SACW | 28 July - Aug 3, 2006 | Lebanon / Pakistan: Perils of militarism / Nepal Women / India Violence / UK: Book burners and Brick Lane
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Thu Aug 3 01:07:44 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | 28 July - August 3, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2278
(This issue of SACW is dedicated to the memory of
the American libertarian socialist Murray
Bookchin. Born on January 14, 1921, Murray died
July 30, 2006 at his home in Burlington, Vermont)
[1] Lebanon: Two Parallel Wars (Faisal Devji)
+ Empire comes to Lebanon (Aijaz Ahmad)
[2] Pakistan: Perils of militarised politics (Kaiser Bengali)
[3] Nepal: 'Women made anti-king protests successful' (Sudeshna Sarkar)
+ People's War . . . Women's War? - Two texts by Comrade Parvati
[4] India: Hashimpura : Not Just the Name of a Massacre (Subhash Gatade)
[5] India: When is violence 'terror' and when is it not? (M R Narayan Swamy)
+ Finding our common ground (Amartya Sen)
[6] UK: The book burners do not speak for all of Brick Lane (Natasha Walter)
[7] Film Review: No More Tears, Sister - film
based in Sri Lanka (Nirmal Trivedi)
[8] Upcoming Events:
(i) conversations with women writers, 'Words of Women'. (New Delhi, 4 August.)
(ii) A Public Meeting on Sri Lanka, Peace, Human
Rights and the Diaspora (London, 5 August)
___
[1]
The Times of India
August 3, 2006
TWO PARALLEL WARS
by Faisal Devji
For all their horror at its brutality,
commentators have approached the war in Israel
and Lebanon with sighs of relief. Whatever their
political inclinations, observers and analysts
around the world recognise in this war the return
of traditional politics to the Middle East.
Unlike the violence that marks large portions of
the insurgency in Iraq, or the acts of Al-Qaida
style suicide bombers elsewhere, all the parties
to this conflict are political actors of an
almost classical kind.
Whether states or militant groups, these parties
are organised along traditional political lines,
each possessing a centralised and hierarchical
command structure. This is why we can talk about
negotiations, ceasefires and deployment of
peacekeeping forces between them.
None of these interventions are possible when
dealing with the decentralised, non-hierarchical
and highly individualistic networks of today's
jehad movements.
But the spectacular return of traditional
politics to the Middle East is in fact a
compulsive repetition of the past. Hasn't all
this happened before?
Didn't Israel invade Lebanon to deal with the
Palestinian militants who were Hezbollah's
predecessors? What did that attempt to stamp out
terrorist attacks on Israel and change the
political geography of the region result in, but
more of the same despite enormous costs on all
sides?
After the transformations wrought by Al-Qaida and
the global war on terror, the latest Middle
Eastern battles seem dated, like the actions of
people who have run out of ideas.
If the war in Israel and Lebanon is not a repeat
performance, this is because it is occurring in
the wake of the global war on terror. The latter
has transformed conceptions of rationality and
interest that had characterised international
politics until the end of the Cold War.
The United States, for instance, cannot play its
traditional role as interlocutor, mediator or
even party to the current conflict because it is
unable to communicate with Hezbollah or Hamas,
Iran or Syria.
America's position is unprecedented, its role in
maintaining a global security regime having
forced it to abdicate regional obligations.
Attributing this unusual behaviour to some
neoconservative or evangelical ideology is not
enough to explain it, given the propensity of the
Bush administration and its ideological
predecessors to deal with the most incongruous
partners.
Instead its war on terror is a manifestation of
the way in which American power has gradually
been fragmenting the very definition of political
rationality and interest that had marked the Cold
War order.
The global war on terror provides more than just
a background for the fighting in Israel and
Lebanon, by permitting certain actions and
forbidding others in quite novel ways.
And this is as true for the Islamists as it is of
the US or Israel. However insignificant their
numbers, militants of the Al-Qaida variety have
pushed Islamists of the old school from the
cutting edge of Muslim radicalism.
Products of the Cold War who are organised along
traditional lines, the Islamists have by and
large denounced these jehadi interlopers.
Like other Islamist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah
have accommodated themselves to the new situation
by forsaking a communist model of the party as
vanguard and participating in electoral politics.
Without renouncing violence, both have become
increasingly moderate as political actors,
concerned with using force in the short term to
secure long-term advantages in the ceasefires and
negotiations they routinely call for.
While Hamas and Hezbollah both serve as bulwarks
against militancy of an Al-Qaida sort, the latter
is also part of the so-called Shiite crescent
that stretches from Lebanon through Iraq to Iran.
Together with the fall of Baathist Iraq and
Iran's nuclear brinkmanship, the current crisis
in Lebanon represents the second great moment of
Shiite resurgence in the Muslim world, the first
being Khomeini's revolution in 1979.
