SACW | 4 Jan. 2006 | Pakistan - India: Peace Activists & the Bomb Lovers / Hinduising Tribals while the Party is over

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 04 Jan, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2197


[1] Pakistan-India: Peace march to the border  (Anis Haroon)
[2] Tall Claim, Little Evidence of nuclear deterrence keeping India and
Pakistan from going to war  (M V Ramana)
[3] India: Hindutva at work -"The Untold Story of 'Hinduisation' Tribals
in Gujarat - A Report" by Citizens Inquiry Committee
[4] India: Sangh Parivaar's political front is down, But the rest is up
  (i) BJP's Silver Jubilee - An Assesment (Asghar Ali Engineer)
  (ii) Hindutva Politics in Dire Crisis - The BJP’s dark jubilee (Praful
Bidwai)
[5] India: PROTEST againt massacre of adivasis in Kalinganagar, Orissa

___


[1]

Dawn
January 3, 2005

PEACE MARCH TO THE BORDER

By Anis Haroon

THE distance from Jalo-de-Chonro to Khokrapar is approximately 24
kilometres and onwards to Zero-point another 10 km. In the 21st century
one is expected to travel that distance in half an hour, but for us it
was a day-long trip. Thirty-four kilometres is a rough four-wheel drive
through the Thar desert which takes a couple of hours, but half the day
was lost in convincing the administration of our peaceful intentions.

The occasion was a peace mission by the Pakistan- India Peoples Forum
for Peace and Democracy to the Sindh-Rajasthan border of Khokrapar and
Monabao — a terrain not traversed by civilians for the last forty year,
except those few who live in that area.

People living on both side of the Rajasthan-Thar border share common
cultural, tribal and ethnic bonds. In pre-partition days these tribes
used to move freely from one part to another.

In 1965, when the Indian army marched into the bordering areas of Sindh,
all the links were severed and following the withdrawal of the Indian
army the borders were sealed off.

Since the opening of the Wagha-Attari border in Punjab the people in
Sindh, especially those inhabiting border areas, were demanding the
restoration of communication links. During this period they have
suffered a great deal. I remember a man who came up to me in one of our
(PIPFPD) public meetings and wept like a child, narrating his ordeal.
His sister was ill in Bar-meer and he lived in Mirpurkhas. They had not
been able to meet for the last 20 years. It is not easy to get a visa.
Somehow he managed it, but a de-tour through Wagha took him five days to
get to Bar-meer, and he could only offer fateha at her sister’s grave.
There are a thousand and one stories like these. It has always affected
the trade and employment opportunities negatively.

The opening of rail and road links promises a better financial prospect
for the deprived people of Thar and Umerkot districts. These areas have
a large minority population and its problems have been compounded by
time. They need to be trusted and treated as equal citizens of Pakistan.
Their exploitation is directly linked to the underdevelopment of Thar.

On the Rajasthan side, Monabao sits on a network of well-built roads
connecting it to cities like Jodhpur. Their border is well-lit with
searchlights, while our side relies on generators. It is hard to get
drinking water and food, as the only means of communication are
four-wheel drive jeeps and double cabins used by the Rangers manning the
border and a lorry-cum-bus which is known as Kekra (crab) to people who
live in small settlements.

We were told that in 1965 20,000 to 25,000 people lived in Khokrapar,
but now only 5,000 are there. People lost their jobs when the train
service was halted and minorities out of fears migrated to the other side.

According to our programme, the peace activist from different parts of
Sindh left Mirpurkhas on the morning of Dec 22 to meet their Indian
counterparts at point zero. Hundreds of activists from Karachi,
Hyderabad, Mirpurkhas, Nausharo, Khairpur and Sukkur had joined us. It
was a cool breezy morning when our caravan of cars, jeeps and buses left
for Umerkot. By 11 a.m. we were in Umerkot hoping to be at our
destination at 2 pm. But little did we know about the designs of the
administration.

As soon as we reached Umerkot we were asked to meet the nazim in his
office, only to be informed that we could not proceed further as they
had not received any written instructions from Islamabad. It took us a
lot of efforts before we could the administrations clearance.

 From Umerkot onwards this whole area falls under the purview of
Rangers. They followed us when we left for Khokrapar, leaving a large
number of participants behind for Kekras, which were ordered back. Our
next stop was Khokrapar. The journey was harsh, rough but beautiful. The
sand dunes, bushes with white flowers, and a vast span of wilderness
make this desert magical and awesome. We were wading through a sea of
sand and could not take our eyes off when we passed a settlement right
in the middle of sand dunes.

There was a flat ground with some round-shaped huts, with a camel and
other cattle roaming around, kids playing, men sitting around and women
busy in their chores in traditional colourful dresses of Thar. It was
like a painting, which remains in one’s memory for ever.

Khokrapar was our next stop. As usual we were stopped, but after
negotiations were allowed to proceed with a number of instructions. We
had to go another 10 miles and time was running out. We wanted to make
it before sunset. Our fellow travellers (Indian peace activists) had
arrived on the other side and were asking for us.

Finally, we hit the borders. “Here is the Zero point for us because our
borders end here”, Major Amir declared. The Indian activist of PIPFPD
were about 500 yards away and they were simply exhilarated to see us.
The slogans of Hind-Sindh friendship were raised with great enthusiasm .
People were waving, dancing and singing songs with joy. We could hear
the Indian side clearly as they were well-equipped with loudspeakers and
were also allowed to set up camp there. After an hour the sun started
setting and the Indian peace activists lighted candles. It looked so
beautiful and someone said ‘Jangle me mangle kar diya aap logon ne.’ The
Rangers posted on the demarcated line seemed to be enjoying the
overwhelming response the people.

On our side we had to burn some bushes as our candles were with our
friends who were still on their way. When they reached the spot, the sun
had already set and a few flickering lights were on in the Rangers’
office where Col. Basharat was offering us tea.

