SACW | 10-11 March 2006 | Pakistan: battle for Women' rights and Basant cancelled under Mullah Pressure; India - US: Perilous Nuclear deal; communal danger in Varanasi, Goa; USA: exposing Hindutva thugs in CA

Harsh Kapoor aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Mar 10 21:32:38 CST 2006


South Asia Citizens Wire | 10-11 March, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2230

Contents:

[1] Pakistan: Women power (editorial, The News)
[2] Pakistan: 'Enligtened Moderation' retreats again under Mullah
Pressure - Basant Cancelled (Editorial in The Daily Times)
[3] The Dangerous Indo US Nuclear Flirt:
    - A deal not worth Emulating (Praful Bidwai)
    - Bush, Singh Unmake History (J Sri Raman)
[4] India: Road to perdition (Sitaram Yechury)
[5] India - Goa: The BJP made a historic blunder in Savordem (Sujay Gupta)
[6] USA: Representing Women In California Textbooks (Press Release - FOSA)
[7] USA: Hindu groups lose fight to change textbooks (Charles Burress)

____________________________________


[1]

The News International (Pakistan)
March 10, 2006

Editorial

WOMEN POWER

What resonated loud and clear on International Women's Day this year is
the categorical resolve by the women's rights movement that it can no
longer be placated by the state and the political parties through
excuses to delay the repeal of the controversial Hudood Ordinances. The
other important aspect of this year's celebration is the number of women
who came out all over the country to show their disdain towards a piece
of legislation which has become a major impediment in the delivery of
justice for the oppressed.

"Repeal Hudood Ordinances Now," was the theme of the country's largest
rally held in the southern Punjab town of Multan, attended by 7,000 to
10,000 women. Other smaller gatherings on the day in different parts of
the country also raised demands for an urgent scrapping of all laws that
are discriminatory towards women and restrict their emancipation,
empowerment and mainstreaming.

The Multan rally arranged by a country's leading NGO, however, was a
rare demonstration of the street power of women who dared to take to the
streets against intense pressure by the district administration and
police to stop their assembly. The massive number of women drawn from 35
districts of the country, particularly the feudal and conservative areas
of South Punjab, only indicated that the opposition to the Hudood
Ordinances is not just confined to a handful of high-profile feminists
living in cities, but rooted in teeming millions who are also its real
victims.

At least a dozen victims of rape and violence turned up at the rally and
narrated the hurdles in their effort to seek justice, only exposing the
fact that the Hudood Ordinances had much to do with political expediency
of a dictator who was keen on pleasing his rightwing protégés for their
readiness to fight the United States-led Jihad in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, successive governments failed to do away with the
draconian law for fear of the rightwing backlash even after high-powered
official commissions declared the Hudood Ordnances as discriminatory and
against the teachings of Islam. The existing government is no different,
although it draws strength from the agenda of enlightened moderation of
President Gen Pervez Musharraf. It has been procrastinating on
legislating the categorical recommendation by the statutory National
Commission on the Status of Women for the repeal of the Hudood Ordinance.

If the government can go ahead with controversial madrassa reforms
despite resistance from the clergy, it can surely take a decision on
abolishing a law that is more often abused than being used. Any further
delay will only expose the shallowness of the claims of moderation and
progressivism.


____


[2]


The Daily Times (Pakistan)
March 11, 2006 	

EDITORIAL: ANOTHER SHAMEFUL DAY IN THE LIFE OF LAHORE

Until two days ago the Punjab government was insisting that Basant would
be celebrated come hell or high water. Indeed, the Punjab law minister,
Raja Basharat, had thundered in the provincial assembly and defied the
mullahs to dare stop President Pervez Musharraf from flying kites in
Lahore along with the multitude. Then, like a rat in the dead of night,
the Punjab government scurried away from the din of the mullahs and hid
behind a ban on kite flying across the province. The giveaway was a
pathetic clarification from the Presidency – General Pervez Musharraf,
the brave, would come to Lahore for business and not for flying kites.
All it needed was a phone call to the loyal chief minister of Punjab. So
Raja Basharat and the gullible folk of Lahore can go whistling in the
dark! What happened?

It’s the same old wretched story. Whenever a mullah coughs in Ichhra,
the mighty national security establishment, armed with nuclear weapons
and F-16s and submarines, is inclined to tuck tail and run. It’s called
a “tactical retreat” in order to avoid opening another “front”. The
problem is that when all such “tactical” retreats are piled one upon
another, they end up in a “strategic” rout. What happened in this case
is instructive.

The mullahs had threatened to disrupt the festival for many reasons. The
country has had an earthquake and it’s bad form to celebrate a festival
after such a tragedy; the West has just insulted us with the blasphemous
cartoons and we should be foaming at the mouth rather than celebrating;
President Bush was in Pakistan recently and we should be cleansing the
Land of the Pure instead of blotting the landscape with colour. And so
on. The real reason is that the mullahs are killjoys and think that
having a bit of fun is un-Islamic. In particular, they have got it into
their little heads that the festival is tainted with “Hinduism”. Next
stop: Christmas and Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day and New Year’s Day.