Having for the moment snatched the torch of
radicalism from the largely Sunni advocates of
global jehad, these Shiite groups have instated
another kind of politics at the heart of Muslim
militancy.
Unlike the ferociously sectarian battles of
militants in Iraq or Pakistan, Hezbollah and its
allies fight an explicitly ecumenical war,
ostentatiously supporting the Palestinians among
other mostly Sunni populations.
In this they have been so successful as to
receive the unwanted imprimatur of Al-Qaida,
whose leaders were not so long ago reluctantly
bending in the direction of Zarqawi's
sectarianism. There are two wars being fought in
the Levant today.
One is the compulsive reiteration of an exhausted
politics that involves Israel, Hezbollah and
Hamas, with Syria, Iran and the US as indirect
participants.
This regional war, waged by states, their proxies
and militias in the most traditional of ways, is
made possible by the very different kind of
battles being fought at the global level in the
war on terror.
The second war is that being waged within the
Muslim world between jehadi networks and their
opponents, who comprise increasingly moderate
Islamists as well as sections of the traditional
clerical class.
This is essentially a war to protect inherited
forms of authority from sectarian and jehadi
networks. What is extraordinary is that it has
taken a minority form like resurgent Shiism to
give force to this politics in the world of Sunni
Islam.
However the first war plays out, it is the second
that will have the most important consequences.
The writer teaches history at The New School, New
York, and is the author of a book on jehad.
o o o
Frontline, August 11, 2006
Empire comes to Lebanon
by Aijaz Ahmad
The U.S.-Israel axis goes all out to remove the
last impediments to building a "New Middle East".
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20060811005800600.htm
_____
[2]
The Times of India
July 17, 2006
'WOMEN MADE ANTI-KING PROTESTS SUCCESSFUL'
by Sudeshna Sarkar
Women, despite playing a major role in the
democracy movement in Nepal, have been excluded
from all decision-making proces-ses.
Vidya Bhandari , 46, senior member of the
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified
Marxist-Leninist), pushed for and recently got
parliament approval for two controversial rights
33 per cent reservation for women in parliament
and citizenship on the basis of the mother's
nationality. Bhandari spoke to Sudeshna Sarkar :
Why are women still protesting on the streets?
It was the overwhelming participation of women
that made the anti-king protests successful.
During the 'people's movement' in April, women
comprised 45 per cent to 70 per cent of the
protestors.
In remote districts like Dang and Chitwan, and
towns like Pokhara, there were all-women rallies
with 10,000 to 50,000 women. But this government
has given no representation to women. There is
just one woman minister in a cabinet of 20
ministers.
There are no women in the six-member committee
formed to draft an interim constitution. There
are no women in the teams formed by either the
government or the Maoists to hold peace
negotiations.
In a country where women comprise 52 per cent of
the population, this means repression of the
majority by the minority.
What are your demands?
We want proportional representation in the
constituent assembly on the basis of population.
This is imperative because, if you look at the
current constitution, you will see it has several
provisions that go against women and violate the
fundamental right to equality.
That is because the constitution of 1990 was
written without the participation of women. That
should not recur. We also want 33 per cent
reservation for women in all government sectors.
Nepal is a feudal society where women are treated
as second class citizens.
To change this, there need to be special efforts
towards women's education, health and employment.
For this, we need women in local development
organisations, parliament and, finally, the
cons-tituent assembly itself.
In theory, even men recognise this, and on May
30, parliament unanimously approved 33 per cent
reservation for women. But the approval has to be
put into practice.
How would you ensure that?
The women's wings of the major parties are
unanimous about minimum representa-tion for
women. We have been pressuring our own parties,
parliament and the ministries to ensure this, as
also to annul discriminatory laws.
After parliament approved of 33 per cent
reservation, we have been pressuring the ministry
of law and the ministry of women, children and
social welfare to introduce new laws, with a
focus on education, health services and
employment opportunities.
(Courtesy: Women's Feature Service )
o o o
A new title from Kersplebedeb which some people on this list may find of
interest:
PEOPLE'S WAR . . . WOMEN'S WAR?
Two texts by Comrade Parvati of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with
commentary by Butch Lee. A look at women's role in the Nepalese Revolution,
and the relationship of women to Maoism and revolution in general. The two
main texts in this pamphlet are reprints of essays by Comrade Parvati, one
of the few women in the central committee of the Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist).
Parvati is refreshingly critical and honest in her appraisal of the role of
women in the CPN(M)'s peasant guerilla army, drawing conclusions regarding
the connections between patriarchy and the defeat and degeneration of past
communist revolutions, and the centrality of women to any successful
communist revolution.
Commenting on these texts, North American theorist Butch Lee examines the
mixed record of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism in regards to women's
liberation, the role of women in armed
struggle, and the role of armed struggle in winning and defending
freedom and autonomy for women and children.