We thanked them for their hospitality and returned with a hope to go
back again on the path travelled so less. The night journey was
adventurous but scary. We had to struggle an hour to find our way back
to Jalo-de-Chonro, where we had left our cars. All of us were happy to
make a landmark statement of friendship between the peoples of Sindh and
Rajastan.

____



[2]


The Economic and Political Weekly
December 10, 2005
Reviews

TALL CLAIM, LITTLE EVIDENCE

Fearful Symmetry: India-Pakistan Crises in the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons
by Sumit Ganguly and Devin Hagerty;
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005;
pp 223, Rs 495.
M V Ramana

In the 1921 film, The Kid, Charlie Chaplin plays a window repairman with
a partner in business – Jackie Coogan, who plays the Kid. Their modus
operandi is that Coogan goes around breaking windows and Chaplin comes
by a few minutes later with a selection of window glass, as if by
accident, and gets hired to fix them. To those who do not catch on to
what is happening, it would seem that Chaplin is indeed a saviour.
According to Sumit Ganguly and Devin Hagerty in Fearful Symmetry:
India-Pakistan Crises in the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons, nuclear weapons
play a role in south Asia that is, in many ways, similar to Chaplin’s
role. What is left out, however, is an examination of how the same
nuclear weapons also play the role essayed by Coogan.

Before one examines why this is the case, a brief summary of the book is
in order. Ganguly and Hagerty attempt to come up with a “comprehensive
analysis of Indo-Pakistani crisis behaviour in south Asia’s nuclear
era…comprehensive in the sense of covering all of the crises, major and
minor”. The authors consider six crises between 1984 and 2002. All but
one of these were resolved without war; the exception is Kargil, 1999.
The authors then go on to ask: why have these six crises been resolved
short of major war? The answer sought to this question is purely within
the ambit of their chosen theoretical perspective on international
relations: realism. Realism, by and large, leaves out domestic factors
in its explanations. According to realists, states are obsessed with
maximising their “security”, defined almost exclusively in military
terms. Within this narrow perspective, the authors examine three
possible strands of explanation: unipolarity theory, nuclear deterrence
theory and conventional deterrence theory. The authors conclude that
“the nuclear-deterrence proposition provides the strongest explanation
for the absence of major war in the region over the last two decades,
especially in the four crises beginning with that of 1990. US
intervention in the form of crisis management sometimes played a
secondary, but important, role” (p 11).

For a book that promises so much, Fearful Symmetry falls very short. The
problems with it start early – as soon as the authors state their three
propositions to be tested (pp 8-10), each of which starts with the
fundamental but flawed assumption, that the Indian and Pakistani
governments had “compelling incentives to attack one another during the
crises under examination”. If one were to examine each of these crises,
in practically all cases the argument for not going to war is obvious
(unless going to war is assumed to be sort of the natural and default
inclination). In none of the cases were there any compelling incentives
to attack. Indeed the overwhelming incentives were to not attack. That
most of these so-called crises are dismissed as insignificant by many
senior political leaders underscores the point that an attack was not
actively contemplated at the highest levels.

The lack of incentive to attack is especially true of India, whose
actions bear a certain resemblance to what historian Paul Kennedy said
of Britain during the years between the first and second world war,
“these were the actions of a country with nothing to gain, and much to
lose, by being involved in war. Peace, in such circumstances, was the
greatest of national interests” (P Kennedy (1981), The Realities behind
Diplomacy, Allen and Unwin, London).

No Evidence

Even if one were to go along with the authors and assume that there were
compelling incentives to attack, then what is needed to substantiate the
contention that nuclear deterrence was the primary if not sole
preventive factor is evidence of senior policy makers and military
explicitly pointing to the possibility of nuclear retaliation as the
reason to call off their attack plans. This kind of evidence is just not
provided in the book. One might argue that this is setting the bar too
high – but with an issue as grave as nuclear weaponry, with the likely
consequences being so catastrophic, less will simply not do. The burden
of proof rests upon those who make claims about nuclear weapons and
their capacity to deter war, and the authors do not shoulder this burden
adequately.

Take the 2001-02 crisis for example. Was India really planning to go to
full-scale war in 2002? It would seem that such a course would be akin
to burning the house to kill the mice. Burning the neighbour’s house, in
this case. What one does know about mice and burnt houses is that the
mice do not go away. Similarly, it would be foolish to assume that an
assault on Pakistan would actually end the problem of militancy in
Kashmir. This is clear to many senior military personnel. In the words
of major general (retd) Ashok K Mehta, “the paramount reason for India’s
“restraint” was the knowledge that any military action would not achieve
the political objective of stopping cross border terrorism. It would
inflict punishment but not extract total compliance within the threshold
of limited war, the gains from which were estimated to be of doubtful
utility. The cardinal principle of war (which is the failure of
diplomacy) is that you don’t start it unless you are sure you can end it
by being better off” (Ashok K Mehta (2003), ‘India was on Brink of War
Twice’, Rediff on the Net, January 2, also available at
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/02ashok.htm).

More important for the purposes of examining the thesis of Ganguly and
Hagerty, he also goes on to state, “India chose not to cross the Rubicon
for other reasons. Pakistan’s military and nuclear deterrence was not
one of them”. Mehta is not the only military leader to make this point.
Another example is general V P Malik, former chief of army staff, who
stated that nuclear weapons were largely irrelevant for conventional
warfare and played no deterrent role during the Kargil war or in the
2002 crisis.

It is also worth pointing out the contradictory nature of the claims
made about the efficacy of nuclear deterrence in south Asia (Achin
Vanaik (2002), ‘Deterrence or a Deadly Game? Nuclear Propaganda and
Reality in South Asia’, Disarmament Diplomacy, September, (66). On the
one hand, prime minister Vajpayee claimed that the 2002 crisis showed
that India had, in effect, successfully called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff.
On the other hand, Abdul Kalam claimed that nuclear weapons had averted
any kind of war. (Embarrassingly, this was in essence the same claim as
that made by Pakistani president Musharraf and contrary to what prime
minister Vajpayee was saying). Military leaders like V P Malik, as
mentioned, felt nuclear weapons played no role.

