SACW | Oct. 27-28, 2006 | Pakistan India Mistrust; Sri lanka, civil protection; Afzal Guru
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Fri Oct 27 20:36:40 CDT 2006
South Asia Citizens Wire | October 27-28, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2313
[1] India-Pakistan 'talkathon'- Mutual distrust (M B Naqvi)
[2] Sri Lanka: Government and Tamil Tigers Must
Address Civilian Protection (HRW)
[3] India: An Appeal to Save a Life of Mohammad
Afzal Guru, on the Death Row in India
(i) Letter by Anuradha Bhasin
(ii) Why the President of India must intervene in
Afzal Guroo's Case (Tapan Kumar Bose)
(iii) Murder, we said (Jug Suraiya)
[4] India: Q&A: 'New Delhi has ignored our
peaceful struggle' (Sharmila Interview)
[5] India: Gujarat as another country - The
making and reality of a fascist realm (Prashant
Jha)
[6] India: Supreme Court notice to EC on electoral rolls
[7] Upcoming Events: Debating on 'Capital
Punishment Justice or Failure of Justice' (New
Delhi)
____
[1]
Deccan Herald
28 October 2006
INDIA-PAKISTAN 'TALKATHON'
Mutual distrust
by M B Naqvi
The people should fight against fake patriots who
are interested in militarisation, tyranny and
backwardness.
The India-Pakistan dialogue was relaunched by
President Musharraf and Premier Manmohan Singh in
Havana in September for the fourth time. This
round will again begin by Foreign Secretaries'
meeting on November 14. Obviously the pace
remains slow.
Recent background has damped hope and
expectation. The tenor of relations has been
marked by increased mutual mistrust. Also,
US-Pakistan relations have come under a cloud.
Pakistan is deepening its relationship with China
in a fashion that America does not like who are
now wary and suspicious of Pakistan. Pakistan's
only policy maker, Musharraf, has not made a
secret of his spleen vis-à-vis India and its
leadership, including Dr. Manmohan Singh. How
does one expect good results from the dialogue,
when the Indian leadership constantly complains
of Pakistan-inspired terrorism and suspects
Musharraf's designs?
This dialogue does not seem to result from
awareness in either country that its best
interests will be served by better relations
between the two countries. This dialogue seems to
be a charade: neither side believes that the
other is ready to change its national course to
enable both sides to cooperate at a growing pace
for common ends and to become reconciled friends
for achieving good and great things together. In
all agreements since the Shimla accord the
operative word has been normalisation of
relations (normal intercourse between any two
nation-states). Nothing more has been envisaged
since 1972.
The words 'rapprochement' and 'friendship' have
been absent as goals from operative parts of any
document. Normalisation as a goal is not
inspiring enough to change one's national
objectives or to expect the other side to change
its objectives? Both sides continue believing
that the other is an inveterate enemy and will
never change.
Change in Indo-Pak relations will only come when
national politics in both countries changes and
the mistrust of each other diminishes. Look at
the two governments national security agenda.
They are constantly accelerating the arms race
that aim at doing the maximum damage to the
'enemy' - the enemy actually being Pakistan for
India and India for Pakistan.
The race now includes atomic weapons and missiles
that are being constantly increased and enhanced
in their destructiveness. Missiles of both will
take four to seven minutes to reach their
targets. Which government can trust the other?
It is remarkable that there is no party or leader
in either country that stands mainly for
friendship and cooperation with neighbours and
has a vision for this growth, while there are far
too many who thrive on demonising the other
parties to the dialogue, have unfriendly designs
and tactical stances. There is the folly of
assigning no place to nukes in the menu of
disputes, except as a secondary problem for
foreign Secretaries to discuss. Both sides
tacitly accept that they can go on doing what
they are doing and all that may be required is
some CBMs - a grave mistake. This will not work.
As for tactical stances, the Pakistani rulers
expect that by managing Mujahideen's pressure
with new formulas of Musharraf diplomacy, they
can inveigle India into solving the Kashmir
dispute. The Indians think while they keep
Pakistan engaged in a talkathon on Kashmir, they
can move rapidly toward free trade and economic
cooperation, the perceived interests of Indian
leadership. It is remarkable that neither side is
seriously interested in people-to-people contacts
by easing the visa regime. Security
establishments in both countries regard ordinary
citizens of the other country as security risks.
Aren't there people who have the vision of a
closely knit South Asia developing together, as
the West Europeans have done, and who abhor
nuclear weapons or power politics of great powers
and who are not for taking advantage at
whosoever's expense? There are many such people
in all South Asian countries. But they are too
few and scattered.