That’s not all. On Thursday, the so-called Press Gallery in the Punjab
Assembly staged a walkout against kite flying. They threatened not to
return to their jobs if the government did not impose a ban on kite
flying. Their reason: one of the photographers was injured by kite
twine. Notwithstanding the accident are we to take their behaviour to
mean that if a reporter were to tragically meet with a fatal car
accident outside the assembly we should immediately ban all cars on the
roads? Or if a journalist is electrocuted because of an electric
malfunction, we should switch off all power to Pakistan? Or if someone
is killed in an accident in a factory, we should agitate for the closure
of all factories? Frankly, this is ridiculous. Reporters have no
business demanding a political decision of this nature. They should
write their stories, present the facts, keep their opinions to
themselves and let their editors fulminate against the rights or wrongs
of any policy. Threatening and blackmailing the government is the job of
the opposition and not the media. What we will do and must do is to
ensure that all safety procedures are in place and those who are driving
or those who are working in a factory are not only familiar with them
but are amenable to following them. Athletes die and get injured all the
time; car racing, motorbike racing, professional stunts, and a number of
other sports, including cricket, have seen deaths and injuries. But the
most that is done is to ensure greater safety and security of players.
We don’t ban the games.

The cartoon excuse is the worst argument to trot out. Apparently Denmark
has already gone in hiding after the fury we unleashed in Lahore and
Peshawar. Every car that we destroyed and every building we gutted
actually dented the Danish GDP until that country has begun to cringe
and tremble. Can we now go back to flying kites and enjoying ourselves a
little, or has mourning become a permanent condition with us? What is
interesting, however, is that even the Pakistan People’s
Party-Parliamentarians has chosen to side with the beards on the Basant
issue. Should we be surprised? Not really. The PPPP is a party that has
lost all sense of direction. Hunted from pillar to post it has decided
to oppose even its own agenda, now hijacked by General Pervez Musharraf,
its bete noire, and tag along with anyone, even the beards, if it means
pulling General Musharraf down. Having reached rock bottom it has now
begun to dig.

Islamabad is ready to bend over backwards to appease the mullahs because
it has compelled parties like the PPP to despair to the point of siding
with the beards. This is the worst indictment of General Musharraf’s
system. Instead of creating a system commensurate with what he is trying
to do – presumably, modernising Pakistan – he has continued to move from
tactic to tactic without any of the tactical pieces fitting into a
larger, long-term strategy. There is no such thing as placating the
beards. If you give them an inch they will demand a yard. This is
another shameful day in the civil life of Lahore. It is particularly
galling that small victories like Basant that came to civil society
after years in the cultural wilderness are being snatched from us so
cruelly by an extremist miniscule minority with the help of the powerful
government of the day. *


____


[3] THE DANGEROUS NUCLEAR FLIRT BETWEEN THE US AND INDIA


The News International (Pakistan)
March 11, 2006

A DEAL NOT WORTH EMULATING

by Praful Bidwai

(The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and
human-rights activist based in Delhi)

The euphoria in influential circles in India over President George W
Bush's visit bears sharp contrast to the disappointment in Islamabad
with his relatively brief stopover in Pakistan. The disappointment is
exaggerated by the unpopularity of President Pervez Musharraf's military
operations against his own people close to the Afghan border. But it's
nevertheless real.

Some Pakistani commentators are particularly bitter that Bush offered
India an exceptional deal on nuclear weapons and nuclear power while
pouring cold water over hopes that a similar arrangement might be
negotiated with Pakistan. Bush was blunt: "Pakistan and India are
different countries with different needs and different histories."

This column argues that the worth of the India-US nuclear deal is, to
put it mildly, highly questionable. Pakistan should not emulate it or
try to negotiate a similar arrangement with, say, China. The future of
the subcontinent, and its peoples' welfare, does not lie in nuclear
weapons or nuclear electricity, but in mutual cooperation and
development of other energy sources, especially renewable ones.

What's the nuclear deal, initialled last July, and fleshed out on March
2, all about? Contrary to US claims that it'll integrate India into the
global nuclear order by encouraging nuclear restraint on India's part,
the deal will not cap India's nuclear weapons arsenal or capacity to
make bombs. India will only offer 14 of the 22 power reactors now in
operation or under construction to the International Atomic Energy
Agency for 'safeguards' (inspections to check that they aren't used to
make weapons). The other eight reactors and two fast-breeders (including
one under construction), as well as all dedicated military-nuclear
facilities will remain out of the inspections regime. Besides, India can
build any number of new nuclear-military facilities.

The exempted reactors can produce about 130 kg of plutonium-239 a year.
Considering that just 3 to 5 kg is enough for a Nagasaki-type bomb,
India can build 25 to 40 nuclear weapons a year, in addition to its
existing stockpile, probably of the order of 100 bombs.

Getting power reactors exempted from international inspections is surely
an "achievement" for India's nuclear policy-makers. They have made only
two nuclear-related concessions to Washington. One, the safeguards on
the 14 reactors will be in 'perpetuity'. India cannot take them in and
out of inspections at will -- unlike the N-5 (the five NWSs recognised
by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). And two, India has offered to
permanently close down CIRUS (Canada-India Research Reactor-US) by 2010,
although it can run for another 10 or 12 years, having been extensively
refurbished in 2004.