There is a corollary to all this counter-evidence about the irrelevance
of nuclear deterrence. Despite knowing fully well that the other side is
armed with nuclear weapons, capable of inflicting immense damage, the
fact that senior military personnel and political leaders do and did
contemplate war suggests that nuclear arsenals do not come with some
objective property called deterrence. (Aside: Those who speak of a
“deterrent” are guilty of reification, treating an abstraction as if it
substantially existed as a concrete material object.)

Raising the Ante

Realists try to get around this problem by asserting that wars in the
presence of nuclear weapons will only be limited ones, with clear
thresholds that are not crossed. Again the weight of evidence is against
them: if circumstances demanded it, each and every threshold will be
crossed. Within the south Asian context, senior military officers have
sought to “up the ante” on many occasions, and succeeded in the task on
some of those occasions. For example, on p 154, the authors describe the
events between May 18 and 24, 1999, during the Kargil war, when the
Indian army sought the help of the air force. On May 18, the cabinet
committee on security (CCS) recommended against the use of airpower,
since it constituted an escalation and an enlargement of the scope of
the conflict, and refused permission. A few days later on May 24, after
visits to army headquarters in Kashmir, the army chief tried again and
this time was successful in persuading the CCS to escalate the conflict.
The air force carried out the first air strikes on May 26. While
Pakistan did not respond in kind, partly because it was anxious to keep
up the deception that the attackers were Mujahideen, under other
circumstances it may well order air strikes of its own.

Though nuclear weapons cannot be credited with preventing war, they are
certainly responsible for destabilising the region and provoking crises.
India and Pakistan have had more military crises over the last 20 years
than any other 20 year period. This propensity for crises among nuclear
weapon states is what was alluded to when discussing Jackie Coogan’s
role in ‘The Kid’. Even realists sometimes admit to this property; the
best known formulation is Glenn Snyder’s Stability Instability Paradox
(a paradox only if nuclear weapons are assumed to induce stability).
What realists are generally loath to admit is that some of these crises
may develop into a major war, either because events spin out of control
or because of accidents, which are especially prone to be misinterpreted
as acts of war at times of crises.

In south Asia, nuclear weapons can take credit for more than causing
crises – their presence was responsible for the Kargil war, estimated to
have cost at least 1,714 Indian lives and 772 Pakistani ones. Plans for
a Kargil-style operation had been hatched by the Pakistani military much
earlier; in 1996, military officers were confident enough of these plans
that they presented it to Benazir Bhutto, the prime minister of
Pakistan. But she vetoed the idea. With the 1998 tests and the presence
of a nuclear arsenal in Pakistan demonstrated beyond doubt, the
operation could not be vetoed, even by Nawaz Sharif, who was politically
much stronger than Benazir Bhutto when it came to dealing with the army.

Fearful Symmetry shows what shaky and flimsy foundations underlie the
theory of nuclear deterrence, the nearest word to gospel truth in the
minds of realists. One can be sure that among the converted, this book
will be cited as having demonstrated that it is nuclear deterrence that
keeps India and Pakistan from going to war, when the book offers little
concrete evidence of that claim. Already, some of the high priests of
the church of realism, including Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer,
have given the book their blessings, praising it highly. It is therefore
important that books like this are adequately and widely criticised. If
not, such ideas will quickly become common sense (not to be confused
with good sense).

____


[3] (Sangh Parivar is alive and kicking despite a crisis in its
political front the BJP . . . Nickerwalas are busy sharpening their knives )

o o o

UNTOLD STORY OF HINDUKARAN (PROSELYISATION) OF ADIVASI (TRIBAL) IN DANGS
(GUJARAT, INDIA): A Report

by Citizen's Inquiry Committee

Digant Oza
Harsh Mander
Irfan Engineer
Lakshmanbhai Rathore
Prasad Chacko
Ram Puniyani
Rohit Prajapati
Shabnam Hashmi
Suresh Khairnar
Uttambhai Parmar

Released in New Delhi, January 3, 2005
(For further information contact: <anhadinfo (AT) yahoo.co.in> )
__________________________________

Untold Story of Hindukaran (Proselyisation) of ADIVASI (TRIBALs) in
Dangs (Gujarat)

Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Political Economy of Dangs
The Sangh and anti-Christian mobilisation
Shabri, the Kumbh and the pseudo-mythology of Dangs
Voices from the Dangs: Testimonies
The open Sangh-State Nexus
Conclusion
Annexures (not there in the e-mail version)

  Executive Summary

A people's investigation was undertaken regarding plans to organise what
is being described as a massive Shabri Kumbh in the tribal district of
Dangs in Gujarat, on Feb 11-13, 2006. Organisations affiliated to the
Sangh with the open support of the BJP state government are strenuously
mobilising around 5 lakh adivasis and Hindutva activists to attend this
gathering, in a remote and socially and environmentally highly sensitive
and vulnerable forested region.

Two fact finding committees was formed to visit the district, and meet
the local people, activists, VHP workers, district authorities and other
concerned persons. The first committee comprised Irfan Engineer
(Director Center for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai), Suresh
Khairnar (Convener Dharma Nirpeksh Nagrik Manch, Nagpur), Digant Oza,
(Editor Jalseva and a social activist, Ahmedabad) and Ram Puniyani,
Secretary (All India Secular Forum). The second team comprised Harsh
Mander (Anhad), Uttambhai Parmar, Rohit Prajapati (PUCL, Vadodara)
Prasad Chacko (ActionAid Gujarat), Lakshmanbhai(Aman Samudaya, Gujarat)
and Shabnam Hashmi (Anhad). Both teams visited Ahva, Subir, Unai,
Saputara and talked to the local people and activists. The latter team
also met local district officials and leaders of the RSS. The two teams
visited the district consecutively between 10 and 21 Dec, 2005.