70 pages
ISBN 1-894946-21-9
$4.00 US / $4.50 Cdn
The introduction to this pamphlet can be read online at
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/texts/pwww_intro.html
for ordering details email info at kersplebedeb.com
_____
[3]
DAWN
August 03, 2006
PERILS OF MILITARISED POLITICS
by Kaiser Bengali
THE letter by a group of men and a woman calling
for the disengagement of the military from
politics is a significant development. The
significance of the move does not arise from the
contents of the letter, which are fairly mundane.
Rather, it arises from the fact that most of the
signatories to the letter have earned their
distinction by having served on important
political positions in military governments.
Understandably, their concerns are not born out
of principled angst regarding the violation of
the sanctity of the Constitution or of ensuring
rule of law based government and polity. Rather,
their apprehensions appear to be driven by
increasing signs even to those who are close to
the corridors of power that the
politico-institutional edifice holding the
country together is under serious stress.
Unfortunately, the letter is not likely to cause
anyone in the President House or in GHQ to sit up
and take notice; partly because the group of
signatories does not command the required moral
stature and, partly, on account of the hackneyed
contents of the letter. The fact is that General
Musharraf's occupancy of the positions of
president as well as Army Chief of Staff is
merely the facade of a set of symptoms and not
the cause of the myriad of political problems
that Pakistan faces.
The fact is that the country, having freed itself
from British colonialism in 1947, has now fallen
into the chasm of cantonment colonialism. The
fact is that Pakistan has become a praetorian
state. This is the fundamental problem that needs
to be addressed.
The military's first foray into politics
commenced in 1954 with the appointment of General
Ayub Khan as defence minister in the unelected
government of Mohammed Ali (Bogra). Since then
there has been no turning back. The military has
mounted coups and subverted the constitutional
process on four occasions in less than 50 years.
Its penchant for political power is not without a
purpose. When the British colonised South Asia,
their objective was to extract surpluses from the
local economies to support the development of the
metropolis - Great Britain.
As part of the strategy of colonial control, the
British acquired - by fiat - large tracts of land
running into several hundred square miles for
setting up cantonments, establishing military
farms, laying railway lines, etc. The
governmental machinery and governing institutions
were organised with the twin aims of control and
revenue extraction.
Even when elected governments were allowed in the
provinces, the viceroy reigned supreme. He was
only answerable to London and he ensured that the
provincial governments, even though elected, did
not function in any way contrary to the agenda of
the British government. The colonising British
prospered to 'First World' standards and the
colonised South Asians sank into 'Third World'
penury. The exceptions among the latter were
those who chose to betray their people and
collaborate with the colonisers. They emerged as
the native elite.
Today, the military has emerged as the new
coloniser and the colonial framework is back in
place. The cantonment is the new metropolis and
the civilians have been pushed back to the status
of the 'natives'. The army chief has emerged as
the viceroy, reigns supreme and is answerable
only to Washington. An elected parliament and
government has been allowed, but is constrained
to ensure that they do not function in any way
contrary to the agenda of the cantonment.
Governance decisions are made according to the
will of the military rather than the will of the
people. Once again, there are elements among the
native civilian elite who chose to betray their
people and collaborate with the new colonisers.
The colonising military metropolis and the
collaborating civilian elite have prospered to
'First World' standards and the remaining
'natives' have remained in 'Third World' penury.
Over the half century since 1954 - except the
five and a half years from December end 1971 to
early July 1977 - the military has dominated the
political and economic decision-making process in
the country. New modes of surplus extraction have
been developed. An exclusive military corporate
empire, with a vast outreach in the economy, has
emerged.
The army is the largest land owner in the
country. To the vast landholdings has been added
a range of industries, trading houses, banking,
leasing and insurance companies, transport
entities, and housing estates that are epitomes
of luxury. Military foundations, a la Fauji
Foundation and Army Welfare Trust, run about 55
industrial and commercial enterprises. The
National Logistics Cell commands a near monopoly
in bulk road transport cargo movements.
Highway construction and highway toll collection
are among the many commercial activities that are
now largely the domain of the military. Military
officers now head organisations in sectors like
power generation, communications, highway
construction, steel production, etc. There is
even a conglomerate of military colleges and
universities and hospitals and medical centres.
Other universities are often headed by military
officers. Retired military officers have emerged
in private businesses ranging from urban
transport to home security. Private firms too
employ retired military officers as public
relations officers to benefit from the military's
clout in government.
The Defence Housing Authorities are the largest
real estate enterprises in the country, headed by
the local corps commanders. That even one minute
of the corps commanders' professional time, paid
for by taxpayers money, is devoted to anything
other than matters relating to the defence of the
country is absolutely unacceptable. And peddling
real estate certainly does not in the remotest
sense form part of the country's defence.