Vested interests - governments and the
industrial-military complex - are more interested
in exploiting the Indo-Pakistan animosity to
promote militarism in both countries. That earns
them influence and money.Why discuss what South
Asians are losing by the absence of the 'vision
thing'? Factually, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan
and, in many ways, Sri Lanka and Nepal are
partners of the US. None of them, however, is in
a position to influence American policy and
purpose. The Americans, on the other hand,
constantly influence these governments and their
politics. Meaning of honourable conduct in
international affairs seems to have changed. Now
politicians seek 'pragmatic' courses - and this
pragmatism has nothing to do with the
philosophical school of the same name - that are
indistinguishable from opportunism.
But all is not lost. There are enough people of
good sense and who will want honourable
relationships in South Asia. True, the weight of
history hangs heavy on the politics of this
region. But good people need to come together and
start a struggle against fake patriotisms of
those who want their states to remain mired in
militarisation, tyranny and backwardness. The
task is difficult but is worth doing.
____
[2]
Human Rights Watch
25 October 2006
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/25/slanka14454.htm
SRI LANKA: GOVERNMENT AND TAMIL TIGERS MUST
ADDRESS CIVILIAN PROTECTION IN TALKS
(Geneva, October 26, 2006) - The resumption of talks between the Sri
Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
presents an opportunity for both sides to endorse measures that will
ensure greater civilian protection and end the rampant and widespread
abuses of human rights in the country, Human Rights Watch said today.
Talks between the government and the LTTE are scheduled in Geneva on
October 28-29.
In letters sent today to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse and to
LTTE political head S.P. Tamilselvan, Human Rights Watch expressed its
deep concern for the ongoing human rights abuses and violations of
international humanitarian law committed by both sides since the renewal
of major hostilities this year.
"The rapid escalation of abuses shows the urgent need for the Sri Lankan
government and the LTTE to abide by international law, hold accountable
those responsible for abuses, and support international human rights
monitors on the ground," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. "The Geneva talks present an opportunity for both sides to put
such commitments on the table."
Human Rights Watch called on the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE,
regardless of how the talks in Geneva develop, to institute concrete
measures to protect civilians. The government and the LTTE should:
* Designate demilitarized zones as sanctuaries in conflict areas
and pre-position humanitarian relief in known places of refuge;
* Improve humanitarian access to populations at risk, including by
ending unnecessary restrictions on humanitarian agencies;
* Whenever possible, provide effective advance warning of military
operations, both broadly - through loudspeakers, radio announcements or
leaflets - and directly through messages to community leaders;
* Appoint local civilian liaison officers who are known and
accessible to local communities and have sufficient rank to ensure that
community concerns are heeded; and,
* Agree to the establishment of a United Nations human rights
monitoring mission in Sri Lanka, as the extent of abuses and ongoing
impunity require an international presence to monitor abuses by all
sides.
In the letters, Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the 2002
Ceasefire Agreement and the resulting Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission gave
inadequate attention to human rights issues. Large-scale hostilities
largely ceased from 2002 until mid-2006, but serious rights abuses,
including numerous killings and abductions, continued. The failure to
fully incorporate human rights concerns into the ceasefire process was a
contributing factor to the renewal of major hostilities in July, Human
Rights Watch said.
In September, Human Rights Watch issued a report, "Improving Civilian
Protection in Sri Lanka," that described recent abuses implicating
government and LTTE forces and made 34 recommendations to improve
civilian protection.
"Should the Geneva talks result in negotiations for a long-term
settlement, human rights must be an integral component," said Adams.
"But whatever the outcome of those talks, both sides should urgently
implement measures to improve the protection of the civilian
population."
_____
[3]
[27 October 2006]
AN APPEAL TO SAVE A LIFE OF MOHAMMAD AFZAL GURU, ON THE DEATH ROW IN INDIA
I am forwarding a letter from Anuradha Bhasin
Jamwal, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, one of
the oldest daily news papers of Jammu and
Kashmir. Anuradha has shared her concern about
how the Intelligence Bureau and other agencies
are trying to plant 'stories' in the media which
support the hanging of Mohammad Afzal Guru, an
accused in the December 2001 armed attack on
Indian Parliament.
As you may be aware that Afzal Guru and the three
other accused were sentenced to death by the
trial court. While exonerating two of the
accused, S.A.R.Geelani and Ms. Afsan Guru, the
Supreme court commented the death sentence on the
third accused Saukat Guru. However, the Supreme
Court had confirmed the death sentence on Afzal
on the 'ground of abatement of murder'.
While the right-wing political parties and the
Hindu nationalists have been asking for execution
of the death sentence, many in India have opposed
it. Several leading newspapers have published
editorials opposing 'death sentence' some have
also expresses serious reservation about manner
the police had put together the case, leaving
several questions about serious lapses in the
security of the Parliament unanswered.