For last several years, the Sangh and its front organizations like the
Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad and the Hindu Jagaran Manch have been targeting
the tribal belt of India, which includes Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh,
Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Orissa and Gujarat. The efforts of the
Sangh organisations is to see that adivasis lose their identity, culture
and traditions of worshiping nature without being part of any mainstream
religion, by asserting that they are Hindus.

A major focus of their efforts is in Dangs, a predominantly adivasi area
with sparse population and rich forest cover. It is the smallest
district of Gujarat, with a population of 1,86,000. 92% residents of the
district are tribal. The Bhils, Kokanis, Warlis are the major tribal
groupings. Dangs is one of the two districts in the country having more
than 90% rich forest-cover. With very small and uneconomic holdings, the
majority of the cultivators barely manage to survive for few months of
the year on the crops harvested. The agricultural labourers find some
employment only during the agricultural season. Large numbers migrate in
semi-bonded conditions to Surat district to work as cane-cutters in the
sugar co-operatives. The political economy of Dangs presents a typical
case of utter neglect, dispossession and non-development.

Against this background, the State, in close collaboration with Sangh
organisations, is engaged in a systematic campaign to divide the Dangi
adivasis on religious communal lines and pit them against each other.
The BJP and RSS led outfits are spreading their tentacles into every
nook and corner of Dangs on the ostensible plea of countering the
proselytisation activities of the Christian missionaries and saving the
'Hindu' adivasis. There is no doubt, that this campaign has twin
objectives. First is the suppression of the basic religious rights of
the adivasis practising Christianity and thereby also curbing the rights
of the Christian missionaries to carry on their activities. Second, is
diverting the growing consciousness of the Dangi adivasis about their
traditional rights and self-rule onto communal and anti-tribal and
anti-people issues.

The total Christian population of Dangs today is less than 8,000 (around
5%),  although a range of both Catholic and  Protestant missionaries
have established their missions in the district over a period of more
than a hundred years. The population of Christians in Gujarat as a whole
are even less, a mere 0.5%. Still the 'threat' of Christian conversion
has been made into a strong and emotive propaganda plank by the Sangh in
tribal areas, along with the more generalized manufacture of hatred
against Muslims.

In Dangs, following the ascendancy of the BJP to the state government in
Gujarat in 1995 and in the centre in 1996, anti- Christian propaganda
was raised rapidly to boiling point. These efforts became far more
organized from 1997, especially after the arrival in the district of
Swami Aseemanand, a VHP functionary from West Bengal who initiated
vicious anti-Christian propaganda and started projecting the work of
Christian missions as a threat to both Hinduism and the national
security. He has been visiting village after village, doing propaganda
against Christian missionaries and Islamic Jehadis. He has also been
propagating so-called re-conversion, ghar-vapasi (or homecoming) to
Hinduism amongst the adivasis.

The religion of the Dangi adivasis in animistic, with varied gods and
goddesses like animals, plants, trees and hills, the forces of nature
like rain, mountain, ghosts and spirits, including tigers, cows,
serpents, the moon, and gods of corn, the rains, the wind, the hills and
forests. They are not Hindus, at least not subscribing to the
Brahminical mainstream traditions of the faith. Therefore it is
erroneous to describe the abandonment of Christian faith, to the extent
that it is taking place under Hindutva influence, as 're-conversions' or
home-coming to Hinduism.

Whereas Christian missionaries are working in this area from over a
century, organised and violent attacks on them were mounted against them
in 1998. Throughout the year 1998, there were 38 recorded cases of anti
Christian violence, especially attacks on places of worship. A number of
leaflets were published and the Gujarati newspapers added fuel to the
fire, supporting the propaganda against the tiny Christian population of
Gujarat. 'Hindu Jago, Christi Bhagao' (Arise Hindus, throw out the
Christians) represents the overall sentiment of these pamphlets.
Christians were said to be foreigners who are converting the gullible
tribal people. Investigations by human rights groups and reports of
Communalism Combat confirmed that these were well planned attacks on
Christians, which were rapidly aggravated after the BJP came to power at
the state and the BJP led coalition came to power at the centre. Rather
than assuaging the wounds of Christian community, Vajpayee added salt to
the wounds with his characteristic masterly moral ambiguity, by calling
for a national debate on conversion, thereby indirectly providing a
rationale for the violence.

The VHP and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, in their attempts to convert adivasis
into Hinduism, have misused the legend of Shabri and Ram. The legend is
propagated that Ram had visited Dangs, which according to them is the
Dandkarnya  of the Ramayana. A nearby hill, Chamak Dongar (Shining
Mountain) has been touted as the exact place where Ram met Shabri and
ate the wild berries tasted by her. They have built a huge temple at
this place, for which a large number of trees were cut, and laws
protecting tribal land ownership as well as forests were violated.

Although the Kumbh Mela is a tradition unchanged through the millennia,
organised by turns in four fixed locations of India, Nasik, Hardwar,
Allahabad and Ujjain, the Sangh is organising in Dangs what is at best
described as a pseudo- Kumbh, for which there is no religious sanction.
The propaganda materials including very professionally prepared CDs
reveal the true intent of the Kumbh. These describe Christianity as a
dangerous foreign faith, and call for its destruction in the same way as
Ram had killed the demon Ravana. What Ram did to Ravana needs to be
repeated and foreigners thrown out. Hindu Jago, Christi Bhagao is their
inflammatory central slogan.

The intense hate propaganda against Christians has started resulting in
the intimidation of Christian community as a whole. We could see the
fear writ on the face of most of the Christians we met.

