
week", she says that sex is not just about the body, but also the mind.
She says that if the girl is convinced of the firmness of her
relationship with her boyfriend, she can go out with him with her
parents' permission. She suggests that parents can permit this if the
girl and the boy are "serious" in their relationship.

She writes: "Our society should liberate itself from the ideas such as
the one that women should have their virginity intact when getting
married. No educated man will expect the woman he marries to be a
virgin." She has also a word of caution to women who go in for
pre-marital sex: "Guard against conceiving and contracting AIDS."

A day or two after the magazine hit the stands, a Tamil-language
eveninger said in its lead story: "Kushboo's observation that women
having [sexual] relationships with other men is common has raised
vehement condemnation from many sections." The daily reported that
critics took Kushboo's comment as an insult to the Tamil woman and that
she seemed to expect others to behave just the way she did in her
personal life. They wanted her to apologise for expressing such an
opinion, the tabloid added.

It also published the views of a few people, including Bharatiya Janata
Party national secretary L. Ganesan and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam propaganda secretary Nanjil Sampath. Both of them were critical
of Kushboo's remarks. Two days later, a group of women, with brooms in
hand, staged a demonstration demanding that the actor quit the State,
and burnt her effigy. The demonstrators belonged to the Tamil Protection
Movement led by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder S. Ramadoss and
Viduthalai Siruthaigal leader Thol. Thirumavalavan.

The police provided heavy security to Kushboo's residence. The issue has
also been taken to court by the PMK's Central Chennai district women's
wing secretary Deepam Jayakumar, on the grounds that Kushboo's
observations undermined the culture and civilisation of Tamils and
derided the pride of Tamil women.

Kushboo, who was on a short visit to Singapore, first clarified that her
observations on pre-marital sex were based on the findings of the
magazine's survey on the subject and said that she had been
misunderstood. She explained that her contention was that pre-marital
sex was an "unfortunate trend worldwide" and that she had not said
anything specifically to malign Tamil culture or women. Soon, she rushed
back to Chennai and in a television appearance said that the issue had
been blown out of proportion. She added that she was sorry if she had
hurt the sentiments of Tamils by any of her observations in the magazine
article. The matter ended there, though some petitions against her
observations are still pending in the courts.

The media debate, however, continues. While human rights activists,
feminists, some women's organisations and a section of intellectuals
assert that Kushboo has every right to express her views, a number of
political leaders, particularly those connected with the BJP and the
Dravidian parties, feel outraged and say that she has hurt Tamil
sentiments with her remarks about the chastity of their women.
Feminists, however, assert that there should be perfect equality between
man and woman and that chastity should not be expected of women only.

The debate also has raised some questions about the media, which take up
such sensitive issues, and also movements that attempt to suppress
diversity of opinion in the name of protecting culture and traditions.
The State Committee of the All India Democratic Women's Association
(AIDWA) has defended Kushboo's right to express her views and criticised
as "undemocratic" her detractors' demand that she leave the State on the
grounds that she had derided Tamil culture. A statement issued by the
president of the State Committee, N. Amirtham, and general secretary, U.
Vasuki, said that those who sought to protect Tamil culture should do
well to raise their voice against the increasing incidents of
sex-related violence and kidnapping of girls for forced prostitution,
which also had been doing great harm to Tamil culture. The AIDWA
criticised the attempt by a section of the media to convert personal
sex-related issues to marketable commodities in the context of
globalisation and cited in support the "obscene" photographs published
by the Tamil-language magazine along with the controversial survey report.


o o o

The Times of India
November 16, 2005

Editorial

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

Morality is too serious an issue to be left to politicians masquerading
as professional moralists. In Maharashtra, a section of the political
leadership forced a ban on dance bars using this pretext.

Now it is the turn of some political outfits in Tamil Nadu. Pattali
Makkal Katchi (PMK) and Dalit Panthers, marginal players in state
politics, have turned against two popular actresses, Khushboo and
Suhasini Maniratnam, for speaking their mind.

Party activists have filed a slew of cases against Khushboo for voicing
her views on premarital sex in the context of AIDS.

She had said in a recent interview that premarital sex should not be
taboo, if adequate protection against pregnancy and diseases was taken.
Suhasini is now facing flak for supporting Khushboo at a public function.

The issue has taken a bizarre twist with a local court issuing a
non-bailable warrant against Khushboo. The public outcry orchestrated by
self-appointed custodians of morality is based on misplaced ideas of
cultural pride.