Although the July text talks of India assuming "the same
responsibilities… and acquir[ing] the same benefits and advantages" as
the N-5, the reality is different. India, as a Johnny-come-lately in the
Nuclear Club, couldn't expect the same treatment. (Only 11 of the
hundreds of civilian facilities of the N-5 are inspected by the IAEA.)

CIRUS, commissioned in 1960, was a product of Canadian design and US
heavy water -- conditional upon an explicit Indian commitment that the
reactor's products would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, a
promise flagrantly betrayed by the 1974 blast whose plutonium came from
that reactor. India is putting a lid on CIRUS's dubious past. India can
always build a much larger reactor.

These concessions are minor in relation to short-term 'gains' -- US
recognising India as a de facto NWS, embracing it as a strategic
partner, accommodating it in the global nuclear order, and offering to
sell to it uranium fuel and nuclear reactors. Bush would have found it
virtually impossible to 'sell' the deal to the US Congress in the
absence of perpetual safeguards. However, these 'gains', as we see
below, are dubious.

Besides recognition as a de facto NWS, India got guarantees of fuel
supply too. Bush also took the high-risk decision to exempt from
safeguards the small 14 MW experimental fast-breeder test reactor
(commissioned in 1985), and the 500 MW prototype fast-breeder (PFBR),
under construction. US negotiators had ruled this out. But Indian
nuclear scientists launched a media campaign against their inclusion in
the civilian list. This helped Prime Minister Manmohan Singh plead that
it would be politically impossible to safeguard fast-breeders, although
they are efficient plutonium producers.

All in all, Indian negotiators played their cards well. But we need to
ask what their game was. At its core is a cynical agenda: namely,
legitimising the most destructive weapons known to humanity by sealing
an India-US strategic partnership. For over 30 years, Indian
policy-makers have craved for US recognition of India as a
'responsible', friendly and 'trustworthy' power.

The craving greatly increased after the Cold War ended. India's
nuclear-weapons status was one of the main obstacles to US recognition.
The others -- Non-Alignment, and India's pursuit of agendas like a New
International Economic Order, fair trade and debt forgiveness -- were
gradually removed as India embraced market-friendly policies. Now, the
final obstacle has vanished.

Washington's main motive behind the deal is to co-opt an emerging power,
gain entry into its sizable market, build a counterweight to China and
Iran, and integrate India into the US global scheme as a junior partner.
As US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns put it: "The economic
benefit is going to be in billions…"

However, 'strategic partnership' spells the erosion of many independent
options for India. It should embarrass any self-respecting, dignified
nation to be recruited as a Superpower's junior partner against a
neighbour or allow the erosion of its own policy autonomy. But that's
exactly what will happen. Through the Singh-Bush "Joint Statement", the
US has extracted major economic and political concessions from India.

India is doing the world a great disservice by becoming complicit in US
plans for Empire. Equally deplorable is India's sanctification of
nuclear weapons -- India's own and everybody else's. India is
jettisoning a cause it championed for 60 years, to which Singh promised
to return -- global nuclear disarmament. This will set a negative
example and provoke a rethink in states that renounced nuclear weapons,
like Germany, Japan, Sweden, Brazil and South Africa.

The last thing anyone needs for energy security is nuclear power, which
is twice as expensive as electricity from burning fossil fuels, and many
times more hazardous. All nuclear power plants can undergo catastrophic
accidents like Chernobyl. They produce wastes that remain radioactive
for thousands of years. Building nuclear plants is like building houses
without toilets. Nuclear power will make India more dependent on imports
for its energy needs.

The deal is likely to face opposition from the US Congress. America's
Eastern Establishment press and many Congressmen are against it. This
became evident in Bush's March 8 meeting with 14 lawmakers. With his
acceptance ratings at a historic low (34 per cent), Bush may not be able
to win Congressional ratification for the deal. But Indian policy-makers
don't seem to have considered this at all. They have no exit clause in
case Congress rejects the agreement.

Surely, this is not a model worthy of emulation. Musharraf got it right
when he said last week that Pakistanis should stop being 'India-centric'
and India-obsessed in a negative way. Instead, they should develop
non-adversarial friendly relations with India. That's where our future
lies, not in competing to befriend a global bully.

o o o

truthout.org
March 9, 2006

BUSH, SINGH UNMAKE HISTORY
by J. Sri Raman

     George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh had just finished addressing
their joint media conference in New Delhi, after issuing a joint
communiqué on March 2. Singh saw it as an occasion for a dramatic
statement. Turning to the US leader, India's Prime Minister declared:
"Mr. President, we have made history."

     They had indeed made history. Or, more correctly, they had unmade
history. A three-day visit of President Bush threatened to undo a proud
history of decades, of India in the international arena. It also made a
more than perceptible difference to the country's current political history.

     The three days ended an entire era of India's role as a frontline
state in the international struggle for nuclear disarmament. The role,
of course, was relinquished with the country's declaration of itself as
a nuclear-weapon state in 1998. With the Bush visit, however, India's
rulers bade a final and formal farewell to the role. The three days also
marked the beginning of a new period when New Delhi may abandon
pretensions to an independent foreign policy.