The teams observed with great concern that even the pretence of distance
between the state apparatus and the Sangh has been abandoned. The local
administration, its functionaries, vehicles and funds, are openly being
used for the advancement of the intensely divisive state agenda. The
Collector justified communal mobilization as religious and cultural
awakening, thus unabashedly adopting the rhetoric and idiom of the
Hindutva forces.

What is important to understand is that the intended Kumbh Mela is not a
religious issue. It is not a battle of Hindus against Christians. It is
a political game to mislead the adivasis, and divert their anger at
pauperisation and dispossession by the state and non-adivasi outsiders,
by cynically creating a pseudo-mythology. It aims to alienate them from
their land and culture, to Hinduise them to build a majority
constituency on the basis of religion and to reap political benefits,
and to create grave divisions in the name of religion, their eating
habits and political affiliations among the adivasis.  The issues at
stake are tribal culture, tribal identity and their livelihoods, the
freedom to pursue and propagate one's faith guaranteed under the
Constitution, and the security of minorities.

The openly partisan support of the state government for the dangerous
sectarian objectives of the Sangh needs to be combated, and the safety
of minorities secured, else the tribal regions of India, already
dispossessed and pauperised, will flow with the blood of sectarian hatred.

At the outskirt of Shabri Temple, there is a pillar which has a slogan
in Hindi, which reads : 'Sankalap: Dharmantaran aur Jehad ke Vichar ko
Vishwa se Nirmool Karenge.' (Our resolve is to free the world from the
ideologies of conversions and jehad'.) The Sangh with the open support
of the state government has clearly drawn its battle lines. It is for
people who cherish secular democracy in our land to expeditiously and
resolutely respond.

  Introduction

Plans are afoot to organise what is being described as a massive Shabri
Kumbh in the tribal district of Dangs in Gujarat, on Feb 11-13, 2006.
Organisations affiliated to the Sangh with the open support of the BJP
state government are strenuously mobilising around 5 lakh adivasis and
Hindutva activists to attend this gathering, in a remote and socially
and environmentally highly sensitive and vulnerable forested region. It
is this that provides the immediate context for two concerned citizens'
investigations and this report based on their findings.

However the larger context of this report is that 1998 witnessed a
series of organized attacks on the Christian tribal populations in
Dangs, and anti-Christian mobilization has been unrelenting in the
district since, although mercifully overt violence has not recurred. The
investigation aims also to enquire about the sense of security
experienced by the small Christian tribal population of the district.
The still larger context for the report is the activities of the Sangh
organizations in tribal regions in many states of India, including
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa that targets both
Christian tribal people and missionaries. However, this report focuses
on the Dangs in Gujarat.

Two fact-finding committees were formed to visit the district, and meet
the local people, activists, VHP workers, district authorities and other
concerned persons. The first committee comprised Irfan Engineer
(Director Center for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai), Suresh
Khairnar (Convener Dharma Nirpeksh Nagrik Manch, Nagpur), Digant Oza,
(Editor Jalseva and a social activist, Ahmedabad) and Ram Puniyani,
Secretary (All India Secular Forum). The second team comprised Harsh
Mander (Anhad), Uttambhai Parmar, Rohit Prajapati (PUCL, Vadodara),
Prasad Chacko (Regional Director, Action Aid Gujarat), Lakshmanbhai
Rathore (Aman Samudaya, Gujarat) and Shabnam Hashmi (Anhad). Both teams
visited Ahva, Subir, Unai, Saputara and talked to the local people and
activists. The latter team also met local district officials and leaders
of the RSS. The two teams visited the district consecutively between 10
and 21 December, 2005.

The teams aimed to address the following questions-Why is the Kumbh
being held in this area at this point of time in this region? What is
the link if any between the attacks and violence against the Christians
in Dangs and this programme? Is there a sense of insecurity in local
populations? What is the role of the state government in organizing and
supporting this programme, if any? This report summarises their
observations.
[. . . ].

THE ABOVE REPORT (without annexures) IS AVAILABLE AT:
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/DangsReport3jan2006.pdf



____


[4] Sangh Parivaar's Political political front in neck deep shit !

o o o

(i)

BJP'S SILVER JUBILEE - AN ASSESSMENT

by Asghar Ali Engineer


(Secular Perspective Jan.1-15, 2006)

Is there anything to celebrate completion of twenty-five years for the
BJP? It has been history of hate politics, conflict and bloodshed. It
began on a promising note in 1980 by pledging to be secular and to
follow Gandhian socialism. One hoped that now Jansangh is its past and
BJP its future in as much as it has committed itself to secularism and
Gandhian socialism. Many thought it is a major shift in its Jansangh
days' ideology.
In fact history has its own lessons to teach. Once you resort to hate
politics, it is very difficult to shed it. Hate and violence have a
habit of perpetuating themselves. Hate has the tendency of becoming more
intense and violence an ever-rising spiral. The Jansangh was no
exception to this rule. Jansangh was not only its own past but its own
future too. The BJP was at best the Jansangh's continuum and extension
into the future. In fact the BJP, if one goes by its record on communal
front, turned out to be darker shadow of the Jan Sangh.

There was nothing surprising about this development. The BJP was borne
after the dual membership controversy during the Janata Party Government
during 1977-79. The socialist members of Janta Party wanted the former
Jansangh Party members to resign from the RSS if they have accepted
Janta Party's ideology of secularism. But they refused to severe their
link and the Janta Party government fell on this question.

Thus the signal was clear. The RSS linkage was too strong to be severed.
It was its umbilical chord and its very existence depended on the RSS.
So the BJP's secularism was indeed a pseudo one and to hide this reality
the BJP attacked the Congress secularism as well as the Constitutional
secularism as pseudo. The BJP, in order to hide its commitment to RSS
communal politics, aggressively attacked Nehruvian secularism as western
and pseudo. What a deception? It pledged itself to secularism on
Gandhiji's Samadhi and went all out to attack Gandhian secularism for
which he laid down his life and it was Godse, with hidden links to RSS,
who assassinated Gandhiji for his sympathy to the besieged minority. How
such a party could ever become secular?