Pre-marital sex is a reality in our society as it is in many others. So
are sexually transmitted diseases. These are not barometers of culture
or morality but issues of public health that call for serious discussion
and state policy.

Political parties should participate in these debates instead of gagging
public intellectuals. Anbumoni Ramadoss, Union health minister and a PMK
MP, should take the lead.

The present fracas is also a reflection on Tamil Nadu's political
culture. To borrow a phrase from psephology, extreme swings mark the
state's political behaviour.

The winner takes all, and the loser is left with little. Khushboo, who
is now a target, was so adored in the state in the 80s that her fans
built a temple for 'Khushbambikai'.

Both Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi have been beneficiaries and victims of
the extreme mood swings of Tamils. Much of the state's politics is
expressed in cultural terms.

Political parties have shamelessly exploited this option, mostly by
exaggerating real and perceived insults and muzzling dissent.

The Khushboo incident is no exception. It shows the inability of
political parties to reflect the rich and confident cultural traditions
of Tamils.

____


[5]

Communalism Combat
November 2005

CHRISTIANS UNDER ATTACK

The following is the text of the press statement issued by Dr John
Dayal, President of the All India Catholic Union and member, National
Integration Council, Government of India, at his press conference in
Guwahati on November 2, 2005. Other Catholic lay leaders present on the
occasion were AICU national secretary, Barbara Choudhury, North-eastern
Catholic Council general secretary, MR Brooks and Guwahati archdiocese
Catholic Association vice-president, Anand Condapan.

November 3, 2005:

The All India Catholic Union, which represents the 1.60 crore strong
Catholic laity in India, has alerted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
the central government that the number of attacks this year on the
Christian community, its priests, nuns and institutions, specially in
states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, may well cross 200 recorded
cases - close to the figure when the BJP ruled at the Centre too.

The Catholic Union has in recent months written repeatedly to the prime
minister pointing to very disturbing trends in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh
and Gujarat where the state machinery is indicted in the violence. This
seems to be part of a well planned conspiracy to divert the community's
energies away from their major advocacy campaign across the country
seeking for Dalit Christians the same rights and protection of law given
to Dalits professing the Buddhist, Sikh and Hindu faiths. These rights
were taken away in 1950 by the communal presidential order.

The anti-Christian violence is being closely monitored by the All India
Catholic Union, which is also an important member, together with the
CBCI, All India Christian Council and NCCI, in Dalit advocacy. Dr John
Dayal publishes in November-December every year the unofficial White
Paper of violence against Christians, demanding that the government
publish an official White Paper on violence against minorities, tribals
and Dalits. So far the BJP and Congress governments have not done so and
neither have institutions such as the National Commission for Minorities.

In the case of violence, Rajasthan is specially vulnerable. The sangh
parivar had threatened to make the Banswara district in Udaipur division
"free of all Christians". This threat has been followed up by
large-scale coercion and violence in the tribal Udaipur division which
adjoins Madhya Pradesh. The state government, instead of checking the
violence, is now itself threatening the community and has announced it
is bringing forward an anti-conversion bill.

The union government must urgently call upon state governments - which
control law and order and education - to ensure the safety of the
minorities, protection of churches and arrest of the culprits.

The National Minorities Commission has violated its charter and become
privy to the alienation of the community by siding blatantly with
fundamentalist thought and action.

The AICU had welcomed the UDF government's decision to set up several
new commissions, including the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission, now
hearing the Dalit case apart from issues of backward groups, and the
Justice Rajinder Sachar Commission investigating the economic status of
the Muslims. The AICU had demanded that the government study the
economic backwardness of Christians, most of whom are Dalits or tribals,
including tribals of the North-east, and devise economic and development
packages for them.

Our own studies have shown an absence of entrepreneurship and
self-employment, largely because of an absence of government support and
funding despite the so-called National Minorities Development Fund.
Incidentally, the fund has a special component for the North-east, which
lies unused. The Dalit Christians are mostly landless peasants. In
central India, education is yet to reach all people, and tribal
Christian women are an especially neglected lot.

The AICU is also demanding an early introduction of central legislation
giving the community the right to adopt children - which is denied them
at present - and a revised marriage act, which has been pending for
seven years.

(Please feel free to contact Dr John Dayal at 09811021072 or
johndayal at vsnl.com for further information.)

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

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/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.