I request you to read Anuradha's letter and take
steps to counter the campaign of the Intelligence
agencies by writing to the President of India.
The postal address and e-mail of President of
India is given below.
In solidarity
Tapan Kumar Bose
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
Please write to:
The President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
India
E-mail: presidentofindia at rb.nic.in
LETTER FROM ANURADHA JAMWAL BHASIN
Dear friends,
The Indian belligerence and the Hindutava's hate
soaked propaganda on Afzal Guru issue is already
well known and needs a consistent and united
campaign to tackle. The more the campaign builds
up, the state, as nation-states are expected to
do, will think of innovative ways to counter
these campaigns. I don't know how many of you are
aware of the Intelligence Bureau or Home Ministry
again making attempts to use media as a tool. I
am concerned by the stories doing rounds (I have
received them for publication and obviously
rejected these) that Intelligence Bureau is
particularly concerned by Afzal Guru case and has
recommended that his mercy petition be dispensed
with immediately. These stories state that the IB
fears that "terrorists may hold some VVIP or his
her kin hostage to bargain for Afzal Guru." One
of the stories doing rounds also includes Sonia
Gandhi and on this basis an official chopper for
her has also been justified. The stories also
seek to justify the pre-poned execution of
Maqbool Bhat who was hanged in a hurry when an
attempt to kidnap Indian diplomat was foiled.
It may not be long before these stories become
part of the media propaganda. And this, I fear,
would be a double edged sword. For the
government, perhaps, a heads I win, tails you
lose situation. If these stories become part of
popular modern folk lore, the government may use
it to build a campaign in favour of death
penalty. But since there is no other rational
argument to support capital punishment in this
case, this ploy may or may not finally work. But
I am wondering - could this be used as a weapon
by those who want to cover up for the mystery of
parliament attack – stage a drama of getting him
released in lieu of some hostage? We don't know
who was behind the attack on parliament? Jaish?
Lashkar? STF? So, if at all, any kind of a
kidnapping is being planned to barter for Afzal
Guru, would we ever know who is behind that?
Would we ever know Afzal Guru's whereabouts if at
all he is released in that barter? Would he
remain alive in either case? And, more
importantly, would any of us know how or why the
attack on parliament took place?
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal
Executive editor
Kashmir Times
A NOTE ON WHY THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA MUST
INTERVENE IN AFZAL GUROO'S CASE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE
by Tapan Kumar Bose
While pronouncing its judgment the Supreme Court
said that persons like Afzal Guroo deserve to
die. The question that arises is whether killing
Afzal will take us nearer to the objective of
ending violence and 'terrorism'. The evidence
from all over the world shows that executing
'violent criminals' has failed to cleanse the
society of violence. The state of Texas executes
the highest number of persons in the USA and has
the worst record of violent crimes. As the
aftermath of hanging Maqbool Bhat shows, hanging
Afzal will certainly not create the desired
impact of ending militancy.
Aa we know, all the four accused of the
Parliament attack case, Afzal, Geelani, Saukat
and Afsan were tried under POTA, a law that
prescribes harsh punishment. POTA does not
prescribe death sentence for those who were not
the actual perpetrators of the act of terror.
Afzal, like the three other accused was nowhere
near the Parliament when the attack was mounted.
However, the Supreme Court, which exonerated
Geelani and Afsan Guroo, and commuted Saukat's
death sentence to life imprisonment decided to
sentence Afzal to death by falling back on Indian
Penal Code, charging him with abetting murder to
justify his death sentence. In fairness the same
principle of POTA, which was applied to the other
three accused should have been applied to Afzal.
Even under Section 121A of IPC the punishment for
conspiracy to wage war against the state, which
is the only charge attributed to Afzal through
out the trial, the maximum punishment is life
imprisonment.
If 'Execution' is based on the principle that
some persons are irredeemable, does Afzal fall in
that category? Does his behaviour during the
trial show a 'black soul'? The trial records
indicate that Afzal voluntarily confessed to
assisting Mohammad who led the armed attack on
the Parliament. It is only through his statement
that we learn that he had brought Mohammad to
Delhi and set him up. Afzal told the court about
his trip to Muzaffarabad for training in
militancy. He talked of his disillusionment with
militancy and his surrender to the Border
Security Force. He talked about his efforts to
'return' to 'normal' life – opening a medicine
shop, getting married and becoming a father. He
also told the court how at different stages, the
Special Task Force (STF) had compelled him to spy
on his neighbours and friends, name other
militants and when he failed, arrested him and
tortured him, threatened to implicate him into
cases of killings, extracted money from his
family for his 'release' and final forced him to
join the so called Special Operations Group (SOG).