The history of the BJP is the history of hatred, conflict and bloodshed.
It not only attacked secularism after pledging to be secular, it went on
all out to preach hatred against minorities in general, and Muslims in
particular. It was after its acceptance of 'secularism' that it
launched, most aggressively, the Ramjanambhoomi movement and ultimately
demolished Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992. It was great blot on
secular India and ironically, matter of 'pride' for the BJP.

The BJP celebrates this black day as 'shaurya divas' (i.e. a day of
'bravery'). What a commitment to secularism. The whole campaign of
Ramjanambhoomi was based on provoking among Hindus extreme fanaticism
and hatred against Muslims. The BJP cadre shouted in Ramjanambhoomi
processions 'Babar ki aulad, jao Pakistan aur Qabrastan' thus openly
provoking Hindus to kill Muslims and describing them as 'progeny of
Babar'. Naturally this resulted in several major communal riots
throughout eighties, after formation of BJP. Most of these riots took
place in U.P. and Bihar, the Hindi heartland where BJP's hate campaign
was at its worst. This campaign was led by none other than Mr.
L.K.Advani. This black campaign will ever remain part of BJP's history
and nothing can ever erase it.

It was result of this intense campaign of hatred (which has been so
vividly documented by Anand Patwardhan's documentary Ram ke Naam which
was acclaimed worldwide) that communal carnage like the one in Gujarat
took place in 2002. Now like Bosnia mass graves are being discovered in
Gujarat during the silver jubilee year of the BJP. Mr. L.K. Advani, now
the president of BJP spoke of glorious record of his party in last
twenty -five years. Does genocide of minorities form part of BJP's
'glorious' record during last twenty- five years.

There was time when the BJP boasted of being a party with 'difference'.
Of course it was. No other party resorted to hate campaign as the BJP
did. Is this not being a party with difference? But what it meant,
though with no truth in it, was that it is a clean party and most
disciplined. Other parties like the Congress, are not only corrupt but
also full of inner dissensions.

This myth was exploded before but it is in this year of its silver
jubilee that it has been exploded with all its intensity. Today it is
riven with dissension. The expulsion of Uma Bharti for her indiscipline
during this silver jubilee year is a unique gift for its 'discipline'.
Today BJP is riven with dissension as never before. There is no
discipline left whatsoever.

In fact the test of being disciplined and clean comes when in power.
During the eighties the BJP had not tested power and so could remain
disciplined and could feign to be 'clean'. The question of being clean
or corrupt arises only when you are in power. When the BJP launched
attack on the Congress as being corrupt, it (the Congress) had been in
power for more than forty years and the BJP not even for forty days. It
could well project itself 'clean' and free of corruption.

Once it came in power from 1999 to 2004 its false claims were fully
exposed. Many skeletons from cupboard began to fall out. What the
Congress had not done in forty years it did in four years. Remember the
scandal in allotment of pumps? The Indian Express headlined it as 'Pump
Parivar'. Petrol pump were allotted to relatives and friends from the
BJP and RSS. The Supreme Court had to annul these allotments and
Vajpayee, the then BJP Prime Minister cancelled these allotments through
issuing an order.

It is a long story of corruption. The Dalit president of BJP Mr. Bangaru
Laxman was caught on video camera in an sting operation accepting one
lakh rupees for ensuring defence contracts. He was a RSS man. The RSS
chief described him as a 'failed student'. He had to be removed as
president. The BJP Government at the Centre harassed Tehelka.com people
who exposed such corruption scandal and its financier was even jailed on
false charges. So much for the BJP's commitment to honesty and being
different.

And now in the silver jubilee year six of its M.P.s were caught once
again on camera in yet another sting operation. They were caught
accepting money for asking questions in Parliament. Six of them out of
11 were from BJP alone. The Parliament expelled them for such shocking
corrupt practice. However, Mr. L.K.Advani maintained in his presidential
address during the silver jubilee function in Mumbai on 27th December
that blamed the 'Congress Culture' for this corruption.  He said that
the expose (cash for querry) "reinforces our conviction that unless
Congress culture was uprooted the task of combating corruption will
never be accomplished"

Is it not utterly ridiculous? Blaming the Congress for its own
corruption. Even a section of BJP members rejected such fantastic
position. Ms. Sushma Swaraj said we have to hang our head in shame for
such scandals by the party M.Ps. But for Mr. Advani it is the Congress
culture, which is to be blamed. Did the Congress ever blamed the BJP for
its own corruption. The BJP instead of doing sincere reflections on its
own faults, its president is blaming the rival political party. Such
gimmicks can hardly convince anyone. But then it is BJP, a party with a
difference.

And now a RSS representative in the BJP Mr. Sanjay Joshi has been caught
on video tap in compromising position with a woman and it turned out to
be case of consensual sex. RSS has always maintained its moral high
position. Earlier one of its members and the BJP President was caught
accepting money as pointed out above and now one of its members caught
in a sex act with a woman on camera. What a moral degeneration. He
quietly resigned and left the venue of silver jubilee meeting in Mumbai.
Even members of BJP were shocked. There is no more any morality left.
And it is ironical that an organisation like the RSS whose very
philosophy is based on hatred of minorities could claim moral high ground.

As for dissensions in the Party, less said the better. Uma Bharti was
projected as the chief ministerial candidate in M.P. election and she
was described as most dynamic leader. She did become chief minister of
M.P.but within a year had to relinquish her post due to a court case.
She was promised to be reinstalled after clearing it but she was never
given that opportunity. She rebelled and was thrown out of the party.
Now she claims to be 'real BJP'.