     The chief highlight of the visit was the further advance achieved
towards a US-India nuclear deal. The much-advertised differences between
the two sides over vital details of the deal were ironed out to produce
what was hyped as a "historic" accord, despite the fact that it still
awaited US Congressional approval. In the reams already written on the
subject, it has been repeatedly pointed out that it represented a US
abandonment of its commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), as it "rewarded" a state that had refused to sign the treaty. To
an Indian peace activist, it is equally important, if not more so, that
the deal represented India's abandonment of principled opposition to the
monopolist nuclear militarism of the P5, the "nuclear club" that the
country has now come close to entering as a near-equal member.

     The immediate political condition for the deal had already been
made clear to India. We have, in these columns, seen how the deal was
made dependent on India's compliance with the US on the Iran issue in
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). During the Bush visit,
this was made part of a broader and more belligerent condition. The US
President, in his parting message, called upon India to join his regime
in its crusades for "democracy" in such select countries as Myanmar,
Syria, Cuba and, of course, Iran. Niceties of protocol did not stop him
from naming countries with which India had good state relations, even as
he refrained from drawing attention to a danger to "democracy" in places
like Saudi Arabia.

     Bush left it to sidekicks like Under Secretary of State Nicholas
Burns to dilate upon his discrimination in favor of "democracies."
Scoffing at attempts to equate India with Iran, Burns has stressed the
former's "democratic" credentials. Technically, of course, India cannot
be given recognition as a nuclear-weapon state in terms of the NPT, as
it did not test and acquire nuclear weapons before 1967. The sanction of
a special status for India under the deal, however, is in no doubt. The
status puts India in a category perilously close to that of Israel.

     The Israelization of India spells a danger to South Asia all the
more for the unambiguous denial of a similar nuclear deal to Pakistan.
Proceeding to Islamabad from India, Bush clearly rejected President
Musharraf's demand for a like deal on the grounds of "different (Indian
and Pakistani) needs and histories." The Pakistani leader responded by
hinting, not so darkly, at "other options" before his country. A nuclear
arms race in the subcontinent, with China and the US cheering the rivals
on, is now far from a fantasy.

     The task for the peace movement is made more difficult by the
difference the Bush visit has made to the political scene in India.
Until the other day, the Singh government faced its main challenge from
the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), counting on backing from the
left to bail it out. At least on the issues raised by the Bush visit,
the situation has been reversed.

     As we saw before, the BJP and its far-right family swung to Singh's
support on the Iran issue. They have done it again on issues raised by
the nuclear deal. Not only the BJP, but the entire nuclear-militarist
establishment has rallied to the rescue of the Prime Minister who, at
one point, appeared to face all-round opposition to the deal.

     It was not only former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had
voiced fears that the deal might impose a "cap" on India's
nuclear-weapon program. Even stronger words had emanated from scientists
and security analysts associated with the program and its promotion.
Department of Atomic Energy chairman Anil Kakodkar, in an unconventional
media interview, accused the US of "shifting its goal post" (with the
presumable purpose of stifling India's strategic program). Former
National Security Council Convener K. Subrahmanyam, sternly opposed to
any US counsel on India's separation of its civilian and military
nuclear facilities, said: "You are a sovereign state. Behave like one."
Another leading analyst, Bharat Karnad, said: "Let the damn thing fail
in the US Congress. That's our only hope."

     The same Kakodkar has now, in a television interview, hastened to
pronounce the deal as "satisfactory." Subrahmanyam describes the result
of the Bush visit as a "win-win deal." Karnad claims that it is a
"balanced" deal which meets "most of India's demands." The BJP, of
course, makes no bones about its basic support for the deal though, for
the sake of form, it reserves the right to demur about the number of
facilities New Delhi is ready to put under IAEA safeguards.

     In other words, the deal, which places 14 of India's 22 nuclear
facilities under IAEA safeguards, is welcomed above all as a fillip to
India's nuclear-militarist fortunes. And it is a wider political welcome
to Bushism and the Bomb than the peace movement expected to witness.

     A freelance journalist and a peace activist of India, J. Sri Raman
is the author of Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular
contributor to t r u t h o u t.

  		 	
____



[4]


Hindustan Times
March 10, 2006

ROAD TO PERDITION

Left Hand Drive | Sitaram Yechury
		
		
The terror attacks in Varanasi underscore the fact that history is often
chillingly instructive. Its remarkable coincidences serve as a
foreboding and as a warning that we can ignore only at our peril. One
such is the following: on February 27, 1933, the Reichstag (Germany’s
seat of power) was set on fire. On February 27, 2002, Coach S-6 of the
Sabarmati Express burst into flames at Godhra. The former was used by
Hitler to launch a vicious anti-Communist repression, abrogate
democratic rights, suspend the Weimar Constitution and proceed to
consolidate Nazi fascism. The fire was later established to have been
the handiwork of the fascist forces themselves, who used this as pretext
for their consolidation.

The Godhra incident was used by the RSS, its affiliates and its
political arm, the BJP, to unleash a State-sponsored communal genocide
in Gujarat. The U.C. Banerjee report has finally nailed the lie, which
many had intuitively felt even then, that the fire was an accident and
not a conspiracy hatched by jehadis against kar sevaks. The pretext of a
pre-planned conspiracy was used to justify the now infamous
‘action-reaction’ theory.

The RSS/BJP’s outcry against these findings are natural and expected.
Apart from exposing the
untruths and the Goebbelisian propaganda techniques (Hitler’s propaganda
minister Goebbels had perfected to the hilt his dictum, “If you tell a
big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth”), this report,
in a way, reconfirms the ideological destination of the RSS/BJP as being
the conversion of the secular democratic Indian republic into a
fascistic Hindu rashtra.