The emergence of the praetorian state has been
accompanied by a 'softening' of the national
state apparatus. There has appeared an interface
between the military and private interests, with
the latter comprising local business houses, some
of which are now owned by military families, and
multinational corporations, including
international financial institutions. Recent
events point to the dangerous fact that the state
has become increasingly subservient to private
interests.
During the last six months alone, there have been
three major scandals. The sugar scandal prompted
the National Accountability Bureau to launch an
investigation, but it was abandoned on the
grounds that 'it is likely to destabilise the
industry!' The government demand that foreign oil
firms return excess profits worth billions of
rupees on account of failure to pass on the
benefits of international oil price reductions to
consumers fell silent after the companies
threatened to withdraw from operations in the
country. And the investigation into stock market
manipulations has turned into a hounding exercise
against the very individuals who are supposed to
reveal the truth.
Under the circumstances, the military's close
involvement in the domain of commerce, industry
and finance should ring alarm bells. Herewith,
there are lessons from history. Between 150 to
200 years ago, when the British were making
inroads into the realm of the crumbling Mughal
empire, royal dignitaries, princes and palace
officials - charged with the protection of the
empire - tended instead to negotiate with the
British for the protection of their individual
jagirs, allowances and other privileges. A
similar situation was witnessed when the British
were attempting to take over Sindh.
In Pakistan today, a situation exists whereby
military officials have constitutionally assigned
responsibility for unconditionally defending the
country, have forcibly taken over responsibility
for political decision-making, and have developed
significant and extensive business interests as
well - institutionally through military-owned
companies as well as privately. The conflicts of
interest are multi-layered and, in addition to
causing allocational inefficiencies, could also
pose an element of risk to national interests.
Allocational inefficiencies can occur if military
corporate entities are able to corner markets on
the strength of their preferential access to
decision-making forums rather than on the
strength of their cost efficiency. This practice
is actually widespread and the economic costs to
the country are certainly not insignificant. Even
the now pervasive practice of appointing military
personnel on civilian positions constitutes a
contribution to economic inefficiency.
When military officers, trained in the arts of
war through an expensive training process, are
put to managing real estate, water supply
systems, steel mills, fertiliser factories, etc.,
the result is waste of military resources.
Whether those trained in the arts of war are
efficient industrial or commercial managers is
also a moot point. Clearly, a praetorian state is
a contradiction in terms of the objectives of
developing a modern state, competing in a
globalised economy.
The element of risk to national interests is more
subtle. The opening up of the economy has led to
several Pakistani companies teaming up with
foreign firms to acquire or set up operations in
the country. This is true of military corporate
entities as well. For example, Defence Housing
Authority has set up joint ventures with foreign
firms in the realm of real estate development.
Other deals could be in more strategic sectors.
It is quite likely that a situation may arise
where a venture may be problematic with respect
to the country's national economic or political
interests. A conflict of interest may arise if
the military officials manning the corporate
entity command preferential access to military
colleagues in the ministries vetting the venture.
The experience of the scandals of the last six
months indicates that the state agenda can be
compromised. And national interests demand that
conflicting commercial considerations do not in
any way encumber the military's ability to
maintain a strong defence for the country. The
imperative of a strong defence stands heightened
today, given the strains on the eastern as well
as the western fronts and threats of hot pursuit
from across the borders.
The subject about whether the president should be
a man in uniform is basic from a constitutional
point of view and of paramount importance in the
context of a rule of law-based polity. Also
vitally important are issues of an independent
election commission and free and fair elections.
However, these matters now follow from the
determination of the fundamental question as to
whether Pakistan is to be a praetorian or a
democratic state. If it is to be the latter, then
the military corporate empire will have to be
done away with as a necessary condition for a
national interest-based democratic order to
prevail.
_____
[4]
SACW - August 3, 2006
http://membres.lycos.fr/sacw/article.php3?id_article=12
HASHIMPURA : NOT JUST THE NAME OF A MASSACRE
by Subhash Gatade
(As of now the court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi has finally framed charges of
murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy,
abduction, unlawful confinement, assault and
unlawful compulsory labour against these PAC men
charged with killing Muslims during curfew in
Meerut on May 22, 1987. And the trial has started
on 15 th July after an agonising wait for 19
years.)
In any modern, multicultural society, conflicts
between different communities always bear a
possibility of taking a violent turn. But the
important thing to remember is that effective
steps are taken by the state for the maintenance
of rule of law & order, so that any such untoward
incident does not get reduced to a riot like
situation. It is also incumbent upon the civil
society that it plays a positive role by being
inclusive so that none of its members, whatever
may be the caste or creed or nationality does not
feel marginalised or left out in the unfolding
dynamic. And if at all there are any fissures at
local level, they do not attain national
ramifications.