She writes in an article "The Party with a Difference" in Hindustan
Times of 30th December 2005 "The top leadership grew more intolerant of
dissent. Opportunists, power brokers and the corrupt gained prominence
and principled and ideologically committed workers were sidelined. It is
for this reason that BJP presidents were being changed one after the
other while those who spoke the truth were being ignored."

Thus it will be seen that a party which always claimed high moral ground
turned out to be so fragile morally in one term in office. What would
have been its fate had it been in office for longer period like the
Congress. In fact any communal party cannot claim to be clean.
Communalism and hatred are nothing but moral corruption. BJP's Hindutva
agenda itself is strong indicator of moral corruption.

o o o

(ii)

The Praful Bidwai Column
January 2, 2005

HINDUTVA POLITICS IN DIRE CRISIS - THE BJP’S DARK JUBILEE

By Praful Bidwai

The Bharatiya Janata Party couldn’t have celebrated (it that’s the right
term) its silver jubilee under more sombre circumstances. Twenty months
ago, the party seemed headed to win another term at the Centre. Today,
it finds itself rudderless, bruised by scandals, confused, demoralised,
scorned or spurned by allies, and without a strategy to overcome its
worst-ever ideological, political and organisational crisis. In Mumbai,
it couldn’t even conjure up a remotely convincing pretence of recovery
after the Sanjay Joshi sex-scandal broke out. Whether the sex-videotape
is genuine or not is immaterial. What matters is that it was filmed by
someone in the sangh parivar out to “sting” a supposedly celibate
pracharak.

2005 turned out an even worse year for the BJP than 2004, when it lost
power. It started with the collapse of its rag-tag coalition in Goa,
followed by a poorly-concealed spat between Messrs Atal Behari Vajpayee
and L.K. Advani. In June, Mr Advani opened a can of worms with his
praise for Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which invited the RSS’s wrath. Mr Advani
quit as BJP president, but the resignation wasn’t accepted. Since then,
he has functioned as a lame duck. Finally, in July, he was told by the
RSS’s Surat conclave to quit. Mr Advani secured a face-saver by getting
the RSS to let him continue till the end of December. Then, Ms Uma
Bharati dealt him yet another blow by staging a revolt, which led to her
expulsion.

The Bihar Assembly results came as a break for the BJP. But this was
quickly eclipsed by two “sting” operations exposing its MPs. These
showed the BJP in a particularly uncomplimentary light. When faced with
its MPs’ expulsion from Parliament, the BJP executed a shameful
about-turn. Mr Advani trivialised their grave misconduct as “stupidity”
and compared expulsion with “capital punishment”. The Janata Dal
(United) disassociated itself from the BJP on the vote—a slap in its
face and a blow to the NDA’s unity.

The BJP decided to play down the leadership succession issue until after
the Mumbai session ended. But this was not to be. The RSS-approved
choice of Mr Rajnath Singh as Mr Advani’s successor was leaked to the
media. Even while the party brass strenuously denied the choice, senior
leader Murli Manohar Joshi rushed to congratulate Mr Singh. Meanwhile,
Mr Singh’s “second-generation” rivals planted stories to discredit him
and suggest that Mr M. Venkaiah Naidu was still the favoured candidate.
The succession cloud hung heavy over the Mumbai session—taking the sheen
off the celebrations. Mr Vajpayee added to the confusion by naming Mr
Advani and Pramod Mahajan as Ram and Lakshman!

The BJP today is a pale shadow of itself. In expansion-and-consolidation
mode until early 2004, it’s now an ineffectual, incoherent national
opposition. It rules in just five states on its own (Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand)—all in Western and Central
India. It’s a subordinate ruling partner in three others (Bihar, Orissa
and Nagaland). Once boastful of “coalition dharma” and successful
alliances, the BJP can barely keep its partners together.

The sangh parivar is itself a divided house. As the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram and Swadeshi
Jagaran Manch push hardline Hindutva nationalism, the BJP’s dependence
on the RSS has increased. During its six years in national power, the
BJP leadership couldn’t muster the courage to give the party a moderate,
modernist identity, leave alone sever the umbilical cord with the RSS.
Now, it cannot dream of doing so. Indeed, it doesn’t have the stomach
even to distance itself full-throatedly from the RSS sarasanghachalak’s
obnoxious and bizarre pronouncements such as those on the dangers of
India’s “demographic invasion” by Muslims!

The BJP’s crisis is comprehensive and structural. Ideologically, it’s
trapped between orthodox, inward-looking, Hindutva, with its traditional
affinity with small-town traders and savarna (upper-caste) groups, on
the one hand, and the neoliberal, pro-globalisation orientation favoured
by Westward-looking industrial houses, on the other. Politically, it’s
divided between its distinct identity as an ethno-religious movement
centred on the Ram temple and minority “appeasement”, and electoral
compulsions which propel it into alliances with diverse groups which
don’t share its religious exclusivism. Organisationally, the BJP cannot
make a half-way smooth transition to second-generation leaders even as
its old veterans lose their authority.

In the past, the BJP could turn its chameleon-like character and
mutually contradictory agendas into an asset. It had something to offer
to the rabid ultra-nationalist, the Pakistan-hater, the
national-security hawk and the opponent of autonomy for Kashmir. At the
same time, it drew support from the worshipper of “pragmatism”, the
practitioner of “social engineering” (coalitions based on rising
subaltern groups), and the advocate of liberalisation. Today, those
attributes, including agenda diversity, have turned into a liability.

“Social Engineering” has collapsed. Ms Bharati’s expulsion, the Bihar
results—Mr Nitish Kumar, not the BJP, mobilised MBC (most backward
classes) votes—, and erosion of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance in
Maharashtra all signify that. The BJP’s ultra-nationalist appeal based
upon Islamophobia and hatred of Pakistan has taken a beating thanks to
the peace process, initiated largely under Western goading—especially
after Mr Advani’s characterisation of Jinnah as “secular”.