On February 24, 2006, the RSS launched year-long grandiose birth
centenary celebrations of Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar. ‘Guruji’, as he was
called, was the ideological and organisational architect of the RSS. He
provided the ideological construct for the RSS conception of the Hindu
rashtra. His seminal work, We or Our Nationhood Defined, first published
in 1939 — the modern-day BJP refuses to acknowledge this work out of
embarrassment — constitutes its ideological bedrock. Various editions of
this work were printed, the fourth being in independent India in 1947.
Unambiguously, Golwalkar states, “In Hindustan exists, and must need
exist, the ancient Hindu nation and naught else but the Hindu nation.”
And, “all others are either traitors or enemies to the national cause,
or, to take a charitable view, idiots”. Further, he says, “there are
only two courses open to the foreign elements (non-Hindus): either to
merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live
at its mercy, so long as the national race may allow them to do so. We
are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal,
with the foreign races who have chosen to live in our country”.

And how should such ‘old nations’ deal? “To keep up the purity of its
race and culture, Germany shocked the world by purging the country of
its Semitic races — Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested
here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for races
and cultures, having differences going to root, to be assimilated into
one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit
by” (emphasis added).

The coincidences thus are not merely of historical dates; they are of
similar ideologies. And it is this ideological thrust that defines the
BJP’s reactions to the terror attacks in Varanasi. Having come to the
conclusion that the BJP has to revert to the basics of the RSS ideology
following its electoral defeat, the RSS has replaced the BJP’s
leadership and reoriented its responses. The very same L.K. Advani, who
received universal support while he was the deputy PM and home minister
in combating terrorism, has today not only refused such cooperation to
the UPA government, but has announced an offensive.

He has claimed that these attacks are due to the policies of ‘minority
appeasement’. During his tenure, the country was witness to terror
attacks on Parliament, on the Red Fort, Akshardham temple and twice at
the Raghunath temple. By his very own logic, were these the consequences
of the Vajpayee government’s ‘minority appeasement’?

Clearly, the RSS/BJP, instead of rising unitedly with the rest of the
nation in combating this menace, are seeking to utilise this to sharpen
communal divides for their political ends. The season of rath yatras is
here again. Advani’s first rath yatra left behind a trail of mayhem and
arson and paved the way for the demolition of the Babri masjid and the
BJP’s ascendancy to power. History repeats itself, as has been famously
quoted; the first time as a tragedy, and the second time as a farce.

The RSS had its VHP convene a Dharma Sansad in February at Allahabad,
which adopted a 13-point ‘Hindu Charter’ describing it as the
‘blueprint’ for a Hindu rashtra. It openly asserted that “it is time
that Hindus developed a vote bank of its own to pressurise all political
parties to protect and advance the interest of the Hindu community,
cutting across barriers of caste”. The RSS further organised the
Shabarikumbh Mela in Dangs district of Gujarat; it upped the ante on the
Bhojshala issue in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh and utilising its position as a
coalition partner in Karnataka, it is fomenting tensions at the Baba
Budanagiri shrine in Chikamagalur. Clearly, its agenda for the future
needs no further
articulation.

The RSS/BJP’s affinity with US imperialism finds a sympathetic chord
with the latter’s naked aggression in Asia, in what it defines as ‘clash
of civilisations’. Those who see the current imperialist aggression as a
response to Islamic fundamentalism must recollect that many of these
forces were, in the first instance, the creation of the US itself, like
the Taliban!

While Islamic fundamentalism has to be combated and defeated, it is
facetious to blame the Frankensteins while trying to absolve oneself of
releasing them. Recall that US President George Bush invoked ‘God’ to
justify attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq.

In his acceptance speech, Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel laureate for
literature, volunteers to be George W. Bush’s speech writer and says,
“God is good. God is great. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad.
Saddam’s God was bad, except he did not have one. He was a barbarian. We
are not barbarians…”

The claims of one’s God being good while those of others being bad is
communalism at its worst. The policies of the Bush administration ends
up communalising the world. No wonder the RSS/BJP finds US imperialism a
convenient and natural ally.

The Indian people have seen through all this before. Machinations for
political benefit can’t answer the questions of livelihood of the common
man at the ground level. Did the RSS/BJP abstain from celebrating Holi
when their foreign minister escorted terrorists to the Taliban? Did they
skip Diwali when Parliament was attacked? Did they refuse to enact the
Ram Lila when Akshardham was attacked or when Gujarat was on fire and at
least 2,000 people died? It is time for all of us now to ensure that
communalism of all hues and shades falls off the country’s radar and
does not inhibit the country’s march to progress.