Coming to India , with its billion plus people ,
the track record of the state as well as the
civil society vis-a-vis management of such
inter-communal conflicts has been rather
pathetic. While the 1984 carnage of Sikhs or the
post Babri Mosque demolition riots which engulfed
the nation or the Gujarat genocide 2002 provide
the macro-picture in such cases, the massacre of
42 innocent Muslims by a horde of PAC (
Provincial Armed Constabulary) personnel from UP
way back in 1987 and the long winding process of
justice denial is symptomatic of the the deeper
malaise which afflict the body politic.
As of now the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi has finally framed charges of murder,
attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy,
abduction, unlawful confinement, assault and
unlawful compulsory labour against these PAC men
charged with killing Muslims during curfew in
Meerut on May 22, 1987. And the trial has started
on 15 th July . And as rightly pointed out in a
perceptive writeup it could be said to be a
'major landmark in the arduous journey of pursuit
of elusive and uncertain justice in the case' (
The Milli Gazette, 16-30 June 2006)
But before proceeding further it would be
opportune to have a recap of the events to get an
overall picture. There was a communal
conflagration at Meerut there 19 years ago when
the Congress ruled both in the State and the
centre. Both Police and PAC pickets were posted
there to bring the situation under control. The
1994 Confidential report of the CBI throws light
on the sordid saga. "On 22nd May 1987 around 8.0
pm. they herded 40-42 'rioters' in PAC Truck
No. UR 1493 at Hashimpura overtly for taking them
to Meerut Civil Lines or Police Lines. However,
the Platoon Commander S.P.Singh drove to the
Upper Ganga Canal Muradnagar(Ghaziabad) ignoring
their protests. On reaching there they started to
unceremoniously shooting them down. When a few
tried to escape they were shot down on the spot
and their bodies were cast into the Canal. Rest
of them were taken to the Hindon canal and there
the sordid show was reenacted . ''
Inquiry reports by reputed journalists like
Nikhil Chakravarty and, Kuldip Nayar, and
organisations like the People's Union For Civil
Liberties (PUCL) and the People's Union For
Democratic Rights (PUDR) revealed that it was a
case of barbaric cold-blooded murder by the PAC
personnel. Nikhil Chakravartty compared the event
with "Nazi Pogrom against the Jews, to strike
terror and nothing but terror in a whole minority
Community". The Amnesty International's inquiry
report observed, "There is evidence to suggest
that members of the PAC have been responsible for
dozens of extra judicial killings and
disappearances".(AI Index: ASA 20/06/87).
The State Govt. had also the incident looked into
by the CID. But this internal investigation were
completed only in 1993 -six years later.Its
Findings came one year later. As if this delay
was not enough it was further compounded by
procrastination in implementing the action
recommended. Orders in the matter were issued
only in 1995 and 1997.Even in this Order action
was recommended only against 19 officials as
against 66 recommended in the CID Report.
Interestingly there was no compliance of the
court's summoning order followed by bailable
warrants six times and non-bailable warrants 17
times between January 1997 and April 2000.
Although all of them were in active service then,
they were declared as 'absconders' by the
government.It was not for nothing that senior
journalist Siddarth Varadarajan, in his writeup
on the incident said “Even by the lethargic and
Kafkaesque standards of the Indian judicial
system, the Hashimpura case is in a class of its
own” (Times of India, 17 May 2000).
According to Mr Iqbal A. Ansari, an Aligarh
lawyer and founding member of the Minority
Council, who made all out efforts so that justice
be rendered to the victims of the Hashimpura
Massacre' " ..The U.P. government says that the
amount of Rs. 40,000/- it paid for each of those
killed is enough. It needs to be kept in mind
that Hashimpura’s is a case of custodial killings
by PAC, not that of killings during riots because
of failure of governance as in 1984 in Delhi for
which the Delhi High Court awarded compensation
of Rs. 2 lakhs." ( Ref . Forgotten Massacre by Mr
Iqbal Ansari ' Human Rights Today')
A close look at the trajectory of the case makes
it clear about the connivance of the state and
the police machinery in denying justice to the
innocent victims.It is clear that if the Supreme
Court had not intervened the process of justice
delivery would have been indefinitely postponed
further. An appeal by the Hashimpura Advisory
Committee to the Supreme Court seeking transfer
of the case to Delhi since the accused were
allegedly "exerting pressure and influence" to
stall the proceedings in Ghaziabad, prompted the
highest court to transfer the same to Tees Hazari
court in Delhi in 2002. Ofcourse despite transfer
it took four more years for framing of charges
since there was lack of will on the part of the
UP government to promptly appoint competent
Special Public Prosecutor in transferred cases.
Even now nobody can claim authoritatively that
the guilty will be punished or the yearning of
the affected people for justice will fulfilled
and the next of kin of those killed will get
adequate compensation. This is because of the
fact that many eyewitnesses of the whole incident
are long dead and while the killers of the
Muslims are openly moving about, the few
surviving witnesses live constantly in danger to
their life.
It is indeed galling to find that , even more
than fifty years after the formation of Indian
Republic Hashimpura is not an exception.It is not
just a synonym for massacre.It is a tendency.