Afzal's life story is a sad commentary on the
counter insurgency policy of the Indian state.
Instead of helping him to be resettled in life,
the STF forced him to become a 'spy' and a 'foot
soldier' of counter insurgency. Instead of
hanging Afzal, should we not ask as to why the
STF harassed him so much that he was forced to
close down the medicine shop he had opened and
abandon his hope to settle down after his
marriage and lead a middle class life with his
wife and his child.
Afzal told the court that it was at the STF camp
that he had met one Tariq, who forced him to
bring to Delhi Mohammad, one of the perpetrators
of the attack on the Parliament House. Tariq
remains an absconding offender. Who was this
Tariq? How did Tariq get access to STF camp? What
was his connection with Mohammad? Was there any
investigation to find Tariq and to learn the
truth about of Afzal's statements before the
court?
During the trial, when his lawyer attempted to
change the statement of a witness about Afzal
accompanying Mohammad to his shop to buy the
Ambassador car that was used in the attack on the
Parliament, Afzal intervened to say that the
witness was speaking the truth. The court
believed him then. But it did not believe him
when he said that he was not aware of the real
purpose for the purchase of the vehicle.
According to records when Afzal was arrested in
Srinagar on December 15, at about 10 a.m. the
mobile phone number 9811489429 was sized from
him. It has been claimed that Afzal used this
phone to contact the mobile phones recovered from
the dead militants. The police claimed that they
got the unique identifying IMEI number of the
instrument that linked Afzal with the instrument
at the time of seizure in Srinagar. However,
while deposing on oath during the trail, the
arresting officer of J & K police admitted that
he had not opened the telephone instrument to
check the IMEI number. This number is inscribed
inside every mobile telephone. No one can see it
without opening the back of he instrument.
Obviously the IMEI number of the instrument,
which has been attributed to Afzal, was added to
the record later. Strangely, the SIM card of this
instrument was also never produced. Yet the
record of calls fro this phone was produced to
link Afzal with the militants.
According to the investigation team, amongst the
telephone numbers recovered from the three mobile
phone instruments recovered fro the dead
militants, they came across a telephone number
belonging to Dubai. It has also been stated that
one of the militants had called this number just
about two minutes before they mounted the assault
on the Parliament. Strange as it may sound, the
investigating team did not bother to find out
anything about the Dubai telephone number. Yet
they found it important to interrogate Hindi film
actor Ms. Priety Zinta whose e-mail address was
found inside the pocket of one of the dead
militants.
Recently, Indian newspapers published pictures of
the widows of the two dead policemen killed in
the attack on parliament house. The women had
petitioned the President asking him not to
commute the death sentence on Afzal. One widow
was quoted asking why Afzal's wife Tabassum's
plea for saving her husband's life be granted,
when her husban was killed in the attack on the
Parliament. We share the grief of the women who
lost their husbands to violence, however, the
principle of an eye for an eye and a life for a
life cannot be the basis for dispensing justice
in India.
The tradition in India has been never to award
the death penalty to a person who though a
conspirator, did not directly participate in the
actual commission of the act. In case of Kehar
Singh, an accused in Indira Gandhi's murder case
this tradition was breached.
In Kehar Singh's case while awarding him the
death sentence, the Supreme Court held that under
Article 72 of the Constitution for commutation
the President had the power to re-apprise the
entire evidence and come to a different
conclusion, even on guilt. The doubts raised on
the facts above should attract the President's
scrutiny to see whether Afzal should be hung.
This review of the judgment by the President is
not a derogation of the verdict of the Supreme
Court.
Tapan Kumar Bose
South Asia Forum for Human Rights
3/23 Shree Darbar Tole, Patan Dhoka, (Near Lalitpur Zila Hulak Office)
Lalitpur, Nepal
Tel: +977-1-5541026, Fax: +977-1-5527852
o o o
The Times of India
MURDER, WE SAID
by Jug Suraiya
If there were to be a national referendum on whether
Mohammad Afzal, the convicted conspirator in the
terrorist attack on Parliament, ought to be hanged or
not, which way would you vote, yes or no? How would
you vote in the case of Santosh Singh, convicted of
raping and killing Priyadarshini Mattoo?
Or on the fate of Sanjay Das, the Delhi domestic
servant who attacked three children, killing one aged
four? As different as these cases are, they have one
thing in common: the possibi-lity of incurring the
death penalty.
This raises several questions about our response to
what is euphemistically referred to as capital
punishment and which is really the premeditated
revenge-killing of a human being. In other words,
state-sponsored murder. Do we, as individual citizens,
endorse this act?