The writer is Rajya Sabha MP and Member, CPI(M) Politburo

____


[5]


Gomantak Times(India) March 10, 2006

THE BJP MADE A HISTORIC BLUNDER IN SAVORDEM

Sujay Gupta

Strap: Hindu fundamentalism is bound to eventually collapse due to its
inherent contradictions

"When facing discontent from people at home, foster discontent for
people abroad," said an Athenian statesman in the 5th century B.C. 2500
years later the Athenian's lesson appears to apply to the world's
largest democracy, with a slight twist.
“When majority dominated parties in one state feel they are out of power
and need to regain it by polarizing communities, they foster discontent
for the minorities living in and out of the state”
Though the cause and effect of the Savordem riots has been discussed and
debated threadbare, the trend needs to be put into the historical and
academic context.
It is clear that the manner, in which a relatively minor incident was
converted into a full-fledged violent pogrom, is indicative of a larger
but clear design.
After studying the events that led to the incidents, including private
conversations with some members of the BJP, the incidents were not
according to a pre planned script. However, when the Hindu groups in
Savordem learnt that a stay had been granted on the demolition of the
structure constructed by one Sayyad Ashraf in the name of one Anarbi
Adam Khan, a swift retribution was planned. Hence, even before the stay
orders could be officially handed over, the majority Hindus, spurred by
the local BJP leadership decided to destroy the structure.
These are matters of crucial detail. But if we go beyond just the
incident and see the broader picture, the BJP had a clear-cut political
agenda. Curchorem and Savordem both have BJP MLA’s- a crucial pocket
from the South Goa perspective. Adjoining constituencies such as Quepem
and Margao are in the hands of the Congress. For the BJP it made sense
to further consolidate and polarize the Hindus to strengthen their
positions in Savordem and Curchorem and upset the Congress applecart in
Margao and Quepem. It may be recalled that rookie Sharmad Raiturkar had
managed to make inroads into Digambar Kamat's vote bank in Margao and
was in a serious position to oust him. The fight will be much closer
this time.
The problem with the BJP in Goa is that it isn’t aware of its own
strengths and keeps on repeating its mistakes. All that the party needed
to do was –as the saying goes ‘keep batting” till the congress collapsed
in the weight of their own infighting and contradictions. There wasn’t
any real for polarization because the congress was heading for a
resounding defeat on the performance parameter alone. And if this
failed, their own fighting would sink them.
Therefore the BJP made a historic blunder of doing too much in Savordem
when it had to do too little. Of course it’s another matter that the
Congress failed to reach out to the Muslims, resulting in their further
alienation. But Savordem has been BJP’s loss because liberal Hindus who
were veering away from the congress to the BJP, mainly because of
Parrikar’s performance as an administrator- will stop in their tracks,
fearing that the seamier, uglier, communal side of Parrikar might
resurface again.
As I’ve said before, Parrikar and the BJP does not need the so-called
comfort handle of militant communalism for its votes, since it scores
far higher than the congress on the performance index. And would have
mattered.. Till Savordem happened.
This has been BJP’s biggest albatross. There is a unique complex in the
BJP that it is not tough enough to tackle Islamic fundamentalism. This
leads to constant muscle flexing to prove a point.
As Shiv Sena boss Bal Thackeray said,  "We will no longer be thought of
as a country of eunuchs!” referring to the reputation for non-violence
that has “dogged” India since the time of Gandhi. Hence every time,
there is a feeling- even if its misplaced- that the Muslims are making
any inroads, the BJP needs to show that it can match blow for blow. The
truth is that it is really not required.
The shrill cry of "Hinduism in danger," as a counter to the original
call of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s that ‘Islam is in danger” will eventually
fail in its mission to unite Hindus. Hindu fundamentalism is bound to
eventually collapse due to its inherent contradictions. Just like
Jinnah's shortsighted approach, Hindu fundamentalists are blind to the
effect of their divisive stand. They fail to take into account India's
150 million Muslims.
To turn this large population into subservient slaves would not only
destroy the moral fabric of the nation, it will create a backlash that
will result in blood flowing in each Indian city. Neither the Hindu
fundamentalists nor the Indian army can fight a civil war when the
"minority" consists of 150 million people.
This is true of Goa too. Especially when the minority consists of not
only the Muslims but Christians too, who treat the BJP with distrust?
What the BJP fails to- or does not want to - realise is that Islamic
fundamentalism is not a homegrown product in India. Islamic jihad has
festered across the border. Terrorist groups, in Kashmir, In Pakistan
and in the Gulf have largely been dominated by non Indian Muslims. This
is critical. Indian Muslims are Indians first.

Here’s an interesting example. The school of Islam that gave vent to the
Taliban originated in Deoband, a northern Indian town in the state of
Uttar Pradesh, where even today Muslims and Hindus manage to peacefully
coexist.  However, the 135-year-old Darul Uloom seminary, home of
Deobandism, has always embraced India’s secular constitution and the
principle of religious diversity it embodies.  India’s Deobandis,
accordingly, stood by Gandhi in opposing the foundation of a separate
Pakistan.
By contrast, the Deobandis of Pakistan and Afghanistan have sought to
extend their brand of fundamentalism by way of jihadic holy war.
Pakistan’s Deobandi madrassas became training grounds for Taliban
leaders and terrorists such as Masood Azhar, while later Deobandis would
give sanctuary to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.  Pakistan’s military
has funded thousands of these madrassas since the 1980s, funneling
assistance from Saudis who wished to encircle Shiite Iran in a Sunni
ring of fire.
Hence, this differentiation needs to be made. The average Indian Muslim
with strong roots in this country is far more peace loving than the
radical fundamentalist Hindu. Once, the average right thinking Indian
knows and believes this, BJP plan of dividing communities will come a
cropper


____


[6]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 8, 2006
www.friendsofsouthasia.org

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: REPRESENTING WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA TEXTBOOKS

Sacramento, California, March 8, 2006:  Representatives of women’s
groups and gender studies faculty held a press conference this afternoon
at the State Board of Education (SBE) to commemorate International
Women’s Day and to urge the Board to adopt textbooks that accurately
depict the history of women’s struggle against oppression.