There is nothing new in such massacres which are
well thought-out handiwork of those at the
helm of power and capital for their political
and economic objectives .In the event the
Constitution becomes a Parody. The rules made
under the Constitution only subserve their
interest.
Hashimpura reminds us about a rhetorical query by
second century Roman Satirist Decimus Junius
Juvenals wherein he asked 'Quis Custodiet Ipsos
Custodes' ? ( Who will guard the guards
themselves ?) Amen !
_____
[5]
Deccan Herald
August 2, 2006
WHEN IS VIOLENCE 'TERROR' AND WHEN IS IT NOT?
By M R Narayan Swamy
(There was nothing 'natural' about the slaughter
of Sikhs in 1984, and nothing 'natural' about
Gujarat 2002.)
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-is-violence-terror-and-when-is-it.html
o o o
The New Statesman,
31st July 2006
FINDING OUR COMMON GROUND
by Amartya Sen
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2006/07/finding-our-common-ground-amartya-sen.html
_____
[6]
The Guardian
August 1, 2006
THE BOOK BURNERS DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF BRICK LANE
Supporting marginalised communities in their
fight for social justice should not mean aligning
with reactionary forces
by Natasha Walter
Monica Ali's Brick Lane is a fine novel. As I
wrote in a review when it was first published, it
is a novel that will last - although now it seems
that it may last for the wrong reasons. After
Bengalis in Tower Hamlets succeeded in moving the
filming of the book away from their back yard
because they object to the picture it paints of
their neighbourhood, Brick Lane joined a
depressing roll call of books famous as much as
for the negative as the positive reaction they
elicit.
Yet the book never claimed to be a thinktank
report on a community; its plot is so neatly
patterned that even the laziest reader will see
that it is not aiming for pure realism. I admired
it partly because of the way its characters, who
at first seem so isolated, gradually grow towards
one another. Far from patronising or damning her
characters, Ali gives them the greatest gift a
novelist can give: imaginative life.
Some readers may think less of a novel because it
has a more tenuous relationship to reality than
they would like. Those readers like novels to
bring them "news"; the imaginative, playful
aspect of the novel that has sustained it from
its beginnings in folk tales is a mystery to
them. This is a matter of taste, and it may be
your taste to wish Ali had used more research and
less imagination in creating her Bengali family.
But there can be no justification for trying to
suppress fiction because it has not measured up
against some irrelevant yardstick. What Germaine
Greer meant when she said that, because of the
novel's supposed inaccuracies, "the community has
the moral right to keep the film-makers out" is a
mystery. Some people may have the power to do so,
but nobody has the moral right to stamp on the
cinematic recreation of this humane tale.
We had almost got used to regular threats against
blasphemous art - from James Kirkup's poem about
Christ in the 1970s to The Satanic Verses in the
1980s and in recent years Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti's
play Behzti and Jerry Springer the Opera - by
Christian, Muslim and Sikh fundamentalists. But
this ugly trend has widened with the latest
controversy, which takes the objection from
religious grounds to grounds of cultural
accuracy, or a nebulous "respect".
The bad thing about this controversy is not only
that one side is barking up the wrong tree, but
also that the media have followed the barking of
certain voices to the exclusion of other voices
in this community. I'm not saying that the
troublemakers are purely created by the media.
Obviously, and regrettably, Abdus Salique, who
threatened to burn the book at a protest, is real
enough, as are others who want to suppress the
film. But these are not the only voices worth
listening to as representatives of the community.
Journalists and commentators have to think again
about why we choose whom we do to represent a
community.
Pola Uddin, the only Bengali woman in the House
of Lords, was indignant when I asked her why we
weren't hearing more women's voices in this
debate: "Our voices aren't sought! The media are
not interested in in us." Uddin has told
agitators in the community to stop wasting their
time getting so worked up about a piece of
fiction. "I attended one public meeting a few
years ago when the book first came out and told
everyone present to be more productive with their
anger," she said. "This book should be treated
like the fiction it is. Let's put our energy into
challenging real injustices. It is unacceptable
that we should be asking for a book to be banned."
Rabina Khan is another woman whose family are
from Bangladesh and who has lived for a long time
in Tower Hamlets. There she is involved in
community projects, and she has also written a
novel, originally self-published, which has now
found an independent publisher. She is no fan of
Ali's work. "I was disappointed in it. It didn't
seem to relate to anything I've experienced. It's
very old-fashioned." She sympathises with the
protesters, but not to the exclusion of freedom
of expression. "People have the right to protest
and criticise. But she has the right to write her
own experience."
Khadija Rahman, a teacher at Waltham Forest
College, attends a book group of Bengali women at
an arts centre off Brick Lane. When Ali's book
was discussed there, she found that women's
reactions were mixed. "Some liked it and some
didn't, but we all saw it as fiction. I was
surprised when this controversy erupted. I
thought people would be pleased for her, that her
book did so well." Khadija also doesn't feel the
protests have represented the whole community.