For a long time, the BJP took the moral high ground by counterposing
itself to Congress-style corruption and the bribery prevalent among many
regional and caste-based parties. The party lost the ground when in
power thanks to its involvement in countless scams, including Tehelka,
the Ketal Parekh stockmarket scandal, public sector privatisation, and
Enron. The cash-for-questions scandal has dealt the BJP’s “clean” image
a death blow.

The BJP’s ascendancy from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s was founded on
three factors, which reinforced one another. First, the long-term
decline of the Congress owing to its compromise with communal
tendencies, and gravitation towards market-led growth. This, coupled
with the Left’s stagnation, especially after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, shifted the political spectrum to the Right. Second, the BJP-VHP
launched a successful mobilisation around the Ayodhya issue, which drew
in lakhs. The BJP’s influence even percolated down to the Adivasi belt.
For the first time, it was able to break out of its narrow savarna
Hindu-Hindi confines. And third, its “social engineering” strategy, of
combining “Mandal” with “Kamandal”, helped it draw and consolidate OBC
support in the Hindi belt. This was a remarkable achievement.

None of these factors operates today. The Congress has revived itself.
The Left has expanded. Parties with a regional profile or a subaltern
base have grown. And the centre of gravity of Indian politics has
shifted Leftwards. The Ayodhya issue has lost its appeal and been
displaced by social justice agendas.

It’s in these circumstances that the BJP is making an awkward, stumbling
transition to a new political era. Not only has it shown no capacity,
unlike, say, the CPI(M), to ask its old leadership to make way for a
young dynamic person of vision and commitment like Mr Prakash Karat. It
has allowed the RSS to dictate terms to it. The man it has anointed is a
narrow-minded provincial politician without a national vision or
profile. Make no mistake, Mr Rajnath Singh is a Thakur leader from Uttar
Pradesh, who isn’t even remotely acquainted with the India that’s
outside the Hindi belt.

In the past too, the BJP had presidents who were undistinguished,
mediocre men like Kushabhao Thakre, Jana Krishnamoorthy or Venkaiah
Naidu. But they weren’t called upon to pull the party up by the
bootstraps. The Vajpayee-Advani duo still enjoyed authority and were
energetic enough to formulate/implement nuts-and-bolts strategy and
tactics. The party was riding high. That’s no longer the case. Mr
Rajnath Singh won’t even get the support of his ambitious
second-generation colleagues. His experience, age, competence or ability
doesn’t command respect.

Mr Singh’s political acumen is limited to tod-phod-ki-rajneeti, or
splitting other parties to stitch together (temporary) legislative
support. He did this in Uttar Pradesh through aggressive Rajput
politicos until he was checkmated by Ms Mayawati. She threw Rajput
goonda Raja Bhaiya into jail. The Rajputs felt let down by the BJP and
switched over to the Samajwadi Party. Mr Singh has an unsavoury
reputation for preferring strong-arm tactics and associating himself
with local bahubalis. For the past month, he has tried to capitalise on
the killing of BJP mafioso and MLA Krishnanand Rai, by another mafia
group associated with Mukthar Ansari. This is a thinly disguised attempt
to communalise the issue by inciting anti-Muslim violence. Mercifully,
the “Nyay Yatra” hasn’t had much success.

Mr Singh has a much lower popularity rating than many other BJP
second-generation leaders. A mid-year survey, with a sample size of
15,000, covering 136 Lok Sabha seats, commissioned by the party
leadership, and conducted by market-research agency C-Voter, found that
Mr Singh (like Mr Arun Jaitley and Venkaiah Naidu) has a rating of under
10 percent, compared to Mr Pramod Mahajan’s 20 percent, and a high 40
percent for Ms Sushma Swaraj. He enjoys little public recognition
outside UP. The BJP leadership is probably making a huge mistake in
promoting him. But then, it doesn’t have many choices which are
acceptable to the RSS. One can only pity the BJP.—end—


____



[5]


PROTEST againt massacre of adivasis in Kalinganagar, Orissa

INSAF CONDEMNS THE MASSACRE OF ADIVASIS IN ORISSA
on Jan.2 (see memorandum below).

Please fax/email your protests to the PM and Orissa CM at:
Shri Navin Patnaik
Chief Minister of Orissa
E-mail      cmo at ori.nic.in
Office Phone     0674-2531100, 2535100, 2531500
Office Fax     +91-674-2590833

The Prime Minister of India
Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
Room No. 152, South Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
INDIA
Tel: +91 11 23012312 / 23013149 / 23019545
Fax: +91 11 23016857

Memo sent by INSAF:
January 03, 2006
To
The Chief Executive Officer
Government of Orissa
Bhubaneswar
Subject: Police Firing in Kalinganagar, Jajpur.
Sir
We the undersigned are deeply shocked at the highhanded and brutal
manner in which your administration has cracked down upon the citizens
killing dozen of innocent people near Duburi, Kalinganagar on January 2,
2006. This act of your administration not only makes the mockery of the
fundamental right to 'association' and 'expression' guaranteed by the
constitution of India but also a serious blow to the spirit of democracy
of which right to dissent is an integral part.
Ever since you have taken charge of the affairs of Orissa, the violation
of people's fundamental right 'to life with dignity' appears to have
become routine and the administration is shamelessly made subservient to
the corporate interests. In order to realise your obsession with
industrialisation of Orissa you cannot play havoc with the lives of
common citizens and infringe upon constitutional and democratic boundaries.
We, vociferously condemn the heinous acts of state violence enacted by
your administration in the name of 'development' against its own people
and demand:
1.    Unconditional public apology from the Government of Orissa
2.    Immediate and exemplary action against the officials guilty for the
ghastly massacre of 2nd January 2006.
3.    Moratorium on land acquisition without the consent of the potentially
affected communities.
Signed by:
Anil Chaudhary, President
Wilfred D'Costa, General Secretary
& others


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

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.