International Women’s Day was first celebrated on March 19, 1911, in
Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland by over a million women and
men who rallied for women’s suffrage, women’s right to hold office, work
and vocational training, and equal workplace treatment. In response to
the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire shortly thereafter, in which many
young Jewish and Italian immigrant women lost their lives, American
observances of this day have often emphasized women’s labor conditions.
To these concerns, Russian women added a commitment to peace and
international solidarity by marking International Women’s Day on the eve
of World War I with anti-war demonstrations. Over the following
century, women continued to agitate for gender equality, peaceful
coexistence among nations, and the creation of international standards
and programs to improve the status of girls and women globally.
International Women’s Day continues to be an important event in many
parts of the world.

Anu Mandavilli, a member of Friends of South Asia (FOSA), noted, “Women
have often taken to the streets to demand political representation,
economic justice, and social equality. But we have also had to fight for
the right to have these struggles represented in history. I am pleased
to join representatives of women’s groups and faculty in demanding that
history textbooks present truthful information about the status of women
in ancient India.” Mandavilli was alluding to an ongoing controversy
over the recertification of sixth-grade history textbooks. Two Hindu
Nationalist Indian American groups, the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the
Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), tried to alter the contents of
textbooks and have been accused by South Asian community groups of
pushing sectarian agendas. The VF and HEF claim that the textbooks
portray Hinduism stereotypically and, thus, will damage the self-esteem
of Hindu children. Among their recommendations to give a rosier view of
Hinduism, the VF and HEF advocated downplaying the oppression of women
in ancient India, along with deleting references to “Dalits” (formerly
known as “untouchable groups”) in the texts.

California legislators voiced their concerns over the edits suggested by
the HEF and VF, particularly those regarding gender and caste. Seventeen
legislators, including members of the Assembly and Senate Committees on
Education, the Women’s Caucus, and the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus,
sent a letter to the SBE expressing their dismay at the recommendation
to alter the wording of a passage on women’s rights. The original
passage read, “Men had many more rights than women. Unless there were no
sons in a family, only a man could inherit property. Only men could go
to school or become priests.” The proposed edit would substitute the
following one: “Men had different rights and duties than women. Women’s
education was mostly done at home.” Commenting on this passage, the
legislators warned against the dangers of revisionist history: “These
proposed edits stray from academic facts in order to sanitize and
oversimplify caste and gender inequalities in ancient and present-day
India.” The legislators asked the SBE to “reject curriculum
modifications that are not based on historically accurate and objective
scholarship, and that are not religiously neutral.”
Signatories to the letter included Assembly members Sally Lieber, Lori
Saldana, Loni Hancock, Carol Liu, Wilma Chan, Karen Bass, Noreen Evans,
Cindy Montenez, Barbara Matthews, Alberto Torrico, and Senators Elaine
Alquist, Sheila Kuehl, and Jackie Speier. They were joined by the
Co-Chairs of the API Caucus, Judy Chu and Leland Yee, Vice-Chair of the
Women’s Caucus, Patty Berg, and Senate Majority Leader, Gloria Romero.

The legislators’ concerns over this edit have also been echoed by
faculty members who specialize in women’s studies. As Kasturi Ray, a
faculty member in the Gender and Women’s studies program at UC,
Berkeley, noted in her letter to the SBE, “This sentence also equates
difference with what were actually systematically-denied duties and
rights based on gender. With this sentence, we lose the opportunity to
understand what women really had to do (and continue to do)
to win equal duties and rights.” Angana Chatterji, an Associate
Professor of Anthropology at the California Institute of Integral
Studies, elaborated on the dangers of such changes in a letter to the
Board. “These revisions justify patriarchal dominance and cultural
nationalism in Indian history. Hindu sectarian groups in present-day
India construct a revisionist and supremacist history that condones and
glorifies a militant and misogynistic society. They dismiss the deep
social, economic, and political disenfranchisement of women,
Dalits, adivasis, and religious minorities, along with the ongoing
struggles for justice and self-determination of these communities.”
Similar reservations have  been shared with the SBE in letters by
women’s studies faculty from several other states. Rupal Oza, the
Director of the Women’s Studies Program at CUNY, observed, “It is
important that school children learn about imbalances in power among men
and women if we are to understand today’s society as well as to learn
how much women have gained rights through conscious and continuous
struggle.”

In addition to faculty members, approximately fifteen other women
attended, representing groups such as FOSA, Coalition Against
Communalism, and the Global Fund for Women. Anjali Asrani, a member of
the Global Fund for Women, underscored the negative impact that the
proposed edits would have on children’s ability to comprehend the
present status of women. “The revisions make it difficult to understand
ongoing human rights violations against women based on gender, caste,
class, religion, and sexuality,” she explained. “Allowing a sanitized
version of women’s experience to masquerade as truth is an injustice to
schoolchildren and to those who continue to be oppressed by the Hindutva
movement.” Asrani concluded, “The HEF’s and VF’s demands to sugarcoat
women’s oppression make a travesty out of International Women’s Day.”