"The men in the community are more uneasy than
the women. Brick Lane is famous for its
restaurants, which are mainly run by men, and
they don't like the fact that Monica Ali, who
doesn't live there and doesn't care about their
opinions, has had such a success."
The opinions of people like Rabina Khan, Khadija
Rahman and Pola Uddin are not inflammatory enough
to make the news. Yet the danger is that if the
media identify the community only with its most
reactionary spokespeople, people outside the
community who sympathise with its other
grievances - lack of political representation,
say, or poor housing, or unemployment - may feel
they have to line up beside the reactionaries in
the cause of social justice.
But let's not forget that Ali, like Salman
Rushdie and Bhatti, is just as much a part of
immigrant communities as the would-be book
burners, and that if we listen out we can catch a
great range of voices from every community. From
the Bengali community, those include women who
can see the irreducible value of freedom of
expression alongside their commitment to social
justice. As Uddin told me: "The fact is that this
community has limited political representation
and very little is being done to eradicate
unemployment and poverty in the community. There
are hundreds of women working on these issues
throughout the country but no one is interested
in that kind of daily grind." People on the left
should not feel that in order to support
marginalised communities in their fight for more
social justice we have to align ourselves with
their most reactionary elements.
That's why we need not get caught up in the
rhetoric of a clash of civilisations to go on
supporting core values of tolerance and freedom
of expression. These values are supported by
people within every community, as well as by
people who understandably feel they have no
community that can speak for them, and so would
rather speak for themselves.
natasha.walter at guardian.co.uk
_____
[7] FILM REVIEW
India New England
Issue Date: July 15 to 31, 2006, Posted On: 7/20/2006
NO MORE TEARS, SISTER
BROWN STUDENT PORTRAYS SLAIN MOTHER IN INTENSE FILM BASED IN SRI LANKA
By Nirmal Trivedi
Sharika Thiranagama, a student at Brown
University, portrays her slain activist mother in
the film, "No More Tears Sister." The film
included intense scenes and personal scenes such
as the ones above and below.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Why do victims of war produce
more victims? How does one understand those who
take revenge on people displaced by war after
having been displaced themselves?
Such questions interest Sharika Thiranagama.
Currently the Nancy L. Buc postdoctoral fellow at
the Pembroke Center for Teaching and Research on
Women at Brown University, Thiranagama is the
daughter of Dr. Rajani Thiranagama, a doctor and
human rights activist who was killed in 1989 in
Sri Lanka after criticizing the militarized
nationalism of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) or "Tamil Tigers," only a few years
after she worked with the Tigers to advocate for
Tamil equality with the Sinhalese majority.
To connect with her mother and to help portray
her story accurately, the younger Thiranagama
decided to take on a difficult task - that of
donning the role of her mother in a film about
her.
The film, titled "No More Tears Sister," was
recently aired on PBS in its series "POV." The
film tells the story of Thiranagama's activism
and struggle for social justice by incorporating
documentary film clippings, interviews with
Thiranagama's family and reenactments of her life
where she is portrayed by her daughter. Narrated
by Canadian Sri Lankan novelist Michael Ondaatje,
the author of "Anil's Ghost" and "The English
Patient," the film portrays Thiranagama's journey
from militancy to disenchantment with the LTTE.
The film, directed by veteran documentary
filmmaker Helene Klodawski is told as a romance
with her activist-husband Dayapala Thiranagama as
well with her own revolutionary ideals. It
focuses on how Thiranagama's commitment to human
rights and feminism drove her desire for equality
and yet was not able to prevent her from being
killed. Featuring prominently in the film are
letters she wrote to her husband and family
testifying to this heartfelt commitment thus:
"One day some gun will silence me. And it will
not be held by an outsider - but by a son - born
in the womb of this very society - from a woman
with whom my history is shared."
Because of the continued taboo on speaking about
the nationalist struggle and in particular the
role of the LTTE, the film had to be made in
secret. As Klodawski relates, "many people on
both sides of the ethnic divide have been
kidnapped or killed. They are all living with the
grief of lost family members, worried that they
might be next."
Those affected by conflicts of this nature are
typically unable to convey their own stories.
This perhaps explains why the film board of
Canada approached her in the first place to make
a film on the subject of women and war, broadly
conceived.
The conflict in Sri Lanka was of particular
interest to her because it "seemed like one of
these wars that had been going on for such a long
time and there didn't seem to be a great
understanding about was going on. The recent
truce provided an opportunity to think about how
from the point of view of women, a peace process
is initiated."
Klodawski explains that this film was waiting to
be made. "When reaching her [Thiranagama's]
family to explain what I had in mind, her older
sister Nirmala said, 'We've been waiting for you
for 15 years.' They seemed all very frightened to
talk about it," says Klodawski.