If we do, then we must accept the responsibility of
being accomplices in an intrinsically criminal act
speciously legitimised by the state to preserve and
protect its sovereign monopoly on the use of lethal
violence: if you kill someone it's a crime; if the
state kills you for killing someone, it's the due
process of law.
Can and ought any state which calls itself democratic
have such an unqualified and unquestioned right, which
necessarily includes the right to make each one of us
into witting or unwitting accessories to the taking of
human life?
[. . .]
The smell of blood is overwhelmed by the odour of
vengeful sanctity. The president may or may not grant
clemency to Afzal, or to the others currently on death
row. But ought we to grant clemency not only to them,
but by the same token to ourselves as well?
The choice, and the vote, is ours. Not in any official
public referendum, but in the private plebiscite of
our individual consciences. Should we vote for
collective murder, or for that shared commonality in
ourselves that we call humanity?
FULL TEXT AT:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/131731.cms
_____
[4]
The Times of India
26 Oct, 2006
Q&A: 'NEW DELHI HAS IGNORED OUR PEACEFUL STRUGGLE'
Gandhigiri may have captured the imagination of
the people, but the government of India has
refused to engage with Irom Sharmila's epic
struggle for justice. Sharmila, an activist and
poet in her 30s, has been on a hunger strike for
the past six years in Imphal, Manipur. She wants
the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act,
1958 to be repealed. This controversial Act has
been enforced in large parts of the north-east.
It gives the armed forces excessive powers over
civilians even at the expense of basic rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Sharmila, who
arrived in New Delhi to continue her strike, was
arrested and shifted to AIIMS. She spoke to
Amrith Lal about her non-violent struggle for
peace and justice:
Why are you on hunger strike?
I don't have the physical or financial power to
fight the Indian state. A shocking incident in a
Manipur village prompted me to go on hunger
strike. (Sharmila had gone to Malom village on
November 2, 2000, to attend a
meeting called to organise a peace rally. The
same day a convoy of Assam Rifles was attacked by
insurgents. The soldiers returned fire killing 10
people who were waiting for a bus. Sharmila began
her fast the same day.)
Do you have the support of mainstream political parties?
None. If I had their support, I would not have
had to wage this struggle for so long. They have
been adamant in maintaining the status quo in
Manipur.
But now the world is getting to know about our
struggle. Every time a lower court releases me,
the government orders a rearrest. The charge is
always the same: attempt to suicide. I have been
given fluids through artificial means.
It is with great difficulty that I came to Delhi.
A few human rights activists smuggled me out of
the hospital and took me to the airport.
I boarded the flight as I S Chanu. There was a
central minister travelling in the flight. So all
the officials were busy attending to him.
It was my golden chance to escape. I came to
Delhi because this is the seat of the central
government. For the
last six years, the Centre has been avoiding this most peaceful struggle.
There is a sense of sin in their (ministers and
officials) minds about the inaction.
How would you like others to respond to your struggle?
We want the support and solidarity of everybody.
I don't know how I should put it. This is a
struggle of the whole humanity and civili-sation.
It should be taken up by the entire country.
Politicians see politics as a business. My
struggle is to change their corrupted minds. I am
optimistic about my struggle.
Do you still write poetry?
An Imphal-based NGO will soon publish a
collection of my Manipuri poems. There are 70 of
them, some of them very long. I even wrote one
recently about my first experience of travelling
in a plane.
_____
[5]
Himal South Asian
October 2006
Cover story
GUJARAT AS ANOTHER COUNTRY
THE MAKING AND REALITY OF A FASCIST REALM
At a time when a progressive patina is being
painted over the rule of Chief Minister Narendra
Modi, a reporter visiting Gujarat four years and
six months after the pogroms finds a state where
Muslims are being thrust forcibly into ghettos.
The trauma of the butchery is as raw as ever. The
active participation of the Hindu middle class in
Modi's agenda, and the silence of the few who
think otherwise, will guarantee the social and
moral poverty of all Gujarat, even as it secedes
from the rest of Indian society. Meanwhile, the
wilful turn of the communal wheel will deliver
radicalised militants and, thereby, a further
marginalisation of Muslims. The Gujarat of
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has become
unrecognisable. Nothing short of a massive social
movement is required to cleanse the state of
Gujarat.
Text and photographs by Prashant Jha
Ahmedabad is a divided city. On one side resides
fear and anxiety, helplessness and anger. Walk
across Jamalpur, Mirzapur, Dani Limda, Kalopur,
Lal Darwaza and other parts of the Walled City.