The SBE is slated to make its final decisions regarding textbook
adoption at its meeting later this afternoon.

[ . . . ]
.

____


[7]

San Franciso Chronicle
Friday, March 10, 2006

HINDU GROUPS LOSE FIGHT TO CHANGE TEXTBOOKS
But decision by state Board of Education is supported by some Hindu
Americans

Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sacramento -- A tumultuous chapter in California textbook history
reached a climax this week when the state Board of Education rejected
demands from some Hindu groups for many changes in new textbooks'
treatments of ancient India.

The 8-0 vote with two abstentions followed a passionate 90-minute public
hearing Wednesday and capped months of other hearings and intensive
lobbying by activists and scholars that attracted national attention.

"What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these
Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way
textbooks portray their faith and culture," said Jihane Ayed of Ruder
Finn, a New York-based public relations firm representing the Vedic
Foundation and Hindu Education Foundation.

The foundations say Hinduism is tarnished by textbook portrayals of the
untouchable caste and inferior status of women in ancient India more
than 2,500 years ago. They also object to depictions of Hinduism as
polytheistic and the inclusion of the theory that an Aryan migration
played a key role in the development of Indian civilization.

Other Hindu Americans applauded the Board of Education.

The conflict arose as the board of education underwent its
once-every-six-years textbook adoption process for history and social
science textbooks for grades K-8 in public schools.

"What one person considers historically accurate, another person views
as a racist text," board member Ruth Green told the packed hearing room
in Sacramento.

Janeshwari Devi, Vedic Foundation projects director, said the board's
action "leaves a lot of inconsistencies, distortions and negative slants
in the books."

The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than
80 percent were not approved, Devi said.

The Department of Education's curriculum director, Thomas Adams, told
the board that the approved changes included the ones that all parties
agreed to, such as removing "Where's the Beef" as the title of a section
about India.

Anu Mandavilli, a representative of Friends of South Asia, a group that
includes Hindus and that opposed the controversial changes sought by the
Hindu foundations, called the board's action "a big victory for secular
history."

"The board stood up to threats of lawsuits and voted in favor of
historical accuracy instead of strong tactics by community groups," she
said.

Deborah Caplan, a lawyer representing the Hindu American Foundation,
told the board it violated the law during the approval process and would
be sued if it adopted the recommendations forwarded by the Department of
Education staff and a board subcommittee vote on Feb. 27. It is those
recommendations the board essentially adopted.

Caplan said Thursday that she expects to file the suit against the board
of education early next week.

California textbook battles are not new, but this year's dispute
attracted extra attention, and the process was delayed several months.

The Department of Education received more submissions than ever before,
with 11 publishers in April offering history and social studies
textbooks and supplementary materials for sixth grade, when ancient
India is usually taught in California.

"We've literally been deluged with reams of comment," said Rebecca
Parker, an administrator for the Board of Education. "Schools need these
materials. Publishers are really worried about having time to do all the
printing."

Nine publishers were approved to publish sixth-grade textbooks for next
fall. The two Hindu foundations sought changes in all nine textbooks
offered by the publishers.

California is closely watched in large part because it has a huge
influence on what other states use.

"What California adopts today will be sold across the nation tomorrow,"
says a new report on California textbook adoption by the American
Textbook Council, an independent research organization based in New York.

Islamic and Jewish organizations also lobbied the state during the
adoption process. The leading Islamic watchdog of textbooks, the Islamic
Council on Education, urged changes in descriptions of Muhammad and
early Islam.

A Jewish group called the Institute for Curriculum Services also sought
many changes. In the Houghton Mifflin and McDougal Littell textbooks,
for example, the group sought removal of a reference to early Hebrews
believing they were "God's chosen people" because the phrase is often
used to denigrate Jews.

But the groups that were most vociferous in the final stages were the
Vedic Foundation and Hindu Education Foundation, who say they speak for
the Hindu American mainstream, a claim that is disputed.

Critics, including many U.S. scholars and many American Hindus, say the
two foundations are linked to right-wing nationalist Hindu movements in
India.

"The proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but a religious-political
nature," Harvard Sanskrit Professor Michael Witzel said in a Nov. 8
letter to the Board of Education that was co-signed by 47 scholars of India.

"We have no political affiliation," said Devi of the Vedic Foundation,
which she described as the educational arm of Barsana Dham, a Hindu
temple in Austin, Texas.

Even though the board resisted many of the changes sought by activist
groups this time, the conflict could still impact future textbooks with
publishers being tempted to soften the content on their own initiative,
said Stanford University professor of education Sam Wineburg.

"Publishers will tread on this territory ever more lightly," Wineburg
said, noting that publishing companies are private, profit-driven
multinational companies.

Attempts to obtain comment from several of the publishers were not
successful.

Adding fuel to a long-running debate, adversaries battled over whether
historical accuracy is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness
and whether textbooks promote negative stereotypes of religious and
ethnic groups.

"The result," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook
Council, "is textbook editors censor themselves. They fall all over
themselves to try to cater to one pressure group."

E-mail Charles Burress at cburress at sfchronicle.com.


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

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

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





More information about the Sacw mailing list