Understanding the concern that anyone playing the
role of Thiranagama in the film might be
subjected to attack, her daughter Sharika
Thiranagama decided to play the role herself.
"Because the danger in making this film was very
high, it was very difficult to get actresses to
play my mother. It would be a political statement
to speak out," she says.
Being only 10 years old when her mother was
killed, Thiranagama's decision created challenges
she did not anticipate. "It was very emotional
for me but I found myself wanting to say
something about my mother, what kind of person
she was, to talk about all the other women who
experience violence." As she became more involved
with the film, she realized that her mother was
very much a beloved person even outside her
family. "I started to understand much more how
she had affected lots of people's lives,"
Thiranagama relates in an interview with POV. "It
made me really look at her and think more about
what she left behind. And see her as someone who
was not just a mother to her children but her own
person who was very passionate about politics."
She holds her doctorate in social anthropology
from the University of Edinburgh, Thiranagama
says her research has allowed her to rethink her
identity as a Tamil as a people who choose to
create new conditions for excluding others
despite their own troubled past. "Academics
working on Sri Lanka don't write about what has
happened to the Muslim community. The right of
Muslims to return to the North is not a part of
the peace process. They are very much forgotten.
I went and did a lot of my research in refugee
camps with the Muslims who had been expelled, and
I learned a lot. That was a really big moment for
me, because it made me think about what it means
to be an ethnic majority of some kind. Tamils are
a minority in Sri Lanka, and we've been
discriminated against. But then to face what we
Tamils, as a majority in the North, do to our own
minorities, is a difficult thing," Thiranagama
says.
Klodawski hopes the film continues to allow those
silenced by history to open a dialogue. Having
already traveled the world, the film is being
screened at Human Rights festivals. "If it can
play on television, people who were afraid to see
it in theaters may be able to hear an
interpretation of events that they haven't been
able to discuss freely in their context," she
says.
For more information about the film and further
screenings, please visit
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/nomoretears/index.html.
_____
[8] Upcoming Events
(i)
28 July 2006
Dear Friend,
Zubaan and the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi
will be continuing its programme of conversations
with women writers, 'Words of Women'. This month
we have Maya Sharma on Friday, 4th of August.
Nivedita Menon, academic and activist will be in
conversation with Maya. Maya Sharma, a feminist,
is an activist in the Indian Women's Movement.
She is working with a grassroots women's
organization, Vikalp, in Baroda. Maya's latest
publication with Yoda Press Loving Women: Being
Lesbian in Unprivileged India will be launched at
the event. She has earlier co-authored with Abha
Bhayia and Shanti a book on single women's lives
- Women's Labour Rights.
Yoda Press is an independent publishing house,
based in New Delhi established by Arpita Das and
Parul Nayyar. Yoda Press is developing dynamic
non-fiction lists, both academic as well as
popular, which can make available interactive
spaces for further discussion, scholarship, and
writing. It is currently focusing on areas like
urban studies, sexuality and the body, gender,
sports studies, contemporary art and popular
culture, and new perspectives in history.
Started in 2003, this programme, entitled Words
of Women, has so far featured Mahashweta Devi,
Indira Goswami, Githa Hariharan, Mridula Garg,
Manjula Padmanabhan, Mrinal Pande, Mitra Phukan,
Kamila Shamsie, Kunzang Choden, Bulbul Sharma,
Manju Dalmia, C.S. Lakshmi (Ambai), Namita
Gokhale, Paro Anand, Shauna Singh Baldwin,
Shobhaa De, Arupa Kalita Patangia, Anita Nair and
Baby Halder and we hope to include many more
other women writers in the months to come.
Weíd be delighted to welcome you to this
discussion. The venue is Casurina at the Habitat
Centre, Lodi Road at 7 pm on Friday, 4th August
2006. The programme usually lasts just over an
hour. Please join us for tea at 6:30pm.
We look forward to seeing you there.
Jaya Bhattacharji
For ZUBAAN
Zubaan,
An imprint of Kali for Women,
K-92, First Floor,
Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi - 110016
INDIA
Tel: +91-11-26521008, 26864497 and 26514772
Email: contact at zubaanbooks.com and zubaanwbooks at vsnl.net
Website: www.zubaanbooks.com
o o o
(ii)
A Public Meeting on
Sri Lanka, Peace, Human Rights and the Diaspora
Amnesty International
and
Human Rights Watch
Invite you to a public meeting with
Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,Summary or
Arbitrary Executions
and speakers from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
on Saturday 5 August 2006 from 2 to 5 pm at the
Amnesty International Human Rights Action Centre
17 - 25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA
Following presentations by Professor Philip Alston, Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch an open plenary discussion will be held to address
the grave human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the constructive role
that could be played by the diaspora to achieve peace in Sri Lanka with
democracy and human rights
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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