Go to Juhapura - one of the largest Muslim
ghettos in India. Scratch a little, and people
want to talk. An entire community feels under
attack, with many resigned to their newfound fate
of being second-class citizens. Rights are
negligible, and the sense of representation
non-existent. What remains strong is the cry for
justice, and the knowledge they will not get it -
not in Gujarat. Why? "Because", explains one
elder in Shah Alam, "we pray to Allah. That is
our transgression."
There are the borders everywhere. A patch of
road, a wall, a turn across a street corner, a
divider in the middle of a road - this is all it
takes to polarise and segregate communities
throughout Gujarat. Each town and city now has
countless borders, forcibly making people
conscious of their religious identity. Me Hindu,
you Muslim. Or one could look at it differently:
the borders on the ground merely reflect and
reinforce the polarisation that has already taken
place in the minds of ordinary Gujaratis.
[. . .]
AMI VITALE
What led to such a situation? The Hinduisation of
Gujarat has surprised many observers: this is a
region that had a pluralist culture; the people
are driven largely by a mercantile ethos; it did
not undergo the troubled Partition experience as
intensely as did some other states; and, despite
being a border state, it does not have any
special reason to harbour intense bitterness
towards Pakistan, a fact that could have led to
animosity towards Muslims within. Instead, the
answer perhaps lies in its political evolution
and economic competition.
If the state is now considered the lab of
Hindutva, a century ago a British ethnographer is
said to have termed the state the 'laboratory of
Indian casteism'. After Gujarat became a state in
1960, carved out from the then state of Bombay,
the Brahmans, Vanias and Patidars held sway over
the political structure. This hegemony was broken
in 1980 with the Congress's KHAM formula, which
encompassed the Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi and
Muslim. The erstwhile ruling-castes retaliated,
initially by instigating caste conflict. But they
soon realised that the 'lower' castes could not
be discarded, and thus began attempting to carve
out a broader Hindu coalition where the 'enemy'
would not be the Dalit, but the Muslim.
Sections of Dalits and Adivasis were slowly
co-opted into the Hindutva-guided system, induced
with promises of upward mobility and enhanced
status, along with other political and economic
dividends. The BJP also seemed like an attractive
alternative to these groups because, despite
voting for the Congress for five long decades,
they had little to show in terms of improvement
in livelihood. These developments in Gujarat took
place at a time when the Hindutva forces were
consolidating themselves at a pan-India level
through the late 1980s and 1990s.
The significant organisational work put in by the
Sangh Parivar in Gujarat over the previous two
decades bore fruit, creating a political base for
the BJP that spanned across all sections of
society. "While we were writing op-ed pieces and
organising college protests against communalism,
they were distributing millions of leaflets all
over and building a base on the ground," says an
introspective Shabnam Hashmi, who runs ANHAD, an
NGO that works to build communal harmony. The
decline of textile mills, especially in
Ahmedabad, destroyed common employment spaces
shared by working-class Hindus and Muslims. These
changes created an unemployed segment of society
looking for a cause, and this provided the
foot-soldiers of the Hindutva movement.
There are some other specificities of Gujarati
society that made the polarisation easier here
than elsewhere. For example, the fact that
Gujarati Hindus are publicly and obsessively
vegetarian has helped to create a visible marker
of difference with the Muslims. First, this
creates a social barrier in and of itself, and
makes it possible for Hindutva outfits to
capitalise on the matter of cow slaughter by
Muslims. '100 percent vegetarian' restaurants
crowd the market streets of Hindu Ahmedabad, and
the very fact that Hindus and Muslims rarely dine
together in restaurants drastically reduces the
possibilities of social engagement.
Mani Chowk border, Ahmedabad
While the chief agent of the polarisation was the
Hindu middle class, it found its natural ally in
the Non-Resident Gujarati. This group constitutes
an extremely prosperous section of the Indian
diaspora overseas, and flushes the RSS and its
affiliates with enormous sums of money.
Supporting this dynamic have been the various
religious sects and preachers who crowd the
spiritual market in Gujarat, as well as large and
influential sections of the Gujarati-language
press.
The trading culture of Gujarat might have created
a pluralist, inclusive environment in the past,
but the economic advantages of social cohesion
seem to have been sacrificed at the altar of
Hindutva. In fact, the relative affluence and
stability of the economy is one reason why -
based on Hindutva propaganda - a large section of
the middle class veered towards religious
chauvinism. The well-off had another reason to
join the Hindutva bandwagon. They saw it as an
opportunity to push their Muslim economic
competitors into a corner with hate propaganda.
Economics played a critical role during the
pogrom in 2002, when those Hindus on the rampage
were keen to destroy the property of some of
their rivals.
It did not help that, unlike some others states
of India, Gujarat does not have a tradition of
left, Dalit or even progressive student movements
- which not only provided space to the Hindutva
campaign, but also ensured that there was no
culture
of protest.
Muslims constitute around nine percent of the
state's population, but have never had an
effective political voice, as they do in UP or
Bihar - another reason why the Hindu Right could
so easily ride roughshod over their basic rights.
The Congress Party, since the 1970s and through
the 1980s, had taken the easy way out to win the
Muslim vote, by encouraging conservative elements
among them; it also protected certain hardened
criminals who happened to be Muslims. The Sangh
Parivar cleverly used this as a pretext to
convince the Hindus in Gujarat that minorities
were being appeased at their cost. While Muslims
were and are being targeted elsewhere in India as
well, these factors have combined to create a
rather unique situation in Gujarat.
One-man state
The critical state support for communal extremism
following the rise of Narendra Modi, the fact
that a large section of Hindu society harbours
extremist notions about Muslims, and the absence
of an effective political opposition to this
discourse makes Gujarat stand out in the broader
Indian context. Fortunately, the particular mix
of societal factors that have made Gujarat
'another country' - while they may exist in small
areas elsewhere - do not come together at a
statewide level anywhere else. Gujarat has gone
into its extremist cocoon willingly and alone,
and there is the hope and expectation that no
other part of India will follow where Gujarat has
gone.
Sauyajya (R) and a friend. Hindutva catches them young.
The elevation of Narendra Modi as chief minister
in late 2001 has everything to do with what
Gujarat has become. He provided the match to the
communal powder-keg that the state had already
become. Political psychologist Ashis Nandy (along
with Achyut Yagnik) interviewed Modi in 1992, and
Nandy has written about how he was left shaken by
the experience. Emerging from the meeting, Nandy
told Yagnik that Modi met all the criteria of an
authoritarian personality, and was a clinical and
classic case of a fascist. A decade later, that
assessment proved correct, when Modi
systematically engineered the carnage against
Gujarat's Muslims.
Faced with the outrage that engulfed India after
the Gujarat massacres, rather than take a
defensive approach, Narendra Modi has
aggressively introduced a potent mixture of
Gujarati parochialism and Hindutva to cement his
political foundations. His trick has been to
construct a four-fold binary - of the insider
versus outsider, Gujarat versus Delhi, Gujarati
media versus English media, and Hindu versus the
'pseudo-secularist'. Any criticism can be easily
deflected by using this matrix.
While manipulation of the mass mindset may have
helped Modi turn vilification to advantage, in
intervening elections at the state and local
levels the image of the Hindutva ogre is
something he has decided he can do without at
present. This is because Modi has his vision
firmly set on the national BJP leadership, for
which he has now to coin a new image for himself
- that of a strong, anti-terrorism leader,
focused on development and good governance. And
this explains the recent brand-building exercise
to portray Gujarat as the most developed state in
the country.
Gujarat has always been a relatively prosperous
state, and for Modi to try to hog credit for the
traditional achievements of an entrepreneurial
class seems excessive. If anything, Modi can be
faulted for not being able to build substantially
upon this base.
Economists of varied hues have doubts about the
idea of Gujarat as a new economic haven, yet
another of Modi's propositions as he tries to
reposition his image. Investment in the state is
largely restricted to a few large players pumping
in huge amounts of money in capital-intensive
units, which have little trickle-down effect.
Gujarat has missed out on the new economy, with a
weak Information Technology base and few of the
outsourcing units that are all the rage in other
successful states. In addition, the state's
educational system is in a rut, the crucial local
co-operatives are riddled with scams and
divisions, and the state is quickly slipping on
the human development index scale.
The idea of Modi as a good administrator, too, is
a bogey that has its roots in his strong-leader
image. In interacting directly with the state's
far-flung hierarchy, he has been accused of
undercutting the authority of ministers and
legislators alike. Modi can be ruthlessly
efficient, but only when he wants to see results
in his pet projects. "His is the efficiency of
the emergency era. This fear-induced work culture
is not sustainable, because it is weakening
public institutions. Gujarat has become a one-man
state," says Javed Chowdhury, a former bureaucrat
of the Gujarat cadre. The good-management myth
was severely bruised with the late-August floods
in Surat, which were entirely due to faulty
dam-water management by the state administration.
What Modi's dictatorial style of functioning has
done is to create massive dissension within his
own party, as well as in the broader Hindutva
parivar. But while that may somewhat upset Modi's
own political trajectory, it has had little
impact on Gujarat's communalism. The dissidents
are more radically 'Hindu' than even Modi. Their
differences with him are about power and
patronage - not about Hindutva.
One of the reasons the Gujarati political
discourse has been so completely captured by the
saffron agenda is the abject political and
ideological surrender of the Congress party.
Flirting with a variety of soft Hindutva itself,
the party's Gujarat unit has decided not to take
on Modi's fascist state directly. Congress
workers, after all, were also part of the
marauding mobs in 2002, and even today the party
refuses to take up issues of discrimination
against Muslims publicly. This has left Muslims
despondent, but they have little choice.
Usmanbhai Sheikh, a Muslim activist in Ahmedabad,
explains: "Congress treats us like its mistress,
knowing we cannot turn elsewhere."
But the Modi government is not invincible. If the
Congress is able to put together a proactive,
secular agenda, and consolidate an alliance
between Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims, it has a
good chance of ousting the chief minister and his
party, and of reversing his divisive agenda. At
the peak of polarisation during the 2002 assembly
elections, after all, more than 50 percent of the
population voted against Modi - a figure that
would have to have included a substantial number
of Hindus. A change in Gujarat's government would
come as some relief, for the state would not be
as active in engineering everyday hatred. But
even if the Congress party state unit were to
muster the energy to take on Modi, it is doubtful
that this alone would help to restore a social
fabric that has been left in tatters. The
communalism in Gujarat has not only become deeply
entrenched, it has become bolted to the plank of
fascism. Politics-as-usual can hardly be the
panacea; what is needed is a social movement for
Gujarat to cleanse itself.
Modified society
It is early September. Baroda is tense. Its
Muslims are scared. It is the last day of the
Ganesh festival, when Hindus will take part in
large processions before immersing their idols.
Trouble is anticipated. Only four months ago, the
demolition of a dargah had triggered riots here.
Security has been beefed up across the city - the
state government does not want another blemish on
its record, at least not now.
[. . .]
When this reporter, with his longish beard,
walked into an elite government colony in
Ahmedabad to meet a senior official, three
children suddenly got off their bicycles. One
screamed aloud, "Terrorist!" Why? "Because you
are a Mussalman," he responded. So? "All Muslims
are terrorists. My father is a judge. He will
call you terrorist in court." Really? "Yes. Now
get out of here. This is a Hindu area!" Sauyajya
is 12 years old and has not met a single Muslim
in his life. No one knows how many Sauyajyas are
in the making in Gujarat.
FULL TEXT AT:
http://himalmag.com/2006/october/cover_story.htm
_____
[6]
The Hindu
27 October 2006
SUPREME COURT NOTICE TO EC ON ELECTORAL ROLLS
Legal Correspondent
Publishing photos of Muslim women may wound sentiments: petitioner
# Rolls should only be used for verification, says petitioner
# They should not be circulated to the public, political parties
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice to
the Election Commission on a special leave
petition (SLP) against a Madras High Court
judgment upholding the Commission's decision to
release electoral rolls with photographs of
voters, including Muslim Gosha women.
A Bench, comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan
and D.K. Jain, issued notice to the Commission,
the Union of India, the Tamil Nadu Chief
Secretary and the State Chief Electoral Officer
after hearing senior counsel A.K. Ganguly, who
contended that publishing photographs of Muslim
Gosha women was opposed to their religious belief.
The High Court, by its order dated September 7,
dismissed a petition by M. Ajmal Khan a few days
prior to the Madurai Central by-election, holding
that wearing of `purdha' did not form part of
Islam.
Assailing the order, the petitioner said the SLP
was not directed against any election process but
against the Commission's powers to interfere with
religious affairs, a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 25 of the Constitution.
He submitted that Muslim voters were not
questioning the Commission's authority in issuing
photo identify cards, but their grievance was
over its direction to print the photographs and
circulate them with the electoral rolls to the
public and political parties.
Religious custom
This decision interfered with the religious
custom and preaching of the Holy Koran, which
laid down that Muslim women should wear `purdha.'
The petitioner submitted that the rolls should be
used only by the officers concerned for
verification, and they should not be circulated
to the public and political parties.
Their publication was likely to wound the
sentiments of the Muslim community as there was
every chance of misuse of the photographs, if the
rolls were made accessible to unscrupulous
persons.
Important questions of law of public importance
were involved in the SLP, which required
determination by the apex court, he said, and
sought quashing of the impugned order.
_____
[7] Upcoming Events
Debating Politics series
on 'CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; JUSTICE OR FAILURE OF JUSTICE'
speakers
*Dr. Badri Raina
Sonia Jabbar
Ravi Nair*
Venue : Seminar Room *Kirori Mal College *
DelhiUniversity, North Campus
Date : *27th October 2006*
Time : *12:30 pm.*
*Youth and Students' Forum*
in collaboration with
English Literary Society, KMC
contact: 9871499738, 9871406533, 9210578165
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
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